The Project Gutenberg eBook of Confessions of an anarchist
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Confessions of an anarchist
Author: W. C. Hart
Release date: January 11, 2026 [eBook #77674]
Language: English
Original publication: London: E. Grant Richards, 1906
Credits: deaurider, PrimeNumber and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONFESSIONS OF AN ANARCHIST ***
Confessions of an Anarchist
[Illustration:
LIBERTY
_THE ANARCHIST_
LABOUR LEAF
_THE TORCH_
A Revolutionary Journal of
ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM.
The
NEW ORDER.
“_Not by Might, nor by Power, but by my Spirit, saith The Lord._”
The Anarchist
_A Revolutionary Review_
Freedom
A JOURNAL OF ANARCHIST COMMUNISM
THE
COMMONWEAL
A REVOLUTIONARY JOURNAL OF
Anarchist Communism.
SOME ANARCHIST PAPERS.
]
CONFESSIONS
OF
AN ANARCHIST
By
W. C. HART
“Last came Anarchy; he rode
On a white horse, splashed with blood;
He was pale even to the lips,
Like Death in the Apocalypse.”
SHELLEY.
LONDON
E. GRANT RICHARDS
1906
INTRODUCTORY.
The author of this work has spent some ten years among Anarchists, and
in the study of Anarchist publications. He was for some time secretary
to two Anarchist “groups,” and a well-known figure in Anarchist
circles. Besides this, he was an occasional contributor with his pen
to the _Torch of Anarchy_, _Freedom_, _The Commonweal_, _Liberty_,
and _The Alarm_. He has, consequently, some claim to be considered an
authority on the subject of which he treats.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Anarchy a Negation of Morals and Principles 1
II. Anarchists Immoral and Unprincipled 7
III. Police-paid Spies 17
IV. Anarchist “Literature” 26
V. The “Groups” 32
VI. Bomb-making 40
VII. Anarchists at Work 51
VIII. An Anarchist Conference 67
IX. Anarchist Communities 74
X. Anarchism in England: Its History,
Leaders, and Principles 89
XI. Some Anarchist Apostles 99
XII. Anarchist Precepts 123
XIII. How Anarchist Assassins are made 136
XIV. The Lighter side of Anarchism 147
XV. The Absurdities of Anarchism 160
XVI. Anarchism a Bundle of Contradictions 169
XVII. “Propaganda by Deed” 185
XVIII. Does Socialism lead to Anarchism? 192
XIX. A plea for the Suppression of Violent
Anarchist Publications 198
ILLUSTRATIONS.
Page.
Some Anarchist Papers _Frontispiece_
An Anarchist Print _To face page_ 28
Mateo Morale ” 36
“Pineapple Bomb” used against King Alfonso ” 46
A Russian Revolutionist ” 52
Luccheni ” 62
Leon Czolgosz ” 64
The “Red Virgin” of the Commune ” 120
Anarchism and Socialism ” 196
I.
ANARCHY A NEGATION OF MORALS AND PRINCIPLES.
Association with Anarchists is not calculated to inspire one with
feelings of love for such people. Rather the contrary. Lamartine, the
historian, in a fit of disgust on witnessing some extra revolting
spectacle of “man’s inhumanity to man,” is said to have exclaimed:
“The more I see of my fellow-creatures the more I respect my dog.”
Substitute “Anarchists” for “fellow-creatures,” and the phrase
admirably sums up my sentiments regarding the preachers and promoters
of Anarchy.
Happening, some years back, to become possessed of some of the writings
of Prince Kropotkin, Elisée Reclus, and other Anarchist idealists,
and being at the time of a somewhat utopian turn of mind, I became
enamoured with the Anarchist idea of “emancipating” humanity from
the “tyranny” of Parliaments, county councils and school boards, and
replacing these “useless and effete institutions” with a spanking
brand new set of arrangements, under which it was confidently expected
everything would work out the very pink of perfection. I became a
full-blown Anarchist, joined the “party,” and in course of time became
secretary, first of one Anarchist “group,” and later of another. Like
other devotees of the cult, I somehow managed to convince myself that
every evil under the sun had its source in “Government;” and, having
thus, in the Supreme Court of Anarchy, found the culprit guilty, I,
like other Anarchists, straightway pronounced sentence of death on
this “monster of iniquity,” confident in the belief that with its
abolition would disappear--_hey, presto!_ like--all the ills to which
human flesh is heir, and life on this “vale of tears” at once become
a veritable Eden _minus_ the Tempter. Disillusion followed shortly on
making closer acquaintance with the “companions.” Far from being the
“perfect beings”--“laws unto themselves”--I had pictured them in my
mind before joining the party, I found them quite the reverse. I left
them ultimately in utter disgust, they themselves having convinced me
of the folly (not to say criminality) of the whole Anarchist scheme.
And here, lest it should be said I am misrepresenting, I hasten to
confess my acquaintance with many calling themselves Anarchists whose
lives prove them to have reached as near the pinnacle of perfection as
is humanly possible. But these are merely _fancied_ Anarchists, and
not such in reality: their whole creed and life proclaiming them to
be altogether out of touch with logical Anarchist formulæ. Defining
their particular “Anarchism” as the “right of the individual to do as
he pleases, _provided that in so doing he does not infringe the like
liberty of others_,” they have nothing in common with that of the real
Anarchist--who believes in the _absolute and unrestricted_ liberty of
the individual, and the total abolition of government and authority in
all its forms--and are in reality the actual opposite of Anarchists,
for they admit, by their definition, the necessity of authority and
laws to enforce the will of society on its refractory members.
It will be said, no doubt, that to condemn an idea because of the
anti-social and criminal characteristics of its professors is both
unfair and misleading. That this would be so as regards most principles
I readily admit. But this of Anarchism is an exception, inasmuch as,
being an immoral and anti-social doctrine in itself (as I shall
prove), it follows as a natural and consequential result that, in
course of time, its practical followers must become demoralised also.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Before entering into detail, let me endeavour to substantiate my case.
Anarchism being the doctrine which affirms the sacred, sovereign,
and absolute right of the individual to do as he likes under all
circumstances, at once shuts out of court, as incompatible with its
“principles,” all governance, all organisation, all system, all ideas
of society, all order, all restraint on the evilly-disposed, all
ideas of morality--all institutions and principles, in short, which
contradistinguish civilisation from barbarism, and denote the upward
progress of man from savagedom, through slavedom and serfdom, to
present-day commercial civilisation. This is not mere assertion--the
statement carries its own proof.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, who then will be surprised to learn
that the Anarchist affirms the total irresponsibility of man; that the
individual is not accountable for his or her actions; that, to put it
in plain language, the world is a huge lunatic asylum, and all its
inmates more or less “touched”? Self-confessedly “up the pole” (to use
a vulgarism) the Anarchist, of course, pictures everyone else in the
same elevated position. George Etiévant, a prominent French Anarchist,
stole dynamite cartridges, and, on his trial, pleaded that he was
not responsible. Instead of consigning him to a lunatic asylum, the
administrators of the law sentenced him to five years’ penal servitude.
On his release, he gave further proof, if proof were needed, of the
futility of the law’s attempt to cure mental disease with imprisonment,
by stabbing two policemen whom he had never seen before, and firing
into a police-station.
Now a consequence of a belief in the non-responsibility of man is the
rejection of the idea of good and evil; of right and wrong. “There is
no justice;” writes one Anarchist, “right nor wrong; no truth; no good,
no evil.... You have no ‘rights’ except the rights you win by might....
Take what you can, and _all_ you can; and take it while you may.”
Talk to the average Anarchist of morality and he will laugh in your
face. And this reminds me. Some time back a number of Anarchists who
had been expelled from Ticino and Northern Italy arrived in London.
One of these was fond of telling how the “comrades” in Italy procured
the wherewithal to carry on the “propaganda.” A large audience would be
drawn together by means of placards to listen to an eloquent orator of
the party discourse on the deliberately chosen subject of “Anarchist
Morality,” the while others of the “comrades” scattered themselves
among the spell-bound listeners, and quietly eased them of their
watches and purses!
But to return. I have said that a logical Anarchist despises morality.
Try to reason with him, and he will argue somewhat in this strain:
“Every action of the individual, whether viewed from the orthodox moral
standpoint as good, bad, or indifferent, is really performed because
the individual cannot help performing it; _ergo_, there are no such
acts as good and bad acts--all actions are indifferent.” So that, as
was candidly admitted by a speaker at the Paris Anarchist Congress
of September, 1889, and reported in the London Anarchist Journal
_Freedom_, “_Anarchy is a negation of both morals and principles._”
II.
ANARCHISTS IMMORAL AND UNPRINCIPLED.
I have shown, on the admission of Anarchists themselves, that Anarchy
is _minus_ morals and principles; that the words “good” and “evil” are
not to be found in an Anarchist vocabulary. Putting aside the fact
that Anarchists themselves give the lie to their teaching by battling
against what they are pleased to term the “evil” of authority, I think
sufficient evidence has been adduced to warrant the assertion that
a belief in Anarchism must tend to corrupt rather than to elevate
those who embrace its doctrines. Thus it comes about that the logical
Anarchist is often a person of shady reputation. Will anyone be
surprised to learn that the Anarchist has strong objections to hard
work? Many Anarchists I have met abstain from work “on principle.” An
article in the _Sheffield Anarchist_, headed “Don’t Work,” recommended
“total abstinence,” so that industrious British workmen who like it
in plenty may have their fill. The stricture upon Anarchists as a
body, once passed in _Justice_, the organ of the Social Democratic
Federation, of being “without moral character,” is certainly accurate.
Criminals abound in the “party.” Surprising as it must appear to some
to learn that Socialists are the bitterest enemies of Anarchists and
Anarchism, yet anyone acquainted with the two theories will see at once
that this is as it should be, for Socialism is the exact opposite of
Anarchism, both in theory and tactics. The late Herr Leibknecht, the
well-known Socialist Member of the German Reichstag, once divided the
Anarchists into three divisions: (1) criminals and semi-criminals who
throw an Anarchist cloak over their crime; (2) police agents; and (3)
the defenders of so-called “propaganda by deed.” Strictly speaking,
there is another section: (4) that of the “perfect beings” I have
already mentioned; but these, as I said, are Anarchists only in name.
As to which of the four sections predominate in the party it would be
hard to say--certainly not the last-mentioned.
Class 1 comprises rogues of every description--pickpockets, “individual
expropriators” (commonly called burglars and thieves), abortionists,
professional swindlers, members of the “long firm,” _souteneurs_
(these are confined to the French and German colony in and around
Soho), dealers in bogus businesses, medical quacks (at least four can
be seen in the streets and market-places of London), makers and passers
of counterfeit coin, forgers, practisers of the “propaganda by deed”
(Anarchist phraseology for murder and theft), incendiaries who fire
houses for the insurance (some few years back this was reduced to a
fine art among the foreign Anarchists of America until discovered, and
several prominent Anarchists were sent to prison as a result), and
the various other kinds of rogue that from time to time figure in the
Criminal Courts.
At the back of a small shop in a certain street in St. Luke’s,
Clerkenwell, as choice a set of desperadoes collected as ever met
under one roof. They styled themselves the “Free Initiative Anarchist
Group.” Among its members were well-known (to the police) Anarchist
pickpockets, burglars, long firm schemers, clever jewel thieves, and so
on. Here was hatched many a successful burglary and jewel robbery. One
of the failures was the attempt of one of its members to secure £420
worth of jewels from a shop in Oxford Street by smashing the window
with a brick draped in an Anarchist newspaper. One of the favourite
dodges of the members of this “group” to secure the “needful” was to
rent a shop (or, rather, not to rent it, for they had conscientious
objections to paying rent), stock it well with empty boxes, so as to
give it the appearance of substantiality, adding a little genuine stock
procured by means of the long firm, then advertising the “business”
for sale as a well-established concern. By this means they would net
between £20 and £30 on each “business” disposed of, generally the
hard-earned savings of some working man anxious to start in business
for himself.
For nearly two years a large number of the most active members of
the German Anarchist Group of the International Working Peoples’
Association in New York City, and of the Social Revolutionary Club,
another German Anarchist organisation in that city, were persistently
engaged in getting money by insuring their property for amounts far
in excess of the real value thereof, secretly removing everything
that they could, setting fire to the premises, swearing to heavy
losses, and exacting corresponding sums from the insurance companies.
Explosion of kerosene lamps was usually the device they employed. Some
seven or eight fires, at least, of this sort were set in New York and
Brooklyn in 1884 by members of the gang, netting the beneficiaries
an aggregate profit of thousands of dollars. In 1885 nearly twenty
were set, with equally profitable results. The record for the first
three months of 1886 was six, if not more. The business was carried on
with the most astounding audacity. One of these men had his premises
insured, fired them, and presented his bill of loss to the company
within twenty-four hours after getting his policy, and before the agent
had reported the policy to the company. The bill was paid, and a few
months later the same fellow, under another name, played the game over
again, though not quite so speedily. In one of the fires set in 1885
a woman and two children were burned to death. The two guilty parties
in this case were members of the Bohemian Anarchist Group and are now
serving life-sentences in prison. Another of the fires was started
in a six-storey tenement house, endangering the lives of hundreds,
but fortunately injuring no one but the incendiary. In one case in
1886 the fireman saved two women whom they found clinging to their
bedposts in a half-suffocated condition. In another, a man, woman
and baby lost their lives. Three members of the gang were arrested
in 1886 for murdering and robbing an old woman in Jersey City. Two
others were convicted for carrying concealed weapons and assaulting an
officer--they were, in fact, walking arsenals, and the circumstances
under which they were found led to the suspicion that they were about
to perpetrate a murder as well as a robbery.
A remarkable article in the New York _Sun_ of May 3rd, 1886,
corroborates the above by giving names and dates, together with facts
and figures from the official records.
Of this class of Anarchists (Class 1 in our category) one may say with
truth that they have no more compunction in “besting” one of their own
comrades than in robbing outsiders; while for preference they would
rather “do” their fellow-associate, relying on the victim’s detestation
of the law not to hand them over into its clutches.
Consummate hypocrites and accomplished liars, they unite in their
persons all the roguery and dishonesty of East-end sweaters, mingled
with the unprincipled characteristics of Seven Dials rascaldom. Regard
for honesty and morality they have none. Tired of theorising, the
members of the Autonomie Anarchist Club would resort to practice by
raiding the Grafton Anarchist Club; and the members of the latter would
return the compliment by swooping down on the Autonomie in a body.
And so on. It is said there is honour among thieves. But among this
particular section of Anarchists this virtue is conspicuous by its
absence. I speak on this subject with a feeling of bitterness, for I
have been a victim to these rogues time and again.
Of Class 2 (spies in the pay of the police) I speak elsewhere. Of
the believers in so-called “propaganda by deed” (Class 3), the major
portion is composed of those who incite, or endeavour to incite,
others to do that which they have not the courage to do themselves.
“Propaganda by deed,” I have explained, is Anarchist jargon for murder,
robbery, and crimes against morality. “Pillage and murder the rich” was
the favourite theme of _Le Père Peinard_, the French Anarchist slang
journal, and there are few Anarchists but who will and do endorse those
sentiments. Some will even go further, and declare themselves at war,
not merely with the rich, but with everyone else. Ravachol--thief,
murderer, forger, counterfeiter, plunderer of graves--is the
Anarchists’ patron saint, and is held up to the world as a “hero” whose
“example is worthy of emulation.”
[Illustration: RAVACHOL, The desperate French Anarchist.]
Scattered throughout this work will be found many extracts from the
“literature” of Anarchism--advocating and applauding the most barbarous
outrages conceivable, and recommending inhumanities and immoralities
more to be expected among savages than among civilised men; articles
approving the firing of opera houses, burning policemen alive,
assassination of judges, jurymen, politicians, kings, presidents,
etc., by knife, torch, bomb, strangulation, poison, etc.--writings
favouring burglary, incendiarism, forgery, stopping trains for purpose
of plunder, brigandage, prostitution, abortion. Such is the glorious
gospel of Anarchy!
I could never understand, when among the Anarchists, why so many of
them are so remiss in paying their debts, and loose in money matters
generally, until enlightened by Dr. Creaghe, editor of the _Sheffield
Anarchist_. “Let me tell you clearly,” he says, “once and for all,
that I believe in, and as long as I live shall do all in my power
to encourage, resistance on the part of the workers _to all kinds
of payment_, be it rent or otherwise. I shall also try to persuade
them to TAKE whatever they are short of, be it food or other things,
_wherever they find them_.” The doctor soon found that this new and
convenient “principle” could be applied in other ways than those he had
contemplated. His own patients rapidly became ardent converts, and the
doctor was soon glad to shake the dust of Sheffield off his feet, and
seek out fresh fields and pastures new, having become, let us hope, a
sadder but a wiser man.
The German Anarchist paper _Vorbote_ once deploringly lamented the fact
that many of the “companions” are given to “borrowing as much money as
possible from their comrades, and, when asked to repay it, reply with a
phrase from the programme of the party!”
Much more could be said on this subject of “propaganda by deed,” but
the Sheffield Anarchists, in a “Manifesto to Criminals,” sum up all
I could possibly say by candidly confessing that the “only difference
between the criminal and the Anarchist is that the former thinks he
is doing wrong, while the Anarchist knows he is doing right.” And of
such is the fraternity of Anarchy! What a hell upon earth would these
misguided wretches bring about if only they could have their way!
III.
POLICE-PAID SPIES.
It is, of course, impossible to speak on this subject with absolute
certainty. But association with Anarchists brings one into contact
with so many questionable characters that doubts naturally arise in
one’s mind as to the genuineness of many active members of the party.
Continued association confirms these doubts, and raises them almost to
a feeling of certitude. But most of them “give the game away” (to use a
vulgarism) by being extraordinarily flush of money whilst doing little
or no work. Some will stump the country ostensibly for Anarchism, but
really for Scotland Yard. Visiting the various “groups” in Scotland
and England (there are none in Ireland) periodically, they usually
stay just sufficiently long in each case to learn the movements and
intentions of the local Anarchists, and then return to communicate the
information they have gathered to the police authorities in London.
It may not be generally known that the notorious and now-dissolved
“Club Autonomie” was closed simply and solely because it had become
notorious as a rendezvous for spies in the pay of almost every European
Government, who notified their respective Governments of every move on
the part of the Anarchists here in London and the provinces.
The ranks of Anarchy are simply honey-combed with spies. Not only is
Scotland Yard well represented in the secret councils of the party,
but so also is the secret political police of every Continental
Government. And of this the Anarchists are perfectly well aware, for
mutual suspicion reigns supreme among them. So great is this feeling of
distrust that few of the “companions” escape suspicion. David Nicoll,
who, it will be remembered, underwent eighteen months’ imprisonment for
an article in the _Commonweal_ inciting to the murder of Mr. Justice
Hawkins and the then Chief-Inspector Melville, has denounced two of the
most respected and prominent financiers of the movement--Drs. Nettlau
and Macdonald--as spies in the pay of the police. In this connection it
is only fair to add that a dozen or so active and well-known Anarchists
have replied through _Freedom_ with a note of confidence in the two
gentlemen named.
At the trial of the Walsall Anarchists for bomb conspiracy, it
transpired that one of the prominent personages in the affair was in
regular receipt of secret service money. Chief-Inspector Melville, then
head of the political branch of the Criminal Investigation Department,
charged solely with the care of Anarchists and Fenians, confessed
at the Walsall trial to having “paid lots of Anarchists money.” And
these people who sell their own comrades, are the people who prate of
regenerating the world! Pah!
Here is a further instance: I know of a spy who himself confessed
to having been in the pay of both the English and French police. He
arrived in this country from France, apparently in great poverty, and
his dire want was an excuse for accepting food from one “comrade,”
lodging from another, and anything he could get from others. His
professions of sympathy with the Anarchist propaganda were hearty,
and the Anarchists trusted and believed him so far as to allow him to
attend the secret meetings of the “French Group.” In consequence of
this he was able to give information to both the French and English
police. The plans of the “comrades” having been foiled on one or two
occasions it was rumoured that a traitor existed in the camp. Shortly
after this a “comrade” was deputed to go to France by the “group”
on secret business, and the spy asked to be allowed to go with him.
This was agreed to. At Dieppe the “comrade” was arrested, the police
having been accurately informed as to the time of his arrival on French
soil. The spy returned to England, and explained his return on the
ground that he was not allowed to remain in France. The “comrades”
in London called a special meeting of the “groups,” at which the
spy was purposely permitted to attend. He was directly charged with
being the spy, and with having supplied the French and English police
with information as to the movements of the Anarchists in London. He
vehemently protested his innocence. He was gagged and his pockets
searched. Letters were found from the French police, instructing him
to watch and report on the doings of certain French Anarchists then in
London. The spy afterwards made a full confession of his connection
with the French police, and also of his connection with the authorities
at Scotland Yard. He was shamefully ill-treated, but escaped and fled
to France, where he is now.
As an example of the way in which these police agents work themselves
into the confidence of the Anarchist leaders, here is an advertisement
from the _Commonweal_ in proof--
“INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST SCHOOL, 19, Fitzroy-square, W. Conducted by
Louise Michel and A. Coulon. Free education in English, French, and
German. Any friend taking an interest in the School can now obtain a
portrait group of teachers and scholars on application to A. Coulon,
Secretary, at above address.”
The secretary of this school was the police informer in the Walsall
case.
At one time there existed in London an international Anarchist news
agency, where every kind of Anarchist publication, in almost any
language, could be procured. A “comrade” enjoying the confidence of the
party was placed in charge, and the shop became a rendezvous for almost
every foreign Anarchist in London. The trusted “comrade” was a police
spy! He had been instrumental in dragging his Anarchist customers into
the great police net, even going to the lengths of procuring photos
of them for the monster album of Scotland Yard. The truth leaked out
gradually. One night the Anarchists assembled in force outside the
shop, seeking the traitorous “comrade’s” gore. But, scenting trouble,
and like a sensible person, the “comrade” had a few hours earlier
sought out fresh fields and pastures new.
During my connection with the movement, several spies were discovered
and denounced. I have in mind, as I write, the case of an Anarchist
friend of mine--as good-hearted a fellow as ever breathed--who, but
for my timely intervention, would be now in penal servitude, a victim
to the machinations of one of these _agents provocateurs_. One day
a letter came to the place where our “group” met, addressed to the
“Communists’ Committee.” It was a long scrawl, in very bad English,
from a Frenchman who signed himself in three different names. On the
Sunday following, Monsieur came to our “group” meeting, and professed
intimate acquaintance with the Walsall Anarchists, who had just then
been sent to penal servitude. One of our English “comrades” somehow
took a liking to this fellow, and as he professed to be homeless and
without money, gave him shelter and food for some months; even, on one
occasion, going so far as to pawn his carpenter’s tools to procure
him food. During all this time, the Frenchman was endeavouring to
persuade my friend to commit an outrage in London. At last a scheme was
devised for the blowing-up of a big London institution. A difficulty
now arose--my friend had to confess his ignorance regarding the making
of explosives. “Zat ve vill soon rectify,” said the Frenchman. One
evening I called on my English friend and found Monsieur had been out
all day. “He has written a letter in French for me to send to Paris,”
I was informed. Having my suspicions as to the man’s genuineness, and
being acquainted slightly with the French language, I was allowed to
examine the letter. It was addressed to M. Jean Grave--a well-known
French Anarchist--at 140, Rue Mouffetard, Paris--and asked for a
copy of “Le Anarchiste Indicateur,” a manual of instructions for the
making of every kind of bomb known, to be sent to my friend’s address,
“as he intends making an act of propaganda for the Cause” in London.
Instead of sending the letter, I consigned it to the flames, and the
plot was abandoned. Strange to say, the Frenchman never returned to my
friend’s house again, but, in his place, appeared two detectives who,
for some weeks, day and night, watched the premises, and shadowed my
friend wherever he went. These facts aroused our suspicions. I heard
nothing further until some months later when, the matter having blown
over, a representative of Scotland Yard told me that, after writing
the letter, and feeling confident that it would be sent, Monsieur had
communicated with the French police, who, in their turn, had informed
the authorities at Scotland Yard, with the result above mentioned. If
that letter had been sent, my friend would be now in penal servitude
for being in the possession of illegal publications.
In France, spying is done on a grand scale. M. Andrieux, in his
“Memoirs of a Prefect of Police,” gives the following instance:--
“The companions were looking for someone to advance funds, but
‘infamous capital’ did not seem in a hurry to reply to their appeal.
