FREEDOM PAMPHLET No. 15.                Price One Penny.
THE COMING REVIVAL
OF SOCIALISM.
I.
There is not the slightest doubt that we are on the eve of a
new revival of the Socialist movement in this and other
countries. In what form the revival will shape itself we cannot
yet foretell with certainty, we can only guess. But some such
revival as we had in the forties, and again in the eighties, is undoubtedly near at hand.
It is self-evident that when we speak of a revival of
" Socialism," we don't mean a revival of " Social Democracy."
The writers of this last school have done all they could to make
people believe that Social Democracy is Socialism, and Socialism
is nothing but Social Democracy. But everyone can easily
ascertain himself that Social Democracy is only one fraction of
the great Socialist movement: the fraction which believes that
all necessary changes in the Socialist direction can be accomplished by Parliamentary reforms within the present State; or,
at least, that only such reforms need be spoken of; and that
when all main branches of production shall be owned by the
State, and governed by a Democratic Parliament, and every
working man will be a wage worker for the State-this will be
Socialism.  This is their creed. There remains, however, a
very considerable number of Socialists who maintain that
Socialism cannot be limited to such a meek reformn; that it implies much deeper changes, economical and political; and that
even the above reform cannot be realised within the present
State by its representative institutions. Many begin thus to see
that it is not by acquiring power in Parliament-under the finavoidable penalty of ceasing to be a Socialist party, '"nd
gradually becoming a "Moderate Radical" party- tha. the
changes required by Socialism  cnn ever be realdse1. 'Social
Democracy is the right wing of the great Socialist movement--
not this movement itself. It is, then, a revival t' Socialism
altogether that we see coming,-- ne of its causes being precisely
the failure of Social Democracy to bring about the great
changes which mankind needs and claims at the present moment
of its history.



i

What immediate cause will provoke the coming revival of
interest in Socialism it is difficult to say, because there are so
many causes which may produce it. It may be a severe industrial crisis-such as was lived through in these isles in the
forties, and again about 1886; or it may be some great international cause, including great wars, which may result in a
revival of the international Labour movement; or it may be an
intellectual revival, such as we had in 1857-1865, when it was
combined with the political revival that was provoked by the
efforts of Italy and the glorious campaigns of Garibaldi. To
speculate about the probable immediate cause would be idle.
But it will not be idle to examine into what can be done, in
order that the experience of the preceding movements in the
forties, the sixties, and the eighties should be utilised, and should
help us to make of the next movement a real step in advance
upon all previous ones.
**
*
When we examine the state of mind of the democracy in
this country during the years which culminated in the French
Revolution of 1848, we can sum up its distinctive features as
follows:-The movement was religious to a great extent. It
was Republican, Democratic, but it was not revolutionary.
Economical questions were prominent, but the most advanced
writers and thinkers did not go beyond State aid to associations
of workers. Experiments with such associations, as well as
with agricultural and mixed associations, were in great demand.
Under the influence of the Christian Socialists, Socialism
was often represented as a return to Christianity. "The Christ
a Socialist" was a. favourite saying. True, that the preaching
of Robert Owen was independent of Christianity, and that
Fourier's criticismn of Christianity was superior in substance, if
not in its form, to that even of Nietzsche. But Lamennais, with
his " Words of a Believer," had produced a deep impression; so
did also Maurice and Charles Kingsley, with his " Message of
the Church to the Labouring Man."   Amon. the middle-class
Socialist writers tl.ere was a decided tendency to represent
Socialism as a religion, so beautiful that it would be sufficient to
prove its relation to the teachings of Christ in order that it
might conquer the wcrld. Natural sciences at that time had
nut yct made the sudden progress which they made twenty
years later.
'The i ovement in England was not revolutionary.     The
 cialists, when tr.ey had b.in to what: terrible lengths the-:



middle classes were prepared to go in the repression of the
Labour movement-a free distribution of sentences of hard
labour in Australia was their reply to Robert Owen's "Trades'
Union "-when they saw this, they submitted. They began
)reaching co-operation on the one side, as a means of aecutmulating money in the hands of the working classes for future
strtggles, and secret Labour unions on the other hand. Besides,
many of them fell into an error which we still see existing at
the present day: that of expecting from the Royal power and
the landed aristocracy-the King and the Tories-help for the
emancipation of the factory workers. The teaching, and partly
also the practice, of the Socialists was directed towards this end.
When they saw what resistance they would meet with from the
middle classes, they began to show a leaning towards Toryism:
Kingsley, for instance, supported the House of Lords! They
flirted with the Pretender to the throne of Firance, Napoleon,
in the hope that he, who had written a book on the proletarians,
would be the man to accomplish Socialist reforms if he became
Emperor; just as at a later epoch the German Socialists supported Lassalle in his flirtations with Bismarck, helping the
iron minister to defeat the Liberals and to govern without Parliament. It was only natural, therefore, that the Radicals of
the forties, both English and foreign (Mazzini, Herzen, LedruRollin), should look on the Socialists with suspicion.
On the other hand, the British Radicals themselves were only
Radicals half-way. After having obtained the abolition of the
corn laws, some extension of the suffrage, and some factory
legislation, they took no more interest in the economical conditions of the labourers. The campaign which had been started
for " the land for the people" was dropped. The rapid extention of the industries of Great Britain, due to the rapid extension of the railways and steam navigation, promised such
sources of enrichment for the country, if she could only be first,
in the conquest of distant markets, that the economists had no
difficulty in persuading the working classes to keep quiet:" they
would benefit from that growth of commerce, provided they
would support their Government in such a policy and let the
British producer take hold of the markets,-an illusion which
really was accepted by the British workers, is nourished still,
and has prepared the latest evolution of Imperialism.
All attempts at compelling the factory owner and the land&,
lord'6t share the immease revenues accruiag to. them-from the'.



