Bak Krop Gold Bourne

7/29/2019 Bak Krop Gold Bourne

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bak-krop-gold-bourne 1/23

What is Authority ?

Mikhail Bakunin

Followed by

Anarchism

Piotr Kropotkin

Followed by

ANARCHISM what it really stands for

Emma Goldman

Followed by

War is the health of the state

Randolph Bourne

*****

What is Authority ?

Mikhail Bakunin

What is authority? Is it the inevitable power of the natural laws which manifest themselves in

the necessary linking and succession of phenomena in the physical and social worlds? Indeed,

against these laws revolt is not only forbidden - it is even impossible. We may misunderstand

them or not know them at all, but we cannot disobey them; because they constitute the basis

and the fundamental conditions of our existence; they envelop us, penetrate us, regulate all

our movements. thoughts and acts; even when we believe that we disobey them, we only

show their omnipotence.

Yes, we are absolutely the slaves of these laws. But in such slavery there is no humiliation, or,

rather, it is not slavery at all. For slavery supposes an external master, a legislator outside of him whom he commands, while these laws are not outside of us; they are inherent in us; they

constitute our being, our whole being, physically, intellectually, and morally; we live, we

breathe, we act, we think, we wish only through these laws. Without them we are nothing, we

are not. Whence, then, could we derive the power and the wish to rebel against them?

In his relation to natural laws but one liberty is possible to man - that of recognising and

applying them on an ever-extending scale of conformity with the object of collective and

individual emancipation of humanisation which he pursues. These laws, once recognised,

exercise an authority which is never disputed by the mass of men. One must, for instance, be

at bottom either a fool or a theologician or at least a metaphysician, jurist or bourgeois

economist to rebel against the law by which twice two make four. One must have faith toimagine that fire will not burn nor water drown, except, indeed, recourse be had to some



subterfuge founded in its turn on some other natural law. But these revolts, or rather, these

attempts at or foolish fancies of an impossible revolt, are decidedly the exception: for, in

general, it may be said that the mass of men, in their daily lives, acknowledge the government

of common sense - that is, of the sum of the general laws generally recognised - in an almost

absolute fashion.

The great misfortune is that a large number of natural laws, already established as such by

science, remain unknown to the masses, thanks to the watchfulness of those tutelary

governments that exist, as we know, only for the good of the people. There is another

difficulty - namely, that the major portion of the natural laws connected with the development

of human society, which are quite as necessary, invariable, fatal, as tte laws that govern the

physical world, have not been duly established and recognised by science itself.

Once they shall have been recognised by science, and then from science, by means of an

extensive system of popular education and instruction, shall have passed into the

consciousness of all, the question of liberty will be entirely solved. The most stubborn

authorities must admit that then there will be no need either of political organisation or direction or legislation, three things which, whether they emanate from the will of the

sovereign or from the vote of a parliament elected by universal suffrage, and even should they

conform to the system of natural laws - which has never been the case and never will be the

case - are always equally fatal and hostile to the liberty of the masses from the very fact that

they impose on them a system of external and therefore despotic laws.

The Liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself

recognised them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any

extrinsic will whatsoever, divine or human, collective or individual.

Suppose a learned academy, composed of the most illustrious representatives of science;

suppose this academy charged with legislation for and the organisation of society, and that,inspired only by the purest love of truth, it frames none but the laws but the laws in absolute

harmony with the latest discoveries of science. Well, I maintain, for my part, that such

legislation and such organisation would be a monstrosity, and that, and that for two reasons:

first, that human science is always and necessarily imperfect, and that, comparing what it has

discovered with what remains to be discovered, we may say that it is still in its cradle. So that

were we to try to force the practical life of men, collective as well as individual, into strict and

exclusive conformity with the latest data of science, we should condemn society as well as

individuals to suffer martyrdom on a bed of Procrustes, which would soon end by dislocating

and stifling them, life ever remaining an infinitely greater thing than science.

The second reason is this: a society which should obey legislation emanating from a scientificacademy, not because it understood itself the rational character of this legislation (in which

case the existence of the academy would become useless), but because this legislation,

emanating from the academy, was imposed in the name of a science which it venerated

without comprehending - such a society would be a society, not of men, but of brutes. It

would be a second edition of those missions in Paraguay which submitted so long to the

government of the Jesuits. It would surely and rapidly descend to the lowest stage of idiocy.

But there is still a third reason which would render such a government impossible - namely

that a scientific academy invested with a sovereignty, so to speak, absolute, even if it were

composed of the most illustrious men, would infallibly and soon end in its own moral and

intellectual corruption. Even today, with the few privileges allowed them, such is the historyof all academies. The greatest scientific genius, from the moment that he becomes an



academian, an officially licensed savant, inevitably lapses into sluggishness. He loses his

spontaneity, his revolutionary hardihood, and that troublesome and savage energy

characteristic of the grandest geniuses, ever called to destroy old tottering worlds and lay the

foundations of new. He undoubtedly gains in politeness, in utilitarian and practical wisdom,

what he loses in power of thought. In a word, he becomes corrupted.

It is the characteristic of privilege and of every privileged position to kill the mind and heart

of men. The privileged man, whether practically or economically, is a man depraved in mind

and heart. That is a social law which admits of no exception, and is as applicable to entire

nations as to classes, corporations and individuals. It is the law of equality, the supreme

condition of liberty and humanity. The principle object of this treatise is precisely to

demonstrate this truth in all the manifestations of social life.

A scientific body to which had been confided the government of society would soon end by

devoting itself no longer to science at all, but to quite another affair; and that affair, as in the

case of all established powers, would be its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society

confided to its care ever more stupid and consequently more in need of its government anddirection.

But that which is true of scientific academies is also true of all constituent and legislative

assemblies, even those chosen by universal suffrage. In the latter case they may renew their

composition, it is true, but this does not prevent the formation in a few years' time of a body

of politicians, privileged in fact though not in law, who, devoting themselves exclusively to

the direction of the public affairs of a country, finally form a sort of political aristocracy or

oligarchy. Witness the United States of America and Switzerland.

Consequently, no external legislation and no authority - one, for that matter, being inseparable

from the other, and both tending to the servitude of society and the degradation of the

legislators themselves.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I

refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that

of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a

savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority

upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their

character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I

do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult

several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I

recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I

may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faithin any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success

of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of

the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain

extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it

is because their authority is imposed on me by no one, neither by men nor by God. ions and

even their directions Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their

counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss

of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they

might give me.



I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I

am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any

very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a

comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity

of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each

directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but acontinual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and

subordination.

This same reason forbids me, then, to recognise a fixed, constant and universal authority,

because there is no universal man, no man capable of grasping in all that wealth of detail,

without which the application of science to life is impossible, all the sciences, all the branches

of social life. And if such universality could ever be realised in a single man, and if he wished

to take advantage thereof to impose his authority upon us, it would be necessary to drive this

man out of society, because his authority would inevitably reduce all the others to slavery and

imbecility. I do not think that society ought to maltreat men of genius as it has done hitherto:

but neither do I think it should indulge them too far, still less accord them any privileges or exclusive rights whatsoever; and that for three reasons: first, because it would often mistake a

charlatan for a man of genius; second, because, through such a system of privileges, it might

transform into a charlatan even a real man of genius, demoralise him, and degrade him; and,

finally, because it would establish a master over itself.

