Produced by Fritz Ohrenschall, Stephanie Eason, and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net.
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)
New Edition (enlarged) TWO PENCE
The Place of Anarchism
in Socialistic Evolution
An Address delivered in Paris
BY
PIERRE KROPOTKIN
Translated by HENRY GLASSE
AN APPEAL TO THE YOUNG
By Pierre Kropotkin
PRICE - - - 2d.
WILLIAM REEVES 83 CHARING CROSS ROAD,
BOOKSELLER LIMITED. --LONDON, W.C.2.--
THE PLACE OF ANARCHISM IN SOCIALISTIC EVOLUTION
PART I.
You must often have asked yourselves what is the cause of Anarchism, and
why, since there are already so many Socialist schools, it is necessary
to found an additional one--that of Anarchism. In order to answer this
question I will go back to the close of last century.
You all know the characteristics which marked that epoch: there was an
expansion of intelligence, a prodigious development of the natural
sciences, a pitiless examination of accepted prejudices, the formation
of a theory of Nature based on a truly scientific foundation,
observation and reasoning. In addition to these there was criticism of
the political institutions bequeathed to Humanity by preceding ages, and
a movement towards that ideal of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity which
has in all times been the ideal of the popular masses. Fettered in its
free development by despotism and by the narrow selfishness of the
privileged classes, this movement, being at the same time favoured by an
explosion of popular indignation, engendered the Great Revolution which
had to force its way through the midst of a thousand obstacles both
without and within.
The Revolution was vanquished, but its ideas remained. Though at first
persecuted and derided, they became the watchword for a whole century of
slow evolution. The history of the nineteenth century is summed up in an
effort to put in practice the principles elaborated at the end of last
century: this is the lot of revolutions: though vanquished they
establish the course of the evolution which follows them. In the domain
of politics these ideas are abolition of aristocratic privileges,
abolition of personal government, and equality before the law. In the
economic order the Revolution proclaimed freedom of business
transactions; it said--"Sell and buy freely. Sell, all of you, your
products, if you can produce, and if you do not possess the implements
necessary for that purpose but have only your arms to sell, sell them,
sell your labour to the highest bidder, the State will not interfere!
Compete among yourselves, contractors! No favour shall be shown, the law
of natural selection will take upon itself the function of killing off
those who do not keep pace with the progress of industry, and will
reward those who take the lead."
The above is at least the _theory_ of the Revolution of 1789, and if the
State intervenes in the struggle to favour some to the detriment of
others, as we have lately seen when the monopolies of mining and railway
companies have been under discussion, such action is regarded by the
liberal school as a lamentable deviation from the grand principles of
the Revolution.
What has been the result? You know only too well, both women and men,
idle opulence for a few and uncertainty for the morrow and misery for
the greater number; crisis and wars for the conquest of markets, and a
lavish expenditure of public money to find openings for industrial
speculators. All this is because in proclaiming liberty of contract an
essential point was neglected by our fathers. Not but what some of them
caught sight of it, the best of them earnestly desired but did not dare
to realise it. While liberty of transactions, that is to say a conflict
between the members of society, was proclaimed, the contending parties
were not equally matched, and the powerful, armed for the contest by the
means inherited from their fathers, have gained the upper hand over the
weak. Under such conditions the millions of poor ranged against a few
rich could not do otherwise than give in.
Comrades! you have often asked yourselves--"Whence comes the wealth of
the rich? Is it from their labour?" It would be a mockery to say that it
was so. Let us suppose that M. Rothschild has worked all his life: well,
you also, every one of you working men have also laboured: then why
should the fortune of M. Rothschild be measured by hundreds of millions
while your possessions are so small? The reason is simple: you have
exerted yourselves to produce by your own labour, while M. Rothschild
has devoted himself to accumulating the product of the labour of
others--the whole matter lies in that.
But some one may say to me;--"How comes it that millions of men thus
allow the Rothschilds and the Mackays to appropriate the fruit of their
labour?" Alas, they cannot help themselves under the existing social
system! But let us picture to our minds a city all of whose inhabitants
find their lodging, clothing, food and occupation secured to them, on
condition of producing things useful to the community, and let us
suppose a Rothschild to enter this city bringing with him a cask full of
gold. If he spends his gold it will diminish rapidly; if he locks it up
it will not increase, because gold does not grow like seed, and after
the lapse of a twelvemonth he will not find L110 in his drawer if he
only put L100 into it. If he sets up a factory and proposes to the
inhabitants of the town that they should work in it for four shillings a
day while producing to the value of eight shillings a day they
reply--"Among us you'll find no one willing to work on those terms. Go
elsewhere and settle in some town where the unfortunate people have
neither clothing, bread, nor work assured to them, and where they will
consent to give up to you the lion's share of the result of their labour
in return for the barest necessaries of life. Go where men starve! there
you will make your fortune!"
