Then on to revolution, boys! Keep Freedom's highway broad.The path where Spies and Parsons fell—as fearlessly they trod;And though we fall as they fell—millions follow on the road,To carry the Red Flag to victory.[1093]
Then on to revolution, boys! Keep Freedom's highway broad.The path where Spies and Parsons fell—as fearlessly they trod;And though we fall as they fell—millions follow on the road,To carry the Red Flag to victory.[1093]
The sympathy which British Socialists feel for the Chicago Anarchists arises from the similarity of theiraims. The programme of the American Anarchists was, according to the Pittsburg proclamation, as follows:
(1) Destruction of the existing class rule, by all means,i.e.by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and international action. (2) Establishment of a free Society based upon co-operative organisation of production. (3) Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the productive organisations without commerce and profit-mongery. (4) Organisation of education on a secular, scientific, and equal basis for both sexes. (5) Equal rights for all without distinction of sex or race. (6) Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous (independent) communes and associations resting on a federalists basis.[1094]
The attitude of many leading British Socialists towards the murdering of monarchs and statesmen may be gauged from the following extracts: "On the occasion of the assassination of any potentate or statesman, the public opinion of the possessing class and its organs is lashed up to a white heat of artificial fury and indignation against the perpetrator, while they have nothing but approbation for the functionary—military or civil—who puts to death a fellow-creature in the course of what they are pleased to call his duty. Evidently force and bloodshed, when contrary to the interests of the possessing class, is a monstrous crime, but when it is in their favour it becomes a duty and a necessity."[1095]"We believe the 'potting' of the 'heads' of States to be a foolish and reprehensible policy, but the matter does not concern us as Socialists. We have our own quarrel with the Anarchists, both as to principles and tactics, but that is no reason why, as certain persons seem to think, we should put on sackcloth and ashes, and dissolve ourselves in tears because, say, M. Carnot or the head of any otherState has been assassinated by Anarchists. What is Carnot to us or we to Carnot, that we should weep for him? We do not specially desire the death of political personages, while we often regret their slaying on grounds of expediency, if on no others. But at the same time Socialists have no sentimental tears to waste over the heads of States and their misfortunes. To the Socialist the head of a State, as such, is simply a figure-head to whose fate he is indifferent—a ninepin representing the current political and social order."[1096]
We're low, we're low, we're very very low.And yet when the trumpets ring.The thrust of a poor man's arm will goThrough the heart of the proudest king.[1097]
We're low, we're low, we're very very low.And yet when the trumpets ring.The thrust of a poor man's arm will goThrough the heart of the proudest king.[1097]
The "Socialist Annual" contains in its calendar pages numerous items under the heading "For the Working Class to Remember," which is filled with Socialist dates such as "birth of Mr. Blatchford," and with the records of the most conspicuous Anarchist, Nihilist, and Revolutionary crimes. Details regarding the deeds of Orsini and Louise Michel, Jack Cade and Wat Tyler, the execution of Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette, the assassination of Presidents Lincoln, McKinley, and Carnot, the attempt on King Alfonso, and other facts are there recorded—"for the working class to remember." Earlier or later the Socialist-Communist-Anarchist agitation in Great Britain may, and very likely will, lead to Anarchist outrages.
[1073]Prince Kropotkin,Anarchism, p. 16.
[1073]Prince Kropotkin,Anarchism, p. 16.
[1074]B. Shaw,The Impossibilities of Anarchism, p. 24.
[1074]B. Shaw,The Impossibilities of Anarchism, p. 24.
[1075]Davidson,The Democrat's Address, p. 15.
[1075]Davidson,The Democrat's Address, p. 15.
[1076]Bax,Paris Commune, p. 35.
[1076]Bax,Paris Commune, p. 35.
[1077]Bax,Essays in Socialism, pp. 98, 99.
[1077]Bax,Essays in Socialism, pp. 98, 99.
[1078]Davidson,Christ, State, and Commune, pp. 16, 17.
[1078]Davidson,Christ, State, and Commune, pp. 16, 17.