Anarchism1

Piotr Kropotkin

ANARCHISM (from the Gr., and, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government -

harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any

authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and

professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the

satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to

cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute

themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network,

composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local,

regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements,

education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the

satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs.

Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in

organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing

adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences,

and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special

protection from the state.

1 This text was written by Kropotkin in 1905 as an article for the eleventh edition of the

Encyclopedia Britannica.



If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would not be limited in the

free exercise of his powers in productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the

state; nor would he be limited in the exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by

obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of

initiative and servility of mind. He would be guided in his actions by his own understanding,

which necessarily would bear the impression of a free action and reaction between his ownself and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings. Man would thus be enabled to obtain the

full development of all his faculties, intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered

by overwork for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great number.

He would thus be able to reach full individualization, which is not possible either under the

present system of individualism, or under any system of state socialism in the so-called

Volkstaat (popular state).

The anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a utopia, constructed on

the a priori method, after a few desiderata have been taken as postulates. It is derived, they

maintain, from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already, even though state socialism

may find a temporary favour with the reformers. The progress of modern technics, whichwonderfully simplifies the production of all the necessaries of life; the growing spirit of

independence, and the rapid spread of free initiative and free understanding in all branches of

activity - including those which formerly were considered as the proper attribution of church

and state - are steadily reinforcing the no-government tendency.

As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom

they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in

land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs

against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle

which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so

as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and

continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the

capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly

accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating the present

monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same

energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this or that special form, but the state

altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.

The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and modern history (Macedonian

empire, Roman empire, modern European states grown up on the ruins of the autonomous

cities), the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot bemade to work for the destruction of these monopolies. The anarchists consider, therefore, that

to hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life - the land, the mines, the

railways, banking, insurance, and so on - as also the management of all the main branches of

industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, state-

supported religions, defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new instrument of

tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism. True

progress lies in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional , in the

development of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from the

simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the centre to the periphery.

In common with most socialists, the anarchists recognize that, like all evolution in nature, theslow evolution of society is followed from time to time by periods of accelerated evolution



which are called revolutions; and they think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed.

Periods of rapid changes will follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be

taken advantage of - not for increasing and widening the powers of the state, but for reducing

them, through the organization in every township or commune of the local groups of

producers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the international, federations of

these groups.

In virtue of the above principles the anarchists refuse to be party to the present state

organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood into it. They do not seek to constitute,

and invite the working men not to constitute, political parties in the parliaments. Accordingly,

since the foundation of the International Working Men's Association in 1864-1866, they have

endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organizations and to induce

those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary

legislation.

The historical development of anarchism

The conception of society just sketched, and the tendency which is its dynamic expression,have always existed in mankind, in opposition to the governing hierarchic conception and

tendency - now the one and now the other taking the upper hand at different periods of

history. To the former tendency we owe the evolution, by the masses themselves, of those

institutions - the clan, the village community, the guild, the free medieval city - by means of

which the masses resisted the encroachments of the conquerors and the power-seeking

minorities. The same tendency asserted itself with great energy in the great religious

movements of medieval times, especially in the early movements of the reform and its

forerunners. At the same time it evidently found its expression in the writings of some

thinkers, since the times of Lao-tsze, although, owing to its non-scholastic and popular origin,

it obviously found less sympathy among the scholars than the opposed tendency.As has been pointed out by Prof. Adler in his Geschichte des Sozialismus und Kommunismus,

Aristippus (born circa 430 B.C.), one of the founders of the Cyrenaic school, already taught

that the wise must not give up their liberty to the state, and in reply to a question by Socrates

he said that he did not desire to belong either to the governing or the governed class. Such an

attitude, however, seems to have been dictated merely by an Epicurean attitude towards the

life of the masses.

The best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno (342-267 or 270 B.C.),

from Crete, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, who distinctly opposed his conception of a

free community without government to the state-utopia of Plato. He repudiated the

omnipotence of the state, its intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereigntyof the moral law of the individual - remarking already that, while the necessary instinct of

self-preservation leads man to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man

with another instinct - that of sociability. When men are reasonable enough to follow their

natural instincts, they will unite across the frontiers and constitute the cosmos. They will have

no need of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public worship, and use no

money - free gifts taking the place of the exchanges. Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno have

not reached us and are only known through fragmentary quotations. However, the fact that his

very wording is similar to the wording now in use, shows how deeply is laid the tendency of

human nature of which he was the mouth-piece.

In medieval times we find the same views on the state expressed by the illustrious bishop of Alba, Marco Girolamo Vida, in his first dialogue De dignitate reipublicae (Ferd. Cavalli, in



Men. dell'Istituto Veneto, xiii.; Dr E. Nys, Researches in the History of Economics). But it is

especially in several early Christian movements, beginning with the ninth century in Armenia,

and in the preachings of the early Hussites, particularly Chojecki, and the early Anabaptists,

especially Hans Denk (cf. Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertäufer ), that one finds the same ideas

forcibly expressed - special stress being laid of course on their moral aspects.

Rabelais and Fénelon, in their Utopias, have also expressed similar ideas, and they were also

current in the eighteenth century amongst the French Encyclopaedists, as may be concluded

from separate expressions occasionally met with in the writings of Rousseau, from Diderot's

Preface to the Voyage of Bougainville, and so on. However, in all probability such ideas

could not be developed then, owing to the rigorous censorship of the Roman Catholic Church.

These ideas found their expression later during the great French Revolution. While the

Jacobins did all in their power to centralize everything in the hands of the government, it

appears now, from recently published documents, that the masses of the people, in their

municipalities and 'sections', accomplished a considerable constructive work. They

appropriated for themselves the election of the judges, the organization of supplies andequipment for the army, as also for the large cities, work for the unemployed, the

management of charities, and so on. They even tried to establish a direct correspondence

between the 36,000 communes of France through the intermediary of a special board, outside

the National Assembly (cf. Sigismund Lacroix, Actes de la commune de Paris).

It was Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (2 vols., 1793), who was the first

to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not

give that name to the ideas developed in his remarkable work. Laws, he wrote, are not a

product of the wisdom of our ancestors: they are the product of their passions, their timidity,

their jealousies and their ambition. The remedy they offer is worse than the evils they pretend

to cure. If and only if all laws and courts were abolished, and the decisions in the arisingcontests were left to reasonable men chosen for that purpose, real justice would gradually be

evolved. As to the state, Godwin frankly claimed its abolition. A society, he wrote, can

perfectly well exist without any government: only the communities should be small and

perfectly autonomous. Speaking of property, he stated that the rights of every one "to every

substance capable of contributing to the benefit of a human being" must be regulated by

justice alone: the substance must go 'to him who most wants it." His conclusion was

communism. Godwin, however, had not the courage to maintain his opinions. He entirely

rewrote later on his chapter on property and mitigated his communist views in the second

edition of Political Justice (8vo, 1796).

