It appears therefore that besides the fact that the usefulness of state activity is not recognized by all men, and is always denied by one portion of men, this usefulness has the peculiarity of vindicating itself always by violence.
Therefore the usefulness of state activity cannot be confirmed by the first indication,--i.e., the fact that it is recognized by those men for whom it is said to be performed.
Let us apply the second test. Let us ask statesmen themselves, from the Tsar down to the policeman, from the president to the secretary, from the patriarch to the s.e.xton, begging for a sincere answer, whether, in occupying their respective positions they have in view the good which they wish to do for men or something else. In their desire to fill the situation of a Tsar, a president, a minister, a police-sergeant, a s.e.xton, a teacher, are they moved by the desire of being useful to men or for their own personal advantage? And the answer of sincere men would be that their chief motive is their own personal advantage.
So it appears that one cla.s.s of men, who live by the labour of some others who are perishing by these labours, compensate for this indubitable evil by an activity which is always considered by a great many men to be not only useless, but pernicious; which cannot be accepted voluntarily, but to which men must always be compelled, and the aim of which is not the benefit of others but the personal advantage of the men who perform it.
What is it, then, that confirms the theory that state activity is useful for humanity? Only the fact that the men who perform it firmly profess to believe it to be useful, and that it has been always in existence.
But so some not only useless, but very pernicious inst.i.tutions, like slavery, prost.i.tution, and wars, have always been in existence.
Business people (merchants, manufacturers, railway proprietors, bankers, land-owners) believe that they do a good which compensates for the harm undoubtedly done by them. On what grounds do they believe this? To the question, By whom is the usefulness of their activity recognized? men in church and in state are able to point to the thousands and millions of working-people who in principle recognize the usefulness of state and church activity. But to whom will bankers, distillers, manufacturers of velvet, of bronzes, of looking-gla.s.ses, to say nothing of guns,--to whom will they point when we ask them, Is their usefulness recognized by public opinion?
If men can be found who recognize the usefulness of manufacturing chintzes, rails, beer, and such like things, there will be found also a still greater number of men who consider the manufacture of these articles pernicious.
As for the merchants whose activity is confined to prices, and land-owners, n.o.body would even attempt to justify them.
Besides, this activity is always a.s.sociated with harm to working-people, and with violence, which, if less direct than that of the state, is yet just as cruel in its consequences. For the activities displayed in industry and in trade are entirely based on taking advantage of the wants of working-people in every form in order to compel them to hard and hated labour; to buying cheap, and to selling necessaries at the highest possible price and to raising the interest on money. From whatever point we consider this activity we can see that the usefulness of business-men is not recognised by those for whom it is expended, neither generally nor in particular cases; and by the majority their activity is considered to be directly pernicious.
If we were to apply the second test and to ask, What is the chief motive of the activity of business-men? we should receive a still more determinate answer than that on the activity of statesmen. If a statesman says that besides a personal advantage he has in view the common benefit, we cannot help believing him, and each of us knows such men. But a business-man, from the very nature of his occupations cannot have in view a common advantage, and would be ridiculous in the sight of his fellows if he were in his business aiming at something besides increasing his wealth and keeping it.
And, therefore, working-people do not consider the activity of business-men of any advantage to them. Their activity is a.s.sociated with violence; and its object is not their good but always and only personal advantage; and yet, strange to say, these business-men are so a.s.sured of their own usefulness that they boldly, for the sake of their imaginary good, do an undoubted, obvious harm to workmen by extricating themselves from labour, and consuming the produce of the working-cla.s.ses.
Scientists and artists have also freed themselves from labour by putting it on others, and live with a quiet conscience believing that they bring sufficient advantages to other men to compensate for it. On what is this a.s.surance based? Let us ask them as we have done statesmen and business-men. Is the utility of the arts and sciences recognized by all, or even by the majority, of working-people?
We shall receive a very sad answer. The activity of men in the State Church and government offices is recognized to be useful in theory by almost all, and in application by the majority of those for whom it is performed. The activity of business-men is recognized only by those who are engaged in it or who desire to practise it. Those who bear on their shoulders all the labour of life and who feed and clothe the scientists and artists cannot recognize the usefulness of the activity of these men because they cannot even form an idea about an activity which always appears to workmen useless and even depraving.
