💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › freedom-press-anarchy-versus-social-democracy.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:16:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

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

Title: Anarchy versus Social Democracy
Author: Freedom Press
Date: September 1, 1889
Language: en
Topics: Freedom Press, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, democracy
Source: Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, Vol. 3 -- No. 34, retrieved on August 29, 2019, from http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=2961.
Notes: Freedom Press, London

Freedom Press

Anarchy versus Social Democracy

On the evening of Sunday August 25th the hall of the Patriotic Club,

Clerkenwell Green, London, E.C., was well-filled by Socialists anxious

to bear the debate between our comrade John Turner, Anarchist Communist,

and HERBERT Burrows, the Social Democrat.

MORRISON DAVIDSON, who occupied the chair, said he sympathized with both

Anarchists and Social Democrats. Anything that taught the English people

to revolt against authority was, in his opinion, good. Anarchy was not

as the ignorant imagined a synonym for disorder. Those who advocated it

regarded it as the highest form of order. They regarded Law as an evil

in itself. They regarded the government of the majority as little better

than the government of the oligarchy. He believed, however, that they

would have to go through the stage which his old friend Herbert Burrows

advocated. Yet he thought that the ultimate result would be what Mr.

Turner advocated. It was simply a question of precedence.

JOHN TURNER said: The first thing I have to do is to meet one or two of

the objections which are constantly put forward by the Social Democrats

in opposing the Anarchist position. Take the question of economic rent.

It is contended by Social Democrat, that Anarchism would be wrong

because it would allow people living on a fertile soil to confiscate

this advantage to the disadvantage of the rest of the community. And

they say it would be no more right for the people living on a fertile

tract of country, say in Yorkshire, to take the difference of fertility

between that particular district and any other in England, than it is

for the landlord to take the rent of any piece of land today. It is

contended by other Social Democrats that shops having an advantage in

position have just the same advantage as the fertile soil. They say it

would be just as wrong for the shopkeeper to take it as it is for the

private landlord. I contend that immediately Socialism is established

the conditions would be changed and this economic rent would adjust

itself. Take, for instance, the advantageous position of a shop in

Cheapside over a shop in a back street, and the contention that the

difference in the value of the position should be taken by the

community. But immediately you have organized a system of social

cooperation you will find many advantages of position disappear. You

will find that the people will just as soon go into Wood Street as into

Cheapside and it is only because of advertising and the special show of

the windows that Cheapside is preferred today. Look at the Cooperative

Stores. Many of them have been started in quiet back streets and they

have turned those streets into busy thoroughfares. Advantages of

position are constantly changing also. The driving of costermongers into

a side street will raise the value of the positions in that street

immensely. As to land agriculture, if there is free access to the soil

you will have a constant migration of people towards the advantageous

land. You will find they will crowd there until the advantages

disappear. The absence of the restrictions of the private landlord in

the society of the future will almost entirely alter the conditions of

agriculture. You will only be able to find out the real economic rent of

the country when the laborers have free access to the soil. How are the

Social Democrats going to assess the economic rent? Are they going to

leave it to the people on the soil or are they going to keep an army of

assessors? And if the people on the fertile soil refuse to give up the

difference how are they going to take it? Are we going to have Irish

evictions ad lib? are they going to take it by force?

The Social Democrats are constantly asking the Anarchists how they are

going to organize labor? Will you have rules? Yes. Then how are you

going to enforce them? We believe in coming to agreements to do certain

things, but if people object we do not believe in forcing them. The

Social Democrats or rather a portion of them believe in a national

parliament organizing labor. Sometimes they talk of it as an assembly of

servants, but parliament is an assembly of persons elected by the

people, holding supreme power, and servants do not hold supreme power.

Others believe that this is impossible and advocate local

administration. The Social Democrats in their program say that Ireland

and other parts should have legislative independence. Why should this

principle not he driven right home and why should not each group of

persons who wish for it regulate and manage their own affairs as they

like. It is often put forward that the commune should be the unit having

this particular power, but we as Anarchists no more admit the right of a

majority in a commune to dictate to others in the commune than we admit

the right of a majority in a nation to dictate to others in the nation.

