Dear Folks,
I am fine and things are going well -- in fact, things are very exciting, full of turmoil and struggle.
I am not writing about any immediate question, but I thought I would take the time to address, at least in a beginning (and no doubt somewhat fragmentary) way, a question that dad in particular has raised with me on a number of occasions over the past several years, including the last time I saw you (by the way, the headline you saw in one of our papers, referring to some comments by me on the question of "human nature," was part of an interview with me republished in the Revolutionary Communist Youth, the December 1979 issue). The question to which I refer and which I will try to deal with here can be summarized, I believe, in the following general terms: what about "human nature," and in particular the tendency, which seems to exist in all societies, even socialist society, for people to be self-seeking -- and most especially for people in positions of some power, authority, influence, etc. to turn these positions into the basis for personal aggrandizement -- what is sometimes referred to (and has been by you, dad) as "elitism"?
First of all, is this a real problem, including within communist parties and socialist societies? Yes, it most definitely is. And it has proved to be a very serious one. The bourgeoisie and its worldview insist that this tendency is and always will be unavoidable and unconquerable, in every form of society -- and therefore that communism is a hopeless ideal, at best. Often this is expressed, with respect to leaders of a society in particular, in a catchy (and facile) little aphorism: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Before directly answering that, I want to go back up to some of the more basic, underlying questions involved in all this. In order to deal with these, as well as specifically address the problem of "elitism" and answer the conventional -- bourgeois -- wisdom (or lack of it) on this matter, I have to put forward and stress views which are in direct opposition to some of your more deeply- held views and beliefs -- especially around religion, the existence of god (some kind of universal force somehow guiding events in the world and the universe as a whole and serving as some kind of basis for morals, etc.). I do not hesitate to do this, however, for two basic reasons: first and most important, because I could neither contribute anything to the understanding of the problem being discussed here, nor (by the same token, I belie) be true to my own principles -- and more fundamentally to the truth on which they are based, a truth I am convinced is scientifically founded -- unless I did so; and second, I know that you have raised this question seriously, with and earnest desire to both know my own views on this and to arrive at a correct understanding concerning it (which, of course, I believe are one and the same, though my understanding is certainly less than the "whole truth" -- that is, than a thorough understanding of this matter).
To the question, then. First, as for "human nature," there is in fact no such thing -- in the sense in which the concept is conventionally used. Different ages in human history have each has their own view of both what such "human nature" is and ought to be -- and more specifically, different classes within each epoch have had their own, conflicting views on this. In general, its is the rule that the dominate ideas on this (as on all important questions) are, as Marx and Engels explained, the ideas of the dominate, or ruling, class -- having political control of society, and the control of the most important means of production, upon which this political domination is based in the final analysis, the ruling classes throughout history have therefore also had ideological domination; and their principles, ethics, morals, beliefs, values, etc. have reflected and served their political domination and the economic system it enforces. Thus, in ancient Greek society, for example (the "cradle of our democracy," as I was taught in school -- and how fitting it actually is!), it was not only the case that the dominate class, the slaveowners (for whom, in reality, this democracy existed) considered slavery -- for others, the "inferior," the conquered peoples, etc. -- to be fully in accord with human nature -- and with divine providence as well -- but this was also the dominate view in such societies as a whole, exercising a strong influence even upon the slaves themselves -- who, if they generally did not accept the idea that slavery was just, nevertheless were strongly influenced, and intimidated, by the view that it was inevitable, because of the will and power of their "superiors" on earth and/or in heaven -- generally, both.
This is not to deny, of course, that the slaves nonetheless repeatedly rebelled against their oppression and that, in the course of and as an indispensable part of doing so, they took up as a powerful weapon ideas which not only condemned slavery as unjust but challenged the notion that it -- or at least the enslavement of those rebelling -- was inevitable. But, for all that, the institution of slavery -- and with it the idea that it was in accordance with "human nature" (and divine will) -- was not eliminated (as it has been today, in most parts of the world) until the material conditions for this developed. And, in general, any old society, no matter how much it causes suffering of the masses of people, will not be swept away until changes in society, and in particular in the productive forces it has developed and uses -- the tools, instruments, machinery, etc. and the knowledge and skills required to utilize them (which, of course, are developed by and reside in people), together with the laboring population itself -- make necessary certain changes in the economic relations people enter into in society. (Mao once graphically, poetically and startlingly expressed the basic principle involved here in something like the following terms: when tools become frustrated, when they are unable to be fully utilized, they will speak through people, they will compel people to change society in order to make possible the full use of these tools.)
