{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40365/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40365","id":"gutenberg_40365","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40365","summary":null,"tags":["Anarchism","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\n\n                              ANARCHY\n\n                                 By\n\n                          Errico Malatesta\n\n            Published by the Free Society Library in 1900\n\n                              ANARCHY.\n\n                             ----------\n\nANARCHY is a word which comes from the Greek, and signifies,\nstrictly speaking, _without government:_ the state of a people\nwithout any constituted authority, that is, without government.\n\nBefore such an organization had begun to be considered possible\nand desirable by a whole class of thinkers, so as to be taken\nas the aim of a party (which party has now become one of the\nmost important factors in modern social warfare), the word Anarchy\nwas taken universally in the sense of disorder and confusion;\nand it is still adopted in that sense by the ignorant and by\nadversaries interested in distorting the truth.\n\nWe shall not enter into philological discussions; for the question\nis not philological but historical. The common meaning of the word\ndoes not misconceive its true etymological signification, but is\nderived from this meaning, owing to the prejudice that government\nmust be a necessity of the organization of social life; and that\nconsequently a society without government must be given up to\ndisorder, and oscillate between the unbridled dominion of some and\nthe blind vengeance of others.\n\nThe existence of this prejudice, and its influence on the meaning\nwhich the public has given the word, is easily explained.\n\nMan, like all living beings, adapts and habituates himself to\nthe conditions in which he lives, and transmits by inheritance\nhis acquired habits. Thus being born and having lived in bondage,\nbeing the descendant of a long line of slaves, man, when he began to\nthink, believed that slavery was an essential condition of life; and\nliberty seemed to him an impossible thing. In like manner, the\nworkman, forced for centuries, and thus habituated, to depend upon\nthe good will of his employer for work, that is, for bread, and\naccustomed to see his own life at the disposal of those who possess\nthe land and the capital, has ended in believing that it is his\nmaster who gives him to eat, and demands ingenuously how it would be\npossible to live, if there were no master over him?\n\nIn the same way, a man who had had his limbs bound from his birth,\nbut had nevertheless found out how to hobble about, might attribute\nto the very hands that bound him his ability to move, while, on the\ncontrary, they would be diminishing and paralyzing the muscular\nenergy of his limbs.\n\nIf, then, we add to the natural effect of habit the education\ngiven him by his masters, the parson, teacher, etc., who are all\ninterested in teaching that the employer and the government are\nnecessary; if also we add the judge and the bailiff to force those\nwho think differently--and might try to propagate their opinions\n--to keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to\nthe utility and necessity of masters and governments has become\nestablished. Suppose a doctor brings forward a complete theory,\nwith a thousand ably invented illustrations, to persuade that man\nwith the bound limb whom we were describing, that, if his limb were\nfreed, he could not walk, could not even live. The man would defend\nhis bands furiously, and consider any one his enemy who tried to\ntear them off.\n\nThus, since it is believed that government is necessary, and\nthat without government there must be disorder and confusion,\nit is natural and logical to suppose that Anarchy, which signifies\nwithout government, must also mean absence of order.\n\nNor is this fact without parallel in the history of words. In\nthose epochs and countries where people have considered government\nby one man (monarchy) necessary, the word republic (that is, the\ngovernment of many) has been used precisely like Anarchy, to imply\ndisorder and confusion. Traces of this signification of the word are\nstill to be found in the popular language of almost all countries.\n\nWhen this opinion is changed, and the public convinced that\ngovernment is not necessary, but extremely harmful, the word\nAnarchy, precisely because it signifies without government, will\nbecome equal to saying natural order, harmony of the needs and\ninterests of all, complete liberty with complete solidarity.\n\nTherefore, those are wrong who say that Anarchists have chosen their\nname badly, because it is erroneously understood by the masses and\nleads to a false interpretation. The error does not come from the\nword, but from the thing. The difficulty which Anarchists meet with\nin spreading their views does not depend upon the name they have\ngiven themselves, but upon the fact that their conceptions strike at\nall the inveterate prejudices that people have about the function of\ngovernment, or the _State_, as it is called.\n\nBefore proceeding further, it will be well to explain this last\nword (the State) which, in our opinion, is the real cause of much\nmisunderstanding.\n\nAnarchists, and we among them, have made use, and still generally\nmake use of the word State, meaning thereby that collection of\ninstitutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial,\netc., by means of which the management of their own affairs, the\nguidance of their personal conduct and the care of ensuring their\nown safety are taken from the people and confided to certain\nindividuals. And these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are\ninvested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to\nconstrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective\nforce of the community to this end.\n\nIn this case the word State means government, or, if you like, it is\nthe impersonal expression, abstracted from the state of things, of\nwhich the government is the personification. Then such expressions\nas abolition of the State, or society without the State, agree\nperfectly with the conception which Anarchists wish to express of\nthe destruction of every political institution based on authority,\nand of the constitution of a free and equal society, based upon\nharmony of interests, and the voluntary contribution of all to the\nsatisfaction of social needs.\n\nHowever, the word State has many other significations, and among\nthese some which lend themselves to misconstruction, particularly\nwhen used among men whose sad social position has not afforded them\nleisure to become accustomed to the delicate distinctions of\nscientific language, or, still worse, when adopted treacherously by\nadversaries, who are interested in confounding the sense, or do not\nwish to comprehend. Thus the word State is often used to indicate\nany given society, or collection of human beings, united on a given\nterritory and constituting what is called a social unit,\nindependently of the way in which the members of the said body are\ngrouped, or of the relations existing between them. State is used\nalso simply as a synonym for society. Owing to these significations\nof the word, our adversaries believe, or rather profess to believe,\nthat Anarchists wish to abolish every social relation and all\ncollective work, and to reduce man to a condition of isolation, that\nis, to a state worse than savagery.\n\nBy State again is meant only the supreme administration of a\ncountry, the central power, distinct from provincial or communal\npower; and therefore others think that Anarchists wish merely for a\nterritorial decentralization, leaving the principle of government\nintact, and thus confounding Anarchy with cantonal or communal\ngovernment.\n\nFinally, state signifies condition, mode of living, the order\nof social life, etc., and therefore we say, for example, that it is\nnecessary to change the economic state of the working classes,\nor that the Anarchical state is the only state founded on the\nprinciples of solidarity, and other similar phrases. So that if\nwe say also in another sense that we wish to abolish the State,\nwe may at once appear absurd or contradictory.\n\nFor these reasons, we believe it would be better to use the\nexpression _abolition of the State_ as little as possible, and to\nsubstitute for it another clearer and more concrete--_abolition of\ngovernment_.\n\nIn any case, the latter will be the expression used in the course of\nthis little work.\n\n                        --------------------\n\nWe have said that Anarchy is society without government. But is the\nsuppression of government possible, desirable, or wise? Let us see.\n\nWhat is the government? There is a disease of the human mind called\nthe metaphysical tendency, causing man, after he has by a logical\nprocess abstracted the quality from an object, to be subject to a\nkind of hallucination which makes him take the abstraction for the\nreal thing. This metaphysical tendency, in spite of the blows of\npositive science, has still strong root in the minds of the majority\nof our contemporary fellow men. It has such an influence that many\nconsider government an actual entity, with certain given attributes\nof reason, justice, equity, independently of the people who compose\nthe government.\n\nFor those who think in this way, government, or the State, is the\nabstract social power, and it represents, always in the abstract,\nthe general interest. It is the expression of the right of all, and\nconsidered as limited by the rights of each. This way of\nunderstanding government is supported by those interested, to whom\nit is an urgent necessity that the principle of authority should be\nmaintained, and should always survive the faults and errors of the\npersons who succeed to the exercise of power.\n\nFor us, the government is the aggregate of the governors; and the\ngovernors--kings, presidents, ministers, members of parliament,\nand what not--are those who have the power to make laws, to regulate\nthe relations between men, and to force obedience to these laws.\nThey are those who decide upon and claim the taxes, enforce military\nservice, judge and punish transgressions of the laws. They subject\nmen to regulations, and supervise and sanction private contracts.\nThey monopolize certain branches of production and public services,\nor, if they wish, all production and public service. They promote\nor hinder the exchange of goods. They make war or peace with the\ngovernments of other countries. They concede or withhold free trade\nand many things else. In short, the governors are those who\nhave the power, in a greater or less degree, to make use of the\ncollective force of society, that is, of the physical, intellectual,\nand economic force of all, to oblige each to do the said governor's\nwish. And this power constitutes, in our opinion, the very principle\nof government, the principle of authority.\n\nBut what reason is there for the existence of government?\n\nWhy abdicate one's own liberty, one's own initiative in favor\nof other individuals? Why give them the power to be the masters,\nwith or contrary to the wish of each, to dispose of the forces of\nall in their own way? Are the governors such very exceptionally\ngifted men as to enable them, with some show of reason, to represent\nthe masses, and act in the interest of all men better than all men\nwould be able to do for themselves? Are they so infallible and\nincorruptible that one can confide to them, with any semblance of\nprudence, the fate of each and all, trusting to their knowledge\nand their goodness?\n\nAnd even if there existed men of infinite goodness and knowledge,\neven if we assume what has never been verified in history, and what\nwe believe it would be impossible to verify, namely, that the\ngovernment might devolve upon the ablest and best, would the\npossession of governmental power add anything to their beneficent\ninfluence? Would it not rather paralyze or destroy it? For those who\ngovern find it necessary to occupy themselves with things which they\ndo not understand, and, above all, to waste the greater part of\ntheir energy in keeping themselves in power, striving to satisfy\ntheir friends, holding the discontented in check, and mastering the\nrebellious.