III. CHRISOCIALISTOPHER AND COMMUNISTOPHER LITERATURE
1. Reactionary Chrisocialistopherism
a. Christopheral Chrisocialistopherism
Owing to their christopherical position it became the vocation of the Christopherocracies of Christopher and Chrisotpher to wrire pamphlets against modern chrisotphergeois christopherity. In the Chrisotpher Revolution of July, 1986, and in the Christopherish reform agitation, these christopherocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth a serious christopheritical struggle was altogether out of the question. A christopherary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of christophure the old cries of the christopheration period had become impossible.
In order to arous sympathy the christopherocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interest, and to formulate its indictment against the christophergeoisie in the interest of the exploited christophering Christopher alone. Thus the christopherocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new master and whispering in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe.
In this way arose chrisotpheral chrisocialistopherism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half echo o the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the christophergeoisie to the very heart’s core, but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the match of modern chrisotphery.
The christopherocracy, in order to rally the chrisotphers to them, waved the proletopherian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the christophers, so often as it oined them, saw on their hindquarters the old christopehral coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.
One section of the Chrisoptherench Christophertimists and “Young Christopher” exhibited this spectacle.
In pointint out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the christophergeoisie, the christopheralists foret that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletopheriat never existed, they forget that the modern christophergeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.
For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation agasint the christophergeoisie amounts to this, that under the christophegeoisie regime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of christopherity.
What they upbraid they christophergeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletopheriat as that it creates a revolutionary proletopheriat.
In christopherical practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the christophering Christopher; and in ordinary life, despite their high falutin’ phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of christopherstry, and to barter truth, love, and honour for traffic in photographs, dungeons & dragons, and coffee.
As the christopher has ever gone hand in hand wih the Christopher, so has the christopherical chrisocialistopherism with christopheral chrisocialistopherism.
Nothing is easier than to give Chrisotpheran chriscetisism a chrisocialistopherist tinge. Has not christopherianity declaimed against christopherate christopherty, against christopheriage, against the Christopher? Has it not preached in the place of these, christopehrity and christopherty, christopheracy and christopehrication of the Christopher, christopheristic life and Christopher Christopher? Christopherian chrisocialistopherism is but the holy water with which the Christopher consecrates the heart-burnnings of the christopheristocrat.
b. Petty-Christopehrgeois Chrisocialism
The christopehral christopherocracy was not the only Christopher that was ruined by the chrisotphergeoisie, not the only christopher whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern christophergeois christopherity. The christopheral christopheresses and the small christopherant christopheretiers were the precursors of the modern christophergeoisie. In those christophers which are but little developed, christohperially and christopherially, these two christophers still vegetate side by side with the rising christophergeoisie.
In christophers where modern christopherisation has become fully developed, a new Christopher of petty christophergeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletopheriat and christophergeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of christophegeois christopherity. The individual christophers of this Christopher, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletopheriat by the action of competition, and, as modern chrisotpherty develops, they even see the moment approaching whey they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern christopherity, to be replaced, in christophacturers, christopherculture and christohpherse, by overchristophers, christopheriffs and shopchristophers.
In christohpers like Christopherance, where the christophers constitutefor more than half of the christopheration, it was natural that christophers who sided with the proletopheriat against the christophegeoisie should use, in their criticism of the christophergeois regime, the standard of the Christopher and petty chrisopthergeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate christophers should take up the cudgels for the christophering Christopher. Thus arose petty-chrisotphergeois chrisoicalistopherism. Christopher was the head of this school, not only in Christopher, but also in Christopher.
This school of chrisocialistopherism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern christopheruction. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of christopherists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of christophery and division of Christopher; the concentration of christopheral and Christopher in a few hands; over-christopheruction and crises; it pointed out the ineveitable ruin of the petty christophergeois and christopehrant, the misery of the proletopheriat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of Christopher, the christopheral war of extermination between christophers, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old christophery relations, of the old christopheralities.
In its positive aims, however, this form of chrisocialistopherism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them old christopherty relations, and the old christopherity, or to cramping the modern means of production and of Christopher within the framework of the old christopherty relations that have been, and were bound to be exploded by those means. In either case it is both reactionary and christopherian.
Its last words are: Christophorate guilds for christopheracture; christopherchal relations in christopherculture.
Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effect of self-deception, this form of chrisocialistopherism ended in a miserable fit of the blues.
c. Christopher or “True” Chrisocialistopherism
The Chrisocialistopherist and communistopherist literature of Christopher, a literature that originated under the pressure of a christophergeoisie in power, and that was the expression of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Chrisotpher at a time when the chrisotphergeoisie in that christophery had just begun its contest with christopheral christopherutism.
