#title The Problems of Tomorrow
#author M. Isidine
#LISTtitle Problems of Tomorrow
#date 1919–1920
#source [[http://mariegoldsmith.uk/archives][Marie Goldsmith Project]]
#lang en
#pubdate 2023-07-18T07:15:14
#authors Marie Goldsmith, Søren Hough, Christopher Coquard
#topics maximalism, minimalism, socialism, revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, Futurism, Marxism, state socialism, Russia, nationalization
#notes Translated by Christopher Coquard. Edited by Søren Hough & Christopher Coquard. <br>
*This article is part of a translated collection published in 2023 by
the Marie Goldsmith Project. These articles were translated by Alexandra
Agranovich (Russian) and Christopher Coquard (French) and then edited by
Christopher Coquard and Søren Hough with the goal of preserving
Goldsmith’s original meaning and stylistic emphases. Modern footnotes by
the translator or editors are prefaced “Ed:” while all other footnotes
are from Marie Goldsmith. This translation was originally published in
[[https://irp.cdn-website.com/3fa68967/files/uploaded/BlackFlag-vol3-no2.pdf][Black
Flag Vol. 3 No. 2]].*
<br> Ed: Marie Goldsmith frequently wrote under pseudonyms. M. Isidine,
    or sometimes simply Isidine, was a common choice for the French
    anarchist press, along with M. Korn or M. Corn.



** Part I — The Reasons for our “Maximalism”[1]

July 15, 1919



The old question of *maximalism* and *minimalism* takes on a completely
different aspect today than it did a few years ago. Half is due to a
lack of faith in the realization of the socialist ideal in a tangible
future, and half is for tactical reasons, the socialist parties having
previously elaborated minimalistic compromises in the past making them
the only real content of their platforms. Against this reformism,
against this compromise, rose the anarchists, convinced that nothing can
replace the whole ideal and that any fractionation of this necessarily
total action can only harm it. And the conflict between these two points
of view has filled the whole history of the socialist movement, from the
International to the present.

But the situation has now been completely reversed, due to the
revolutions that have broken out in the countries of Europe which, only
a few years ago, were considered the least susceptible. The clearly
social character of these revolutions indicates that the fall of
bourgeois domination is no longer a subject of theoretical propaganda or
historical predictions: it is tomorrow’s reality. In Russia, in Austria,
in Germany, the movement involves the great masses; it already terrifies
the bourgeoisie of the countries that this contagion has not yet
reached. Once again, the question of maximalism and minimalism arises.
Among the militants of the socialist and trade unionist movement, some
of them welcome with joy all the attempts at economic emancipation and
strive to realize them; others stop, hesitating, in front of the
enormity of the task to be accomplished and wonder if they will be up to
the task; they would like to run away from this responsibility,
preferring to choose some other opportune time for the movement. It
seems to them that the masses are not yet ready, and they would like to
gain even only a few more years to be better prepared. And for that,
they may task themselves with giving the movement a calmer course, so
that in the meantime they may work toward improvements of the workers’
legislative rights within the existing system or for purely corporative
struggles.[2]

In order to choose between these two conflicting points of view, it is
not enough to let ourselves be guided by our revolutionary feelings, nor
even by our devotion to the ideal. We have to look back to the lessons
of History, we have to mitigate our feelings by criticism, we have to go
back to the fundamental principles of our doctrine.

In resuming the publication of *Temps Nouveaux*, in the midst of these
entirely changed conditions, we must, from the very outset, from our
very first issue, give a clear answer to this vital question.[3] Our
answer to this question will determine our stance on all future events
to come.

-----

Let us remember our understanding of the process of all great social
movements, a conception which is entirely different than that which
inspires the parties who divide their objectives into ‘immediate’ and
‘final’ objectives.

How have the great movements of emancipation been carried out in the
past? The struggle against the existing class order begins only among a
small minority, which has acutely felt the oppression — and hopes to end
it — more than others. Oppression weighs too heavily on this small
minority to wait until enough of those in other social groups manage to
free themselves mentally and enter into the struggle. The number of
people from other classes who join the ranks of this first wave will not
be considerable at first. But the revolutionary minority fights at its
own risk and peril without worrying whether it is supported or followed
by other classes. However, little by little, it begins to garner broad
support; and this can be seen, if not in action, then at least
intellectually in other classes. The courageous actions of some
diminishes the fear of others; and so the spirit of revolt grows. We do
not always understand well the goal pursued by those who revolt, but we
do understand what they are fighting against, and this brings them
sympathy. Finally, the moment comes when an event, sometimes
insignificant in itself — for example, a determined act of violence or
something more arbitrary — provokes a revolutionary explosion. The
following events are propulsive, new experience is acquired every day,
and in the midst of this intense agitation, the mindset of the public
shifts greatly. The abyss between social classes narrows.

At the end of the revolutionary period — and this is true whether the
revolution is victorious or defeated — the general mentality of the
masses is raised to a level which all of the efforts of long years of
patient propaganda had not been able to reach beforehand. The ideal of
the revolutionary minority may not have been fully realized, but what
has been realized (in deed or in mind) comes closer to it, and this all
the more so because this minority had put more conviction and
intransigence into its revolutionary activity. Whatever was achieved now
becomes a piece of its heritage for future generations; the rest will be
the duty of the next generation, new avenues to be conquered by new eras
inaugurated by the revolution. A revolution is not only the conclusion
of the evolutionary period that preceded it: it is also the starting
point of the one that will follow, the one that will be devoted
precisely to the realization of the ideas that, in the course of
previous revolutions, could not find sufficient public support.

