{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_690/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_690","id":"gutenberg_690","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/690","summary":null,"tags":["Anarchism","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Sociology","Guild socialism","Nobel Prizes in Literature","Philosophy","Socialism","Syndicalism"],"text":"PROPOSED ROADS\nTO FREEDOM\n\nBY\nBERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nPART I.\nHISTORICAL\n\nI.   MARX AND SOCIALIST DOCTRINE\nII.  BAKUNIN AND ANARCHISM\nIII. THE SYNDICALIST REVOLT\n\n\nPART II.\nPROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE\n\nIV.  WORK AND PAY\nV.   GOVERNMENT AND LAW\nVI.  INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\nVII. SCIENCE AND ART UNDER SOCIALISM\nVIII.THE WORLD AS IT COULD BE MADE\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nTHE attempt to conceive imaginatively a better\nordering of human society than the destructive and\ncruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existed\nis by no means modern: it is at least as old as Plato,\nwhose ``Republic'' set the model for the Utopias of\nsubsequent philosophers. Whoever contemplates the\nworld in the light of an ideal--whether what he seeks\nbe intellect, or art, or love, or simple happiness, or\nall together--must feel a great sorrow in the evils\nthat men needlessly allow to continue, and--if he be\na man of force and vital energy--an urgent desire to\nlead men to the realization of the good which inspires\nhis creative vision. It is this desire which has been\nthe primary force moving the pioneers of Socialism\nand Anarchism, as it moved the inventors of ideal\ncommonwealths in the past. In this there is nothing\nnew. What is new in Socialism and Anarchism, is\nthat close relation of the ideal to the present\nsufferings of men, which has enabled powerful political\nmovements to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers.\nIt is this that makes Socialism and Anarchism\nimportant, and it is this that makes them dangerous\nto those who batten, consciously or unconsciously\nupon the evils of our present order of society.\n\nThe great majority of men and women, in ordinary\ntimes, pass through life without ever contemplating\nor criticising, as a whole, either their own\nconditions or those of the world at large. They find\nthemselves born into a certain place in society, and\nthey accept what each day brings forth, without any\neffort of thought beyond what the immediate present\nrequires. Almost as instinctively as the beasts of\nthe field, they seek the satisfaction of the needs of\nthe moment, without much forethought, and without\nconsidering that by sufficient effort the whole\nconditions of their lives could be changed. A certain\npercentage, guided by personal ambition, make the effort\nof thought and will which is necessary to place\nthemselves among the more fortunate members of the\ncommunity; but very few among these are seriously\nconcerned to secure for all the advantages which they\nseek for themselves. It is only a few rare and exceptional\nmen who have that kind of love toward mankind\nat large that makes them unable to endure\npatiently the general mass of evil and suffering,\nregardless of any relation it may have to their own\nlives. These few, driven by sympathetic pain, will\nseek, first in thought and then in action, for some\nway of escape, some new system of society by which\nlife may become richer, more full of joy and less\nfull of preventable evils than it is at present. But\nin the past such men have, as a rule, failed to interest\nthe very victims of the injustices which they wished\nto remedy. The more unfortunate sections of the\npopulation have been ignorant, apathetic from excess\nof toil and weariness, timorous through the imminent\ndanger of immediate punishment by the holders of\npower, and morally unreliable owing to the loss of\nself-respect resulting from their degradation. To\ncreate among such classes any conscious, deliberate\neffort after general amelioration might have seemed\na hopeless task, and indeed in the past it has\ngenerally proved so. But the modern world, by the\nincrease of education and the rise in the standard of\ncomfort among wage-earners, has produced new\nconditions, more favorable than ever before to the\ndemand for radical reconstruction. It is above all\nthe Socialists, and in a lesser degree the Anarchists\n(chiefly as the inspirers of Syndicalism), who have\nbecome the exponents of this demand.\n\nWhat is perhaps most remarkable in regard to\nboth Socialism and Anarchism is the association of a\nwidespread popular movement with ideals for a better\nworld. The ideals have been elaborated, in the\nfirst instance, by solitary writers of books, and yet\npowerful sections of the wage-earning classes have\naccepted them as their guide in the practical affairs\nof the world. In regard to Socialism this is evident;\nbut in regard to Anarchism it is only true with some\nqualification. Anarchism as such has never been a\nwidespread creed, it is only in the modified form of\nSyndicalism that it has achieved popularity. Unlike\nSocialism and Anarchism, Syndicalism is primarily\nthe outcome, not of an idea, but of an organization:\nthe fact of Trade Union organization came first, and\nthe ideas of Syndicalism are those which seemed\nappropriate to this organization in the opinion of\nthe more advanced French Trade Unions. But the\nideas are, in the main, derived from Anarchism, and\nthe men who gained acceptance for them were, for\nthe most part, Anarchists. Thus we may regard\nSyndicalism as the Anarchism of the market-place\nas opposed to the Anarchism of isolated individuals\nwhich had preserved a precarious life throughout the\nprevious decades. Taking this view, we find in\nAnarchist-Syndicalism the same combination of ideal\nand organization as we find in Socialist political\nparties. It is from this standpoint that our study\nof these movements will be undertaken.\n\nSocialism and Anarchism, in their modern form,\nspring respectively from two protagonists, Marx and\nBakunin, who fought a lifelong battle, culminating\nin a split in the first International. We shall begin\nour study with these two men--first their teaching,\nand then the organizations which they founded or\ninspired. This will lead us to the spread of Socialism\nin more recent years, and thence to the Syndicalist\nrevolt against Socialist emphasis on the State\nand political action, and to certain movements outside\nFrance which have some affinity with Syndicalism--\nnotably the I. W. W. in America and Guild\nSocialism in England. From this historical survey\nwe shall pass to the consideration of some of the\nmore pressing problems of the future, and shall try\nto decide in what respects the world would be happier\nif the aims of Socialists or Syndicalists were\nachieved.\n\nMy own opinion--which I may as well indicate\nat the outset--is that pure Anarchism, though it\nshould be the ultimate ideal, to which society should\ncontinually approximate, is for the present impossible,\nand would not survive more than a year or two\nat most if it were adopted. On the other hand, both\nMarxian Socialism and Syndicalism, in spite of many\ndrawbacks, seem to me calculated to give rise to a\nhappier and better world than that in which we live.\nI do not, however, regard either of them as the best\npracticable system. Marxian Socialism, I fear,\nwould give far too much power to the State, while\nSyndicalism, which aims at abolishing the State,\nwould, I believe, find itself forced to reconstruct a\ncentral authority in order to put an end to the\nrivalries of different groups of producers. The BEST\npracticable system, to my mind, is that of Guild\nSocialism, which concedes what is valid both in the\nclaims of the State Socialists and in the Syndicalist\nfear of the State, by adopting a system of federalism\namong trades for reasons similar to those which\nare recommending federalism among nations. The\ngrounds for these conclusions will appear as we\nproceed.\n\nBefore embarking upon the history of recent\nmovements In favor of radical reconstruction, it will\nbe worth while to consider some traits of character\nwhich distinguish most political idealists, and are\nmuch misunderstood by the general public for other\nreasons besides mere prejudice. I wish to do full\njustice to these reasons, in order to show the more\neffectually why they ought not to be operative.\n\nThe leaders of the more advanced movements\nare, in general, men of quite unusual disinterestedness,\nas is evident from a consideration of their careers.\nAlthough they have obviously quite as much ability\nas many men who rise to positions of great power,\nthey do not themselves become the arbiters of\ncontemporary events, nor do they achieve wealth or the\napplause of the mass of their contemporaries. Men\nwho have the capacity for winning these prizes, and\nwho work at least as hard as those who win them,\nbut deliberately adopt a line which makes the winning\nof them impossible, must be judged to have an\naim in life other than personal advancement;\nwhatever admixture of self-seeking may enter into the\ndetail of their lives, their fundamental motive must\nbe outside Self. The pioneers of Socialism, Anarchism,\nand Syndicalism have, for the most part,\nexperienced prison, exile, and poverty, deliberately\nincurred because they would not abandon their\npropaganda; and by this conduct they have shown that\nthe hope which inspired them was not for themselves,\nbut for mankind.\n\nNevertheless, though the desire for human welfare\nis what at bottom determines the broad lines of such\nmen's lives, it often happens that, in the detail of\ntheir speech and writing, hatred is far more visible\nthan love. The impatient idealist--and without some\nimpatience a man will hardly prove effective--is\nalmost sure to be led into hatred by the oppositions\nand disappointments which he encounters in his\nendeavors to bring happiness to the world. The more\ncertain he is of the purity of his motives and the truth\nof his gospel, the more indignant he will become when\nhis teaching is rejected. Often he will successfully\nachieve an attitude of philosophic tolerance as\nregards the apathy of the masses, and even as regards\nthe whole-hearted opposition of professed defenders\nof the status quo. But the men whom he finds it\nimpossible to forgive are those who profess the same desire\nfor the amelioration of society as he feels himself,\nbut who do not accept his method of achieving this\nend. The intense faith which enables him to withstand\npersecution for the sake of his beliefs makes\nhim consider these beliefs so luminously obvious that\nany thinking man who rejects them must be dishonest,\nand must be actuated by some sinister motive\nof treachery to the cause. Hence arises the spirit of\nthe sect, that bitter, narrow orthodoxy which is the\nbane of those who hold strongly to an unpopular\ncreed. So many real temptations to treachery exist\nthat suspicion is natural. And among leaders,\nambition, which they mortify in their choice of a\ncareer, is sure to return in a new form: in the desire\nfor intellectual mastery and for despotic power\nwithin their own sect. From these causes it results\nthat the advocates of drastic reform divide\nthemselves into opposing schools, hating each other with\na bitter hatred, accusing each other often of such\ncrimes as being in the pay of the police, and demanding,\nof any speaker or writer whom they are to\nadmire, that he shall conform exactly to their\nprejudices, and make all his teaching minister to their\nbelief that the exact truth is to be found within the\nlimits of their creed. The result of this state of\nmind is that, to a casual and unimaginative attention,\nthe men who have sacrificed most through the\nwish to benefit mankind APPEAR to be actuated far\nmore by hatred than by love. And the demand for\northodoxy is stifling to any free exercise of intellect.\nThis cause, as well as economic prejudice, has made\nit difficult for the ``intellectuals'' to co-operate prac-\ntically with the more extreme reformers, however they\nmay sympathize with their main purposes and even\nwith nine-tenths of their program.\n\nAnother reason why radical reformers are\nmisjudged by ordinary men is that they view existing\nsociety from outside, with hostility towards its\ninstitutions. Although, for the most part, they have\nmore belief than their neighbors in human nature's\ninherent capacity for a good life, they are so\nconscious of the cruelty and oppression resulting from\nexisting institutions that they make a wholly\nmisleading impression of cynicism. Most men have\ninstinctively two entirely different codes of behavior:\none toward those whom they regard as companions or\ncolleagues or friends, or in some way members of the\nsame ``herd''; the other toward those whom they\nregard as enemies or outcasts or a danger to society.\nRadical reformers are apt to concentrate their\nattention upon the behavior of society toward the\nlatter class, the class of those toward whom the\n``herd'' feels ill-will. This class includes, of course,\nenemies in war, and criminals; in the minds of those\nwho consider the preservation of the existing order\nessential to their own safety or privileges, it includes\nall who advocate any great political or economic\nchange, and all classes which, through their poverty\nor through any other cause, are likely to feel a\ndangerous degree of discontent. The ordinary citizen\nprobably seldom thinks about such individuals or\nclasses, and goes through life believing that he and\nhis friends are kindly people, because they have no\nwish to injure those toward whom they entertain no\ngroup-hostility. But the man whose attention is\nfastened upon the relations of a group with those\nwhom it hates or fears will judge quite differently.\nIn these relations a surprising ferocity is apt to be\ndeveloped, and a very ugly side of human nature\ncomes to the fore. The opponents of capitalism\nhave learned, through the study of certain historical\nfacts, that this ferocity has often been shown by the\ncapitalists and by the State toward the wage-earning\nclasses, particularly when they have ventured to\nprotest against the unspeakable suffering to which\nindustrialism has usually condemned them. Hence\narises a quite different attitude toward existing\nsociety from that of the ordinary well-to-do citizen:\nan attitude as true as his, perhaps also as untrue,\nbut equally based on facts, facts concerning his\nrelations to his enemies instead of to his friends.\n\nThe class-war, like wars between nations,\nproduces two opposing views, each equally true and\nequally untrue. The citizen of a nation at war,\nwhen he thinks of his own countrymen, thinks of them\nprimarily as he has experienced them, in dealings\nwith their friends, in their family relations, and so\non. They seem to him on the whole kindly, decent\nfolk. But a nation with which his country is at\nwar views his compatriots through the medium of a\nquite different set of experiences: as they appear\nin the ferocity of battle, in the invasion and subjugation\nof a hostile territory, or in the chicanery of a\njuggling diplomacy. The men of whom these facts\nare true are the very same as the men whom their\ncompatriots know as husbands or fathers or friends,\nbut they are judged differently because they are\njudged on different data. And so it is with those who\nview the capitalist from the standpoint of the\nrevolutionary wage-earner: they appear inconceivably\ncynical and misjudging to the capitalist, because the\nfacts upon which their view is based are facts which\nhe either does not know or habitually ignores. Yet\nthe view from the outside is just as true as the view\nfrom the inside. Both are necessary to the complete\ntruth; and the Socialist, who emphasizes the outside\nview, is not a cynic, but merely the friend of the\nwage-earners, maddened by the spectacle of the needless\nmisery which capitalism inflicts upon them.\n\nI have placed these general reflections at the\nbeginning of our study, in order to make it clear to\nthe reader that, whatever bitterness and hate may\nbe found in the movements which we are to examine,\nit is not bitterness or hate, but love, that is their\nmainspring. It is difficult not to hate those who\ntorture the objects of our love. Though difficult, it\nis not impossible; but it requires a breadth of\noutlook and a comprehensiveness of understanding which\nare not easy to preserve amid a desperate contest.\nIf ultimate wisdom has not always been preserved by\nSocialists and Anarchists, they have not differed in\nthis from their opponents; and in the source of their\ninspiration they have shown themselves superior to\nthose who acquiesce ignorantly or supinely in the\ninjustices and oppressions by which the existing\nsystem is preserved.\n\n\n\nPROPOSED ROADS\nTO FREEDOM\n\nSOCIALISM, ANARCHISM AND SYNDICALISM\n\nPART I\n\nHISTORICAL\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nMARX AND SOCIALIST DOCTRINE\n\n\nSOCIALISM, like everything else that is vital, is\nrather a tendency than a strictly definable body of\ndoctrine. A definition of Socialism is sure either to\ninclude some views which many would regard as not\nSocialistic, or to exclude others which claim to be\nincluded. But I think we shall come nearest to the\nessence of Socialism by defining it as the advocacy\nof communal ownership of land and capital. Communal\nownership may mean ownership by a democratic\nState, but cannot be held to include ownership\nby any State which is not democratic. Communal\nownership may also be understood, as Anarchist\nCommunism understands it, in the sense of\nownership by the free association of the men and\nwomen in a community without those compulsory\npowers which are necessary to constitute a State.\nSome Socialists expect communal ownership to arrive\nsuddenly and completely by a catastrophic revolution,\nwhile others expect it to come gradually, first\nin one industry, then in another. Some insist upon\nthe necessity of completeness in the acquisition of\nland and capital by the public, while others would\nbe content to see lingering islands of private ownership,\nprovided they were not too extensive or powerful.\nWhat all forms have in common is democracy\nand the abolition, virtual or complete, of the present\ncapitalistic system. The distinction between Socialists,\nAnarchists and Syndicalists turns largely upon\nthe kind of democracy which they desire. Orthodox\nSocialists are content with parliamentary democracy\nin the sphere of government, holding that the evils\napparent in this form of constitution at present\nwould disappear with the disappearance of capitalism.\nAnarchists and Syndicalists, on the other\nhand, object to the whole parliamentary machinery,\nand aim at a different method of regulating the political\naffairs of the community. But all alike are\ndemocratic in the sense that they aim at abolishing\nevery kind of privilege and every kind of artificial\ninequality: all alike are champions of the wage-\nearner in existing society. All three also have much\nin common in their economic doctrine. All three\nregard capital and the wages system as a means of\nexploiting the laborer in the interests of the possessing\nclasses, and hold that communal ownership, in one\nform or another, is the only means of bringing freedom\nto the producers. But within the framework\nof this common doctrine there are many divergences,\nand even among those who are strictly to be called\nSocialists, there is a very considerable diversity of\nschools.\n\nSocialism as a power in Europe may be said\nto begin with Marx. It is true that before his time\nthere were Socialist theories, both in England and in\nFrance. It is also true that in France, during the\nrevolution of 1848, Socialism for a brief period\nacquired considerable influence in the State. But\nthe Socialists who preceded Marx tended to indulge\nin Utopian dreams and failed to found any strong or\nstable political party. To Marx, in collaboration\nwith Engels, are due both the formulation of a coherent\nbody of Socialist doctrine, sufficiently true or\nplausible to dominate the minds of vast numbers of\nmen, and the formation of the International Socialist\nmovement, which has continued to grow in all\nEuropean countries throughout the last fifty years.\n\nIn order to understand Marx's doctrine, it is\nnecessary to know something of the influences which\nformed his outlook. He was born in 1818 at Treves\nin the Rhine Provinces, his father being a legal\nofficial, a Jew who had nominally accepted\nChristianity. Marx studied jurisprudence, philosophy,\npolitical economy and history at various German\nuniversities. In philosophy he imbibed the doctrines\nof Hegel, who was then at the height of his fame,\nand something of these doctrines dominated his\nthought throughout his life. Like Hegel, he saw in\nhistory the development of an Idea. He conceived\nthe changes in the world as forming a logical development,\nin which one phase passes by revolution into\nanother, which is its antithesis--a conception which\ngave to his views a certain hard abstractness, and a\nbelief in revolution rather than evolution. But of\nHegel's more definite doctrines Marx retained nothing\nafter his youth. He was recognized as a brilliant\nstudent, and might have had a prosperous career as\na professor or an official, but his interest in politics\nand his Radical views led him into more arduous\npaths. Already in 1842 he became editor of a newspaper,\nwhich was suppressed by the Prussian Government\nearly in the following year on account of\nits advanced opinions. This led Marx to go to Paris,\nwhere he became known as a Socialist and acquired\na knowledge of his French predecessors.[1] Here in the\nyear 1844 began his lifelong friendship with Engels,\nwho had been hitherto in business in Manchester,\nwhere he had become acquainted with English Socialism\nand had in the main adopted its doctrines.[2] In\n1845 Marx was expelled from Paris and went with\nEngels to live in Brussels. There he formed a German\nWorking Men's Association and edited a paper\nwhich was their organ. Through his activities in\nBrussels he became known to the German Communist\nLeague in Paris, who, at the end of 1847, invited him\nand Engels to draw up for them a manifesto, which\nappeared in January, 1848. This is the famous\n``Communist Manifesto,'' in which for the first time\nMarx's system is set forth. It appeared at a fortunate\nmoment. In the following month, February,\nthe revolution broke out in Paris, and in March it\nspread to Germany. Fear of the revolution led the\nBrussels Government to expel Marx from Belgium,\nbut the German revolution made it possible for him\nto return to his own country. In Germany he again\nedited a paper, which again led him into a conflict\nwith the authorities, increasing in severity as the\nreaction gathered force. In June, 1849, his paper\nwas suppressed, and he was expelled from Prussia.\nHe returned to Paris, but was expelled from there\nalso. This led him to settle in England--at that\ntime an asylum for friends of freedom--and in England,\nwith only brief intervals for purposes of agitation,\nhe continued to live until his death in 1883.\n\n\n[1] Chief among these were Fourier and Saint-Simon, who\nconstructed somewhat fantastic Socialistic ideal commonwealths.\nProudhon, with whom Marx had some not wholly friendly relations,\nis to be regarded as a forerunner of the Anarchists rather\nthan of orthodox Socialism.\n\n[2] Marx mentions the English Socialists with praise in ``The\nPoverty of Philosophy'' (1847). They, like him, tend to base\ntheir arguments upon a Ricardian theory of value, but they\nhave not his scope or erudition or scientific breadth. Among\nthem may be mentioned Thomas Hodgskin (1787-1869), originally\nan officer in the Navy, but dismissed for a pamphlet critical\nof the methods of naval discipline, author of ``Labour Defended\nAgainst the Claims of Capital'' (1825) and other works;\nWilliam Thompson (1785-1833), author of ``Inquiry into the\nPrinciples of Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human\nHappiness'' (1824), and ``Labour Rewarded'' (1825); and\nPiercy Ravenstone, from whom Hodgskin's ideas are largely\nderived. Perhaps more important than any of these was Robert\nOwen.\n\n\nThe bulk of his time was occupied in the composition\nof his great book, ``Capital.''[3] His other\nimportant work during his later years was the formation\nand spread of the International Working Men's\nAssociation. From 1849 onward the greater part\nof his time was spent in the British Museum, accumulating,\nwith German patience, the materials for his\nterrific indictment of capitalist society, but he\nretained his hold on the International Socialist movement.\nIn several countries he had sons-in-law as\nlieutenants, like Napoleon's brothers, and in the\nvarious internal contests that arose his will generally\nprevailed.\n\n\n[3] The first and most important volume appeared in 1867;\nthe other two volumes were published posthumously (1885 and\n1894).\n\n\nThe most essential of Marx's doctrines may be\nreduced to three: first, what is called the material-\nistic interpretation of history; second, the law of the\nconcentration of capital; and, third, the class-war.\n\n1. The Materialistic Interpretation of History.--\nMarx holds that in the main all the phenomena of\nhuman society have their origin in material conditions,\nand these he takes to be embodied in economic\nsystems. Political constitutions, laws, religions,\nphilosophies--all these he regards as, in their broad\noutlines, expressions of the economic regime in the\nsociety that gives rise to them. It would be unfair\nto represent him as maintaining that the conscious\neconomic motive is the only one of importance; it\nis rather that economics molds character and opinion,\nand is thus the prime source of much that appears\nin consciousness to have no connection with them.\nHe applies his doctrine in particular to two revolutions,\none in the past, the other in the future. The\nrevolution in the past is that of the bourgeoisie\nagainst feudalism, which finds its expression, according\nto him, particularly in the French Revolution.\nThe one in the future is the revolution of the wage-\nearners, or proletariat, against the bourgeoisie,\nwhich is to establish the Socialist Commonwealth.\nThe whole movement of history is viewed by him as\nnecessary, as the effect of material causes operating\nupon human beings. He does not so much advocate\nthe Socialist revolution as predict it. He holds, it\nis true, that it will be beneficent, but he is much more\nconcerned to prove that it must inevitably come.\nThe same sense of necessity is visible in his exposition\nof the evils of the capitalist system. He does\nnot blame capitalists for the cruelties of which he\nshows them to have been guilty; he merely points out\nthat they are under an inherent necessity to behave\ncruelly so long as private ownership of land and\ncapital continues. But their tyranny will not last\nforever, for it generates the forces that must in the\nend overthrow it.\n\n2. The Law of the Concentration of Capital.--\nMarx pointed out that capitalist undertakings tend\nto grow larger and larger. He foresaw the substitution\nof trusts for free competition, and predicted\nthat the number of capitalist enterprises must diminish\nas the magnitude of single enterprises increased.\nHe supposed that this process must involve a diminution,\nnot only in the number of businesses, but also\nin the number of capitalists. Indeed, he usually\nspoke as though each business were owned by a single\nman. Accordingly, he expected that men would be\ncontinually driven from the ranks of the capitalists\ninto those of the proletariat, and that the capitalists,\nin the course of time, would grow numerically weaker\nand weaker. He applied this principle not only to\nindustry but also to agriculture. He expected to\nfind the landowners growing fewer and fewer while\ntheir estates grew larger and larger. This process\nwas to make more and more glaring the evils and\ninjustices of the capitalist system, and to stimulate\nmore and more the forces of opposition.\n\n3. The Class War.--Marx conceives the wage-\nearner and the capitalist in a sharp antithesis. He\nimagines that every man is, or must soon become,\nwholly the one or wholly the other. The wage-\nearner, who possesses nothing, is exploited by the\ncapitalists, who possess everything. As the capitalist\nsystem works itself out and its nature becomes more\nclear, the opposition of bourgeoisie and proletariat\nbecomes more and more marked. The two classes,\nsince they have antagonistic interests, are forced\ninto a class war which generates within the capitalist\nregime internal forces of disruption. The working\nmen learn gradually to combine against their\nexploiters, first locally, then nationally, and at last\ninternationally. When they have learned to combine\ninternationally they must be victorious. They\nwill then decree that all land and capital shall be\nowned in common; exploitation will cease; the tyranny\nof the owners of wealth will no longer be\npossible; there will no longer be any division of\nsociety into classes, and all men will be free.\n\nAll these ideas are already contained in the\n``Communist Manifesto,'' a work of the most amazing\nvigor and force, setting forth with terse compression\nthe titanic forces of the world, their epic battle, and\nthe inevitable consummation. This work is of such\nimportance in the development of Socialism and\ngives such an admirable statement of the doctrines\nset forth at greater length and with more pedantry\nin ``Capital,'' that its salient passages must be\nknown by anyone who wishes to understand the hold\nwhich Marxian Socialism has acquired over the intellect\nand imagination of a large proportion of working-class\nleaders.\n\n``A spectre is haunting Europe,'' it begins, ``the\nspectre of Communism. All the Powers of old\nEurope have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise\nthis spectre--Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot,\nFrench Radicals and German police-spies. Where\nis the party in opposition that has not been decried\nas communistic by its opponents in power? Where\nthe Opposition that has not hurled back the branding\nreproach of Communism against the more\nadvanced opposition parties, as well as against its\nre-actionary adversaries?''\n\nThe existence of a class war is nothing new:\n``The history of all hitherto existing society is the\nhistory of class struggles.'' In these struggles the\nfight ``each time ended, either in a revolutionary\nre-constitution of society at large, or in the common\nruin of the contending classes.''\n\n``Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie . . .\nhas simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a\nwhole is more and more splitting up into two great\nhostile camps, into two great classes directly facing\neach other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.'' Then follows\na history of the fall of feudalism, leading to a\ndescription of the bourgeoisie as a revolutionary\nforce. ``The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a\nmost revolutionary part.'' ``For exploitation, veiled\nby religious and political illusions, it has substituted\nnaked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.'' ``The\nneed of a constantly expanding market for its products\nchases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface\nof the globe.'' ``The bourgeoisie, during its rule of\nscarce one hundred years, has created more massive\nand more colossal productive forces than have all\npreceding generations together.'' Feudal relations\nbecame fetters: ``They had to be burst asunder;\nthey were burst asunder. . . . A similar movement\nis going on before our own eyes.'' ``The weapons\nwith which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the\nground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.\nBut not only has the bourgoisie forged the weapons\nthat bring death to itself; it has also called into\nexistence the men who are to wield those weapons--\nthe modern working class--the proletarians.''\n\nThe cause of the destitution of the proletariat\nare then set forth. ``The cost of production of a\nworkman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means\nof subsistence that he requires for his maintenance\nand for the propagation of his race. But the price\nof a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal\nto its cost of production. In proportion, therefore,\nas the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage\ndecreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of\nmachinery and diversion of labor increases, in the\nsame proportion the burden of toil also increases.''\n\n``Modern industry has converted the little workshop\nof the patriarchal master into the great factory\nof the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers,\ncrowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers.\nAs privates of the industrial army they are placed\nunder the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers\nand sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois\nclass, and of the bourgeois State, they are\ndaily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the\nover-looker, and, above all, by the individual\nbourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this\ndespotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the\nmore petty, the more hateful, and the more embittering\nit is.''\n\nThe Manifesto tells next the manner of growth\nof the class struggle. ``The proletariat goes\nthrough various stages of development. With its\nbirth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At\nfirst the contest is carried on by individual laborers,\nthen by the workpeople of a factory, then by the\noperatives of one trade, in one locality, against the\nindividual bourgeois who directly exploits them.\nThey direct their attacks not against the bourgeois\nconditions of production, but against the instruments\nof production themselves.''\n\n``At this stage the laborers still form an incoherent\nmass scattered over the whole country, and broken\nup by their mutual competition. If anywhere they\nunite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet\nthe consequence of their own active union, but of\nthe union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to\nattain its own political ends, is compelled to set the\nwhole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for\na time, able to do so.''\n\n``The collisions between individual workmen and\nindividual bourgeois take more and more the character\nof collisions between two classes. Thereupon\nthe workers begin to form combinations (Trades\nUnions) against the bourgeois; they club together\nin order to keep up the rate of wages; they found\npermanent associations in order to make provision\nbeforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and\nthere the contest breaks out into riots. Now and\nthen the workers are victorious, but only for a time.\nThe real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate\nresult, but in the ever-expanding union of\nthe workers. This union is helped on by the im-\nproved means of communication that are created\nby modern industry, and that place the workers\nof different localities in contact with one another.\nIt was just this contact that was needed to centralize\nthe numerous local struggles, all of the same character,\ninto one national struggle between classes.\nBut every class struggle is a political struggle. And\nthat union, to attain which the burghers of the\nMiddle Ages, with their miserable highways, required\ncenturies, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways,\nachieve in a few years. This organization of\nthe proletarians into a class, and consequently into\na political party, is continually being upset again by\nthe competition between the workers themselves. But\nit ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It\ncompels legislative recognition of particular interests\nof the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions\namong the bourgeoisie itself.''\n\n``In the conditions of the proletariat, those of\nold society at large are already virtually swamped.\nThe proletarian is without property; his relation\nto his wife and children has no longer anything in\ncommon with the bourgeois family-relations; modern\nindustrial labor, modern subjection to capital, the\nsame in England as in France, in America as in\nGermany, has stripped him of every trace of national\ncharacter. Law, morality, religion, are to him so\nmany bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in\nambush just as many bourgeois interests. All the\npreceding classes that got the upper hand, sought\nto fortify their already acquired status by subjecting\nsociety at large to their conditions of appropriation.\nThe proletarians cannot become masters\nof the productive forces of society, except by abolishing\ntheir own previous mode of appropriation, and\nthereby also every other previous mode of appropriation.\nThey have nothing of their own to secure and to\nfortify; their mission is to destroy all previous\nsecurities for, and insurances of, individual property.\nAll previous historical movements were movements\nof minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The\nproletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent\nmovement of the immense majority, in the\ninterest of the immense majority. The proletariat,\nthe lowest stratum of our present society, cannot\nstir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole super-\nincumbent strata of official society being sprung\ninto the air.''\n\nThe Communists, says Marx, stand for the proletariat\nas a whole. They are international. ``The\nCommunists are further reproached with desiring\nto abolish countries and nationality. The working\nmen have no country. We cannot take from them\nwhat they have not got.''\n\nThe immediate aim of the Communists is the conquests\nof political power by the proletariat. ``The\ntheory of the Communists may be summed up in the\nsingle sentence: Abolition of private property.''\n\nThe materialistic interpretation of history is\nused to answer such charges as that Communism is\nanti-Christian. ``The charges against Communism\nmade from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally,\nfrom an ideological standpoint, are not deserving\nof serious examination. Does it require deep\nintuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and\nconceptions, in one word, man's consciousness,\nchanges with every change in the conditions of his\nmaterial existence, in his social relations, and in his\nsocial life?''\n\nThe attitude of the Manifesto to the State is not\naltogether easy to grasp. ``The executive of the\nmodern State,'' we are told, ``is but a Committee for\nmanaging the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.''\nNevertheless, the first step for the proletariat\nmust be to acquire control of the State. ``We have\nseen above, that the first step in the revolution by the\nworking class, is to raise the proletariat to the position\nof ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.\nThe proletariat will use its political supremacy to\nwrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie,\nto centralize all instruments of production in the\nhands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized\nas the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive\nforces as rapidly as possible.''\n\nThe Manifesto passes on to an immediate program\nof reforms, which would in the first instance\nmuch increase the power of the existing State, but\nit is contended that when the Socialist revolution is\naccomplished, the State, as we know it, will have\nceased to exist. As Engels says elsewhere, when the\nproletariat seizes the power of the State ``it puts an\nend to all differences of class and antagonisms of\nclass, and consequently also puts an end to the State\nas a State.'' Thus, although State Socialism might,\nin fact, be the outcome of the proposals of Marx and\nEngels, they cannot themselves be accused of any\nglorification of the State.\n\nThe Manifesto ends with an appeal to the wage-\nearners of the world to rise on behalf of Communism.\n``The Communists disdain to conceal their views and\naims. They openly declare that their ends can be\nattained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing\nsocial conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble\nat a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have\nnothing to lose but their chains. They have a world\nto win. Working men of all countries, unite!''