Confessions of an Anarchist
[Illustration:
LIBERTY
_THE ANARCHIST_
LABOUR LEAF
_THE TORCH_
A Revolutionary Journal of
ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM.
The
NEW ORDER.
“_Not by Might, nor by Power, but by my Spirit, saith The Lord._”
The Anarchist
_A Revolutionary Review_
Freedom
A JOURNAL OF ANARCHIST COMMUNISM
THE
COMMONWEAL
A REVOLUTIONARY JOURNAL OF
Anarchist Communism.
SOME ANARCHIST PAPERS.
]
CONFESSIONS
OF
AN ANARCHIST
By
W. C. HART
“Last came Anarchy; he rode
On a white horse, splashed with blood;
He was pale even to the lips,
Like Death in the Apocalypse.”
SHELLEY.
LONDON
E. GRANT RICHARDS
1906
INTRODUCTORY.
The author of this work has spent some ten years among Anarchists, and
in the study of Anarchist publications. He was for some time secretary
to two Anarchist “groups,” and a well-known figure in Anarchist
circles. Besides this, he was an occasional contributor with his pen
to the _Torch of Anarchy_, _Freedom_, _The Commonweal_, _Liberty_,
and _The Alarm_. He has, consequently, some claim to be considered an
authority on the subject of which he treats.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Anarchy a Negation of Morals and Principles 1
II. Anarchists Immoral and Unprincipled 7
III. Police-paid Spies 17
IV. Anarchist “Literature” 26
V. The “Groups” 32
VI. Bomb-making 40
VII. Anarchists at Work 51
VIII. An Anarchist Conference 67
IX. Anarchist Communities 74
X. Anarchism in England: Its History,
Leaders, and Principles 89
XI. Some Anarchist Apostles 99
XII. Anarchist Precepts 123
XIII. How Anarchist Assassins are made 136
XIV. The Lighter side of Anarchism 147
XV. The Absurdities of Anarchism 160
XVI. Anarchism a Bundle of Contradictions 169
XVII. “Propaganda by Deed” 185
XVIII. Does Socialism lead to Anarchism? 192
XIX. A plea for the Suppression of Violent
Anarchist Publications 198
ILLUSTRATIONS.
Page.
Some Anarchist Papers _Frontispiece_
An Anarchist Print _To face page_ 28
Mateo Morale ” 36
“Pineapple Bomb” used against King Alfonso ” 46
A Russian Revolutionist ” 52
Luccheni ” 62
Leon Czolgosz ” 64
The “Red Virgin” of the Commune ” 120
Anarchism and Socialism ” 196
I.
ANARCHY A NEGATION OF MORALS AND PRINCIPLES.
Association with Anarchists is not calculated to inspire one with
feelings of love for such people. Rather the contrary. Lamartine, the
historian, in a fit of disgust on witnessing some extra revolting
spectacle of “man’s inhumanity to man,” is said to have exclaimed:
“The more I see of my fellow-creatures the more I respect my dog.”
Substitute “Anarchists” for “fellow-creatures,” and the phrase
admirably sums up my sentiments regarding the preachers and promoters
of Anarchy.
Happening, some years back, to become possessed of some of the writings
of Prince Kropotkin, Elisée Reclus, and other Anarchist idealists,
and being at the time of a somewhat utopian turn of mind, I became
enamoured with the Anarchist idea of “emancipating” humanity from
the “tyranny” of Parliaments, county councils and school boards, and
replacing these “useless and effete institutions” with a spanking
brand new set of arrangements, under which it was confidently expected
everything would work out the very pink of perfection. I became a
full-blown Anarchist, joined the “party,” and in course of time became
secretary, first of one Anarchist “group,” and later of another. Like
other devotees of the cult, I somehow managed to convince myself that
every evil under the sun had its source in “Government;” and, having
thus, in the Supreme Court of Anarchy, found the culprit guilty, I,
like other Anarchists, straightway pronounced sentence of death on
this “monster of iniquity,” confident in the belief that with its
abolition would disappear--_hey, presto!_ like--all the ills to which
human flesh is heir, and life on this “vale of tears” at once become
a veritable Eden _minus_ the Tempter. Disillusion followed shortly on
making closer acquaintance with the “companions.” Far from being the
“perfect beings”--“laws unto themselves”--I had pictured them in my
mind before joining the party, I found them quite the reverse. I left
them ultimately in utter disgust, they themselves having convinced me
of the folly (not to say criminality) of the whole Anarchist scheme.
And here, lest it should be said I am misrepresenting, I hasten to
confess my acquaintance with many calling themselves Anarchists whose
lives prove them to have reached as near the pinnacle of perfection as
is humanly possible. But these are merely _fancied_ Anarchists, and
not such in reality: their whole creed and life proclaiming them to
be altogether out of touch with logical Anarchist formulæ. Defining
their particular “Anarchism” as the “right of the individual to do as
he pleases, _provided that in so doing he does not infringe the like
liberty of others_,” they have nothing in common with that of the real
Anarchist--who believes in the _absolute and unrestricted_ liberty of
the individual, and the total abolition of government and authority in
all its forms--and are in reality the actual opposite of Anarchists,
for they admit, by their definition, the necessity of authority and
laws to enforce the will of society on its refractory members.
