Whilst they recognize the influence of the oppressor as a natural condition of a nation"s life, they do just what a critic of the economic conditions of the life of the personal slaves of different masters would do, were he to omit to consider the influence exercised on the life of these slaves by the will of that master who compels them to work on this or that thing and drives them from one place to another according to his pleasure, who feeds them or neglects to do so, who kills them or leaves them alive.
A noxious superst.i.tion has been long in existence and still survives,--a superst.i.tion which has done more harm to men than the most terrible religious superst.i.tions.
And so-called science supports this superst.i.tion with all its power, and with the utmost zeal. This superst.i.tion exactly resembles religious superst.i.tions. It consists in affirming that, besides the duties of man to man, there are still more important duties towards an imaginary being,--which the theologians call G.o.d, and the political scientists the State.
The religious superst.i.tion consists in affirming that sacrifices, even of human lives, must be offered to this imaginary being, and that they can and ought to be enforced by every means, even by violence. The political superst.i.tion consists in the belief that, besides the duties of man to man, there are still more important duties to an imaginary being, the State; and the offerings,--often of human lives,--brought to this imaginary being are also essential, and can and ought to be enforced by every means, even by violence.
This superst.i.tion it is, formerly encouraged by the priests of different religions, which is now sustained by so-called science.
Men are thrown into slavery, into the most terrible slavery, worse than has ever before existed; but Political Science tries to persuade men that it is necessary and unavoidable.
The state must exist for the welfare of the people, and it must do its duty, to rule and protect them from their enemies. For this purpose the state needs money and troops. Money must be subscribed by all the citizens of the state. And hence all the relations of men must be considered in the light of the existence of the state.
"I want to help my father by my labour," says a common unlearned man. "I want also to marry; but instead, I am taken and sent to Kazan, to be a soldier for six years. I leave the military service, I want to plough the ground to earn food and drink for my family; but I am not allowed to plough for a hundred versts around me unless I pay money, which I have not got, and pay it to those men who do not know how to plough, and who demand for the land so much money that I must give them all my labour to procure it: however, I still manage to save something, and wish to give this to my children; but a police official comes and takes from me all I had saved, for taxes: I can earn a little more, and again I am deprived of it. My entire economic activity is at the mercy of state demands; and it seems to me that my position and that of my brethren, will certainly improve if we are liberated from the demands of the state."
But he is told, "Such reasoning is the result of your ignorance. Study the laws of production, exchange, and distribution of wealth, and do not mix up economical questions with those of the state. The phenomena which you point to are no restraints on your freedom; they are the necessary sacrifices which you, along with others, must make for your own freedom and welfare."
"But my son has been taken away from me," says again a common man; "and they threaten to take away all my sons as soon as they are grown up: they took him away by force, and drove him to face the enemy"s guns in some country which we have never heard of, and for an object which we cannot understand.
"And as for the land which they will not allow us to plough, and for want of which we are starving, it belongs to a man who got possession of it by force, and whom we have never seen, and whose usefulness we cannot even understand. And the taxes, to collect which the police official has by force taken my cow from my children, will, so far as I know, go to this same man who took my cow away, and to various members of the committees and of departments which I do not know of, and in the utility of which I do not believe. How is it, then, that all these acts of violence secure my liberty, and all this evil procures good?"
You may compel a man to be a slave and to do that which he considers to be evil for himself, but you cannot compel him to think, that, in suffering violence, he is free, and that the obvious evil which he endures const.i.tutes his good. This appears impossible. Yet by the help of science this very thing has been done in our time.
The state, that is, the armed oppressors, decide what they want from those whom they oppress (as in the case of England and the Fiji-Islanders): they decide how much labour they want from their slaves,--they decide how many a.s.sistants they will need in collecting the fruits of this labour; they organize their a.s.sistants in the shape of soldiers, land-owners, and collectors of taxes. And the slaves give their labour, and, at the same time, believe that they give it, not because their masters demand it, but for the sake of their own freedom and welfare; and that this service and these b.l.o.o.d.y sacrifices to the divinity called the State are necessary, and that, except this service to their Deity, they are free. They believe this because the same had been formerly said in the name of religion by the priests, and is now said in the name of so-called science, by learned men.
But one need only cease to believe what is said by these other men who call themselves priests or learned men, for the absurdity of such an a.s.sertion to become obvious.
