GOVERNMENT IS VIOLENCE THE FIRST COLLECI10N OF TOLSTOY'S ESSAYS

ON ANARCIllSM AND NON - VIOLENT REVOLUTION •••

People can only be freed from slavery by the abolition of Governments

•••

A Government, and especially a Government entrusted with military power.

is the most dangerous organization possible •••

As long as Governments with armies exist, the termination of

armaments and wars is impossible

•••

The Anarchists are right in everything ... they are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy

can be instituted by a violent revolution •••

Freedom, not imaginary but actual, is attained not by barricades and murders,

nor by any new kind of institution coercively introduced, but

only by the cessation of obedience to any human authority whatever

•••

TOLSTOY

GOVERNMENT IS VIOLENCE

essays en ANARCIHSM and PACTFTSM

TOLSTOY

GOVERNMENT IS

VIOLENCE

GOVERNMENT IS VIOLENCE

TOLSTOY

GOVERNMENT IS VIOLENCE

essays on anarchism and pacifism

Edited and introduced by David Stephens

Phoenix Press London 1990

Leo Tolstoy GOVERNMENT IS VIOLENCE essays on anarchism and pacifism ISBN: 0 94898 4 15 5

Published by Phoenix Press PO Box 824 London NI9DL

Typeset by Kaw-djer and Ie Vieux Foudrc Arlwork by Penny Rimbaud

Printed and bound by spec Whcatons, Exeter

Cover photo: To]SLOy in 1908

CONTENTS On this book 5 Tbe non-violent anarchism or Leo Tolstoy 7

The End of the Age 21

An Appeal to Social Rdormers 53 On Anarchy 67

Thou Sbalt Not Kill 71

Patriotism and Government 77

The Kingdom of God is Within You 9J The Slavery of Our Time 111

On Socialism, State and Christian 157

Sources 168

Further Reading on Tolstoy 170

Notes 174

ON THIS BOOK This book has been designed to complemCnl lhe 1987 republication

by New Society of Toistoy's Writings on Civil Disobedience and Non­violence, which contains many of Tolstoy's Christian pacifist essays. However, the New Society collection docs not include the classic anar­chist texts that Tolstoy wrote around the lum of the century, which, although of len republished, remain scattered in pamphlets and magazines long out-of-print and hard to find. The aim, therefore, of this collection is to present in onc volume the most important of Tolstoy's writings on anarchism and revolution, some of which (On Anarchy, On Socialism, Slate and Christian) have not, to my knowledge, been republished in English since Tolstoy's death in 1910. One essay lhal appears in the New Society collection, Thou Shall NOI Kill, is also reproduced here, as its dis­cussion of anarchist terrorism is ccntralLO the theme of this book. Both collections include extracts from The KingdomojGod is Within You; they are, however, from different chapters and do not overlap.

Tolstoy often covered lhesame ground in several essayswilh slightly different emphasis; whilst all of Ihe eight essays republished here deal wilh the State and revolution, they have been arranged to give a rough progression from an evaluation of anarchist theories and tactics to a criticism of militarism, capi13lism and Marxism. The essays appear essentially in meir original form with a minimum of editing to remove superfluous references to contemporary circumstance; some of the b'ans­lators' more obsolete English expressions have, however, been updated where necessary. Details of the editing and sources are indicated at the back of the book, as arc suggestions for further reading on Tolstoy and anarcho-pacifism. Besides gi ving details of events or persons mentioned by TolsLOy, the footnotes also refer to modern illustrations of points raised in me essays. For ease of consultation,mey have been grouped at lheend of me book, rather than appearing at the end of each essay.

My thanks must go to Michael Holman of Leeds University for academic advice and research, and to all the people over me lasl five years who have kept Ihe idea of the book going: Pen, Bron and G of Crass, Alben and Chris of the War Resisters' International/Pcacc News, Kaw-djcr who had the unenviable task of typing it all and, above all, Mo who was the first

5

to hear of it and the one who finally brought it into being. This book is for Rachel, as it always was.

David Stephens

Wildcat by Donald Rooum appears in Freedom every momh.

6

THE NON·

VIOLENT ANARCHISM OF LEO TOLSTOY

Eightyyearshavenowelapsedsincc LeoTolstoy'sdeath in 191O.and yet the many essays which Tolstoy wrote in the last twenty years of his life to expound his innovative brand of non -violent anarchism raise issues that

are still of importance today. The twentieth century has seen increasing convergence (and expansion)of anarchist and pacifist ideas: theanarchist movement has seen the vast escalation of militarism and the seemingly invincible annoury of repression as perhaps the greatest threat posed by the State; the pacifist movement has gone beyond a simplistic rejection of violence on a personal level to consider the role of the State in militarism, and has embraced direct action as a means of combatting it. Both anarchism and pacifism have as their common enemy the State as the 'organ of violence' , and yet some anarchists refuse to recognize this com­munity of interest - the OclObcr 1986 issue of Black Flag comments:

'Many paciflSts have come to think of themselves as anarchists. But their "anarchism" remained militant liberalism ... "non-violent anar­chism" is not a variant of anarchism: it is an attack on it'.

This uncompromising stand is not echoed in other countries; indeed, in Germany, where anarchism is much more alive than in Britain, the numerically strongest and most acti ve anarch ist group is the Federation of Non-violent Action Groups with their magazine Grqssroots Revolutwn There is no reason for the antipathy that exists between different currents of anarchist thought; it has long been an unfortunate feature of anarchists that they tend lO emphasize the differences between themselves rather than recognize the similarities. This has prevented anarchists from meeting the need for a reappraisal of their revolutionary hislOry; whilsl authoritarian ideologies have each had their day, anarchism has never succeeded in consolidating a large-scale and durable libertarian society beyond thelem­porary and partial achievements born of civil war. Anarcho-pacifists would argue that this is because of the unique model of society anarchism represents; in being alone in rejecting the State and coercion. anarchists must develop a non-coercive strategy for revolution different from thai Proposed by authoritarian ideologies. In order lO do this, anarchists must

7

be prepared to listen to one an other instead of each fighting from their comer, to listen too to theexampJes from the past of anarchist revolution­aries like Kropotkin, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman who, having espoused violence, came to be disillusioned by it as a means of struggle. TolslOY'S arguments on the incompatibility between anarchism and violence and his proposed strategy of non-violent revolution are a useful starling-point for discussion, but the debate is not made any easier if such ideas arc rejccted out of hand by some anarchists. Albert Meltzer, for example, writing in hisAnarchism, Arguments For and Against, even seeks to deny the historical and ideological links between Tolstoy and the anarchist movement:

'The "Pacifist-Anarchist" approach differs radically from revolu­tionary anarchism. Il is too readily conceded that "this is. after all, anarchism" ... popular opinion made such figures as Tolstoy into an anarchist· he was not; neither was he in the normal sense of the word a Christian or a pacifist. as popularly supposed'.

The history of the anarchist movement and the essays contained in this book show otherwise. TOlstoy's political writings express an uncom­promising rejection of Authority and all its trappings, a scathing criticism of Church and State, capitalism and Marxism, militarism and patriotism. Historically, Tolstoy'S conversion from a dissolute and privileged society author to the non-violent and spiritual anarchist of his latter days was brought about by two trips around Europe in 1857 and 1860-61. At that time,stifled by the polilical and literary repression ofTsaristRussia, many Russian nobles left to taste the winds of change then blowing through Western Europe; other Russian aristocrats radicalized by their travels in Westem Europe were Kropotkin, Bakunin and Herten. During his first visit toEurope, Tolstoy had a traumatic experience which was to mark the beginning of his evolution; after wilnessing a public execution in Paris, he wrote to his friend V. P. Botkin on April 6, 1857:

'The truth is that the S tate is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens ... I understand moral and religious laws, not compulsory for everyone, but leading forward and promising a more harmonious future; I feel the laws of art, which always bring happiness. But political laws seem to me such prodigious lies, that I fail to see how one among them can be bcUeror worse than any of the others ... Henceforth I shall never serve any governmcnt anywhere'.

However, it was during his second trip to Europe that Tolstoy met the man who was to shape his political lransformation. In 1860-61, Tolstoy visited Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Belgium (NOTE No 1) to

8

gather ideas on education, ideas which would lead him to set up severa1 libertarian schools near his home of Yasnaya Polyana. During his visit to Brussels in March 1861, armed with a leuer of recommendation from Alexander Herzen, Tolstoy called on a mathematics lea cher by the name of Emile Durfon, in reality the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, then living in exile after the publication of his On Justice in the Revolution and in the Church in 1858. Tolstoy later chronicled his meeting with Proudhon in his educational notebooks:

'Last year, I had the chance to speak to Mr. Proudhon about Russia. At that time, he was engaged in writing a book on the laws of war. I described to him the latest news from Russia - the freeing of the serfs -and I told him that amongst the goveming classes there was a strong desire to develop popular education, and also that sometimes this desire took on a somewhat comic form and became a kind of fashion. "Is that really so?" he remarked. I replied that, as far as I could judge, Russian society was beginning to understand that, without popular education, no State struc­ture can be stable. Proudhon stood up and began pacing around the room. "lfthis is true", he said in an almost envious tone, "then the future belongs to you, the Russians" . If l recount this conversation with Proudhon, it is to show that, in my personal experience, he was the only man who under­stood the significance of education and of the printing press in our time'(NOTE N02).

Tolstoy's views on property were alsodecply innuenced by Proudhon, in particular by Proudhon's What is property?, published in 1840, which Tolstoy had read some time before his meeting with Proudhon. Criticiz­ing the constitutional moves in Russia which had emancipated the serfs but delivered them intothepowerofthe landowners, Tolstoy noted in his diary for August 18, 1865:

'The mission of Russia in world history consists in bringing into the world the idea of a socialized organization of land ownership. "Property is theft" will remain a greater truth than the truth of the English constitu­tion, as long as mankind exists ... This idea has future. The Russian revo­lution can be founded only on this idea. The revolution will not be against the Tsar and despotism, but against private property in land'.

Besides discussing education and property, Tolstoy and Proudhon also talked ofProudhon ' s fonhcomi ng book on war, still one of the French author's most controversial works. The book, published a few months afterTolslOy's visit, was entitled On War and Peace; three years later, in 1864, the year which saw the publication ofProudhon's book in Russian, Tolstoy used the same title when he began writing his grealest literary

9

work which contains much of Proudhon's philosophy.

On his return to Russia, TolstOy threw himself intO educational activities founding thirteen schools for peasants in and around his estates at Yasna;a Polyana (NOTE No 3). The schools w�re to r:un in�iuenlly for the next ten years and functioned on purely hbertanan pnnclples, as Tolstoy described in his essay, The School at Yasnaya Poiyana (1862):

'The school has evolved freely from the principles introduced into it by teachers and pupils. In spite of the preponderating influence of �e teacher, the pupil has always had the right not to come to SC:hool, or, havm� come, not to listen to the teacher. The teacher has had the nghtnot toadmn a pupil ... Now we have pupils in the first class, who themselves dema�d that the programme be adhered to, who are d�satisfied �hen �ey are diS· turbed in their lessons,and who constantly dnve out the httlechlldrcn who run in to them. In myopinion, this outward disorder is useful and valuable, however strange and inconvenient it may seem to the teacher ... Obeying only natural laws, flowing from their nature, they revoltand gru� ble �hen they have to obey your untimely interference. They do nOl

o be�eve m �e

legality of your bells, rosters and rules ... I have succeeded m. dlscovenng

among them some rough sense of justice. How often are affalfs settled by lhem by reason of one knows not what law, and yet seuled in a manner satisfactory to both parties! .,. The best policy and administrative system for a school is to allow the scholars perfect freedom of learning and of governing themselves as they like'.

Tolstoy returned to the question of forced learning in his Lefler on Education (1902):

'That children grow up without having learnt certain subjects is nOl nearly so bad as what happens to almost all children· they get educational indigestion andcometodetcsteducation. A child,or a man,can learn when he has an appetite for what he studies. Without appetite, instruction is an evil· a terrible evil, causing people to become mentally crippled'.

In many respects, Tolstoy anticipated the ideas of voluntary lessons and self-government for children that A. S. Neill put into practice in his school Summerhill, founded in 1921 and still running today. Indeed, one could say that libertarian education started in practice in 1861 when Tolstoy'S school at Yasnaya Polyana opened with the motto 'Come and go freely'. Although the schools themselves functioned well. Tolstoy was subjected to increasing official harassmen t as knowledge of their methods spread. Many of the teachers were young radical students from Moscow, and the Tsarist secret police dispatched several agents to infiltrate their

10

circles, culminating in a police raid on TOlStoy's house in July 1862. Tolstoy, who was not there at the time, narrowly escaped arrest when Maria Tolstoy managed to conceal a sheaf of leuers from Alexander Herzcn by sitting down on them and refusing to move until the police had left their home(N OTE No 4). A lthough hi s experiments in libertarian edu­cation were sporadic (1849,1859 - 1863, 1868 - 1875), Tolstoycontinued to write on education and to produce elementary school books for many years. His New ABC (1875) is still used in the Soviet Union today; his school, however, was taken over by the Ministry of Education and no longer runs on his pioneering principles,

Tolstoy'S relationship with Proudhon was brought loan untimely end by the death ofProudhon in January 1865, but in the 1890s, when Tolstoy was writing many of his greatest anarchist essays, he came into contact with Kropotkin and they corresponded through the intermediary of Tol­stoy's exiled follower Vladimir Tchertkoff (NOTE No 5), Tolstoy ex­pressed great admiration at the Russian pri nee's rejection of his privileged position in favour of his ideals, an example Tolstoy was himself to follow in 1891 when he gave up his estates and renounced copyright on all his works wriuen after 1881. Tolstoy and Kropotkin had much in common in their private lives - Russian ex-aristocrats and ex-soldiers who became revolutionaries, drawing their ideals from the simple life of rural agricul­tural communities: both believed that life without Authority was only possible if communitarian principles were followed (NOTE No 6). Tol­stoy even developed Kropotkin's idea of mutual aid further, calling it mutual service. Kropotkin valued Tolstoy both as a thinker and as an author, and wrote to Vladimir Tchertkoff saying:

'In order to understand how much I sympathize with the ideas of Tolstoy, it is sufficient to say that I have written a large volume to demonstrate that life is created, not by the struggle for existence, but by mutual aid' (NOTE No 7).

Kropotkin also wrote several essays on TOlStoy's literary achieve­ments; apart from a section in his Ideals and Realities in Russian Litera­lure, Kropotkin devoted an essay to Tolstoy entitled uo Tolstoy: His An. His Personality which was written in 1910 but which remained unpub­lished until 1958 (NOTE No 8).

Tolstoy in tum recommended Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops to his readers in his Appeal to the Working People. The two Russians, whilst agreeing on the evils of the State and the need for communitarian anarchism, differed on the question of revolutionary violence; whilst Tolstoy totally rejected violence as a

"

means of reaching anarchy, Kropotkin regretted that sometimes violence might be nccessary. Tolstoy never called himself an anarchist because of its contemjX>rary connection with violence, but showed great understand­ingofKrojX>tkin 'sfeelings on thesubjcct in a letlerto VladimirTchertkoff

in 1897:

'His arguments in favour of violence do not seem to me the expres­sion of his opinions, but only of his fidelity to the banner under which he

has served so honestly all his life. He cannOI but see that in order to be strong, a protest against violence must be solidly based, and that a protest which permits itself the usc of violence has not a leg to stand on and is, as a consequence, doomed to failure' (NOTE No 9).

Botll however agreed tIlat the wave of assassinations by anarchists that rocked Europe and America in the 1890s was counter-productive; David Miller comments in his Anarchism:

'After having endorsed the insurrectionary strategy in the 1870s, and then individual acts of terror in the early 1880s, Kropotkin had come by tile 1890s to disapprove of acts of violence except those performed in self­defence in the course of a revolution' (NOTE No 10).

MirroringTolstoy's views expressed in his Thou Shalt Not Kill, Kro­potkin contributed a critical essay entitled On the murder of the Austrian Empress to the first issue of Tchertkoff's Free Word N�s-sheel, pub­lished in November 1898.

KropoLldn gives us an excellent insight into Tolstoy'S political philosophy in tile section on anarchism that he contributed to LheEneyc/o­paedia Britannica in 1905:

'Without naming himself an anarchist, Leo Tolstoy, like his prede­cessors in the popular religious movements of the 15m and 16th centuries, Chojecki, Denk and manyothers, took the anarchist position asregards the State and property rights, deducing his conclusions from me general spirit of the teachings of Christ and from the necessary dictates of reason. With all the might of his talent, he made (especially in The Kingdom of God is Within You) a powerful criticism of the ChurCh, the State and Jaw altogether, and especially of the present property Jaws. He describes the State as the domination of me wicked, supported by brutal force. Robbers, he says, are far less dangerous than a well-organized Government. He makes a searching criticism of the prejudices which are now current concerning the benefits conferred upon men by the Church, the State and the existing distribution of propeny, and from the teaching of Christ, he

12

deduces the rule of non-resistance and lhe absolute condemnation of all wars. His religious arguments are, however, so well combined with arguments borrowed from a dispassionate observation of the present evils,

that the anarchisl portions of his works appeal to the religious and the non­

religious reader alike' (NOTE No 11).

Kropotkin rightly identifies religious faith as the spring of Tolstoy's

anarchism and pacifism: in essence, Tolstoy argues that the fundament of spirituality rests on the principle of non-violence, and that pacifism must

inevitably lead to anarchism due to the State's role as the 'organ of violence', waging war and repressing internal dissent. Tolstoy succinctly described his beliefs in an undated letter to Dr. Eugen Heinrich Schmitt, editor of the Budapest magazine Ohne Staat:

'Government is violence, Christianity is meekness, non-resistance, love. And, therefore, Government cannOt be Christian, and a man who wishes to be a Christian must not serve Government'.

These ideas arc most fully expounded in Tolstoy'S major work on Christian anarchism, The Kingdom of God is Within You, published in 1894, in which Tolstoy described the State as follows:

Take a man of our times, whoever he may be ... he lives on quietly until one day people come and say to h im: "Firstly, you mUSt give your oath and promise Lhat you will submit like a slave toall we may command you, and that you will obey and believe to he absolute truth whatever we may wish to decide and 10 call laws; secondly, you must give us a pan of your labour to be used at our discretion, and we shall employ it to keep you in slavery and to prevent you from resisting our dccisions; thirdly, you must elect and be elected among those who are supposed to take part in Government, knowing all the while that me Government will go on quite regardless of the foolish speeches you and others like you may pronounce, and solely i n accordance with our will, that is, with me will of those who have the army at their disposal; fourthly, you must appear at cenain times at the law court and take pan in the senseless cruelties which we perpetrate against misguided men, for whose depravity weare ourselves responsible, but whom we subject to imprisonment, exile, solitary confinement and death. Fifthly, and most important of all, although you may be on the most friendly terms with men of other nations, you must be ready ata moment's notice, and whenever we command you, to look upon mose whom weshall point out to you as your enemics. and to help personally or by money in ruining, murdering and robbing mese men and women, children and aged IlCOple, and todo the same towards your rell ow-countrymen or even your Own parents, if we happen to require it" '.

13

The Kingdom of God is Within You was the fruition of a long period of reflection that started in 1881 when Tolstoy announced his withdrawal from literature and wrote My Confession, followed in 1884 by What I believe and in 1886 by What then must we do? The religious faith which moved Tolstoy topolitical and social criticism should,as Kropolkin noted, not distance the atheist, for, as TolsLOY wrote in What is religion? (1902):

'True religion is a relationship that man establishes with the infinite life surrounding him, and it is such as binds his life to that infinity and guides his conduct'.

George Woodcock notes in his Anarchism

. 'I thin� I �ave said enough LO show lhat in its essentials Tolstoy's

SOCial teaching IS a true anarchism, condemning the authoritarian orderof existing society, proposing a new libertarian order, and suggesting the means by wh ich it may be attained. Since his religion is a natural and rational one, and seeks its Kingdom in the reign of justice and loveon this earth, it does not transcend his anarchist doctrine, but is complementary to it'.

Tolstoy's idea of religion, then, was nota mystical doctrine buta new �o�ption of life that had no need of Church and clergy, litany and ritual; Ifl hiS ulter to a Non-Commissioned Officer (1899), Tolstoy wrote:

'It is only necessary to act towards others as we wish th�m toact towards us. In that is all the law and all the prophets,asChrist said. And to act in this way we need neither icons, nor relics, nor church services, nor priests, nor catechisms, nor Governments, but on the con­uary, we need perfect freedom from all that; for to do unto others as we wish them to do unto us is only possible when a man is free from the fables which the priests give out as the only truth'.

Not surprisingly, the Orthodox Church would not tolerate such 'heresy' and excommunicated Tolstoy in 1901 for his persistent con­demnations of the Church as a reactionary body which supponed the miliwism of the State. Tolstoy was unconcerned by his excommunica­tion; he had long ago become convinced of the' false Christianity' of the Church as he wrote in his Reply to the Synod's Edict of Excommunication (1901):

'I �ame convinced that Church doctrine is theoretica II y a crafty and harmful he, and practically a collection of the grossest superstitions and

14

sorcery, which completely conceals the whole meaning of Christ's teach­

ing'.

Tolstoy's understanding of Christianity was an essentially revolu­tiOnary and liberatory one; in the words of Herbert Newton:

'Christ founded no church. established no Stale, made no laws,

imposed no government or external authority; he simply set himself to write the law of God in the hearts of men in order that they might be able to govern themselves'.

Tolstoy's spiritual anarchism rested on the principle of total non­violence, and in his essays Tolstoy gives numerous reasons for rejecting violence as a means of attaining anarchy. Quite apart from the practical consideration that to take up armed struggle is to fight the Stale on its own ground where itis strongest, Tolstoy argues that the grip of the State over the media will ensure the 'hypnotization' of the people in support of State violence - either wars or internal repression - through the elaborate maintenance of 'enemy images' and the gut reaction of fear. Far from enlightening people, 'murder only increases the hypnotism', 'dynamite and the dagger only cause reaction' . The popu larreputation that anarchism acquired during its espousal of terrorist tactics in Tolstoy's time has conti�ued to be a handicap to broad support for its ideas today. Our twenlleth-century experience with terrorism has shown that violence has not helped to challenge the State credo, but actually drives the people t��ards it. Panicked by media hysteria and skilfully manipUlated by State d.lsmfo �ation, the people themsel ves call for increased powers of repres­

slon.In hIS utter toRussian Liberals( 1896), Tolstoyargued that violence was counter-productive:

'The violence of the Revolutionists only strengthens the order of things they strive against ... for it drives the whole crowd of undecided people - who stand wavering between the two parties - into the camp of the conservative and retrograde party'.

. This mechanism has been well understood by States; they do not

heSitate to make use of agents provocateurs and to orchestrate fake terroristauacks whenever they feel that the legislation on internal surveil­lance �d repression needs reinforcing. The 'strategy of tension' in Italy, the SUICide of West German democracy in the 1970s and British manipu-I . . allon of the Northern Ireland conniCt are eloquent examples of this process. To use violence is then merely to play into the Sta te's hands.

But perhaps Tolstoy's most persuasi ve argument against revolution-

IS

ary violence as a strategy to reach anarchy is that the means and the end are incompatible; reasoning that violence is the most naked form of coercion, he assen s that allempts to introduce an anti -authoriwian society through violent revolution can only end in dictatorship. In his evaluation of other anarchist thinkerS,A n Appeal to Social Reformers, Tolstoy wro te:

'lf power is to be abolished, this can be accomplished in nowise by force, as power having abolished power will remain power'.

Echoing the concerns ofKropotkin and Alexander Berkman that the defcnceofthe revolution may destroy therevolution itself, Tolstoy argued in his Letter to Russian Liberals:

'Even if an attempt to alter the existing regi me by violent means could succeed, there would be no guarantee that the new organization would be durable, and that the enemies of that new order would not, at someconven­ientoppor tunitY,triumph by using violence such as had been used against them ... And so, the new order of things, established by violence, would have continually to be supported by violence - i.e. by wrongdoing. And conscquent1y, it would inevitably, and very qui ckly, be corruptcd, like the order it replaced'.

In a leUer com.meming on the 1905 revolution to his friend V. V. S!aSOv on September 20, 1906, Tolstoy foresaw the fate of the Russian Revolution of 1917:

'What is going on now amongst the people (not the proletariat) is very important and. of course, good. but what is being done by all these comic parties and com minees is not important and not good ... From the direction things are taking, unless the people, the real people, the hundred million peasants who work on the land, by their passive non-panicipation in violence make all this frivolous, noisy. irritable and touchy crowd harm­less and unnecessary, we shall surely arrive at a military dicultorship, and arrive at it by way of the great crimes and corruption which have already begun ... SO this is what I think: I rejoice for the revolution, bUlgrieve for those who, imagining that they are making it, are destroying it'.

Tolstoy's thoughts on the impossibility of rcaching anarchy through violence are echoed in an exchange of leuers in 1928 between veteran revolutionaries Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, the latter im­prisoned Cor nearly fifteen years for his participation in the anarchist terrorism of the 1890s:

'There are moments when I fccl [hat the revolution cannot work on

16

Anarchist principles. But when the old methods are followed, they never lead to Anarchism' (Berkman).

'I feel that violence in whatever form never has and

probably never will bring constructive results' (Goldman).

'Unless we set our face against the attitude to revolution as a violent eruption desuoying everything of what has been built up over centuries of painful and painstaking effort not by the bourgeoisie but by the combined effort of humanity, we must become Bolsheviks, and accept terror and all that it implies, or become Tolstoyans. There is no other way. I insist that if we can undergo changes in every other method of dealing with social issues, we will also have to learn to cha nge in the methods of revolution' (Goldman) (NOTE No 12).

Tolstoy'S suggested means of attaining anarchy were those that have now become well-known as civil disobedience and non-violent direct action. Tolstoy called his strategy 'non-resistance' after the Biblical quotation (so often partially cited as a justilication for revenge):

'Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say uO(o you, Resist not evil' (Matthew V, v. 38-39).

Tolstoy's choice of terms - 'non-resistance' and 'passive submis­sion' - is unfonunate, suggesting mute acceptance of oppression, and this has led to Tolstoy being accused ofbcing a quietist. This is, however, far from what To Istoy recommends; contrasting 'passive submission' with violent retaliation, Tolstoy advocates unbending moral resistance to Authority. Theanarchist historian, Max NeuJau,commented on this in the following words:

'It would be a complete misunderstanding of Tolstoy to see his philosophy as one of resignation. of submission to evil in a spirit of "Christian" patience and of obedience due to all authority . Tolstoy upheld exactly the contrary: he wanted resistance to evil I and added to one method of resistance - that of active force - a second: resislance through disobedience, in other words, passive force. He did not say: suffer the wrong that is done to you, or turn the other cheek once you have been Struck, but instead: do nOI do what you are ordered 10 do ,do not take the rifle which is given to you to kill your brothers ... If Tolstoy had read Godwin's book, he would have found the same idea expressed there ... The Emerson-Tolstoy-Gandhi approach is as valid a means of struggle as is revolutionary action in the form of strikes and, above ail, the Genera] Strike'(NOTE No 13).

17

Il was from Tolstoy's ideas of non-compliance, refusal of taxes and non-violent resistance to Authority that Gandhi developed his lhCOry of saryagraha. Therelationship between Tolstoy and Gandhi wasa brief one, lastingjustovcra year, but Tolstoy's writings had already had a profound influence on the future exponen t of non· violence. In his autobiography A fl men are brothers Gandhi acknowledged his debt to Tolstoy:

'Il was forty years ago, when I was passing through a severe crisis of scepticism and doubt that I came across Tolstoy's book The Kingdom of God is Within You, and was deeply impressed by it. I was at that time a believer in violence. Its reading cured me of my scepticism and made me a finn believer in ahimsa (non-violence) .. . He was the greatest apostle of non-violence that the present age has produced'.

Gandhi corresponded with Tolstoy from October 1909 until Tol­stoy's death in November 1910, informing Tolstoy of his non-violent resistance to race laws in South Africa and obtaini ng T olSlOY' s penn ission to publish an Indian translation of Tolstoy's uller to a Hindu. In this essay, TOlStoy's influence on Gandhi can be secn in the following passage:

'A com�e.rcial company enslaved a nalion comprising two hundred mllhons ... do nOl the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, bUI the Indians who have enslaved themselves? .If the people of India are enslaved, it is only because they themselves hve and have lived by violence, and do not recognize me elCrnal law of love inherent in humanity. As soon as men I..ive entirely in accord with the law of love natural to their hearts and now revealed to them, which excludes all resistance by violence, and thererore they hold al?Df from all participation in violence - as soon as this happens, not only Will hundreds be unable to enslave millions, bUI not even millions will be able lO enslave a single individual' (NOTE No 14).

For Tolstoy, the State could only survive with the consent of the gove�ed; a revolution to overthrow it had to take a personal rather than a �htJcal form. Th.e German anarchist Gustav Landauer developed this pomt further, argumg that government was not an institution but the productofan authoritarian mentality:

. 'Th: �tate is nOt something thatcan be destroyed by a revolution, but IS a condlUon, a certain relationship between human beings; we destroy it by conltacting other relationships, by behaving differently.'

George Woodcock comments in his Anarchism:

18

'To attain this society where the State and law and property wiD all be abolished, Tolstoy - like Godwin and to a great extent like Proudhon -advocates a moral rather than a political revolution. A political revolution, he suggests, fights the Stateand property from without; amoral revolution works within the evil society and wears at its very foundations. Tolstoy does make a distinction between the violence of a government, which is whoUyevil because it is dcliberate and works by the perversion of reason and the violence of an angry people, which is only partly evil because i� arises from ignorance. Yet the only effective way he sees of changing society is by reason, and, ultimately, by persuasion and example. The man who wishes to abolish the State must cease lO cooperate with it, refuse military service, police service, jury service, the payment of taxes. The refusal to obey, in other words, is Tolstoy'S great weapon'.

Tolstoy has this to add:

'There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly

. in himself. And y.cI in our world, everybody minks of changing

humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.

The man Of virtuous soul commands not nor obeys. Power like a desolating pestilence Pollutes whate'er it lOuches: and obedience, Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, Makes slaves of men, and of the human frame A mechanized automaton.

Sheffey

19

David Stephens

OF THE AGE

THE END OF THE AGE

An Essay on the Approaching

Revolution (1905)

. . In Gospel language "the age" and "the end of the age" does not

sigmey the end and beginning of a century, but the end of one view oClife of one faith, of one melhod of socia1 intercourse between men, and th� commencement of another view of life, another faith, anomer melhod of social intercourse. [ ... J Every revolution begins when Society has Qut­grown the view of life on which the existing fonns of social life were founded. when lhe contradictions between life such as it is. and Life as it shO�ld be. �n�. might be, become so evident to the majority that they feel the IffiJX>SSlbility of continuing existence under fonner conditions. The revolution begins in that nation wherein the majority of men become conscious of this contradiction. As to the revolutionary methods these depend on the object towards which the revolution tends.

In 1793 the consciousness of the contradiction between the idea of equality of men and the despotic power of kings, priesthood, nobility, and bureaucracy was felt not only by the nations suffering from oppression, but also by thc best men of the ruling classes in all Christendom. But nowhere were these classes so sensitive to this inequality, and nowhere

�as the consciousness of the people so little stultified by the servitude as In France, and therefore the revolution of 1793 actually began in France. The most adequate means of realizing equality naturally seemed to be to take back that which the authorities possessed, and therefore those revolutionaries realized their aims by violence.

22

At the present dale. 1905. the contradiction between the conscious­ness of the possibility • and the lawfulness, offree lifeon theone hand, and the unreason and disaster of obedience to coercive authority. arbitrarily depriving people of the product of their labour for armaments which can have noend.of authority capable at any momentof compelling nations to participate in insensaleand cruel manslaughleron the other is felt not only by the masses suffering from this coercion, but also by the best men of the ruling cIasses. Nowhere is this contradiction felt so strongly as in Russia. This is partly due to the insane and humiliating war into which they have been drawn by the Government and to the agricultotal life yet retained by the Russian people, but above all to the particularly viUll. Christian consciousness of this peoplc. That is why 1 think that the revolulion of 1905 having as its objective the liberation of men from coercion must begin and has already begun in Russia. The means of realizing the objcctivesof arevolution for the freedom of men obviously must be other than that vio1enceby which men have hitherto attempted to raise equality . The men of the great French revolution wishing 10 retain equality might make the mistake of thinking that equality is attainable by coercion, although it would seem evident that equality cannot be secured by coercion, as coercion is in itself the keenest manifestation of inequality. But the freedom constituting the ch ief ai m of the present revolution cannal in any case be attained by violence. Yet at present the people who are producing the revolution in Russia think thai the Russian revolution. having repeated all that has laken place in European revolutions with solemn funera] processions, destruction of prisons. brilliant speeches, Allez dire a votre maitre. constitutional assemblies and so fonh. and having ovenhrown the existing Government and instituted constitutional monarchy oreven a socialistic republic, will attain the objective at which the revolution aimed.

Buthistory does not repeat itself. Violent revolution has outlived its time. All it can give men, it has already given them, butat the same time it has shown what it cannot attain. The revolution now beginning in Russia amongst a popUlation of one hundred million souls of quite a peculiar mental attitude. and taking place not in 1793 but in 1905.cannot possibly have the same objectives, and be realized by the same methods, as the revolutions of sixty, eighty, a hundred years ago amongst German and Latin nations quite differently constituted.

The Russian agricultural nation which, as a matter of fact, means the ,,:,hole nation, required not a Duma and not the grant of a certain kind of fights. the enumeration of which more than anything clearly demonstrates the absence of simple true freedom, not the substitution of one form of coercive power for another, but a true and complete freedom from all coercive power.

The significance of the revolution beginning in Russia and hanging

23

ovcr aU the world does not consist in thc establishmcnt of income tax or other taxes, nor the separation of Church from State, nor in the acquisition by the State of social institutions, nor in thc organization of elections and the imaginary participation of the peoplc in the ruling power, nor in the founding of the most democratic, or even socialistic republic with univer­sal suffrage. It consists only in actUlllfreedom.

Freedom not imaginary, bUl actual, is attained not by barricades or murders, nor by any kind of new institution coercively introduced, but only by the cessation of obedience 10 any human authority whatever.

II The fundamental cause of the impending revolution, as of all past and

future revolutions, is a religious onc. By the word rcligion is usually undcrstoodeithercertain mystical definitions of the unseen world, certain riles. a cult supporting, consoling and inspiring men in life. or else the explanation of the origin of the universe, or moral rules of life sanctioned by divine command; bUl true religion is before all else the disclosure of that law common to all men which at any given time affords them the greatest welfare.

Amongst various nations, even before the Christian teaching, there was expressed and proclaimed a supreme religious law, common to all mankind and consisting in this, that men for their welfare should live not each for himself, but each for the good of all, for mutual service (Buddha. Isaiah. Confucius, Laotze, the Stoics). Thelaw was proclaimed. and those who knew it could not but see all its truth and beneficence. But custom founded not upon mutual service but on violence had penetrated to such an extent into all institutions and habits that, whilst people recognized the bencficenceofthe law of mutual servke, they continued to live according to the laws of violence, justifying this by the necessity of threats and retribution. It seemed to them that without threats, and without returning evil for evil, social life was impossible. Certain people for the establish­ment of order and the correction of men took upon themselves the duty of applying laws, and while they commanded, others obeyed. But the rulers were inevitably depraved by the power they used. Then being themselves depraved, instead of correcting men, they transmitted to them their own depravity. Meanwhile those who obeyed were depraved by panicipation in the coercive actions of the rulers by the imitation of the rulers and by servile submission. One thousand nine hundred years ago Christianity ap­peared. Christianity con finned with new force the law of mutual service and further explained the reasons why this law had not been fulfilled.

With extraordinary clarity the Christian teaching showed that this reason was the false idea about the lawfulness and the necessity of coercion for retribution. Having demonstrated from various sides the un-

24

lawfulness and harmfulness of retribUlion it showed thaI the greatest

calamities of men proceeded from acLS of violence which undertheexcuse

of retribution are commiued by some men upon others. The Christian

teaching demonstrated not only the injustice but the harmfulness of

vengeance, it showed that the only means of deliverance from violence is

the submissive and peaceful endurance of il. 'Ye have heard that it was said. an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a

tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy rightchcek, tum to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak:

also. And whosoever shall compel thee to goone mile, go with him twain.

Give to him thatasketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee tum not thou away.' (Matl v. 38-42).

This teaching pointed out that if the judge as to the cases when force is admissible, is the man who uses force, then there will be no limit to violence, and therefore, that there may not be violence it is necessary that no-one under any pretext whmever should use violence, especially under the moSI usUlll pretext ojrelribution.

This Leachingconflftlled the simple self-evidenltruth thatevil cannot be abolished by evil, and that the only means of diminishing the evil of violence is abstinence from violence.

This Leaching was clearly expressed and established. But the false idea of the justice of retribution as a necessary condilion of human life had become so deeply rooted, and so many people did not know the Christian teaching, or knew itonly in a distorted form. that those who had accepted the law of Jesus yet continued to liveaccording to the law of violence. The leaders of the Christian world thought that it was possible to accept the teaching of mutual service without that teaching of non-resislance which constitutes the keY-Slone of the whole teaching of the mutual life of mankind. To accept the law of mutual service without accepting the com­mandment of non-resistance was the same as to build an arch without securing it where it meets.

Christian people, imagining that without having accepted the com­mandment of non-resistance, they could arrange a life better than the pagan, continued todo not only what non-Christian nations did. but things much worse, and increasingly departed from the Christian life. The esscnceofChristianity, owing to its incomplete acceptance. became more and more concealed. and Christian nations at last attained the position in which they are now, namely, the transformation of Christian nations into inimical camps giving all their powers to arming themselves against each other, and ready at any moment to devour each other; and they have reached the position that they not only ann themselves against each other. but have also armed and are anning against themselves the non-Christian nations who hate them and have risen againsl lhem; and above all they

25

have reached the complel.e repudiation not only of Christianity bUl of any highee law in life whal.ever. . . . . .

The fundamental religious cause of the Impending revoluuon lIes In the distortion of the higher law of mutual service, and of the command­mentof non-resistanee given by the Christian teaching which renders this law possible.

III Not only did the Christian teaching show that vengeance, lrnd the

return of evil for evil, is disadvantageous and unreasonable since it increases the evil - it showed, moreover, that non·resistance to evil by violence, the bearing of every kind of violence without violently strug­gling againstit, is theonly means for the attainmentofthatfreedom which is natural to man. The teaching showed that the moment a man enters into strife against violence he thereby deprives himself of freedom, for by admitting violence on his part towards others, he thereby admits also the violence against which he has striven; and even ifhe remain the victor yet entering into the sphere of external slrife he is always in danger of being in the future conquered by a yet stronger violence.

This teaching showed that only that man can be free who sets as his aim the fulfilment of the higher law, common to all mankind, and for which there can be no obstacle. The leaching showed that the one means to achieve both the diminution of violence in the world and the attainment of complete freedom is the submissive peaceful enduranceof all violence whatsoever.

The Christian teaching proclaimed the law of the complete freedom of man, but under the necessary condition of submitting to this higher law in all its significance.

'And fear not them which kill thebody, butarenotable 10 kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.' (Matt X. 28).

Those who accepted this teaching in all its significance, obeying the higher law, were free from any other obedience. They submissively bore violence from men, but they did not obey men in things incompatible with the higher law.

Thus acted the flfSt Christians when they were a small number amongst pagan nations.

They refused toobey Governrnents in maners incompatible with the higher law which they called the law of God; they were persecuted and executed for this. but they did not obey man and were free. But when the whole nations living in established State organizations supponed by violence were by means oftheexternal rite of baptism recognized as Chris­tians, the relation of the Christians 10 the authorities completely allered. Governments by the help of a servile priesthood inculcated into their

26

b ·eelS that violence and murdermight be perpetrated when they werere­:�ed to for just retribution and in defen� of the oppress� .and weak. Beside this, by forcing men to swear aJleg13.nce to the autho�lJes, 10 vow before God that they would unreservedly fulfil all th�t ml�ht be com-

ded by the authorities, the Governments reduced their subjects to such m:1e that people regarding themselves as Christians ceased to look upon

�i�lence and murder as forbidden. Committing violence and murder themselves. they naturally submitted to the same .when perpetrated upon them. And it came to this, that Christian men, ms� of the freedom proclaimed by Jesus. instead of as formerly regardmg as a duty the endurance of every violence while obeying no-one except God began to understand their duties in adirectly opposilesense. Th�y began tofeel that peaceful endurance was humiliating and to regard their most sacred duty obedience to the authority of Governments, and becam.e slaves. Educated in these traditions they were not onl y unashamed of thelf slavery, but were proud of the power of their Governments as slaves are aJ ways proud of the greatness of their masters.

From this distortion of Christianity there has latterly developed yet a new deceit which secured the Christian nations in their oppressio�. This deceitconsistsin inculcating in a given nation -by means ofacomphcated organization of suffrage and representation in governmen�1 institutions ­that by electing the one who will then with others el.oct thl� or that score of candidates unknown to him, or by directly elecung therr representa­tives, they become participators in governmental power, and that therefore in obeying the Government they are but obeying themselves and s� are presumably free. This deceit, it would seem. ou�ht to have been obvlO�s both theoretically and practically, as even with the most dem�ra.bc organization and universal suffrage the people canno� express the� WIll; they cannot express it. flCst, because there does nOlexlst such a �mversaJ will of a nation of many millions; and secondly, because even If such a universal will of the whole people did exist, a majority of votes could never express it, and they do not themselves know nor can know what they require. This deceit, apart from the circumstances that the elected repre­sentatives who participale in the Government, institute laws and rule people, not with a view to their welfare, but in most cases are g�ided only by the aim of retaining their position and power amidst the stofe of par­ties. Not to mention the corruption of the nation by every kind of fraud, stultification and bribery produced by the deceit. the deceit is especiaJly pernicious in the voluntary slavery to which it reduces men who fall under its influence Those fallen under the influence of this deceit imagine that in obeying th� Government they obey them selves, and never make up their minds to disobey theordinancesofhuman authority, even though the Ialter be COntrary not only to their personal tasl.eS, inlerests and desires, butatso to the higher law and to their consciences. Yet the actions and measures

27

ofthe Governments of such pseudo-selfgoverning nations detennined by the complex strife of parties and intrigues, by lhe strife of ambition and greed, depend as little upon me will and desire of the whole nation as the action and measures or lhe majority imagining that they are free if they have the right to vote in the election of the gaolers and for me internal ad­ministrative measures in the prison.

