Anarchism: Utopian or Scientific?

14 Pages·2006·0.25 MB·English

Anarchism:
Utopian or
By WAYNE PRICE
Scientific?
Together with the revival ofanarchism in the last decades, Robin Hahnel’s “participatory economics”or “parecon”
there has been an increased interest in Utopia. This is large- (Albert,2003;Hahnel,2005).
ly due to the crisis in Marxism,long the dominant set of
ideas among the radical left. After the Soviet Union implod- On the other side,there are those disillusioned ex-Marxists
ed and China turned to an openly market-based capitalism, and ex-socialists,who blame the totalitarianism ofthe
Marxism became discredited for many. This resulted in a Marxist states on a supposed utopianism. The goal of
revived interest in Utopia from two apparently contradictory Marxist socialism was ofa classless,stateless,cooperative,
directions,for and against.What these views have in com- society,with production for use rather than profit,without
mon is that they take utopianism seriously. Utopianism alienated labor,without national boundaries or wars—the
must be taken seriously ifsocialism is to get out ofthe dead realization ofsolidarity,equality,and freedom. This goal
end it has reached through established Marxism,but what (which is the same as socialist anarchism) is condemned as
revolutionary socialists need is much more than simply a an impossibility,a Utopia,which contradicts inborn human
return to Utopia. nature. Humans are supposedly naturally competitive,
aggressive,and unequal. Attempts to force them to fit a coop-
On one side,there has been an increased desire to find utopi- erative,benevolent,society,it is said,can only be done by
an aspects ofsocialism,including Marxism (Geoghegan, totalitarian means. Therefore,by this view,the failure of
1987). This includes looking at the the work ofWalter socialism was due to its utopianism. So this anti-socialist
Benjamin or Ernst Bloch. There is a greater concentration on trend also focuses on the inherent utopianism ofsocialism.
Marx’s critique ofalienation and ofhis scattered hints ofwhat
a communist society might look like,as in his Critique ofthe Political critics have denounced me as a utopian myself,per-
Gotha Program. More and more,socialists refer to the utopi- haps because I write for a journal titled The Utopian.And
an meanings oftheir socialist faith,the original vision ofa indeed I am a utopian...among other things.My earliest politi-
liberated humanity. From this point ofview,the failure of cal influences were such books as Paul Goodman’s Utopian
pseudosocialism in the Communist-run countries was sup- Essays and Practical Proposals(1962) and Martin Buber’s Paths
posedly due to their downplaying utopianism. in Utopia (1958),and other works on Utopia and utopian
socialism. These works started me on a path toward anarchist-
Recognition ofthe value ofutopianism was made by the pacifism,and then to a libertarian-democratic version of
reformist Marxist,Michael Harrington:“Utopian social- Marxism,and finally to revolutionary anarchism (in the liber-
ism...was a movement that gave the first serious definition of tarian socialist or anarchist-communist tradition,which has
socialism as communitarian,moral,feminist,committed to been refered to as “socialist anarchism”).
the transformation ofwork,and profoundly democratic. If
there is to be a 21st century socialism worthy ofthe name,it In common speech,“utopian”means ideas which are fantasti-
will...have to go 200 years into the past to recover the practi- cally unrealistic,absurdly idealistic,and impossibly dreamy.
cal and theoretical ideals ofthe utopians”(quoted in Hahnel, The anti-utopian spirit is expressed in the movie “Rudy,”when
2005,p.139). a priest sneers at Rudy,a working class youth who wants to play
football for Notre Dame University (I quote from memory),
Especially interesting has been the revival ofthe utopian proj- “You’re a dreamer. Nothing great was ever accomplished by a
ect,that is,the effort by radicals (influenced by both anar- dreamer.”Actually,nothing great was ever accomplished except
chism and humanistic Marxism) to work out how a libertari- by dreamers—even though dreaming,by itself,is never enough.