The origin of the wealth of the rich is your misery. Let there be no
poor, then we shall have no millionaires.
The facts I have just stated were such as the Revolution of last century
did not comprehend or else could not act upon. That Revolution placed
face to face two opposing ranks, the one consisting of a hungry,
ill-clad army of former serfs, the other of men well provided with
means. It then said to these two arrays--"Fight out your battle." The
unfortunate were vanquished. They possessed no fortunes, but they had
something more precious than all the gold in the world--their arms; and
these arms, the source of all wealth, were monopolised by the wealthy.
Thus we have seen those immense fortunes which are the characteristic
feature of our age spring up on all sides. A king of the last century,
"the great Louis the Fourteenth" of mercenary historians, would never
have dreamed of possessing a fortune such as are held by those kings of
the nineteenth century, the Vanderbilts and the Mackays.
On the other hand we have seen the poor reduced still more and more to
toil for others, and while those who produced on their own account have
rapidly disappeared, we find ourselves compelled under an ever
increasing pressure to labour more and more to enrich the rich.
Attempts have been made to remove these evils. Some have said--"Let us
give equal instruction to all," and forthwith education has been spread
abroad. Better human machines have been turned out, but these educated
machines still labour to enrich others. This illustrious scientist, that
renowned novelist, despite their education are still beasts of burden to
the capitalist. Instruction improves the cattle to be exploited but the
exploitation remains. Next, there was great talk about association, but
the workers soon learned that they could not get the better of capital
by associating their miseries, and those who cherished this illusion
most earnestly were compelled to turn to Socialism.
Timid, at the outset, Socialism spoke at first in the name of Christian
sentiment and morality: men profoundly imbued with the moral principles
of Christianity--principles which it possesses in common with all other
religions--came forward and said--"A Christian has no right to exploit
his brethren!" But the ruling classes laughed in their faces with the
reply--"Teach the people Christian resignation, tell them in the name of
Christ that they should offer their left cheek to whosoever smites them
on the right, then you will be welcome; as for the dreams of equality
which you find in Christianity, go and meditate on your discoveries in
prison."
Later on Socialism spoke in the name of Governmentalism; it said--"Since
it is the special mission of the State to protect the weak against the
strong, it is its duty to aid working men's associations; the State
alone can enable working men to fight against capital and to oppose to
capitalistic exploitation the free workshop of workers pocketing the
entire value of the produce of their labour." To this the Bourgeoisie
replied with grapeshot in 1848.
It was not until between twenty to thirty years later, at a time when
the popular masses were invited to express their mind in the
International Working Men's Association, that Socialism spoke in the
name of the people, and formulating itself little by little in the
Congresses of the great Association and later on among its successors,
arrived at some such conclusion as the following:
All accumulated wealth is the product of the labour of all--of the
present and of all preceding generations. This hall in which we are now
assembled derives its value from the fact that it is situated in
Paris--this magnificent city built by the labours of twenty successive
generations. If this same hall were conveyed amid the snows of Siberia
its value would be next to nothing. The machinery which you have
invented and patented bears within itself the intelligence of five or
six generations and is only possessed of value because it forms part of
that immense whole that we call the progress of the nineteenth century.
If you send your lace-making machine among the natives of New Guinea it
will become valueless. We defy any man of genius of our times to tell us
what share his intellect has had in the magnificent deductions of the
book, the work of talent which he has produced! Generations have toiled
to accumulate facts for him, his ideas have perhaps been suggested to
him by a locomotive crossing the plains, as for elegance of design he
has grasped it while admiring the Venus of Milo or the work of Murillo,
and finally, if his book exercises any influence over us, it does so,
thanks to all the circumstances of our civilisation.
Everything belongs to all! We defy anyone soever to tell us what share
of the general wealth is due to each individual. See the enormous mass
of appliances which the nineteenth century has created; behold those
millions of iron slaves which we call machines, and which plane and saw,
weave and spin for us, separate and combine the raw materials, and work
the miracles of our times. No one has the right to monopolise any one of
these machines and to say to others--"This is mine, if you wish to make
use of it you must pay me a tax on each article you produce," any more
than the feudal lord of the middle ages had the right to say to the
cultivator--"This hill and this meadow are mine and you must pay me
tribute for every sheaf of barley you bind, and on each haycock you heap
up."
All belongs to everyone! And provided each man and woman contributes his
and her share of labour for the production of necessary objects, they
have a right to share in all that is produced by everybody.