💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › dora-marsden-principles.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:13:49. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)

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

Title: Principles
Author: Dora Marsden
Date: 1915
Language: en
Topics: cant, democracy, egoism, morality, principles, The Egoist
Source: Retrieved on 09/26/2021 from https://modjourn.org/issue/bdr521372/
Notes: Originally published in The Egoist Volume II Number 8 (August 2, 1915). Title is unofficial and derived from the text.

Dora Marsden

Principles

By now, in these hard times, the Government might have been expected to

be thoroughly alive to the difference between what some elegant person

has described as "Blowing your nose and blowing it off," but they still

appear to think that they can go to any lengths along the path of

obliging their friends. It turns out that the coal strike was allowed to

come about just to oblige an old fossil which some member of the

Government keeps warm in his pocket. This person's job is theorizing on

the subject of "Abstract Right," and the coal strike being the apt

illustration he was in need of at the moment it was of course

engineered. And the world is at war! There is, of course, nothing left

for the unprivileged public to do, but deplore as usual the subversion

of Public Interest to Private Ends and pick up any profitable

intelligence there may be among the spoil. And if the coal strike be not

due to the fact that this old gentleman required the suspension of the

resources of a coalfield in war-time in order to "boil an egg for

himself," what other adequate reason is there for permitting such a

catastrophe with such a "moral" to occur at such a time. We can think of

none. The "moral" of this strike for recalcitrant labour appears to be

that they should henceforth cease disparaging their opponents' methods

and morals for the plainly demonstrated reason that though these beat no

"noble" sound they are by far the better ones for winning. From the fact

that the miners have won in this strike the workers should be able to

cast aside their brand of "Ethics": the essential feature of their

position as "the workers." If they have the intelligence to grasp the

importance of this fact, the period of war between Classes and Masses is

now at an end, and the war between parties very nearly approaching

Equals, will have begun.

---

I see a correspondent objects to the word "should" in The Egoist,

because it is redolent of coercion I suppose. It would be nearer the

mark to consider it redolent rather of Purpose, and an Egoist—yea even

an Anarchist—must have a Purpose or two, so it "should" be in its place.

Having a Purpose merely means that you aim at arriving at a destination

by way of one route or other. What "should" implies is that, having

fixed the destination and the route towards it, you should occasionally

remember that you actually are aiming at some spot in particular, and

that arrival there necessitates a certain sense of direction. We cannot,

for instance, arrive and yet sit by the roadside permanently.

Accomplishment in its very nature is coercion. One has to coerce oneself

and many other people and things in order to carry out quite a small

undertaking, and that necessitates one's saying "should" quite a number

of times. The importance of any change in the brand of the "Ethics" for

the Masses has all to do with this word "should." "Should," as we have

implied, has the function of a signpost: it is important as indicating

the direction one should take relative to our desired destination. The

"ethical" position of the Masses is in this bewildering state: while

they aim at arriving at Power for themselves, the persons responsible

for the setting up and the marking of the signposts desire them to

arrive at a destination in a quite opposite direction: at Absence of

Power. And they hopefully trust to the signposts and expect to arrive.

It is true that they see all the powerful moving past them in the

opposite direction despite the signposts, but even this strong "tip"

appears to tell them nothing: their faith is fixed in it and they loudly

scold all such as are making strides in a contrary way. Hence the

importance of "should," and the importance of testing whether these

all-valuable indicators are set in accordance with their Purposes and

not those of others. Whichever end one wishes to take there exists the

corresponding "should": tyranny everywhere it seems.

---

"Democracy and Conscription" are twin tyrants, one is informed. But then

there are so many tyrants: as many as there are sparks of life it seems:

all established in proportion to their strength and unobtrusively in

proportion to their subtlety! Why, out of such a myriad of tyrants,

these two—one a mere way of speaking and the other a course of physical

training should be placed together as the tyrant-twins is not apparent.

Democracy, as has been reiterated here so often, is a method of sparing

the pride of the tyrannized by dint of politeness: a convention

misleading only to the unintelligent. And to save the unintelligent from

their unintelligence is not within the power even of tyrants.

Conscription is a different affair. Coupling Conscription with Democracy

is like comparing learning to earn a livelihood with knowing how to

raise your hat to a lady. It is difficult to understand why people who

are not the mouthpieces of some fixed "Principle" like that of

maintaining the "wrongness of coercion" can maintain an objection to

National Training. It is based on the understanding that it is best for

the Interests of a group—the instruments of aggression being what they

are—that each of its members should be as capable as may be of effectual

self-defence. It is surely against no one's interest to be as efficient

in self-defence as possible. The powers of self-defence are always

useful: for aggression as well as defence: at home as well as further

afield. Men who cannot fight with a fair chance of competing with the

rest of their fellows are—even though they possess true hearts of

gold—rabble. They fall back like a pack of sheep before a mere handful.

One thinks of the spectacle of Ben Tillett and his Ten Thousand on Tower

Hill in the Dock Strike. That spectacle revealed more than a whole

century of talk. Unarmed, untrained, undisciplined, men—though they can

call upon the heavens to witness their Righteousness and to encompass

the destruction of their enemies—are "shoved and shoo'd" from their

ground—by a few policemen. It is worth while reminding the inheritors of

the "spiritual" Principles of Democracy that these same "Principles"

(Politeness or Hoax, just as one pleases to regard them) were largely

the outcome of the temper of the soldiery which emerged from the last

great European War. It was the experience and training of the returned

soldiers which put stamina into the Reformist movement and which put a

corresponding fear into the hearts of the "Arch-Tyrants" as then

Established. If the movement ultimately went awry and broke its temper

struggling for nearly a century through a bog of words, this does not

dim the fact that it sprang from firm substantial quality. And rebellion

apart, the stout truth stands that tyrants can tyrannize only "so far"

among comparative equals, and they are alert enough to know when a

situation makes caution a necessary virtue. The recognition moreover

that "Peace and a quiet life" necessitate violent and acrid forms of

guaranteeing, in no way reflects on the former's attractiveness. It

merely recognizes that it is the power to retaliate with adequate

violence which virtualizes any claim to enjoy and possess "Peace" even

as also "Rights," "Property," "Free Conscience," "Anarchist Opinions,"

and the rest.

---

There are so many of these "blessed words" about, so many "spiritual

principles." It would purge the world of much unintentional Cant if the

word "spiritual" could be once and for all attached to its accurate

meaning: that of "verbal." This would make it more possible to give a

sensible meaning to "Principle" as that of "Customary mode of

behaviour"; and so effect a clearance invaluable in a community

disease-ravaged by Principles which are allowed to bolt madly like wild

horses harnessed to all kinds of valued Purposes, because the

"creations," being "Principles," are Sacred. It would also set free the

word "Spirit" for use in the important sense of Vital and therefore

Purposive Energy. Associated with purpose, Spirit would accurately

connect itself with the embodiments of Purpose: which embodiments would

cease to be underrated as valuable evidence of the working and intention

of a powerful spirit, just because they failed to fit into the verbal

conventions current at the time. War would be realized for what it is—a

colossal struggle of brains. It would become impossible to conceive of

the sort of governing intelligence which condescendingly allows that,

after all, brains are not altogether negligible, and which, just as it

has arrived at this interesting discovery, proceeds to appoint as

Minister of Education—yea Education—we will refrain from naming him. The

act proves this country an invincibly moral nation. It gets into the way

of doing things after "a certain fashion, and kill or cure, it insists

on continuing thus to do them. It has despised education: and it does

despise it and it will continue so to do, for ever, Amen. That is the

spirit of Morality: a true adherence to "Principles."

D . M .