|
CHAPTER 20
WHAT IS ANARCHISM?
"CAN YOU tell us briefly," your
friend asks, "what Anarchism really is?"
I shall try. In the fewest words, Anarchism teaches that we can
live in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind.
A life without compulsion naturally means liberty; it means
freedom from being forced or coerced, a chance to lead the life that
suits you best.
You cannot lead such a life unless you do away with the
institutions that curtail your liberty and interfere with your life,
the conditions that compel you to act differently from the way you
really would like to.
What are those institutions and conditions? Let us see what we
have to do away with in order to secure a free and harmonious life.
Once we know what has to be abolished and what must take its place,
we shall also find the way to do it.
What must be abolished, then, to secure liberty?
First of all, of course, the thing that invades you most, that
handicaps or prevents your free activity; the thing that interferes
with your liberty and compels you to live differently from what would
be your own choice.
That thing is government.
Take a good look at it and you will see that government is the
greatest invader; more than that, the worst criminal man has ever
known of. It fills the world with violence, with fraud and deceit,
with oppression and misery. As a great thinker once said, "its
breath is poison." It corrupts everything it touches.
"Yes, government means violence and it is evil," you
admit; "but can we do without it?"
That is just what we want to talk over. Now, if I should ask you
whether you need government, I'm sure you would answer that
you don't, but that it is for the others that it is needed.
But if you should ask any one of those "others," he
would reply as you do: he would say that he does not need it, but
that it is necessary "for the others."
Why does every one think that he can be decent enough without the
policeman, but that the club is needed for "the others"?
"People would rob and murder each other if there were no
government and no law," you say.
If they really would, why would they? Would they do it just
for the pleasure of it or because of certain reasons? Maybe if we
examine their reasons, we'd discover the cure for them.
Suppose you and I and a score of others had suffered shipwreck and
found ourselves on an island rich with fruit of every kind. Of
course, we'd get to work to gather the foot But suppose one of our
number should declare that it all belongs to him, and that no one
shall have a single morsel unless he first pays him tribute for it.
We would be indignant, wouldn't we? We'd laugh at his pretensions. If
he'd try to make trouble about it, we might throw him into the sea,
and it would serve him right, would it not?
Suppose further that we ourselves ant our forefathers had
cultivated the island and stocked it with everything needed for life
and comfort, and that some one should arrive and claim it all as his.
What would we say? We'd ignore him, wouldn't we? We might tell him
that he could share with us and join us in our work. But suppose that
he insists on his ownership and that he produces a slip of paper and
says that it proves that everything belongs to him? We'd tell him
he's crazy and we'd go about our business. But if he should have a
government back of him, he would appeal to it for the protection of
"his rights," and the government would send police and
soldiers who would evict us and put the "lawful owner in
possession."
That is the function of government; that is what government exists
for and what it is doing all the time.
Now, do you still think that without this thing called government
we should rob and murder each other?
Is it not rather true that with government we rob and
murder? Because government does not secure us in our rightful
possessions, but on the contrary takes them away for the benefit of
those who have no right to them, as we have seen in previous
chapters.
If you should wake up to-morrow morning and learn that there is no
government any more, would your first thought be to rush out into the
street and kill some one? No, you know that is nonsense. We speak of
sane, normal men. The insane man who wants to kill does not first ask
whether there is or isn't any government. Such men belong to the care
of physicians and alienists; they should be placed in hospitals to be
treated for their malady.
The chances are that if you or Johnson should awaken to find that
there is no government, you would get busy arranging your life under
the new conditions.
It is very likely, of course, that if you should then see people
gorge themselves while you go hungry, you would demand a chance to
eat, and you would be perfectly right in that. And so would every one
else, which means that people would not stand for any one hogging all
the good things of life: they would want to share in them. It means
further that the poor would refuse to stay poor while others wallow
in luxury. It means that the worker will decline to give up his
product to the boss who claims to "own" the factory and
everything that is made there. It means that the farmer will not
permit thousands of acres to lie idle while he has not enough soil to
support himself and family. It means that no one will be permitted to
monopolize the land or the machinery of production. It means that
private ownership of the sources of life will not be tolerated
any more. It will be considered the greatest crime for some to own
more than they can use in a dozen lifetimes, while their neighbors
have not enough bread for their children. It means that all men will
share in the social wealth, and that all will help to produce that
wealth.
It means, in short, that for the first time in history right
justice, and equality would triumph instead of law.
You see therefore that doing away with government also signifies
the abolition of monopoly and of personal ownership of the means of
production and distribution.
It follows that when government is abolished, wage slavery and
capitalism must also go with it, because they cannot exist without
the support and protection of government. Just as the man who would
claim a monopoly of the island, of which I spoke before, could not
put through his crazy claim without the help of government.
Such a condition of things where there would be liberty instead of
government would be Anarchy. And where equality of use would take the
place of private ownership, would be Communism.
It would be Communist Anarchism.
"Oh, Communism," your friend exclaims, "but you
said you were not a Bolshevik!"
No, I am not a Bolshevik, because the Bolsheviki want a powerful
government or State, while Anarchism means doing away with the State
or government altogether.
"But are not the Bolsheviki Communists?" you demand
Yes, the Bolsheviki are Communists, but they want their
dictatorship, their government, to compel people to live in
Communism. Anarchist Communism, on the contrary, means voluntary
Communism, Communism from free choice
"I see the difference. It would be fine, of course;"
your friend admits. "But do you really think it possible?"
|
