XII. ANARCHISM— (Continued).
If the revolt against the State, so long as it was advocated, before 1848 and later on till the Paris Commune, by middle-class •writers, took the character of a revolt of the individual against society and its hypocrisy, — now, when a similar revolt began to take place among the working men, it took a deeper character. It became a research of those forms of society which might get rid of the oppression and exploitation of men by other men which is now goina; on with the aid of the State. In the International Working Men's Association its founders saw the embryo lit that society which would be called into existence by a social revolu- tion— a society where the functions now belonging to Government would be substituted by free agreements growing out of the direct relations between free groups of producers and consumers. In these surroundings the ideal of the Anarchist ceased to be individual: it became social.
In proportion as the workers of Europe and America began to know each other directly, without the intermediary of Govern- ments, they grew more and more convinced of their own forces and of their capacity for rebuilding society on new bases. They saw that if the people resumed possession of the land and of all that is required for producing all sorts of necessaries of life, and if the associations of men and women who would work on the land, in the factories, in the mines, and so on, became themselves the managers of production, they would be able, in such con- ditions, to produce with the greatest ease all that is necessary for the life of society, so as to guarantee well-being for all, and also some leisure for all. The recent progress in science and technics rendered this point more and more evident. Besides, in a vast international organisation of producers and consumers, the exchange of produce could be organised with the same ease — once it would not be done for the enrichment of the few.
At the same time, the ever-growing thinking portion of the workers saw that the State, with its traditions, its hierarchy, and its narrow nationalism, would always stand in the way of the development of such an organisation; and the experiments made in different countries with the view of partially alleviating the Modem Science and Anarchiam. 65 social evils -within the present middle class State proved more and more the fallacy of such tactics.
The wider the sphere of those experiments, the more evident it was that the machinery of the State could not be utilised as an instrument of emancipation. The State is an institution which was developed for the very purpose of establishing monopolies in favour of the slave and serf owners, the landed proprietors, canonic and laic, the merchant guilds and the moneylenders, the kings, the military commanders, the " noble-men," and finally, in the nineteenth century, the industrial capitalists, whom the State supplied with " hands " driven away from the land. Conse- quently the State would be, to say the least, a useless institution, once these monopoHes ceased to exist. Life wotdd he simplijied, once the mechanism created for the exploitation of the poor by the rich would have been done away with.
The idea, of independent Communes for the territorial organ- isation, and of federations of Trade Unions for the organisation of men in accordance with their different functions, gave a concrete conception of society regenerated by a social revolution. There remained only to add to these two modes of organisation a third, which we saw rapidly developing during the last fifty years, since a little liberty was conquered in this direction: the thousands upon thousands of free combines and societies growing up everywhere for the satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs, economic, sanitary, and educational; for mutual protection, for the propaganda of ideas, for art, for amusement, and so on. All of them covering each other, and all of them always ready to meet the new needs by new organisations and adjustments.
More than that. It begins to be understood now that if human societies go on developing on these lines, coercion and punishment must necessarily fall into decay. The greatest obstacle to the maintenance of a certain moral level in our present societies lies in the absence of social equality. "Without real equality, the sense of justice can never be universally developed, because Justice implies the recognition of Equality; while in a society in which the principles of justice would not be contra- dicted at every step by the existing inequalities of rights and possibilities of development, they would be bound to spread and to enter into the habits of the people.
In such a case the individual would be free, in the sense that his freedom would not be limited any more by fear: by the fear of a social or a mystical punishment, or by obedience, either to other men reputed to be his superiors, or to mystical and 66 Modem Science and Anarchism.
metaphysical entities — which leads in both cases to intellectual servility (one of the greatest curses of manlcind) and to the lowering of the moral level of nien.
