diff options
Diffstat (limited to '40365-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 40365-0.txt | 1761 |
1 files changed, 1761 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/40365-0.txt b/40365-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..21f8803 --- /dev/null +++ b/40365-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1761 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 40365 *** + +Transcriber's note: +Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). + + + ANARCHY + + By + + Errico Malatesta + + Published by the Free Society Library in 1900 + + ANARCHY. + + ---------- + +ANARCHY is a word which comes from the Greek, and signifies, +strictly speaking, _without government:_ the state of a people +without any constituted authority, that is, without government. + +Before such an organization had begun to be considered possible +and desirable by a whole class of thinkers, so as to be taken +as the aim of a party (which party has now become one of the +most important factors in modern social warfare), the word Anarchy +was taken universally in the sense of disorder and confusion; +and it is still adopted in that sense by the ignorant and by +adversaries interested in distorting the truth. + +We shall not enter into philological discussions; for the question +is not philological but historical. The common meaning of the word +does not misconceive its true etymological signification, but is +derived from this meaning, owing to the prejudice that government +must be a necessity of the organization of social life; and that +consequently a society without government must be given up to +disorder, and oscillate between the unbridled dominion of some and +the blind vengeance of others. + +The existence of this prejudice, and its influence on the meaning +which the public has given the word, is easily explained. + +Man, like all living beings, adapts and habituates himself to +the conditions in which he lives, and transmits by inheritance +his acquired habits. Thus being born and having lived in bondage, +being the descendant of a long line of slaves, man, when he began to +think, believed that slavery was an essential condition of life; and +liberty seemed to him an impossible thing. In like manner, the +workman, forced for centuries, and thus habituated, to depend upon +the good will of his employer for work, that is, for bread, and +accustomed to see his own life at the disposal of those who possess +the land and the capital, has ended in believing that it is his +master who gives him to eat, and demands ingenuously how it would be +possible to live, if there were no master over him? + +In the same way, a man who had had his limbs bound from his birth, +but had nevertheless found out how to hobble about, might attribute +to the very hands that bound him his ability to move, while, on the +contrary, they would be diminishing and paralyzing the muscular +energy of his limbs. + +If, then, we add to the natural effect of habit the education +given him by his masters, the parson, teacher, etc., who are all +interested in teaching that the employer and the government are +necessary; if also we add the judge and the bailiff to force those +who think differently--and might try to propagate their opinions +--to keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to +the utility and necessity of masters and governments has become +established. Suppose a doctor brings forward a complete theory, +with a thousand ably invented illustrations, to persuade that man +with the bound limb whom we were describing, that, if his limb were +freed, he could not walk, could not even live. The man would defend +his bands furiously, and consider any one his enemy who tried to +tear them off. + +Thus, since it is believed that government is necessary, and +that without government there must be disorder and confusion, +it is natural and logical to suppose that Anarchy, which signifies +without government, must also mean absence of order. + +Nor is this fact without parallel in the history of words. In +those epochs and countries where people have considered government +by one man (monarchy) necessary, the word republic (that is, the +government of many) has been used precisely like Anarchy, to imply +disorder and confusion. Traces of this signification of the word are +still to be found in the popular language of almost all countries. + +When this opinion is changed, and the public convinced that +government is not necessary, but extremely harmful, the word +Anarchy, precisely because it signifies without government, will +become equal to saying natural order, harmony of the needs and +interests of all, complete liberty with complete solidarity. + +Therefore, those are wrong who say that Anarchists have chosen their +name badly, because it is erroneously understood by the masses and +leads to a false interpretation. The error does not come from the +word, but from the thing. The difficulty which Anarchists meet with +in spreading their views does not depend upon the name they have +given themselves, but upon the fact that their conceptions strike at +all the inveterate prejudices that people have about the function of +government, or the _State_, as it is called. + +Before proceeding further, it will be well to explain this last +word (the State) which, in our opinion, is the real cause of much +misunderstanding. + +Anarchists, and we among them, have made use, and still generally +make use of the word State, meaning thereby that collection of +institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial, +etc., by means of which the management of their own affairs, the +guidance of their personal conduct and the care of ensuring their +own safety are taken from the people and confided to certain +individuals. And these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are +invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to +constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective +force of the community to this end. + +In this case the word State means government, or, if you like, it is +the impersonal expression, abstracted from the state of things, of +which the government is the personification. Then such expressions +as abolition of the State, or society without the State, agree +perfectly with the conception which Anarchists wish to express of +the destruction of every political institution based on authority, +and of the constitution of a free and equal society, based upon +harmony of interests, and the voluntary contribution of all to the +satisfaction of social needs. + +However, the word State has many other significations, and among +these some which lend themselves to misconstruction, particularly +when used among men whose sad social position has not afforded them +leisure to become accustomed to the delicate distinctions of +scientific language, or, still worse, when adopted treacherously by +adversaries, who are interested in confounding the sense, or do not +wish to comprehend. Thus the word State is often used to indicate +any given society, or collection of human beings, united on a given +territory and constituting what is called a social unit, +independently of the way in which the members of the said body are +grouped, or of the relations existing between them. State is used +also simply as a synonym for society. Owing to these significations +of the word, our adversaries believe, or rather profess to believe, +that Anarchists wish to abolish every social relation and all +collective work, and to reduce man to a condition of isolation, that +is, to a state worse than savagery. + +By State again is meant only the supreme administration of a +country, the central power, distinct from provincial or communal +power; and therefore others think that Anarchists wish merely for a +territorial decentralization, leaving the principle of government +intact, and thus confounding Anarchy with cantonal or communal +government. + +Finally, state signifies condition, mode of living, the order +of social life, etc., and therefore we say, for example, that it is +necessary to change the economic state of the working classes, +or that the Anarchical state is the only state founded on the +principles of solidarity, and other similar phrases. So that if +we say also in another sense that we wish to abolish the State, +we may at once appear absurd or contradictory. + +For these reasons, we believe it would be better to use the +expression _abolition of the State_ as little as possible, and to +substitute for it another clearer and more concrete--_abolition of +government_. + +In any case, the latter will be the expression used in the course of +this little work. + + -------------------- + +We have said that Anarchy is society without government. But is the +suppression of government possible, desirable, or wise? Let us see. + +What is the government? There is a disease of the human mind called +the metaphysical tendency, causing man, after he has by a logical +process abstracted the quality from an object, to be subject to a +kind of hallucination which makes him take the abstraction for the +real thing. This metaphysical tendency, in spite of the blows of +positive science, has still strong root in the minds of the majority +of our contemporary fellow men. It has such an influence that many +consider government an actual entity, with certain given attributes +of reason, justice, equity, independently of the people who compose +the government. + +For those who think in this way, government, or the State, is the +abstract social power, and it represents, always in the abstract, +the general interest. It is the expression of the right of all, and +considered as limited by the rights of each. This way of +understanding government is supported by those interested, to whom +it is an urgent necessity that the principle of authority should be +maintained, and should always survive the faults and errors of the +persons who succeed to the exercise of power. + +For us, the government is the aggregate of the governors; and the +governors--kings, presidents, ministers, members of parliament, +and what not--are those who have the power to make laws, to regulate +the relations between men, and to force obedience to these laws. +They are those who decide upon and claim the taxes, enforce military +service, judge and punish transgressions of the laws. They subject +men to regulations, and supervise and sanction private contracts. +They monopolize certain branches of production and public services, +or, if they wish, all production and public service. They promote +or hinder the exchange of goods. They make war or peace with the +governments of other countries. They concede or withhold free trade +and many things else. In short, the governors are those who +have the power, in a greater or less degree, to make use of the +collective force of society, that is, of the physical, intellectual, +and economic force of all, to oblige each to do the said governor's +wish. And this power constitutes, in our opinion, the very principle +of government, the principle of authority. + +But what reason is there for the existence of government? + +Why abdicate one's own liberty, one's own initiative in favor +of other individuals? Why give them the power to be the masters, +with or contrary to the wish of each, to dispose of the forces of +all in their own way? Are the governors such very exceptionally +gifted men as to enable them, with some show of reason, to represent +the masses, and act in the interest of all men better than all men +would be able to do for themselves? Are they so infallible and +incorruptible that one can confide to them, with any semblance of +prudence, the fate of each and all, trusting to their knowledge +and their goodness? + +And even if there existed men of infinite goodness and knowledge, +even if we assume what has never been verified in history, and what +we believe it would be impossible to verify, namely, that the +government might devolve upon the ablest and best, would the +possession of governmental power add anything to their beneficent +influence? Would it not rather paralyze