[1079]Ibid.p. 6.
[1079]Ibid.p. 6.
[1080]Blatchford,God and My Neighbour, p. 195.
[1080]Blatchford,God and My Neighbour, p. 195.
[1081]Thompson,That Blessed Word Liberty, p. 13.
[1081]Thompson,That Blessed Word Liberty, p. 13.
[1082]Davidson,The Old Order and the New, p. 172.
[1082]Davidson,The Old Order and the New, p. 172.
[1083]Kropotkin,Anarchism, p. 8.
[1083]Kropotkin,Anarchism, p. 8.
[1084]Brockhaus,Konversations Lexikon, vol. i. p. 578.
[1084]Brockhaus,Konversations Lexikon, vol. i. p. 578.
[1085]Shaw,The Impossibilities of Anarchism, p. 26.
[1085]Shaw,The Impossibilities of Anarchism, p. 26.
[1086]Freedom, November 1907.
[1086]Freedom, November 1907.
[1087]Freedom, November 1907.
[1087]Freedom, November 1907.
[1088]Davidson,Christ, State, and Commune, p. 22.
[1088]Davidson,Christ, State, and Commune, p. 22.
[1089]Ibid.p. 31.
[1089]Ibid.p. 31.
[1090]Kropotkin,Anarchism, p. 19.
[1090]Kropotkin,Anarchism, p. 19.
[1091]Kropotkin,The Wage System, p. 15.
[1091]Kropotkin,The Wage System, p. 15.
[1092]See Leatham,Lives of the Chicago Martyrs.
[1092]See Leatham,Lives of the Chicago Martyrs.
[1093]Social-Democratic Federation Song Book, p. 35.
[1093]Social-Democratic Federation Song Book, p. 35.
[1094]Bliss,Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 63.
[1094]Bliss,Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 63.
[1095]Bax and Quelch,A New Catechism of Socialism, p. 31.
[1095]Bax and Quelch,A New Catechism of Socialism, p. 31.
[1096]Bax,A Short History of the Paris Commune, p. 78.
[1096]Bax,A Short History of the Paris Commune, p. 78.
[1097]Independent Labour Party Song Book, p. 33.
[1097]Independent Labour Party Song Book, p. 33.
The "Socialist Catechism" contains the following passage: "Q.How are forms of government changed so as to readjust them to the economical changes in the forms of production which have been silently evolving in the body of society?A.By means of revolution.—Q.Give an instance of this?A.The French Revolution of 1789."[1098]
Many British Socialists are revolutionaries. They hope to introduce Socialism into Great Britain by revolutionary means. They have studied the French revolutions, and have become pupils of the French revolutionary leaders. "Socialism is essentially revolutionary, politically and economically, as it aims at the complete overthrow of existing economic and political conditions. We should organise and be prepared for what might be described as a revolutionary outbreak. The economic changes which are taking place, and the corresponding changes in other conditions, are bringing about a revolutionary transformation in human society, and what we have to do is to help on this development, and to prepare the way for it."[1099]"We Socialists are not reformers; we are revolutionists. We Socialists do not propose to change forms. We care nothing for forms. We want a change of the inside of the mechanism of society; let the form take care of itself."[1100]BritishSocialism was founded by revolutionary Communists. Marx was a revolutionary. "For a number of years the late William Morris, the greatest man whom the Socialist movement has yet claimed in this country, held and openly preached this doctrine of cataclysmic upheaval and sudden overthrow of the ruling classes."[1101]That idea has been revived by modern British Socialists, many of whom believe that "The only effective way to induce the ruling class to attempt to palliate the evils of their system is to organise the workers for the overthrow of that system."[1102]"In the International Socialist movement we are at last in the presence of a force which is gathering unto itself the rebel spirits of all lands and uniting them into a mighty host to do battle, not for the triumph of a sect, or of a race, but for the overthrow of a system which has filled the world with want and woe. 'Workers of the world, unite!' wrote Karl Marx; 'you have a world to win and nothing to lose but your chains.' And they are uniting under the crimson banner of a world-embracing principle which knows nor sect, nor creed, nor race, and which offers new life and hope to all created beings—the glorious gospel of Socialism."[1103]
In many respects the French Revolution has served as a model to British Socialists of the Anarchist-Revolutionary type. They have adopted its outward emblems, its songs, and its most effective catch-phrases: "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity was the brave and splendid legend inscribed on the blood-red banners of the French Revolutionists. And in strange ways the oppressed and hunger-maddened people sought to realise their ideal. It is still the battle-cry of the English Socialists—indeed, of the world-wide Socialist movement."[1104]In the Socialistsong-books a translation of the "Marseillaise" is to be found, which is sung at Socialist gatherings:
Shall hateful tyrants, mischief-breeding,With hireling hosts, a ruffian band,Affright and desolate the land,While Peace and Liberty lie bleeding?To arms! to arms, ye brave!The avenging sword unsheathe!March on! March on! all hearts resolvedOn Liberty or death.[1105]
Shall hateful tyrants, mischief-breeding,With hireling hosts, a ruffian band,Affright and desolate the land,While Peace and Liberty lie bleeding?To arms! to arms, ye brave!The avenging sword unsheathe!March on! March on! all hearts resolvedOn Liberty or death.[1105]
In the eyes of many British Socialists the French Revolution was not sufficiently democratic, not sufficiently radical, not sufficiently violent. We are told that the French revolutionaries were soft-hearted men, and that our sympathy with their innocent victims, such as Queen Marie Antoinette, is quite uncalled for. "The Revolution was in its conception, its inception, and its results a middle-class revolution. The revolution was inaugurated by the Parliament of Paris—a pettifogging legal assembly. Marie Antoinette was but one fine useless woman among the millions, and she personified the heedless prodigal selfishness of autocracy. We of the Socialist movement, who are full of the idea of social service, of making a full return to society for the bread we eat, the clothes we wear out, and the house-room we occupy, how can we be expected to think so much of the suffering of one idle extravagant woman and so little of the age-long privation and torture of the hard-working useful mothers and sisters of France? The crimes of ignorant, passionate democracy, of which Burke and Carlyle have made so much, are as a drop in the ocean by comparison with the deliberate enormities perpetrated by enlightened cold-blooded autocracy, from Herod to Nicholas. The democracy has always been pitiful, extremely pitiful.Even the September massacres, carried out by the lowest of the low in an enraged and degraded and terror-stricken populace, are brightened by golden patches of clemency and love such as the annals of class punishment nowhere reveal."[1106]
The outbreak of the Paris Commune of 1871, having been less a "middle-class" revolution, is considered by Socialists with greater approval than the French Revolution of 1789. The philosopher of British Socialism writes: "The Commune of Paris is the one event which Socialists throughout the world have agreed with single accord to celebrate. Every 18th of March witnesses thousands of gatherings throughout the civilised world to commemorate the (alas! only temporary) victory of organised Socialist aspiration over the forces of property and privilege in 1871."[1107]Another leading Socialist writer says: "Year by year as the 18th of March comes round, it is the custom with Socialists to commemorate the proclamation of the Commune of Paris. As a Socialist I am a friend of the Commune."[1108]
What was the Paris Commune, and what did it do? In the words of an impartial publication, "The Communard chiefs were revolutionaries of every sect, who, disagreeing on governmental and economic principles, were united in their vague but perpetual hostility to the existing order of things. History has rarely known a more unpatriotic crime than that of the insurrection of the Commune."[1109]"The Commune was an insurrection which initiated a series of terrible outrages by the murder of the two generals Lecomte and Thomas.... The incapacity and mutual hatred of their chiefs rendered all organisation and durable resistance impossible.... The Communistswere committing the most horrible excesses: the Archbishop of Paris, President Bonjean, priests, magistrates, journalists, and private individuals, whom they had seized as hostages, were shot in batches in prisons, and a scheme of destruction was ruthlessly carried into effect by men and women with cases of petroleum. The Hôtel de Ville, the Palais de Justice, the Tuileries, the Ministry of Finance, the Palace of the Legion of Honour, that of the Council of State, part of the Rue de Rivoli, &c., were ravaged by the flames; barrels of gunpowder were placed in Notre Dame and the Pantheon ready to blow up the buildings, and the whole city would have been involved in ruin if the national troops had not gained a last and crowning victory."[1110]