I urged on ‘infamous capital’ and succeeded in persuading it that
it was to its own interests to facilitate the publication of an
Anarchist paper.... But don’t imagine that I with frank brutality
offered the Anarchists the encouragement of the Prefect of Police.
I sent a well-dressed _bourgeois_ to one of the most active and
intelligent of them. He explained that having made a fortune in the
druggist line, he wanted to devote a part of his income to advancing
the Anarchist propaganda. This _bourgeois_, anxious to be devoured,
inspired the companions with no suspicion. Through his hands I placed
the caution-money” (caution-money has to be deposited before starting
a paper in France) “in the coffers of the State, and the journal, _La
Revolution Sociale_, made its appearance. It was a weekly paper, my
druggist’s generosity not extending to the expenses of a daily.”
IV.
ANARCHIST “LITERATURE.”
The literature of Anarchism is interesting only in so far as it denotes
the peculiar mental characteristics of its devotees. Couched in an
exalted strain, its sickening grossness and sentimentalism leave little
or no impression on the mind of the thinking social student (unless
it be that of disgust). Strictly speaking, there are two classes of
Anarchist literature. The one--the idealist--voices the sentiments of
the “perfect beings” I have before enumerated, but who in reality are
not Anarchists at all; the other is the advocate of that pessimistic
and criminal Anarchism which sees no good in any institution extant,
nor hope for the future, and consequently seeks to destroy. My object,
however, is not so much to criticise the literature of Anarchism, as
to expose the canting professions of these humbugs who pose as the
“real and only friends of labour.” For whilst there are none so loud
as Anarchists in denouncing sweating and lauding trade-unionism, yet,
strange to say (or, is it strange?) the difference between precept
and practice is alarmingly conspicuous. _The Anarchists have reduced
sweating to a fine art!_
The “society” rate for compositors’ work is 38s. per week. But the
“labour-emancipating” _Commonweal_ paid its compositor the extravagant
remuneration of 10s. per week! _Liberty_, at the outset of its career,
was produced by boy labour, but later was brought out entirely on
the voluntary principle. The _Alarm_ paid for composing 15s. per
week--sometimes; at others, the paper was brought out by exploiting
the labour of poor wretches out of employment, who, to this day, have
never received payment. These papers have now ceased publication.
_Freedom_, the only one remaining, was for many years a trade-union
production, but in 1897, it paid the princely salary of 10s. per week
for “comping,” and was “machined” by boy and non-union labour at prices
which make the sweater’s wage pall in comparison.
It is interesting to note the names of prominent Anarchists connected
with these ventures. Prince Kropotkin is a member of the “group”
which publishes _Freedom_. But, in answer to a letter of mine, the
Prince assures me that he was altogether unaware of the sweating
conditions under which it was produced. (This is accounted for by the
fact that the Prince lives at Bromley, in Kent, and the “group” holds
its meetings at Camden Town.) Other members of the “group” are Prince
Tcherkesov, Errico Malatesta, A. Marsh, Mrs. C. M. Wilson, and other
middle-class men and women.
The history of the Anarchist movement in England is strewn with
the corpses of dead journals; and among them may be mentioned
the following:--The _Commonweal_, which described itself as a
“revolutionary journal of Anarchist-Communism,” was first suspended
at the time its editor was arrested and sentenced to serve a term of
eighteen months’ imprisonment for an article inciting to the murder of
Mr. Justice Hawkins, and Home Secretary Matthews, in 1892. Two years
later the compositor who set up the paper was arrested for a speech
which he had made on Tower Hill, and sentenced to the small term (on
account of his lack of influence in the inciting direction) of six
months’ imprisonment with hard labour for advising the assassination of
Royalty on the occasion of the opening of the Tower Bridge. That seemed
to be the death-blow to the _Commonweal_, for it was not found possible
to continue its publication afterwards.
[Illustration:
SPLENDID PHOTO,
Of DAN. CHATTERTON.
ATHEIST, ad COMMUNIST.
Cabinet Size, 1. s.
The Surplus Profits of Picture to Pay
Chattertons. Cremation Fund.
One Penny,
BIOGRAPHY
Of DAN. CHATTERTON.
ATHEIST, and COMMUNIST.
By CHAT.
PARLIAMENTARY
PLUNDER!
the
Abolition of Lords & Commons
A PLEA for REVOLUTION.
By Dan Chatterton.
POPULAR PARSONS,
Priestly Plunderers
Of LABORS WEALTH.
a open letter
To Henry Carey Shuttleworth.
Rector of St Nicholas Cole Abbey.
By Chat.
Henry. Carey. Shuttleworth.
Eleven years ago, I. challenged
you to debate. with me the
Existence of God. You assert-the
subject is not in your line.
but you would think it over.
Why Sir. ’True or False. the
actuality of this (so called-God.)
Is the corner stone of
your Church, The only Plea
for a lazy useless Priesthood.
Later on, You--are not sure
a public debate--on such a
subject. Is a good thing. ’Ah
Priest, Well may you doubt on
being able to change my views
or that I. shall change yours,
True, you can ask me all
manner of questions, which
admit of no satisfactory answer,
’What a pitiful admission,
’What, No satisfactory
Proof for God.? The boneless
backless thing, Unable
with the aid of a Priest
AN ANARCHIST PRINT.
Note the Spelling and Punctuation Marks.]
The _New Order_ was the organ of the “Christian Anarchists,” and was
opposed to violence of every description--even going so far as to
approve the non-resistance theories of Count Tolstoi.
The _Anarchist_ was published in 1886, and was the first Anarchist
paper ever published in England. _L’Internationale_ was noted for
the violence of its language and its open advocacy of the dagger
and bomb. The _Anarchist Labour Leaf_ was an eight-page pamphlet
issued monthly by the East End Anarchists, and distributed by them on
Sundays round the various meetings which are held in Victoria Park.
_Liberty_ was edited by James Tochatti, a Hammersmith tailor, and was
opposed to the policy of indiscriminate outrage. For this reason it
was little supported by the Anarchists, and soon gave up the ghost.
It was the best among the many Anarchist papers. Of the many others
there was the _Alarm_, which, notwithstanding its stirring title, did
not strike often; the _Herald of Anarchy_, a “journal of consistent
individualism;” the _Worker’s Friend_, a Yiddish publication; the
_Walsall Anarchist_; the _Sheffield Anarchist_, which was inscribed
“Pay what you like;” _Der Lumpen Proletaire_, a German production,
a writer for which is still “wanted” by the police on suspicion of
murdering a woman in Shaftesbury Avenue some years back; the _Torch
of Anarchy_; _Die Autonomie_, which, during the German anti-socialist
laws, was smuggled into Germany by all manner of curious means;
and _Die Freiheit_, whose editor, the notorious Johann Most,
underwent sixteen months’ imprisonment for an article applauding the
assassination of the Czar in 1881.
As a sample of the unscrupulous lengths to which some Anarchists will
go, I may mention that in 1889 a tract of George Bernard Shaw’s,
entitled “Anarchism _v._ State-Socialism,” appeared in defence of
Anarchism. Soon after, Mr. Shaw saw fit to discard Anarchism as
unreasonable, and wrote a masterly pamphlet on its “Impossibilities”
(Fabian Society). Yet, in 1896, the “Associated Anarchists” actually
reprinted the first-mentioned tract, and spread it broadcast as if it
were the opinion of Mr. Shaw at the time. Similar dishonesty was shown
by the Anarchists actually at the open grave of William Morris, by
resuscitating opinions he had long since repudiated. Such dishonesty
Anarchists seem to glory in.
[Illustration]
V.
THE “GROUPS.”
Anarchists associate in “groups.” These, for obvious reasons, seldom
muster more than a dozen members each. Whilst the Anarchist creed--the
elimination of authority in all its forms--admits of no kind of
organisation whatever, still it must be admitted, in justice to a
section of the party, that some of them profess to believe in a form of
“voluntary co-operation,” as distinct from the “coercive” institutions
of government. I say “profess to believe” advisedly, for I have never
yet found the practices of Anarchists square with their professions. In
vain do we look in the Anarchist party for a sample of organisation.
There is none. Attempts at organisation among them have been frequent,
but all have ended in ignominious failure. The fact is, the Anarchists
are incapable of organisation, and, far from being fit for a “society
without government” (could such an anomaly maintain itself a day),
they have shown themselves incapable of managing a decent-sized apple
stall. The manifesto of the “Associated Anarchists” bears out what I
say. “We have been present,” say the issuers of this manifesto, “at
many of the meetings of our Anarchist comrades, where discussions
of important matters were to be conducted, and where it was hoped
that some mutual and collective agreement would be come to as to an
expression of opinion and as to action. In every case, however, where
perfect unanimity was not hit upon, as it were, by accident, it was
found impossible to decide anything in the shape of a general opinion
of the meeting, or with regard to what action should be taken by them
in all these particular and important affairs. Instead of this, violent
altercations have arisen; the utmost disorder has prevailed, and the
whole of the meetings, from the standpoint of organisation, have been
absurd farces and ridiculous frauds.”
[Illustration:
THE ASSOCIATED ANARCHISTS,
“ANARCHY IS ORDER,”
GROUP NO. 1.
]
At Anarchist conferences it is amusing to observe the shifts to which
the “companions” are put, to obviate the inconvenience arising from
this lack of system. At these so-called conferences and congresses
there is no chairman (he being a “relic of authority”), and it is
always left to “individual initiative” to start the discussion on
matters concerning the “propaganda.” The consequence is that order
is conspicuous by its absence. Anyone can roll off a speech when he
likes, where he likes, for as long as he likes, and on any subject he
likes. No vote is taken of the feeling of the “comrades” present--who,
by a convenient fiction, are supposed to be delegates of the various
“groups”--consequently no action is taken, and the so-called conference
resolves into a mere talking shop. So loosely are the party affairs
carried on that anyone can gain admittance to a “group,” and anyone can
enter their congresses even _without_ being a member of a group. No
credentials are asked for, and it is not an extraordinary occurrence to
see one or two detectives sitting among the “comrades.”
The names of some of the “groups” are interesting, inasmuch as they
indicate the thoughts uppermost in the Anarchist mind: the _Torch_,
_Alarm_, _Rebel_, _Necessity_, _Ni Dieu, ni Maitre_ (no God, no
master), _Firebrand_, _Liberty_, _Revenge_, _Free Initiative_, _British
Nihilists_, etc. The last-named “group” loudly prated their belief in
the “propaganda of action.” They talked of naught save dynamite and
daggers. They were the party’s dare-devils. (And if daring consists
in breathing fire and slaughter all the twenty-four hours of the
day, then the Anarchists are the pluckiest folk I know of.) One of
the British Nihilists managed to muster up sufficient courage to
perform the revolutionary act of firing a revolver at the House of
Commons, doubtless expecting to see it collapse, like the walls of
Jericho at the trumpet’s blast. As a result of the Deptford Group’s
propaganda, Rolla Richards blew up three post-offices in South London
with pennyworths of gunpowder, “in memory of Ravachol, Santo, Bourdin,
Polti,” and others.
The “Associated Anarchists” were not long in becoming dissociated.
They were a body of about a dozen youths who had become disgusted
with orthodox Anarchist “organisation.” They decided on reform, and
accordingly drew up a code of “non-compulsory agreements.” Members on
joining agreed beforehand to voluntarily abide by the decision of the
majority (the contrary of Anarchist principles), but still were free
not to so abide. They printed and published the _Alarm_ (an alarming
little sheet printed in gorgeous blue, like an oilman’s circular).
Dissensions soon arose among the associates as to the management of
this property. A minority of two, in the exercise of their “individual
liberty,” claimed the lot to do as they liked with, and shut the door
in the face of the other “brothers,” who, in their turn, “burgled” the
premises at dead of night. Then the minority called in the police (by
no means strange for Anarchists). However, a reunion took place between
the opposing factions, and everything went as merrily as a marriage
bell, until, one fine day, the majority found that this time the
minority had sold up all the happy home and pocketed the proceeds! And
now, dear reader (as they say in tracts), just picture in your mind the
beauty of Anarchy adopted nationally!
Some of the groups, for obvious reasons, adopt a disguise of
respectability! Thus, the “South London Progressive Association,” which
met at one of the coffee-houses in the Old Kent Road, was a group of
Anarchists. So also was the “North London Progressive Association”
of Kentish Town. The Jewish Anarchist Club in Berner Street, E., was
known as the “International Workpeople’s Educational Society,” and was
composed of the lowest class of Russian and Polish Jews. The “Deptford
Educational Society,” which met above a shop in New Cross Road, was a
group of English Anarchists, who dissolved soon after the conviction
of Rolla Richards for blowing up post-offices in the neighbourhood.
Another Anarchist club was the Scandinavian Club in Rathbone Place. The
Commonweal Group met in a mews off Gray’s Inn Road. Its members were
believers in the “propaganda of deed,” and were often in the hands of
the police.
[Illustration: MATEO MORALE
And his flower-bedecked bomb.]
The old Autonomie Club, in Windmill Street, Tottenham Court Road,
was the home of a number of groups: the French, German, and Italian
groups; the “Knights of Liberty” and the “Young Anarchists”--a group
of mere boys who actually conducted classes for the study of explosive
chemicals.
Some of the so-called groups comprise only one or two individuals. For
instance, _Freedom_ speaks of the “Somer’s Town Group” as being very
active. This formidable revolutionary organisation comprised three
individuals--one of whom, in true Anarchist fashion, appointed himself
secretary, treasurer, librarian, and everything else. The two men who
composed the Torch group after its founders, the Misses Rossetti, had
left the movement, appointed themselves delegates to one of the May Day
Celebration Committees, wrote out their own credentials, and sat and
voted on every proposal brought forward. This “group” was the loudest
in shrieking for the admission of Anarchists to the International
Socialist and Labour Congress held in London in 1896, and was the
originator of the agitation having that object in view. The cool and
impudent demand of these self-elected and unrepresentative nonentities
to sit and vote side by side with _bonâ fide_ trade-union delegates
representing thousands of members, is only equalled by its astounding
hypocrisy, for Anarchists profess not to believe in democracy, voting,
or representation, and consequently have no place in any organisation
based on democratic principles.
The English Anarchists (who, by the way, are looked upon by their
foreign and practical brethren more with contempt than “fraternity”)
are to-day a mere handful, and the “party” is becoming smaller and
beautifully less owing to the numerous secessions of the more
intelligent, who, in course of time, become disgusted with the lack
of system, want of order, and contempt for moral conduct which
pervades the practical section of the party. I doubt if there are
fifty Englishmen in London of the Anarchist persuasion. The strength
of the entire movement may be judged by the fact that their oldest
established, and now only existent organ in the Press--_Freedom_--has
a paltry circulation of about 500 copies monthly throughout the entire
country.
[Illustration: LIBERTY GROUP]
Very few of these “groups” exist otherwise than in name. By this I mean
that few are conducted on genuine business-like principles, such as the
periodic appointment of officers, the holding of weekly or fortnightly
members’ meetings, the issuing of balance-sheets, and so on.
VI.
BOMB-MAKING.
Let no one think that all London Anarchists are mere talkers who
have not the courage of their convictions. It is a fact that many of
the outrages which have taken place on the Continent were arranged
beforehand here in London, within the four walls of the Club Autonomie.
In the month of November, 1891, the following advice was given to the
“companions” by a London Anarchist newspaper: “A knowledge of chemistry
is very useful, and all young men should join a chemistry class at
once. There is no need to proclaim the fact that you are an Anarchist,
but study diligently and quietly till you have mastered all the secrets
of modern explosives.” And it concluded by suggesting that a result of
such a knowledge might be that the rich and the rulers of the country
would be “swiftly translated to Paradise.”
MURDER!
Workmen, why allow yourselves, your wives, and children, to be daily
murdered by the foulness of the dens in which you are forced to live?
The average age of the working-classes is some 29 years, and the
average age of the rich 55 years.
It is time the slow murder of the poor, who are poisoned by thousands
in the foul, unhealthy slums, from which robber landlords exact
monstrous rents, was stopped.
You have paid in rent the value over and over again of the rotten dens
in which you are forced to dwell. Government has failed to help you.
The time has come to help yourselves.
PAY NO RENT
to land-thieves and house-farmers, who flourish and grow fat on your
misery, starvation, and degradation.
A MASS MEETING
WILL BE HELD IN
VICTORIA PARK
(NEAR THE BAND STAND)
On Sunday, July 26th, at 3 p.m.,
When the following Speakers will address the meeting in support of a
No Rent Campaign:--
D. J. Nicoll, W. B. Parker, S. Mainwaring, C. W. Mowbray, J. Turner,
R. Jane, and E. Hall.
Hurrah! for the kettle, the club, and the poker,
Good medicine always, for landlord and broker;
Surely ’tis best to find yourselves clobber,
Before paying rent to a rascally robber.
An Anarchist Handbill.
This advice was acted on largely by the “comrades” in London, and
classes for the study of chemistry were instituted in various parts.
Some Anarchists even joined the chemistry classes established by the
various institutions in and around London. Following on this came the
publication of a series of dynamite manuals. Johann Most (who, it
may be remembered, was in 1881 sent to prison here in London for a
violent article in _Die Freiheit_ applauding the assassination of the
Czar, Alexander II.) wrote a bomb-manual entitled “Revolutionary War
Science.” This was published by the German Anarchists of London in
their native tongue, and circulated largely in and around the German
colony in West London. The book was afterwards translated into English
and published in America, whence large quantities were imported into
this country and distributed among the English-speaking “comrades.” In
this book Johann Most explains exactly where bombs should be placed
in churches, palaces, ball-rooms, and festive gatherings. Never more
than one Anarchist is to take charge of any attempt, so that in case of
discovery the Anarchist party may suffer as little harm as possible.
The book contains also a complete dictionary of poisons, and preference
is given to poison from dead bodies. Poison is advocated for use
against politicians, traitors and spies.
[Illustration: “VIVE L’ANARCHIE”]
Among the French Anarchists in London, “Le Anarchiste Indicateur” was
the Bible of the bombists. This work, it is said, was written by an
ex-member of the French Detective Service. Another dynamite manual
was entitled, “Advice and Warning to the Commercial Classes,” by
“Father Gavroche,”--the _nom de guerre_ of a certain Irish-American
revolutionist--and contained instructions for the making of every kind
of bomb known, as well as for the mixing of a composition known as
Greek Fire, which it advocated as useful for throwing over policemen
and setting them afire. These publications explained the use and
manufacture of all kinds of explosives--gun-cotton, dynamite, roburite,
woodite, fulminate of mercury, picrate of potash, besides endless
explosive mixtures, of which a common one was chlorate of potash and
sugar. This latter would be mixed in about equal parts, and a small
glass tube containing sulphuric acid inserted. When the bomb was
thrown, the tube would break and an explosion result.
A curious advertisement once appeared in the _Commonweal_. It was as
follows:--
“SPECIAL NOTICE TO EMANCIPATOR GROUPS in Scotland and England. The
‘EMANCIPATOR’ (the new holey Bible) will shortly be published.”
This “holey Bible” was in reality a manual of instructions for the
making of every kind of explosive known, and was partly set up in type
when the police raided the offices of the _Commonweal_. But our smart
police were certainly out-witted by the Anarchist compositor in charge
of the place. The type, for safety, had been placed near the ceiling,
on top of a number of shelves. Having, as they thought, ransacked
every nook and cranny in the place, the police officers were about
to depart without having giving this place a thought. One of them,
however, on reaching the door, noticed the omission, and carelessly
asked the “comp” to bring down the contents. Placing a small pair of
steps against the shelves in such a way as to render them totally
unsafe to stand upon, the wily “comp” rushed up them, and, to make
believe of saving himself from falling, purposely clutched hold of the
type, dragged it to the floor with him and “pied” the lot; or, in plain
English, broke it completely up. And the police lost a “find.”
The second time the police raided the _Commonweal_ they discovered a
manuscript of explosive recipes hidden behind a loose brick in the
wall. This formed part of the indictment of the compositor who was
convicted at the Old Bailey soon afterwards for seditious libel,
incitement to murder, etc.
In August, 1891, a Revolutionary Conference was held at the Jewish
Anarchist Club, in Berner Street, E., to consider the advisability
of “action.” Representatives of Anarchism from various provincial
centres, as well as from different parts of London, attended. The
Conference decided that a number of bomb outrages should take place
in this country at an early date. One of the delegates present from
Walsall happened to be employed in an iron foundry in that place, and,
it being thought that an order from an employee would disarm suspicion,
it was agreed that he should get his firm to make a number of iron
castings for bombs. Of course, orders were not given for bomb-shells,
but for “electrical lubricators.” The matter was placed in the hands
of a prominent member of the Commonweal Group. A letter was sent to
Walsall by this individual, containing a sketch of the kind of bomb
required. This was to be a large, pear-shaped, shell, with a hole
at the top for receiving the explosive matter, and three holes at
the bottom for the insertion of detonators. The object in having the
bombs pear-shaped was so that, when thrown, they were bound to fall
on the detonators and thereby cause an explosion. When the scheme had
thoroughly matured, the bombs being safely stowed away in the cellar
of the Anarchist Club in Goodall Street, Walsall, the police, who had
all along known of the conspiracy, pounced down upon the conspirators
and conveyed them to the police station. It turned out during the trial
that the “comrade” of the Commonweal Group to whom we had entrusted the
London management of the whole affair was a police informer!
[Illustration: The Bomb with its nuts and screws.
Section shewing the detonator.
“PINEAPPLE BOMB” USED IN THE FIRST ATTEMPT ON KING ALFONSO IN 1905.]
One curious fact in connection with these Anarchist chemistry classes
was that they were made up almost entirely of mere boys. One of
these took home some explosive substance given him to experiment
with, but the stuff was found by his father, who, not liking the
look of it, buried it in the garden in his son’s absence. Next day
the police raided the house. This incident raised the “comrades’”
suspicions--there was evidently a spy somewhere in the camp. Following
on this came a number of police raids on the Club Autonomie, and
many private houses in London. As a result many of the schemes the
Anarchists had decided upon were hastily abandoned.
Mingling with the Anarchists I have been greatly amused at the numerous
brilliant schemes of revenge proposed by the breathers of fire and
slaughter--for, after all, most of their propositions are mere talk
and talk only. Conceited beyond belief, the average Anarchist delights
in impressing the “outsider” with his supposed bloodthirstiness and
daring. Most Anarchists I have met harbour schemes of outrage of some
kind or other, but are prevented from carrying them out by a wholesome
dread of the law. One has designs on the King or the Prime Minister;
another proposes to blow up the Stock Exchange or the Bank of England;
a third, misanthropically inclined, hates the working-classes more
bitterly than he does the makers and administrators of the law, who are
his natural enemies, and would, if he could, kill them by thousands.
Why this hatred of the working-classes it is easy to understand, for
the workers are the great obstacle between the Anarchist and the
carrying out of his crazy crotchets.
An original, if not altogether brilliant, scheme, was that the
“comrades” should invade the galleries of the large theatres, armed
with bags of lice, which were to be emptied on the occupants of the
parts below. Another scheme was to fumigate with sulphuretted hydrogen
the carriages waiting for their rich owners outside the opera houses.
A “comrade” once proposed to me a scheme whereby we were to cause a
number of explosions in one night. The idea was this: Armed with strong
catapults and several small bombs made of thick glass (I was shown
one), and filled with chemical explosives, we were to mount an omnibus
passing through the West End, and fire the bombs, by means of the
catapults, through the windows of the mansions as we passed. Needless
to say, I did not fall in with the idea.
Perhaps the most important things captured by the police as a result
of their raids were a number of secret manifestoes. One of these was
headed: “Death to the Judges! Death to the Jurors!” and concluded with
the significant words: “Comrades, you shall see us at work!” Another
secret document captured by the police was an English translation of a
French document--“The Manifesto of the French Anarchist Soldiers.”
[Illustration:
MANIFESTO
of the French
ANARCHIST SOLDIERS.
Reproduction of Heading. ]
As everyone knows, in France military service is compulsory, even
Anarchists having to serve. The “French Anarchist Soldiers” conclude
their manifesto as follows: “We are the revolted--the judges! We will
be the avengers! When they give us orders to fire, we will turn the
muzzles of our firearms upon the dressed-up scoundrels who command us!
Hurrah for Anarchy!”
At the Revolutionary Conference before-mentioned several “comrades”
volunteered to join the army, with the object of “permeating it with
revolutionary ideas.” Accordingly, a special manifesto--“An Address to
the Army”--was published and circulated largely among the soldiers.