an-democratic socialism could work—what a post-capitalist
society might look like without either markets or centralized, Originally,“Utopia”was the title ofa 16th century book by
bureaucratic,planning. This includes the “libertarian munici- Thomas More,which presented an ideal society,partly serious-
palism”ofMurray Bookchin and his “social ecologist”follow- ly and partly humorously. It comes from the Greek words for
ers (Biehl,1998;Bookchin,1986) and Michael Albert and “no place.” The idea is the same as Samuel Butler’s Erewhon,a
62 Anarchism:Utopian or Scientific?
picture ofan ideal society whose name is “nowhere”spelled limits the opportunities for people to become corrupted by
backwards. It is as ifthe utopian authors agree that such an having power over others.Utopia may be a vision based on
ideal social system does not exist anywhere and perhaps will trends and possibliities which exist right now in society and
not exist anywhere. But the word is also close to “eutopia,” which could come to fruition under different social circum-
which means “the good place.” It took the horrors ofthe stances. Ifwe wish people to risk their lives and families for
twentieth century to produce negative-utopias,or “dystopias,” a fundamental change,socialist-anarchists have to be able to
such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World,George Orwell’s present a vision ofa new society which is possible,workable,
1984,or Jack London’s even earlier The Iron Heel. and worth risking everything for.
MMaarrxxiissmm aanndd UUttooppiiaanniissmm
Utopia may be rejected as a program for a perfect society,
without conflicts or mistakes,managed by perfect people.
There never will be such a society;humans are inheritantly Much confusion has been caused by the Marxists’use of“utopi-
finite and fallible and will always be so (and right after a rev- an”in a specialized way. This was first spelled out in The
olution,a new society will have to be built by people deeply Manifesto ofthe Communist Party(or Communist Manifesto) by
marked by the distortions ofthe old one). However,it is Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels (1955) in the section on
possible to think ofUtopia as a program for a society which “Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism.”Their concepts
makes it easier for people to be good,which makes their self- was elaborated in Engel’s Anti-Dühring: Herr Eugen Dühring’s
interest be in relative harmony with that ofothers,and which Revolution in Science(1954). Parts ofthis book were taken out
63 The Utopian
during Engels’lifetime and made into a famous pamphlet, precepts and then work out how a society might be built on
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Sentences and paragraphs such ethical rules.
which Engels added to the pamphlet were then typically placed
in brackets in later editions ofAnti-Dühring. (There has been a By the mid-19th century,Marx and Engels argued,capital-
controversy over this book,with some Marxists being embar- ism had developed much further. There was now a large
rassed by the mechanical flavor ofEngels’exposition ofdialec- industrial working class (the proletariat),engaged in class
tics;they claim [absurdly in my opinion] that Engels did not struggle,and a new,industrial,technology which potentially
really understand Marxism,or not as well as they [the critics] made possible a world ofplenty for all. It was now possible
do. In fact,Engels went over the whole ofthe book with Marx to have an objective,“scientific,”analysis ofhow capitalism
beforehand,and Marx worked,how it would
wrote a chapter for it, develop,and how the
which he would hardly working class would
have done ifhe had disap- replace it with socialism.
proved ofit. This is not to In this view,the earlier
deny that Engels was a dif- socialists had been
ferent person from Marx, “utopian,”not because
and more ofa popularizer they were idealistic but
oftheir joint views. But because they were pre-
the mechanistic aspects of mature,unable (yet) to
Marxism which appear in make a scientific analysis.
Anti-Dühringare a real
aspect ofMarx’s thinking.) It has been often noted
that Marxism is a synthe-
Marx and Engels claimed sis ofthree traditions:
that,at the beginning of German (Hegelian) phi-
capitalism’s take-off,there losophy,British econom-
were a few brilliant ics,and mostly-French
thinkers who had insights socialism (the utopian
into the evils ofcapitalism socialists and also
and the possibilities of Proudhon the anarchist).
socialism. Such thinkers Readers ofMarx are often
included Henri de Saint- surprised to discover that
Simon,Charles Fourier, he did not condemn the
and Robert Owen. so-called utopians for
Because the class struggle their advocacy of ideal
ofcapital versus labor had societies in their time.
