5.—PROPERTY

I.Together with law Stirner necessarily has to reject also, and just as unconditionally, the legal institution of property.This "lives by grace of the law. It has its guarantee only in the law; it is not a fact, but a fiction, a thought. This is law-property, legal property, warranted property. It is mine not by me, but by—law."[285]

Property in this sense, as well as the law and the State, is based not on the individual's recognizing it as favorable to his welfare, but on his counting it sacred. "Property in the civil sense means sacred property, in such a way that I must respect your property. 'Have respect for property!' Therefore the political liberals would like every one to have his bit of property, and have in part brought about an incredible parcellation by their efforts in this direction. Every one must have his bone, on which he may find something to bite."[286]

But property is not sacred. "I do not step timidly back from your property, be you one or many, but look upon it always as my property, in which I have no need to 'respect' anything. Now do the like with what you call my property!"[287]

Nor is property favorable to the individual's welfare. "Property, as the civic liberals understand it,is untenable, because the civic proprietor is really nothing but a propertyless man, a man everywhere excluded. Instead of the world's belonging to him, as it might, there belongs to him not even the paltry point on which he turns around."[288]

II.Every one's own welfare commands that a distribution of commodities based solely on its precepts should take the place of property.When Stirner designates as "property" the share of commodities assigned to the individual by these precepts, it is in the improper sense in which he constantly uses the word property: in the proper sense only a share of commodities assigned by law can be called property.[289]

Now, according to the decrees of his own welfare, every man should have all that he is powerful enough to obtain.

"What they are not competent to tear from me the power over, that remains my property: all right, then let power decide about property, and I will expect everything from my power! Alien power, power that I leave to another, makes me a slave; then let own power make me an owner."[290]"To what property am I entitled? To any to which I—empower myself. I give myself the right of property in taking property to myself, or giving myself the proprietor's power, plenary power, empowerment."[291]"What I am competent to have is my 'competence.'"[292]"The sick, children, the aged, are still competent for a great deal;e. g.to receive their living instead of taking it. If they arecompetent to control you to the extent of having you desire their continued existence, then they have a power over you."[293]"What competence the child possesses in its smile, its play, its crying,—in short, in its mere existence! Are you capable of resisting its demand? or do you not hold out to it, as a mother, your breast,—as a father, so much of your belongings as it needs? It puts you under constraint, and therefore possesses what you call yours."[294]

"Property, therefore, should not and cannot be done away with; rather, it must be torn from ghostly hands and become my property; then will the erroneous consciousness that I cannot entitle myself to as much as I want vanish.—'But what cannot a man want?' Well, he who wants much, and knows how to get it, has in all times taken it to him, as Napoleon did the continent, and the French Algeria. Therefore the only point is just that the respectful 'lower classes' should at length learn to take to themselves what they want. If they reach their hands too far for you, why, defend yourselves."[295]"What 'man' wants does not by any means furnish a scale for me and my needs; for I may have a use for more, or for less. Rather, I must have as much as I am competent to appropriate to myself."[296]

2. "In this matter, as well as in others, unions will multiply the individual's means and make secure his assailed property."[297]"When it is our will no longer to leave the land to the land-owners, but to appropriate it to ourselves, we unite ourselves for this purpose; we form a union, asociété, which makes itself owner;if we are successful, they cease to be land-owners. And, as we chase them out from land and soil, so we can also from many another property, to make it our own, the property of the—conquerors. The conquerors form a society, which one may conceive of as so great that by degrees it embraces all mankind; but so-called mankind is also, as such, only a thought (ghost); its reality is the individuals. And these individuals as a collective mass will deal not less arbitrarily with land and soil than does an isolated individual."[298]

"What all want to have a share in will be withdrawn from that individual who wants to have it for himself alone; it is made a common possession. As a common possession every one has a share in it, and this share is his property. Just so, even in our old relations, a house which belongs to five heirs is their common possession; but the fifth part of the proceeds is each one's property. The property which for the present is still withheld from us can be better made use of when it is in the hands of us all. Let us therefore associate ourselves for the purpose of this robbery."[299]

According to Stirner the change which every one's own welfare requires is to come about in this way,—that men in sufficient number first undergo an inward change and recognize their own welfare as their highest law, and that these men then bring to pass by force the outward change also: to wit, the abrogation oflaw, State, and property, and the introduction of the new condition.

