Publisher London : Allen & Unwin
(Also published as Roads to Freedom)
INTRODUCTION
The attempt to conceive imaginatively a better ordering of human society than the destructive and cruel
chaos in which mankind have hitherto existed is by
no means modern : it is at least as old as Plato,
whose " Republic
"
set the model for the Utopias
of subsequent philosophers. Whoever contemplates
the world in the light of an ideal—whether what he
seeks be intellect, or art, or love, or simple happiness,
or all together—must feel a great sorrow in the evils that men needlessly allow to continue, and—if he
be a man of force and vital energy—an urgent desire
to lead men to the realization of the good which in- spires his creative vision. It is this desire which
has been the primary force moving the pioneers of Socialism and Anarchism, as it moved the inventors
of ideal commonwealths in the past. In this there
is nothing new.
What is new in Socialism and Anarchism is that close relation of the ideal to the present
sufferings of men which has enabled powerful political
movements to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers.
It is this that makes Socialism and Anarchism important, and it is this that makes them dangerous
to those who batten, consciously or unconsciously,
upon the evils of our present order of society.
io Roads to Freedom
The great majority of men and women, in ordinary
times, pass through life without ever contemplating
or criticizing, as a whole, either their own conditions
or those of the world at large. They find themselves
born into a certain place in society, and they accept
what each day brings forth, without any effort of
thought beyond what the immediate present requires.
Almost as instinctively as the beasts of the field,
they seek the satisfaction of the needs of the moment,
without much forethought, and without considering
that by sufficient effort the whole conditions of their
lives could be changed.
A certain percentage, guided
by personal ambition, make the effort of thought
and will which is necessary to place themselves among
the more fortunate members of the community ; but
very few among these are seriously concerned to secure
for all the advantages which they seek for themselves.
It is only a few rare and exceptional men who have
that kind of love towards mankind at large that makes
them unable to endure patiently the general mass
of evil and suffering, regardless of any relation it may have to their own lives.
These few, driven
by sympathetic pain, will seek, first in thought and
then in action, for some way of escape, some new
system of society by which life may become richer, more full of joy and less full of preventable evils than
it is at present. But in the past such men have,
as a rule, failed to interest the very victims of the
injustices which they wished to remedy. The more
unfortunate sections of the population have been
ignorant, apathetic from excess of toil and weariness,
timorous through the imminent danger of immediate
punishment by the holders of power, and morally
unreliable owing to the loss of self-respect resulting
from their degradation. To create among such classes any conscious, deliberate effort after general amelioration might have seemed a hopeless task, and indeed
in the past it has generally proved so.
But the
modern world, by the increase of education and the
rise in the standard of comfort among wage-earners,
has produced new conditions, more favourable than
ever before to the demand for radical reconstruction.
It is above all the Socialists, and in a lesser degree
the Anarchists (chiefly as the inspirers of Syndicalism),
who have become the exponents of this demand.
What is perhaps most remarkable in regard to both
-Socialism and Anarchism is the association of a widespread popular movement with ideals for a better
world. The ideals have been elaborated, in the first instance, by solitary writers of books, and yet powerful sections of the wage-earning classes have accepted
them as their guide in the practical affairs of the
world. In regard to Socialism this is evident ; but
in regard to Anarchism it is only true with some
qualification. Anarchism as such has never been a widespread creed ; it is only in the modified form
of Syndicalism that it has achieved popularity.
Unlike Socialism and Anarchism, Syndicalism is primarily
the outcome, not of an idea, but of an organization : the fact of Trade Union organization came first, and the ideas of Syndicalism are those which seemed
appropriate to this organization in the opinion of
12 Roads to Freedom
the more advanced French Trade Unions. But the
ideas are, in the main, derived from Anarchism, and
the men who gained acceptance for them were, for the most part, Anarchists. Thus we may regard
Syndicalism as the Anarchism of the market-place,
as opposed to the Anarchism of isolated individuals
which had preserved a precarious life throughout
the previous decades. Taking this view, we find in Anarchist-Syndicalism the same combination of ideal
and organization as we find in Socialist political parties.
It is from this standpoint that our study of these
movements will be undertaken.