barely begun,these could On the contrary,Engels
not have had a well- and he praised them as
rounded theory ofhow society operated. But,said Marx and pioneers ofsocialism. They praised Saint-Simon for raising
Engels,they could and did have sharp insights into the evils the end ofthe state,which he discussed,in Engels’words,as
and problems ofcapitalism. They developed their insights “the future conversion ofpolitical rule over men [note] into
into systems ofthought,which their later followers organized an administration ofthings and a direction ofthe processes
into closed,quasi-religious sects. Unable to make a fully “sci- ofproduction”(Engels,1954,p.358;this formulation has
entific”view ofthe world,they tended to start from moral problems which I will not get into). They praised Fourier for
64 Anarchism:Utopian or Scientific?
his condemnation ofcapitalist “civilization”,for his”dialecti-
cal”approach,and for his criticism ofthe oppression of The Marxist Hal Draper accurately summarizes Marx’s views:
women under capitalism. “He was the first to declare that in “Marx saw socialism as the outcome oftendencies inherent in
any given society the degree ofwoman’s emancipation is the the capitalist system...whereas the utopians saw socialism sim-
natural measure ofthe general emancipation”(same,p.359). ply as a Good Idea,an abstract scheme without any historical
(They did not go on to discuss Fourier’s support for homo- context,needing only desire and will to be put into practice....
sexuality and other sexual variations.) They praised Owen for
his materialist philosophy,his vision ofcommunism,and his “Marx and Engels habitually stated their political aim not in
criticism ofmarriage under capitalism. terms ofa change in social system (socialism) but in terms of
a change in class power (proletarian rule)....For Marx the
Engels and Marx noted that both Fourier and Owen had pro- political movement was in the first place the movement ofthe
posed the end ofthe current division oflabor,replacing it working classes to take over state power,notprimarily a
with a variety ofoccupations for each person,making labor movement for a certain scheme to reorganize the social struc-
attractive,and developing everyone’s productive potentialities. ture” (Draper,1990,pp.18,44;his emphasis).
Similarly,the two utopians had raised the goal ofan end to
the division between city and countryside,proposing the But ifsocialism is just a matter ofclass interest rather than the
spread ofindustry across the country,integrated with agricul- vision ofa better world,then the interest ofthe capitalists is as
ture,in communities ofhuman scale. Engels noted the eco- justifiable as that ofthe workers. Why should anyone from
logical implications:“The present poisoning ofthe air,water, the capitalist or middle classes go over to the working class (as
and land can be put an end to only by the fusion oftown and did Marx and Engels)? Why should not individual workers
country...”(same,p.411). Like anarchists,he believed that go over to the side ofthe capitalists (as so many do,such as
this could only happen in a socialist society;unlike anarchists, union leaders)? Why should workers risk a revolution without
he believed this required centralized planning,needing “one some moral (and political and economic) goals? Why should
single vast plan”(same). they fight for “class power”(let alone “to take over state
power”!) without the goal of“a change in social system
However,Marx and Engels critiqued the earliest socialists (socialism)”?
because they did not (and could not yet) base their programs on
the struggle ofthe workers and oppressed. Instead they looked Contrast the Marxist view with that ofKropotkin:“No strug-
to upper class saviors to come along and aid the workers. The gle can be successful ifit does not render itselfa clear and
infant class ofworkers existed for them as a suffering class,not concise account ofits aim. No destruction ofthe existing
as a class capable ofchanging the world. Along with these criti- order is possible,ifat the time ofthe overthrow,or ofthe
cisms ofthe utopians (with which I agree),Marx and Engels struggle leading to the overthrow,the idea ofwhat is to take
also,unfortunately criticized them for their moral appeal. the place ofwhat is to be destroyed is not always present in
Rather than making an appeal to the self-interest ofthe workers, the mind”(Kropotkin,1975,p.64).
