M.I.A. Library: Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis
Source: Liberty Press pamphlet, 1895
Publication history: Translated by R. Grierson from the Société Nouvelle, nº 113 (June 1894). The original is available in the MIA French Nieuwenhuis archive
See also: Part 1
Transcription and HTML: Graham Seaman
Last updated: July 2020
The state has always been the powerful instrument of the oppressors 1 against the oppressed. Hence it is that "the working classes cannot take possession of the machinery of the state for the purpose of using it to win emancipation.” We read in the preface of Engels’ 1891 address:
"According to the philosophic conception, the state is ‘the realization of the idea’ of the kingdom of God upon earth, the domain where eternal truth and eternal justice realize themselves or ought to realize themselves. The result is a superstitious reverence for the state and for everything in connection with it, which is all the more evident because we are accustomed from childhood to suppose that public business and the common interests of society cannot be cared for in any other way than they have been up to date, that is to say, through the state and its well-paid employees. And we fondly think we have made a great step in advance when we have lost faith in the hereditary monarchy and when we lay claim to a democratic republic. In fact the state is nothing else but an instrument of oppression used by one class over another, and quite as much so under a democratic republic as under a monarchy; and in any case it is an evil which, in the struggle for class supremacy, must in turn be used by the victorious proletariat, which will necessarily suffer some injury from its use (as did the Commune) until the mischievous working of it is abated, introducing an era when a future generation, raised in new and free social conditions, will be strong enough to throw aside the paraphernalia of the state.”
Engels writes to the same effect in several of his works. In his important pamphlet, "Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums, und des Staates,” (On the origin of the family, private property, and the state) pp. 189, 140, he says:
“The state does not then exist from eternity. There have been communities which existed without the state, completely ignoring the state and its power. To a certain stage of economic development, necessarily linked with the division of society into classes, the state in consequence of that division became a necessity. We are now rapidly approaching a stage of development in production where the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but constitutes a positive obstacle to production. Those classes will inevitably disappear in the same way they formerly came into existence. With them will likewise disappear the state. Society will reorganize production upon the basis of free and equal association of the producers, and will relegate state machinery to a suitable place: the 2 archeological museum, in just position to the spinning-wheel and the bronze hatchet.”
Such is the development of the state in a class society, and that is the way in which it is regarded by anarchists. In his other pamphlet, “Dühring’s Umwälzung der Wissenschaft,” pp. 267, 268, he says:
“The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its personification in a visible body, but inasmuch as it was the state it only stood for the class which represented in itself the whole of society. When it really became the representative of a complete society, it became superfluous. As soon as there are no classes in society to oppress, as soon as class supremacy and the struggle for existence disappear, with their antagonisms and their extravagances resulting from the anarchy dominating production, there is no longer anything to subdue, nothing calling for measures of oppression. The first act performed by the state when really representing the whole of society, i.e. the seizure of the means of production in the name of society, will also be the last act performed by it in its office as state. The intrusion of state authority to social situations becomes gradually superfluous in any circumstances and disappears of itself. In place of a government of persons arises a government of the business of production. The state is not ‘abolished’, it dies. It is from that point of view we must consider ‘the free popular state’, both in the light of the law of its temporary action and of its final demonstrated inadequacy, and likewise the so-called anarchist doctrine affirming that in the fulness of time the state will be abolished.”
It is a strange thing to prove, that Engels who controverts the anarchists, is himself an anarchist in his conception of the rôle of the state. His thought is anarchistic but by the associations of the past he found himself attached to the German social democracy.
The latest edition of a few essays, “Internationales aus dem Volksstaate” (1871-75), contains a preface by Engels in which he says that in these essays he has always with intention called himself a Communist, and although he accepts the name of social democrat he finds it inappropriate for a party “whose economic program is not only completely socialist, but straightforwardly communist, and whose final political purpose is the disappearance of the state and at the same time of the democracy.”
What essential difference is there between his opinion and that of Kropotkin who says, in his “Etude sur la Révolution,":
"The abolition of the state, that is the task imposed upon the revolutionist, at least upon him who has the courage of his thought, without which we do not make revolutions. In that task he has against him all the traditions of the bourgeoisie. But he has on his side the evolution of humanity, which lays it upon us at this historic moment to emancipate ourselves from a form of control, rendered necessary perhaps by the ignorance of the past, but which has become hostile to all further progress.”