A subject of the most despotic Government can be completely free although he may be subjected to cruel violence on the pan of the authorities he has not established; but a member of a constitutional State is always a slave because, imagining that he has participated or can participate in his Government, he recognizes the legality of all violence perpetrated upon him; he obeys all the orders of the authorities. So that people in constitutional States imagining that mey are free, owing to this very imagination lose the idea itself of what true freedom is, and more and more surrender themselves imo increasing slavery to their Governments. Nothing demonstrates so clearly the increasing enslavement of nations as the growth, spread and success of socialistic theories: that is, the tendency towards greater and greater slavery.

Although the Russian people in this respect are placed in more advantageous conditions since hitherto they never have participated in power. and so have not yet been depraved by such participation, stiU the Russian people like other nations have been subjected to all the deceits of the glorification of authority, of oaths, of the prestige and greatness of the State and of the Fatherland, and they also regard it as their duty toobey the Government in everything. Latterly, too, shortsighted men of Russian society have endeavoured to reduce the Russian people also to that constitutional slavery in which the other European nations find them­selves.

So that the chief consequence to the non-acceptance of the law of non-resistance, besides the calamity of universal armament and of war, has been the greater and greater loss of freedom for those who profess the distorted law of Jesus .

IV The distortion ofthe teaching of Jesus with thenon-acceptance of the

commandment of non-resistance has brought Christian nations to mutual enmity and to consequent calamities as well as to continually increasing slavery, and people of me Christian worldarc beginning to feel the weight of this slavery. This is the fundamental general cause of the approaching revolution. Theparticularand temporary causes, owing to which this revo­lution is beginning at this very time, consist first in the insanity of growing militarism of the peoples of the Christian world as it stands revealed in the Japanese war, and secondly, in the increasing state of calamity anddissat­isfaction of the working people proceeding rrom their being deprived of

28

their legitimate and natural right to usc the land.

These twO causes are common to all Christian nations, but owing to

pedal historical conditions of me life of the Russian nation they arc felt �y it more acutcl� �an by �ther nations a�d at this particular time. This

misery of its postuon flowlOg from obechence to the Government has

beCOme especially evident to the Russian people, not, I think, only through

the dreadful insane war into which their Government has drawn them, but

also beCause the attitude of Russian people to the ruling power'S has always

been different from that of European nations. The Russian people have never struggled with theirruiers, and, above all, having neverparticipated

in power, have not been depraved by such participation. The Russian people have always regarded power, notas agood thing

towards which it is natural for every man to strive, as the majority of European nations regard power (and as unfortunately some corrupt people of the Russian nation are already regarding it), but it has always looked upon power as an evil which man should avoid. The majority of the Russian nation have therefore always preferred to bear all kinds of physical misery proceeding from violence rather than accept the spiritual responsibility of participating in it. So that the Russian people in its majority has submitted to power, and is submitting to it, not because they cannotoverthrow it as the revolutionaries wish to teach them todo, and not because they cannot attain such participation as the liberals wish to teach them to allain. but because in their majority the Russian people have always preferred, and do prefer, submission to violence rather than strife wim it or participation in it. This is how a despotic Government was established and has maintained itself in Russia, that is, thesimple violence of the strong and pugnacious over the weak or those not desirous of struggling.

The legend of the call of the Varangians (NOlE No 15), obviously composed after the Varangians had already conquered the Slavonians. fully expresses the relation of the Russian people towards power even before Christianity . 'We ourselves do not wish to participate in the sins of power. Uyou do not regard itasa sin,comeand govern us.' By this same attitude towards power can be explained me submission of the Russian people to the most cruel and insaneaulOCrats often not even Russian, from Ivan IV down to Nicholas II.

Thus in older times did the Russian people regard power and their relation towards it. Even now the majority look upon it in the same way. Ilis true that as in other States, the same deceits, by which Christian people have been unconsciously compelled not only to submit but to obey in deeds contrary Lo Christianity, have been perpetrated also in relation to the Russian people. But these deceits reached only the upper, corrupt layers of the people, whereas the majority have retained that view or power by Which man regards it as better to bear suffering from violence than to

29

Participate in we violence. The cause of such. an attit.ude of the Russian people towards power

consists I thinlc. in th1S: that 10 the Russian nation more than in other nations has been conserved true Christianity asa teaching ofbrothcrhood. equality, humility �� love, �e Christianity �hich sees a radical differ­ence between submltUng to violence and obeylOg it. A true Christian may submit, he cannot even but submit without strife toevery violence. but he cannotabey it, that is. recogni

.zc its lawfulness: How�ver r.:uch Govern­

ments in general. and the Rus�lan Government In parucular. have striven, and are striving, to replace thiS truly Christian attitude towards power by the Onhodox -Christian' teaching. the Christian spirit and the distinction between 'subrlliSsion' to power and 'obedience' continues to live in the great majority of �e �ussian working people.

The incofllpaob,IUY of governmental coercion and Christianity has never ceased to be felt by the majority of the Russian people, and this COntradiction llaS been especially keenly and distinctly felt by the more senSitive Christians, who did not embrace the distorted teaching of orthOdoxy, that is,. by th.e so-called �t members. These Christians of various denorninalJOns did not recognize the lawfulness of governmental Power. From fear the majority submitted to Government demands alt­hought hey knew �em to � unlawful, but some of the minority circum­vented them bY vanousdevlccs, or else fled from them. When, with the in­trOduction of universal �o�scription, State coercion threw, as it were, a Challenge to all true Chfl.sllans, demanding from every man readiness to �i U, many ortJ'l�ox �usslan people began to .understand the incompatibil­Ity ofChristiamty with power. At the same lime non-orthodox Christians of the most ... arious denominations began categorically to refuse to become soldiers (N�re No 16). Although there were not many such refUsals (hardlY one 10 a thou�nd conscripts), still their significance was

great since lfICSC refusals, which called forth cruel executions and perse­cutio�s on lfIe part of the Government, opened the eyes no longer of sect members onlY, but of all Russian people to the un-Christian demands of the Go ... ernment. An enormous rna jorit y of people who previously had not thought aboLlt �e contradiction belwe�n t.he divine and human law saw this contradiCtion, and amongst the majority of the Russian nation there began the in ... isible, persisten�, �nca1culable work of the liberation of con­SCiousness. SLlch was the poSition of the Russian nation when the utlerly Unjustifiable Japanese war broke out It is this war, coupled with the development of. reading and �riting, ,:ith the universal dissatisfaction, and abo ... e all wllh the necessity of calling out for the first time hundreds of lhousandSOf middle-a�ed men dispersed all over Russia, and now lorn (rom theirfamilics and rauonallabour(the reservists) for a glaring, insane �nd cruel purPOse: whic� has served as the �nal impetus to transform the lnvisible and persistent Inner development Into a clear consciousness of

the unla�fulness and sinfulness of obedience to a Government requiring such acllons.

This consc�ousness has ell. pressed itself, and is now ell. pressing itself, in the most ... aned and momentous events: in the conscious refusals of reservists to enter the army; in desertions from the army; in equally con­sciouS refusals 10 shoot and fight, especially in refusals to shoot atone's comrad.es during suppression of revolts; and above all, in the continually increaSing number of cases of refusal to lake the oath and en�r the mili­tarY service. Such are the conscious manifestations of the 11�Iz.wfulness and needlessness of obeying the Government; whilst the ;.;nCOilscious manif�tions of it are to be �oun� in all that which is now being accomplished both by therevoluuonanes and by their enemies: sllch as the sailors' revolts in the Black Sea and in Kronsladt, the military fe'/olts in �iel and othe� places, wrcckings, self-constituted violence, peasants' no�. -:he presllgeof.theaulhorities is destrOyed,and before the enormous maJonty of the RUSSian people of our time there has arisen in all its great significance the question as to whether onc should - whether it is one's dUI� to -0tx:y the Government. In thisqueslion arisen amongst the Russian nallon consIsts one of the causes of lhe great revol ution which is approach­ing and perhaps has already begun.

v

. The second external cause of the approaching revolution consists in thIS: that the working people are deprived of their natural and lawful right to the use �f �e land, and that this deprivation has brought to the nations of the ChnSll� �orld �e continuall� increasing misery of the working people an� �elf IOc�slOg exasperauon againsllhose who exploit their labour. Thl� IS .especlally perceptible in Russia because it is only in Russia that the maJoflty of the working people still live an agricultural life and �he Rus.sian people. owing to the increase of the population and lhe msufficlen�y ofth� land, are only now placed under the necessity eilher of a�a��oO!ng their accustomed agricultural life in which they see the poss.lblhty of the realization of the Christian commonwealth, or else of ceasing toobey the Government which keeps in the hands of the landown­ers the land taken from the people.

It is generally thought that the cruellest slavery is personal slavery: ",:hen one man can do anything he likes with another torture mutilate kill him h'l h .

' , , '."': .' e t at which we do nOleven call slavery, the deprivation of the

POSSibility of using the land, is thought merely a certain somewhat unjust economical institution.

. But this view is quite false. That which Joseph did with the Egyptians, w�lchallconquerors have done with the vanquished nations, which is now ��g �one by men to men in the deprivation of the possibility of using the

-IS themostdreadf ul and cruel slavery. The personal slave is the slave 31

of one, but the man deprived of the right to use the land is the slave of all. Even this is not the principal calamity of the land slave. However cruel might have been the owner of the personal slave, in view of his own ad vantage and that he might not lose the slave, he did not force hi m to work incessantly, did not torture him, did not starve him, whereas the man deprived of the land is always obliged to work beyond h.is strength, to suffer, and to starVe, and can never for one minute be completely provided for and be set free from the arbitrary will of men, especially from that of evil and avaricious men. Yet even this is not the chief calamity of me land slave. The worst is that he cannot live a moral life. Not living by labour on the land, not struggling with nature, he is inevitably obliged to suuggle with men, to endeavour to take from them by force or cunning that which they have acquired from the land and from the labour of others.

Land slavery is not, as is thought even by those who recognize deprivation of land as slavery, one of the remaining forms of slavery, but is the radical and fundamental slavery, from which has grown and grows every form of slavery, and which is incomparably more painful than personal slavery. Personal slavcry is merely one of the particular cases of exploitation by land slavery, so that the emancipation of men from personal slavery without their emancipation from land slavery, is not emancipation, but merely the cessation of exploitation by one form of slavery, and in many cases, as it was in Russia (when the serfs were emancipated with but a small portion of land), is a deceit which can only for a time conceal from the slaves their uue position.

The Russian people always understood this, during serfdom, saying, 'We are yours, but the land is ours', and during the emancipation of the land. During the emancipation from serfdom the people were cajoled by a little land being given mem, and for a time they subsided, but with increase of population the question of me insufficiency ofland again arose before them, and that in the clearest and most definite fonn.

While the people were serfs they used the land as much as was necessary for their existence. TheGovemmentand Ihe landowners had Ihe care of distributing the increasing population on the land, and so the people did not see the essential injustice of the seizure of the land by private individuals. But as soon as serfdom was abolished the care of the Government and landowners concerning the people's economic agricul­tural - 1 shall not say welfare but · possibility of existence was also abolished. Thequantityofland which the peasants might possess was once and for all determined without the possibility of increasing it as the population increased, and the people saw more and more clearly that it was impossible lO live thus. They waited for the Government to rescind the laws which deprived them of the land. They waited ten, twenty, thirty, fony years, but the land has been seized even more and more by private landowners, and before the people was placed the choice: of starving,

32

ceasing to multiply, or altogether abandoning rural life and fonning

generation of navvies, weavers or locksmiths. Half a century passed, their pOSition kept �oming worse and worse, and reached �u�h a�late that lhe order of life whIch they regarded as necessary for Chnstlan hfe began to fall to pieces, and the Government not only did not give them land, but gave it to its minions, and, securing it forthe latter, intimated to the people that they need never hope for the emancipation of Ihe land, while on the European model it organized for them an industrial life, wi th labour inspection, which the people regarded as bad and sinful.

The deprivation of the people of their legitimate right to the land is the principal cause of the calamitous position of the Russian people. The same cause lies at the basis of the m i scry and discontent with their position felt by the working people of Europe and America, the difference is only this: that the seizure of the land from the European peoples by recognition of the lawfulness of landed propeny has taken place long ago; so many new relations have covered up this injustice that the men of Europe and America do not see the true cause of their position, but search for it everywhere: in the absence of markets, in tari ffs, in un fair taxation, in capi­talism' in everything save in the deprivation of the people of their right to the land (NOTE No 17).

To the Russian people the radical injustice - not having yet been completely perpetrated upon them - is clearly seen.

The Russian people living on the land clearly see what people wish to do with them, and they cannot reconcile themselves to iL

Senseless and ruinous armaments and wars, and the deprivation of the people of their common right to the land - these, in my opinion, are the causes of the revolution impending over the whole of Christendom. And this revolution is beginning in no other place but in Russia, because nowhere except amongst theRussian people has the Christian view of life been preserved in such strength and purity, and nowhere save in Russia has been so far conserved the agricultural condition of the majority of the people.

VI The Russian people before other nations of the Christian world,

owing to their special qualities and conditions of life, have been brought to the consciousness of the disasters proceeding from obedience to coercive State power. In this consciousncss and in the aspiration to free themselves from the coercion of their rulers lies, in my opinion, me es­sence of the revolution which is approaching, not only for the Russian people, but also for all nations of the Christian world. But to people living in States founded upon violence, it seems that the abolition of the power ofGovemment will necessarily involve the greatest of disasters.

But the assenion that the degree of safety and welfare which men

33

enjoy is ensured by State power is ahogether an arbitrary one. We know those disasters and such welfare as exist among people living under State organization, but we do not know the position in which people would be were they to get clear of the Stale. If one takes into consideration the life of those small communities which happen to have lived and are living outside great States, such communities, whilst profiting from all the advantages of social organization, yet being free from State coercion, do notexperience one-hundredth part of the disasters which are undergone by people who obey State authority.

The people of the ruling classes for whom the Stale organization is advantageous speak most about the impossibility of living wiL�out State organization. But ask those who bear only the weight of State power, ask theagriculturallaoourers, lhe one hundred million peasants in Russia, and you will find they feci only its burden, and, far from regarding themselves assafer for Slate power, they could altogether dispense with it In many of my writings I have repeatedly endeavoured to show that what intimidates men - the fear that without govemmenta1 power the worst men would triumph whilst thebest would beoppressed - is precisely whathas long ago happened , andis still happening, in all States, since everywhere thepower is in the hands of the worst men; as, indeed, cannot be otherwise, because only the worst men could do all these crafty , dastardl y and cruel acts which are necessary for participation in power. Many times I have endeavoured to explain that all the chief calamities from which men suffer, such as the accumulation of enormous wealth in the hands of some people and the deep poverty of the majority, the seizure of the land by those who do not work on it, the unceasing armaments and wars, and thedeprivation of men, flow only from the recognition of the lawfulness of governmental coer­cion; I have endeavoured to show that before answering the question whether the position of men would be the worse or the better without Governments, one should solve the problem as 10 who makes up the Government. Are those who constitute it bettcr or worse than the average level of men? If they are better than the average run, then theGovemment will be beneficent; but if they are worse it will be pernicious. And thatthese men - Ivan IV, Henry VIII, Marat, Napoleon, Arakcheyef. Mettemich, Tallyrand, and Nicholas - are worse than the general run is proved by history.

In every human society there are always ambitious, unscrupulous, cruel men, who, I have already endeavoured to show, are ever ready to per­petrate any kind of violence, robbery or murder for their own advantage; and that in a society without Government these men would be robbers, restrained in their actions partly by strife with those injured by them (self­instituted justice. lynching), but partly and chiefly by the most powerful weapon of influence upon men - publicopinion. Whereas in asociety ruled by coercive authority. these same men are those who will seize authority

34

and will make use ofiL, not only wi thout the restraint of public opinion, but, on the contrary. supported, praised and extolled by a bribed and artificially maintained public opinion.

I t is said: 'How can people live without Governments and coercion?'. On the contrary, one should say: 'How can people, if they are rational beings, live recognizing violence and not rational agreement as the inner connecting link of their life?'.

Eitherone or the other: men arc either rational or irrational beings. If they arenOlrational beings, then all matters betwccn them can and should be decided by violence. and there is no reason for some to have and others not to hav e this right to violence. But if men are rational beings, then their relations should be founded, not on violence, but on reason.

One would think that thisconsideralion would be conclusive to men recognizing themselves as rational beings. But those who defend State power do not think of man, of his qualities, of his rational nature; they speak of a certain combination of men to which they apply a kind of supernatural or mystical signification.

What will happen to Russia, France, Britain, Germany, say they, if peoplecease toobeyGovernments? What will happen toRussia? -Russia? What is Russia? Where is its beginning or its end? Poland? The Baltic Provinces? The Caucasus with all its nationalities? The Kazan Tartars? Ferghana Province? All these are not only not Russia, but all these are foreign nationalities desirous of being freed from the combination which is called Russia. The circumstance that these nationalities are regarded as parts of Russia is an accidental and temporary one, conditioned in the past by a whole series of historical events, principal! y acts of violence, injustice and cruelty. whilst in the present this combination is mainlained only by the power which spreads over these nationalities. During our memory. Nice was Italy and suddenly became France; Alsace was France and became Prussia. The Trans-Amur Province was China and became Rus­sia. Sakhalin was Russia and became Japan. At present the power of Austria spreads over Hungary, Bohemia and Galicia, and that of the British Governmenl over Ireland, Canada. Australia, Egypt and India, that of the Russian Government over Poland and Guria. But tomorrow this power may cease. The only force uniting all these Russias, Austrias, Bri tains and Frances is coercive power, which is the creation of men who, contrary to their rational nature and the law of freedom as revealed by Jesus, obey those who demand of them evil works of violence. Men need only become conscious of their freedom, natural lO rational beings. and cease to commit acts contrary to their conscience and the Law, and then these artificial combinations of Russia, Britain, Germany, France. which appear so splendid, will no longer exist. and that cause, in the name of which people sacpfice not only their life but the libenyproper to rational beings will disappear.

35

It is usual to say that the formation of great States outof small oncs continually struggling wiLh each other, by substituting a great external frontier for small boundaries, diminishes strife and bloodshed and Lheir attendant evils. But Lhis assertion also is quite arbitrary, as no-one has weighed the quantities of evil in the one and the other positions. It is difficult to believe that all the wars of the confederate period in Russia, or of Burgundy ,Flanders and Normandy in France, cost as many victims as the wars of Alexander or of Napoleon or as the Japanese war latelyended.

The only justification for the expansion of Lhe State is the formation of a universal monarchy, the existence of which would remove all possibility of war (NOTE No 18). But all auempts at forming such a mon­archy by Alexander of Macedon, by the Roman Empire, or by Napoleon, never attained this objective of pacification. On the contrary, they were the cause of !he greatcstcalamities for !he nalions. So that !he pacification of men cannot possibly be attained except only by the opposite means: !he abolition of States with their coercive power.

There have existed cruel and pernicious superstitions, human sacri­fices, burnings for witchcraft, 'religious' wars, lOnures ... but men have freed !hem selves from !hese; whereas the superstition of !he State as some!hing sacred conti nues its hold upon men, and lO this superstition are offered perhaps more cruel and ruinous sacrifices !han lO aU the others. The essence of this superstition is !his: thal men of different localilies, habits and interests are persuaded that Lhey all com pose one whole because one and the same violence is applied lO all of them, and these men believe this, and are proud of belonging to this combination.

This superstition has existed for so long and is so strenuously main­tained that not only those who profit by it - kings, ministers, generals, !he military and officials - are certain that lhe existence, confirmation and expansion of these artificial combinations is good, but even the groups within the combinations become so accustomed to this superstition that they are proud of belonging LO Russia, France. Britain or Germany, although this is not at all necessary to them, and brings them nothing but evil.

Therefore iftheseanificial combinations inLO greatStatcs were to be abolished by people, meekly and peacefully submitting to every kind of violence, while ceasing to obey the Government, then such an abolition would only lead to there being among such men less coercion, less suffering, less evil, and to its becoming easier for such men to live accord­ing to the higher law of mutual service, which was revealed to men two thousand five hundred years ago, and which gradually enters more and more into the consciousness of mankind.

In general for the Russian people, both the lOwn and the country population it is, in such a critical time as the present, imponant above all not to live by the experience of others, not by others' thoughts, ideas,

36

words, not by various social democracies, constitutions. expropriations. bureaux, delegatcs, candidatures and mandates, but to thi nk with their own mind, to live theirown life, constructing outoftheirown past, out of their own spiritual foundations new forms of life proper to this past and these foundations.

VII Therevolution now impending overmankind consists in their libera­

tion from the deceit of obedience to human power. As the essence of this revolution is quite different from the essence of all former rtlfOiutions in theChristian world , therefore also the activity of those participating in this revolution must be quite different from !he activity of those who partici­pated in former revolutions.

The activity of those involved in former revolutions consisted in the violent ovenhrow of power and in its reseizure. The activity of mose people involved in the present revolution should, and can, consist in the cessation of that obedience lOany violent power whatever, which has now lost its meaning, and in !he ordering of one's life independently of Government

Besides the activity of those engaged in the coming revolution being different from that of the people who panicipated in former revolutions, the principal participants in this revolution are themselves also quite different, as is !he locality where it musl W:e place, and the number of panicipants.

The panicipants in former revolutions were principally people of the higher professions, free from physical labour, and the urban workers led by these men; whereas the participants in the coming revolution must, and will, be chieOy the agricultural masses. The localities where former revolutions began were towns; !he locality of the present revolution must be chieOy the country. The number of participants in former revolutions was ten or twenty per cent of the whole nation; now the number of Participants in the revolution which is taking place in Russia must be eighty or ninety per cent

Therefore all the activity of the agitated urban population of Russia, �ho. imitating Europe, combine into unions, prepare strikes, demonstra­lions and revolts, and invent new forms of Government, not to mention those unfonunate brutalized men who commit manslaughter, thinking thereby to serve Ihedawning revolution, the activity of all these men, far from being in harmony with the impending revolution,arrests its progress much more effectually than Governments do (for, without knowing it �emselves, they are the truest assistants of the Government), and falsely dlfccts and impedes it.

�hedangernow thre'atening the Russian nation is not thattheexisting coercive Government may not be v iolentl y overthrown and that in its place

37

may not be established another Government also coercive, however democratic oreven socialistic, but that this struggle with the Government may draw the nation itself into an activity of violence. The danger lies in this: that the Russian people, called by peculiar circumstances in which it is placed to point out a peaceful and certain way of liberation, instead of this may, by those who do not understand all the significance of the revolution taking place, be attracted into a servile imitation of former revolutions, and that, abandoning the way of salvation on which they are now standing, they may advance along the false way by which other nations of Christendom are advancing to their certain ruin.

In order to avoid this danger the Russian people should first of aU be lhemselves; they should not seek to ascertain how they shouldactand what they should do from European nations and American constirutions, or from socialistic programmes. They should inquire and seek advice only from their own conscience. The Russian people, in order that they may fulfil the great work now before them, should not only refrain from concerning themselves with the political government of Russia and with the securing of freedom to the citizens of the Russian State, but should first of all free themselves from the very idea of the Russian State, and consequently also from all concern in the rights of the citizens of such a State (NOTE No 19). At the present moment the Russian people, so that they may obtain freedom, should n010nly refrain from taking this or that action, but should refrain from all undertakings, from those into which the Governmentis luring them aswellas from those into which the revolution­aries and liberals desire to draw them.

The peasants, the majority ofthe Russian people, should continue to live as they have always lived, in their agricultural. communal life, enduring all violence, both governmental and non-governmental, without struggle, but not obeying demands to panicipate in any kind of govern­mental coercion; they should not willingly pay taxes, they should not willingly serve in the police, the administration, the customs, in the army, in the navy, nor in any coercive organization whatever. Likewise, and still more strictly, the peasants should refrain from the violence to which they are being incited by the revolutionaries. All violence of peasants towards the landowners will call forth strife with reacting violence, and will end in any case by the establishment of a Govemmentofthis or that kind, but un­avoidably coercive. And with any coercive Govemment, as happens in the frecstcountries of Europe and America, the same sensclessand cruel wars will be prOClaimed and carried on, and in the same way the land will continue to be the propeny of the wealthy. It is only the non-participation ofthe people in any violence whatever wh ich can abolish all coercion from which they suffer, and prevent all possibility of endless armaments and wars, and also abolish private property in land.

Thus should the agricultural peasants act in order that the revolution

38

now taking place may produce good results. As to the urban classes, the nobles, merchants, doctors, scientists.

writers, mechanics and soon, who are now occupied with the revolution,

they should flfSt of all understand their insignificance, be it only numeri­cal, of one to a hundred in comparison to the agricultural population; they

should undersrand that the objective of the revolution now laking place

cannot, and should not, consist in the foundation of a new political

coercive order, with whatever universal suffrage, whatever improved socialistic institutions, but that this Objective can, and should, consist in the liberation of the whole people and especially of their majority , the one hundred million agricultural workers, from every kind of coercion: from military coercion - soldiery; from economic coercion - taxes and tariffs;

and from agrarian coercion - the seizure of the land by the landowners. For this purpose that fretful, unreasonable and unkind activily with which Russian liberals and revolutionaries are now occupied is not at all necessary, but something quite differenL These men should understand that Revolutions cannot be made to order. 'Let us organize a revolution'; that revolution cannot be produced by imitating the ready-made patterns of what has taken place a hundred years previously under utterly different conditions. Above all. these men should understand that a revolution can improve the condition of a people only when they, having recognized the unreasonableness and calamity of fonner foundations of life, strive to arrange a life on new foundations capable of giving them true welfare, when people possess ideals of a new better life.

Those who are now endeavouring to produce in Russia a political revolution according to the model of European revolutions, however. possess neither any new foundations nor any new ideals. They strive merely to substitute for one old form of coercion another new one, also to be realized by coercion, and carrying with it the same calamities as those from which the Russian people now suffer, as we see in Europe and America, groaning under the same m i Ii tarism, the same taxation, the same seizure of the land.

The majority of revolutionaries put forward as their ideal a socialistic

organization which could be obtained only by the cruellest coercion. and which, if it ever were attained, would deprive mcn of the last remnants of liberty.

In order to free themselves from all the evils which now oppress them. the working men should, without strife, without coercion, cease to obey the authorities. And this same is also necessary for the fulfilment of that law which Christian nations profess. A Christian, as a Christian, cannot obey (and obeying thereby nece�arily participate in) an authority

which is entirely based on violence, maintained by violence, and unceas­ingly committing acts of violence the most contrary lO the Christian law: SOldiery, wars, prisons, ex.ecutions, thcdepriving of the people of thc pos-

39

sibility of using the land. So, both the bodily welfare of man, as well as the higher spiritual welfare. can only be attained in one way: by the suffering wilhout suuggle of all violence, but at the same time by the abstinence from participation in it, by disobedience to the authorities.

So, if people of the urban classes really desire to serve the great revolution which is taking place. the first thing they should do is to desist from thecruel,revolutionary, unnatural, artificial activity with which they are now occupied. and to settle down in the country and share the people's labour. learning from the people their patience, their indifference and contempt towards the e,;ercise of power, and. above aU, their habits of industry endeavouring nOl only to refrain from inciting people, as they now do, to violence, but, on the contrary, restraining them from all participation in acts of violence and from any obedience to coercive power of whatever kind, and to serve them. should it be necessary, with their scientific knowledge, to clarify those questions which will inevitably arise with the abolition of Governmcnt.

VllI Buthow and in what forms can men of the Christian world live if they

will not live in the form of States obeying Government rule? Theanswerto this question lies in those very qualities of the Russian

people. owing to which I think that the impending revolution must begin and must happen in Russia rather than in other countries.

The absence of Government power in Russia has never prevented the social organization ofagricuhural communes. On the contrary, the inter­vention of Government power always hindered this inner organization naturailO the Russian people. The Russian people, like the majority of ag­ricuhural nations. natura1ly combine like bees in a hive into definite social relations fully satisfying the demands of the common life of men. Wher­ever Russian people sel11e down without the intervention of Government they have always established an order not coercive but founded upon mutual agreement, communal, and with communal possession of land, which has completely satisfied the demands of peaceful social life. Without the aid of the Government such com m unes have populated all the eastern boundaries of Russia. Such communes haveemigrnted to Turkey, like the Nekrassovisi, and retaining their Christian communal organiza­tion. quietly have lived, and are living there. under the power of the Turkish Sultan. Such communes have without knowing it passed into Chinese territory, into Central Asia. and have lived there for a long time, without needing any Government beyond their own inner organization (NOm No 20). In precisely the same way do the Russian agricultural people, the enonnous majority of the population of Russia live without needing the Government, but merely suffering it. The Government for the Russian people has never been a necessity but always a burden.

40

The absence ofGovemment, of that same Government which retains

by force the right of putting the land into the hands of the non-labouring

landowners. can only contribute to that communal agricultural life which the Russian people regard as a necessary condition of good life. It will

contribute to it, in that power of maintaining property in land being

abolished. the land will be freed and all will have equal right to it. Therefore the Russian people, when aboliShing Government, need

not invent any new forms of combined life with which to replace the

former. Such forms of combined life exist amongst the Russian people, have always been natura1 to them, and have satisfied their social demands.

These fonns area communal organization with theequality of all the members, aco-operative system in industrial undertakings, and acommon possession of the land. The revolution which is impending over Christen­dom and is now beginning amongslthe Russian people. is distinguished from former revolulionsprecisely by this. that the lauerdestroyed without substituting anything for that which was destroyed by them, or else replaced one form of violence by another; in the impending revolution nothing need be destroyed, it is only necessary to cease participating in violence. not to root up the plant. putting in its place something artificial and lifeless, but merely to remove all which has hindered its growth. Therefore these hasty, bold-faced and self-assured people who, without understanding the cause of the evil with which they are violently strug­gling, and who. without admitting the reality of any form of life without violence. blindly and thoughtlessly overthrow the ex.isting violence in order to replace it by new violence, will not contribute anything to the revolution now taking place. Those whowillcontribute to itare those who, without overthrowing anything. without breaking anything, will organize their life independently of the Government, will peacefully endure any violence inflicted upon them, but will not participate in the Govcmment, and will not obey it.

The Russian nation, the agricultural nation. the enonnous majority, need only continue to live as it lives now, an agricultural communal life, only with no participation in the works of the Government and with out obedience to it.

The closer the Russian people will stick to the combined life which is natural to them, the less possible will be the interference of governmen­tal coercive rule in their life, and the more easily will this be removed, finding fewer and fewer occasions for interference, and fewer and fewer assistants in the doing of its deeds of violence.

Therefore to the question as to what consequences will follow the cessation of obedience to Government. one can say for certain that the consequence will be the abolition of the coercion which compelled men to fight with each other an d deprive them of the right to use the land. Men liberated from violence. no longer preparing forwarnor fighting with each

41

other, but possessing access 1.0 the land, will naturally return 1.0 the most joyous, healthy and moral agriculwral labour proper to all men, in which man's effort will be direcled to a struggle with nature and not with men; to a labour on which rest all other branches of labour, and which can be abandoned only by those who live by violence. Thecessation of obedience to Govemmentmust bring men to agricultural life, and agricultural life in its tum will bring them to the communal organization most natural under the conditions of life in small communities placed in similar agricuhural conditions.

It is very probable that these communities will not live in isolation, but owing to unity of economical, racial or religious conditions, will enter into new free mutual combinations, completely different, however, from the former State combinations founded upon violence. Therepudiation of coercion does not deprive men of the possibility of combination, but combination founded upon mutual agreement can be formed only when those founded upon violence are abolished.

In order mat one may build a new and durable house in the place of one falling into ruins, one must take down the old wall, Stone by stone, and build it anew.

So it is with mose combinations which may develop amongst men after the abolition of the combinations founded on violence.

IX But what is to become of all wh.ich mankind has elaborated? What

will become of civilization? 'The return of monkeys' - Voltaire's leuer to Rousseau about

learning to walkon all fours - 'the return to some kind of primitive, natural life', say those who are so certain lhat the civilization they possess is so great a good that they cannot even admit the idea of the loss of anylhing which has been attained by civilization.

'What! a coarse agricultural commune in rural solitude long ago outlived by mankind instead of our cities with underground and over· ground electric ways, with electric suns, museums, lheatres and manu· ments? 'cry these people. 'Yes,and with paupers' quaners, with lheslums of Landon, New York and all large cities. with the houses of prostitution, the usury, explosive bombs against external and internal foes, with prisons, gallows and millions of military', I say.

'Civilization, ourcivilizalion, is a greal boon', people say. But those who are so certain of this are the few people who nOl only live in this civilization, but live by iI, they live in complete content, almost idly in comparison with the labour of the working people, just because this civi· lization does exist.

All these people - k.ings. emperors, presidents, princes, ministers, officials, the milir..ary , landowners, merchants, mechanics, docl.Ors, seien·

42

Lists. artists, teachers, priests, writers · they know for certain that our civilization is such agreat boon that one cannot admit the idea not only of any possibility of its disappearance, but even of its alteration. But ask the enormous mass of the Slav, Chinese, Indian. Russian agricultural people, nine-tenths of humanity, whether the civilization which appear so pre· cious to the non·agricultural professions is indeed a boon or not (N01E

No 21). Strange to say, nine-tenths of humanity wi II answer quite different! y .

They know that they require land, manure, water, irrigation, thesun,rain, woods, harvests, certain simple implements of labour which can be manufactured without interrupti ng agricultural pursuits; butas to ci viliza· tion, either they are not acquainled with it or else when it appears to them

in the form of town depravation or unjust law-courts with their prisons and hard labour; or in the form of taxes and the erection of unnecessary palaces, museums, monuments; or in the form of customs impeding the free exchange of products; or of guns, ironclads, armies devastating whole countries, they will say that if civilization consists in these things then it is not only unnecessary but cxcccdingly harmful to them.

Those who profit by the advantages of civilization say that it is a boon for the whole of mankind, but then in this question they are not the judges, nor the witnesses, but one of the litigants.

It is beyond doubt that great advances have been made along the road of technical progress, but who has advanced along this road? That small minority which lives on the shoulders of the working people; whilst the working people themselves. those who serve these other men who profit by civilization, continue in all Christendom to live even as they lived five or six centuries ago. profiting only at times and in rare cases by the refuse of civilization. If they do Jive better then lhe difference separating their position from that of the wealthy classes is not less, but is rather greater, than the one which separated them from the wealthy six centuries ago. I do not say that when we have understood that civilization is not the absolute advantage that so many think it is. we should throw aside all that men have attained in their struggle with nature; but I do say that before we can know that what has been attained by men does indeed serve their wei· fare, it is necessary that all should profit by these advantages. and not a small number; it is necessary that people should not be compulsorily deprived of their own wei fare for other people's benefit in the hope that the same advantages shall some day reach their descendants.

We look upon the Egyptian pyramids and are horrified by thecruelty and insanity of those who ordered their erection. as well as of those who fulfilled these orders. But how much more cruel and insane are those than the thiny·six storey houses which men of our time erect in cities and are proud of. Around lies the land with its grass, its woods, its pure water, pure air, sun, birds, animals, but men with dreadful eITon shut the sun from

43

others and erecl thirty-six storey houses, rocked by the wind, where there is neither grass nor trees. and where everything, both water and air. is contaminated, all the food adulterated and spoilt, and life itself is tedious and unhealthy. Is not this a sign of manifest madness in a whole society of men, not only to accomplish such insanities but also to pride themselves upon doing so?This is not the only example: look around you and you will see at every step what equals these thirty-six storey houses and Egyptian pyramids.

The justifiers of ci vi lization say: 'Weare ready to correct the evil, but only on the condition that all which mankind has attained should remain intacL' Why, this is what a dissipated man who has ruined his life. his position and his health, says ID his doctor. He is ready to agree with alilhe doctor will prescribe. but only on condition that he may continue his depraved life. To such a man, we say that if he is to improve his state, he must cease to live as he is living. It is time for Christian humanity to say and understand the same. The unconscious mislake which those who defend civilization make is that they regard civilization. which is only a means, as an end or a result, and deem it always an advantage. It might be an advantage if only the rulers of society were good. Explosive gasses are very useful for opening means of communication by blasting rock. but they are pernicious in bombs. Iron is useful for ploughs but pernicious for shells and for prison bars.

ThePress may disseminate good feelings and wise thoughts but with yet more success. that which is immoral and false. The question as to whether civilization is useful or otherwise depends upon whether in a given society good prevails or evil. In our society, where the minority crushes the majority, civilization is a great evil. It is merely an extra weapon for the oppression of the masses by the ruling minority.

his time forus to understand that our salvation lies, not in continuing along the road on which we have been moving. and not in the retention of what we have elaborated. but in the recognition that we have advanced along a false road and have entered a bog out of which we must cxtricatc ourselves. and that weshould beconcerned. not in retaining that which we have, but, on the contrary. should boldly throw aside all the most useless things we have been dragging upon ourselves. so that in some way (be it on all fours) we may scramble out upon a fum bank.

A rational and righteous life consists only in man choosing amongst the many actions or paths before him the most rational and good. Christian humanity in its present condition has before it the choice of two things; either to continue on the path in which existing civilization will give the greatest welfare tothe few ,keeping the many in wantand servitude, orelse alonce, without postponement to some far future. to abandon a portion or even all those advantages which civilization has attained for the few, if such advantages hinder the liberation of the majority from servitude.

44

X That men of our time talk about scpar.ue liberties, the freedom of

speech. of the Press. of conscience. of assembly, of this or that kind of

elections, of associations, of iatx>ur, and of much else. clearly demon­strateS that such people -as at the present time our Russian revolutionaries _ possess a very fallacious idea, or have no idea whatever of freedom in general. That simple freedom, which is comprehensible to all. consists in there being no power over man demanding from him actions contrary to his desires and advantages.

In this non-comprehension of what constitutes freedom and in the consequent idea that the permission of certain people to do certain actions is freedom, lies a great and most pernicious error. This error is that men of our times imagine that the servile SUbjection to violence in which they stand, in relation to the Government, is a natural position and that the authorization by governmental power of certain actions defined by this power, is freedom; somewhat as if slaves were to regard as freedom the permission to go to church on Sundays, or to bathe in hot weather, or in their leisure time to mend their clothes, and so forth.

One need only for one minute reject established customs, habits and superstitions. and examine the position of every man in Christendom, whether belonging to the most despotic or to the most democratic State. in order to be horrified at the slavery under wh ich men are now living while imagining that they are free.

Over every man, wherever he may have been born, there exists a group of individuals completely unknown to him, who establish the law of his life. What he should and what he should not do. The more perfect the State organization. the closer is the net of these laws. It is defined to whom and how he shall swear allegiance - to whom he shall promise to fulfil any laws that may be invented and proclaimed. It is defined how and when he should marry (he may marry only one woman but he may make use of prostitution); it is defined how he may divorce his wife, how he should maintain his children, which of them he should regard as legiti­mate, which as illegitimate, and from whom and how he should inheritand to whom transmit his property. It is defined for what transgressions of the law and how and by whom he shall be judged and punished. It is defined when he must himself appear in court, in the capacity of juror or witness. Theage at which he may make useor the labouror assistants. of workmen, is defined, and even the number of hours a day which his assistants may work, and the food he must give them; it is dermed when and how he should inoculate preventive diseases into his children. The methods are defined which he must undertake. and to which he must submit in case of this or that disease afflicting him, his family or his cattle. The schools into which he must send his children are defined as well as the proportion and

45

the stability of the house which he must build. It is defined how he should maintain his animals, horses and dogs, how he must make useof water, and where he may walk without a road. For the non-fulHlmentof all these and many other laws the punishments are defined. It is impossible to enumer­ate all the laws upon Jaws and rules upon rules to which he must submit, and the ignorance of which (although it is impossible to know them) cannot se ..... eas an excuse for a man even in the most democratic State. He is, moreover, placed in such a position that in buying every anicle which he consumes: salt, beer, wine, cloth, iron,oil, lea,sugar, and soon, hemuSl surrender a great portion of his labour for certain undertakings unknown lO him, and for the paying of interest on debts contracted by somebody or other in times of his grandfather and great-grandfathers. He must also surrender a part of his labour on the occasion of any removal from place to place, or of any inheritance he may come into, or of any transaction whatever with his neighbour. Further, for the portion of the land he occupies, either by his abode or by cultivation, a yet more considerable part of his labour is demanded from him. SO that if he lived by his own labour and not by that of others, the greater part of his labour, instead of being used for that alleviation and improvement of his own position and that of his family, goes lO pay these taxes, tariffs, and monopolies.

More than this! This man, in some States (the majority), as he comes of age, is ordered to enter for several years the military service, the most cruel servitude, and to go and fight, and in other States (Britain and America), he must hire other people for this same purpose. Yet people placed in this position not only fail to see !heir own slavery, butare proud of it... regarding themselves as free citizens of the great States of Britain, France orGermany; they are proud of this just as lackeys are proud of the importance of the masters they se ..... e.

It would appear natural to man with undepraved and unweakened spiritual powers, on finding himself in so dreadful and humiliating a position to say himself: 'But why should I go !hrough all this? I desire to live my life in the best way! I wish to decide for myself what is pleasant... useful and necessary for me to do. Leave me in peace with your Russia, France, Britain. Whoever wishes all this, let him takecareofthese Brimins and Frances, but I do not require them. By force you can seize from me everything you Iikeand kill me butof my own accord I do not wish my own enslavement and shall not participate in it.' It would appear natural to act thus, yet no-one does act in this way.

The belief that to belong to some State or other is a necessary condi tion of human life has become so fi nnl y rooted that men cannOl make up their minds to act as their own reason, their own sense of right, or their direct advantage bids them.

People maintaining their se ..... itude in the name of their belief in the State are exactly like those birds which, notwithstanding that the door of

46

their cage is open, continue to sit in their prison partly by habit and partly beCause th Y do not realize they are free.