\n\nIn all the great countries of the Continent,\nexcept Russia, a revolution followed quickly on the\npublication of the Communist Manifesto, but the\nrevolution was not economic or international, except\nat first in France. Everywhere else it was inspired\nby the ideas of nationalism. Accordingly, the rulers\nof the world, momentarily terrified, were able to\nrecover power by fomenting the enmities inherent\nin the nationalist idea, and everywhere, after a very\nbrief triumph, the revolution ended in war and\nreaction. The ideas of the Communist Manifesto\nappeared before the world was ready for them, but\nits authors lived to see the beginnings of the growth\nof that Socialist movement in every country, which\nhas pressed on with increasing force, influencing\nGovernments more and more, dominating the Russian\nRevolution, and perhaps capable of achieving\nat no very distant date that international triumph to\nwhich the last sentences of the Manifesto summon\nthe wage-earners of the world.\n\nMarx's magnum opus, ``Capital,'' added bulk\nand substance to the theses of the Communist Manifesto.\nIt contributed the theory of surplus value,\nwhich professed to explain the actual mechanism\nof capitalist exploitation. This doctrine is very\ncomplicated and is scarcely tenable as a contribution\nto pure theory. It is rather to be viewed as a translation\ninto abstract terms of the hatred with which\nMarx regarded the system that coins wealth out of\nhuman lives, and it is in this spirit, rather than in\nthat of disinterested analysis, that it has been read\nby its admirers. A critical examination of the theory\nof surplus value would require much difficult and\nabstract discussion of pure economic theory without\nhaving much bearing upon the practical truth or\nfalsehood of Socialism; it has therefore seemed impossible\nwithin the limits of the present volume. To\nmy mind the best parts of the book are those which\ndeal with economic facts, of which Marx's knowledge\nwas encyclopaedic. It was by these facts that\nhe hoped to instil into his disciples that firm and\nundying hatred that should make them soldiers to\nthe death in the class war. The facts which he\naccumulates are such as are practically unknown to\nthe vast majority of those who live comfortable lives.\nThey are very terrible facts, and the economic system\nwhich generates them must be acknowledged to be\na very terrible system. A few examples of his choice\nof facts will serve to explain the bitterness of many\nSocialists:--\n\n\nMr. Broughton Charlton, county magistrate, declared,\nas chairman of a meeting held at the Assembly Rooms,\nNottingham, on the 14th January, 1860, ``that there was\nan amount of privation and suffering among that portion\nof the population connected with the lace trade, unknown\nin other parts of the kingdom, indeed, in the civilized\nworld. . . . Children of nine or ten years are dragged\nfrom their squalid beds at two, three, or four o clock in\nthe morning and compelled to work for a bare subsistence\nuntil ten, eleven, or twelve at night, their limbs wearing\naway, their frames dwindling, their faces whitening,\nand their humanity absolutely sinking into a stone-like\ntorpor, utterly horrible to contemplate.''[4]\n\n\n[4] Vol. i, p. 227.\n\n\nThree railway men are standing before a London coroner's\njury--a guard, an engine-driver, a signalman.\nA tremendous railway accident has hurried hundreds of\npassengers into another world. The negligence of the\nemployes is the cause of the misfortune. They declare\nwith one voice before the jury that ten or twelve years\nbefore, their labor only lasted eight hours a day. During\nthe last five or six years it had been screwed up to\n14, 18, and 20 hours, and under a specially severe pressure\nof holiday-makers, at times of excursion trains, it\noften lasted 40 or 50 hours without a break. They\nwere ordinary men, not Cyclops. At a certain point their\nlabor-power failed. Torpor seized them. Their brain\nceased to think, their eyes to see. The thoroughly\n``respectable'' British jurymen answered by a verdict that\nsent them to the next assizes on a charge of manslaughter,\nand, in a gentle ``rider'' to their verdict, expressed the\npious hope that the capitalistic magnates of the railways\nwould, in future, be more extravagant in the purchase of\na sufficient quantity of labor-power, and more ``abstemious,''\nmore ``self-denying,'' more ``thrifty,'' in the\ndraining of paid labor-power.[5]\n\n\n[5] Vol. i, pp. 237, 238.\n\n\nIn the last week of June, 1863, all the London daily\npapers published a paragraph with the ``sensational''\nheading, ``Death from simple over-work.'' It dealt with\nthe death of the milliner, Mary Anne Walkley, 20 years\nof age, employed in a highly respectable dressmaking\nestablishment, exploited by a lady with the pleasant name\nof Elise. The old, often-told story was once more recounted.\nThis girl worked, on an average, 16 1/2 hours,\nduring the season often 30 hours, without a break, whilst\nher failing labor-power was revived by occasional supplies\nof sherry, port, or coffee. It was just now the\nheight of the season. It was necessary to conjure up\nin the twinkling of an eye the gorgeous dresses for the\nnoble ladies bidden to the ball in honor of the newly-\nimported Princess of Wales. Mary Anne Walkley had\nworked without intermission for 26 1/2 hours, with 60\nother girls, 30 in one room, that only afforded 1/3 of\nthe cubic feet of air required for them. At night, they\nslept in pairs in one of the stifling holes into which the\nbedroom was divided by partitions of board. And this\nwas one of the best millinery establishments in London.\nMary Anne Walkley fell ill on the Friday, died on Sunday,\nwithout, to the astonishment of Madame Elise,\nhaving previously completed the work in hand. The doctor,\nMr. Keys, called too late to the death bed, duly bore\nwitness before the coroner's jury that ``Mary Anne\nWalkley had died from long hours of work in an over-\ncrowded workroom, and a too small and badly ventilated\nbedroom.'' In order to give the doctor a lesson in good\nmanners, the coroner's jury thereupon brought in a verdict\nthat ``the deceased had died of apoplexy, but there\nwas reason to fear that her death had been accelerated\nby over-work in an over-crowded workroom, &c.'' ``Our\nwhite slaves,'' cried the ``Morning Star,'' the organ of the\nfree-traders, Cobden and Bright, ``our white slaves, who\nare toiled into the grave, for the most part silently pine\nand die.''[6]\n\n\n[6] Vol. i, pp. 239, 240.\n\n\nEdward VI: A statue of the first year of his reign,\n1547, ordains that if anyone refuses to work, he shall be\ncondemned as a slave to the person who has denounced\nhim as an idler. The master shall feed his slave on bread\nand water, weak broth and such refuse meat as he thinks\nfit. He has the right to force him to do any work, no\nmatter how disgusting, with whip and chains. If the\nslave is absent a fortnight, he is condemned to slavery for\nlife and is to be branded on forehead or back with the\nletter S; if he runs away thrice, he is to be executed as\na felon. The master can sell him, bequeath him, let him\nout on hire as a slave, just as any other personal chattel\nor cattle. If the slaves attempt anything against the\nmasters, they are also to be executed. Justices of the\npeace, on information, are to hunt the rascals down. If it\nhappens that a vagabond has been idling about for three\ndays, he is to be taken to his birthplace, branded with a\nredhot iron with the letter V on the breast and be set\nto work, in chains, in the streets or at some other labor.\nIf the vagabond gives a false birthplace, he is then to\nbecome the slave for life of this place, of its inhabitants,\nor its corporation, and to be branded with an S. All persons\nhave the right to take away the children of the\nvagabonds and to keep them as apprentices, the young\nmen until the 24th year, the girls until the 20th. If\nthey run away, they are to become up to this age the\nslaves of their masters, who can put them in irons, whip\nthem, &c., if they like. Every master may put an iron\nring around the neck, arms or legs of his slave, by which\nto know him more easily and to be more certain of him.\nThe last part of this statute provides that certain poor\npeople may be employed by a place or by persons, who\nare willing to give them food and drink and to find them\nwork. This kind of parish-slaves was kept up in England\nuntil far into the 19th century under the name of\n``roundsmen.''[7]\n\n\n[7] Vol. i, pp. 758, 759.\n\n\nPage after page and chapter after chapter of\nfacts of this nature, each brought up to illustrate\nsome fatalistic theory which Marx professes to have\nproved by exact reasoning, cannot but stir into fury\nany passionate working-class reader, and into\nunbearable shame any possessor of capital in whom\ngenerosity and justice are not wholly extinct.\n\nAlmost at the end of the volume, in a very brief\nchapter, called ``Historical Tendency of Capitalist\nAccumulation,'' Marx allows one moment's glimpse\nof the hope that lies beyond the present horror:--\n\n\nAs soon as this process of transformation has\nsufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom,\nas soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their\nmeans of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist\nmode of production stands on its own feet, then the\nfurther socialization of labor and further transformation\nof the land and other means of production into so-\ncially exploited and, therefore, common means of production,\nas well as the further expropriation of private proprietors,\ntakes a new form. That which is now to be\nexpropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself,\nbut the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This\nexpropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent\nlaws of capitalistic production itself, by the\ncentralization of capital. One capitalist always kills\nmany, and in hand with this centralization, or this\nexpropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on\nan ever extending scale, the co-operative form of the\nlabor-process, the conscious technical application of\nscience, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the\ntransformation of the instruments of labor into instruments\nof labor only usable in common, the economizing of all\nmeans of production by their use as the means of production\nof combined, socialized labor, the entanglement\nof all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with\nthis, the international character of the capitalistic regime.\nAlong with the constantly diminishing number of the\nmagnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all\nadvantages of this process of transformation, grows the\nmass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation;\nbut with this, too, grows the revolt of the working-\nclass, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined,\nunited, organized by the very mechanism of the\nprocess of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of\ncapital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production,\nwhich has sprung up and flourished along with, and\nunder it. Centralization of the means of production and\nsocialization of labor at last reach a point where they\nbecome incompatible with their capitalist integument.\nThis integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist\nprivate property sounds. The expropriators are\nexpropriated,[8]\n\n\n[8] Vol. i pp. 788, 789.\n\n\nThat is all. Hardly another word from beginning\nto end is allowed to relieve the gloom, and in this\nrelentless pressure upon the mind of the reader lies\na great part of the power which this book has\nacquired.\n\nTwo questions are raised by Marx's work: First,\nAre his laws of historical development true? Second,\nIs Socialism desirable? The second of these questions\nis quite independent of the first. Marx professes\nto prove that Socialism must come, but scarcely concerns\nhimself to argue that when it comes it will be\na good thing. It may be, however, that if it comes,\nit will be a good thing, even though all Marx's arguments\nto prove that it must come should be at fault.\nIn actual fact, time has shown many flaws in Marx's\ntheories. The development of the world has been\nsufficiently like his prophecy to prove him a man of\nvery unusual penetration, but has not been sufficiently\nlike to make either political or economic history\nexactly such as he predicted that it would be.\nNationalism, so far from diminishing, has increased,\nand has failed to be conquered by the cosmopolitan\ntendencies which Marx rightly discerned in finance.\nAlthough big businesses have grown bigger and have\nover a great area reached the stage of monopoly,\nyet the number of shareholders in such enterprises\nis so large that the actual number of individuals\ninterested in the capitalist system has continually\nincreased. Moreover, though large firms have grown\nlarger, there has been a simultaneous increase in\nfirms of medium size. Meanwhile the wage-earners,\nwho were, according to Marx, to have remained at\nthe bare level of subsistence at which they were in\nthe England of the first half of the nineteenth century,\nhave instead profited by the general increase\nof wealth, though in a lesser degree than the capitalists.\nThe supposed iron law of wages has been\nproved untrue, so far as labor in civilized countries\nis concerned. If we wish now to find examples of\ncapitalist cruelty analogous to those with which\nMarx's book is filled, we shall have to go for most\nof our material to the Tropics, or at any rate to\nregions where there are men of inferior races to\nexploit. Again: the skilled worker of the present day\nis an aristocrat in the world of labor. It is a question\nwith him whether he shall ally himself with the\nunskilled worker against the capitalist, or with the\ncapitalist against the unskilled worker. Very often\nhe is himself a capitalist in a small way, and if he\nis not so individually, his trade union or his friendly\nsociety is pretty sure to be so. Hence the sharpness\nof the class war has not been maintained. There\nare gradations, intermediate ranks between rich and\npoor, instead of the clear-cut logical antithesis\nbetween the workers who have nothing and the capitalists\nwho have all. Even in Germany, which\nbecame the home of orthodox Marxianism and developed\na powerful Social-Democratic party, nominally\naccepting the doctrine of ``Das Kapital'' as all but\nverbally inspired, even there the enormous increase\nof wealth in all classes in the years preceding the\nwar led Socialists to revise their beliefs and to adopt\nan evolutionary rather than a revolutionary attitude.\nBernstein, a German Socialist who lived long in\nEngland, inaugurated the ``Revisionist'' movement\nwhich at last conquered the bulk of the party. His\ncriticisms of Marxian orthodoxy are set forth in\nhis ``Evolutionary Socialism.''[9] Bernstein's work,\nas is common in Broad Church writers, consists\nlargely in showing that the Founders did not hold\ntheir doctrines so rigidly as their followers have\ndone. There is much in the writings of Marx and\nEngels that cannot be fitted into the rigid orthodoxy\nwhich grew up among their disciples. Bernstein's\nmain criticisms of these disciples, apart from such as\nwe have already mentioned, consist in a defense of\npiecemeal action as against revolution. He protests\nagainst the attitude of undue hostility to Liberalism\nwhich is common among Socialists, and he blunts the\nedge of the Internationalism which undoubtedly is\npart of the teachings of Marx. The workers, he\nsays, have a Fatherland as soon as they become\ncitizens, and on this basis he defends that degree of\nnationalism which the war has since shown to be\nprevalent in the ranks of Socialists. He even goes\nso far as to maintain that European nations have a\nright to tropical territory owing to their higher\ncivilization. Such doctrines diminish revolutionary\nardor and tend to transform Socialists into a left\nwing of the Liberal Party. But the increasing prosperity\nof wage-earners before the war made these\ndevelopments inevitable. Whether the war will have\naltered conditions in this respect, it is as yet\nimpossible to know. Bernstein concludes with the wise\nremark that: ``We have to take working men as they\nare. And they are neither so universally paupers as\nwas set out in the Communist Manifesto, nor so free\nfrom prejudices and weaknesses as their courtiers\nwish to make us believe.''\n\n\n[9] Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben\nder Sozial-Demokratie.''\n\nIn March, 1914, Bernstein delivered a lecture in Budapest\nin which he withdrew from several of the positions he had taken\nup (vide Budapest ``Volkstimme,'' March 19, 1914).\n\n\nBerstein represents the decay of Marxian orthodoxy\nfrom within. Syndicalism represents an attack\nagainst it from without, from the standpoint of a\ndoctrine which professes to be even more radical and\nmore revolutionary than that of Marx and Engels.\nThe attitude of Syndicalists to Marx may be seen in\nSorel's little book, ``La Decomposition du Marxisme,''\nand in his larger work, ``Reflections on\nViolence,'' authorized translation by T. E. Hulme\n(Allen & Unwin, 1915). After quoting Bernstein,\nwith approval in so far as he criticises Marx, Sorel\nproceeds to other criticisms of a different order. He\npoints out (what is true) that Marx's theoretical\neconomics remain very near to Manchesterism: the\northodox political economy of his youth was accepted\nby him on many points on which it is now known to\nbe wrong. According to Sorel, the really essential\nthing in Marx's teaching is the class war. Whoever\nkeeps this alive is keeping alive the spirit of Socialism\nmuch more truly than those who adhere to the\nletter of Social-Democratic orthodoxy. On the basis\nof the class war, French Syndicalists developed a\ncriticism of Marx which goes much deeper than those\nthat we have been hitherto considering. Marx's\nviews on historical development may have been in a\ngreater or less degree mistaken in fact, and yet the\neconomic and political system which he sought to\ncreate might be just as desirable as his followers\nsuppose. Syndicalism, however, criticises, not only\nMarx's views of fact, but also the goal at which he\naims and the general nature of the means which he\nrecommends. Marx's ideas were formed at a time\nwhen democracy did not yet exist. It was in the\nvery year in which ``Das Kapital'' appeared that\nurban working men first got the vote in England and\nuniversal suffrage was granted by Bismarck in\nNorthern Germany. It was natural that great hopes\nshould be entertained as to what democracy would\nachieve. Marx, like the orthodox economists,\nimagined that men's opinions are guided by a more\nor less enlightened view of economic self-interest, or\nrather of economic class interest. A long experience\nof the workings of political democracy has shown\nthat in this respect Disraeli and Bismarck were\nshrewder judges of human nature than either Liberals\nor Socialists. It has become increasingly difficult\nto put trust in the State as a means to liberty,\nor in political parties as instruments sufficiently\npowerful to force the State into the service of the\npeople. The modern State, says Sorel, ``is a body of\nintellectuals, which is invested with privileges, and\nwhich possesses means of the kind called political for\ndefending itself against the attacks made on it by\nother groups of intellectuals, eager to possess the\nprofits of public employment. Parties are constituted\nin order to acquire the conquest of these\nemployments, and they are analogous to the State.''[10]\n\n\n[10] La Decomposition du Marxisme,'' p. 53.\n\n\nSyndicalists aim at organizing men, not by party,\nbut by occupation. This, they say, alone represents\nthe true conception and method of the class war.\nAccordingly they despise all POLITICAL action through\nthe medium of Parliament and elections: the kind of\naction that they recommend is direct action by the\nrevolutionary syndicate or trade union. The battle-\ncry of industrial versus political action has spread\nfar beyond the ranks of French Syndicalism. It is\nto be found in the I. W. W. in America, and among\nIndustrial Unionists and Guild Socialists in Great\nBritain. Those who advocate it, for the most part,\naim also at a different goal from that of Marx. They\nbelieve that there can be no adequate individual\nfreedom where the State is all-powerful, even if the\nState be a Socialist one. Some of them are out-and-\nout Anarchists, who wish to see the State wholly\nabolished; others only wish to curtail its authority.\nOwing to this movement, opposition to Marx, which\nfrom the Anarchist side existed from the first, has\ngrown very strong. It is this opposition in its older\nform that will occupy us in our next chapter.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nBAKUNIN AND ANARCHISM\n\n\nIN the popular mind, an Anarchist is a person\nwho throws bombs and commits other outrages,\neither because he is more or less insane, or because\nhe uses the pretense of extreme political opinions as\na cloak for criminal proclivities. This view is, of\ncourse, in every way inadequate. Some Anarchists\nbelieve in throwing bombs; many do not. Men of\nalmost every other shade of opinion believe in throwing\nbombs in suitable circumstances: for example,\nthe men who threw the bomb at Sarajevo which\nstarted the present war were not Anarchists, but\nNationalists. And those Anarchists who are in\nfavor of bomb-throwing do not in this respect differ\non any vital principle from the rest of the community,\nwith the exception of that infinitesimal portion\nwho adopt the Tolstoyan attitude of non-resistance.\nAnarchists, like Socialists, usually believe\nin the doctrine of the class war, and if they use\nbombs, it is as Governments use bombs, for purposes\nof war: but for every bomb manufactured by an\nAnarchist, many millions are manufactured by Governments,\nand for every man killed by Anarchist\nviolence, many millions are killed by the violence of\nStates. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds\nthe whole question of violence, which plays so large\na part in the popular imagination, since it is neither\nessential nor peculiar to those who adopt the Anarchist\nposition.\n\nAnarchism, as its derivation indicates, is the\ntheory which is opposed to every kind of forcible\ngovernment. It is opposed to the State as the\nembodiment of the force employed in the government\nof the community. Such government as Anarchism\ncan tolerate must be free government, not merely in\nthe sense that it is that of a majority, but in the sense\nthat it is that assented to by all. Anarchists object\nto such institutions as the police and the criminal\nlaw, by means of which the will of one part of the\ncommunity is forced upon another part. In their\nview, the democratic form of government is not very\nenormously preferable to other forms so long as\nminorities are compelled by force or its potentiality\nto submit to the will of majorities. Liberty is the\nsupreme good in the Anarchist creed, and liberty\nis sought by the direct road of abolishing all forcible\ncontrol over the individual by the community.\n\nAnarchism, in this sense, is no new doctrine. It\nis set forth admirably by Chuang Tzu, a Chinese philosopher,\nwho lived about the year 300 B. C.:--\n\nHorses have hoofs to carry them over frost and snow;\nhair, to protect them from wind and cold. They eat grass\nand drink water, and fling up their heels over the champaign.\nSuch is the real nature of horses. Palatial\ndwellings are of no use to them.\n\nOne day Po Lo appeared, saying: ``I understand the\nmanagement of horses.''\n\nSo he branded them, and clipped them, and pared\ntheir hoofs, and put halters on them, tying them up by\nthe head and shackling them by the feet, and disposing\nthem in stables, with the result that two or three in\nevery ten died. Then he kept them hungry and thirsty,\ntrotting them and galloping them, and grooming, and\ntrimming, with the misery of the tasselled bridle before\nand the fear of the knotted whip behind, until more than\nhalf of them were dead.\n\nThe potter says: ``I can do what I will with Clay.\nIf I want it round, I use compasses; if rectangular, a\nsquare.''\n\nThe carpenter says: ``I can do what I will with\nwood. If I want it curved, I use an arc; if straight, a\nline.''\n\nBut on what grounds can we think that the natures\nof clay and wood desire this application of compasses and\nsquare, of arc and line? Nevertheless, every age extols\nPo Lo for his skill in managing horses, and potters and\ncarpenters for their skill with clay and wood. Those\nwho govern the empire make the same mistake.\n\nNow I regard government of the empire from quite\na different point of view.\n\nThe people have certain natural instincts:--to weave\nand clothe themselves, to till and feed themselves. These\nare common to all humanity, and all are agreed thereon.\nSuch instincts are called ``Heaven-sent.''\n\nAnd so in the days when natural instincts prevailed,\nmen moved quietly and gazed steadily. At that time\nthere were no roads over mountains, nor boats, nor\nbridges over water. All things were produced, each for\nits own proper sphere. Birds and beasts multiplied,\ntrees and shrubs grew up. The former might be led by\nthe hand; you could climb up and peep into the raven's\nnest. For then man dwelt with birds and beasts, and\nall creation was one. There were no distinctions of good\nand bad men. Being all equally without knowledge,\ntheir virtue could not go astray. Being all equally\nwithout evil desires, they were in a state of natural\nintegrity, the perfection of human existence.\n\nBut when Sages appeared, tripping up people over\ncharity and fettering them with duty to their neighbor,\ndoubt found its way into the world. And then, with\ntheir gushing over music and fussing over ceremony, the\nempire became divided against itself.[11]\n\n\n[11] ``Musings of a Chinese Mystic.'' Selections from the Philosophy\nof Chuang Tzu. With an Introduction by Lionel Giles,\nM.A. (Oxon.). Wisdom of the East Series, John Murray, 1911.\nPages 66-68.\n\n\n\nThe modern Anarchism, in the sense in which we\nshall be concerned with it, is associated with belief\nin the communal ownership of land and capital, and\nis thus in an important respect akin to Socialism.\nThis doctrine is properly called Anarchist Com-\nmunism, but as it embraces practically all modern\nAnarchism, we may ignore individualist Anarchism\naltogether and concentrate attention upon the\ncommunistic form. Socialism and Anarchist Communism\nalike have arisen from the perception that private\ncapital is a source of tyranny by certain individuals\nover others. Orthodox Socialism believes that the\nindividual will become free if the State becomes the\nsole capitalist. Anarchism, on the contrary, fears\nthat in that case the State might merely inherit the\ntyrannical propensities of the private capitalist.\nAccordingly, it seeks for a means of reconciling communal\nownership with the utmost possible diminution\nin the powers of the State, and indeed ultimately with\nthe complete abolition of the State. It has arisen\nmainly within the Socialist movement as its extreme\nleft wing.\n\nIn the same sense in which Marx may be regarded\nas the founder of modern Socialism, Bakunin may\nbe regarded as the founder of Anarchist Communism.\nBut Bakunin did not produce, like Marx, a finished\nand systematic body of doctrine. The nearest\napproach to this will be found in the writings of his\nfollower, Kropotkin. In order to explain modern\nAnarchism we shall begin with the life of Bakunin[12]\nand the history of his conflicts with Marx, and shall\nthen give a brief account of Anarchist theory as set\nforth partly in his writings, but more in those of\nKropotkin.[13]\n\n[12] An account of the life of Bakunin from the Anarchist\nstandpoint will be found in vol. ii of the complete edition of\nhis works: ``Michel Bakounine, OEuvres,'' Tome II. Avec une\nnotice biographique, des avant-propos et des notes, par James\nGuillaume. Paris, P.-V, Stock, editeur, pp. v-lxiii.\n\n[13] Criticism of these theories will be reserved for Part II.\n\n\nMichel Bakunin was born in 1814 of a Russian\naristocratic family. His father was a diplomatist,\nwho at the time of Bakunin's birth had retired to his\ncountry estate in the Government of Tver. Bakunin\nentered the school of artillery in Petersburg at the\nage of fifteen, and at the age of eighteen was sent as\nan ensign to a regiment stationed in the Government\nof Minsk. The Polish insurrection of 1880 had just\nbeen crushed. ``The spectacle of terrorized Poland,''\nsays Guillaume, ``acted powerfully on the heart of\nthe young officer, and contributed to inspire in him\nthe horror of despotism.'' This led him to give up\nthe military career after two years' trial. In 1834\nhe resigned his commission and went to Moscow,\nwhere he spent six years studying philosophy. Like\nall philosophical students of that period, he became\na Hegelian, and in 1840 he went to Berlin to continue\nhis studies, in the hope of ultimately becoming a\nprofessor. But after this time his opinions underwent\na rapid change. He found it impossible to\naccept the Hegelian maxim that whatever is, is\nrational, and in 1842 he migrated to Dresden, where\nhe became associated with Arnold Ruge, the publisher\nof ``Deutsche Jahrbuecher.'' By this time he had\nbecome a revolutionary, and in the following year\nhe incurred the hostility of the Saxon Government.\nThis led him to go to Switzerland, where he came in\ncontact with a group of German Communists, but, as\nthe Swiss police importuned him and the Russian\nGovernment demanded his return, he removed to\nParis, where he remained from 1843 to 1847. These\nyears in Paris were important in the formation of his\noutlook and opinions. He became acquainted with\nProudhon, who exercised a considerable influence on\nhim; also with George Sand and many other well-\nknown people. It was in Paris that he first made\nthe acquaintance of Marx and Engels, with whom he\nwas to carry on a lifelong battle. At a much later\nperiod, in 1871, he gave the following account of his\nrelations with Marx at this time:--\n\n\nMarx was much more advanced than I was, as he\nremains to-day not more advanced but incomparably more\nlearned than I am. I knew then nothing of political\neconomy. I had not yet rid myself of metaphysical\nabstractions, and my Socialism was only instinctive. He,\nthough younger than I, was already an atheist, an\ninstructed materialist, a well-considered Socialist. It\nwas just at this time that he elaborated the first foundations\nof his present system. We saw each other fairly\noften, for I respected him much for his learning and his\npassionate and serious devotion (always mixed, however,\nwith personal vanity) to the cause of the proletariat,\nand I sought eagerly his conversation, which was always\ninstructive and clever, when it was not inspired by a\npaltry hate, which, alas! happened only too often. But\nthere was never any frank intimacy between as. Our\ntemperaments would not suffer it. He called me a\nsentimental idealist, and he was right; I called him a\nvain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right.\n\n\nBakunin never succeeded in staying long in one\nplace without incurring the enmity of the authorities.\nIn November, 1847, as the result of a speech\npraising the Polish rising of 1830, he was expelled\nfrom France at the request of the Russian Embassy,\nwhich, in order to rob him of public sympathy, spread\nthe unfounded report that he had been an agent of\nthe Russian Government, but was no longer wanted\nbecause he had gone too far. The French Government,\nby calculated reticence, encouraged this story,\nwhich clung to him more or less throughout his life.\n\nBeing compelled to leave France, he went to\nBrussels, where he renewed acquaintance with Marx.\nA letter of his, written at this time, shows that he\nentertained already that bitter hatred for which\nafterward he had so much reason. ``The Germans,\nartisans, Bornstedt, Marx and Engels--and, above\nall, Marx--are here, doing their ordinary mischief.\nVanity, spite, gossip, theoretical overbearingness\nand practical pusillanimity--reflections on life, action\nand simplicity, and complete absence of life,\naction and simplicity--literary and argumentative\nartisans and repulsive coquetry with them: `Feuerbach\nis a bourgeois,' and the word `bourgeois' grown\ninto an epithet and repeated ad nauseum, but all of\nthem themselves from head to foot, through and\nthrough, provincial bourgeois. With one word, lying\nand stupidity, stupidity and lying. In this society\nthere is no possibility of drawing a free, full breath.\nI hold myself aloof from them, and have declared\nquite decidedly that I will not join their communistic\nunion of artisans, and will have nothing to do\nwith it.''\n\nThe Revolution of 1848 led him to return to Paris\nand thence to Germany. He had a quarrel with\nMarx over a matter in which he himself confessed\nlater that Marx was in the right. He became a member\nof the Slav Congress in Prague, where he vainly\nendeavored to promote a Slav insurrection. Toward\nthe end of 1848, he wrote an ``Appeal to Slavs,''\ncalling on them to combine with other revolutionaries\nto destroy the three oppressive monarchies, Russia,\nAustria and Prussia. Marx attacked him in print,\nsaying, in effect, that the movement for Bohemian\nindependence was futile because the Slavs had no\nfuture, at any rate in those regions where they hap-\npened to be subject to Germany and Austria.\nBakunin accused Mars of German patriotism in\nthis matter, and Marx accused him of Pan-Slavism,\nno doubt in both cases justly. Before this dispute,\nhowever, a much more serious quarrel had taken\nplace. Marx's paper, the ``Neue Rheinische Zeitung,''\nstated that George Sand had papers proving\nBakunin to be a Russian Government agent and one\nof those responsible for the recent arrest of Poles.\nBakunin, of course, repudiated the charge, and\nGeorge Sand wrote to the ``Neue Rheinische\nZeitung,'' denying this statement in toto. The denials\nwere published by Marx, and there was a nominal\nreconciliation, but from this time onward there was\nnever any real abatement of the hostility between\nthese rival leaders, who did not meet again until 1864.\n\nMeanwhile, the reaction had been everywhere\ngaining ground. In May, 1849, an insurrection in\nDresden for a moment made the revolutionaries masters\nof the town. They held it for five days and\nestablished a revolutionary government. Bakunin\nwas the soul of the defense which they made against\nthe Prussian troops. But they were overpowered,\nand at last Bakunin was captured while trying to\nescape with Heubner and Richard Wagner, the last\nof whom, fortunately for music, was not captured.\n\nNow began a long period of imprisonment in\nmany prisons and various countries. Bakunin was\nsentenced to death on the 14th of January, 1850, but\nhis sentence was commuted after five months, and he\nwas delivered over to Austria, which claimed the\nprivilege of punishing him. The Austrians, in their\nturn, condemned him to death in May, 1851, and\nagain his sentence was commuted to imprisonment for\nlife. In the Austrian prisons he had fetters on hands\nand feet, and in one of them he was even chained to the\nwall by the belt. There seems to have been some\npeculiar pleasure to be derived from the punishment\nof Bakunin, for the Russian Government in its turn\ndemanded him of the Austrians, who delivered him\nup. In Russia he was confined, first in the Peter and\nPaul fortress and then in the Schluesselburg. There\nbe suffered from scurvy and all his teeth fell out.\nHis health gave way completely, and he found almost\nall food impossible to assimilate. ``But, if his body\nbecame enfeebled, his spirit remained inflexible. He\nfeared one thing above all. It was to find himself\nsome day led, by the debilitating action of prison,\nto the condition of degradation of which Silvio Pellico\noffers a well-known type. He feared that he might\ncease to hate, that he might feel the sentiment of\nrevolt which upheld him becoming extinguished in\nhis hearts that he might come to pardon his persecutors\nand resign himself to his fate. But this fear\nwas superfluous; his energy did not abandon him a\nsingle day, and he emerged from his cell the same\nman as when he entered.''[14]\n\n\n[14] Ibid. p. xxvi.\n\n\nAfter the death of the Tsar Nicholas many political\nprisoners were amnested, but Alexander II with\nhis own hand erased Bakunin's name from the list.\nWhen Bakunin's mother succeeded in obtaining an\ninterview with the new Tsar, he said to her, ``Know,\nMadame, that so long as your son lives, he can never\nbe free.'' However, in 1857, after eight years of\ncaptivity, he was sent to the comparative freedom of\nSiberia. From there, in 1861, he succeeded in escaping\nto Japan, and thence through America to London.\nHe had been imprisoned for his hostility to\ngovernments, but, strange to say, his sufferings had\nnot had the intended effect of making him love those\nwho inflicted them. From this time onward, he\ndevoted himself to spreading the spirit of Anarchist\nrevolt, without, however, having to suffer any further\nterm of imprisonment. For some years he lived in\nItaly, where he founded in 1864 an ``International\nFraternity'' or ``Alliance of Socialist Revolutionaries.''\nThis contained men of many countries, but\napparently no Germans. It devoted itself largely to\ncombating Mazzini's nationalism. In 1867 he moved\nto Switzerland, where in the following year he\nhelped to found the ``International Alliance of So-\ncialist Democracy,'' of which he drew up the program.\nThis program gives a good succinct resume of\nhis opinions:--\n\n\nThe Alliance declares itself atheist; it desires the\ndefinitive and entire abolition of classes and the political\nequality and social equalization of individuals of both\nsexes. It desires that the earth, the instrument of labor,\nlike all other capital, becoming the collective property of\nsociety as a whole, shall be no longer able to be utilized\nexcept by the workers, that is to say, by agricultural and\nindustrial associations. It recognizes that all actually\nexisting political and authoritarian States, reducing\nthemselves more and more to the mere administrative functions\nof the public services in their respective countries,\nmust disappear in the universal union of free\nassociations, both agricultural and industrial.\n\n\nThe International Alliance of Socialist Democracy\ndesired to become a branch of the International\nWorking Men's Association, but was refused admission\non the ground that branches must be local, and\ncould not themselves be international. The Geneva\ngroup of the Alliance, however, was admitted later,\nin July, 1869.\n\nThe International Working Men's Association\nhad been founded in London in 1864, and its statutes\nand program were drawn up by Marx. Bakunin at\nfirst did not expect it to prove a success and refused\nto join it. But it spread with remarkable rapidity\nin many countries and soon became a great power\nfor the propagation of Socialist ideas. Originally\nit was by no means wholly Socialist, but in successive\nCongresses Marx won it over more and more to his\nviews. At its third Congress, in Brussels in September,\n1868, it became definitely Socialist. Meanwhile\nBakunin, regretting his earlier abstention, had\ndecided to join it, and he brought with him a\nconsiderable following in French-Switzerland, France,\nSpain and Italy. At the fourth Congress, held at\nBasle in September, 1869, two currents were strongly\nmarked. The Germans and English followed Marx\nin his belief in the State as it was to become after the\nabolition of private property; they followed him also\nin his desire to found Labor Parties in the various\ncountries, and to utilize the machinery of democracy\nfor the election of representatives of Labor to\nParliaments. On the other hand, the Latin nations in\nthe main followed Bakunin in opposing the State and\ndisbelieving in the machinery of representative\ngovernment. The conflict between these two groups grew\nmore and more bitter, and each accused the other\nof various offenses. The statement that Bakunin\nwas a spy was repeated, but was withdrawn after\ninvestigation. Marx wrote in a confidential\ncommunication to his German friends that Bakunin was\nan agent of the Pan-Slavist party and received from\nthem 25,000 francs a year. Meanwhile, Bakunin\nbecame for a time interested in the attempt to stir\nup an agrarian revolt in Russia, and this led him\nto neglect the contest in the International at a crucial\nmoment. During the Franco-Prussian war Bakunin\npassionately took the side of France, especially after\nthe fall of Napoleon III. He endeavored to rouse\nthe people to revolutionary resistance like that of\n1793, and became involved in an abortive attempt at\nrevolt in Lyons. The French Government accused\nhim of being a paid agent of Prussia, and it was\nwith difficulty that he escaped to Switzerland. The\ndispute with Marx and his followers had become\nexacerbated by the national dispute. Bakunin, like\nKropotkin after him, regarded the new power of\nGermany as the greatest menace to liberty in the\nworld. He hated the Germans with a bitter hatred,\npartly, no doubt, on account of Bismarck, but probably\nstill more on account of Marx. To this day,\nAnarchism has remained confined almost exclusively\nto the Latin countries, and has been associated with, a\nhatred of Germany, growing out of the contests\nbetween Marx and Bakunin in the International.