4
sudden growth of the industries and the world trade, were thus
dismissed by most Radicals as too Utopian and dangerous to
the very foundations of the economical life of the country. The
Republicanism of the earlier Radicals was gradually abandoned,
too, as dangerous for the security of trade; and in proportion
as the more uproarious elements of the country found an outlet
in emigration, both to the States and to the now rapidly growing Colonies, and in proportion as the trade-unionist movement
began to be more and more legalised (as a first step towards
the muzzling of it, which is attempted now), Radicalism became tamer and tamer. It chiefly made its influence felt in
religious matters and in the slow, constructive, educational
work, especially in the industrial centres.
As to the economical conceptions of the Socialists, they also
underwent a gradual deterioration. Formerly the very word
" Socialism" did not exist. There were Communists only, who
did not make any difference between what is needed by the
worker for producing, and what is needed for living. They
proclaimed the right of everyone to live, and discussed the means
of guaranteeing this. But then, gradually, they began to speak
of " Socialism," instead of Communism, and limiting their
conceptions thereof more and more, and going from one concession to another, they came to represent Socialism as the
State's aid to working men's productive associations.
After the defeat of the Revolution at Paris, in 1848, and the
crushing down of the Paris proletarians, even that was found
too advanced. Socialism was almost forgotten; the Socialist
literature, which was so abundant before 1848, disappeared,
and there came a blank of nearly twenty years before a new
revival of the movement began, in the sixties, on the Continent,
and brought about the foundation of the International Working
Men's Association.
The echoes of this second movement in England, and the
effects of the great war which broke out in 1870 between
France and Germany, and put an end to this new phase of the
Labour agitation, were so important that we shall speak of
them at some length in our next chapter.
II.
"We are on the eve of a new revival of Socialism," we
said-not, of course, of Social-Democracy, because this party,



at the present time, has ceased to be Socialist-but of true
Socialism. And "Socialism" means, of course, all the great
movement in favour of a production which would aim at the
satisfaction of the needs of the workers, and not at the largest
profits for the few, and in favour of a cessation of the wage
system, which lies at the root of all present evils. A revival of
such a movement is coming, and in order better to see what the
coming revival might be, and ought to be, we analysed the previous movement, in the forties (before 1848); and now we have
to analyse the second revival which took place some twenty
years later, i.e., in the sixties.
When the revolution of 1848 was crushed in Europe, especially in its last act-the uprising of the working men at Paris
in June, 1848-a dark cloud hung all over Europe. Stern
reaction set in everywhere. The French Republic, in the hands
of the frightened middle-class people, was progressive no more,
and three -years later Napoleon became the Emperor of France,
after having made a coup d'ctat, during which the people were
shot in the streets without provocation, and the best Republicans
had been either massacred, or transported to the colonies, or
compelled to flee "broad. In Austria, in Italy, and, of course,
all over Germany, reaction was triumphant, and a dark night
spread once more over Russia.
All hopes of a universal Republic-of a United States of
Europe, composed of independent and free nationalities-which
was the aim   of the French and British Republicans, of
Young    Italy and   even Young    Germany -   had   to  be
given up.
**
*
The worst of it was that while Radical ideas had received
so severe a blow, the Socialist movement had simply been
killed outright fwo the next fifteeu or twenty years. It becamo
dangerous even to be named a Communist. As to publishing
anything in the Communist direction-it was out of the question. Even the word " Socialist," which had been invented as
a harmless substitute for " Communist," was no more a safe
flag to sail under. A still further concession was made then in
inventing " Collectivism."  To these years, indeed, belonged
the two great works on Collectivism, by Vidal and Pecqueur,
which works, re-hashed   lately by German vulgarisers, are
now   described  as " Scientific  Socialism"  discovered  in
Germany.
The few revolutionary Communists who had remained true



to their ideals had emigrated to Englandand to,the States..,But
here, too, it was dangerous to preach Communism or anything
of the sort, and only owing to their limited circulation one or
two brave French papers-forerunners of Anarchism - were
tolerated in the United States. The others laid quiet, or openly
abjured their Communist ideas.
Before 1848 there was a very bulky and varied Communist
and Saint Simonist literature in circulation.  The French
Fourierists and Saint Simonians-especially their younger
followers-had circulated such a rich and popular literature of
pamphlets and books, that one can hardly understand how it
could all disappear. But it did disappear entirely, probably
having been destroyed by timorous owners and booksellers and
by the reactionists. There happened something which would
simply seem impossible in our century. With a few exceptions
the very teachings were forgotten. The very tradition of Communism was broken, so that later on the Germans, especially
Engels, could claim, for himself and Marx, for a period of thirty
years, the discovery of what they described as Scientific Socialism, before it was proved (by Tcherkesov, aod now by Professor
Andler) that they had only copied, or re-written (in a bad,
me:aphysical German), the ideas of Considerant and other
Fourierists and Saint Simonians, which at that time were of
everyday currency amongst the Socialists.
Yes,-this was a reaction, the depth of which we realise only
now, when we learn that it was capable of effacing even the
teachings of Socialism in such a thorough manner. The " White
Terror" has always been infinitely more sweeping than the Red
one.
**
The intellectual revival which began some ten to. twelve
years after the defeat of 1848, had already taken a new
character.
First of all it was anti-religious. The religious and Christian
sAntimeutalism of the forties (Lamennais, Kingsley) was laid
aside. It s,) happened that in those years-1856-1862-took place
Sthe great revival of natural sciences, of which l);rwin, in this
country, was one of the chief representatives, and which produced a complete revulsion in the then current id:eas. A new
comprehension of both the universe and all human matters was
worked oat in those years. (More about this interesting subject will be found in " Modern Science and Anarchism.")  And. the result was that the progressive movement henceforward sepa


