Alexander Berkman - ABC of anarchism

Bib 1otee,a G1110 Bianco

A.B.C. OF ANARCHISM BY ALEXANDER BERKMAN With a Biographical Note of the Author B1blloteca G ro B1a'lco Fondazione Alfred Lewin Biblioteca Gino Bianco Fondo Gino Bianco FREEDOM PRESS London 1942

First published in U.S.A. by The Vanguard Press, May 1929. First English Edition published by The Freedom Press, 27 Belsize Rd., London, May 1942. Reprinted, November 1942. Printed in Gt. Britain by The Express Printers, London. PUBLISHER'S NOTE. _Berkman's original work was issued in America by the Vanguard Press, in 1929, under the title "What is Communist Anarchism." It contained three parts . headed, " Now," "Anarchism," and "The Social Revolution." The book was re-issued in 1936 by the Freie Arbeiter Stimme in New York with a new title: "Now and After. The Al3C of Communist Anarchism." Neither edition is obtainable in this country. The present edition contains parts two and three of the original work : on grounds of expense Part One has been omitted. The text is otherwise that of the 1929 edition, A short biographical sketch of the author has been added. If you are not already on our Mailing List and would like to be informed of new Freedom Press publications, please send us your name and address on a postcard. 81bhoteca Gino Bianco

ALEXANDERBERKMAN A Biographical Sketch Alexander Berkman was born in November 1870, at Vilno. Russia at that time was the scene of the most heroic activities against the 6!ack reaction of Tsari_sm. The young Berkman was from the first strongly influenced by the idealism and self-sacrifice of the revolutionists' struggle. His unde, Maxim, was exiled to Siberia for revolutionary activity, and was an inspiration to his nephew. At fiifteen he was already a member of a group engaged ip. the study of revolutionary literature-at that time, ;is now, a treasonable activity. He was expelled from school on account of his rebellious spirit, and was given a "wolrs passport" which closed every profession to him. He was thus, at the age of sixteen, compelled, like so many others in the revolutionary movement, to emigrate to America. On November 11th, 1887, the leaders of the anarchist movement in Chicago had been judicially murdered after the frame-up in the Haymarket at the May Day demonstrations. Berkman arrived in America at the beginning of 1888--only a few months after this crime on the part of the State.' He naturally threw himself into the revolutionary struggle, first in a Yiddish speaking group called the Pioneers of Liberty, then in the German Anarchist movement which was at that time led by J_ohnMost. Berkman's part in this struggle is described by Emma Goldman in the following terms : It was in the year 1892, at the time of the Homestead Steel Strike-the first and greatest life-and-death struggle of the steelworkers of the State of Pennsylvania against their feudal lord, Andrew Carnegie. It aroused the whole country to the slavery and -exploitation in the steel industry. That great struggle, powerfully described by Alexander Berkman in his " Prison Memoirs," was acccompanied by the -importation· to H<;>mestead 3 BibhotecaG no Bianco

of Pinkerton thugs (the favourite detective and police defenders of the American plutocracy of fifty years ago) who killed eleven strikers, among them a child of ten. The person responsible for tl)at crime was H. C. Frick, the representative and business partner of Carnegie. The brutal attitude of Frick towards the strikers, his public declaration that he would rather sec every striker killed than concede a single demand, and the final murder on July 6th, 1892, of eleven unarmed workingmen, roused America to indignation. Even the conservative press denounced Frick in the sharpest terms> Throughout America the workers gave vent to their feelings in protest meetings. But there was only one man who translated the wrath of the toilers into a heroic act. That I11an was Alexander Berkman. On the 22nd of July, 1892, he entered the office of H. C. Frick and attempted his life. Three bullets lodged in Frick's body, but he survived. Berkman received a prison sentence of 22 years, although his act-according to the laws of the State of Pennsylvania-called only for 7 years. To give our comrade such a cruel sentence, six charges were framed up against him : · because he dared to strike at the very heart of the American industrial plutocracy. (Preface to Berkman's "The Russian Tragedy," 1922). Berkman spent fourteen years in the Allegheny Penitentiary in Pennsylvania ; he has described that frightful experience in his great book, " Prison Memoirs of an Anarchi.st." When he came out, he threw himself once more into the revolutionary struggle, but it was not till he had written his book that he could free himself from the effects of that black period. He edited the Anarchist monthly paper " Mother Earth " ; he lectured, participated in strikes, and became one of the organisers of°the Ferrer school in New York, and one of its first teachers. In 1914 he was a prime organiser of the anti-militarist campaign which covered the whole of America. 1915 found him in San Francisco, where he started the revolutionary anarcho-syndicalist paper "Bla91." He continued this for eighteen months, until in July 1916 the bomb was thrown during the Preparedness Parade, which got the militants Mooney and Billings framed. The Labour leaders and the Socialists refused to have anything to do with the accused men, and left them to their fate. Not so the An- -chists. 4 Biblioteca Gino Bianco

