Introducing Logocracy
First entry in this world-first presentation of Lobaczewski's final book
Beginning with this post I will be presenting preliminary translations1 (with some commentary) from Dr. Andrew Lobaczewski’s final book, Logocracy: A Concept of the State System.
So here’s Lobaczewki’s preface, or “From the Author,” wherein the good doctor introduces his theme and presents the motivation and intent behind his work. (I left a good chunk above the paywall on this one.)
From the Author
Such an idea and the beginning of my deliberations on whether it would be possible to create a state system that would be better than all past systems—better than democracy, because it would be based on modern scientific knowledge—came to my mind one spring day in 1973.2
At the time, I was working as a psychologist at a mental health clinic in Chorzów. Those were times of relative stability under the system commonly known as “communism,” which I already then regarded without a doubt as a macrosocial pathological phenomenon. Understanding the true content of this phenomenon and getting to know the nature of the psychological anomalies that played a leading role in it was, in my opinion, the main objective I should serve. In complete secrecy, I continued the work which had been started somewhere in the late fifties and early sixties by scholars of the past generation from several countries. I was looking for ways to transfer this knowledge—so necessary at that time—to the West, but my possibilities proved insufficient.
As if from a secondary reflection on those results, this new idea was born. I wrote an elaboration on the possibility of devising a better state system, which my friends read, but at that time there was no question of publishing it. In the autumn of 1977, I already knew that someone had informed the secret police about my beliefs. A psychologist researching the pathology of the ruling system could not even count on any form of trial. He could only count on some “accident at work.” I managed to anticipate their decisions and find myself abroad.
There were a number of reasons why, towards the end of my stay in the United States, and despite the many difficulties I encountered, I returned to this almost forgotten idea. An analysis of the changes that were taking place in the world and in the Soviet Union at that time, in the light of that knowledge of the nature of such a system, led me to the conviction that this macrosocial pathological phenomenon—completely misunderstood in America—was approaching its natural end. The problem of reconstructing a healthy social system, in countries freed from such rule, would therefore soon face the Polish nation and other nations in all its dramatic realism. At that time I did not believe that democracy could provide us with a quick return to social health.
Observing life and politics in a country so different from the rest of the world as the United States of America has taught me to see beyond the established archetypes of understanding and beyond the preached doctrines. For beyond such a façade of democracy, one must be able to discern the extremely complex biological, psychological, social, and economic realities, as well as the workings of domestic and international special interest and pressure groups. In such a different world, which does not know the concept of “society,” there arises the need to return to one’s own country and its long history, to its social bonds and to a way of thinking which is closer to that of many other nations.
Another reason for my return to this work was the reading of a number of works then unavailable in Poland. I was also able to deepen my earlier studies of the history of the interwar period. In particular, I tried to understand the difficult process that a nation had to go through to regain self-government after years of bondage. What happened in Poland in those years after the First World War was a typical example of these difficulties. I also knew that this time the process would be even more complicated, because human personalities would be permeated by the effects of the influence of a pathological system, which might be understandable to an experienced psychologist, but not to most—even educated—people.
So I decided to recreate that job from memory, supplementing it with newly acquired knowledge. I worked under difficult conditions, sometimes slyly in the childcare office where I was employed. This is how the second version of this work was created. Having returned to Poland in 1990, I immediately made efforts to publish it. Probably the publisher at that time informed the secret decision-making centers that the work was dangerous for them. The appropriate instructions meant that its distribution encountered obstacles that were difficult for me to understand at the time.
It has been 10 years of painful experience for the nation and for me. When I analyze this difficult process today, despite the appearance that we are moving in the opposite direction, I come to believe that we are approaching a time when our nation will accept both the true knowledge of the past pathopolitical system and the need to create a modern, efficient social and state system based on the eternal laws of nature and on modern scientific knowledge. However, time must still pass. I will be gone, but the logocracy will be.
In the meantime, however, this new system concept has become partially outdated. Today the situation as seen from Poland seems different, because new problems have arisen. For this reason, now that I am an old man, I have taken up the task of working out the issue again in an even more mature form, enriching the justification and updating the proposed solutions.
I tried to find help among scholars who could point out the shortcomings of my work and offer advice. Meanwhile, I have met only with criticism because I have violated the dogma of democracy, which states that the right to participate in political activity is given to man by nature. So I ask, isn’t the obvious incompatibility of this dogma with psychological reality sufficient proof of the unreality of democratic principles? To this I received no answer.
Therefore, the present work remained entirely my own work. So I ask you, my readers, to forgive me for all the shortcomings resulting from such solitude. In spite of my shortcomings, I hope that it will be helpful to people who will one day undertake the task of creating a modern, efficient state system for our future and as an example to others.3
Note: This work is a project of QFG/FOTCM and is planned to be published in book form soon.
If it’s ever published, the translation will be refined by a native Polish speaker. For now, we must make do with the wonders of human (i.e. me)-assisted machine translation.
Lobaczewski makes references to logocracy throughout Political Ponerology, particularly in its last chapter. As he writes there (p. 331): “A careful reading of this book may cause us to discern the outlines of a creative vision of such a future societal system so sorely needed by nations suffering under pathocratic rule; if so, this represents a reward for the author’s effort rather than the result of pure chance. Just such a vision accompanied me throughout the period of my work on this book (although the latter nowhere indicates a name nor any more precise details for it), rendering assistance and proving a useful support in the future. In some way, it is thus present on the pages and between the lines of this work.”
This preface is undated. While the Polish edition of the book was only published shortly before Lobaczewki died in 2007, the revised manuscript was probably completed around the year 2000 or 2001, judging by his time references here, though it’s possible he continued to revise it into the 2000s.