Srated itself entirely from the religious movement. Brad!auigh,
as is known, who boldly preached in those years against religious superstition, at the same time as he boldly attacked aristocracy, the land monopoly, and the monarchy, became the
greatest favourite with the masses of the British workers.
**
On the other side, the war of 1859 for the liberation of
Italy, and the heroic campaign of Garibaldi, had broken through
the spell of reaction which hung over Europe. A new spirit
was awakened. Again the idea of the universal Republican
federation was asserting itself. The Italian patriots had been
defeated in 1848, but they had not died in vain; the day of
liberation of Italy from the Austrian yoke was at hand. Poland
was preparing an uprising, which Britain and France had promised to support, and which was going to free her from the
Russian yoke.
"Down with the kings! Long live the United States of
Europe! " became once more the watchword of the advanced
Radicals in Europe.
However, the working men, while willingly joining the Republican secret societies, and thus contributing to rend the black
cloud of reaction, had not yet come forward by themselves to
revive the Socialist movement. It was only in 1862-1834 that"
those French workers who had always letained the idea
launched first by Robert Owen in his great Trades' union (union
of all trades grouped across the frontier) and had developed it in
their papers (like " L'Internationale ") published in the United
States, took advantage of the International Exhibition of 1862
for making a step in this direction. They induced the British
working men trade unionists (at that time they were labourers,
wore no silk hats, and did not dine with Lord Mayors) to start
an organisation of their own.
This is why the International Working Men's Association
was started, and for the next seven years, till the defeat of the
Paris Commune, it became the soul of the labour movement.
**
We have often spoken of this movement, and need not
exaggerate anything in speaking of it. IT WAS A MOVFMEN' FOR
THE DIRECT STRUGGLE uF LABOUR AGAINST CAI'II'AL.    It Was
in direct and open opposition to every sort o political agitation.
Labour has its own interests, which not only cannot enter into
the programs of existing political parties, but cannot be settled
by legislation. It is not only more wages that Labour wants.



Not only shorter hours. Not only capitalist responsibility in
case of accidents.   It agitates for the disappearance of
the capitalist system. It wants to expropriate the capitalist,
to take all into its own hands-fields, docks, railways, flourmills and storehouses and to organise everything in the interest
of those who produce.
This it was that the International Working Men's Association had gradually come to perceive as the final aim of the
war against Capital which it had begun; and this it was which
after the defeat of the Paris Commune the Germans succeeded
for thirty years in preventing the workers from aiming at.
We shall see next how this was done. But one question
rises before us now. Ought it not to be the aim of the nextcoming revival of Socialism to press this question upon the
minds of the workers?    Openly, frankly, honestly to put it
before  them?   Or must we shut our eyes to the great
question which has grown before civilised mankind, and go
on discussing the petty side issues with which the clever and
educated middle-class men amuse the workers?
III.
The International Working Men's Association wasa vast organisation of trades unions, which it was intended to spread all over
the world, and which would have carried on, with international
support, the direct struggle of Labour against Capital. This
was its leading idea, in which the Paris Proudhonians and
the English Owenites united when they founded the Association in the years 1862-1864.
Therefore its fundamental principle, inscribed at the head of
its program  was:-" The emancipation of the working men
must be the work of the working men themselves"; and its other
principle, so fiercely advocated by Proudhon, was, that " economical agitation must be the main object, and all political agitation must be subordinated to it." Consequently, during the
first six years of its existence, until the Franco-German war,
strikes supported internationally were its main means of action.
Its sections were trade unions, to which one " section of propaganda," consisting of members of different trades, or of no
trade, was lad(de in each important city; and the "federations"
were all the 1 )ctions,to a  i ivenl industrial region groiupd) togethel-sometimes irrespective of national frontiers, as was, for
instance, the Jura Federation, which comprised both French and



Swiss sections belonging to the same industrial region of the
Jura Mountains.
**
At the same time the sections of the International Association became permanent schools of social economy for the working men. Every question submitted to the next congress of the:
federation, and next to the yearly congress of the whole Association, had to be discussed first in the sections, whether it was
a question of the day, or a question of future organisation; and
in this way thought and research were stimulated in a thousand
centres, and the discussions went on amongst the working men
themselves or under their control, and with the aid of their
special knowledge of each trade.
Three different schemes of Socialistic reconstruction of
society had been proposed, and were under discussion amongst
social reformers at the time when the International was
founded:-(1). The authoritarian    Communism    of Cabet,
Leroux, and Considerant (Marx had advocated it, in 1848, before
the Germans in his " Manifesto"); (2). Collectivism, which had
been worked out in 1848-1850 by Pecqueur and Vidal, in serious
elaborate works,-the former insisting that the French Republican Assembly should legislate to introduce "Collectivism," now
vulgarised by the German and French Collectivists under the
pompous name of "scientific Socialism"; and (3). the most
fav urite teaching amongst the French founders of the International was Proudhon's " Mutuelism," that is, the exchange of
produce among working men's associations by means of labour
cheques issued by the National Bank, this new form of economic
life being brought into existence, partly by the operations of the
Bank itself, which would render capital unproductive, and
partly in consequence of a social revolution, which was described then as a " Social Liquidation."
To these fundamental currents of thought various others of
less importance ought to be added. As, for instance, the idea
of Louis Blanc, advocated later on by Lassalle in Germany, of
State aid to the labour associations, which would thus become
the owners of the factories, the mines, etc.; or the idea, so
popular in England, of co-operative societies permitting the
working men to save the necessary capital for becoming the
owners of the factories, the mines, etc.; or, again, the teachings
of Collectivism of Collins, which laid stress upon the nationalisation of land, and were especially popular amongst the Belgians.
However, the two main currents were; the State Communism,