I. The first and most important thing is the inward change of men.

"Revolution and insurrection must not be regarded as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the existing condition or state, the State or society, and so is a political or social act; the latter has indeed a transformation of conditions as its inevitable consequence, but starts not from this but from men's discontent with themselves, is not a lifting of shields but a lifting of individuals, a coming up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements: the Insurrection leads to no longer having ourselves arranged but arranging ourselves, and sets no brilliant hope on 'institutions.' It is not a fight against the existing order, since, if it prospers, the existing order collapses of itself; it is only a working my way out of the existing order. If I leave the existing order, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, since my purpose is not the upsetting of an existing order but the lifting of myself above it, my aim and act are not political or social, but, as directed upon myself and my ownness alone, egoistic."[300]

Why was the founder of Christianity "not a revolutionist, not a demagogue as the Jews would have liked to see him; why was he not a Liberal? Because he expected no salvation from a change ofconditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionist, like Cæsar forinstance, but an insurgent; not an overturner of the State, but one who straightenedhimselfup. He waged no Liberal or political war against the existing authorities, but wanted to go his own way regardless of these authorities and undisturbed by them."[301]

"Everything sacred is a bond, a fetter. Everything sacred will be, must be, perverted by perverters of law; therefore our present time has such perverters by the quantity in all spheres. They are preparing for the break of the law, for lawlessness."[302]"Regard yourself as more powerful than they allege you to be, and you have more power; regard yourself as more, and you are more."[303]"The poor become free and proprietors only when they—'rise'."[304]"Only from egoism can the lower classes get help, and this help they must give to themselves and—will give to themselves. If they do not let themselves be constrained into fear, they are a power."[305]

II. Furthermore, in order to bring about the "transformation of conditions"[306]and put the new condition in the place of law, State, and property, violent insurrection against the condition that has hitherto existed is requisite.

1. "The State can be overcome only by a violent arbitrariness."[307]"The individual's violence [Gewalt] is called crime [Verbrechen], and only by crime does he break [brechen] the State's authority [Gewalt] when he opines that the State is not above him, but he above the State."[308]"Here too the result is that the thinkers' combat against the government is wrong,viz.in impotence, so far as it cannot bring into the field anything but thoughts against a personal power (the egoistic power stops the mouths of the thinkers). The theoretical combat cannot complete the victory, and the sacred power of thought succumbs to the might of egoism. It is only the egoistic combat, the combat of egoists on both sides, that clears up everything."[309]

"The property question cannot be solved so gently as the Socialists, even the Communists, dream. It is solved only by the war of all against all."[310]"Let me then retract the might which I have conceded to others out of ignorance regarding the strength of my own might! Let me say to myself, 'Whatever my might reaches to is my property,' and then claim as property all that I feel myself strong enough to attain; and let me make my real property extend as far as I entitle (i. e.empower) myself to take."[311]"In order to extirpate the unpossessing rabble, egoism does not say, 'Wait and see what the Board of Equity will—donate to you in the name of the collectivity', but 'Put your hand to it and take what you need!'"[312]

In this combat Stirner agrees to all methods. "I will not draw back with a shudder from any act because there dwells in it a spirit of godlessness, immorality, wrongfulness, as little as St. Boniface was disposed to abstain from chopping down the heathens'sacred oak on account of religious scruples."[313]"The power over life and death, which Church and State reserved to themselves, this too I call—mine."[314]"The life of the individual man I rate only at what it is worth. His goods, the material and the spiritual alike, are mine, and I dispose of them as proprietor to the extent of my—might."[315]

2. Stirner depicts for us a single event in this violent transformation of conditions. He assumes that certain men come to realize that they occupy a disproportionately unfavorable position in the State as compared with others who receive the preference.

"Those who are in the unfavorable position take courage to ask the question, 'By what, then, is your property secure, you favored ones?' and give themselves the answer, 'By our refraining from interference! By our protection, therefore! And what do you give us for it? Kicks and contempt you give the "common people"; police oversight, and a catechism with the chief sentence "Respect what is not yours, what belongs to others! respect others, and especially superiors!" But we reply, "If you want our respect, buy it for a price that shall be acceptable to us." We will leave you your property, if you pay duly for this leaving. With what, indeed, does the general in time of peace pay for the many thousands of his yearly income? or Another for the sheer hundred-thousands and millions? With what do you pay us for chewing potatoes and looking quietly on while you swallow oysters? Only buy the oysters from us as dear as we have to buy the potatoes from you, andyou may go on eating them. Or do you suppose the oysters do not belong to us as much as to you? You will make an outcry about violence if we take hold and help eat them, and you are right. Without violence we do not get them, as you no less have them by doing violence to us.