This error is more remarkable in those who themselves satisfy their

own necessities, such as the agricultural population of Germany, India, Canada. Australia, and especially of Russia. These have neither need nor advantage in the slavery to which they voluntarily submit

One can understand why the townsfolk do not thus act because their interests are so intertwined with the interests of ruling classes that the enslavement in which they find themselves is advantageous to them. Mr Rockefellercannot desire to refuse to obey the laws of his country because the laws ofthatcoumry give him the possibility of gaining and conserving his billions, to the delJ'iment of the interests of the masses of the people; neither can the directors of Mr Rockefeller's undertaking and those who serve these directors, and the servants or these se ..... ants, desire to refuse obedience. So it is with the inhabitants or towns. Their position is similar to that of the Russian household retainers or old times towards the peasants, the enslavement of the peasants is advantageous to the former.

But why should agricultural nations submit to this power so unnec­essary tothem?There lives a family in the GovernmentofTula (NOTE No 22) or in Posen, in Kansas, in Normandy, in Ireland, in Canada. These people ofTula have no concern whatever in the Russian State, with its St Petersburg, Caucasus, Baltic Provinces, its Manchurian annexations and diplomatic artfulness. So also a family live in Posen and have no concern in Prussia, with its Berlin and its African colonies; nor has the Irishman in Britain, with its London and its Egyptian, Boer and other interests; nor the man in Kansas in the United States, with their New York and the Philip­pines. Yet these families are compelled to surrender a stipulated portion of their labour, areobtiged to participate in preparations for war, and in war itself, also broughton not by themselves but by someone else, are obliged to obey laws established not by themselves but by others. They are, it is true, assured that whilst obeying certain unknown individuals in all these cases of the uunost importance for their life, they obey not others but themselves, since they have elected one out of a thousand representatives unknown to them. But this can be believed only by him who wishes and needs to deceive himself and others.

Whilst belonging toaStatea man cannot be rree. And the greater the State, the more is violence necessary, and the less is true freedom possible. To form one combination outof the most diverse nationalities and people - such asBritain, Russia, Austria - and to retain them in this combination, very much coercion is necessary.

Although less coercion is necessary for maintaining the unity of men in small States, such as Sweden, Portugal or SwilZerland, yet, on the other hand, in these small States it is more difficult for the subjects to evade the demands of theauthorities. !herefore the sum or non-freedom. of coercion.

47

is the same as in large States. To bind and keep together a bundle of wood, a sU'Ong rope is

necessary and a certain degree of tension. So also to kccp together in one State a great collection of men, a certain degree of applied coercion is necessary. In thecaseofthe wood, the difference may beoruy in its relative position, in such and nOlother pieces of wood being directly submitted to the pressure of the rope, but the power holding them together is one and the same in whatever position the pieces may be placed. 1l is thesame with any coercive State of whatever kind, a despotism, a constitutional monar­chy' an oligarchy or a republic. If the union of men is maintained by coercion, by me establishment by some people of laws forcibly applied to omers, then there will always exist coercion, equal in extent, of some people over others. In one place it will manifest itselfin coarse violence, in another- in me power of money. Thedifference will beonly that in one coercive State organization, the coercion will weigh more upon a certain section of people, whilst in another organization on anOlher.

State coercion may be compared to a black thread upon which beads are loosely strung. The beads are men. The black thread is the State. So long as the beads are on tbe thread, they will not be able to move freely. They may all be gathered together on one side, and on this side the black thread will nOl be visible between them; but on tbe other side a large portion of me thread will be bare (despotism). One may arrange the beads together in separate groups, leaving corresponding intervals of black tbread between these groups (constitutional monarchy). One may lcave a small portion of thread between each bead (republic). But so long as the beads are nOt taken off the mread, so long as the tbreads are not severed, it will not be possible to conceal tbe black thread.

So long as the State and the coercion necessary for its maintenance exist, in whatever form, there will not, mere cannot, be freedom, lrUe freedom. that which all men have always understood. and so understand, by that word.

'But howcan men possibly live without the Stale?' is generally asked by mose who have become soaccustomed toevery man nmonly being tbe son of his parents, the descendant of his ancestors, living by the labour he has chosen, but , above all, being also a Frenchman or an Englishman, a German, an American, a Russian - and, belonging to this or that coercive organization which is called France, with its Algeria, Annam or Nice; or Britain, with its alien population of India, Egypt, Australia or Canada; or Auslria, with its nationalities not united internally in any way; or to such mixed and enormous Statcsas the United States or Russia. Thesemen have become so accustomed to this, that it seems to them as impossible to live without belonging to these combinations, possessing no internal union, as tho�nds of years ago it appeared to people to live without offering sacnficcs 10 gods. and without oracles directing the actions of men.

48

How can men live without belonging to any Government? Why, exactly as mey live now, only without doing those silly and

objectionable things which they now do for me sake of this dreadful

superstition. They wili liveas they now live. but wimoutdepriving their

families of the products of their labours that mey may give in the form of

uuesand duties for the evil deeds of men unknown to them; they will live

without participating either in coercion, or in Jaw courts, or in wars organized by these men. Yes. it is only this superstition which in our time haS no sense, which gives te some hundreds of men an insane and utterly unjustifiable power over millions. and deprives these millions of lrUe freedom. A man living in Canada. Kansas, Bohemia. Little Russia or Normandy, cannot be free so long as he considers himself. and often 'With pride. a subjectofGreat Britain, me United States. Auslria. Russia. France. Norcan Governments, whose vocation consist in maintaining the unity of such impossible and senseless combinations as RUSSia. Britain, Germany or France, give their subjects real freedom, but only its mere counterfeit, as is tlte case with all the anfuJ constitutions, monarchic, republican or democratic. The principal, ifnot the only. cause of the absenceoffreedom is the State superstition. People can indeed be deprived of liberty in the absence of the State. Bul whilst they belong to a State. there cannot be liberty.

Those now participating in me Russian revolution do not understand this. They are slriving for various liberties for the subjects of the Russian State imagining that in this consists the purpose of the revolution now taking place. But its purpose and ultimate result is much more far-reaching than the revolutionaries see. The goal is emancipation from State coercion. Towards this great revolution is leading that complex work of mistakes and evil-doings now taking place on the decaying surfaceof the enormous Russian population, amongst a small portion of urban classes. me so­called intellectuals and factory workmen. AU this complex activity. chiefly proceeding from the lowest impulses of vengeance. spite or ambition, has for the mass of the Russian nalion only one significance: it serves to show the nation what they should not do and what they can and should do. It must serve to demonstrate all the futility of the substitution for one form of Government coercion and evil-doing, of another form of Government coercion and evil-doing, and to destroy in their conscious­ness the superstition and spell of Statedom.

The great majority of the Russian people, observing present events and all the new fonns of violence manifested in the cruel revolutionary activity of wreckings, devastations, strikes, depriving whole population of their livelihood, and above all, fratricidal strife, are beginning to under­stand meevil notonly of me former Stale coercion under which they have lived and from which they have already suffered so much, but also of that new thing. still Stale coercion, which isnow being manifested by similar,

49

but new. deceits and evil-doings. and that neither the one nor the other is bener or worse but that both are bad and that therefore they should free themselves from all State coercion. and that this is very easy and possible.

The poople. especially the Russian agricultural people. the great majority who have lived and are living, solving all their social questions through the village assembly without needing any Government. contem­plating present events will unavoidably come to understand that they require no Government at all, whether the mOSt despotic or the most democratic, just as a man does not require to be bound by any chains whether of brass or iron, whether short or long. The nation requires no special separate freedom, but only one true. complete, simple freedom.

As is always the case, so now, the solution of apparently difficult problems is most simple. In order to attain, not thisor that fonn of freedom, butofthe one, true, complete freedom, it is not strife with the governmen­tal power which is necessary, nor the intervention of any particular kind of representation which could but conceal from men their State slavery, but only one thing - disobedience.

Let the people only cease to obey the Government and there will be neither taxes, nor seizure of land, nor prohibitions from theauthorities, nor soldiery. nor wars. This is so simpieand appears so easy. Then why have not men done this hitherto and why are they still not doing it?

Why, because ifone is nOt to obey the Government, one has to obey God and live a righteous life.

Only in that degree in which men live such a life can they cease to obey men and become free.

One cannot say to oneself, I will not obey men. It is possible not to obey men only when one obeys the higher law ofGod,common to all. One cannot be free whilst transgressing the higher universal law of mutual service. as it is transgressed by the life of the wealthy, and of the urban classes who live by the labour of the working, especially the agricultural, people. A man can be free only in the degree in which he fulfils the higher law. The fulfilment of this law is not only difficult but almost impossible in the town and factory organization of society. where man's success is founded upon contest with other men. Il is only possible and easy under agricultural conditions of life. when all man's effort are directed to a struggle with nature. Therefore the liberation of men from obedience to Government.and from the belief in the artificial combination of the States and of the Fatherland. must lead them to natural, joyous in the highest degree. moral life of agricultural communities, subject only to their own regulations realizable by all and founded not on coercion but on mutual agreement.

In this lies the essence of the great revolution approaching for all Christian nations.

How this revolution will take place, what steps it will go through, is

50

not given to us to know. but we do know, it is inevitable, for it is taking place and �y has already been realized in the consciousness of men.

The life of men consists in this: that time keeps further and further unfolding that which was concealed, and showing the correctness or !ncorrec�ess of the way along which they have advanced in the past. Life IS the enltghtenment of the consciousness, concerning the falsity offonner foundations. and the establishment of new ones and the realization of them. The life of mankind as well as that of the individual man, isa growth out of a f�nner condition into a new one. This growth is inevitably accomparued by the recognition of one's mistakes and liberation from them.

There are of course periods in the life of the whole of mankind as well as in that of the separate individual. when the mistake becom� clear. These are periods of revolution. In such a position the Christian nations now find themselves.

Mankind lived according 10 the law of violence and knew no other. The time came when the progressive leaders of humanity proclaimed a new law of mutual service, common to all mankind. Man accepted this law,

.but not in

.its full m�ing, and although they tried to apply it, they still

contInued to hve accordmg to the law of violence. Christianity appeared and confllIDed the truth that there is only one law common to all men which gives them the greatest welfare - the law of mutual scrvice _ and indicated the reason why this law had not been realized in life. It was not realized because man regarded the use of violence as necessary and beneficent for good ends, and regarded the law of retribution as just. Christianity showed that violence is always pernicious, and that retribution cannot be applied by men, But Christian humanity, not having accepted this explanation of the law of mutual service common to all men, although it desired to live according to �is law, involuntarily continued to live acCOrding to the pagan law of Violence. Such a contradictory state of things kept increasing �e criminaliry of life and the external comforts and lUXury of the minor­Ity, at the same time increasing the slavery and misery of the majority amongst Christian nations.

I,n latertimes the criminality and luxury of the life of one portion, and

the mlSCry and slavery of the other portion of Christendom have attained the highest degree, especially amongst those nations which have long ?ban�oned the natural life of agriculture and fallen under the deceit of Imagmary self-government. :hese nations, suffering from the misery of their position and the �onSClousness of the contradiction they are involved in, search for salva­lion everywhere; in imperialism, SOCialism, the scizure of other people's �ands, in every kind of strife, in tariffs, in technical improvements in vice In anything except the one thing which can save them _ the f�ing of themselves from the superstition of the State, of the Fatherland, and the

51

cessation of obedience to coercive State power of any kind whatever. Owing to their agricullUral life. to the absence of the deceit of self­

government. to the greaUless of their number. and above all. to the Christian attitude towards violence preserved by the Russian people. this people. after acruel. unnecessary and unfortunate war into which they had been drawn by their Government. and after the neglect of their demands that the land taken from them should be returned. have understood sooner than others the principal causes of the calamities of Christendom of our time. and therefore the great revolution impending over all mankind. which can alone save it from its unnecessary suffering. must begin amongst this nation.

Herein lies the significance of the revolution now beginning in Russia. This revolution has not yet begun amongst the nations of Europe and America. but the causes which have called it forth in Russia arc the same for all the Christian world; the same Japanese war which has demonstrated to the whole world the inevitable advantage in military art of pagan nations over Christian. the same armaments of the great States reaching the utmost dcgreeof strain and unable ever to cease. and the same calamitous position and universal dissatisfaction of the working people owing to their loss of their natural right to the land.

The majority of Russian people clearly see that the cause of all the calamities they suffer is obedience to power. and that they have before them the choice either of declining to be rational. free beings. or else of ceasing to obey t he Government And if the people of Europe and America do not yet see this. owing to the bustle of their life and the deceit of self­government. they will very soon sec it Participation in the coercion ofthc governing of great States. which they call freedom. has brought and is bringing them to continually increasing slavery and to the calamities nowing from this slavery. These increasing calamities will. in their tum. bring them to the only means of deliverance from them; to the cessation of obedience. to the abolition of the coercive combinations of StaleS.

For this great revolution to take place it is only necessary that men should understand that the State. the Fatherland. is a fiction. and that life and true liberty are realities; and that, therefore. it is not life and liberty that should besacrificed for the artificial combination called the State. but that men ought in the name of true life and liberty to free themselves from the superstition of the State and from iLSouLCome -criminal obedience to men.

In this alteration of men's attitude towards the Stale and the authori­ties is the end of the old and the beginning of the new age.

52

AN APPEAL

TO SOCIAL REFORMERS

AN APPEAL TO

SOCIAL REFORMERS

(1903)

In my Appeal to the Working People I expressed.the�p

.inion that if

the working men are to free themselves from opp�lon, It 15 n�e� that they should themselves cease to live as they now hve, strug�lmg With their neighbours for their personal welfare, and thal, according to the Gospel rule, they should 'act towards others as one desires that others should aCllOwards oneself.' The method I had suggested called forth. as 1 expected. one and the same condemnation fro� people �f the, most opposite views. 'It is an Utopia. impractical.

,To WllIl fo� the liberation of

mcn whoare suffering from oppression and vIolence unul they all become virtuous would mean, whilst recognizing the existing evil, to doom on�lf to inaction.' Therefore 1 would like to say a few words as to why I believe this idea is not so impractical as it appearS, but, on the contrary. deserves that more attention be directed to it than to all the other methods proposed by scientific men for the improvement of the social o�er. � now address these words to those who sincerely desire to serve their neighbours.

I The ideals of social life which direct the activity of men change. and

together with them the order of human life also changes. There was � time when the ideal of sociai life was complete animal freedom. accordmg to which one portion of mankind, as far as it was able, devoured �e other, both in the direct and in the figurative sensc. Then followed a ume when the social ideal became the power of one man, and men deified their rulers, and not only willingly, bUlenthusiastically submiUed to them a� i� Egypt and Rome. Morituri Ie salutanL Next, people recognized as their Ideal an organization of life in which power was recognized, not for its ow� �e, but for the good organization or men's lives. Attempts for the real�uon of such an ideal were at one time forunivcrsal monarchy. then a umvcrsal church uniting various States and directing them, then came the ideal of representation, then of a republic, with or without universal suffrage. At

54

the present time, it is imagined that this ideal can be realized through an economic organization wherein all the means of production will cease to be private property, and will become the property of the whole nation.

However different all these ideals may be, yet to introduce them into life, power wasruways postulated. That is. coercive power, which forces men to obey established laws. The same is a1so postulated now.

It is supposed that the realization of the greatest welfare for aU is attained by certain people (according to the Chinese teaching. the most virtuous; according to the European teaching, the anointed, or elected by the people) being entrusted with power. They will establish and support the organization which will secure the greatest possible safety of the citizens against encroachments on each other's labour and on freedom and life. Not only those who recognize the existing State organization as a necessary condition of human life, but also Revolutionists and Socialists. though they regard the existing State organization as subject to ruteration, nevertheless recognize power, that is. the right and possibility of some to compel others to obey estab lished laws as the necessary condition of sociru order.

Thus it has been from ancient times, and still continues to be. But those who were com pelled by force to submit to certain regUlations did not always regard these regulations as the best. and therefore, often revolted against those in power, deposed them, and. in place of the old order. established anew one, which according to their opinion, beuerensured the welfare of the people. Yet as those possessed of power always became depraved by this possession, and thererore used their power not so much for thecommon welfare as for their own personal interests. the new power has always been similar to the old one, and often still more unjusL

It has been like this when those who had revolted against authority overcame it On the other hand. when victory remained on the side of the existing power, then the latter, triumphant in self-protection, always increased the m eans of its defence, and became yet more injurious to the liberty of its citizens. It has always been like this, both in the past and the present. and it is most instructive to study the way this has taken place in our European world during the wholeofthe nineteenth century. In the first half, revolutions had been for the most part successful, but the new authorities which replaced theold ones. Napoleon I, Charles X, Napoleon 1II. did not increase the liberty of the citizens. In the second halr. after the year 1848, all attempts at revolution were suppressed by the Governments. and owing to former revolutions and attempted new ones, the Govern­ments entrenched themselves in greater and greater self-defence; and having furnished men with hitherto unknown powers over nature and over each other, they have increased their authority. until towards the end of the �ast century they have developed it to such a degree that it has become Impossible for the people to struggle against it. The Governments have not

55

only seized enonnous riches collected from the people, have not only disciplined artfully levied troops, bUl have also grasped all the spiritual means of innuencing the masses, the direction of the Press and of religious development, and above all, of education. These means have been so organized and, have become so powerful that since the year 1848 there has not been any successful attempt at revolution in Europe.

II This phenomenon is quite new and absolutely peculiar to our time.

However powerful were Nero, Khengis Khan or Charles the Great, they could not suppress risings on the borders of their domains and still less could they direct the spiritual activity of their subjects, their education, sci· entific and mora1, and their religious tendencies. Whereas now all these means are in the hands of the Governments.

It is not only the Parisian 'macadam' which, having replaced the previous stone roadways, renders barricades impossible during revolu· tions in Paris, but the same kind of 'macadam' appeared during the latter half of the nineteenth century in all branches of State Government. The secret police. the system of spies, bribery of the Press, railways, tele· graphs, telephones, photography, prisons, fortifications, enonnous riches, the education of the younger generations and, above all, the ann y are in the hands of the Government (NOTE No 23).

All is organized in such a way that the most incapable and unintelli· gent rulers (from the instinctive feeling of self·preservation) can prevent serious preparations for a rising, and can always, without any effort, sup­press those weak attemplS atopen revolt which from time to time are yet undertaken by belated revolutionislS who by these auemplS only increase the powers of GovemmenlS.

The only means at present for overcoming GovernmenlS lies in this: that the anny. composed of the people. having recognized the injustice. cruelty and injury of the Government towards themselves, should cease to support it But in this respect also, the Governments knowing that their chief power is in the anny have so organized its mobilization and its discipline that no propaganda amongst the people can snatch the annyout of the hands of the Government. No man, whatever his political convic· tions. who is serving in the anny, and has been subjected to that hypnotic breaking.in which is called discipline, can, whilst in the ranks, avoid obeying commands, just as an eye cannot avoid winking when a blow is aimed at it. Boys of the age of twenty who are enlisted and educated in the false ecclesiastic or materialistic and moreover 'patriotic' spirit, cannot refuse to serve, as children who are sent to school cannot refuse to obey. Having entered the service, these youths, whatever their convictions · thanks to artful discipline, elaborated during centuries · are invariably u-ansfonned in one year into submissive tools in the hands of the authori·

56

ties. Ifrare cases occur· one out of 10.000 · of refusals of military service, this is accomplished only by so·called 'sect members', who act thus out of religious convictions unrecognized by the Governments. Therefore, at present, in the European world · if only the Governments desire to retain their power, and they cannot but desire this, because the abolition of power would involve the downfall of the rulers • no serious rising can be organized. and if anything of the kind be organized, it will always be sup· pressed and will have no other consequences bUl the destruction of many light·minded individuals and the increase of Government power. This may not be seen by Revolutionists and Socialists who, following outlived traditions, arecarried away by strife, which for some has becomeadefmite profession; but this cannot fail to be recognized by all those who freely consider historical evenlS.

This phenomenon is quite new, and therefore the activity of those who desire to a1ter the existing order should confonn with this new position of existing powers in the European world.

III The struggle between the State and the people which has lasted

during long ages at first produced the substitution of one power for another, of this one by yet a third, and SO on. But in our European world, from the middle of the last century the power of the existing Governments, thanks to the technical improvemenlS of our time, have been furnished with such means of defence that strife with it has become impossible. In proportion as this power has attained greater and greater degree it has demonstrated more and more ilS inconsistency: there has become even moreevident that inner contradiction which consists in combination of the idea of a beneficent power and of violence, which constitutes the essence of all power. It became obvious that power, whiCh, to be beneficent, should be in the hands of the very best men, was always in the hands of the worst, as the best men, owing to the very nature of power, which consists in the use of violence towards one's neighbour, could not desire power, and. therefore, never obtained or retained it.

This contradiction is so self·evident that it would seem everyone must have always secn it. Yet such are the pompous surroundings of power, the fear which it inspires, and the inertia of tradition, that centuries and. indeed. thousands of )'ears passed before men understood their error. Onl), in latter days have men begun to understand that notwithstanding the solemnity with which power always drapes ilSelf, ilS essence consislS in threatening people with the loss of properl)', liberty and life. and in carrying out these threalS, and that therefore, those who, like kings, emperors, ministers, judges and others, devote their life to this activity without an)' other objective except the desire to retain their advantageous position, not only are not the best, but arealwa)'s the worst men, and being

57

such, cannot by their power contribute to the welfare of humanity, but on the contrary, have always represented, and still represent, one of the principal causes of the social ca1amities of mankind (NOTE No 24). Therefore power, which fonnerlyelicited in the peopleenthusiasm and de· votion, at present, amongst the greater and best portion of mankind ca1ls fonh not only indifference, but often contempt and hatred. This more enlightened section of mankind now understands that a1l that pompous show with which power surrounds itself is naught else than the red shirt and velvet trousers of the executioner, which distinguish him from other convicts because he lakes upon himself the most immoral and infamous work, that of executing people.

Power, being conscious of this attitude towards itself continually growing amongst the people, in our days no longer leans upon the higher foundations of anointed right, popular election or inborn virtue of the rulers, but rests solely on coercion. Resting thus merely on coercion, therefore it still more loses the confidence of the people, and losing this confidence it is more and more compeJled to have recourse to the seizure of all the activities of natural life, and owing to this seizure it inspires greater and grealer dissatisfaction.

IV Power has become invincible, and rests no longer on the higher

nationa1 foundations of anoi nted right, of election or representation, but on violence alone. At the same time, the people cease to believe in JX>wer and to respect it, and they submit to it only because they cannot do otherwise.

Since the middle of the last cenwry, from the very time when JX>wer had simultaneously become invincible and lost its prestige, there begins to appear amongst the people the teaching thallibeny is incompatible with the power of cenain men over others. Not that fantastical libeny which is preached by the adherents of coercion when they affinn that a man who is compelled, under fear of punishment, to fulfil the orders of other men, is free, but that only true liberty, which consists in every man being able to live and act according to his own judgement, to pay or not pay taxes, to enter or not enter the military service, to be friendly or inimical to neighbouring nations.

According to this teaching, power is not. as was fonnerly thought, something divine and majestic, neither is it an indispensable condition of social life, but is merely the result of the coarse violenceof some men over others. Be the power in the hands of Louis XVI, or the Committee of National Defence, or the Directory, or thc Consulate of Napoleon, or Louis XVIII, or the Sultan. the President, the chief Mandarin or the Prime Minister -whosoever it be, there will exist the JX>werofcertain men over others. and there will not be freedom, but there will be the oppression of one portion of mankind by another. Therefore power must be abolished.

S8

Buthow toabolish it, and how, when it is abolished, toarrange things

so that, without the existence of power, men should not return to the savage

state of coarse violence towards each other? All Anarchists (NOTE No 25) - as the preachers of this teaching are

called· quiteunifonnly answer the first question by recognizing that if that power is to be really abolished, it must be abolished not by force but by man's consciousness of its uselessness and evil. To the second question, as to how Society should beorganized without power, Anarchists answer variously.

The Englishman Godwin, who lived at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries, and the Frenchman, Proudhon, who wrote in the middle of the last century, answer the first question by saying that for the abolition of power the consciousness of men is sufficient, that the general welfare (Godwin) and justia (Proudhon) are transgressed by power, and that if the conviction were disseminated amongst the people that general welfare and justice can be realized only in the absence of power, then power would of itself disappear.

As to the second question, by what means will the order of a new Society be ensured without power, both Godwin and Proudhon answer that people whoare led by the consciousness of general welfare (accord· ing to Godwin) and of jus lice (according to Proudhon) will instinctively find the most universally rational and just forms or life.

Whereas other Anarchists, such as Bakuninand Kropotkin. a1though they aisorecognize the consciousness in the masses of the harmfulness of power and its incompatibility with human progress, nevenheless as a means for its abolition regard revolution as possible, and even as neces­sary. for which revolution they recommend men to prepare (NOTE No' 26). Thesecondquestion they answer by theassenion that as soon as State organization and property shall beabolished, men will naturally combine in rational, free and advantageous conditions of life.

To the question as to the means of abolishing power, the Gennan, Max Stirner, and the American, Tucker,answer almost in the same way as the others. Both of them believe that if men understood that the personal interest of each individual is a perfectly sufficient and legitimate guide for men's actions, and that JX>wer only impedes the full manifestation of this leading factor of human life, then power will perish of ilSelf, both owing to disobedience to it, and above all, as Tucker says, to non-participation in it. Their answer to the second question is thaI men freed from the superstition and necessity of power and merely following their persona1 interests would, of themselves, combine into fonns of life most adequate and advantageous for each.

All these teachings are perfectly correct in this - that if power is to be abolished, this can be accomplished in nowise by force, as power having abolished power will remain power; but that this abolition of power can be

S9

accomplished only by the realization in the consciousness of men of the truth that power is useless and harmful, and that men should neither obey it nor participate in it. This truth is incontrovertible: power can be abol­ished only by the rational consciousness of mcn. But in what should this consciousness consist? The Anarchists believe that this consciousness can be founded upon considerations about common welfare, justice, progress or the personal interests of men. But apart from the fact that all these fa ctors are not in mutual agreement, the very definitions of what constitutes general welfare,justice, progress or personal jnurest are understood by man in infinitely various ways. Therefore it is impossible to suppose that people who are not agreed amongst themselves and who differently understand the baseson which they oppose power, could abolish power so frrmly fixed and so ably defended. Moreover, the supposition that con sid­erations about genera] welfare, justice or the law of progress can suffice to secure that men, freed from coercion, but having no motive for sacrificing their personal welfare to the general welfare, should combine in just conditions without violating thcir mutual liberty, is yet more unfounded. The utilitarian, egoistic theory of Max Stimer and Tucker, who affrrm that by each following his own personal inlerest,justrelations would be introduced between all, is not only arbitrary, but in complete contradiction to what in reality has taken place, and is taking place.

So that whilst correctly recognizing spiritual weapons as_the only means of abolishing power, the Anarchistic teaching, holding an irrelig­ious materialistic life conception, does nOlpossess this spiritual weapon, and is confined to conjectures and fancies which give the advocates of coercion the possibility of denying its true foundations, owing to the in­efficiency of the suggested means of realizing this teaching (N01E No 27).

This spiritual weapon is simply the one long ago known to men, which has always destroyed power and always given to those who used it complete and inalienable freedom. This weapon is but mis, a devout understanding of life, according to which man regards his earthly exis­tence as only a fragmentary manifestation of me complete life, and con­necting his life with infinite Iife,and recognizing his highest welfare in the fulfLImentofmese laws as more binding upon himself than the fulfLIment of any human laws whatsoever.

Only such a religious conception, uniting all men in the same understanding of life, incompatible with subordination to power and participation in it, can truly destroy power.

Only such a life-conception will give men the possibility, without joining in violence, of combining into rational and just fonns of life.

Strange to say, only after men have been brought by life ilSeIf to the conviction that existing power is invincible, and in our time cannot be overthrown by force, have they come to understand the ridiculously self-

60

evident trot h that power and all the evil produced by it are but results of

bad life in men, and that thererore for !he abolition of power and the evil

it produces, good life on the part of men is necessary. Men are beginning to understand this. Now they have further to

understand that there is only one means for a good life amongst men: the profession and realization of a religious teaching natural and comprehen­sible to the majority of mankind.

Only by means of professing and realizing such a religious teaching

can men attain me ideal which has now arisen in their consciousness, and lOwards which they are striving.

All other attempts at the abolition of power and at organizing, without power, a good life amongst men areonly a futile expenditure of effort and do not bring near the aim towards which men are striving, but only removes them from it.

V This is what I wish to say to you, sincere people, who, not satisfied

with egoistic life, desire to give your strength to the service of your brothers. If you participate, or desire to participate, in governmental activity, and by this means to serve the people, then consider the nature of every Government resting on power. Having considered it, you cannot but see that there is no Government which does not prepare to commit, does not commit, does not maintain itself by violence, robbery and murder.

A little-known American writer, Thoreau, in his essay on why it is men's duty to disobey the Government, relates how he refused to pay the Government of me Uni Led States a tax of one dollar, explaining his refusal on the grounds mat he did not desire by his dollar to participate in the activity of a Government which sanctioned the slavery of the negroes (NOTE No 28). Cannot, and should not, the same thing be felt in relation to his Government, I do not say by a Russian, but by a citizen of the most progressive State, the United States of America, with its action in Cuba, in the Philippines, with its relation to negroes, me banishment of the Chinese; or of England, with its opium and Boers; or of France with its horrors of militarism?

Therefore,a sincere man, wishing lO serve his fellow men, if only he has seriously realized what every Government is, cannot participate in it otherwise than on his strength of the principle that the end justifies the means.

But such an activity has always been harmful for those in whose

interests it was undertaken, as well as for those who had recourse to it. The thing is very simple. You wish. by submitting to the Government

and making usc of its laws, to snatch from it more liberty and rights for the people. But the liberty and the rights of the people arc in inverse ratio to the power of the Government and, in general, of the ruling classes. The

61

more liberty and rights the people have, !.he less power and advantage will the Government gain from them. Governments know this,and, having the power in their hands, they readily allow all kind of liberal prattle,and even some insignificant liberal reforms which justify its power, but they imme­diately coercively arrest liberal inclinations which threaLCn not only !.he advantages of the rulers, but !.heir very existence. So that all your efforts to serve the people through the power of governmental administration, or through Parliaments. will only lead to you, by your activity ,increasing the IXlwer of the ruling classes, and you will, according to the degree of your sincerity, unconsciously or consciously. participate in this power.

If, on the o!.her hand, you belong to the category of sincere peopl e desiring to serve the nation by revolutionary. Socialistic activity, then (apart from the insufficiency of aim involved in that material welfare of men towards which you are striving, which never satisfied anyone) consider those means which you possess for its auainmenL These means are, in the first place and above all, immoral, containing falsehood. deception, violence, murder; in the second place, these means can in no case attain their end. The strength and caution of Governments defending their existence are in our time so great that not only can no ruse, deception or harsh action overthrow them, !.hey cannot even shake them. All reva. lutionary attempts only furnish new justification for !.he violence of Gov­ernments, and increase their power.

But even if we admit the impossible - !.hat a revolution in our time could becrowned with success - then, why should we expect that, contrary to all which has ever taken place, the power which has overturned another power can increase the liberty of men and become more beneficent than the one it has overthrown? Or, if that conjecture. though contrary to common sense and experience, were possible. and one power having abol­ishedanotherpowercould give people the freedom necessary to establish those conditions of life which they regard as most advantageous for them­selves, then there would still be no reason whatever to suppose that people living an egotistical life could establish amongst themselves better condi­tions than the previous ones.

Let the Queen of the Dahomeys establish the most liberal constitu­tion, and let her even achieve that nationalization of the means of production whiCh, in the opinion of the Socialists, saves people from all their calamities, it would be necessary for someone to have power in order that the constitution should work, and the means of production should not be seized into private hands. But as long as these people are Oabomeys with their life conception, it is evident that, although in another form. the violence of a certain portion of the Oahomeys over the others will be the same as without a constitution and without the nationalization of the

means of production. Before realizing the Socialistic organization, it would be necessary for the Dahomeys to lose their taste for bloody

62

tyranny. Just the same is necessary for Europeans also. In order that men may live a common life without oppressing each

other. there is necessary, not an organization supported by force, but a moral condition in accordance with which people act from their inner conviction and not coercion. Such a condition does not exist. It exists in religious Christian communities in America. in Russia, in Canada. Here people do indeed, without laws enforced by violence, live the communal l ife without oppressing each other.

Thus the rational activity proper to our time for men of our Christian Society is only one: the profession and preaching by word and deed of the lastand highest religious teaching known to us. of the Christian teaching; not of that Christian teaching which, whilst submitting 10 the existing order of life, demands of men only the fulfilment of external ritual, or is satisfied with faith in and the preaching of salvation through redemption, butof that vital Christianity, the inevitable condition of which is not only non-participation in the action of the Government, but disobedience of its demands. since these demands - from taxes and custom houses to law courts and armies - are all opposed to this true Christianity. If this be so, then it is evident that it is not to the establishment of new forms that the activity of men desirous of serving their neighbour should be di rected, but to the alteration and perfecting of their own characters and those of other people.

Those who act in the other way generally think that the forms of life and the character and life-conception of men may simullaneously im­prove. But, thinking thus, they make the usual mistake of taking the result for the cause and thecause for theresult or for an accompanying condition.

The alteration of character and life-conception of men inevitably brings with it the alleration of those forms in which men have lived, whereas the alteration of the forms of life not only does not contribute to the alteration of the character and life-conception of men, but. more than anything else, obstructs this alteration by directing the attention and activ­ity of men into a false channel. To alter the forms of life, hoping thereby to alter the character and life-conception of men, is like altering in various ways the position of wet wood in a stove, believing that there can be such a position of wet fuel as will cause it 1O catch fire. Only dry wood will take fire independently of the position in which it is placed.

This error is so obvious that people could not fall into it if there were not a reason which rendered !.hem liable to it. This reason consists in the fact that the alteration of the character of men must begin in themselves, and demands much struggle and labour, whereas the alteration of the forms of the life of others is attained easily without inner effort over oneself, and has the appearance of a vcry important and far-reaching activity.

It is against this error, the source of the greatest evil, that I warn you.

63

men sincerely desirous of serving your neighbour by your lives.

VI 'But we cannot livc quictly occupying ourselves wilh lhe profession

and leaching of Christianity when we see around us suffcring people. We wish lO serve lhem actively. For lhis weare ready to surrender our labour, even our lives', say people wilh more or less sincere indignation.

How do you know, I would answer these people, that you are called to serve men precisely by thaL method which appears LO you the most useful and practical? What you say only shows that you have already decided that we cannot serve mankind by a Christian life, and that true service lies only in political activity, which auraclS you.

All politicians think likewise, and they are al1 in opposition to each other, and thereforecenainly cannot all be right. It would be very wel1 if everyone could serve men as he pleased, but such is not the case, and there exislS only one means of serving men and improving their condition. This sole means oonsislS in the profession and realization of a teaching from which flows the inner work of perfecting oneself. The self-perfecting of a true Christian, always living naturally amongst men and !Wt avoiding them, oonsislS in the establishment of beuer, more and more loving relations between himself and other men. The establishment of loving relations between men cannot but improve thcir gcneral conditions, although the form of this improvement remains unknown to man.

It is true that in serving lhrough governmental activity, parliamentary or revolutionary, we can determine beforehand the results we wish to attain, and at the same time profit by all the advantages of a pleasant, luxurious life, and obtain a brilliant position. the approval of men and great fame. If those who participate in such activity have indeed sometimes to suffer, it is such a possibility of suffering as in every strife is redeemed by thepossibilityof success. In military activity ,suffering and even death are stiU more possible, and yet only the least moral and the egoistic choose it

On the other hand, the religious activity. in the first place does not show us the results which it attains, and in the second place, such activity demands the renunciation of external success and not only does not afford a brilliant position and fame, but brings men to the lowest position from the social point of view, subjecting them not only to contempt and con­demnation, but to the most cruel suffcrings and death.

Thus, in our time of universal conscription, religious activity com­pels every man who is called to the service of murder to bear all those punishments with which the Government punishes refusal of military service. Therefore, religiollsactivity is difficult. but italone gives man the consciousness of true freedom, and the assurance that he is doing that which he should do.

Consequently, this activity alone is truly fruitful, attaining not only

64

its highest object, but also incidentally and in the most natural and simple way, those results towards which social refonners strive in such artificial ways.

There is only one means of serving men, which consists in oneself living agood life. This means is not merely visionary, as it is regarded by those to whom it is notadvantagcous, but is the only reality, all other means being phantoms, by which the leaders of the masses lure them into a false way, distracting them from that which alone is true.

VII 'But if this be so, when will it come to pass?' say those who wish to

see lhe realization of this ideal as quickly as possible. It would be very well if one could quickly, immediately, grow a

forest. Butonecannotdo this, one must wait till lhe seeds shool, then the leaves, then the branches and then the trees will grow up.

One can stick branches into the ground, and for a short time they will resemble a wood, but it will be only a resemblance. The same applies to a rapid establishment of good social order amongst men. One can arrange a resemblance of good order, as do the Governments, but these imitations only remove the possibility of true order. They remove it - firstly, by cheating men, showing lhem the appearance of good order where it does notemt; and secondly. because Ihese im itations of order are attained only by power, and power depraves men, rulers as well as ruled, and therefore makes true order less possible.

Therefore, attempts at a rigid realization of the ideal not only fail to contribute to its actual realization, but more than anything impede it.

Whether the ideal of mankind, a well organized Society without violence, will be realized soon, or not soon, depends upon whether the rulers of Ute masses who sincerely wish the people good will soon under­stand that nothing removes men so much from the realization of their ideal as that which they are now doing, by either continuing to maintain old superstitions, or denying all religions. and directing the people's activity to the service of the Govemment. of revolution or of Sociilism. If those ' men who sincerely wish to serve their neighbour were only to understand all the fruitlessness of those means of organizing the welfare of men proposed by the supporters of the State and by revolutionists. if only they were to understand that the one means by which men can liberated from their sufferings consists in men themselves ceasing to Ii vean egoistic, hea­then life, and beginning to live a universal Christian one, not recognizing, as they do now, the pobibi lityand the legality o'f uSlng'violence over one 's neighoours, and participating in it for on!'s personal aims. If, on the contrary, lhey were to follow in life the fundamental and highest law of acting lOwards others as one wishes others to act lOwards oneself, then, very quickly, those irrational and cruel forrns oflife in which we now live

65

would be ovenhrown and new ones would develop corresponding to the new consciousness of men.

Think only what cnonnous and splendid mental powers are now spent in the service of the State and in its defence from revolution; how much youthful and enthusiastic effort is spent on attempts at revolution, on an impossible struggle with the Stale; how much isspent on Socialistic dreaming. All this is not only delaying, but rendering impossible the realization oCme welfare towards which all men are striving. How would itheir aU those whoarespending their powers so fruitlessly, and of len with harm to their neighbours, were to direct them aU to that, which alone aCCords the possibility of good social life - to their inner self.perfection?

How many times would one be able 10 build a new house out of the new solid material, if all those efrons which have been and are now being spent on propping up the old house were used resolutely and conscien­tiously for the preparation of the material for a new house and the building thereof, which, although obviously it could notat fll'St beas luxurious and conveniem for the chosen few as was the old one, would undoubtedly be more slable. and would afford thecomplete possibility for those improve­ments which are necessary, not for the chosen few only, but also for all men!

So, all I have said here amoums to the simple, generally comprehen­sible and irrefutable truth, that in order that good Iifeshould exist amongst men, it is necessary thal men should be good.

There is only one way of innuencing men towards a good life: namely, 10 live a good life oneself. Therefore the activity of those who desire to contribute 10 theestablishment of good life amongst men can and should consist in efforts IOwards inner perfection in the fulfilment of that which is expressed in the Gospel by the words: 'Be ye perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.'

66

ON ANA RCJ-IY

ON ANARCHY (1900)

TheAnarchislSareright in everything; in the negation afthe existing order, and in the assertion that, without Authority, therecould not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mislaken only in lhinking that Anarchy can be instituted by a [violent · Editor] revolution. 'To establish Anarchy'. 'Anarchy will be instituted'. But it will be instituted only by there being more and morc people who do not require the protection of governmental power. and by there being more and more people who will be ashamed of applying this power.

'The capitalistic organization will pass into the hands of workers, and then there will be no more oppression of these workers, and no unequal distribution of earnings.'

'But who will establish the works; who will administer them?' 'It will goon of its own accord; the workmen themselves will arrange

everything . • 'But the capilalistic organization was established just because, for

every practical affair, there is need for administrators furnished with power. If there be work, there will be leadership, administrators with power. And when there is power, there will beabuse ofit- the very thing against which you are now striving.'

To the question, how to be without a Slate, without courts, armies, and so on, an answer cannot be given, because the question is badly formulated. The problem is not how to arrange a State after the pattern of today, or after anew pattern. Neither, I, nor any of us, is appointed to settle that question.

But, though voluntarily, yet inevilably must we answer the question, how shall I act faced with the problem which ever arises before me? Am I to submit my conscience to the acts taking place around me, am I to procfuim myself in agreement with the Government, which hangs erring men, sends soldiers to murder, demoralizes nations with opium and spirits, and soon.or am I to submit my actions to conscience. i.e., not participate in Government, the actions of which are contrary to my reason?

What will be the outcome of this. what kind of a Government there will be - of all this I know nothing; not that I don't wish to know; but that I cannOl I only know that nothing evil can result from my following the higher guidance of wisdom and love, or wise love, which is implanted in

68

me;justas nothing evil comes of the bee following the instinct implanted in her, and flying out of the hive with the swarm, we should say. to ruin. But, I repeal, I do not wish to and cannot judge about this.

In this precisely consists the power of Christ's teaching and that not beCause Christ is God or a great man, but because His teaching is irrefutable. The merit of His teaching consists in the fact that it transferred the matter from the domain of eternal doubt and conjecture on to the ground of certainty. 'Thou art a man, a being rational and kind, and thou knoweSl that today or tomorrow thou wilt die. disappear. If there be a God, then thou wilt go to Him, and He will ask of thee an account of thy actions, whether thou hast acted in accordance with His law, or, at least, with the higher qualities implanted in thee. If there be no God, thou regardest rea­son and loveas the highestqualities, and must submit to them thy other in­clinations,andnotlet them submit to thy animal nature - to the cares about the commodities of life. to the fear of annoyance and material calamities.'

The question is not, I repeat. which community will be the more secure, the better - the one which is defended by arms, cannons, gallows, or the one that is not so safeguarded. But there is only one question for a man, and one it is impossible to evade: 'Wilt thou, a rational and good being, having for a moment appeared in this world, and at any moment liable todisappear - wilt thou take part in the murder of erring men or men of a different race, wilt thou participate in the extermination of whole nations of so-called savages. wilt thou participate in the artificial deterio­ration of generations of men by means of opium and spirits for the sake of profit, wilt thou participate in all these actions, or even be in agreement with those who permit them, or wilt thou not?'

