.
CHAPTER VII
Ambrosio. - Well, can you explain to you what is communism?
Jorge. - With pleasure.
Communism is a form of social organization in which men, instead of fighting each other to grab the natural wealth and exploit and oppress each other, as at present, will be associated and will agree to cooperate and achieve the maximum possible of each, based on the principle that land mines and all natural resources belong to everyone, and also those accumulated and acquired by generations past. The men, in communism means to work cooperatively and produce the requirements for the community.
Ambrosio. - I understand. You want, as I said a rag I read during a process of anarchists, each producing their strengths and eat according to your needs, or that everyone should give what you can and take what you need Is it so?
Jorge. - Yes, those are maximum we tend to often, but to represent correctly what should be a communist society, as we see it, should be knowing how to interpret. There is obviously an absolute right to satisfy all the needs because the needs are endless and growing faster than the means of satisfying, therefore your satisfaction is limited by the possibilities of production would not be useful or fair the community, to meet an excess of need or, rather, the whims of an individual, being subjected to a disproportionate work produced by the utility. And it is not used in production all individual forces, since that, taken literally, means it would need to work to exhaustion, that is, to better meet the needs of man would to destroy the man.
What we want is that everyone is best, is all to achieve maximum satisfaction with minimum effort. I could not give a theoretical formula that represents exactly this state of things, but when we're out of the way employers and police, and men are considered brothers and think and not be exploited to help each other, not be very difficult to find the formula.
Anyway, we'll act as it is known and can be, modified and improved as they learn to do better.
Ambrosio. - I understand. You are in favor of au TAS prize as their French comrades say: each one produces what seems better and thrown into the heap or, if you like, deposited in communal stores what has occurred, and each one takes the pile everything you need and place. Is it so?
Jorge. - I notice that you've decided to learn a little about the issue and I suppose that you have read the documents of the processes more closely than it does when it is send to jail. If the judges and the police as you do, what draws us in searches of our homes would at least something!
But back to topic. This formula takes the lot is nothing but a way of talking, expressing the tendency to replace the commercial spirit today by the spirit of fraternity and solidarity, but certainly does not indicate a particular mode of social organization. You may find someone among us who take that formula to the letter because it implies that the work done spontaneously will always superabundant and products would accumulate in such quantity and variety that would make it unnecessary to regulate the work and consumption. But I do not think so but, as I said, man has always more needs than resources to meet them and I am glad of it, because that fact is the cause of progress, and I think that while he could, would be an absurd waste of energy to produce blind to fill all possible needs, instead of calculating the actual needs and organize to meet with the least effort. Therefore, once again, the solution is in agreement between men and the tacit or express, that they will when they have conquered equality and be inspired by the spirit of solidarity. Try
into the spirit of our program and not worry so much about the formulas, which, in ours, as in other games, no more than a concise and impressive, but often vague and inaccurate, to express a trend.
Ambrosio. - But does not realize that communism is the negation of freedom and individuality? There may have existed in primitive times, when man, intellectually and morally underdeveloped, was pleased when the tribe could satisfy their material appetites, perhaps it is possible in a religious society, monastic, which proposes the elimination of passions human, which boasts of the absorption of the individual in the monastic community and makes obedience the first duty. But in modern society, with the flowering of civilization produced by the free individual activity, with the need for independence and freedom that haunts and ennobles modern man, communism, if not an impossible dream, would be a return to barbarism. All activities would be paralyzed, all fruitful emulation to assert one's individuality is extinguished ...
Jorge. - And so on ...
Basta! Do not waste your eloquence. These are phrases I've known for a long time and are just so many lies, blatant and unconscious. The freedom, the individuality of starving! What cruel irony! How profound hypocrisy!
you defend a society where most animals live in a society where workers die of hunger and poverty, where millions of children die for lack of care, where women in prostitution have something to eat, a society where ignorance darkened the spirits, where it is instructed to sell his knowledge and lying to eat where no one is sure of tomorrow And he dares to speak of freedom and individuality? Perhaps
freedom and the possibility of developing one's individuality exist for you, for a small privileged caste ... But even that. The same privileges are victims of the struggle between man and man, it corrupts the whole social life, and would benefit from living in a caring society, free among free, equal among equals.
How can you argue that liberty undermines solidarity and a sense of individuality? If discutiésemos on the family, and someday she'll talk you would not sing one of the usual hymns to the holy institution, base, etc. However, in the family, in which glorifies, in which there is not really "bonded by love and solidarity. "You would argue that the brothers would be freer and better develop their individuality if, instead of loving and working all agree on family welfare, be made to steal each other, to hate and stick?
Ambrosio. - But to regulate society as a family, to organize and run a communist society, we need a strong centralization, an iron despotism, an omnipotent state. Imagine what would oppressive power a government that had all the social wealth and allocates to each job to do and the part that can consume!