Even when a revolution is defeated, the principles it proclaims never
perish. Each revolution of the nineteenth century was defeated, but each
was a step forward toward a broader victory. The revolution of 1848,
which disappointed the hopes of the workers, definitively dug, in the
days of June, an abyss between the workers and the republican
bourgeoisie; it also stripped socialism of its mystical and religious
character and attributed to it a realistic social movement.[4] The Paris
Commune, drowned in blood, undermined the cult of statist centralization
and proclaimed the universal principles of autonomy and federalism. And
the Russian revolution? Whatever its future destiny, it will have
proclaimed the fall of capitalist domination and championed the rights
of labor; in a country where the state of oppression of the masses was
more conducive to revolt than anywhere else, it proclaimed that it is
these very masses who must henceforth be masters of their own lives. And
whatever the future may hold, nothing can take this idea away from any
future struggles: the reign of the contemporary owner classes is
virtually over.

-----

It is these general considerations that will dictate the answer to the
question: are the conditions ready yet for social revolution?

All debates on the question of whether the masses are “ready” or “not
ready” are always tainted with error, whether they are pessimistic or
optimistic. We have no way of ascertaining which factors could make a
social milieu ready. And besides, how do we define “being ready”? Will
we wait until the majority of the population has become socialist? But
we know perfectly well that this is impossible under present conditions.
If one could bring about by propaganda, by education alone, a radical
transformation of the mind, of feelings and sentiments, of the whole
mentality of humanity, why should one want a violent revolution, with
all its sufferings? At whatever moment in history that one considers it,
the mass is never “ready” for the future and it will never become so: a
revolutionary event must occur beforehand. It is not in the power of
revolutionaries to choose their moment beforehand, to prepare everything
and to make the revolution explode according to their will, like
fireworks.

Those who always consider the great movements premature generally
support the point of view that the certain “objective historical
conditions” are essential: i.e., the degree of capitalist evolution, the
state of industry, the development of productive forms, etc... But they
do not see that these dogmas evaporate before their eyes — as have their
minimum programs — under the pressure of real life. The most convinced
Marxists are now obliged to recognize the fact that the social
revolution has begun, not in a country of advanced capitalism, but in a
country that was very backward from this point of view and that is
especially agricultural, and that, consequently, there are other factors
at play for revolution than the development of productive forces.
Moreover, if they really wanted to penetrate a little further into the
substance of the question, they could have drawn this conclusion from
Marxism itself, thus transforming it into its opposite: into a theory of
active progression, achieved by the efforts of individual members of
society. To corroborate this, we can find, in Marx, a precious sentence:
“Humanity only ever asks itself riddles that it can solve.”[5] In other
words, if an ideal is conceived within a community, it is only because
the necessary conditions for its realization are present. Continuing
this train of thought, we will say that from this moment, from the
moment when an ideal is formulated by the minority of the vanguard, its
realization is only a question of the relationship between the forces at
play: the past, which has achieved its task, and the inevitable future.
Gradually, at the price of painful struggles and of innumerable
sacrifices, the scale leans toward the future.

At present, after a centuries-long secular struggle for economic
equality, after centuries-long secular propaganda of socialist ideas, we
are now witnessing a bold attempt to achieve it. Our progress will still
have its setbacks both in its struggle against the enemies and within
our inner evolution, and we should not think that we will find ourselves
tomorrow in an anarchist society such as we conceive it. However, we
cannot achieve a better life without actively trying to reach it;
experience is the only way forward, there is no other way. Instead of
asking ourselves: are the conditions ripe? Are the masses ready? We
should rather ask: *are we ready ourselves*? What practical measures can
we propose in the aftermath of victory, for the realization of *our*
socialism, of communism organizing itself without the help of, and
against, any State interference? What are the measures that should be
developed, and under what conditions should be studied beforehand and
implemented?” This should be our greatest preoccupation; what we must do
is not to fear being overtaken by events, but to actively prepare
ourselves for them now, always remembering the truth that an ideal is
realizable only to the extent that people believe in its possibility and
devote their energy to it.




** Part II — The Dictatorship of the Proletariat[6]<sup>,</sup>[7]

November 15, 1919


The realization of socialism has left the realm of dreams and
theoretical propaganda; it has become nearer to us, it has become an
urgent problem. And if it is important to answer the question of the
methods that lead to this realization, and that are the most suitable to
assure its victory, it is even more important to have a clear idea of
what must be done immediately *after* victory so that the revolution
brings the greatest amount of happiness with the least amount of
suffering possible.

The idea of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” currently has a great
influence on people’s minds. It appears to mean that the workers are now
masters of social life, masters of their own destiny, without any
exploiters or oppressors above them. It seems to be the direct and
immediate realization of socialism. In France especially, where the
labor movement has not yet been penetrated by Marxist theory and jargon,
this formula leads to misunderstanding. It contains, within itself, a
contradiction: a dictatorship “is always the unlimited power” of a
single or small group; what can the dictatorship of a class be? It is
obvious that a class cannot exercise its authority but through its
representatives, through someone it has specifically delegated, or, more
simply stated, someone that it believes has the right to act in its
interest. In short, a new power is established, the power of the
socialist party or of its most influential factions, and this power then
takes charge of regulating and legislating the destiny of the working
class. And this is not an abuse or a re-interpretation of the concept of
a “dictatorship of the proletariat”; it is in fact its very essence. It
is completely derived from Marxist theory, from the way that this theory
conceives the evolution of society. Let us summarize it in a few words.