Socialism and Anarchism, in their modern form,
spring respectively from two protagonists, Marx and
Bakunin, who fought a lifelong battle, culminating
in a split in the first International. We shall begin our study with these two men first their teaching,
and then the organizations which they founded or
inspired. This will lead us to the spread of Socialism
in more recent years, and thence to the Syndicalist
revolt against Socialist emphasis on the State and
political action, and to certain movements outside
France which have some affinity with Syndicalism—
notably the I.W.W. in America and Guild Socialism
in England. From this historical survey we shall pass to the consideration of some of the more pressing
problems of the future, and shall try to decide in what - respects the world would be happier if the aims of
Socialists or Syndicalists were achieved.
My own opinion—which I may as well indicate
at the outset—is that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which society should
continually approximate, is for the present impossible,
and would not survive more than a year or two at most if it were adopted. On the other hand, both
Marxian Socialism and Syndicalism, in spite of many
drawbacks, seem to me calculated to give rise to a happier and better world than that in which we live.
I do not, however, regard either of them as the best practicable system. Marxian Socialism, I fear, would
give far too much power to the State, while Syndicalism, which aims at abolishing the State, would,
I believe, find itself forced to reconstruct a central
authority in order to put an end to the rivalries of
different groups of producers.
The best practicable
system, to my mind, is that of Guild Socialism, which
concedes what is valid both in the claims of the State
Socialists and in the Syndicalist fear of the State
by adopting a system of federalism among trades
for reasons similar to those which have recommended
federalism among nations. The grounds for these
conclusions will appear as we proceed.
Before embarking upon the history of recent movements in favour of radical reconstruction, it will be worthwhile to consider some traits of character which
distinguish most political idealists, and are much
misunderstood by the general public for other reasons
besides mere prejudice. I wish to do full justice to these reasons, in order to show the more effectually
why they ought not to be operative.
The leaders of the more advanced movements are, in general, men of quite unusual disinterestedness, as is evident from a consideration o*f their careers. Although they have obviously quite as much ability as many men who rise to positions of great power,
they do not themselves become the arbiters of contemporary events, nor do they achieve wealth or the
applause of the mass of their contemporaries. Men
who have the capacity for winning these prizes, and
who work at least as hard as those who win them,
but deliberately adopt a line which makes the winning
of them impossible, must be judged to have an aim
, in life other than personal advancement ; whatever
admixture of self-seeking may enter into the detail of their lives, their" fundamental motive must be outside Self.
The pioneers of Socialism, Anarchism,
and Syndicalism have, for the most part, experienced
prison, exile, and poverty, deliberately incurred because they would not abandon their propaganda ; and by this conduct they have shown that the hope
which inspired them was not for themselves, but for mankind.
Nevertheless, though the desire for human welfare
is what at bottom determines the broad lines of such
men's lives, it often happens that, in the detail of their speech and writing, hatred is far more visible than love.
The impatient idealist—and without some
impatience a man will hardly prove effective—is almost sure to be led into hatred by the oppositions
and disappointments which he encounters in his endeavours to bring happiness to the world. The more
certain he is of the purity of his motives and the truth of his gospel, the more indignant he will become when his teaching is rejected. Often he will successfully
achieve an attitude of philosophic tolerance as regards
the apathy of the masses, and even as regards the
whole-hearted opposition of professed defenders of the status quo. But the men whom he finds it impossible to forgive are those who profess the same
desire for the amelioration of society as he feels himself, but who do not accept his method of achieving
this end. The intense faith which enables him - to withstand persecution for the sake of his beliefs makes
him consider these beliefs so luminously obvious that
any thinking man who rejects them must be dishonest,
and must be actuated by some sinister motive of treachery to the cause. Hence arises the spirit of the sect, that bitter, narrow orthodoxy which is the bane of those who hold strongly to an unpopular
creed.
So many real temptations to treachery exist
that suspicion is natural. And among leaders, ambition, which they mortify in their choice of a career,
is sure to return in a new form : in the desire for intellectual mastery and for despotic pow
r er within
their own sect. Frorn these causes it results that
the advocates of drastic reform divide themselves
into opposing schools, hating each other with a bitter
hatred, accusing each other often of such crimes as being in the pay of the police, and demanding, of any
speaker or writer whom they are to admire, that he
shall conform exactly to their prejudices, and '•make
all his teaching minister to their belief that the exact
truth is to be found within the limits of their creed.