Socialists have nothing but praise for the Communards, who killed and burned, desecrated the churches and devastated the town. They speak with enthusiasm of the leaders of that outbreak as of heroes who fought for the "Brotherhood of Man," and they exalt them above the saints of early Christianity. The philosopher of British Socialism exclaims: "Limitless courage and contempt of death was displayed in defence of an ideal, the colossal proportions of which dwarf everything in history, and which alone suffices to redeem the sordidness of the nineteenth century. Here was a heroism in the face of which the much-belauded Christian martyrs cut a very poor figure."[1111]"It was in the Commune that we saw manifested as never before the strong compelling force of a secular altruism. Without hope of heaven and without fear of hell, men lived and died for the idea of a brotherhood of self-governing and self-respecting men and women."[1112]
Even the murderous Paris Commune was too moderate for the taste of many British Socialists, who favour sternermeasures. The philosopher of British Socialism informs us; "The Commune had one special fault, that of a fatuous moderation in all its doings. Probably never since history began have any body of men allowed themselves and theirs to be treated as lambs in the slaughterhouse with more lamb-like forbearance and absence of retaliation than the Commune and its adherents; we have seen this illustrated by the incredible fact that up to the last, amid all the slaughterings of Communists, the vast majority of the hostages and prisoners in its hands remained unscathed."[1113]"One of the most unfortunate characteristics of the leaders of the Commune was their sensitiveness to bourgeois public opinion. The first thing for the leader of a revolutionary movement to learn is a healthy contempt for the official public opinion of the 'civilised world.' He must resolutely harden his heart against its 'thrills of horror,' its 'indignation,' its 'abomination,' and its 'detestation,' and he must learn to smile at all the names it will liberally shower upon him and his cause."[1114]
Whilst the revolutionary criminals who ruled by murder and arson were heroes and martyrs, the defenders of law and order were criminals according to British Socialists: "The thirst of the well-to-do classes for the blood of the Communards was insatiable. The latter were tried and shot in batches."[1115]"The Communards, desperate as they were, only faintly imitated the wholesale savagery of the regular troops."[1116]Peaceful M. Thiers, being at the head of the government, was "probably the cleverest, most hypocritical, and most unscrupulous villain that ever denied the pages of history."[1117]
Although Socialists pose as democrats, they do not believe in majority government.[1118]Being aware that theywill hardly be able to gain over the majority of the people to their revolutionary and visionary plans, they may, like the Paris Commune, try to force Socialism upon an unwilling majority. Therefore the attempt of the Parisian Socialists to overrule France is not condemned but regretted by the British Socialists: "The revolt was open to the objection that may be urged against most insurrections. It was an attempt to impose the will of a minority on a large majority of the people. The Socialists in the Commune must have realised at times that the people of France were not prepared for even the small instalments of Socialism which they sought to introduce. The revolutionists may have thought to impose their policy upon France by a merecoup de main."[1119]
The attitude of Socialists makes it appear possible that the revolutionary outbreak of 1871 will not be the last. The next revolutionary attempt may conceivably take place in Great Britain. "One man with an idea in his head is in danger of being considered a madman; two men with the same idea in common may be foolish, but can hardly be mad; ten men sharing an idea begin to act; a hundred draw attention as fanatics, a thousand and society begins to tremble, a hundred thousand and there is war abroad."[1120]"Whilst our backers at the polls are counted by tens, we must continue to crawl and drudge and lecture as best we can. When they are counted by hundreds, we can permeate and trim and compromise. When they rise to tens of thousands, we shall take the field as an independent party. Give us hundreds of thousands, as you can if you try hard enough, and we will ride the whirlwind and direct the storm."[1121]
[1098]Joynes,A Socialist Catechism, p. 13.