Berkman organised meetings in Mooney and Billings' defence all over America, and aroused tremendous agitation in their favour. Had not the entry of America into the war overwhelmed the case, the accused men might have been freed. The anti-war and anti-conscription campaign that the anarchists conducted during the last war was recognised as a serious danger by the American Government. Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman and others were arrested, and condemned to two years' imprisonment, ten thousand dollars fine and deportation at the end of their sentence. In Berkman's case the persecution was particularly savage. The San Francisco authorities indicted him for complicity in the Preparedness Parade bomb · explosion, and demanded his extradition. They had not forgotter. or forgiven his defence of Mooney and Billings. And the New York authorities would have handed him over to San Francisco but for the intervention of the workers. The trade unions sent strong delegations to the Governor of the State of New York to protest against the extradition order. But .his cause was also taken ·up abroad. The revolutionary workers of Petrograd and the Kronstadt sailors organised demonstrations threatening the life of the American Ambassador in ' Russia, Francis. The Federal Government at Washington were frightened at the prospect of reprisals against their ambassador and the California demand for Berkman's extradition failed. Revolutionary international solidarity had saved our comrade's life. Berkman and Emma Goldman arrived in Russia at the end of December I g 19. For two years they worked for the revolution; but the tyrannical nature of the Bolshevik government, and the gradual strangling of the initiative of the workers in their soviets, culminating in the massacre of the Kronstadt sailors in 1921, disillusioned both of them. Alexander Berkman has described*this gradual disappointment in his book "The Bolshevik Myth." They applied for and received passports to Germany as delegates of the Anarchist Congress of 1921-22. The Socialist government of Ebert, however, refused to admit them. But in Sweden, the Socialist government of Branting allowed them to enter, with the stipulation that they stayed no longer than three months. Berkman soon succeeded in entering Germany illegally:,and remained there for a s Bibhoteca Gino Bianco

• year or so while he published his pamphlets on the Russian Revolution, after which he went to France. There he wrote " The BolshevikMyth" and the "ABC of Communist Anarchism." The inability to take part in the struggle in America, whither the deportation order prevented him returning, and his ill-health made his life after the last war one of increasing disappointment. Yet he was intensely interested in the workei:s' struggle, and in his last letter discusses and acclaims the great stay-in strikes in France in 1936. At the beginning of 1936 ·he underwent a serious operation. Unfortunately it was unsuccessful, and left him wjth the prospect of slowly dying in great pain. On June 28th, 1936, he shot himse1f. He died just three weeks before the Spanish workers opposed Franco's fascists with the social revolution on the barricades of Madrid and Barcelona. Emma Goldman said of him in the preface she contributed to the last American edition of the "ABC of Communist Anarchism " : "If only he had lived a little longer! But the many years in exile, the unbelievable humiliations to which he was subjected; having to beg the right to breathe from creepy officials, the enervating and exhausting struggle for existence, and his severe illness combined to make life intolerable. Alexander Berkman hated dependence ; he hated to become a burden to those he loved, and so he did what he had always said he would do : he hastened his end by his own lu>nd." 6 B blioteca Gmo Bianco

AUTHOR'S· FOREWORD I consider Anarchism the most rational and practical conception of a social life in freedom and harmony. I am convinced that its realisation is a certainty in the course of human development. The time of that realisation will depend on two factors : first, on how soon existing conditions will grow physically and spiritually unbearable to considerable portions of manktlnd, particularly to the labouring classes; and, secondly, on- the degree in which Anarchist views will become-uncterstood and accepted. Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas ; as long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. 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 causes of it. The war has unmasked the vicious character of capitalist competition and the murderous incompetency of governments to settle 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 of armaments and even the outlawing of war. It is not so long ago that the very suggestion of such a possibility met with the utmost scorn and ridicule. Similarly is breaking down the belief in other established institutions. Capitalism still "works," but doubt about its expediency and justice is gnawing at the heart of ever-widening social circles. The Russian.Revolution has broadcast ideas and ,feelings that are undermining capitalist society, particularly its economic bases and the sanctity of private ownership of the means of social existence. For not only in Russia did the October change take place : it has i~fl.uenced the masses _throughout the world. The cherished superstition that what exists is permanent has been shaken beyond recovery. 7 Biblloteca G no Bianco

