Ferdinand Domela

The history of socialism

Source: publication of SL Van Looy, Amsterdam, 1901 and 1902, via: www.archive.org -
digitized by Google. Addition of a few bad scanned pages and the editorial note by Bert
Altena.
First version: published in installments, apparently later put into book form.
This version: spelling and moderate conversion to contemporary Dutch - the images are
not accepted.
HTML and contact: Adrien Verlee for the Marxists Internet Archive.
- Creative Commons License 3.0 .
General: You may copy, distribute and transmit; remixes and / or create derivative
works; provided that attribution.
| How to quote?

Editorial note: The history of socialism is at the time by the Marxist social-democrats
of the New Era ground as writings about the wonderful work of HPG Quack. Now it was
and this is a unique reference work, with very great knowledge, humor and love
written. Quack has for his book (6 parts) half of Europe traveled to obtain a wide range of
material from old militants at home. It is therefore a unique work internationally. It is
therefore not surprising that Domela it has used. Incidentally Quack is the first Das Kapital
proposed in Dutch.
Domela however, differs however from Quack, because he put the Socialists in the
dichotomy authoritarian and libertarian socialism. The placing of socialists in one of the
two boxes, moreover, was not easy.
The analysis is therefore Domela, much material can come from Quack. Domela has
always said to have read a lot of work from the treated socialists themselves. That's
certainly been the case. Incidentally Domela has also incorporated his experience at
international conferences.
Domela was not known for great scientific care, as long as you know he does not see
much good since the 1890s in the authoritarian state socialism, its exploration through the
land of socialists still useful as a first exploration. The purpose of Domela was to provide
workers' understanding of the history of socialism. Hence, he absolutely did not feel
addressed by criticism from the German sociologist Robert Michels, with whom he
incidentally, was on good terms, that this history, scientifically speaking, did not offer much
news and what was easy. To contribute to science was in fact not been his goal. Michels'
critique he was therefore just a compliment.

Last updated: Thursday, March 19th, 2015 at 9:02

Contents Part 1 [History]

Introduction

Socialism in the oldest time

socialism in Egypt, Persia, China

Socialism in Israel Related:

The
Socialism in ancient Greece development of
Socialism:
Socialism in Rome Utopian and
Scientific
socialism in primitive Christianity General history
of socialism
Socialism in medieval Future of
Socialism
Socialism during the reform

Socialist state novels

Christian-religious socialism

socialism in the 17th and 18th centuries

, the predecessors of the modern socialism

Saint-Simon,
Fourier
Robert Owen
Fichte
The legacy of social preparers

Communists before 1848

, the Chartist movement in England

socialism in the economy

Contents Part 2 [Modern socialism]

Introduction

Christian socialism

Catholic socialism
Protestant socialism

State Socialism

General considerations
The landnationaliseerders
Social Democracy

Louis Blanc
Marlo
Rodbertus
Schffle
Ferdinand Lassalle
, Karl Marx and Fr. English

German Social-Democracy and its branches in other countries

, mixed or semi-state and semi-free-socialism

The rational socialism of Colin

the freedom of Socialism Duhring

Some theorists sympathizing

Albert Lange - Johann Jacoby - Ludwig Bchner - Samter - Laveleye - Stuart Mill - Quack

Contents of section 3 [Anarchism]

Freedom of socialism or anarchism

The precursors of anarchism

Christian Anarchism
Mutuellisme. Proudhon
Communist Anarchism

Michael Bakunin
, the anarchist movement in the different countries
Individual anarchism
Anarchism of action
Single sympathetic theorists

Herbert Spencer - Wordsworth Donistharpe - Max Nordau - Novicov - Friedrich Nietzsche

- Moritz von Egidy - Emerson - Ed. Douwes Dekker.

International

Nihilism in Russia

Modern novels is

the social anarchy and the future

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Introduction

Aufrichtig zu sein, kann

ich Versprechen, unparteyisch zu
sein aber nicht.

Goethe

introduction

Who wants to build a tower or a building must first count the cost; Who wants to write a
book, the first goal should know that he seeks.

Writing about a topic always indicates some dissatisfaction over existing works, already
cover this same. One considers they apparently either incomplete or as flawed or as one-
sided.

When I conceived the plan to a history of writing socialism and opinion was sought from
an expert par excellence of the international movement, encouraged this to me highly,
especially when I had given him an outline of the contents, and he wrote to me: "Your
book is a history of socialism for the first time separate the authoritarian and freedom-
direction and each of them do come into its own. That's a big improvement. "

And a veteran of the movement answered me: "I wish you luck with your company to
write a history of socialism objectively and libertarian position. In truth there is to date no
such history. All that is written about, Malon to Laveleye not 4 soes worth. "
 Is this true judgment, than be called a history of socialism in dire need. Completely
where it is not, although the better works have appeared only after Laveleye. We at least
make an exception for the great work of Professor Quack:. Socialists. People and
systems , and having taken note of the various works, we dare not hesitate to assert that
the Netherlands enjoys the honor of having done the best work in this area.

There must be a good reason to exist after the publication of that work, that even
praised as the best in this genre, yet daring to come up with a new work on the subject.

We have, before we went over to the composition, ever thought about, to publish an
abridged edition of it in consultation with the author, but when we carefully considered this
idea, we have encountered objections that it did us better prevent to provide independent
work.

By the work of Quack as it is there, is the main objection that it is too expensive. Even
in the second edition it still costs f 18. It is not too expensive for what it gives, but it goes
beyond the means of many very far beyond. Therefore it must remain beyond the reach of
many. And then it's too extensively. A work of 3346 pages - so much space covered this in
the first edition - requires a bit too much of a man, unless to do it is to make a particular
study of such a subject. But then our treatment too schematic, too little critical. In the last
part Quack indicates the slot account of his mode of treatment. It shows the diligence with
which he accomplished his task. "Every life of each of these socialists is fair again by me"
lived ". With all these figures, one by one, I've handled as acquaintances. I have suffered
with them, with them raved, blown with them bubbles of illusions with them myself made
all sorts of diets. If I now, after the completion of my book, sit down in silence alone,
floating those forms, martyrs or sophists, around me and talk to me a very understandable
language. "See, from which lines show the love with which he subject dealt, and we also
witness can not judge to second-hand study but the work of those men themselves, we
dare not hesitate to make the statement that Mr. Quack has not too much to say, and that
he sometimes wanders, not committed intentionally. Only occasionally we find given him
unfair, as in the judgment handed down by him Max Stirner. He goes too much in his
assessment of Bakunin off on the familiar printed sources from the second and third hand,
he relies too much on the infamous pamphlet L'alliance de la dmocratie socialiste of ...
Marx, who in this case anyway certainly can not be regarded as unimpeachable
witness. Yet one can not say that there existed in his intent to present things differently
than they are and is misjudging the wrong information more debt this. He had initially
hoped for rapprochement between the economy and socialism, increasingly appeared to
him that the gulf between them yawning wider than ever. Was his "book began as an idyll,
it often ends up as rains, storm and tempest." But "everything depends on him limp to his
body," yet he considers not in vain his journey to the altitude, for 1 he brought together
elements for an objective description of the life and work of the Socialists. He gave the
views and actions of the Socialists again as they are, without delay, to join what they had
been in his opinion. And 2 he heard a loud protest against an economy which indeed
had become a doctrine of plutocracy where selfishness was masked under the cloak of
"freedom of the individual." In contrast, he uttered his cry of "community."
 Nevertheless, we believe that a little more critically proceed not hurt and we have
therefore given a more systematic format, each as possible ranking for the category to
which he belongs at home. He put the people together, we sorted out and put them
logically. The last method is in our opinion preferable.

However, we also want to acknowledge gratefully made use of to have Quacks

work. No reason exists to when something is well said, this does not take over and
repeat. But what we did, as we have always mentioned it, that glory may be given to
whom honor belongs.

Our History of Socialism therefore differs from that of Quack by several brevity without
incomplete, with better layout, so you get a more accurate overview of the whole, and by
the practice of criticism after as much as possible to have objectively shown the various
systems and opinions, even less than in the words of the writers.

We will also briefly discuss the other books to prove that it has weldegelijk our right to
exist.

First we mention the two works of Professor Thonissen of the University of Leuven. Le
socialism dans le pass three particles from 1850 and Le socialism et ses promissory
notes in two parts and comes from the year 1849, in which the professor at the Catholic
students of the university of Louvain a very useful overview shows the socialist systems
through the centuries, of course, critically explained from a Catholic point of view. Their
kind are both very good, but very concise works.

Even before that time, the work of Louis Reybaud appeared: Etudes sur les
Reformation Wall Monument on socialists modernes , which in 1841 won the grand prize
Montyou and which were treated clearance: Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Robert Owen,
Auguste Comte et la Philosophie positiveness, la Socit et le socialism lesson
Communistes, chartistes lesson, lesson utilities, humanitaires lesson, lesson
Mormons. This is in many ways a good job, that they shall consult fruitless. But it contains
only a few pages from the wealthy to pass book of socialism.

In addition, the book of Lorenz Stein in 1842: the Socialismus und Communismus of
heutigen Frankreichs which treated sequentially with the principle of uniformity (the three
constitutions of 1791, 1793 and 1795, the Empire and the Restoration, the July
Revolution), the Socialists (Saint-Simon and his school, Fourier and his school), writers of
lesser species (Lamennais, Leroux, Proudhon and Louis Blanc) and communism. As one
can see, this work also includes only one piece of the whole. This work was followed
by Die socialist communist Bewegung und seit der dritten franzsischen Revolution .

The work of Karl Grn: The social Bewegung in Frankreich und Belgien deserves an
honorable mention.

Cabet, in his Voyage en Icarie a cursory overview; Villegardelle does not go beyond
until 1789. And Robert du Var, in his important work Histoire des classes ouvrires have a
thing going on, which worth is worth reading, but does not seek a history of socialism give.
 Germany has been in the works of Hunter: Der moderne Socialismus , (1873) and
Rudolph Meyer: Der Emancipations kampf des celebrating standes , (1874) which later
published an abbreviated excerpt, solid books that can be considered almost
indispensable, especially with respect from Germany. Again they treat debris.

In 1877, a published Histoire du socialism Benoit Malon in 3 parts, a book without any
criticism and in the most wonderful way haspelend everything together. The author gives
evidence that he read a lot but at the same time that he did not use his material. As he
makes his apology that it is hastily written, partly in exile and partly amid the maelstrom of
militant politics and the labor necessary for their livelihood, yet they are not really,
because no one is forcing him to write such a work that so few satisfying even the most
modest demands can be said to an author. One would hardly an example to see how a
work should not be written and Malon belongs certainly not in the category of writers, of
whom the French say: qu'ils sachent faire un livre. A certain number of pages still finished
book. It is too often forgotten.

Much better to meet this requirement the book of Emile de Laveleye, professor Liege
entitled Le socialism contemporain , (1881) in which treated sequentially theorists are:
Rodbertus, Marlo, Karl Marx, the agitator Ferdinand Lassalle, the conservative and
evangelical socialists Catholic socialists, the International in its greatness and fall, the
Alliance universelle de la dmocratie and the apostle of general destruction (Michel
Bakunin). But this work, how pleasant and entertaining written, is rather superficial and
only deals with contemporary socialism, including realizing the period from the third
quarter of this century taken over and is therefore only a part of the whole.

Quack began his in 1875 and then had so virtually no predecessors, at least as
concerned the whole, and completed it in 1897.

In 1892 Thomas Kirkup gave A history of socialism , but although the title might
suppose that he gives a history of socialism, this is not the case. He deals only with
modern socialism, starting with Saint-Simon and Fourier, to come to Louis Blanc and
Proudhon, and then the former to discuss English socialism and then Lassalle, Rodbertus
and Marx, International and anarchism. It is undeniably a nice written book, but it goes too
much out of the assumption that the reader knows anything and though he abstains as
many intentional mistakes, we believe it too little to lay claim to completeness. It would
seem so, however good in themselves, entirely insufficient.

Dietz in Stuttgart appeared Der Socialismus in Einzeldarstellungen by Bernstein, Hugo,

Kautsky, Lafargue, Franz Mehring, Plekhanov (1895). It's like all German work log, stodgy,
boring and we know how the Frenchman says: tous les genres sont bons, hors le genre
ennuyeux. We find it remarkable, both in this work and in that of Quack, that of Moses and
called the Mosaic law and its social meaning no mention. German socialism is treated to
the smallest details and emblazoned with total neglect and disregard of the vrijheidlievend
socialism, which still exists. It is a tendency therefore not written and, as such, than with
most caution usable. Germany be dedicated to only two targets, which are derived from
Franz Mehring. Who knows now that it previously has written a work: The German Social-
democracy, ihre Geschichte und ihre Lehre , which he hair discusses strongly
disapproving sense and who thus this history, which contains very little criticism, but a
continuous bewierooking of the party is a comparison that does not know to be ascribed
the necessary historical integrity to which of the two books. A high degree of one-
sidedness, this work is therefore just as advocating the previous free.

The most recently published work is that of Professor Georg Adler:. Geschichte des
Sozialismus und Kommunismus. Von Plato bis zur Gegenwart (1899), of which appeared
only the first part until now. The scientific value of this work, we have every reason to
doubt. For what to say of a man who works in the following manner: about 1885 or 86
stood in the Klnische Zeitung, a whole series of articles full of taunts directed at Victor
Dave in his fight with Peukert. Dave received a very kind letter from Dr. Georg Adler,
beginning with "sehr hoch zu verehrender Herr" and the following contents:. I'm going to
write a book about the anarchy and you are one of the most active representatives of this
direction would I'll be very much obliged if you will give me accurate information, so that i
can speak with knowledge. I must tell you that in your battle with Peukert and consorts ye
claim any consideration. "Dave the failed" to respond scholar "docter. A few weeks later
he received the same dr. A a letter in which this he announced that since he had not
answered his letter, he addressed had to Peukert and the intelligence of this, he wrote,
you will understand that "meine Arbeit ganz anders ausfallen wird."

Indeed, one should be surprised at the "scholarship" and "Mglichst grsste

Objectivitt" to write such German doctors of the university history and such a single piece
inspires little confidence for the rest of his book. Incidentally, this ailment less specific
German or seems to be general university, at least we know more examples of a similar
nature.

One will be tempted to accuse me also, viz., That this book is a tendency writings in the
opposite direction. But in return, I suppose I've always tried to get the opinion of others
pure again, so that about a good overview, although I therefore later added my own
judgment to it. As much as possible was my aim to let everyone speak in his own
language, because it is an excellent maxim, by Dr. Eltzbacher in clean book. Der
Anarchismus reminded: you propose ne rien, je ne rien suppose, j'expose (I suggest
nothing for I stand nothing, I lay bare). That should be the motto of everyone who wants to
show a different view, which is quite possible, since they are then able to exercise direct
criticism.

We have several books let pass in review and briefly designated, why they do not meet
the requirements we set such a history, another question is whether someone like the
writer who since 22 years an active participant in the movement has taken and therefore a
party man, but competent and appropriate person to write such a book.

On the one hand one can someone who has lived through the war, regarded as a
person ideally suited to act as a descriptor of the war, the other one can accuse him of
bias, since he precisely because private participation conditions and against
complacency, hindering him in judgment. Someone who is outside and therefore less
likely to undergo these influences might provide better guarantees for a certain extent
objective description. We think both positions a lot to say. We feel the objections to the
first, but still consider the work of such a person of great importance, because he has
been many eye- and ear-witness, where the other should have everything hearsay. Both
types of work are complementary to some extent and therefore are not opposed.

not subject to the memoirs of contemporaries for the best sources of the historian? We
know too well from the descriptions of events that play under our own eyes, how little one
can rely on the messages in newspapers so that communications are often the most
contradictory content. It has now memoirs of all sorts, one may draw approximate and
serious comparison arrive at the truth.

It is the same with a history of socialism. If one of the dramatis personae I better
judgments about many things because I know les secrets du Srail , all I propose directly
to probably less partisan than another, which is completely outside. However, we do not
forget that even in the cry of impartiality sometimes hidden bias, that all writers have their
likes and dislikes, which one can get rid impossible, on the contrary, allowing each lead
involuntarily late. But essentially the question whether the representation of people and
systems was displayed cleanly and only where they have not provided it can prove to me,
one has the right to attack me hard.

One may ask the question, or a time of turmoil as ours, is suitable for writing extensive
studies to provide a mental labor, which is destined to live longer than most products of
our days, after twenty or thirty years, most still have value to be sold by weight as tear
paper. "The muses are anti-revolutionary," said Huet Buskenstraat once and we know that
Clio is the muse of history taking place under her. Certainly, lack of sufficient time for such
work is an ugly thing. But now my work is a peculiar case. Horace counseled: nonum
primatur in annum, which means that one should wait with the release of nine years, it has
given me due to that board. What was still the case? When I socialism in the Netherlands,
if not for the first time - it would be inequitable's time to do away with the old International,
as if he had not been there - still inside led again, when I understood how it would be
difficult for me to maintain almost alone against the whole world, occurring in the public
and therefore the view of all that, my position.

I then felt how necessary it was, emerging into the arena, to be armed with the panoply
of science, such as Lassalle put it once and thus to wait for each thrust of his opponent
without fear, to be thrown from the saddle . And before I ventured so to act in the public, I
had prepared myself in silence. Everyone who accepts a grand job, will do well for forty
days to segregate in the desert, that is to prepare first. Well, I did and I immersed myself
in the works of our great predecessors and collected materials from all sides. Only after I
performed. This has enabled me to compose a work as the given, because they will surely
understand me vividly that, in the fight standing, it would be impossible now been able to
produce such a work. However, I had mine equipment together, I had to order it and just
settle.

So I had several almanacs and writings include biographies posted Fourier, Robert
Owen, Lassalle, Babeuf, Jacoby, among others All that work came to be current best me
and all dated from a time when I did have time for everything to curdle. And as for the last
25 years, I lived with and in the movement, followed everything that happened in this
area, never read other than the pen in hand, ready to write down everything that seemed
important to me. What a mountain of knowledge is not confined eg. In magazines such as
the Neue Zeit, La Revue Socialiste, la Socit Nouvelle (later continued under the title
of Humanite Nouvelle )! I stood at the cradle of all, I was from the very beginning one of
the employees and what is not hidden in such a series of books in which the best forces in
the motion put down the results of their individual studies! The for and against was kept by
me. I lived through the revolution of the Social Democratic Party in Germany and
elsewhere of a revolutionary, as it was originally, a reformist. I saw many ardent
revolutionaries to be honest tame made citizens, impairing their share delivered to the
building and the work of so many, without the foundations of society, who are not virtues. I
saw principles folds interests and a lot more people on the move are something than it
undergone principle of loyalty, sacrifice and dedication. The word can be used here: many
are called but few are chosen.

In this way, me now it was possible to compile this work.

