{"id":3466,"date":"2012-12-09T12:52:02","date_gmt":"2012-12-09T17:52:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/?p=3466"},"modified":"2012-12-09T13:04:14","modified_gmt":"2012-12-09T18:04:14","slug":"herbert-spencer-and-milovan-djilas-a-communist-post-mortem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/2012\/12\/09\/russian-revolution\/herbert-spencer-and-milovan-djilas-a-communist-post-mortem\/","title":{"rendered":"Herbert Spencer and Milovan Djilas; a Post Mortem of Communism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Herbert Spencer<\/a> was one of the most important and influential intellectuals of his day, yet little more than 30 years after his death, Talcott Parsons<\/a> could ask, “Who now reads Spencer?”\u00a0 One could cite many plausible reasons for the precipitate decline in interest.\u00a0 I suspect his thought was too politically loaded at a time of great intellectual ferment in the realm of political ideology.\u00a0 As a result, he attracted many enemies among those who considered his work incompatible with their own pet theories.\u00a0 Perhaps the most damaging accusation was that Spencer was a social Darwinist.\u00a0 The grounds for this charge were flimsy at best, but since Spencer was no longer around to defend himself, it stuck.\u00a0 There is an interesting discussion of the matter\u00a0on his Wiki page<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Spencer was not infallible.\u00a0 For example, though he was a strong evolutionist, he\u00a0favored\u00a0a Lamarckian<\/a> version of the theory over Darwin’s natural selection.\u00a0 However, our species is not noted for its infallibility, and the fact that Spencer made mistakes is more a reflection of the broad range of his thought than of the caliber of his intellect.\u00a0 People who never speculate never make mistakes.\u00a0 Spencer did speculate, and some of his thought was profound indeed.\u00a0 Robert Ardrey<\/a>, never one to be unduly influenced by the opinions of others, noticed, pointing out that Spencer coined the terms “code of Amity” and “code of Enmity,” referring to what are now popularly known as in-groups and out-groups,\u00a0nearly a century before the academic and professional experts in human behavior caught\u00a0up with him.\u00a0 There was another subject regarding which, in retrospect, he was a true prophet; his analysis of revolutionary socialism, which later became known as Communism, presented in his introduction to a collection of essays entitled A Plea for Liberty<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Milovan Djilas<\/a> also knew something about Communism, having been a Communist for a significant part of his adult life, and an influential\u00a0one at that.\u00a0 From 1945 until 1953, he was one of the four most powerful men in Tito’s Communist regime in Yugoslavia.\u00a0 However, Djilas had a strong sense of intellectual honesty, a great drawback for a Communist ruler.\u00a0 It inspired him to write a series of critical articles in the Yugoslav Party organ, Borba<\/em>, followed in 1957 by publication of his great classic, The New Class<\/em>,\u00a0an indictment of Communism still strongly marked by the author’s tendency to think in terms of the Marxian dialectic.\u00a0 His final work, The Fall of the New Class<\/em>,\u00a0published in English three years after Djilas’ death,\u00a0and written after the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, may be considered his post mortem on his old ideal.\u00a0 In comparing Spencer’s predictions with Djilas’ documentation of what actually happened, one begins to understand why the former’s contemporaries were so impressed with him.<\/p>\n

For example, Spencer pointed out that Communism was anything but “scientific.”\u00a0 It was merely the speculation of Marx and others reformulated as a system.\u00a0 That system, however, had never been tested in practice.\u00a0 In his words,<\/p>\n

Iron and brass are simpler things than flesh and blood, and dead wood than living nerve; and a machine constructed of the one works in more definite ways than an organism constructed of the other, – especially when the machine is worked by the inorganic forces of steam or water, while the organism is worked by the forces of living nerve-centers.\u00a0 Manifestly then, the ways in which the machine will work are much more readily calculable than the ways in which the organism will work.\u00a0 Yet in how few cases does the inventer foresee rightly the actions of his new apparatus!\u00a0 Read the patent-list, and it will be found that not more than one device in fifty turns out to be of any service.\u00a0 Plausible as his scheme seemed to the inventor, one or other hitch prevents the intended operation, and brings out a widely different result from that which he wished.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What, then, shall we say of these schemes which have to do not with dead matters and forces, but with complex living organisms working in ways less readily foreseen, and which involve the cooperation of multitudes of such organisms?\u00a0 Even the units out of which this re-arranged body politic is to be formed are often incomprehensible.\u00a0 Everyone is from time to time surprised by others’ behavior, and even by the deeds of relatives who are best known to him.\u00a0 Seeing, then, how uncertainly one can foresee the actions of an individual, how can he with any certainty foresee the operation of a social structure?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In The Fall of the New Class, Djilas describes what actually did happen when Marx’s “patent” encountered the real world:<\/p>\n