. 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 the world bv defeating itself. The Socialist parties now run or help to · run most of the European governments, but the people do not believe any more tfiat they are different from other bourgeois regimes. They feel that Socialism has failed and is bankrupt. In like manner have the Bolsheviki proven that Marxian dogma and Leninist principles can lead only to dictatorship and reaction. T-o the Anarchist 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 agelong 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 the way for Anarchism. There is considerable literature on Anarchism, but most of its larger works were written before the World War. The experience Olf 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 practical application are dictated by the facts of current history. The lessons of the Russian Revolution in particular call for a new approach to various important problems, chief among them the character and activities of the social revolution. Furthermore, Anarchist books, with few exceptions, are not accessible to the understanding of the average reader. It is the comlllon failing of most works dealing with social questions that they are written on the assumption that the reader is already familiar to a considerabk extent with the subject, which is generally not the case 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 re-statement of the Anarchist posi,tion very ll'!uch needed at this time-a re-statement in the plainest and clearest terms which can be understood by everyone. That is, an ABC of Anarchism. With that object in view the following pages have been written. 8 B1bhotecaG no Bianco

INTRODUCTION I want to tell you about Anarc~ism: . . . I want to tell you what Anarchism 1_sb, e~ause I thmk 1t !s well you should know it. Also because so httle 1s known about It, and what is known is generally hearsay and mostly false. I want to tell you about it, because I believe that Anarchism is the finest and biggest thing man has ever thought of; the only thing that can give you liberty and well-being, and bring peace and joy to the world. I want to tell you pbout it in such plain and simple language that there will be no misunderstanding it. Big words ilnd high-sounding phrases serve only to confuse. Straight thinking means plain speaking. But before I tell you what Anarchism is, I wa"nt 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 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, you will see later, in the course of this story. Just now I can tell you that neither your political boss nor your employer, neither the capitalist nor the policeman will speak to you, honestly about Anarchism. Most of them know nothing about it, and all of them hate it. Their newspapers and publications-the capitalistic press-are also against it. Even most Socialists and Bolsheviki misrepresent Anarchism. True, the majority of them don't know any better. But those who, do know 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 they are. ' 9 BibhotecaG.noBia11co

The Bolsheviki do the same, although their greatest teacher, Lenin, had said that Anarchism would follow Bolshevism, and that then 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. Anarchi_sm is t~e very opposite of all that. Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should be enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you. It means that you should be free to do the things you want to do ; and that you should ~ot be compelled to do what you don't want to do.. It means that you should have a chance to choose the kind of a life you want to live, and live it without anybody interfering. It means that the next fellow should have. the same freedom as you, 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 of society where all men and women are free, and where ;ill enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered 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 be decent and live as decent folks even without growing wings. 10 Biblioteca G.no Bianco

IS ANARCHISM VIOLENCE? You have heard -that Anarchists .throw bombs, that they believe 1 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 n:ost of them know better, even if they hav-e a reason for not telling you the truth, It is time you should hear it. I mean to speak to yoµ honestly and frankly, and you can take my word for it, because it happens that I am just one of those Anarchists who are pointed out as men of violence and destruction. 1 ought to know, and I have nothing to hide. "Now does Anarchism really mean disorder and violence ? " y~u wonder. No, my friend, it is capitalism and government which stand for disorder and violence. Anarchism is the very reverse of ,it; it means' order 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 your friend demands to know wh-ether Anarchists have never thrown bombs or ever used violence. Yes, Anarchists have thrown bombs and have sometimes resorted to violence. ' " There you are ! " your friend exclaims. " I thought so." But do not !,et us be hasty. If Anarchists have sometimes employed violence, does it. ~ecessarily mean that Anarchism means violence? Ask yourself this question and try to answer it honestly. . When a citizens 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, you will reply, that ·under certain conditions a man may have to resort to violence. "The man may happen to be a Democrat, a Monarchist, .a Socialist; -Bolshevik, or. Anarchist. You will. find that this applies to all,.men- aqd to all times. Brutus killed Cresar because he feared his friend meant to betray the republic and become king. Not that Brutus "loved Cresar less but that he loved Rome more." Brutus was not an Anarchist. He was a loyal republican. n . ,,r :,..tr1z1une Allred LeWUJ Biblioteca G·no Bianco u, /-J~eca Gino Bianco

