to a group of fifteen stalwart Anarchists who conscientiously and on
principle objected to pay rent under any circumstances, and who helped
each other “shoot the moon.”
At the offices of the _Torch of Anarchy_, in Ossulton Street, Somer’s
Town, occurred a number of amusing episodes. One in particular is worth
recounting. Some “comrades” who had been expelled from Italy struck
a bargain with the Anarchist printer of the _Torch_ to get out some
revolutionary pamphlets in Italian, and in consideration of the working
of his press by them he agreed to quote very reduced prices. It was a
glorious sight to see these brawny sons of the Revolution perspiring
at the press, singing Caserio’s “Hymn to Liberty,” and rejoicing in
the thought that through their efforts the principles of Anarchy
would be spread through their native land. Everyone was happy until
some inquisitive fellow looked at the “proofs,” and made a terrible
discovery. The wily printer, it seems, had undertaken a large printing
contract for some local clergymen, and for months these firebrands had
been printing tracts and sermons!
To the crank, the Anarchist movement acts as a magnet. It was while
working as a compositor in the offices of _Freedom_ that I came across
as fine a specimen as one could wish to meet in a day’s march. And
among Anarchists one finds the crank _par excellence_. One day a
middle-aged, respectably-dressed person of ordinary appearance, except
for a wild gleam in the eyes, entered the office and asked to see the
manager. He wanted an estimate for printing a twenty-page pamphlet. A
satisfactory quotation having been given, he produced a roll of MS.
from the inside pocket of his coat, and gave an order for the printing
of 1,000 copies. After he had gone we examined the MS., and found it
to contain as curious a medley of sense and nonsense (mostly of the
latter) as one could hope to find outside the four walls of a lunatic
asylum.
The brochure, a printed copy of which I have before me as I write,
was entitled, “The Truth--the Way to the Physical, Moral, Mental,
and Spiritual Regeneration, and the Life,” by Alfred E. Gaynor, who
modestly described himself as follows:--
“Water Bearer.
Spirit Architect and Constructor of the Universe,
The Osiris, or Incarnate Representative of the Solar Power.
Occultist and Metaphysician.
Social Surveyor, Counsellor, and Transformer.
Boudha, Krishna, and Jesus Christ Resurrected.
Second Person of the Trinity.
The Messiah, or Son of Man.
Redeemer of Humanity from the Powers of Darkness.
Leader of the Heavenly Hosts,
and Spiritual Commander of the Forces against Mammon.
Lion of the Tribe of Judah.
Last Avatar of Vishnu.”
[Illustration: THE ANARCHIST MESSIAH.]
Interspersed through the pages of this pamphlet are a number of
quotations from such curiously assorted sources as the Bible, the
_Free-thinker_, Sir Monier-Williams, the _Torch of Anarchy_, the
Bhagavadgita, and Volney’s “Ruins of Empires.”
The mission of the new Messiah was to “pull down all the old
devil-erected structures--the kingdoms, governments, and religious
institutions of the world--by nullifying the means by which they are
enabled to maintain their Satanic dominance, _i.e._, MONEY; abolishing
barter and trade, and cancelling all mammon-made laws, deeds, charters,
stocks, bonds, notes, and other red-tape and paper chains which hold
mankind in the bondage of delusion, and upon their site to build up a
_New Dispensation_ and a _New Humanity_.” The name of the new world was
to be “Olombia, or the New Columbia State of the World.” It was to be a
“Saturnian, or No-Money Commonwealth”; its members the “Spirit-Builders
of the White Light and the Truth University.” Everything under the new
dispensation was to be free, gratis, and for nothing--free material,
free labour, free habitation--in fact, free beer, free ’bacca, and free
mutton-chops.
Individuals in Olombia, or the “Realm of Celestial Light”--the “Kingdom
of Heaven now established on Earth”--were to be organised on the
Anarchist pattern of “groups” freely federated, and classified under
various industrial denominations called Orders, such as the Order of
Agriculturists, the Orders of Engineers, Carpenters, Masons, Tailors,
Bootmakers, Electricians, Journalists, Designers, Musicians, Teachers,
etc., which were to take upon themselves the Commonwealth management
and operation of the sources of production and supply; of its land,
buildings, storages, manufactories, farming, means of transportation,
etc. (which, of course, existed only in our “Messiah’s” imagination).
