[ Main page |
Articles ]
Antoni Maurycy SZYMANSKI
(1813-1894)
Lawyer, politician connected with the Great Emigration.
B. Jan 15, 1813, Warsaw. After the collapse of the rising of 1831
he emigrated to France. During the Springtime of Nations he came
back to Poland but since he was not allowed to work at the Jagiellonian
University, in 1851 he again moved to France, where he died in 1894.
His works are focusing mainly on historical, social and political
subjects. He wrote also to "Młoda Polska", "Dziennik Narodowy", "Biblioteka Warszawska",
"Czas", "Messager de Paris" and "Le Figaro".
The selected fragments are from On communism
published first in "Przeglšd Poznański" 1848, vol. IX, pp. 2-5,
93-103.
Communism is
not a new doctrine, either in theory or in practice. Ancient philosophers
and modern writers composed numerous formulas for it, presenting
them sometimes as the fruit of honest conviction, sometimes as an
allegorical symbol which lends itself easily to criticizing the
abuses of the times. On the other hand, legislators, churchmen,
party bosses, and fanatical sectarians attempted to enact a utopia
that corresponds to squaring the circle in the political domain.
To review the history of communism is to make apparent its insanity.
To assess its effects on the morality of humankind is to prove beyond
all doubt that communism represents an onslaught on the individuality
of man as well as on nationhood. [...]
Christ did not
preach communism. Communism was championed by sects hostile to Christianity,
namely by the neo-Platonists, the most passionate defenders of sinking
paganism. Plato's communist republic was the dream of Porphyry,
Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the ideal of perfection employed to refute
Christianity. In the early second century, Carpocrates and Epiphanius,
founders of one of the sects which would later merge with the Gnostic
heresy, proclaimed communal ownership and sanctified dissoluteness.
Nourished by Platonic principles, Epiphanius wrote a book about
Justice where he held that God's justice on the earth finds
its expression in common ownership and equality; that common ownership
arises from natural and divine law, and property and marriage from
human law. His disciples prayed without any clothes on, they hated
fasting, men and women worshiped their own bodies, perfumed and
fed them. Property and women were held in common. The host offered
his wife to the guest. This custom was clothed in the mantle of
charity. After a collective dinner they put the lights out and indulged
in debauchery. [...]
The recognition
of property by Christianity went so far that churches soon became
owners. In fact, the beginnings of the tithe and of church estates
reach back to the first centuries of Christianity. Collective life
based on ecclesiastical rules can be seen only in monasteries, but
as we shall see, this life is not communistic in the least. [...]
Ancient communism
gave priority to satisfying sensual needs, sacrificing to them property
and morality, while monasteries renounced everything that was of
the flesh. Monks pursued moral perfection, and communal life was
for them only a means for detaching themselves from worldly obligations.
Communism was an exaggeration of sensuality, while the monasteries
were an exaggeration of the spirituality of life. The opposition
is no less evident in the economic sphere. Monasteries did not attempt
to solve the riddle of whether property may be abolished and individual
labor replaced with collective labor. Monasteries existed among
the secular community, based on property, and lived on offerings
received from it; they were even owners themselves. Communism is
not so restrained. It intends to introduce common ownership everywhere
and among all sections of the populace, while monasteries introduced
it only among selected disciples. Although religiously motivated,
monasteries were forced to expel those members for whom collective
life became unbearable, while communism boasts that under the auspices
of one passion it will suppress opposition and satisfy everybody.
Experience has shown that monastic life requires the despotic direction
of one person; the same would have to be instituted under communism.
In monasteries celibacy was a precondition of collective life, while
under communism it would have to be replaced by the abolition of
the family and the proclamation of the common ownership of women.
[...]
Mickiewicz said
that Poland had always provided a testing ground for foreign theories.
Unfortunately this is true: during Reformation Poland bore the brunt
of all charlatans. However, it is no less true that no foreign system
established itself here, because public conscience and the disposition
of the nation condemned them. We firmly proclaim that no phalanstery
could sustain itself in Poland. This was proposed by Jan Czyński,
a disciple of Fourier, and provoked exhilaration. As the only means
of progress for Poland we see the way of individual property, of
the abolition of serfdom, which, as forced labor, is wrong and degrading.
Indeed, what has brought Polish farming to ruin? The degradation
of the individuality of the peasantry, caused by the institution
of serfdom on a large scale and the transformation of villages into
sorts of phalansteries, or communism under the direction of the
gentry. Someone will say that these phalansteries were arranged
along the lines of a leonine partnership and to the detriment of
the peasantry; this is true, but would improving conditions reduce
the inactivity of the Ministry and the inefficiency of feudal or
communal labor? History teaches that all communal labor has been
inefficient and harmful to domestic economy. [...]