[1098]Joynes,A Socialist Catechism, p. 13.
[1099]Bax and Quelch,A New Catechism of Socialism, p. 37.
[1099]Bax and Quelch,A New Catechism of Socialism, p. 37.
[1100]De Leon,Reform or Revolution, p. 3.
[1100]De Leon,Reform or Revolution, p. 3.
[1101]Keir Hardie,From Serfdom to Socialism, p. 23.
[1101]Keir Hardie,From Serfdom to Socialism, p. 23.
[1102]Socialist Standard, October 1, 1907.
[1102]Socialist Standard, October 1, 1907.
[1103]Keir Hardie,From Serfdom to Socialism, p. 86.
[1103]Keir Hardie,From Serfdom to Socialism, p. 86.
[1104]Ethel Snowden,The Woman Socialist, p. 10.
[1104]Ethel Snowden,The Woman Socialist, p. 10.
[1105]Independent Labour Party Song Book, p. 20.
[1105]Independent Labour Party Song Book, p. 20.
[1106]Leatham,French Revolution, pp. 13, 14.
[1106]Leatham,French Revolution, pp. 13, 14.
[1107]Bax,Paris Commune, Preface.
[1107]Bax,Paris Commune, Preface.
[1108]Leatham,The Commune of Paris, p. 3.
[1108]Leatham,The Commune of Paris, p. 3.
[1109]Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xxviii. p. 480.
[1109]Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xxviii. p. 480.
[1110]Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xviii. p. 294.
[1110]Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xviii. p. 294.
[1111]Bax,Paris Commune, p. 59.
[1111]Bax,Paris Commune, p. 59.
[1112]Leatham,The Commune of Paris, p. 18.
[1112]Leatham,The Commune of Paris, p. 18.
[1113]Bax,Paris Commune, p. 74.
[1113]Bax,Paris Commune, p. 74.
[1114]Ibid.p. 88.
[1114]Ibid.p. 88.
[1115]Leatham,The Commune of Paris, p. 13.
[1115]Leatham,The Commune of Paris, p. 13.
[1116]Ibid.p. 19.
[1116]Ibid.p. 19.
[1117]Bax,Paris Commune, p. 86.
[1117]Bax,Paris Commune, p. 86.
[1118]See Chapters XV. and XXX.ante.
[1118]See Chapters XV. and XXX.ante.
[1119]Leatham,The Commune of Paris, p. 15.
[1119]Leatham,The Commune of Paris, p. 15.
[1120]Morris,Art, Labour, and Socialism, p. 24.
[1120]Morris,Art, Labour, and Socialism, p. 24.
[1121]Shaw,The Fabian Society and its Early History, p. 28.
[1121]Shaw,The Fabian Society and its Early History, p. 28.
Most Socialist agitators in Great Britain oppose and condemn State Socialism for two reasons: firstly, because, owing to their Communist and Anarchist leanings, they oppose and hate the State as such, as has been shown in the Chapters on "Socialism and Communism," "Socialism and Anarchism," "Socialism and Revolution"; secondly, because with the introduction of State Socialism their occupation would be gone. Socialist agitators do not wish others to govern the State. They wish to govern it themselves. The welfare of the masses is to them apparently only a secondary consideration. Hence most British Socialist agitators condemn the State Socialism of Germany, though it has greatly benefited the masses, and perhaps because it has greatly benefited the masses. They also condemn the British Post Office, although, being not overburdened with scruples, they praise it to the skies as a Socialistic model institution when it happens to suit them. In fact, most Socialist leaders condemn all existing Government institutions, ostensibly because they are capitalistic enterprises which are run at a "profit," and because they "exploit" their workers. It would of course be fatal to the Socialist agitators had they to preach the gospel of envy and hatred, of destruction and pillage, to the contented.