Thus, without any exception, working-people think the same about universities, libraries, conservatories, picture and statue galleries, and theatres, which are built at their expense.
A workman considers this activity so decidedly pernicious that he does not send his children to be taught; and in order to compel people to accept this activity it has everywhere been found necessary to introduce a law compelling parents to send the children to school.
A workman always looks at this activity with ill-will, and only ceases to look at it so when he ceases to be a workman, and through gain and so-called education pa.s.ses out of the cla.s.s of working-people into the cla.s.s of men who live on the neck of others.
Notwithstanding the fact that the usefulness of the activity of scientists and artists is not recognized and even cannot be recognized by any workman, these men are, all the same, compelled to make sacrifices for such an activity.
A statesman simply sends another to the guillotine or to prison; a business-man, utilizing the labour of someone else, takes from him his last resource, leaving him the alternative of starvation or labour destructive to his health and life: but a man of science or of art seemingly compels n.o.body to do anything; he merely offers the good he has done to those who are willing to take it; but, to be able to make his productions undesirable to the working-people, he takes away from them by violence, through the statesmen, a great part of their labour for the building and keeping open of academies, universities, colleges, schools, museums, libraries, conservatories, and for the wages for himself and his fellows.
But if we were to ask the scientists and artists the object which they are pursuing in their activity, we should receive the most astonishing replies.
A statesman would answer that his aim was the common welfare; and in his answer, there would be an admixture of truth confirmed by public opinion.
In the answer of the business-man, there would be less probability; but we could admit even this also.
But the answer of the scientists and artists strikes one at once by its want of proof and by its effrontery. Such men say, without bringing any proofs (just as priests used to do in olden times) that their activity is the most important of all, and that without it mankind would go to ruin. They a.s.sert that it is so, notwithstanding the fact that n.o.body except themselves either understands or acknowledges their activity, and notwithstanding the fact that, according to their own definition, true science and true art should not have a utilitarian aim.
These men are occupied with the matter they like, without troubling themselves what advantage will come out of it to men; and they are always a.s.sured that they are doing the most important and the most necessary thing for all mankind.
So that while a sincere statesman, acknowledging that the chief motive of his activity is a personal one, tries to be as useful as possible to the working-people; while a business-man, acknowledging the egotism of his activity, tries to give it an appearance of being one of universal utility,--men of science and art do not consider it necessary even to seem to shelter themselves under a pretence of usefulness, they deny even the object of usefulness, so sure are they, not only of the usefulness but even of the sacredness of their own business.
So it turns out that the third cla.s.s of men who have freed themselves from labour and laid it on others, are occupied with things which are totally incomprehensible to the working-people, and which these people consider trifles and often very pernicious trifles; and are occupied with these things without any consideration of their usefulness but merely for the gratification of their own pleasure: it turns out that these men are, from some reason or other, quite a.s.sured that their activity will always produce that without which the work-people would never be able to exist.
Men have freed themselves from labouring for their living and have thrown the work upon others who perish under it: they utilize this labour and a.s.sert that their occupations, which are incomprehensible to all other men, and which are not directed to useful aims, compensate for all the evil they are doing to men by freeing themselves from the trouble of earning their livelihood and by swallowing up the labour of others.
The statesman, to compensate for the undoubted and obvious evil which he does to man by freeing himself from the struggle with nature and by appropriating the labour of others, does men another obvious and undoubted harm by countenancing all sorts of violence.
The business-man, to compensate for the undoubted and obvious harm which he does to men by using up their labour, tries to earn for himself as much wealth as possible; that is, as much of other men"s labour as possible.
The man of science and art, in compensating for the same undoubted and obvious harm which he does to working-people, is occupied with matters to which he feels attracted and which are quite incomprehensible to work-people, and which, according to his own a.s.sertion, in order to be true, ought not to aim at usefulness.
Therefore, all these men are quite sure that their right of utilizing other men"s labour is secure. Yet it seems obvious that all those men who have freed themselves from the labour of earning their livelihood have no justification for doing so.
But, strange to say, these men firmly believe in their own righteousness, and live as they do with an easy conscience.
There must be some plausible ground, some false belief, at the bottom of such a profound error.