By definition, political power lies in the hands of the economically
dominant class. The bourgeoisie, after having replaced the feudalists
economically, have also taken their place politically, at least in the
most industrialized countries of Europe and America. Since then, the
entire political activity of the bourgeois class has been aimed at
safeguarding its interests and consolidating its domination. But now, in
the course of economic evolution, the proletariat is taking the place of
the bourgeoisie as the class most capable of assuring the development of
productive forces; from this point of view alone, political power must
also be returned to them. This new State, the State of the proletariat,
will henceforth be concerned only with the interests of this specific
class, which will in turn become the dominant class. This is the
*dictatorship of the proletariat*. A natural objection therefore arises:
the dominated class supersedes the dominant class; now, the economic
exploitation abolished by elevating the previously most exploited
classes brings into existence more strife. Thereafter, new class
struggles emerge since previously conceived classes become a thing of
the past — and so the cycle continues endlessly. This cyclical
contradiction is solved partly thanks to the Marxist conception of the
way in which a socialist transformation can be carried out. It begins
with the seizure of power by a socialist party; but what does a
socialist government do next?

Marxist literature does not abound in future projects: social democrats
are too utopia-phobic for that. But the little we know about them is
enough for us to understand that socialism will have to be realized
gradually, during entire historical epochs. During this period, classes
will not have ceased to exist, and capitalist exploitation will not have
ended: it will only be attenuated and softened with regard *to the needs
of the proletariat*. They then become the class protected by the State,
while the circumstances of the bourgeoisie are made increasingly more
difficult. And so now here we are, at the dawn of Marxism, and Marx
himself, where the *Communist Manifesto* enumerates these gradual
measures that the socialist government will have to adopt:

 1. Expropriation of landed property and confiscation of land rent for
    the benefit of the state.

 2. Highly progressive taxation.

 3. Abolition of inheritance.

 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a
    national bank with State capital with exclusive monopoly.

 6. Centralization, in the hands of the State, of all the means of
    transportation.

 7. Increase of the national factories and of the instruments of
    production, clearing of the uncultivated lands and improvement of
    cultivated lands.

 8. Compulsory work for all, organization of industrial armies,
    particularly for agriculture.

 9. Combination of agricultural and industrial work.

 10. Free public education for all children, abolition of child labor in
     factories.


The application of this program will be done in a peaceful or violent
way, according to the circumstances, but in any case it will be done
with the help of strong political power. Defining political power as
“the organized power of one class for the oppression of another,”
Marxism thus envisages, as its ultimate goal, a society that is only an
“association of men” without any power. It is indeed a march toward
anarchy, but by way of its opposite, an all-powerful State.

Fifty years later, Kautsky, in *The Social Revolution*, proclaims that
“the conquest of political power by a hitherto oppressed class, that is
to say, the *political revolution*, constitutes the essential nature of
the *social revolution*.”[8] He then indicates a series of legislative
measures intended to operate little by little, with or without financial
compensation, the “expropriation of the expropriators”: progressive
taxation on large incomes and fortunes, measures against unemployment,
the nationalization of transportation and of large landed property, etc.

What is the possible regime of this “dictatorship of the proletariat”? A
State stronger than it ever was, because it holds in its hands the whole
economic life of the country; it is the master of everything and can
literally deprive every citizen of their livelihood at any given moment.
As a means of fighting any opposition, it is very effective. The workers
are the employees of the State; and it is therefore against it that they
must assert their rights. The struggle against this gigantic employer
becomes very intense; strikes quickly turn into political crimes. A
workers’ control council could be created, but it will only be exercised
to the extent that the employing State will allow it. It is however
possible that the workers could enjoy other advantages of a political
nature from this situation, such as the exclusive right to vote, for
example, or in being privileged in the distribution of products. But, if
we reflect carefully on it, these advantages do not constitute any
progress because they do not bring any justice into society and only
serve to give rise to more hatred. Instead of abolishing the bourgeoisie
*as a class* and placing each member of the bourgeoisie in a situation
where they could and should provide useful work, they are allowed (even
if only “temporarily”) to live off the work of others, but are also
furthermore punished by being deprived of certain things to which they
are entitled as human beings.

The bourgeoisie must be put into a situation where it is impossible for
them to harm; the class must be deprived of its armed forces and of
everything that constitutes its economic domination. Repressive measures
which target only individual members of the bourgeoisie are a useless
means of revenge. It is also a dangerous slope: we think that we are
doing revolutionary work, but instead, we are contributing nothing
toward the construction of a new life. Furthermore: this civil war
against the internal enemy, against an evil that we have neglected to
entirely uproot, increases the prestige of the militaristic elements of
society, of the leaders of military brigades of all factions that
dominate both sides. The struggle therefore becomes uniquely a question
of military strength. And in all evidence, any and all construction of
our future finds itself postponed to calmer times. But we are missing
the opportunity, the people are getting tired, and the danger of
reaction increases...