It will be said, no doubt, that to condemn an idea because of the
anti-social and criminal characteristics of its professors is both
unfair and misleading. That this would be so as regards most principles
I readily admit. But this of Anarchism is an exception, inasmuch as,
being an immoral and anti-social doctrine in itself (as I shall
prove), it follows as a natural and consequential result that, in
course of time, its practical followers must become demoralised also.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Before entering into detail, let me endeavour to substantiate my case.
Anarchism being the doctrine which affirms the sacred, sovereign,
and absolute right of the individual to do as he likes under all
circumstances, at once shuts out of court, as incompatible with its
“principles,” all governance, all organisation, all system, all ideas
of society, all order, all restraint on the evilly-disposed, all
ideas of morality--all institutions and principles, in short, which
contradistinguish civilisation from barbarism, and denote the upward
progress of man from savagedom, through slavedom and serfdom, to
present-day commercial civilisation. This is not mere assertion--the
statement carries its own proof.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, who then will be surprised to learn
that the Anarchist affirms the total irresponsibility of man; that the
individual is not accountable for his or her actions; that, to put it
in plain language, the world is a huge lunatic asylum, and all its
inmates more or less “touched”? Self-confessedly “up the pole” (to use
a vulgarism) the Anarchist, of course, pictures everyone else in the
same elevated position. George Etiévant, a prominent French Anarchist,
stole dynamite cartridges, and, on his trial, pleaded that he was
not responsible. Instead of consigning him to a lunatic asylum, the
administrators of the law sentenced him to five years’ penal servitude.
On his release, he gave further proof, if proof were needed, of the
futility of the law’s attempt to cure mental disease with imprisonment,
by stabbing two policemen whom he had never seen before, and firing
into a police-station.
Now a consequence of a belief in the non-responsibility of man is the
rejection of the idea of good and evil; of right and wrong. “There is
no justice;” writes one Anarchist, “right nor wrong; no truth; no good,
no evil.... You have no ‘rights’ except the rights you win by might....
Take what you can, and _all_ you can; and take it while you may.”
Talk to the average Anarchist of morality and he will laugh in your
face. And this reminds me. Some time back a number of Anarchists who
had been expelled from Ticino and Northern Italy arrived in London.
One of these was fond of telling how the “comrades” in Italy procured
the wherewithal to carry on the “propaganda.” A large audience would be
drawn together by means of placards to listen to an eloquent orator of
the party discourse on the deliberately chosen subject of “Anarchist
Morality,” the while others of the “comrades” scattered themselves
among the spell-bound listeners, and quietly eased them of their
watches and purses!
But to return. I have said that a logical Anarchist despises morality.
Try to reason with him, and he will argue somewhat in this strain:
“Every action of the individual, whether viewed from the orthodox moral
standpoint as good, bad, or indifferent, is really performed because
the individual cannot help performing it; _ergo_, there are no such
acts as good and bad acts--all actions are indifferent.” So that, as
was candidly admitted by a speaker at the Paris Anarchist Congress
of September, 1889, and reported in the London Anarchist Journal
_Freedom_, “_Anarchy is a negation of both morals and principles._”
II.
ANARCHISTS IMMORAL AND UNPRINCIPLED.
I have shown, on the admission of Anarchists themselves, that Anarchy
is _minus_ morals and principles; that the words “good” and “evil” are
not to be found in an Anarchist vocabulary. Putting aside the fact
that Anarchists themselves give the lie to their teaching by battling
against what they are pleased to term the “evil” of authority, I think
sufficient evidence has been adduced to warrant the assertion that
a belief in Anarchism must tend to corrupt rather than to elevate
those who embrace its doctrines. Thus it comes about that the logical
Anarchist is often a person of shady reputation. Will anyone be
surprised to learn that the Anarchist has strong objections to hard
work? Many Anarchists I have met abstain from work “on principle.” An
article in the _Sheffield Anarchist_, headed “Don’t Work,” recommended
“total abstinence,” so that industrious British workmen who like it
in plenty may have their fill. The stricture upon Anarchists as a
body, once passed in _Justice_, the organ of the Social Democratic
Federation, of being “without moral character,” is certainly accurate.
Criminals abound in the “party.” Surprising as it must appear to some
to learn that Socialists are the bitterest enemies of Anarchists and
Anarchism, yet anyone acquainted with the two theories will see at once
that this is as it should be, for Socialism is the exact opposite of
Anarchism, both in theory and tactics. The late Herr Leibknecht, the
well-known Socialist Member of the German Reichstag, once divided the
Anarchists into three divisions: (1) criminals and semi-criminals who
throw an Anarchist cloak over their crime; (2) police agents; and (3)
the defenders of so-called “propaganda by deed.” Strictly speaking,
there is another section: (4) that of the “perfect beings” I have
already mentioned; but these, as I said, are Anarchists only in name.
As to which of the four sections predominate in the party it would be
hard to say--certainly not the last-mentioned.
Class 1 comprises rogues of every description--pickpockets, “individual
expropriators” (commonly called burglars and thieves), abortionists,
professional swindlers, members of the “long firm,” _souteneurs_
(these are confined to the French and German colony in and around
Soho), dealers in bogus businesses, medical quacks (at least four can
be seen in the streets and market-places of London), makers and passers
of counterfeit coin, forgers, practisers of the “propaganda by deed”
(Anarchist phraseology for murder and theft), incendiaries who fire
houses for the insurance (some few years back this was reduced to a
fine art among the foreign Anarchists of America until discovered, and
several prominent Anarchists were sent to prison as a result), and
the various other kinds of rogue that from time to time figure in the
Criminal Courts.