CHAPTER XXVIII
In reality, the position in which men who live by other men"s labour are placed, is based not only on a certain belief but on an entire doctrine; and not only on one doctrine but on three, which have grown one upon another during centuries and are now fused together into an awful deceit,--or humbug as the English call it,--which hides from men their unrighteousness.
The oldest of these, which justifies the treason of men against the fundamental duty of labour to earn their own living, was the Church-Christian doctrine, which a.s.serts that men by the will of G.o.d differ one from another as the sun differs from the moon and the stars, and as one star differs from another. Some men G.o.d has ordained to have dominion over all, others to have power over many, others, still, over a few, and the remainder are ordained by G.o.d to obey.
This doctrine, though already shaken to its foundations, still continues to influence some men, so that many who do not accept it, who often even ignore the existence of it, are, nevertheless, guided by it.
The second is what I cannot help terming the State-philosophical doctrine. According to this, as fully developed by Hegel, everything that exists is reasonable, and the established order of life is constant, and is sustained not merely by men, but as the only possible form of the manifestation of the spirit, or, generally, of the life of mankind.
This doctrine, too, is no longer accepted by the men who direct social opinion, and it holds its position only by the power of inertia.
The last doctrine, which is now ruling the minds of men and on which is based the justification of leading statesmen, men of business, and science and art, is a scientific one, not in the evident sense of the word (meaning knowledge generally), but in the sense of a knowledge peculiar in form as well as in matter, termed _Science_. On this new doctrine, the justification of man"s idleness and the hiding from him his treason against his calling, is particularly based.
This doctrine appeared in Europe contemporaneously with a large cla.s.s of rich and idle people who served neither the church nor the state and who were in want of a justification of their position.
Not very long ago, before the French revolution in Europe, all non-working people, in order to have a right to utilize other men"s labour, were obliged to have some definite occupation,--to serve in the church, the state, or the army.
The men who served the government, "governed the people"; those who served the church, "taught the people divine truths"; and those who served the army, "protected the people."
Only these three cla.s.ses of men--the clergy, the statesmen, and the military men--claimed for themselves the right of utilizing labour, and they could always point out their services to the people: the remaining rich men who had not this justification, were despised, and, feeling their own want of right, were ashamed of their wealth and their idleness. But as time went on, this cla.s.s of rich people, who belonged neither to the clergy, to the government, nor to the army, owing to the vices of these other three cla.s.ses, increased in number and became a powerful party. They were in want of a justification of their position.
And one was invented for them. A century had not elapsed before the men who served neither the State nor the Church and took no part whatever in their affairs, received the same right to live on labour as the former cla.s.ses; and they not only left off being ashamed of their wealth and idleness but began to consider their position quite justified. And the number of such men has increased, and is still increasing in our days.
The most wonderful of all is this, that these men whose claims to be freed from labour were unrecognized not long ago, now consider themselves alone to be fully right and are attacking the former three cla.s.ses,--the servants of the Church, State, and Army,--alleging their exemption from labour to be unjust and often even considering their activity directly pernicious. What is still more wonderful is this, that the former servants of Church, State, and Army, do not now lean on the divinity of their calling, nor even on the philosophy which considers the state necessary for individual development, but setting aside these supports which have so long maintained them, they are now seeking the same supports on which the new reigning cla.s.s of men, who have found a novel justification, stand, and at the head of which are the men of Science and Art.
If a statesman now sometimes, appealing to old memories, justifies his position by the fact that he was set in it by G.o.d, or by the fact that the state is a form of the development of personality, he does it because he is behind the age, and he feels that n.o.body believes him.
In order to justify himself effectually, he ought to find now neither theological nor philosophical but new and scientific supports.
It is necessary to point to the principle of nationalities, or to that of the development of an organism; and to gain over the ruling cla.s.s, as in the Middle Ages it was necessary to gain over the clergy; and as at the end of the last century, it was necessary to obtain the sanction of philosophers, as seen in the case of Frederick the Great and Catherine of Russia. If now a rich man, after the old fashion, says sometimes that it is G.o.d"s providence which makes him rich, or if he points to the importance of a n.o.bility for the welfare of a state, he does it because he is behind the times.