The men who oppress others a.s.sure them that this oppression is necessary for the state,--and the state is necessary for the freedom and welfare of men; so that it appears that the oppressors oppress men for the sake of their freedom, and do them evil for the sake of good.
But men are furnished with reason so that they may understand wherein consists their own good, and do it willingly.
As for the acts, the goodness of which is not intelligible to men, and to which they are compelled by force, these cannot be for their good, because a reasoning being can consider as good only the thing which appears so to his reason. If men are driven to evil through pa.s.sion or folly, all that those who are not so driven can do is to persuade the others into what const.i.tutes their real good. You may try to persuade men that their welfare will be greater when they are all soldiers, are deprived of land, and have given their entire labour away for taxes; but until all men consider this condition to be welfare, and undertake it willingly, one cannot call such a state of things the common welfare of men.
The sole criterion of a good conception is its willing acceptance by men. And the lives of men abound with such acts. Ten workmen buy tools in common, in order to work together with them, and in so doing they are undoubtedly benefitting themselves; but we cannot suppose that if these ten workmen were to compel an eleventh, by force, to join in their a.s.sociation, they would insist that their common welfare will be the same for him.
So with gentlemen who agree to give a subscription dinner at a pound a head to a mutual friend; no one can a.s.sert that such a dinner will benefit a man who, against his will, has been obliged to pay a sovereign for it. And so with peasants who decide, for their common convenience, to dig a pond. To those who consider the existence of a pond more valuable than the labour spent on it, digging it will be a common good.
But to the one who considers the pond of less value than a day"s harvesting in which he is behind-hand, digging it will appear evil. The same holds good with roads, churches, and museums, and with all various social and state affairs.
All such work may be good for those who consider it good, and who therefore freely and willingly perform it,--the dinner which the gentlemen give, the pond which the peasants dig. But work to which men must be driven by force ceases to be a common good precisely by the fact of such violence.
All this is so plain and simple, that, if men had not been so long deceived, there would be no need to explain it.
Suppose we live in a village where all the inhabitants have agreed to build a road over a swamp which is a danger to them. We agree together, and each house promises to give so much money or wood or days of labour.
We agree to this because the making of the road is more advantageous to us than what we exchange for it; but among us there are some for whom it is more advantageous to do without a road than to spend money on it, or who at all events think so. Can compelling these men to labour make it of advantage to them? Obviously not; because those who considered that their choosing to join in making the way would have been disadvantageous, will consider it _a fortiori_ still more disadvantageous when they are _compelled_ to do so. Suppose, even, that we all, without exception, were agreed, and promised so much money or labour from each house, but that it happened that some of those who had promised did not give what they agreed, their circ.u.mstances having meanwhile changed, so that it was more advantageous for such now to be without the road than to spend money on it; or that they have simply changed their mind about it; or even calculate that others will make the road without them and that they will then use it. Can coercing these men to join in the labour make them consider that the sacrifices are enforced for their own good?
Obviously not; because, if these men have not fulfilled what they promised, owing to a change in circ.u.mstances, so that now the sacrifices for the sake of the road outbalance their gain by it, the compulsory sacrifices of such would be only a worse evil. But if those who refuse to join in building the road intend to utilize the labour of the others, then in this case also coercing them into making a sacrifice would be only a punishment on a supposition, and their object, which n.o.body can prove, will be punished before it is made apparent; but in neither case can coercing them to join in a work which they do not desire be good for them.
If this is so with sacrifices for a work which every one can comprehend, obvious, and undoubtedly useful to everyone, such as a road over a swamp; how still more unjust and unreasonable is it to coerce millions of men into making sacrifices for objects which are incomprehensible, imperceptible, and often undoubtedly harmful, such as military service and taxation.
But, according to science, what appears to every one to be an evil is a common good: it appears that there are men, a small minority, who alone know of what the common good consists, and, notwithstanding the fact that all other men consider this good to be an evil, this minority can compel the others to do whatever they may consider to be for the common good. And it is this belief which const.i.tutes the chief superst.i.tion and the chief deceit and hinders the progress of mankind towards the True and the Good.
To nurse this superst.i.tious deceit has been the object of political sciences in general, and of so-called "Political Economy" in particular.
Many are making use of its aims in order to hide from men the state of oppression and slavery in which they now are.
The way they set about doing so is by starting the theory that the violence connected with the economy of social slavery is a natural and unavoidable evil; and men thereby are deceived and turn their eyes from the real causes of their misfortunes.
