đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș leo-tolstoy-patriotism-and-government.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:15:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Patriotism and Government Author: Leo Tolstoy Date: 1900 Language: en Topics: nationalism, government, the State Source: http://libcom.org/library/patriotism-government-leo-tolstoy
Quote:
"The time was fast approaching when to call a man a patriot would be the
deepest insult you could offer him. Patriotism now meant advocating
plunder in the interests of the privileged classes of the particular
State system into which we had happened to be born."
E. Belfort Bax.
I have already several times expressed the thought that the feeling of
patriotism is in our day an unnatural, irrational, and harmful feeling,
and is the cause of a great part of the ills from which mankind is
suffering; and that, consequently, this feeling should not be
cultivated, as is now being done, but should, on the contrary, be
suppressed and eradicated by all means available to rational men. Yet,
strange to say, though it is undeniable that the universal armaments and
the destructive wars which are ruining the peoples result from that one
feeling, all my arguments showing the backwardness, anachronism, and
harmfulness of patriotism have been met, and are still met, either by
silence, or by intentional misconception, or by a strange unvarying
reply to the effect that only bad patriotism (Jingoism, or Chauvinism)
is bad, but that real, good patriotism is a very elevated moral feeling,
to condemn which is not only irrational but wicked.
As to what this real, good patriotism consists of nothing at all is
said; or, if anything is said, instead of explanation we get
declamatory, inflated phrases; or, finally, something else is
substituted for patriotism, something which has nothing in common with
the patriotism we all know, and from the results of which we all suffer
so severely.
It is generally said that the real, good patriotism consists in desiring
for one's own people or State such real benefits as do not infringe the
well-being of other nations.
Talking, recently, to an Englishman about the present war, I said to him
that the real cause of the war was not avarice, as is generally said,
but patriotism, as is evident from the temper of the whole English
society. The Englishman did not agree with me, and said that even were
the case so, it resulted from the fact that the patriotism at present
inspiring Englishmen is a bad patriotism; but that good patriotism, such
as he was imbued with, consists in Englishmen, his compatriots, acting
well.
"Then do you wish only Englishmen to act well?" I asked.
"I wish all men to do so," said he; indicating clearly by that reply the
characteristic of true benefits,âwhether moral, scientific, or even
material and practical,âwhich is that they spread out to all men; and
therefore to wish such benefits to anyone, not only is not patriotic,
but is the reverse of patriotic.
Neither are the peculiarities of each people patriotism; though these
things are purposely substituted for the conception of patriotism by its
defenders. They say that the peculiarities of each people are an
essential condition of human progress, and that therefore patriotism,
which seeks to maintain those peculiarities is a good and useful
feeling. But is it not quite evident that if, once upon a time, these
peculiarities of each peopleâthese customs, creeds, languagesâwere
conditions necessary for the life of humanity, yet in our time these
same peculiarities form the chief obstacle to what is already recognised
as an idealâthe brotherly union of the peoples? And therefore the
maintenance and defence of any nationalityâRussian, German, French, or
Anglo-Saxon, provoking the corresponding maintenance and defence not
only of Hungarian, Polish, and Irish nationalities, but also of Basque,
Provençal, Mordvinian, TchouvĂĄsh, and many other nationalitiesâserves
not to harmonise and unite men, but to estrange and divide them more and
more from one another.
So that not the imaginary but the real patriotism, which we all know, by
which most people to-day are swayed, and from which humanity suffers so
severely, is not the wish for spiritual benefits for one's own people
(it is impossible to desire spiritual benefits for one's own people
only); but it is a very definite feeling of preference for one's own
people or State above all other peoples and States, and therefore it is
the wish to get for that people or State the greatest advantages and
power that can be got; and these are always obtainable only at the
expense of the advantages and power of other peoples or States.
It would therefore seem obvious that patriotism as a feeling, is a bad
and harmful feeling, and as a doctrine is a stupid doctrine. For it is
clear that if each people and each State considers itself the best of
peoples and States, they all dwell in a gross and harmful delusion.
One would expect the harmfulness and irrationality of patriotism to be
evident to people. But the surprising fact is that cultured and learned
men not only do not notice it for themselves, but they contest every
exposure of the harm and stupidity of patriotism with the greatest
obstinacy and ardour, though without any rational grounds; and they
continue to belaud it as beneficent and elevating.
What does this mean?
Only one explanation of this amazing fact presents itself to me.
All human history from the earliest times and to our day may be
considered as a movement of the consciousness, both of individuals and
of homogeneous groups, from lower ideas to higher ones. The whole path,
travelled both by individuals and by homogeneous groups, may be
represented as a consecutive fight of steps from the very lowest, on the
level of animal life, to the very highest to which the consciousness of
man has attained at a given moment of history.