Its watchword was “Revolt! Revolt!” and the soldiers were asked,
“What shall yours be? Several of our comrades are in your midst.” It
continued: “Will you answer their signal, or obey the commands of your
officers? Let us hope when our comrades cry ‘Revolt,’ that your answer
will thunder forth, ‘Revolt! Revolt against tyranny and robbery! Hurrah
for Anarchy and the Social Revolution!’”
VII.
ANARCHISTS AT WORK.
It was not until the death of Bakounine, in 1876, that the propaganda
of action can be said to have commenced in earnest. At the
revolutionary conference of Berne, held this very year, was proclaimed
the era of violence by Italian extremists who had attached themselves
to the Anarchist doctrines of Bakounine. “The Italian Federation,” they
announced, “is of opinion that open rebellion, resorted to with a view
to back up by deeds the profession of Anarchist principles, is the only
effective method of propagating the doctrine.” These words were soon
to be carried into effect. In April, 1877, an Anarchist revolutionary
attempt took place in the Italian province of Benevento. Malatesta,
Cafiero, and Ceccarelli, at the head of a band of revolutionaries,
burnt the archives at Letino and San Galo, and laying hands on whatever
arms and money they could find, distributed them to the mob. The
next year, 1878, was a record year for its attempts on the lives of
monarchs. On May 11, at Berlin, whilst the Emperor was passing, a
boy of nineteen, Hoedel, fired several revolver shots, for which he
was afterwards executed. In the following month a second attempt was
made by a Dr. Nobiling, resulting in the Emperor being wounded in
seven places. October saw an attempt on the life of the King of Spain
at Madrid, for which a young Anarchist named Moncasi was executed.
On November 17, at Naples, a cook of twenty-nine years, Passanate,
stabbed the King of Italy, but the wound was only slight. Early in
the same year General Trepoff, the Chief of Police at St. Petersburg,
was assassinated by a young woman named Vera Zassulitch, in revenge
for his alleged ferocity towards a Nihilist named Bogolionboff, for
which she was afterwards, strange to say, acquitted. On August 16, at
St. Petersburg, General Metzenseff, Chief of the Imperial Police, was
stabbed to death by two Nihilists, who escaped by using their revolvers.
[Illustration:
_[Exclusive News Agency._
A RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONIST,
Who shot herself to escape arrest for complicity in a plot against the
Czar in 1905. ]
Next year saw the Chief of the Odessa Secret Police murdered also--this
time by strangulation. The murderers left a note on the table saying
that the execution was carried out by the Revolutionary Committee.
Prince Kropotkin established this year at Geneva the Anarchist paper,
_Le Revolte_. Several daring attempts were made this year upon the
life of the Czar of Russia, Alexander II. On April 14, Solovieff
fired several shots without hitting him. On December 1, 1879, a mine,
tunnelled out beneath the railway over which the Czar had to pass,
exploded at the passing of the Imperial train, but the Czar had
fortunately passed by another train half an hour earlier. Another
attempt was made on February 17, 1880. This time the Czar’s dining-room
was blown up with dynamite; but again the Czar providentially escaped,
his dinner having been put off to a later hour. However, fate overtook
him in the year following. A bomb was thrown under his carriage on
March 13, by a young Nihilist named Ryssakoff, but missed; the Czar
got out to walk, but was mortally wounded by a second bomb thrown by
another Nihilist named Grinevetsky, who died the next day of wounds
received from the guard. Six persons in all were executed for this,
one of whom, Sophie Petrovskaya, daughter of an ex-Governor of St.
Petersburg, organised the whole series of plots. This last was a
determined attempt, for had the Czar gone another way, a loaded
mine awaited him. The bombs were brought from a house occupied by
Navorotsky and Hess Helfmann. When the police came to arrest them,
Navorotsky fired on his comrade, but missed him in the darkness, and
then blew out his own brains.
On December 30, 1880, a young Anarchist named Otero fired two shots at
the King and Queen at Madrid, for which, on April 17, he was executed.
In March, a young man, Mlodetsky, who fired on General Melekoff, was
hanged.
On May 27, 1882, was first published in Italian, the work of Stepniak
on “Underground Russia.” A meeting of French and Swiss Anarchists at
Geneva proclaim their total separation from the political parties,
Socialist, or otherwise.
In 1883, sixty-six Anarchists were sentenced at Lyons for conspiracy,
including the famous and undoubtedly sincere Prince Kropotkin, who is
now living in England. On May 26, in Spain, the trial of the “Mano
Negra” (black hand) secret society of Christian Anarchists began.
Louise Michel, the “Red Virgin” of the Commune, was this year condemned
to six years’ imprisonment for plundering bakers’ shops, after an
unemployed demonstration. Cyvoct, condemned to death for having incited
the riots of October 22 and 23 at Lyons, was afterwards reprieved and
sent to penal servitude.
At Leipzig, on January 18, 1885, Reinsdorf and two other Anarchists
were condemned to death, and two others to penal servitude, for causing
explosions in the Frankfort-on-Maine police-barracks. In revenge for
these hangings, a police commissioner named Rumpf was stabbed in front
of his own house. On October 11, Kropotkin’s “Words of a Rebel” was
published in French.
In 1886, the French Anarchist Gallo was sentenced to twenty years’
penal servitude for attempted murder. At a meeting of Anarchists in the
Haymarket, Chicago, a bomb thrown kills eight policemen. For this four
German Anarchists--Parsons, Spies, Fischer, and Engel--were tried on a
charge of “constructive murder” and executed in the year following.
Convicted of burglary and incendiarism, Clement Duval, a French
Anarchist, is sent to penal servitude for life, on January 29, 1887.
In 1888, at an Anarchist meeting in Havre, Louise Michel was fired
at by a fanatical anti-anarchist named Lucas. Although dangerously
wounded, Louise protected Lucas from the fury of the Anarchists, and
afterwards appeared as a witness on his behalf at the trial, and
managed to get him acquitted.
Next year, 1889, another French Anarchist, Pini, was sentenced for
forging bank-notes. The following year saw the assassination of
General Seliverstoff, formerly Chief of the Russian Secret Police, by
Stanislaus Padlewski, a Pole, who managed to escape arrest and reach
America, where, a few years back, he committed suicide.
[Illustration: “VIVE LA COMMUNE!”]
In 1892, six Anarchists were arrested at Walsall and sentenced to terms
of five and ten years for bomb-making. This was the first indication
of the existence of active Anarchism in England by British subjects.
From this year occurred a perfect epidemic of bomb-throwing. In
Paris, several explosions occurred, for which the Anarchist Ravachol
was arrested. On the eve of his trial the Café Very, in which he was
recognised, was the scene of an explosion; and an intimidated jury
found him “guilty with extenuating circumstances.” He was sent to
penal servitude for life, but was tried afterwards for murdering a
poor old hermit and executed. The execution of the “Chicago Martyrs”
was “avenged” this year, on October 29, by the assassination of the
Mayor of Chicago. In January the peasantry of Xeres, in Spain, incited
by the Christian Anarchists of the “Mano Negra” secret society, armed
themselves and attempted to take possession of that town, with the
object of pillage. They were driven back by the soldiery, and four
leaders, the Anarchists Zarzuella, Lamela, Bisiqui, and Lebrijano,
taken prisoners, and afterwards put to death. This was followed by
numerous bomb-explosions all over the peninsula. In Paris an abortive
attempt was made to blow up the house of the Princess de Sagan. In
America, the great strike at Carnegie’s Steel Works, at Homestead,
at which pitched battles between armed strikers and Pinkerton police
were frequent, culminated in the attempt of the Anarchist Berkmann to
shoot the manager, Frick, for which he was afterwards sent to penal
servitude. In Spain an attempt was made to blow up the Parliament
(Cortes), for which, two years later, an Anarchist named Ferriera was
sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. On November 8, a bomb placed
before the Paris offices of the Carmaux Mining Company was discovered
by the police and removed to the Rue des Bons Enfants police station,
where it exploded and killed four policemen.
In 1893, at Barcelona, a bomb was thrown from the gallery of the
Liceo Theatre, killing some twenty persons. For this iniquitous crime
Salvador Franch and six other Anarchists were shot. In Paris, August
Vaillant threw an explosive bomb into the French Parliament from one of
the public galleries. The missile exploded in mid-air, wounding more
or less severely some sixty persons, including deputies, ushers, and
visitors. He was guillotined two months later. In England an Anarchist
leader named Conway was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment
for an attempted jewel robbery. On September 24, a dynamite bomb was
thrown by the Spanish Anarchist Pallas at Marshal Martinez Campos,
who was about to review the troops at Barcelona. The bomb exploded
among the staff-officers, killing a sergeant of the Civil Guard and
injuring a general. The Marshal’s horse was killed under him, but he
himself escaped with a severe contusion. Pallas was afterwards tried by
court-martial and shot. At Madrid, on July 2, a bomb exploded before
the house of Signor Canovas, ex-President of the Council, killing an
Anarchist named Ruiz, who was the author of the attempt. This same
year the Anarchist Schinhi was sentenced at Viterbo in Italy to eleven
years’ penal servitude for shooting a policeman. During some popular
disturbances in Italy, the Anarchists attempted to throw a train off
the line at Avenza, and to cause a bomb explosion at the Monarchical
Club at Leghorn.
The year 1894 was a year of great Anarchist activity. In England, the
Anarchist Martial Bourdin blew himself to pieces with his own bomb
while bent on destroying the Royal Observatory in Greenwich Park. Two
Italian Anarchists, Polti and Farnara, who had given a Blackfriars
Road firm of engineers an order for iron bomb-shells, were sentenced
in June to ten and twenty years respectively. It is surmised that
their intention was to blow up the Stock Exchange or the Houses of
Parliament. In this year, also, David Nicoll, editor of the notorious
_Commonweal_, was sent to prison for an article advising murder. In
July, the compositor and assistant of this paper were sentenced to six
months apiece for seditious libel. This year, also, Rolla Richards,
a Deptford Anarchist, was condemned to seven years for blowing up a
number of post-offices in South London. A Birmingham Anarchist, C.
C. Davis, for smashing a jeweller’s window with a brick wrapped in a
copy of the _Walsall Anarchist_, and scattering the jewellery in the
roadway, was sent to eighteen months’ imprisonment. In France, the
chief Anarchist event was the assassination of President Carnot. As the
French President was driving at Lyons a young Anarchist named Caserio
Santo mortally wounded him with a dagger. The assassin acted on his
own initiative alone, but the police depositions made it abundantly
clear that he must have heard the assassination of Carnot continually
discussed in Anarchist circles. On July 26, the Anarchist Meunier,
extradited from England, was sent to penal servitude for life for an
explosion at the Café Very. Early in the year Emile Henri threw a bomb
from the balcony of the Café Terminus, wounding twenty-four persons
and causing two deaths. He also confessed himself to be the author of
the abortive attempt in 1893 against the Carmaux’s Company’s office,
and was afterwards guillotined. On March 15, Joseph Pauwells exploded
a bomb and himself at the Madeleine Church, Paris; and an unsuccessful
attempt was made to blow up the Chamber of Deputies at Rome. On April
4, an explosion occurred at the Café Foyet, opposite the Luxembourg
Palace, wounding an Anarchist poet named Laurent Tailhade. In the same
year, a bomb placed over the door of a room in the Rue Saint Jacques,
by an unknown person giving the fictitious name of “Rabardy,” wounded
the landlady, Madame Calabresi, who afterwards died. The police were
directed by “Rabardy” to a house in the Rue Faubourg St. Martin, where
also a bomb was placed over a door, but this was detected and exploded
by them at a safe distance, by means of electric wires. For these
crimes a German Anarchist named Muller, in May, confessed himself the
author. A French Anarchist shoemaker, Leauthier by name, aged twenty
years, was this year condemned to hard labour for life for wounding M.
Georgevitch, the Servian Minister in France, at a Paris restaurant.
From the age of sixteen, when Leauthier first became an Anarchist, his
character was observed to change; he showed signs of a disturbed mind;
became morose; and in November of 1893 wrote to Sebastian Faure, the
Anarchist leader, saying that he felt he must attack a _bourgeois_. In
Italy an attempt was made to assassinate Signor Crispi.
The two following years saw a lull in Anarchist activity, due mainly
to the severe repressive measures employed by the various Governments.
But in 1897 occurred the murder of Antonio Canovas del Castillo, the
Spanish Premier, by the Anarchist Angiolillo.
This was followed shortly after, in 1898, by the cowardly murder of
the Empress Elizabeth of Austria by an Anarchist named Luccheni, who,
condemned to life-long solitary confinement, is reported to be more
or less demented, spending the grey hours of his silent existence
in abyssmal despair, varied by periods of ethereal and frightful
excitement.
In 1900, King Humbert of Italy was stabbed to death by the Anarchist
Bresci, who, unable to endure the terrible punishment of solitary
immurement for life, preferred to die in his cell by his own hand.
[Illustration: LUCCHENI,
The cowardly assassin of the Empress of Austria.]
In the following year, 1901, President McKinley was assassinated by a
Polish Anarchist named Czolgosz while in the act of holding a reception
at the Temple of Music in the Buffalo Exhibition. On February 27, this
same year, M. Bogoliepoff, Russian Minister of Education, was killed.
In 1902, Hirch le Kuch, a Russian Anarchist, made a murderous attack
on Lieutenant-General Whal, Governor of Wilna, for which he was hanged
on June 11. April 15 saw the assassination of M. Sipiaguine, Russian
Minister of the Interior, who was shot four times in the vestibule of
the Council of the Empire, in St. Petersburg.
In 1903, the Russian General Bogdanovitch, Governor of Ufa, was killed
on May 19.
1904 saw the assassination of General Bobrikoff, Governor of Finland.
In the same year, M. de Plehve, the iron-handed Russian Minister of
the Interior, was blown to pieces by a bomb as he was driving through
St. Petersburg on July 28. Only a month before he had said: “My police
easily control the Nihilists--every one of them is known.” A ragged man
standing in the door of a café threw the De Plehve bomb. “If the police
persists in its present policy M. de Plehve’s successor will meet with
the same doom,” he told the police.
In 1905--on January 19--an extraordinary attempt was made to
assassinate the Czar, Alexander III.--a cannon loaded with case shot
being fired at him during the ceremony of blessing the waters of the
Neva in St. Petersburg. The crime failed in its object, but a policeman
was killed by one of the bullets, while two other persons were injured.
Bullets also broke the windows of the Winter Palace. The astonishing
feature of this attempt was that the loaded cannon--one of a battery
of eight saluting guns--was fired by the Guards corps, who are the
custodians of the Emperor’s person. On February 16, the Russian Grand
Duke Sergius was blown to pieces by a bomb, in revenge for the events
of “Red Sunday” (January 22) when peaceful men, women, and children
were massacred in the streets of St. Petersburg, while exercising
their constitutional right of petitioning their sovereign. Prince
Andronnikoff, also, was stabbed to death in Warsaw for the part he took
in these outrages, and so also was Prince Vasiltchykoff “removed.”
[Illustration: LEON CZOLGOSZ: THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT MCKINLEY, AND
THE PLATFORM IN THE TEMPLE OF MUSIC, BUFFALO EXPOSITION, WHERE HE WAS
SHOT.
_The cross shews the place where he was standing at the moment of the
attack._]
On March 23, 1905, was concluded the sensational trial at Amiens
of the Abbeville gang of forty Anarchist thieves, with the passing
of life-sentences on the leader, Marius Jacob, and Bour. Ferré was
sentenced to ten years’ solitary confinement, and Pelisard to eight
years’ penal servitude. Jacob’s mother, and the woman Lazarine, Roux,
and Ferré each received five years’ imprisonment. Shorter terms were
served out to the lesser members of this unique organisation. They
received their sentences with cries of “Long live Anarchy!”
An attempt to assassinate General Maximovitch, Governor-General of
Warsaw, was frustrated on May 19, by two detectives, who paid with
their lives the penalty of their zeal. On going to arrest the would be
assassin, an Anarchist named Dobrowolski, the bomb exploded, killing
all three. An attempt was also made this year to assassinate the King
of Spain in Paris, a bomb being thrown at the carriage in which His
Majesty and the President of the French Republic were driving after a
visit to the Opera.
At the Old Bailey, two Italian Anarchists, Adolfo Antonelli and
Francesca Barberi, were sentenced to ten months’ and nine months’
imprisonment respectively for publishing in _L’Insurrezione_, a
justification of political assassination, and inciting to the murder of
the sovereigns and rulers of Europe, notably King Victor Emmanuel III.
of Italy.
On March 17, 1906, the notorious Johann Most died in Cincinnatti,
U.S.A., of erysipelas. In 1881 he was sent to prison here for
applauding the assassination of the Czar, and his paper, _Die
Freiheit_, and printing-press, were confiscated.
A bomb was thrown at the carriage in which the King and Queen of
Spain were returning from their wedding on Thursday, May 31, 1906,
fatally injuring twenty-five people and inflicting serious wounds on
thirty-four others. The assassin, an Anarchist named Mateo Moral,
escaped, but was arrested on June 2, fourteen miles from the scene
of the outrage, by a gendarme, whom he shot on the spot, afterwards
turning the weapon on himself.
VIII.
AN ANARCHIST CONFERENCE.
The Anarchist is nothing if not unconventional. At his “conferences”
chairmen, voting on resolutions, and the other necessary conditions for
the preservation of order, are altogether dispensed with, as savouring
of the “authority” he so much detests, with, of course, the consequence
that order is conspicuous by its absence, and, more often than not,
the “conference” ends up in a free fight between the various factions
present.
My first experience at an Anarchist conference was as follows:--An
announcement had appeared in the _Commonweal_ to the effect that a
conference of London and provincial Anarchists would be held on a
certain date at a notorious rendezvous of the cult off Tottenham
Court Road, to which “all comrades were invited.” I decided to accept
the invitation and be present at their deliberations. The subject
down for the “comrades’” discussion was “The Right of Individual
Expropriation,” or, in plain English, “The Right to Thieve.”
Presenting myself to time at the place of meeting, and finding the
door ajar, I walked in, and found myself in a narrow passage which led
into a small hall, where I took a seat among the other “companions”
assembled.
Right here let me explain that, contrary to general belief, among
Anarchists, the various paraphernalia of Freemasonry--signs, passwords,
etc.--are altogether dispensed with, being contrary to Anarchist
“principles,” which allow of no form of authority or organisation
whatsoever. No credentials are required, for the Anarchist does not
admit the possibility of one person representing anyone but himself.
Secretarial work, according to the Anarchist theory, is done by anyone
who feels that way inclined; and if volunteers are not forthcoming the
work remains undone.
But to resume my story. Once inside the hall, a spectacle greeted my
sight I shall not soon forget. Seated about in confusion were a number
of evil-looking men and women of almost every nationality--shouting,
stamping, and gesticulating. On the walls, in gorgeous red, were
painted a number of Anarchistic mottoes in German, and at the end
of the hall a small stage was erected, on the facia of which, in
bold English, appeared the legend--“Anarchy is Order.” Among the
distinguished personages present I noticed Louise Michel, E. Malatesta,
and several Continental Anarchists who later ended their careers on the
gallows or under the guillotine.
[Illustration: A Sketch at the old Autonomie Club.
By permission of _The Daily Graphic_.]
An hour beyond the advertised time had passed, and there were no
signs of the seance commencing. Suddenly, one of the “comrades” was
heard shrieking for order, which, after great trouble, was obtained.
A “comrade” of unmistakably Jewish countenance rose and addressed the
meeting. His sentiments were nothing more or less than incitements to
all kinds of crime. “Pillage and murder the rich,” he shrieked. That
was the sentiment of the whole meeting. Space will not allow of my
reproducing any of the speeches, which were revolting in the extreme.
Suffice it to say that the speakers declaimed hotly anent the injustice
of everything in general, and the necessity for the “removal” of
monarchs and all in authority, who, they claimed, were responsible for
the ills of the world. One speaker held up Ravachol, the Anarchist
scoundrel who lived by thieving, coining, and forgery, and who ended
under the guillotine for brutally murdering an old man in order to get
his money, as a “hero” worth copying. “We want some English Ravachols,”
he shrieked. These sentiments, however, roused the ire of the more
peaceably inclined, who are known as “Christian Anarchists,” and more
potent arguments than words were the outcome of the debate.
During the progress of the conference a thick bordered mourning card
was distributed among those assembled--
“IN LOVING MEMORY
of
MARTIAL BOURDIN;
who was killed by the bursting of a bomb
in Greenwich Park.”
and containing the following piece of alleged poetry:--
“Spurning the name of a slave,
Fearless of gaol or of grave,
Fighting for Freedom, he gave
His life in the Revolution.
Time shall not rob him of fame;
Hating the tyrant, and game
In the spirit that rings in his name,
He died for the Revolution.”
At this conference it was proposed to burn monarchs, lawyers, and
persons in authority in effigy, as a means of calling attention to the
Anarchist propaganda. A discussion arose as to the advisability of a
“No Rent” campaign. One “comrade” formulated a plan of occupying model
dwellings, and a French “comrade” told how they worked the “Anti-Broker
Brigade” in Paris. There, he said, whenever a comrade is in trouble
with his landlord, six or seven Anarchists go to his house in a body
and carry off the furniture. This, he explained, would be easy work
in England, as in Paris every house has a porter, who usually tries
to interfere with the departure of the household goods, and has to
be knocked down before he will be quiet--while in London this is not
the case. He concluded by saying: “Persevere with this propaganda,
comrades; there is none better.”
[Illustration: SIPIDO,
Who fired at King Edward in Brussels.]
Then an ex-editor of _Le Père Peinard_, who had escaped from France
to avoid imprisonment, urged the claims of “Expropriation” (Anarchist
jargon for stealing). He pressed the “comrades” to do their utmost to
persuade the people to seize upon the wealth of the capitalists on
every possible occasion; and, after some discussion it was agreed that
the “principle” was good, and that we should preach and practise it
whenever possible.
The conference was brought to a close by the singing of revolutionary
songs, one of which extolled the virtues of “Petroleum” as the “stuff
which makes the _bourgeois_ fly!” and concluding with the terrible
“Carmagnole,” the last verse of which goes as follows:--
“O what is it the people cry?
Arms! Arms! to make our rulers fly!
Bombs, powder, pikes and lead
Shall bring our brothers bread!
Cold on the earth shall tyrants lie!
Vive le son, du canon!”
IX.
ANARCHIST COMMUNITIES.
There have been many communities founded on Anarchist methods (or
rather, lack of methods), but everyone has resulted in ignominious
failure. From 1890 to 1894 there existed at Palmira, in Brazil, a
community of 300 Italian Anarchists known as the Cecilia Community.
Its object was to illustrate Anarchist teaching by practical example.
The colonists were, indeed, a motley crowd; they included peasants,
mechanics, criminals, professional men, illiterate men, and men highly
trained--men of every shade of personal character, religious faith,
and technical ability. Everyone had in his or her turn been an active
propagandist of Anarchist theories, but yearned to see their practical
application. The Cecilia Community, consequently, was founded that the
unbelieving world might witness the possibility and desirability of
living in a condition of absolute freedom, without laws or restrictions
of any kind whatever. Everybody in Cecilia did as they “darned-well
pleased.” There was no social organisation, no rules, no officials,
and everyone was free to work or not, as he pleased. Anything which
savoured of system was religiously tabooed as being contrary to the
Anarchist evangel; there was no programme, no table of hours, no
standard of efficiency of labour. Laws were relegated to limbo; voting
and the settlement of differences by majority-rule, being contrary
to Anarchist “principles,” were consigned to the same place. Their
village, which they designated “Anarchy,” consisted of log-huts 6 feet
long, 4 feet deep, and 9 feet high; some had a wooden flooring, but
most had only the earth stamped down; a bed constituted the regulation
furniture, but some possessed the luxury of a table. During their four
years’ existence as a community their clothes remained the same, and
presented a sorry picture of patchwork. Their diet consisted mainly
of vegetables, and bacon was looked upon as a great luxury. One of
the balance-sheets shows an item of £263 received from the Brazilian
Government for mending roads, showing that the Anarchists were partly
dependent on the enemy for their livelihood.
Dr. Rossi, one of the colonists, describing his experiences, says:
“Our life was filled with a systematic spirit of contradiction,
which caused us to lose many working hours in endless discussion;
when we met in the evening, the noise of our conversation could be
heard nearly a mile off, though the doors were shut.” Everywhere
was universal mistrust, quarrelling, and back-biting; and of course
Anarchist “principles” admitted of no method of remedying these evils.