A.B.C. OF ANARCHISM 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 lovers of 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 was considered the highest virtue. Modern law condemns such acts, but human ~eeling.seems .to hav~ remained the same in this matter as in 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 very secretly rejoices at such acts. Were there not thousands of patriotic youths in America willing to assassinate the German Kaiser whom thev held responsible for starting the World War? Did not a French cou·rt 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 sacrifice even their own lives for it. Usually they were persons of no political party-or idea, but si~ply haters of tyranny. Occasionally they were religious fanatics, like the devout Catholic Kullman, who tried tci'·assassinate Bismarck,* or the misguided enthusiast Charlott~ 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 a Soutqerri :Oemocra_t; .Garfield, in i881, by Charles Jules Guiteau, a Republican ; and McKin\ey, in 1901, by Leon Czolgosz. Out of the three only one was an .Anarchist. The country that has the worst oppressors produces also the greatest number of tyrannicides, which is natural. Take Russia, for instance. With complete suppression of.speech and press under the Czars, there was no way of mitigating the despotic regime than by "putting the fear of God" into the tyrant's heart. Those avengers were mostly sons and daughters of the highest nobjlity, 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 * July 13th, 1874. 12 Biblioteca G:no Bianco

IS ANARCHISM VIOLENCE? conditions of their country. They were known as nihilists and terrorists. They were not Anarchists. In modern times individual acts of political violence have been ev>enmore frequent than in the past. The women suffragettes in England, for example, frequently re~orted to it to propag_ate and carry out their demands for equal rights. In Germany, $Ince the war men of the most conservative political views have u&ed such metbods in the hope of re-establishing the kingdom. It was a monarchist who killed Karl Erzberger, the Prussian Minister of Finance ; and Walter Rathenau, Minister of Foreign Affairs, was also laid low by a man of the same political party. Why, the original cause of, or at least excuse for, the Great War itself was the killing of the Austrian heir to the throne by a Serbian patriot who had nev>erheard of Anarchism. In Germany, Hungary, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and in every other European country men of the most varied political views had resorted to acts of violence, not to speak of the wholesale political terror, practiced by orgahi9ed bod_iessuch as the Fascists in Italy, the Ku Klux Klan in America, or the Catholic Church in Mexico. . You see, then, that Anarchists have no monopoly of politicaf violence. The number of such acts by Anarchists is infinitesimal as compared with those committed by persons of other politicaf persuasions, 1 The truth is that in every country, in every social movement, violence has been a part of the struggle from time immemorial. Even the Nazarene, who came to preach the gospel of peace, resorted to violence to drive the money changers out of the temple. As I have said, Anarchists have no monopoly on violence. On the contrary, the teachings of Anarchism are those of peace and harmony, of non-invasion, of the sacredness of life and liberty. But Anarchists are human, like the rest of mankind, and perhap$ more so., They are move sensitive to wrong and injustice, quicker to resent oppression, and therefore not exempt from occasional1y voicing their protest by an act of violence. But such acts are an expression of 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 not think so, because we have 9een 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 resp~msible for such acts. Like results have a like cause, but that cause is not to be found Biblloteca G.no Bianco 13

A:B.C. OF ANARCHI~M in political convictions ; rather in individual temperament al'ld the general feeling about violence. "You may be right about temperament," you say. "I can see that revolutionary ideas are not the cause of political acts of violence, else every revolutionist would be committing such acts. But do not such views to some extent justify those who commit such acts ? " It may seem so at first sigh_t. But if you think it over you will find that it is an entirely wrong idea. The best proof of it is that Anarchists who ho@ exactly the same views about government and the necessity of abolishing it, often disagree entirely on tlie question of violence. Thus Tolstoyan Anarchists and most Individualist Anarchists condemn· political violence, while other Anarchists approve of 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 and do not favour such methods any more. There was a time, for ·,jnstance, when Anarchists advocated individual acts of violence, known as " propaganda by deed." They did not expect to change government and capitalism' into Anarchism by such acts, nor did they think that the 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 favour acts of that nature. Experience has taught them that though such methods may have been justified and useful in the past, modern conditions of life make them 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 no certain ideas or "isms" that lead to violence, but that some other 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, but also by patriots and nationals, 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 14 Biblioteca Gino Bianco

