REVOLUTIONARY unrest is not new. Every age has had its discontented dreamers preaching utopia, its fervid agitators urging the overthrow of the existing social order, and its restless rabble stirred by false hopes to ugly moods and violent action. Utopian literature is very extensive, going back to Plato; revolutionary agi- tators have run true to type since Spartacus; while "proletarian" risings have varied little in basic character from the servile revolts of antiquity and the "jacqueries" of the Middle Ages down to the mob upheavals of Paris and Petrograd. In all these social revolutionary phenomena there is nothing essentially novel. There is always the same violent revolt of the unadaptable, inferior, and degen- erate elements against civilized society, in atavistic reaction to lower planes; the same hatred of superiors and fierce desire for absolute equality; finally, the same tendency of revolutionary leaders to become tyrants and to transform anarchy into barbarous despotism. As Harold Cox justly remarks; "Jack Cade, as described by Shakespeare, is the perfect type of revolutionary, and his ideas coincide closely with those of the modern school of Socialism. He tells his followers that 'all the realm shall be in common,' that 'there shall be no money; 143 all shall eat and drink on my score and I will apparel them all in one livery that they may agree like brothers. A little later a member of the bourgeoisie is brought before him -- a clerk who confesses that he can read and write. Jack Cade orders him at once to be hanged 'with his pen and inkhorn about his neck.' Possibly the intellectual Socialists of Great Britain might hesi- tate at this point; the danger would be getting uncom- fortably near to themselves. But the Russian Bolshe- viks have followed Jack Cade's example on a colossal scale. In another direction Jack Cade was a prototype of present-day revolutionists; for while preaching equal- ity he practised autocracy. 'Away,' he cries to the mob. 'Burn all the records of the realm. My mouth shall be the Parliament of England.'" (1) Nevertheless, despite its lack of basic originality the revolutionary unrest of modern times is very different from, and infinitely more formidable than, the kindred movements of the past. There is to-day a close alliance between the theoretical and the practical elements, a clever fitting of means to ends, a consistent elaboration of plausible doctrines and persuasive propaganda, and a syndication of power, such as was never known before. In former times revolutionary theorists and men of ac- tion were unable or unwilling to get together. The early utopian philosophers did not write for the proletariat, which in turn quite ignored their existence. Further- more, most of the utopians, however revolutionary in theory, were not revolutionary in practice. They sel- ___________________________________________ (1) H. Cox, Economic Liberty, pp. 191-192 (London, 1920). 144 dom believed in violent methods. It is rather difficult to imagine Plato or Sir Thomas More planning the mas- sacre of the bourgeoisie or heading a dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact, so convinced were these utopian idealists of the truth of their theories that they believed that if their theories were actually put in practice on even a small scale they would be a prodigious success and would thus lead to the rapid transformation of so- ciety without any necessity of violent coercion. Such was the temper of the "idealistic Socialists and Com- munists of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, like Robert Owen, who founded various "model com- munities" believing implicitly that these would soon convert the whole world by the mere force of their ex- ample. Thus, down to comparatively recent times, the cause of violent social revolution lacked the support of leaders combining in themselves the qualities of moral earnest- ness, intelligence, and forcefulness -- in other words per- sons most of whom belong to the type which I have previously described as the "misguided superior." De- prived of such leadership, revolutionary unrest was mainly guided by unbalanced fanatics or designing scoundrels and it is obvious that such leaders, whatever their zeal or cleverness, were so lacking in intellectual poise or moral soundness that they invariably led their followers to speedy disaster. The modern social revolutionary movement dates from about the middle of the eighteenth century. Ever since that time there has been flowing a continuous stream 145 of subversive agitation, assuming many forms but essen- tially the same, and ever broadening and deepening until it has become the veritable flood which has sub- merged Russia and which threatens to engulf our entire civilization. Its most noteworthy achievement has been the working out of a revolutionary philosophy and propa- ganda so insidiously persuasive as to wield together many innately diverse elements into a common league of dis- content inspired by a fierce resolve to overthrow by vio- lence the existing social order and to construct a whole new "proletarian" order upon its ruins. Let us trace the stream of social revolt from its eigh- teenth-century source to the present day. Its first nota- ble spokesman was Rousseau, (1) with his denunciation of civilized society and his call for a reform to what he con- sidered to be the communistic "state of nature." The tide set flowing by Rousseau and his ilk presently foamed into the French Revolution. This cataclysmic event was, to be sure, by no means a simon-pure social revolt. At the start it was mainly a political struggle by an aspiring bourgeoisie to wrest power and privilege from the feeble hands of a decrepit monarchy and an effete aristocracy. But in the struggle the bourgeoisie called upon the proletariat, the flood-gates of anarchy were opened and there followed that blood-smeared debauch of atavistic savagery, "The Reign of Terror." During _______________________________________________ (1) As already remarked, Rousseau was only one of many writers and agitators. For the role of others, particularly those belonging to the revolutionary secret societies of the eighteenth century, such as the "Illuminati," see N.H. Webster, World Revolution, chaps. I and II (London and Boston, 1921). 