This proposition needs only to be stated to be seen as thoroughly
false. For justice is administered by human beings, by judges andjuries, and every human being has his particular interests, notto speak of his personal sentiments, opinions, likes, dislikes, andprejudices, from which he can’t get away by merely putting on
a judge’s gown and sitting on the bench. The judge’s attitude tothings — like every one else’s — will be determined, consciously
and unconsciously, by his education and bringing up, by theenvironment in which he lives, by his feelings and opinions, andparticularly by his interests and the interests of the social groupto which he belongs.
Considering the above, you must realize that the alleged impartiality of the courts of justice is in truth a psychological impossibility. There is no such thing, and cannot be. At best the judge canbe relatively impartial in cases in which neither his sentiments nor
his interests — as an individual or member of a certain social group— are in any way concerned. In such cases you might get justice.
But these are usually of small importance, and they play a very
insignificant rôle in the general administration of justice.
Let us take an example. Suppose two business men are disputing over the possession of a certain piece of property, the matter
involving no political or social considerations of any kind. In such acase the judge, having no personal feeling or interest in the matter,
may decide the case on its merits. Even then his attitude will to aconsiderable extent depend on his state of health and his digestion,on the mood in which he left home, on a probable quarrel with his
spouse, and other seemingly unimportant and irrelevant yet very
decisive human factors.
Or suppose that two workingmen are in litigation over the ownership of a chicken coop. The judge may in such a case decide justly,since a verdict in favour of one or other of the litigants in no way
affects the position, feelings, or interests of the judge.
But suppose the case before him is that of a workingman in litigation with his landlord or with his employer. In such circumstances
60

What Is Communist
Anarchism?
Alexander Berkman

1929

Now, then, can you expect your boss to feel and act against his
interests? Can you expect the capitalist to be guided by the interests of his employees? Can you expect the mine owner to run his
business in the interests of the miners?
We have seen that the interests of the employer and employee
are different; so different that they are opposed to each other.
Can there be justice between them? Justice means that each gets
his due. Can the worker get his due or have justice in capitalist
society?
If he did, capitalism could not exist: because then your employer
could not make any profits out of your work. If the worker would
get his due — that is, the things he produces or their equivalent —where would the profits of the capitalist come from? If labor owned
the wealth it produces, there would be no capitalism.
It means that the worker cannot get what he produces, cannot
get what is due to him, and therefore cannot get justice under wage
slavery.
‘If that is the case,’ you remark, ‘he can appeal to the law, to thecourts.’What are the courts? What purpose do they serve? They exist to
uphold the law. If someone has stolen your overcoat and you canprove it, the courts would decide in your favor. If the accused isrich or has a clever lawyer, the chances are that the verdict will beto the effect that the whole thing was a misunderstanding, or that
it was an act of aberration, and the man will most likely go free.
But if you accuse your employer of robbing you of the greaterpart of your labor, of exploiting you for his personal benefit andprofit, can you get your due in the courts? The judge will dismissthe case, because it is not against the law for your boss to makeprofits out of your work. There is no law to forbid it. You will get
no justice that way.
It is said that ‘justice is blind.’ By that is meant that it recognizes
no distinction of station, of influence, of race, creed, or color.

59

Even in this simple instance you can observe the effect of authority: its effect on the one who possesses it and on those overwhom it is exercised. Authority tends to make its possessor unjust
and arbitrary; it also makes those subject to it acquiesce in wrong,
subservient, and servile. Authority corrupts its holder and debases
its victims.
If this is true of the simplest relations of existence, how much
more so in the larger field of our industrial, political, and sociallife?
We have seen how your economic dependence upon your boss
will affect your actions. Similarly it will influence others who aredependent upon him and his good will. Their interests will thus
control their actions, even if they are not clearly aware of it.
And the boss? Will he also not be influenced by his interests?
Will not his sympathies, his attitude and behavior be the result of
his particular interests?
The fact is, every one is controlled, in the main, by his interests.
Our feelings, our thoughts, our actions, our whole life is shaped,
consciously and unconsciously, by our interests.
I am speaking of ordinary human nature, of the average man.
Here and there you will find cases that seem to be exceptions. A
great idea or an ideal, for example, may take such hold of a personthat he will entirely devote himself to it and sometimes even sacrifice his life for it. In such an instance it might look as if the man
acted against his interests. But that is a mistake — it only seems
so. For in reality the idea or ideal for which the man lived or evengave his life, was his chief interest. The only difference is that theidealist finds his main interest in living for some idea, while thestrongest interest of the average man is to get on in the world andlive comfortably and peacefully. But both are controlled by their
dominant interests.
The interests of men differ, but we are all alike in that each of
us feels, thinks, and acts according to his particular interests, hisconception of them.
58

Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5
7

Chapter 1: What Do You Want Out Of Life?

10

Chapter 2: The Wage System

16

Chapter 3: Law and Government

21

Chapter 4: How the System Works

29

Chapter 5: Unemployment

37

Chapter 6: War?

42

Chapter 7: Church and School

53

Chapter 8: Justice56

Chapter 9: Can The Church Help You?

77

Chapter 10: Reformer and Politician

82

Chapter 11: The Trade Union

95

Chapter 12: Whose Is The Power?

107

Chapter 13: Socialism

113

Chapter 14: The February Revolution

1303

Chapter 15: Between February and October

137

Chapter 16: The Bolsheviki

145

Chapter 17: Revolution and Dictatorship

156

Chapter 18: The Dictatorship at Work

162

Chapter 19: Is Anarchism Violence?

172

Chapter 20: What is Anarchism?

181

Chapter 21: Is Anarchy Possible?

185

Chapter 22: Will Communist Anarchism Work?

194

Chapter 23: Non-Communist Anarchists

210

Chapter 24: Why Revolution?

213

Chapter 25: The Idea is the Thing

219

Chapter 26: Preparation

227

Chapter 27: Organization of Labor for the Social Revolution

241

Chapter 28: Principles and Practice260

Chapter 29: Consumption and Exchange

265

Chapter 30: Production

275

Chapter 31: Defense of the Revolution

285

4

It is money and the influence and authority which money commands, that alone count in the world.
Not justice, but possession.
Broaden this example to cover your own life, and you will findthat justice and equality are only cheap talk, lies which you aretaught, while money and power are the real thing, realities.
Yet there is a deep-seated sense of justice in mankind, and yourbetter nature always resents it when you see injustice done to any
one. You feel outraged and you become indignant over it: because
we all have an instinctive sympathy with our fellow-man, for by
nature and habit we are social beings. But when your interests orsafety are involved, you act differently; you even feel differently.
Suppose you see your brother do wrong to a stranger. You willcall his attention to it, you will chide him for it.
When you see your boss do an injustice to some fellow worker,
you also resent it and you feel like protesting. But you will mostprobably refrain from expressing your sentiments because you
might lose your job or get in bad with your boss.
Your interests suppress the better urge of your nature. Your dependence upon the boss and his economic power over you influence your behavior.
Suppose you see John beat and kick Bill when the latter is on the
ground. Both may be strangers to you, but if you are not afraid ofJohn, you’ll tell him to stop kicking a fellow who is down.
But when you see the policeman do the same thing to some citizen you will think twice before interfering, because he might beat
you up too and arrest you to boot. He has the authority.
John, who has no authority and who knows that some one mightinterfere when he is acting unjustly, will — as a rule — be careful
what he is about.
The policeman, who is vested with some authority and who
knows there is little chance of any one interfering with him, will
be more likely to act unjustly.

57

Foreword

Chapter 8: JusticeNo, my friend, terrible as it is to admit it, there is no justice inthe world.
Worse yet: there can be no justice as long as we live under conditions which enable one person to take advantage of another’s need,to turn it to his profit, and exploit his fellow man.
There can be no justice as long as one man is ruled by another; aslong as one has the authority and power to compel another against
his will.
There can be no justice between master and servant.
Nor equality.
Justice and equality can exist only among equals. Is the poor
street cleaner the social equal of Morgan? Is the washer woman
the equal of Lady Astor?
Let the washer woman and Lady Astor enter any place, private
or public. Will they receive equal welcome and treatment? Theirvery apparel will determine their respective reception. Becauseeven their clothes indicate, under present conditions, the difference in their social position, their station in life, their influence,
and wealth.
The washer woman may have toiled hard all her life long, may
have been a most industrious and useful member of the community.
The Lady may have never done a stroke of work, never been of
the least use to society. For all that it is the rich lady who will bewelcomed, who will be preferred.
I have chosen this homely example because it is typical of theentire character of our society, of our whole civilization.

56

I consider anarchism the most rational and practical conceptionof a social life in freedom and harmony. I am convinced that its
realization is a certainty in the course of human development.
The time of that realization will depend on two factors: first, on
how soon existing conditions will grow spiritually and physically
unbearable to considerable portions of mankind, particularly to thelaboring classes; and, secondly, on the degree in which Anarchist
views will become understood and accepted.
Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas; as long as
the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them aresafe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue
as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just.
The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive
present-day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism. Progress consists in abolishing what man has
outlived and substituting in its place a more suitable environment.
It must be evident even to the casual observer that society
is undergoing a radical change in its fundamental conceptions.
The World War and the Russian Revolution are the main causesof it. The war has unmasked the vicious character of capitalist
competition and the murderous incompetency of governments tosettle quarrels among nations, or rather among the ruling financial
cliques. It is because the people are losing faith in the old methods
that the Great Powers are now compelled to discuss limitation ofarmaments and even the outlawing of war. It is not so long agothat the very suggestion of such a possibility met with utmost
scorn and ridicule.
Similarly is breaking down the belief in other established institutions. Capitalism still ‘works’, but doubt about its expediency andjustice is gnawing at the heart of ever-widening social circles. The
Russian Revolution has broadcasted ideas and feelings that are un5dermining capitalist society, particularly its economic bases andthe sanctity of private ownership of the means of social existence.
For not only in Russia did the October change take place: it has
influenced the masses throughout the world. The cherished superstition that what exists is permanent has been shaken beyond recovery.
The war, the Russian Revolution, and the post-war developments
have combined also to disillusion vast numbers about Socialism. It
is literally true that, like Christianity, Socialism has conquered theworld by defeating itself. The Socialist parties now run or help to
run most of the European governments, but the people do not believe any more that they are different from other bourgeois régimes.
They feel that Socialism has failed and is bankrupt.
In like manner have the Bolsheviks proven that Marxian dogma
and Leninist principles can lead only to dictatorship and reaction.
To the Anarchists there is nothing surprising in all this. They
have always claimed that the State is destructive to individual liberty and social harmony, and that only the abolition of coercive
authority and material inequality can solve our political, economic
and national problems. But their arguments, though based on the
age-long experience of man, seemed mere theory to the present
generation, until the events of the last two decades have demonstrated in actual life the truth of the Anarchist position.
The breakdown of Socialism and of Bolshevism has cleared theway for Anarchism.
There is considerable literature on Anarchism, but most of its
larger works were written before the World War. The experienceof the recent past has been vital and has made certain revisions necessary in the Anarchist attitude and argumentation. Though the basic propositions remain the same, some modifications of practicalapplication are dictated by the facts of current history. The lessonsof the Russian Revolution in particular call for a new approach tovarious important problems, chief among them the character andactivities of the social revolution.
6

school preach to you ‘the will of God’: capitalism is good andnecessary, they tell you; you must be obedient to your masters,for ‘it is God’s will’ that there be rich and poor, and whoever goesagainst it is a sinner, a non-conformist, an anarchist.
So you see that church and school are still with the masters
against their slaves, just as in the past. Like the leopard, they may
change their spots, but never their nature. Still church and schoolside with the rich against the poor, with the powerful against their
victims, with ‘law and order’ against liberty and justice.
Now as formerly they teach the people to respect and obey theirmasters. When the tyrant was king, church and school taught respect for and obedience to the ‘law and order’ of the king. When the
king is abolished and a republic instituted, church and school teachrespect for and obedience to republican ‘law and order’. OBEY! thatis the eternal cry of church and school, no matter how vile thetyrant, no matter how oppressive and unjust ‘law and order’.
OBEY! For if you will cease obedience to authority you might
begin to think for yourself! That would be most dangerous to ‘lawand order’, the greatest misfortune for church and school. For then
you would find out that everything they taught you was a lie, andwas only for the purpose of keeping you enslaved, in mind andbody, so that you should continue to toil and suffer and keep quiet.
Such an awakening on your part would indeed be the greatest
calamity for church and school, for Master and Ruler.
But if you have gone thus far with me, if you have now begun tothink for yourself if you understand that capitalism robs you andthat government with its ‘law and order’ is there to help it do it;
if you realize that all the agencies of institutionalized religion andeducation serve only to delude you and keep you in bondage, thenyou might rightly feel outraged and cry out, ‘Is there no justice inthe world?’

55

But the truth cannot be suppressed forever. More and more persons gradually came to see that the ‘agitators’ who had been killedwere right. They came to understand that slavery was wrong andbad for them, and their numbers grew all the time. The tyrant madesevere laws to suppress them: his government did everything tostop them and their ‘evil designs’. Church and school denounced
those men. They were persecuted and hounded and executed in themanner of those days.
Sometimes they were put on a big cross and nailed to it, or they
had their heads cut off with an axe. At other times they were strangled to death, burned at the stake, quartered, or bound to horses
and slowly torn apart.
This was done by the church and the school and the law, often
even by the deluded mob, in various countries, and in the museums
to-day you can still see the instruments of torture and death whichwere used to punish those who tried to tell the truth to the people.
But in spite of torture and death, in spite of law and government,in spite of church and school and press, slavery was at last abolished, though people had insisted that ‘it was always so and mustremain so’.
Later, in the days of serfdom, when the nobles lorded it overthe common people, church and school were again on the side of
the rulers and the rich. Again they threatened the people with thewrath of God if they should dare to become rebellious and refuse
to obey their lords and governors. Again they brought down theirmaledictions upon the heads of the ‘disturbers’ and heretics who
dared defy the law and preach the gospel of greater liberty andwell-being. Again those ‘enemies of the people’ were persecuted,
hounded, and murdered — but the day came when serfdom wasabolished.
Serfdom gave place to capitalism with its wage slavery, andagain you find church and school on the side of the master andruler. Again they thunder against the ‘heretics’, the godless ones
who wish the people to be free and happy. Again church and54

Furthermore, Anarchist books, with few exceptions, are not accessible to the understanding of the average reader. It is the common failing of most works dealing with social questions that they
are written on the assumption that the reader is already familiar toa considerable extent with the subject, which is generally not thecase at all. As a result there are very few books treating of social
problems in a sufficiently simple and intelligible manner.
For the above reason I consider a restatement of the Anarchist
position very much needed at this time — a restatement in theplainest and clearest terms which can be understood by every one.
That is, an ABC of Anarchism.
With that object in view the following pages have been written.
Paris, 1928.

Introduction
I want to tell you about Anarchism.
I want to tell you what Anarchism is, because I think it is well
you should know it. Also because so little is known about it, andwhat is known is generally hearsay and mostly false.
I want to tell you about it, because I believe that Anarchism isthe finest and biggest thing man has ever thought of; the only thingthat can give you liberty and well-being, and bring peace and joy
to the world.
I want to tell you about it in such plain and simple language that
there will be no misunderstanding it. Big words and high sounding phrases serve only to confuse. Straight thinking means plain
speaking.
But before I tell you what Anarchism is, I want to tell you what
it is not.
That is necessary because so much falsehood has been spread
about Anarchism. Even intelligent persons often have entirely
wrong notions about it. Some people talk about Anarchism
7

without knowing a thing about it. And some lie about Anarchism,
because they don’t want you to know the truth about it.
Anarchism has many enemies; they won’t tell you the truth
about it. Why Anarchism has enemies and who they are, youwill see later, in the course of this story. Just now I can tell youthat neither your political boss nor your employer, neither thecapitalist nor the policeman will speak to you honestly about
Anarchism. Most of them know nothing about it, and all of themhate it. Their newspapers and publications — the capitalistic press— are also against it.
Even most Socialists and Bolsheviks misrepresent Anarchism.
True, the majority of them don’t know any better. But those who doknow better also often lie about Anarchism and speak of it as ‘disorder and chaos’. You can see for yourself how dishonest they are in
this: the greatest teachers of Socialism — Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels — had taught that Anarchism would come from Socialism.
They said that we must first have Socialism, but that after Socialism
there will be Anarchism, and that it would be a freer and more beautiful condition of society to live in than Socialism. Yet the Socialists,
who swear by Marx and Engels, insist on calling Anarchism ‘chaos
and disorder’, which shows you how ignorant or dishonest theyare.
The Bolsheviki do the same, although their greatest teacher,
Lenin, had said that Anarchism would follow Bolshevism, and thatthen it will be better and freer to live.
Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not.
It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.
Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should
enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you.

8

Chapter 7: Church and School
Yes, my friend, it has always been so. That is, law and government have always been on the side of the masters. The rich andpowerful have always doped you by ‘God’s will’, with the help of
the church and the school.
But must it always remain so?
In olden days, when the people were the slaves of some tyrant— of a tsar or other autocrat — the church (of every religion anddenomination) taught that slavery existed by ‘the will of God,’ that
it was good and necessary, that it could not be otherwise, and that
whoever was against it went against God’s will and was a godlessman, a heretic, a blasphemer and a sinner.
The school taught that this was right and just, that the tyrant
ruled by ‘the grace of God’, that his authority was not to be questioned, and that he was to be served and obeyed.
The people believed it and remained slaves.
But little by little there arose some men who had come to seethat slavery was wrong: that it was not right for one man to hold awhole people in subjection and be lord and master over their lives
and toil. And they went among the people and told them what they
thought.
Then the government of the tyrant pounced upon those men.
They were charged with breaking the laws of the land; they werecalled disturbers of the public peace, criminals, and enemies of thepeople. They were killed, and the church and the school said that
it was right, that they deserved death as rebels against the laws of
God and man. And the slaves believed it.

53

Think it over, my friend, and see what capital and government
are doing for you, doing to you.
Soon they will again be calling on you to ‘defend your country!’
In times of peace you slave in field and factory, in war you serve
as cannon fodder — all for the greater glory of your masters.
Yet you are told that ‘everything is all right’, that it is ‘God’s will’,that it ‘must be so’.
Don’t you see that it is not God’s will at all, but the doings ofcapital and government? Can’t you see that it is so and ‘must be
so’ only because you permit your political and industrial masters
to fool and dupe you, so they can live in comfort and luxury off
your toil and tears, while they treat you as the ‘common’ people,
the ‘lower orders’, just good enough to slave for them?
‘It has always been so,’ you remark meekly.

52

It means that you should be free to do the things you want to do;
and that you should not be compelled to do what you don’t want
to do.
It means that you should have a chance to choose the kind of alife you want to live, and live it without anybody interfering.
It means that the next fellow should have the same freedom asyou, that every one should have the same rights and liberties.
It means that all men are brothers, and that they should live like
brothers, in peace and harmony.
That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by
one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no
oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man.
In short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men
and women are free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of anordered and sensible life.
‘Can that be?’ you ask; ‘and how?’‘Not before we all become angels,’ your friend remarks.
Well, let us talk it over. Maybe I can show you that we can bedecent and live as decent folks even without growing wings.

9Chapter 1: What Do You Want
Out Of Life?
What is it that every one wants most in life? What do you wantmost?
After all, we are all the same under our skins. Whoever you be— man or woman, rich or poor, aristocrat or tramp, white, yellow,
red or black, of whatever land, nationality, or religion — we are allalike in feeling cold and hunger, love and hate; we all fear disasterand disease, and try to keep away from harm and death.
What you most want out of life, what you fear most, that also istrue, in the main, of your neighbor.
Learned men have written big books, many of them, on sociology, psychology, and many other ‘ologies’, to tell you what you
want, but no two of those books ever agree. And yet I think thatyou know very well without them what you want.
They have studied and written and speculated so much about
this, for them so difficult a question, that you, the individual, havebecome entirely lost in their philosophies. And they have at lastcome to the conclusion that you, my friend, don’t count at all.
What’s important, they say, is not you, but ‘the whole’, all thepeople together. This ‘whole’ they call ‘society’, ‘the commonwealth’, or ‘the State’, and the wiseacres have actually decided
that it makes no difference if you, the individual, are miserable solong as ‘society’ is all right. Somehow they forget to explain how‘society’ or ‘the whole’ can be all right if the single members of it
are wretched.

10

tian countrymen of the Nazarene’s command, ‘Thou shalt not kill’,
were branded cowards and shut up in prison; radicals who declaredthat the war was only in the interests of capitalism were treatedas ‘vicious foreigners, and ‘enemy spies’. Special laws were rushed
through to stifle every free expression of opinion. Dire punishment
was meted out to every objector. From the Atlantic to the Pacifichundred-percenters, drunk with murderous patriotism, spread terror. The whole country went mad with the frenzy of jingoism. The
nation-wide militarist propaganda at last swept the American people into the field of carnage.
Wilson was ‘too proud to fight’, but not too proud to send others to do the fighting for his financial backers. He was ‘too proud
to fight’, but not too proud to help the American plutocracy coingold out of the lives of seventy thousand Americans left dead on
European battlefields.
The ‘war for democracy’, the ‘war to end war’ proved the greatest sham in history. As a matter of fact, it started a chain of newwars not yet ended. It has since been admitted, even by Wilson
himself, that the war served no purpose except to reap vast profits
for Big Business. It created more complications in European affairs
than had ever existed before. It pauperized Germany and France,and brought them to the brink of national bankruptcy. It loaded thepeoples of Europe with stupendous debts, and put unbearable burdens upon their working classes. The resources of every country
were strained. The progress of science was registered by new facilities of destruction. Christian precept was proven by the multiplication of murder, and the treaties were signed with human blood.
The World War built huge fortunes for the lords of finance — andtombs for the workers.
And to-day? To-day we stand again on the brink of a new war,far greater and more terrible than the last holocaust. Every government is preparing for it and appropriating millions of dollars of theworkers’ sweat and blood for the coming carnage.

51

by getting a big country like the United States, with its over 100 millions of population, into the fray. President Wilson could not withstand their pressure. After all, government is but the maid-servantof the financial powers: it is there to do their bidding.
But how get America into the war when her people were expressly against it? Didn’t they elect Wilson as President on the clear
promise to keep the country out of war?
In former days, under absolute monarchs, the subjects were simply compelled to obey the king’s command. But that often involved
resistance and the danger of rebellion. In modern times there aresurer and safer means of making the people serve the interests of
their rulers. All that is necessary is to talk them into believing thatthey themselves want what their masters want them to do; that it
is to their own interests, good for their country, good for humanity.
In this manner the noble and fine instincts of man are harnessed
to do the dirty work of the capitalistic master class, to the shameand injury of mankind.
Modern inventions help in this game and make it comparatively
easy. The printed word, the telegraph, the telephone, and radio are
all sure aids in this matter. The genius of man, having produced
those wonderful things, is exploited and degraded in the interestsof Mammon and Mars.
President Wilson invented a new device to snare the American
people into the war for the benefit of Big Business. Woodrow Wilson, the former college president, discovered a ‘war for democracy’, a ‘war to end war’. With that hypocritical motto a countrywide campaign was started, rousing the worst tendencies of intolerance, persecution, and murder in American hearts; filling themwith venom and hatred against every one who had the courage
to voice an honest and independent opinion; beating up, imprisoning, and deporting those who dared to say that it was a capitalistic
war for profits. Conscientious objectors to the taking of humanlife were brutally maltreated as ‘slackers’ and condemned to long
penitentiary terms; men and women who reminded their Chris50

So they go on spinning their philosophic webs and producing
thick volumes to find out where you really enter in the scheme ofthings called life, and what you really want.
But you yourself know very well what you want, and so does
your neighbor.
You want to be well and healthy; you want to be free, to serve nomaster, to crawl and humiliate yourself before no man; you wantto have well-being for yourself, your family, and those near anddear to you. And not to be harassed and worried by the fear of
to-morrow.
You may feel sure that every one else wants the same. So thewhole matter seems to stand this way:
You want health, liberty, and well-being. Every one is like yourself in this respect.
Therefore we all seek the same thing in life.
Then why should we not all seek it together, by joint effort, helping each other in it?
Why should we cheat and rob, kill and murder each other, if weall seek the same thing? Aren’t you entitled to the things you want
as well as the next man?
Or is it that we can secure our health, liberty, and well-being
better by fighting and slaughtering each other?
Or because there is no other way?
Let us look into this.
Does it not stand to reason that if we all want the same thingin life, if we have the same aim, then our interests must also be
the same? In that case we should live like brothers, in peace andfriendship; we should be good to each other, and help each other
all we can.
But you know that it is not at all that way in life. You know that
we do not live like brothers. You know that the world is full ofstrife and war, of misery, injustice, and wrong, of crime, poverty,
and oppression.
Why is it that way then?
11

It is because, though we all have the same aim in life, our interests
are different. It is this that makes all the trouble in the world.
Just think it over yourself.
Suppose you want to get a pair of shoes or a hat. You go into thestore and you try to buy what you need as reasonably and cheaply
as you can. That is your interest. But the store-keeper’s interest is
to sell it to you as dearly as he can, because then his profit will begreater. That is because everything in the life we live is built on
making a profit, one way or another. We live in a system of profitmaking.
Now, it is plain that if we have to make profits out of each other,
then our interests cannot be the same. They must be different andoften even opposed to each other.
In every country you will find people who live by making a profit
out of others. Those who make the biggest profits are rich. Those
who cannot make profits are poor. The only people who cannot
make any profits are the workers. You can therefore understandthat the interests of the workers cannot be the same as the interestsof the other people. That is why you will find in every country
several classes of people with entirely different interests.
Everywhere you will find:
1. a comparatively small class of persons who make big profits
and who are very rich, such as bankers, great manufacturers
and land owners — people who have much capital and who
are therefore called capitalists. These belong to the capitalistic class;
2. a class of more or less well-to-do people, consisting of business men and their agents, real estate men, speculators, andprofessional men, such as doctors, lawyers, inventors, and soon. This is the middle class or the bourgeoisie.
3. great numbers of workingmen employed in various industries — in mills and mines, in factories and shops, in trans12

is full of such examples. Of course, war is a double-edged sword.
Often it, in turn, leads to revolt. But that is another story to which
we shall return when we come to the Russian Revolution.
If you have followed me thus far, you must realize that war isjust as much a direct result and inevitable effect of the capitalist
system as are the regular financial and industrial crises.
When a crisis comes, in the manner in which I have described
it, with its unemployment and hardships, you are told that it is
no one’s fault, that it is ‘bad times’, the result of ‘over-production’and similar humbug. And when capitalistic competition for profits
brings about a condition of war, the capitalists and their flunkies— the politicians and the press — raise the cry ‘Save your country!’in order to fill you with false patriotism and make you fight theirbattles for them.
In the name of patriotism you are ordered to stop being decent
and honest, to cease being yourself, to suspend your own judgment,
and give up your life; to become a will-less cog in a murderous
machine, blindly obeying the order to kill, pillage, and destroy; togive up your father and mother, wife and child, and all that you
love, and proceed to slaughter your fellow-men who never did you
any harm — who are just as unfortunate and deluded victims of
their masters as you are of yours.
Only too truly did Carlyle say that ‘patriotism is the refuge ofscoundrels.’
Can’t you see how you are fooled and duped?
Take the World War, for instance. Consider how the people ofAmerica were tricked into participation. They did not want to mix
in European affairs. They knew little of them, and they did not care
to be dragged into the murderous brawls. They elected Woodrow
Wilson on a ‘he kept us out of the war’ slogan.
But the American plutocracy saw that huge fortunes could be
gained in the war. They were not satisfied with the millions they
were reaping by selling ammunition and other supplies to the European combatants; immeasurably greater profits were to be made49

In a sensible, humane society that could not be. On the contrary,
the greater the population of a certain community the better it
would be for all, because the work of each would then be lighter.
A community is no different in this regard than a family. Everyfamily needs a certain amount of work to be done in order to keep
its wants supplied. Now the more persons there are in the family to
do the necessary work, the easier for each member, the less workfor each.
The same holds true of a community or a country, which is onlya family on a large scale. The more people there are to do the work
necessary to supply the needs of the community, the easier the taskof each member.1
If the contrary is the case in our present-day society, it merely
goes to prove that conditions are wrong, barbaric, and perverse.
Nay, more: that they are absolutely criminal if the capitalist system
can thrive on the slaughter of its members.
It is evident then that for the workers war means only greater
burdens, more taxes, harder toil, and the reduction of their pre-war
standard of living.
But there is one element in capitalist society for whom war isgood. It is the element that coins money out of war, that gets richon your ‘patriotism’ and self-sacrifice. It is the munitions manufacturers, the speculators in food and other supplies, the warshipbuilders. In short, it is the great lords of finance, industry, and commerce who alone benefit by war.
For these war is a blessing. A blessing in more than one way.
Because war also serves to distract the attention of the laboring
masses from their everyday misery and turns it to ‘high politics’and human slaughter. Governments and rulers have often soughtto avoid popular uprising and revolution by staging a war. History
1

There never need be any danger of over-populating the earth. Nature provides her own checks against it. What we need is a more rational distributionof population, intensive agriculture and a more intelligent control over our birth
rate.

48

port and on the land. This is the working class, also called
the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie and the capitalists really belong to the same
capitalistic class, because they have about the same interests, andtherefore the people of the bourgeoisie also generally side with thecapitalist class as against the working class.
You will find that the working class is always the poorest class,in every country. Maybe you yourself belong to the workers, to theproletariat. Then you know that your wages will never make yourich.
Why are the workers the poorest class? Surely they labor morethan the other classes, and harder. Is it because the workers are
not very important in the life of society? Perhaps we can even dowithout them?
Let us see. What do we need to live? We need food, clothing, andshelter; schools for our children; street cars and trains for travel,
and a thousand and one other things.
Can you look about you and point out a single thing that wasmade without labor? Why, the shoes you stand in, and the streets
you walk on, are the result of labor. Without labor there would
be nothing but the bare earth, and human life would be entirely
impossible.
So it means that labor has created everything we have — all thewealth of the world. It is all the product of labor applied to the earth
and its natural resources.
But if all the wealth is the product of labor, then why does it
not belong to labor? That is, to those who have worked with theirhands or with their heads to create it — the manual worker and thebrain worker.
Everybody agrees that a person has a right to own the thing that
he himself has made.
But no one person has made or can make anything all by himself.
It takes many men, of different trades and professions, to create13

something. The carpenter, for instance, cannot make a simple chairor bench all by himself; not even if he should cut down a tree andprepare the lumber himself. He needs a saw and a hammer, nails
and tools, which he cannot make himself. And even if he shouldmake these himself, he would first have to have the raw materials— steel and iron — which other men would have to supply.
Or take another example — let us say a civil engineer. He could
do nothing without paper and pencil and measuring tools, andthese things other people have to make for him. Not to mention
that first he has to learn his profession and spend many years instudy, while others enable him to live in the meantime. This applies
to every human being in the world to-day.
You can see then that no person can by his own efforts alone
make the things he needs to exist. In early times the primitive man
who lived in a cave could hammer a hatchet out of stone or makehimself a bow and arrow, and live by that. But those days are gone.
To-day no man can live by his own work: he must be helped by thelabor of others. Therefore all that we have, all wealth, is the productof the labor of many people, even of many generations. That is tosay: all labor and the products of labor are social, made by society
as a whole.
But if all the wealth we have is social, then it stands to reason
that it should belong to society, to the people as a whole. How doesit happen, then, that the wealth of the world is owned by someindividuals and not by the people? Why does it not belong to those
who have toiled to create it — the masses who work with hand orbrain, the working class as a whole?
You know very well that it is the capitalistic class which owns thegreatest part of the world’s wealth. Must we therefore not conclude
that the working people have lost the wealth they created, or thatsomehow it was taken away from them?
They did not lose it, for they never owned it. Then it must be that
it was taken away from them.

14fools to fight for the interests of the rich. People who have actuallyfought in battles will tell you that modern war has nothing to dowith personal courage: it is mass fighting at a great distance fromthe enemy. Personal encounters, in which the best man may win,
are extremely rare. In modern war you don’t see your antagonists:
you fight blindly, like a machine. You go into battle scared to death,fearing that the next minute you may be shot to pieces. You go only
because you don’t have the courage to refuse.
The man who can face vilification and disgrace, who can standup against the popular current, even against his friends and his
country when he knows he is right, who can defy those in authority
over him who can take punishment and prison and remain steadfast — that is a man of courage. The fellow whom you taunt as a‘slacker’ because he refuses to turn murderer — he needs courage.
But do you need much courage just to obey orders, to do as you
are told and to fall in line with thousands of others to the tune ofgeneral approval and the ‘Star Spangled Banner’?
War paralyzes your courage and deadens the spirit of true manhood. It degrades and stupefies with the sense that you are not responsible that ’‘tis not yours to think and reason why, but to do anddie’, like the hundred thousand others doomed like yourself. War
means blind obedience, unthinking stupidity, brutish callousness,wanton destruction, and irresponsible murder.
I have met persons who say that war is good because it kills
many people, so that there is more work for the survivors.
Consider what a terrible indictment this is against the present
system. Imagine a condition of things where it is good for the people of a certain community to have some of their number killed off,
so the rest could live better! Would it not be the worst man-eating
system, the worst cannibalism?
That is just what capitalism is: a system of cannibalism in which
one devours his fellow-man or is devoured by him. This is true ofcapitalism in time of peace as in war, except that in war its realcharacter is unmasked and more evident.
47

the pockets of the people. So war is bad for them materially, notto speak of the brutalizing effect war has upon mankind in general.
And don’t forget that 999 out of every 1,000 who are killed, blinded,or maimed in war are of the laboring class, sons of workers andfarmers.
In modern war there is no victor, for the winning side loses
almost as much as the defeated one. Sometimes even more, likeFrance in the late struggle: France is poorer to-day than Germany.
The workers of both countries are taxed to starvation to make goodthe losses sustained in the war. Labor’s wages and standards ofliving are much lower now in the European countries that participated in the World War than they were before the great catastrophe.
‘But the United States got rich through the war,’ you object.
You mean that a handful of men gained millions, and that the big
Capitalists made huge profits. Surely they did: the great financiersby lending Europe money at a high rate of interest and by supplying war material and munitions. But where do you come in?
Just stop to consider how Europe is paying off its financial debt
to America or the interest on it. It does so by squeezing more laborand profits out of the workers. By paying lower wages and producing goods more cheaply the European manufacturers can undersell
their American competitors, and for this reason the American manufacturer is compelled also to produce at lower cost. That’s wherehis ‘economy’ and ‘rationalization’ come in, and as a result you
must work harder or have your wages reduced, or be thrown outof employment altogether. Do you see how low wages in Europe
directly affect your own condition? Do you realize that you, theAmerican worker, are helping to pay the American bankers theinterest on their European loans?
There are people who claim that war is good because it cultivates physical courage. The argument is stupid. It is made only by
those who have themselves never been to war and whose fighting is done by others. It is a dishonest argument, to induce poor
46

This is beginning to look serious. Because if you say that thewealth they created has been taken away from the people who created it, then it means that it has been stolen from them, that they
have been robbed, for surely no one has ever willingly consented
to have his wealth taken away from him.
It is a terrible charge, but it is true. The wealth the workers havecreated, as a class, has indeed been stolen from them. And they
are being robbed in the same way every day of their lives, evenat this very moment. That is why one of the greatest thinkers, theFrench philosopher Proudhon, said that the possessions of the richare stolen property.
You can readily understand how important it is that every honest man should know about this. And you may be sure that if theworkers knew about it, they would not stand for it.
Let us see then how they are robbed and by whom.

15Chapter 2: The Wage System
Did you ever stop to ask yourself this question: why were youborn from your parents and not from some others?
You understand, of course, what I am driving at. I mean that yourconsent was not asked. You were simply born; you did not have achance to select the place of your birth or to choose your parents.
It was just chance.
So it happened that you were not born rich. Maybe your people are of the middle class; more likely, though, they belong to theworkers, and so you are one of those millions, the masses, whohave to work for a living.
The man who has money can put it into some business or industry. He invests it and lives on the profits. But you have no money.
You have only your ability to work, your labor power.
There was a time when every workingman worked for himself.
There were no factories then and no big industries. The laborer had
his own tools and his own little workshop, and he even bought
himself the raw materials he needed. He worked for himself, andhe was called an artisan or craftsman.
Then came the factory and the large workshop. Little by little
they crowded out the independent workman, the artisan, because
he could not make things as cheaply as the factory — he could notcompete with the big manufacturer. So the artisan had to give up
his little workshop and go to the factory to work.
In the factories and large plants things are produced on a big
scale. Such big-scale production is called industrialism. It has madethe employers and manufacturers very rich, so that the lords of industry and commerce have accumulated much money, much capi16

Dumdrudge, in like manner wending, till at length,
after infinite effort, the two parties come into actual
juxtaposition; and Thirty stands fronting Thirty, eachwith a gun in his hand.
‘Straightway the word ‘Fire!’ is given, and they blow
the souls out of one another, and in the place of
sixty brisk useful craftsmen, the world has sixty deadcarcasses, which it must bury, and anon shed tears for.
Had these men any quarrel? Busy as the devil is, notthe smallest! They lived far enough apart; were theentirest strangers; nay, in so wide a universe, there
was even, unconsciously, by commerce, some mutual
helpfulness between them. How then? Simpleton!
Their governors had fallen out; and instead of shooting one another, had the cunning to make these poor
blockheads shoot.’
It is not for your country that you fight when you go to war. It’sfor your governors, your rulers, your capitalistic masters.
Neither your country, nor humanity, neither you nor your class— the workers — gain anything by war. It is only the big financiersand capitalists who profit by it.
War is bad for you. It is bad for the workers. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by it. They don’t even get any
glory from it, for that goes to the big generals and field marshals.
What do you get in war? You get lousy, you get shot, gassed,
maimed, or killed. That is all the workers of any country get out ofwar.
War is bad for your country, bad for humanity: it spells slaughter and destruction. Everything that war destroys — bridges andharbors, cities and ships, fields and factories — all must be built
up again. That means that the people are taxed, directly and indirectly, to build it up. For in the last analysis everything comes from45

like you they can’t make war! So they raise the cry of ‘Defend yourcountry! Your flag is insulted!’ Sometimes they actually hire thugs
to insult your country’s flag in a foreign land, or get some American property destroyed there, so as to make sure the people athome will get wild over it and rush to join the Army and Navy.
Don’t think I exaggerate. American capitalists are known to havecaused even revolutions in foreign countries (particularly in SouthAmerica) so as to get a more ‘friendly’ new government there andthus secure the concessions they wanted.
But generally they don’t need to go to such lengths. All they
have to do is appeal to your ‘patriotism’, flatter you a bit, tell youthat you can ‘lick the whole world,’ and they get you ready to don
the soldier’s uniform and do their bidding.
This is what your patriotism, your love of country is used for.
Truly did the great English thinker Carlyle write:‘What, speaking in quite unofficial language, is the net
purport and upshot of war? To my own knowledge,
for example, there dwell and toil, in the British villageof Dumdrudge, usually some five hundred souls. Fromthese, by certain ‘natural enemies’ of the French there
are successively selected, during the French war,
say thirty able-bodied men. Dumdrudge, at her own
expense, has suckled and nursed them; she has, notwithout difficulty and sorrow, fed them up to man
hood, and even trained them to crafts, so that one
can weave, another build, another hammer, and theweakest can stand under thirty stone avoirdupois.
Nevertheless, amid much weeping and swearing, they
are selected; all dressed in red; and shipped away, atpublic charge, some two thousand miles, or say only
to the south of Spain, and fed there till wanted.
‘And now to that same spot in the south of Spain
are thirty similar French artisans, from a French
44tal. Therefore that system is called capitalism. We all live to-day inthe capitalist system.
In the capitalist system the workingman cannot work for himself, as in the old days. He cannot compete with the big manufacturers. So, if you are a workman, you must find an employer. You
work for him; that is, you give him your labor for so and so many
hours a day or week, and he pays you for it. You sell him your labor
power and he pays you wages.
In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor
power to the employing class. The workers build factories, makemachinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep thefactories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as theirprofit. The workers get only wages.
This arrangement is called the wage system.
Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his
wage only about one-tenth of what he produces. The other ninetenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.
It means this:Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of
their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using thosefactories. That’s the landlord’s profit.
Though the workers have made the tools and the machinery, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those tools and machinery. That’s the manufacturer’s
profit.
Though the workers built the railroads and are running them,another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the transportation of the goods they make. That’s the railroad’s profit.
And so on, including the banker who lends the manufacturer
other people’s money, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen, all of whom get their slice of the worker’s toil.
What is left then — one-tenth of the real worth of the worker’s
labor — is his share, his wage.
17

Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, theworker.
It seems strange, doesn’t it, that such a thing should be permitted?
Yes, indeed, it is very strange; and the strangest thing of all is thatthe whole world looks on and doesn’t do a thing about it. Worse
yet, the workers themselves don’t do anything about it. Why, mostof them think that everything is all right, and that the capitalist
system is good.
It is because the workers don’t see what is happening to them.
They don’t understand that they are being robbed. The rest of theworld also understands very little about it, and when some honest
man tries to tell them, they shout ‘anarchist!’ at him, and they shut
him up or put him in prison.
Of course, the capitalists are very much satisfied with the capitalist system. Why shouldn’t they be? They get rich by it. So you
can’t expect them to say it’s no good.
The middle classes are the helpers of the capitalists and they also
live off the labor of the working class, so why should they object?
Of course, here and there you will find some man or woman of the
middle class stand up and speak the truth about the whole matter.
But such persons are quickly silenced and cried down as “enemiesof the people”, as crazy disturbers and anarchists.
But you would think that the workers should be the first to object
to the capitalist system, for it is they who are robbed and who suffer
most from it.
Yes, so it should be. But it isn’t so, which is very sad.
The workers know that the shoe pinches somewhere. They knowthat they toil hard all their lives and that they get just enough toexist on, and sometimes not even enough. They see that their employers can ride about in fine automobiles and live in the greatest
luxury, with their wives decked out in expensive clothes and diamonds, while the worker’s wife can hardly afford a new calico
18

England, Germany, France, or to some other country, and tries todispose there of his ‘over-production’, of his ‘surplus’.
But there he finds the same conditions as in his own country.
There they also have ‘over-production’; that is, the workers are
so exploited and underpaid that they cannot buy the commodities they have produced. The manufacturers of England, Germany,
France, etc., are therefore also looking for other markets, just as
the American manufacturer.
The American manufacturers of a certain industry organize
themselves into a big combine, the industrial magnates of theother countries do the same, and the national combines begin
competing with each other. The capitalists of each country try to
grab the best markets, especially new markets. They find such newmarkets in China, Japan India, and similar countries; that is, incountries that have not yet developed their own industries. Wheneach country will have developed its own industries, there will
be no more foreign markets, and then some powerful capitalistic
group will become the international trust of the whole world. But
in the meantime the capitalistic interests of the various industrial
countries fight for the foreign markets and compete with eachother there. They compel some weaker nation to give them special
privileges, ‘favored treatment’; they arouse the envy of theircompetitors get into trouble about concessions and sources of
profit, and call upon their respective governments to defend theirinterests. The American capitalist appeals to his government toprotect ‘American’ interests. The capitalists of France, Germany,and England do the same: they call upon their governments toprotect their profits. Then the various governments call upon theirpeople to ’defend their country’.
Do you see how the game is played? You are not told that you
are asked to protect the privileges and dividends of some American capitalist in a foreign country. They know that if they tell you
that, you would laugh at them and you would refuse to get yourself
shot to swell the profits of plutocrats. But without you and others
43Chapter 6: War?
War! Do you realize what it means? Do you know of any moreterrible word in our language? Does it not bring to your mind pictures of slaughter and carnage, of murder, pillage, and destruction?
Can’t you hear the belching of cannon, the cries of the dying andwounded? Can you not see the battlefield strewn with corpses? Living humans torn to pieces, their blood and brains scattered about,men full of life suddenly turned to carrion. And there, at home,
thousands of fathers and mothers’ wives and sweethearts living inhourly dread lest some mischance befall their loved ones, and waiting, waiting for the return of those who will return nevermore.
You know what war means. Even if you yourself have never beenat the front, you know that there is no greater curse than war withits millions of dead and maimed, its countless human sacrifices, its
broken lives, ruined homes its indescribable heartache and misery.
‘It’s terrible’, you admit, ‘but it can’t be helped’. You think thatwar must be, that times come when it is inevitable, that you must
defend your country when it is in danger.
Let us see, then, whether you really defend your country when
you go to war. Let us see what causes war, and whether it is for the
benefit of your country that you are called upon to don the uniform
and start off on the campaign of slaughter.
Let us consider whom and what you defend in war: who is interested in it and who profits by it.
We must return to our manufacturer. Unable to sell his productat a profit in his own country, he (and manufacturers of other commodities likewise) seeks a market in some foreign land. He goes to42dress. So the workers seek to improve their condition by trying to
get better wages. It is the same as if I woke up at night in my houseand found that a burglar had collected all my things and is about toget away with them. Suppose that instead of stopping him, I should
say to him: ‘Please, Mr. Burglar, leave me at least one suit of clothes
so I can have something to put on’, and then thank him if he gives
me back a tenth part of the things he has stolen from me.
But I am getting ahead of my story. We shall return to the worker
and see how he tries to improve his condition and how little hesucceeds. Just now I want to tell you why the worker does not takethe burglar by the neck and kick him out; that is, why he begs thecapitalist for a little more bread or wages, and why he does not
throw him off his back, altogether.
It is because the worker, like the rest of the world, has been madeto believe that everything is all right and must remain as it is; andthat if a few things are not quite as they should be, then it is because‘people are bad’, and everything will right itself in the end, anyhow.
Just see if that is not true of yourself. At home, when you were achild, and when you asked so many questions, you were told that‘it is right so,’ that ‘it must be so,’ that ‘God made it so,’ and thateverything was all right.
And you believed your father and mother, as they had believed
their fathers and mothers, and that is why you now think just as
your grandfather did.
Later, in school, you were told the same things. You were taughtthat God had made the world and that all is well; that there must be
rich and poor, and that you should respect the rich and be content
with your lot. You were told that your country stands for justice,and that you must obey the law. The teacher, the priest, and thepreacher all impressed it upon you that your life is ordained by
God and that ‘His will be done.’ And when you saw a poor man
dragged off to prison, they told you that he was bad because hehad stolen something, and that it was a great crime.

19But neither at home, nor in school, nor anywhere else were you
ever told that it is a crime for the rich man to steal the productof the worker’s labor, or that the capitalists are rich because they
have possessed themselves of the wealth which labor created.
No, you were never told that, nor did any one else ever hear it inschool or church. How can you then expect the workers to knowit?
On the contrary, your mind — when you were a child and lateron, too — has been stuffed so full of false ideas that when you hear
the plain truth you wonder if it is really possible.
Perhaps you can see now why the workers do not understandthat the wealth they have created has been stolen from them andis being stolen every day.
‘But the law,’ you ask, ‘the government — does it permit suchrobbery? Is not theft forbidden by law?’

So the capitalist system of production for profit results in thiscrazy situation:
1. people have to starve — not because there is not enough foodbut because there is too much of it; they have to do without the things they need, because there is too much of those
things on hand;
2. because there is too much, manufacture is cut down, throwing thousands out of work;
3. being out of work and therefore not earning, those thousands
lose their buying capacity. The grocer, the butcher, the tailor
all suffer, as a result. That means increased unemployment
all around, the crisis gets worse.
Under capitalism this happens in every industry.
Such crises are inevitable in a system of production for profit.
They come from time to time; they return periodically, always getting worse. They deprive thousands and hundreds of thousands of
employment causing poverty, distress, and untold misery. They result in bankruptcy and bank failures, which swallow up whatever
little the worker have saved in time of ‘prosperity’. They cause want
and need, drive people to despair and crime, to suicide and insanity.
Such are the results of production for profit; such the fruits ofsystem of capitalism.
Yet that is not all. There is another result of this system, are evenworse than all the others combined.
That is War.

20

41

You see that production for profit means longer hours and fewer
persons employed than would be the case if production were foruse.
Capitalism is the system of production for profit, and that is why
capitalism always must have unemployed.
But look further into this system of production for profit andyou will see how its basic evil works a hundred other evils.
Let us follow the shoe manufacturer of your city. He has no wayof knowing, as I have already pointed out, who will or will not beable to buy his shoes. He makes a rough guess, he ‘estimates’, andhe decides to manufacture, let us say, 50,000 pairs. Then he puts his
product on the market. That is, the wholesaler, the jobber, and thestorekeeper put them up for sale.
Suppose only 30,000 pairs were sold; 20,000 pairs remain on
hand. Our manufacturer, unable to sell the balance in his own city,
will try to dispose of it, in some other part of the country. But
the shoe manufacturers there have also had the same experience.
They also can’t sell all they have produced. The supply of shoes
is greater than the demand for them, they tell you. They have to
cut down production. That means the discharge of some of theiremployees, thus increasing the army of the unemployed.
‘Over-production’ this is called. But in truth it is not overproduction at all. It is under-consumption, because there are many
people who need new shoes, but they can’t afford to buy them.
The result? The warehouses are stocked with the shoes the people want but cannot buy, shops and factories close because of the‘oversupply’. The same things happen in other industries. You are
told that there is a ‘crisis’ and your wages must be reduced.
Your wages are cut; you are put on part time or you lose yourwork altogether. Thousands of men and women are thrown outof employment in that manner. Their wages stop and they cannot
buy the food and other things they need. Are those things not tobe had? No, on the contrary; the warehouses and stores are filledwith them, there is too much of them there’s ‘over-production’.
40

Chapter 3: Law andGovernment
Yes, you are right: the law forbids theft.
If I should steal something from you, you can call a policeman
and have me arrested. The law will punish the thief, and the government will return to you the stolen property, if possible, because thelaw forbids stealing. It says that no one has a right to take anythingfrom you without your consent.
But your employer takes from you what you produce. The whole
wealth produced by labor is taken by the capitalists and kept bythem as their property.
The law says that your employer does not steal anything fromyou, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to workfor your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. Because you consented to it, the law says that he does not steal anything from you.
But did you really consent?
When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turnyour valuables over to him. You ‘consent’ all right, but you do so
because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled byhis gun.
Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman’s gun. You must live, and so must
your wife and children. You can’t work for yourself; under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer. The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you
must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. What21

ever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comesto the same: you must work for him. You can’t help yourself. You
are compelled.
In this way the whole working class is compelled to work for thecapitalist class. In this manner the workers are compelled to giveup all the wealth they produce. The employers keep that wealth astheir profit, while the worker gets only a wage, just enough to liveon, so he can go on producing more wealth for his employer. Is thatnot cheating, robbery?
The law says it is a ‘free agreement’. Just as well might the highwayman say that you ‘agreed’ to give up your valuables. The only
difference is that the highwayman’s way is called stealing and robbery, and is forbidden by law. While the capitalist way is calledbusiness, industry, profit making, and is protected by law.
But whether it is done in the highwayman’s way or in the capitalist way, you know that you are robbed.
The whole capitalist system rests on such robbery.
The whole system of law and government upholds and justifies
this robbery.
That’s the order of things called capitalism, and law and government are there to protect this order of things.
Do you wonder that the capitalist and employer, and all those
who profit by this order of things, are strong for ‘law and order’?
But where do you come in? What benefit have you from thatkind of ‘law and order’? Don’t you see that this ‘law and order’
only robs you, fools you, and just enslaves you?
‘Enslave me?’ you wonder. ‘Why, I am a free citizen!’
Are you free, really? Free to do what? To live as you please? To
do what you please?
Let’s see. How do you live? What does your freedom amount to?
You depend on your employer for your wages or your salary,
don’t you? And your wages determine your way of living, don’t
they? The conditions of your life, even what you eat and drink,

22

You can see for yourself how dangerous and degrading such asituation is for the worker, not to speak of the other evils of thesystem.
‘Then why not do away with unemployment?’ you demand.
Yes, it would be fine to do away with it. But it could be accomplished only by doing away with the capitalist system and its wage
slavery. As long as you have capitalism — or any other system of labor exploitation and profit-making — you will have unemployment.
Capitalism can’t exist without it: it is inherent in the wage system.
It is the fundamental condition of successful capitalist production.
‘Why?’
Because the capitalist industrial system does not produce for theneeds of the people; it produces for profit. Manufacturers do not
produce commodities because the people want them and as muchof them as is required. They produce what they expect to sell, andsell at a profit.
If we had a sensible system, we would produce the things which
the people want and the quantity they need. Suppose the inhabitants of a certain locality needed 1,000 pairs of shoes; and suppose
we’d have 50 shoemakers for the job. Then in 20 hours work thoseshoemakers would produce the shoes our community needs.
But the shoemaker of to-day does not know and does not care
how many pairs of shoes are needed. Thousands of people mayneed new shoes in your city, but they cannot afford to buy them.
So what good is it to the manufacturer to know who needs shoes?
What he wants to know is who can buy the shoes he makes: how
many pairs he can sell at a profit.
What happens? Well, he will manufacture about as many pairsof shoes as he thinks he will be able to sell. He will try his best to
produce them as cheaply and sell them as dearly as he can, so as
to make a good profit. He will therefore employ as few workers as
possible to manufacture the quantity of shoes he wants, and he will
have them work as ‘efficiently’ and hard as he can compel them to.

