From ‘Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism’, November 1912, London, UK
Communism bases itself upon the natural equality of men in the domain of right and justice. Considering man as a social being, it regards mankind as constituting one compact whole, with natural needs, sentiments, and sympathies common to its individual members. Refusing to qualify any member of the human family by any higher title than that of man, and unwilling to deny to any their part in the great human brotherhood, Communism unhesitatingly proclaims the common and equal rights as well as duties of all.
The natural rights of man may be summed up in the right to existence, the right to happiness, and the right to develop mental and bodily faculties to the fullest extent possible; while to these rights there corresponds a duty, obligatory on all, of labouring according to capacities and opportunities for the common welfare and advancement. Thus Communism takes utility for its basis of right; it aims at the good of all; and in place of the cynical adage, “Everyone for himself, and God for us all,” which does but re-echo the ignoble sentiment expressed in the well-known saying, “The devil take the hindermost,” it proposes as the motto of regenerated humanity, “Each for all, and all for everyone.”
The right to a happy existence has been mentioned above, but, as the right to anything implies the right to the means necessary for securing it, and as in the case in point these means are to be found in the use and enjoyment of the gifts of nature, and of the products of industry, it follows that all have the right to share in both, the right of each individual being limited only by the equal right of others. Consequently all monopoly of goods by individuals is at variance with the demands of strict justice, whether these goods be, like the land, the free gift of Nature to all, in which case such monopoly is robbery; or whether they be the fruit of skill or industry, in which case it is opposed to the duty, which each owes to his neighbour, of working, not for his own exclusive advantage, but for the common benefit.
It may be said, in opposition to what has been here advanced, that Nature herself is not an impartial mother; that inequality, not equality, is her rule, and that the weaker must ever yield to their more powerful brethren. Such an argument, however, when applied for the purpose of defending social inequality, loses much of its force when we consider that few animals prey upon individuals of their own species; while those of many kinds, so far from even competing with their fellows to the injury of the latter, actually share with them the results of their own industry, and, however superior they may be in individual powers, are content to use them for the general welfare and defence.
The argument, furthermore, overlooks the gift of reason, which exalts man above other animated beings. Reason, which teaches us that it is unjust that any should be required to suffer for no moral fault of their own, prompts to the removal of such injustice by suggesting that the harmonious co-operation which we admire among animals of certain species, such as the bee; the ant, and the beaver, and which is with them the result of instinct, may with immense advantage be introduced into human affairs by an intelligent and humane reorganisation of society. Nevertheless, the argument drawn from the difference existing between individual capacities is not without force when viewed in relation to the present chaotic condition of society, for it is certainly a glaring anomaly that one who is superior in natural gifts should be possessed of less influence than another morally and mentally inferior, yet wielding vastly greater power for good or ill through a blind freak of fortune, arbitrarily conferring rank or wealth by the accident of birth or the success of a lucky speculation.
It has also been argued that “Communism means that it is incumbent on the strong and industrious to protect the weak and support the idle”; but why should the strong and industrious be classed together on the one hand, and the weak and idle on the other? Have we not robust and lusty idleness, and industriously toiling debility in far more frequent contrast before our eyes? I repudiate as much as anyone the idea that the idle may live upon the workers, and should regard such drones as imitators of the rich of to-day. There would, however, be this noteworthy difference between them: our aristos and bourgeois can and do enforce their impudent claims, whereas in the future society the loafers (supposing there should still be any in times when work will be a pleasure) will be unable to do anything of the sort; the workers will take good care of that.
I affirm the duty of the strong to help the weak, and I do so on the ground of humanity and consequently of justice; but I also maintain it on the score of policy and on behalf of the strong themselves, because all men are weak at some period of their lives, and liable to become so at any time. Communism does not ask a man to starve himself to feed others, but it urges him to give what he needs less to those who need it more; it does not, however, call this charity, but duty, justice, and equality.
Each man by virtue of his existence on this planet is entitled to a share in all Nature’s present gifts and in all the advantages bequeathed by past generations, and thus becomes a partner with all others possessing the same right. “To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.”
Henry Glasse
The Superstition of Government – Henry Glasse (1902)
From a ‘Freedom Library’ pamphlet including the text, Organised Vengeance Called ‘Justice’, by Peter Kropotkin, 1902, London, UK
An impression fixed by long habit of mind, especially where that habit has been transmitted through many generations, ends by assuming the form of instinctive knowledge, too clear to admit of discussion, still less to require demonstration. If such impression is originally based on facts accepted by reason, we call it common sense; if, on the other hand, it springs from error in matter of fact or is the result of distorted reasoning, we call it prejudice. In expounding Anarchism we are met by a certain stolid repugnance as well as a seeming inability to grasp our idea, and this we find to be owing to a prepossession in favor of Government. Let us therefore examine and see if this superstition is based on common sense, or whether it is not the result of prejudice carefully maintained and cultivated in the past by those who have put themselves forward as the guides of humanity.
Throughout the whole of authentic history this fact of Government is continually presented to us as a permanent factor of human life, as well as its most important and interesting aspect; even the legends and myths which precede history are full of the glorious or terrible deeds of rulers — giants on earth, and gods and devils innumerable throughout the universe divide between them the government of men and things. Are we therefore to conclude that government is natural to man? or that it is a requisite of man’s social life? We might be tempted to answer this question in the affirmative, but for another fact which is co-universal with Government and which entirely upsets its claim to be in harmony with man’s moral and social nature. That fact is Revolt.
