summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/690-h/690-h.htm
blob: ed0437b7941c9ac546d5d7ca9b011fab0a990089 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
    <title>
      Proposed Roads to Freedom, by Bertrand Russell
    </title>
    <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve">
    body { margin:15%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify}
    P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .75em; margin-bottom: .75em; }
    H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; }
    hr  { width: 50%; text-align: center;}
    .foot { margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; text-align: justify; font-size: 80%; font-style: italic;}
    blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
    .mynote    {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;}
    .toc       { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;}
    .toc2      { margin-left: 20%;}
    .xx-small {font-size: 60%;}
    .x-small {font-size: 75%;}
    .small {font-size: 85%;}
    .large {font-size: 115%;}
    .x-large {font-size: 130%;}
    .indent5   { margin-left: 5%;}
    .indent10  { margin-left: 10%;}
    .indent15  { margin-left: 15%;}
    .indent20  { margin-left: 20%;}
    .indent25  { margin-left: 25%;}
    .indent30  { margin-left: 30%;}
    .indent35  { margin-left: 35%;}
    .indent40  { margin-left: 40%;}
    div.fig    { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; }
    div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; }
    .figleft   {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;}
    .figright  {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;}
    .pagenum   {position: absolute; right: 1%; font-size: 0.6em;
                font-variant: normal; font-style: normal;
                text-align: right; background-color: #FFFACD;
                border: 1px solid; padding: 0.3em;text-indent: 0em;}
    .side      { float: left; font-size: 75%; width: 15%; padding-left: 0.8em;
               border-left: dashed thin; text-align: left;
               text-indent: 0; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;
               font-weight: bold; color: black; background: #eeeeee; border:        solid 1px;}
    .head      { float: left; font-size: 90%; width: 98%; padding-left: 0.8em;
               border-left: dashed thin; text-align: center;
               text-indent: 0; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;
               font-weight: bold; color: black; background: #eeeeee; border:        solid 1px;}
    p.pfirst, p.noindent {text-indent: 0}
    span.dropcap         { float: left; margin: 0 0.1em 0 0; line-height: 0.8 }
    pre        { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;}
</style>
  </head>
  <body>
<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROPOSED ROADS TO FREEDOM ***</div>
    <div style="height: 8em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h1>
      PROPOSED ROADS TO FREEDOM
    </h1>
    <h2>
      By Bertrand Russell
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <p>
      <b>CONTENTS</b>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2H_INTR"> INTRODUCTION </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2H_PART2"> PART I &mdash; HISTORICAL </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2HCH0001"> CHAPTER I &mdash; MARX AND SOCIALIST DOCTRINE
      </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2HCH0002"> CHAPTER II &mdash; BAKUNIN AND ANARCHISM </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2HCH0003"> CHAPTER III &mdash; THE SYNDICALIST REVOLT </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2H_PART"> PART II &mdash; PROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2HCH0004"> CHAPTER IV &mdash; WORK AND PAY </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2HCH0005"> CHAPTER V &mdash; GOVERNMENT AND LAW </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2HCH0006"> CHAPTER VI &mdash; INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2HCH0007"> CHAPTER VII &mdash; SCIENCE AND ART UNDER
      SOCIALISM </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2HCH0008"> CHAPTER VIII &mdash; THE WORLD AS IT COULD BE
      MADE </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <a href="#link2H_FOOT"> FOOTNOTES: </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2H_INTR" id="link2H_INTR"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      INTRODUCTION
    </h2>
    <p>
      THE attempt to conceive imaginatively a better ordering of human society
      than the destructive and cruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existed
      is by no means modern: it is at least as old as Plato, whose "Republic"
      set the model for the Utopias of subsequent philosophers. Whoever
      contemplates the world in the light of an ideal&mdash;whether what he
      seeks be intellect, or art, or love, or simple happiness, or all together&mdash;must
      feel a great sorrow in the evils that men needlessly allow to continue,
      and&mdash;if he be a man of force and vital energy&mdash;an urgent desire
      to lead men to the realization of the good which inspires his creative
      vision. It is this desire which has been the primary force moving the
      pioneers of Socialism and Anarchism, as it moved the inventors of ideal
      commonwealths in the past. In this there is nothing new. What is new in
      Socialism and Anarchism, is that close relation of the ideal to the
      present sufferings of men, which has enabled powerful political movements
      to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers. It is this that makes
      Socialism and Anarchism important, and it is this that makes them
      dangerous to those who batten, consciously or unconsciously upon the evils
      of our present order of society.
    </p>
    <p>
      The great majority of men and women, in ordinary times, pass through life
      without ever contemplating or criticising, as a whole, either their own
      conditions or those of the world at large. They find themselves born into
      a certain place in society, and they accept what each day brings forth,
      without any effort of thought beyond what the immediate present requires.
      Almost as instinctively as the beasts of the field, they seek the
      satisfaction of the needs of the moment, without much forethought, and
      without considering that by sufficient effort the whole conditions of
      their lives could be changed. A certain percentage, guided by personal
      ambition, make the effort of thought and will which is necessary to place
      themselves among the more fortunate members of the community; but very few
      among these are seriously concerned to secure for all the advantages which
      they seek for themselves. It is only a few rare and exceptional men who
      have that kind of love toward mankind at large that makes them unable to
      endure patiently the general mass of evil and suffering, regardless of any
      relation it may have to their own lives. These few, driven by sympathetic
      pain, will seek, first in thought and then in action, for some way of
      escape, some new system of society by which life may become richer, more
      full of joy and less full of preventable evils than it is at present. But
      in the past such men have, as a rule, failed to interest the very victims
      of the injustices which they wished to remedy. The more unfortunate
      sections of the population have been ignorant, apathetic from excess of
      toil and weariness, timorous through the imminent danger of immediate
      punishment by the holders of power, and morally unreliable owing to the
      loss of self-respect resulting from their degradation. To create among
      such classes any conscious, deliberate effort after general amelioration
      might have seemed a hopeless task, and indeed in the past it has generally
      proved so. But the modern world, by the increase of education and the rise
      in the standard of comfort among wage-earners, has produced new
      conditions, more favorable than ever before to the demand for radical
      reconstruction. It is above all the Socialists, and in a lesser degree the
      Anarchists (chiefly as the inspirers of Syndicalism), who have become the
      exponents of this demand.
    </p>
    <p>
      What is perhaps most remarkable in regard to both Socialism and Anarchism
      is the association of a widespread popular movement with ideals for a
      better world. The ideals have been elaborated, in the first instance, by
      solitary writers of books, and yet powerful sections of the wage-earning
      classes have accepted them as their guide in the practical affairs of the
      world. In regard to Socialism this is evident; but in regard to Anarchism
      it is only true with some qualification. Anarchism as such has never been
      a widespread creed, it is only in the modified form of Syndicalism that it
      has achieved popularity. Unlike Socialism and Anarchism, Syndicalism is
      primarily the outcome, not of an idea, but of an organization: the fact of
      Trade Union organization came first, and the ideas of Syndicalism are
      those which seemed appropriate to this organization in the opinion of the
      more advanced French Trade Unions. But the ideas are, in the main, derived
      from Anarchism, and the men who gained acceptance for them were, for the
      most part, Anarchists. Thus we may regard Syndicalism as the Anarchism of
      the market-place as opposed to the Anarchism of isolated individuals which
      had preserved a precarious life throughout the previous decades. Taking
      this view, we find in Anarchist-Syndicalism the same combination of ideal
      and organization as we find in Socialist political parties. It is from
      this standpoint that our study of these movements will be undertaken.
    </p>
    <p>
      Socialism and Anarchism, in their modern form, spring respectively from
      two protagonists, Marx and Bakunin, who fought a lifelong battle,
      culminating in a split in the first International. We shall begin our
      study with these two men&mdash;first their teaching, and then the
      organizations which they founded or inspired. This will lead us to the
      spread of Socialism in more recent years, and thence to the Syndicalist
      revolt against Socialist emphasis on the State and political action, and
      to certain movements outside France which have some affinity with
      Syndicalism&mdash; notably the I. W. W. in America and Guild Socialism in
      England. From this historical survey we shall pass to the consideration of
      some of the more pressing problems of the future, and shall try to decide
      in what respects the world would be happier if the aims of Socialists or
      Syndicalists were achieved.
    </p>
    <p>
      My own opinion&mdash;which I may as well indicate at the outset&mdash;is
      that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which
      society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible, and
      would not survive more than a year or two at most if it were adopted. On
      the other hand, both Marxian Socialism and Syndicalism, in spite of many
      drawbacks, seem to me calculated to give rise to a happier and better
      world than that in which we live. I do not, however, regard either of them
      as the best practicable system. Marxian Socialism, I fear, would give far
      too much power to the State, while Syndicalism, which aims at abolishing
      the State, would, I believe, find itself forced to reconstruct a central
      authority in order to put an end to the rivalries of different groups of
      producers. The BEST practicable system, to my mind, is that of Guild
      Socialism, which concedes what is valid both in the claims of the State
      Socialists and in the Syndicalist fear of the State, by adopting a system
      of federalism among trades for reasons similar to those which are
      recommending federalism among nations. The grounds for these conclusions
      will appear as we proceed.
    </p>
    <p>
      Before embarking upon the history of recent movements In favor of radical
      reconstruction, it will be worth while to consider some traits of
      character which distinguish most political idealists, and are much
      misunderstood by the general public for other reasons besides mere
      prejudice. I wish to do full justice to these reasons, in order to show
      the more effectually why they ought not to be operative.
    </p>
    <p>
      The leaders of the more advanced movements are, in general, men of quite
      unusual disinterestedness, as is evident from a consideration of their
      careers. Although they have obviously quite as much ability as many men
      who rise to positions of great power, they do not themselves become the
      arbiters of contemporary events, nor do they achieve wealth or the
      applause of the mass of their contemporaries. Men who have the capacity
      for winning these prizes, and who work at least as hard as those who win
      them, but deliberately adopt a line which makes the winning of them
      impossible, must be judged to have an aim in life other than personal
      advancement; whatever admixture of self-seeking may enter into the detail
      of their lives, their fundamental motive must be outside Self. The
      pioneers of Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism have, for the most part,
      experienced prison, exile, and poverty, deliberately incurred because they
      would not abandon their propaganda; and by this conduct they have shown
      that the hope which inspired them was not for themselves, but for mankind.
    </p>
    <p>
      Nevertheless, though the desire for human welfare is what at bottom
      determines the broad lines of such men's lives, it often happens that, in
      the detail of their speech and writing, hatred is far more visible than
      love. The impatient idealist&mdash;and without some impatience a man will
      hardly prove effective&mdash;is almost sure to be led into hatred by the
      oppositions and disappointments which he encounters in his endeavors to
      bring happiness to the world. The more certain he is of the purity of his
      motives and the truth of his gospel, the more indignant he will become
      when his teaching is rejected. Often he will successfully achieve an
      attitude of philosophic tolerance as regards the apathy of the masses, and
      even as regards the whole-hearted opposition of professed defenders of the
      status quo. But the men whom he finds it impossible to forgive are those
      who profess the same desire for the amelioration of society as he feels
      himself, but who do not accept his method of achieving this end. The
      intense faith which enables him to withstand persecution for the sake of
      his beliefs makes him consider these beliefs so luminously obvious that
      any thinking man who rejects them must be dishonest, and must be actuated
      by some sinister motive of treachery to the cause. Hence arises the spirit
      of the sect, that bitter, narrow orthodoxy which is the bane of those who
      hold strongly to an unpopular creed. So many real temptations to treachery
      exist that suspicion is natural. And among leaders, ambition, which they
      mortify in their choice of a career, is sure to return in a new form: in
      the desire for intellectual mastery and for despotic power within their
      own sect. From these causes it results that the advocates of drastic
      reform divide themselves into opposing schools, hating each other with a
      bitter hatred, accusing each other often of such crimes as being in the
      pay of the police, and demanding, of any speaker or writer whom they are
      to admire, that he shall conform exactly to their prejudices, and make all
      his teaching minister to their belief that the exact truth is to be found
      within the limits of their creed. The result of this state of mind is
      that, to a casual and unimaginative attention, the men who have sacrificed
      most through the wish to benefit mankind APPEAR to be actuated far more by
      hatred than by love. And the demand for orthodoxy is stifling to any free
      exercise of intellect. This cause, as well as economic prejudice, has made
      it difficult for the "intellectuals" to co-operate prac- tically with the
      more extreme reformers, however they may sympathize with their main
      purposes and even with nine-tenths of their program.
    </p>
    <p>
      Another reason why radical reformers are misjudged by ordinary men is that
      they view existing society from outside, with hostility towards its
      institutions. Although, for the most part, they have more belief than
      their neighbors in human nature's inherent capacity for a good life, they
      are so conscious of the cruelty and oppression resulting from existing
      institutions that they make a wholly misleading impression of cynicism.
      Most men have instinctively two entirely different codes of behavior: one
      toward those whom they regard as companions or colleagues or friends, or
      in some way members of the same "herd"; the other toward those whom they
      regard as enemies or outcasts or a danger to society. Radical reformers
      are apt to concentrate their attention upon the behavior of society toward
      the latter class, the class of those toward whom the "herd" feels
      ill-will. This class includes, of course, enemies in war, and criminals;
      in the minds of those who consider the preservation of the existing order
      essential to their own safety or privileges, it includes all who advocate
      any great political or economic change, and all classes which, through
      their poverty or through any other cause, are likely to feel a dangerous
      degree of discontent. The ordinary citizen probably seldom thinks about
      such individuals or classes, and goes through life believing that he and
      his friends are kindly people, because they have no wish to injure those
      toward whom they entertain no group-hostility. But the man whose attention
      is fastened upon the relations of a group with those whom it hates or
      fears will judge quite differently. In these relations a surprising
      ferocity is apt to be developed, and a very ugly side of human nature
      comes to the fore. The opponents of capitalism have learned, through the
      study of certain historical facts, that this ferocity has often been shown
      by the capitalists and by the State toward the wage-earning classes,
      particularly when they have ventured to protest against the unspeakable
      suffering to which industrialism has usually condemned them. Hence arises
      a quite different attitude toward existing society from that of the
      ordinary well-to-do citizen: an attitude as true as his, perhaps also as
      untrue, but equally based on facts, facts concerning his relations to his
      enemies instead of to his friends.
    </p>
    <p>
      The class-war, like wars between nations, produces two opposing views,
      each equally true and equally untrue. The citizen of a nation at war, when
      he thinks of his own countrymen, thinks of them primarily as he has
      experienced them, in dealings with their friends, in their family
      relations, and so on. They seem to him on the whole kindly, decent folk.
      But a nation with which his country is at war views his compatriots
      through the medium of a quite different set of experiences: as they appear
      in the ferocity of battle, in the invasion and subjugation of a hostile
      territory, or in the chicanery of a juggling diplomacy. The men of whom
      these facts are true are the very same as the men whom their compatriots
      know as husbands or fathers or friends, but they are judged differently
      because they are judged on different data. And so it is with those who
      view the capitalist from the standpoint of the revolutionary wage-earner:
      they appear inconceivably cynical and misjudging to the capitalist,
      because the facts upon which their view is based are facts which he either
      does not know or habitually ignores. Yet the view from the outside is just
      as true as the view from the inside. Both are necessary to the complete
      truth; and the Socialist, who emphasizes the outside view, is not a cynic,
      but merely the friend of the wage-earners, maddened by the spectacle of
      the needless misery which capitalism inflicts upon them.
    </p>
    <p>
      I have placed these general reflections at the beginning of our study, in
      order to make it clear to the reader that, whatever bitterness and hate
      may be found in the movements which we are to examine, it is not
      bitterness or hate, but love, that is their mainspring. It is difficult
      not to hate those who torture the objects of our love. Though difficult,
      it is not impossible; but it requires a breadth of outlook and a
      comprehensiveness of understanding which are not easy to preserve amid a
      desperate contest. If ultimate wisdom has not always been preserved by
      Socialists and Anarchists, they have not differed in this from their
      opponents; and in the source of their inspiration they have shown
      themselves superior to those who acquiesce ignorantly or supinely in the
      injustices and oppressions by which the existing system is preserved.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /> <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <h2>
      PROPOSED ROADS TO FREEDOM: SOCIALISM, ANARCHISM AND SYNDICALISM
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2H_PART" id="link2H_PART"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      PART I &mdash; HISTORICAL
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0001" id="link2HCH0001"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER I &mdash; MARX AND SOCIALIST DOCTRINE
    </h2>
    <p>
      SOCIALISM, like everything else that is vital, is rather a tendency than a
      strictly definable body of doctrine. A definition of Socialism is sure
      either to include some views which many would regard as not Socialistic,
      or to exclude others which claim to be included. But I think we shall come
      nearest to the essence of Socialism by defining it as the advocacy of
      communal ownership of land and capital. Communal ownership may mean
      ownership by a democratic State, but cannot be held to include ownership
      by any State which is not democratic. Communal ownership may also be
      understood, as Anarchist Communism understands it, in the sense of
      ownership by the free association of the men and women in a community
      without those compulsory powers which are necessary to constitute a State.
      Some Socialists expect communal ownership to arrive suddenly and
      completely by a catastrophic revolution, while others expect it to come
      gradually, first in one industry, then in another. Some insist upon the
      necessity of completeness in the acquisition of land and capital by the
      public, while others would be content to see lingering islands of private
      ownership, provided they were not too extensive or powerful. What all
      forms have in common is democracy and the abolition, virtual or complete,
      of the present capitalistic system. The distinction between Socialists,
      Anarchists and Syndicalists turns largely upon the kind of democracy which
      they desire. Orthodox Socialists are content with parliamentary democracy
      in the sphere of government, holding that the evils apparent in this form
      of constitution at present would disappear with the disappearance of
      capitalism. Anarchists and Syndicalists, on the other hand, object to the
      whole parliamentary machinery, and aim at a different method of regulating
      the political affairs of the community. But all alike are democratic in
      the sense that they aim at abolishing every kind of privilege and every
      kind of artificial inequality: all alike are champions of the wage- earner
      in existing society. All three also have much in common in their economic
      doctrine. All three regard capital and the wages system as a means of
      exploiting the laborer in the interests of the possessing classes, and
      hold that communal ownership, in one form or another, is the only means of
      bringing freedom to the producers. But within the framework of this common
      doctrine there are many divergences, and even among those who are strictly
      to be called Socialists, there is a very considerable diversity of
      schools.
    </p>
    <p>
      Socialism as a power in Europe may be said to begin with Marx. It is true
      that before his time there were Socialist theories, both in England and in
      France. It is also true that in France, during the revolution of 1848,
      Socialism for a brief period acquired considerable influence in the State.
      But the Socialists who preceded Marx tended to indulge in Utopian dreams
      and failed to found any strong or stable political party. To Marx, in
      collaboration with Engels, are due both the formulation of a coherent body
      of Socialist doctrine, sufficiently true or plausible to dominate the
      minds of vast numbers of men, and the formation of the International
      Socialist movement, which has continued to grow in all European countries
      throughout the last fifty years.
    </p>
    <p>
      In order to understand Marx's doctrine, it is necessary to know something
      of the influences which formed his outlook. He was born in 1818 at Treves
      in the Rhine Provinces, his father being a legal official, a Jew who had
      nominally accepted Christianity. Marx studied jurisprudence, philosophy,
      political economy and history at various German universities. In
      philosophy he imbibed the doctrines of Hegel, who was then at the height
      of his fame, and something of these doctrines dominated his thought
      throughout his life. Like Hegel, he saw in history the development of an
      Idea. He conceived the changes in the world as forming a logical
      development, in which one phase passes by revolution into another, which
      is its antithesis&mdash;a conception which gave to his views a certain
      hard abstractness, and a belief in revolution rather than evolution. But
      of Hegel's more definite doctrines Marx retained nothing after his youth.
      He was recognized as a brilliant student, and might have had a prosperous
      career as a professor or an official, but his interest in politics and his
      Radical views led him into more arduous paths. Already in 1842 he became
      editor of a newspaper, which was suppressed by the Prussian Government
      early in the following year on account of its advanced opinions. This led
      Marx to go to Paris, where he became known as a Socialist and acquired a
      knowledge of his French predecessors.<a href="#linknote-1"
      name="linknoteref-1" id="linknoteref-1"><small>1</small></a> Here in the
      year 1844 began his lifelong friendship with Engels, who had been hitherto
      in business in Manchester, where he had become acquainted with English
      Socialism and had in the main adopted its doctrines.<a href="#linknote-2"
      name="linknoteref-2" id="linknoteref-2"><small>2</small></a> In 1845 Marx
      was expelled from Paris and went with Engels to live in Brussels. There he
      formed a German Working Men's Association and edited a paper which was
      their organ. Through his activities in Brussels he became known to the
      German Communist League in Paris, who, at the end of 1847, invited him and
      Engels to draw up for them a manifesto, which appeared in January, 1848.
      This is the famous "Communist Manifesto," in which for the first time
      Marx's system is set forth. It appeared at a fortunate moment. In the
      following month, February, the revolution broke out in Paris, and in March
      it spread to Germany. Fear of the revolution led the Brussels Government
      to expel Marx from Belgium, but the German revolution made it possible for
      him to return to his own country. In Germany he again edited a paper,
      which again led him into a conflict with the authorities, increasing in
      severity as the reaction gathered force. In June, 1849, his paper was
      suppressed, and he was expelled from Prussia. He returned to Paris, but
      was expelled from there also. This led him to settle in England&mdash;at
      that time an asylum for friends of freedom&mdash;and in England, with only
      brief intervals for purposes of agitation, he continued to live until his
      death in 1883.
    </p>
    <p>
      The bulk of his time was occupied in the composition of his great book,
      "Capital."<a href="#linknote-3" name="linknoteref-3" id="linknoteref-3"><small>3</small></a>
      His other important work during his later years was the formation and
      spread of the International Working Men's Association. From 1849 onward
      the greater part of his time was spent in the British Museum,
      accumulating, with German patience, the materials for his terrific
      indictment of capitalist society, but he retained his hold on the
      International Socialist movement. In several countries he had sons-in-law
      as lieutenants, like Napoleon's brothers, and in the various internal
      contests that arose his will generally prevailed.
    </p>
    <p>
      The most essential of Marx's doctrines may be reduced to three: first,
      what is called the material- istic interpretation of history; second, the
      law of the concentration of capital; and, third, the class-war.
    </p>
    <p>
      1. The Materialistic Interpretation of History.&mdash; Marx holds that in
      the main all the phenomena of human society have their origin in material
      conditions, and these he takes to be embodied in economic systems.
      Political constitutions, laws, religions, philosophies&mdash;all these he
      regards as, in their broad outlines, expressions of the economic regime in
      the society that gives rise to them. It would be unfair to represent him
      as maintaining that the conscious economic motive is the only one of
      importance; it is rather that economics molds character and opinion, and
      is thus the prime source of much that appears in consciousness to have no
      connection with them. He applies his doctrine in particular to two
      revolutions, one in the past, the other in the future. The revolution in
      the past is that of the bourgeoisie against feudalism, which finds its
      expression, according to him, particularly in the French Revolution. The
      one in the future is the revolution of the wage- earners, or proletariat,
      against the bourgeoisie, which is to establish the Socialist Commonwealth.
      The whole movement of history is viewed by him as necessary, as the effect
      of material causes operating upon human beings. He does not so much
      advocate the Socialist revolution as predict it. He holds, it is true,
      that it will be beneficent, but he is much more concerned to prove that it
      must inevitably come. The same sense of necessity is visible in his
      exposition of the evils of the capitalist system. He does not blame
      capitalists for the cruelties of which he shows them to have been guilty;
      he merely points out that they are under an inherent necessity to behave
      cruelly so long as private ownership of land and capital continues. But
      their tyranny will not last forever, for it generates the forces that must
      in the end overthrow it.
    </p>
    <p>
      2. The Law of the Concentration of Capital.&mdash; Marx pointed out that
      capitalist undertakings tend to grow larger and larger. He foresaw the
      substitution of trusts for free competition, and predicted that the number
      of capitalist enterprises must diminish as the magnitude of single
      enterprises increased. He supposed that this process must involve a
      diminution, not only in the number of businesses, but also in the number
      of capitalists. Indeed, he usually spoke as though each business were
      owned by a single man. Accordingly, he expected that men would be
      continually driven from the ranks of the capitalists into those of the
      proletariat, and that the capitalists, in the course of time, would grow
      numerically weaker and weaker. He applied this principle not only to
      industry but also to agriculture. He expected to find the landowners
      growing fewer and fewer while their estates grew larger and larger. This
      process was to make more and more glaring the evils and injustices of the
      capitalist system, and to stimulate more and more the forces of
      opposition.
    </p>
    <p>
      3. The Class War.&mdash;Marx conceives the wage- earner and the capitalist
      in a sharp antithesis. He imagines that every man is, or must soon become,
      wholly the one or wholly the other. The wage- earner, who possesses
      nothing, is exploited by the capitalists, who possess everything. As the
      capitalist system works itself out and its nature becomes more clear, the
      opposition of bourgeoisie and proletariat becomes more and more marked.
      The two classes, since they have antagonistic interests, are forced into a
      class war which generates within the capitalist regime internal forces of
      disruption. The working men learn gradually to combine against their
      exploiters, first locally, then nationally, and at last internationally.
      When they have learned to combine internationally they must be victorious.
      They will then decree that all land and capital shall be owned in common;
      exploitation will cease; the tyranny of the owners of wealth will no
      longer be possible; there will no longer be any division of society into
      classes, and all men will be free.
    </p>
    <p>
      All these ideas are already contained in the "Communist Manifesto," a work
      of the most amazing vigor and force, setting forth with terse compression
      the titanic forces of the world, their epic battle, and the inevitable
      consummation. This work is of such importance in the development of
      Socialism and gives such an admirable statement of the doctrines set forth
      at greater length and with more pedantry in "Capital," that its salient
      passages must be known by anyone who wishes to understand the hold which
      Marxian Socialism has acquired over the intellect and imagination of a
      large proportion of working-class leaders.
    </p>
    <p>
      "A spectre is haunting Europe," it begins, "the spectre of Communism. All
      the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise
      this spectre&mdash;Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals
      and German police-spies. Where is the party in opposition that has not
      been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where the
      Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism
      against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its
      re-actionary adversaries?"
    </p>
    <p>
      The existence of a class war is nothing new: "The history of all hitherto
      existing society is the history of class struggles." In these struggles
      the fight "each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of
      society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."
    </p>
    <p>
      "Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie . . . has simplified the class
      antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two
      great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other:
      Bourgeoisie and Proletariat." Then follows a history of the fall of
      feudalism, leading to a description of the bourgeoisie as a revolutionary
      force. "The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary
      part." "For exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it
      has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation." "The need
      of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie
      over the whole surface of the globe." "The bourgeoisie, during its rule of
      scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal
      productive forces than have all preceding generations together." Feudal
      relations became fetters: "They had to be burst asunder; they were burst
      asunder. . . . A similar movement is going on before our own eyes." "The
      weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now
      turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgoisie
      forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into
      existence the men who are to wield those weapons&mdash; the modern working
      class&mdash;the proletarians."
    </p>
    <p>
      The cause of the destitution of the proletariat are then set forth. "The
      cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the
      means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance and for the
      propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also
      of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as
      the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in
      proportion as the use of machinery and diversion of labor increases, in
      the same proportion the burden of toil also increases."
    </p>
    <p>
      "Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal
      master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of
      laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As
      privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a
      perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of
      the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State, they are daily and hourly
      enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the
      individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism
      proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful,
      and the more embittering it is."
    </p>
    <p>
      The Manifesto tells next the manner of growth of the class struggle. "The
      proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth
      begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried
      on by individual laborers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by
      the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual
      bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not
      against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the
      instruments of production themselves."
    </p>
    <p>
      "At this stage the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over
      the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere
      they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of
      their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class,
      in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole
      proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so."
    </p>
    <p>
      "The collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take
      more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon
      the workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against the
      bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they
      found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for
      these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks out into
      riots. Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The
      real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the
      ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the im-
      proved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and
      that place the workers of different localities in contact with one
      another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the
      numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national
      struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political
      struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages,
      with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern
      proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years. This
      organization of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a
      political party, is continually being upset again by the competition
      between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger,
      firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular
      interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the
      bourgeoisie itself."
    </p>
    <p>
      "In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at large are
      already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his
      relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with
      the bourgeois family-relations; modern industrial labor, modern subjection
      to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany,
      has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality,
      religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in
      ambush just as many bourgeois interests. All the preceding classes that
      got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already acquired status by
      subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The
      proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society,
      except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby
      also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of
      their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all
      previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property. All
      previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the
      interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious,
      independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the
      immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present
      society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole super-
      incumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air."
    </p>
    <p>
      The Communists, says Marx, stand for the proletariat as a whole. They are
      international. "The Communists are further reproached with desiring to
      abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We
      cannot take from them what they have not got."
    </p>
    <p>
      The immediate aim of the Communists is the conquests of political power by
      the proletariat. "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
      single sentence: Abolition of private property."
    </p>
    <p>
      The materialistic interpretation of history is used to answer such charges
      as that Communism is anti-Christian. "The charges against Communism made
      from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological
      standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. Does it require deep
      intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one
      word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of
      his material existence, in his social relations, and in his social life?"
    </p>
    <p>
      The attitude of the Manifesto to the State is not altogether easy to
      grasp. "The executive of the modern State," we are told, "is but a
      Committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
      Nevertheless, the first step for the proletariat must be to acquire
      control of the State. "We have seen above, that the first step in the
      revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the
      position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat
      will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from
      the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands
      of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and
      to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible."
    </p>
    <p>
      The Manifesto passes on to an immediate program of reforms, which would in
      the first instance much increase the power of the existing State, but it
      is contended that when the Socialist revolution is accomplished, the
      State, as we know it, will have ceased to exist. As Engels says elsewhere,
      when the proletariat seizes the power of the State "it puts an end to all
      differences of class and antagonisms of class, and consequently also puts
      an end to the State as a State." Thus, although State Socialism might, in
      fact, be the outcome of the proposals of Marx and Engels, they cannot
      themselves be accused of any glorification of the State.
    </p>
    <p>
      The Manifesto ends with an appeal to the wage- earners of the world to
      rise on behalf of Communism. "The Communists disdain to conceal their
      views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only
      by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the
      ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have
      nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of
      all countries, unite!"
    </p>
    <p>
      In all the great countries of the Continent, except Russia, a revolution
      followed quickly on the publication of the Communist Manifesto, but the
      revolution was not economic or international, except at first in France.
      Everywhere else it was inspired by the ideas of nationalism. Accordingly,
      the rulers of the world, momentarily terrified, were able to recover power
      by fomenting the enmities inherent in the nationalist idea, and
      everywhere, after a very brief triumph, the revolution ended in war and
      reaction. The ideas of the Communist Manifesto appeared before the world
      was ready for them, but its authors lived to see the beginnings of the
      growth of that Socialist movement in every country, which has pressed on
      with increasing force, influencing Governments more and more, dominating
      the Russian Revolution, and perhaps capable of achieving at no very
      distant date that international triumph to which the last sentences of the
      Manifesto summon the wage-earners of the world.
    </p>
    <p>
      Marx's magnum opus, "Capital," added bulk and substance to the theses of
      the Communist Manifesto. It contributed the theory of surplus value, which
      professed to explain the actual mechanism of capitalist exploitation. This
      doctrine is very complicated and is scarcely tenable as a contribution to
      pure theory. It is rather to be viewed as a translation into abstract
      terms of the hatred with which Marx regarded the system that coins wealth
      out of human lives, and it is in this spirit, rather than in that of
      disinterested analysis, that it has been read by its admirers. A critical
      examination of the theory of surplus value would require much difficult
      and abstract discussion of pure economic theory without having much
      bearing upon the practical truth or falsehood of Socialism; it has
      therefore seemed impossible within the limits of the present volume. To my
      mind the best parts of the book are those which deal with economic facts,
      of which Marx's knowledge was encyclopaedic. It was by these facts that he
      hoped to instil into his disciples that firm and undying hatred that
      should make them soldiers to the death in the class war. The facts which
      he accumulates are such as are practically unknown to the vast majority of
      those who live comfortable lives. They are very terrible facts, and the
      economic system which generates them must be acknowledged to be a very
      terrible system. A few examples of his choice of facts will serve to
      explain the bitterness of many Socialists:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      Mr. Broughton Charlton, county magistrate, declared, as chairman of a
      meeting held at the Assembly Rooms, Nottingham, on the 14th January, 1860,
      "that there was an amount of privation and suffering among that portion of
      the population connected with the lace trade, unknown in other parts of
      the kingdom, indeed, in the civilized world. . . . Children of nine or ten
      years are dragged from their squalid beds at two, three, or four o clock
      in the morning and compelled to work for a bare subsistence until ten,
      eleven, or twelve at night, their limbs wearing away, their frames
      dwindling, their faces whitening, and their humanity absolutely sinking
      into a stone-like torpor, utterly horrible to contemplate."<a
      href="#linknote-4" name="linknoteref-4" id="linknoteref-4"><small>4</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Three railway men are standing before a London coroner's jury&mdash;a
      guard, an engine-driver, a signalman. A tremendous railway accident has
      hurried hundreds of passengers into another world. The negligence of the
      employes is the cause of the misfortune. They declare with one voice
      before the jury that ten or twelve years before, their labor only lasted
      eight hours a day. During the last five or six years it had been screwed
      up to 14, 18, and 20 hours, and under a specially severe pressure of
      holiday-makers, at times of excursion trains, it often lasted 40 or 50
      hours without a break. They were ordinary men, not Cyclops. At a certain
      point their labor-power failed. Torpor seized them. Their brain ceased to
      think, their eyes to see. The thoroughly "respectable" British jurymen
      answered by a verdict that sent them to the next assizes on a charge of
      manslaughter, and, in a gentle "rider" to their verdict, expressed the
      pious hope that the capitalistic magnates of the railways would, in
      future, be more extravagant in the purchase of a sufficient quantity of
      labor-power, and more "abstemious," more "self-denying," more "thrifty,"
      in the draining of paid labor-power.<a href="#linknote-5"
      name="linknoteref-5" id="linknoteref-5"><small>5</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      In the last week of June, 1863, all the London daily papers published a
      paragraph with the "sensational" heading, "Death from simple over-work."