or destroy it? For those who +govern find it necessary to occupy themselves with things which they +do not understand, and, above all, to waste the greater part of +their energy in keeping themselves in power, striving to satisfy +their friends, holding the discontented in check, and mastering the +rebellious. + +Again, be the governors good or bad, wise or ignorant, who is it +that appoints them to their office? Do they impose themselves +by right of war, conquest, or revolution? Then, what guarantees have +the public that their rulers have the general good at heart? In this +case it is simply a question of usurpation; and if the subjects are +discontented, nothing is left to them but to throw off the yoke, by +an appeal to arms. Are the governors chosen from a certain class or +party? Then certainly the ideas and interests of that class or party +will triumph, and the wishes and interests of the others will be +sacrificed. Are they elected by universal suffrage? Now numbers are +the sole criterion; and numbers are certainly no proof of reason, +justice or capacity. Under universal suffrage, the elected are those +who know best how to take in the masses. The minority, which may +happen to be half minus one, is sacrificed. And that without +considering that there is another thing to take into account. + +Experience has shown it is impossible to hit upon an electoral +system which really ensures election by the actual majority. + +Many and various are the theories by which men have sought to +justify the existence of government. All, however, are founded, +confessedly or not, on the assumption that the individuals of +a society have contrary interests, and that an external superior +power is necessary to oblige some to respect the interests of +others, by prescribing and imposing a rule of conduct, according to +which the interests at strife may be harmonized as much as possible, +and according to which each obtains the maximum of satisfaction +with the minimum of sacrifice. If, say the theorists of the +authoritarian school, the interests, tendencies, and desires of +an individual are in opposition to those of another individual, or +mayhap all society, who will have the right and the power to +oblige the one to respect the interests of the others? Who will +be able to prevent the individual citizen from offending the general +will? The liberty of each, say they, has for its limit the liberty +of others; but who will establish those limits, and who will cause +them to be respected? The natural antagonism of interests and +passions creates the necessity for government, and justifies +authority. Authority intervenes as moderator of the social +strife, and defines the limits of the rights and duties of each. + +This is the theory; but the theory, to be sound, ought to be +based upon facts, and to explain them. We know well how in social +economy theories are too often invented to justify facts, that +is, to defend privilege and cause it to be accepted tranquilly by +those who are its victims. Let us here look at the facts themselves. + +In all the course of history, as at the present epoch, government +is either the brutal, violent, arbitrary domination of the few over +the many, or it is an instrument ordained to secure domination and +privilege to those who, by force, or cunning, or inheritance, have +taken to themselves all the means of life, and first and foremost +the soil, whereby they hold the people in servitude, making them +work for their advantage. + +Governments oppress mankind in two ways, either directly, by brute +force, that is physical violence, or indirectly, by depriving +them of the means of subsistence and thus reducing them to +helplessness at discretion. Political power originated in the +first method; economic privilege arose from the second. Governments +can also oppress man by acting on his emotional nature, and in this +way constitute religious authority. But there is no reason for the +propagation of religious superstitions except that they defend and +consolidate political and economic privileges. + +In primitive society, when the world was not so densely populated +as now, and social relations were less complicated, when any +circumstance prevented the formation of habits and customs of +solidarity, or destroyed those which already existed, and +established the domination of man over man, the two powers, +the political and the economical, were united in the same hands +--and often also in those of one single individual. Those who +had by force conquered and impoverished the others, constrained +them to become their servants, and perform all things for them +according to their caprice. The victors were at once proprietors, +legislators, kings, judges, and executioners. + +But with the increase of population, with the growth of needs, +with the complication of social relationships, the prolonged +continuance of such despotism became impossible. For their own +security, the rulers, often much against their will, were obliged +to depend upon a privileged class, that is, a certain number of +co-interested individuals, and were also obliged to let each of +these individuals provide for his own sustenance. Nevertheless +they reserved to themselves the supreme or ultimate control. In +other words, the rulers reserved to themselves the right to exploit +all at their own convenience, and so to satisfy their kingly vanity. +Thus private wealth was developed under the shadow of the ruling +power, for its protection and--often unconsciously--as its +accomplice. Thus the class of proprietors rose. And they, +concentrating little by little the means of wealth in their +own hands, all the means of production, the very fountains of +life--agriculture, industry, and exchange--ended by becoming +a power in themselves. This power, by the superiority of its +means of action, and the great mass of interests it embraces, +always ends by more or less openly subjugating the political +power, that is, the government, which it makes its policeman. + +This phenomenon has been reproduced often in history. Every time +that, by invasion or any military enterprise whatever, physical +brute force has taken the upper hand in society, the conquerors +have shown the tendency to concentrate government and property in +their own hands. In every case, however, as the government cannot +attend to the production of wealth, and overlook and direct +everything, it finds it needful to conciliate a powerful class, +and private property is again established. With it comes the +division of the two sorts of power, that of the persons who +control the collective force of society, and that of the +proprietors, upon whom these governors become essentially +independent, because the proprietors command the sources of the +said collective force. + +But never has this state of things been so accentuated as in +modern times. The development of production, the immense extension +of commerce, the extensive power that money has acquired, and all +the economic results flowing from the discovery of America, the +invention of machinery, etc., have secured such supremacy to the +capitalist class that it is no longer content to trust to the +support of the government, and has come to wish that the government +shall emanate from itself; a government composed of members of its +own class, continually under its control and especially organized +to defend its class against the possible revenge of the +disinherited. Hence the origin of the modern parliamentary system. + +Today the government is composed of proprietors, or people of their +class so entirely under their influence that the richest of them do +not find it necessary to take an active part in it themselves. +Rothschild, for instance, does not need to be either M.P. or +minister, it is enough for him to keep M.P.'s and ministers +dependent upon himself. + +In many countries, the proletariat participates nominally, more or +less, in the election of the government. This is a concession +which the _bourgeois_ (_i. e._, proprietory) class have made, +either to avail themselves of popular support in the strife against +royal or aristocratic power, or to divert the attention of the +people from their own emancipation by giving them an apparent +share in political power. However, whether the _bourgeoisie_ +foresaw it or not, when first they conceded to the people the +right to vote, the fact is that the right has proved in reality a +mockery, serving only to consolidate the power of the _bourgeois_, +while giving to the most energetic only of the proletariat the +illusory hope of arriving at power. + +So also with universal suffrage--we might say, especially with +universal suffrage--the government has remained the servant +and police of the _bourgeois_ class. How could it be otherwise? +If the government should reach the point of becoming hostile, if the +hope of democracy should ever be more than a delusion deceiving the +people, the proprietory class, menaced in its interests, would at +once rebel, and would use all the force and influence which come +from the possession of wealth, to reduce the government to the +simple function of acting as policeman. + +In all times and in all places, whatever may be the name that the +government takes, whatever has been its origin, or its organization, +its essential function is always that of oppressing and exploiting +the masses, and of defending the oppressors and exploiters. Its +principal characteristic and indispensable instruments are the +bailiff and the tax collector, the soldier and the prison. And to +these are necessarily added the time-serving priest or teacher, as +the case may be, supported and protected by the government, to +render the spirit of the people servile and make them docile under +the yoke. + +Certainly, in addition to this primary business, to this essential +department of governmental action other departments have been added +in the course of time. We even admit that never, or hardly ever, has +a government been able to exist in a country that was at all +civilized without adding to its oppressing and exploiting functions +others useful and indispensable to social life. But this fact makes +it none the less true that government is in its nature oppressive +and a means of exploitation, and that its origin and position doom +it to be the defence and hot-bed of a dominant class, thus +confirming and increasing the evils of domination. + +The government assumes the business of protecting, more or less +vigilantly, the life of citizens against direct and brutal attacks; +acknowledges and legalizes a certain number of rights and primitive +usages and customs, without which it is impossible to live in +society. It organizes and directs certain public services, +as the post, preservation and construction of roads, care of +the public health, benevolent institutions, workhouses and such +like; and it pleases it to pose as the protector and benefactor of +the poor and weak. But it is sufficient to notice how and why +it fulfils these functions to prove our point. The fact is that +everything the government undertakes it is always inspired with +the spirit of domination, and ordained to defend, enlarge, and +perpetuate the privileges of property, and those classes of which +government is the representative and defender. + +A government cannot rule for any length of time without hiding its +true nature behind the pretence of general utility. It cannot +respect the lives of the privileged without assuming the air of +wishing to respect the lives of all. It cannot cause the privileges +of some to be tolerated without appearing as the custodian +of the rights of everybody. "The law" (and, of course, those that +have made the law, that is, the government) "has utilized," says +Kropotkin, "the social sentiments of man, working into them those +precepts of morality, which man has accepted, together with +arrangements useful to the minority--the exploiters--and opposed to +the interests of those who might have rebelled, had it not been for +this show of a moral ground." + +A government cannot wish the destruction of the community, for then +it and the dominant class could not claim their exploitation-gained +wealth; nor could the government leave the community to manage its +own affairs; for then the people would soon discover that it +(the government) was necessary for no other end than to defend the +proprietory class who impoverish them, and would hasten to rid +themselves of both government and proprietory class. + +Today in the face of the persistent and menacing demands of +the proletariat, governments show a tendency to interfere in the +relations between employers and work people. Thus they try to arrest +the labor movement, and to impede with delusive reforms the attempts +of the poor to take to themselves that which is due to them, namely +an equal share of the good things of life which others enjoy. + +We must also remember that on the one hand the bourgeois, that is, +the proprietory class, make war among themselves, and destroy one +another continually, and on the other hand that the government, +although composed of the _bourgeois_ and, acting as their servant +and protector, is still, like every other servant or protector, +continually striving to emancipate itself and to domineer over its +charge. Thus this see-saw game, this swaying between conceding and +withdrawing, this seeking allies among the people against the +classes, and among the classes against the masses, forms the science +of the governors, and blinds the ingenuous and phlegmatic, who are +always expecting that salvation is coming to them from on high. + +With all this, the government does not change its nature. If it acts +as regulator or guarantor of the rights and duties of each, it +perverts the sentiment of justice. It justifies wrong and punishes +every act which offends or menaces the privileges of the governors +and proprietors. It declares just, _legal_, the most atrocious +exploitation of the miserable, which means a slow and continuous +material and moral murder, perpetrated by those who have on those +who have not. Again, if it administrates public services, it always +considers the interests of the governors and proprietors, not +occupying itself with the interests of the working masses, except +in so far as is necessary to make the masses willing to endure their +share of taxation. If it instructs, it fetters and curtails the +truth, and tends to prepare the mind and heart of the young to +become either implacable tyrants or docile slaves, according to the +class to which they belong. In the hands of the government +everything becomes a means of exploitation, everything serves as a +police measure, useful to hold the people in check. And it must be +thus. If the life of mankind consists in strife between man and +man, naturally there must be conquerors and conquered; and the +government, which is the prize of the strife, or is a means of +securing to the victors the results of their victory, and +perpetuating those results, will certainly never fall to those who +have lost, whether the battle be on the grounds of physical or +intellectual strength, or in the field of economics. And those who +have fought to conquer, that is, to secure to themselves better +conditions than others can have, to conquer privilege and add +dominion to power, and have attained the victory, will certainly +not use it to defend the rights of the vanquished, and to place +limits to their own power and to that of their friends and partizans. + +The government--or the State, if you will--as judge, moderator +of social strife, impartial administrator of the public interests, +is a lie. It is an illusion, a Utopia, never realized and never +realizable. If in truth, the interests of men must always be +contrary to one another; if indeed, the strife between mankind +has made laws necessary to human society, and the liberty of +the individual must be limited by the liberty of other individuals; +then each one would always seek to make his interests triumph +over those of others. Each would strive to enlarge his own liberty +at the cost of the liberty of others, and there would be government. +Not simply because it was more or less useful to the totality of the +members of society to have a government, but because the conquerors +would wish to secure to themselves the fruits of victory. They would +wish effectually to subject the vanquished, and relieve themselves +of the trouble of being always on the defensive, and they would +appoint men, specially adapted to the business, to act as police. +Were this indeed actually the case, then humanity would be destined +to perish amidst periodical contests between the tyranny of the +dominators and the rebellion of the conquered. + +But fortunately the future of humanity is a happier one, because +the law which governs it is milder. + +This law is the law of _solidarity_. + + -------------------- + + I. + +Man has two necessary fundamental characteristics, _the instinct +of his own preservation_, without which no being could exist, +and _the instinct of the preservation of his species_, without which +no species could have been formed or have continued to exist. +He is naturally driven to defend his own existence and well-being +and that of his offspring against every danger. + +In nature, living beings find two ways of securing their existence, +and rendering it pleasanter. The one is in individual strife with +the elements, and with other individuals of the same or different +species; the other is _mutual support_, or _co-operation_, which +might also be described as association for strife against all +natural factors, destructive to existence, or to the development +and well-being of the associated. + +We do not need to investigate in these pages--and we cannot +for lack of space--what respective proportions in the evolution +of the organic world these two principles of strife and co-operation +take. + +It will suffice to note how co-operation among men (whether +forced or voluntary) has become the sole means of progress, of +improvement or of securing safety; and how strife--relic of an +earlier stage of existence--has become thoroughly unsuitable as +a means of securing the well-being of individuals, and produces +instead injury to all, both the conquerors and the conquered. + +The accumulated and transmitted experience of successive generations +has taught man that by uniting with other men his preservation is +better secured and his well-being increased. Thus out of this same +strife for existence, carried on against surrounding nature, and +against individuals of their own species, the social instinct has +been developed among men, and has completely transformed the +conditions of their life. Through co-operation man has been enabled +to evolve out of animalism, has risen to great power, and elevated +himself to such a degree above the other animals, that metaphysical +philosophers have believed it necessary to invent for him an +immaterial and immortal soul. + +Many concurrent causes have contributed to the formation of this +social instinct, that starting from the animal basis of the +instinct for the preservation of the species, has now become so +extended and so intense that it constitutes the essential element +of man's moral nature. + +Man, however he evolved from inferior animal types, was a physically +weak being, unarmed for the fight against carnivorous beasts. But he +was possessed of a brain capable of great development, and a vocal +organ, able to express the various cerebral vibrations, by means of +diverse sounds, and hands adapted to give the desired form to +matter. He must have very soon felt the need and advantages of +association with his fellows. Indeed it may even be said that he +could only rise out of animalism when he became social, and had +acquired the use of language, which is at the same time a +consequence and a potent factor of sociability. + +The relatively scanty number of the human species rendered the +strife for existence between man and man, even beyond the limits +of association, less sharp, less continuous, and less necessary. +At the same time, it must have greatly favored the development +of sympathetic sentiments, and have left time for the discovery +and appreciation of the utility of mutual support. In short, +social life became the necessary condition of man's existence, +in consequence of his capacity to modify his external surroundings +and adapt them to his own wants, by the exercise of his primeval +power in co-operation with a greater or less number of associates. +His desires have multiplied with the means of satisfying them, and +have become needs. And division of labor has arisen from man's +methodical use of nature for his own advantage. Therefore, as now +evolved, man could not live apart from his fellows without falling +back into a state of animalism. Through the refinement of +sensibility, with the multiplication of social relationships, and +through habit impressed on the species by hereditary transmission +for thousands of centuries, this need of social life, this +interchange of thought and of affection between man and man, has +become a mode of being necessary for our organism. It has been +transformed into sympathy, friendship and love, and subsists +independently of the material advantages that association procures. +So much is this the case, that man will often face suffering of +every kind, and even death, for the satisfaction of these sentiments. + +The fact is that a totally different character has been given +to the strife for existence between man and man, and between +the inferior animals, by the enormous advantages that association +gives to man; by the fact that his physical powers are altogether +disproportionate to his intellectual superiority over the beasts, +so long as he remains isolated; by his possibility of associating +with an ever increasing number of individuals, and entering into +more and more intricate and complex relationships, until he +reaches association with all humanity; and, finally, perhaps +more than all, by his ability to produce, working in co-operation +with others, more than he needs to live upon. It is evident that +these causes, together with the sentiments of affection derived +from them, must give quite a peculiar character to the struggle +for existence among human beings. + +Although it is now known--and the researches of modern naturalists +bring us every day new proofs--that co-operation has played, and +still plays, a most important part in the development of the organic +world, nevertheless, the difference between the human struggle for +existence and that of the inferior animals is enormous. It is in +fact proportionate to the distance separating man from the other +animals. And this is none the less true because of that Darwinian +theory, which the _bourgeois_ class have ridden to death, little +suspecting the extent to which mutual co-operation has assisted in +the development of the lower animals. + +The lower animals fight either individually, or, more often, +in little permanent or transitory groups, against all nature, the +other individuals of their own species included. Some of the +more social animals, such as ants, bees, etc., associate together +in the same anthill, or beehive, but are at war with, or indifferent +towards, other communities of their own species. Human strife with +nature, on the contrary, tends always to broaden association among +men, to unite their interests, and to develop each individual's +sentiments of affection towards all others, so that united they may +conquer and dominate the dangers of external nature by and for +humanity. + +All strife directed towards obtaining advantages independently +of other men, and in opposition to them, contradicts the social +nature of modern man, and tends to lead it back to a more animal +condition. + +_Solidarity_, that is, harmony of interests and sentiments, the +sharing of each in the good of all, and of all in the good of each, +is the state in which alone man can be true to his own nature, +and attain to the highest development and happiness. It is the +aim towards which human development tends. It is the one great +principle, capable of reconciling