{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_31104/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_31104","id":"gutenberg_31104","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31104","summary":null,"tags":["Anarchism -- History","Anarchists","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics"],"text":"Produced by Fritz Ohrenschall, Stephanie Eason, and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net.\n(This file was produced from images generously made\navailable by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  New Edition (enlarged) TWO PENCE\n\n\n  The Place of Anarchism\n  in Socialistic Evolution\n\n\n  An Address delivered in Paris\n  BY\n  PIERRE KROPOTKIN\n\n  Translated by HENRY GLASSE\n\n\n  AN APPEAL TO THE YOUNG\n  By Pierre Kropotkin\n  PRICE - - - 2d.\n\n\n  WILLIAM REEVES          83 CHARING CROSS ROAD,\n  BOOKSELLER LIMITED.     --LONDON, W.C.2.--\n\n\n\n\nTHE PLACE OF ANARCHISM IN SOCIALISTIC EVOLUTION\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\n\nYou must often have asked yourselves what is the cause of Anarchism, and\nwhy, since there are already so many Socialist schools, it is necessary\nto found an additional one--that of Anarchism. In order to answer this\nquestion I will go back to the close of last century.\n\nYou all know the characteristics which marked that epoch: there was an\nexpansion of intelligence, a prodigious development of the natural\nsciences, a pitiless examination of accepted prejudices, the formation\nof a theory of Nature based on a truly scientific foundation,\nobservation and reasoning. In addition to these there was criticism of\nthe political institutions bequeathed to Humanity by preceding ages, and\na movement towards that ideal of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity which\nhas in all times been the ideal of the popular masses. Fettered in its\nfree development by despotism and by the narrow selfishness of the\nprivileged classes, this movement, being at the same time favoured by an\nexplosion of popular indignation, engendered the Great Revolution which\nhad to force its way through the midst of a thousand obstacles both\nwithout and within.\n\nThe Revolution was vanquished, but its ideas remained. Though at first\npersecuted and derided, they became the watchword for a whole century of\nslow evolution. The history of the nineteenth century is summed up in an\neffort to put in practice the principles elaborated at the end of last\ncentury: this is the lot of revolutions: though vanquished they\nestablish the course of the evolution which follows them. In the domain\nof politics these ideas are abolition of aristocratic privileges,\nabolition of personal government, and equality before the law. In the\neconomic order the Revolution proclaimed freedom of business\ntransactions; it said--\"Sell and buy freely. Sell, all of you, your\nproducts, if you can produce, and if you do not possess the implements\nnecessary for that purpose but have only your arms to sell, sell them,\nsell your labour to the highest bidder, the State will not interfere!\nCompete among yourselves, contractors! No favour shall be shown, the law\nof natural selection will take upon itself the function of killing off\nthose who do not keep pace with the progress of industry, and will\nreward those who take the lead.\"\n\nThe above is at least the _theory_ of the Revolution of 1789, and if the\nState intervenes in the struggle to favour some to the detriment of\nothers, as we have lately seen when the monopolies of mining and railway\ncompanies have been under discussion, such action is regarded by the\nliberal school as a lamentable deviation from the grand principles of\nthe Revolution.\n\nWhat has been the result? You know only too well, both women and men,\nidle opulence for a few and uncertainty for the morrow and misery for\nthe greater number; crisis and wars for the conquest of markets, and a\nlavish expenditure of public money to find openings for industrial\nspeculators. All this is because in proclaiming liberty of contract an\nessential point was neglected by our fathers. Not but what some of them\ncaught sight of it, the best of them earnestly desired but did not dare\nto realise it. While liberty of transactions, that is to say a conflict\nbetween the members of society, was proclaimed, the contending parties\nwere not equally matched, and the powerful, armed for the contest by the\nmeans inherited from their fathers, have gained the upper hand over the\nweak. Under such conditions the millions of poor ranged against a few\nrich could not do otherwise than give in.\n\nComrades! you have often asked yourselves--\"Whence comes the wealth of\nthe rich? Is it from their labour?