It is, of course, not actually the case that tools themselves change society; precisely, that is and can only be done by people -- and through fierce struggle between them, which is in the final analysis (in all societies divided into classes) comes down to the struggle between classes for political power over society. And people -- being by definition and in their distinction from other, lower forms of life (at least those known to us are lower forms) conscious animals -- develop various ideas, and more than that wage fierce struggle in the realm of ideas, which also comes down to the struggle between conflicting class outlooks in the final analysis. These ideas and this ideological struggle play a tremendous role in the overall struggle in society, between classes (so long as society remains divided into classes). But, once again, for all that, the ideas of different people -- and ultimately different classes -- within society, despite the fact that they assume a more or less "independent existence" as ideas in their own right, nevertheless always find their ultimate origin in the material conditions of society -- its level of productive forces and corresponding economic, or production, relations (the relations people enter into in carrying out production in society as a whole) -- and its interaction with the rest of nature.
Dreams, illusions, etc. -- and even the most farsighted visions which may actually conceive of at least the rough outlines of things which do not yet exist in this world (witness Jules Verne, for example) -- are also ultimately based on actual experience, direct or indirect (that is, your own or somebody else's, the latter being made known to you through oral or written means). Hallucinations, too, have the same origin in the material world -- though they are, by definition, distortions of it (as are dreams) in one form and to one degree or another. (Recently, as onr part of its stepped-up efforts to spread mysticism and thereby intimidate the masses and make them feel powerless before "superior" beings and forces -- "natural" and "supernatural," but all enforcing "the way things are" -- the bourgeoisie has churned out a few movies loudly advertising the theme of "life after death" and centering around experiences, real or alleged, of people who have "died" and then "come back to life" -- that is, people wholes "vital signs," generally their heart and breathing mechanism, have stopped but have been revived. The hallucinations of these people during their "dead" period [leaving outside outright lies] are presented as a key to the "mystery of life after death." really, there is nothing so mysterious about it at all: their heart. etc. has stopped, but their brain has not yet died; it continues to function, to form images and thoughts -- reflections, and generally distortions, of experiences and ideas these people have acquired in society -- basically the same as dreams, which of course also occur when people are unconscious [leaving aside "day dreams," which are not really dreams but more or less conscious fantasies -- and which also have their ultimate orrigins in the material world in any case]. The advancement of science has both made it possible that such people can "come back" -- be revived -- to tell of this and made it possible for us to understand what is really going on during the time when they are unconscious but not yet dead -- as we now determine death -- that is, when their vital brain cells have not yet been destroyed due to lack of oxygen.)
To return to the question of "human nature" -- and specifically to some of my previous comments on it: I said that different ages have had their different views -- characterized by the views of the ruling class of that age -- on what "human nature" is and what it ought to be. By this I mean that it is often said that "human nature" is not in fact what it ought to be; in other words, it is not always argued that "human nature" is "good" and that the particular form of society upheld is in conformity with such a "good" "human nature." Rather, it is often argued that "human nature" is, on the contrary, bad, "evil." But this, too, serves merely as a justification (rationalization) for the form of society advocated by whomever makes this argument. In short, such justification (rationalization) is not always -- and quite often not -- based on the notion that the society advocated conforms to some positive "human nature," but merely that it conforms to some unchanging "human nature" -- good, bad -- or in part both. The capitalist (and his ideological solicitors), for example, when cornered ideologically and unable to maintain the lie that this system is one which brings the best conceivable life to the greatest number of people, will resort quickly to the argument that it brings the best possible one (also a lie -- a more profound lie!). Why? Because of "human nature," he insists. To put it simply, he will argue, someone always has to lord it over others; that's the way it is, that's the way it's been and always will be; and if he wasn't doing it to others, they would be doing it to him -- so why shouldn't he do it first and best (the real "golden rule" of capitalism, even more than other forms of society based on exploitation, because capitalism constantly demands ever more vicious, cutthroat competition as well as ever intensifying exploitation).
The very notion of "bad" -- or "good" -- "human nature" assumes not only that there is some unchanging "human nature" but further that there is some unchanging standard of what "human nature" ought to be. "People are not perfect," pundits often remind us. ("If men were angels,...") But, once again, there is no such unchanging standard -- it, too, will correspond to, and change with, the conditions and consequent views of different historical periods and classes.
For example, a peasant in feudal society (and still more a slave in slave society) is not supposed to have even a basic education, according to the lord (feudal or slave); for him (or her even more) to have such an education is wrong, a sin, even a crime. This, the lord and his detachment of intellectuals insist, is in accord with the "nature" of the peasant (or slave) -- just as it is in accord with the "nature" of the lord (and with "human nature" in general, as well as divine will) for the lord to dominate education as well as political power, land, wealth, ect. On the other hand, for a worker in capitalist society not to have basic education enough to be able to operate a machine or some similar function -- this is wrong, according to every capitalist who is the least bit enlightened as to his own interests and those of his class. In fact, the illiteracy of the peasant (and slave) and the literacy (at least minimal) of the worker are both, in their respective turns, in accordance not with some unchanging nature of the peasant, slave or worker (as an individual) -- or of society as a whole -- but with the respective forms of society in which the peasant or slave on the one hand and the worker on the other finds himself (herself).