all present antagonisms in +society, otherwise irreconcilable. It causes the liberty of each +to find not its limits, but its complement, the necessary condition +of its continual existence--in the liberty of all. + +"No man," says Michael Bakunin, "can recognize his own human worth, +nor in consequence realize his full development, if he does not +recognize the worth of his fellow men, and in co-operation +with them, realize his own development through them. No man +can emancipate himself, unless at the same time he emancipates +those around him. My freedom is the freedom of all; for I am not +really free--free not only in thought, but in deed--if my freedom +and my right do not find their confirmation and sanction in the +liberty and right of all men my equals. + +"It matters much to me what all other men are, for however +independent I may seem, or may believe myself to be, by virtue +of my social position, whether as pope, czar, emperor, or prime +minister, I am all the while the product of those who are the +least among men. If these are ignorant, miserable, or enslaved, +my existence is limited by their ignorance, misery, or slavery. +I, though an intelligent and enlightened man, am made stupid +by their stupidity; though brave, am enslaved by their slavery; +though rich, tremble before their poverty; though privileged, +grow pale at the thought of possible justice for them. I, who +wish to be free, cannot be so, because around me are men who +do not yet desire freedom, and, not desiring it, become, as opposed +to me, the instruments of my oppression." + +Solidarity, then, is the condition in which man can attain the +highest degree of security and of well-being. Therefore, egoism +itself, that is, the exclusive consideration of individual interests, +impels man and human society towards solidarity. Or rather egoism +and altruism (consideration of the interests of others) are +united in this one sentiment, as the interest of the individual is +one with the interests of society. + +However, man could not pass at once from animalism to humanity; +from brutal strife between man and man to the collective strife +of all mankind, united in one brotherhood of mutual aid against +external nature. + +Guided by the advantages that association and the consequent +division of labor offer, man evolved towards solidarity, but his +evolution encountered an obstacle which led him, and still leads +him, away from his aim. He discovered that he could realize +the advantages of co-operation, at least up to a certain point, +and for the material and primitive wants that then comprised +all his needs, by making other men subject to himself, instead +of associating on an equality with them. Thus the ferocious +and anti-social instincts, inherited from his bestial ancestry, +again obtained the upper hand. He forced the weaker to work +for him, preferring to domineer over rather than to associate +fraternally with his fellows. Perhaps also in most cases it was +by exploiting the conquered in war that man learnt for the first +time the benefits of association and the help that can be obtained +from mutual support. + +Thus it has come about that the establishment of the utility +of co-operation, which ought to lead to the triumph of solidarity +in all human concerns, has turned to the advantage of private +property and of government; in other words, to the exploitation +of the labor of the many, for the sake of the privileged few. + +There has always been association and co-operation, without +which human life would be impossible; but it has been co-operation +imposed and regulated by the few in their own particular interest. + +From this fact arises a great contradiction with which the history +of mankind is filled. On the one hand, we find the tendency +to associate and fraternize for the purpose of conquering and +adapting the external world to human needs, and for the satisfaction +of the human affections; while, on the other hand we see the +tendency to divide into as many separate and hostile factions as +there are different conditions of life. These factions are +determined, for instance, by geographical and ethnological +conditions, by differences in economic position, by privileges +acquired by some and sought to be secured by others, or by suffering +endured, with the ever recurring desire to rebel. + +The principle of each for himself, that is, of war of all against +all, has come in the course of time to complicate, lead astray, +and paralyze the war of all combined against nature, for the +common advantage of the human race, which could only be completely +successful by acting on the principle of all for each, and each +for all. + +Great have been the evils which humanity has suffered by this +intermingling of domination and exploitation with human association. +But in spite of the atrocious oppression to which the masses submit, +of the misery, vice, crime, and degradation which oppression and +slavery produce, among the slaves and their masters, and in spite +of the hatreds, the exterminating wars, and the antagonisms of +artificially created interests, the social instinct has survived +and even developed. Co-operation, having been always the necessary +condition for successful combat against external nature, has +therefore been the permanent cause of men's coming together, and +consequently of the development of their sympathetic sentiments. +Even the oppression of the masses has itself caused the oppressed +to fraternize among themselves. Indeed it has been solely owing +to this feeling of solidarity, more or less conscious and more or +less widespread among the oppressed, that they have been able to +endure the oppression, and that man has resisted the causes of death +in his midst. + +In the present, the immense development of production, the growth of +human needs which cannot be satisfied except by the united efforts +of a large number of men in all countries, the extended means of +communication, habits of travel, science, literature, commerce, +even war itself--all these have drawn and are still drawing +humanity into a compact body, every section of which, closely knit +together, can find its satisfaction and liberty only in the +development and health of all other sections composing the whole. + +The inhabitant of Naples is as much interested in the amelioration +of the hygienic condition of the peoples on the banks of the Ganges, +from whence the cholera is brought to him, as in the improvement of +the sewerage of his own town. The well-being, liberty, or fortune +of the mountaineer, lost among the precipices of the Appenines, does +not depend alone on the state of well-being or of misery in which +the inhabitants of his own village live, or even on the general +condition of the Italian people, but also on the condition of the +workers in America, or Australia, on the discovery of a Swedish +scientist, on the moral and material conditions of the Chinese, on +war or peace in Africa; in short, it depends on all the great and +small circumstances which affect the human being in any spot +whatever of the world. + +In the present condition of society, the vast solidarity which +unites all men is in a great degree unconscious, since it arises +spontaneously from the friction of particular interests, while +men occupy themselves little or not at all with general interests. +And this is the most evident proof that solidarity is the natural +law of human life, which imposes itself, so to speak, in spite of +all obstacles, and even those artificially created by society as at +present constituted. + +On the other hand, the oppressed masses, never wholly resigned +to oppression and misery, who today more than ever show themselves +ardent for justice, liberty, and well-being, are beginning +to understand that they cannot emancipate themselves except +by uniting, through solidarity with all the oppressed and exploited +over the whole world. And they understand also that the +indispensable condition of their emancipation is the possession +of the means of production, of the soil and of the instruments of +labor, and further the abolition of private property. Science +and the observation of social phenomena show that this abolition +would be of immense advantage in the end, even to the privileged +classes, if only they could bring themselves to renounce the spirit +of domination, and concur with all their fellow men in laboring for +the common good. + + ---------- + +Now, should the oppressed masses some day refuse to work for their +oppressors, should they take possession of the soil and the +instruments of labor, and apply them for their own use and +advantage, and that of all who work, should they no longer submit +to the domination, either of brute force or economic privilege; +should the spirit of human fellowship and the sentiment of human +solidarity, strengthened by common interests, grow among the +people, and put an end to strife between nations; then what ground +would there be for the existence of a government? + +Private property abolished, government--which is its defender +--must disappear. Should it survive, it would continually tend +to reconstruct, under one form or another, a privileged and +oppressive class. + +And the abolition of government does not, nor cannot, signify +the doing away with human association. + +Far otherwise, for that co-operation which today is enforced, +and directed to the advantage of the few, would be free and +voluntary, directed to the advantage of all. Therefore it would +become more intense and efficacious. + +The social instinct and the sentiment of solidarity would develop to +the highest degree; and every individual would do all in his power +for the good of others, as much for the satisfaction of his own +well understood interests as for the gratification of his +sympathetic sentiments. + +By the free association of all, a social organization would +arise through the spontaneous grouping of men according to +their needs and sympathies, from the low to the high, from the +simple to the complex, starting from the more immediate to +arrive at the more distant and general interests. This organization +would have for its aim the greatest good and fullest liberty +to all; it would embrace all humanity in one common brotherhood, +and would be modified and improved as circumstances were modified +and changed, according to the teachings of experience. + +This society of _free men_, this society of _friends_ would be +_Anarchy_. + + -------------------- + + II. + +We have hitherto considered government as it is, and as it +necessarily must be in a society founded upon privilege, upon +the exploitation and oppression of man by man, upon antagonism +of interests and social strife, in a word, upon private property. + +We have seen how this state of strife, far from being a necessary +condition of human life, is contrary to the interests of the +individual and of the species. We have observed how co-operation, +solidarity (of interest) is the law of human progress, and +we have concluded that, with the abolition of private property +and the cessation of all domination of man over man, there, +would be no reason for government to exist--therefore it ought +to be abolished. + +But, it may be objected, if the principle on which social +organization is now founded were to be changed, and solidarity +substituted for strife, common property for private property, the +government also would change its nature. Instead of being the +protector and representative of the interests of one class, it would +become, if there were no longer any classes, representative of all +society. Its mission would be to secure and regulate social +co-operation in the interests of all, and to fulfil public services +of general utility. It would defend society against possible +attempts to re-establish privilege, and prevent or repress all +attacks, by whomsoever set on foot, against the life, well-being, or +liberty of each. + +There are in society certain matters too important, requiring +too much constant, regular attention, for them to be left to the +voluntary management of individuals, without danger of