In Poland there
a great many communists have been driven into the communist fold
not by poverty, but by theory; this is the most dangerous kind,
as they exude an aura of selflessness, righteousness, and humanity.
They were led into this error by imitating foreigners, by a licentious
imagination and an inadequate understanding of our society, but
also by the traditional Polish pursuit of equality. As we
know, when our parliaments were established, our nobility had equality
in mind as their principal purpose. Pursing this goal, the nobility
encountered insurmountable obstacles, it even perceived the impossibility
of achieving it, and yet it never deviated from the fatal path it
had chosen. This was the source of the majority of our domestic
feuds, this led to the election of kings and to anarchy, this gave
rise to the resentment of established hierarchies, fear of a standing
army, treasury, taxes, education, tribunals, honors, dignities,
etc. Since the downfall of Poland our society has come out of the
narrow confines of nobility: burghers and peasantry were allowed
access to civil life, but gathering momentum, the egalitarian striving
has not been extinguished in our hearts. This explains the fondness
which Poland has always had for France, animated by the same inclination
towards a revolutionary spirit, towards socialism, and finally towards
communism, the ultimate effect of absolute equality and ultra-democracy.
To avoid the calamities that such an inclination generates, one
should take good note of the transformation of notions that has
occurred in France since the recent Revolution.
Reaching the
ultimate end of the egalitarian principle by means of communism,
France realized that equality overdone is antisocial and leads
to barbarity; that such an equality is also contrary to freedom.
This is illustrated by the advocates of a social-democratic republic,
who supplant freedom with solidarity. To act this way is
to misunderstand human nature. In the moral order the notion of
equality does not precede freedom: on the contrary, it follows
from freedom. In his soul man feels free, independent, and responsible
for his actions, he feels he has rights and overcomes obstacles
he encounters in his activity. Free in the eyes of psychology, man
also wants to be free in political life. Thus freedom is his
first right, which the community ought to confer on him. Now
this right to liberty is common to all; no man can be divested of
it for the benefit of others. Hence the principle of political equality.
This understanding of the equality of rights, that is equality before
the law, is only a safeguard of liberty for all. Equality
before the law does not remove inequalities of wealth and power,
but it allows everyone to develop his abilities, it allows us to
take up our stations in life according to our merit.
The most important
expressions of human freedom are property and family. Property,
being the effect of labor, shows the superiority of mind over matter,
while the family satisfies the moral striving of the heart. From
the family and the right to dispose of property there follows inheritance.
Property, family, and inheritance become the preconditions of labor,
of man, and of the nation, preconditions of the growth and enlightenment
of states. Matters are different when we place equality before freedom,
when we regard equality as a social end, rather than a means.
Then problems multiply and the community slides towards barbarity.
The negation of freedom, in which the egalitarian principle culminates,
leads to despotism, to the restriction labor and production, to
the maximum, to progressive and sumptuary taxes, to arbitrary measures
divesting citizens of their rights. It leads to the right to work
and to welfare, and when this is not enough, to the overthrowing
of property and family. Freedom then becomes the victim: man becomes
the subject of an abstraction called the state, the slave of a power
which interferes in all his activities. In order to defend itself
from the natural pursuit of individuality, the state then institutes
the collective upbringing of children, collective kitchens, it rewrites books, expels sciences, arts,
etc. In this condition of society man becomes an instrument, a cipher
devoid of will and thinking, with no motivation to work, which leads
to the bastardization of the people. To avoid these consequences,
socialists try to make work pleasurable or to stir up the spirit
of sacrifice, which is a contradiction in terms, since sacrifice
stems from human individuality. The distribution of income poses
the greatest difficulties. Therefore socialists are divided into
various camps on that score. Some would set up joint ownership on
the state level; some would confine it to communes. In any case,
the impossibility cannot be overcome, and the collapse of the state
is the consequence. [...]
Instead of being
an instrument of progress and enlightenment, communism has impeded
these goals. Humanity has progressed because it renounced
the principles of communism, because it recognized property, freedom,
and equality before the law, because it rectified the principle
of marriage and family, because it elevated the sciences and the
arts. Communism, says Alfred Sudre, has not made any great contribution
to the heritage of mankind, while Christianity gradually abolished
serfdom, and Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes emancipated knowledge.