Each man, like each separate homogeneous group, nation, or State, always
moved and moves up this ladder of ideas. Some portions of humanity move
on, others lag far behind, others, again,âthe majority,âmove somewhere
between the most advanced and the most backward. But all, on whatever
step they stand, are inevitably and irresistibly moving from lower to
higher ideas. And always, at any given moment, both the individuals and
the separate groups of peopleâadvanced, middle, or backwardâstand in
three different relations to three stages of ideas, amid which they
move.
Always, both for the individual and for the separate groups of people,
there are the ideas of the past, which are worn out and have become
strange to them, and to which they cannot revert: as, for instance, in
our Christian world the ideas of cannibalism, universal plunder, the
rape of wives, and other customs of which only a record remains.
And there are the ideas of the present, instilled into men's minds hy
education, by example, and by the general activity of all around them:
ideas under the power of which they live at a given time; for instance,
in our own day, the ideas of property, State organisation, trade,
utilisation of domestic animals, etc.
And there are the ideas of the future, of which some are already
approaching realisation, and are obliging people to change their way of
life and to struggle against the former ways: such ideas in our world as
those of freeing the labourers, of giving equality to women, and of
disusing flesh food, etc.; while others, though already recognised, have
not yet begun to struggle against the old forms of life: such in our
time are the ideas (which we call ideals) of the extermination of
violence, the arrangement of a communal system of property, of a
universal religion, and of a general brotherhood of men.
And, therefore, every man and every homogeneous group of men, on
whatever level they may stand, having behind them the worn-out
remembrances of the past, and before them the ideals of the future, are
always in a state of struggle between the moribund ideas of the present
and the ideas of the future that are coming to life. It usually happens
that when an idea which has been useful and even necessary in the past
becomes superfluous, that idea after a more or less prolonged struggle
yields its place to a new idea which was till then an ideal, but which
thus becomes a present idea.
But it does occur that an antiquated idea, already replaced in people's
consciousness by a higher one, is of such a kind that its maintenance is
profitable to certain people who have the greatest influence in their
society. And then it happens that this antiquated idea, though it is in
sharp contradiction to the whole surrounding form of life which has been
altering in other respects, continues to influence people and to sway
their actions. Such retention of antiquated ideas always occurred and
still occurs in the region of religion. The cause is that the priests,
whose profitable positions are bound up with the antiquated religious
idea, using their power, purposely hold people to the antiquated idea.
The same thing occurs, and for similar reasons, in the political sphere,
with reference to the patriotic idea, on which every dominion is based.
People to whom it is profitable to do so, maintain that idea by
artificial means, though it now lacks both sense and utility. And as
these people possess the most powerful means of influencing others, they
are able to achieve their object.
In this, it seems to me, lies the explanation of the strange contrast
between the antiquated patriotic idea, and the whole drift of ideas
making in a contrary direction which have already entered into the
consciousness of the Christian world.
Patriotism as a feeling of exclusive love for one's own people, and as a
doctrine of the virtue of sacrificing one's tranquillity, one's
property, and even one's life, in defence of the weak among them from
slaughter and outrage by their enemies, was the highest idea of the
period when each nation considered it feasible and just, to subject to
slaughter and outrage the people of other nations for its own advantage.
But already, some two thousand years ago, humanity, in the person of the
highest representatives of its wisdom, began to recognise the higher
idea of a brotherhood of man; and that idea penetrating man's
consciousness more and more, has in our time attained most varied forms
of realisation. Thanks to improved means of communication, and to the
unity of industry, of trade, of the arts, and of science,âmen to-day are
so bound one to another that the danger of conquest, massacre, or
outrage by a neighbouring people has quite disappeared, and all peoples
(the peoples, but not the governments) live together in peaceful,
mutually advantageous, friendly, commercial, industrial, artistic, and
scientific relations, which they have no need and no desire to disturb.
And, therefore, one would think that the antiquated feeling of
patriotismâbeing superfluous and incompatible with the consciousness we
have reached of the existence of brotherhood among men of different
nationalitiesâshould dwindle more and more until it completely
disappears. Yet the very opposite of this occurs: this harmful and
antiquated feeling not only continues to exist, but burns more and more
fiercely.
