The
occasion of the birthday of one who was ‘made’ a ‘leader’,
and who features on the second Standard piece here, is an
opportunity to once more look at the purpose of ‘leaders.’
Spoiler alert; the SPGB has, since its inception in 1904, been agin
‘em. There are many memes on social media which show sheep being
persuaded to elect a wolf where the wolf makes promises not to eat
the sheep. There are, including up to the present day, many examples
of ‘leaders’ promising one or more things to get elected and then
doing a one eighty turn. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice,
shame on me. The majority working class has let itself be fooled far
far too many times.
From
the August 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard
‘The
tragedy for Socialists is the manner in which the Nazi movement
captured the minds and support of the German masses. Many factors
contributed towards this end, but one thing stands out above all
else, the misunderstanding of the principles of Socialism. Had this
not been so there would not, and could not, have been a mass
following for the spurious National Socialism. Throughout the world
this method is being employed. Why does it succeed? Because the
Labour, Communist and Social Democratic organisations are daily
filling the minds of the workers with reformist notions and labelling
them Socialism. Thus is provided the foundations of illusion. It is
absurd to ask German workers not to believe false ideas, whilst
workers everywhere else are taught to believe them. If it is wrong
for the workers of Germany to believe blindly in a leader called
Hitler, then it is equally wrong for the workers of Russia to believe
blindly in one called Stalin, or the workers of Britain in one called
MacDonald. This belief in a “Leader” is one fostered through the
ages and aided by the reactionary as well as reformist sections. On
one occasion, whilst lecturing in Manchester, the writer was asked by
a young man, “Who is your leader?” His attendance at other
meetings had left him with a psychological reflex resulting in this
one question.
A
century ago Thomas Carlyle laid down the fashion followed a few years
later by Emerson in
his “Representative Men,” which reaches its height in Hitler as
the “Fuehrer.” From this comes the story of the “self-made
man,” as does “Dick Whittington,” and has served Capitalism
well as a theme to delude the worker with the belief that he could do
it, and so adroitly sidetracking the workers’ class outlook.
Individuals there are, of outstanding ability, who, given suitable
conditions, stand out as historic figures and may become a Karl Marx
or a Charles
Peace,
but only under the suitable conditions. The world has yet to produce
“great” men who can make a fortune selling ice-cream in
Greenland. How does Hitler fit in with this? Is he one of Carlyle’s
“heroes,” or one of Emerson’s “representative” men?
Demosthenes, in his “First Phillipic,” says it would make no
difference if Philip were to die, because, if the Athenians acted as
they had been doing, they would soon raise up against them another
Philip.
Hitler
had a secondary school education, had a taste for drawing, considered
himself an artist, went to an art school and failed to pass the
examination necessary to go further. He was a builder’s labourer,
painter and paper-hanger, and lived a down-at-heels life in Vienna
and Germany until the outbreak of war in 1914. Now, here was a “born”
leader who should have made a fortune and become a power, because,
according to conventional ideas, he had it in him. In spite of all
the sacredness of his ego, he managed in four years to become, not a
General, but only a Corporal. Turn again, Dick Whittington.
The
collapse of the Kaiser’s Germany gave a shock to the officer caste.
They realised the Army’s position in the nation could no longer be
taken for granted. They must exert influence in civilian life by
political support, spies, propagandists and political agents of their
own. They sent Hitler as their spy, and for propaganda to the public
houses in Munich, then under an ill-starred Soviet. When the Army
reconquered the city, Hitler’s information sent many Communists and
others before a firing squad. He was next sent to spy on the tiny
groups formed by Gregor
Strasser,
known as the German Workers’ Party. He introduced numerous members
(private soldiers specially sent) and swamped the group, changing its
name to the one now known as Nazi. The first Defence Troop,
forerunner of the S.A. (Storm Abteilung) was organised by a paid
soldier, whilst the money needed to buy for the party (and Hitler)
their own paper (The
Beobachter)
was raised and supplied by the officer commanding the Munich
Army, General
von Epp.
Thus Hitler had “greatness” thrust upon him. He was not Carlyle’s
“hero,” but, due to the foregoing suitable conditions, became an
Emerson “representative man.” There stood behind him a national
force, the officers of the Army, and on their wings he soared upward.
