A discussion about Anarchism

*THE WORKER*

Brisbane, March 16, 1895.

Anarchism.

There is no question on which the average journalistic blockhead has written so much nonsense as that of Anarchism – a topic on which he glories to dilate with all the fluency and eloquence that naturally springs from a profound and comprehensive ignorance of the subject. The journalistic Anarchist is a blood thirsty villain who revels in rack and ruin, and who has reduced assassination to a fine art. Indeed he is such a monster of iniquity that nothing prevents him from completely over throwing modern civilisation but the fortunate and convenient fact that he does not exist. No doubt there are desperate men among Anarchists, just as there are desperate men in all parties. No doubt, also, the abolition of all government is just the sort of programme to attract men of fanatical type. It is a big order, but fanatics do not hesitate at big orders. But none the less it is as obviously unfair to make Anarchism responsible for all the outrage committed by its supporters, as it would be to make religion responsible for all crimes against liberty perpetrated in its name. Unquestionably many Anarchists believe in force, but then so do many Socialists, Unionists, Home Rulers and other reformers. A movement should be judged, not by the action of its individual supporters but by the avowed principles of its intellectual founders and leaders. Now, as a simple matter of fact, a fact, however, which never by any chance gets into the public press, the intellectual representatives of the Anarchist movement – Krapotkine, Tucker, Reclus, Grave and others – are utterly and indignantly opposed to every form and variety of outrage. They are Anarchists, not because they do not. It is indeed because they hold that all government is founded on force, and that all force is wrong, that they are opposed to government. Simple justice demands this admission. We are opposed to Anarchism, but we believe in truth.

* * *

There are two schools of Anarchism – that Individualist Anarchism of Benjamin Tucker, and the so-called Communist Anarchism of Peter Krapotkine. The Individualist Anarchist, of course, advocates the total abolition of all government. He would sweep away all law, all law courts, all military and police force; in fact he would blot out every vestige of governmental authority. Having accomplished this undertaking, however, he would be graciously pleased to stop. He would not abolish competition. On the contrary, he holds that in the absence of government all monopolies, such as the money monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the land monopoly would collapse, and in the absence of monopoly free competition would become an individual and national blessing.

* * *

Here questions of a practical nature naturally present themselves. First of all, how is the thing to be done? How are we to get rid of government? How are we to abolish the State? The Anarchist replies: “By abstaining from voting, by refusing to take any part in political life. When the majority of men ignore the government and take no part in elections government will die a natural death.” In other words the worker are to win their ultimate emancipation by pursuing a policy of energetic inactivity, by diligently doing nothing, and doing it well! Meanwhile their enemies, the capitalist and the landlord, will be steadily securing and consolidating all available political power, and using it in their own interests. No, it will not do. While Power is used against the worker Power must be used in his defence. In the past government has been used in the interests of wealth; in the future the people must take possession of it and use it in the interests of humanity and justice.

* * *

'Again, under Individualist Anarchism, with its free competition, how are the evils of land monopoly to be avoided? Land is of unequal value. One piece of land will yield, for a given amount of labour, twenty times as much produce as another. Who is to have the good land, and who the bad? And what would there be to prevent the holders of good land from becoming rich and living on unearned income? For aught Individualist Anarchy with free competition could do to prevent it we should have some families luxuriating on fertile plains, and others heroically attempting to cultivate potatoes on granite rocks. The only sure way of preventing land monopoly is to Socialise economic rent, a process which involves the existence of an organised government. Our objections to Individualistic Anarchism, therefore, are two. First, there is no way of getting it: and second, even if it could be got it would not be worth having.

* * *

The Communist Anarchist is at one with his Individualist brother in seeking to utterly sweep away all law and government. But he doesn't stop there. He goes farther, and insists on the abolition of competition and the establishment of Communism. How competition is to be abolished and Communism established without government of some sort is a mystery which the Communist Anarchist never condescends to explain. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the dream of the Communist Anarchist has been realised, that all government has been abolished, that all goods are held in common, and that every person is free to go to the common store and take possession of whatever his heart desires. It seems clear, if the community is not to become insolvent, that there must be as much put into the common store as there is taken out of it. Now, in the absence of all governmental compulsion how are we to be sure that the average man would put in as much as he took out? And if he did not, would not the inevitable result be national bankruptcy? To use compulsion would be to give up Anarchism; not to use it would be to give up everything.