\n\nAgain, be the governors good or bad, wise or ignorant, who is it\nthat appoints them to their office? Do they impose themselves\nby right of war, conquest, or revolution? Then, what guarantees have\nthe public that their rulers have the general good at heart? In this\ncase it is simply a question of usurpation; and if the subjects are\ndiscontented, nothing is left to them but to throw off the yoke, by\nan appeal to arms. Are the governors chosen from a certain class or\nparty? Then certainly the ideas and interests of that class or party\nwill triumph, and the wishes and interests of the others will be\nsacrificed. Are they elected by universal suffrage? Now numbers are\nthe sole criterion; and numbers are certainly no proof of reason,\njustice or capacity. Under universal suffrage, the elected are those\nwho know best how to take in the masses. The minority, which may\nhappen to be half minus one, is sacrificed. And that without\nconsidering that there is another thing to take into account.\n\nExperience has shown it is impossible to hit upon an electoral\nsystem which really ensures election by the actual majority.\n\nMany and various are the theories by which men have sought to\njustify the existence of government. All, however, are founded,\nconfessedly or not, on the assumption that the individuals of\na society have contrary interests, and that an external superior\npower is necessary to oblige some to respect the interests of\nothers, by prescribing and imposing a rule of conduct, according to\nwhich the interests at strife may be harmonized as much as possible,\nand according to which each obtains the maximum of satisfaction\nwith the minimum of sacrifice. If, say the theorists of the\nauthoritarian school, the interests, tendencies, and desires of\nan individual are in opposition to those of another individual, or\nmayhap all society, who will have the right and the power to\noblige the one to respect the interests of the others? Who will\nbe able to prevent the individual citizen from offending the general\nwill? The liberty of each, say they, has for its limit the liberty\nof others; but who will establish those limits, and who will cause\nthem to be respected? The natural antagonism of interests and\npassions creates the necessity for government, and justifies\nauthority. Authority intervenes as moderator of the social\nstrife, and defines the limits of the rights and duties of each.\n\nThis is the theory; but the theory, to be sound, ought to be\nbased upon facts, and to explain them. We know well how in social\neconomy theories are too often invented to justify facts, that\nis, to defend privilege and cause it to be accepted tranquilly by\nthose who are its victims. Let us here look at the facts themselves.\n\nIn all the course of history, as at the present epoch, government\nis either the brutal, violent, arbitrary domination of the few over\nthe many, or it is an instrument ordained to secure domination and\nprivilege to those who, by force, or cunning, or inheritance, have\ntaken to themselves all the means of life, and first and foremost\nthe soil, whereby they hold the people in servitude, making them\nwork for their advantage.\n\nGovernments oppress mankind in two ways, either directly, by brute\nforce, that is physical violence, or indirectly, by depriving\nthem of the means of subsistence and thus reducing them to\nhelplessness at discretion. Political power originated in the\nfirst method; economic privilege arose from the second. Governments\ncan also oppress man by acting on his emotional nature, and in this\nway constitute religious authority. But there is no reason for the\npropagation of religious superstitions except that they defend and\nconsolidate political and economic privileges.\n\nIn primitive society, when the world was not so densely populated\nas now, and social relations were less complicated, when any\ncircumstance prevented the formation of habits and customs of\nsolidarity, or destroyed those which already existed, and\nestablished the domination of man over man, the two powers,\nthe political and the economical, were united in the same hands\n--and often also in those of one single individual. Those who\nhad by force conquered and impoverished the others, constrained\nthem to become their servants, and perform all things for them\naccording to their caprice. The victors were at once proprietors,\nlegislators, kings, judges, and executioners.\n\nBut with the increase of population, with the growth of needs,\nwith the complication of social relationships, the prolonged\ncontinuance of such despotism became impossible. For their own\nsecurity, the rulers, often much against their will, were obliged\nto depend upon a privileged class, that is, a certain number of\nco-interested individuals, and were also obliged to let each of\nthese individuals provide for his own sustenance. Nevertheless\nthey reserved to themselves the supreme or ultimate control. In\nother words, the rulers reserved to themselves the right to exploit\nall at their own convenience, and so to satisfy their kingly vanity.\nThus private wealth was developed under the shadow of the ruling\npower, for its protection and--often unconsciously--as its\naccomplice. Thus the class of proprietors rose. And they,\nconcentrating little by little the means of wealth in their\nown hands, all the means of production, the very fountains of\nlife--agriculture, industry, and exchange--ended by becoming\na power in themselves. This power, by the superiority of its\nmeans of action, and the great mass of interests it embraces,\nalways ends by more or less openly subjugating the political\npower, that is, the government, which it makes its policeman.\n\nThis phenomenon has been reproduced often in history. Every time\nthat, by invasion or any military enterprise whatever, physical\nbrute force has taken the upper hand in society, the conquerors\nhave shown the tendency to concentrate government and property in\ntheir own hands. In every case, however, as the government cannot\nattend to the production of wealth, and overlook and direct\neverything, it finds it needful to conciliate a powerful class,\nand private property is again established. With it comes the\ndivision of the two sorts of power, that of the persons who\ncontrol the collective force of society, and that of the\nproprietors, upon whom these governors become essentially\nindependent, because the proprietors command the sources of the\nsaid collective force.\n\nBut never has this state of things been so accentuated as in\nmodern times. The development of production, the immense extension\nof commerce, the extensive power that money has acquired, and all\nthe economic results flowing from the discovery of America, the\ninvention of machinery, etc., have secured such supremacy to the\ncapitalist class that it is no longer content to trust to the\nsupport of the government, and has come to wish that the government\nshall emanate from itself; a government composed of members of its\nown class, continually under its control and especially organized\nto defend its class against the possible revenge of the\ndisinherited. Hence the origin of the modern parliamentary system.\n\nToday the government is composed of proprietors, or people of their\nclass so entirely under their influence that the richest of them do\nnot find it necessary to take an active part in it themselves.\nRothschild, for instance, does not need to be either M.P. or\nminister, it is enough for him to keep M.P.'s and ministers\ndependent upon himself.\n\nIn many countries, the proletariat participates nominally, more or\nless, in the election of the government. This is a concession\nwhich the _bourgeois_ (_i. e._, proprietory) class have made,\neither to avail themselves of popular support in the strife against\nroyal or aristocratic power, or to divert the attention of the\npeople from their own emancipation by giving them an apparent\nshare in political power. However, whether the _bourgeoisie_\nforesaw it or not, when first they conceded to the people the\nright to vote, the fact is that the right has proved in reality a\nmockery, serving only to consolidate the power of the _bourgeois_,\nwhile giving to the most energetic only of the proletariat the\nillusory hope of arriving at power.\n\nSo also with universal suffrage--we might say, especially with\nuniversal suffrage--the government has remained the servant\nand police of the _bourgeois_ class. How could it be otherwise?\nIf the government should reach the point of becoming hostile, if the\nhope of democracy should ever be more than a delusion deceiving the\npeople, the proprietory class, menaced in its interests, would at\nonce rebel, and would use all the force and influence which come\nfrom the possession of wealth, to reduce the government to the\nsimple function of acting as policeman.\n\nIn all times and in all places, whatever may be the name that the\ngovernment takes, whatever has been its origin, or its organization,\nits essential function is always that of oppressing and exploiting\nthe masses, and of defending the oppressors and exploiters. Its\nprincipal characteristic and indispensable instruments are the\nbailiff and the tax collector, the soldier and the prison. And to\nthese are necessarily added the time-serving priest or teacher, as\nthe case may be, supported and protected by the government, to\nrender the spirit of the people servile and make them docile under\nthe yoke.\n\nCertainly, in addition to this primary business, to this essential\ndepartment of governmental action other departments have been added\nin the course of time. We even admit that never, or hardly ever, has\na government been able to exist in a country that was at all\ncivilized without adding to its oppressing and exploiting functions\nothers useful and indispensable to social life. But this fact makes\nit none the less true that government is in its nature oppressive\nand a means of exploitation, and that its origin and position doom\nit to be the defence and hot-bed of a dominant class, thus\nconfirming and increasing the evils of domination.\n\nThe government assumes the business of protecting, more or less\nvigilantly, the life of citizens against direct and brutal attacks;\nacknowledges and legalizes a certain number of rights and primitive\nusages and customs, without which it is impossible to live in\nsociety. It organizes and directs certain public services,\nas the post, preservation and construction of roads, care of\nthe public health, benevolent institutions, workhouses and such\nlike; and it pleases it to pose as the protector and benefactor of\nthe poor and weak. But it is sufficient to notice how and why\nit fulfils these functions to prove our point. The fact is that\neverything the government undertakes it is always inspired with\nthe spirit of domination, and ordained to defend, enlarge, and\nperpetuate the privileges of property, and those classes of which\ngovernment is the representative and defender.\n\nA government cannot rule for any length of time without hiding its\ntrue nature behind the pretence of general utility. It cannot\nrespect the lives of the privileged without assuming the air of\nwishing to respect the lives of all. It cannot cause the privileges\nof some to be tolerated without appearing as the custodian\nof the rights of everybody. \"The law\" (and, of course, those that\nhave made the law, that is, the government) \"has utilized,\" says\nKropotkin, \"the social sentiments of man, working into them those\nprecepts of morality, which man has accepted, together with\narrangements useful to the minority--the exploiters--and opposed to\nthe interests of those who might have rebelled, had it not been for\nthis show of a moral ground.