Some Social Democrats consider that the national assembly should be only

an assembly of delegates who would bring back their decisions to the

different communes to be rejected or accepted by them. This is simply

federalism. We Anarchists, however, say that groups of workmen inside

the commune should have the right to make their own regulations. We

believe that groups in a particular town should be perfectly at liberty

to do what they like without asking the permission of the Commune or the

Parliament in any way. We say this is the logical outcome of the

federalistic system which entirely knocks upon the head the idea of a

supreme parliament. The essence of the parliamentary system is that

equal geographical areas or equal populations elect representatives, and

these pass laws which have to be accepted by the whole community. And

this brings up the question of majority and minority. It is said and

with truth that an effective number of people will always have its way.

But in your parliamentary system you are giving supreme power to the

majority, acknowledging by that fact the right of the majority which we

as Anarchists entirely repudiate.

The Social Democrats say they have a plan and a line of action. They

have their palliatives, but they are continually writing and speaking to

the effect that these palliatives if put into operation tomorrow would

be of little use. They should either drop them or stick by them firmer.

We Anarchists have a line to work upon, to teach the people to urge them

to take part in nonpolitical movements directly started by themselves

for themselves. We are nonpolitical. Politics is the science of civil

government. We do not believe in the government or the science.

It is said that we Anarchists do not believe in coercion. Coercion is

restraint, compulsion, and especially it is penal restraint. Laws are

the expression of this coercion, and today we are always being told that

we must get this law passed or that law altered. But all this is little

good to the workers. The law which is passed today nominally for their

good way turn out all against them in a very short while. Take, for

example, the Court of Appeal to settle rents in Ireland. At first it

worked well, but the government gradually got their men in and it

happened that the courts were actually raising rents because they

thought them unfairly low. That should prove at least that even where

laws are passed for the benefit of the people the government will find a

way eventually to use them as instruments against the people. Look at

the strike now in progress. When the Anarchists have said that as soon

as the people learn to rely upon themselves they will act for themselves

without waiting for parliament to help them, it has been disregarded.

But their words have come true. We have an example of this truth in

London now. Had the strike began upon the old trade union lines, not had

it started on the lines of expropriation, who knows how rapidly it might

have spread. When we teach the people to place their faith in

themselves, we go on the line of self-help. To teach them to form their

own committee of management, to repudiate their masters, to despise the

laws of the country—these are the lines which we Anarchists intend to

work along. Let them, if they will, commence by claiming the right to

appoint their own foremen. This very day I have suggested to the men on

strike that the trade unions should take over the work instead of the

contractors. They might follow this up until they gradually get control

of the whole concern, and then they would find the capitalists as

unnecessary as monarchs have been found to be.

HERBERT BURROWS: We are absolutely agreed that the present state of

society is rotten, that the present system of private property in the

means of production, transit and exchange, should be abolished and that

in some form or other the Social Revolution must come. And we agree on

the definition of Anarchism. We also agree that if it were possible

tomorrow to get this perfect Anarchist system it would be the highest

ideal society and the best thing for which we could strive. I take it

that Turner speaks here tonight as the representative of a particular

school of Anarchism.

The speaker then went on to read extracts from Albert R. Persons' book

on "Anarchism," by which he endeavored to show that Anarchy was largely

composed of Social Democracy, contending for example that the use of the

word "organization," implied Social Democratic organization. He also

claimed that Social Democrats had laid the foundation of the strike then

in progress and had caused the Sweating Commission to be held, although

how this proved the truth of State Socialist theories he did not

condescend to explain. Continuing his quotations, he extracted from

Freedom and William Morris's letters in the Commonweal. It is to be

hoped that he will take up the challenge thrown out by Freedom some time

ago and send in his objections to Freedom in writing.

He went on to say: There is no more divine right in a majority than a

minority, but how are matters to be settled if not by the majority.