The peoples, without any reasonable ground, and contrary alike to their
conception of right and to their own advantage, not only sympathise with
governments in their attacks on other nations, in their seizures of
foreign possessions, and in defending by force what they have already
stolen, but even themselves demand such attacks, seizures, and defences;
are glad of them; and take pride in them. The small oppressed
nationalities which have fallen under the power of the great States,âthe
Poles, Irish, Bohemians, Fins, or Armenians,âreacting against the
patriotism of their conquerors, which is the cause of their oppression,
catch from their oppressors the infection of this feeling of
patriotism,âwhich has ceased to be necessary, and is now obsolete,
unmeaning, and harmful,âand catch it to such a degree that all their
activity is concentrated upon it, and they, themselves suffering from
the patriotism of the stronger nations, are ready to perpetrate on other
peoples, for the sake of this same patriotism, the very same deeds that
their oppressors have perpetrated and are perpetrating on them.
This occurs because the ruling classes (including not only the actual
rulers with their officials, but all the classes who enjoy an
exceptionally advantageous positionâthe capitalists, journalists, and
most of the artists and scientists) can retain their
position,âexceptionally advantageous in comparison with that of the
labouring masses,âthanks only to the government organisation, which
rests on patriotism. They have in their hands all the most powerful
means of influencing the people, and always sedulously support patriotic
feelings in themselves and in others, more especially as those feelings
which uphold the government's power, are those that are always best
rewarded by that power.
Every official prospers in his career the better the more patriotic he
is; so also the army man gets promotion in time of war; and war is
produced by patriotism.
Patriotism and its resultâwars, give an enormous revenue to the
newspaper trade, and profits to many other trades. Every writer,
teacher, and professor is more secure in his place the more he preaches
patriotism. Every emperor and king obtains the more fame the more he is
addicted to patriotism.
The ruling classes have in their hands the army, money, the schools, the
churches, and the press. In the schools they kindle patriotism in the
children by means of histories describing their own people as the best
of all peoples, and always in the right. Among adults they kindle it by
spectacles, jubilees, monuments, and by a lying patriotic press. Above
all, they inflame patriotism in this way: perpetrating every kind of
injustice and harshness against other nations, they provoke in them
enmity towards their own people, and then in turn exploit that enmity to
embitter their own people against the foreigner.
The intensification of that terrible feeling of patriotism has gone on
among the European peoples in a rapidly increasing progression, and in
our time has reached the utmost limits, beyond which there is nowhere
for it to extend.
Within the memory of people not yet old, an occurrence took place
showing most obviously the amazing intoxication caused by patriotism
among the people of Christendom.
The ruling classes of Germany excited the patriotism of the masses of
their people to such a degree that, in the second half of the nineteenth
century, a law was proposed in accordance with which all the men had to
become soldiers; all the sons, husbands, fathers, learned men, and godly
men, had to learn to murder; to become submissive slaves of the first
man of superior military rank they met, and be absolutely ready to kill
whomsoever they were ordered to kill; to kill men of oppressed
nationalities, and their own working men standing up for their rights,
and even their own fathers and brothers,âas was publicly proclaimed by
that most barefaced of potentates, William ii.
That horrible measure, outraging all many best feelings in the grossest
manner, was, under the influence of patriotism, acquiesced in without
murmur by the people of Germany. It resulted in their victory over the
French. That victory yet further excited the patriotism of Germany, and
afterwards of France, Russia, and the other Powers; and all the men of
the continental countries unresistingly submitted to the introduction of
general military service, i.e. to a state of slavery, involving a degree
of humiliation and submission incomparably worse than any slavery of the
ancient world. After this servile submission of the masses to the calls
of patriotism, the audacity, cruelty, and insanity of the governments
knew no bounds. A competition in the usurpation of other people's lands
in Asia, Africa, and America began,âevoked partly by whim, partly by
vanity, and partly by covetousness,âand was accompanied by ever greater
and greater distrust and enmity between the governments.
The destruction of the people on the lands seized, was accepted as a
quite natural proceeding. The only question was who should be first in
seizing other people's land and destroying the inhabitants. All the
governments not only most evidently infringed, and are infringing, the
elementary demands of justice in relation to the conquered peoples, and
in relation to one another, but they were guilty and continue to be
guilty, of every kind of cheating, swindling, bribing, fraud, spying,
robbery, and murder; and the peoples not only sympathised, and still
sympathise, with them in all this, but they rejoice when it is their own
government and not another government that commits such crimes.
The mutual enmity between the different peoples and States has reached,
latterly, such amazing dimensions, that, notwithstanding the fact that
there is no reason why one State should attack another, everyone knows
that all the governments stand with their claws out and showing their
teeth, and only waiting for someone to fall into trouble, or become
weak, in order to tear him to pieces with as little risk as possible.