At the back of a small shop in a certain street in St. Luke’s,
Clerkenwell, as choice a set of desperadoes collected as ever met
under one roof. They styled themselves the “Free Initiative Anarchist
Group.” Among its members were well-known (to the police) Anarchist
pickpockets, burglars, long firm schemers, clever jewel thieves, and so
on. Here was hatched many a successful burglary and jewel robbery. One
of the failures was the attempt of one of its members to secure £420
worth of jewels from a shop in Oxford Street by smashing the window
with a brick draped in an Anarchist newspaper. One of the favourite
dodges of the members of this “group” to secure the “needful” was to
rent a shop (or, rather, not to rent it, for they had conscientious
objections to paying rent), stock it well with empty boxes, so as to
give it the appearance of substantiality, adding a little genuine stock
procured by means of the long firm, then advertising the “business”
for sale as a well-established concern. By this means they would net
between £20 and £30 on each “business” disposed of, generally the
hard-earned savings of some working man anxious to start in business
for himself.
For nearly two years a large number of the most active members of
the German Anarchist Group of the International Working Peoples’
Association in New York City, and of the Social Revolutionary Club,
another German Anarchist organisation in that city, were persistently
engaged in getting money by insuring their property for amounts far
in excess of the real value thereof, secretly removing everything
that they could, setting fire to the premises, swearing to heavy
losses, and exacting corresponding sums from the insurance companies.
Explosion of kerosene lamps was usually the device they employed. Some
seven or eight fires, at least, of this sort were set in New York and
Brooklyn in 1884 by members of the gang, netting the beneficiaries
an aggregate profit of thousands of dollars. In 1885 nearly twenty
were set, with equally profitable results. The record for the first
three months of 1886 was six, if not more. The business was carried on
with the most astounding audacity. One of these men had his premises
insured, fired them, and presented his bill of loss to the company
within twenty-four hours after getting his policy, and before the agent
had reported the policy to the company. The bill was paid, and a few
months later the same fellow, under another name, played the game over
again, though not quite so speedily. In one of the fires set in 1885
a woman and two children were burned to death. The two guilty parties
in this case were members of the Bohemian Anarchist Group and are now
serving life-sentences in prison. Another of the fires was started
in a six-storey tenement house, endangering the lives of hundreds,
but fortunately injuring no one but the incendiary. In one case in
1886 the fireman saved two women whom they found clinging to their
bedposts in a half-suffocated condition. In another, a man, woman
and baby lost their lives. Three members of the gang were arrested
in 1886 for murdering and robbing an old woman in Jersey City. Two
others were convicted for carrying concealed weapons and assaulting an
officer--they were, in fact, walking arsenals, and the circumstances
under which they were found led to the suspicion that they were about
to perpetrate a murder as well as a robbery.
A remarkable article in the New York _Sun_ of May 3rd, 1886,
corroborates the above by giving names and dates, together with facts
and figures from the official records.
Of this class of Anarchists (Class 1 in our category) one may say with
truth that they have no more compunction in “besting” one of their own
comrades than in robbing outsiders; while for preference they would
rather “do” their fellow-associate, relying on the victim’s detestation
of the law not to hand them over into its clutches.
Consummate hypocrites and accomplished liars, they unite in their
persons all the roguery and dishonesty of East-end sweaters, mingled
with the unprincipled characteristics of Seven Dials rascaldom. Regard
for honesty and morality they have none. Tired of theorising, the
members of the Autonomie Anarchist Club would resort to practice by
raiding the Grafton Anarchist Club; and the members of the latter would
return the compliment by swooping down on the Autonomie in a body.
And so on. It is said there is honour among thieves. But among this
particular section of Anarchists this virtue is conspicuous by its
absence. I speak on this subject with a feeling of bitterness, for I
have been a victim to these rogues time and again.
Of Class 2 (spies in the pay of the police) I speak elsewhere. Of
the believers in so-called “propaganda by deed” (Class 3), the major
portion is composed of those who incite, or endeavour to incite,
others to do that which they have not the courage to do themselves.
“Propaganda by deed,” I have explained, is Anarchist jargon for murder,
robbery, and crimes against morality. “Pillage and murder the rich” was
the favourite theme of _Le Père Peinard_, the French Anarchist slang
journal, and there are few Anarchists but who will and do endorse those
sentiments. Some will even go further, and declare themselves at war,
not merely with the rich, but with everyone else. Ravachol--thief,
murderer, forger, counterfeiter, plunderer of graves--is the
Anarchists’ patron saint, and is held up to the world as a “hero” whose
“example is worthy of emulation.”
[Illustration: RAVACHOL, The desperate French Anarchist.]