146 the Terror all the symptoms of social revolution appeared in their most horrid form: up-surge of bestiality, sense- less destruction, hatred of superiors, ruthless enforce- ment of levelling "equality," etc. The most extrava- gant political and social doctrines were proclaimed. Brissot urged communism and announced that "prop- erty is theft." Robespierre showed his hatred of genius and learning by sending the great chemist Lavoisier to the guillotine with the remark: "Science is aristocratic: the Republic has no need of savants." As for Ana- rchists Clootz, Hebert, and other demagogues, they preached doctrines which would have reduced society to a cross between chaos and bedlam. After a few years the Terror was broken. The French race was too fundamentally sound to tolerate for long such a hideous dictatorship of its worst elements. The destruction wrought by the Revolution was, however, appalling. Not merely was France dealt wounds from which she has never wholly recovered, but also spirits of 'unrest were liberated which have never since been laid. The "apostolic succession" of revolt has remained unbroken. Marat and Robespierre are to-day reincarnate in Trotzky and Lenin. The final eruption of the waning Terror was the well- known conspiracy of Babeuf in the year 1796. This con- spiracy, together with the personality of its leader and namesake, is of more than passing interest. Babeuf, like so many other revolutionary leaders of all periods, was a man whose undoubted talents of intellect and energy were perverted by a taint of insanity. His intermittent 147 fits of frenzy were so acute that at times he was little better than a raving homicidal maniac. Nevertheless, his revolutionary activities were so striking and his doctrines so "advanced" that subsequent revolutionists have hailed him as a man "ahead of his times." The Bolshevik "Third International," for example, in its first manifesto, paid tribute to Babeuf as one of its spiritual fathers. That this Bolshevik compliment was not undeserved is proved by a study of his famous conspiracy. Therein Babeuf planned nothing less than the entire destruction of the existing social order, a general massacre of the "possessing classes," and the erection of a radically new "proletarian" order founded on the most rigid and level- ling equality. Not merely were differences of wealth and social station to be prohibited, but even intellectual differences were to be discouraged, because it was feared that "men might devote themselves to sciences, and thereby grow vain and averse to manual labor." Babeuf's incendiary spirit is well revealed in the fol- lowing lines, taken from his organ, Le Tribun du Peuple: "Why does one speak of laws and property? Property is the share of usurpers and laws are the work of the strongest. The sun shines for every one, and the earth belongs to no one. Go, then, my friends, and disturb, overthrow, and upset this society which does not suit you. Take everywhere all that you like. Superfluity belongs by right to him who has nothing. This is not all, friends and brothers. If constitutional barriers are opposed to your generous efforts, overthrow without 148 scruple barriers and constitutions. Butcher without mercy tyrants, patricians, and the gilded million, all those immoral beings who would oppose your common happi- ness. You are the people, the true people, the only people worthy to enjoy the good things of this world! The jus- tice of the people is great and majestic as the people it- self; all that it does is legitimate, all that it orders is sacred." Babeuf's plans can be judged by the following extracts from his "Manifesto of the Equals," which he drew up on the eve of his projected insurrection: People of France, for fifteen centuries you have lived in slavery and consequent unhappiness. For six years (1) you have hardly drawn breath, waiting for independence, happiness, and equality. Equality! the first desire of nature, the first need of man, the principal bond of all legal association! "Well! We intend henceforth to live and die equal as we were born; we wish for real equality or death; that is what we must have. And we will have this real equal- ity no matter at what price. Woe to those who inter- pose themselves between it and us! . . . "The French Revolution is only the forerunner of another revolution, very much greater, very much more solemn, which will be the last. . . . Equality! We will consent to anything for that, to make a clean sweep so as to hold to that only. Perish, if necessary, all the arts, provided that real equality is left to us! . . . Com- munitv of Goods! No more private property in land, _______________________________________________________________ (1) I.e., during the years of the French Revolution since 1789. 149 the land belongs to no one. We claim, we wish for the communal enjoyment of the fruits of the earth: the fruits of the earth belong to every one . . . . "Vanish at last, revolting distinctions of rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and servants, of governors and governed. Let there be no other difference between men than those of age and sex. Since all have the same needs and the same faculties, let there be only one edu- cation, one kind of food. They content themselves with one sun and air for all; why should not the same portion and the same quality of food suffice for each of them? "People of France, Open your eyes and hearts to the plenitude of happiness; recognize and proclaim with us the REPUBLIC OF EQUALS!" Such was the plot of Babeuf. The plot completely miscarried, for it was discovered before it was ripe, Ba- beuf and his lieutenants were arrested and executed, and his disorganized hoodlum followers were easily repressed. Nevertheless, though Babeuf was dead, "Babouvism" lived on, inspired the revolutionary conspiracies of the early nineteenth century, contributed to the growth of Anarchism, and is incorporated in the "Syndicalist" and Bolshevist movements of to-day -- as we shall presently see. The modern literature of revolt is full of striking parallels to the lines penned by Babeuf nearly one hun- dred and thirty years ago. Despite the existence of some extreme revolutionary factions, the first half of the nineteenth century saw com- paratively little violent unrest. It was the period of the "idealistic" Socialists, already mentioned, when men 150 like Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, and others were elaborating their utopian philosophies and were founding "model communities" which were expected to convert the world peaceably by the mere contagion of their suc- cessful example. The speedy failure of all these Social- istic experiments discouraged the idealists and led the discontented to turn to "men of action" who promised speedier results by the use of force. At the same time the numbers of the discontented were rapidly increasing. The opening decades of the nineteenth century witnessed the triumph of machine industry and "capitalism." As in all times of transition, these changes bore hard on multitudes of people. Economic abuses were rife, and precipitated into the social depths many persons who did not really belong there, thus swelling the "prole- tariat" to unprecedented proportions while also giving it new leaders of genuine ability. The cumulation of all this was the revolutionary wave of 1848. To be sure, 1848, like the French Revolution, was not wholly a social revolutionary upheaval; it was largely due to political (especially nationalistic) causes with which this book is not concerned. But, as in 1789, so in 1848, the political malcontents welcomed the aid of the social malcontents, and gave the latter their oppor- tunity. Furthermore, in 1848, as in 1789, Paris was the storm-centre. A galaxy of forceful demagogues like Blanqui, Louis Blanc, and Proudhon roused the Paris mob, attempted to establish a Communistic Republic, and were foiled only after a bloody struggle with the more conservative social elements. 