And there can be but one answer to this question for those to whom it has presented itself. As to what the outcome will be of it, I don't know, because it is not given me to know. But wh,at should be done, I do unmis­takably kno�. And if you ask: 'What will happen?' Then 1 reply that good will certainly happen; because. acting in the way indicated by reason and love, I am acting in accordance with the highest law known to me.

The situation of the majority of men, enlightened' by true brotherly enlightenment, at present crushed by the deceit and cunning of usurpers, who are forcing them to ruin their own lives · this situation is terrible, and appears hopeless.

Only two issues present themselves. and both are closed. One is to destroy violence by violence. by terrorism, dynamite bombs and daggers, as our Nihilists and Anarchists have attempted to do. to destroy this conspiracy of Governments against nations. from without; the other is to come to an agreement with the Government, making concessions to it, participating in it, in order gradually to disentangle the net which is binding the people, and to set them free. Both these issues are closed.

69

Dynamite and the dagger, as experience has already shown, only

cause reaction, and destroy the most valuable power, the only one at our

command, that of public opinion. The other issue is closed, because Governments have already learnt

how far they may allow the participation of men wishing to refonn them. They admit only that which does not infringe, which is non-cssential; and they are very sensitive concerning things harmful to them - sensitive because the mauerconcerns their own existence. They admit men who do not share their views, and who desire reform, not only in order to satisfy the demands of these men, but also in their own interest, in that of the Government. These men are dangerous to theGovcmments if they remain outside them and revolt against them · opposing to the Governments the onlyeffective instrument the Governments possess -public opinion; they must therefore render these men harmless, attracting them by means of concessions, in order to render them innocuous (like culti vat.ed microbes), and then make them serve the aims of the Governments, i.e., oppress and exploit the masses.

Both thescissues being firmly closed and impregnable, whalremains 00 be done?

To use violence is impossible; it would only cause reaction. Tojoin the ranks of the Government is also impossible · one would only become its instrument. One course therefore remains· to fight LheGovcmmem by means of thought. speech, actions, life. neither yielding to Government nor joining its ranks and thereby increasing its power.

This alone is needed, will certainly be successful. And this is the will of God, the teaching of Christ.

There can be only one pennanent revolution · a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man.

How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels ilcicarly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.

70

TI-IOU SHALT

THOU SHALT NOT KILL (1900)

When Kingsarecxecuted after tria) , as in the case of Charles I, Louis XV] and Maximilian of Mexico; or when they are killed in Court conspira­cies, like Peter Ill, Paul, and various Sultans. Shahs and Khans - little is said ab out it; but when they are killed without a tria1 and without a Court conspiracy -as in the case of Henry IV of France, Alexander II (NOTE No 29), the Empress of Austria (NOTE No 30). the late Shah of Persia and, recently. Humbert (NOTE No 31) - such murders excite the greatest surprise and indignation among Kings and Emperors and their adherents. justas if they themselves never took part in murders. nor profited by them, nor instigated them. But, in fact, the mildest of the murdered Kings (Al­exander II or Humben. for instance), nOl lO speak of executions in their own coumries, were instigators of, and accomplices and partakers in, the murder of tens of thousands of men who perished on the field of banJe; while more cruel King s and Emperors have been guihy of hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of murders.

The teaching ofChristrcpeals the law, • An eye for an eye. and a rooth for a tooth'; but those who have always clung to lhat law, and still cling to it. and who apply it to a terrible degree - not only claiming 'an eye for;m eye,' bUl without provocation decreeing the slaughter of thousands, as lhey do when they declare war - have no right to be indignant at the application of lhat same law to themselves in so small an insignificant a degree that hardly one King or Emperor is killed for each hundred thousand,orperhapseven for each million, whoare killed by lheorder and with the consent of }(jngs and Emperors. Kings and Emperors not only should not be indignant at such murders as those of Alexander II and Humbert, but they should be surprised that such murders are so rare. con­sidering lhe continual and universal example of murder that they give to mankind.

The crowd are so hypnotized lhat they see what is going on before their eyes, butdo not understand its meaning. They see what constant care Kings, Emperors and Presidents devote to their disciplined annies; lhey see the review s, parades and manoeuvres the rulers hold, about which they

72

boaSt to one another; and the people crowd to see their own brothers, brightly dressed up in fools' clothes. turned into machines to the sound of drum and trumpet. al1, at lhe ShOUl of one man, making one and the same movement atone and the same moment· but they do not understand what it all means. Yet lhe meaning of this drilling is very clear and simple: it is nothing but a preparation for killing.

Jtis stupefying men in orderto make them fit instruments for murder. And those who do this, who chieny direct this and are proud of it. are the Kings. Emperors and Presidents. And it is just these men - who are specially occupied in organizing murder and who have made murder their profession. who wear miLitary uniforms and carry murderous weapons (swords) at theirsides -that are horrified and indignant when one of them­selves is murdered.

The murder of Kings -!he murder of Humbert - is terrible. bUl not on account of its cruelty. The !hings done by command of Kings and Emperors - not only past events such as the massacre of SI Bartholomew, religious butcheries. the terrible repressions of peasant rebellions. and Paris coups d' etat. but the present -day Government executions, the doing­to-death of prisoners in solitary confinement, the Disciplinary Battalions. the hangings. the beheadings. the shootings and slaughter in wars -are in­comparably more cruel than the murders committed by Anarchists. Nor are these murders terrible because undeserved. If A1exander D and Hum beltdid not deserve death. still less did the thousands of Russians who perished atPlevna, or ofIta1ians who perished in Abyssinia Such murders are terrible, not because they are cruel or unmerited, but because of the unreasonableness of those who commit them.

If the regicides act under the influence of personal feelings of indignation evoked by the sufferings of an oppressed people, for which they hold AlexanderorCamot (NOTE No 32) or Humbert responsible; or if they act from personal feelings of revenge. then· however immoral their conduct may be · it is at least intelligible; but how is it that a body of men (AnarchisLS, weare told) such as lhose by whom Bresci wassem, and who are now threatening another Emperor - how is it that they cannot devise any better means of improving the condition of humanity than by killing people whose destruction can no more be of use than the decapitation of that mythical monster on whose neck a new head appeared as soon as one was cutoff? }(jngs and Emperors have long ago arranged for themselves a system like that of a magazine-rifle; as soon as one bullet has been discharged. another takes its place. Le roi est morl, \live it roil So what is the use of killing them?

Only on a most superficial view can the killing of these men seem a means of saving the nations from oppression and from wars destructive of human life.

One only need remember that similar oppression and similar war

73

went on, no maner who was at the head of the Government - Nicholas or Alexander, Frederick or Wilhelm, Napoleon or Louis, Palmerston or Gladstone, McKinley (NOTE No 33) or any'one else - in order to under­stand that it is nOlany particular person who causes these oppressions and these wars from which the nations surrer. The misery of nations is caused not by particular persons, but by the particular order of Society �nder which the peopleareso tied up together that they find themselves all 10 the power of a few men, or more often in the power of one single man: a man so perverted by his unnatural position as arbiter of the falC and lives of millions, that he is aJways in an unhea1thy state, and aJways surfers more or less from a mania of self-aggrandizemenl, which only his exceptionaJ position conceals from generaJ notice.

Apart from the fact that such men are surrounded from earliest childhood to the grave by me most insensate luxury and an atmosphere of falsehood and flauery which aJways accompanies them, their whole education and aJl their occupations are centred on one object learning aboul former murders, the best present-day ways of murdering, and the best preparations for fulure murder. From childhood they learn about killing in all its possible forms. They always carry about with them murderous weapons - sword or sabres; they dress Lhemselves in various uniforms; mey attend parades, reviews and manoeuvres; they visit one another, presenting one another with Orders and nominating one another to the command of regiments - and not only does no-one tell them plainly what they are doing, or say that to busy oneself with preparations for killing is revolting and criminal, but from all sides they hear nothing but approvaJ and enthusiasm for all this activity of theirs. Every lime they go out , and at each parade and review, crowds of people flock to greet them with enthusiasm, and it seems to them as if the whole nation approves of their conduct. Theonly partofthe Press that reaches them, and that seems to them the ex pression of the feelings of the whole people or at ieastof its best representatives, most slavishly extols their every word and action, however silly or wicked they may be. Those around them, men and women, clergy and laity - all people who do not prize human dignity -vying with one another in refined flauery, agree with them about anything and deceive them about everything, making it impossible for them to see life as it is. Such rulers might live a hundred years without ever seeing one single really independent man or ever hearing the truth spoken. One is sometimes appalled to hear of the words and deeds of these men; but one need only consider their position in order to understand that anyone in their place would act as they do. If a reasonable man found himself in their place, there is only one reasonable action hecould perform and that would be to getaway from such a position. Any one remaining in it would behave as they do.[ ... )

So it is not the Alexanders and Humberts, nor the Wilhelms, Nicho-

74

lases and Chamberlains - though they decree these oppressions of the nations and these wars - who are really the most guilty of these sins, but it is rather those whop\aceand support them in the position of arbiters over the lives of their fellow-men. And, therefore, the thing to do is not kill AI­exanders,Nicholases, Wilhelms and Humberts, buttocease to support the arrangement of society of which they arc a result. And what supportS the present order of society is the selrlShncss and stupefaction of the people, who sell their freedom and honour for insignificant material advantages.

People who stand on the lowest rung of the ladder-partly asa result of being stupefied by a palriOlic and pseudo-religious education, and partly for the sake of personal advantages - cede their freedom and sense of human dignity at the bidding of those who stand above them and offer them material advantages. In the same way - in consequence of stupefac­tion, and chiefly for the sake of advantages - those who arc a little higher up the ladder cede their freedom and manly dignity, and the same thing repeats itself with those standing yet higher, and soon to the topmoslrung - to those who, or to him who, standing at the apex of the social cone have nOlhing more to obtain: for whom the only motives of action are love of power and vanity ,and whoare generally so perverted and stupefied by the power of life and death which they hold over their fellow-men. and by the consequentservility and flattery ofthose who surround them, that, without ceasing to do evil, they feel quite assured that they arc benefactors to the human race.

!tis the people who sacrifice their dignity as men formateriaJ profit that produce these men who cannot act otherwise than as they do act, and with whom it is useless to beangry for their stupid and wicked actions. To kill such men is like whipping children whom one has first spoilt.

That nations should not be oppressed, and that there should be none of these useless wars, and that men may not be indignant with those who seem to cause these evils, and may not kill them - it seems that only a very small thing is necessary. It is necessary that men should understand things as they are, should call them by their right names, and should know that an anny is an instrument for killing, and that the enrolment and manage­mentofanarmy - the very things which Kings , Emperors and Presidents occupy themselves with so self-confidently - is a preparation for murder.

If only each King, Emperor and President understood that his work of directing annies is not an honourable and important duty, as his flatterers persuade him it is, but a bad and shameful act of preparation for murder - and if each private individual understood that the payment of taxes wherewith to hire and equip soldiers, and, above aJl. military service itself, are not matters of indiffcrcnce, butare bad and shameful actions by which he not only permits but participates in murder - then this power of Emperors, Kings and Presidents, which now arouses our indignation, and which causes them to be murdered, would disappear of itself.

75

So. lhe Alexanders. Camots. Humberts and others should not be murdered, but it should be explained to them that they are themselves murderers, and, chiefly. lhey should not be allowed to kill people; men should refuse to murder al their command.

If the people do not yet act in this way, it is only because Govern· ments, to maintain themselves, diligently exercise a hypnotic influence upon lhe people. And. therefore. we may help to prevent people killing eilher Kings or one another, not by killing - murder only increases the hypnotism · but by arousing people from their hypnotic condition.

And it is lhis I have tried to do by these remarks.

76

PATRIOTISM AND GOVERNMENT

(1900)

I have already several times expressed the thought that in our day the feeling of patriotism is an unnatural, irrational and harmful feeling, and a cause of a great part of the ills from which mankind is suffering; and that, consequently, this feeling should not becuitivaled, as is now being done, but should, on the contrary, be suppressed and eradicated by all means available 10 rational men. Yel, strange to say - Ihough it is undeniable that the universal armaments and destructi ve wars which are ruining the people rcsuhfrom that one feeling -all my arguments showing the backwardness. anachronism and harmfulness ofpalriotism have been mel, and arc still met, either by silence. by intentional misinterpretation, or by a strange unvarying reply to the effect that only bad patriotism (Jingoism or Chauvinism) is evil, but that rea1, good patriotism is a very elevated moral feeling, to condemn which is not only irrational but wicked.

What.lhis real, good patriotism consists in, we are never told; or, if �nylhing is said about it, instead of explanation we get declamatory, Inflated phrases, or, finally, some other concept is substiwted for patriot­ism - some thing which has nothing in common with the patriotism we all know, and from the results of which we all suffer so severely.[ ... ]

Neither do the peculiarities of each people consUMe patriotism, though these things are purposely substituted for the concept of patriotism by its defenders. They say that the peculiarities of each people are an essential eondition of human progress, and that patriotism, which seeks to maintain those peculiarities, is, therefore, a good and useful feeling. But is it not quite evident lhat if, once upon a time, these peculiarities of each peoplc - thcse customs, creeds, languages - were conditions necessary for the life of humanity, in our time these same peculiarities form thc chief obstacle to what is aJready recognized as an ideal - the brotherly union of the peoples? And therefore the maintenance and defence of any nation ality • Russian, Gennan, French or Anglo-Saxon, provoking the corre-5PO.nding maintenance and defcnce not only of Hungarian, Polish and Irish nauonalities, but also of Basque, Provencal, Mordva, Tchouvash (NOTE

78

No 34 ) and many other nationalities - serves not to hannonize and unite men, but to estrange and divide them more and more from one another.

So, not the imaginary but the real patriotism, which we all know, by which most people are swayed today and from which humanity suffers so severely, is not the wish for spirituaJ bcnclits for onc's own people (it is impossible to desire spiritual benelits for one's own people only), but is a very definite feeling of preference for one's own people or State above all olher peoples and States, and a consequent wish to get for that people or State the greatest advantages and power that can be got - things which are obtainable only at the expense of the advantages and power of olher peoples or States.

It would, therefore. seem obvious that patriotism as a feeling is bad and harmful, and as a doctrine is stupid. For it is clear that if each people and each State considers itself the best of peoples and Slates, they aU live in a gross and harmful delusion.

II One would expccllhe harmfulness and irrationality of patriotism to

be evident to everybody. But the surpris ing fact is thai cultured and learned men not only do not themselves notice the harm and stupidity ofpalriot­ism, but they resist every exposure of it with the greatest obstinacy and ardour (though without any rational grounds), and continue to praise it as benificent and elevating.

What does this mean? Only one explanation of this amazing fact presents itself to me. All human hislOry, from lhe carliesl limes to our own day, may be

considered as a movement of the consciousness, both of individuals and of homogeneous groups, from lower ideas to higher ones.

The whole path travelled both by individuals and by homogeneous groups may be represented as a consecuti ve flight of steps from the lowest, on the level of animal life, to the highestauained by the consciousness of man at a given moment of history.

Each man, like each separate homogeneous group, nation or Slate, always moved and moves up this ladder of ideas. Some portions of humanity are in front, others lag far behind, others, again - the majority ­move somewhere between the most advanced and the most backward. But all, whatever stage they may have reached, arc inevitably and irresistibly moving from lower to higher ideas. And always, at any given moment, both the individuals and the separate groups of people -advanced, middle or backward - stand in three different relations to the three stages of ideas amid which they move.

AI ways, for both the individual and for the separate groups of people, there are the ideas of the past, which are worn out and have become strange to them, and 10 which lhey cannot revert as, for instance, in our Christian

79

world, the ideas of cannibalism, universal plunder, the rape of wives, and other customs of which only a record remains.

And there are the ideas of the present, instilled into men's mind by education, by eAample and by the general activity of all around them; ideas under the power of which they liveatagiven time: for instance, in our Own day, the ideas of property, State organization, trade, use of domestic animals, etc;

And there are the ideas of the future, of which some are already approaching realization and areobJiging people to change their way oflife and to struggle against the fonner ways: such ideas in our world as those of freeing the labourers, of giving equality to women, of giving up meat (NOTE No 35 ), etc.; while others, already recognized, have not yet come into practical conrnct with the old fonns of life: such in our times are the ideas (which we call ideals) ohhe eradication of violence, the arrangement of a communal system of property, of a universal religion and of ageneral brotherhood of men.

And, therefore, every man and every homogeneous group of men, on whatever level they may stand, having behind them the wom-outremem­brances of the past, and before them me ideals of me future, are always in a state of struggle between the moribund ideas ofme present and the ideas of me future that are coming to life. It usually happens that when an idea which has been useful and even necessary in the past becomes superflu­ous, that idea. after a more or less prolonged struggle, yields its place to a new idea which was till then an ideal, but which thus becomes a present idea.

But it does occur that an antiquated idea, already replaced in people's consciousness by a higher one, is of such a kind that its maintenance is profitable to those people who have the greatest influence in their society. And then it happens that this antiquated idea, though it is in sharp contradiction to the whole surrounding fonn of life, which has been altering in other respects. continues to influence people and to sway their actions. Such retention of antiquated ideas has always occurred, and still does occur, in the matter of religion. The cause is that the priests, whose profitable positions are bound up with the antiquated religious idea, pur­posely use their power to hold people to this antiquated idea.

The same thing occurs, and forsimiiarreasons, in the political sphere with reference to the patriotic idea, on which all arbitrary power is based. People to whom it is profitable to do so, maintain that idea by artificial me ans, though it now lacks both sense and utility. And as these people pos­sess the most powerful means of influencing others, they are able to achieve their object

In this, it seems to me, lies the explanation of the strange contrast between the antiquated patriotic idea and that whole drift of ideas leading in the opposite direction, which have already entered into the conscious-

80

ness of the Christian world.

III Patriotism, as a feeling of exclusive love for one's own people. and

as a doctrine of the virtue of sacrifICing one's tranquillity, one's property and even one's life in defence of one's own people from slaughter and outrage by their enemies. was the highest idea of the period when each nation considered it feasible and just, for its own advantage. to subject to slaughter and outrage the people of other nations.

But, already some 2,000 years ago. humanity. in the �n of the highest representatives of its wisdom, began to recognize the higher idea

of a brotherhood of man; and that idea, penetrating man's consciousness more and more, has in our time attained most varied fonns of realization. Thanks to improved means of communication, and to the unity of industry, of trade, of me arts and of science, men are today so bound one to another that the danger of conquest, massacre or outrage by a neighbouring people, has quite disappeared, and all peoples (the peoples, but not the Govern­ments) live together in peaceful, mutually advantageous, and friendly commercial, industrial, artistic and scientific relations, which they have no need and no desire to disturb. One would think, therefore. that the antiquated feeling of patriotism -being supert1 uous and incompatible with the consciousness we have reached of the existence of brotherhood among men of different nationalities - should dwindle more and more until it completely disappears. Yet the very opposite of this occurs: this hannful and antiquated feeling not only continues to exist, but bums more and more fiezcel y .

The people. without any reasonable ground. and contrary alike to their conception of right and to their own advantage, not only sympathize with Governments in their attacks on other nations. in their seizures of foreign possessions, and in defending by force what they have already stolen (NOTE No 36) but even themselves demand such attacks. seizures and defences: are glad of them, and take pride in them. The small oppressed nationalities which have fallen under the power of the great States -thePoles, Irish, Bohem ians, Finns or Armenians -resenting the pa­triotism of their conquerors, which is the cause of their oppression, catch from them the infection of this feeling of patriotism - which has ceased to be necessary , and is now obsolete. meaningless and harmful - and catch it to such a degree that all their activity is concentrated upon it,and they, themselves suffering from the patriotism ofthe strongernations, are ready, for the sake of patriotism, to perpetrate on other peoples the very same deeds that their oppressors have perpetrated and are perpetrating on them.

This occurs because the ruling classes (including not only the actual rulers with their officials, but all the classes who enjoy an exceptionally advantageous position: the capitalisL�. journalists and most of the artists

81

and scientists) can retain lheir position - exceptionally advantageous in comparison wiLh that of the labouring masscs - Lhanks only the Govern­ment organization, which rests on patriotism. They have in their hands all the most powerful means of innuencing the people, and always sedulously

support patriotic feelings in themselves and others, more especially as those feelings which uphold the Government's power are those that are always best rewarded by that power.

Every official prospers the more in his career, the more patriotic he is; soalso thearmy man gets promotion in time of war -the war isproduced by patriotism.

Patriotism and its result - wars - give an enormous revenue to the newspaper uade, and profits to many o!her trades. Every write::, teacher and professor is more secure in his place, the morche preaches patriotism. Every Emperor and King obtains the more fame, the more he is addicted to patriotism.

The ruling classes have in their hands we army, money, the schools, the churches and !he Press. In the schools they kindle pacriotism in the children by means of histories describing their own people as the best of all peoples and always in the right. Among adults !hey kindle it by spectacies,jubilees, monuments, and by a lying patriotic Press. Aboveall, they inname patriotism in this way: perpetrating every kind of injustice and harshness against other nations, they provoke in them enmity towards their own people, and then in tum exploit that enmity to embiUer their people against the foreigner.

The intensification of this terrible feeling of patriotism has gone on among the European peoples in a rapidly increasing progression, and in our time has reached the uunost limits, beyond which there is no room for it LO eXteCld.

IV Within the memory of people not yet old, an occurrence took place

showing most obviously the amazing intoxication caused by patriotism among the people of Christendom.

The ruling classes of Germany excited Lhe patriotism of the masses of their people LO such a degree thal, in the second half of the nineteenth century,a law was proposed in accordance wi!h which all the men had to become soldiers: all the sons, husbands, fathers. learned men and godly

men, had to learn to murder, to become submissive slaves of those above them in military rank, and be absolutely ready to kill whomsoever they were ordered LO kill; to kill men of oppressed nationalities, and their own working-men standing up for their rights, and even their own fathers and brothers -as was publicly proclaimed by that most impudent of potentates, Wilhelm II.

That horrible measure,oUlraging all man's best feelings in the gross-

82

est manner, was, under the innuenceof patriotism, acquiesced in without

murmur by the people of Germany. It resulted in !heir viCLOry over !he French. That victory yet further excited the patriotism of Germany and, by reaction, that of France, Russia and !he other Powers; and the men of the European countries unresistingly submitted to the introduction of general military service - i.e. toastate of slavery involvinga degreeofhumiliation and submission incomparably worse than an y slavery of theancient world After this servile submission of the masses to the calls of patriotism, the audacity, cruelty and insanity of Governments knew no bounds. A comp­etition in the usurpation of other peoples'lands in Asia, Africa and Amer­

ica began - evoked partly by whim. partly by vanity, partly by covetous­ness -and was accompanied by ever greater and greater distrustand enmity between the Governments.

The destruction of the inhabitants on the lands seized was accepted as a quite natural proceeding. The only question was, who should be rust

in seizing o!herpeoples' landanddestroying the inhabitants? All theGov­ernments not only most evidently infringed, and are infringing. the elementary demands of justice in relation LO the conquered peoples, and in relation to one another. but they wereguiity, and continue to be guilty, of every kind of cheating, swindling, bribing, fraud, spying. robbery and murder; and the peoples not only sympathized, and still sympathize, with them in all this, but they rejoice when it is their own Government and not another Government that commits such crimes.

The mutual enmity between the different peoples and States has reached lanerly such amazing dimensions that. notwithstanding the fact that there is no reason why one State should attack another. everyone knows that all the Governments stand with their claws out and showing their teeth. and only waiting for someone to be in trouble, or become weak, in order to tear him to pieces with as little risk as possible.

All thepeoplcs of the so-called Christian world have been reduced by patriotism to such a state of brutality, that not only those who are obliged to kill or to be killed desire slaughter and rejoice in murder. but all the peop lesofEurope and America, living peaceably in their homes exposed to no danger, are,at each war - thanks to easy means of communication and to the Press- in the position of the spectators ina Romancircus,and like them deUght in the slaughter, and raise the bloodthirsty cry. Pollice verso (NOTE No 37). Not only adults. but also Children. pure, wise children. rejoice according to their nationality. when wey hear that the number kiUed and lacerated by Iyddite orother shells on some particular day was not 700 but 1 ,()(x) Englishmen or Boers.

And parenlS (1 know such cases) encourage their children in such brutality.

Butthatisnotall. Every increase in theanny of one nation (and each nation, being in danger, seeks to increase ilS army for patriotic reasons)

83

obliges its neighbours to increase their armies. also from patriotism, and this evokes a fresh increase by the first nation.

And the same thing occurs with fortifications and navies: one State has built ten ironclads, a neighbour builds eleven; then the fU"St builds twelve, and so on to infinity (NOTE No 38).

'I'll pinch you.' 'And I'll punch your head.' 'And I'll stab you with a dagger.' 'And I'll bludgeon you.' 'And I'll shoot you.' ... Only bad children. drunken men, or animals, quarrel or fight so, but yet it is just what is going on among the highest representatives of the most enlightened Governments, the very men who undertake to direct the education and the morality of their subjects.

V The position is becoming worse and worse. and there is no stopping

this descent towards evident perdition. Theone way of escapebeJieved in by credulous people has now been

closed by recent events. I refer to the Hague Conference. and to the war between England and the Transvaal which immediately followed it (NOlE NO 39).

If people who think little, or but superficially, were able to comfort themselves with the idea that international couns of arbitration would supersede wars and ever-increasing armaments, the Hague Conference and the war that followed it demonstrated in the most palpable manner the impossibility offinding a solution of the difficulty in that way (NOTE No 40). After the Hague Conference. it became obvious that as long as Gov­ernments with armies exist. the tennination of annaments and of wars is impossible. That an agreement should become possible. it is necessary that the parties to itshouldlrust each other. And in order that the Powers should lrUsteach other, they must lay down their arms, as is done by the bearers of a nag of lrUce when they meet for a conference.

So long as Governments, distrusting one another, not only do not disband or decrease their armies, but always increase them in correspon­dence with augmentations made by their neighbours. and by means of spies watch every movement of troops. knowing that each of the Powers will auack its neighbour as soon as it sees its way to do so, no agreement is possible. and every conference is either a stupidity. or a pastime. or a fraud, or an impertinence, or all of these together.

It was particularly becoming for the Russian rather than any other Government to be theenfant terrible of the Hague Conference. No·oneat home being allowed to reply to all its evidently mendacious manifesta­tions and rescripts, the Russian Government is so spoilt, that - having without the least scruple ruined its own people with armaments. strangled Poland. plundered Turkestan and China, and being specially cngaged in suffocating Finland· it proposed disarmament to theGovernmcnts, in full

84

assurance that it would be trusted! But strange, unexpected and indecent as such a proposal was -

especially at the very time when ordcrs were being given to increase its

anny - the words publicly uuered in the hearing of the people were such.

that for the sake of appearances the Governments of the other Powers could nOldecline the comical and evidently insincere consultation; and so the delegates met -knowing in advance that nothing would come of it - and for several weeks (during which they drew good salaries) though they were laughing in their sleeves, they all conscientiously pretended to be

much occupied in arranging peace among the nations. The Hague Conference. followed as it was by the terrible bloodshed

of the Transvaal War, which no one attempted. or is now al t� ... npting. to stop, was. nevertheless, of some use, though not atall in the way expected of it - it was useful because it showed in the most obvious manner that the

evils from which the peoples are suffering cannot be cured by Govem­ments. That Governments, even if thcy wished to. can tenninate neilher armaments nor wars.

Governments. to havea reason forcxisting, must defend their people from other people's attack. But no onc people wishes to attack. or does attack. another. And therefore Governments, far from wishing for peace. carefully excite the anger of other nations against themselves. And having excited other people's anger against themselves. and stirred up the palriotism of their own people, each Government then assures its people that it is in danger and must be defended.

And having the power in their hands, the Governments can both irritate other nations and excite patriotism at home. and they carefully do

both the one and the other; nor can they act otherwise. for their existence depends on thus acting.

If, in fonner times;Governments were necessary to defend their people from other people's attaCk. now on the conuary. Governments artificially disturb the peace that exists between the nations. and provoke enmity among them.

When it was necessary to plough in order to sow. ploughing was wise; but evidently it is absurd and harmful to go on ploughing after the seed baS been SOwn. But this is just what the Governments areobliging their people todo: to infringe the unity which exists. and which nothing would infringe if it were not for the Governments.

VI In reality what are these Governments, without which people think

they could not exist? There may have been a ti me when such Governments wcre necessary, and when thc evil of supporting a Government was less than thatofbeingdefencelessagainslorganized neighbours; but now such Governments have become unnecessary. and are a rar greater evil than all

85

lIle dangers with which they frighten lIleir subjects. Not only military Governments, but Governments in general, could

be, I will not say useful, but at least harmless, only ifliley consisted of im­maculate, holy people, as is lIleoretically lIle case among lIle Chinese. But lIlen Governments, by lIle nature of their activity, which consist in commilting acts of violence (NOTE No 41), are always composed of elements the mostconuary to holiness -of the most audacious, unscrupu­lous and perverted people.

A Government, therefore, and especially a Government entrusted with military power, is the most dangerous organization possible.

The Government, in the widest sense, including capitalists and the Press, is nothing else than an organization which places the grealerpan of the people in the power of a smaller part, who dominate them; that smaller part is subject to a yet smaller part, and that again to a yet smaller, and so on, reaching at last a few people or one single man, who by means of military force has power over all the rest So that all this organization resembles a cone, of which all the parts are completely in the power of those people or of that one person, who happen to be at the apex.

The apex of the COne is seized by those who are more cunning, audacious and unscrupulous than the rest, or by someone who happens to be the heir of those who were audacious and unscrupulous.{ ... )

And to such Governments is allowed full power, not only over propeny and lives, but even over the spiritual and moral development, the education and the religious guidance of everybody.

People construct such a terrible machine of power, they allow any­one 10 seize it who can (and the chances always are that it will be seized by the mostmora1ly worthless) - they slavishly submit to him,and are then surprised that evil comes ofil. They are afraid of Anarchists' bombs,and are not afraid of this terrible organization which is always threatening them with the greatest calamities.

People found it useful to tie themselves together in order to resist their enemies,as theCircassians(NOTE N042) did when resisting attacks. But the danger is quite past, and yet people go on tying themselves together.

They carefully tie themselves up so that one man can have them a1l at mercy; then they throwaway the end of the rope that ties them, and leave it trailing for some rascal or fool to seize and to do them whatever harm he likes (NOTE No43),

Really, whatare people doing but just that-when they set up, submit to, and maintain an organized and military Government?

VII To deliver men from the terrible and ever-increasing evils of arma­

ments and war, we want neither congresses nor conferences, nor treaties, nor couns of arbitration, but the destruction of those instruments of

86

violence which are called Governments, and from which humanity's greatest evils flow.

To destroy Government violence, only one thing is needed: it is that people should understand that the feeling of patriotism, which alone supports that instrument of violence, is a rude, harmful, disgraceful and bad feeling, and, above all, is immoral. It isa rude feeling, because it isone nawral only to people standing on the lowest level of morality, and expecting from other nations such outrages as they themselves are ready 10 inflict; it is a harmful feeling, because it disturbs advantageous and joyous, peaceful relations with other peoples, and above all produces that Government organization under which power may falJ, and does fall, into the hands of the worslmen; it is a disgraceful feeling, because ittcms man

not merely into a slave, but into a fighting cock, a bull or a gladiator, who wastes his strength and his life for objectives which are not his own but his Government's; and itisan immoral feeling. because, instcadofconfessing oneself a son of God (as Christianity teaches us) or even a free man guided by his own reason, each man under the influence of patriotism confess himself the son of his Fatherland and the slave of his Government, and commits actions COnllary to his reason and his conscience.

It is only necessary that people should understand this, and the terrible bond called Government, by which we are chained together, will fall to pieces of itself without struggle; and with it will cease the terrible and useless evils it produces.

And people are already beginning to understand this. This, for inslance, is what a citizen of the United States writes:

'We are fanners, mechanics, merchants, manufacturers, teachers. and all we ask is the privilege of attending to our own business. We own our homes, love our friends, are devoted to our families, and do not interfere with our ne ighbours - we have work to do, and wish to work.

Leave us alone ! But they will not - Ihese po liticians. They insist on governing us and

living off our labour. They tax us, eat our substance. conscript us, draft our boys into their wars. All the myriads of men who live off the Government depend upon theGovcmmcnt to tax us, and, in order to tax us successfully, standing armies are maintained. The plea lhat the army is needed for the protection of the country is pure fraud and pretence. The French Govern­ment frightens the people by lClling lh em that the Germans are ready and anxious to fall upon them; the Russians fear the British; lhe British fear anybody; and now in America we are told we must increase our navy and add to our army because Europe may at any moment combine against us.

This is fraud and untruth. The common people in France, Gennany, Engiand and America are opposed to war. We only wish 10 be left alone. Men with wives, children, sweetheans, homes, aged parents, do not want � go off and fight someone. We are peaceable and we fear war; we hate It

87

We would like to obey the Golden Rule. War is the sure result of the exislence of anned men. That coumry

which maintains a large standing anny will sooner or later have a war on hand. The man who prides himself on fisticuffs is going some day to meet a man who considers himself the beUer man, and they will fighL

Gennany and France have no issue save a desire to see which·is the better man. They have fought many times - and they will fight again. Not that the people want to fight, but the Superior Class fan fright into fury, and make men think they must fight to protect their homes.

So the people who wish to follow the teaching of Christ are not allowed to do so, but are taxed, outraged, deceived by Governments.

Christ taught humility, meekness, the forgiveness of one's enemies, and that to kiD was wrong. The Bible teaches men not to swear oaths; but the Superior Class swear us in on the Bible in which they do not believe.

The question is. How are we to relieve ourselves of these connoranlS who toil not, but whoareclothed in broadcloth and blue. with brass buttons and many costly accoutrements; who feed upon our substance, and for whom we delve and dig?

Shall we fight them? No, we do not believe in bloodshed; and besides that. they have the

guns and the money, and they can hold out longer than we. But who composes this anny that they would order to fire upon us? Why, our neighbours and brothers - deceived into the idea that they

are doing God's service by protecting their country from its enemies. When the fact is. our country has no enemies save the Superior Class. that pretends to look out for our interests if we will only obey and consent to be taxed.

Thus do they siphon our resources and tum our true brothers upon us to subdue and humiliate us. You cannot send a telegram to your wife. nor an express package to your friend. nor draw a cheque for your grocer. until you Urst pay the tax to maintain anned men, who can quickly be used to kiD you; and who surely will imprison you if you do not pay.

The only reJieflies in education. Educale men that it is wrong to kill. Teach them the Golden Rule. and "yet again teach them the Golden Rule. Silently defy this Superior Class by refusing to bow down to their fetish of bullets. Cease supporting the preachers who cry for war and spout patriotism for a consideration. Let them go to work as we do. We believe in Christ - they do not. Christ spoke what he thought; they speak what they think will please the men in power - the Superior Class.

We will not enlist. We will not shoot on their order. We will not charge bayonet upon a mild and gentle people. We will not fire upon shep­herds and fanners, fighting for their flresides, upon a suggestion of Cecil Rhodes. Your false cry of"Wolfl wolf1" shall not alann us. We pay your taxesonly because we have to. and we will pay no longer than we have lO.

88

We will pay no pew-rents, no tithes to your sham charities. and we will speak our minds upon occasion.

We will educate men. And all the time our silent influence will be going out. and even the

men who areconscripted will be half-hearted and refuse to fight We will educate men into the thought that the Christ Life of Peace and Goodwill is better than the Life of Strife. Bloodshed and War.

Peace on earth! - it can only come when men do away with armies. and are willing lO do unto other men as they would be done by'.

So wrileS a citizen of the United States; and from various sides, in various fonns. such voices are sounding. [ ... J

People are beginning to understand the fraud of patriotism. in which all the Governments take such pains to keep them involved.

VIII 'But,' it is usually asked, 'what will there be instead of Govern­

ments?' There will be nothing. Something that has long been useless. and

therefore superfluous and bad. will be abolished. An organ that, being unnecessary, has become hannful. will be abolished.

'But,' people generally say. 'if there no Government. people will violate and kill each other.'

Why? Why should the abolition of the organization which arose in consequence of violence,and which has been handed down from genera­tion to generation to do violence - why should the abolition of such an organization, now devoid of use, cause people to outrage and kill one another? On the contrary, the presumption is that the abolition of the organ of violence would result in people ceasing to violate and kill one anotha.

Now. some men are specially educated and trained to kill and to do violence to other people - there are men who are supposed to have a right touse violence. and who make use of an organization which exists for that purpose. Such deeds of violence and such killing areconsidered good and worthy deeds.

But then. people will not be SO brought up, and no-one will have a right to use violence on others, and there will be no organization to do violence, and -as is natural to people of our time - violence and murder will always be considered bad actions. no matter who commits them.

But should acts of violence continue to be committed even after the abolition of the Governments. such acts will certainly be fewer than are committed now. when an organization exists specially devised to commit acts of violence, and a state of things exists in which acts of violence and murders are considered good and useful deeds.

The abolition of Governments will merely rid us of an unnecessary organization which we have inherited from the past. an organization for

89

the commission of violence and for iLS justification. 'But there wiU then be no laws, no property, no courts of justice, no

police, no popular education,' say people who intentionally confuse the use of violence by GovernmenLS with various sociaJ activities.

The abolition of the organization of Government fonned to do violence, does not at all involve the abolition of what is reasonable and good, and therefore not based on violence, in laws or law courts, or in property, or in police regulations, or in financial arrangemenLS, or in popular education. On the conuary, the absence of the brutal power of Government, which is needed only for iLS own support, will facilitate a juSleC and more reasonable social organization, needing no violence. Courts of justice, and public affairs, and popular education, will .!i.ll exist to the extent to which they are really needed by people, but in a shape which will not involve the evils contained in the present fonn of Govern­ment. Only that will be destroyed which was evil and hindered the free expression of the people's will.

But even if we assume that with the absence of Governments there would bedisturbances and civil strife, even then the position of the people would be better than it is at present. The position now is such that it is difficult to imagine anything worse. The people are ruined, and their ruin is becoming more and more complete. The men areall converted into war­slaves,and have from day today toexpectorders to go to kill and be killed. What more? Ale the ruined peoples to die of hunger? Even that is already beginning in Russia, in Italy and in India. Or are the women as well as the men to go to be soldiers? In the TransvaaJ even that has begun.

So that even if the absence of Government really meant Anarchy in the negative, disorderly sense of that word - which is far from being the case - even then no anarchical disorder could be worse than the position to which GovernmenLS have already led their peoples, a!ld to which they are leading them.

And therefore emancipation from patriotism, and the destruction of the despotism of Government that resLS upon it, cannot but be beneficial to mankind.

IX Men, recollect yourselves! For the sake of your well-being, physical

and spiritual, for the sake of your brothers and sisters, pause, consider, and think of what you are doing!

Renect, and you will understand that your foes are not the Boers, or the English, or the French, or the Gennans, or the Finns, or the Russians, but that your foes - your only foes - are yourselves, who by palriotism maintain the GovernmenLS that oppress you and make you unhappy.

They have undertaken to protect you from danger, and they have brought that pseudo-protection to such a point that you have all become

90

soldiers - slaves, and are all ruined, or are being rui.ned more and more, a�d

at any moment may and should expect that the light-stretched cord Will snap, and a horrible slaughter of you and your children will commenc:e.

And however great that slaughter may be, and however thatconfilct may end, the same state of things will continue. In the same way, with yet greater intensity, the GovernmenLS will ann, and ruin, and perv�� you and your children, and no-one will help you to stop it or loprevent It, if you do not help yourselves.

And there is only one kind of help possible - it lies in the abolition of that terrible linking up into a cone of violence, which enables the person or persons who succeed in seizing the ape,;. to have power overall the rest, and to hold that power the more fmnly the more cruel and inhuman.they are, as we see by thecases of the Napoleons, Nicholas I, Bismarck, �ham­berlain, Rhodes and our Russian Dictators who rule the people Ul the Tsar's name.

And there is only one way to destroy this binding together - it is by shaking off the hypnotism of patriotism.

Understand that all the evils from which you suffer, you yourselves cause by yielding to the suggestions by which Emperors, Kings, Members ofParliament, Governors, omcers, capitalists, priesLS, authors, artists, and all who need this frnudofpatriotism in order to live upon your labour, de­ceive you!

Whoever you may be - Frenchman, Russian, Pole, Englishman, Irishman or Bohemian - understand that all your real human interests, whatever they may be - agricultural, industrial, commercial, artistic or scientific - as well as your pleasures and joys, in no way run counter to the interest of other peoples or States; and that you are united, by mutual co­operation, by exchange of services, by the joy of wide brotherly inter­course, and by the exchange not merely of goods but also ofthoughLS and feelings, with the folk of other lands.

Understand that the question as to who manages to seize Wei-hai­wei, Port Arthur or Cuba - your Government or another - does not affect you, or,rather, that every such seizure made by your Government, injures you, by inevitably bringing in its train all sorts of pressure on you by your Government to force you to take pan in the robbery and violence by which alone such seizures are made, or can be retained when made. Understand that your life can in no way be beucred by Alsace becoming Gennan or Freoch, and Ireland or Poland being free or enslaved - whoever holds them, you are free to live where you will, if even you be an Alsatian, an Irishman or a Pole. Understand, too, that by stirring up palriotism you will only make the case worse, for the subjection in which your people are kept has resuJtedsimply from the struggle between patriotisms, and every manifes­tation of patriotism in one nation provokes a corresponding reaction in another. Understand that salvation from your woes is only possible when

91

you free yourself from the obsolele idea of pauiotism and from the obedience toGovemments that is based upon il, and when you boldly enler inlO the region of that higher idea, the brotherly union of the peoples, which has long since come to life, and from all sides is cal ling you 10ilSClf.

If the people would understand that they are not the sons of some Fa­thelland or other, nor of Governments, but are sons of God, and can thererore neither be slaves nor enemies one to another - those insane. un­necessary. worn-out, pernicious organizations called Governments, and all the sufferings, violations, humiliations and crimes which they occa­sion, would cease.