39

It is in the interest of the people that there should be no unemployed, that all should have an opportunity to work and earn
their living; that all should help, each according to his ability andstrength, to increase the wealth of the country, so that each shouldbe able to have a greater share of it.
But capitalism is not interested in the welfare of the people. Capitalism, as I have shown before, is interested only in profits. By
employing less people and working them long hours larger profits
can be made than by giving work to more people at shorter hours.
That is why it is to the interest of your employer, for instance, tohave 100 people work 10 hours daily rather than to employ 200 at
5 hours. He would need more room for 200 than for 100 persons —a larger factory, more tools and machinery, and so on. That is, hewould require a greater investment of capital. The employment ofa larger force at less hours would bring less profits, and that is why
your boss will not run his factory or shop on such a plan. Whichmeans that a system of profit-making is not compatible with considerations of humanity and the well-being of the workers. On thecontrary, the harder and more ‘efficiently’ you work and the longer
hours you stay at it, the better for your employer and the greaterhis profits.
You can therefore see that capitalism is not interested in employing all those who want and are able to work. On the contrary: aminimum of ‘hands’ and a maximum of effort is the principle andthe profit of the capitalist system. This is the whole secret of all‘rationalization’ schemes. And that is why you will find thousandsof people in every capitalist country willing and anxious to work,
yet unable to get employment. This army of unemployed is a constant threat to your standard of living. They are ready to take yourplace at lower pay, because necessity compels them to it. That is, ofcourse, very advantageous to the boss: it is a whip in his hands constantly held over you, so you will slave hard for him and ‘behave’
yourself.

38

where you go and with whom you associate, — all of it depends on
your wages.
No, you are not a free man. You are dependent on your employer
and on your wages. You are really a wage slave.
The whole working class, under the capitalist system, is dependent on the capitalist class. The workers are wage slaves.
So, what becomes of your freedom? What can you do with it?
Can you do more with it than your wages permit?
Can’t you see that your wage — your salary or income — is all
the freedom that you have? Your freedom, your liberty, don’t go astep further than the wages you get.
The freedom that is given you on paper, that is written down inlaw books and constitutions, does not do you a bit of good. Such
freedom only means that you have the right to do a certain thing.
But it doesn’t mean that you can do it. To be able to do it, you musthave the chance, the opportunity. You have a right to eat three finemeals a day, but if you haven’t the means, the opportunity to getthose meals, then what good is that right to you?
So freedom really means opportunity to satisfy your needs andwants. If your freedom does not give you that opportunity, than it
does you no good. Real freedom means opportunity and well-being.
If it does not mean that, it means nothing.
You see, then, that the whole situation comes to this:Capitalism robs you and makes a wage slave of you.
The law upholds and protects that robbery.
The government fools you into believing that you are independent and free.
In this way you are fooled and duped every day of your life.
But how does it happen that you didn’t think of it before? How
is it that most other people don’t see it, either?
It is because you and every one else are lied to about this all thetime, from your earliest childhood.
You are told to be honest, while you are being robbed all your
life.
23

You are commanded to respect the law, while the law protects
the capitalist who is robbing you.
You are taught that killing is wrong, while the government hangs
and electrocutes people and slaughters them in war.
You are told to obey the law and government, though law andgovernment stand for robbery and murder.
Thus all through life you are lied to, fooled, and deceived, so that
it will be easier to make profits out of you, to exploit you.
Because it is not only the employer and the capitalist who makeprofits out of you. The government, the church, and the school —they all live on your labor. You support them all. That is why all ofthem teach you to be content with your lot and behave yourself.
‘Is it really true that I support them all?’ you ask in amazement.
Let us see. They eat and drink and are clothed, not to speak of theluxuries they enjoy. Do they make the things they use and consume,
do they do the planting and sowing and building and so on?
‘But they pay for those things,’ your friend objects.
Yes, they pay. Suppose a fellow stole fifty dollars from you andthen went and bought with it a suit of clothes for himself. Is thatsuit by right his? Didn’t he pay for it? Well, just so the people who
don’t produce anything or do no useful work pay for things. Their
money is the profits they or their parents before them squeezed outof you, out of the workers.
‘Then it is not my boss who supports me, but I him?’
Of course. He gives you a job; that is, permission to work in thefactory or mill which was not built by him but by other workers
like yourself. And for that permission you help to support him forthe rest of your life or as long as you work for him. You support
him so generously that he can afford a mansion in the city and ahome in the country, even several of them, and servants to attend to
his wants and those of his family, and for the entertainment of his
friends, and for horse races and for boat races, and for a hundred
other things. But it is not only to him that you are so generous.
Out of your labor, by direct and indirect taxation, are supported
24

Chapter 5: Unemployment
I am glad your friend asked the question, for every workingman
realises how important this matter of unemployment is to him. You
know what your life is when you are out of work; and when you
do have a job, how the fear of losing it hangs over you. You are also
aware what a danger the standing army of unemployed is to you
when you are out on strike for better conditions. You know thatstrikebreakers are enlisted from the unemployed whom capitalism
always keeps on hand, to help break your strike.
‘How does capitalism keep the unemployed on hand?’ you ask.
Simply by compelling you to work long hours and as hard as
possible, so as to produce the greatest amount. All the modern
schemes of ‘efficiency’, the Taylor and other systems of ‘economy’and ‘rationalization’ serve only to squeeze greater profits out of
the worker. It is economy in the interest of the employer only. But
as concerns you, the worker, this ‘economy’ spells the greatest expenditure of your effort and energy, a fatal waste of your vitality.
It pays the employer to use up and exploit your strength andability at the highest tension. True, it ruins your health and breaks
down your nervous system, makes you a prey to illness and disease (there are even special proletarian diseases), cripples you andbrings you to an early grave — but what does your boss care? Are
there not thousands of unemployed waiting for your job and readyto take it the moment you are disabled or dead?
That is why it is to the profit of the capitalist to keep an army ofunemployed ready at hand. It is part and parcel of the wage system,a necessary and inevitable characteristic of it.

37

dustries, pittances, that directly compel many of them to prostitutetheir bodies to help eke out a living? Do they tell you of the armyof unemployed that capitalism holds ready to take the bread fromyour mouth when you go on strike for better pay? Do they tell youthat unemployment, with all its heartache, suffering, and misery is
due directly to the system of capitalism? Do they tell you how the
wage slave’s toil and sweat are coined into profits for the capitalist? How the worker’s health, his mind and body are sacrificed to
the greed of the lords of industry? How labor and lives are wasted
in stupid capitalist competition and planless production?
Indeed, they tell you a lot about crimes and criminals, about the‘badness’ and ‘evil’ of man, especially of the ‘lower’ classes, of theworkers. But they don’t tell you that capitalist conditions produce
most of our evils and crime, and that capitalism itself is the greatest crime of all; that it devours more lives in a single day than all
the murderers put together. The destruction of life and property
caused by criminals throughout the world since human life began
is mere child’s play when compared with the ten millions killed
and twenty millions wounded and the incalculable havoc and misery wrought by a single capitalist event, the recent World War. That
stupendous holocaust was the legitimate child of capitalism, as allwars of conquest and gain are the result of the conflicting financial
and commercial interests of the international bourgeoisie. It was a
war for profits, as later admitted even by Woodrow Wilson and hisclass.
Profits again, as you see. Coining human flesh and blood into
profits in the name of patriotism.
‘Patriotism!’ you protest; ‘why, that is a noble cause!’‘And unemployment,’ inquires your friend, ‘is capitalism responsible for that, too? Is it the fault of my boss that he has no work for
me?’

36

the entire government, local, state, and national, the schools andthe churches, and all the other institutions whose business it is toprotect profits and keep you fooled. You and your fellow workers,
labor as a whole, support them all. Do you wonder that they all tell
you that everything is all right and that you should be good andkeep quiet?
It is good for them that you should keep quiet, because they could
not keep on duping and robbing you once you open your eyes andsee what’s happening to you.
That’s why they are all strong for this capitalist system, for ‘lawand order’.
But is that system good for you? Do you think it right and just?
If not, then why do you put up with it? Why do you support it?
‘What can I do?’ you say; ‘I’m only one.’
Are you really only one? Are you not rather one out of many
thousands, out of millions, all of them exploited and enslaved thesame as you are? Only they don’t know it. If they knew it, theywouldn’t stand for it. That’s sure. So the thing is to make themknow it.
Every workingman in your city, every toiler in your country, inevery country, in the whole world, is exploited and enslaved thesame as you are.
And not only the workingmen. The farmers are duped androbbed in the same manner.
Just like the workingmen, the farmer is dependent on the capitalist class. He toils hard all his life, but most of his labor goes tothe trusts and monopolies of the land which by right is no moretheirs than the moon is.
The farmer produces the food of the world. He feeds all of us. But
before he can get his goods to us, he is made to pay tribute to theclass that lives by the work of others, the profit-making, capitalistclass. The farmer is mulcted out of the greater part of his productjust as the worker is. He is mulcted by the land owner and by the
mortgage holder; by the steel trust and the railroad. The banker, the25

commission merchant, the retailer, and a score of other middlemensqueeze their profits out of the farmer before he is allowed to get
his food to you.
Law and government permit and help this robbery by ruling thatthe land, which no man created, belongs to the landlord; the railroads, which the workers built, belong to the railroad magnates; thewarehouses, grain elevators, and storehouses, erected by the workers, belong to the capitalists; all those monopolists and capitalists
have a right to get profits from the farmer for using the railroads
and other facilities before he can get his food to you.
You can see then, how the farmer is robbed by big capital andbusiness, and how the law helps in that robbery, just as with theworkingman.
But it is not only the worker and the farmer who are exploitedand forced to give up the greater part of their product to the capitalists, to those who have monopolized the land, the railroads, thefactories, the machinery, and all natural resources. The entire country, the whole world is made to pay tribute to the kings of financeand industry.
The small business man depends on the wholesaler; the wholesaler on the manufacturer; the manufacturer on the trust magnatesof his industry; and all of them on the money lords and banks fortheir credit. The big bankers and financiers can put any man out
of business by just withdrawing their credit from him. They do sowhenever they want to squeeze any one out of business. The business man is entirely at their mercy. If he does not play the game as
they want it, to suit their interests, then they simply drive him outof the game.
Thus the whole of mankind is dependent upon and enslaved byjust a handful of men who have monopolized almost the entire
wealth of the world, but who have themselves never created anything.
‘But those men work hard,’ you say.

26

Who commits the greater wrong: the wife of the industrial magnate spending a thousand dollars for a silver collar for her lapdog,
or the underpaid girl in the magnate’s department store unable towithstand temptation and appropriating some trinket?
Who is the greater criminal: the speculator cornering the wheatmarket and making a million-dollar profit by raising the price ofthe poor man’s bread, or the homeless tramp committing sometheft?
Who is the greater enemy of man: the greedy coal baron responsible for the sacrifice of human lives in his badly ventilated anddangerous mines, or the desperate man guilty of assault and robbery?
It is not the wrongs and crimes punishable by law that cause thegreatest evil in the world. It is the lawful wrongs and unpunishable crimes, justified and protected by law and government, thatfill the earth with misery and want, with strife and conflict, withclass struggles, slaughter, and destruction.
We hear much about crime and criminals, about burglary androbbery, about offenses against person and property. The columnsof the daily press are filled with such reports. It is considered the‘news’ of the day.
But do you hear much about the crimes of capitalistic industry
and business? Do the papers tell you anything about the constantrobbery and theft represented by low wages and high prices? Do
they write much about the widespread misery caused by market
speculation, by adulterating food, by the thousand and one otherforms of fraud, extortion, and usury on which business and trade
thrive? Do they tell you of the wrong and evils, of the poverty, ofthe broken hearts and blasted hearths of disease and premature
death, of desperation and suicide that follow in constant and regular procession in the wake of the capitalist system?
Do they tell you of the woe and worry of the thousands thrownout of work, no one caring whether they live or die? Do they tell
you about the starvation wages paid to women and girls in our in35

the poor boy goes he experiences the same thing: he is ignored andscorned, often kicked about — he feels people don’t think him as
good as the rich boy, to whom every one is respectful and attentive.
The poor boy gets embittered. And when he grows up, he again sees
the same thing: the rich are admired and respected, the poor are
kicked about and looked down upon. So the poor boy gets to hate
his poverty, and he thinks of how he might become rich, get money,
and he tries to get it in any way he can, by taking advantage ofothers, as others have always taken advantage of him, by cheating
and lying, and sometimes even by committing crime.
Then you say that he is ‘bad’. But don’t you see what made him
bad? Don’t you see that the conditions of his whole life have madehim what he is? And don’t you see that the system which keeps upsuch conditions is a greater criminal than the petty thief? The law
will step in and punish him, but is it not the same law that permits
those bad conditions to exist and upholds the system that makes
criminals?
Think it over and see if it is not the law itself, the government
which really creates crime by compelling people to live in conditions that make them bad. See how law and government upholdand protect the biggest crime of all, the mother of all crimes, thecapitalistic wage system, and then proceeds to punish the poor
criminal.
Consider: does it make any difference whether you do wrong
protected by the law, or whether you do it unlawfully? The thingis the same and the effects are the same. Worse even: legal wrongdoing is the greater evil because it causes more misery and injusticethan illegal wrong. Lawful crime goes on all the time; it is not punishable and it is made easy, while unlawful crime is not so frequentand is more limited in its scope and effect.
Who causes more misery: the rich manufacturer reducing thewages of thousands of workers to swell his profits, or the joblessman stealing something to keep from starving?

34

Well, some of them don’t work at all. Some of them are just idlers,
whose business is managed by others. Some of them do work. But
what kind of work do they do? Do they produce anything, as theworker and the farmer do? No, they produce nothing, though they
may work. They work to mulct people, to get profits out of them.
Does their work benefit you? The highwayman also works hard
and takes great risks to boot. His ‘work’, like the capitalist’s, gives
employment to lawyers, jailers, and a host of other retainers, all ofwhom your toil supports.
It seems indeed ridiculous that the whole world should slave forthe benefit of a handful of monopolists, and that all should have todepend upon them for their right and opportunity to live. But thefact is just that. And it is the more ridiculous when you consider
that the workers and farmers, who alone create all wealth, shouldbe the most dependent and the poorest of all the other classes insociety.
It is really monstrous, and it is very sad. Surely your common
sense must tell you that such a situation is nothing short of madness. If the great masses of people, the millions throughout theworld, could see how they are fooled, exploited and enslaved, as
you see it now, would they stand for such goings on? Surely theywould not!
The capitalists know they wouldn’t. That is why they need thegovernment to legalize their methods of robbery, to protect thecapitalist system.
And that is why the government needs laws, police and soldiers,
courts and prisons to protect capitalism.
But who are the police and the soldiers who protect the capitalists against you, against the people?
If they were capitalists themselves, then it would stand to reason
why they want to protect the wealth they have stolen, and why
they try to keep up, even by force, the system that gives them theprivilege of robbing the people.

27

But the police and the soldiers, the defenders of ‘law and order’,are not of the capitalist class. They are men from the ranks of thepeople, poor men who for pay protect the very system that keeps
them poor. It is unbelievable, is it not? Yet it is true. It just comes
down to this: some of the slaves protect their masters in keeping
them and the rest of the people in slavery. In the same way GreatBritain, for instance, keeps the Hindoos in India in subjection by
a police force of the natives, of the Hindoos themselves. Or as Belgium does with the black men in the Congo. Or as any government
does with a subjugated people.
It is the same system.
Here is what it amounts to: Capitalism robs and exploits thewhole of the people; the laws legalize and uphold this capitalist robbery; the government uses one part of the people to aid and protect
the capitalists in robbing the whole of the people. The entire thingis kept up by educating the people to believe that capitalism is right,that the law is just, and that the government must be obeyed. Do
you see through this game now?

28

criminal social arrangement, our present-day capitalist system, ourinterests are not at all the same. In fact, the interests of the different classes in society are opposed to each other; they are inimical
and antagonistic, as I have pointed out in preceding chapters.
That is why you see men taking advantage of each other when
they can profit by it, when their interests dictate it. In business,in commerce, in the relations between employer and employee —everywhere you will find this principle at work. Every one is trying to get ahead of the other fellow. Competition becomes the soulof capitalistic life, beginning with the billionaire banker, the great
manufacturer and lord of industry, all through the social and financial scale, down to the last worker in the factory. For even theworkers are compelled to compete with each other for jobs andbetter pay.
In this way our whole life becomes a struggle of man againstman, of class against class. In that struggle every method is used toachieve success, to down your competitor, to raise yourself above
him by every means possible.
It is clear that such conditions will develop and cultivate theworst qualities of man. It is just as clear that the law will protect
those who have power and influence, the rich and the wealthy,
however they got their riches. The poor man must inevitably get
the worst of it under such circumstances. He will try to do the sameas the rich man does. But as he has not the same opportunity toadvance his interests under the protection of the law, he will often attempt it outside of the law and he will fall into its meshes.
Though he did nothing more than the rich man — took advantage
of some one, cheated some one — he did it ‘illegally’, and you call
him a criminal.
Look at that poor boy, for instance, on the street corner there. He
is ragged, pale, and half-starved. He sees another boy, the son of
wealthy parents, and that boy wears nice clothes, he is well fed, andhe does not even deign to play with the poor kid. The ragged boy
is angry at him he resents and hates the rich boy. And everywhere33money, for property, for possession. See how full the world is ofpoverty and misery, see the thousands falling a prey to disease andinsanity, to folly and outrage, to suicide and murder — all becauseof the inhuman and brutalizing conditions we live under.
Truly has the wise man said that money is the root of all evil.
Wherever you look you will see the corroding and degrading effectof money, of possession, of the mania to have and to hold. Everyone is wild to get, to grab by hook or crook, to accumulate as muchas he can, so that he may enjoy to-day and secure himself for tomorrow.
But can you therefore say that man is bad? Is he not compelled
to take part in this money chase by the conditions of existence, by
the crazy system we live in? For you have no choice — you must
get into the race or go under.
Is it your fault, then, that life forces you to be and act like that?
Is it the fault of your brother or your neighbor or of any one? Is it
not rather that we are all born into this mad scheme of things andthat we have to fall into line?
But is not the scheme itself wrong that makes us act like that?
Think it over and you will see that at heart you are not bad at all,but that conditions often compel you to do things that you know
are wrong. You would rather not do them. When you can afford
it, your urge is to be kind and helpful to others. But if you should
follow your inclinations in this direction, you would neglect yourown interests and you would soon be in want yourself.
So the conditions of existence suppress and stifle the instincts ofkindness and humanity in us, and harden us against the need andmisery of our fellow-man.
You will see this in every phase of existence, in all the relations ofmen, all through our social life. Of course, if our interests were thesame, there would be no need of any one taking advantage of another. Because what would be good for Jack would also be good forJim. To be sure, as human beings, as children of one humanity, wereally do have the same interests. But as members of a foolish and32

Chapter 4: How the System
Works
But take a closer look at it and see how the system ‘works’.
Consider how life and its real meaning have become turned upside down and topsy-turvy. See how your own existence is poisoned and made miserable by the crazy arrangement.
Wherein is the purpose of your life, where the joy of it?
The earth is rich and beautiful, the bright sunshine should gladden your heart. Man’s genius and labor have conquered the forcesof nature and harnessed the lightning and the air to the serviceof humanity. Science and invention, human industry and toil
have produced untold wealth. We’ve bridged the shoreless seas,
the steam engine has annihilated distance, the electric spark andgasoline motor have unfettered man from the earth and chainedeven the atmosphere to do his bidding. We have triumphed overspace, and the farthest corners of the globe have been broughtclose together. The human voice now circles the hemispheres, andthrough the azure there dart-fleet messengers, carrying man’s
greeting to all the peoples of the world.
Yet the people groan under heavy burdens, and there is no joy
in their hearts. Their lives are full of misery, their souls cold withwant and need. Poverty and crime fill every land; thousands are aprey to disease and insanity, war slaughters millions and brings to
the living tyranny and oppression.
Why all this misery and murder in a world so rich and beautiful? Why all the pain and sorrow upon an earth so full of nature’s
bounty and sunshine?
29‘It’s God’s will,’ says the church.
‘People are bad, ‘says the lawmaker.
‘It must be so,’ says the fool.
Is it true? Must it really be so?
You and I and each of us, we all want to live. We have but one
life and we want to make the best of it — rightly so. We want some
joy and sunshine while we live. What will happen to us when weare dead, we don’t know. No one knows. The chances are that once
dead we’ll stay dead. But whether so or not, while we live our wholebeing hungers for joy and laughter, for sunshine and happiness.
Nature has made us that way. Made you and me, and millions ofothers like us, to long for life and joy. Is it right and just that weshould be deprived of it and forever remain the slaves of a handfulof men who lord it over us and over life?
Can that be ‘God’s will’, as the church tells you?
But if there be a God, he must be just. Would he permit us tobe cheated and despoiled of life and its joys? If there be a God,he must be our father, and all men his children. Would a good father let some of his children go hungry and miserable while others
have so much they don’t know what to do with it? Would he suffer
thousands, even millions, of his children to be killed and slaughtered, just for the glory of some king or the profit of the capitalist?
Would he sanction injustice, outrage, and murder? No, my friend,
you cannot believe that of a good father, of a just God. If people
tell you that God wants such things they just lie to you.
Maybe you say that God is good, but it is people who are bad,and that is why things are so wrong in the world.
But if people are bad, who made them so? Surely you don’t believe that God made people bad, because in that case he himself
would be responsible for it. Then it means that if people are bad,something else has made them so. That may well be. Let us look
into it
Let us see how people are, what they are, and how they live. Let
us see how you live.
30

From your earliest childhood it has been drilled into you thatyou must become successful, must ‘make money’. Money means
comfort security, power. It does not matter who you are, you arevalued by what you are ‘worth’, by the size of your bank account.
So you have been taught, and everybody else has been taught thesame. Can you wonder that every one’s life becomes a chase formoney, for the dollar and your whole existence is turned into a
struggle for possession, for wealth?
The money hunger grows on what it feeds. The poor man struggles for a living, for a bit of comfort. The well-to-do man wants
greater riches to give him security and protect him against the fearof to-morrow. And when he becomes a big banker he must not relax his efforts, he must keep a sharp eye on his competitors, forfear of losing the race to some other man.
So every one is compelled to take part in the wild chase, and thehunger for possession gets ever stronger hold of man. It becomesthe most important part of life; every thought is on money, all theenergies are bent on getting rich, and presently the thirst for wealthbecomes a mania, a madness that possesses those who have andthose who have not.
Thus life has lost its sole true meaning of joy and beauty; existence has become an unreasoning, wild dance around the golden
calf, a mad worship of God Mammon. In that dance and in thatworship man has sacrificed all his finer qualities of heart and soul
— kindness and justice honor and manhood, compassion and sympathy with his fellow-man.
‘Each for himself and the devil take the hindmost’ — that must
perforce become the principle and urge of most people under suchconditions. Is it any wonder that in this mad money chase are developed the worst traits of man — greed, envy, hatred, and the basest
passions? Man grows corrupt and evil; he becomes mean and unjust; he resorts to deceit, theft, and murder.
Look closer about you and see how many wrongs and crimes areperpetrated in your city, in your country, in the world at large, for31Party in France. To-day he is the strongest champion of capitalism
and militarism. Many of his former fellow-Socialists are his colleagues in the government, and many more present-day Socialists
are in the French Parliament and other important offices. What are
they doing for Socialism? What are they doing for the workers?
They are helping to defend and ‘stabilize’ the capitalistic régime
of France; they are busy passing laws increasing the taxes so thatthe high government officials may get better salaries; they are
engaged in collecting the war indemnity from Germany, whose
workers, just as their French brothers, have to bleed for it. They
are working hard to help ‘educate’ France, and particularly her
school children, to hate the German people; they are aiding tobuild more warships and military airplanes for the next war which
they are themselves preparing by cultivating the spirit of jingoism
and vengeance against their neighbor countries. The new law
mobilizing every adult man and woman of France in case of war
was introduced by the prominent Socialist, Paul Boncour, andpassed with the aid of the Socialist members of the Chamber of
Deputies.
In Austria and Belgium, in Sweden and Norway, in Holland andDenmark, in Czecho-Slovakia, and in most other European lands
the Socialists have risen to power. In some countries entirely so,
in others partly. And everywhere, without a single exception, they
have followed the same course, everywhere they have forsworn
their ideals, have duped the masses, and turned their political elevation to their own profit and glory.
‘These men who rose to power on the backs of labor and thenbetrayed the workers are scoundrels,’ I hear you say in just indignation. True, but that is not all. There is a deeper reason for thisconstant and regular betrayal, a greater and more significant cause
for this almost universal phenomenon. Socialists are not essentiallydifferent from other men. They are human, just as you and I. And
no man turns scoundrel or traitor over night.

120

the entire character and personality of the judge will affect his decision. Not that the latter will necessarily be unjust. That is not the
point I am trying to make. What I want to call your attention tois that, in the given case, the attitude of the judge cannot and will
not be impartial. His sentiments toward workingmen, his personal
opinion of landlords or employers, and his social views will influence his judgment, sometimes even unconsciously to himself. Hisverdict may or may not be just; in any case it will not be based exclusively on the evidence. It will be affected by his personal, subjective
feelings and by his views regarding labor and capital. His attitude
will generally be that of his circle of friends and acquaintances, of
his social group, and his opinions in the matter will correspondwith the interests of that group. He may even himself be a landlordor have stock in a corporation which employs labor. Consciouslyor unconsciously his view of the evidence given at the trial will becolored by his own feelings and prejudices, and his verdict will bea result of that.
Besides, the appearance of the two litigants, their manner ofspeech and behavior, and particularly their respective ability to employ clever counsel, will have a very considerable influence on theimpressions of the judge and consequently on his decision.
It is therefore clear that in such cases the verdict will depend
more on the mentality and class-consciousness of the particularjudge than on the merits of the case.
This experience is so general that the popular voice has expressed it in the sentiment that ‘the poor man can’t get justiceagainst the rich.’ There may be exceptions now and then, but
generally it is true and can’t be otherwise as long as society is
divided into different classes with differing interests. So long asthat is the case, justice must be one-sided, class justice; that is,injustice in favor of one class as against the other.
You can see it still more clearly illustrated in cases involving
definite class issues, cases of the class struggle.

61

Take, for instance, a strike of workers against a corporation ora rich employer. On what side will you find the judges, the courts?
Whose interests will the law and government protect? The workers
are striking for better conditions of living; they have wives andchildren at home for whom they are trying to get a little bigger
share of the wealth they are creating. Does the law and government
help them in this worthy aim?
What actually happens? Every branch of government comes tothe aid of capital as against labor. The courts will issue an injunction against the strikers, they will forbid picketing or make it ineffectual by not permitting the strikers to persuade outsiders not totake the bread out of their mouths, the police will beat up and arrest the pickets, the judges will impose fines on them and railroadthem to jail. The whole machinery of the government will be at theservice of the capitalists to break the strike, to smash the union,
if possible, and reduce the workers to submission. Sometimes theGovernor of the State will even call out the militia, the President
will order out the regular troops — all in support of capital against
labor.
Meanwhile the trust or corporation where the strike is taking
place will order their employees to vacate the company houses,
will throw them and their families out in the cold, and will fill theirplaces in the mill, mine, or factory with strikebreakers, under theprotection and with the aid of the police, the courts, and the government, all of whom are supported by your labor and taxes.
Can you speak of justice under such circumstances? Can you be
so naïve as to believe that justice is possible in the struggle of thepoor against the rich, of labor against capital? Can’t you see that it
is a bitter fight, a struggle of opposed interests, a war of two classes?
Can you expect justice in war?
Truly the capitalistic class knows that it is war, and it uses every
means at its command to defeat labor. But the workers unfortunately do not see the situation as clearly as their masters, and so

62

the bulwark of capitalism and militarism. They not only disarmed
the people and suppressed the toilers but they even shot and imprisoned every Socialist who dared protest against their treachery.
Noske, as Socialist chief of the army during the Revolution, ordered
his soldiers out against the workers and massacred them wholesale — the very proletarians who had voted him into power, hisown brother Socialists. At his hands perished Karl Liebknecht andRosa Luxemburg, two of the most devoted and loyal revolutionists,cold-bloodedly murdered in Berlin on January 16, 1919, by army
officers, with the secret connivance of the Socialist government.
The Anarchist poet and thinker, Gustav Landauer, and scores ofthe best friends of labor shared the same fate all over Germany.
Haase, Ebert, Scheidemann, Noske, and their Socialist lieutenants did not permit the Revolution to accomplish anythingvital. The moment they got into power they used it to crush
rebellious labor. The open and stealthy murder of the truly revolutionary elements was but one of the means used by the Socialist
government to subdue the Revolution. Far from introducing any
changes for the benefit of the workers, the Socialist Party became
the most zealous defender of capitalism, preserving all the prerogatives and benefits of the aristocracy and master class. That is
why the German Revolution accomplished nothing except to driveout the Kaiser. The nobility remained in possession of all its titles,
holdings, special rights, and privileges; the military caste retained
the power it had under the monarchy; the bourgeoisie has beenstrengthened, and the financial kings and industrial magnates lordit over the German toiler to-day with even greater arbitrarinessthan before. The Socialist Party of Germany, with many million
votes behind it, has succeeded — in getting into office. The workers
slave and suffer as before.
The same picture you find in the other countries. In France theSocialist Party is strongly represented in the government. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aristide Briand, who had also held the postof Prime Minister, was formerly one of the greatest lights of the
119The Socialist parties do not speak of revolution any more. They
claim now that when they get a majority in Congress or Parliament they will legislate Socialism into being: they will legally andpeacefully abolish capitalism. In other words, they have ceased tobe revolutionists; they have become reformers who want to change
things by law.
Let us see, then, how they have been doing it during the past
several decades.
In almost every European country the Socialists have secured
great political power. Some countries now have Socialist governments, in others the Socialist parties have a majority; in others
again Socialists occupy the highest positions in the State, such as
cabinet offices, even those of Prime Ministers. Let us examine what
they have accomplished for Socialism and what they are doing for
the workers.
In Germany, the mother of the Socialist movement, the Social
Democratic Party holds numerous government offices; its members are in the municipal and national legislative bodies, in the
judiciary, and in the Cabinet. Two German Presidents, Haase andEbert, were Socialists. The present Reichskanzler (Chancellor), Dr.
Herman Müller, is a Socialist. Herr Loebe, President of the Reichstag, is also a member of the Socialist Party. Scheidemann, Noske,
and scores of others in the highest positions in the government, inthe army and navy, are all leaders of the powerful German Social
Democratic Party. What have they done for the proletariat whose
cause the Party is supposed to champion? Have they brought about
Socialism? Have they abolished wage slavery? Have they made theleast attempt toward those objects?
The uprising of the workers in Germany, in 1918, forced theKaiser to flee the country, and the reign of the Hohenzollern wasat an end. The people put their trust in the Social Democrats andvoted them into power. But once secure in the government, theSocialists turned against the masses. They combined with the German bourgeoisie and the military clique, and themselves became
118

they still foolishly twaddle about ‘justice’, ‘equality before the law’,and ‘liberty’.
It is useful to the capitalist class that the workers should believein such fairy tales. It guarantees the continuation of the rule of themasters. Therefore they use every effort to keep up this belief. The
capitalistic press, the politician, the public speaker, never miss anopportunity to impress it upon you that law means justice, that
all are equal before the law, and that every one enjoys liberty andhas the same opportunity in life as the next fellow. The whole machinery of law and order, of capitalism and government, our entire
civilization is based upon this gigantic lie, and the constant propaganda of it by school, church, and press is for the sole purpose of
keeping conditions as they are, of sustaining and protecting the ‘sacred institutions’ of your wage slavery and keeping you obedientto law and authority.
By every method they seek to instill this lie of ‘justice’, ‘liberty’,and ‘equality’ in the masses, for full well they know that theirwhole power and mastery rest on this faith. On every appropriate and inappropriate occasion they feed you this buncombe; they
have even created special days to impress the lesson more emphatically upon you. Their spellbinders fill you full of this stuff on the
Fourth of July, and you are permitted to shoot your misery and dissatisfaction off in firecrackers and forget your wage slavery in the
big noise and hullabaloo. What an insult to the glorious memoryof that great event, the American Revolutionary War, which abolished the tyranny of George III and made the American Colonies
an independent republic! Now the anniversary of that event is used
to mask your servitude in the country where the workers have neither freedom nor independence. To add insult to injury, they havegiven you a Thanksgiving Day, that you may offer up pious thanks
for what you have not!
So great is the assurance of your masters in your stupidity thatthey dare do such things. They feel safe in having duped you sothoroughly and reduced your naturally rebellious spirit to such ab63

ject worship of ‘law and order’ that you will never dream of opening your eyes and letting your heart cry out in outraged protest
and defiance.
At the least sign of your rebellion the entire weight of the government, of law and order, comes down upon your head, beginningwith the policeman’s club, the jail, the prison, and ending with thegallows or the electric chair. The whole system of capitalism andgovernment is mobilized to crush every symptom of dissatisfaction
and rebellion; aye, even any attempt to improve your condition as aworkingman. Because your masters well understand the situationand fully know the danger of your waking up to the actual factsof the case, to your real condition of slave. They are aware of theirinterests, of the interests of their class. They are class conscious,
while the workers remain muddled and befuddled.
The industrial lords know that it is good for them to keep you unorganized and disorganized, or to break up your unions when they
get strong and militant. By hook and crook they oppose your every
advance as a class-conscious worker. Every movement for the improvement of labor’s condition they hate and fight tooth and nail.
They’ll spend millions on the kind of education and propaganda
that serves the continuation of their rule rather than on improving
your conditions as a worker. They will spare neither expense norenergy to stifle any thought or idea that may reduce their profitsor threaten their mastery over you.
It is for this reason that they try to crush every aspiration of labor for better conditions. Consider, for instance, the movement for
the eight-hour day. It is comparatively recent history, and probably you remember with what bitterness and determination the employers opposed that effort of labor. In some industries in America
and in most European countries the struggle is still going on. In
the United States it began in 1886, and it was fought by the bosses
with the greatest brutality in order to drive their workers back to
the factories under the old conditions. They resorted to lockouts,
throwing thousands out of work, to violence by hired thugs and64

feels, even if he is not as frank as Gould. Constitution or no constitution, the capitalists would fight to the death for their wealth andprivileges. And that is just what is meant by revolution. You canjudge for yourself whether capitalism can be abolished by electing
Socialists to office or whether Socialism can be voted in by the ballot. It is not hard to guess who’ll win a fight between ballots andbullets.
In former days the Socialists realized this very well. Then theyclaimed that they meant to use politics only for the purpose of propaganda. It was in the days when Socialist agitation was forbidden,
particularly in Germany. ‘If you elect us to the Reichstag’ (the German parliament), the Socialists told the workers then, ‘we’ll be able
to preach Socialism there and educate the people to it.’ There wassome reason in that, because the laws which prohibited Socialist
speeches did not apply to the Reichstag. So the Socialists favored
political activity and took part in elections in order to have an opportunity to advocate Socialism.
It may seem a harmless thing, but it proved the undoing of Socialism. Because nothing is truer than that the means you use toattain your object soon themselves become your object. So money,for example, which is only a means to existence, has itself become
the aim of our lives. Similarly with government. The ‘elder’ chosen
by the primitive community to attend to some village business becomes the master, the ruler. Just so it happened with the Socialists.
Little by little they changed their attitude. Instead of electioneering being merely an educational method, it gradually became
their only aim to secure political office, to get elected to legislative
bodies and other government positions. The change naturally led
the Socialists to tone down their revolutionary ardor; it compelledthem to soften their criticism of capitalism and government in order to avoid persecution and secure more votes. To-day the mainstress of Socialist propaganda is not laid any more on the educational value of politics but on the actual election of Socialists tooffice.
117

insists that the proletariat must get hold of the political machinery, of the government, in order to conquer the bourgeoisie. The
working class — he teaches — must grasp the reins of the State, bymeans of the Socialist parties, and use the political power to usher
in Socialism.
This contradiction has caused the greatest confusion among Socialists and has split the movement into many factions. The majority of them, the regular Socialist parties in every country, now
stand for the conquest of political power, for the establishment ofa Socialist government whose business it will be to abolish capitalism and bring about Socialism.
Judge for yourself if such a thing is possible. In the first place,Socialists themselves admit that the possessing classes will not giveup their wealth and privileges without a bitter fight and that it will
result in revolution.
Again, is the thing at all practical? Take the United States, forinstance. For over fifty years the Socialists have been trying to electparty members to Congress with the result that after half a century
of political work they have now just one member in the House ofRepresentatives in Washington. How many centuries will it takeat that rate (and the rate is declining rather than growing) to get a
Socialist majority in Congress?
But even suppose that the Socialists could some day secure thatmajority. Will they then be able to change capitalism to Socialism? It would require amending and altering the Constitution of
the United States, as well as in the individual States, for which a
two-thirds vote would be necessary. Just stop and consider: theAmerican plutocrats, the trusts, the bourgeoisie, and all the otherforces that benefit by capitalism; would they just sit quietly andpermit the changing of the Constitution in such a manner as to deprive them of their wealth and privileges? Can you believe that?
Do you remember what Jay Gould said when he was accused ofgetting his millions illegally and in defiance of the Constitution?
‘To hell with the Constitution!’ he replied. And so every plutocrat
116

Pinkertons upon labor assemblies and their active members, to thedemolition of union headquarters and meeting places.
Where was ‘law and order’? What side of the struggle was thegovernment on? What did the courts and the judges do? Where
was justice?
The local, State, and Federal authorities used all the machineryand power at their command to aid the employers. They did noteven shrink from murder. The most active and able leaders of the
movement had to pay with their lives for the attempt of the workers
to reduce their hours of toil.
Many books have been written on that struggle, so that it is unnecessary for me to go into details. But a brief summary of those
events will refresh the reader’s memory.
The movement for the eight-hour workday started in Chicago,on May 1, 1886, gradually spreading throughout the country. Its beginning was marked by strikes declared in most of the large industrial centers. Twenty-five thousand workers laid down their tools
in Chicago on the first day of the strike, and within two days their
number was doubled. By the 4th of May almost all unionized laborin the city was on strike.
The armed fist of the law immediately hastened to the aid of
the employers. The capitalist press raved against the strikers andcalled for the use of lead against them. There followed immediately
assaults by police upon the strikers’ meetings. The most vicious
attack took place at the McCormick works, where the conditionsof employment were so unbearable that the men were compelled
to go on strike already in February. At this place the police andPinkertons deliberately shot a volley into the assembled workers,
killing four and wounding a score of others.
To protest against the outrage a meeting was called at Haymarket Square on the 4th of May, 1886.
It was an orderly gathering, such as were daily taking place inChicago at the time. The Mayor of the city, Carter Harrison, waspresent; he listened to several speeches and then — according to65his own sworn testimony later on in court — he returned to police
headquarters to inform the Chief of Police that the meeting was
all right. It was growing late — about ten in the evening, heavy
clouds overcast the sky; it looked like rain. The audience began todisperse till only about two hundred were left. Then suddenly adetachment of a hundred policemen rushed upon the scene, commanded by Police Inspector Bonfield. They halted at the speakers’ wagon, from which Samuel Fielden was addressing the remnant of the audience. The Inspector ordered the meeting to disperse. Fielden replied: ‘This is a peaceful assembly.’ Without further warning the police threw themselves upon the people, mercilessly clubbing and beating men and women. At that moment
something whizzed through the air. There was an explosion, as ofa bomb. Seven policemen were killed and about sixty wounded.
It was never ascertained who threw the bomb, and even to thisday the identity of the man has not been established.
There had been so much brutality by the police and Pinkertonsagainst the strikers that it was not surprising that some one should
express his protest by such an act. Who was he? The industrial masters of Chicago were not interested in this detail. They were determined to crush rebellious labor, to down the eight-hour movement,
and to stifle the voice of the spokesmen of the workers. They openly
declared their determination to ‘teach the men a lesson’.
Among the most active and intelligent leaders of the labor movement at the time was Albert Parsons, a man of old American stock,
whose forebears had fought in the American Revolution. Associated with him in the agitation for the shorter workday were August
Spies, Adolf Fischer, George Engel, and Louis Lingg. The money interests of Chicago and of the State of Illinois determined to ‘get’
them. Their object was to punish and terrorize labor by murdering
their most devoted leaders. The trial of those men was the mosthellish conspiracy of capital against labor in the history of America.
Perjured evidence, bribed jurymen, and police revenge combined
to bring about their doom.
66

The present owners — Socialism further teaches — will not giveup their possessions without a struggle. All history and past experience prove that. The privileged classes have always held onto theiradvantages, always opposed every attempt to weaken their powerover the masses. Even to-day they fight ruthlessly every effort oflabor for betterment. It is therefore certain that in the future, as
in the past, the plutocracy will resist if you try to deprive them of
their monopolies, special rights, and privileges. That resistance willbring about a bitter struggle, a revolution.
True socialism is therefore radical and revolutionary. Radical,
because it goes to the very root of the social trouble (radix meaning root in Latin); it does not believe in reforms and makeshifts;
it wants to change things from the very bottom. Revolutionary,
not because it wants bloodshed, but because it clearly foreseesthat revolution is inevitable; it knows that capitalism cannot bechanged to Socialism without a violent struggle between thepossessing classes and the dispossessed masses.
‘But if a revolution’, you ask, ‘then why do the Socialists wantme to vote them into office? Is the revolution to be fought there?’Your question is to the point. If capitalism is to abolished by revolution, what do the Socialists seek office for, why do they try to
get into the government?
Here is just where the great contradiction of Marxian Socialism
comes in, a fundamental contradiction that has been fatal to the Socialist movement in every country, and that has made it ineffectualand powerless to be of any use to the working class.
It is very necessary to realize that contradiction clearly in orderto understand why Socialism has failed, why the Socialists havegotten into a blind alley and can’t lead the workers to emancipation.
What is that contradiction? It is this: Marx taught that ‘revolution is the midwife of capitalism pregnant with a new society’; thatis, that capitalism will not be changed to Socialism except by revolution. But in his Communist Manifesto, on the other hand, Marx
115

Just as useless it would be for us to go into allegedly socialistic
proposals such as ‘juster distribution of wealth’, ‘equalization ofincome’, ‘single tax’, or other similar plans. These are not Socialism;
they are only reforms. Mere parlor Socialism, such as Fabianism,for example, is also of no vital interest to the masses.
Let us therefore examine that school of Socialism which treats ofcapitalism and the wage system fundamentally, which deals withthe worker, with the disinherited, and which is known as the Social
Democratic movement.1 It considers all other forms of Socialism
impractical and utopian; it calls itself the only sound and scientifictheory of true Socialism as formulated by Karl Marx, the author of
Capital, which is the gospel and guide of all Social Democrats.
Now, then, what do the Socialist followers of Karl Marx — known
as Marxian Socialists, and whom, for the sake of brevity, we’ll call
simply Socialists — propose?
They say that the workers can never become free and secure
well being unless they abolish capitalism. The sources of production and the means of distribution must be taken out of private
hands, they teach. That is to say, the land, machinery, mills, factories, mines, railroads and other public utilities should not be owned
privately, because such ownership enslaves the workers as well as
mankind in general. Private possession of the things without whichhumanity cannot exist must therefore cease. The means of production and distribution should become public property. Opportunity
for free use would do away with monopoly, with interest and profit,with exploitation and wage slavery. Social inequality and injusticewould be eliminated, the classes would be abolished, and all men
would become free and equal.
These views of Socialism are also in full accord with the ideas of
most Anarchists.

1
Organized under the various names of “Social Democratic Party,” “Social
Democratic Labor Party,” or “Socialist Labor Party.”

114

Parsons, Spies, Fischer, Engel, and Lingg were condemnedto death, Lingg committing suicide in jail; Samuel Fielden andMichael Schwab were sentenced to prison for life, while Oscar
Neebe received 15 years. No greater travesty of justice wasever staged than the trial of these men known as the Chicago
Anarchists.
What a legal outrage the verdict was you can judge from theaction of John P. Altgeld, later Governor of Illinois, who carefully
reviewed the trial proceedings and declared that the executed andimprisoned men had been victims of a plot of the manufacturers,
the courts, and the police. He could not undo the judicial murders,
but most courageously he liberated the still imprisoned Anarchists,
stating that he was merely making good, so far as was in his power,
the terrible crime that had been committed against them.
The vengeance of the exploiters went so far that they punished
Altgeld for his brave stand by eliminating him from the politicallife of America.
The Haymarket tragedy, as the case is known, is a striking illustration of the kind of ‘justice’ labor may expect from the masters. It
is a demonstration of its class character and of the means to which
capital and government will resort to crush the workers.
The history of the American labor movement is replete with such
examples. It is not within the scope of this book to review the great
number of them. They are dealt with in numerous books and publications, to which I refer the reader for a nearer acquaintance with
the Golgotha of the American proletariat. On a smaller scale theChicago judicial murders are repeated in every struggle of labor.
It is sufficient to mention the strikes of the miners in the State ofColorado, with its fiendish Ludlow chapter, where the State militia deliberately shot into the workers’ tents, setting the latter afire
and causing the death of a number of men, women and children;the murder of strikers in the hopfields of Wheatland, California, inthe summer of 1913; in Everett, Washington, in 1916; in Tulsa, Ok-

67

lahoma; in Virginia and in Kansas; in the copper mines of Montana,and in numerous other places throughout the country.
Nothing so arouses the hatred and vengeance of the masters as
the effort to enlighten their victims. This is as true to-day as it wasin the time of slavery and serfdom. We have seen how the church
persecuted and martyred her critics and fought every advance of
science as a threat to her authority and influence. Similarly has
every despot always sought to stifle the voice of protest and rebellion. In the same spirit capital and government to-day furiously fallupon and tear to pieces every one who dares shake the foundationsof their power and interests.
Take two recent cases as instances of this never-changing attitude of authority and ownership: the Mooney-Billings case andthat of Sacco and Vanzetti. One took place in the East, the otherin the West, the two separated by a decade and the whole widthof the continent. Yet they were exactly alike, proving that there isneither East nor West, nor any difference of time or place in themasters’ treatment of their slaves.
Mooney and Billings are in prison in California for life. Why?
If I were to answer in just a few words, I should say, with perfect
truth and completeness: because they were intelligent union men
who tried to enlighten their fellow-employees and improve theircondition.
It was just this, and no other reason, that doomed them. The
Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, the money power of California, could not tolerate the activities of two such energetic andmilitant men. Labor in San Francisco was becoming restive, strikes
were taking place, and demands were being voiced by the toilers
for a greater share of the wealth they were producing.
The industrial magnates of the coast declared war upon organized labor. They proclaimed the ‘open shop’ and their determination to break the unions. That was the preliminary step towards
placing the workers in a position of helplessness and then reduc-

68

Chapter 13: Socialism
When you ask this question, the Socialist tells you:
‘Vote the Socialist ticket. Elect our party. We’ll abolish capitalismand establish Socialism.’
What does the Socialist want, and how does he propose to getit?
There are many varieties of Socialists. There are Social
Democrats, Fabian Socialists, National Socialists, ChristianSocialists, and other labels. Generally speaking, they all believein the abolition of poverty and unjust social conditions. But they
disagree very much as to what would be ‘just’ conditions and, still
more, how to bring them about.
These days even mere attempts to improve capitalism are often called ‘Socialism,’ while in reality they are only reforms. But
such reforms cannot be considered socialistic because true Socialism does not mean to ‘improve’ capitalism but to abolish it altogether. Socialism teaches that the conditions of labor cannot be essentially bettered under capitalism; on the contrary, it shows thatthe lot of the worker must steadily get worse with the advancing
development of industrialism, so that efforts to ‘reform’ and ‘improve’ capitalism are directly opposed to Socialism and only delay
its realization.
We have seen in preceding chapters that the enslavement of theworkers, inequality, injustice, and other social evils are the resultof monopoly and exploitation, and that the system is upheld by thepolitical machine called government. It would therefore serve no
purpose to discuss those schools of Socialism (improperly so called)that do not stand for the abolition of capitalism and wage slavery.
113

and brawn of the industrial and agricultural proletariat to labor, tocreate, to produce.
It is the productive power of the workers — of the man with theplow and with the hammer, of the man of mind and muscle, of themasses, of the entire working class.
It follows, therefore, that the working class, in every country, isthe most important part of the population. In fact, it is the only vital
part. The rest of the people help in the social life, but if need be we
could do without them, while we could not live even a single day
without the man of labor. His is the all-important economic power.
The strength of government and capital is external, outside ofthemselves.
The strength of labor is not external. It lies in itself, in its ability
to work and create. It is the only real power.
Yet labor is held lowest in the social scale.
Is it not a topsy-turvy world, this world of capitalism and government? The workers, who as a class are the most essential partof society, who alone have real power, are powerless under present
conditions. They are the poorest class, the least influential and least
respected. They are looked down upon, the victims of every kindof oppression and exploitation, the least appreciated and least honored. They live wretchedly in ugly and unhealthy tenements, thedeath rate is greatest among them, the prisons are filled with them,
the gallows and electric chair are for them.
This is the reward of labor in our society of government andcapitalism; that is what you get from the ‘law and order’ system.
Does such law and order deserve to live? Should such a social
system be permitted to continue? Should it not be changed forsomething else, something better, and is not the worker interested
more than any one else in seeing to it? Should not his own organization, built especially for his interests — the union — help him do
it?
How?

