Pannekoek, Anton - Destruction as A Mean of Struggle: verschil tussen versies
(Nieuwe pagina aangemaakt met 'Categorie:Pannekoek, Anton Categorie:Engelstalig Categorie:Nalezen Categorie:Vormgeven Bestand:Pannekoek,_Anton_-_Destruction_as_A_Mean_of_St...') |
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
||
Regel 1: | Regel 1: | ||
[[Categorie:Pannekoek, Anton]] [[Categorie:Engelstalig]] | [[Categorie:Pannekoek, Anton|Destruction as A Mean of Struggle]] [[Categorie:Engelstalig]] | ||
[[Categorie:Nalezen]] [[Categorie:Vormgeven]] | [[Categorie:Nalezen]] [[Categorie:Vormgeven]] | ||
Versie van 1 apr 2016 17:07
Bestand:Pannekoek, Anton - Destruction as A Mean of Struggle.pdf
Destruction as A Mean of Struggle
Anton Pannekoek
1933
http://kurasje.tripod.com/index.html
The assessment of the burning of the Reichtag in the left communist press once again leads us to
raise other questions. Can destruction be a means of struggle for workers ?
First of all, it must be said that no one will cry over the disappearance of the Reichtag. It was one of
the ugliest buildings in modern Germany, a pompous image of the Empire of 1871. But there are
other more beautiful buildings, and museums filled with artistic treasures. When a desperate
proletarian destroys something precious in order to take vengeance for capitalist domination, how
should we assess this ?
From a revolutionary point of view, his gesture appears valueless and from different points of view
one could speak of a negative gesture. The bourgeoisie is not the least bit touched by it since it has
already continually destroyed so many things where it was a matter of its profits, and it places
money-value above all else. Such a gesture especially touches the more limited social strata of
artists, amateurs of beautiful things, the best of whom often have anti-capitalist feelings, and some of
whom ( like William Morris and Herman Gorter ) fought at the side of the workers. But in any case,
is there any reason to take vengeance on the bourgeoisie ? Does the bourgeoisie have the task of
bringing socialism instead of capitalism ?
It is its role to maintain all the forces of capitalism in place; the destruction of all that is the task of
proletarians. It follows that if anybody can be held responsible for the maintenance of capitalism, it is
as much the working class itself which has neglected the struggle too much. Lastly, from whom does
one remove something by its destruction ? From the victorious proletarians who one day will be
masters of all of it.
Of course, all revolutionary class struggle, when it takes the form of civil war, will always provoke
destruction. In any war it is necessary to destroy the points of support of the enemy. Even if the
winner tries to avoid too much destruction, the loser will be tempted to cause useless destruction
through pure spite. It is to be expected that towards the end of the fight the decadent bourgeoisie
destroys a great deal. On the other hand, for the working class, the class which will slowly take over,
destruction will no longer be a means of struggle. On the contrary it will try to pass on a world as
rich and intact as possible to its descendents, to future humanity. This is not only the case for the
technical means which it can improve and perfect, but especially for the monuments and memories
of past generations which cannot be rebuilt.
One might object that a new humanity, the bearers of an unequalled liberty and fraternity, will create
things much more beautiful and imposing than those of past centuries. And moreover that newly
liberated humanity will wish to cause the remainders of the past, which represented its former state
of slavery, to disappear. This is also what the revolutionary bourgeoisie did - or tried to do. For them,
all of past history was nothing but the darkness of ignorance and slavery, whereas the revolution was
dedicated to reason, knowledge, virtue and freedom. The proletariat, by contrast, considers the
history of its forebears quite differently. On the basis of marxism which sees the development of
society as a succession of forms of production, it sees a long and hard annexation of humanity on the
basis of the development of labour, of tools and of forms of labour towards an ever increasing
productivity, first through simple primitive society, then through class societies with their class
struggle, until the moment when through communism man becomes the master of his own fate. And
in each period of development, the proletariat finds characteristics which are related to its own
nature.
In barbarian prehistory : the sentiments of fraternity and the morality of solidarity of primitive
communism. In petty-bourgeois manual work : the love of work which was expressed in the beauty
of the buildings and the utensils for everyday use which their descendants regard as incomparable
masterworks. In the ascendant bourgeoisie : the proud feeling of liberty which proclaimed the rights
of man and was expressed in the greatest works of world literature. In capitalism : the knowledge of
nature, the priceless development of natural science which allowed man, through technology, to
dominate nature and its own fate.
In the work of all of these periods, these imposing character traits were more or less closely allied to
cruelty, superstition and selfishness. It is exactly these vices which we fight, which are an obstacle to
us and which we therefore hate. Our conception of history teaches us that these imperfections must
be understood as natural stages of growth, as the expression of a struggle for life by men not yet fully
human, in an all powerful nature and in a society of which the understanding escaped them.
For liberated humanity the imposing things which they created in spite of everything will remain a
symbol of their weakness, but also a memorial of their strength, and worthy of being carefully
preserved. Today, it is the bourgeoisie which possesses all of it, but for us it is the property of the
collectivity which we will set free to hand on to future generations as intact as possible