Jorge. - Certainly, if communism had to be as you conceive and authoritarianism, it would be impossible, or if such sterminaría in a colossal and complicated tyranny, that sooner or later cause a great reaction. But none of this is that we advocate Communism. We want the free communism, anarchist, if the word does not offend, that is, we want the community to organize freely, from the bottom up, starting with individuals who come together in partnerships, and continuing slowly, by federations associations, to include all mankind in a general agreement of cooperation and solidarity. And like that communism will free up freely also be maintained by the will of those concerned.
Ambrosio. - But for all that was possible, would require that men were angels, who were all altruistic! And, on the contrary, man is by nature selfish, mean, hypocritical, lazy.
Jorge. - Right. To be able communism needs than men, partly by impulse of sociability and partly by a correct understanding of their interests, do not hate each other and want to go in line and help each other. But this, far from being an impossibility, today is a normal and general. This social organization is a continuing cause of antagonisms and conflicts between classes and individuals, and if society can be maintained and not literally degenerated into a horde of wolves that eat each other, it is precisely because of the deep human instinct that causes social thousand acts of solidarity, sympathy, selflessness and sacrifice that was made at any time, without even thinking about them and that makes it possible for society to endure, despite the selfishness that carries in her womb.
The man is both selfish and altruistic and is in its very nature pre-biological and social. If it were not selfish, that is, if I had not had the instinct of self-preservation, could not exist as an individual, and if it was not altruistic, that is, if I had not had the instinct to sacrifice for others, as first manifestation is in the love of offspring, could not have existed as a species, or even more to get here.
The coexistence of feeling selfish and altruistic, and the impossibility of satisfying today's society both, means that today no one is happy, even those who occupy a privileged position. By contrast, communism is the social form where selfishness and altruism tend to be confused or mistaken, that all men accept it, because they cause their welfare and that of others.
Ambrosio. - will be as you say, "but believes that everyone will know and adapt to the obligations of a communist society? If, for example, people do not want to work?
But you, to suit his imagination, I say that work is an organic necessity, a pleasure, and that all rival to take most of him.
Jorge. - I do not say that exactly, but that's the opinion of many of my peers. In my view, what is an organic necessity and a pleasure is the stroke, both muscular and nervous activity, but the work is disciplined activity in view of an end goal and outside the body. And I know very well that one may prefer the equestrian exercises when, on the contrary, it would be necessary to plant cabbages. But I think the man knows how to adapt and adapt very well to the conditions necessary to reach the intended purpose.
Since the products from the work are necessary to live, and nobody would have the means to force others to work for him, all recognize the need to work and would prefer the organization where the work is less painful and more productive; as it is, in my opinion, the communist organization.
Consider also that communism is the workers themselves who organize and direct the work, and therefore have every interest in doing it nice and easy, consider that communism would naturally form a public opinion that would condemn
idleness as harmful to all and understand that although there were idle, there would be more than an insignificant minority
that could sympathize and support without harm.
Ambrosio. - But suppose that, despite its optimistic forecasts, the idle were many, what would you do? Will remain the same? So might as well keep calling bourgeois.
Jorge. - indeed there would be a big difference and, as the bourgeoisie not only take away a part of what we produce, but that prevent us from producing what we want. By no means would I say that keeping the idle, when they were so numerous as to cause harm, particularly as recreation and a habit of living on a whim, would also give the idea of \u200b\u200bsending. Communism is a free deal, but he who does not agree, or not sustained, is out.
Ambrosio. - But then there would be a new kind of hopeless?
Jorge. - No way. Everyone is entitled to the land, working tools and all the benefits that man can enjoy in the state of civilization reached by humanity. If one wants to accept the common life and the obligations it implies, is concerned yours. Will fit as you think with those with whom you agree, and if you are worse than others, that will demonstrate the superiority of communism and motivate you to join with the Communists.
Ambrosio. - But then one would be free to accept or not communism?
Jorge. - certainly, and would have the same rights that the communists would have on natural resources and the products accumulated by the past generation. What the devil! Do not you ever talked agreements free, free communism? How could there not have freedom if possible alternative?
Ambrosio. - So you do not want to impose their ideas by force?
Jorge. - Are you crazy? Are we making by police or judges?
Ambrosio. - So, nothing is wrong. Everyone is free to dream what you want.
Jorge. - Be careful, however, wrong, one thing to impose the ideas and another to defend against thieves and violent, and regain their own rights.
Ambrosio. - Ah, ah! therefore, to regain the rights use force, is not it?
Jorge. - That I will not tell. You could prepare for my answer a requisition against us in any process. What I say is that, indeed, when the people's awareness of their rights and want to finish ... you run the risk of being treated a little roughly. But that depends on the resistance against. If they give willingly, everything will be peace and love, if however, persist, and I am convinced that insists, so much the worse for you. Good night.
.