Scattered throughout this work will be found many extracts from the
“literature” of Anarchism--advocating and applauding the most barbarous
outrages conceivable, and recommending inhumanities and immoralities
more to be expected among savages than among civilised men; articles
approving the firing of opera houses, burning policemen alive,
assassination of judges, jurymen, politicians, kings, presidents,
etc., by knife, torch, bomb, strangulation, poison, etc.--writings
favouring burglary, incendiarism, forgery, stopping trains for purpose
of plunder, brigandage, prostitution, abortion. Such is the glorious
gospel of Anarchy!
I could never understand, when among the Anarchists, why so many of
them are so remiss in paying their debts, and loose in money matters
generally, until enlightened by Dr. Creaghe, editor of the _Sheffield
Anarchist_. “Let me tell you clearly,” he says, “once and for all,
that I believe in, and as long as I live shall do all in my power
to encourage, resistance on the part of the workers _to all kinds
of payment_, be it rent or otherwise. I shall also try to persuade
them to TAKE whatever they are short of, be it food or other things,
_wherever they find them_.” The doctor soon found that this new and
convenient “principle” could be applied in other ways than those he had
contemplated. His own patients rapidly became ardent converts, and the
doctor was soon glad to shake the dust of Sheffield off his feet, and
seek out fresh fields and pastures new, having become, let us hope, a
sadder but a wiser man.
The German Anarchist paper _Vorbote_ once deploringly lamented the fact
that many of the “companions” are given to “borrowing as much money as
possible from their comrades, and, when asked to repay it, reply with a
phrase from the programme of the party!”
Much more could be said on this subject of “propaganda by deed,” but
the Sheffield Anarchists, in a “Manifesto to Criminals,” sum up all
I could possibly say by candidly confessing that the “only difference
between the criminal and the Anarchist is that the former thinks he
is doing wrong, while the Anarchist knows he is doing right.” And of
such is the fraternity of Anarchy! What a hell upon earth would these
misguided wretches bring about if only they could have their way!
III.
POLICE-PAID SPIES.
It is, of course, impossible to speak on this subject with absolute
certainty. But association with Anarchists brings one into contact
with so many questionable characters that doubts naturally arise in
one’s mind as to the genuineness of many active members of the party.
Continued association confirms these doubts, and raises them almost to
a feeling of certitude. But most of them “give the game away” (to use a
vulgarism) by being extraordinarily flush of money whilst doing little
or no work. Some will stump the country ostensibly for Anarchism, but
really for Scotland Yard. Visiting the various “groups” in Scotland
and England (there are none in Ireland) periodically, they usually
stay just sufficiently long in each case to learn the movements and
intentions of the local Anarchists, and then return to communicate the
information they have gathered to the police authorities in London.
It may not be generally known that the notorious and now-dissolved
“Club Autonomie” was closed simply and solely because it had become
notorious as a rendezvous for spies in the pay of almost every European
Government, who notified their respective Governments of every move on
the part of the Anarchists here in London and the provinces.
The ranks of Anarchy are simply honey-combed with spies. Not only is
Scotland Yard well represented in the secret councils of the party,
but so also is the secret political police of every Continental
Government. And of this the Anarchists are perfectly well aware, for
mutual suspicion reigns supreme among them. So great is this feeling of
distrust that few of the “companions” escape suspicion. David Nicoll,
who, it will be remembered, underwent eighteen months’ imprisonment for
an article in the _Commonweal_ inciting to the murder of Mr. Justice
Hawkins and the then Chief-Inspector Melville, has denounced two of the
most respected and prominent financiers of the movement--Drs. Nettlau
and Macdonald--as spies in the pay of the police. In this connection it
is only fair to add that a dozen or so active and well-known Anarchists
have replied through _Freedom_ with a note of confidence in the two
gentlemen named.
At the trial of the Walsall Anarchists for bomb conspiracy, it
transpired that one of the prominent personages in the affair was in
regular receipt of secret service money. Chief-Inspector Melville, then
head of the political branch of the Criminal Investigation Department,
charged solely with the care of Anarchists and Fenians, confessed
at the Walsall trial to having “paid lots of Anarchists money.” And
these people who sell their own comrades, are the people who prate of
regenerating the world! Pah!
Here is a further instance: I know of a spy who himself confessed
to having been in the pay of both the English and French police. He
arrived in this country from France, apparently in great poverty, and
his dire want was an excuse for accepting food from one “comrade,”
lodging from another, and anything he could get from others. His
professions of sympathy with the Anarchist propaganda were hearty,
and the Anarchists trusted and believed him so far as to allow him to
attend the secret meetings of the “French Group.” In consequence of
this he was able to give information to both the French and English
police. The plans of the “comrades” having been foiled on one or two
occasions it was rumoured that a traitor existed in the camp. Shortly
after this a “comrade” was deputed to go to France by the “group”
on secret business, and the spy asked to be allowed to go with him.
This was agreed to. At Dieppe the “comrade” was arrested, the police
having been accurately informed as to the time of his arrival on French
soil. The spy returned to England, and explained his return on the
ground that he was not allowed to remain in France. The “comrades”
in London called a special meeting of the “groups,” at which the
spy was purposely permitted to attend. He was directly charged with
being the spy, and with having supplied the French and English police
with information as to the movements of the Anarchists in London. He
vehemently protested his innocence. He was gagged and his pockets
searched. Letters were found from the French police, instructing him
to watch and report on the doings of certain French Anarchists then in
London. The spy afterwards made a full confession of his connection
with the French police, and also of his connection with the authorities
at Scotland Yard. He was shamefully ill-treated, but escaped and fled
to France, where he is now.