\" It would be a mockery to say that it\nwas so. Let us suppose that M. Rothschild has worked all his life: well,\nyou also, every one of you working men have also laboured: then why\nshould the fortune of M. Rothschild be measured by hundreds of millions\nwhile your possessions are so small? The reason is simple: you have\nexerted yourselves to produce by your own labour, while M. Rothschild\nhas devoted himself to accumulating the product of the labour of\nothers--the whole matter lies in that.\n\nBut some one may say to me;--\"How comes it that millions of men thus\nallow the Rothschilds and the Mackays to appropriate the fruit of their\nlabour?\" Alas, they cannot help themselves under the existing social\nsystem! But let us picture to our minds a city all of whose inhabitants\nfind their lodging, clothing, food and occupation secured to them, on\ncondition of producing things useful to the community, and let us\nsuppose a Rothschild to enter this city bringing with him a cask full of\ngold. If he spends his gold it will diminish rapidly; if he locks it up\nit will not increase, because gold does not grow like seed, and after\nthe lapse of a twelvemonth he will not find L110 in his drawer if he\nonly put L100 into it. If he sets up a factory and proposes to the\ninhabitants of the town that they should work in it for four shillings a\nday while producing to the value of eight shillings a day they\nreply--\"Among us you'll find no one willing to work on those terms. Go\nelsewhere and settle in some town where the unfortunate people have\nneither clothing, bread, nor work assured to them, and where they will\nconsent to give up to you the lion's share of the result of their labour\nin return for the barest necessaries of life. Go where men starve! there\nyou will make your fortune!\"\n\nThe origin of the wealth of the rich is your misery. Let there be no\npoor, then we shall have no millionaires.\n\nThe facts I have just stated were such as the Revolution of last century\ndid not comprehend or else could not act upon. That Revolution placed\nface to face two opposing ranks, the one consisting of a hungry,\nill-clad army of former serfs, the other of men well provided with\nmeans. It then said to these two arrays--\"Fight out your battle.\" The\nunfortunate were vanquished. They possessed no fortunes, but they had\nsomething more precious than all the gold in the world--their arms; and\nthese arms, the source of all wealth, were monopolised by the wealthy.\nThus we have seen those immense fortunes which are the characteristic\nfeature of our age spring up on all sides. A king of the last century,\n\"the great Louis the Fourteenth\" of mercenary historians, would never\nhave dreamed of possessing a fortune such as are held by those kings of\nthe nineteenth century, the Vanderbilts and the Mackays.\n\nOn the other hand we have seen the poor reduced still more and more to\ntoil for others, and while those who produced on their own account have\nrapidly disappeared, we find ourselves compelled under an ever\nincreasing pressure to labour more and more to enrich the rich.\nAttempts have been made to remove these evils. Some have said--\"Let us\ngive equal instruction to all,\" and forthwith education has been spread\nabroad. Better human machines have been turned out, but these educated\nmachines still labour to enrich others. This illustrious scientist, that\nrenowned novelist, despite their education are still beasts of burden to\nthe capitalist. Instruction improves the cattle to be exploited but the\nexploitation remains. Next, there was great talk about association, but\nthe workers soon learned that they could not get the better of capital\nby associating their miseries, and those who cherished this illusion\nmost earnestly were compelled to turn to Socialism.\n\nTimid, at the outset, Socialism spoke at first in the name of Christian\nsentiment and morality: men profoundly imbued with the moral principles\nof Christianity--principles which it possesses in common with all other\nreligions--came forward and said--\"A Christian has no right to exploit\nhis brethren!\" But the ruling classes laughed in their faces with the\nreply--\"Teach the people Christian resignation, tell them in the name of\nChrist that they should offer their left cheek to whosoever smites them\non the right, then you will be welcome; as for the dreams of equality\nwhich you find in Christianity, go and meditate on your discoveries in\nprison.\"\n\nLater on Socialism spoke in the name of Governmentalism; it said--\"Since\nit is the special mission of the State to protect the weak against the\nstrong, it is its duty to aid working men's associations; the State\nalone can enable working men to fight against capital and to oppose to\ncapitalistic exploitation the free workshop of workers pocketing the\nentire value of the produce of their labour.\" To this the Bourgeoisie\nreplied with grapeshot in 1848.