-----

That is why, regarding the method of implementation, we propose a
different method in opposition to this view towards the realization of
socialism.

The opposition between these two points of view dates from the early
days of the International, from the dispute between Marx and Bakunin. It
was Bakunin who first proclaimed in his “The Policy of the
International” that true socialism differs from “bourgeois socialism” in
that the former affirms that the revolution must be an “immediate and
direct implementation concerning the entirety of all aspects of social
life,” while the latter affirms that “the political transformation must
precede the economic transformation.”[9] The tendency that continued
the tradition of the first Federalist International — our tendency —
developed and clarified this idea of a direct economic revolution in the
years that were to follow. First in *Le Révolté*, then in *La Révolte*,
Kropotkin showed by historical examples that the progress of humanity is
due to the spontaneous activity of the people and not because of the
action of the State; and, at the same time, he developed the program of
free communism, the principle “to each according to his needs,” which is
the only one that is compatible with a stateless society.[10] He also
showed that the economic revolution cannot be realized *little by
little* and by fragments, and that one would thus only end up disrupting
the economic life without allowing space to rebuild it on new
foundations; that the communist distribution must be, in the interest of
the revolution, inaugurated immediately after a victory. He juxtaposed
his “Conquest of Bread” against the other idea of “Complete Power” and
showed the necessity, for the socialists, to actively look for new
avenues outside the tired old formulas.

The anarchist movement as a whole was inspired by these fundamental
ideas. Their field of action was especially expanded from the moment
when the workers’ movement in France, slowed down after the fall of the
Commune, started to breathe the revolutionary spirit once again. First,
under the influence of F. Pelloutier, and then consequently with the
numerous anarchists who entered the unions, was born the great movement
of revolutionary syndicalism, which, during the first ten years of the
twentieth century, carried within it the seeds of all of the hopes for
workers’ emancipation.[11] Syndicalism has already accepted the idea of
the immediate takeover of the means of production, and, even more, has
made it more precise: the means by which they are to be realized already
exist, they are the unions. The general strike, the prelude of
revolutionary expropriation, became the final goal. Let us recall that
in this respect its preparation seemed at a given moment a work so
important and so urgent that the *Voix du Peuple* opened (around 1902,
if I am not mistaken) a specific section in which the unions were
invited to indicate what each one of them could do in the immediate days
after victory to assure the continuity of the production in their
respective fields, to establish relationships with other unions and
consumers, etc., etc. This initiative, which did not seem to have found
sufficient popularity, was nonetheless very important; even more
important would be the task of taking it up again now that we are closer
to practical achievements.

Thus was, from that time until the war, the fundamental character of
revolutionary syndicalism. From France, it spread to other countries, to
other international workers’ movements. Anarcho-syndicalist ideas
penetrated into the writings of sociologists, jurists, economists; even
scholars foreign to the labor movement began to find that the renovation
of economic life with, as its foundation, a free association of
producers, is perhaps not utopian, that it is perhaps in this way that
capitalism will be overthrown and that a new form of political existence
will be inaugurated in the State.

The war stopped this evolution and made the course of things deviate
toward another direction. The State suddenly became stronger, its
competence expanded; the workers’ organizations, on the contrary, slowed
down their struggles or directed them, because of practical
difficulties, toward more immediate achievements. The reformist tendency
became preponderant.

The revolutionary spirit reappeared in the world with the Russian
revolution, but in a different form: that of State Socialism.

The time has not yet come to draw definitive conclusions from the
communist experiment tried in Russia; we do not know many things and it
is difficult for us to evaluate the role of the different factors in its
successes and failures. But what we can say is this: what we know does
not affect our fundamental point of view. We do not intend to develop
here all the arguments that make us believe that the governmental
apparatus is unfit to carry out a social revolution, that only the
action of the workers’ groups, which have become in turn producer
groups, are solely able to accomplish such tasks. This demonstration has
been made in our literature many times. But we believe it useful to
recall the general conclusions.

We think, as we have always thought, that immediately taking possession
of the land and the instruments of production and the management of the
economic life by peasant and worker organizations is more likely to
assure the material well-being of Society than will State decrees.

We think that this mode of social and political transformation is better
suited to mitigate conflict and avoid civil war because it includes
greater freedom and greater varieties of organization than the simple
introduction by authority of some unitary reform.

We think that the direct participation of the population in the
construction of new economic forms makes the victories of the revolution
more stable and better ensures their endurance.

We think, finally, that in addition to economic and political conquests,
a higher stage of civilization has been prepared from both the
intellectual and moral perspectives.

The French workers possess a sufficient heritage of ideas and experience
of struggle to find the path that leads most directly toward total
emancipation. To proclaim the fall of capitalism and the reign of
socialism is a great thing, and we give credit for this to the socialist
government of Russia. But we also want socialism to be put into
practice, we want a new era to open up before humanity, and we want no
weapons to be provided to the reactionaries through the faults of the
socialists. For this reason, we who work in France must take advantage
of the moment when there is still time *to prepare* ourselves by
studying what the workers’ organizations can and must do “the day after”
the revolution.