Every person between the ages of 21 and 50 who partook of the
Commonwealth supplies was to identify himself with one of these Orders,
and in return the “Kingdom of Heaven now established on Earth” was to
guarantee to each of its members a free livelihood, free conveyance,
free education, free literature, free amusements--in fact, free
everything!
Six hours was to be the Commonwealth working day; five days the
Commonwealth working week; twenty days the Commonwealth working month;
ten months the Commonwealth working year, and twenty-nine years the
Commonwealth working limit. Starting work at the age of twenty-one,
the “Spirit-Builders of the White Light” were to retire at the age of
forty-nine--the fiftieth birthday beginning each individual’s Jubilee,
the entering into which bestowed “Olombia Citizenship,” together with
“an undivided, untaxed, and untrammelled interest in the _Whole
Earth_ with all its productions, and a right to all that is desired
for the maintenance of life, health, liberty, development, culture and
pleasure, ‘without money and without price.’”
One can only exclaim, “Oh, what must it be to be there!”
Another beautiful and rather rare specimen of the Anarchist crank I
discovered in the same printing office. He was a believer in natural
living, and a “dress reformer” with a vengeance. He existed entirely
on a diet of nuts and cold water--aye, and what is the most amazing
part about it, flourished and grew fat on that diet. In the office
the Anarchists possessed a large old-fashioned printing-press, which
was turned by hand. This was very exhausting work, and would knock an
ordinary man out of breath in about ten minutes or so. The machine had,
consequently, to be worked by some four or five men in shifts of about
a quarter of an hour each. But this nut-eater outdid all of us roast
beef and pudding devourers, for he was able to work at the machine for
about an hour right off without any apparent sign of exhaustion. His
greatest fad, however, was in the “dress reform” line. He believed in
“natural dress,” and detested “conventionality.” Barbers, hatters,
hosiers, and bootmakers he abominated, and walked the streets in all
weathers hatless, bare-footed, and minus shirt, collar and tie, and
even waistcoat. One fine hot summer’s day he was arrested in the City,
a howling mob following him to the Guildhall, where he was charged with
being insufficiently clad. He was actually parading the streets “mid
nodings on” except a pair of short bathing pants!
[Illustration: THE ANARCHIST STYLE.]
An amusing incident once occurred at an Anarchist meeting in South
Place Chapel, Finsbury. It was a public meeting to “commemorate the
Chicago Martyrs.” One of the orators on this occasion was vehemently
dramatic in his style, and was trying to inspire someone among his
listeners with the necessity of “acting.” Warming to his work, he
concluded his speech with this fiery peroration: “Comrades! the Cause
of Anarchy is worth working for! worth fighting for!--aye, and, if
needs be, worth dying for!”--and down came his fist with tremendous
force on a small three-legged table which stood on the platform,
smashing it to utter smithereens, amid the uproarious laughter of
everyone present.
XV.
THE ABSURDITIES OF ANARCHISM.
The Anarchist is nothing if not an utopist. His ideas have their
foundation, not in the sure and solid basis of science, but in
the unstable grounds of sentiment. Facts, in his scheme, are not
necessary; in his blissful ignorance he dreams of stepping out of
the “hell of commercialism” right into that questionable heaven of
Anarchist-Communism. For him the laws of social evolution are as
nothing, or do not exist; and the angelic creatures he sometimes
depicts as modern men and women capable of living harmoniously without
government are but creatures of his own vivid imagination.
An instance of this general Anarchist ignorance of the laws of social
evolution, in a literature teeming with instances, occurs in No. 1 of
the _Alarm_, a now happily defunct weekly (and weakly) sheet issued by
the (once) Associated Anarchists, who conclude a statement of policy
with the following interesting but laughable information: “And we mean
to have Anarchy in our time.”[4]
[4] In one sense this prophesy was fulfilled; for, within a few months
disorder reigned supreme among the “Associated,” who constituted
themselves into rival factions, each faction in turn carrying out the
Anarchist doctrine of “individual expropriation” by means of periodic
raids (at dead of night) on the possessions of the opposing faction
(a common occurrence among Anarchists): the whole culminating in
the introduction of the police on the invitation of the Anarchists
themselves!