151 Unlike 1789, however, the social revolutionary move- ment of 1848 was by no means confined to France. In 1848 organized social revolutionary forces existed in most European countries, and all over Europe these forces promptly drew together and attempted to effect a general social revolution. At this moment appears the notable figure of Karl Marx, chief author of the famous "Comminist Manifesto," with its ringing pero- ration: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!" The rise of Karl Marx typifies a new influence which had appeared in the revolutionary movement -- the in- fluence of the Jews. Before the nineteenth century the Jews had been so segregated from the general popula- tion that they had exerted almost no influence upon popular thought or action. By the year 1848, however, the Jews of western Europe had been emancipated from most of their civil disabilities, had emerged from their ghettos, and were beginning to take an active part in community life. Many Jews promptly adopted rev- olutionary ideas and soon acquired great influence in the revolutionary movement. For this there were sev- eral reasons. In the first place, the Jewish mind, in- stinctively analytical, and sharpened by the dialectic subtleties of the Talmud, takes naturally to dissective criticism. Again, the Jews, feeling themselves more or less apart from the nations in which they live, tended to welcome the distinctly international spirit of social 152 revolutionary doctrines. Lastly, the Jewish intellec- tuals, with their quick, clever intelligence, made excellent revolutionary leaders and could look forward to attain- ing high posts in the "officers' corps" of the armies of revolt. For all these reasons, then, Jews have played an important part in all social revolutionary movements, from the time of Marx and Engels down to the largely Jewish Bolshevist regime in Soviet Russia to-day. The revolutionary wave of 1848 soon broke in com- plete defeat. There followed a period during which radical ideas were generally discredited. Both idealistic and violent methods had been tried and had signally failed. Out of this period of eclipse there gradually emerged two schools of social revolutionary thought: one known as "State Socialism," under the leadership of Marx and Engels; the other, "Anarchism," dominated by Proudhon and Michael Bakunin. These two schools were animated by quite different ideas, drew increasingly apart, and became increasingly hostile to one another. Of course, both schools were opposed to the existing social order and proposed its overthrow, but they differed radically as to the new type of society which was to take its place. Marx and his followers believed in an organ- ized Communism, where land, wealth, and property should be taken out of private hands and placed under the control of the state. The Anarchists, on the other hand, urged the complete abolition of the state, the spontaneous seizure of wealth by the masses, and the freedom of every one to do as he liked, unhampered by any organized social control. 153 In their actual development, likewise, the two move- ments followed divergent lines. Anarchism remained an essentially violent creed, relying chiefly upon force and terrorism. (1) Marxian Socialism, as time went on, tended to rely less upon revolutionary violence and more upon economic processes and parliamentary methods. This is shown by the career of Marx himself. Marx started out in life as a violent revolutionist. His "Communist Manifesto" (already cited) reads precisely like a Bolshe- vik pronunciamento of to-day; and it is, in fact, on Marx's earlier writings that the Bolsheviks largely rely. But, as time passed, Marx modified his attitude. After the failure of '48, he devoted himself to study, the chief fruit of his intellectual labors being his monumental work, Capital. Now, in his researches Marx became saturated with the utopian philosophers of the past, and he presently evolved a utopia of his own. Just as the "idealistic" Socialists of the early nineteenth century believed they had discovered truths which, if applied on even a small scale in "model communities," would inevitably transform society, so Marx came to believe that modern society was bound to work itself out into the Socialist order of his dreams with little or no neces- sity for violent compulsion except, perhaps, in its last stages. The core of Marx's doctrine was that modern indus- __________________________________________________________________ (1) Of course, there are the "philosophical" Anarchists like Prince Kropokin, who do not openly advocate violence. They have, however, remained isolated idealists, with little practical influence upon Anarchism as a movement, whose driving force has always come from apostles of violence and terrorism like Bakunin. 154 trialism, by its very being, was bound rapidly to concen- trate all wealth in a very few hands, wiping out the middle classes and reducing both bourgeois and working man to a poverty-stricken proletariat. In other words, he predicted a society of billionaires and beggars. This was to happen within a couple of generations. When it did happen the "wage-slaves" were to revolt, dis- possess the capitalists, and establish the Socialist com- monwealth. Thus would come to pass the social revolu- tion. But note: this revolution, according to Marx, was (1) sure, (2) soon, (3) easy. In Marx's last stage of capitalism the billionaires would be so few and the beg- gars so many that the "revolution" might be a mere holiday, perhaps effected without shedding a drop of blood. Indeed, it might conceivably be effected accord- ing to existing political procedure; for, once have uni- versal suffrage, and the overwhelming majority of pro- letarian wage-earners could simply vote the whole new order in. From all this it is quite obvious that Marxian Socialism, however revolutionary in theory, was largely evolutionary in practice. And this evolutionary trend, already visi- ble in Marx, became even stronger with Marx's suc- cessors. Marx himself, despite the sobering effect of his intellectual development, remained emotionally a revolutionist -- as shown by his temporary relapse into youthful fervors at the time of the Paris Commune of 1871. This was less true of his colleague Engels, and still less true of later Socialist leaders -- men like Lasalle and Kautsky of Germany, Hyndman of England, and 155 Spargo of America. Such men were "reformist" rather than "revolutionary" Socialists; they were willing to bide their time, and were apt to pin their faith on ballots rather than on barricades. Furthermore, Reformist Socialism did not assail the whole idealistic and insti- tutional fabric of our civilization. For