The result was soon seen. Acting in accordance with the Anarchist
principle of separating, rather than submit to majority or any other
rule, the larger number went its own way and the minority took up its
position outside the communal land. But later on differences again
sprang up, and, following the same and only permissible policy with
Anarchists, they separated once more, and thus, instead of remaining
one harmoniously-acting body, they became disunited into four. Shortly
again, fresh differences showed themselves, and again they separated
into eight parts, and so on, until, out of the 300 “emancipated”
colonists but a mere handful remained, and the “community” was
surrounded on all sides by minorities larger than itself. This last
handful sold the place to a group of seceders, paid all the debts with
the proceeds, and finally disbanded, having proved conclusively the
impracticability and rank idiocy of Anarchist “principles” in practice.
In England there have been at least two Anarchist colonies. One was
established in 1895 at Clousden Hill Farm, near Newcastle-on-Tyne,
and was conducted on Anarchist-Communist principles. Some Anarchists
resident in the vicinity of Newcastle and Sunderland had become
impressed by an article by the Russian ex-prince Kropotkin (the
leader of London Anarchists) in one of the magazines describing the
“advanced” methods of agriculture in operation in Guernsey and the
Channel Islands, where almost everything is reared under glass. In this
article Kropotkin prophesied that “before long immense vineries would
grow up round the coal-pits of Northumberland, where artificial heat
can be obtained from coals selling at 3s. per ton.” With the financial
assistance of a wealthy London Anarchist, the Newcastle “comrades” were
enabled to purchase the farm before-mentioned, which they converted
into an Anarchist colony. A portion of the land they covered with
glass, and organised a poultry and dairy farm, besides vegetable
gardens and orchards, the produce from which they despatched weekly to
the local co-operative store and the Newcastle market. Their aim was
“to give an object lesson” in Anarchism. The colonists, who comprised
men and women of several nationalities, had large ideas regarding the
regeneration of mankind, but, as is usually the case, forgot to apply
them to themselves. The rule of the colony was no rule, everybody doing
as he or she pleased, and disputes were supposed to be settled on “love
and brotherhood” principles. Even the live stock on the farm approved
the general Anarchist principle of do-as-you-like, for, according
to one of the colonists, the fowls would not lay, the bees refused
to swarm, the rabbits ran away, and the ducks died. One of their
cows proved to be blind, another went mad, whilst a third died when
calving. With horses matters fared no better. One fine-looking young
beast became so infatuated with Anarchist principles of revolt that he
contracted a habit of bolting whenever he was yoked; a second preferred
lying down to pulling a load for tyrant man, and another manifested his
contempt for things communal by kicking the front out of every cart to
which he was harnessed.
Very few of the colonists had had any previous experience of the
work they were undertaking. An amateur built a 30-feet smoke shaft,
and disdained the use of such a simple tool as a plumb-line. The
consequence was that the shaft refused to maintain its tower of
Pisa-like position, and came to earth with a crash.
The colony prospered for a while, but when differences began to show
themselves the members saw at once the impossibility of settling them
amicably without discarding the Anarchist principles upon which the
colony was founded. They flung Anarchy to the winds, and for days spent
their time in framing sets of rules. But gradually the membership of
the colony decreased until but twelve were left, of whom only six were
voters. Will it be believed that among this six there actually were two
parties?
The colony came to grief in a tangle of quarrelling. Two of the
colonists bought their colleagues out, and started a flower business on
their own account. This turned out a failure, and the affairs of the
concern came before the Newcastle Bankruptcy Court in April, 1902.
In 1897 was founded the Whiteway Anarchist colony in Gloucestershire,
which, I believe, exists to this day, but based on different
principles. The colony was founded by Samuel Bracher, a Gloucester
journalist, who, for £450, purchased a farm of 41 acres, provided
implements, seeds, cattle, food, etc., in all spending some £1,200--his
whole capital. At the beginning the colonists numbered only about
eight, but ultimately the number rose to forty. Their first act was to
show their contempt for “conventionality” by burning the title-deeds of
the farm!
The colonists were, indeed, a curious crowd. They comprised a Leipsic
doctor of philosophy, an Oxford tutor of Greek, a son of a wealthy
Birmingham manufacturer, an ex-science lecturer, several artisans, a
farmer, two or three Quakers, and a few women. They had no rules of
any kind, and everyone did as he or she liked. To become a colonist
no application was needed; all that anyone had to do was to take a
seat at the common table. All things were supposed to be held in
common (although how this was possible without some form of rules and
authority passes comprehension), and all the money they possessed was
kept in a small open box upon the mantel shelf. The result was that,
whilst some of the colonists worked hard, the majority sponged idly
upon their labours. Gradually the indolence and licence of some of
the members became more pronounced, until in disgust, Bracher, the
founder, his wife, and others, left the colony. No idea can be given
of the indolence and sheer animalism of this Whiteway Anarchia, with
its lawless licence and its cadging. So disgusted were some of the
colonists that they renounced Anarchy straightway, and on an adjoining
farm started a co-operative colony based on laws and authority, the
chief law being “He that will not work, neither shall he eat.”
Whilst the foregoing, avowedly Anarchist in character, all ended
in failure, there are several instances on record of successful
but unconscious Anarchism. A work published in Paris, in 1888, on
“La Russie Sectaire,” by M. Taskin, gives some curious information
concerning the various sects, religious and political, to be found
throughout the Colossus of the North. One of the most numerous and
widespread is that known as the Doukoborys, presumably the sect
which has now taken up its abode in Canada in order to avoid Russian
compulsory military service, and which is more often called the
Dukobortsi, whose fundamental dogma is the negation of all religious
ceremony and pomp, and the adoration of God “by the spirit and truth
of the Creator, which everybody bears in his own heart.” Man, they
say, carries God in himself when he seeks to attain the ideal of
goodness, simplicity, and honesty. Wealth and poverty are to them an
anomaly and an injustice, and so there are no servants and masters,
no chiefs or subjects. Equality is carried to the extent of denying
the obedience of children to their parents, and consequently parental
authority is _nil_. Women enjoy the same rights as men. All constraint
is prohibited and free-love the order of the day. No authority, whether
in temporal or spiritual affairs, is recognised. Every person obeys
only his own conscience. All the affairs of the community are arranged
in a general assembly. Strange to say, this singular society, although
based on the negation of all authority, according to M. Taskin, works
relatively well. The moral level of it is said to be superior to that
of the neighbouring orthodox population. The members are thriving, more
active, and healthier. Crime is unknown among them; quarrels are rare,
and always end in reconciliation. Mutual assistance is universally
practised. In short, the Doukobory appear to be the very ideal of
society dreamt of by Louise Michel and her acolytes. The _Anarchist_
points to this sect as an example of the results which must follow from
the adoption of Anarchist principles, but where would the society have
been but for the binding influence of religion?[1]
[1] The latest information regarding this sect dates from Winnipeg,
and states that the colony is in danger of being broken up, owing to
its members having been seized with acute religious mania. They have
abandoned the use of horses, cows, and all domestic animals, and turned
them adrift in the hills, as they refuse to keep them in servitude.
Moreover, they will not wear wool or leather because these are the
products of animals, and the men now perform the work of beasts of
burden.
The Anarchist journal _Freedom_ has given what it describes as a
“capital example of practical Anarchy.” It appears that in January,
1857, Mr. A. R. Wallace, travelling among the islands of the Malay
Archipelago, went in a native trading boat to the Aru Islands, and
stayed at Dobbo, the settlement inhabited by the traders of various
nationalities who visit this island every year and live there from four
to six months. Quoting Mr. Wallace (The Malay Archipelago), _Freedom_
continues: “I dare say there are now 500 people in Dobbo of various
races, all met in this remote corner of the East, as they express it,
‘to look for their fortune,’ to get money any way they can. They are
most of them people who have the very worst reputation for honesty,
as well as every other form of morality--Chinese, Bugis, Ceramese,
and half-caste Javanese, with a sprinkling of half-wild Papuans from
Timor, Babber, and other islands--yet all goes on as yet very quietly.
This motley, ignorant, blood-thirsty, thievish population live here
without the shadow of a Government, with no police, no courts, and no
lawyers; yet they do not cut each other’s throats; do not fall into the
disorder such a state of things might be supposed to lead to. It is
very extraordinary!”
“The Dobbo people,” Mr. Wallace continues, “are all traders, and all
know that peace and order are essential to successful trade, and thus
a public opinion is created which puts down all lawlessness. Often in
former years, when strolling along the Campong Glam, in Singapore, I
have thought how wild and ferocious the Bugis sailors looked, and how
little I should like to trust myself among them. But now I find them
to be very decent, well-behaved fellows; I walk daily unarmed in the
jungle, where I meet them continually; I sleep in a palm-leaf hut,
which anyone may enter, with as little fear and as little danger of
thieves or murder as if I were under the protection of the Metropolitan
police.”
An occasional Dutch commissioner, from Molucca, turns up once in
the season sometimes to hear complaints, settle disputes, and now
and again to carry off some heinous offender. Twice Mr. Wallace had
an opportunity of seeing the little community under circumstances of
difficulty. During his first visit a man was caught trying to steal
a piece of iron from a neighbour, in whose wall he had made a hole
for the purpose. That evening most of the traders met to discuss the
affair, and decided to give the would be robber twenty lashes then
and there. “They were given with a small rattan, in the middle of the
street--not very severely, as the executioner appeared to sympathise a
little with the culprit. The disgrace seemed to be thought as much of
as the pain; for though any amount of clever cheating is thought rather
meritorious than otherwise, open robbery and housebreaking meet with
universal reprobation.” After a visit to the natives in the interior,
Mr. Wallace returned to Dobbo, and one evening saw a dispute going on
over a game of football. There was a great row, he says, and he feared
the disputants would betake themselves to their knives, not only the
two who began, but a dozen or twenty of their backers on each side.
But no. “After a large amount of talk, it passed off quietly, and we
heard nothing about it afterwards.” In fact, during the whole seven
months that Mr. Wallace was at or near Dobbo there does not appear to
have been any serious disturbance or any act of violence. “Where this
is possible amongst a casual population of rough and ready traders,
one of whose principal amusements is cock-fighting, it should not be
impracticable,” comments _Freedom_, “in a settled industrial community,
where the motives for peaceful mutual understanding would be far
stronger than amongst the semi-socialised self-seekers of Dobbo.”
It is interesting to know that the British Empire includes at least
two successful but unconscious Anarchist communities. The one is at
the island of St. Kilda, in the remote Hebrides, where government and
police are conspicuous only by their absence; the other is at Tristan
d’Acunha and Gough Island, the principal of a group of islands, which,
according to the “Colonial Office List,” are situate in lat. 37° 6′
S. and long. 12° 2′ W. It was taken possession of by a military force
during the residence of Napoleon at St. Helena. Upon his death, the
garrison was withdrawn, with the exception of three men, who, with
certain shipwrecked sailors, became the founders of the present
settlement. For a long time only one of the settlers had a wife, but
subsequently the others contracted with a sea captain to bring them
wives from St. Helena. The population has since increased to about a
hundred, and remains practically stationary, as the younger and more
ambitious settlers migrate in batches to the Cape. The inhabitants
practically enjoy the possessions in common, and there is no strong
drink on the island, and no crime. It was at one time proposed to give
them laws and a regular Government, but this was found unnecessary, for
the above reasons, and they remain under the moral rule of the oldest
inhabitant, Governor Green, successor to Governor Glass, corporal in
the Royal Artillery, and founder of the settlement. The inhabitants
are spoken of as highly religious, and this must be the explanation of
their success.
[Illustration: WHEN WILL HE GET THERE? (From an Anarchist Print.)]
X.
ANARCHISM IN ENGLAND: ITS HISTORY, LEADERS, AND PRINCIPLES.
It is now some twenty odd years since the gospel of knife, revolver,
torch, and bomb was first introduced into the arena of English
politics. At this time a “group” of Anarchists--among them the famous
Prince Kropotkin--met at a house in Newington Green Road and issued
a monthly “anti-political and revolutionary” publication called the
_Anarchist_, which later appeared as the _Revolutionary Review_.
Dissensions arising among the “companions,” a number, among whom was
the Prince, dissatisfied with the conduct of the paper, now seceded
and started a rival journal--_Freedom_--which appears at irregular
intervals to this day. Following on these events came the split in
the Social Democratic Federation, in 1884, owing to the political
and anti-anarchist policy of that body, a number of whose members
left and formed themselves into the Socialist League, which, from
its inception, evinced Anarchistic leanings, in that it favoured
forcible methods. A field having been created for their activity,
several Anarchists joined the new body with the object of diverting
its propaganda into Anarchistic channels. This they soon succeeded in
accomplishing, for, one by one, the Socialists deserted the League
in disgust, leaving the Anarchists masters of the situation, and in
possession of printing plant and machinery which had been presented to
that body by William Morris, the poet, for the furtherance of Socialist
principles. The Socialist League now-dissolved, and in its place
appeared the “Commonweal Anarchist Group” (named after the paper it
published), a number of whose members soon after, for various criminal
offences, fell into the hands of the police.
By its propagandist activity the “Commonweal Group” inspired the
formation of a number of English “groups” throughout London and the
provinces. In London, these “groups” were to be found at Canning Town
(with close on a hundred members), Hoxton, Peckham, Clerkenwell, Mile
End, Stratford, Woolwich, Brixton, and Deptford. In the provinces,
“groups” of English Anarchists were active in Leicester, Sunderland,
Hull, Northampton, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Walsall.
Among the foreigners who, in England, espoused the Anarchist gospel,
there existed a feeling of utter contempt for their moderate English
companions. Some half dozen first met in a small back room in Little
Goodge Street, Soho, about the time of the formation of the Socialist
League. As their numbers augmented, so they took more pretentious
premises in Rathbone Place, till eventually the lease of a house
was taken in Windmill Street. This latter establishment was the
now-historical “Club Autonomie,” within whose four walls was planned
more than one outrage which was destined to startle the world. One
of the earliest members of this club was Stanislaus Padlewski, who
some time afterwards murdered the Russian General Seliverstoff, and
himself escaped to America. A considerable sum was offered by the
Russian Government for the body of Padlewski, dead or alive. Tracked
by the police to Italy, to Malta, to Gibraltar, he arrived in London,
much broken down by this life of a hunted wild beast, and was taken in
charge by the “comrades” of the Autonomie. But no sooner had he arrived
in London than the police got scent of him, and commenced a real orgie
of espionage. He was hidden, however, and in a disguise provided by
members of the Autonomie, arrived safely on American soil, where, in
1891, he committed suicide in the park of San Antonio, Texas.
[Illustration: MALATESTA addressing the “comrades” at the “Club
Autonomie.”]
At this club, also, at different times, were to be seen men and
women whose names and appearance were familiar to the secret police
of practically every capital in Europe: Dedajeff, the slayer of
Colonel Sudekin; Louise Michel, the “Red Virgin,” who fought behind
the barricades in the Paris Communist Insurrection of 1871, and who,
in 1883, was sentenced to six years’ supervision for helping the
mob of Lyons to sack the bread shops; Enrico Malatesta, the leader
of the Italian Anarchists, and the most dangerous plotter of modern
times--who, however, whenever trouble comes--when the death of
kings and presidents is in the air--appears in the background; Felix
Volkovski, the one time sub-editor of Stepniak’s paper, _Free Russia_,
who, although not an Anarchist, was a frequent visitor; François
Meunier, who, extradited to France, was sent to penal servitude for
an explosion at the Café Very in Paris; Emile Henri, who blew up the
Café Terminus; Pietro Gori, the expelled Italian Anarchist lawyer;
Dr. Merlino; Emile Pouget, ex-editor of _Le Père Peinard_; Bernard
Kampffmeyer, and many others of lesser note. It may also be remembered
that one of the Walsall prisoners was arrested while passing the
Tottenham Court Road police station on his way to the Autonomie Club
with a large bottle of chloroform in his possession.
Bombs were even made in this club, and, in one or two instances, the
actual explosives with which the bombs were charged were stored for
a considerable time on the premises. Chemistry classes were formed
and experiments made, with the result that the club was burnt to the
ground. When the premises were rebuilt, the Anarchists did not inhabit
them long. One of the “comrades,” the Frenchman Martial Bourdin,
bent on destroying the Greenwich Observatory, was, one afternoon,
blown to pieces with his own bomb. In his possession was found a card
of membership of the Autonomie. That evening the police raided the
premises, and the club ceased to be.
Contemporary with the Autonomie there sprang up also a number of
foreign Anarchist clubs in London and the provinces--the Scandinavian
Club in Rathbone Place; the “Communistische Arbeiter Bildungs Verein”
in Great Charlotte Street; the German Club in Grafton Street, three of
whose members are now in penal servitude for an attempted burglary in
Dulwich and shooting a policeman; the German “Forwards” Club, Hoxton;
the Jewish International Club in Berner Street, E.; the Italian Club,
Clerkenwell, which comprised among its members the man Farnara, who,
with the boy Polti, were sentenced to ten and twenty years’ penal
servitude respectively for making bombs. In the provinces the most
active among the foreign groups were the German “Club Liberty” in Hull,
and the Jewish Club, Leeds.
Among the leaders of Anarchist thought in England it is surprising
how many, during the past few years, have recanted their opinions:
Henry Seymour, editor of the first Anarchist journal ever published
in English, is now a peaceful individualist, and occasionally takes
part in political agitation; H. B. Samuels, the one-time sensational
editor of the notorious _Commonweal_, has discarded Anarchist opinions
for those of Social Democracy; Dr. Merlino, once leader of the Italian
section, and Miss Agnes Henry of the Freedom Group, are now moderate
constitutional Socialists; Carl Quinn, the “Christian Anarchist,” has
severed his connection with the party, and is now a “Perpetualist”
(whatever that may be); and the Misses Rossetti, who edited and printed
the _Torch_, and who are related to Dante Gabriel Rossetti, have left
the movement for good.
Among the leaders of present-day Anarchism in England may be mentioned
the names of John Turner, president of the Shop Assistants’ Union;
Enrico Malatesta, the stormy petrel of revolt; and Prince Peter
Alexeivitch Kropotkin, the most distinguished of all Russian exiles.
It is difficult to imagine the latter--this quiet scientist--as a
leader of revolt, yet leader of revolt he certainly is. He is a regular
contributor to _Freedom_, as well as to Anarchist publications abroad.
His ideas may be judged by the following phrases taken from one of
his writings--“Law and Authority”--“Instead of inanely repeating
the old formula, ‘Respect the law,’ we say, ‘Despise law and all its
attributes!’ In place of the cowardly phrase ‘Obey the law,’ our cry
is, ‘Revolt against all laws!’ ... No more laws! No more judges! Burn
the guillotines; demolish the prisons; drive away the judges, policemen
and informers, the impurest race upon the face of the earth; treat as a
brother the man who has been led by passion to do ill to his brother.”
A wit has said that the profession of faith of the Anarchists reduces
itself to two articles of a fantastic law: (1) There shall be nothing.
(2) No one is charged with carrying out the above article. According
to the Manifesto of the Anarchist-Communist Alliance, the object
of Anarchism is the “paralysation of all existing authoritarian
institutions and organisations, the prevention of new organisations
of this character, and the expropriation of the rich.” And it further
candidly confesses that “when asked what we intend to put in their
place we reply, ‘Nothing whatever.’” Verily, to the Anarchist,
all is vanity and vexation of spirit; to him, social reformers
are “mere quacks, place-hunters, etc.;” political work is “idle
electioneering;” patriotism and religion are the “first and last
refuges and strongholds of scoundrels;” the very word “church” is a
“disgusting word” to the Anarchist; he has “no belief in trade-unions;”
“co-operation is” to him “impracticable;” while the “meanest and most
repulsive ‘friends’ of the workers,” he thinks, “are the teetotallers
and advocates of thrift and saving.”
To-day there are practically no purely English Anarchists, and
the foreign element here is gradually but surely dwindling and
disappearing. This is due largely to the political branch of the
Criminal Investigation Department, which, by its elaborate system of
espionage, has so estranged the “comrades” that mutual suspicion reigns
among them, and one “comrade” is afraid to trust another. It may be
asked, What of the English “groups” I have spoken of? Numbers of their
members, disgusted with the propaganda of violence, and convinced of
the falsity of Anarchy, have reverted to the political bodies they,
in most cases, originally seceded from, namely, the various Socialist
organisations throughout the country. Let no one imagine that these
latter bodies at all favour revolutionary methods. On the contrary,
every Socialist now-a-days is a constitutional political reformer, who
believes in achieving his ideal Commonwealth through the ordinary
channels of Parliamentary and municipal activity.
I have spoken of the Anarchist “movement,” but I have used the
word solely for convenience’ sake. For the only movement among the
Anarchists here in England is a struggle with fast-approaching
dissolution. What with the ever-increasing number of seceders who
desert the party to join the individualists or the Tolstoyans, and the
still larger number who enlist under the banner of Social Democracy,
together with the systematic police-spying, the cessation of the
various journals and the break-up of so many “groups” and clubs, the
Anarchists, as a party, are fast becoming defunct. I could give a long
list of groups and clubs which have lately become _non est_. In a year
or two Anarchism will be as extinct in England as the dodo.
XI.
SOME ANARCHIST APOSTLES.
I.--P. J. PROUDHON.
Pierre Joseph Proudhon has been described as the “Father of Anarchy.”
He was born at Besancon on the 15th January, 1809. His writings
and correspondence, which, in their entirety, fill no fewer than
forty-seven volumes, are regarded by the Anarchists as their Bible.
“What is Property?”--Proudhon’s first great work--was issued in 1840,
and created quite a stir. The question contained in the title he
himself answered in the words so often since adopted as a summary
of their belief on the point by Anarchists--“property is theft.” In
1842 his work, “A Notice to Proprietors,” was seized, and its author
summoned to the Assizes at Doubs. He read a written defence to the
jurors, who acquitted him.
In June, 1848, Proudhon was elected to the Constituent Assembly, as a
representative of the _Département de la Seine_, in opposition to his
Anarchist principles which forbade all dealings with authority or with
the State. Proudhon, says Langlois, “saw that the Constituent Assembly
was endangered by the coalition of the monarchical parties with Louis
Buonaparte, who was already planning his _coup d’état_.” He did not
hesitate to openly attack the man who had just received 5,000,000
of votes. He wanted to break the idol; he succeeded only in getting
prosecuted and condemned himself. The prosecution demanded against him
was authorised by a majority of the Constituent Assembly, in spite of
the speech which he delivered on that occasion. Declared guilty by the
jury, he was sentenced, in March, 1849, to three years’ imprisonment
and the payment of a fine of 4,000 francs, which he evaded by fleeing
to Belgium.
Anarchy, according to Proudhon, was the culmination of social
progress, and he deprecated and violently condemned the existence of
any authority other than a man’s own moral sense. “No more parties,”
he says; “no more authority; absolute liberty of the man and the
citizen--in three words, such is our political and social profession
of faith” (“Les Confessions d’un Révolutionnaire,” pp. 25-36). Such
opinions, even when put into writing, are all very well when held in
theory by people possessing education and a fair share of ordinary
commonsense, but it will at once be seen that tremendous danger arises
when half-educated men and women of the type of modern Anarchists,
who, owing to their own laziness or the pressure of circumstances
and environment, cherish a grievance against society at large. Such
writings, couched in violent language, only have the effect of
feeding the hatred of the discontented until at last they take the
revolutionary statements literally, and carry out in practice what was
taught as a theory. The faith the Anarchists have in Proudhon and his
writings proves the danger of such ideas being put into circulation
by the educated. Certainly there were some before Proudhon’s days
who preached the rottenness of society and occasionally hinted at
the desirability of a revolutionary upheaval, but it was Proudhon
who collated these opinions, and enlarged upon them with results the
disastrous effect of which can never be fully known.
Proudhon died near Paris, on the 19th of January, 1865.
II.--MICHAEL BAKOUNINE.
Michael Bakounine, “founder of Nihilism and apostle of Anarchy,”
was born of an ancient aristocratic Russian family in 1814. He was
an enthusiastic admirer of Proudhon. In Paris, in the year 1848, he
delivered a public appeal inciting the Poles and Russians to organise
a grand Pan-Slavonic revolutionary confederation. The Czar of Russia
demanded Bakounine’s expulsion from France, which was acceded to.