The result of this state of mind is that, to a casual and unimaginative attention, the men who have sacrificed most through the wish to benefit mankind appear
to be actuated far more by hatred than by love. And
the demand for orthodoxy is stifling to any free exercise of intellect, producing an atmosphere in which
a man of wide culture and detached thought finds
it impossible to breathe.
This cause, as well as economic prejudice, has made it difficult for the " intellectuals ' to co-operate practically with the more
extreme reformers, however they may sympathize
with their main purposes and even with nine-tenths
of their programme.
Another reason why radical reformers are misjudged by ordinary men is that they view existing
society from outside, with hostility towards its institutions. Although, for the most part, they have more belief than their neighbours in human nature's
inherent capacity for a good life, they are so conscious
of the cruelty and oppression resulting from existing
institutions that they make a wholly misleading impression of cynicism.
Most men have instinctively
two entirely different codes of behaviour : one towards
those whom they regard as companions or colleagues or
friends, or in some way members of the same
" herd
"
; the other towards those whom they regard as enemies
or outcasts or a danger to society. Radical reformers
are apt to concentrate their attention upon the behaviour of society towards the latter class, the class of those towards whom the
" herd ' feels ill-will. This class includes, of course, enemies in war, and
criminals ; in the minds of those who consider the preservation of the existing order essential to their
own safety or privileges, it includes all who advocate
any great political or economic change, and all classes which, through their poverty or through any other
cause, are likely to feel a dangerous degree of discontent.
The ordinary citizen probably seldom thinks
about such individuals or classes, and goes through
life believing that he and his friends are kindly people;
because they have no wish to injure those towards
whom they entertain no group-hostility. But the
man whose attention is fastened upon the relations
of a group with those whom it hates or fears will judge quite differently. In these relations, a surprising
ferocity is apt to be developed, and a very ugly side
of human nature comes to the fore. The opponents
of capitalism have learnt, through the study of certain
historical facts, that this ferocity has often been shown
by the capitalists and by the State towards the wage earning classes, particularly when they have ventured
to protest against the unspeakable suffering to which
industrialism has usually condemned them.
Hence
arises a quite different attitude towards existing society
from that of the ordinary well-to-do citizen : an attitude as true as his, perhaps also as untrue, but equally
based on facts, facts concerning his relations to his
enemies instead of to his friends. The class-war, like wars between nations, produces
two opposing views, each equally true and equally
untrue. The citizen of a nation at war, when he
thinks of his own countrymen, thinks of them primarily
as he has experienced them, in dealings with their friends, in their family relations, and so on. They
seem to him on the whole kindly, decent folk. But
a nation with which his country is at war views his
compatriots through the medium of a quite different
set of experiences : as they appear in the ferocity of
battle, in the invasion and subjugation of a hostile
territory, or in the chicanery of a juggling diplomacy.
The men of whom these facts are true are the very same as the men whom their compatriots know as husbands or fathers or friends, but they are judged
differently because they are judged on different data
And so it is with those who view the capitalist from
the standpoint of the revolutionary wage-earner : they appear inconceivably cynical and misjudging
to the capitalist, because the facts upon which their
view is based are facts which he either does not know
or habitually ignores.
Yet the view from the outside
is just as true as the view from the inside. Both
are necessary to the complete truth ; and the Socialist,
who emphasizes the outside view, is not a cynic, but
merely the friend of the wage-earners, maddened by
the spectacle of the needless misery which capitalism
inflicts upon them.
I have placed these general reflections at the beginning of our study, in order to make it clear to the
reader that, whatever bitterness and hate may be
found in the movements which we are to examine,
it is not bitterness or hate, but love, that is their mainspring. It is difficult not to hate those who torture
the objects of our love.
Though difficult, it is not
impossible ; but it requires a breadth of outlook and a comprehensiveness of understanding which are not
easy to preserve amid a desperate contest. If ultimate wisdom has not always been preserved by Socialists and Anarchists, they have not differed in this from
their opponents ; and in the source of their inspiration
they have shown themselves superior to those who
acquiesce ignorantly or supinely in the injustices and
oppressions by which the existing system is preserved