example, it might preach the "class-war," but, according to the Marxian hypothesis, the "working class" was, or soon would be, virtually the entire community. Only a few great capitalists and their hirelings were left without the pale. Again, the "revolution," as seen by the Reform- ists, was more a taking-over than a tearing-down, since existing institutions, both state and private, were largely to be preserved. As a matter of fact, Reformist Social- ism, as embodied in the "Social-Democratic" political parties of Continental Europe, showed itself everywhere a predominantly evolutionary movement, ready to achieve its objectives by instalments and becoming steadily more conservative. This was so not merely because of the influence of the leaders but also because of the changing complexion of their following. As Marxian Socialism became less revolutionary and more reformist, it attracted to its membership multitudes of "liberals" -- persons who desired to reform rather than to destroy the existing social order, and who saw in the Social-Democratic parties the best political instruments for bringing reforms about. In fact, Reformist Socialism might have entirely lost its revolutionary character and have become an evolu- tionary liberal movement, had it not been for two handi- 156 caps: the spiritual blight of its revolutionary origin and the numbing weight of Marx's intellectual authority. Socialism had started out to smash modern society by a violent revolution. Its ethics were those of the "class war"; its goal was the "dictatorship of the proletariat"; and its philosophy was the narrow materialistic concept of "economic determinism" -- the notion that men are moved solely by economic self-interest. All this had been laid down as fundamental truth by Marx in his Capital, which became the infallible bible of Social- ism. Now this was most unfortunate, because Marx had taken the special conditions of his day and had pictured them as the whole of world history. We now know that the middle decades of the nineteenth century were a very exceptional, transition period, in which society was only beginning to adjust itself to the sweeping economic and social changes which the "Industrial Revolution" had brought about. To-day, most of the abuses against which Marx inveighed have been distinctly ameliorated, while the short-sighted philosophy of immediate self- interest regardless of ultimate social or racial con- sequences which then prevailed has been profoundly modified by experience and deeper knowledge. We must not forget that when Marx sat down to write Capital, (1) modern sociology and biology were virtually unknown, so that Marx believed implicitly in fallacies like the omnip- otence of environment and "natural equality" -- which, _________________________________________________________________ (1) The first volume of Capital was published in 1867, after many years of research and composition. 157 of course, form the philosophic bases of his "economic determinism." Marx's short-sightedness was soon revealed by the actual course of events, which quickly gave the lie to his confident prophecies. All wealth did not concentrate in a few hands; it remained widely distributed. The mid- dle classes did not perish; they survived and prospered. Lastly, the working classes did not sink into a common hell of poverty and squalor; on the contrary, they be- came more differentiated, the skilled workers, especially, rising into a sort of aristocracy of labor, with wages and living standards about as high as those of the lesser mid- dle classes -- whom the skilled workers came more and more to resemble. In other words, the world showed no signs of getting into the mess which Marx had announced as the prologue to his revolution. To all this, however, the Socialists were blind. Heed- less of reality, they continued to see the world through Marx's spectacles, to quote Capital, and to talk in terms of the "class war" and "economic determinism." For the Reformist leaders this was not merely fatuous, it was dangerous as well. Sooner or later their dissatisfied followers would demand the fulfilment of Marx's prom- ises; if not by evolution, then by revolution. That was just what was to happen in the "Syndicalist" movement at the beginning of the present century. In fact, through- out the later decades of the nineteenth century, Marxian Socialism was a house divided against itself: its Reformist leaders and their liberal followers counselling time and patience; its revolutionary, "proletarian" elements grow- 158 ing increasingly restive and straining their eyes for the Red dawn. Before discussing Syndicalism, however, let us turn back to examine that other revolutionary movement, Anarchism, which, as we have already seen, arose simul- taneously with Marxian Socialism in the middle of the nineteenth century. Of course, the Anarchist idea was not new. Anarchist notions had appeared prominently in the French Revolution, the wilder Jacobin dema- gogues like Hebert and Clootz preaching doctrines which were Anarchist in everything but name. The launching of Anarchism as a self-conscious movement, however, dates from the middle of the nineteenth century, its founder being the Frenchman Proudhon. Proudhon took up the name "Anarchy" (which had previously been a term of opprobrium even in revolutionary circles) and adopted it as a profession of faith to mark himself off from the believers in State Communism, whom he de- tested and despised. Proudhon was frankly an apostle of chaos. "I shall arm myself to the teeth against civi- lization!" he cried. "I shall begin a war that will end only with my life!" Institutions and ideals were alike assailed with implacable fury. Reviving Brissot's dic- tum, "Property is theft," Proudhon went on to assail religion in the following terms: "God -- that is folly and cowardice; God is tyranny and misery; God is evil. To me, then, Lucifer, Satan ! whoever you may be, the demon that the faith of my fathers opposed to God and the Church!" While Proudhon founded Anarchism, he had neither 159 the organizing skill nor the proselyting ability to accom- plish important tangible results. His disciples were few, but among them was one who possessed the talents to succeed where his master had failed. This was the cele- brated Michael Bakunin. Bakunin is another example of the "tainted genius." Sprung from a Russian noble family, Bakunin early displayed great intellectual bril- liancy, but his talents were perverted by his idle and tur- bulent disposition, so that he was soon at hopeless outs with society and plunged into the stream of revolution, which presently bore him to the congenial comradeship of Proudhon. As stated in the previous chapter, Ba- kunin was truly at home only in the company of social rebels, especially criminals and vagabonds, his favorite toast being: "To the destruction of all law and order and the unchaining of evil passions." In the period after the storm of 1848, Bakunin was busy forming his