\n\nIt was not until between twenty to thirty years later, at a time when\nthe popular masses were invited to express their mind in the\nInternational Working Men's Association, that Socialism spoke in the\nname of the people, and formulating itself little by little in the\nCongresses of the great Association and later on among its successors,\narrived at some such conclusion as the following:\n\nAll accumulated wealth is the product of the labour of all--of the\npresent and of all preceding generations. This hall in which we are now\nassembled derives its value from the fact that it is situated in\nParis--this magnificent city built by the labours of twenty successive\ngenerations. If this same hall were conveyed amid the snows of Siberia\nits value would be next to nothing. The machinery which you have\ninvented and patented bears within itself the intelligence of five or\nsix generations and is only possessed of value because it forms part of\nthat immense whole that we call the progress of the nineteenth century.\nIf you send your lace-making machine among the natives of New Guinea it\nwill become valueless. We defy any man of genius of our times to tell us\nwhat share his intellect has had in the magnificent deductions of the\nbook, the work of talent which he has produced! Generations have toiled\nto accumulate facts for him, his ideas have perhaps been suggested to\nhim by a locomotive crossing the plains, as for elegance of design he\nhas grasped it while admiring the Venus of Milo or the work of Murillo,\nand finally, if his book exercises any influence over us, it does so,\nthanks to all the circumstances of our civilisation.\n\nEverything belongs to all! We defy anyone soever to tell us what share\nof the general wealth is due to each individual. See the enormous mass\nof appliances which the nineteenth century has created; behold those\nmillions of iron slaves which we call machines, and which plane and saw,\nweave and spin for us, separate and combine the raw materials, and work\nthe miracles of our times. No one has the right to monopolise any one of\nthese machines and to say to others--\"This is mine, if you wish to make\nuse of it you must pay me a tax on each article you produce,\" any more\nthan the feudal lord of the middle ages had the right to say to the\ncultivator--\"This hill and this meadow are mine and you must pay me\ntribute for every sheaf of barley you bind, and on each haycock you heap\nup.\"\n\nAll belongs to everyone! And provided each man and woman contributes his\nand her share of labour for the production of necessary objects, they\nhave a right to share in all that is produced by everybody.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n\nAll things belong to all, and provided that men and women contribute\ntheir share of labour for the production of necessary objects, they are\nentitled to their share of all that is produced by the community at\nlarge. \"But this is Communism,\" you may say. Yes, it is Communism, but\nit is the Communism which no longer speaks in the name of religion or of\nthe state, but in the name of the people. During the past fifty years a\ngreat awakening of the working-class has taken place! the prejudice in\nfavour of private property is passing away. The worker grows more and\nmore accustomed to regard the factory, the railway, or the mine, not as\na feudal castle belonging to a lord, but as an institution of public\nutility which the public has the right to control. The idea of\npossession in common has not been worked out from the slow deductions of\nsome thinker buried in his private study, it is a thought which is\ngerminating in the brains of the working masses, and when the\nrevolution, which the close of this century has in store for us, shall\nhave hurled confusion into the camp of our exploiters, you will see that\nthe mass of the people will demand Expropriation, and will proclaim its\nright to the factory, the locomotive, and the steamship.\n\nJust as the sentiment of the inviolability of the home has developed\nduring the latter half of our century, so also the sentiment of\ncollective right to all that serves for the production of wealth has\ndeveloped among the masses. It is a fact, and he who, like ourselves,\nwishes to share the popular life and follow its development, must\nacknowledge that this affirmation is a faithful summary of the people's\naspirations. The tendency of this closing century is towards Communism,\nnot the monastic or barrack-room Communism formerly advocated, but the\nfree Communism which places the products reaped or manufactured in\ncommon at the disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume\nthem as he pleases in his own home.