follows: “In spite of Proudhon, work must be done in common, and there
must be, under what name you please, a directing body.” A writer in
_Freedom_ (March, 1893) commenting on these remarks, says: “No one
denies this.” So you see there is to be no government, but a directing
body! What could be plainer?
“The object of Anarchy” (_Anarchist_, October, 1887) “is for every
individual to do as he pleases, subject only to the only rule that
by so doing he does not infringe the like freedom of others.” Such
appears to me a fair statement of true, _i.e._, equal liberty. But
equal liberty involves authority (and there is to be no authority,
you understand) to prevent and punish those who overstep the bounds.
If equal liberty be the object of Anarchism, then the abolition of
government cannot also be its final aim--the two things being as
different as chalk is from cheese.
“The claim of government is no other than the claim of the strongest.”
(“Anarchy: Theory and Practice.”) But still, “whoever has might he
has right.” (Max Stirner, “Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum,” p. 196.)
So that Anarchists not only condemn government but justify it! “There
exists no natural right but might ... there is, therefore, no such
thing as natural justice, no natural morality, no society, nor any
liberty but license.” (_Anarchist_, August 1, 1888.) Under the new
Anarchist régime “organisation would be necessary,” of course, says
_Liberty_ (January, 1895). Nevertheless we are told, (_Truth-seeker_,
January, 1900) that “‘organisation,’ ‘government,’ ‘discipline,’
‘loyalty,’ ‘duty,’” are merely “pet phrases invented by would be
dictators,” and the “magic machinery through which the subjection of
the people is effected.” Thus, you see, there is to be organisation and
no organisation! We are getting on.
[Illustration: BRESCI,
The assassin of the King of Italy.]
Let us further examine this precious thing called Anarchist
organisation. Leaving out of account for the moment the fact that
organisation is impossible under conditions of “do-as-you-like,” the
fact remains that some Anarchists profess to believe in organisation.
Dr. Macdonald, writing in _Freedom_ (October, 1893), tells us that
“trade-unions are based on Anarchical lines.” Very well, then, the
basic principle underlying trade-unionism is that of authority,
punishments (fines), majority-rule, etc. Are we to understand that
all these will exist under Anarchy? On the contrary, according to Dr.
Nettlau (“Why we are Anarchists”), “a consequence of freedom is the
rejection of laws and majority-rule.” For these they would “substitute
the principle of unanimity” (_Freedom_, February, 1888). There is to
be no difference of opinion under Anarchy--all will be the very pink
of perfection. But stay! John Turner, debating with Herbert Burrows
(reported in _Freedom_, September, 1889) doesn’t think anything of
the kind. “I do not believe,” he says, “that people will agree on
everything--that is not my idea of Anarchism.” So you see that, after
all, Anarchism is not to be a paradise of stained-glass angels. On
the contrary, there will be differences of opinion just the same as
now. How will these differences be settled, always remembering that
“majority-rule is the vilest form of tyranny”? (_Freedom_, December,
1890). It appears they would have public meetings to discuss communal
affairs (and we all know the amicable spirit which animates a crowd
of disputants!). “Trifling objections,” it seems, “would disappear
in the discussions which would take place, and only differences of
opinion too strong to be bridged over would remain. Then each party
would set to work to carry into effect the plan it favoured. _It might
result from this that two, or even three, buildings might be erected in
the place of one originally intended._ But who could complain?” asks
our Anarchist world-regenerator. Who, indeed! “What we have said,”
continues our Anarchist friend, “about the constitution of a building
may be applied to all the wants of society--as well as to the making of
railways, canals, and telegraph lines ... in fact, to all the branches
of human activity”!!! (“Society on the Morrow of the Revolution,” by
Jean Grave.)
Let us see. “Majority-rule crushes individual initiative,
self-reliance, and reduces the individual to a State slave.”