"'But take the oysters and done with it, and let us come to what is in a closer way our property (for this other is only possession)—to labor. We toil twelve hours in the sweat of our foreheads, and you offer us a few groschen for it. Then take the like for your labor too. We will come to terms all right if only we have first agreed on the point that neither any longer needs to—donate anything to the other. For centuries we have offered you alms in our kindly—stupidity, have given the mite of the poor and rendered to the masters what is—not the masters'; now just open your bags, for henceforth there is a tremendous rise in the price of our ware. We will take nothing away from you, nothing at all, only you shall pay better for what you want to have. What have you then? "I have an estate of a thousand acres." And I am your plowman, and will hereafter do your plowing only for a thaler a day wages. "Then I'll get another." You will not find one, for we plowmen are no longer doing anything different, and if one presents himself who takes less, let him beware of us.'"[316]

FOOTNOTES:[209]Stirner p. 439. [The page-numbers of Stirner's first edition, here cited, agree almost exactly with those of the English translation under the title "The Ego and His Own." Any passage quoted here will in general be found in the English translation either on the page whose number is given or on the preceding page; for the early pages, subtract two or three from the number.][210]Ib.pp. 435-6.[211]Ib.p. 465.[212]Ib.p. 464.[213]Ib.p. 466.[214]Stirner p. 473.[215]No more do his adherents,e. g.Mackay, "Stirner" pp. 164-5.[216]Stirner p. 322.[217]Ib.p. 343.[218]Ib.p. 45.[219]Ib.p. 318.[220]Ib.p. 318.[221]Ib.p. 420.[222]Ib.pp. 189-90.[223]Stirner p. 427.[224]Ib.p. 428.[225]Ib.p. 429.[226]Ib.p. 258.[227]Ib.p. 478.[228]Ib.p. 426.[229]Stirner p. 395.[230]Ib.p. 387.[231][To understand some of the following citations it is necessary to remember that in German "law" (in the sense of common law, or including this) and "right" are one and the same word.—While it is probably not fair to say that these assaults of Stirner are directed only against some laws, it does seem fair to say that they deny to the laws only some sorts of validity. We have very little material for compiling the constructive side of Stirner's teaching, for he avoided specifying what things the Egoists or their unions were to do in his future social order; he said explicitly that the only way to know what a slave will do when he breaks his fetters is to wait and see. But, while he may nowhere have stated a law which is to obtain in the good time coming, neither has he said anything which authorizes us to declare that none of his unions will ever make laws on such a basis as (for instance) the rules of the Stock Exchange. Onpage 114below is quoted a passage where he distinctly and approvingly contemplates the possibility that a union of his followers may fix a minimum wage, and may threaten violence to any person who consents to work below the scale. This would be law, and might easily be the germ of a State. Onpages 108andpage 109are quoted passages which strongly suggest that the Egoistic union would undertake to defend its member against all interference with his possession of certain goods; this would be both law and property.][232]Stirner p. 247.[233]Stirner p. 248.[234]Ib.p. 246.[235]Ib.p. 314.[236]Ib.p. 268.[237]Ib.p. 317.[238]Ib.pp. 317, 316.[239]Ib.pp. 265-6.[240]Ib.p. 276.[241]Ib.p. 270.[242]Ib.pp. 326-7.[243]Ib.pp. 248-9.[244]Stirner p. 275.[245]Ib.p. 275.[246]Ib.pp. 259, 256.[247]Ib.p. 220.[248]Ib.p. 251. [The German idiom for "it suits me" is "it is right to me"].[249]Ib.p. 8.[250]Ib.p. 490.[251]Ib.p. 491.[252]Ib.p. 491.[253]Ib.p. 7.[254]Stirner p. 8.[255]Ib.p. 207.[256]Ib.p. 219.[257]Ib.p. 214.[258]Ib.p. 212.[259]Ib.p. 220.[260]Stirner p. 314.[261]Ib.p. 295.[262]Ib.pp. 231-2.[263]Ib.p. 231.[264]Ib.p. 259.[265]Ib.p. 337.[266]Stirner p. 258.[267]Ib.p. 339.[268]Ib.p. 280.[269]Ib.p. 257.[270]Ib.p. 298.[271]Ib.p. 298.[272]Ib.p. 299.[273]Stirner p. 298.[274]Ib.p. 336.[275]Ib.pp. 337-8.[276]Ib.p. 235; Stirner "Vierteljahrsschrift" p. 192.[277]Stirner p. 304.[278]Stirner p. 258.[279]Ib.p 411.[280]Ib.p. 416.[281]Ib.p. 411.[282]Stirner pp. 417-18.[283]Stirner "Vierteljahrsschrift" pp. 193-4.[284]Stirner p. 305.[285]Ib.p. 332.[286]Ib.pp. 327-8.[287]Ib.pp. 328, 326.[288]Stirner pp. 328-9.[289]Zenker fails to recognize this when he asserts (p. 80) that Stirner demands property based on the right of occupation[290]Stirner p. 340.[291]Ib.p. 339.[292]Ib.p. 351.[293]Stirner p. 351.[294]Ib.pp. 351-2.[295]Ib.pp. 343-4.[296]Ib.p. 349.[297]Ib.p. 342.[298]Stirner pp. 329-30. [See footnote onpage 97.][299]Ib.p. 330.[300]Stirner pp. 421-2.[301]Stirner p. 423.[302]Ib.p. 284.[303]Ib.p. 483.[304]Ib.p. 344.[305]Ib.p. 343.[306]Ib.p. 422.[307]Ib.p. 199.[308]Ib.259.[309]Stirner pp. 198-9.[310]Ib.p. 344. [But Stirner does not mean that all are to fight against all; they are merely to declare themselves no longer bound by the obligations of peace, and then those who are able to agree with each other can at once make terms to suit themselves.][311]Ib.p. 340.[312]Ib.p. 341.[313]Stirner p. 479.[314]Ib.p. 424.[315]Ib.pp. 326-7.[316]Stirner pp. 359-60.