Proudhon was the first to use, in 1840 (Qu'est-ce que la propriété? first memoir), the name of

anarchy with application to the no-government state of society. The name of 'anarchists' had

been freely applied during the French Revolution by the Girondists to those revolutionaries

who did not consider that the task of the Revolution was accomplished with the overthrow of

Louis XVI, and insisted upon a series of economical measures being taken (the abolition of

feudal rights without redemption, the return to the village communities of the communal lands

enclosed since 1669, the limitation of landed property to 120 acres, progressive income-tax,

the national organization of exchanges on a just value basis, which already received a

beginning of practical realization, and so on).

Now Proudhon advocated a society without government, and used the word anarchy to

describe it. Proudhon repudiated, as is known, all schemes of communism, according to which

mankind would be driven into communistic monasteries or barracks, as also all the schemes

of state or state-aided socialism which were advocated by Louis Blanc and the collectivists.



When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that "Property is theft," he meant only

property in its present, Roman-law, sense of "right of use and abuse"; in property-rights, on

the other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the best protection

against the encroachments of the state. At the same time he did not want violently to

dispossess the present owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He

preferred to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest; and this he proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those

who are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among themselves their

produces at cost-value, by means of labour cheques representing the hours of labour required

to produce every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon described as

"Mutuellisme," all the exchanges of services would be strictly equivalent. Besides, such a

bank would be enabled to lend money without interest, levying only something like 1 per

cent, or even less, for covering the cost of administration. Everyone being thus enabled to

borrow the money that would be required to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any

more a yearly rent for the use of it. A general "social liquidation" would thus be rendered

easy, without violent expropriation. The same applied to mines, railways, factories and so on.

In a society of this type the state would be useless. The chief relations between citizens would

be based on free agreement and regulated by mere account keeping. The contests might be

settled by arbitration. A penetrating criticism of the state and all possible forms of

government, and a deep insight into all economic problems, were well-known characteristics

of Proudhon's work.

It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in William

Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist, and in his followers

John Gray ( A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray

( Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839). It had also its precursor in America. Josiah

Warren, who was born in 1798 (cf. W. Bailie, Josiah Warren, the First American Anarchist,Boston, 1900), and belonged to Owen's "New Harmony," considered that the failure of this

enterprise was chiefly due to the suppression of individuality and the lack of initiative and

responsibility. These defects, he taught, were inherent to every scheme based upon authority

and the community of goods. He advocated, therefore, complete individual liberty. In 1827 he

opened in Cincinnati a little country store which was the first "Equity Store," and which the

people called "Time Store," because it was based on labour being exchanged hour for hour in

all sorts of produce. "Cost - the limit of price," and consequently "no interest," was the motto

of his store, and later on of his "Equity Village," near New York, which was still in existence

in 1865. Mr Keith's "House of Equity" at Boston, founded in 1855, is also worthy of notice.

While the economical, and especially the mutual-banking, ideas of Proudhon found supportersand even a practical application in the United States, his political conception of anarchy found

but little echo in France, where the christian socialism of Lamennais and the Fourierists, and

the state socialism of Louis Blanc and the followers of Saint-Simon, were dominating. These

ideas found, however, some temporary support among the left-wing Hegelians in Germany,

Moses Hess in 1843, and Karl Grün in 1845, who advocated anarchism. Besides, the

authoritarian communism of Wilhelm Weitling having given origin to opposition amongst the

Swiss working men, Wilhelm Marr gave expression to it in the forties.

On the other side, individualist anarchism found, also in Germany, its fullest expression in

Max Stirner (Kaspar Schmidt), whose remarkable works ( Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum

and articles contributed to the Rheinische Zeitung ) remained quite overlooked until they were brought into prominence by John Henry Mackay.



Prof. V. Basch, in a very able introduction to his interesting book, L'lndividualisme

anarchiste: Max Stirner (1904), has shown how the development of the German philosophy

from Kant to Hegel, and "the absolute" of Schelling and the Geist of Hegel, necessarily

provoked, when the anti-Hegelian revolt began, the preaching of the same "absolute" in the

camp of the rebels. This was done by Stirner, who advocated, not only a complete revolt

against the state and against the servitude which authoritarian communism would imposeupon men, but also the full liberation of the individual from all social and moral bonds - the

rehabilitation of the "I", the supremacy of the individual, complete "amoralism," and the

"association of the egotists." The final conclusion of that sort of individual anarchism has

been indicated by Prof. Basch. It maintains that the aim of all superior civilization is, not to

permit all members of the community to develop in a normal way, but to permit certain better

endowed individuals "fully to develop," even at the cost of the happiness and the very

existence of the mass of mankind. It is thus a return towards the most common individual ism,

advocated by all the would-be superior minorities, to which indeed man owes in his history

precisely the state and the rest, which these individualists combat. Their individualism goes so

far as to end in a negation of their own starting-point - to say nothing of the impossibility for

the individual to attain a really full development in the conditions of oppression of the masses by the "beautiful aristocracies." His development would remain unilateral. This is why this

direction of thought, notwithstanding its undoubtedly correct and useful advocacy of the full

development of each individuality, finds a hearing only in limited artistic and literary circles.

Anarchism in the International Working Men's Association

A general depression in the propaganda of all fractions of socialism followed, as is known,

after the defeat of the uprising of the Paris working men in June 1848 and the fall of the

Republic. All the socialist press was gagged during the reaction period, which lasted fully

twenty years. Nevertheless, even anarchist thought began to make some progress, namely in

the writings of Bellegarrique (Caeurderoy), and especially Joseph Déjacque ( Les Lazaréennes, L'Humanisphère, an anarchist-communist Utopia, lately discovered and

reprinted). The socialist movement revived only after 1864, when some French working men,

all "mutualists," meeting in London during the Universal Exhibition with English followers of

Robert Owen, founded the International Working Men's Association. This association

developed very rapidly and adopted a policy of direct economical struggle against capitalism,

without interfering in the political parliamentary agitation, and this policy was followed until

1871. However, after the Franco-German War, when the International Association was

prohibited in France after the uprising of the Commune, the German workingmen, who had

received manhood suffrage for elections to the newly constituted imperial parliament, insisted

upon modifying the tactics of the International, and began to build up a Social Democratic

political party. This soon led to a division in the Working Men's Association, and the Latinfederations, Spanish, Italian, Belgian and Jurassic (France could not be represented),

constituted among themselves a Federal union which broke entirely with the Marxist general

council of the International. Within these federations developed now what may be described

as modern anarchism. After the names of "federalists" and "anti-authoritarians" had been used

for some time by these federations the name of "anarchists," which their adversaries insisted

upon applying to them, prevailed, and finally it was revindicated.

Bakunin soon became the leading spirit among these Latin federations for the development of

the principles of anarchism, which he did in a number of writings, pamphlets and letters. He

demanded the complete abolition of the state, which -- he wrote -- is a product of religion,

belongs to a lower state of civilization, represents the negation of liberty, and spoils even thatwhich it undertakes to do for the sake of general well-being. The state was an historically



necessary evil, but its complete extinction will be, sooner or later, equally necessary.

Repudiating all legislation, even when issuing from universal suffrage, Bakunin claimed for

each nation, each region and each commune, full autonomy, so long as it is not a menace to its

neighbours, and full independence for the individual, adding that one becomes really free only

when, and in proportion as, all others are free. Free federations of the communes would

constitute free nations.