Or, examine the "nature" of the members of the ruling classes themselves. For a lord in feudal society, for example, to indulge himself in all manner of luxurious, wasteful personal consumption is considered in that society -- by the ruling class of lords and as tthe ruling idea -- as "natural" and right. But for a capitalist to do the same thing -- beyond a certain point at least -- is not merely "unnatural" but downright foolhardy: the more he spends on his own personal consumption, the less he can reinvest to expand and beat out the competition. If he continues in this way, he will be devoured by more "frugal" capitalists -- who may enjoy and welcome such "unnatural" behavior on the part of their competitors, but nonetheless recognize even more fundamentally that it is contrary to the "nature" of a capitalist (this is modified somewhat by monopoly capitalism, imperialism, but does not change the principle I am stressing here -- that there is no unchanging "natture" of either the exploiting or exploited classes (1) and that instead such a "nature" -- as well as the notion of what it ought to be -- corresponds to and changes with different forms of society in different historical stages.)
So getting back to the question of "perfection" -- or lack of it -- there is no such thing, either. (The only way in which this concept might have any valid meaning is if we were to use it as a measure of people's ability to grasp the essence of the material world of which they are a part and to change it in accordance with its actual laws of development: by doing so we find that, indeed, people are not perfect, that in fact their knowledge of the objective world always falls short of and lags behind this objective world and its constant process of change. But this is not what is generally meant by "perfection" -- which, in its conventional usage, implies some kind of moral standard. And, anyway, "perfection," or the lack of it is not after all a correct concept to use in speaking of people' ability to understand and change the world: precisely because people can never grasp all of objective truth -- can never know all there is to know about the entire universe, fundamentally because it is infinite and infinitely changing -- the concept of "perfection" in that sense loses all meaning. "Perfection" can have meaning only if the standard for it is something that is attainable, at least by somebody -- or something -- here the concept of god, all-knowing, enters in again. But, first, back to the notion of "perfection" as it is conventionally used -- in a moral sense.) There is no such thing as "perfection" because there is and can be no unchanging standard of it, abstracted from a particular level of development and corresponding form of society. Again, what is "moral" and "immoral" varies -- changes -- with different epochs and different classes.
Does this mean , then, that communists have "no morals"? This is a charge often hurled at us by the very Christian people (or devout disciples of other religions) who rule capitalist or other exploitative societies and who have invariably committed the most heinous, unspeakable crimes -- very often in the name or under the cover of religious righteousness. Such people are, without exception, capable of justifying (rationalizing) the worst of these crimes on the basis of religious "morals." (This is not, in every case, because they are hypocrites, as opposed to true believers and practitioners of religion. On the contrary, the fact is that, indeed, in their religious doctrine can be found the justification for these crimes, precisely because religious doctrine, like everything else in class society, has a class nature; or, to put it another way, it is because all such notions as "brotherly love," "love thy neighbor before [or even as] thyself," "peace on earth, good will toward men," etc. are impossible to practice in a society divided into classes, regardless of the wishes or intentions of anyone, and this impossibility will be reflected both in religious doctrine, especially as it assumes any real force in society, and in the practical actions of most devout religious adherents, along with everyone else. As a matter of fact, these notions, as conceived of and propagated conventionally at least, will even be impossible of enactment under communism -- and undesirable as well, for they imply some kind of stagnant harmony and the reconciliation if opposing views, rather than conflict and struggle, which is the way things actually develop and progress. Communism will eliminate social antagonism with the elimination of classes and the basis for them, but it certainly will not, and cannot, eliminate conflict and struggle -- as Mao emphatically pointed out, without contradiction and struggle life itself would come to a standstill and could not exist. But more on that later.)