everything +getting into disorder. + +If there were no government, who would organize the supply and +distribution of provisions? Who regulate matters pertaining +to public hygiene, the postal, telegraph, and railway services, +etc.? Who would direct public instruction? Who undertake those +great works of exploration, improvement on a large scale, scientific +enterprise, etc., which transform the face of the earth and augment +a hundredfold the power of man? + +Who would care for the preservation and increase of capital, +that it might be transmitted to posterity, enriched and improved? + +Who would prevent the destruction of the forests, or the irrational +exploitation, and therefore impoverishment of the soil? + +Who would there be to prevent and repress crimes, that is, +anti-social acts? + +What of those who, disregarding the law of solidarity, would +not work? Or of those who might spread infectious disease in +a country, by refusing to submit to the regulation of hygiene by +science? Or what again could be done with those who, whether +insane or no, might set fire to the harvest, injure children, or +abuse and take advantage of the weak? + +To destroy private property and abolish existing government, +without reconstituting a government that would organize collective +life and secure social solidarity, would not be to abolish +privilege, and bring peace and prosperity upon earth. It would +be to destroy, every social bond, to leave humanity to fall back +into barbarism, to begin again the reign of "each for himself;" +which would establish the triumph, firstly, of brute force, and, +secondly, of economic privilege. + + ---------- + +Such are the objections brought forward by authoritarians, +even by those who are Socialists, that is, who wish to abolish +private property, and class government founded upon the system +of private property. + +We reply: + +In the first place, it is not true that with a change of social +conditions, the nature of the government and its functions would +also change. Organs and functions are inseparable terms. Take +from an organ its function, and either the organ will die, or the +function will reinstate itself. Place an army in a country where +there is no reason for or fear of foreign war, and this army will +provoke war, or, if it do not succeed in doing that, it will +disband. A police force, where there are no crimes to discover, +and delinquents to arrest, will provoke or invent crimes, or will +cease to exist. + +For centuries, there existed in France an institution, now included +in the administration of the forests, for the extermination +of the wolves and other noxious beasts. No one will be surprised +to learn that, just on account of this institution, wolves +still exist in France, and that, in rigorous seasons, they do great +damage. The public take little heed of the wolves, because +there are the appointed officials, whose duty it is to think about +them. And the officials do hunt them, but in an _intelligent_ +manner, sparing their caves, and allowing time for reproduction, +that they may not run the risk of entirely destroying such an +_interesting_ species. The French peasants have indeed little +confidence in these official wolf-hunters, and regard them rather +as the wolf-preservers. And, of course, what would these officials +do if there were no longer any wolves to exterminate? + +A government, that is, a number of persons deputed to make +the laws, and entitled to use the collective forces of society to +make every individual to respect these laws, already constitutes +a class privileged and separated from the rest of the community. +Such a class, like every elected body, will seek instinctively to. +enlarge its powers; to place itself above the control of the people; +to impose its tendencies, and to make its own interests predominate. +Placed in a privileged position, the government always finds itself +in antagonism to the masses, of whose force it disposes. + +Furthermore, a government, with the best intention, could never +satisfy everybody, even if it succeeded in satisfying some. +It must therefore always be defending itself against the +discontented, and for that reason must ally itself with the +satisfied section of the community for necessary support. And in +this manner will arise again the old story of a privileged class, +which cannot help but be developed in conjunction with the +government. This class, if it could not again acquire possession of +the soil, would certainly monopolize the most favored spots, and +would not be in the end less oppressive, or less an instrument of +exploitation than the capitalist class. + +The governors, accustomed to command, would never wish to mix with +the common crowd. If they could not retain the power in their own +hands, they would at least secure to themselves privileged positions +for the time when they would be out of office. They would use all +the means they have in their power to get their own friends +elected as their successors, who would in their turn be supported +and protected by their predecessors. And thus the government would +pass and repass into the same hands, and the _democracy_, that is, +the government presumably of the whole people, would end, as it +always has done, in becoming an _oligarchy_, or the government of a +few, the government of a class. + +And this all-powerful, oppressive, all-absorbing oligarchy would +have always in its care, that is, at its disposition, every +bit of social capital, all public services, from the production and +distribution of provisions to the manufacture of matches, from +the control of the university to that of the music hall. + + ---------- + +But let us even suppose that the government did not necessarily +constitute a privileged class, and could exist without forming +around itself a new privileged class. Let us imagine that it +could remain truly representative, the servant--if you will--of +all society. What purpose would it then serve? In what particular +and in what manner would it augment the power, intelligence, +spirit of solidarity, care of the general welfare, present and to +come, that at any given moment existed in a given society? + +It is always the old story of the man with bound limbs, who, +having managed to live in spite of his bands, believes that he +lives by means of them. We are accustomed to live under a +government, which makes use of all that energy, that intelligence, +and that will which it can direct to its own ends; but which +hinders, paralyzes and suppresses those that are useless or +hostile to it. And we imagine that all that is done in society is +done by virtue of the government, and that without the government +there would be neither energy, intelligence, nor good will +in society. So it happens (as we have already said) that the +proprietor who has possessed himself of the soil, has it cultivated +for his own particular profit, leaving the laborer the barest +necessities of life for which he can and will continue to labor. +While the enslaved laborer thinks that he could not live without +his master, as though it were _he_ who created the earth and the +forces of nature. + +What can government of itself add to the moral and material +forces which exist in a society? Unless it be like the God of +the Bible, who created the universe out of nothing? + +As nothing is created in the so-called material world, so in +this more complicated form of the material world, which is the +social world, nothing can be created. And therefore governors +can dispose of no other force than that which is already in society. +And indeed not by any means of all of that, as much force is +necessarily paralyzed and destroyed by governmental methods +of action, while more again is wasted in the friction with +rebellious elements, inevitably great in such an artificial +mechanism. Whenever governors originate anything of themselves, it +is as men and not as governors, that they do so. And of that amount +of force, both material and moral, which does remain at the +disposition of the government, only an infinitesimally small part +achieves an end really useful to society. The remainder is either +consumed in actively repressing rebellious opposition, or is +otherwise diverted from the aim of general utility, and turned to +the profit of the few, and to the injury of the majority of men. + +So much has been made of the part that individual initiative +and social action play respectively in the life and progress of +human society; and such is the confusion of metaphysical language, +that those who affirm that individual initiative is the source and +agency of all action seem to be asserting something quite +preposterous. In reality, it is a truism, which becomes apparent +directly we begin to explain the actual facts represented by these +words. + +The real being is the man, the individual; society or the +collectivity, and the State or government which professes to +represent it, if not hollow abstractions, can be nothing else than +aggregates of individuals. And it is within the individual +organism that all thoughts and all human action necessarily +have their origin. Originally individual, they become collective +thoughts and actions, when shared in common by many individuals. +Social action, then, is not the negation, nor the complement +of individual initiative, but it is the sum total of the +initiatives, thoughts and actions of all the individuals composing +society: a result which, other things equal, is more or less great +according as the individual forces tend toward the same aim, or +are divergent and opposed. If, on the other hand, as the +authoritarians make out, by social action is meant governmental +action, then it is again the result of individual forces, but only +of those individuals who either form part of the government, or by +virtue of their position are enabled to influence the conduct of the +government. + +Thus, in the contest of centuries between liberty and authority, +or, in other words, between social equality and social castes, +the question at issue has not really been the relations between +society and the individual, nor the increase of individual +independence at the cost of social control, or _vice versa_. Rather +it has had to do with preventing any one individual from oppressing +the others; with giving to everyone the same rights and the +same means of action. It has had to do with substituting the +initiative of all, which must naturally result in the advantage of +all, for the initiative of the few, which necessarily results in the +suppression of all the others. It is always, in short, the question +of putting an end to the domination and exploitation of man by +man in such a way that all are interested in the common welfare; +and that the individual force of each, instead of oppressing, +combating or suppressing others, will find the possibility of +complete development, and every one will seek to associate with +others for the greater advantage of all. + +From what we have said, it follows that the existence of a +government, even upon the hypothesis that the ideal government +of authoritarian Socialists were possible, far from producing an +increase of productive force, would immensely diminish it; because +the government would restrict initiative to the few. It would give +these few the right to do all things, without being able, of course, +to endow them with the knowledge or understanding of all things. + +In fact, if you divest legislation and all the operations of +government of what is intended to protect the privileged, and +what represents the wishes of the privileged classes alone, nothing +remains but the aggregate of individual governors. "The State," says +Sismondi, "is always a conservative power that authorizes, regulates +and organizes the conquests of progress (and history testifies that +it applies them to the profit of its own and the other privileged +classes) but never does inaugurate them. New ideas always originate +from beneath, are conceived in the foundations of society, and then, +when divulged, they become opinion and grow. But they must always +meet on their