Passing from this, let us look at another phase of the folly of
Anarchism. A Communist-Anarchist is certainly a political freak;
his creed, as he himself tells us, is “two-sided” (not to say
one-sided)--“its political theory is absolute individual liberty, its
economic substance that of Communism.” What better evidence could one
require of the absurdity of Communist-Anarchism? Communism, meaning
the collective ownership and control of the land and instruments
of labour, necessarily involves authority to enforce the will of
the collectivity; Anarchism, on the other hand, is the negation of
authority--the doctrine of individual supremacy. Consequently, to
talk of Communist-Anarchism is to talk arrant nonsense; it is to talk
of authority without authority, organisation without organisation,
administration without administration! So that “Communist-Anarchist”
is simply another name for Socialist-Individualist, or,
Socialist-Anti-Socialist! What could be plainer?
Now, a consequence of holding such a mixture of opposite ideas is that
the Anarchist “movement” in time resolves itself, as we find it to-day,
into a medley of different sects, all at variance with each other.
One thing, anyway, is certain, and that is, that the Anarchists have
not made a mistake in choosing their name; for where two or three are
gathered together in the name of Anarchy, there also, of a surety, are
chaos and confusion. Much as rum follows missionary, so chaos dogs the
footsteps of Anarchy. Chaos in the “movement” and chaos in the brains
of those who compose it. Anarchy is emphatically not order--Kropotkin,
Malatesta and Co. to the contrary notwithstanding.
Again, a logical consequence of a belief in Anarchist-Communism is that
a thinking person, conscientiously holding such paradoxical views, is
certain, sooner or later, to renounce one or the other--Anarchism or
Communism.
Dr. Merlino--who has now happily seen the folly of Anarchy--writing
in the _Commonweal_ for January 9, 1892, deploringly complains of the
lengths to which his (then) fellow-Anarchists have gone in their
following of this will-o’-the-wisp of Anarchy. “There are,” he says,
“in our ranks people who evidently regard themselves as the ‘pure’
Anarchists, and who never fail, whenever their comrades propose
practical work of any kind, to stand up and speak against it in the
name of Anarchy.” My object in referring to this article here is simply
to point out that the kind of Anarchist there depicted is in the
ascendancy in the party, and is the real and only logical Anarchist.
Let us take a glance at him as he is pictured by Merlino: Opposed to
organisation, he yet belongs to his Anarchist “group.” He objects
to the latter appointing anyone to make the necessary arrangements
for lectures, sending round invitations for speakers, issuing
bills, collecting money, and so on. This he stamps with the word
“officialism.” He shuns officialism. He gets angry at the very idea of
appointing somebody to do something. He hates the very names “chairman,
secretary, organiser,” etc., and detests majority decision as the Devil
is said to detest holy water. Should some poor half-fledged Anarchist
in his “group” propose to issue a manifesto or start a club, the
out-and-out Anarchist sees at once the impossibility of doing any such
thing on Anarchist “principles.” He is scandalised at the very idea. He
looks upon these “philosophers” (as he will contemptuously call them)
as future dictators, and their plan as a mortal sin against Anarchy.
He will never tolerate working on a settled plan; and he is afraid of
Anarchism becoming a force for fear of his comrades being led astray.
Should his half-fledged “comrade” see in this or that particular
event--say, a strike--an opportunity for propagating his ideas, the
out-and-out Anarchist steps in and cries: “What business have you to
mix with these unworthy workers? They are not Anarchists at all! They
have a chairman and secretary in their union; they strike merely for
less hours and more pay, and not for an immediate reconstruction of
society; they don’t even help themselves from the shops. Will you run
the risk of becoming acquainted with them, perhaps making yourself
popular, and by-and-by getting into office, and then, turn against
your principles? Hold aloof, sirs, or else, we tell you, you are no
Anarchists.”
The above, absurd though it may seem to anyone unacquainted with the
Anarchists, is an unexaggerated word-picture of the farcical yet
logical consequences to which a belief in the sovereignty of the
individual must necessarily lead. The logical Anarchist, therefore,
is a down-with-everything-that’s-up advocate; his creed is a creed of
negations; _sans_ Government, _sans_ order, _sans_ decency, _sans_
everything necessary to the making of a prosperous and peaceful
community.
I remember reading in _Freedom_ an answer to an enquirer who wanted to
know what would be done under Anarchist conditions of do-as-you-please
in the following circumstances: The members of an Anarchist (ahem!)
