💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › freedom-press-london-reflections-upon-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:20:35. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Reflections Upon Anarchism Author: Freedom Press, Anonymous Date: October, 1889 Language: en Topics: Freedom Press, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism Source: Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, Vol. 3, No. 35, online source http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3112, retrieved on May 1, 2020. Notes: Freedom Press, London
Science is making tremendous progress in this century, but instead of
science being the means of benefiting the people in every respect, it is
used as a medium for inflicting misery and hardship upon those who an
doomed to labor like slaves for a precarious existence. The inventions
of science only give greater facilities to the privileged classes for
increasing their happiness at the expense of terrible sufferings among
that class which labors to produce the means whereby happiness is
attainable. Machinery, instead of reducing the heavy labor of the
working populace is used as a scientific mode of driving human beings
from work and bread together; those who claim possession of the
implements of production ruthlessly use every available means for
throwing a number of industrial kind agricultural laborers out of
employment. So great has become the army of unemployed workers of every
description that a Revolution is inevitable. But what are the new social
conditions to be?
The society of the future will surely be based upon the principle of
equality; an equality which recognizes the human right of every
individual to exercise to the full his powers of intellectual activity.
There will be no need to curtail this complete freedom, for there will
be no fear of the intellectual genius trying to make himself wealthy at
the expense of others when production for the public use has taken the
place of production for individual profit or personal gain.
Among the various schools of Socialist thought the State Socialist
school insists upon the necessity of central government to regulate
production and carry on public functions. This is the point upon which
Anarchists and State Socialists differ. Both aim at the emancipation a
of wan from his present slavery, but Anarchists refuse to recognize
authority; State Socialists favor a certain system of officialism.
Now we believe that Anarchism might be put in practice without going
through any form of State Socialism. The moment the commercial system
breaks down, authority will cease to have any influence; and the people
will be compelled to organize themselves without waiting to be told to
do so, to produce commodities of every description for their own use.
Such organization will need no officials to drill the people into it.
When the mass of the workers know what they require for their
maintenance, they will voluntarily associate together to manufacture
commodities for themselves without waiting to be ordered to do what
natural instinct and intelligence tell them they must do or perish. And
in that case what would be the use of government officials?
The more productive workers there are, the fewer the hours of labor
necessary for producing commodities, and in an Anarchist society there
would be very few non-producers. There would be no large army of
government officials, soldiers, policemen, revenue officers, and such
like to be supported at the cost of the labor of all the other workers.
An advantage over State Socialism apparent to every one.
But we may be asked: Would every person be expected to do manual labor
in an Anarchist society? Manual labor under capitalism is degrading for
those who are forced to perform it because there is no other occupation
open to them whereby they may secure a livelihood, Labor in a free
society would not be degrading but honorable, for the laborer would feel
his toil was essential to the happiness of the community. At present men
work long hours because their employers want a profit out of their
labor; but when employers are unknown and work is done for the
well-being of the people collectively, then the hours of labor will be
diminished to what is really necessary, and work which is wearisome
to-day will become pleasant. No doubt every able-bodied person will be
expected to do his three or four hours per day of productive labor, so
as to enable the whole community to devote their leisure hours to the
cultivation of their mental faculties. Cultivation of the intellect is
almost impossible for our present manual laborers, whose hose toil from
morning till evening banishes all thought of mental training from their
minds, and they would rather indulge in some kind of frivolous amusement
to drive from them that heaviness and anxiety which labor, under our
competitive institutions, brings upon them. And it would be considered
very unfair in a free society, where men associated together as brothers
and equals, that all the heavy labor should be shouted on to certain
people's shoulders. If there were no class privileges secured by laws,
men would never stand that sort of thing. The shirkers would find
themselves left out in the cold and be forced by their own unsupplied
needs to cooperate in the necessary manual labor. The hardships
belonging to such labor to-day would soon begin to disappear when it was
everybody's interest to invent means to get rid of them.
When Anarchists propound these ideas to unthoughtful mortals, they are
very often told that some human beings would be too indolent even to
labor three or four hours per day; and they are asked what would be done
with the idlers under Anarchism, if there were no coercive methods used
to make then comply with the natural obligations imposed upon all men,
namely, to labor in order to live? We admit that there are many idle men
and women to-day; but are they not mostly lazy because the work they are
made to perform is repugnant to their nature? Any man turns against work
that is forced upon him and does not suit his taste, and work which men
are forced to undertake bleeds the discontent that causes every one to
revolt against what is likely to do them bodily harm. To-day men and
women are doomed to violent and sustained exertion on insufficient food
or to stick to monotonous routine work for hours and hours in close,
gloomy workshops, or noisy, stuffy factories which produce the most
miserable nervous depression and blunt of the faculties-no wonder they
shrink from such labor. But when this unnatural labor is no longer
exacted, when a free society is an accomplished fact, then most of those
who refuse to labor at present for an employer, would most willingly
throw off the garment, of laziness which our society causes them to
wear, and voluntarily assist in work which would require no continuous
physical overstrain. Our social institutions breed laziness; Anarchism
would turn indolence into a love for honest labor. Where then is the
need for coercive methods to compel the indolent to work? If laziness is
to be abolished, the evils responsible for it must cease to exist; if
the evils remain, the consequences of the evils will go on increasing.