path, and combat the constituted powers of tradition, +custom, privilege and error." + + ---------- + +In order to understand how society could exist without a government, +it is sufficient to turn our attention for a short space to what +actually goes on in our present society. We shall see that in +reality the most important social functions are fulfilled even +now-a-days outside the intervention of government. Also that +government only interferes to exploit the masses, or defend +the privileged class, or, lastly, to sanction, most unnecessarily, +all that has been done without its aid, often in spite of and in +opposition to it. Men work, exchange, study, travel, follow as +they choose the current rules of morality, or hygiene; they profit +by the progress of science and art, have numberless mutual +interests without ever feeling the need of anyone to direct them +how to conduct themselves in regard to these matters. On the +contrary, it is just those things in which there is no governmental +interference that prosper best, and that give rise to the least +contention, being unconsciously adapted to the wish of all in +the way found most useful and agreeable. + +Nor is government more necessary in the case of large undertakings, +or for those public services which require the constant co-operation +of many people of different conditions and countries. Thousands of +these undertakings are even now the work of voluntarily formed +associations. And these are, by the acknowledgment of every one, the +undertakings which succeed the best. Nor do we refer to the +association of capitalists, organized by means of exploitation, +although even they show capabilities and powers of free association, +which may extend _ad libitum_ until it embraces all the peoples of +all lands, and includes the widest and most varying interests. But +we speak rather of those associations inspired by the love of +humanity, or by the passion for knowledge, or even simply by the +desire for amusement and love of applause, as these better represent +such grouping as will exist in a society where, private property +and internal strife between men being abolished, each will find his +interests synonymous with the interests of every one else, and his +greatest satisfaction in doing good and pleasing others. Scientific +societies and congresses, international life-boat and Red Cross +associations, etc., laborers' unions, peace societies, volunteers +who hasten to the rescue at times of great public calamity are all +examples, among thousands, of that power of the spirit of +association, which always shows itself when a need arises, or an +enthusiasm takes hold, and the means do not fail. That voluntary +associations do not cover the world, and do not embrace every branch +of material and moral activity, is the fault of the obstacles placed +in their way by governments, of the antagonisms created by the +possession of private property, and of the impotence and degradation +to which the monopolizing of wealth on the part of the few reduces +the majority of mankind. + +The government takes charge, for instance, of the postal and +telegraphic services. But in what way does it really assist them? +When the people are in such a condition as to be able to enjoy, +and feel the need of such services, they will think about organizing +them; and the man with the necessary technical knowledge will not +require a certificate from the government to enable him to set to +work. The more general and urgent the need, the more volunteers will +offer to satisfy it. Would the people have the ability necessary to +provide and distribute provisions? Oh! never fear, they will not die +of hunger, waiting for a government to pass laws on the subject. +Wherever a government exists, it must wait until the people have +first organized everything, and then come with its laws to sanction +and exploit that which has been already done. It is evident that +private interest is the great motive for all activity. That being +so, when the interest of every one becomes the interest of each (and +it necessarily will become so as soon as private property is +abolished) then all will be active. And if now they work in the +interest of the few, so much the more and so much the better will +they work to satisfy the interests of all. It is hard to understand +how anyone can believe that public services indispensable to social +life can be better secured by order of a government than through +the workers themselves, who by their own choice or by agreement made +with others, carry them out under the immediate control of all +interested. + +Certainly in every collective undertaking on a large scale, +there is need for division of labor, for technical direction, +administration, etc. But the authoritarians are merely playing with +words, when they deduce a reason for the existence of government, +from the very real necessity for organization of labor. The +government, we must repeat, is the aggregate of the individuals +who have had given them, or have taken the right or the means to +make laws, and force the people to obey them. The administrators, +engineers, etc., on the other hand, are men who receive or assume +the charge of doing a certain work, and who do it. Government +signifies delegation of power, that is, abdication of the initiative +and sovereignty of every one into the hands of the few. +Administration signifies delegation of work, that is, a charge given +and accepted, the free exchange of services founded on free +agreement. + +A governor is a privileged person, because he has the right +to command others, and to avail himself of the force of others, +to make his own ideas and desires triumph. An administrator +or technical director is a worker like others, in a society, of +course, where all have equal opportunities of development, and +all are, or can be, at the same time intellectual and manual +workers; when there are no other differences between men than +those derived from diversity of talents, and all work and all social +functions give an equal right to the enjoyment of social advantages. +The functions of government are, in short, not to be confounded with +administrative functions, as they are essentially different. That +they are today so often confused is entirely on account of the +existence of economic and political privilege. + + ---------- + +But let us hasten to pass on to those functions for which government +is thought indispensable by all who are not Anarchists. These are +the internal and external defence of society, that is, War, Police +and Justice. + +Government being abolished, and social wealth at the disposal +of every one, all antagonism between various nations would soon +cease; and there would consequently be no more cause for war. +Moreover, in the present state of the world, in any country +where the spirit of rebellion is growing, even if it do not find +an echo throughout the land, it will be certain of so much sympathy +that the government will not dare to send all its troops to +a foreign war, for fear the revolution should break out at home. +But even supposing that the rulers of countries not yet emancipated +would wish and could attempt to reduce a free people to servitude, +would these require a government to enable them to defend +themselves? To make war, we need men who have the necessary +geographical and technical knowledge, and, above all, people willing +to fight. A government has no means of augmenting the ability of the +former, or the willingness or courage of the latter. And the +experience of history teaches that a people really desirous of +defending their own country are invincible. In Italy every one knows +how thrones tremble, and regular armies of hired soldiers vanish +before troops of volunteers, that is, armies Anarchically formed. + + ---------- + +And as to the police and justice, many imagine that if it were not +for the police and the judges, everybody would be free to kill, +violate or injure others as the humor took him; that Anarchists, +if they are true to their principles, would like to see this +strange kind of liberty respected; "liberty" that violates +or destroys the life and freedom of others unrestrained. Such +people believe that we, having overthrown the government and +private property, shall then tranquilly allow the re-establishment +of both, out of respect for the "liberty" of those who may feel +the need of having a government and private property. A strange +mode indeed of construing our ideas! In truth, one may better +answer such notions with a shrug of the shoulders than by taking +the trouble to confute them. + +The liberty we wish for, for ourselves and others, is not an +absolute, abstract, metaphysical liberty, which in practice can +only amount to the oppression of the weak. But we wish for a +tangible liberty, the possible liberty, which is the conscious +communion of interests, that is, voluntary solidarity. We proclaim +the maxim: _Do as you will;_ and in this our program is almost +entirely contained, because, as may be easily understood, we hold +that in a society without government or property, each one _will +wish that which he should_. + +But if, in consequence of a false education, received in the +present society, or of physical disease, or whatever other cause, +an individual should wish to injure others, you may be sure we +should adopt all the means in our power to prevent him. As +we know that a man's character is the consequence of his physical +organism, and of the cosmic and social influences surrounding +him, we certainly shall not confound the sacred right of +self-defence, with the absurdly assumed right to punish. Also, we +shall not regard the delinquent, that is, the man who commits +anti-social acts, as the rebel he seems in the eyes of the judges +nowadays. We shall regard him as a sick brother in need of +cure. We therefore shall not act towards him in the spirit of +hatred, when repressing him, but shall confine ourselves solely +to self-protection. We shall not seek to revenge ourselves, but +rather to rescue the unfortunate one by every means that science +suggests. In theory, Anarchists may go astray like others, losing +sight of the reality under a semblance of logic; but it is +quite certain that the emancipated people will not let their dearly +bought liberty and welfare be attacked with impunity. If the +necessity arose, they would provide for their own defence against +the anti-social tendencies of certain amongst them. But how do +those whose business it now is to make the laws, protect society? +Or those others who live by seeking for and inventing new +infringements of law? Even now, when the masses of the people +really disapprove of anything and think it injurious, they always +find a way to prevent it very much more effectually than all the +professional legislators, constables or judges. During +insurrections, the people, though very mistakenly, have enforced the +respect for private property; and they have secured this respect +far better than an army of policemen could have done. + +Customs always follow the needs and sentiments of the majority; +and they are always the more respected, the less they are subject +to the sanction of law. This is because every one sees and +comprehends their utility, and because the interested parties, +not deluding themselves with the idea that government will protect +them, are themselves concerned in seeing the custom respected. +The economical use of water is of very great importance to a +caravan crossing the deserts of Africa. Under these circumstances, +water is a sacred thing; and no sane man dreams of wasting it. +Conspirators are obliged to act secretly; so secrecy is preserved +among them, and obloquy rests on whosoever violates it. Gambling +debts are not guaranteed by law; but among gamblers it is considered +dishonorable not to pay them, and the delinquent feels himself +dishonored by not fulfilling his obligations. + +Is it on account of the police that more people are not murdered? +The greater part of the Italian people never see the police except +at long intervals. Millions of men go over the