Marx and Engels complained,the utopians made broad appeals
to justice and moral values,which could attract anyone from Engels justified “proletarian morality”because “in the present
any class. Marx and Engels rejected moral appeals. “From a sci- [it] represents the overthrow ofthe present,represents the
entific standpoint,this appeal [by the utopians—WP] to morali- future...”(Engels,1954,p.131). But why should we automati-
ty and justice does not help us an inch further;moral indigna- cally support something just because it leads to the future?
tion,however justifiable,cannot serve economic science as an How do we decide that the future will be good,will be what we
argument,but only as a symptom”(Engels,1954,p.207). In should want? Engels declares that it will only be in a classless
their voluminous writings they never say that people should be society that “a really human morality”will be possible. This
for socialism because it is good,just,and moral. Indeed,they may be so,but it again begs the question: why should we com-
never explain why anyone should be for socialism at all. mit ourselves to the goal ofa classless society offreedom and
65 The Utopian
equality,of really human values? None ofthis makes sense
unless we accept,in some way,the historical values ofjustice, In this day ofeconomic decline and the worldwide spread of
compassion,and kindness,as well as equality and freedom. nuclear weapons,these probably are the alternatives.For
example,to a great extent the economic crisis ofcapitalism
Instead,the founders ofMarxism argue that their “science” has turned into an ecological and environmental crisis.One
tells them that socialism is inevitable and therefore,they imply, report concludes,“It may seem impossible to imagine that a
should be accepted. The Communist Manifestodeclares,“What technologically advanced society could choose,in essence,to
the bourgeoisie therefore produces,above all,are its own destroy itself,but that is what we are now in the process of
gravediggers. Its fall and the victory ofthe proletariat are doing”(Kolbert,2005,p.63). It may still be possible to per-
equally inevitable”(Marx and Engels,1955,p.22). To advance manently reverse this biological self-destruction,ifwe replace
beyond the utopian socialists,Engels wrote,“...it was neces- capitalism with a cooperative social system.But this is a
sary...to present the capitalistic method ofproduction...and its choice,not an inevitable future. It is hard to see how it can be
inevitableness during a particular historical period and there- addressed without an appeal to the very moral standards
fore,also,its inevitable downfall...”(Engels,1954,pp.42-43). which Marx and Engels had ruled out.
Marx’s determinism,or (as I will call it) “inevitabilism,” is From the beginning,the Marxist view ofutopianism and sci-
defended by his claim to have created a “scientific socialism.” entific socialism had certain limitations.For one thing,with
Some excuse Marx’s scientism by pointing out that the all his rejection ofmoral appeals,Marx’s writings breathe
German word which is translated as “science”(Wissenschaft) with a moral indignation,a deep love offreedom and justice,
means any body ofknowledge or study,including not only and a burning hatred ofsuffering and oppression. This does
chemistry but also philosophy and literary criticism (Draper, Marx credit,but it makes his objection to moral appeals into
1990). While this is true,it is also true that Marx and Engels hypocrisy. This weakness ofMarxism,its lack ofan explicit
repeatedly compared their theories to biology or chemistry, moral viewpoint,has often been pointed out,by supporters
saying that Marx’s discoveries were comparable to those of and opponents ofMarxism,on the right and on the left.
Darwin. Engels’Anti-Dühring(1954) itselfis the best-known
example ofthis equation ofMarx’s theories with the natural For another thing,these early socialists did not call themselves
sciences. utopians. They emphasized that they were being scientific
and materialistic. Saint-Simon is usually recognized as one of
TThhee LLiimmiittss ooff MMaarrxxiisstt IInneevviittaabblliissmm
the founders ofmodern sociology. “The utopian socialists
saw themselves as social scientists.‘Utopian’was for them a
Sometimes this inevitabilism is modified by statements that pejorative term....Time and again in their work they asserted
there is an alternative,either socialism or the degeneration of their hardheaded,scientific,realistic,and practical approach
society,the destruction ofall social classes. The Communist to society....The description oftheir work as ‘utopian’is there-
Manifestostates in its beginning that historic class struggles fore a retrospective judgment and not a self-definition”
“...each time ended,either in a revolutionary reconstitution of (Geoghegan,1987,p.8).
