*THE
WORKER*
Brisbane,
March 16, 1895.
Anarchism.
There
is no question on which the average journalistic blockhead has
written so much nonsense as that of Anarchism – a topic on which he
glories to dilate with all the fluency and eloquence that naturally
springs from a profound and comprehensive ignorance of the subject.
The journalistic Anarchist is a blood thirsty villain who revels in
rack and ruin, and who has reduced assassination to a fine art.
Indeed he is such a monster of iniquity that nothing prevents him
from completely over throwing modern civilisation but the fortunate
and convenient fact that he does not exist. No doubt there are
desperate men among Anarchists, just as there are desperate men in
all parties. No doubt, also, the abolition of all government is just
the sort of programme to attract men of fanatical type. It is a big
order, but fanatics do not hesitate at big orders. But none the less
it is as obviously unfair to make Anarchism responsible for all the
outrage committed by its supporters, as it would be to make religion
responsible for all crimes against liberty perpetrated in its name.
Unquestionably many Anarchists believe in force, but then so do many
Socialists, Unionists, Home Rulers and other reformers. A movement
should be judged, not by the action of its individual supporters but
by the avowed principles of its intellectual founders and leaders.
Now, as a simple matter of fact, a fact, however, which never by any
chance gets into the public press, the intellectual representatives
of the Anarchist movement – Krapotkine, Tucker, Reclus, Grave and
others – are utterly and indignantly opposed to every form and
variety of outrage. They are Anarchists, not because they do not. It
is indeed because they hold that all government is founded on force,
and that all force is wrong, that they are opposed to government.
Simple justice demands this admission. We are opposed to Anarchism,
but we believe in truth.
*
* *
There
are two schools of Anarchism – that Individualist Anarchism of
Benjamin Tucker, and the so-called Communist Anarchism of Peter
Krapotkine. The Individualist Anarchist, of course, advocates the
total abolition of all government. He would sweep away all law, all
law courts, all military and police force; in fact he would blot out
every vestige of governmental authority. Having accomplished this
undertaking, however, he would be graciously pleased to stop. He
would not abolish competition. On the contrary, he holds that in the
absence of government all monopolies, such as the money monopoly, the
tariff monopoly, and the land monopoly would collapse, and in the
absence of monopoly free competition would become an individual and
national blessing.
*
* *
Here
questions of a practical nature naturally present themselves. First
of all, how is the thing to be done? How are we to get rid of
government? How are we to abolish the State? The Anarchist replies:
“By abstaining from voting, by refusing to take any part in
political life. When the majority of men ignore the government and
take no part in elections government will die a natural death.” In
other words the worker are to win their ultimate emancipation by
pursuing a policy of energetic inactivity, by diligently doing
nothing, and doing it well! Meanwhile their enemies, the capitalist
and the landlord, will be steadily securing and consolidating all
available political power, and using it in their own interests. No,
it will not do. While Power is used against the worker Power must be
used in his defence. In the past government has been used in the
interests of wealth; in the future the people must take possession of
it and use it in the interests of humanity and justice.
*
* *
'Again,
under Individualist Anarchism, with its free competition, how are the
evils of land monopoly to be avoided? Land is of unequal value. One
piece of land will yield, for a given amount of labour, twenty times
as much produce as another. Who is to have the good land, and who the
bad? And what would there be to prevent the holders of good land from
becoming rich and living on unearned income? For aught Individualist
Anarchy with free competition could do to prevent it we should have
some families luxuriating on fertile plains, and others heroically
attempting to cultivate potatoes on granite rocks. The only sure way
of preventing land monopoly is to Socialise economic rent, a process
which involves the existence of an organised government. Our
objections to Individualistic Anarchism, therefore, are two. First,
there is no way of getting it: and second, even if it could be got it
would not be worth having.
*
* *
The
Communist Anarchist is at one with his Individualist brother in
seeking to utterly sweep away all law and government. But he doesn't
stop there. He goes farther, and insists on the abolition of
competition and the establishment of Communism. How competition is to
be abolished and Communism established without government of some
sort is a mystery which the Communist Anarchist never condescends to
explain. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the dream of
the Communist Anarchist has been realised, that all government has
been abolished, that all goods are held in common, and that every
person is free to go to the common store and take possession of
whatever his heart desires. It seems clear, if the community is not
to become insolvent, that there must be as much put into the common
store as there is taken out of it. Now, in the absence of all
governmental compulsion how are we to be sure that the average man
would put in as much as he took out? And if he did not, would not the
inevitable result be national bankruptcy? To use compulsion would be
to give up Anarchism; not to use it would be to give up everything.