mountains and through +the country, far from the protecting eye of authority, where they +might be attacked without the slightest fear of their assailants +being traced; but they run no greater risk than those who live in +the best guarded spots. Statistics show that the number of crimes +rise in proportion to the increase of repressive measures; while +they vary rapidly with the fluctuations of economic conditions and +with the state of public opinion. + +Preventive laws, however, only concern unusual, exceptional +acts. Every-day life goes on beyond the limits of the criminal +code, and is regulated almost unconsciously by the tacit and +voluntary assent of all, by means of a number of usages and customs +much more important to social life than the dictates of law. +And they are also much better observed, although completely +divested of any sanction beyond the natural odium which falls +upon those who violate them, and such injury as this odium +brings with it. + +When disputes arise, would not voluntarily accepted arbitration +or the pressure of public opinion be far more likely to bring +about a just settlement of the difficulties in question than an +irresponsible magistrate, who has the right to pass judgment upon +everybody and everything, and who is necessarily incompetent +and therefore unjust? + +As every form of government only serves to protect the privileged +classes, so do police and judges only aim at repressing those +crimes, often not considered criminal by the masses, which offend +only the privileges of the rulers or property-owners. For the +real defence of society, the defence of the welfare and liberty of +all, there can be nothing more pernicious than the formation of +this class of functionaries, who exist on the pretence of defending +all, and therefore habitually regard every man as game to be +hunted down, often striking at the command of a superior officer, +without themselves even knowing why, like hired assassins and +mercenaries. + + ---------- + +All that you have said may be true, say some; Anarchy may be a +perfect form of social life; but we have no desire to take a +leap in the dark. Therefore, tell us how your society will be +organized. Then follows a long string of questions, which would be +very interesting if it were our business to study the problems +that might arise in an emancipated society, but of which it is +useless and absurd to imagine that we could now offer a definite +solution. According to what method will children be taught? How will +production and distribution be organized? Will there still be large +cities, or will people spread equally over all the surface of the +earth? Will all the inhabitants of Siberia winter at Nice? Will +every one dine on partridges and drink champagne? Who will be the +miners and sailors? Who will clear the drains? Will the sick be +nursed at home or in hospitals? Who will arrange the railway +time-table? What will happen if the engine-driver falls ill while +the train is on its way? And so on, without end, as though we could +prophesy all the knowledge and experience of the future time, +or could, in the name of Anarchy, prescribe for the coming man +what time he should go to bed, and on what days he should cut +his nails! + +Indeed if our readers expect from us an answer to these questions, +or even to those among them really serious and important, which +cannot be anything more than our own private opinion at this present +hour, we must have succeeded badly in our endeavor to explain what +Anarchy is. + +We are no more prophets than other men; and should we pretend to +give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the +life of the future society, we should have indeed a curious idea of +the abolition of government. We should then be describing a +government, dictating, like the clergy, a universal code for the +present and all future time. Seeing that we have neither police nor +prisons to enforce our doctrine, humanity might laugh with +impunity at us and our pretensions. + +Nevertheless, we consider seriously all the problems of social +life which now suggest themselves, on account of their scientific +interest, and because, hoping to see Anarchy realized, we wish +to help towards the organization of the new society. We have +therefore our own ideas on these subjects, ideas which are to our +minds likely to be permanent or transitory, according to the +respective cases. And did space permit, we might add somewhat +more on these points. But the fact that we today think in a certain +way on a given question is no proof that such will be the mode of +procedure in the future. Who can foresee the activities which may +develop in humanity when it is emancipated from misery and +oppression? When all have the means of instruction and +self-development? When the strife between men, with the hatred and +rancour it breeds, will be no longer a necessary condition of +existence? Who can foresee the progress of science, the new sources +of production, means of communication, etc.? + +The one essential is that a society be constituted in which +the exploitation and domination of man by man are impossible. +That the society, in other words, be such that the means of +existence and development of labor be free and open to every +one, and all be able to co-operate, according to their wishes and +their knowledge, in the organization of social life. Under such +conditions, everything will necessarily be performed in compliance +with the needs of all, according to the knowledge and possibilities +of the moment. And everything will improve with the increase of +knowledge and power. + +In fact, a program which would touch the basis of the new social +constitution could not do more, after all, than indicate a +method. And method, more than anything else, defines parties +and determines their importance in history. Method apart, every one +says he wishes for the good of mankind; and many do truly wish for +it. As parties disappear, every organized action directed to a +definite end disappears likewise. It is therefore necessary to +consider Anarchy as, above all, a method. + +There are two methods by which the different parties, not +Anarchistic, expect, or say they expect, to bring about the +greatest good of each and all. These are the authoritarian or +State Socialist and the individualist methods. The former entrusts +the direction of social life to a few; and it would result in +the exploitation and oppression of the masses by that few. The +second party trusts to the free initiative of individuals, and +proclaims, if not the abolition, the reduction of government. +However, as it respects private property, and is founded on the +principle of each for himself, and therefore on competition, its +liberty is only the liberty of the strong, the license of those who +have, to oppress and exploit the weak who have nothing. Far from +producing harmony, it would tend always to augment the distance +between the rich and the poor, and end also through exploitation +and domination in authority. This second method, Individualism, is +in theory a kind of Anarchy without Socialism. It is therefore no +better than a lie, because liberty is not possible without equality, +and true Anarchy cannot be without Solidarity, without Socialism. +The criticism which Individualists pass on government is merely the +wish to deprive it of certain functions, to virtually hand them over +to the capitalist. But it cannot attack those repressive functions +which form the essence of government; for without an armed force the +proprietary system could not be upheld. Nay, even more, under +Individualism, the repressive power of government must always +increase, in proportion to the increase, by means of free +competition, of the want of equality and harmony. + +Anarchists present a new method; the free initiative of all +and free agreement; then, after the revolutionary abolition of +private property, every one will have equal power to dispose of +social wealth. This method, not admitting the re-establishment +of private property, must lead, by means of free association, to +the complete triumph of the principles of solidarity. + +Thus we see that all the problems put forward to combat the +Anarchistic idea are on the contrary arguments in favor of Anarchy; +because it alone indicates the way in which, by experience, +those solutions which correspond to the dicta of science, and to the +needs and wishes of all, can best be found. + +How will children be educated? We do not know. What then? The +parents, teachers and all who are interested in the progress of the +rising generation, will meet, discuss, agree and differ, and then +divide according to their various opinions, putting into practice +the methods which they respectively hold to be best. That method +which, when tried, produces the best results, will triumph in the +end. + +And so for all the problems that may arise. + + ---------- + +According to what we have so far said, it is evident that Anarchy, +as the Anarchists conceive it, and as alone it can be comprehended, +is based on Socialism. Furthermore, were it not for that school of +Socialists who artificially divide the natural unity of the social +question, considering only some detached points, and were it not +also for the equivocations with which they strive to hinder the +social revolution, we might say right away that Anarchy is +synonymous with Socialism. Because both signify the abolition of +exploitation and of the domination of man over man, whether +maintained by the force of arms or by the monopolization of the +means of life. + +Anarchy, like Socialism, has for its basis and necessary point +of departure _equality of conditions_. Its aim is _solidarity_, and +its method _liberty_. It is not perfection, nor is it the absolute +ideal, which, like the horizon, always recedes as we advance towards +it. But it is the open road to all progress and to all improvement, +made in the interest of all humanity. + + ---------- + +There are authoritarians who grant that Anarchy is the mode +of social life which alone opens the way to the attainment of the +highest possible good for mankind, because it alone can put an +end to every class interested in keeping the masses oppressed +and miserable. They also grant that Anarchy is possible, because it +does nothing more than release humanity from an +obstacle--government--against which it has always had to fight +its painful way towards progress. Nevertheless, these +authoritarians, reinforced by many warm lovers of liberty and justice +in theory, retire into their last entrenchments, because they are +afraid of liberty, and cannot be persuaded that mankind could +live and prosper without teachers and pastors; still, hard pressed +by the truth, they pitifully demand to have the reign of liberty +put off for a while, indeed for as long as possible. + +Such is the substance of the arguments that meet us at this +stage. + +A society without a government, which would act by free, voluntary +co-operation, trusting entirely to the spontaneous action of those +interested, and founded altogether on solidarity and sympathy, is +certainly, they say, a very beautiful ideal, but, like all ideals, +it is a castle in the air. We find ourselves placed in a human +society, which has always been divided into oppressors and +oppressed; and if the former are full of the spirit of domination, +and have all the vices of tyrants, the latter are corrupted +by servility, and have those still worse vices, which are the result +of enslavement. The sentiment of solidarity is far from being +dominant in man at the present day; and if it is true that the +different classes of men are becoming more and more unanimous among +themselves, it is none the less true that that which is most +conspicuous and impresses itself most on human character today is +the struggle for existence. It is a fact that each fights daily +against every one else, and competition presses upon all, workmen +and masters, causing every man to become a wolf towards every other +man. How can these men, educated in a society based upon antagonism +between individuals as