I am firmly convinced - would my people should know already very bad not to know in
advance - printed branding on the work of certain side already before. But I will not attract
me because sentencing is not refute and only business rebuttal I will carefully consider
and if they prove to me that I was unfair to some people or incorrect display systems, I will
consider to improve, as sometimes prove necessary a second edition. Only arguments
value and any critics will do well themselves in their assessment to impose the duty of the
writer to think like the true way. As I looked at things from my point of view - and who does
not ?, objective we are not at all, because all objects reflect yet finally in the mirror of our
subject - I have no one spared, not even those which closest to me were, but I tried to be
honest in everything and to all. I have dared to say what I think because I've seen to many
as they dare not, they soon will dare to say what they do not think.

Multatuli said very true: "Only very few reviewers have enough artistic and moral realize
development of the difference between true and false art, ie between the art that derives
its strength from truth and artfully with which Lie must be presented as truth. Fake art
needs to corruption ... tricks. "

The same applies to the science.

Furthermore, I tried to be simple and understandable for all, and is nebulous and
incomprehensibility of a mark of scholarship, this work bears the stamp at all. I'm the old
doctrine devoted Boileau: ce qui se conoit bien, s'nonce claire ment. Et les mots pour le
dire se trou guy aisment (what one understands itself, it can also clearly say another and
one can easily find the words to say it) and got her used.

Or did it to me?
They left to the reader to answer this question.
This is not enough to make himself the word in magnis voluisse sat est . (The big one is to
have enough demand).
No, to the like belongs to the pairs themselves can .
 The history of the past, from the pursuit and search of our ancestors, we can learn so
much in the present, in order to ensure not be stranded on the rocks in which they were
shipwrecked and we sincerely hope that the pessimist gets uneven, which alas! too true
wrote: history teaches us nothing else than that the people learned nothing from.

Finally, we believe we have increased through a series of portraits, which appear in

them the value of this work [Unincorporated - MIA] .

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 1

Socialism in the earliest time

How many hundreds or thousands of years have passed, there are people living on
earth, of which we know nothing at all, which is of course not to say. Precisely due to
ignorance imagination had free rein to sign an idyllic society in which people lived together
peacefully and happily. But in reality the primitive man was such an idyllic essentially
failed and we suspect that if we encountered such a man originally from the genus copy,
we would run away in terror because of the appearance of the "animal". Hard and difficult
the struggle he had to perform in order to continue with the still raw earth, often unleashed
elements and the wildlife around him. Precisely because of his helplessness he seeks
more support from his peers and if one makes a distinction between the animals, which in
itself life and such who are in groups or herds, the man belongs unquestionably to the
second type, he is a herd or animal group. The raw violence of the strongest prevailed
then and everything in the era of bare animality man may have been difficult otherwise
than either slave either tyrant, either hammer or anvil. Incidentally, when we rid our society
of the layer of varnish lying about it spread - and is truly thick it, because scratching it for a
moment to the animality appears again, witness the wars that carry the "civilized" nations
in South Africa China, Madagascar, Aceh and elsewhere - then one discovers exactly the
same. All beings that move around the primitive man, in his eyes objects which he
supreme commands and he subordinate tries to his appetites and impulses when he feels
stronger than she and that he submits that he obeys, as he is too weak to resist them.

When we rely on the descriptions of the initial states, we instinctively feel a tendency to
glorify the past at the expense of the present and statements such as that of Mrs Stall:
freedom is old and tyranny is new, have it originated in thank. But we doubt it very much
whether they, too, the freedom of those old days would give the preference to those of the
present, though we are the first to acknowledge that there is a long time does not exist as
much reason to stand in vain handedness high over the past as do some unilateral
panegyrists of the present, in which the degree of freedom for the vast majority is still so
small.
 The latest research has increasingly come to light that two facts dominate the primitive
history of all peoples, namely the division of the people into relationship and the common
ownership of the land.

It is remarkable that we in the study of the original peoples, as they still exist here and
there, everywhere find those two things. What is the distinction between those peoples
and us? Nothing but a distinction in degree, not in substance. There was a time when our
ancestors exactly the same height, or rather low in the old days were as many now. One
could compare this distinction with a small child and an adult man, armed with all that
science has to put him in this position.

The American writer Morgan in his masterful, foundational work [1] so rightly
understood as "a critical study of the progressive development of the property idea in
many respects the most important part of the spiritual development history of mankind
would close in themselves."

It may be called remarkable that the social element is substantially in the landed
property, so that no private ownership of land has seen, but everywhere was the land
collectively owned by the tribe. And yet nothing is more natural than that, because the
man did not exist as an individual, but as part of the tribe. Not the individual man, but the
tribe was the multicellular unit of society.

This is the stark contrast between then and now, because today is precisely reversed
ownership stripped of any social character, because the basic idea is that every man with
his doings allowed what he wants, both the right of use as that of abuse . The property is
now a legal privilege of the individual, while when the collective property regulated the
conditions of prosperity for the tribe. And the German philosopher Immanuel Fichte
understood very well that "we shall come to a social organization of the property. It will be
exclusively private nature losses to be a public institution. Until now, to ensure the state
no obligation other than to everyone the peaceful enjoyment of what he possesses. Later
it will be the duty of the state to establish possession each one of the property on which
his needs and abilities entitle him. "

It is natural that Fichte as socialist state awarded it to the state, but those to the state
grant a temporary character, agree in principle with him, but bring the company about
what he would like to dedicate to the state.

In Sanskrit, it has been by language scholar Grimm not even a word for the concept of
ownership, proof so that they did not know the case and while later kept the land common
property, one could purchase a piece for his own use, viz. His home , a concept which still
shows the word compound derived from the Sanskrit arp , that means: take a piece
enclosed, so the community.

Maurer [2] claims that originally all was no real private property and that only from the
split of the common land, Mark, was born private property. And the modern concepts of
private property are drawn from Roman law and therefore relatively young date.
 Previously it was believed that the village communities as they now exist in Russia in
the mir, were a peculiarity of the Slavic peoples, and then they spoke of communist
tendencies that it possessed, but scientific research has now learned enough that nothing
of is on and that these communities have seen the same way everywhere in the most
different peoples, the Germans as well as in ancient Italy, in Peru as in China, Mexico and
India, the Scandinavian nations as in Arabia. The villagers on Java, the mir in Russia, the
Zadruga in the South Slavic countries, the mark in Germania, the folckland in England,
the allmingaer in Scandinavia, the Hamk and believe shears in Friesland, the Allmend in
Switzerland, the ager publicus in old Italy - see, everything points sufficient to indicate
how the various relics of the past, nothing more than that there was originally common
land ownership.

It has been found that the village community can not be considered as an institution,
exclusively typical of the Aryan races, for it has been found her on Java; Renan
discovered her among the unknown Semitic tribes of North Africa, Henry Maine Summer
among the Hindus, Morgan among the redskins of America, Elphinstone among
Afghans. The Mongolian oeloes , the Kabyle thaddart , the Malayan kota or TOFA are all
the same.

"As for the Hindus, no member of the united family can say he is a part of the undivided
ownership has held ... The income of the undivided ownership shall be paid in accordance
with the principles of the common purse or purse and used to the needs of the members
of the family. " [3] But this Hindu families," joint having the table, the worship and the
ground, "incessantly toeleggende on the cultivation of the land and live from his
productions" according to the needs an undivided family ", yet not form village
communities. They are only accidentally connected to the ground, whatever the extent of
their property they land.

It is not the soil that keeps them connected, but the bond of blood. Nothing prevents
them on the to focus development on the ground, as they exercise do otherwise often with
trade or a craft.

The common house and the communal table, which is the center part of the Hindu
family life, the common enjoyment of the ownership and management of the common
heritage by an elected director - there the essential elements of the Hindu institution, of
which one finds the traces Croatia, Dalmatia and Illyria.

It is a community of relatives. In contrast, in the village community, which they no

common property and common table takes longer, the soil is the foundation of the group.

The village is a collection of houses in a brief together, but each house is separated
from the others and access to it is prohibited to neighbors. The land of the village is no
longer common property of the community, because the land is divided among the various
households, likewise the pasture and only fallow land have been common. When the two
types of the village community, as it now exists, one sees well in Russia and one in India,
one will involuntarily back to see the traces it from an old collective ownership associated
with the blood of the villagers . So the common land was preceded, accompanied by
communal buildings and through a long series of successive changes and in a relatively
even close to our epoch has private property formed. As long as primitive man lived from
hunting, fishing, harvesting of wild fruits, he had no thought of appropriating a part of the
earth to himself, he considered the objects he had captured or seized, first as the owned
by his group, so he brought after the catch and they were divided, only later as his
property, because he had made loot, and so if the fruit consideration of his manual
labor. The shepherd period it only began to come to the concept of land ownership, first
attaches to the area, which usually cover the herds of each tribe and his frequent quarrels
that break the boundaries of this expanse. But the idea that a single person could claim a
share of the land as exclusively for itself, still came to nobody. Gradually permanent
residences peoples get there, where they will cultivate the land, farming is born. The
territory that occupies the clan or tribe and grows, the property of the clan or tribe
is. Arable land, pasture and forest are jointly exploited, later the arable land is divided into
pieces and drawn by lot to different families, but meadow and forest remain common
property. However, it is only a usufruct for some time, but the country remains belong to
the clan or tribe. Still further ahead, we see how the private and hereditary property
comes forth, but still caught between all kinds of shackles and bonds, until finally the
absolute sovereign, personal property occurs, as we described in our statute books under
the influence of Roman law find and as we understand it now. As Laveleye so rightly:
geology also tells us that some countries had a flora and fauna, which elsewhere have
long since disappeared. So they say that plants and animals are found in Australia
belonging to centuries prior to the geological development of our planet. The comparative
ethnology does in such cases, great services, and then if we find some people still
primitive forms, such as the Red Indians in America, we will be there to learn how our
ancestors lived in very ancient times.

We consider two basic forms of social control, two specific and systematic
organizations. The first and oldest was a purely social, resigned on quotas,
fratrin and tribes , the second political, founded on territory and property. The first is
based on kinship, the second is territorial, so relates to the territory. The first belonged to
the old, the second in modern society.

The gentielorganisatie is the oldest and we find it everywhere, because the Greek
gens, phratry and tribe, the Roman gens, curia and tribe find their analogy in the gens,
phratry and tribe of Native Americans. And similarly the Sept. Irish, Scottish clan, the
Phrara of Albanians and in Sanskrit the Ganas quite right and conformed to the gens of
the American Indians, commonly referred to as clan. Undeniably have finished the Morgan
investigations in this for good that gentielorganisatie was found around the world and that
it was transferred into the historical time by such strains, which have reached
civilization. Furthermore, in that the internal arrangement of the gentielmaatschappij was
also everywhere the same, and the differences, which are found by comparison, should
be attributed to the degree of development to which one has come, and therefore, are
nothing but higher or lower forms thereof.

The Latin gens , the Greek Gnos , the Sans Critical ganas all have the same
etymological origin, viz. Of gigno, gignomai and ganamai , which produce means and this
therefore indicates kinship of blood. A gene is a community of relatives, all of whom are
descended from a common ancestor, are indicated by a gentielnaam and are held
together by ties of blood. It covers only half of these descendants, because where the
lineage occurs in the maternal line - which is the oldest period, matriarchy is patriarchy in
advance - there is the gens composed of a grandmother and her children, in addition to
the children of the female descendants and is committed to continue uninterrupted in the
female line, and likewise goes into the gens, where the descent takes place in the
paternal line. For us, the family remains of the gentielnaam with descent in the paternal
line and inheritance in the same way. The modern family is an unorganized gens whose
ties of kinship and whose members are scattered far as the family name appears.

The Iroquois give according to Morgan the classic example of the gentielorganisatie,
especially because we find in them the development of the lower to the higher
forms. They built long, communal houses (long room) in their language Ho-de'-no-sote,
which even became the symbol of their alliance, as the Allies called themselves the
"people of the long house." These houses were spacious enough for five, ten, sometimes
twenty to accommodate families and each household was communist decorated. They
worked together, or the proceeds of any individual employment, obtained either by fishing
or hunting through, or otherwise, was for the community. Was there famine or shortage, all
shared equally in there and they did not find the contradictions of today which produces
famine for some and wealth for others.

The Constitution, the ius gentilicium existed in these rights and duties:
I. the right of electing their sachems (drivers in peacetime) and heads (commanders in the
war);
II. the right to turn it off;
III. the duty not to marry within the gens;
IV. the right to inherit the property of deceased members;
Q. mutual obligation to help, defense and reconciliation for damage;
VI. the right to give their fellow members names;
VII. the right to take strangers into the gens;
VIII. Common religious rites;
IX. a common cemetery;
X. board meeting the Gentiel-enjoyed.

As regards Section IV, must be considered that this property consisted in nothing else
than in articles of personal use, so that it could be to do the value, but only a memory, a
memory of the deceased. And now one can herein have three different forms: 1 . it is
distributed among all, which is the lowest level, that of wildness; 2 . it is distributed
among the agnatic [4] relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the other Gentiel
mates, which is the middle stage of barbarism; 3 . it is inherited by the children of the
deceased to the exclusion of other agnates, this is the highest stage of barbarism.

In Northeast Greenland has been also found the long house, sometimes fired a
common fire in the shape of a cross, and in that case is in the middle. The families live
together in, separated by thin partitions worn canvas and a German expedition, which
spent a winter close to one of those "long houses" assured that no contention during the
whole winter ever peace in this narrow space bothered. Scold or even an unkind word is
considered misconduct. And why families and groups to stay together? Because they
have no choice because they are the hard struggle can carry life only by joining
forces. The importance makes them communists and thus the bond which holds them
together, does not need to be tied laws or coercion, he not exist, because it is necessary
and everyone feels its necessity.

Darwin also saw into man's social tendencies, the main factor in his development,
where he writes: "the weak force and the slow speed of movement of people and the lack
of natural weapons are more than weighed, first by his faculties (which he says in another
place in his book, that they are produced exclusively by the community life) and secondly
by his tendency to cooperate with his fellow men "and his disciples, who claim the
opposite, showing thereby the master poorly understood have. We do not need to idealize
the wild in the state of nature, as they often did before, but we do not see the necessity in
order to fall into the opposite error, and he attributed all imaginable "bestial" features. He
is neither the ideal of virtue nor the height of barbarism, but he owns one property, which
they developed, maintained by the demands of the hard struggle for existence, he
identifies his own existence with that of his tribe, and without that quality mankind would
never have reached its present level of development. Every act of a wild is considered an
act of the tribe. The tribesmen share everything together, each piece of food is distributed
to all attendees and as the wild only in the woods, he does not begin eating before he has
called three times loudly, so that everyone who hears him can come to participate in his
times.

Within the tribe applies unconditionally to the principle "all for all", but every tribe is an
entity in itself and therefore this principle is not extended to the neighboring tribes. This
difference between the relationship to his fellows and to strangers obviously gives a
double conception of morality and the reason is that many a totally false impression of the
wanted. But we must not accept that all the European is somewhat - in reality it is often
just the opposite - more advanced, already expanded our notions of solidarity to the
nation, sometimes to other nations, the same concept has been weakened within the
limits of their own people and their own family?

All companies of the barbarians under all climates and of all races matches with
monotony talking to each other.

From this organization of kinship developed later, the village community and so there
was a time when this innovation emerged, which gave a different look to society.

When later took place the large population movements and the tribes from the east
here and there down left to settle in when they still saw the traces of the old concepts
because Caesar eg. Says that each tribe is not down left according to fancy or chance but
according sexual relationship of the members of the tribe. A certain district fell to the
neighboring, larger groups, where some families that include a certain number of families,
let himself down village wise. Several related villages formed a hundred shelf (former
German huntari , former Norwegian heradh ), several hundred shelves a shire, the whole
of the shires was the people themselves.
 A comparison of the free market enjoyed sooner or partaker of the Allmend in
Switzerland with today's "free" peasant, what a distinction! The receiver of taxes and the
bailiff standing behind him were the mark enjoyed previously as unknown quantities when
the mortgage loan shark or any increase in land values draining landowner today. No
wonder the impoverishment of the masses with the disappearance of the communal land
ownership as a necessary consequence merged. And of course disappeared freedom of
yesteryear, for man, separated from the land on which he lives, to be dependent on others
who own the land. William Cobbett said truthfully: "What is a slave? A slave is one who
has no property and ownership presupposes the possession of something that a person
can not be deprived without his consent. A slave has no property and someone who is
forced to give the fruit of his labor to another according to the will of the other person, has
no ownership of his work, so he is a slave, or the fruit of his labor directly or indirectly is
taken. To say that he was the fruit of his labor gives according to his own will and he is not
forced to do so, I answer, not forced, no, if he wants to have a shortage of food and
clothing, but otherwise he must die and that conditions only he can refuse to give up the
fruits of his labor. "

We see communism not as an invention of the modern era, but as an old institution,
found and used in the infancy of our race. The use, on which the rules of owning and
inheriting property, be determined and modified by the state and level of society. So grown
private property in that state, it is because there was a phase of development in which the
collective property did not fit into the framework of the then society and was relatively an
advance in the history of civilization. It is therefore that form as the last word of wisdom be
seen? As if we ever stop, if we then would not petrify! No, "everything that exists, it is
worth it to perish", and therefore this type of property will survive and is even trying to do
so. Everything is a "be forever." If it was true that the general recognition an infallible sign
would be of necessity and consequently the legitimacy of an institution, as here the
famous applies quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper (which by all, which
everywhere and what is always assumed), then one would have to conclude from the
general habit of collective property, which existed everywhere, that form most closely with
nature. Now what the future will bring us, who will reveal it? But our society can remain
impossible squeezed into the straitjacket of the contemporary property, which feels,
understands that every thoughtful man. This form of ownership is all too clearly struggling
to survive themselves and the flow passing through the world, points in the direction of
common ownership, at least to the extent that we now see power.

Morgan also understands that in his beautiful book, which he ends with these words:

"Since the onset of civilization is the increase in wealth soo, his form so different, its
use so vast and its management as appropriate in the interests of the owners that this
wealth to the people an overwhelming power become. The human mind is distraught and
bewildered his own creation. Yet that human reason will be the time will be strong enough
to rule the wealth, which they will determine both the relationship of the state to the
property it protects, as the limits of the rights of the owners. The interests of the company
go completely over the interests of individuals and both must be placed in a just
harmonious relationship. The mere pursuit of wealth is not the end of humanity, though
progress remains the law of the future, as it was he who in the past. The time has gone by
since the dawn of civilization is only a small fragment of time that lies ahead. The
dissolution of the society is threatening to lock the door when a historian career, whose
sole goal was to gain wealth; because such a career contains the elements of its own
destruction. Democracy in management, brotherhood in society, equality of rights, general
education will inaugurate the forthcoming higher plane of society to which experience,
reason and science work continuously. It will be a revival, but in a higher form of freedom,
equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes. "

_______________
[1] Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from savagery through
barbarism to civilization by Lewis H. Morgan.
[2] History of Fronhfe, the Bauernhfe und der Hofverfassungen in Deutschland.
[3] Moore's Indian Appeals XI.
[4] agnates helping all those who make up a family under the rule of a family head, so not
only the relatives.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 2

Socialism in Egypt, Persia, China

To be somewhat full, we should mention some socialist phenomena in different parts of

the world where they have displayed to the horizon. Although it is extremely difficult here
at the inadequate resources, possessed is certainly to give an overview, which fully
corresponds to reality, but it can not require that we give more than we have come to
know.