A reward of 10,000 roubles was next offered for his arrest and
transportation into Russian territory, but the Revolution of February
brought him back to France. However, he quickly quitted to attend at
the Congress of Slavs. After this he went to Dresden and became one of
the chiefs of the May revolution. Forced to fly from Dresden, he was
arrested, sent to prison, and condemned to death in May, 1850, which
sentence was afterwards commuted to imprisonment for life. Bakounine
escaped and fled to Austria, but was again arrested and sentenced to
death for high treason, which sentence was again commuted to life
imprisonment. The Austrian Government finally handed him over to the
Government of Russia. He was confined in a fort for several years, and
finally banished to Siberia, from which he managed to escape and obtain
passage to Japan, and from there to California. In 1860, he alighted,
like a thunderbolt, in London.
[Illustration: Founder of Nihilism and Apostle of Anarchy. (From _The
Anarchist_.)]
Here he assisted Herzen and Ogareff in editing and publishing the
“_Kolokol_” (The Bell), a revolutionary sheet which appealed to the
Poles and Russians to join hands in a revolutionary confederation.
On September 28, 1870, he organised an insurrection at Lyons, the
failure of which necessitated his flight to Geneva. The Paris Communist
rising of 1871 is attributed largely to the teaching and influence of
Bakounine.
Of the many writings of Bakounine, “God and the State” is, undoubtedly,
the most important. In opposition to Voltaire’s famous phrase, “If God
does not exist it will be necessary to invent him,” Bakounine puts this
extraordinary opposite, “If God exists, it will be necessary to abolish
him.” His Anarchistic sentiments may be judged from the following
excerpt from his “God and the State”: “In a word, we reject all
legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and
legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced
that it can only turn to the advantage of a dominant minority of
exploiters against the interests of the immense majority in subjection
to them. Such is the sense in which we are really Anarchists.”
The famous “Revolutionary Catechism,” which some attribute to
Bakounine, and others to the Anarchist Netschajef, is as follows: “The
Revolutionist is a man under a vow.... If he continues to live in this
world, it is only in order to annihilate it all the more surely. A
revolutionary despises everything _doctrinaire_, and renounces the
science and knowledge of the world in order to leave it to future
generations; he knows but one science, that of destruction. For that,
and for that only, he studies mechanics, physics, chemistry, and
even medicine. For the same purpose he studies day and night living
science--men, their character, positions, and all the conditions of
the existing social order in all imaginary spheres. The object remains
always the same; the quickest and most effective way possible of
destroying the existing order.... For him exists only one pleasure, one
consolation, one reward, one satisfaction, the reward of revolution.
Day and night he must have but one thought--inexorable destruction....
For the purpose of irrevocable destruction a revolutionist can, and
may, often live in the midst of society, and appear to have the
most complete indifference to his surroundings. A revolutionist may
penetrate everywhere; into high society, among the nobility, among
shopkeepers, into the military, official or literary world, into the
‘third section’ (the secret police), and even into the Imperial Palace.”
The Catechism divides society into several categories; those in the
first of these categories are condemned to death without delay. “In
the first place we must put out of the world those which stand most in
the way of the revolutionary organisation and its work.” The members
of the second category are to be allowed to live “provisionally” in
order that “by a series of abominable deeds they may drive the people
into unceasing revolt.” The third class, the rich and influential,
must be exploited, for the sake of the revolution, and made to become
“our slaves.” With the fourth class, of Liberals of various shades of
opinion, arrangements must be made on the basis of their programme;
they must be initiated and compromised, and made use of for the
perturbation of the State. The fifth class, the _doctrinaires_, must
be urged forward, while the sixth and most important class consists
of the women, for making use of whom, for revolutionary purposes, the
Revolutionary Catechism gives explicit directions.
* * * * *
Bakounine died at Berne, in Switzerland, on July 2, 1876.
III.--ELISÉE RECLUS.
Although a leader of Anarchism in France, is also a professor of
geography at the Brussels Free University. He is the author of a
gigantic work entitled, “The Earth and its Inhabitants,” for which he
has been decorated by a French scientific society.
A revolutionist by nature, he took part in the Paris Communist
Insurrection of 1871, and was taken prisoner. Imprisoned for some time
on the convict ships in Brest Harbour, he was ultimately released
at the instance of an international appeal of men of science. His
Anarchist writings are not many, but they have been translated into
several languages.
Elie Reclus, brother of Elisée and librarian of the National Library
under the Commune, is also an Anarchist and an ethnologist of high
repute, and is employed in scientific work by the publishing house of
Hachette & Co.
Elisée Reclus was once asked, as an educated man, to condemn the
violence of his uneducated associates. “Condemn the propaganda by
deed,” he asks, “but what is this propaganda except the preaching
of well-doing and love of humanity by example? Those who call
the ‘propaganda by deed’ acts of violence prove that they have
not understood the meaning of this expression. The Anarchist who
understands his part, instead of massacring somebody or other, will
exclusively strive to bring this person round to his opinions, and
to make of him an adept who, in his turn, will make ‘propaganda of
deed’; by showing himself good and just to all those whom he may
meet.” This same Elisée Reclus was asked by the editor of the _Sempre
Avanti_ his true opinion of Ravachol, the Anarchist scoundrel who
lived by thieving, coining, robbing graves, and who ended up under
the guillotine for murdering an old man in order to get his money.
“I admire his courage,” says Reclus; “his goodness of heart, his
greatness of soul, the generosity with which he pardons his enemies,
or rather, his betrayers. I hardly know of any men who have surpassed
him in nobleness of conduct. I reserve the question as to how far it is
always desirable to push to extremities one’s own right, and whether
other considerations moved by a spirit of human solidarity ought not
to prevail. Still, I am none the less one of those who recognise in
Ravachol a hero of a magnanimity but little common.”[2]
[2] Quoted from the _Twentieth Century_, New York, September, 1892, p.
15.
IV.--PRINCE KROPOTKIN.
Prince Pierre Alexeivitch Kropotkin was born in Moscow in 1842. He
is one of the most remarkable men of the day! A man of high ideals,
of infinite fortitude and courage, and brilliant intellectual parts,
he can find no home in his native Russia, but is driven forth to
seek asylum among strangers. He has known the misery of captivity in
gaol as well as the bitterness of expulsion from home! Arrested in
1874 for secretly propagating his principles in Russia, he spent two
years and a half in the Peter and Paul fortress without a trial, but
afterwards escaped to England. He was expelled from Switzerland for
participation in the London International Congress of 1881; arrested
in France in the autumn of 1882, and tried at Lyons in January, 1883,
for belonging to an “association of malefactors,” was sentenced to five
years’ imprisonment; was released early in 1886, left France, and has
since resided in England. He lives at Bromley, in Kent, where, after
his writings, bookbinding and carpentry are his recreations. It may
surprise students of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ and _Chambers’s
Encyclopædia_ to learn that in the former the article on Russia, and
in the latter, those on Russia, Asia, and France, are from the pen of
Prince Kropotkin. He is sixty years of age now; a frequent contributor
to the London Anarchist journal _Freedom_, as well as to various
continental Anarchist journals, and a well-known figure in London
Anarchist circles.
V.--AMILCARE CIPRIANI.
[Illustration: AMILCARE CIPRIANI. (From _Freedom_.)]
A man of action rather than of theory, Amilcare Cipriani, the Italian
Anarchist, has spent nearly twenty-five years in prison. In 1861, 1862,
1866, and 1869 he took part in the Mazzini and Garibaldi insurrections
in Italy. After the disaster of Aspromonte in 1862, doubly a deserter
and rebel (for he had twice left his regiment to join Garibaldi),
Cipriani had to leave the country as best he might, his revolutionary
instincts turning him to the troubles of Greece, where he threw
himself energetically into the insurrection, and finally shared the
fate of exile with those whose cause he had taken up. We find him
next in Egypt, organising the “Società Democratica Italiana” among
the Italian residents in Alexandria, and gathering around himself
youthful enthusiasm into a “Falange Sacra,” who held themselves in
readiness for a call from Garibaldi. After returning to Italy to help
in the ’66 fight, he joined in the insurrection of Crete, and enrolled
himself among the “rebel band” of Zimbrakàkis. It was here he met
Flourens, with whom he afterwards worked in the Paris Commune. When
the struggle in Crete was suppressed, Flourens was arrested and handed
over to the care of the French police, and Cipriani took refuge again
in Alexandria, where certain incidents took place which led to his
condemnation to penal servitude by the Italian Government. In Egypt
Cipriani was the representative of Dervieux & Co., the great bankers.
He was invited one night to a supper party of his own “comrades,”
where a dispute arose which became of a violent nature. Some of the
“comrades,” thinking he had money, attacked him and demanded that
money. Cipriani was forced to save himself against the aggression of
his friends, and in so doing mortally wounded one of them, an Italian
named Santini. Whilst trying to escape from his dangerous position,
he was surrounded by zaptiehs (police), and was on the point of being
arrested, but he resisted, and as they used their arms, he forced his
way through them by shooting at them and killing one. Having escaped,
he took refuge in the interior of Egypt, where he lived for some time
under a false name. He succeeded in embarking for and reaching London,
where he was a photographer for some time. On September 4, 1870, when
the French Republic was proclaimed, he joined the first battalion of
the National Guards, together with Flourens. On October 31 of the same
year and January 21, 1871, he was one of the chief participators in
the unsuccessful attempts made in Paris to capture the Hotel de Ville
and to drive out the Provisional Government. On March 18, and after,
Cipriani fought for the Paris Commune. He raised the Battalions of
Belleville (the most revolutionary part of Paris), which was commanded
by Flourens, whose aide-de-camp he was, and whose devoted friend he
had become whilst fighting for the liberty of the Cretans. In the
last sortie made by the Communists towards Mont Valérien, Flourens,
deceived by a Versailles spy, was treacherously killed. Cipriani,
in defending him, was seriously wounded and afterwards carried to
Versailles, where a court-martial condemned him to be shot. His wound
saved his life; for the five soldiers who were to be shot with him
arrived at Satory before Cipriani could be lifted from his bed and
carried to the place of execution. At the moment they were taking him
down from the cart to be led before the platoon which was to shoot him,
a messenger from Thiers arrived with orders to put off the execution.
For eighteen months he was kept in solitary confinement. Tried a second
time by court-martial, he was condemned to transportation to New
Caledonia for life. On the transport boat, “La Danaé,” he showed his
usual rebellious spirit in resisting orders. He was condemned by the
admiral to seventy days’ imprisonment in a cell, with nothing but bread
and water, for refusing to clean the floor. In New Caledonia it was the
same. He was condemned to three years’ hard labour for having denounced
an order of the Governor of the island. On his return to Paris,
after the amnesty, he was expelled from France, on January 1, 1881,
whence he returned to Italy. He was arrested at Rimini on a charge
of revolutionary conspiracy, and taken to Milan. There he was kept in
prison until an amnesty came granting his release. He was, however,
immediately re-arrested and sentenced to twenty-five years’ hard labour
for the affair in Alexandria. He was released in 1888, in consequence
of the great popular agitation in his favour--nine times during his
imprisonment was he elected as deputy, though, as an Anarchist, he
declined to take his seat in Parliament on his liberation. In Rome,
1891, he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for his part in the
May Day riots of that year, when a planned insurrection was frustrated
only by the presence of 25,000 troops. Over 500 Anarchists were
arrested on this occasion. During the last Greco-Turkish War Cipriani
received several wounds; and in 1900 offered to raise a regiment of
volunteers to fight on behalf of the Boers, but his offer was not
accepted.
VI.--CARLO CAFIERO.
Carlo Cafiero was one of the most energetic and revolutionary of
Italian Anarchists, and an intimate associate of Michael Bakounine,
the founder of Nihilism. Born of a rich family in Barletta, he was
educated at a Catholic seminary and at the University of Naples,
and intended for a diplomatic career. Whilst still quite young, he
inherited a large fortune from his parents. Nevertheless, he became a
convinced Anarchist, threw up his profession, and left Florence, the
then capital of Italy, for London, where he gave himself up to the
study of revolutionary doctrines. His wealth was henceforth given up
to the cause of Anarchism. In 1873 he joined the International, and
with Bakounine formed an active propagandist centre in Switzerland.
In 1874 he took part in the Bologna insurrection, and afterwards,
with Malatesta and thirty-five other Anarchists, took active share
in organising the armed revolt at Benevento. He was captured, and,
after seventeen months’ imprisonment, went to France, was expelled,
and eventually returned to Italy. Already in bad health, he was again
imprisoned, and consigned to solitary confinement, from the effects
of which he never recovered. Shortly after his release he became
hopelessly insane, and finally ended his days in a madhouse.
VII.--EMMA GOLDMAN.
The “High Priestess of Anarchy in America,” as she is called, is Emma
Goldman, whose speeches it is said, incited the Anarchist Czolgosz in
his attack on President McKinley. She was born in Russia, but educated
in Germany. Eight years ago Emma Goldman was sent to prison for ten
months in New York for her incentives to violence. She is exceedingly
popular among the American Anarchists. Her almost masculine face,
adorned with pince-nez, her plain black dress, often with red ribbon at
the neck, her peculiar half-closed eyes, are familiar to the “groups.”
She has spent the greater part of her life in America; while she has
also visited England and addressed audiences in London. All her family
were orthodox, but, commencing as an ardent Radical, she was converted
to Anarchism by the hanging of the Chicago Anarchists in 1887. She says
of herself: “I have since led strikes and done everything I could for
the people. I am a member of no group. I believe only in individual
freedom and responsibility as the true basis of Anarchy.”
The writer attended her lectures in London. She ridiculed the ideas and
methods of Socialism, and upheld the theory of violence. As an orator
she is neither original nor even effective, and leaves her audience
quite unimpressed. Whatever she is as an orator, there is no doubt
that her writings are followed with a great deal of interest by the men
and women who share her opinions. She has just married (I use the word
“married” for want of the Anarchistic substitute) Alexander Berkmann,
the Russian Jew Anarchist who shot Mr. Carnegie’s manager in 1892, and
her association with him--“martyr” as he is regarded as being--lends to
her position in Anarchists’ affections a force which her teachings and
personality alone could not inspire.
VIII.--LOUIS LINGG.
One of the Chicago “martyrs,” who, condemned to death for complicity
in the bomb-throwing of 1886, committed suicide in jail by means of a
cigar loaded with dynamite.
Louis Lingg was born in Mannheim, Germany, in 1864. His father was
employed as a lumber-man, his mother did laundry work. Life was
pleasant enough to young Lingg in his boyhood days, but when his father
met with an accident at his work which ruined his health, hunger
and want were soon experienced in the family, despite the strenuous
efforts of the mother to keep the home going. The harsh treatment his
father received from his master created in Lingg’s heart a hatred of
capitalists which speedily turned his energies in the direction of
revolutionary propaganda.
[Illustration: LOUIS LINGG. (From _Freedom_.)]
Meanwhile, having served his apprenticeship as a carpenter, Lingg left
home for the United States, in 1885. He went to Chicago, joined the
union of his trade, and became one of the chief organisers of the eight
hours movement. He had an ardent belief that the great revolutionary
struggle between capital and labour was close at hand, and that
the people needed arms to fight those in authority. He therefore
studied explosives, and made a supply of bombs to be ready in case of
need. His figure stands apart somewhat from those of the other real
martyrs--Parsons, Spies, Fischer, and Engel--with whom he was very
slightly acquainted, or not acquainted at all, until they met in the
dock. _They_ were propagandists; he a man of action.
Addressing the Court, in answer to the Judge’s question as to why
sentence of death should not be pronounced upon him, he defiantly
concluded his speech with the following: “I have told Captain Schaak
(chief of the police) and I stand by it, ‘If you cannonade us, we
shall dynamite you!’ You laugh! Perhaps you think ‘YOU’LL throw no
more bombs!’ But let me assure you that I die happy on the gallows, so
confident am I that the hundreds and thousands to whom I have spoken
will remember me, and when you shall have hanged us, then, mark my
words, _They will do the bomb-throwing!_ In this hope do I say to you,
‘I despise you; I despise your order, your laws, your force-propped
authority! HANG ME FOR IT!’”
IX.--LOUISE MICHEL.
Louise Michel, who has been variously styled the “Joan of Arc of
Anarchism” and the “Red Virgin of the Commune,” started life as a
devout young school-teacher in a French village.
She went to Paris, became a Communist, and, dressed in the uniform
of the National Guard, and armed with a carbine, she led bands of
Communists at the barricades in 1871. She sacrificed her liberty to
save her mother, whom the soldiers had arrested. At the subsequent
court-martial, where many of her co-revolutionists were condemned to
execution, Louise Michel cried defiantly, “You would sentence me to
death? You dare not! You are afraid lest I should show before your
rifles more courage than you showed before the Prussian shot.” The
verdict was imprisonment for life. When in St. Lazare Prison, this
woman of contradicting and warring moods deprived herself of food for
days together so that the other prisoners might have it. She was later
deported to the penal settlement of New Caledonia.
After the lapse of a few years the woman revolutionary received her
liberty. M. Rochefort was at the railway station to welcome her back
to Paris. “Take care,” she exclaimed, as he embraced her; “do not
suffocate the little blind cat I have in my pocket.” The animal had
been her companion throughout the long voyage. [Illustration: LOUISE
MICHEL, The “Red Virgin” of the Commune.]
Some years later Louise Michel lived in London, where, for some time,
she conducted a school in Fitzroy Square, Soho, for the children of
Anarchists. Based entirely on Anarchist principles, the school was, of
course, a failure. In a not very large room Louise and two or three
others attempted to teach simultaneously several different subjects.
Ordinary notions of school discipline received scant attention. The
fundamental Anarchist principle of individual liberty for all and
everyone was here carried out in its fulness. The teachers _did_ try
to teach, but the boys and girls could not possibly learn or even hear
anything, for the children moved about in the room, talked and shouted,
or sat quietly just as they pleased. While in one part of the room the
teachers tried to attract their pupils to lessons of arithmetic, or
other subjects, Louise herself gave them practical lessons in piano
playing, the children surrounding her, climbing on chairs, and even on
her shoulders; the general noise being so great that nobody could be
heard at all by either teacher or pupil. Two or three “comrades” stood
about also in the room, usually, discussing and gesticulating, adding
to the general disorder.
A feature of Louise Michel’s character was her great love for the poor,
to whom she practically devoted her life and her meagre earnings.
Among her notable sayings were the following--
“What is human life when great ideas are at stake? The killing of a
few means the emancipation of many.”
“A revolution in Russia may begin the great movement of progress in
the world.”
“People are learning that this is not a time for killing; but for
life, for work, for art, for science, for fraternity.”
Asked what she would do if the Presidency of the French Republic
were offered her, she replied: “I should accept it for twenty-four
hours--just long enough to empty all the banks and all the prisons.”
She finished her stormy career at Marseilles on January 9, 1905.
XII.
ANARCHIST PRECEPTS.
1. _Repudiation of just debts._--“We do not look forward to a revolt
in the future, but a revolt to-day--a revolt from the moment we become
Anarchists. We know that all men can revolt by refusing rent to
landlords; by refusing payment to shopkeepers whose goods we take when
we want them; by refusing to be married before the law, and by many
other means.” (Cyril Bell, in _Freedom_, December, 1891.)
2. _Stealing a virtue._--“Tortellier, Brunet, Faure, and Devertus
approved of stealing from the rich as a method of carrying on the
social war.... Madame Elise read a paper on ‘Theft,’ which she thought
only justifiable for propaganda purposes. There must be, she said, some
Anarchist principles and morals. Comrade Ridoux, an individualist,
affirmed, on the other hand, that Anarchy is a negation of morals and
principles.” (From Report of International Anarchist Congress, Paris,
1889, in _Freedom_, October, 1889.)
3. _Duty a curse._--“To do one’s duty is not only to degrade one’s
self; it is to insult one’s fellow-men. Duty is as contemptuous as
sincerity is respectful. To do one’s duty by others is to treat them
as on a lower level than one’s self ... to pass them counterfeit
coin ... one of the curses of our civilization of shams.” (_Freedom_,
March, 1887.)
4. “_Do as you please._”--“That Anarchism has such a vague and at
times an unhealthy form in the minds of some people calling themselves
Anarchists ... is not to be wondered at. That some people should be
drawn to it who see in some of the phrases used by Anarchist orators
and writers a justification of their own meanness and selfishness is
not to be very much wondered at. They think of the good time coming
as one when each shall be able to wallow in the filth of their own
selfishness, and do ‘as they bloody-well please’ ... because, there
shall be no laws.” (James Brown, in _Freedom_, July, 1893.)
5. _Stopping trains for purposes of plunder._--“The existence of one
Anarchist has more value than a thousand _bourgeois_, and he (the
Anarchist) will not hesitate in stopping trains and plundering the
wealthy passengers of their money, to carry on propaganda by deed, as
comrades Pini, Duval, and Reinsdorf understood it. Either society is
right and we must submit to its laws, or it is wrong, and in that case
let us fight it, not with manifestoes and songs, but with anything the
individual may think best to strike terror in the brains and bodies of
the usurpers of our freedom.” (_Commonweal_, December 5, 1891.)
6. _The Gospel of “take.”_--“England and Spain are the only countries
in Europe where Anarchists are not expelled. Foreign Anarchists are
allowed to starve in those countries, unless they have pluck enough
to expropriate the big robbers. This is what most of our comrades
do on stepping on Spanish soil. What would be impracticable in
England--poaching collectively--is easily done there on account of the
scattered population and the police being badly paid. Our comrades
there, on the tramp, have always back numbers of _El Productor_ and _La
Anarquia_, which they give freely in return for the food and clothing
they TAKE.” (_Commonweal_, December 12, 1891.)
“The Italian comrades refuse to work to benefit capitalists.... Hunger
has taught them not to work but to plunder their old masters, and
this has two good results; it shows us a good example and accustoms
us to the doctrine of TAKE. We learn also how to do without masters.”
(_Commonweal_, September 5, 1891.)
7. _Murder justifiable._--“Bread or lead was the question put by
Rutzerveld to his master, who had sacked him for being an Anarchist.
This happened in Sclessin in a mining district. His master even refused
to pay him for the work he had done and told him to go to the law
courts. Rutzerfeld went not to the law courts, but to a gunsmith,
took a revolver, and went back to meet his tyrant, and fired three
shots in succession, one shot hitting the boss in the head. He is not
quite dead; yet if he recovers it will not be our comrade’s fault,
for he said when arrested, ‘I am only sorry I did not finish him!’”
(_Commonweal_, November 7, 1891.)
8. “_An Example._”--“Thus finished another stage in the career of a man
who has shaken capitalism to its foundations, and shown the workers an
example worthy of emulation.... We are anxiously awaiting the advent of
some English Ravachols.”[3] (_Commonweal_, July 2, 1892.)
[3] Ravachol was the Anarchist scoundrel who lived by thieving,
counterfeit-coining, grave robbing, and who ended up under the
guillotine for killing an old man in order to get his money.
“We say that the individual acts have always been a success. The
men who strangled Watrin (a mine-owner in France whose men were on
strike), Pini, who robbed the banks, have opened more eyes than all
the pamphlet writers in a century. Our aims can only be attained by
accumulated individual actions against property and the men who hold
it.” (_Commonweal_, December 19, 1891.)
9. _Abortion._--“Why should not women, even when they are not in
a weak state of health ... and do not dread the physical pain of
childbirth, abort, if they choose to do so? How, in such a case, can
the interference of judges, as representative of society--that rotten
abstraction--be justified? ... Wretched women; be sterile; close your
wombs; abort!” (From _The Torch of Anarchy_, December 18, 1895.)
10. _The bomb for working men._--“‘The masses are brutalised; we must
force our ideas on them by violence.’ ‘One has the right to kill those
who preach theories.’ ‘The masses allow us to be oppressed; let us
revenge ourselves on the masses.’ ‘The more workers one kills the
fewer slaves remain.’ Such are the ideas current in certain Anarchist
circles. And, an Anarchist review, in a controversy on the different
tendencies of the Anarchist movement, replied to a comrade with this
unanswerable argument, ‘There will be bombs for you also.’” (From _The
Torch of Anarchy_, April 18, 1895.)
11. “_Blacklegging._”--“We proclaim the maxim ‘Do as you please.’
Therefore, the non-unionists have a right to work, and you establish
the rights of blacklegs on a logical and scientific basis.... The
blackleg is entirely within his liberty, and, consequently, those
persons are exceeding their liberty who attempt to interfere with his.”
(_Freedom_, December, 1891.)
12. _Might is Right._--“Whoever has might, has right; if you have not
the former you have not the latter.” (Max Stimer, “Der Einzige und sein
Eigenthum,” 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1882, pp. 196-197.)