92

The T(i ngdom

Or God

Ts With in Yol1

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU or Christianity not as a Mystical Doctrine but as a New Conception of Life

(1893)

The Circle of Violence

Governments and the ruling classes now base themselves neither on justice nor even on a semblance of right. but on an organization so cunningly devised by the help of scientific progress, that men are caught in a circle of violence. from which there is no possibility of escape. That circle is now composed of four methods of acting upon men · methods connected with and supponing each other. as do lIle links of a chain joined into a circle.

11leftrstandoldest method is terrorism. Itconsists in representing the existing system of Government (be it a free republic or the most outra­geous despotism) as somelhing sacred and immutable, and in punishing in me most barbarous manner all atlemplS to alter it. This method hasalways been used. and still continues to be used wherever there is a Government . in Russia against the so-called Nihilists, in America against Anarchists, in France against Imperialists, Monarchists, Com munists and Anarchists. Railways, telegraphs, telephones, photographs and the perfected methods of disposing of men without killing them, by confining them for life in solitary cells where they are forgotten and die hidden from the eyes of humanity, and many other new inventions employed by the State more fre­quent1y than by other men, give Governments such power, that - if once authority has been usurped by certain individuals, and if regular and secret police, administrators of all sorts, Crown prosecutors, gaolers and execu­tioners work with sufficient zeal - there is no possibility whatever of overthrowing a Government however barbarous or senseless it may be.

The second method is that of bribery. It consists in extorting the

94

property of the working classes by taxation, and distributing that property among officws, who in return for the payment maintain and increase the

slavery of the people. These bribed officia1s, from the prime ministers to the humblest

scribe, compose an unbroken chain of individua1s, united by one common

aim of drawing their subsistence from the labour of the people. They are remunerated in proportion to their submission to the will of their Govern­ments, and therefore, in a11 forms of activity they maintain by word and

deed, and defend, without hesitating at any measures, the State violence

upon which their wealth depends. The third method is what I cancaU by no other name than the 'hypno­

tizing of the people'. It consists in impeding the spiritual development of men and maintaining them, by all manner of influences and suggestions, in a conception of life out1ived by humanity, but upon which is founded the power of the State. At the present time this hypnotism is organized in the most complete manner; it begins its influence in childhood and continues until the hourof death. It begins in earliest youth in compulsory schools, instituted specially for the purpose of hypnotism, wherechildren are taught a conception of the world which, though held years ago by their ancestors, is directly contrary to the presentconsciousnessofhumanity. In countries possessing a State religion, children are taught the ridiculous blasphemies of Church catechism, and are impressed with the necessity of obedience to amhorily; in Republican States, they are taught the outra­geous superstition of patriotism and the same imaginary duty of obedience to the State. In later years this hypnotic influence is maintained by the en­couragement of the religious and patriotic superstitions. The religious superstition is stimulated by processions, festivals, monuments and churches, built with the moneycollecled from the people, by music,archi­tecture, images and incense, which drug men, and especially by the main­tenance or a so-called clergy, whose occupation consists in bewildering the minds of men, and keeping them in a continual state of stupefaction, by their stage-play, by the pathos of their services and sennons, by their interference in men's private lives, in birth, marriage and death. The patriotic superstition is encouraged by national SOlemnities, festivals, monuments and pageants, organized by Governments and the ruling classes with the money collected from the people, and which encourage men to believe in the exclusive importance of their own country and the greatness of their Government and their rulers, and excite unfriendliness and even halted towards other nations. Besides this, despotic Govern­menlS imperatively forbid all specches or lectures, all printing and circu­lation of books which could enlighten the people, and they exile or imprison all those who try LO rouse the people from their torpor. All Governments, withoutexcepLion, conceal from the people everything that might further their emancipation, and cncourage all that degrades and

95

demoralizes them · the writings which maintain them in the folly of their religious and patriotic superstitions, all manner of amusements of the senses, shows, circuses, theatres, and even physical means of stupefaction, such as tobacco and alcohol, the tax on which constitutes one of the chief revenues of the State. Even prostitution is encouraged, and is not only recognized, but b)/ most Governments is even regulated. This is the third method.

The founh method consists in selecting, with the helpof the aforesaid methods, a cenain number of men from the mass of enslaved and stupe· fled human beings, and subjecting them to a specially energetic process of stupefaction and brutalization, converting them into passive inst".Jments of all the cruelties and brutalities the State may require. This condition of brutality and idiocy is attained by taking men in early youth, when they have not yet fanned any clear conception of morality, separating them from all the natural conditions of human life . home, family, birthplace and reasonable labour · and shutting them up together in barracks. Here they are dressed up in a peculiar costume, and forced to perfonn certain specially appointed movements accompanied by shouts, drums, music and glittering ornaments, by means of which they are reduced to a hypnotized condition, in which they cease to be men, and become obedient and unreasoning machines in the handsoftheir hypnotizers. These young men (all young men now on the Continent with universal military service (NOtE No 44 ) physically strong, anned with weapons of mwUer and reduced toa state of hypnotism, ever obedient to State authority, and ready to commit any violence it may require, constitute the fourth and chief method of enslaving men. This method closes the circle of violence.

Terrorism, bribery and hypnotism reduce men to the condition in which they are willing to become soldiers; soldiers give power and make it possible topunish and to hypnotize men, torob them (and bribe officials with the stolen money), and to enlist others as soldiers who in their tum increase the power of Governments to do all these things.

The circle is closed, and there is no possibility of escape from it by force.

Some afflnn that the deliverance from, or at least the diminution of violence would beeffected iftheoppresscd masses dcstroyed by force the oppressing Governments and replaced them with new organizations which would not require the use of violence or the enslavement of men; some try to introduce this revolution, but by doing so only deceive themsel vcs and others, and aggravate rather man improve the condition of mankind. Their activities only increase the despotism of the State. Their auempts at emanc ipation only give Governments a convenient pretext for strengmening their power, and do actually give rise to its exacerbation. Even supposing that, owing to some conditions peculiarly disadvanta­geous to the State · as in France in 1870 · somc Govcrnment were to be

96

overthrown by force, and authority were to pass into other hands, this new power would neverin any case be Icssoppressive than the first; on thecon· traCY, it would have todefend iLSClf againstall its exasperated and defeated enem ies, and therefore would al ways be more cruel and tyrannical than the fonner, as is proved by the history of all revolutions.

Socialists and Communists condemn the individualist and capitalist system of society; Anarchists condemn all Government in itself; Monar· chists, Conservatives and Capitalists condemn Anarchism, Socialism and Communism; and all these panics have no way of uniting men except by violence. Whatever party were 10 triumph, it would have to use all the ex· isting methods of violence in order to maintain power and to introduce its own system of life, and would even have to invent new methods. Other men would been slaved and forced 10 do other things, butthe violence and oppression would be the same and even more inexorable, because mutual hatred would be exasperated by struggle, and new methods of enslavement would be invented and imensified.

This has always been the case in all revolutions and violent subver· sions of Government, in all plots and attempts at revolution. Every struggle only increases the power of oppression in the hands of those temporarily in authority.

The Significance of Military Service

Educated men of the higher classes try to stifle me ever·growing consciousness of the necessi ty of altering the present system of life; but life continues to move in the same direction, developing in growth and com­plexity, and increasi ng the contradictions and misery of human existence, till it brings men to me extreme limit further man which it is not possible to go. The utmost limit of contradiction is attained in general military service.

People generally think that universal military service with its ever· increasing armaments and the subsequent ever·jncreasing taxes and national debts, is an incidental phenomenon caused by the present political condition of Europe, and which can be suppressed by adequate politica1 measures, without alteration of the internal system of life.

This is utterly erroneous. General military service is nothing but the innennostcontradiction of the social conception of! ife, which has attained its utmost limits, and became flagrantly evident, consequent upon acertain degree of material development.

The social conception of life consists in the transference of the meaning of life from the individual to the community and succession of

97

individuals - family. tribe. race and State. The social conception of life assumes that as the meaning of life is found in the community of human beings. each individual, of his own free will, subordinates his personal interests to the interests of the community. And this was and is really the case in certain communities, in family and tribe (it is of no importance which preceded the other), and even in race, and patriarchal Slates.Incon_ sequence of custom, transmiUed by education and conrrrmed by religious authority, individuals merged !.heir interests in the interests ofthecommu_ nity, and without coercion subordinated the personal to the general.

But !.he more communities grew in complexity and extent, the more often violence arK! conquest drew men into socicties - SO more individu­als strove to altain their own ends at the expense of the community; the greater became the necessity of recourse to authority - mal is to say, violence - for the suppression of these rebellious elements.

The defendersof the social conception of I ife generally try to confuse the idea of au!.hority, !.hat is, violence, with that of spiritual influence, but such association is utterly incongruous.

Spiritual influence is !.he means by which a man's desires arc changed, and he voluntarily agrees to what is required of him. A man who submits to spiritual influence acts in accordance with his own desiJes. Authority, on the at her hand, as the word is generally used, is the means of forcing a man to act contrary to his desires. A man who submits to authority acts not as he wishes, but as he is compelled to act; and in order tocoercea man into not doing what he wishes, and doing what he does not wish, physical violence or !he threat of physical violence must be em­ployed, such as deprivation of liberty, injuries and blows, or the easily­executed threalS of these punishments. That is what constitutes power, both now and always.

In spite of !he strenuous efforts of men in authority toconceal all this, and to invest power with another meaning, it still remains the application to man of the ropeand chain that shall bind and drag him, of !he whip that shall scourge him, of the knife and the axe !.hat shall cut offhis head, hands, feet, noseorears; itstill remains the application or the !hrcatof these pun­ishments. So it was in the time ofNero and Khenghis Khan and so it is now, under the mosl liberal Governments, in !.he French and American Repub­Iics. If men submittoau!hority, it is only because !hey fear the punishment that would follow their disobedience. All the requirements of the State ­payment of taxes, fulfilment of public duties, submission 10 inflicted punishments, exile, fines, ele. - which people seem to obey of their own free will, are all based on physical violence or the threat of it

The basis of au!hority is physical violence. The possibility of exer­cising physical violence is given by organizations of armed men, wherein all act in unison, submitting to one will. Such assemblies of armed men submitting to onc will constitute the army. The army has always been and

98

. still the basis of power. Power is always in the hands of those who " command the anny, therefore all rulers

.' from Roman Caesars to Gennan

nd Russian Emperors, are engrossed 18 cares for the army, whom they

�alter and cajole, for they know that if the army is wi!h them, power also

is in their hands. Theorganization and increase of troops, indispensable for the main­

tenance of power, has brought the element of dissolution into the social conception of life. The aim and justification of authority consists in con­trolling those who would wish to attain their own interests to thedetriment of !he interests of society. But whether authority was acquired by com­mand of new troops, by inheritance or election, !.he men possessing authority by means of the anny did not differ in any way from other men,

and, !herefore. were just as apt as other men not 10 subordinate their own interests to those of the community; on the contrary, they were more in­clined than all others LO subordinate public interests to their own, because they possessed the possibility of doing so. Whatever measures have been

invented for preventing those in authority from subjecting public interests to their own, or for entrusting power only to infallible beings, none have so far succeeded in attaining either goal.

All the usual methods, such as Divinesanction, election. hereditary succession, voting, congresses, parliaments and senates - all these meth­ods have proved and still prove inadequate. E verybod y knows that not one of these measures has succeeded eimer in giving power to infallible men or in suppressing its abuses. On the contrary, we aU know that men in authority - be they emperors, ministers, officials or policemen - arealways. in consequence of their possession of power, more liable to vice, that is, to the subjection of public interests to their personal ones, than men who do nOl possess authority; nor can it be otherwise.

The social conception of life was justified only so long as men vol­untarily subordinated their interests to the interests of the community, but as soon as there appeared men who refused voluntarily to do so, authority - that is, violence -became necessary for their control, and there crept into the social conception onife. and the organization founded upon it, that ele­ment of dissolution - power, which means violence of !he few over the many.

In order that the authority of a few men over their fellows should accomplish its aim of restraining those who sought !heir own interests to the detriment of society, it was necessary that power should be vested in the hands of infallible men, as is assumed by the Chinese, or as was believed in the Middle Ages, and is still held by people who have faith in the holiness of consecration. Only under this condition could the social conception of life be justified.

But, as this is not the case, and as, on the contrary, men in authority, just because of their possession of power, are always very far from

99

infallible or sainliy, the social organization, founded on power, cannot possibly have any justification.

There may have been a time when, in consequence of the low level of morality and the universal tendency of men lOwards mutual violence, the existence of an authority restraining this violence was beneficial - that is to say, th at the violence of the State was less than the violence of individuals toward one another; but no-one can help admitting that this advantage in favour of the existence of the State versus its non-existence could not last for ever. In proportion as human nature softened, and the tendency of individuals towards violence decreased, authority grew more and more corrupted by its freedom from restraint. and the necessity for its existence became proportionately less and less.

This gradual change in the relations between the moral progress of the masses and the corruption of Governments constitutes the entire history of the last 2,000 years. In its simplest form this is the course of history: Men lived in families. tribes and races, and fought, persecuted, murdered and destroyed one another. Violence in greater or lesser degree was practiced universally: man fought with man, family with family, tribe with tribe, race with race, nation with nation. The larger and more powerful communities swallowed up the weaker ones, and in proportion as a community became larger and more powerful. the sum of its internal violence decreased, and the prolongation of its existence seemed more secure. Among members ofa tribe or family, united together in one com­munity, contentions are appeased lO a certain extent; the tribe and the family do not die, like the individual, but continue their existence; among members of one State, subject to one power, strife is pacified to a still greater extent, and the life of the State appears even more surely guaran­teed.

The union of men into more and morccxtcndcd communities was not brought about by the consciousness ofthe advantages they might offer, as is described in the fable of the calling of the Norsemen (NOTE N045); it was the result, on the one hand, of natural growth, and of strife and conquest on the other.

When conquest is accomplished, the authority of the conqueror puts an end to interna1 dissensions, and the social conception oflife isjustified. But this justification is only temporary. Internal strife is suppressed only in proportion to the increased weightof authority laid upon the individuals formerly hostile to each other. The violenceof internal strife, destroyed by authority, springs to life again through authority. Power is in the hands of men who, like all others, are always, or at least very often. ready to sub­ordinate public welfare to their personal interests, with the sole difference that they are free from the restraining force of resistance from the oppressed. and are open to all the corrupting innuence of power. There­fore. theevil of violence, passing into the hands of authority, must ever go

100

on increasing, and soon becomes worse than the evil it is supposed to annihilate; while at the same time, among the members of the comm unity,

the tendency towards violence is gradually lessened. and the violence of power becomes less and less needed.

State violence, even if it docs annihilate internal violence, always, in proportion to its suength and duration, introduces into men's lives new and ever-increasing forms of violence. Although the violence of State authority is less obvious than that of individuals towards each other, be­cause it is manifested not by strife but by submission, it nevertheless exists. and almos.! always in a greater degree than before.

Nor can it be otherwise, flrsli y , because the possession of pawe: cor· rupts men. and secondly, because the purpose and even the unconscious instinct of oppressors is always to reduce their victims to the extreme limit of exhaustion; because the weaker the oppressed, the less effort is needed for his coercion.

Therefore, violence against the oppressed is driven to the utmost limits it can attain without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. If the goose lays no more, like the American Indians, the Fijians and the Negroes, then it is killed, in spite of the sincere protests of philantrophists against such a course of action.

A perfect confmnalion of this statement is the present condition of the working classes, who practically are nothing but conquered men.

In spite of all the pretended eHons of the upper classes to improve their condition, the workmen of our time are subject to the unchangeable iron law by which they can possess only barely enough to enable them to labour for their masters (that is, their conquerors), and are ever forced by hunger to unceasing toil.

Thus it has always been. In proportion to the growth of authority in strength and duration, its benefits are lost and its disadvantages multiplied for those who submitted to it

Thus it is and ever has been, regardless of the form of government under which nations havc lived. The only difference is that; under a despotic form of government. JXlwer is concentrated in the hands of a small number of oppressors and the manifestations of violence are more tyran­nical; in constitutional monarchies and republics, like France and Amer­ica, power is distributed among a large number of oppressors, and the forms of its manifestation arc milder; but the substance of violence, in which the disadvantages of authority are greater than its benefits - and the process by which it reduces the oppressed to the utmost limit of exhaus­tion which they can bear forthe benefit of the oppressors - always remain the same.

Such is and always has been the condition of the oppressed, but until now they were ignorant of it, and ingenuously believed that Governments existed for their benefit; that they would perish without the State; that the

101

idea of people living without a Government is a sacrilegious thought that must not even be put into words, since it would amount to the terrible teaching of Anarchism, which, for some unknown reason, is coupled in men's minds with every conceivable horror.

Men believed, as in something conclusively proved and not needing any further confirmation, that because hitherto all nations had developed in the form of the Slate, this mode must for ever remain the indispensable condition of human development.

Thus it has gone on for hundreds and thousands of years, and Governments · that is, men possessing power· have alwaysendeavourcd, and continue doing so more than ever, to maintain nations in this delusion. So it was at the time of the Roman Emperors, and so it is now. Although the idea of the uselessness, and even of the mischief, of State violence is penetrating more and more into men's consciousness, this order of things might continue for ever, but for the necessity Governments are under to increase their armies for the maintenance of their power.

People generally think that armies are increased for the defence of the State against other nations; they forget that troops are needed by Govern­ment principally to defend the latter from their own enslaved and op­pressed subjects.

This was always necessary, and has continually grown more so in proportion to the development of education, the increase of intercourse between men of the same or different nationalities, and now the spread of Communist, Socialist, Anarchist and labour movements have rendered this necessity urgent Governments know this, and multiply their force of disciplined uoops.[ ... J

If the working man has no land, and does not possess the most natural right of every man to obtain from the soil the means of subsistence for himself and his family, it is not because he wishes this, but becauseccrtain men - t he landowners -have usurped the right of giving or withholding the possibility of possession from the working classes. This unnatural order of things is maintained by the army. If the enormous riches, accumulated by the labour of working men, belong not to all, but to certain exclusive individuals; if the power of gathering taxes from labour and using that money for whatever they think fit is accorded to certain persons; if the suikes of the working classes are suppressed, and the coalitions of capitalists encouraged; if certain men are invested with the power of framing laws which all men must obey, and of disposing of the life and property of human beings; if certain individuals are entitled to choose the methods of the civil and religious education of children - all this is so, not because the people desire it, nor in consequence of any natural law, but because Governments and the ruling classes wish it for their own interests, and maintain the system by physical violence and bodily oppression. If anybody does not know this, he will find it out at the first attempt to resist

102

or to change theexisting order of things. Therefore troops are required by every Government and by the ruling classes for the maintenance of a

system which has not grown from the needs of the people. but which. on

I.he contrary, is often detrimental to them, and is advantageous only to

Governments and the ruling classes. Troops are needed by every Government chieny to keep its subjects

in submission, and to usurp the products of their labour. But no Govern­

ment stands alone; beyond its fTontiers is another State which also uses violence to despoil its subjects, and is ever ready to rob its neighbour of

the toil of its enslaved people. Therefore every Government requires an

army not only for internal work, but also for the defence of its plunder against foreign marauders. Consequently all States arc forced 10 emulate each other in the increase of their troops; and the expansion of armies becomes contagious, as Montesquieu declared 150 years ago. Every in­crease in theanny of one State. directed against its own subjects, becomes dangerous for its neighbour also, and excitesa similar increase in all other States. Armies have attained their prescnt m ill ions not only because of the menace of neighbouring States, but principally because of the necessity for suppressing all attempts at rebellion on the part of oppressed subjects. The increase of armies results simultaneously from two causes which reciprocally call fonh one another: troops are required both for defence against internal enemies and for safeguard against foreign aggressions. One is the result of the other. The despotism of Governments grows in proportion to their external success and the increase and strength of their armies; the aggressiveness of Governments grows in proportion 10 the increase of internal despotism.

Thus European Governments try to surpass each other in the contin­ua! increase of their armies, and have come to the unavoidable necessity of universal military servtce, because that is the way of obtaining, at the smallest expen se, the greatest numberof troops in time of war. Germany was the first to hit upon this plan; and as soon as one State began. all the others had to do the same. And as soon as this system was introduced, the people were forced to take up arms in defence of the outrages committed against themselves; and citizens became their own oppressors.

General military service was an inevitable logical necessity which had to be reached; but it is also the last expression of the internal contradiction of the social conception of life which arose as soon as vio­lence was needed for its maintenance. In general military service this contradiction became evident. Everyone is agreed that the significance of the social conception of life consist in this, that the individual, having realized the horror of man's slrife against man. and the transitoriness of his Own existence, transfers the meaning of his life to the community of human beings; whereas the result of general military conscription is that men, after having sacrificed all that was required of them to be delivered

103

from indiv idual suife and from the transitoriness of their personal lives, are,afterall their privations, again called upon to suffer all the dangers they had hoped to have escaped. Nor is that all: the State - that community in the name of which men had sacrifi ced their personal interests - is again exposed to the same risk of annihilation, to which hitherto the individual had been subjected.

Governments were expected to deliver men from the cruelty of individual discord and give them the guarantee of the in violable regularity of State life. Instead of which they subject men to the necessityofthe same suife, only transferring it from personal strife to warfare with the inhabi­tantsof other lands, and there remains the same danger of destruction both to State and individua1.

The establishment of general military service is like the activity of a man whowanlS to propuparouen house. The walls are crumbling • heputs rafters to them; the roof slopes inwards, he build up a framework; boards give w ay between the rafters, he supports them with other beams. At last it turns out that although the scaffolding keeps the house together, it renders it quite uninhabitable.

It is the same with universal military service, which destroys all the advantages of that social life which it is supposed to guarantee.

The benefits of social life consist in the security given to property and labour, and in the mutual co-operation towards general welfare. Military service destroys all this.

The taxes levied on the people for armaments and war absorb the greater part of the products of that labour which the army is called upon to protect. Taking away the whole male population from the ordinary oc­cupations of their life destroys the very possibility oflabour. The menace of war, ever ready to break: out from one moment to the next, renders vain and profitless all improvements of social life.

When a man used to be told that, unless he submitted to State authority, he would be in danger of aggressions from wicked men, from internal and externaJ enemies. and would have to fight with them person­ally at the risk of his Ii fe, and that therefore it was to his advantage to submit to certain privations in order to be delivered from these misfortunes - when a man was told this he might once upon a time have believed it, because the concessions he made to the S tate were only t rifling sacrifices. and offered him the hopeof a quiet life in an indestructible community for whose sake he had given up certain advantages. But now that these sacrifices have increased tenfold, while the promised benefits are lacking, every man natural ly begins to think that his submission to the State is perfectly useless.

Nor is this the only fatal significance of mililaC)' service in the sense of its manifestation of the contradiction inherent in the social conception of life. The chief manifestation of its inconsistency is the fact that every

104

citizen being obliged to enter military service, thereby becomes a sup­

porter of the State organization. and a partaker in whatever the State may

do, however unlawful he may think it. GovernmentsaffIrm that troops are needed to external defence, but that i s not true. They are needed chiefly for subjugation athomc, and every man entering military service involun­tarily becomes a partaker in the Government's violence against its sub­

jects. In order to realize that every man who becomes a soldier thereby

participates in all the acts of Governments which he does not and cannot endorse, we only have to remember all that is done by Governments and executed by anned f orce in the name of order and public welfare. All dynastic and political contentions, all executions consequent upon these disturbances. all suppressions of riots and recourse to military action in dispersing crowds and crushing strikes, all the unjust di stributions of landed property, the extortion of taxes and the restrictions on labour - all is done if not directly by the troops, at least by the police supported by trOOps. Every man who becomes a soldier becomes also a panaker in all these proceedings , about which he is often doubtful, while in most cases they aredirectly contrary to his conscience. Labourers do not wish to leave the land they have ploughed for generations; crowds will not disperse as Governments want them to; people do not wish to p ay the taxes required of them or toobey laws they have not helped to make; they do not wish to bedeprivedoftheic nationality ,and I whoam fulfilling my military duties, must come and persecute these people. I cannot help asking myself if these procee dings in which I am forced to take part, are good or bad, and if I am right in helping to carry them out.

For Governments, general military service is the uunost limit of violence required for lhesupportofthe whole system; for subjects, it is the uunost limit of possible subjection. It is the key-stone in the arch which supports the walls, whose removal would demolish the whole building.

The time has come when the ever-increasing abuses of Governments and theirmutuaJ feuds require from their subjects such material and moral sacrifices, that every man must necessarily hesitate and ask himself: Can I make these sacrifices? And for what am r to make them? They are required in thenameoftbeState.ln the name of the State I am required to give up everything that is dear to man: famil y, safety, a peaceful life and personal self-respect. What is this State that deman ds such tremendous sacrifices? And for what is it so very necessary? We arc told that 'the State is indispensable. firstly. because without it we would have no refuge from violence and the assaults of wicked men; secondly, we would still be savages, witho ut any religious, scientific, educational, commerciaJ, or other social institutions, and without means of communication; and thirdly. we would run the risk ofbcing conquered by neighbouring States. Without the State, we would be subject to violence and t he aggressions of

105

wicked men in our own country.' But where are these wicked men from whose attacks and violence we

are guarded by !he State and its armies? They may have existed three or four centuries ago, when men prided themselves upon their military skill and weapons, and thought it heroic to kill !heir fellows, but now there are no such men; nobody even carries or uses weapons, and all profess !he same rules of philanlhropy and mutual sympathy, and desire just what we desire - the possibility of a calm and peaceful life. Thus there no longer exists any panicular class of men of violence from whom the State might have to defend us. If by men from whom !he State guards us are meant simply criminals, !hen we all know that criminals are not peculiar beings, like wild beasts among sheep, but that they are men just as we are, who have just as little natural tendency towards crime as those against whom they trespass. We know that !he number of such men can be diminished neither by !hreats nor punishments but only by a change 0 f surroundings and by moral influence. Thus the attempt 10 explain the necessity of State violence by !he protection afforded against criminals, if it had any foundation three or four centuries ago, has now none whatever. It would be more accurate to say the contrary. namely, that the activity of the State, with its cruel methods of punishment, so far behind the general level of morality, its prisons, galleys, guillotines and gallows, is more conducive to callousness and brutality than to softness and ben evolence, and therefore ra!her increases than diminishes the number of evildoers.

'Without the State,' we are told, 'we would possess neither means of communication nor any scientific, educational, religious, or other institu­tions. Without the State, men would never have been able to producesocial organizati ons necessary to all.' But this argument also could have been plausible only a few centuries ago.

If there ever was a time when the means of communication and of exchange of thought were so primitive. and men were so isolated that they could nO[ discuss or come to an agreemcnlconcerning any general affairs - commercial. ec onomic or educational - without the help of the State, that isolation no longer exists. Owing to the wide-spread means of communi­cation and of intellectual intercourse. men have become perfectly able to dispense with Governments in the organization of so cieties, assemblies, corporations. congresses and scientific, economic and political institu­tions; in most cases the State hinders rather than helps the achievement of these aims.

Since the end of the last century almost every progressive movement of humanity has not been encouraged. but rather hampered by Govern­ments. Such as the case with the abolition of slavery, torture and corporal punishment. and t he establishment of freedom of assembly and of the Press. At the present time Governments and Stale authority. far from being an assistance, are a direct hindrance and impediment to the activity by

106

which men work out for themselves new forms of life. The solution of political and religious questions of the problems of land and labour, instead of being encouraged. is persistently frustrated by State authority.

'Without States and Governments, nations would be conquered by their neighbours.'

It is hardly necessary to refute this last argument It contains its own refutations.

We are told that Governments and their armies are needed to defend us against foreign States who might wish to conquer us. But all States say this of one another, and yet we know that all European countries profess the same principles of liberty and f raternity. and therefore cannot need defence against each other. Again, if we speak of defence against barbari­ans, the one thousandth part of the troops under arms at the present time would suffice. Thus faclS actually contradict the usual statement. Stat eau­thority. instead of guarding us against the aggressions of our neighbours. actually creates the danger of such aggressions.

Thus every man led by compulsory military service to renect upon the significance of the State. in whose name he is required to sacrifice his peace, his safety and his life, must see clearly that at the present time there is no reasonable foundation for such sacrifices.

Theoretically no man can help seeing that the sacrifices demanded by the State have no plausible foundation, but even from a practical stand­point, weighing all the painful circumstances in which he is placed by the State, every man must see that the fulfilment of its requirements and sub­mission to military service are in most cases less advantageous for him than would be a refusal to obey them.

Ifmost men prefer submission to disobedience, it is not because they have calmly weighed the benefits and evils of both, but because they are drawn to obedience by the hypnotism to which they are continually subjected. Obedience only requires men to submit to certain demands. without using their reason or making any exertion of will; the refusal to obey requires independent thought and effort, of which not all men are capable. If we exclude the e!hical significance of submission and non­subm ission, a nd take into consideration only their respetti ve advantages. we shall find that non-submission is always more advantageous than sub­mission.

Whoever I may be. whether I belong to the wealthy and oppressing classes, or to the working and oppressed ones, in both cases the disadvan­tages of non-submission are less than those of submission, and the benefits of non-submission greater than those of submission.

If I belong to the oppressing minority, the evils of disobedience to the requirements of the State will be the following: I shall be tried as a man who has refused submission to his Government. and at best I shall be ac­quiued or be forced to discharge my term of military service atsome non-

107

military occupation - as is done in Russia with the Mennonites - in the worst event I shall be condemned to exile or imprisonment for two or three years 0 am speaking of cases in Russia) or even for a longer term of punishment; I may be even condemned La death. although that is most unlikely. Such are the disadvantages of non-submission. Those of subm is­sion will be the following: in the best case I shall not be sent to murder people. nor shall I be exposed to any very great risk of being killed or disabled. l shall have only been enrolled into military slavery. I shaH be dressed up in the garb of a clown; I shall be ordered about by all my superiors from the sergeant to the field-marshal, and at their pleasure fo reed to all sorts of mummeries and grotesque contortions; and after having been kept in this condition from one to five years. I shall bereleased under the obligation of holding myself in readiness at any minute in the next ten years to take up Ihe same occupation and obey Ihe same orders. In the worst case I shall be subjected to all the aforesaid conditions of slavery. and, besides that. 1 shall be sent to war, where I shall have to murder men of foreign countries who have never done me any harm. I sha II run the risk ofbcing killed or disabled, and of being sent to certain death, as was the case at Sebastopol ( NOTE No 46) and in all wars. Most painful of all, I may be sent against my own countrymen and be forced to murder my brothers for dyna stic or governmental interests totally alien to me. Such are the comparative evils.

Thccomparative benefits of submission and non-submission are the following: The man who submits to military service, after having swal­lowed all the affronts and committed all the cruelties required of him, may, if he is not killed, receive red and go ld and tinsel gewgaws to put on his clown's attire. and may even, ifhe be very fortunate. obtain command over some hundred Ihousand men as brutalized as himself, be called field­marshal and get a lot of money.

The advantages of the man who has refused military service are the preservation of his human dignity, the respect of all honest men, and, chief of all, the absolute assurance that he is doing God's work, and that therefore he is indubitably useful to mankind.

There are the respective benefits and evils for a member of the wealthy and oppressing classes. For a poor man of the working classes they are the same, with a considerable addition of disadvantage. The special disadvantage for a working man who has n Ol refused military service consists in the fact that by his participation and seeming consent, he suengthens and confirms the oppression under which he lives. But neither general arguments concerning the necessity or efficiency of the State which men are required to maintain by participation in miLilary service, nor presenlation of the advantages or disad van lages of submission or non-submission fore ach separate individual. can decide the question of the necessity of the existence or destruction of the Slate. That question

108

can be decided irrevocably and unconditionally only by the conscience

and religious consciousness of each individual, to whom the question of

the existence or non-existence of the Slate presents itself, together with that of general military service.

109

THE SLAVERY

OF OUR TIMES

THE SLAVERY OF OUR TIMES

(1900)

I

Goods Porters Who Work Thirty-Seven Hours

An acquaintance of mine, who serves on the Moscow­Kursk Railway as a weigher, in the course of conversation mentioned to me that the men who load the goods onto his scales work for thirty-six hours on end.

Though I had full confidence in the speaker's Lruthfulness. I was unable to believe him. I thought he was making a mistake. or exaggerating, or that I niisunderslOOd something.

But the weigher narrated the conditions under which this work is done soexactly that there was no room left fordoubL He told me that there are two hundred and fifty such goods-porters at the Kursk Station in Moscow. They wereaIl d ivided into gangs offivemen, and weTeOR piece­work. receiving from one rouble (say two shillings) to one rouble fifteen kopecks for every lhousand poods (over sixteen tons) of goods received or despatched.

They come in the morning, work all day andall nightat unloading the trucks, and, when the night is ended, they again begin to reload, and then work on for another day, so that in two days they get one night's sleep.

Their work consists of unloading and moving bales of seven, eight, and up to ten poods (say eighteen, twenty, and up to nearly twenty-six stone). Two men place the bales on the backs of the other thrcc, who carry them. By such work th ey earn less than a rouble a day. Thcy work continually, without holidays.

The account given by the weigher was so circumstantial lhar it was impossible to doubt it; but, nevertheless. I decided to verify it with my own eyes, and 1 went to the goods station.

Finding my acquaintance at the goods station, I told him I had come to see what hehad told me about. 'No-one I mention it to believes it', I said.

1 12

Without replying the weigher called to someone in a shed: 'Nikita,

come here.' From the door appeared a tall, lean workman in a tom coal 'When did you begin work?'

'When? Yesterday morning.' 'And where were you last night?' 'I was unloading, of course.' 'Did you work during the night?' asked 1. 'Of course we worked. ' 'And when did you begin work today?' 'We began in themoming - when else should we begin?' 'And when

will you finish worldng?' 'When they let us go; then we finish! ' The four other workmen of his gang came up to us. They aU wore tom

coats and were without overcoats, though the temperature was about thirtccn degrees Fahrenheit below zero.

I began to ask them about the conditions oflheir work, and evi�ently surprised them by taking an interest in such a simple and natural thmg as their thirty-six hour work.

They were all villagers; for the most part fellow-countrymen of my own from Tula. Some, however, were from Oryol, and some from Ve�nesh. They lived in Moscow in lodgings; some of them with their families, but most of them withoul T hose who have come here alone send their earnings home to the village.

They board with contractors. Their food COSts them ten roubles a month. They always eat meat, disregarding the fasts.

Their work a1ways kccps them occupied more than thirty-six hours running, because it takes more than half an hour to get to and �rom their lodgings; and besides, they are often kept at work beyon� the Ume fixed.

Paying for their own food. they cam by such thuty-seven-hour continuous work about twenty-five roubles a month.

To my question, why they did such convict work, they replied: 'Where is one to go to?'

'But why work thirty-six hours on end? Cannot the work be arranged in shifts?'

'We do what we're told to.' 'Yes; but why do you agree to it?'

. We agree because we have to feed ourselves. "If you don't like It, be

off." lfyou're even an hour late, you have your ticket thrown at you, an� given your marching orders; and there arc ten men ready to take the place.

The men were all young; only one was somewhat older, perhaps about forty. All their faces were lean. and had exhausted, weary eyes, as though the men were drunk. The lean workman to whom 1 first spo�e struck me especially by the stran ge weariness of his look. 1 asked hun whether he had not been drinking today?

1 1 3

'I don't drink,' he answered, in the decided way in which men who really do not drink always reply to that question.

'And I do not smoke,' he added. '00 the others drink?' I asked. 'Yes, it's brought here.' 'The work is not light, and a drink al ways adds to one's strength. ' said

lheolder workman. This man had been drinking !.hat day, but it was not in !.he least

noticeable. After some more lalk with the workmen, I went to waLCh the work. Passing long rows of all sorts of goods, I came to some workmen

slowly pushing a loaded truck. l leamed afterwards that the men have to shunt the trucks themselves, and to keep the platfonn clcarof snow, with­out being paid for the w ork. ltis SO Slated in the 'Conditions of Pay .' There workmen were just as lauered as those with whom I had been lalking. When they had moved the truck to its place, I went up to them and asked when they had begun work, and when they had dined.

1 was told that they slarLCd work at seven o'clock, and had only just dined. The work had prevented their being let off sooner. 'And when do you get away?'

'As it happens, sometimes not tiil ten o'clock.' replied the men, as if boasting of their endurance. Seeing my interest in their position, they surrounded me, and probably laking me for an inspector, several of them, speaking at once, informed me ofwhal was evidently their chief subject of complaint, namely that the apartment in which they could sometimes warm themselves and snatch an hour's sleep between the day-work and the night-work was crowded. All of them expressed great dissatisfaction at this crowding.

'There may be one hundred men, and nowhere to lie down, even under the shelves il is crowded,' said dissatisfied voices. 'Have a look at it yourself. It is close by here.'

The room was certainly not large enough. In the thirty-six foot room, about forty men might find place to lie down on the shelves.

Some of the men entered the room with me, and they vied with each other in complaining of the scantiness of the accommodation.

'Even under the shelves there is nowhere to lie down,' they said. Thesemen, who in thirteen degrees of frost, withoutovercoats,carry

on their backs twenty-stone loads during thirty-six hours; who dine and sup, not when they need food, bul when their overseer allows them to eat; who live together in conditions far worse than drayhorses, it seemed strange that these people only complained of insufficient accommodation in the room where they warm themselves. But though this seemed strange to me at first, yet, entering further into their position, I understood what a feeling of torture these men, who never gel enough sleep and who are half-

1 14

frozen, must e�pcrience when instead of resting and being warmed, they

have to sleep on the dirty floor under the shelves, and there, in stuffy and

vitiated air, become yet weaker and more broken down. Only, perhaps, in that miserable hour of vain attempt to get rest and

sleep do they painfully realize all the horror of their life-destroying thiny­six hour work, and that is why they are specially agitated by such an

apparently insi gnificantcircumstance as the overcrowding of their room. Having watched several gangsat work, and having talked with some

more of the men, and heard the same story from them all, I drove home, convinced that what my acquaintance had told me was true.

It was true, that for a bare subsistence, people, consideriog them­

.selves free men, thought it necessary to give themselves up to work such as, in the days of serfdom, not one siave-owner, however cruel, would have sent his slaves to. Let alone slave-owners, not one cab proprietor would send his horses to such work, for horses cost money, and it would be wasteful, by e�cessive work, to shorten the life of an animal of value.

II Society's Indifference While Men Perish

To oblige men to work for thirty-seven hours continu­ously without sleep, besides being cruel, is also uneconom­ical. And yet such uneconomical expenditure of human lives continually goes on around us.

Opposite the house in which I live (NOTE No 47) is a silk-factory, built with theiatesttechnical improvements. Aboutthree thousand women and seven hundred men work and live there. As I sit in my room now, I hear the unceasi ng din of the machinery, and know, for I have been there, what that din means. Three thousand women stand, for twelve hours a day, at the looms, amid a dearening roar; winding, unwinding, arranging the silk threads to make silk stuffs. All the women, except those who have just come from the village, have an unhealthy appearance. Mostofthem lead a most intemperate and immoral life. Almost all, whether married or unmarried, as soon as achild is born to them, send itoff either to the village or to the Foundlings' Hospital where eighty per cent of these children perish. For fear of losing their places, the mothers resume work the ne�t day, or on the third day, after their confinement

For twenty years, to my knowledge, tens of thousands of young, healthy women, mothers, have ruined, and are now ruin ing, their lives, and the lives of their children, in order to produce velvets and silk stuffs.

I met a beggar yesterday ,a young man on crutches, sturdily built, but Crippled. He used to work as a navvy, with a wheelbarrow, butslippedand

1 1 5

injured himself internally. He spent all he had on peasant women �eale� and on doctors, and has now for eight years been homeless, beggmg his bread and complaining that God docs not send him death.

How many such sacrifices of life there are, that we either know nothing of, or know of, but hardly notice conSidering them ine�table.

I know men working at the blast furnaces of the Tula Iron roundry, who to have one Sunday free each fortnight, will work for twenty-four hours; that is, after working all day, they will go on working all night. I have seen these men. They all drink vodka to keep up their energy; and, obviously, like those goods-porters on the railway, they quickly expend not the interest, but the capital of their lives.

And what of the waste of lives among those who are employed On admittedly harmful work: in looking-glass, card, match, sugar, tobacco and glass factories; in mines, or as cesspool cleaners. . There are English statistics showing that the average length of life among people of the Upper classes is fifty-five �ean:, and the a�erage of life among working people in unhealthy occupations IS twenty-mne years.

Knowing this, and we cannot help knowing it, we, who take advan­tage of labour that thus COSts human lives should, one would think �nless we are beasts, not be able to enjoy a moment's peace. But the fact IS that we well-to-do people, liberals and humanitarians, very sensitive to the sufferings not only of people but also of animals unceasingly make use of such labour, and try to become more and more rich, that is, to take stiU greater advantage of such work. And we remain perfectly tranquil.

For instance, having learned of the thirty-seven hour labour of the goods-porters and of their bad room, we at once send there an inspector who receives a good salary, and we forbid people to work more than twelve hours, leaving the w orkmen who arc thus deprived of one-third o� their earnings to feed themselves as best they can; and we compel the Railway Company 00 erect a large and convenient �oom for th� workmen. Then with perfectly quiet consciences we contmue 00 receive �d desp�lCh goods by that railway, and we ourselves continue 10 receive salanes, dividends and rents from houses or land. Having learned that the women and girls at the silk faclOry, living far from their families. ruin their Own lives and those of their children; and that well over half of the washer­women who iron our starched shirts, and of the type-setters who print the books and papers that whi leawa your time, get tuberculosis. we only shrug our shoulders and say that we are very sorry things should be so, but that we can do nothing 10 alter it; and we continue with tranquil conscience 10 buy silk. stuffs, to wear starched shirts, and to read our morning paper. We are much concerned about the hours of the shop assistants, and still more about the long hours of our children at school; we slrictly forbid carters to make their horses drag heavy loads. and we even organize the killing of canle in Slaughter-houses so that the animals may feel it as lillie as

1 16

. soon as the question possible. But how wonderfully blmd we �ome as and often painfuUy, conccmsthosemilJionsofworkerswhopenshslowl'j, r convenience and aU around us, at labours whose fruits we usc for eLl

pleasure.