112

ing wages. Their hatred and persecution were directed first of all
against the most active members of labor.
Tom Mooney had organized the street-car men of San Francisco,a crime for which the traction company could not forgive him.
Mooney together with Warren Billings and other workers had also
been active in a number of strikes. They were known and admired
for their devotion to the union cause. That was enough for the employers and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to try to getthem out of the way. On several occasions they had been arrested
on frame-up charges by agents of the traction and other corporations. But the cases against them were of such flimsy nature thatthey had to be dismissed. The Chamber of Commerce bided its
opportunity to ‘get’ those two labor men, as their agents openly
threatened to do.
The opportunity came with the explosion during the Preparedness Parade in San Francisco, July 22, 1916. The labor unions of thecity had decided not to participate in the parade, because the latter was merely a show of strength by California capital as against
unionized labor which the Chamber of Commerce had set out tocrush. The ‘open shop’ was its frankly proclaimed policy, and it
made no secret of its determined and bitter hostility to unions.
It has never been ascertained who placed the infernal machine
which exploded during the parade, but the San Francisco police
never made any serious effort to find the responsible party or parties. Immediately following the tragic occurrence Thomas Mooneyand his wife Rena were arrested, as well as Warren Billings, Edward D. Nolan, member of the machinists’ union, and I. Weinberg,of the jitney drivers’ union.
The trial of Billings and Mooney proved one of the worst scandals in the history of American courts.
The State witnesses were self-confessed perjurers, bribed andthreatened by the police into giving false testimony. Evidence
showing the entire innocence of Mooney and Billings was ignored.
Mooney was accused of having placed the infernal machine at69

the very time when he was in the company of friends upon theroof of a house about a mile and a half distant from the scene of
the explosion. A photograph taken of the demonstration by a film
company during the parade clearly shows Mooney on the roof,
and in the background a street clock indicating the time as 2.02
p.m. The explosion having taken place at 2.06 p.m., it would havebeen a physical impossibility for Mooney to have been at both
places at almost the same time.
But it was not a question of evidence, of guilt or innocence. Tom
Mooney was bitterly hated by the vested interests of San Francisco.
He had to be gotten out of the way. Mooney and Billings were convicted, the former being sentenced to death, the latter receiving alifetime term.
The outrageous manner in which the trial was conducted, the evident perjury of the State witnesses, and the clear hand of the manufacturers back of the prosecution aroused the country. The matterultimately was brought up before Congress. The latter passed a resolution ordering the Labor Department to investigate the case. The
report of Commissioner John B. Densmore, sent to San Francisco
for this purpose, exposed the conspiracy to hang Mooney as oneof the methods of the Chamber of Commerce to destroy organizedlabor in California.
Since then most of the State witnesses, having failed to receive the reward promised them, confessed to having perjured
themselves at the instigation of Charles M. Fickert, then District
Attorney of San Francisco and known tool of the Chamber ofCommerce. Draper Hand and R. W. Smith, police officials of thecity, have both declared in sworn affidavits that the evidence
against Mooney and Billings was manufactured from beginningto end by the District Attorney and his bribed witnesses from thelowest social dregs of the coast.
The Mooney-Billings case attracted national and even international attention. President Wilson felt induced to wire to the Governor of California twice, asking for a revision of the case. Mooney’s
70

a pound of bread when the masses declined to supply it unless they
did honest work.
What does it all prove?
It proves that so-called political, industrial, and financial power,
all the authority of government and capitalism is really in thehands of the people. It proves that only the people, the masses,
have power.
This power, the people’s power, is actual: it cannot be taken away,
as the power of the ruler, of the politician, or of the capitalist can be.
It cannot be taken away because it does not consist in possessions
but in ability. It is the ability to create, to produce; the power that
feeds and clothes the world, that gives us life, health and comfort,
joy and pleasure.
How great this power is you will realize when you ask yourself:
Would life be possible at all if the workers did not toil? Wouldthe cities not starve if the farmers failed to supply them food?
Could the railroads run if the railroad men suspended work?
Could any factory, shop, or mill continue operations but for thecoal miners?
Could trade or commerce go on if the transport workers went
on strike?
Would the theaters and movies, your office and house have light
if the electricians would not supply the current?
Truly has the poet spoken:‘All the wheels stand still
When your strong arms so will.’That is the productive, industrial power of labor.
It does not depend on any politics, nor on king, president, parliament, or congress. It depends neither on the police, nor on thearmy and navy — for these only consume and destroy, they create nothing. Nor does it depend on laws and rules, on legislators
or courts, on politician or plutocrat. It resides entirely and exclusively in the ability of the workers in factory and field, in the brain111

It is evident that their strength lies in their capital, in theirwealth. They own the industries, the shops, factories, and land. But
those possessions would do them no good but for the willingnessof the people to work for them and pay tribute to them. Suppose
the workers should say to the capitalists: ‘We are tired of making
profits for you. We won’t slave for you any more. You didn’t create
the land, you didn’t build the factories, nor the mills or shops. We
built them and from now on we will use them to work in, andwhat we produce will not be yours but will belong to the people.
You will get nothing, and we won’t even give you any food foryour money. You’ll be just like ourselves, and you will work likethe rest of us.’
What would happen? Why, the capitalists would appeal to thegovernment for aid. They would demand protection for their interests and possessions. But if the people refuse to recognize theauthority of the government, the latter itself would be helpless.
You might say that is revolution. Maybe it is. But whatever you
call it, it would amount to this: the government and the capitalists— the political and financial rulers — would find out that all theirboasted power and strength disappear when the people refuse toacknowledge them as masters, refuse to let them lord it over them.
Can this happen, you wonder. Well, it has happened many times
before, and not so very long ago again in Russia, in Germany, inAustria. In Germany that mighty war lord, the Kaiser, had to flee forhis life, because the masses had decided they did not want him any
more. In Austria the monarchy was driven out because the people
got tired of its tyranny and corruption. In Russia the most powerful
Tsar was glad to give up his throne to save his head, and failed evenin that. In his own capital he could not find a single regiment toprotect him, and all his great authority went up in smoke when the
populace refused to bow to it. Just so the capitalists of Russia weremade helpless when the people stopped working for them and took
the land, the factories, the mines and mills for themselves. All themoney and ‘power’ of the bourgeoisie in Russia could not get them
110

death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, but no effort
has succeeded in securing him a new trial. The money power ofCalifornia was bent on keeping Mooney and Billings in the penitentiary. The Supreme Court of the State, obedient to the Chamberof Commerce, steadfastly refused, on technical grounds, to review
the trial testimony, the perjured character of which had become abyword in California.
Since then all the surviving jurors have made statements to theeffect that if the true facts of the case had been known to them during the trial, they would have never convicted Mooney. Even Judge
Fraser, who presided at the trial, has asked for Mooney’s pardon,on similar grounds.
Yet both Tom Mooney and Warren Billings still remain in
the penitentiary. The Chamber of Commerce of California isdetermined to keep them there, and their power is supreme withthe courts and the government.
Can you still speak of justice? Do you think justice to labor possible under the reign of capitalism?
The judicial murder of the Chicago Anarchists took place many
years ago, in 1887. Considerable time has also elapsed since
the Mooney-Billings case, in 1916–1917. The latter, moreover,
happened far away, on the Pacific Coast, at a time of war hysteria.
Such rank injustice could take place only in those days, you might
say; it could hardly be repeated to-day.
Let us then shift the scene to our own day, to the very heart ofAmerica, the proud seat of culture — to Boston, Massachusetts.
It is sufficient to mention Boston to call up the picture of two proletarians, Nicola Sacco and Bartolemeo Vanzetti, one a poor shoemaker, the other a fish peddler, whose names to-day are known
and honored in every civilized country the world over.
Martyrs to humanity, if ever there were any; two men who gaveup their lives because of their devotion to mankind, because of
their loyalty to the ideal of an emancipated and freed working class.
Two innocent men who bravely suffered torture during seven long71

years, and who died a terrible death with a serenity of spirit rarely
equaled by the greatest martyrs of all time.
The story of that judicial murder of two of the noblest of men, thecrime of Massachusetts that will neither be forgotten nor forgiven
as long as the State exists, is too fresh in the memory of every one
to need recapitulation here.
But why did Sacco and Vanzetti have to die? This question is ofutmost moment; it bears directly upon the matters at issue.
Do you think that if Sacco and Vanzetti had been just a pair of
criminals, as the prosecution tried to make you believe, there would
have been such ruthless determination to execute them in the faceof the appeals, pleadings, and protests of the entire world?
Or if they had been plutocrats actually guilty of murder, with noother issue involved, would they have been executed? Would noappeal to the higher courts of the State have been allowed, would
the Federal Supreme Court have refused to consider the case?
You have often heard of some rich fellow killing a man, or of thesons of wealthy parents found guilty of murder in the first degree.
But can you name a single one of them ever executed in the UnitedStates? Will you even discover many of them in prison? Does not
the law always find excuses of ‘mental excitation’, of ‘brain storm’,of ‘legal irresponsibility in cases of rich men convicted of crime?
But even if Sacco and Vanzetti had been ordinary criminals
sentenced to die, would not appeals from prominent men in all
walks of life, from charitable societies, and hundreds of thousandsof friends and sympathizers have secured clemency for them?
Would not doubt of their guilt, expressed by the highest legal
authorities, have resulted in a new trial, a revision of the oldtestimony, and the consideration of new evidence in their behalf?
Why was all this refused to Sacco and Vanzetti? Why did ‘lawand order’, beginning with the local police and Federal detectives,
up to the confessedly prejudiced trial judge, all through theSupreme Court of the State, the Governor, and ending with the72

for a new and more terrible war than the last one. But that question
does not belong here. I have referred to the matter merely to show
you that without Gompers and the other labor leaders, without
the consent and support of the toiling masses, the government of
the United States would have been entirely unable to carry out thewishes of the lords of finance, industry, and commerce.
Or consider the case of Sacco and Vanzetti. Could Massachusetts
have executed them if the organized workers of America had been
against it, if they had taken action to prevent it? Suppose that Massachusetts labor had refused to support the State Government in its
murderous intention: suppose the workers had boycotted the Governor and his agents, stopped supplying them with food, cut off
their means of communication, and shut off the electric current inBoston and Charleston prison. The government would have been
powerless to function.
If you look at this matter with clear, unprejudiced eyes, you willrealize that it is not the people who are dependent on the government, as is generally believed, but just the other way about.
When the people withhold their aid from the government, when
they refuse obedience and pay no taxes, what happens? The government cannot support its officials, cannot pay its police, cannot
feed its army and navy. It remains without funds, without means
to carry out its orders. It is paralyzed. The handful of persons calling themselves the government become helpless — they lose theirpower and authority. If they can gather enough men to aid them,
they may try to fight the people. If they cannot, or lose the fight,
they have to give it up. Their “governing” is at an end.
That is to say, the power of even the strongest government rests
entirely in the people, in their willing support and obedience. It
follows that government in itself has no power at all. The moment
the people refuse to bow to its authority, the government ceases toexist.
Now, what strength has capitalism? Does the power of the capitalists rest in themselves, or where does it come from?
109

had nothing to gain from the war, for how can the toilers benefit
by the slaughter of their fellows in some other land? The massesof America were not in favor of mixing in the European imbroglio.
As previously mentioned, they had elected Woodrow Wilson President on a ‘keep us out of war’ platform. Had the American people
persisted in this determination, could the government have gotten
us into the carnage?
How was it managed, then, that the people of the United States
were induced to go to war when they had voted against it by electing Wilson? I have already explained in a previous chapter. Thoseinterested in entering the war started a great propaganda in favorof it. It was carried on in the press, in the schools and pulpit; by preparedness parades, patriotic spellbinders, and shouting for ‘democracy’ and ‘war to end war.’ It was a heinous way of fooling thepeople into believing that the war was for some ‘ideal’ instead ofbeing just a capitalist war for profits, as all modern wars are. Millions of dollars were spent on that propaganda, the money of thepeople, of course, for in the end the people pay for everything. An
artificial enthusiasm was worked up, with all kinds of promises tothe workers of the wonderful things that would result for themfrom the war. It was the greatest fraud and humbug, but the people of the United States fell for it, and they went to war, though notvoluntarily, but by conscription.
And the spokesmen of the workers, the labor leaders? As usual,
they proved the best ‘patriots’, calling upon their union members
to go and get themselves killed, for the greater glory of Mammon.
What did the late Samuel Gompers, then President of the American Federation of Labor, do? He became the right-hand man ofPresident Wilson, his chief recruiting lieutenant. He and his union
officials turned sergeants of capital in rounding up labor for theslaughter. The labor leaders of the other countries did the same.
Every one knows that the ‘war to end war’ really ended nothing.
On the contrary, it has caused more political complications thanthere have ever been before in Europe, and has prepared the field
108

Federal Supreme Court show such a determination to send themto the electric chair?
Because Sacco and Vanzetti were dangerous to the interests ofcapital. These men voiced the dissatisfaction of the workers with
their condition of servitude. They expressed consciously what theworkers mostly feel unconsciously. It is because they were classconscious men, Anarchists, that they were a greater menace to thesecurity of capitalism than if they had been a whole army of strikers not conscious of the real objects of the class struggle. The masters know that when you strike you demand only higher pay or
shorter hours of work. But the class-conscious struggle of labor
against capital is a far more serious matter; it means the entire abolition of the wage system and the freeing of labor from the domination of capital. You can readily understand then why the masters
saw a greater danger in such men as Sacco and Vanzetti than in
the biggest strike for the mere improvement of conditions with incapitalism.
Sacco and Vanzetti threatened the whole structure of capitalism
and government. Not those two poor proletarians as individuals.
No; rather what those two men represented — the spirit of conscious rebellion against existing conditions of exploitation and oppression.
It is that spirit which capital and government meant to kill in
the persons of those men. To kill that spirit and the movement forlabor’s emancipation by striking terror into the hearts of all who
might think and feel like Sacco and Vanzetti; to make an exampleof those two men that would intimidate the workers and keep themaway from the proletarian movement.
This is the reason why neither the courts not the government of
Massachusetts could be induced to give Sacco and Vanzetti a newtrial. There was danger of their being acquitted in the atmosphereof an aroused public sense of justice; there was the fear that theplot to murder them would be exposed. That is why the Justicesof the Federal Supreme Court declined to hear the case, just as the73

judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts refuseda new trial in spite of important new evidence. For that reason also
the President of the United States did not intercede in the matter,though it was no less his moral than his legal duty to do so. His
moral duty, in the interests of justice; his legal obligation because
as President he had sworn to uphold the Constitution which guarantees every one a fair trial, which Sacco and Vanzetti did not get.
President Coolidge had sufficient precedents for interceding inbehalf of justice, notably the example of Woodrow Wilson, in thecase of Mooney. But Coolidge had not the courage to do so, being entirely subservient to the Big Interests. No doubt the case of
Sacco and Vanzetti was also considered of even greater importanceand class significance than that of Mooney. At any rate, both capital and government agreed in their resolve to uphold the courts of
Massachusetts at all cost and to sacrifice Nicolo Sacco and Bartolemeo Vanzetti.
The masters were determined to uphold the legend of ‘justice inthe courts’, because their whole power rests on the popular beliefin such justice. It is not that infallibility is claimed for judges. If
that were the attitude, there would be no appeal from the decisionof a judge, there would be neither superior nor supreme courts.
The fallibility of Justice is admitted, but the fact that the courts
and all government institutions serve only to support the rule ofthe masters over their labor slaves — that their justice is but classjustice — that could not be admitted for even an instant. Because
if the people found that out, capitalism and government would bedoomed. That is exactly why no impartial review of the evidence in
the Sacco and Vanzetti case could be permitted, no new trial given
them, for such a proceeding would have exposed the motives andobjects back of their prosecution.
Therefore there was no appeal and no new trial — only a starchamber hearing behind closed doors in the Governor’s mansion,
by men whose loyalty to the dominant class was above suspicion;
men who by all their training and education, by their tradition and74

Chapter 12: Whose Is The
Power?
People talk about the greatness of their country, about thestrength of the government and the power of the capitalist class.
Let us see what that power really consists of, wherein it lies, and
who actually has it.
What is the government of a country? It is the King with his
ministers, or the President with his cabinet, the Parliament or theCongress, and the officials of the various State and Federal departments. Altogether a small number of persons as compared with theentire population.
Now, when is that handful of men, called government, strong
and in what does its strength consist?
It is strong when the people are with it. Then they supply thegovernment with money, with an army and navy, obey it, and enable it to function. In other words, the strength of a government
depends entirely on the support it receives.
But can any government exist if the people are actively opposed
to it? Could even the strongest government carry out any undertaking without the aid of the populace, without the help of the masses,
the workers of the country?
It is clear, of course, that no government can accomplish anything alone. It can do only what the people approve of or at least
permit to be done.
Take the great World War, for instance. The American financiers
wanted the United States to get into it, because they knew that theywould rake in tremendous profits, as they actually did. But labor107even for successfully conducting strikes. They cannot materially
improve your condition.
They serve only to keep the workers divided into different andoften opposing organizations; they train them to believe that capitalism is all right; they paralyze their initiative and ability to think
and act in a class conscious manner. That is why the labor leaders
and the conservative unions are the strongest bulwark of existing
institutions. They are the backbone of capitalism and of government, the best support of ‘law and order,’ and the reason why you
remain in wage slavery.
‘But we ourselves choose our union officials,’ you object; ‘if thepresent ones are no good, we can elect others.’
Of course, you can elect new leaders, but does it make any difference whether this or that man is your leader, whether it is Gompers
or Green, Jouhaux in France, or Thomas in England, as long as yourunion sticks to the same foolish ideas and false methods, believesin capitalism and supports the ‘harmony of interests’, divides theworkers and reduces their strength by craft organization, makes
contracts with the boss which bind the membership and keep themscabbing on their fellows, and in many other ways upholds the
régime of your bondage?
‘Then the union is no good?’ you demand.
In union there is strength, but it has to be a real union, a trueorganization of labor, because the workers everywhere have thesame interests no matter what work they do or to what particular
craft they belong. Such a union would be based on the mutual interests and solidarity of labor throughout the world. It would beconscious of its tremendous power as the creator of all wealth.
‘Power!’ you object. ‘You said we’re slaves! What power canslaves have?’
Let us see about it, then.

106

interests were bound to sustain the courts and clear the Sacco and
Vanzetti verdict of any imputation of class justice. Therefore Sacco
and Vanzetti had to die.
Governor Fuller of Massachusetts pronounced the final word of
their doom. There were, even up to the last moment, thousands
who had hoped that the Governor would shrink from committing
this cold-blooded murder. But they did not know or had forgottenthat years before, in 1919, the same Fuller had stated in Congressthat every ‘radical, socialist, I.W.W., or anarchist should be exterminated’; that is, that those who seek to free labor should be murdered. Could you reasonably expect such a man to do justice to
Sacco and Vanzetti, two avowed Anarchists?
Governor Fuller acted according to his sentiments, in keepingwith his attitude and interests as a member of the ruling class, ina manner thoroughly class-conscious. Similarly have acted Judge
Thayer and all those involved in the prosecution, no less than the‘respectable gentlemen’ of the Commission appointed by Fuller to‘review’ the case in secret session. All of them class-conscious, they
were interested only in sustaining capitalistic ‘justice’, so as to preserve the ‘law and order’ by which they live and profit.
Is there justice for labor within capitalism and government? Can
there be any as long as the present system exists? Decide for yourself.
The cases I have cited are but a few of the numerous strugglesof American labor against capital. The same can be duplicated inevery country. They clearly demonstrate the fact that
1. there is only class justice in the war of capital against labor;
there can be no justice for labor under capitalism.
2. law and government, as well as all other capitalist institutions (the press, the school, the church, the police, and courts)
are always at the service of capital against labor, whatever
the merits of any given case. Capital and government are
twins with one common interest.
75

3. capital and government will use any and all means to keep
the proletariat in subjection: they will terrorize the working
class and ruthlessly murder its most intelligent and devoted
members.
It cannot be otherwise, because there is a life-and-death struggle
between capital and labor.
Every time that capital and its servant, the law, hang such men
as the Chicago Anarchists or electrocute the Saccos and Vanzettis,
they proclaim that they have ‘freed society from a menace’. They
want you to believe that the executed were your enemies, enemiesof society. They also want you to believe that their death has settled the matter, that capitalistic justice has been vindicated, andthat ‘law and order’ has triumphed. But the matter is not settled,
and the masters’ victory is only temporary. The struggle goes on,
as it has continued all through the history of man, all through themarch of labor and liberty. No matter is ever settled unless it is settled right. You can’t suppress the natural yearning of the humanheart for freedom and well-being, however much terror and murder governments may resort to. You can’t stifle the demand of the
toiler for better conditions. The struggle goes on and will continue
in spite of everything law, government, and capital may do. Butthat the workers may not be wasting their energy and efforts inthe wrong direction, they must clearly understand that they canno more hope for justice from the courts, from law and government, than they can expect wage slavery to be abolished by theirmasters.
‘What’s to be done, then?’ you ask. ‘How shall the workers getjustice?’76

can get plenty of scabs and blacklegs, under police protection, tohelp break your strike, because you have been working so many
hours that there is always an army of unemployed on hand readyto take your place. Generally you lose your strike because yourlabor leaders did not permit you to organize in the right way.
I have seen, for instance, bricklayers on a New York skyscraper
lay down their tools, while the carpenters and iron workers on thesame job remained at work. The strike did not concern them, theirunions said, because they belonged to another trade; or they could
not join the strikers because that would be breaking the contract
their organizations had made with the boss. 50 they kept at workon the building where their brother union men had struck. That is,they were actually scabbing and helping to break the strike of thebricklayers. Because, forsooth, they belonged to another craft, toa different trade! As if the struggle of labor against capital were amatter of craft and not the common cause of the whole working
class!
Another example: the coal miners of Pennsylvania are on strike,and the coal miners of Virginia are taxed to help the strikers withmoney. The Virginia miners remain at work because they are‘bound by contract’. They keep on mining coal, so that the coalmagnates can supply the market and lose nothing by the strike of
the Pennsylvania miners. Sometimes they even gain by making
the strike an excuse for raising the price of coal. Can you wonderthat the Pennsylvania miners lose the strike, since their own
fellow miners scab on them? But if the workers understood theirtrue interests if they would be organized not by craft or trade but
by industries, so that the whole industry — and if necessary thewhole working class — could strike as one man, would any strike
be lost?
We shall return to this subject. Just now I want to point out
to you that your union, as at present organized, and your union
officials are not built for effectively fighting capitalism. Not built

105

tions of jurisdiction, with elections of officers, with conferences
and conventions. You pay for it all, of course, and that is why yourofficials are always in favor of a big union treasury, but what haveyou got from it? You keep on working in the factory or mill andpaying your dues, and your labor leader cares blessed little how
hard you toil or how you live, and you have to make a big racket
at your union meeting to compel attention to your needs and yourcomplaints.
When the question of a strike is taken up you will notice, as I
have mentioned before, that the leaders generally oppose it — forthey also like the boss and the ruler, want ‘peace and quiet’ instead of the discomforts involved in a fight. Whenever they can, theunion leaders will dissuade you from striking, and sometimes evendirectly prevent and forbid it. They will outlaw your organization
if you go on strike without their consent. But if the pressure is toostrong for them to resist they will graciously ‘authorize’ the strike.
Just imagine — you work hard and from your scanty earnings you
support the union officials, who should serve you, yet you have to
get their permission to improve your condition! It’s because you
have made them the bosses of your organization, just as you havemade the government your master instead of your servant — or as
you permit the policeman, whom you pay with your taxes, to order
you about instead of you giving him orders.
Did you ever ask yourself how it happens that when you areout on strike (and at all other times as well) the law and the wholemachinery of government is always on the side of the boss? Why,
the strikers number thousands while the boss is only one, and theyand he are supposed to be citizens of equal rights — yet, strange tosay, it’s the boss who always has the government at his service. He
can get the courts to issue an injunction against your ‘interfering’
with ‘his’ business, he can have the police club you off the picket
line, he can have you arrested and jailed. Did you ever hear of amayor, chief of police, or governor order out the police or militia
to protect your interests in a strike? Queer, isn’t it? Again, the boss
104

Chapter 9: Can The Church
Help You?
What’s to be done?
How abolish poverty, oppression, and tyranny? How eliminate
evil and injustice, weed out corruption, put an end to crime andmurder?
How do away with wage slavery?
How secure liberty and well-being, joy and sunshine for every
one?
‘Turn to God,’ commands the church; ‘only a Christian life cansave the world.’‘Let us pass a new law,’ says the reformer; ‘man must be compelled to be good.’‘Vote for me!’ says the politician; ‘I’ll look after your interests.’‘The Trade Union,’ advises your labor friend; ‘that’s your hope.’‘Only Socialism can abolish capitalism and do away with wage
slavery,’ insists the Socialist.
‘I’m a Bolshevik,’ announces another; ‘only the dictatorship of
the proletariat will free the workers.’‘We’ll remain slaves as long as we have rulers and masters,’ says
the Anarchist; ‘only liberty can make us free.’
The Protectionist and the Free Trader, the Single Taxer and theFabian, the Tolstoyan and the Mutualist, and a score of other social
physicians all prescribe their particular medicine to cure the ills ofsociety, and you wonder who is right and what the true solution
might be.

77

You cannot make any greater mistake than to accept blindly thisor that advice. You are sure to go wrong.
Only your own reason and experience can decide where the rightroad lies. Examine the various proposals and determine with yourown common sense which is the most reasonable and practical.
Only then will you know what is best for yourself, for the worker,
and for mankind.
So let us look into the different plans.
Can the church help you?
Maybe you are a Christian, or a member of some other religion— Jew, Mormon, Mohammedan, Buddhist, or what not.
It makes no difference. A man should be free to believe whateverhe pleases. The point is not what your religious faith is, but whether
religion can abolish the evils we suffer from.
As I said before, we have only one life to live on this earth, andwe want to make the best of it. What will happen to us after we aredead we don’t know. The chances are we’ll never know, and so it’sno use bothering about it.
The question here is of life, not of death. It is the living we areconcerned with; with you and me and others like ourselves. Can
the world be made a better place for us to live in? That’s what wewant to know. Can religion do it?
Christianity is about 2,000 years old. Has it abolished any evil?
Has it done away with crime and murder, has it delivered us frompoverty and misery, from despotism and tyranny?
You know that it has not. You know that the Christian Church,
like all other churches, has always been on the side of the masters, against the people. More: the church has caused worse strife
and bloodshed than all the wars of kings and kaisers. Religion has
divided mankind into opposing beliefs, and the most bloody wars
have been fought on account of religious differences. The church
has persecuted people for their opinions, imprisoned and killed
them. The Catholic Inquisition terrorized the whole world, tortured
so-called heretics, and burned them alive. Other churches did the78

But the ordinary, conservative union stands, as we have seen,
for capitalism and for everything connected with it. It takes it for
granted that you are a worker and that you are going to stay one,and that things must remain as they are. It asserts that all the union
can do is to help you get a little better wages, cut down your hours
of work, and improve the conditions under which you toil. It considers the employer a business partner, as it were, and it makes
contracts with him. But it never questions why one of the partners— the boss — gets rich from that kind of contract, while the otherpartner, the worker, always remains poor, labors hard, and dies awage slave. It doesn’t seem to be an equal partnership, somehow.
It looks more like a confidence game, doesn’t it?
Well, it is. It is a game in which one side does all the pulling of
the chestnuts out of the fire, while the other side takes possessionof them. A very unequal partnership, and all the striking of theworkers is merely to beg or compel the capitalistic partner to giveup a few chestnuts out of his big heap. A skin game, for all that,even when the worker succeeds in getting a few extra nuts.
Yet they speak to you of your dignity, of the ‘dignity of labor.’
Can you think of any greater insult? You slave for the masters all
your life, you serve them and keep them in comfort and luxury,
you let them lord it over you, and in their hearts they laugh at you
and despise you for your stupidity — and then they talk to you ofyour ‘dignity!’
From pulpit and platform, in the school and lecture room, every
labor leader and politician, every exploiter and grafter extols the‘dignity of labor’, while himself all the time sitting comfortably on
your back. Don’t you see how they are playing you for a sucker?
What is the union doing about it? What are your labor leaders
doing for the fat salary they make you pay them? They are busy‘organizing’ you, they are busy telling you what a fine fellow youare; how big and strong your union is, and how much your officials
are doing for you. But what are they doing? Their time is taken up
with petty matters of procedure, with factional fights, with ques103

Now, then, you might justly ask, ‘What is the use of the union?
What are the union leaders doing about it?’
The truth is that your union leaders do nothing about it. On thecontrary, they do everything they can to keep you a wage slave.
They do it by making you believe that capitalism is all right and byhaving you support the existing system with its government and‘law and order.’ They fool you by telling you that it can’t be otherwise, just as the boss the school, the church, and the government
do. In fact, your labor leader is doing the same work for capitalism that your political leader is doing for the government: bothsupport and get you to support the present system of injustice andexploitation.
‘But the union,’ you say, ‘why doesn’t the union change things?’
The union could change things. But what is the union? The union
is just you and the other fellow and more of them — the membership and the officials. You realize now that the officials, the labor
leaders, are not interested in changing things. Then it is up to themembership to do it, isn’t it?
That’s it. But if the membership — the workers in general — don’t
see what it is all about, then the union can’t do anything. It means,
therefore, that it is necessary to get the membership to understandthe real situation.
This should be the true purpose of the labor union. It should be
the union’s business to enlighten its members about their condition, to show them why and how they are robbed and exploited,
and find ways and means of doing away with it.
That would be fulfilling the union’s true purpose of protecting
the interests of the worker. The abolition of the capitalistic order ofthings with its government and law would be the only real defenseof labor’s interests. And while the union would be preparing forthat, it would also be looking after the immediate needs of labor,
the improvement of present conditions, so far as that is possible
within capitalism.

102

same when they had the power. They always sought to enslave andexploit the people, to keep them in ignorance and darkness. They
condemned every effort of man to develop his mind, to advance, toimprove his condition. They damned science, and silenced the men
who thirsted for knowledge. Till this very day institutionalized religion is the Judas of its alleged Savior. It approves of murder andwar, of wage slavery and capitalistic robbery, and always stands
for the ‘law and order’ which crucified the Nazarene.
Consider: Jesus wanted all men to be brothers, to live in peaceand good will. The church upholds inequality, national strife, andwar.
Jesus condemned the rich as vipers and oppressors of the poor.
The church bows before the rich and accumulates vast wealth.
The Nazarene was born in a manger and remained a pauper all
his life. His alleged representatives and spokesmen on earth live inpalaces.
Jesus preached meekness. The Princes of the Church are haughty
and purse-proud.
‘As you do unto the least of my children,’ Christ said, ‘you do
unto me.’ The church supports the capitalist system which enslaves
little children and brings them to an early grave.
‘Thou shalt not kill,’ commanded the Nazarene. The church approves of executions and war.
Christianity is the greatest hypocrisy on record. Neither Christian nations nor individuals practice the precepts of Jesus. The early
Christians did — and they were crucified, burned at the stake, or
thrown to the wild animals in the Roman arena. Later the Christian Church compromised with those in power; she gained money
and influence by taking the side of the tyrants against the people.
She sanctioned everything which Christ condemned, and by that
she won the good will and support of kings and masters. To-day
king, master, and priest are one trinity. They crucify Jesus daily;
they glorify him with lip service and betray him for silver pieces;they praise his name and kill his spirit.
79

It is obvious that Christianity is the greatest sham and shame ofhumanity, and a complete failure because the Christian appeal is alie. The churches do not practice what they preach. Moreover, theypreach to you a gospel which they know you cannot live up to; theycall upon you to become a ‘better man’ without giving you a chance
to do so. On the contrary, the churches uphold the conditions thatmake you ‘bad’, while they command you to be ‘good’. They benefit materially by the existing régime and are financially interested
in keeping it up. The Catholic Church, the Protestant, Anglican,
Christian Science, Mormon, and other denominations are among
the wealthiest organizations in the world to-day. Their possessions
represent the workers’ blood and flesh. Their influence is proof of
how the people are deluded. The prophets of religion are dead andforgotten; there remain only the profits.
‘But if we would lead a truly Christian life,’ you remark, ‘theworld would be different.’
You are right, my friend. But can you live a Christian life underpresent conditions? Does capitalism allow you to lead such a life?
Will the government permit you to do so? Will even the church
give you a chance to live a Christian life?
Just try it for a single day and see what happens to you.
As you leave your house in the morning, determine to be a Christian that day and speak only the truth. As you pass the policeman
on the corner, remind him of Christ and His commandments. Tell
him to ‘love his enemy as himself’, and persuade him to throw away
his club and gun.
And when you meet the soldier on the street, impress it upon
him that Jesus had said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’
In your shop or office speak the whole truth to you employer. Tellhim of the Nazarene’s warning. ‘What shall it profit you to gain thewhole earth and lose your soul and its salvation?’ Mention that He
commanded us to share our last loaf with the poor; that He said
that the rich man has no more chance of getting into heaven thanthe camel can pass through the eye of a needle.
80

ter six months work at the higher pay you will just stand even. But
how about the increased cost of living in the meantime? Because
you are not only a producer, you are also a consumer. And when
you go to buy things you will find that they are more expensive
than before. Higher wages mean increased cost of living. Because
what the employer loses by paying you a greater wage he gets backagain by raising the price of his product.
You can see, then, that the whole idea of higher wages is in reality very misleading. It makes the worker think that he is actually better off when he gets more pay, but the fact is — so far as
the whole working class is concerned — that whatever the worker
gains by higher wages he loses as a consumer, and in the long run
the situation remains the same. At the end of a year of ‘higher
wages’ the worker has no more than after a year of ‘lower wages.’
Sometimes he is even worse off, because the cost of living increases
much faster than wages.
That is the general rule. Of course there are particular factorsthat affect wages as well as the cost of living, such as scarcity of materials or of labor. But we need not go into special situations, into
cases of industrial or financial crisis, or times of unusual prosperity.
What concerns us is the regular situation, the normal condition of
the workingman. And the normal condition is that he always remains a workingman, a wage slave, earning just enough to enable
him to live and to continue to work for his boss. You will find exceptions now and then, as of a worker inheriting or otherwise getting
hold of some money, which enables him to go into business, or inventing something that may bring him wealth. But such cases are
exceptions and they do not alter your condition; that is, the condition of the average toiler, of the millions of workingman all over
the world.
So far as those millions are concerned, and so far as you, as oneof them, are concerned, you remain a wage slave, whatever yourwork or your pay, and there is no chance for you to be anythingelse under the system of capitalism.
101‘regular’ labor leader in any country do that? I never did, nor has
any one else. On the contrary, when some decent man dares do so,
it is the labor leaders who are the first to declare him a disturber,an ‘enemy of the workers’, a socialist or an anarchist. They are
the first to cry ‘Crucify him!’ and the unthinking workers unfortunately echo them.
Such men are crucified, because capital and government feel safein doing it as long as the people approve of it.
Do you see the point, my friend? Does it look as if your labor
leaders want you to get next to things, to understand that you area wage slave? Do they not really serve the interests of the masters?
The union leaders and politicians — the more intelligent ones —know full well what great power labor could wield as the sole producer of the wealth of the world. But they don’t want you to know
it. They don’t want you to know that the workers, properly organized and enlightened, could do away with their slavery and subjection. They tell you instead that your union is there only to help you
get better wages, though they are aware that you won’t improveyour condition very much within capitalism; and that you must
always remain a wage slave whatever pay the boss may give you.
They know very well that even when you do succeed, by means ofa strike, in getting a raise, you lose it again in the increased costof living, not to speak of the wages you lose while you are out on
strike.
Statistics show that most of the important strikes are lost. But let
us suppose that you won your strike and that you were out only a
few weeks. In that time you have lost more in wages than you cangain back working months at the higher pay.
Take a simple example. Suppose you were earning 40 dollars a
week when you went on strike. Let us assume the best possible
result: we’ll say that the strike lasted only 3 weeks and that you
gained a five dollar increase. During your 3 weeks’ strike you lost
120 dollars in wages. Now you get five dollars a week more, and it
will take you 24 weeks to get that lost 120 dollars back again. So, af100

And when you are brought to court for disturbing the peace ofthe good Christians, remind the Judge: ‘Judge not that ye be notjudged.’You will be declared a fool or a madman, and they will send you
to a lunatic asylum or to prison.
You can see, then, what rank hypocrisy it is for the sky pilot topreach the Christian life to you. He knows as well as you that under capitalism and government there is no more chance to lead a
Christian life than for a camel to ‘pass through the needle’s eye’. All
those good folks who pretend to be Christians are just hypocrites
who preach what cannot be practiced, for they don’t give you any
opportunity to lead a Christian life. No, not even to lead an ordinarily decent and honest life, without sham and deceit, without
pretense and lying.
It is true that if we could follow the precepts of the Nazarene
this would be a different world to live in. There would then be no
murder and no war; no cheating and lying and profit-making. There
would be neither slave nor master, and we should all live like brothers, in peace and harmony. There would be neither poor nor rich,neither crime nor prison, but that would not be what the church
wants. It would be what the Anarchists want, and that we shalldiscuss further on.
So, my friend, you have nothing to expect from the Christian
Church or from any church. All progress and improvement in theworld has been made against the will and wishes of the church.
You may believe in whatever religion you please, but don’t put any
hope of social improvement in the church.
Now let’s see whether the reformer or politician can help us.

81

Chapter 10: Reformer andPolitician
Who is the reformer, and what does he propose?
The reformer wants to ‘reform and improve.’ He is not sure what
it is that he really wants to change: sometimes he says that ‘people
are bad,’ and it is them that he wants to ‘reform’; at other times hemeans to ‘improve’ conditions. He does not believe in abolishingan evil altogether. Doing away with something that is rotten is ‘tooradical’ for him. ‘For Heaven’s sake,’ he cautions you, ‘don’t be too
hasty.’ He wants to change things gradually, little by little. Takewar, for example. War is bad, of course, the reformer admits; it iswholesale murder, a blot upon our civilization. But — abolish it?
Oh, no! He wants to ‘reform’ it. He wants to ‘limit armaments,’
for instance. With less armaments, he says, we’ll kill fewer people.
He wants to ‘humanize’ war, to make slaughter more decent, so to
speak.
If you should carry out his ideas in your personal life, you would
not have a rotten tooth that aches pulled out all at once. You would
have it pulled out a little to-day, some more next week for several
months or years, and by then you would be ready to pull it out
altogether, so it should not hurt so much. That is the logic of thereformer. Don’t be ‘too hasty,’ don’t pull a bad tooth out all at once.
The reformer thinks he can make people better by law. ‘Pass a
new law,’ he says whenever anything goes wrong; ‘compel men to
be good.’
He forgets that for hundreds, even for thousands, of years laws
have been made to force people to ‘be good,’ yet human nature re82

We have seen before to whose advantage it is to keep things as
they are: to rulers and governments, to the churches, to the middleclasses in short, to all who live on the toil of the masses. But eventhe labor leaders themselves are interested in keeping up wage slavery. Most of them are too ignorant to see through the fraud, andso they really believe that capitalism is all right and that we can’t
do without it. Yet others, the more intelligent ones, know the truth
very well, but as highly paid and influential union officials they
benefit by the continuation of the capitalist system. They knowthat if the workers should see through the whole thing, they would
call their leaders to account for having misled and deceived them.
They would revolt against their slavery and their misleaders — it
might come to a revolution, as has happened often before in history. But labor leaders don’t care for revolution; they prefer to let
well enough alone, for things are well enough for them.
Indeed, the labor misleaders don’t favor revolution; they areeven opposed to strikes and try to prevent them whenever theycan.
When a strike does break out they will see to it that the men‘don’t go too far,’ and they will do their best to settle the differenceswith the employer by ‘arbitration,’ in which the workers usually get
the worst of it. They will hold conferences with the bosses and beg
for some minor concessions, and only too often they will compromise the strike to the disadvantage of the union — but in any andall cases they will exhort the workers to ‘preserve law and order,’ tokeep quiet, and be patient. They will sit at the same table with the
exploiters, be wined and dined by them, and appeal to the government to ‘intercede’ and settle the ‘trouble,’ but they will be mighty
careful never to mention the source of all the labor troubles, never
to touch upon wage slavery itself.
Have you ever seen a single labor leader, of the American Federation of Labor, for instance, stand up and declare that the whole
wage system is pure robbery and swindle, and demand for theworkers the full product of his toil? Have you ever heard of any
99

understand his own interests? Maybe he does not understand that
it is good for him to pay you more?
Well, you can see to what nonsense the idea of the ‘identity ofinterests’ leads. And still, the average labor union is built on this‘identity of interests’. There are some exceptions, of course, suchas the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.), the revolutionary
syndicalist unions, and other class-conscious labor organizations.
They know better. But the ordinary unions, such as those belonging to the American Federation of Labor in the United States, orthe conservative unions of England, France, Germany, and othercountries, all proclaim the identity of interests between labor andcapital. Yet as we have just seen, their very existence, their strikes
and struggles all prove that the ‘identity’ is a fake and a lie. How
does it happen then that the unions pretend to believe in the identity of interests, while their very existence and activity deny it?
It is because the average worker does not stop to think for himself. He relies upon his union leaders and the newspapers to do itfor him, and they see to it that he should not do any straight thinking. For if the workers should begin to think for themselves, theywould soon see through the whole scheme of graft, deceit, and robbery which is called government and capitalism, and they would
not stand for it. They would do as the people had done before atvarious times. As soon as they understood that they were slaves,they destroyed slavery. Later on, when they realized that they wereserfs, they did away with serfdom. And as soon as they will realizethat they are wage slaves, they will also abolish wage slavery.
You see, then, that it is to the interests of capital to keep the workers from understanding that they are wage slaves. The ‘identity ofinterests’ swindle is one of the means of doing it.
But it is not only the capitalist who is interested in thus duping
the workers. All those who profit by wage slavery are interested in
keeping up the system, and all of them naturally try to prevent theworkers from understanding the situation.

98

mains about what it always was. We have so many laws that eventhe proverbial Philadelphia lawyer is lost in their maze. The ordinary person can’t tell any more what is right or wrong according
to statute, what is just, what true or false. A special class of persons— judges — decide what is honest or dishonest, when it is permitted to steal and in what manner, when fraud is legal and when it isnot, when murder is right and when it is a crime, which uniform
entitles you to kill and which does not. It takes many laws to determine all this, and for centuries legislators have been busy making
laws (at a good salary), and yet to-day we still need more laws, forall the other laws have failed to make you ‘good.’
Still the lawmaker continues to compel people to be good. If theexisting laws have not made you better, he says, then we need morelaws and stricter ones. Stiffer sentences will diminish and prevent
crime, he claims, while he appeals in behalf of his ‘reform’ to thevery men who have stolen the earth from the people.
If some one has killed another in a business quarrel, for moneyor other advantage, the reformer will not admit that money andmoney getting rouse the worst passions and drive men to crime andmurder. He will argue that the willful taking of human life deserves
capital punishment, and he will straight away help the government
send armed men to some foreign country to do wholesale killing
there.
The reformer cannot think straight. He does not understand that
if men act badly it is because they think it is to their advantage to
do so. The reformer says that a new law will change all that. He is aborn prohibitionist: he wants to prohibit men from being bad. If a
man lost his job, for instance, feels blue about it, and gets drunk toforget his troubles, the reformer wouldn’t think of helping the man
to find work. No; it is drinking that must be prohibited, he insists.
He thinks he has reformed you by driving you out of the saloon into
the cellar where you stealthily slush on vile moonshine instead of
openly taking a drink. In the same way he wants to reform you inwhat you eat and do, in what you think and feel.
83

He refuses to see that his ‘reforms’ create worse evils than thosethey are supposed to suppress; that they cause more deceit, corruption, and vice. He puts one set of men to spy upon another, and hethinks he has ‘raised the standard of morality’; he pretends to havemade you ‘better’ by compelling you to be a hypocrite.
I don’t mean to detain you long with the reformer. We are goingto meet him again as the politician. Without wishing to be roughon him, I can say frankly that when the reformer is honest he isa fool; when he is a politician he is a knave. In either case, as weshall presently see, he cannot solve our problem of how to makethe world a better place to live in.
The politician is first cousin to the reformer. ‘Pass a new law,’says the reformer, ‘and compel men to be good.’ ‘Let me pass thelaw,’ says the politician, ‘and things will be better.’
You can tell the politician by his talk. In most cases he is a grafter
who wants to climb on your shoulders to power. Once there, heforgets his solemn promises and thinks only of his own ambitions
and interests.
When the politician is honest he misleads you no less than thegrafter. Perhaps worse, because you put confidence in him and are
the more disappointed when he fails to do you any good.
The reformer and the politician are both on the wrong track. To
try to change men by law is just like trying to change your face bygetting a new mirror. For men make laws, not laws men. The law
merely reflects men as they are, as the mirror reflects your features.
‘But the law keeps people from becoming criminals,’ reformer
and politician assert.
If that is true, if the law really prevents crime, then the morelaws the better. By the time we have passed enough laws there will
be no more crime. Well, why do you smile? Because you know that
it is nonsense, You know that the best the law can do is to punish
crime; it cannot prevent it.
Should the time ever come when the law could read a man’smind and detect there his intention to commit a crime, then it might84

only the accumulated products of labor. You know that there canbe no capital, no wealth of any kind, except as the result of labor.
So that by right all the wealth belongs to labor, to the men andwomen who have created it and keep on creating it by their brain
and brawn; that is, to the industrial, agrarian, and mental workersof the world; to the whole working class, in short.
You know also that the capital owned by the masters is stolen
property, stolen products of labor. Capitalist industry is the processof continuing to appropriate the products of labor for the benefit of
the master class. The masters, in other words, exist and grow richby keeping for themselves the products of your toil. Yet you are
asked to believe that you, the workers, have the same interests as
your exploiters and robbers! Can any one but a downright fool betaken in by such a plain fraud?
It is clear that your interests as a worker are different from theinterests of your capitalistic masters. More than different: they are
entirely opposite; in fact, contrary, antagonistic to each other. The
better wages the boss pays you, the less profit he makes out of you.
It does not require great philosophy to understand that. You can’t
get away from it, and no twisting and quibbling can change thissolid truth.
The very existence of labor unions is itself proof of this, thoughmost of the unions and their members don’t understand it. If theinterests of labor and capital are the same, why the union? If theboss really believes that what is good for him, as a boss, is also goodfor you, his employee, then he will certainly treat you right; he will
pay you the highest wages possible, so what’s the use of having
your union? But you know that you do need the union: you need it
to help you fight for better wages and better conditions of work. To
fight whom? Your boss, of course, your employer, the manufacturer,
the capitalist. But if you have to fight him, then it does not look as
if your interests and his are the same, does it? What becomes ofthe precious ‘identity of interests’ then? Or maybe you are fighting
your boss for better wages because he is so foolish that he does not97That is why they do everything in their power to stop labor fromorganizing. When they can’t stop it, they try their best to weaken
the union or to corrupt its leaders, so that the union should not bedangerous to the bosses’ interests.
The masters have found a very effective way to paralyze thestrength of organized labor. They have persuaded the workers thatthey have the same interests as the employers; they have madethem believe that capital and labor have ‘identical interests’, andthat what is good for the employer is also good for his employees.
They have given it the fine sounding name of ‘Harmony between
capital and labor’. If your interests are the same as those of yourboss, then why should you fight him? That is what they tell you.
The capitalist press, the government, the school, and the church allpreach the same thing: that you live in peace and amity with youremployer. It is good for the industrial magnates to have their workers believe that they are ‘partners’ in a common business: they willthen work hard and faithfully because it is ‘to their own interests’;
the workers will not think of fighting their masters for better conditions, but they will be patient and wait until the employer can‘share his prosperity’ with them. They will also consider the interests and well-being of ‘their’ country and they will not ‘disturb
industry’ and the ‘orderly life of the community’ by strikes andstoppage of work. If you listen to your exploiters and their mouthpieces you will be ‘good’ and consider only the interests of yourmasters, of your city and country — but no one cares about yourinterests and those of your family, the interests of your union andof your fellow workers of the laboring class. ‘Don’t be selfish’, theyadmonish you, while the boss is getting rich by your being goodand unselfish. And they laugh in their sleeves and thank the Lordthat you are such an idiot.
But if you have followed me till now, then you know that theinterests of capital and labor are not the same. No greater lie wasever invented than the so-called ‘identity of interests’. You knowthat labor produces all the wealth of the world, and capital itself is96

prevent it. But in that case the law would have no policemen to do
the preventing, because they’d be in prison themselves. And if theadministration of law would be honest and impartial, there would
be neither judges nor lawmakers, because they would be keeping
the police company.
But seriously speaking, as things stand, how can the law prevent
crime? It can do so only when the intention to commit a crime has
been announced or has somehow become known. But such cases
are very rare. One does not advertise his criminal plans. The claim
then that the law prevents crime is entirely baseless.
‘But the fear of punishment,’ you object, ‘does it not prevent
crime?’
If that were the case crime would have stopped long ago, forsurely the law has done enough punishing. The whole experienceof mankind disproves the idea that punishment prevents crime. On
the contrary, it has been found that even the most severe punishments do not frighten people away from crime.
England, as well as other countries, used to punish not only murder but scores of lesser crimes with death. Yet it did not deter others from committing the same crimes. People were then executed
publicly, by hanging, by garroting, by the guillotine, in order to inspire greater fear. Yet even the most fearful punishment failed toprevent or diminish crime. It was found that public executions had
a brutalizing effect upon the people, and there are cases on record
where persons who witnessed an execution immediately committed the very crime the terrible punishment of which they had justwitnessed. That is why public execution was abolished: it did more
harm than good. Statistics show that there has been no increase ofcrime in countries that have entirely done away with capital punishment.
Of course, there may be some cases in which the fear of punishment prevents a crime; but on the whole its only effect is to makethe criminal more circumspect, so that his detection is more difficult.
85

There are, generally speaking, two types of crime: some committed in the heat of anger and passion, and in such cases one does
not stop to consider the consequences, and so the fear of punishment does not enter as a factor. The other class of crime is committed with cold deliberation, mostly professionally, and in such cases
fear of punishment only serves to make the criminal more careful
to leave no traces. It is a well-known trait of the professional criminal that he thinks himself sufficiently clever to avoid detection, no
matter how often he happens to be caught. He will always blamesome particular circumstance, some accidental cause, or just ‘badluck’ for having been arrested. ‘Next time I’ll be more careful,’ hesays; or, ‘I won’t trust my pal any more.’ But almost never will you
find in him the faintest thought of giving up crime on account of
the punishment which may be meted out to him. I have known
thousands of criminals, yet hardly any of them ever took possible
punishment into consideration.
It is just because fear of punishment has no deterrent effect thatcrime continues in spite of all laws and courts, prisons and executions.
But let us suppose that punishment does have a deterring effect.
Must there not be some powerful reasons that cause people to commit crime, notwithstanding all the dire punishment inflicted?
What are those reasons?
Every prison warden will tell you that whenever there is much
unemployment, hard times, the prisons get filled. This fact is alsoborn out by investigation into the causes of crime. The greatest
percentage of it is due directly to conditions, to industrial and economic reasons. That is why the vast majority of the prison population come from the poor classes. It has been established thatpoverty and unemployment, with their attendant misery and despair, are the chief sources of crime. Is there any law to prevent
poverty and unemployment?