      It dealt with the death of the milliner, Mary Anne Walkley, 20 years of
      age, employed in a highly respectable dressmaking establishment, exploited
      by a lady with the pleasant name of Elise. The old, often-told story was
      once more recounted. This girl worked, on an average, 16 1/2 hours, during
      the season often 30 hours, without a break, whilst her failing labor-power
      was revived by occasional supplies of sherry, port, or coffee. It was just
      now the height of the season. It was necessary to conjure up in the
      twinkling of an eye the gorgeous dresses for the noble ladies bidden to
      the ball in honor of the newly- imported Princess of Wales. Mary Anne
      Walkley had worked without intermission for 26 1/2 hours, with 60 other
      girls, 30 in one room, that only afforded 1/3 of the cubic feet of air
      required for them. At night, they slept in pairs in one of the stifling
      holes into which the bedroom was divided by partitions of board. And this
      was one of the best millinery establishments in London. Mary Anne Walkley
      fell ill on the Friday, died on Sunday, without, to the astonishment of
      Madame Elise, having previously completed the work in hand. The doctor,
      Mr. Keys, called too late to the death bed, duly bore witness before the
      coroner's jury that "Mary Anne Walkley had died from long hours of work in
      an over- crowded workroom, and a too small and badly ventilated bedroom."
      In order to give the doctor a lesson in good manners, the coroner's jury
      thereupon brought in a verdict that "the deceased had died of apoplexy,
      but there was reason to fear that her death had been accelerated by
      over-work in an over-crowded workroom, &amp;c." "Our white slaves," cried
      the "Morning Star," the organ of the free-traders, Cobden and Bright, "our
      white slaves, who are toiled into the grave, for the most part silently
      pine and die."<a href="#linknote-6" name="linknoteref-6" id="linknoteref-6"><small>6</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Edward VI: A statue of the first year of his reign, 1547, ordains that if
      anyone refuses to work, he shall be condemned as a slave to the person who
      has denounced him as an idler. The master shall feed his slave on bread
      and water, weak broth and such refuse meat as he thinks fit. He has the
      right to force him to do any work, no matter how disgusting, with whip and
      chains. If the slave is absent a fortnight, he is condemned to slavery for
      life and is to be branded on forehead or back with the letter S; if he
      runs away thrice, he is to be executed as a felon. The master can sell
      him, bequeath him, let him out on hire as a slave, just as any other
      personal chattel or cattle. If the slaves attempt anything against the
      masters, they are also to be executed. Justices of the peace, on
      information, are to hunt the rascals down. If it happens that a vagabond
      has been idling about for three days, he is to be taken to his birthplace,
      branded with a redhot iron with the letter V on the breast and be set to
      work, in chains, in the streets or at some other labor. If the vagabond
      gives a false birthplace, he is then to become the slave for life of this
      place, of its inhabitants, or its corporation, and to be branded with an
      S. All persons have the right to take away the children of the vagabonds
      and to keep them as apprentices, the young men until the 24th year, the
      girls until the 20th. If they run away, they are to become up to this age
      the slaves of their masters, who can put them in irons, whip them, &amp;c.,
      if they like. Every master may put an iron ring around the neck, arms or
      legs of his slave, by which to know him more easily and to be more certain
      of him. The last part of this statute provides that certain poor people
      may be employed by a place or by persons, who are willing to give them
      food and drink and to find them work. This kind of parish-slaves was kept
      up in England until far into the 19th century under the name of
      "roundsmen."<a href="#linknote-7" name="linknoteref-7" id="linknoteref-7"><small>7</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Page after page and chapter after chapter of facts of this nature, each
      brought up to illustrate some fatalistic theory which Marx professes to
      have proved by exact reasoning, cannot but stir into fury any passionate
      working-class reader, and into unbearable shame any possessor of capital
      in whom generosity and justice are not wholly extinct.
    </p>
    <p>
      Almost at the end of the volume, in a very brief chapter, called
      "Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation," Marx allows one moment's
      glimpse of the hope that lies beyond the present horror:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the
      old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into
      proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist
      mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization
      of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of
      production into so- cially exploited and, therefore, common means of
      production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors,
      takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the
      laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers.
      This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of
      capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One
      capitalist always kills many, and in hand with this centralization, or
      this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever
      extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious
      technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil,
      the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor
      only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their
      use as the means of production of combined, socialized labor, the
      entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this,
      the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the
      constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and
      monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the
      mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with
      this, too, grows the revolt of the working- class, a class always
      increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very
      mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of
      capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up
      and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of
      production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they
      become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is
      burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The
      expropriators are expropriated,<a href="#linknote-8" name="linknoteref-8"
      id="linknoteref-8"><small>8</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      That is all. Hardly another word from beginning to end is allowed to
      relieve the gloom, and in this relentless pressure upon the mind of the
      reader lies a great part of the power which this book has acquired.
    </p>
    <p>
      Two questions are raised by Marx's work: First, Are his laws of historical
      development true? Second, Is Socialism desirable? The second of these
      questions is quite independent of the first. Marx professes to prove that
      Socialism must come, but scarcely concerns himself to argue that when it
      comes it will be a good thing. It may be, however, that if it comes, it
      will be a good thing, even though all Marx's arguments to prove that it
      must come should be at fault. In actual fact, time has shown many flaws in
      Marx's theories. The development of the world has been sufficiently like
      his prophecy to prove him a man of very unusual penetration, but has not
      been sufficiently like to make either political or economic history
      exactly such as he predicted that it would be. Nationalism, so far from
      diminishing, has increased, and has failed to be conquered by the
      cosmopolitan tendencies which Marx rightly discerned in finance. Although
      big businesses have grown bigger and have over a great area reached the
      stage of monopoly, yet the number of shareholders in such enterprises is
      so large that the actual number of individuals interested in the
      capitalist system has continually increased. Moreover, though large firms
      have grown larger, there has been a simultaneous increase in firms of
      medium size. Meanwhile the wage-earners, who were, according to Marx, to
      have remained at the bare level of subsistence at which they were in the
      England of the first half of the nineteenth century, have instead profited
      by the general increase of wealth, though in a lesser degree than the
      capitalists. The supposed iron law of wages has been proved untrue, so far
      as labor in civilized countries is concerned. If we wish now to find
      examples of capitalist cruelty analogous to those with which Marx's book
      is filled, we shall have to go for most of our material to the Tropics, or
      at any rate to regions where there are men of inferior races to exploit.
      Again: the skilled worker of the present day is an aristocrat in the world
      of labor. It is a question with him whether he shall ally himself with the
      unskilled worker against the capitalist, or with the capitalist against
      the unskilled worker. Very often he is himself a capitalist in a small
      way, and if he is not so individually, his trade union or his friendly
      society is pretty sure to be so. Hence the sharpness of the class war has
      not been maintained. There are gradations, intermediate ranks between rich
      and poor, instead of the clear-cut logical antithesis between the workers
      who have nothing and the capitalists who have all. Even in Germany, which
      became the home of orthodox Marxianism and developed a powerful
      Social-Democratic party, nominally accepting the doctrine of "Das Kapital"
      as all but verbally inspired, even there the enormous increase of wealth
      in all classes in the years preceding the war led Socialists to revise
      their beliefs and to adopt an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary
      attitude. Bernstein, a German Socialist who lived long in England,
      inaugurated the "Revisionist" movement which at last conquered the bulk of
      the party. His criticisms of Marxian orthodoxy are set forth in his
      "Evolutionary Socialism."<a href="#linknote-9" name="linknoteref-9"
      id="linknoteref-9"><small>9</small></a> Bernstein's work, as is common in
      Broad Church writers, consists largely in showing that the Founders did
      not hold their doctrines so rigidly as their followers have done. There is
      much in the writings of Marx and Engels that cannot be fitted into the
      rigid orthodoxy which grew up among their disciples. Bernstein's main
      criticisms of these disciples, apart from such as we have already
      mentioned, consist in a defense of piecemeal action as against revolution.
      He protests against the attitude of undue hostility to Liberalism which is
      common among Socialists, and he blunts the edge of the Internationalism
      which undoubtedly is part of the teachings of Marx. The workers, he says,
      have a Fatherland as soon as they become citizens, and on this basis he
      defends that degree of nationalism which the war has since shown to be
      prevalent in the ranks of Socialists. He even goes so far as to maintain
      that European nations have a right to tropical territory owing to their
      higher civilization. Such doctrines diminish revolutionary ardor and tend
      to transform Socialists into a left wing of the Liberal Party. But the
      increasing prosperity of wage-earners before the war made these
      developments inevitable. Whether the war will have altered conditions in
      this respect, it is as yet impossible to know. Bernstein concludes with
      the wise remark that: "We have to take working men as they are. And they
      are neither so universally paupers as was set out in the Communist
      Manifesto, nor so free from prejudices and weaknesses as their courtiers
      wish to make us believe."
    </p>
    <p>
      In March, 1914, Bernstein delivered a lecture in Budapest in which he
      withdrew from several of the positions he had taken up (vide Budapest
      "Volkstimme," March 19, 1914).
    </p>
    <p>
      Berstein represents the decay of Marxian orthodoxy from within.
      Syndicalism represents an attack against it from without, from the
      standpoint of a doctrine which professes to be even more radical and more
      revolutionary than that of Marx and Engels. The attitude of Syndicalists
      to Marx may be seen in Sorel's little book, "La Decomposition du
      Marxisme," and in his larger work, "Reflections on Violence," authorized
      translation by T. E. Hulme (Allen &amp; Unwin, 1915). After quoting
      Bernstein, with approval in so far as he criticises Marx, Sorel proceeds
      to other criticisms of a different order. He points out (what is true)
      that Marx's theoretical economics remain very near to Manchesterism: the
      orthodox political economy of his youth was accepted by him on many points
      on which it is now known to be wrong. According to Sorel, the really
      essential thing in Marx's teaching is the class war. Whoever keeps this
      alive is keeping alive the spirit of Socialism much more truly than those
      who adhere to the letter of Social-Democratic orthodoxy. On the basis of
      the class war, French Syndicalists developed a criticism of Marx which
      goes much deeper than those that we have been hitherto considering. Marx's
      views on historical development may have been in a greater or less degree
      mistaken in fact, and yet the economic and political system which he
      sought to create might be just as desirable as his followers suppose.
      Syndicalism, however, criticises, not only Marx's views of fact, but also
      the goal at which he aims and the general nature of the means which he
      recommends. Marx's ideas were formed at a time when democracy did not yet
      exist. It was in the very year in which "Das Kapital" appeared that urban
      working men first got the vote in England and universal suffrage was
      granted by Bismarck in Northern Germany. It was natural that great hopes
      should be entertained as to what democracy would achieve. Marx, like the
      orthodox economists, imagined that men's opinions are guided by a more or
      less enlightened view of economic self-interest, or rather of economic
      class interest. A long experience of the workings of political democracy
      has shown that in this respect Disraeli and Bismarck were shrewder judges
      of human nature than either Liberals or Socialists. It has become
      increasingly difficult to put trust in the State as a means to liberty, or
      in political parties as instruments sufficiently powerful to force the
      State into the service of the people. The modern State, says Sorel, "is a
      body of intellectuals, which is invested with privileges, and which
      possesses means of the kind called political for defending itself against
      the attacks made on it by other groups of intellectuals, eager to possess
      the profits of public employment. Parties are constituted in order to
      acquire the conquest of these employments, and they are analogous to the
      State."<a href="#linknote-10" name="linknoteref-10" id="linknoteref-10"><small>10</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Syndicalists aim at organizing men, not by party, but by occupation. This,
      they say, alone represents the true conception and method of the class
      war. Accordingly they despise all POLITICAL action through the medium of
      Parliament and elections: the kind of action that they recommend is direct
      action by the revolutionary syndicate or trade union. The battle- cry of
      industrial versus political action has spread far beyond the ranks of
      French Syndicalism. It is to be found in the I. W. W. in America, and
      among Industrial Unionists and Guild Socialists in Great Britain. Those
      who advocate it, for the most part, aim also at a different goal from that
      of Marx. They believe that there can be no adequate individual freedom
      where the State is all-powerful, even if the State be a Socialist one.
      Some of them are out-and- out Anarchists, who wish to see the State wholly
      abolished; others only wish to curtail its authority. Owing to this
      movement, opposition to Marx, which from the Anarchist side existed from
      the first, has grown very strong. It is this opposition in its older form
      that will occupy us in our next chapter.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0002" id="link2HCH0002"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER II &mdash; BAKUNIN AND ANARCHISM
    </h2>
    <p>
      IN the popular mind, an Anarchist is a person who throws bombs and commits
      other outrages, either because he is more or less insane, or because he
      uses the pretense of extreme political opinions as a cloak for criminal
      proclivities. This view is, of course, in every way inadequate. Some
      Anarchists believe in throwing bombs; many do not. Men of almost every
      other shade of opinion believe in throwing bombs in suitable
      circumstances: for example, the men who threw the bomb at Sarajevo which
      started the present war were not Anarchists, but Nationalists. And those
      Anarchists who are in favor of bomb-throwing do not in this respect differ
      on any vital principle from the rest of the community, with the exception
      of that infinitesimal portion who adopt the Tolstoyan attitude of
      non-resistance. Anarchists, like Socialists, usually believe in the
      doctrine of the class war, and if they use bombs, it is as Governments use
      bombs, for purposes of war: but for every bomb manufactured by an
      Anarchist, many millions are manufactured by Governments, and for every
      man killed by Anarchist violence, many millions are killed by the violence
      of States. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds the whole question of
      violence, which plays so large a part in the popular imagination, since it
      is neither essential nor peculiar to those who adopt the Anarchist
      position.
    </p>
    <p>
      Anarchism, as its derivation indicates, is the theory which is opposed to
      every kind of forcible government. It is opposed to the State as the
      embodiment of the force employed in the government of the community. Such
      government as Anarchism can tolerate must be free government, not merely
      in the sense that it is that of a majority, but in the sense that it is
      that assented to by all. Anarchists object to such institutions as the
      police and the criminal law, by means of which the will of one part of the
      community is forced upon another part. In their view, the democratic form
      of government is not very enormously preferable to other forms so long as
      minorities are compelled by force or its potentiality to submit to the
      will of majorities. Liberty is the supreme good in the Anarchist creed,
      and liberty is sought by the direct road of abolishing all forcible
      control over the individual by the community.
    </p>
    <p>
      Anarchism, in this sense, is no new doctrine. It is set forth admirably by
      Chuang Tzu, a Chinese philosopher, who lived about the year 300 B. C.:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      Horses have hoofs to carry them over frost and snow; hair, to protect them
      from wind and cold. They eat grass and drink water, and fling up their
      heels over the champaign. Such is the real nature of horses. Palatial
      dwellings are of no use to them.
    </p>
    <p>
      One day Po Lo appeared, saying: "I understand the management of horses."
    </p>
    <p>
      So he branded them, and clipped them, and pared their hoofs, and put
      halters on them, tying them up by the head and shackling them by the feet,
      and disposing them in stables, with the result that two or three in every
      ten died. Then he kept them hungry and thirsty, trotting them and
      galloping them, and grooming, and trimming, with the misery of the
      tasselled bridle before and the fear of the knotted whip behind, until
      more than half of them were dead.
    </p>
    <p>
      The potter says: "I can do what I will with Clay. If I want it round, I
      use compasses; if rectangular, a square."
    </p>
    <p>
      The carpenter says: "I can do what I will with wood. If I want it curved,
      I use an arc; if straight, a line."
    </p>
    <p>
      But on what grounds can we think that the natures of clay and wood desire
      this application of compasses and square, of arc and line? Nevertheless,
      every age extols Po Lo for his skill in managing horses, and potters and
      carpenters for their skill with clay and wood. Those who govern the empire
      make the same mistake.
    </p>
    <p>
      Now I regard government of the empire from quite a different point of
      view.
    </p>
    <p>
      The people have certain natural instincts:&mdash;to weave and clothe
      themselves, to till and feed themselves. These are common to all humanity,
      and all are agreed thereon. Such instincts are called "Heaven-sent."
    </p>
    <p>
      And so in the days when natural instincts prevailed, men moved quietly and
      gazed steadily. At that time there were no roads over mountains, nor
      boats, nor bridges over water. All things were produced, each for its own
      proper sphere. Birds and beasts multiplied, trees and shrubs grew up. The
      former might be led by the hand; you could climb up and peep into the
      raven's nest. For then man dwelt with birds and beasts, and all creation
      was one. There were no distinctions of good and bad men. Being all equally
      without knowledge, their virtue could not go astray. Being all equally
      without evil desires, they were in a state of natural integrity, the
      perfection of human existence.
    </p>
    <p>
      But when Sages appeared, tripping up people over charity and fettering
      them with duty to their neighbor, doubt found its way into the world. And
      then, with their gushing over music and fussing over ceremony, the empire
      became divided against itself.<a href="#linknote-11" name="linknoteref-11"
      id="linknoteref-11"><small>11</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      The modern Anarchism, in the sense in which we shall be concerned with it,
      is associated with belief in the communal ownership of land and capital,
      and is thus in an important respect akin to Socialism. This doctrine is
      properly called Anarchist Com- munism, but as it embraces practically all
      modern Anarchism, we may ignore individualist Anarchism altogether and
      concentrate attention upon the communistic form. Socialism and Anarchist
      Communism alike have arisen from the perception that private capital is a
      source of tyranny by certain individuals over others. Orthodox Socialism
      believes that the individual will become free if the State becomes the
      sole capitalist. Anarchism, on the contrary, fears that in that case the
      State might merely inherit the tyrannical propensities of the private
      capitalist. Accordingly, it seeks for a means of reconciling communal
      ownership with the utmost possible diminution in the powers of the State,
      and indeed ultimately with the complete abolition of the State. It has
      arisen mainly within the Socialist movement as its extreme left wing.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the same sense in which Marx may be regarded as the founder of modern
      Socialism, Bakunin may be regarded as the founder of Anarchist Communism.
      But Bakunin did not produce, like Marx, a finished and systematic body of
      doctrine. The nearest approach to this will be found in the writings of
      his follower, Kropotkin. In order to explain modern Anarchism we shall
      begin with the life of Bakunin<a href="#linknote-12" name="linknoteref-12"
      id="linknoteref-12"><small>12</small></a> and the history of his conflicts
      with Marx, and shall then give a brief account of Anarchist theory as set
      forth partly in his writings, but more in those of Kropotkin.<a
      href="#linknote-13" name="linknoteref-13" id="linknoteref-13"><small>13</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Michel Bakunin was born in 1814 of a Russian aristocratic family. His
      father was a diplomatist, who at the time of Bakunin's birth had retired
      to his country estate in the Government of Tver. Bakunin entered the
      school of artillery in Petersburg at the age of fifteen, and at the age of
      eighteen was sent as an ensign to a regiment stationed in the Government
      of Minsk. The Polish insurrection of 1880 had just been crushed. "The
      spectacle of terrorized Poland," says Guillaume, "acted powerfully on the
      heart of the young officer, and contributed to inspire in him the horror
      of despotism." This led him to give up the military career after two
      years' trial. In 1834 he resigned his commission and went to Moscow, where
      he spent six years studying philosophy. Like all philosophical students of
      that period, he became a Hegelian, and in 1840 he went to Berlin to
      continue his studies, in the hope of ultimately becoming a professor. But
      after this time his opinions underwent a rapid change. He found it
      impossible to accept the Hegelian maxim that whatever is, is rational, and
      in 1842 he migrated to Dresden, where he became associated with Arnold
      Ruge, the publisher of "Deutsche Jahrbuecher." By this time he had become
      a revolutionary, and in the following year he incurred the hostility of
      the Saxon Government. This led him to go to Switzerland, where he came in
      contact with a group of German Communists, but, as the Swiss police
      importuned him and the Russian Government demanded his return, he removed
      to Paris, where he remained from 1843 to 1847. These years in Paris were
      important in the formation of his outlook and opinions. He became
      acquainted with Proudhon, who exercised a considerable influence on him;
      also with George Sand and many other well- known people. It was in Paris
      that he first made the acquaintance of Marx and Engels, with whom he was
      to carry on a lifelong battle. At a much later period, in 1871, he gave
      the following account of his relations with Marx at this time:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      Marx was much more advanced than I was, as he remains to-day not more
      advanced but incomparably more learned than I am. I knew then nothing of
      political economy. I had not yet rid myself of metaphysical abstractions,
      and my Socialism was only instinctive. He, though younger than I, was
      already an atheist, an instructed materialist, a well-considered
      Socialist. It was just at this time that he elaborated the first
      foundations of his present system. We saw each other fairly often, for I
      respected him much for his learning and his passionate and serious
      devotion (always mixed, however, with personal vanity) to the cause of the
      proletariat, and I sought eagerly his conversation, which was always
      instructive and clever, when it was not inspired by a paltry hate, which,
      alas! happened only too often. But there was never any frank intimacy
      between as. Our temperaments would not suffer it. He called me a
      sentimental idealist, and he was right; I called him a vain man,
      perfidious and crafty, and I also was right.
    </p>
    <p>
      Bakunin never succeeded in staying long in one place without incurring the
      enmity of the authorities. In November, 1847, as the result of a speech
      praising the Polish rising of 1830, he was expelled from France at the
      request of the Russian Embassy, which, in order to rob him of public
      sympathy, spread the unfounded report that he had been an agent of the
      Russian Government, but was no longer wanted because he had gone too far.
      The French Government, by calculated reticence, encouraged this story,
      which clung to him more or less throughout his life.
    </p>
    <p>
      Being compelled to leave France, he went to Brussels, where he renewed
      acquaintance with Marx. A letter of his, written at this time, shows that
      he entertained already that bitter hatred for which afterward he had so
      much reason. "The Germans, artisans, Bornstedt, Marx and Engels&mdash;and,
      above all, Marx&mdash;are here, doing their ordinary mischief. Vanity,
      spite, gossip, theoretical overbearingness and practical pusillanimity&mdash;reflections
      on life, action and simplicity, and complete absence of life, action and
      simplicity&mdash;literary and argumentative artisans and repulsive
      coquetry with them: `Feuerbach is a bourgeois,' and the word `bourgeois'
      grown into an epithet and repeated ad nauseum, but all of them themselves
      from head to foot, through and through, provincial bourgeois. With one
      word, lying and stupidity, stupidity and lying. In this society there is
      no possibility of drawing a free, full breath. I hold myself aloof from
      them, and have declared quite decidedly that I will not join their
      communistic union of artisans, and will have nothing to do with it."
    </p>
    <p>
      The Revolution of 1848 led him to return to Paris and thence to Germany.
      He had a quarrel with Marx over a matter in which he himself confessed
      later that Marx was in the right. He became a member of the Slav Congress
      in Prague, where he vainly endeavored to promote a Slav insurrection.
      Toward the end of 1848, he wrote an "Appeal to Slavs," calling on them to
      combine with other revolutionaries to destroy the three oppressive
      monarchies, Russia, Austria and Prussia. Marx attacked him in print,
      saying, in effect, that the movement for Bohemian independence was futile
      because the Slavs had no future, at any rate in those regions where they
      hap- pened to be subject to Germany and Austria. Bakunin accused Mars of
      German patriotism in this matter, and Marx accused him of Pan-Slavism, no
      doubt in both cases justly. Before this dispute, however, a much more
      serious quarrel had taken place. Marx's paper, the "Neue Rheinische
      Zeitung," stated that George Sand had papers proving Bakunin to be a
      Russian Government agent and one of those responsible for the recent
      arrest of Poles. Bakunin, of course, repudiated the charge, and George
      Sand wrote to the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung," denying this statement in
      toto. The denials were published by Marx, and there was a nominal
      reconciliation, but from this time onward there was never any real
      abatement of the hostility between these rival leaders, who did not meet
      again until 1864.
    </p>
    <p>
      Meanwhile, the reaction had been everywhere gaining ground. In May, 1849,
      an insurrection in Dresden for a moment made the revolutionaries masters
      of the town. They held it for five days and established a revolutionary
      government. Bakunin was the soul of the defense which they made against
      the Prussian troops. But they were overpowered, and at last Bakunin was
      captured while trying to escape with Heubner and Richard Wagner, the last
      of whom, fortunately for music, was not captured.
    </p>
    <p>
      Now began a long period of imprisonment in many prisons and various
      countries. Bakunin was sentenced to death on the 14th of January, 1850,
      but his sentence was commuted after five months, and he was delivered over
      to Austria, which claimed the privilege of punishing him. The Austrians,
      in their turn, condemned him to death in May, 1851, and again his sentence
      was commuted to imprisonment for life. In the Austrian prisons he had
      fetters on hands and feet, and in one of them he was even chained to the
      wall by the belt. There seems to have been some peculiar pleasure to be
      derived from the punishment of Bakunin, for the Russian Government in its
      turn demanded him of the Austrians, who delivered him up. In Russia he was
      confined, first in the Peter and Paul fortress and then in the
      Schluesselburg. There be suffered from scurvy and all his teeth fell out.
      His health gave way completely, and he found almost all food impossible to
      assimilate. "But, if his body became enfeebled, his spirit remained
      inflexible. He feared one thing above all. It was to find himself some day
      led, by the debilitating action of prison, to the condition of degradation
      of which Silvio Pellico offers a well-known type. He feared that he might
      cease to hate, that he might feel the sentiment of revolt which upheld him
      becoming extinguished in his hearts that he might come to pardon his
      persecutors and resign himself to his fate. But this fear was superfluous;
      his energy did not abandon him a single day, and he emerged from his cell
      the same man as when he entered."<a href="#linknote-14"
      name="linknoteref-14" id="linknoteref-14"><small>14</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      After the death of the Tsar Nicholas many political prisoners were
      amnested, but Alexander II with his own hand erased Bakunin's name from
      the list. When Bakunin's mother succeeded in obtaining an interview with
      the new Tsar, he said to her, "Know, Madame, that so long as your son
      lives, he can never be free." However, in 1857, after eight years of
      captivity, he was sent to the comparative freedom of Siberia. From there,
      in 1861, he succeeded in escaping to Japan, and thence through America to
      London. He had been imprisoned for his hostility to governments, but,
      strange to say, his sufferings had not had the intended effect of making
      him love those who inflicted them. From this time onward, he devoted
      himself to spreading the spirit of Anarchist revolt, without, however,
      having to suffer any further term of imprisonment. For some years he lived
      in Italy, where he founded in 1864 an "International Fraternity" or
      "Alliance of Socialist Revolutionaries." This contained men of many
      countries, but apparently no Germans. It devoted itself largely to
      combating Mazzini's nationalism. In 1867 he moved to Switzerland, where in
      the following year he helped to found the "International Alliance of So-
      cialist Democracy," of which he drew up the program. This program gives a
      good succinct resume of his opinions:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      The Alliance declares itself atheist; it desires the definitive and entire
      abolition of classes and the political equality and social equalization of
      individuals of both sexes. It desires that the earth, the instrument of
      labor, like all other capital, becoming the collective property of society
      as a whole, shall be no longer able to be utilized except by the workers,
      that is to say, by agricultural and industrial associations. It recognizes
      that all actually existing political and authoritarian States, reducing
      themselves more and more to the mere administrative functions of the
      public services in their respective countries, must disappear in the
      universal union of free associations, both agricultural and industrial.
    </p>
    <p>
      The International Alliance of Socialist Democracy desired to become a
      branch of the International Working Men's Association, but was refused
      admission on the ground that branches must be local, and could not
      themselves be international. The Geneva group of the Alliance, however,
      was admitted later, in July, 1869.
    </p>
    <p>
      The International Working Men's Association had been founded in London in
      1864, and its statutes and program were drawn up by Marx. Bakunin at first
      did not expect it to prove a success and refused to join it. But it spread
      with remarkable rapidity in many countries and soon became a great power
      for the propagation of Socialist ideas. Originally it was by no means
      wholly Socialist, but in successive Congresses Marx won it over more and
      more to his views. At its third Congress, in Brussels in September, 1868,
      it became definitely Socialist. Meanwhile Bakunin, regretting his earlier
      abstention, had decided to join it, and he brought with him a considerable
      following in French-Switzerland, France, Spain and Italy. At the fourth
      Congress, held at Basle in September, 1869, two currents were strongly
      marked. The Germans and English followed Marx in his belief in the State
      as it was to become after the abolition of private property; they followed
      him also in his desire to found Labor Parties in the various countries,
      and to utilize the machinery of democracy for the election of
      representatives of Labor to Parliaments. On the other hand, the Latin
      nations in the main followed Bakunin in opposing the State and
      disbelieving in the machinery of representative government. The conflict
      between these two groups grew more and more bitter, and each accused the
      other of various offenses. The statement that Bakunin was a spy was
      repeated, but was withdrawn after investigation. Marx wrote in a
      confidential communication to his German friends that Bakunin was an agent
      of the Pan-Slavist party and received from them 25,000 francs a year.
      Meanwhile, Bakunin became for a time interested in the attempt to stir up
      an agrarian revolt in Russia, and this led him to neglect the contest in
      the International at a crucial moment. During the Franco-Prussian war
      Bakunin passionately took the side of France, especially after the fall of
      Napoleon III. He endeavored to rouse the people to revolutionary
      resistance like that of 1793, and became involved in an abortive attempt
      at revolt in Lyons. The French Government accused him of being a paid
      agent of Prussia, and it was with difficulty that he escaped to
      Switzerland. The dispute with Marx and his followers had become
      exacerbated by the national dispute. Bakunin, like Kropotkin after him,
      regarded the new power of Germany as the greatest menace to liberty in the
      world. He hated the Germans with a bitter hatred, partly, no doubt, on
      account of Bismarck, but probably still more on account of Marx. To this
      day, Anarchism has remained confined almost exclusively to the Latin
      countries, and has been associated with, a hatred of Germany, growing out
      of the contests between Marx and Bakunin in the International.
    </p>
    <p>
      The final suppression of Bakunin's faction occurred at the General
      Congress of the International at the Hague in 1872. The meeting-place was
      chosen by the General Council (in which Marx was unopposed), with a view&mdash;so
      Bakunin's friends contend&mdash; to making access impossible for Bakunin
      (on account of the hostility of the French and German governments) and
      difficult for his friends. Bakunin was expelled from the International as
      the result of a report accusing him inter alia of theft backed; up by
      intimidation.
    </p>
    <p>
      The orthodoxy of the International was saved, but at the cost of its
      vitality. From this time onward, it ceased to be itself a power, but both
      sections continued to work in their various groups, and the Socialist
      groups in particular grew rapidly. Ultimately a new International was
      formed (1889) which continued down to the outbreak of the present war. As
      to the future of International Socialism it would be rash to prophesy,
      though it would seem that the international idea has acquired sufficient
      strength to need again, after the war, some such means of expression as it
      found before in Socialist congresses.
    </p>
    <p>
      By this time Bakunin's health was broken, and except for a few brief
      intervals, he lived in retirement until his death in 1876.
    </p>
    <p>
      Bakunin's life, unlike Marx's, was a very stormy one. Every kind of
      rebellion against authority always aroused his sympathy, and in his
      support he never paid the slightest attention to personal risk. His
      influence, undoubtedly very great, arose chiefly through the influence of
      his personality upon important individuals. His writings differ from
      Marx's as much as his life does, and in a similar way. They are chaotic,
      largely, aroused by some passing occasion, abstract and metaphysical,
      except when they deal with current politics. He does not come to close
      quarters with economic facts, but dwells usually in the regions of theory
      and metaphysics. When he descends from these regions, he is much more at
      the mercy of current international politics than Marx, much less imbued
      with the consequences of the belief that it is economic causes that are
      fundamental. He praised Marx for enunciating this doctrine,<a
      href="#linknote-15" name="linknoteref-15" id="linknoteref-15"><small>15</small></a>
      but nevertheless continued to think in terms of nations. His longest work,
      "L'Empire Knouto-Germanique et la Revolution Sociale," is mainly concerned
      with the situation in France during the later stages of the
      Franco-Prussian War, and with the means of resisting German imperialism.
