The Thinking Reed

When he turns his attention to utopias, Tsipko does not merely criticize them. Whereas Karyakin concentrated primarily on the ideas of barracks-Communism as put into practice by Stalin, Tsipko, on the contrary, stresses that democratic ideas were also present in utopian socialism. It was these that Marx utilized, while rejecting the means proposed by the Utopians. Thus the defect of the utopias is not that they are unrealizable but that their realization leads to consequences quite different from what had been hoped. In so far as the corresponding means are not available, ‘the demand for freedom of association is a declaration rather than a practical principle’.72 At the same time, Marxists must strive towards a society wherein ‘the genuine and free development of individuals ceases to be a mere phrase’.73

Tsipko’s book replied to the very questions that had been raised by Shafarevich. The censorship situation renders unthinkable either an open polemic (opposing a dissident in a legal publication means siding with the rulers) or a clear-cut formulation of one’s replies. But replies were certainly given, albeit only in descriptive form. Tsipko’s work shows that Shafarevich not only confused the Asiatic mode of production with socialism but also social utopias with socialist ones.74 Tsipko’s historical approach reveals that many utopian projects, which to us seem despotic, left the individual more freedom than did the actual society of their time. In general, he seeks to ‘rehabilitate’ the humanist utopia, defending it against Soviet dogmatists — from whom, incidentally, Shafarevich borrowed his general treatment of the problem. However, the merit of Tsipko’s book is that he neither praises nor curses utopia, but looks at the idea objectively. He shows that the ideology of barracks-Communism is formed by proclaiming extreme means as its ultimate aim, and normal socialist practice as a retreat from the ideal, and raises the question of how to avoid such ‘degeneration’. Tsipko sees the development of culture and democracy in production as guarantees against totalitarianism. The one is closely bound up with the other, and without them there can be no socialism:

An indispensable condition for the socialization of the means of production is socialization of the management of production and assimilation of all the achievements of civilization and culture by the working people themselves. Only when the direct producer takes a very active part in the organization and management of production can we count on the awakening in him of the sentiments of a master of production, and thereby the establishment of a new, direct bond between him and the nationalized means of production.75

The abolition of private property leads to socialism only if it be complemented by a ‘restructuring of society as a whole in the interests of the development of the human personality’.76 But the new socialist ‘mechanism’ will not function without a great number of civilized people, bearers of up-to-date culture. Clearly present-day Soviet society, in which there is neither self-management in production nor political freedom, fails to correspond to the principles of socialism enunciated here. In Tsipko’s opinion, however, the development of culture sharply increases the chances of a socialist transformation. Culture makes possible the overcoming of utopian illusions, which are fraught with much danger.