society at large,or in the common ruin ofthe contending
classes”(Marx & Engels,1955,p.9).They were probably Anarchist thinkers,who were politically closer to these early
thinking ofthe collapse ofthe Roman Empire;however,that socialists than were Marx and Engels,also emphasized how
these alternatives exist is not repeated in the Manifesto. Engels scientific they were. Proudhon insisted he was being scientif-
declared,“...ifthe whole ofmodern society is not to perish,a rev- ic.Unlike Marx,Kropotkin tried to develop a naturalistic
olution in the mode ofproduction and distribution must take ethics. But Kropotkin (who had been a geologist) also
place,a revolution which will put an end to all class distinc- claimed that anarchism was the conclusion ofscientific
tions”(1954,p.218;my emphasis).Rosa Luxemburg summa- understanding ofthe world,as he wrote in his essay “Modern
rized this as the alternatives of“socialism or barbarism.” Science and Anarchism.” “Anarchism is a world concept
66 Anarchism:Utopian or Scientific?
based on a mechanical explanation ofall phenomena,
TThhee RReejjeeccttiioonn ooff SScciieennttiiffiicc SSoocciiaalliissmm
embracing the whole ofnature....Its method ofinvestigation
is that ofthe exact natural sciences” (Kropotkin,1975,p.60).
Therefore he rejected describing anarchism with “the word The revival ofmoral and utopian thinking has been based on
‘Utopia’”(same,p.66). a rejection ofMarxist “scientific socialism.” Robin Hahnel,
co-inventer of“parecon,”has concluded,“...New evidence
Malatesta was to criticize Kropotkin for this very scientism, from the past 30 years has weakened the case for scientific
which he felt left out the importance ofwill and conscious- socialism even further and greatly strengthened the case for
ness. “Kropotkin,who was very critical ofthe fatalism of utopian socialism...”(2005,p.390).It has been argued that
the Marxists,was himselfthe victim ofmechanistic fatal- Marx’s supposedly scientific predictions did not work out as
ism,which is far more inhibiting....Since,according to his he expected,that his so-called science has been a bust. The
philosophy,that which occurs must necessarily occur,so capitalist countries have (it is said) become prosperous and
also the communist-anarchism he desired must inevitably stable,with attenuated business cycles and a well-offworking
triumph as ifby a law ofnature”(Malatesta,1984,pp.263, class—at least in the industrialized,imperialist,countries.
265). So,rather than being simply utopian, anarchists were The working class has not become revolutionary. There have
just as capable ofscientism and inevitablism as Marxists, been no workers’revolutions. The revolutions led by Marxists
although there were some,such as Malatesta,who opposed which did happen,became miserable totalitarian states,
this approach. oppressors oftheir workers,and nothing like the socialist
67 The Utopian
democracies Marx and Engels had envisaged.These criticisms U.S.leftists. It also justified the Stalinist politics ofthe many
ofMarxism have led many to accept capitalism and others to who became subjectively revolutionary. These revolutionaries
look for alternate approaches to socialism—including the admired Cuba,China,and North Vietnam. In these countries
present spread ofanarchism. middle-class intellectuals led revolutions in which the workers
played minor roles at best,and then established the leaders as
There is a great deal oftruth in these criticisms of“Marxist new,bureaucratic,classes who exploited the workers (and
science.” World War II was followed by a capitalist boom,up peasants) in a state-capitalist fashion. These radicals regarded
until the late sixties. The great revolutions ofRussia and themselves as Marxists,as did such theoreticians as Herbert
China,as well as others led by Marxists,ended up with new Marcuse,while more or less consciously abandoning any belief
bureaucratic ruling classes,rather than human liberation in a working class revolution in either the industrialized
(although they did not become a new type ofsociety but were, nations or the oppressed countries.
rather,statified versions ofcapitalism). There have been no
successful working class revolutions,since the ambiguous While the image ofa perpetually prosperous capitalism has
Russian revolution of1917. There is no longer a working class been shown to be false,this does not “prove”that “Marx was
with a significant revolutionary movement,anywhere, cer- right.” However correct Marx was in his “analytic-scientific
tainly not in the United States. analysis”ofcapitalism,it should now be clear that socialism is
not inevitable. There is no way to be absolutely sure that
However,there is also a great deal ofuntruth in these com- socialism will come before nuclear war or ecological catastro-
mon views. In particular,the post-World War II boom has phe or perhaps a perpetual capitalism that grinds on and on
been over for some time. From the seventies onward,the until it produces “the common ruin ofthe contending classes.”