\n\nThis is the solution of which the mass of the people can most readily\ntake hold, and it is the solution which the people demands at the most\nsolemn epochs. In 1848 the formula \"From each according to his\nabilities, to each according to his needs\" was the one which went\nstraight to the heart of the masses, and if they acclaimed the Republic\nand universal suffrage, it was because they hoped to attain to Communism\nthrough them. In 1871, also, when the people besieged in Paris desired\nto make a supreme effort to resist the invader, what was their\ndemand?--That free rations should be served out to everyone. Let all\narticles be put into one common stock and let them be distributed\naccording to the requirements of each. Let each one take freely of all\nthat is abundant and let those objects which are less plentiful be\ndistributed more sparingly and in due proportions--this is the solution\nwhich the mass of the workers understand best. This is also the system\nwhich is commonly practised in the rural districts (of France). So long\nas the common lands afford abundant pasture, what Commune seeks to\nrestrict their use? When brush-wood and chestnuts are plentiful, what\nCommune forbids its members to take as much as they want? And when the\nlarger wood begins to grow scarce, what course does the peasant\nadopt?--The allowancing of individuals.\n\nLet us take from the common stock the articles which are abundant, and\nlet those objects whose production is more restricted be served out in\nallowances according to requirements, giving preference to children and\nold persons, that is to say, to the weak. And, moreover, let all be\nconsumed, not in public, but at home, according to individual tastes and\nin company with one's family and friends. This is the ideal of the\nmasses.\n\nBut it is not enough to argue about, \"Communism\" and \"Expropriation;\" it\nis furthermore necessary to know who should have the management of the\ncommon patrimony, and it is especially on this question that different\nschools of Socialists are opposed to one another, some desiring\nauthoritarian Communism, and others, like ourselves, declaring\nunreservedly in favour of anarchist Communism. In order to judge between\nthese two, let us return once again to our starting point, the\nRevolution of last century.\n\nIn overturning royalty the Revolution proclaimed the sovereignty of the\npeople; but, by an inconsistency which was very natural at that time, it\nproclaimed, not a permanent sovereignty, but an intermittent one, to be\nexercised at certain intervals only, for the nomination of deputies\nsupposed to represent the people. In reality it copied its institutions\nfrom the representative government of England. The Revolution was\ndrowned in blood, and, nevertheless, representative government became\nthe watchword of Europe. All Europe, with the exception of Russia, has\ntried it, under all possible forms, from government based on a property\nqualification to the direct government of the little Swiss republics.\nBut, strange to say, just in proportion as we have approached nearer to\nthe ideal of a representative government, elected by a perfectly free\nuniversal suffrage, in that same proportion have its essential vices\nbecome manifest to us, till we have clearly seen that this mode of\ngovernment is radically defective. Is it not indeed absurd to take a\ncertain number of men from out the mass, and to entrust them with the\nmanagement of _all_ public affairs, saying to them, \"Attend to these\nmatters, we exonerate ourselves from the task by laying it upon you: it\nis for you to make laws on all manner of subjects--armaments and mad\ndogs, observatories and chimneys, instruction and street-sweeping:\narrange these things as you please and make laws about them, since you\nare the chosen ones whom the people has voted capable of doing\neverything!\" It appears to me that if a thoughtful and honest man were\noffered such a post, he would answer somewhat in this fashion:--\n\n\"You entrust me with a task which I am unable to fulfil. I am\nunacquainted with most of the questions upon which I shall be called on\nto legislate. I shall either have to work to some extent in the dark,\nwhich will not be to your advantage, or I shall appeal to you and summon\nmeetings in which you will yourselves seek to come to an understanding\non the questions at issue, in which case my office will be unnecessary.\nIf you have formed an opinion and have formulated it, and if you are\nanxious to come to an understanding with others who have also formed an\nopinion on the same subject, then all you need do is to communicate with\nyour neighbours and send a delegate to come to an understanding with\nother delegates on this specific question; but you will certainly\nreserve to yourselves the right of taking an ultimate decision; you will\nnot entrust your delegate with the making of laws for you. This is how\nscientists and business men act each time that they have to come to an\nagreement.