Commune require a bridge; the majority favour one design, the
minority another. And what, think you, is the solution according to
the infallible gospel of Anarchy? Stand firm, poor human brain--it
is this: _Build two bridges!!!_ Ye gods! What next will they be
asking us to subscribe to? And supposing there be three, or for that
matter, fifty differences of opinion? Why, of course, build fifty
bridges! Verily, and of a truth, the Anarchist never opens his mouth
but he puts his foot in it. Designing and constructing such gigantic
undertakings as modern bridges seem to be, to him, about on a par with
the designing and erection of pig-sties. Cost--and it is here as well
to remember that the Tower Bridge cost £850,000--and waste of labour,
to the all-knowing Anarchist, are mere minor details, not worthy of
consideration. And then, just as if the foregoing “solution” of our
Anarchist world-regenerator was not sufficiently startling in itself,
we are actually told, “in cold blood,” that this Anarchical method is
“economical”!
“Do I sleep? Do I dream?
Do I wander in doubt?
Are things what they seem?
Or is wisions about?”
I look at my _Freedom_ again; yes, it is there right enough. Then
I think to myself, do these Anarchists mean what they say, or are
they only Bernard-Shawing? _Build two bridges!_ Yes, run opposition
railroads side by side; block the public streets with double sets
of tram-lines; allow every crank to have everything just as he
“darned-well” pleases; but, above all, erect a double quantity of
lunatic asylums, for under such imbecile conditions they will be needed!
One could almost respect the Anarchist if he were consistent--even
a trifle consistent. But he is the very incarnation and embodiment
of inconsistency. In one of his manifestoes he says: “No man can
honestly and truly represent anyone but himself, and if he says he
can, he is a humbug”--and straightway he lays claim to that not
very flattering appellation by presenting himself at the door of
an International Socialist Congress as the representative of his
Anarchist group! He believes in the liberty of the individual,
and tolerates no manner of rule whatsoever--and his patron saint,
Ravachol, in his autobiography, confides in us that, had he and his
comrades the power (anti-authoritarians shrieking for authority!)
they would “_suppress the majority_”!!! He rails at Parliament as a
useless institution, forgetful of the fact that Parliament does at
times accomplish something socially beneficial, however little that
_something_ may be; and, having delivered himself thus, will attend his
Anarchist Congress, which, mark you, is made up of “representatives”
of Anarchism from all parts of the world, who meet--to do something
practical? not at all--merely to “exchange ideas”--and then, having
gone through successfully this interesting farce of a Mutual Admiration
Society, return to the four corners of the earth, having accomplished
_nothing_! not even passed a resolution, for that is not Anarchistic,
you understand! He believes in freedom, execrates authority,
anathematises coercion--and throws bombs at religious processions, and
murders unoffending occupants of restaurants and theatres! But enough!
The follies and crimes of this absurd yet hideous phantasmagoria of
Anarchism are so numerous that, like unto the alleged unreported
sayings of Christ, were they recorded, “the earth would not contain
them.”
XVI.
ANARCHISM A BUNDLE OF CONTRADICTIONS.
_Credo quia absurdum._
Anarchism has been described as “individualism run mad”--certainly in
the Anarchist “Idea” there is a “tile loose” somewhere.
I well remember once listening to a lecture by a certain “Christian
Anarchist,” who, in the course of his remarks, happened to say
something which did not fit in with the ideas of another Anarchist
present. Rising in his place, Anarchist No. 2 indignantly and
vehemently protested against the “Christian Anarchist’s” heretical
views being palmed off as the true Anarchist gospel; and, producing
from his coat pocket a manifesto of some Anarchist-Communist Alliance,
quoted chapter and verse in contradiction. “Oh, yes,” exclaimed the
“Christian Anarchist” in reply; “I have seen that manifesto; indeed, a
long acquaintance with Anarchists has convinced me that there are as
many Anarchist Alliances as there are Anarchists, for every Anarchist I
have met has a special Anarchism of his own.”
This, coming from one “companion” to another, I thought somewhat rich,
but it certainly possessed the merit of being true--a merit not always
associated with Anarchists’ statements. Verily, where two or three are
gathered together in the name of Anarchy, there, of a surety, are chaos
and confusion.