(_Freedom_, November 1890.) However, “in all practical problems, if
men will not or cannot separate, and if it is not expedient to adopt
several different solutions at once, it is needful that one fraction
yield to the other, and I am very willing to admit,” says E. Malatesta,
“that it should be the minority which yields.” (“Parliamentary Politics
in the Socialist Movement.”) And again, “the traveller will still,
under Anarchy, be obliged to adapt his arrangements to the hours and
regulations which the majority have thought best.” (“A Talk between Two
Workmen,” p. 29, Malatesta.) This is what one vulgarly calls “giving
the game away.” We are even told that it will be needful to suppress
the minority should it persist in exercising its “right to do as it
pleases,” by “forcible action”! (“A Talk,” p. 29.) No wonder that Jean
Grave, the French Anarchist writer, whom Octave Mirbeau has described
as a “great authority,” almost “despairs of ever seeing a settlement
issue from the chaos of ideas which go by the general name of Anarchy!”
(“Société Mourante et l’Anarchie.”)
As a further illustration of the beauties of Anarchist “organisation”
the following will be of interest. _El Productor_, the Spanish
Anarchist paper, discussing the desirability of an International
Anarchist Conference in Chicago, proposed that all Anarchists should
send in a voluntary subscription, accompanied by the name of the
delegate whom they thought best to represent them; when these votes
had all come in, they were to be collected, counted up, and verified,
and the men whose names had most supporters (that hated majority-rule
again) were to be sent to Chicago, there to give voice to the opinions
and wishes of the Spanish groups, and to bring back an account of the
proceedings, and the conclusions arrived at. To these propositions six
Valencia Anarchists answered by a declaration in which they state that
they are opposed to the programme put forward by _El Productor_, which
they denounce as opposed to the Anarchist principle, _which denies the
possibility of one man representing another under any circumstances_.
To these objections _El Productor_ replies by saying that it _does
not consider the idea of representation to be opposed to Anarchy_.
The Valencia Anarchists go on to explain that their idea of what
an Anarchist conference should be, is that any Anarchist who feels
inclined to go should go; that he should go on no one’s behalf and
represent no one but himself; that the Anarchists thus assembled should
discuss for their own benefit any subjects they feel inclined to,
and they point to the Paris Congress of 1889 as a _beau ideal_ of an
Anarchist conference. _El Productor_ answers this by asking if a single
object was attained, or result arrived at, by the Paris Congress, and
replies in the negative.... Could any good come out of the Anarchist
Nazareth?
Speaking of Individualist-Anarchists, like Benjamin R. Tucker, of
Boston, Dr. S. Merlino, a one-time leader of London Anarchists, says,
“Individualists they are ... but certainly they are not Anarchists. Mr.
Tucker ... distinctly affirms that Anarchism ‘does not mean no laws and
no coercion,’ and advocates the institution of ‘Defence Associations,’
otherwise called Pinkerton police.” “Anarchist policemen ... would be a
fine spectacle,” exclaims Kropotkin (“Conquest of Bread”). Aye! a sight
for the gods![6]
[6] “Police and jails do not contradict Anarchism.” (_Liberty_, New
York, December 26, 1891.) “Anarchism recognises the right to arrest,
try, convict, and punish for wrong-doing, if by wrong-doing is meant
invasion.... If it can find no better instrument of resistance to
invasion, Anarchism will use prisons.” (_Liberty_, New York, October
24, 1885.)
“The Anarchism of to-day affirms the right of society to coerce the
individual, and of the individual to coerce society, so far as either
has the requisite power.” (_Liberty_, New York, June 7, 1890.)
In retaliation Mr. Tucker retorts that “Anarchist-Communists advocate a
régime of Anarchism fully as despotic” as he imagines State-Socialism
would be! And Henry Seymour, in the _Anarchist_ (March, 1888)
supplements this by saying that Anarchist-Communism is “arbitrarily
conventional and tyrannic--however professedly free.” “I have been
behind the scenes,” he caustically adds.
Let us try to understand the Anarchist theory regarding property. There
is to be “possession in common.” (Malato, _Freedom_, November, 1894.)