In free surroundings based upon Equality, man might with full confidence let himself be guided by his own reason (which, of course, by necessity, would bear the stamp of his social surroundings). And he might also attain the full development of his individuality; while the " indiv idualism " considered now by middle-class intellectuals as the means for the development of the better-gifted individuals, is, as every one may himself see, the chief obstacle to this development. Not only because, with a low productivity, which is kept at a low level by Capitalism and the State, the immense majority of gifted men have neither the leisure nor the chance to develop their higher gifts; but also because those who have that leisure are recognised and rewarded by the present society on the condition of never going " too far " in their criticisms of that society, and especially — never going over to acts that may lead to its destruction, or even to a serious reform. Those only arc allowed to attain a certain "development of their individualities" who ate not dangerous in this respect — those who are merely "interesting," but not dangerous to the Philistine.
The Anarchists, we have said, build their previsions of the future upon those data which are supplied by the observation of life at the present time.
Thus, when we examine into the tendencies that have prevailed in the life of civilised countries since the end of the eighteenth century, we certainly do not fail to see how strong the centralising and authoritarian tendency was during that time, both among the middle classes and those working men who have been educated in the ideas of the middle classes and now strive to enter the ranks of their present rulers and exploiters.
But at tlie same time it is a fact that the anti-centralist and anti-militarist ideas, as well as the ideas of a free understanding, grow stronger and stronger nowadays both among the woiking men and the better educated and more or less intellectually free portions of the middle classes — especially in "Western Europe. ' I have shown, indeed, elsewhere (in " Conquest of Bread " and in " Mutual Aid ") how strong at the present time is the tendency to constitute freely, outside the State and the Churches, thousands upon thousands of free organisations for all sorts of needs: economic (agreements between the railway companies, tht> Modern Science and Anarchism. 67 Labour Syndicates, trusts of employers, agricultural co-operation, co-operation for export, etc.), political, intellectual, artistic, educational, and so on. What formerly belonged without a shadow of doubt to the functions of the State, or the Church, enters now into the domain of free organisation.
This tendency develops with a striking rapidity under our very eyes. It was sufficient that a breath of emancipation should have slightly limited the powers of Church and State in their never-satisfied tendency towards further extension — and voluntary organisations have already germinated by the thousand. And we may be sure that every new limitation that may be imposed upon State and Church — the two inveterate enemies of freedom — will still further widen the sphere of action of the free organisations.
Future progress lies in this direction, and Anarchism works precisely that way.
Passing now to the economic views of Anarchists, three different conceptions must be distinguished.
So long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense — as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital — the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hand with the Socialists of that time. But they were compelled to separate from them when the Socialists began to say that there is no possibility of abolishing capitalist exploitation within the lifetime of our generation: that during that j)hase of economic evolution which we are now living through we have only to mitigate the exploitation, and to impose upon the capitalists certain legal limitations.
Contrarily to this tendency of the present-day Socialists, we maintain that already now, without waiting for the coming of new phases and forms of the capitalist exploitation of Labour, we must work for its abolition. We must, already now, tend to transfer all that is needed for production — the soil, the mines, the factories, the means of communication, and the means of existence, too — from the hands of the individual capitalist into those of the communities of producers and consumers.
As for the political organisation — i.e., the forms of the commonwealth in the midst of which an economic revolution could be accomplished — we entirely differ from all the sections of State Socialists in that we do not sco in the system of >'^tnte Capitalism, wliich is now preached under the name of Collectivism, a solution of the social question. We se^ in the organisation of 68 Modern Science and Anarchism, the posts and telegraphs, in the State railways, and the like — which are represented as illustrations of a society without capitalists — nothing but a new, perhaps improved, but still un- desirable form of the Wage System. We even think that such a solution of the social problem would so much run against the present libertarian tendencies of civilised mankind, that it simply would be unrealisable.
We maintain that the State organisation, having been the force to which the minorities resorted for establishing and organising their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to destroy these privileges. The lessons of \ history tell us that a new form of economic life always calls forth \ a new form of political organisation; and a Socialist society ^(whether Communist or CoUectivist) cannot be an exception to this rule. Just as the Churches cannot be utilised for freeing man from his old superstitions, and just as the feeling of human solidarity will have to find other channels for its expression besides the Churches, so also the economic and political liberation of man will have to create new forms for its expression in life, instead of those established by the State.