We consider of the utmost importance the most serious and complete
discussion of all questions concerning the reorganization of the economy
toward the moment when the workers will finally be able to make
themselves masters of their own destinies. This is not a mere question
of debate, nor even of propaganda; it is rather a question of careful
study. It is no longer enough to say that such and such an order of
things is desirable, nor even to demonstrate it: it is now necessary to
indicate the practical measures which are *immediately* realizable with
the means we presently have at our disposal.

It is to this undertaking to which we now call upon our comrades.

*** Bibliography

<biblio>
Pierrot, Marc. “Marie Goldsmith.” *Plus Loin* [*Further*], March 1933.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Karl Kautsky,” October 13,
2022.
[[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Kautsky][britannica.com/biography/Karl-Kautsky]].
</biblio>





** Part III — Some Economic Milestones[12]<sup>,</sup>[13]


April 15, 1920


The future forms that the production and distribution of products will
take are of the utmost significance concerning our future projections:
upon these will be founded the entire nature of the society that
replaces the capitalist regime. This question did not suddenly appear
yesterday, but its solution has become urgent; and furthermore, the
experience of the Russian revolution provides us with useful
indications, sometimes confirming, sometimes reversing certain
conceptions that were formulated in the past in a completely theoretical
way.

To solve these questions in a concrete form, that is to say, to
elaborate a *plan* of economic organization for “tomorrow,” to indicate
the frameworks and institutions to be created for its realization, is a
task that goes far beyond the competence not only of the author of this
article, but also of a publication like *Les Temps Nouveaux*. This is
the work of specialists: workers, technicians of all kinds, directly
involved in production; only their professional organizations and their
colleagues can discuss, in full knowledge of the facts, the concrete
measures to be taken in the present as in the future.

But every socialist, and every group of propagandists, has not only the
right, but the duty to establish for themselves and for their comrades
an idea toward a general point of view, to reflect on the experience
that is unfolding before our eyes, and to draw certain general lines
according to which they would like to see the more competent thought of
the specialists work. It is considerations of this kind that will be
dealt with in the present article.

-----

Of the existing conceptions of the mode of organization of production in
socialist societies, *nationalization* is the most accessible and widely
accepted. The passage of the means of production to an egalitarian
society is conceived in the programs of all the Statist socialist
parties as their handing-over to the State, because society is, by their
definition, represented by the State. No matter what form it takes,
whether parliamentary, Soviet, or in other forms, it is always this
centralized organization that holds political power that is also the
master of natural resources, the means of production, and the means of
product distribution.

We can clearly see to what degree the State finds itself strengthened by
all of this. In addition to political power, it now controls every facet
of life. The dependence of each citizen upon it reaches its zenith. The
boss-State is a particularly authoritarian boss: and like any boss, it
wants to be a complete master of its business and tolerates the
interference of workers only when it is absolutely impossible to avoid
it. In the economic domain, the State won’t even tolerate the idea of
being a constitutional monarchy: it will always tend toward autocracy.
The concept of Jaurès: that of the gradual democratization, by means of
the State, of the economic regime, analogous to the political
democratization accomplished in the past, now more than ever appears to
be a utopia.[14] In the capitalist regime, the workers and employees of
the State are the most dependent of all, and on the opposite pole of the
social organization, in the collectivist regime of the Bolsheviks, it is
the same: the workers lose little by little both the right of control
and their factory Committees and even their great means of struggle: the
right to strike. And as a crowning achievement, it is the mobilization
of labor, “armies” of workers governed by a militaristic discipline. And
this is fatal: no power ever restricts itself if nothing forces it to do
so; and when the people in power pursue an idea, when they are convinced
that it can only be achieved by coercion, they will show themselves to
be even more intractable, more absolute in their right to dispose of the
existence of its citizens.

It is generally the need to increase production that justifies the
suppression of all individual and collective rights of the workers. This
is how the Bolshevik power explains the creation of its compulsory labor
armies. However, apart from any question of principle, the mere
consideration of just the expenses — both in terms of human forces and
in money — that any such massive bureaucracy requires, which is a
necessary condition of such a vast extension of the power of the State,
shows that this calculation is erroneous. In Russia, bureaucratic
administration of factories absorbs most of their income, not to mention
the number of workers it takes away from other more useful work. And the
desired result is far from being achieved. The boss-State is
ill-equipped to fight against this decrease in labor productivity which
necessarily follows great catastrophes, such as war, famine, lack of
necessities, etc., etc. Additionally, the socialist powers of the
Bolsheviks are not able to find other means to fight against this issue
other than with measures that have always been known, and against which
workers and socialists of all countries have always resisted: piecework
wages, the bonus system, the Taylor system, etc…[15] Thus everywhere
hourly work is replaced by piecework, the twelve-hour day replaces the
eight-hour day, the age of compulsory work is lowered from sixteen to
fourteen. And, finally, this mobilization of work (a measure of which a
few years ago, no socialist party would have been believed capable of
implementing) which reminds us well of the times of serfdom...

If socialists, who certainly do not aim at the degradation of workers’
personality and take such measures only as a last resort, are obliged to
go so far against all their ideals, it should only be because within the
limits of their choices, which has for framework and for a tool
exclusively the benefit of the State, no other way out exists. And yet
here is a fact, small in itself, but significant. In the course of the
very opinionated struggle of the Soviet government against the
disorganization of industry, only one measure was taken which proved to
be effective. It is *voluntary work on Saturdays*.