10
advocated formerly by Cabet, W eitling, etc.,.and, how advocated
by Marx and the Germans, and the various currents originating
from Fourier's "free associations," variously combined with
Mutuelism and Collectivism.
The eminently practical and democratic minds of the Paris
working men, who were the leading spirits of the International at the time of its foundation, perfectly well realised that
it would be foolish to expect that some genius should find for
them tl e best forms of a future economical organisation of
society. All that nmen of genius could foresee was already known
to the F( urierists, the Saint Simonians and Robert Owen. But
that only would have any chance of realisation in life, which
would appear as realisable and practical to the working men;
consequently the working men had themselves to come to certain general conceptions as to the broad lines upon which
the social revolution was to take its first steps; all a thinker
could do would be to find later on a more distinct expression of
these aspirations, after they had been outlined by the labourers
themselves.
**
Unfortunately, it was only in the Latin countries that the
International Working Men's Association really developed and
worked in the way just described. All that could be done in
Germany was to start a secret organisation, in which the
adherence, in a body and in general terms, of a few labour
organisations could be assured. The impossibility of acting
openly, and the necessity of being led by a handful of leaders,
necessarily laid their stamp upon the whole of the subsequent
Socialistic movement in Germany. It may seem paradoxical to
say so, but the reality is, that Socialism in its various currents
has never been properly discussed in Germany. The Marxist
expression: of it was taken on faith, and all others were suppressed. Even the criticisms which Marx wrote of the program
of the party, both in its theoretical and practical portions,
were not allowed to be printed until their existence became
known many years later on, through indiscretion. A serious
-discussion of the principles of Socialism, Collectivism, Communism, Mutuelism, Anarchism, and so on, has yet to bo made
by the German workers, in the same way as it has been done in,.Latin countries. Till now, even the facts, the elements of a
serious discussion. have not been laid before them.
The same has to be said to a great extent about the mass of



, 11
;'rthe English working men, even though something was done in that
* direotion during the next revival of the eighties. In England. too, the
International Working Men's Association existed only in name. The
trade unions had adhered in principle and in a body to the International Association, but they never took a lively part in it, apart fromn
the support of a few strikes; and as they took no part in the discusSsions of the reform questions in which the Latin working men took:such an intense interest, the great and wholesome educational influence
of the International was lost to them. The penetration of Socialist
thought (and by " Socialist" we mean, of course, in its entirety, includiug Anarchist Communism) did not take place in England as it did in
France, Spain, Belgium, Italy, and French-speaking Switzerland. Consequently the revival of the sixties was Radical in politics, and even
Republican, Freethought, trade unionist, and vaguely revolutionist;
Sbut the Socialist conception-the necessity of getting hold of everything
Srequired for producing wealth-remained almost even more remote
than it was in 1840.
The English agitators of the sixties remained mainly Jacobinists, in
the French sense of the word (like Felix Pyat or Ledru Rollin), without trying to understand Socialism; while the trade unionsts, moderately
SRadical in temper, did not want to look further than the struggle for
better wages and shorter hours. To drive ihe capitalist out of the
factory and the mine, seemed to them so far off that they did not care
to discuss this eventuality.
Besides, the Radicals of those years looked upon the Socialists with
suspicion. In 1840-1848 the Socialists were, to a great extent, religious
-"Christ a Socialist," and " Socialism  is true Christianity," were
favourite sayings-while, owing to the general awakening of natural
science in the sixties, scientific materialism was rapidly gaining ground,
even in England, and the hostile attitude of all the Christians towards
the great scientific conquests of those years (Darwinism, Physical Psy' chology, Indestructibility of Motion, etc.) rendered a conciliatory attiStude quite impossible.
There was, however, a still deeper cause of distrust towards the
Socialists. They attached too little importance to the political liberties
and the democratisation of English institutions that had been won in
this country after a bitter fight that had lasted all the century; while
the working men saw, quite rightly, in these Radical conquests a neces-.sary guarantee for their further struggle against Capital. It is known
t.hat Fourier aid Robert Owen were jiot. free from the idea that benevolent despots, even a Nicholas I., miglit aid them in spreading their
schemes of Communistic settlements. On the other side, many Socialists
dreamed of an enlightened autocrat who would give State support to
labour associations, and. thus make a beginning for. Louis, Blanc's
scheme of social reform. The friendship of Lassalle with Bismarck, and



12
the friendly relations he retained at the same time with the German
refugees in London, and the fact that one of these refugees (Max
Bucher) had become before that a secretary to Bismarck, were not
made to dissipate the suspicions of Caesarism which weighed upon the
Continental Socialists. Still less so the flirtation in which Napoleon
III. indulged with regard to the Paris proletarians, and even with the
founders of the International, to whom he promised his support on the
condition that they should insert a few words of trust in his devotion
to the cause of the proletarians. Many more traces of " Caesarism "'
will surely be found some day, and one can guess why the Republican
wing of the refugees in London (Mazzini, Herzen, Ledru Rollin) were
so distrustful of many of their Socialist contemporaries, and why the
English Radicals had no trust at all in the English Socialists.
These were the faults of the Socialists. As to the Radicals themselves, their Radicalism, as well as their " Freethought," went only
half way. Most of the freethinkers, even the few of them who had the
courage of their opinions, were half Deists; while in their economical
conceptions they did not go beyond free trade, Malthusianism, and the
hope that with some freedom of combination for the workers and plenty
of freedom  in the exploitation of the less industrially advanced
countries, the well-being of the workers would so much increase that
they would drop all their " dreams " about becoming the owners of the
factories, the mines and the land.
This is why the revival of the sixties, which had such a formidable
effect in Europe on the Continent (the Commune of Paris, the Communalistic movement in Spain, the growth of Social Democracy in Germany, the development of international solidarity, etc.), left relatively
so few traces in Britain. It certainly brought about a further democratisation of institutions as well as half-hearted, but not to be
neglected, reforms in education. But the very same progress, and
relatively even more, was accomplished in Germany and in France;
while all that educational influence which the few years of the existence
of the International had had on the Continent was still missing in
England. We thus have to come to the next revival of the Labour
Movement in the eighties to find anything similar to what had been
done on the Continent in the sixties.
IV.
The revival of Socialism which took place in the sixties,
under the banner of the International Working Men's Association, left deep traces amongst the Continental nations. It determined the lines of their future development.
In France it had culminated, after the unfortunate FrancoGerman War, in the Paris Commune. Of course, this uprising,