All the peoples of the so-called Christian world have been reduced by
patriotism to such a state of brutality, that not only those who are
obliged to kill or be killed desire slaughter and rejoice in murder, but
all the people of Europe and America, living peaceably in their homes
exposed to no danger, are, at each warâthanks to easy means of
communication, and to the pressâin the position of the spectators in a
Roman circus, and, like them, delight in the slaughter, and raise the
bloodthirsty cry, "Pollice verso."[1]
Not adults only, but also children, pure, wise children, rejoice,
according to their nationality, when they hear that the number killed
and lacerated by lyddite or other shells is not seven hundred but one
thousand Englishmen or Boers.
And parents (I know of such cases) encourage their children in such
brutality.
But that is not all. Every increase in the army of one nation (and every
nation being in danger seeks to increase its army for patriotic reasons)
obliges its neighbours to increase their army, also from patriotism, and
this evokes a fresh increase by the first nation.
And the same thing occurs with fortifications and navies; one State has
built ten ironclads, a neighbour builds eleven; then the first builds
twelve, and so on to infinity.
"I'll pinch you." "And I'll punch your head." "And I'll stab you with a
dagger." "And I'll bludgeon you." "And I'll shoot you," . . . only bad
children, drunken men, or animals quarrel or fight so, but yet it is
just what is going on among the highest representatives of the most
enlightened governments, the very men who undertake to direct the
education and the morality of their subjects.
The position is becoming worse and worse, and there is no stopping this
descent towards evident perdition.
The one way of escape believed in by credulous people has now been
closed by recent events. I refer to the Hague Conference and to the war
between England and the Transvaal which immediately followed it.
If people who think little, or but superficially, were able to comfort
themselves with the idea that international courts of arbitration would
supersede wars and ever-increasing armaments, the Hague Conference and
the war that followed it demonstrated in the most obvious manner the
impossibility of finding a solution of the difficulty in that way. After
the Hague Conference it became obvious that as long as governments with
armies exist, the termination of armaments and of wars is impossible.
That an agreement should become possible, it is necessary that the
parties to it should trust each other. And in order that the Powers
should trust each other, they must lay down their arms, as the
parlementaires do when they meet for a conference.
So long as governments, distrusting one another, not only do not disband
or decrease their armies, but always increase them in correspondence
with augmentations, made by their neighbours, and by means of spies
watch every movement of troops, knowing that each of the Powers will
attack its neighbour as soon as it sees its way to do so,âno agreement
is possible, and every conference is either a stupidity, or a pastime,
or a fraud, or an impertinence, or all these together.
It was particularly becoming for the Russian rather than any other
government to be the enfant terrible of the Hague Conference. No one at
home being allowed to reply to all its evidently mendacious
manifestations and rescripts, the Russian Government is so spoilt, that
having without the least scruple ruined its own people with armaments,
strangled Poland, plundered Turkestan and China, and while specially
engaged in suffocating Finland, it proposed disarmament to the
governments, in full assurance that it would be trusted.
But strange, unexpected, and indecent as such a proposal was, especially
at the very time when orders were being given to increase its army, the
words publicly uttered in the hearing of the people were such, that for
the sake of appearances the governments of the other Powers could not
decline the comical and evidently insincere consultation, and the
delegates met, knowing in advance that nothing would come of it, and for
several weeks, during which they drew good salaries, though they were
laughing in their sleeves, they all conscientiously pretended to be much
occupied in arranging peace among the nations.
The Hague Conference ending as it did in the terrible bloodshed of the
Transvaal War, which no one attempted, or is now attempting, to stop,
was, nevertheless, of some use, though not at all in the way expected of
it; it was useful because it showed in the most obvious manner that the
evils from which the peoples are suffering cannot be cured by
governments. That governments, even if they wished to, can terminate
neither armaments nor wars.
Governments to have a reason for existing must defend their people from
other people's attack; but not one people wishes to attack, or does
attack, another. And, therefore, governments, far from wishing for
peace, carefully excite the anger of other nations against themselves.
And having excited other people's anger against themselves, and stirred
up the patriotism of their own people, each government then assures its
people that it is in danger, and must be defended.
And having the power in their hands, the governments can both irritate
other nations and excite patriotism at home, and they carefully do both
the one and the other; nor can they act otherwise, for their existence
depends on thus acting.
If, in former times, governments were necessary to defend their people
from other people's attacks, now, on the contrary, the governments
artificially disturb the peace that exists among the peoples, and
provoke enmity among them.