      Most of his writing was done in a hurry in the interval between two
      insurrections. There is something of Anarchism in his lack of literary
      order. His best-known work is a fragment entitled by its editors "God and
      the State."<a href="#linknote-16" name="linknoteref-16" id="linknoteref-16"><small>16</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      In this work he represents belief in God and belief in the State as the
      two great obstacles to human liberty. A typical passage will serve to
      illustrate its style.
    </p>
    <p>
      The State is not society, it is only an historical form of it, as brutal
      as it is abstract. It was born historically in all countries of the
      marriage of violence, rapine, pillage, in a word, war and conquest, with
      the gods successively created by the theological fantasy of nations. It
      has been from its origin, and it remains still at present, the divine
      sanction of brutal force and triumphant inequality.
    </p>
    <p>
      The State is authority; it is force; it is the ostentation and infatuation
      of force: it does not insinuate itself; it does not seek to convert. . . .
      Even when it commands what is good, it hinders and spoils it, just because
      it commands it, and because every command provokes and excites the
      legitimate revolts of liberty; and because the good, from the moment that
      it is commanded, becomes evil from the point of view of true morality, of
      human morality (doubtless not of divine), from the point of view of human
      respect and of liberty. Liberty, morality, and the human dignity of man
      consist precisely in this, that he does good, not because it is commanded,
      but because he conceives it, wills it and loves it.
    </p>
    <p>
      We do not find in Bakunin's works a clear picture of the society at which
      he aimed, or any argument to prove that such a society could be stable. If
      we wish to understand Anarchism we must turn to his followers, and
      especially to Kropotkin&mdash;like him, a Russian aristocrat familiar with
      the prisons of Europe, and, like him, an Anarchist who, in spite of his
      internationalism, is imbued with a fiery hatred of the Germans.
    </p>
    <p>
      Kropotkin has devoted much of his writing to technical questions of
      production. In "Fields, Factories and Workshops" and "The Conquest of
      Bread" he has set himself to prove that, if production were more
      scientific and better organized, a comparatively small amount of quite
      agreeable work would suffice to keep the whole population in comfort. Even
      assuming, as we probably must, that he somewhat exaggerates what is
      possible with our present scientific knowledge, it must nevertheless be
      conceded that his contentions contain a very large measure of truth. In
      attacking the subject of production he has shown that he knows what is the
      really crucial question. If civilization and progress are to be compatible
      with equality, it is necessary that equality should not involve long hours
      of painful toil for little more than the necessaries of life, since, where
      there is no leisure, art and science will die and all progress will become
      impossible. The objection which some feel to Socialism and Anarchism alike
      on this ground cannot be upheld in view of the possible productivity of
      labor.
    </p>
    <p>
      The system at which Kropotkin aims, whether or not it be possible, is
      certainly one which demands a very great improvement in the methods of
      production above what is common at present. He desires to abolish wholly
      the system of wages, not only, as most Socialists do, in the sense that a
      man is to be paid rather for his willingness to work than for the actual
      work demanded of him, but in a more fundamental sense: there is to be no
      obligation to work, and all things are to be shared in equal proportions
      among the whole population. Kropotkin relies upon the possibility of
      making work pleasant: he holds that, in such a community as he foresees,
      practically everyone will prefer work to idleness, because work will not
      involve overwork or slavery, or that excessive specialization that
      industrialism has brought about, but will be merely a pleasant activity
      for certain hours of the day, giving a man an outlet for his spontaneous
      constructive impulses. There is to be no compulsion, no law, no government
      exercising force; there will still be acts of the community, but these are
      to spring from universal consent, not from any enforced submission of even
      the smallest minority. We shall examine in a later chapter how far such an
      ideal is realizable, but it cannot be denied that Kropotkin presents it
      with extraordinary persuasiveness and charm.
    </p>
    <p>
      We should be doing more than justice to Anarchism if we did not say
      something of its darker side, the side which has brought it into conflict
      with the police and made it a word of terror to ordinary citizens. In its
      general doctrines there is nothing essentially involving violent methods
      or a virulent hatred of the rich, and many who adopt these general
      doctrines are personally gentle and temperamentally averse from violence.
      But the general tone of the Anarchist press and public is bitter to a
      degree that seems scarcely sane, and the appeal, especially in Latin
      countries, is rather to envy of the fortunate than to pity for the
      unfortunate. A vivid and readable, though not wholly reliable, account,
      from a hostile point of view, is given in a book called "Le Peril
      Anarchiste," by Felix Dubois,<a href="#linknote-17" name="linknoteref-17"
      id="linknoteref-17"><small>17</small></a> which incidentally reproduces a
      number of cartoons from anarchist journals. The revolt against law
      naturally leads, except in those who are controlled by a real passion for
      humanity, to a relaxation of all the usually accepted moral rules, and to
      a bitter spirit of retaliatory cruelty out of which good can hardly come.
    </p>
    <p>
      One of the most curious features of popular Anarchism is its martyrology,
      aping Christian forms, with the guillotine (in France) in place of the
      cross. Many who have suffered death at the hands of the authorities on
      account of acts of violence were no doubt genuine sufferers for their
      belief in a cause, but others, equally honored, are more questionable. One
      of the most curious examples of this outlet for the repressed religious
      impulse is the cult of Ravachol, who was guillotined in 1892 on account of
      various dynamite outrages. His past was dubious, but he died defiantly;
      his last words were three lines from a well-known Anarchist song, the
      "Chant du Pere Duchesne":&mdash;
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
          Si tu veux etre heureux,
               Nom de Dieu!
          Pends ton proprietaire.
</pre>
    <p>
      As was natural, the leading Anarchists took no part in the canonization of
      his memory; nevertheless it proceeded, with the most amazing
      extravagances.
    </p>
    <p>
      It would be wholly unfair to judge Anarchist doctrine, or the views of its
      leading exponents, by such phenomena; but it remains a fact that Anarchism
      attracts to itself much that lies on the borderland of insanity and common
      crime.<a href="#linknote-18" name="linknoteref-18" id="linknoteref-18"><small>18</small></a>
      This must be remembered in exculpation of the authorities and the
      thoughtless public, who often confound in a common detestation the
      parasites of the movement and the truly heroic and high-minded men who
      have elaborated its theories and sacrificed comfort and success to their
      propagation.
    </p>
    <p>
      The terrorist campaign in which such men as Ravachol were active
      practically came to an end in 1894. After that time, under the influence
      of Pelloutier, the better sort of Anarchists found a less harmful outlet
      by advocating Revolutionary Syndicalism in the Trade Unions and Bourses du
      Travail.<a href="#linknote-19" name="linknoteref-19" id="linknoteref-19"><small>19</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      The ECONOMIC organization of society, as conceived by Anarchist
      Communists, does not differ greatly from that which is sought by
      Socialists. Their difference from Socialists is in the matter of
      government: they demand that government shall require the consent of all
      the governed, and not only of a majority. It is undeniable that the rule
      of a majority may be almost as hostile to freedom as the rule of a
      minority: the divine right of majorities is a dogma as little possessed of
      absolute truth as any other. A strong democratic State may easily be led
      into oppression of its best citizens, namely, those those independence of
      mind would make them a force for progress. Experience of democratic
      parliamentary government has shown that it falls very far short of what
      was expected of it by early Socialists, and the Anarchist revolt against
      it is not surprising. But in the form of pure Anarchism, this revolt has
      remained weak and sporadic. It is Syndicalism, and the movements to which
      Syndicalism has given rise, that have popularized the revolt against
      parliamentary government and purely political means of emancipating the
      wage earner. But this movement must be dealt with in a separate chapter.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0003" id="link2HCH0003"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER III &mdash; THE SYNDICALIST REVOLT
    </h2>
    <p>
      SYNDICALISM arose in France as a revolt against political Socialism, and
      in order to understand it we must trace in brief outline the positions
      attained by Socialist parties in the various countries.
    </p>
    <p>
      After a severe setback, caused by the Franco- Prussian war, Socialism
      gradually revived, and in all the countries of Western Europe Socialist
      parties have increased their numerical strength almost continuously during
      the last forty years; but, as is invariably the case with a growing sect,
      the intensity of faith has diminished as the number of believers has
      increased.
    </p>
    <p>
      In Germany the Socialist party became the strongest faction of the
      Reichstag, and, in spite of differences of opinion among its members, it
      preserved its formal unity with that instinct for military discipline
      which characterizes the German nation. In the Reichstag election of 1912
      it polled a third of the total number of votes cast, and returned 110
      members out of a total of 397. After the death of Bebel, the Revisionists,
      who received their first impulse from Bernstein, overcame the more strict
      Marxians, and the party became in effect merely one of advanced
      Radicalism. It is too soon to guess what will be the effect of the split
      between Majority and Minority Socialists which has occurred during the
      war. There is in Germany hardly a trace of Syndicalism; its characteristic
      doctrine, the preference of industrial to political action, has found
      scarcely any support.
    </p>
    <p>
      In England Marx has never had many followers. Socialism there has been
      inspired in the main by the Fabians (founded in 1883), who threw over the
      advocacy of revolution, the Marxian doctrine of value, and the class-war.
      What remained was State Socialism and a doctrine of "permeation." Civil
      servants were to be permeated with the realization that Socialism would
      enormously increase their power. Trade Unions were to be permeated with
      the belief that the day for purely industrial action was past, and that
      they must look to government (inspired secretly by sympathetic civil
      servants) to bring about, bit by bit, such parts of the Socialist program
      as were not likely to rouse much hostility in the rich. The Independent
      Labor Party (formed in 1893) was largely inspired at first by the ideas of
      the Fabians, though retaining to the present day, and especially since the
      outbreak of the war, much more of the original Socialist ardor. It aimed
      always at co-operation with the industrial organizations of wage-earners,
      and, chiefly through its efforts, the Labor Party<a href="#linknote-20"
      name="linknoteref-20" id="linknoteref-20"><small>20</small></a> was formed
      in 1900 out of a combination of the Trade Unions and the political
      Socialists. To this party, since 1909, all the important Unions have
      belonged, but in spite of the fact that its strength is derived from Trade
      Unions, it has stood always for political rather than industrial action.
      Its Socialism has been of a theoretical and academic order, and in
      practice, until the outbreak of war, the Labor members in Parliament (of
      whom 30 were elected in 1906 and 42 in December, 1910) might be reckoned
      almost as a part of the Liberal Party.
    </p>
    <p>
      France, unlike England and Germany, was not content merely to repeat the
      old shibboleths with continually diminishing conviction. In France<a
      href="#linknote-21" name="linknoteref-21" id="linknoteref-21"><small>21</small></a>
      a new movement, originally known as Revolutionary Syndicalism&mdash;and
      afterward simply as Syndicalism&mdash; kept alive the vigor of the
      original impulse, and remained true to the spirit of the older Socialists,
      while departing from the letter. Syndicalism, unlike Socialism and
      Anarchism, began from an existing organization and developed the ideas
      appropriate to it, whereas Socialism and Anarchism began with the ideas
      and only afterward developed the organizations which were their vehicle.
      In order to understand Syndicalism, we have first to describe Trade Union
      organization in France, and its political environment. The ideas of
      Syndicalism will then appear as the natural outcome of the political and
      economic situation. Hardly any of these ideas are new; almost all are
      derived from the Bakunist section of the old International.
      The old International had considerable success in France before the
      Franco- Prussian War; indeed, in 1869, it is estimated to have had a
      French membership of a quarter of a million. What is practically the
      Syndicalist program was advocated by a French delegate to the Congress of
      the International at Bale in that same year.<a href="#linknote-22"
      name="linknoteref-22" id="linknoteref-22"><small>22</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      The war of 1870 put an end for the time being to the Socialist Movement in
      France. Its revival was begun by Jules Guesde in 1877. Unlike the Ger- man
      Socialists, the French have been split into many different factions. In
      the early eighties there was a split between the Parliamentary Socialists
      and the Communist Anarchists. The latter thought that the first act of the
      Social Revolution should be the destruction of the State, and would
      therefore have nothing to do with Parliamentary politics. The Anarchists,
      from 1883 onward, had success in Paris and the South. The Socialists
      contended that the State will disappear after the Socialist society has
      been firmly established. In 1882 the Socialists split between the
      followers of Guesde, who claimed to represent the revolutionary and
      scientific Socialism of Marx, and the followers of Paul Brousse, who were
      more opportunist and were also called possibilists and cared little for
      the theories of Marx. In 1890 there was a secession from the Broussists,
      who followed Allemane and absorbed the more revolutionary elements of the
      party and became leading spirits in some of the strongest syndicates.
      Another group was the Independent Socialists, among whom were Jaures,
      Millerand and Viviani.<a href="#linknote-23" name="linknoteref-23"
      id="linknoteref-23"><small>23</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      The disputes between the various sections of Socialists caused
      difficulties in the Trade Unions and helped to bring about the resolution
      to keep politics out of the Unions. From this to Syndicalism was an easy
      step.
    </p>
    <p>
      Since the year 1905, as the result of a union between the Parti Socialiste
      de France (Part; Ouvrier Socialiste Revolutionnaire Francais led by
      Guesde) and the Parti Socialiste Francais (Jaures), there have been only
      two groups of Socialists, the United Socialist Party and the Independents,
      who are intellectuals or not willing to be tied to a party. At the General
      Election of 1914 the former secured 102 members and the latter 30, out of
      a total of 590.
    </p>
    <p>
      Tendencies toward a rapprochement between the various groups were
      seriously interfered with by an event which had considerable importance
      for the whole development of advanced political ideas in France, namely,
      the acceptance of office in the Waldeck- Rousseau Ministry by the
      Socialist Millerand in 1899. Millerand, as was to be expected, soon ceased
      to be a Socialist, and the opponents of political action pointed to his
      development as showing the vanity of political triumphs. Very many French
      politicians who have risen to power have begun their political career as
      Socialists, and have ended it not infrequently by employing the army to
      oppress strikers. Millerand's action was the most notable and dramatic
      among a number of others of a similar kind. Their cumulative effect has
      been to produce a certain cynicism in regard to politics among the more
      class-conscious of French wage-earners, and this state of mind greatly
      assisted the spread of Syndicalism.
    </p>
    <p>
      Syndicalism stands essentially for the point of view of the producer as
      opposed to that of the consumer; it is concerned with reforming actual
      work, and the organization of industry, not MERELY with securing greater
      rewards for work. From this point of view its vigor and its distinctive
      character are derived. It aims at substituting industrial for political
      action, and at using Trade Union organization for purposes for which
      orthodox Socialism would look to Parliament. "Syndicalism" was originally
      only the French name for Trade Unionism, but the Trade Unionists of France
      became divided into two sections, the Reformist and the Revolutionary, of
      whom the latter only professed the ideas which we now associate with the
      term "Syndicalism." It is quite impossible to guess how far either the
      organization or the ideas of the Syndicalists will remain intact at the
      end of the war, and everything that we shall say is to be taken as
      applying only to the years before the war. It may be that French
      Syndicalism as a distinctive movement will be dead, but even in that case
      it will not have lost its importance, since it has given a new impulse and
      direction to the more vigorous part of the labor movement in all civilized
      countries, with the possible exception of Germany.
    </p>
    <p>
      The organization upon which Syndicalism de- pended was the Confederation
      Generale du Travail, commonly known as the C. G. T., which was founded in
      1895, but only achieved its final form in 1902. It has never been
      numerically very powerful, but has derived its influence from the fact
      that in moments of crisis many who were not members were willing to follow
      its guidance. Its membership in the year before the war is estimated by
      Mr. Cole at somewhat more than half a million. Trade Unions (Syndicats)
      were legalized by Waldeck-Rousseau in 1884, and the C. G. T., on its
      inauguration in 1895, was formed by the Federation of 700 Syndicats.
      Alongside of this organization there existed another, the Federation des
      Bourses du Travail, formed in 1893. A Bourse du Travail is a local
      organization, not of any one trade, but of local labor in general,
      intended to serve as a Labor Exchange and to perform such functions for
      labor as Chambers of Commerce perform for the employer.<a
      href="#linknote-24" name="linknoteref-24" id="linknoteref-24"><small>24</small></a>
      A Syndicat is in general a local organization of a single industry, and is
      thus a smaller unit than the Bourse du Travail.<a href="#linknote-25"
      name="linknoteref-25" id="linknoteref-25"><small>25</small></a> Under the
      able leadership of Pelloutier, the Federation des Bourses prospered more
      than the C. G. T., and at last, in 1902, coalesced with it. The result was
      an organization in which the local Syndicat was fed- erated twice over,
      once with the other Syndicat in its locality, forming together the local
      Bourse du Travail, and again with the Syndicats in the same industry in
      other places. "It was the purpose of the new organization to secure twice
      over the membership of every syndicat, to get it to join both its local
      Bourse du Travail and the Federation of its industry. The Statutes of the
      C. G. T. (I. 3) put this point plainly: `No Syndicat will be able to form
      a part of the C. G. T. if it is not federated nationally and an adherent
      of a Bourse du Travail or a local or departmental Union of Syndicats
      grouping different associations.' Thus, M. Lagardelle explains, the two
      sections will correct each other's point of view: national federation of
      industries will prevent parochialism (localisme), and local organization
      will check the corporate or `Trade Union' spirit. The workers will learn
      at once the solidarity of all workers in a locality and that of all
      workers in a trade, and, in learning this, they will learn at the same
      time the complete solidarity of the whole working-class."<a
      href="#linknote-26" name="linknoteref-26" id="linknoteref-26"><small>26</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      This organization was largely the work of Pellouties, who was Secretary of
      the Federation des Bourses from 1894 until his death in 1901. He was an
      Anarchist Communist and impressed his ideas upon the Federation and thence
      posthumously on the C. G. T. after its combination with the Federation des
      Bourses. He even carried his principles into the government of the
      Federation; the Committee had no chairman and votes very rarely took
      place. He stated that "the task of the revolution is to free mankind, not
      only from all authority, but also from every institution which has not for
      its essential purpose the development of production."
    </p>
    <p>
      The C. G. T. allows much autonomy to each unit in the organization. Each
      Syndicat counts for one, whether it be large or small. There are not the
      friendly society activities which form so large a part of the work of
      English Unions. It gives no orders, but is purely advisory. It does not
      allow politics to be introduced into the Unions. This decision was
      originally based upon the fact that the divisions among Socialists
      disrupted the Unions, but it is now reinforced in the minds of an
      important section by the general Anarchist dislike of politics. The C. G.
      T. is essentially a fighting organization; in strikes, it is the nucleus
      to which the other workers rally.
    </p>
    <p>
      There is a Reformist section in the C. G. T., but it is practically always
      in a minority, and the C. G. T. is, to all intents and purposes, the organ
      of revolutionary Syndicalism, which is simply the creed of its leaders.
    </p>
    <p>
      The essential doctrine of Syndicalism is the class- war, to be conducted
      by industrial rather than politi- cal methods. The chief industrial
      methods advocated are the strike, the boycott, the label and sabotage.
    </p>
    <p>
      The boycott, in various forms, and the label, showing that the work has
      been done under trade- union conditions, have played a considerable part
      in American labor struggles.
    </p>
    <p>
      Sabotage is the practice of doing bad work, or spoiling machinery or work
      which has already been done, as a method of dealing with employers in a
      dispute when a strike appears for some reason undesirable or impossible.
      It has many forms, some clearly innocent, some open to grave objections.
      One form of sabotage which has been adopted by shop assistants is to tell
      customers the truth about the articles they are buying; this form, however
      it may damage the shopkeeper's business, is not easy to object to on moral
      grounds. A form which has been adopted on railways, particularly in
      Italian strikes, is that of obeying all rules literally and exactly, in
      such a way as to make the running of trains practically impossible.
      Another form is to do all the work with minute care, so that in the end it
      is better done, but the output is small. From these innocent forms there
      is a continual progression, until we come to such acts as all ordinary
      morality would consider criminal; for example, causing railway accidents.
      Advocates of sabotage justify it as part of war, but in its more violent
      forms (in which it is seldom defended) it is cruel and probably
      inexpedient, while even in its milder forms it must tend to encourage
      slovenly habits of work, which might easily persist under the new regime
      that the Syndicalists wish to introduce. At the same time, when
      capitalists express a moral horror of this method, it is worth while to
      observe that they themselves are the first to practice it when the
      occasion seems to them appropriate. If report speaks truly, an example of
      this on a very large scale has been seen during the Russian Revolution.
    </p>
    <p>
      By far the most important of the Syndicalist methods is the strike.
      Ordinary strikes, for specific objects, are regarded as rehearsals, as a
      means of perfecting organization and promoting enthusiasm, but even when
      they are victorious so far as concerns the specific point in dispute, they
      are not regarded by Syndicalists as affording any ground for industrial
      peace. Syndicalists aim at using the strike, not to secure such
      improvements of detail as employers may grant, but to destroy the whole
      system of employer and employed and win the complete emancipation of the
      worker. For this purpose what is wanted is the General Strike, the
      complete cessation of work by a sufficient proportion of the wage-earners
      to secure the paralysis of capitalism. Sorel, who represents Syndicalism
      too much in the minds of the reading public, suggests that the General
      Strike is to be regarded as a myth, like the Second Coming in Christian
      doctrine. But this view by no means suits the active Syndicalists. If they
      were brought to believe that the General Strike is a mere myth, their
      energy would flag, and their whole outlook would become disillusioned. It
      is the actual, vivid belief in its possibility which inspires them. They
      are much criticised for this belief by the political Socialists who
      consider that the battle is to be won by obtaining a Parliamentary
      majority. But Syndicalists have too little faith in the honesty of
      politicians to place any reliance on such a method or to believe in the
      value of any revolution which leaves the power of the State intact.
    </p>
    <p>
      Syndicalist aims are somewhat less definite than Syndicalist methods. The
      intellectuals who endeavor to interpret them&mdash;not always very
      faithfully&mdash; represent them as a party of movement and change,
      following a Bergsonian elan vital, without needing any very clear
      prevision of the goal to which it is to take them. Nevertheless, the
      negative part, at any rate, of their objects is sufficiently clear.
    </p>
    <p>
      They wish to destroy the State, which they regard as a capitalist
      institution, designed essentially to terrorize the workers. They refuse to
      believe that it would be any better under State Socialism. They desire to
      see each industry self-governing, but as to the means of adjusting the
      relations between different industries, they are not very clear. They are
      anti-militarist because they are anti-State, and because French troops
      have often been employed against them in strikes; also because they are
      internationalists, who believe that the sole interest of the working man
      everywhere is to free himself from the tyranny of the capitalist. Their
      outlook on life is the very reverse of pacifist, but they oppose wars
      between States on the ground that these are not fought for objects that in
      any way concern the workers. Their anti-militarism, more than anything
      else, brought them into conflict with the authorities in the years
      preceding the war. But, as was to be expected, it did not survive the
      actual invasion of France.
    </p>
    <p>
      The doctrines of Syndicalism may be illustrated by an article introducing
      it to English readers in the first number of "The Syndicalist Railwayman,"
      September, 1911, from which the following is quoted:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      "All Syndicalism, Collectivism, Anarchism aims at abolishing the present
      economic status and existing private ownership of most things; but while
      Collectivism would substitute ownership by everybody, and Anarchism
      ownership by nobody, Syndicalism aims at ownership by Organized Labor. It
      is thus a purely Trade Union reading of the economic doctrine and the
      class war preached by Socialism. It vehemently repudiates Parliamentary
      action on which Collectivism relies; and it is, in this respect, much more
      closely allied to Anarchism, from which, indeed, it differs in practice
      only in being more limited in range of action." (Times, Aug. 25, 1911).
    </p>
    <p>
      In truth, so thin is the partition between Syndicalism and Anarchism that
      the newer and less familiar "ism" has been shrewdly defined as "Organized
      Anarchy." It has been created by the Trade Unions of France; but it is
      obviously an international plant, whose roots have already found the soil
      of Britain most congenial to its growth and fructification.
    </p>
    <p>
      Collectivist or Marxian Socialism would have us believe that it is
      distinctly a LABOR Movement; but it is not so. Neither is Anarchism. The
      one is substantially bourgeois; the other aristocratic, plus an abundant
      output of book-learning, in either case. Syndicalism, on the contrary, is
      indubitably laborist in origin and aim, owing next to nothing to the
      "Classes," and, indeed,, resolute to uproot them. The Times (Oct. 13,
      1910), which almost single-handed in the British Press has kept creditably
      abreast of Continental Syndicalism, thus clearly set forth the
      significance of the General Strike:
    </p>
    <p>
      "To understand what it means, we must remember that there is in France a
      powerful Labor Organization which has for its open and avowed object a
      Revolution, in which not only the present order of Society, but the State
      itself, is to be swept away. This movement is called Syndicalism. It is
      not Socialism, but, on the contrary, radically opposed to Socialism,
      because the Syndicalists hold that the State is the great enemy and that
      the Socialists' ideal of State or Collectivist Ownership would make the
      lot of the Workers much worse than it is now under private employers. The
      means by which they hope to attain their end is the General Strike, an
      idea which was invented by a French workman about twenty years ago,<a
      href="#linknote-27" name="linknoteref-27" id="linknoteref-27"><small>27</small></a>
      and was adopted by the French Labor Congress in 1894, after a furious
      battle with the Socialists, in which the latter were worsted. Since then
      the General Strike has been the avowed policy of the Syndicalists, whose
      organization is the Confederation Generale du Travail."
    </p>
    <p>
      Or, to put it otherwise, the intelligent French worker has awakened, as he
      believes, to the fact that Society (Societas) and the State (Civitas)
      connote two separable spheres of human activity, between which there is no
      connection, necessary or desirable. Without the one, man, being a
      gregarious animal, cannot subsist: while without the other he would simply
      be in clover. The "statesman" whom office does not render positively
      nefarious is at best an expensive superfluity.
    </p>
    <p>
      Syndicalists have had many violent encounters with the forces of
      government. In 1907 and 1908, protesting against bloodshed which had
      occurred in the suppression of strikes, the Committee of the C. G. T.
      issued manifestoes speaking of the Government as "a Government of
      assassins" and alluding to the Prime Minister as "Clemenceau the
      murderer." Similar events in the strike at Villeneuve St. Georges in 1908
      led to the arrest of all the leading members of the Committee. In the
      railway strike of October, 1910, Monsieur Briand arrested the Strike
      Committee, mobilized the railway men and sent soldiers to replace
      strikers. As a result of these vigorous measures the strike was completely
      defeated, and after this the chief energy of the C. G. T. was directed
      against militarism and nationalism.
    </p>
    <p>
      The attitude of Anarchism to the Syndicalist movement is sympathetic, with
      the reservation that such methods as the General Strike are not to be
      regarded as substitutes for the violent revolution which most Anarchists
      consider necessary. Their attitude in this matter was defined at the
      International Anarchist Congress held in Amsterdam in August, 1907. This
      Congress recommended "comrades of all countries to actively participate in
      autonomous movements of the working class, and to develop in Syndicalist
      organizations the ideas of revolt, individual initiative and solidarity,
      which are the essence of Anarchism." Comrades were to "propagate and
      support only those forms and manifestations of direct action which carry,
      in themselves, a revolutionary character and lead to the transformation of
      society." It was resolved that "the Anarchists think that the destruction
      of the capitalist and authoritary society can only be realized by armed
      insurrection and violent expropriation, and that the use of the more or
      less General Strike and the Syndicalist movement must not make us forget
      the more direct means of struggle against the military force of
      government."
    </p>
    <p>
      Syndicalists might retort that when the movement is strong enough to win
      by armed insurrection it will be abundantly strong enough to win by the
      General Strike. In Labor movements generally, success through violence can
      hardly be expected except in circumstances where success without violence
      is attainable. This argument alone, even if there were no other, would be
      a very powerful reason against the methods advocated by the Anarchist
      Congress.
    </p>
    <p>
      Syndicalism stands for what is known as industrial unionism as opposed to
      craft unionism. In this respect, as also in the preference of industrial
      to political methods, it is part of a movement which has spread far beyond
      France. The distinction between industrial and craft unionism is much
      dwelt on by Mr. Cole. Craft unionism "unites in a single association those
      workers who are engaged on a single industrial process, or on processes so
      nearly akin that any one can do another's work." But "organization may
      follow the lines, not of the work done, but of the actual structure of
      industry. All workers working at producing a particular kind of commodity
      may be organized in a single Union. . . . The basis of organization would
      be neither the craft to which a man belonged nor the employer under whom
      he worked, but the service on which he was engaged. This is Industrial
      Unionism properly so called.<a href="#linknote-28" name="linknoteref-28"
      id="linknoteref-28"><small>28</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Industrial unionism is a product of America, and from America it has to
      some extent spread to Great Britain. It is the natural form of fighting
      organization when the union is regarded as the means of carrying on the
      class war with a view, not to obtaining this or that minor amelioration,
      but to a radical revolution in the economic system. This is the point of
      view adopted by the "Industrial Workers of the World," commonly known as
      the I. W. W. This organization more or less corresponds in America to what
      the C. G. T. was in France before the war. The differences between the two
      are those due to the different economic circumstances of the two
      countries, but their spirit is closely analogous. The I. W. W. is not
      united as to the ultimate form which it wishes society to take. There are
      Socialists, Anarchists and Syndicalists among its members. But it is clear
      on the immediate practical issue, that the class war is the fundamental
      reality in the present relations of labor and capital, and that it is by
      industrial action, especially by the strike, that emancipation must be
      sought. The I. W. W., like the C. G. T., is not nearly so strong
      numerically as it is supposed to be by those who fear it. Its influence is
      based, not upon its numbers, but upon its power of enlisting the
      sympathies of the workers in moments of crisis.
    </p>
    <p>
      The labor movement in America has been characterized on both sides by very
      great violence. Indeed, the Secretary of the C. G. T., Monsieur Jouhaux,
      recognizes that the C. G. T. is mild in comparison with the I. W. W. "The
      I. W. W.," he says, "preach a policy of militant action, very necessary in
      parts of America, which would not do in France."<a href="#linknote-29"
      name="linknoteref-29" id="linknoteref-29"><small>29</small></a> A very
      interesting account of it, from the point of view of an author who is
      neither wholly on the side of labor nor wholly on the side of the
      capitalist, but disinterestedly anxious to find some solution of the
      social question short of violence and revolution, is the work of Mr. John
      Graham Brooks, called "American Syndicalism: the I. W. W." (Macmillan,
      1913). American labor conditions are very different from those of Europe.
      In the first place, the power of the trusts is enormous; the concentration
      of capital has in this respect proceeded more nearly on Marxian lines in
      America than anywhere else. In the second place, the great influx of
      foreign labor makes the whole problem quite different from any that arises
      in Europe. The older skilled workers, largely American born, have long
      been organized in the American Federation of Labor under Mr. Gompers.
      These represent an aristocracy of labor. They tend to work with the
      employers against the great mass of unskilled immigrants, and they cannot
      be regarded as forming part of anything that could be truly called a labor
      movement. "There are," says Mr. Cole, "now in America two working classes,
      with different standards of life, and both are at present almost impotent
      in the face of the employers. Nor is it possible for these two classes to
      unite or to put forward any demands. . . . The American Federation of
      Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World represent two different
      principles of combination; but they also represent two different classes
      of labor."<a href="#linknote-30" name="linknoteref-30" id="linknoteref-30"><small>30</small></a>
      The I. W. W. stands for industrial unionism, whereas the American
      Federation of Labor stands for craft unionism. The I. W. W. were formed in
      1905 by a union of organizations, chief among which was the Western
      Federation of Miners, which dated from 1892. They suffered a split by the
      loss of the followers of Deleon, who was the leader of the "Socialist
      Labor Party" and advocated a "Don't vote" policy, while reprobating
      violent methods. The headquarters of the party which he formed are at
      Detroit, and those of the main body are at Chicago. The I. W. W., though
      it has a less definite philosophy than French Syndicalism, is quite
      equally determined to destroy the capitalist system. As its secretary has
      said: "There is but one bargain the I. W. W. will make with the employing
      class&mdash; complete surrender of all control of industry to the
      organized workers."<a href="#linknote-31" name="linknoteref-31"
      id="linknoteref-31"><small>31</small></a> Mr. Haywood, of the Western
      Federation of Miners, is an out-and-out follower of Marx so far as
      concerns the class war and the doctrine of surplus value. But, like all
      who are in this movement, he attaches more importance to industrial as
      against political action than do the European followers of Marx. This is
      no doubt partly explicable by the special circumstances of America, where
      the recent immigrants are apt to be voteless. The fourth convention of the
      I. W. W. revised a preamble giving the general principles underlying its
      action. "The working class and the employing class," they say, "have
      nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are
      found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the
      employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two
      classes, a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as
      a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and
      abolish the wage system. . . . Instead of the conservative motto, `A fair
      day's wages for a fair day's work,' we must inscribe on our banner the
      revolutionary watchword, `Abolition of the wage system.' "<a
      href="#linknote-32" name="linknoteref-32" id="linknoteref-32"><small>32</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Numerous strikes have been conducted or encouraged by the I. W. W. and the
      Western Federation of Miners. These strikes illustrate the class-war in a
      more bitter and extreme form than is to be found in any other part of the
      world. Both sides are always ready to resort to violence. The employers
      have armies of their own and are able to call upon the Militia and even,
      in a crisis, upon the United States Army. What French Syndicalists say
      about the State as a capitalist institution is peculiarly true in America.