13
which lived only seventy days-under the guns of the Germans,
ready to be turned against it-had not had the time to produce all it was capable of giving. A popular revolution, beginning, as it usually does, upon some event of secondary
importance, always requires some time before it finds the
proper expression of the leading ideas which underlie popular
discontent. With all that, the Commune gave us something
very important. It indicated the political form  which the
coming social revolution will have to take, the form which
will render the revolution possible. Not the form of a centralised " Popular State," but that of independent Communes,
more or less communistic. The most advanced cities taking
the lead in the workiug out of new forms of communistic life;
accomplishing the social revolution themselves, in various
degrees, on their own territories,-instead of trying to find
in a central parliament a sort of average for the nation,an average which would compromise with the past, and,
satisfying nobody, would only hamper the future without
avoiding the violent opposition of the dispossessed ones. Acting,
in a word, as the cities of the eleventh and twelfth centuries
acted, when they opened by their revolts a new era for European civilisation.
This was the lesson of the Paris Commune, the beacon it
planted for the future.  And it must not be forgotten that
attempts at proclaiming the Commune were also made (even
during the war) at Lyons and Marseilles; and that the example of Paris was followed by St. Etienne in France, and by
Carthagena and Alcoy, in Spain. It is certain that the idea
of the revolutionary Commune taking the lead in the social
revolution has become familiar in Latin countries.
Another consequence of the revival of the sixties was, that
it conquered more or less all European nations for Socialism.
Till then, Socialism was limited to France and partly to England. Now it spread to Germany and all other countries of
Europe.
France had had Fourier, Saint-Simon, Babeuf, and these
three had originated quite a phalanx of Socialists: Considerant,
Cabet, Pierre Leroux, and so on. She had produced, moreover,
that original and powerful Anarchist and " Mutuellist" writer,
-Proudhon. Even the novel in France was deeply imbued (by
Eugene Sae, George Sand, &c.) with Socialist and revo6lu
tionary ideas. Besides, the secret Communistic societies exer


14
cised a deep influence on general politics; and the insurrec--
tions at Lyons and elsewhere, followed by the great insurrection of the Paris proletarians in June, 1848, had definitively
traced a gulf between middle-class and working man politics.
In this country we have bad Robert Owen and his theoretical
followers, the Christian Socialists (corresponding to Lamennais
in France), and a strongly organised, semi-secret, Labour
movement.
But Germany remained deaf to the Socialist ideas which so
deeply agitated France. The few   German Communists, like
Weitling or Griin, had been unable to awaken Socialist or
Communist thought in Germany itself; and it was only in the
sixties that Lassalle started on Teuton soil ashort-lived RadicalSocialist movement.
The first impulse for the awakening of Socialist thought in
Germany was given by the International Working Men's Association, which, was joined by a few German leaders (Liebknecht,
Bebel) and to which were affiliated-in principle-a few German
working men's organisations.
Now, after the war, Marx, Engels and Liebknecht began in
Sermany itself a large propaganda of the ideas of the French
ocialists (chiefly of the Saint-Simonians in their theories, and
of Louis Blanc in practice), clothing them, however, in a metaphysical garb, which apparently suited German educated minds;
while Bebel, a devoted Fourierist, who had also retained the
comprehensible and elegant style of his French masters, especially contributed to familiarise the German working men with
the Fourieiist aspects of French Socialism.
It was immediately after the war that the German SocialDemocratic party was formed, taking since then its well-known
development-the result being that Germany stands now where
France stood before 1848. She is on the eve of a Republican
revolution, in which some concessions will be made to the
workers in the sense of a State regulation of capitalist production, so as to mitigate some of its worst effects, but as bitterly
opposed to any attempt at a real social revolution (by which we
mean, of course, the expropriation of capitalists) as the French
Republic of 1848 was, to any step in this direction.
The pernicious effects which the military triumph of Germany on the battlefield has'had in Europe-by reviving faith
in a centralsed State, supposed to be benevolent towards the:
exploited masses, and by making of Europe a military camp--l
these effects of. the war. of 1871 have often been,mentioned in i



15
these pages. So also the effects of the bitter opposition to the
Latin revolutionary spirit, and the passionate condemnation of
all attempts at revolt, which came for the last thirty years fromn
the German Social-Democratic camp. It must be owned that
through this policy something was certainly gained in making
adepts to some innocent sort of State Socialism amongst the
middle classes. This has certainly been done and need not be
minimised. But whether this gain compensates the losses made
in the energy of the revolutionary spirit amongst the workers,
and in the precision of the Socialist conception-is more than
doubtful. At any rate, the fact must be noted that since the
revival of the sixties a considerable number of the German
working men have been won over to some sort of vague Socialism and moderate Radicalism,. while formerly Germany stood
outside the movement.
**$
Spain and Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and Holland, Austria
and Hungary, and even Servia, were also during these years
won over to the Socialist movement. Before the sixties, their
part in the great movement of Socialistic thought was nearly
nil. Belgium had had Collins, but his ideas were known only
in a very narrow circle.   Spain, and especially Italy, had!
powerfully  contributed to the Democratic, Republican and
revolutionary movement in the forties. The secret societies of
the French Communists, which flourished before and after 1848,
certainly had numerous adepts in Italy. But in none of these
countries was there any movement in any way comparable to.
that of France, and nowhere had it enveloped large masses of
working men who would understand that on the social question
they are separated from, and hostile to, the middle classes. Now
they joined the International and gave to it its most active
federations, which continued its work even when France became closed for the great Association.
Nay, even Russia felt the influence of the great movement
of the International. The movement towards the people was.
largely due to it and the Commune.
Britain alone remained quite isolated. The great wave of
thought which had rolled over Europe, and l:ad inspired its
working men populations, broke on the shores of these islands.
Never, for a long succession of years, had English manufacturers, money-lenders, and shipping agents r(alised such
immense.profit s as they-had realised during a ad innmediately- -.