As to his economic conceptions, Bakunin described himself, in common with his Federalist

comrades of the International, a "collectivist anarchist" - not in the sense of Vidal and

Pecqueur in the 1840s, or of their modern Social Democratic followers, but to express a state

of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups

and the free communes, while the ways of retribution of labour, communist or otherwise,

would be settled by each group for itself. Social revolution, the near approach of which was

foretold at that time by all socialists, would be the means of bringing into life the new

conditions.

The Jurassic, the Spanish and the Italian federations and sections of the International WorkingMen's Association, as also the French, the German and the American anarchist groups, were

for the next years the chief centres of anarchist thought and propaganda. They refrained from

any participation in parliamentary politics, and always kept in close contact with the labour

organizations. However, in the second half of the eighties and the early nineties of the

nineteenth century, when the influence of the anarchists began to be felt in strikes, in the 1st

of May demonstrations, where they promoted the idea of a general strike for an eight hours'

day, and in the anti-militarist propaganda in the army, violent prosecutions were directed

against them, especially in the Latin countries (including physical torture in the Barcelona

Castle) and the United States (the execution of five Chicago anarchists in 1887). Against these

prosecutions the anarchists retaliated by acts of violence which in their turn were followed by

more executions from above, and new acts of revenge from below. This created in the general public the impression that violence is the substance of anarchism, a view repudiated by its

supporters, who hold that in reality violence is resorted to by all parties in proportion as their

open action is obstructed by repression, and exceptional laws render them outlaws.

Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction of Proudhonian "Mutuellisme," but

chiefly as communist-anarchism, to which a third direction, christian-anarchism, was added

by Leo Tolstoy, and a fourth, which might be ascribed as literary-anarchism, began amongst

some prominent modern writers.

The ideas of Proudhon, especially as regards mutual banking, corresponding with those of

Josiah Warren, found a considerable following in the United States, creating quite a school, of

which the main writers are Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Greene, Lysander Spooner (who

began to write in 1850, and whose unfinished work, Natural Law, was full of promise), and

several others, whose names will be found in Dr Nettlau's Bibliographie del'anarchie.

A prominent position among the individualist anarchists in America has been occupied by

Benjamin R. Tucker, whose journal Liberty was started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a

combination of those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer. Starting from the statement

that anarchists are egotists, strictly speaking, and that every group of individuals, be it a secret

league of a few persons, or the Congress of the United States, has the right to oppress all

mankind, provided it has the power to do so, that equal liberty for all and absolute equality

ought to be the law, and "mind every one your own business" is the unique moral law of

anarchism, Tucker goes on to prove that a general and thorough application of these principles

would be beneficial and would offer no danger, because the powers of every individual would



be limited by the exercise of the equal rights of all others. He further indicated (following H.

Spencer) the difference which exists between the encroachment on somebody's rights and

resistance to such an encroachment; between domination and defence: the former being

equally condemnable, whether it be encroachment of a criminal upon an individual, or the

encroachment of one upon all others, or of all others upon one; while resistance to

encroachment is defensible and necessary. For their self-defence, both the citizen and thegroup have the right to any violence, including capital punishment. Violence is also justified

for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker thus follows Spencer, and, like him,

opens (in the present writer's opinion) the way for reconstituting under the heading of

'defence' all the functions of the state. His criticism of the present state is very searching, and

his defence of the rights of the individual very powerful. As regards his economical views B.

R. Tucker follows Proudhon.

The individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians finds, however, but little

sympathy amongst the working masses. Those who profess it - they are chiefly 'intellectuals' -

soon realize that the individualization they so highly praise is not attainable by individual

efforts, and either abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and are driven into the liberalindividualism of the classical economist or they retire into a sort of Epicurean a-moralism, or

superman theory, similar to that of Stirner and Nietzsche. The great bulk of the anarchist

working men prefer the anarchist-communist ideas which have gradually evolved out of the

anarchist collectivism of the International Working Men's Association. To this direction

belong - to name only the better known exponents of anarchism Elisée Reclus, Jean Grave,

Sébastien Faure, Emile Pouget in France; Errico Malatesta and Covelli in Italy; R. Mella, A.

Lorenzo, and the mostly unknown authors of many excellent manifestos in Spain; John Most

amongst the Germans; Spies, Parsons and their followers in the United States, and so on;

while Domela Nieuwenhuis occupies an intermediate position in Holland. The chief anarchist

papers which have been published since 1880 also belong to that direction; while a number of

anarchists of this direction have joined the so-called syndicalist movement - the French namefor the non-political labour movement, devoted to direct struggle with capitalism, which has

lately become so prominent in Europe.

As one of the anarchist-communist direction, the present writer for many years endeavoured

to develop the following ideas: to show the intimate, logical connection which exists between

the modern philosophy of natural sciences and anarchism; to put anarchism on a scientific

basis by the study of the tendencies that are apparent now in society and may indicate its

further evolution; and to work out the basis of anarchist ethics. As regards the substance of

anarchism itself, it was Kropotkin's aim to prove that communism - at least partial - has more

chances of being established than collectivism, especially in communes taking the lead, and

that free, or anarchist-communism is the only form of communism that has any chance of being accepted in civilized societies; communism and anarchy are therefore two terms of

evolution which complete each other, the one rendering the other possible and acceptable. He

has tried, moreover, to indicate how, during a revolutionary period, a large city - if its

inhabitants have accepted the idea - could organize itself on the lines of free communism; the

city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food and clothing to an extent corresponding

to the comfort now available to the middle classes only, in exchange for a half-day's, or five-

hours' work; and how all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be

obtained by everyone if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations

pursuing all possible aims - educational, literary, scientific, artistic, sports and so on. In order

to prove the first of these assertions he has analysed the possibilities of agriculture and

industrial work, both being combined with brain work. And in order to elucidate the main



factors of human evolution, he has analysed the part played in history by the popular

constructive agencies of mutual aid and the historical role of the state.

Without naming himself an anarchist, Leo Tolstoy, like his predecessors in the popular

religious movements of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Chojecki, Denk and many

others, took the anarchist position as regards the state and property rights, deducing hisconclusions from the general spirit of the teachings of the Christ and from the necessary

dictates of reason. With all the might of his talent he made (especially in The Kingdom of

Godin Yourselves) a powerful criticism of the church, the state and law altogether, and

especially of the present property laws. He describes the state as the domination of the wicked

ones, supported by brutal force. Robbers, he says, are far less dangerous than a well-organized

government. He makes a searching criticism of the prejudices which are current now

concerning the benefits conferred upon men by the church, the state and the existing

distribution of property, and from the teachings of the Christ he deduces the rule of non-

resistance and the absolute condemnation of all wars. His religious arguments are, however,

so well combined with arguments borrowed from a dispassionate observation of the present

evils, that the anarchist portions of his works appeal to the religious and the non-religiousreader alike.

