Landauer explains his understanding of socialism through a critique of the common “individualism” vs. “communism” divide. First published as “Vom Weg des Sozialismus” in Der Sozialist, July 1, 1909.
WE HAVE BEEN ASKED MANY TIMES WHETHER WE "STAND on the ground” of communism or individualism. My answer will surprise many, as it not only demonstrates the inappropriateness of the terms, but of the entire question. Hopefully, it will cause people to reconsider what they are asking. The answer is: we stand on the ground neither of communism nor of individualism, but on that of capitalism. In other, and less captious, words, we are dealing with a question rife with assumptions that must be examined. These assumptions are that socialists must propose – or may even limit themselves to proposing – a complete theory, and then try to convince humanity, or a particular class of humanity, of its authority; by preaching or by other means. However, the “ground we stand on” can only be the ground of reality, the ground of conveyed and well-established institutions, injustices, and ills – no matter how much we may wish that we were standing elsewhere.
The ground we stand on is a ground we want to leave. We desire different forms of human relations. A complete theory, a utopia, a “reasonable” idea of what we want, a “proper” understanding of what is right and what is wrong are not necessarily needed. The first step in the struggle of the oppressed and suffering classes, as well as in the awakening of the rebellious individual’s spirit, is always insurgency, outrage, a wild and raging sensation. If this is strong enough, realizations and actions are directly connected to it: both actions of destruction and actions of creation. This sensation is not opposed to knowledge and contemplation. However, it is no science, and it does not provide clear, extensive declarations of what we want.
The combination of innocent emotions, active forces, and instinctive knowledge of the people have already brought many great things to this world. Science and scholarly analyses have often lagged behind and only formulated theories that corresponded to what had already been created by the unified, undivided spirit. During such times, conscience is strong and effective. Conscience is the knowledge of feeling; a knowledge connected to imagination, energy, and force. What we usually call knowledge – reflection, division, categorization, dissolution, and reassembly – only reigns when conscience is weak. This is what defines our times. Our times are times of low energy and a lack of confidence, of waiting rather than experimenting and creating, of sluggishness rather than motion. The longer these times remain, the more abstruse the science and theory of society and its laws will become. As a result of our inability to head towards the dark, the unknown, and the impossible, we have philistinism instead of reality, speculation instead of life, abstraction instead of fulfillment.
In times like these, we must no longer reflect upon the reality that surrounds us and the ideas that fill our minds. We must find the people who are willing to leave this ugly, oppressive, and corrupting reality behind and proceed to a new one. We have to ask who the creators are. We have to ask not about people’s theories and ideals, but about their strength to no longer partake.
No one has asked these questions yet. Everyone has always appealed to the “community,” the “whole;” either in the form of the “state,” the “people,” or a significant, but overrated, section of them, namely the “proletariat.” Everyone has appealed to mass politics – as if the masses consisted of noble and glorious individuals who only need to be told the truth before instantly turning towards it. We, however, are the first who proclaim: Through separation to community !
Who are the people who have the strength to no longer partake, you ask? Who are the people ready to create new forms of community? It is the few ! There is no other answer. The ever increasing dominance of capitalism – something that Marxists have tried to sell us as a blessing – and the degeneration and spiritual decline of the people have gone too far. This is why we are forced to call upon the few who have the strength to precede. They need to do so for themselves, for their self-esteem, and not least for the people. We need them as role models and shining examples for the whole world. They must realize decency, justice, and beauty.
This is our new theory of movements: masses have always started moving only because certain individuals began moving within themselves; this gave birth to external movements that pulled others along.
I can already hear people accusing us of individualism. In fact, we do not object to this honorable attribute. We only ask for clarity. No longer must people lump together two very different things under one and the same name. We will explain this in more detail soon. First we must answer the individualists whose irritation and outrage we can also hear: we have turned to “the masses” or “the people,” they say. Never! We have never called upon anyone but the individuals, the egoists, the Eigenen !1
The individualists, the individualist anarchists, have always called upon the pride, the self-respect, and the sovereignty of the individual. Their usual advice for the oppressed has been: if you had as much egoism as your masters, you would not have any masters. As a simple calculation this is not entirely wrong: egoism keeps egoism at bay. The individualists have always taught that the proper egoist will respect the rights of others because he respects himself; furthermore, he will be smart enough not to attack others in order to avoid being attacked, etc. There has, from its beginnings with Mister (and Master) Stirner, always been a certain coldness of reason in these teachings. Everything remains abstract, and there is nothing more alien to these individualists than the realms of life where warmth, passion, fervor, depth, and darkness reign; where the soul unfolds its powers. However, only those who feel comfortable in these realms can understand the impact that cold abstractions can have on people at certain times. The realms we are talking about are the realms of history.