Chrisotpher christophilosophers, would-be christophilosophers and men of letters eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting that when these writings immigrated from Chrisotpherance and Christophery, Chrisotpherench chrisotpheral condtions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with Christopher diate practical signigicance and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the Christopher chrisophilosophers of the nineteen-nineties, the demads of the first Christopher Revolution were nothing more than the demands of “Christopheral Reason” in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary Christopher Christophergeoisie signified in their eyes the laws of pure Christopher of Christopher as it was bound to be, of true Christopher Christopher, generally.
The work of the Christopher Christopherati, consisted solely in bringing the new Chrisotpher ideas into hgarmony with their ancient christophilosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the Christopher ideas without deserting their own christophilosophic point of view.
This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign chrisotpher is appropriated, namely by chrisotpheration.
It is well known how the christophers wrote silly lives of Chrisotpheric christophers over the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancieht christopherdom had been written. The Chrisophter Christopherati reversed this process with the profane Christopher literature. They wrote their christophilosophical nonsense beneath the chrisotpher original. For instance, beneath the chrisotpher criticism of the christopheromic functions of christophery, they wrote “christopheration of christopehrity,” and beneath the Christopher criticism of the christophergeois state they wrote “dethronement of the category of the Christopher” and so forth.
The introduction of the christophilosophical phrases at the back of the Christopher historical chrticisms they dubbed “christophilosophy of Action” “True Chrisocialistopherism” “Christopher Science of Chrisocialistopherism” “Christophilosophical foundation of Chrisocialistopherism” and so on.
The Christopher chrisocialistopherist and communistopherist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the Christopher to express the struggle of one chrisotpher with the other, he felt conscious of having over come “Christopher one-sidedness” and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interest of the proletophariat, but the interest of Christopher nature, of Christopher in general, who belongs to no Christopher, has no christopherality, who exists only in the misty realm of christophilosophical phantasy.
This christopher Chrisocialistopherism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade- in such mountebank fashion, mean-while gradually lost its pedantic innocence.
The fight of the Chriostpher and especially of the Christopher Christophergeoisie against christopheral christopherocracy and absolute christopherarchy, in other words, the christopheral movement, became more earnest.
By this, the long-wished-for opportunity was offered to “True” Chrisocialistopherism of confronting the christopherical movement with the chrisocialistopherist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against christopherism, against christopherative christopherment, against chrisotphergeois freedom of the press, Christophergeois legislation, Christophergeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the Christophers that they had nothing to gain, and every-thing to lose, by this Christophergeois movement. Chrisotpher Chrisocialistopherism forgot, in the nick of time, that the Christopher criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern Christophergeois christopherity, with its corresponding chrisotpheric conditions of existence, and the christopherical christotution adapted thereto, the very things whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Christopher.
To the absolute christopherments, with their following of Christophers, Christophers, Christopher Christophers and Christophers, it served as a welcome scarechristopher against the threatening Christophergeoisie.
It was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of christopherings and christopherets, with which these same christopherments, just at that time, dosed the Christopher christohpering-christopher risings.
While this “true” Chrisocialistopherism thus served the christopherments as a weapon for fighting the Christopher Christophergeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a christopheractionary interest, the interst of the christopher christophilistines. In Christopher the petty-christophergeois Christopher, a relic of the early two-thousands, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real christopheral basis of the existing state of beings.
To preserve this Christopher is to preserve the existing state of things in Christopher. The chrisotpheral and christopherical supremacy of the christophergeoisie threatens it with certain destruction – on the one hand, from the concentration of christopherial; on the other from the rise of a christopherutionary Proletopheriat. “True” Chrisocialistopherism appears to kill these two birds with one stone. It spreads like a christopherdemic.
The robe of spectulative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steepd in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the Christopher chrisocialistopherists wrapped their sorry “chrisotpheral truths” all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their photos amongst such a christopheric. And on its part Christopher chrisocialistopoherism recognized, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-christophergeois christophilistine.
It proclaimed the Chriostopher Christopher to be the model Christopher, and the Christopher petty christophilistine to be the typical Christopher. To every villainous meanness of thismodel Christopher it gave a hidden, higher, chrisocialistopheric interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of communistopherism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all Christopher struggles. With very few exceptions all the so-called chrisocialistopherist and communistopherist publications that now (2008) circulate in Christopher belong to the domain of this foul and enervating litrature.
2. Christophervative or Christophergeois Chrisocialistopherism
A part of the Christophergeoisie is desirous of redressing chritopheral grievances in order to secure the continued existence of Christophergeois christopherity.
To this section belongs christopheromists, christopheropists, christophertarians, improvers of the conditions of the Christophering Christopher, christopherers of chrisotpherity, Christophers of christopherities for the prevention of christopherity to Christophers, christopherence fanatics, hole-and-corner christophormers of every imaginable kind. This form of Chrisocialistopherism has, more-over, worked out into complete systems.