\n\nThe final suppression of Bakunin's faction\noccurred at the General Congress of the International\nat the Hague in 1872. The meeting-place was\nchosen by the General Council (in which Marx was\nunopposed), with a view--so Bakunin's friends contend--\nto making access impossible for Bakunin (on\naccount of the hostility of the French and German\ngovernments) and difficult for his friends. Bakunin\nwas expelled from the International as the result of\na report accusing him inter alia of theft backed; up\nby intimidation.\n\nThe orthodoxy of the International was saved,\nbut at the cost of its vitality. From this time onward,\nit ceased to be itself a power, but both sections continued\nto work in their various groups, and the Socialist\ngroups in particular grew rapidly. Ultimately\na new International was formed (1889) which continued\ndown to the outbreak of the present war. As\nto the future of International Socialism it would be\nrash to prophesy, though it would seem that the\ninternational idea has acquired sufficient strength to\nneed again, after the war, some such means of expression\nas it found before in Socialist congresses.\n\nBy this time Bakunin's health was broken, and\nexcept for a few brief intervals, he lived in retirement\nuntil his death in 1876.\n\nBakunin's life, unlike Marx's, was a very stormy\none. Every kind of rebellion against authority\nalways aroused his sympathy, and in his support he\nnever paid the slightest attention to personal risk.\nHis influence, undoubtedly very great, arose chiefly\nthrough the influence of his personality upon important\nindividuals. His writings differ from Marx's as\nmuch as his life does, and in a similar way. They are\nchaotic, largely, aroused by some passing occasion,\nabstract and metaphysical, except when they deal\nwith current politics. He does not come to close\nquarters with economic facts, but dwells usually in\nthe regions of theory and metaphysics. When he\ndescends from these regions, he is much more at the\nmercy of current international politics than Marx,\nmuch less imbued with the consequences of the belief\nthat it is economic causes that are fundamental. He\npraised Marx for enunciating this doctrine,[15] but\nnevertheless continued to think in terms of nations.\nHis longest work, ``L'Empire Knouto-Germanique et\nla Revolution Sociale,'' is mainly concerned with the\nsituation in France during the later stages of the\nFranco-Prussian War, and with the means of resisting\nGerman imperialism. Most of his writing was\ndone in a hurry in the interval between two insurrections.\nThere is something of Anarchism in his lack\nof literary order. His best-known work is a fragment\nentitled by its editors ``God and the State.''[16]\n\n\nIn this work he represents belief in God and belief in\nthe State as the two great obstacles to human liberty.\nA typical passage will serve to illustrate its style.\n\n\n[15] ``Marx, as a thinker, is on the right road. He has established\nas a principle that all the evolutions, political, religious,\nand juridical, in history are, not the causes, but the effects of\neconomic evolutions. This is a great and fruitful thought, which\nhe has not absolutely invented; it has been glimpsed, expressed\nin part, by many others besides him; but in any case to him\nbelongs the honor of having solidly established it and of having\nenunciated it as the basis of his whole economic system. (1870;\nib. ii. p. xiii.)\n\n[16] This title is not Bakunin's, but was invented by Cafiero\nand Elisee Reclus, who edited it, not knowing that it was a\nfragment of what was intended to he the second version of\n``L'Empire Knouto-Germanique'' (see ib. ii. p 283).\n\n\n\nThe State is not society, it is only an historical form\nof it, as brutal as it is abstract. It was born historically\nin all countries of the marriage of violence, rapine, pillage,\nin a word, war and conquest, with the gods successively\ncreated by the theological fantasy of nations.\nIt has been from its origin, and it remains still at present,\nthe divine sanction of brutal force and triumphant\ninequality.\n\nThe State is authority; it is force; it is the ostentation\nand infatuation of force: it does not insinuate\nitself; it does not seek to convert. . . . Even when\nit commands what is good, it hinders and spoils it, just\nbecause it commands it, and because every command provokes\nand excites the legitimate revolts of liberty; and\nbecause the good, from the moment that it is commanded,\nbecomes evil from the point of view of true morality, of\nhuman morality (doubtless not of divine), from the point\nof view of human respect and of liberty. Liberty, morality,\nand the human dignity of man consist precisely\nin this, that he does good, not because it is commanded,\nbut because he conceives it, wills it and loves it.\n\n\nWe do not find in Bakunin's works a clear picture\nof the society at which he aimed, or any argument\nto prove that such a society could be stable.\nIf we wish to understand Anarchism we must turn\nto his followers, and especially to Kropotkin--like\nhim, a Russian aristocrat familiar with the prisons\nof Europe, and, like him, an Anarchist who, in spite\nof his internationalism, is imbued with a fiery hatred\nof the Germans.\n\nKropotkin has devoted much of his writing to\ntechnical questions of production. In ``Fields,\nFactories and Workshops'' and ``The Conquest of\nBread'' he has set himself to prove that, if production\nwere more scientific and better organized, a\ncomparatively small amount of quite agreeable work\nwould suffice to keep the whole population in comfort.\nEven assuming, as we probably must, that he\nsomewhat exaggerates what is possible with our\npresent scientific knowledge, it must nevertheless be\nconceded that his contentions contain a very large\nmeasure of truth. In attacking the subject of production\nhe has shown that he knows what is the really\ncrucial question. If civilization and progress are to\nbe compatible with equality, it is necessary that\nequality should not involve long hours of painful\ntoil for little more than the necessaries of life, since,\nwhere there is no leisure, art and science will die and\nall progress will become impossible. The objection\nwhich some feel to Socialism and Anarchism alike on\nthis ground cannot be upheld in view of the possible\nproductivity of labor.\n\nThe system at which Kropotkin aims, whether or\nnot it be possible, is certainly one which demands a\nvery great improvement in the methods of production\nabove what is common at present. He desires\nto abolish wholly the system of wages, not only, as\nmost Socialists do, in the sense that a man is to be\npaid rather for his willingness to work than for the\nactual work demanded of him, but in a more fundamental\nsense: there is to be no obligation to work,\nand all things are to be shared in equal proportions\namong the whole population. Kropotkin relies upon\nthe possibility of making work pleasant: he holds\nthat, in such a community as he foresees, practically\neveryone will prefer work to idleness, because work will\nnot involve overwork or slavery, or that excessive\nspecialization that industrialism has brought about,\nbut will be merely a pleasant activity for certain\nhours of the day, giving a man an outlet for his\nspontaneous constructive impulses. There is to be no\ncompulsion, no law, no government exercising force;\nthere will still be acts of the community, but these\nare to spring from universal consent, not from any\nenforced submission of even the smallest minority.\nWe shall examine in a later chapter how far such\nan ideal is realizable, but it cannot be denied that\nKropotkin presents it with extraordinary persuasiveness\nand charm.\n\nWe should be doing more than justice to Anarchism\nif we did not say something of its darker side,\nthe side which has brought it into conflict with the\npolice and made it a word of terror to ordinary citizens.\nIn its general doctrines there is nothing essentially\ninvolving violent methods or a virulent hatred\nof the rich, and many who adopt these general doctrines\nare personally gentle and temperamentally\naverse from violence. But the general tone of the\nAnarchist press and public is bitter to a degree that\nseems scarcely sane, and the appeal, especially in\nLatin countries, is rather to envy of the fortunate\nthan to pity for the unfortunate. A vivid and readable,\nthough not wholly reliable, account, from a\nhostile point of view, is given in a book called ``Le\nPeril Anarchiste,'' by Felix Dubois,[17] which\nincidentally reproduces a number of cartoons from anarchist\njournals. The revolt against law naturally leads,\nexcept in those who are controlled by a real passion\nfor humanity, to a relaxation of all the usually\naccepted moral rules, and to a bitter spirit of\nretaliatory cruelty out of which good can hardly come.\n\n\n[17] Paris, 1894.\n\n\nOne of the most curious features of popular\nAnarchism is its martyrology, aping Christian forms,\nwith the guillotine (in France) in place of the cross.\nMany who have suffered death at the hands of the\nauthorities on account of acts of violence were no\ndoubt genuine sufferers for their belief in a cause,\nbut others, equally honored, are more questionable.\nOne of the most curious examples of this outlet for\nthe repressed religious impulse is the cult of Ravachol,\nwho was guillotined in 1892 on account of\nvarious dynamite outrages. His past was dubious,\nbut he died defiantly; his last words were three lines\nfrom a well-known Anarchist song, the ``Chant du\nPere Duchesne'':--\n\n          Si tu veux etre heureux,\n               Nom de Dieu!\n          Pends ton proprietaire.\n\nAs was natural, the leading Anarchists took no part\nin the canonization of his memory; nevertheless it\nproceeded, with the most amazing extravagances.\n\nIt would be wholly unfair to judge Anarchist\ndoctrine, or the views of its leading exponents, by\nsuch phenomena; but it remains a fact that Anarchism\nattracts to itself much that lies on the borderland\nof insanity and common crime.[18] This must be\nremembered in exculpation of the authorities and\nthe thoughtless public, who often confound in a common\ndetestation the parasites of the movement and\nthe truly heroic and high-minded men who have elaborated\nits theories and sacrificed comfort and success\nto their propagation.\n\n\n[18] The attitude of all the better Anarchists is that expressed\nby L. S. Bevington in the words: ``Of course we know that\namong those who call themselves Anarchists there are a minority\nof unbalanced enthusiasts who look upon every illegal and sensational\nact of violence as a matter for hysterical jubilation.\nVery useful to the police and the press, unsteady in intellect\nand of weak moral principle, they have repeatedly shown themselves\naccessible to venal considerations. They, and their violence,\nand their professed Anarchism are purchasable, and in\nthe last resort they are welcome and efficient partisans of the\nbourgeoisie in its remorseless war against the deliverers of the\npeople.'' His conclusion is a very wise one: ``Let us leave\nindiscriminate killing and injuring to the Government--to its\nStatesmen, its Stockbrokers, its Officers, and its Law.'' (``Anarchism\nand Violence,'' pp. 9-10.  Liberty Press, Chiswick, 1896.)\n\n\nThe terrorist campaign in which such men as\nRavachol were active practically came to an end in\n1894. After that time, under the influence of Pelloutier,\nthe better sort of Anarchists found a less\nharmful outlet by advocating Revolutionary Syndicalism\nin the Trade Unions and Bourses du Travail.[19]\n\n\n[19] See next Chapter.\n\n\nThe ECONOMIC organization of society, as conceived\nby Anarchist Communists, does not differ\ngreatly from that which is sought by Socialists.\nTheir difference from Socialists is in the matter of\ngovernment: they demand that government shall\nrequire the consent of all the governed, and not only\nof a majority. It is undeniable that the rule of a\nmajority may be almost as hostile to freedom as the\nrule of a minority: the divine right of majorities is a\ndogma as little possessed of absolute truth as any\nother. A strong democratic State may easily be led\ninto oppression of its best citizens, namely, those\nthose independence of mind would make them a force\nfor progress. Experience of democratic parliamentary\ngovernment has shown that it falls very far\nshort of what was expected of it by early Socialists,\nand the Anarchist revolt against it is not surprising.\nBut in the form of pure Anarchism, this revolt has\nremained weak and sporadic. It is Syndicalism, and\nthe movements to which Syndicalism has given rise,\nthat have popularized the revolt against parliamentary\ngovernment and purely political means of emancipating\nthe wage earner. But this movement must\nbe dealt with in a separate chapter.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE SYNDICALIST REVOLT\n\n\nSYNDICALISM arose in France as a revolt against\npolitical Socialism, and in order to understand it\nwe must trace in brief outline the positions attained\nby Socialist parties in the various countries.\n\nAfter a severe setback, caused by the Franco-\nPrussian war, Socialism gradually revived, and in all\nthe countries of Western Europe Socialist parties\nhave increased their numerical strength almost\ncontinuously during the last forty years; but, as is\ninvariably the case with a growing sect, the intensity\nof faith has diminished as the number of believers\nhas increased.\n\nIn Germany the Socialist party became the\nstrongest faction of the Reichstag, and, in spite of\ndifferences of opinion among its members, it preserved\nits formal unity with that instinct for military\ndiscipline which characterizes the German nation.\nIn the Reichstag election of 1912 it polled a third\nof the total number of votes cast, and returned 110\nmembers out of a total of 397. After the death of\nBebel, the Revisionists, who received their first\nimpulse from Bernstein, overcame the more strict\nMarxians, and the party became in effect merely one\nof advanced Radicalism. It is too soon to guess what\nwill be the effect of the split between Majority and\nMinority Socialists which has occurred during the\nwar. There is in Germany hardly a trace of Syndicalism;\nits characteristic doctrine, the preference of\nindustrial to political action, has found scarcely\nany support.\n\nIn England Marx has never had many followers.\nSocialism there has been inspired in the main by the\nFabians (founded in 1883), who threw over the\nadvocacy of revolution, the Marxian doctrine of\nvalue, and the class-war. What remained was State\nSocialism and a doctrine of ``permeation.'' Civil\nservants were to be permeated with the realization\nthat Socialism would enormously increase their\npower. Trade Unions were to be permeated with the\nbelief that the day for purely industrial action was\npast, and that they must look to government (inspired\nsecretly by sympathetic civil servants) to bring\nabout, bit by bit, such parts of the Socialist program\nas were not likely to rouse much hostility in the rich.\nThe Independent Labor Party (formed in 1893) was\nlargely inspired at first by the ideas of the Fabians,\nthough retaining to the present day, and especially\nsince the outbreak of the war, much more of the\noriginal Socialist ardor. It aimed always at\nco-operation with the industrial organizations of\nwage-earners, and, chiefly through its efforts, the\nLabor Party[20] was formed in 1900 out of a\ncombination of the Trade Unions and the political\nSocialists. To this party, since 1909, all the important\nUnions have belonged, but in spite of the fact\nthat its strength is derived from Trade Unions, it\nhas stood always for political rather than industrial\naction. Its Socialism has been of a theoretical and\nacademic order, and in practice, until the outbreak\nof war, the Labor members in Parliament (of whom\n30 were elected in 1906 and 42 in December, 1910)\nmight be reckoned almost as a part of the Liberal\nParty.\n\n\n[20] Of which the Independent Labor Party is only a section.\n\n\nFrance, unlike England and Germany, was not\ncontent merely to repeat the old shibboleths with\ncontinually diminishing conviction. In France[21] a new\nmovement, originally known as Revolutionary\nSyndicalism--and afterward simply as Syndicalism--\nkept alive the vigor of the original impulse, and\nremained true to the spirit of the older Socialists,\nwhile departing from the letter. Syndicalism, unlike\nSocialism and Anarchism, began from an existing\norganization and developed the ideas appropriate\nto it, whereas Socialism and Anarchism began with\nthe ideas and only afterward developed the organizations\nwhich were their vehicle. In order to understand\nSyndicalism, we have first to describe Trade\nUnion organization in France, and its political\nenvironment. The ideas of Syndicalism will then\nappear as the natural outcome of the political and\neconomic situation. Hardly any of these ideas are\nnew; almost all are derived from the Bakunist section\nof the old International.[21] The old International\nhad considerable success in France before the Franco-\nPrussian War; indeed, in 1869, it is estimated to\nhave had a French membership of a quarter of a million.\nWhat is practically the Syndicalist program\nwas advocated by a French delegate to the Congress\nof the International at Bale in that same year.[22]\n\n\n[20] And also in Italy. A good, short account of the Italian\nmovement is given by A. Lanzillo, ``Le Mouvement Ouvrier en\nItalie,'' Bibliotheque du Mouvement Proletarien. See also Paul\nLouis, ``Le Syndicalisme Europeen,'' chap. vi. On the other\nhand Cole (``World of Labour,'' chap. vi) considers the strength\nof genuine Syndicalism in Italy to be small.\n\n[21] This is often recognized by Syndicalists themselves. See,\ne.g., an article on ``The Old International'' in the Syndicalist\nof February, 1913, which, after giving an account of the struggle\nbetween Marx and Bakunin from the standpoint of a sympathizer\nwith the latter, says: ``Bakounin's ideas are now more alive\nthan ever.''\n\n[22] See pp. 42-43, and 160 of ``Syndicalism in France,'' Louis\nLevine, Ph.D. (Columbia University Studies in Political Science,\nvol. xlvi, No. 3.) This is a very objective and reliable account\nof the origin and progress of French Syndicalism. An admirable\nshort discussion of its ideas and its present position will be\nfound in Cole's ``World of Labour'' (G. Bell & Sons), especially\nchapters iii, iv, and xi.\n\n\nThe war of 1870 put an end for the time being\nto the Socialist Movement in France. Its revival\nwas begun by Jules Guesde in 1877. Unlike the Ger-\nman Socialists, the French have been split into many\ndifferent factions. In the early eighties there was a\nsplit between the Parliamentary Socialists and the\nCommunist Anarchists. The latter thought that the\nfirst act of the Social Revolution should be the\ndestruction of the State, and would therefore have\nnothing to do with Parliamentary politics. The\nAnarchists, from 1883 onward, had success in Paris\nand the South. The Socialists contended that the\nState will disappear after the Socialist society has\nbeen firmly established. In 1882 the Socialists split\nbetween the followers of Guesde, who claimed to represent\nthe revolutionary and scientific Socialism of\nMarx, and the followers of Paul Brousse, who were\nmore opportunist and were also called possibilists\nand cared little for the theories of Marx. In 1890\nthere was a secession from the Broussists, who followed\nAllemane and absorbed the more revolutionary\nelements of the party and became leading spirits in\nsome of the strongest syndicates. Another group\nwas the Independent Socialists, among whom were\nJaures, Millerand and Viviani.[23]\n\n\n[23] See Levine, op. cit., chap. ii.\n\n\nThe disputes between the various sections of\nSocialists caused difficulties in the Trade Unions and\nhelped to bring about the resolution to keep politics\nout of the Unions. From this to Syndicalism was\nan easy step.\n\nSince the year 1905, as the result of a union\nbetween the Parti Socialiste de France (Part; Ouvrier\nSocialiste Revolutionnaire Francais led by\nGuesde) and the Parti Socialiste Francais (Jaures),\nthere have been only two groups of Socialists, the\nUnited Socialist Party and the Independents, who\nare intellectuals or not willing to be tied to a party.\nAt the General Election of 1914 the former secured\n102 members and the latter 30, out of a total of 590.\n\nTendencies toward a rapprochement between the\nvarious groups were seriously interfered with by an\nevent which had considerable importance for the\nwhole development of advanced political ideas in\nFrance, namely, the acceptance of office in the Waldeck-\nRousseau Ministry by the Socialist Millerand\nin 1899. Millerand, as was to be expected, soon\nceased to be a Socialist, and the opponents of political\naction pointed to his development as showing\nthe vanity of political triumphs. Very many French\npoliticians who have risen to power have begun their\npolitical career as Socialists, and have ended it not\ninfrequently by employing the army to oppress\nstrikers. Millerand's action was the most notable\nand dramatic among a number of others of a similar\nkind. Their cumulative effect has been to produce a\ncertain cynicism in regard to politics among the more\nclass-conscious of French wage-earners, and this\nstate of mind greatly assisted the spread of Syndicalism.\n\nSyndicalism stands essentially for the point of\nview of the producer as opposed to that of the consumer;\nit is concerned with reforming actual work,\nand the organization of industry, not MERELY with\nsecuring greater rewards for work. From this point\nof view its vigor and its distinctive character are\nderived. It aims at substituting industrial for political\naction, and at using Trade Union organization\nfor purposes for which orthodox Socialism would\nlook to Parliament. ``Syndicalism'' was originally\nonly the French name for Trade Unionism, but the\nTrade Unionists of France became divided into two\nsections, the Reformist and the Revolutionary, of\nwhom the latter only professed the ideas which we\nnow associate with the term ``Syndicalism.'' It is\nquite impossible to guess how far either the organization\nor the ideas of the Syndicalists will remain intact\nat the end of the war, and everything that we shall say\nis to be taken as applying only to the years before\nthe war. It may be that French Syndicalism as a\ndistinctive movement will be dead, but even in that\ncase it will not have lost its importance, since it has\ngiven a new impulse and direction to the more vigorous\npart of the labor movement in all civilized countries,\nwith the possible exception of Germany.\n\nThe organization upon which Syndicalism de-\npended was the Confederation Generale du Travail,\ncommonly known as the C. G. T., which was founded\nin 1895, but only achieved its final form in 1902. It\nhas never been numerically very powerful, but has\nderived its influence from the fact that in moments\nof crisis many who were not members were willing\nto follow its guidance. Its membership in the year\nbefore the war is estimated by Mr. Cole at somewhat\nmore than half a million. Trade Unions (Syndicats)\nwere legalized by Waldeck-Rousseau in 1884,\nand the C. G. T., on its inauguration in 1895, was\nformed by the Federation of 700 Syndicats. Alongside\nof this organization there existed another, the\nFederation des Bourses du Travail, formed in 1893.\nA Bourse du Travail is a local organization, not of\nany one trade, but of local labor in general, intended\nto serve as a Labor Exchange and to perform such\nfunctions for labor as Chambers of Commerce perform\nfor the employer.[24] A Syndicat is in general\na local organization of a single industry, and is thus\na smaller unit than the Bourse du Travail.[25] Under\nthe able leadership of Pelloutier, the Federation des\nBourses prospered more than the C. G. T., and at\nlast, in 1902, coalesced with it. The result was an\norganization in which the local Syndicat was fed-\nerated twice over, once with the other Syndicat in\nits locality, forming together the local Bourse du\nTravail, and again with the Syndicats in the same\nindustry in other places. ``It was the purpose of the\nnew organization to secure twice over the membership\nof every syndicat, to get it to join both its local\nBourse du Travail and the Federation of its industry.\nThe Statutes of the C. G. T. (I. 3) put this point\nplainly: `No Syndicat will be able to form a part of\nthe C. G. T. if it is not federated nationally and an\nadherent of a Bourse du Travail or a local or departmental\nUnion of Syndicats grouping different associations.'\nThus, M. Lagardelle explains, the two sections\nwill correct each other's point of view: national\nfederation of industries will prevent parochialism\n(localisme), and local organization will check the\ncorporate or `Trade Union' spirit. The workers will\nlearn at once the solidarity of all workers in a locality\nand that of all workers in a trade, and, in learning\nthis, they will learn at the same time the complete\nsolidarity of the whole working-class.''[26]\n\n\n[24] Cole, ib., p. 65.\n\n[25] ``Syndicat in France still means a local union--there are\nat the present day only four national syndicats'' (ib., p. 66).\n\n[26] Cole, ib. p. 69.\n\n\nThis organization was largely the work of Pellouties,\nwho was Secretary of the Federation des Bourses\nfrom 1894 until his death in 1901. He was an Anarchist\nCommunist and impressed his ideas upon the\nFederation and thence posthumously on the C. G. T.\nafter its combination with the Federation des\nBourses. He even carried his principles into the\ngovernment of the Federation; the Committee had\nno chairman and votes very rarely took place. He\nstated that ``the task of the revolution is to free\nmankind, not only from all authority, but also from\nevery institution which has not for its essential purpose\nthe development of production.''\n\nThe C. G. T. allows much autonomy to each unit\nin the organization. Each Syndicat counts for one,\nwhether it be large or small. There are not the\nfriendly society activities which form so large a part\nof the work of English Unions. It gives no orders,\nbut is purely advisory. It does not allow politics\nto be introduced into the Unions. This decision was\noriginally based upon the fact that the divisions\namong Socialists disrupted the Unions, but it is now\nreinforced in the minds of an important section by\nthe general Anarchist dislike of politics. The C. G.\nT. is essentially a fighting organization; in strikes, it\nis the nucleus to which the other workers rally.\n\nThere is a Reformist section in the C. G. T., but\nit is practically always in a minority, and the C. G.\nT. is, to all intents and purposes, the organ of\nrevolutionary Syndicalism, which is simply the creed\nof its leaders.\n\nThe essential doctrine of Syndicalism is the class-\nwar, to be conducted by industrial rather than politi-\ncal methods. The chief industrial methods advocated\nare the strike, the boycott, the label and sabotage.\n\nThe boycott, in various forms, and the label,\nshowing that the work has been done under trade-\nunion conditions, have played a considerable part\nin American labor struggles.\n\nSabotage is the practice of doing bad work, or\nspoiling machinery or work which has already been\ndone, as a method of dealing with employers in a\ndispute when a strike appears for some reason\nundesirable or impossible. It has many forms, some\nclearly innocent, some open to grave objections. One\nform of sabotage which has been adopted by shop\nassistants is to tell customers the truth about the\narticles they are buying; this form, however it may\ndamage the shopkeeper's business, is not easy to\nobject to on moral grounds. A form which has been\nadopted on railways, particularly in Italian strikes,\nis that of obeying all rules literally and exactly, in\nsuch a way as to make the running of trains practically\nimpossible. Another form is to do all the\nwork with minute care, so that in the end it is better\ndone, but the output is small. From these innocent\nforms there is a continual progression, until we come\nto such acts as all ordinary morality would consider\ncriminal; for example, causing railway accidents.\nAdvocates of sabotage justify it as part of\nwar, but in its more violent forms (in which it is\nseldom defended) it is cruel and probably inexpedient,\nwhile even in its milder forms it must tend to encourage\nslovenly habits of work, which might easily persist\nunder the new regime that the Syndicalists wish\nto introduce. At the same time, when capitalists\nexpress a moral horror of this method, it is worth\nwhile to observe that they themselves are the first\nto practice it when the occasion seems to them appropriate.\nIf report speaks truly, an example of this\non a very large scale has been seen during the Russian\nRevolution.\n\nBy far the most important of the Syndicalist\nmethods is the strike. Ordinary strikes, for specific\nobjects, are regarded as rehearsals, as a means of\nperfecting organization and promoting enthusiasm,\nbut even when they are victorious so far as concerns\nthe specific point in dispute, they are not regarded\nby Syndicalists as affording any ground for industrial\npeace. Syndicalists aim at using the strike,\nnot to secure such improvements of detail as employers\nmay grant, but to destroy the whole system of\nemployer and employed and win the complete emancipation\nof the worker. For this purpose what is\nwanted is the General Strike, the complete cessation\nof work by a sufficient proportion of the wage-earners\nto secure the paralysis of capitalism. Sorel, who\nrepresents Syndicalism too much in the minds of the\nreading public, suggests that the General Strike is to\nbe regarded as a myth, like the Second Coming in\nChristian doctrine. But this view by no means suits\nthe active Syndicalists. If they were brought to\nbelieve that the General Strike is a mere myth, their\nenergy would flag, and their whole outlook would\nbecome disillusioned. It is the actual, vivid belief\nin its possibility which inspires them. They are much\ncriticised for this belief by the political Socialists\nwho consider that the battle is to be won by obtaining\na Parliamentary majority. But Syndicalists have\ntoo little faith in the honesty of politicians to place\nany reliance on such a method or to believe in the\nvalue of any revolution which leaves the power of the\nState intact.\n\nSyndicalist aims are somewhat less definite than\nSyndicalist methods. The intellectuals who endeavor\nto interpret them--not always very faithfully--\nrepresent them as a party of movement and change,\nfollowing a Bergsonian elan vital, without needing\nany very clear prevision of the goal to which it is to\ntake them. Nevertheless, the negative part, at any\nrate, of their objects is sufficiently clear.\n\nThey wish to destroy the State, which they\nregard as a capitalist institution, designed essentially\nto terrorize the workers. They refuse to\nbelieve that it would be any better under State Socialism.\nThey desire to see each industry self-governing,\nbut as to the means of adjusting the relations between\ndifferent industries, they are not very clear. They\nare anti-militarist because they are anti-State, and\nbecause French troops have often been employed\nagainst them in strikes; also because they are\ninternationalists, who believe that the sole interest of the\nworking man everywhere is to free himself from the\ntyranny of the capitalist. Their outlook on life is\nthe very reverse of pacifist, but they oppose wars\nbetween States on the ground that these are not\nfought for objects that in any way concern the\nworkers. Their anti-militarism, more than anything\nelse, brought them into conflict with the authorities\nin the years preceding the war. But, as was to be\nexpected, it did not survive the actual invasion of\nFrance.\n\nThe doctrines of Syndicalism may be illustrated\nby an article introducing it to English readers in\nthe first number of ``The Syndicalist Railwayman,''\nSeptember, 1911, from which the following is quoted:--\n\n\n``All Syndicalism, Collectivism, Anarchism aims at\nabolishing the present economic status and existing private\nownership of most things; but while Collectivism\nwould substitute ownership by everybody, and Anarchism\nownership by nobody, Syndicalism aims at ownership by\nOrganized Labor. It is thus a purely Trade Union\nreading of the economic doctrine and the class war\npreached by Socialism. It vehemently repudiates Parliamentary\naction on which Collectivism relies; and it is,\nin this respect, much more closely allied to Anarchism,\nfrom which, indeed, it differs in practice only in being\nmore limited in range of action.'' (Times, Aug. 25, 1911).\n\nIn truth, so thin is the partition between Syndicalism\nand Anarchism that the newer and less familiar ``ism''\nhas been shrewdly defined as ``Organized Anarchy.'' It\nhas been created by the Trade Unions of France; but it\nis obviously an international plant, whose roots have\nalready found the soil of Britain most congenial to its\ngrowth and fructification.\n\nCollectivist or Marxian Socialism would have us believe\nthat it is distinctly a LABOR Movement; but it is\nnot so. Neither is Anarchism. The one is substantially\nbourgeois; the other aristocratic, plus an abundant output\nof book-learning, in either case. Syndicalism, on the contrary,\nis indubitably laborist in origin and aim, owing\nnext to nothing to the ``Classes,'' and, indeed,, resolute to\nuproot them. The Times (Oct. 13, 1910), which almost\nsingle-handed in the British Press has kept creditably\nabreast of Continental Syndicalism, thus clearly set forth\nthe significance of the General Strike:\n\n\n``To understand what it means, we must remember\nthat there is in France a powerful Labor Organization\nwhich has for its open and avowed object a Revolution,\nin which not only the present order of Society, but the\nState itself, is to be swept away. This movement is called\nSyndicalism. It is not Socialism, but, on the contrary,\nradically opposed to Socialism, because the Syndicalists\nhold that the State is the great enemy and that the\nSocialists' ideal of State or Collectivist Ownership would\nmake the lot of the Workers much worse than it is now\nunder private employers. The means by which they hope\nto attain their end is the General Strike, an idea which\nwas invented by a French workman about twenty years\nago,[27] and was adopted by the French Labor Congress in\n1894, after a furious battle with the Socialists, in which\nthe latter were worsted. Since then the General Strike\nhas been the avowed policy of the Syndicalists, whose\norganization is the Confederation Generale du Travail.''\n\n\n[27] In fact the General Strike was invented by a Londoner\nWilliam Benbow, an Owenite, in 1831.\n\n\nOr, to put it otherwise, the intelligent French worker\nhas awakened, as he believes, to the fact that Society\n(Societas) and the State (Civitas) connote two separable\nspheres of human activity, between which there is no\nconnection, necessary or desirable. Without the one, man,\nbeing a gregarious animal, cannot subsist: while without\nthe other he would simply be in clover. The ``statesman''\nwhom office does not render positively nefarious\nis at best an expensive superfluity.\n\n\nSyndicalists have had many violent encounters\nwith the forces of government. In 1907 and 1908,\nprotesting against bloodshed which had occurred in\nthe suppression of strikes, the Committee of the C.\nG. T. issued manifestoes speaking of the Government\nas ``a Government of assassins'' and alluding\nto the Prime Minister as ``Clemenceau the murderer.''\nSimilar events in the strike at Villeneuve St. Georges\nin 1908 led to the arrest of all the leading members\nof the Committee. In the railway strike of October,\n1910, Monsieur Briand arrested the Strike Committee,\nmobilized the railway men and sent soldiers\nto replace strikers. As a result of these vigorous\nmeasures the strike was completely defeated, and\nafter this the chief energy of the C. G. T. was directed\nagainst militarism and nationalism.\n\nThe attitude of Anarchism to the Syndicalist\nmovement is sympathetic, with the reservation that\nsuch methods as the General Strike are not to be\nregarded as substitutes for the violent revolution\nwhich most Anarchists consider necessary. Their\nattitude in this matter was defined at the International\nAnarchist Congress held in Amsterdam in\nAugust, 1907. This Congress recommended ``comrades\nof all countries to actively participate in autonomous\nmovements of the working class, and to\ndevelop in Syndicalist organizations the ideas of\nrevolt, individual initiative and solidarity, which are\nthe essence of Anarchism.'' Comrades were to\n``propagate and support only those forms and manifestations\nof direct action which carry, in themselves,\na revolutionary character and lead to the\ntransformation of society.'' It was resolved that\n``the Anarchists think that the destruction of the\ncapitalist and authoritary society can only be realized\nby armed insurrection and violent expropriation,\nand that the use of the more or less General Strike\nand the Syndicalist movement must not make us\nforget the more direct means of struggle against\nthe military force of government.''\n\nSyndicalists might retort that when the movement\nis strong enough to win by armed insurrection\nit will be abundantly strong enough to win by the\nGeneral Strike. In Labor movements generally, success\nthrough violence can hardly be expected except\nin circumstances where success without violence is\nattainable. This argument alone, even if there were\nno other, would be a very powerful reason against\nthe methods advocated by the Anarchist Congress.\n\nSyndicalism stands for what is known as industrial\nunionism as opposed to craft unionism. In this\nrespect, as also in the preference of industrial to\npolitical methods, it is part of a movement which\nhas spread far beyond France. The distinction\nbetween industrial and craft unionism is much dwelt\non by Mr. Cole. Craft unionism ``unites in a single\nassociation those workers who are engaged on a single\nindustrial process, or on processes so nearly akin\nthat any one can do another's work.'' But ``organization\nmay follow the lines, not of the work done,\nbut of the actual structure of industry. All workers\nworking at producing a particular kind of commodity\nmay be organized in a single Union. . . .\nThe basis of organization would be neither the craft\nto which a man belonged nor the employer under\nwhom he worked, but the service on which he was\nengaged. This is Industrial Unionism properly\nso called.[28]\n\n\n[28] ``World of Labour,'' pp. 212, 213.\n\n\nIndustrial unionism is a product of America,\nand from America it has to some extent spread to\nGreat Britain. It is the natural form of fighting\norganization when the union is regarded as the means\nof carrying on the class war with a view, not to\nobtaining this or that minor amelioration, but to a\nradical revolution in the economic system. This is\nthe point of view adopted by the ``Industrial Workers\nof the World,'' commonly known as the I. W. W.\nThis organization more or less corresponds in America\nto what the C. G. T. was in France before the\nwar. The differences between the two are those due\nto the different economic circumstances of the two\ncountries, but their spirit is closely analogous. The\nI. W. W. is not united as to the ultimate form which\nit wishes society to take. There are Socialists,\nAnarchists and Syndicalists among its members. But it\nis clear on the immediate practical issue, that the\nclass war is the fundamental reality in the present\nrelations of labor and capital, and that it is by\nindustrial action, especially by the strike, that\nemancipation must be sought. The I. W. W., like the\nC. G. T., is not nearly so strong numerically as it is\nsupposed to be by those who fear it. Its influence\nis based, not upon its numbers, but upon its power\nof enlisting the sympathies of the workers in moments\nof crisis.\n\nThe labor movement in America has been characterized\non both sides by very great violence. Indeed,\nthe Secretary of the C. G. T., Monsieur Jouhaux,\nrecognizes that the C. G. T. is mild in comparison\nwith the I. W. W. ``The I. W. W.,'' he says,\n``preach a policy of militant action, very necessary\nin parts of America, which would not do in France.''