      In consequence of the scandals thus arising, the Federal Government
      appointed a Commission on Industrial Relations, whose Report, issued in
      1915, reveals a state of affairs such as it would be difficult to imagine
      in Great Britain. The report states that "the greatest disorders and most
      of the outbreaks of violence in connection with industrial `disputes arise
      from the violation of what are considered to be fundamental rights, and
      from the perversion or subversion of governmental institutions" (p. 146).
      It mentions, among such perversions, the subservience of the judiciary to
      the mili- tary authorities, the fact that during a labor dispute the life
      and liberty of every man within the State would seem to be at the mercy of
      the Governor (p. 72), and the use of State troops in policing strikes (p.
      298). At Ludlow (Colorado) in 1914 (April 20) a battle of the militia and
      the miners took place, in which, as the result of the fire of the militia,
      a number of women and children were burned to death.<a href="#linknote-34"
      name="linknoteref-34" id="linknoteref-34"><small>34</small></a> Many other
      instances of pitched battles could be given, but enough has been said to
      show the peculiar character of labor disputes in the United States. It
      may, I fear, be presumed that this character will remain so long as a very
      large proportion of labor consists of recent immigrants. When these
      difficulties pass away, as they must sooner or later, labor will more and
      more find its place in the community, and will tend to feel and inspire
      less of the bitter hostility which renders the more extreme forms of class
      war possible. When
    </p>
    <p>
      that time comes, the labor movement in America will probably begin to take
      on forms similar to those of Europe.
    </p>
    <p>
      Meanwhile, though the forms are different, the aims are very similar, and
      industrial unionism, spreading from America, has had a considerable
      influence in Great Britain&mdash;an influence naturally reinforced by that
      of French Syndicalism. It is clear, I think, that the adoption of
      industrial rather than craft unionism is absolutely necessary if Trade
      Unionism is to succeed in playing that part in altering the economic
      structure of society which its advocates claim for it rather than for the
      political parties. Industrial unionism organizes men, as craft unionism
      does not, in accordance with the enemy whom they have to fight. English
      unionism is still very far removed from the industrial form, though
      certain industries, especially the railway men, have gone very far in this
      direction, and it is notable that the railway men are peculiarly
      sympathetic to Syndicalism and industrial unionism.
    </p>
    <p>
      Pure Syndicalism, however, is not very likely to achieve wide popularity
      in Great Britain. Its spirit is too revolutionary and anarchistic for our
      temperament. It is in the modified form of Guild Socialism that the ideas
      derived from the C. G. T. and the I. W. W. are tending to bear fruit.<a
      href="#linknote-35" name="linknoteref-35" id="linknoteref-35"><small>35</small></a>
      This movement is as yet in its infancy and has no great hold upon the rank
      and file, but it is being ably advocated by a group of young men, and is
      rapidly gaining ground among those who will form Labor opinion in years to
      come. The power of the State has been so much increased during the war
      that those who naturally dislike things as they are, find it more and more
      difficult to believe that State omnipotence can be the road to the
      millennium. Guild Socialists aim at autonomy in industry, with consequent
      curtailment, but not abolition, of the power of the State. The system
      which they advocate is, I believe, the best hitherto proposed, and the one
      most likely to secure liberty without the constant appeals to violence
      which are to be feared under a purely Anarchist regime.
    </p>
    <p>
      The first pamphlet of the "National Guilds League" sets forth their main
      principles. In industry each factory is to be free to control its own
      methods of production by means of elected managers. The different
      factories in a given industry are to be federated into a National Guild
      which will deal with marketing and the general interests of the industry
      as a whole. "The State would own the means of production as trustee for
      the community; the Guilds would manage them, also as trustees for the
      community, and would pay to the State a single tax or rent. Any Guild that
      chose to set its own interests above those of the community would be
      violating its trust, and would have to bow to the judgment of a tribunal
      equally representing the whole body of producers and the whole body of
      consumers. This Joint Committee would be the ultimate sovereign body, the
      ultimate appeal court of industry. It would fix not only Guild taxation,
      but also standard prices, and both taxation and prices would be
      periodically readjusted by it." Each Guild will be entirely free to
      apportion what it receives among its members as it chooses, its members
      being all those who work in the industry which it covers. "The
      distribution of this collective Guild income among the members seems to be
      a matter for each Guild to decide for itself. Whether the Guilds would,
      sooner or later, adopt the principle of equal payment for every member, is
      open to discussion." Guild Socialism accepts from Syndicalism the view
      that liberty is not to be secured by making the State the employer: "The
      State and the Municipality as employers have turned out not to differ
      essentially from the private capitalist." Guild Socialists regard the
      State as consisting of the community in their capacity as consumers, while
      the Guilds will represent them in their capacity as producers; thus
      Parliament and the Guild Congress will be two co-equal powers representing
      consumers and producers respectively. Above both will be the joint
      Committee of Parliament and the Guild Congress for deciding matters
      involving the interests of consumers and producers alike. The view of the
      Guild Socialists is that State Socialism takes account of men only as
      consumers, while Syndicalism takes account of them only as producers. "The
      problem," say the Guild Socialists, "is to reconcile the two points of
      view. That is what advocates of National Guilds set out to do. The
      Syndicalist has claimed everything for the industrial organizations of
      producers, the Collectivist everything for the territorial or political
      organizations of consumers. Both are open to the same criticism; you
      cannot reconcile two points of view merely by denying one of them."<a
      href="#linknote-36" name="linknoteref-36" id="linknoteref-36"><small>36</small></a>
      But although Guild Socialism represents an attempt at readjustment between
      two equally legitimate points of view, its impulse and force are derived
      from what it has taken over from Syndicalism. Like Syndicalism; it desires
      not primarily to make work better paid, but to secure this result along
      with others by making it in itself more interesting and more democratic in
      organization.
    </p>
    <p>
      Capitalism has made of work a purely commercial activity, a soulless and a
      joyless thing. But substitute the national service of the Guilds for the
      profiteering of the few; substitute responsible labor for a saleable
      commodity; substitute self-government and decentralization for the
      bureaucracy and demoralizing hugeness of the modern State and the modern
      joint stock company; and then it may be just once more to speak of a "joy
      in labor," and once more to hope that men may be proud of quality and not
      only of quantity in their work. There is a cant of the Middle Ages, and a
      cant of "joy in labor," but it were better, perhaps, to risk that cant
      than to reconcile ourselves forever to the philosophy of Capitalism and of
      Collectivism, which declares that work is a necessary evil never to be
      made pleasant, and that the workers' only hope is a leisure which shall be
      longer, richer, and well adorned with municipal amenities.<a
      href="#linknote-37" name="linknoteref-37" id="linknoteref-37"><small>37</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Although uniformly held that the writ of habeas corpus can only be
      suspended by the legislature, in these labor disturbances the executive
      has in fact suspended or disregarded the writ. . . . In cases arising from
      labor agitations, the judiciary has uniformly upheld the power exercised
      by the military, and in no case has there been any protest against the use
      of such power or any attempt to curtail it, except in Montana, where the
      conviction of a civilian by military commission was annulled" ("Final
      Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations" (1915) appointed by the
      United States Congress," p. 58).
    </p>
    <p>
      Whatever may be thought of the practicability of Syndicalism, there is no
      doubt that the ideas which it has put into the world have done a great
      deal to revive the labor movement and to recall it to certain things of
      fundamental importance which it had been in danger of forgetting.
      Syndicalists consider man as producer rather than consumer. They are more
      concerned to procure freedom in work than to increase material well-being.
      They have revived the quest for liberty, which was growing somewhat dimmed
      under the regime of Parliamentary Socialism, and they have reminded men
      that what our modern society needs is not a little tinkering here and
      there, nor the kind of minor readjustments to which the existing holders
      of power may readily consent, but a fundamental reconstruction, a sweeping
      away of all the sources of oppression, a liberation of men's constructive
      energies, and a wholly new way of conceiving and regulating production and
      economic relations. This merit is so great that, in view of it, all minor
      defects become insignificant, and this merit Syndicalism will continue to
      possess even if, as a definite movement, it should be found to have passed
      away with the war.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2H_PART2" id="link2H_PART2"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      PART II &mdash; PROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0004" id="link2HCH0004"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER IV &mdash; WORK AND PAY
    </h2>
    <p>
      THE man who seeks to create a better order of society has two resistances
      to contend with: one that of Nature, the other that of his fellow-men.
      Broadly speaking, it is science that deals with the resistance of Nature,
      while politics and social organization are the methods of overcoming the
      resistance of men.
    </p>
    <p>
      The ultimate fact in economics is that Nature only yields commodities as
      the result of labor. The necessity of SOME labor for the satisfaction of
      our wants is not imposed by political systems or by the exploitation of
      the working classes; it is due to physical laws, which the reformer, like
      everyone else, must admit and study. Before any optimistic economic
      project can be accepted as feasible, we must examine whether the physical
      conditions of production impose an unalterable veto, or whether they are
      capable of being sufficiently modified by science and organization. Two
      connected doctrines must be considered in examining this question: First,
      Malthus' doctrine of population; and second, the vaguer, but very
      prevalent, view that any surplus above the bare necessaries of life can
      only be produced if most men work long hours at monotonous or painful
      tasks, leaving little leisure for a civilized existence or rational
      enjoyment. I do not believe that either of these obstacles to optimism
      will survive a close scrutiny. The possibility of technical improvement in
      the methods of production is, I believe, so great that, at any rate for
      centuries to come, there will be no inevitable barrier to progress in the
      general well-being by the simultaneous increase of commodities and
      diminution of hours of labor.
    </p>
    <p>
      This subject has been specially studied by Kropotkin, who, whatever may be
      thought of his general theories of politics, is remarkably instructive,
      concrete and convincing in all that he says about the possibilities of
      agriculture. Socialists and Anarchists in the main are products of
      industrial life, and few among them have any practical knowledge on the
      subject of food production. But Kropotkin is an exception. His two books,
      "The Conquest of Bread" and "Fields, Factories and Workshops," are very
      full of detailed information, and, even making great allowances for an
      optimistic bias, I do not think it can be denied that they demonstrate
      possibilities in which few of us would otherwise have believed.
    </p>
    <p>
      Malthus contended, in effect, that population always tends to increase up
      to the limit of subsistence, that the production of food becomes more
      expensive as its amount is increased, and that therefore, apart from short
      exceptional periods when new discoveries produce temporary alleviations,
      the bulk of mankind must always be at the lowest level consistent with
      survival and reproduction. As applied to the civilized races of the world,
      this doctrine is becoming untrue through the rapid decline in the
      birth-rate; but, apart from this decline, there are many other reasons why
      the doctrine cannot be accepted, at any rate as regards the near future.
      The century which elapsed after Malthus wrote, saw a very great increase
      in the standard of comfort throughout the wage-earning classes, and, owing
      to the enormous increase in the productivity of labor, a far greater rise
      in the standard of comfort could have been effected if a more just system
      of distribution had been introduced. In former times, when one man's labor
      produced not very much more than was needed for one man's subsistence, it
      was impossible either greatly to reduce the normal hours of labor, or
      greatly to increase the proportion of the population who enjoyed more than
      the bare necessaries of life. But this state of affairs has been overcome
      by modern methods of production. At the present moment, not only do many
      people enjoy a comfortable income derived from rent or interest, but about
      half the population of most of the civilized countries in the world is
      engaged, not in the production of commodities, but in fighting or in
      manufacturing munitions of war. In a time of peace the whole of this half
      might be kept in idleness without making the other half poorer than they
      would have been if the war had continued, and if, instead of being idle,
      they were productively employed, the whole of what they would produce
      would be a divisible surplus over and above present wages. The present
      productivity of labor in Great Britain would suffice to produce an income
      of about 1 pound per day for each family, even without any of those
      improvements in methods which are obviously immediately possible.
    </p>
    <p>
      But, it will be said, as population increases, the price of food must
      ultimately increase also as the sources of supply in Canada, the
      Argentine, Australia and elsewhere are more and more used up. There must
      come a time, so pessimists will urge, when food becomes so dear that the
      ordinary wage-earner will have little surplus for expenditure upon other
      things. It may be admitted that this would be true in some very distant
      future if the population were to continue to increase without limit. If
      the whole surface of the world were as densely populated as London is now,
      it would, no doubt, require almost the whole labor of the population to
      produce the necessary food from the few spaces remaining for agriculture.
      But there is no reason to suppose that the population will continue to
      increase indefinitely, and in any case the prospect is so remote that it
      may be ignored in all practical considerations.
    </p>
    <p>
      Returning from these dim speculations to the facts set forth by Kropotkin,
      we find it proved in his writings that, by methods of intensive
      cultivation, which are already in actual operation, the amount of food
      produced on a given area can be increased far beyond anything that most
      uninformed persons suppose possible. Speaking of the market-gardeners in
      Great Britain, in the neighborhood of Paris, and in other places, he says:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      They have created a totally new agriculture. They smile when we boast
      about the rotation system having permitted us to take from the field one
      crop every year, or four crops each three years, because their ambition is
      to have six and nine crops from the very same plot of land during the
      twelve months. They do not understand our talk about good and bad soils,
      because they make the soil themselves, and make it in such quantities as
      to be compelled yearly to sell some of it; otherwise it would raise up the
      level of their gardens by half an inch every year. They aim at cropping,
      not five or six tons of grass on the acre, as we do, but from 50 to 100
      tons of various vegetables on the same space; not 5 pound sworth of hay,
      but 100 pounds worth of vegetables, of the plainest description, cabbage
      and carrots.<a href="#linknote-38" name="linknoteref-38"
      id="linknoteref-38"><small>38</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      As regards cattle, he mentions that Mr. Champion at Whitby grows on each
      acre the food of two or three head of cattle, whereas under ordinary high
      farming it takes two or three acres to keep each head of cattle in Great
      Britain. Even more astonishing are the achievements of the Culture
      Maraicheres round Paris. It is impossible to summarize these achievements,
      but we may note the general conclusion:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      There are now practical Maraichers who venture to maintain that if all the
      food, animal and vegetable, necessary for the 3,500,000 inhabitants of the
      Departments of Seine and Seine-et-Oise had to be grown on their own
      territory (3250 square miles), it could be grown without resorting to any
      other methods of culture than those already in use&mdash;methods already
      tested on a large scale and proved successful.<a href="#linknote-39"
      name="linknoteref-39" id="linknoteref-39"><small>39</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      It must be remembered that these two departments include the whole
      population of Paris.
    </p>
    <p>
      Kropotkin proceeds to point out methods by which the same result could be
      achieved without long hours of labor. Indeed, he contends that the great
      bulk of agricultural work could be carried on by people whose main
      occupations are sedentary, and with only such a number of hours as would
      serve to keep them in health and produce a pleasant diversification. He
      protests against the theory of exces- sive division of labor. What he
      wants is INTEGRATION, "a society where each individual is a producer of
      both manual and intellectual work; where each able- bodied human being is
      a worker, and where each worker works both in the field and in the
      industrial workshop."<a href="#linknote-40" name="linknoteref-40"
      id="linknoteref-40"><small>40</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      These views as to production have no essential connection with Kropotkin's
      advocacy of Anarchism. They would be equally possible under State
      Socialism, and under certain circumstances they might even be carried out
      in a capitalistic regime. They are important for our present purpose, not
      from any argument which they afford in favor of one economic system as
      against another, but from the fact that they remove the veto upon our
      hopes which might otherwise result from a doubt as to the productive
      capacity of labor. I have dwelt upon agriculture rather than industry,
      since it is in regard to agriculture that the difficulties are chiefly
      supposed to arise. Broadly speaking, industrial production tends to be
      cheaper when it is carried on on a large scale, and therefore there is no
      reason in industry why an increase in the demand should lead to an
      increased cost of supply.
    </p>
    <p>
      Passing now from the purely technical and material side of the problem of
      production, we come to the human factor, the motives leading men to work,
      the possibilities of efficient organization of production, and the
      connection of production with distribution. Defenders of the existing
      system maintain that efficient work would be impossible without the
      economic stimulus, and that if the wage system were abolished men would
      cease to do enough work to keep the community in tolerable comfort.
      Through the alleged necessity of the economic motive, the problems of
      production and distribution become intertwined. The desire for a more just
      distribution of the world's goods is the main inspiration of most
      Socialism and Anarchism. We must, therefore, consider whether the system
      of distribution which they propose would be likely to lead to a diminished
      production.
    </p>
    <p>
      There is a fundamental difference between Socialism and Anarchism as
      regards the question of distribution. Socialism, at any rate in most of
      its forms, would retain payment for work done or for willingness to work,
      and, except in the case of persons incapacitated by age or infirmity,
      would make willingness to work a condition of subsistence, or at any rate
      of subsistence above a certain very low minimum. Anarchism, on the other
      hand, aims at granting to everyone, without any conditions whatever, just
      as much of all ordinary commodities as he or she may care to consume,
      while the rarer com- modities, of which the supply cannot easily be
      indefinitely increased, would be rationed and divided equally among the
      population. Thus Anarchism would not impose any OBLIGATIONS of work,
      though Anarchists believe that the necessary work could be made
      sufficiently agreeable for the vast majority of the population to
      undertake it voluntarily. Socialists, on the other hand, would exact work.
      Some of them would make the incomes of all workers equal, while others
      would retain higher pay for the work which is considered more valuable.
      All these different systems are compatible with the common ownership of
      land and capital, though they differ greatly as regards the kind of
      society which they would produce.
    </p>
    <p>
      Socialism with inequality of income would not differ greatly as regards
      the economic stimulus to work from the society in which we live. Such
      differences as it would entail would undoubtedly be to the good from our
      present point of view. Under the existing system many people enjoy
      idleness and affluence through the mere accident of inheriting land or
      capital. Many others, through their activities in industry or finance,
      enjoy an income which is certainly very far in excess of anything to which
      their social utility entitles them. On the other hand, it often happens
      that inventors and discoverers, whose work has the very greatest social
      utility, are robbed of their reward either by capitalists or by the
      failure of the public to appreciate their work until too late. The better
      paid work is only open to those who have been able to afford an expensive
      training, and these men are selected in the main not by merit but by luck.
      The wage earner is not paid for his willingness to work, but only for his
      utility to the employer. Consequently, he may be plunged into destitution
      by causes over which he has no control. Such destitution is a constant
      fear, and when it occurs it produces undeserved suffering, and often
      deterioration in the social value of the sufferer. These are a few among
      the evils of our existing system from the standpoint of production. All
      these evils we might expect to see remedied under any system of Socialism.
    </p>
    <p>
      There are two questions which need to be considered when we are discussing
      how far work requires the economic motive. The first question is: Must
      society give higher pay for the more skilled or socially more valuable
      work, if such work is to be done in sufficient quantities? The second
      question is: Could work be made so attractive that enough of it would be
      done even if idlers received just as much of the produce of work? The
      first of these questions concerns the division between two schools of
      Socialists: the more moderate Socialists sometimes concede that even under
      Socialism it would be well to retain unequal pay for different kinds of
      work, while the more thoroughgoing Socialists advocate equal incomes for
      all workers. The second question, on the other hand, forms a division
      between Socialists and Anarchists; the latter would not deprive a man of
      commodities if he did not work, while the former in general would.
    </p>
    <p>
      Our second question is so much more fundamental than our first that it
      must be discussed at once, and in the course of this discussion what needs
      to be said on our first question will find its place naturally.
    </p>
    <p>
      Wages or Free Sharing?&mdash;"Abolition of the wages system" is one of the
      watchwords common to Anarchists and advanced Socialists. But in its most
      natural sense it is a watchword to which only the Anarchists have a right.
      In the Anarchist conception of society all the commoner commodities will
      be available to everyone without stint, in the kind of way in which water
      is available at present.<a href="#linknote-41" name="linknoteref-41"
      id="linknoteref-41"><small>41</small></a> Advo- cates of this system point
      out that it applies already to many things which formerly had to be paid
      for, e.g., roads and bridges. They point out that it might very easily be
      extended to trams and local trains. They proceed to argue&mdash;as
      Kropotkin does by means of his proofs that the soil might be made
      indefinitely more productive&mdash;that all the commoner kinds of food
      could be given away to all who demanded them, since it would be easy to
      produce them in quantities adequate to any possible demand. If this system
      were extended to all the necessaries of life, everyone's bare livelihood
      would be secured, quite regardless of the way in which he might choose to
      spend his time. As for commodities which cannot be produced in indefinite
      quantities, such as luxuries and delicacies, they also, according to the
      Anarchists, are to be distributed without payment, but on a system of
      rations, the amount available being divided equally among the population.
      No doubt, though this is not said, something like a price will have to be
      put upon these luxuries, so that a man may be free to choose how he will
      take his share: one man will prefer good wine, another the finest Havana
      cigars, another pictures or beautiful furniture. Presumably, every man
      will be allowed to take such luxuries as are his due in whatever form he
      prefers, the relative prices being fixed so as to equalize the demand. In
      such a world as this, the economic stimulus to production will have wholly
      disappeared, and if work is to continue it must be from other motives.<a
      href="#linknote-42" name="linknoteref-42" id="linknoteref-42"><small>42</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Is such a system possible? First, is it technically possible to provide
      the necessaries of life in such large quantities as would be needed if
      every man and woman could take as much of them from the public stores as
      he or she might desire?
    </p>
    <p>
      The idea of purchase and payment is so familiar that the proposal to do
      away with it must be thought at first fantastic. Yet I do not believe it
      is nearly so fantastic as it seems. Even if we could all have bread for
      nothing, we should not want more than a quite limited amount. As things
      are, the cost of bread to the rich is so small a proportion of their
      income as to afford practically no check upon their consumption; yet the
      amount of bread that they consume could easily be supplied to the whole
      population by improved methods of agriculture (I am not speaking of
      war-time). The amount of food that people desire has natural limits, and
      the waste that would be incurred would probably not be very great. As the
      Anarchists point out, people at present enjoy an unlimited water supply
      but very few leave the taps running when they are not using them. And one
      may assume that public opinion would be opposed to excessive waste. We may
      lay it down, I think, that the principle of unlimited supply could be
      adopted in regard to all commodities for which the demand has limits that
      fall short of what can be easily produced. And this would be the case, if
      production were efficiently organized, with the necessaries of life,
      including not only commodities, but also such things as education. Even if
      all education were free up to the highest, young people, unless they were
      radically transformed by the Anarchist regime, would not want more than a
      certain amount of it. And the same applies to plain foods, plain clothes,
      and the rest of the things that supply our elementary needs.
    </p>
    <p>
      I think we may conclude that there is no technical impossibility in the
      Anarchist plan of free sharing.
    </p>
    <p>
      But would the necessary work be done if the individual were assured of the
      general standard of comfort even though he did no work?
    </p>
    <p>
      Most people will answer this question unhesitatingly in the negative.
      Those employers in particular who are in the habit of denouncing their
      employes as a set of lazy, drunken louts, will feel quite certain that no
      work could be got out of them except under threat of dismissal and
      consequent starvation. But is this as certain as people are inclined to
      sup- pose at first sight? If work were to remain what most work is now, no
      doubt it would be very hard to induce people to undertake it except from
      fear of destitution. But there is no reason why work should remain the
      dreary drudgery in horrible conditions that most of it is now.<a
      href="#linknote-43" name="linknoteref-43" id="linknoteref-43"><small>43</small></a>
      If men had to be tempted to work instead of driven to it, the obvious
      interest of the community would be to make work pleasant. So long as work
      is not made on the whole pleasant, it cannot be said that anything like a
      good state of society has been reached. Is the painfulness of work
      unavoidable?
    </p>
    <p>
      At present, the better paid work, that of the business and professional
      classes, is for the most part enjoyable. I do not mean that every separate
      moment is agreeable, but that the life of a man who has work of this sort
      is on the whole happier than that of a man who enjoys an equal income
      without doing any work. A certain amount of effort, and something in the
      nature of a continuous career, are necessary to vigorous men if they are
      to preserve their mental health and their zest for life. A considerable
      amount of work is done without pay. People who take a rosy view of human
      nature might have supposed that the duties of a magistrate would be among
      disagreeable trades, like cleaning sewers; but a cynic might contend that
      the pleasures of vindictiveness and moral superiority are so great that
      there is no difficulty in finding well-to-do elderly gentlemen who are
      willing, without pay, to send helpless wretches to the torture of prison.
      And apart from enjoyment of the work itself, desire for the good opinion
      of neighbors and for the feeling of effectiveness is quite sufficient to
      keep many men active.
    </p>
    <p>
      But, it will be said, the sort of work that a man would voluntarily choose
      must always be exceptional: the great bulk of necessary work can never be
      anything but painful. Who would choose, if an easy life were otherwise
      open to him, to be a coal-miner, or a stoker on an Atlantic liner? I think
      it must be conceded that much necessary work must always remain
      disagreeable or at least painfully monotonous, and that special privileges
      will have to be accorded to those who undertake it, if the Anarchist
      system is ever to be made workable. It is true that the introduction of
      such special privileges would somewhat mar the rounded logic of Anarchism,
      but it need not, I think, make any really vital breach in its system. Much
      of the work that needs doing could be rendered agreeable, if thought and
      care were given to this object. Even now it is often only long hours that
      make work irksome. If the normal hours of work were reduced to, say, four,
      as they could be by better organization and more scientific methods, a
      very great deal of work which is now felt as a burden would quite cease to
      be so. If, as Kropotkin suggests, agricultural work, instead of being the
      lifelong drudgery of an ignorant laborer living very near the verge of
      abject poverty, were the occasional occupation of men and women normally
      employed in industry or brain-work; if, instead of being conducted by
      ancient traditional methods, without any possibility of intelligent
      participation by the wage- earner, it were alive with the search for new
      methods and new inventions, filled with the spirit of freedom, and
      inviting the mental as well as the physical cooperation of those who do
      the work, it might become a joy instead of a weariness, and a source of
      health and life to those engaged in it.
    </p>
    <p>
      What is true of agriculture is said by Anarchists to be equally true of
      industry. They maintain that if the great economic organizations which are
      now managed by capitalists, without consideration for the lives of the
      wage-earners beyond what Trade Unions are able to exact, were turned
      gradually into self-governing communities, in which the producers could
      decide all questions of methods, conditions, hours of work, and so forth,
      there would be an almost boundless change for the better: grime and noise
      might be nearly eliminated, the hideousness of industrial regions might be
      turned into beauty, the interest in the scientific aspects of production
      might become diffused among all producers with any native intelligence,
      and something of the artist's joy in creation might inspire the whole of
      the work. All this, which is at present utterly remote from the reality,
      might be produced by economic self-government. We may concede that by such
      means a very large proportion of the necessary work of the world could
      ultimately be made sufficiently agreeable to be preferred before idleness
      even by men whose bare livelihood would be assured whether they worked or
      not. As to the residue let us admit that special rewards, whether in goods
      or honors or privileges, would have to be given to those who undertook it.
      But this need not cause any fundamental objection.
    </p>
    <p>
      There would, of course, be a certain proportion of the population who
      would prefer idleness. Provided the proportion were small, this need not
      matter. And among those who would be classed as idlers might be included
      artists, writers of books, men devoted to abstract intellectual pursuits&mdash;in
      short, all those whom society despises while they are alive and honors
      when they are dead. To such men, the possibility of pursuing their own
      work regardless of any public recognition of its utility would be
      invaluable. Whoever will observe how many of our poets have been men of
      private means will realize how much poetic capacity must have remained
      undeveloped through poverty; for it would be absurd to suppose that the
      rich are better endowed by nature with the capacity for poetry. Freedom
      for such men, few as they are, must be set against the waste of the mere
      idlers.
    </p>
    <p>
      So far, we have set forth the arguments in favor of the Anarchist plan.
      They are, to my mind, sufficient to make it seem possible that the plan
      might succeed, but not sufficient to make it so probable that it would be
      wise to try it.
    </p>
    <p>
      The question of the feasibility of the Anarchist proposals in regard to
      distribution is, like so many other questions, a quantitative one. The
      Anarchist proposals consist of two parts: (1) That all the common
      commodities should be supplied ad lib. to all applicants; (2) That no
      obligation to work, or economic reward for work, should be imposed on
      anyone. These two proposals are not necessarily inseparable, nor does
      either entail the whole system of Anarchism, though without them Anarchism
      would hardly be possible. As regards the first of these proposals, it can
      be carried out even now with regard to some commodities, and it could be
      carried out in no very distant future with regard to many more. It is a
      flexible plan, since this or that article of consumption could be placed
      on the free list or taken of as circumstances might dictate. Its
      advantages are many and various, and the practice of the world tends to
      develop in this direction. I think we may conclude that this part of the
      Anarchists' system might well be adopted bit by bit, reaching gradually
      the full extension that they desire.
    </p>
    <p>
      But as regards the second proposal, that there should be no obligation to
      work, and no economic reward for work, the matter is much more doubtful.
      Anarchists always assume that if their schemes were put into operation
      practically everyone would work; but although there is very much more to
      be said for this view than most people would concede at first sight, yet
      it is questionable whether there is enough to be said to make it true for
      practical purposes. Perhaps, in a community where industry had become
      habitual through economic pressure, public opinion might be sufficiently
      powerful to compel most men to work;<a href="#linknote-44"
      name="linknoteref-44" id="linknoteref-44"><small>44</small></a> but it is
      always doubtful how far such a state of things would be permanent. If
      public opinion is to be really effective, it will be necessary to have
      some method of dividing the community into small groups, and to allow each
      group to consume only the equivalent of what it produces. This will make
      the economic motive operative upon the group, which, since we are
      supposing it small, will feel that its collective share is appreciably
      diminished by each idle individual. Such a system might be feasible, but
      it would be contrary to the whole spirit of Anarchism and would destroy
      the main lines of its economic system.
    </p>
    <p>
      The attitude of orthodox Socialism on this question is quite different
      from that of Anarchism.<a href="#linknote-45" name="linknoteref-45"
      id="linknoteref-45"><small>45</small></a> Among the more immediate
      measures advocated in the "Communist Manifesto" is "equal liability of all
      to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
      The Socialist theory is that, in general, work alone gives the right to
      the enjoyment of the produce of work. To this theory there will, of
      course, be exceptions: the old and the very young, the infirm and those
      whose work is temporarily not required through no fault of their own. But
      the fundamental conception of Socialism, in regard to our present
      question, is that all who can should be compelled to work, either by the
      threat of starvation or by the operation of the criminal law. And, of
      course, the only kind of work recognized will be such as commends itself
      to the authorities. Writing books against Socialism, or against any theory
      embodied in the government of the day, would certainly not be recognized
      as work. No more would the painting of pictures in a different style from
      that of the Royal Academy, or producing plays unpleasing to the censor.
      Any new line of thought would be banned, unless by influence or corruption
      the thinker could crawl into the good graces of the pundits. These results
      are not foreseen by Socialists, because they imagine that the Socialist
      State will be governed by men like those who now advocate it. This is, of
      course, a delusion. The rulers of the State then will bear as little
      resemblance to the pres- ent Socialists as the dignitaries of the Church
      after the time of Constantine bore to the Apostles. The men who advocate
      an unpopular reform are exceptional in disinterestedness and zeal for the
      public good; but those who hold power after the reform has been carried
      out are likely to belong, in the main, to the ambitious executive type
      which has in all ages possessed itself of the government of nations. And
      this type has never shown itself tolerant of opposition or friendly to
      freedom.
    </p>
    <p>
      It would seem, then, that if the Anarchist plan has its dangers, the
      Socialist plan has at least equal dangers. It is true that the evils we
      have been foreseeing under Socialism exist at present, but the purpose of
      Socialists is to cure the evils of the world as it is; they cannot be
      content with the argument that they would make things no worse.
    </p>
    <p>
      Anarchism has the advantage as regards liberty, Socialism as regards the
      inducements to work. Can we not find a method of combining these two
      advantages? It seems to me that we can.
    </p>
    <p>
      We saw that, provided most people work in moderation, and their work is
      rendered as productive as science and organization can make it, there is
      no good reason why the necessaries of life should not be supplied freely
      to all. Our only serious doubt was as to whether, in an Anarchist regime,
      the motives for work would be sufficiently powerful to prevent a dan-
      gerously large amount of idleness. But it would be easy to decree that,
      though necessaries should be free to all, whatever went beyond necessaries
      should only be given to those who were willing to work&mdash;not, as is
      usual at present, only to those in work at any moment, but also to all
      those who, when they happened not to be working, were idle through no
      fault of their own. We find at present that a man who has a small income
      from investments, just sufficient to keep him from actual want, almost
      always prefers to find some paid work in order to be able to afford
      luxuries. So it would be, presumably, in such a community as we are
      imagining. At the same time, the man who felt a vocation for some
      unrecognized work of art or science or thought would be free to follow his
      desire, provided he were willing to "scorn delights and live laborious
      days." And the comparatively small number of men with an invincible horror
      of work&mdash;the sort of men who now become tramps&mdash; might lead a
      harmless existence, without any grave danger of their becoming
      sufficiently numerous to be a serious burden upon the more industrious. In
      this ways the claims of freedom could be combined with the need of some
      economic stimulus to work. Such a system, it seems to me, would have a far
      greater chance of success than either pure Anarchism or pure orthodox
      Socialism.