We will also in this chapter can not keep time, because what we tell about Egypt was
3000 years ago, while the socialist movement in Persia dates back to the 5th century AD
and in China even in the 11th century AD .

So each of these phenomena is what concerns time and place entirely on its own.

***

Ancient Egypt of the pharaohs resembled very much a socialist state, and here we thus
find proof that an absolute hereditary monarchy can be found a socialist organization of
production and consumption.

But also we have here evidence that the communist mode of production alone, without
more, the working class can not protect repression.

We by no means claim that the ancient Egyptian state was purely communist, nor is
there currently a purely individualistic economic condition is present, no, it was a
hodgepodge, which according to business drove over one or the other element.
 During the great King Ramses, the biblical pharaoh of the Israeli oppression, from
whose time most of the documents of Egyptian history come, all the factories, all the ships
and vehicles, all slaves, all fortresses and whole soil public property or rather all
belonged, as they said then, to the kings. However, the king did not have all the means of
production for personal use, but as head of the priesthood, that the administration was
talking about.

In Genesis, the first book of the Bible, one finds the familiar story of the seven lean
years, which Joseph as viceroy succeeded by good successful speculation to make the
whole country to the property of the king. But the Old Testament is only 700 years after
the Exodus of Moses from Egypt composite [5] and that is why later states repeatedly
placed in former times. Private property right in the modern sense of the word has never
existed during Ramesses the Great. The Jews were in any case immediately after the
Exodus Moses and private economic farmer was everything, as yet again recently
demonstrated by Ruhland in Zukunft (VII, no. 11, vol. 1899), a revolutionary economic
reformer.

Moses apparently reacted against existing communism, which the working class was
suppressed gross. Exodus (Exodus) from Egypt was a revolution in the construction of the
pyramids USED stonemasons and bricklayers and Moses went to work as a true
revolutionary, to break with the religion, the production and distribution means, the military
organization, marriage and family, even with the power control his dietary laws. We can
assume that these are all entirely different from that which existed in Egypt. And he meant
by legalized his ideas to maintain the political power of the working class. For this
consideration we find enough clues in the Bible. He gave the people the self-government,
it warned against the monarchy as a form of tyranny and introduced judges as supreme
directors. In a word, he changed the economic, political and religious foundations of
society and it is difficult to imagine that a single man such can create a giant work, so we
believe that all kinds of reforms in several times, finally all but simply in the name of were
put Moses.

Moses promised his people freedom of the Egyptian state socialism country for them
and their children, equality before the law with republican institutions of self-government,
and brotherhood as children of the same father, although the Hebrews of that time, even
according to the Bible, not a homogeneous racial unity formed. Opposite the Egyptian
state socialism Moses was a radical individualist. So he determined that every piece of
arable land, how much debt there in crowds, and though it was sold, would be back in the
jubilee year to the original owner. Whether that provision has been followed ever be
questioned, yet it remains a characteristic feature that does know his mind. The surviving
brother was obliged to marry the childless widow of his brother, so involved was
hereditary reserve. He acknowledged therefore an absolute hereditary property.

The powerful familiezin of the Semites, that still exists, certainly contributed a lot to do
to find the idea of family heredity input.
 Moses gave a lot of value which was obtained by the civilization of the Egyptians. With
him no compromises, Yahweh was a God that would brook no others beside him, he had
to be all or nothing, he seized the man in all the manifestations of his life.

Egypt had found several revolutions before Moses instead. So abolished king
Chuenaten already off the polytheism before Moses; so different kings were deposited to
bring the decision of the means of production in the hands of the monarchs of the land
chiefs. But those efforts were short-lived and Moses dates the eventual establishment of
hereditary private property for this part of the world.

The fact that Egypt at the time of Ramses was a state socialist society. All public offices
were socialized, the production of raw materials, my products, paper, building materials,
textiles, grave memorials, everything was in the hands of the state as well as the foreign
trade was driven by royal officials on behalf of the king (of the state) . Socialized was also
the health service. If someone was sick, it was reported that the driver of pastoforen who
ordered the addition of specialty physicians, as they had in Egypt as well as in our
specialties for all dental masters, eye and throat specialists, abdominal doctors, head
doctors, brain doctors and gynecologists. Was cured patient, the practice brought with it,
he is a freewill offering in -kind brought to the temple which belonged to his
doctor. However, they were not obliged to do so. Private and public movement in Egypt
strongly socialized.

That was Moses to work rough, would be derived from the story of the Egyptian priest
Manetho, but a somewhat suspect source, which he put all the towns and villages on fire,
plundered the temples and idols mutilated.

In Egypt, the traces of the old state socialism remaining to date. So even today among
most of the land to the Khedive, which farmers receive 10 to 20% of the proceeds. The
owners are considered as usufruct and the Khedive is the actual and true owner [6] .

***

In Persia one has had a communist sect in the 5th century, as evidenced by an extract
from a Turkish translation of the History of Persia by Thabari, printed in 1848 in
Constantinople in five parts.

This excerpt is as follows:

"By the end of the reign of Kobad came from the city of Nisa in Khorassan Mazdec the
Zendic (strong spirit), who claimed to be a prophet. He suggested according to the religion
of the Magi in the worship of fire and the marriage of mothers with their sons, the
daughters with their fathers and brothers with their sisters. He taught that there is no
property in the world and that God was the sole owner, that no marriage exists, that God
created the world for the sons of Adam, that must have everything in common, and that
each has the same right; it is not lawful to say this is my property, my wife, my daughter
or my son; that no one has any right to money, cattle, women, to have boys or girls; that it
is not permitted that has a more goods, more cattle than the other; that all one has to be
in joint ownership.

This new law fit very well for all idlers, vagabonds, players and professional soldiers,
who all joined Mazdec and his teachings declared to hang. In a short time he was a big
name and a crowd of supporters. Finally left Kobad (king) Mazdec with him called and
asked him information about his teaching. Mazdec, who was a man of sweet words,
ended by persuading the king, so they converted to his teachings. The conversion of the
king put the teaching of Mazdec enforce; He had hitherto been teaching dare not preach
in public, since Kobad had declared in his favor, he promoted her openly. The beggars
and the poor got the upper hand. They began passersby to deprive their money and
livestock, then take the wives and daughters of their pleasing, no one dared to say that
my wife, my daughter, my sister, my mother or my son. Women mingled with their sons,
each one lived at his pleasure; Day had come from wickedness and crimes. The
supporters of Mazdec seized Kobad and prevent access to those who did not belong to
their party, and that could teach the king of the true state of affairs. It came so far that the
mothers their sons, daughters their mothers did not know anymore. The faithful, the pious,
were excluded from the wise; they did not know what to do anymore. "

Whether drawn from this or from another source Franck does in the Histoire de la
Perse (a translation of Malcolm's History of Persia) and the Bibliothque Orientale
d'Herbelot about the same story, and he describes this effort thus:

In Persia preached by the end of the 5th century AD during the reign of Kobad's father
Chosrou or Chosroes, a bigot, especially Mazdec, with great success the community of
goods and women.

"All things, animate and inanimate, he said, belonged to God, it is wicked for a man to
want-usurp what belongs to its creator and what should remain in use for all as such."
This doctrine was large following and one must also count the king of supporters. It
ensures that the reformer him as proof of his repentance, dared ask to make him the
queen and that this sacrifice would be permitted without the tears and prayers of
Chosroes. What may be true of this particularity, the fact is that the students Mazdec
brought the principles of their master in practice and not recoiled for robbery and looting,
and the country devastated. A revolution was needed to restore order. The flower of the
nation revolted, drove the king and his favorite and put the brother of Kobad on the
throne. Some years later, under the government and by the order of Chosrou Mazdec
died with his main supporters after heavy torture and his influence disappeared with
him. He received the progeny nickname Zendik, ie the wicked.

This description does not seem to come from a friend and also attempts by no means a
ready insight or give an explanation of the action and work of this reformer.

***
 In the 11th century, China wrong in a state of crisis. The dynasty of Heou-Tcheou was
replaced after a reign of 40 years by that of Song, which at the time was superseded in
the year 479, now to appear again after an eclipse in 600 years.

The 10th century was rich in events. Six dynasties were overthrown, disorder and
destruction were found everywhere. The Tartars were forced into the empire, a religious
and political skepticism was the order of the day and China prey to civil war, was divided
into many camps.

"Society is based on laws, and laws are unjust and chicane - laws on property and
ownership injustice, laws on religion and religion is a lie, laws on violence and violence is
tyranny," - such is the propositions that could be heard . Clean up, and then pull up on the
ruins of the existing building a new social - that was how the nihilism of those days wanted
to work in China.

But were disjointed elements, they waited only a person, to be flesh and that person
was Wang-ngan-che.

Born in 1027, he received an excellent education and devoted himself mainly to the
study of history. His knowledge as well as his eloquence were widely praised high. His
manners were impeccable, his will was strong and his amazing work force. Although he
sought a reform of society in head and members, he tried to join to bring the existing and
his teachings in accordance with the five holy books and the four classic books, which the
institutions rested he wanted to destroy . His name soon penetrated in the court circles
and in the prevailing confusion could come as no surprise that he was even summoned by
the emperor to develop his theories. Emperor Chen-Tsoung received a very favorable
impression of him, and he won the Emperor for his ideas. Only the Emperor's powerful
adviser SSE Mon-Kouang withstood him.

The year 1069 was disastrous for China. Disease, earthquakes, drought, famine in the
provinces, everything came together as it were, to bring misery and poverty in the worst
degree. The Minister SSE Mon-Kouang left a research setting to what extent there was
something wrong in the behavior of the emperor, or whether there were abuses crept into
the government elicited divine wrath. The emperor had to lock himself in his palace.

Wang-ngan-che laughed at this, but he was not consulted, but when the emperor
summoned the state council and discussed the business, the result was that his power
was instructed to improve the situation. The chiefs of the religious party were all banished
now, the previous minister SSE had to leave the field to its opponents, who sought more
rational causes for the sad condition.

He began his improvements and proposed a state socialism.

The state was single and overall owner of all land. In each district, he established a
chamber of agriculture, which was responsible for the annual distribution of land among
the cultivators and decided what needed to be rebuilt. The yield belonged to the state,
which regulated the distribution to the needs and the number of the population. He stated
that this room would impose a special tax on the rich. The magistrates decided who arm
and he was rich. The state determined the price of food. By crop failure in some point
made the Main Board in Beijing, which was to meet the need. All reports of the different
rooms came to this council, which was as much as the unitary authority in the state. So
there need be no famine and they loved the food at a low price. In the good years they hit
stock in large warehouses so that they could complement the bad that came up short. The
state earned large profits, which were used for public works.

Wang ngang-che proclaimed that it was the primary duty of a government to love the
people and to provide the necessary benefits of living that exist in abundance and joy. To
achieve this goal, it would be sufficient for all to inculcate the immutable rule of
righteousness, but to obtain it would not be possible for all the precise fulfillment of these
rules the state by wise and inflexible laws was the way determination to fulfill them. The
greed for profit, wealth, material enjoyment stood in the way and if we lifted the cause, the
consequences would be gone. The cause was now the wealth. It was important to ensure
that it did not arise. Trade, banking, industry, usury were the wealth and therefore they
should be abolished. To this end the state monopoly over everything and would have all
got their share of the general prosperity. No one would be rich, but nobody are poor, all
alike, envy and hatred would disappear. The only ones who would suffer from that
change, the loan sharks were the swindlers, people who enriched themselves at the
expense of the misery of the people, but that was nothing.

So the state was the only capitalist, the sole landowner, the only manufacturer, the only
merchant who decided on everyone's ability and this is made for its own
benefit. Individuality was wrapped up in the corporate omnipotence.

Wang had all the power and the emperor granted him all his support. The rich were
silent. Moreover, the load was controlled so that they would have nothing left within 5
years.

The only one who still stirred, was SSE-ma-Kouang. He served an otherwise very
sober piece in the emperor, to argue that it would backfire. Wang when it came under the
eyes, he laughed and he continued his work without bothering to those
concerns. However, he removed all who supported not entirely him, but refrained from any
cruelty to his enemies. These long-suffering made them brave. They began to murmur
even at court and the emperor considered it prudent to convene the State Council. As
Wang spoke very calmly and rationally:

"What's the hurry? Wait for the experience off on the good or bad result of what we
have done for the benefit of the rich and the happiness of your subjects. Every beginning
is difficult and can only be overcome after the initial difficulties, one can hope to see some
fruit of his work. Be strong and everything will go well. Your great, your mandarins come to
me, I'm not surprised. It takes them a lot of effort to rise above the ordinary routine and
follow new use. They will gradually accustom to, and as they do, the aversion they will
cherish naturally against what they regard to new, disappear and praise will finish what
they now reject. "
 His power constantly increased, and when his friends advise him to get rid of those who
concentrated on his destruction, he said. "It measures the towers to their shade and
statesmen to their envious" When one of his intimates he said that his fall would also be
the downfall of the empire and that his ideas would disappear with him, he replied: "All the
old mistakes are doomed to disappear; after 100 million difficulty, sophistry, lies, sophistry
the smallest truth is exactly what it was. "

However, the misery continued, the results were slight. The emperor remained loyal to
him and the people hoped but still in the millennium would come.

When he got the scholars against him, he had a formidable adversary, because it was
powerful in the Chinese empire.

But to his misfortune his friend died, the emperor, and now he lost his great
support. The Empress, made anxious by the screams of his enemies, discouraged by the
little success of his plans, dropped him back down and called SSE Mon-Kouang. This
proved to be equally magnanimous towards his opponent as it had been before
him. Shortly thereafter died Wang and his work was soon gone. Two years later died SSE,
known in the history books as an able minister and a good man.

One might Wang because of his brilliant gifts and his socialist state plans to call
Chinese Lassalle, only with this difference that Wang was in power and held hands 15
years so that he could realize his plans. He worked under particularly favorable
conditions, for which party head ever could as a master have the power needed to make
his plans a reality? Lassalle would have gone better with its famous hundred millions to?

There was none of his work and if it is true, as he said himself, the smallest truth even
after all that they had, we would be tempted to say that is no truth in state socialism, for
then it would be victorious have had to cope with everything and not gone with his
creator. [7]

_______________
[5] Prof. Kuenen writes in his Hist.crit. examination of the books of the Old Testament that
most laws are not of years but of centuries, separated by a space of time. The collection
of books of the Old Testament must be made in any case after the Babylonian exile.
[6] The sources refer to this section to Brugsch Passover Story of the Pharaohs; Georg
Ebers, Die fnf Bcher Mosis, Durch Gosen, Skizzen vom Nil von Franz Woenig in
Reclam's Bibliothek.
[7] See the Revue des Deux Mondes of 1886, which, however, no sources are
mentioned.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 3
Socialism in Israel

As with all nations in the earliest time we'll Gentiel scheme to the ancient
Israelites. Every nation was originally organized in tribes or groups, which were based on
actual blood and completely equal rights of all members. The individual members of the
tribe had nothing in treasury, the tribe had owned and everyone could get a part in use but
may not alienate it. From that state, we still find some traces even in historical time in
which reigned private property. Each tribe lived alone and apart from the deliberative
assembly of the people's authority rested in the hands of the leaders of the families and
tribes elected by the people. In case of war, they chose one or the other, who excelled in
bravery, to captain, but once the war was over, it turned back into private life. Think, for
instance. Cincinnatus in Rome, who are concerned to have the victory over the enemy
after his people, returned to his team. Later, when the emergency tribes brought closer
together, they took a common leader or a king. But this word must be direct modern
meaning set aside, for such a king was in fact nothing more than the captain and judge
and his office bound to the council of elders. Then the tribes of Israel to Canaan
"promised land" conquered with the edge of the sword, it was distributed to all
households, families, genera and tribes and have been assigned by lot according to the
numerical strength of the families. Not so a landlordism hand with entire regions land in a
few hands and others helpless and penniless on the road going, no country energy
robbers and vagrants other, but the land for all and all their living hauling out of the
country. Those pieces were family-owned, so collective and inalienable possession and
no worse curse than against whoever the landmarks of his closest opposition.

It is very difficult with some certainty about Israel's history to say something, when
legends and history are intertwined in such a way that they can not be separated from
each other. Thus saith the surrender of a certain Moses, which would have given the law
and would have formed the scattered tribes by law to one people. But whether that name
is a proper name or a title that can not even be put out. The same strain is found in the
Indian name Manu, the Egyptian menu, Minos Greek and Hebrew Moses, the word Manu
means "legislator"; all those other names have their origins of that word and therefore an
emanation of Indian notions.

There are obviously different layers in the oldest Bible books, and who come from
different times, so we contains a collection of different traditions found alongside and
together, uncritical and ill-placed interlacing, so sometimes one piece is diametrically
opposed to the other. It is quite possible that Moses himself has written nothing, and so he
did it all, his work, such as the ten "words" or commandments, modified later so that it was
an entirely different character, though its foundation from Moses.

In the 6th century BC has lost the people of Israel are independent national existence
and it was Ezra, who got out of the Persian king Artaxerxes permission to return with
some of his people from exile to Judah. The lawyer was now, which are by and printed by
priestly spirit of the Jewish people and likely is it that this purifier also had a hand in the
fashion of the literary products, which he found scattered and together collected, although
the present beam of writings known as the Old Testament, can not possibly come from
him, since several books dating apparently from exile and others only then be made. So
when we speak of Moses, we mean the Mosaic law and who read this carefully, be
amazed about the human spirit that dwells in it. Certainly may reveal the wonder that
while Lycurgus and Solon as legislators have become famous, Moses is not nearly the
same extent. Who knows for example. Moses and social legislature? And yet, if one
compares the laws of Moses with the others, they undeniably are higher, so they stabbing
favorably against most contemporary laws. In the different history of socialism, we find out
the name of Moses, while the others often do get a place.

In various places, it is clearly stated that Jehovah is the owner of the land, to whom
belongs the earth and the people users and more. Hence, it not always can be sold and
therefore private property in absolute terms there is none here. The joint ownership of the
earth and everything on it and in it, because it was given to all - there what is written on
the first page of the IP (see Gen. 1:28, 29).

The legislation is summarized in three parts, not mentioned oneigenaardig: the "trilogy
of the Mosaic institutions", namely: 1 . the seven-day Sabbath ; 2 . the seven-year
sabbatical and 3 . the seven seven-year jubilee .

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work" reads the Deut. 5:13, it shows that the
labor was obligatory and equal for all. So here is the absence of contempt for the work,
which is found elsewhere.