[29]\nA very interesting account of it, from the point of\nview of an author who is neither wholly on the side\nof labor nor wholly on the side of the capitalist, but\ndisinterestedly anxious to find some solution of the\nsocial question short of violence and revolution, is\nthe work of Mr. John Graham Brooks, called ``American\nSyndicalism: the I. W. W.'' (Macmillan, 1913).\nAmerican labor conditions are very different from\nthose of Europe. In the first place, the power of the\ntrusts is enormous; the concentration of capital has\nin this respect proceeded more nearly on Marxian\nlines in America than anywhere else. In the second\nplace, the great influx of foreign labor makes the\nwhole problem quite different from any that arises\nin Europe. The older skilled workers, largely American\nborn, have long been organized in the American\nFederation of Labor under Mr. Gompers. These\nrepresent an aristocracy of labor. They tend to\nwork with the employers against the great mass of\nunskilled immigrants, and they cannot be regarded as\nforming part of anything that could be truly called\na labor movement. ``There are,'' says Mr. Cole,\n``now in America two working classes, with different\nstandards of life, and both are at present almost\nimpotent in the face of the employers. Nor is it possible\nfor these two classes to unite or to put forward\nany demands. . . . The American Federation\nof Labor and the Industrial Workers of the\nWorld represent two different principles of\ncombination; but they also represent two different\nclasses of labor.''[30] The I. W. W. stands for industrial\nunionism, whereas the American Federation of\nLabor stands for craft unionism. The I. W. W. were\nformed in 1905 by a union of organizations, chief\namong which was the Western Federation of Miners,\nwhich dated from 1892. They suffered a split by the\nloss of the followers of Deleon, who was the leader of\nthe ``Socialist Labor Party'' and advocated a\n``Don't vote'' policy, while reprobating violent\nmethods. The headquarters of the party which he\nformed are at Detroit, and those of the main body\nare at Chicago. The I. W. W., though it has a less\ndefinite philosophy than French Syndicalism, is quite\nequally determined to destroy the capitalist system.\nAs its secretary has said: ``There is but one bargain\nthe I. W. W. will make with the employing class--\ncomplete surrender of all control of industry to the\norganized workers.''[31] Mr. Haywood, of the Western\nFederation of Miners, is an out-and-out follower\nof Marx so far as concerns the class war and the\ndoctrine of surplus value. But, like all who are in\nthis movement, he attaches more importance to industrial\nas against political action than do the European\nfollowers of Marx. This is no doubt partly\nexplicable by the special circumstances of America,\nwhere the recent immigrants are apt to be voteless.\nThe fourth convention of the I. W. W. revised a\npreamble giving the general principles underlying\nits action. ``The working class and the employing\nclass,'' they say, ``have nothing in common. There\ncan be no peace so long as hunger and want are\nfound among millions of the working people and the\nfew, who make up the employing class, have all the\ngood things of life. Between these two classes, a\nstruggle must go on until the workers of the world\norganize as a class, take possession of the earth and\nthe machinery of production, and abolish the wage\nsystem. . . . Instead of the conservative motto,\n`A fair day's wages for a fair day's work,' we must\ninscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword,\n`Abolition of the wage system.' ''[32]\n\n\n[29] Quoted in Cole, ib. p. 128.\n\n[30] Ib., p. 135.\n\n[31] Brooks, op. cit., p. 79.\n\n[32] Brooks, op. cit., pp. 86-87.\n\n\nNumerous strikes have been conducted or encouraged\nby the I. W. W. and the Western Federation\nof Miners. These strikes illustrate the class-war\nin a more bitter and extreme form than is to be found\nin any other part of the world. Both sides are always\nready to resort to violence. The employers have\narmies of their own and are able to call upon the\nMilitia and even, in a crisis, upon the United States\nArmy. What French Syndicalists say about the\nState as a capitalist institution is peculiarly true in\nAmerica. In consequence of the scandals thus arising,\nthe Federal Government appointed a Commission\non Industrial Relations, whose Report, issued in 1915,\nreveals a state of affairs such as it would be difficult\nto imagine in Great Britain. The report states that\n``the greatest disorders and most of the outbreaks\nof violence in connection with industrial `disputes\narise from the violation of what are considered\nto be fundamental rights, and from the perversion\nor subversion of governmental institutions''\n(p. 146). It mentions, among such perversions,\nthe subservience of the judiciary to the mili-\ntary authorities,[33] the fact that during a labor\ndispute the life and liberty of every man within\nthe State would seem to be at the mercy of the\nGovernor (p. 72), and the use of State troops\nin policing strikes (p. 298). At Ludlow (Colorado)\nin 1914 (April 20) a battle of the militia and the\nminers took place, in which, as the result of the fire\nof the militia, a number of women and children were\nburned to death.[34] Many other instances of pitched\nbattles could be given, but enough has been said to\nshow the peculiar character of labor disputes in the\nUnited States. It may, I fear, be presumed that this\ncharacter will remain so long as a very large\nproportion of labor consists of recent immigrants.\nWhen these difficulties pass away, as they must\nsooner or later, labor will more and more find its\nplace in the community, and will tend to feel and\ninspire less of the bitter hostility which renders the\nmore extreme forms of class war possible. When\n\nthat time comes, the labor movement in America will\nprobably begin to take on forms similar to those of\nEurope.\n\n\n[33] Although uniformly held that the writ of habeas corpus\ncan only be suspended by the legislature, in these labor disturbances\nthe executive has in fact suspended or disregarded the\nwrit. . . . In cases arising from labor agitations, the judiciary\nhas uniformly upheld the power exercised by the military,\nand in no case has there been any protest against the use of\nsuch power or any attempt to curtail it, except in Montana,\nwhere the conviction of a civilian by military commission was\nannulled'' (``Final Report of the Commission on Industrial\nRelations'' (1915) appointed by the United States Congress,''\np. 58).\n\n[34] Literary Digest, May 2 and May 16, 1914.\n\n\nMeanwhile, though the forms are different, the\naims are very similar, and industrial unionism,\nspreading from America, has had a considerable\ninfluence in Great Britain--an influence naturally\nreinforced by that of French Syndicalism. It is\nclear, I think, that the adoption of industrial rather\nthan craft unionism is absolutely necessary if Trade\nUnionism is to succeed in playing that part in altering\nthe economic structure of society which its advocates\nclaim for it rather than for the political\nparties. Industrial unionism organizes men, as craft\nunionism does not, in accordance with the enemy\nwhom they have to fight. English unionism is still\nvery far removed from the industrial form, though\ncertain industries, especially the railway men, have\ngone very far in this direction, and it is notable that\nthe railway men are peculiarly sympathetic to Syndicalism\nand industrial unionism.\n\nPure Syndicalism, however, is not very likely to\nachieve wide popularity in Great Britain. Its spirit\nis too revolutionary and anarchistic for our temperament.\nIt is in the modified form of Guild Socialism\nthat the ideas derived from the C. G. T. and the I. W.\nW. are tending to bear fruit.[35] This movement is as\nyet in its infancy and has no great hold upon the rank\nand file, but it is being ably advocated by a group\nof young men, and is rapidly gaining ground among\nthose who will form Labor opinion in years to come.\nThe power of the State has been so much increased\nduring the war that those who naturally dislike\nthings as they are, find it more and more difficult to\nbelieve that State omnipotence can be the road to the\nmillennium. Guild Socialists aim at autonomy in\nindustry, with consequent curtailment, but not abolition,\nof the power of the State. The system which\nthey advocate is, I believe, the best hitherto proposed,\nand the one most likely to secure liberty without\nthe constant appeals to violence which are to be\nfeared under a purely Anarchist regime.\n\n[35] The ideas of Guild Socialism were first set forth in\n``National Guilds,'' edited by A. R. Orage (Bell & Sons, 1914),\nand in Cole's ``World of Labour'' (Bell & Sons), first published\nin 1913. Cole's ``Self-Government in Industry'' (Bell &\nSons, 1917) and Rickett & Bechhofer's ``The Meaning of\nNational Guilds'' (Palmer & Hayward, 1918) should also be\nread, as well as various pamphlets published by the National\nGuilds League. The attitude of the Syndicalists to Guild\nSocialism is far from sympathetic. An article in ``The\nSyndicalist'' for February, 1914, speaks of it in the following\nterms: a Middle-class of the middle-class, with all the shortcomings\n(we had almost said `stupidities') of the middle-\nclasses writ large across it, `Guild Socialism' stands forth\nas the latest lucubration of the middle-class mind. It is a\n`cool steal' of the leading ideas of Syndicalism and a deliberate\nperversion of them. . . . We do protest against the `State'\nidea . . . in Guild Socialism. Middle-class people, even\nwhen they become Socialists, cannot get rid of the idea that the\nworking-class is their `inferior'; that the workers need to be\n`educated,' drilled, disciplined, and generally nursed for a very\nlong time before they will be able to walk by themselves. The\nvery reverse is actually the truth. . . . It is just the plain\ntruth when we say that the ordinary wage-worker, of average\nintelligence, is better capable of taking care of himself than the\nhalf-educated middle-class man who wants to advise him. He\nknows how to make the wheels of the world go round.''\n\n\nThe first pamphlet of the ``National Guilds\nLeague'' sets forth their main principles. In industry\neach factory is to be free to control its own\nmethods of production by means of elected managers.\nThe different factories in a given industry are to be\nfederated into a National Guild which will deal with\nmarketing and the general interests of the industry\nas a whole. ``The State would own the means of\nproduction as trustee for the community; the Guilds\nwould manage them, also as trustees for the community,\nand would pay to the State a single tax or\nrent. Any Guild that chose to set its own interests\nabove those of the community would be violating\nits trust, and would have to bow to the judgment of\na tribunal equally representing the whole body of\nproducers and the whole body of consumers. This\nJoint Committee would be the ultimate sovereign\nbody, the ultimate appeal court of industry. It\nwould fix not only Guild taxation, but also standard\nprices, and both taxation and prices would be periodically\nreadjusted by it.'' Each Guild will be\nentirely free to apportion what it receives among its\nmembers as it chooses, its members being all those who\nwork in the industry which it covers. ``The distribution\nof this collective Guild income among the\nmembers seems to be a matter for each Guild to decide\nfor itself. Whether the Guilds would, sooner or later,\nadopt the principle of equal payment for every member,\nis open to discussion.'' Guild Socialism accepts\nfrom Syndicalism the view that liberty is not to be\nsecured by making the State the employer: ``The\nState and the Municipality as employers have turned\nout not to differ essentially from the private capitalist.''\nGuild Socialists regard the State as consisting\nof the community in their capacity as consumers,\nwhile the Guilds will represent them in their capacity\nas producers; thus Parliament and the Guild Congress\nwill be two co-equal powers representing consumers\nand producers respectively. Above both will\nbe the joint Committee of Parliament and the Guild\nCongress for deciding matters involving the interests\nof consumers and producers alike. The view of the\nGuild Socialists is that State Socialism takes account\nof men only as consumers, while Syndicalism takes\naccount of them only as producers. ``The problem,''\nsay the Guild Socialists, ``is to reconcile the two\npoints of view. That is what advocates of National\nGuilds set out to do. The Syndicalist has claimed\neverything for the industrial organizations of producers,\nthe Collectivist everything for the territorial\nor political organizations of consumers. Both are\nopen to the same criticism; you cannot reconcile two\npoints of view merely by denying one of them.''[36]\nBut although Guild Socialism represents an attempt\nat readjustment between two equally legitimate points\nof view, its impulse and force are derived from\nwhat it has taken over from Syndicalism. Like Syndicalism;\nit desires not primarily to make work better\npaid, but to secure this result along with others by\nmaking it in itself more interesting and more democratic\nin organization.\n\n\n[36] The above quotations are all from the first pamphlet of the\nNational Guilds League, ``National Guilds, an Appeal to Trade\nUnionists.''\n\n\nCapitalism has made of work a purely commercial\nactivity, a soulless and a joyless thing. But substitute\nthe national service of the Guilds for the profiteering of\nthe few; substitute responsible labor for a saleable commodity;\nsubstitute self-government and decentralization\nfor the bureaucracy and demoralizing hugeness of the\nmodern State and the modern joint stock company; and\nthen it may be just once more to speak of a ``joy in\nlabor,'' and once more to hope that men may be proud\nof quality and not only of quantity in their work. There\nis a cant of the Middle Ages, and a cant of ``joy in\nlabor,'' but it were better, perhaps, to risk that cant\nthan to reconcile ourselves forever to the philosophy of\nCapitalism and of Collectivism, which declares that work\nis a necessary evil never to be made pleasant, and that\nthe workers' only hope is a leisure which shall be longer,\nricher, and well adorned with municipal amenities.[37]\n\n\n[37] ``The Guild Idea,'' No. 2 of the Pamphlets of the National\nGuilds League, p. 17.\n\n\n\nWhatever may be thought of the practicability\nof Syndicalism, there is no doubt that the ideas which\nit has put into the world have done a great deal\nto revive the labor movement and to recall it to certain\nthings of fundamental importance which it had\nbeen in danger of forgetting. Syndicalists consider\nman as producer rather than consumer. They are\nmore concerned to procure freedom in work than to\nincrease material well-being. They have revived the\nquest for liberty, which was growing somewhat\ndimmed under the regime of Parliamentary Socialism,\nand they have reminded men that what our modern\nsociety needs is not a little tinkering here and there,\nnor the kind of minor readjustments to which the\nexisting holders of power may readily consent, but\na fundamental reconstruction, a sweeping away of\nall the sources of oppression, a liberation of men's\nconstructive energies, and a wholly new way of\nconceiving and regulating production and economic\nrelations. This merit is so great that, in view of it,\nall minor defects become insignificant, and this merit\nSyndicalism will continue to possess even if, as a\ndefinite movement, it should be found to have passed\naway with the war.\n\n\n\nPART II\n\nPROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nWORK AND PAY\n\n\nTHE man who seeks to create a better order of\nsociety has two resistances to contend with: one that\nof Nature, the other that of his fellow-men. Broadly\nspeaking, it is science that deals with the resistance\nof Nature, while politics and social organization are\nthe methods of overcoming the resistance of men.\n\nThe ultimate fact in economics is that Nature only\nyields commodities as the result of labor. The necessity\nof SOME labor for the satisfaction of our wants\nis not imposed by political systems or by the exploitation\nof the working classes; it is due to physical\nlaws, which the reformer, like everyone else, must\nadmit and study. Before any optimistic economic\nproject can be accepted as feasible, we must examine\nwhether the physical conditions of production impose\nan unalterable veto, or whether they are capable of\nbeing sufficiently modified by science and organization.\nTwo connected doctrines must be considered\nin examining this question: First, Malthus' doctrine\nof population; and second, the vaguer, but very\nprevalent, view that any surplus above the bare\nnecessaries of life can only be produced if most men\nwork long hours at monotonous or painful tasks,\nleaving little leisure for a civilized existence or\nrational enjoyment. I do not believe that either\nof these obstacles to optimism will survive a close\nscrutiny. The possibility of technical improvement\nin the methods of production is, I believe, so\ngreat that, at any rate for centuries to come, there\nwill be no inevitable barrier to progress in the general\nwell-being by the simultaneous increase of commodities\nand diminution of hours of labor.\n\nThis subject has been specially studied by Kropotkin,\nwho, whatever may be thought of his general\ntheories of politics, is remarkably instructive, concrete\nand convincing in all that he says about the\npossibilities of agriculture. Socialists and Anarchists\nin the main are products of industrial life, and\nfew among them have any practical knowledge on the\nsubject of food production. But Kropotkin is an\nexception. His two books, ``The Conquest of Bread''\nand ``Fields, Factories and Workshops,'' are very\nfull of detailed information, and, even making great\nallowances for an optimistic bias, I do not think it\ncan be denied that they demonstrate possibilities in\nwhich few of us would otherwise have believed.\n\nMalthus contended, in effect, that population\nalways tends to increase up to the limit of subsistence,\nthat the production of food becomes more expensive\nas its amount is increased, and that therefore, apart\nfrom short exceptional periods when new discoveries\nproduce temporary alleviations, the bulk of mankind\nmust always be at the lowest level consistent with\nsurvival and reproduction. As applied to the civilized\nraces of the world, this doctrine is becoming\nuntrue through the rapid decline in the birth-rate;\nbut, apart from this decline, there are many other\nreasons why the doctrine cannot be accepted, at any\nrate as regards the near future. The century which\nelapsed after Malthus wrote, saw a very great\nincrease in the standard of comfort throughout the\nwage-earning classes, and, owing to the enormous\nincrease in the productivity of labor, a far greater\nrise in the standard of comfort could have been\neffected if a more just system of distribution had\nbeen introduced. In former times, when one man's\nlabor produced not very much more than was needed\nfor one man's subsistence, it was impossible either\ngreatly to reduce the normal hours of labor, or\ngreatly to increase the proportion of the population\nwho enjoyed more than the bare necessaries of life.\nBut this state of affairs has been overcome by modern\nmethods of production. At the present moment,\nnot only do many people enjoy a comfortable income\nderived from rent or interest, but about half the\npopulation of most of the civilized countries in the\nworld is engaged, not in the production of commodities,\nbut in fighting or in manufacturing munitions\nof war. In a time of peace the whole of this\nhalf might be kept in idleness without making the\nother half poorer than they would have been if the\nwar had continued, and if, instead of being idle, they\nwere productively employed, the whole of what they\nwould produce would be a divisible surplus over and\nabove present wages. The present productivity of\nlabor in Great Britain would suffice to produce an\nincome of about 1 pound per day for each family, even\nwithout any of those improvements in methods which\nare obviously immediately possible.\n\nBut, it will be said, as population increases, the\nprice of food must ultimately increase also as\nthe sources of supply in Canada, the Argentine,\nAustralia and elsewhere are more and more used up.\nThere must come a time, so pessimists will urge, when\nfood becomes so dear that the ordinary wage-earner\nwill have little surplus for expenditure upon other\nthings. It may be admitted that this would be true\nin some very distant future if the population were to\ncontinue to increase without limit. If the whole\nsurface of the world were as densely populated as\nLondon is now, it would, no doubt, require almost\nthe whole labor of the population to produce the\nnecessary food from the few spaces remaining for\nagriculture. But there is no reason to suppose that\nthe population will continue to increase indefinitely,\nand in any case the prospect is so remote that it may\nbe ignored in all practical considerations.\n\nReturning from these dim speculations to the\nfacts set forth by Kropotkin, we find it proved in\nhis writings that, by methods of intensive cultivation,\nwhich are already in actual operation, the amount of\nfood produced on a given area can be increased far\nbeyond anything that most uninformed persons suppose\npossible. Speaking of the market-gardeners in\nGreat Britain, in the neighborhood of Paris, and in\nother places, he says:--\n\n\nThey have created a totally new agriculture. They\nsmile when we boast about the rotation system having\npermitted us to take from the field one crop every year,\nor four crops each three years, because their ambition is\nto have six and nine crops from the very same plot of\nland during the twelve months. They do not understand\nour talk about good and bad soils, because they make\nthe soil themselves, and make it in such quantities as to\nbe compelled yearly to sell some of it; otherwise it would\nraise up the level of their gardens by half an inch every\nyear. They aim at cropping, not five or six tons of\ngrass on the acre, as we do, but from 50 to 100 tons of\nvarious vegetables on the same space; not 5 pound sworth of\nhay, but 100 pounds worth of vegetables, of the plainest description,\ncabbage and carrots.[38]\n\n\n[38] Kropotkin, ``Fields, Factories and Workshops,'' p. 74.\n\n\nAs regards cattle, he mentions that Mr. Champion\nat Whitby grows on each acre the food of two or\nthree head of cattle, whereas under ordinary high\nfarming it takes two or three acres to keep each head\nof cattle in Great Britain. Even more astonishing\nare the achievements of the Culture Maraicheres\nround Paris. It is impossible to summarize these\nachievements, but we may note the general\nconclusion:--\n\n\nThere are now practical Maraichers who venture to\nmaintain that if all the food, animal and vegetable,\nnecessary for the 3,500,000 inhabitants of the Departments\nof Seine and Seine-et-Oise had to be grown on\ntheir own territory (3250 square miles), it could be\ngrown without resorting to any other methods of culture\nthan those already in use--methods already tested on a\nlarge scale and proved successful.[39]\n\n\n[39] Ib. p. 81.\n\n\nIt must be remembered that these two departments\ninclude the whole population of Paris.\n\nKropotkin proceeds to point out methods by\nwhich the same result could be achieved without long\nhours of labor. Indeed, he contends that the great\nbulk of agricultural work could be carried on by\npeople whose main occupations are sedentary, and\nwith only such a number of hours as would serve to\nkeep them in health and produce a pleasant diversification.\nHe protests against the theory of exces-\nsive division of labor. What he wants is INTEGRATION,\n``a society where each individual is a producer of\nboth manual and intellectual work; where each able-\nbodied human being is a worker, and where each\nworker works both in the field and in the industrial\nworkshop.''[40]\n\n\n[40] Kropotkin, ``Field, Factories, and Workshops,'' p. 6.\n\n\nThese views as to production have no essential\nconnection with Kropotkin's advocacy of Anarchism.\nThey would be equally possible under State\nSocialism, and under certain circumstances they\nmight even be carried out in a capitalistic regime.\nThey are important for our present purpose, not\nfrom any argument which they afford in favor of one\neconomic system as against another, but from the\nfact that they remove the veto upon our hopes which\nmight otherwise result from a doubt as to the productive\ncapacity of labor. I have dwelt upon agriculture\nrather than industry, since it is in regard\nto agriculture that the difficulties are chiefly supposed\nto arise. Broadly speaking, industrial production\ntends to be cheaper when it is carried on on\na large scale, and therefore there is no reason in\nindustry why an increase in the demand should lead\nto an increased cost of supply.\n\nPassing now from the purely technical and material\nside of the problem of production, we come\nto the human factor, the motives leading men to\nwork, the possibilities of efficient organization of\nproduction, and the connection of production with\ndistribution. Defenders of the existing system\nmaintain that efficient work would be impossible without\nthe economic stimulus, and that if the wage\nsystem were abolished men would cease to do enough\nwork to keep the community in tolerable comfort.\nThrough the alleged necessity of the economic motive,\nthe problems of production and distribution\nbecome intertwined. The desire for a more just\ndistribution of the world's goods is the main inspiration\nof most Socialism and Anarchism. We must,\ntherefore, consider whether the system of distribution\nwhich they propose would be likely to lead to\na diminished production.\n\nThere is a fundamental difference between Socialism\nand Anarchism as regards the question of distribution.\nSocialism, at any rate in most of its\nforms, would retain payment for work done or for\nwillingness to work, and, except in the case of persons\nincapacitated by age or infirmity, would make\nwillingness to work a condition of subsistence, or at\nany rate of subsistence above a certain very low\nminimum. Anarchism, on the other hand, aims at\ngranting to everyone, without any conditions whatever,\njust as much of all ordinary commodities as\nhe or she may care to consume, while the rarer com-\nmodities, of which the supply cannot easily be\nindefinitely increased, would be rationed and divided\nequally among the population. Thus Anarchism\nwould not impose any OBLIGATIONS of work, though\nAnarchists believe that the necessary work could be\nmade sufficiently agreeable for the vast majority of\nthe population to undertake it voluntarily. Socialists,\non the other hand, would exact work. Some of\nthem would make the incomes of all workers equal,\nwhile others would retain higher pay for the work\nwhich is considered more valuable. All these different\nsystems are compatible with the common ownership\nof land and capital, though they differ greatly\nas regards the kind of society which they would\nproduce.\n\nSocialism with inequality of income would not\ndiffer greatly as regards the economic stimulus to\nwork from the society in which we live. Such differences\nas it would entail would undoubtedly be to the\ngood from our present point of view. Under the\nexisting system many people enjoy idleness and\naffluence through the mere accident of inheriting land\nor capital. Many others, through their activities in\nindustry or finance, enjoy an income which is certainly\nvery far in excess of anything to which their\nsocial utility entitles them. On the other hand, it\noften happens that inventors and discoverers, whose\nwork has the very greatest social utility, are robbed\nof their reward either by capitalists or by the failure\nof the public to appreciate their work until too\nlate. The better paid work is only open to those who\nhave been able to afford an expensive training, and\nthese men are selected in the main not by merit but\nby luck. The wage earner is not paid for his willingness\nto work, but only for his utility to the employer.\nConsequently, he may be plunged into destitution by\ncauses over which he has no control. Such destitution\nis a constant fear, and when it occurs it produces\nundeserved suffering, and often deterioration\nin the social value of the sufferer. These are a few\namong the evils of our existing system from the\nstandpoint of production. All these evils we might\nexpect to see remedied under any system of Socialism.\n\nThere are two questions which need to be considered\nwhen we are discussing how far work requires\nthe economic motive. The first question is: Must\nsociety give higher pay for the more skilled or socially\nmore valuable work, if such work is to be done in\nsufficient quantities? The second question is: Could\nwork be made so attractive that enough of it would\nbe done even if idlers received just as much of the\nproduce of work? The first of these questions concerns\nthe division between two schools of Socialists:\nthe more moderate Socialists sometimes concede that\neven under Socialism it would be well to retain\nunequal pay for different kinds of work, while the\nmore thoroughgoing Socialists advocate equal\nincomes for all workers. The second question, on the\nother hand, forms a division between Socialists and\nAnarchists; the latter would not deprive a man of\ncommodities if he did not work, while the former in\ngeneral would.\n\nOur second question is so much more fundamental\nthan our first that it must be discussed at once, and\nin the course of this discussion what needs to be said\non our first question will find its place naturally.\n\nWages or Free Sharing?--``Abolition of the\nwages system'' is one of the watchwords common\nto Anarchists and advanced Socialists. But in its\nmost natural sense it is a watchword to which only\nthe Anarchists have a right. In the Anarchist conception\nof society all the commoner commodities will\nbe available to everyone without stint, in the kind\nof way in which water is available at present.[41] Advo-\ncates of this system point out that it applies already\nto many things which formerly had to be paid for,\ne.g., roads and bridges. They point out that it\nmight very easily be extended to trams and local\ntrains. They proceed to argue--as Kropotkin does\nby means of his proofs that the soil might be made\nindefinitely more productive--that all the commoner\nkinds of food could be given away to all who demanded\nthem, since it would be easy to produce them in quantities\nadequate to any possible demand. If this system\nwere extended to all the necessaries of life,\neveryone's bare livelihood would be secured, quite\nregardless of the way in which he might choose to\nspend his time. As for commodities which cannot\nbe produced in indefinite quantities, such as luxuries\nand delicacies, they also, according to the Anarchists,\nare to be distributed without payment, but on a system\nof rations, the amount available being divided\nequally among the population. No doubt, though\nthis is not said, something like a price will have\nto be put upon these luxuries, so that a man may\nbe free to choose how he will take his share: one man\nwill prefer good wine, another the finest Havana\ncigars, another pictures or beautiful furniture. Presumably,\nevery man will be allowed to take such luxuries\nas are his due in whatever form he prefers, the\nrelative prices being fixed so as to equalize the\ndemand. In such a world as this, the economic stimulus\nto production will have wholly disappeared, and\nif work is to continue it must be from other motives.[42]\n\n\n[41] ``Notwithstanding the egotistic turn given to the public\nmind by the merchant-production of our century, the Communist\ntendency is continually reasserting itself and trying to\nmake its way into public life. The penny bridge disappears before\nthe public bridge; and the turnpike road before the free\nroad. The same spirit pervades thousands of other institutions.\nMuseums, free libraries, and free public schools; parks and\npleasure grounds; paved and lighted streets, free for everybody's\nuse; water supplied to private dwellings, with a growing tendency\ntowards disregarding the exact amount of it used by the\nindividual, tramways and railways which have already begun to\nintroduce the season ticket or the uniform tax, and will surely\ngo much further on this line when they are no longer private\nproperty: all these are tokens showing in what direction further\nprogress is to be expected.''--Kropotkin, ``Anarchist Communism.''\n\n[42] An able discussion of this question, at of various others,\nfrom the standpoint of reasoned and temperate opposition to\nAnarchism, will be found in Alfred Naquet's ``L'Anarchie et le\nCollectivisme,'' Paris, 1904.\n\n\nIs such a system possible? First, is it technically\npossible to provide the necessaries of life in such\nlarge quantities as would be needed if every man and\nwoman could take as much of them from the public\nstores as he or she might desire?\n\nThe idea of purchase and payment is so familiar\nthat the proposal to do away with it must be thought\nat first fantastic. Yet I do not believe it is nearly\nso fantastic as it seems. Even if we could all have\nbread for nothing, we should not want more than\na quite limited amount. As things are, the cost of\nbread to the rich is so small a proportion of their\nincome as to afford practically no check upon their\nconsumption; yet the amount of bread that they consume\ncould easily be supplied to the whole population\nby improved methods of agriculture (I am not speaking\nof war-time). The amount of food that people\ndesire has natural limits, and the waste that would\nbe incurred would probably not be very great. As\nthe Anarchists point out, people at present enjoy\nan unlimited water supply but very few leave the\ntaps running when they are not using them. And\none may assume that public opinion would be opposed\nto excessive waste. We may lay it down, I think,\nthat the principle of unlimited supply could be\nadopted in regard to all commodities for which the\ndemand has limits that fall short of what can be\neasily produced. And this would be the case, if production\nwere efficiently organized, with the necessaries\nof life, including not only commodities, but also\nsuch things as education. Even if all education were\nfree up to the highest, young people, unless they were\nradically transformed by the Anarchist regime,\nwould not want more than a certain amount of it.\nAnd the same applies to plain foods, plain clothes,\nand the rest of the things that supply our elementary\nneeds.\n\nI think we may conclude that there is no technical\nimpossibility in the Anarchist plan of free\nsharing.\n\nBut would the necessary work be done if the individual\nwere assured of the general standard of comfort\neven though he did no work?\n\nMost people will answer this question unhesitatingly\nin the negative. Those employers in particular\nwho are in the habit of denouncing their\nemployes as a set of lazy, drunken louts, will feel quite\ncertain that no work could be got out of them except\nunder threat of dismissal and consequent starvation.\nBut is this as certain as people are inclined to sup-\npose at first sight? If work were to remain what\nmost work is now, no doubt it would be very hard to\ninduce people to undertake it except from fear of\ndestitution. But there is no reason why work should\nremain the dreary drudgery in horrible conditions\nthat most of it is now.[43] If men had to be tempted to\nwork instead of driven to it, the obvious interest of\nthe community would be to make work pleasant. So\nlong as work is not made on the whole pleasant, it\ncannot be said that anything like a good state of\nsociety has been reached. Is the painfulness of work\nunavoidable?\n\n\n[43] ``Overwork is repulsive to human nature--not work. Overwork\nfor supplying the few with luxury--not work for the well-\nbeing of all. Work, labor, is a physiological necessity, a necessity\nof spending accumulated bodily energy, a necessity which\nis health and life itself. If so many branches of useful work are\nso reluctantly done now, it is merely because they mean overwork,\nor they are improperly organized. But we know--old\nFranklin knew it--that four hours of useful work every day\nwould be more than sufficient for supplying everybody with the\ncomfort of a moderately well-to-do middle-class house, if we all\ngave ourselves to productive work, and if we did not waste our\nproductive powers as we do waste them now. As to the childish\nquestion, repeated for fifty years: `Who would do disagreeable\nwork?' frankly I regret that none of our savants has ever been\nbrought to do it, be it for only one day in his life. If there is\nstill work which is really disagreeable in itself, it is only\nbecause our scientific men have never cared to consider the\nmeans of rendering it less so: they have always known that there\nwere plenty of starving men who would do it for a few pence\na day.'' Kropotkin, ```Anarchist Communism.''\n\n\nAt present, the better paid work, that of the\nbusiness and professional classes, is for the most part\nenjoyable. I do not mean that every separate\nmoment is agreeable, but that the life of a man who\nhas work of this sort is on the whole happier than\nthat of a man who enjoys an equal income without\ndoing any work. A certain amount of effort, and\nsomething in the nature of a continuous career, are\nnecessary to vigorous men if they are to preserve\ntheir mental health and their zest for life. A considerable\namount of work is done without pay. People\nwho take a rosy view of human nature might have\nsupposed that the duties of a magistrate would be\namong disagreeable trades, like cleaning sewers; but\na cynic might contend that the pleasures of vindictiveness\nand moral superiority are so great that there is\nno difficulty in finding well-to-do elderly gentlemen\nwho are willing, without pay, to send helpless wretches\nto the torture of prison. And apart from enjoyment\nof the work itself, desire for the good opinion of\nneighbors and for the feeling of effectiveness is quite\nsufficient to keep many men active.\n\nBut, it will be said, the sort of work that a man\nwould voluntarily choose must always be exceptional:\nthe great bulk of necessary work can never be anything\nbut painful. Who would choose, if an easy life\nwere otherwise open to him, to be a coal-miner, or a\nstoker on an Atlantic liner? I think it must be conceded\nthat much necessary work must always remain\ndisagreeable or at least painfully monotonous, and\nthat special privileges will have to be accorded to\nthose who undertake it, if the Anarchist system is ever\nto be made workable. It is true that the introduction\nof such special privileges would somewhat mar the\nrounded logic of Anarchism, but it need not,\nI think, make any really vital breach in its system.\nMuch of the work that needs doing could be rendered\nagreeable, if thought and care were given\nto this object. Even now it is often only long hours\nthat make work irksome. If the normal hours of\nwork were reduced to, say, four, as they could be by\nbetter organization and more scientific methods, a\nvery great deal of work which is now felt as a burden\nwould quite cease to be so. If, as Kropotkin suggests,\nagricultural work, instead of being the lifelong\ndrudgery of an ignorant laborer living very\nnear the verge of abject poverty, were the occasional\noccupation of men and women normally employed in\nindustry or brain-work; if, instead of being conducted\nby ancient traditional methods, without any\npossibility of intelligent participation by the wage-\nearner, it were alive with the search for new methods\nand new inventions, filled with the spirit of freedom,\nand inviting the mental as well as the physical cooperation\nof those who do the work, it might become\na joy instead of a weariness, and a source of health\nand life to those engaged in it.\n\nWhat is true of agriculture is said by Anarchists\nto be equally true of industry. They maintain\nthat if the great economic organizations which\nare now managed by capitalists, without consideration\nfor the lives of the wage-earners beyond\nwhat Trade Unions are able to exact, were turned\ngradually into self-governing communities, in which\nthe producers could decide all questions of methods,\nconditions, hours of work, and so forth, there would\nbe an almost boundless change for the better: grime\nand noise might be nearly eliminated, the hideousness\nof industrial regions might be turned into beauty, the\ninterest in the scientific aspects of production might\nbecome diffused among all producers with any native\nintelligence, and something of the artist's joy in creation\nmight inspire the whole of the work. All this,\nwhich is at present utterly remote from the reality,\nmight be produced by economic self-government.