party. His programme of action can be judged by the following excerpts from his Revolution- ary Catechism, drawn up for the guidance of his followers. "The revolutionary," states Bakunin, "must let nothing stand between him and the work of destruction." For him exists only one single pleasure, one single consolation, one reward, one satisfaction -- the success of the revolu- tion. Night and day he must have but one thought, but one aim -- implacable destruction. . . . If he continues to live in this world, it is only to annihilate it all the more surely." For this reason no reforms are to be advocated; on the contrary, "every effort is to be made to heighten and increase the evil and sorrows which will at length 160 wear out the patience of the people and encourage an in- surrection en masse" It is easy to see how Anarchism, with its measure- less violence and hatred of any organized social control, should have clashed fiercely with Marxian Socialism, becoming steadily more reformist and evolutionist in character. As a matter of fact, the entire second half of the nineteenth century is filled with the struggle between the two rival movements. In this struggle Socialism was the more successful. The Anarchists made a frantic bid for victory in the Paris Commune of 1871, but the bloody failure of the Commune discredited Anarchism and tight- ened the Socialist grip over most of Europe. Only in Italy, Spain, and Russia (where Anarchy flourished as "Nihilism") did Anarchism gain anything like prepon- derance in revolutionary circles. Nevertheless, Anarchism lived on as a forceful minor- ity movement, displaying its activity chiefly by bomb- throwings and by assassinations of crowned heads or other eminent personages. These outrages were termed by Anarchists the "Propaganda of the Deed," and were intended to terrorize organized society and arouse the proletariat to emulation at one and the same time. The ultimate aim of the Anarchists was, of course, a general massacre of the "possessing classes." As the Anarchist Johann Most declared in his organ, Freiheit, in 1880: "It is no longer aristocracy and royalty that the people intend to destroy. Here, perhaps, but a coup de grace or two are yet needed. No; in the coming onslaught the object is to smite the entire middle class with annihila- 161 tion." A little later the same writer urged: "Extirmi- nate all the contemptible brood! Science now puts means into our hands which make it possible to arrange for the wholesale destruction of the brutes in a perfectly quiet and businesslike fashion." In 1881, an International Anarchist Congress was held at London, attended by all the shining lights of Anarchy, including "philosoph- ical" Anarchists like Prince Kropotkin, and the resolu- tions then passed throw a somewhat sinister doubt on the "non-violence" assertions of the "philosophical" faction. The resolutions of the Congress stated that the social revolution was to be facilitated by close interna- tional action, "The committees of each country to keep up regular correspondence among themselves and with the chief committee for the sake of giving continuous information; and it is their duty to collect money for the purchase of poison and arms, as well as to discover places suitable for the construction of mines, etc. To attain the proposed end, the annihilation of all rulers, ministers of state, nobility, the clergy, the most promi- nent capitalists, and other exploiters, any means are permissible, and therefore great attention should be given specially to the study of chemistry and the preparation of explosives, as being the most important weapons." Certain peculiarities in the Anarchist "Propaganda of the Deed," should be specially noted, as they well illus- trate the fundamental nature of Anarchist thought. Bakunin taught that every act of destruction or violence is good, either directly by destroying a person or thing which is objectionable, or indirectly by making an al- 162 ready intolerable world worse than before and thus has- tening the social revolution. But, in the business of as- sassination, it is often better to murder good persons and to spare wicked ones; because, as Bakunin expressed it in his Revolutionary Catechism, wicked oppressors are "people to whom we concede life provisionally, in order, that, by a series of monstrous acts, they may drive the people into inevitable revolt." The killing of wicked people implies no really valuable criticism of the exist- ing social order. "If you kill an unjust judge, you may be understood to mean merely that you think judges ought to be just; but if you go out of your way to kill a just judge, it is clear that you object to judges al- together. If a son kills a bad father, the act, though meritorious in its humble way, does not take us much further. But if he kills a good father, it cuts at the root of all that pestilent system of family affection and loving- kindness and gratitude on which the present system is largely based." (1) Such is the spirit of Anarchism. Now Anarchism is noteworthy, not only in itself but also as one of the prime motive forces in that much more important "Syndical- ist" movement which we will now consider. The signif- icance of Syndicalism and its outgrowth Bolshevism can hardly be overestimated. It is no exaggeration to say that it is the most terrible social phenomenon that the world has ever seen. In Syndicalism we have for the first time in human history a full-fledged philosophy of ______________________________________________________________ (1) Professor Gilbert Murray, "Satanism and the World Order," The Century, July, 1920. 163 the Under-Man -- the prologue of that vast revolt against civilization which, with Russian Bolshevism, has ac- tually begun. If we examine Syndicalism in its mere technical eco- nomic aspect, its full significance is not apparent. Syn- dicalism takes its name from the French word Syndicat or "Trades Union," and, in its restricted sense, means the transfer of the instruments of production from private or state ownership into the full control of the organized workers in the respective trades. Economically speak- ing, Syndicalism is thus a cross between State Socialism and Anarchism. The state is to be abolished, yet a fed- eration of trades-unions, and not anarchy, is to take its place. Viewed in this abstract, technical sense, Syndicalism does not seem to present any specially startling innova- tions. It is when we examine the Syndicalists' animating spirit, their general philosophy of life, and the manner in which they propose to attain their ends, that we realize that we are in the presence of an ominous novelty -- the mature philosophy of the Under-Man. This philosophy of the Under-Man is to-day called Bolshevism. Before the Russian Revolution it was known as Syndicalism. But Bolshevism and Syndicalism are basically one and the same thing. Soviet Russia has really invented noth- ing. It is merely practising what others had been preach- ing for years -- with such