What provisions are not made for the benefit of the poor! So that one the day laborer on
the day on which he works, so before going down of the sun, his pay will pay, because he
is poor (Deuteronomy 24:15 and Leviticus 19:13..); that no usury should take his brother,
but will lend him whatever he needs without asking for interest. (Usury and interest are of
equal significance words, even in Greek); that one should not enter into the house of him,
of whom one has something borrowed, to deprive him of a property, but must wait until he
brings out his pledge; that one should not put to sleep with his pledge, but must give him
back the property, before the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless
you; that they never lower the upper millstone should take a pledge, because then you will
pledge to life; that one should not take in pledge the garment of a widow; that one should
not oppress the poor and needy hired servant, whether he is a brother or a stranger; that
they forget the sheaf on the harvested field will allow for the stranger, the orphan and the
widow; that people will not read the olive groves, vineyards and fields, as the gleanings for
the stranger, the orphan and the widow; so that even in front of the animals should be
humanely, so they rested on the Sabbath, and one they should not unnecessarily pests,
eg. to muzzle the ox when he is thirsty.

The seventh year is to equip the ground. "Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six
years prune your vineyards and gather their income. But in the seventh year a sabbath of
rest unto the land, a sabbath of the Lord; thy field thou shalt neither sow nor prune thy
vineyard. Thou shalt not reap what will naturally bring forth the earth, thou shalt not cut off
the grapes of your isolation, because it is the year of rest for the land. And the yield of the
Sabbath of the land will be used for food for you, and your servant and your maidservant
and thy hired servant that works for you and for the stranger that dwelleth with you. "(Lev
25:. 2-7). "Next year will also mean that all debts are released, they will not be allowed
mane his neighbor, because it is the year of release of the Lord." (Deut. 15: 2). "And
likewise it will be brother or sister, who sold to you release that year, they have served you
six years, in the seventh, they will be free. And such people will not send away empty-
handed, but give him your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. "(Deut. 15: 12-
15).

Thirdly, one has the fiftieth or Jubilee, which is written: "You shall proclaim the fiftieth
year, and liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants, it shall be a jubilee and ye shall
return every man unto his possession, and every man unto his family. This jubilee year
will be the fiftieth year; you shall not sow, nor reap what matter will be grown thereon, nor
the grapes of separation cut it. Because this is the year of jubilee, it shall be holy, thou
shalt from the field eating their income. In this year of jubilee ye shall all return to your
possession. If you sold what your neighbor or if you have bought something from him, not
doing justice to your neighbor; but buy from him in proportion to the years that have
elapsed since the jubilee and he will sell you in proportion to the number of years in order
to reap the revenues. thou shalt increase the price to the multitude of years and for thou
shalt diminish the fewness of years, because what he has sold, is a time of income. Let no
man oppress his neighbor, but fear thy God: for I am the Lord your God. "(Leviticus 25:.
10-18).

What was the purpose of those provisions?

In order to counteract the accumulation of goods, so in order the original equality that
threatened to be disrupted, to re-establish again. The man, who had become poor, did not
have to stay forever deprived of his, well the jubilee opened for him the opportunity to
return again in his possession. Bottom line is the legislature that no arms will be, as
mentioned in Deut. 15: 6 it says, "there will be no poor man among you, for the LORD will
bless you in the land which he will give as inheritance, but on condition that you give heed
his call and bring all its laws into effect. "

And also explains he has the duty of charity, because "if one of your brethren became
poor, remain your heart will open and close your hand to the poor brother, leaving her
wide open and lend him properly what is missing . "(Deut. 15: 7). This constitutes
borrowing, but not to advantage to reach him, because "thou shalt take no interest of thy
brother, neither for money, nor for any other value. The stranger thou mayest lend upon
interest, but your brother is not. "(Deut. 23:20). He does not want capital appreciation
without labor. a corner of his fields of his vineyard, he ordered not every landowner to
leave the poor (Lev. 25), while he could not pick up the remaining sheaves and which can
be read on its own field. (Deut. 24:19).

The Sabbath, the Sabbath year and the Jubilee regulate the relationship of man to
God, his peers and the ground. Man may employ the land as a means of production, he
may enjoy it, but he can not keep it in perpetual possession.

so they had right to use and even this was about eight of the fifty years, viz. one pair of
seven, so seven years plus the Jubilee itself, that makes eight years, ie about impossible
for a sixth.
 One denies that these laws have ever been implemented and we can not possibly
provide evidence to the contrary, but the fact is still not explain away that those laws are
handed down to us and that they exude a particular human mind, as yet in the target
apparently everything is to the poor, the unfortunate, to protect the weak against the
pretensions of the rich.

The prophets we repeatedly find warnings in the same vein against the accumulation of
wealth and the extortion and oppression of the poor.

Spoke eg non Isaiah (5: 8). The woe on those who brought home draw home field to
field, till there is no place more, and that you have all bijwoonders, (ie people without land)
have been made in the midst of the land (Isa. 5: 8)? he does not want a state in which
"they shall build houses and inhabit them and will plant vineyards and eat the fruit
itself. They will not build that another inhabit; they shall not plant eating someone else, for
enjoying the days of my people will be like the days of trees and my people will be the
work of his hands. "(Isa. 65:21, 22)?

Was it not the social reformer Nehemiah, who came up against the nobles and
government charges demanded from the people, and he called them not to return them
yet their fields and vineyards again with the hundredth part of the money and the corn on
the size and the oil, which have advanced them? (Neb. 5).

On the constitution of the Jews on the basis of the Old Testament Schall
wrote [8] rightly: "it is the land and soil, why in the last analysis our whole social
development and to move its center, because no true without land there is freedom, and
without freedom there is no escaping the social distress. "So he sees the reason for the
lack of freedom of the peoples of the lack of land ownership or land use right.

There in the law makes a distinction between land and city property. From the ground
the Lord is the owner, lessee or the human user. The country needs all feed, so each
must work and be able to appropriate the product of his labor. prevent different rules or
limit individually owned, so it will not be exclusively and lose their charitable status. Hence
any servitudes for the benefit of those who have nothing, as we have already some were
to communicate.

As for the city property, "who sells a house inside the city walls, which has a whole
extra year to fix it again. This will be within which he may fix the time. But if he does not
solve the honor of the entire year, the buyer and his descendants will forever preserve
and it will not come off in the jubilee. "(Lev. 25:29, 30). Incidentally, if one could
impoverished another family member, act as kinsman to redeem him and he kept himself
than at any time repurchase.

Moses began with a protest against slavery and was able to deliver his people from the
state of slavery. No wonder he did not want slavery, the slave was a salaried in-law (Lev.
25:39).
 When an impoverished brother offered itself for sale, thou shalt not let him as a slave
service. He will remain with you as a wage slave and you no longer serve than to the year
of jubilee, and when he will go to return to his family and to the property of his fathers, for
they are all my slaves, whom I have redeemed from Egypt . They may never be sold as
slaves.

He also forces the next of kin of an Israelite who as a slave to a foreigner living in the
land had been sold to buy it separately, saying, "He (the redeemed) will be for you a
salaried been year after year, and he will again leave in the jubilee "Even the death
penalty was imposed on any person who sells another as a slave (Deuteronomy 24: 7.)
and recommends the strange slave that supply has not taken the district from,". he at you
remain wherever he chooses. Thou shalt not oppress him "(Deut. 23:16). The laws came
into collision with the use ingrained and so that Moses was forced to make concessions,
either himself or others after him - this is not to separate more and make out - hence the
provision in Ex. 21 that no Israelite was entitled to sell for longer than until the Schemitah
who turned back all seven years. Did the slave after the Schemitah so happy that he
chose slavery over freedom, he was ordered to do by drilling his earlobe by his master as
permanent badge. In spite of this concession, he had nevertheless given freely be held in
the jubilee year, all seven times seven Schemitahs, so over 49 years, returned
again. Nevertheless, he was forced to serve as a soldier, that is, that he was a citizen,
though he had pledged his freedom.

We can not go down too much in parts, but if we say that the Mosaic laws, whether of
Moses or of another or others, work as a duty brought alive, that he is the equality of all,
the Israelite well as the stranger, promulgated the law (Lev. 24:22), he of some
accumulation of fortunes in the hands stopped by the sabbatical and jubilee years, he did
not want slavery and extremely softened in any case, he income tax introduced. Viz. The
tenth of each income (Deuteronomy 14:22.), He introduced general conscription, (each
was a soldier from the 20th to the 60th year Num 1:.. 3), and herein was an example to
the Baron von Stein which it introduced in Prussia, he instituted the judges (Deut. 16:18),
he instituted the general election, so that met all the people, both men and women, who
responded to each legislative table at the promulgation of the law "Amen", that gave their
approval, he instituted the republic, the woman was considered so high in any legislation
and even been present at the meeting to give its approval to the laws and that charity was
made to base the ethics, (Leviticus 19:18.) - if we take all these things into consideration,
arises the idea to us, or our society would not have progressed a lot more if they the
Mosaic spirit and laws, then by the Roman became animated. In any case, we are filled
with respect for this legislation, and we consider it unfair that it is neglected as a whole in
the treatment of social legislation.

Among the later Jews, we take a sect to, known by Essenes, including community
property existed. The well-known historian Flavius Josephus wrote about them in his
Jewish Wars, Book II, Chapter VIII of the following: "They (the Essenes) are also born
Jews and interconnected by great love. More than the others flee the sensual pleasures
as sin and keep temperance and controlling the passions of virtue. They despise wealth
and maintain among themselves an admirable community of property, as we find among
them anyone who owns more than others. Indeed, it is to become obligatory for all
members of the sect, to surrender their power to the association, so that one of them sees
no deep poverty nor excessive wealth, but all as brothers funds have from the aggregated
ownership of any particularly . The directors of the common ability to be elected by ballot,
while all without discrimination is required to have all others service. They have no city,
which is exclusively inhabited by the followers of their sect, but in every city live many of
them. From elsewhere coming followers of the sect is all that they find them, to serve as if
it were their property and to people they have never seen before, they enter as with old
friends. It will therefore take on a journey without sustenance; only they are equipped with
weapons to defend themselves against robbers. In every city is an officer of the
association appointed with the specific goal to provide foreigners and provide them with
clothing and other necessities ... buy Among themselves, and they sell nothing but each
gives the other of his own he needs, as he will also receive reciprocal what he does; even
without refund, each of whom he also wants to use the necessary. "

Those who wish to join must go through a trial year to stand the test of temperance, the
character will be tested during the next two years, and only then it is worthy of inclusion in
the community. Before they may participate in the communal meals, one must swear a
chilling oath that they will honor the deity, his duties to the people play, no harm nor its
own initiative or at the behest of others, always unjust hate and righteous assist always
will show fidelity to all and especially towards the government because nobody custody
without God gave him. Furthermore, he must swear, if he should be clothed with authority
once himself, his power not to abuse and neither clothes nor by other jewelry will sparkle
over his subordinates. He must intend to have the truth, love and expose the liars, the
hands of theft and soul of dishonest gain to keep clean, for his confreres nothing to hide,
but rather to reveal to others any of their secrets, even though they are tortured to death.

Their common meals consisted of one bread and one dish with meat. That meat was
only vegetables. Meat and wine they avoided. Their work consisted in agriculture, cattle
breeding, beekeeping and crafts, the arts of peace and non-commercial, retail commerce
and shipping. The latter companies are only food of lust and war machines could not be
produced at all. Their wages they poured into the general treasury, which served for all
needs. They all have one power, so there were among them not rich and poor.

Slavery was not among them, because according to them the nature all men bore the
same way, fed and had not only made a name for brothers, but in deed. Their community
property, moreover, rooted in Mosaism which a socialist tendency is unmistakable. Their
common meals reminiscent of the like in Sparta, Crete and several other states. To what
extent the Persian, Buddhist and Neo-Pythagorean influence has asserted in their views,
it is difficult to determine, although the explanation of ash ism one is not necessary for that
purpose need to resort. How often do we find out in very different countries, where the
influence of one on the other is virtually impossible, similar institutions and
practices. Incidentally, we do not forget that the farther we ascend into antiquity, the more
we find traces of the original communism, we find everywhere.

The therapists, one in the first century of Christianity found in Alexandria, were closely
related to them, so maybe they were Alexandrian Essenes. This even went on to
renunciation of all possessions so they left everything and gave price, to lead a life of
abstinence. With them one can find except a strict ascetic life a rise in reflection and
contemplation, then they focused all kinds of burdens, eg. Living with female therapists,
called the sisters, who always kept in pristine condition, excessively fast so visions and
faces are stirred. The work was avoided by them and their common meals, which were
reduced to a minimum, viz. Bread and salt, were fully considered religious acts. They are
the ones exemplified stretched to many later monastic order.

_______________
[8] That Staatsverfassung der Juden.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 4

Socialism in ancient Greece

The oldest Hellenes, whom we see traces in history, were grouped in small
independent tribes (gentes), who obeyed military chiefs. These strains were divided into
clans or families. Thus the original Athens consisted of 12 villages, Theseus made a
single city. Sparta was for some time an alliance of five villages.

The rights and obligations of Gentiel mates, making the whole group of relatives only to
an actual gens, a social unit, Morgan describes them thus:
1 . They choose their leader in war and in peacetime driver. All members vote, the
women. The relationship was that of a father;
2 . They had the right to turn it off;
3 . They were not allowed to marry within their gens;
4 . The power of the dead belonged to the gens and thus fell on her back;
5 . They had to help each other mutually. Insult, injury, inflicted one of them, was
reckoned to be done to the gens. Hence the vendetta;
6 . The gens gave a name to her fellow members and there another gens that name
could not give, was known by the name gens to which they belonged;
7 . The gens had to take the law strangers who then got equal rights;
8 . The gens ensured the religious ceremonies;
9 . The gens had a common burial;
10 . The meeting of the members of the clan settled and gave everything.

Within the gens was originally not private property, but all this is the oldest form, we find
the beginning of the Greek history by the rise of private property replace the mother right
by father-right. The Greek gens was distinguished according to Great by 1 . Common
religious ceremonies, 2 . a common cemetery, 3 . mutual inheritance, 4 . mutual
obligation to help, defense and immunity, 5 . reciprocal right to marry within the gens in
certain cases, especially where an heiress or orphaned daughter there, 6 . possession of
common equity (at least in some cases) with its own driver (Archon) and treasurer. It
Morgan for Greece still adds the following features: 7 . limiting the descent to father right,
leaving only the male offspring of the gens remained in it; 8 . the obligation not to marry
within the gens except in certain cases; 9 . the right to adopt strangers; 10 . the right to
elect directors and drop off.

Greek gens thus similar in the essence of the matter that of all other nations, and it is
different, then this is done because they are already at a later stage of development than
the original is and has been working to form into another social control, the state.

Thirty gentes formed another unit as phratry or brotherhood. This fratrin, three of
which were in every tribe, the original gentes were showing the strain was
constructed. Each of these original gentes split as the number of members rose in
daughter gentes, while the actual courage somewhere lived on as phratry. For the
correctness of the fact that all the gentes of a phratry had a common family tree, we
remind Great's saying: "All members of the phratry of Hekataeus had one and the same
God as patriarch until the sixteenth generation."

The Greek hero period one finds still the original Gentiel legislation in force, although
already the germ of dissolution were to be observed, viz. Father right to the inheritance of
power to the children, which favored the increase of ownership in some families and
ground for an aristocratic element in society was laid; monogamy in the form of patriarchal
family; the introduction of private ownership of homes and farmland, and finally slavery of
prisoner of war of both sexes rather than their inclusion in the community. Add to this the
state, which acted as a protector of private property and it has been dealt with Gentiel
regime, which was replaced by the state.

Sparta is a thing between Gentiel between a device and a state, as a pure strain
organization can not be founded on slavery. It was a kind of police state. They found there
are three types of people: 1 . the original inhabitants, who took no part in the government
because they were not among the gentes of the conquerors, but paying tribute. They were
personally free and were the property that they maintain before the domination of
foreigners possessed. Those were the Lacedaemonians or perioeci (local residents), who
belonged to a mixed race of Dorians and Achers; 2 . the helots , the subject of violence
Achers who were enslaved; 3 . the Spartans , the conquerors who formed a kind of
privileged nobility.

The latter were divided into three tribes (Fyle), these thirty genera (oben), 300 triakaden
which included 30 families each. The state owned the land, but the land was equally
divided into 9,000 pieces, which the perioeci among those at 30.000.

The aim was apparently the laws of Lycurgus equality of power and resources. They
called themselves willingly matches (homoioi), although already the place which they
occupied pointed across perioeci and helots on inequality. They also had communal
meals, fiditin or syssitin called to cultivate the community. Such meals, widespread
among ancient peoples, are a remnant of the original communist life. Paul Viollet writes in
his book on the collective character of the first real estate [9] "as one of the fruits of the
earth consumed in common, then, this is usually because the earth is not regarded as the
domain of the individual but as the nurse of all the people."
 "They did all their belongings together and used together public meals - as Diodorus
Siculus wrote in response to the residents of the small Aeolian Islands. And in that
precious rules lies, in my opinion, the origin of the public meals. This custom originated in
the community of the country. "

Aristotle saw in those meals it means to rule equality.

The original communism shines so by several ancient customs. But in Greece we see
the individual sacrifice brought to the state, the man was only slightly by the state and the
citizens went to the state entirely. So the children first belonged to the state and only then
to the family. Sparta claimed that thought the first round, witness the common meals, strict
discipline, equal education for boys and girls, marriages arranged by the state, killing poor
children as a nuisance for the state. The individual is standing on a small scale.

Communism, however, applied only to the citizens, because we never understand the
old world if we do not again and again remember that it was based on slavery.

And it owes its origins to private property, the ownership of one man by another. Why
the victor left the vanquished life? To benefit from his labor.

Even the greatest thinkers of antiquity, as Plato and Aristotle are undeniably, no society
could imagine without slave labor, without which the great mass of the people owned
belonged to a small number of fellows. A Aristotle sees it as an institution ordained by
nature. "It is obvious that among the people, some by nature free and others slaves by
nature, and that the latter slavery is just as useful as ... If one is lower than his peers, as
well as the body is less than the soul, the beast below man - and this is the condition of all
who use their physical strength is the best part of their being - it is by nature a slave. For
these people, as well as other beings of which we speak, is it best to submit to the
authority of a master; for he is a slave by nature, who can give himself to another and
what he actually gives to another, which is not being able to go beyond this point to
understand the reason as another one who shows, but not to to have her to himself, "and
Plato says." that man is a difficult to control animal and himself seems to lend with infinite
trouble to this distinction between free and slave, master and servant, formed by
necessity, it is clear that the slave is a cumbersome piece of furniture. "

Plato accepts slavery so as a supposedly necessary evil. on the other hand it justifies
Aristotle and finds her true nature. Incidentally, even before Aristotle was this a point of
contention, as is clear from Aristotle himself, where it says: "First let us talk about the
master and the slave to see if we can not find something in that investigation that better
fits than the ideas now adopted .