\nWe may concede that by such means a very large\nproportion of the necessary work of the world could\nultimately be made sufficiently agreeable to be preferred\nbefore idleness even by men whose bare livelihood\nwould be assured whether they worked or not.\nAs to the residue let us admit that special rewards,\nwhether in goods or honors or privileges, would have\nto be given to those who undertook it. But this need\nnot cause any fundamental objection.\n\nThere would, of course, be a certain proportion\nof the population who would prefer idleness. Provided\nthe proportion were small, this need not matter.\nAnd among those who would be classed as idlers\nmight be included artists, writers of books, men\ndevoted to abstract intellectual pursuits--in short,\nall those whom society despises while they are alive\nand honors when they are dead. To such men, the\npossibility of pursuing their own work regardless\nof any public recognition of its utility would be\ninvaluable. Whoever will observe how many of our\npoets have been men of private means will realize how\nmuch poetic capacity must have remained undeveloped\nthrough poverty; for it would be absurd to\nsuppose that the rich are better endowed by nature\nwith the capacity for poetry. Freedom for such men,\nfew as they are, must be set against the waste of\nthe mere idlers.\n\nSo far, we have set forth the arguments in favor\nof the Anarchist plan. They are, to my mind, sufficient\nto make it seem possible that the plan might\nsucceed, but not sufficient to make it so probable that\nit would be wise to try it.\n\nThe question of the feasibility of the Anarchist\nproposals in regard to distribution is, like so many\nother questions, a quantitative one. The Anarchist\nproposals consist of two parts: (1) That all the common\ncommodities should be supplied ad lib. to all\napplicants; (2) That no obligation to work, or economic\nreward for work, should be imposed on anyone.\nThese two proposals are not necessarily inseparable,\nnor does either entail the whole system of Anarchism,\nthough without them Anarchism would hardly be\npossible. As regards the first of these proposals, it\ncan be carried out even now with regard to some\ncommodities, and it could be carried out in no very\ndistant future with regard to many more. It is a\nflexible plan, since this or that article of consumption\ncould be placed on the free list or taken of as\ncircumstances might dictate. Its advantages are\nmany and various, and the practice of the world tends\nto develop in this direction. I think we may conclude\nthat this part of the Anarchists' system might\nwell be adopted bit by bit, reaching gradually the\nfull extension that they desire.\n\nBut as regards the second proposal, that there\nshould be no obligation to work, and no economic\nreward for work, the matter is much more doubtful.\nAnarchists always assume that if their schemes were\nput into operation practically everyone would work;\nbut although there is very much more to be said\nfor this view than most people would concede at first\nsight, yet it is questionable whether there is enough\nto be said to make it true for practical purposes.\nPerhaps, in a community where industry had become\nhabitual through economic pressure, public opinion\nmight be sufficiently powerful to compel most men\nto work;[44] but it is always doubtful how far such\na state of things would be permanent. If public\nopinion is to be really effective, it will be necessary\nto have some method of dividing the community into\nsmall groups, and to allow each group to consume\nonly the equivalent of what it produces. This will\nmake the economic motive operative upon the group,\nwhich, since we are supposing it small, will feel that\nits collective share is appreciably diminished by each\nidle individual. Such a system might be feasible, but\nit would be contrary to the whole spirit of Anarchism\nand would destroy the main lines of its economic\nsystem.\n\n\n[44] ``As to the so-often repeated objection that nobody would\nlabor if he were not compelled to do so by sheer necessity, we\nheard enough of it before the emancipation of slaves in America,\nas well as before the emancipation of serfs in Russia; and we\nhave had the opportunity of appreciating it at its just value.\nSo we shall not try to convince those who can be convinced only\nby accomplished facts. As to those who reason, they ought to\nknow that, if it really was so with some parts of humanity at\nits lowest stages--and yet, what do we know about it?--or if\nit is so with some small communities, or separate individuals,\nbrought to sheer despair by ill-success in their struggle against\nunfavorable conditions, it is not so with the bulk of the civilized\nnations. With us, work is a habit, and idleness an artificial\ngrowth.'' Kropotkin, ``Anarchist Communism,'' p. 30.\n\n\nThe attitude of orthodox Socialism on this question\nis quite different from that of Anarchism.[45]\nAmong the more immediate measures advocated in the\n``Communist Manifesto'' is ``equal liability of all\nto labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially\nfor agriculture.'' The Socialist theory is that,\nin general, work alone gives the right to the enjoyment\nof the produce of work. To this theory there\nwill, of course, be exceptions: the old and the very\nyoung, the infirm and those whose work is temporarily\nnot required through no fault of their own.\nBut the fundamental conception of Socialism, in regard\nto our present question, is that all who can\nshould be compelled to work, either by the threat\nof starvation or by the operation of the criminal\nlaw. And, of course, the only kind of work recognized\nwill be such as commends itself to the authorities.\nWriting books against Socialism, or against\nany theory embodied in the government of the day,\nwould certainly not be recognized as work. No more\nwould the painting of pictures in a different style\nfrom that of the Royal Academy, or producing plays\nunpleasing to the censor. Any new line of thought\nwould be banned, unless by influence or corruption\nthe thinker could crawl into the good graces of the\npundits. These results are not foreseen by Socialists,\nbecause they imagine that the Socialist State\nwill be governed by men like those who now advocate\nit. This is, of course, a delusion. The rulers of the\nState then will bear as little resemblance to the pres-\nent Socialists as the dignitaries of the Church after\nthe time of Constantine bore to the Apostles. The\nmen who advocate an unpopular reform are exceptional\nin disinterestedness and zeal for the public\ngood; but those who hold power after the reform\nhas been carried out are likely to belong, in the main,\nto the ambitious executive type which has in all ages\npossessed itself of the government of nations. And\nthis type has never shown itself tolerant of opposition\nor friendly to freedom.\n\n\n[45] ``While holding this synthetic view on production, the\nAnarchists cannot consider, like the Collectivists, that a\nremuneration which would be proportionate to the hours of labor\nspent by each person in the production of riches may be an\nideal, or even an approach to an ideal, society.'' Kropotkin,\n``Anarchist Communism,'' p. 20.\n\n\nIt would seem, then, that if the Anarchist plan\nhas its dangers, the Socialist plan has at least equal\ndangers. It is true that the evils we have been foreseeing\nunder Socialism exist at present, but the purpose\nof Socialists is to cure the evils of the world\nas it is; they cannot be content with the argument\nthat they would make things no worse.\n\nAnarchism has the advantage as regards liberty,\nSocialism as regards the inducements to work. Can\nwe not find a method of combining these two advantages?\nIt seems to me that we can.\n\nWe saw that, provided most people work in\nmoderation, and their work is rendered as productive\nas science and organization can make it, there is no\ngood reason why the necessaries of life should not be\nsupplied freely to all. Our only serious doubt was\nas to whether, in an Anarchist regime, the motives for\nwork would be sufficiently powerful to prevent a dan-\ngerously large amount of idleness. But it would be\neasy to decree that, though necessaries should be free\nto all, whatever went beyond necessaries should only\nbe given to those who were willing to work--not, as\nis usual at present, only to those in work at any\nmoment, but also to all those who, when they happened\nnot to be working, were idle through no fault\nof their own. We find at present that a man who\nhas a small income from investments, just sufficient\nto keep him from actual want, almost always prefers\nto find some paid work in order to be able to afford\nluxuries. So it would be, presumably, in such a\ncommunity as we are imagining. At the same time, the\nman who felt a vocation for some unrecognized work\nof art or science or thought would be free to follow his\ndesire, provided he were willing to ``scorn delights\nand live laborious days.'' And the comparatively\nsmall number of men with an invincible horror of\nwork--the sort of men who now become tramps--\nmight lead a harmless existence, without any grave\ndanger of their becoming sufficiently numerous to be\na serious burden upon the more industrious. In this\nways the claims of freedom could be combined with\nthe need of some economic stimulus to work. Such\na system, it seems to me, would have a far greater\nchance of success than either pure Anarchism or pure\northodox Socialism.\n\nStated in more familiar terms, the plan we are\nadvocating amounts essentially to this: that a certain\nsmall income, sufficient for necessaries, should be\nsecured to all, whether they work or not, and that a\nlarger income, as much larger as might be warranted\nby the total amount of commodities produced, should\nbe given to those who are willing to engage in some\nwork which the community recognizes as useful. On\nthis basis we may build further. I do not think it\nis always necessary to pay more highly work which\nis more skilled or regarded as socially more useful,\nsince such work is more interesting and more respected\nthan ordinary work, and will therefore often be\npreferred by those who are able to do it. But we\nmight, for instance, give an intermediate income to\nthose who are only willing to work half the usual\nnumber of hours, and an income above that of most\nworkers to those who choose a specially disagreeable\ntrade. Such a system is perfectly compatible with\nSocialism, though perhaps hardly with Anarchism.\nOf its advantages we shall have more to say at a\nlater stage. For the present I am content to urge\nthat it combines freedom with justice, and avoids\nthose dangers to the community which we have found\nto lurk both in the proposals of the Anarchists and\nin those of orthodox Socialists.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nGOVERNMENT AND LAW\n\n\nGOVERNMENT and Law, in their very essence, consist\nof restrictions on freedom, and freedom is the\ngreatest of political goods.[46] A hasty reasoner might\nconclude without further ado that Law and government\nare evils which must be abolished if freedom\nis our goal. But this consequence, true or false, cannot\nbe proved so simply. In this chapter we shall\nexamine the arguments of Anarchists against law and\nthe State. We shall proceed on the assumption that\nfreedom is the supreme aim of a good social system;\nbut on this very basis we shall find the Anarchist\ncontentions very questionable.\n\n\n[46] I do not say freedom is the greatest of ALL goods: the best\nthings come from within--they are such things as creative art,\nand love, and thought. Such things can be helped or hindered\nby political conditions, but not actually produced by them; and\nfreedom is, both in itself and in its relation to these other goods\nthe best thing that political and economic conditions can secure.\n\n\nRespect for the liberty of others is not a natural\nimpulse with most men: envy and love of power lead\nordinary human nature to find pleasure in interferences\nwith the lives of others. If all men's actions\nwere wholly unchecked by external authority, we\nshould not obtain a world in which all men would be\nfree. The strong would oppress the weak, or the\nmajority would oppress the minority, or the lovers\nof violence would oppress the more peaceable people.\nI fear it cannot be said that these bad impulses are\nWHOLLY due to a bad social system, though it must\nbe conceded that the present competitive organization\nof society does a great deal to foster the worst\nelements in human nature. The love of power is an\nimpulse which, though innate in very ambitious men,\nis chiefly promoted as a rule by the actual experience\nof power. In a world where none could acquire\nmuch power, the desire to tyrannize would be much\nless strong than it is at present. Nevertheless, I\ncannot think that it would be wholly absent, and\nthose in whom it would exist would often be men of\nunusual energy and executive capacity. Such men,\nif they are not restrained by the organized will of\nthe community, may either succeed in establishing\na despotism, or, at any rate, make such a vigorous\nattempt as can only be defeated through a period\nof prolonged disturbance. And apart from the love\nor political power, there is the love of power over\nindividuals. If threats and terrorism were not prevented\nby law, it can hardly be doubted that cruelty would\nbe rife in the relations of men and women, and of\nparents and children. It is true that the habits of\na community can make such cruelty rare, but these\nhabits, I fear, are only to be produced through the\nprolonged reign of law. Experience of backwoods\ncommunities, mining camps and other such places\nseems to show that under new conditions men easily\nrevert to a more barbarous attitude and practice.\nIt would seem, therefore, that, while human nature\nremains as it is, there will be more liberty for all in a\ncommunity where some acts of tyranny by individuals\nare forbidden, than in a community where the law\nleaves each individual free to follow his every impulse.\nBut, although the necessity of some form of government\nand law must for the present be conceded, it is\nimportant to remember that all law and government\nis in itself in some degree an evil, only justifiable when\nit prevents other and greater evils. Every use of the\npower of the State needs, therefore, to be very closely\nscrutinized, and every possibility of diminishing its\npower is to be welcomed provided it does not lead to\na reign of private tyranny.\n\nThe power of the State is partly legal, partly\neconomic: acts of a kind which the State dislikes can\nbe punished by the criminal law, and individuals who\nincur the displeasure of the State may find it hard\nto earn a livelihood.\n\nThe views of Marx on the State are not very\nclear. On the one hand he seems willing,, like the\nmodern State Socialists, to allow great power to the\nState, but on the other hand he suggests that when\nthe Socialist revolution has been consummated, the\nState, as we know it, will disappear. Among the\nmeasures which are advocated in the Communist\nManifesto as immediately desirable, there are several\nwhich would very greatly increase the power of\nthe existing State. For example, ``Centralization\nof credit in the hands of the State, by means of a\nnational bank with State capital and an exclusive\nmonopoly;'' and again, ``Centralization of the\nmeans of communication and transport in the hands\nof the State.'' But the Manifesto goes on to say:\n\n\nWhen, in the course of development, class distinctions\nhave disappeared, and all production has been concentrated\nin the hands of a vast association of the whole\nnation, the public power will lose its political character.\nPolitical power, properly so called, is merely the organised\npower of one class for oppressing another. If the\nproletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is\ncompelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize\nitself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes\nitself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by\nforce the old conditions of production, then it will,\nalong with these conditions, have swept away the conditions\nfor the existence of class antagonisms, and of\nclasses generally, and will thereby have abolished its\nown supremacy as a class.\n\nIn place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes\nand class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in\nwhich; the free development of each is the condition for\nthe free development of all.[47]\n\n\n[47] Communist Manifesto, p. 22.\n\n\nThis attitude Marx preserved in essentials\nthroughout his life. Accordingly, it is not to be\nwondered at that his followers, so far as regards their\nimmediate aims, have in the main become out-and-out\nState Socialists. On the other hand, the Syndicalists,\nwho accept from Marx the doctrine of the class\nwar, which they regard as what is really vital in his\nteaching, reject the State with abhorrence and wish\nto abolish it wholly, in which respect they are at one\nwith the Anarchists. The Guild Socialists, though\nsome persons in this country regard them as extremists,\nreally represent the English love of compromise.\nThe Syndicalist arguments as to the dangers inherent\nin the power of the State have made them dissatisfied\nwith the old State Socialism, but they are\nunable to accept the Anarchist view that society can\ndispense altogether with a central authority.\nAccordingly they propose that there should be two\nco-equal instruments of Government in a community,\nthe one geographical, representing the consumers,\nand essentially the continuation of the democratic\nState; the other representing the producers, organized,\nnot geographically, but in guilds, after the\nmanner of industrial unionism. These two author-\nities will deal with different classes of questions.\nGuild Socialists do not regard the industrial authority\nas forming part of the State, for they contend\nthat it is the essence of the State to be geographical;\nbut the industrial authority will resemble the present\nState in the fact that it will have coercive powers,\nand that its decrees will be enforced, when necessary.\nIt is to be suspected that Syndicalists also, much as\nthey object to the existing State, would not object\nto coercion of individuals in an industry by the\nTrade Union in that industry. Government within\nthe Trade Union would probably be quite as strict\nas State government is now. In saying this we are\nassuming that the theoretical Anarchism of Syndicalist\nleaders would not survive accession to power,\nbut I am afraid experience shows that this is not a\nvery hazardous assumption.\n\nAmong all these different views, the one which\nraises the deepest issue is the Anarchist contention\nthat all coercion by the community is unnecessary.\nLike most of the things that Anarchists say, there\nis much more to be urged in support of this view\nthan most people would suppose at first sight. Kropotkin,\nwho is its ablest exponent, points out how\nmuch has been achieved already by the method of free\nagreement. He does not wish to abolish government\nin the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish\nto abolish is the system by which a decision is en-\nforced upon those who oppose it.[48] The whole system\nof representative government and majority rule is\nto him a bad thing.[49] He points to such instances\nas the agreements among the different railway systems\nof the Continent for the running of through\nexpresses and for co-operation generally. He points\nout that in such cases the different companies or\nauthorities concerned each appoint a delegate, and that\nthe delegates suggest a basis of agreement, which has\nto be subsequently ratified by each of the bodies ap-\npointing them. The assembly of delegates has no\ncoercive power whatever, and a majority can do\nnothing against a recalcitrant minority. Yet this has\nnot prevented the conclusion of very elaborate systems\nof agreements. By such methods, so Anarchists\ncontend, the USEFUL functions of government can be\ncarried out without any coercion. They maintain\nthat the usefulness of agreement is so patent as to\nmake co-operation certain if once the predatory\nmotives associated with the present system of private\nproperty were removed.\n\n\n[48] ``On the other hand, the STATE has also been confused with\nGOVERNMENT. As there can be no State without government, it\nhas been sometimes said that it is the absence of government,\nand not the abolition of the State, that should be the aim.\n\n``It seems to me, however, that State and government represent\ntwo ideas of a different kind. The State idea implies quite\nanother idea to that of government. It not only includes the\nexistence of a power placed above society, but also a territorial\nconcentration and a concentration of many functions of the life\nof society in the hands of a few or even of all. It implies new\nrelations among the members of society.\n\n``This characteristic distinction, which perhaps escapes\nnotice at first sight, appears clearly when the origin of the State\nis studied.'' Kropotkin, ``The State.'' p. 4.\n\n[49] Representative government has accomplished its historical\nmission; it has given a mortal blow to Court-rule; and by\nits debates it has awakened public interest in public questions.\nBut, to see in it the government of the future Socialist society,\nis to commit a gross error. Each economical phase of life\nimplies its own political phase; and it is impossible to touch the\nvery basis of the present economical life--private property--\nwithout a corresponding change in the very basis of the political\norganization. Life already shows in which direction the change\nwill be made. Not in increasing the powers of the State, but\nin resorting to free organization and free federation in all those\nbranches which are now considered as attributes of the State.''\nKropotkin, ``Anarchist Communism,'' pp. 28-29.\n\n\nAttractive as this view is, I cannot resist the\nconclusion that it results from impatience and\nrepresents the attempt to find a short-cut toward the\nideal which all humane people desire.\n\nLet us begin with the question of private crime.[50]\nAnarchists maintain that the criminal is manufactured\nby bad social conditions and would disappear\nin such a world as they aim at creating.[51] No doubt\nthere is a great measure of truth in this view. There\nwould be little motive to robbery, for example, in an\nAnarchist world, unless it were organized on a large\nscale by a body of men bent on upsetting the Anarchist\nregime. It may also be conceded that impulses\ntoward criminal violence could be very largely eliminated\nby a better education. But all such contentions,\nit seems to me, have their limitations. To take\nan extreme case, we cannot suppose that there would\nbe no lunatics in an Anarchist community, and some\nof these lunatics would, no doubt, be homicidal.\nProbably no one would argue that they ought to be\nleft at liberty. But there are no sharp lines in nature;\nfrom the homicidal lunatic to the sane man\nof violent passions there is a continuous gradation.\nEven in the most perfect community there will be\nmen and women, otherwise sane, who will feel an\nimpulse to commit murder from jealousy. These are\nnow usually restrained by the fear of punishment,\nbut if this fear were removed, such murders would\nprobably become much more common, as may be\nseen from the present behavior of certain soldiers\non leave. Moreover, certain kinds of conduct arouse\npublic hostility, and would almost inevitably lead to\nlynching, if no other recognized method of punishment\nexisted. There is in most men a certain natural\nvindictiveness, not always directed against the worst\nmembers of the community. For example, Spinoza\nwas very nearly murdered by the mob because he was\nsuspected of undue friendliness to France at a time\nwhen Holland was at war with that country. Apart\nfrom such cases, there would be the very real danger\nof an organized attempt to destroy Anarchism\nand revive ancient oppressions. Is it to be supposed,\nfor example, that Napoleon, if he had been born into\nsuch a community as Kropotkin advocates, would\nhave acquiesced tamely in a world where his genius\ncould find no scope? I cannot see what should prevent\na combination of ambitious men forming themselves\ninto a private army, manufacturing their own\nmunitions, and at last enslaving the defenseless citizens,\nwho had relied upon the inherent attractiveness\nof liberty. It would not be consistent with the principles\nof Anarchism for the community to interfere\nwith the drilling of a private army, no matter what\nits objects might be (though, of course, an opposing\nprivate army might be formed by men with different\nviews). Indeed, Kropotkin instances the old volunteers\nin Great Britain as an example of a movement\non Anarchist lines.[52] Even if a predatory army were\nnot formed from within, it might easily come from a\nneighboring nation, or from races on the borderland\nof civilization. So long as the love of power exists,\nI do not see how it can be prevented from finding an\noutlet in oppression except by means of the organized\nforce of the community.\n\n\n[50] On this subject there is an excellent discussion in the\nbefore-mentioned work of Monsieur Naquet.\n\n[51] ``As to the third--the chief--objection, which maintains\nthe necessity of a government for punishing those who break the\nlaw of society, there is so much to say about it that it hardly can\nbe touched incidentally. The more we study the question, the\nmore we are brought to the conclusion that society itself is\nresponsible for the anti-social deeds perpetrated in its midst, and\nthat no punishment, no prisons, and no hangmen can diminish\nthe numbers of such deeds; nothing short of a reorganization of\nsociety itself. Three-quarters of all the acts which are brought\nevery year before our courts have their origin, either directly or\nindirectly, in the present disorganized state of society with\nregard to the production and distribution of wealth--not in the\nperversity of human nature. As to the relatively few anti-social\ndeeds which result from anti-social inclinations of separate\nindividuals, it is not by prisons, nor even by resorting to the\nhangmen, that we can diminish their numbers. By our prisons,\nwe merely multiply them and render them worse. By our detectives,\nour `price of blood,' our executions, and our jails, we\nspread in society such a terrible flow of basest passions and\nhabits, that he who should realize the effects of these institutions\nto their full extent, would be frightened by what society is\ndoing under the pretext of maintaining morality. We must\nsearch for other remedies, and the remedies have been indicated\nlong since.'' Kropotkin, ``Anarchist Communism,'' pp. 31-32.\n\n[52] ``Anarchist Communism,'' p. 27.\n\n\nThe conclusion, which appears to be forced upon\nus, is that the Anarchist ideal of a community in\nwhich no acts are forbidden by law is not, at any\nrate for the present, compatible with the stability of\nsuch a world as the Anarchists desire. In order to\nobtain and preserve a world resembling as closely\nas possible that at which they aim, it will still be\nnecessary that some acts should be forbidden by\nlaw. We may put the chief of these under three\nheads:\n\n1. Theft.\n\n2. Crimes of violence.\n\n3. The creation of organizations intended to subvert\nthe Anarchist regime by force.\n\nWe will briefly recapitulate what has been said\nalready as to the necessity of these prohibitions.\n\n1. Theft.--It is true that in an Anarchist world\nthere will be no destitution, and therefore no thefts\nmotivated by starvation. But such thefts are at present\nby no means the most considerable or the most\nharmful. The system of rationing, which is to be\napplied to luxuries, will leave many men with fewer\nluxuries than they might desire. It will give\nopportunities for peculation by those who are in control\nof the public stores, and it will leave the possibility of\nappropriating such valuable objects of art as would\nnaturally be preserved in public museums. It may\nbe contended that such forms of theft would be prevented\nby public opinion. But public opinion is not\ngreatly operative upon an individual unless it is the\nopinion of his own group. A group of men combined\nfor purposes of theft might readily defy the public\nopinion of the majority unless that public opinion\nmade itself effective by the use of force against them.\nProbably, in fact, such force would be applied\nthrough popular indignation, but in that case we\nshould revive the evils of the criminal law with the\nadded evils of uncertainty, haste and passion, which\nare inseparable from the practice of lynching. If,\nas we have suggested, it were found necessary to provide\nan economic stimulus to work by allowing fewer\nluxuries to idlers, this would afford a new motive for\ntheft on their part and a new necessity for some form\nof criminal law.\n\n2. Crimes of Violence.--Cruelty to children,\ncrimes of jealousy, rape, and so forth, are almost\ncertain to occur in any society to some extent. The\nprevention of such acts is essential to the existence\nof freedom for the weak. If nothing were done to\nhinder them, it is to be feared that the customs of a\nsociety would gradually become rougher, and that\nacts which are now rare would cease to be so. If\nAnarchists are right in maintaining that the existence\nof such an economic system as they desire would\nprevent the commission of crimes of this kind, the\nlaws forbidding them would no longer come into\noperation, and would do no harm to liberty. If, on\nthe other hand, the impulse to such actions persisted,\nit would be necessary that steps should be taken to\nrestrain men from indulging it.\n\n3. The third class of difficulties is much the most\nserious and involves much the most drastic interference\nwith liberty. I do not see how a private army\ncould be tolerated within an Anarchist community,\nand I do not see how it could be prevented except by\na general prohibition of carrying arms. If there\nwere no such prohibition, rival parties would organize\nrival forces, and civil war would result. Yet, if there\nis such a prohibition, it cannot well be carried out\nwithout a very considerable interference with individual\nliberty. No doubt, after a time, the idea of\nusing violence to achieve a political object might die\ndown, as the practice of duelling has done. But such\nchanges of habit and outlook are facilitated by legal\nprohibition, and would hardly come about without\nit. I shall not speak yet of the international aspect\nof this same problem, for I propose to deal with that\nin the next chapter, but it is clear that the same\nconsiderations apply with even greater force to the\nrelations between nations.\n\nIf we admit, however reluctantly, that a criminal\nlaw is necessary and that the force of the community\nmust be brought to bear to prevent certain kinds of\nactions, a further question arises: How is crime to be\ntreated? What is the greatest measure of humanity\nand respect for freedom that is compatible with the\nrecognition of such a thing as crime? The first thing\nto recognize is that the whole conception of guilt or\nsin should be utterly swept away. At present, the\ncriminal is visited with the displeasure of the community:\nthe sole method applied to prevent the occurrence\nof crime is the infliction of pain upon the\ncriminal. Everything possible is done to break his\nspirit and destroy his self-respect. Even those\npleasures which would be most likely to have a civilizing\neffect are forbidden to him, merely on the ground\nthat they are pleasures, while much of the suffering\ninflicted is of a kind which can only brutalize and\ndegrade still further. I am not speaking, of course,\nof those few penal institutions which have made a\nserious study of reforming the criminal. Such\ninstitutions, especially in America, have been proved\ncapable of achieving the most remarkable results, but\nthey remain everywhere exceptional. The broad rule\nis still that the criminal is made to feel the displeasure\nof society. He must emerge from such a treatment\neither defiant and hostile, or submissive and cringing,\nwith a broken spirit and a loss of self-respect.\nNeither of these results is anything but evil. Nor\ncan any good result be achieved by a method of treatment\nwhich embodies reprobation.\n\nWhen a man is suffering from an infectious disease\nhe is a danger to the community, and it is necessary\nto restrict his liberty of movement. But no one\nassociates any idea of guilt with such a situation.\nOn the contrary, he is an object of commiseration to\nhis friends. Such steps as science recommends are\ntaken to cure him of his disease, and he submits as\na rule without reluctance to the curtailment of liberty\ninvolved meanwhile. The same method in spirit ought\nto be shown in the treatment of what is called\n``crime.'' It is supposed, of course, that the criminal\nis actuated by calculations of self-interest, and\nthat the fear of punishment, by supplying a contrary\nmotive of self-interest affords the best deterrent,\n     The dog, to gain some private end,\n          Went mad and bit the man.\n\nThis is the popular view of crime; yet no dog goes\nmad from choice, and probably the same is true of the\ngreat majority of criminals, certainly in the case\nof crimes of passion. Even in cases where self-interest\nis the motive, the important thing is to prevent\nthe crime, not to make the criminal suffer. Any\nsuffering which may be entailed by the process of\nprevention ought to be regarded as regrettable, like the\npain involved in a surgical operation. The man who\ncommits a crime from an impulse to violence ought\nto be subjected to a scientific psychological treatment,\ndesigned to elicit more beneficial impulses. The\nman who commits a crime from calculations of self-\ninterest ought to be made to feel that self-interest\nitself, when it is fully understood, can be better served\nby a life which is useful to the community than by one\nwhich is harmful. For this purpose it is chiefly necessary\nto widen his outlook and increase the scope of his\ndesires. At present, when a man suffers from insufficient\nlove for his fellow-creatures, the method of\ncuring him which is commonly adopted seems scarcely\ndesigned to succeed, being, indeed, in essentials, the\nsame as his attitude toward them. The object of\nthe prison administration is to save trouble, not to\nstudy the individual case. He is kept in captivity in\na cell from which all sight of the earth is shut out: he\nis subjected to harshness by warders, who have too\noften become brutalized by their occupation.[53] He is\nsolemnly denounced as an enemy to society. He is\ncompelled to perform mechanical tasks, chosen for\ntheir wearisomeness. He is given no education and no\nincentive to self-improvement. Is it to be wondered\nat if, at the end of such a course of treatment, his\nfeelings toward the community are no more friendly\nthan they were at the beginning?\n\n\n[53] This was written before the author had any personal\nexperience of the prison system. He personally met with\nnothing but kindness at the hands of the prison officials.\n\n\nSeverity of punishment arose through vindictiveness\nand fear in an age when many criminals escaped\njustice altogether, and it was hoped that savage\nsentences would outweigh the chance of escape in the\nmind of the criminal. At present a very large part\nof the criminal law is concerned in safeguarding the\nrights of property, that is to say--as things are\nnow--the unjust privileges of the rich. Those whose\nprinciples lead them into conflict with government,\nlike Anarchists, bring a most formidable indictment\nagainst the law and the authorities for the unjust\nmanner in which they support the status quo. Many\nof the actions by which men have become rich are far\nmore harmful to the community than the obscure\ncrimes of poor men, yet they go unpunished because\nthey do not interfere with the existing order. If the\npower of the community is to be brought to bear to\nprevent certain classes of actions through the agency\nof the criminal law, it is as necessary that these\nactions should really be those which are harmful to\nthe community, as it is that the treatment of ``criminals''\nshould be freed from the conception of guilt\nand inspired by the same spirit as is shown in the\ntreatment of disease. But, if these two conditions\nwere fulfilled, I cannot help thinking that a society\nwhich preserved the existence of law would be preferable\nto one conducted on the unadulterated principles\nof Anarchism.\n\nSo far we have been considering the power which\nthe State derives from the criminal law. We have\nevery reason to think that this power cannot be\nentirely abolished, though it can be exercised in a\nwholly different spirit, without the vindictiveness and\nthe moral reprobation which now form its essence.\n\nWe come next to the consideration of the economic\npower of the State and the influence which it\ncan exert through its bureaucracy. State Socialists\nargue as if there would be no danger to liberty in a\nState not based upon capitalism. This seems to me an\nentire delusion. Given an official caste, however selected,\nthere are bound to be a set of men whose whole\ninstincts will drive them toward tyranny. Together\nwith the natural love of power, they will have a rooted\nconviction (visible now in the higher ranks of the\nCivil Service) that they alone know enough to be able\nto judge what is for the good of the community. Like\nall men who administer a system, they will come to\nfeel the system itself sacrosanct. The only changes\nthey will desire will be changes in the direction of\nfurther regulations as to how the people are to\nenjoy the good things kindly granted to them by their\nbenevolent despots. Whoever thinks this picture overdrawn\nmust have failed to study the influence and\nmethods of Civil Servants at present. On every matter\nthat arises, they know far more than the general\npublic about all the DEFINITE facts involved; the one\nthing they do not know is ``where the shoe pinches.''\nBut those who know this are probably not skilled in\nstating their case, not able to say off-hand exactly\nhow many shoes are pinching how many feet, or what\nis the precise remedy required. The answer prepared\nfor Ministers by the Civil Service is accepted by the\n``respectable'' public as impartial, and is regarded\nas disposing of the case of malcontents except on a\nfirst-class political question on which elections may\nbe won or lost. That at least is the way in which\nthings are managed in England. And there is every\nreason to fear that under State Socialism the power\nof officials would be vastly greater than it is at\npresent.\n\nThose who accept the orthodox doctrine of democracy\ncontend that, if ever the power of capital were\nremoved, representative institutions would suffice to\nundo the evils threatened by bureaucracy. Against\nthis view, Anarchists and Syndicalists have directed\na merciless criticism. French Syndicalists especially,\nliving, as they do, in a highly democratized country,\nhave had bitter experience of the way in which the\npower of the State can be employed against a\nprogressive minority. This experience has led them to\nabandon altogether the belief in the divine right of\nmajorities. The Constitution that they would desire\nwould be one which allowed scope for vigorous minorities,\nconscious of their aims and prepared to work\nfor them. It is undeniable that, to all who care for\nprogress, actual experience of democratic representative\nGovernment is very disillusioning. Admitting--\nas I think we must--that it is preferable to any\nPREVIOUS form of Government, we must yet acknowledge\nthat much of the criticism directed against it by\nAnarchists and Syndicalists is thoroughly justified.\n\nSuch criticism would have had more influence if\nany clear idea of an alternative to parliamentary\ndemocracy had been generally apprehended. But it\nmust be confessed that Syndicalists have not presented\ntheir case in a way which is likely to attract\nthe average citizen. Much of what they say amounts\nto this: that a minority, consisting of skilled workers\nin vital industries, can, by a strike, make the economic\nlife of the whole community impossible, and can in\nthis way force their will upon the nation. The action\naimed at is compared to the seizure of a power\nstation, by which a whole vast system can be paralyzed.