Consequently, the chief aim of Anarchism is to awaken those constructive powers of the labouring masses of the people which at all great moments of history came forward to accomplish the necessary changes, and which, aided by the now accumulated knowledge, will accomplish the change that is called forth by all the best men of our own time.
This is also why the Anarchists refuse to accept the functions of legislators or servants of the State. We know that the social revolution will not be accomplished by means of laws. Laws can only follow the accomplished facts; and even if they honestly do follow them — which usually is not the case — a law remains a dead letter so long as there are not on the spot the living forces required for making of the tendencies expressed in the law an accomplished fact.
On the other hand, since the times of the International Working Men's Association, the Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector, — the State.
Such a struggle, they say, better than any other indirect means, pei-raits the worker to obtain some temporary improve- ments in the present conditions of work, while it opens his eyes to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State that supports Modern Sdeiice ana Anarchism. 69 it, and wakes up his thoughts concerning the possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange without the intervention of the capitalist and the State.
The opinions of the Anarchists concerning the form which the remuneration of labour may take in a society freed from the yoke of Capital and State still remain divided.
To begin with, all are agreed in repudiating the new form of the "Wage System which would be established if the State became the owner of all the land, the mines, the factories, the railways, and so on, and the great organiser and manager of agriculture and all the industries. If these powers were added to those which the State already possesses (taxes, defence of the territory, subsidised religions, etc.), we should create a new tyranny, even more terrible than the old one.
The greater number of Anarchists accept the Communist solu- tion. They see that the only form of Communism that would be acceptable in a civilised society is one which would exist without the continual interference of Government, i.e., the Anarchist form. And they realise also that an Anarchist society of a large size would be impossible, unless it would begin by guaranteeing to all its members a certain minimum of well-being produced in common. Communism and Anarchy thus complete each other.
However, by the side of this main current there are those who see in Anarchism a rehabilitation of Individualism.
This last current is, in our opinion, a survival from those times when the power of production of food-stuflfs and of all industrial commodities had not yet reached the perfection they have attained now. In those times Communism was truly considered as equivalent to general poverty and misery, and well- being was looked at as something which is accessible to a very small number only. But this quite real and extremely important obstacle to Communism exists no more. Owing to the immense productiAnty of human labour which has been reached nowadays in all directions — agricultural and industrial — it is quite certain, on the contrary, that a very hiuh degree of well-being can easily be obtained in a few years by Communist work.
Be this as it may, the Individualist Anarchists sub-divide into two branches. There are, first, the pure Individualists, in the sense of Max Stirner, who have lately gained some support in the beautiful poetical form of the writings of Nietzsche. But we have already said once how metaphysical and remote from real life is this " self-assertion of the iudi^ idual "; how it runs 70 Modern Science and Anarchism.
against the feelings of equality of most of us; and how it brings the would-be " Individualists " dangerously near to those who imagine themselves to represent a " superior breed " — those to whom we owe the State, the Church, modem legislation, the police, militarism, Imperialism, and all other forms of oppression.
The other branch of Individualist Anarchists comprises the Mutualists, in the sense of Proudhon, of whom we spoke in a previous chapter, and whose ideas, we have seen, have had a certain success in the United States, so that there are still organisations of farmers who exchange their produce on the principle of the hour-for-an-hour cheques. However, there will always be against this system the objection that it could hardly be compatible with a system of common ownership of land and the necessaries for production. Communism in the possession of land, factories, etc., and Individualism in production are too contradictory to co-exist in the same society — to say nothing of the difficulty of estimating the market value, or the selling value, of a product by the average time that is necessary, or the time that was actually used, in producing it. To bring men to agree upon such an estimation of their work would already require a deep penetration of the Communist principle into their ideas — at least, for all produce of first necessity. And if a community introduced, as a further concession to Individualism, a higher payment for skilled work, or chances of promotion in a hierarchy of functionaries, this would reintroduce all those inconveniences of the present Wage System which are combatted now by the workers.