86

Chapter 11: The Trade Union‘Yes, the union is our only hope,’ you agree; ‘it makes us strong.’
Indeed, there never was a truer word spoken: in union there isstrength. It has taken labor a long time to realize this, and evento-day many proletarians don’t understand it thoroughly.
There was a time when the workers did not know anything aboutorganization. Later, when they did begin to get together to improvetheir condition, laws were passed against it and labor associations
were forbidden.
The masters always opposed the organization of their employees,
and the governments helped them to prevent and suppress unions.
It is not so long ago that England and other countries had very severe laws against workers’ getting organized. The attempt to better
their situation by joint effort was condemned as ‘conspiracy’ andwas prohibited. It took the wage earners a long time to fight out
their right of association; and, mind you, they had to fight for it.
Which shows you that the bosses have never granted anything to
the workers except when the latter fought for it and compelledthem to yield. Even to-day many employers oppose the organization of their employees; they prevent it wherever they can: they getlabor organizers arrested and driven out of the city, and the law isalways on their side and helps them do it. Or they resort to thetrick of forming fake labor bodies, yellow company unions, which
can be relied on to do the bosses’ bidding.
It is easy to understand why the masters don’t want you to beorganized, why they are afraid of a real labor union. They know
very well that a strong, fighting union can compel higher wages
and better conditions, which means less profit for the plutocrats.
95form’ whose realization depends on law and government is alreadythereby doomed to failure.
‘But the union!’ exclaims your friend; ‘the labor union is the best
defense of the worker.’

94

Is there any law to abolish these main causes of crime? Are not
all the laws designed to keep up the conditions which produce
poverty and misery, and thus manufacture crime all the time?
Suppose a pipe burst in your house. You put a bucket under the
break to catch the escaping water, You can keep on putting buckets
there, but as long as you do not mend the broken pipe, the leakage
will continue, no matter how much you may swear about it.
Our filled prisons are the buckets. Pass as many laws as you
want, punish the criminals as you may, the leakage will continue
until you repair the broken social pipe.
Does the reformer or politician really want to mend that pipe?
I have said that most crime is of an economic nature. That is,
it has to do with money, with possession, with the desire to getsomething with the least effort, to secure a living or wealth by hookor crook.
But that is just the ambition of our whole life, of our entire civilization. As long as our existence is based on a spirit of this sort,
will it be possible to eradicate crime? As long as society is built
on the principle of grabbing all you can, we must continue to livethat way. Some will try to do it ‘within the law’; others, more courageous, reckless, or desperate, will do it outside the law. But the one
and the other will really be doing the same thing, and it’s the thingthat is the crime, not the manner in which it is done.
Those who can do it within the law call the others criminals. It’sfor the ‘illegal’ criminals — and for those who might become such— that most of the laws are made.
The ‘illegal’ criminals are often caught. Their conviction and punishment depend mainly on how successful they have been in theircriminal career. The more successful, the less chance of their conviction, the lighter their punishment. It is not the crime they committed which will ultimately decide their fate, but their ability toemploy expensive lawyers, their political and social connections,
their money and influence. It will generally be the poor and friendless fellow who will be made to feel the full weight of the law;87

he’ll get speedy ‘justice’ and the heaviest penalty. He is not able totake advantage of the various delays which the law affords to hisricher fellow criminal, for appeals to higher courts are expensive
luxuries which the moneyless criminal cannot indulge in. That is
why you almost never see a rich man behind prison bars; such areoccasionally ‘found guilty’, but mighty seldom punished. Nor will
you find many professional criminals in prison. These know ‘theropes’; they have friends and connections; usually they also have‘fall money’, for just such occasions, with which to ‘oil’ their way
out of the legal meshes. Those you find in our prisons and penitentiaries are the poorest of society, accidental criminals, mostly
workingman and farm boys whom poverty and misfortune, striking and picketing, unemployment and general helplessness havebrought behind the bars.
Are these at least reformed by the law and the penalties they
undergo? Hardly. They come out of prison weakened in body andmind, hardened by the mistreatment and cruelty they suffered fromor witnessed there, embittered by their fate. They have to go backto the same conditions which had made them law-breakers in thefirst place, but now they are labeled ‘criminals’, are looked down
upon, scorned even by former friends, and persecuted and houndedby the police as men ‘with a criminal record’. It is not long before
most of them are again behind the bars.
So our social merry-go-round revolves. And all the time the conditions that had made those unfortunates into criminals continue
manufacturing new crops of them, and ‘law and order’ goes on as
before, and the reformer and the politician keep busy making morelaws.
It is a profitable business, this law-making. Have you everstopped to consider whether our courts, police, and the wholemachinery of so-called justice really want to abolish crime? Is it to
the interest of the policeman, the detective, the sheriff, the judge,
the lawyer, the prison contractors, wardens, deputies, keepers,
and the thousands of others who live by the ‘administration of88

capitalist monopoly, against the powerful combinations of money
which ruled legislatures and courts and lorded it over the workers
with an iron hand. After long and expensive effort the Sherman
Law was at last passed, and labor leaders and politicians were jubilant over the ‘new epoch’ created by that law, as they enthusiastically assured the toilers.
What has that law accomplished? The trusts have not been hurt
by it; they have remained safe and sound, in fact, they have grown
and multiplied. They dominate the country and treat the workers
as abject slaves. They are more powerful and prosperous than everbefore.
But one important thing the Sherman Law did accomplish.
Passed especially in the ‘interests of labor’, it has been turned
against the workers and their unions. It is now used to break up
organizations of labor as being in ‘prevention of free competition’.
The labor unions are now constantly menaced by that anti-trust
law, while the capitalistic trusts go on their way undisturbed.
My friend, do I need to tell you about the bribery and debaucheryof politics, about the corruption of the courts, and the vile administration of ‘justice’? Do I need to remind you of the big TeapotDome and oil lease scandals, and the thousand and one lesser onesof every-day occurence? It would be to insult your intelligence todwell upon these universally known things, for they are part andparcel of all politics, in every country.
The great evil is not that politicians are corrupt and the administration of law unjust. If that were the only trouble then we mighttry, like the reformer, to ‘purify’ politics and to work for a more‘just administration’. But it is not that which is the real trouble.
The trouble is not with impure politics, but that the whole game ofpolitics is rotten. The trouble is not with defects in the administration of the law, but that law itself is an instrument to subject andoppress the people.
The whole system of law and government is a machine to keep
the workers enslaved and to rob them of their toil. Every social ‘re93

no matter how exploited and oppressed they are, in a ‘democracy’
they think themselves free and independent.
That is why the average workingman in the United States, forinstance, considers himself a sovereign citizen, though he has no
more to say about the running of his country than the starved peasant in Russia had under the Tsar. He thinks he is free, while in fact
he is only a wage slave. He believes he enjoys ‘liberty for the pursuit of happiness’, while his days, weeks and years, and his whole
life, are mortgaged to the boss in the mine or factory.
The people under a tyranny know they are enslaved and sometimes they revolt. The people of America are in bondage and don’tknow it. That is why there are no revolutions in America.
Modern capitalism is wise. It knows that it prospers best under‘democratic’ institutions, with the people electing their own representatives to the lawmaking bodies, and indirectly casting a voteeven for the president. The capitalist masters do not care how orfor whom you vote, whether it be the Republican or the Democratic ticket. What difference is it to them? Whoever you elect,
he will legislate in favor of ‘law and order,’ to protect things as
they are. The main concern of the powers that be is that the people
should continue to believe in and uphold the existing system. That
is why they spend millions for the schools, colleges, and universities which ‘educate’ you to believe in capitalism and government.
Politics and politicians, governors and law-makers are only theirpuppets. They will see to it that no legislation is passed against
their interests. Now and then they will make a show of fighting
certain laws and favoring others, else the game would lose its interest for you. But whatever laws there be, the masters will take carethat they shouldn’t hurt their business, and their well-paid lawyers
know how to turn every law to the benefit of the Big Interests, as
daily experience proves.
A very striking illustration of it is the famous Sherman AntiTrust Law. Organized labor spent thousands of dollars and yearsof energy to pass that legislation. It was directed against growing
92

justice’ to do away with crime? Supposing there were no criminals,
could those ‘administrators’ hold their jobs? Could you be taxed
for their support? Would they not have to do some honest work?
Think it over and see if crime is not a more lucrative source of income to the ‘dispensers of justice’ than to the criminals themselves.
Can you reasonably believe that they really want to abolish crime?
Their ‘business’ is to apprehend and punish the criminal; but
it is not to their interest to do away with crime, for that’s theirbread and butter. That is the reason why they will not look into
the causes of crime. They are quite satisfied with things as theyare. They are the staunchest defenders of the existing system, of‘justice’ and punishment, the champions of ‘law and order’. They
catch and punish ‘criminals’, but they leave crime and its causes
severely alone.
‘But what is the law for that?’ you demand.
The law is to keep up existing conditions, to preserve ‘law andorder.’ More laws are constantly made, all for the same purposeof defending and sustaining the present order of things. ‘To reformmen,’ as the reformer says; ‘to improve conditions,’ as the politician
assures you.
But the new laws leave men as they are, and conditions remain,on the whole, the same. Since capitalism and wage slavery began,millions of laws have been passed, but capitalism and wage slavery
still remain. The truth is, all the laws serve only to make capitalism
stronger and perpetuate the workers’ subjection. It is the businessof the politician, the ‘science of politics’, to make you believe thatthe law protects you and your interests, while it merely serves tokeep up the system which robs, dupes, and enslaves you in bodyand mind. All the institutions of society have this one object inview: to instil in you respect for law and government, to awe youwith its authority and sanctity, and thus support the social framework which rests upon your ignorance and your obedience. The
whole secret of the thing is that the masters want to keep their89

stolen possessions. Law and government are the means by which
they do it.
There is no great mystery about this matter of government andlaws. Nor is there anything sacred or holy about them. Laws are
made and unmade; old laws are abolished, and new laws are passed.
It is all the work of men, human, and therefore fallible and temporary. There is nothing eternal or unchangeable about them. But
whatever laws you make and however you change them, they always serve one purpose: to compel people to do certain things, torestrain them from or punish them for doing other things. That is
to say, the only purpose of laws and government is to rule the people, to keep them from doing what they want and prescribe to them
what certain other people want them to do.
But why must people be kept from doing what they want? And
what is it that they want to do?
If you look into this you will find that people want to live, tosatisfy their needs, to enjoy life. And in this all people are alike,as I have already pointed out before. But if people are to be prevented from living and enjoying their lives, then there must be
some amongst us who have an interest in doing that.
So it is in fact: there are indeed people who don’t want us tolive and enjoy life, because they have taken the joy out of our lives,
and they don’t want to give it back to us. Capitalism has done it,
and government which serves capitalism. To let the people enjoy
life would mean to stop robbing and oppressing them. That is why
capitalism needs government, that’s why we are taught to respectthe ‘sanctity of the law’. We have been made to believe that breaking the law is criminal, though law-breaking and crime are often
entirely different things. We have been made to believe that any
act against the law is bad for society, though it may be bad only
for the masters and exploiters. We have been made to believe thateverything which threatens the possessions of the rich is ‘evil’ and‘wrong’, and that everything which weakens our chains and destroys our slavery is ‘criminal’.
90

In short, there has been developed in the course of time a kindof ‘morality’ that is useful for the rulers and masters only — a classmorality; really a slave morality, because it helps to keep us in slavery. And whoever goes against this slave morality is called ‘bad,’‘immoral,’ a criminal, an anarchist.
If I should rob you of all you have and then persuade you thatwhat I did is good for you and that you should guard my bootyagainst others, it would be a very clever trick on my part, wouldn’t
it? It would secure me in my stolen possessions. Suppose further
that I should also manage to convince you that we must make a rulethat no one may touch my stolen wealth and that I may continue toaccumulate more in the same manner, and that the arrangement isjust and to your own best interests. If such a crazy scheme shouldbe actually carried out, then we’d have the ‘law and order’ of government and capitalism which we have to-day.
It is clear, of course, that laws would have no force if the people
did not believe in them and did not obey them. So the first thing to
do is to make them believe that laws are necessary and that they
are good for them. And it is still better if you can lead them tothink that it is they themselves who make the laws. Then they will
be willing and anxious to obey them. That’s what is called democracy: to get the people to believe that they are their own rulers
and that they themselves pass the laws of their country. That’s thegreat advantage that a democracy or a republic has over a monarchy. In olden times the business of ruling and robbing the people
was much harder and more dangerous. The king or feudal lord had
to compel people by force to serve him. He would hire armed bands
to make his subjects submit and pay tribute to him. But that was
expensive and troublesome. A better way was found by ‘educating’ the populace to believe that they ‘owe’ the king loyalty andfaithful service. Governing then became much easier, but still thepeople knew that the king was their lord and commander. A republic, however, is much safer and more comfortable for the rulers, forthere the people imagine that they themselves are the masters. And
91

Anarchy2 therefore does not mean disorder and chaos, as you
thought before. On the contrary, it is the very reverse of it; it meansno government, which is freedom and liberty. Disorder is the childof authority and compulsion. Liberty is the mother of order.
“A beautiful ideal,” you say; “but only angels are fit for it.”
Let us see, then, if we can grow the wings we need for that ideal
state of society.

2
Anarchy refers to the condition. Anarchism is the theory or teaching
about it.

180

It is power which corrupts. The consciousness that you possess
power is itself the worst poison that corrodes the finest metalof man. The filth and contamination of politics everywhere
sufficiently prove that. Moreover, even with the best intentions
Socialists in legislative bodies or in government positions findthemselves entirely powerless to accomplish anything of a socialistic nature, anything of benefit to the workers. For politics is nota means to better the conditions of labor. It never was and nevercan be.
The demoralization and vitiation take place little by little, so
gradually that one hardly notices it himself. Just visualize for a moment the condition of a Socialist elected to Congress, for instance.
He is all alone, as against several hundred men of other politicalparties. He senses their opposition to his radical ideas, and he finds
himself in a strange and unfriendly atmosphere. But he is there andhe must participate in the business that is being transacted. Mostof that business — the bills brought in, the laws proposed — is entirely foreign to him. It has no bearing whatever on the things theSocialist believes in, no connection with the interests of the working class voters who elected him. It is just the routine of legislation.
It is only when a bill of some bearing upon labor or on the industrial and economic situation comes up, that our Socialist can takepart in the proceedings. He does, and he is ignored or laughed at for
his impractical ideas on the matter. For they are indeed impractical.
Even at best, when the proposed law is not specially designed to
grant new privileges to monopoly, it deals with matters involvedin capitalist business, with some commercial treaty or agreement
between one government and another. But he, the Socialist, waselected on a Socialist ticket, and it is his business to abolish the capitalistic government, to do away with the system of commerce andprofit altogether, so how can he speak ‘practically’ on the submitted bills? Of course he becomes a butt of ridicule to his colleagues,
and soon he begins to see how stupid and useless his presence isin the halls of legislation. That is why some of the best men of the121Socialist Party in Germany turned against political action, as did
John Most, for instance. But there are few persons of such honesty
and courage. As a rule the Socialist remains in his position, andevery day he is compelled to realize more and more what a senseless rôle he is playing. He comes to feel that he must find some
way to take a serious part in the work, express sound opinions in
the discussions and become a real factor in the proceedings. Thisis imperative in order to preserve his own dignity, to compel therespect of his colleagues, and also to show to his constituents thatthey did not elect a mere dummy.
So he begins to acquaint himself with the routine. He studies
river dredging and coast improvement, reads up on appropriations,
examines the hundred and one bills which come up for consideration, and when he occasionally gets the floor — which is not very
often — he tries to explain the proposed legislation from the Socialist standpoint, as he is in duty bound to do. He ‘makes a Socialist
speech.’ He dwells on the suffering of the workers and the crimesof wage slavery; he informs his colleagues that capitalism is an evil,that the rich must be abolished and the whole system done awaywith. He finishes his peroration and sits down. The politicians exchange glances, smile and joke, and the assembly goes over to thebusiness in hand.
Our Socialist perceives that he is regarded as a laughing stock.
His colleagues are getting tired of his ‘hot air’, and he finds more
and more difficulty in securing the floor. He is often called to order and told he must speak to the point, but he knows that neither by his talk nor by his vote can he influence the proceedings in
the slightest degree. His speeches don’t even reach the public; they
are buried in the Congressional Record which no one reads, and heis painfully aware of being a solitary and unheeded voice in thewilderness of political machinations.
He appeals to the voters to elect more comrades to the legislative bodies. A lone Socialist cannot accomplish anything, he tells
them. Years pass, and at last the Socialist Party succeeds in hav122

tinuous invasion and violation of yourself, a constant subjection to
the thoughts and the will of some one else.
And as you are invaded and violated, so you subconsciously revenge yourself by invading and violating others over whom you
have authority or can exercise compulsion, physical or moral. In
this way all life has become a crazy quilt of authority, of domination and submission, of command and obedience, of coercion andsubjection, of rulers and ruled, of violence and force in a thousand
and one forms.
Can you wonder that even idealists are still held in the meshesof this spirit of authority and violence, and are often impelled bytheir feelings and environment to invasive acts entirely at variancewith their ideas?
We are all still barbarians who resort to force and violence to settle our doubts, difficulties, and troubles. Violence is the method ofignorance, the weapon of the weak. The strong of heart and brain
need no violence, for they are irresistible in their consciousness of
being right. The further we get away from primitive man and thehatchet age, the less recourse we shall have to force and violence.
The more enlightened man will become, the less he will employ
compulsion and coercion. The really civilized man will divest himself of all fear and authority. He will rise from the dust and standerect: he will bow to no tsar either in heaven or on earth. He will become fully human when he will scorn to rule and refuse to be ruled.
He will be truly free only when there shall be no more masters.
Anarchism is the ideal of such a condition; of a society without
force and compulsion, where all men shall be equals, and live in
freedom, peace, and harmony.
The word Anarchy comes from the Greek, meaning without
force, without violence or government, because government is thevery fountainhead of violence, constraint, and coercion.

179

it throughout our lives. We are so steeped in the spirit of violence
that we never stop to ask whether violence is right or wrong. We
only ask if it is legal, whether the law permits it.
You don’t question the right of the government to kill, to confiscate and imprison. If a private person should be guilty of the things
the government is doing all the time, you’d brand him a murderer,
thief, and scoundrel. But as long as the violence committed is “lawful,” you approve of it and submit to it. So it is not really violence
that you object to, but to people using violence “unlawfully.”
This lawful violence and the fear of it dominate our whole existence, individual and collective. Authority controls our lives fromthe cradle to the grave — authority parental, priestly and divine,
political, economic, social, and moral. But whatever the characterof that authority, it is always the same executioner wielding powerover you through your fear of punishment in one form or another.
You are afraid of God and the devil, of the priest and the neighbor,of your employer and boss, of the politician and policeman, of thejudge and the jailer, of the law and the government. All your life
is a long chain of fears — fears which bruise your body and lacerate your soul. On those fears is based the authority of God, of thechurch, of parents, of capitalist and ruler.
Look into your heart and see if what I say is not true. Why,even among children the ten-year-old Johnny bosses his younger
brother or sister by the authority of his greater physical strength,
just as Johnny’s father bosses him by his superior strength, andby Johnny’s dependence on his support. You stand for the authority of priest and preacher because you think they can “call down
the wrath of God upon your head.” You submit to the dominationof boss, judge, and government because of their power to deprive
you of work, to ruin your business, to put you in prison — a power,by the way, that you yourself have given into their hands.
So authority rules your whole life, the authority of the past andthe present, of the dead and the living, and your existence is a con-178

ing a number of its members elected. Each of them goes throughthe same experience as their first colleague, but now they quickly
come to the conclusion that preaching Socialist doctrines to thepoliticians is worse than useless. They decide to participate in thelegislation. They must show that they are not just ‘spouting revolution’ but that they are practical men, statesmen, that they are
doing something for their constituency, looking after its interests.
In this manner the situation compels them to take a ‘practical’part in the proceedings, to ‘talk business,’ to fall in line with thematters actually dealt with in the legislative body. Full well theyknow that these things have no relation to Socialism or to the abolition of capitalism. On the contrary, all this law-making and political mummery only strengthens the hold of the masters upon thepeople; worse, it misleads the workers into believing that the legislatures may do something for them and deludes them with the false
hope that they may get results by politics. In this way it keeps themlooking to the law and government to ‘change things,’ to ‘improve’
their condition.
So the machinery of government carries on its work, the masters remain secure in their position, and the workers are held off
with promises of ‘action’ by their representatives in the legislative
bodies, by new laws that are to give them ‘relief’.
For years this process has been going on in all the countriesof Europe. The Socialist parties have succeeded in electing manyof their members to various legislative and government positions.
Spending years in that atmosphere, enjoying good jobs and pay,the elected Socialists have themselves become part and parcel ofthe political machinery. They have come to feel that it is no use
waiting for the Socialist revolution to abolish capitalism. It is morepractical to work for some ‘betterment’, to try to get a Socialist majority in the government. For when they have a majority they willneed no revolution, they now say.
Slowly, by degrees, the Socialist change has taken place. With
growing success in elections and securing political power they turn123

more conservative and content with existing conditions. Removed
from the life and suffering of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the bourgeoisie, of affluence and influence, they havebecome what they call ‘practical.’ Seeing at first hand the politicalmachinery at work, knowing its debauchery and corruption, they
have realized that there is no hope for Socialism in that swamp ofdeceit, bribery, and corruption. But few, very few Socialists find thecourage to enlighten the workers about the hopelessness of politics
to aid the cause of labor. Such a confession would mean the end of
their political career, with its emoluments and advantages. So thegreat majority of them are content to keep their own counsel andlet well enough alone. Power and position have gradually stifled
their conscience, and they have not the strength and honesty toswim against the current.
That is what has become of Socialism, which had once been
the hope of the oppressed of the world. The Socialist parties havejoined hands with the bourgeoisie and the enemies of labor. They
have become the strongest bulwark of capitalism, pretending to
the masses that they are fighting for their interests, while in reality they have made common cause with the exploiters. They haveso far forgotten and gone back on their original Socialism that in
the great World War the Socialist parties in even country in Europe
helped their governments to lead the workers to slaughter.
The war has clearly demonstrated the bankruptcy of Socialism.
The Socialist parties, whose motto was ‘Workers of the world,
unite!’ sent the toilers to murder each other. From having been
bitter enemies of militarism and war they became defenders of‘their’ land, urging the workers to don the soldiers’ uniform andkill their fellow workers in other countries.
Strange indeed! For years they had been telling the proletarians
that they have no country that their interests are opposed to thoseof their masters, that labor has ‘nothing to lose but its chains’, but
at the first sign of war they called upon the toilers to join the army
and voted support and money for the government to do the work124

but also by patriots and nationalists, by Democrats and Republicans, by suffragettes, by conservatives and reactionaries, by monarchists and royalists, and even by religionists and devout Christians.
We know now that it could not have been any particular idea or“ism” that influenced their acts, because the most varied ideas and“isms” produced similar deeds. I have given as the reason individual
temperament and the general feeling about violence.
Here is the crux of the matter. What is this general feeling about
violence? If we can answer this question correctly, the whole matter will be clear to us.
If we speak honestly, we must admit that every one believes inviolence and practices it, however he may condemn it in others. In
fact, all of the institutions we support and the entire life of present
society are based on violence.
What is the thing we call government? Is it anything else but
organized violence? The law orders you to do this or not to do that,and if you fail to obey, it will compel you by force. We are notdiscussing just now whether it is right or wrong, whether it shouldor should not be so, just now we are interested in the fact that it isso — that all government, all law and authority finally rest on force
and violence, on punishment or the fear of punishment.
Why, even spiritual authority, the authority of the church andof God rests on force and violence, because it is the fear of divine
wrath and vengeance that wields power over you, compels you toobey, and even to believe against your own reason.
Wherever you turn you will find that our entire life is built on
violence or the fear of it. From earliest childhood you are subjectedto the violence of parents or elders. At home, in school, in the office, factory, field, or shop, it is always some one’s authority whichkeeps you obedient and compels you to do his will.
The right to compel you is called authority. Fear of punishment
has been made into duty and is called obedience.
In this atmosphere of force and violence, of authority and obedience, of duty, fear and punishment we all grow up; we breathe177else every revolutionist would be committing such acts. But do notsuch views to some extent justify those who commit such acts?”
It may seem so at first sight. But if you think it over you will findthat it is an entirely wrong idea. The best proof of it is that Anarchists who hold exactly the same views about government and thenecessity of abolishing it, often disagree entirely on the question ofviolence. Thus Tolstoyan Anarchists and most Individualist Anarchists condemn political violence, while other Anarchists approveof or at least justify it.
Is it reasonable, then, to say that Anarchist views are responsible
for violence or in any way influence such acts?
Moreover, many Anarchists who at one time believed in violence
as a means of propaganda have changed their opinion about it anddo not favor such methods any more. There was a time, for instance,
when Anarchists advocated individual acts of violence, known as“propaganda by deed.” They did not expect to change governmentand capitalism into Anarchism by such acts, nor did they think thatthe taking off of a despot would abolish despotism. No, terrorism
was considered a means of avenging a popular wrong, inspiring
fear in the enemy, and also calling attention to the evil against
which the act of terror was directed. But most Anarchists to-day
do not believe any more in “propaganda by deed” and do not favor
acts of that nature.
Experience has taught them that though such methods may havebeen justified and useful in the past, modern conditions of life makethem unnecessary and even harmful to the spread of their ideas.
But their ideas remain the same, which means that it was not Anarchism which shaped their attitude to violence. It proves that it
is not certain ideas or “isms” that lead to violence, but that someother causes bring it about.
We must therefore look somewhere else to find the right explanation.
As we have seen, acts of political violence have been committed
not only by Anarchists, Socialists, and revolutionists of all kinds,
176

of carnage. This happened in every country in Europe. True, there
were Socialist minorities that protested against the war, but thedominant majority in the Socialist parties condemned and ignored
them, and lined up for the slaughter.
It was a most terrible betrayal not only of Socialism but of thewhole working class, of humanity itself. Socialism, whose purpose
it was to educate the world to the evils of capitalism, to the murderous character of patriotism, to the brutality and uselessness of war;
Socialism, which was the champion of man’s rights, of liberty andjustice, the hope and promise of a better day, miserably turned into
a defender of the government and the masters, became the handmaiden of the militarists and jingo nationalists. The former Social
Democrats became ‘social patriots.’This did not happen because of mere treachery, however. To takethat view would be to miss the main point and misunderstand its
warning lesson. Treachery it was indeed, both in its nature andeffect, and the results of that treachery have bankrupted Socialism,
disillusioned the millions that earnestly believed in it, and filled
the world with black reaction. But it was not only treachery, nottreachery of the ordinary kind. The real cause lies much deeper.
We are what we eat, a great thinker said. That is, the life we lead,the environment we live in, the thoughts we think, and the deeds
we do — all subtly fashion our character and make us what we are.
The Socialists’ long political activity and coöperation with bourgeois parties gradually turned their thoughts and mental habitsfrom Socialist ways of thinking. Little by little they forgot that the
purpose of Socialism was to educate the masses, to make them see
through the game of capitalism, to teach them that government istheir enemy, that the church keeps them in ignorance, that they
are duped by ideas designed to perpetuate the superstitions andwrongs on which present-day society is built. In short, they forgotthat Socialism was to be the Messiah who would drive darkness
out of the minds and lives of men, lift them from the slough of125

ignorance and materialism, and rouse their natural idealism, thestriving for justice and brotherhood, toward liberty and light.
They forgot it. They had to forget in order to be ‘practical,’ to ‘accomplish’ something, to become successful politicians. You cannot
dive into a swamp and remain clean. They had to forget it, because
their object had become to ‘get results’, to win elections, to secure
power. They knew that they could not have success in politics bytelling the people the whole truth about conditions — for the truth
not only antagonizes the government, the church, and the school;
it also offends the prejudices of the masses. These it is necessary to
educate, and that is a slow and difficult process. But the politicalgame demands success, quick results. The Socialists had to be careful not to come in too great conflict with the powers that be; they
could not afford to lose time in educating the people.
It therefore became their main object to win votes. To achievethat they had to trim their sails. They had to lop off, little by little,
those parts of Socialism which might result in persecution by theauthorities, in disfavor from the church, or which would keep bigoted elements from joining their ranks. They had to compromise.
They did. First of all they stopped talking revolution. They knewthat capitalism cannot be abolished without a bitter struggle, butthey decided to tell the people that they could bring about Socialism by legislation, by law, and that all that is necessary is to put
enough Socialists in the government.
They ceased denouncing government as an evil; they quit enlightening the workers about its real character as an agency forenslavement. Instead they began asserting that they, the Socialists,
are the staunchest upholders of ‘the State’ and its best defenders;that far from being opposed to ‘law and order’, they are its truest
friends; that they are, indeed, the only ones who sincerely believein government, except that the government must be socialistic; thatis, that they, the Socialists, are to make the laws and run the government.

126

patriot who had never heard of Anarchism. In Germany, Hungary,France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and in every other European country
men of the most varied political views have resorted to acts of violence, not to speak of the wholesale political terror, practiced byorganized bodies such as the Fascists in Italy, the Ku Klux Klan in
America, or the Catholic Church in Mexico.
You see, then, that Anarchists have no monopoly of political violence. The number of such acts by Anarchists is infinitesimal ascompared with those committed by persons of other political persuasions.
The truth is that in every country, in every social movement, violence has been a part of the struggle from time immemorial. Even
the Nazarene, who came to preach the gospel of peace, resorted toviolence to drive the money changers out of the temple.
As I have said, Anarchists have no monopoly on violence. On thecontrary, the teachings of Anarchism are those of peace and harmony, of non-invasion, of the sacredness of life and liberty. But Anarchists are human, like the rest of mankind, and perhaps more so.
They are more sensitive to wrong and injustice, quicker to resent
oppression, and therefore not exempt from occasionally voicing
their protest by an act of violence. But such acts are an expressionof individual temperament, not of any particular theory.
You might ask whether the holding of revolutionary ideas would
not naturally influence a person toward deeds of violence. I do notthink so, because we have seen that violent methods are also employed by people of the most conservative opinions. If persons of
directly opposite political views commit similar acts, it is hardly
reasonable to say that their ideas are responsible for such acts.
Like results have a like cause, but that cause is not to be foundin political convictions; rather in individual temperament and thegeneral feeling about violence.
“You may be right about temperament,” you say. “I can see thatrevolutionary ideas are not the cause of political acts of violence,

175

even their own lives for it. Usually they were persons of no politicalparty or idea, but simply haters of tyranny. Occasionally they werereligious fanatics, like the devout Catholic Kullmann, who tried toassassinate Bismarck1 or the misguided enthusiast Charlotte Corday who killed Marat during the French Revolution.
In the United States three Presidents were killed by individual
acts. Lincoln was shot in 1865, by John Wilkes Booth, who was aSouthern Democrat; Garfield, in 1881, by Charles Jules Guiteau, a
Republican; and McKinley, in 1901, by Leon Czolgosz. Out of thethree only one was an Anarchist.
The country that has the worst oppressors produces also thegreatest number of tyrannicides, which is natural. Take Russia, forinstance. With complete suppression of speech and press under theTsars, there was no way of mitigating the despotic régime than by“putting the fear of God” into the tyrant’s heart.
Those avengers were mostly sons and daughters of the highest
nobility, idealistic youths who loved liberty and the people. With
all other avenues closed, they felt themselves compelled to resort
to the pistol and dynamite in the hope of alleviating the miserable
conditions of their country. They were known as nihilists and terrorists. They were not Anarchists.
In modern times individual acts of political violence have beeneven more frequent than in the past. The women suffragettes inEngland, for example, frequently resorted to it to propagate andcarry out their demands for equal rights. In Germany, since thewar, men of the most conservative political views have used suchmethods in the hope of reestablishing the kingdom. It was a monarchist who killed Karl Erzberger, the Prussian Minister of Finance;and Walter Rathenau, Minister of Foreign Affairs, was also laid low
by a man of the same political party.
Why, the original cause of, or at least excuse for, the Great War
itself was the killing of the Austrian heir to the throne by a Serbian
1

174

July 13, 1874.

Thus, instead of weakening the false and enslaving belief in law
and government, to weaken it so that those institutions could be
abolished as a means of oppression, the Socialists actually worked
to strengthen the people’s faith in forcible authority and government, so that to-day the members of the Socialist parties the world
over are the strongest believers in the State and are therefore called
Statists. Yet their great teachers, Marx and Engels, clearly taughtthat the State serves only to suppress, and that when the people
will achieve real liberty the State will be abolished, will ‘disappear.’Socialist compromise for political success did not stop there. It
went further. To gain votes, the Socialist parties decided not to educate the people about the falsity, hypocrisy, and menace of organized religion. We know what a bulwark of capitalism and slavery
the church, as an institution, is and always has been. It is obvious that people who believe in the church, swear by the priest andbow to his authority, will naturally be obedient to him and his commands. Such people, steeped in ignorance and superstition, are theeasiest victims of the masters. But in order to achieve greater success in their election campaigns, the Socialists decided to eliminate
educational anti-religious propaganda so as not to offend popular
prejudices. They declared religion a ‘private matter,’ and excluded
all criticism of the church from their agitation.
What you personally believe in is indeed your private affair; butwhen you get together with other people and organize them intoa body to impose your belief on others, to force them to think as
you do, and to punish them (to the extent of your power) if they
entertain other beliefs, then it is no more your ‘private matter’. Youmight as well say that the Inquisition, which tortured and burned
people alive as heretics, was a ‘private affair.’
It was one of the worst betrayals of the cause of liberty by the Socialists, this declaration that religion is a ‘private matter’. Mankind
has slowly grown out of the fearful ignorance, superstition, bigotry, and intolerance which made religious persecution and inquisitions possible. The advance of science and invention, the printed
127

word and means of communication have brought enlightenment,
and it is that enlightenment which has to some extent freed thehuman mind from the clutches of the church. Not that she has entirely ceased to damn those who do not accept her dogmas. Thereis still enough of that persecution, but the advance of knowledge
has robbed the church of her former absolute sway over the mind,
the life, and liberty of man; just as progress has in the same way
deprived government of the power to treat the people as absolute
slaves and serfs.
You can easily see then how important it is to continue the workof enlightenment which has proven such a liberating blessing forthe people in the past; to continue it, so that it may some day help
us do away entirely with all the forces of superstition and tyranny.
But the Socialists determined to give up this most necessary
work, declaring religion to be a ‘private matter.’Those compromises and the repudiation of the real aims of Socialism paid rather well. The Socialists gained political strength at
the sacrifice of ideals. But that ‘strength’ has in the long run spelledweakness and ruin.
There is nothing more corrupting than compromise. One step inthat direction calls for another, makes it necessary and compelling,and soon it swamps you with the force of a rolling snowball becomea landslide.
One by one those features of Socialism which were really significant, educational, and liberating were sacrificed in behalf of politics, to secure more favorable public opinion, lessen persecution,
and accomplish ‘something practical’; that is, to get more Socialists
elected to office. In this process, which has been going on for years
in every country, the Socialist parties in Europe acquired a membership that numbered millions. But these millions were not socialistic at all; they were party followers who had no conception of
the real spirit and meaning of Socialism; men and women steepedin old prejudices and capitalistic views; bourgeois-minded people,
narrow nationalists, church members, believers in divine authority
128

Ask yourself this question and try to answer it honestly.
When a citizen puts on a soldier’s uniform, he may have to throw
bombs and use violence. Will you say, then, that citizenship stands
for bombs and violence?
You will indignantly resent the imputation. It simply means, youwill reply, that under certain conditions a man may have to resort
to violence. The man may happen to he a Democrat, a Monarchist,a Socialist, Bolshevik, or Anarchist.
You will find that this applies to all men and to all times.
Brutus killed Caesar because he feared his friend meant to betray
the republic and become king. Not that Brutus “loved Caesar lessbut that he loved Rome more.” Brutus was not an Anarchist. He
was a loyal republican.
William Tell, as folklore tells us, shot to death the tyrant in order
to rid his country of oppression. Tell had never heard of Anarchism.
I mention these instances to illustrate the fact that from time
immemorial despots met their fate at the hands of outraged loversof liberty. Such men were rebels against tyranny. They were generally patriots, Democrats or Republicans, occasionally Socialists
or Anarchists. Their acts were cases of individual rebellion against
wrong and injustice. Anarchism had nothing to do with it.
There was a time in ancient Greece when killing a despot wasconsidered the highest virtue. Modern law condemns such acts, but
human feeling seems to have remained the same in this matter asin the old days. The conscience of the world does not feel outraged
by tyrannicide. Even if publicly not approved, the heart of mankind
condones and often even secretly rejoices at such acts. Were there
not thousands of patriotic youths in America willing to assassinate
the German Kaiser whom they held responsible for starting theWorld War? Did not a French court recently acquit the man who
killed Petlura to avenge the thousands of men, women and children
murdered in the Petlura pogroms against the Jews of South Russia?
In every land, in all ages, there have been tyrannicides; that is,men and women who loved their country well enough to sacrifice173

Chapter 19: Is Anarchism
Violence?
You have heard that Anarchists throw bombs, that they believein violence, and that Anarchy means disorder and chaos.
It is not surprising that you should think so. The press, the pulpit,
and every one in authority constantly din it into your ears. But
most of them know better, even if they have a reason for not telling
you the truth. It is time you should hear it.
I mean to speak to you honestly and frankly, and you can takemy word for it, because it happens that I am just one of those Anarchists who are pointed out as men of violence and destruction. I
ought to know, and I have nothing to hide.
“Now, does Anarchism really mean disorder and violence?” youwonder.
No, my friend, it is capitalism and government which stand for
disorder and violence. Anarchism is the very reverse of it; it meansorder without government and peace without violence.
“But is that possible?” you ask.
That is just what we are going to talk over now. But first yourfriend demands to know whether Anarchists have never thrownbombs or ever used any violence.
Yes, Anarchists have thrown bombs and have sometimes
resorted to violence.
“There you are!” your friend exclaims. “I thought so.”But do not let us be hasty. If Anarchists have sometimes employed violence, does it necessarily mean that Anarchism means
violence?
172

and consequently also in human government, in the dominationof man by man, in the State and its institutions of oppression andexploitation, in the necessity of defending ‘their’ government andcountry, in patriotism and militarism.
Is it any wonder, then, that when the Great War broke out Socialists in every country, with few exceptions, took up arms to ‘defend the fatherland’, the fatherland of their rulers and masters? The
German Socialist fought for his autocratic Kaiser, the Austrian for
the Hapsburg monarchy, the Russian for the Tsar, the Italian for
his King, the Frenchman for the ‘republic,’ and so the ‘Socialists’of every country and their followers went on slaughtering eachother until ten millions of them lay dead, and twenty millions wereblinded, maimed, and crippled.
It was inevitable that the policy of political, parliamentary activity should lead to such results. For in truth so-called political‘action’ is, so far as the cause of the workers and of true progress
is concerned, worse than inaction. The very essence of politics is
corruption, sail-trimming, the sacrifice of your ideals and integrity
for success. Bitter are the fruits of that ‘success’ for the masses andfor every decent man and woman the world over.
As a direct consequence of it millions of workers in every country are discouraged and disheartened. Socialism — they justly feel —has deluded and betrayed them. Fifty, nay, almost a hundred yearsof Socialist ‘work’ have resulted in the entire bankruptcy of theSocialist parties, in the disillusionment of the masses, and havebrought about a reaction which now dominates the entire worldand holds labor by the throat with an iron grip.
Do you still think that the Socialist parties with their elections
and politics can help the proletariat out of wage slavery?
By their fruits you shall know them.
‘But the Bolsheviks,’ you protest, ‘they did not betray the workers. They have Socialism in Russia to-day!’Let us take a look at Russia, then.

129

Chapter 14: The February
Revolution
In Russia the Bolsheviki, known as the Communist Party, are incontrol of the government. The Revolution of October, 1917, putthem in power.1
That Revolution was the most important event in the world since
the French Revolution in 1789–1793. It was even greater than thelatter, because it went much deeper to the rock bottom of society.
The French Revolution sought to establish political freedom andequality, believing that it would thereby also secure brotherhood
and welfare for all. It was a mighty step in advance on the road ofprogress and it ultimately changed the entire political face of Europe. It abolished the monarchy in France, established a republic,
and gave the death blow to feudalism, to the absolute rule of thechurch and the nobility. It influenced every country on the Continent along progressive lines, and helped to further democratic
sentiment throughout Europe.
But fundamentally it altered nothing. It was a political revolution, to secure political rights and liberties. It did secure them.
France is a “democracy” to-day and the motto, “Liberty, Brotherhood, Equality,” is written even on every prison building. But it
did not free man from exploitation and oppression; and that is,after all, the thing which is needed most.
The French Revolution put the middle classes, the bourgeoisie,
into the government, in place of the aristocracy and nobility. It
gave certain constitutional rights to the farmer and worker, who
1130sion of the masses can serve the objects of revolution. In revolution,
as in ordinary life, there is no middle road: it is either compulsion
or liberty.
Dictatorship and terror have been tried in Russia. The lesson ofthat experiment is clear and convincing: those methods imply thedestruction of revolution. A new way must be found.
“Is there any other way?” you ask.
There is only the way of liberty, and that has never been tried,yet.
I don’t know whether you are willing to try it: most people areafraid of freedom. But I do know that unless that way is tried, theway of liberty, justice, and reason, revolution must lead to dictatorship, to failure and death.
Dictatorship, whether white or red, always means the samething: it means compulsion, oppression, and misery. That is its
character and essence. It cannot be anything else. Dictatorship isa government that governments most. But as Thomas Jefferson
wisely said, “That government is best which governs least.”
That is what the Anarchists claim, and so let us turn from Socialism and Bolshevism, from Marx and Lenin, to consider what
Anarchism has to offer us.

According to the old Russian calendar, in November.

171

Provisional Government, to destroy capitalism and the wage system, to turn the land over to the peasantry and the industries tothe workers. So far the Revolution was the greatest success, andthe people were beginning to build their new life upon the foundation of equal liberty, opportunity, and justice. But the moment a
political party usurped the reins of government and proclaimed its
dictatorship, disastrous results were inevitable.
Revolution, when it comes, must deal with conditions as it findsthem. It is the means and methods used, and the purpose for which
they are used, that are vital. Upon them depends the course and fateof the revolution.
Whatever the social, political, or economic situation of a given
country — be it ‘backward’ Russia or ‘advanced’ America — themost important problem is what you want to accomplish and whatmeans will best secure your object.
But if the purpose of the Russian Revolution was to abolish oppression and servitude, then the Bolsheviki and their policies areproving the greatest failure.
It all depends, as you see, on what your purpose is, what you
want to accomplish. Your aims must determine the means. Means
and aims are in reality the same: you cannot separate them. It is
the means that shape your ends. The means are the seeds which
but into flower and come to fruition. The fruit will always be of thenature of the seed you planted. You can’t grow a rose from a cactus
seed. No more can you harvest liberty from compulsion, justice andmanhood from dictatorship.
Let us learn this lesson well because the fate of revolution depends on it. “You shall reap what you sow” is the acme of all human
wisdom and experience.
You cannot make a sick man well by drawing out his blood. The
free activity of the masses is the life-blood of revolution. Eliminate
or repress it, and revolution becomes anæmic and dies.
It means that the aims of the revolution must fashion its methods.
Not coercion and dictatorship, but only liberty and the free expres170

until then were mere serfs. But the power of the bourgeoisie, its industrial mastery, made the farmer its abject dependent and turned
the city worker into a wage slave.
It could not be otherwise, because liberty is an empty sound aslong as you are kept in bondage economically. As I have pointed
out before, freedom means that you have the right to do a certain
thing; but if you have no opportunity to do it, that right is sheer
mockery. The opportunity lies in your economic condition, whatever the political situation may be. No political rights can be of theleast use to the man who is compelled to slave all his life to keep
himself and family from starvation.
Great as the French Revolution was as a step toward emancipation from the despotism of king and noble, it could accomplish
nothing for the real freedom of man because it did not secure forhim economic opportunity and independence.
It is for that reason that the Russian Revolution was a far moresignificant event than all the previous upheavals. It not only abolished the Tsar and his absolute sway; it did something more important: it destroyed the economic power of the possessing classes,of the land barons and industrial kings. For that reason it is thegreatest happening in all history, the first and only time that sucha thing has been tried.
This could not have been done by the French Revolution, because
the people then still believed that political emancipation would beenough to make men free and equal. They did not realize that thebasis of all liberty is economic. But that is by no means to the discredit of the French Revolution; the times were not ripe for a fundamental economic change.
Coming a hundred and twenty-eight years later, the Russian Revolution was more enlightened. It went to the root of the trouble. It
knew that no political freedom would do any good unless the peasants got the soil and the workers the factories in their possession,
so that they should not remain at the mercy of the land monopolists
and the capitalistic owners of the industries.
131Of course, the Russian Revolution did not accomplish this great
work over night. Revolutions, like everything else, grow: they begin small, accumulate strength develop, and broaden.
It was during the war that the Russian Revolution started, because of the dissatisfaction of the people at home and the army at
the front. The country was tired of fighting; it was worn out byhunger and misery. The soldiers had had enough of slaughter; they
began to ask why they must kill or be killed — and when soldiers
begin asking questions, no war can continue much longer.
The despotism and corruption of the Tsarist government added
oil to the fire. The court had become a public scandal, with thepriest Rasputin debauching the Empress and through his influence
over her and the Tsar controlling the affairs of State. Intrigues,
bribery, and every form of venality were rampant. The army funds
were stolen by high officials, and the soldiers were often forced
to go into battle without enough ammunition and supplies. Theirboots were paper-soled, and many had no footgear at all. Some regiments revolted; others refused to fight. More and more frequently
the soldiers fraternized with the “enemy” — young men like themselves, who had the misfortune of being born in a different country;
and who, like the Russians, had been ordered to war without knowing why they must shoot or be shot. Great numbers dropped theirguns and returned home. There they told the folks about the fearful
conditions at the front, the useless carnage, the wretchedness, anddisaster. That helped to increase the discontent of the masses, andpresently voices began to be beard against the Tsar and his régime.
Day by day this sentiment grew; it was fanned into flame byincreased taxes and great want, by the shortage of food and provisions.
In February, 1917, the Revolution broke out. As usual in suchcases, the powers that be were stricken with blindness.
The autocrat and his ministers, the aristocrats and their advisers
all believed that it was just a matter of some street disorders, ofstrikes, and bread riots. They imagined themselves safe in the sad132

witness the indignant amazement of the Bolsheviki when it was
discovered that Trotsky had succeeded in publishing the platformof the Opposition element in the Party.
Socially Bolshevik Russia, ten years after the Revolution, is acountry where no man can enjoy political security or economic independence, where the hidden hand of the G.P.U. is always at work,
terrorizing the people by sudden night searches, arrests for no
known cause, secret denunciation for alleged counter-revolution
out of personal revenge, imprisonment without hearing or trial,and year-long exile to the frozen North of Siberia or the andwastes of Western Asia. A huge prison, where equality means thefear of all alike, and “freedom” signifies unquestioning submission
to the powers that be.
Morally Russia represents the struggle of the finer qualities of
man against the degrading and corrupting effects of a system built
on coercion and intimidation. The Revolution brought the best instincts of man to the fore: his manhood, his consciousness of human value, his love of liberty and justice. The revolutionary atmosphere inspired and cultivated these tendencies lying dormant in
the people, particularly the feeling against oppression, the hunger
for freedom, the spirit of mutual helpfulness and coöperation. But
the dictatorship has had the effect of counteracting these traits andarousing instead fear and hatred, the spirit of intolerance and persecution. Bolshevik methods have systematically weakened the people’s morale, have encouraged servility and hypocrisy, created disillusionment and distrust, and have developed an atmosphere oftime-serving now dominant in Russia.
Such is the situation to-day in that unhappy land, such the effects of the Bolshevik idea that you can make a people free by compulsion, the dogma that dictatorship can lead to liberty.
“So you think that the Revolution failed because of dictatorship?”
you ask. “Was not Russia too backward to make a success of it?”
It failed because of Bolshevik ideas and methods. The Russian
masses were not too “backward“ to abolish the Tsar, to defeat the169ter is now also developing as a new class in Russia. The toiler has
remained dependent as before. In fact, more so. His labor organizations have been deprived of all power, and he has lost even theright to strike against his governmental employer. “Since the workers, as a class, wield the dictatorship,” the Communists argue, “theycannot strike against themselves.” Accordingly the proletarians in
Russia pay themselves wages that are not sufficient for bare existence, live crowded in unhygienic quarters, work under most unsanitary conditions, endanger their health and lives because of lackof industrial precaution and safety, and arrest and imprison themselves for an expression of discontent.
Culturally the Bolshevik régime is a training school in Communism and party fanaticism, with no access to ideas differing fromthe views of the dominant clique. It is the rearing of an entire people in the dogmas of a political church, with no opportunity tobroaden and cultivate the mind outside the circle of opinions permitted by the ruling class. No press exists in Russia except the official Communist publications and such others as are approved ofby the Bolshevik censor. No public sentiment can find expression
there, since the government has a monopoly of speech, press, andassembly.
It is no exaggeration to say that there is less freedom of opinion
and opportunity to voice it under the Bolshevik dictatorship thanthere had been under the Tsars. When Russia was ruled by the
Romanovs you could at least secretly issue pamphlets and books,
since the government then had no monopoly of the paper supply
and printing presses. These were in private hands, and the revolutionists could always find ways to use them for their propaganda.
To-day in Russia all the means of publication and distribution are
in the exclusive possession of the Government, and no person can
express his views to the public unless he first secures Bolshevik
permission. Thousands of illegal publications had been issued by
the revolutionary parties during the autocratic Romanov régime.
Under Communist rule such a happening is most exceptional, as
168

dle. But the “disorder” continued spreading over the entire country,
and presently the Tsar saw himself forced to quit the throne. Before
long the once mighty monarch was arrested and exiled to Siberia,
where he himself had formerly sent thousands to their death, andwhere he and his whole family later met their doom.2 The Russian autocracy was abolished. The February Revolution against themost powerful government in Europe was accomplished almost
without firing a gun.
“How could it be done so easily?” you wonder.
The Romanov régime was an absolutism; Russia under the Tsars
was the most enslaved country in Europe. The people practically
had no rights. The whim of the autocrat was supreme, the order ofthe police the highest law. The masses lived in poverty and suffered
the greatest oppression. They longed for freedom.
For over a hundred years libertarians and revolutionists in Russia worked to undermine the régime of tyranny, to enlighten thepeople and rouse them to rebellion against their subjection. The
history of that movement is replete with the consecration and devotion of the finest men and women. Thousands, even hundreds ofthousands of them, lined the road of Golgotha, filling the prisons,tortured and done to death in the frozen wilds of Siberia. Beginning with the Decembrist attempt to secure a constitution, over ahundred years ago, all through the century, the fires of liberty were
kept burning by the heroic self-sacrifice of the nihilists and revolutionists. The story of that great martyrdom has no equal in the
annals of man.
Apparently it was a losing struggle, for the complete denial of
freedom made it practically impossible for the pioneers of liberty
to reach the people, to enlighten the masses. Tsardom was well protected by its numerous police and secret service, as well as by theofficial church, press, and school which trained the people in abject servility to the Tsar and unquestioning obedience to “law and
2

Executed by the Bolsheviki in Ekaterinburg, Siberia, in 1918.