He fished in troubled waters, using the years 1922-1923 of currency
depreciation to further his growth. From 1924 to 1929 no progress was
made by Hitler, because a moderate but distinct period of
“prosperity” showed itself, and in the election prior to
obtaining power, Hitler dropped over a million votes. Then came the
economic blizzard of 1932-1933. The small investor and business man
was swamped; suitable conditions again prevailed; the Big Business
needed him and his party, and Hitler turned again to become what he
is, not a “born” leader, but a representative man, representing
unbridled rapacity. He did not make, he was made.’Lew.
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/04/on-leaders-1940.html
From
the April 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard,
edited.
‘The
Greek phrase "an-archon" or "no leader" gave us
the word "anarchy". Yet "anarchy" to most people
is another name for chaos, or disorder. The assumption is that
without leaders, there can be no civilisation. Our contention is the
opposite. Leaders, and the followers who create them, are holding us
back from any real global civilisation.
Think
what some of these leaders have accomplished for humanity. Hitler,
Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Margaret Thatcher, Mao Tse Tung,
Saddam Hussein--it would be perverse indeed to claim that such
leaders have benefited the human species, and yet stubbornly the
leadership cult persists. Anyone can write a long list of "bad
leaders". But try writing a list of "good leaders" and
see how far you get.
The world is obsessed by leaders and
leadership. Corruption charge may follow sex scandal in the halls of
power, and it doesn't seem to matter how many political, religious or
other leaders are exposed as liars and frauds, nothing seems to dent
the idea of leadership as a practical and reliable method of
organising human affairs. The evidence may say differently, the
individuals in real life may be as bent as a rubber shilling but the
principle of leadership is still considered perfectly valid. Is this
because we believe that some (mostly) men are just superhuman, or
because we are over-rating the few and under-rating the many?
...
There is nothing in the human brain that inclines it to subservience.
Nor is there a "must-dominate" gland. Attempts by so-called
Social Darwinists to justify our terrible oppression of ourselves as
natural and correct have long been discredited, while efforts by some
modern sociobiologists to do essentially the same have also been
severely attacked. To imagine, as did the Social Darwinists, that
evolution is entirely a process of merciless competition is to take
no account of the alternative and co-operative tactics nature also
employs, while to suggest, as do some sociobiologists, that our genes
may dictate our behaviour and therefore our culture (including
leadership culture), is merely to sit down very heavily on one end of
that old see-saw, the Nature-Nurture argument, and hope the riders at
the end fall off.
Each of us can be our own leader. The
greatest command is that over oneself. Our capitalist world,
controlled by a few rich people and their minions, has done its level
best to school out of us the very things which make us such a great
species in the first place--initiative, experimentation, imagination,
diversity. But society can't reduce us, because it is attempting a
self-inflicted wound. The rich need us to be smart to run their
wealth-collection system for them, but they try to keep us in our
place by browbeating us and treating us like children. It won't work
for ever, even if it seems to be working at the moment.
The
leaders we are asked to support, and sometimes choose between, are a
myth, created and maintained by--leaders. They are poor examples of
honesty, integrity, even of humanity. They are not interested in
truth, justice, or any of the grand notions they spout about. They
exist, have always existed, will always exist, for one purpose only:
to line their own pockets and empty yours. They are parasites on the
social body, unwanted, unnecessary and destructive. To follow leaders
is to hand over your heart on a platter, with knife and fork
attached. It is an admission of defeat, acceptance that you are
inadequate, in and of yourself. It is an act of submission and indeed
an act of cowardice unworthy of the human animal.
To
refuse to follow leaders is a liberating step, one which the working
class has yet to take. When we realise that the post-scarcity world
can be run very efficiently and healthily by democratic co-operation,
that our own lives would be vastly better without states,
governments, police, and all the trappings of leadership, we will
collectively be in a position to make that step. And then we will see
a revolution unprecedented in history.
The Socialist Party
has no leaders in fact or theory. Socialism wouldn't operate that way
and neither do we. All decisions are made by common vote, all
administration is above-board and open to inspection, and all work is
voluntary. None of us is perfect, and that's why democracy works
better than leadership. Mistakes by one person are not disasters for
the many. Private interests don't count. Power doesn't exist.
Socialists are their own leaders, and they follow nobody but
themselves.
In Shakespeare's Hamlet, Polonius
advises Laertes: "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."
Socialists, having to truck with the money system in any case, would
instead offer the following injunction: "Neither a follower, nor
a leader be." So the next time you are asked to vote for a
leader, do yourself a big favour. Don't.’
Paddy
Shannon
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2009/12/never-follower-be.html