\u00a0But communism took a vow, so to speak, that all its prophecies, all its ideals, would turn into their diametric opposites just when Communists thought these prophecies and ideals might actually come true.\u00a0 So it was that with the coming of Communists to power the working class and communism drew apart from one another, became alien.\u00a0 It did not happen uniformly, and it took various forms.\u00a0 By and large, this coincided with the metamorphosis of the Party bureaucracy into a privileged, monopolistic stratum of society.\u00a0 A special elite – the new class.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Spencer had foreseen just this alienation of the workers and emergence of the New Class with uncanny accuracy.\u00a0 For example,<\/p>\n

Already on the continent, where governmental organizations are more elaborate and coercive than here, there are chronic complaints of the tyranny of bureaucracies – the hauteur<\/em> and brutality of their members.\u00a0 What will these become when not only the more public actions of citizens are controlled, but there is added this far more extensive control of all their respective daily duties?\u00a0 What will happen when the various divisions of this vast army of officials, united by interests common to officialism – the interest of the regulators versus those of the regulated – have at their command whatever force is needful to suppress insubordination and act as ‘saviors of society’?\u00a0 Where will be the actual diggers and miners and smelters and weavers, when those who order and superintend, everywhere arranged class above class<\/strong>, have come, after some generations, to intermarry with those of kindred grades, under feelings such as are operative under existing classes; and when there have been so produced a series of castes rising in superiority; and when all these, having everything in their own power, have arranged modes of living for their own advantage:\u00a0 eventually forming a new aristocracy far more elaborate and better organized than the old?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Almost uncanny, when one recalls this was written in 1891!\u00a0 As Djilas put it in retrospect more than a century later,<\/p>\n

The transformation of the Party apparatus into a privileged monopoly (new class, nomenklatura) existed in embryonic form in Lenin’s prerevolutionary book Professional Revolutionaries<\/em>, and in his time was already well under way.\u00a0 It is just this which has been the major reason for the decay of communism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Spencer foresaw Stalinism, not as a mere aberration, a form of bureaucratic parasitism that Trotsky fondly hoped the workers would eventually throw off, but as inherent in the nature of the system itself.\u00a0 Noting the many forms of bureaucratic tyranny already existing under capitalism, he wrote:<\/p>\n

What will result from their (the bureaucracy’s) operation when they are relieved\u00a0from all restraints?…The fanatical adherents of a social theory are capable of taking any measures, no matter how extreme, for carrying out their views:\u00a0 holding, like the merciless priesthoods of past times, that the end justifies the means.\u00a0 And when a general socialistic organization has been established, the vast, ramified, and consolidated body of those who direct its activities, using without check whatever coercion seems to them needful in the interests of the system (which will practically become their own interests) will have no hesitation in imposing their rigorous rule over the entire lives of the actual workers; until eventually, there is developed an official oligarchy, with its various grades, exercising a tyranny more gigantic and more terrible than any which the world has seen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One can imagine the Communist true believers, equipped with their batteries of Marxist truism, shaking their heads and smiling at such hyperbolic alarmism.\u00a0 No doubt they would have found it a great deal less amusing from the later vantage point of the Gulag.\u00a0 As Djilas put it,<\/p>\n

Thus he, Stalin, the greatest Communist – for so everyone thought him save the dogmatic purists and naive “quintessentialists” – the incarnation of the real essence, the real possibilities, of the ideal – this greatest of all Communists, killed off more Communists than did all the opponents of Communism taken together, worldwide… Ideology exterminates its true believers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A Plea for Liberty<\/em>, the remarkable little volume in which Spencer set down his sadly unheeded words of warning, is available online<\/a>, along with his autobiography and many of his other works.\u00a0 They may be of some interest to readers who are jaded by the latest nuances of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, or bored by the effort of staying up-to-date on how close we are to stumbling over the “fiscal cliff.”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Herbert Spencer<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tTweet<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Herbert Spencer was one of the most important and influential intellectuals of his day, yet little more than 30 years after his death, Talcott Parsons could ask, “Who now reads Spencer?”\u00a0 One could cite many plausible reasons for the precipitate decline in interest.\u00a0 I suspect his thought was too politically loaded at a time of … Continue reading “Herbert Spencer and Milovan Djilas; a Post Mortem of Communism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[27,67,53,32,54,25,106],"tags":[315,168],"class_list":["post-3466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-communism","category-ideology","category-politics","category-revolution","category-russia","category-russian-revolution","category-socialism","tag-communism","tag-socialism-2"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pwEq0-TU","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3466","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3466"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3466\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3473,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3466\/revisions\/3473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}