    </p>
    <p>
      Stated in more familiar terms, the plan we are advocating amounts
      essentially to this: that a certain small income, sufficient for
      necessaries, should be secured to all, whether they work or not, and that
      a larger income, as much larger as might be warranted by the total amount
      of commodities produced, should be given to those who are willing to
      engage in some work which the community recognizes as useful. On this
      basis we may build further. I do not think it is always necessary to pay
      more highly work which is more skilled or regarded as socially more
      useful, since such work is more interesting and more respected than
      ordinary work, and will therefore often be preferred by those who are able
      to do it. But we might, for instance, give an intermediate income to those
      who are only willing to work half the usual number of hours, and an income
      above that of most workers to those who choose a specially disagreeable
      trade. Such a system is perfectly compatible with Socialism, though
      perhaps hardly with Anarchism. Of its advantages we shall have more to say
      at a later stage. For the present I am content to urge that it combines
      freedom with justice, and avoids those dangers to the community which we
      have found to lurk both in the proposals of the Anarchists and in those of
      orthodox Socialists.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0005" id="link2HCH0005"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER V &mdash; GOVERNMENT AND LAW
    </h2>
    <p>
      GOVERNMENT and Law, in their very essence, consist of restrictions on
      freedom, and freedom is the greatest of political goods.<a
      href="#linknote-46" name="linknoteref-46" id="linknoteref-46"><small>46</small></a>
      A hasty reasoner might conclude without further ado that Law and
      government are evils which must be abolished if freedom is our goal. But
      this consequence, true or false, cannot be proved so simply. In this
      chapter we shall examine the arguments of Anarchists against law and the
      State. We shall proceed on the assumption that freedom is the supreme aim
      of a good social system; but on this very basis we shall find the
      Anarchist contentions very questionable.
    </p>
    <p>
      Respect for the liberty of others is not a natural impulse with most men:
      envy and love of power lead ordinary human nature to find pleasure in
      interferences with the lives of others. If all men's actions were wholly
      unchecked by external authority, we should not obtain a world in which all
      men would be free. The strong would oppress the weak, or the majority
      would oppress the minority, or the lovers of violence would oppress the
      more peaceable people. I fear it cannot be said that these bad impulses
      are WHOLLY due to a bad social system, though it must be conceded that the
      present competitive organization of society does a great deal to foster
      the worst elements in human nature. The love of power is an impulse which,
      though innate in very ambitious men, is chiefly promoted as a rule by the
      actual experience of power. In a world where none could acquire much
      power, the desire to tyrannize would be much less strong than it is at
      present. Nevertheless, I cannot think that it would be wholly absent, and
      those in whom it would exist would often be men of unusual energy and
      executive capacity. Such men, if they are not restrained by the organized
      will of the community, may either succeed in establishing a despotism, or,
      at any rate, make such a vigorous attempt as can only be defeated through
      a period of prolonged disturbance. And apart from the love or political
      power, there is the love of power over individuals. If threats and
      terrorism were not prevented by law, it can hardly be doubted that cruelty
      would be rife in the relations of men and women, and of parents and
      children. It is true that the habits of a community can make such cruelty
      rare, but these habits, I fear, are only to be produced through the
      prolonged reign of law. Experience of backwoods communities, mining camps
      and other such places seems to show that under new conditions men easily
      revert to a more barbarous attitude and practice. It would seem,
      therefore, that, while human nature remains as it is, there will be more
      liberty for all in a community where some acts of tyranny by individuals
      are forbidden, than in a community where the law leaves each individual
      free to follow his every impulse. But, although the necessity of some form
      of government and law must for the present be conceded, it is important to
      remember that all law and government is in itself in some degree an evil,
      only justifiable when it prevents other and greater evils. Every use of
      the power of the State needs, therefore, to be very closely scrutinized,
      and every possibility of diminishing its power is to be welcomed provided
      it does not lead to a reign of private tyranny.
    </p>
    <p>
      The power of the State is partly legal, partly economic: acts of a kind
      which the State dislikes can be punished by the criminal law, and
      individuals who incur the displeasure of the State may find it hard to
      earn a livelihood.
    </p>
    <p>
      The views of Marx on the State are not very clear. On the one hand he
      seems willing,, like the modern State Socialists, to allow great power to
      the State, but on the other hand he suggests that when the Socialist
      revolution has been consummated, the State, as we know it, will disappear.
      Among the measures which are advocated in the Communist Manifesto as
      immediately desirable, there are several which would very greatly increase
      the power of the existing State. For example, "Centralization of credit in
      the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and
      an exclusive monopoly;" and again, "Centralization of the means of
      communication and transport in the hands of the State." But the Manifesto
      goes on to say:
    </p>
    <p>
      When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared,
      and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast
      association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political
      character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised
      power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its
      contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances,
      to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes
      itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old
      conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have
      swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms, and of
      classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a
      class.
    </p>
    <p>
      In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class
      antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which; the free development
      of each is the condition for the free development of all.<a
      href="#linknote-47" name="linknoteref-47" id="linknoteref-47"><small>47</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      This attitude Marx preserved in essentials throughout his life.
      Accordingly, it is not to be wondered at that his followers, so far as
      regards their immediate aims, have in the main become out-and-out State
      Socialists. On the other hand, the Syndicalists, who accept from Marx the
      doctrine of the class war, which they regard as what is really vital in
      his teaching, reject the State with abhorrence and wish to abolish it
      wholly, in which respect they are at one with the Anarchists. The Guild
      Socialists, though some persons in this country regard them as extremists,
      really represent the English love of compromise. The Syndicalist arguments
      as to the dangers inherent in the power of the State have made them
      dissatisfied with the old State Socialism, but they are unable to accept
      the Anarchist view that society can dispense altogether with a central
      authority. Accordingly they propose that there should be two co-equal
      instruments of Government in a community, the one geographical,
      representing the consumers, and essentially the continuation of the
      democratic State; the other representing the producers, organized, not
      geographically, but in guilds, after the manner of industrial unionism.
      These two author- ities will deal with different classes of questions.
      Guild Socialists do not regard the industrial authority as forming part of
      the State, for they contend that it is the essence of the State to be
      geographical; but the industrial authority will resemble the present State
      in the fact that it will have coercive powers, and that its decrees will
      be enforced, when necessary. It is to be suspected that Syndicalists also,
      much as they object to the existing State, would not object to coercion of
      individuals in an industry by the Trade Union in that industry. Government
      within the Trade Union would probably be quite as strict as State
      government is now. In saying this we are assuming that the theoretical
      Anarchism of Syndicalist leaders would not survive accession to power, but
      I am afraid experience shows that this is not a very hazardous assumption.
    </p>
    <p>
      Among all these different views, the one which raises the deepest issue is
      the Anarchist contention that all coercion by the community is
      unnecessary. Like most of the things that Anarchists say, there is much
      more to be urged in support of this view than most people would suppose at
      first sight. Kropotkin, who is its ablest exponent, points out how much
      has been achieved already by the method of free agreement. He does not
      wish to abolish government in the sense of collective decisions: what he
      does wish to abolish is the system by which a decision is en- forced upon
      those who oppose it.<a href="#linknote-48" name="linknoteref-48"
      id="linknoteref-48"><small>48</small></a> The whole system of
      representative government and majority rule is to him a bad thing.<a
      href="#linknote-49" name="linknoteref-49" id="linknoteref-49"><small>49</small></a>
      He points to such instances as the agreements among the different railway
      systems of the Continent for the running of through expresses and for
      co-operation generally. He points out that in such cases the different
      companies or authorities concerned each appoint a delegate, and that the
      delegates suggest a basis of agreement, which has to be subsequently
      ratified by each of the bodies ap- pointing them. The assembly of
      delegates has no coercive power whatever, and a majority can do nothing
      against a recalcitrant minority. Yet this has not prevented the conclusion
      of very elaborate systems of agreements. By such methods, so Anarchists
      contend, the USEFUL functions of government can be carried out without any
      coercion. They maintain that the usefulness of agreement is so patent as
      to make co-operation certain if once the predatory motives associated with
      the present system of private property were removed.
    </p>
    <p>
      "It seems to me, however, that State and government represent two ideas of
      a different kind. The State idea implies quite another idea to that of
      government. It not only includes the existence of a power placed above
      society, but also a territorial concentration and a concentration of many
      functions of the life of society in the hands of a few or even of all. It
      implies new relations among the members of society.
    </p>
    <p>
      "This characteristic distinction, which perhaps escapes notice at first
      sight, appears clearly when the origin of the State is studied."
      Kropotkin, "The State." p. 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      Attractive as this view is, I cannot resist the conclusion that it results
      from impatience and represents the attempt to find a short-cut toward the
      ideal which all humane people desire.
    </p>
    <p>
      Let us begin with the question of private crime.<a href="#linknote-50"
      name="linknoteref-50" id="linknoteref-50"><small>50</small></a> Anarchists
      maintain that the criminal is manufactured by bad social conditions and
      would disappear in such a world as they aim at creating.<a
      href="#linknote-51" name="linknoteref-51" id="linknoteref-51"><small>51</small></a>
      No doubt there is a great measure of truth in this view. There would be
      little motive to robbery, for example, in an Anarchist world, unless it
      were organized on a large scale by a body of men bent on upsetting the
      Anarchist regime. It may also be conceded that impulses toward criminal
      violence could be very largely eliminated by a better education. But all
      such contentions, it seems to me, have their limitations. To take an
      extreme case, we cannot suppose that there would be no lunatics in an
      Anarchist community, and some of these lunatics would, no doubt, be
      homicidal. Probably no one would argue that they ought to be left at
      liberty. But there are no sharp lines in nature; from the homicidal
      lunatic to the sane man of violent passions there is a continuous
      gradation. Even in the most perfect community there will be men and women,
      otherwise sane, who will feel an impulse to commit murder from jealousy.
      These are now usually restrained by the fear of punishment, but if this
      fear were removed, such murders would probably become much more common, as
      may be seen from the present behavior of certain soldiers on leave.
      Moreover, certain kinds of conduct arouse public hostility, and would
      almost inevitably lead to lynching, if no other recognized method of
      punishment existed. There is in most men a certain natural vindictiveness,
      not always directed against the worst members of the community. For
      example, Spinoza was very nearly murdered by the mob because he was
      suspected of undue friendliness to France at a time when Holland was at
      war with that country. Apart from such cases, there would be the very real
      danger of an organized attempt to destroy Anarchism and revive ancient
      oppressions. Is it to be supposed, for example, that Napoleon, if he had
      been born into such a community as Kropotkin advocates, would have
      acquiesced tamely in a world where his genius could find no scope? I
      cannot see what should prevent a combination of ambitious men forming
      themselves into a private army, manufacturing their own munitions, and at
      last enslaving the defenseless citizens, who had relied upon the inherent
      attractiveness of liberty. It would not be consistent with the principles
      of Anarchism for the community to interfere with the drilling of a private
      army, no matter what its objects might be (though, of course, an opposing
      private army might be formed by men with different views). Indeed,
      Kropotkin instances the old volunteers in Great Britain as an example of a
      movement on Anarchist lines.<a href="#linknote-52" name="linknoteref-52"
      id="linknoteref-52"><small>52</small></a> Even if a predatory army were
      not formed from within, it might easily come from a neighboring nation, or
      from races on the borderland of civilization. So long as the love of power
      exists, I do not see how it can be prevented from finding an outlet in
      oppression except by means of the organized force of the community.
    </p>
    <p>
      The conclusion, which appears to be forced upon us, is that the Anarchist
      ideal of a community in which no acts are forbidden by law is not, at any
      rate for the present, compatible with the stability of such a world as the
      Anarchists desire. In order to obtain and preserve a world resembling as
      closely as possible that at which they aim, it will still be necessary
      that some acts should be forbidden by law. We may put the chief of these
      under three heads:
    </p>
    <p>
      1. Theft.
    </p>
    <p>
      2. Crimes of violence.
    </p>
    <p>
      3. The creation of organizations intended to subvert the Anarchist regime
      by force.
    </p>
    <p>
      We will briefly recapitulate what has been said already as to the
      necessity of these prohibitions.
    </p>
    <p>
      1. Theft.&mdash;It is true that in an Anarchist world there will be no
      destitution, and therefore no thefts motivated by starvation. But such
      thefts are at present by no means the most considerable or the most
      harmful. The system of rationing, which is to be applied to luxuries, will
      leave many men with fewer luxuries than they might desire. It will give
      opportunities for peculation by those who are in control of the public
      stores, and it will leave the possibility of appropriating such valuable
      objects of art as would naturally be preserved in public museums. It may
      be contended that such forms of theft would be prevented by public
      opinion. But public opinion is not greatly operative upon an individual
      unless it is the opinion of his own group. A group of men combined for
      purposes of theft might readily defy the public opinion of the majority
      unless that public opinion made itself effective by the use of force
      against them. Probably, in fact, such force would be applied through
      popular indignation, but in that case we should revive the evils of the
      criminal law with the added evils of uncertainty, haste and passion, which
      are inseparable from the practice of lynching. If, as we have suggested,
      it were found necessary to provide an economic stimulus to work by
      allowing fewer luxuries to idlers, this would afford a new motive for
      theft on their part and a new necessity for some form of criminal law.
    </p>
    <p>
      2. Crimes of Violence.&mdash;Cruelty to children, crimes of jealousy,
      rape, and so forth, are almost certain to occur in any society to some
      extent. The prevention of such acts is essential to the existence of
      freedom for the weak. If nothing were done to hinder them, it is to be
      feared that the customs of a society would gradually become rougher, and
      that acts which are now rare would cease to be so. If Anarchists are right
      in maintaining that the existence of such an economic system as they
      desire would prevent the commission of crimes of this kind, the laws
      forbidding them would no longer come into operation, and would do no harm
      to liberty. If, on the other hand, the impulse to such actions persisted,
      it would be necessary that steps should be taken to restrain men from
      indulging it.
    </p>
    <p>
      3. The third class of difficulties is much the most serious and involves
      much the most drastic interference with liberty. I do not see how a
      private army could be tolerated within an Anarchist community, and I do
      not see how it could be prevented except by a general prohibition of
      carrying arms. If there were no such prohibition, rival parties would
      organize rival forces, and civil war would result. Yet, if there is such a
      prohibition, it cannot well be carried out without a very considerable
      interference with individual liberty. No doubt, after a time, the idea of
      using violence to achieve a political object might die down, as the
      practice of duelling has done. But such changes of habit and outlook are
      facilitated by legal prohibition, and would hardly come about without it.
      I shall not speak yet of the international aspect of this same problem,
      for I propose to deal with that in the next chapter, but it is clear that
      the same considerations apply with even greater force to the relations
      between nations.
    </p>
    <p>
      If we admit, however reluctantly, that a criminal law is necessary and
      that the force of the community must be brought to bear to prevent certain
      kinds of actions, a further question arises: How is crime to be treated?
      What is the greatest measure of humanity and respect for freedom that is
      compatible with the recognition of such a thing as crime? The first thing
      to recognize is that the whole conception of guilt or sin should be
      utterly swept away. At present, the criminal is visited with the
      displeasure of the community: the sole method applied to prevent the
      occurrence of crime is the infliction of pain upon the criminal.
      Everything possible is done to break his spirit and destroy his
      self-respect. Even those pleasures which would be most likely to have a
      civilizing effect are forbidden to him, merely on the ground that they are
      pleasures, while much of the suffering inflicted is of a kind which can
      only brutalize and degrade still further. I am not speaking, of course, of
      those few penal institutions which have made a serious study of reforming
      the criminal. Such institutions, especially in America, have been proved
      capable of achieving the most remarkable results, but they remain
      everywhere exceptional. The broad rule is still that the criminal is made
      to feel the displeasure of society. He must emerge from such a treatment
      either defiant and hostile, or submissive and cringing, with a broken
      spirit and a loss of self-respect. Neither of these results is anything
      but evil. Nor can any good result be achieved by a method of treatment
      which embodies reprobation.
    </p>
    <p>
      When a man is suffering from an infectious disease he is a danger to the
      community, and it is necessary to restrict his liberty of movement. But no
      one associates any idea of guilt with such a situation. On the contrary,
      he is an object of commiseration to his friends. Such steps as science
      recommends are taken to cure him of his disease, and he submits as a rule
      without reluctance to the curtailment of liberty involved meanwhile. The
      same method in spirit ought to be shown in the treatment of what is called
      "crime." It is supposed, of course, that the criminal is actuated by
      calculations of self-interest, and that the fear of punishment, by
      supplying a contrary motive of self-interest affords the best deterrent,
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     The dog, to gain some private end,
          Went mad and bit the man.
</pre>
    <p>
      This is the popular view of crime; yet no dog goes mad from choice, and
      probably the same is true of the great majority of criminals, certainly in
      the case of crimes of passion. Even in cases where self-interest is the
      motive, the important thing is to prevent the crime, not to make the
      criminal suffer. Any suffering which may be entailed by the process of
      prevention ought to be regarded as regrettable, like the pain involved in
      a surgical operation. The man who commits a crime from an impulse to
      violence ought to be subjected to a scientific psychological treatment,
      designed to elicit more beneficial impulses. The man who commits a crime
      from calculations of self- interest ought to be made to feel that
      self-interest itself, when it is fully understood, can be better served by
      a life which is useful to the community than by one which is harmful. For
      this purpose it is chiefly necessary to widen his outlook and increase the
      scope of his desires. At present, when a man suffers from insufficient
      love for his fellow-creatures, the method of curing him which is commonly
      adopted seems scarcely designed to succeed, being, indeed, in essentials,
      the same as his attitude toward them. The object of the prison
      administration is to save trouble, not to study the individual case. He is
      kept in captivity in a cell from which all sight of the earth is shut out:
      he is subjected to harshness by warders, who have too often become
      brutalized by their occupation.<a href="#linknote-53" name="linknoteref-53"
      id="linknoteref-53"><small>53</small></a> He is solemnly denounced as an
      enemy to society. He is compelled to perform mechanical tasks, chosen for
      their wearisomeness. He is given no education and no incentive to
      self-improvement. Is it to be wondered at if, at the end of such a course
      of treatment, his feelings toward the community are no more friendly than
      they were at the beginning?
    </p>
    <p>
      Severity of punishment arose through vindictiveness and fear in an age
      when many criminals escaped justice altogether, and it was hoped that
      savage sentences would outweigh the chance of escape in the mind of the
      criminal. At present a very large part of the criminal law is concerned in
      safeguarding the rights of property, that is to say&mdash;as things are
      now&mdash;the unjust privileges of the rich. Those whose principles lead
      them into conflict with government, like Anarchists, bring a most
      formidable indictment against the law and the authorities for the unjust
      manner in which they support the status quo. Many of the actions by which
      men have become rich are far more harmful to the community than the
      obscure crimes of poor men, yet they go unpunished because they do not
      interfere with the existing order. If the power of the community is to be
      brought to bear to prevent certain classes of actions through the agency
      of the criminal law, it is as necessary that these actions should really
      be those which are harmful to the community, as it is that the treatment
      of "criminals" should be freed from the conception of guilt and inspired
      by the same spirit as is shown in the treatment of disease. But, if these
      two conditions were fulfilled, I cannot help thinking that a society which
      preserved the existence of law would be preferable to one conducted on the
      unadulterated principles of Anarchism.
    </p>
    <p>
      So far we have been considering the power which the State derives from the
      criminal law. We have every reason to think that this power cannot be
      entirely abolished, though it can be exercised in a wholly different
      spirit, without the vindictiveness and the moral reprobation which now
      form its essence.
    </p>
    <p>
      We come next to the consideration of the economic power of the State and
      the influence which it can exert through its bureaucracy. State Socialists
      argue as if there would be no danger to liberty in a State not based upon
      capitalism. This seems to me an entire delusion. Given an official caste,
      however selected, there are bound to be a set of men whose whole instincts
      will drive them toward tyranny. Together with the natural love of power,
      they will have a rooted conviction (visible now in the higher ranks of the
      Civil Service) that they alone know enough to be able to judge what is for
      the good of the community. Like all men who administer a system, they will
      come to feel the system itself sacrosanct. The only changes they will
      desire will be changes in the direction of further regulations as to how
      the people are to enjoy the good things kindly granted to them by their
      benevolent despots. Whoever thinks this picture overdrawn must have failed
      to study the influence and methods of Civil Servants at present. On every
      matter that arises, they know far more than the general public about all
      the DEFINITE facts involved; the one thing they do not know is "where the
      shoe pinches." But those who know this are probably not skilled in stating
      their case, not able to say off-hand exactly how many shoes are pinching
      how many feet, or what is the precise remedy required. The answer prepared
      for Ministers by the Civil Service is accepted by the "respectable" public
      as impartial, and is regarded as disposing of the case of malcontents
      except on a first-class political question on which elections may be won
      or lost. That at least is the way in which things are managed in England.
      And there is every reason to fear that under State Socialism the power of
      officials would be vastly greater than it is at present.
    </p>
    <p>
      Those who accept the orthodox doctrine of democracy contend that, if ever
      the power of capital were removed, representative institutions would
      suffice to undo the evils threatened by bureaucracy. Against this view,
      Anarchists and Syndicalists have directed a merciless criticism. French
      Syndicalists especially, living, as they do, in a highly democratized
      country, have had bitter experience of the way in which the power of the
      State can be employed against a progressive minority. This experience has
      led them to abandon altogether the belief in the divine right of
      majorities. The Constitution that they would desire would be one which
      allowed scope for vigorous minorities, conscious of their aims and
      prepared to work for them. It is undeniable that, to all who care for
      progress, actual experience of democratic representative Government is
      very disillusioning. Admitting&mdash; as I think we must&mdash;that it is
      preferable to any PREVIOUS form of Government, we must yet acknowledge
      that much of the criticism directed against it by Anarchists and
      Syndicalists is thoroughly justified.
    </p>
    <p>
      Such criticism would have had more influence if any clear idea of an
      alternative to parliamentary democracy had been generally apprehended. But
      it must be confessed that Syndicalists have not presented their case in a
      way which is likely to attract the average citizen. Much of what they say
      amounts to this: that a minority, consisting of skilled workers in vital
      industries, can, by a strike, make the economic life of the whole
      community impossible, and can in this way force their will upon the
      nation. The action aimed at is compared to the seizure of a power station,
      by which a whole vast system can be paralyzed. Such a doctrine is an
      appeal to force, and is naturally met by an appeal to force on the other
      side. It is useless for the Syndicalists to protest that they only desire
      power in order to promote liberty: the world which they are seeking to
      establish does not, as yet, appeal to the effective will of the community,
      and cannot be stably inaugurated until it does do so. Persuasion is a slow
      process, and may sometimes be accelerated by violent methods; to this
      extent such methods may be justified. But the ultimate goal of any
      reformer who aims at liberty can only be reached through persuasion. The
      attempt to thrust liberty by force upon those who do not desire what we
      consider liberty must always prove a failure; and Syndicalists, like other
      reformers, must ultimately rely upon persuasion for success.
    </p>
    <p>
      But it would be a mistake to confuse aims with methods: however little we
      may agree with the proposal to force the millennium on a reluctant
      community by starvation, we may yet agree that much of what the
      Syndicalists desire to achieve is desirable.
    </p>
    <p>
      Let us dismiss from our minds such criticisms of parliamentary government
      as are bound up with the present system of private property, and consider
      only those which would remain true in a collectivist community. Certain
      defects seem inherent in the very nature of representative institutions.
      There is a sense of self-importance, inseparable from success in a contest
      for popular favor. There is an all-but unavoidable habit of hypocrisy,
      since experience shows that the democracy does not detect insincerity in
      an orator, and will, on the other hand, be shocked by things which even
      the most sincere men may think necessary. Hence arises a tone of cynicism
      among elected representatives, and a feeling that no man can retain his
      position in politics without deceit. This is as much the fault of the
      democracy as of the representatives, but it seems unavoidable so long as
      the main thing that all bodies of men demand of their champions is
      flattery. However the blame may be apportioned, the evil must be
      recognized as one which is bound to occur in the existing forms of
      democracy. Another evil, which is especially noticeable in large States,
      is the remoteness of the seat of government from many of the
      constituencies&mdash;a remoteness which is psychological even more than
      geographical. The legislators live in comfort, protected by thick walls
      and innumerable policemen from the voice of the mob; as time goes on they
      remember only dimly the passions and promises of their electoral campaign;
      they come to feel it an essential part of statesmanship to consider what
      are called the interests of the community as a whole, rather than those of
      some discontented group; but the interests of the community as a whole are
      sufficiently vague to be easily seen to coincide with self-interest. All
      these causes lead Parliaments to betray the people, consciously or
      unconsciously; and it is no wonder if they have produced a certain
      aloofness from democratic theory in the more vigorous champions of labor.
    </p>
    <p>
      Majority rule, as it exists in large States, is subject to the fatal
      defect that, in a very great number of questions, only a fraction of the
      nation have any direct interest or knowledge, yet the others have an equal
      voice in their settlement. When people have no direct interest in a
      question they are very apt to be influenced by irrelevant considerations;
      this is shown in the extraordinary reluctance to grant autonomy to
      subordinate nations or groups. For this reason, it is very dangerous to
      allow the nation as a whole to decide on matters which concern only a
      small section, whether that section be geographical or industrial or
      defined in any other way. The best cure for this evil, so far as can be
      seen at present, lies in allowing self-government to every important group
      within a nation in all matters that affect that group much more than they
      affect the rest of the community. The government of a group, chosen by the
      group, will be far more in touch with its constituents, far more conscious
      of their interests, than a remote Parliament nominally representing the
      whole country. The most original idea in Syndicalism&mdash; adopted and
      developed by the Guild Socialists&mdash;is the idea of making industries
      self-governing units so far as their internal affairs are concerned. By
      this method, extended also to such other groups as have clearly separable
      interests, the evils which have shown themselves in representative
      democracy can, I believe, be largely overcome.
    </p>
    <p>
      Guild Socialists, as we have seen, have another suggestion, growing
      naturally out of the autonomy of industrial guilds, by which they hope to
      limit the power of the State and help to preserve individual liberty. They
      propose that, in addition to Parliament, elected (as at present) on a
      territorial basis and representing the community as consumers, there shall
      also be a "Guild Congress," a glorified successor of the present Trade
      Union Congress, which shall consist of representatives chosen by the
      Guilds, and shall represent the community as producers.
    </p>
    <p>
      This method of diminishing the excessive power of the State has been
      attractively set forth by Mr. G. D. H. Cole in his "Self-Government in
      Industry."<a href="#linknote-54" name="linknoteref-54" id="linknoteref-54"><small>54</small></a>
      "Where now," he says, "the State passes a Factory Act, or a Coal Mines
      Regulation Act, the Guild Congress of the future will pass such Acts, and
      its power of enforcing them will be the same as that of the State" (p.
      98). His ultimate ground for advocating this system is that, in his
      opinion, it will tend to preserve individual liberty: "The fundamental
      reason for the preservation, in a democratic Society, of both the
      industrial and the political forms of Social organization is, it seems to
      me, that only by dividing the vast power now wielded by industrial
      capitalism can the individual hope to be free" (p. 91).
    </p>
    <p>
      Will the system suggested by Mr. Cole have this result? I think it is
      clear that it would, in this respect, be an improvement on the existing
      system. Representative government cannot but be improved by any method
      which brings the representatives into closer touch with the interests
      concerned in their legislation; and this advantage probably would be
      secured by handing over questions of production to the Guild Congress. But
      if, in spite of the safeguards proposed by the Guild Socialists, the Guild
      Congress became all-powerful in such questions, if resistance to its will
      by a Guild which felt ill-used became practically hopeless, I fear that
      the evils now connected with the omnipotence of the State would soon
      reappear. Trade Union officials, as soon as they become part of the
      governing forces in the country, tend to become autocratic and
      conservative; they lose touch with their constituents and gravitate, by a
      psychological sympathy, into co-operation with the powers that be. Their
      formal installation in authority through the Guilds Congress would
      accelerate this process. They would soon tend to combine, in effect if not
      obviously, with those who wield authority in Parliament. Apart from
      occasional conflicts, comparable to the rivalry of opposing financiers
      which now sometimes disturbs the harmony of the capitalist world, there
      would, at most times, be agreement between the dominant personalities in
      the two Houses. And such harmony would filch away from the individual the
      liberty which he had hoped to secure by the quarrels of his masters.
    </p>
    <p>
      There is no method, if we are not mistaken, by which a body representing
      the whole community, whether as producers or consumers or both, can alone
      be a sufficient guardian of individual liberty. The only way of preserving
      sufficient liberty (and even this will be inadequate in the case of very
      small minorities) is the organization of citizens with special interests
      into groups, determined to preserve autonomy as regards their internal
      affairs, willing to resist interference by a strike if necessary, and
      sufficiently powerful (either in themselves or through their power of
      appealing to public sympathy) to be able to resist the organized forces of
      government successfully when their cause is such as many men think just.
      If this method is to be successful we must have not only suitable
      organizations but also a diffused respect for liberty, and an absence of
      submissiveness to government both in theory and practice. Some risk of
      disorder there must be in such a society, but this risk is as nothing
      compared to the danger of stagnation which is inseparable from an
      all-powerful central authority.
    </p>
    <p>
      We may now sum up our discussion of the powers of Government.
    </p>
    <p>
      The State, in spite of what Anarchists urge, seems a necessary institution
      for certain purposes. Peace and war, tariffs, regulation of sanitary
      conditions and of the sale of noxious drugs, the preservation of a just
      system of distribution: these, among others, are functions which could
      hardly be performed in a community in which there was no central
      government. Take, for example, the liquor traffic, or the opium traffic in
      China. If alcohol could be obtained at cost price without taxation, still
      more if it could be obtained for nothing, as Anarchists presumably desire,
      can we believe that there would not be a great and disastrous increase of
      drunkenness? China was brought to the verge of ruin by opium, and every
      patriotic Chinaman desired to see the traffic in opium restricted. In such
      matters freedom is not a panacea, and some degree of legal restriction
      seems imperative for the national health.
    </p>
    <p>
      But granting that the State, in some form, must continue, we must also
      grant, I think, that its powers ought to be very strictly limited to what
      is absolutely necessary. There is no way of limiting its powers except by
      means of groups which are jealous of their privileges and determined to
      preserve their autonomy, even if this should involve resistance to laws
      decreed by the State, when these laws interfere in the internal affairs of
      a group in ways not warranted by the public interest. The glorification of
      the State, and the doctrine that it is every citizen's duty to serve the
      State, are radically against progress and against liberty. The State,
      though at present a source of much evil, is also a means to certain good
      things, and will be needed so long as violent and destructive impulses
      remain common. But it is MERELY a means, and a means which needs to be
      very carefully and sparingly used if it is not to do more harm than good.
      It is not the State, but the community, the worldwide community of all
      human beings present and future, that we ought to serve. And a good
      community does not spring from the glory of the State, but from the
      unfettered development of individuals: from happiness in daily life, from
      congenial work giving opportunity for whatever constructiveness each man
      or woman may possess, from free personal relations embodying love and
      taking away the roots of envy in thwarted capacity from affection, and
      above all from the joy of life and its expression in the spontaneous
      creations of art and science. It is these things that make an age or a
      nation worthy of existence, and these things are not to be secured by
      bowing down before the State. It is the individual in whom all that is
      good must be realized, and the free growth of the individual must be the
      supreme end of a political system which is to re-fashion the world.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0006" id="link2HCH0006"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER VI &mdash; INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
    </h2>
    <p>
      THE main objects which should be served by international relations may be
      taken to be two: First, the avoidance of wars, and, second, the prevention
      of the oppression of weak nations by strong ones. These two objects do not
      by any means necessarily lead in the same direction, since one of the
      easiest ways of securing the world's peace would be by a combination of
      the most powerful States for the exploitation and oppression of the
      remainder. This method, however, is not one which the lover of liberty can
      favor. We must keep account of both aims and not be content with either
      alone.
    </p>
    <p>
      One of the commonplaces of both Socialism and Anarchism is that all modern
      wars are due to capitalism, and would cease if capitalism were abolished.
      This view, to my mind, is only a half-truth; the half that is true is
      important, but the half that is untrue is perhaps equally important when a
      fundamental reconstruction of society is being considered.