When it was necessary to plough in order to sow, ploughing was wise; but
evidently it is absurd and harmful to go on ploughing after the seed has
been sown. But this is just what the governments are obliging their
people to do: to infringe the unity which exists, and which nothing
would infringe if there were no governments.
in reality what are these governments, without which people think they
could not exist?
There may have been a time when such governments were necessary, and
when the evil of supporting a government was less than that of being
defenceless against organised neighbours; but now such governments have
become unnecessary, and are a far greater evil than all the dangers with
which they frighten their subjects.
Not only military governments, but governments in general, could be, I
will not say useful, but at least harmless, only if they consisted of
immaculate, holy people; as is theoretically the case among the Chinese.
But then governments, by the nature of their activity, which consists in
committing acts of violence,[2] are always composed of elements the most
contrary to holiness;âof the most audacious, unscrupulous, and perverted
people.
A government, therefore, and specially a government entrusted with
military power, is the most dangerous organisation possible.
The government in the widest sense, including capitalists and press, is
nothing else than an organisation which places the greatest part of the
people in the power of a smaller part who dominate them; that smaller
part is subject to a yet smaller part, and that again to a yet smaller,
and so on, reaching at last a few people, or one single man, who by
means of military force has power over all the rest. So that all this
organisation resembles a cone, of which all the parts are completely in
the power of those people, or of that one person, who are, or is, at the
apex.
The apex of the cone is seized by those people, or by that person, who
are, or who is, more cunning, audacious, and unscrupulous than the rest,
or by someone who happens to be the heir of those who were audacious and
unscrupulous.
To-day it may be BorĂs GodunĂłf,[3] and to-morrow Gregory OtrĂ©pief.[4]
To-day the licentious Catherine, who, with her paramours, has murdered
her husband; tomorrow Pougatchéf;[5] then Paul the madman, Nicholas i.,
and Alexander iii.
To-day it may be Napoleon, to-morrow a Bourbon or an Orleans, a
Boulanger, or a Panama Company; to-day it may be Gladstone, to-morrow
Salisbury, Chamberlain, or Rhodes.
And to such governments is allowed full power, not only over property
and lives, but even over the spiritual and moral development, the
education, and the religious guidance of everybody.
People construct such a terrible machine of power, they allow anyone who
can, to seize it (and the chances always are that it will be seized by
the most morally worthless)âthey slavishly submit to him, and are then
surprised that evil comes of it. They are afraid of Anarchists' bombs,
and are not afraid of this terrible organisation which is always
threatening them with the greatest calamities.
People found it useful to tie themselves together in order to resist
their enemies, as the Circassians[6] did when resisting attacks. But the
danger is quite past, and yet people go on tying themselves together.
They carefully tie themselves so that one man can have them at his
mercy; then they throw away the end of the rope that ties them and leave
it trailing, for some rascal or fool to seize and to do them whatever
harm he likes.
Really, what are people doing but just that, when they set up, submit
to, and maintain an organised and military government?
One To deliver men from the terrible evils of armaments and wars, which
are always increasing and increasing, what is wanted are neither
congresses nor conferences, nor treaties, nor courts of arbitration, but
the destruction of those instruments of violence which are called
governments, and from which humanity's greatest evils result.
To destroy governmental violence only one thing is needed: it is that
people should understand that the feeling of patriotism, which alone
supports that instrument of violence, is a rude, harmful, disgraceful,
and bad feeling, and above allâis immoral. It is a rude feeling, because
it is one natural only to people standing on the lowest level of
morality, and expecting from other nations those outrages which they
themselves are ready to inflict on others; it is a harmful feeling,
because it disturbs advantageous and joyous peaceful relations with
other peoples, and above all it produces that governmental organisation
under which power may fall, and does fall, into the hands of the worst
men; it is a disgraceful feeling, because it turns man not merely into a
slave, but into a fighting cock, a bull, or a gladiator, who wastes his
strength and his life for objects which are not his own but his
governments'; and it is an immoral feeling, because, instead of
confessing oneself a son of God, as Christianity teaches us, or even a
free man guided by his own reason, each man under the influence of
patriotism confesses himself the son of his fatherland and the slave of
his government, and commits actions contrary to his reason and his
conscience.
It is only necessary that people should understand this, and the
terrible bond, called government, by which we are chained together, will
fall to pieces of itself, without struggle; and with it will cease the
terrible and useless evils it produces.
And people are already beginning to understand this. This, for instance,
is what a citizen of the United States writes:â
Quote:
"We are farmers, mechanics, merchants, manufacturers, teachers, and all
we ask is the privilege of attending to our own business. We own our
homes, love our friends, are devoted to our families, and do not
interfere with our neighboursâwe have work to do, and wish to work.