*
* *
There
is another difficulty. John Smith murders Tom Brown. Under Anarchism
what would be done? Nothing? Men's lives would be unsafe and murder
encouraged. Lynch law? That is barbarous and frequently punishes the
wrong person. Perhaps it will be said that a committee would be
appointed to deal with the special case. But while the committee is
deliberating, the chances are that the murderer would go on a
journey. It may be urged that a permanent committee could be formed
for the protection of the community. The reply is that if such
permanent committee had no judicial or executive power it would be
useless; if it had it would be to all intents and purposes a
government. Government cannot be abolished. If destroyed in one form
it will present itself in another. Under Anarchism we should still
have government, but it would be the government of the criminal, the
murderer and the thief.
*
* *
The
Anarchist tries to escape those difficulties by affirming that human
imperfection is the result of government and economic conditions.
Remove these, he says, and the natural man will be neither a murderer
nor a thief nor an idler. Unfortunately anthropology lends no
countenance to such optimism. Human imperfection is largely due to
environment, but it is also still more largely due to heredity – to
the fact that the modern man is the descendant of the ancient savage,
and still bears in his nature the marks of his lowly origin. If man
is so spotless as the Anarchist assumes how did the wicked system of
property ever rise? How came men, originally good and pure, to evolve
a system of society which involves despotism on the one hand and
slavery on the other? The Anarchist never answers that question
because it is unanswerable. The simple truth is that prehistoric man
was a brute. He was lazy, dishonest, filthy, selfish, and cruel. He
had no objections to slavery provided he did not happen to be the
slave. He made his wife a beast of burden while she lived, and dined
on her when she died. He loved his fellow man, but preferred him
cooked. The present system of society, with all its ethical
imperfections, originated in man's savage nature, and continues to
exist because, under the thin veneer of civilisation, a large measure
of that savage nature still survives. Anarchism, we should say, would
be an exceedingly good system for angels. But as men are not exactly
angels it scarcely comes within the sphere of practical politics.
*
* *
The
Anarchist is perfectly right when he says that government is an evil,
but he is just as perfectly wrong when he ignores the fact that it is
a necessary one. For the workers to follow the advice of Anarchists
and take no part in political life would be to blindly play into the
hands of the idle classes. If the workers do not govern in the
interests of Labour the non-workers will have a free hand in
governing in the interests of idleness. The struggle for existence
still survives, although in a modified and civilised form. In the
past the rule was; Eat or be eaten; to-day it is; Rule or be ruled.
For countless centuries the the propertied classes have captured the
government, made laws in their own interests, and said to the people;
“There are our laws. If you do not obey them we shall order our
police to lock you up in our prisons, or, perhaps, order must be
maintained at all hazards.” Now it appears to us that the way of
salvation for the workers lies in following the admirable example of
our friend the enemy. Let the people, now that they largely possess
the franchise, take possession of Parliament, abolish the old
capitalistic laws, and make new ones in the just interests of all,
and, having done so, let them in turn say to the capitalists ; “these
are our laws; if you don't obey them we shall be under the painful
necessity of locking you up in our prisons, or it may be, of shooting
you. Law and order, as you well know, gentlemen, must be maintained
at all hazards.” Doubtless our capitalist friends would, under the
circumstances, lose much of their enthusiasm for law and order, but
then the police and the military would be present to lend strength to
their failing convictions, and the Fat Man would learn to submit just
as the Lean Man has submitted for centuries. No doubt the Anarchist's
ideal society – a voluntary brotherhood of free men – is an
exceedingly exalted one, but perhaps the surest and swiftest way of
realising it is through the government of Social Democracy. Just as
the parental authority of a wise parent ultimately fits the child to
use worthily the freedom of mature manhood, so it may be that the
Democratic government which shall destroy economic privilege, and
secure to all men the full fruits of their labour, shall speed the
dawning of the day when government itself shall become unnecessary,
when the sword of Force shall be broken, and when Freedom, secure and
immortal as the gods, shall sit enthroned among the nations of the
earth.
PROMETHEUS.
No comments:
Post a Comment