    </p>
    <p>
      Socialist and Anarchist critics of existing society point, with perfect
      truth, to certain capitalistic factors which promote war. The first of
      these is the desire of finance to find new fields of investment in
      undeveloped countries. Mr. J. A. Hobson, an author who is by no means
      extreme in his views, has well stated this point in his book on "The
      Evolution of Modern Capitalism."<a href="#linknote-55"
      name="linknoteref-55" id="linknoteref-55"><small>55</small></a> He says:
    </p>
    <p>
      The economic tap-root, the chief directing motive of all the modern
      imperialistic expansion, is the pressure of capitalist industries for
      markets, primarily markets for investment, secondarily markets for surplus
      products of home industry. Where the concentration of capital has gone
      furthest, and where a rigorous protective system prevails, this pressure
      is necessarily strongest. Not merely do the trusts and other manufacturing
      trades that restrict their output for the home market more urgently
      require foreign markets, but they are also more anxious to secure
      protected markets, and this can only be achieved by extending the area of
      political rule. This is the essential significance of the recent change in
      American foreign policy as illustrated by the Spanish War, the Philippine
      annexation, the Panama policy, and the new application of the Monroe
      doctrine to the South American States. South America is needed as a
      preferential market for investment of trust "profits" and surplus trust
      products: if in time these states can be brought within a Zollverein under
      the suzerainty of the United States, the financial area of operations
      receives a notable accession. China as a field of railway enterprise and
      general industrial development already begins to loom large in the eyes of
      foresighted American business men; the growing trade in American cotton
      and other goods in that country will be a subordinate consideration to the
      expansion of the area for American investments. Diplomatic pressure, armed
      force, and, where desirable, seizure of territory for political control,
      will be engineered by the financial magnates who control the political
      destiny of America. The strong and expensive American navy now beginning
      to be built incidentally serves the purpose of affording profitable
      contracts to the shipbuilding and metal industries: its real meaning and
      use is to forward the aggressive political policy imposed upon the nation
      by the economic needs of the financial capitalists.
    </p>
    <p>
      It should be clearly understood that this constant pressure to extend the
      area of markets is not a necessary implication of all forms of organized
      industry. If competition was displaced by combinations of a genuinely
      cooperative character in which the whole gain of improved economies
      passed, either to the workers in wages, or to large bodies of investors in
      dividends, the expansion of demand in the home markets would be so great
      as to give full employment to the productive powers of concentrated
      capital, and there would be no self-accumulating masses of profit
      expressing themselves in new credit and demanding external employment. It
      is the "monopoly" profits of trusts and combines, taken either in
      construction, financial operation, or industrial working, that form a
      gathering fund of self-accumulating credit whose possession by the
      financial class implies a contracted demand for commodities and a
      correspondingly restricted employment for capital in American industries.
      Within certain limits relief can be found by stimulation of the export
      trade under cover of a high protective tariff which forbids all
      interference with monopoly of the home markets. But it is extremely
      difficult for trusts adapted to the requirements of a profitable tied
      market at home to adjust their methods of free competition in the world
      markets upon a profitable basis of steady trading. Moreover, such a mode
      of expansion is only appropriate to certain manufacturing trusts: the
      owners of railroad, financial and other trusts must look always more to
      foreign investments for their surplus profits. This ever-growing need for
      fresh fields of investment for their profits is the great crux of the
      financial system, and threatens to dominate the future economics and the
      politics of the great Republic.
    </p>
    <p>
      The financial economy of American capitalism exhibits in more dramatic
      shape a tendency common to the finance of all developed industrial
      nations. The large, easy flow of capital from Great Britain, Germany,
      Austria, France, etc., into South African or Australian mines, into
      Egyptian bonds, or the precarious securities of South American republics,
      attests the same general pressure which increases with every development
      of financial machinery and the more profitable control of that machinery
      by the class of professional financiers
    </p>
    <p>
      The kind of way in which such conditions tend toward war might have been
      illustrated, if Mr. Hobson had been writing at a later date, by various
      more recent cases. A higher rate of interest is obtainable on enterprises
      in an undeveloped country than in a developed one, provided the risks
      connected with an unsettled government can be minimized. To minimize these
      risks the financiers call in the assistance of the military and naval
      forces of the country which they are momentarily asserting to be theirs.
      In order to have the support of public opinion in this demand they have
      recourse to the power of the Press.
    </p>
    <p>
      The Press is the second great factor to which critics of capitalism point
      when they wish to prove that capitalism is the source of modern war. Since
      the running of a big newspaper requires a large capital, the proprietors
      of important organs necessarily belong to the capitalist class, and it
      will be a rare and exceptional event if they do not sympathize with their
      own class in opinion and outlook. They are able to decide what news the
      great mass of newspaper readers shall be allowed to have. They can
      actually falsify the news, or, without going so far as that, they can
      carefully select it, giving such items as will stimulate the passions
      which they desire to stimulate, and suppressing such items as would
      provide the antidote. In this way the picture of the world in the mind of
      the average newspaper reader is made to be not a true picture, but in the
      main that which suits the interests of capitalists. This is true in many
      directions, but above all in what con- cerns the relations between
      nations. The mass of the population of a country can be led to love or
      hate any other country at the will of the newspaper proprietors, which is
      often, directly or indirectly, influenced by the will of the great
      financiers. So long as enmity between England and Russia was desired, our
      newspapers were full of the cruel treatment meted out to Russian political
      prisoners, the oppression of Finland and Russian Poland, and other such
      topics. As soon as our foreign policy changed, these items disappeared
      from the more important newspapers, and we heard instead of the misdeeds
      of Germany. Most men are not sufficiently critical to be on their guard
      against such influences, and until they are, the power of the Press will
      remain.
    </p>
    <p>
      Besides these two influences of capitalism in promoting war, there is
      another, much less emphasized by the critics of capitalism, but by no
      means less important: I mean the pugnacity which tends to be developed in
      men who have the habit of command. So long as capitalist society persists,
      an undue measure of power will be in the hands of those who have acquired
      wealth and influence through a great position in industry or finance. Such
      men are in the habit, in private life, of finding their will seldom
      questioned; they are surrounded by obsequious satellites and are not
      infrequently engaged in conflicts with Trade Unions. Among their friends
      and acquaintances are included those who hold high positions in government
      or administration, and these men equally are liable to become autocratic
      through the habit of giving orders. It used to be customary to speak of
      the "governing classes," but nominal democracy has caused this phrase to
      go out of fashion. Nevertheless, it still retains much truth; there are
      still in any capitalist community those who command and those who as a
      rule obey. The outlook of these two classes is very different, though in a
      modern society there is a continuous gradation from the extreme of the one
      to the extreme of the other. The man who is accustomed to find submission
      to his will becomes indignant on the occasions when he finds opposition.
      Instinctively he is convinced that opposition is wicked and must be
      crushed. He is therefore much more willing than the average citizen to
      resort to war against his rivals. Accordingly we find, though, of course,
      with very notable exceptions, that in the main those who have most power
      are most warlike, and those who have least power are least disposed to
      hatred of foreign nations. This is one of the evils inseparable from the
      concentration of power. It will only be cured by the abolition of
      capitalism if the new system is one which allows very much less power to
      single individuals. It will not be cured by a system which substitutes the
      power of Ministers or officials for the power of capitalists This is one
      reason, additional to those mentioned in the preceding chapter, for
      desiring to see a diminution in the authority of the State.
    </p>
    <p>
      Not only does the concentration of power tend to cause wars, but, equally,
      wars and the fear of them bring about the necessity for the concentration
      of power. So long as the community is exposed to sudden dangers, the
      possibility of quick decision is absolutely necessary to
      self-preservation. The cumbrous machinery of deliberative decisions by the
      people is impossible in a crisis, and therefore so long as crises are
      likely to occur, it is impossible to abolish the almost autocratic power
      of governments. In this case, as in most others, each of two correlative
      evils tends to perpetuate the other. The existence of men with the habit
      of power increases the risk of war, and the risk of war makes it
      impossible to establish a system where no man possesses great power.
    </p>
    <p>
      So far we have been considering what is true in the contention that
      capitalism causes modern wars. It is time now to look at the other side,
      and to ask ourselves whether the abolition of capitalism would, by itself,
      be sufficient to prevent war.
    </p>
    <p>
      I do not myself believe that this is the case. The outlook of both
      Socialists and Anarchists seems to me, in this respect as in some others,
      to be unduly divorced from the fundamental instincts of human nature.
      There were wars before there was capital- ism, and fighting is habitual
      among animals. The power of the Press in promoting war is entirely due to
      the fact that it is able to appeal to certain instincts. Man is naturally
      competitive, acquisitive, and, in a greater or less degree, pugnacious.
      When the Press tells him that so-and-so is his enemy, a whole set of
      instincts in him responds to the suggestion. It is natural to most men to
      suppose that they have enemies and to find a certain fulfillment of their
      nature when they embark upon a contest. What a man believes upon grossly
      insufficient evidence is an index to his desires&mdash;desires of which he
      himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes
      against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the
      evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other
      hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in
      accordance with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slenderest
      evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way, and much of what
      is currently believed in international affairs is no better than myth.
      Although capitalism affords in modern society the channel by which the
      instinct of pugnacity finds its outlet, there is reason to fear that, if
      this channel were closed, some other would be found, unless education and
      environment were so changed as enormously to diminish the strength of the
      competitive instinct. If an economic reorganization can effect this it may
      pro- vide a real safeguard against war, but if not, it is to be feared
      that the hopes of universal peace will prove delusive.
    </p>
    <p>
      The abolition of capitalism might, and very likely would, greatly diminish
      the incentives to war which are derived from the Press and from the desire
      of finance to find new fields for investment in undeveloped countries, but
      those which are derived from the instinct of command and the impatience of
      opposition might remain, though perhaps in a less virulent form than at
      present. A democracy which has power is almost always more bellicose than
      one which is excluded from its due share in the government. The
      internationalism of Marx is based upon the assumption that the proletariat
      everywhere are oppressed by the ruling classes. The last words of the
      Communist Manifesto embody this idea&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The
      proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to
      win. Working men of all countries, unite!
    </p>
    <p>
      So long as the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains, it is
      not likely that their enmity will be directed against other proletarians.
      If the world had developed as Marx expected, the kind of internationalism
      which he foresaw might have inspired a universal social revolution.
      Russia, which devel- oped more nearly than any other country upon the
      lines of his system, has had a revolution of the kind which he expected.
      If the development in other countries had been similar, it is highly
      probable that this revolution would have spread throughout the civilized
      world. The proletariat of all countries might have united against the
      capitalists as their common enemy, and in the bond of an identical hatred
      they might for the moment have been free from hatred toward each other.
      Even then, this ground of union would have ceased with their victory, and
      on the morrow of the social revolution the old national rivalries might
      have revived. There is no alchemy by which a universal harmony can be
      produced out of hatred. Those who have been inspired to action by the
      doctrine of the class war will have acquired the habit of hatred, and will
      instinctively seek new enemies when the old ones have been vanquished.
    </p>
    <p>
      But in actual fact the psychology of the working man in any of the Western
      democracies is totally unlike that which is assumed in the Communist
      Manifesto. He does not by any means feel that he has nothing to lose but
      his chains, nor indeed is this true. The chains which bind Asia and Africa
      in subjection to Europe are partly riveted by him. He is himself part of a
      great system of tyranny and exploitation. Universal freedom would remove,
      not only his own chains, which are comparatively light, but the far
      heavier chains which he has helped to fasten upon the subject races of the
      world.
    </p>
    <p>
      Not only do the working men of a country like England have a share in the
      benefit accruing from the exploitation of inferior races, but many among
      them also have their part in the capitalist system. The funds of Trade
      Unions and Friendly Societies are invested in ordinary undertakings, such
      as railways; many of the better-paid wage-earners have put their savings
      into government securities; and almost all who are politically active feel
      themselves part of the forces that determine public policy, through the
      power of the Labor Party and the greater unions. Owing to these causes
      their outlook on life has become to a considerable extent impregnated with
      capitalism and as their sense of power has grown, their nationalism has
      increased. This must continue to be true of any internationalism which is
      based upon hatred of the capitalist and adherence to the doctrine of the
      class war. Something more positive and constructive than this is needed if
      governing democracies are not to inherit the vices of governing classes in
      the past.
    </p>
    <p>
      I do not wish to be thought to deny that capitalism does very much to
      promote wars, or that wars would probably be less frequent and less
      destructive if private property were abolished. On the contrary, I believe
      that the abolition of private ownership of land and capital is a necessary
      step toward any world in which the nations are to live at peace with one
      another. I am only arguing that this step, necessary as it is, will not
      alone suffice for this end, but that among the causes of war there are
      others that go deeper into the roots of human nature than any that
      orthodox Socialists are wont to acknowledge.
    </p>
    <p>
      Let us take an instance. In Australia and California there is an intense
      dislike and fear toward the yellow races. The causes of this are complex;
      the chief among them are two, labor competition and instinctive
      race-hatred. It is probable that, if race- hatred did not exist, the
      difficulties of labor competition could be overcome. European immigrants
      also compete, but they are not excluded. In a sparsely populated country,
      industrious cheap labor could, with a little care, be so utilized as to
      enrich the existing inhabitants; it might, for example, be confined to
      certain kinds of work, by custom if not by law. But race-hatred opens
      men's minds to the evils of competition and closes them against the
      advantages of co-operation; it makes them regard with horror the somewhat
      unfamiliar vices of the aliens, while our own vices are viewed with mild
      toleration. I cannot but think that, if Australia were completely
      socialized, there would still remain the same popular objection as at
      present to any large influx of Chinese or Japanese labor. Yet if Japan
      also were to become a Socialist State, the Japanese might well continue to
      feel the pressure of population and the desire for an outlet. In such
      circumstances, all the passions and interests required to produce a war
      would exist, in spite of the establishment of Socialism in both countries.
      Ants are as completely Socialistic as any community can possibly be, yet
      they put to death any ant which strays among them by mistake from a
      neighboring ant-heap. Men do not differ much from ants, as regards their
      instincts in this respect, where- ever there is a great divergence of
      race, as between white men and yellow men. Of course the instinct of
      race-hostility can be overcome by suitable circumstances; but in the
      absence of such circumstances it remains a formidable menace to the
      world's peace.
    </p>
    <p>
      If the peace of the world is ever to become secure, I believe there will
      have to be, along with other changes, a development of the idea which
      inspires the project of a League of Nations. As time goes on, the
      destructiveness of war grows greater and its profits grow less: the
      rational argument against war acquires more and more force as the
      increasing productivity of labor makes it possible to devote a greater and
      greater proportion of the population to the work of mutual slaughter. In
      quiet times, or when a great war has just ended, men's moods are amenable
      to the rational grounds in favor of peace, and it is possible to
      inaugurate schemes designed to make wars less frequent. Probably no
      civilized nation would embark upon an aggressive war if it were fairly
      certain in advance that the aggressor must be defeated. This could be
      achieved if most great nations came to regard the peace of the world as of
      such importance that they would side against an aggressor even in a
      quarrel in which they had no direct interest. It is on this hope that the
      League of Nations is based.
    </p>
    <p>
      But the League of Nations, like the abolition of private property, will be
      by no means sufficient if it is not accompanied or quickly followed by
      other reforms. It is clear that such reforms, if they are to be effective,
      must be international; the world must move as a whole in these matters, if
      it is to move at all. One of the most obvious necessities, if peace is to
      be secure, is a measure of disarmament. So long as the present vast armies
      and navies exist, no system can prevent the risk of war. But disarmament,
      if it is to serve its purpose, must be simultaneous and by mutual
      agreement among all the Great Powers. And it is not likely to be
      successful so long as hatred and suspicion rule between nations, for each
      nation will suspect its neighbor of not carrying out the bargain fairly. A
      different mental and moral atmosphere from that to which we are accustomed
      in international affairs will be necessary if agreements between nations
      are to succeed in averting catastrophes. If once such an atmosphere
      existed it might be perpetuated and strengthened by wise institutions; but
      it cannot be CREATED by institutions alone. International co-operation
      requires mutual good will, and good will, however it has arisen, is only
      to be PRESERVED by co-operation. The international future depends upon the
      possibility of the initial creation of good will between nations.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is in this sort of matter that revolutions are most useful. If the
      Russian Revolution had been accompanied by a revolution in Germany, the
      dramatic suddenness of the change might have shaken Europe, for the
      moment, out of its habits of thought: the idea of fraternity might have
      seemed, in the twinkling of an eye, to have entered the world of practical
      politics; and no idea is so practical as the idea of the brotherhood of
      man, if only people can be startled into believing in it. If once the idea
      of fraternity between nations were inaugurated with the faith and vigor
      belonging to a new revolution, all the difficulties surrounding it would
      melt away, for all of them are due to suspicion and the tyranny of ancient
      prejudice. Those who (as is common in the English-speaking world) reject
      revolution as a method, and praise the gradual piecemeal development which
      (we are told) constitutes solid progress, overlook the effect of dramatic
      events in changing the mood and the beliefs of whole populations. A
      simultaneous revolution in Germany and Russia would no doubt have had such
      an effect, and would have made the creation of a new world possible here
      and now.
    </p>
    <p>
      Dis aliter visum: the millennium is not for our time. The great moment has
      passed, and for ourselves it is again the distant hope that must inspire
      us, not the immediate breathless looking for the deliverance.<a
      href="#linknote-56" name="linknoteref-56" id="linknoteref-56"><small>56</small></a>
      But we have seen what might have been, and we know that great
      possibilities do arise in times of crisis. In some such sense as this, it
      may well be true that the Socialist revolution is the road to universal
      peace, and that when it has been traversed all the other conditions for
      the cessation of wars will grow of themselves out of the changed mental
      and moral atmosphere.
    </p>
    <p>
      There is a certain class of difficulties which surrounds the sober
      idealist in all speculations about the not too distant future. These are
      the cases where the solution believed by most idealists to be universally
      applicable is for some reason impossible, and is, at the same time,
      objected to for base or interested motives by all upholders of existing
      inequalities. The case of Tropical Africa will illustrate what I mean. It
      would be difficult seriously to advocate the immediate introduction of
      parliamentary government for the natives of this part of the world, even
      if it were accompanied by women's suffrage and proportional
      representation. So far as I know, no one supposes the populations of these
      regions capable of self- determination, except Mr. Lloyd George. There can
      be no doubt that, whatever regime may be introduced in Europe, African
      negroes will for a long time to come be governed and exploited by
      Europeans. If the European States became Socialistic, and refused, under a
      Quixotic impulse, to enrich themselves at the expense of the defenseless
      inhabitants of Africa, those inhabitants would not thereby gain; on the
      contrary, they would lose, for they would be handed over to the tender
      mercies of individual traders, operating with armies of reprobate bravos,
      and committing every atrocity to which the civilized barbarian is prone.
      The European governments cannot divest themselves of responsibility in
      regard to Africa. They must govern there, and the best that can be hoped
      is that they should govern with a minimum of cruelty and rapacity. From
      the point of view of preserving the peace of the world, the problem is to
      parcel out the advantages which white men derive from their position in
      Africa in such a way that no nation shall feel a sense of injustice. This
      problem is comparatively simple, and might no doubt be solved on the lines
      of the war aims of the Inter-Allied Socialists. But it is not this problem
      which I wish to discuss. What I wish to consider is, how could a Socialist
      or an Anarchist community govern and administer an African region, full of
      natural wealth, but inhabited by a quite uncivilized population? Unless
      great precautions were taken the white community, under the circumstances,
      would acquire the position and the instincts of a slave-owner. It would
      tend to keep the negroes down to the bare level of subsistence, while
      using the produce of their country to increase the comfort and splendor of
      the Communist community. It would do this with that careful
      unconsciousness which now characterizes all the worst acts of nations.
      Administrators would be appointed and would be expected to keep silence as
      to their methods. Busybodies who reported horrors would be disbelieved,
      and would be said to be actuated by hatred toward the existing regime and
      by a perverse love for every country but their own. No doubt, in the first
      generous enthusiasm accompanying the establishment of the new regime at
      home, there would be every intention of making the natives happy, but
      gradually they would be forgotten, and only the tribute coming from their
      country would be remembered. I do not say that all these evils are
      unavoidable; I say only that they will not be avoided unless they are
      foreseen and a deliberate conscious effort is made to prevent their
      realization. If the white communities should ever reach the point of
      wishing to carry out as far as possible the principles underlying the
      revolt against capitalism, they will have to find a way of establishing an
      absolute disinterestedness in their dealings with subject races. It will
      be necessary to avoid the faintest suggestion of capitalistic profit in
      the government of Africa, and to spend in the countries themselves
      whatever they would be able to spend if they were self-governing.
      Moreover, it must always be remembered that backwardness in civilization
      is not necessarily incurable, and that with time even the populations of
      Central Africa may become capable of democratic self-government, provided
      Europeans bend their energies to this purpose.
    </p>
    <p>
      The problem of Africa is, of course, a part of the wider problems of
      Imperialism, but it is that part in which the application of Socialist
      principles is most difficult. In regard to Asia, and more particularly in
      regard to India and Persia, the application of principles is clear in
      theory though difficult in political practice. The obstacles to
      self-government which exist in Africa do not exist in the same measure in
      Asia. What stands in the way of freedom of Asiatic populations is not
      their lack of intelligence, but only their lack of military prowess, which
      makes them an easy prey to our lust for dominion. This lust would probably
      be in temporary abeyance on the morrow of a Socialist revolution, and at
      such a moment a new departure in Asiatic policy might be taken with
      permanently beneficial results. I do not mean, of course, that we should
      force upon India that form of democratic government which we have
      developed for our own needs. I mean rather that we should leave India to
      choose its own form of government, its own manner of education and its own
      type of civilization. India has an ancient tradition, very different from
      that of Western Europe, a tradition highly valued by educated Hindoos, but
      not loved by our schools and colleges. The Hindoo Nationalist feels that
      his country has a type of culture containing elements of value that are
      absent, or much less marked, in the West; he wishes to be free to preserve
      this, and desires political freedom for such reasons rather than for those
      that would most naturally appeal to an Englishman in the same subject
      position. The belief of the European in his own Kultur tends to be
      fanatical and ruthless, and for this reason, as much as for any other, the
      independence of extra-European civilization is of real importance to the
      world, for it is not by a dead uniformity that the world as a whole is
      most enriched.
    </p>
    <p>
      I have set forth strongly all the major difficulties in the way of the
      preservation of the world's peace, not because I believe these
      difficulties to be insuperable, but, on the contrary, because I believe
      that they can be overcome if they are recognized. A correct diagnosis is
      necessarily the first step toward a cure. The existing evils in
      international relations spring, at bottom, from psychological causes, from
      motives forming part of human nature as it is at present. Among these the
      chief are competitiveness, love of power, and envy, using envy in that
      broad sense in which it includes the instinctive dislike of any gain to
      others not accompanied by an at least equal gain to ourselves. The evils
      arising from these three causes can be removed by a better education and a
      better economic and political system.
    </p>
    <p>
      Competitiveness is by no means wholly an evil. When it takes the form of
      emulation in the service of the public, or in discovery or the production
      of works of art, it may become a very useful stimulus, urging men to
      profitable effort beyond what they would otherwise make. It is only
      harmful when it aims at the acquisition of goods which are limited in
      amount, so that what one man possesses he holds at the expense of another.
      When competitiveness takes this form it is necessarily attended by fear,
      and out of fear cruelty is almost inevitably developed. But a social
      system providing for a more just distribution of material goods might
      close to the instinct of competitiveness those channels in which it is
      harmful, and cause it to flow instead in channels in which it would become
      a benefit to mankind. This is one great reason why the communal ownership
      of land and capital would be likely to have a beneficial effect upon human
      nature, for human nature, as it exists in adult men and women, is by no
      means a fixed datum, but a product of circumstances, education and
      opportunity operating upon a highly malleable native disposition.
    </p>
    <p>
      What is true of competitiveness is equally true of love of power. Power,
      in the form in which it is now usually sought, is power of command, power
      of imposing one's will upon others by force, open or concealed. This form
      of power consists, in essence, in thwarting others, for it is only
      displayed when others are compelled to do what they do not wish to do.
      Such power, we hope, the social system which is to supersede capitalist
      will reduce to a minimum by the methods which we outlined in the preceding
      chapter. These methods can be applied in international no less than in
      national affairs. In international affairs the same formula of federalism
      will apply: self- determination for every group in regard to matters which
      concern it much more vitally than they concern others, and government by a
      neutral authority embracing rival groups in all matters in which
      conflicting interests of groups come into play; lout always with the fixed
      principle that the functions of government are to be reduced to the bare
      minimum compatible with justice and the prevention of private violence. In
      such a world the present harmful outlets for the love of power would be
      closed. But the power which consists in persuasion, in teaching, in
      leading men to a new wisdom or the realization of new possibilities of
      happiness&mdash;this kind of power, which may be wholly beneficial, would
      remain untouched, and many vigorous men, who in the actual world devote
      their energies to domination, would in such a world find their energies
      directed to the creation of new goods rather than the perpetuation of
      ancient evils.
    </p>
    <p>
      Envy, the third of the psychological causes to which we attributed what is
      bad in the actual world, depends in most natures upon that kind of
      fundamental discontent which springs from a lack of free development, from
      thwarted instinct, and from the impossibility of realizing an imagined
      happiness. Envy cannot be cured by preaching; preaching, at the best, will
      only alter its manifestations and lead it to adopt more subtle forms of
      concealment. Except in those rare natures in which generosity dominates in
      spite of circumstances, the only cure for envy is freedom and the joy of
      life. From populations largely deprived of the simple instinctive
      pleasures of leisure and love, sunshine and green fields, generosity of
      outlook and kindliness of dispositions are hardly to be expected. In such
      populations these qualities are not likely to be found, even among the
      fortunate few, for these few are aware, however dimly, that they are
      profiting by an injustice, and that they can only continue to enjoy their
      good fortune by deliberately ignoring those with whom it is not shared. If
      generosity and kindliness are to be common, there must be more care than
      there is at present for the elementary wants of human nature, and more
      realization that the diffusion of happiness among all who are not the
      victims of some peculiar misfortune is both possible and imperative. A
      world full of happiness would not wish to plunge into war, and would not
      be filled with that grudging hostility which our cramped and narrow
      existence forces upon average human nature. A world full of happiness is
      not beyond human power to create; the obstacles imposed by inanimate
      nature are not insuperable. The real obstacles lie in the heart of man,
      and the cure for these is a firm hope, informed and fortified by thought.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0007" id="link2HCH0007"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER VII &mdash; SCIENCE AND ART UNDER SOCIALISM
    </h2>
    <p>
      SOCIALISM has been advocated by most of its champions chiefly as a means
      of increasing the welfare of the wage earning classes, and more
      particularly their material welfare. It has seemed accordingly, to some
      men whose aims are not material, as if it has nothing to offer toward the
      general advancement of civilization in the way of art and thought. Some of
      its advocates, moreover&mdash;and among these Marx must be included&mdash;have
      written, no doubt not deliberately, as if with the Socialist revolution
      the millennium would have arrived, and there would be no need of further
      progress for the human race. I do not know whether our age is more
      restless than that which preceded it, or whether it has merely become more
      impregnated with the idea of evolution, but, for whatever reason, we have
      grown incapable of believing in a state of static perfection, and we
      demand, of any social system, which is to have our approval, that it shall
      contain within itself a stimulus and opportunity for progress toward
      something still better. The doubts thus raised by Socialist writers make
      it necessary to inquire whether Socialism would in fact be hostile to art
      and science, and whether it would be likely to produce a stereotyped
      society in which progress would become difficult and slow.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is not enough that men and women should be made comfortable in a
      material sense. Many members of the well-to-do classes at present, in
      spite of opportunity, contribute nothing of value to the life of the
      world, and do not even succeed in securing for themselves any personal
      happiness worthy to be so called. The multiplication of such individuals
      would be an achievement of the very minutest value; and if Socialism were
      merely to bestow upon all the kind of life and outlook which is now
      enjoyed by the more apathetic among the well-to-do, it would offer little
      that could inspire enthusiasm in any generous spirit.
    </p>
    <p>
      "The true role of collective existence," says M. Naquet,<a
      href="#linknote-57" name="linknoteref-57" id="linknoteref-57"><small>57</small></a>"
      . . . is to learn, to discover, to know. Eating, drinking, sleeping,
      living, in a word, is a mere accessory. In this respect, we are not
      distinguished from the brute. Knowledge is the goal. If I were condemned
      to choose between a humanity materially happy, glutted after the manner of
      a flock of sheep in a field, and a humanity existing in misery, but from
      which emanated, here and there, some eternal truth, it is on the latter
      that my choice would fall."
    </p>
    <p>
      This statement puts the alternative in a very extreme form in which it is
      somewhat unreal. It may be said in reply that for those who have had the
      leisure and the opportunity to enjoy "eternal truths" it is easy to exalt
      their importance at the expense of sufferings which fall on others. This
      is true; but, if it is taken as disposing of the question, it leaves out
      of account the importance of thought for progress. Viewing the life of
      mankind as a whole, in the future as well as in the present, there can be
      no question that a society in which some men pursue knowledge while others
      endure great poverty offers more hope of ultimate good than a society in
      which all are sunk in slothful comfort. It is true that poverty is a great
      evil, but it is not true that material prosperity is in itself a great
      good. If it is to have any real value to society, it must be made a means
      to the advancement of those higher goods that belong to the life of the
      mind. But the life of the mind does not consist of thought and knowledge
      alone, nor can it be completely healthy unless it has some instinctive
      contact, however deeply buried, with the general life of the community.
      Divorced from the social instinct, thought, like art, tends to become
      finicky and precious. It is the position of such art and thought as is
      imbued with the instinctive sense of service to mankind that we wish to
      consider, for it is this alone that makes up the life of the mind in the
      sense in which it is a vital part of the life of the community. Will the
      life of the mind in this sense be helped or hindered by Socialism? And
      will there still be a sufficient spur to progress to prevent a condition
      of Byzantine immobility?
    </p>
    <p>
      In considering this question we are, in a certain sense, passing outside
      the atmosphere of democracy. The general good of the community is realized
      only in individuals, but it is realized much more fully in some
      individuals than in others. Some men have a comprehensive and penetrating
      intellect, enabling them to appreciate and remember what has been thought
      and known by their predecessors, and to discover new regions in which they
      enjoy all the high delights of the mental explorer. Others have the power
      of creating beauty, giving bodily form to impalpable visions out of which
      joy comes to many. Such men are more fortunate than the mass, and also
      more important for the collective life. A larger share of the general sum
      of good is concentrated in them than in the ordinary man and woman; but
      also their contribution to the general good is greater. They stand out
      among men and cannot be wholly fitted into the framework of democratic
      equality. A social system which would render them unproductive would stand
      condemned, whatever other merits it might have.
    </p>
    <p>
      The first thing to realize&mdash;though it is difficult in a commercial
      age&mdash;is that what is best in creative mental activity cannot be
      produced by any system of monetary rewards. Opportunity and the stimulus
      of an invigorating spiritual atmosphere are important, but, if they are
      presented, no financial inducements will be required, while if they are
      absent, material compensations will be of no avail. Recognition, even if
      it takes the form of money, can bring a certain pleasure in old age to the
      man of science who has battled all his life against academic prejudice, or
      to the artist who has endured years of ridicule for not painting in the
      manner of his predecessors; but it is not by the remote hope of such
      pleasures that their work has been inspired. All the most important work
      springs from an uncalculating impulse, and is best promoted, not by
      rewards after the event, but by circumstances which keep the impulse alive
      and afford scope for the activities which it inspires. In the creation of
      such circumstances our present system is much at fault. Will Socialism be
      better?
    </p>
    <p>
      I do not think this question can be answered without specifying the kind
      of Socialism that is intended: some forms of Socialism would, I believe,
      be even more destructive in this respect than the present capitalist
      regime, while others would be immeasurably better. Three things which a
      social system can provide or withhold are helpful to mental creation:
      first, technical training; second, liberty to follow the creative impulse;
      third, at least the possibility of ultimate appreciation by some public,
      whether large or small. We may leave out of our discussion both individual
      genius and those intangible conditions which make some ages great and
      others sterile in art and science&mdash;not because these are unimportant,
      but because they are too little understood to be taken account of in
      economic or political organization. The three conditions we have mentioned
      seem to cover most of what can be SEEN to be useful or harmful from our
      present point of view, and it is therefore to them that we shall confine
      ourselves.
    </p>
    <p>
      1. Technical Training.&mdash;Technical training at present, whether in
      science or art, requires one or other of two conditions. Either a boy must
      be the son of well-to-do parents who can afford to keep him while he
      acquires his education, or he must show so much ability at an early age as
      to enable him to subsist on scholarships until he is ready to earn his
      living. The former condition is, of course, a mere matter of luck, and
      could not be preserved in its present form under any kind of Socialism or
      Communism. This loss is emphasized by defenders of the present system, and
      no doubt it would be, to same extent, a real loss. But the well-to-do are
      a small proportion of the population, and presumably on the average no
      more talented by nature than their less fortunate contemporaries. If the
      advantages which are enjoyed now by those few among them who are capable
      of good work in science or art could be extended, even in a slightly
      attenuated form, to all who are similarly gifted, the result would almost
      infallibly be a gain, and much ability which is now wasted would be
      rendered fruitful. But how is this to be effected?