[209]Stirner p. 439. [The page-numbers of Stirner's first edition, here cited, agree almost exactly with those of the English translation under the title "The Ego and His Own." Any passage quoted here will in general be found in the English translation either on the page whose number is given or on the preceding page; for the early pages, subtract two or three from the number.]

[210]Ib.pp. 435-6.

[211]Ib.p. 465.

[212]Ib.p. 464.

[213]Ib.p. 466.

[214]Stirner p. 473.

[215]No more do his adherents,e. g.Mackay, "Stirner" pp. 164-5.

[216]Stirner p. 322.

[217]Ib.p. 343.

[218]Ib.p. 45.

[219]Ib.p. 318.

[220]Ib.p. 318.

[221]Ib.p. 420.

[222]Ib.pp. 189-90.

[223]Stirner p. 427.

[224]Ib.p. 428.

[225]Ib.p. 429.

[226]Ib.p. 258.

[227]Ib.p. 478.

[228]Ib.p. 426.

[229]Stirner p. 395.

[230]Ib.p. 387.

[231][To understand some of the following citations it is necessary to remember that in German "law" (in the sense of common law, or including this) and "right" are one and the same word.—While it is probably not fair to say that these assaults of Stirner are directed only against some laws, it does seem fair to say that they deny to the laws only some sorts of validity. We have very little material for compiling the constructive side of Stirner's teaching, for he avoided specifying what things the Egoists or their unions were to do in his future social order; he said explicitly that the only way to know what a slave will do when he breaks his fetters is to wait and see. But, while he may nowhere have stated a law which is to obtain in the good time coming, neither has he said anything which authorizes us to declare that none of his unions will ever make laws on such a basis as (for instance) the rules of the Stock Exchange. Onpage 114below is quoted a passage where he distinctly and approvingly contemplates the possibility that a union of his followers may fix a minimum wage, and may threaten violence to any person who consents to work below the scale. This would be law, and might easily be the germ of a State. Onpages 108andpage 109are quoted passages which strongly suggest that the Egoistic union would undertake to defend its member against all interference with his possession of certain goods; this would be both law and property.]

[232]Stirner p. 247.

[233]Stirner p. 248.

[234]Ib.p. 246.

[235]Ib.p. 314.

[236]Ib.p. 268.

[237]Ib.p. 317.

[238]Ib.pp. 317, 316.

[239]Ib.pp. 265-6.