Slavery has long been abolished. It has been abolished in Rome as well as in America, and in Russia; but only the word has been abolished,--not the evil.
Slavery is the violent freeing of some men from the labour necessary for satisfying their wants, which transfers this labour to others; and wherever there is a man who does not work, not because others willingly and lovingly work for him, but because he has the possibility, while not working himself, to make others work for him, there slavery exists.
Wherever there are, as in all European societies, men who utilize the labour of thousands of others by coercion, and consider such to be their right, and others who submit to this coercion considering it to be their duty,--there you have slavery in its most dreadful proportions.
Slavery exists. In what, then, does it consist? Slavery consists of that of which it has always consisted, and without which it cannot exist at all,--in the coercion of a weak and unarmed man by a strong and armed man.
Slavery in its three fundamental modes of operation,--personal violence, the military, land-taxes,--maintained by the military, and direct and indirect taxes put upon all the inhabitants, is still in operation now as it has been before.
We do not see it because each of these three forms of slavery has received a new justification, which hides its meaning from us.
The personal violence of armed over unarmed men has been justified as the defence of one"s country from imaginary enemies,--while in its essence it has the one old meaning, the submission of the conquered to the oppressors.
The violent seizure of the labourers" land has been justified as the recompense for services rendered to an imaginary common welfare, and confirmed by the right of heritage; but in reality it is the same dispossession of men from their land and enslaving them which was performed by the troops.
And the last, the monetary violence by means of taxes, the strongest and most effective in our days, has received a most wonderful justification.
Dispossessing men of their liberty and their goods is said to be done for the sake of the common liberty and of the common welfare. But in fact it is the same slavery, only an impersonal one.
Wherever violence becomes law, there is slavery.
Whether violence finds its expression in the circ.u.mstance that princes with their courtiers come, kill, and burn down villages; whether slave-owners take labour or money for the land from their slaves, and enforce payment by means of armed men, or by putting taxes on others, and riding armed to and fro in the villages; or whether a Home Department collects money through governors or police sergeants,--in one word, as long as violence is maintained by the bayonet,--there will be no distribution of wealth, but it will be acc.u.mulated among the oppressors.
As a striking ill.u.s.tration of the truth of this a.s.sertion the project of Henry George to nationalize the land may serve us. Henry George proposes to declare all land the property of the state, and to subst.i.tute a land-rent for all taxes, direct and indirect. That is, everyone who utilizes the land would have to pay to the state the value of its rent.
What would be the result? The land would belong to the state,--English land to England, American land to America, and so on; that is, there would be slavery, determined by the quant.i.ty of cultivated land. It might be that the condition of some labourers would improve; but while a forcible demand for rent remained, the slavery would remain too. The cultivator, after a bad harvest, being unable to pay the rent exacted of him by force, would be obliged to enslave himself to any one who happened to have the money in order not to lose everything and to retain the land.
If a pail leaks, there must be a hole. Looking at the pail, we might imagine the water runs from many holes; but no matter how we might try to stop the imaginary holes from without, the water would not cease running. In order to put a stop to the leakage we must find the place from which water runs, and stop it from the inside.
The same holds good with the proposed means of stopping the irregular distribution of wealth,--the holes through which the wealth runs away from the people.
It is said, _Organize workmen"s corporations, make capital social property, make land social property_. All this is only mere stopping from the outside those holes from which we fancy the water runs. In order to stop the wealth going from the hands of the workers to those of the non-workers, it is necessary to try to find from the inside the hole through which this leakage takes place. And this hole is the violence of armed men towards unarmed men, the violence of troops, by means of which men are carried away from their labour, and the land, and the products of labour, taken from them.
So long as there is one armed man, whoever he may be, with the acknowledged right to kill another man, so long will there also exist an unjust distribution of wealth,--in other words, slavery.
I was led into the error that I can help others by the fact that I imagined my money was as good as Semion"s. But it was not so.
The general opinion is that money represents wealth; that wealth is the result of work and therefore that money represents work. This opinion is as just as the opinion a.s.serting that every form of state is the result of a contract (contrat social).
All men like to believe that money is only a means of exchange of labour. I have made boots, you have made bread, he has fed sheep; now, in order to exchange our wares the more conveniently, we introduce money, which represents the corresponding share of labour, and through it we exchange leather soles for a mutton brisket and ten pounds of flour.