IllS ' Justification e x1stmg ys em

. OfTh E " S t By clence

)Is people of our This wonderful blin�ness which befa t ttat when people circle can only be explalfled by the fact It of life which behave badly they always invent a philosoJ' �ons at ail, but represents their bad actions to be not bad <1C

their control. In m erely results of unalterable laws beyond . n the theory that former times such a view of life was found I ·ch foreordained to an inscrutable and unalterable will of God existed wttl others an exalted some men a humble position and hard work, and to

posilion and the enjoyment of the good things of li(�� written, and an in-On Ihisthemean enormous numbcrofbooks we

as worked up from numerable quantity of sermons preached. The theme Wated different sorts every possible side. It was demonstrated that God ere satisfied with their of people: slaves and mast ers; and that bo� should ve better for the slaves position. It was furilier demonstraled that It would t,e Ithough the slaves in the next world; and afterwards il was shown th�t .�n wouldnotbebad wereslaves,and oughtLOremain such. yetlheircondltJ t explanation, after if the masters would be kind 10 them. Then the very 195 wealth is enlr\lsted the emancipation of the slaves (NOTE No 48) was tt'l9�f it in good works; by God to some people in order that they m�y u� P�d others poor.

and SO there is no harm in some people hemg nch 11 �r (especially the These explanations satisfied the rich and the

p lanations became rich) for a long time. BUI the day came when these e':t, understand their unsatisfactory, especially to the poor, who bcgao d just at the proper POSition. Then fresh expla nalions were needed. All ';nation came in the time, they were produced (NOTE N049 ). Theseexp atit had discovered fonn of science: political economy, which declared rJ1 distribution of the the laws which regulate the division of labour and, tJ1e(O that science, are: Products of labour among men. These.laws, accord,lng: roducts depend on that the division of labour and the enjOyments of Its P values and profits; supply and demand, on capilal, rent, wages oflabou'" omic activities. in general, on unaltemble laws governing man 's ccO;'iuen and lectures Soon, as many books and pamphlets w�rc ritten and sermons delivered on this theme as there had been treatiSes .""'"

gly, mountains of Preached on the former theme; and still, unccasl.J1.

1 17

pamphlets and books are being wriu en, and lectures are delivered as cloudy and unintclligible as the theological treatises and sermons; and like the theological treatises too, they fully achieve their appointed purpose, which is to give such an explanation of the existing order of things as justifies some people in tranquilly refraining from labour and in utilizing the labour of others.

The fact is that. for the investigation of this pseudo-science, there was taken to show the general orderofthings, not the condition of people in the whole world, through all historic time, but only the condition of people in a smal l country. in mostexcepLionai circumstances, England at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. This factdid not in the least hinder the acceptance as valid of the results at which the investigators arrived, any more than asimilar acceptance is now hindered by the endless disputes and disagreements among those who study that sci· ence are quite unable to agree as to the meaning of rent, surplus value, profits, and so on. Only the one fundamental position of that science is acknowledged by all, namely, that the relations among men are condi· tioned, not by what people consider right or wrong, but by what is advantageous for those who occupy an advantageous position.

It is admitted as an undoubted truth, that if in society many thieves and robbers have sprung up, who take from the labourers the fruits of their labour, this happens not because the thieves and robbers have acted badly, but because s uch are the inevitable economic laws, which can only be altered slowly, by an evolutionary process indicated by science; and therefore, according to the guidance of science, people belonging to the ciassofrobbers, thieves or receivers of stolen goods, may quietlycontinue to utilize the things obtained by theft and robbery.

Though the majority of people in our world do not know the details of these tranquillizing scientific explanations, any more than they for­merl y knew thedetails of the theological explanations which justified their position, yet they all know that an explanation exists; that scientific men, wise men, have proved convincingly, and continue to prove, that the existing order of things is what it ought to be, and that therefore we may live quietly in this order of things without ourselves trying to alter it.

Only in this way can I explain the amazing blindness of good people of our society, who sincerely desire the welfare of animals, but yet with quiet consciences devour the lives of their brother-men.

1 1 8

IV The Assertion or Economic Science That All Rural Labourers Must Enter The Factory System

The theory that it is God's will that some people should own otllers, satisfied people for a very long time. But that theory, by justifying cruelty,

caused such cruehy as evoked resistance. and produced doubts as to the

truth of the theory. Sonow, with the theory that an economic evolution,guided by inevi­

table law, is progressing, in consequence of which some people must

collectcapital, and others must labour all their Ii ves to increase that capital, preparing themsel ves meanwhile for the promised communalization of the means of production; this theory, causing some people to be yet more cruel to others, also begins, especially among common people not stupe­fied by science, to evoke certain doubts.

For instance, you see goods-porters destroying their lives by thirty­seven-hour labour, or women in factories, or laundresses, or type-setters, or all those millions of people who live in hard, unnatural conditions of monotonous, stup efying, slavish toil, and you naturally ask: what has brought these people to such a state? and how are they to be delivered from it? And science replies, that these people arc in this condition because the railway belongs to this Company, Lhe silk factory to that gentleman, and all the foundries, factories, printing shops and laundries, to capitalists; and that this state of things will come right by work people fonning unions or co-operative societies, organizi ng strikes, and taking part in Government, and so more and more swaying the masters and the Government, till the workers obtain first, shorter hours and increased wages, and finally, a1l the meansofproduction into their hands; and then all will be well! Meanwhile all is going on as it should go, and there is no need to alter anything.

This answer must seem to an unlearned man, and particularly to our Russian folk, very surprising. In the first place, neither in relation to the goods-porters nor the factory women, nor all the millions of other labour­ers suffering fr om heavy, unhealthy, stupefying labour, does the posses­sion of the means of production by capitalists explain anything. The agricultural means of production of those men who are now working at the railway have not been seized by capita lists: they have land, and horses, and ploughs,and harrows, and all that is necessary to till the ground; also these women working at the factory arc not only not forced to it by being deprived of their implements of production, but, on the contrary, they have (foc the most part against the wish of the eldcr members of their families) ieftthehomes where Lheirwork was much wanted, and where they had im­plements of production.

Millions of workpeople in Russia, and in oLher countries ace in a

1 19

similar situation. So the cause of the miserable position of the workers cannot be found in the seizure of lhe means of production by capilalists. The cause must lie in the first place in lhat which drives lhem from the villages. Secondly, lhe emancipation of the workers from this state of things, even in lhat distant future in which science promises them liberty, can be accomplished neither by shortening the hours of labour, nor by increasing wages, nor by the promised communalization of the means of production.

All that cannot improve their position. For the labourers' misery, whether on lhe railway, in the silk-factory, and in every other factory or workshop, consists not in the longer or shorter hours of work (peasants sometimes work eighteen hours a day, and as much as thirty-six hours on end, and consider their lives happy ones); nor docs it consist in the low rate of wages, nor in the fact that the railway or the factory is not theirs; but it consists in lhe fact that they are obliged to work in hannfui, unnatural conditions. often dangerous and destructive to life, and to live a barrack life in towns, a life full of temptations and immorality, and to do compul­sory labour at another's bidding.

Latterly the hours of labour have diminished, and the rate of wages has increased; but this diminution of the hours of labour and this increase in wages has not improved the position of the worker, if one takes into account not their more luxurious habits - watches with chains, silk kerchiefs, tobacco, vodka, beef and beer, but their welfare, their health and morality, and above all, their freedom.

At the silk factory with which r am acquainted, twenty years ago the work was chiefly done by men, who worked fourteen hours a day, earned on an average fifteen roubles a month, and sent the money, for the most part, to their families in the villages. Now, nearly all the work is done by women. working eleven hours, some of whom earn as much as twenty-five roubles a monlh (over fifteen roubles on an average), and for the most part, do not send it home, but spend all they earn here, chiefly on dress, drunkenness and vice. The diminution of the hours of work merely in­creases the time they spend in taverns.

The same thing is happening, to a greater or lesser extent, at all the factories and works. Everywhere, notwithstanding the diminution of the hours of labour and the increase of wages, the health of the operatives is worse than thato f country workers, the average duration of life is shoner. and morality is sacrificed, as cannot but occur when people are tom from those conditions which most conduce to morality: family life and free, healthy, varied and intelligible agricultural work.

It is very possibly true, as some economists assert, that with shorter hours of labour. more pay and improved sanitary conditions in mills and factories, the health and morality of the workers improve, in comparison with the former co ndition of factory workcrs. h is also possible that

120

latterly. and in some places, the position of the factory hands is bener in external conditions than the position of the country population. But this is so (and in some places), because the Govemment and society, influenced by the affirmations of science, do all that is possible to improve . the pOsition of the factory population at the ex �nsc of the coun� populauon.

If the condition of the factory workers, 10 someplaces, ls, though only in external aspects. better than that of country people. it only shows that one can, by all kinds of restrictions. render life miserable in what should be the be st external conditions; and that there is no position SO unnatural and bad that men may not adapt themselves to it, if they remain in it for some generations.

The misery of the position of a factory hand, and in genera:; of a to· ... n worker, does not consist in his long hours and small pay, but in fact that he is deprived of the natural conditions of life in touch with nature. is deprived of fr eedom, and is compelled to compulsory and monotonous toil at another man's will.

And therefore the reply to the questions, why factory and town workers are in miserable conditions, and how those may be improved, cannot be that this arises because capitalists have possessed themselves of the meansofproduction,an d that the workers' condition will be improved by diminishing their hours of work, increasing their wages and communal­izing the means of production.

The reply to these questions must consist in indicating the causes which have deprived the workers of natural conditions of life in touch with nature, and which have driven them into factory bondage; and in indicat­ing means to free th e workers from the necessity of foregoing a free country life, and from going into slavery at the factories.

And therefore the question why town workers are in a miserable condition includes, first of all, the question: whalreasons have driven them from the villages, where they and their ancestors have lived and mightlive; where, in Russia, people like them do still live? And what it is lhatdrove, and continues to drive them, against their wil l, to the factories and works?

If there are workmen, as in England, Belgium or Germany, who for some generations have lived by factory work, even they live so, not by their own free will but because their fathers, grandfathers and great­grandfathers were, in some w ay, compelled to exchange the agriCUltural life which they loved. for life which seemed to them hard in towns and at factories. First thecounlry people were deprived of land by violence, says Karl Marx, they were evicted and brought to vagabondage; and then, by cruel laws, they were tortured with pincers, with red-hot irons. and were whipped, to make them submit to the condition of being hired labourers. Therefore the question, how to free the workers from their miserable position, should, one would think, naturally lead to the question, how to remove those causes which have already driven some, and arc nowlhreat-

121

ening to drive the rest of the peasants from the position which they considered good, and are driving them lO a position which they consider bad.

Economic science, although it indicates in passing the causes that drove the peasants from the villages, does not concern itself with the question how to remove these causes, but directs all its auention to the improvement of the wo rkers' position in theexisting factories and works, assuming as it were that the workers' position in these factories and workshops is something unalterable, something which must alaI! costs be maintained for those who are already in the factories, and must bereached by those who have not left !he villages or abandoned agricultural work.

Moreover, economic science is so sure that all the peasants must inevitably become factory operatives in towns, that, though all the sages and the poets of the world have always placed !he ideal of human happiness amid conditions of ag ricuhural work, though all the workers whose habits are unperverted have always preferred, and still prefer, ag­ricultural labourtoany o!her, though faclOry work is always unhealthy and monotonous, while agriculture is most healthy and varied, though agricul­tural work is free (NOTE No 50) and the peasant alternates toil and rest at his own will, while factory work, even if the factory belongs to the workmen, is always enforced, in dependence on the machines, though factory work is derivative, while agricultural work is fundamental, with­out it no factory could exist - yet economic science affirms that all the country people are not only uninjured by the transition from the country to the LOwn, but themselves desire it, strive towards it.

V

Why Learned Economists Affirm What Is False

However Obviously unjust may be the assenion of the men of science that the welfare of humanity must consist in the very thing that is profoundly repulsive to human feelings, in monoto­nous, enforced factory labour, the men of science were inevitably led to make this obviously unjust assertion,just as the theologians of old were inevitably led to make the equally evidently unjust assertion that slaves and their masters were crealures differing in kind, and that the inequality of their position in this world would be compensated in the next.

The cause of this ev idcntly unjust assertion is that those who have for­mulated, and who are formulating, the law of science, belong to the well­to-do classes, and are so acCUSlOmed to the conditions, advantageous for themselves, in wh ich they live, that they do not admit the thought that society could exist under other conditions. The condition of life to which

122

people of the well-to-do classes are accustomed, is that of an abundant production of various articles necessary for their comfort and pleasure; and these things are only obtained thanks to the existence of factories and works organized as at present And therefore, when discussing the im­provement of the workers' position, men of science, belonging to the well­to-do classes, always have in view only such improvements as will not do away with this system of factory proouction, and the products of which they avail themselves.

Even the most advanced economists, the Socialists, who demand the complete control of the means of production for the workers, expect production of the same or almost the same articles, as are produced now, to continue in the present, or similar, factories, with the present division oflaoour.

Thedifference, as they imagine it, will only be that, in the future, not they alone, but all men, will make use of such conveniences as only they now enjoy. They dimly picture 10 themselves that, with thecommunaliza­tion of the means of production, they too, men of science, and the ruling classes in general, will do some work, bmchieny as managers, designers, scientists or artists. To the question, who will have to wear a mask: and make white-lead'? who will be stokers, miners and cesspool cleaners'? they are either silent, or foretell that all these things will be so improved that even work at cesspools, and underground, will afford pleasant occupation. That is how they represent to themselves f ulure economic conditions, both in Utopias such as thatofBellamy (NOTE No 51) and in scientific works.

According to !heir theories, the workers will all join unions and as­sociations, and cultivate solidarity among themselves by unions, slrikes and participation inParliamenl, till they obtain possession of all the means of production, as well as the land; and then they will be so well fed, so well dressed, and enjoy such amusements on holidays that they will prefer life in town, amid brick buildings and smoking chimneys, to free village life and plants and domestic animals; and monotonous, well.regulated ma­chine work to varied, healthy and free agricultural labour.

Though this anticipation is as improbable as the anticipation of the theologians about a heaven to be enjoyed hereafter by workmen in compensation for their hard labour here, yel learncd and educated people of our society believe thi s Slrange teaching, just as fonneriy wise and learned people believed in a heaven for workmen in the next world. And learned men and their disciples, people of the well-lo-do classes, believe this because they must believe it. Thisdilemma stands before them: either they must see that all that they make use of in their lives, from railways to lu cifer matches and cigaretleS, represents labour which costs the lives of many of their brother-men, and that they, not Sharing in that toil but making use of it, are very dishonourable men; or they must believe that all that takes place, takes place for the general advantage, in accord with un-

123

alterable laws of economic science. Therein lies the inner psychological causecompeUing men of science. men wise and educalCd but notenlight­ened. to affum positively and tenaciously such an obvious unlruth. as that the labourers, for their own well-being. should leave a happy and healthy life in touch with nature, and go to ruin their bodies and souls in factories and workshops.

VI

Bankruptcy Of The Socialist Ideal

But even allowing the assertion (evidently unfounded as it is, as contrary to the facts of human namre), that it is better for people to live in towns and todo compulsory machine work in factories, rather than live in villages and work freely at handicrafts, there remains in the very idea itself, to which the men of science tell us the economic evolution is leading, an insoluble contradiction. The ideal is that the workers, having become masters of all the means of production, are to obtain the comforts and pleasure now possessed by weJl-to-dopeople. They will all be well clothed and housed, and well nourished, and will walk on electrically-lighted asphalt streets. and frequent concerts and theatres, and read papers and books, and ride on aulo-cars. But that everybody may have certain things, the production of those things must be apportioned. and consequently it must be decided how long each workman is to work. How is that to be decided?

Statistics may show, though very imperfectly. what pcoplerequirein a society fettered by capital, by want But nostatistics can show how much is wanted, and what articles are needed to satisfy the demand in a society where the mean s of production will belong to the society itself, and where the people will be free.

The demands in such a society cannOt be defined, and they wiU al­ways infinitely exceed the possibility of satisfying them. Everybody will wish to have all that the richest now possess, and therefore it is quite impossible todefine t he quantity of goods that such a society will require.

Furthennore. how are people to be induced to work atanicles which some consider necessary and Others consider unnecessary or even hann­ful?

lfit be found necessary for everybody to work, say, six hours a day, in order 10 satisfy the requirements of society, who, in a free society, can compel aman to work those six hours, ifhe knows that part of the time is spent on pro dueing things he considers unnecessary or even hannful?

It is undeniable that under the present slate of things mOst varied articles are produced with greal economy of exertion, thanks to machin-

124

cry ,and thanks especially to the division�flabourwhic� has been brought to an extreme nicety and carried to the highest perfection; and that these articlesare profitable to the manuracturers. and that we find them conven­ient and pleasant to use. But the fact that these articles arc well made. and are produced wilh little expenditureof strength, that they are profitable to the capitalists and convenient for us, docs not prove that free men would, without compulsion, continue to produce them. There is no doubt that Krupp. with the prcscntdivision ofl

.abour, makesadmirablecan�ons very

quickly and artfuUy; N.M. very qUickly and artfully produces Silk mate­rials; X. Y. and Z. produce toilet scents, powder to preserve the complex­ion, or glazed packs of cards; and K. produces whisky of choice flavour, and, no doubt, both for those who want these articles and for the owners of cannons, scents and whisky, all this is very advantageous. Butcannons. scents and whisky arc wanted by those who wish to obtain control of the Chinese market, or who like to get drunk, or arc concerned about their complexions; but there will be some who consider the production of these articles harmful. And there will always be people who consider that, besides these articles, exhibitions, academics, beer and beef are unneces­sary and even harmful. How arc these people to be made to participate in the production of such articles?

. Even if a means could be found to get all to agree to produce certam

articles(though there is no such means, and can be none,exceptcoercion). who, in a free society, without capitalistic production, competition and its law of supp Iy and demand, will decide which ankles are to have the pr�f­erence? Which are to be made first, and which after? Are we first to bUild the Siberian railway and fortify Port Arthur, and then macadamize the roads inourcounuy districts, or vice versa? Which is tocome flrst: electric lighting or irrigation of the fields? And then comes another qu

.estion,

insoluble with free workmen: which men are todo which work? EVidently all will prefer haymaking or drawing to stoking or cesspool c leani ng. How. in apportioning the work, arc people to be induced to agree?

No statistics can answer these questions. The solution can only be theoretical: it may besaid that there will be people to whom power will be given to regulate all these matters. Some people will decide these ques­tions, and others wi II obey them.

Besides the questions of apportioning and directing production and of selecting work, when the meansof production are communaJi�. �� will be another and most important question as to the degrcc of diVISion of labour that can est ablishcd in a socialistically organized society. The present division of labour is conditioned by the needs of the workers. A workeronly agrees to live all his Ii fe underground, or to make the one-hun­dredth part of one article all his life, or move his hands up and down amid theroarof machinery all his life, because he willotherwi.3enot have means to live. But it will only be by compulsion that a workman. owning the

125

........ --------

meansofproductioo and ootsufrering want,can be induced toacceplsuch stupefying and soul-destroying conditions of labour as those in which people now work. Division of labour is undoubtedly ve� profitable �nd natural to people; but, ifpeople arc free. division oflabour IS only possible up to a certain, very limited extent, which has been far overstepped in our society (NOTE No 52 ) .

If one peasant occupies himself chieny wilh boot-making, and his wife weaves, and another peasant ploughs, and a third is a blacksmith, and they all, having acquired special dexterity in their own work. afterwards exchange what they have produced · such division of labour is advanta­geous to all, and free people will naturally divide their work in this �ay. Buladivision oflabour by which a man makes one-hundredth of an arncle, or a stoker works in a temperature of one hundred and forty degrees Fahrenheit, or is choked with harmful gasses, such division of labour is disadvantageous, because though it furthers the production of insignifi­cant articles, it desuoys that which is most precious - the life of man. Therefore such division of labour as now exists, can only continue where there is compulsion, Dodbertus ( NOTE No 53) says that communal di­vision of labour unites mankind. That is true, but it is only free division, such as people VOluntarily adopt, that unites.

Upeople decide to make a road, and one digs, another brings stones, a third breaks them, that sort of division of work unites people.

But if, independently of the wishes, and sometimes against the wishes. of the workers, a strategic railway is built, or an Eiffel tower, or stupidities such as fill the Paris exhibition; and one workman is compelled to obtain iron, an other todig coal,a third to make castings, a fourth to cut down trces,anda fifth tosaw them up. without having the least idea of what the things they are making are wanted for • then such division oflabournot only does not unite men, but, on the contrary, it divides them.

And, therefore, with communalized implements of production, if people arc free, they will only adopt division of labour in as far as the good resultint from it will outweigh the evil itoccasions to the workers. And as each man natura lIy sees good in extending and diversifying his activities, such division of labour as now exists Will, evidently, be impossible in a free society.

To suppose lhat with communalized means of production there will be such an abundance of things as is now produced by compulsory division oflabour, is like supposing that after the emanCipation of the serfs, the do­mestic orchestras a nd theatres (NOTE No 54), the home-made carpets and laces. and the elaborate gardens which depended on serf-labour would continue to function as before. So the supposition that when the Socialist ideal is realized, everyone will be free, and will at the same time have at his disposal everything, oralmosl everything, that is now made use of by the well-to-do classes, involves an obvious self-contradiction.

126

VII

Culture Or Freedom

Just what happened when serfdom existed is now being repeated. Then, the majority of the serf-owners and of the people of the well-to-do clasSes, if they acknowledged the serfs' position to be not qui:e S3:tisfac-tory. yet recommended 0 nly such alterations as would r.:>t depnve the owners of what was essential to their profit Now, people of the wc;:l1·to­do c\asses, admitting that the position of the workers is not a1togeth

.� sat­

isfactory, propose for its amendment only such measures :..:: ,,:"'111 not deprive the well-to-do classes of their advantages. As well-dISposed owners then spoke of 'paternal authority', and, like Gogo1 (NOTE N055)

ad vised owners to be kind to their serfs and to lake care of them, but would �ot tolerate the ideaof emancipation (NOTE No 56), considering it harm­ful and dangerous, just so, the majority of well-to-do people advise employers to look after the well-being of their workpeoplc, but do nOl admit the thought of any such alteration of the economic structure of life as would set thc labourers Quite free.

Andjustas advanced liberals then, while considering serfdom l? � an immutable arrangement, demanded that thc Government should hmlt the power of the owners, and sympathized with the serfs' agitation, sa the I ibera1s of today , w hil e considering the cx isti ng order immutable, demand thal Govemmenlshould limit the powers of capitalists and manufacturers. and they sympathize with unions and strikes and, in general, with the workers' agitation. Just as the most advanced mcn then demanded the emancipation of the serfs, but drew up a Project which left the serfs dependent on private landowners, or fettered them with tributes and land­taxes so now the most advanced people demand the emancipation of the worbnen from the power of the capitalists, and the communalization of the means of production, but yet would leave the workersdependenton the prescnt apportionment and division of labour, which. in their opinion, must remain unaltered. The teachings of economic science, which are adopted (though without close examination of their details) by all those of the well-lo-do classes who consider themsel ves en I ightcned and advanced (NOTE No 57) ,seem on a superficial examination to be liberal and even radical,containing as they doauackson the wealthy classes�f society; but, essentially, that leaching is in the highest degree conservative, gross and cruel. One way or another the men of science. and in theirtrain allt�e �ell­to-do ciasscs, wish at all costs to maintain the present system of distribu­tion and division of labour, which makes possible the production of that great quantity of goods which they use. The existing economic order is

127

called cullure by the men of science and, following them. by all the well­to-do classes; andin this culture, in its railways, telegraphs. telephones, photographs, Rontgen rays. clinical hospita1s. exhibitions, and chiefly, in all the appliances of comfort they see something so sacrosanct that they will not allow even a thought of alterations which might destroy it all, or but endanger a small part of these acquisitions. Everything may, according to the leaching of that science, be changed, except what it calls culture. It becomes more and moreevident that this culture can only exist while the workers are compelled to work, yet men of science are so sure that this culture is the greatest of blessings, that they boldly proclaim the contrary of what the purists once said: [/O./justitia, perea/ mundus (NOTE No 58). They now say: fiat cultura, perea/justitia (NOTE No 59 ). They not only say it, but act on it. Everything may be changed, in practice and in theory, except CUlture, except all that is going on in workshops and factories. and especially what is being sold in the shops.

But 1 think that enlightened people, professing the Christian law of brotherhood and love to one's neighbour, should say just the contrary.

Electric lights and telephones and exhibitions are excellent, and so are all the pleasure-gardens with concerts and perfonnances, and all the cigars and match-boxes, braces and motor-cars, but may they all go to perdition, and not the y alone but the railways, and all the factory-made chintz-stuffs and cloths in the world, ifto produce them it is necessary that ninety-nine percent of the people should remain in slavery. and perish by thousands in factories needed for the production of these articles. If in order that London or Petersburg may be lit by electricity, or in order to construct exhibition buildings. or in order that there may be beautiful paints. or in order to weave beautiful cloths quickly and abundantly. it is necessary that even a very few lives should be destroyed, or ruined. or shortened -and statistics show us how many arcdestroyed - let London and Petersburg rather be lit by gas or oil; let there rather be no exhibition, no paints or materials. Only let there be no slavery and no destruction of human lives resulting from it. Themotto fortruly enlightened people isnot fiat cuitUTa,perealjuslitia, butfial justistia, pereat cuitUTa

Butculture, useful culture, will not bedestroyed. It will certainly not be necessary for people to revert to tillage of the land with sticks. or to lighting-up with torches. It is not for nothing that mankind, in its slavery, has ac hieved such great progress in technical mailers. Ir only it is understood that we must not sacrifice the lives of our brother-men for our own pleasure, it will be possible to apply technical improvements without destroying men's lives; and to arrange life so as to profit by all those methods giving us control of nature, that have been devised, and that can be applied without keeping our brother-men in slavery.

128

vm Slavery Exists Among Us

. Im�nea nun arriving from a country quitedifferer.nt from our own,

"":Ith no Id� of 0lI' history or of our laws, and suppose th�at, after showing him the vanous aspects of our life, we were to ask him wi hat was the chief difference he n «iced in the lives of people of our \fiVorld. The chief difference which such a man would notice in the way PfCOple live is that some people - a small number - who have clean white haJJlds, and are well nourished and clethed and lodged, do very little and vefry light work, or even do not wort at all but only amuse themselves, spOCnding on these amusements the results of millions of days devoted by" other people to severe labour; blll other people, always dirty, poorly clCOthed and lodged and fed, with dirty, horny hands, toil unceasingly from ,..noming to night, and sometimes allnight long. working for those whodo ntlot work, but who continually amuse themselves.

Ifbetween tl:e slaves and slave-owners of today it is . difficult to draw as sharp a dividing line as that which separated the former" slaves from their masters, and if among the slaves of LOday there are sonme who are only temporarily sl aves and then become slave-owners, or �me who, at one and the same time, are slaves and slave-owners, this ble�nding of the two classes at their ptints of contact does not upset the fact tJ:hat the people of our time are divi<kd into slaves and slave-owners as defiJlnitely as, in spite of the twilight, ea:h twenty-four hours is divided into ctlay and night.

If the slav�wner of our time has no slave John w,'hom he can send to the cesspool toclear out his excrements, he has fiv� stihillings of which hundreds of Johru are in such need that the slave-ownerQof our times may choose anyone Oil of hundreds of Johns and be a bene:;factor to him by giving him thepnferenceand allowing him. rather than aanother,to climb down into the ct$pool (NOTE No 60).

The slaves d our times are not only all those facto[ll)' and workshop hands, who mUSl seJI themselves completely into the powNerofthe factory and foundry oWlers in order to exist; but nearly all the agricultural labourers are sla\es, w orking as they do unceasingly tao grow another's com on another' sfield, and gathering it inLO another's buJll; or tilling their own field.sonly morder topay to bankers the intereston ddebts they cannot getrid of. Slaves liso are all the i nn umerable footmen, c()(!K)ks, housemaids, porters, coachmm, bathmen, waiters, and so on, who 1Jja1l their life long perform duties Jl'l)st unnatural to a human being, and ..... "hich they them­selves dislike.

Slavery exi& in full vigour, but we do not perce:eive it; just as in Europe, at theen� of the eighteenth century. the slavety'f of serfdom was not perceived.

129

People of that day thought that the position of men obliged to tililbe land for their lords, and to obey them. was a natural. inevitable. economic condition of life, and they did not call it slavery.

It is the same among us: people of our day consider the position of labourers to be a natural. inevitable, economic condition, and they do not call it slavery.

And as, at the end of the eighteenth century, the people of Europe began little by little to understand that what had seemed a natural and in· evitable form of economic life, namely, the position OfpalS3llLS who were completely in the p ower of their lords. was wrong. unjust and immoraJ, and demanded alteration; so now people today are beginning to under· stand that the position of hired workmen, and of the working classes in general, which formerly seemed quite right and quite normal, is not what it should be, and demands alteration.

The qUe&tion of the slavery of our times is just in the same phase now in which the question of serfdom stood in Europe (NOTE No 6 1 ) towards the end of the eighteenth century, and in which the question of serfdom among us, an d of slavery in America, stood in the second quaner of the nineteenth century.

The slavery of the workers in our times is only beginning to be admit· led by advanced people in our society; the majority as yet are convinced that among us no slavery exists.

A thing that helps people today to misunderstand their position in this matter is the fact that we have, in Russia and in America, only recently abolished slavery. But in reality the abolition of serfdom and of slavery was only the abo Iition of an obsolete form of slavery that had become unnecessary, and the substitution for it ofa firmer form of slavery, and one thatholdsagreaternumberof people in bondage. Theabolition of serfdom and of slavery was like the Tartars of the Crimea did with their prisoners. They invented the plan of slitting the soles of the prisoners' feet and sprinkling chopped-up bristles into the wounds. Having performed that operation,they released them from their weights and chains. Theabolition of serfdom in Russia and of slavery in America, though it abolished the former method of slavery. not only did nOt abolish what was essential in it, but was only accomplished when the bristles had formed sores on the soles, and one could be quite sure that without chains or weights the prisoners would not run away, but would have to work. The Northerners in America boldly demanded the abolition of the former slavery because. among them, the new monetary slavery had already shown its power to shackle the people. The Southerners did not yet perceive the plain signs of the new slavery. and therefore did not consent to abolish the old form.

Among us in Russia, serfdom was only abolished when all the land had been appropriated. When land was granted to the peasants, it was burdened with payments which took the place of the land slavery. In

130

pc taxes that kept the peepl e in bondage began to be abolished only Ewro • .

I ural hen the people had lost their land. were disaccustomed to agncu t

VI k and, having acquired town tastes, were quite dependent on the

;;i�iSts. Only then were the taxes on �om abolished .in Englan�. And

they are now beginning, in Germany and mother countnes. to abohsh the

es that faB on the workers, and to shift them on to the rich, only because

: majority of the people are already in the hands of the capital�ts. One

form of slavery is not abol ished until another has already rep� It. There

areseveral such forms, and if not one then another (and someumes several

together) keeps a people in slavery, by placing it in such a position �at one

all part of the people has full power over the labour and the life of a

::ger number. In this enslavement lies the chief cau� of the mi�rable

condition of the people. Therefore the means of improvmg the peJSlbOn of

the workers must consist in this: Firstly, in admitting that among us slavery

emts not in some figurative, metaphorical sense, but in the simplest and

plaine'st sense; slavery which keeps some �ople. �e maj.ori

.ty. in �e

power of others, !.he minority; secondly, havmg admitted thiS. In fi�dmg

!.he causes of the enslavement of some people by others; and thlnily,

having found these causes, in desuoying them.

IX What Is Slavery?

In what does the slavery of our time consist? What are the forces that

make some people the slaves of others? If we ask all.the workers

.in Russ�

and in Europe and in America · wherever !.hey are. m the factones and In

various situat ions in which they work for hire, in towns and villages · what

has made them choose the position in which they are living, they will all reply that they have been brought to it; either because

.they had no land on

which they could and wished to live and work (that Will be the reply of all the Russian workmen and of very many of the Europeans). or that taxes,

direct and indirect, were demanded of them. which they could only pay by

selling their labour. or that they remain at faclO� work ensn� by the

more luxurious habits they have adopted, and which they can gratify only

by seUing their labour and their liberty. . The two first conditions, the Jack of land and the taxes, drive man to

compulsory labour, while the third, his increased and unsatisfied needs.

decoy him to it and keep him at it. . . We can imagine that the land be freed from the clrums of pnvate

proprietors, by Henry George's plan (NOTE No 62), and tha� therefore,

the first cause driving people into slavery may be done away With. We can

also, besides t he Single·Tax plan, imagine the direct abolition oftax.es,

1 3 1

done now in some countries; but under the present economic organi7.ation, one cannot even imagine a position of things under which more and more luxurious, and often hannful, habits of life would not be adopted among the rich, and that these habits should not. little by little, pass to those or the lower classes who are in contact with the rich, as inevitably as water sinks into dry ground, and that these habits should not become so necessary to the workers that in order to be able to satisfy them, they will be ready to sell their freedom.

So this third condition, though it is a voluntary one of which it would seem that a man might resist the temptation, and though science does not acknowledge it to be a cause of the miserable condition of the workers, is the fumest an d most irremovable cause of slavery.

Workmen living near rich people are always infected· with new requirements, and only obtain means to satisfy these requirements in so far as they devote their most intense labour to this satisfaction. So workmen in England and Ameriea, receiving sometimes ten times as much as is necessary for subsistence, continue to be just such slaves as they were before.

Three causes, as the workmen themselves explain, produce the slavery in which they live; and the history of their enslavement and the facts of their position confirm the correctness of this explanation.

All the workcrs are brought to their present state, and are kept in it, by these three causes. Acting on people from different sides, they are such that none can escape from their enslavement The peasant who has no land, or who has n ot enough, will always be obliged to go into perpetual or temporary slavery to the landowner, in order to have the possibility of feeding himself from the land. Should he, in one way or another, obtain land enough to be able to feed himself from it by his own labour, such taxes, director indirect, aredemanded of him, that in order to pay them he has again to go into slavery.

Uta escape from slavery on the land, he ceases to cultivate land,and, living on someone else's land, begins to occupy himself with a handicraft. and to exchange his produce for the things he needs, then,on the one hand, taxes, and , on the othcr hand, the competition of capitalists, producing simil ar articles to those he makes, but with bcUer implements of produc­tion, compel him to go into temporary or perpetual slavery to a capitalist Ifhe was working for a capitalist. he might set up free relations with him, and not be obliged to sell his libcny, yet the new requirements which he assimilates deprive him of any such possibility. So, onc way or another, the labourer is always in slavery to those who control lhe taxes, the land and the articles necessary to satisfy his rcquirements.

132

X Laws Concerning Taxes, Land And Property

The German Socialists have termed the combination of conditions which put the workers in subjection to the capitalists, the iron law of wages, implying by the word 'iron' that this law is immutable. Butin these conditions there is nothing immutabl� these conditions merely result from human laws concerning taxes, land and,aboveall,concerning things which satisfy our requirements, that is, ch iefly concerning propeny. Laws are framed. and repealed, by human beings. So it is not some sociological 'iron' law, but ordinary man-made law, that produces slavery. In the case in hand. the slavery of our times is vcry clearly and definitely produced, not by some 'iron' elemental law , but by human enacunents: about land, about taxes and about propeny. There is one set of laws by which any quantity ofland may belong to private people, and may pass from one to another by inheritance, or by will. or may be sold; there is another set of laws by which everyone must pay thc taxcsdemanded of him unquestion­ingly; and there is a third set of laws to the effect that any quantity of articles, by whatever means acquircd, may become the absolute property of the people who hold them. And in consequence of these laws, slavery exists.

We are so accustomed to all these laws, that they seem to usjust as necessary and natura1 to human lifc, as the laws maintaining serfdom and slavery seemed in former times. No doubts about their necessity and justice seem possible, a nd we notice nothing wrong in them. But just as a time came when people, having seen the ruinous consequences of serf­dom,questioned the justice and necessity of the laws which maintained it, so now, when the pernicious consequences of the presentcconomic order have become evident. one involuntarily questions the justice and inevita­bility of the legislation about land. taxes and propeny, which produces these results.

People formerly asked: Is it right that some people should belong to others, and that the former should have nothing of their own, but should give all the produce of their labour to their owners? So now we must ask ourselves: Is it ri ght that people must not usc land accounted the propeny of other people? Is it right that people should hand over to others in the form of taxes, whatever part of their labourisdemandedofthem?Is itright that people may not make use of anides considered to be the propeny of other people?

Is it right that people should not have the use of lalld when it is colISidered to belollg to a/hers who are 1I0t cultivating it?

133

It is said that this legislation is instituted because landed property is an essential condition if agriculture is to flourish, and if there were no private property passing by inheritance, people would drive one another from land the y occupy, and n(H)ne would work or improve the land on which he is senled. Is this true? The answer is to be found in hislOry, and in the fact of today. History shows thatpropecty in landdidnolarise from any wish to make the culti vator' s tenure more secure, but resulted from the seizureof communal lands by conquerors, and its distribution 10 those who served the conquerors. So property in land was not established with the object of stimulating the peasants. Present-<iay facts show the fallacy of the assertion that landed property enables those who work the land to be sure that they will not be deprived of the land they cultivate. In reality just the contrary has happened. and is happening, everywhere. The right of landed property, by which the great proprietors have profited most, and are profiting, has produced the result that the immense majority of the peas_ ants are now in the position of people who cultivate other people's land, from which they may be driven at the whim of men who do not cultivate iL The existing right of landed property certainly does not defend the rights of the peasant to enjoy the fruits of the labour he puts into the land, but. on lhecontrary, ilis a way of depriving the peasants of the land on which they work, and handing it over to those who have not worked it; and therefore it is certainly not a means for the improvement of agriculture, but, on the contrary, a means of deteriorating it.

AboUi taus it is said that people ought to pay them Ixcause they are inslitUied with the general, even though silent consent oJaff; and are used Jor public needs, to the advantage oj all. /s this true?

The answer to this question is given in history and in prescnt-<iay facts. HislOry shows that taxes never were instituted by common consent, but. on the contrary, always only in consequence of the fact that some people, having oblained power over other people by conquest or by olller means, imposed tribute. not for public needs, but for themselves. And the same thing is still going on. Taxes are taken by those who have the power 10 take them. If nowadays some portion of these tributes, called taxes and duties, is used for public purposes, it is for the most part forpublic purposes that are hannful rather than useful to most people.

For instance, in Russia one-third of the peasants' whole income is taken in taxes, but only one-fiftieth of the State revenue is spent on their greatest need, the education of the people; and even that amount is spent on a kind of edu cation which. by stupefying the people. hanns them more than it benefits them. The other fony-nine fiftieths are spent on unneces­sary things, harmful to the people, such as equipping the anny� building

134

strategic railways. forts and prisons, or supporting the priesthood or the

court. and on salaries for lhose people who make it possible 10 take this money from the people.

Thesame thing goes on not only in Persia. Turkey and India, but also

in all the Christian and constiwtional States and democratic Republics: money is taken from the majority of the people, quilt: independentJyofthe consent or non-c onsent of the payers, and the amountcollected is not what isreaUy needful, butas much as can be gal (we know how Parliamentsare made up, and how liuJe they respect the will of the people), and it is used not for the common advantage. but for things the governing classes consider necessary for themselves: on wars in Cuba or the Pmlippines, on taking and keeping the riches of the Transvaa], and so forth. So the explanation that people must pay taxes because they are instituted with general consenland are used for the common good, is as untrue as theother explanation, that privalt: property in land is established to encourage ag­riculture.

/s it true lhal people should not use anicles needful to satisfy their requirements, if those articles are the property oj other people?

It is asserted that the right of property in acquired articles is estab­lished in order to make the worker sure that no-one will take from rum the produce of his laOOur. Is it true?

It is only necessary to glance at what is done in our world, where property rights are defended with especial strictness. in order to be convinced how completely the facts of! ife run counter to this explanation.

In our society, in consequence of the right of property in acquired articles, the very thing happens which that right is intended to prevent: namely, all articles which have been, and continually are being, produced by working people. are possessed by, and as they are produced are continually taken by, those who have not produced them.

So llIe assertion that the right of property secures for the workers the possibility of enjoying the products of their labour is evidently yet more untrue lhan the assertion concerning property in land, and it is based on the same soph istry. First, the fruit of their toil is unjustly and violently taken from the workers, and then the law steps in, and these very articles are declared to be the absolute property of those who have stolen them.

Property, for instance a factory, acquired by a series of frauds and by taking advantage of the workmen, is considered a result of labour. and is held sacred; but the Jives of those workmen who perish at work in that factory. and the it labour, are not considered to be the property of the factory owner. ifhe, taking advantage of the necessities of tI�'! wo;'"ers. has bound them down ina manner considered legal. Hund;edsofthousandsof

135

bushels of com, collected from the peasants by usury and by a series of extortions, are considered to be the property of the merchant, while the growing com raised by the peasants is considered to be the property of someone else, who has inherited the land from a grandfather or great· grandfather who took it from the people. It is said that the law defends equally the property of the mill owner, of lhe capitalist, of the landowner, and of the factory orcountry labourer. Theequality of the capitalist and of the worker is like the equality of two fighters, one of whom has his arms tied whilst the other has weapons, but to both of whom certain rules are applied with strict impartiality while they fight. So all the explanations of the justice and necessity of the three sets ofla ws which produce slavery are as untrue as were the explanations fonnerly given of the justice and necessity of serfdom. All those three sets of laws are nothing but the establishment of that new form of slavery which has replaced theoldfonn. People formerly established laws enabling some people to buy and sell other people, and to own them, and to make them work, and slavery existed. Now people have established laws that men may not use land that is considered to belong to someone else, must pay the taxes demanded of them, and must not use articles considered to be the property of others· and we have the slavery of our times.

XI Laws - The Cause Of Slavery

The slavery of our times results from three sets of laws: those about land, taxes and property. And therefore all the attempts of those who wish to improve the position of the workers are inevitably, though uncon­sciously, directed aga inst those three legislations.