\"\n\nBut the above reply would be a repudiation of the representative system,\nand nevertheless it is a faithful expression of the idea which is\ngrowing everywhere since the vices of representative government have\nbeen exposed in all their nakedness. Our age, however, has gone still\nfurther, for it has begun to discuss the rights of the State and of\nSociety in relation to the individual; people now ask to what point the\ninterference of the State is necessary in the multitudinous functions of\nsociety.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nDo we require a government to educate our children? Only let the worker\nhave leisure to instruct himself, and you will see that, through the\nfree initiative of parents and of persons fond of tuition, thousands of\neducational societies and schools of all kinds will spring up, rivalling\none another in the excellence of their teaching. If we were not crushed\nby taxation and exploited by employers, as we now are, could we not\nourselves do much better than is now done for us? The great centres\nwould initiate progress and set the example, and you may be sure that\nthe progress realised would be incomparably superior to what we now\nattain through our ministeries.--Is the State even necessary for the\ndefence of a territory? If armed brigands attack a people, is not that\nsame people, armed with good weapons, the surest rampart to oppose to\nthe foreign aggressor? Standing armies are always beaten by invaders,\nand history teaches that the latter are to be repulsed by a popular\nrising alone.--While Government is an excellent machine to protect\nmonopoly, has it ever been able to protect us against ill-disposed\npersons? Does it not, by creating misery, increase the number of crimes\ninstead of diminishing them? In establishing prisons into which\nmultitudes of men, women, and children are thrown for a time in order to\ncome forth infinitely worse than when they went in, does not the State\nmaintain nurseries of vice at the expense of the tax-payers? In obliging\nus to commit to others the care of our affairs, does it not create the\nmost terrible vice of societies--indifference to public matters?\n\nOn the other hand, if we analyse all the great advances made in this\ncentury--our international traffic, our industrial discoveries, our\nmeans of communication--do we find that we owe them to the State or to\nprivate enterprise? Look at the network of railways which cover Europe.\nAt Madrid, for example, you take a ticket for St. Petersburg direct. You\ntravel along railroads which have been constructed by millions of\nworkers, set in motion by dozens of companies; your carriage is attached\nin turn to Spanish, French, Bavarian, and Russian locomotives: you\ntravel without losing twenty minutes anywhere, and the two hundred\nfrancs which you paid in Madrid will be divided to a nicety among the\ncompanies which have combined to forward you to your destination. This\nline from Madrid to St. Petersburg has been constructed in small\nisolated branches which have been gradually connected, and direct trains\nare the result of an understanding which has been arrived at between\ntwenty different companies. Of course there has been considerable\nfriction at the outset, and at times some companies, influenced by an\nunenlightened egotism have been unwilling to come to terms with the\nothers; but, I ask, was it better to put up with this occasional\nfriction, or to wait until some Bismarck, Napoleon, or Zengis Khan\nshould have conquered Europe, traced the lines with a pair of compasses,\nand regulated the despatch of the trains? If the latter course had been\nadopted, we should still be in the days of stage-coaches.\n\nThe network of railways is the work of the human mind proceeding from\nthe simple to the complex by the spontaneous efforts of the parties\ninterested, and it is thus that all the great enterprises of our age\nhave been undertaken. It is quite true, indeed, that we pay too much to\nthe managers of these enterprises; this is an additional reason for\nsuppressing their incomes, but not for confiding the management of\nEuropean railways to a central European government.\n\nWhat thousands of examples one could cite in support of his same idea!\nTake all great enterprises such as the Suez Canal, the lines of Atlantic\nsteamers, the telegraph which connects us with North and South America.