* * *

There is another difficulty. John Smith murders Tom Brown. Under Anarchism what would be done? Nothing? Men's lives would be unsafe and murder encouraged. Lynch law? That is barbarous and frequently punishes the wrong person. Perhaps it will be said that a committee would be appointed to deal with the special case. But while the committee is deliberating, the chances are that the murderer would go on a journey. It may be urged that a permanent committee could be formed for the protection of the community. The reply is that if such permanent committee had no judicial or executive power it would be useless; if it had it would be to all intents and purposes a government. Government cannot be abolished. If destroyed in one form it will present itself in another. Under Anarchism we should still have government, but it would be the government of the criminal, the murderer and the thief.

* * *

The Anarchist tries to escape those difficulties by affirming that human imperfection is the result of government and economic conditions. Remove these, he says, and the natural man will be neither a murderer nor a thief nor an idler. Unfortunately anthropology lends no countenance to such optimism. Human imperfection is largely due to environment, but it is also still more largely due to heredity – to the fact that the modern man is the descendant of the ancient savage, and still bears in his nature the marks of his lowly origin. If man is so spotless as the Anarchist assumes how did the wicked system of property ever rise? How came men, originally good and pure, to evolve a system of society which involves despotism on the one hand and slavery on the other? The Anarchist never answers that question because it is unanswerable. The simple truth is that prehistoric man was a brute. He was lazy, dishonest, filthy, selfish, and cruel. He had no objections to slavery provided he did not happen to be the slave. He made his wife a beast of burden while she lived, and dined on her when she died. He loved his fellow man, but preferred him cooked. The present system of society, with all its ethical imperfections, originated in man's savage nature, and continues to exist because, under the thin veneer of civilisation, a large measure of that savage nature still survives. Anarchism, we should say, would be an exceedingly good system for angels. But as men are not exactly angels it scarcely comes within the sphere of practical politics.

* * *

The Anarchist is perfectly right when he says that government is an evil, but he is just as perfectly wrong when he ignores the fact that it is a necessary one. For the workers to follow the advice of Anarchists and take no part in political life would be to blindly play into the hands of the idle classes. If the workers do not govern in the interests of Labour the non-workers will have a free hand in governing in the interests of idleness. The struggle for existence still survives, although in a modified and civilised form. In the past the rule was; Eat or be eaten; to-day it is; Rule or be ruled. For countless centuries the the propertied classes have captured the government, made laws in their own interests, and said to the people; “There are our laws. If you do not obey them we shall order our police to lock you up in our prisons, or, perhaps, order must be maintained at all hazards.” Now it appears to us that the way of salvation for the workers lies in following the admirable example of our friend the enemy. Let the people, now that they largely possess the franchise, take possession of Parliament, abolish the old capitalistic laws, and make new ones in the just interests of all, and, having done so, let them in turn say to the capitalists ; “these are our laws; if you don't obey them we shall be under the painful necessity of locking you up in our prisons, or it may be, of shooting you. Law and order, as you well know, gentlemen, must be maintained at all hazards.” Doubtless our capitalist friends would, under the circumstances, lose much of their enthusiasm for law and order, but then the police and the military would be present to lend strength to their failing convictions, and the Fat Man would learn to submit just as the Lean Man has submitted for centuries. No doubt the Anarchist's ideal society – a voluntary brotherhood of free men – is an exceedingly exalted one, but perhaps the surest and swiftest way of realising it is through the government of Social Democracy. Just as the parental authority of a wise parent ultimately fits the child to use worthily the freedom of mature manhood, so it may be that the Democratic government which shall destroy economic privilege, and secure to all men the full fruits of their labour, shall speed the dawning of the day when government itself shall become unnecessary, when the sword of Force shall be broken, and when Freedom, secure and immortal as the gods, shall sit enthroned among the nations of the earth.

PROMETHEUS.