[240]Ib.p. 276.

[241]Ib.p. 270.

[242]Ib.pp. 326-7.

[243]Ib.pp. 248-9.

[244]Stirner p. 275.

[245]Ib.p. 275.

[246]Ib.pp. 259, 256.

[247]Ib.p. 220.

[248]Ib.p. 251. [The German idiom for "it suits me" is "it is right to me"].

[249]Ib.p. 8.

[250]Ib.p. 490.

[251]Ib.p. 491.

[252]Ib.p. 491.

[253]Ib.p. 7.

[254]Stirner p. 8.

[255]Ib.p. 207.

[256]Ib.p. 219.

[257]Ib.p. 214.

[258]Ib.p. 212.

[259]Ib.p. 220.

[260]Stirner p. 314.

[261]Ib.p. 295.

[262]Ib.pp. 231-2.

[263]Ib.p. 231.

[264]Ib.p. 259.

[265]Ib.p. 337.

[266]Stirner p. 258.

[267]Ib.p. 339.

[268]Ib.p. 280.

[269]Ib.p. 257.

[270]Ib.p. 298.

[271]Ib.p. 298.

[272]Ib.p. 299.

[273]Stirner p. 298.

[274]Ib.p. 336.

[275]Ib.pp. 337-8.

[276]Ib.p. 235; Stirner "Vierteljahrsschrift" p. 192.

[277]Stirner p. 304.

[278]Stirner p. 258.

[279]Ib.p 411.

[280]Ib.p. 416.

[281]Ib.p. 411.

[282]Stirner pp. 417-18.

[283]Stirner "Vierteljahrsschrift" pp. 193-4.

[284]Stirner p. 305.

[285]Ib.p. 332.

[286]Ib.pp. 327-8.

[287]Ib.pp. 328, 326.

[288]Stirner pp. 328-9.

[289]Zenker fails to recognize this when he asserts (p. 80) that Stirner demands property based on the right of occupation

[290]Stirner p. 340.

[291]Ib.p. 339.

[292]Ib.p. 351.

[293]Stirner p. 351.

[294]Ib.pp. 351-2.

[295]Ib.pp. 343-4.

[296]Ib.p. 349.

[297]Ib.p. 342.

[298]Stirner pp. 329-30. [See footnote onpage 97.]

[299]Ib.p. 330.

[300]Stirner pp. 421-2.

[301]Stirner p. 423.

[302]Ib.p. 284.

[303]Ib.p. 483.

[304]Ib.p. 344.

[305]Ib.p. 343.

[306]Ib.p. 422.

[307]Ib.p. 199.

[308]Ib.259.

[309]Stirner pp. 198-9.

[310]Ib.p. 344. [But Stirner does not mean that all are to fight against all; they are merely to declare themselves no longer bound by the obligations of peace, and then those who are able to agree with each other can at once make terms to suit themselves.]

[311]Ib.p. 340.

[312]Ib.p. 341.

[313]Stirner p. 479.

[314]Ib.p. 424.

[315]Ib.pp. 326-7.

[316]Stirner pp. 359-60.

1. Mikhail Alexandrovitch Bakunin was born in 1814 at Pryamukhino, district of Torshok, government of Tver. In 1834 he entered the Artillery School at St. Petersburg; in 1835 he became an officer, but resigned his commission in the same year. He then lived alternately in Pryamukhino and in Moscow.

In 1840 Bakunin left Russia. In the following years revolutionary plans took him now to this part of Europe, now to that; in Paris he associated much with Proudhon. In 1849 he was condemned to death in Saxony, but was pardoned; in 1850 he was handed over to Austria and was condemned to death there also; in 1851 he was handed over to Russia and was there kept a prisoner first at St. Petersburg, then at Schluesselburg; in 1857 he was sent to Siberia.

From Siberia Bakunin escaped to London in 1865, by way of Japan and California. He took up his revolutionary activities again at once, and thereafter lived by turns in the most various parts of Europe. In 1868 he became a member of theAssociation internationale des travailleurs, and soon afterward he founded theAlliance internationale de la démocratie socialiste. In 1869 he came into intimate relations with the fanatic Nechayeff, but broke away from himin the next year. In 1872 he was expelled from theAssociation internationale des travailleurson the ground that his aims were different from those of the Association. He died at Berne in 1876.

Bakunin wrote a number of works of a philosophical and political nature.