In no historic time has Government failed to encounter Revolt, either overt or covert; individuals or classes have at all times contended to subvert the dominion of other classes or individuals in order to win that dominion for themselves. This traditional spirit of revolt is also presented to us in those legends and myths which are the echoes of prehistoric times: Jehovah has to struggle for pre-eminence with the archangel Satan, who leads to rebellion a portion of the angelic host, and who continues, even after his expulsion from heaven we are told, to keep up a fairly successful warfare against heaven’s monarch. So, also, in the ancient classic story, Jupiter dethrones his father Saturn, and in his turn becomes “Father of the gods and King of men.” I have spoken of the hostility of individuals and classes who happen for the time to be out of power, as directed against those who for the moment are in power; but of course this hostility would be powerless without the co-operation of the people or a considerable section thereof, and therefore it is that whoever raises the standard of revolt or of opposition (which is only revolt minus military warfare) professes to do so in the interest of the people, who are led to hope for a betterment of their condition as a result of a successful change.
Insurrectionary and opposition leaders have always posed as deliverers of the people in order to gain its support, and have taught it to regard the exercise of power and the spoils of office as the just reward of their condescension in taking up the cudgels on behalf of its interests. Obviously, therefore, during the many ages that personal ambitions and rival castes hare warred for supremacy, it has never suited them to so much as even hint to the vile populace whose help they were soliciting that the evils it suffered were inherent in Government itself; on the Contrary, it was their policy to leave the principles of Government and Authority unchallenged, and to insist only upon the transfer of power to themselves, together with the privileges and perquisites of power, whilst promising the people as its share of the advantage gained some alleviation of its servitude, generally, in practice.
When, therefore, the Anarchist proposes the abolition of Government and the rejection of Authority, and claims that the affairs of society shall he arranged by mutual understanding of the people themselves, instead of being imposed on them by some external force, he finds that the minds of those he addresses never having been used to contemplate such a possibility, the suggestion bewilders them, and no clear corresponding idea is awakened. This is shown by the question almost invariably asked by those who for the first time hear of Anarchism: “How, then, will you regulate this, that, or the other, for us?” not grasping the fact that Anarchism (or Libertarianism, if you prefer the word) repudiates regulation and leaves the persons concerned to manage each matter for themselves by mutual agreement, compromise, or concession.
Moreover, so accustomed are people to regard those who propose political changes as candidates for political power, that when they hear that Anarchist propagandists do not desire power or place, and reject authority for themselves as well as for others, they are puzzled to conceive the motive which actuates them, used as they themselves have always been to regard the desire for personal advancement as inseparable from the role of an agitator; hence a suspicion is apt to affect them that there must be something hidden, something kept back in such an unusual proceeding as that of an individual championing an unpopular and persecuted cause and, at the same time, disclaiming any special personal advantage as his proposed reward.
There is, it seems to me, no other way of combating this prejudice — for prejudice, I think, it has been shown to be — than by patient reiteration of our principles and repeated pointing out of their logical character; in this way we shall go on in the future, as we have already begun, to familiarise the popular mind with our ideas, which is the indispensable preliminary to their acceptance. In this good work let us persevere; our success will be commensurate with our efforts.
Henry Glasse
[Note: Extra paragraph breaks have been added to the articles for increased readability. M.Gouldhawke]
Also
Exchange, by Joseph Déjacque (1858)
To manual workers, supporters of political action, by François Dumartheray (1876)
Letter to The Bulletin De La Fédération Jurassienne, from Errico Malatesta and Carlo Cafiero (1876)
Anarchy and Communism, from Le Drapeau Noir (1883)
“Timid” Capital, by Lizzie M. Swank (1886)
The Philosophy of Anarchism, by Albert Parsons (1887)
The Necessity of Communism, from Freedom (1887)
The Conquest of Bread, by Peter Kropotkin (1892)
Libertarian or Anarchist?, by Henry Glasse (1899)
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, by Peter Kropotkin (1902)
The Mexican People are Suited to Communism, by Ricardo Flores Magón (1911)
Manifesto of the Organizing Junta of the Mexican Liberal Party to the People of Mexico (1911)
Anarchism in a Nutshell, by Henry Glasse (1918)
What Is Communist Anarchism?, by Alexander Berkman (1929)
The Future of the Proletariat, by George Woodcock (1942)
Time is Life, by Vernon Richards (1962)
Reflections on Race and Anarchism in South Africa, 1904–2004, by Lucien van der Walt (2004)
Some quotes
“As to us, we are Communists.”
S., The Alarm, Chicago, June 13, 1885
“‘Communism is old’, we are told, and this is true. As a tendency, it has always existed; but the methods of modern Communism are new. […] The possibilists are still at this ideal of the Commune-State, while the few Marxists who remained communists are attached to the Nation-State. And it was only towards the end of the century, within the Anarchist International, that Communism without God or master was affirmed.”
Peter Kropotkin, A Century of Waiting, 1893
“Everything belongs to everyone.”
La Voz De La Mujer [The Voice of Women]: Communist-Anarchist Periodical, Our Goals, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1896