💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › emile-armand-the-great-debacle.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:27:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Great Debacle Author: Émile Armand Date: (March 1915) Language: en Topics: anti-militarist, anti-war, war, World War I Source: Retrieved on December 22, 2011 from http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/archive/The_Great_Debacle][libertarian-labyrinth.org]]. Proofread online source [[http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3765, retrieved on July 14, 2020. Notes: From Mother Earth 10, no. 1 (March 1915): 431–434.
I am asked to write an article for Mother Earth for its tenth
anniversary. I do it gladly, for since it first appeared I have followed
its career with a lively interest. I do not write this as a compliment,
such as one makes a person one wishes to please. The proof of my
interest in Mother Earth is shown by the articles and extracts I have
translated and published from it. I have before me, at this moment, a
collection of the most recent numbers of the French publications which I
have been editing the past fifteen years. I need only glance through
them to find these articles. Here, taken at hazard, are “The Tragedy of
Woman’s Emancipation,” by Emma Goldman; “The Dominant Idea,” by
Voltarine de Cleyre — two remarkable essays; “Tendencies of Modern
Literature,” by Zuckerman; “The Story of Annie,” by Elizabeth Boole; a
study of “Moses Harmon,” by James F. Morton; another on “Manuel
Pardinas,” by Pedro Esteve. Then again I find a “Proclamation,” by W.
Curtis Swabey, and a poem, “The Revolt of the Ragged,” by Adolf Wolff. I
pass by, I need hardly mention, numerous quotations, etc., I have made.
I believe this is eloquent testimony to my interest in Mother Earth.
I confess that I would like to write at greater length, and put more of
joy into this contribution. I know the struggles and difficulties and
opposition that a publication like Mother Earth encounters. To have
resisted and existed so long in a country like the United States is a
victory to be acclaimed by songs of triumph. But my mind is too
preoccupied and my heart too torn to express the joy this anniversary
calls forth. One subject only haunts me and torments me: the
unquestionable bankruptcy of the movement of advanced ideas in our old
Europe.
I do not belong either to the Socialists, or the Anarchist Communists,
and their attitude did not surprise me very much. I have already seen
too many turncoats and apostates. And the Individualists are not exempt.
Still I confess that my imagination did not come up to the reality.
I ask myself if I am not dreaming when I see this Revolutionist
abandoning the class struggle for the time being to assist in the
national defense; and that Anarchist, as a diplomat emissary to neutral
States, to put before them a scheme that will precipitate a gigantic
conflict between millions of men. On the billboard opposite is an
official poster, on which appears the names of high ecclesiastical
dignitaries, the most reactionary men in the public eye, fused with the
most ardent of the Socialist Deputies and the most popular leaders of
Syndicalism. One need only read the letter of resignation of Pierre
Monatte, of the Council of the Confederation du Travail to see whether I
exaggerate.
I must say that the attitude of the intellectuals is not more
encouraging. Among literary men, until now known as anti-nationalists;
among scholars, renowned for their pacificism, one can count on one’s
fingers those who have protested against the war-fury let loose on
Europe by the sinister International of War. Nearly all of them — the
religious and the free thinkers, atheists and monks, those who incline
toward the pen, and those who depend on speech — nearly all have joined
the fighters. What a collapse!
I know well enough that revolutionists in neutral countries are writing
and proclaiming the ideas of the old International of the workers,
protesting against this stand of which I write, and are dreaming of
revolution after the war. First of all, one may say, that it is not a
great virtue to write like this in a neutral country, where one is quite
sheltered, and one might ask what the attitude of the protestants would
be if their country were drawn into the conflict. It is quite evident
that those who favor the idea of insurrection ignore completely the
state of mind of our opponents. One must be blind not to perceive that
such a movement would have no chance of success. There exists a
repression, worse perhaps, than that which crushed the Commune of 1871.
It gives the governments an easy opportunity to impose silence — without
a chance to reply — to the rare spirits who may have resisted in the
first general disorder. It is on this handful of men that the mass of
those who may escape from shot and sharpnel, excited by the paid press,
will perhaps avenge themselves at the end of the war, for having been
kept so long from home.
As it was impossible to prevent the massacre, and as it is impossible to
stem it, much as we would, I believe that we ought to ask if we have not
been deceiving ourselves until now about the value of our propaganda, as
well as the way we have gone about it.
And here I wish, in all sincerity, to give the results of my experiences
and my reflections.
I believe that the anti-authoritarian propaganda is at present incapable
of touching and profoundly rousing a great number of men. I think that a
movement of the masses has no chance to make itself felt without being
strongly organized, disciplined like the military. I think that,
generally speaking, human beings can not get along with authority. I
think, too, that without a strongly centralized organization, it will be
impossible to alter our economic conditions.
I am absolutely convinced that only a small minority, a very small
minority, among men, are seriously reached and profoundly moved by our
propaganda of criticism, of doubt, of rebellion, of free investigation,
of independent research.
On the other hand, it is clear that our first interest lies always in
seeking to increase this minority; to keep it, under all circumstances
alive, active, refreshed. Our own happiness depends on it.
But we will not be able to keep alive a vigorous spirit of revolt in
this small minority, if we give our propaganda a purely negative
tendency, a tendency frankly destructive. Too often we do not stop to
inquire where their preconceived ideas have disappeared when we give
them a social morality of “a future society,” a mature economic system —
all of which is more than remote. Too often we have wished “to
reconstruct their minds, without waiting to see whether “the
destruction” was complete. It is our greatest fault.
Many of those with whom we come in contact believe in extra-natural
ideas, in abstract aspirations, in far off results, in joys, not based
on the senses, many, who would not wish to make a clean sweep of notions
of “rights” and “duties” against the State and Society in all its
domains (social, moral, intellectual, economic, etc). One must expect
that the first crisis will leave them bewildered and ready to give up.
The free man says to himself: “No duty binds me to my fellowman or to my
world that oppresses and exploits me, or maintains or contributes to
that which oppresses and exploits me. Nothing more will I give to the
man or the world that I despise. I do not give him or them any right to
my person, my life or my production. Neither do I recognize that I have
any right over the person, the life or the production of another. I
reject all imposed solidarity, all forced fraternity, all coerced
equality. I do not accept any association, except that which I freely
choose and freely consent to, and reserve the right to break it off
whenever I feel it may injure me.” On the above must rest the existence
of all enemies of authority. It is the raison d’être of their existence.
It would be on this basis that theory and practice would really be
efficacious, and this is how we must carry our anti-authoritarian
propaganda to those who are interested.
Life is never a conserved phenomenon. It comprises, on the contrary,
many phenomena essentially destructive. It is negation itself of fixity,
it is a continuous selection, an incessant wear and tear. Everything
annihilates and consumes itself. That is why a rebellion accomplished by
individuals, without much idea of social reconstruction, comes much
nearer being a vital action, it seems to me, than a revolution made by
allied conspirators, of an organization with a well defined theory of
communal happiness. The latter is altogether conservative; a
governmental conception that must impose itself even on those who have
no desire for communal happiness. This conception has nothing
anti-authoritarian in it.
I am convinced that that only logical attitude that the enemy of
authority and exploitation can adopt — practiced by one like the other —
is an attitude of resistance, of objection and of opposition to all that
threatens him — environment, institutions, individuals — that limit his
development, and crush his personality. I think it is because the
communist, revolutionist, or individualist propaganda neglected to
insist on this essential attitude that we are the witnesses of the great
debacle which is saddening all of us.