instanced in proof. It will be seen from the headings of this journal,
which are herewith reproduced, that originally the paper appeared as
the “official journal of the Socialist League”; that later it blossomed
forth as a “journal of revolutionary Socialism”; and finally as a
“revolutionary journal of Anarchist-Communism.” This, it is said, is
proof of the close connection between Socialism and Anarchism. What are
the facts? Simply these: that from its inception the Socialist League
(to whom the _Commonweal_ originally belonged), from its anti-political
constitution, offered a field for Anarchistic propaganda. Whilst
consistently repudiating Anarchist doctrines, the Socialist League
differed from other Socialist organisations which attempted to realise
Socialistic projects by constitutional methods, in that it favoured the
anarchical policy of physical force revolution. A number of Anarchists
joined the League (as I have pointed out elsewhere), with the avowed
object of turning its efforts into out-and-out Anarchistic channels.
In this they were successful, for gradually but surely the Socialists
left the League in disgust at their “revolutionary” associates, and
the Anarchists were soon masters of the situation, having secured the
printing plant and machinery, as well as the _Commonweal_ itself,
immediately converting the paper into an exponent of revolutionary
Anarchist opinions. This is the real explanation of the _Commonweal’s_
change of attitude. Moreover, when the _Commonweal_ was the property of
the Socialist League it spoke out plainly against Anarchism, and when
it fell into the hands of the Anarchists it most bitterly declaimed
against Socialism and all its works.
It is quite true that a person who has but an imperfect grasp of
Socialist principles may possibly tend in an Anarchist direction, so
true is it that a little learning is a dangerous thing. But to the
Socialist who is also a student of history and economics no such mental
contortion is possible; he sees that as between Socialism and Anarchism
there must be war to the death--the one being the actual antithesis of
the other.
In the early infancy of the Socialist movement, when the essentials
were a red tie and a belief in the daily expected “revolution,” many
well-intentioned but certainly unlearned men and women flocked to
the Socialist banner in the expectation of the near approach of the
millennium. When the Socialist party attained its majority these
childish notions were cast on one side, and the task it set out to
accomplish was not that of overturning society and establishing the
complete Socialist Commonwealth at a blow, but that of convincing men
and women that the gradual adoption of Collectivist principles by
the State and the municipalities would prove so plainly beneficial
to the community that the principle would be extended until finally
all industries would be absorbed. In this they have been eminently
successful, for to-day, private capitalism for private gain is being
gradually but surely superseded by public co-operation for public
benefits.
This change of attitude on the part of the Socialists, of course, did
not satisfy the few discontents who, still faithful to the “Revolution”
and the red tie, naturally went over to the Anarchists, as being the
only party left which still stood for the old nonsensical ideas. Some
few years back splits occurred in three or four branches of the Social
Democratic Federation, notably at Canning Town, Deptford, and Peckham.
Some of the members who either resigned or were expelled that body,
now constituted themselves into local Anarchist “groups.” They were
composed almost entirely of young and inexperienced persons--many mere
youths (and everyone knows that youth is the period of indiscretions).
To-day the persons who once composed these three Anarchist “groups” are
anything but Anarchist in their sympathies; many, in fact, having gone
back to their old love--riper age having brought saner ideas. Of the
“groups” at Peckham and Deptford but two persons to-day remain faithful
to the Anarchist cause!
[Illustration: ANARCHISM AND--]
[Illustration: SOCIALISM.]
The belief that Socialism and Anarchism are synonymous can be explained
only on two grounds; either the person who makes the statement is
ignorant of the meaning and purport of either or both Socialism and
Anarchism, or he is a person interested in misrepresenting Socialism
from personal or political motives. Socialism is the exact opposite
of Anarchism, both in theory and tactics. Socialism means State and
municipal ownership of the nation’s industries for the nation’s
interest. Anarchism means the abolition of the State--central and
municipal--and of every form of organisation, system, and authority
whatsoever. Socialism proposes to reach its ideal commonwealth through
the constitutional medium of parliamentary and municipal action.
Anarchism seeks not to alter the social system, but to strike at its
representatives, and its weapons are the cowardly ones of knife, torch,
revolver, and bomb. The two theories have nothing in common.
XIX.
A PLEA FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF VIOLENT ANARCHIST PUBLICATIONS.
The idea is becoming general that the propagandist of violent Anarchist
doctrine should be treated with the same severity as is accorded those
who carry out the hateful tenets he preaches.
Human beings, as we know, have sometimes held beliefs of which crime
was the logical and necessary outcome--as, for instance, the Thugs
in India, who looked upon the murder of travellers as a religious
obligation. That Anarchism in its violent form is such a belief; that,
in fact, its creed is merely a cloak for crime of every description, we
have already seen.
Passing through a rather low-class part of East London, one fine
Sunday morning, I was pained to hear a crowd applaud an Anarchist
street-orator, who was openly and boldly advocating burglary and
crimes of almost every description. On my expressing my surprise to
a constable near by that Englishmen should approve such criminal
sentiments, he replied, “Why, sir, them people _practise_ what that
fellow’s preaching--they’re thieves, sir, every man jack of them.”
This was some years ago; since then I have made a special study of
Anarchist publications, and become acquainted with various Anarchists
in different parts of the country. The result of my experience is the
conviction that that constable was right--that the Anarchist agitator
is simply the mouthpiece of the criminal classes. We punish the man who
breaks the law, but leave the maker of law-breakers untouched.