It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the penetration, on the one hand, of

anarchist ideas into modern literature, and the influence, on the other hand, which the

libertarian ideas of the best contemporary writers have exercised upon the development of

anarchism. One ought to consult the ten big volumes of the Supplément Littéraire to the paper

La Révolte and later the Temps Nouveaux, which contain reproductions from the works of

hundreds of modern authors expressing anarchist ideas, in order to realize how closely

anarchism is connected with all the intellectual movement of our own times. J. S. Mill's

Liberty, Spencer's Individual versus the State, Marc Guyau's Morality without Obligation or

Sanction, and Fouillée's Lamorale, l'art et la religion, the works of Multatuli (E. DouwesDekker), Richard Wagner's Art and Revolution, the works of Nietzsche, Emerson, W. Lloyd

Garrison, Thoreau, Alexander Herzen, Edward Carpenter and so on; and in the domain of

fiction, the dramas of Ibsen, the poetry of Walt Whitman, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Zola's

Paris and Le Travail, the latest works of Merezhkovsky, and an infinity of works of less

known authors, are full of ideas which show how closely anarchism is interwoven with the

work that is going on in modern thought in the same direction of enfranchisement of man

from the bonds of the state as well as from those of capitalism.

ANARCHISM what it really stands for

Emma Goldman

ANARCHY.

Ever reviled, accursed, ne'er understood,

Thou art the grisly terror of our age.

"Wreck of all order," cry the multitude,

"Art thou, and war and murder's endless rage."

O, let them cry. To them that ne'er have striven

The truth that lies behind a word to find,

To them the word's right meaning was not given.

They shall continue blind among the blind. But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so pure,



Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken.

I give thee to the future! Thine secure

When each at least unto himself shall waken.

Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill?

I cannot tell - but it the earth shall see!

I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!

JOHN HENRY MACKAY.

THE history of human growth and development is at the same time the history of the

terrible struggle of every new idea heralding the approach of a brighter dawn. In its tenacious

hold on tradition, the Old has never hesitated to make use of the foulest and cruelest means to

stay the advent of the New, in whatever form or period the latter may have asserted itself. Nor

need we retrace our steps into the distant past to realize the enormity of opposition,

difficulties, and hardships placed in the path of every progressive idea. The rack, thethumbscrew, and the knout are still with us; so are the convict's garb and the social wrath, all

conspiring against the spirit that is serenely marching on. Anarchism could not hope to

escape the fate of all other ideas of innovation. Indeed, as the most revolutionary and

uncompromising innovator, Anarchism must needs meet with the combined ignorance and

venom of the world it aims to reconstruct.

To deal even remotely with all that is being said and done against Anarchism would

necessitate the writing of a whole volume. I shall therefore meet only two of the principal

objections. In so doing, I shall attempt to elucidate what Anarchism really stands for.

The strange phenomenon of the opposition to Anarchism is that it brings to light therelation between so-called intelligence and ignorance. And yet this is not so very strange

when we consider the relativity of all things. The ignorant mass has in its favor that it makes

no pretense of knowledge or tolerance. Acting, as it always does, by mere impulse, its reasons

are like those of a child. "Why?" "Because." Yet the opposition of the uneducated to

Anarchism deserves the same consideration as that of the intelligent man.

What, then, are the objections? First, Anarchism is impractical, though a beautiful ideal.

Second, Anarchism stands for violence and destruction, hence it must be repudiated as vile

and dangerous. Both the intelligent man and the ignorant mass judge not from a thorough

knowledge of the subject, but either from hearsay or false interpretation.

A practical scheme, says Oscar Wilde, is either one already in existence, or a scheme that

could be carried out under the existing conditions; but it is exactly the existing conditions that

one objects to, and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish. The

true criterion of the practical, therefore, is not whether the latter can keep intact the wrong or

foolish; rather is it whether the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the

old, and build, as well as sustain, new life. In the light of this conception, Anarchism is indeed

practical. More than any other idea, it is helping to do away with the wrong and foolish; more

than any other idea, it is building and sustaining new life.

The emotions of the ignorant man are continuously kept at a pitch by the most blood-

curdling stories about Anarchism. Not a thing too outrageous to be employed against this philosophy and its exponents. Therefore Anarchism represents to the unthinking what the



proverbial bad man does to the child, - a black monster bent on swallowing everything; in

short, destruction and violence.

Destruction and violence! How is the ordinary man to know that the most violent element

in society is ignorance; that its power of destruction is the very thing Anarchism is

combating? Nor is he aware that Anarchism, whose roots, as it were, are part of nature'sforces, destroys, not healthful tissue, but parasitic growths that feed on the life's essence of

society. It is merely clearing the soil from weeds and sagebrush, that it may eventually bear

healthy fruit.

Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think. The

widespread mental indolence, so prevalent in society, proves this to be only too true. Rather

than to go to the bottom of any given idea, to examine into its origin and meaning, most

people will either condemn it altogether, or rely on some superficial or prejudicial definition

of non-essentials.

Anarchism urges man to think, to investigate, to analyze every proposition; but that the

brain capacity of the average reader be not taxed too much, I also shall begin with adefinition, and then elaborate on the latter.

ANARCHISM: - The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-

made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong

and harmful, as well as unnecessary.

The new social order rests, of course, on the materialistic basis of life; but while all

Anarchists agree that the main evil today is an economic one, they maintain that the solution

of that evil can be brought about only through the consideration of every phase of life, -

individual, as well as the collective; the internal, as well as the external phases.

A thorough perusal of the history of human development will disclose two elements in

bitter conflict with each other; elements that are only now beginning to be understood, not asforeign to each other, but as closely related and truly harmonious, if only placed in proper

environment: the individual and social instincts. The individual and society have waged a

relentless and bloody battle for ages, each striving for supremacy, because each was blind to

the value and importance of the other. The individual and social instincts,--the one a most

potent factor for individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an

equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social well-being.

The explanation of the storm raging within the individual, and between him and his

surroundings, is not far to seek. The primitive man, unable to understand his being, much less

the unity of all life, felt himself absolutely dependent on blind, hidden forces ever ready to

mock and taunt him. Out of that attitude grew the religious concepts of man as a mere speck

of dust dependent on superior powers on high, who can only be appeased by completesurrender. All the early sagas rest on that idea, which continues to be the Leitmotiv of the

biblical tales dealing with the relation of man to God, to the State, to society. Again and again

the same motif, man is nothing, the powers are everything. Thus Jehovah would only endure

man on condition of complete surrender. Man can have all the glories of the earth, but he must

not become conscious of himself. The State, society, and moral laws all sing the same refrain:

Man can have all the glories of the earth, but he must not become conscious of himself.

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself;

which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null

and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination. Anarchism is therefore

the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man. There is no conflict between

the individual and the social instincts, any more than there is between the heart and the lungs:

the one the receptacle of a precious life essence, the other the repository of the element that



keeps the essence pure and strong. The individual is the heart of society, conserving the

essence of social life; society is the lungs which are distributing the element to keep the life

essence - that is, the individual - pure and strong.

"The one thing of value in the world," says Emerson, "is the active soul; this every man

contains within him. The soul active sees absolute truth and utters truth and creates." In other

words, the individual instinct is the thing of value in the world. It is the true soul that sees andcreates the truth alive, out of which is to come a still greater truth, the re-born social soul.

Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is

the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social harmony. To accomplish

that unity, Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far

prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and

society.

Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and

Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement

and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and

degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing

God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting thatnaught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism

rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism

to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of

darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.

Property, the dominion of man's needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs. Time

was when property claimed a divine right, when it came to man with the same refrain, even as

religion, "Sacrifice! Abnegate! Submit!" The spirit of Anarchism has lifted man from his

prostrate position. He now stands erect, with his face toward the light. He has learned to see

the insatiable, devouring, devastating nature of property, and he is preparing to strike the

monster dead.