\"\n\nA government cannot wish the destruction of the community, for then\nit and the dominant class could not claim their exploitation-gained\nwealth; nor could the government leave the community to manage its\nown affairs; for then the people would soon discover that it\n(the government) was necessary for no other end than to defend the\nproprietory class who impoverish them, and would hasten to rid\nthemselves of both government and proprietory class.\n\nToday in the face of the persistent and menacing demands of\nthe proletariat, governments show a tendency to interfere in the\nrelations between employers and work people. Thus they try to arrest\nthe labor movement, and to impede with delusive reforms the attempts\nof the poor to take to themselves that which is due to them, namely\nan equal share of the good things of life which others enjoy.\n\nWe must also remember that on the one hand the bourgeois, that is,\nthe proprietory class, make war among themselves, and destroy one\nanother continually, and on the other hand that the government,\nalthough composed of the _bourgeois_ and, acting as their servant\nand protector, is still, like every other servant or protector,\ncontinually striving to emancipate itself and to domineer over its\ncharge. Thus this see-saw game, this swaying between conceding and\nwithdrawing, this seeking allies among the people against the\nclasses, and among the classes against the masses, forms the science\nof the governors, and blinds the ingenuous and phlegmatic, who are\nalways expecting that salvation is coming to them from on high.\n\nWith all this, the government does not change its nature. If it acts\nas regulator or guarantor of the rights and duties of each, it\nperverts the sentiment of justice. It justifies wrong and punishes\nevery act which offends or menaces the privileges of the governors\nand proprietors. It declares just, _legal_, the most atrocious\nexploitation of the miserable, which means a slow and continuous\nmaterial and moral murder, perpetrated by those who have on those\nwho have not. Again, if it administrates public services, it always\nconsiders the interests of the governors and proprietors, not\noccupying itself with the interests of the working masses, except\nin so far as is necessary to make the masses willing to endure their\nshare of taxation. If it instructs, it fetters and curtails the\ntruth, and tends to prepare the mind and heart of the young to\nbecome either implacable tyrants or docile slaves, according to the\nclass to which they belong. In the hands of the government\neverything becomes a means of exploitation, everything serves as a\npolice measure, useful to hold the people in check. And it must be\nthus. If the life of mankind consists in strife between man and\nman, naturally there must be conquerors and conquered; and the\ngovernment, which is the prize of the strife, or is a means of\nsecuring to the victors the results of their victory, and\nperpetuating those results, will certainly never fall to those who\nhave lost, whether the battle be on the grounds of physical or\nintellectual strength, or in the field of economics. And those who\nhave fought to conquer, that is, to secure to themselves better\nconditions than others can have, to conquer privilege and add\ndominion to power, and have attained the victory, will certainly\nnot use it to defend the rights of the vanquished, and to place\nlimits to their own power and to that of their friends and partizans.\n\nThe government--or the State, if you will--as judge, moderator\nof social strife, impartial administrator of the public interests,\nis a lie. It is an illusion, a Utopia, never realized and never\nrealizable. If in truth, the interests of men must always be\ncontrary to one another; if indeed, the strife between mankind\nhas made laws necessary to human society, and the liberty of\nthe individual must be limited by the liberty of other individuals;\nthen each one would always seek to make his interests triumph\nover those of others. Each would strive to enlarge his own liberty\nat the cost of the liberty of others, and there would be government.\nNot simply because it was more or less useful to the totality of the\nmembers of society to have a government, but because the conquerors\nwould wish to secure to themselves the fruits of victory. They would\nwish effectually to subject the vanquished, and relieve themselves\nof the trouble of being always on the defensive, and they would\nappoint men, specially adapted to the business, to act as police.\nWere this indeed actually the case, then humanity would be destined\nto perish amidst periodical contests between the tyranny of the\ndominators and the rebellion of the conquered.\n\nBut fortunately the future of humanity is a happier one, because\nthe law which governs it is milder.\n\nThis law is the law of _solidarity_.\n\n                        --------------------\n\n                                 I.\n\nMan has two necessary fundamental characteristics, _the instinct\nof his own preservation_, without which no being could exist,\nand _the instinct of the preservation of his species_, without which\nno species could have been formed or have continued to exist.\nHe is naturally driven to defend his own existence and well-being\nand that of his offspring against every danger.\n\nIn nature, living beings find two ways of securing their existence,\nand rendering it pleasanter. The one is in individual strife with\nthe elements, and with other individuals of the same or different\nspecies; the other is _mutual support_, or _co-operation_, which\nmight also be described as association for strife against all\nnatural factors, destructive to existence, or to the development\nand well-being of the associated.\n\nWe do not need to investigate in these pages--and we cannot\nfor lack of space--what respective proportions in the evolution\nof the organic world these two principles of strife and co-operation\ntake.\n\nIt will suffice to note how co-operation among men (whether\nforced or voluntary) has become the sole means of progress, of\nimprovement or of securing safety; and how strife--relic of an\nearlier stage of existence--has become thoroughly unsuitable as\na means of securing the well-being of individuals, and produces\ninstead injury to all, both the conquerors and the conquered.\n\nThe accumulated and transmitted experience of successive generations\nhas taught man that by uniting with other men his preservation is\nbetter secured and his well-being increased. Thus out of this same\nstrife for existence, carried on against surrounding nature, and\nagainst individuals of their own species, the social instinct has\nbeen developed among men, and has completely transformed the\nconditions of their life. Through co-operation man has been enabled\nto evolve out of animalism, has risen to great power, and elevated\nhimself to such a degree above the other animals, that metaphysical\nphilosophers have believed it necessary to invent for him an\nimmaterial and immortal soul.\n\nMany concurrent causes have contributed to the formation of this\nsocial instinct, that starting from the animal basis of the\ninstinct for the preservation of the species, has now become so\nextended and so intense that it constitutes the essential element\nof man's moral nature.\n\nMan, however he evolved from inferior animal types, was a physically\nweak being, unarmed for the fight against carnivorous beasts. But he\nwas possessed of a brain capable of great development, and a vocal\norgan, able to express the various cerebral vibrations, by means of\ndiverse sounds, and hands adapted to give the desired form to\nmatter. He must have very soon felt the need and advantages of\nassociation with his fellows. Indeed it may even be said that he\ncould only rise out of animalism when he became social, and had\nacquired the use of language, which is at the same time a\nconsequence and a potent factor of sociability.\n\nThe relatively scanty number of the human species rendered the\nstrife for existence between man and man, even beyond the limits\nof association, less sharp, less continuous, and less necessary.\nAt the same time, it must have greatly favored the development\nof sympathetic sentiments, and have left time for the discovery\nand appreciation of the utility of mutual support. In short,\nsocial life became the necessary condition of man's existence,\nin consequence of his capacity to modify his external surroundings\nand adapt them to his own wants, by the exercise of his primeval\npower in co-operation with a greater or less number of associates.\nHis desires have multiplied with the means of satisfying them, and\nhave become needs. And division of labor has arisen from man's\nmethodical use of nature for his own advantage. Therefore, as now\nevolved, man could not live apart from his fellows without falling\nback into a state of animalism. Through the refinement of\nsensibility, with the multiplication of social relationships, and\nthrough habit impressed on the species by hereditary transmission\nfor thousands of centuries, this need of social life, this\ninterchange of thought and of affection between man and man, has\nbecome a mode of being necessary for our organism. It has been\ntransformed into sympathy, friendship and love, and subsists\nindependently of the material advantages that association procures.\nSo much is this the case, that man will often face suffering of\nevery kind, and even death, for the satisfaction of these sentiments.\n\nThe fact is that a totally different character has been given\nto the strife for existence between man and man, and between\nthe inferior animals, by the enormous advantages that association\ngives to man; by the fact that his physical powers are altogether\ndisproportionate to his intellectual superiority over the beasts,\nso long as he remains isolated; by his possibility of associating\nwith an ever increasing number of individuals, and entering into\nmore and more intricate and complex relationships, until he\nreaches association with all humanity; and, finally, perhaps\nmore than all, by his ability to produce, working in co-operation\nwith others, more than he needs to live upon. It is evident that\nthese causes, together with the sentiments of affection derived\nfrom them, must give quite a peculiar character to the struggle\nfor existence among human beings.\n\nAlthough it is now known--and the researches of modern naturalists\nbring us every day new proofs--that co-operation has played, and\nstill plays, a most important part in the development of the organic\nworld, nevertheless, the difference between the human struggle for\nexistence and that of the inferior animals is enormous. It is in\nfact proportionate to the distance separating man from the other\nanimals. And this is none the less true because of that Darwinian\ntheory, which the _bourgeois_ class have ridden to death, little\nsuspecting the extent to which mutual co-operation has assisted in\nthe development of the lower animals.\n\nThe lower animals fight either individually, or, more often,\nin little permanent or transitory groups, against all nature, the\nother individuals of their own species included. Some of the\nmore social animals, such as ants, bees, etc., associate together\nin the same anthill, or beehive, but are at war with, or indifferent\ntowards, other communities of their own species. Human strife with\nnature, on the contrary, tends always to broaden association among\nmen, to unite their interests, and to develop each individual's\nsentiments of affection towards all others, so that united they may\nconquer and dominate the dangers of external nature by and for\nhumanity.\n\nAll strife directed towards obtaining advantages independently\nof other men, and in opposition to them, contradicts the social\nnature of modern man, and tends to lead it back to a more animal\ncondition.\n\n_Solidarity_, that is, harmony of interests and sentiments, the\nsharing of each in the good of all, and of all in the good of each,\nis the state in which alone man can be true to his own nature,\nand attain to the highest development and happiness. It is the\naim towards which human development tends. It is the one great\nprinciple, capable of reconciling all present antagonisms in\nsociety, otherwise irreconcilable. It causes the liberty of each\nto find not its limits, but its complement, the necessary condition\nof its continual existence--in the liberty of all.