well as classes, be transformed in a moment +and become capable of living in a society in which each shall do as +he likes, and as he should, without external coercion, caring for +the good of others, simply by the impulse of their own nature? And +with what heart or what common sense can you trust to a revolution +on the part of an ignorant, turbulent mass, weakened by misery, +stupefied by priestcraft, who are today blindly sanguinary and +tomorrow will let themselves be humbugged by any knave, who dares +to call himself their master? Would it not be more prudent to +advance gradually towards the Anarchistic ideal, passing through +Republican, Democratic and Socialistic stages? Will not an +educative government, composed of the best men, be necessary +to prepare the advancing generations for their future destiny? + +These objections also ought not to appear valid if we have +succeeded in making our readers understand what we have already +said, and in convincing them of it. But in any case, even at the +risk of repetition, it may be as well to answer them. + +We find ourselves continually met by the false notion that +government is in itself a new force, sprung up one knows not +whence, which of itself adds something to the sum of the force +and capability of those whom it is composed and of those who +obey it. While, on the contrary, all that is done is done by +individual men. The government, as a government, adds nothing +save the tendency to monopolize for the advantage of certain +parties or classes, and to repress all initiative from beyond its +own circle. + +To abolish authority or government does not mean to destroy +the individual or collective forces, which are at work in society, +nor the influence men exert over one another. That would be +to reduce humanity to an aggregate of inert and separate atoms; +an impossibility which, if it could be performed, would be the +destruction of any society, the death blow to mankind. To abolish +authority, means to abolish the monopoly of force and of influence. +It means to abolish that state of things by which social force, that +is, the collective force of all in a society, is made the instrument +of the thought, will and interests of a small number of individuals. +These, by means of the collective force, suppress the liberty of +every one else, to the advantage of their own ideas. In other words, +it means to destroy a mode of organization by means of which the +future is exploited, between one revolution and another, to the +profit of those who have been the victors of the moment. + +Michael Bakunin, in an article published in 1872, asserts that the +great means of action of the International were the propagating +of their ideas, and the organization of the spontaneous action of +its members in regard to the masses. He then adds: + +"To whoever might pretend that action so organized would be an +outrage on the liberty of the masses, or an attempt to create +a new authoritative power, we would reply that he is a sophist +and a fool. So much the worse for those who ignore the natural, +social law of human solidarity, to the extent of imagining +that an absolute mutual independence of individuals and of +masses is a possible or even desirable thing. To desire it, would +be to wish for the destruction of society; for all social life is +nothing else than this mutual and incessant interdependence among +individuals and masses. All individuals, even the most gifted +and strongest, indeed most of all the most gifted and strongest, +are at every moment of their lives, at the same time, producers +and products. Equal liberty for every individual is only the +resultant, continually reproduced, of this mass of material, +intellectual and moral influence exercised on him by all the +individuals around him, belonging to the society in which he was +born, has developed and dies. To wish to escape this influence in +the name of a transcendental liberty, divine, absolutely egoistic +and sufficient to itself, is the tendency to annihilation. To +refrain from influencing others, would mean to refrain from all +social action, indeed to abstain from all expression of one's +thoughts and sentiments, and simply to become non-existent. +This independence, so much extolled by idealists and metaphysicians, +individual liberty conceived in this sense would amount to +self-annihilation. + +"In nature, as in human society, which is also a part of this +same nature, all that exists lives only by complying with the +supreme conditions of interaction, which is more or less positive +and potent with regard to the lives of other beings, according to +the nature of the individual. And when we vindicate the liberty +of the masses, we do not pretend to abolish anything of the natural +influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert upon one +another. What we wish for is the abolition of artificial influences, +which are privileged, legal and official." + +Certainly, in the present state of mankind, oppressed by misery, +stupefied by superstition and sunk in degradation, the human lot +depends upon a relatively small number of individuals. Of course, +all men will not be able to rise in a moment to the height of +perceiving their duty, or even the enjoyment of so regulating their +own action that others also will derive the greatest possible +benefit from it. But because nowadays the thoughtful and guiding +forces at work in society are few, that is no reason for paralyzing +them still more, and for the subjection of many individuals to the +direction of a few. It is no reason for constituting society in such +a manner that the most active forces, the highest capacities are, in +the end, found outside the government, and almost deprived of +influence on social life. All this now happens owing to the inertia +that secured positions foster, to heredity, to protectionism, to +party spirit and to all the mechanism of government. For those in +government office, taken out of their former social position, +primarily concerned in retaining power, lose all power to act +spontaneously, and become only an obstacle to the free action of +others. + +With the abolition of this negative potency constituting government, +society will become that which it can be, with the given forces and +capabilities of the moment. If there are educated men desirous of +spreading education, they will organize the schools, and will be +constrained to make the use and enjoyment to be derived from +education felt. And if there are no such men, or only a few of them, +a government cannot create them. All it can do, as in fact it does +nowadays, is to take these few away from practical, fruitful work in +the sphere of education, and put them to direct from above what has +to be imposed by the help of a police system. So they make out of +intelligent and impassionate teachers mere politicians, who become +useless parasites, entirely absorbed in imposing their own hobbies, +and in maintaining themselves in power. + +If there are doctors and teachers of hygiene, they will organize +themselves for the service of health. And if there are none, +a government cannot create them; all that it can do is to discredit +them in the eyes of the people, who are inclined to entertain +suspicions, sometimes only too well founded, with regard to +everything which is imposed upon them. + +If there are engineers and mechanics, they will organize the +railways, etc; and if there are none, a government cannot create +them. + +The revolution, by abolishing government and private property, +will not create force which does not exist; but it will leave +a free field for the exercise of all available force and of all +existent capacity. While it will destroy every class interested in +keeping the masses degraded, it will act in such a way that every +one will be free to work and make his influence felt, in proportion +to his own capacity, and in conformity with his sentiments and +interests. And it is only thus that the elevation of the masses is +possible; for it is only with liberty that one can learn to be free, +as it is only by working that one can learn to work. A government, +even had it no other advantages, must always have that of +habituating the governed to subjection, and must also tend to become +more oppressive and more necessary, in proportion as its subjects +are more obedient and docile. + +But suppose government were the direction of affairs by the +best people. Who are the best? And how shall we recognize their +superiority. The majority are generally attached to old prejudices, +and have ideas and instincts already outgrown by the more favored +minority. But of the various minorities, who all believe themselves +in the right, as no doubt many of them are in part, which shall be +chosen to rule? And by whom? And by what criterion? Seeing that the +future alone can prove which among them is the must superior. If you +choose a hundred partisans of dictatorship, you will discover that +each one of the hundred believes himself capable of being, if not +sole dictator, at least of assisting very materially in the +dictatorial government. The dictators would be those who, by one +means or another, succeeded in imposing themselves on society. And, +in course of time, all their energy would inevitably be employed +in defending themselves against the attacks of their adversaries, +totally oblivious of their desire, if ever they had had it, to be +merely an educative power. + +Should government be, on the other hand, elected by universal +suffrage, and so be the emanation, more or less sincere, of +the wish of the majority? But if you consider these worthy +electors as incapable of providing for their own interests, how +can they ever be capable of themselves choosing directors to +guide them wisely? How solve this problem of social alchemy: +To elect a government of geniuses by the votes of a mass of fools? +And what will be the lot of the minority, who are the most +intelligent, most active and most advanced in society? + + ---------- + +To solve the social problem to the advantage of all, there is +only one way. To expel the government by revolutionary means, to +expropriate the holders of social wealth, putting everything +at the disposition of all, and to leave all existing force, +capacity and good-will among men free to provide for the needs +of all. + +We fight for Anarchy and for Socialism; because we believe +that Anarchy and Socialism ought to be brought into operation +as soon as possible. Which means that the revolution must drive +away the government, abolish private property, and entrust all +public service, which will then embrace all social life, to the +spontaneous, free, unofficial and unauthorized operation of all +those interested and all those willing volunteers. + +There will certainly be difficulties and inconveniences; but +the people will be resolute; and they alone can solve all +difficulties Anarchically, that is, by direct action of those +interested and by free agreement. + +We cannot say whether Anarchy and Socialism will triumph after the +next revolutionary attempt; but this is certain, that if any of the +so-called transition programs triumph, it will be because we have +been temporarily beaten, and never because we have thought it wise +to leave in existence any one part of that evil system under which +humanity groans. + +Whatever happens, we shall have some influence on events, by our +numbers, our energy, our intelligence and our steadfastness. +Also, even if we are now conquered, our work will not have been in +vain; for the more decided we shall have been in aiming at the +realization of all our demands, the less there will be of government +and of private property in the new society. And we shall have done a +great work; for human progress is measured by the degree in which +government and private property are administered. + +If today we fall without lowering our colors, our cause is certain +of victory tomorrow. + + -------------------- + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Anarchy, by Errico Malatesta + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 40365 *** |