As an example of the way in which these police agents work themselves
into the confidence of the Anarchist leaders, here is an advertisement
from the _Commonweal_ in proof--
“INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST SCHOOL, 19, Fitzroy-square, W. Conducted by
Louise Michel and A. Coulon. Free education in English, French, and
German. Any friend taking an interest in the School can now obtain a
portrait group of teachers and scholars on application to A. Coulon,
Secretary, at above address.”
The secretary of this school was the police informer in the Walsall
case.
At one time there existed in London an international Anarchist news
agency, where every kind of Anarchist publication, in almost any
language, could be procured. A “comrade” enjoying the confidence of the
party was placed in charge, and the shop became a rendezvous for almost
every foreign Anarchist in London. The trusted “comrade” was a police
spy! He had been instrumental in dragging his Anarchist customers into
the great police net, even going to the lengths of procuring photos
of them for the monster album of Scotland Yard. The truth leaked out
gradually. One night the Anarchists assembled in force outside the
shop, seeking the traitorous “comrade’s” gore. But, scenting trouble,
and like a sensible person, the “comrade” had a few hours earlier
sought out fresh fields and pastures new.
During my connection with the movement, several spies were discovered
and denounced. I have in mind, as I write, the case of an Anarchist
friend of mine--as good-hearted a fellow as ever breathed--who, but
for my timely intervention, would be now in penal servitude, a victim
to the machinations of one of these _agents provocateurs_. One day
a letter came to the place where our “group” met, addressed to the
“Communists’ Committee.” It was a long scrawl, in very bad English,
from a Frenchman who signed himself in three different names. On the
Sunday following, Monsieur came to our “group” meeting, and professed
intimate acquaintance with the Walsall Anarchists, who had just then
been sent to penal servitude. One of our English “comrades” somehow
took a liking to this fellow, and as he professed to be homeless and
without money, gave him shelter and food for some months; even, on one
occasion, going so far as to pawn his carpenter’s tools to procure
him food. During all this time, the Frenchman was endeavouring to
persuade my friend to commit an outrage in London. At last a scheme was
devised for the blowing-up of a big London institution. A difficulty
now arose--my friend had to confess his ignorance regarding the making
of explosives. “Zat ve vill soon rectify,” said the Frenchman. One
evening I called on my English friend and found Monsieur had been out
all day. “He has written a letter in French for me to send to Paris,”
I was informed. Having my suspicions as to the man’s genuineness, and
being acquainted slightly with the French language, I was allowed to
examine the letter. It was addressed to M. Jean Grave--a well-known
French Anarchist--at 140, Rue Mouffetard, Paris--and asked for a
copy of “Le Anarchiste Indicateur,” a manual of instructions for the
making of every kind of bomb known, to be sent to my friend’s address,
“as he intends making an act of propaganda for the Cause” in London.
Instead of sending the letter, I consigned it to the flames, and the
plot was abandoned. Strange to say, the Frenchman never returned to my
friend’s house again, but, in his place, appeared two detectives who,
for some weeks, day and night, watched the premises, and shadowed my
friend wherever he went. These facts aroused our suspicions. I heard
nothing further until some months later when, the matter having blown
over, a representative of Scotland Yard told me that, after writing
the letter, and feeling confident that it would be sent, Monsieur had
communicated with the French police, who, in their turn, had informed
the authorities at Scotland Yard, with the result above mentioned. If
that letter had been sent, my friend would be now in penal servitude
for being in the possession of illegal publications.
In France, spying is done on a grand scale. M. Andrieux, in his
“Memoirs of a Prefect of Police,” gives the following instance:--
“The companions were looking for someone to advance funds, but
‘infamous capital’ did not seem in a hurry to reply to their appeal.
I urged on ‘infamous capital’ and succeeded in persuading it that
it was to its own interests to facilitate the publication of an
Anarchist paper.... But don’t imagine that I with frank brutality
offered the Anarchists the encouragement of the Prefect of Police.
I sent a well-dressed _bourgeois_ to one of the most active and
intelligent of them. He explained that having made a fortune in the
druggist line, he wanted to devote a part of his income to advancing
the Anarchist propaganda. This _bourgeois_, anxious to be devoured,
inspired the companions with no suspicion. Through his hands I placed
the caution-money” (caution-money has to be deposited before starting
a paper in France) “in the coffers of the State, and the journal, _La
Revolution Sociale_, made its appearance. It was a weekly paper, my
druggist’s generosity not extending to the expenses of a daily.”
IV.
ANARCHIST “LITERATURE.”