\nConsider also that commercial organisation which enables you on rising\nin the morning to find bread at the baker's--that is, if you have the\nmoney to pay for it, which is not always the case now-a-days--meat at\nthe butcher's, and all other things that you want at other shops. Is\nthis the work of the State? It is true that we pay abominably dearly for\nmiddlemen; this is, however, an additional reason for suppressing them,\nbut not for believing that we must entrust government with the care of\nproviding for our feeding and clothing. If we closely scan the\ndevelopment of the human mind in our times we are struck by the number\nof associations which spring up to meet the varied requirement of the\nindividual of our age--societies for study, for commerce, for pleasure\nand recreation; some of them, very small, for the propagation of a\nuniversal language or a certain method of short-hand writing; others\nwith large arms, such as that which has recently been established for\nthe defence of the English coast, or for the avoidance of lawsuits, and\nso on. To make a list of the associations which exist in Europe, volumes\nwould be necessary, and it would be seen that there is not a single\nbranch of human activity with which one or other does not concern\nitself. The State itself appeals to them in the discharge of its most\nimportant function--war; it says, \"We undertake to slaughter, but we\ncannot take care of our victims; form a Red Cross Society to gather up\nthe wounded on the battle-field and to take care of them.\"\n\nLet others, if they will, advocate industrial barracks or the monastery\nof Authoritarian Communism, we declare that the tendency of society is\nin an opposite direction. We foresee millions and millions of groups\nfreely constituting themselves for the satisfaction of all the varied\nneeds of human beings--some of these groups organised by quarter,\nstreet, and house; others extending hands across the walls of cities,\nover frontiers and oceans. All of these will be composed of human beings\nwho will combine freely, and after having performed their share of\nproductive labour will meet together, either for the purpose of\nconsumption, or to produce objects of art or luxury, or to advance\nscience in a new direction. This is the tendency of the nineteenth\ncentury, and we follow it; we only ask to develop it freely, without any\ngovernmental interference. Individual liberty! \"Take pebbles,\" said\nFourrier, \"put them into a box and shake them, and they will arrange\nthemselves in a mosaic that you could never get by entrusting to anyone\nthe work of arranging them harmoniously.\"\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\n\nNow let me pass to the third part of my subject--the most important with\nrespect to the future.\n\nThere is no more room for doubting that religions are going; the\nnineteenth century has given them their death blow. But religions--all\nreligions--have a double composition. They contain in the first place a\nprimitive cosmogony, a rude attempt at explaining nature, and they\nfurthermore contain a statement of the public morality born and\ndeveloped within the mass of the people. But when we throw religions\noverboard or store them among our public records as historical\ncuriosities, shall we also relegate to museums the moral principles\nwhich they contain? This has sometimes been done, and we have seen\npeople declare that as they no longer believed in the various religions\nso they despised morality and boldly proclaimed the maxim of bourgeois\nselfishness, \"Everyone for himself.\" But a Society, human or animal,\ncannot exist without certain rules and moral habits springing up within\nit; religion may go, morality remains. If we were to come to consider\nthat a man did well in lying, deceiving his neighbours, or plundering\nthem when possible (this is the middle-class business morality), we\nshould come to such a pass that we could no longer live together. You\nmight assure me of your friendship, but perhaps you might only do so in\norder to rob me more easily; you might promise to do a certain thing for\nme, only to deceive me; you might promise to forward a letter for me,\nand you might steal it just like an ordinary governor of a jail. Under\nsuch conditions society would become impossible, and this is so\ngenerally understood that the repudiation of religions in no way\nprevents public morality from being maintained, developed, and raised to\na higher and ever higher standard. This fact is so striking that\nphilosophers seek to explain it by the principles of utilitarianism, and\nrecently Spencer sought to base the morality which exists among us upon\nphysiological causes and the needs connected with the preservation of\nthe race.\n\nLet me give you an example in order to explain to you what _we_ think on\nthe matter.