"Leave us alone!
"But they will notâthese politicians. They insist on governing us and
living off our labour. They tax us, eat our substance, conscript us,
draft our boys into their wars. All the myriads of men who live off the
government, depend upon the government to tax us, and in order to tax us
successfully, standing armies are maintained. The plea that the army is
needed for the protection of the country is pure fraud and pretence. The
French Government affrights the people by telling them that the Germans
are ready and anxious to fall upon them; the Russians fear the British;
the British fear everybody; and now in America, we are told we must
increase our navy and add to our army because Europe may at any moment
combine against us.
"This is fraud and untruth. The plain people in France, Germany,
England, and America are opposed to war. We only wish to be let alone.
Men with wives, children, sweethearts, homes, aged parents, do not want
to go off and fight some one. We are peaceable and we fear war; we hate
it.
"We would like to obey the Golden Rule.
"War is the sure result of the existence of armed men. That country
which maintains a large standing army will sooner or later have a war on
hand. The man who prides himself on fisticuffs is going some day to meet
a man who considers himself the better man, and they will fight. Germany
and France have no issue save a desire to see which is the better man.
They have fought many timesâand they will fight again. Not that the
people want to fight, but the Superior Class fan fright into fury, and
make men think they must fight to protect their homes.
"So the people who wish to follow the teachings of Christ are not
allowed to do so, but are taxed, outraged, deceived by governments.
"Christ taught humility, meekness, the forgiveness of one's enemies, and
that to kill was wrong. The Bible teaches men not to swear, but the
Superior Class swear us on the Bible in which they do not believe.
"The question is, How are we to relieve ourselves of these cormorants
who toil not, but who are clothed in broadcloth and blue, with brass
buttons and many costly accoutrements; who feed upon our substance, and
for whom we delve and die?
"Shall we fight them?
"No, we do not believe in bloodshed; and besides that, they have the
guns and the money, and they can hold out longer than we.
"But who composes this army that they would order to fire upon us?
"Why, our neighbours and brothersâdeceived into the idea that they are
doing God's service by protecting their country from its enemies. When
the fact is, our country has no enemies save the Superior Class, that
pretends to look out for our interests if we will only obey and consent
to be taxed.
"Thus do they siphon our resources and turn our true brothers upon us to
subdue and humiliate us. You cannot send a telegram to your wife, nor an
express package to your friend, nor draw a cheque for your grocer until
you first pay the tax to maintain armed men, who can quickly be used to
kill you; and who surely will imprison you if you do not pay.
"The only relief lies in education. Educate men that it is wrong to
kill. Teach them the Golden Rule, and yet again teach them the Golden
Rule. Silently defy this Superior Class by refusing to bow down to their
fetich of bullets. Cease supporting the preachers who cry for war, and
spout patriotism for a consideration. Let them go to work as we do. We
believe in Christâthey do not. Christ spoke what He thought; they speak
what they think will please the men in powerâthe Superior Class.
"We will not enlist. We will not shoot on their order. We will not
'charge bayonet' upon a mild and gentle people. We will not fire upon
shepherds and farmers, fighting for their firesides, upon suggestion of
Cecil Rhodes. Your false cry of 'Wolf, wolf,' shall not alarm us. We pay
your taxes only because we have to, and we will pay no longer than we
have to. We will pay no pew-rents, no tithes to your sham charities, and
we will speak our minds upon occasion.
"We will educate men.
"And all the time our silent influence will be going out, and even the
men who are conscripted will be half-hearted and refuse to fight. We
will educate men into the thought that the Christ Life of Peace and
Good-will is better than the Life of Strife, Bloodshed, and War.
"'Peace on earth!'âit can only come when men do away with armies, and
are willing to do unto other men as they would be done by."
So writes a citizen of the United States; and from various sides, in
various forms, such voices are sounding.
This is what a German soldier writes:â
Quote:
"I went through two campaigns with the Prussian Guards (in 1866 and
1870), and I hate war from the bottom of my soul, for it has made me
inexpressibly unfortunate. We wounded soldiers generally receive such a
miserable recompense that we have indeed to be ashamed of having once
been patriots. I, for instance, get ninepence a day for my right arm,
which was shot through at the attack on St. Privat, 18th August 1870.
Some hunting dogs have more allowed for their keep. And I had suffered
for years from my twice wounded arm. Already, in 1866, I took part in
the war against Austria, and fought at Trautenau and KöniggrÀtz, and saw
horrors enough. In 1870, being in the reserve, I was called out again;
and, as I have already said, I was wounded in the attack at St. Privat:
my right arm was twice shot through lengthwise. I had to leave a good
place in a brewery, and was unable afterwards to regain it. Since then I
have never been able to get on my feet again. My intoxication soon
passed, and there was nothing left for the wounded invalid but to keep
himself alive on a beggarly pittance eked out by charity. . . .