    </p>
    <p>
      The system of scholarships obtained by competition, though better than
      nothing, is objectionable from many points of view. It introduces the
      competitive spirit into the work of the very young; it makes them regard
      knowledge from the standpoint of what is useful in examinations rather
      than in the light of its intrinsic interest or importance; it places a
      premium upon that sort of ability which is displayed precociously in glib
      answers to set questions rather than upon the kind that broods on
      difficulties and remains for a time rather dumb. What is perhaps worse
      than any of these defects is the tendency to cause overwork in youth,
      leading to lack of vigor and interest when manhood has been reached. It
      can hardly be doubted that by this cause, at present, many fine minds have
      their edge blunted and their keenness destroyed.
    </p>
    <p>
      State Socialism might easily universalize the system of scholarships
      obtained by competitive examination, and if it did so it is to he feared
      that it would be very harmful. State Socialists at present tend to be
      enamored of the systems which is exactly of the kind that every bureaucrat
      loves: orderly, neat, giving a stimulus to industrious habits, and
      involving no waste of a sort that could be tabulated in statistics or
      accounts of public expenditure. Such men will argue that free higher
      education is expensive to the community, and only useful in the case of
      those who have exceptional abilities; it ought, therefore, they will say,
      not to be given to all, but only to those who will become more useful
      members of society through receiving it. Such arguments make a great
      appeal to what are called "practical" men, and the answers to them are of
      a sort which it is difficult to render widely convincing. Revolt against
      the evils of competition is, however, part of the very essence of the
      Socialist's protest against the existing order, and on this ground, if on
      no other, those who favor Socialism may be summoned to look for some
      better solution.
    </p>
    <p>
      Much the simplest solution, and the only really effective one, is to make
      every kind of education free up to the age of twenty-one for all boys and
      girls who desire it. The majority will be tired of education before that
      age, and will prefer to begin other work sooner; this will lead to a
      natural selection of those with strong interests in some pursuit requiring
      a long training. Among those selected in this way by their own
      inclinations, probably almost all tho have marked abilities of the kind in
      question will be included. It is true that there will also be many who
      have very little ability; the desire to become a painter, for example, is
      by no means confined to those who can paint. But this degree of waste
      could well be borne by the community; it would be immeasurably less than
      that now entailed by the support of the idle rich. Any system which aims
      at avoiding this kind of waste must entail the far more serious waste of
      rejecting or spoiling some of the best ability in each generation. The
      system of free education up to any grade for all who desire it is the only
      system which is consistent with the principles of liberty, and the only
      one which gives a reasonable hope of affording full scope for talent. This
      system is equally compatible with all forms of Socialism and Anarchism.
      Theoretically, it is compatible with capitalism, but practically it is so
      opposite in spirit that it would hardly be feasible without a complete
      economic reconstruction. The fact that Socialism would facilitate it must
      be reckoned a very powerful argument in favor of change, for the waste of
      talent at present in the poorer classes of society must be stupendous.
    </p>
    <p>
      2. Liberty to follow the creative impulse.&mdash; When a man's training
      has been completed, if he is possessed of really great abilities, he will
      do his best work if he is completely free to follow his bent, creating
      what seems good to him, regardless of the judgment of "experts." At
      present this is only possible for two classes of people: those who have
      private means, and those who can earn a living by an occupation that does
      not absorb their whole energies. Under Socialism, there will be no one
      with private means, and if there is to be no loss as regards art and
      science, the opportunity which now comes by accident to a few will have to
      be provided deliberately for a much larger number. The men who have used
      private means as an opportunity for creative work have been few but
      important: one might mention Milton, Shelley, Keats and Darwin as
      examples. Probably none of these would have produced as good work if they
      had had to earn their livelihood. If Darwin had been a university teacher,
      he would of course have been dismissed from his post by the influence of
      the clerics on account of his scandalous theories.
    </p>
    <p>
      Nevertheless, the bulk of the creative work of the world is done at
      present by men who subsist by some other occupation. Science, and research
      generally, are usually done in their spare time by men who live by
      teaching. There is no great objection to this in the case of science,
      provided the number of hours devoted to teaching is not excessive. It is
      partly because science and teaching are so easily combined that science is
      vigorous in the present age. In music, a composer who is also a performer
      enjoys similar advantages, but one who is not a performer must starve,
      unless he is rich or willing to pander to the public taste. In the fine
      arts, as a rule, it is not easy in the modern world either to make a
      living by really good work or to find a subsidiary profession which leaves
      enough leisure for creation. This is presumably one reason, though by no
      means the only one, why art is less flourishing than science.
    </p>
    <p>
      The bureaucratic State Socialist will have a simple solution for these
      difficulties. He will appoint a body consisting of the most eminent
      celebrities in an art or a science, whose business it shall be to judge
      the work of young men, and to issue licenses to those whose productions
      find favor in their eyes. A licensed artist shall be considered to have
      performed his duty to the community by producing works of art. But of
      course he will have to prove his industry by never failing to produce in
      reasonable quantities, and his continued ability by never failing to
      please his eminent judges&mdash;until, in the fulness of time, he becomes
      a judge himself. In this way, the authorities will insure that the artist
      shall be competent, regular, and obedient to the best traditions of his
      art. Those who fail to fulfil these conditions will be compelled by the
      withdrawal of their license to seek some less dubious mode of earning
      their living. Such will be the ideal of the State Socialist.
    </p>
    <p>
      In such a world all that makes life tolerable to the lover of beauty would
      perish. Art springs from a wild and anarchic side of human nature; between
      the artist and the bureaucrat there must always be a profound mutual
      antagonism, an age-long battle in which the artist, always outwardly
      worsted, wins in the end through the gratitude of mankind for the joy that
      he puts into their lives. If the wild side of human nature is to be
      permanently subjected to the orderly rules of the benevolent,
      uncomprehending bureaucrat, the joy of life will perish out of the earth,
      and the very impulse to live will gradually wither and die. Better a
      thousandfold the present world with all its horrors than such a dead mummy
      of a world. Better Anarchism, with all its risks, than a State Socialism
      that subjects to rule what must be spontaneous and free if it is to have
      any value. It is this nightmare that makes artists, and lovers of beauty
      generally, so often suspicious of Socialism. But there is nothing in the
      essence of Socialism to make art impossible: only certain forms of
      Socialism would entail this danger. William Morris was a Socialist, and
      was a Socialist very largely because he was an artist. And in this he was
      not irrational.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is impossible for art, or any of the higher creative activities, to
      flourish under any system which requires that the artist shall prove his
      competence to some body of authorities before he is allowed to follow his
      impulse. Any really great artist is almost sure to be thought incompetent
      by those among his seniors who would be generally regarded as best
      qualified to form an opinion. And the mere fact of having to produce work
      which will please older men is hostile to a free spirit and to bold
      innovation. Apart from this difficulty, selection by older men would lead
      to jealousy and intrigue and back-biting, producing a poisonous atmosphere
      of underground competition. The only effect of such a plan would be to
      eliminate the few who now slip through owing to some fortunate accident.
      It is not by any system, but by freedom alone, that art can flourish.
    </p>
    <p>
      There are two ways by which the artist could secure freedom under
      Socialism of the right kind. He might undertake regular work outside his
      art, doing only a few hours' work a day and receiving proportionately less
      pay than those who do a full day's work. He ought, in that case, to be at
      liberty to sell his pictures if he could find purchasers. Such a system
      would have many advantages. It would leave absolutely every man free to
      become an artist, provided he were willing to suffer a certain economic
      loss. This would not deter those in whom the impulse was strong and
      genuine, but would tend to exclude the dilettante. Many young artists at
      present endure voluntarily much greater poverty than need be entailed by
      only doing half the usual day's work in a well-organized Socialist
      community; and some degree of hardship is not objectionable, as a test of
      the strength of the creative impulse, and as an offset to the peculiar
      joys of the creative life.
    </p>
    <p>
      The other possibility<a href="#linknote-58" name="linknoteref-58"
      id="linknoteref-58"><small>58</small></a> would be that the necessaries of
      life should be free, as Anarchists desire, to all equally, regardless of
      whether they work or not. Under this plan, every man could live without
      work: there would be what might be called a "vagabond's wage," sufficient
      for existence but not for luxury. The artist who preferred to have his
      whole time for art and enjoyment might live on the "vagabond's wage"&mdash;traveling
      on foot when the humor seized him to see foreign countries, enjoying the
      air and the sun, as free as the birds, and perhaps scarcely less happy.
      Such men would bring color and diversity into the life of the community;
      their outlook would be different from that of steady, stay-at-home
      workers, and would keep alive a much-needed element of light- heartedness
      which our sober, serious civilization tends to kill. If they became very
      numerous, they might be too great an economic burden on the workers; but I
      doubt if there are many with enough capacity for simple enjoyments to
      choose poverty and free- dom in preference to the comparatively light and
      pleasant work which will be usual in those days.
    </p>
    <p>
      By either of these methods, freedom can be preserved for the artist in a
      socialistic commonwealth&mdash; far more complete freedom, and far more
      widespread, than any that now exists except for the possessors of capital.
    </p>
    <p>
      But there still remain some not altogether easy problems. Take, for
      example, the publishing of books. There will not, under Socialism, be
      private publishers as at present: under State Socialism, presumably the
      State will be the sole publisher, while under Syndicalism or Guild
      Socialism the Federation du Livre will have the whole of the trade in its
      hands. Under these circumstances, who is to decide what MSS. are to be
      printed? It is clear that opportunities exist for an Index more rigorous
      than that of the Inquisition. If the State were the sole publisher, it
      would doubtless refuse books opposed to State Socialism. If the Federation
      du Livre were the ultimate arbiter, what publicity could be obtained for
      works criticising it? And apart from such political difficulties we should
      have, as regards literature, that very censorship by eminent officials
      which we agreed to regard as disastrous when we were considering the fine
      arts in general. The difficulty is serious, and a way of meeting it must
      be found if literature is to remain free.
    </p>
    <p>
      Kropotkin, who believes that manual and intellectual work should be
      combined, holds that authors themselves should be compositors,
      bookbinders, etc. He even seems to suggest that the whole of the manual
      work involved in producing books should be done by authors. It may be
      doubted whether there are enough authors in the world for this to be
      possible, and in any case I cannot but think that it would be a waste of
      time for them to leave the work they understand in order to do badly work
      which others could do far better and more quickly. That, however, does not
      touch our present point, which is the question how the MSS. to be printed
      will be selected. In Kropotkin's plan there will presumably be an Author's
      Guild, with a Committee of Management, if Anarchism allows such things.
      This Committee of Management will decide which of the books submitted to
      it are worthy to be printed. Among these will be included those by the
      Committee and their friends, but not those by their enemies. Authors of
      rejected MSS. will hardly have the patience to spend their time setting up
      the works of successful rivals, and there will have to be an elaborate
      system of log-rolling if any books are to be printed at all. It hardly
      looks as if this plan would conduce to harmony among literary men, or
      would lead to the publication of any book of an unconventional tendency.
      Kropotkin's own books, for example, would hardly have found favor.
    </p>
    <p>
      The only way of meeting these difficulties, whether under State Socialism
      or Guild Socialism or Anarchism, seems to be by making it possible for an
      author to pay for the publication of his book if it is not such as the
      State or the Guild is willing to print at its own expense. I am aware that
      this method is contrary to the spirit of Socialism, but I do not see what
      other way there is of securing freedom. The payment might be made by
      undertaking to engage for an assigned period in some work of recognized
      utility and to hand over such proportion of the earnings as might be
      necessary. The work undertaken might of course be, as Kropotkin suggests,
      the manual part of the production of books, but I see no special reason
      why it should be. It would have to be an absolute rule that no book should
      be refused, no matter what the nature of its contents might be, if payment
      for publication were offered at the standard rate. An author who had
      admirers would be able to secure their help in payment. An unknown author
      might, it is true, have to suffer a considerable loss of comfort in order
      to make his payment, but that would give an automatic means of eliminating
      those whose writing was not the result of any very profound impulse and
      would be by no means wholly an evil.
    </p>
    <p>
      Probably some similar method would be desirable as regards the publishing
      and performing of new music.
    </p>
    <p>
      What we have been suggesting will, no doubt, be objected to by orthodox
      Socialists, since they will find something repugnant to their principles
      in the whole idea of a private person paying to have certain work done.
      But it is a mistake to be the slave of a system, and every system, if it
      is applied rigidly, will entail evils which could only be avoided by some
      concession to the exigencies of special cases. On the whole, a wise form
      of Socialism might afford infinitely better opportunities for the artist
      and the man of science than are possible in a capitalist community, but
      only if the form of Socialism adopted is one which is fitted for this end
      by means of provisions such as we have been suggesting.
    </p>
    <p>
      3. Possibility of Appreciation.&mdash;This condition is one which is not
      necessary to all who do creative work, but in the sense in which I mean it
      the great majority find it very nearly indispensable. I do not mean
      widespread public recognition, nor that ignorant, half-sincere respect
      which is commonly accorded to artists who have achieved success. Neither
      of these serves much purpose. What I mean is rather understanding, and a
      spontaneous feeling that things of beauty are important. In a thoroughly
      commercialized society, an artist is respected if he makes money, and
      because he makes money, but there is no genuine respect for the works of
      art by which his money has been made. A millionaire whose fortune has been
      made in button-hooks or chewing-gum is regarded with awe, but none of this
      feeling is bestowed on the articles from which his wealth is derived. In a
      society which measures all things by money the same tends to be true of
      the artist. If he has become rich he is respected, though of course less
      than the millionaire, but his pictures or books or music are regarded as
      the chewing-gum or the button- hooks are regarded, merely as a means to
      money. In such an atmosphere it is very difficult for the artist to
      preserve his creative impulse pure: either he is contaminated by his
      surroundings, or he becomes embittered through lack of appreciation for
      the object of his endeavor.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is not appreciation of the artist that is necessary so much as
      appreciation of the art. It is difficult for an artist to live in an
      environment in which everything is judged by its utility, rather than by
      its intrinsic quality. The whole side of life of which art is the flower
      requires something which may be called disinterestedness, a capacity for
      direct enjoyment without thought of tomorrow's problems and difficulties.
      When people are amused by a joke they do not need to be persuaded that it
      will serve some important purpose. The same kind of direct pleasure is
      involved in any genuine appreciation of art. The struggle for life, the
      serious work of a trade or profession, is apt to make people too solemn
      for jokes and too pre-occupied for art. The easing of the struggle, the
      diminution in the hours of work, and the lightening of the burden of
      existence, which would result from a better economic system, could hardly
      fail to increase the joy of life and the vital energy, available for sheer
      delight in the world. And if this were achieved there would inevitably be
      more spontaneous pleasure in beautiful things, and more enjoyment of the
      work of artists. But none of these good results are to be expected from
      the mere removal of poverty: they all require also a diffused sense of
      freedom, and the absence of that feeling of oppression by a vast machine
      which now weighs down the individual spirit. I do not think State
      Socialism can give this sense of freedom, but some other forms of
      Socialism, which have absorbed what is true in Anarchist teaching, can
      give it to a degree of which capitalism is wholly incapable.
    </p>
    <p>
      A general sense of progress and achievement is an immense stimulus to all
      forms of creative work. For this reason, a great deal will depend, not
      only in material ways, upon the question whether methods of production in
      industry and agriculture become stereotyped or continue to change rapidly
      as they have done during the last hundred years. Improved methods of
      production will be much more obviously than now to the interest of the
      community at large, when what every man receives is his due share of the
      total produce of labor. But there will probably not be any individuals
      with the same direct and intense interest in technical improvements as now
      belongs to the capitalist in manufacture. If the natural conservatism of
      the workers is not to prove stronger than their interest in increasing
      production, it will be necessary that, when better methods are introduced
      by the workers in any industry, part at least of the benefit should be
      allowed for a time to be retained by them. If this is done, it may be
      presumed that each Guild will be continually seeking for new processes or
      inventions, and will value those technical parts of scientific research
      which are useful for this purpose. With every improvement, the question
      will arise whether it is to be used to give more leisure or to increase
      the dividend of commodities. Where there is so much more leisure than
      there is now, there will be many more people with a knowledge of science
      or an understanding of art. The artist or scientific investigator will be
      far less cut off than he is at present from the average citizen, and this
      will almost inevitably be a stimulus to his creative energy.
    </p>
    <p>
      I think we may fairly conclude that, from the point of view of all three
      requisites for art and science, namely, training, freedom and
      appreciation, State Socialism would largely fail to remove existing evils
      and would introduce new evils of its own; but Guild Socialism, or even
      Syndicalism, if it adopted a liberal policy toward those who preferred to
      work less than the usual number of hours at recognized occupations, might
      be immeasurably preferable to anything that is possible under the rule of
      capitalism. There are dangers, but they will all vanish if the importance
      of liberty is adequately acknowledged. In this as in nearly everything
      else, the road to all that is best is the road of freedom.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0008" id="link2HCH0008"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER VIII &mdash; THE WORLD AS IT COULD BE MADE
    </h2>
    <p>
      IN the daily lives of most men and women, fear plays a greater part than
      hope: they are more filled with the thought of the possessions that others
      may take from them, than of the joy that they might create in their own
      lives and in the lives with which they come in contact.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is not so that life should be lived.
    </p>
    <p>
      Those whose lives are fruitful to themselves, to their friends, or to the
      world are inspired by hope and sustained by joy: they see in imagination
      the things that might be and the way in which they are to be brought into
      existence. In their private relations they are not pre-occupied with
      anxiety lest they should lose such affection and respect as they receive:
      they are engaged in giving affection and respect freely, and the reward
      comes of itself without their seeking. In their work they are not haunted
      by jealousy of competitors, but concerned with the actual matter that has
      to be done. In politics, they do not spend time and passion defending
      unjust privileges of their class or nation, but they aim at making the
      world as a whole happier, less cruel, less full of conflict between rival
      greeds, and more full of human beings whose growth has not been dwarfed
      and stunted by oppression.
    </p>
    <p>
      A life lived in this spirit&mdash;the spirit that aims at creating rather
      than possessing&mdash;has a certain fundamental happiness, of which it
      cannot be wholly robbed by adverse circumstances. This is the way of life
      recommended in the Gospels, and by all the great teachers of the world.
      Those who have found it are freed from the tyranny of fear, since what
      they value most in their lives is not at the mercy of outside power. If
      all men could summon up the courage and the vision to live in this way in
      spite of obstacles and discouragement, there would be no need for the
      regeneration of the world to begin by political and economic reform: all
      that is needed in the way of reform would come automatically, without
      resistance, owing to the moral regeneration of individuals. But the
      teaching of Christ has been nominally accepted by the world for many
      centuries, and yet those who follow it are still persecuted as they were
      before the time of Constantine. Experience has proved that few are able to
      see through the apparent evils of an outcast's life to the inner joy that
      comes of faith and creative hope. If the domination of fear is to be
      overcome, it is not enough, as regards the mass of men, to preach courage
      and indifference to misfortune: it is necessary to remove the causes of
      fear, to make a good life no longer an unsuccessful one in a worldly
      sense, and to diminish the harm that can be inflicted upon those who are
      not wary in self- defense.
    </p>
    <p>
      When we consider the evils in the lives we know of, we find that they may
      be roughly divided into three classes. There are, first, those due to
      physical nature: among these are death, pain and the difficulty of making
      the soil yield a subsistence. These we will call "physical evils." Second,
      we may put those that spring from defects in the character or aptitudes of
      the sufferer: among these are ignorance, lack of will, and violent
      passions. These we will call "evils of character." Third come those that
      depend upon the power of one individual or group over another: these
      comprise not only obvious tyranny, but all interference with free
      development, whether by force or by excessive mental influence such as may
      occur in education. These we will call "evils of power." A social system
      may be judged by its bearing upon these three kinds of evils.
    </p>
    <p>
      The distinction between the three kinds cannot be sharply drawn. Purely
      physical evil is a limit, which we can never be sure of having reached: we
      cannot abolish death, but we can often postpone it by science, and it may
      ultimately become possible to secure that the great majority shall live
      till old age; we cannot wholly prevent pain, but we can diminish it
      indefinitely by securing a healthy life for all; we cannot make the earth
      yield its fruits in any abundance without labor, but we can diminish the
      amount of the labor and improve its conditions until it ceases to be an
      evil. Evils of character are often the result of physical evil in the
      shape of illness, and still more often the result of evils of power, since
      tyranny degrades both those who exercise it and (as a rule) those who
      suffer it. Evils of power are intensified by evils of character in those
      who have power, and by fear of the physical evil which is apt to be the
      lot of those who have no power. For all these reasons, the three sorts of
      evil are intertwined. Nevertheless, speaking broadly, we may distinguish
      among our misfortunes those which have their proximate cause in the
      material world, those which are mainly due to defects in ourselves, and
      those which spring from our being subject to the control of others.
    </p>
    <p>
      The main methods of combating these evils are: for physical evils,
      science; for evils of character, education (in the widest sense) and a
      free outlet for all impulses that do not involve domination; for evils of
      power, the reform of the political and economic organization of society in
      such a way as to reduce to the lowest possible point the interference of
      one man with the life of another. We will begin with the third of these
      kinds of evil, because it is evils of power specially that Socialism and
      Anarchism have sought to remedy. Their protest against Inequalities of
      wealth has rested mainly upon their sense of the evils arising from the
      power conferred by wealth. This point has been well stated by Mr. G. D. H.
      Cole:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      What, I want to ask, is the fundamental evil in our modern Society which
      we should set out to abolish?
    </p>
    <p>
      There are two possible answers to that question, and I am sure that very
      many well-meaning people would make the wrong one. They would answer
      POVERTY, when they ought to answer SLAVERY. Face to face every day with
      the shameful contrasts of riches and destitution, high dividends and low
      wages, and painfully conscious of the futility of trying to adjust the
      balance by means of charity, private or public, they would answer
      unhesitatingly that they stand for the ABOLITION OF POVERTY.
    </p>
    <p>
      Well and good! On that issue every Socialist is with them. But their
      answer to my question is none the less wrong.
    </p>
    <p>
      Poverty is the symptom: slavery the disease. The extremes of riches and
      destitution follow inevitably upon the extremes of license and bondage.
      The many are not enslaved because they are poor, they are poor because
      they are enslaved. Yet Socialists have all too often fixed their eyes upon
      the material misery of the poor without realizing that it rests upon the
      spiritual degradation of the slave.<a href="#linknote-59"
      name="linknoteref-59" id="linknoteref-59"><small>59</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      I do not think any reasonable person can doubt that the evils of power in
      the present system are vastly greater than is necessary, nor that they
      might be immeasurably diminished by a suitable form of Socialism. A few
      fortunate people, it is true, are now enabled to live freely on rent or
      interest, and they could hardly have more liberty under another system.
      But the great bulk, not only of the very poor, but, of all sections of
      wage-earners and even of the professional classes, are the slaves of the
      need for getting money. Almost all are compelled to work so hard that they
      have little leisure for enjoyment or for pursuits outside their regular
      occupation. Those who are able to retire in later middle age are bored,
      because they have not learned how to fill their time when they are at
      liberty, and such interests as they once had apart from work have dried
      up. Yet these are the exceptionally fortunate: the majority have to work
      hard till old age, with the fear of destitution always before them, the
      richer ones dreading that they will be unable to give their children the
      education or the medical care that they consider desirable, the poorer
      ones often not far removed from starvation. And almost all who work have
      no voice in the direction of their work; throughout the hours of labor
      they are mere machines carrying out the will of a master. Work is usually
      done under disagreeable conditions, involving pain and physical hardship.
      The only motive to work is wages: the very idea that work might be a joy,
      like the work of the artist, is usually scouted as utterly Utopian.
    </p>
    <p>
      But by far the greater part of these evils are wholly unnecessary. If the
      civilized portion of mankind could be induced to desire their own
      happiness more than another's pain, if they could be induced to work
      constructively for improvements which they would share with all the world
      rather than destructively to prevent other classes or nations from
      stealing a march on them, the whole system by which the world's work is
      done might be reformed root and branch within a generation.
    </p>
    <p>
      From the point of view of liberty, what system would be the best? In what
      direction should we wish the forces of progress to move?
    </p>
    <p>
      From this point of view, neglecting for the moment all other
      considerations, I have no doubt that the best system would be one not far
      removed from that advocated by Kropotkin, but rendered more practicable by
      the adoption of the main principles of Guild Socialism. Since every point
      can be disputed, I will set down without argument the kind of organization
      of work that would seem best.
    </p>
    <p>
      Education should be compulsory up to the age of 16, or perhaps longer;
      after that, it should be continued or not at the option of the pupil, but
      remain free (for those who desire it) up to at least the age of 21. When
      education is finished no one should be COMPELLED to work, and those who
      choose not to work should receive a bare livelihood, and be left
      completely free; but probably it would be desirable that there should be a
      strong public opinion in favor of work, so that only comparatively few
      should choose idleness. One great advantage of making idleness
      economically possible is that it would afford a powerful motive for making
      work not disagreeable; and no community where most work is disagreeable
      can be said to have found a solution of economic problems. I think it is
      reasonable to assume that few would choose idleness, in view of the fact
      that even now at least nine out of ten of those who have (say) 100 pounds
      a year from investments prefer to increase their income by paid work.
    </p>
    <p>
      Coming now to that great majority who will not choose idleness, I think we
      may assume that, with the help of science, and by the elimination of the
      vast amount of unproductive work involved in internal and international
      competition, the whole community could be kept in comfort by means of four
      hours' work a day. It is already being urged by experienced employers that
      their employes can actually produce as much in a six-hour day as they can
      when they work eight hours. In a world where there is a much higher level
      of technical instruction than there is now the same tendency will be
      accentuated. People will be taught not only, as at present, one trade, or
      one small portion of a trade, but several trades, so that they can vary
      their occupation according to the seasons and the fluctuations of demand.
      Every industry will be self-governing as regards all its internal affairs,
      and even separate factories will decide for themselves all questions that
      only concern those who work in them. There will not be capitalist
      management, as at present, but management by elected representatives, as
      in politics. Relations between different groups of producers will be
      settled by the Guild Congress, matters concerning the community as the
      inhabitants of a certain area will continue to be decided by Parliament,
      while all disputes between Parliament and the Guild Congress will be
      decided by a body composed of representatives of both in equal numbers.
    </p>
    <p>
      Payment will not be made, as at present, only for work actually required
      and performed, but for willingness to work. This system is already adopted
      in much of the better paid work: a man occupies a certain position, and
      retains it even at times when there happens to be very little to do. The
      dread of unemployment and loss of livelihood will no longer haunt men like
      a nightmare. Whether all who are willing to work will be paid equally, or
      whether exceptional skill will still command exceptional pay, is a matter
      which may be left to each guild to decide for itself. An opera-singer who
      received no more pay than a scene-shifter might choose to be a
      scene-shifter until the system was changed: if so, higher pay would
      probably be found necessary. But if it were freely voted by the Guild, it
      could hardly constitute a grievance.
    </p>
    <p>
      Whatever might be done toward making work agreeable, it is to be presumed
      that some trades would always remain unpleasant. Men could be attracted
      into these by higher pay or shorter hours, instead of being driven into
      them by destitution. The community would then have a strong economic
      motive for finding ways of diminishing the disagreeableness of these
      exceptional trades.
    </p>
    <p>
      There would still have to be money, or something analogous to it, in any
      community such as we are imagining. The Anarchist plan of a free
      distribution of the total produce of work in equal shares does not get rid
      of the need for some standard of exchange value, since one man will choose
      to take his share in one form and another in another. When the day comes
      for distributing luxuries, old ladies will not want their quota of cigars,
      nor young men their just proportion of lap-dog; this will make it
      necessary to know how many cigars are the equivalent of one lap-dog. Much
      the simplest way is to pay an income, as at present, and allow relative
      values to be adjusted according to demand. But if actual coin were paid, a
      man might hoard it and in time become a capitalist. To prevent this, it
      would be best to pay notes available only during a certain period, say one
      year from the date of issue. This would enable a man to save up for his
      annual holiday, but not to save indefinitely.
    </p>
    <p>
      There is a very great deal to be said for the Anarchist plan of allowing
      necessaries, and all commodities that can easily be produced in quantities
      adequate to any possible demand, to be given away freely to all who ask
      for them, in any amounts they may require. The question whether this plan
      should be adopted is, to my mind, a purely technical one: would it be, in
      fact, possible to adopt it without much waste and consequent diversion of
      labor to the production of necessaries when it might be more usefully
      employed otherwise? I have not the means of answering this question, but I
      think it exceedingly probable that, sooner or later, with the continued
      improvement in the methods of production, this Anarchist plan will become
      feasible; and when it does, it certainly ought to be adopted.
    </p>
    <p>
      Women in domestic work, whether married or unmarried, will receive pay as
      they would if they were in industry. This will secure the complete
      economic independence of wives, which is difficult to achieve in any other
      way, since mothers of young children ought not to be expected to work
      outside the home.
    </p>
    <p>
      The expense of children will not fall, as at present, on the parents. They
      will receive, like adults, their share of necessaries, and their education
      will be free.<a href="#linknote-60" name="linknoteref-60"
      id="linknoteref-60"><small>60</small></a> There is no longer to be the
      present competition for scholarships among the abler children: they will
      not be imbued with the competitive spirit from infancy, or forced to use
      their brains to an unnatural degree with consequent listlessness and lack
      of health in later life. Education will be far more diversified than at
      present; greater care will be taken to adapt it to the needs of different
      types of young people. There will be more attempt to encourage initiative
      young pupils, and less desire to fill their minds with a set of beliefs
      and mental habits regarded as desirable by the State, chiefly because they
      help to preserve the status quo. For the great majority of children it
      will probably be found desirable to have much more outdoor education in
      the country. And for older boys and girls whose interests are not
      intellectual or artistic, technical education, undertaken in a liberal
      spirit, is far more useful in promoting mental activity than book-learning
      which they regard (however falsely) as wholly useless except for purposes
      of examination. The really useful educa- tion is that which follows the
      direction of the child's own instinctive interests, supplying knowledge
      for which it is seeking, not dry, detailed information wholly out of
      relation to its spontaneous desires.
    </p>
    <p>
      Government and law will still exist in our community, but both will be
      reduced to a minimum. There will still be acts which will be forbidden&mdash;for
      example, murder. But very nearly the whole of that part of the criminal
      law which deals with property will have become obsolete, and many of the
      motives which now produce murders will be no longer operative. Those who
      nevertheless still do commit crimes will not be blamed or regarded as
      wicked; they will be regarded as unfortunate, and kept in some kind of
      mental hospital until it is thought that they are no longer a danger. By
      education and freedom and the abolition of private capital the number of
      crimes can be made exceedingly small. By the method of individual curative
      treatment it will generally be possible to secure that a man's first
      offense shall also be his last, except in the case of lunatics and the
      feeble-minded, for whom of course a more prolonged but not less kindly
      detention may be necessary.
    </p>
    <p>
      Government may be regarded as consisting of two parts: the one, the
      decisions of the community or its recognized organs; the other, the
      enforcing of those decisions upon all who resist them. The first part is
      not objected to by Anarchists. The second part, in an ordinary civilized
      State, may remain entirely in the background: those who have resisted a
      new law while it was being debated will, as a rule, submit to it when it
      is passed, because resistance is generally useless in a settled and
      orderly community. But the possibility of governmental force remains, and
      indeed is the very reason for the submission which makes force
      unnecessary. If, as Anarchists desire, there were no use of force by
      government, the majority could still band themselves together and use
      force against the minority. The only difference would be that their army
      or their police force would be ad hoc, instead of being permanent and
      professional. The result of this would be that everyone would have to
      learn how to fight, for fear a well- drilled minority should seize power
      and establish an old-fashioned oligarchic State. Thus the aim of the
      Anarchists seems hardly likely to be achieved by the methods which they
      advocate.
    </p>
    <p>
      The reign of violence in human affairs, whether within a country or in its
      external relations, can only be prevented, if we have not been mistaken,
      by an authority able to declare all use of force except by itself illegal,
      and strong enough to be obviously capable of making all other use of force
      futile, except when it could secure the support of public opinion as a
      defense of freedom or a resistance to injustice. Such an authority exists
      within a country: it is the State. But in international affairs it remains
      to be created. The difficulties are stupendous, but they must be overcome
      if the world is to be saved from periodical wars, each more destructive
      than any of its predecessors. Whether, after this war, a League of Nations
      will be formed, and will be capable of performing this task, it is as yet
      impossible to foretell. However that may be, some method of preventing
      wars will have to be established before our Utopia becomes possible. When
      once men BELIEVE that the world is safe from war, the whole difficulty
      will be solved: there will then no longer be any serious resistance to the
      disbanding of national armies and navies, and the substitution for them of
      a small international force for protection against uncivilized races. And
      when that stage has been reached, peace will be virtually secure.