IS ANARCHISM VIOLENCE? 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 in violence 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 organised 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 not discussing just now whether it is right or wrong, whether it should or should not be so. Just now we are interested in the fact that it is so-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 and• of God rests on force and viblence, because it is the fear of divine wrath and vengeance that wields power over you, compels you to obey, 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 subjected to the violence of parents or elders. At home, in school, in the office, factory, field, or shop, it is always some one's authority which keeps 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 breathe it through our lives. We are so ~teeped 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 faw permits it. You don't question the right of the government to kill, to confis~ate and imprison. If a private person should be guilty of the thmgs the g?vernment is doing all the time, you'd brand him a murderer, thief and scoundrel. But as long as the violence committed i~" lawful," you approve of it and submit to it. So it is not ~,eally 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 from the_ ~radle to the grave-authority parental, priestly and divine, pohtical, economic, social, and moral. .But whatever the character 15 Biblioteca G ro Bianco

A.B.C. OF ANARCHISM of that authority, it is always the same executioner yielding power over you through your fear of punishment in one form or another. You are afraid of God and the devil, of the priest and the neighbour, of your employer and boss, of the politician and policeman, of the judge 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 fea~s is based the authority of God, of the church, of parents, of capitalist and ruler. Look into your heart and see i:f what I say is not true. Why, even among children the ten-year-oitl 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, and by 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 domination of 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 and the pre~nt, of the dead and the living, and your existence is a continuous invasion and violation of yQurself, a constant subjection to the thoughts and the will of some one else. And as you are invaded and violated, so you subconsciouslyrevenge yourself by invading and violatini others over whom you have authority or can ex•ercise 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, and subjection, 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 meshes of this spi~it of authority and violence, and are often impelled by their feelings and environment to invasive acts entirely at variance with their ideas ? We are all still barbarians who resort to force and violence to settle our debts, difficulties, and troubles. Violence is the method of ignorance, the weapon of the weak. The strong of heart and brain need no violence, for they are irresistible in their consciousness of being riaht. The further we get away from primitiv>eman and the hatchei° age, the less recourse ~e shall have to force and violence. The more enlightened man will becomo, the less he will employ compulsion and coercion. He will rise from the dust and stand erect : he will bow to no tsar either in heaven or on earth. He will hecomc fully human when he will scorn to rul,e and refuse to be 16 Biblloteca Gino Bianco

IS ANARCHISM VIOLENCE? 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 the very fountainhead of violence, constraint, and coercion. Anarchy,* therefore, does not mean disorder and chaos, as you thought before. On the contrary, it is the V1eryreverse of it ; it means no government, which is freedom and liberty. Disorder is the child of 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 $tate of society. • .\uarchy refers to the condition. Anarchism is the theory or teaching about it. 17 B!bllotecaG ro Bianco

WHAT IS ANARCHISM? "Can you tell us briefly," your friend asks, "what Anarchism really is ? " I shall try. In the fewest words, Anarchism teaches that we can live in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind. A life without compulsion naturally means liberty; it means freedom from being forced or coerced, a chance to lead the life that suits you best. You cannot lead such a life unless you do away with the institu• tions that curtail your liberty and interfere with your life, the condition that compels you to act differently from the way you really would ·like to. What are those institutions and conditions ? Let us see what we have to do away with in order to secure a free and harmonious life. Once we know what has to be abolished and what must take its place, we shall also find the way to do it. What must be .abolished, then, to secure liberty ? First of all, of course, the thing that invades you most, that handicaps or erevents your free activity ; the thing that interferes with your liberty and compels you to live differently from what would be your own choice. That thing is government. . Take a good look at it and you will see that government is the greatest_invader ; more than that, the worst criminal man has ever known of. It fills the world with violence, with fraud and deceit, with oppression and misery. As a great thinker once said, "its breath is poison." It corrupts everything it touches. "Yes, government means violence and it is evil," you admit ; " but can we do without it ? " That is just what we want to talk over. Now, if I should ask you whethe'r you need government; I'm sure you would answer that you don't, but that it is for the others that it is neec;led. But if you should ask any one of those "others," he would reply as you do : he would say that he does not need it, but that it is necessary " for the others." Why does every one think that he can be decent enou~h without the policeman, but that the club is needed for " the others ? " " People would rob and murder each other if there were no ~overnment and no law," you say. Biblioteca Gino Bianco