Neither is equality of rights an accomplishment of communism, but
of the night of the 4th of August. Communist principles
are wicked, its deeds abominable, its politics horrible and Machiavellian.
Lycurgus enforced communism through violence, Anabaptists through
hypocrisy and treason. Such too was the politics of the Jacobins:
to infiltrate parties, take advantage of factional strife, and seize
power by stealth - such were the communist methods. Communism always
speaks on behalf of the people, but it does nothing to improve their
condition. History teaches us that progress and the wellbeing of
the people have nothing to do with communism. The relief of poverty
is a difficult task: humankind will never fully accomplish it and
communism only makes it harder. The relief of poverty depends on
progress towards reasonable democracy, which grants everybody freedom,
which respects individual rights without sacrificing the interest
of the nation. The relief of poverty depends on extending credit,
on creating saving societies, on spreading the spirit of association
and the love of work, and this requires safeguarding property, the
strongest agent of production. Last but not least, the relief of
poverty depends on the progress of enlightenment, on the improvement
of education, on turning to religion, morality, and family spirit,
the source of all virtues, both domestic and public.
No, communism
will not remove social problems or reduce them, and that should
be the aim of every enlightened government. In Poland the problems
are smaller; poverty stems only from lack of education, credit,
transport, social welfare, and the freedom of work. Poland is in
the same position as France before 1789. Our land ownership is still
blemished by many abuses, great trespasses, and sometimes even violence.
Let us purify it of abuses and iniquity, let us free peasant land
from serfdom. Let us sanction property so purified. Let us rebuild
the institutions of rural communities, as it was attempted under
the Duchy of Warsaw. Let us reorganize the guilds on the principles
of freedom. Then we will enter the path of rational progress unstoppable
by anything, because we constitute a vigorous, not overpopulated,
moral, and religious nation, but still only an agricultural nation.
No, communism will not remove problems, it will not emancipate the
peasantry, and it will not enhance our power. The communism of Mickiewicz,
Trentowski, and Królikowski would ultimately debase the peasantry;
it would set up a disgusting despotism and degrade the nation. Let
us always bear in mind that independence, freedom,
property, and family are the immortal preconditions of every
society, that communism undermines these preconditions, that it
establishes forced labor, a version of the serfdom which has driven
our villages to ruin. Let us always bear in mind that despotism
stemming from the general will, always exposed to all kinds of intrigue,
is even worse that autocracy. Trentowski's nobleman's coat, allocating
village labor and distributing the village's income, will become
the master of the peasant's wife and soul in the name of equality
and fraternity.
Communism is not a separate, independent science,
but only a one-sided branch of the whole social theorem. The principal
difference lies in the fact that while socialism assumes an artificial
organization of labor as the foundation of an artificial social
arrangement and regards the abolition of private property only
as a necessary consequence of social theories, communism makes
the abolition of private property the foundation of its theories,
arguing that only this way can one achieve absolute equality and
absolute freedom in society.
Socialism attempts to introduce an artificial
social arrangement, taking labor as a norm in accordance with
which all utilities and objective values are to be distributed,
granting to every individual the possession (not ownership) of
values in accordance with the talents, merits, and diligence displayed.
But this means that socialism abolishes absolute equality, since
equality is not to be found in the area of talents and work, and
so it is not to be found in the merits of the individuals of which
society is composed.
Socialism, then, could not respond to the
demands of communists pursuing absolute equality and claiming
that in the new social arrangement no individual as such should
possess anything and mean anything, for any kind of independence
of the individual entails the necessity of discriminating, that
is introducing inequality into relations between the members of
society, an inequality which embraces the entire social arrangement.
Pursuing absolute equality and absolute freedom, communists make
the abolition of property into the cornerstone of their whole
social theorem.
Yet we can subject the communist theory to
the judgement of dispassionate reason, experience, and logic.
We then recognize that it strives at achieving absolute freedom
and absolute equality through the abolition of private property
and through every kind of human independence. This reveals an
inevitable contradiction between the end and the means, which,
mutually destroying and canceling each other out, can only generate
negation, that is, absurdity. By comprehensively restricting personal
freedom, by forcing man into a terrible mould, and by eliminating
all independence, what effects, what benefits have they achieved
from the point of view of absolute equality? Surely only the fact
that they made everybody equal in the face of slavery, oppression,
and the most ruthless tyranny inflicted by the shepherds, who
usurp for themselves sovereignty over the human cattle arranged
in this fashion. Communism, then, is nothing other than the subjection
of the individual will to the will of all, a new form of the antiquated
and now universally condemned Oriental despotism.
