|
The rampant dictatorial governments in Italy, Spain and Russia, which
arouse such envy and longing among the more reactionary and timid
parties across the world, are supplying dispossessed 'democracy' with a
sort of new virginity. Thus we see the creatures of the old regimes,
well-accustomed to the wicked art of politics, responsible for
repression and massacres of working people, re-emerging - where they do
not lack the courage - and presenting themselves as men of progress,
seeking to capture the near future in the name of liberation. And,
given the situation, they could even succeed.
|
| There is
something to be said for the criticisms made of democracy by
dictatorial regimes, and the way they expose the vices and lies of
democracy. And I remember that anarchist, Hermann Sandomirski, a
Bolshevik fellowtraveller with whom we had bittersweet contact at the
time of the Geneva conference, and who is now trying to couple Lenin
with Bakunin, no less; I say I remember Sandomirski who in order to
defend the Russian regime dragged out his Kropotkin to demonstrate that
democracy is not the best imaginable form of social structure. His
method of reasoning, as a Russian, put me in mind and I think I told
him so - of the reasoning made by some of his compatriots when, in
response to the indignation of the civilised world at the Tsar's
stripping, flogging and hanging of women, they argued that if men and
women were to have equal rights they should also accept equal
responsibilities. Those supporters of prison and the scaffold
remembered the rights of women only when they could serve as a pretext
for new outrages ! Thus dictatorships oppose democratic governments
only when they discover that there is a form of government which leaves
even greater room for despotism and tyranny for those who manage to
seize power.
|
| For me there is
no doubt that the worst of democracies is always preferable, if only
from the educational point of view, than the best of dictatorships. Of
course democracy, so-called government of the people, is a lie; but the
lie always slightly binds the liar and limits the extent of his
arbitrary power. Of course the 'sovereign people' is a clown of a
sovereign, a slave with a papier-mache crown and sceptre.
|
| But to believe
oneself free, even when one is not, is always better than to know
oneself to be a slave, and to accept slavery as something just and
inevitable.
|
| Democracy is a
lie, it is oppression and is in reality, oligarchy; that is, government
by the few to the advantage of a privileged class. But we can still
fight it in the name of freedom and equality, unlike those who have
replaced it or want to replace it with something worse.
|
| We are not
democrats for, among other reasons, democracy sooner or later leads to
war and dictatorship. Just as we are not supporters of dictatorships,
among other things, because dictatorship arouses a desire for
democracy, provokes a return to democracy, and thus tends to perpetuate
a vicious circle in which human society oscillates between open and
brutal tyranny and a the and lying freedom.
|
|
So, we declare war on dictatorship and war on democracy. But what do we put in their place ?
|
| Not all democrats
are like those described above - hypocrites who are more or less aware
that in the name of the people they wish to dominate the people and
exploit and oppress them.
|
| There are many,
especially among the young republicans, who have a serious belief in
democracy and see it as the means of obtaining full and complete
freedom of development for all. These are the young people we should
like to disabuse, persuade not to mistake an abstraction, 'the people',
for the living reality, which is men and women with all their different
needs, passions and often contradictory aspirations.
|
| It is not the
intention here to repeat our critique of the parliament system and all
the means thought up to have deputies who really do represent the will
of the people; a critique which, after fifty years anarchist propaganda
is at last accepted and even repeated by those writers who most affect
to despise our ideas ( e.g. Political Science Senator Gaetano Mosca ).
|
| We will limit
ourselves to inviting our young friends to use greater precision of
language, in the conviction that once the phrases are dissected they
themselves will see how vacuous they are.
|
| 'Government of
the people' no, because this presupposes what could never happen -
complete unanimity of will of all the individuals that make up the
people.
|
| It would be
closer to the truth to say, 'government of the majority of the people.'
This implies a minority that must either rebel or submit to the will of
others.
|
| But it is never
the case that the representatives of the majority of people are all of
the same mind on all questions; it is therefore necessary to have
recourse again to the majority system and thus we will get closer still
to the truth with., 'government of the majority of the elected by the
majority of the electors.'
|
|
Which is already beginning to bear a strong resemblance to minority government.
|
| And if one then
takes into account the way in which elections are held, how the
political parties and parliamentary groupings are formed and how laws
are drawn up and voted and applied, it is easy to understand what has
already been proved by universal historical experience : even in the
most democratic of democracies it is always a small minority that rules
and imposes its will and interests by force.
|
| Therefore, those
who really want 'government of the people' in the sense that each can
assert his or her own will, ideas and needs, must ensure that no-one,
majority or minority, can rule over others; in other words, they must
abolish government, meaning any coercive organisation, and replace it
with the free organisation of those with common interests and aims.
|
| This would be
very simple if every group and individual could live in isolation and
on their own, in their own way, supporting themselves independently of
the rest, supplying their own material and moral needs.
|
| But this is not
possible, and if it were, it would not be desirable because it would
mean the decline of humanity into barbarism and savagery.
|
| If they are
determined to defend their own autonomy, their own liberty, every
individual or group must therefore understand the ties of solidarity
that bind them to the rest of humanity, and possess a fairly developed
sense of sympathy and love for their fellows, so as to know how
voluntarily to make those sacrifices essential to life in a society
that brings the greatest possible benefits on every given occasion.
|
|
But above all it must be made impossible for some to impose themselves on, and sponge off, the vast majority by material force.
|
| Let us abolish
the gendarme, the man armed in the service of the despot, and in one
way or another we shall reach free agreement, because without such
agreement, free or forced, it is not possible to live.
|
| But even free
agreement will always benefit most those who are intellectually and
technically prepared. We therefore recommend to our friends and those
who truly wish the good of all, to study the most urgent problems,
those that will require a practical solution the very day that the
people shake off the yoke that oppresses them.
|
|
March 1924 |