adaptations as normally attend the putting of a theory into practice. Syndicalism, as an organized movement, is primarily the work of two Frenchmen, Femand Pelloutier and 164 Georges Sorel. Of course, just as there were Socialists before Marx, so there were Syndicalists before Sorel. Syndicalism's intellectual progenitor was Proudhon, who, in his writings had clearly sketched out the Syndicalist theory. (1) As for Syndicalism's savage, violent, uncom- promising spirit, it is clearly Anarchist in origin, drawing its inspiration not merely from Proudhon but also from Bakunin, Most, and all the rest of that furious company of revolt. "Revolt!" There is the essence of Syndicalism: a revolt, not merely against modern society but against Marxian Socialism as well. And the revolt was timed. When, at the very end of the nineteenth century, Georges Sorel lifted the rebel banner of Syndicalism, the hour awaited the man. The proletarian world was full of discontent and disillusionment at the long-dominant Marxian philosophy. Half a century had passed since Marx first preached his gospel, and the revolutionary millenium was nowhere in sight. Society had not be- come a world of billionaires and beggars. The great capitalists had not swallowed all. The middle classes still survived and prospered. Worst of all, from the revo- lutionary view-point, the upper grades of the working classes had prospered, too. The skilled workers were, in fact, becoming an aristocracy of labor. They were ________________________________________________________________ (1) About the year 1860, Proudhon wrote: "According to my idea, railways, a mine, a manufactory, a ship, etc., are to the workers whom they occupy what the hive is to the bees; that is, at the same time their instrument and their dwelling, their country, their territory, their property." For this reason Proudhon opposed "the exploitation of the railways, whether by companies of capitalists or by the state." The modern Syndicalist idea is here perfectly epitomized. 165 acquiring property and thus growing capitalistic; they were raising their living standards and thus growing bourgeois. Society seemed endowed with a strange vital- ity! It was even reforming many of the abuses which Marx had pronounced incurable. When, then, was the proletariat to inherit the earth? The Proletariat! That was the key-word. The van, and even the main body of society, might be fairly on the march, but behind lagged a ragged rear-guard. Here were, first of all, the lower working-class strata -- the "manual" laborers in the narrower sense, relatively ill- paid and often grievously exploited. Behind these again came a motley crew, the rejects and misfits of society. "Casuals" and "unemployables," "down-and-outs" and declasses, victims of social evils, victims of bad heredity and their own vices, paupers, defectives, degenerates, and criminals -- they were all there. They were there for many reasons, but they were all miserable, and they were all bound together by a certain solidarity -- a sullen hatred of the civilization from which they had so little to hope. To these people evolutionary, "reformist" Socialism was cold comfort. Then came the Syndicalist, promising, not evolution but revolution; not in the dim future but in the here and now; not a bloodless "taking over" by "the workers," hypothetically stretched to in- clude virtually the whole community, but the bloody "dictatorship" of The Proletariat in its narrow, revolu- tionary sense. Here, at last, was living hope -- hope, and the prospect of revenge! Is it, then, strange that a few short years 166 should have seen revolutionary Socialists, Anarchists, all the antisocial forces of the whole world, grouped under the banner of Georges Sorel? For a time they went under different names: Syndicalists in France, Bolshevists in Russia, "I. W. W.'s" in America; but in reality they formed one army, enlisted for a single war. Now what was this war? It was, first of all, a war for the conquest of Socialism as a preliminary to the con- quest of society. Everywhere the orthodox Socialist parties were fiercely assailed. And these Syndicalist assaults were very formidable, because the orthodox Socialists possessed no moral lines of defense. Their arms were palsied by the virus of their revolutionary tradition. For, however evolutionary and non-militant the Socialists might have become in practice, in theory they had remained revolutionary, their ethics continuing to be those of the "class war," the destruction of the "possessing classes," and the "dictatorship of the prole- tariat." The American economist, Carver, well describes the ethics of Socialism in the following lines: "Marxian So- cialism has nothing in common with idealistic Socialism. It rests, not on persuasion, but on force. It does not profess to believe, as did the old idealists, that if Social- ism be lifted up it will draw all men unto it. In fact, it has no ideals; it is materialistic and militant. Being materialistic and atheistic, it makes no use of such terms as right and justice, unless it be to quiet the consciences of those who still harbor such superstitions. It insists that these terms are mere conventionalities; the con- 167 cepts mere bugaboos invented by the ruling caste to keep the masses under control. Except in a conventional sense, from this crude materialistic point of view there is neither right nor wrong, justice nor injustice, good nor bad. Until people who still believe in such silly notions divest their minds of them, they will never understand the first principles of Marxian Socialism. "Who creates our ideas of right and wrong?' asks the Socialist. 'The ruling class. Why? To insure their domination over the masses by depriving them of the power to think for themselves. We, the proletarians, when we get into power, will dominate the situation; we shall be the ruling caste, and, naturally, shall do what the ruling castes have always done; that is, we shall determine what is right and wrong. Do you ask us if what we propose is just? What do you mean by jus- tice? Do you ask if it is right? What do you mean by right? It will be good for us. That is all that right and justice ever did or ever can mean.'" (1) As Harold Cox remarks: "The Socialist is out to de- stroy Capitalism, and for that end he encourages or con- dones conduct which the world has hitherto condemned as criminal. . . . The real ethics of Socialism are the ethics of war. What the Socialists want is, not progress in the world as we know it, but destruction of that world as a prelude to the creation of a new world of their own imagining. In order to win that end they have to seek the support of every force that makes for disorder, and __________________________________________________________________ (1) Professor T. N. Carver, in his Introduction to Boris Brasol's Socialism vs. Civilization (New York, 1920). 