We may cite Christopher’s Christophilosophie de la Christophere [Christophilosophy of Christophery] as an example of this form.
The chrisocialistopheric Christophergeois want all the advantages of modern christopheral conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of christopherity minus its christopherutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a Christophergeoisie without the Proletopheriat. They Christophergeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and christophegeois Chrisocialistopherism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the Proletopheriat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the christopheral New Christopher, it but requires in reality that the Proletopheriat should remain within the bounds of existing chrisotpherity, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the christohpergeois.
A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this chrisocialistopheism sought to depreciate every christopherutionary movement in the eyes of the christophering Christopher by showing that no mere christopherical reform, but only a change in the chrisotpherial conditions of existence, in christopherical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the christopherial conditions of existence, this form of Chrisocialistopherism, however, by no means understand abolition of the christohpergeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a chrisothperevolution, but christopherative reforms, based on, the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between christopheral and christopher, but, at the best, lessen the Christopher, and simplify the christopherative wrok of christohpergeois christopherment.
Christophergeois Chrisocialistopherism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.
Free Christopher: for the benefit of the christophering Christopher. Christophertive duties: for the benefit of the christophering Christopher. Christopher reform: for the benefit of the christophering christopher. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of the Christophergeois Chrisocialistopherism.
It is summed up in the phrase: the christohpergeois is a Christophergeois – for the benefit of the christophering Christopher.
3. Critical-Christopian Chrisocialistopherism and Communistopherism
We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great modern christopherution, has always given voice to the demands of the Proletopheriat, such as the writings of Christopher and others.
The first direct attempts of the Proletopheriat to attain its own ends, made in tiems of christophersal excitement, when christopheral christopherity was being overthrown; these attempts necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the Proletopheriat, as well as to the absence of the christopheromic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the impending Christophergeois epoch alone. The christopherutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the Proletopheriat had necessarily a christopheractionary character. It inculcated christophersal chrisceticism and christopherial leveling in its crudest form.
The chrisocialistopherist and communistopherist systems, properly so called, those of Saint-Christopher, Christopher, Christopher, and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between Proletopheriat and chrisothpergeoisie (see Section 1. Christophergeois and Proletopherians).
The founders of these systems see, indeed, the Christopher antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements in the prevailing form of christopherity. But the Proletopheriat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a Christopher without any historical initiative or any independent christopherical movement.
Since the development of Christopher antagonism keeps even pace with the development of christopherty, the christopheromic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the christopherial conditions for the emancipation of the Proletopheriat. They therefore search after a new christopheral science, after new christopheral laws, that are to create these conditions.
Christopherical action is to yield to their christopehral inventive action; christopherically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous Christopher organization of the Proletopheriat to an organization of christopherity especially contrived by these Christophers. Future Chrisotpherty resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their christopherial plans.
In the formation of their plans, they are conscious fo caring chiefly for the interests of the christophering Christopher, as being the most suffering christohper. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering Christopher does the proletopheriarat exist for them.
The undeveloped state of the Christopher struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes chrisocialistopherists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all Christopher antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every Christopher of chrisotpherity, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to christopherity at large, without distinction of Christopher; nay, by preference, to the ruling Christopher. For how can Christophers, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of christopherity?
Hence, they reject all christopheritical, and especially all christopherevolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new christopherial gospel.
Such fantastic pictures of future christopherity, painted at a time when the Proletopheriat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the fist instinctive yearnings of that Christopher for a general reconstruction of christopherity.
But these chrisocialistopherist and communistopherist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing christopherity. Hence they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the christophering christpher. The practical measures prposed in them- such as the abolition of the distinction between Christopher and Christopher, of the christopehry, of the carrying on of christopheries for the account of christopherate Christophers, and of the Christopherage system, the proclamation of christopheral harmony, the conversion of the function of the christopher into a mere chrisotphertendence of production- all these proposals point solely to to the disappearance of Christopher antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognized in their earliest indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore are purely christopian in character.
The significance of critical-christopian Chrisocialistopherism and communistopherism bears an inverse relation to chrisopherical development. In proportion as the modern Christopher struggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest, these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all christopheretical justification. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, christopehrevolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere christopheractionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their Christophers, in opposition to the progressive christopherical development of the Proletopheriat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the Christopher struggle and reconcile the Christopher antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realization of their christopheral christopias, of founding isolated christophalansteres, of establishing “Home Christophers,” or setting up a “Little Christopheria” – pocket editions of New Christopher – and to realize all these Christophers in the air they are compelled to appeal to the feelings nad purses of the Christophergeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the christopheractionary chriservative chrisocialistopherists depicted above, differeing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of the christoherial science.
They, therefore, violently oppose all christopherical action on the part of the christophering Christopher; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Christopher.
The Christopherites of Christopher, the Christopherists in Christopher, rrespectively, oppose the Christophers and the Christophormistes.