16
after the war of 1870-71 (by the way, this is precisely what
the protectionist swindlers of now-a-day do not say in the campaign they have started for the benefit of the landlords and the
company promoters). Speak to any manufacturer in Lancashire
or in the Birmingham region, and he will tell you with gleaming
eyes of the profits he made in those years.  The industries of
France had been ruined. Alsace-a great centre for cottons and
all sorts of textiles-was laid waste, the Lyons and the St. Etienne
iron districts were totally ruined. This was England's time!
As to loans, they were concluded in such quantities and at such
rates of interest and "realisation." that no stock exchange shark
had ever dreamt before of anything of the sort.
Immense fortunes were made in those years by the middle
classes; but it hardly need be said that mere trifles, mere crumbs
of this enrichment reached the workers; and yet,-even these
crumbs were capable of perceptibly improving the conditions o
those who had work, to an extent that made of the seventies an
epoch in the history of wages and earnings.
As to Socialism, it made no progress in Great Britain.
" Socialism, and all that sort of nonsense, is only good for
hungry Frenchies or for stupid Germans.     We, the British
nation, need nothing of the sort. Where others lose, we make
money! Only you, workers, must not hinder us: you, too, will
have some share in the loot."
This is the language we have heard in those years,-the
language we hear again in Birmingham. The few leaders of
the Labour movement or of the agricultural labourers' revival
passed like comets on the horizon and were soon buried in the
lobbies of Westminster. The Labour movement that was beginning then, and seemed to take such a serious character during
the Law Courts' strike, or during the campaign of Arch, fell
flat. All that intellectual wave which passed over Europe, and
by lifting the intelligence of the worker and widening
his intellectual horizon has done more for the success of industries on the Continent than whatever the States would have
done otherwise for education-all that movement went past this
country. And this is why at the present moment we find it so
backward all along the line, and so ready to run after any impostor who promises it to be a saviour.
(Reprinted from Freedom, 1903.)
Printed and Published by J. TURNER, 127 Osulbtoi Street, London, N.W.



17

V.
The revival of Socialism in the years 1884-1890 is still
fresh in our memories.   The visit of Henry George to this
country and the appearance of his impressive work, " Progress
and Poverty "; the founding by Hyndman of " Justice," the
organ of the Social Democratic Federation; the writings of
Edward Carpenter, and the conversion of William Morris to
Socialism-all these undoubtedly gave an impetus to the growth
of Socialism in England. But there were also much deeper
causes. Ireland was ablaze from 1881, and the action of both
the Land League and the Fenians, the resistance of the Irish to
wholesale evictions, and the " No Rent" Campaign, produced a
deep impression in England and Scotland; while a number of
Irishmen took a lively part in spreading in Great Britain the
unionist agitation which the Knights of Labour, in full force
still in America, had by this time brought over to England.
Besides, a deep impression had been produced on the minds by
the enthusiasm of Russian Socialists and the desperate struggle
of the Terrorists; and to this impression must also be added
the interest awakened by the sudden and violent movement
amongst the miners and the weavers in South-Eastern France,
followed by a scandalous trial at Lyons. On the other side, in
Britain itself, great hopes were awakened by the arrival of the
Radical Ministry of Gladstone, to which the eyes of the Radicals
had been turned in expectation for a long time. And finally,
since 1882 the country had entered a period of diminishing and
badly paid exports, which reached its lowest ebb in 1886. The
crisis was so acute that in the first part of that year parties of
working men paraded every day all the streets of London and
its suburbs appealing to charity, while hundreds of unemployed
came together at nights in Trafalgar Square to sleep there in
the mud, with no other blanket than an occasionally found
newspaper.
The Trafalgar Square riots, during which a crowd dathed,
after a meeting, up Regent Street, breaking a few windows in
the best shops and compelling fine ladies to alight from their
carriages, fell like a thunderbolt upon the rich of London. They
saw rising before them a vision of 1780,-East London marching to sack the West-end mansions-and the rich hastened to
phow their sympathy " with the poor poor" by subseribing some
~30,000 in a few days for relief work: All England-tthe poor
with hope, the rich with terror-began to talk Socialism. Th'h



18
papers were full of articles sympathetic to the working men and
with schemes of reform. The visions of 1780, 1789,1793, floated
before the eyes of the rich, and it must be said that their fears
were not unfounded. The Government itself hal ascertained
that if Burns, Hyndman and Champion, arrested after the
Trafalgar Square riots, had been punished severely, retaliation
would have followed.
The most striking featre of the whole movement was the
The most striking feature of the whole movement was the
revolutionary note that rang through it. Was it the influence
of an unseen, Knights of Labour, under-current which was felt
amongst the working men? or was it the other just-mentioned
influences combining together? At any rate the leaders felt a
evolutio * ary temper amongst the working classes and they
followed it. The Social-Democratic and Anarchist Press and
meetings were quite outspoken as to their aims and methods.
It was written and said that the aim of the movement was a revolution, the result of which must be the taking back of the land
for the people-with no compensation, the docks, and all other
sorts of municipal capital returning to the municipalities, the
mines to the miners, the factories to the factory hands.... all
this being done on the spot by those themselves interested.
Even the inveterate politicians -spoke of the necessity    of
getting rid of both the Houses of Lords and Commons, and
convoking a Convention, which would revise all institutions in
a revolutionary sense.
A distinctive feature of the movement was the readiness of
passing from words to acts, or at least to such manifestations as
are the forerunners of revolt. Piccadilly riots, Norwich riots,
Trafalgar Square meetings, Battersea Church Parades, morning
calls of the unemployed at the vestries, Hyde Park meetings,
during which the very poorest of the poorest Londoners came
together in scores of thousands and growled with fury as they
marched past the mansions, these were the favourite means of
agitation.
Even so'late'as in 1890 Burns spoke of letting his Battersea
candidature alone and of going to the country for organising
agricultural labour, "in order to get at the root of the labour
question " (Freedom, September, 1890). And when the First
of May movement came to Europe from America, and brought
to us the idea of preparing a General Strike by means of First
of May demonstrations, the Socialist League, with Morris at its
head, was immediately won to this Anarchist idea. Even the