168 to appeal to every motive that stimulates class hatred. Their ethical outlook is the direct reverse of that which has inspired all the great religions of the world. Instead of seeking to attain peace upon earth and good-will among men, they have chosen for their goal universal warfare, and they deliberately make their appeal to the passions of envy, hatred, and malice." (1) Such are the moral bases of Socialism. To be sure, Marxian Socialism had tended to soft-pedal all this, and had become by the close of the nineteenth century a predominantly pacific, "reformist" movement -- in practice. But this peaceful pose had been assumed, not from any ethical change, but because of two practical reasons. In the first place, Marx had taught that so- ciety would soon break down through its own defects; that the "possessing classes" would rapidly destroy each other; and that Socialists might thus wait for society's decrepitude before giving it the death-stroke, instead of risking a doubtful battle while it was still strong. In the second place, Socialism, as a proselyting faith, wel- comed "liberal" converts, yet realized that these would not "come over" in any great numbers unless it could present a "reformist" face to them. Reformist Socialism, as it stood at the close of the nineteenth century, thus rested upon equivocal moral foundations. Its policy was based, not upon principle, but upon mere expediency. The Syndicalists saw this, and used it with deadly effect. When the reformist leaders reprobated the Syndicalists' savage violence, the ______________________________________________________________ (1) Cox, Economic Liberty, pp. 27 and 42. 169 Syndicalists laughed at them, taunted them with lack of courage, and pointed out that morally they were all in the same boat. The Syndicalists demanded that questions of principle be excluded as irrelevant and that the debate should be confined to questions of policy. And here, again, the Syndicalists had the Socialists on the hip. The Syndicalists argued (justly enough) that Marx's automatic social revolution was nowhere in sight; that society was not on its death-bed; and that, if it was to die soon, it must be killed -- by the violent methods of social revolution. In fact, the Syndicalists invoked Marx himself to this effect, citing his youthful revolutionary exhortations, uttered before he had evolved the utopian fallacies of Capital. These fallacies, together with all subsequent "reform- ist" accretions, the Syndicalists contemptuously dis- carded. The ethics of the "class war" were proclaimed in all their naked brutality. "Compromise" and "evolu- tion" were alike scathingly repudiated. The Syndi- calists taught that the first steps toward the social revolu- must be the destruction of all friendship, sympathy, or co-operation between classes; the systematic cultiva- tion of implacable class hatred; the deepening of un- bridgeable class cleavages. All hopes of social better- ment by peaceful political methods were to be resolutely abandoned, attention being henceforth concentrated upon the grim business of the class war. This war was not to be postponed till some favorable moment; it was to begin now, and was to be waged with ever-increasing fury until complete and final victory. 170 According to Georges Sorel: "Violence, class struggles without quarter, the state of war en permanence," were to be the birthmarks of the social revolution. As another French Syndicalist, Pouget, expressed it: "Revo- lution is a work of all moments, of to-day as well as of to-morrow: it is a continuous action, an every-day fight without truce or delay against the powers of extortion." The methods of the class war were summed up under the term "direct action." These methods were numer- ous, the most important being the strike and "sabotage." Strikes were to be continually called, for any or no reason; if they failed, so much the better, since the defeated workers would be left in a sullen and vengeful mood. Agreements with employers were to be made only to be broken, because all lies, deceit, and trickery were jus- tifiable -- nay, imperative -- against the "enemy." Even while on the job, the Syndicalist was never to do good work, was always to do as little work as possible ("ca' canny"), and was to practise "sabotage" - i.e., spoil goods and damage machinery, if possible without detec- tion. The objects of all this were to ruin employers, demoralise industry, decrease production, and thus make living conditions so hard that the masses would be roused to hotter discontent and become riper for "mass action." Meanwhile, everything must be done to envenom the class struggle. Hatred must be deliberately fanned, not only among the masses but among the "possessing classes" as well. Every attempt at conciliation or under- standing between combatants weary of mutual injury must be nipped in the bud. Says Sorel: "To repay with 171 black ingratitude the benevolence of those who would protect the worker) to meet with insults the speeches of those who advocate human fraternity, to reply by blows at the advocates of those who would propagate social peace -- all this is assuredly not in conformity with the rules of fashionable Socialism, but it is a very practical method of showing the bourgeois that they must mind their own business. . . . Proletarian violence appears on the stage at the very time when attempts are being made to mitigate conflicts by social peace. Violence gives back to the proletariat their natural weapon of the class struggle, by means of frightening the bourgeoisie and profiting by the bourgeois dastardliness in order to impose on them the will of the proletariat." The uncompromising, fighting spirit of Syndicalism comes out vividly in the following lines by the American Syndicalist, Jack London: "There has never been anything like this revolution in the history of the world. There is nothing analogous between it and the American Revolution or the French Revolution. It is unique, colossal. Other revolutions compare with it as asteroids compare with the sun. It is alone of its kind; the first world revolution in a world whose history is replete with revolutions. And not only this, for it is the first organized movement of men to become a world movement, limited only by the limits of the planet. "This revolution is unlike all other revolutions in many respects. It is not sporadic. It is not a flame of popular discontent, arising in a day and dying down in 172 a day. Here are 7,000,000 comrades in an organized, international, world-wide, revolutionary army. The cry of this army is, 'No quarter!' We want all that you possess. We will be content with nothing less than all you possess. We want in our hands the reins of power and the destiny of mankind. Here are our hands. They are strong hands. We are going to take your governments, your palaces, and all your purpled ease away from you. . . . The revolution is here, now. Stop it who can.'" (1) Syndicalism's defiant repudiation of traditional moral- ity is well stated in the following quotations from two leaders of the "I. W. W." ("Industrial Workers of the World"), the chief Syndicalist group in America. The first of these quotations is from the pen of Vincent St. John, and is taken from his booklet, The I. W. W., Its History, Structure, and Methods. As Mr. St. John is regarded by Syndicalists everywhere as one of their ablest thinkers, his words may be taken as an authori- tative expression of Syndicalist philosophy. Says Mr. St. John: "As a revolutionary organization, the Indus- trial Workers of the World aim to use any and all tactics that will get the results sought with the least expendi- ture of time and energy. The tactics used are determined solely by the power of the organization to make good in their use. The question of 'right' or 'wrong' does not concern us." In similar vein, another I. W. W. leader, Arturo Giovannitti, writes: "It is the avowed intention of both ________________________________________________________________ (1) Jack London, Revolution and Other Essays, pp. 4-85 (New York, 1910). 