"Property is robbery," said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and

danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him

of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the

time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. The A B C student of

economics knows that the productivity of labor within the last few decades far exceeds

normal demand. But what are normal demands to an abnormal institution? The only demand

that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth

means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to

degrade. America is particularly boastful of her great power, her enormous national wealth.

Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth, if the individuals comprising the nation are

wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, ahomeless, soilless army of human prey.

It is generally conceded that unless the returns of any business venture exceed the cost,

bankruptcy is inevitable. But those engaged in the business of producing wealth have not yet

learned even this simple lesson. Every year the cost of production in human life is growing

larger (50,000 killed, 100,000 wounded in America last year); the returns to the masses, who

help to create wealth, are ever getting smaller. Yet America continues to be blind to the

inevitable bankruptcy of our business of production. Nor is this the only crime of the latter.

Still more fatal is the crime of turning the producer into a mere particle of a machine, with

less will and decision than his master of steel and iron. Man is being robbed not merely of the

products of his labor, but of the power of free initiative, of originality, and the interest in, or

desire for, the things he is making.



Real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help to create strong,

beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in. But if man is doomed to wind cotton

around a spool, or dig coal, or build roads for thirty years of his life, there can be no talk of

wealth. What he gives to the world is only gray and hideous things, reflecting a dull and

hideous existence, - too weak to live, too cowardly to die. Strange to say, there are people

who extol this deadening method of centralized production as the proudest achievement of our age. They fail utterly to realize that if we are to continue in machine subserviency, our slavery

is more complete than was our bondage to the King. They do not want to know that

centralization is not only the death-knell of liberty, but also of health and beauty, of art and

science, all these being impossible in a clock-like, mechanical atmosphere.

Anarchism cannot but repudiate such a method of production: its goal is the freest possible

expression of all the latent powers of the individual. Oscar Wilde defines a perfect personality

as "one who develops under perfect conditions, who is not wounded, maimed, or in danger."

A perfect personality, then, is only possible in a state of society where man is free to choose

the mode of work, the conditions of work, and the freedom to work. One to whom the making

of a table, the building of a house, or the tilling of the soil, is what the painting is to the artist

and the discovery to the scientist, - the result of inspiration, of intense longing, and deepinterest in work as a creative force. That being the ideal of Anarchism, its economic

arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually

developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of

human energy. Anarchism, however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of

individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and

desires.

Such free display of human energy being possible only under complete individual and

social freedom, Anarchism directs its forces against the third and greatest foe of all social

equality; namely, the State, organized authority, or statutory law, - the dominion of human

conduct.

Just as religion has fettered the human mind, and as property, or the monopoly of things,

has subdued and stifled man's needs, so has the State enslaved his spirit, dictating every phase

of conduct. "All government in essence," says Emerson, "is tyranny." It matters not whether it

is government by divine right or majority rule. In every instance its aim is the absolute

subordination of the individual.

Referring to the American government, the greatest American Anarchist, David Thoreau,

said: "Government, what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit

itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instance losing its integrity; it has not the vitality and

force of a single living man. Law never made man a whit more just; and by means of their

respect for it, even the well disposed are daily made agents of injustice."

Indeed, the keynote of government is injustice. With the arrogance and self-sufficiency of the King who could do no wrong, governments ordain, judge, condemn, and punish the most

insignificant offenses, while maintaining themselves by the greatest of all offenses, the

annihilation of individual liberty. Thus Ouida is right when she maintains that "the State only

aims at instilling those qualities in its public by which its demands are obeyed, and its

exchequer is filled. Its highest attainment is the reduction of mankind to clockwork. In its

atmosphere all those finer and more delicate liberties, which require treatment and spacious

expansion, inevitably dry up and perish. The State requires a taxpaying machine in which

there is no hitch, an exchequer in which there is never a deficit, and a public, monotonous,

obedient, colorless, spiritless, moving humbly like a flock of sheep along a straight high road

between two walls."

Yet even a flock of sheep would resist the chicanery of the State, if it were not for thecorruptive, tyrannical, and oppressive methods it employs to serve its purposes. Therefore



Bakunin repudiates the State as synonymous with the surrender of the liberty of the individual

or small minorities, - the destruction of social relationship, the curtailment, or complete denial

even, of life itself, for its own aggrandizement. The State is the altar of political freedom and,

like the religious altar, it is maintained for the purpose of human sacrifice.

In fact, there is hardly a modern thinker who does not agree that government, organized

authority, or the State, is necessary only to maintain or protect property and monopoly. It has proven efficient in that function only.

Even George Bernard Shaw, who hopes for the miraculous from the State under

Fabianism, nevertheless admits that "it is at present a huge machine for robbing and slave-

driving of the poor by brute force." This being the case, it is hard to see why the clever

prefacer wishes to uphold the State after poverty shall have ceased to exist.

Unfortunately, there are still a number of people who continue in the fatal belief that

government rests on natural laws, that it maintains social order and harmony, that it

diminishes crime, and that it prevents the lazy man from fleecing his fellows. I shall therefore

examine these contentions.

A natural law is that factor in man which asserts itself freely and spontaneously without

any external force, in harmony with the requirements of nature. For instance, the demand for nutrition, for sex gratification, for light, air, and exercise, is a natural law. But its expression

needs not the machinery of government, needs not the club, the gun, the handcuff, or the

prison. To obey such laws, if we may call it obedience, requires only spontaneity and free

opportunity. That governments do not maintain themselves through such harmonious factors

is proven by the terrible array of violence, force, and coercion all governments use in order to

live. Thus Blackstone is right when he says, "Human laws are invalid, because they are

contrary to the laws of nature."

Unless it be the order of Warsaw after the slaughter of thousands of people, it is difficult to

ascribe to governments any capacity for order or social harmony. Order derived through

submission and maintained by terror is not much of a safe guaranty; yet that is the only

"order" that governments have ever maintained. True social harmony grows naturally out of

solidarity of interests. In a society where those who always work never have anything, while

those who never work enjoy everything, solidarity of interests is non-existent; hence social

harmony is but a myth. The only way organized authority meets this grave situation is by

extending still greater privileges to those who have already monopolized the earth, and by still

further enslaving the disinherited masses. Thus the entire arsenal of government - laws,

police, soldiers, the courts, legislatures, prisons, - is strenuously engaged in "harmonizing" the

most antagonistic elements in society.

The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside

from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural

law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it hascome to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even

minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation.

Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic,

political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long

as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to

live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do

away with, crime. What does society, as it exists today, know of the process of despair, the

poverty, the horrors, the fearful struggle the human soul must pass on its way to crime and

degradation. Who that knows this terrible process can fail to see the truth in these words of

Peter Kropotkin:

"Those who will hold the balance between the benefits thus attributed to law and punishment and the degrading effect of the latter on humanity; those who will estimate the



torrent of depravity poured abroad in human society by the informer, favored by the Judge

even, and paid for in clinking cash by governments, under the pretext of aiding to unmask

crime; those who will go within prison walls and there see what human beings become when

deprived of liberty, when subjected to the care of brutal keepers, to coarse, cruel words, to a

thousand stinging, piercing humiliations, will agree with us that the entire apparatus of prison

and punishment is an abomination which ought to be brought to an end."The deterrent influence of law on the lazy man is too absurd to merit consideration. If

society were only relieved of the waste and expense of keeping a lazy class, and the equally

great expense of the paraphernalia of protection this lazy class requires, the social tables

would contain an abundance for all, including even the occasional lazy individual. Besides, it

is well to consider that laziness results either from special privileges, or physical and mental

abnormalities. Our present insane system of production fosters both, and the most astounding

phenomenon is that people should want to work at all now. Anarchism aims to strip labor of

its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom and compulsion. It aims to make work an

instrument of joy, of strength, of color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man

should find in work both recreation and hope.