133

order.” Dire punishment was visited upon anyone daring to voice aliberal sentiment; the most severe laws punished even the attempt
to teach the peasants to read and write. The government, the nobility, the clergy, and the bourgeoisie all combined, as usual, to stampout and crush the least effort to enlighten the masses. Deprived ofevery means of spreading their ideas, the liberal elements in Russia were driven to the necessity of employing violence against thebarbarous tyranny, of resorting to acts of terror in order by suchmeans to mitigate, even to a small extent, the rule of despotism, andat the same time to compel the attention of their country and of theworld at large to the unbearable conditions. It was this tragic necessity that gave rise in Russia to terroristic activities, turning idealists, to whom human life was sacred, into executioners of tyrants.
Nature’s noblemen they were, those men and women who willingly, even eagerly, gave their lives to lift the fearful yoke from thepeople. Like bright stars on the firmament of the age-long warfare
between oppression and liberty stand out the names of Sophie Perovskaya, Kibaltchitch, Grinevitsky, Sasonov, and countless othermartyrs, known and unknown, of darkest Russia.
It was a most uneven struggle, apparently a hopeless fight. For
the revolutionists were but a handful as against the almost limitless
power of Tsardom with its large armies, numerous police, special
bureaus of political spies, its notorious Third Department, the secret Okhrana, its universal system of house janitors as police aids,
and with all the other great resources of a vast country of over ahundred million population.
A losing fight. And yet, the splendid idealism of the Russian
youth — particularly of the student element — their unquenchable
enthusiasm and devotion to liberty were not in vain. The peoplecame out the victor, as they ultimately always do in the struggleof light against darkness. What a lesson to the world, what encouragement to the weak in spirit, what hope it holds for the further
never-ceasing advance of mankind in spite of all tyranny and persecution!
134

demanded of him. He saw his few possessions, his own family provisions, confiscated by Tchekists who often took even his last horse
without which the peasant could neither work nor live. He saw hisneighbor villages, that rebelled against these outrages, leveled to
the ground and the peasants whipped and shot, just as in the olddays. He turned against the Revolution and in his desperation hedetermined to plant and sow no more than he needed for himself
and family and to hide even that in the forest.
Such were the results of the dictatorship, of Lenin’s military communism and Bolshevik methods. Industry stood still, and famine
overwhelmed the country. The general suffering, the bitterness of
the workers, and the peasant uprisings began to threaten the existence of the Bolshevik régime. To save the dictatorship Lenin decided to introduce a new economic policy, known as the “nep.”
The purpose of the “nep” was to revive the economic life of thecountry. It was to encourage greater production by the peasantryby allowing them to sell their surplus instead of having it forcibly
confiscated by the government. It was also to enable exchange of
products by legalizing trade and reviving the coöperatives formerly
suppressed as counter-revolutionary. But the determination of theCommunist Party to hold on to its dictatorship made all these economic reforms ineffectual, because industry cannot develop undera despotic régime. Economic growth, as well as trade and commerce, requires security of person and property, a certain amountof freedom and non-interference in order to function. But dictatorship does not permit that freedom; its “guarantees” cannot inspire
confidence. Hence the new economic policy has not produced theresults desired, and Russia remains in the throes of poverty, constantly on the brink of economic disaster.
Industrially the dictatorship has emasculated the Revolution ofits basic purpose of placing production in the hands of the proletariat and making the worker independent of economic masters.
The dictatorship merely changed masters: the government has become the boss instead of the individual capitalist, though the lat167

them feel that it had become the private concern of the political
Party in power. Facing a new tyranny instead of the longed-for liberty, the workers became discouraged. They felt their revolutionary achievements taken from them and used as a weapon against
themselves and their aspirations. The proletarian saw his factorycommittee subjected to the dictates of the Communist Party andmade helpless to protect his interests as a toiler. His labor union
became the mouthpiece and transmitter of Bolshevik orders, andhe found himself deprived of all voice, not only in the managementof industry but even in his own factory where he was kept at work
long hours at the poorest pay. The toilers soon realized that the
Revolution had been taken out of their hands, that their soviets
had been emasculated of all power, and that the country was being
ruled by some people far away in the Kremlin, just as it was in thedays of the Tsars. Eliminated from revolutionary and creative activity, living only to obey the new masters, constantly harassed by
Bolsheviki and Tchekists, and ever in fear of prison or execution
for the least expression of protest, the worker became embitteredagainst the Revolution. He deserted the factory and sought the village where he might be furthest removed from the dreaded rulers
and at least secure of his daily bread. Thus broke down the industries of the country.
The peasant saw leather-clad and armed Communists descend
upon his quiet village, despoil it of the fruit of his hard labor, andtreat him with the brutality and insolence of the old Tsarist officials. He saw his Soviet dominated by some lazy, good-for-nothing
village loafer calling himself Bolshevik and holding power from
Moscow. He had willingly, even generously, given his wheat andcorn to feed the workers and the soldiers, but he saw his provisions
lie rotting at the railroad stations and in the warehouses, because
the Bolsheviki could not themselves manage things and would letno one else do it. He knew that his brothers in the factory and in thearmy suffered for lack of food because of Communist inefficiency,
bureaucracy, and corruption. He understood why more was always
166

In 1905 broke out the first revolution in Russia. Still strong was
the autocracy, and the uprising of the masses was crushed, though
not without its having compelled the Tsar to grant certain constitutional rights. But fearfully did the government avenge even thosesmall concessions. Hundreds of revolutionists paid for them with
their lives, thousands were imprisoned, and many other thousandsdoomed to Siberia.
Again despotism drew a fresh breath and felt itself secure against
the people. But not for long. The hunger for liberty may he suppressed for a time; yet never exterminated. Man’s natural instinct
is for freedom, and no power on earth can succeed in crushing it
for very long.
Twelve years later — a very short time in the life of a people —came another revolution, that of February, 1917. It proved that thespirit of 1905 was not dead, that the price paid for it in human lives
had not been in vain. Truly has it been said that the blood of themartyrs nourishes the tree of liberty. The work and self-sacrifice ofthe revolutionists had borne fruit. Russia had learned much frompast experience, as succeeding events proved.
The people had learned. In 1905 they had demanded only somemitigation of the despotism, some small political liberties; now they
demanded the complete abolition of the tyrannical rule.
The February Revolution sounded the death-knell of Tsardom. It
was the least bloody revolution in all history. As I have explained
before, the power of even the strongest government evaporates likesmoke the moment the people refuse to acknowledge its authority,
to bow to it, and withhold their support. The Romanov régime wasconquered almost without a fight, — naturally enough, since the entire people had become tired of its rule and had decided that it was
harmful and unnecessary, and that the country would be better off
without it. The ceaseless agitation and educational work carried onby the revolutionary elements (the Socialists of various groups, including the Anarchists) had taught the masses to understand that
Tsardom must be done away with. So widespread had this senti135

ment become that even the army — the most unenlightened groupin Russia, as in every land — had lost faith in the existing conditions.
The people had outgrown the despotism, had freed themselves inmind and spirit from it, and thereby gained the strength and possibility of freeing themselves actually, physically.
That is why the all-powerful autocrat could find no more support in Russia; no, not even a single regiment to protect him. The
mightiest government in Europe broke down like a house of cards.
A temporary, Provisional Government, took the place of the Tsar.
Russia was free.

136

Politically the aim of the Revolution was to abolish governmental tyranny and oppression and make the people free. The
Bolshevik Government is admittedly the worst despotism inEurope, with the sole exception of Fascist rule in Italy. The citizen
has no rights which the government feels bound to respect. The
Communist Party is a political monopoly, with all the otherparties and movements outlawed. Security of person and domicile
is unknown. Freedom of speech and press does not exist. Even
within the Party the least difference of opinion is suppressed andpunished by imprisonment and exile, as witness the fate of Trotsky
and his followers of the Opposition. Independent opinion is nottolerated. The G.P.U., the secret service formerly called Tcheka,
is a super-government with unlimited arbitrary powers over theliberty and lives of the people. Only those who are entirely on theside of the dominant Party clique enjoy freedom and privileges.
But such “liberty” is to be had under the worst despotism: if you
have nothing to say you are perfectly free to say it even in theland of Mussolini. As a prominent member of a recent Communist
Congress put it, “There is room for all political parties in Russia:
the Communist Party is in the Government, the others are inprison.”Economically it was the fundamental aim of the Revolution toabolish capitalism and establish Communism and equality.
The Bolshevik dictatorship began by instituting a system ofunequal compensation and discriminating rewards, and ended byreintroducing capitalistic ownership after it had been abolished by
the direct action of the industrial and agrarian proletariat. To-day
Russia is a country partly State capitalistic and partly privately
capitalistic.
The dictatorship and the red terror by which it was maintained
proved the main factors in paralyzing the economic life of the country. High-handed Bolshevik rule antagonized the people, its despotism embittered the masses. The repression of every independent
effort alienated the best elements from the Revolution and made165

During the Brest-Litovsk negotiations it was again Lenin who
insisted that “peace on any terms” he made with Germany, while
Trotsky, Radek, and other important Bolshevik leaders opposed
the Kaiser’s conditions as humiliating and destructive. Once more
Lenin scored.
The “new economic policy” (the “nep”) submitted by Lenin to
his Party during the Kronstadt events2 was fought by the Central
Committee as nullifying all the revolutionary achievements and asa death blow to Communism. It was indeed a complete reversal of
everything the Revolution stood for and a return to the very conditions that the great October change had abolished. But Lenin’s willagain prevailed and his resolution was carried at the IX Communist
Congress held in Moscow, in March, 1921.
As you see, the alleged dictatorship of the proletariat was only
the dictatorship of Lenin. He dictated to the politbureau, the politbureau to the Central Committee, the Central Committee to theParty, the Party to the proletariat and the rest of the people. Russia
counted a population of over a hundred millions; the Communist
Party had less than fifty thousand members; the Central Committee consisted of several score; the politbureau numbered about adozen; and Lenin was one. But that one was the proletarian dictatorship.
Russia is a country of vast extent, spread over half of Europe anda goodly part of Asia. It is peopled by numerous races and nationalities speaking different languages, with diversified psychology,
varied interests and outlook upon life. We know what the dictatorship of the Tsars did to the country. Let us now see what the“proletarian” dictatorship accomplished.
To-day, after over a decade of Bolshevik rule in Russia, we canform a fair estimate of its effects and examine the results it achieved.
Let us sum them up.
2
The revolt of the Kronstadt sailors in March, 1921. See The Kronstadt Rebellion, by the author.

164

Chapter 15: Between Februaryand October
I remember attending a very large mass-meeting in Madison
Square Garden, New York, called to celebrate the dethronement of
the Tsar. The huge hall was crowded with twenty thousand people
wrought up to the highest pitch of enthusiasm. “Russia is free!” theleading speaker began. A veritable hurricane of applause, shouts,
and hurrahs greeted the declaration. It continued for many minutes, breaking out again and again. But when the audience became
quiet and the orator was about to proceed, there came a voice fromthe crowd:“Free for what?”
There was no reply. The speaker continued his harangue.
The Russians are a simple and naïve people. Never having had
any constitutional rights, they had no interest in politics and were
not corrupted by it. They knew little of congresses and parliaments,
and cared less about them.
“Free for what?” they wondered.
“You are free from the Tsar and his tyranny,” they were told.
That was very fine, they thought. “But how about the war?”
the soldier asked. “How about the land?” the peasant demanded.
“How about a decent existence?” the proletarian urged. You see,my friend, those Russians were so “uneducated” they were notsatisfied just to be free from something; they wanted to be free forsomething, free to do what they wanted. And what they wanted
was a chance to live, to work and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
That is, they wanted access to the land, so they could raise food137

for themselves; access to the mines, shops, and factories, so as toproduce what they needed. But under the Provisional Government,
just as under the Romanovs, those things belonged to the wealthy;
they remained “private property.”
As I say, the simple Russian knew nothing about politics, but
he knew exactly what he wanted. He lost no time in making his
wants known, and he was determined to get them. The soldiersand sailors chose spokesmen from their own midst to present to theProvisional Government their demand to terminate the war. Theirrepresentatives organized themselves as soldiers’ councils, calledsoviets in Russia. The peasants and the city workers did the same. In
this manner every branch of the army and navy, every agriculturaland industrial district, every factory even, established its own soviets. In the course of time the various soviets formed the All-Russian
Soviet of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies, which held its
sessions in Petrograd.
Through the Soviets the people presently began to voice theirdemands.
The Provisional Government, the new “liberal” régime under theleadership of Miliukov, paid no attention. It is characteristic of allpolitical parties alike that, once in power, they turn a deaf ear to
the needs and wants of the masses. The Provisional Government
was no different in this than the Tsarist autocracy. It failed to understand the spirit of the time, and it stupidly believed that a few
minor reforms would satisfy the country. It kept busy talking anddiscussing, proposing new bills and enacting more legislation. But
it was not laws the people wanted. They wanted peace, while thegovernment insisted on continuing the war. They cried for landand bread, but what they got was more laws.
If history teaches anything at all its clearest lesson is that you
can’t defy or resist the will of a whole people. You can suppress it
for a while, stem the tide of popular protest, but the more violently
will the storm rage when it comes. Then it will break down every

138

when the entire Party was opposed to his opinion and even when
the Central Committee bitterly fought his proposals on their firstpresentation. It was Lenin who always won, his will that prevailed.
It was so in every critical period of Bolshevik history. It could not
help being so, because dictatorship always means domination by
the strongest personality, the supremacy of a single will.
The whole history of the Communist Party, as that of every dictatorship, indisputably demonstrates this. Bolshevik writings themselves prove it. Here it is sufficient to mention but a few of the mostvital events to substantiate my contention.
In March, 1917, when Lenin returned home from exile in Switzerland, the Central Committee of his Party in Russia had decided toenter the Coalition Government formed after the abolition of the
Tsarist régime. Lenin was opposed to coöperation with the bourgeois and Mensheviki who were in the Government. Yet notwithstanding that the Party had already decided the question and that
Lenin was almost alone in his opposition, his influence carried. The
Central Committee reversed itself and took up Lenin’s position.
Later, in July, 1917, Lenin advocated an immediate revolution
against the Kerensky Government. His proposal was roundly condemned even by his nearest comrades and friends as foolhardy
and criminal. But again Lenin won, even at the cost of Zinoviev,
Kamenev, and other influential Bolsheviki refusing to be parties
to the scheme and resigning from the Central Committee. Incidentally, the Putsch (the attempt to upset Kerensky) proved a failureand cost many workers’ lives.
The red terror instituted by Lenin as soon as he came to power
after the October Revolution was bitterly denounced by his coworkers as entirely uncalled for and as a direct betrayal of the Revolution. But in spite of the official protests of the most active andinfluential members of the Party, Lenin had his way.1
1
See the official protests by Bolsheviki of long standing, such as Lodovsky
and others, quoted by Trotsky in his work 1917.

163

Chapter 18: The Dictatorship at
Work
It achieved the complete mastery of the Bolsheviki over a country of 140 millions of population. In the name of the “proletarian
dictatorship” one political organization, the Communist Party, became the absolute ruler of Russia. The proletarian dictatorship was
not dictatorship by the proletariat. Millions of people cannot all be
dictators. Nor can thousands of party members be dictators. By itsvery nature a dictatorship is limited to a small number of persons.
The less of them, the stronger and more unified the dictatorship. In
actual practice dictatorship is always in the hands of one person,
the strong man whose will compels the consent of his nominal codictators. It cannot be otherwise, and so it was with the Bolsheviki.
The real dictator was neither the proletariat nor even the Communist Party. Theoretically the power was held by the Central
Committee of the Party, but actually it was wielded by the inner
circle of that Committee, called the political bureau or “politbureau.” But even the politbureau was not the real dictator, though
its membership was less than a score. For in the politbureau
there were differing views on every important question, as there
must be when there are many heads. The real dictator was theman whose influence secured the support of the majority of thepolitbureau. That man was Lenin, and it was he who was the real“proletarian dictatorship,” just as Mussolini, for instance, and not
the Fascist Party, is dictator in Italy. It was always the views andideas of Lenin that were carried out, from the very inception of
the Bolshevik Party to the last day of Lenin’s life; carried out
162

obstacle, sweep away all opposition, and its momentum will carryit even further than its original intention.
That has been the story of every great conflict, of every revolution.
Recall the American War for Independence, for instance. The rebellion of the colonies against Great Britain began with the refusal
to pay the tea tax exacted by the Government of George III. The
comparatively unimportant objection to “taxation without representation,” meeting with the King’s opposition, resulted in war andended in completely freeing the American colonies from English
rule. Thus was born the Republic of the United States.
The French Revolution similarly began with the demand forsmall improvements and reforms. The refusal of Louis XVI to lend
ear to the popular voice cost him not only his throne but also
his head, and brought about the destruction of the entire feudal
system in France.
Just so did Tsar Nicholas II believe that a few insignificant concessions would stop the revolution. He also paid for his stupidity
with his crown and life. The same fate overtook the Provisional
Government. That is why a wise man said that “history repeats itself.” It always does with government.
The Provisional Government consisted mostly of conservative
men who did not understand the people and who were far removed
from their needs. The masses demanded peace first of all. The Provisional Government, under the leadership of Miliukov and later
under Kerensky, was determined to continue the war even in theface of the general dissatisfaction and the serious breakdown of
the industrial and economic life of the country. The rising wavesof the Revolution were soon to sweep it away: the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies was preparing to take matters into its
own hands.
Meanwhile the people did not wait. The soldiers at the front had
already themselves decided to quit the war as unnecessary and useless slaughter. By the hundred thousands they were leaving the139fields of battle and returning home to their farms and factories.
There they began carrying into effect the real objects of the Revolution. For to them the Revolution did not mean printed constitutions
and paper rights, but the land and the workshop. Between June andOctober, 1917, while the Provisional Government kept on endlessly
discussing “reforms,” the peasants started confiscating the estatesof the large landholders and the workers took possession of theindustries.
This was called expropriating the capitalist class: that is, depriving the masters of the things they had no right to monopolize, thethings they had appropriated from the laboring classes, from thepeople.
In this manner the soil was expropriated from the landlords,
the mines and mills from their “owners,” the warehouses from thespeculators. The workers and farmers took everything in charge
through their labor unions and agrarian organizations.
The “liberal” Government of Miliukov had insisted on keeping
up the war because the Allies wanted it. The “revolutionary” Government of Kerensky also remained deaf to the popular demands.
It passed drastic laws against the “unauthorized” taking of land by
the peasantry. Kerensky did everything in his power to keep thearmy at the front and even reintroduced the death penalty for “desertion.” But the people now ignored the government.
The situation again proved that the real power of a country liesin the hands of the masses, of those who fight, toil, and produce,and not in any parliament or government. Kerensky at one time
was the adored idol of Russia, more powerful than any Tsar. Yet his
authority was lost, his government fell, and he himself had to fleefor his life when the people realized that he was not serving theircause. While he was still the head of the Provisional Government,
the actual power began to go over to the Petrograd Soviet, mostof whose members were revolutionary workers, peasants, and soldiers.

140

port for an ever-widening campaign of elimination and suppression, for the introduction of the bloody hand of red terror into thelife of the Revolution.
But as I have said, it is the place of the future historian to determine to what extent such motives fashioned the events of thosedays. Here we are more concerned with what actually happened.
What happened was that before long the Bolsheviki establishedthe exclusive dictatorship of their Party.
“What was that dictatorship,” you ask, “and what did it achieve?”161

after the October Revolution, by April, 1918, they were in entire
control of the government.
By taking advantage of the excitement of the revolutionary
days and the inevitable confusion, they exploited the situation
for their own objects. They used the political differences to rousefierce party passions, resorted to every means to denounce theiropponents as enemies of the people, branded them counterrevolutionists, and finally succeeded in damning them in theeyes of the workers and soldiers. Declaring that the Revolution
must be protected against those alleged enemies, they wereenabled to proclaim their own dictatorship. In the name of “saving
the Revolution” they began eliminating all other revolutionary
elements, non-Bolshevik, from positions of influence, finishing by
suppressing them entirely.
It must be left to future historians to determine whether Bolshevik repression of the bourgeoisie, with which they started theirrule, was not merely a means toward the ulterior purpose of suppressing all other non-Bolshevik elements. For the Russian bourgeoisie was not dangerous to the Revolution. As already explained,
it was an insignificant minority, unorganized and powerless. The
revolutionary elements, on the contrary, were a real obstacle to the
dictatorship of any political party.
Because dictatorship would meet with the strongest opposition
not from the bourgeoisie but from the truly revolutionary classes
which considered dictatorship inimical to the best interests of the
Revolution, the elimination of these would therefore be of prime
necessity to any political party seeking dictatorship. Such a policy,
however, could not successfully begin with the suppression of therevolutionists: it would provoke the disapproval and resistance of
the workers and soldiers. It would have to be begun at the bourgeois end and means found gradually to spread the net over theother elements. Distrust and antagonism would have to be wakened, intolerance and persecution stimulated, popular fear created
for the safety of the Revolution in order to secure the people’s sup160

Various and even opposing views were represented in the Soviet,
as is inevitable in bodies composed of different classes of the population with their particular interests. But the greatest influence
under such circumstances is always exerted by those who voice
the deepest feelings and needs of the People. Therefore, the more
revolutionary elements in the Soviet gradually gained the mastery,for they expressed the true wants and aspirations of the masses.
There were those in the Soviet who held that a constitution,
something like that of the United States, was all that Russia needed
to attain freedom and well-being. They asserted that capitalism
was all right: there must be masters and servants, rich and poor;
the people should be satisfied with the rights and liberties which a
democratic government would grant them. These were the Constitutional Democrats, called for short Cadets in Russia. They quickly
lost their influence, because the “naïve” Russian workers andpeasants knew that it was not rights and liberties on paper theywanted, but a chance to work and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
They pointed to America with its Constitution and Declarationof Independence, and said that they did not care for the injustice,corruption, and wage slavery which constitutionally existed inthat country.
The next more liberal element were the Social Democrats, known
as Mensheviki. As Socialists they believed in the abolition of capitalism, but they declared that the Revolution was not the time to
do it. Why not? Because it was not a proletarian revolution, theyclaimed, even if it looked like one. They maintained that it could
not be a social revolution and therefore it should not alter the fundamental economic conditions of the country. According to themit was only a bourgeois revolution, a political one, and as such it
should make only political changes. It could not be anything morethan a bourgeois revolution, the Mensheviki argued, because had
not the great Karl Marx taught that a proletarian revolution could
take place only in a country where capitalism had reached its highest stage of development? Russia was very backward industrially,141

and therefore it would be against the teachings of Marx to consider
the Revolution proletarian. For that reason capitalism must remain
in Russia and be given a chance to ripen before the people could
think of abolishing wage slavery.
The Social Democrats had a large following among the workersof Russia, many labor unions being Menshevik. But the argumentthat the Revolution was not proletarian only because Marx had
fifty years before said that it couldn’t be, did not appeal to the toilers. They had made the Revolution, they had fought and bled forit. They had driven out the Tsar and his clique, and they were now
driving out their industrial masters, thus abolishing wage slavery
and capitalism. They could not see why they could not do what
they were actually doing only because some one who was deadlong ago had believed that it couldn’t be done. The reasoning of
the Socialist leaders was too “scientific” for them. Their common
sense told them that it was pure nonsense, and the Mensheviki lost
most of their following among the workers.
Another political party was called Socialists Revolutionists. To
this party belonged many of the terrorists who had been active
against Tsardom in the past. The Socialists Revolutionists had
numerous adherents, mainly among the farming population. But
they alienated them by taking a stand for the continuation of thewar when the country was against it. This attitude also caused a
split in the party, the conservative element becoming known as
the Right Socialists Revolutionists, while the more revolutionary
faction called itself Left Socialists Revolutionists. The latter, led
by Maria Spiridonova, who had suffered many years of Siberian
imprisonment under the Tsar, advocated the termination of the
war and secured a very considerable following, particularly among
the poorer agricultural classes.
The most radical element in Russia were the Anarchists, who demanded immediate peace, free land for the peasant, and the socialization of the means of production and distribution. They wanted
the abolition of capitalism and wage slavery, equal rights for all142

wholehearted in its efforts to advance it, more determined and energetic in the achievement of its purposes. But those purposes wereentirely foreign to the Revolution and opposed to its real needs.
They were, in fact, so contrary to the spirit and aims of the Revolution that their achievement meant the destruction of the Revolution itself.
No doubt the Bolsheviki really thought that only by means of
their dictatorship could Russia be converted into a Socialist paradise for the worker and farmer. Indeed, as Marxists they could not
see things in any other way. Believers in an all-powerful State, they
had no confidence in the people; they had no faith in the initiativeand creative ability of the toilers. They distrusted them as a “multicolored mob which has to be forced into liberty.” They agreed withthe cynical maxim of Rousseau that the masses “can be made free
only by compulsion.”“Proletarian compulsion in all its forms,” wrote Bukharin, theforemost Communist theoretician, “beginning with summary execution and ending with compulsory labor is, however paradoxical
it may sound, a method of reworking the human material of thecapitalistic epoch into Communist humanity.”That was the Bolshevik gospel; it was the attitude of a party that
believed a revolution could be run by the orders of a Central Committee.
What followed was the logical outcome of the Bolshevik idea.
Claiming that only the dictatorship of their Party could properly
conduct the Revolution, they bent all energies to secure that dictatorship. It meant that they had to take things exclusively into theirown hands, to have the designs of the Party accomplished at any
cost.
We need not go into the details of the schemes and political manipulations of those days which finally resulted in the Communist
Party gaining the upper hand. The important point is that the Bolsheviki did contrive to carry out their plans. Within a few months

159

selves. Coöperative organizations brought city and village together
for the exchange of products; house Committees looked after the
housing question; street and district committees were organized
for the safety of the city, and other voluntary bodies were formed
for the defense of the people’s interests and of the Revolution.
The requirements of the situation directed the efforts of themasses; liberty of action brought initiative into play, and thewants of the people shaped their creative capacities to the needsof the hour.
These collective activities constituted the Revolution. They were the
Revolution. For “revolution” is not some vague thing without definite meaning and purpose; nor does it signify political scene shifting or new legislation. The actual Revolution took place neither in
February nor in October, but between those months. It consisted
in the free play and interplay of the revolutionary energies and efforts of the people, in independent popular initiative and creative
work, inspired by common need and mutual interests.
That was the spirit and tendency of the great economic and social
upheaval in Russia. It solved problems as they arose, on the basisof liberty and free coöperation.
This process of the Revolution was stopped in its developmentby the Communist Party seizing political power and constituting
itself a new government.
We have just seen what the aim of the Revolution was; we knowwhat the masses of Russia wanted and what means they used toachieve it.
The objects of the Bolsheviki as a political party, on the other
hand, were of an entirely different nature. As frankly admitted bythemselves, their immediate goal was a dictatorship; that is, the formation of a powerful Bolshevik State which should direct the life
and activities of the country according to the views and theories of
the Communist Party.
To give due credit to the Bolsheviki let me say right here that
there never was any political party more devoted to its cause, more158

and special privileges to none. The land, the factories and mills,
the machinery of production and the means of distribution were
to become the possession of the whole people. Each able person
was to work according to his ability and receive according to hisneeds. There was to be full liberty for every one and joint use on
the basis of mutual interests. The Anarchists warned the proletariat
against delegating power to any government or placing a politicalparty in authority. Government of any kind, they said, would stifle
the Revolution and rob the workers of the results already achieved.
The life and welfare of a country depended on economics, not on
politics, they argued. That is, what people want is to live, to workand satisfy their needs. For this, sensible management of industry
is necessary, not politics. Politics, they insisted, is a game to ruleand govern men, not to help them live. In short, the Anarchists advised the toilers to permit no one to become their master again, toabolish political government, and to manage their agrarian, industrial, and social affairs for the good of all instead of for the benefitof rulers and exploiters. They called upon the masses to stand by
their Soviets and look after their interests by means of their own
organizations.
The Anarchists were, however, comparatively small in numbers.
As the most advanced and revolutionary element they had beenpersecuted by the Tsarist régime even worse than the Socialists.
Many of them had been executed, others imprisoned and their organizations suppressed as illegal. It was most dangerous to belong
to the Anarchists, and their work of education was exceedingly
difficult. Therefore, the Anarchists were not strong and could notexert much influence upon the people at large in a vast country of
120 millions of population.
But they had a great advantage in that their idea appealed tothe healthy instincts and sound sense of the masses. To the extent
of their ability and limited power the Anarchists encouraged thedemand for peace, land, and bread, and actively helped carry out

143those demands by direct expropriation and the formation of a freecommunal life.
There was another political party in Russia which was far more
numerous and better organized than the Anarchists. That party realized the value of the Anarchist ideas and set to work to carrythem out.
It was the Bolsheviki.

and their labor organizations. In short, it was the aim of October
to afford the people an opportunity to make use of the political
freedom won in February.
That is the way the masses sized up the situation. And they acted
upon it. They began to apply liberty to their needs. They wanted
peace, so they stopped the war, first of all. It was months later thatthe Bolshevik Government signed the Brest-Litovsk treaty and concluded an official peace with Germany. But so far as the Russianarmies were concerned, war was at an end long before, without
diplomatic negotiations. Trotsky frankly admits this in his workon the Revolution.1
The Russian workers and peasants, temporarily in soldiers’ uniforms, had taken matters into their own hands and terminated thewar by leaving the fronts.
Similarly did the peasantry and the proletariat act in solving
the industrial and agrarian problems. While the Provisional Government was still discussing land reforms, the masses themselves
acted, through their local councils and Soviets. The peasants took
the land they needed and began cultivating it. With simple common sense and inherent popular justice they settled the agrarian
problem over which politicians and lawgivers had been breaking
their heads for many decades without result. The Bolsheviki, when
they came to power, “legalized” what the peasants had already accomplished without asking anybody’s permission.
In like manner did the workers’ Soviets start to solve the industrial problem by taking over the factories and mines and managing them for the general benefit instead of for the profit of the“owners.” That was actual abolition of capitalism and wage slavery,
long before the Bolshevik Government declared capitalist ownership “legally” at an end.
All the other problems of every-day life the Revolution was similarly solving by the practical and direct activity of the masses them1

144

1917, by Leon Trotsky. Moscow, 1925.

157

Chapter 17: Revolution andDictatorship
Because the Revolution and the Bolshevik dictatorship were
things of an entirely different and even opposite nature. And here
is where most people make the greatest mistake in confusing theRussian Revolution with the Communist Party and speaking ofthem as if they were one and the same, which emphatically they
are not.
This will become clear to us if we compare the aims of the Revolution with the ends sought by the Bolsheviki.
The Revolution was a mighty uprising against oppression andmisery. It voiced the longing of the masses for liberty and justice.
It attempted to do away with everything that kept man in subjection, made him a slave and a beast of burden. The Revolution tried
to establish new forms of life, conditions of real equality and brotherhood.
We have already seen that the Revolution was not a superficial
change, that it did not stop with the February events. The Tsar had
been abolished and the power of his autocracy broken, but the result was only another form of government. The economic and social
conditions remained the same. Yet it was just those that the people
meant to change. That is why the October Revolution took place. Its
purpose was to rebuild life altogether, on new social foundations.
How was it to be rebuilt? It is evident that taking Romanov outof the Kremlin palace and putting Lenin in his place would not
do it. Something more was necessary. It was necessary to give thesoil to the peasant, to put the factories in the hands of the workers
156

Chapter 16: The Bolsheviki
Who were the Bolsheviki, and what did they want?
Up to the year 1903, the Bolsheviki were members of the RussianSocialist Party; that is, Social Democrats, followers of Karl Marxand his teachings. In that year the Social Democratic Labor Partyof Russia split on the question of organization and other minor
matters. Under the leadership of Lenin the opposition formed a new
party, which called itself Bolshevik. The old party became known
as Menshevik.1
The Bolsheviki were more revolutionary than the mother party
from which they seceded. When the world war broke out they did
not betray the cause of the workers and join the patriotic jingoes,as did the majority of the other Socialist parties. To their credit be
it said that, like most of the Anarchists and Left Socialists Revolutionists, the Bolsheviki opposed the war on the ground that theproletariat had no interest in the quarrels of conflicting capitalist
groups. When the February Revolution began the Bolsheviki realized that political changes alone would do no good, would not solve
the labor and social problems. They knew that putting one government in place of another would not help matters. What was needed
was a radical, fundamental change.
Though Marxists like their Menshevik step-brothers (believersin the theories of Karl Marx), the Bolsheviki did not agree with theMensheviki in their attitude to the great upheaval. They scorned
the idea that Russia could not have a proletarian revolution because capitalist industry had not developed there to its fullest pos1
From the Russian word bolshe, meaning “more” or majority; menshe signifying “less.”145

sibilities. They realized that it was not merely a bourgeois politicalchange that was taking place. They knew that the people were notsatisfied with the abolition of the Tsar and not content with a constitution. They saw that things were developing further. They understood that the taking of the land by the peasantry and the growing expropriation of the possessing classes did not signify “reform.”
Closer to the masses than the Mensheviki, the Bolsheviki felt the
popular pulse and more correctly judged the spirit and purpose of
the tremendous events. It was foremost of all Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, who believed that the time was approaching when heand his Party might grasp the reins of government and establish
Socialism on the Bolshevik plan.
Bolshevik Socialism meant the seizing of political power by the
Bolsheviki in the name of the proletariat. They agreed with the
Anarchists that Communism would be the best economic system;that is, the land, the machinery of production and distribution, andall public utilities should be owned in common, excluding private
possession in those things. But while the Anarchists wanted thepeople as a whole to be the owners, the Bolsheviki held that everything must be in the hands of the State, which meant that the
government would not only be the political ruler of the country but
also its industrial and economic master. The Bolsheviki as Marxists
believed in a strong government to run the country, with absolute
power over the lives and fortunes of the people. In other words,
the Bolshevik idea was a dictatorship, that dictatorship to be in thehands of themselves, of their political Party.
They called such an arrangement the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” because their Party, they said, represented the best and foremost element, the advance guard of the working class, and their
Party should therefore be dictator in the name of the proletariat.
The great difference between the Anarchists and the Bolsheviki
was that the Anarchists wanted the masses to decide and manage
their affairs for themselves, through their own organizations, without orders from any political party. They wanted real liberty and146

ciple; that is, on the equal right and representation of all members
alike. The ancient Russian mir, the public assembly to transact thebusiness of the village or town, was one of the forms of the soviet
idea.
The Bolsheviki knew that the revolutionary workers and peasants, as well as the soldiers (who were workers and peasants inuniform), would not stand for the abolition of their soviets. Thereremained the only alternative of getting control of them. Holding
to the Lenin principle that the “end justifies the means,” the Bolsheviki did not shrink from any methods whatever to discredit
and eliminate the other revolutionary elements from the Soviets.
They carried on a persistent campaign of venom and detraction forthe purpose of deluding the masses and turning them against theother parties, particularly against the Left Socialists Revolutionists
and the Anarchists. Systematically and by the most Jesuitic means
they sought to become the sole power, so as to be able to carry out
Lenin’s scheme of “proletarian dictatorship.”By such tactics the Bolsheviki finally succeeded in organizing a
Soviet of People’s Commissars, which in reality became the new
government. All its members were Bolsheviki, with two minor
exceptions: the Commissariats of justice and of Agriculture were
headed by Left Socialists Revolutionists. Before long these werealso eliminated and replaced by Bolsheviki. The Soviet of People’s
Commissars was the political machine of the Bolshevik Party,
which was now rechristened into the Communist Party of Russia.
What this Communist Party stood for, what its objects and purposes were, we already know. It openly avowed its determination
to secure exclusive Bolshevik domination under the label of the“dictatorship of the proletariat.”
This was fatal to the Revolution and its great aim of a deep socialand economic reconstruction, as the subsequent history of Russia
has proven.
Why?

155

Consider how different it would have been in America. There thecapitalists, who are strong and well organized, would have offered
the greatest resistance. They would have formed defense bodies toprotect themselves and their interests by force of arms. I have no
doubt they will do so when things begin to happen there as they
did in Russia in 1917. Not that they will succeed, however. But as
I say, the Revolution in Russia did not produce any organized andeffective bourgeois resistance for the simple reason that there wasno real bourgeoisie or capitalist class in that country. Military attempts there were indeed, such as that of the Tsarist General Kornilov to attack Petrograd with Cossacks brought from the front,
but so harmless was that adventure that Kornilov’s army melted
away even before he could reach the capital. His men went overto the revolutionary garrison of Petrograd almost without firing a
gun.6
The point is that when the masses are with the Revolution, there
can be no thought of successful resistance by any enemy, no chanceof suppressing the Revolution. That was the situation in Russia in
October, 1917, when the Soviets took the power into their hands.
The Bolshevik plan was to gain entire and exclusive control of
the government for their Party. It did not fit into their scheme topermit the people themselves to manage things, through their Soviet organizations. As long as the Soviets had the whole say the
Bolsheviki could not achieve their purpose. It was therefore necessary either to abolish the Soviets or to gain control of them.
To abolish the Soviets was impossible. They represented the toiling masses; the Soviet idea had been a cherished dream of the Russian people for centuries. Even in the far past Russia had soviets ofvarious kinds, and the entire village life was built on the soviet prinby the Allied armies. As soon as foreign aid was withdrawn, the Ukrainian bourgeoisie also became helpless.
6
Real counter-revolution began much later, when Bolshevik terror and dictatorship were in full sway, which alienated the masses and resulted in insurrections.

154

voluntary coöperation in joint ownership. The Anarchists therefore called themselves free Communists, or Communist Anarchists,
while the Bolsheviki were compulsory, governmental or State Communists. The Anarchists didn’t want any State to dictate to the people, because such dictation, they argued, always means tyranny
and oppression. The Bolsheviki, on the other hand, while repudiating the capitalist State and bourgeois dictatorship, wanted theState and the dictatorship to be theirs, of their Party.
You can therefore see that there is all the difference in the world
between the Anarchists and the Bolsheviki. The Anarchists are opposed to all government; the Bolsheviki are strong for government
on condition that it is in their hands. “They are not against the big
stick,” as a clever friend of mine is wont to say; “they only want to
be at the right end of it.”
But the Bolsheviki realized that the views and methods advocated by the Anarchists were sound and practical, and that only
such methods could assure the success of the Revolution. They decided to make use of Anarchist ideas for their own purposes. So it
happened that although the Anarchists were themselves too weakin numbers to reach the masses, they succeeded in influencing theBolsheviki, who presently began to advocate Anarchist methods
and tactics, pretending of course that they were their own.
But they were not their own. You might say that it does not matter who advocates or helps to carry out an idea that will benefit thepeople. But if you think it over a bit you will realize that it mattersvery much, as all history and particularly the Russian Revolution
proves.
It matters because everything depends on the motives, on the
purpose and spirit in which a thing is carried out. Even the best idea
can be applied in such a manner as to bring much harm. Because
the masses, fired by the great idea, may fail to notice how, in whatmanner, and by what means it is being carried out. But if carriedout in the wrong spirit or by false means, even the noblest andfinest idea can be turned to the ruin of the country and its people.
147

That is just what happened in Russia. The Bolsheviki advocatedand partly carried out Anarchist ideas, but the Bolsheviki were notAnarchists and they did not at heart believe in those ideas. They
used them for their own purposes — purposes that were not Anarchistic, that were really anti-Anarchistic, against the Anarchist
idea. What were those Bolshevik purposes?
The Anarchist idea was to do away with oppression of every
kind, to abolish the rule of one class over another, to substitute themanagement of things for the mastery of man over man, to secure
liberty and well-being for all. Anarchist methods were calculated
to bring about such a result.
The Bolsheviki used the Anarchist methods for an entirely different purpose. They did not want to abolish political domination andgovernment: they only meant to get it into their own hands. Theirobject was, as already explained, to gain control of political powerby their Party and establish a Bolshevik dictatorship. It is necessary
to get this very clearly in order to understand what happened in
the Russian Revolution and why “proletarian dictatorship” quickly
became a Bolshevik dictatorship over the proletariat.
It was soon after the February Revolution that the Bolsheviki
began to proclaim Anarchist principles and tactics. Among thesewere “direct action,” “the general strike,” “expropriation,” and similar modes of action by the masses. As I have said, the Bolsheviki as
Marxists did not believe in such methods. At least they had not believed in them until the Revolution. For years previously Socialists
everywhere, including the Bolsheviki, had ridiculed the Anarchist
advocacy of the general strike as the strongest weapon of the workers in their struggle against capitalist exploitation and government
oppression. “The general strike is general nonsense,” was the war
cry of Socialists against the Anarchists. Socialists did not want theworkers to resort to direct mass action and the general strike, because it might lead to revolution and the taking of things into theirown hands. The Socialists wanted no independent revolutionary action by the masses. They advocated political activity. They wanted
148

out the further progress of the Revolution toward the rebuilding oflife on the foundation of political freedom, economic equality, andsocial justice.
This could be accomplished only as the previous great changes,
from February to October, had been; by the joint effort and freecoöperation of the workers and peasants, the latter now joined by
the bulk of the army.
But such a development did not come within the scheme of the
Bolsheviki. As already explained, their aim was to establish a dictatorship wielded by their Party. But a dictatorship means dictation, the imposing of the ruler’s will upon the country. The Bolsheviki now felt themselves strong enough to carry out their real object. They dropped the revolutionary and Anarchist mottoes. There
must be a vigorous political power, they declared, to carry on thework of the Revolution. Under the guise of protecting the people
against the monarchists and the bourgeoisie they began to use repressive measures. As a matter of fact, there were no Tsarist supporters or monarchists in Russia worth mentioning. The people hadgrown out of Tsarism, and there was no more chance whatever,for a monarchy in Russia. As to the bourgeoisie, there had neverbeen any organized capitalist class in Russia, such as we have inhighly developed industrial countries — in the United States, England, France, and Germany. The Russian bourgeoisie was small in
numbers and weak. It continued to exist after the February Revolution only by the protection of the Kerensky Government. The
moment the latter was abolished, the bourgeoisie went to pieces. It
had neither strength nor means to stop the confiscation of its lands
and factories by the peasants and workers. Strange as it may seem,
it is a fact that throughout this whole period of the Revolution the
Russian bourgeoisie did not make any organized and effectual attempt to regain its possessions.5
5
In the South of Russia (the Ukraine) the bourgeoisie did offer some resistance, but only during the rule of the Hetmen Skoropadsky and Petlura, aided

153

the persecution of the revolutionary elements and the arrest of
their leaders, all hastened the crisis. On July 3, 1917,3 thousands ofarmed workers, soldiers, and sailors demonstrated in the streetsof Petrograd in spite of government prohibition, demanding “Allpower to the Soviets.” Kerensky sought to suppress the popular
movement. He even recalled “trusted” regiments from the front toteach the proletariat of Petrograd a “salutary lesson.” But in vain
were all the efforts of the bourgeoisie, represented by Kerensky, by
the Social Democratic leaders and Right Socialists Revolutionists,
to stem the rising tide. The July demonstrations were suppressed,
but within a short time the revolutionary movement swept theProvisional Government away. The Petrograd Soviet of soldiers
and workers declared the government abolished, and Kerensky
saved his life only by fleeing in disguise.
The masses backed the Petrograd Soviet. The example of the capital was soon followed by Moscow, thence spreading throughout
the country.
It was on October 25th4 that the Provisional Government was
declared abolished, its members arrested, and the Winter Palacetaken by the military-revolutionary committee of the Petrograd Soviet. On the same day the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets
opened its sessions. Political government was practically abolishedin Russia. All power was now in the hands of the workers, soldiers,and peasants represented in the Congress. The latter immediatelybegan to consider steps to carry out the will of the masses: to terminate the war, secure land for the peasants, the industries for theworkers, and establish liberty and welfare for all.
This was the status of the Russian Revolution in October, 1917.
Beginning with the abolition of the Tsar, it gradually widened anddeveloped into a thorough industrial and economic reorganizationof the country. The spirit of the people and their needs marked
3
4

152

July 16, new style.
November 7, new style.

the workers to put them, the Socialists, in power, so they could do
the revolutionizing.
If you glance over the Socialist writings for the past forty years,
you will be convinced that Socialists were always against thegeneral strike and direct action, as they were also opposed to
expropriation and revolutionary syndicalism, which is anothername for workers’ soviets. Socialist congresses passed drastic
resolutions against, and Socialist agitators fiercely denounced, allsuch revolutionary tactics.
But the Bolsheviki accepted these Anarchist methods and began
advocating them with new-born conviction. Not, of course, at theoutbreak of the Revolution, in February, 1917. They did it muchlater, when they saw that the masses were not content with mere
political changes and were demanding bread instead of a constitution. The swiftly moving events of the Revolution compelled the
Bolsheviki to fall in line with the most radical popular aspirations
in order not to be left behind by the Revolution, as happened to
the Mensheviki, to the Right Socialists Revolutionists, the Constitutional Democrats, and to other reformers.
Very sudden was this Bolshevik acceptance of Anarchist methods, because only a short time before they had been insistently calling for the Constituent Assembly. For months following the February Revolution they were demanding the convocation of a representative body to determine the form of government that Russia
was to have. It was right for the Bolsheviki to favor the Constituent
Assembly, since they were Marxists and pretended to believe inmajority rule. The Constituent Assembly was to be elected by theentire people, and the majority in the Assembly was to decide matters. But the real reason why the Bolsheviki agitated for the Assembly was that they believed the masses were with them and that
they, the Bolshevik Party, would he sure of a majority in the Assembly. Presently, however, it became clear that they would prove
an insignificant minority in that body. Their hope to dominate it
vanished. As good governmentalists and believers in majority rule149

they should have bowed to the will of the people. But that did notsuit the plans of Lenin and his friends. They looked about for otherways of getting control of the government, and their first step was
to begin a vehement agitation against the Constituent Assembly.
To be sure, the Assembly could give nothing of value to the country. It was a mere talking machine, lacking all vitality, and unable toaccomplish any constructive work. The Revolution was a fact outside and independent of the Constituent Assembly, independentof any legislative or governmental body. It began and was developing in spite of government and constitution, in spite of all opposition, in defiance of law. In its entire character it was unlawful, nongovernmental, even anti- governmental. The Revolution followed
the healthy natural impulses of the people, their needs and aspirations. In the truest sense it was Anarchistic in spirit and deed. Only
the Anarchists, those governmental heretics who believe in liberty
and popular initiative as the cure for social ills, welcomed the Revolution as it was and worked for its further growth and deepening,so as to bring the entire life of the country within the sphere of its
influence.
All the other parties, including the Bolsheviki, had the sole objectof lassoing the revolutionary movement and tying it to their particular band-wagon. The Bolsheviki needed the support of the masses
to wrest political power for their Party and to proclaim the Communist dictatorship. Seeing that there was no hope of accomplishing this through the Constituent Assembly, they turned against it,
joined the Anarchists in condemning it, and later forcibly dispersed
it. But you can see that while the Anarchists could do this honestly,
in keeping with their no-government ideas, similar action on thepart of the Bolsheviki was rank hypocrisy and political trickery.
Together with their opposition to the Constituent Assembly the
Bolsheviki borrowed from the Anarchist arsenal a number of othermilitant tactics. Thus they proclaimed the great war cry, “All power
to the Soviets,” advised the workers to ignore and even defy the Provisional Government, and to resort to direct mass action to carry150

out their demands. At the same time they also adopted the Anarchist methods of the general strike and energetically agitated forthe “expropriation of the expropriators.”
It is important to keep in mind that these tactics of the Bolsheviki were not, as I have already pointed out, the logical outcomeof their ideas, but only a means of gaining the confidence of themasses with the object of achieving political domination. Indeed,those methods were really opposed to Marxist theories and were
not believed in by the Bolsheviki. It was therefore not surprisingthat, once in power, they repudiated all those anti-Marxist ideas
and tactics.
The Anarchist mottoes proclaimed by the Bolsheviki did not failto bring results. The masses rallied to their flag. From a Party withalmost no influence, with its main leaders, Lenin and Zinoviev,
discredited2 and hiding, with Trotsky and others in prison, theyquickly became the most important factor in the movement of therevolutionary proletariat.
Attentive to the demands of the masses, particularly of the soldiers and workers, voicing their needs with energy and persistence,
the Bolsheviki constantly gained greater influence among the people and in the Soviets, especially in those of Petrograd and Moscow.
The inactivity of the Provisional Government and its failure to undertake any important changes aggravated the general dissatisfaction and resentment, which were soon to break into fury. The pusillanimous character of the Kerensky régime served to strengthen
the hands of the Bolsheviki in the Soviets. Daily the rupture between the latter and the Government grew, presently developing
into open antagonism and struggle.
The evident helplessness of the government, the decision ofKerensky to renew an aggressive movement at the front, together
with the reintroduction of the death penalty for military desertion,
2
Because of the widely believed but false charge against Lenin of being in
the pay of Germany.

151the one as the other, the manual worker no less than the brain proletarian, needs enlightenment.
In justice to the intellectuals let us not forget that their best representatives have always sided with the oppressed. They have advocated liberty and emancipation, and often they were the first to
voice the deepest aspirations of the toiling masses. In the struggle
for freedom they have frequently fought on the barricades shoulder
to shoulder with the workers and died championing their cause.
We need not look far for proof of this. It is a familiar fact thatevery progressive, radical, and revolutionary movement within thepast hundred years has been inspired, mentally and spiritually, by
the efforts of the finest element of the intellectual classes. The initiators and organizers of the revolutionary movement in Russia,
for instance, dating back a century, were intellectuals, men andwomen of non-proletarian origin and station. Nor was their loveof freedom merely theoretical. Literally thousands of them consecrated their knowledge and experience, and dedicated their lives,to the service of the masses. Not a land exists but where such noble men and women have testified to their solidarity with the disinherited by exposing themselves to the wrath and persecution of
their own class and joining hands with the downtrodden. Recent
history, as well as the past, is full of such examples. Who were theGaribaldis, the Kossuths, the Liebknechts, Rosa Luxemburgs, theLandauers, the Lenins, and Trotskys but intellectuals of the middle classes who gave themselves to the proletariat? The history of
every country and of every revolution shines with their unselfish
devotion to liberty and labor.
Let us bear these facts in mind and not be blinded by fanaticalprejudice and baseless antagonism. The intellectual has done labor
great service in the past. It will depend on the attitude of the workers toward him as to what share he will be able and willing to contribute to the preparation and realization of the social revolution.