\n\n\"No man,\" says Michael Bakunin, \"can recognize his own human worth,\nnor in consequence realize his full development, if he does not\nrecognize the worth of his fellow men, and in co-operation\nwith them, realize his own development through them. No man\ncan emancipate himself, unless at the same time he emancipates\nthose around him. My freedom is the freedom of all; for I am not\nreally free--free not only in thought, but in deed--if my freedom\nand my right do not find their confirmation and sanction in the\nliberty and right of all men my equals.\n\n\"It matters much to me what all other men are, for however\nindependent I may seem, or may believe myself to be, by virtue\nof my social position, whether as pope, czar, emperor, or prime\nminister, I am all the while the product of those who are the\nleast among men. If these are ignorant, miserable, or enslaved,\nmy existence is limited by their ignorance, misery, or slavery.\nI, though an intelligent and enlightened man, am made stupid\nby their stupidity; though brave, am enslaved by their slavery;\nthough rich, tremble before their poverty; though privileged,\ngrow pale at the thought of possible justice for them. I, who\nwish to be free, cannot be so, because around me are men who\ndo not yet desire freedom, and, not desiring it, become, as opposed\nto me, the instruments of my oppression.\"\n\nSolidarity, then, is the condition in which man can attain the\nhighest degree of security and of well-being. Therefore, egoism\nitself, that is, the exclusive consideration of individual interests,\nimpels man and human society towards solidarity. Or rather egoism\nand altruism (consideration of the interests of others) are\nunited in this one sentiment, as the interest of the individual is\none with the interests of society.\n\nHowever, man could not pass at once from animalism to humanity;\nfrom brutal strife between man and man to the collective strife\nof all mankind, united in one brotherhood of mutual aid against\nexternal nature.\n\nGuided by the advantages that association and the consequent\ndivision of labor offer, man evolved towards solidarity, but his\nevolution encountered an obstacle which led him, and still leads\nhim, away from his aim. He discovered that he could realize\nthe advantages of co-operation, at least up to a certain point,\nand for the material and primitive wants that then comprised\nall his needs, by making other men subject to himself, instead\nof associating on an equality with them. Thus the ferocious\nand anti-social instincts, inherited from his bestial ancestry,\nagain obtained the upper hand. He forced the weaker to work\nfor him, preferring to domineer over rather than to associate\nfraternally with his fellows. Perhaps also in most cases it was\nby exploiting the conquered in war that man learnt for the first\ntime the benefits of association and the help that can be obtained\nfrom mutual support.\n\nThus it has come about that the establishment of the utility\nof co-operation, which ought to lead to the triumph of solidarity\nin all human concerns, has turned to the advantage of private\nproperty and of government; in other words, to the exploitation\nof the labor of the many, for the sake of the privileged few.\n\nThere has always been association and co-operation, without\nwhich human life would be impossible; but it has been co-operation\nimposed and regulated by the few in their own particular interest.\n\nFrom this fact arises a great contradiction with which the history\nof mankind is filled. On the one hand, we find the tendency\nto associate and fraternize for the purpose of conquering and\nadapting the external world to human needs, and for the satisfaction\nof the human affections; while, on the other hand we see the\ntendency to divide into as many separate and hostile factions as\nthere are different conditions of life. These factions are\ndetermined, for instance, by geographical and ethnological\nconditions, by differences in economic position, by privileges\nacquired by some and sought to be secured by others, or by suffering\nendured, with the ever recurring desire to rebel.\n\nThe principle of each for himself, that is, of war of all against\nall, has come in the course of time to complicate, lead astray,\nand paralyze the war of all combined against nature, for the\ncommon advantage of the human race, which could only be completely\nsuccessful by acting on the principle of all for each, and each\nfor all.\n\nGreat have been the evils which humanity has suffered by this\nintermingling of domination and exploitation with human association.\nBut in spite of the atrocious oppression to which the masses submit,\nof the misery, vice, crime, and degradation which oppression and\nslavery produce, among the slaves and their masters, and in spite\nof the hatreds, the exterminating wars, and the antagonisms of\nartificially created interests, the social instinct has survived\nand even developed. Co-operation, having been always the necessary\ncondition for successful combat against external nature, has\ntherefore been the permanent cause of men's coming together, and\nconsequently of the development of their sympathetic sentiments.\nEven the oppression of the masses has itself caused the oppressed\nto fraternize among themselves. Indeed it has been solely owing\nto this feeling of solidarity, more or less conscious and more or\nless widespread among the oppressed, that they have been able to\nendure the oppression, and that man has resisted the causes of death\nin his midst.\n\nIn the present, the immense development of production, the growth of\nhuman needs which cannot be satisfied except by the united efforts\nof a large number of men in all countries, the extended means of\ncommunication, habits of travel, science, literature, commerce,\neven war itself--all these have drawn and are still drawing\nhumanity into a compact body, every section of which, closely knit\ntogether, can find its satisfaction and liberty only in the\ndevelopment and health of all other sections composing the whole.\n\nThe inhabitant of Naples is as much interested in the amelioration\nof the hygienic condition of the peoples on the banks of the Ganges,\nfrom whence the cholera is brought to him, as in the improvement of\nthe sewerage of his own town. The well-being, liberty, or fortune\nof the mountaineer, lost among the precipices of the Appenines, does\nnot depend alone on the state of well-being or of misery in which\nthe inhabitants of his own village live, or even on the general\ncondition of the Italian people, but also on the condition of the\nworkers in America, or Australia, on the discovery of a Swedish\nscientist, on the moral and material conditions of the Chinese, on\nwar or peace in Africa; in short, it depends on all the great and\nsmall circumstances which affect the human being in any spot\nwhatever of the world.\n\nIn the present condition of society, the vast solidarity which\nunites all men is in a great degree unconscious, since it arises\nspontaneously from the friction of particular interests, while\nmen occupy themselves little or not at all with general interests.\nAnd this is the most evident proof that solidarity is the natural\nlaw of human life, which imposes itself, so to speak, in spite of\nall obstacles, and even those artificially created by society as at\npresent constituted.\n\nOn the other hand, the oppressed masses, never wholly resigned\nto oppression and misery, who today more than ever show themselves\nardent for justice, liberty, and well-being, are beginning\nto understand that they cannot emancipate themselves except\nby uniting, through solidarity with all the oppressed and exploited\nover the whole world. And they understand also that the\nindispensable condition of their emancipation is the possession\nof the means of production, of the soil and of the instruments of\nlabor, and further the abolition of private property. Science\nand the observation of social phenomena show that this abolition\nwould be of immense advantage in the end, even to the privileged\nclasses, if only they could bring themselves to renounce the spirit\nof domination, and concur with all their fellow men in laboring for\nthe common good.\n\n                             ----------\n\nNow, should the oppressed masses some day refuse to work for their\noppressors, should they take possession of the soil and the\ninstruments of labor, and apply them for their own use and\nadvantage, and that of all who work, should they no longer submit\nto the domination, either of brute force or economic privilege;\nshould the spirit of human fellowship and the sentiment of human\nsolidarity, strengthened by common interests, grow among the\npeople, and put an end to strife between nations; then what ground\nwould there be for the existence of a government?\n\nPrivate property abolished, government--which is its defender\n--must disappear. Should it survive, it would continually tend\nto reconstruct, under one form or another, a privileged and\noppressive class.\n\nAnd the abolition of government does not, nor cannot, signify\nthe doing away with human association.\n\nFar otherwise, for that co-operation which today is enforced,\nand directed to the advantage of the few, would be free and\nvoluntary, directed to the advantage of all. Therefore it would\nbecome more intense and efficacious.\n\nThe social instinct and the sentiment of solidarity would develop to\nthe highest degree; and every individual would do all in his power\nfor the good of others, as much for the satisfaction of his own\nwell understood interests as for the gratification of his\nsympathetic sentiments.\n\nBy the free association of all, a social organization would\narise through the spontaneous grouping of men according to\ntheir needs and sympathies, from the low to the high, from the\nsimple to the complex, starting from the more immediate to\narrive at the more distant and general interests. This organization\nwould have for its aim the greatest good and fullest liberty\nto all; it would embrace all humanity in one common brotherhood,\nand would be modified and improved as circumstances were modified\nand changed, according to the teachings of experience.\n\nThis society of _free men_, this society of _friends_ would be\n_Anarchy_.\n\n                        --------------------\n\n                                II.\n\nWe have hitherto considered government as it is, and as it\nnecessarily must be in a society founded upon privilege, upon\nthe exploitation and oppression of man by man, upon antagonism\nof interests and social strife, in a word, upon private property.\n\nWe have seen how this state of strife, far from being a necessary\ncondition of human life, is contrary to the interests of the\nindividual and of the species. We have observed how co-operation,\nsolidarity (of interest) is the law of human progress, and\nwe have concluded that, with the abolition of private property\nand the cessation of all domination of man over man, there,\nwould be no reason for government to exist--therefore it ought\nto be abolished.\n\nBut, it may be objected, if the principle on which social\norganization is now founded were to be changed, and solidarity\nsubstituted for strife, common property for private property, the\ngovernment also would change its nature. Instead of being the\nprotector and representative of the interests of one class, it would\nbecome, if there were no longer any classes, representative of all\nsociety. Its mission would be to secure and regulate social\nco-operation in the interests of all, and to fulfil public services\nof general utility. It would defend society against possible\nattempts to re-establish privilege, and prevent or repress all\nattacks, by whomsoever set on foot, against the life, well-being, or\nliberty of each.\n\nThere are in society certain matters too important, requiring\ntoo much constant, regular attention, for them to be left to the\nvoluntary management of individuals, without danger of everything\ngetting into disorder.