But it is apparent that a consciousness exists of having wandered from the former standpoint, and that it is wished to hide that divergence by battling with those who have denounced it. Although the 3 old International has recorded among its principles that “the economic struggle must precede the political struggle,” the so-called Marxists announce that we must become possessed of political power in order to triumph in the economic struggle. And La Revolte was right when it wrote to this effect:
“It was to be false to the principle of the International. It was to tell the founders of the International, and especially Marx, that they were fools in declaring the pre-eminence of the economic struggle over political warfare. But what was there to gain by bourgeois leaders in an economic struggle? An increase of wages? But they are not wage slaves. A diminution of the hours of work? But they already work in their own houses, either as literary men or as manufacturers! They could only make profit out of the political contest. They sought to drive the workers in that direction. Helped by the prejudices of the proletariat they succeeded.”
It is evident that they avoid all discussion of the office of the state; in general they steer clear of the rock by the help of indefinite phraseology, without attempting to fathom the question at all. Again we are indebted to Kropotkin for treating the question in its true light in his “Etude sur la Revolution”:
The bourgeois knew what they wanted; they had made up their minds long ago. For many years they had entertained an ideal of government, and when the people began to wake up they set them to work out the realization of that ideal, making them a few unimportant concessions on certain points, such as the abolition of feudal rights, or equality before the law. Without bothering about details, the bourgeois had drawn up, far in advance of the revolution, the main lines of future action. But in the whole of modern socialism, we see a tendency to slur over the principles that rule modern society. Among the moderate section to talk of revolution is to incur dislike and suspicion. They treat with contempt those who discuss future society or endeavor to mark out the work of the revolution.”
True it is that it is useless labor to try and graft ideas of liberty and justice upon ancient and worn-out institutions. To endeavor to raise an edifice upon rotten foundations is certainly not the work of a good architect. Many do not apprehend the connection between power and property. These are the two main supports of one edifice, viz. modern society, and he who wishes to overturn the one and leave the other standing does only half of the necessary work. In fact we do not intentionally adopt to our injury the state machine, we take it up simply without understanding that we are introducing into the citadel the Trojan horse. Moritz Rittinghausen whose work "La Législation directe par le Peuple.” deserves to be read, touches the sore spot when he writes:
“If you make a mistake in the measures you take with respect to the question of government, your revolution will soon be at the mercy of the old political parties. It would be better to understand thoroughly. the nature, the essential character of democratic government, without bothering too much about the reforms that such a government advertises its readiness to carry into effect.”
Here indeed we see how applicable is that passage of the New Testament which says: "Neither do men put new wine into old bottles.” 4 The neglect of this elementary truth has already brought many misfortunes upon the world, for invariably people have tried to carve out a new revolution taking for their model the old ones of byegone ages.
“When we glance at the conglomeration of revolutionists, who are correlated by certain modes of thought, and not as some say by personal partizanship, when we analyze their fundamental ideas, their pur. poses, and their tactics, we discover with alarm that they all have their eyes riveted upon the past, that none of them steadily contemplate the future, and that they have only one idea, to revivify some great man who has passed away.”
We must intelligently embrace the conviction that all previous revolutions have been used for the one purpose of strengthening and increasing the supremacy and power of the bourgeoisie. As long as the state based upon legislation continues to exist and gradually to develop its nature, as long as we continue to work with such cooperation, so long shall we be slaves. If in the approaching revolution the people do not rise to their great duty, which consists in abolishing the state with all its codes and in effectively hindering its taking root in the socialist society, all the blood which may be shed, and all the sacrifices of the proletariat — for the greatest sacrifices are always its portion, although they remain unrecorded — will be servicable only to some ambitious men who wish to supplant those who sit in office, and who won’t hesitate to say “Get out of that, for I want to sit down^. We are not interested in a change of officials; what we want is a complete change of the social organism. More and more it will be proved true that “the future will not be concerned with the rule of men over men, but with the administration of affairs" (Aug. Comte). For it is certain that the verdict as to which is the best social system will hang upon the question: What system allows the greatest liberty and independence? For if freedom to live as we like is to be surrendered, one of the grandest characteristics of human nature, individuality, will disappear.
From this point of view Engels and the Anarchists could keep step in their progress, if they were not to be hindered by words. But that which is really harmonious will come together, [in] spite of all separating forces; and as for the opposing elements sometimes they can be brought into apparent unison, but in the end they are found to be irreconcilable. That is the thought that comforts us and brings hope to our hearts even in sight of the many controversies and divisions which arise between people who on the whole should arrive at an understanding.