240

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 canlive 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 thatsuits you best.
You cannot lead such a life unless you do away with the institutions that curtail your liberty and interfere with your life, theconditions that compel you to act differently from the way you
really would like to.
What are those institutions and conditions? Let us see what wehave 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 withyour 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 thegreatest invader; more than that, the worst criminal man has everknown of. It fills the world with violence, with fraud and deceit,

181

with oppression and misery. As a great thinker once said, “itsbreath is poison.” It corrupts everything it touches.
“Yes, government means violence and it is evil,” you admit; “butcan 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 thatyou 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 isnecessary “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 forthe 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 food. But suppose one of ournumber 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 and our forefathers had cultivated the island and stocked it with everything needed for life andcomfort, 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 slipof 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 heshould have a government back of him, he would appeal to it for182

the bourgeoisie. But it is not income or feeling that determines towhat social class a person belongs. If the street beggar should fancy
himself a millionaire, would he thereby be one? What one imagines
himself to be does not alter his actual situation. And the actual situation is that whoever has to sell his labor is an employee, a salaried
dependent, a wage earner, and as such his true interests are thoseof employees and he belongs to the working class.
As a matter of fact, the intellectual proletarian is even more subject to his capitalistic master than the man with pick and shovel.
The latter can easily change his place of employment. If he does
not care to work for a certain boss he can look for another. The
intellectual proletarian, on the other hand, is much more dependent on his particular job. His sphere of exertion is more limited.
Not skilled in any trade and physically incapable of serving as a
day laborer, he is (as a rule) confined to the comparatively narrow
field of architecture, engineering, journalism, or similar work. Thisputs him more at the mercy of his employer and therefore also inclines him to side with the latter as against his more independent
fellow-worker at the bench.
But whatever the attitude of the salaried and dependent intellectual, he belongs to the proletarian class. Yet it is entirely false
to maintain that the intellectuals always side with the masters as
against the workers. “Generally they do,” I hear some radical fanatic interject. And the workers? Do they not, generally, support
the masters and the system of capitalism? Could that system continue but for their support? It would be wrong to argue from that,
however, that the workers consciously join hands with their exploiters. No more is it true of the intellectuals. If the majority of thelatter stand by the ruling class it is because of social ignorance, because they do not understand their own best interests, for all their“intellectuality.” Just so the great masses of labor, similarly unawareof their true interests, aid the masters against their fellow-workers,
sometimes even in the same trade and factory, not to speak of theirlack of national and international solidarity. It merely proves that239

the first phases of the Russian Revolution that they deliberately set
the wage earners against the professional classes, to such an extent indeed that friendly coöperation became impossible. A direct
result of that policy was the breaking down of industry for lackof intelligent direction, as well as the almost total suspension ofrailroad communication because that was no trained management.
Seeing Russia facing economic shipwreck, Lenin decided that thefactory worker and farmer alone could not carry on the industrial
and agricultural life of the country, and that the aid of the professional elements was necessary. He introduced a new system toinduce the technical men to help in the work of reconstruction. But
almost too late came the change, for the years of mutual hating andhounding had created such a gulf between the manual worker andhis intellectual brother that common understanding and coöperation were made exceptionally difficult. It has taken Russia years ofheroic effort to undo, to some extent, the effects of that fratricidal
war.
Let us learn this valuable lesson from the Russian experiment.
“But professional men belong to the middle classes,” you object,“and they are bourgeois-minded.”True, men of the professions generally have a bourgeois attitude toward things; but are not most workingmen also bourgeoisminded? It merely means that both are steeped in authoritarianand capitalistic prejudices. It is just these that must be eradicatedby enlightening and educating the people, be they manual or brain
workers. That is the first step in preparation for the social revolution.
But it is not true that professional men, as such, necessarily belong to the middle classes.
The real interests of the so-called intellectuals are with the workers rather than with the masters. To be sure, most of them do notrealize that. But no more does the comparatively highly-paid railroad conductor or locomotive engineer feel himself a member ofthe working class. By his income and attitude he also belongs to238

the protection of “his rights,” and the government would send police and soldiers who would evict us and put the “lawful owner inpossession.”
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 whohave 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 someone? No, you know that is nonsense.
We speak of sane, normal men. The insane man who wants to killdoes not first ask whether there is or isn’t any government. Suchmen belong to the care of physicians and alienists; they should beplaced in hospitals to be treated for their malady.
The chances are that if you or Johnson should awaken to findthat there is no government, you would get busy arranging yourlife 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 achance to eat, and you would be perfectly right in that. And sowould every one else, which means that people would not standfor any one hogging all the good things of life: they would want
to share in them. It means further that the poor would refuse tostay 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 thefarmer will not permit thousands of acres to lie idle while he has
not enough soil to support himself and family. It means that noone will be permitted to monopolize the land or the machinery of
production. It means that private ownership of the sources of life
183

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. Itmeans 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 themeans of production and distribution.
It follows that when government is abolished, wage slavery andcapitalism 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 insteadof 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 theState 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?”

184

Production and distribution are the two points of the same life
pole. The labor required for the one is as important as that needed
for the other.
What I said above applies to numerous phases of human effort
which, though themselves not directly productive, play a vital partin the manifold processes of our economic and social life. The manof science, the educator, the physician and surgeon are not productive in the industrial sense of the word. But their work is absolutely
necessary to our life and welfare. Civilized society could not exist
without them.
It is therefore evident that useful work is equally importantwhether it be that of brain or of brawn, manual or mental. Nordoes it matter whether it is a salary or wages which one receives,
whether he is paid much or little, or what his political or other
opinions might be.
All the elements that can contribute useful work to the general
welfare are needed in the revolution for the building of the new life.
No revolution can succeed without their solidaric coöperation, andthe sooner we understand this the better. The reconstruction of society involves the reorganization of industry, the proper functioning of production, the management of distribution, and numerous
other social, educational, and cultural efforts to transform presentday wage slavery and servitude into a life of liberty and well-being.
Only by working hand in hand will the proletariat of brain andbrawn be able to solve those problems.
It is most regrettable that there exists a spirit of unfriendliness,even of enmity, between the manual and intellectual workers. Thatfeeling is rooted in lack of understanding, in prejudice and narrowmindedness on both sides. It is sad to admit that there is a tendency
in certain labor circles, even among some Socialists and Anarchists,
to antagonize the workers against the members of the intellectual
proletariat. Such an attitude is stupid and criminal, because it can
only work evil to the growth and development of the social revolution. It was one of the fatal mistakes of the Bolshevik; during
237

The working class consists of the industrial wage earners andthe agricultural toilers. But the workers require the services of theprofessional elements, of the industrial organizer, the electrical andmechanical engineer, the technical specialist, the scientist, inventor, chemist, the educator, doctor, and surgeon. In short, the proletariat absolutely needs the aid of certain professional elements
without whose coöperation no productive labor is possible.
Most of those professional men in reality also belong to the proletariat. They are the intellectual proletariat, the proletariat of brain.
It is clear that it makes no difference whether one earns his livingwith his hands or with his head. As a matter of fact, no work is done
only with the hands or only with the brain. The application of bothis required in every kind of effort. The carpenter, for instance, must
estimate, measure, and figure in the course of his task: he must use
both hand and brain. Similarly the architect must think out his plan
before it can be drawn on paper and put to practical use.
“But only labor can produce,” your friend objects; “brain work is
not productive.”
Wrong, my friend. Neither manual labor nor brain work can produce anything alone. It requires both, working together, to create
something. The bricklayer and mason can’t build the factory without the architect’s plans, nor can the architect erect a bridge without the iron and steel worker. Neither can produce alone. But both
together can accomplish wonders.
Furthermore, do not fall into the error of believing that only productive labor counts. There is much work that is not directly productive, but which is useful and even absolutely necessary to ourexistence and comfort, and therefore just as important as productive labor.
Take the railroad engineer and contractor, for instance. They are
not producers, but they are essential factors in the system of production. Without the railroads and other means of transport andcommunication we could manage neither production nor distribution.
236

Chapter 21: Is Anarchy
Possible?
“It might be possible,” you say, “if we could do without government. But can we?”
Perhaps we can best answer your question by examining yourown life.
What rôle does the government play in your existence? Does it
help you live? Does it feed, clothe, and shelter you? Do you need it
to help you work or play? If you are ill, do you call the physician or
the policeman? Can the government give you greater ability thannature endowed you with? Can it save you from sickness, old age,or death?
Consider your daily life and you will find that in reality the government is no factor in it at all except when it begins to interfere inyour affairs, when it compels you to do certain things or prohibits
you from doing others. It forces you, for instance, to pay taxes andsupport it, whether you want to or not. It makes you don a uniform and join the army. It invades your personal life, orders you
about, coerces you, prescribes your behavior, and generally treats
you as it pleases. It tells you even what you must believe and punishes you for thinking and acting otherwise. It directs you what toeat and drink, and imprisons or shoots you for disobeying. It commands you and dominates every step of your life. It treats you as abad boy or as an irresponsible child who needs the strong hand of aguardian, but if you disobey it holds you responsible, nevertheless.
We shall consider later the details of life under Anarchy and see
what conditions and institutions will exist in that form of society,185how they will function, and what effect they are likely to have uponman.
For the present we want to make sure first that such a conditionis possible, that Anarchy is practicable.
What is the existence of the average man to-day? Almost all yourtime is given to earning your livelihood. You are so busy making aliving that you hardly have time left to live, to enjoy life. Neither
the time nor the money. You are lucky if you have some source of
support, some job. Now and then comes slack-time: there is unemployment and thousands are thrown out of work, every year, inevery country.
That time means no income, no wages. It results in worry andprivation, in disease, desperation, and suicide. It spells poverty andcrime. To alleviate that poverty we build homes of charity, poorhouses, free hospitals, all of which you support with your taxes. To
prevent crime and to punish the criminals it is again you who haveto support police, detectives, State forces, judges, lawyers, prisons,keepers. Can you imagine anything more senseless and impractical? The legislatures pass laws, the judges interpret them, the various officials execute them, the police track and arrest the criminal,
and finally the prison warden gets him into custody. Numerous
persons and institutions are busy keeping the jobless man fromstealing and punish him if he tries to. Then he is provided with themeans of existence, the lack of which had made him break the law
in the first place. After a shorter or longer term he is turned loose.
If he fails to get work he begins the same round of theft, arrest, trial,and imprisonment all over again.
This is a rough but typical illustration of the stupid character ofour system; stupid and inefficient. Law and government support
that system.
Is it not peculiar that most people imagine we could not do without government, when in fact our real life has no connection with
it whatever, no need of it, and is only interfered with where law
and government step in?
186

no friendship or direct coöperation between the two. Worse thanthat — and no doubt the result of it-there is a certain dislike andantagonism between the proletarians of field and factory. The city
man has too little appreciation of the hard and exhausting toil ofthe farmer. The latter instinctively resents it; moreover, unfamiliar
with the strenuous and often dangerous labor of the factory, thefarmer is apt to look upon the city worker as an idler. A closer
approach and better understanding between the two is absolutely
vital. Capitalism thrives not so much on division of work as on
the division of the workers. It seeks to incite race against race, thefactory hand against the farmer, the laborer against the skilled man,the workers of one country against those of another. The strengthof the exploiting class lies in disunited, divided labor. But the social
revolution requires the unity of the toiling masses, and first of all
the coöperation of the factory-proletarian with his brother in thefield.
A nearer approach between the two is an important step in
preparation for the social revolution. Actual contact between
them is of prime necessity. Joint councils, exchange of delegates, asystem of coöperatives, and other similar methods, would tend toform a closer bond and better understanding between the worker
and farmer.
But it is not only the coöperation of the factory proletarian withthe farm laborer which is necessary for the revolution. There isanother element absolutely needed in its constructive work. It is
the trained mind of the professional man.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that the world has been
built with hands only. It has also required brains. Similarly does
the revolution need both the man of brawn and the man of brain.
Many people imagine that the manual worker alone can do theentire work of society. It is a false idea, a very grave error that canbring no end of harm. In fact, this conception has worked great evil
on previous occasions, and there is good reason to fear that it may
defeat the best efforts of the revolution.
235

other. But the social revolution is not a mere political change: it
is a fundamental economic, ethical, and cultural transformation. A
conspirative minority or political party undertaking such a work
must meet with the active and passive opposition of the great majority and therefore degenerate into a system of dictatorship andterror.
In the face of a hostile majority the social revolution is doomed
to failure from its very beginning. It means, then, that the firstpreparatory work of the revolution consists in winning over themasses at large in favor of the revolution and its objects, winningthem over, at least, to the extent of neutralizing them, of turningthem from active enemies to passive sympathizers, so that they
may not fight against the revolution even if they do not fight for it.
The actual, positive work of the social revolution must, of course,
be carried on by the toilers themselves, by the laboring people. And
here let us bear in mind that it is not only the factory hand who
belongs to labor but the farm worker as well. Some radicals are
inclined to lay too much stress on the industrial proletariat, almost
ignoring the existence of the agricultural toiler. Yet what could thefactory worker accomplish without the farmer? Agriculture is theprimal source of life, and the city would starve but for the country.
It is idle to compare the industrial worker with the farm laborer or
discuss their relative value. Neither can do without the other; bothare equally important in the scheme of life and equally so in therevolution and the building of a new society.
It is true that revolution first breaks out in industrial localities
rather than in agricultural. This is natural, since these are greater
centers of laboring population and therefore also of popular dissatisfaction. But if the industrial proletariat is the advance-guardof revolution, then the farm laborer is its backbone. If the latter isweak or broken, the advance-guard, the revolution itself, is lost.
Therefore, the work of the social revolution lies in the hands ofboth the industrial worker and the farm laborer. Unfortunately it
must be admitted that there is too little understanding and almost
234“But security and public order,” you object, “could we have thatwithout law and government? Who will protect us against the criminal?”
The truth is that what is called “law and order” is really the worst
disorder, as we have seen in previous chapters. What little orderand peace we do have is due to the good common sense and joint
efforts of the people, mostly in spite of the government. Do you
need government to tell you not to step in front of a moving automobile? Do you need it to order you not to jump off the Brooklyn
Bridge or from the Eiffel Tower?
Man is a social being: he cannot exist alone; he lives in communities or societies. Mutual need and common interests result incertain arrangements to afford us security and comfort. Such coworking is free, voluntary; it needs no compulsion by any government. You join a sporting club or a singing society because yourinclinations lie that way, and you coöerate with the other members without any one coercing you. The man of science, the writer,
the artist, and the inventor seek their own kind for inspiration andmutual work. Their impulses and needs are their best urge: the interference of any government or authority can only hinder theirefforts.
All through life you will find that the needs and inclinations ofpeople make for association, for mutual protection and help. Thatis the difference between managing things and governing men; between doing something from free choice and being compelled. It is
the difference between liberty and constraint, between Anarchismand government, because Anarchism means voluntary coöperation
instead of forced participation. It means harmony and order inplace of interference and disorder.
“But who will protect us against crime and criminals?” you demand.
Rather ask yourself whether government really protects us
against them. Does not government itself create and uphold conditions which make for crime? Does not the invasion and violence187upon which all governments rest cultivate the spirit of intolerance
and persecution, of hatred and more violence? Does not crime
increase with the growth of poverty and injustice fostered bygovernment? Is not government itself the greatest injustice andcrime?
Crime is the result of economic conditions, of social inequality,of wrongs and evils of which government and monopoly are theparents. Government and law can only punish the criminal. Theyneither cure nor prevent crime. The only real cure for crime is toabolish its causes, and this the government can never do because
it is there to preserve those very causes. Crime can be eliminatedonly by doing away with the conditions that create it. Government
cannot do it.
Anarchism means to do away with those conditions. Crimes resulting from government, from its oppression and injustice, frominequality and poverty, will disappear under Anarchy. These constitute by far the greatest percentage of crime.
Certain other crimes will persist for some time, such as thoseresulting from jealousy, passion, and from the spirit of coercion andviolence which dominates the world to-day. But these, the offspringof authority and possession, will also gradually disappear underwholesome conditions with the passing away of the atmospherethat cultivated them.
Anarchy will therefore neither breed crime nor offer any soil
for its thriving. Occasional anti-social acts will be looked upon as
survivals of former diseased conditions and attitudes, and will betreated as an unhealthy state of mind rather than as crime.
Anarchy would begin by feeding the “criminal” and securing
him work instead of first watching him, arresting, trying, and imprisoning him, and finally ending by feeding him and the manyothers who have to watch and feed him. Surely even this example
shows how much more sensible and simpler life would be underAnarchism than now.

188

be.” Such a fatalistic notion is destructive to all initiative and theexercise of one’s mind and will.
It is a dangerous and harmful idea. There is no power outsideof man which can free him, none which can charge him with any“mission.” Neither heaven nor history can do it. History is the storyof what has happened. It can teach a lesson but not impose a task.
It is not the “mission” but the interest of the proletariat to emancipate itself from bondage. If labor does not consciously and actively
strive for it, it will never “happen.” It is necessary to free ourselvesfrom the stupid and false notion of “historic missions.” It is only by
growing to a true realization of their present position, by visualizing their possibilities and powers, by learning unity and coöperation, and practicing them, that the masses can attain freedom. In
achieving that they will also have liberated the rest of mankind.
Because of this the proletarian struggle is the concern of every
one, and all sincere men and women should therefore be at the service of labor in its great task. Indeed, though only the toilers canaccomplish the work of emancipation they need the aid of othersocial groups. For you must remember that the revolution faces
the difficult problem of reorganizing the world and building a newcivilization — a work that will require the greatest revolutionary
integrity and the intelligent coöperation of all well-meaning andliberty-loving elements. We already know that the social revolution is not a matter of abolishing capitalism only. We might turnout capitalism, as feudalism was got rid of, and still remain slaves as
before. Instead of being, as now, the bondmen of private monopoly
we might become the servants of State capitalism, as has happened
to the people in Russia, for instance, and as conditions are developing in Italy and other lands.
The social revolution, it must never be forgotten, is not to alter
one form of subjection for another, but is to do away with everything that can enslave and oppress you.
A political revolution may be carried to a successful issue by
a conspirative minority, putting one ruling faction in place of an233

But now we understand that true liberty is not a matter of changing kings or rulers. We know that the whole system of master andslave must go, that the entire social scheme is wrong, that government and compulsion must be abolished, that the very foundationsof authority and monopoly must be uprooted. Do you still think
any kind of preparation for such a great task can be too difficult?
Let us, then, fully realize how important it is to prepare for thesocial revolution, and to prepare for it in the right way.
“But what is the right way?” you demand. “And who is to prepare?”
Who is to prepare? First of all, you and I — those who are interested in the success of the revolution, those who want to help
bring it about. And you and I means every man and woman; atleast every decent man and woman, every one who hates oppression and loves liberty, every one who cannot endure the miseryand injustice which fill the world to-day.
And above all it is those who suffer most from existing conditions, from wage slavery, subjection, and indignity.
“The workers, of course,” you say.
Yes, the workers. As the worst victims of present institutions, it isto their own interest to abolish them. It has been truly said that “theemancipation of the workers must be accomplished by the workers
themselves,” for no other social class will do it for them. Yet labor’s
emancipation means at the same time the redemption of the wholeof society, and that is why some people speak of labor’s “historic
mission” to bring about the better day.
But “mission” is the wrong word. It suggests a duty or task imposed on one from the outside, by some external power. It is afalse and misleading conception, essentially a religious, metaphysical sentiment. Indeed, if the emancipation of labor is a “historic
mission,” then history will see to it that it is carried out no matter
what we may think, feel, or do about it. This attitude makes human effort unnecessary, superfluous; because “what must be will232

The truth is, present life is impractical, complex and confused,and not satisfactory from any point of view. That is why there is somuch misery and discontent. The worker is not satisfied; nor is themaster happy in his constant anxiety over “bad times” involving
loss of property and power. The specter of fear for to-morrow dogs
the steps of poor and rich alike.
Certainly the worker has nothing to lose by a change from government and capitalism to a condition of no government, of Anarchy.
The middle classes are almost as uncertain of their existence as
the workers. They are dependent upon the good will of the manufacturer and wholesaler, of the large combines of industry andcapital, and they are always in danger of bankruptcy and ruin.
Even the big capitalist has little to lose by the changing of thepresent-day system to one of Anarchy, for under the latter every
one would be assured of living and comfort; the fear of competition
would be eliminated with the abolition of private ownership. Everyone would have full and unhindered opportunity to live and enjoy
his life to the utmost of his capacity.
Add to this the consciousness of peace and harmony; the feeling that comes with freedom from financial or material worries;
the realization that you are in a friendly world with no envy orbusiness rivalry to disturb your mind; in a world of brothers, in an
atmosphere of liberty and general welfare.
It is almost impossible to conceive of the wonderful opportunities which would open up to man in a society of Communist Anarchism. The scientist could fully devote himself to his beloved pursuits, without being harassed about his daily bread. The inventor
would find every facility at his disposal to benefit humanity by his
discoveries and inventions. The writer, the poet, the artist — allwould rise on the wings of liberty and social harmony to greater
heights of attainment.
Only then would justice and right come into their own. Do notunderestimate the rôle of these sentiments in the life of man or na189

tion. We do not live by bread alone. True, existence is not possible
without opportunity to satisfy our physical needs. But the gratification of these by no means constitutes all of life. Our present system of civilization has, by disinheriting millions, made the belly thecenter of the universe, so to speak. But in a sensible society, withplenty for all, the matter of mere existence, the security of a livelihood would be considered self-evident and free as the air is for all.
The feelings of human sympathy, of justice and right would have achance to develop, to be satisfied, to broaden and grow. Even to-day
the sense of justice and fair play is still alive in the heart of man, in
spite of centuries of repression and perversion. It has not been exterminated, it cannot be exterminated because it is inborn, innate inman, an instinct as strong as that of self-preservation, and just as vital to our happiness. For not all the misery we have in the world today comes from the lack of material welfare. Man can better standstarvation than the consciousness of injustice. The consciousness
that you are treated unjustly will rouse you to protest and rebellion
just as quickly as hunger, perhaps even quicker. Hunger may be theimmediate cause of every rebellion or uprising, but beneath it is theslumbering antagonism and hatred of the masses against those at
whose hands they are suffering injustice and wrong. The truth isthat right and justice play a far more important rôle in our lives
than most people are aware of. Those who would deny this know
as little of human nature as of history. In every-day life you constantly see people grow indignant at what they consider to be an
injustice. “That isn’t right,” is the instinctive protest of man when
he feels wrong done. Of course, every one’s conception of wrong
and right depends on his traditions, environment and bringing up.
But whatever his conception, his natural impulse is to resent what
he thinks wrong and unjust.
Historically the same holds true. More rebellions and wars havebeen fought for ideas of right and wrong than because of material
reasons. Marxists may object that our views of right and wrong
are themselves formed by economic conditions, but that in no way
190

it break down over your head, rather than to do it efficiently, even
if it requires longer and harder work.
Remember that the social revolution represents the liberty andwelfare of the whole of mankind, that the complete and final emancipation of labor depends upon it. Consider also that if the work isbadly done, all the effort and suffering involved in it will be fornothing and perhaps even worse than for nothing, because making a botch job of revolution means putting a new tyranny in placeof the old, and new tyrannies, because they are new, have a newlease on life. It means forging new chains which are stronger thanthe old.
Consider also that the social revolution we have in mind is to accomplish the work that many generations of men have been laboring to achieve, for the whole history of man has been a struggle ofliberty against servitude, of social well-being against poverty andwretchedness, of justice against iniquity. What we call progresshas been a painful but continuous march in the direction of limiting authority and the power of government and increasing therights and liberties of the individual, of the masses. It has been astruggle that has taken thousands of years. The reason that it took
such a long time — and is not ended yet — is because people did notknow what the real trouble was: they fought against this and forthat, they changed kings and formed new governments, they put
out one ruler only to set up another, they drove away a “foreign”
oppressor only to suffer the yoke of a native one, they abolished
one form of tyranny, such as the Tsars, and submitted to that of aparty dictatorship, and always and ever they shed their blood andheroically sacrificed their lives in the hope of securing liberty andwelfare.
But they secured only new masters, because however desperately and nobly they fought, they never touched the real sourceof trouble, the principle of authority and government. They did notknow that that was the fountainhead of enslavement and oppression, and therefore they never succeeded in gaining liberty.
231

delicate flower is, for indeed it is the flower of a new and beautiful
existence.
Do not dupe yourself with the silly notion that “things will arrange themselves.” Nothing ever arranges itself, least of all in human relations. It is men who do the arranging, and they do it according to their attitude and understanding of things.
New situations and changed conditions make us feel, think, andact in a different manner. But the new conditions themselves comeabout only as a result of new feelings and ideas. The social revolution is such a new condition. We must learn to think differently
before the revolution can come. That alone can bring the revolution.
We must learn to think differently about government and authority, for as long as we think and act as we do to-day, there will
be intolerance, persecution, and oppression, even when organized
government is abolished. We must learn to respect the humanityof our fellow-man, not to invade him or coerce him, to consider his
liberty as sacred as our own; to respect his freedom and his personality, to foreswear compulsion in any form: to understand thatthe cure for the evils of liberty is more liberty, that liberty is themother of order.
And furthermore we must learn that equality means equal opportunity, that monopoly is the denial of it, and that only brotherhood secures equality. We can learn this only by freeing ourselvesfrom the false ideas of capitalism and of property, of mine and thine,of the narrow conception of ownership.
By learning this we shall grow into the spirit of true liberty
and solidarity, and know that free association is the soul of every
achievement. We shall then realize that the social revolution is thework of coöperation, of solidaric purpose, of mutual effort.
Maybe you think this too slow a process, a work that will take
too long. Yes, I must admit that it is a difficult task. But ask yourself
if it is better to build your new house quickly and badly and have230

alters the fact that the sense of justice and right has at all times
inspired people to heroism and self-sacrifice in behalf of ideals.
The Christs and the Buddhas of all ages were not prompted bymaterial considerations but by their devotion to justice and right.
The pioneers in every human endeavor have suffered calumny, persecution, even death, not for motives of personal aggrandizement
but because of their faith in the justice of their cause. The John
Husses, the Luthers, Brunos, Savonarolas, Gallileos and numerous
other religious and social idealists fought and died championing
the cause of right as they saw it. Similarly in paths of science, philosophy, art, poetry, and education men from the time of Socrates
to modern days have devoted their lives to the service of truth andjustice. In the field of political and social advancement, beginningwith Moses and Spartacus, the noblest of humanity have consecrated themselves to ideals of liberty and equality. Nor is this compelling power of idealism limited only to exceptional individuals.
The masses have always been inspired by it. The American War of
Independence, for instance, began with popular resentment in theColonies against the injustice of taxation without representation.
The Crusades continued for two hundred years in an effort to secure the Holy Land for the Christians. This religious ideal inspired
six millions of men, even armies of children, to face untold hardships, pestilence, and death in the name of right and justice. Even
the late World War, capitalistic as it was in cause and result, wasfought by millions of men in the fond belief that it was being waged
for a just cause, for democracy and the termination of all wars.
So all through history, past and modern, the sense of right andjustice has inspired man, individually and collectively, to deeds ofself-sacrifice and devotion, and raised him far above the mean drabness of his every-day existence. It is tragic, of course, that this idealism expressed itself in acts of persecution, violence, and slaughter.
It was the viciousness and self-seeking of king, priest, and master,ignorance and fanaticism which determined those forms. But thespirit that filled them was that of right and justice. All past expe191

rience proves that this spirit is ever alive and that it is a powerfuland dominant factor in the whole scale of human life.
The conditions of our present-day existence weaken and vitiate
this noblest trait of man, pervert its manifestation, and turn it intochannels of intolerance, persecution, hatred, and strife. But once
man is freed from the corrupting influences of material interests,
lifted out of ignorance and class antagonism, his innate spirit ofright and justice would find new forms of expression, forms thatwould tend toward greater brotherhood and good will, toward individual peace and social harmony.
Only under Anarchy could this spirit come into its full development. Liberated from the degrading and brutalizing struggle for ourdaily bread, all sharing in labor and well-being, the best qualities
of man’s heart and mind would have opportunity for growth andbeneficial application. Man would indeed become the noble workof nature that he has till now visioned himself only in his dreams.
It is for these reasons that Anarchy is the ideal not only of someparticular element or class, but of all humanity, because it would
benefit, in the largest sense, all of us. For Anarchism is the formulation of a universal and perennial desire of mankind.
Every man and woman, therefore, should be vitally interested inhelping to bring Anarchy about. They would surely do so if they
but understood the beauty and justice of such a new life. Every
human being who is not devoid of feeling and common sense is
inclined to Anarchism. Every one who suffers from wrong and injustice, from the evil, corruption, and filth of our present-day life,
is instinctively sympathetic to Anarchy. Every one whose heart is
not dead to kindness, compassion, and fellow-sympathy must be
interested in furthering it. Every one who has to endure poverty
and misery, tyranny and oppression should welcome the coming ofAnarchy. Every liberty and justice-loving man and woman should
help realize it.
And foremost and most vitally of all the subjected and submerged of the world must be interested in it. Those who build
192

The wealth of the rich? Nay, that is something we want the wholeof society to enjoy.
The land, the fields, the coal mines, the railroads, factories, mills,
and shops? These we want not to destroy but to make useful to theentire people.
The telegraphs, telephones, the means of communication and distribution — do we want to destroy them? No, we want them toserve the needs of all.
What, then, is the social revolution to destroy? It is to take overthings for the general benefit, not to destroy them. It is to reorganize conditions for the public welfare.
Not to destroy is the aim of the revolution, but to reconstruct
and rebuild.
It is for this that preparation is needed, because the social revolution is not the Biblical Messiah who is to accomplish his mission bysimple edict or order. Revolution works with the hands and brainsof men. And these have to understand the objects of the revolution
so as to be able to carry them out. They will have to know what theywant and how to achieve it. The way to achieve it will be pointed by
the objects to be attained. For the end determines the means, just
as you have to sow a particular seed to grow the thing you need.
What, then, must the preparation for the social revolution be?
If your object is to secure liberty, you must learn to do withoutauthority and compulsion. If you intend to live in peace and harmony with your fellow-men, you and they should cultivate brotherhood and respect for each other. If you want to work together withthem for your mutual benefit, you must practice coöperation. The
social revolution means much more than the reorganization of conditions only: it means the establishment of new human values andsocial relationships, a changed attitude of man to man, as of one
free and independent to his equal; it means a different spirit in individual and collective life, and that spirit cannot be born overnight.
It is a spirit to be cultivated, to be nurtured and reared, as the most229

that you have to do. The fighting part of revolution is merely therolling up of your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead.
What is that task?
“The destruction of the existing conditions,” you reply.
True. But conditions are not destroyed by breaking and smashing
things. You can’t destroy wage slavery by wrecking the machineryin mills and factories, can you? You won’t destroy government by
setting fire to the White House.
To think of revolution in terms of violence and destruction is tomisinterpret and falsify the whole idea of it. In practical applicationsuch a conception is bound to lead to disastrous results.
When a great thinker, like the famous Anarchist Bakunin, speaksof revolution as destruction, he has in mind the ideas of authority
and obedience which are to be destroyed. It is for this reason that
he said that destruction means construction, for to destroy a false
belief is indeed most constructive work.
But the average man, and too often even the revolutionist,
thoughtlessly talks of revolution as being exclusively destructivein the physical sense of the word. That is a wrong and dangerous
view. The sooner we get rid of it the better.
Revolution, and particularly the social revolution, is not destruction but construction. This cannot be sufficiently emphasized, andunless we clearly realize it, revolution will remain only destructive
and thereby always a failure. Naturally revolution is accompanied
by violence, but you might as well say that building a new housein place of an old one is destructive because you have first to teardown the old one. Revolution is the culminating point of a certain
evolutionary process: it begins with a violent upheaval. It is therolling up of your sleeves preparatory to starting the actual work.
Indeed, consider what the social revolution is to do, what it is toaccomplish, and you will perceive that it comes not to destroy but
to build.
What, really, is there to destroy?

228

palaces and live in hovels; who set the table of life but are notpermitted to partake of the repast; who create the wealth of theworld and are disinherited; who fill life with joy and sunshine, andthemselves remain scorned in the depths of darkness; the Samsonof life shorn of his strength by the hand of fear and ignorance;
the helpless Giant of Labor, the proletariat of brain and brawn,
the industrial and agrarian masses — these should most gladly
embrace Anarchy.
It is to them that Anarchism makes the strongest appeal; it isthey who, first and foremost, must work for the new day that is to
give them back their inheritance and bring liberty and well-being,
joy and sunshine to the whole of mankind.
“A splendid thing,” you remark; “but will it work? And how shallwe attain it?”193

Chapter 22: Will Communist
Anarchism Work?
As we have seen in the preceding chapter, no life can be free andsecure, harmonious and satisfactory unless it is built on principles
of justice and fair play. The first requirement of justice is equal
liberty and opportunity.
Under government and exploitation there can be neither equal
liberty nor equal opportunity — hence all the evils and troubles ofpresent-day society.
Communist Anarchism is based on the understanding of thisincontrovertible truth. It is founded on the principle of noninvasiveness and non-coercion; in other words, on liberty andopportunity.
Life on such a basis fully satisfies the demands of justice. You
are to be entirely free, and everybody else is to enjoy equal liberty,
which means that no one has a right to compel or force another,for coercion of any kind is interference with your liberty.
Similarly equal opportunity is the heritage of all. Monopoly andthe private ownership of the means of existence are therefore eliminated as an abridgement of the equal opportunity of all.
If we keep in mind this simple principle of equal liberty and opportunity, we shall be able to solve the questions involved in building a society of Communist Anarchism.
Politically, then, man will recognize no authority which canforce or coerce him. Government will be abolished.
Economically he will permit no exclusive possession of thesources of life in order to preserve his opportunity of free access.
194

Chapter 26: Preparation“Prepare for revolution!” exclaims your friend; “is that possible?
Yes. Not only is it possible but absolutely necessary.
“Do you refer to secret preparations, armed bands, and men tolead the fight?” you ask.
No, my friend, not that at all.
If the social revolution meant only street battles and barricades,
then the preparations you have in mind would be the thing. But
revolution does not signify that; at least the fighting phase of it is
the smallest and least important part.
The truth is, in modern times revolution does not mean barricades any more. These belong to the past. The social revolution is afar different and more essential matter: it involves the reorganization of the entire life of society. You will agree that this is certainly
not to be accomplished by mere fighting.
Of course, the obstacles in the path of the social reconstruction
have to be removed. That is to say the means of that reconstruction must be secured by the masses. Those means are at present
in the hands of government and capitalism, and these will resist
every effort to deprive them of their power and possessions. That
resistance will involve a fight. But remember that the fight is not
the main thing, is not the object, not the revolution. It is only the
preface, the preliminary to it.
It is very necessary that you get this straight. Most people havevery confused notions about revolution. To them it means justfighting, smashing things, destroying. It is the same as if rollingup your sleeves for work should be considered as the work itself

227

What and how?

226

Monopoly of land, private ownership of the machinery of production, distribution, and communication can therefore not be tolerated under Anarchy. Opportunity to use what every one needsin order to live must be free to all.
In a nutshell, then, the meaning of Communist Anarchism is this:the abolition of government, of coercive authority and all its agencies, and joint ownership-which means free and equal participationin the general work and welfare.
“You said that Anarchy will secure economic equality,” remarks
your friend. “Does that mean equal pay for all?”It does. Or, what amounts to the same, equal participation in the
public welfare. Because, as we already know, labor is social. No
man can create anything all by himself, by his own efforts. Now,then, if labor is social, it stands to reason that the results of it, thewealth produced, must also be social, belong to the collectivity. No
person can therefore justly lay claim to the exclusive ownership of
the social wealth. It is to be enjoyed by all alike.
“But why not give each according to the value of his work?” youask.
Because there is no way by which value can be measured. Thatis the difference between value and price. Value is what a thing is
worth, while price is what it can be sold or bought for in the market.
What a thing is worth no one really can tell. Political economists
generally claim that the value of a commodity is the amount of labor required to produce it, of “socially necessary labor,” as Marxsays. But evidently it is not a just standard of measurement. Suppose the carpenter worked three hours to make a kitchen chair,
while the surgeon took only half an hour to perform an operationthat saved your life. If the amount of labor used determines value,then the chair is worth more than your life. Obvious nonsense, ofcourse. Even if you should count in the years of study and practicethe surgeon needed to make him capable of performing the operation, how are you going to decide what “an hour of operating” isworth? The carpenter and mason also had to be trained before they195

could do their work properly, but you don’t figure in those years
of apprenticeship when you contract for some work with them. Besides, there is also to be considered the particular ability and aptitude that every worker, writer, artist or physician must exercise in
his labors. That is a purely individual, personal factor. How are you
going to estimate its value?
That is why value cannot be determined. The same thing may be
worth a lot to one person while it is worth nothing or very little toanother. It may be worth much or little even to the same person,at different times. A diamond, a painting, or a book may be worth
a great deal to one man and very little to another. A loaf of breadwill be worth a great deal to you when you are hungry, and muchless when you are not. Therefore the real value of a thing cannot
be ascertained; it is an unknown quantity.
But the price is easily found out. If there are five loaves of breadto be had and ten persons want to get a loaf each, the price of breadwill rise. If there are ten loaves and only five buyers, then it will fall.
Price depends on supply and demand.
The exchange of commodities by means of prices leads to profit
making, to taking advantage and exploitation; in short, to someform of capitalism. If you do away with profits, you cannot haveany price system, nor any system of wages or payment. That meansthat exchange must be according to value. But as value is uncertain
or not ascertainable, exchange must consequently be free, without“equal” value, since such does not exist. In other words, labor and its
products must be exchanged without price, without profit, freely,
according to necessity. This logically leads to ownership in common and to joint use. Which is a sensible, just, and equitable system, and is known as Communism.
“But is it just that all should share alike?” you demand. “The manof brains and the dullard, the efficient and the inefficient, all thesame? Should there be no distinction, no special recognition for
those of ability?”

196

fight — the political parties fought over the spoils to the detrimentof the revolution and to the ruin of the people.
This is, then, what took place in Russia. The peasant, having secured the land, did not have the tools and machinery he needed.
The worker, having taken possession of the machinery and factories, did not know how to handle them to accomplish his aims. In
other words, he did not have the experience necessary to organize
production and he could not manage the distribution of the things
he was producing.
His own efforts — the worker’s, the peasant’s, the soldier’s — haddone away with Tsardom, paralyzed the Government, stopped thewar, and abolished private ownership of land and machinery. For
that he was prepared by years of revolutionary education and agitation. But for no more than that. And because he was prepared for no
more, where his knowledge ceased and definite purpose was lacking, there stepped in the political party and took affairs out of thehands of the masses who had made the revolution. Politics replaced
economic reconstruction and thereby sounded the death knell of
the social revolution; for people live by bread, by economics, notby politics.
Food and supplies are not created by decree of party or government. Legislative edicts don’t till the soil; laws can’t turn the wheelsof industry. Dissatisfaction, strife, and famine came upon the heelsof government coercion and dictatorship. Again, as always, politics
and authority proved the swamp in which the revolutionary fires
became extinguished.
Let us learn this most vital lesson: thorough understanding by
the masses of the true aims of revolution means success. Carryingout their conscious will by their own efforts guarantees the rightdevelopment of the new life. On the other hand, lack of this understanding and of preparation means certain defeat, either at thehands of reaction or by the experimental theories of would-be political party friends.
Let us prepare, then.
225

the justice and practicability of a social life based on liberty; prepared, moreover, by making the masses realize very clearly justwhat they need and how to bring it about.
Such preparation is not only an absolutely necessary preliminary step. Therein lies also the safety of the revolution, the only
guarantee of its accomplishing its objects.
It has been the fate of most revolutions — as a result of lack of
preparation — to be sidetracked from their main purpose, to be misused and led into blind alleys. Russia is the best recent illustrationof it. The February Revolution, which sought to do away with the
autocracy, was entirely successful. The people knew exactly what
they wanted; namely the abolition of Tsardom. All the machinations of politicians, all the oratory and schemes of the Lvovs andMiliukovs — the “liberal” leaders of those days could not save theRomanov régime in the face of the intelligent and conscious willof the people. It was this clear understanding of its aims which
made the February Revolution a complete success, with, mind you,almost no bloodshed.
Furthermore, neither appeals nor threats by the Provisional Government could avail against the determination of the people to end
the war. The armies left the fronts and thus terminated the matterby their own direct action. The will of a people conscious of theirobjects always conquers.
It was the will of the people again, their resolute aim to get holdof the soil, which secured for the peasant the land he needed. Similarly the city workers, as repeatedly mentioned before, possessed
themselves of the factories and the machinery of production.
So far the Russian Revolution was a complete success. But at the
point where the masses lacked the consciousness of definite purpose, defeat began. That is always the moment when politicians
and political parties step in to exploit the revolution for their own
uses or to experiment their theories upon it. This happened in Russia, as in many previous revolutions. The people fought the good224

Let me in turn ask you, my friend, shall we punish the man
whom nature has not endowed as generously as his stronger ormore talented neighbor? Shall we add injustice to the handicap nature has put upon him? All we can reasonably expect from any man
is that he do his best — can any one do more? And if John’s best is
not as good as his brother Jim’s, it is his misfortune, but in no casea fault to be punished.
There is nothing more dangerous than discrimination. The moment you begin discriminating against the less capable, you establish conditions that breed dissatisfaction and resentment: you invite envy, discord, and strife. You would think it brutal to withholdfrom the less capable the air or water they need. Should not thesame principle apply to the other wants of man? After all, the matter of food, clothing, and shelter is the smallest item in the world’s
economy.
The surest way to get one to do his best is not by discriminating
against him, but by treating him on an equal footing with others.
That is the most effective encouragement and stimulus. It is justand human.
“But what will you do with the lazy man, the man who does notwant to work?” inquires your friend.
That is an interesting question, and you will probably be verymuch surprised when I say that there is really no such thing as
laziness. What we call a lazy man is generally a square man in around hole. That is, the right man in the wrong place. And you will
always find that when a fellow is in the wrong place, he will beinefficient or shiftless. For so-called laziness and a good deal of inefficiency are merely unfitness, misplacement. If you are compelled
to do the thing you are unfitted for by your inclinations or temperament, you will be inefficient at it; if you are forced to do work you
are not interested in, you will be lazy at it.
Every one who has managed affairs in which large numbers ofmen were employed can substantiate this. Life in prison is a particularly convincing proof of the truth of it — and, after all, present-day
197

existence for most people is but that of a larger jail. Every prison
warden will tell you that inmates put to tasks for which they haveno ability or interest are always lazy and subject to continuous punishment. But as soon as these “refractory convicts” are assigned towork that appeals to their leanings, they become “model men,” asthe jailers term them.
Russia has also signally demonstrated the verity of it. It has
shown how little we know of human potentialities and of theeffect of environment upon them — how we mistake wrong
conditions for bad conduct. Russian refugees, leading a miserable
and insignificant life in foreign lands, on returning home andfinding in the Revolution a proper field for their activities, haveaccomplished most wonderful work in their right sphere, havedeveloped into brilliant organizers, builders of railroads and creators of industry. Among the Russian names best known abroad
to-day are those of men considered shiftless and inefficient underconditions where their ability and energies could not find proper
application.
That is human nature: efficiency in a certain direction means
inclination and capability for it; industry and application signify
interest. That is why there is so much inefficiency and laziness inthe world to-day. For who indeed is nowadays in his right place?
Who works at what he really likes and is interested in?
Under present conditions there is little choice given the average
man to devote himself to the tasks that appeal to his leanings andpreferences. The accident of your birth and social station generally
predetermines your trade or profession. The son of the financier
does not, as a rule, become a woodchopper, though he may be more
fit to handle logs than bank accounts. The middle classes send theirchildren to colleges which turn them into doctors, lawyers, or engineers. But if your parents were workers who could not afford tolet you study, the chances are that you will take any job which isoffered you, or enter some trade that happens to afford you an apprenticeship. Your particular situation will decide your work or pro198

We see, then, that revolutions, though they cannot be made, canbe hastened by certain factors; namely, by pressure from above: bymore intense political and economical oppression; and by pressure
from below: by greater enlightenment and agitation. These spreadthe ideas; they further evolution and thereby also the coming ofrevolution.
But pressure from above, though hastening revolution, may also
cause its failure, because such revolution is apt to break out before
the evolutionary process has been sufficiently advanced. Coming
prematurely, as it were, it will fizzle out in mere rebellion; that is,
without clear, conscious aim and purpose. At best, rebellion cansecure only some temporary alleviation; the real causes of the strife,
however, remain intact and continue to operate to the same effect,to cause further dissatisfaction and rebellion.
Summing up what I have said about revolution, we must cometo the conclusion that:
1. a social revolution is one that entirely changes the foundation of society, its political, economic, and social character;2. such a change must first take place in the ideas and opinionsof the people, in the minds of men;
3. oppression and misery may hasten revolution, but may
thereby also turn it into failure, because lack of evolutionary
preparation will make real accomplishment impossible;
4. only that revolution can be fundamental, social, and successful which will be the expression of a basic change of ideas
and opinions.
From this it obviously follows that the social revolution must
be prepared. Prepared in the sense of furthering the evolutionary
process, of enlightening the people about the evils of present-day
society and convincing them of the desirability and possibility, of223

the foundation of life is economics, the social revolution means thereorganization of the industrial, economic life of the country andconsequently also of the entire structure of society.
But we have seen that the social structure rests on the basisof ideas, which implies that changing the structure presupposeschanged ideas. In other words, social ideas must change first before a new social structure can be built.
The social revolution, therefore, is not an accident, not a sudden
happening. There is nothing sudden about it, for ideas don’t change
suddenly. They grow slowly, gradually, like the plant or flower.
Hence the social revolution is a result, a development, which meansthat it is revolutionary. It develops to the point when considerable numbers of people have embraced the new ideas and are determined to put them into practice. When they attempt to do so
and meet with opposition, then the slow, quiet, and peaceful social
evolution becomes quick, militant, and violent. Evolution becomesrevolution.
Bear in mind, then, that evolution and revolution are not two
separate and different things. Still less are they opposites, as somepeople wrongly believe. Revolution is merely the boiling point of
evolution.
Because revolution is evolution at its boiling point you cannot“make” a real revolution any more than you can hasten the boiling of a tea kettle. It is the fire underneath that makes it boil: howquickly it will come to the boiling point will depend on how strong
the fire is.
The economic and political conditions of a country are the fireunder the evolutionary pot. The worse the oppression, the greater
the dissatisfaction of the people, the stronger the flame. This explains why the fires of social revolution swept Russia, the mosttyrannous and backward country, instead of America where industrial development has almost reached its highest point — and thatin spite of all the learned demonstrations of Karl Marx to the contrary.
222

fession, not your natural preferences, inclinations, or abilities. Is it
any wonder, then, that most people, the overwhelming majority, infact, are misplaced? Ask the first hundred men you meet whether
they would have selected the work they are doing, or whether theywould continue in it, if they were free to choose, and ninety-nineof them will admit that they would prefer some other occupation.
Necessity and material advantages, or the hope of them, keep mostpeople in the wrong place.
It stands to reason that a person can give the best of himself only
when his interest is in his work, when he feels a natural attraction
to it, when he likes it. Then he will be industrious and efficient. The
things the craftsman produced in the days before modern capitalism were objects of joy and beauty, because the artisan loved hiswork. Can you expect the modern drudge in the ugly huge factory
to make beautiful things? He is part of the machine, a cog in thesoulless industry, his labor mechanical, forced. Add to this his feeling that he is not working for himself but for the benefit of someone else, and that he hates his job or at best has no interest in it
except that it secures his weekly wage. The result is shirking, inefficiency, laziness.
The need of activity is one of the most fundamental urges ofman. Watch the child and see how strong is his instinct for action,
for movement, for doing something. Strong and continuous. It is
the same with the healthy man. His energy and vitality demand
expression. Permit him to do the work of his choice, the thing heloves, and his application will know neither weariness nor shirking. You can observe this in the factory worker when he is lucky
enough to own a garden or a patch of ground to raise some flowers
or vegetables on. Tired from his toil as he is, he enjoys the hardest
labor for his own benefit, done from free choice.
Under Anarchism each will have the opportunity of following
whatever occupation will appeal to his natural inclinations andaptitude. Work will become a pleasure instead of the deadening199

drudgery it is to-day. Laziness will be unknown, and the things
created by interest and love will be objects of beauty and joy.
“But can labor ever become a pleasure?” you demand.
Labor is toil to-day, unpleasant, exhausting, and wearisome. But
usually it is not the work itself that is so hard: it is the conditions
under which you are compelled to labor that make it so. Particularly the long hours, unsanitary workshops, bad treatment, insufficient pay, and so on. Yet the most unpleasant work could be madelighter by improving the environment. Take gutter cleaning, for instance. It is dirty work and poorly paid for. But suppose, for example, that you should get 20 dollars a day instead of 5 dollars for suchwork. You will immediately find your job much lighter and pleasanter. The number of applicants for the work would increase at once.
Which means that men are not lazy, not afraid of hard and unpleasant labor if it is properly rewarded. But such work is considered menial and is looked down upon. Why is it considered menial? Is it notmost useful and absolutely necessary? Would not epidemics sweep
our city but for the street and gutter cleaners? Surely, the men who
keep our town clean and sanitary are real benefactors, more vitalto our health and welfare than the family physician. From the viewpoint of social usefulness the street cleaner is the professional colleague of the doctor: the latter treats us when we are ill, but theformer helps us keep well. Yet the physician is looked up to andrespected, while the street cleaner is slighted. Why? Is it because
the street cleaner’s work is dirty? But the surgeon often has much“dirtier” jobs to perform. Then why is the street cleaner scorned?
Because he earns little.
In our perverse civilization things are valued according to money
standards. Persons doing the most useful work are lowest in thesocial scale when their employment is ill paid. Should something
happen, however, that would cause the street cleaner to get 100
dollars a day, while the physician earns so, the “dirty” street cleaner
would immediately rise in estimation and social station, and from200

beliefs were fought by advanced thinkers, they became discredited
and lost their hold upon the people, and finally the institutions
that incorporated those ideas were abolished. Highbrows will tell
you that they had “outlived their usefulness” and that therefore
they “died.” But how did they “outlive” their “usefulness”? To
whom were they useful, and how did they “die”?
We know already that they were useful only to the master class,and that they were done away with by popular uprisings and revolutions.
Why did not old and effete institutions “disappear” and die off
in a peaceful manner?
For two reasons: first, because some people think faster than others. So that it happens that a minority in a given place advancein their views quicker than the rest. The more that minority will
become imbued with the new ideas, the more convinced of theirtruth, and the stronger they will feel themselves, the sooner they
will try to realize their ideas; and that is usually before the majority have come to see the new light. So that the minority have tostruggle against the majority who still cling to the old views andconditions.
Second, the resistance of those who hold power. It makes no difference whether it is the church, the king, or kaiser, a democratic
government or a dictatorship, a republic or an autocracy-those inauthority will fight desperately to retain it as long as they can hopefor the least chance of success. And the more aid they get fromthe slower-thinking majority the better the fight they can put up.
Hence the fury of revolt and revolution.
The desperation of the masses, their hatred of those responsible
for their misery, and the determination of the lords of life to holdon to their privileges and rule combine to produce the violence of
popular uprisings and rebellions.
But blind rebellion without definite object and purpose is not
revolution. Revolution is rebellion become conscious of its aims.
Revolution is social when it strives for a fundamental change. As
221