\n\nA child is drowning, and four men who stand upon the bank see it\nstruggling in the water. One of them does not stir, he is a partisan of\n\"Each one for himself,\" the maxim of the commercial middle-class; this\none is a brute and we need not speak of him further. The next one\nreasons thus: \"If I save the child, a good report of my action will be\nmade to the ruler of heaven, and the Creator will reward me by\nincreasing my flocks and my serfs,\" and thereupon he plunges into the\nwater. Is he therefore a moral man? Clearly not! He is a shrewd\ncalculator, that is all. The third, who is an utilitarian, reflects thus\n(or at least utilitarian philosophers represent him as so reasoning):\n\"Pleasures can be classed in two categories, inferior pleasures and\nhigher ones. To save the life of anyone is a superior pleasure\ninfinitely more intense and more durable than others; therefore I will\nsave the child.\" Admitting that any man ever reasoned thus, would he not\nbe a terrible egotist? and, moreover, could we ever be sure that his\nsophistical brain would not at some given moment cause his will to\nincline toward an inferior pleasure, that is to say, towards refraining\nfrom troubling himself? There remains the fourth individual. This man\nhas been brought up from his childhood to feel himself _one_ with the\nrest of humanity: from his childhood he has always regarded men as\npossessing interests in common: he has accustomed himself to suffer when\nhis neighbours suffer, and to feel happy when everyone around him is\nhappy. Directly he hears the heart-rending cry of the mother, he leaps\ninto the water, not through reflection but by instinct, and when she\nthanks him for saving her child, he says, \"What have I done to deserve\nthanks, my good woman? I am happy to see you happy; I have acted from\nnatural impulse and could not do otherwise!\"\n\nYou recognise in this case the truly moral man, and feel that the others\nare only egotists in comparison with him. The whole anarchist morality\nis represented in this example. It is the morality of a people which\ndoes not look for the sun at midnight--a morality without compulsion or\nauthority, a morality of habit. Let us create circumstances in which man\nshall not be led to deceive nor exploit others, and then by the very\nforce of things the moral level of humanity will rise to a height\nhitherto unknown. Men are certainly not to be moralised by teaching them\na moral catechism: tribunals and prisons do not diminish vice; they pour\nit over society in floods. Men are to be moralised only by placing them\nin a position which shall contribute to develop in them those habits\nwhich are social, and to weaken those which are not so. A morality which\nhas become instinctive is the true morality, the only morality which\nendures while religions and systems of philosophy pass away.\n\nLet us now combine the three preceding elements, and we shall have\nAnarchy and its place in Socialistic Evolution.\n\nEmancipation of the producer from the yoke of capital; production in\ncommon and free consumption of all the products of the common labour.\n\nEmancipation from the governmental yoke; free development of individuals\nin groups and federations; free organisation ascending from the simple\nto the complex, according to mutual needs and tendencies.\n\nEmancipation from religious morality; free morality, without compulsion\nor authority, developing itself from social life and becoming habitual.\n\nThe above is no dream of students, it is a conclusion which results from\nan analysis of the tendencies of modern society: Anarchist Communism is\nthe union of the two fundamental tendencies of our society--a tendency\ntowards economic equality, and a tendency towards political liberty. So\nlong as Communism presented itself under an authoritarian form, which\nnecessarily implies government, armed with much greater power than that\nwhich it possesses to-day, inasmuch as it implies economic in addition\nto political power--so long as this was the case, Communism met with no\nsufficient response. Before 1848 it could, indeed, sometimes excite for\na moment the enthusiasm of the worker who was prepared to submit to any\nall-powerful government, provided it would release him from the terrible\nsituation in which he was placed, but it left the true friends of\nliberty indifferent.\n\nAnarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all\nconquests--individual liberty--and moreover extends it and gives it a\nsolid basis--economic liberty--without which political liberty in\ndelusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god, the\nuniversal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to give unto\nhimself a god more terrible than any of the preceding--god the\nCommunity, or to abdicate upon its altar his independence, his will, his\ntastes, and to renew the vow of asceticism which he formerly made before\nthe crucified god. It says to him, on the contrary, \"No society is free\nso long as the individual is not so! Do not seek to modify society by\nimposing upon it an authority which shall make everything right; if you\ndo, you will fail as popes and emperors have failed. Modify society so\nthat your fellows may