There is also to be private property: “We consistent Anarchists strive
to even extend private property.” (_Freedom_, June, 1891.) “The natural
law concerning possession is this: ‘that they should take who have the
power, and they should keep who can.’” (_Freedom_, August, 1889.) There
is also to be neither private property nor common property. “Private
owning means despotism unalloyed, while common owning means mob-rule,
so far as it is not officialism, and officialism so far as it is not
mob-rule” (L. S. B., in _Freedom_, October, 1893.)
Bequest is both allowed and denied. According to the “Anarchist’s
Programme” (_Anarchist_, March, 1888) bequest is permitted in the
new régime (“not denying the right of bequest”). On the other hand,
the Chicago _Vorbote_ (July 9, 1890), “entirely denies the right of
bequest.” However, to right this, “Anarchy proclaims the right of every
individual to help himself out of the common stock to what he needs.”
(_Freedom_, June, 1891.) But stay! “In an Anarchist society the man
who would steal from his neighbour, I hope his neck would be introduced
to a piece of hempen cord.” (_Freedom_, July, 1893.) Here is a pretty
fine kettle of fish! I am to “do as I please;” to “help myself to what
I need,” but stand the risk of being precipitately jerked into Kingdom
Come should I attempt to reduce the theory to practice! It is a queer
world, my masters!
But still, let us be thankful for small mercies. According to Malato
(“Philosophie de l’Anarchie,” p. 51) we shall still, under the new
Anarchist dispensation, be able to say “‘my’ comb and brush, ‘my’
pencil, ‘my’ newspaper.” Thank God (or Anarchy) for that!
The Anarchists are consistent only in their inconsistency. “Don’t do
as I do but do as I tell you,” is a maxim favoured by religionists and
Anarchists alike. By his very “principles” an Anarchist is excluded
from participating in what he calls “parliamentarianism.” Yet some of
the “companions” recommend the sending of Anarchists to Parliament.
“The only means left open to us now is to vote, and a few Anarchists in
Parliament would do an immense amount of good” (Morrison Davidson at
Autonomie Club, _Freedom_, March, 1894.)[7]
[7] “Anarchism is as hostile to the ballot as peace is to gunpowder.”
(_Liberty_, New York, August 29, 1891.) “Inasmuch as Anarchistic
associations recognise the right of secession, they may utilise the
ballot, if they see fit to do so.” (_Liberty_, New York, October 24,
1885.)
The Anarchist is an enemy of the State, opposed to majority-rule, yet
has the brazen effrontery to support them. “All that is necessary
is to combine and elect a majority of one House _to do nothing_.”
(Van Ornum, “Why Government at all?”) But why go to the trouble and
expense of electing Anarchists to Parliament “to do nothing,” when they
accomplish that same result so very effectually outside? So little
even did Proudhon himself think of the Anarchist “principles” he
himself is supposed to have originated, that he stood as a candidate
for the Constituent Assembly of France, and advised the working men
of that country to vote for certain candidates who pledged themselves
to “constitute value.” The Anarchist’s “principles,” in fact, change
with the condition of his liver. He reminds one of the candidate for
Parliamentary honours who concluded an election speech by saying,
“Them’s my principles, gentlemen, but if you don’t like them I can
change them!”
Briefly summarised, the case stands thus: In the coming “society of
free men called Anarchy,” there is to be no Government, you understand,
but a “directing body;” no authority, but “regulations;” majority-rule
is to be relegated to limbo, and in its place we are to have--the rule
of the majority; there is to be organisation and no organisation;
private property, common property, and no property; I am, in theory, to
do as I please, but risk my neck if I act upon it; there are to be two,
three, or more kinds of railways, tramways, buildings, canals, systems
of drainage, bridges, etc. (not to mention lunatic asylums) side by
side as experiments (why not padded rooms fitted to each house?). But
enough! My brain begins to whirl.
And now, dear reader (as they say in tracts), after you have read,
marked, learned, and thoroughly masticated the above precious items
of Anarchist “philosophy,” you will appreciate with me the beautiful
harmony of “Anarchist society” on the “morrow of the Revolution.” Oh,
what must it be to be there!