Let us again take into consideration the question whether it be possible for revolutionary socialists and communist anarchists to work together. We use the names habitually employed, although we think that communism and anarchism are ideals which exclude each other. Kropotkin, on the other hand, says in his work “La Conquete du Pain,” p. 81, that "anarchy leads to communism and communism to anarchy, each being the expression of the tendency predominating in modern societies bent on the search for equality.” It has been impossible for me to coincide with the reasoning. When he calls “anarchism communism — a communism without government, that of free men,” and 5 regards this as “the synthesis of the two ends pursued by mankind through the ages — economic freedom and political freedom,” we could easily find ground for debate, but a further explanation would have been desirable. Anarchists, rightly so called, are pure individualists who contend that private property is an integral part of liberty, and who neither repudiate individual production or exchange. Hence it is that men like Benjamin R. Tucker and others do not look upon Kropotkin and Most as anarchists at all. For that reason we would perhaps do better to speak henceforth of revolutionary communists. No one should find fault with that name. Respecting this question we will make further investigation under the guidance of men regarded as representative by both schools of thought. Is there any difference in principle between socialism and anarchism? The German social democratic party, at the congress of Saint Gall, passed the following resolution:
"This meeting of the party declares that the anarchist theory of society, in so far as it seeks the absolute autonomy of the individual, is anti-socialist; that it is nothing else than a partial form of the principles of bourgeois liberalism, although it proceeds from the socialist standpoint in its criticism of the existing social order. It is especially incompatible with the socialist claim for the socialization of the means of production and for the social regulation of production, and it ends in an irreconcilable contradiction, unless production reverts to the petty scale of hand-work. The anarchist religion and the exclusive recommendation of a policy of violence are based upon an erroneous conception of the part played by violence in the history of nations. Violence is a reactionary factor quite as much as a revolutionary factor, indeed more reactionary than revolutionary. The use of individual violence does not accomplish its purpose and is injurious and reprehensible in so far as it offends the feelings of justice entertained by mankind. We hold persecutors responsible for the savage acts committed by the persecuted in their frenzy, and we look upon the inclination to such acts as a phenomenon that has revealed itself in all time in similar conditions, and indeed which police spies habitually employ against the workers to the advantage of reaction.”
Liebknecht, who spoke in support, divided anarchists into three classes:
After having shown the necessity to agitate, organize and educate (a strangely arranged series of acts, as if it were possible to agitate and organize without preliminary education, that is to say, without knowing why we agitate and organize) he defines in the following style the difference between socialism and anarchy:
“Socialism concentrates its forces, anarchy divides them and is consequently in a state of political and economic impotence; it is no more consistent with revolutionary action than with modern production on a large scale. Anarchy is demonstrated to be and to remain unrevolutionary and anti-revolutionary."
We believe this distinction to be very inaccurately drawn. In a 6 scientific demonstration we do not advance one step towards the solution by the help of grandiose language. In the first place let us settle the question — Is an Anarchist a Socialist, yes or no? And that in our view is not a matter of doubt. What is, in short, the kernel, the true inwardness of socialism? The recognition or the non-recognition of private property?
A little time ago appeared the first number of a publication, got up for the revolutionary-anarchist-socialist propaganda, entitled “Necessité et bases d'une entente,” by Merlino. The author says in it:
“We are above all Socialists, that is to say we wish to destroy the cause of all iniquity, exploitation, poverty, and crime, viz., individual ownership.”
That is equivalent to saying that both Anarchists and Socialists have a common enemy — private property. In like manner Adolphe Fischer, one of the Chicago martyrs, said straightforwardly
“Many would evidently like to know what is the connection between anarchism and socialism, and whether these two doctrines have anything in common. Some believe that an Anarchist cannot be a Socialist, nor a Socialist be an Anarchist. That is inaccurate. The philosophy of socialism is a general philosophy, and comprehends several distinct subordinate doctrines. By wav of illustration let us take the term ‘christianity.’ There are catholics, lutherans, methodists, anabaptists, members of independent churches, and various other religious sects, and all call themselves ‘christians.’ Although every catholic is a christian it would be inaccurate to say that every christian believes in catholicism. Webster defines socialism as follows — *A better ordered, a more just, and a more harmonious arrangement of social affairs." That is the end of anarchism. Anarchism seeks a better form of society. Then every Anarchist is a Socialist, but every Socialist is not necessarily an Anarchist. Anarchists in their turn are divided into two parties — Anarchist-Communists, and Anarchists who have espoused the ideas of Proudhon. The International Workers’ Association is the body representing Anarchist-Communists. Politically we are Anarchists, and economically we are Communists or Socialists. In the matter of political organisation, Anarchist-Communists demand the abolition of political power: we deny to any class or to any individual the right to rule over another class or individual. We think there cannot be freedom as long as one nan is to be found under the government of another, as long as one man remains master of his fellow in any respect whatever, and as long as the means of existence are monopolised by certain classes or certain individuals. As for the economic organisation of society, we are believers in the communist form, or in the co-operative method of production.”
We might quote still many authors who all speak to the same effect. There is therefore a common point of departure for Socialists and Anarchists.
