💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › charlotte-wilson-the-necessity-of-communism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:55:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Necessity of Communism Author: Charlotte Wilson Date: September 1887 Language: en Topics: communism, anarcho-communism Source: https://www.revoltlib.com/anarchism/the-necessity-of-communism/view.php
If all Socialists should agree together on the point which we have
developed in our last issue, namely, that the wants of all must be the
first guiding consideration of any revolutionary movement which has a
Socialist character--and we really cannot understand how this can be
denied, or even underrated--then they would perceive that the next
revolution, if it is guided by Socialist principle, must necessarily
drive them to Communism, and Communism drive them to Anarchy.
Of course, if we admit that the next revolution will have accomplished
its mission as soon as it succeeds in overthrowing the present rulers
and proclaims some great industrial undertakings, like railways and
mines, the property of a State democraticized a bit--everything beyond
that remaining as it is--then, of course, there is no use in speaking
about social revolution at all. It is no use to describe with so pompous
a word the visions of Herr Bismarck, who also dreams of taking all great
branches of industry under the management of the State democraticized by
Imperialism. We only remark that such a result would be utterly shabby
in comparison with the great movement of ideas stirred up by Socialism;
and that it stands in very strange contradiction with the hopes that
Socialists are awakening precisely among the most miserable elapses of
laborers.
But, if those who describe themselves as revolutionists--and really are
revolutionists, at least with regard to their proceedings, if not always
in ideas which inspire them--if they really mean a thorough modification
of the present state of property, they cannot avoid perceiving that the
day they begin any serious economical change in the present conditions
of property, they immediately will have to face the problem of providing
food for those who so long have suffered from want of it, of giving
shelter to those who have none worthy the name of a dwelling, and of
providing clothes for those who are now ragged and barefoot.
Not in the shape of charities, whosoever might distribute them; as
charities distributed by a municipal or local board brought to power by
the revolution, would remain as much an insult to those to whom they
were distributed as the charities of the millionaire at the present day;
but as something which is due by society to everybody; and, first of
all, precisely to those who have patiently waited for the "justice to
all" regularly promised by revolutionists and reformers, and always
forgotten as soon as the said revolutionists and reformers are on the
top of the political ladder. We do not care about "Coronation gifts," be
they distributed by a King, or by a shopkeeper acclaimed President of a
Republic, or by a brother-workman nominated municipal councilor. We
merely ask for what is due to everybody, everybody having contributed to
the extent of his capacities to the creation of the riches which
surround us.
To leave nobody without food, shelter and clothing, is the first and
imperative duty of each popular movement inspired by Socialist ideas;
and we wonder why our Socialist friends, so out-spoken in their
political programs, are so discreet exactly on this subject--the object,
the first aim, in our opinion, of any movement worthy to be called
Socialist. Is it a simple omission, or something so obvious that it is
needless to waste words upon it?
But, if it is really so, then, how is it possible to avoid Communism
entering into our life in the very first days of the revolution?
We have already said in our 8th number why the revolution in our present
conditions of property can only issue from widely-developed, independent
local action. The miners of a more advanced mining district, the
inhabitants of a more advanced city, cannot wait until all Great Britain
is converted to their ideas by pamphlets, manifestos, and speeches; they
will go ahead, saying to themselves that the best means to convert
everybody is example.
And now, imagine a revolted city where the majority follows the
Socialists. What must the Socialists propose if they really wish to be
with the masses, and march together with them for the conquest of the
future? What must they propose if they mean to be in accordance with
justice and with their own principles? The words Liberty, Equality, and
Fraternity are surely grand and glorious words. We may inscribe them on
each banner, and let them float over each house. We may even inscribe
them, as our Paris neighbors do after each revolution, on each public
building, even on prisons. But, what besides the words? Another word?
The nationalization of land, of mines, of capital, which may be full of
meaning, but may remain as meaningless as the great words of Fraternity,
of Equality, of Liberty, when they are painted on prison walls?