XVII.
“PROPAGANDA BY DEED.”
The following article is taken from the Anarchist journal _Liberty_
(London, March, 1894), and shows the attitude taken toward the matter
of bomb outrage:--
WHY I ADVOCATE PHYSICAL FORCE
_to repel the aggressive force of the governing class_.
BY G. LAWRENCE.
“In order to make clear my advocacy of such force as has been used
on the Continent (and will no doubt be used sooner or later in this
country too) it is well to state what position in, or rather outside,
Society it is from which I have to deal with the social problem.
I am an economic slave; that is, I have to sell my labour, being the
only thing I possess, to anyone who will purchase it; considering
myself lucky if even I can sell it to advertise the adulterated food
which poisons me, to build a church which robs me of my intellect,
to build a wall which prevents my looking upon natural scenery or,
worst of all, to advertise the cause of the candidate for office
whose interests I believe to be diametrically opposed to mine; I am
in a vice. I must sell myself to help do some job I would rather not
have done, or I must starve if I refuse so to sell myself. I am a
slave because I cannot choose my work according to my aptitude or
my principles; a slave because I must starve, beg, or steal, if not
employed on the terms laid down by another; a slave because I cannot
choose whether, even on terms not my own, I will be employed--and so be
able to live or not. A slave, because Society treats me, not as one of
its members, but as a tool or a ware, to be disposed of at any market
value like a log of timber or a bale of goods. I must do the bidding of
the commercialist if I desire to live; the alternative is starvation
and death. Thus, being an economic slave, I have no political rights.
Now while those who form Society, _i.e._, those who hold the property
of the nation and as a consequence enjoy political freedom, are
discussing the situation, I am suffering under it. It must not
be forgotten that there are plenty of nostrums advocated for the
regeneration of Society, by men who are politically free. Hundreds
of nostrums; but no particular hurry to come to any agreement about
them. And if one comes to review the many schemes put forward, it is
plain that the advocates of each of them are willing to do _something_,
provided only that the something to be done does not affect the
schemer’s individual position. The consequence is that nothing actually
_is_ done. It is all very natural; self-preservation is the first law
of nature. But we must remember that the economic slave is also a
natural being, and must therefore act in precisely the same way.
It is because I believe so strongly in the law of self-preservation
that I predict that the conflicting schemes propounded by the
propertied classes, each of which schemes is so devised as not to
interfere with the present position of those who devise them, must
inevitably fail. What then? The same natural law which thus robs the
rulers of power, will assert itself in the slaves, causing them to
resort to the only means of self-preservation which they possess,
namely, physical force. They will thus compel Society either to make
concessions, or to dissolve. In the latter case a new society would
begin to grow according to the real aspirations of the people, who,
having no longer any immediate interests apart from the rest of
humanity, would be inclined to act in a perfectly just and equitable
way.
But now what about acts of individual revolt? and are they beneficial?
They are just as truly a natural phenomenon as the general revolution
itself; justifiable, therefore, in the same way and proportionately
beneficial. They are, in short, part and parcel of the total
revolution, and an important part inasmuch as they contribute to
its success by forcing upon the attention of Society the desperate
condition into which it has got, bringing home to people otherwise
indifferent that something is really and radically wrong. This cannot
but induce thought as to how matters can be remedied. Even though
Society concludes that it is best to hang the individual rebel, at
least it has been moved. The chances are that when action becomes more
frequent Society will begin to alter the manner of its response. Deeper
consideration will be given, and minds thus unconsciously prepared for
the actual revolution.
My belief is that through the acts of such men as Ravachol, Pallas and
Vaillant all Society is roused to give at least a passing thought to
the social question; and the hard ground is broken for those whose
work it is to teach the philosophy of that question.”
The following article is taken from _The Torch_ _of Anarchy_, and was
written by Emile Henri, the Anarchist who was guillotined for blowing
up a coffee-house in Paris.
PROPAGANDA BY DEED.