Some think that the power of the master is nothing but a kind of administrative
knowledge, that simultaneously includes domestic, political and royal authority; others
think that power is unnatural, because the law classifies people into freemen and slaves,
while nature between them makes no difference; They therefore consider slavery as the
product of violence, from which they draw the conclusion that it is natural. "
 So there were then already philosophers who believed that humanity protested against
slavery. Aristotle himself this opinion seems to share, at least, he writes: "It is slaves and
enslaved as a result of a law, ie a convention, according to which everything that was
taken in the war, is declared to be the property of the victor; but several jurists (legisten)
challenge that right as it attacks a speaker which represents a decision, which is fighting
against the existing laws because they find it horrible that he who can exercise violence
and who owes the advantage to the power of the oppressed makes his slave and
national. "However, a state without slave labor to him unthinkable, as it would only be if
every instrument on the orders or even could perform with feeling labor, which is suitable
for such artwork Daidalos by itself moved or went three feet of Hephaestus own urge to
work, as so do the spindles wove itself, only neither for the job boss helpers nor for Mr
slaves would be required. "in other words, this is completely impossible. What would
Aristotle be surprised if he beheld the wonders in our age of machinery, which can be
seen as richly and which realizes what he considered and the question impossible, "What
will go now, when exercising one many arts or any one ? ", he replies." Every one "So the
division of labor is already being preached by him.

How legislators like Lycurgus and Solon also did their best to counteract the excessive
inequality of fortunes, to no avail them. While Solon a dam raised against finance capital,
he proclaimed already the great principle, placed by today's society to the fore, that "no
limit was put at the wealth that comes from work ', but he forgot to add:" that comes from
their own labor. "

How he complains knows in his mind that "the desire for riches no boundaries and the
rich want to be richer. Who can conquer this insatiable greed? ... They respect neither
property nor the sacred treasury; they rob everything with contempt of the sacred laws of
justice ... I had my laws granted equal power to the citizens; I had nothing taken, nothing
attached to someone; I commanded the richest and most powerful not to offend the
weak; I had the great and the small protected by a double shield, equally strong on both
sides, without giving more to one than the other. My advice was spurned, they now bear
the punishment. "And he truly is not the only one complaining, not the whole Greek
literature is filled with complaints about the privileges of the rich versus the injustice done
to the poor. Was not Demosthenes, who remembered eloquently how in earlier times all
that belonged to the state, was rich and beautiful, but how among the citizens themselves
none excelled in appearance over the other? But later there have risen statesmen whose
private property surpass many public buildings in splendor and who together bought such
large estates, that the fields of you all together, who are gathered here as judges, they are
not equal in extent, whereas what is now the State is built, is so insignificant and paltry,
that they should be ashamed to speak about it. "

Apart from the slaves, who were not among the polity, it was already at the beginning of
the Persian wars, class distinctions, privileged aristocrats and disenfranchised people
succeed, rich and poor, but not to the extent that they threaten the common interest in the
polity to suffocate the population.
 The Peloponnesian War was a struggle between actual democracy (Athens) and
aristocracy (Sparta) and when it was ended with the defeat of the first, came to Athens on
a board of spineless creatures of Sparta.

No wonder the demand for the best constitution was then general. The greatest
thinkers devoted their energies to that question and certainly may be called a rare sight,
two giants in the field of thought, as Plato and Aristotle, to see come into the arena in
order to ignite their light on this issue . On the one hand Plato, who stands up for
Communism and the other Aristotle, who acted as a defender of the two alleged ground
pillars of society: personal property and personal family bond.

Plato's Politeia, the book of the State, can be called no purpose in the first systematic
exposition and defense of communism.

He constructs a state in his thoughts and designs a picture of them, making him the
novels is the father; of his book bears witness to one of Plato experts rightly so: "Plato's
political theory is a cord which a multitude pearls are strung. It makes this cord, even
throwing some pearls away as false; Always it will be enough to keep order not to lament
the trouble of figuring out. "

How is the condition? From the needs. "A state is founded, because each of us has not
self-sufficient, but many things missing." If several people with different needs to fulfill
them to live together, to help each other from both sides, we call such living together a
state or city. Thus, the origin of the state lies in the needs. What is the first
requirement? "The first and greatest need is that of food to sustain life and the second
that of residence, the third of clothes, etc."

So he starts at the beginning, with the necessary living conditions. How will the state
provide those needs? When a farmer can build another house, a third weave, a fourth
shoemaking, etc. "The one is like not entirely on the other, but one has more talent for this
and the other for the" why practicing every a particular subject, because then can any
"one thing after its kind and treated at the appropriate time." The farmer must not make
himself his own squad or scythe and similarly in other companies. Thus one gets a state
which is carried out every kind of labor. There are merchants or merchants need to buy
the product of his labor of the farmer or laborer and marketing. Likewise day laborers who
do not excel in spiritual gifts, but they possess the necessary physical strength for
labor. All need each other because they meet each other's needs. "They must also take
care not to father more children than they can maintain to prevent deficiency and war."
Plato is Malthusian 2200 years before Malthus. Which is now the work state, which can
only claim according to our philosopher by the name of health. But just as others in his
day, Plato had respect for labor, because neither shoemakers nor blacksmiths created
nature; such pursuits humiliate the people, which they perform, to venal mercenaries to
poor nameless, who are excluded from political rights by their state themselves. "The
work is something less alloy, which one looks down from on high.

"But people also want to have condiment and treats. Sure, and so leads to the lush
state that we as ill considered, because once that road continued should also be tables
and beds and other furniture and condiment and ointment and incense and whores and
pastries and more such things. " in that state they have a lot of ballast, such as "hunters,
impersonators in shapes, colors and music, poets with their servants, such notice gers
verses, actors and choristers and contractors and manufacturers of all kinds of furniture
and jewelry for women.." and further: "keepers of children, girls, mermaids, hairdressers,
shearers beard, confectioners and chefs." also swineherds and physicians. Now the
country is too small to bring all that and they will take away land from its neighbors. In this
way the war. To get to carry one needs an army, for the citizens, who each perform their
own work, can not do this with. These are the people who guard the state, he called
guards. These guards must be well trained, because "the nature of a good guard dog is
very similar to that of a boy of good aptitude for military service." For their training is
needed: gymnastics for the body and muse art for the mind . The guards have to be
"excellent work masters of the freedom of the state", and their entire education should be
designed as to be so. To them fit obedience to superiors and control the desire to drink,
mingenot and food. A proof of wrong education is that one needs in a state not only the
laborers and craftsmen, but also skillful healing masters and judges. Dost thou not for
shameful and a great proof of ignorance, when one by others, such as by men and judges
should leave prescribe what is right and fair, because they are not themselves understand
is "and," will ye it not shameful to need medicine, not because of wounds and diseases
peculiar to the season, but due to various diseases which are a consequence of idleness
and extravagance, to which the decent servants of Esculaap have invented all sorts of
strange names? "This has Esculaap recognized himself and therefore he has "for those
who had healthy body by nature and way of life and were temporarily ill by additional
circumstances, a medicine made using casting out the illness through medicines and
cutting without the people habitually life had to change, as this would substantially harm
the state; but by and he has not tried by sick bodies by various precepts, and by plagues
lengthy operations, and so the people a long and miserable life and of course to let poor
children produce, since he considered him that in the existing order of things could not
live, not to have to keep alive because so neither the patient nor the state was useful
"How high must meet the education and construction in Plato is clear from these words."
thou all who live in our state, has been so well brothers, but God, when he made you, in
the formation of those who are competent to govern, gold used; therefore, they are the
most excellent and the helpers of the government silver; and iron and copper in the
farmers and artisans. So there you are all relatives, ye will usually beget children who are
similar to you, but it can still happen that beget from gold patterned parents, sprouts and
silver from gold and silver gevormden likewise with the others. Therefore welded God first
and foremost to the authorities, to nothing so keep an eye on and monitor the children in
order to see which of those she metals have in the soul, and if out of them a child is born
that copper or iron is akin to save any means, but to treat it to its orientation and do pass
into the class of art workers and peasants, and if found among those persons have to
prove kinship with gold or silver, to serve them with the guard or the help of the
government, as the oracle determined that our state will undergo, he is guarded by silver
or copper. "

Plato divides to know the people in three castes or classes: 1 . government; 2 . the
guards and 3 . the farmers and artisans, only distinguished in the cabinet division in
Egypt or India, not birth but the talent and character about it decide which of the three
they will belong. All are cast as it were in a crucible and then one gets the best out of it, to
take the best seats.

Communism are now not only starts with the guards, but extends all out. It is therefore
a small minority of the elect or something like monks in the monasteries of Catholics, in
which there is certainly communism. Plato, however, indicates the number of Aristotle
well, and it enables the 1000 to Athens, which city is composed of 20,000 citizens. While
the rest that produces, interests him very little, he devotes all attention to the training and
the life of the guards who are well drilled. They live in the strictest communism, because
they may not have their own property and nobody's dwelling and storehouse may be
closed. "The private property, the contrast between rich and poor, leads to the demise of
the states. Are not virtue and wealth in such a relationship that rises a fall, as the other? ...
The wealth and the rich To be honored in a state, then the virtue and the good people are
considered less. Such a state is not one but two: the poor constitute one state, the rich,
the other, both of which inhabit together, the evil meaning against another ... And finally
they are the ruling rich, unable to wage a war because they have to use either of the
masses, which it then if it is armed, feared more than the enemy, or if they do this not
operate, they appear to war as a minor force and moreover they will not pay taxes
because they so love the money. "

A state so two states themselves, which in discord life! And such a state is doomed
either dominate the rich (oligarchy) or poor (democracy).

Only communism can eliminate the discord. Plato is too much aristocrat for wanting to
abolish class distinctions, besides, it was impossible in his time to abolish the private
ownership of the means of production. His communism does not concern the production,
but consumption, it is a communism of the ruling class, which lives at the expense of the
citizens, ie. The peasants and craftsmen, of whom one hears little, only that among them
private property and family exist in the usual manner. Although he says that the state is
not founded, "so that one class it more than the others, but that the whole they happy," yet
he shows that one class of the watchers as a privileged life at the expense of the other. It
seems that does not count the producers, they do not actually belong to the state,
because he compares the state of the guards with the condition of the individual man,
"because when one of us his finger shot, they encounter, by the close link between body
and soul, our whole being it an unpleasant sensation, and then we say, in the sense that
humans have hurt his finger and the same is true of every part of the human being, so
that taste and in terms of enjoyment. So if one of the people experiencing any advantages
or adversity, then the whole society will be the most attracting and rejoice or grieve fellow
"but draws no notice to that the producing class constantly beaten and injured.

Substantially Plato education and upbringing , because when the people are well
educated, truly people have become, they will see how well eg. Towards women and
children, according to the proverb, all goods must be among friends in common. Is this
some generations continued long, the children will be better than their parents well in
other respects as regards the presentation, as well as such occurs in other animals. In
youth, the children should be well-drilled, so that they obey, because it seems that one
direction, he gets through his upbringing, naturally follows in his life, since the match
remains the same carries. Laws that make everything would be very little benefit, because
one could wear it all his life to make laws and then eliminating them.

That community at the guards not only the goods, but also women and children. "The
women are common to all men and none of her living with one particular man in particular
together. And the children must be common property, so that neither a father his child nor
a child knows his father. "However, one does Plato injustice, when one presents him as a
defender of the unrestrained intercourse of all with all, because he wants sex selection in
order improvement, gain processing of the human race. The women are allowed just from
the 20th to the 4Oste year "ones for the state," the man for the procreation worry "until he
is 55 years old." Are they age beyond, they have the freedom to practice community with
whom they want, except with relatives in ascending or outgoing line, the express
admonition to show up no children are born and otherwise putting them abandoned, since
it is not permissible to bring them big. "

The pairing for the purpose of sex selection or improvement was not strange because
in Sparta they brought her application. Plutarch compares the Spartan marriage at a stud
farm, which it is doing to breed a race so noble as possible?

Plato wants to guards complete equality between men and women and will appear as
soon as the woman enjoy the same education as men. Even all that pertains to the war,
the woman must learn as well. If the distinction between man and woman lies in including
ones women and cultivate the men, this does not prove that the nature of women is not
the same as that of the man and who wants us to contradict must prove in any art or
occupation, which relates to the state, the difference is apparent. No woman has its own
work, because she is a woman, not a man because he is man, both are on the whole
similar, only the woman is weaker. They must also be of the state wachteres and equal
education will be the best.

What is the welfare of the state's highest good, which one should be aware of and what
the greatest evil to be avoided? What unites the people, is the greatest good and what
divides them is the greatest evil. And how does removal? "If the words mine and thine be
applied by any other things." So the greatest good in the state's community property and
the greatest evil is private property and therefore he considers the first necessary in a
"well-equipped state."

Now he asks how one calls the authorities in the other states and the answer is "at
most they are called men , but where is the people's government, they are called simple
governments. And in our state? By any name other than that of citizens, people call the
authorities? It calls them Conservatists and helpers. And what they call the
people? Gevers wages and stuffs. And how to call the authorities in other states the
people? Nationals. And how else call the authorities together? Co-governments. And how
with us? Fellow Guardians. "

The government is not above the people, but some of the people, primus inter pares ,
first among equals. No subjects, no servants, but all citizens, only those of the citizens
who should and should boards be carefully from all selected. If no one anything except his
own body to themselves, but everything is shared, then we will be freed of all disputes
which arise among the people money and children and relatives. They tore the state apart
when every other call his own, where every man for himself dragged into his house he
can, when every man for himself, his wife and children, has particular pleasures and
pains, and set the state when all through unity of opinion on the property have the same
target and any possible sadness as well as joy all common parts.

It is, moreover, to do him to give an example of a good condition, no less good, even if
one can prove that it is not possible thus able to organize.

"The cleanest city, the best form of government and the best laws are such that one the
most, according to the letter, in all parts of the state the old adage applies that says that
among friends everything is really common. Where the city comes or should break even,
that the women shared, the children shared, the goods of all kinds are common and that
one spends all conceivable precautions to the word "property" even banned from the walk
of life; so the items themselves which nature has given to every man in ownership are
somewhat common to the extent that it would, as the eyes, ears, hands; and that all
citizens imagine that they see common hear shared, communal act that all good- same
things and dislikes, their joys and their sorrows cover the same topics. In a word,
wherever the laws there on out will be the ability to create completely one, since one can
ensure that the height of political virtue is achieved and who will endeavor to inform the
company of another object, he will not be any find fairer. In such a city, whether it reaches
people have gods or children of gods who are more than a few, life goes by in joy and
happiness. Therefore, one should not look elsewhere for the model of a perfect republic:
but one must cling to it and approaching as much as one could "(Laws, Book V).

The reality is always inadequate to the idea that people have of her. All can be done not
fully apply, roughly the state can still be well adapted to the given sketch. But only if the
philosophers get their hands on the state administration either existing rulers focus on the
philosophy, so that the power in the state and the philosophy are united in the same
person. And who are philosophers? Those who are eager for wisdom and the wisdom to
do a whole. The true science is aimed at the general; the knowledge must relate to what
is. And all they that love which truly exists, should be called philosophers. "Before the race
of philosophers lord in the state, there will be neither the state nor put an end to the
citizens of his accident and will also be the arrangement that we have invented, are not
fulfilled." The constitution is now no chimera, but "even if it's difficult, right in that one case
it is enforceable, if true philosophers get a state-owned and which nowadays fame called
loathing, the good and especially the set just above all, are subservient creating and
their's on organizing to flourish this. "the fastest and easiest way will such be established
a constitution, when all the people were sent from the city to the country over 10 years
and the children were under the supervision of the philosophers made, from the impact of
parents to educate them according to discussed ways of life and laws. And this is
necessary for the just state as well as for the righteous man.

The guards belong wholly and solely to the state as well as the priest at the Catholic
entirely to the church. The government, taken from the best of keepers, absolutely reigns.
 And everything is regulated by Plato, so that one gets a clean state
communism. Although the raw Spartan militarism nor enchanted him as the Athenian
people rule, however, is apparently the Spartan is the base of his ideal state.

To summarize, we find in Plato: 1st. obligation to work for the man as well as for the
woman, the basis of the state; 2 . the constitution first necessary for all, because only the
state, supports may be considered healthy for the fulfillment of the requirements; 8
. enjoyed a reasonable state, sustained by the community of goods as a condition of
equality; 4 . substantially raising; 5 . complete equality between men and women; 6
. division of labor.

How Plato was serious about his communism, which could bring only lasting happiness
and peace, which he proved by the refusal to make laws for Arcadians, Kyreners and
others. After refusing an answer to his question whether they wanted equality as the
foundation of the constitution, he said: "Find another legislator and build your cities, that
the tyrants they will come topics or destroy."

In his critique of Plato's state Aristotle is perfectly right, to the extent that it alleges that
communism is not true for all, but that he two states by the difference between civilians
and guards is in one state, facing each other. Actually it is a domination of the privileged
class of the producers, who have to pay all, for some those from the lower class is worthy
to be included in the scissors of the read, in practice remains an exception, because the
circumstances including such grow, as the crow flies differ from those under which the
children are raised by the guards. Throughout antiquity was the idea: to free man war
business and government, the worker slavery, and even Plato does not come across that
view it. The craft was also unworthy of the free man in his eyes as though no shame, then
something less alloy.

Many consider Plato as a dreamer, a utopian, the fact remains that, in the reverie of the
"divine" master is more to wisdom than the practical considerations of the statesman, with
all its practical eye loses the main sight: happiness and prosperity for all.

It is also remarkable how Plato understands that his ideal state will only be
implemented by force, but he agrees, he will be in harmony, overall satisfaction and
strength surpass all others, as he demonstrates in the dialogue Critias. That violent
reversal can only be obtained when the philosopher, who was called to the board, is
equipped with despotic power. He paints the task of those who have to implement the
desired change, "as they state and minds take up of men as if it were a table, they will first
have to clean this, which is not easy. Then they will draft an outline of the principles of the
constitution and if they go to work, they'll often have to watch both of them and the
righteous, clean and reasonable in nature, and on which among the people present, and
they will be blending and compounding their work the great form the yardstick of which is
also already Homer, where it is among people called, the divine and godlike. And so it will
be here that destroy and there record until they have made human morals to gods utmost
delight. "This idea is almost identical to that of the modern philosopher Herbert Spencer,
who encyclopedic knowledge almost be called the equivalent of Plato , where it says "the
stones of a house can not be used in any other way, before the house itself is brought to
the ground. If the stones are connected by cement will cause special effort to destroy their
present state before they can be used again. And if the cement she has confirmed for
centuries, then breaking accompanied by such difficulties that building with new materials
opens economical than rebuilding old. "

In his dialogue On the Laws , Plato discusses four bad constitutions, namely: 1
. the timocracy , the rule of the ambition and passion, as it was on Crete and
Lacedaemoni; 2 . the oligarchy or the government of the few; 3 . the democracy or
government of the people, and 4 . the tyranny that comes from democracy as well as
those of the oligarchy. He masterfully describes the tyrant, who in the beginning is friendly
and personable to all, promises much, scolds free debt lands distributed among the
people. Does he like the enemies domestically partly satisfied, partly tamed, he conceived
war, so that the citizens need a leader, even to them impoverished by high yields and to
prevent neglect their work and lay in wait for him, and to them let kill the enemies whom
he holds for liberal and dangerous to his authority. The tyrant is doing exactly the opposite
of the physician; this takes the worst way and let remain the best, he just the
opposite. And he can hardly be otherwise, he wants to retain custody.