\nSuch a doctrine is an appeal to force, and\nis naturally met by an appeal to force on the other\nside. It is useless for the Syndicalists to protest that\nthey only desire power in order to promote liberty:\nthe world which they are seeking to establish does not,\nas yet, appeal to the effective will of the community,\nand cannot be stably inaugurated until it does do so.\nPersuasion is a slow process, and may sometimes\nbe accelerated by violent methods; to this extent such\nmethods may be justified. But the ultimate goal of\nany reformer who aims at liberty can only be reached\nthrough persuasion. The attempt to thrust liberty\nby force upon those who do not desire what we consider\nliberty must always prove a failure; and Syndicalists,\nlike other reformers, must ultimately rely\nupon persuasion for success.\n\nBut it would be a mistake to confuse aims with\nmethods: however little we may agree with the proposal\nto force the millennium on a reluctant community\nby starvation, we may yet agree that much of\nwhat the Syndicalists desire to achieve is desirable.\n\nLet us dismiss from our minds such criticisms of\nparliamentary government as are bound up with the\npresent system of private property, and consider\nonly those which would remain true in a collectivist\ncommunity. Certain defects seem inherent in the\nvery nature of representative institutions. There is\na sense of self-importance, inseparable from success\nin a contest for popular favor. There is an all-but\nunavoidable habit of hypocrisy, since experience\nshows that the democracy does not detect insincerity\nin an orator, and will, on the other hand, be shocked\nby things which even the most sincere men may think\nnecessary. Hence arises a tone of cynicism among\nelected representatives, and a feeling that no man\ncan retain his position in politics without deceit.\nThis is as much the fault of the democracy as of the\nrepresentatives, but it seems unavoidable so long as\nthe main thing that all bodies of men demand of their\nchampions is flattery. However the blame may be\napportioned, the evil must be recognized as one which\nis bound to occur in the existing forms of democracy.\nAnother evil, which is especially noticeable in large\nStates, is the remoteness of the seat of government\nfrom many of the constituencies--a remoteness which\nis psychological even more than geographical. The\nlegislators live in comfort, protected by thick walls\nand innumerable policemen from the voice of the\nmob; as time goes on they remember only dimly the\npassions and promises of their electoral campaign;\nthey come to feel it an essential part of statesmanship\nto consider what are called the interests of the community\nas a whole, rather than those of some discontented\ngroup; but the interests of the community as\na whole are sufficiently vague to be easily seen to\ncoincide with self-interest. All these causes lead\nParliaments to betray the people, consciously or\nunconsciously; and it is no wonder if they have produced\na certain aloofness from democratic theory in the\nmore vigorous champions of labor.\n\nMajority rule, as it exists in large States, is\nsubject to the fatal defect that, in a very great number\nof questions, only a fraction of the nation have\nany direct interest or knowledge, yet the others have\nan equal voice in their settlement. When people have\nno direct interest in a question they are very apt\nto be influenced by irrelevant considerations; this is\nshown in the extraordinary reluctance to grant autonomy\nto subordinate nations or groups. For this\nreason, it is very dangerous to allow the nation as a\nwhole to decide on matters which concern only a small\nsection, whether that section be geographical or\nindustrial or defined in any other way. The best\ncure for this evil, so far as can be seen at present,\nlies in allowing self-government to every important\ngroup within a nation in all matters that affect that\ngroup much more than they affect the rest of the\ncommunity. The government of a group, chosen by\nthe group, will be far more in touch with its constituents,\nfar more conscious of their interests, than a\nremote Parliament nominally representing the whole\ncountry. The most original idea in Syndicalism--\nadopted and developed by the Guild Socialists--is the\nidea of making industries self-governing units so far\nas their internal affairs are concerned. By this\nmethod, extended also to such other groups as have\nclearly separable interests, the evils which have shown\nthemselves in representative democracy can, I believe,\nbe largely overcome.\n\nGuild Socialists, as we have seen, have another\nsuggestion, growing naturally out of the autonomy\nof industrial guilds, by which they hope to limit the\npower of the State and help to preserve individual\nliberty. They propose that, in addition to Parliament,\nelected (as at present) on a territorial basis\nand representing the community as consumers, there\nshall also be a ``Guild Congress,'' a glorified successor\nof the present Trade Union Congress, which\nshall consist of representatives chosen by the Guilds,\nand shall represent the community as producers.\n\nThis method of diminishing the excessive power\nof the State has been attractively set forth by Mr.\nG. D. H. Cole in his ``Self-Government in Industry.''[54]\n``Where now,'' he says, ``the State passes a Factory\nAct, or a Coal Mines Regulation Act, the Guild Congress\nof the future will pass such Acts, and its power\nof enforcing them will be the same as that of the\nState'' (p. 98). His ultimate ground for advocating\nthis system is that, in his opinion, it will tend to preserve\nindividual liberty: ``The fundamental reason\nfor the preservation, in a democratic Society, of both\nthe industrial and the political forms of Social organization\nis, it seems to me, that only by dividing the\nvast power now wielded by industrial capitalism can\nthe individual hope to be free'' (p. 91).\n\n\n[54] Bell, 1917.\n\n\nWill the system suggested by Mr. Cole have this\nresult? I think it is clear that it would, in this\nrespect, be an improvement on the existing system.\nRepresentative government cannot but be improved\nby any method which brings the representatives into\ncloser touch with the interests concerned in their\nlegislation; and this advantage probably would be\nsecured by handing over questions of production to\nthe Guild Congress. But if, in spite of the safeguards\nproposed by the Guild Socialists, the Guild Congress\nbecame all-powerful in such questions, if resistance\nto its will by a Guild which felt ill-used became practically\nhopeless, I fear that the evils now connected\nwith the omnipotence of the State would soon reappear.\nTrade Union officials, as soon as they become\npart of the governing forces in the country, tend to\nbecome autocratic and conservative; they lose touch\nwith their constituents and gravitate, by a psychological\nsympathy, into co-operation with the powers\nthat be. Their formal installation in authority\nthrough the Guilds Congress would accelerate this\nprocess. They would soon tend to combine, in effect\nif not obviously, with those who wield authority in\nParliament. Apart from occasional conflicts, comparable\nto the rivalry of opposing financiers which\nnow sometimes disturbs the harmony of the capitalist\nworld, there would, at most times, be agreement\nbetween the dominant personalities in the two\nHouses. And such harmony would filch away from\nthe individual the liberty which he had hoped to\nsecure by the quarrels of his masters.\n\nThere is no method, if we are not mistaken, by\nwhich a body representing the whole community,\nwhether as producers or consumers or both, can\nalone be a sufficient guardian of individual liberty.\nThe only way of preserving sufficient liberty (and\neven this will be inadequate in the case of very small\nminorities) is the organization of citizens with special\ninterests into groups, determined to preserve autonomy\nas regards their internal affairs, willing to\nresist interference by a strike if necessary, and\nsufficiently powerful (either in themselves or through\ntheir power of appealing to public sympathy) to be\nable to resist the organized forces of government\nsuccessfully when their cause is such as many men\nthink just. If this method is to be successful we\nmust have not only suitable organizations but also\na diffused respect for liberty, and an absence of\nsubmissiveness to government both in theory and practice.\nSome risk of disorder there must be in such a\nsociety, but this risk is as nothing compared to the\ndanger of stagnation which is inseparable from an\nall-powerful central authority.\n\nWe may now sum up our discussion of the powers\nof Government.\n\nThe State, in spite of what Anarchists urge, seems\na necessary institution for certain purposes. Peace\nand war, tariffs, regulation of sanitary conditions\nand of the sale of noxious drugs, the preservation of\na just system of distribution: these, among others,\nare functions which could hardly be performed in\na community in which there was no central government.\nTake, for example, the liquor traffic, or\nthe opium traffic in China. If alcohol could be\nobtained at cost price without taxation, still more\nif it could be obtained for nothing, as Anarchists\npresumably desire, can we believe that there would not\nbe a great and disastrous increase of drunkenness?\nChina was brought to the verge of ruin by opium,\nand every patriotic Chinaman desired to see the traffic\nin opium restricted. In such matters freedom is\nnot a panacea, and some degree of legal restriction\nseems imperative for the national health.\n\nBut granting that the State, in some form, must\ncontinue, we must also grant, I think, that its powers\nought to be very strictly limited to what is absolutely\nnecessary. There is no way of limiting its\npowers except by means of groups which are jealous\nof their privileges and determined to preserve their\nautonomy, even if this should involve resistance to\nlaws decreed by the State, when these laws interfere in\nthe internal affairs of a group in ways not warranted\nby the public interest. The glorification of the State,\nand the doctrine that it is every citizen's duty to serve\nthe State, are radically against progress and against\nliberty. The State, though at present a source of\nmuch evil, is also a means to certain good things,\nand will be needed so long as violent and destructive\nimpulses remain common. But it is MERELY a means,\nand a means which needs to be very carefully and\nsparingly used if it is not to do more harm than good.\nIt is not the State, but the community, the worldwide\ncommunity of all human beings present and\nfuture, that we ought to serve. And a good community\ndoes not spring from the glory of the State,\nbut from the unfettered development of individuals:\nfrom happiness in daily life, from congenial work\ngiving opportunity for whatever constructiveness\neach man or woman may possess, from free personal\nrelations embodying love and taking away the roots\nof envy in thwarted capacity from affection, and\nabove all from the joy of life and its expression in\nthe spontaneous creations of art and science. It is\nthese things that make an age or a nation worthy\nof existence, and these things are not to be secured\nby bowing down before the State. It is the individual\nin whom all that is good must be realized, and the\nfree growth of the individual must be the supreme end\nof a political system which is to re-fashion the world.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nINTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\n\n\nTHE main objects which should be served by international\nrelations may be taken to be two: First, the\navoidance of wars, and, second, the prevention of the\noppression of weak nations by strong ones. These\ntwo objects do not by any means necessarily lead in\nthe same direction, since one of the easiest ways of\nsecuring the world's peace would be by a combination\nof the most powerful States for the exploitation and\noppression of the remainder. This method, however,\nis not one which the lover of liberty can favor. We\nmust keep account of both aims and not be content\nwith either alone.\n\nOne of the commonplaces of both Socialism and\nAnarchism is that all modern wars are due to capitalism,\nand would cease if capitalism were abolished.\nThis view, to my mind, is only a half-truth; the half\nthat is true is important, but the half that is untrue\nis perhaps equally important when a fundamental\nreconstruction of society is being considered.\n\nSocialist and Anarchist critics of existing society\npoint, with perfect truth, to certain capitalistic factors\nwhich promote war. The first of these is the\ndesire of finance to find new fields of investment in\nundeveloped countries. Mr. J. A. Hobson, an author\nwho is by no means extreme in his views, has well\nstated this point in his book on ``The Evolution of\nModern Capitalism.''[55] He says:\n\n\n[55] Walter Scott Publishing Company, 1906, p. 262.\n\n\nThe economic tap-root, the chief directing motive of\nall the modern imperialistic expansion, is the pressure of\ncapitalist industries for markets, primarily markets for\ninvestment, secondarily markets for surplus products of\nhome industry. Where the concentration of capital has\ngone furthest, and where a rigorous protective system prevails,\nthis pressure is necessarily strongest. Not merely\ndo the trusts and other manufacturing trades that restrict\ntheir output for the home market more urgently require\nforeign markets, but they are also more anxious to secure\nprotected markets, and this can only be achieved by extending\nthe area of political rule. This is the essential\nsignificance of the recent change in American foreign\npolicy as illustrated by the Spanish War, the Philippine\nannexation, the Panama policy, and the new application\nof the Monroe doctrine to the South American States.\nSouth America is needed as a preferential market for\ninvestment of trust ``profits'' and surplus trust products:\nif in time these states can be brought within a Zollverein\nunder the suzerainty of the United States, the financial\narea of operations receives a notable accession. China\nas a field of railway enterprise and general industrial\ndevelopment already begins to loom large in the eyes of\nforesighted American business men; the growing trade\nin American cotton and other goods in that country will\nbe a subordinate consideration to the expansion of the\narea for American investments. Diplomatic pressure,\narmed force, and, where desirable, seizure of territory for\npolitical control, will be engineered by the financial magnates\nwho control the political destiny of America. The\nstrong and expensive American navy now beginning to\nbe built incidentally serves the purpose of affording\nprofitable contracts to the shipbuilding and metal industries:\nits real meaning and use is to forward the aggressive\npolitical policy imposed upon the nation by the economic\nneeds of the financial capitalists.\n\nIt should be clearly understood that this constant\npressure to extend the area of markets is not a necessary\nimplication of all forms of organized industry. If competition\nwas displaced by combinations of a genuinely\ncooperative character in which the whole gain of improved\neconomies passed, either to the workers in wages,\nor to large bodies of investors in dividends, the expansion\nof demand in the home markets would be so great\nas to give full employment to the productive powers of\nconcentrated capital, and there would be no self-accumulating\nmasses of profit expressing themselves in new\ncredit and demanding external employment. It is the\n``monopoly'' profits of trusts and combines, taken either\nin construction, financial operation, or industrial working,\nthat form a gathering fund of self-accumulating credit\nwhose possession by the financial class implies a contracted\ndemand for commodities and a correspondingly\nrestricted employment for capital in American industries.\nWithin certain limits relief can be found by stimulation\nof the export trade under cover of a high protective\ntariff which forbids all interference with monopoly of\nthe home markets. But it is extremely difficult for\ntrusts adapted to the requirements of a profitable tied\nmarket at home to adjust their methods of free competition\nin the world markets upon a profitable basis of\nsteady trading. Moreover, such a mode of expansion is\nonly appropriate to certain manufacturing trusts: the\nowners of railroad, financial and other trusts must look\nalways more to foreign investments for their surplus\nprofits. This ever-growing need for fresh fields of investment\nfor their profits is the great crux of the financial\nsystem, and threatens to dominate the future economics\nand the politics of the great Republic.\n\nThe financial economy of American capitalism exhibits\nin more dramatic shape a tendency common to the\nfinance of all developed industrial nations. The large,\neasy flow of capital from Great Britain, Germany, Austria,\nFrance, etc., into South African or Australian mines,\ninto Egyptian bonds, or the precarious securities of South\nAmerican republics, attests the same general pressure\nwhich increases with every development of financial machinery\nand the more profitable control of that machinery\nby the class of professional financiers\n\n\nThe kind of way in which such conditions tend\ntoward war might have been illustrated, if Mr. Hobson\nhad been writing at a later date, by various more\nrecent cases. A higher rate of interest is obtainable\non enterprises in an undeveloped country than in a\ndeveloped one, provided the risks connected with an\nunsettled government can be minimized. To minimize\nthese risks the financiers call in the assistance of the\nmilitary and naval forces of the country which they\nare momentarily asserting to be theirs. In order to\nhave the support of public opinion in this demand\nthey have recourse to the power of the Press.\n\nThe Press is the second great factor to which\ncritics of capitalism point when they wish to prove\nthat capitalism is the source of modern war. Since\nthe running of a big newspaper requires a large capital,\nthe proprietors of important organs necessarily\nbelong to the capitalist class, and it will be a rare\nand exceptional event if they do not sympathize with\ntheir own class in opinion and outlook. They are\nable to decide what news the great mass of newspaper\nreaders shall be allowed to have. They can\nactually falsify the news, or, without going so far\nas that, they can carefully select it, giving such items\nas will stimulate the passions which they desire to\nstimulate, and suppressing such items as would provide\nthe antidote. In this way the picture of the\nworld in the mind of the average newspaper reader\nis made to be not a true picture, but in the main\nthat which suits the interests of capitalists. This is\ntrue in many directions, but above all in what con-\ncerns the relations between nations. The mass of the\npopulation of a country can be led to love or hate\nany other country at the will of the newspaper proprietors,\nwhich is often, directly or indirectly, influenced\nby the will of the great financiers. So long as\nenmity between England and Russia was desired,\nour newspapers were full of the cruel treatment meted\nout to Russian political prisoners, the oppression of\nFinland and Russian Poland, and other such topics.\nAs soon as our foreign policy changed, these items\ndisappeared from the more important newspapers,\nand we heard instead of the misdeeds of Germany.\nMost men are not sufficiently critical to be on their\nguard against such influences, and until they are, the\npower of the Press will remain.\n\nBesides these two influences of capitalism in\npromoting war, there is another, much less emphasized\nby the critics of capitalism, but by no means less\nimportant: I mean the pugnacity which tends to be\ndeveloped in men who have the habit of command.\nSo long as capitalist society persists, an undue measure\nof power will be in the hands of those who have\nacquired wealth and influence through a great position\nin industry or finance. Such men are in the\nhabit, in private life, of finding their will seldom\nquestioned; they are surrounded by obsequious satellites\nand are not infrequently engaged in conflicts\nwith Trade Unions. Among their friends and\nacquaintances are included those who hold high positions\nin government or administration, and these men\nequally are liable to become autocratic through the\nhabit of giving orders. It used to be customary to\nspeak of the ``governing classes,'' but nominal democracy\nhas caused this phrase to go out of fashion.\nNevertheless, it still retains much truth; there are\nstill in any capitalist community those who command\nand those who as a rule obey. The outlook of these\ntwo classes is very different, though in a modern\nsociety there is a continuous gradation from the extreme\nof the one to the extreme of the other. The\nman who is accustomed to find submission to his will\nbecomes indignant on the occasions when he finds\nopposition. Instinctively he is convinced that opposition\nis wicked and must be crushed. He is therefore\nmuch more willing than the average citizen to resort\nto war against his rivals. Accordingly we find,\nthough, of course, with very notable exceptions,\nthat in the main those who have most power are\nmost warlike, and those who have least power are\nleast disposed to hatred of foreign nations. This is\none of the evils inseparable from the concentration\nof power. It will only be cured by the abolition of\ncapitalism if the new system is one which allows very\nmuch less power to single individuals. It will not be\ncured by a system which substitutes the power of\nMinisters or officials for the power of capitalists\nThis is one reason, additional to those mentioned in\nthe preceding chapter, for desiring to see a diminution\nin the authority of the State.\n\nNot only does the concentration of power tend\nto cause wars, but, equally, wars and the fear of them\nbring about the necessity for the concentration of\npower. So long as the community is exposed to\nsudden dangers, the possibility of quick decision is\nabsolutely necessary to self-preservation. The cumbrous\nmachinery of deliberative decisions by the\npeople is impossible in a crisis, and therefore so long\nas crises are likely to occur, it is impossible to abolish\nthe almost autocratic power of governments. In this\ncase, as in most others, each of two correlative evils\ntends to perpetuate the other. The existence of men\nwith the habit of power increases the risk of war,\nand the risk of war makes it impossible to establish\na system where no man possesses great power.\n\nSo far we have been considering what is true in\nthe contention that capitalism causes modern wars.\nIt is time now to look at the other side, and to ask\nourselves whether the abolition of capitalism would,\nby itself, be sufficient to prevent war.\n\nI do not myself believe that this is the case. The\noutlook of both Socialists and Anarchists seems to\nme, in this respect as in some others, to be unduly\ndivorced from the fundamental instincts of human\nnature. There were wars before there was capital-\nism, and fighting is habitual among animals. The\npower of the Press in promoting war is entirely due\nto the fact that it is able to appeal to certain\ninstincts. Man is naturally competitive, acquisitive,\nand, in a greater or less degree, pugnacious. When\nthe Press tells him that so-and-so is his enemy, a whole\nset of instincts in him responds to the suggestion. It\nis natural to most men to suppose that they have\nenemies and to find a certain fulfillment of their nature\nwhen they embark upon a contest. What a man\nbelieves upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index\nto his desires--desires of which he himself is often\nunconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes\nagainst his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and\nunless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to\nbelieve it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something\nwhich affords a reason for acting in accordance\nwith his instincts, he will accept it even on the slenderest\nevidence. The origin of myths is explained in this\nway, and much of what is currently believed in\ninternational affairs is no better than myth. Although\ncapitalism affords in modern society the channel by\nwhich the instinct of pugnacity finds its outlet, there\nis reason to fear that, if this channel were closed,\nsome other would be found, unless education and\nenvironment were so changed as enormously to diminish\nthe strength of the competitive instinct. If an\neconomic reorganization can effect this it may pro-\nvide a real safeguard against war, but if not, it is\nto be feared that the hopes of universal peace will\nprove delusive.\n\nThe abolition of capitalism might, and very likely\nwould, greatly diminish the incentives to war which\nare derived from the Press and from the desire of\nfinance to find new fields for investment in undeveloped\ncountries, but those which are derived from the\ninstinct of command and the impatience of opposition\nmight remain, though perhaps in a less virulent\nform than at present. A democracy which has power\nis almost always more bellicose than one which is\nexcluded from its due share in the government. The\ninternationalism of Marx is based upon the assumption\nthat the proletariat everywhere are oppressed by\nthe ruling classes. The last words of the Communist\nManifesto embody this idea--\n\n\nLet the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic\nrevolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but\ntheir chains. They have a world to win. Working men\nof all countries, unite!\n\n\nSo long as the proletarians have nothing to lose\nbut their chains, it is not likely that their enmity\nwill be directed against other proletarians. If the\nworld had developed as Marx expected, the kind of\ninternationalism which he foresaw might have inspired\na universal social revolution. Russia, which devel-\noped more nearly than any other country upon the\nlines of his system, has had a revolution of the kind\nwhich he expected. If the development in other countries\nhad been similar, it is highly probable that this\nrevolution would have spread throughout the civilized\nworld. The proletariat of all countries might have\nunited against the capitalists as their common\nenemy, and in the bond of an identical hatred they\nmight for the moment have been free from hatred\ntoward each other. Even then, this ground of union\nwould have ceased with their victory, and on the morrow\nof the social revolution the old national rivalries\nmight have revived. There is no alchemy by which\na universal harmony can be produced out of hatred.\nThose who have been inspired to action by the doctrine\nof the class war will have acquired the habit\nof hatred, and will instinctively seek new enemies\nwhen the old ones have been vanquished.\n\nBut in actual fact the psychology of the working\nman in any of the Western democracies is totally\nunlike that which is assumed in the Communist\nManifesto. He does not by any means feel that he\nhas nothing to lose but his chains, nor indeed is this\ntrue. The chains which bind Asia and Africa in\nsubjection to Europe are partly riveted by him. He is\nhimself part of a great system of tyranny and\nexploitation. Universal freedom would remove, not only\nhis own chains, which are comparatively light, but\nthe far heavier chains which he has helped to fasten\nupon the subject races of the world.\n\nNot only do the working men of a country like\nEngland have a share in the benefit accruing from the\nexploitation of inferior races, but many among them\nalso have their part in the capitalist system. The\nfunds of Trade Unions and Friendly Societies are\ninvested in ordinary undertakings, such as railways;\nmany of the better-paid wage-earners have put their\nsavings into government securities; and almost all\nwho are politically active feel themselves part of the\nforces that determine public policy, through the\npower of the Labor Party and the greater unions.\nOwing to these causes their outlook on life has become\nto a considerable extent impregnated with capitalism\nand as their sense of power has grown, their\nnationalism has increased. This must continue to\nbe true of any internationalism which is based upon\nhatred of the capitalist and adherence to the doctrine\nof the class war. Something more positive\nand constructive than this is needed if governing\ndemocracies are not to inherit the vices of governing\nclasses in the past.\n\nI do not wish to be thought to deny that capitalism\ndoes very much to promote wars, or that wars\nwould probably be less frequent and less destructive\nif private property were abolished. On the contrary,\nI believe that the abolition of private ownership of\nland and capital is a necessary step toward any\nworld in which the nations are to live at peace with\none another. I am only arguing that this step, necessary\nas it is, will not alone suffice for this end, but that\namong the causes of war there are others that go\ndeeper into the roots of human nature than any that\northodox Socialists are wont to acknowledge.\n\nLet us take an instance. In Australia and California\nthere is an intense dislike and fear toward the\nyellow races. The causes of this are complex; the\nchief among them are two, labor competition and\ninstinctive race-hatred. It is probable that, if race-\nhatred did not exist, the difficulties of labor competition\ncould be overcome. European immigrants also\ncompete, but they are not excluded. In a sparsely\npopulated country, industrious cheap labor could,\nwith a little care, be so utilized as to enrich the existing\ninhabitants; it might, for example, be confined to\ncertain kinds of work, by custom if not by law. But\nrace-hatred opens men's minds to the evils of\ncompetition and closes them against the advantages of\nco-operation; it makes them regard with horror the\nsomewhat unfamiliar vices of the aliens, while our\nown vices are viewed with mild toleration. I cannot\nbut think that, if Australia were completely socialized,\nthere would still remain the same popular objection\nas at present to any large influx of Chinese or\nJapanese labor. Yet if Japan also were to become a\nSocialist State, the Japanese might well continue to\nfeel the pressure of population and the desire for an\noutlet. In such circumstances, all the passions and\ninterests required to produce a war would exist, in\nspite of the establishment of Socialism in both countries.\nAnts are as completely Socialistic as any community\ncan possibly be, yet they put to death any\nant which strays among them by mistake from a\nneighboring ant-heap. Men do not differ much from\nants, as regards their instincts in this respect, where-\never there is a great divergence of race, as between\nwhite men and yellow men. Of course the instinct of\nrace-hostility can be overcome by suitable circumstances;\nbut in the absence of such circumstances it\nremains a formidable menace to the world's peace.\n\nIf the peace of the world is ever to become secure,\nI believe there will have to be, along with other\nchanges, a development of the idea which inspires the\nproject of a League of Nations. As time goes on, the\ndestructiveness of war grows greater and its profits\ngrow less: the rational argument against war acquires\nmore and more force as the increasing productivity\nof labor makes it possible to devote a greater\nand greater proportion of the population to the work\nof mutual slaughter. In quiet times, or when a great\nwar has just ended, men's moods are amenable to\nthe rational grounds in favor of peace, and it is\npossible to inaugurate schemes designed to make wars\nless frequent. Probably no civilized nation would\nembark upon an aggressive war if it were fairly\ncertain in advance that the aggressor must be defeated.\nThis could be achieved if most great nations\ncame to regard the peace of the world as of such\nimportance that they would side against an aggressor\neven in a quarrel in which they had no direct interest.\nIt is on this hope that the League of Nations is based.\n\nBut the League of Nations, like the abolition of\nprivate property, will be by no means sufficient if it\nis not accompanied or quickly followed by other\nreforms. It is clear that such reforms, if they are\nto be effective, must be international; the world must\nmove as a whole in these matters, if it is to move at\nall. One of the most obvious necessities, if peace is to\nbe secure, is a measure of disarmament. So long as\nthe present vast armies and navies exist, no system\ncan prevent the risk of war. But disarmament, if it\nis to serve its purpose, must be simultaneous and by\nmutual agreement among all the Great Powers. And\nit is not likely to be successful so long as hatred and\nsuspicion rule between nations, for each nation will\nsuspect its neighbor of not carrying out the bargain\nfairly. A different mental and moral atmosphere\nfrom that to which we are accustomed in international\naffairs will be necessary if agreements between nations\nare to succeed in averting catastrophes. If once such\nan atmosphere existed it might be perpetuated and\nstrengthened by wise institutions; but it cannot be\nCREATED by institutions alone. International co-operation\nrequires mutual good will, and good will, however\nit has arisen, is only to be PRESERVED by co-operation.\nThe international future depends upon the possibility\nof the initial creation of good will between nations.\n\nIt is in this sort of matter that revolutions are\nmost useful. If the Russian Revolution had been\naccompanied by a revolution in Germany, the dramatic\nsuddenness of the change might have shaken\nEurope, for the moment, out of its habits of thought:\nthe idea of fraternity might have seemed, in the\ntwinkling of an eye, to have entered the world of\npractical politics; and no idea is so practical as the\nidea of the brotherhood of man, if only people can be\nstartled into believing in it. If once the idea of\nfraternity between nations were inaugurated with the\nfaith and vigor belonging to a new revolution, all the\ndifficulties surrounding it would melt away, for all\nof them are due to suspicion and the tyranny of\nancient prejudice. Those who (as is common in the\nEnglish-speaking world) reject revolution as a\nmethod, and praise the gradual piecemeal development\nwhich (we are told) constitutes solid progress,\noverlook the effect of dramatic events in changing\nthe mood and the beliefs of whole populations. A\nsimultaneous revolution in Germany and Russia\nwould no doubt have had such an effect, and would\nhave made the creation of a new world possible here\nand now.\n\nDis aliter visum: the millennium is not for our\ntime. The great moment has passed, and for ourselves\nit is again the distant hope that must inspire\nus, not the immediate breathless looking for the\ndeliverance.[56] But we have seen what might have been,\nand we know that great possibilities do arise in times\nof crisis. In some such sense as this, it may well\nbe true that the Socialist revolution is the road to\nuniversal peace, and that when it has been traversed\nall the other conditions for the cessation of\nwars will grow of themselves out of the changed\nmental and moral atmosphere.\n\n\n[56] This was written in March, 1918, almost the darkest\nmoment of the war.\n\n\nThere is a certain class of difficulties which surrounds\nthe sober idealist in all speculations about the\nnot too distant future. These are the cases where\nthe solution believed by most idealists to be universally\napplicable is for some reason impossible, and is,\nat the same time, objected to for base or interested\nmotives by all upholders of existing inequalities. The\ncase of Tropical Africa will illustrate what I mean.\nIt would be difficult seriously to advocate the immediate\nintroduction of parliamentary government for\nthe natives of this part of the world, even if it were\naccompanied by women's suffrage and proportional\nrepresentation. So far as I know, no one supposes\nthe populations of these regions capable of self-\ndetermination, except Mr. Lloyd George. There can\nbe no doubt that, whatever regime may be introduced\nin Europe, African negroes will for a long time to\ncome be governed and exploited by Europeans. If\nthe European States became Socialistic, and refused,\nunder a Quixotic impulse, to enrich themselves at the\nexpense of the defenseless inhabitants of Africa,\nthose inhabitants would not thereby gain; on the\ncontrary, they would lose, for they would be handed\nover to the tender mercies of individual traders,\noperating with armies of reprobate bravos, and committing\nevery atrocity to which the civilized barbarian\nis prone. The European governments cannot divest\nthemselves of responsibility in regard to Africa.\nThey must govern there, and the best that can be\nhoped is that they should govern with a minimum\nof cruelty and rapacity. From the point of view of\npreserving the peace of the world, the problem is to\nparcel out the advantages which white men derive\nfrom their position in Africa in such a way that no\nnation shall feel a sense of injustice. This problem\nis comparatively simple, and might no doubt be solved\non the lines of the war aims of the Inter-Allied Socialists.\nBut it is not this problem which I wish to discuss.\nWhat I wish to consider is, how could a Socialist\nor an Anarchist community govern and administer\nan African region, full of natural wealth, but\ninhabited by a quite uncivilized population? Unless\ngreat precautions were taken the white community,\nunder the circumstances, would acquire the\nposition and the instincts of a slave-owner. It\nwould tend to keep the negroes down to the bare level\nof subsistence, while using the produce of their\ncountry to increase the comfort and splendor of the\nCommunist community. It would do this with that\ncareful unconsciousness which now characterizes all\nthe worst acts of nations. Administrators would be\nappointed and would be expected to keep silence as\nto their methods. Busybodies who reported horrors\nwould be disbelieved, and would be said to be actuated\nby hatred toward the existing regime and by a perverse\nlove for every country but their own. No doubt,\nin the first generous enthusiasm accompanying the\nestablishment of the new regime at home, there would\nbe every intention of making the natives happy, but\ngradually they would be forgotten, and only the\ntribute coming from their country would be\nremembered. I do not say that all these evils are\nunavoidable; I say only that they will not be avoided\nunless they are foreseen and a deliberate conscious\neffort is made to prevent their realization. If the\nwhite communities should ever reach the point of\nwishing to carry out as far as possible the principles\nunderlying the revolt against capitalism, they will\nhave to find a way of establishing an absolute\ndisinterestedness in their dealings with subject races. It\nwill be necessary to avoid the faintest suggestion of\ncapitalistic profit in the government of Africa, and\nto spend in the countries themselves whatever they\nwould be able to spend if they were self-governing.\nMoreover, it must always be remembered that backwardness\nin civilization is not necessarily incurable,\nand that with time even the populations of Central\nAfrica may become capable of democratic self-government,\nprovided Europeans bend their energies to\nthis purpose.\n\nThe problem of Africa is, of course, a part of the\nwider problems of Imperialism, but it is that part in\nwhich the application of Socialist principles is most\ndifficult. In regard to Asia, and more particularly\nin regard to India and Persia, the application of\nprinciples is clear in theory though difficult in political\npractice. The obstacles to self-government which\nexist in Africa do not exist in the same measure in\nAsia. What stands in the way of freedom of Asiatic\npopulations is not their lack of intelligence, but only\ntheir lack of military prowess, which makes them an\neasy prey to our lust for dominion. This lust would\nprobably be in temporary abeyance on the morrow of\na Socialist revolution, and at such a moment a new\ndeparture in Asiatic policy might be taken with\npermanently beneficial results. I do not mean, of\ncourse, that we should force upon India that form\nof democratic government which we have developed\nfor our own needs. I mean rather that we should\nleave India to choose its own form of government, its\nown manner of education and its own type of civilization.