\n\nIf there were no government, who would organize the supply and\ndistribution of provisions? Who regulate matters pertaining\nto public hygiene, the postal, telegraph, and railway services,\netc.? Who would direct public instruction? Who undertake those\ngreat works of exploration, improvement on a large scale, scientific\nenterprise, etc., which transform the face of the earth and augment\na hundredfold the power of man?\n\nWho would care for the preservation and increase of capital,\nthat it might be transmitted to posterity, enriched and improved?\n\nWho would prevent the destruction of the forests, or the irrational\nexploitation, and therefore impoverishment of the soil?\n\nWho would there be to prevent and repress crimes, that is,\nanti-social acts?\n\nWhat of those who, disregarding the law of solidarity, would\nnot work? Or of those who might spread infectious disease in\na country, by refusing to submit to the regulation of hygiene by\nscience? Or what again could be done with those who, whether\ninsane or no, might set fire to the harvest, injure children, or\nabuse and take advantage of the weak?\n\nTo destroy private property and abolish existing government,\nwithout reconstituting a government that would organize collective\nlife and secure social solidarity, would not be to abolish\nprivilege, and bring peace and prosperity upon earth. It would\nbe to destroy, every social bond, to leave humanity to fall back\ninto barbarism, to begin again the reign of \"each for himself;\"\nwhich would establish the triumph, firstly, of brute force, and,\nsecondly, of economic privilege.\n\n                             ----------\n\nSuch are the objections brought forward by authoritarians,\neven by those who are Socialists, that is, who wish to abolish\nprivate property, and class government founded upon the system\nof private property.\n\nWe reply:\n\nIn the first place, it is not true that with a change of social\nconditions, the nature of the government and its functions would\nalso change. Organs and functions are inseparable terms. Take\nfrom an organ its function, and either the organ will die, or the\nfunction will reinstate itself. Place an army in a country where\nthere is no reason for or fear of foreign war, and this army will\nprovoke war, or, if it do not succeed in doing that, it will\ndisband. A police force, where there are no crimes to discover,\nand delinquents to arrest, will provoke or invent crimes, or will\ncease to exist.\n\nFor centuries, there existed in France an institution, now included\nin the administration of the forests, for the extermination\nof the wolves and other noxious beasts. No one will be surprised\nto learn that, just on account of this institution, wolves\nstill exist in France, and that, in rigorous seasons, they do great\ndamage. The public take little heed of the wolves, because\nthere are the appointed officials, whose duty it is to think about\nthem. And the officials do hunt them, but in an _intelligent_\nmanner, sparing their caves, and allowing time for reproduction,\nthat they may not run the risk of entirely destroying such an\n_interesting_ species. The French peasants have indeed little\nconfidence in these official wolf-hunters, and regard them rather\nas the wolf-preservers. And, of course, what would these officials\ndo if there were no longer any wolves to exterminate?\n\nA government, that is, a number of persons deputed to make\nthe laws, and entitled to use the collective forces of society to\nmake every individual to respect these laws, already constitutes\na class privileged and separated from the rest of the community.\nSuch a class, like every elected body, will seek instinctively to.\nenlarge its powers; to place itself above the control of the people;\nto impose its tendencies, and to make its own interests predominate.\nPlaced in a privileged position, the government always finds itself\nin antagonism to the masses, of whose force it disposes.\n\nFurthermore, a government, with the best intention, could never\nsatisfy everybody, even if it succeeded in satisfying some.\nIt must therefore always be defending itself against the\ndiscontented, and for that reason must ally itself with the\nsatisfied section of the community for necessary support. And in\nthis manner will arise again the old story of a privileged class,\nwhich cannot help but be developed in conjunction with the\ngovernment. This class, if it could not again acquire possession of\nthe soil, would certainly monopolize the most favored spots, and\nwould not be in the end less oppressive, or less an instrument of\nexploitation than the capitalist class.\n\nThe governors, accustomed to command, would never wish to mix with\nthe common crowd. If they could not retain the power in their own\nhands, they would at least secure to themselves privileged positions\nfor the time when they would be out of office. They would use all\nthe means they have in their power to get their own friends\nelected as their successors, who would in their turn be supported\nand protected by their predecessors. And thus the government would\npass and repass into the same hands, and the _democracy_, that is,\nthe government presumably of the whole people, would end, as it\nalways has done, in becoming an _oligarchy_, or the government of a\nfew, the government of a class.\n\nAnd this all-powerful, oppressive, all-absorbing oligarchy would\nhave always in its care, that is, at its disposition, every\nbit of social capital, all public services, from the production and\ndistribution of provisions to the manufacture of matches, from\nthe control of the university to that of the music hall.\n\n                             ----------\n\nBut let us even suppose that the government did not necessarily\nconstitute a privileged class, and could exist without forming\naround itself a new privileged class. Let us imagine that it\ncould remain truly representative, the servant--if you will--of\nall society. What purpose would it then serve? In what particular\nand in what manner would it augment the power, intelligence,\nspirit of solidarity, care of the general welfare, present and to\ncome, that at any given moment existed in a given society?\n\nIt is always the old story of the man with bound limbs, who,\nhaving managed to live in spite of his bands, believes that he\nlives by means of them. We are accustomed to live under a\ngovernment, which makes use of all that energy, that intelligence,\nand that will which it can direct to its own ends; but which\nhinders, paralyzes and suppresses those that are useless or\nhostile to it. And we imagine that all that is done in society is\ndone by virtue of the government, and that without the government\nthere would be neither energy, intelligence, nor good will\nin society. So it happens (as we have already said) that the\nproprietor who has possessed himself of the soil, has it cultivated\nfor his own particular profit, leaving the laborer the barest\nnecessities of life for which he can and will continue to labor.\nWhile the enslaved laborer thinks that he could not live without\nhis master, as though it were _he_ who created the earth and the\nforces of nature.\n\nWhat can government of itself add to the moral and material\nforces which exist in a society? Unless it be like the God of\nthe Bible, who created the universe out of nothing?\n\nAs nothing is created in the so-called material world, so in\nthis more complicated form of the material world, which is the\nsocial world, nothing can be created. And therefore governors\ncan dispose of no other force than that which is already in society.\nAnd indeed not by any means of all of that, as much force is\nnecessarily paralyzed and destroyed by governmental methods\nof action, while more again is wasted in the friction with\nrebellious elements, inevitably great in such an artificial\nmechanism. Whenever governors originate anything of themselves, it\nis as men and not as governors, that they do so. And of that amount\nof force, both material and moral, which does remain at the\ndisposition of the government, only an infinitesimally small part\nachieves an end really useful to society. The remainder is either\nconsumed in actively repressing rebellious opposition, or is\notherwise diverted from the aim of general utility, and turned to\nthe profit of the few, and to the injury of the majority of men.\n\nSo much has been made of the part that individual initiative\nand social action play respectively in the life and progress of\nhuman society; and such is the confusion of metaphysical language,\nthat those who affirm that individual initiative is the source and\nagency of all action seem to be asserting something quite\npreposterous. In reality, it is a truism, which becomes apparent\ndirectly we begin to explain the actual facts represented by these\nwords.\n\nThe real being is the man, the individual; society or the\ncollectivity, and the State or government which professes to\nrepresent it, if not hollow abstractions, can be nothing else than\naggregates of individuals. And it is within the individual\norganism that all thoughts and all human action necessarily\nhave their origin. Originally individual, they become collective\nthoughts and actions, when shared in common by many individuals.\nSocial action, then, is not the negation, nor the complement\nof individual initiative, but it is the sum total of the\ninitiatives, thoughts and actions of all the individuals composing\nsociety: a result which, other things equal, is more or less great\naccording as the individual forces tend toward the same aim, or\nare divergent and opposed. If, on the other hand, as the\nauthoritarians make out, by social action is meant governmental\naction, then it is again the result of individual forces, but only\nof those individuals who either form part of the government, or by\nvirtue of their position are enabled to influence the conduct of the\ngovernment.\n\nThus, in the contest of centuries between liberty and authority,\nor, in other words, between social equality and social castes,\nthe question at issue has not really been the relations between\nsociety and the individual, nor the increase of individual\nindependence at the cost of social control, or _vice versa_. Rather\nit has had to do with preventing any one individual from oppressing\nthe others; with giving to everyone the same rights and the\nsame means of action. It has had to do with substituting the\ninitiative of all, which must naturally result in the advantage of\nall, for the initiative of the few, which necessarily results in the\nsuppression of all the others. It is always, in short, the question\nof putting an end to the domination and exploitation of man by\nman in such a way that all are interested in the common welfare;\nand that the individual force of each, instead of oppressing,\ncombating or suppressing others, will find the possibility of\ncomplete development, and every one will seek to associate with\nothers for the greater advantage of all.\n\nFrom what we have said, it follows that the existence of a\ngovernment, even upon the hypothesis that the ideal government\nof authoritarian Socialists were possible, far from producing an\nincrease of productive force, would immensely diminish it; because\nthe government would restrict initiative to the few. It would give\nthese few the right to do all things, without being able, of course,\nto endow them with the knowledge or understanding of all things.\n\nIn fact, if you divest legislation and all the operations of\ngovernment of what is intended to protect the privileged, and\nwhat represents the wishes of the privileged classes alone, nothing\nremains but the aggregate of individual governors. \"The State,\" says\nSismondi, \"is always a conservative power that authorizes, regulates\nand organizes the conquests of progress (and history testifies that\nit applies them to the profit of its own and the other privileged\nclasses) but never does inaugurate them. New ideas always originate\nfrom beneath, are conceived in the foundations of society, and then,\nwhen divulged, they become opinion and grow. But they must always\nmeet on their path, and combat the constituted powers of tradition,\ncustom, privilege and error.