To achieve such an arrangement of life, government, with its unjust, arbitrary, repressivemeasures, must be done away with. At best it has but imposed one single mode of life upon

all, without regard to individual and social variations and needs. In destroying government

and statutory laws, Anarchism proposes to rescue the self-respect and independence of the

individual from all restraint and invasion by authority. Only in freedom can man grow to his

full stature. Only in freedom will he learn to think and move, and give the very best in him.

Only in freedom will he realize the true force of the social bonds which knit men together,

and which are the true foundation of a normal social life.

But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under

Anarchism?

Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool,

from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science,

presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more

definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any

one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and

maimed?

John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely

useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when

torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped

daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?

Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the

real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of

religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the

shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free

grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will

guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities

of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts

of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and

studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic

equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.

As to methods. Anarchism is not, as some may suppose, a theory of the future to berealized through divine inspiration. It is a living force in the affairs of our life, constantly



creating new conditions. The methods of Anarchism therefore do not comprise an iron-clad

program to be carried out under all circumstances. Methods must grow out of the economic

needs of each place and clime, and of the intellectual and temperamental requirements of the

individual. The serene, calm character of a Tolstoy will wish different methods for social

reconstruction than the intense, overflowing personality of a Michael Bakunin or a Peter

Kropotkin. Equally so it must be apparent that the economic and political needs of Russia willdictate more drastic measures than would England or America. Anarchism does not stand for

military drill and uniformity; it does, however, stand for the spirit of revolt, in whatever form,

against everything that hinders human growth. All Anarchists agree in that, as they also agree

in their opposition to the political machinery as a means of bringing about the great social

change.

"All voting," says Thoreau, "is a sort of gaming, like checkers, or backgammon, a playing

with right and wrong; its obligation never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the

right thing is doing nothing for it. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance,

nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority." A close examination of the

machinery of politics and its achievements will bear out the logic of Thoreau.

What does the history of parliamentarism show? Nothing but failure and defeat, not even asingle reform to ameliorate the economic and social stress of the people. Laws have been

passed and enactments made for the improvement and protection of labor. Thus it was proven

only last year that Illinois, with the most rigid laws for mine protection, had the greatest mine

disasters. In States where child labor laws prevail, child exploitation is at its highest, and

though with us the workers enjoy full political opportunities, capitalism has reached the most

brazen zenith.

Even were the workers able to have their own representatives, for which our good Socialist

politicians are clamoring, what chances are there for their honesty and good faith? One has

but to bear in mind the process of politics to realize that its path of good intentions is full of

pitfalls: wire-pulling, intriguing, flattering, lying, cheating; in fact, chicanery of every

description, whereby the political aspirant can achieve success. Added to that is a complete

demoralization of character and conviction, until nothing is left that would make one hope for

anything from such a human derelict. Time and time again the people were foolish enough to

trust, believe, and support with their last farthing aspiring politicians, only to find themselves

betrayed and cheated.

It may be claimed that men of integrity would not become corrupt in the political grinding

mill. Perhaps not; but such men would be absolutely helpless to exert the slightest influence in

behalf of labor, as indeed has been shown in numerous instances. The State is the economic

master of its servants. Good men, if such there be, would either remain true to their political

faith and lose their economic support, or they would cling to their economic master and be

utterly unable to do the slightest good. The political arena leaves one no alternative, one musteither be a dunce or a rogue.

The political superstition is still holding sway over the hearts and minds of the masses, but

the true lovers of liberty will have no more to do with it. Instead, they believe with Stirner that

man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action,

the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral.

But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the salvation of man. Everything illegal

necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free, independent spirits,

for "men who are men, and who have a bone in their backs which you cannot pass your hand

through."

Universal suffrage itself owes its existence to direct action. If not for the spirit of rebellion,

of the defiance on the part of the American revolutionary fathers, their posterity would stillwear the King's coat. If not for the direct action of a John Brown and his comrades, America



would still trade in the flesh of the black man. True, the trade in white flesh is still going on;

but that, too, will have to be abolished by direct action. Trade-unionism, the economic arena

of the modern gladiator, owes its existence to direct action. It is but recently that law and

government have attempted to crush the trade-union movement, and condemned the

exponents of man's right to organize to prison as conspirators. Had they sought to assert their

cause through begging, pleading, and compromise, trade-unionism would today be anegligible quantity. In France, in Spain, in Italy, in Russia, nay even in England (witness the

growing rebellion of English labor unions), direct, revolutionary, economic action has become

so strong a force in the battle for industrial liberty as to make the world realize the tremendous

importance of labor's power. The General Strike, the supreme expression of the economic

consciousness of the workers, was ridiculed in America but a short time ago. Today every

great strike, in order to win, must realize the importance of the solidaric general protest.

Direct action, having proven effective along economic lines, is equally potent in the

environment of the individual. There a hundred forces encroach upon his being, and only

persistent resistance to them will finally set him free. Direct action against the authority in the

shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct action against the invasive,

meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism.Will it not lead to a revolution? Indeed, it will. No real social change has ever come about

without a revolution. People are either not familiar with their history, or they have not yet

learned that revolution is but thought carried into action.

Anarchism, the great leaven of thought, is today permeating every phase of human

endeavor. Science, art, literature, the drama, the effort for economic betterment, in fact every

individual and social opposition to the existing disorder of things, is illumined by the spiritual

light of Anarchism. It is the philosophy of the sovereignty of the individual. It is the theory of

social harmony. It is the great, surging, living truth that is reconstructing the world, and that

will usher in the Dawn.

War is the health of the state

Randolph Bourne

It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for

passionate co-operation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups

and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. The machinery of government sets and

enforces the drastic penalties, the minorities are either intimidated into silence or brought

slowly around by a subtle process of persuasion which may seem to them to really convertingthem. Of course the ideal of perfect loyalty, perfect uniformity is never attained. The classes

upon whom the amateur work of coercion falls are unwearied in their zeal but often their

agitation instead of converting, merely serves to stiffen their resistance. Minorities are

rendered sullen, and some intellectual opinion, bitter and satirical. But in general, the nation

in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values, culminated at the undisputed

apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced trough any other agency than

war. Other values such artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life,

are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed and the significant classes who have

constituted themselves the amateur agents of the State are engaged not only in sacrificing

these values for themselves but in coercing all other persons into sacrificing them.



War - or at least modern war waged by a democratic republic against a powerful enemy -

seems to achieve for a nation almost all that the most inflamed political idealist could desire.