In the second place, Merlino would like an organisation of production:
“The fundamental principle of the organisation of production, that every man must work, must make himself useful to his 7 fellows, unless he be sick or incapable — the principle that every man must make himself useful to society by means of his labour has no need to be made into a law; it must become part of morality, permeate public opinion, and become, so to speak, a part of human nature. It will be the corner stone over which will be erected the edifice of human society. No arrangement founded on that principle can produce serious and permanent injustice, while the violation of that principle will undoubtedly bring back humanity in a very short time to its present condition.”
So we are in agreement upon the Abolition of Private Property and the Organisation of Production.
Here is the third point: Merlino sets out with the idea that
the expropriation of the bourgeoisie can only be effected by force, by violent procedure. The revolted workers have no need to ask anybody for permission to take possession of the factories, workplaces, shops, houses, etc., and to use them for the purposes for which they were constructed. That would however be hardly a commencement of the inevitable appropriation; it would be a mere preliminary. If each group of workmen, having taken into their hands a portion of capital or of the accumulated wealth, wish to remain absolute masters of it to the exclusion of other workmen, if one group wished to live on the heaped-up wealth, and refuse to work and to come to an understanding with the other groups for the organisation of labour, there would simply be, under other names and with a change of monopolists, the continuance of the existing regime. The mere act of appropriation by the workers can only be provisional, the wealth taken can only become common property when everybody will set himself to work, when production shall be organised for the general benefit of the community.”
Formerly Socialists were in agreement on that point, but since the parliamentary microbe has done its evil work among them it is not so.
At Erfurt, Liebknecht called violence "a reactionary factor.” How does he reconcile that deliverance with the distinct teaching of Marx, his master, by whose name he swears, who says in his “Capital,” “Violence is the midwife of every old society about to give birth to anew. Violence is an economic factor.” He wrote besides in the “Deutsch-franzosischen Jahrbucher,” “The arm of criticism cannot fill the place of the criticism that uses arms. Material violence can only be abolished by material violence; theoretical teaching itself becomes material violence as soon as it permeates the majority.” And if even that is not yet sufficiently explicit, what shall we say of that quotation from Marx in the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung,” “There 18 only one means of lessening, of simplifying, of concentrating the fatally criminal sufferings of this old society, and its heart-rending pangs in bringing to birth the new, and that is Revolutionary Terrorism.”
Engels adds, in “The Condition of the Working-Class in England,”
“The only possible solution is a violent revolution, which cannot be much longer on the way. It is too late mow to hope for a peaceful 8 solution. The classes are more antagonistic than ever, the spirit of revolt is penetrating the heart of the workers. their bitterness is increasing, skirmishes are enlarging themselves into important combats, and soon but a little push will be needed to put everything in motion; then will resound the cry throughout the country 'War ‘to the mansions, peace to the cottages!' And the rich will come on the scene too late to stop the onslaught."
Marx and Engels recognise therefore violence as a revolutionary factor, and we have seen that Liebknecht calls it a reactionary factor, Is he not in complete opposition with the two first mentioned?
Surely Marx must have been a quack, a revolutionary bounder on the bounce, a “Maulheld,” to use a word much in favour among German soldiers. He bluntly and without subterfuge declares that violence is a revolutionary factor, and nowhere do we read that he ever rose to the superior point of view of some modern Socialists, who describe violence as a reactionary factor.
No revolutionist will regard violence as revolutionary in all its forms and in all circumstances. In that case every riot, any considerable resistance to the police, might be characterised as tending to revolution. But it is surprising to find that such acts as the taking of the Bastille, and the fighting of the workers at the barricades in 1848 and 1871 are to be classified as reactionary.
Is it possible that without laughing we can describe a speech in Parliament as a revolutionary act ? It may be, as everything appears possible nowadays. We hear tell of parliamentary revolutionists, Yes, people have begun to regard Parliamentary Socialists as revolutionists of the first water. There are certain Socialists who for certain deeds express their gratitude to the Crown, there are even some, like Liebknecht and his colleagues in the Saxon Landtag, who swear fidelity to the King, to the royal house, and to the country. When brought to book he replied
“As for the statement of the government commissary respecting the oath, I am surprised that the president has not taken up the defence of my party; it is recognised that we hold other views about religion, but that does not exempt us from the obligation incurred in taking the oath. In my party we respect our pledged word, and just as Democratic Socialists have kept their word, they will know how to be faithful to their oath.”
Consequently they have sworn fealty to the king and his house; they are Royalist Socialists. There are some in Holland who are under high ministerial patronage because they belong to the important group (in this respect like Bebel and Vollmar) who seek an improved state of society by strictly legal methods.