The same applies to private ownership. The idea that it is rightand necessary is the pillar that supports it and gives it security.
Not a single institution exists to-day but is founded on the popular belief that it is good and beneficial.
Let us take an illustration; the United States, for instance. Ask
yourself why revolutionary propaganda has been of so little effectin that country in spite of fifty years of Socialist and Anarchist
effort. Is the American worker not exploited more intensely thanlabor in other countries? Is political corruption as rampant in any
other land? Is the capitalist class in America not the most arbitrary
and despotic in the world? True, the worker in the United States
is better situated materially than in Europe, but is he not at thesame time treated with the utmost brutality and terrorism the moment he shows the least dissatisfaction? Yet the American worker
remains loyal to the government and is the first to defend it against
criticism. He is still the most devoted champion of the “grand andnoble institutions of the greatest country on earth.” Why? Because
he believes that they are his institutions, that he, as sovereign andfree citizen, is running them and that he could change them if he sowished. It is his faith in the existing order that constitutes its greatest security against revolution. His faith is stupid and unjustified,and some day it will break down and with it American capitalismand despotism. But as long as that faith persists, American plutocracy is safe against revolution.
As men’s minds broaden and develop, as they advance to new
ideas and lose faith in their former beliefs, institutions begin tochange and are ultimately done away with. The people grow tounderstand that their former views were false, that they were nottruth but prejudice and superstition.
In this way many ideas, once held to be true, have come to be
regarded as wrong and evil. Thus the ideas of the divine rightof kings, of slavery and serfdom. There was a time when thewhole world believed those institutions to be right, just, andunchangeable. In the measure that those superstitions and false
220

the “filthy laborer” he would become the much-sought man of good
income.
You see that it is pay, remuneration, the wage scale, not worth or
merit, that to-day-under our system of profit determines the valueof work as well as the “worth” of a man.
A sensible society — under Anarchist conditions — would haveentirely different standards of judging such matters. People willthen be appreciated according to their willingness to be socially useful.
Can you perceive what great changes such a new attitude would
produce? Every one yearns for the respect and admiration of his
fellow men; it is a tonic we cannot live without. Even in prison I
have seen how the clever pickpocket or safe blower longs for theappreciation of his friends and how hard he tries to earn their good
estimate of him. The opinions of our circle rule our behavior. The
social atmosphere to a profound degree determines our values andour attitude. Your personal experience will tell you how true thisis, and therefore you will not be surprised when I say that in an
Anarchist society it will be the most useful and difficult toil thatmen will seek rather than the lighter job. If you consider this, youwill have no more fear of laziness or shirking.
But the hardest and most onerous task could be made easier andcleaner than is the case today. The capitalist employer does not careto spend money, if he can help it, to make the toil of his employees pleasanter and brighter. He will introduce improvements only
when he hopes to gain larger profits thereby, but he will not go
to extra expense out of purely humanitarian reasons. Though here
I must remind you that the more intelligent employers are beginning to see that it pays to improve their factories, make them moresanitary and hygienic, and generally better the conditions of labor.
They realize it is a good investment: it results in the increased contentment and consequent greater efficiency of their workers. The
principle is sound. To-day, of course, it is being exploited for thesole purpose of bigger profits. But under Anarchism it would be201

applied not for the sake of personal gain, but in the interest of theworkers’ health, for the lightening of labor. Our progress in mechanics is so great and continually advancing that most of the hard
toil could be eliminated by the use of modern machinery and laborsaving devices. In many industries, as in coal mining, for instance,
new safety and sanitary appliances are not introduced because of
the masters’ indifference to the welfare of their employees and on
account of the expenditure involved. But in a non-profit systemtechnical science would work exclusively with the aim of making
labor safer, healthier, lighter, and more pleasant.
“But however light you’ll make work, eight hours a day of it isno pleasure,” objects your friend.
You are perfectly right. But did you ever stop to consider why
we have to work eight hours a day? Do you know that not so long
ago people used to slave twelve and fourteen hours, and that it isstill the case in backward countries like China and India?
It can be statistically proven that three hours’ work a day, at
most, is sufficient to feed, shelter, and clothe the world and supply
it not only with necessities but also with all modern comforts of life.
The point is that not one man in five is to-day doing any productive
work. The entire world is supported by a small minority of toilers.
First of all, consider the amount of work done in present-day society that would become unnecessary under Anarchist conditions.
Take the armies and navies of the world, and think how many millions of men would be released for useful and productive effort
once war is abolished, as would of course be the case under Anarchy.
In every country to-day labor supports the millions who contribute nothing to the welfare of the country, who create nothing,and perform no useful work whatever. Those millions are only consumers, without being producers. In the United States, for instance,out of a population of 120 millions there are less than 30 million

202

Chapter 25: The Idea is theThing
Did you ever ask yourself how it happens that government andcapitalism continue to exist in spite of all the evil and trouble they
are causing in the world?
If you did, then your answer must have been that it is because
the people support those institutions, and that they support thembecause they believe in them.
That is the crux of the whole matter: present-day society rests on
the belief of the people that it is good and useful. It is founded on
the idea of authority and private ownership. It is ideas that maintain conditions. Government and capitalism are the forms in which
the popular ideas express themselves. Ideas are the foundation; theinstitutions are the house built upon it.
A new social structure must have a new foundation, new ideas
at its base. However you may change the form of an institution, its
character and meaning will remain the same as the foundation onwhich it is built. Look closely at life and you will perceive the truthof this. There are all kinds and forms of government in the world,
but their real nature is the same everywhere, as their effects are thesame: it always means authority and obedience.
Now, what makes governments exist? The armies and navies?
Yes, but only apparently so. What supports the armies and navies?
It is the belief of the people, of the masses, that government is necessary; it is the generally accepted idea of the need of government.
That is its real and solid foundation. Take that idea or belief away,
and no government could last another day.
219

Keep that well in mind, my friend. Because there are revolutions
and revolutions. Some revolutions change only the governmental
form by putting in a new set of rulers in place of the old. Theseare political revolutions, and as such they often meet with little
resistance. But a revolution that aims to abolish the entire systemof wage slavery must also do away with the power of one class to
oppress another. That is, it is not any more a mere change of rulers,of government, not a political revolution, but one that seeks to alter
the whole character of society. That would be a social revolution. As
such it would have to fight not only government and capitalism, but
it would also meet with the opposition of popular ignorance andprejudice, of those who believe in government and capitalism.
How is it then to come about?

workers, farmers included.1 A similar situation is the rule in every
land.
Is it any wonder that labor has to toil long hours, since there
are only 30 workers to every 120 persons? The large businessclasses with their clerks, assistants, agents, and commercial
travelers; the courts with their judges, record keepers, bailiffs, etc.;
the legion of attorneys with their staffs; the militia and police
forces; the churches and monasteries; the charity institutions andpoorhouses; the prisons with their wardens, officers, keepers, andthe non-productive convict population; the army of advertisers
and their helpers, whose business it is to persuade you to buy what
you don’t want or need, not to speak of the numerous elementsthat live luxuriously in entire idleness. All these mount into themillions in every country.
Now, if all those millions would apply themselves to useful labor,
would the worker have to drudge eight hours a day? If 30 men haveto put in eight hours to perform a certain task, how much less time
would it ‘take 120 men to accomplish the same thing? I don’t wantto burden you with statistics, but there are enough data to provethat less than 3 hours of daily physical effort would be sufficient to
do the world’s work.
Can you doubt that even the hardest toil would become a pleasure instead of the cursed slavery it is at present, if only three hours
a day were required, and that under the most sanitary and hygienic
conditions, in an atmosphere of brotherhood and respect for labor?
But it is not difficult to foresee the day when even those shorthours would be still further reduced. For we are constantly improving our technical methods, and new labor saving machinery is being invented all the time. Mechanical progress means less work andgreater comforts, as you can see by comparing life in the UnitedStates with that in China or India. In the latter countries they toillong hours to secure the barest necessities of existence, while in
1

218

N. Y. World Almanac, 1927.

203

America even the average laborer enjoys a much higher standardof living with fewer hours of work. The advance of science andinvention signifies more leisure for the pursuits we love.
I have sketched in large, broad outline the possibilities of i e under a sensible system where profit is abolished. It is not necessary
to go into the minute details of such a social condition: sufficient
has been said to show that Communist Anarchism means the greatest material welfare with a life of liberty for each and all.
We can visualize the time when labor will have become a pleasant exercise, a joyous application of physical effort to the needs ofthe world. Man will then look back at our present day and wonderthat work could ever have been slavery, and question the sanity ofa generation that suffered less than one fifth of its population toearn the bread for the rest by the sweat of their brow while thoseothers idled and wasted their time, their health, and the people’s
wealth. They will wonder that the freest satisfaction of man’s needs
could have ever been considered as anything but self-evident, orthat people naturally seeking the same objects insisted on making
life hard and miserable by mutual strife. They will refuse to believethat the whole existence of man was a continuous struggle for foodin a world rich with luxuries, a struggle that left the great majority neither time nor strength for the higher quest of the heart andmind.
“But will not life under Anarchy, in economic and social equality
mean general leveling?” you ask.
No, my friend, quite the contrary. Because equality does notmean an equal amount but equal opportunity. It does not mean, forinstance, that if Smith needs five meals a day, Johnson also musthave as many. If Johnson wants only three meals while Smith requires five, the quantity each consumes may be unequal, but both
men are perfectly equal in the opportunity each has to consume asmuch as he needs, as much as his particular nature demands.
Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty withthe forced equality of the convict camp. True Anarchist equality
204

nature, and that’s what makes improvement and progress possible.
Labor’s discontent is not to be choked down with an extra piece ofbread, even if it be buttered. That is why there is more conscious
and active revolt in the industrial centers of better-situated Europe
than in backward Asia and Africa. The spirit of man forever yearns
for greater comfort and freedom, and it is the masses who are thetruest bearers of this incentive to further advancement. The hopeof modern plutocracy to forestall revolution by throwing a fatterbone to the toiler now and then is illusory and baseless. The newpolicies of capital may seem to appease labor for a while, but its onward march cannot be stopped by such makeshifts. The abolitionof capitalism is inevitable, in spite of all schemes and resistance,
and it will be accomplished only by revolution.
A revolution is similar to the struggle of man against nature.
Single-handed he is powerless and cannot succeed; by the aid of
his fellow-men he triumphs over all obstacles.
Can the individual worker accomplish anything against the big
corporation? Can a small labor union compel the large employer
to grant its demands? The capitalist class is organized in its fightagainst labor. It stands to reason that a revolution can be fought
successfully only when the workers are united, when they are organized throughout the land; when the proletariat of all countries
will make a joint effort, for capital is international and the masters always combine against labor in every big issue. That is why,for instance, the plutocracy of the whole world turned against theRussian Revolution. As long as the people of Russia meant only
to abolish the Tsar, international capital did not interfere: it did
not care what political form Russia would have, as long as the government would be bourgeois and capitalistic. But as soon as the
Revolution attempted to do away with the system of capitalism,
the governments and the bourgeoisie of every land combined tocrush it. They saw in it a menace to the continuance of their own
mastery.

217

There is a continuous warfare between capital and labor. That
warfare generally proceeds within so-called legal form. But eventhese erupt now and then in violence, as during strikes and lockouts, because the armed fist of government is always at the serviceof the masters, and that fist gets into action the moment capitalfeels its profits threatened: then it drops the mask of “mutual interests” and “partnership” with labor and resorts to the final argumentof every master, to coercion and force.
It is therefore certain that government and capital will not allow
themselves to be quietly abolished if they can help it; nor will they
miraculously “disappear” of themselves, as some people pretend tobelieve. It will require a revolution to get rid of them.
There are those who smile incredulously at the mention of revolution. “Impossible!” they say confidently. So did Louis XVI andMarie Antoinette of France think only a few weeks before they losttheir throne together with their heads. So did the nobility at the
court of Tsar Nicholas II believe on the very eve of the upheavalthat swept them away. “It doesn’t look like revolution,” the superficial observer argues. But revolutions have a way of breaking out
when it “doesn’t look like it.” The more far-seeing modern capitalists, however, do not seem willing to take any chances. They
know that uprisings and revolutions are possible at any time. That
is why the great corporations and big employers of labor, particularly in America, are beginning to introduce new methods calculated to serve as lightning rods against popular disaffection andrevolt. They initiate bonuses for their employees, profit sharing,and similar methods designed to make the worker more satisfied
and financially interested in the prosperity of his industry. Thesemeans may temporarily blind the proletarian to his true interests,
but do not believe that the worker will forever remain content withhis wage slavery even if his cage be slightly gilded from time totime. Improving material conditions is no insurance against revolution. On the contrary, the satisfaction of our wants creates newneeds, gives birth to new desires and aspirations. That is human216

implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must
eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in thesame manner. Far from it; the very reverse, in fact.
Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal
opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality.
Far from leveling, such equality opens the door for the greatest
possible variety of activity and development. For human characteris diverse, and only the repression of this diversity results in leveling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity of expressing
and acting out your individuality means development of naturaldissimilarities and variations.
It is said that no two blades of grass are alike. Much less so arehuman beings. In the whole wide world no two persons are exactly
similar even in physical appearance; still more dissimilar are theyin their physiological, mental, and psychical make-up. Yet in spiteof this diversity and of a thousand and one differentiations of character we compel people to be alike to-day. Our life and habits, ourbehavior and manners, even our thoughts and feelings are pressed
into a uniform mold and fashioned into sameness. The spirit ofauthority, law, written and unwritten, tradition and custom force
us into a common groove and make of man a will-less automaton
without independence or individuality. This moral and intellectual
bondage is more compelling than any physical coercion, more devastating to our manhood and development. All of us are its victims,
and only the exceptionally strong succeed in breaking its chains,
and that only partly.
The authority of the past and of the present dictates not only
our behavior but dominates our very minds and souls, and is continuously at work to stifle every symptom of non-conformity, of
independent attitude and unorthodox opinion. The whole weightof social condemnation comes down upon the head of the man or
woman who dares defy conventional codes. Ruthless vengeanceis wreaked upon the protestant who refuses to follow the beaten
track, or upon the heretic who disbelieves in the accepted formulas.
205

In science and art, in literature, poetry, and painting this spirit compels adaptation and adjustment, resulting in imitation of the established and approved, in uniformity and sameness, in stereotyped
expression. But more terribly still is punished non-conformity inactual life, in our every-day relationships and behavior. The painterand writer may occasionally be forgiven for defiance of custom
and precedent because, after all, their rebellion is limited to paperor canvas: it affects only a comparatively small circle. They may
be disregarded or labeled cranks who can do little harm, but not
so with the man of action who carries his challenge of accepted
standards into social life. Not harmless he. He is dangerous by thepower of example, by his very presence. His infraction of social
canons can be neither ignored nor forgiven. He will be denounced
as an enemy of society.
It is for this reason that revolutionary feeling or thought expressed in exotic poetry or masked in high-brow philosophic dissertations may be condoned, may pass the official and unofficial
censor, because it is neither accessible to nor understood by the
public at large. But give voice to the same dissenting attitude in
a popular manner, and immediately you will face the frothing denunciation of all the forces that stand for the preservation of theestablished.
More vicious and deadening is compulsory compliance than themost virulent poison. Throughout the ages it has been the greatest impediment to man’s advance, hedging him in with a thousandprohibitions and taboos, weighting his mind and heart down withoutlived canons and codes, thwarting his will with imperatives ofthought and feeling, with “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not” of behavior and action. Life, the art of living, has become a dull formula,flat and inert.
Yet so strong is the innate diversity of man’s nature that centuries of this stultification have not succeeded in entirely eradicating his originality and uniqueness. True, the great majority havefallen into ruts so deepened by countless feet that they cannot get
206

the triumph of man over the powers of darkness, natural and human. The inimical forces of nature we have conquered, but we still
have to fight the dark powers of men.
History fails to show a single important social improvement
made without meeting the opposition of the dominant powers —the church, government, and capital. Not a step forward but wasachieved by breaking down the resistance of the masters. Everyadvance has cost a bitter struggle. It took many long fights todestroy slavery; it required revolts and uprisings to secure themost fundamental rights for the people; it necessitated rebellions
and revolutions to abolish feudalism and serfdom. It needed
civil warfare to do away with the absolute power of kings andestablish democracies, to conquer more freedom and well-being
for the masses. There is not a country on earth, not an epochin history, where any great social evil was eliminated without abitter struggle with the powers that be. In recent days it again
took revolutions to get rid of Tsardom in Russia, of the Kaiser inGermany, the Sultan in Turkey, the monarchy in China, and so on,
in various lands.
There is no record of any government or authority, of any groupor class in power having given up its mastery voluntarily. In every
instance it required the use of force, or at least the threat of it.
Is it reasonable to assume that authority and wealth will experience a sudden change of heart, and that they will behave differently
in the future than they had in the past?
Your common sense will tell you that it is a vain and foolish hope.
Government and capital will fight to retain power. They do it evento-day at the least menace to their privileges. They will fight to thedeath for their existence.
That is why it is no prophecy to foresee that some day it mustcome to a decisive struggle between the masters of life and thedispossessed classes.
As a matter of fact, that struggle is going on all the time.

215

Similarly the primitive man’s ignorance and fear made life a continuous struggle of man against man, of family against family, oftribe against tribe, until men realized that by getting together, byjoint effort and mutual aid, they could accomplish more than by
strife and enmity. Modern science shows that even animals hadlearned that much in the struggle for existence. Certain kinds survived because they quit fighting each other and lived in herds, andin that way were better able to protect themselves against otherbeasts.1 In proportion as men substituted joint effort and coöperation in place of mutual struggle, they advanced, grew out of barbarism, and became civilized. Families which had formerly fought
each other to the death combined and formed one common group;groups joined and became tribes, and tribes federated into nations.
The nations still stupidly keep on fighting each other, but gradually
they are also learning the same lesson, and now they are beginningto look for a way to stop the international slaughter known as war.
Unfortunately in our social life we are yet in a condition of barbarism, destructive and fratricidal: group still combats group, classfights against class. But here also men are beginning to see that it
is a senseless and ruinous warfare, that the world is big and richenough to be enjoyed by all, like the sunshine, and that a united
mankind would accomplish more than one divided against itself.
What is called progress is just the realization of this, a step inthat direction.
The whole advance of man consists in the striving for greater
safety and peace, for more security and welfare. Man’s natural impulse is toward mutual help and joint effort, his most instinctive
longing is for liberty and joy. These tendencies seek to express andassert themselves in spite of all obstacles and difficulties. The lesson of the entire history of man is that neither hostile natural forces
nor human opposition can hold back his onward march. If I wereasked to define civilization in a single phrase I should say that it is1

214back to the broad spaces. But some do break away from the beaten
track and find the open road where new vistas of beauty and inspiration beckon to heart and spirit. These the world condemns, butlittle by little it follows their example and lead, and finally it comesup abreast of them. In the meantime those pathfinders have gonemuch further or died, and then we build monuments to them andglorify the men we have vilified and crucified as we go on crucifying their brothers in spirit, the pioneers of our own day.
Beneath this spirit of intolerance and persecution is the habit ofauthority: coercion to conform to dominant standards, compulsion— moral and legal — to be and act as others, according to precedentand rule.
But the general view that conformity is a natural trait is entirely
false. On the contrary, given the least chance, unimpeded by themental habits instilled from the very cradle, man evidences uniqueness and originality. Observe children, for instance, and you will
see most varied differentiation in manner and attitude, in mental
and psychic expression. You will discover an instinctive tendency
to individuality and independence, to non-conformity, manifested
in open and secret defiance of the will imposed from the outside,in rebellion against the authority of parent and teacher. The wholetraining and “education” of the child is a continuous process of
stifling and crushing this tendency, the eradication of his distinctive characteristics, of his unlikeness to others, of his personality
and originality. Yet even in spite of year-long repression, suppression, and molding, some originality persists in the child when it
reaches maturity, which shows how deep are the springs of individuality. Take any two persons, for example, who have witnessedsome tragedy, a big fire, let us say, at the same time and place. Each
will tell the story in a different manner, each will be original in his
way of relating it and in the impression he will produce, becauseof his naturally different psychology. But talk to the same two persons on some fundamental social matter, about life and govern-

See Mutual Aid, by Peter Kropotkin.

207

ment, for instance, and immediately you hear expressed an exactly
similar attitude, the accepted view, the dominant mentality.
Why? Because where man is left free to think and feel for himself, unhindered by precept and rule, and not restrained by the fearof being “different” and unorthodox, with the unpleasant consequences it involves, he will be independent and free. But the moment the conversation touches matters within the sphere of our social imperatives, one is in the clutches of the taboos and becomesa copy and a parrot.
Life in freedom, in Anarchy, will do more than liberate man
merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will
be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.
Far greater and more significant will be the results of such liberty,
its effects upon man’s mind, upon his personality. The abolition of
the coercive external will, and with it of the fear of authority, willloosen the bonds of moral compulsion no less than of economic andphysical. Man’s spirit will breathe freely, and that mental emancipation will be the birth of a new culture, of a new humanity. Imperatives and taboos will disappear, and man will begin to be himself,
to develop and express his individual tendencies and uniqueness.
Instead of “thou shalt not,” the public conscience will say “thoumayest, taking full responsibility.” That will be a training in humandignity and self-reliance, beginning at home and in school, which
will produce a new race with a new attitude to life.
The man of the coming day will see and feel existence on an entirely different plane. Living to him will be an art and a joy. He willcease to consider it as a race where every one must try to becomeas good a runner as the fastest. He will regard leisure as more important than work, and work will fall into its proper, subordinate
place as the means to leisure, to the enjoyment of life.
Life will mean the striving for finer cultural values, the penetration of nature’s mysteries, the attainment of higher truth. Free toexercise the limitless possibilities of his mind, to pursue his loveof knowledge, to apply his inventive genius, to create, and to soar
208

Chapter 24: Why Revolution?
Let us return to your question, “How will Anarchy come? Can
we help bring it about?”
This is a most important point, because in every problem there
are two vital things: first, to know clearly just what you want; second, how to attain it.
We already know what we want. We want social conditions
wherein all will be free and where each shall have the fullest
opportunity to satisfy his needs and aspirations, on the basis ofequal liberty for all. In other words, we are striving for the freecoöperative commonwealth of Communist Anarchism.
How will it come about?
We are not prophets, and no one can tell just how a thing will
happen. But the world does not exist since yesterday; and man, asa reasonable being, must benefit by the experience of the past.
Now, what is that experience? If you glance over history you will
see that the whole life of man has been a struggle for existence.
In his primitive state man fought single-handed the wild beastsof the forest, and helplessly he faced hunger, cold, darkness, andstorm. Because of his ignorance all the forces of nature were his enemies: they worked evil and destruction to him, and he, alone, waspowerless to combat them. But little by little man learned to cometogether with others of his kind; together they sought safety andsecurity. By joint effort they presently began to turn the energies
of nature to their service. Mutual help and coöperation graduallymultiplied man’s strength and ability till he has succeeded in conquering nature, in applying her forces to his use, in chaining thelightning, bridging oceans, and mastering even the air.
213

mutual banking and credit without interest would be the best economic form of a non-government society. According to their theory, free credit, affording every one opportunity to borrow money
without interest, would tend to equalize incomes and reduce profits
to a minimum, and would thus eliminate riches as well as poverty.
Free credit and competition in the open market, they say, would result in economic equality, while the abolition of government would
secure equal freedom. The social life of the Mutualist community,
as well as of the Individualist society, would be based on the sanctity of voluntary agreement, of free contract.
I have given here but the briefest outline of the attitude of
Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists. It is not the purpose ofthis work to treat in detail those Anarchist ideas which the author
thinks erroneous and impractical. Being a Communist Anarchist I
am interested in submitting to the reader the views that I consider
best and soundest. I thought it fair, however, not to leave you in
ignorance about the existence of other, non-Communist Anarchist
theories. For a closer acquaintance with them I refer you to theappended list of books on Anarchism in general.

212

on the wings of imagination, man will reach his full stature andbecome man indeed. He will grow and develop according to his nature. He will scorn uniformity, and human diversity will give him
increased interest in, and a more satisfying sense of, the richnessof being. Life to him will not consist in functioning but in living,and he will attain the greatest kind of freedom man is capable of,freedom in joy.
“That day lies far in the future,” you say; “how shall we bring it
about?”
Far in the future, maybe; yet perhaps not so far — one cannot
tell. At any rate we should always hold our ultimate object in view
if we are to remain on the right road. The change I have described
will not come over night; nothing ever does. It will be a gradualdevelopment, as everything in nature and social life is. But a logical,
necessary, and, I dare say, an inevitable development. Inevitable,
because the whole trend of man’s growth has been in that direction;even if in zigzags, often losing its way, yet always returning to theright path.
How, then, might it be brought about?

209

Chapter 23: Non-Communist
Anarchists
Before we proceed let me make a short explanation. I owe it tothose Anarchists who are not Communists.
Because you should know that not all Anarchists are Communists: not all of them believe that Communism — social ownershipand sharing according to need — would be the best and justest economic arrangement.
I have first explained to you Communist Anarchism because itis, in my estimation, the most desirable and practical form of society. The Communist Anarchists hold that only under Communist
conditions could Anarchy prosper, and equal liberty, justice, andwell-being be assured to every one without discrimination.
But there are Anarchists who do not believe in Communism.
They can be generally classed as Individualists and Mutualists.1
All Anarchists agree on this fundamental position: that government means injustice and oppression, that it is invasive, enslaving,
and the greatest hindrance to man’s development and growth. They
all believe that freedom can exist only in a society where there isno compulsion of any kind. All Anarchists are therefore at one on
the basic principle of abolishing government.
They disagree mostly on the following points:
First: the manner in which Anarchy will come about. The
Communist Anarchists say that only a social revolution can
1

The Mutualists, though not calling themselves Anarchists (probably because the name is so misunderstood), are nevertheless thoroughgoing Anarchists,since they disbelieve in government and political authority of any kind.

210

abolish government and establish Anarchy, while Individualist
Anarchists and Mutualists do not believe in revolution. They thinkthat present society will gradually develop out of government into
a non-governmental condition.
Second: Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists believe in individual ownership, as against the Communist Anarchists who seein the institution of private property one of the main sources ofinjustice and inequality, of poverty and misery. The Individualists
and Mutualists maintain that liberty means “the right of every one
to the product of his toil”; which is true, of course. Liberty doesmean that. But the question is not whether one has a right to his
product, but whether there is such a thing as an individual product. I have pointed out in preceding chapters that there is no suchthing in modern industry: all labor and the products of labor aresocial. The argument, therefore, about the right of the individual tohis product has no practical merit.
I have also shown that exchange of products or commodities cannot be individual or private, unless the profit system is employed.
Since the value of a commodity cannot be adequately determined,no barter is equitable. This fact leads, in my opinion, to social ownership and use; that is, to Communism, as the most practicable andjust economic system.
But, as stated, Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists disagreewith the Communist Anarchists on this point. They assert thatthe source of economic inequality is monopoly, and they argue
that monopoly will disappear with the abolition of government, because it is special privilege — given and protected by government— which makes monopoly possible. Free competition, they claim,
would do away with monopoly and its evils.
Individualist Anarchists, followers of Stirner and Tucker, as wellas Tolstoyan Anarchists who believe in nonresistance, have no veryclear plan of the economic life under Anarchy. The Mutualists, on
the other hand, propose a definite new economic system. They believe with their teacher, the French philosopher Proudhon, that
211

The Anarchist Library
Anti-Copyright

Chapter 27: Organization ofLabor for the Social Revolution

Alexander Berkman
What Is Communist Anarchism?
1929
From Alexander Berkman, Now and After: The ABC of Communist
Anarchism, New York, Vanguard Press, 1929. Retrieved on March
12th , 2009 from dwardmac.pitzer.edu.
This book has other editions which have been published under
different titles such as Now and After: The ABC of Communist
Anarchism, What Is Communist Anarchism?, and What Is
Anarchism?
This book also available in Turkish: Anarşizm Nedir? - Alexander
Berkmantheanarchistlibrary.org

Proper preparation, as suggested in the preceding pages, will
greatly lighten the task of the social revolution and assure its
healthy development and functioning.
Now, what will be the main functions of the revolution?
Every country has its specific conditions, its own psychology,
habits, and traditions, and the process of revolution will naturally
reflect the peculiarities of every land and its people. But fundamentally all countries are alike in their social (rather anti-social) character: whatever the political forms or economic conditions, they
are all built on invasive authority, on monopoly, on the exploitation of labor. The main task of the social revolution is therefore
essentially the same everywhere: the abolition of government andof economic inequality, and the socialization of the means of production and distribution.
Production, distribution, and communication are the basic
sources of existence; upon them rests the power of coercive authority and capital. Deprived of that power, governors and rulers
become just ordinary men, like you and me, common citizens
among millions of others. To accomplish that is consequently the
primal and most vital function of the social revolution.
We know that revolution begins with street disturbances andoutbreaks: it is the initial phase which involves force and violence.
But that is merely the spectacular prologue of the real revolution.
The age long misery and indignity suffered by the masses burst into
disorder and tumult, the humiliation and injustice meekly borne for241decades find vent in acts of fury and destruction. That is inevitable,
and it is solely the master class which is responsible for this preliminary character of revolution. For it is even more true socially than
individually that “whoever sows the wind will reap the whirlwind”:
the greater the oppression and wretchedness to which the masses
had been made to submit, the fiercer will rage the social storm. All
history proves it, but the lords of life have never harkened to its
warning voice.
This phase of the revolution is of short duration. It is usually followed by the more conscious, yet still spontaneous, destruction of
the citadels of authority, the visible symbols of organized violenceand brutality: jails, police stations, and other government buildings
are attacked, the prisoners liberated, legal documents destroyed. It
is the manifestation of instinctive popular justice. Thus one of thefirst gestures of the French Revolution was the demolition of theBastille. Similarly in Russia prisons were stormed and the prisoners
released at the very outset of the Revolution.1 The wholesome intuition of the people justly sees in prisoners social unfortunates, victims of conditions, and sympathizes with them as such. The masses
regard the courts and their records as instruments of class injustice, and these are destroyed at the beginning of the revolution,and quite properly so.
But this stage passes quickly: the people’s ire is soon spent. Simultaneously the revolution begins its constructive work.
“Do you really think that reconstruction could start so soon?”
you ask.
My friend, it must begin immediately. In fact, the more enlightened the masses have become, the clearer the workers realize theiraims, and the better they are prepared to carry them out, the less1

The official liberation of political prisoners in Russia took place subsequently, after the revolutionary masses had wrecked prisons in Petrograd,
Moscow, and other cities.

242

destructive the revolution will be, and the quicker and more effectively will begin the work of reconstruction.
“Are you not too hopeful?”
No, I don’t think so. I am convinced that the social revolution
will not “just happen.” It will have to be prepared, organized. Yes,
indeed, organized — just as a strike is organized. In truth, it will bea strike, the strike of the united workers of an entire country — ageneral strike.
Let us pause and consider this.
How do you imagine a revolution could be fought in these daysof armored tanks, poison gas, and military planes? Do you believethat the unarmed masses and their barricades could withstandhigh-power artillery and bombs thrown upon them from flying
machines? Could labor fight the military forces of governmentand capital?
It’s ridiculous on the face of it, isn’t it? And no less ridiculous is
the suggestion that the workers should form their own regiments,“shock troops,” or a “red front,” as the Communist parties advise
you to do. Will such proletarian bodies ever be able to stand up
against the trained armies of the government and the private troopsof capital? Will they have the least chance?
Such a proposition needs only to be stated to be seen in all its impossible folly. It would simply mean sending thousands of workers
to certain death.
It is time to have done with this obsolete idea of revolution.
Nowadays government and capital are too well organized in a
military way for the workers ever to be able to cope with them. It
would be criminal to attempt it, insanity even to think of it.
The strength of labor is not on the field of battle. It is in the shop,in the mine and factory. There lies its power that no army in theworld can defeat, no human agency conquer.
In other words, the social revolution can take place only bymeans of the General Strike. The General Strike, rightly understood and thoroughly carried out, is the social revolution. Of this243the British Government became aware much quicker than theworkers when the General Strike was declared in England in May,
1926. “It means revolution,” the Government said, in effect, to thestrike leaders. With all their armies and navies the authorities
were powerless in the face of the situation. You can shoot people
to death but you can’t shoot them to work. The labor leaders
themselves were frightened at the thought that the General Strikeactually implied revolution.
British capital and government won the strike — not by thestrength of arms, but because of the lack of intelligence andcourage on the part of the labor leaders and because the English
workers were not prepared for the consequences of the General
Strike. As a matter of fact, the idea was quite new to them. They
had never before been interested in it, never studied its significance and potentialities. It is safe to say that a similar situationin France would have developed quite differently, because in thatcountry the toilers have for years been familiar with the General
Strike as a revolutionary proletarian weapon.
It is most important that we realize that the General Strike is the
only possibility of social revolution. In the past the General Strikehas been propagated in various countries without sufficient emphasis that its real meaning is revolution, that it is the only practical
way to it. It is time for us to learn this, and when we do so the social revolution will cease to be a vague, unknown quantity. It will
become an actuality, a definite method and aim, a program whose
first step is the taking over of the industries by organized labor.
I understand now why you said that the social revolution means
construction rather than destruction,” your friend remarks.
I am glad you do. And if you have followed me so far, you willagree that the matter of taking over the industries is not somethingthat can be left to chance, nor can it be carried out in a haphazard
manner. It can be accomplished only in a well-planned, systematic,
and organized way. You alone can’t do it, nor I, nor any other man,be he worker, Ford, or the Pope of Rome. There is no man nor any
244

body of men that can manage it except the workers themselves, forit takes the workers to operate the industries. But even the workers
can’t do it unless they are organized and organized just for such anundertaking.
“But I thought you were an Anarchist,” interrupts your friend.
I am.
“I’ve heard that Anarchists don’t believe in organization.”
I imagine you have, but that’s an old argument. Any one who
tells you that Anarchists don’t believe in organization is talking
nonsense. Organization is everything, and everything is organization. The whole of life is organization, conscious or unconscious.
Every nation, every family, why, even every individual is an organization or organism. Every part of every living thing is organizedin such a manner that the whole works in harmony. Otherwise thedifferent organs could not function properly and life could not exist.
But there is organization and organization. Capitalist society is
so badly organized that its various members suffer: just as when
you have pain in some part of you, your whole body aches andyou are ill.
There is organization that is painful because it is ill, and organization that is joyous because it means health and strength. An
organization is ill or evil when it neglects or suppresses any of its
organs or members. In the healthy organism all parts are equallyvaluable and none is discriminated against. The organization built
on compulsion, which coerces and forces, is bad and unhealthy.
The libertarian organization, formed voluntarily and in which every member is free and equal, is a sound body and can work well.
Such an organization is a free union of equal parts. It is the kind oforganization the Anarchists believe in.
Such must be the organization of the workers if labor is to havea healthy body, one that can operate effectively.
It means, first of all, that not a single member of the organizationor union may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed245

or ignored. To do so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth:you would be sick all over.
In other words, the labor union must be built on the principle ofthe equal liberty of all its members.
Only when each is a free and independent unit, coöperating withthe others from his own choice because of mutual interests, can thewhole work successfully and become powerful.
This equality means that it makes no difference what or who theparticular worker is: whether he is skilled or unskilled, whether
he is mason, carpenter, engineer or day laborer, whether he earnmuch or little. The interests of all are the same; all belong together,and only by standing together can they accomplish their purpose.
It means that the workers in the factory, mill, or mine must beorganized as one body; for it is not a question of what particularjobs they hold, what craft or trade they follow, but what their interests are. And their interests are identical, as against the employer
and the system of exploitation.
Consider yourself how foolish and inefficient is the present formof labor organization in which one trade or craft may be on strike
while the other branches of the same industry continue at work.
Is it not ridiculous that when the street car workers of New York,for instance, quit work, the employees of the subway, the cab andomnibus drivers remain on the job? The main purpose of a strike isto bring about a situation that will compel the employer to give into the demands of labor. Such a situation can be created only by acomplete tie-up of the industry in question, so that a partial strikeis merely a waste of labor’s time and energy, not to speak of theharmful moral effect of the inevitable defeat.
Think over the strikes in which you yourself have taken part andof others you know of. Did your union ever win a fight unless it
was able to compel the employer to give in? But when was it able to
do so? Only when the boss knew that the workers meant business,that there was no dissent among them, that there was no hesitationand dallying, that they were determined to win, at whatever cost.
246

But particularly when the employer felt himself at the mercy of
the union, when he could not operate his factory or mine in theface of the workers’ resolute stand, when he could not get scabs
or strikebreakers, and when he saw that his interests would suffer
more by defying his employees than by granting their demands.
It is clear, then, that you can compel compliance only when you
are determined, when your union is strong, when you are well organized, when you are united in such a manner that the boss cannot
run his factory against your will. But the employer is usually some
big manufacturer or a company that has mills or mines in various
places. Suppose it is a coal combine. If it cannot operate its mines in
Pennsylvania because of a strike, it will try to make good its losses
by continuing mining in Virginia or Colorado and increasing production there. Now, if the miners in those States keep on working
while you in Pennsylvania are on strike, the company loses nothing. It may even welcome the strike in order to raise the price ofcoal on the ground that the supply is short because of your strike.
In that way the company not only breaks your strike, but it also influences public opinion against you, because the people foolishlybelieve that the higher price of coal is really the result of your strike
while in fact it is due to the greed of the mine owners. You will lose
your strike, and for some time to come you and the workers everywhere will have to pay more for coal, and not only for coal but for
all the other necessities of life, because together with the price ofcoal the general cost of living will go up.
Reflect, then, how stupid is the present union policy to permit
the other mines to operate while your mine is on strike. The others
remain at work and give financial support to your strike, but don’t
you see that their aid only helps to break your strike, because they
have to keep on working, really scabbing on you, in order to contribute to your strike fund? Can anything be more senseless andcriminal?
This holds true of every industry and every strike. Can you wonder that most strikes are lost? That is the case in America as well as
247

in other countries. I have before me the Blue Book just publishedin England under the title of Labor Statistics. The data prove thatstrikes do not lead to labor victories. The figures for the last eight
years are as follows:
Results in Favor of:
Year
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927

Working People
390
152
111
187
162
154
67
61

Employers
507
315
222
183
235
189
126
118

Actually, then, almost 60% of the strikes were lost. Incidentally,
consider also the loss of working days resulting from strikes, whichmeans no wages. The total number of workdays lost by English labor in 1912 was 40,890,000, which is almost equal to the lives of
2,000 men, allotting to each 60 years. In 1919 the number of workdays lost was 34,969,000; in 1920, 26,568,000; in 1921, 85,872,000; in
1926, as a result of the general strike, 162,233,000 days. These figures do not include time and wages lost through unemployment.
It doesn’t take much arithmetic to see that strikes as at present
conducted don’t pay, that the labor unions are not the winners inindustrial disputes.
This does not mean, however, that strikes serve no purpose. On
the contrary, they are of great value: they teach the worker the vital need of coöperation, of standing shoulder to shoulder with his
fellows and unitedly fighting in the common cause. Strikes train
him in the class struggle and develop his spirit of joint effort, ofresistance to the masters, of solidarity and responsibility. In thissense even an unsuccessful strike is not a complete loss. Through248

revolution becomes a denial and betrayal of itself. Let us then havethe courage of freedom: let it replace suppression and terror. Letliberty become our faith and our deed and we shall grow strong
therein.
Only liberty can make the social revolution effective and wholesome. It alone can pave the way to greater heights and prepare asociety where well-being and joy shall be the heritage of all. The
day will dawn when man shall for the first time have full opportunity to grow and expand in the free and generous sunshine of
Anarchy.

292

it the toilers learn that “an injury to one is the concern of all,” thepractical wisdom that embodies the deepest meaning of the proletarian struggle. This does not relate only to the daily battle formaterial betterment, but equally so to everything pertaining to theworker and his existence, and particularly to matters where justiceand liberty are involved.
It is one of the most inspiring things to see the masses roused inbehalf of social justice, whomever the case at issue may concern.
For, indeed, it is the concern of all of us, in the truest and deepest
sense. The more labor becomes enlightened and aware of its larger
interests, the broader and more universal grow its sympathies, themore world-wide its defense of justice and liberty. It was a manifestation of this understanding when the workers in every country protested against the judicial murder of Sacco and Vanzetti in
Massachusetts. Instinctively and consciously the masses throughout the world felt, as did all decent men and women, that it is theirconcern when such a crime is being perpetrated. Unfortunatelythat protest, as many similar ones, contented itself with mere resolutions. Had organized labor resorted to action, such as a generalstrike, its demands would not have been ignored, and two of theworkers’ best friends and noblest of men would not have been sacrificed to the forces of reaction.
Equally important, it would have served as a valuable demonstration of the tremendous power of the proletariat, the power thatalways conquers when it is unified and resolute. This has been
proven on numerous occasions in the past when the determined
stand of labor prevented planned legal outrages, as in the case of
Haywood, Moyer, and Pettibone, officials of the Western Federation of Miners, whom the coal barons of the State of Idaho hadconspired to send to the gallows during the miners’ strike of 1905.
Again, in 1917, it was the solidarity of the toilers which thwarted
the execution of Tom Mooney, in California. The sympathetic attitude of organized labor in America toward Mexico has also till
now been an obstacle to the military occupation of that country249

by the United States Government in behalf of the American oil interests. Similarly in Europe united action by the workers has beensuccessful in repeatedly forcing the authorities to grant amnesty
to political prisoners. The Government of England so feared the expressed sympathy of British labor for the Russian Revolution that
it was compelled to pretend neutrality. It did not dare openly to aid
the counter-revolution in Russia. When the dock workers refused
to load food and ammunition intended for the White armies, theEnglish Government resorted to deception. It solemnly assured theworkers that the shipments were intended for France. In the courseof my work collecting historic material in Russia, in 1920 and 1921,
I came into possession of official British documents proving thatthe shipments had been immediately forwarded from France, by direct orders of the British Government, to the counter-revolutionary
generals in the North of Russia who had established there the socalled Tchaikovsky-Miller Government. This incident — one out ofmany — demonstrates the wholesome fear the powers that be haveof the awakening class-consciousness and solidarity of the international proletariat.
The stronger the workers grow in this spirit the more effective
will be their struggle for emancipation. Class consciousness andsolidarity must assume national and international proportions before labor can attain its full strength. Wherever there is injustice,wherever persecution and suppression — be it the subjugation of
the Philippines, the invasion of Nicaragua, the enslavement of the
toilers in the Congo by Belgian exploiters, the oppression of themasses in Egypt, China, Morocco, or India — it is the business of
the workers everywhere to raise their voice against all such outrages and demonstrate their solidarity in the common cause of thedespoiled and disinherited throughout the world.
Labor is slowly advancing to this social consciousness: strikes
and other sympathetic expressions are a valuable manifestation ofthis spirit. If the greater number of strikes are lost at present, it
is because the proletariat is not yet fully aware of its national and250

to be a danger to the revolution. We have repeatedly seen such
examples in Russia, in cases where counter-revolutionists had escaped the Tcheka and settled down in some village or city, whereas a result of considerate and decent treatment they became usefulmembers of the community, often more zealous in behalf of the
public welfare than the average citizen, while hundreds of theirfellow-conspirators, who had not been lucky enough to avoid arrest, were busy in prison with thoughts of revenge and new plots.
Various plans of treating such “prisoners in freedom” will no
doubt be tried by the revolutionary people. But whatever the
methods, they will be more satisfactory than the present system ofrevenge and punishment, the complete failure of which has been
demonstrated throughout human experience. Among the new
ways might also be tried that of free colonization. The revolution
will offer its enemies an opportunity to settle in some part ofthe country and there establish the form of social life that will
suit them best. It is no vain speculation to foresee that it would
not be long before most of them would prefer the brotherhoodand liberty of the revolutionary community to the reactionary
régime of their colony. But even if they did not, nothing would be
lost. On the contrary, the revolution would itself be the greatest
gainer, spiritually, by forsaking methods of revenge and persecution and practicing humanity and magnanimity. Revolutionary
self-defense, inspired by such methods, will be the more effective
because of the very freedom it will guarantee even to its enemies.
Its appeal to the masses and to the world at large will thereby be
the more irresistible and universal. In its justice and humanity lies
the invincible strength of the social revolution.
No revolution has yet tried the true way of liberty. None has had
sufficient faith in it. Force and suppression, persecution, revenge,
and terror have characterized all revolutions in the past and havethereby defeated their original aims. The time has come to try new
methods, new ways. The social revolution is to achieve the emancipation of man through liberty, but if we have no faith in the latter,
291

United States Government which is making use of them now in its
Nicaraguan campaign. American aëroplanes scatter proclamations
and appeals to the Nicaraguan people to persuade them to desert
Sandino and his cause, and the American army chiefs expect
the best results from these tactics. But the Sandino patriots arefighting for home and country against a foreign invader, while
counter-revolutionists wage war against their own people. The
work of their enlightenment is much simpler and promises better
results.
“Do you think that would really be the best way to deal withcounter-revolution?”
By all means. Humane treatment and kindness are more effective than cruelty and vengeance. The new attitude in this regard
would suggest also a number of other methods of similar character. Various modes of dealing with conspirators and active enemies of the revolution would develop as soon as you begin topractice the new policy. The plan might be adopted, for instance,of scattering them, individually or in small groups, over districts
removed from their counter-revolutionary influences, among communities of revolutionary spirit and consciousness. Consider alsothat counter-revolutionists must eat; which means that they wouldfind themselves in a situation that would claim their thoughts andtime for other things than the hatching of conspiracies. The defeated counter-revolutionist, left at liberty instead of being imprisoned, would have to seek means of existence. He would not bedenied his livelihood, of course, since the revolution would be generous enough to feed even its enemies. But the man in question
would have to join some community, secure lodgings, and so forth,in order to enjoy the hospitality of the distributing center. In otherwords, the counter-revolutionary “prisoners in freedom” would depend on the community and the good will of its members for theirmeans of existence. They would live in its atmosphere and be influenced by its revolutionary environment. Surely they will be safer
and more contented than in prison, and presently they would cease
290international interests, is not organized on the right principles, anddoes not sufficiently realize the need of world-wide coöperation.
Your daily struggles for better conditions would quickly assume
a different character if you were organized in such a manner thatwhen your factory or mine goes on strike, the whole industry
should quit work; not gradually but at once, all at the same time.
Then the employer would be at your mercy, for what could he
do when not a wheel turns in the whole industry? He can get
enough strikebreakers for one or a few mills, but an entire industry
cannot be supplied with them, nor would he consider it safe oradvisable. Moreover, suspension of work in any one industry
would immediately affect a large number of others, because
modern industry is interwoven. The situation would become thedirect concern of the whole country, the public would be aroused
and demand a settlement. (At present, when your single factorystrikes, no one cares and you may starve as long as you remain
quiet.) That settlement would again depend on yourself, on thestrength of your organization. When the bosses would see thatyou know your power and that you are determined, they’d givein quickly enough or seek a compromise. They would be losing
millions every day, the strikers might even sabotage the works
and machinery, and the employers would be only too anxious to“settle,” while in a strike of one factory or district they usually
welcome the situation, knowing as they do that the chances are
all against you.
Reflect therefore how important it is in what manner, on what
principles your union is built, and how vital labor solitarily andcoöperation are in your every-day struggle for better conditions.
In unity is your strength, but that unity is non-existent and impossible as long as you are organized on craft lines instead of byindustries.
There is nothing more important and urgent than that you andyour fellow workers see to it immediately that you change the formof your organization.
251

But it is not only the form that must be changed. Your union must
become clear about its aims and purposes. The worker should mostearnestly consider what he really wants, how he means to achieveit, by what methods. He must learn what his union should be, how
it should function, and what it should try to accomplish.
Now, what is the union to accomplish? What should be the armsof a real labor union?
First of all, the purpose of the union is to serve the interests of
its members. That is its primary duty. There is no quarrel about
that; every workingman understands it. If some refuse to join a labor body it is because they are too ignorant to appreciate its greatvalue, in which case they must be enlightened. But generally they
decline to belong to the union because they have no faith or are
disappointed in it. Most of those who remain away from the union
do so because they hear much boasting about the strength of organized labor while they know, often from bitter experience, that
it is defeated in almost every important struggle. “Oh, the union,”they say scornfully, “it don’t amount to anything.” To speak quite
truthfully, to a certain extent they are right. They see organized
capital proclaim the open shop policy and defeat the unions; they
see labor leaders sell out strikes and betray the workers; they see
the membership, the rank and file, helpless in the political machinations in and out of the union. To be sure, they don’t understandwhy it is so; but they do see the facts, and they turn against theunion.
Some again refuse to have anything to do with the union because
they had at one time belonged to it, and they know what an insignificant rôle the individual member, the average worker, plays in theaffairs of the organization. The local leaders, the district and central bodies, the national and international officers, and the chiefsof the American Federation of Labor, in the United States, “run thewhole show,” they will tell you; “you have nothing to do but vote,and if you object you’ll fly out.”