173 Socialists and Industrial Unionists (1) alike to expropriate the bourgeoisie of all its property, to make it social property. Now may we ask if this is right? Is it moral and just? Of course, if it is true that labor produces everything, it is both moral and just that it should own everything. But this is only an affirmation -- it must be proven. We Industrial Unionists care nothing about proving it. We are going to take over the industries some day, for three very good reasons: Because we need them, because we want them, and because we have the power to get them. Whether we are 'ethically' justified or not is not our concern. We will lose no time proving title to them beforehand; but we may, if it is necessary, after the thing is done, hire a couple of lawyers and judges to fix up the deed and make the transfer perfectly legal and respectable. Such things can always be fixed -- anything that is powerful becomes in due course of time righteous. Therefore we Industrial Unionists claim that the social revolution is not a matter of necessity plus justice, but simply necessity plus strength." The climax of the class war, as conceived by the Syn- dicalists, is the "general strike." Having sufficiently demoralized industry by a long process of "direct ac- tion" and having converted enough of the workers for their purpose, the Syndicalists will call the general strike. Before leaving the factories the workers will destroy the machinery by wholesale sabotage; the railways and other forms of transport will likewise be ruined; and economic life will thus be completely paralyzed. The _____________________________________________________________ (1) Another name for Syndicalists. 174 result will be chaos, which will give the Syndicalists their opportunity. In that hour the organized Syndicalist minority, leading the frenzied, starving masses, and aided by criminals and other antisocial elements, will overthrow the social order, seize all property, crush the bourgeoisie, and establish the social revolution. This social revolution is to be for the benefit of the Proletariat in its most literal sense. Syndicalism hates, not merely capitalists and bourgeois, but also the "in- tellectuals" and even the skilled workers -- "the aris- tocracy of labor." Syndicalism is instinctively hostile to intelligence. It pins its faith to instinct -- that "deeper knowledge" of the undifferentiated human mass; that proletarian quantity so much more precious than indi- vidualistic quality. Both the intellectual elite and their works must make room for the "proletarian culture" of the morrow. Intellectuals are a "useless, privileged class"; art is "a mere residuum bequeathed to us by an aristocratic society." (1) Science is likewise condemned. Cries the French Syndicalist, Edouard Berth, in his pamphlet significantly entitled, The Misdeeds of the Intellectuals: "Oh, the little science -- la petite science -- which feigns to attain the truth by attaining lucidity of exposition, and shirks the obscurities. Let us go back to the subconscious, the psychological source of every inspiration!" Here we see the full frightfulness of Syndicalism- Bolshevism! This new social revolt, prepared a genera- tion ago and launched in Soviet Russia, is not merely a 175 war against a social system, not merely a war against our civilization; it is a war of the hand against the brain. For the first time since man was man there has been a definite schism between the hand and the head. Every progressive principle which mankind has thus far evolved: the solidarity of civilization and culture; community of interest; the harmonious synthesis of muscle, intellect and spirit -- all these the new heresy of the Under-Man howls down and tramples in the mud. Up from the dark purlieus of the underworld strange battle-shouts come winging. The underworld is to become the world, the only world. As for our world, it is to be destroyed; as for us, we are to be killed. A clean sweep! Not even the most beautiful products of our intellects and souls interest these Under-Men. Why should they care when they are fashioning a world of their own? A hand-world, not a head-world. The Under-Men despise thought itself, save as an instrument of invention and production. Their guide is, not reason, but the "prole- tarian truth" of instinct and passion -- the deeper self below the reason, whose sublimation is -- the mob. Spake Georges Sorel: "Man has genius only in the measure that he does not think." The citizens of the upper world are to be extirpated along with their institutions and ideals. The doomed classes are numerous. They comprise not merely the billionaires of Marx, but also the whole of the upper and middle classes, the landowning countryfolk, even the skilled working men; in short, all except those who work with their untutored hands, plus the elect few who 176 philosophize for those who work with their untutored hands. The elimination of so many classes is, perhaps, unfortunate. However, it is necessary, because these classes are so hopelessly capitalist and bourgeois that, unless eliminated, they would surely infect at its very birth the gestating underworld civilization. Now note one important point. All that I have just said applies to Syndicalism as it stood prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917. Every point that I have treated has been drawn from Syndicalist pronounce- ments made before the appearance of "Bolshevism." We must recognize once and for all that Bolshevism is not a peculiar Russian phenomenon, but that it is merely the Muscovite manifestation of a movement which had formulated its philosophy and infected the whole civi- lized world before the beginning of the late war. Thus, when in the next chapter we come to contemplate Rus- sian Bolshevism in action, we shall view it, not as a purely Russian problem, but as a local phase of some- thing which must be faced, fought, and mastered in every quarter of the earth.
Back to Book Index
or to Patrick Henry On-Line?
Over to New World Disorder?