\nIndia has an ancient tradition, very different\nfrom that of Western Europe, a tradition highly\nvalued by educated Hindoos, but not loved by our\nschools and colleges. The Hindoo Nationalist feels\nthat his country has a type of culture containing elements\nof value that are absent, or much less marked,\nin the West; he wishes to be free to preserve this,\nand desires political freedom for such reasons rather\nthan for those that would most naturally appeal to\nan Englishman in the same subject position. The\nbelief of the European in his own Kultur tends to be\nfanatical and ruthless, and for this reason, as much as\nfor any other, the independence of extra-European\ncivilization is of real importance to the world, for it is\nnot by a dead uniformity that the world as a whole is\nmost enriched.\n\nI have set forth strongly all the major difficulties\nin the way of the preservation of the world's peace,\nnot because I believe these difficulties to be insuperable,\nbut, on the contrary, because I believe that they\ncan be overcome if they are recognized. A correct\ndiagnosis is necessarily the first step toward a cure.\nThe existing evils in international relations spring,\nat bottom, from psychological causes, from motives\nforming part of human nature as it is at present.\nAmong these the chief are competitiveness, love of\npower, and envy, using envy in that broad sense in\nwhich it includes the instinctive dislike of any gain\nto others not accompanied by an at least equal gain\nto ourselves. The evils arising from these three\ncauses can be removed by a better education and a\nbetter economic and political system.\n\nCompetitiveness is by no means wholly an evil.\nWhen it takes the form of emulation in the service\nof the public, or in discovery or the production of\nworks of art, it may become a very useful stimulus,\nurging men to profitable effort beyond what they\nwould otherwise make. It is only harmful when it\naims at the acquisition of goods which are limited\nin amount, so that what one man possesses he holds at\nthe expense of another. When competitiveness takes\nthis form it is necessarily attended by fear, and out\nof fear cruelty is almost inevitably developed. But a\nsocial system providing for a more just distribution\nof material goods might close to the instinct of\ncompetitiveness those channels in which it is harmful,\nand cause it to flow instead in channels in which it\nwould become a benefit to mankind. This is one great\nreason why the communal ownership of land and capital\nwould be likely to have a beneficial effect upon\nhuman nature, for human nature, as it exists in adult\nmen and women, is by no means a fixed datum, but\na product of circumstances, education and opportunity\noperating upon a highly malleable native\ndisposition.\n\nWhat is true of competitiveness is equally true\nof love of power. Power, in the form in which it is\nnow usually sought, is power of command, power of\nimposing one's will upon others by force, open or\nconcealed. This form of power consists, in essence, in\nthwarting others, for it is only displayed when others\nare compelled to do what they do not wish to do.\nSuch power, we hope, the social system which is to\nsupersede capitalist will reduce to a minimum by the\nmethods which we outlined in the preceding chapter.\nThese methods can be applied in international no\nless than in national affairs. In international affairs\nthe same formula of federalism will apply: self-\ndetermination for every group in regard to matters which\nconcern it much more vitally than they concern\nothers, and government by a neutral authority embracing\nrival groups in all matters in which conflicting\ninterests of groups come into play; lout always\nwith the fixed principle that the functions of government\nare to be reduced to the bare minimum compatible\nwith justice and the prevention of private\nviolence. In such a world the present harmful outlets\nfor the love of power would be closed. But the\npower which consists in persuasion, in teaching, in\nleading men to a new wisdom or the realization of\nnew possibilities of happiness--this kind of power,\nwhich may be wholly beneficial, would remain untouched,\nand many vigorous men, who in the actual\nworld devote their energies to domination, would in\nsuch a world find their energies directed to the creation\nof new goods rather than the perpetuation of\nancient evils.\n\nEnvy, the third of the psychological causes to\nwhich we attributed what is bad in the actual world,\ndepends in most natures upon that kind of fundamental\ndiscontent which springs from a lack of\nfree development, from thwarted instinct, and\nfrom the impossibility of realizing an imagined\nhappiness. Envy cannot be cured by preaching;\npreaching, at the best, will only alter its manifestations\nand lead it to adopt more subtle forms of concealment.\nExcept in those rare natures in which\ngenerosity dominates in spite of circumstances, the\nonly cure for envy is freedom and the joy of life.\nFrom populations largely deprived of the simple\ninstinctive pleasures of leisure and love, sunshine and\ngreen fields, generosity of outlook and kindliness\nof dispositions are hardly to be expected. In such\npopulations these qualities are not likely to be found,\neven among the fortunate few, for these few are\naware, however dimly, that they are profiting by an\ninjustice, and that they can only continue to enjoy\ntheir good fortune by deliberately ignoring those\nwith whom it is not shared. If generosity and kindliness\nare to be common, there must be more care\nthan there is at present for the elementary wants of\nhuman nature, and more realization that the diffusion\nof happiness among all who are not the victims of\nsome peculiar misfortune is both possible and imperative.\nA world full of happiness would not wish to\nplunge into war, and would not be filled with that\ngrudging hostility which our cramped and narrow\nexistence forces upon average human nature. A world\nfull of happiness is not beyond human power to\ncreate; the obstacles imposed by inanimate nature\nare not insuperable. The real obstacles lie in the\nheart of man, and the cure for these is a firm hope,\ninformed and fortified by thought.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nSCIENCE AND ART UNDER SOCIALISM\n\n\nSOCIALISM has been advocated by most of its\nchampions chiefly as a means of increasing the welfare\nof the wage earning classes, and more particularly\ntheir material welfare. It has seemed accordingly,\nto some men whose aims are not material, as\nif it has nothing to offer toward the general\nadvancement of civilization in the way of art and\nthought. Some of its advocates, moreover--and\namong these Marx must be included--have written,\nno doubt not deliberately, as if with the Socialist\nrevolution the millennium would have arrived, and\nthere would be no need of further progress for the\nhuman race. I do not know whether our age is more\nrestless than that which preceded it, or whether it\nhas merely become more impregnated with the idea\nof evolution, but, for whatever reason, we have\ngrown incapable of believing in a state of static\nperfection, and we demand, of any social system,\nwhich is to have our approval, that it shall contain\nwithin itself a stimulus and opportunity for progress\ntoward something still better. The doubts thus\nraised by Socialist writers make it necessary to\ninquire whether Socialism would in fact be hostile to\nart and science, and whether it would be likely to\nproduce a stereotyped society in which progress\nwould become difficult and slow.\n\nIt is not enough that men and women should be\nmade comfortable in a material sense. Many members\nof the well-to-do classes at present, in spite of\nopportunity, contribute nothing of value to the life\nof the world, and do not even succeed in securing for\nthemselves any personal happiness worthy to be so\ncalled. The multiplication of such individuals would\nbe an achievement of the very minutest value; and\nif Socialism were merely to bestow upon all the\nkind of life and outlook which is now enjoyed by\nthe more apathetic among the well-to-do, it would\noffer little that could inspire enthusiasm in any\ngenerous spirit.\n\n``The true role of collective existence,'' says M.\nNaquet,[57]'' . . . is to learn, to discover, to know.\nEating, drinking, sleeping, living, in a word, is a\nmere accessory. In this respect, we are not\ndistinguished from the brute. Knowledge is the goal.\nIf I were condemned to choose between a humanity\nmaterially happy, glutted after the manner of a\nflock of sheep in a field, and a humanity existing in\nmisery, but from which emanated, here and there,\nsome eternal truth, it is on the latter that my choice\nwould fall.''\n\n\n[57] ``L'Anarchie et le Collectivisme,'' p. 114.\n\n\nThis statement puts the alternative in a very\nextreme form in which it is somewhat unreal. It may\nbe said in reply that for those who have had the\nleisure and the opportunity to enjoy ``eternal\ntruths'' it is easy to exalt their importance at the\nexpense of sufferings which fall on others. This is\ntrue; but, if it is taken as disposing of the question,\nit leaves out of account the importance of thought\nfor progress. Viewing the life of mankind as a whole,\nin the future as well as in the present, there can be\nno question that a society in which some men pursue\nknowledge while others endure great poverty offers\nmore hope of ultimate good than a society in which\nall are sunk in slothful comfort. It is true that\npoverty is a great evil, but it is not true that material\nprosperity is in itself a great good. If it is to have\nany real value to society, it must be made a means to\nthe advancement of those higher goods that belong\nto the life of the mind. But the life of the mind does\nnot consist of thought and knowledge alone, nor\ncan it be completely healthy unless it has some\ninstinctive contact, however deeply buried, with the\ngeneral life of the community. Divorced from the\nsocial instinct, thought, like art, tends to become\nfinicky and precious. It is the position of such art\nand thought as is imbued with the instinctive sense\nof service to mankind that we wish to consider, for\nit is this alone that makes up the life of the mind\nin the sense in which it is a vital part of the life of\nthe community. Will the life of the mind in this\nsense be helped or hindered by Socialism? And will\nthere still be a sufficient spur to progress to prevent\na condition of Byzantine immobility?\n\nIn considering this question we are, in a certain\nsense, passing outside the atmosphere of democracy.\nThe general good of the community is realized only\nin individuals, but it is realized much more fully in\nsome individuals than in others. Some men have a\ncomprehensive and penetrating intellect, enabling\nthem to appreciate and remember what has been\nthought and known by their predecessors, and to\ndiscover new regions in which they enjoy all the\nhigh delights of the mental explorer. Others have\nthe power of creating beauty, giving bodily form to\nimpalpable visions out of which joy comes to many.\nSuch men are more fortunate than the mass, and also\nmore important for the collective life. A larger share\nof the general sum of good is concentrated in them\nthan in the ordinary man and woman; but also their\ncontribution to the general good is greater. They\nstand out among men and cannot be wholly fitted\ninto the framework of democratic equality. A social\nsystem which would render them unproductive would\nstand condemned, whatever other merits it might\nhave.\n\nThe first thing to realize--though it is difficult in\na commercial age--is that what is best in creative\nmental activity cannot be produced by any system\nof monetary rewards. Opportunity and the stimulus\nof an invigorating spiritual atmosphere are important,\nbut, if they are presented, no financial inducements\nwill be required, while if they are absent,\nmaterial compensations will be of no avail. Recognition,\neven if it takes the form of money, can bring a\ncertain pleasure in old age to the man of science\nwho has battled all his life against academic\nprejudice, or to the artist who has endured years of\nridicule for not painting in the manner of his\npredecessors; but it is not by the remote hope of such\npleasures that their work has been inspired. All\nthe most important work springs from an uncalculating\nimpulse, and is best promoted, not by rewards\nafter the event, but by circumstances which keep the\nimpulse alive and afford scope for the activities\nwhich it inspires. In the creation of such circumstances\nour present system is much at fault. Will\nSocialism be better?\n\nI do not think this question can be answered\nwithout specifying the kind of Socialism that is intended:\nsome forms of Socialism would, I believe, be\neven more destructive in this respect than the present\ncapitalist regime, while others would be immeasurably\nbetter. Three things which a social system can\nprovide or withhold are helpful to mental creation:\nfirst, technical training; second, liberty to follow\nthe creative impulse; third, at least the possibility of\nultimate appreciation by some public, whether large\nor small. We may leave out of our discussion both\nindividual genius and those intangible conditions\nwhich make some ages great and others sterile in art\nand science--not because these are unimportant, but\nbecause they are too little understood to be taken\naccount of in economic or political organization.\nThe three conditions we have mentioned seem to cover\nmost of what can be SEEN to be useful or harmful\nfrom our present point of view, and it is therefore\nto them that we shall confine ourselves.\n\n1. Technical Training.--Technical training at\npresent, whether in science or art, requires one or\nother of two conditions. Either a boy must be the\nson of well-to-do parents who can afford to keep\nhim while he acquires his education, or he must show\nso much ability at an early age as to enable him to\nsubsist on scholarships until he is ready to earn his\nliving. The former condition is, of course, a mere\nmatter of luck, and could not be preserved in its\npresent form under any kind of Socialism or Communism.\nThis loss is emphasized by defenders of the\npresent system, and no doubt it would be, to same\nextent, a real loss. But the well-to-do are a small\nproportion of the population, and presumably on the\naverage no more talented by nature than their less\nfortunate contemporaries. If the advantages which\nare enjoyed now by those few among them who are\ncapable of good work in science or art could be\nextended, even in a slightly attenuated form, to all\nwho are similarly gifted, the result would almost\ninfallibly be a gain, and much ability which is now\nwasted would be rendered fruitful. But how is this\nto be effected?\n\nThe system of scholarships obtained by competition,\nthough better than nothing, is objectionable\nfrom many points of view. It introduces the competitive\nspirit into the work of the very young; it\nmakes them regard knowledge from the standpoint\nof what is useful in examinations rather than in the\nlight of its intrinsic interest or importance; it places\na premium upon that sort of ability which is displayed\nprecociously in glib answers to set questions\nrather than upon the kind that broods on difficulties\nand remains for a time rather dumb. What is perhaps\nworse than any of these defects is the tendency\nto cause overwork in youth, leading to lack of vigor\nand interest when manhood has been reached. It\ncan hardly be doubted that by this cause, at present,\nmany fine minds have their edge blunted and their\nkeenness destroyed.\n\nState Socialism might easily universalize the\nsystem of scholarships obtained by competitive examination,\nand if it did so it is to he feared that it\nwould be very harmful. State Socialists at present\ntend to be enamored of the systems which is exactly\nof the kind that every bureaucrat loves: orderly,\nneat, giving a stimulus to industrious habits, and\ninvolving no waste of a sort that could be tabulated\nin statistics or accounts of public expenditure.\nSuch men will argue that free higher education is\nexpensive to the community, and only useful in the\ncase of those who have exceptional abilities; it\nought, therefore, they will say, not to be given to all,\nbut only to those who will become more useful members\nof society through receiving it. Such arguments\nmake a great appeal to what are called ``practical''\nmen, and the answers to them are of a sort which it\nis difficult to render widely convincing. Revolt\nagainst the evils of competition is, however, part\nof the very essence of the Socialist's protest against\nthe existing order, and on this ground, if on no other,\nthose who favor Socialism may be summoned to look\nfor some better solution.\n\nMuch the simplest solution, and the only really\neffective one, is to make every kind of education free\nup to the age of twenty-one for all boys and girls\nwho desire it. The majority will be tired of education\nbefore that age, and will prefer to begin other\nwork sooner; this will lead to a natural selection of\nthose with strong interests in some pursuit requiring\na long training. Among those selected in this way\nby their own inclinations, probably almost all tho\nhave marked abilities of the kind in question will be\nincluded. It is true that there will also be many\nwho have very little ability; the desire to become a\npainter, for example, is by no means confined to\nthose who can paint. But this degree of waste could\nwell be borne by the community; it would be immeasurably\nless than that now entailed by the support\nof the idle rich. Any system which aims at\navoiding this kind of waste must entail the far more\nserious waste of rejecting or spoiling some of the\nbest ability in each generation. The system of free\neducation up to any grade for all who desire it is\nthe only system which is consistent with the principles\nof liberty, and the only one which gives a reasonable\nhope of affording full scope for talent. This system\nis equally compatible with all forms of Socialism\nand Anarchism. Theoretically, it is compatible with\ncapitalism, but practically it is so opposite in spirit\nthat it would hardly be feasible without a complete\neconomic reconstruction. The fact that Socialism\nwould facilitate it must be reckoned a very powerful\nargument in favor of change, for the waste of talent\nat present in the poorer classes of society must be\nstupendous.\n\n2. Liberty to follow the creative impulse.--\nWhen a man's training has been completed, if he is\npossessed of really great abilities, he will do his best\nwork if he is completely free to follow his bent,\ncreating what seems good to him, regardless of the\njudgment of ``experts.'' At present this is only\npossible for two classes of people: those who have\nprivate means, and those who can earn a living by\nan occupation that does not absorb their whole\nenergies. Under Socialism, there will be no one with\nprivate means, and if there is to be no loss as\nregards art and science, the opportunity which now\ncomes by accident to a few will have to be provided\ndeliberately for a much larger number. The men\nwho have used private means as an opportunity for\ncreative work have been few but important: one\nmight mention Milton, Shelley, Keats and Darwin as\nexamples. Probably none of these would have produced\nas good work if they had had to earn their\nlivelihood. If Darwin had been a university teacher,\nhe would of course have been dismissed from his post\nby the influence of the clerics on account of his\nscandalous theories.\n\nNevertheless, the bulk of the creative work of the\nworld is done at present by men who subsist by\nsome other occupation. Science, and research generally,\nare usually done in their spare time by men\nwho live by teaching. There is no great objection to\nthis in the case of science, provided the number of\nhours devoted to teaching is not excessive. It is\npartly because science and teaching are so easily\ncombined that science is vigorous in the present age.\nIn music, a composer who is also a performer enjoys\nsimilar advantages, but one who is not a performer\nmust starve, unless he is rich or willing to pander to\nthe public taste. In the fine arts, as a rule, it is not\neasy in the modern world either to make a living by\nreally good work or to find a subsidiary profession\nwhich leaves enough leisure for creation. This is\npresumably one reason, though by no means the only\none, why art is less flourishing than science.\n\nThe bureaucratic State Socialist will have a\nsimple solution for these difficulties. He will appoint\na body consisting of the most eminent celebrities in\nan art or a science, whose business it shall be to judge\nthe work of young men, and to issue licenses to those\nwhose productions find favor in their eyes. A licensed\nartist shall be considered to have performed his duty\nto the community by producing works of art. But of\ncourse he will have to prove his industry by never\nfailing to produce in reasonable quantities, and his\ncontinued ability by never failing to please his\neminent judges--until, in the fulness of time, he\nbecomes a judge himself. In this way, the authorities\nwill insure that the artist shall be competent,\nregular, and obedient to the best traditions of his\nart. Those who fail to fulfil these conditions will be\ncompelled by the withdrawal of their license to seek\nsome less dubious mode of earning their living. Such\nwill be the ideal of the State Socialist.\n\nIn such a world all that makes life tolerable to\nthe lover of beauty would perish. Art springs from\na wild and anarchic side of human nature; between\nthe artist and the bureaucrat there must always be\na profound mutual antagonism, an age-long battle\nin which the artist, always outwardly worsted, wins\nin the end through the gratitude of mankind for the\njoy that he puts into their lives. If the wild side\nof human nature is to be permanently subjected to\nthe orderly rules of the benevolent, uncomprehending\nbureaucrat, the joy of life will perish out of the\nearth, and the very impulse to live will gradually\nwither and die. Better a thousandfold the present\nworld with all its horrors than such a dead mummy\nof a world. Better Anarchism, with all its risks,\nthan a State Socialism that subjects to rule what\nmust be spontaneous and free if it is to have any\nvalue. It is this nightmare that makes artists, and\nlovers of beauty generally, so often suspicious of\nSocialism. But there is nothing in the essence of\nSocialism to make art impossible: only certain forms\nof Socialism would entail this danger. William\nMorris was a Socialist, and was a Socialist very\nlargely because he was an artist. And in this he\nwas not irrational.\n\nIt is impossible for art, or any of the higher\ncreative activities, to flourish under any system which\nrequires that the artist shall prove his competence to\nsome body of authorities before he is allowed to follow\nhis impulse. Any really great artist is almost\nsure to be thought incompetent by those among his\nseniors who would be generally regarded as best\nqualified to form an opinion. And the mere fact of\nhaving to produce work which will please older men\nis hostile to a free spirit and to bold innovation.\nApart from this difficulty, selection by older men\nwould lead to jealousy and intrigue and back-biting,\nproducing a poisonous atmosphere of underground\ncompetition. The only effect of such a plan would be\nto eliminate the few who now slip through owing to\nsome fortunate accident. It is not by any system,\nbut by freedom alone, that art can flourish.\n\nThere are two ways by which the artist could\nsecure freedom under Socialism of the right kind.\nHe might undertake regular work outside his art,\ndoing only a few hours' work a day and receiving\nproportionately less pay than those who do a full\nday's work. He ought, in that case, to be at liberty\nto sell his pictures if he could find purchasers. Such\na system would have many advantages. It would\nleave absolutely every man free to become an artist,\nprovided he were willing to suffer a certain economic\nloss. This would not deter those in whom the impulse\nwas strong and genuine, but would tend to\nexclude the dilettante. Many young artists at\npresent endure voluntarily much greater poverty\nthan need be entailed by only doing half the usual\nday's work in a well-organized Socialist community;\nand some degree of hardship is not objectionable,\nas a test of the strength of the creative impulse, and\nas an offset to the peculiar joys of the creative life.\n\nThe other possibility[58] would be that the necessaries\nof life should be free, as Anarchists desire, to\nall equally, regardless of whether they work or not.\nUnder this plan, every man could live without work:\nthere would be what might be called a ``vagabond's\nwage,'' sufficient for existence but not for luxury.\nThe artist who preferred to have his whole time for\nart and enjoyment might live on the ``vagabond's\nwage''--traveling on foot when the humor seized him\nto see foreign countries, enjoying the air and the\nsun, as free as the birds, and perhaps scarcely less\nhappy. Such men would bring color and diversity\ninto the life of the community; their outlook would be\ndifferent from that of steady, stay-at-home workers,\nand would keep alive a much-needed element of light-\nheartedness which our sober, serious civilization tends\nto kill. If they became very numerous, they might\nbe too great an economic burden on the workers;\nbut I doubt if there are many with enough capacity\nfor simple enjoyments to choose poverty and free-\ndom in preference to the comparatively light and\npleasant work which will be usual in those days.\n\n\n[58] Which we discussed in Chapter IV.\n\n\nBy either of these methods, freedom can be preserved\nfor the artist in a socialistic commonwealth--\nfar more complete freedom, and far more widespread,\nthan any that now exists except for the possessors of\ncapital.\n\nBut there still remain some not altogether easy\nproblems. Take, for example, the publishing of books.\nThere will not, under Socialism, be private publishers\nas at present: under State Socialism, presumably the\nState will be the sole publisher, while under Syndicalism\nor Guild Socialism the Federation du Livre\nwill have the whole of the trade in its hands. Under\nthese circumstances, who is to decide what MSS. are\nto be printed? It is clear that opportunities exist\nfor an Index more rigorous than that of the Inquisition.\nIf the State were the sole publisher, it would\ndoubtless refuse books opposed to State Socialism.\nIf the Federation du Livre were the ultimate arbiter,\nwhat publicity could be obtained for works criticising\nit? And apart from such political difficulties\nwe should have, as regards literature, that\nvery censorship by eminent officials which we agreed\nto regard as disastrous when we were considering the\nfine arts in general. The difficulty is serious, and a\nway of meeting it must be found if literature is to\nremain free.\n\nKropotkin, who believes that manual and intellectual\nwork should be combined, holds that authors\nthemselves should be compositors, bookbinders, etc.\nHe even seems to suggest that the whole of the manual\nwork involved in producing books should be done by\nauthors. It may be doubted whether there are\nenough authors in the world for this to be possible,\nand in any case I cannot but think that it would\nbe a waste of time for them to leave the work they\nunderstand in order to do badly work which others\ncould do far better and more quickly. That, however,\ndoes not touch our present point, which is the\nquestion how the MSS. to be printed will be selected.\nIn Kropotkin's plan there will presumably be an\nAuthor's Guild, with a Committee of Management,\nif Anarchism allows such things. This Committee\nof Management will decide which of the books submitted\nto it are worthy to be printed. Among these\nwill be included those by the Committee and their\nfriends, but not those by their enemies. Authors\nof rejected MSS. will hardly have the patience to\nspend their time setting up the works of successful\nrivals, and there will have to be an elaborate system\nof log-rolling if any books are to be printed at all.\nIt hardly looks as if this plan would conduce to harmony\namong literary men, or would lead to the publication\nof any book of an unconventional tendency.\nKropotkin's own books, for example, would hardly\nhave found favor.\n\nThe only way of meeting these difficulties, whether\nunder State Socialism or Guild Socialism or Anarchism,\nseems to be by making it possible for an author\nto pay for the publication of his book if it is not\nsuch as the State or the Guild is willing to print at\nits own expense. I am aware that this method is contrary\nto the spirit of Socialism, but I do not see what\nother way there is of securing freedom. The payment\nmight be made by undertaking to engage for\nan assigned period in some work of recognized utility\nand to hand over such proportion of the earnings as\nmight be necessary. The work undertaken might\nof course be, as Kropotkin suggests, the manual part\nof the production of books, but I see no special reason\nwhy it should be. It would have to be an absolute\nrule that no book should be refused, no matter what\nthe nature of its contents might be, if payment for\npublication were offered at the standard rate. An\nauthor who had admirers would be able to secure their\nhelp in payment. An unknown author might, it is\ntrue, have to suffer a considerable loss of comfort\nin order to make his payment, but that would give\nan automatic means of eliminating those whose writing\nwas not the result of any very profound impulse\nand would be by no means wholly an evil.\n\nProbably some similar method would be desirable\nas regards the publishing and performing of new\nmusic.\n\nWhat we have been suggesting will, no doubt, be\nobjected to by orthodox Socialists, since they will find\nsomething repugnant to their principles in the whole\nidea of a private person paying to have certain\nwork done. But it is a mistake to be the slave of a\nsystem, and every system, if it is applied rigidly, will\nentail evils which could only be avoided by some\nconcession to the exigencies of special cases. On the\nwhole, a wise form of Socialism might afford infinitely\nbetter opportunities for the artist and the man of\nscience than are possible in a capitalist community,\nbut only if the form of Socialism adopted is one\nwhich is fitted for this end by means of provisions\nsuch as we have been suggesting.\n\n3. Possibility of Appreciation.--This condition\nis one which is not necessary to all who do creative\nwork, but in the sense in which I mean it the great\nmajority find it very nearly indispensable. I do not\nmean widespread public recognition, nor that ignorant,\nhalf-sincere respect which is commonly accorded\nto artists who have achieved success. Neither of\nthese serves much purpose. What I mean is rather\nunderstanding, and a spontaneous feeling that things\nof beauty are important. In a thoroughly commercialized\nsociety, an artist is respected if he makes\nmoney, and because he makes money, but there is no\ngenuine respect for the works of art by which his\nmoney has been made. A millionaire whose fortune\nhas been made in button-hooks or chewing-gum is\nregarded with awe, but none of this feeling is\nbestowed on the articles from which his wealth is\nderived. In a society which measures all things by\nmoney the same tends to be true of the artist. If he\nhas become rich he is respected, though of course\nless than the millionaire, but his pictures or books\nor music are regarded as the chewing-gum or the button-\nhooks are regarded, merely as a means to money.\nIn such an atmosphere it is very difficult for the artist\nto preserve his creative impulse pure: either he is\ncontaminated by his surroundings, or he becomes\nembittered through lack of appreciation for the object\nof his endeavor.\n\nIt is not appreciation of the artist that is necessary\nso much as appreciation of the art. It is difficult\nfor an artist to live in an environment in which\neverything is judged by its utility, rather than by its\nintrinsic quality. The whole side of life of which\nart is the flower requires something which may be\ncalled disinterestedness, a capacity for direct\nenjoyment without thought of tomorrow's problems and\ndifficulties. When people are amused by a joke they\ndo not need to be persuaded that it will serve some\nimportant purpose. The same kind of direct pleasure\nis involved in any genuine appreciation of art.\nThe struggle for life, the serious work of a trade or\nprofession, is apt to make people too solemn for\njokes and too pre-occupied for art. The easing of\nthe struggle, the diminution in the hours of work, and\nthe lightening of the burden of existence, which would\nresult from a better economic system, could hardly\nfail to increase the joy of life and the vital energy,\navailable for sheer delight in the world. And if this\nwere achieved there would inevitably be more spontaneous\npleasure in beautiful things, and more enjoyment\nof the work of artists. But none of these good\nresults are to be expected from the mere removal\nof poverty: they all require also a diffused sense of\nfreedom, and the absence of that feeling of oppression\nby a vast machine which now weighs down the individual\nspirit. I do not think State Socialism can give\nthis sense of freedom, but some other forms of Socialism,\nwhich have absorbed what is true in Anarchist\nteaching, can give it to a degree of which capitalism is\nwholly incapable.\n\nA general sense of progress and achievement is\nan immense stimulus to all forms of creative work.\nFor this reason, a great deal will depend, not only\nin material ways, upon the question whether methods\nof production in industry and agriculture become\nstereotyped or continue to change rapidly as they\nhave done during the last hundred years. Improved\nmethods of production will be much more obviously\nthan now to the interest of the community at large,\nwhen what every man receives is his due share of the\ntotal produce of labor. But there will probably not\nbe any individuals with the same direct and intense\ninterest in technical improvements as now belongs\nto the capitalist in manufacture. If the natural\nconservatism of the workers is not to prove stronger\nthan their interest in increasing production, it will\nbe necessary that, when better methods are introduced\nby the workers in any industry, part at least\nof the benefit should be allowed for a time to be\nretained by them. If this is done, it may be presumed\nthat each Guild will be continually seeking for new\nprocesses or inventions, and will value those technical\nparts of scientific research which are useful for this\npurpose. With every improvement, the question will\narise whether it is to be used to give more leisure or to\nincrease the dividend of commodities. Where there\nis so much more leisure than there is now, there will\nbe many more people with a knowledge of science or\nan understanding of art. The artist or scientific\ninvestigator will be far less cut off than he is at\npresent from the average citizen, and this will almost\ninevitably be a stimulus to his creative energy.\n\nI think we may fairly conclude that, from the\npoint of view of all three requisites for art and science,\nnamely, training, freedom and appreciation, State\nSocialism would largely fail to remove existing\nevils and would introduce new evils of its own; but\nGuild Socialism, or even Syndicalism, if it adopted\na liberal policy toward those who preferred to work\nless than the usual number of hours at recognized\noccupations, might be immeasurably preferable to\nanything that is possible under the rule of capitalism.\nThere are dangers, but they will all vanish if the\nimportance of liberty is adequately acknowledged.\nIn this as in nearly everything else, the road to all\nthat is best is the road of freedom.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE WORLD AS IT COULD BE MADE\n\n\nIN the daily lives of most men and women, fear\nplays a greater part than hope: they are more\nfilled with the thought of the possessions that others\nmay take from them, than of the joy that they might\ncreate in their own lives and in the lives with which\nthey come in contact.\n\nIt is not so that life should be lived.\n\nThose whose lives are fruitful to themselves, to\ntheir friends, or to the world are inspired by hope\nand sustained by joy: they see in imagination the\nthings that might be and the way in which they are\nto be brought into existence. In their private relations\nthey are not pre-occupied with anxiety lest\nthey should lose such affection and respect as they\nreceive: they are engaged in giving affection\nand respect freely, and the reward comes of\nitself without their seeking. In their work they\nare not haunted by jealousy of competitors, but\nconcerned with the actual matter that has to be done.\nIn politics, they do not spend time and passion defending\nunjust privileges of their class or nation, but\nthey aim at making the world as a whole happier, less\ncruel, less full of conflict between rival greeds, and\nmore full of human beings whose growth has not\nbeen dwarfed and stunted by oppression.\n\nA life lived in this spirit--the spirit that aims at\ncreating rather than possessing--has a certain\nfundamental happiness, of which it cannot be wholly\nrobbed by adverse circumstances. This is the way\nof life recommended in the Gospels, and by all the\ngreat teachers of the world. Those who have found\nit are freed from the tyranny of fear, since what they\nvalue most in their lives is not at the mercy of outside\npower. If all men could summon up the courage\nand the vision to live in this way in spite of obstacles\nand discouragement, there would be no need for the\nregeneration of the world to begin by political and\neconomic reform: all that is needed in the way of reform\nwould come automatically, without resistance,\nowing to the moral regeneration of individuals. But\nthe teaching of Christ has been nominally accepted\nby the world for many centuries, and yet those who\nfollow it are still persecuted as they were before the\ntime of Constantine. Experience has proved that\nfew are able to see through the apparent evils of an\noutcast's life to the inner joy that comes of faith\nand creative hope. If the domination of fear is to be\novercome, it is not enough, as regards the mass of\nmen, to preach courage and indifference to misfortune:\nit is necessary to remove the causes of fear,\nto make a good life no longer an unsuccessful one in\na worldly sense, and to diminish the harm that can\nbe inflicted upon those who are not wary in self-\ndefense.\n\nWhen we consider the evils in the lives we know\nof, we find that they may be roughly divided into\nthree classes. There are, first, those due to physical\nnature: among these are death, pain and the\ndifficulty of making the soil yield a subsistence.\nThese we will call ``physical evils.'' Second, we may\nput those that spring from defects in the character\nor aptitudes of the sufferer: among these are ignorance,\nlack of will, and violent passions. These we\nwill call ``evils of character.'' Third come those\nthat depend upon the power of one individual or\ngroup over another: these comprise not only obvious\ntyranny, but all interference with free development,\nwhether by force or by excessive mental influence\nsuch as may occur in education. These we will call\n``evils of power.'' A social system may be judged\nby its bearing upon these three kinds of evils.\n\nThe distinction between the three kinds cannot\nbe sharply drawn. Purely physical evil is a limit,\nwhich we can never be sure of having reached: we\ncannot abolish death, but we can often postpone it by\nscience, and it may ultimately become possible to\nsecure that the great majority shall live till old age;\nwe cannot wholly prevent pain, but we can diminish\nit indefinitely by securing a healthy life for all; we\ncannot make the earth yield its fruits in any abundance\nwithout labor, but we can diminish the amount\nof the labor and improve its conditions until it ceases\nto be an evil. Evils of character are often the result\nof physical evil in the shape of illness, and still more\noften the result of evils of power, since tyranny\ndegrades both those who exercise it and (as a rule)\nthose who suffer it. Evils of power are intensified\nby evils of character in those who have power, and by\nfear of the physical evil which is apt to be the lot of\nthose who have no power. For all these reasons, the\nthree sorts of evil are intertwined. Nevertheless,\nspeaking broadly, we may distinguish among our\nmisfortunes those which have their proximate cause in\nthe material world, those which are mainly due to\ndefects in ourselves, and those which spring from our\nbeing subject to the control of others.