19
Social Democratic Federation was revolutionary then, in the
years 1884-1887. Feeling that they were hopelessly remote from
getting any seat in Parliament, they held quite revolutionary
language, and we had Hyndman in our ranks saying "Well
done" when he spoke of the Chicago bomb. The enthusiasm
was general. Even those middle-class people who now have
but words of disdain for the Social Revolution, were far ahead
of the Anarchists in their hopes of a speedy revolution going to
settle everything right away. Freedom noted at that time the
very disappearance of the various Socialist bodies as such:" The Socialists were everywhere, but political humbug had
disappeared" it was said in     "Notes."   Unity of action
prevailed.
The great strikes of the dockers and the great coal strike
deeply impressed the middle-class Socialists who had joined
the movement, especially when they saw the organising capacities displayed by the working men. All elements were then
in favour of some sort of action..
But, beginning with 1890, the movement began to subside.
Towards the end of that year it seemed as if it had spent its
last energy in the First of May demonstration,-and it soon
came to a standstill. The enthusiasm was gone. We entered
that period of apathy which lasts till now.
VI.
What was the cause of the apathy which suddenly developed
in the English Socialist movement about 1890?
Everyone who has lived through these years will probably give
the same answer. It was the craving after seats in Parliament which split the Socialists and subdivided them into groups
which paralysed each other. It was parliamentary action which
sowed amongst the working men distrust towardsthose whom they
had hitherto followed; and the reactionaries took full advantage of those discords and that distrust. Reinforced by all those
ex-Radicals of the richer classes who had been frightened by the
vision of the slums and hastened now to join the so-called
Unionist party, the Black Tories saw that their time had come
once more. Rome, with its powerful secret organisations and
secret influences, gave them a hearty support.
All of a sudden that mass of middle-class people and intermediates between the middle classes and the working men, upon
whom the British working men, hitherto kept in ignorance of



20
Socialism, had unfortunately had to rely' for the written and
verbal propaganda,-11ll of a sudden these began to turn a cold
shoulder to the movement. The news that all landed properties
in Ireland, into which the life insurance companies had invested their moneys, had been depreciated by more than onethird of their value, owing to the Home Rule agitation, produced quite a change of mind amongst the rich middle-class
people who had hitherto been ardent Home Rulers. In twentyfour hours they became Unionists, this name being a suitable
screen for covering Black Toryism.
Their fears, their ambitions which Gladstone had failed to
satisfy, and those ambitions which could be stimulated by promises of support at the next elections,-all was set into action
in order to break the powers of the Socialists and to drive away
from them those of the middle-class people who for one reason or
another had joined them.    To frighten away some, to lock
away the others. As to 'the enthusiasts, their very enthusiasm
was the cause of. their defection. As it so often happens with
the middle-class supporters of the Labour agitation, they had
been attracted to it by the prospects of a revolution being at
hand. The grand effects of a revolution had seduced them; and
they deserted the cause of the people as soon as they saw that
the revolution was not yet coming: that a long, slow, preparatory
work was required to make it break out.
What then should be the character of the next coming revival
of Socialism in this country?
Many causes are at work at this moment in Europe which
can throw all the civilised nations into a series of interminable
wars. The partition of Africa is nearly accomplished, but the
partition of Asia, both in the Near and the Far East, is only
beginning, and nobody can foretell into how many wars the
partition will involve the chief military nations of Europe and
America. We can foresee these wars, but we cannot discount
their possible consequences. Leaving, therefore, this disturbing
influence out of our account for the moment, let us see what
aspects the coming revival would take in this country, if exterior
causes did not disturb the national life for a few years to
come.
It is certain, to begin with, that the moment a new agitation begins against the privileged classes, the great, all-dominating Land question will be put in the fore ground. Already



21
in 1886 this was one of the chief and deepest causes of discontent. True, the Marxist Social Democrats, plunged into their
metaphysical schemes of economic evolution, did not understand
the importance of this question. But the Socialists as a whole,
especially those of the Socialist League, fully understood it, and
therefore considered that the expropriation of the landowners,
in the interest of the people, without compensation-this was
especially insisted upon-was the first point to be obtained.
Many reasons have contributed since to give even a still
greater importance to the Land question. The " unearned increment " has been growing lately at an enormous, scandalous
rate, and every new step in " municipal Socialism" increases
it in   a  still greater  proportion.  Besides   the  value
of land under an intensive culture, which was exemplified in
small portions in many parts of the country (Preston, Worthing,
&c., &c.), was brought into prominence, and the facts were
made widely known owing to the discussion of the last twenty
years and to the Red and Yellow vans propaganda; while the
working men in towns have become aware of the growing value
of allotment lands, as well as lands bought, or intended to be
bought, by both municipalities and co-operative associations.
All these have shown to the working masses of Britain of what
riches they are robbed by those who own the land, and who in
order to maintain their political influence prevent the people of
these islands from taking the best advantage of their land.
And then, the very Land law for Ireland, unsatisfactory
though it is, renders it unavoidable now that similar claims on
the land will be heard on behalf of the people of Great Britain
as well. Something must be done, and there is no better ground
for a serious agitation than the Land question, which now
acquires additional interest in connection with municipal enterprise, municipal dwellings, and municipal gardening for the
unemployed.
* *
Another important feature which we see coming in the next
revival of Socialism is this.  At the beginning of the last
Socialist movement in this country, it was to an immense
degree under the influence of German Social Democratic teachings. The English Socialists had got their Socialist education
from the Germans. The Socialist League had been an attempt
at emancipating the English movement from that German influence and of giving it a British character. But the chief
spirit of the League, William Morris, never freed himself