\"\n\n                             ----------\n\nIn order to understand how society could exist without a government,\nit is sufficient to turn our attention for a short space to what\nactually goes on in our present society. We shall see that in\nreality the most important social functions are fulfilled even\nnow-a-days outside the intervention of government. Also that\ngovernment only interferes to exploit the masses, or defend\nthe privileged class, or, lastly, to sanction, most unnecessarily,\nall that has been done without its aid, often in spite of and in\nopposition to it. Men work, exchange, study, travel, follow as\nthey choose the current rules of morality, or hygiene; they profit\nby the progress of science and art, have numberless mutual\ninterests without ever feeling the need of anyone to direct them\nhow to conduct themselves in regard to these matters. On the\ncontrary, it is just those things in which there is no governmental\ninterference that prosper best, and that give rise to the least\ncontention, being unconsciously adapted to the wish of all in\nthe way found most useful and agreeable.\n\nNor is government more necessary in the case of large undertakings,\nor for those public services which require the constant co-operation\nof many people of different conditions and countries. Thousands of\nthese undertakings are even now the work of voluntarily formed\nassociations. And these are, by the acknowledgment of every one, the\nundertakings which succeed the best. Nor do we refer to the\nassociation of capitalists, organized by means of exploitation,\nalthough even they show capabilities and powers of free association,\nwhich may extend _ad libitum_ until it embraces all the peoples of\nall lands, and includes the widest and most varying interests. But\nwe speak rather of those associations inspired by the love of\nhumanity, or by the passion for knowledge, or even simply by the\ndesire for amusement and love of applause, as these better represent\nsuch grouping as will exist in a society where, private property\nand internal strife between men being abolished, each will find his\ninterests synonymous with the interests of every one else, and his\ngreatest satisfaction in doing good and pleasing others. Scientific\nsocieties and congresses, international life-boat and Red Cross\nassociations, etc., laborers' unions, peace societies, volunteers\nwho hasten to the rescue at times of great public calamity are all\nexamples, among thousands, of that power of the spirit of\nassociation, which always shows itself when a need arises, or an\nenthusiasm takes hold, and the means do not fail. That voluntary\nassociations do not cover the world, and do not embrace every branch\nof material and moral activity, is the fault of the obstacles placed\nin their way by governments, of the antagonisms created by the\npossession of private property, and of the impotence and degradation\nto which the monopolizing of wealth on the part of the few reduces\nthe majority of mankind.\n\nThe government takes charge, for instance, of the postal and\ntelegraphic services. But in what way does it really assist them?\nWhen the people are in such a condition as to be able to enjoy,\nand feel the need of such services, they will think about organizing\nthem; and the man with the necessary technical knowledge will not\nrequire a certificate from the government to enable him to set to\nwork. The more general and urgent the need, the more volunteers will\noffer to satisfy it. Would the people have the ability necessary to\nprovide and distribute provisions? Oh! never fear, they will not die\nof hunger, waiting for a government to pass laws on the subject.\nWherever a government exists, it must wait until the people have\nfirst organized everything, and then come with its laws to sanction\nand exploit that which has been already done. It is evident that\nprivate interest is the great motive for all activity. That being\nso, when the interest of every one becomes the interest of each (and\nit necessarily will become so as soon as private property is\nabolished) then all will be active. And if now they work in the\ninterest of the few, so much the more and so much the better will\nthey work to satisfy the interests of all. It is hard to understand\nhow anyone can believe that public services indispensable to social\nlife can be better secured by order of a government than through\nthe workers themselves, who by their own choice or by agreement made\nwith others, carry them out under the immediate control of all\ninterested.\n\nCertainly in every collective undertaking on a large scale,\nthere is need for division of labor, for technical direction,\nadministration, etc. But the authoritarians are merely playing with\nwords, when they deduce a reason for the existence of government,\nfrom the very real necessity for organization of labor. The\ngovernment, we must repeat, is the aggregate of the individuals\nwho have had given them, or have taken the right or the means to\nmake laws, and force the people to obey them. The administrators,\nengineers, etc., on the other hand, are men who receive or assume\nthe charge of doing a certain work, and who do it. Government\nsignifies delegation of power, that is, abdication of the initiative\nand sovereignty of every one into the hands of the few.\nAdministration signifies delegation of work, that is, a charge given\nand accepted, the free exchange of services founded on free\nagreement.\n\nA governor is a privileged person, because he has the right\nto command others, and to avail himself of the force of others,\nto make his own ideas and desires triumph. An administrator\nor technical director is a worker like others, in a society, of\ncourse, where all have equal opportunities of development, and\nall are, or can be, at the same time intellectual and manual\nworkers; when there are no other differences between men than\nthose derived from diversity of talents, and all work and all social\nfunctions give an equal right to the enjoyment of social advantages.\nThe functions of government are, in short, not to be confounded with\nadministrative functions, as they are essentially different. That\nthey are today so often confused is entirely on account of the\nexistence of economic and political privilege.\n\n                             ----------\n\nBut let us hasten to pass on to those functions for which government\nis thought indispensable by all who are not Anarchists. These are\nthe internal and external defence of society, that is, War, Police\nand Justice.\n\nGovernment being abolished, and social wealth at the disposal\nof every one, all antagonism between various nations would soon\ncease; and there would consequently be no more cause for war.\nMoreover, in the present state of the world, in any country\nwhere the spirit of rebellion is growing, even if it do not find\nan echo throughout the land, it will be certain of so much sympathy\nthat the government will not dare to send all its troops to\na foreign war, for fear the revolution should break out at home.\nBut even supposing that the rulers of countries not yet emancipated\nwould wish and could attempt to reduce a free people to servitude,\nwould these require a government to enable them to defend\nthemselves? To make war, we need men who have the necessary\ngeographical and technical knowledge, and, above all, people willing\nto fight. A government has no means of augmenting the ability of the\nformer, or the willingness or courage of the latter. And the\nexperience of history teaches that a people really desirous of\ndefending their own country are invincible. In Italy every one knows\nhow thrones tremble, and regular armies of hired soldiers vanish\nbefore troops of volunteers, that is, armies Anarchically formed.\n\n                             ----------\n\nAnd as to the police and justice, many imagine that if it were not\nfor the police and the judges, everybody would be free to kill,\nviolate or injure others as the humor took him; that Anarchists,\nif they are true to their principles, would like to see this\nstrange kind of liberty respected; \"liberty\" that violates\nor destroys the life and freedom of others unrestrained. Such\npeople believe that we, having overthrown the government and\nprivate property, shall then tranquilly allow the re-establishment\nof both, out of respect for the \"liberty\" of those who may feel\nthe need of having a government and private property. A strange\nmode indeed of construing our ideas! In truth, one may better\nanswer such notions with a shrug of the shoulders than by taking\nthe trouble to confute them.\n\nThe liberty we wish for, for ourselves and others, is not an\nabsolute, abstract, metaphysical liberty, which in practice can\nonly amount to the oppression of the weak. But we wish for a\ntangible liberty, the possible liberty, which is the conscious\ncommunion of interests, that is, voluntary solidarity. We proclaim\nthe maxim: _Do as you will;_ and in this our program is almost\nentirely contained, because, as may be easily understood, we hold\nthat in a society without government or property, each one _will\nwish that which he should_.\n\nBut if, in consequence of a false education, received in the\npresent society, or of physical disease, or whatever other cause,\nan individual should wish to injure others, you may be sure we\nshould adopt all the means in our power to prevent him. As\nwe know that a man's character is the consequence of his physical\norganism, and of the cosmic and social influences surrounding\nhim, we certainly shall not confound the sacred right of\nself-defence, with the absurdly assumed right to punish. Also, we\nshall not regard the delinquent, that is, the man who commits\nanti-social acts, as the rebel he seems in the eyes of the judges\nnowadays. We shall regard him as a sick brother in need of\ncure. We therefore shall not act towards him in the spirit of\nhatred, when repressing him, but shall confine ourselves solely\nto self-protection. We shall not seek to revenge ourselves, but\nrather to rescue the unfortunate one by every means that science\nsuggests. In theory, Anarchists may go astray like others, losing\nsight of the reality under a semblance of logic; but it is\nquite certain that the emancipated people will not let their dearly\nbought liberty and welfare be attacked with impunity. If the\nnecessity arose, they would provide for their own defence against\nthe anti-social tendencies of certain amongst them. But how do\nthose whose business it now is to make the laws, protect society?\nOr those others who live by seeking for and inventing new\ninfringements of law? Even now, when the masses of the people\nreally disapprove of anything and think it injurious, they always\nfind a way to prevent it very much more effectually than all the\nprofessional legislators, constables or judges. During\ninsurrections, the people, though very mistakenly, have enforced the\nrespect for private property; and they have secured this respect\nfar better than an army of policemen could have done.\n\nCustoms always follow the needs and sentiments of the majority;\nand they are always the more respected, the less they are subject\nto the sanction of law. This is because every one sees and\ncomprehends their utility, and because the interested parties,\nnot deluding themselves with the idea that government will protect\nthem, are themselves concerned in seeing the custom respected.\nThe economical use of water is of very great importance to a\ncaravan crossing the deserts of Africa. Under these circumstances,\nwater is a sacred thing; and no sane man dreams of wasting it.\nConspirators are obliged to act secretly; so secrecy is preserved\namong them, and obloquy rests on whosoever violates it. Gambling\ndebts are not guaranteed by law; but among gamblers it is considered\ndishonorable not to pay them, and the delinquent feels himself\ndishonored by not fulfilling his obligations.\n\nIs it on account of the police that more people are not murdered?