One set of people would repeal taxes weighing on the working classes, and transfer them on to the rich; others propose to abolish the right of private property in land, and auempts are being made to put this in practice both in New Z ealand and in one of the American States: the limitation of landlords' rights in Ireland is a move in the same direction; a third set, the Socialists, propose to communalize the means of produc­tion, to tax incomes and inherilaflces, and to limit the rights of capitalist employers. It would therefore seem as though the legislative enactments which cause slavery were being repealed, and that we may therefore expect slavery to be abolished in this way. But we need only look more closely at the conditions under which the aboliticn of these legislative enactments is accomplished or proposed, to be convinced that not only the practical but even the theoretical projects for the improvement of the workers' position, are merely replacing one legislat:w p,......,jucillg slavery

136

by another establishing a newer fonn of slavery. Thus, for instance, those who abolish taxes and duties on the poor, first abolishing direct dues, and then transferring the burden of taxation from the poor to the rich, necessarily have to retain, and do retain, the law creating private property of land, of the means of production, and of other articles on to which the whole burden of taxes is shifted. The retention of the Jaw concerning land and property keeps the workers in slavery to the landowners and the capitalists, even though the workers arc freed from taxes. Those who, like Henry Georgeand his supporters, would abolish the laws creating private property of land, propose new laws imposing an obligatory rent on the land. And this obligatory land rent will necessarily create a new form of slavery; because a man compelled to pay rent or single·tax may at any failure of the crops or other misrortune, have to borrow money from a man who has some to lend, and he will again lapse into slavery. Those who, like the Socialists, want to abolish the legislation of property in land and in means of production, not only retain the legislation of taxes, but must, moreover, inevitably introduce laws of compulsory labour . that is, they must re-establish slavery in its primitive form.

So, this way or thal, all the practical and theoretical repeals of certain laws maintaining slavery in one form, have always replaced it by new legislation creating slavery in another and fresh fonn.

What happens is something like what a jailer might do who shifted a prisoner'schains from his neck to thearms,and from thearms to the legs, or took them off and substituted bolts and bars. All the improvements that have hitherto taken place in the position of the workers have been of this kind.

The laws giving a master the right to compel his slaves to do compulsory work were replaced by laws allowing the masters to own all the land. The laws allowing all the land to become the private property of the masters may be replace d by taxation laws, the control of the taxes being in the hands of the masters. The taxation laws may be replaced by others defending the right of private property in articles of use and in the means of production. The laws maintaining property in land and in articles of use and means of production, may, as is now proposed, be replaced by the enacunent of compulsory labour.

So it is evident that the abolition of one fonn of legalization produc­ing the slavery of our time, whether taxes, or land ownership, or property in articles of use, or in the means of production, will not destroy slavery but will only repeal one of its forms, which will immediately be replaced by a new one, as was the case with the abolition of chattel slavery and of serfdom, and with the repeals of taxes. Even the abolition of all three groups of laws together will not abolish slavery, but evoke a new and previously unknown fonn of it, which is now already beginning to show itself and to shackle the freedom or labour by legis;ation concerning the

137

hours of work, the age and state of health of the workers, as well as by demanding obligatory attendance at schools, by deductions for old-age insurance or accidents, by all the measures of faclOry inspection, etc. All this is nothing but transitional legislation preparing a new and as yet umried fonn of slavery.

So it becomes evident that the essence of slavery lies not in those three roots of legislation on which it now rests, and not even in this or that legislative enacunent, but in the fact that legislation exists - that there are people who have power to decree laws profitable for themselves, and as long as people have that power, there will be slavery.

Fonnerly. it was profitable for people to have chattel slaves; and they made laws about chanel slavery. AfterWards it became profitable to own land, to take taxes, and to keep things one had acquired; and they made laws correspondingl y. Now it is profitable for people to maintain the existing direction and division of labour; and they are devising such laws as will compel people to work under the present apportionment and division of labour. Thus the fundamental cause of slavery is legislation: the fact that there are people who have the power to make laws. What is legislation? and what gives people !.he power to make laws?

XII The Essence Of Legislation Is Organized Violence

What is legislation? And what enables people to make laws? There exists a whole science,even more ancient, mendacious and confused than political economy, the servants of which in the course of centuries have wrincn millions of books (for the most part contradicting one another) to answer t hese questions. The aim of this science. as of political economy. is not to explain what now exists and what ought to be, but rather to prove that what now exists, is what ought to be. So it happens that in this science of jurisprudence, we find very many dissertations about rights, about object and subject, about the idea of a State, and other such matters, which are unintelligible both to the students and lO lhe teachers of this science; but we get no clear reply to the question: What is legislation?

According to science, legislation is the expression of the will of the whole people; but as those who break the laws, or who wish to break them and only refrain from doing so through fear of being punished, are always more numerous th at those who wish to carry out the code. it isevident that legislation can certainly not be considered as the expression of the will of the whole people.

For instance. there are laws about not dareaging telegraph posts; about showing respect to certain people; about esch man perfonning

138

military service, or serving as a juryman; about not taking certain goods beyond a certain frontier. 0 r about not using land considered to be the property of someone else; about not making money tokens; not using articles which are considered to be the property of others, and about many matters.

All these laws and many others are extremely complex, and may have been passed from most diverse motives, but notoneof them expresses the will of the whole people. There is but one characteristic common to all these laws. namely, th at ifany man does not fulfil them. those who have made these laws will send anned men, and the armed men will beat. deprive of freedom, or even kill, the man who does not obey the law.

If a man does not wish to give. as taxes, such part of the produce of his labouras is demanded of him, anned men will come and take from him whatis demanded, and ifhe resists he will be beaten, deprived offreedom, and sometimes even killed. The same will happen to a man who begins to make useofland considered to be the property of another. The same will happen to a man who makes use of things he wants to satisfy his requirements or to facilitate his work. If these things are considered to be the property of someone else, armed men will come and will deprive him of what he has taken, and, ifhe resists, they will beat him, deprive him of liberty. or even kill him. The same thing will happen to anyone who will not show respect to those whom it is decreed that we are to respect,and to him who will not obey the demand that he should go as a soldier, or who makes money tokens.

For every non-fulfLIment of the established laws there is punishment: the offender is subjected, by those who make the laws, to blows, impris­onment or even loss of life.

Many constitutions have been devised, beginning with the English and theAmerican, and ending with the Japanese and the Turkish, accord­ing to which people are to believe that aU laws established in theircountry are established at th eir desire. But everyone knows that not only in despotic countries, but also in thecountries nominally most free -England. America, France and others - the laws are made not by the will of all. but by the will of those who have power, and therefore always and everywhere are such as are profitable to those who have power; be they many, or few, or only one man. Everywhere and aI ways the laws are enforced by the only means that has compelled, and still compels, some people toobey the wiU of others, by blows, bydeprivationoflibcrty and by murder. There can be no other way.

It cannot be otherwise. For laws are demands to obey certain rules, and to compel some people to obey certain rules can only be done by blows, by deprivation of liberty and by murder. If there are laws. there must be the force that can compel people to obey them. There is only one force that can compel people to obey rules (to conform to the will of

139

olhers), and lhat is violence; not the simple violence which people use on one anolher in moments of passion, but the organized violence used by people who have power, in order to compel others to obey lhe laws that lhey, lhe powerful, have made, in other words. to do lheir will.

The essence of legislature does not lie in subject or object, in rights. or in the idea of thedom inion of lhe collective will of the people, or in olher such indefinite and confused condi tions, but I ies in the fact that people who wi eld organized violence have power to compel olhers to obey them and do as they like.

So the exact and irrefutable definition of legislation, intelligible to aU, is that: Laws are rules, made by people who govern by means of organized violence ,for non-compliance with which lhe rwn-complier is subjected to blows, to loss ofliberry, or even to being murdered.

This definition furnishes the reply to the question: What is it that renders it possible for people to make laws? The same thing makes it possible to establish laws, as enforces obedience to !.hem, namely. organ­ized violence.

XIII What Are Governments? Is It Possible To Exist Without Governments?

The cause of Ihe miserable condition of the workers is slavery. The cause of slavery is legislation. Legislation rests on organized violence.

It follows that an improvement in the condition of the people is possible only through the abolition of organized violence.

'But organized violence is Government, and how can we live wilhout Governments? Without Governments there will bechaos,anarchy; all the achievements of civilization will perish and people will revert to their primitive barbarism.'

Itis usuaJ, not only for those to whom the existing order is profitable, but even for those to whom it is evidently unprofitable, but who are so ac­customed to it that they cannot imagine life wilhout governmental vio­lence, to say we must not dare to touch the existing order of things. The destruction of Government will, they say, produce the greatest misfor­tunes, riot. theft and murder, tili finaJly the worst men will again seize power and enslave all the good people. The fact is that all lhese things, rioiS, thefts and murders, followed by the rule of the wicked and the enslavement of the good, is what has happened, and is happening, so the anlil;ipation that the disturbance of the existing order will produce riots and disorder doesnot prove the present order to be good.

'Only touch the present order and the greatest evils will follow.' Only

140

touch one brick of the thousand bricks piled imoa narrow column, several yards high, and all the bricks will wmbledown and smash! But the fact that any brick extracted or any push administered, will destroy such a column and smash the bricks, certainly does not prove it to be wise to keep the bricks in such an unnatural and inconvenicm posiLion. On theconuary, it shows that bricks should not be piled in such a column, but that they should be arranged so that they may lie firmly, and so that they can be made use of without destroying the whole strucwre. It is the same with the present State organizations. The State organization is extremely artificial and unstable, and the fact that the least push may destroy it, not only does not prove that il is necessary, but on the contrary shows that, if once upon a time it was necessary. it is now absolutely unnecessary, and is therefore harmful and dangerous.

It is hannful and dangerous because the effect of this organization on aU the evil that exists in society is not to lessen and correct, but rather to strengthen and conrum, that evil. It is strengthened and confumed, by being eithe r justified and put in attractive forms, or concealed.

All that well-being of the people which we see in so-caJled well­governed States, ruled by violence, is but an appearance. a fiction. Everything that would disturb the externaJ appearance of well-being, all the hungry people, the sick , the revoltingly vicious, are all hidden away where they cannot be seen. But the fact that we do notscc them, does not show that they do not exist; on Ihecontrary, !.he more they are hidden, the more there will be of them, and lhe more cruel towards thcmwill those be who are the cause of their condition. It is true that every interruption, and yet more every stoppage, of the organ ired violence of Government action disturbs this external appearance of well-being in our life, but such disturbance does not produce the disorder, but rather displays what was hidden and makes possible its amendment.

Until say almost the end of the nineteenth cemury, people thought and believed that they could not live without Governments. But life flows onward, and the conditions of life. and people's views, change. Notwith­standing the efforts 0 f Governments to keep people in !.hat childish condition in which an injured man fee1sas ifit were better for him to have someone to complain to, people, especially the labouring people, both in Europe and in Russia, are more and morc emerging from childhood and beginning to understand the true conditions of their life.

'You tell us that but for you we shall be conquered by neighbouring nations: by the Chinese or the Japanese', men of the people now say, 'but we read the papers and know that no-one is threatening to attack us, and thzt it is only you . who govern us, who for some reason unintelligible to us exasperate each other, and then, under pretence of defending your people, ruin us with taxes for the maintenance of the neet, for annaments or for strategic railways. which are only required to gratify your ambition

141

end vanity; and men you arrange wars with one another, as you have now done against me peaceful Chinese. You say that you defend landed property for our advantage, but your defence has mis effect: mat all the land either has passed or is passing into the control of rich banking companies which do not labour, while we, the immense majority of the people, are being deprived of land and left in the power of those who do not labour. You, with your laws of landed propcrty,do not defend landed property, but take it from those who work it. You say you secure for each man me produce of his labour, but you do just the reverse: all those who produce articles of value are, thanks to your pseudo-protection, placed in such a position that they not only never receive me value oftheirlaboor, but are all their lives long in complete subjection to, and in the power of, non-workers.'

Thus do people, at theend of the century, begin to understand and to speak, and this awakening from the lethargy in which Governments have kept them, is continuing and rapidly growing. Wimin the last five or six years, public opinio n among the common folk, not only in the towns but also in the villages, and not only in Europe but also among us in Russia, has altered amazingly.

It is said that without Governments we should not have those enlightening, educational and public institutions, that are needful for all.

But why should we suppose this? Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life for themselves, as well as Government people can arrange it not for themselves but for others?

We see, on the contrary, that in the most diverse mauers people in our times arrange their own lives incomparably better than those who govern them arrange things for them. Without the least help from Government, and often in spite 0 f the interference of Government, people organize all sorts of social undertakings - workmen's unions, co-operative societies, railway companies, artels ( NOTE No 63) and syndicates. If collections for public works are needed, why should we suppose that free people could not, without violence, voluntarily collect the necessary means, and carry out anything mat is now carried out by means of taxes, if only the undertakings in question are really useful for everybody? Why suppose that there cannot be tribunals wilhout violence? Trial, by people trusted by the disputants, has ai ways existed and will exist, and needs no violence. Weare sodepraved by long-continued slavery, that wecan hardly imagine adminisuation without violence. Yet, that is not entirely true: Russian communes migrating to distant regions, where our Government leaves them alone, arrange their own taxation, administration, tribunals and police, and always prosper until governmental violence interferes with their administration. In lhe same way there is no reason to suppose that people could not. by common agreement, decide how the l&nd is to be apportioned for use.

142

I have known people-Cossacksoflhe Urals -who have lived without acknowledging private propeny in land. There was such well-being and order in their commune as does not exist in society where landed property is defended by violenc e. I know too of communes that live without acknowledging the rightofi ndi viduals to private propeny . Within my ree· oIlection the whole Russian peasamry did not accept the idea of landed property (NOTE No 64 ). The defence of landed propeny by governmen­tal violence notonlydoes not abolish the struggle for landed property, but, on the contrary, intensifies that struggle, and in many cases causes it.

Were it not for the defenceoflanded propeny and its ccnsequent rise in price, people would not becrowded into such narrow spaces, but would scauerover the free land of which there is still so much in theworkl. But, as it is,co ntinual struggle goes on for landed property; a struggle with lhe weapons Government furnishes by means of its laws of landed property. In this struggle it is not those who work on the land, but always lhose who take part in governmental violence, who have the advantage.

It is the same with reference to things produced by labour. Things really produced by a mans's own labour, and that he needs, are always protected by custom, by public opinion, by feelings of justice and reciproc­ity, and they do not n eed to be protected by violence.

Tens of thousands of acres of forest land belonging to one proprietor, while thousands of people close by have no fuel, need protection by violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations of workmen have been defrau ded and arestill being defrauded. Y etmore do hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain, belonging to one owner, who has held them back to sell at triple the price in time of famine. But no man, howeverdepraved,excepta rich manora Governmentofficiai, would take from a countryman living by his own labour the harvest he has raised, or the cow he has bred, and from which he gets milk for his children, or lhe sokhas (NOTE No 65), the scythes and spades he has made and uses. If even a man were found who did lake from another articles the latter had made and required, such a man would rouse against himself such indigna­tion from everyone living in similar circumstances, mal he would hardly find his action profitable for himself. A man so immoral as to do it under such circumstances, would be sure to do it under the strictest system of property defence by violence. It is generally said, 'Only au.emptto abolish the rights of property in land, and in the produce of labour, and no-one will take the trouble to work, lacking assurance thal he will be able to retain what he has produced.' We should say just L�e opposite: the defence by violence of lhe rights of property immorally obtained, which is now customary, if it has not quite destroyed. has considerably weakened people's natural consciousness of justice ir. the matter of using articles. It has weakened lhe natural and innate right of p�rty, without which hu­manity could not exist, and which has always existed and still e:dsts among

143

aU men. There is. thererorc. no reason to anticipate that people will not be able

toarrangethcir lives without organized violence. or course, itmay besaid that horses and bulls must be guided by the violence or rational beings. men; but why must men be guided, not by some higher beings, but by people such as themselves? Why ought people to be subject to the vio lence of just those men whoare in power at a given time? What proves that these people are wiser than those on whom they inflict violence?

The fact that they allow themselves to use violence towards human beings, indicates that they are not more, but less wise than those who submit to them. The examinations in China for the office of Mandarin do not, we know. ensure that the wisest and best people should be placed in power. And this is just as little ensured by inheritance, or the' whole machinery of promotions in rank, or the elections in constitutional countries. On the contrary, power is always seized by those who are less conscientious and less moral.

It is said, 'How can people live without Government, without violence?' But it should rather be asked, 'How can rational people live, aclcnowledging the vital bond of their social lire to be violence, and not reasonable agreement?'

One or the other: either people are rational beings or they are irrational beings. If they are irrational beings, then they are all irrational, and then everything among them is decided by violence, and there is no reason why certain people should, and others should not, have a righl to use violence. In that case, governmental violence has no justification. But if men are rational beings, then their relations should be based on reason, and not on the violence of those who happen to have seized power. In that case, again, governmental violence has no justification.

XIV

How Can Governments Be Abolished?

Slavery results from laws, laws arc made by Governments, and therefore, people can only be freed from slavery by the abolition of Governments, But how can Governments be abolished?

All attempts to gel rid of Governments by violence have, hitheno, always and everywhere resulted only in this: that in place of the deposed Governments, new ones established themselves, often more cruel than those they replaced.

Besides !hese past attempts to abolish Governments by violence, according to the Socialist theory, the coming abolition of the rule of the capitalists, the communali7..ation of the means of pr.;duction and the new

144

economic order of socie ty is also to be instituted by a fresh organization of violence, and will have to be maintained by the same means. So attempts to abolish violence by violence, neither have in the past, nor, evidently, can in the future, emancipate people from violence, nor, consequently, from slavery.

It cannot be otherwise. Apart from outbursts of revenge or anger, violence is

used only in order 10 compel some people against their own will to do the will of others. But being compelled todo what other people wish, against your own will, is slavery. There fore as long as any violence, designed to compel some people to do the will of others, exists. there will be slavery.

All the attempts to abolish slavery by violence are like extinguishing nre with ftre. stopping water with water, or nlling up one hole by digging another.

Therefore the means of escape from slavery, if such means exist, must be found not in setting up fresh violence, but in abolishing whatever renders governmental violence possible. The possibility of governmental violence, like every 0 ther violence perpeuated by a small number of people upon a larger number, has always depended, and still depends. simply on the fact that the small number are armed, while !he larger number are unarmed, or that the small number are beuer armed than the larger number.

That has been the case in all theconquesLS: in this way the Greeks, the Romans, the Knights (NOTE No 66) and Pizarrosconquered nations,and it is thus that people are now conquered in Africa and Asia In this same way. in times of peace, all GovcmmenLS hold their subjects in subjection.

As of old so now, people rule over other people only because some are armed and others are not.

In older times, the warriors, with their chiefs, fell upon the defence· less inhabitanLS, subdued them and robbed them; and all divided the spoils in proportion to their participation. courage and cruelty; and each warrior saw clearly t hat the violence he perpetrated was profitable to him. Now, armed men taken chiefly from the working classes attack defenceless people: men on strike, rioters or the inhabitants of other countries, and subdue them, and rob them of the fruits of their labour, not for themselves, the assailants, but for the people who do not even take part in the subjugation.

The difference between the conquerors and the GovernmenLS is only that the conquerors themselves with the soldiers attacked the unarmed inhabitanLS, and, in cases of insubordination, carried out their threats to torture and to kill; w hile the GovemmenLS, in cases of insubordination, do not themselves torture or execute the unarmed inhabitants. but oblige others to do it, who have been deceived and speciruly brutalized for the purpose, and who are chosen rrom among the very people on whom the

145

Government inflicts violence. Thus violence was formerly inflicted by personal effon. by the courage, cruelty and agility of the conquerors themselves, but now violence is inflicted by means of fraud.

The small number who rule, on obtaining power from their predeces­sors insta1led by conquest,say to the majority. 'There are a 1000fyou, but you are stupid and uneducated, and cannOleither govern yourselves or or­ganize your pub lic affairs, and therefore we will assume L'lOse tasks ourselves; we will protect you from foreign foes, and establish and uphold internal order among you; we will set up courts of justice, arrange and maintain public institutions for you: schools, roads and the postal service; and, in general, we will take care of your well-being; and in return for all this, you only have to fulfil certain slight demands which we make; and, among other things, you must give into our complete control a small part of your incomes, and you must yourselves enter the armies which are needed for your own safety and government.'

Most people agree to this, not because they have weighed up the advantages and disadvantages of these conditions, they never have a chance to do that, but because from their very birth they have found them­selves in conditions such as these.

If doubts suggest themselves to some as to whether all this is necessary, each thinks only about himself, and fears to suffer ifhe refuses to accept these conditions; each one hopes to take advantage of them for his own profit, and c·veryone agrees, thinking that by paying a small part of his means to the Government, and by consenting to military service, he cannot do himself very much harm.

But as soon as the Governments have the money and the soldiers, instead of fulfilling their promises to defend their subjects from foreign enemies, and to arrange things for their benefits, they do all they can to provoke the neighbou ring nations and to produce war. They not only do not promote the internal well-being of their people, but they ruin and corrupt them.

In the Arabian Nightsthere is a Story of a traveller who, being cast upon an desert island, found a little old man with withered legs siUing on the ground by the side of a stream. The old man asked the traveller to take him on his shoulders and carry him over the stream. The traveller consented, but no sooner was the old man settled on the traveller's shoulders than he twined his legs round the traveller's neck, and would not get off again. Having control ofthe traveller, the old man drove him about as he liked, plucked fruit from the trees, and ate himself, not giving any to his bearer. and abused him in every way.

That is exactly what happens with the people who give soldiers and money to the Governments. With the money the Governments buy guns, and hire or train subservient, brutali7.cd, military commanders, who, by means of an artful system of stupefaction, perfected in the course of ages,

146

and called discipline. tum those who have been taken as soldiers into a disciplined army . Discipline consists i n this, that people who are subjected to this training, and remain under it for some time, are completely deprived of all that is valuable in human life, and of man's chief attribute, rational freedom. They become submissive, machine-like instruments of murder in the hands of their organized. hierarchical stratocracy. It is in this disciplined army that the essence of the fraud dwells, which gives to modemGovemmentsdominionover the peoples. When theGovemments have in their power this instrument of violence and murder, lhat possesses no will of its own, the whole people are in their hands, and they do not let them go again, and not only prey upon them, but also abuse them, instill­ing into the people, by means of a pseudo-religious and patriotic educa­tion, loyalty to, and even adoration of, themselves, the very men who torment the whole people by keeping them in slavery.

It is not for nothing that all the kings, emperors and presidents esteem discipline so highly, are so afraid of any breach of discipline, and attach the highest importance to reviews, manoeuvres, parades, ceremonial marches and other such nonsense. They know that it all maintains discipline, and that not only their power but their very existence depends on discipline.

Disciplined armies are the means by which they, without using their own hands, accomplish the greatest atrocities, the possibilityofperpetrat­ing which gives them power over the people.

Theonly means therefore to destroy Governments is not by force, but by theexposureofthis fraud. It isnecessarypeopleshould understand two things. Firstly, that in Christendom there is no need to protect the people. one from ano ther; that the enmity of the peoples, one to another, is produced by the Governments themselves; and that armies are only needed for the advantage of the small number who rule; for the people it is not only unnecessary but is in the highest degree harmful. serving as an inSlIUment to enslave them. Secondly, that the discipline which is so highly esteemed by all the Governments is the greatest crime that man can commit, and is a clear indication of the criminality of the aims of Govern­ments. Discipline is the suppression of reason and of freedom in man, and can have no aim other than preparation for the performance of crimes such as no man can commit while in a nonnal condition. It is not even needed for war when the war isdefensiveand national, as the Boers have recently shown. It is wanted. and wanted only, for the purpose indicated by Wilhelm II: for the perpetration of the greatest crimes - fratricide and parricide.

The terrible old man who sat on the traveller's shoulders behaved as the Governments do. He mocked him and insulted him, knowing that as long as he sat on the traveller's neck the latter was in his power.

It is just this fraud, by means of which a small number of unworthy

147

people, called the Govemmcn.l, have power over the peop

.le, and not only

impoverish them, butdowhatls the most harmful of all acuons,perverting whole generations from childhood upwards; it is just this terrible fraUd which should beexposed in order that the abolition ofGovemmentandor the slavery that results from it may become possible.

The Gennan writer, Eugen Schmiu, in the newspaper Olllle StQlU which he published in Budapest, wrote an article that was profoundly � and bold, not only in expression but in thought. In it he showed that Governments, justifying their existence on the ground that they ensure a certain kind of safety to their subjects. are like the CaIabrian robber-chief who collected a regular laX from all who wished to travel in safety along the highways. Schmitt was committed for trial for that article, but was acquitted by the jury.

We are so hypnotized by the Government that such a comparison seems to us an exaggeration, a paradox or a joke; but in reality it is not a paradox or a joke. The only inaccuracy in the comparison is that the activity of all the Govern ments is many times more inhuman, and, above all. more hannful, that the activity of the Calabrian robber. He generally plundered the rich; they generally plunder the poor and protect those rich men who assist in their crimes. The robber doing his work risked his life, while the Governments risk nothing, but base their whole activity on lies and deception. The robber did not compel anyone to join his band; the Governments generally enrol their soldiers by force. All who paid the laX to the robber had equal security from danger; but in the State, the more anyone takes pan in the organized fraud. the more he receives not merely of protection but a1so reward. Most of all, the emperors. kings and presidents are protected (with their perpetual bodyguards), and they can spend the largest share of the money collected from the tax-paying sub­jects. Next in the scale of participation in governmental crimes come the commandClS-in-chief, theministers, the heads of police. governors and so on, down to the policemen, who are least protected, and who receive the smallest salaries of all. Those who do not take any pan in the crimes of Government, who refuse to serve, to pay taxes or to go to law , arc subjected 10 violence, as among the robbers. The robber does not intentionally corrupt people; but the Governments. to accomplish their ends, corrupt whole generations from childhood 10 manhood with false religious and palriotic instruction. Above all, nOleven the most cruel robber. no Stenka Razin (NOTE No 67), no Canouchc (NOTE No 68), can becompared for cruelty, pitilessness, and ingenuity in tonuring, I will not say with the

villain kings notorious for their cruelty, John the Terrible, Louis XI, the Elizabeths, etc., but even with the present constitutional and liberal Governments, with their solitary cells, disciplinary battalions. suppres­sions of rev oilS and their massacres in war.

Towards Governments. as towards Churches. it is impossible to feel

148

Iherwise than with veneration or aversion. Until a man has undersLood o hat a Government is, and until he has understood what a Church is, he Wannot but feel a venerat ion for those institutions. As long as he is guided

�y them, his vanity makes it necessary for him 10 think that what guides

him is something primal, great and holy; butassoon as he understands that

what guides him is not something primal and holy, but that it is a fraud carried out by unworthy people, who, under the pretence of guiding him,

make use of him for their own personal ends, he cannot but at once feel

aversion towards these people; and the more imponant the partof his life that has been guided, the more aversion will he feel.

Peoplecannot but feel this when they have undersLood wnalGovern­

ments are. People must feel that their participation in the criminal activity 'of Governments, whether by giving part of their work in the form of

money. orby direct participation in military service, is not, as is generally supposed, an indiffe rent action but besides being harmful to oneself and one's brothers, is a participation in the crimes unceasingly committed by all Governments, and a preparation for new crimes which Governments,

by maintaining disciplined armies, are always planning. The age of veneration for Governments, despite all the hypnotic

influence they enjoy to maintain their position, is, more and more, pass­ing away. And it is time for people to undersumd that Governments not only are not necessary ,butare harmful and highly immoral institutions. in which an honest, self-respecting man cannot and must not take part, and the advantages of which he cannot and should not enjoy.

And as soon as people clearly understand that. they will naturally cease to take pan in such deeds, Le., cease to give the Governments soldiers and money. And as soon as a majority of people ceases to do this, the fraud which enslav es people will be abolished.

Only in this way can people be freed from slavery.

XV What Should Each Man Do?

'But all these are general considerations, and. whether they are correct or not, they are inapplicable to life,' wilJ be the remark made by people accustomed to their position, and who do not consider it possible or desirable to change iL

'Tell us what to do, and how to organizc society?' is what people of the well-to-do classes usually say.

They are so accustomed to their role of slave-owners that when there is truk of improving the workers' condition. they at once begin. like our serf-owners before the emancipation, to devise all sarIS of plans for their

149

slaves, but it nevecoccurs to them that they have no right todispose of other people; and that, if they really wish to do good to people, the only thing they can and should do is to cease to do the evil they are now doing. That evil is very defmite and clear. It is not merely that they employ compulsory slave-labour,anddonot wish to cease from employing it, but that they also take part in establishing and maintaining this compulsion oflabour. That is what they should cease to do.

The working people are also perverted by their compulsory slavery that it seems tomostofthem that if their position isa bad one, it is the fault of the masters, who pay them too liuie, and who own the means of production. It does notenler their heads that their position depends entirely on themselves, and that, if only they wish to improve their own and their brothers' position, and not merely each to do the best he can for himself, themain thing for them to do is themselves toceasc todoevil. And the evil they do is that, desiring to improve their material position by the very means which have brought them into bondage, the workers, for the sake of satisfying the habits they have adopted, sacrifice their human dignity and freedom, and accept humiliating and immoral employment, or pr0-duce unnecessary and harmful articles, and, above a1l, they maintain Gov­emments, taking part in them by paying taxes, and by direct service, and thus enslave themselves.

Inorderthat thestate of things may be improved, both the well-to-do classes and the workers must understand that improvements cannot be effected by safeguarding one's own interests. Service involves sacrifice, and therefore, if peo pie really wish to improve the position of their brother-men, and notmerel y their own. they must be ready not only to alter the way oflife to which they are accustomed, and to lose thoseadvanlages which they have held, but they must be prepared for an intense sbUggle, not against Governments, but against themselves and their families. and must be ready to suffer persecution for non-fulfilment of the demands of Govemmenl

Therefore, the answer to the question: What must we de? is very simple, and not merely theoretical, but always in the highest degree applicable and practicable for each man, though it is not what is expected from those who, like pcople ofthe well-to-do classes, are fuUy convinced that they are appointed to correct, not themselves, they are already good, butotherpcople; and from those who, like the workmen, are sure that, not they but only the capitalists, are to blame that their position is so bad, and think that things can only be put right by taking from the capitalists the things they use, and arranging it so that all may make use of those conveniences of life which are now used only by the rich. The answer is very definite, applicable and practicable, for it demands the activity of thaI one person, over whom each of us has real. rightful and unquestionable power, namely, oneself; and it consists in this, that if a man, whether slave

150

or slave-owner, really wishes to better not his position alone, but the position of people in general, he must himself not do those wrong things which enslave him and his brothers. In order not to do the evil which produces misery for himself and for his brothers, he should firstly neil/ler willingly. nor JUlder compulsion, rake any part in Goverl1ml!nt activity, and should therefore be neither a soldier, nor a Field-Marshal, nor a Minister -of-State, nor a tax-collector, nor a witness, nor a."I alderman, nor ajuryman, nor a governor, nor a Member of Parliament, nor, infact, hold any office connected with violence. That is one thing.

Secondly, such a man should not volJUltarily pay taxes to Govern­ments, either direcllyor indirectly; nor should he accep: money collected by taxes. either as salary, or as pension. or as a reward, nor slwuld h e make use of Government instilulions supported by taxes collected by violence from the people.That is the second thing.

Thirdly, such a man should not appeal 10 Government violence for the protection of his possessions in land or in other things, nor to defend him and his near ones .. but should only possess land and all products of his own or other people's toil, in so far as others do not claim Ihemfrom him. 'But such an activity is impossible: to refuse all participation in Govern­mentaffairs, means to refuse to live' - is what people will say . • A man who refuses military service will be imprisoned; a man whodoes not pay taxes will be p unished, and the tax will be collected from his property; a man who, having no other means of livelihood, refuses Government service will perish of hunger with his family; the same will befall a man who re­jects Government protection for his property and his person; not to make use of things that are taxed, or of Government institutions, is quite impossible, as the most necessary articles are often laxed; and just in the same way it is impossible to do without Government institutions, such as the post and the roads.'

It is quite true that it is difficult for a man of our time to stand aside from all participation in Government violence. But the fact that not everyone can so arrange his life as not to participate, in some degree, in Government viol ence, docs not at all show that it is not possible to free oneself from it more and more. Not every man will have the strength to refuse conscription, though there are, and will be, such men, but each man can abstain from voluntarily entering the army, the JXllicc force, or the judicial or revenue service, and can give the preference to a worse paid private service rather than to a better paid public service.

Not every man will have the strength to renounce his landed estates, though there are people who do that, but every mancan, understanding the wrongfulness of such property, diminish its extent. Not every man can renounce the posscssi on of capital, though there are some who do, or the use of articles defended by violence, but each man can, by diminishing his own requirements. be less and less in need of articles which provoke other

151

people to envy. Not every official can renounce his Government salary,

!.hough !.here are men who prefer hunger to dishonest Government em­

ployment, but everyone can prefer a smaller salary to a larger one, for the

sake of having duties less bound up with violence. Not every one can

refuse to make use of Government schools ( NOTE No 69) !.hough there

aresome who do, but everyone can give !.he preference to private schools,

(NOTE No 70) and each can make less and less use of articles !.hat are

taxed, and of Government institutions. BelWeen the existing order, based on brute force, and the ideal of a

society based on reasonable agreement confirmed by custom, there are an inftnite number of steps, which mankind is ascending. and the approach to the ideal is only accomplished to the extent to which people free themselves from participation in violence, from taking advantage ofit, and from being accustomed to it.

We do not know, and cannot guess, and still less can we like the pseudo-scientific men foretell, in what way this gradual weakening of Governments and emancipation of the people will come about; nor do we know what new forms man's lif e will take as the gradual emancipation progresses, but we do know certainly that the life of people who, having understood the crimina1ity and harmfulness of the activity of Govern­ments, strive not to make use of them or to take pan in them, will be quite different, and more in accord with the law of tife and with our own consciences, than the present life, in which people white themselves participating in Government violence, and taking advantage of it, make a pretence of struggling against it, and try todestroy the old violence by new violence.

The chief thing is that the present arrangement of life is bad; about that. all are agreed. The cause of the bad conditions and of the existing slavery lies in the violence used by Governments. There is only one way to abolish Governme nt violence; it is that people should abstain from participating in violence. Therefore, whether it bedifficult or not to abstain from participating in Government violence, and whether the good results of such abstinence will, or will not, be soon apparent, are superfluous questions: because to liberate people from slavery, there is only that one way, and no other!

To what extent, and when, voluntary agreement confU1l1ed by cus­tom will replace violence in each society and in the whole world, will depend on thestrength and clearness of people's consciousness, and on the number of individuals who make this consciousness their own. Each of us is a separate person, and each can be a participatant in the general movement of humanity by his greater or lesser clearness of recognition of the aim before us, or hecan be an opponent of progress. Each will have to make his choice; either to oppose the will of God, building upon the sands the unstable house of his brief and illusive life, or to join in the eternal

152

deathless movement of true life in accord with God's will. But perhaps I am mistaken, and the right conclusions to draw from

human history are not these, and the human race is not moving towards emancipation from slavery; perhaps it can be proved that violence is a necessary factor of progres s, and that the State with its violence is a necessary form of life, and that it will be worse for people ifGovemments areabolished, and ifthedefence of our persons and property is abolished.

Let us grant it to be so, and say that all the foregoing reasoning is wrong; but besides the general considerations about the life of humanity , each man has also to face the question of his own life, and. notwithstanding any considera tions about the general laws of life, a man cannot do what he admits to be, not merely harmful, but wrong.

'Very possibly the reasonings showing the State to be a necessary form of the development of the individual, and Government violence to be necessary for the goodof society, can all bededuced from history, and are aUcorrect.· eachhonestand sincere man of our time will reply. 'butmurder is an evil. That I know more certainly than any reasonings; by demanding that I should enter the army, or pay for hiring and equipping soldiers. or for buying cannons and building battleships, you wish to make me an accomplice in murder, and that I cannot and not will be. Neitherdo I wish to, nor can I, make use of money you have collected from hungry people with threats of murder; nor do I wish to make use of land or capital defended by you, because I know that your defence of it rests on murder.

I could do these things when I did not understand all their criminal­ity, bUlonce I have seen it,l cannot avoid seeing it. and can no longer take pan in these things.

I know that we are all so bound up by violence that it is difficult to avoid it altogether, but I will, nevertheless, do all I can, not to take part in it: I will not be an accomplice to it. and will try not to make use of what is obtained and defended by murder.

I have but one life, and why should I, in this brief life of mine. act contrary to the voice of conscience and become an accomplice in your abominable deeds? I cannot. and I will nOl

What will come of this, I do not know. Only, I think no harm can result from acting as my conscience demands.'

So, in our time, should each honest and sincere man reply to all the arguments about the necessity of Governments and of violence. and to every demand or invitation to take part in them.

The conclusion to which general reasoning should bring us, is thus confU1l1ed to each individual, by that suprcme and unimpeachable judge, the voice of conscience.

153

XVI An Afterword

'But this is again the same old sennon: on the one hand, urging the destruction of the present order of things without putting anything in its place. and, on the other hand, exhorting to non-action,' is what many will say an reading what I have wrillen. 'Government action is bad, so is the action of the landowner and of the businessman; equally badis the activity of the Socialist and of the revolutionary Anarchist; that is to say. all real, practical activities are bad, and only some son of moral, spiritual, indefinite activity. which brings everything to utter chaos and inaction, is good.' Thus, I know, many serious and sincere people will think and

speak! What seems to people most disturbing in the idea of non-violence, is

that property will not be protected, and that each man will, therefore, be able to take from another man what he needs or merely likes, and go unpunished. To people accUSLOmcd to the defence of property and person by violence, it seems that without such defence there will be perpetual disorder, a constant struggle of everyone against everyone else.

I will not repeat what I have said elsewhere to show that the defence of property by violence does not lessen, but increases. this disorder. But allowing that in the absence of defence disorder may occur, what are people to do who hav e understood the cause of thecalamities from which they are suffering?

If we have understood that we are ill from drunkenness, we must not continue to drink hoping to mend matters by drinking moderately, or taking medicines that shortsighted doctors give us.

It is the same with our social sickness. If we have understood that we are ill because some people use violence on others, we cannot improve the position of society either by continuing to support the Government

violence that exists, or by introducing a fresh kind of revolutionary or Socialist violence. That might have been done as long as the fundamentaJ cause of people' s misery was not clearly seen. But as soon as it has become indubitably clear that other people suffer from the violence done by some to others, it becomes impossible to improve the position by continuing the old violence, or by introducing a new kind. As thesick man suffering from alcoholism has only one way to be cured · by refraining from intoxicants which are thecause of this illness, so there is only one way to free men from the evil arrangement of society, and that is to refrain from violence, the cause of the suffering, from preaching violence, and from in any way justifying violence.

Not only is this the only way to deliver people from their ills. but we must also adopt it, because it coincides with !.he moral consciousness of

154

each individual man of our time. If a man of our day has once understood

that every defenc e of property or person by violence is obtained only by threatening to murder or by murdering, he can no longer, with a quiet conscience, make use of that which is obtained by murder or by threat of murder. and still less can he take part in the murder, or in threatening to murder. So, what is wanted to free people from their misery is also needed for the satisfaction of the moral consciousness of every individual. For each individual. therefore. there can be no doubt that both for the general good. and to fulfil the law of his life, he must neither take part in violence. nor justify it, nor make use of it.

155

On Social ism,

S t n te and Ch ri st ian

ON SOCIALISM, STATE AND CHRISTIAN (1900)

Loo/cing Backwards i s excellent (NOTE No 71). One lhing i s bad, namely, the Socialist, Marxian idea that if one does wrong for a very long time, good will ensue of its ow n accord. 'Capital is accumulated in the hands of a few; it will end by being held by one. All trades-unions will be also united into one. There are capital and labour - divided. Authority or revolution will unite them, and all will be well.' The chief po int is that nolliing in our civilization will diminish, nothing recede; there will be the same mansions. the same gasuonomic dinners. sweets, wines, carriages, horses - only everything will be accessible to all.

Jtis incomprehensible that they donotsee this to beimpossible. Take forinstance the luxuries of the house ory asoaya Polyana, and divide them among the peasams. It can't be done. They would be of no use to them. Luxury mu st be given up. NOthing will do SO long as violence. capital and invention are directed towards that which is unnecessary (NOTE No 72). And in order to get at what is necessary for the masses, everything must be tested.

But the chief thing is that we must be ready to renounce all the improvements of our civilization, rather than allow those cruel inequali. ties which constitute our scourge. If I really love my brother, then I shall not hesitate to deprive myself of a drawing-room, in order to shelter him when he is homeless. As it is, we say that we wish to sheJter our brother, but only on condition that our drawing-room remain free for receptions. We must dccide whom we will serve - God or mamm on. To serve both is impossible. If we are to serve God, we must be prepared to give up luxury and civilization; being ready to introduce them again tomorrow, but only for the common and equal use of all.

The most profitable social arrangement (economically and other­wise) is one in which each thinks of the good of all. and devotes himself unreservedly to the service of that welfare. If all were so disposed, each

158

would derive the greatest possible amount of good. The most unprofitable grouping of people (economically and other­

wise) is that in which each works for himself only, depends and provides for himself only . If this were universally the case, if there were notat least family gro ups in which people work for one another. I do not think men could live.

However, people have not this yearning for the welfare of others; on the contrary .each is striving for his own welfare. to the detriment of others. But this state of affairs is so unprofitable that men speedily grow weak in th e struggle. And now, by the very nature of things, it occurs that one man overpowers others and makes them serve him. And the result is a more profitable labour of men instead of the unprofitable individual one.

But in such associations of men there appear inequality a.'ld oppres­sion. And therefore people are making attempts at equalization (such as the attempts at co-operatives, communes) and at the liberation of men (such as political rights). Equalization always leads todisadvantage of the work done. In order to equali7,c the remuneration. the best workman is brought down to the level of the worse; things in use are divided in such a manner that no-one may have more, or better, than a nother, as in the distribution of land; and this is why the divisions of land are being made smaller and smaller, a practice disadvantageous to all. Liberation from oppression by political rights is leading to even grcaterexcitementand ilI­will. Thus at tempts at equalization and deliverance from oppression are made, though without success; while the unification, the subjugation of ever greater and greater numbers of men by one is always increasing. The greater the centralization of labour, the more prof itable it is, but also the more striking and revolting is the inequality.

What, then. is to be done? Individual labour is unprofitable; central­ized labour is more profitable, but the inequality and oppression are terrible.

Socialists wish to remove inequality and oppression by assigning 311 capital to the nation, to humanity, so that the centralized unit will become humanity itself. But, in the first place, not only humanity, but even nations do not as yet admit the nec essit)' for this, and until they do. this system cannot beadopted by all humanity; sccondly,among men striving each for his own welfare, it would be impossible to find men sufficiently disinter­ested to manage the capital of humanity without taking advantage of their power - men who would not again introduce into the world inequality and oppression.