“The strong must ever rule the weak, is grim primordial law--
On earth’s broad racial threshing floor, the meek are beaten straw--
Then ride to Power o’er foemen’s necks; let nothing bar your way.
If you are FIT you’ll rule and reign, is the logic of
to-day.”--_Ragnar Redbeard._
“So far as inherent right is concerned, might is its only measure. Any
man, be his name Bill Sykes or Alexander Romanoff, or any set of men,
whether the Chinese highbinders or the Congress of the United States,
have the right, if they have the power, to kill or coerce other men and
to make the entire world subservient to their ends. Society’s right to
enslave the individual and the individual’s right to enslave society
are unequal only because their powers are unequal.” (Benj. R. Tucker,
in _Liberty_, New York, November 15, 1890.)
“The natural law concerning possessions is this: ‘That they should take
who have the power, and they should keep who can.’” (_Freedom_, August,
1889.)
13. _Opposed to all organisation._--“It is perfectly true that
there exists a large number of Anarchists who do not believe in
representation or organisation of any kind, and who declare that, no
individual can represent or act for any other under any circumstances.
This position is a perfectly logical one.” (From _The Torch of
Anarchy_, October 18, 1895.)
14. “_Expropriation._”--“Another brave deed of expropriation has been
committed by comrade Conway, who broke a large jeweller’s window and
tried to make off with £420 worth of diamond rings. He conducted
himself very defiantly in court.... The only pity is that he didn’t
succeed, as the movement is very hard up at present.” (_Torch of
Anarchy_, September, 1893.)
15. _Strike Tactics._--“At this moment (April, 1895) there are 200,000
shoemakers locked out of work. Instead of stopping at home and
starving, or of parading the streets like wild beasts on show, they
ought to enter quietly into their respective factories and workshops,
and then send the employers their _ultimatum_. Naturally the masters
will reject it, and then, what could be easier than to cut up a skin
ready tanned for use? What could be more amusing than to place a piece
of iron under a sewing machine and thus destroy it; or to forget a file
in a cog-wheel, or to riddle with holes the uppers of boots laid aside
ready for use? What can be more enjoyable for a father than to carve
toys for his children out of the wooden lasts on which he makes boots
for the employer who starves him? What can sound pleasanter to the ear
of a striker than stones whizzing through his workshop windows? And we
feel sure that if the strikers made up their minds that the employers
must give way on the very first day of the strike, under penalty of
having their machinery, their tools, their stock, in a word, their
whole capital, destroyed, strikes would not drag on month after month,”
etc. (_Torch of Anarchy_, April 18, 1895.)
16. _The “Revolution.”_--“We revolutionists, knowing that other means
than violence are neither possible nor practical, frequently think
about the Revolution, and frequently talk about it.... We know that
we must disorganise present society--break the wheels on which it now
moves--and make it impossible to reconstitute it. Thus we know that
all our forces must be directed towards the attack--to the destruction
of legal archives, the register of national revenue, the banks and the
prefectures; we know that during the fight the register of the public
debt, etc., must disappear; all that goes to establish, regulate, and
register rent, capital and property. We know also that by setting the
example ourselves in expropriation, we must initiate the masses to
seize on all the means of production, tools, machinery, factories,
workshops, and mines, to work for themselves. We should not forget
that as soon as the first outbreak of the revolt occurs, industry and
commerce will be at a standstill. For purposes of tactics and defence
the revolutionists will be obliged to tear up the railway lines; to cut
the telegraph and telephone wires; in some places even the gas and
water supplies will have to be destroyed,” etc. (_Torch of Anarchy_,
July 15, 1894.)
17. _Burglary._--“An outcry has been raised not only in the
middle-class press, but even amongst revolutionary Socialists
themselves, against the French (Anarchist) workman condemned to death
for taking some jewellery from an empty(?) house, offering armed
resistance to the policeman who arrested him, and boldly asserting
at his trial that he had acted upon principle.... Duval was firmly
convinced that the appropriators of existing wealth are nothing but
thieves unjustly appropriating the fruit of the labour of past and
present generations; that the pleasures with which they are gorged are
wrung from the misery caused to the producers by this appropriation.
Therefore he found means to relieve one of these appropriators of a
portion of the capital thus unfairly retained, and he did it with the
purpose of supplying the (Anarchist) propaganda with funds.... In fact,
he simply passed from theory to practice.” (_Freedom_, March, 1887.)
18. _The Remedy for “Tyrants.”_--“Remember, a sharp knife or a bomb of
dynamite will rid you of them for ever.” (_Commonweal._)
19. _Prostitution, Free-Love, and Promiscuity._--“The courtesan is
sexually free; the wife is a slave. The superior moral condition of
the former consists in the fact that she can refuse to co-habit or
associate with whom she loves not, at any time.” (From the “_Anarchy of
Love_.”)
“The emancipation of woman from her domestic slavery is to be found in
the abolition of the marriage laws. Her complete economic independence
in the abolition of all other laws.” (_Anarchy of Love._)
“Freedom in love relations would, of a certainty, favour variety, which
in some instances is a physiological necessity, both for man and for
woman.” (_The Anarchist_, May, 1887.)
20. _No Rent and Pillage._--“Let ‘No Rent’ be the war-cry.... Let
people universally refuse to pay, and what can stand against them?
The landlords may send their brokers--well, hot water, brickbats, and
pokers are excellent medicine for these gentlemen.... But there is
another way to strike at the capitalist classes, and that is by helping
ourselves to the wealth they have stolen from us ... their warehouses
remain full of wealth of all kinds.” (_Commonweal_, September 5, 1891.)
21. _Window-Smashing._--“Two brave men have set a good example to
starving workmen.... We hope the unemployed will follow the example
set by Bruce and Primmer (who smashed Messrs. Benson’s, the jeweller’s
windows) in their thousands next winter. We hope they will do even
more, and supply their needs by taking the wealth.” (_Commonweal_,
September 5, 1891.)
22. _The Bomb for Policemen._--“Some people condemned the throwing of
the bomb at Chicago; for his part he thought it would have been well
in London if a man had been found courageous enough to hurl death and
destruction among the ruffians who attacked a peaceful meeting.”--(D.
J. Nicoll in _Commonweal_, November 21, 1891, and referring to the
prohibited Trafalgar Square meeting of November 11, 1887.)
23. _Indiscriminate Murder._--“Colonna was an honest worker ... he
was sacked. The outlook was now dreadful, and he resolved to chastise
those who stood in his way. He flew at the throat of the boss, was
arrested, and in the police-station he stabbed a bobby and ran out in
the street. Another man in blue attempted to arrest him and got stabbed
in the heart. Well done! A third bobby and one civilian got the same
lesson.... This happened in Marseilles.” (_Commonweal_, October 24,
1891.)
24. _“Practical” Anarchism._--“At Coal Creek the convicts were also
released (by the strikers), and directly they were free they showed
they were practical Anarchists by helping themselves to £200 worth (of
goods) from the stores. Bravo, Tennessee miners! You have shown, by
taking the advice of our brave comrades of Chicago, that you are worthy
descendants of the men who made Boston Harbour black with tea.... You
have shown the workers of America--aye, and of the world--how to free
themselves, not at the ballot-box, but with the rifle, the torch,
and the dynamite bomb. Bravo, convicts, too, for you have taught
the people how to bring the power of the capitalist robbers to the
ground, by seizing upon the wealth they have stolen from the people.”
(_Commonweal_, November 28, 1891.)
25. _Anarchist Sympathy._--“The poor and lowly are a creeping
pestilence; there are no innocent ones, and the downtrodden are the
justly damned.” (_Ragnar Redbeard._)
The foregoing extracts are fair samples of Anarchist “literature.”
So long as the English Government permits the circulation of such
demoralising stuff, it should not be surprised when some weak-minded or
criminally-inclined person acts upon the advice given.
XIII.
HOW ANARCHIST ASSASSINS ARE MADE.
That the time has arrived when some move of a drastic nature should
be taken by all civilised nations, in the direction of preventing the
publication, rather than in the punishment of Anarchist assassins,
no sane person will deny. For of what avail are the gallows, the
guillotine, or the electric chair, if the causes which produce the
Anarchist miscreant are left untouched? It is said that out of evil
cometh good; and certainly Anarchist outrages will not have been in
vain if public opinion is directed towards the source from which
Anarchist assassins derive their inspiration: I refer, of course, to
the speeches and publications (especially the publications) of these
international pests of society. Czolgosz, the assassin of President
McKinley, has confessed to having heard the leader of American
Anarchism, Miss Emma Goldman, but three times. Yet the inflammatory
ravings of these three speeches proved sufficient incitement to move
this weak-minded fool to commit murder. “She set me on fire,” said the
miscreant; “her doctrine that all rulers should be exterminated set me
thinking, so that my head nearly split with pain. Miss Goldman’s words
went right through me, and when I left the lecture I made up my mind
that I would have to do something heroic for the cause I love.”
Thus it will be seen that this particular assassin was a person of low
intellectual organisation. But this is also the fact with all other
Anarchist desperadoes. Professor Cæsare Lombroso, the great Italian
criminologist, has demonstrated conclusively that the Anarchist
assassin is very closely related to the insane. From a careful study
he has found that these modern Thugs possess peculiar physical
characteristics common among the inmates of our idiot and imbecile
asylums. Among 100 Turin Anarchists arrested in the rebellion of May
Day, 1890, he found 34 per cent. possessed the criminal type of face,
as compared with 43 per cent. among ordinary criminals of the prison at
Turin. He found 40 per cent. of the criminal type among photographs of
Chicago Anarchists, seventeen out of forty-three having disagreeable
peculiarities of the face. Lombroso has further shown that along with
degenerate peculiarities of physique the Anarchist is still further
accursed with mental traits, characteristics “common to criminals and
to the insane, and possessing these traits by heredity.”
The belief that murder and theft are actions not only innocent but
virtuous when perpetrated with the professed design of benefiting
humanity, sounds marvellously comforting to those of a weak-minded or
criminal nature, and who have a natural propensity to commit them.
Accordingly, such persons flock to the Anarchist standard. Cranks and
criminals abound in the party. The Anarchist assassin is invariably
a young person of ill-balanced mind who has imbibed too freely the
poison of Anarchist oratory, and the “literature” of murder which pours
forth from the printing presses which the Governments of the world
are foolish enough to allow these reckless madmen to possess. To stop
the supply of Anarchist murderers the civilised nations must unitedly
attack the evil at its source--the murder-inciting “lecturer” and his
equally murderous pamphlet and manifesto.
Here, in London, Anarchists turn out by the hundred thousand pamphlets,
newspapers and manifestoes in various languages, inciting to, and
approving the most brutal and inhuman outrages conceivable. The
following horribly brutal screed was found in the possession of one of
the Anarchists concerned in the Walsall bomb conspiracy, and although
some English Anarchists have expressed disapproval of the sentiments
contained in this production, the fact remains that an Anarchist
outrage planned on somewhat similar lines to that indicated was
perpetrated at a theatre in Barcelona some few years back.
“_An Anarchist Feast at the Opera._--Who is the starving wretch, an
Anarchist or slave, that has not shuddered with rage in thinking of the
luxurious enjoyments that the rich come to seek (by means of a little
gold) in a box at the opera, on the evening of a first representation?
“In fact, on that day, the sweaters, financiers, middlemen,
magistrates, diplomatists, and moralists, all the cream of the rich
and rulers of the people, have gathered together, certain of not
being elbowed by low people, in order to enjoy in comfort and without
trouble, a fresh spectacle, or the intoxicating music, the singing and
the feminine forms (more or less tainted by disease), and to incite
their senses and to awaken the passions never satiated of that race of
bandits, who on the morrow are unanimously ready to draw the sweat and
blood of the workers in order to recover at once the handful of gold
spent on the previous evening. Well, comrades, we for whom the opera
has never had any charms, because it has not been established to admit
us at the auditory of the magnificent soirées, where the munificence
of art contends with the brightness of diamonds and lights, can we not
likewise enjoy in our turn the delightful spectacle of seeing on a fine
day, or rather on a fine evening, this splendid building all in flames
in the middle of a brilliant feast, and as a veritable apotheosis
carried towards heaven?
“Would not a single one among us feel his heart beat with an immense
joy in hearing the shrivelling of the grease of the rich and the
howlings of that mass of flesh swarming in the midst of that immense
vessel all in a blaze? In fact, what delight, in our town, to see,
even at a distance, such a red conflagration! A thousand times more
beautiful to our eyes than the dazzling of the purest diamond! To hear
howlings, the cries of pain and rage of the wolves, their females and
young ones in midst of the furnace--a thousand times more vibrating and
more pleasant to our ears than the songs of half-a-dozen prostitutes
above an orchestra. As to our sense of smelling, what delight of smell
that flesh burning alive--an odour a thousand times more pleasant to
our organs than the most delicious perfumes with which that race of
men and women impregnate themselves in order to conceal the rottenness
which runs out of their bodies. Ah! how happy are the cannibals to be
able, when chance favours them, not only to smell the flesh of their
enemies broiling, but also to eat it. ‘The corpse of an enemy smells
nice,’ said a despot.
“Then, comrades, admitting that all tastes are natural, and ours,
though different they may be, have need to be appeased in their turn.
We will content ourselves by indicating the means which we think proper
to satisfy them. For the present we will continue the series by saying
what we think suitable concerning a gala reception at the opera. In
fact, nothing more easy. A single man may act, but two are better, in
order to succeed properly in the operation without any danger to them.
Thus: two comrades, each provided with a strong knife, having a saw
blade, and each man carrying a small bomb of very small dimensions,
loaded with chlorate of potash, and having in the middle a small
glass tube containing a tablespoonful of sulphuric acid. This small
tube is placed erect and buried half its length in the chlorate, must
be closed at top by a strong cork, and at bottom by a round piece of
cork four millimetres thick (if you wish the bomb to burst at the end
of two hours), because the acid requires about half an hour to pierce
each millimetre through the thickness of the round piece of cork. If
you wish the bomb to burst at the end of three hours the round piece
of cork must be six millimetres thick, and so on, half an hour for
every millimetre thickness. Moreover, comrades may try beforehand
with a small pinch of chlorate (the explosion in the open air does
not make much noise), and cover their faces and hands for fear of
the broken pieces. These little preparatory experiments will serve
them to appreciate the quality of the acid and cork used, as well as
the exact time which the acid requires to pierce each millimetre of
cork of the same piece. As we have said, the bombs do not require to
be voluminous. A simple small glass mustard pot, having the shape
of a small cask lengthened, is quite sufficient for the quantity of
matter, of which here is the description:--Let us suppose that the vase
contains 500 grammes of matter. You will then put--1st, 3-5, viz.,
300 grammes chlorate of potash; 2nd, 2-5, viz., 100 grammes sulphur;
3rd, 1-5, viz., 100 grammes sugar, maintaining always these proportions
according to the size of the vase. Afterwards each of these matters
must be ground very fine separately, then mixed gently and thoroughly
(although the operation offers not the least danger). The efficacy
of the operation depends on the fine grinding and perfect mixture.
After that charge the bomb, as it has been said, in a manner that the
round piece of cork, four or six millimetres, be fully mixed in the
matter above mentioned. These matters cost but little. The chlorate
of potash is sold nearly in powder and crystallized. It must be quite
dry. The sulphur is sold in small sticks of two or three centimetres
diameter. The sugar must be of good quality, and quite dry. All these
matters are easily crushed--afterwards the mixing is easy. The greater
expense is for the two comrades, on account of the payment of their
seats, which must be hired beforehand, on gala days especially. Their
seats must be at the top of the theatre. Thus, the two comrades having
their tickets in their pockets, go home and load their bombs only at
the moment of setting out for the theatre, having calculated for the
time of explosion at the end of three hours, supposing that time to be
suitable. Afterwards let us suppose they have required half an hour
to reach their seats in the theatre, the bombs will have then only
two hours and a half to sleep. As soon as arrived the men will keep
as close as possible to the walls or pillars along which the gaspipes
are fixed. Then, when no one is noticing them, they begin by bursting
slightly those pipes with their saw blades. It is easily done, because
the lead can be cut through without any noise. When two, or three,
or four of these pipes are slightly open, the men place their bombs
on the ground by the side of the pipes, concealing them as much as
possible from the sight of the public. They may go away quietly at
the end of the first act; the rest of the operation will be completed
without them. Then they have time to go home, and even go to bed, so
as to prove an alibi at the time of the explosion. Now, this is how
the rest of the operation will conclude: At first, the gas escaping
will ascend and accumulate under the vault of the theatre during the
two hours required for the explosion of the bombs. At that time there
will be a quantity sufficient to set fire everywhere and burst the roof
and walls of the theatre, and the _débris_ falling back will have the
effect of grapeshot on the jolly spectators. Afterwards the fire, fed
by the wood, the stuffs, and the grease, will terminate the operation
suitably. As we have said at the beginning, the work is easy for two
companions who live in a town where there is a large theatre suitable
to receive the higher class of the inhabitants. For that it requires
only hatred in the heart and to be pitiless. After all, what do we care
for feelings of humanity, even with regard to the women and children
of that race of robbers and real criminals? Do not their young become
wolves likewise? Are their females less eager for prey than the males?
On another part the workers or starving people may be tranquil, because
none of them are to be seen at those feasts of gold and diamonds which
too often are given in honour of any travelling monarch at the expense
of the poor people. Therefore, it is pious work to profit by those
frequent occasions; to crown worthily those revels which the bandits
throw as a defiance at our misery and sufferings. For an Anarchist gala
of that kind the little money necessary must be easier to find than for
a platonic propaganda. It is saying, comrades, that certain enjoyments
are still permitted to us, waiting for the grand day when the social
equilibrium will be brutally established.”
* * * * *
The above is a fair sample of the vile stuff by which Anarchist
assassins are made.
XIV.
THE LIGHTER SIDE OF ANARCHISM.
Paradoxical and absurd as it must appear to people of ordinary
intelligence (and Anarchists are certainly of _extra_-ordinary
intelligence), it is nevertheless the fact that among the devotees of
knife, torch and bomb, the motto “Anarchy is Order” is a favourite one.
It is inscribed on their banners, and is reiterated in their speeches
with a persistency which becomes positively tiresome to listen to.
Yet, strange to say (or, is it strange?) the very reverse of order is
the prevailing condition among Anarchists themselves. For example, if
I desire to become the happy possessor of an Anarchistic newspaper, I
find that, in some cases, it has no fixed price; that, in place of the
familiar “Price One Penny” of conventional journalism, it is inscribed
“Pay What You Like,” or “Subscription Voluntary.”
[Illustration:
THE
COMMONWEAL
VOL. II.--NO. XV. NOVEMBER, 1900. [VOLUNTARY SUBSCRIPTION].
]
The natural outcome of such a method (or, rather, lack of method) is
that a journal produced on such “principles” speedily becomes defunct.
Such was the fate of the _Sheffield Anarchist_, the first English
Anarchist journal courageous enough to reduce its chaotic “pay what you
like” “principles” to practice.
[Illustration:
THE SHEFFIELD
ANARCHIST.
VOL. I. NO. 4. SUNDAY, AUG. 9, 1894. [PAY WHAT YOU LIKE].
]
Having produced your paper on the “pay what you like” system, you scan
its contents, and find disorder in its very lines, as witness the
following, reproduced from the _Alarm_, the organ of the Associated
Anarchists:--
WE TAKE ANYTHING!!!
Although money is handiest, stern
necessity compels us to be universalist,
and we therefore wish to make known
here, that in payment for literature
supplied by us, we take anything
which we can use for The Alarm, or
sell in support of it. Odd type, ink,
furniture, wearing apparel, boots,
jewellery, books, back numbers or sets
of any paper, used or unused stamps.
American paper currency, tea, sugar,
cocoa, crockery ware, cutlery, etc.
We ought not to have any bad debts at
this rate.
Here is Anarchy indeed! You will notice that the right hand side of
the column is uneven, giving it the appearance of poetry. This is due
to the fact that, to use a printer’s idiom, the lines have not been
“justified;” or, in plain English, the spaces between the words should
have been so altered as to make each line spread out to fill the column
exact.
As a further instance of this Anarchistic disorder, I give the
following: From the offices in Drury Lane of a curious four-page
journal, printed by hand on yellow tissue paper, entitled the
_Atheistic Communistic Scorcher_, emanated a still more curious, and,
in many respects, amusing, pamphlet, entitled, “An Appeal to the
Half-Starved, Herring-Gutted, Poverty-Struck, Parish-Damned Inhabitants
of a Disunited Kingdom.” The following extract is an exact reproduction
from the original (note the capitals and punctuation marks):--
We Require A Commune, to Take every Child,--Woman, and Man. Register
them on the Roll of the Commune--Find how many Houses,--Tables,
Chairs, Boots, Coats, Hats,--how much Food,--Animal, Vegetable,
Cereal, are required for the Citizen. Then how many hours Labor from
each Citizen.--(About One or Two hours.) from each one will do it,
Them that wont work hang them, Labor will then be pleasant,--Why Is
it so Irksome--To-Day? Because of excessive work and Insufficient
pay,--That Land & Money Theives, may Batten and Fatten--On the
Plunder of the Proletaire.
Some Anarchist journals--the Paris _La Revolte_, for example--even
dispensed with editors, and allowed every comrade connected with the
“group” which ran the paper to “have his say,” so far as the exigencies
of space would allow him. This explains the fact that articles in
direct contradiction to each other often appeared in the same journal.
Some of the advertisements to be found in Anarchistic newspapers are
certainly amusing, as witness the following:--
A SEVERE WINTER IS INEVITABLE: therefore advertiser intends making
preparations accordingly. Anyone willing to help form a “Help Myself”
society should communicate with W. G. C., office of ----.
POACHER wants trustworthy comrade; mostly night work. Apply ----.
Another advertisement offered £5 reward for an honest lawyer. We know
there is one somewhere in the East End; he is painted on a public-house
sign-board, with his head under his arm.
THE ANTI-BROKER BRIGADE having reached a sufficient strength is ready
to assist comrades and friends who require its services, free of
charge. Apply to W. C., office of this paper.
The above advertisement appeared in the _Commonweal_, and referred
to a group of fifteen stalwart Anarchists who conscientiously and on
principle objected to pay rent under any circumstances, and who helped
each other “shoot the moon.”
At the offices of the _Torch of Anarchy_, in Ossulton Street, Somer’s
Town, occurred a number of amusing episodes. One in particular is worth
recounting. Some “comrades” who had been expelled from Italy struck
a bargain with the Anarchist printer of the _Torch_ to get out some
revolutionary pamphlets in Italian, and in consideration of the working
of his press by them he agreed to quote very reduced prices. It was a
glorious sight to see these brawny sons of the Revolution perspiring
at the press, singing Caserio’s “Hymn to Liberty,” and rejoicing in
the thought that through their efforts the principles of Anarchy
would be spread through their native land. Everyone was happy until
some inquisitive fellow looked at the “proofs,” and made a terrible
discovery. The wily printer, it seems, had undertaken a large printing
contract for some local clergymen, and for months these firebrands had
been printing tracts and sermons!
To the crank, the Anarchist movement acts as a magnet. It was while
working as a compositor in the offices of _Freedom_ that I came across
as fine a specimen as one could wish to meet in a day’s march. And
among Anarchists one finds the crank _par excellence_. One day a
middle-aged, respectably-dressed person of ordinary appearance, except
for a wild gleam in the eyes, entered the office and asked to see the
manager. He wanted an estimate for printing a twenty-page pamphlet. A
satisfactory quotation having been given, he produced a roll of MS.
from the inside pocket of his coat, and gave an order for the printing
of 1,000 copies. After he had gone we examined the MS., and found it
to contain as curious a medley of sense and nonsense (mostly of the
latter) as one could hope to find outside the four walls of a lunatic
asylum.
The brochure, a printed copy of which I have before me as I write,
was entitled, “The Truth--the Way to the Physical, Moral, Mental,
and Spiritual Regeneration, and the Life,” by Alfred E. Gaynor, who
modestly described himself as follows:--
“Water Bearer.
Spirit Architect and Constructor of the Universe,
The Osiris, or Incarnate Representative of the Solar Power.
Occultist and Metaphysician.
Social Surveyor, Counsellor, and Transformer.
Boudha, Krishna, and Jesus Christ Resurrected.
Second Person of the Trinity.
The Messiah, or Son of Man.
Redeemer of Humanity from the Powers of Darkness.
Leader of the Heavenly Hosts,
and Spiritual Commander of the Forces against Mammon.