Citizens are no longer indifferent to their Government but each cell of the body politic is

brimming with life and activity. We are at least on the way to full realization of that collective

community in which each individual somehow contains the virtue of the whole. In a nation at

war, every citizen identifies himself with the whole, and feels immensely strengthened in thatidentification. The purpose and desire of the collective community live in each person who

throws himself whole-heartedly into the cause of war. The impending distinction between

society and the individual is almost blotted out. At war, the individual becomes almost

identical with his society. He achieves a superb self-assurance, an intuition of the rightness of

all his ideas and emotions, so that in the suppression of opponents or heretics he is invincibly

strong; he feels behind him all the power of the collective community. The individual as

social being in war seems to have achieved almost his apotheosis. Not for any religious

impulse could the American nation have been expected to show such devotion en masse, such

sacrifice and labour. Certainly not for any secular good, such as universal education or the

subjugation of nature would it have poured forth its treasure and its life, or would it have

permitted such stern coercive measures to be taken against it, such as conscripting its moneyand its men. But for the sake of a war of offensive self-defence, undertaken to support a

difficult cause to the slogan of "democracy", it would reach the highest level ever known of

collective effort.

For these secular goods, connected with the enhancement of life, the education of man and the

use of the intelligence to realize reason and beauty in the nation's communal living, are alien

to our traditional ideal of the State. The State is intimately connected with war, for it is the

organization of the collective community when it acts in a political manner, and to act in a

political manner towards a rival group has meant, throughout all history - war.

There is nothing invidious in the use of the term "herd", in connection with the State. It ismerely an attempt to reduce closer to first principles the nature of this institution in the

shadow of which we all live, move and have our being. Ethnologists are generally agreed that

human society made its first appearance as the human pack and not as a collection of

individuals or of couples. The herd is in fact the original unit, and only as it was differentiated

did personal individuality develop. All the most primitive surviving types of men are shown

to live in a very complex but very rigid social organization where opportunity for

individuation is scarcely given.

These tribes remain strictly organized herds; and the difference between them and the modern

State is one of degree of sophistication and variety of organization, and not of kind.

Psychologists recognize the gregarious impulse as one of the strongest primitive pulls which

keeps together the herds of the different species of higher animals. Mankind is no exception.

Our pugnacious evolutionary history has prevented the impulse from ever dying out. This

gregarious impulse is the tendency to imitate, to conform; to coalesce together and is most

powerful when the herd believes itself threatened wIth attack. Animals crowd together for

protection, and men become most conscious of their collectivity at the threat of war.

Consciousness of collectivity brings confidence and a feeling of massed strength, which in

turn arouses pugnacity and the battle is on. In civilized man, the gregarious impulse acts not

only to produce concerted action for defence, but also to produce identity of opinion. Since

thought is a form of behaviour, the gregarious impulse floods up into its realm and demands

that sense of uniform thought which wartime produces so successfully. And it is in thisflooding of the conscious life of society that gregariousness works its havoc.



For just as in modern societies the sex-instinct is enormously over-supplied for the

requirements of human propagation, so the gregarious impulse is enormously over-supplied

for the work of protection which it is called upon to perform. It would be quite enough if we

were gregarious enough to enjoy the companionship of others, to be able to co-operate with

them, and to feel a slight malaise at solitude. Unfortunately however, this impulse is not

content with these reasonable and healthful demands; but insists that like-mindedness shall prevail everywhere, in all departments of life. So that all human progress, all novelty, and

non-conformity, must be carried against the resistance of this tyrannical herd-instinct which

drives the individual into obedience and conformity with the majority. Even in the most

modern and enlightened societies this impulse shows little sign of abating. As it is driven by

inexorable economic demand out of the sphere of utility, it seems to fasten itself even more

fiercely in the realm of feeling and opinion, so that conformity comes to be a thing

aggressively desired and demanded.

The gregarious impulse keeps its hold all the more virulently because when the group is in

motion or is taking any positive action, this feeling of being with and supported by the

collective herd very greatly feeds that will to power, the nourishment of which the individualorganism so constantly demands. You feel powerful by conforming, and you feel forlorn and

helpless if you are out of the crowd. While even if you do not get any access of power by

thinking and feeling just as everybody else in your group does, you get at least the warm

feeling of obedience, the soothing irresponsibility of protection.

Joining as it does to these very vigorous tendencies of the individual - the pleasure in power

and the pleasure in obedience - this gregarious impulse becomes irresistible in society. War

stimulates it to the highest possible degree, sending the influences of its mysterious herd-

current with its inflations of power and obedience to the farthest reaches of the society, to

every individual and little group that can possibly be affected. An it is these impulses which

the State - the organization of the entire herd, the entire collectivity - is founded on and makesuse of.

There is, of course, in the feeling toward the State a large element of pure filial mysticism.

This sense of insecurity, the desire for protection, sends one's desire back to the father and

mother, with whom is associated the earliest feeling of protection. It is not for nothing that

one's State is still thought of as Fatherland or Motherland, that one's relation towards it is

conceived in terms of family affection. The war has shown that nowhere under the shock of

danger have these primitive childlike attitudes failed to assert themselves again, as much in

this country as anywhere. If we have not the intense Father-sense of the German who

worships his Vaterland, at least in Uncle Sam we have a symbol of protecting, kindly

authority, and in the many Mother-posts of the Red Cross, we see how easily in the moretender functions of war services, the ruling organization is conceived in family terms. A

people at war have become in the most literal sense obedient, respectful, trustful children

again, full of that naive faith in the all-wisdom and all-power of the adult who takes care of

them, imposes his mild but necessary rule upon them and in whom they lose their

responsibility and anxieties. In this recrudescence of the child, there is great comfort, and a

certain influx of power. On most people the strain of being an independent adult weighs

heavily, and upon none more than those members of the significant classes who have had

bequeathed to them or have assumed the responsibilities of governing. The State provides the

most convenient of symbols under which these classes can retain all the actual pragmatic

satisfaction of governing, but can rid themselves of the psychic burden of adulthood. They

continue to direct industry and government and all the institutions of society pretty much as before, but in their own conscious eyes and in the eyes of the general public, they are turned



from their selfish and predatory ways, and have become loyal servants of society, or

something greater than they - the State. The man who moves from the direction of a large

business in New York to a post in the war management industrial services in Washington does

not apparently alter very much his power or his administrative technique. But psychically,

what a transformation has occurred! His is now not only the power but the glory! And his

sense of satisfaction is directly proportional not to the genuine amount of personal sacrificethat may be involved in the change but to the extent to which he retains his industrial

prerogative and sense of command.

From members of this class a certain insuperable indignation arises if the change from private

enterprise to State service involves any real loss of power and personal privilege. If there is to

be pragmatic sacrifice, let it be, they feel, on the field of honour, in the traditional acclaimed

deaths by battle, in that detour of suicide, as Nietzsche calls war. The State in wartime

supplies satisfaction for this very craving, but its chief value is the opportunity it gives for this

regression to infantile attitudes. In your reaction to an imagined attack in your country or an

insult to its government, you draw closer to the herd for protection, you conform in word and

deed, and you insist vehemently that everybody else shall think, speak and act together. And

you fix your adoring gaze upon the State, with a truly filial look, as upon the Father of the

flock, the quasi-personal symbol of your definite action and ideas.

Bak Krop Gold Bourne

Documents

Transcript of Bak Krop Gold Bourne