22
entirely from the influence of one of his teachers, and after a
time returned under that influence once more.
" Will it not be the same in the next revival? " it may be
asked. But we think it will not. German Social Democracy
has shown so much during the last few years that it is nothing
but the left wing of the middle-class Democratic movement,
that it never will have again the authority which it had
twenty years ago when it claimed'to represent a synthesis of
Democracy. with Socialism. Everyone knows by this time that
the 85 Social Democratic representatives in the German Parliament are even less offensive for the noblemen's and the
middle-class monopolies and privileges than an equal number
of Liberals at Westminster was under Gladstone's leadership,
and incomparably less offensive than the British trade unions.
The Krimmitschau strike, just terminated by a defeat of the
weavers, has shown what a nice-looking but weak bubble this
Social Democratic parliamentary party is: the labour hours in
Germany are eleven, as in Russia, and the protection of the
children remains what it was made by a law passed forty years
ago, when there were no Social Democrats in Germany! Never
was the predominant importance of trade unionism for everything relating to the protection of labour so strikingly demonstrated as it was this year in Germany.
***
On the other hand, never was the weakness of trade unionism
alone so well demonstrated as it was demonstrated this year in
this country. And this demonstration, too, will contributehas contributed already -to explode the Social Democratic
bubble.
"There is no difference," the British working man was
told, " between a Tory and a Liberal Government," and under
this pretext both the Social Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party, instead of abstaining from the elections as we did, played into the hands of the Tories. Consciously
or not, the fact is that they helped them to get a majority which
gave them full powers for all the harm they have done: the destruction of the School Boards, free gifts to the landlords and
the clergy and, finally, dagger-thrusts into the very heart of
trade unionism by means of the Taff Vale and Denaby Main
decisions.
These last have opened the eyes of the workers. They have
seen whereto the game which their German-taught leaders had
induced them to indulge in was leading them. And one may



23
be sure that henceforward the mass of the British working
men will not agree any more to play that game, the stupidity
of which was, in our opinion, verging almost on crime.
It is thus evident that when the next revival of Socialism
comes it will not be used any more to bring grist to the Tory
mill, so as to disgust the working men with Socialism.
**
Nor will the British labourers trust-so we hope, at leastto the debilitating theories of the German Social Democrats.
They will not fold their hands in the expectation of a " historic process " which is supposed to destroy some day later on the
capitalists. They will see that the number of capitalists and
their force grow every day in this country.    And they will
know that " to keep their powder dry" is better than to trust
) all sorts of middle-class professors. Force can only be met
v force. Only slaves trust to a goddess that shall bring them:eedom, while freemen take it themselves.
They will also see through the sophisms of that "pacific parliamentary revolution." They will understand that the best
fighter in Parliament is good only so long as there is the
clamour of the crowd in the street to spur him on; that bookish
previsions are of little value; and that, as the land is needed by
the people now, to-day, it must be taken now, leaving the discussion of " economic periods" to the bookworm tacticians. And
they will see that as the movement for the socialisation of
various necessaries of life has begun already in the citiesnot in the Westminster talking boxes-so it must be continued.
Gas, water, electricity; schooling; means of communication,
motive power; coal mines for getting motive power, have already
been municipalised.   The municipalisation of all houses, not
only of working men's dwellings, must necessarily follow. Not
only schooling, but also feeding of all children. If coal mines
can be got by towns in order to get motive power-why not for
supplying the inhabitants with fuel? Light, why not fuel?
If Torquay has municipal dairies, why not municipal kitchen
gardens, and no workhouses? If co-operative dairies are such
a success all over the world, why not co-operative farming,
co-operative horticulture, and so on?
In short, the spell has been broken. From beneath-not
from above! From the village, the township-not from Westminster 1 From individual, local action (insurrectional and
constructive)-not from party legislation, pacific and destructive of good I This is the teaching of the last few years, the



24
lessonl givený to' the patient crowd by the Upper Ten
burglars.
The coming revival will have to take all these currents into
consideration.   And it will have to come to that necessary
generalisation-Expropriation.
But how? Through Acts of Parliament? Through party
legislation? No,-through Local Action: peaceful, if peaceful
it can be: and insurrectional if the nation cannot break otherwise the privileges and the monopolies bequeathed to it by its
fathers.
P.- KROPOTKIN.
A JOURNAL OF ANARCHIST COMMUNISM.
MfOnthily, One Penny; post free, lid.; U.S.A., 3 Cents; France, 15 Centimes.
Annual Subscription, post free, Is. 6d.; U.S.A., 36 Cents; France, ifr. 80e..
Foreign isabscriptions should be sent by International Money Order.
V AVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVYAVAVAVAVAYAVA,
No. 1. THE WAGE SYSTEM. By PECTER KROPOTKIML id.
No. 2. THE COMMUNE OF PARIS. By PETER KROPOTi11urt. id.
No. a. A TALK ABOUT ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM mTwxi.n~ Iw
WORKERS. By E. MALAT1CiTA. Id.
No. 4. AN ARCH IST.COMMUNISM: ITO BASIS AND PRINOX?1La.      B
PETER KROPOTKINE. 1d.
No. 5. ANARCHY. By E. MALATFcSTA. Id.
No. 6. ANARCHIST MORALITY. Br PETER KROvxiaa. ' id.
Wo. 7. EXPROPRIATION. Br PE-KR KaOi'OTKINE. id.
No. 8. ANAIACHISM&AND OUTRAGE. Br C. M. Wixs *on id,
No. g. ANARCHY ON TRIAL. Beiing speeches delivered by Georg,Eti6vatit, Jeau Grave ajd. Caserio Sanato. 32 pp.; Id.
No. 10 ANARCHISM: ITS I'HILOSOPHY AND IDEAL. By KROI'OTKIN 141.
No. 1i THE STATE    ITS HISTORIC ROLE. By P. Kropot~ki 'n.  2d.
No. 12 RESPONSIBILITY AND SOLIDARITY IN THE LABOR STRUGGLE Id
N-o. 13 THE PYRAMID OF TYRANNY. Br F. DOXIELA NiIuUWENHrIS. hi
No. 14 POLITICS AND SOCIALISML. Br PETECR KROPO!'K!N. IL
Publishling Office, 127 Ossuiston Street, London, N.W.,