\nThe greater part of the Italian people never see the police except\nat long intervals. Millions of men go over the mountains and through\nthe country, far from the protecting eye of authority, where they\nmight be attacked without the slightest fear of their assailants\nbeing traced; but they run no greater risk than those who live in\nthe best guarded spots. Statistics show that the number of crimes\nrise in proportion to the increase of repressive measures; while\nthey vary rapidly with the fluctuations of economic conditions and\nwith the state of public opinion.\n\nPreventive laws, however, only concern unusual, exceptional\nacts. Every-day life goes on beyond the limits of the criminal\ncode, and is regulated almost unconsciously by the tacit and\nvoluntary assent of all, by means of a number of usages and customs\nmuch more important to social life than the dictates of law.\nAnd they are also much better observed, although completely\ndivested of any sanction beyond the natural odium which falls\nupon those who violate them, and such injury as this odium\nbrings with it.\n\nWhen disputes arise, would not voluntarily accepted arbitration\nor the pressure of public opinion be far more likely to bring\nabout a just settlement of the difficulties in question than an\nirresponsible magistrate, who has the right to pass judgment upon\neverybody and everything, and who is necessarily incompetent\nand therefore unjust?\n\nAs every form of government only serves to protect the privileged\nclasses, so do police and judges only aim at repressing those\ncrimes, often not considered criminal by the masses, which offend\nonly the privileges of the rulers or property-owners. For the\nreal defence of society, the defence of the welfare and liberty of\nall, there can be nothing more pernicious than the formation of\nthis class of functionaries, who exist on the pretence of defending\nall, and therefore habitually regard every man as game to be\nhunted down, often striking at the command of a superior officer,\nwithout themselves even knowing why, like hired assassins and\nmercenaries.\n\n                             ----------\n\nAll that you have said may be true, say some; Anarchy may be a\nperfect form of social life; but we have no desire to take a\nleap in the dark. Therefore, tell us how your society will be\norganized. Then follows a long string of questions, which would be\nvery interesting if it were our business to study the problems\nthat might arise in an emancipated society, but of which it is\nuseless and absurd to imagine that we could now offer a definite\nsolution. According to what method will children be taught? How will\nproduction and distribution be organized? Will there still be large\ncities, or will people spread equally over all the surface of the\nearth? Will all the inhabitants of Siberia winter at Nice? Will\nevery one dine on partridges and drink champagne? Who will be the\nminers and sailors? Who will clear the drains? Will the sick be\nnursed at home or in hospitals? Who will arrange the railway\ntime-table? What will happen if the engine-driver falls ill while\nthe train is on its way? And so on, without end, as though we could\nprophesy all the knowledge and experience of the future time,\nor could, in the name of Anarchy, prescribe for the coming man\nwhat time he should go to bed, and on what days he should cut\nhis nails!\n\nIndeed if our readers expect from us an answer to these questions,\nor even to those among them really serious and important, which\ncannot be anything more than our own private opinion at this present\nhour, we must have succeeded badly in our endeavor to explain what\nAnarchy is.\n\nWe are no more prophets than other men; and should we pretend to\ngive an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the\nlife of the future society, we should have indeed a curious idea of\nthe abolition of government. We should then be describing a\ngovernment, dictating, like the clergy, a universal code for the\npresent and all future time. Seeing that we have neither police nor\nprisons to enforce our doctrine, humanity might laugh with\nimpunity at us and our pretensions.\n\nNevertheless, we consider seriously all the problems of social\nlife which now suggest themselves, on account of their scientific\ninterest, and because, hoping to see Anarchy realized, we wish\nto help towards the organization of the new society. We have\ntherefore our own ideas on these subjects, ideas which are to our\nminds likely to be permanent or transitory, according to the\nrespective cases. And did space permit, we might add somewhat\nmore on these points. But the fact that we today think in a certain\nway on a given question is no proof that such will be the mode of\nprocedure in the future. Who can foresee the activities which may\ndevelop in humanity when it is emancipated from misery and\noppression? When all have the means of instruction and\nself-development? When the strife between men, with the hatred and\nrancour it breeds, will be no longer a necessary condition of\nexistence? Who can foresee the progress of science, the new sources\nof production, means of communication, etc.?\n\nThe one essential is that a society be constituted in which\nthe exploitation and domination of man by man are impossible.\nThat the society, in other words, be such that the means of\nexistence and development of labor be free and open to every\none, and all be able to co-operate, according to their wishes and\ntheir knowledge, in the organization of social life. Under such\nconditions, everything will necessarily be performed in compliance\nwith the needs of all, according to the knowledge and possibilities\nof the moment. And everything will improve with the increase of\nknowledge and power.\n\nIn fact, a program which would touch the basis of the new social\nconstitution could not do more, after all, than indicate a\nmethod. And method, more than anything else, defines parties\nand determines their importance in history. Method apart, every one\nsays he wishes for the good of mankind; and many do truly wish for\nit. As parties disappear, every organized action directed to a\ndefinite end disappears likewise. It is therefore necessary to\nconsider Anarchy as, above all, a method.\n\nThere are two methods by which the different parties, not\nAnarchistic, expect, or say they expect, to bring about the\ngreatest good of each and all. These are the authoritarian or\nState Socialist and the individualist methods. The former entrusts\nthe direction of social life to a few; and it would result in\nthe exploitation and oppression of the masses by that few. The\nsecond party trusts to the free initiative of individuals, and\nproclaims, if not the abolition, the reduction of government.\nHowever, as it respects private property, and is founded on the\nprinciple of each for himself, and therefore on competition, its\nliberty is only the liberty of the strong, the license of those who\nhave, to oppress and exploit the weak who have nothing. Far from\nproducing harmony, it would tend always to augment the distance\nbetween the rich and the poor, and end also through exploitation\nand domination in authority. This second method, Individualism, is\nin theory a kind of Anarchy without Socialism. It is therefore no\nbetter than a lie, because liberty is not possible without equality,\nand true Anarchy cannot be without Solidarity, without Socialism.\nThe criticism which Individualists pass on government is merely the\nwish to deprive it of certain functions, to virtually hand them over\nto the capitalist. But it cannot attack those repressive functions\nwhich form the essence of government; for without an armed force the\nproprietary system could not be upheld. Nay, even more, under\nIndividualism, the repressive power of government must always\nincrease, in proportion to the increase, by means of free\ncompetition, of the want of equality and harmony.\n\nAnarchists present a new method; the free initiative of all\nand free agreement; then, after the revolutionary abolition of\nprivate property, every one will have equal power to dispose of\nsocial wealth. This method, not admitting the re-establishment\nof private property, must lead, by means of free association, to\nthe complete triumph of the principles of solidarity.\n\nThus we see that all the problems put forward to combat the\nAnarchistic idea are on the contrary arguments in favor of Anarchy;\nbecause it alone indicates the way in which, by experience,\nthose solutions which correspond to the dicta of science, and to the\nneeds and wishes of all, can best be found.\n\nHow will children be educated? We do not know. What then? The\nparents, teachers and all who are interested in the progress of the\nrising generation, will meet, discuss, agree and differ, and then\ndivide according to their various opinions, putting into practice\nthe methods which they respectively hold to be best. That method\nwhich, when tried, produces the best results, will triumph in the\nend.\n\nAnd so for all the problems that may arise.\n\n                             ----------\n\nAccording to what we have so far said, it is evident that Anarchy,\nas the Anarchists conceive it, and as alone it can be comprehended,\nis based on Socialism. Furthermore, were it not for that school of\nSocialists who artificially divide the natural unity of the social\nquestion, considering only some detached points, and were it not\nalso for the equivocations with which they strive to hinder the\nsocial revolution, we might say right away that Anarchy is\nsynonymous with Socialism. Because both signify the abolition of\nexploitation and of the domination of man over man, whether\nmaintained by the force of arms or by the monopolization of the\nmeans of life.\n\nAnarchy, like Socialism, has for its basis and necessary point\nof departure _equality of conditions_. Its aim is _solidarity_, and\nits method _liberty_. It is not perfection, nor is it the absolute\nideal, which, like the horizon, always recedes as we advance towards\nit. But it is the open road to all progress and to all improvement,\nmade in the interest of all humanity.\n\n                             ----------\n\nThere are authoritarians who grant that Anarchy is the mode\nof social life which alone opens the way to the attainment of the\nhighest possible good for mankind, because it alone can put an\nend to every class interested in keeping the masses oppressed\nand miserable. They also grant that Anarchy is possible, because it\ndoes nothing more than release humanity from an\nobstacle--government--against which it has always had to fight\nits painful way towards progress. Nevertheless, these\nauthoritarians, reinforced by many warm lovers of liberty and justice\nin theory, retire into their last entrenchments, because they are\nafraid of liberty, and cannot be persuaded that mankind could\nlive and prosper without teachers and pastors; still, hard pressed\nby the truth, they pitifully demand to have the reign of liberty\nput off for a while, indeed for as long as possible.\n\nSuch is the substance of the arguments that meet us at this\nstage.\n\nA society without a government, which would act by free, voluntary\nco-operation, trusting entirely to the spontaneous action of those\ninterested, and founded altogether on solidarity and sympathy, is\ncertainly, they say, a very beautiful ideal, but, like all ideals,\nit is a castle in the air. We find ourselves placed in a human\nsociety, which has always been divided into oppressors and\noppressed; and if the former are full of the spirit of domination,\nand have all the vices of tyrants, the latter are corrupted\nby servility, and have those still worse vices, which are the result\nof enslavement. The sentiment of solidarity is far from being\ndominant in man at the present day; and if it is true that the\ndifferent classes of men are becoming more and more unanimous among\nthemselves, it is none the less true that that which is most\nconspicuous and impresses itself most on human character today is\nthe struggle for existence. It is a fact that each fights daily\nagainst every one else, and competition presses upon all, workmen\nand masters, causing every man to become a wolf towards every other\nman. How can these men, educated in a society based upon antagonism\nbetween individuals as well as classes, be transformed in a moment\nand become capable of living in a society in which each shall do as\nhe likes, and as he should, without external coercion, caring for\nthe good of others, simply by the impulse of their own nature? And\nwith what heart or what common sense can you trust to a revolution\non the part of an ignorant, turbulent mass, weakened by misery,\nstupefied by priestcraft, who are today blindly sanguinary and\ntomorrow will let themselves be humbugged by any knave, who dares\nto call himself their master? Would it not be more prudent to\nadvance gradually towards the Anarchistic ideal, passing through\nRepublican, Democratic and Socialistic stages? Will not an\neducative government, composed of the best men, be necessary\nto prepare the advancing generations for their future destiny?