The contradiction between the purpose of
communist theories and their results will not be surprising to
anyone who is familiar with the new tendency of German philosophy
and who notices that this is where communism has drawn its fine
chimeras from. [...] The essence of man, composed of soul and body,
is neither pure spirit nor pure matter, but a being which enacts
various combinations of soul and body. Man can and should aim
at perfecting his being, but achieving absolute perfection in
anything is outside his power and ability; for absolute perfection
is an ideal, and ideals can never be reconciled with objective
reality. Hence absolute equality and absolute freedom cannot be
realized in man without separating the soul from the body, that
is without death. Moreover, in society, composed of human beings
and constituting an overall person, that is, an entity that is
both subjective and objective, the realization of absolute freedom
and absolute equality, requiring the separation of soul from body,
entails the death of society.
Hence communism, contradictory in theory,
because it pursues absolute equality and through material equality
abolishes moral equality, proves to be just as contradictory in
practical application. For when we envisage communism in any actual
form, after the first distribution of existing utilities and values
a second and a third distribution will be needed, with no end
in sight. This spells social chaos, driving everybody into increasing
poverty, since when one infinitely splits, divides, and abolishes
private property one also abolishes the most powerful incentive
to work, and therefore the generation of social prosperity. Ultimately,
having reached the bottom of poverty and having descended to the
primitive animal state, people will seek the satisfaction of their
primary needs in force, violence, and their own individual effort.
If communism, both in theory and in practice,
is a miserable tissue of contradictions and absurdities, how did
it manage to insinuate itself among the social sciences, and not
only to gain sympathy of the insane proletariat, but also to strike
fear into the hearts of more enlightened people, familiar with
the social sciences?
This double
development must be attributed, on the one hand, to the passions
of the poor, pursuing the phantom of promises, and on the other
hand, to the fallacies contained in the science of political economy,
which by virtue of its calling should defend natural rights and
the right to private property deriving from them, but in fact,
due to a spurious conception of value, handed the opponents of
private property a weapon against itself.
The principle of private property rests on
not denying what is due: when we recognize the true meaning of
value, we shall see that private property is nothing other than
an equitable and just right to own value. [...]
Value, with which every political economy
must concern itself, since it is the foundation of this science,
has not been distinguished by all economists from the utility
which God granted to man freely (gratuite). Erroneously
identifying utility - to which all people have equal right - with
value, these economists to a certain extent supported the sophistry
of the communists. For taking the definition of value proposed
by the economists as the premise of their argument, the communists
could claim, preserving the appearance of cogency, that the owner
inequitably appropriates for himself that part of value which
in fact is utility freely granted by God. Hence Proudhon's
famous dictum: "Property is theft", is only a cogent, logical
consequence of the fallacious theory of value, still prevailing
in political economy.[...]
To establish property rights is to combat
all socialist and communist theories; and one cannot prove these
rights unless one proves that value has nothing to do with utilities
freely (gratuite) granted by God. Therefore, the private
owner does not appropriate these gifts if he utilizes only the
value which he has created through his own labor or through the
labor of those whose rights he has equitably and justly come into
possession of by way of inheritance or purchase. [...]
We have said that God created the earth;
he placed on its surface and in its entrails things capable of
satisfying the needs and demands of man. He endowed these things
with certain powers of movement and transformation. He entrusted
these forces to the management of man, so that by subjecting matter
to their action, he could produce value from it.
I have said that man should produce value.
For all gifts of God, useful for man, are only invested with value
when man adapts them through labor to the purpose of satisfying
the needs or whims of other people, and the value of the service
thus rendered will be determined by the mutuality of exchange.[...]
A gift of God always changes hands free of
charge, and the person selling value does not include in the price
the gift of God, but only labor added to it in any place and
at any time, in order to adapt this utility to the needs and
uses of man.
With such a concept of value it is easy to
prove that the private owner does not appropriate the use of and
right to God's gift, but only to the value which is the effect
of the labor exerted by him or by those whose rights he inherited.
The right to transfer property on someone
else stems from the same principle, since I transfer the right
to property, that is the fruit of my personal labor, which I can
dispose of as I see fit without violating any principles of equity.
[...]
The new theory of value will be the ultimate
and terminal blow to communism, and when reflecting on the concepts
of this theory, we will find a light that will allow us to discern
easily the falsehood and utopia hiding in the shadows (K. Małecki,
Socialism and Some remarks on Its Rules, Lvov 1849, pp.70-79).
|