And so humanity stands unavoidably face to face with this dilemma: either the forward movement attained by the centralization of labour must be renounced - there must even be retrogression rather than an infringe­ment of equality or allowance of oppre ssion - or else it should be boldly admitted that inequality and oppression must exist, that 'when wood is

159

chopped, splinterS will ny,' that there must be victims, and that Struggle

is the law of humanity. And this view is, in fact, adopted and suPporte d by certain people. But, side by side with it, there resounds ever louder and

loudez the protests of the dispossessed, the moans of the oppressed and the

voices of the indignant raised in the name of the ideal of Christ, oflruth and

good; an ideal which is acknowledged by our society only officially.

But any child can see that the greatest advantage would result to alI if everyone were ID interest himself in the common cause, and therefore to beprovidedforasamemberofthe whole. As, however, this is nottheprac_

tice, as it is impossibl e to enter into the soul of everyone and control it, and

as ID persuade everybodY is also impossible, or would take infinitely long,

there remains but one other course: to assist the centralization of labour,

resulting from the subjugation of the many by the few, and atthe same time

to conceal from the dispossessed their inequality with the fortunate, to

ward off their attacks, and to help and afford charity to the oppressed. And

this is being done; but lhe concentration of capital increases more and mo

re, and the inequality and oppression grow ever more cruel. And side by

side with this, enlightenment becomes more general, and the inequality

and the cruelty of oppression more evident both to oppressed and oppres­

sors. Furthermovementin this direction is becoming impossibl� so those

who think little, who do not look to the logical conclusion, propose

imaginary remedies, consisting in the education of men in the conscious­

ness of the necessity of co-operation for t he sake of greater advantage.

This is absurd. IT the aim be great advantage, then everyone will get this advantage for himself in the capitalistic organizations. And therefore

nothing except talk results from these attempts. The organization most profitable for all will be auained not while

everyone's aim is profit, material welfare, but only when the aim of all is

that welfare which is independent of earthly well-being - when everyone

will say from his heart, 'Blessed are the poor, blessed are those that weep,

those who are persecuted.' Only when everyone secks, not material but

sriritual welfare, which always coincides with sacrifice. is verified by sac­

i.Zi.;e - only then will result the greatest welfare of all.

Take this simple illustration: people live IDgether; if they tidy up

regularly,clean upafl.er lhemselves.everyone has todo very little in order

to preserve the general cleanliness. But everyone is accustomed to have

things tidied and cleaned up aft er him; what, then, has he to do who wishes

to keep the place clean? He must work for all, must be immersed in dirt.

And ifhe will not do this, will work only forhimsclf, he will notaltain his

aim. Of course it would beeasier to order all the others; but there is no-one

who can so order. There remains but one course - oneself ID work for

others. And, indeed, in a world where all are living for themselves, to begin

160

to live for others a little is impossible; one must give oneself up entirely. And it is just this that the conscience, enlightened by Christ, demands.

Why is it that the kingdom of God upon earth can be realized neither by means of the existing governmental violence, nor by a revolution and

State Socialism, nor yet by those means preached by Christian Socialists: propaganda and the gradually increas ingconsciousnessofmen that it will

be advantagCQus? So long as Man's aim is the welfare of the personal life, no-one can

stop himself in this strife for his welfare at the point where he gets his just share -and at such demands from men which call for the welJ-being of all. No-one can do this, firstly , because it is impossible to find the point of perfect justice in theses requests - men will always exaggerate their demands; and secondly. because, even if it were possible to find the measure of the just demands, man cannot put forward the demand for t hat which is only just, for he will never get it, but infinitely less. The demands of those around him being regulated, not by justice, but by personal profit, it is evident that as a matter offact the possession of material welfare wilJ be attained by e very separate individual rather through competition and struggle (as indeed is at present the case) than by just demands.

In order to attain justice, while people are striving after personal welfare. it would be necessary to be have people able ID define the measure of worldly goods which should in justice fall to the share of each; and also people with power to prevent men profiting by more than their just share. There are, and always have been, men who have undertaken both these duties; they are our rulers. But up to the present time neither in monarchies nor in republics have there been found men who, in defining the measure of goods and distributing them amongst men, have not transgressed this measure for themselves and their assistants, and thus spoilt the work they W(!Te called 10, and undertook to do. So that this mean s is already recog­nized by all to be unsatisfactory. And now some people say that it is necessary ID abolish these Governments and to establish Governments of another kind, chieny for the purpose of supervising economic affairs -L'leseGovemments, ackno wledging that all capital and land are common property, will administer the labour of men and distribute earthly welfare, according to their labour, or, as some say. according to their needs.

All attempts at this kind of organization, hitherto made, have been un­successful. But even without such experiments, one can confident! y assert that, with men striving after personal welfare, such an organization cannot be realized, because those men - very many of them - who will supervise economic affairs, will be men with strivings after personal welfare, and will have to deal with similar men, and therefore in organizing and maintaining the new economic order, they will inevitably promote their own personal advantage as much as the fonner administrators. and will

161

thus destroy the meaning of the very work they are called 10 do. Some will say, 'Choose men who are wise and pure.' But nonebut the

wise and pure can choose the wise and pure. And if all men were wiseand pure, there would be no need of any organization, consequently the impossibility of that which the revolutiona ry Socialists prof�s is felt by all,even by themselves; and that is why itisoutof dateandhas no success.

And here we come 10 the third teaching - thatofChrislian Socialism, which proposes propaganda aiming at influencing lIle consciousness of men. But lIle success of this teaching is evidently possible only when a11 men will have the same clear conscious ness of the advantages of community of labour, and when this consciousness will have simultane­ously developed in aiL Butas it is evident that neither the one nor the other can take place, the economic organization founded, not on competition and suuggl e, but on community of interest cannot be realized.

Therefore there cannot be a beuerorganization than the present one, so long as the aim of man is personal welfare.

The error of those who preach Christian Socialism consists in this, that they draw from the Gospels only that practical conclusion of general welfare which is not the aim pointed out by the Gospels, but only the verification of the correctness of the means. The Gospels teach the way of life, and by advancing along this path, it happens thal material welfare is reached. It is indeed attained, but it is not the aim. If the aim of the gospel teaching were limited to the attainment of material welfare, th en this material welfare would not be allained.

The aim is higher and more distant. The aim of mis teaching is not dependent on material welfare; it is the salvation of the soul, i.e. of that divine element which has been enclosed in man. This salvation is attained by renouncing personal life and therefore, also, material well-being, and by striving after the welfare of one's neighbours - by love. And it is only by this endeavour that men will, incidentally ,altain the greatest welfareof a11 • the kingdom of God upon earth.

By striving after personal welfare, neither personal nor general welfare is attained. By striving after self-forgetfulness, both personal and general welfare are attained.

Thcoreticall y , three organizations of human society are possible. The first is this: people - the best people, God's people - will give such a law to men as will ensure the greatest happiness 10 mankind, and the authori ties will enforce the fulfilment of this law. This has been tried, but hasresulted in the authorities. those who adm inistcred the law, abusing their power and infringing the law, and this is done not only by the administrators but also by their assistants. who are many. Then appeared a second scheme, 'Laisser /aire, laisser passer' , the idea being mat there is no need of authorities, but that by all men striving each for his own welfare, justice will berealized. Butthisdoes notsuccced for two reasons. Firstly, because

162

authority is not abolished, and poople think it cannot beabolished because oppression would still continue, for the Government would refuse 10 use its authority to arrest the robber, whereas the robber would not desist . While there are authorities, the condition of men fighting for welfare is unequal, not only because some are stronger than others, but also because men make useof authority to help them in the struggle. Secondly. because in the incessant struggle of aI I, each for his own welfare, the slighrest advantage of one gives him a multiplied advantage, and i.."lequality must inevitably resulL There still remains a third theory, that men will comeLO understand that it is profitable to live for the welfare of othe CS, and thata11 will strive afler this. And it is just this that the Christian faith furnishes. In the first place, there can be no external obstacles to the realizaLion of this theory; whether or not lIlere exist Government, capital a'ld the whole presen t order of things, the object would be attained in the event of such a development of men's conception of life. Secondly, one need expect no special term for the commencemenlof the realization. forevery single in­dividual who has attained this life conce ption, and gives himself up to the welfare of others, is already contributing to that welfare. And thirdly, this has been going on ever since we have known anything about the life of men.

Socialists say, 'It is not necessary for us who enjoy the blessing of culture and civilization 10 be deprived of these blessings, and to descend to the level of the rough crowd, but the men who are now deprived of material welfare must be raised 10 our level, and given a share in the blessings of culture and civilization. The means for accomplishing this is science. Science teaches us 10 conquer nature; it is able infmilely to increase the productivity of nature; it may by electricity avail itself of the power of the Niagara Falls, of rivers, of winds. The sun will work. And there will be plenty of everything for everybody. At present only a sma11 fraction of mankind, the one in power, profits by the blessings of civiliza­tion, whereas the rest is dep ri ved of them. Increase the welfare, and then it will suffice for all. But the fact is that those in power have long been c:}asuming not what they need, but what they do not need; all they can gel Therefore, however much benefits may increase, those who a re at the top will appropriate thcm for themselves.

One cannot consume more than a certain quar.tity of necessities, but to luxury there is no limit. Thousands of bushels of bread may be used for horses and dogs; millions of acres of land turned into parks, and so on, as is now the case. So, no incr ease of productivity and wealth will augment one jot the welfare of the lower classes, so long as the upper classes have the power and the desire 10 spend the surplus wealth on luxury. On the contrary, the increase in productivity, the greater mastery of the forces of nature, only gives greater power to the upper classes, to those in authority

163

� .

- power to keep this authority over the lower working classes. And every attempt on the part of the lower classes to make the rich

share with them, • revolutions, strikes - cause strife, and the strife · a useless wasteofweahh. 'Beuer let no-one have it, in cannot,' say the con­tending parties.

The conquest of nature and the increased production of material wealth in order that it may overnow the world, SO that every one may have his share, is as unwise a proceeding as would be to increase thequanuty of wood thrown into a stove, in order to increase the warmth of a house in which the stoves have no dampers. However much you may build up the fire, the cold air becoming heated will rise, and fresh cold air will at once take its place; and therefore no equal distribution of warmth in the hou se will be attained. This will continue as long as there is access for the cold air and an outlet for the hot.

Of the three remedies which have so far been invented, it is difficult to say which is the most foolish, so foolish are they all.

The flfSt remedy, that of the revolutionist, consists in the abolition of the upper classes, by whom all the wealth is consumed. This is the same as if aman were to break the chimney through which the heat is disappear­ing, supposing that when there i s nochimney the heat will not pass away. But the heat will pass out through the hole left by the chimney, as it did through the chimney itself, if the current be the same. In the same way, wealth will all go 10 the men in authority, as long as authority e xists.

Another remedy, at present being put into practice by Wilhelm II, is, without changing the existing order, to take from the upper classes, who possess the wealth and power, a small portion of this wealth and throw it inlO the bottomless abyss of pover ty; as if one were to arrange on the top of the chimney. through which the heat is passing. fans, and to fan the heat, trying todrive itdown to the cold layers. Anoccupation obviously difficult and useless, because, while the heat ascends from below. h owever much one may drive it down (and one cannot drive down much), it will at once again rise up, and all the exertion will be wasted.

The third,and Iast,remedy isat present preached especially in Amer­ica. It consists in replacing the competitive and individualistic basis of life by a communistic principle, by a principle of associations, co-operatives. This remedy ,as stated in Dawn and theNationafi,st , consists in preaching co-operation by word and deed, in inculcating and explaining to men that competition, individualism and strife a re destroying much strength and consequently wealth, and that far greater advantage is derived from theca. operative principle. i.e. every one working for the common good. and receiving afterwards his share of the common wealth - that this will prove more advanrageous for everybody. All this is exceilenl, but the worst of it is that, to begin with, no-one knows what each man's share will be when all is divided equally; and above all, whatever his share may be, it will

164

appear insufficient for their welfare tomen livingas theydoat prescnl 'All will be well off, and you will enjoy the same as the others.' - 'But I don't want to live like all the rest, I want to live betler. I have always lived bet­terthanothers andam used to it.' - ' Andas forme. J have long lived worse than all, and now want to live just as others have lived.' This remedy is the worst of all, because it supposes that during the existing upward current, Le. the motive of striving after the best, it is possible to persuade the particles 0 r air not 10 rise in proportion to the heal.

1beone means is IOreveal to men theirtruewelfare,and toshow !hem that wealth not only is not a blessing but even diverts men from welfare, by hiding from them their true welfare. There is only one means, and that is 10 stop up the hole of worldly desire. This alone would give equally dis­tributed heal And this is exactly the oppositeof what the Socialists say and do - trying to augment production, and therefore the general rna ss of wealth.

Gronlund (NOTE No 73) is arguing with Spencer (NOTE No 74) and all those who deny the need ofGovemmentor see its destination only in the sccwity of the individual. Gronlund considers that the foundation of mora1ity lies in associ ation. As a model, or rather as an embryo, of a real socialistic Government, he brings forward trades-unions, which, by coerc­ing the individual, by inducing him to sacrifice his personal interests, subordinate him to the service of the common cause.

This, I think, is not true. He says that the Government organizes labour. That would be well; but he forgets that Governments are always coercing and exploiting labour under the pretext of defence. How much more would it then exploit labour under the pretext of organizing it? It would indeed be well if Government were lOorganizelabour, but todo that it must be disinterested, saintly. But where are they, these saints?

It is true that individualism, as they call it, meaning by this the ideal of individual welfare for each separate man, is a mostpemicious principle; but the principle of the welfare of many people together is equally pernicious. Only its perniciousn ess is not at once evident.

The attainment of that co-operation - social communism - in placeof individualism, will not result from organization. We shall never guess what will be the organization of the future: we will discover it only by everyone following the unperverted imp ulse ofhean, conscience, reason, faith; the law of liCe, call it what you will.

Bees and ants live socially, not because they know what organization is most advantageous for them, and follow it - they have no idea of expediency. hannony, the wisdom of the hive or anthill. as they appear to us - but because they give themselves u p to what we call the instinct inherent in them, they submit, not philosophizing cunningly, but straight­forwardly to their law oflife (NOTE No 75). I �an imagine that ifbccs, in

165

addition 10 their inslinct, as we call it, in addition 10 the consc iousness of their law, were able 10 invent the best organization ofLheir social life, they would invent such a life that they would perish.

In this tendency of the law of life, there is something less and something more than reasoning. And it alone leads to that way of truth. which is the right one for man and for humanity.

166

SOURCES

THE END OF THE AGE (1905) (first twO chapters on the Russo-Japanese war omitted)

Translated by Vladimir Tcherlkoff, from Essays from Tufa, Sheppard Press, London 1948.

AN APPEAL TO SOCIAL REFORMERS (1903) Translated by Vladimir Tchertkoff. from Essaysfrom Tula, which

omiued Chapter n. no doubt due to post-war legislation on sedition. Chapter 11 wasuken from theshonerversion oftheessaypuhlished under the title of Address to 'he Working Class in Leo T ols/oy - his life and work, Jack Robinson, Freedom Anarchist Pamphlets No. 6, Freedom Press, London u ndated (circa 1971), reprinted from Reynolds News, August 1903.

ON ANARCHY (1900) Translated by Vladimir Tchertkoff from Tolstoy ' s manu­

script diary. published in Some Social Remedies Free Age Press, Christ­church, Hants. undated.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL (1900) (two paragraphs on Wilhelm and Nicholas omitted) Translated by Aylmer Maude, from Essays and Letters , Henry

FrowdelHumphrey Milford,London 1904, reprinted in Writings on Civil Disobedience and Non-violence, New Society Publ ishers, Philadephia 1987.

PATRIOTISM AND GOVERNMENT (1900) (ten paragraphs on the Boer War, contemporary rulers

and the Franco-Prussian war omitled) Translated by Aylmer Maude, from Essays and Letters reprinted in The Kingdom a/God and Peace Essays World's Classics series, Oxford University Press, 19 80.

THE KJNGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU (1893) The Circle of Violence - extract from Chapter 8 The Significance of Military Service - Chapter 7 (one paragraph on

contemporary rulers omitted) Translated by Vladimir Tchertkoff, from Laler Wor.u o/TolslOY, Free Age Press, Christchurch, Hants, 1900.

THE SLAVERY OF OUR TIMES (1900) Translated by Aylmer Maude, from £ssaysjrom Tula

168

ON SOCIALISM, STATE AND CHRISTIAN (1900) Translated by Vladimir Tchertkoff from Tolstoy ' s manu­

script diary, published in Some Social Remedies

169

FURTHER READING ON TOLSTOY

Tolstoy's political essays

Unfortunately, most of Tolstoy's political essays are now out of prinl However, the books listed on the sources page and those given below can usually be found through a book search by a good secondhand bookshop. Other sources for Tolstoy's essays are listed in Le..o Tolstoy, an annotated bibliography of EngUsh­language sources to 1978 D. R. and M. A. Egan, Scarecrow Press Inc, Metuchen NJ and London 1979.

The RussianRevofutioll. Free Age Press, Christchurch. Hants 1907 (British Library shelfmark 8094f 4 7).

Social Evils and their Remedies. Methuen. London 1911.

Recollections and Essays, World's Cia<;sics series, Oxford Univer­sity Press, fltSl published 1937.

What must we then do? World's Classics series, Oxford University Press, 1950.

The Kingdom afGod and Peace Essays , World's Classics series, Ollford University Press, 1980.

Tolstoy's political essays in print

The Inevitable Revolution, transl. Ronald Sampson, Housmans, London 1981.

The Kingdom of God is Within You, trans!. Constance GARNEIT, University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

The lowofviolence and the law of love Unicorn Press, London 1959; Concord Grove Press, USA 1986

Writings on Civil Disobedience and Non-violence, New Society Publishers, Philadephia 1987.

170

I cannot be silenl- selected non-fiction" ed. W. Gareth Jones, Bristol Classical Press, 1989.

Commentaries on Tolstoy as a political thinker

The artist turned prophet: Leo Tolstoy after 1880. W. B. Edgerton, in American Contributions to the Sixth International Conference of SIav­iSiS (PragUl! 7-13 August 1968). Vol 2: Literary Contributions, Mouton, The Hague, 1968, pgs 61-85.

TolslOY, the discovery of peaceJ, Ronald Sampson, Heinemann, London 1973.

New Essays on Tolstoy, ed. Malcolm Jones, Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Tolstoy and Gandhi: Men of Peace. Martin Green, Basic Books, Harper and Row, New York 1983.

Tolstoyon the Causes ofW or, Ronald Sampson. Peace Pledge Union, London 1987.

Tolstoy on education

Tolstoy as schoolmaster, E. T. Crosby, London 1904.

Tolstoy on Education, trans!. L. Wiener, introd. R. D. Archambault, University of Chicago Press, London 1972.

us idees pedago giques de T olstoi Dominique Maroger , Collection Siavica, Editions L' Age d'Homme, Lausanne 1974.

Primeroflibertarian educationJoeJ Spring, FreeLife Editions, New York 1975.

Tolstoy on Education - Educational Writings 1861-2, ed Pinch and Annstrong, Athlone Press, London 1982.

Anarchistische Padagogik . Lernen und Freiheit in der Bildungslwnzeption L. N. Tolstojs, Ulrich Klemm, Winddruckverlag, Siegtalstr. 20, 0-5900 Siegen-Eiserfeld, W. Germany, 1984.

171

,...

Studien ZUT Padagogik TolslD)s Minerva Pubhkation, K. G. Saur Verlag, Pf. 711009, 8000 Munchen 71, 1988.

Works on anarcho-pacirasm by other authors

Tk Gentle Anarchists - a study of the leaders of the SQrvodaya movernt!nl for IWn-violefll revolution in India G. Ostergaard and M. Currell, Oxford University Press, 1971.

Democratic Values. Vinoba Shave (the clearest exponent of anar­chism in post- Gandhian India), Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, Varanasi 1977. Crom Gandhi Book Centre. 299 Tardeo Rd, Nana Chowk, Bombay 400007.

The Kingdom a/God and lhe Slale ,J . Maninsons. author's edition, Lakemha, NSW. Australia, 1979 (ISBN 0 9599374 6 3).

Society without the Stale - the anarchist basis for pacifism. Ronald Sampson. PPV, 1986.

Resisting the Nation Slale - the pacifist and anarchist tradition, Geoffrey Ostergaard, Peace Pledge Union, London 1982.

Uprootil1g War, Brian Martin, Freedom Press, London 1984.

NOI1-violel1t revolution in lllliia Geoffrey Ostergaard, Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi 1985, dislribuLCd by Housmans (see below).

Anarcho-paci[lSm: Questions and Answers, Derrick A. Pike, au­thor's edition, I Market Place, Glastonbury, Somerset, 1987.

The Conquest ofViolence, Bande Ligt, Routledge, London 1937,re­pli�lished PluLO Press, London 1989.

Other works on anarchism and on pacifism respectively are too numr.rous to name here; catalogues can be obtained from:

Housmans Bookshop, 5 Caledonian Road, London N I. Freedom Bookshop, 84b Whitcchapcl High 51, London El.

172

121 Bookshop, 121 Railton Rd, London SE24.

AK Press, 3 Balmoral Place, Stirling, Scotland.

For information on international actlYltles by radical antimilitarists, CORlact the War Resisters' International, S5 Dawes St, London SEI7.

For details of libertarian education today. conract LibEd, The Cot­tage, The Green. Leite, Lullerworth. Lcicestershire.

Federation of Anarcho-pacifists, c/o Derrick A . Pike, 1 Market Place, Glastonbury. Somerset.

173

NOTES

All un attributed notes are the editor's; those marked (Translator) were written by Vladimir Tchertkoff or Aylmer Maude.

1) For details of Tolstoy's visit to Europe in 1860-61, see Tolstoy in London, Victor Lucas. Evans Brothers, London 1979" �d Auswahlbibliographie ZUT Rezeptiofl tier Padagogi/C uo TolstoJs I� DeUlschltmd von 1890bis 1986 Ulrich KJemm in Studien zur Padagoglk Tolsrojs Minerva Publikalion, K. G. Saue Verlag, Pr, 711009, 8000 Munchen 71, 1988.

2) From On the significance of public education (1862) in Jubilee Edition of TolslOy's works, Moscow 1928-1958. vol. 8 pg 405 (editor's translation from the French published in Memoires sur rna vie. P-J Proudhon. La Decouverte, Paris 1983). For Proudhon's account of the meeting. see his letter to GustaveChaudey of April 7 , 1861 in Corres�n­dancetkP-l Proudhon ,A. LacroixetCie,Paris 1874-5. vol. lO,repnmed in Cahiers du momk russe et sovietique, Paris 1971. vol. 12 pg 183 and partially quoted in HenriTroyat'sTolstoy, W. H. Allen.London 1968. The meeting was also the subject of a dissertation by Jean Bancal. professor at the Sorbonne, entitled La rencontre de deux cultures: Proudhon et T ols toi, Academie de Besancon records, vol. 181, years 1974-5, pgs 6-14.

3) On Tolstoy's educational activities, sec funher reading section.

4) An account of the Tsarist secret police's imerest in Tolstoy can be found in The Extraordinary Adventures of Secret Agent Shipov in Pursuit of Count Leo Tolstoy in the Year 1862, Bulat Okudzhava. Abelard­Schuman, London 1973.

5) On Vladimir Tchertkoff. see TchertkoJf and the Tolstoyans at Tuel-.lon, Claudia Clark in Britain-USSR, September 1984. no 68, pps6-lOand The Purleigh Colony: Tolstoyan togetherness in the late 1890s. M. 1. te K. Holman inNewEssayson Toistoy,ed. Malcolm Jones,Cambridge University Press. 1918, pgs 194-222. For the correspondence between Tchertkoff and Tolstoy. see note 9. T chertkorr chronicled Tolstoy's death in The last days oJTolstoy, Heinemann, London 1922. For accounts of the persecution ofTolstoyans after the Russian Revolution and under Swin,

174

•

sceLes anarchistes dans Ja revolution russe. Anatole Gorelik, Tete de feuilles, Paris 1973. and 20th Century and Peace, magazine of the Soviet Committee for the Defence of Peace, No 1/89 pgs 30-33.

6) For a modem academic approach to this question. see Community, Anarchyand Liberry, Michael Taylor, Cambridge University Press. 1982.

7) Anarchism, George Woodcock, fIrst published Penguin 1963, pg 208, in which Woodcock devotes a chapter to Tolstoy.

8) An unpublished essay on Leo Tolstoy by Peter Kropotkin. D. Novak, Canadian Slavonic Papers, 1958 vol. 3. pgs 7-26.

9) Letla' from TolslDY to Tchertkoff of June 19 (O.S.). 1897 in vol. 88 pgs 30-32 of the Jubilee Edition of Tolstoy's works. The correspon­dence between Tolstoy and TchertkoCf is collected inL. N. Tolstoi j V. G. TchertkoJfpo ikhperepiske. M V MuralDv, Moscow 1934.

10) Anarchism, David Miller, Oem 1984. pg 119, which includes a useful discussion on anarchism and violence. Also see The Anarchist Prince, G. Woodcock and I. Avakumovic, Schocken Books. New York, 1971, pgs 246-9. An excellent account of the anarchist lelTorism or the 18905 with many contemporary photographs can be found in Roderick Kedward'sThe Anarchists, Library or the 20th Century, Macdonald. London 1971. A contemporary anarchist criticism of terrorist tactics can be found in Anarchism and Violence. L. S. Bevington. Liberty Press. Chiswick.London 1896.

11) Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, ed. Roger N. Baldwin, Dover Publications, New York 1970, pgs 283 - 300.

12) Berkman toGoldman of June 25, 1928; Goldman to Berkman of June 29 and July 3. 1928.Quoted by Richard Drinnon in Anarchy, no 114 (vol 10, n088), August 1970. Berkman was at this time finishing his ABC of Anarchism, which conl.ains two chapters on anarchism and violence.

13) Histoire de l' anarchie, Max Nettlau, Henri Veyrier, Paris 1986, pg 232 (editor's translation).

14) With an introduction by Gandhi inRecollectionsandEssays.Leo Tolstoy. World's Classics series. Oxford University Press. first published 1937, which also contains some of the letters between Tolstoy and Gandhi.

175

The complete collection can be found in Tolstoi et Gandhi, Marc Se­menoff. Pensee gandhienne, Denoel, Paris 1958. Also see Tolstoy and Gandhi: Meno/Peace, Martin Green, Basic Books, Harperand Row, New York 1983, and Gandhi - his life and message/or the world Louis Fischer, Me.ntor/New American Library, 1954, pgs39-41. Gandhi 'ssecor.dashram in South Africa, after the Phoenix Colony, was named the Tolstoy Fann. Out of twenty books that Gandhi recom mended to his readers in his Indian HOfM Rule. six were by Tolstoy, including utter to a Hindu, The Slavery olOw Times and The Kingdom olGod is Within You

15) The Varangians were Swedish Vikings, whoseleaderRurik was invited by the Slavonic tribes of Russia to rule over them i.'1 862.

16) Tolstoy is thinking panicularly of the Doukhobors, cruelly persecuted for their refusal to obey the State, particularly in relation to military service. Helped by Tolstoy, over seven thousand Doukhobors emigrated from the Caucasus to Canada in 1898.

Kropoddn also took up their cause.

17) Tolstoy had evidendy not heard of the Diggers, a dissident religious group during Cromwell's Commonwealth who also interpreted Christianity from a humanist and anarchist angle. In his book The New Law 0/ Righteousness, the Diggers' leader, Gerrard Winstanley. ca1led upon the poor to occupy and farm the common land, and auempted to put this into practice by occupying St George's Hill near Walton-on-Thames in 1649, a move that was quickly repressed by Cromwell's army.

18) See H. G. Wells' dream of a World State in Men like Gods and The Shape o/Things to Come

19) Again, it would be possible to misunderstand Tolstoy'S inten­tions and see this passage as a sign of a complete lack of concern for civil libenies. Tolstoy however wrote many leners to the Tsar and other officials about the persecution of conscientious objectors and against the dea4h penalty for those condemned for revolutionary acts. His intention here, and in many of his other essays, is to show that the constitutional or refor:nistapproach - hoping to pressure the State into conceding political liberties · is doomed to failure, as the State will not give up its power voluntarily. and in particular will not allow public control of its strongest ann, the secret police. Tolstoy argues in the final chapter of this essay that there is only one fundamental freedom - the fTeedom to live without Government coercion, it is the State, and not private individuals, which most violates the freedom and security of the citizen. Our recent past has

176

•

confl!lTJed that the vast majority of violations of human ri ghts and civil liberties throughout the world are committed by official (but usually deniable or unaccountable) State bodies, from the death squads of Latin America to the security and intelligence agencies of the powerful Western nations. As these bodies are the ul timate summit of the State pyramid, and certainly control and manipulate the elected governments, it is futile to expect parliamentary pressure to succeed in curbing the violations of human rights and civil liberties - such violations being in the very nature of the State.

20) It was in visiting such communities in Cenuai Asia that Kro­potlcin developed his theories later published in Mutual Afd(1902), in which Kropotkin referred to Tolstoy'S conception of village comm uni­ties. Such primitive anarchist societies still exist: in April 1990, oil prospectors exploring China's remote Taklcmakan desert in Xinjiang province discovered a tribe which had remained isolated from the outside world for over 350 years. The tribe, numbering over 200 people, lived withoutgovemmem. money or private property: see press rcports of April 26th. 1990.

21) When asked what he thought of Western civilization, Gandhi replied: 'I think it would be a very good idea'.

22) A town 100 miles south of Moscow. centre of the region that included Yasnaya Polyana, where Tolstoy spent most of his life.

23) Tolstoy's mention of 'the secret police, the system of spies, bribery of the Press, railways, telegraphs, telephones, photography' is a prophetic anticipation of our world of State disinformation and destabilization, surveillance cameras, bugs and telephone taps; since his time, the State has also added the awesome power of the computer to its arsenal of repression.

24) See Alex Comfort's study on the psychology of power, Authority and Delinquency, Zwan, London 1988.

25) Tolstoy's understanding of other anarchist thinkers was clarified by Paul Eltzbacher's Anarchism published in 1900. Tolstoy wrote to Eltzbacher ,saying: • Y our book pleased me immensely. It is very objective and lucid. and - as far as I am able to judge - it analyses the source texts in an excellent manner'.

26) However, see Tolstoy's comments on Kropotkin's attitude to violence in the letter to Vladimir Tchectkoff quoted in the IntroductiO!l.

177

27) 'The lack of belief in the Law of God is the cause of the apparently curious phenomenon that all the theoretica1 anarchists - from Bakuninand Proudhon to Reclus, Max Stimer and Kropot1cin - who prove with undisputable correctness and justice the unreasonableness and harmfUl­ness of power, as soon as they begin to speak of the possibility of establishing a society without that human law which they reject, fall at once into indefiniteness, verbosity, rhetoric, and quite unfounded and fantastic hypotheses. This arises from the fact that none of ihese theoretical anarchists accept that l.aw ofGod common to all men, which is natural for all to obey; and without the obedience of men to one and the same law -human or divine - human society cannot exist. Deliverance from human law is only possible on condition that one acknowledge a divine law common to all men' - Leo Tolstoy, from The meaning o/the Russian Revolution (l907).

28) The essay referred to is Thoreau's On the Duty o/Civil Disobe­djence (1849). Tolstoy gives only one of Thoreau 's reasons for refusal of taxes - another impulse for Thoreau's action was the Ameri can-Mexican wlU".

29) Tsar Alexander II, assassinated by 'The People's Will' in 1881.

30) Elisabeth ('Sissi'), stabbed to death by the anarchist Luigi Luccheni in 1898.

31) Humbert (Umberto) I of Italy, assassinated by the anarchist Gaetano Bresci in 1900.

32) President Sadi-Camot of France, stabbed to death by the anar­chist Santo Caserio in 1894.

33) President McKinley of lIle USA was to be assassinated by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz the following year, 1901. Tolstoy omits to mention two earlier outrages against politi­cal leaders: the bombing of the French Parliament by !he anarchist Aue'JSle Vaillant in 1893, and the assassination of the Spanish Prime Mini5ter Antonio Canovas by lhe anarchist Michele Angiolillo in 1897.

34) The Mordva and Tchouvash [fibes are of Finnish origin, and inhabit chieny the governments of the Middle Volga (Translator).

35) Like many modem anarchists and pacifists, Tolstoy was a convinced vegetarian and wrote the essay The Fjrst Step to aJvocate

178

giving up meal An aged relative, when visiting Tolstoy, made it clear that she desired to have meat for hersupper. Tolstoy said that if her conscience would allow il, she could eat meat, but that he would have no partin il On coming down to the dinner-table. she found a live chicken and an axe tied

to her chair.

36) e.g. theseizureoftheFalklands by Britain in 1833. Theemphasis placed by Tolstoy on the Press and their creation of enemy images wasof striking relevance during the Falklands War.

31) Pol/ice Verso (thumbs down) was the sign given in the Roman amphitheatres by the spectators who wished a defeated gladiator to be slain (Translator).

38) This passage, written before lIle advent of the aeroplane, shows

that the arms race did not begin with the atomic bomb - indeed. being a consequence of the existence of Governments, the arms race can be said to have started with the birth of lIle State concepl The invention of the

atomic bomb changed only the destructive potential of the anns race, not its nature, as the continuing relevance of this passage shows.

39) The Hague Conference of 1899, set up by Tsar Nicolas II; the BoerWar of 1899 - 1902.

40) This is confmned in modem times by the notable failure of disarmament talks to make any significant reduction in nuclear arsenals; despite media hype, the negotiations ha veagreed to destroy only 3% of the superpowers' 5tOckpileof shon·range missiles - all other nuclear, chemi­cal and conventional weapons being excluded.

41) The word 'government' is frequently used in an indefinite sense as almost equivalent to management or direction; but in the sense in which the word is used in the present article. the characteristic feature of a Government is that it claims a moral right to innict physical penalties, and by its decree to make murder a good action (Translator).

42) The Circassians, when surrounded, used to tie themselves to­gether leg to leg, so that none may escape but all die fighting. Instances of

this occurred when their country was being annexed by Russia (Transla­tor).

43) The same image was used by Wilhelm Reich in his exceUent Listen, Little Man. Penguin, London 1982.

179

44) In Britain, people lend to forget that military service still exists in every other European country, East and West, and that the right to conscientious objection is not even recognized by a few States. The case -;,f Britain has proved that Tolstoy was over-optimistic in imagining that Il'..! abolition of military service would weaken the State - if anything, it aE ... ws the State to use the anny for more overtly political intervention _ yt;: _ �\:s essay remains of the greatest relevance to aU those who, at the age of �,:ghteen, must still suffer degradation and often imprisonment fOr refusing to do military service.

45) See note 15.

46) As a young officcr, Tolstoy witnessed the siege of Se1:astopol during the Crimean War of 1854-5.

47) This evidently refers to his house in Moscow, where Tolstoy spends the winter months (Translator).

48) The serfs in Russia and the slaves in the United States were emancipated at the same time - 1861-64 (Translator).

49) The fITSt volume of Karl Man:'s Kapjtal appeared in 1867 (Translator).

50) In Russia, as in many other countries, the greater part of the agricultural work is still done by peasants working their own land on their own account (Translator).

5 1 ) Edward Bellamy (1850·98), American writer and social rcfonner who advanced communistic theories in his Utopia Looldng Backwards -2000 - 1887 (1 888) and its sequel Equality (1897).

52) In her anarchist Utopia, The Dispossessed (Granada, London 1975), UrsulaLeGuin identifies the division oflaoourasa factor that could lead to the rebirth of Authority in an anarchist society.

53) (1805-75), a leader of Gennan scientific socialism (Translator).

54) Before the emancipation of the serfs in Russia, some proprietors had private theatres of their own and troupes of musicians and actors composed of their own serfs. On many eSlates the serfs produced a variety of handmade luxuries, as well as necessities, for the proprietors (Transla­tor).

180

55) N. V. Gogol (1809-52), an admirable writer and a most worthy man (Translator).

56) Tolstoy himself set an example by VOluntarily emancipating all his serfs (Translator).

57) It should be borne in mind that educated Russians, though JXlliticallY much less free, are intellectually far more free than the corre­sponding section of the English population. Views on economics and on religion, which are held here only by very 'advanced' people, have been popular among Russian university students for a generation past. In particular, the doctrines of Karl Marx, and of German sciel!.tific socialism in general, have had a much wider acceptance there than he� (T:anslator).

58) Let justice be done, though the world perish (Translator).

59) Let culture be preserved, though justice perish (Translator).

60) Moscow has a very defective system of drainage, and a large number of people are engaged, every night, in pumping and bailing the contents of cesspools into huge barrels, and in carting itaway from thecity (Translator).

61) The distinction between Europe and Russia (quite natural and customary to a Russian writer) has been left as it stands in the original (Translator).

62) Henry George (1839-97), American social reformer and author of Progress andPoverty (1879), in which he proposed the nationalization of land and its taxation according to agricultural value (this Single Tax replacing all others) as a means of abolishing private land ownership. Tolstoy discussed George's theories in many of his essays. A more modem proponent of George's ideas was Aldous Huxley.

63) The artel, in its most usual form, is an association of workmen or employees, for each of whom the ar/efs collectively responsible (Trans­lator).

64) Serfdom was legalized about 1597 by Boris Godunof, who forbade the peasants to leave the land on which they were settled. The peasants' theory of the matter was that THEY belonged to the proprietors, but the LAND belonged to them. 'We arc yours, but the land :s ":.:;rs' was acommon saying amongst them until theiremancipalion under Alexander II, when many of them fell defrauded by the arrangement whicn gave

1 8 1

44) In Britain, people lend to forget that military service still exists in every other European country, East and West, and that the right to conscientious objection is not even recognized by a few States. The case -;.t Britain has proved that Tolstoy was over-optimistic in imagining that lC� abolition of military service would weaken the State - if anything, it aE:.ws the State to use the army for moreovenly political intervention ­yt:::tu essay remains of the greatest relevance to aU those who, at the age of 'cghreen, must still suffer degradation and often imprisonment for refusing to do military service.

45) See note 15.

46) As a young officer, Tolstoy witnessed the siege of Se.:astopol during the Crimean War of 1854-5.

47) This evidently refers to his house in Moscow, where Tolstoy spends the winter months (Translator).

48) The serfs in Russia and the slaves in the United States were emancipated at the same time - 1861-64 (Translator).

49) The flfSt volume of Karl Marx's Kapi/al appeared in 1867 (Translator).

50) In Russia, as in many other countries, the greater part of the agricultural work is still done by peasants working their own land on their own account (Translator).

51) Edward Bellamy (1850-98), American writer and soc ial reformer who advance<lcommunistic theories in his Utopia Looking Backwards -2000 - 1887 (1888) and its sequel Equality (1897).

52) In her anarchist Utopia, The Dispossessed (Granada, London 1975), Ursula LeGuin identifies thedivision onabaur asa factor that could lead to the rebirth of Authority in an anarchist society.

53) (1805-75), a leader of German scientific socialism (Translator).

54) Before the emancipation of the serfs in Russia, some proprictors had private theatres of !heir own and troupes of musicians and actors composed of their own serfs. On many estates the serfs produced a variety of handmade luxuries, as well as necessities, for the proprieLOfS (Transla­tor).

180

55) N. V. Gogol (1809-52), an admirable writer and a most worthy man (Translator).

56) Tolstoy himself set an example by voluntarily emancipating all his serfs (Translator).

57) It should be borne in mind that educated Russians, though politically much less free, are inlCUectually far more free than the corre­sponding section of the English population. Views on economics and on religion, which are held here only by very 'advanced' people, have been popular among Russian university students for a generation past. In particular, !he doctrines of Karl Marx, and of German scientific socialism in general, have had a much wider acceptance there than here (T:anslator).

58) Let justice be done, though !he world perish (Translator).

59) Let culture be preserved, though juslice perish (Translator).

60) Moscow has a very defective system of drainage, and a large number of people are engaged, every night, in pumping and bailing the contents of cesspools into huge barrels, and in carting itaway from the city (Translator).

61) The distinction between Europe and Russia (quite natural and customary to a Russian writer) has been left as it stands in the original (Translator).

62) Henry George (1839-97), American social reformer and author of Progress antiPoverty (1879), in which he proposed !he nationalization of land and its laXation according to agricuhural value (this Single Tax replacing aU o!hers) as a means of abolishing private land ownership. Tolstoy discussed George's !hearies in many of his essays. A more modem proponent of George's ideas was Aldous Huxley.

63) Thear/el, in its most usual fonn, is an association of workmen or employees, for each of whom the artels COllectively responsible (Trans­lator).

64) Serfdom was legalized about 1597 by Boris Godunof, who forbade the peasants to leave the land on which they were settled. The peasants' thcoryof!he mallcr was that THEY belonged to the proprietors, but the LAND belonged to them. 'We arc yours, but the land :s z.!rs' was acommonsaying amongsl!hem until theiremaocipation under Alexander II, when many of them felt defrauded by the arrangement wilich gave

181

much land to the proprietors {Translator).

65) The solcha is a light plough, such as the Russian peasants make and use (Translator).

66) This refers to the KnighlS Templar, who fought in the Crusades.

67) The Cossack leader of a formidable insurrection in the seven­teenth century, executed in Moscow in 1671 (Translator).

68) The chief of a Paris band of robbers in the early years of the eighteenth century (Translator).

69) With reference to schools, the circumstances are different in Russia from what they are in England. Free England has compulsory education; Russia has not. But in Russia, the Government hinders the establishment of private schools, and reduces even the universities to the position of Government institutions, watched by spies (Translator).

70) i.e. schools run by educational reformers, free schools, which in Tolstoy's time (and, overwhelmingly, still today) have to function as private schools.

7 1 ) See footnote 5 1 .

72) This has become increasingly relevant since the rise of the advertising industry, the consumer society and the birth of the concept of planned obsolescence: see Vance Packard's The Waste Malrers,Pelican, London 1964, and The Hidden Persuaders, Pelican, London 1982.

73) LaurenceGronlund (1846-99), American writer and lecturer on socialism, and author of T� Cooperative Commonwealth in its outlines (1884).

74) HerbertSpencer(1820 · 1903),English philosopher and friend of Darwin, who coined the phrase 'surviva1 of the fittest' and wrote Man versus the State (1884).

75) Tolstoy often refers to the example of social organization given by bees and anls; Kropolkin was a1so to lake up the theme in his Mutual Aid(J902).

182

•