252

or sabotage it by forcible invasion or violence. That is the right of
the revolution and its duty. But it will not persecute the conquered
foe, nor wreak vengeance upon an entire social class because of thefault of individual members of it. The sins of the fathers shall not
be visited upon their children.
”What will you do with counter-revolutionists?”
Actual combat and armed resistance involve human sacrifices,and the counter-revolutionists who lose their lives under such circumstances suffer the unavoidable consequences of their deeds.
But the revolutionary people are not savages. The wounded are
not slaughtered nor those taken prisoners executed. Neither is practiced the barbarous system of shooting hostages, as the Bolsheviki
did.
“How will you treat counter-revolutionists taken prisoners during an engagement?”
The revolution must find new ways, some sensible method of
dealing with them. The old method is to imprison them, support
them in idleness, and employ numerous men to guard and punish
them. And while the culprit remains in prison, incarceration andbrutal treatment still further embitter him against the revolution,
strengthen his opposition, and nurse thoughts of vengeance andnew conspiracies. The revolution will regard such methods as
stupid and detrimental to its best interests. It will try instead byhumane treatment to convince the defeated enemy of the error
and uselessness of his resistance. It will apply liberty instead ofrevenge. It will take into consideration that most of the counterrevolutionists are dupes rather than enemies, deluded victims ofsome individuals seeking power and authority. It will know thatthey need enlightenment rather than punishment, and that theformer will accomplish more than the latter. Even to-day thisperception is gaining ground. The Bolsheviki defeated the Allied
armies in Russia more effectively by revolutionary propaganda
among the enemy soldiers than by the strength of their artillery.
These new methods have been recognized as practical even by the289

cause which is at stake, and the last man of them will fight like alion in its behalf.
The same applies to internal as to external defense. What chance
would any White general or counter-revolutionist have if he could
not exploit oppression and injustice to incite the people against
the revolution? Counter-revolution can feed only on popular discontent. Where the masses are conscious that the revolution andall its activities are in their own hands, that they themselves aremanaging things and are free to change their methods when they
consider it necessary, counter-revolution can find no support andis harmless.
“But would you let counter-revolutionists incite the people ifthey tried to?”By all means. Lee them talk all they like. To restrain them would
serve only to create a persecuted class and thereby enlist popular
sympathy for them and their cause. To suppress speech and press
is not only a theoretic offense against liberty: it is a direct blow atthe very foundations of the revolution. It would, first of all, raise
problems where none had existed before. It would introduce methods which must lead to discontent and opposition, to bitterness
and strife, to prison, Tcheka, and civil war. It would generate fearand distrust, would hatch conspiracies, and culminate in a reign ofterror which has always killed revolutions in the past.
The social revolution must from the very start be based on entirely different principles, on a new conception and attitude. Fullfreedom is the very breath of its existence; and be it never forgottenthat the cure for evil and disorder is more liberty, not suppression.
Suppression leads only to violence and destruction.
“Will you not defend the revolution then?” your friend demands.
Certainly we will. But not against mere talk, not against an expression of opinion. The revolution must be big enough to welcome
even the severest criticism, and profit by it if it is justified. The revolution will defend itself most determinedly against real counterrevolution, against all active enemies, against any attempt to defeat
288

Unfortunately they are right. You know how the union is managed. The rank and file have little to say. They have delegated thewhole power to the leaders, and these have become the bosses, justas in the larger life of society the people are made to submit to theorders of those who were originally meant to serve them — the government and its agents. Once you do that, the power you have delegated will be used against you and your own interests every time.
And then you complain that your leaders “misuse their power.” No,
my friend, they don’t misuse it; they only use it, for it is the use of
power which is itself the worst misuse.
All this has to be changed if you really want to achieve results.
In society it has to be changed by taking political power away fromyour governors, abolishing it altogether. I have shown that politicalpower means authority, oppression, and tyranny, and that it is notpolitical government that we need but rational management of ourcollective affairs.
Just so in your union you need sensible administration of yourbusiness. We know what tremendous power labor has as the creator of all wealth and the supporter of the world. If properly organized and united, the workers could control the situation, be themasters of it. But the strength of the worker is not in the union
meeting-hall; it is in the shop and factory, in the mill and mine. It
is there that he must organize; there, on the job. There he knows
what he wants, what his needs are, and it is there that he must
concentrate his efforts and his will. Every shop and factory shouldhave its special committee to attend to the wants and requirementsof the men, not leaders, but members of the rank and file, fromthe bench and furnace, to look after the demands and complaintsof their fellow employees. Such a committee, being on the spot
and constantly under the direction and supervision of the workers,
wields no power: it merely carries out instructions. Its members arerecalled at will and others selected in their place, according to theneed of the moment and the ability required for the task in hand.

253

It is the workers who decide the matters at issue and carry theirdecisions out through the shop committees.
That is the character and form of organization that labor needs.
Only this form can express its real purpose and will, be its adequate
spokesman, and serve its true interests.
These shop and factory committees, combined with similar bodies in other mills and mines, associated locally, regionally, and nationally, would constitute a new type of labor organization which
would be the virile voice of toil and its effective agency. It would
have the whole weight and energy of the united workers back of
it and would represent a power tremendous in its scope and potentialities.
In the daily struggle of the proletariat such an organization
would be able to achieve victories about which the conservative
union, as at present built, cannot even dream. It would enjoy
the respect and confidence of the masses, would attract theunorganized and unite the labor forces on the basis of the equalityof all workers and their joint interests and aims. It would face
the masters with the whole might of the working class back ofit, in a new attitude of consciousness and strength. Only thenwould labor acquire unity and the expression of it assume realsignificance.
Such a union would soon become something more than a mere
defender and protector of the worker. It would gain a vital realization of the meaning of unity and consequent power, of laborsolidarity. The factory and shop would serve as a training camp
to develop the worker’s understanding of his proper rôle in life, tocultivate his self-reliance and independence, teach him mutual help
and coöperation, and make him conscious of his responsibility. He
will learn to decide and act on his own judgment, not leaving it toleaders or politicians to attend to his affairs and look out for his welfare. It will be he who will determine, together with his fellows at
the bench, what they want and what methods will best serve theiraims, and his committee on the spot would merely carry out in254

It was the volunteer Red Guard, made up of toilers, that successfully defended the Russian Revolution in its most critical initialstages. Later on it was again volunteer peasant regiments who defeated the White armies. The regular Red army, organized later,
was powerless without the volunteer workers’ and peasants’ divisions. Siberia was freed from Kolchak and his hordes by such peasant volunteers. In the north of Russia it was also workers’ and peasants detachments that drove out the foreign armies which came toimpose the yoke of native reactionaries upon the people.1 In the
Ukraine the volunteer peasant armies — known as povstantsi —saved the Revolution from numerous counter-revolutionary generals and particularly from Denikin when the latter was alreadyat the very gates of Moscow. It was the revolutionary povstantsi
who freed southern Russia from the invading armies of Germany,
France, Italy, and Greece and subsequently also routed the White
forces of General Wrangel.
The military defense of the revolution may demand a supremecommand, coordination of activities, discipline, and obedience toorders. But these must proceed from the devotion of the workers
and peasants, and must be based on their voluntary coöperation
through their own local, regional, and federal organizations. In thematter of defense against foreign attack, as in all other problemsof the social revolution, the active interest of the masses, their autonomy and self-determination are the best guarantee of success.
Understand well that the only really effective defense of the revolution lies in the attitude of the people. Popular discontent is theworst enemy of the revolution and its greatest danger. We must
always bear in mind that the strength of the social revolution is organic, not mechanistic: not in mechanical, military measures lies
its might, but industry, in its ability to reconstruct life, to establish
liberty and justice. Let the people feel that it is indeed their own

1

The Tchaikovsky-Miller Government.

287

want to accomplish. That is to say, the social revolution must be
Anarchistic in method as in aim.
Revolutionary defense must be in consonance with this spirit.
Self-defense excludes all acts of coercion, of persecution or revenge.
It is concerned only with repelling attack and depriving the enemyof opportunity to invade you.
“How would you repel foreign invasion?”
By the strength of the revolution. In what does that strength
consist? First and foremost, in the support of the people, in the devotion of the industrial and agricultural masses. If they feel thatthey themselves are making the revolution, that they have become
the masters of their lives, that they have gained freedom and arebuilding up their welfare, then in that very sentiment you havethe greatest strength of the revolution. The masses fight to-day for
king, capitalist, or president because they believe them worth fighting for. Let them believe in the revolution, and they will defend it
to the death.
They will fight for the revolution with heart and soul, as the halfstarved working men, women, and even children of Petrograd defended their city, almost with bare hands, against the White armyof General Yudenitch. Take that faith away, deprive the people ofpower by setting up some authority over them, be it a politicalparty or military organization, and you have dealt a fatal blow
to the revolution. You will have robbed it of its main source ofstrength, the masses. You will have made it defenseless.
The armed workers and peasants are the only effective defenseof the revolution. By means of their unions and syndicates theymust always be on guard against counter-revolutionary attack. The
worker in factory and mill, in mine and field, is the soldier of therevolution. He is at his bench and plow or on the battlefield, according to need. But in his factory as in his regiment he is the soul of
the revolution, and it is his will that decides its fate. In industry theshop committees, in the barracks the soldiers’ committees — these
are the fountain-head of all revolutionary strength and activity.
286

structions. The shop and factory would become the worker’s school
and college. There he will learn his place in society, his function inindustry, and his purpose in life. He will mature as a workingman
and as a man, and the giant of labor will attain his full stature. He
will know and be strong thereby.
Not long will he then be satisfied to remain a wage slave, an
employee and dependent on the good will of his master whom his
toil supports. He will grow to understand that present economic
and social arrangements are wrong and criminal, and he will determine to change them. The shop committee and union will become
the field of preparation for a new economic system, for a new sociallife.
You see, then, how necessary it is that you and I, and every man
and woman who has the interests of labor at heart, work toward
these objects.
And right here I want to emphasize that it is particularly urgent
that the more advanced proletarian, the radical and the revolutionary, reflect upon this more earnestly, for to most of them, even tosome Anarchists, this is only a pious wish, a distant hope. They failto realize the transcending importance of efforts in that direction.
Yet it is no mere dream. Large numbers of progressive workingmen are coming to this understanding: the Industrial Workers of
the World and the revolutionary Anarchist-syndicalists in every
country are devoting themselves to this end. It is the most pressing need of the present. It cannot be stressed too much that only
the right organization of the workers can accomplish what we are
striving for. In it lies the salvation of labor and of the future. Organization from the bottom up, beginning with the shop and factory,
on the foundation of the joint interests of the workers everywhere,
irrespective of trade, race, or country, by means of mutual effort
and united will, alone can solve the labor question and serve thetrue emancipation of man.
“You were speaking of the workers taking over the industries,’
your friend reminds me. “How are they going to do this?”255

Yes, I was on the subject when you made that remark about organization. But it is well that the matter was discussed, because there
is nothing more vital in the problems we are examining.
To return to the taking over of the industries. It means not only
taking them over, but the running of them by labor. As concerns thetaking over, you must consider that the workers are actually now
in the industries. The taking over consists in the workers remaining
where they are, yet remaining not as employees but as the rightful
collective possessors.
Grasp this point, my friend. The expropriation of the capitalistclass during the social revolution — the taking over of the industries — requires tactics directly the reverse of those you now use
in a strike. In the latter you quit work and leave the boss in fullpossession of the mill, factory, or mine. It is an idiotic proceeding,of course, for you give the master the entire advantage: he can put
scabs in your place, and you remain out in the cold.
In expropriating, on the contrary, you stay on the job and you
put the boss out. He may remain only on equal terms with the rest:a worker among workers.
The labor organizations of a given place take charge of the public utilities, of the means of communication, of production and distribution in their particular locality. That is, the telegraphers, thetelephone and electrical workers, the railroad men, and so on, takepossession (by means of their revolutionary shop committees) of
the workshop, factory, or other establishment. The capitalistic foremen, overseers, and managers are removed from the premises ifthey resist the change and refuse to coöperate. If willing to participate, they are made to understand that henceforth there are neither
masters nor owners: that the factory becomes public property incharge of the union of workers engaged in the industry, all equal
partners in the general undertaking.
It is to be expected that the higher officials of large industrial andmanufacturing concerns will refuse to coöperate. Thus they eliminate themselves. Their place must be taken by workers previously
256

Chapter 31: Defense of the
Revolution“Suppose your system is tried, would you have any means ofdefending the revolution?” you ask.
Certainly.
“Even by armed force?”
Yes, if necessary.
“But armed force is organized violence. Didn’t you say Anarchism was against it?”
Anarchism is opposed to any interference with your liberty, be
it by force and violence or by any other means. It is against all invasion and compulsion. But if any one attacks you, then it is he who
is invading you, he who is employing violence against you. You
have a right to defend yourself. More than that, it is your duty, as
an Anarchist, to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion. Otherwise you are a slave, not a free man. In other words, thesocial revolution will attack no one, but it will defend itself against
invasion from any quarter.
Besides, you must not confuse the social revolution with Anarchy. Revolution, in some of its stages, is a violent upheaval; Anarchy is a social condition of freedom and peace. The revolution is
the means of bringing Anarchy about but it is not Anarchy itself. It
is to pave the road for Anarchy, to establish conditions which will
make a life of liberty possible.
But to achieve its purpose the revolution must be imbued withand directed by the Anarchist spirit and ideas. The end shapes themeans, just as the tool you use must be fit to do the work you
285

lectivism begins by abolishing private ownership of the means of
production and immediately reverses itself by returning to the system of remuneration according to work performed; which means
the reintroduction of inequality.
Man learns by doing. The social revolution in different countries
and regions will probably try out various methods, and by practical experience learn the best way. The revolution is at the sametime the opportunity and justification for it. I am not attempting toprophesy what this or that country is going to do, what particular
course it will follow. Nor do I presume to dictate to the future, toprescribe its mode of conduct. My purpose is to suggest, in broad
outline, the principles which must animate the revolution, the general lines of action it should follow if it is to accomplish its aim —the reconstruction of society on a foundation of freedom and equality.
We know that previous revolutions for the most part failed of
their objects; they degenerated into dictatorship and despotism,
and thus reëstablished the old institutions of oppression and exploitation. We know it from past and recent history. We therefore
draw the conclusion that the old way will not do. A new way must
be cried in the coming social revolution. What new way? The only
one so far known to man: the way of liberty and equality, the wayof free communism, of Anarchy.

284

prepared for the job. That is why I have emphasized the utmost importance of industrial preparation. This is a primal necessity in asituation that will inevitably develop and on it will depend, morethan on any other factor, the success of the social revolution. Industrial preparation is the most essential point, for without it therevolution is doomed to collapse.
The engineers and other technical specialists are more likely tojoin hands with labor when the social revolution comes, particularly if a closer bond and better understanding have in the meantime been established between the manual and mental workers.
Should they refuse and should the workers have failed to prepare
themselves industrially and technically, then production would depend on compelling the willfully obstinate to coöperate — an experiment tried in the Russian Revolution and proved a complete
failure.
The grave mistake of the Bolsheviki in this connection was their
hostile treatment of the whole class of the intelligentsia on accountof the opposition of some members of it. It was the spirit of intolerance, inherent in fanatical dogma, which caused them to persecute
an entire social group because of the fault of a few. This manifested
itself in the policy of wholesale vengeance upon the professional
elements, the technical specialists, the coöperative organizations,and all cultured persons in general. Most of them, at first friendly to
the Revolution, some even enthusiastic in its favor, were alienatedby these Bolshevik tactics, and their coöperation was made impossible. As a result of their dictatorial attitude the Communists were
led to resort to increased oppression and tyranny till they finallyintroduced purely martial methods in the industrial life of the country. It was the era of compulsory labor, the militarization of factoryand mill, which unavoidably ended in disaster, because forced labor is, by the very nature of coercion, bad and inefficient; moreover,those so compelled react upon the situation by willful sabotage,by systematic delay and spoilage of work, which an intelligent enemy can practice in a way that cannot be detected in due time and257

which results in greater harm to machinery and product than direct
refusal to work. In spite of the most drastic measures against thiskind of sabotage, in spite even of the death penalty, the government
was powerless to overcome the evil. The placing of a Bolshevik, ofa political commissar, over every technician in the more responsible positions did not help matters. It merely created a legion ofparasitic officials who, ignorant of industrial matters, only interfered with the work of those friendly to the Revolution and willingto aid, while their unfamiliarity with the task in no way prevented
continued sabotage. The system of forced labor finally developedin what practically became economic counter-revolution, and noefforts of the dictatorship could alter the situation. It was this thatcaused the Bolsheviki to change from compulsory labor to a policyof winning over the specialists and technicians by returning themto authority in the industries and rewarding them with high pay
and special emoluments.
It would be stupid and criminal to try again the methods whichhave so signally failed in the Russian Revolution and which, by
their very character, are bound to fail every time, both industriallyand morally.
The only solution of this problem is the already suggested preparation and training of the workers in the art of organizing and managing industry, as well as closer contact between the manual andtechnical men. Every factory, mine, and mill should have its special
workers’ council, separate from and independent of the shop committee, for the purpose of familiarizing the workers with the various phases of their particular industry, including the sources of raw
material, the consecutive processes of manufacture, by-products,
and manner of distribution. This industrial council should be permanent, but its membership must rotate in such a manner as totake in practically all the employees of a given factory or mill.
To illustrate: suppose the industrial council in a certain establishment consists of five members or of twenty-five, as the case may
be, according to the complexity of the industry and the size of the258

aged and stimulated by the revolution for the greater weal of thecommunity.
The rôle of industrial decentralization in the revolution is unfortunately too little appreciated. Even in progressive labor ranks
there is a dangerous tendency to ignore or minimize its importance.
Most people are still in the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that
centralization is “more efficient and economical.” They close theireyes to the fact that the alleged “economy” is achieved at the costof the worker’s limb and life, that the “efficiency” degrades him toa mere industrial cog, deadens his soul, and kills his body. Furthermore, in a system of centralization the administration of industry
becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerfulbureaucracy of industrial overlords. It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim at such a result. It would
mean the creation of a new master class.
The revolution can accomplish the emancipation of labor only by
gradual decentralization, by developing the individual worker intoa more conscious and determining factor in the processes of industry, by making him the impulse whence proceeds all industrial andsocial activity. The deep significance of the social revolution lies in
the abolition of the mastery of man over man, putting in its place
the management of things. Only thus can be achieved industrial
and social freedom.
“Are you sure it would work?” you demand.
I am sure of this: if that will not work, nothing else will. The plan
I have outlined is a free communism, a life of voluntary coöperation and equal sharing. There is no other way of securing economic
equality which alone is liberty. Any other system must lead backto capitalism.
It is likely, of course, that a country in social revolution may
try various economic experiments. A limited capitalism might beintroduced in one part of the land or collectivism in another. But
collectivism is only another form of the wage system and it would
speedily tend to become the capitalism of the present day. For col283

geois governments, as was the case with Russia. Thus the revolution is compelled to become self-supporting and provide for its own
wants. Even various parts of the same country may have to facesuch an eventuality. They would have to produce what they needwithin their own area, by their own efforts. Only decentralization
could solve this problem. The country would have to reorganize
its activities in such a manner as to be able to feed itself. It would
have to revert to production on a small scale, to home industry, andto intensive agriculture and horticulture. Man’s initiative freed by
the revolution and his wits sharpened by necessity will rise to thesituation.
It must therefore be clearly understood that it would be disastrous to the interests of the revolution to suppress or interfere withthe small-scale industries which are even now practiced to sucha great extent in various European countries. Numerous articles
of every-day use are produced by the peasants of Continental Europe during their leisure winter hours. Those home manufactures
total up tremendous figures and fill a great need. It would be mostharmful to the revolution to destroy them, as Russia so foolishly
did in her mad Bolshevik passion for centralization. When a country in revolution is attacked by foreign governments, when it isblockaded and deprived of imports, when its large-scale industries
threaten to break down or the railroads actually do break down,then it is just the small home industries which become the vital
nerve of economic life: they alone can feed and save the revolution.
Moreover, such home industries are not only a potent economic
factor; they are also of the greatest social value. They serve to cultivate friendly intercourse between the farm and the city, bringing
the two into closer and more solidaric contact. In fact, the homeindustries are themselves an expression of a most wholesome social spirit which from earliest times has manifested itself in village
gatherings, in communal efforts, in folk dance and song. This normal and healthy tendency, in its various aspects, should be encour282

particular factory. The members of the council, after having thoroughly acquainted themselves with their industry, publish what
they had learned for the information of their fellow-workers, andnew council members are chosen to continue the industrial studies.
In this manner the whole factory or mill can consecutively acquire
the necessary knowledge about the organization and managementof their trade and keep step with its development. These councils
would serve as industrial colleges where the workers would become familiar with the technique of their industry in all its phases.
At the same time the larger organization, the union, must use
every effort to compel capital to permit greater labor participationin the actual management. But this, even at best, can benefit onlya small minority of the workers. The plan suggested above, on theother hand, opens the possibility of industrial training to practically every worker in shop, mill, and factory.
It is true, of course, that there are certain kinds of work — suchas engineering: civil, electrical, mechanical — which the industrial
councils will not be able to acquire by actual practice. But what they
will learn of the general processes of industry will be of inestimablevalue as preparation. For the rest, the closer bond of friendshipand coöperation between worker and technician is a paramountnecessity.
The taking over of the industries is therefore the first great objectof the social revolution. It is to be accomplished by the proletariat,
by the part of it organized and prepared for the task. Considerable
numbers of workers are already beginning to realize the importance of this and to understand the task before them. But understanding what is necessary to be done is not sufficient. Learning
how to do it is the next step. It is up to the organized working class
to enter at once upon this preparatory work.

259

Chapter 28: Principles andPractice
The main purpose of the social revolution must be the immediate betterment of conditions for the masses. The success of therevolution fundamentally depends on it. This can be achieved only
by organizing consumption and production so as to be of real benefit to the populace. In that lies the greatest — in fact, the only —security of the social revolution. It was not the Red army whichconquered counter-revolution in Russia: it was the peasants holding on for dear life to the land they had taken during the upheaval.
The social revolution must be of material gain to the masses if it
is to live and grow. The people at large must be sure of actual advantage from their efforts, or at least entertain the hope of such
advantage in the near future. The revolution is doomed if it relies
for its existence and defense on mechanical means, such as war andarmies. The real safety of the revolution is organic; that is, it lies inindustry and production.
The object of revolution is to secure greater freedom, to increase
the material welfare of the people. The aim of the social revolution,in particular, is to enable the masses by their own efforts to bringabout conditions of material and social well-being, to rise to higher
moral and spiritual levels.
In other words, it is liberty which is to be established by the social revolution. For true liberty is based on economic opportunity.
Without it all liberty is a sham and lie, a mask for exploitation andoppression. In the profoundest sense liberty is the daughter of economic equality.
260

Every country in revolution must seek to achieve agricultural independence no less than political, industrial self-help no less thanagricultural. This process is going on to a certain extent even under capitalism. It should be one of the main objects of the social
revolution. Modern methods make it possible. The manufacture ofwatches and clocks, for example, which was formerly a monopolyof Switzerland, is now carried on in every country. Production ofsilk, previously limited to France, is among the great industries ofvarious countries to-day. Italy, without sources of coal or iron, constructs steel-clad ships. Switzerland, no richer, also makes them.
Decentralization will cure society of many evils of the centralized principle. Politically decentralization means freedom; industrially, material independence; socially it implies security and wellbeing for the small communities; individually it results in manhoodand liberty.
Equally important to the social revolution as independence fromforeign lands is decentralization within the country itself. Internal decentralization means making the larger regions, even every
community, so far as possible, self-supporting. In his very illuminating and suggestive work, Fields, Factories, and Workshops, Peter
Kropotkin has convincingly shown how a city like Paris even, now
almost exclusively commercial, could raise enough food in its own
environs to support its population abundantly. By using modern
agricultural machinery and intensive cultivation London and New
York could subsist upon the products raised in their own immediate vicinity. It is a fact that “our means of obtaining from the soil
whatever we want, under any climate and upon any soil, have lately
been improved at such a rate that we cannot foresee yet what is thelimit of productivity of a few acres of land. The limit vanishes inproportion to our better study of the subject, and every year makes
it vanish further and further from our sight.”
When the social revolution begins in any land, its foreign commerce stops: the importation of raw materials and finished products is suspended. The country may even be blockaded by the bour281

secure conditions of the dictatorship, failed to respond with any degree of enthusiasm. Meanwhile Russia was approaching economic
breakdown. The situation finally compelled the Bolsheviki to understand that the country must depend on her own efforts for maintenance. Russia began to look around for means to help herself;
and thereby she acquired greater confidence in her own abilities,
learned to exercise self-reliance and initiative, and started to develop her own industries; a slow and painful process, but a wholesome necessity which will ultimately make Russia economically
self-supporting and independent.
The social revolution in any given country must from the very
first determine to make itself self-supporting. It must help itself.
This principle of self-help is not to be understood as a lack of solidarity with other lands. On the contrary, mutual aid and coöperation between countries, as among individuals, can exist only on
the basis of equality, among equals. Dependence is the very reverseof it.
Should the social revolution take place in several countries atthe same time — in France and Germany, for instance — then joint
effort would be a matter of course and would make the task of revolutionary reorganization much easier.
Fortunately the workers are learning to understand that theircause is international: the organization of labor is now developing
beyond national boundaries. It is to be hoped that the time is not far
away when the entire proletariat of Europe may combine in a general strike, which is to be the prelude to the social revolution. Thatis emphatically a consummation to be striven for with the greatest
earnestness. But at the same time the probability is not to be discounted that the revolution may break out in one country sooner
than in another — let us say in France earlier than in Germany —and in such a case it would become imperative for France not to
wait for possible aid from outside but immediately to exert all her
energies to help herself, to supply the most essential needs of her
people by her own efforts.
280

The main aim of the social revolution is therefore to establish
equal liberty on the basis of equal opportunity. The revolutionary reorganization of life must immediately proceed to secure theequality of all, economically, politically, and socially.
That reorganization will depend, first and foremost, on the thorough familiarity of labor with the economic situation of the country: on a complete inventory of the supply, on exact knowledge ofthe sources of raw material, and on the proper organization of thelabor forces for efficient management.
It means that statistics and intelligent workers’ associations arevital needs of the revolution, on the day after the upheaval. The
entire problem of production and distribution — the life of the revolution — is based on it. It is obvious, as pointed out before, that thisknowledge must be acquired by the workers before the revolution
if the latter is to accomplish its purposes.
That is why the shop and factory committee, dealt with in theprevious chapter, are so important and will play such a decisiverôle in the revolutionary reconstruction.
For a new society is not born suddenly, any more than a childis. New social life gestates in the body of the old just as new individual life does in the mother’s womb. Time and certain processes
are required to develop it till it becomes a complete organism capable of functioning. When that stage has been reached birth takes
place in agony and pain, socially as individually. Revolution, to usea trite but expressive saying, is the midwife of the new social being. This is true in the most literal sense. Capitalism is the parentof the new society; the shop and factory committee, the union ofclass-conscious labor and revolutionary aims, is the germ of the
new life. In that shop committee and union the worker must acquire the knowledge of how to manage his affairs: in the process
he will grow to the perception that social life is a matter of properorganization, of united effort, of solidarity. He will come to understand that it is not the bossing and ruling of men but free association and harmonious working together which accomplish things;
261

that it is not government and laws which produce and create, makethe wheat grow and the wheels turn, but concord and coöperation.
Experience will teach him to substitute the management of thingsin place of the government of men. In the daily life and struggles
of his shop-committee the worker must learn how to conduct therevolution.
Shop and factory committees, organized locally, by district, region, and State, and federated nationally, will be the bodies best
suited to carry on revolutionary production.
Local and State labor councils, federated nationally, will be
the form of organization most adapted to manage distribution bymeans of the people’s coöperatives.
These committees, elected by the workers on the job, connect
their shop and factory with other shops and factories of the same
industry. The Joint Council of an entire industry links that industry with other industries, and thus is formed a federation of laborcouncils for the entire country.
Coöperative associations are the mediums of exchange between
the country and city. The farmers, organized locally and federated
regionally and nationally, supply the needs of the cities by meansof the coöperatives and receive through the latter in exchange theproducts of the city industries.
Every revolution is accompanied by a great outburst of popular enthusiasm full of hope and aspiration. It is the spring-boardof revolution. This high tide, spontaneous and powerful, opens up
the human sources of initiative and activity. The sense of equality liberates the best there is in man and makes him consciously
creative. These are the great motors of the social revolution, its
moving forces. Their free and unhindered expression signifies thedevelopment and deepening of the revolution. Their suppression
means decay and death. The revolution is safe, it grows and becomes strong, as long as the masses feel that they are direct participants in it, that they are fashioning their own lives, that they aremaking the revolution, that they are the revolution. But the mo262

Anarchism, on the contrary, is material independence, not only forthe individual, but for every community.
This means gradual decentralization instead of centralization.
Even under capitalism we see the decentralization tendency
manifest itself in spite of the essentially centralistic character ofthe present-day industrial system. Countries which were before
entirely dependent on foreign manufactures, as Germany in thelast quarter of the nineteenth century, later Italy and Japan, andnow Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc., are gradually emancipating
themselves industrially, working their own natural resources,building their own factories and mills, and attaining economic
independence from other lands. International finance does not welcome this development and tries its utmost to retard its progress,
because it is more profitable for the Morgans and Rockefellers tokeep such countries as Mexico, China, India, Ireland, or Egypt
industrially backward, in order to exploit their natural resources
and at the same time be assured of foreign markets for “overproduction” at home. The governments of the great financiers andlords of industry help them secure those foreign natural resources
and markets, even at the point of the bayonet. Thus Great Britain
by force of arms compels China to permit English opium to poison
the Chinese, at a good profit, and exploits every means to disposein that country of the greater part of its textile products. For thesame reason Egypt, India, Ireland, and other dependencies andcolonies are not permitted to develop their home industries.
In short, capitalism seeks centralization. But a free country
needs decentralization, independence not only political but also
industrial, economic.
Russia strikingly illustrates how imperative economic independence is, particularly to the social revolution. For years following
the October upheaval the Bolshevik Government concentrated its
efforts on currying favor with bourgeois governments for “recognition” and inviting foreign capitalists to help exploit the resources of
Russia. But capital, afraid to make large investments under the in279

ating with similar committees in the city and State, and federating
their efforts throughout the country by means of general councils
of producers and consumers.
Great events and upheavals bring to the fore the most active andenergetic elements. The social revolution will crystallize the classconscious labor ranks. By whatever name they will be known-as
industrial unions, revolutionary syndicalist bodies, coöperative associations, leagues of producers and consumers — they will represent the most enlightened and advanced part of labor, the organized workers aware of their aims and how to attain them. It isthey who will be the moving spirit of the revolution.
With the aid of industrial machinery and by scientific cultivation of the land freed from monopoly the revolution must first of
all supply the elemental wanes of society. In farming and gardening intensive cultivation and modern methods have made us practically independent of natural soil quality and climate. To a very
considerable extent man now makes his own soil and his own climate, thanks to the achievements of chemistry. Exotic fruits canbe raised in the north to be supplied to the warm south, as is being
done in France. Science is the wizard who enables man to master alldifficulties and overcome all obstacles. The future, liberated fromthe incubus of the profit system and enriched by the work of themillions of non-producers of to-day, holds the greatest welfare forsociety. That future must be the objective point of the social revolution; its motto: bread and well-being for all. First bread, thenwell-being and luxury. Even luxury, for luxury is a deep-felt needof man, a need of his physical as of his spiritual being.
Intense application to this purpose must be the continuous effort of the revolution: not something to be postponed for a distantday but of immediate practice. The revolution must strive to enable
every community to sustain itself, to become materially independent. No country should have to rely on outside help or exploit
colonies for its support. That is the way of capitalism. The aim of278

ment their activities are usurped by a political party or are centeredin some special organization, revolutionary effort becomes limited
to a comparatively small circle from which the large masses arepractically excluded. The natural result is that popular enthusiasm
is dampened, interest gradually weakens, initiative languishes, creativeness wanes, and the revolution becomes the monopoly of aclique which presently turns dictator.
This is fatal to the revolution. The sole prevention of such a catastrophe lies in the continued active interest of the workers throughtheir every-day participation in all matters pertaining to the revolution. The source of this interest and activity is the shop and theunion.
The interest of the masses and their loyalty to the revolution
depend furthermore on their feeling that the revolution represents
justice and fair play. This explains why revolutions have the powerof rousing the people to acts of great heroism and devotion. As already pointed out, the masses instinctively see in revolution theenemy of wrong and iniquity and the harbinger of justice. In thissense revolution is a highly ethical factor and an inspiration. Fundamentally it is only great moral principles which can fire the masses
and lift them to spiritual heights.
All popular upheavals have shown this to be true; particularly
so the Russian Revolution. It was because of that spirit that theRussian masses so strikingly triumphed over all obstacles in thedays of February and October. No opposition could conquer their
devotion inspired by a great and noble cause. But the Revolution
began to decline when it had become emasculated of its high moral
values, when it was denuded of its elements of justice, equality, andliberty. Their loss was the doom of the Revolution.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly how essential spiritual values are to the social revolution. These and the consciousness of themasses that the revolution also means material betterment are dynamic influences in the life and growth of the new society. Of thetwo factors the spiritual values are foremost. The history of previ263

ous revolutions proves that the masses were ever willing to suffer
and to sacrifice material well-being for the sake of greater liberty
and justice. Thus in Russia neither cold nor starvation could induce
the peasants and workers to aid counter-revolution. All privationand misery notwithstanding they served heroically the interests ofthe great cause. It was only when they saw the Revolution monopolized by a political party, the new-won liberties curtailed, a dictatorship established, and injustice and inequality dominant againthat they became indifferent to the Revolution, declined to participate in the sham, refused to coöperate, and even turned againstit.
To forget ethical values, to introduce practices and methods inconsistent with or opposed to the high moral purposes of the revolution means to invite counter-revolution and disaster.
It is therefore clear that the success of the social revolution primarily depends on liberty and equality. Any deviation from themcan only be harmful; indeed, is sure to prove destructive. It follows
that all the activities of the revolution must be based on freedom
and equal rights. This applies to small things as to great. Any acts
or methods tending to limit liberty, to create inequality and injustice, can result only in a popular attitude inimical to the revolution
and in best interests.
It is from this angle that all the problems of the revolutionary
period must be considered and solved. Among those problems themost important are consumption and housing, production and exchange.

Furthermore it must be considered that the task of increased
production would be enormously facilitated by the addition to theranks of labor of vast numbers whom the altered economic conditions will liberate for work.
Recent statistics show that in 1920 there were in the UnitedStates over 41 million persons of both sexes engaged in gainful
occupations out of a total population of over 105 millions.1 Out of
those 41 millions only 26 millions were actually employed in theindustries, including transportation and agriculture, the balanceof 15 millions consisting mostly of persons engaged in trade, ofcommercial travelers, advertisers, and various other middlemenof the present system In other words, 15 million2 persons would
be released for useful work by a revolution in the United Seates. A
similar situation, proportionate to population, would develop inother countries.
The greater production necessitated by the social revolution
would therefore have an additional army of many million persons
at its disposal. The systematic incorporation of those millions into
industry and agriculture, aided by modern scientific methods oforganization and production, will go a long way toward helping
to solve the problems of supply.
Capitalist production is for profit; more labor is used today tosell things than to produce them. The social revolution reorganizes
the industries on the basis of the needs of the populace. Essential
needs come first, naturally. Food, clothing, shelter — these are theprimal requirements of man. The first step in this direction is theascertaining of the available supply of provisions and other commodities. The labor associations in every city and community takethis work in hand for the purpose of equitable distribution. Workers’ committees in every street and district assume charge, coöper1

N. Y. World Almanac, 1927.
Exclusive of the army, militia, and navy, and the great numbers employedin unnecessary and harmful occupations, such as the building of warships, themanufacture of ammunition and other military equipment, etc.
2

264

277

wakens a high degree of responsibility. Together with the new
atmosphere of liberty and brotherhood it creates the realizationthat hard work and severe self-discipline are necessary to bringproduction up to the requirements of consumption.
On the other hand, the new situation will greatly simplify thepresent very complex problems of industry. For you must consider
that capitalism, because of its competitive character and contradictory financial and commercial interests, involves many intricate
and perplexing issues which would be entirely eliminated by theabolition of the conditions of to-day. Questions of wage scales andselling prices; the requirements of the existing markets and thehunt for new ones; the scarcity of capital for large operations andthe heavy interest to be paid on it; new investments, the effects ofspeculation and monopoly, and a score of related problems whichworry the capitalist and make industry such a difficult and cumbersome network to-day would all disappear. At present these require
divers departments of study and highly trained men to keep unraveling the tangled skein of plutocratic cross purposes, many specialists to calculate the actualities and possibilities of profit and loss,
and a large force of aids to help steer the industrial ship between
the perilous rocks which beset the chaotic course of capitalist competition, national and international.
All this would be automatically done away with by the socialization of industry and the termination of the competitive system;and thereby the problems of production will be immensely lightened. The knotted complexity of capitalist industry need therefore
inspire no undue fear for the future. Those who talk of labor not
being equal to manage “modern” industry fail to take into accountthe factors referred to above. The industrial labyrinth will turn out
to be far less formidable on the day of the social reconstruction.
In passing it may be mentioned that all the other phases of life
would also be very much simplified as a result of the indicatedchanges: various present-day habits, customs, compulsory and unwholesome modes of living will naturally fall into disuse.
276

Chapter 29: Consumption andExchange
Let us take up the organization of consumption first, because
people have to eat before they can work and produce.
“What do you mean by the organization of consumption?” yourfriend asks.
“He means rationing, I suppose,” you remark.
I do. Of course, when the social revolution has become thoroughly organized and production is functioning normally there
will be enough for everybody. But in the first stages of the revolution, during the process of reconstruction, we must take care tosupply the people as best we can, and equally, which means rationing.
“The Bolsheviki did not have equal rationing,” your friend interrupts; “they had different kinds of rations for different people.
They did, and that was one of the greatest mistakes they made.
It was resented by the people as a wrong and it provoked irritation and discontent. The Bolsheviki had one kind of ration for the
sailor, another of lower quality and quantity for the soldier, a thirdfor the skilled worker, a fourth for the unskilled one; another ration again for the average citizen, and yet another for the bourgeois.
The best rations were for the Bolsheviki, the members of the Party,
and special rations for the Communist officials and commissars. At
one time they had as many as fourteen different food rations. Yourown common sense will tell you that it was all wrong. Was it fairto discriminate against people because they happened to be laborers, mechanics, or intellectuals rather than soldiers or sailors? Such265

methods were unjust and vicious: they immediately created material inequality and opened the door to misuse of position and opportunity, to speculation, graft, and swindle. They also stimulated
counter-revolution, for those indifferent or unfriendly to the Revolution were embittered by the discrimination and therefore became
an easy prey to counter-revolutionary influences.
This initial discrimination and the many others which followed
were not dictated by the needs of the situation but solely by political party considerations. Having usurped the reins of government
and fearing the opposition of the people, the Bolsheviki sought tostrengthen themselves in the government seat by currying favorwith the sailors, soldiers, and workers. But by these means they succeeded only in creating indignation and antagonizing the masses,
for the injustice of the system was too crying and obvious. Furthermore, even the “favored class,” the proletariat, felt discriminatedagainst because the soldiers were given better rations. Was theworker not as good as the soldier? Could the soldier fight for the
Revolution — the factory man argued — if the worker would notsupply him with ammunition? The soldier, in his turn, protested
against the sailor getting more. Was he not as valuable as the sailor?
And all condemned the special rations and privileges bestowed on
the Bolshevik members of the Party, and particularly the comforts
and even luxuries enjoyed by the higher officials and commissars,
while the masses suffered privation.
Popular resentment of such practices was strikingly expressedby the Kronstadt sailors. It was in the midst of an extremely severe
and hungry winter, in March, 1921, that a public mass-meeting of
the sailors unanimously resolved voluntarily to give up their extra
rations in behalf of the less favored population of Kronstadt, andto equalize the rations in the entire city.1 This truly ethical revolutionary action voiced the general feeling against discrimination

1

266

See The Kronstadt Rebellion, by the author.

Chapter 30: Production“What about production,” you ask; “how is it to be managed?”
We have already seen what principles must underlie the activities of the revolution if it is to be social and accomplish its aims.
The same principles of freedom and voluntary coöperation mustalso direct the reorganization of the industries.
The first effect of the revolution is reduced production. The general strike, which I have forecast as the starting point of the social
revolution, itself constitutes a suspension of industry. The workers
lay down their tools, demonstrate in the streets, and thus temporarily stop production.
But life goes on. The essential needs of the people must be satisfied. In that stage the revolution lives on the supplies, alreadyon hand. But to exhaust those supplies would be disastrous. The
situation rests in the hands of labor: the immediate resumption ofindustry is imperative. The organized agricultural and industrial
proletariat takes possession of the land, factories, shops, mines andmills. Most energetic application is now the order of the day.
It should be clearly understood that the social revolution necessitates more intensive production than under capitalism in orderto supply the needs of the large masses who till then had lived
in penury. This greater production can be achieved only by theworkers having previously prepared themselves for the new situation. Familiarity with the processes of industry, knowledge of thesources of supply, and determination to succeed will accomplish
the task. The enthusiasm generated by the revolution, the energies
liberated, and the inventiveness stimulated by it must be given full
freedom and scope to find creative channels. Revolution always
275

contagious disease — how many men and women have voluntarily
faced certain death in the effort to check an epidemic which wasdecimating their country or even some foreign land — how manymen, common workingmen, miners, sailors, railroad employees —unknown to fame and unsung — have given themselves in the spiritof Amundsen? Their name is legion.
It is this human nature, this idealism, which must be roused by
the social revolution. Without it the revolution cannot be, without
it, it cannot live. Without it man is forever doomed to remain aslave and a weakling.
It is the work of the Anarchist, of the revolutionist, of the intelligent, class-conscious proletarian to exemplify and cultivate thisspirit and instill it in others. It alone can conquer the powers ofevil and darkness, and build a new world of humanity, liberty, andjustice.

274

and favoritism, and gave convincing proof of the deep sense of justice inherent in the masses.
All experience teaches that the just and square thing is at thesame time also the most sensible and practical in the long run. This
holds equally true of the individual as of collective life. Discrimination and injustice are particularly destructive to revolution, because the very spirit of revolution is born of the hunger for equity
and justice.
I have already mentioned that when the social revolution attains
the stage where it can produce sufficient for all, then is adopted theAnarchist principle of “to each according to his needs.” In the moreindustrially developed and efficient countries that stage would naturally be reached sooner than in backward lands. But until it isreached, the system of equal sharing, equal distribution per capita,
is imperative as the only just method. It goes without saying, ofcourse, that special consideration must be given to the sick andthe old, to children, and to women during and after pregnancy, as
was also the practice in the Russian Revolution.
“Let me get this straight,” you remark. “There is to be equal sharing, you say. Then you won’t be able to buy anything?”
No, there will be no buying or selling. The revolution abolishes
private ownership of the means of production and distribution, andwith it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains onlyin the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch
factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public
utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold.
Actual use will be considered the only title — not to ownershipbut to possession. The organization of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as theoperating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run therailroads, and so on. Collective possession, coöperatively managed
in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal
ownership privately conducted for profit.

267

“But if you can’t buy anything, then what’s the use of money?”
you ask.
None whatever; money becomes useless. You can’t get anythingfor it. When the sources of supply, the land, factories, and products become public property, socialized, you can neither buy nor
sell. As money is only a medium for such transactions, it loses its
usefulness.
“But how will you exchange things?”
Exchange will be free. The coal miners, for instance, will deliver
the coal they mined to the public coal yards for the use of the community. In their turn the miners will receive from the community’s
warehouses the machinery, tools, and the other commodities theyneed. That means free exchange without the medium of money andwithout profit, on the basis of requirement and the supply on hand.
“But if there is no machinery or food to be given to the miners?”
If there is none, money will not help matters. The miners couldn’t
feed on banknotes. Consider how such things are managed to-day.
You trade coal for money, and for the money you get food. The
free community we are speaking of will exchange the coal for fooddirectly, without the medium of money.
“But on what basis? To-day you know what a dollar is worth,more or less, but how much coal will you give for a sack of flour?”
You mean, how will value or price be determined. But we haveseen already in preceding chapters that there is no real measureof value, and that price depends on supply and demand and varies
accordingly. The price of coal rises if there is a scarcity of it; it becomes cheaper if the supply is greater than the demand. To makebigger profits the coal owners artificially limit the output, and thesame methods obtain throughout the capitalistic system. With theabolition of capitalism no one will be interested in raising the priceof coal or limiting its supply. As much coal will be mined as will benecessary to satisfy the need. Similarly will as much food be raised
as the country needs. It will be the requirements of the community
and the supply obtainable which will determine the amount it is to268

The hope of material betterment is, as already mentioned, a powerful factor in the forward movement of humanity. But that incentive alone is not sufficient to inspire the masses to give them thevision of a new and better world, and cause them to face danger andprivation for its sake. For that an ideal is needed, an ideal which appeals not only to the stomach but even more to the heart and imagination, which rouses our dormant longing for what is fine andbeautiful, for the spiritual and cultural values of life. An ideal, in
short, which wakens the inherent social instincts of man, feeds his
sympathies and fellow-feeling, fires his love of liberty and justice,and imbues even the lowest with nobility of thought and deed, as
we frequently witness in the catastrophic events of life. Let a great
tragedy happen anywhere — an earthquake, flood, or railroad accident — and the compassion of the whole world goes out to thesufferers. Acts of heroic self-sacrifice, of brave rescue, and of unstinted aid demonstrate the real nature of man and his deep-felt
brotherhood and unity.
This is true of mankind in all times, climes, and social strata. The
story of Amundsen is a striking illustration of it. After decades ofarduous and dangerous work the famous Norwegian explorer resolves to enjoy his remaining years in peaceful literary pursuits.
He is announcing his decision at a banquet given in his honor, andalmost at the same moment comes the news that the Nobile expedition to the North Pole had met with disaster. On the instantAmundsen renounces all his plans of a quiet life and prepares to fly
to the aid of the lost aviators, fully aware of the peril of such an undertaking. Human sympathy and the compelling impulse to help
those in distress overcome all considerations of personal safety,
and Amundsen sacrifices his life in an attempt to rescue the Nobile party.
Deep in all of us lives the spirit of Amundsen. How many men ofscience have given up their lives in seeking knowledge by which
to benefit their fellow-men — how many physicians and nurses
have perished in the work of ministering to people stricken with273

false is the system, practiced in Russia in the first years of the Revolution, of issuing rations in the institutions of one’s employment,
in shops, factories, and offices. The better and more efficient way,
which at the same time insures more equitable distribution andcloses the door to favoritism and misuse, is rationing by houses orstreets. The authorized house or street committee procures at the
local distributing center the provisions, clothing, etc., apportioned
to the number of tenants represented by the committee. Equal rationing has the added advantage of eradicating food speculation,
the vicious practice which grew to enormous proportions in Russia because of the system of inequality and privilege. Party members or persons with a political pull could freely bring to the cities
carloads of flour while some old peasant woman was severely punished for selling a loaf of bread. No wonder speculation flourished,
and to such an extent, indeed, that the Bolsheviki had to form special regiments to cope with the evil.2 The prisons were filled withoffenders; capital punishment was resorted to; but even the mostdrastic measures of the government failed to stop speculation, forthe latter was the direct consequence of the system of discrimination and favoritism. Only equality and freedom of exchange canobviate such evils or at least reduce them to a minimum.
Taking care of the sanitary and kindred needs of street and district by voluntary committees of house and locality affords the best
results, since such bodies, themselves tenants of the given district,are personally interested in the health and safety of their families
and friends. This system worked much better in Russia than thesubsequently established regular police force. The latter consisting
mostly of the worst city elements, proved corrupt, brutal, and oppressive.
2

Those special police and military bodies, known as zagriaditelniye otriadi,
were most bitterly hated and popularly known as “robber regiments,” because of
their irresponsible thievery, incredible deprâvity and cruelty. They were abolishedby the introduction of the “new economic policy.”

272

receive. This applies to coal and food as to all other needs of thepeople.
“But suppose there is not enough of a certain product to goaround. What will you do then?”
Then we’ll do what is done even in capitalistic society in time of
war and scarcity: the people are rationed, with the difference thatin the free community rationing will be managed on principles of
equality.
“But suppose the farmer refuses to supply the city with his products unless he gets money?”
The farmer, like any one else, wants money only if he can buy
with it the things he needs. He will quickly see that money is useless to him. In Russia during the Revolution you could not get apeasant to sell you a pound of flour for a bagful of money. But hewas eager to give you a barrel of the finest grain for an old pair ofboots. It is plows, spades, rakes, agricultural machinery, and clothing which the farmer wants, not money. For these he will let you
have his wheat, barley, and corn. In other words, the city will exchange with the farm the products each requires, on the basis ofneed.
It has been suggested by some that exchange during the reconstruction should be based on some definite standard. It is proposed,
for example, that every community issue its own money, as is often
done in time of revolution; or that a day’s work should be considered the unit of value and so-called labor notes serve as medium of
exchange. But neither of these proposals is of practical help. Money
issued by communities in revolution would quickly depreciate to
the point of no value, since such money would have no secure guarantees behind it, without which money is worth nothing. Similarly
labor notes would not represent any definite and measurable value
as a means of exchange. What would, for instance, an hour’s workof the coal miner be worth? Or fifteen minutes’ consultation withthe physician? Even if all effort should be considered equal in value
and an hour’s labor be made the unit, could the house painter’s269hour of work or the surgeon’s operation be equitably measured interms of wheat?
Common sense will solve this problem on the basis of humanequality and the right of every one to life.
“Such a system might work among decent people,” your friend
objects; “but how about shirkers? Were not the Bolsheviki rightin establishing the principle that ‘whoever doesn’t work, doesn’teat’?”
No, my friend, you are mistaken. At first sight it may appear as ifthat was a just and sensible idea. But in reality it proved impractical,
not to speak of the injustice and harm it worked all around.
“How so?”
It was impractical because it required an army of officials to keeptab on the people who worked or didn’t work. It led to incrimination and recrimination and endless disputes about official decisions.
So that within a short time the number of those who didn’t work
was doubled and even trebled by the effort to force people to workand to guard against their dodging or doing bad work. It was thesystem of compulsory labor which soon proved such a failure thatthe Bolsheviki were compelled to give it up.
Moreover, the system caused even greater evils in other directions. Its injustice lay in the fact that you cannot break into a person’s heart or mind and decide what peculiar physical or mental
condition makes it temporarily impossible for him to work. Consider further the precedent you establish by introducing a false
principle and thereby rousing the opposition of those who feel itwrong and oppressive and therefore refuse coöperation.
A rational community will find it more practical and beneficial
to treat all alike, whether one happens to work at the time or not,rather than create more non-workers to watch those already on
hand, or to build prisons for their punishment and support. For if
you refuse to feed a man, for whatever cause, you drive him to theft
and other crimes — and thus you yourself create the necessity forcourts, lawyers, judge, jails, and warders, the upkeep of whom is270

far more burdensome than to feed the offenders. And these you
have to feed, anyhow, even if you put them in prison.
The revolutionary community will depend more on awakening
the social consciousness and solidarity of its delinquents than on
punishment. It will rely on the example set by its working members, and it will be right in doing so. For the natural attitude of theindustrious man to the shirker is such that the latter will find thesocial atmosphere so unpleasant that he will prefer to work andenjoy the respect and good will of his fellows rather than to be
despised in idleness.
Bear in mind that it is more important, and in the end more practical and useful, to do the square thing rather than to gain a seeming immediate advantage. That is, to do justice is more vital than topunish. For punishment is never just and always harmful to bothsides, the punished and the punisher; harmful even more spiritually than physically, and there is no greater harm than that, for it
hardens and corrupts you. This is unqualifiedly true of your individual life and with the same force it applies to the collective social
existence.
On the foundations of liberty, justice, and equality, as also on understanding and sympathy, must be built every phase of life in thesocial revolution. Only so it can endure. This applies to the problems of shelter, food, and the security of your district or city, as
well as to the defense of the revolution.
As regards housing and local safety Russia has shown the way
in the first months of the October Revolution. House committees,chosen by the tenants, and city federations of such committees,
take the problem in hand. They gather statistics of the facilities ofa given district and of the number of applicants requiring quarters.
The latter are assigned according to personal or family need on thebasis of equal rights.
Similar house and district committees have charge of the provisioning of the city. Individual application for rations at the distributing centers is a stupendous waste of time and energy. Equally271