Supposing there are a hundred people carrying on a certain system of

production. At the end of a certain time they disagree as to how that

production is to be carried on, I believe they must argue the matter

out. But how is it to be decided? Supposing sixty want one thing done

and forty want another, what is to be done? Turner would say they can go

and build another factory or go and work on land. But supposing that

factory is the product of the labor of the hundred. I want to know why

either the forty or the sixty should give up the result of their labor

and go? I disagree from Turner entirely that compulsion consists in

shutting people up in prison. I have pointed out at the meeting today

that the strikers have a perfect right to treat the blacklegs as moral

lepers, but that is compulsion. Boycotting, too, is compulsion. I want

to know if Turner is going to lay down the position that moral

boycotting is not as bad as imprisonment. I have here an Anarchist

pamphlet by Andrade of Australia, in which there are laid down certain

rules for an Anarchist society, and one of those rules is that if a

member does certain things you can expel him; is not that compulsion? As

to what Turner has said about Parliament, he knows we condemn the

present parliamentary system. We would not have the same parliamentary

system as they have now, we would have delegates. I am strongly in favor

of the Referendum. I am a Municipal Socialist, too. A Communal Socialist

if you like to say so, in this respect. I would have things that can be

managed locally managed by the Commune and national affairs by the

National Assembly. I am going to ask Turner how be can carry on the Post

Office by groups? how he can carry on the railway system by groups?

Supposing you have got your post-office, there must be some sort of

authority, there must be a certain set of rules drawn up as to how it is

to be carried on. The letters must catch certain trains, they must be

sampled in a proper manner, and so on. Supposing a man persists day

after day in being late with his letters, I want to ask Turner what he

is going to do. Is he going to have some system of compulsion for that

man or not? Complete Anarchism, I believe, is when everybody agrees on

everything. I want to ask Turner if he is going to have any sort of

compulsion for people who do not do their duty.

With regard to education. Supposing there are people in the country who

will not send their children to school, supposing there are people who

bring their children up in a state which would not make them good

intelligent citizens, would Turner use compulsion with them? I hold that

a child who is brought up in these conditions is an enemy to society.

What is to be done with that child? If I can drive Turner to one

position where he would use compulsion his Anarchism breaks down. As to

economic rent I want to know why I am not to turn out a man who is on a

better piece of land than I am? Supposing there is a public park in a

place or a free library, the people who are nearest the park or the

library will have an advantage. Why should they? The common answer of

the Anarchist is I believe that the people who live say three miles off

should put up another library or park; but why should they be driven to

this expenditure of labor? If there is a fertile spot in Yorkshire on

which with two hours' labor I can produce a bushel of potatoes, but in

Surrey where I am the land is poor and it takes four hours to get the

same amount of wealth, where is the justice of that? The position is

that the land is not the property of the commune, it is just as much

mine as it is his, and yet I am told all I can do is to move my goods

and chattels to the other side of the country to where the fertile land

is. Surely it is better that a certain amount should be paid in order to

equalize the values of the land. I don't advocate shutting people up in

jail. I would have a law passed, for instance, with regard to insanitary

dwelling, by which notice should be given to the owner of every such

dwelling that if he did not put it into sanitary condition within a

month it would be confiscated.

TURNER: Whilst I am equally in favor of the intended effect of these

sanitary laws of which Burrows speaks. I know that those law, which have

been passed and which might do some good, have been put in force in very

few instances. Acts of Parliament are no good, unless the people are

educated to enforce the very laws themselves which they want to put into

force, and if this is so why cannot they put what they desire into

effect without a law? It is true that the Government might pass any bill

but to put it into effect is quite another matter. Referring to economic

rent, one form of it is the rent of ability in which some Social

Democrats believe. A man who is a good organizer, for instance, would be

able to get more than other men in a factory, and Social Democrats admit

that no law could prevent this. Burrows doesn't believe in prisons, but

how is be going to get his economic rent. If he leaves it to the people

themselves to assess it there might be a few discrepancies, and if a

large body of men is kept up to assess it would not the cost of

maintaining them reduce the surplus of economic rent. Babeuf has

suggested that the men on the least productive land should be given a

recompense to prevent their crowding on to the more productive. If this

is voluntary I think it a good plan.

I do not believe in a hard and fast law to suit all cases alike. I

believe that each case has to be acted upon according to the

circumstances of the case, and that is a matter for the persons

concerned. As to compulsory education, I do not believe in it. I know

plenty of boys today who went to school with me and had as good an

education who could not write a letter to me now. The education gained

in school is practically lost, when the worker goes into the world, in a

few years. But in a free society children will receive every

encouragement to learn and compulsion will be unnecessary. As to the

difficulty about the bridge, suggested in the quotation from William

Morris's letter, those who want it will build it. True enough those who

did not build will walk over it afterwards, but there must be such

sacrifices, just as today the work of the trade unionists has benefited

those who would not take part in their struggles. I do not believe that

people will agree on everything—that is not my idea of Anarchism. And it

is because we Anarchists believe they will disagree on certain points

that we are Anarchists and leave them free to make their arrangements

among themselves.