"In a world in which people run round like trained animals, and are not
capable of any other idea than that of overreaching one another for the
sake of mammon,âin such a world let people think me a crank; but, for
all that, I feel in myself the divine idea of peace, which is so
beautifully expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. My deepest conviction
is that war is only trade on a larger scaleâtrade carried on by the
ambitious and the powerful with the happiness of the peoples.
"And what horrors do we not suffer from it! Never shall I forget those
pitiful groans that pierced one to the marrow!
"People who never did each other any harm hegin to slaughter one another
like wild animals, and petty slavish souls implicate the good God,
making Him their confederate in such deeds.
"My neighbour in the ranks had his jaw broken by a bullet. The poor
wretch went wild with pain. He ran like a madman, and in the scorching
summer heat could not even get water to cool his horrible wound. Our
commander, the Crown Prince (who was afterwards the noble Emperor
Frederick), wrote in his diary: 'Warâis an irony on the Gospels.' . . ."
People are beginning to understand the fraud of patriotism, in which all
the governments take such pains to keep them.
Chapter VIII
"But," it is usually asked, "what will there be instead of governments?"
There will be nothing. Something that has long been useless and
therefore superfluous and bad will be abolished. An organ that, being
unnecessary had become harmful, will be abolished.
"But," people generally say, "if there is no government, people will
violate and kill each other."
Why? Why should the abolition of the organisation which arose in
consequence of violence, and which traditionally has been handed down
from generation to generation to do violence,âwhy should the abolition
of such an organisation, now devoid of use, cause people to outrage and
kill one another? On the contrary, the presumption is that the abolition
of the organ of violence would result in people ceasing to violate and
kill one another.
Now, some men are specially educated and trained to kill and to do
violence to other people,âthere are men who are supposed to have a right
to use violence, and who make use of an organisation which exists for
that purpose. Such deeds of violence and such killing are considered
good and worthy deeds.
But then, people will not be so educated, and no one will have a right
to use violence to others, and there will be no organisation to do
violence, and, as is natural to people of our time, violence and murder
will always be considered bad actions, no matter who commits them.
But should acts of violence continue to be committed even after the
abolition of the governments, still such acts will certainly be fewer
than are committed now while an organisation exists specially devised to
commit acts of violence, and a state of things exists in which acts of
violence and murders are considered good and useful deeds.
The abolition of governments will merely rid us of an unnecessary
organisation which we have inherited from the past for the commission of
violence and for its justification.
"But there will then be no laws, no property, no courts of justice, no
police, no popular education," say people who intentionally confuse the
use of violence by governments with various social activities.
The abolition of the organisation of government formed to do violence,
does not at all involve the abolition of what is reasonable and good,
and therefore not based on violence, in laws or law courts, or in
property, or in police regulations, or in financial arrangements, or in
popular education. On the contrary, the absence of the brutal power of
government, which is needed only for its own support, will facilitate a
more just and reasonable social organisation, needing no violence.
Courts of justice, and public affairs, and popular education, will all
exist to the extent to which they are really needed by the people, but
in a shape which will not involve the evils contained in the present
form of government. What will be destroyed is merely what was evil and
hindered the free expression of the people's will.
But even if we assume that with the absence of governments there would
be disturbances and civil strife, even then the position of the people
would be better than it is at present. The position now is such that it
is difficult to imagine anything worse. The people are ruined, and their
ruin is becoming more and more complete. The men are all converted into
war-slaves, and have from day to day to expect orders to go to kill and
to be killed. What more? Are the ruined peoples to die of hunger? That
is already beginning in Russia, in Italy, and in India. Or are the women
as well as the men to go to be soldiers? In the Transvaal even that has
begun.
So that even if the absence of government really meant Anarchy, in the
negative, disorderly sense of that word,âwhich it is far from
meaning,âeven in that case, no anarchical disorder could be worse than
the position to which governments have already led their peoples, and to
which they are leading them.
And therefore emancipation from patriotism, and the destruction of the
despotism of government that rests upon it, cannot but be beneficial to
mankind.
Men, recollect yourselves! And for the sake of your well-being, physical
and spiritual, for the sake of your brothers and sisters, pause,
consider, and think of what you are doing!