To some extent the same remark applies to the American Anarchist Individualists who were represented in the "fifties" by S. P. Andrews and W. Greene, latei- on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented by Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York Liberty. Their ideas are partly those of Proudhon, but partly also those of Herbert Spencer. They start from the principle that the only law which is obligatory for the Anarchist is to mind his own business, and not to meddle with that of others; that each individual and each group have the right to oppress all mankind — if they have the force to do so; and that if this only law, of minding one's own business, had received a general and complete appliccation, it would offer no danger, because the rights of each individual would have been limited by the equal rights of all others.
But, to reason in this way is to pay, in our opinion, too large a tribute to metaphysical dialectics, and to ignore the Modem Science and Anarchism. 71 facts of real life. It is impossible to conceive a society in which the affairs of any one of its members would not concern many other members, if not aU; still less a society in which a continual contact between its members would not have established an interest of every one towards all others, which would render it impossible to act without thinking of the effects which our actions may have on others.
This is why Tucker, like Spencer, after his admirable criticism of the State and a vigorous defence of the rights of the individual, comes to recognise the right of defence of its members by the State. But it was precisely by assuming the function of "defence " of its weaker members that the State, in its historical evolution, developed all its aggressive functions, which Spencer and Tucker have so brilliantly criticised.
This contradiction is probably the reason why Anarchist Individualism, while it finds followers amongst the middle-class intellectuals, does not spread amongst the workers. It must, however, be said that it renders a real service in preventing the Anarchist Communists from making too many concessions to the old idea of State officialism. Old ideas are so difficult to get rid of.
As to Anarchist Communism, it is certain that this solution wins more and more ground nowaday among those working men who try to get a clear conception as to the forthcoming revolu- tionary action. The Syndicalist and Trade Union movements, which permit the working men to realise their solidarity and to feel the community of their interests, much better than any -^ elections, prepare the way for these conceptions. And it is ' hardly too much to hope that when some serious movement for the emancipation of Labour begins in Europe and America, attempts will be made, at least in the Latin countries, in the Anarchist Communist direction — much deeper than anything that was done by the French nation in 1793-94.
XIII. A FEW CONCLUSIONS OF ANARCHISM.
Such being the leading ideas of Anarchism, let us take now a few concrete illustrations, to show the place that our ideas occupy in the scientific and social movement of our own times.
When we are told that we must respect Law (written with a capital letter), because " Law is Truth expressed in an objective form," or because " the leading steps ia the evolution of Law are the same as those of the evolution of Mind," or again, because " Law and Morality are identical, and only difier from each other in form " — we listen to such high-flown assertions with as little reverence as Mephistopheles did in Goethe's "Faust." We know, _of course, that those who wrote them spent much effort of mind before they thus worded their thoughts, imagining them to be extremely deep; but we know also that these were nothing but unconscious attempts at broad generalisations, founded, how- ever, on an altogether insufficient basis, and obscured by words so chosen as to hypnotise men by their high-style obscurity.
In fact, in ancient times men endeavoured to give a divine origin to Law; later on, they strove to give it a metaphysical basis; but to-day we are able to study the origin of the con- ceptions of Law, and their anthropological development, just as we are able to study the evolution of weaving or of the ways of honey-making by the bees. Having now at our disposal the work of the anthropological school, we study the appearance of social customs and conceptions of Law amongst the most primitive savages, and we follow their gradual development through the codes of different historical periods, down to our own times.
In so doing, wo come to the conclusion, already mentioned on one of the preceding pages: — All laws have a double origin, and it is precisely this double origin Avhich distinguishes them from customs established by usage and representing the principles of morality existing in a particular society at a particular epoch. Law confirms these customs: it crystallises them; but at the same time it takes advantage of these generally approved customs, in order to introduce in disguise, under their sanction, some now institution which is entirely to the advantage of the Modern Science and Anarchism. 73 military and governing minorities. For instance, Law intro- duces, or gives sanction to, Slavery, Caste, paternal, priestly, and military authority; or else it smuggles in serfdom, and, later on, subjection to the State. By this means. Law has always succeeded in imposing a yoke on man without liis perceiving it, a yoke which he has never been able to throw off save by means of revolutions.