Lion of the Tribe of Judah.
Last Avatar of Vishnu.”
[Illustration: THE ANARCHIST MESSIAH.]
Interspersed through the pages of this pamphlet are a number of
quotations from such curiously assorted sources as the Bible, the
_Free-thinker_, Sir Monier-Williams, the _Torch of Anarchy_, the
Bhagavadgita, and Volney’s “Ruins of Empires.”
The mission of the new Messiah was to “pull down all the old
devil-erected structures--the kingdoms, governments, and religious
institutions of the world--by nullifying the means by which they are
enabled to maintain their Satanic dominance, _i.e._, MONEY; abolishing
barter and trade, and cancelling all mammon-made laws, deeds, charters,
stocks, bonds, notes, and other red-tape and paper chains which hold
mankind in the bondage of delusion, and upon their site to build up a
_New Dispensation_ and a _New Humanity_.” The name of the new world was
to be “Olombia, or the New Columbia State of the World.” It was to be a
“Saturnian, or No-Money Commonwealth”; its members the “Spirit-Builders
of the White Light and the Truth University.” Everything under the new
dispensation was to be free, gratis, and for nothing--free material,
free labour, free habitation--in fact, free beer, free ’bacca, and free
mutton-chops.
Individuals in Olombia, or the “Realm of Celestial Light”--the “Kingdom
of Heaven now established on Earth”--were to be organised on the
Anarchist pattern of “groups” freely federated, and classified under
various industrial denominations called Orders, such as the Order of
Agriculturists, the Orders of Engineers, Carpenters, Masons, Tailors,
Bootmakers, Electricians, Journalists, Designers, Musicians, Teachers,
etc., which were to take upon themselves the Commonwealth management
and operation of the sources of production and supply; of its land,
buildings, storages, manufactories, farming, means of transportation,
etc. (which, of course, existed only in our “Messiah’s” imagination).
Every person between the ages of 21 and 50 who partook of the
Commonwealth supplies was to identify himself with one of these Orders,
and in return the “Kingdom of Heaven now established on Earth” was to
guarantee to each of its members a free livelihood, free conveyance,
free education, free literature, free amusements--in fact, free
everything!
Six hours was to be the Commonwealth working day; five days the
Commonwealth working week; twenty days the Commonwealth working month;
ten months the Commonwealth working year, and twenty-nine years the
Commonwealth working limit. Starting work at the age of twenty-one,
the “Spirit-Builders of the White Light” were to retire at the age of
forty-nine--the fiftieth birthday beginning each individual’s Jubilee,
the entering into which bestowed “Olombia Citizenship,” together with
“an undivided, untaxed, and untrammelled interest in the _Whole
Earth_ with all its productions, and a right to all that is desired
for the maintenance of life, health, liberty, development, culture and
pleasure, ‘without money and without price.’”
One can only exclaim, “Oh, what must it be to be there!”
Another beautiful and rather rare specimen of the Anarchist crank I
discovered in the same printing office. He was a believer in natural
living, and a “dress reformer” with a vengeance. He existed entirely
on a diet of nuts and cold water--aye, and what is the most amazing
part about it, flourished and grew fat on that diet. In the office
the Anarchists possessed a large old-fashioned printing-press, which
was turned by hand. This was very exhausting work, and would knock an
ordinary man out of breath in about ten minutes or so. The machine had,
consequently, to be worked by some four or five men in shifts of about
a quarter of an hour each. But this nut-eater outdid all of us roast
beef and pudding devourers, for he was able to work at the machine for
about an hour right off without any apparent sign of exhaustion. His
greatest fad, however, was in the “dress reform” line. He believed in
“natural dress,” and detested “conventionality.” Barbers, hatters,
hosiers, and bootmakers he abominated, and walked the streets in all
weathers hatless, bare-footed, and minus shirt, collar and tie, and
even waistcoat. One fine hot summer’s day he was arrested in the City,
a howling mob following him to the Guildhall, where he was charged with
being insufficiently clad. He was actually parading the streets “mid
nodings on” except a pair of short bathing pants!
[Illustration: THE ANARCHIST STYLE.]
An amusing incident once occurred at an Anarchist meeting in South
Place Chapel, Finsbury. It was a public meeting to “commemorate the
Chicago Martyrs.” One of the orators on this occasion was vehemently
dramatic in his style, and was trying to inspire someone among his
listeners with the necessity of “acting.” Warming to his work, he
concluded his speech with this fiery peroration: “Comrades! the Cause
of Anarchy is worth working for! worth fighting for!--aye, and, if
needs be, worth dying for!”--and down came his fist with tremendous
force on a small three-legged table which stood on the platform,
smashing it to utter smithereens, amid the uproarious laughter of
everyone present.
XV.
THE ABSURDITIES OF ANARCHISM.
The Anarchist is nothing if not an utopist. His ideas have their
foundation, not in the sure and solid basis of science, but in
the unstable grounds of sentiment. Facts, in his scheme, are not
necessary; in his blissful ignorance he dreams of stepping out of
the “hell of commercialism” right into that questionable heaven of
Anarchist-Communism. For him the laws of social evolution are as
nothing, or do not exist; and the angelic creatures he sometimes
depicts as modern men and women capable of living harmoniously without
government are but creatures of his own vivid imagination.
An instance of this general Anarchist ignorance of the laws of social
evolution, in a literature teeming with instances, occurs in No. 1 of
the _Alarm_, a now happily defunct weekly (and weakly) sheet issued by
the (once) Associated Anarchists, who conclude a statement of policy
with the following interesting but laughable information: “And we mean
to have Anarchy in our time.”[4]
[4] In one sense this prophesy was fulfilled; for, within a few months
disorder reigned supreme among the “Associated,” who constituted
themselves into rival factions, each faction in turn carrying out the
Anarchist doctrine of “individual expropriation” by means of periodic
raids (at dead of night) on the possessions of the opposing faction
(a common occurrence among Anarchists): the whole culminating in
the introduction of the police on the invitation of the Anarchists
themselves!
Passing from this, let us look at another phase of the folly of
Anarchism. A Communist-Anarchist is certainly a political freak;
his creed, as he himself tells us, is “two-sided” (not to say
one-sided)--“its political theory is absolute individual liberty, its
economic substance that of Communism.” What better evidence could one
require of the absurdity of Communist-Anarchism? Communism, meaning
the collective ownership and control of the land and instruments
of labour, necessarily involves authority to enforce the will of
the collectivity; Anarchism, on the other hand, is the negation of
authority--the doctrine of individual supremacy. Consequently, to
talk of Communist-Anarchism is to talk arrant nonsense; it is to talk
of authority without authority, organisation without organisation,
administration without administration! So that “Communist-Anarchist”
is simply another name for Socialist-Individualist, or,
Socialist-Anti-Socialist! What could be plainer?
Now, a consequence of holding such a mixture of opposite ideas is that
the Anarchist “movement” in time resolves itself, as we find it to-day,
into a medley of different sects, all at variance with each other.
One thing, anyway, is certain, and that is, that the Anarchists have
not made a mistake in choosing their name; for where two or three are
gathered together in the name of Anarchy, there also, of a surety, are
chaos and confusion. Much as rum follows missionary, so chaos dogs the
footsteps of Anarchy. Chaos in the “movement” and chaos in the brains
of those who compose it. Anarchy is emphatically not order--Kropotkin,
Malatesta and Co. to the contrary notwithstanding.
Again, a logical consequence of a belief in Anarchist-Communism is that
a thinking person, conscientiously holding such paradoxical views, is
certain, sooner or later, to renounce one or the other--Anarchism or
Communism.
Dr. Merlino--who has now happily seen the folly of Anarchy--writing
in the _Commonweal_ for January 9, 1892, deploringly complains of the
lengths to which his (then) fellow-Anarchists have gone in their
following of this will-o’-the-wisp of Anarchy. “There are,” he says,
“in our ranks people who evidently regard themselves as the ‘pure’
Anarchists, and who never fail, whenever their comrades propose
practical work of any kind, to stand up and speak against it in the
name of Anarchy.” My object in referring to this article here is simply
to point out that the kind of Anarchist there depicted is in the
ascendancy in the party, and is the real and only logical Anarchist.
Let us take a glance at him as he is pictured by Merlino: Opposed to
organisation, he yet belongs to his Anarchist “group.” He objects
to the latter appointing anyone to make the necessary arrangements
for lectures, sending round invitations for speakers, issuing
bills, collecting money, and so on. This he stamps with the word
“officialism.” He shuns officialism. He gets angry at the very idea of
appointing somebody to do something. He hates the very names “chairman,
secretary, organiser,” etc., and detests majority decision as the Devil
is said to detest holy water. Should some poor half-fledged Anarchist
in his “group” propose to issue a manifesto or start a club, the
out-and-out Anarchist sees at once the impossibility of doing any such
thing on Anarchist “principles.” He is scandalised at the very idea. He
looks upon these “philosophers” (as he will contemptuously call them)
as future dictators, and their plan as a mortal sin against Anarchy.
He will never tolerate working on a settled plan; and he is afraid of
Anarchism becoming a force for fear of his comrades being led astray.
Should his half-fledged “comrade” see in this or that particular
event--say, a strike--an opportunity for propagating his ideas, the
out-and-out Anarchist steps in and cries: “What business have you to
mix with these unworthy workers? They are not Anarchists at all! They
have a chairman and secretary in their union; they strike merely for
less hours and more pay, and not for an immediate reconstruction of
society; they don’t even help themselves from the shops. Will you run
the risk of becoming acquainted with them, perhaps making yourself
popular, and by-and-by getting into office, and then, turn against
your principles? Hold aloof, sirs, or else, we tell you, you are no
Anarchists.”
The above, absurd though it may seem to anyone unacquainted with the
Anarchists, is an unexaggerated word-picture of the farcical yet
logical consequences to which a belief in the sovereignty of the
individual must necessarily lead. The logical Anarchist, therefore,
is a down-with-everything-that’s-up advocate; his creed is a creed of
negations; _sans_ Government, _sans_ order, _sans_ decency, _sans_
everything necessary to the making of a prosperous and peaceful
community.
I remember reading in _Freedom_ an answer to an enquirer who wanted to
know what would be done under Anarchist conditions of do-as-you-please
in the following circumstances: The members of an Anarchist (ahem!)
Commune require a bridge; the majority favour one design, the
minority another. And what, think you, is the solution according to
the infallible gospel of Anarchy? Stand firm, poor human brain--it
is this: _Build two bridges!!!_ Ye gods! What next will they be
asking us to subscribe to? And supposing there be three, or for that
matter, fifty differences of opinion? Why, of course, build fifty
bridges! Verily, and of a truth, the Anarchist never opens his mouth
but he puts his foot in it. Designing and constructing such gigantic
undertakings as modern bridges seem to be, to him, about on a par with
the designing and erection of pig-sties. Cost--and it is here as well
to remember that the Tower Bridge cost £850,000--and waste of labour,
to the all-knowing Anarchist, are mere minor details, not worthy of
consideration. And then, just as if the foregoing “solution” of our
Anarchist world-regenerator was not sufficiently startling in itself,
we are actually told, “in cold blood,” that this Anarchical method is
“economical”!
“Do I sleep? Do I dream?
Do I wander in doubt?
Are things what they seem?
Or is wisions about?”
I look at my _Freedom_ again; yes, it is there right enough. Then
I think to myself, do these Anarchists mean what they say, or are
they only Bernard-Shawing? _Build two bridges!_ Yes, run opposition
railroads side by side; block the public streets with double sets
of tram-lines; allow every crank to have everything just as he
“darned-well” pleases; but, above all, erect a double quantity of
lunatic asylums, for under such imbecile conditions they will be needed!
One could almost respect the Anarchist if he were consistent--even
a trifle consistent. But he is the very incarnation and embodiment
of inconsistency. In one of his manifestoes he says: “No man can
honestly and truly represent anyone but himself, and if he says he
can, he is a humbug”--and straightway he lays claim to that not
very flattering appellation by presenting himself at the door of
an International Socialist Congress as the representative of his
Anarchist group! He believes in the liberty of the individual,
and tolerates no manner of rule whatsoever--and his patron saint,
Ravachol, in his autobiography, confides in us that, had he and his
comrades the power (anti-authoritarians shrieking for authority!)
they would “_suppress the majority_”!!! He rails at Parliament as a
useless institution, forgetful of the fact that Parliament does at
times accomplish something socially beneficial, however little that
_something_ may be; and, having delivered himself thus, will attend his
Anarchist Congress, which, mark you, is made up of “representatives”
of Anarchism from all parts of the world, who meet--to do something
practical? not at all--merely to “exchange ideas”--and then, having
gone through successfully this interesting farce of a Mutual Admiration
Society, return to the four corners of the earth, having accomplished
_nothing_! not even passed a resolution, for that is not Anarchistic,
you understand! He believes in freedom, execrates authority,
anathematises coercion--and throws bombs at religious processions, and
murders unoffending occupants of restaurants and theatres! But enough!
The follies and crimes of this absurd yet hideous phantasmagoria of
Anarchism are so numerous that, like unto the alleged unreported
sayings of Christ, were they recorded, “the earth would not contain
them.”
XVI.
ANARCHISM A BUNDLE OF CONTRADICTIONS.
_Credo quia absurdum._
Anarchism has been described as “individualism run mad”--certainly in
the Anarchist “Idea” there is a “tile loose” somewhere.
I well remember once listening to a lecture by a certain “Christian
Anarchist,” who, in the course of his remarks, happened to say
something which did not fit in with the ideas of another Anarchist
present. Rising in his place, Anarchist No. 2 indignantly and
vehemently protested against the “Christian Anarchist’s” heretical
views being palmed off as the true Anarchist gospel; and, producing
from his coat pocket a manifesto of some Anarchist-Communist Alliance,
quoted chapter and verse in contradiction. “Oh, yes,” exclaimed the
“Christian Anarchist” in reply; “I have seen that manifesto; indeed, a
long acquaintance with Anarchists has convinced me that there are as
many Anarchist Alliances as there are Anarchists, for every Anarchist I
have met has a special Anarchism of his own.”
This, coming from one “companion” to another, I thought somewhat rich,
but it certainly possessed the merit of being true--a merit not always
associated with Anarchists’ statements. Verily, where two or three are
gathered together in the name of Anarchy, there, of a surety, are chaos
and confusion.
A writer in the _Commonweal_, May 9, 1891, recognises this fact and
deplores it. “Anarchism,” he says, “includes among its advocates
men of the most divergent and irreconcileable opinions,” and, “as
an Anarchist-Communist,” he declines to “make common cause with an
Anarchist of the mutualist school”--in fact, wouldn’t touch him with
a pole. Edward Carpenter, taken to task by another Anarchist for the
mildness of his opinions, pleads for toleration (_Commonweal_, December
5, 1891) on the ground that, “after all, there are so many sections
among the Anarchists. There are,” he says, “the Anarchists who denounce
the blackleg ... and the Anarchists who cherish and embrace him; then
there are the Academic Anarchists ... and the Tarnation Anarchists
(followers of Albert Tarn), and the B.A.’s, or Bloody Anarchists.”
Add to these a few more, and the list will even then be far from
complete: Individualist-Anarchists (described by the Communists as
“cranks,” which we can quite well believe); Communist-Anarchists
(described by the Individualists as “charlatans,” which also we can
quite well believe); Collectivist Anarchists, (a Spanish freak);
Christian, or “non-resistance” Anarchists; ultra-revolutionary
Anarchists; “Tuckerites” (worshippers of Benjamin R. Tucker, of
Boston); Socialist-Anarchists (a peculiar species and very rare);
Mutualist-Anarchists; Democratic or majority-rule Anarchists; Political
Anarchists--in fact, a fine lot. One is forcibly reminded of the
exclamation of a noted artist on hearing the names of certain Royal
Academicians--“O Gemini! What a bally crew!”
If we take the definition of M. Proudhon, the supposed “father” of
Anarchism,[5] we find that in the Anarchist régime there is to be
“no more authority, absolute liberty of the man and the citizen.”
(“Les Confessions d’un Révolutionnaire.”) This was published in
1868; twenty-five years later one of the “father’s” small but noisy
progeny--les enfants terrible of politics--the London _Freedom_, rounds
on its “father” for putting forward such a “ridiculous claim!” “Where
is the Anarchist,” it asks (April, 1893), “who makes such a ridiculous
claim as absolute liberty?” Where, indeed! _Freedom_ should have a
better memory. If it will refer to its own issue for August, 1889, it
will find these words: “Anarchist Communism ... means absolute freedom
for every human being of either sex.” Nor is _Freedom_ alone among
the advocates of the “ridiculous.” The American _Firebrand_ (a very
appropriate title, by the way) week by week contained a stereotyped
definition of Anarchy as “absolute individual liberty;” the _Anarchist_
(March, 1888) makes the same “ridiculous claim.”
[5] I say “supposed” advisedly, for there appear to be several
“fathers” and disputations among Anarchists regarding the parentage
of this political illegitimate are without end. Some cast the blame
on Proudhon; others on Max Stirner; a third section makes Josiah
Warren responsible; while yet others lay the crime at the door of
Bakounine. Be this as it may, no one has yet disputed the right of
Kropotkin to be called the “father” of that political monstrosity
christened “Anarchist-Communism.” The editor of the _Anarchist_
(April, 1888) has been good enough to tell how the brat first saw the
light. This is what he says: “Before Bakounine died, Kropotkin once
told me that he (Bakounine) said that some day somebody would solve
the synthesis between Anarchism and Communism. Kropotkin, no doubt,
desired to be the ‘somebody,’ and said to some others (if I remember
aright, Reclus and Cafiero), ‘Let _us_ do it _now_.’ And forthwith,
Communism went into partnership with Anarchy, and, scientific-like--hey
presto!--Communist-Anarchism was manufactured on the spot.”
Let us take the programme of the “International Federation of
Revolutionary Anarchists” (an organisation with a name which in itself
was calculated to make the tyrants of the earth shake in their shoes,
but which, sad to relate, lasted but a month). “The aim of the party,”
we are told, “is the abolition of the State ... and the prevention
of its reconstitution.” Nevertheless, according to another Anarchist
“authority,” “Anarchy even covers the right of Governments to exist for
those who want and support them.” (_Anarchist_, July, 1887.) Here’s
a pretty fine how-do-you-do! “Government in all its forms” is to be
totally destroyed, yet still exist! Verily, as one Anarchist has truly
said, “the beauty of Anarchy is that its advocates differ.” And so say
all of us!
Stepniak, lecturing against Anarchism, is reported to have said as
follows: “In spite of Proudhon, work must be done in common, and there
must be, under what name you please, a directing body.” A writer in
_Freedom_ (March, 1893) commenting on these remarks, says: “No one
denies this.” So you see there is to be no government, but a directing
body! What could be plainer?
“The object of Anarchy” (_Anarchist_, October, 1887) “is for every
individual to do as he pleases, subject only to the only rule that
by so doing he does not infringe the like freedom of others.” Such
appears to me a fair statement of true, _i.e._, equal liberty. But
equal liberty involves authority (and there is to be no authority,
you understand) to prevent and punish those who overstep the bounds.
If equal liberty be the object of Anarchism, then the abolition of
government cannot also be its final aim--the two things being as
different as chalk is from cheese.
“The claim of government is no other than the claim of the strongest.”
(“Anarchy: Theory and Practice.”) But still, “whoever has might he
has right.” (Max Stirner, “Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum,” p. 196.)
So that Anarchists not only condemn government but justify it! “There
exists no natural right but might ... there is, therefore, no such
thing as natural justice, no natural morality, no society, nor any
liberty but license.” (_Anarchist_, August 1, 1888.) Under the new
Anarchist régime “organisation would be necessary,” of course, says
_Liberty_ (January, 1895). Nevertheless we are told, (_Truth-seeker_,
January, 1900) that “‘organisation,’ ‘government,’ ‘discipline,’
‘loyalty,’ ‘duty,’” are merely “pet phrases invented by would be
dictators,” and the “magic machinery through which the subjection of
the people is effected.” Thus, you see, there is to be organisation and
no organisation! We are getting on.
[Illustration: BRESCI,
The assassin of the King of Italy.]
Let us further examine this precious thing called Anarchist
organisation. Leaving out of account for the moment the fact that
organisation is impossible under conditions of “do-as-you-like,” the
fact remains that some Anarchists profess to believe in organisation.
Dr. Macdonald, writing in _Freedom_ (October, 1893), tells us that
“trade-unions are based on Anarchical lines.” Very well, then, the
basic principle underlying trade-unionism is that of authority,
punishments (fines), majority-rule, etc. Are we to understand that
all these will exist under Anarchy? On the contrary, according to Dr.
Nettlau (“Why we are Anarchists”), “a consequence of freedom is the
rejection of laws and majority-rule.” For these they would “substitute
the principle of unanimity” (_Freedom_, February, 1888). There is to
be no difference of opinion under Anarchy--all will be the very pink
of perfection. But stay! John Turner, debating with Herbert Burrows
(reported in _Freedom_, September, 1889) doesn’t think anything of
the kind. “I do not believe,” he says, “that people will agree on
everything--that is not my idea of Anarchism.” So you see that, after
all, Anarchism is not to be a paradise of stained-glass angels. On
the contrary, there will be differences of opinion just the same as
now. How will these differences be settled, always remembering that
“majority-rule is the vilest form of tyranny”? (_Freedom_, December,
1890). It appears they would have public meetings to discuss communal
affairs (and we all know the amicable spirit which animates a crowd
of disputants!). “Trifling objections,” it seems, “would disappear
in the discussions which would take place, and only differences of
opinion too strong to be bridged over would remain. Then each party
would set to work to carry into effect the plan it favoured. _It might
result from this that two, or even three, buildings might be erected in
the place of one originally intended._ But who could complain?” asks
our Anarchist world-regenerator. Who, indeed! “What we have said,”
continues our Anarchist friend, “about the constitution of a building
may be applied to all the wants of society--as well as to the making of
railways, canals, and telegraph lines ... in fact, to all the branches
of human activity”!!! (“Society on the Morrow of the Revolution,” by
Jean Grave.)
Let us see. “Majority-rule crushes individual initiative,
self-reliance, and reduces the individual to a State slave.”
(_Freedom_, November 1890.) However, “in all practical problems, if
men will not or cannot separate, and if it is not expedient to adopt
several different solutions at once, it is needful that one fraction
yield to the other, and I am very willing to admit,” says E. Malatesta,
“that it should be the minority which yields.” (“Parliamentary Politics
in the Socialist Movement.”) And again, “the traveller will still,
under Anarchy, be obliged to adapt his arrangements to the hours and
regulations which the majority have thought best.” (“A Talk between Two
Workmen,” p. 29, Malatesta.) This is what one vulgarly calls “giving
the game away.” We are even told that it will be needful to suppress
the minority should it persist in exercising its “right to do as it
pleases,” by “forcible action”! (“A Talk,” p. 29.) No wonder that Jean
Grave, the French Anarchist writer, whom Octave Mirbeau has described
as a “great authority,” almost “despairs of ever seeing a settlement
issue from the chaos of ideas which go by the general name of Anarchy!”
(“Société Mourante et l’Anarchie.”)
As a further illustration of the beauties of Anarchist “organisation”
the following will be of interest. _El Productor_, the Spanish
Anarchist paper, discussing the desirability of an International
Anarchist Conference in Chicago, proposed that all Anarchists should
send in a voluntary subscription, accompanied by the name of the
delegate whom they thought best to represent them; when these votes
had all come in, they were to be collected, counted up, and verified,
and the men whose names had most supporters (that hated majority-rule
again) were to be sent to Chicago, there to give voice to the opinions
and wishes of the Spanish groups, and to bring back an account of the
proceedings, and the conclusions arrived at. To these propositions six
Valencia Anarchists answered by a declaration in which they state that
they are opposed to the programme put forward by _El Productor_, which
they denounce as opposed to the Anarchist principle, _which denies the
possibility of one man representing another under any circumstances_.
To these objections _El Productor_ replies by saying that it _does
not consider the idea of representation to be opposed to Anarchy_.
The Valencia Anarchists go on to explain that their idea of what
an Anarchist conference should be, is that any Anarchist who feels
inclined to go should go; that he should go on no one’s behalf and
represent no one but himself; that the Anarchists thus assembled should
discuss for their own benefit any subjects they feel inclined to,
and they point to the Paris Congress of 1889 as a _beau ideal_ of an
Anarchist conference. _El Productor_ answers this by asking if a single
object was attained, or result arrived at, by the Paris Congress, and
replies in the negative.... Could any good come out of the Anarchist
Nazareth?