. ' WHAT IS ANARCHISM? If they really would, 7!1hY would they ? Would they do 1t 3ust for the pleasure of it or t:i~cau_soef 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 our n~mber 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 and comfort, and that some one should arrive and claim it all as his. What \.\'Ouldwe say ? We'd ignore him, wouldn't we ? We might tell him. that he could share with us and join us in our work. But suppose that he insists on his ownership and that he produces a slip of paper and says that it proves that everything belongs to him ?' We'd tell him he's crazy and we'd go about our business. But if he should have a government back of him, he would appeal to it for the protection of " his rights," and the government would send police and soldiers who would evict us and put the " lawful owner in possession." That is the function of government; that is wha,t 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 w.i~h government we rob and murder ?' Because goyernment does not secure us in our rightful possessions, but on the contrary takes them away for the benefit of those who· have no right to them, as we have seen in previous chapters.* , . If you should wake up to-morrow morning and learn that there· •1s no government any more, would your first thought be to rush into lthe street and kill some one ? No, you know that is nonsense. We spea½ ?f sane, normal men. The insane man belongs to the care of phys1c1ans and alienists ; they should be placed in hospitals to be· treated for their malady. . The_chances are that if you or Johnson should awaken to find that there 1s no government, you would get busy arranging your lifeunder the new conditions. It is very likely, of course, that if you should then see people·· •·i.e. in Part I of Berkman's original book: see bibliogra,phical note. B!bhoteca G r6 Bianco 19

A.B.C. OF ANARCHISM gorge thems~lves while you go hungry, you would demand a chance to eat, and you would be perfectly right in that. · And so would every one else, which means that people would not stand for any one hogging all the good things of life : they would want to share in them. It means further that the poor would refuse to stay poor while others wallow in luxury. It means that the worker will decline to give up his product to the boss who claims to "own " the factory and everything that is made there. It means that the farmer 'will not permit thousands of acres to lie idle while he has not enough soil to support himself and family. It means that no one will be permitted to monopolise the land or the machinery of production. It means that the private ownership of the sources of life will not be tolerated any more. It will be considered the greatest crime for some to own more than they can use in a dozen ljfetimes, while their neighbours have not enough bread for their . children. It means that all men will share in the social ~vealth, 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 sec therefore that doing away with government also signifies the abolition of monopoly and of personal ownership of the me_ans of production and distribution. It follows that when government is abolished, wage slavery and capitalism must also go with it, because they cannot exist without the support and protection of government. Just as the man who would claim a monopoly of the island, of which I spoke before, could not put through his crazy claim without the help of government. . Such a condition of things where there would be liberty instead of government would be Anarchy. And where equality of use ,would take the place of private ownership, would be Communism. It would be Communist Anarchism. " Oh, Communism," your friend exclaims, " but you said you were not a Bolshevik ! " No, I am not a Bolshevik, because the Bolsheviki want a powerful government or state, while Anarchism means doing away with the State or government altogether. "But are not the Bdlsheviki Communists ? " you demand. Yes, the Bolsheviki are CQmmunists, but they want their dictator-. ship; 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 ? " 20 Biblioteca Gmo Bianco

IS ANARC.H_Y POSSI~LE ? "It might be possible, you say, "if we could do without government. But can we ? " Perhaps we can best answer your question by examining your own life. What role does the government play in your existence ? Does it help you liv-e ? Does it feed, clothe, and shelter you ? Do you need 1t to help you work or play ~ If you are ill, do you call the physician or the policeman ? Can t~e government give you greater , ability than nature endowed yo1:1with ? Can 1t 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 exc~pt when it begi1:1tso i?terfere with your affairs, when 1t compels you to do certam thmgs or prohibits you from doing others. It forces you, for instance, to pay taxes and support 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 behaviour, 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 to eat and drink, and imprisons or shoots you for disobeying. It commands you and dominates every step of your life. It treats you as a bad boy, as an irresponsible child who needs the strong hand of a guardian, 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, how they will function, and what effect they are likely to have upon m::m. For the present we want to make sure first that such a condition is possible,-that Anarchy is practicable.' Wh~t is _the_existence of the average man to-day ? Almost all your_ time _is_given to earning your livelihqod. You are so busy ma~mg a livmg that y9u hardly have time left to live, to enjoy life. N,either the time nor the money. You are lucky if you have some • sourc~ of ~upport, some- iob. Now and then comes slack-time : there ~sunemployment and thousands are thrown out of work, every year, m ~very country. That time means no income, no wages. It results in worry and 2i B:bllotecaG no Bianco