Communist morals indeed exist. And they are just as much a product of society -- of a particular historical stage of iits development -- and just as much the expression of the outlook and interest of a particular class as are all other ideas. But there the identity ends. Communist morals -- and communist ideas generally -- express and serve the outlook and intterest of the particular class, the proletariat, but the proletariat, unlike any other class in history, is a class which has no interest in exploitation or the division of society into classes. This is not because, in some abstract sense, the proletariat is "better" (more "nearly perfect") than other classes. Rather, it is because the proletariat is itself a propertyless class -- that is, a class which (in capitalist society) is without ownership of the means of production (2)-- and further a class that engages in its productive activity not in isolated, individualized conditions, but in highly (and increasingly) socialized ones. And the proletariat carries out this productive labor with means of production that are highly developed -- a high level of technology -- and which, moreover, can only be utilized in a socialized way (for example, an auto plant). For all these reasons, the ideas -- including morals -- that correspond to the position of the proletariat in society and to its role in carrying forward the development of society -- to a whole new and unprecedented stage -- are those which promote the destruction of the fetter of private ownership of the means of production, which is in antagonism with the character of the productive forces and the fact that overwhelmingly they can only be utilized socially (including the great bulk of the laboring population, the proletariat itself); those morals and ideas generally which at the same time and on the same basis promote the elimination of all forms of exploitation and all class distinctions and the overthrow, suppression and eventual elimination (as a social class or stratum) of every reactionary force which would defend and enforce (and reinstitute where it has been abolished) exploitation and would seek to resist by antagonistic means the advance to the abolition of classes. It is with this outlook -- and, again not because of some abstract "moral superiority" -- that the morals of communists stress and insist upon placing the interests of society as a whole -- and specifically its advance to a classless society, communism, a whole new and higher stage in human history -- above narrow, individual or small- group interests, which always promote exploitation and the perpetuation of class distinctions.
In sum, the proletariat is both the "special product" (in Marx' words) of capitalist society and its gravedigger -- and the gravedigger of exploitative society altogether. It is the product of a society, capitalism, which, in a way far more than previous societies, necessitates and brings about unprecedented development of productive forces and, for the first time, establishes the potential to abolish scarcity as a social phenomenon, but which, especially after further development -- and in a qualitatively greater way with its transformation into imperialism -- suffocates these same productive forces, is itself incapable of utilizing them in anything like a full way. Therefore, even while it provides the potential to abolish scarcity, capitalism repeatedly -- and on an ever more destructive scale -- brings about the criminal absurdity that there is great scarcity precisely because there is too much abundance -- not, as Marx and Engels pointed out, too much for what people need, but too much for what the capitalists can profitably employ. (Imperialism does not abolish or reduce this; on the contrary, on a world scale, and periodically within the imperialist countries themselves, it intensifies it and makes it all the more devastating, and this assumes concentrated form in the wars, especially world wars, that the imperialist launch in order to preserve their system and fight for the top dog position within it.) The proletariat is the gravedigger in all this, and the agent of the advance of humanity to a whole new and unprecedented "nature" -- because it alone can, in conformity with the socialized character of its productive labor, utilize these productive forces fully and unleash them -- by taking control of and employing them collectively and rationally. Communist morals -- and communist ideology generally -- represent, as Engels once put it, the theoretical expression of this historical role and mission of the proletariat.
But here a contradiction emerges which gets back to the heart of the main question we are dealing with: while the proletariat, as a class, has the historic role and mission and while, as a class, it has no interest in exploitation and the division of society into classes, the entire proletariat does not become conscious of this all at once -- in fact, in capitalist society in particular, under the domination of the bourgeoisie economically, politically and ideologically, only a relatively small minority of the proletariat is able to take up this class conscious position and fight on that basis. Further, it is generally among the intellectuals that this "theoretical expression" of the proletariat's role and mission in society is first taken up; these intellectuals in turn take this understanding to the proletariat, and those workers who, for various reasons (having to do with their particular situation and experiences), gravitate toward this ideology and take it up as their own, become (together with this small detachment of intellectuals *3) galvanized in and around the proletarian party as the advanced section and leadership of the rest of the proletariat -- and beyond it the broader masses of people oppressed in various ways under capitalism. Here we see the contradiction between the advanced and the rest of the class (and masses), or between the leadership and the led.
This objective contradiction can, even under capitalism, become the basis for what you refer to as "elitism." But, in the main, this is more than offset by the fact that to be a party member, or more broadly a part of the advanced forces stepping forward to lead the struggle to overthrow capitalism, means to be hunted, hounded, persecuted -- harassed, jailed, etc., even murdered -- and moreover to take a stance that iss not "socially accepted" and does not generally mean greater prestige, etc, This though it involves contradiction, is the main aspect under capitalism.
But what about in socialist society -- where the party is now the leading force of the proletarian state, where its members, and especially its leading members, have influence, authority, even to some degree power, over others?
1. Each specific class, of course, has its nature as a class, but the nature of the exploiters and exploited is in neither case something fixed arbitrarily and eternally but something historically and socially conditioned.
2. In socialist society, the proletariat becomes the owner of the means of production, but this is social, not private -- ownership as a class, through its state, not as individuals; and further, this itself is transitional to ownership by all of society, without classes or the state.
3. There are also some people from other strata, particularly the more oppressed in society, who take up this outlook and become part of the vanguard, but that does not change the fact that this vanguard is a small minority, especially under capitalism.