Do they really believe that our present bourgeois state of society would ever have issued from the womb of feudalism without forcing the peasants from the soil and passing bloodthirsty laws against the victims of their spoilation, and without the violent destruction of all the old ideas with reference to property; and do they think that the present society will give birth to a socialist society without violent revolutions? It is impossible to be mistaken on this point, and yet 9 they make the public believe such silliness. Liebknecht said in the Reichstag that it is possible to settle the social question by means of reforms. Ah, well! Does he believe it — yes or no? If yes, he completely repudiates the Liebknecht of the past, who taught exactly the opposite. If no, he makes people believe it and leads them by the nose. There is no escape from the alternative.
Of what use then is it to organise the workers, unless to make of them a power hostile to the power of the possessing classes? Can it be that such an organisation is also a reactionary factor? If we thought ourselves strong enough, do you think that we would endure one day longer our condition of slavery, poverty, and misery? It would be a crime to do so. The knowledge of our weakness through lack of organisation is the only reason why we tolerate the existing state of things. Governments know this better than we do. Why else should they continually seek to increase their power? The antagonistic forces both organise themselves, and each tries to force the other to ill-considered action, so as to profit by it.
Everything depends moreover on the conception of the state. Liebknecht and his anti-revolutionist friends take quite a different view of it from Marx. While the latter wrote,
The state is powerless to abolish pauperism. So far as states have concerned themselves with pauperism they have confined themselves to police regulations, charity, etc. The state can do nothing more. For really to abolish poverty the state must abolish itself, for the source of the evil lies in the very existence of the state, and not, as many radicals and revolutionists believe, in a definite ideal state, that they propose to replace the existing state. The existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable. The state and ancient slavery were not more intimately bound together than are the state and modern capitalist society.”
Liebknecht believes that it is necessary to take care of the poor, of the helpless, as long as life lasts, and in this connection he uses in Parliament the following language, which forms a striking contrast with the language of Marx:
We think this great contrast between the very rich and the very poor is a sign of our low civilisation. We think that the upward progress of civilisation will gradually cause this opposition to disappear, and we believe that the state (of which we have the noblest conception as to its end) has laid upon it the civilising mission of bridging the gulf between rich and poor, and because we attribute this mission to the state we accept in principle the bill brought forward.”
So while the one believes that the state must first be abolished, before the antagonism between rich and poor can be made to disappear, the other is of opinion that the state is inspired with a mission to abolish that antagonism.
With the first of these contentions the last is in complete opposition, just as in the following language:
“Only by legislation, nut necessarily christian, but really humane, of a civilising influence, imbued with the socialistic spirit, concerning itself with the interests of work and the workers, busying itself 10 seriously and energetically with the labour problem, and restoring to the state its highest function, will you be able to avoid a revolution. In one word, you will escape revolution only by pursuing the path of reform — of real and thorough reform. If you pass the law with the amendments — with the amendments we have added to it, to correct its deficiencies, you will have made a long step in the direction of reform, By that course of action you will not undermine the foundations of socialism, but you will have done it a service, for this law is a testimony in favour of the truth of the socialist idea.”
Dr. Muller, after having quoted these declarations, aptly remarks, “A patched-up kind of state socialism is then a testimony in favour of the socialist idea!”
This is the length to which they have already travelled, and it may help us to understand things yet more surprising. But for the energy of the younger spirits, the German Social Democratic party would have sunk still more deeply in the mire.
That there is a general alarm about the growth of the parliamentarianism which subordinates the economic to the political struggle is clearly evident from the questions set for discussion at the Zurich International Congress. The Swiss Social Democratic party declared in its proposition that "Parliamentarianism, where its power is unchecked, leads to the corruption and the bamboozlement of the people.”
The Americans affirmed that it was necessary to be careful that the Social Democratic party preserved faithfully its revolutionary character, and that it did not recognise the system pursued at the present day by the governing classes.
We clearly perceive that parliamentarianism does not give sufficient guarantees. that it will preserve to socialism its revolutionary character. Whenever the social democracy falls into the danger of becoming a wreck upon the rocks of parliamentarianism, the Anarchist Communists will utter a shrill cry of alarm, and that will be a public benefit.
We believe that Anarchists and revolutionary Socialists can accept without searching of heart the following programme; moreover, the Anarchists who met at Zurich declared that it was unobjectionable:
«All those who recognise that private property is the source of every iniquity, and believe that the emancipation of the proletariat is only possible through the abolition of private property —
“All those who recognise that any organisation of production must have for its basic principle that every member of society must do some useful work in order to entitle him to a share in the products resulting from the labour of the community—
"All those who agree that the expropriation of the bourgeoisie must be aimed at by every possible means, whether legal or illegal, peaceable or violent —
“Can cooperate in the overthrow of modern society and in the establishment of a new society.”