Plato wants an aristocracy, a government of the best, but who will decide who and who
not already covered by this can be arranged? This will not random chair? Performs this
not tyranny, because the tyrant imagines himself to be the best? Is it ever best to govern,
or will not it precisely because they are the best, averse nature of any rule? "Ruling ie
exercising violence, violence is, exercising, doing what he does, who it is violated, and
what he does not want, that serves the violence certainly would not want to tolerate about
themselves; consequently will "dominate" say others do what they wish they did, we do
not, that is, to do evil. "Therefore, those people are the worst, which, since they have the
power, the government-owned, no resources spared to get to where they want and once
they have reached their goal, establishing themselves as tyrants and seek to maintain by
all means. Rule is bad and therefore a government of the best is a contradiction in itself.

Certainly, it is quite true that Plato gave an unfinished painting, a big scene, only one
group has been completely and finely depicted, viz. The guards. but everything else in
circumference, has remained in outline, but how incomplete his work was, he still gave
more than others and, as such, he takes a place among the seers who could testify of
themselves, not that I have apprehended, but I drove it to and I have a vague feeling
better, which once will take the place of this situation, which I know is bad.

Xenophon described in Cyropaedia the blessing of the rule of a well educated monarch
(Cyrus), but he forgot to inform how every tyrant, even the best, the spirit sought to
enslave and brutalize people. In him he would otherwise ask a frightening example of all
tyrants, because when he Sardis, the capital of Lydia, had taken and the city did not want
to make to the ground when he established brothels and bars and set public play with
orders that the inhabitants had to use. Since that time he had not the slightest trouble with
the city, because the population was so effeminate and verwekelijkt that there is no
strength in was to get to revolt. Verliederlijking of the people is the best way for a tyrant to
remain predominant.
 _______________
[9] P. Viollet. Caractre collectif des premieres Proprits immobilires.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 5

Socialism in Rome

Although Rome is known as the classic land of private property in its most absolute
form, carried to its logical conclusion as the right not only to ge use, but also to mis -use
(ius utendi et abutendi), although the also the land of the state concept in its most severe
form, so that was considered the salvation of the state to be the supreme law (salus
civitatis suprema lex), yet this has not always been the case and we also meet there
traces of socialism, if it is, therefore, an agricultural socialism.

As in Greece and elsewhere, we find the Gentiel regime with these characteristics:

1 . mutual inheritance of Gentiel mates so that power remained within the gens. There
was the father law, only male children were entitled to inherit and these were not there,
then came into their place the relatives of the male line and in the absence of this the
Gentiel mates;

2 . Sharing a common cemetery;

3 . Common religious celebrations;

4 . the obligation to marry outside the gens. How was this commandment in force,
including proving succession. A father can never entertain his assets to his daughter or
her children, because the property did not remain in the gens of the father;

5 . a communal land ownership. When the Latins land belonged partly owned by the
tribe, partly that of the gens, in part, however, he also rested in the hands of private
households or housing associations, which consist of several, all under one roof living
monogamische families;

6 . mutual obligation to help, defense and defense. The state occurred later in the
place of the gentielorganisatie;

7 . the right to bear the gentielnaam. Each gens bore her own name, and this use
continued until the time of the emperors. The freedmen were given permission to wear the
gentielnaam of their lord, although it does not yet acted rights Gentiel.

8 . the right to take strangers in the gens. The adopted stranger bore the name of his
adoptive (adopted) father alongside his former gentielnaam, which then ended, however,
with "anus". So wore eg Aemilius Paulus, adopted by Publius Cornelius Scipio the name
of P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus.;

9 . the right to elect the pastor and drop off.

Ten gentes formed a phratry together, called by the Romans curia and it had greater
power than the Greeks. Thus curiae were distinguished by separate residences, a private
religion and particular boundary; further, they formed the basis for the election at the
meeting of citizens, they made a separate division in the army and was distributed as
military units in 10 departments. Ten curiae were a tribe, tribes, from which the Romans
for certain purposes and special funds was artificially extended, but in its foundation and
core was a result of natural development. The Roman tribes chose originally a pastor who
leader in war and high priest at the time.

They made jointly populus Romanus (Roman people) out, which could therefore fall
only one who was a fellow member of gens. In the apparatus the Roman people is a
faithful reflection of the Athenians. The people organized by Romulus was nothing but a
Gentiel Fellowship. Morgan says very true: "But the rapid growth in number at the time of
Romulus and the even greater increase between that time and that Servian made an
entire reform of the rules of the community is necessary. Romulus and the wise men of his
time had Gentiel devices placed on the highest possible level. His legislation was an
ambitious attempt to form a large national and military power on the basis of the
gentes; this effort we owe it that we know something of the nature and composition of the
devices, which could otherwise easily lost in the darkness go, if they were not completely
erased from the memory. The rise of Roman power on the basis of the Gentiel devices
was an important event in the history of mankind. It is not surprising that the events which
accompanied this movement, romantic decorated, to not say come in fable form to
us. Rome came into life through a happy, attributed to Romulus and accepted idea by his
successors that it was to unite the largest number of gentes in a new city, one community
formed and whose united force was under one commander. The aim was warlike nature,
to be in Italy to obtain sovereignty and it is not surprising that this organization took the
form of a military democracy. "

The families that consisted of 10 families, practiced communal agriculture and shared
out the proceeds. Later, they received individual land ownership. The pastures were at
first even state property and citizens only had the right to use the ager publicus for a small
fee. One can clearly distinguish three stages of development in the ownership idea to
Rome. The first property was seen as a religious institution, in the second it got
an aristocratic character and the third took more and more, due to the struggle of the
people of the nobility, an individual character, but in all those ages disappear the concept
of national ownership never completely, much though weakened, so Gaius still relative to
the ground could say in the provinces: "the property belongs to the Roman people or the
emperor and we considered only hold or have usufruct. " [10]

Wealthy foreigners could own land, finally even serve in the army. People without a
land they called proletarians (infant generators of prolos, brood). At the time of the
abolition of the monarchy, about 510 years before our era, it was felt in Rome 136 noble
or patricirfamilies and a numerous class of plebeians, including some with large
capacity. Therefore, the patricians had to consider them. The Senate could come only
patricians, but the people could choose them. Later were also wealthy plebeians to be
elected. The consuls came from the patricians. Becoming the plebeians were more
suppressed. Against little farming the rich withdrew the domain of state property to himself
and later they paid nothing. The municipality lands they knew too close to them. Taxes
were leased and the small proprietors were ruined. It was that the wars cheap labor
supplied the slaves and the impoverished plebeian could not even as "free worker" sell.

A Roman could not be immediately enslaved, but under different circumstances he

could still be charged for a longer or shorter time to bondage. The ruling family despotism,
absolute paternal power (patria potestas) gave the father the right to punishment,
assigning his son as a servant to a third party. And the king, who absolutely ruled the
state as well as the paterfamilias of the family, someone had jurisdiction to punish him as
a slave to sell to another citizen or abroad. The serfs (clients) had no municipal rights and
only came under royal authority. The kings coquetted with clients against the patricians
and the rulers did so in the Middle Ages with the people against the nobility, so that their
particular patron in the king saw with the result that served the prince more diligently.

What Bucher said about the Greek states: "Gold and silver had become powerful gods
in Hellas. For money was more and more all for sale for all: the wisdom of the
philosopher, the tongue of the orator, the influence of the statesman, the mandate of the
envoy, the oath of the judge, the fame of the commander, the arm of the soldier, the voice
of the sovereign people, fatherland and freedom of many. All that the fathers had seemed
big and clean and honorable, perished in this decaying air and nothing was left than
unbridled selfishness and hunt for pleasure and all spirituous sophistry which one to tried
the meager food of life enjoyable "- this gold in much greater degree of Rome, which can
be reassured to terrifying example of the grossest selfishness all modern civilized
countries. The money aristocracy with its destructive breath all lit and smashed to come
finally to a cruel saber rule and a great state bankruptcy.

There is still a legend, viz., That the Romans are the people of the right par excellence
and it is true that even now today's codes are soaked with the legal concepts of the
ancient Romans, but it is equally true that very reason as many are wiped out all traces of
communal property and work. Would it not have been quite what better for the
development of the community idea, as they had built on the old Germanic legal
concepts? Instead of Roman legal concepts as reprehensible and immoral to reject one
has made them the ideal of jurisprudence. And yet - one can not a priori understanding
how possible rant right and can grow into a military state par excellence? Even
Mommsen, the famous historian, who belongs to that sort of historians who do less is to
or history itself in its context, to make her subservient to political purposes, in order to
make the Cesarism his own prince to word of the highest wisdom and the struggle to
obtain deform people's rights to a caricature, even Mommsen says let out over the "right"
of the Romans: "one is simply to praise the Romans in law privileged people and their
outstanding right to be regarded as a mystical gift of heaven, presumably mainly to save
that one is ashamed of his own legal situation. A look at the example floating charge and
developed Roman criminal law could also convince them of the unsustainability of this
faulty equipment shows, who appears to be simply the assertion that a healthy nation a
healthy legal and sick people a sick own right. "

Like the Greek states, as the Roman state was based on slavery, and it was there quite
a bit harder, as a nation as the Romans was to be expected. Already in very early times
one finds slaves with them about who the masters were allowed to have unlimited, but it
was mainly the wars which brought large supply, so, the number has grown in such a way
that, according to Tacitus, the Romans themselves troubled about it.

How they had at any time convenient person, which it managed to drive his right asking
people with none the wiser that tells us the story of the plebeians of Rome, who
complained again and again, but always fobbed off with promises were and finally
migrated to the Mons sacer (sacred mountain), to settle there. To induce them to return,
they sent 10 emissaries to them and one of these, Menenius Agrippa said unto the
people: "Hear history. Once arrived, the limbs of the body in revolt against the
stomach. They did not bear this alone is in the midst of calm and comfortable by feeding
leaves and carry the other organs. She refused further service. The hands did not bring
more food to the mouth, the mouth does not include the meat and choose not chew it. A
time of long limbs loved. But soon they saw that they thereby harmed themselves. For
they felt that the stomach is that divides the juices of the food received all their limbs and
thereby confers all power and cheerfulness. So they abandoned their plan and reconciled
to the stomach. "

Through this story, the patricians were able to get them back to Rome, but also to pass
it, because they made the concession that the plebeians would henceforth have their
voice in the tribunes, so their own government that would defend their interests against
the patricians.

The distinction between the Greek and Roman mind is no better drawn than by a
comparison between the Economicum the Greek Xenophon, and De re rustica of the
Roman Cato and Prevost Paradol displays it in these words again: "What a lesson, what a
contrast is it to hear the complete Your Greek and Roman par excellence on the same
topic! They contradict each other, word for word, without knowing each other, and it's so
easy to put their arguments one by one, facing each other. Xenophon says: "What we are
looking to go out on the land, is the most pleasant stay, it's the least of our women, the
most desirable for our children, the most smiling for our friends." Cato contrast: "The
market is full of vicissitude ; Great interest is forbidden as usury; better is the farm; which
now provides a solid profit, others protruding eyes "Xenophon says to his wife." If one of
your slave is sick, you need to nurse do your best to him well, "and she replied:" Certainly,
the will be my greatest pleasure, because if I take care of them, they will be more to love
me, "Cato on the other hand". the farmer vendor old ox wool, hides and the tools that he
no longer used the old iron, the old slaves, the sick slaves, and if something onnuts left
him, he sell it; be it a law that he buys little but sell much for the family man. The lord of
the house should, when he comes to his estates, ask what you worked; if there is not
settled enough and it apologizes by saying that some slaves are sick, he must answer:
there are so many sick slaves, how is it that the amount of food is raised so high on the
bills "Xenophon says? "It is a gift of the gods to rule with gentleness and persuasion," and
he adds this admirable saying: "those of my slaves, which are sensitive to a word of
praise, I treat as free men. "

One can see how two worlds here has parallel, mutually exclusive. Make the hard,
harsh, rough Roman a pleasant, human Greeks, it will not succeed you. And
temperament, which orientation, dominated of course the history of both peoples, which
makes us almost rave with one, while with disgust turns away from the other.

Because agriculture states all prevailed and one contraction of land in a few hands,
both can perceive as the absence of landowners of their lands in the manner of England,
it is not surprising that socialism showed himself in the agrarian relations. The history of
land ownership is about the inner history of Rome during the Republic.

Thereby doing himself the slave revolts as something new.

We said already how hard the mind of the Romans about slavery. A slave was equal to
a piece of cattle. Is not in the law, Aquilia given the value that they had to pay to the
owner, everyone who has slain a slave , a four-footed animal or any other animal that
may be called cattle ?

If Cato adds what is needed for the operation of 240 jugera [11] for wine, he said that
before the need for 13 slaves, three steers, four donkeys, 100 sheep and 5 barrels of
oil. And Varro distinguished between three kinds of agricultural implements: 1 . the tool
with voice or slave; 2 . the instrument with half a vote or animals; and 3 . stupid tool or
inanimate things.

Therefore, there prevailed a formidable disregard for labor. A free man did not work, the
labor was for slaves and free men unworthy. Cicero shared this philosophy with Plato and
Aristotle and was trading just on these two conditions, viz. That one big win by the
achieved and this immediately transformed into real estate. And Books draws the situation
very well when he testified in Rome: "So hurl money oligarchy (rule by a propertied
minority), distress (poverty of the masses) and slavery for the entire life of the ancients a
terrible three-membered ring, which no piece removed can without tearing the other out of
context. "

The accumulation of slaves made the situation dangerous, because the owners
counted them by the thousands, so a wise man once said, let the slaves do not come on
the market, because they were allowed to count each other out!

Finally put the size of suffering and mistreatment of slave revolts and controlled,
including that of Spartacus was the most violent, broke out. With the utmost cruelty they
were suppressed and if thousands of slaves were beaten on the cross in endless rows, it
was stated that the order had been restored. For a moment it seemed that the slaves
would hold the upper hand and Rome shuddered on its foundations, but the divisions
among themselves did more to bring them back under, then all other efforts. And when
Spartacus was slain when they missed all the lead and they were surrendered to the
mercy of the Romans, who kept the most brutal way home among them. Not by force
could be abolished slavery, only the economic conditions would prove able to change the
slavery of servitude, once the privilege of them see the importance. Find Rome no equity,
no pity, because only the brutal violence prevailed there and the Romans lifted up even to
legal principle. Until the last day were patricians and plebeians, rich and poor, as agreed
with each other to suppress the vanquished and to torture the slaves, patricians because
it was in their nature and the plebeians, because poverty is cruel and they avenged on the
weak about the humiliations they had to undergo self, as such still be made in the
treatment of animals by humans.

About the slave revolts of the later already writes cited Books: "Even the spread of
Christianity has not so suddenly, so immediately affected to such an extent the minds, as
this first international workers' movement, the necessary result of this system of big
capitalism and slaves rule that the Romans in Sicily and Carthage, Greece, and had
already found in the Hellenic monarchies. This ancient nation regime had reached its
peak, the culmination of capitalist penetration in every area of life, which no reconciliation
seems possible, where the distinction of power is constantly increasing, the rich getting
richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class languishes in chronic rottenness. The
Roman world domination - the shapeless image of a class is that his weak brethren
swallowed - rather means a concentration of an increase in that system, a bringing
together of the economic juices on a dwindling circle of privileged owners, which are in
fact enjoying the rule, whereas only the dishes and keep the grondsap for millions
dominated. If a meaningful boundary condition at the end of this period, the widespread
proletarian movement of the forties and thirties of the second century BC, the emergence
of socialism as a thunderbolt, whose agreement is undeniably a contemporary
phenomenon, already had his requirements to adapt to the then prevailing economic
conditions. If socialist these efforts must be considered, however, as they walked out
together on a reform of the economic structure of society and the distribution of goods,
which differed from the existing ones. "

However, before the slaves tried to shake off the yoke of wealth, the plebeians had so
done with the help of two men who, although patrician origin, is entirely rallied to the side
of the people. We mean the two brothers Gracchus in the second century BC.

It is known that the area of the ancient Romans distinguished was the ager publicus ,
the common land which was used partly for state purposes, part of worship and part as a
public pasture for citizens and for the ager privatus , the among citizens divided
country. When the Romans were so many conquests, the domain of goods increased
considerably, but it was the patricians who for a small rent entirely made their master. The
two consuls Licinius Stolo and Sextius did after a long struggle the famous laws, named
after them, to catch the Lex Licinia Sextia, through, under which no citizen should possess
more than 500 jugera country, no more than 100 cows and 500 head sheep could graze
on the ager publicus, while the owners were obliged to hand over a tenth of the fruits of
the land and a fifth of the proceeds of the olives to the state. Every poor citizen was 7
jugera and it was determined that the landowners free workers had to adopt and maintain
a certain number; Also the interest rate was regarded as repayment of capital.
 However well intentioned, these laws were not able to save the poor from total ruin
because the wealthy are allowed to rent by front men, and as they did so to annex all
lands.

Gradually they became completely obsolete, and now when the situation worsened in
alarming fashion, when first trying Tiberius and later his younger brother Caius agricultural
states more to regulate in the public interest by reintroducing those laws, which had fallen
into oblivion .

Usually seen in the work of the Gracchi an attack on private property and yet, so doing
things wrong is suggested. No, their proposals do not concern the ager privatus, but only
the ager publicus. What they sought was not an agrarian socialism, but an arrangement of
the terms on which the ager publicus was divided.

Coming back from Numantia to Rome Tiberius Gracchus was struck by the very
saddest-agrarian states. He saw with his own eyes how a large part of the lands were not
even built and he cried out: "If there are so many poor citizens were in Rome, why are not
given the land to them, which they claim" has become Volkstribuun he suggested now that
all the fields that were taken by the Romans and no rent were owned - should be repealed
by the state, always with the proviso that each citizen is 500 jugera and for each son 250
jugera - the legally leased countries thus fell outside but should never lead to a higher
amount than in 1000 jugera. For improvements made on the land or buildings for
subsequent regular granted by the state compensation. The land, which was released in
this manner was supplied in parts of 30 jugera for a small sum of money to the poor
farmers lease or the Roman citizens or allies were Italian. He wanted to make the land
distribution to a sustainable polity. Had he not state lands more, he would probably have
proceeded to the purchase or expropriation of private land to divide it. Certainly one can
not but say this, because it's so far has not come; only because he land parcels not sold
but leased, one can argue that he finally came to a kind of grondcollectivisme. He came
across an amazing opposition from the landowners, so he was forced to put his plans with
the help of the people. After the removal of his colleague Octavius who opposed him in
everything, his bill was passed amid cheers. Plutarch let him make a speech in which he
says: "The wild animals homes in Italy have their dens and lairs, but the men who fight
and die for Italy have their homeland nothing but air and light; without a home and without
a roof, they wander around with wife and child. It is mockery and lie, as the leaders in the
battles plead their soldiers to fight for the altars of their gods and the tombs of their
ancestors, because of the mass public does not possess one a chief altar, not one a
mound of his ancestors but they fight and die for the wealth and excesses of others, and
while they are called the rulers of the world, they do not have a single clod of earth that
they can call their own. "

Nobody can deny that smacks of such a speech to socialism.

