💾 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
➡️ 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
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.