The literature of Anarchism is interesting only in so far as it denotes
the peculiar mental characteristics of its devotees. Couched in an
exalted strain, its sickening grossness and sentimentalism leave little
or no impression on the mind of the thinking social student (unless
it be that of disgust). Strictly speaking, there are two classes of
Anarchist literature. The one--the idealist--voices the sentiments of
the “perfect beings” I have before enumerated, but who in reality are
not Anarchists at all; the other is the advocate of that pessimistic
and criminal Anarchism which sees no good in any institution extant,
nor hope for the future, and consequently seeks to destroy. My object,
however, is not so much to criticise the literature of Anarchism, as
to expose the canting professions of these humbugs who pose as the
“real and only friends of labour.” For whilst there are none so loud
as Anarchists in denouncing sweating and lauding trade-unionism, yet,
strange to say (or, is it strange?) the difference between precept
and practice is alarmingly conspicuous. _The Anarchists have reduced
sweating to a fine art!_
The “society” rate for compositors’ work is 38s. per week. But the
“labour-emancipating” _Commonweal_ paid its compositor the extravagant
remuneration of 10s. per week! _Liberty_, at the outset of its career,
was produced by boy labour, but later was brought out entirely on
the voluntary principle. The _Alarm_ paid for composing 15s. per
week--sometimes; at others, the paper was brought out by exploiting
the labour of poor wretches out of employment, who, to this day, have
never received payment. These papers have now ceased publication.
_Freedom_, the only one remaining, was for many years a trade-union
production, but in 1897, it paid the princely salary of 10s. per week
for “comping,” and was “machined” by boy and non-union labour at prices
which make the sweater’s wage pall in comparison.
It is interesting to note the names of prominent Anarchists connected
with these ventures. Prince Kropotkin is a member of the “group”
which publishes _Freedom_. But, in answer to a letter of mine, the
Prince assures me that he was altogether unaware of the sweating
conditions under which it was produced. (This is accounted for by the
fact that the Prince lives at Bromley, in Kent, and the “group” holds
its meetings at Camden Town.) Other members of the “group” are Prince
Tcherkesov, Errico Malatesta, A. Marsh, Mrs. C. M. Wilson, and other
middle-class men and women.
The history of the Anarchist movement in England is strewn with
the corpses of dead journals; and among them may be mentioned
the following:--The _Commonweal_, which described itself as a
“revolutionary journal of Anarchist-Communism,” was first suspended
at the time its editor was arrested and sentenced to serve a term of
eighteen months’ imprisonment for an article inciting to the murder of
Mr. Justice Hawkins, and Home Secretary Matthews, in 1892. Two years
later the compositor who set up the paper was arrested for a speech
which he had made on Tower Hill, and sentenced to the small term (on
account of his lack of influence in the inciting direction) of six
months’ imprisonment with hard labour for advising the assassination of
Royalty on the occasion of the opening of the Tower Bridge. That seemed
to be the death-blow to the _Commonweal_, for it was not found possible
to continue its publication afterwards.
[Illustration:
SPLENDID PHOTO,
Of DAN. CHATTERTON.
ATHEIST, ad COMMUNIST.
Cabinet Size, 1. s.
The Surplus Profits of Picture to Pay
Chattertons. Cremation Fund.
One Penny,
BIOGRAPHY
Of DAN. CHATTERTON.
ATHEIST, and COMMUNIST.
By CHAT.
PARLIAMENTARY
PLUNDER!
the
Abolition of Lords & Commons
A PLEA for REVOLUTION.
By Dan Chatterton.
POPULAR PARSONS,
Priestly Plunderers
Of LABORS WEALTH.
a open letter
To Henry Carey Shuttleworth.
Rector of St Nicholas Cole Abbey.
By Chat.
Henry. Carey. Shuttleworth.
Eleven years ago, I. challenged
you to debate. with me the
Existence of God. You assert-the
subject is not in your line.
but you would think it over.
Why Sir. ’True or False. the
actuality of this (so called-God.)
Is the corner stone of
your Church, The only Plea
for a lazy useless Priesthood.
Later on, You--are not sure
a public debate--on such a
subject. Is a good thing. ’Ah
Priest, Well may you doubt on
being able to change my views
or that I. shall change yours,
True, you can ask me all
manner of questions, which
admit of no satisfactory answer,
’What a pitiful admission,
’What, No satisfactory
Proof for God.? The boneless
backless thing, Unable
with the aid of a Priest
AN ANARCHIST PRINT.
Note the Spelling and Punctuation Marks.]
The _New Order_ was the organ of the “Christian Anarchists,” and was
opposed to violence of every description--even going so far as to
approve the non-resistance theories of Count Tolstoi.
The _Anarchist_ was published in 1886, and was the first Anarchist
paper ever published in England. _L’Internationale_ was noted for
the violence of its language and its open advocacy of the dagger
and bomb. The _Anarchist Labour Leaf_ was an eight-page pamphlet
issued monthly by the East End Anarchists, and distributed by them on
Sundays round the various meetings which are held in Victoria Park.
_Liberty_ was edited by James Tochatti, a Hammersmith tailor, and was
opposed to the policy of indiscriminate outrage. For this reason it
was little supported by the Anarchists, and soon gave up the ghost.
It was the best among the many Anarchist papers. Of the many others
there was the _Alarm_, which, notwithstanding its stirring title, did
not strike often; the _Herald of Anarchy_, a “journal of consistent
individualism;” the _Worker’s Friend_, a Yiddish publication; the
_Walsall Anarchist_; the _Sheffield Anarchist_, which was inscribed
“Pay what you like;” _Der Lumpen Proletaire_, a German production,
a writer for which is still “wanted” by the police on suspicion of
murdering a woman in Shaftesbury Avenue some years back; the _Torch
of Anarchy_; _Die Autonomie_, which, during the German anti-socialist
laws, was smuggled into Germany by all manner of curious means;
and _Die Freiheit_, whose editor, the notorious Johann Most,
underwent sixteen months’ imprisonment for an article applauding the
assassination of the Czar in 1881.