2. Bakunin's teaching about law, the State, and property finds its expression especially in the "Proposition motivée au comité central de la Ligue de la paix et de la liberté"[317]offered by him in 1868; in the principles[318]of theAlliance internationale de la démocratie socialiste, drawn up by him in 1868; and in his work "Dieu et l'Etat"[319](1871).

Writings which cannot with certainty be assigned to Bakunin are here disregarded. Among such we may name especially the two works "The Principles of the Revolution"[320]and "Catechism of the Revolution,"[321]in which Nechayeff's views are set forth. They are indeed ascribed to Bakunin by some,[322]but their matter is in contradiction to his other utterances as well as to his deeds; he even used vehement language on several occasions against Nechayeff's"Machiavellianism and Jesuitism."[323]Even on the assumption that they are by Bakunin, they would at any rate express only a very insignificant chapter in his development.

3. Bakunin designates his teaching about law, the State, and property as "Anarchism." "In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, all privileged, chartered, official, and legal influence,—even if it were created by universal suffrage,—in the conviction that such things can but redound always to the advantage of a ruling minority of exploiters and to the disadvantage of the vast enslaved majority. In this sense we are in truth Anarchists."[324]

Bakunin regards the evolutionary law of the progress of mankind from a less perfect existence to the most perfect possible existence as the law which has supreme validity for man.

"Science has no other task than the careful intellectual reproduction, in the most systematic form possible, of the natural laws of corporeal, mental, and moral life, alike in the physical and in the social world, which two worlds constitute in fact only a single natural world."[325]

Now "science—that is, true, unselfish science"[326]—teaches us the following: "Every evolution signifies the negation of its starting-point. Since according to the materialists the basis or starting-point is material, the negation must necessarily be ideal."[327]That is,"everything that lives makes the effort to perfect itself as fully as possible."[328]

Thus, "according to the conception of materialists, man's historical evolution also moves in a constantly ascending line."[329]"It is an altogether natural movement from the simple to the compound, from down to up, from the lower to the higher."[330]"History consists in the progressive negation of man's original bestiality by the evolution of his humanity."[331]

"Man is originally a wild beast, a cousin of the gorilla. But he has already come out of the deep night of bestial impulses to make his way to the light of the mind. This explains all his former missteps in the most natural way, and comforts us somewhat with regard to his present aberrations. He has turned his back on bestial slavery, and is now moving toward freedom through the realm of slavery to God, which lies between his bestial and his human existence. Behind us, therefore, lies our bestial existence, before us our human; the light of humanity, which alone can light us and warm us, deliver us and exalt us, make us free, happy, and brothers, stands never at the beginning of history, but always only at its end."[332]

This "historical negation of the past takes place now slowly, sluggishly, sleepily, but now again passionately and violently."[333]It always takes place with the inevitable certainty of natural law: "we believe in the final triumph of humanity on earth."[G] "We yearn for the coming of this triumph, and seek to hasten it with united effort";[334]"we must never lookback, always forward alone; before us is our sun, before us our bliss."[335]

I.In the progress of mankind from its bestial existence to a human existence, one of the next steps, according to Bakunin, will be the disappearance—not indeed of law, but—of enacted law.

Enacted law belongs to a low stage of evolution. "A political legislation, whether it is based on a ruler's will or on the votes of representatives chosen by universal suffrage, can never correspond to the laws of nature, and is always baleful, hostile to the liberty of the masses, if only because it forces upon them a system of external and consequently despotic laws."[336]No legislation has ever "had another aim than that of confirming, and exalting into a system, the exploitation of the laboring populace by the ruling classes."[337]Thus every legislation "has for its consequence at once the enslavement of society and the depravation of the legislators."[338]

But mankind will soon leave behind it the stage of evolution to which law belongs. Enacted law is indissolubly connected with the State: "the State is a historically necessary evil,"[339]"a transitory form of society";[340]"with the State, law in the jurists' sense, the so-called legal regulation of popular life from above downward by legislation, must necessarily fall."[341]Everybody feels already that this moment isapproaching,[342]the transformation is at hand,[343]it is to be expected within the nineteenth century.[344]

II.In the next stage of evolution, which mankind must speedily reach, there will be no enacted law to be sure, but there will be law even there.What Bakunin predicts with regard to this next stage of evolution enables us to perceive that according to his expectation norms will then prevail which "are based on a general will,"[345]and which even secure obedience by forcible compulsion if necessary,[346]so that they are legal norms.