world economy has been going downhill—with fluctuations At best we are dealing with probabilities,which are almost
up and down,and with lopsided and uneven development in irrelevant in terms ofmaking commitments to one side or the
different parts ofthe world. But the overall direction has been other. “Marxist scientific socialism”is not the issue,in the
negative. Writing about the decline ofthe U.S.economy,the abstract,but whether or not to make a class analysis ofcurrent
editorial page ofthe New York Times,the voice ofa major society and to commit to working class revolution for a better
wing ofthe U.S.ruling class,predictes a general worsening of social system.Loren Goldner concludes that the real crisis of
the U.S.economy. Under the headline,“Before the Fall,”it socialism is not in terms ofMarxist science. Rather it is “...a
wrote about the weakening ofthe dollar and the U.S.econo- crisis ofthe working-class movement itself,and ofthe working
my,and predicted,“The economic repercussions could unfold class’sense,still relatively strong in the 1930’s,that it is the
gradually,resulting in a long,slow decline in living standards. class ofthe future”(Goldner,2000,p.70).
Or there could be a quick unraveling,with the hallmarks ofan
AA RReevviivvaall ooff UUttooppiiaann SSoocciiaalliissmm aanndd IIttss
uncontrolled fiscal crisis. Or the pain could fall somewhere
CCllaassss LLiimmiittaattiioonnss
inbetween”(April 2,2005). One libertarian Marxist,Loren
Goldner,has written ofthe breakdown ofcapitalism in our
time,“Ifthere is today a ‘crisis ofMarxism,’it cannot be in the The rejection of“scientific socialism”has often led to a social-
‘analytic-scientific’side ofMarx’s prognosis ofcapitalist ism which claims to be based essentially on moral principles,
breakdown crisis,wherein current developments appear as a on a universal appeal for a better society,rejecting appeals to
page out ofvol.III ofCapital”(Goldner,2000,p.70). class self-interest.This is a return to utopianism. In rejecting
the weaknesses and strengths ofMarxism,these thinkers
The image ofa fat and happy capitalism with a fat and happy revive both the strengths and weaknesses ofutopianism.Such
working class comes from the fifties and sixties (and was not views have been developed by theoreticians with Marxist
fully true even then). It became the dominant conception of backgrounds,sometimes giving themselves good-sounding
the left during the radicalization ofthe sixties. It justified the names such as “post-Marxists,”“pluralists,”or “radical democ-
liberalism and reformism which was the main trend among rats”(there is a thorough review in Wood,1998). Similarly,
68 Anarchism:Utopian or Scientific?
the theoreticians of“participatory economics”start with today—despite its development and changes.Morse still calls
abstract moral principles and develop an economic system it “capitalism”rather than calling it some new form ofsociety
which would fulfill them,without any discussion ofhow such (such as “neo-feudalism”) or claiming that the problem was
a society would develop out of capitalism (Albert,2003). I not capitalism but something else (such as “industrialism”or
have heard Michael Albert presenting his system (at a work- “civilization”).This is not to deny that the analysis ofcapital-
shop at the Global Left Forum 2005),beginning by describing ism has to be expanded to cover later developments and must
“parecon”(he rejects the label “socialism”) as happening “after be integrated with analyses ofgender,race,sexual orientation,
the bump.” The “bump”is his term for the change ofsystems, ecology,and other areas.But capitalism remains as a system of
covering reform or revolution or whatever. How the change commodity production,market exchange,competition ofcap-
happens is not important to his vision. itals,the law ofvalue,the selling and buying ofthe human
ability to labor (treating working capacity as a commodity),
There are also many who come out ofthe anarchist tradition and the use ofworkers to produce a surplus for the capitalists
who reject a “scientific”approach for one based solely on (that is,exploitation). In its essence,capitalism,as capitalism,
morality and abstract values. Perhaps the purest example is remains the capital-labor relationship as it was analyzed a cen-
the “social ecology”/“libertarian municipalist”program devel- tury and a halfago.
oped primarily by Murray Bookchin. These views are clearly
summarized by Chuck Morse (2001). Writing in opposition Morse notes that this 19th century theory postulated a work-
to reformists within the global justice movement,he rightly ing class “that must fight.” The “must”is the important point.
