Confessions of an anarchist

The following article is taken from the Anarchist journal Liberty (London, March, 1894), and shows the attitude taken toward the matter of bomb outrage:—

Why I Advocate Physical Force

to repel the aggressive force of the governing class.

By G. Lawrence.

“In order to make clear my advocacy of such force as has been used on the Continent (and will no doubt be used sooner or later in this country too) it is well to state what position in, or rather outside, Society it is from which I have to deal with the social problem.

I am an economic slave; that is, I have to sell my labour, being the only thing I possess, to anyone who will purchase it; considering myself lucky if even I can sell it to advertise the adulterated food which poisons me, to build a church which robs me of my intellect, to build a wall which prevents my looking upon natural scenery or, worst of all, to advertise the cause of the candidate for office whose interests I believe to be diametrically opposed to mine; I am in a vice. I must sell myself to help do some job I would rather not have done, or I must starve if I refuse so to sell myself. I am a slave because I cannot choose my work according to my aptitude or my principles; a slave because I must starve, beg, or steal, if not employed on the terms laid down by another; a slave because I cannot choose whether, even on terms not my own, I will be employed—and so be able to live or not. A slave, because Society treats me, not as one of its members, but as a tool or a ware, to be disposed of at any market value like a log of timber or a bale of goods. I must do the bidding of the commercialist if I desire to live; the alternative is starvation and death. Thus, being an economic slave, I have no political rights.

Now while those who form Society, i.e., those who hold the property of the nation and as a consequence enjoy political freedom, are discussing the situation, I am suffering under it. It must not be forgotten that there are plenty of nostrums advocated for the regeneration of Society, by men who are politically free. Hundreds of nostrums; but no particular hurry to come to any agreement about them. And if one comes to review the many schemes put forward, it is plain that the advocates of each of them are willing to do something, provided only that the something to be done does not affect the schemer’s individual position. The consequence is that nothing actually is done. It is all very natural; self-preservation is the first law of nature. But we must remember that the economic slave is also a natural being, and must therefore act in precisely the same way.

It is because I believe so strongly in the law of self-preservation that I predict that the conflicting schemes propounded by the propertied classes, each of which schemes is so devised as not to interfere with the present position of those who devise them, must inevitably fail. What then? The same natural law which thus robs the rulers of power, will assert itself in the slaves, causing them to resort to the only means of self-preservation which they possess, namely, physical force. They will thus compel Society either to make concessions, or to dissolve. In the latter case a new society would begin to grow according to the real aspirations of the people, who, having no longer any immediate interests apart from the rest of humanity, would be inclined to act in a perfectly just and equitable way.

But now what about acts of individual revolt? and are they beneficial?

They are just as truly a natural phenomenon as the general revolution itself; justifiable, therefore, in the same way and proportionately beneficial. They are, in short, part and parcel of the total revolution, and an important part inasmuch as they contribute to its success by forcing upon the attention of Society the desperate condition into which it has got, bringing home to people otherwise indifferent that something is really and radically wrong. This cannot but induce thought as to how matters can be remedied. Even though Society concludes that it is best to hang the individual rebel, at least it has been moved. The chances are that when action becomes more frequent Society will begin to alter the manner of its response. Deeper consideration will be given, and minds thus unconsciously prepared for the actual revolution.

My belief is that through the acts of such men as Ravachol, Pallas and Vaillant all Society is roused to give at least a passing thought to the social question; and the hard ground is broken for those whose work it is to teach the philosophy of that question.”

The following article is taken from The Torch of Anarchy, and was written by Emile Henri, the Anarchist who was guillotined for blowing up a coffee-house in Paris.

Propaganda by Deed.

By Emile Henri.

“What does the Anarchist want? The autonomy of the individual, the development of his free initiative which alone can ensure his happiness, and it is solely by reasoning that he becomes a communist, for he understands that he can only find his own happiness in that of all men, free and independent like himself.

When a man in our present society becomes a rebel conscious of his actions, and such was Ravachol, it is because his brain has been engaged in a work of reasoning which embodies his whole life, analysing the causes of his sufferings, and he alone is therefore entitled to judge whether he is right or wrong in his hatred, in being savage and even ferocious. As for ourselves, we believe that acts of brutal revolt like those which have been committed hit the right nail on the head, for they awake the masses by striking a heavy blow at them and showing the vulnerable point of the Bourgeoisie, who still tremble at the moment the rebel ascends the scaffold.

We perfectly understand that all Anarchists have not the temperament of a Ravachol; each of us have a physiognomy of his own and special aptitudes which distinguish him from his fellow-combatants.

We say that love engenders hatred; the more we love liberty and equality, the more must we hate all that which hinders men from being free and equal.

Thus without being led astray by mysticisms we look at the matter from the standpoint of reality, and say: It is true that men are but the products of institutions, yet these institutions are but abstract things which exist only so long as there are men of flesh and blood who represent them.

There is therefore only one way of striking at these institutions, i.e., to strike the men themselves, and we are happy to vindicate any energetic act of revolt against the Bourgeois society, for we do not lose sight of the fact that the Revolution can only result from the individual acts of rebellion all together.”

This manifesto was issued to the unemployed in 1886, and was largely responsible for the West End riots of February 8 of that year.

The war-cry of revolution—“Work or Bread”—is ringing in the air. Thousands of you are demonstrating in the streets; thousands of you are parading your poverty instead of putting an end to it. You cry for the crumbs of the wasted produce of your underpaid and over-stocked labour—you, who create all and are entitled to all! Bread, indeed! “Man cannot live by bread alone.” Being apostrophized as paupers, you now beg for Work—that snare by which your idle exploiters fatten themselves and starve you; work—that seal of your slavery! Cowards, not to take all you make! To work is to prolong your present misery. Your condition to-day—and it will become worse—is one of the natural and necessary effects of the capitalistic commercial system in which you are enslaved by law.

You are starving because you have worked too much! The markets are glutted, the factories are closed, because you have been too industrious. You have performed all the work that is needed and demanded by Society, but you have not been paid. It is true that your capitalistic exploiters doled out a miserable portion of your earnings, sufficient to keep you alive merely, until they were done with you. But it is your turn now—you have not done with them. Your day of reckoning has arrived. Only 20 per cent. of the products of labour goes back to labour: 80 per cent. is therefore the extent of the combined fleecings of the wolves of usury!

Labour produced all artificial wealth. Artificial wealth is the only kind of wealth that anyone has a right to own, and as labour alone created all artificial wealth, it rightfully belongs to labour alone. Those who monopolise all the natural, as well as the artificial wealth, to-day, never had a just title to either. They are the real rogues and vagabonds, the only thieves and loafers. They bribe their newspaper hacks to howl you down, and pay and pamper the police to truncheon you when you speak out these facts in the name of outraged justice! Is it not time, then, that you ceased to talk, and made up your minds to act? Rally under the banner of Anarchy.