Things came to pass in this way from the earliest time till our own; and we see the same going on now, even in the advanced legislation of our own days — in the so-called Labour legislation; because, side by side with the " protection of the worker," which represents their acknowledged aim, these laws surreptitiously insert the idea of compulsory arbitration by the State in case of a strike (compulsory arbitration — what a contra- diction!); or they interpolate the principle of a compulsory working day of so many hours. They open the door to the mihtary working of railways in case of a strike; they give legal sanction to the oppression of peasants in Ireland, by imposing high prices for the redemption of the land; and so on. And such a system will flourish as long as part of society will make laws for the whole of society; and by this means they further extend the power of the State, which constitutes the principal prop of Capitalism.
As long as laws are made and enforced, the result necessarily will be the same.
We understand therefore why Anarchism, since Godwin, has disowned all written laws, although the Anarchists, more than any legislators, aspire to Justice, which — let us repeat it — is equivalent to Equality, and impossible without it.
When the objection is raised against us that in repudiating Laio we repudiate Morality, as we do not recognise the " categorical imperative " about which Kant spoke to us, we answer that the language of this objection is in itself strange and incomprehensible to our mind.* It is just as strange and incomprehensible as it would be to a naturahst who studied Morality. Before entering into the discussion, we therefore ask our interlocutors this question: " What do you mean by this ' categorical imperative '? Cannot you translate your assertion into comprehensible language, as, for example, Laplace used to do, when he found the me<ins of expressing the formulas of • T am mentioning here an objection which I borrow from a recent correspon'l^no.e with a G<-rman doctor.
74 Modem Science and /inardiiem.
higher mathematics in words that every one understood 1 All great scientists do that; why do not you do as much 1 " In fact, what is meant when the words " universal law '" or " categorical imperative " are used 1 Is it that all men accept the idea: " Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you "? If so, very well. Let us begin to study (as Hutchinson and Adam Smith have done before us) whence came this moral conception, and how did it develop] Let us then study in what degree this idea of Justice implies Equality. A very important question, because only those who consider others as their equals can obey the rule: " Do not do to others what you do not wish them to do to you." A serf-owner and a slave merchant can evidently not recognise the " universal law" or the "categorical imperative" as regards serfs and negroes, because they do not look upon them as equals. And if our remark be correct, let us see whether it is possible to inculcate morality while inculcating ideas of inequality.
Let us analyse next, as Guyau did, the "sacrifice of self," and, having done that, let us see what were the causes and the con- ditions that have most contributed in history to the development of moral sentiment — both of that sentiment which is expressed in the commandment concerning our neighbour, and of that other feeling which leads to self-sacrifice. Then we shall be able to deduce which social conditions and institutions promise the best results in the future. We shall learn how much religion con- tributed to it, and how far the economic and political inequalities established by Law hamper it: what is the part contributed towards the development of these feelings by Law, punishments, prisons, judges, gaolers, and executioners.
Let us study all this in detail, separately, and then we shall be able to talk, with some practical result, of social morality and of moralisation by Law, by Tribunals, and by Superintendents of Police. But high-flown words, that only serve to hide from us the superficiality of our would-be knowledge, had better be left alone. They may have been unavoidable at a certain period of history, though even then their having been useful is very doubtful; but now, fit as we are to undertake the study of the most arduous social questions in exactly the same way as the gardener on the one hand, and the physiologist on the other hand, study the most favourable conditions for the growth of a plant — let us do so 1 Again, when an economist comes and says to us: " In an Mode'ni Science and Anarchism, 75 absolutely open market the value of goods is measured by the quantity of work socially necessary to produce those goods " (see Ricardo, Proudhon, Marx, and so many others), we do not accept this assertion as an article of faith for the reason that it was put forth by a particular authorit}^, or that it may seem to us " devilishly Socialistic." " It is possible," we say, " that it is true. But do you not see that, in making this assertion, you « maintain that the value and quantity of work necessary are proportional, just as the rapidity of a falling body is proportional to the number of seconds that the fall lasts? You thus affirm a certain qiuintitative relatiorc between labour and market value. Very well; but have you, then, made mensurations, obt^ervations — qtiantitaiive measures that alone could confirm a quantitative assertion '\