💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › petr-kropotkin-practical-questions.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:22:59. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Practical Questions
Author: Pëtr Kropotkin
Date: July 1887
Language: en
Topics: Libertarian Socialism, questions, practice, critique of leftism
Source: Retrieved on 28th February 2021 from https://freedomnews.org.uk/kropotkin-practical-questions/

Pëtr Kropotkin

Practical Questions

We said in our last issue that “Nationalisation of Land,” if it becomes

the watchword of the next movement in this country, will simply mean

nothing more than the expropriation of the landed aristocracy, and the

seizure of land by the middle classes; the creation of middle-class land

proprietors who may prosper for a number of years, and even increase the

amount of agricultural produce raised in this country, who will

monopolise the land in their turn; while the small land-proprietor will

be ruined by competition, taxes, and mortgages. In short, something like

what happened in France by the end of the last century, when the soil

was also transferred on a large scale from the landed aristocracy to the

wealthier farmers and peasants.

Is it worth moving a finger for so pitiable a result?

To this our Socialist friends will probably answer that their work will

not be lost; that by the time when some modification in the present

system of property grows ripe, their propaganda will also bear its

fruits; and that it will result as well in a nationalisation of the

mines, the manufactures, and the means of communication.

We hope so too. But we cannot restrain from asking, Are our Socialist

friends really preparing to achieve this result, and if they are, what

ways and means do they propose for accomplishing the desired

modification?

The question is the more necessary, as it often happens now that after

having formulated the aims of Socialism, the realisation of those aims

is considered as something very remote, so remote that it must be left

to future generations. Many a “sympathiser” joins the ranks of Socialism

precisely because he sees in it nothing that might be realised soon;

while earnest Socialists are precisely those who consider that an

attempt at bringing their principles into life must be made at the next

opportunity, and they prepare the opportunity itself.

If it is meant in earnest that the next movement in Europe must be an

attempt towards restoring the land, the machinery, and the capital to

the producers, it is high time to consider also the means of realising

this immense change. Of course, we do not mean that a program of action

ought to be traced beforehand. The General Staff of Germany may trace

beforehand a plan of invasion of France in all its details — we can not.

The chief element for a sudden modification of institutions centuries

old is the people; and no politician can foresee how the movement of

ideas may grow in the masses of the people.

But there are, at least, some leading features which ought to be agreed

to; some leading principles, so important that not to settle them would

simply mean to move without knowing where to go, and thus prepare the

indubitable failure of the undertaking.

One of these features which we already have insisted upon, is that of

local and extra-parliamentary action. And we maintain that nobody can

concretely reason upon the ways and means of modifying the present

system of property without perceiving that unless there is local action,

unless full play to local initiative is given, the change cannot be even

so much as attempted.

Suppose that a Government, or, a body of representatives who have driven

away the people sitting now at Westminster, and who proclaim themselves

Government, launch decrees to the effect that all the land, all

manufactures, and railways are proclaimed a property of the State. Will

anything be changed?

The decrees will remain dead letter, because every land-proprietor and

every proprietor of manufactures would arm a band of cut throats to

defend his property. And as long as it is not seized de facto by

somebody, he will remain proprietor of the land or of the factories.

What a nice collection could be made of decrees launched, not only by

dictators but even by so powerful a body as the Convention, whose

watchword was “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity — or Death!”— death very

speedily following the menace, decrees which remained dead letter, and

even had not so much as a beginning of accomplishment!

But suppose the private property is seized in the name of the

nation–what next? We are told, the Socialists will organize the

production. But which production? The wage-production of our days, when

the State will supersede the employer? Is it possible? And the

production of what? Of velvet? of lace? of jewelry? of cottons and iron

for export to France and Italy while the world-trade will be shaken by

the commotion? Of objects of luxury while there will be no corn for

feeding the masses, because the revolted Russian, Hungarian, and Indian

peasants surely will prefer to keep the corn for themselves instead of

selling it every autumn for the payment of taxes?

Thousands of like questions rise before the mind as soon as one, begins

to reason about the possible organization of society on new Socialist

principles. And we, earnestly invite all those who take heart the cause

of Socialism to discuss those questions.

We invite them the more to do so because we are persuaded that as soon

as they discuss concretely the means of realizing the changes they aim

at, they will be compelled to arrive, as we did, at the following

conclusions:

The change cannot be made by law, It must result from thousands of

separate local actions, all directed towards the same aim. It cannot be

dictated by a central body: it must result from the numberless local

needs and wants.

And the change must aim above all at satisfying the wants of the.

masses; its starting-point must be in the wants of the consumers,–not in

the present production, which takes no account of these wants, And if it

takes these wants for its starting-point, it unavoidably will come to

the necessity of immediately taking a Communist direction — instead of

trying the mitigated wage system of Collectivism.

We shall return again to this last, most important question. In the

meantime let us remind our Socialist friends that Socialism is already

entering a new phase of development. Its critical phase, when it merely

criticised the existing conditions, is already accomplished. The

criticism has been done under all aspects. It remains only to spread its

results and to induce everybody to act up to it.

But let us not remain indefinitely in this first phase. One of the

causes why former attempts at bringing Socialism into life failed was —

among others — the want of a concrete idea as to the ways and means for

realising the aims of Socialism.

Let us not repeat the same error.