    </p>
    <p>
      The practice of government by majorities, which Anarchists criticise, is
      in fact open to most of the objections which they urge against it. Still
      more objectionable is the power of the executive in matters vitally
      affecting the happiness of all, such as peace and war. But neither can be
      dispensed with suddenly. There are, however, two methods of diminishing
      the harm done by them: (1) Government by majorities can be made less
      oppressive by devolution, by placing the decision of questions primarily
      affecting only a section of the community in the hands of that section,
      rather than of a Central Chamber. In this way, men are no longer forced to
      submit to decisions made in a hurry by people mostly ignorant of the
      matter in hand and not personally interested. Autonomy for internal
      affairs should be given, not only to areas, but to all groups, such as
      industries or Churches, which have important common interests not shared
      by the rest of the community. (2) The great powers vested in the executive
      of a modern State are chiefly due to the frequent need of rapid decisions,
      especially as regards foreign affairs. If the danger of war were
      practically eliminated, more cumbrous but less autocratic methods would be
      possible, and the Legislature might recover many of the powers which the
      executive has usurped. By these two methods, the intensity of the
      interference with liberty involved in government can be gradually
      diminished. Some interference, and even some danger of unwarranted and
      despotic interference, is of the essence of government, and must remain so
      long as government remains. But until men are less prone to violence than
      they are now, a certain degree of governmental force seems the lesser of
      two evils. We may hope, however, that if once the danger of war is at an
      end, men's violent impulses will gradually grow less, the more so as, in
      that case, it will be possible to diminish enormously the individual power
      which now makes rulers autocratic and ready for almost any act of tyranny
      in order to crush opposition. The development of a world where even
      governmental force has become unnecessary (except against lunatics) must
      be gradual. But as a gradual process it is perfectly possible; and when it
      has been completed we may hope to see the principles of Anarchism embodied
      in the management of communal affairs.
    </p>
    <p>
      How will the economic and political system that we have outlined bear on
      the evils of character? I believe the effect will be quite extraordinarily
      beneficent.
    </p>
    <p>
      The process of leading men's thought and imagination away from the use of
      force will be greatly accelerated by the abolition of the capitalist
      system, provided it is not succeeded by a form of State Socialism in which
      officials have enormous power. At present, the capitalist has more control
      over the lives of others than any man ought to have; his friends have
      authority in the State; his economic power is the pattern for political
      power. In a world where all men and women enjoy economic freedom, there
      will not be the same habit of command, nor, consequently, the same love of
      despotism; a gentler type of character than that now prevalent will
      gradually grow up. Men are formed by their circumstances, not born ready-
      made. The bad effect of the present economic system on character, and the
      immensely better effect to be expected from communal ownership, are among
      the strongest reasons for advocating the change.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the world as we have been imagining fit, economic fear and most
      economic hope will be alike removed out of life. No one will be haunted by
      the dread of poverty or driven into ruthlessness by the hope of wealth.
      There will not be the distinction of social classes which now plays such
      an immense part in life. The unsuccessful professional man will not live
      in terror lest his children should sink in the scale; the aspiring employe
      will not be looking forward to the day when he can become a sweater in his
      turn. Ambitious young men will have to dream other daydreams than that of
      business success and wealth wrung out of the ruin of competitors and the
      degradation of labor. In such a world, most of the nightmares that lurk in
      the background of men's minds will no longer exist; on the other hand,
      ambition and the desire to excel will have to take nobler forms than those
      that are encouraged by a commercial society. All those activities that
      really confer benefits upon mankind will be open, not only to the
      fortunate few, but to all who have sufficient ambition and native
      aptitude. Science, labor-saving inventions, technical progress of all
      kinds, may be confidently expected to flourish far more than at present,
      since they will be the road to honor, and honor will have to replace money
      among those of the young who desire to achieve success. Whether art will
      flourish in a Socialistic community depends upon the form of Social- ism
      adopted; if the State, or any public authority, (no matter what), insists
      upon controlling art, and only licensing those whom it regards as
      proficient, the result will be disaster. But if there is real freedom,
      allowing every man who so desires to take up an artist's career at the
      cost of some sacrifice of comfort, it is likely that the atmosphere of
      hope, and the absence of economic compulsion, will lead to a much smaller
      waste of talent than is involved in our present system, and to a much less
      degree of crushing of impulse in the mills of the struggle for life.
    </p>
    <p>
      When elementary needs have been satisfied, the serious happiness of most
      men depends upon two things: their work, and their human relations. In the
      world that we have been picturing, work will be free, not excessive, full
      of the interest that belongs to a collective enterprise in which there is
      rapid progress, with something of the delight of creation even for the
      humblest unit. And in human relations the gain will be just as great as in
      work. The only human relations that have value are those that are rooted
      in mutual freedom, where there is no domination and no slavery, no tie
      except affection, no economic or conventional necessity to preserve the
      external show when the inner life is dead. One of the most horrible things
      about commercialism is the way in which it poisons the relations of men
      and women. The evils of prostitution are generally recognized, but, great
      as they are, the effect of economic conditions on marriage seems to me
      even worse. There is not infrequently, in marriage, a suggestion of
      purchase, of acquiring a woman on condition of keeping her in a certain
      standard of material comfort. Often and often, a marriage hardly differs
      from prostitution except by being harder to escape from. The whole basis
      of these evils is economic. Economic causes make marriage a matter of
      bargain and contract, in which affection is quite secondary, and its
      absence constitutes no recognized reason for liberation. Marriage should
      be a free, spontaneous meeting of mutual instinct, filled with happiness
      not unmixed with a feeling akin to awe: it should involve that degree of
      respect of each for the other that makes even the most trifling
      interference with liberty an utter impossibility, and a common life
      enforced by one against the will of the other an unthinkable thing of deep
      horror. It is not so that marriage is conceived by lawyers who make
      settlements, or by priests who give the name of "sacrament" to an
      institution which pretends to find something sanctifiable in the brutal
      lusts or drunken cruelties of a legal husband. It is not in a spirit of
      freedom that marriage is conceived by most men and women at present: the
      law makes it an opportunity for indulgence of the desire to interfere,
      where each submits to some loss of his or her own liberty, for the
      pleasure of curtailing the liberty of the other. And the atmosphere of
      private property makes it more difficult than it otherwise would be for
      any better ideal to take root.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is not so that human relations will be conceived when the evil heritage
      of economic slavery has ceased to mold our instincts. Husbands and wives,
      parents and children, will be only held together by affection: where that
      has died, it will be recognized that nothing worth preserving is left.
      Because affection will be free, men and women will not find in private
      life an outlet and stimulus to the love of domineering, but all that is
      creative in their love will have the freer scope. Reverence for whatever
      makes the soul in those who are loved will be less rare than it is now:
      nowadays, many men love their wives in the way in which they love mutton,
      as something to devour and destroy. But in the love that goes with
      reverence there is a joy of quite another order than any to be found by
      mastery, a joy which satisfies the spirit and not only the instincts; and
      satisfaction of instinct and spirit at once is necessary to a happy life,
      or indeed to any existence that is to bring out the best impulses of which
      a man or woman is capable.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the world which we should wish to see, there will be more joy of life
      than in the drab tragedy of modern every-day existence. After early youth,
      as things are, most men are bowed down by forethought, no longer capable
      of light-hearted gaiety, but only of a kind of solemn jollification by the
      clock at the appropriate hours. The advice to "become as little children"
      would be good for many people in many respects, but it goes with another
      precept, "take no thought for the morrow," which is hard to obey in a
      competitive world. There is often in men of science, even when they are
      quite old, something of the simplicity of a child: their absorption in
      abstract thought has held them aloof from the world, and respect for their
      work has led the world to keep them alive in spite of their innocence.
      Such men have succeeded in living as all men ought to be able to live; but
      as things are, the economic struggle makes their way of life impossible
      for the great majority.
    </p>
    <p>
      What are we to say, lastly, of the effect of our projected world upon
      physical evil? Will there be less illness than there is at present? Will
      the produce of a given amount of labor be greater? Or will population
      press upon the limits of subsistence, as Malthus taught in order to refute
      Godwin's optimism?
    </p>
    <p>
      I think the answer to all these questions turns, in the end, upon the
      degree of intellectual vigor to be expected in a community which has done
      away with the spur of economic competition. Will men in such a world
      become lazy and apathetic? Will they cease to think? Will those who do
      think find themselves confronted with an even more impenetrable wall of
      unreflecting conservatism than that which confronts them at present? These
      are important questions; for it is ultimately to science that mankind must
      look for their success in combating physical evils.
    </p>
    <p>
      If the other conditions that we have postulated can be realized, it seems
      almost certain that there must be less illness than there is at present.
      Population will no longer be congested in slums; children will have far
      more of fresh air and open country; the hours of work will be only such as
      are wholesome, not excessive and exhausting as they are at present.
    </p>
    <p>
      As for the progress of science, that depends very largely upon the degree
      of intellectual liberty existing in the new society. If all science is
      organized and supervised by the State, it will rapidly become stereotyped
      and dead. Fundamental advances will not be made, because, until they have
      been made, they will seem too doubtful to warrant the expenditure of
      public money upon them. Authority will be in the hands of the old,
      especially of men who have achieved scientific eminence; such men will be
      hostile to those among the young who do not flatter them by agreeing with
      their theories. Under a bureaucratic State Socialism it is to be feared
      that science would soon cease to be progressive and acquired a medieval
      respect for authority.
    </p>
    <p>
      But under a freer system, which would enable all kinds of groups to employ
      as many men of science as they chose, and would allow the "vagabond's
      wage" to those who desired to pursue some study so new as to be wholly
      unrecognized, there is every reason to think that science would flourish
      as it has never done hitherto.<a href="#linknote-61" name="linknoteref-61"
      id="linknoteref-61"><small>61</small></a> And, if that were the case, I do
      not believe that any other obstacle would exist to the physical
      possibility of our system.
    </p>
    <p>
      The question of the number of hours of work necessary to produce general
      material comfort is partly technical, partly one of organization. We may
      assume that there would no longer be unproductive labor spent on
      armaments, national defense, advertisements, costly luxuries for the very
      rich, or any of the other futilities incidental to our competitive system.
      If each industrial guild secured for a term of years the advantages, or
      part of the advantages, of any new invention or methods which it
      introduced, it is pretty certain that every encouragement would be given
      to technical progress. The life of a discoverer or inventor is in itself
      agreeable: those who adopt it, as things are now, are seldom much actuated
      by economic motives, but rather by the interest of the work together with
      the hope of honor; and these motives would operate more widely than they
      do now, since fewer people would be prevented from obeying them by
      economic necessities. And there is no doubt that intellect would work more
      keenly and creatively in a world where instinct was less thwarted, where
      the joy of life was greater, and where consequently there would be more
      vitality in men than there is at present.
    </p>
    <p>
      There remains the population question, which, ever since the time of
      Malthus, has been the last refuge of those to whom the possibility of a
      better world is disagreeable. But this question is now a very different
      one from what it was a hundred years ago. The decline of the birth-rate in
      all civilized countries, which is pretty certain to continue, whatever
      economic system is adopted, suggests that, especially when the probable
      effects of the war are taken into account, the population of Western
      Europe is not likely to increase very much beyond its present level, and
      that of America is likely only to increase through immigration. Negroes
      may continue to increase in the tropics, but are not likely to be a
      serious menace to the white inhabitants of temperate regions. There
      remains, of course, the Yellow Peril; but by the time that begins to be
      serious it is quite likely that the birth-rate will also have begun to
      decline among the races of Asia If not, there are other means of dealing
      with this question; and in any case the whole matter is too conjectural to
      be set up seriously as a bar to our hopes. I conclude that, though no
      certain forecast is possible, there is not any valid reason for regarding
      the possible increase of population as a serious obstacle to Socialism.
    </p>
    <p>
      Our discussion has led us to the belief that the communal ownership of
      land and capital, which constitutes the characteristic doctrine of
      Socialism and Anarchist Communism, is a necessary step toward the removal
      of the evils from which the world suffers at present and the creation of
      such a society as any humane man must wish to see realized. But, though a
      necessary step, Socialism alone is by no means sufficient. There are
      various forms of Socialism: the form in which the State is the employer,
      and all who work receive wages from it, involves dangers of tyranny and
      interference with progress which would make it, if possible, even worse
      than the present regime. On the other hand, Anarchism, which avoids the
      dangers of State Socialism, has dangers and difficulties of its own, which
      make it probable that, within any reasonable period of time, it could not
      last long even if it were established. Nevertheless, it remains an ideal
      to which we should wish to approach as nearly as possible, and which, in
      some distant age, we hope may be reached completely. Syndicalism shares
      many of the defects of Anarchism, and, like it, would prove unstable,
      since the need of a central government would make itself felt almost at
      once.
    </p>
    <p>
      The system we have advocated is a form of Guild Socialism, leaning more,
      perhaps, towards Anarchism than the official Guildsman would wholly
      approve. It is in the matters that politicians usually ignore&mdash;
      science and art, human relations, and the joy of life &mdash;that
      Anarchism is strongest, and it is chiefly for the sake of these things
      that we included such more or less Anarchist proposals as the "vagabond's
      wage." It is by its effects outside economics and politics, at least as
      much as by effects inside them, that a social system should be judged. And
      if Socialism ever comes, it is only likely to prove beneficent if non-
      economic goods are valued and consciously pursued.
    </p>
    <p>
      The world that we must seek is a world in which the creative spirit is
      alive, in which life is an adventure full of joy and hope, based rather
      upon the impulse to construct than upon the desire to retain what we
      possess or to seize what is possessed by others. It must be a world in
      which affection has free play, in which love is purged of the instinct for
      domination, in which cruelty and envy have been dispelled by happiness and
      the unfettered development of all the instincts that build up life and
      fill it with mental delights. Such a world is possible; it waits only for
      men to wish to create it.
    </p>
    <p>
      Meantime, the world in which we exist has other aims. But it will pass
      away, burned up in the fire of its own hot passions; and from its ashes
      will spring a new and younger world, full of fresh hope, with the light of
      morning in its eyes.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="link2H_FOOT" id="link2H_FOOT"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      FOOTNOTES:
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-1" id="linknote-1"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      1 (<a href="#linknoteref-1">return</a>)<br /> [ Chief among these were
      Fourier and Saint-Simon, who constructed somewhat fantastic Socialistic
      ideal commonwealths. Proudhon, with whom Marx had some not wholly friendly
      relations, is to be regarded as a forerunner of the Anarchists rather than
      of orthodox Socialism.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-2" id="linknote-2"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      2 (<a href="#linknoteref-2">return</a>)<br /> [ Marx mentions the English
      Socialists with praise in "The Poverty of Philosophy" (1847). They, like
      him, tend to base their arguments upon a Ricardian theory of value, but
      they have not his scope or erudition or scientific breadth. Among them may
      be mentioned Thomas Hodgskin (1787-1869), originally an officer in the
      Navy, but dismissed for a pamphlet critical of the methods of naval
      discipline, author of "Labour Defended Against the Claims of Capital"
      (1825) and other works; William Thompson (1785-1833), author of "Inquiry
      into the Principles of Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human
      Happiness" (1824), and "Labour Rewarded" (1825); and Piercy Ravenstone,
      from whom Hodgskin's ideas are largely derived. Perhaps more important
      than any of these was Robert Owen.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-3" id="linknote-3"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      3 (<a href="#linknoteref-3">return</a>)<br /> [ The first and most
      important volume appeared in 1867; the other two volumes were published
      posthumously (1885 and 1894).]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-4" id="linknote-4"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      4 (<a href="#linknoteref-4">return</a>)<br /> [ Vol. i, p. 227.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-5" id="linknote-5"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      5 (<a href="#linknoteref-5">return</a>)<br /> [ Vol. i, pp. 237, 238.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-6" id="linknote-6"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      6 (<a href="#linknoteref-6">return</a>)<br /> [ Vol. i, pp. 239, 240.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-7" id="linknote-7"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      7 (<a href="#linknoteref-7">return</a>)<br /> [ Vol. i, pp. 758, 759.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-8" id="linknote-8"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      8 (<a href="#linknoteref-8">return</a>)<br /> [ Vol. i pp. 788, 789.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-9" id="linknote-9"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      9 (<a href="#linknoteref-9">return</a>)<br /> [ Die Voraussetzungen des
      Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozial-Demokratie."]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-10" id="linknote-10"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      10 (<a href="#linknoteref-10">return</a>)<br /> [ La Decomposition du
      Marxisme," p. 53.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-11" id="linknote-11"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      11 (<a href="#linknoteref-11">return</a>)<br /> [ "Musings of a Chinese
      Mystic." Selections from the Philosophy of Chuang Tzu. With an
      Introduction by Lionel Giles, M.A. (Oxon.). Wisdom of the East Series,
      John Murray, 1911. Pages 66-68.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-12" id="linknote-12"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      12 (<a href="#linknoteref-12">return</a>)<br /> [ An account of the life of
      Bakunin from the Anarchist standpoint will be found in vol. ii of the
      complete edition of his works: "Michel Bakounine, OEuvres," Tome II. Avec
      une notice biographique, des avant-propos et des notes, par James
      Guillaume. Paris, P.-V, Stock, editeur, pp. v-lxiii.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-13" id="linknote-13"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      13 (<a href="#linknoteref-13">return</a>)<br /> [ Criticism of these
      theories will be reserved for Part II.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-14" id="linknote-14"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      14 (<a href="#linknoteref-14">return</a>)<br /> [ Ibid. p. xxvi.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-15" id="linknote-15"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      15 (<a href="#linknoteref-15">return</a>)<br /> [ "Marx, as a thinker, is
      on the right road. He has established as a principle that all the
      evolutions, political, religious, and juridical, in history are, not the
      causes, but the effects of economic evolutions. This is a great and
      fruitful thought, which he has not absolutely invented; it has been
      glimpsed, expressed in part, by many others besides him; but in any case
      to him belongs the honor of having solidly established it and of having
      enunciated it as the basis of his whole economic system. (1870; ib. ii. p.
      xiii.)]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-16" id="linknote-16"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      16 (<a href="#linknoteref-16">return</a>)<br /> [ This title is not
      Bakunin's, but was invented by Cafiero and Elisee Reclus, who edited it,
      not knowing that it was a fragment of what was intended to he the second
      version of "L'Empire Knouto-Germanique" (see ib. ii. p 283).]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-17" id="linknote-17"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      17 (<a href="#linknoteref-17">return</a>)<br /> [ Paris, 1894.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-18" id="linknote-18"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      18 (<a href="#linknoteref-18">return</a>)<br /> [ The attitude of all the
      better Anarchists is that expressed by L. S. Bevington in the words: "Of
      course we know that among those who call themselves Anarchists there are a
      minority of unbalanced enthusiasts who look upon every illegal and
      sensational act of violence as a matter for hysterical jubilation. Very
      useful to the police and the press, unsteady in intellect and of weak
      moral principle, they have repeatedly shown themselves accessible to venal
      considerations. They, and their violence, and their professed Anarchism
      are purchasable, and in the last resort they are welcome and efficient
      partisans of the bourgeoisie in its remorseless war against the deliverers
      of the people." His conclusion is a very wise one: "Let us leave
      indiscriminate killing and injuring to the Government&mdash;to its
      Statesmen, its Stockbrokers, its Officers, and its Law." ("Anarchism and
      Violence," pp. 9-10. Liberty Press, Chiswick, 1896.)]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-19" id="linknote-19"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      19 (<a href="#linknoteref-19">return</a>)<br /> [ See next Chapter.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-20" id="linknote-20"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      20 (<a href="#linknoteref-20">return</a>)<br /> [ Of which the Independent
      Labor Party is only a section.]
    </p>
    <p>
      And also in Italy. A good, short account of the Italian movement is given
      by A. Lanzillo, "Le Mouvement Ouvrier en Italie," Bibliotheque du
      Mouvement Proletarien. See also Paul Louis, "Le Syndicalisme Europeen,"
      chap. vi. On the other hand Cole ("World of Labour," chap. vi) considers
      the strength of genuine Syndicalism in Italy to be small.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-21" id="linknote-21"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      21 (<a href="#linknoteref-21">return</a>)<br /> [ This is often recognized
      by Syndicalists themselves. See, e.g., an article on "The Old
      International" in the Syndicalist of February, 1913, which, after giving
      an account of the struggle between Marx and Bakunin from the standpoint of
      a sympathizer with the latter, says: "Bakounin's ideas are now more alive
      than ever."]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-22" id="linknote-22"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      22 (<a href="#linknoteref-22">return</a>)<br /> [ See pp. 42-43, and 160 of
      "Syndicalism in France," Louis Levine, Ph.D. (Columbia University Studies
      in Political Science, vol. xlvi, No. 3.) This is a very objective and
      reliable account of the origin and progress of French Syndicalism. An
      admirable short discussion of its ideas and its present position will be
      found in Cole's "World of Labour" (G. Bell &amp; Sons), especially
      chapters iii, iv, and xi.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-23" id="linknote-23"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      23 (<a href="#linknoteref-23">return</a>)<br /> [ See Levine, op. cit.,
      chap. ii.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-24" id="linknote-24"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      24 (<a href="#linknoteref-24">return</a>)<br /> [ Cole, ib., p. 65.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-25" id="linknote-25"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      25 (<a href="#linknoteref-25">return</a>)<br /> [ "Syndicat in France still
      means a local union&mdash;there are at the present day only four national
      syndicats" (ib., p. 66).]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-26" id="linknote-26"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      26 (<a href="#linknoteref-26">return</a>)<br /> [ Cole, ib. p. 69.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-27" id="linknote-27"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      27 (<a href="#linknoteref-27">return</a>)<br /> [ In fact the General
      Strike was invented by a Londoner William Benbow, an Owenite, in 1831.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-28" id="linknote-28"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      28 (<a href="#linknoteref-28">return</a>)<br /> [ "World of Labour," pp.
      212, 213.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-29" id="linknote-29"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      29 (<a href="#linknoteref-29">return</a>)<br /> [ Quoted in Cole, ib. p.
      128.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-30" id="linknote-30"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      30 (<a href="#linknoteref-30">return</a>)<br /> [ Ib., p. 135.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-31" id="linknote-31"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      31 (<a href="#linknoteref-31">return</a>)<br /> [ Brooks, op. cit., p. 79.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-32" id="linknote-32"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      32 (<a href="#linknoteref-32">return</a>)<br /> [ Brooks, op. cit., pp.
      86-87.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-34" id="linknote-34"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      34 (<a href="#linknoteref-34">return</a>)<br /> [ Literary Digest, May 2
      and May 16, 1914.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-36" id="linknote-36"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      36 (<a href="#linknoteref-36">return</a>)<br /> [ The above quotations are
      all from the first pamphlet of the National Guilds League, "National
      Guilds, an Appeal to Trade Unionists."]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-35" id="linknote-35"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      35 (<a href="#linknoteref-35">return</a>)<br /> [ The ideas of Guild
      Socialism were first set forth in "National Guilds," edited by A. R. Orage
      (Bell &amp; Sons, 1914), and in Cole's "World of Labour" (Bell &amp;
      Sons), first published in 1913. Cole's "Self-Government in Industry" (Bell
      &amp; Sons, 1917) and Rickett &amp; Bechhofer's "The Meaning of National
      Guilds" (Palmer &amp; Hayward, 1918) should also be read, as well as
      various pamphlets published by the National Guilds League. The attitude of
      the Syndicalists to Guild Socialism is far from sympathetic. An article in
      "The Syndicalist" for February, 1914, speaks of it in the following terms:
      a Middle-class of the middle-class, with all the shortcomings (we had
      almost said `stupidities') of the middle- classes writ large across it,
      `Guild Socialism' stands forth as the latest lucubration of the
      middle-class mind. It is a `cool steal' of the leading ideas of
      Syndicalism and a deliberate perversion of them. . . . We do protest
      against the `State' idea . . . in Guild Socialism. Middle-class people,
      even when they become Socialists, cannot get rid of the idea that the
      working-class is their `inferior'; that the workers need to be `educated,'
      drilled, disciplined, and generally nursed for a very long time before
      they will be able to walk by themselves. The very reverse is actually the
      truth. . . . It is just the plain truth when we say that the ordinary
      wage-worker, of average intelligence, is better capable of taking care of
      himself than the half-educated middle-class man who wants to advise him.
      He knows how to make the wheels of the world go round."]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-37" id="linknote-37"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      37 (<a href="#linknoteref-37">return</a>)<br /> [ "The Guild Idea," No. 2
      of the Pamphlets of the National Guilds League, p. 17.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-38" id="linknote-38"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      38 (<a href="#linknoteref-38">return</a>)<br /> [ Kropotkin, "Fields,
      Factories and Workshops," p. 74.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-39" id="linknote-39"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      39 (<a href="#linknoteref-39">return</a>)<br /> [ Ib. p. 81.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-40" id="linknote-40"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      40 (<a href="#linknoteref-40">return</a>)<br /> [ Kropotkin, "Field,
      Factories, and Workshops," p. 6.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-41" id="linknote-41"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      41 (<a href="#linknoteref-41">return</a>)<br /> [ "Notwithstanding the
      egotistic turn given to the public mind by the merchant-production of our
      century, the Communist tendency is continually reasserting itself and
      trying to make its way into public life. The penny bridge disappears
      before the public bridge; and the turnpike road before the free road. The
      same spirit pervades thousands of other institutions. Museums, free
      libraries, and free public schools; parks and pleasure grounds; paved and
      lighted streets, free for everybody's use; water supplied to private
      dwellings, with a growing tendency towards disregarding the exact amount
      of it used by the individual, tramways and railways which have already
      begun to introduce the season ticket or the uniform tax, and will surely
      go much further on this line when they are no longer private property: all
      these are tokens showing in what direction further progress is to be
      expected."&mdash;Kropotkin, "Anarchist Communism."]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-42" id="linknote-42"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      42 (<a href="#linknoteref-42">return</a>)<br /> [ An able discussion of
      this question, at of various others, from the standpoint of reasoned and
      temperate opposition to Anarchism, will be found in Alfred Naquet's
      "L'Anarchie et le Collectivisme," Paris, 1904.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-43" id="linknote-43"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      43 (<a href="#linknoteref-43">return</a>)<br /> [ "Overwork is repulsive to
      human nature&mdash;not work. Overwork for supplying the few with luxury&mdash;not
      work for the well- being of all. Work, labor, is a physiological
      necessity, a necessity of spending accumulated bodily energy, a necessity
      which is health and life itself. If so many branches of useful work are so
      reluctantly done now, it is merely because they mean overwork, or they are
      improperly organized. But we know&mdash;old Franklin knew it&mdash;that
      four hours of useful work every day would be more than sufficient for
      supplying everybody with the comfort of a moderately well-to-do
      middle-class house, if we all gave ourselves to productive work, and if we
      did not waste our productive powers as we do waste them now. As to the
      childish question, repeated for fifty years: `Who would do disagreeable
      work?' frankly I regret that none of our savants has ever been brought to
      do it, be it for only one day in his life. If there is still work which is
      really disagreeable in itself, it is only because our scientific men have
      never cared to consider the means of rendering it less so: they have
      always known that there were plenty of starving men who would do it for a
      few pence a day." Kropotkin, "`Anarchist Communism."]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-44" id="linknote-44"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      44 (<a href="#linknoteref-44">return</a>)<br /> [ "As to the so-often
      repeated objection that nobody would labor if he were not compelled to do
      so by sheer necessity, we heard enough of it before the emancipation of
      slaves in America, as well as before the emancipation of serfs in Russia;
      and we have had the opportunity of appreciating it at its just value. So
      we shall not try to convince those who can be convinced only by
      accomplished facts. As to those who reason, they ought to know that, if it
      really was so with some parts of humanity at its lowest stages&mdash;and
      yet, what do we know about it?&mdash;or if it is so with some small
      communities, or separate individuals, brought to sheer despair by
      ill-success in their struggle against unfavorable conditions, it is not so
      with the bulk of the civilized nations. With us, work is a habit, and
      idleness an artificial growth." Kropotkin, "Anarchist Communism," p. 30.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-45" id="linknote-45"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      45 (<a href="#linknoteref-45">return</a>)<br /> [ "While holding this
      synthetic view on production, the Anarchists cannot consider, like the
      Collectivists, that a remuneration which would be proportionate to the
      hours of labor spent by each person in the production of riches may be an
      ideal, or even an approach to an ideal, society." Kropotkin, "Anarchist
      Communism," p. 20.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-46" id="linknote-46"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      46 (<a href="#linknoteref-46">return</a>)<br /> [ I do not say freedom is
      the greatest of ALL goods: the best things come from within&mdash;they are
      such things as creative art, and love, and thought. Such things can be
      helped or hindered by political conditions, but not actually produced by
      them; and freedom is, both in itself and in its relation to these other
      goods the best thing that political and economic conditions can secure.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-47" id="linknote-47"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      47 (<a href="#linknoteref-47">return</a>)<br /> [ Communist Manifesto, p.
      22.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-48" id="linknote-48"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      48 (<a href="#linknoteref-48">return</a>)<br /> [ "On the other hand, the
      STATE has also been confused with GOVERNMENT. As there can be no State
      without government, it has been sometimes said that it is the absence of
      government, and not the abolition of the State, that should be the aim.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-49" id="linknote-49"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      49 (<a href="#linknoteref-49">return</a>)<br /> [ Representative government
      has accomplished its historical mission; it has given a mortal blow to
      Court-rule; and by its debates it has awakened public interest in public
      questions. But, to see in it the government of the future Socialist
      society, is to commit a gross error. Each economical phase of life implies
      its own political phase; and it is impossible to touch the very basis of
      the present economical life&mdash;private property&mdash; without a
      corresponding change in the very basis of the political organization. Life
      already shows in which direction the change will be made. Not in
      increasing the powers of the State, but in resorting to free organization
      and free federation in all those branches which are now considered as
      attributes of the State." Kropotkin, "Anarchist Communism," pp. 28-29.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-50" id="linknote-50"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      50 (<a href="#linknoteref-50">return</a>)<br /> [ On this subject there is
      an excellent discussion in the before-mentioned work of Monsieur Naquet.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-51" id="linknote-51"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      51 (<a href="#linknoteref-51">return</a>)<br /> [ "As to the third&mdash;the
      chief&mdash;objection, which maintains the necessity of a government for
      punishing those who break the law of society, there is so much to say
      about it that it hardly can be touched incidentally. The more we study the
      question, the more we are brought to the conclusion that society itself is
      responsible for the anti-social deeds perpetrated in its midst, and that
      no punishment, no prisons, and no hangmen can diminish the numbers of such
      deeds; nothing short of a reorganization of society itself. Three-quarters
      of all the acts which are brought every year before our courts have their
      origin, either directly or indirectly, in the present disorganized state
      of society with regard to the production and distribution of wealth&mdash;not
      in the perversity of human nature. As to the relatively few anti-social
      deeds which result from anti-social inclinations of separate individuals,
      it is not by prisons, nor even by resorting to the hangmen, that we can
      diminish their numbers. By our prisons, we merely multiply them and render
      them worse. By our detectives, our `price of blood,' our executions, and
      our jails, we spread in society such a terrible flow of basest passions
      and habits, that he who should realize the effects of these institutions
      to their full extent, would be frightened by what society is doing under
      the pretext of maintaining morality. We must search for other remedies,
      and the remedies have been indicated long since." Kropotkin, "Anarchist
      Communism," pp. 31-32.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-52" id="linknote-52"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      52 (<a href="#linknoteref-52">return</a>)<br /> [ "Anarchist Communism," p.
      27.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-53" id="linknote-53"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      53 (<a href="#linknoteref-53">return</a>)<br /> [ This was written before
      the author had any personal experience of the prison system. He personally
      met with nothing but kindness at the hands of the prison officials.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-54" id="linknote-54"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      54 (<a href="#linknoteref-54">return</a>)<br /> [ Bell, 1917.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-55" id="linknote-55"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      55 (<a href="#linknoteref-55">return</a>)<br /> [ Walter Scott Publishing
      Company, 1906, p. 262.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-56" id="linknote-56"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      56 (<a href="#linknoteref-56">return</a>)<br /> [ This was written in
      March, 1918, almost the darkest moment of the war.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-57" id="linknote-57"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      57 (<a href="#linknoteref-57">return</a>)<br /> [ "L'Anarchie et le
      Collectivisme," p. 114.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-58" id="linknote-58"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      58 (<a href="#linknoteref-58">return</a>)<br /> [ Which we discussed in
      Chapter IV.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-59" id="linknote-59"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      59 (<a href="#linknoteref-59">return</a>)<br /> [ "Self-Government in
      Industry," G. Bell &amp; Sons, 1917, pp. 110-111.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-60" id="linknote-60"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      60 (<a href="#linknoteref-60">return</a>)<br /> [ Some may fear that the
      result would be an undue increase of population, but such fears I believe
      to be groundless. See above, (Chapter IV, on "Work and Pay." Also, Chapter
      vi of "Principles of Social Reconstruction" (George Allen and Unwin,
      Ltd.).]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><a name="linknote-61" id="linknote-61"> </a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      61 (<a href="#linknoteref-61">return</a>)<br /> [ See the discussion of
      this question in the preceding chapter.]
    </p>
    <div style="height: 6em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROPOSED ROADS TO FREEDOM ***</div>
  </body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-02-21 11:58:44 +0000