A.B.C. OF ANARCHISM privation, in disease, desperation, and suicide. It spells poverty and crime. 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 ·criminals it is again you who have to support police, detectives, State forces, judges, lawyers, prisons, keepers. Can you imagine anything more senselessand 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 from stealing and punish him if he tries to. Then he is provided with the means 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 of our 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 ? "But security and public order," you object, "could we have that without 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 order and peace we do have is due to the good common sense of the 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 in certain arrangements to afford us security and comfort. Such co-working is free, voluntary; it needs no compulsion by any government. You join, a sporting club or a singing society because your inclinations lie, that way, and you co-operate with the other , members without any one coercing you. The man of science, the writer, the artist, and the inventor seek tlfeir own kind for inspiration and mutual work. Their impulses and needs are their best urge : the interference of any government or authority can onlv hinder their efforts. * i.e. in Part I of the original book. 22 Biblioteca Gino Bianco

IS ANARCHY POSSIBLE? _ All through life yo~ ~ill find that the need~ and inclinations of ueople make for assoc1at1on,for mutual protection and help. That Js 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 Anarchism · and government, because Anarchism means voluntary co-operat_ion instead of forced participation. It means harmony and order in place of interference and disorder: . . . "But who will protect_ us agamst cnme and cnmmals ? " 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 violence 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 by government ? Is not government itself the greatest injustice and crime ? Crime is the result of economic conditions, of social inequality, of wrongs and evils of which government and monopoly are the parents. Government and law can only punish the criminal. They neither cure nor prevent crime. The only real cure for crime is to abolish its causes, and this the government can never do because it is there to preserve those very causes. .Crime can be -eliminated only by doing away with the conditions that create it. Government cannot do it. Anarchism means to do away \Vith those conditions. Crimes resulting from government, from its oppression and injustice, from ipequality 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 those resulting from jealousy, passion, and from the spirit of coercion and violence which dominates the world to-day. But these, the offspring of authority and possession, will also gradually disappear under wh~lesome conditions with the passing awa_yof the atmosphere that cultivated them. . Ana~c~y will therefore neither breed crime nor offer any soil for its t~nvmg. Occasional anti-social acts will be looked upon as survivals of former diseased conditions and attitudes, and will be treated as an unhealthy state of mind rather than of crime. , Anarchy :vould begin by feeding the " criminal " and securing ~im .wo~k m_stead of first watching him, arresting, trying, and imprisoning him, and finajiy ending by feeding him and the many then who have to watch and feed him. Surely even this example 23 B1blloteca G ro B1a'lco

A.B.C. OF ANARCHISM snows how much more sensible and simpler life would be under Anarchism than now. The truth is, present life is impractica~ complex and confused, and not satisfactory from any point of view. That is why there is so much misery and discontent. The worker is not satisfied ; nor is the master happy in his constant anxiety over "bad times " involving loss of property and power. The spectre of fear for. to-morrow dogs the steps of poor and rich alike. Certainly the worker has nothing to lose by a change from govern~ ment 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 goodwill of the manufac• turer and wholesaler, of the large combines of industry and capital, and they Are always in danger of bankruptcy and ruin. Even tne big capitalist has little to lose by the changing of the present-day system to one of Anarchy, for under the latter every one would be assured of his living and comfort; the fear of com• petition would be eliminated with the abolition of private ownership. .tvery one would have full and unhindered opportunity to live and enjoy his life to the utmost of his capacity. _ Add to this the consciousnessof peace and harmony ; the feeling that comes with freedom from financial or material worries; the realisation that you are in a friendly world with no envy or business rivalry to disturb your mind ; in a world of brothers; in an atmosphere of liberty and general welfare. It is almost impossibl,eto 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, ~e artist-all would 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 not underestimate the role of these sentiments in the life of man or nation. 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 civilisation has, by disinheriting millions, made the belly the centre of the universe, so to speak. But in a sensible society, with plenty 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 24 Biblioteca G:no Bianco

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==