\n\nThe main methods of combating these evils are: for\nphysical evils, science; for evils of character, education\n(in the widest sense) and a free outlet for all\nimpulses that do not involve domination; for evils\nof power, the reform of the political and economic\norganization of society in such a way as to reduce\nto the lowest possible point the interference of one\nman with the life of another. We will begin with the\nthird of these kinds of evil, because it is evils of power\nspecially that Socialism and Anarchism have sought\nto remedy. Their protest against Inequalities of\nwealth has rested mainly upon their sense of the evils\narising from the power conferred by wealth. This\npoint has been well stated by Mr. G. D. H. Cole:--\n\n\nWhat, I want to ask, is the fundamental evil in our\nmodern Society which we should set out to abolish?\n\nThere are two possible answers to that question, and\nI am sure that very many well-meaning people would\nmake the wrong one. They would answer POVERTY,\nwhen they ought to answer SLAVERY. Face to face\nevery day with the shameful contrasts of riches and\ndestitution, high dividends and low wages, and painfully\nconscious of the futility of trying to adjust the balance\nby means of charity, private or public, they would answer\nunhesitatingly that they stand for the ABOLITION\nOF POVERTY.\n\nWell and good! On that issue every Socialist is with\nthem. But their answer to my question is none the less\nwrong.\n\nPoverty is the symptom: slavery the disease. The\nextremes of riches and destitution follow inevitably upon\nthe extremes of license and bondage. The many are not\nenslaved because they are poor, they are poor because\nthey are enslaved. Yet Socialists have all too often\nfixed their eyes upon the material misery of the poor\nwithout realizing that it rests upon the spiritual degradation\nof the slave.[59]\n\n\n[59] ``Self-Government in Industry,'' G. Bell & Sons, 1917, pp.\n110-111.\n\n\nI do not think any reasonable person can doubt\nthat the evils of power in the present system are\nvastly greater than is necessary, nor that they\nmight be immeasurably diminished by a suitable form\nof Socialism. A few fortunate people, it is true, are\nnow enabled to live freely on rent or interest, and\nthey could hardly have more liberty under another\nsystem. But the great bulk, not only of the very\npoor, but, of all sections of wage-earners and even\nof the professional classes, are the slaves of the need\nfor getting money. Almost all are compelled to\nwork so hard that they have little leisure for enjoyment\nor for pursuits outside their regular occupation.\nThose who are able to retire in later middle age are\nbored, because they have not learned how to fill\ntheir time when they are at liberty, and such interests\nas they once had apart from work have dried up.\nYet these are the exceptionally fortunate: the majority\nhave to work hard till old age, with the fear of\ndestitution always before them, the richer ones dreading\nthat they will be unable to give their children\nthe education or the medical care that they consider\ndesirable, the poorer ones often not far removed from\nstarvation. And almost all who work have no voice\nin the direction of their work; throughout the hours\nof labor they are mere machines carrying out the will\nof a master. Work is usually done under disagreeable\nconditions, involving pain and physical hardship.\nThe only motive to work is wages: the very idea that\nwork might be a joy, like the work of the artist, is\nusually scouted as utterly Utopian.\n\nBut by far the greater part of these evils are\nwholly unnecessary. If the civilized portion of mankind\ncould be induced to desire their own happiness\nmore than another's pain, if they could be induced to\nwork constructively for improvements which they\nwould share with all the world rather than destructively\nto prevent other classes or nations from stealing\na march on them, the whole system by which the\nworld's work is done might be reformed root and\nbranch within a generation.\n\nFrom the point of view of liberty, what system\nwould be the best? In what direction should we wish\nthe forces of progress to move?\n\nFrom this point of view, neglecting for the\nmoment all other considerations, I have no doubt that\nthe best system would be one not far removed from\nthat advocated by Kropotkin, but rendered more\npracticable by the adoption of the main principles of\nGuild Socialism. Since every point can be disputed,\nI will set down without argument the kind of organization\nof work that would seem best.\n\nEducation should be compulsory up to the age\nof 16, or perhaps longer; after that, it should be continued\nor not at the option of the pupil, but remain\nfree (for those who desire it) up to at least the age\nof 21. When education is finished no one should be\nCOMPELLED to work, and those who choose not to work\nshould receive a bare livelihood, and be left completely\nfree; but probably it would be desirable that there\nshould be a strong public opinion in favor of work,\nso that only comparatively few should choose idleness.\nOne great advantage of making idleness economically\npossible is that it would afford a powerful\nmotive for making work not disagreeable; and no\ncommunity where most work is disagreeable can be\nsaid to have found a solution of economic problems.\nI think it is reasonable to assume that few would\nchoose idleness, in view of the fact that even now at\nleast nine out of ten of those who have (say) 100 pounds\na year from investments prefer to increase their income\nby paid work.\n\nComing now to that great majority who will not\nchoose idleness, I think we may assume that, with the\nhelp of science, and by the elimination of the vast\namount of unproductive work involved in internal and\ninternational competition, the whole community\ncould be kept in comfort by means of four hours'\nwork a day. It is already being urged by experienced\nemployers that their employes can actually produce\nas much in a six-hour day as they can when they\nwork eight hours. In a world where there is a much\nhigher level of technical instruction than there is now\nthe same tendency will be accentuated. People will\nbe taught not only, as at present, one trade, or one\nsmall portion of a trade, but several trades, so that\nthey can vary their occupation according to the\nseasons and the fluctuations of demand. Every industry\nwill be self-governing as regards all its internal\naffairs, and even separate factories will decide for\nthemselves all questions that only concern those who\nwork in them. There will not be capitalist management,\nas at present, but management by elected representatives,\nas in politics. Relations between different\ngroups of producers will be settled by the Guild\nCongress, matters concerning the community as the\ninhabitants of a certain area will continue to be\ndecided by Parliament, while all disputes between\nParliament and the Guild Congress will be decided\nby a body composed of representatives of both in\nequal numbers.\n\nPayment will not be made, as at present, only for\nwork actually required and performed, but for willingness\nto work. This system is already adopted in\nmuch of the better paid work: a man occupies a certain\nposition, and retains it even at times when there\nhappens to be very little to do. The dread of unemployment\nand loss of livelihood will no longer haunt\nmen like a nightmare. Whether all who are willing\nto work will be paid equally, or whether exceptional\nskill will still command exceptional pay, is a matter\nwhich may be left to each guild to decide for itself.\nAn opera-singer who received no more pay than a\nscene-shifter might choose to be a scene-shifter until\nthe system was changed: if so, higher pay would\nprobably be found necessary. But if it were freely\nvoted by the Guild, it could hardly constitute a\ngrievance.\n\nWhatever might be done toward making work\nagreeable, it is to be presumed that some trades would\nalways remain unpleasant. Men could be attracted\ninto these by higher pay or shorter hours, instead of\nbeing driven into them by destitution. The community\nwould then have a strong economic motive\nfor finding ways of diminishing the disagreeableness\nof these exceptional trades.\n\nThere would still have to be money, or something\nanalogous to it, in any community such as we are\nimagining. The Anarchist plan of a free distribution\nof the total produce of work in equal shares\ndoes not get rid of the need for some standard of\nexchange value, since one man will choose to take his\nshare in one form and another in another. When\nthe day comes for distributing luxuries, old ladies\nwill not want their quota of cigars, nor young men\ntheir just proportion of lap-dog; this will make it\nnecessary to know how many cigars are the equivalent\nof one lap-dog. Much the simplest way is to\npay an income, as at present, and allow relative\nvalues to be adjusted according to demand. But if\nactual coin were paid, a man might hoard it and in\ntime become a capitalist. To prevent this, it would\nbe best to pay notes available only during a certain\nperiod, say one year from the date of issue. This\nwould enable a man to save up for his annual holiday,\nbut not to save indefinitely.\n\nThere is a very great deal to be said for the\nAnarchist plan of allowing necessaries, and all\ncommodities that can easily be produced in quantities\nadequate to any possible demand, to be given away\nfreely to all who ask for them, in any amounts they\nmay require. The question whether this plan should\nbe adopted is, to my mind, a purely technical one:\nwould it be, in fact, possible to adopt it without much\nwaste and consequent diversion of labor to the production\nof necessaries when it might be more usefully\nemployed otherwise? I have not the means of answering\nthis question, but I think it exceedingly probable\nthat, sooner or later, with the continued\nimprovement in the methods of production, this\nAnarchist plan will become feasible; and when it does,\nit certainly ought to be adopted.\n\nWomen in domestic work, whether married or unmarried,\nwill receive pay as they would if they were\nin industry. This will secure the complete economic\nindependence of wives, which is difficult to achieve\nin any other way, since mothers of young children\nought not to be expected to work outside the home.\n\nThe expense of children will not fall, as at present,\non the parents. They will receive, like adults,\ntheir share of necessaries, and their education will\nbe free.[60] There is no longer to be the present\ncompetition for scholarships among the abler children:\nthey will not be imbued with the competitive spirit\nfrom infancy, or forced to use their brains to an\nunnatural degree with consequent listlessness and lack\nof health in later life. Education will be far more\ndiversified than at present; greater care will be taken\nto adapt it to the needs of different types of young\npeople. There will be more attempt to encourage\ninitiative young pupils, and less desire to fill their\nminds with a set of beliefs and mental habits regarded\nas desirable by the State, chiefly because they help\nto preserve the status quo. For the great majority\nof children it will probably be found desirable to\nhave much more outdoor education in the country.\nAnd for older boys and girls whose interests are not\nintellectual or artistic, technical education, undertaken\nin a liberal spirit, is far more useful in promoting\nmental activity than book-learning which they\nregard (however falsely) as wholly useless except for\npurposes of examination. The really useful educa-\ntion is that which follows the direction of the child's\nown instinctive interests, supplying knowledge for\nwhich it is seeking, not dry, detailed information\nwholly out of relation to its spontaneous desires.\n\n\n[60] Some may fear that the result would be an undue increase\nof population, but such fears I believe to be groundless. See\nabove, (Chapter IV, on ``Work and Pay.'' Also, Chapter vi of\n``Principles of Social Reconstruction'' (George Allen and\nUnwin, Ltd.).\n\n\nGovernment and law will still exist in our\ncommunity, but both will be reduced to a minimum.\nThere will still be acts which will be forbidden--for\nexample, murder. But very nearly the whole of that\npart of the criminal law which deals with property\nwill have become obsolete, and many of the motives\nwhich now produce murders will be no longer operative.\nThose who nevertheless still do commit crimes\nwill not be blamed or regarded as wicked; they will\nbe regarded as unfortunate, and kept in some kind\nof mental hospital until it is thought that they are\nno longer a danger. By education and freedom and\nthe abolition of private capital the number of crimes\ncan be made exceedingly small. By the method of\nindividual curative treatment it will generally be\npossible to secure that a man's first offense shall also\nbe his last, except in the case of lunatics and the\nfeeble-minded, for whom of course a more prolonged\nbut not less kindly detention may be necessary.\n\nGovernment may be regarded as consisting of\ntwo parts: the one, the decisions of the community\nor its recognized organs; the other, the enforcing of\nthose decisions upon all who resist them. The first\npart is not objected to by Anarchists. The second\npart, in an ordinary civilized State, may remain\nentirely in the background: those who have resisted\na new law while it was being debated will, as a rule,\nsubmit to it when it is passed, because resistance is\ngenerally useless in a settled and orderly community.\nBut the possibility of governmental force remains,\nand indeed is the very reason for the submission which\nmakes force unnecessary. If, as Anarchists desire,\nthere were no use of force by government, the majority\ncould still band themselves together and use\nforce against the minority. The only difference\nwould be that their army or their police force would\nbe ad hoc, instead of being permanent and professional.\nThe result of this would be that everyone\nwould have to learn how to fight, for fear a well-\ndrilled minority should seize power and establish an\nold-fashioned oligarchic State. Thus the aim of the\nAnarchists seems hardly likely to be achieved by\nthe methods which they advocate.\n\nThe reign of violence in human affairs, whether\nwithin a country or in its external relations, can only\nbe prevented, if we have not been mistaken, by an\nauthority able to declare all use of force except by\nitself illegal, and strong enough to be obviously\ncapable of making all other use of force futile, except\nwhen it could secure the support of public opinion as\na defense of freedom or a resistance to injustice.\nSuch an authority exists within a country: it is the\nState. But in international affairs it remains to be\ncreated. The difficulties are stupendous, but they must\nbe overcome if the world is to be saved from periodical\nwars, each more destructive than any of its predecessors.\nWhether, after this war, a League of Nations\nwill be formed, and will be capable of performing this\ntask, it is as yet impossible to foretell. However that\nmay be, some method of preventing wars will have to\nbe established before our Utopia becomes possible.\nWhen once men BELIEVE that the world is safe from\nwar, the whole difficulty will be solved: there will then\nno longer be any serious resistance to the disbanding\nof national armies and navies, and the substitution\nfor them of a small international force for protection\nagainst uncivilized races. And when that stage has\nbeen reached, peace will be virtually secure.\n\nThe practice of government by majorities, which\nAnarchists criticise, is in fact open to most of the\nobjections which they urge against it. Still more\nobjectionable is the power of the executive in matters\nvitally affecting the happiness of all, such as\npeace and war. But neither can be dispensed with\nsuddenly. There are, however, two methods of diminishing\nthe harm done by them: (1) Government by\nmajorities can be made less oppressive by devolution,\nby placing the decision of questions primarily affecting\nonly a section of the community in the hands of\nthat section, rather than of a Central Chamber. In\nthis way, men are no longer forced to submit to decisions\nmade in a hurry by people mostly ignorant of\nthe matter in hand and not personally interested.\nAutonomy for internal affairs should be given, not\nonly to areas, but to all groups, such as industries or\nChurches, which have important common interests\nnot shared by the rest of the community. (2) The\ngreat powers vested in the executive of a modern\nState are chiefly due to the frequent need of rapid\ndecisions, especially as regards foreign affairs. If\nthe danger of war were practically eliminated, more\ncumbrous but less autocratic methods would be possible,\nand the Legislature might recover many of the\npowers which the executive has usurped. By these\ntwo methods, the intensity of the interference with\nliberty involved in government can be gradually\ndiminished. Some interference, and even some danger\nof unwarranted and despotic interference, is of the\nessence of government, and must remain so long as\ngovernment remains. But until men are less prone\nto violence than they are now, a certain degree of\ngovernmental force seems the lesser of two evils. We\nmay hope, however, that if once the danger of war is\nat an end, men's violent impulses will gradually grow\nless, the more so as, in that case, it will be possible\nto diminish enormously the individual power which\nnow makes rulers autocratic and ready for almost\nany act of tyranny in order to crush opposition. The\ndevelopment of a world where even governmental\nforce has become unnecessary (except against lunatics)\nmust be gradual. But as a gradual process it\nis perfectly possible; and when it has been completed\nwe may hope to see the principles of Anarchism\nembodied in the management of communal affairs.\n\nHow will the economic and political system that\nwe have outlined bear on the evils of character? I\nbelieve the effect will be quite extraordinarily\nbeneficent.\n\nThe process of leading men's thought and imagination\naway from the use of force will be greatly\naccelerated by the abolition of the capitalist system,\nprovided it is not succeeded by a form of State Socialism\nin which officials have enormous power. At present,\nthe capitalist has more control over the lives of\nothers than any man ought to have; his friends have\nauthority in the State; his economic power is the\npattern for political power. In a world where all men\nand women enjoy economic freedom, there will not be\nthe same habit of command, nor, consequently, the\nsame love of despotism; a gentler type of character\nthan that now prevalent will gradually grow up. Men\nare formed by their circumstances, not born ready-\nmade. The bad effect of the present economic system\non character, and the immensely better effect to be\nexpected from communal ownership, are among the\nstrongest reasons for advocating the change.\n\nIn the world as we have been imagining fit, economic\nfear and most economic hope will be alike\nremoved out of life. No one will be haunted by the\ndread of poverty or driven into ruthlessness by the\nhope of wealth. There will not be the distinction of\nsocial classes which now plays such an immense part\nin life. The unsuccessful professional man will not\nlive in terror lest his children should sink in the scale;\nthe aspiring employe will not be looking forward to\nthe day when he can become a sweater in his turn.\nAmbitious young men will have to dream other daydreams\nthan that of business success and wealth\nwrung out of the ruin of competitors and the degradation\nof labor. In such a world, most of the nightmares\nthat lurk in the background of men's minds\nwill no longer exist; on the other hand, ambition and\nthe desire to excel will have to take nobler forms than\nthose that are encouraged by a commercial society.\nAll those activities that really confer benefits upon\nmankind will be open, not only to the fortunate few,\nbut to all who have sufficient ambition and native\naptitude. Science, labor-saving inventions, technical\nprogress of all kinds, may be confidently expected to\nflourish far more than at present, since they will be\nthe road to honor, and honor will have to replace\nmoney among those of the young who desire to\nachieve success. Whether art will flourish in a\nSocialistic community depends upon the form of Social-\nism adopted; if the State, or any public authority,\n(no matter what), insists upon controlling art, and\nonly licensing those whom it regards as proficient, the\nresult will be disaster. But if there is real freedom,\nallowing every man who so desires to take up an\nartist's career at the cost of some sacrifice of comfort,\nit is likely that the atmosphere of hope, and\nthe absence of economic compulsion, will lead to a\nmuch smaller waste of talent than is involved in our\npresent system, and to a much less degree of crushing\nof impulse in the mills of the struggle for life.\n\nWhen elementary needs have been satisfied, the\nserious happiness of most men depends upon two\nthings: their work, and their human relations. In the\nworld that we have been picturing, work will be free,\nnot excessive, full of the interest that belongs to a\ncollective enterprise in which there is rapid progress,\nwith something of the delight of creation even for\nthe humblest unit. And in human relations the gain\nwill be just as great as in work. The only human\nrelations that have value are those that are rooted in\nmutual freedom, where there is no domination and no\nslavery, no tie except affection, no economic or\nconventional necessity to preserve the external show when\nthe inner life is dead. One of the most horrible\nthings about commercialism is the way in which it\npoisons the relations of men and women. The evils of\nprostitution are generally recognized, but, great as\nthey are, the effect of economic conditions on marriage\nseems to me even worse. There is not infrequently,\nin marriage, a suggestion of purchase, of acquiring\na woman on condition of keeping her in a certain\nstandard of material comfort. Often and often, a\nmarriage hardly differs from prostitution except by\nbeing harder to escape from. The whole basis of\nthese evils is economic. Economic causes make marriage\na matter of bargain and contract, in which\naffection is quite secondary, and its absence constitutes\nno recognized reason for liberation. Marriage\nshould be a free, spontaneous meeting of mutual\ninstinct, filled with happiness not unmixed with a\nfeeling akin to awe: it should involve that degree of\nrespect of each for the other that makes even the\nmost trifling interference with liberty an utter\nimpossibility, and a common life enforced by one against\nthe will of the other an unthinkable thing of deep\nhorror. It is not so that marriage is conceived by\nlawyers who make settlements, or by priests who give\nthe name of ``sacrament'' to an institution which pretends\nto find something sanctifiable in the brutal lusts\nor drunken cruelties of a legal husband. It is not in\na spirit of freedom that marriage is conceived by\nmost men and women at present: the law makes it an\nopportunity for indulgence of the desire to interfere,\nwhere each submits to some loss of his or her own liberty,\nfor the pleasure of curtailing the liberty of the\nother. And the atmosphere of private property\nmakes it more difficult than it otherwise would be for\nany better ideal to take root.\n\nIt is not so that human relations will be conceived\nwhen the evil heritage of economic slavery has ceased\nto mold our instincts. Husbands and wives, parents\nand children, will be only held together by affection:\nwhere that has died, it will be recognized that nothing\nworth preserving is left. Because affection will\nbe free, men and women will not find in private life an\noutlet and stimulus to the love of domineering, but all\nthat is creative in their love will have the freer scope.\nReverence for whatever makes the soul in those who\nare loved will be less rare than it is now: nowadays,\nmany men love their wives in the way in which they\nlove mutton, as something to devour and destroy.\nBut in the love that goes with reverence there is a\njoy of quite another order than any to be found by\nmastery, a joy which satisfies the spirit and not only\nthe instincts; and satisfaction of instinct and spirit\nat once is necessary to a happy life, or indeed to any\nexistence that is to bring out the best impulses of\nwhich a man or woman is capable.\n\nIn the world which we should wish to see, there\nwill be more joy of life than in the drab tragedy of\nmodern every-day existence. After early youth, as\nthings are, most men are bowed down by forethought,\nno longer capable of light-hearted gaiety, but only of\na kind of solemn jollification by the clock at the\nappropriate hours. The advice to ``become as little\nchildren'' would be good for many people in many\nrespects, but it goes with another precept, ``take no\nthought for the morrow,'' which is hard to obey in a\ncompetitive world. There is often in men of science,\neven when they are quite old, something of the\nsimplicity of a child: their absorption in abstract\nthought has held them aloof from the world, and\nrespect for their work has led the world to keep them\nalive in spite of their innocence. Such men have\nsucceeded in living as all men ought to be able to live;\nbut as things are, the economic struggle makes their\nway of life impossible for the great majority.\n\nWhat are we to say, lastly, of the effect of our\nprojected world upon physical evil? Will there be\nless illness than there is at present? Will the produce\nof a given amount of labor be greater? Or will population\npress upon the limits of subsistence, as Malthus\ntaught in order to refute Godwin's optimism?\n\nI think the answer to all these questions turns,\nin the end, upon the degree of intellectual vigor to be\nexpected in a community which has done away with\nthe spur of economic competition. Will men in such\na world become lazy and apathetic? Will they cease\nto think? Will those who do think find themselves\nconfronted with an even more impenetrable wall of\nunreflecting conservatism than that which confronts\nthem at present? These are important questions; for\nit is ultimately to science that mankind must look\nfor their success in combating physical evils.\n\nIf the other conditions that we have postulated\ncan be realized, it seems almost certain that there\nmust be less illness than there is at present. Population\nwill no longer be congested in slums; children will\nhave far more of fresh air and open country; the\nhours of work will be only such as are wholesome, not\nexcessive and exhausting as they are at present.\n\nAs for the progress of science, that depends very\nlargely upon the degree of intellectual liberty existing\nin the new society. If all science is organized and\nsupervised by the State, it will rapidly become\nstereotyped and dead. Fundamental advances will not be\nmade, because, until they have been made, they will\nseem too doubtful to warrant the expenditure of\npublic money upon them. Authority will be in the\nhands of the old, especially of men who have achieved\nscientific eminence; such men will be hostile to those\namong the young who do not flatter them by agreeing\nwith their theories. Under a bureaucratic State\nSocialism it is to be feared that science would soon\ncease to be progressive and acquired a medieval respect\nfor authority.\n\nBut under a freer system, which would enable all\nkinds of groups to employ as many men of science as\nthey chose, and would allow the ``vagabond's wage''\nto those who desired to pursue some study so new as\nto be wholly unrecognized, there is every reason to\nthink that science would flourish as it has never done\nhitherto.[61] And, if that were the case, I do not believe\nthat any other obstacle would exist to the physical\npossibility of our system.\n\n\n[61] See the discussion of this question in the preceding chapter.\n\n\nThe question of the number of hours of work\nnecessary to produce general material comfort is\npartly technical, partly one of organization. We\nmay assume that there would no longer be unproductive\nlabor spent on armaments, national defense,\nadvertisements, costly luxuries for the very rich, or\nany of the other futilities incidental to our competitive\nsystem. If each industrial guild secured for a term of\nyears the advantages, or part of the advantages, of\nany new invention or methods which it introduced, it\nis pretty certain that every encouragement would be\ngiven to technical progress. The life of a discoverer\nor inventor is in itself agreeable: those who adopt it,\nas things are now, are seldom much actuated by economic\nmotives, but rather by the interest of the work\ntogether with the hope of honor; and these motives\nwould operate more widely than they do now, since\nfewer people would be prevented from obeying them\nby economic necessities. And there is no doubt that\nintellect would work more keenly and creatively in\na world where instinct was less thwarted, where the\njoy of life was greater, and where consequently there\nwould be more vitality in men than there is at present.\n\nThere remains the population question, which,\never since the time of Malthus, has been the last\nrefuge of those to whom the possibility of a better\nworld is disagreeable. But this question is now\na very different one from what it was a hundred\nyears ago. The decline of the birth-rate in all\ncivilized countries, which is pretty certain to continue,\nwhatever economic system is adopted, suggests\nthat, especially when the probable effects of the war\nare taken into account, the population of Western\nEurope is not likely to increase very much beyond\nits present level, and that of America is likely only to\nincrease through immigration. Negroes may continue\nto increase in the tropics, but are not likely to\nbe a serious menace to the white inhabitants of temperate\nregions. There remains, of course, the Yellow\nPeril; but by the time that begins to be serious\nit is quite likely that the birth-rate will also have\nbegun to decline among the races of Asia If not,\nthere are other means of dealing with this question;\nand in any case the whole matter is too conjectural\nto be set up seriously as a bar to our hopes. I conclude\nthat, though no certain forecast is possible,\nthere is not any valid reason for regarding the possible\nincrease of population as a serious obstacle to\nSocialism.\n\nOur discussion has led us to the belief that the\ncommunal ownership of land and capital, which constitutes\nthe characteristic doctrine of Socialism and\nAnarchist Communism, is a necessary step toward the\nremoval of the evils from which the world suffers at\npresent and the creation of such a society as any\nhumane man must wish to see realized. But, though\na necessary step, Socialism alone is by no means\nsufficient. There are various forms of Socialism: the\nform in which the State is the employer, and all who\nwork receive wages from it, involves dangers of\ntyranny and interference with progress which would\nmake it, if possible, even worse than the present\nregime. On the other hand, Anarchism, which avoids\nthe dangers of State Socialism, has dangers and\ndifficulties of its own, which make it probable that,\nwithin any reasonable period of time, it could not\nlast long even if it were established. Nevertheless, it\nremains an ideal to which we should wish to approach\nas nearly as possible, and which, in some distant age,\nwe hope may be reached completely. Syndicalism\nshares many of the defects of Anarchism, and, like it,\nwould prove unstable, since the need of a central\ngovernment would make itself felt almost at once.\n\nThe system we have advocated is a form of Guild\nSocialism, leaning more, perhaps, towards Anarchism\nthan the official Guildsman would wholly approve. It\nis in the matters that politicians usually ignore--\nscience and art, human relations, and the joy of life\n--that Anarchism is strongest, and it is chiefly for the\nsake of these things that we included such more or\nless Anarchist proposals as the ``vagabond's wage.''\nIt is by its effects outside economics and politics, at\nleast as much as by effects inside them, that a social\nsystem should be judged. And if Socialism ever\ncomes, it is only likely to prove beneficent if non-\neconomic goods are valued and consciously pursued.\n\nThe world that we must seek is a world in which\nthe creative spirit is alive, in which life is an adventure\nfull of joy and hope, based rather upon the impulse\nto construct than upon the desire to retain\nwhat we possess or to seize what is possessed by\nothers. It must be a world in which affection has free\nplay, in which love is purged of the instinct for\ndomination, in which cruelty and envy have been\ndispelled by happiness and the unfettered development\nof all the instincts that build up life and fill it with\nmental delights. Such a world is possible; it waits\nonly for men to wish to create it.\n\nMeantime, the world in which we exist has other\naims. But it will pass away, burned up in the fire\nof its own hot passions; and from its ashes will spring\na new and younger world, full of fresh hope, with\nthe light of morning in its eyes.\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\nAcademy, Royal, 107\nAfrica, 149, 165\nAgriculture, 90 ff.\nAlexander II, 43\nAllemane, 60\nAmerica, xi, 31, 74 ff., 125, 140, 210\nAmerican Federation of\n Labor, 76\nAnarchism, passim--\n defined, 33\n and law, 33, 51, 111 ff., 198 ff.\n and violence, 33, 52-4, 72, 121 ff.\n and distribution, 93 ff.\n and wages, 96 ff.\n anti-German, 46\n attitude to syndicalism, 79\n congress in Amsterdam, 79\nAnts, 152\nArmy, private, 120, 123\nArt, 109, 111, 138, 166 ff., 203\n and appreciation, 169, 181-6\n and commercialism, 181\n and freedom, 182\nArtists, 103\n under State Socialism, 174\nAsia, 149, 158, 210\nAustralia, 151\nAuthors, Guild of, 179\nAutonomy, 133, 137, 160\n\n\nBackwoods, 133\nBakunin, x, 3649\n biography, 3747\n writings, 4749\n and Marx, 38 ff., 59 n.\n and Pan-Slavism, 41, 45\n and Dresden insurrection, 41\n imprisonments, 41\n anti-German, 45\n and production, 50\nBebel, 66\nBenbow, William, 71 n.\nBergson, 68\nBernstein, 27-29, 56\nBevington, 53\nBismarck, 30\nBooks under Socialism, 178\nBornstedt, 39\nBourgeoisie, 11\nBourses du Travail, 54, 63\nBoycott, 68\nBriand, 72\nBright, 21\nBrooks, John Graham, 75, 77n.\nBrousse, Paul, 60\nBureaucracy, 128, 174\nButton-hooks, 182\n\n\nCafiero, 48n.\nCapital, 6, 10, 18-25\nCapitalism, 2, 202\n and war, 139 ff.\n\nCalifornia, 181\nCensor of plays, 107\nChampion, 91\nCharlton, Broughton, 19\nChewing-gum, 189\nChina, 137, 140\nChrist, 187\nChuang Tzu, 33\nChurches, 201\nCivil Service, 128\nClass war, xvi, 9 ff., 27, 29, 81,\n 66, 116 149\nClemenceau, 71\nCobden, 21\nCole, G. I). H., 89n., 63, 64n.,\n 73, 76, 81n., 134, 190\nCommunism, 10 ff.\n anarchist, 1, 38ff., 60, 96n.,\n 100n., 106n.\nCommunist Manifesto, 5, 9-18,\n114, 148\nCompetitiveness, 160\nConcentration of Capital, Law\n of, 8, 23-5\nConfederation General du\n Travail, 63-65, 71, 74\nConquest of Bread, The, 80, 87\nConstantine, 108, 187\nCreativeness, 186-7\nCrime, 118 ff.\nCultivation, intensive, 89\nCultures maraicheres, 91\n\n\nDarwin, 173\nDeleon, 76\nDemocracy, 2, 30, 129 ff., 148, 167\nDeutche Jahrbuscher, 38\nDevolution, 200\nDisarmament, 153\nDisraeli, 30\nDistribution, 99 ff.\nDubois, Felix, 62\nDuelling, 123\n\n\nEducation, 169 ff., 189, 193, 196\nEdward VI, 22\nEmpire Knouto-Germanique, 48\nEngels, 3, 6, 17, 38\nEnvy, 160-169\nEvils--\n physical,\n 188, 207-11\n of character, 188, ~2-07\n of power, 188 ff.\nEvolution, 164\n\nFabians, 67\nFear, 186, 203\nFeudalism, 10\nFields, Factories and\n Workshops, 80, 87 ff.\nFinance and war, 140\nFinland, 144\nFourier, 4n.\nFranco-Prussian War, 46, 86, 69\nFranklin, 100n.\nFreedom, see Liberty\n\n\nGeorge, Lloyd, 186\nGerman Communist League, 8\nGerman Working Men's\n Association, 8\nGermany, 144\nGiles, Lionel, 36n.\nGod and the State, 48\nGodwin, 207\nGompers, 76\nGospels, The, 187\nGovernment, 111 ff., 198 ff.\n representative, 117, 129 ff., 137 ff.\nGuesde, Jules, 89-60\nGuild Congress, 83, Cal ff.,\nGuild Socialism, xi, 80 ff., 133,\n 192, 211\n and the State, 82-4, 114,\n 184-5\nGuillaume, James, 36n., 37\n\n\nHaywood, 77\nHegel, 4\nHerd instinct, xv\nHeubner, 41\nHistory, materialistic\n interpretation of, 7\nHobson, J. A., 144\nHodgskin, 5n.\nHulme, T. E., 29\nHypocrisy, 132\n\n\nIdleness, 103 ff.\nIndependent Labor Party, 87\nIndia, 188\nIndividual 138\nIndustrial Relations, American\n Commission on, 78\nIndustrial Workers of the\n World (I.W.W.), xi, 31, 74\nInternational alliance of socialist\n democracy, 44\nInternational fraternity, 43\nInternational Working Men's\n Association, 6, 44 ff., 69\nInternationalism, 148, 150\n\n\nJapan, 161\nJaures, 60\nJouhaux, 75\nJoy of Life, 206\n\n\nKeats, 173\nKnowledge, 168\nKropotkin, 36, 46, 80-61, 87 ff.,\n 96n., 100n., 102, 106n.,\n 116 ff., 179, 192\nKultur, 159\n\n\nLabor, integration of, 99\nLabor Party, 57, 150\nLagardelle, 64\nLaw, 111 ff., 198\nLevine, Louis, 69n., 60n.\nLiberal Party, 28, 30\nLiberty, 111 ff., 192, 201\n and syndicalism, 85\n and anarchism, 108\n and creative impulse, 169,\n 172-81\n and art, 182-3, 204\n and human relations, 204\n\n\nLiquor Traffic, 137\nLivre, Federation du, 178\nLunatics, 119\nLynching, 122\n\n\nMagistrates, 101\nMajorities, divine right of, 130, 200\nMalthus, 86 ff., 207 ff.\nManchesterism, 29\nMarriage, 204\nMarx, x, 1-31, 36, 60, 77, 148.\n 164\n biography, 3-7\n doctrines, 7-31, 113\n and Bakunin, 38 ff.\n and International Working\n Men's Association, 44 ff.,\n 89n.\nMarzisme, La decomposition\n du, 29\nMazzini, 43\nMillennium by force,     164\nMillerand, 60, 61\nMilton, 173\nMiners, Western Federation\n of, 76, 78\nMoney, 196\nMonroe Doctrine, 140\nMorning Star, 21\nMorris, William, 176\n\n\nNapoleon, 120\nNapoleon III, 46\nNaquet, Alfred, 98n., 118n, 165\nNational Guilds, 81n.\nNational Guilds League, 82\nNationalism, 17, 25, 28, 32\nNations--\n relations of, 139 ff.\n League of, 132, 200\nNecessaries, free? 109, 196\nNeue Reinische Zeitung, 41\nNicholas, Tsar, 43\n\n\nOpera Singers, 196\nOpium Traffic, 137\nOrage, 81n.\nOwen, Robert, 5n.\n\n\nPellico, Silvio, 42\nPelloutier, 54, 63\nPermeation, 57\nPersia, 158\nPlato, vii\nPoets, 104\nPoland, 37, 144\nPopulation, 197n.\nPossibilists, 60\nPoverty, 190\nPower, love of, 111, 144, 160,\n 161\nPress, 143\nProduction, methods of, 87 ff.\nProletariat, 11 ff.\nProportional Representation,\n 165\nProudhon, 4n., 38\nPugnacity, 147\nPunishment, 123 ff.\n\n\nRarachol, 53\n\n\nRavenstone, Piercy, 6n.\nReclue, Elisee, 48n.\nRevisionism, 27, 66\nRevolution--\n French, 7\n Russian, 18, 67, 148, 164\n Social, 6, 17, 70, 113, 148, 164,\n 164\n of 1848, 3, 6, 40\nRuge, 38\n\n\nSabotage, 66\nSaint-Simon, 4n.\nSand, George, 38, 41\nSarajevo, 32\nScholarships, 170, 197\nScience, 86, 109, 138 166 ff.,\n 189, 207\n men of, 207\nSelf-interest, 125\nSharing, free, 96 ff., 195\nShelley, 173\nSingle Tax, 82\nSlavery, 190\nSocialism, passim--\n defined, 1\n English, 5\n French, 4, 59\n German, 66\n evolutionary, 27\n State, 67, 107, 115, 128, 170,\n 174, 202, 208\n and distribution, 93 ff.\n and art and science, 164 ff.\n 203\n Guild, see Guild Socialism\nSocialist Labor Party, 76\nSocialist Revolutionaries, Alliance\n of, 43\nSocialists, Inter-Allied, 156\nSorel, 29, 67\nSpinoza, 120\nState, x, xi, 1, 16, 30, 48, 60,\n 68, 78, 82-4, 107 ff., 138, 146\nStrikes, 66, 67, 70, 78 ff., 130\nSyndicalism, passim--\n and Marx, 28, 116\n and party, 30\n and liberty, 85\n and political action, 30, 69\n 129 ff.\n and anarchism, x, 66, 72,\n in France, 58 ff.\n in Italy, 58n.\n reformist and revolutionary,\n 62\n and class-war, 65, 116\n and general strike, 67, 69,\n 130\n and the State, 68, 116\n and Guild Socialism, 81n.,\n 134\nSyndicalist Railwayman, 69\nSyndicates, 65\n\n\nTariffs, 137\nTechnical Training, 169 ff., 197\nTheft, 121\nThompson, William, 5n.\nTolstoy, 32\n\n\nTrade Unionism, x, 13, 62\n industrial, 31, 74 ff.\n craft, 73\nTrusts, 75, 141\n\n\nUtopias, vii, $, 200\n\n\nVagabond's wage, 177, 193,\n 208, 212\nVilleneuves Saint Georges, 71\nViolence, crimes of, 121, 122,\n 199\nViolence, Reflections on, 29\nViviani, 60\nVolkstimme, 27n.\nVolunteers, 121\n\n\nWages, 9, 78, 9$ ff., 199\n iron law of, 26\n and art and science, 168 ff.\nWagner, Richard, 41\nWaldeck-Rousseau, 61, 63\nWalkley, Mary Anne, 90\nWar--\n avoidance of, 139 ff., 199\n and capitalism, 139 ff.\n and the Press 143 ff.\nWomen--\n votes for, 155\n economic independence of,\n 196\nWork--\n and wages, 93 ff., 194\n hours of, 102, 193, 209\n can it be made pleasant?\n 100, 193, 904\n\n\nYellow races, 151, 210","title":"Proposed Roads to Freedom","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":54550}