not be any longer your enemies by the force of\ncircumstances: abolish the conditions which allow some to monopolise the\nfruit of the labour of others; and instead of attempting to construct\nsociety from top to bottom, or from the centre to the circumference, let\nit develop itself freely from the simple to the composite, by the free\nunion of free groups. This course, which is so much obstructed at\npresent, is the true forward march of society: do not seek to hinder it,\ndo not turn your back on progress, but march along with it! Then the\nsentiment of sociability which is common to human beings, as it is to\nall animals living in society, will be able to develop itself freely,\nbecause our fellows will no longer be our enemies, and we shall thus\narrive at a state of things in which each individual will be able to\ngive free rein to his inclinations, and even to his passions, without\nany other restraint than the love and respect of those who surround\nhim.\"\n\nThis is our ideal, and it is the ideal which lies deep in the hearts of\npeoples--of all peoples. We know full well that this ideal will not be\nattained without violent shocks; the close of this century has a\nformidable revolution in store for us: whether it begins in France,\nGermany, Spain, or Russia, it will be an European one, and spreading\nwith the same rapidity as that of our fathers, the heroes of 1848, it\nwill set all Europe in a blaze. This coming Revolution will not aim at a\nmere change of government, but will have a social character; the work of\nexpropriation will commence, and exploiters will be driven out. Whether\nwe like it or not, this will be done independently of the will of\nindividuals, and when hands are laid on private property we shall arrive\nat Communism, because we shall be forced to do so. Communism, however,\ncannot be either authoritarian or parliamentary, it must either be\nanarchist or non-existent; the mass of the people does not desire to\ntrust itself again to any saviour, but will seek to organise itself by\nitself.\n\nWe do not advocate Communism and Anarchy because we imagine men to be\nbetter than they really are; if we had angels among us we might be\ntempted to entrust to them the task of organising us, though doubtless\neven _they_ would show the cloven foot very soon. But it is just because\nwe take men as they are that we say: \"Do not entrust them with the\ngoverning of you. This or that despicable minister might have been an\nexcellent man if power had not been given to him. The only way of\narriving at harmony of interests is by a society without exploiters and\nwithout rulers.\" It is precisely because men are not angels that we say,\n\"Let us arrange matters so that each man may see his interest bound up\nwith the interests of others, then you will no longer have to fear his\nevil passions.\"\n\nAnarchist Communism being the inevitable result of existing tendencies,\nit is towards this ideal that we must direct our steps, instead of\nsaying, \"Yes, Anarchy is an excellent ideal,\" and then turning our backs\nupon it. Should the approaching revolution not succeed in realising the\nwhole of this ideal, still all that shall have been effected in the\ndirection of it will remain; but all that shall have been done in a\ncontrary direction will be doomed to disappear. It is a general rule\nthat a popular revolution may be vanquished, but that, nevertheless, it\nfurnishes a motto for the evolution of the succeeding century. France\nexpired under the heel of the allies in 1815, and yet the action of\nFrance had rendered serfdom impossible of continuance, all over Europe,\nand representative government inevitable; universal suffrage was drowned\nin blood, and yet universal suffrage is the watchword of the century. In\n1871 the Commune expired under volleys of grapeshot, and yet the\nwatchword in France to-day is \"the Free Commune.\" And if Anarchist\nCommunism is vanquished in the coming revolution, after having asserted\nitself in the light of day, not only will it leave behind it the\nabolition of private property, not only will the working man have\nlearned his true place in society, not only will the landed and\nmercantile aristocracy have received a mortal blow, but Communist\nAnarchism will be the goal of the evolution of the twentieth century.\n\nAnarchist Communism sums up all that is most beautiful and most durable\nin the progress of humanity; the sentiment of justice, the sentiment of\nliberty, and solidarity or community of interest. It guarantees the free\nevolution, both of the individual and of society. Therefore, it will\ntriumph.\n\n\nPrinted by THE NEW TEMPLE PRESS, Norbury, London, Great Britain.","title":"The place of anarchism in socialistic evolution : $b an address delivered in Paris","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":6412}