In place of being irreconcileable opponents, revolutionary socialism 11 and anarchism can therefore cooperate. We are in harmony with Teistler when he declares in his pamphlet, “Le Parlementarisme et la Classe Ouvrière” (No. 1 of the Berlin Socialist Library),
“The working class will never obtain any advantage by politico-parliamentary methods. Being an oppressed social stratum it will exercise no influence so long as class predominance shall exist. It will be some time after the proletariat have come into possession of economic supremacy that the political strength of the bourgeoisie will break down. Useless therefore to reckon upon influence achieved through legislation. Besides, political power could never reach the economic end desired by the workers. For this is how events will really fall into sequence: As soon as the proletariat shall have destroyed the present form of production, the political scaffolding of the state will fall to pieces. But the whole political organisation cannot be changed by a political action. How, for example, are we by political means to dismiss or render efficient the wages question? The very supposition is absurd! The whole of modern economic legislation is only the sanction, the codification of existing circumstances, and of practices commonly occurring. Only when they shall have acquired an influential position, or when 1t will be for the profit of the dominant classes, will the workers obtain anything by parliamentary methods. In any case the social movement constitutes the motive power. That is why it is inexcusable to try to drive the workers from economic ground to ground purely political.”
Revolutionary Socialists, along with Anarchist-Communists if possible, should guide the class war, organise the masses, and use strikes as their medium of political power, instead of wasting their strength in the political struggle. Let us leave therefore polities to the politicians.
As long as the power of capital shall exist, so long will parliamentarianism be a weapon employed by the "haves" against the "have-nots", And capitalism shows its hand even in the social democratic party, a fact of which we might give numerous instances, We might cite the model experiment in cooperation by the Socialists of Ghent, where tyranny is in force and where freedom of criticism is suppressed, aye, punished with the loss of employment. The same fear which hinders the workpeople of a factory, threatened with the deprivation of their daily bread, from speaking the truth against their employer, or which forces them to sign a paper in which - contrary to their knowledge of facts — they protest against some attack upon the manufacturer, that very fear hinders the Socialists of that place from corroborating the truth which I myself proclaim fearlessly because I am independent of them.
Look at countries where universal suffrage exists as in Germany and France. Is the lot of the worker there any better? Consider the United States, where, under the omnipotence of capitalism, the elections are veritable hotbeds of corruption. One of these electioneering generals (who by the large amount of money he controlled was able to secure the election of the two last presidents, Harrison 12 and the respectable Cleveland) was lately impeached and condemned to several years’ imprisonment. In fact the United States are governed by these mercenaries in the pay of the bloated financiers, who are really the men who point out the political game that is to be played.
We cannot condemn the poor devil who prefers to accept a few francs for his vote rather than suffer starvation along with his wife and children. It is the most natural thing in the world. Whoever shall offer him the most shall enrol him either as a clerical, a liberal, or an enthusiastic Socialist. He is driven to the political manger by hunger, and for that reason we have not the heart to condemn him.
On this subject the remark of Henry George is much to the point: "The millionaire always supports the party in power, however corrupt it be. He never tries to introduce reform, for instinctively he fears change. Never does he fight with a bad government. If he is threatened by those who hold political power he does not stir, he makes no appeal to the people, but he corrupts the opposing force with money.” In reality politics has become a matter of business and nothing else. Is it not true "that a society made up of the excessively rich and the excessively poor becomes an easy prey to those who seek to possess themselves of power?"
Ah well! if that be true, we are persuaded that the political war does not help us — could not help us. For meanwhile the economic evolution will be on us with the tide. A democratic constitution and a bad government can travel in harness. The key to every political problem is the social question, and those who endeavour to get hold of political power do not attack the evil at a vital point.
We must vote rightly, and if parliamentarianism has given us nothing up to now it is because we have voted wrong. Try to get men capable of doing their work, cry the political quacks. Exactly, reply we, let us try to catch birds by putting salt on their tails.
The collectivists take occasion to be satisfied with the march of events. Emile Vandervelde says in his pithy pamphlet,
"Looking only at the prospect of material wealth, the impelling force of the two systems would be appreciably equivalent. But we must take into account, to the credit of the collectivist solution, a moral factor whose influence will go on continually increasing. In place of being the subordinates of an anonymous society, those who actually guide the industrial army would become public men, endowed by the workers themselves with a certificate of confidence.”