As a sample of the unscrupulous lengths to which some Anarchists will
go, I may mention that in 1889 a tract of George Bernard Shaw’s,
entitled “Anarchism _v._ State-Socialism,” appeared in defence of
Anarchism. Soon after, Mr. Shaw saw fit to discard Anarchism as
unreasonable, and wrote a masterly pamphlet on its “Impossibilities”
(Fabian Society). Yet, in 1896, the “Associated Anarchists” actually
reprinted the first-mentioned tract, and spread it broadcast as if it
were the opinion of Mr. Shaw at the time. Similar dishonesty was shown
by the Anarchists actually at the open grave of William Morris, by
resuscitating opinions he had long since repudiated. Such dishonesty
Anarchists seem to glory in.
[Illustration]
V.
THE “GROUPS.”
Anarchists associate in “groups.” These, for obvious reasons, seldom
muster more than a dozen members each. Whilst the Anarchist creed--the
elimination of authority in all its forms--admits of no kind of
organisation whatever, still it must be admitted, in justice to a
section of the party, that some of them profess to believe in a form of
“voluntary co-operation,” as distinct from the “coercive” institutions
of government. I say “profess to believe” advisedly, for I have never
yet found the practices of Anarchists square with their professions. In
vain do we look in the Anarchist party for a sample of organisation.
There is none. Attempts at organisation among them have been frequent,
but all have ended in ignominious failure. The fact is, the Anarchists
are incapable of organisation, and, far from being fit for a “society
without government” (could such an anomaly maintain itself a day),
they have shown themselves incapable of managing a decent-sized apple
stall. The manifesto of the “Associated Anarchists” bears out what I
say. “We have been present,” say the issuers of this manifesto, “at
many of the meetings of our Anarchist comrades, where discussions
of important matters were to be conducted, and where it was hoped
that some mutual and collective agreement would be come to as to an
expression of opinion and as to action. In every case, however, where
perfect unanimity was not hit upon, as it were, by accident, it was
found impossible to decide anything in the shape of a general opinion
of the meeting, or with regard to what action should be taken by them
in all these particular and important affairs. Instead of this, violent
altercations have arisen; the utmost disorder has prevailed, and the
whole of the meetings, from the standpoint of organisation, have been
absurd farces and ridiculous frauds.”
[Illustration:
THE ASSOCIATED ANARCHISTS,
“ANARCHY IS ORDER,”
GROUP NO. 1.
]
At Anarchist conferences it is amusing to observe the shifts to which
the “companions” are put, to obviate the inconvenience arising from
this lack of system. At these so-called conferences and congresses
there is no chairman (he being a “relic of authority”), and it is
always left to “individual initiative” to start the discussion on
matters concerning the “propaganda.” The consequence is that order
is conspicuous by its absence. Anyone can roll off a speech when he
likes, where he likes, for as long as he likes, and on any subject he
likes. No vote is taken of the feeling of the “comrades” present--who,
by a convenient fiction, are supposed to be delegates of the various
“groups”--consequently no action is taken, and the so-called conference
resolves into a mere talking shop. So loosely are the party affairs
carried on that anyone can gain admittance to a “group,” and anyone can
enter their congresses even _without_ being a member of a group. No
credentials are asked for, and it is not an extraordinary occurrence to
see one or two detectives sitting among the “comrades.”
The names of some of the “groups” are interesting, inasmuch as they
indicate the thoughts uppermost in the Anarchist mind: the _Torch_,
_Alarm_, _Rebel_, _Necessity_, _Ni Dieu, ni Maitre_ (no God, no
master), _Firebrand_, _Liberty_, _Revenge_, _Free Initiative_, _British
Nihilists_, etc. The last-named “group” loudly prated their belief in
the “propaganda of action.” They talked of naught save dynamite and
daggers. They were the party’s dare-devils. (And if daring consists
in breathing fire and slaughter all the twenty-four hours of the
day, then the Anarchists are the pluckiest folk I know of.) One of
the British Nihilists managed to muster up sufficient courage to
perform the revolutionary act of firing a revolver at the House of
Commons, doubtless expecting to see it collapse, like the walls of
Jericho at the trumpet’s blast. As a result of the Deptford Group’s
propaganda, Rolla Richards blew up three post-offices in South London
with pennyworths of gunpowder, “in memory of Ravachol, Santo, Bourdin,
Polti,” and others.
The “Associated Anarchists” were not long in becoming dissociated.
They were a body of about a dozen youths who had become disgusted
with orthodox Anarchist “organisation.” They decided on reform, and
accordingly drew up a code of “non-compulsory agreements.” Members on
joining agreed beforehand to voluntarily abide by the decision of the
majority (the contrary of Anarchist principles), but still were free
not to so abide. They printed and published the _Alarm_ (an alarming
little sheet printed in gorgeous blue, like an oilman’s circular).