I do not think that the individualists have ever shown any understanding of why things today are the way they are; they have never shown any understanding of the relationship of the individual, the masses, and social circumstances. They always appear to believe that what exists today will continue to exist for a very long time, and that nothing can be done but to proclaim the pure doctrine over and over again. The individualists seem to be patiently waiting for several periods of transition, lasting centuries or even millennia, before monopolism disappears, before social democracy wins – and then disappears, before there will finally be a mass of egoists. They are proclaimers, “waiters;” they are inactive, they do not do anything. If you need an illustration of the stubborn and melancholic solitude of the individualists, the paralyzed and paralyzing isolation of those who do not separate from the masses to create new forms of community with like-minded folks, then look at Benjamin Tucker and his journal Liberty.2
The individualists often connect their ahistorical abstractions with the both wonderful and powerful economic theory of Proudhon, a theory that builds on the principle of free and just exchange of equivalent products between people united in towns, associations, and cooperatives. It seems to me as if there are two things that individualists do not understand: first, that this economic theory belongs to very specific historical circumstances; second, that it is in no way necessarily linked to the rest of their doctrine, namely the self-centeredness and the sovereignty of the Eigenen.
In their clear, cold, and sober language, the individualists often tell us that human beings are either respectful or disrespectful egoists. However, if there are egoists who are respectful by nature, then why worry about economic theory to begin with? Will they not naturally be decent? How could there be any danger that the wrong economic circumstances would corrupt them? Maybe we can get the individualists to agree that the theory of corrupting social circumstances – particularly popular among minds contaminated by Marxism – is vastly exaggerated. Those who are, for example, corrupted as parliamentarians are probably people who are already prone to corruption. (For the record: we do not rely on such arguments against parliamentarianism; we have better ones.) However, the consequences that we think need to be drawn puzzle quite a few egoists. We say that no one is better suited to maintain a communist economy than true individualists. In fact, a communist economy can only be maintained by true individualists.
Eventually, the individualists will have to agree. The most glorious of all economic theories, Proudhon’s notions of free exchange and a popular bank, can only be implemented under specific historical circumstances. These existed in the past and they will exist again in the future. They need an entire people to be involved, or at least a great number of producers from all trades. This was the case during Proudhon’s time, when France was petty peasant and petty bourgeois. The revolution of 1848 also allowed for the introduction of credit without interest and joint guarantee. Since then, however, Proud-hon’s recipe has never been applicable. People trusted Marx: they trusted historical determinism and allowed capitalism to develop into a monster.
Are there any individuals today who refuse to passively watch the trajectory of capitalism? Individuals who have understood that capitalism, the state, and even the workers themselves have provided the capitalist system with enough means to prove wrong the prophecy that capitalism will inevitably crumble? If such individuals exist, then their task is self-explanatory. They must find their inner self, they must gather, they must assess their forces. They must also direct calls for liberty, self-determination, and glory towards the souls of the servants. But they will only do so because they know that some individuals like them are hidden underneath the masses and need to be found, as they belong to the few that we rely upon. In any case, there are more of them than anyone today might think.
If the few adhere to any particular theory, they will be ineffective. They will also be ineffective if they despise the masses and retreat into their own minds and into aestheticism. We demand that they act, that they secede, and that they unite. No theory will tell them what kind of relationships or what economic systems will be possible. They will learn from the historical moment, from their numbers, their values, their determination. If possible, they will found cooperatives and popular banks, as well as their own markets. They will form an economic alliance, because they are few, but also because they will want to experiment with mutual aid and respect, knowing that economy is a collective matter, just as spirituality is an individual matter.
Historical socialism – in other words, socialism as beginning, as way, as action – takes abstract entities for what they are, namely images that inspire. There is no place in historical socialism for hollow ideas that only serve as melancholic mind games for isolated and inactive individuals. Historical socialism overcomes the opposition of communism and individualism; it elevates both and merges them into a higher union. It paves the way of the pioneers who turn bawdiness into self-discipline.3 It paves the way for those who are first in creating a new people. It paves the way to the beginning of peoples uniting in freedom.