As to us, Communist-Anarchists, the question we shall put to ourselves
will not be, What shall we inscribe on our banners? It will be What
shall the workman eat during the next twenty-four hours! Is he able, and
must he continue to pay the rent to the landlord and house-owner? Where
will those who live in dens, or even have not a den to live in, spend
the next night?
These plain, brutal questions will be asked in each workman's household;
they will be asked in each of the slums so particularly described a few
years ago by the newspapers for the amusement of the occupiers of ducal
and princely palaces; they will be asked, however it the knowledge of
the workman and the slum-inhabitant of Ma rx's or Proudhon's Political
Economy. And they must be asked--and answered--by each earnest
Socialist, unless his presumptuous learnedness considers a question too
mean which has not been treated in Marx's 'Capital' or in Proudhon's
'Economical Contradictions.'
Once asked, there is, however, no other answer to the question than
this: There are so many houses in the city. Some of them are
overcrowded, some others nearly empty; some of them being dens which
even a beast would find too dirty, too wet, and too disgusting to stay
in unless compelled to do so; and some others embellished with all the
refinements of modern luxury.
It might remain so as long as we lived under the monopoly of private
property. It could remain so as long as humanity was considered as
consisting of two classes: the one created for the dens, and the other
for the palaces. It could remain so as long as there was a State ruled
by land, house, and capital owners, who exacted rack rents for their own
benefit, and called in police and emergency men to evict the rebels who
refused to enrich them. But it cannot remain so any longer.
Apart from a few cottages purchased by workmen families, at the price of
all possible privations, none of these houses can be honestly considered
as honestly acquired by their present owners. Humanity has built them;
they belong to humanity, or at least to that part of humanity which is
gathered on the spot. As soon as we proclaim that property--whatever its
shape--is an accumulation of wealth due to the spoliation of the masses
by the few-and who among Socialists does not affirm and re-affirm that
principle?--we can no longer consider property in houses as a sacred
right. They belong to all, and the very first thing we have to do is to
consider what use can be made of them in order to provide everybody with
a decent home.
The only rule to guide us must be the wants of each family, each of them
being equally entitled to enjoy the produce of the labor of generations
past and present. We cannot ask what each family will be able to pay for
a house; it is not their fault if thousands and thousands, brought to
misery by our former conditions, can afford to pay nothing, and even
those who can produce will be reduced to idleness by the economical
changes rendered necessary by the faults of our forefathers. It is not
big fault if the man there who has half-a-dozen children has none of the
accomplishments which characterize the owner of the palace and his
daughters. He and his wife have worked all their life long; can the
owner of the palace say as much of himself and his wife? And his rights
to a decent dwelling are as good as those of the palace-owner.
And the Socialist who is not a mere quack must accept this standpoint;
he must recognize that to take possession of the houses in the name of
the revolted city, and provide every inhabitant with a decent dwelling,
is the very first duty of the Socialist who is in earnest, whose
criticisms of the capitalist system have not been empty declamation.
Communism as to the dwelling must thus necessarily impose itself from
the very first days of any serious Socialist movement.
But, who can come to an allotment of this very first necessity of life
if the inhabitants themselves cannot do it? Can it be a local board? Can
it be any other elected body which will order: Mr. A. goes to house No.
10, and Mr B. to house No. 15? Obviously not! The settlement, any
settlement which would last for some time, can only result from the
initiative of all interested in the settlement, from the good-will of
all in conjunction. And a first step towards Anarchy--towards the
settlement of a grave social question without the intervention of
Government will be taken.
It will take some time to come to a satisfactory settlement of the
question of dwellings. The Russian mir spends sometimes three or four
days before a hundred householders come to a unanimous agreement as to
the repartition of the allotments of soil in accordance with the working
powers of each family (there is no government to enforce a solution
which is not unanimous), but they come nevertheless.
The settlement must be arrived at, for the very simple reason that the
present inhabitants of the dens and slums will not recognize that they
must for ever remain in their slums and dens, and leave the palaces to
the rulers of the day. And an approach to Communist will thus be
enforced--even on the most individualistic collectivist.