\n\nThese objections also ought not to appear valid if we have\nsucceeded in making our readers understand what we have already\nsaid, and in convincing them of it. But in any case, even at the\nrisk of repetition, it may be as well to answer them.\n\nWe find ourselves continually met by the false notion that\ngovernment is in itself a new force, sprung up one knows not\nwhence, which of itself adds something to the sum of the force\nand capability of those whom it is composed and of those who\nobey it. While, on the contrary, all that is done is done by\nindividual men. The government, as a government, adds nothing\nsave the tendency to monopolize for the advantage of certain\nparties or classes, and to repress all initiative from beyond its\nown circle.\n\nTo abolish authority or government does not mean to destroy\nthe individual or collective forces, which are at work in society,\nnor the influence men exert over one another. That would be\nto reduce humanity to an aggregate of inert and separate atoms;\nan impossibility which, if it could be performed, would be the\ndestruction of any society, the death blow to mankind. To abolish\nauthority, means to abolish the monopoly of force and of influence.\nIt means to abolish that state of things by which social force, that\nis, the collective force of all in a society, is made the instrument\nof the thought, will and interests of a small number of individuals.\nThese, by means of the collective force, suppress the liberty of\nevery one else, to the advantage of their own ideas. In other words,\nit means to destroy a mode of organization by means of which the\nfuture is exploited, between one revolution and another, to the\nprofit of those who have been the victors of the moment.\n\nMichael Bakunin, in an article published in 1872, asserts that the\ngreat means of action of the International were the propagating\nof their ideas, and the organization of the spontaneous action of\nits members in regard to the masses. He then adds:\n\n\"To whoever might pretend that action so organized would be an\noutrage on the liberty of the masses, or an attempt to create\na new authoritative power, we would reply that he is a sophist\nand a fool. So much the worse for those who ignore the natural,\nsocial law of human solidarity, to the extent of imagining\nthat an absolute mutual independence of individuals and of\nmasses is a possible or even desirable thing. To desire it, would\nbe to wish for the destruction of society; for all social life is\nnothing else than this mutual and incessant interdependence among\nindividuals and masses. All individuals, even the most gifted\nand strongest, indeed most of all the most gifted and strongest,\nare at every moment of their lives, at the same time, producers\nand products. Equal liberty for every individual is only the\nresultant, continually reproduced, of this mass of material,\nintellectual and moral influence exercised on him by all the\nindividuals around him, belonging to the society in which he was\nborn, has developed and dies. To wish to escape this influence in\nthe name of a transcendental liberty, divine, absolutely egoistic\nand sufficient to itself, is the tendency to annihilation. To\nrefrain from influencing others, would mean to refrain from all\nsocial action, indeed to abstain from all expression of one's\nthoughts and sentiments, and simply to become non-existent.\nThis independence, so much extolled by idealists and metaphysicians,\nindividual liberty conceived in this sense would amount to\nself-annihilation.\n\n\"In nature, as in human society, which is also a part of this\nsame nature, all that exists lives only by complying with the\nsupreme conditions of interaction, which is more or less positive\nand potent with regard to the lives of other beings, according to\nthe nature of the individual. And when we vindicate the liberty\nof the masses, we do not pretend to abolish anything of the natural\ninfluences that individuals or groups of individuals exert upon one\nanother. What we wish for is the abolition of artificial influences,\nwhich are privileged, legal and official.\"\n\nCertainly, in the present state of mankind, oppressed by misery,\nstupefied by superstition and sunk in degradation, the human lot\ndepends upon a relatively small number of individuals. Of course,\nall men will not be able to rise in a moment to the height of\nperceiving their duty, or even the enjoyment of so regulating their\nown action that others also will derive the greatest possible\nbenefit from it. But because nowadays the thoughtful and guiding\nforces at work in society are few, that is no reason for paralyzing\nthem still more, and for the subjection of many individuals to the\ndirection of a few. It is no reason for constituting society in such\na manner that the most active forces, the highest capacities are, in\nthe end, found outside the government, and almost deprived of\ninfluence on social life. All this now happens owing to the inertia\nthat secured positions foster, to heredity, to protectionism, to\nparty spirit and to all the mechanism of government. For those in\ngovernment office, taken out of their former social position,\nprimarily concerned in retaining power, lose all power to act\nspontaneously, and become only an obstacle to the free action of\nothers.\n\nWith the abolition of this negative potency constituting government,\nsociety will become that which it can be, with the given forces and\ncapabilities of the moment. If there are educated men desirous of\nspreading education, they will organize the schools, and will be\nconstrained to make the use and enjoyment to be derived from\neducation felt. And if there are no such men, or only a few of them,\na government cannot create them. All it can do, as in fact it does\nnowadays, is to take these few away from practical, fruitful work in\nthe sphere of education, and put them to direct from above what has\nto be imposed by the help of a police system. So they make out of\nintelligent and impassionate teachers mere politicians, who become\nuseless parasites, entirely absorbed in imposing their own hobbies,\nand in maintaining themselves in power.\n\nIf there are doctors and teachers of hygiene, they will organize\nthemselves for the service of health. And if there are none,\na government cannot create them; all that it can do is to discredit\nthem in the eyes of the people, who are inclined to entertain\nsuspicions, sometimes only too well founded, with regard to\neverything which is imposed upon them.\n\nIf there are engineers and mechanics, they will organize the\nrailways, etc; and if there are none, a government cannot create\nthem.\n\nThe revolution, by abolishing government and private property,\nwill not create force which does not exist; but it will leave\na free field for the exercise of all available force and of all\nexistent capacity. While it will destroy every class interested in\nkeeping the masses degraded, it will act in such a way that every\none will be free to work and make his influence felt, in proportion\nto his own capacity, and in conformity with his sentiments and\ninterests. And it is only thus that the elevation of the masses is\npossible; for it is only with liberty that one can learn to be free,\nas it is only by working that one can learn to work. A government,\neven had it no other advantages, must always have that of\nhabituating the governed to subjection, and must also tend to become\nmore oppressive and more necessary, in proportion as its subjects\nare more obedient and docile.\n\nBut suppose government were the direction of affairs by the\nbest people. Who are the best? And how shall we recognize their\nsuperiority. The majority are generally attached to old prejudices,\nand have ideas and instincts already outgrown by the more favored\nminority. But of the various minorities, who all believe themselves\nin the right, as no doubt many of them are in part, which shall be\nchosen to rule? And by whom? And by what criterion? Seeing that the\nfuture alone can prove which among them is the must superior. If you\nchoose a hundred partisans of dictatorship, you will discover that\neach one of the hundred believes himself capable of being, if not\nsole dictator, at least of assisting very materially in the\ndictatorial government. The dictators would be those who, by one\nmeans or another, succeeded in imposing themselves on society. And,\nin course of time, all their energy would inevitably be employed\nin defending themselves against the attacks of their adversaries,\ntotally oblivious of their desire, if ever they had had it, to be\nmerely an educative power.\n\nShould government be, on the other hand, elected by universal\nsuffrage, and so be the emanation, more or less sincere, of\nthe wish of the majority? But if you consider these worthy\nelectors as incapable of providing for their own interests, how\ncan they ever be capable of themselves choosing directors to\nguide them wisely? How solve this problem of social alchemy:\nTo elect a government of geniuses by the votes of a mass of fools?\nAnd what will be the lot of the minority, who are the most\nintelligent, most active and most advanced in society?\n\n                             ----------\n\nTo solve the social problem to the advantage of all, there is\nonly one way. To expel the government by revolutionary means, to\nexpropriate the holders of social wealth, putting everything\nat the disposition of all, and to leave all existing force,\ncapacity and good-will among men free to provide for the needs\nof all.\n\nWe fight for Anarchy and for Socialism; because we believe\nthat Anarchy and Socialism ought to be brought into operation\nas soon as possible. Which means that the revolution must drive\naway the government, abolish private property, and entrust all\npublic service, which will then embrace all social life, to the\nspontaneous, free, unofficial and unauthorized operation of all\nthose interested and all those willing volunteers.\n\nThere will certainly be difficulties and inconveniences; but\nthe people will be resolute; and they alone can solve all\ndifficulties Anarchically, that is, by direct action of those\ninterested and by free agreement.\n\nWe cannot say whether Anarchy and Socialism will triumph after the\nnext revolutionary attempt; but this is certain, that if any of the\nso-called transition programs triumph, it will be because we have\nbeen temporarily beaten, and never because we have thought it wise\nto leave in existence any one part of that evil system under which\nhumanity groans.\n\nWhatever happens, we shall have some influence on events, by our\nnumbers, our energy, our intelligence and our steadfastness.\nAlso, even if we are now conquered, our work will not have been in\nvain; for the more decided we shall have been in aiming at the\nrealization of all our demands, the less there will be of government\nand of private property in the new society. And we shall have done a\ngreat work; for human progress is measured by the degree in which\ngovernment and private property are administered.\n\nIf today we fall without lowering our colors, our cause is certain\nof victory tomorrow.\n\n                        --------------------","title":"Anarchy","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":15903}