A writer in the _Commonweal_, May 9, 1891, recognises this fact and
deplores it. “Anarchism,” he says, “includes among its advocates
men of the most divergent and irreconcileable opinions,” and, “as
an Anarchist-Communist,” he declines to “make common cause with an
Anarchist of the mutualist school”--in fact, wouldn’t touch him with
a pole. Edward Carpenter, taken to task by another Anarchist for the
mildness of his opinions, pleads for toleration (_Commonweal_, December
5, 1891) on the ground that, “after all, there are so many sections
among the Anarchists. There are,” he says, “the Anarchists who denounce
the blackleg ... and the Anarchists who cherish and embrace him; then
there are the Academic Anarchists ... and the Tarnation Anarchists
(followers of Albert Tarn), and the B.A.’s, or Bloody Anarchists.”
Add to these a few more, and the list will even then be far from
complete: Individualist-Anarchists (described by the Communists as
“cranks,” which we can quite well believe); Communist-Anarchists
(described by the Individualists as “charlatans,” which also we can
quite well believe); Collectivist Anarchists, (a Spanish freak);
Christian, or “non-resistance” Anarchists; ultra-revolutionary
Anarchists; “Tuckerites” (worshippers of Benjamin R. Tucker, of
Boston); Socialist-Anarchists (a peculiar species and very rare);
Mutualist-Anarchists; Democratic or majority-rule Anarchists; Political
Anarchists--in fact, a fine lot. One is forcibly reminded of the
exclamation of a noted artist on hearing the names of certain Royal
Academicians--“O Gemini! What a bally crew!”
If we take the definition of M. Proudhon, the supposed “father” of
Anarchism,[5] we find that in the Anarchist régime there is to be
“no more authority, absolute liberty of the man and the citizen.”
(“Les Confessions d’un Révolutionnaire.”) This was published in
1868; twenty-five years later one of the “father’s” small but noisy
progeny--les enfants terrible of politics--the London _Freedom_, rounds
on its “father” for putting forward such a “ridiculous claim!” “Where
is the Anarchist,” it asks (April, 1893), “who makes such a ridiculous
claim as absolute liberty?” Where, indeed! _Freedom_ should have a
better memory. If it will refer to its own issue for August, 1889, it
will find these words: “Anarchist Communism ... means absolute freedom
for every human being of either sex.” Nor is _Freedom_ alone among
the advocates of the “ridiculous.” The American _Firebrand_ (a very
appropriate title, by the way) week by week contained a stereotyped
definition of Anarchy as “absolute individual liberty;” the _Anarchist_
(March, 1888) makes the same “ridiculous claim.”
[5] I say “supposed” advisedly, for there appear to be several
“fathers” and disputations among Anarchists regarding the parentage
of this political illegitimate are without end. Some cast the blame
on Proudhon; others on Max Stirner; a third section makes Josiah
Warren responsible; while yet others lay the crime at the door of
Bakounine. Be this as it may, no one has yet disputed the right of
Kropotkin to be called the “father” of that political monstrosity
christened “Anarchist-Communism.” The editor of the _Anarchist_
(April, 1888) has been good enough to tell how the brat first saw the
light. This is what he says: “Before Bakounine died, Kropotkin once
told me that he (Bakounine) said that some day somebody would solve
the synthesis between Anarchism and Communism. Kropotkin, no doubt,
desired to be the ‘somebody,’ and said to some others (if I remember
aright, Reclus and Cafiero), ‘Let _us_ do it _now_.’ And forthwith,
Communism went into partnership with Anarchy, and, scientific-like--hey
presto!--Communist-Anarchism was manufactured on the spot.”
Let us take the programme of the “International Federation of
Revolutionary Anarchists” (an organisation with a name which in itself
was calculated to make the tyrants of the earth shake in their shoes,
but which, sad to relate, lasted but a month). “The aim of the party,”
we are told, “is the abolition of the State ... and the prevention
of its reconstitution.” Nevertheless, according to another Anarchist
“authority,” “Anarchy even covers the right of Governments to exist for
those who want and support them.” (_Anarchist_, July, 1887.) Here’s
a pretty fine how-do-you-do! “Government in all its forms” is to be
totally destroyed, yet still exist! Verily, as one Anarchist has truly
said, “the beauty of Anarchy is that its advocates differ.” And so say
all of us!