“The Communist Party has made voluntary Saturday work mandatory for its
members ... Every Saturday, in various regions of the Soviet Republic,
barges and fuel wagons are unloaded, railroads repaired, wheat, fuel,
and other goods for the population and the war front are loaded, wagons
and locomotives repaired, etc. Gradually the great mass of workers and
peasants began to join the ‘Saturday workers,’ to help the Soviet power,
to contribute with their voluntary work to fight the cold, hunger and
general economic disorganization.”[16] From other sources we learn that
the productivity of voluntary work far exceeds that of paid factory
work. There is no need to say how instructive this example is. In the
midst of all the measures by which workers were sometimes attracted by
high wages, according to the traditional principle of the capitalist
regime, and sometimes subjected to military discipline, only one has
proved effective: it is the call to work — free and conscious work by
people who know that they are doing something useful. This is a striking
example in support of the truth that the most “utopian” solutions are at
the same time the most practical, and that if we want to obtain
“realizations” today, the surest way is still to start from the final
goal.

But these considerations proceed from a mindset foreign to the idea of
the State and obligatory work in its service.

Here is another formula, at first sight more seductive. It is the
transfer of businesses into the hands of the workers or of their
corresponding professional organizations. This is the system which, in
France, is expressed by the formula “the mines to the miners.” During
the first year of the Russian revolution, even before the Bolsheviks
came to power, there were a number of such examples of the workers
taking over their factories. This was easy for them (the workers),
because the bosses, during that time, wanted nothing better than to
abandon their businesses. Later, the Bolsheviks introduced “workers’
control”’ in all factories; but this control was only momentary and had
no practical effect: where the workers were weak and poorly organized,
it remained an unrespected moot point; and where the workers were aware
of their rights, they said to themselves — quite logically — that if
they already had control of the factories, they had no further need to
leave them to their former owners. And so they took it over, declaring
it the property of those who work there. But it was always the property
of a group of people who merely replaced the original bourgeois owner.
This could only result in a production cooperative in the best of
circumstances. The collective owners were concerned — like the previous
ones — solely with their own interests; like the others, they competed
against one another in order to attract contracts from the State, etc.
Egoism and the thirst for gain, to be the characteristic of any of these
groups, new or old, were no less strong.

Another consideration, a practical one, makes it impossible to extend
such a system to the entirety of society. There are businesses which
receive large profits: those which produce widely spread goods, or are
in the business of transporting said goods; the workers who are employed
in them and who become their owners are, in this context, privileged.
But there are many sectors of the economy which give no profit at all,
requiring instead continuous expenditures: schools, hospitals, road
maintenance, street cleaning, etc., etc. What will be the yields of
those who are employed in these fields of work? How will they be able to
live if these businesses become the source of their livelihood? With
what means will they be able to operate them and who will pay their
wages? Obviously, the principle of cooperative ownership must be
modified as far as they are concerned. We can imagine, it is true that
it will be the consumers who will pay; but this would be a step
backwards instead of being considered a progress, because one of the
best results of economic evolution is the free access to certain
historical conquests of civilization: hospitals, schools, bridges,
roads, water pipes, water wells, among others. To ask people to pay for
them would be to add some new privileges to those that are already well
possessed, and to take away the means of meeting the most essential
needs from everyone else.

All these considerations — and many others — make such a system
undesirable. In the current context — to which we are always obliged to
refer to as if it were the only socialist experience that has ever been
created so far — the disadvantages of this system, introduced at the
beginning of the Bolshevist period, have led the Soviet government to
adopt, as the only possible remedy, nationalization.

We should have, it is true, explored for a third solution: a system that
could give workers direct control of their economic lives, without the
inconveniences of cooperative property. The Bolsheviks, however, were
too imbued with social democratic and statist ideas which suggested to
them only the well-known system of nationalization. And it is there that
they ended their revolution.

-----

Let us try then, for our part, to find this third way out: a system
which would give the workers the management of economic life, but
without the disadvantages of corporate ownership. And, first of all,
let’s go back to our fundamental principles: our communism, true
communism, and not that already outdated communism of 1848 that the
Bolsheviks have recently rediscovered and adopted as the name of their
party to replace the other name, too dishonored by compromises, of
“social democrats.”[17] Let us try then, in the light of these
principles, to orient ourselves a little in the questions that arise.

If we recognize neither nationalization in the hands of the State, nor
the formula “the mines to the miners,” what alternate forms can the
transfer of the means of production to the hands of workers’
organizations (unions, summits, factory committees, or such others)
take?

First of all, the means of production cannot become the *property* of
these organizations: they must only have the *functional use* of them.
The wind or the water that turns the wings or the wheels of a mill are
not the property of anyone; they are simply harnessed for the purposes
of production. In the same vein, the earth should not be the property of
anyone; one who cultivates it *uses it*, but it belongs to the whole
community — that is, to no one in particular. Likewise, the instruments
of labor made by the hands of workers: they are a collective wealth, a
common property, *used* by those who need to use them at any given
moment for any given task. This being accepted, how can we then imagine:
first, the future organization of production, and then that of
distribution?