proposes a revolutionary perspective. However,he also rejects Implicitly but correctly,he is criticizing the dominant inter-
the class perspective of“many anarcho-syndicalists and com- pretation ofMarxism (one rooted in Marx’s work) that it is
munists”who accepted “the analysis ofcapitalism advanced by “inevitable”that the workers will come to fight for socialist
late 19th century and early 20th century socialists,”presum- revolution.It is not inevitable.Such determinism is essentially
ably Marx as well as the anarchist-syndicalists. They believed, authoritarian. How can an oppressed class create a self-con-
he claims,that “capitalism creates an industrial proletariat that scious and self-organized society through the automatic
must,in turn,fight for its interests as a class...not only...for processes ofhistory? To fight their exploitation,the workers
immediate benefits but also against the social order that has need to want something new. Ifthey are to be free,they must
produced it as a class...”(Morse,2001,p.26). cease to submit to the laws ofhistory and become conscious of
what they can achieve.
Instead,“it is possible to imagine revolution in a democratic
populist sense,in which people draw upon shared values (as This does not mean a rejection ofall objective analysis,how-
opposed to class interests) to overthrow elites.This vision of ever, Sailors may take a sailboat to different ports,depending
revolution is not premised upon the exacerbation ofclass con- on their goals,but only by using their knowledge ofwind and
flict,but rather the emergence ofa democratic sentiment that seas,not by ignoring this scientific knowledge. But the seafar-
rejects exclusive,non-participatory social institutions ...focus- ers’knowledge does not decide their goal.
ing on the ideals,not class positions,ofactivists within the
movement....This value-based approach is a precept ofany Marxist analysis (consistent with anarchist goals) may be
revolutionary democratic politics”(same,pp.27,29). interpreted (or re-interpreted) differently than in an inevitab-
list manner. It could be said that Marx demonstrated that
As Morse says,the views ofMarx and the anarchist-syndical- there is a tendencyfor workers to rebel against their exploita-
ists were indeed developed in the late 19th and early 20th cen- tion—what else? But there are also counter-tendencies. For
turies. Therefore they bear the imprint oftheir time,includ- example,better-offworkers tend to become bought offand to
ing their scientistic and determinist concept ofsocial sci- accept the system. Poorer,worse-off,workers tend to become
ence. Nevertheless,the social system which they first analyzed, overwhelmed and demoralized,to give up. Bookchin argues
at the time when it took off,remains the basic social system of that factory discipline itselfteaches the workers to accept
69 The Utopian
hierarchy.Which tendencies will win out:struggle,to the managed by directly democratic assemblies (Biehl,1998;
point ofrevolution,or acceptance ofcapitalist authority? We Bookchin,1986). This is done in much greater detail than
do not know;it is not inevitable. As Morse writes,“many Marx or Engels ever did. Bookchin deserves credit for this.
anarcho-syndicalists and communists”have believed that it is
inevitable that the workers “must fight,”and eventually make However,the social ecologists’ethical approach,as described
a socialist revolution. Others,such as Bookchin,argue that it here,has certain weaknesses. To begin with,it has no study of
is inevitable that the workers,as workers,will not make a rev- how capitalist society works,what are its contradictions and
olution. Both are wrong. It is a living choice for the workers. conflicts. This is not a matter ofreviving the mechanical “sci-
ence”and determinism ofthe worst ofMarxism. It is making
Elaborating on the ideas ofBookchin,Morse,as quoted, a theoretical analysis of society,including economic and
rejects a working class orientation. Instead he calls for a other factors (race,gender,ecology,etc.),laying the basis for a
“vision ofrevolution...premised upon...the emergence ofa strategy for bringing utopian goals into reality. It is true that
democratic sentiment...focusing on...ideals,not class posi- Bookchin has made an analysis ofsociety in terms ofa sup-
tions...”(same,p.27). As stated here,this is rather vacuous, posed conflict, the remnants oftown and community versus
but this would not be a valid criticism,since Bookchin has the national state,but it is hard to take this seriously as the
elsewhere worked out a utopian vision ofa post-capitalist, basic conflict ofsociety.
(small-c) communist,society—a federation ofcommunes
70 Anarchism:Utopian or Scientific?