Dissensions soon arose among the associates as to the management of
this property. A minority of two, in the exercise of their “individual
liberty,” claimed the lot to do as they liked with, and shut the door
in the face of the other “brothers,” who, in their turn, “burgled” the
premises at dead of night. Then the minority called in the police (by
no means strange for Anarchists). However, a reunion took place between
the opposing factions, and everything went as merrily as a marriage
bell, until, one fine day, the majority found that this time the
minority had sold up all the happy home and pocketed the proceeds! And
now, dear reader (as they say in tracts), just picture in your mind the
beauty of Anarchy adopted nationally!
Some of the groups, for obvious reasons, adopt a disguise of
respectability! Thus, the “South London Progressive Association,” which
met at one of the coffee-houses in the Old Kent Road, was a group of
Anarchists. So also was the “North London Progressive Association”
of Kentish Town. The Jewish Anarchist Club in Berner Street, E., was
known as the “International Workpeople’s Educational Society,” and was
composed of the lowest class of Russian and Polish Jews. The “Deptford
Educational Society,” which met above a shop in New Cross Road, was a
group of English Anarchists, who dissolved soon after the conviction
of Rolla Richards for blowing up post-offices in the neighbourhood.
Another Anarchist club was the Scandinavian Club in Rathbone Place. The
Commonweal Group met in a mews off Gray’s Inn Road. Its members were
believers in the “propaganda of deed,” and were often in the hands of
the police.
[Illustration: MATEO MORALE
And his flower-bedecked bomb.]
The old Autonomie Club, in Windmill Street, Tottenham Court Road,
was the home of a number of groups: the French, German, and Italian
groups; the “Knights of Liberty” and the “Young Anarchists”--a group
of mere boys who actually conducted classes for the study of explosive
chemicals.
Some of the so-called groups comprise only one or two individuals. For
instance, _Freedom_ speaks of the “Somer’s Town Group” as being very
active. This formidable revolutionary organisation comprised three
individuals--one of whom, in true Anarchist fashion, appointed himself
secretary, treasurer, librarian, and everything else. The two men who
composed the Torch group after its founders, the Misses Rossetti, had
left the movement, appointed themselves delegates to one of the May Day
Celebration Committees, wrote out their own credentials, and sat and
voted on every proposal brought forward. This “group” was the loudest
in shrieking for the admission of Anarchists to the International
Socialist and Labour Congress held in London in 1896, and was the
originator of the agitation having that object in view. The cool and
impudent demand of these self-elected and unrepresentative nonentities
to sit and vote side by side with _bonâ fide_ trade-union delegates
representing thousands of members, is only equalled by its astounding
hypocrisy, for Anarchists profess not to believe in democracy, voting,
or representation, and consequently have no place in any organisation
based on democratic principles.
The English Anarchists (who, by the way, are looked upon by their
foreign and practical brethren more with contempt than “fraternity”)
are to-day a mere handful, and the “party” is becoming smaller and
beautifully less owing to the numerous secessions of the more
intelligent, who, in course of time, become disgusted with the lack
of system, want of order, and contempt for moral conduct which
pervades the practical section of the party. I doubt if there are
fifty Englishmen in London of the Anarchist persuasion. The strength
of the entire movement may be judged by the fact that their oldest
established, and now only existent organ in the Press--_Freedom_--has
a paltry circulation of about 500 copies monthly throughout the entire
country.
[Illustration: LIBERTY GROUP]
Very few of these “groups” exist otherwise than in name. By this I mean
that few are conducted on genuine business-like principles, such as the
periodic appointment of officers, the holding of weekly or fortnightly
members’ meetings, the issuing of balance-sheets, and so on.
VI.
BOMB-MAKING.
Let no one think that all London Anarchists are mere talkers who
have not the courage of their convictions. It is a fact that many of
the outrages which have taken place on the Continent were arranged
beforehand here in London, within the four walls of the Club Autonomie.
In the month of November, 1891, the following advice was given to the
“companions” by a London Anarchist newspaper: “A knowledge of chemistry
is very useful, and all young men should join a chemistry class at
once. There is no need to proclaim the fact that you are an Anarchist,
but study diligently and quietly till you have mastered all the secrets
of modern explosives.” And it concluded by suggesting that a result of
such a knowledge might be that the rich and the rulers of the country
would be “swiftly translated to Paradise.”
MURDER!
Workmen, why allow yourselves, your wives, and children, to be daily
murdered by the foulness of the dens in which you are forced to live?
The average age of the working-classes is some 29 years, and the
average age of the rich 55 years.
It is time the slow murder of the poor, who are poisoned by thousands
in the foul, unhealthy slums, from which robber landlords exact
monstrous rents, was stopped.
You have paid in rent the value over and over again of the rotten dens
in which you are forced to dwell. Government has failed to help you.
The time has come to help yourselves.
PAY NO RENT
to land-thieves and house-farmers, who flourish and grow fat on your
misery, starvation, and degradation.
A MASS MEETING
WILL BE HELD IN
VICTORIA PARK
(NEAR THE BAND STAND)
On Sunday, July 26th, at 3 p.m.,
When the following Speakers will address the meeting in support of a
No Rent Campaign:--
D. J. Nicoll, W. B. Parker, S. Mainwaring, C. W. Mowbray, J. Turner,
R. Jane, and E. Hall.
Hurrah! for the kettle, the club, and the poker,
Good medicine always, for landlord and broker;
Surely ’tis best to find yourselves clobber,
Before paying rent to a rascally robber.
An Anarchist Handbill.