Among such legal norms of our next stage of evolution Bakunin mentions that by virtue of which there exists a "right to independence."[347]For me as an individual this means "that I as a man am entitled to obey no other man, and to act only in accordance with my own judgment."[348]But, furthermore, "every nation, every province, and every commune has the unlimited right to complete independence, provided that its internal constitution does not threaten the independence and liberty of the adjoining territories."[349]

Likewise Bakunin regards it as a legal norm of the next stage of evolution that contracts must be lived up to. To be sure, the obligation of contracts has its limits. "Human justice cannot recognize anything as creating an obligation in perpetuity. All rights and duties are founded on liberty. The right of freely uniting and separating is the first and most importantof all political rights."[350]

Another legal norm mentioned by Bakunin as belonging to the next stage of evolution is that by virtue of which "the land, the instruments of labor, and all other capital, as the collective property of the whole of society, will exclusively serve for the use of the agricultural and industrial associations."[351]

I.In the progress of mankind from its bestial existence to a human existence the State will shortly, according to Bakunin, disappear."The State is a historically temporary arrangement, a transitory form of society."[352]

1. The State belongs to a low stage of evolution.

"Man takes the first step from his bestial existence to a human existence by religion; but so long as he remains religious he will never reach his goal; for every religion condemns him to absurdity, guides him into a wrong course, and makes him seek the divine in place of the human."[353]"All religions, with their gods, demigods, and prophets, their Messiahs and saints, are products of the credulous fancy of men who had not yet come to the full development and entire possession of their intellectual powers."[354]This holds good also, and particularly, of Christianity: it is "the complete inversion of common-sense and reason."[355]

The State is a product of religion. "In all lands it is born of a marriage of violence, robbery,spoliation,—in short, of war and conquest,—with the gods whom the religious enthusiasm of the nations had gradually created."[356]"He who speaks of revelation speaks thereby of revealers enlightened by God, of Messiahs, prophets, priests, and lawgivers; and, if once these are recognized on earth as representatives of the Deity, as sacred teachers of mankind chosen by God himself, then of course they have unlimited authority. All men owe them blind obedience; for no human reason, no human justice, is valid against the divine reason and justice. As slaves of God, men must be also slaves of the Church, and of the State so far as the Church hallows the State."[357]

"No State is without religion, and none can be without religion. Take the freest States in the world,—for instance, the United States of America or the Swiss Confederacy,—and see what an important part divine providence plays in all public utterances there."[358]"It is not without good reason that governments hold the belief in God to be an essential condition of their power."[359]"There is a class of people who, even if they do not believe, must necessarily act as if they believed. This class embraces all mankind's tormentors, oppressors, and exploiters. Priests, monarchs, statesmen, soldiers, financiers, office-holders of all sorts; policemen,gendarmes, jailers, and executioners; capitalists, usurers, heads of business, and house-owners; lawyers, economists, politicians of all shades,—all of them, down to the smallest grocer, will always repeat in chorus the words of Voltaire, that, if there were no God, it would be necessary to inventhim; 'for must not the populace have its religion?' It is the very safety-valve."[360]

2. The characteristics of the State correspond to the low stage of evolution to which it belongs.

The State enslaves the governed. "The State is force; nay, it is the silly parading of force. It does not propose to win love or to make converts; if it puts its finger into anything, it does so only in an unfriendly way; for its essence consists not in persuasion, but in command and compulsion. However much pains it may take, it cannot conceal the fact that it is the legal maimer of our will, the constant negation of our liberty. Even when it commands the good, it makes this valueless by commanding it; for every command slaps liberty in the face; as soon as the good is commanded, it is transformed into the evil in the eyes of true (that is, human, by no means divine) morality, of the dignity of man, of liberty; for man's liberty, morality, and dignity consist precisely in doing the good not because he is commanded to but because he recognizes it, wills it, and loves it."[361]

At the same time the State depraves those who govern. "It is characteristic of privilege, and of every privileged position, that they poison the minds and hearts of men. He who is politically or economically privileged has his mind and heart depraved. This is a law of social life, which admits of no exceptions and is applicable to entire nations as well as to classes, corporations, and individuals. It is the law of equality, the foremost of the conditions of liberty and humanity."[362]