The belief that “property is theft” (_vide_ Proudhon, the “father” of
Anarchism); that, according to the notorious Malatesta, everyone should
be free “to do as he pleases” under all circumstances; that “everything
belongs to everyone” (Kropotkin); and that a life of idleness and
robbery culminating in murder, such as was led by the Anarchist
miscreant, Ravachol, is a life which, according to the _Commonweal_,
is “worthy of emulation,” is a belief which is marvellously comforting
to those of criminal inclination, and to weak-minded persons who have
a natural propensity to commit acts of an anti-social character. Such
persons, in fact, flock to the Anarchist standard.
“Put money in thy purse,” wrote the notorious Johann Most, in his
_Freiheit_ of 1880. And the Anarchists have not been slow to act upon
it. And why should they not? Has not their creed erased the words
“right” and “wrong” from the vocabulary? “A fig for good and evil,”
exclaims the Anarchist Max Stirner ... “neither has any meaning ... my
concern is neither the godly nor the human; is not the true, the good,
the right, the free, etc., but simply my own self.”
“Pillage and murder the rich,” was the favourite theme, not only of the
French Anarchist slang journal _Le Père Peinard_, but of the various
London Anarchist journals, as I have shown. Cyril Bell, a well-known
London Anarchist, is reported in _Freedom_ (December, 1891) as advising
“revolt by refusing payment to shopkeepers whose goods we take when
we want them,” etc. The _Sheffield Anarchist_ said, “Don’t work;”
and Dr. Creaghe, its editor, says that the “only logical way for an
Anarchist to make a livelihood is by pillage,” which, with others, he
attempted to put into practice. However, after a while, he wrote in
the _Commonweal_ that he was “discouraged with regard to the No Rent
and Robbery Propaganda.” Not, mark you, because they were immoral--oh,
dear no!--but because they were rather risky. He then proposed a
poaching expedition as the easiest way of “living on the enemy.” “We
should have to fight though, and perchance kill an occasional keeper or
policeman,” he says, but this was only a mere detail, hardly worthy of
consideration.
The following is an extract, not from some Burglary Manual, but from
the writings of Prince Kropotkin, the leader of London Anarchists:
“Instead of inanely repeating the old formula ‘Respect the law,’ we say
‘Despise law and all its attributes!’ In place of the cowardly phrase
‘Obey the law,’ our cry is ‘Revolt against all laws!’” The effect of
such teaching can only be to demoralise rather than to elevate those
who embrace it. But it is especially the mischievous meddling of
Anarchists in strikes that is likely, one day, to produce results in
this country similar to what has often taken place on the Continent
and in America. There, acting upon the advice of Anarchist agitators,
strikers have introduced the weapons of the knife, revolver, torch and
bomb. It is true that here in England working men have not been led
upon this path of criminality. But it is not for want of trying on the
part of the Anarchists. During the great London dock strike thousands
of Anarchist manifestoes headed “Fight or Starve!” were distributed
among the men on strike, advocating the pillage of the shops, the
blowing-up and setting fire to the docks and wharves. When the East End
tailors struck, the Anarchist cry was altered to “Death to Sweaters!”
While the London busmen’s strike was in full swing the _Commonweal_
came out with an article recommending the poisoning of the horses. It
is true the paper said _don’t poison the horses_, but it was advice of
the don’t-nail-his-ear-to-the-pump order.
Among working men on strike, especially if the position is getting
desperate and hopeless, there are always a number of hot-heads ready
for mischief. This the Anarchists know and take full advantage of.
Thus, if they are able to get the ear of men on strike, their advice
is always to “seize the wealth in the shops,” hoping thereby, should a
riot occur, they will themselves come out of the scrimmage the richer.
One Anarchist I know, during the riots of 1886, when the unemployed
sacked the shops in the West End, secured valuables which, to my
certain knowledge, enabled him to dress in “purple and fine linen and
fare sumptuously every day” for over a twelve month.
To sum up. We have seen that the Anarchist looks upon all acts from
the point of view of the right of the individual to “do as he pleases”
under all circumstances, and who, in the name of that “right,” passes
a verdict of “not guilty” on the most atrocious deeds, the most
revoltingly arbitrary acts. “What matter the victims,” exclaimed the
Anarchist poet, Laurent Tailhade, on the evening of Vaillant’s outrage
in the French Chamber; “what matters the death of vague human beings if
thereby the individual affirms himself?”[8]
[8] Anarchists certainly have no liking for their own physic. It
appears that M. Tailhade was wounded by an explosion at the Restaurant
Foyet. A telegram in _La Tribune de Geneve_ of April 5th, 1894, says:
“M. Tailhade is constantly protesting against the Anarchist theories
he is credited with. One of the house surgeons, having reminded him of
his article and the famous phrase quoted above, M. Tailhade remained
silent, and asked for chloral to alleviate his pain.”
It is sometimes said that often the violent language of Anarchists
is but the hare-brained rattle of fools seeking a sensation. Be this
as it may, the fact remains that weak-minded persons, and those with
criminal leanings, are apt to take their writings and speeches
seriously, and act upon them. It is a fact that every Anarchist group
is composed largely of mere youths. To such, Anarchist views have some
attraction, as being calculated to allow a reckless independence,
freedom from control, and a kind of intellectual audacity which, for
a time, fascinates. Accordingly, in the interests of such, my call is
to everyone who has the moral and material welfare of the nation at
heart--to political and social reformers, to Socialists, and to every
kind of ethical and religious propagandist--to unite in calling for the
total suppression of violent Anarchist publications, and the dealing
out of equal punishments to those who incite to crime as for those who
commit the actual offences.
“Thy hand, great Anarch, lets the curtain fall,
And universal darkness buries all.”--_Pope._
_Wyman and Sons, Ltd., Printers, London and Reading._
Transcriber note
Spelling and punctuation errors have been corrected.
Italic text has been enclosed in underscores.
Smallcap text has been capitalised.