Speaking of Individualist-Anarchists, like Benjamin R. Tucker, of
Boston, Dr. S. Merlino, a one-time leader of London Anarchists, says,
“Individualists they are ... but certainly they are not Anarchists. Mr.
Tucker ... distinctly affirms that Anarchism ‘does not mean no laws and
no coercion,’ and advocates the institution of ‘Defence Associations,’
otherwise called Pinkerton police.” “Anarchist policemen ... would be a
fine spectacle,” exclaims Kropotkin (“Conquest of Bread”). Aye! a sight
for the gods![6]
[6] “Police and jails do not contradict Anarchism.” (_Liberty_, New
York, December 26, 1891.) “Anarchism recognises the right to arrest,
try, convict, and punish for wrong-doing, if by wrong-doing is meant
invasion.... If it can find no better instrument of resistance to
invasion, Anarchism will use prisons.” (_Liberty_, New York, October
24, 1885.)
“The Anarchism of to-day affirms the right of society to coerce the
individual, and of the individual to coerce society, so far as either
has the requisite power.” (_Liberty_, New York, June 7, 1890.)
In retaliation Mr. Tucker retorts that “Anarchist-Communists advocate a
régime of Anarchism fully as despotic” as he imagines State-Socialism
would be! And Henry Seymour, in the _Anarchist_ (March, 1888)
supplements this by saying that Anarchist-Communism is “arbitrarily
conventional and tyrannic--however professedly free.” “I have been
behind the scenes,” he caustically adds.
Let us try to understand the Anarchist theory regarding property. There
is to be “possession in common.” (Malato, _Freedom_, November, 1894.)
There is also to be private property: “We consistent Anarchists strive
to even extend private property.” (_Freedom_, June, 1891.) “The natural
law concerning possession is this: ‘that they should take who have the
power, and they should keep who can.’” (_Freedom_, August, 1889.) There
is also to be neither private property nor common property. “Private
owning means despotism unalloyed, while common owning means mob-rule,
so far as it is not officialism, and officialism so far as it is not
mob-rule” (L. S. B., in _Freedom_, October, 1893.)
Bequest is both allowed and denied. According to the “Anarchist’s
Programme” (_Anarchist_, March, 1888) bequest is permitted in the
new régime (“not denying the right of bequest”). On the other hand,
the Chicago _Vorbote_ (July 9, 1890), “entirely denies the right of
bequest.” However, to right this, “Anarchy proclaims the right of every
individual to help himself out of the common stock to what he needs.”
(_Freedom_, June, 1891.) But stay! “In an Anarchist society the man
who would steal from his neighbour, I hope his neck would be introduced
to a piece of hempen cord.” (_Freedom_, July, 1893.) Here is a pretty
fine kettle of fish! I am to “do as I please;” to “help myself to what
I need,” but stand the risk of being precipitately jerked into Kingdom
Come should I attempt to reduce the theory to practice! It is a queer
world, my masters!
But still, let us be thankful for small mercies. According to Malato
(“Philosophie de l’Anarchie,” p. 51) we shall still, under the new
Anarchist dispensation, be able to say “‘my’ comb and brush, ‘my’
pencil, ‘my’ newspaper.” Thank God (or Anarchy) for that!
The Anarchists are consistent only in their inconsistency. “Don’t do
as I do but do as I tell you,” is a maxim favoured by religionists and
Anarchists alike. By his very “principles” an Anarchist is excluded
from participating in what he calls “parliamentarianism.” Yet some of
the “companions” recommend the sending of Anarchists to Parliament.
“The only means left open to us now is to vote, and a few Anarchists in
Parliament would do an immense amount of good” (Morrison Davidson at
Autonomie Club, _Freedom_, March, 1894.)[7]
[7] “Anarchism is as hostile to the ballot as peace is to gunpowder.”
(_Liberty_, New York, August 29, 1891.) “Inasmuch as Anarchistic
associations recognise the right of secession, they may utilise the
ballot, if they see fit to do so.” (_Liberty_, New York, October 24,
1885.)
The Anarchist is an enemy of the State, opposed to majority-rule, yet
has the brazen effrontery to support them. “All that is necessary
is to combine and elect a majority of one House _to do nothing_.”
(Van Ornum, “Why Government at all?”) But why go to the trouble and
expense of electing Anarchists to Parliament “to do nothing,” when they
accomplish that same result so very effectually outside? So little
even did Proudhon himself think of the Anarchist “principles” he
himself is supposed to have originated, that he stood as a candidate
for the Constituent Assembly of France, and advised the working men
of that country to vote for certain candidates who pledged themselves
to “constitute value.” The Anarchist’s “principles,” in fact, change
with the condition of his liver. He reminds one of the candidate for
Parliamentary honours who concluded an election speech by saying,
“Them’s my principles, gentlemen, but if you don’t like them I can
change them!”
Briefly summarised, the case stands thus: In the coming “society of
free men called Anarchy,” there is to be no Government, you understand,
but a “directing body;” no authority, but “regulations;” majority-rule
is to be relegated to limbo, and in its place we are to have--the rule
of the majority; there is to be organisation and no organisation;
private property, common property, and no property; I am, in theory, to
do as I please, but risk my neck if I act upon it; there are to be two,
three, or more kinds of railways, tramways, buildings, canals, systems
of drainage, bridges, etc. (not to mention lunatic asylums) side by
side as experiments (why not padded rooms fitted to each house?). But
enough! My brain begins to whirl.
And now, dear reader (as they say in tracts), after you have read,
marked, learned, and thoroughly masticated the above precious items
of Anarchist “philosophy,” you will appreciate with me the beautiful
harmony of “Anarchist society” on the “morrow of the Revolution.” Oh,
what must it be to be there!
XVII.
“PROPAGANDA BY DEED.”
The following article is taken from the Anarchist journal _Liberty_
(London, March, 1894), and shows the attitude taken toward the matter
of bomb outrage:--
WHY I ADVOCATE PHYSICAL FORCE
_to repel the aggressive force of the governing class_.
BY G. LAWRENCE.
“In order to make clear my advocacy of such force as has been used
on the Continent (and will no doubt be used sooner or later in this
country too) it is well to state what position in, or rather outside,
Society it is from which I have to deal with the social problem.
I am an economic slave; that is, I have to sell my labour, being the
only thing I possess, to anyone who will purchase it; considering
myself lucky if even I can sell it to advertise the adulterated food
which poisons me, to build a church which robs me of my intellect,
to build a wall which prevents my looking upon natural scenery or,
worst of all, to advertise the cause of the candidate for office
whose interests I believe to be diametrically opposed to mine; I am
in a vice. I must sell myself to help do some job I would rather not
have done, or I must starve if I refuse so to sell myself. I am a
slave because I cannot choose my work according to my aptitude or
my principles; a slave because I must starve, beg, or steal, if not
employed on the terms laid down by another; a slave because I cannot
choose whether, even on terms not my own, I will be employed--and so be
able to live or not. A slave, because Society treats me, not as one of
its members, but as a tool or a ware, to be disposed of at any market
value like a log of timber or a bale of goods. I must do the bidding of
the commercialist if I desire to live; the alternative is starvation
and death. Thus, being an economic slave, I have no political rights.
Now while those who form Society, _i.e._, those who hold the property
of the nation and as a consequence enjoy political freedom, are
discussing the situation, I am suffering under it. It must not
be forgotten that there are plenty of nostrums advocated for the
regeneration of Society, by men who are politically free. Hundreds
of nostrums; but no particular hurry to come to any agreement about
them. And if one comes to review the many schemes put forward, it is
plain that the advocates of each of them are willing to do _something_,
provided only that the something to be done does not affect the
schemer’s individual position. The consequence is that nothing actually
_is_ done. It is all very natural; self-preservation is the first law
of nature. But we must remember that the economic slave is also a
natural being, and must therefore act in precisely the same way.
It is because I believe so strongly in the law of self-preservation
that I predict that the conflicting schemes propounded by the
propertied classes, each of which schemes is so devised as not to
interfere with the present position of those who devise them, must
inevitably fail. What then? The same natural law which thus robs the
rulers of power, will assert itself in the slaves, causing them to
resort to the only means of self-preservation which they possess,
namely, physical force. They will thus compel Society either to make
concessions, or to dissolve. In the latter case a new society would
begin to grow according to the real aspirations of the people, who,
having no longer any immediate interests apart from the rest of
humanity, would be inclined to act in a perfectly just and equitable
way.
But now what about acts of individual revolt? and are they beneficial?
They are just as truly a natural phenomenon as the general revolution
itself; justifiable, therefore, in the same way and proportionately
beneficial. They are, in short, part and parcel of the total
revolution, and an important part inasmuch as they contribute to
its success by forcing upon the attention of Society the desperate
condition into which it has got, bringing home to people otherwise
indifferent that something is really and radically wrong. This cannot
but induce thought as to how matters can be remedied. Even though
Society concludes that it is best to hang the individual rebel, at
least it has been moved. The chances are that when action becomes more
frequent Society will begin to alter the manner of its response. Deeper
consideration will be given, and minds thus unconsciously prepared for
the actual revolution.
My belief is that through the acts of such men as Ravachol, Pallas and
Vaillant all Society is roused to give at least a passing thought to
the social question; and the hard ground is broken for those whose
work it is to teach the philosophy of that question.”
The following article is taken from _The Torch_ _of Anarchy_, and was
written by Emile Henri, the Anarchist who was guillotined for blowing
up a coffee-house in Paris.
PROPAGANDA BY DEED.
BY EMILE HENRI.
“What does the Anarchist want? The autonomy of the individual,
the development of his free initiative which alone can ensure his
happiness, and it is solely by reasoning that he becomes a communist,
for he understands that he can only find his own happiness in that of
all men, free and independent like himself.
When a man in our present society becomes a rebel conscious of his
actions, and such was Ravachol, it is because his brain has been
engaged in a work of reasoning which embodies his whole life, analysing
the causes of his sufferings, and he alone is therefore entitled to
judge whether he is right or wrong in his hatred, in being savage and
even ferocious. As for ourselves, we believe that acts of brutal revolt
like those which have been committed hit the right nail on the head,
for they awake the masses by striking a heavy blow at them and showing
the vulnerable point of the Bourgeoisie, who still tremble at the
moment the rebel ascends the scaffold.
We perfectly understand that all Anarchists have not the temperament
of a Ravachol; each of us have a physiognomy of his own and special
aptitudes which distinguish him from his fellow-combatants.
We say that love engenders hatred; the more we love liberty and
equality, the more must we hate all that which hinders men from being
free and equal.
Thus without being led astray by mysticisms we look at the matter
from the standpoint of reality, and say: It is true that men are but
the products of institutions, yet these institutions are but abstract
things which exist only so long as there are men of flesh and blood who
represent them.
There is therefore only one way of striking at these institutions,
_i.e._, to strike the men themselves, and we are happy to vindicate any
energetic act of revolt against the Bourgeois society, for we do not
lose sight of the fact that the Revolution can only result from the
individual acts of rebellion all together.”
This manifesto was issued to the unemployed in 1886, and was largely
responsible for the West End riots of February 8 of that year.
[Illustration: _ANARCHIST MANIFESTO._
TO THE UNEMPLOYED. ]
The war-cry of revolution--“Work or Bread”--is ringing in the air.
Thousands of you are demonstrating in the streets; thousands of
you are parading your poverty instead of putting an end to it.
You cry for the crumbs of the wasted produce of your underpaid
and over-stocked labour--you, who create _all_ and are entitled
to all! _Bread_, indeed! “Man cannot live by bread alone.” Being
apostrophized as paupers, you now _beg_ for WORK--that snare by which
your idle exploiters fatten themselves and starve you; _work_--that
seal of your slavery! Cowards, not to _take_ all you _make_! To work
is to prolong your present misery. Your condition to-day--and it will
become worse--is one of the natural and necessary effects of the
capitalistic commercial system in which you are enslaved by law.
You are starving because you have worked too much! The markets are
glutted, the factories are closed, because you have been _too_
industrious. You have performed all the work that is needed and
demanded by Society, but you have not been _paid_. It is true that
your capitalistic exploiters doled out a miserable portion of your
earnings, sufficient to keep you alive merely, until _they_ were done
with you. But it is _your_ turn now--you have not done with _them_.
Your day of reckoning has arrived. Only 20 per cent. of the products
of labour goes back to labour: 80 per cent. is therefore the extent
of the combined fleecings of the wolves of usury!
Labour produced all artificial wealth. Artificial wealth is the only
kind of wealth that anyone has a right to own, and as labour alone
created all artificial wealth, it rightfully belongs to labour alone.
Those who monopolise all the natural, as well as the artificial
wealth, to-day, never had a just title to either. They are the real
rogues and vagabonds, the _only_ thieves and loafers. They bribe
their newspaper hacks to howl you down, and pay and pamper the police
to truncheon you when you speak out these facts in the name of
outraged justice! Is it not time, then, that you ceased to _talk_,
and made up your minds to _act_? Rally under the banner of Anarchy.
XVIII.
DOES SOCIALISM LEAD TO ANARCHISM?
It has been said that Socialism is merely the half-way house to
Anarchism. This belief, so widespread among Englishmen, is so palpably
absurd that one marvels how an intelligent person can be deceived
therewith.
[Illustration: THE EVOLUTION OF THE “COMMONWEAL.”]
The progress of the _Commonweal_ from Socialism to Anarchism is
instanced in proof. It will be seen from the headings of this journal,
which are herewith reproduced, that originally the paper appeared as
the “official journal of the Socialist League”; that later it blossomed
forth as a “journal of revolutionary Socialism”; and finally as a
“revolutionary journal of Anarchist-Communism.” This, it is said, is
proof of the close connection between Socialism and Anarchism. What are
the facts? Simply these: that from its inception the Socialist League
(to whom the _Commonweal_ originally belonged), from its anti-political
constitution, offered a field for Anarchistic propaganda. Whilst
consistently repudiating Anarchist doctrines, the Socialist League
differed from other Socialist organisations which attempted to realise
Socialistic projects by constitutional methods, in that it favoured the
anarchical policy of physical force revolution. A number of Anarchists
joined the League (as I have pointed out elsewhere), with the avowed
object of turning its efforts into out-and-out Anarchistic channels.
In this they were successful, for gradually but surely the Socialists
left the League in disgust at their “revolutionary” associates, and
the Anarchists were soon masters of the situation, having secured the
printing plant and machinery, as well as the _Commonweal_ itself,
immediately converting the paper into an exponent of revolutionary
Anarchist opinions. This is the real explanation of the _Commonweal’s_
change of attitude. Moreover, when the _Commonweal_ was the property of
the Socialist League it spoke out plainly against Anarchism, and when
it fell into the hands of the Anarchists it most bitterly declaimed
against Socialism and all its works.
It is quite true that a person who has but an imperfect grasp of
Socialist principles may possibly tend in an Anarchist direction, so
true is it that a little learning is a dangerous thing. But to the
Socialist who is also a student of history and economics no such mental
contortion is possible; he sees that as between Socialism and Anarchism
there must be war to the death--the one being the actual antithesis of
the other.
In the early infancy of the Socialist movement, when the essentials
were a red tie and a belief in the daily expected “revolution,” many
well-intentioned but certainly unlearned men and women flocked to
the Socialist banner in the expectation of the near approach of the
millennium. When the Socialist party attained its majority these
childish notions were cast on one side, and the task it set out to
accomplish was not that of overturning society and establishing the
complete Socialist Commonwealth at a blow, but that of convincing men
and women that the gradual adoption of Collectivist principles by
the State and the municipalities would prove so plainly beneficial
to the community that the principle would be extended until finally
all industries would be absorbed. In this they have been eminently
successful, for to-day, private capitalism for private gain is being
gradually but surely superseded by public co-operation for public
benefits.
This change of attitude on the part of the Socialists, of course, did
not satisfy the few discontents who, still faithful to the “Revolution”
and the red tie, naturally went over to the Anarchists, as being the
only party left which still stood for the old nonsensical ideas. Some
few years back splits occurred in three or four branches of the Social
Democratic Federation, notably at Canning Town, Deptford, and Peckham.
Some of the members who either resigned or were expelled that body,
now constituted themselves into local Anarchist “groups.” They were
composed almost entirely of young and inexperienced persons--many mere
youths (and everyone knows that youth is the period of indiscretions).
To-day the persons who once composed these three Anarchist “groups” are
anything but Anarchist in their sympathies; many, in fact, having gone
back to their old love--riper age having brought saner ideas. Of the
“groups” at Peckham and Deptford but two persons to-day remain faithful
to the Anarchist cause!
[Illustration: ANARCHISM AND--]
[Illustration: SOCIALISM.]
The belief that Socialism and Anarchism are synonymous can be explained
only on two grounds; either the person who makes the statement is
ignorant of the meaning and purport of either or both Socialism and
Anarchism, or he is a person interested in misrepresenting Socialism
from personal or political motives. Socialism is the exact opposite
of Anarchism, both in theory and tactics. Socialism means State and
municipal ownership of the nation’s industries for the nation’s
interest. Anarchism means the abolition of the State--central and
municipal--and of every form of organisation, system, and authority
whatsoever. Socialism proposes to reach its ideal commonwealth through
the constitutional medium of parliamentary and municipal action.
Anarchism seeks not to alter the social system, but to strike at its
representatives, and its weapons are the cowardly ones of knife, torch,
revolver, and bomb. The two theories have nothing in common.
XIX.
A PLEA FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF VIOLENT ANARCHIST PUBLICATIONS.
The idea is becoming general that the propagandist of violent Anarchist
doctrine should be treated with the same severity as is accorded those
who carry out the hateful tenets he preaches.
Human beings, as we know, have sometimes held beliefs of which crime
was the logical and necessary outcome--as, for instance, the Thugs
in India, who looked upon the murder of travellers as a religious
obligation. That Anarchism in its violent form is such a belief; that,
in fact, its creed is merely a cloak for crime of every description, we
have already seen.
Passing through a rather low-class part of East London, one fine
Sunday morning, I was pained to hear a crowd applaud an Anarchist
street-orator, who was openly and boldly advocating burglary and
crimes of almost every description. On my expressing my surprise to
a constable near by that Englishmen should approve such criminal
sentiments, he replied, “Why, sir, them people _practise_ what that
fellow’s preaching--they’re thieves, sir, every man jack of them.”
This was some years ago; since then I have made a special study of
Anarchist publications, and become acquainted with various Anarchists
in different parts of the country. The result of my experience is the
conviction that that constable was right--that the Anarchist agitator
is simply the mouthpiece of the criminal classes. We punish the man who
breaks the law, but leave the maker of law-breakers untouched.
The belief that “property is theft” (_vide_ Proudhon, the “father” of
Anarchism); that, according to the notorious Malatesta, everyone should
be free “to do as he pleases” under all circumstances; that “everything
belongs to everyone” (Kropotkin); and that a life of idleness and
robbery culminating in murder, such as was led by the Anarchist
miscreant, Ravachol, is a life which, according to the _Commonweal_,
is “worthy of emulation,” is a belief which is marvellously comforting
to those of criminal inclination, and to weak-minded persons who have
a natural propensity to commit acts of an anti-social character. Such
persons, in fact, flock to the Anarchist standard.
“Put money in thy purse,” wrote the notorious Johann Most, in his
_Freiheit_ of 1880. And the Anarchists have not been slow to act upon
it. And why should they not? Has not their creed erased the words
“right” and “wrong” from the vocabulary? “A fig for good and evil,”
exclaims the Anarchist Max Stirner ... “neither has any meaning ... my
concern is neither the godly nor the human; is not the true, the good,
the right, the free, etc., but simply my own self.”
“Pillage and murder the rich,” was the favourite theme, not only of the
French Anarchist slang journal _Le Père Peinard_, but of the various
London Anarchist journals, as I have shown. Cyril Bell, a well-known
London Anarchist, is reported in _Freedom_ (December, 1891) as advising
“revolt by refusing payment to shopkeepers whose goods we take when
we want them,” etc. The _Sheffield Anarchist_ said, “Don’t work;”
and Dr. Creaghe, its editor, says that the “only logical way for an
Anarchist to make a livelihood is by pillage,” which, with others, he
attempted to put into practice. However, after a while, he wrote in
the _Commonweal_ that he was “discouraged with regard to the No Rent
and Robbery Propaganda.” Not, mark you, because they were immoral--oh,
dear no!--but because they were rather risky. He then proposed a
poaching expedition as the easiest way of “living on the enemy.” “We
should have to fight though, and perchance kill an occasional keeper or
policeman,” he says, but this was only a mere detail, hardly worthy of
consideration.
The following is an extract, not from some Burglary Manual, but from
the writings of Prince Kropotkin, the leader of London Anarchists:
“Instead of inanely repeating the old formula ‘Respect the law,’ we say
‘Despise law and all its attributes!’ In place of the cowardly phrase
‘Obey the law,’ our cry is ‘Revolt against all laws!’” The effect of
such teaching can only be to demoralise rather than to elevate those
who embrace it. But it is especially the mischievous meddling of
Anarchists in strikes that is likely, one day, to produce results in
this country similar to what has often taken place on the Continent
and in America. There, acting upon the advice of Anarchist agitators,
strikers have introduced the weapons of the knife, revolver, torch and
bomb. It is true that here in England working men have not been led
upon this path of criminality. But it is not for want of trying on the
part of the Anarchists. During the great London dock strike thousands
of Anarchist manifestoes headed “Fight or Starve!” were distributed
among the men on strike, advocating the pillage of the shops, the
blowing-up and setting fire to the docks and wharves. When the East End
tailors struck, the Anarchist cry was altered to “Death to Sweaters!”
While the London busmen’s strike was in full swing the _Commonweal_
came out with an article recommending the poisoning of the horses. It
is true the paper said _don’t poison the horses_, but it was advice of
the don’t-nail-his-ear-to-the-pump order.
Among working men on strike, especially if the position is getting
desperate and hopeless, there are always a number of hot-heads ready
for mischief. This the Anarchists know and take full advantage of.
Thus, if they are able to get the ear of men on strike, their advice
is always to “seize the wealth in the shops,” hoping thereby, should a
riot occur, they will themselves come out of the scrimmage the richer.
One Anarchist I know, during the riots of 1886, when the unemployed
sacked the shops in the West End, secured valuables which, to my
certain knowledge, enabled him to dress in “purple and fine linen and
fare sumptuously every day” for over a twelve month.
To sum up. We have seen that the Anarchist looks upon all acts from
the point of view of the right of the individual to “do as he pleases”
under all circumstances, and who, in the name of that “right,” passes
a verdict of “not guilty” on the most atrocious deeds, the most
revoltingly arbitrary acts. “What matter the victims,” exclaimed the
Anarchist poet, Laurent Tailhade, on the evening of Vaillant’s outrage
in the French Chamber; “what matters the death of vague human beings if
thereby the individual affirms himself?”[8]
[8] Anarchists certainly have no liking for their own physic. It
appears that M. Tailhade was wounded by an explosion at the Restaurant
Foyet. A telegram in _La Tribune de Geneve_ of April 5th, 1894, says:
“M. Tailhade is constantly protesting against the Anarchist theories
he is credited with. One of the house surgeons, having reminded him of
his article and the famous phrase quoted above, M. Tailhade remained
silent, and asked for chloral to alleviate his pain.”
It is sometimes said that often the violent language of Anarchists
is but the hare-brained rattle of fools seeking a sensation. Be this
as it may, the fact remains that weak-minded persons, and those with
criminal leanings, are apt to take their writings and speeches
seriously, and act upon them. It is a fact that every Anarchist group
is composed largely of mere youths. To such, Anarchist views have some
attraction, as being calculated to allow a reckless independence,
freedom from control, and a kind of intellectual audacity which, for
a time, fascinates. Accordingly, in the interests of such, my call is
to everyone who has the moral and material welfare of the nation at
heart--to political and social reformers, to Socialists, and to every
kind of ethical and religious propagandist--to unite in calling for the
total suppression of violent Anarchist publications, and the dealing
out of equal punishments to those who incite to crime as for those who
commit the actual offences.
“Thy hand, great Anarch, lets the curtain fall,
And universal darkness buries all.”--_Pope._
_Wyman and Sons, Ltd., Printers, London and Reading._
Transcriber note
Spelling and punctuation errors have been corrected.
Italic text has been enclosed in underscores.
Smallcap text has been capitalised.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONFESSIONS OF AN ANARCHIST ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