But he forgets to add that, according to his idea, the workers will all be “the subordinates of a great anonymous society,” namely the state—that is to say, that there will not be much advance. Let us endeavour to abolish tyranny altogether, not merely to have a change of tyrants. By collectivism we succeed only in changing our masters, not in suppressing them. Such a state will be infinitely more tyrannical than the existing state.
Plato, in his “Republic,” made the following reflection:
*For this reason good men refuse to govern, either for money or 13 honour, for they are unwilling to be considered either mercenaries or thieves in publicly accepting or privately appropriating money; neither do they attach value to honours. By force and penalties we might constrain them to accept power, but they think the conduct of him scandalous who seeks a governmental position and does not wait till he be forced to accept it, Actually the greatest punishment for those who are unwilling to govern is that they must become subject to the morally inferior, and it is to avoid that, I believe, that good men take up the business of government. But then they do not accept it as a thing that will bring much pleasure, but us an unavoidable task that they cannot turn over to others. For that reason I think that if ever there should exist a state exclusively composed of good men they would seek as much not to govern as there are some now anxious to govern, and it would be demonstrated that a true government does not seek its own interest, but that of its subordinates, and that consequently every wise man would prefer to find himself under the direction of others rather than to be himself burdened with power.”
Which proves that Plato had also some anarchist tendencies.
Actually it is often said: Whatever happens, we must in any case pass through the state socialism of the Social Democrats before we realise a better society. We do not confidently say “No.” But if that must be so, we shall yet have far and long to fight our way. If the signs of the times do not deceive us we see already the lower middle class, in combination with the aristocracy of the workers, preparing to take over political power from the hands that hold it today. That will be the dictatorship of the fourth state, behind which has already formed a fifth. And do not think for a moment that the fifth state will be happier under the rule of the fourth than the fourth is now under the domination of the third. Judging from some recent events we may very justifiably entertain reasonable apprehensions. What is left of freedom of thought and speech in the official German Social Democratic party? The discipline of the party has become a tyranny, and woe to him who opposes the leaders of the party — they make short work of him. What liberty is there in the much belauded cooperative societies of Belgium? We could produce evidence to prove that such a liberty is a more grievous despotism than is ordinarily met with. In any case the fifth state will have the same struggle to maintain, and a stupendous effort will be necessary to free it from the domination of the fourth state. And if there should subsequently be a domination of the fifth state to the detriment of the sixth, and so on, how very prolonged will be sufferings of the proletariat? Once a social democratic state has been established it will not be easy to abolish it, and it is very possible it may be less difficult to strangle it at its birth than to depose it when it shall have been established. We cannot expect that the people, after having exhausted their strength in a Homeric contest with the bourgeoisie, will be ready at once to enter upon a struggle with the bureaucratic State of the Social Democrats. If we ever become the subjects of 14 such a state we will be for a long time the victims of its blessings. From the christian revolution at the commencement of our era — which had in the beginning a similar communist tendency — we have fallen into the hands of clerical and feudal despotism, and we have actually been subject to it for nearly nineteen centuries.
If that can be avoided, let us try our best.
Liebknecht, at Berlin, expressed his belief that state socialism and social democracy were on the eve of their final battle. The further capitalism goes to ruin, rot, and dissolution, the more clearly does bourgeois society perceive that in the end it cannot defend itself against the attacks of socialist ideas, and so much nearer do we approach the moment when state socialism will be seriously proclaimed: and the last battle that social democracy has got to wage will be begun under the device, “Here social democracy: there state socialism.” The first part is true, the second not. It is evident that by that time Social Democrats will have been so absorbed by the State Socialists that they will fight as allies. Let us not forget that to all appearance the revolution will not be brought about by the Social Democrats, who for the most part have thrown off — except in words — their revolutionary character, but by the mob who having become impatient will begin the revolution against the advice of their leaders. And when the mob shall have risked its life, and the revolution shall have been completed, the Social Democrats will suddenly rush to the frontand try to appropriate (without striking a blow) the honours of the revolution, and claim it as their own work.
In truth, Revolutionary Socialists are not without responsibility; it lies with them to sanction a dictatorship, or to usher in an era of freedom. It ought to be their endeavour that after the struggle the mob be not dismissed with thanks for services rendered, and that it be not disarmed, for those who have might can assert the right. They must prevent others from starting up and organising themselves as a central committee, or as a government under any form whatever, and especially, of course, they must not reveal themselves in these objectionable shapes. The people must be allowed to manage their own affairs and to defend their own interests if they do not wish to be again defrauded. The people must look with suspicion upon eloquent dissertations on the rights of man issued on paper, and take care that when the socialisation of the means of production is decreed they do not pass again in reality under the power of new rulers, chosen under the mischievous influence of electoral intrigues (not unknown where universal suffrage prevails) and under the disguise of a sham democracy. We have had enough of reforms on paper. It is time that we had something genuine in the way of reform, and that will only come about when the people really hold the reins of power. Let there be no more play on the words “evolution” and “revolution”, as if they were opposites. Both have the same meaning — their only difference consists in the time of their appearance.