-----

It is obvious that only the whole of the professional organizations
concerning any branch of production can plan their production; these
professional organizations will include both the workers themselves and
the more learned specialists — engineers, chemists, etc. Each branch of
production is closely linked, on the one hand, with those who supply it
with raw materials, and on the other hand, with the organizations or the
public who consume its products. And since in these types of
relationships the most critical role is the understanding of all needs
and possibilities, there must be groups or Committees that will be able
to concentrate, compile, and manage all the necessary statistical
information. Their role must be strictly limited to that of suppliers of
statistical input; the subsequent use of this material would no longer
be their concern in the future. They would not be able to issue any
decree; those decisions belong exclusively to the larger professional
associations. The opinions of these statistical Committees would be of
no more coercive a nature than the indications given by an architect,
the advice of a hygienist, or that of a pedagogue, etc.

As for the various branches of production, their modes of organization
can vary greatly according to the technical particularities of each
association: some can accept complete autonomy of their constituent
groups, while others can exact perfectly coordinated action. All that is
to be desired is that there should be, in each specialty, not just one
central organization that governs *everything*, but a large number of
*specialized* organizations, each with well-defined tasks. We cannot, of
course, foresee the various ways in which this style of organizing work
may be envisioned in future contexts. However, adapting it to the needs
of the moment may not be an excessively difficult task.

-----

But there are much thornier questions which require continuous
innovation because nothing like this has ever been attempted before. Who
will be the *owner* of these means of production, which the professional
organizations will manage, and of the objects produced — that is to say,
of all collective wealth? If not the State, if not the corporations,
then who? What does the sentence: “The means of production belong to the
community” *concretely* represent? Who will represent these communities?
Who and by what right will they dispose of the products? To whom will
the profits of these sales be given? Who will pay the wages?

It is in these questions that it is necessary to fully develop our
communist idea, our great principle “from each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs,” and to draw all its
subsequent consequences.

Who will dispose of the products of these works? These products must
constitute a common wealth available to each person for his or her own
consumption, either if they are objects of immediate consumption, or if
they belong to the professional organizations that use these products
(if they are raw materials or instruments of work). Individuals or
organizations can draw upon these stocks to the extent of their needs
and, in the case of insufficient quantities, after reaching a fair
agreement with other interested consumers or organizations. No one
*actually* owns these products other than the workers themselves who
will be responsible for fulfilling any orders.

In the same way, the question arises: who will profit from the sales?
There is no issue here, because there is actually no sale, because the
products are not commodities, but simply objects of consumption, equally
accessible to all. Communism does not recognize the distinction between
objects of consumption —*private* property and the means of production —
and *collective* property. It does not even recognize a difference in
configuration between them; coal, for example, where would it be
classified? It is an indispensable element of production, and yet it is
also one of the most necessary objects of individual consumption. The
tendency of communism is to make all objects free. Everyone will agree
that housing, food, necessary clothing, heating, etc., must be made
available to everyone in the same way as medical aid or street lighting,
which even today’s capitalist society provides. Every human being has
the right to these basic necessities by the mere fact of their
existence, and no one has the right to deprive them. The individual’s
share of this social consumption can be determined by many factors,
individual and/or social: first of all, by the needs of each person, and
for everything that is in excess of that: alas!

In today’s Europe, instead of an abundance of products, there is rather
a scarcity, and this will force us to be better prepared for future
needs. A necessary minimum (calculated as much as possible on some kind
of average consumption), will be to establish and to organize fair
distribution of needs based on common agreement. Rations can and should
be different for different categories of people. To establish these
categories, it is again on the differences of needs that there must be
discretion; there will be taken into account: the age, the state of
health, their ability to defend themselves, etc… Many considerations
will have to be taken into account, moreover and especially in the
distribution of the products: the needs of the community, the need to
make reserves for the future and to keep a certain quantity of products
for any potential exchanges with other communities, etc., etc. There is
only one factor that we refuse to introduce into these calculations: it
is the sum of work spent by each individual.

Here we can foresee the protests coming. The spectacle of *today’s*
society, where those who produce the least consume the most, revolts our
sense of justice and makes us declare immediately: to each person the
fruits of their labor and to each proportionally according to the labor
provided.

But, in spite of this seemingly natural progression of thinking, we
think that it is not on this principle — however legitimate it may seem
in contrast to the flagrant injustices of our time — that the society of
the future must be founded. The revenge that the people may exercise
against their oppressors at the time of the revolution is perhaps
historically just, but it is not upon this revenge that the future reign
of the people can be founded after victory: it is rather on the
principle of human solidarity. Likewise in questions of land and
resource distribution.

And we should not be told that the bourgeoisie must first be repressed
and that the victory of the working class must first lead to a mode of
distribution that places labor at the proper position it deserves. The
class struggle *ends* with the workers’ victory and the distinction
between workers and parasites no longer exists. With the possibility of
free work in a free society being provided to everyone, the number of
those who refuse it will be so small that it will not justify the
creation of a new class of parasites in the form of an invasive
bureaucracy, and in the next generation the traces of this old
parasitism will have disappeared.

To give to each one in proportion to their work is, if you like, a just
principle; but it is a justice of a lower order, such as, for instance,
the idea of rewarding merit and punishing vice. We shall not dwell upon
all the philosophical and practical reasons which lead us to reject this
stance. What could we possibly add, moreover, to the arguments that
Kropotkin provided when he laid the foundations of communist
anarchism?[18] Let us only say — for those comrades who are unaware of
it — that at the other edge of socialist thought, Marx agreed with him,
saying that “the narrow horizon of bourgeois law will only be overcome”
when the remuneration of work has given way to the distribution of the
tiller according to the needs of each individual.[19] We want to go
beyond bourgeois law and bourgeois justice. Every human has a right to
existence by the mere fact that they are human. Then, and also because
they are human beings living in society, they will apply themselves to
bring their share of work to the common treasure. This is the only
possible guarantee against any further exploitation and against endless
conflicts.