Since our social conditions create evils out of which arises laziness,
these conditions must be destroyed before the evils cam be abolished.
The only method by which this can be accomplished is by adopting an
Anarchical system of society, wherein these evils will not be even
known, much less fostered by unnatural coercive authority.
Now in a free society where all took their fair share of work, very I
little time would be taken out of each one's day by the business of
producing food-stuffs, clothing, shelter, and such like for the general
use; here would be a great deal of leisure. What would people do with
it? When intelligent people have the privilege of utilizing their spare
time in whatever manner they think proper, the desire for further
intellectual development grows from their original love of knowledge.
And when the means of acquiring knowledge are at the disposal of
everybody the enthusiasm of the more intelligent will inspire the rest
to strive after the intellectual development attained by the industrious
and diligent students. Therefore the general level of man's mental
faculties in an Anarchist society will soon be immensely superior to
what they are to-day, when despair breeds an impulse in many individuals
to resist any attempt to enlighten them upon topics relating to their
social surroundings.
Nowadays, too, the world is full of nonsensical trash, disgusting to the
searchers after truth. So-called philosophers write numerous volumes
upon matters of little importance to those who suffer from the evils
arising out of the social institutions which those philosophers write to
defend. False men cannot write truthful matter; living in a false
atmosphere they fail to sympathize with men and women longing to be
freed from wage slavery and competition. The monopolizers of wealth and
privilege have a whole army of literary supporters whose efforts are
devoted to the furtherance of principles detrimental to the masses upon
whose labor they exist. And all those whose minds are nourished upon
this vile literature arc, certain to entertain the erroneous ideas it is
meant to instill, unless indeed they read for the purpose of dissecting
the ideas expressed and pointing out the fallacious arguments used by
the author in favor of the principles intended for dissemination among
those who never think about what they read or ask themselves whether a
writer's statements are true or false. Literature of this description
would be eschewed in an Anarchist society; and instead of authors being
obliged to waste their mental energy in writing matter acceptable to
their pay-masters only, they would be encouraged to compose works
containing matter which would elevate the reader's morals and sharpen
his intellect.
Not only would literature be free from interested lies and mercenary
clap-trap but the different sections of the scientific world would be
open freely to all those who are now prevented from taking part in
scientific research. Why should scientific investigation be confined to
a privileged few? Why should the wealth producers be prevented from
sharing in its joys and honors? The people generally are, in these days,
debarred from studying scientific problems or making themselves familiar
with music and painting, sculpture and literature, or any other art in
which the moneyed class alone can give their children a thorough
education. But when monopoly vanishes and freedom takes its place, then
the arts and sciences will become popular, and the entire community
enjoy the benefits arising from their progress, progress which is
fatally hindered whilst education in the higher subjects is a class
privilege.
Society at present recognizes the right of one man to domineer over
another, because the persons who obey allow themselves to be treated as
inferior to those whom society encourages to act as masters. But those
who rule to-day cannot give any satisfactory account of the origin of
their authority over their fellow citizens. Rulers and ruling classes
have taken it upon themselves to reign over those willing to submit, and
that submission denotes the utter foolishness of the governed. If an
intelligent minority refused to he ruled by a minority of usurpers, they
would have a much stronger moral position in refusing obedience than the
rulers have for compelling it. The handful of men which refuses to be
governed by usurpers, can boast of superior intelligence to those who
patiently yield to the demands of ambitious and selfish individuals.
Human beings were born to work harmoniously together, so as to provide
each other with the necessaries of life; and also to make each other's
life as happy as possible. When a man attempts to over-rule another he
displays an unspeakable amount of ignorance. And when pedantic
individuals are induced to dictate to their so-called inferiors, the
result is that a fierce desire for place and authority begins to burn
within their hearts and flames ever higher and higher. Mankind being
socially equal, authority should not be even mentioned, for intelligence
can best guard the intelligent - under free conditions against
committing acts injurious to their neighbors.
Whilst ignorance reigned among the masses of the people they were
content to believe that rulers and those in authority, kings, barons,
priests, employers, bad some sort of divine or natural right to tell
them what to do and force them to do it. But the spread of knowledge,
even the small amount of it current to-day, has been enough to change
all that; to lead the people to question the right to. rule, to
challenge the usurpers of authority. A great many people are beginning
to believe that, every human being ought to have at his disposal every
aid to intellectual development, that he may acquire that knowledge
whereby he would be enabled to control himself; his own instincts guided
by his own reason would then be the best law for his conduct. At present
the millions permit the hundreds to make hard and fast laws for them,
laws in harmony, perhaps, with the views of the hundreds, but altogether
at variance with the views and interests of the millions. In consequence
the millions are continually struggling against laws repugnant to their
natural instincts, repugnant to their ideas of right and of those
natural laws by which alone mankind ought to be ruled. They obey, but
obey perforce and against their conscience. And this evil is inseparable
from a fixed code made by any set of men for others, for the human mind
is continually developing and each can only find out for himself the
line of conduct which is fitting to him at any given moment. It is
impossible for others to fully realize his position and dictate to him.
If this fact were recognized the office of the law-maker would be at an
end and coercion would appear the monstrous outrage upon human equality
and fraternity that it really is.
JOHN MARSHAL.