Deville, whom nobody will suspect of anarchism, but who is known 15 and recognised as a Social Democrat, and who wields some influence, recognises this fact, as we do. He writes: "Evolution and revolution do not contradict each other; on the contrary, they succeed and complete each other — the second is the conclusion of the first. Revolution is only the characteristic crisis which effectively ends a period of evolution.”
In fact revolution is nothing else than the inevitable final phase of all evolution, but there is no opposition between these two terms, as is often suggested. To avoid all confusion, and that it may be remembered, we may briefly state the difference. A revolution is a rapid change, easily noticed, from one condition to another. An evolution is a much slower transition, with progress less perceptible.
Let us now endeavour to establish the conclusion that SOCIALISM IS IN DANGER in consequence of the tendency of the vast majority. The chief danger is the influence of capitalism on the social democratic party. Indeed the less revolutionary character of the party in some countries arises from the fact that a far greater number of adherents of the party there have something to lose if a violent social change were to take place. That is why the social democracy shows itself by degrees more moderate, well-beloved, practical, diplomatic (in its own language, more cunning), until ultimately it will become thin-blooded by reason of its cunning, and so pale that it soon won't knaw itself. Social democracy will capture still more votes, although the increase is not as rapid as Messrs. Engels and Bebel imagined it would be, there will be more members of Parliament, more communal councillors and other socialist dignitaries, more newspapers, book shops, and printing offices; in countries like Belgium and Denmark there will be more bakeries, drug shops, co-operative stores, etc.; Germany will furnish more cigar merchants, brewery firms, etc.; in a word, a great number of persons will be economically dependent on the future "peaceable and calm development” of the movement; that is to say, that any really revolutionary action would be dangerous to their interests. And these are precisely the leaders of the party, and, in consequence of the “discipline”, almost omnipotent. In this case as in others it is economic conditions which guide the policy of the party. When we see the German party patted on the back by the bourgeois press, as is sometimes done, putting it in contrast with vulgar Revolutionary Socialists, it gives material for reflection. One of our leading newspapers published the following paragraph, in which there is something suggestive for the thoughtful observer: "Our Socialists in these later years have become so refined, have so curled and pomaded themselves in the most recent parliamentary style, that we may say that we are witnesses of the beginning of the gradual transformation of a party most revolutionary into a party not exactly radical, but which considers the existing framework of society sufficiently elastic and roomy to accommodate it, even with all its discontent.”
The actual development of German socialism is a very important subject, which it is not our business to treat in the present essay. 16 Even if the number of socialist deputies in the Reichstag has risen from 60 to 70 there is not yet anything to cause dread to the German empire. In the first place, socialism manifests its weakness in becoming a party numerically strong in Parliament, for its adherents then expect results from it more positive than a parliamentary fraction can obtain, even by increased tameness and compliance. In the second place, we may be sure that the non-socialist parties will smooth down all opposition existing between them in proportion as Socialists attack them more vigorously as an influential party in the legislature.
But the danger which threatens us is not after all so great — it is evidently a phase of evolution. It is not our business to form a movement according to our caprices, but we have to analyse the situation. Spite of all the efforts of leaders to send the movement through an artificial canal, the economic development pursues its steady advance, and men will be forced to conform their actions to that development, for it will never accommodate itself to their whims or preferences.
It is not surprising that backward countries like Germany and Austria are favourable to the principle of authority. When western nations like France, England, the Low Countries, and Belgium had for long quaffed the cup of freedom, Germany did not even know how to spell the word "liberty". That is why political development in that country is almost at a standstill, and although she has overtaken other countries on the lines of economic development her political development remains very far behind. He who understands to some extent the state policy of Germany (and this is even more true of Austria) knows how retrograde it is. And although Belfort-Bax considers the German Socialists as the natural leaders of the international socialist movement, we think that the guidance of such a movement, cannot be trusted to an oriental people.
We regard the future with calmness because we have the assured conviction that events will not follow our or any other theories, and that the future belongs to those who will have most closely reckoned up the items that constitute progress — who will have analysed most accurately the signs of the times.
For us truth is found in the following words: Theft is the modern deity, Parliamentarianism is his prophet, and the State his executioner. That is why we remain in the ranks of Free Socialists, who do not exorcise the Devil by Beelzebub, the chief of devils, but who go straight to the end, without compromise, and without laying any offerings upon the altar of our corrupt capitalist society.