We therefore reject the very idea of a *wage* lifestyle; we
differentiate the two questions: that of production and that of
consumption, leaving between them only the link which results from the
fact that the total quantity of manufactured products must be regulated
according to the needs of consumption. This is the only order of things
compatible with a system in which professional organizations can
*manage* production without needing to *own* the instruments of labor.
It is also the only one compatible with a free society, free from the
coercive power of a State.

We do not believe, of course, that the very day after the next
revolution, all of this will work out so well: without conflicts,
without mixing with our past bourgeois elements. We know that it is
highly unlikely that this complete and pure communism can be achieved at
once. But we also know that that is only by being inspired that any
future advancements can be made. And that is why it seems so important
to us, so infinitely desirable, that it is in this spirit that the
milestones of the future are laid.

*** Bibliography

<biblio>
Braverman, Harry. *Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work
in the Twentieth Century*. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998.

</biblio>

[1] Ed: Isidine, M. “Les problèmes de demain — I — Les raisons de notre
    « maximalisme » [The Problems of Tomorrow — I — The Reasons for our
    “Maximalism”].” *Les Temps nouveaux* [*The New Times*], July 15,
    1919.



[2] Ed: “Corporative” is a term used to refer to a
    class-collaborationist economic and social system whereby key
    societal structures, such as banks, are organized into distinct
    bodies called “corporations” (not to be confused with the term
    corporation in modern capitalist society). Well after it was first
    proposed in the nineteenth century, this system was made popular
    when Benito Mussolini declared it a core plank of fascism.

[3] Ed: After *Les Temps Nouveaux* went out of print at the onset of
    World War I, the paper resumed printing in 1919 under the guidance
    of Jean Grave, Marc Pierrot, and Marie Goldsmith, and others.

[4] Ed: The Revolutions of 1848 were a widespread set of European
    uprisings against monarchies. These revolutions popularized liberal
    and socialist ideas across the continent.

[5] Ed: This partial quote comes from the preface of Karl Marx’s *A
    Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859). The full
    quote concludes “…since closer examination will always show that the
    problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its
    solution are already present or at least in the course of
    formation.”

[6] See the first issue.

[7] Ed: Isidine, M. “Les problèmes de demain — II — La Dictature du
    Prolétariat [The Problems of Tomorrow — II — The Dictatorship of the
    Proletariat].” *Les Temps nouveaux* [*The New Times*], November 15,
    1919.

[8] Ed: Karl Kautsky (1854 – 1938) was a leading orthodox Marxist
    philosopher and politician who was a steadfast proponent of social
    democracy. He spent most of his life in Germany and was a friend of
    Friedrich Engels. Kautsky opposed the Bolshevik revolution in Russia
    which rendered him a rhetorical target of figures such as Vladimir
    Lenin (The Editors, “Karl Kautsky”).

[9] Ed: This article was published in the newspaper *L’Égalité* in
    1869.

[10] Ed: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his
     needs.” This slogan (and variations thereof) has been closely
     associated with socialism and communism since the first half of the
     nineteenth century. Although it rose to prominence following Karl
     Marx’s use of the phrase in the 1870s, its connection to the
     socialist movement is much broader and more historical.

[11] Ed: Fernand Pelloutier (1867 – 1901) was a French Marxist labor
     organizer who turned to anarchism in the 1890s. According to the
     anarchist Marc Pierrot, Goldsmith’s radical student group, the
     ESRI, was friendly with Pelloutier (Pierrot, “Marie Goldsmith”).

[12] See issues 1 and 5.

[13] Ed: Isidine, M. “Les problèmes de demain — III — Quelques jalons
     d’ordre économique [The Problems of Tomorrow — III — Some Economic
     Milestones].” *Les Temps nouveaux* [*The New Times*], April 15,
     1920.

[14] Ed: Jean Jaurès (1859 – 1914) was a French social democrat and
     anti-militarist who was known as a significant thinker and orator.
     He was assassinated in 1914 because his anti-war position was seen
     as capitulation to the Germans.

[15] Ed: “Scientific management,” also known as Taylorism, is the system
     proposed by the engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor in 1909 in his
     book, *The Principles of Scientific Management*. This system was
     meant to bureaucratize the workplace to promote efficiency and to
     “control alienated labor” (Braverman, *Labor and Monopoly Capital*,
     62).

[16] Official organ of the Bolshevik Government Ecconomitches kaîa Jiza
     (Vie économique), no. 213 (cited in Pour la Russie, no. 10, article
     by Kerensky).

[17] Ed: Goldsmith alludes to the fact that the Bolsheviks, once a part
     of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, rebranded themselves
     as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1918.

[18] Ed: For further elaboration from Marie Goldsmith on Kropotkin’s
     ideas of anarchist communism, see “Kropotkin’s Communism,”
     translated in *Black Flag* Vol. 2 No. 3 (2022).

[19] K. Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program.”