BURROWS: I believe that some things will have to be managed nationally

and others locally—that is my idea of the future organization. As to the

assessment of land values, either the people of each municipality must

assess it themselves or there must be a body of experts. As to getting

it if the people on the fertile land did not pay the difference to the

community they would be acting against my interest and I should be

justified in taking it by force. Here Turner and I agree for he

justifies the use of force against those who act against his interest.

No man has a right, under any system of society, if our houses are

joined together, to burn down his house and thus endanger mine.

Therefore, if that be so, there must be somebody to decide as to when

any one's interest is infringed upon. It must be either the majority or

the minority. I admit, that Anarchism is the best state of society, but

before you get that state of society what are you going to do? Turner

has admitted that under some circumstances he would employ coercion, and

the gist of his opposition to Social Democracy is that Social Democrats

would under certain circumstances employ coercion. He has therefore

accepted our position and we are on the same lines. What is law? He

seems to suppose that there cannot be a law without it is passed by an

Act of Parliament. The philosophical definition of a law is a certain

rule made by a certain set of men for their own guidance. This club has

got rules and if a member breaks one of those rules you boycott him or

expel him. Turner is a member of the Socialist League and some members

of the Socialist League (the Bloomsbury Society) have been expelled for

breaking it's rules. Turner, by remaining in the League, gives his

consent to those rules. Returning to the bridge, you must have land to

build it upon, but if land is common property why should you be allowed

to build the bridge and use land which is as much mine as yours. The

material of which the bridge is built is common property too—bricks,

iron girders, etc., what right have you to use my bricks and my iron. I

might want the land to grow corn on. If I object what are you going to

do? If you turn me off it is compulsion.

It comes to this. If Turner is in a minority and he thinks people are

acting against his interest, he will get the majority to put things

right. Supposing there are a hundred people in a factory, all of whom

helped to build it and make the machines, and some of them turn

rusty—say forty—what is to happen? Are the forty to leave or the sixty?

and if so, why?

TURNER in conclusion, pointed out that Burrows had said be didn't

believe in prisons. But if so, how was he going to carry his system of

compulsion in to effect, how would be force people to accept the

majority rule? Unless the Social Democrats are going to use prisons they

may find people object. There may be some fighting and chaos and

disorder under the Social Democratic State. As to his contention about

the materials and land for the bridge, we say we all have an equal right

to the clay, land, etc. If there is an objection at some particular spot

to building the bridge, there the builders would go further. Take an

instance of today. When the Great Eastern Railway wanted to run a line

through Saffron Walden some of the townspeople made so much objection

and held out for so much compensation that the railway company preferred

to go around. Now the people of Saffrom Walden have to put up with a

little loop line to connect them with the main line and bitterly regret

their obstinacy. As regards the Socialist League, Turner pointed out

that the people who were expelled were not punished. They were an

independent body of people free to go and do whatever they wished. The

point is that the Social Democrats do believe that the people should

elect certain representatives who should be the supreme power. The

referendum is no remedy, it leaves things to the majority again.

BURROWS said he would not have the referendum for local affairs. He was

not a centralizer "I look to France; what has centralizing done for

France? ruined it. What has bureaucracy done for this country? ruined

it. I know that as an historical student, I would not give a central

body the power to make absolute laws binding the whole community. I

would have them discussed in that body. Then I would have the discussion

widely known, and if it is something to be done nationally, I would put

it to the national vote. I believe people will manage their telegraphs,

their post-office, their railways, nationally. To every community, to

every municipality, locality, or anything else, I would leave entirely

the management of their own affairs." But he believed that either the

majority or the minority must be the recognized authority or there would

be a continual quarrel between the two, chaos and disorder.

The CHAIRMAN wound up the meeting by a speech in which he sided with

both parties and eulogized liberty.

A collection was made for the Dockers' Strike.