Reflect, and you will understand that your foes are not the Boers, or
the English, or the French, or the Germans, or the Fins, or the
Russians, but that your foesâyour only foesâare you yourselves, who
maintain by your patriotism the governments that oppress you and make
you unhappy.
They have undertaken to protect you from danger, and they have brought
that pseudo-protection to such a point that you have all become
soldiers, slaves, and are all ruined, or are being ruined more and more,
and at any moment may and should expect that the tight-stretched cord
will snap, and a horrible slaughter of you and your children will
commence.
And however great that slaughter may be, and however that conflict may
end, the same state of things will go on. In the same way, and with yet
greater intensity, the governments will arm, and ruin, and pervert you
and your children, and no one will help you to stop it or to prevent it,
if you do not help yourselves.
And there is only one kind of help possibleâit lies in the abolition of
that terrible linking up into that cone of violence, which enables the
person or persons who succeed in seizing the apex, to have power over
all the rest, and to hold that power the more firmly the more cruel and
inhuman they are, as we see by the cases of the Napoleons,. Nicholas I.,
Bismarck, Chamberlain, Rhodes, and our Russian Dictators who rule the
people in the Tsar's name.
And there is only one way to destroy this binding togetherâit is by
shaking off the hypnotism of patriotism.
Understand that all the evils from which you suffer, you yourselves
cause by yielding to the suggestions by which emperors, kings, members
of parliament, governors, officers, capitalists, priests, authors,
artists, and all who need this fraud of patriotism in order to live upon
your labour, deceive you!
Whoever you may be,âFrenchman, Russian, Pole, Englishman, Irishman, or
Bohemian,âunderstand that all your real human interests, whatever they
may be,âagricultural, industrial, commercial, artistic, or
scientific,âas well as your pleasures and joys, in no way run counter to
the interests of other peoples or states; and that you are unitedâby
mutual co-operation, by interchange of services, by the joy of wide
brotherly intercourse, and by the interchange not merely of goods but
also of thoughts and feelingsâwith the folk of other lands.
Understand that the question, who manages to seize Wei-hai-wei, Port
Arthur, or Cuba,âyour government or another,â does not affect you, or
rather every such seizure made by your government injures you because it
inevitably brings in its train all sorts of pressure on you by your
government, to force you to take part in the robbery and violence by
which alone such seizures are made, or can be retained when made.
Understand that your life can in no way be bettered by Alsace becoming
German or French, and Ireland or Poland being free or enslaved; whoever
holds them, you are free to live where you will, if even you be an
Alsatian, an Irishman, or a Pole, yet understand that by stirring up
patriotism you will only make the case worse; for the subjection in
which your people are kept has resulted simply from the struggle between
patriotisms, and every manifestation of patriotism in one nation
provokes a counteracting reaction in another. Understand that salvation
from your woes is only possible when you free yourself from the obsolete
idea of patriotism and from the obedience to governments that is based
upon it, and when you boldly enter into the region of that higher idea,
the brotherly union of the peoples, which has long since come to life,
and from all sides is calling you to itself.
If people would but understand that they are not the sons of some
fatherland or other, nor of governments, but are sons of God, and can
therefore neither be slaves nor enemies one to another, those insane,
unnecessary, worn-out, pernicious organisations called governments, and
all the sufferings, violations, humiliations, and crimes which they
occasion, would cease.
â PirogĂłva, 23rd May 1900.
[A portion of the translation of this article appeared contemporaneously
in Reynold's Newspaper. It is now first issued complete, translated
directly from the MS.âEd.]
Jump up
â Pollice verso ("thumb down") was the sign given in the Roman
amphitheatres by the spectators who wished a defeated gladiator to be
slain.âTrans.
Jump up
â The word government in English is frequently used in an indefinite
sense as almost equivalent to management or direction; but in the sense
in which the word is used in the present article, the characteristic
feature of government is that it claims a moral right to inflict
physical penalties, and by its decree to make murder a good action.
âTrans.
Jump up
â BorĂs GodunĂłf, brother-in-law of the weak Tsar FeĂłdor, succeeded in
becoming Tsar, and reigned in Moscow from 1598 to 1605.âTrans.
Jump up
â Gregory OtrĂ©pief was a pretender who, passing himself off as DimĂtry,
son of IvĂĄn the Terrible, reigned in Moscow in 1605 and 1606.âTrans.
Jump up
â PougatchĂ©f, the leader of a most formidable insurrection, was executed
in Moscow in 1775. âTrans.
Jump up
â The Circassians, when surrounded, used to tie themselves together leg
to leg, that none might escape, but all die fighting. Instances of this
kind occurred when their country was being annexed by Russia.âTrans.