The first land division committee was elected directly. But the opposition was so strong
that Tiberius nothing else on the market then appeared under cover of 3 to 4000
people. Especially when the king of Pergamum the Roman people his heir appointed and
therefore the greed of the wealthy was pricked particular, they made every effort to bring
Tiberius fall. He had to see for the second time to be selected, which was against the law,
but without his reforms were great danger. The consul and chief priest Nasica urged all
like-minded people to arm themselves and follow him. He succeeded and save his little
friends Tiberius armed with 300 of his death. The proletarians of the city were too
cowardly to help him and the poor farmers were harvesting on the land, and it so
happened that the corpses of the people's party under authorization of the vile people
were thrown into the Tiber.

Meanwhile, the division committee continued its work on, as evidenced when one
learns that in the year 132 to 131 were no more than 319,000 weapon-carrying (ie landed)
citizens and this number was increased in the year 125 to 395 000, so more 76,000. But
the committee was now the case, to determine what is already and what was not good
domain senate wore this power over to the consuls. the younger Gracchus kept himself
quiet ten years, he was elected in the year 123 until tribune and it had great plans in his
head by a set of reforms that would change Rome's state entirely. Mommsen is on one
side with respect fulfilled for this energetic and talented man by naming him among the
first statesmen of all time, but later he calls him a robber chief, who was alone to do to
gain the supremacy.

Caius tried to maintain himself as a tribune by choirs divisions among the people. Any
citizen who lived in the capital could month a certain amount of corn (5 Modia
= 5 / 6 involve bushel) from the public warehouses and called the Modius 6 1 / 3 axis (15
cents), which is less than half the average corn price. He knew the distribution committee
again to recapture the law. The former laws field came back on the agenda and,
moreover, he founded Roman colonies in Italy and gave the municipality land to the
settlers. He did the same in the overseas colonies, including Junonia on the site where
once stood Carthage. The settlers were given Roman citizenship, so that they could vote
again as they came to Rome.

The Senate party brought a peculiar way in combat application, she outperformed him
in the promise and the people that only too late is cheating, there walked into the trap.

Thus one could make that he was not re-elected as tribune for the third time. When the
reaction was bolder and proposed to the African colony, his foundation to eliminate. On
the day of the vote was known to make such a noise that could not pass the vote and
when they parted to continue the meeting the next day, they took advantage of the night
to put the people against Caius, and saying that he was only doing to become ruler. Caius
was despondent and even appeared unarmed at the meeting. Summoned to the Senate
to justify himself as Flaccus, they both appeared not and then gave the consul ordered
them from the Aventine hill to throw down, and a ransom was put on their heads, 250
people were slain. He himself tried to flee, and knowing the hatred of his enemies, he
either himself or by means of one of his slaves an end to his life. More than 8,000 of his
followers were now imprisoned and strangled.

Of course now led the opposition to the laws insluimerden field and were inapplicable.
 Cicero mentions in his book On Duties , the Gracchische agrarian unfair and unjust,
and he will justify their murder. And yet, according to him, no one entitled to more than he
needs, only what meets our labor and our consumption. He compares the earth to a
theater. The theater is one common to all, but the place that occupied every one is his. "I
can simultaneously occupy a place in the first floor, in the lodge, on the balcony? No,
unless they had three bodies or at the same time was able to stay at different places. "

History proves that one never has laws to curb the accumulation of land, such as the
expression of Pliny: latifundia perdidere Italiam indicates adequate (large properties
targeted to ruin Italy). And the philosopher Seneca wrote in his letters: "A country that has
included a whole people, is too small for a single owner. How far shall you bear your
team, you who do not know how to limit an operating within the boundaries of a
province? Its rivers flow for a single person and vast plains, formerly the limits of mighty
kingdoms you belong from its source to its mouth. "

Usually the landuitdelingen were limited to the military. So did example. Caesar and
others before and after him. To the people that they should give bread and circuses to
keep it quiet and peaceful. The country came to the soldiers and so the ground was laid
for the military government, which reached its luster point in Rome.

Find Rome no thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, for such was no place there. All the
wisdom that was found there, had its origin and progress in Greece. They actually
performed on the land when it came to art, science and literature.

Or bum bandit, those were the two companies that are not dishonored, but the manual
does. Did not Michelet: "The Roman hero, founder of the city, must first be a man without
a country and without law, an outlaw , an outlaw, a bandit, - words of similar meaning to
the barbarian peoples?"

In addition to the teams and fight all other activities carried out by the slaves and the
maxim that ruled them was: the otium , the idleness, the citizen, the negotium , working
for the slave. That otium that peace was necessary to regulate the laws of the state and
defense and therefore it is extolled as virtue and nobility. Even Plutarch, Lycurgus still
praised as the wisest of all men, because he gave his fellow citizens the opportunity to
otium, by allowing them to exercise any appeals. Dionysius of Halicarnassus said that
Romulus admitted only two types of appeals to free people, namely: agriculture and
arms. All others were " sordidae artes " vile, filthy occupations accounted for slaves.

The traces of socialism were in Rome also minor and can surprise no one who knows
the environment in which lived the people of Italy. In no country in the world is the private
property surrounded by firmer guarantees better secured and more honored than in
Rome, where the religion, laws and morals joined hands to cover it with an impenetrable
shield.

_______________
[10] In provinciali sole dominion Romani populi est Caesaris sheet; nos autem tantum
possessionem usumfructum habere videmur. (Gaius, lib. II, 7).
[11] Jugerum: Roman plain size, roughly equivalent to our bunder.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 6

Socialism in primitive Christianity

Opposite the determined spirit hostile to Christianity, which is found in many socialists,
is another movement, which is out to graft socialism on Christian tribe. Thus wrote Saint-
Simon in his Nouveau Christianisme : "True Christianity must make people happy, not
only in heaven, but on earth." And Cabet in the preface to Le vrai Christianism suivant
Jsus-Christ : "If Christianity was interpreted and applied in the spirit of Jesus Christ; as
well known and faithfully applied was by the great multitude of Christians who are
animated by a sincere piety and who only needs to know well the truth in order to follow
her, then would this Christianity, his morals, his philosophy, his rules sufficient have been
and still meet to establish a complete social and political organization in order to liberate
mankind from the evil that has been done to and ensure the happiness of the human race
on the earth; no one would be found who could refuse to call themselves Christian. "And it
was not Wilhelm Weitling, who in his Sunders the poor Evangelium built his entire
communist doctrine in scripture, he is on the side of his book next set?

Undeniably blows and by Christianity and socialism by a spirit of kinship and who eg.
The Sermon on the Mount gives a place in a socialist document, which will be the
community of ideas here soon. The confusion of Christianity and Christian church has
given rise to the great hatred against the first, found by many. The ignorance of socialism
to the men of the church is the cause of the great hatred that animates against
socialism. Therefore, everyone will about the relation speaks or writes between
Christianity and socialism do well to follow the advice of the orthodox German minister
Rudolf Todt: "Who understand the social question and will to its solution contribute, should
the economy have the right in the left the scientific literature of the socialists and saved
itself the New Testament. Lacking any one of these factors, then the solution is skewed
from. Those three are close together. "

First of all one encounters a major drawback. As in geology show the different layers at
different ages, likewise is also found in the Gospels several layers, indicating a difference
of time in the composition. It is very difficult if not impossible to determine with certainty
what do and what not to be attributed to Jesus, leaving aside the question of whether the
necessary security held to elevate the historical existence of Jesus beyond all reasonable
doubt. And it is known how the imagination has freer play as they historically less.

We follow the Gospels, we learn that Jesus was a Jew and therefore educated in
Jewish terms, and that was one of his teachers John the Baptist, who provided home
belonged to the sect of the Essenes. To what extent Jesus enlisted to be now in that sect,
can not be made, but no doubt he was on the same position with respect to worship ,
through faith in one God and the Mosaic doctrine of ten words (commandments) as a
guideline while both in the worship of shots: 1 . Baptism and 2 . the common meal
(agape) and, with respect to the property , by the contempt of the rich, the love for the
poor and communism.

We find in the Gospels three different views:

1 . in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:. 1-16), where the
"master of the house" hand free workers who enter into a contract with him, so that he
"had agreed with the workers." The householder is apparently unlimited in his property, so
he says, "I have no right to do with mine what I want?" (Verse 15) and he is only bound by
his contract, so he say could, "Friend, I do thee no wrong, are you not agree with me for a
penny? Take what is yours and go. I will give unto this last even as to thee "His word".
What is right you shall receive ", one could deduce that they equal pay for all in uneven
spell, right calls. Anyway, in this parable we find: 1st. the distinction of mine and thine; 2
. the absolute right to do with his what one wants; 3 . in the relationship between owner
and workers have the first right to impose conditions which the worker is free to decide
whether or not to accept. Actually this is the point on which modern society stands still;

2 . in the parable of the 10 quintals (Matthew 25:. 14-30), we see the slave relationship
in which one is forced labor by increasing the power of his lord. We also read that the
maxim: "He who has, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from those
who do not, will be taken from him, even that which he hath." This word fits perfectly in our
modern society, where that rule still finds daily application;

3 . in the parable of the unjust steward, we find tenants with a written contract (Lk. 16:
1-9).

We therefore take different forms of ownership and production to. Jesus fells there is no
judgment, he entered into his equations to determine the existing, well-known, social
forms.

But Jesus took not hostile to the rich and he praised not the poor blessed? The rich are
in the famous parable of Lazarus and the rich man to the place of the disease, only
because he was rich and for no other reason, on the contrary, it was not so bad, because
he admitted that the poor are fed with the crumbs that fell from his table, which by no
means all realms so, and when he was at the place of torment, he thought still attached to
his brothers to save such a penalty, and the poor come into Abraham's bosom , simply
because he is poor because there is no evidence of the goodness of him. Says he does
not expressly provide that "every one who does not renounce all that he has, his younger
can not be" (Luke 14:. 33)? That it is impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God? Did he not deliberately said that "the poor have the gospel preached" (Matt. 11:
5)? Some are dealing is not limited to the poor, the publicans and sinners, in a word to the
so-called ordinary people who were at one in Tel? It does not appear from the statement
that Judas had the bag of the group that Jesus and his friends lived from a common
purse?
 he wanted equality among all, because they together children of the same God and
Father, and thus constitute themselves one big family who lived together as brothers and
sisters? Is not in the words: "Whatever you want men to do to you, them do so," the whole
socialism as locked in a nutshell (Matthew 7:12.)? he wanted no dignified life for all
without distinction? He Fought not taking interest, saying, "That one had to lend without
hoping for anything." (Luke 6:35)? he did not consider what was done to the least of his
brethren, as done to himself (Matt. 25:40)? its slogan was not, like that of all world
reformers, that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination before God, so he
did not from above but from below want to start?

So enough clues. Even the revolutionary nature of modern socialism found an advocate
in Jesus, who far from being as soft and sweetly as he often also in the arts, it is proposed
not recoiled from violence. For what else do his words: "I came not to send peace on
earth, but a sword '(Matthew 10:34). or "Who does not have a pouch (money), let him sell
his garment and buy a sword" (Luke 22:36.)?

he predicts that his teachings will bring disunity so got up the son against the father and
the daughter against the mother? Yes, he is awe yourself to chase the merchants with a
lash from the temple, as if he had the right to do the work that needed to be fulfilled by the
police of those days. He was also not acknowledged the existence of rights, which were
above all the written laws and the right to life was one of them? He relied not on David,
who ate the showbread, although only allowed to eat their priests, "because he was
hungry"? And it does not follow that the hunger sufferer has the right to violate all laws
and to take what he needs to satisfy his hunger?

Truthfully says Rev. Todt that the communist doctrine of socialism is based on the
following five propositions:. 1 . the triad: liberty, equality and fraternity; 2 . the change in
private ownership of land and soil of work (buildings, workshops, machines) in
common. These two fundamental principles include; 3 . productive association. It is a
requirement that follows logically from the other two. Because all people are equal, free
and brothers among themselves, they all land and soil and labor into common property, it
follows the necessity of joint work; 4 . abolition of the wage system and its replacement
by the full proceeds of labor; 5 . removal of all earthly misery and foundation of
happiness among people.

After he has shown it in parts, relying on numerous gospel places, he draws this
conclusion: "With the exception of atheism, any proposed punishment for the introduction
of the nation state and promises to establishment of true happiness among people, falls
there to stop the socialist doctrine from the standpoint of the gospel nothing. The basics
are not only criticism of the New Testament stand at ease, but on the contrary, they
contain just evangelical, divine truths, their charges against the contemporary social order
have been largely successful, fully justified their demands. "

Hardly Jesus died on the cross, or his disciples in Jerusalem go communist life, as one
can clearly read in Acts. 2: 44-16:

"And all that believed were together and had all things in common.
 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had
need. And daily with one accord in the temple persevering and breaking bread from house
to house, they ate together with gladness and singleness of heart. "

And in Hand. 4: 32-35:

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul; and no one
said anything of what was his own, but they had all things in common ... There was no
one among them that lacked: as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them
and brought the price of goods sold and laid it at the feet of the apostles.

And distribution was made unto every man had to each node. "

Is it conceivable that students immediately after the death of their masters such would
have established a town on communist principles, if it was in direct conflict with his
mind? After all, no!

It points out that communism was voluntary as opposed to the forced the Socialists, but
in return there are also among the socialists are very many who are averse show of any
compulsion, but they are confident that once people necessarily the interests and benefits
will perform in the direction of communism.

Unmistakable "can be seen from these words and stories that truly represent the first
Christian community tried a brotherhood with common ownership." (Quack).

What brotherhood means without communism? Meant is still life all together as one big
family and family life constitutes a small communist municipality, for that they live together
in one exhibition and each gets to that he hath need of him.

The famous French writer Ernest Renan sees this then the prophecy of a better future
when he writes: "If our petty, bourgeois, mediocre society, as our world of pygmies swept
away by the heroic and idealistic forces of mankind, then common life again come into its
own. A large crowd affairs, eg. Science, will organize in the form of monasteries, with a
heredity that is not only bound of blood to the band. The weight of our century attaches to
the family, will decrease. The selfishness, the fundamental law of the civil society, will not
meet great souls ... the shining ideal, outlined by the writer of the actions will as a
prophetic revelation is written above the entrance to the paradise of humanity. "

Renan sees in Jesus the prototype of the anarchist, for he says: "Jesus was an
anarchist in some respects, because he has no idea of the bourgeois government. The
government itself short and good seems to him an abuse "(see his Life of
Jesus ). Similarly testified Mackay of Max Stirner, the father of modern anarchism: "The
Bible, which Stirner thoroughly it was known, gives him time and again the supporting
places."

And the well-known writer Svrine indicating in its Pages rouges this clean page at
best: "A boy from Bethlehem, weak in body and mind, gathers around him a few
proletarians, to whom he speaks gently and easily on their great misery. These include a
fierce friendship for him and leave everything to follow him as he goes by pulling
Palestine. They do not appeal as well as our vagabonds; they sleep in the grooves as well
as our homeless; they make demonstrations on the graves as we do so; they hold
meetings and the unemployed in all Champ de Mars they find. They were twelve in
number, they are hundred - tomorrow they will be a thousand. Like the snowball that
rotates down, the flock will continue to grow. All that the country has to poachers, fallen
girls, tramps and thieves, follows the young man who preaches equality. There they have
stripped one life, so, you take where you can find; and the bourgeois closing their doors
filled with dread of this "army of crime", composed of the outcasts of society. The province
is in turmoil, the government rebels. Jesus is arrested for incitement to looting and
incitement to hatred of the people against each other. One his rulings him simultaneously
with a thief; the thief pardoned. When Barabbas turned to his fellow accused and said,
"Run quickly to criminal way."

Jesus was executed amid the laughter, shouting and spitting; his agony gives a
cheerful moment of drunken soldiers, and he gives the last sigh between two thieves on a
humiliating cross at the foot of which a old handcraft woman who is his cousin and a poor
girl of pleasure that loved him, weeping. This "thug" is on and since 19 centuries he rules
the world. "

However, for correct assessment of this communism of the earliest Christians, we must
not lose sight of its chairing a contempt for all earthly good, since they lived in the hope of
Jesus' return and the earthly goods would only be a nuisance, which prevented them to
immediately and without delay to enter into the joy of the Lord. Why work, why care - as
the lord and he may soon come any moment and he must find his own set. In nervous
tension survived those early Christians and in such times it often displays a sacrifice
which bordered on the unbelievable. And second, it is said that the community was one of
use and not a means of production. Evidence previously released one actually, unless
one wants to deduce this from the word of Peter to Ananias and Sapphira that they did not
need to sell their property and that they then could have kept the money, but in return it is
clear that they had all things in common.

All means of production into tobacco in order to distribute them among the poor, this is
the end of all production. Have the oldest Christians in anticipation of Jesus' return
construed so, they had to be sobered by reality.

Moreover, what is possible in a small circle of enthusiasts, which therefore can not be
made the basis for a society of greater magnitude. The time was not ripe for the
realization of communist ideas, as the then state of the production was the private
ownership of the means of production necessary condition of life, unless you like Plato
communism was a privilege of the aristocracy, while private property for the masses
remained. In fact, it is this therefore exercised in the Christian church, so communism
continued to exist for a single class, viz., The monks in the monasteries, while the mass
was considered not susceptible to these lofty principles and thus continued to live in the
old forms.
 That Christianity in its original form was a movement of proletarians and no wonder it
made sense in a world where the great mass of hopeless joyless of a miserable existence
dragged on. It cast a ray of hope in a life that consisted of one continuous suffering. And
so hopeful clung to mass clinging to a doctrine that spoke to them of a state in which
those who possessed nothing would acquire the necessary steps, in which the wealth was
distributed among all, so that there would be no poor. And they were saved, though it was
hope! The original Christianity was "an International simultaneously earthly and heavenly."
Undeniably wearing that Christianity a revolutionary character, because Jesus was not
only because he assaulted the religion of the fathers, but also because he came into
conflict as a social reformer with the ecclesiastical and secular government of his
day. Sounded the charge against the Christians that they were enemies of society, of the
whole human race? Were the Christians not called according to Tertullian "enemies of the
gods, the emperors, the laws of morals and of all nature?" And when they were
persecuted, this was done in the name of social order because they were considered
subversive.

There is between Christianity, inasmuch as we consider this as the doctrine unfolded

was in the Sermon on the Mount, and the Christian church as we know it in its
development such a large gap, we can safely say that the Christian Church has been the
institution which the realization of the Christian doctrine has been most in the way. It is
therefore incorrect to establish the liability of Jesus for all the evil in his name by church
and state committed during the course of centuries.

We own the True History of Joshua Davids, Ms.. Lynn Linton modern Imitatio Christi
(Imitation of Christ) as they attempted to make a living Jesus in modern garb in our
society, to show that a similar fate he would suffer the now nearly 19 centuries before. It
concludes that the practical following of Jesus a morally wrong and socially is a crime in
our Christian society, for the brotherhood and communism are taught by the Jewish
carpenter from Nazareth. One should read Tolstoy's: The kingdom of God is within
you and you will notice how this also contrary to church doctrine seeks to restore
Christianity according to the Sermon on the Mount alive.

