The distinction not clearly made
For a long time, I considered the exquisite contrast drawn by the following to be the subtle but crucial thing the right didn't understand about the left. I now often find myself wondering if this is the thing which the left no longer faces and understands about it's own historically durable dual nature.
In any case, the book I take this from - "Instead of a Book" by Benjamin Tucker, which was first published in 1893, is a tiny bit rusty in terms of wording - but so brilliant, clear, heartfelt and hard to find in print, that I am considering publishing a Large Ess Small Press edition of it. There is something about viewing modern controversy through a long ago lens of high power and quality which can be especially illuminating - no one can ever claim that a guy who died eighty years ago and wrote to the century before that, was trying to exploit or manipulate the politics of today. I should also note, to be clear and fair, that he got this whole section from another writer - Ernest Lesigne - but considered it such a strong and excellent summary of his main points, he used it to end the first chapter.
There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable
each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an
especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside
of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact
special obediences; the second considers the State as an association
like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second
recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the
other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing
class ; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolution as the indispensable agent of
evolution ; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolution
into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the
free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of his own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says : Do as the government wishes.'
The second says : Do as you wish yourself.'
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the
birth of the new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering
to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of
regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says :
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.
To-day each of us must choose for one or the other of
these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.
There are a few other copyright expired and hard to find titles and authors who I am considering printing in a Large Ess Small Press edition - but this one seems especially energetic and for the moment to me. So I thought I ought to ask - anyone else want to be able to sit and read it in spiffy modern type and sweet softcover trade format? (Because let's face it - great books go a whole lot better with a bubble-bath than a computer chair!)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