"The State of to-day, nationally and locally, is only the agent of the possessing class."[1122]"Mere nationalisation or mere municipalisation of any industry is notSocialism or Collectivism; it may be only the substitution of corporate for private administration; the social idea and purpose with which Collectivism is concerned may be completely absent."[1123]"Mere Statification, as we may term it, does not mean Socialism. The State of to-day is mainly an agent of the possessing classes, and industrial or commercial undertakings run to-day by Governmental bodies are largely run in the interests of these classes. Their aim in all cases is to show a profit, in the same way as ordinary capitalistic enterprises. This profit accrues to the possessing classes in the form of relief of imperial or local taxation, mainly paid by them, interests on loans, &c. In other words, these industrial undertakings are run for profit and not for use, and their employees are little, if at all, better off than those of private employers."[1124]"The modern State is but the organisation which capitalist society gives itself in order to maintain the external conditions of capitalist production against the attacks both of the workmen and of individual capitalists. The modern State, whatever its form, is essentially a capitalist machine."[1125]"State administration is very far from being the same as a Socialistic administration, as is sometimes erroneously supposed. The State administration is just as much a system of capitalistic exploitation as if the institutions in question were in the hands of private undertakers."[1126]"A bureaucracy—that is, a body of permanent officials, entrenched in Government departments, according to whose piping ministers themselves have willingly or unwillingly to dance—is totally incompatible with the very elementary conditions of Socialistic administration."[1127]"Bismarckian State control is brusque andbaneful, and is certainly not the desire of the true Socialist."[1128]
"State ownership, State tyranny, State interference exist to-day. We have to bear them now; we have to submit to them now; we have to pay for them now. The people, as such, own nothing. And the Socialists demand that the people shall own everything. Not the 'State,' the 'People.' So great is the difference between the word 'State' and the word 'people.'"[1129]"Do you propose that all these means of production which are now owned by individuals, by this class, as you say, should be made the property of the Government, like the Post Office and the telegraph system are in this country, and the railways as well in some others, or that they should be owned by municipal bodies, as waterworks, tramways, gasworks, and so on, are in many cases already?—No. Socialism does not mean mere Governmental ownership or management. The State of to-day, nationally or locally, is only the agent of the possessing class; the Post Office and the other State-owned businesses are run for profit just as other businesses are; and the Government, as the agent of the possessing class, has, in the interests of its employers, to treat the employees just as other employees are treated. The organised democratic society contemplated by Socialists is a very different thing from the class State of to-day. When society is organised for the control of its own business, and has acquired the possession of its own means of production, its officers will not be the agents of a class, and production will be carried on for the use of all and not for the profit of a few."[1130]"The Post Office to-day is an organised sweating-den. The Government get the largest possible amount of work for the lowest possible wages.That is capitalist wage-slavery under Government control."[1131]"The country postman has to walk excessive distances for miserable wages in order that the profit on the Post Office may be filched from the employees and from the public by the Chancellor of the Exchequer."[1132]
The Fabians, on the other hand, advocate State Socialism, but they are a small minority. "The Socialism advocated by the Fabian Society is State Socialism exclusively."[1133]Some Socialists would welcome State Socialism in the hope that it would prepare the way for free Communism. Mr. Keir Hardie, for instance, says: "State Socialism with all its drawbacks, and these I frankly admit, will prepare the way for free Communism, in which the rule, not merely the law of the State, but the rule of life will be—From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."[1134]
"Socialists only believe in the fraternal State. Paternal State Socialism all Socialists unanimously oppose."[1135]
[1122]Bax and Quelch,A New Catechism of Socialism, p. 8.
[1122]Bax and Quelch,A New Catechism of Socialism, p. 8.
[1123]Ball,The Moral Aspects of Socialism, p. 9.
[1123]Ball,The Moral Aspects of Socialism, p. 9.
[1124]Bax,Essays in Socialism, p. 7.
[1124]Bax,Essays in Socialism, p. 7.
[1125]Engels,Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science, p. 71.
[1125]Engels,Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science, p. 71.
[1126]Bebel,Woman, pp. 198, 199.
[1126]Bebel,Woman, pp. 198, 199.
[1127]Bax,Essays in Socialism, p. 9.
[1127]Bax,Essays in Socialism, p. 9.