"Powerful States can maintain themselves only by crime, little States are virtuous only from weakness."[363]"We abhor monarchy with all our hearts; but at the same time we are convinced that a great republic too, with army, bureaucracy, and political centralization, will make a business of conquest without and oppression within, and will be incapable of guaranteeing happiness and liberty to its subjects even if it calls them citizens."[364]"Even in the purest democracies, such as the United States and Switzerland, a privileged minority faces the vast enslaved majority."[365]

3. But the stage of mankind's evolution to which the State belongs will soon be left behind.

"From the beginning of historic society to this day, there has always been oppression of the nations by the State. Is it to be inferred that this oppression is inseparably connected with the existence of human society?"[366]Certainly not! "The great, true goal of history, the only one for which there is justification, is our humanization and deliverance, the genuine liberty and prosperity of all socially-living men."[367]"In the triumph of humanity is at the same time the goal and the essential meaning of history, and this triumph can be brought about only by liberty."[368]"As in the past the State was historically necessary evil, it must just as necessarily, sooner or later, disappear altogether."[369]Everybody feels already that this moment is approaching,[370]the transformation is at hand,[371]it is to be expected within the nineteenthcentury.[372]

II.In the next stage of evolution, which mankind must speedily reach, the place of the State will be taken by a social human life on the basis of the legal norm that contracts must be lived up to.

1. Even after the State is done away, men will live together socially. The goal of human evolution, "complete humanity,"[373]can be attained only in a society. "Man becomes man, and his humanity becomes conscious and real, only in society and by the joint activity of society. He frees himself from the yoke of external nature only by joint—that is, societary—labor: it alone is capable of making the surface of the earth fit for the evolution of mankind; but without such external liberation neither intellectual nor moral liberation is possible. Furthermore, man gets free from the yoke of his own nature only by education and instruction: they alone make it possible for him to subordinate the impulses and motions of his body to the guidance of his more and more developed mind; but education and instruction are of an exclusively societary nature. Outside of society man would have remained forever a wild beast, or, what comes to about the same thing, a saint. Finally, in his isolation man cannot have the consciousness of liberty. What liberty means for man is that he is recognized as free, and treated as free, by those who surround him; liberty is not a matter of isolation, therefore, but of mutuality—not of separateness, but of combination; for every man it is only the mirroring of his humanity (that is, of his human rights) in theconsciousness of his brothers."[374]

But men will be held together in society no longer by a supreme authority, but by the legally binding force of contract. Complete humanity can be attained only in a free society. "My liberty, or, what means the same, my human dignity, consists in my being entitled, as man, to obey no other man and to act only on my own judgment."[375]"I myself am a free man only so far as I recognize the humanity and liberty of all the men who surround me. In respecting their humanity I respect my own. A cannibal, who treats his prisoner as a wild beast and eats him, is himself not a man, but a beast. A slaveholder is not a man, but a master."[376]"The more free men surround me, and the deeper and broader their freedom is, so much deeper, broader, and more powerful is my freedom too. On the other hand, every enslavement of men is at the same time a limitation of my freedom, or, what is the same thing, a negation of my human existence by its bestial existence."[377]But a free society cannot be held together by authority,[378]but only by contract.[379]

2. How will the future society shape itself in detail?

"Unity is the goal toward which mankind ceaselessly moves."[380]Therefore men will unite with the utmost amplitude. But "the place of the old organization, built from above downward upon force and authority, will be taken by a new one which has noother basis than the natural needs, inclinations, and endeavors of men."[381]Thus we come to a "free union of individuals into communes, of communes into provinces, of provinces into nations, and finally of nations into the United States of Europe and later of the whole world."[382]

"Every nation,—be it great or small, strong or weak,—every province, and every commune has the unlimited right to complete independence, provided that its internal constitution does not threaten the independence and liberty of the adjoining territories."[383]

"All of what are known as the historic rights of nations are totally done away; all questions regarding natural, political, strategic, and economic boundaries are henceforth to be classed as ancient history and resolutely disallowed."[384]

"By the fact that a territory has once belonged to a State, even by a voluntary adhesion, it is in no wise bound to remain always united with this State. Human justice, the only justice that means anything to us, cannot recognize anything as creating an obligation in perpetuity. All rights and duties are founded on liberty. The right of freely uniting and separating is the first and most important of all political rights. Without this right the League would be merely a concealed centralization still."[385]

Back to Index Next