BY EMILE HENRI.
“What does the Anarchist want? The autonomy of the individual,
the development of his free initiative which alone can ensure his
happiness, and it is solely by reasoning that he becomes a communist,
for he understands that he can only find his own happiness in that of
all men, free and independent like himself.
When a man in our present society becomes a rebel conscious of his
actions, and such was Ravachol, it is because his brain has been
engaged in a work of reasoning which embodies his whole life, analysing
the causes of his sufferings, and he alone is therefore entitled to
judge whether he is right or wrong in his hatred, in being savage and
even ferocious. As for ourselves, we believe that acts of brutal revolt
like those which have been committed hit the right nail on the head,
for they awake the masses by striking a heavy blow at them and showing
the vulnerable point of the Bourgeoisie, who still tremble at the
moment the rebel ascends the scaffold.
We perfectly understand that all Anarchists have not the temperament
of a Ravachol; each of us have a physiognomy of his own and special
aptitudes which distinguish him from his fellow-combatants.
We say that love engenders hatred; the more we love liberty and
equality, the more must we hate all that which hinders men from being
free and equal.
Thus without being led astray by mysticisms we look at the matter
from the standpoint of reality, and say: It is true that men are but
the products of institutions, yet these institutions are but abstract
things which exist only so long as there are men of flesh and blood who
represent them.
There is therefore only one way of striking at these institutions,
_i.e._, to strike the men themselves, and we are happy to vindicate any
energetic act of revolt against the Bourgeois society, for we do not
lose sight of the fact that the Revolution can only result from the
individual acts of rebellion all together.”
This manifesto was issued to the unemployed in 1886, and was largely
responsible for the West End riots of February 8 of that year.
[Illustration: _ANARCHIST MANIFESTO._
TO THE UNEMPLOYED. ]
The war-cry of revolution--“Work or Bread”--is ringing in the air.
Thousands of you are demonstrating in the streets; thousands of
you are parading your poverty instead of putting an end to it.
You cry for the crumbs of the wasted produce of your underpaid
and over-stocked labour--you, who create _all_ and are entitled
to all! _Bread_, indeed! “Man cannot live by bread alone.” Being
apostrophized as paupers, you now _beg_ for WORK--that snare by which
your idle exploiters fatten themselves and starve you; _work_--that
seal of your slavery! Cowards, not to _take_ all you _make_! To work
is to prolong your present misery. Your condition to-day--and it will
become worse--is one of the natural and necessary effects of the
capitalistic commercial system in which you are enslaved by law.
You are starving because you have worked too much! The markets are
glutted, the factories are closed, because you have been _too_
industrious. You have performed all the work that is needed and
demanded by Society, but you have not been _paid_. It is true that
your capitalistic exploiters doled out a miserable portion of your
earnings, sufficient to keep you alive merely, until _they_ were done
with you. But it is _your_ turn now--you have not done with _them_.
Your day of reckoning has arrived. Only 20 per cent. of the products
of labour goes back to labour: 80 per cent. is therefore the extent
of the combined fleecings of the wolves of usury!
Labour produced all artificial wealth. Artificial wealth is the only
kind of wealth that anyone has a right to own, and as labour alone
created all artificial wealth, it rightfully belongs to labour alone.
Those who monopolise all the natural, as well as the artificial
wealth, to-day, never had a just title to either. They are the real
rogues and vagabonds, the _only_ thieves and loafers. They bribe
their newspaper hacks to howl you down, and pay and pamper the police
to truncheon you when you speak out these facts in the name of
outraged justice! Is it not time, then, that you ceased to _talk_,
and made up your minds to _act_? Rally under the banner of Anarchy.
XVIII.
DOES SOCIALISM LEAD TO ANARCHISM?
It has been said that Socialism is merely the half-way house to
Anarchism. This belief, so widespread among Englishmen, is so palpably
absurd that one marvels how an intelligent person can be deceived
therewith.
[Illustration: THE EVOLUTION OF THE “COMMONWEAL.”]