As foolish as it would be to Jesus a socialist in the modern sense of the word, as

incorrect would it be to deny that there is not, especially the first times of Christianity,
clearly runs a common thread. Or rather, we see two trends developing side by side are:
the hierarchical-autocratic, which leads to church and state as a unit, and the communist,
often represented by sects, which are ejected from the community as heretics.

To say that Christianity abolished slavery, labor brought honor and improved the
position of women, but one should not so readily accept such claims. Or we do not know
or to liberate the slaves far from the Apostle Paul, has told them to be submissive to their
masters? We do not know that the Christians themselves had slaves and that Chrysostom
tells of a rich Christian, under her eyes had beat her slaves? Yes, St. Augustine went
further and gave a theory to justify slavery in his Civitas Dei in the words; "Christ did not
slaves made free men, but poor slaves good. How many do not owe the rich to Christ that
record brought up in their homes? "So, he says Jesus to make good slaves, not to abolish
slavery itself.
 Not agreed with his arguments that Bossuet slavery and dragonnades [12] defended
the Cvennes? Moreover, defended the American slaveholders slavery not rely on the
Bible? Yes, its fighters in the civil war were not often guided by the sober important issue,
more than love for the Christian principle?

And against those who claim that Christianity has brought the work to its former glory,
we propose simply the word of the influential French writer Guizot in Christian circles, who
wrote: "If I had to investigate the greatest evil, the most fatal vice of this ancient society
that France has dominated until the 16th century, I would not hesitate to say that this was
the contempt for labor. "Finally, as to the status of women, it is necessary in this regard
only in memory to bring the Christian pastors with the utmost seriousness have argued
whether the woman did have a soul.

The communist tradition of primitive Christianity continued to live alongside the official
state church, as evidenced by the cloud of witnesses, from the Fathers and other
esteemed ecclesiastical writers of the Catholics.

We will give a small selection from the works of these writers.

For example, the h wrote. Basil in the 4th century:

"Misery Lingen which ye what ye shall answer to the divine right? You cover the
nakedness of thy walls with wallpaper, but not covered with clothes the nakedness of
man. You garnish the horses with precious cloths and rags covered with despise thy
brother. You let go to ruin and devour your wheat in the barns and on the field and does
not give you even bother to cast a glance at those who have no bread ...

What's yours? Ye are not equal to him that the places that serve as general use in the
theater, considers only for him? Likewise, the rich, by first taking what belonged to all, this
is appropriated, as it was only them ... What is a thief? One who appropriates to himself
what belongs to superiors. Then you are no thief, which you have only retains what you
receive, to share it with others? If one calls him a thief who steals a garment, you must
give another name to him who, without penalizing himself, a naked man can dress and
him still naked napping? The bread that you withhold and what you have too much,
among the poor who die of hunger; the clothes, which you keep in your closet belong to
the naked; The shoes, which moldy when you belong to them, they do not; the money that
you hide in the ground belongs to those who are ruined. "

The H. Jerome wrote in the 4th century:

"The personal fortune of men is always the proceeds of theft, if the owner has not itself
been stolen, it was done by his ancestors ...

One can only win, some lose another. Hence the proverb, every rich is unjust itself, or
the heir of an injustice.

Usury is the price required for the use of borrowed money. "
 The H. Ambrose wrote in the 4th century:

"The wealth of the rich is necessary for the poor. It possesses the property of others, if
one possesses abundant.

Nature gives all goods to all common people, because God created all things, that the
enjoyment of all would be common and would be jointly owned the earth. Nature therefore
has the right spawned the community and it is only arrogance that emerged ownership
raises ...

You give less than you receive; even helping robs ge, you took advantage of the poor
themselves. Who pays interest is in need, he must borrow from you to pay the debt down
to him, and he keeps himself without income. That man is looking for a very agent offers
you poison him; he asks bread and shows you the sword; he begs for freedom, you show
him to slavery; He thirst for liberation, you do him the noose around the neck, which
makes him choke; you drink and he shed tears; you eat your food and suffocated
others; you hear pleasant music and another is in sighing; you can enrich the accident
and seek advantage in tears; you feed you the spoil of your victims through the hunger of
others, you stamp on your money and you do you consider rich, ye demands of the poor
wage ...

What is wrong in my behavior, you say, if I remember correctly from others respecting
carefully keep my personal property? Oh, insolent word! What are the properties of which
you speak? Why hast thou the things which you own the world? When you came into life,
what resources have you brought with you then? Since the earth is common to all the
people, no one can call themselves what above his natural needs owner goes into those
things which he has taken from the Common Fund and the violence keeps
alone. Reminds you that you have come naked from the womb of your mother, and you
shall go naked in the bosom of the earth. "

Pope Gregory the Great wrote in the 6th century:

"It's not enough of others to rob in vain: they believe to be innocent, which the goods
given by God to all common, self-appropriation: while they do not give to others what they
have saved, they are killers and murderers; because they retain for themselves the good
that could relieve the poor, one can say that they kill every day as many as they can
feed. If we give the means exist to those who are in need, we do not give that to us , but
what their belongs. It is not a work of mercy what we do, it's a debt we pay ...

You should know that the earth from which you were made, belongs common to all
people and therefore the fruit that the earth brings forth, should belong to all without
distinction.

The H. Augustine wrote in the 4th century:

"The wealth of the rich is necessary for the poor. It has the property of others if one
possesses abundant ...
 When thou someone borrows money and expect more for it than you have given and this
is not only money, but also what may be different or buckwheat, oil, wine, etc. -. Takes you
more than you have borrowed, then you are a usurer and in that regard punishable ...

The rentiers dare say, I have no other source to live. Is not that the same thing a thief
would reply, which is caught in the act? They are guiltier now they have chosen an unfair
business as a means of livelihood and have sought to retrieve their food from that which
offends him, whose coming all the food. "

Chrysostom (4th century), one of discussing the most famous ecclesiastical orators in
the eleventh of his homilies (sermons), the Acts of the Apostles and quoting the words:
"Great grace was on them all, and there was none among them who lack" continues he
said: "This was because no one said of his goods, that they were his, but all had in
common. Grace was among them because no one suffered lack, that is because they
gave so diligently that no one remained poor. And they gave no part, while retaining some
for himself; Also they did not do everything in a certain sense as their own. They raised
inequality and lived in great abundance; and they did so in the most praiseworthy
manner. They did not dare put the gifts in the hands of the needy, they also gave them
away with haughty condescension, but they laid them down at the feet of the apostles and
made them into lords and stewards of the gifts. What we need, then was held by the
community, not out of some private property taken. Thereby achieved that providers are
not in vain in raised ...

If we did the same today, then we lived much happier, both the rich and the poor; and
the poor would get by no more luck there than the rich ... because the donors were not
only not poor, they also made the poor rich.

Let us imagine the case thus: all give what they have in common ownership. No one
need to make themselves uneasy about it, neither the rich nor the poor. How much money
do you believe that together would flow? I count - with certainty one can say anything -
that if everyone all his money, his fields, his possessions, his houses (of the slaves, I
would not speak, because the early Christians did not, as they them probably quite left)
gave there would be a million pounds of gold together, probably two or three times
more. Now tell me, how many people has our city (Constantinople)? Would it not be a
hundred thousand? And how many pagans and Jews! How many thousands of pounds of
gold should flow together there! And how many arms do we have? I do not believe more
than 50,000. How much would it take to feed them every day? If they eat from a
communal table, the cost will not be that big. What shall we then start with our huge
treasure? Suppose ye that they could ever be exhausted? And the blessing of God a
thousand times more to be poured out upon us? Shall we not make a heaven of the
earth? If under three or five thousand (the first Christians) turned out to be so good and
nobody wanted, how much more should it prosper amid such a large crowd? Will
everyone who joins not add anything there?

The dismemberment of goods causes greater costs and hence poverty. We take home
with husband, wife and 10 children. She weaves, he looks for his service on the
market; they will need as they commonly live in one house or if they live
separately? Obviously, if they live separately. If the 10 sons split up, they have 10 houses,
10 employees and everything else needed equally. And what about the multitude of
slaves? Let them eat not together, to save costs? The fragmentation leads to
extravagance, the contraction in savings.

If one lives in a monastery and so once lived believers. Who died there of
starvation? Who was not over saturated? And yet the people of that state more afraid than
a leap into the infinite sea. Let us take the test and properly handle the matter. How great
the blessing would be! For if at the time when the number of believers was so small, only
3 or 500, as at the time when the world hostile to us, when no consolation could be found,
as when our predecessors so determined were going about their business, how would
trust than we have now, by God's grace is everywhere believers! Who would like to
remain heathen? No one, I believe. We would draw all men unto us and make us
pleasing. "

And in another homily, we read:

"The Christians, who listened to the voice of the apostles prevailed the most perfect
equality. They treat each other as children of the same family, which are the same in the
parental home, where no one was considered as nourishing the others are good and
admirable thing! Even those who had abandoned their possessions, did not seem to live
more of their own resources, but they draw as well as others from the common fund of the
association. If we assumed this life like ours would be a big welfare of track for the rich
and for the poor and the benefit would be for no more than the other ... If we could put all
fears aside, we would boldly start this company and we would thus distort our earthly
home into a veritable heaven ... the unequal distribution of wealth should not be attributed
to God, it is the consequence of the crime and the injustice of men. When will still want to
finally understand that the great crowd is in poverty and misery, because some possess
abundant? Let the rich disappear and poverty simultaneously disappears. Let no one
have over the necessary and all will have the necessary. The existence of a small number
of rich is enough to make an innumerable arms arise ... Do you people who have become
rich without had the unfairness and theft proportion to obtaining their possessions? It is
almost impossible that wealth can be acquired without being accompanied by all kinds of
crimes and immoral acts. Will you be rich? Then begins to be suitable for lying, stealing,
cheating, infidelity, robbery, violence, adultery even if it is useful. It's the lust that
populated the sea with pirates, the field with robbers, towns and villages with thieves, the
whole world with plunderers of all kinds. Roof, lies, false witness, deceit, cruelty, intrigue,
etc., one is for any of this to satisfy his evil tendencies. Thus, robs the poor, they
oppressed the poor and spares neither widow nor orphan. So spoil the morals and all
good tendencies under. "

Clearly enough is not it? And though it is true that we also have other excerpts from
their works can cite to prove the opposite, it takes the truth remains that there is a
common thread running through the history of the church, as a result of which the present
socialists have the right itself to invoke church fathers, popes, etc. What is the difference
between what is taught St. Jerome and the infamous words of Proudhon, that 'property
theft "is? The original Christianity was communist, the traditions have been preserved it
and it has the official Church, elevated to a state church by Emperor Constantine, effort
cost enough that communism to shake off. It lived on, if not in , yet next to the church and
in the heresies of all ages.

Or Nikolaten, considered by some to the same as the Bileamieten - because the words
Nikolaus and Balaam have the same meaning, namely, conqueror of nations, and against
whom was warned in the Book of Revelation -. Communists demanded that community of
goods and genders , which can not be said with certainty. It must be adopted under the
authority of some church fathers which Karpokrates and his students [13] , known as the
Karpokratiten, which stood for the community. The Ebionites (Ebion means arm) in
imitation of Jesus had aversion to all resources and a strict ascetic, perhaps led
communist life, seems certain.

The Gnostics [14] , who also had tendencies in that direction Platonism mingled with
the requirements of Jesus, may be assumed.

That peligianen, another sect of the 5th century, to whom Augustine placed, had
communist leanings, it is inferred that they wanted the rich would get rid of their
resources, since it would not participate could not inherit the kingdom of God . Augustine
made a subtle distinction between the Gospels advice and instructions and wrote: "Jesus
Christ distinguishes strictly between the observation of the commandments of the law and
other higher perfection, because he said the one hand: if you keep To enter into life, the
commandments and on the other hand: if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou
hast . Why should the rich, who do not achieve this level of perfection, can not be saved if
they keep the commandments, if they give their order be given, as they forgive their
forgiveness that may be given "? Pelagianism was therefore done as heresy banned.

A crowd sects rose from the ground like mushrooms, and all they had next to a mystical
rave a conception of life, giving them as brothers and sisters in fellowship did live. We call
from the multitude only antitakten, phibioniten, adamiten, procidianen, agapeten, etc. In
contrast, the official church developed showed in another direction and authoritative men,
as Chrysostom precisely expressed, more fear of communism than "a jumped into the
endless sea. "

The similarities between the original Christianity and the modern socialist movement
are so striking that they have to fall into the eye and wonder therefore that the famous
Friedrich Engels was driven to the recognition: "The history of primitive Christianity offers
remarkable similarities with the modern labor movement. As this was Christianity in its
origins a movement of oppressed: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and the
freedmen, the poor and disenfranchised, of peoples subjugated by Rome. Both,
Christianity as well as workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and
misery; Christianity puts her in a future life after death, in heaven, socialism in the world,
in a deformation of the society. Both are persecuted, their supporters outlawed placed
under exceptional laws, such as enemies of the human race, the others as enemies of the
state, enemies of religion, family and social order. And despite all the persecutions, even
directly promoted by her, both insist triumphantly constantly. Three hundred years after its
birth, Christianity is the recognized state religion of the Roman Empire and socialism has
barely 60 years won a place which makes sure of the victory. "

Certainly, that was the state of affairs, but the writer fails to focus on the substance, viz.
That Christianity have triumphed, but as the state religion at the expense of the Christian
principle that socialism is likely to triumph if state socialism, but much to the detriment of
the socialist principle.

It is highly questionable whether this kind of triumph not be worse than defeats, which
once will represent the future.

_______________
[12] The persecutions of the French Protestants in the middle of France.
[13] Karpokrates that the teachings of Christ, Zoroaster, Phythagoras, Plato and Epicurus
interlacing mixed, wrote: "Nature reveals the community and the unity of all, the
community is the divine law, to which all human laws must be subjected. Human laws that
oppose bringing in community of the land, the goods of life, and the women are so many
violations of the lawful order of things, so many rapes of natural law. "
And his son Epiphanius wrote in his book about justice: "the righteousness of God is a
community with equality. The community of all things, without exception, derives from the
natural law; ownership of property and the award of marriages result from human law. "
[14] These derived their name from the Greek word gnosis , knowledge, science. The
adherents of this doctrine regarded themselves as the initiates of the Mysteries, thus
standing above the mass of the people.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 7

Socialism in the Middle Ages

Was up for a short time in the habit of looking down and really deliver on those dark
ages, historians, which is more steeped in the spirit of this period, began to realize that
the society of those days was a peculiar, but that this light and shadow each alternating as
in any other, even the community as a greater influence over men than later, when under
the cry of freedom all the good with the bad, the baby with the bathwater, was overboard
thrown to proclaim the supremacy of the money in the grossest manner.

The Christian spirit, the spirit and the Roman Germanic nature - such are the three
things that collided and going are finally assembled by friction.

Prof Quack distinguishes four circles, behind those who lived in it, sheltering
themselves and their property relations, resources and relationships organized. Those
four are: 1 . the church; 2 . the lords and knights (feudalism); 3 . Marken and the
hofwezen or the organization of the land; and 4 . the guild system or the organization of
labor, trade and industry.
 The first circuit so was the church the all-controlling power. She represented the
concept of unity among the people and if one does not have to be blind to what they are
here and went there to curb crude habits, regarded her as including general people love
and true humanity, we can not.

By accumulation of knowledge civilization was promoted, also developed the Christian

church and now the friends of that church have once been on hand to assert that this
civilization was due to the Christian spirit. No, civilization, its progress and the church
went, now it is natural that both hit each other from time to time, but we agree with Buckle
which religion, literature and government, three factors are of great importance, however,
these are not the cause but the consequence of the progress of a nation. An ignorant
people is precisely because of its ignorance tend to a religion of miracles and superstition,
but it will never succeed to impose a backward religion skilful people. It is the highness or
lowness of the religious views indicates the level to which a nation state. When Christian
missionaries influence for good on barbarian peoples, then this will be caused by the
superior knowledge and civilization of them and because they were accompanied by their
religion they took it there to.

The Christian church took care of the poor in hand, yes but they naastte the ground, so
it was the largest land owner: a third, sometimes a higher share of all land heard her in
some countries. And original arms of goods were gradually church property and the
theory was recognized in the 12th century that all church property belonged to the Pope,
who at will could have. Poverty was however highly regarded in medieval times, but the
church itself was always to pull all resources to itself.

The original communism was applied in the monasteries, where they lived together as
one big family. First, they were founded and populated by people who had received for
any reason, an aversion to the world and now lived a life of seclusion; on the other hand
were the poor who sought refuge behind the monastery walls, because they saw no
solution in bourgeois society. Already Augustine complained that "now devote themselves
to the service of God most of the time slaves or freedmen, or men who therefore should
be left released or become free by their lords or peasants or artisans or plebeians."

Some monasteries had their income by begging monks, others had income from their
wealthy fellow members knew and still others by the labor of the monks to find a
living. However, the community of property was considered by the best and the highest
state and the 'mine and thine' patience was because of the iniquity of the
people. Dulcisima rerum Possessio communis est [15] . Is that not the position of the
"doctor universalis", St. Thomas Aquinas, as he in his Summa Theologica writes: "First,
one has to say that natural law requires general property, not because according to
natural law all things in common should be and there nothing like may consider his own:
but because according to natural law there is no distinction between assets, according to
human rules, which (as stated above) belongs to the law firm. The ownership of property
is not against natural law, but it is the natural law added by inventions of the human mind?
"So Aquinas acknowledges that" natural law requires general property ", but he rejects it,
because man is sinful and by its sinfulness is not able to live according to the "natural
law". He sees in the property an invention of human conditions, added to the natural law,
imposed because it was necessary, but then, as soon as it can and must be no longer
necessary, dismissed.

How could he judge otherwise?

The entire production of the Middle Ages was based on the handiwork of the small farmer
with his shovel and spade, the guild journeyman with his loom in the house, his carpentry
tools are vleeshouwersmes. This made private ownership of the land and the equipment
needed. Once these reasons, run down, and the human race has developed to a level
where his maintenance products else wins more easily than in the Middle Ages, also
eliminate the objections he had then against the public property.

A life of contemplation was, moreover, regarded as the highest and the work actually as
a necessary evil. Agriculture and handicrafts were as productive businesses valued, but
commercially the best minds of the Middle Ages and later to speak badly during the
reform.

The unhealthy basis of monastic life, viz. The unmarried state, makes the monasteries
could be regarded at most as a haven for some who broke the world in solitude and
seclusion to live out their lives. Not always knew which monastic orders to conform to the
official, ruling church and sometimes the popes had a lot to be with them, especially
where they fraternized with heretical sects, which occurred in Italy and France, but several
times the monks popes knew too to make them subservient. However, they knew the
monks well as parasites of society than that they had finished with them.

Was not John Ruysbroek which in the 13th century by the monks in general and the
friars in particular, testified: "When dominate them generally three errors: laziness,
vindictiveness and carousing?" Were it not Erasmus and Ulrich von Hutten, which darted
their sharpest arrows against monasticism of their days?

As for the monasteries, they brought virtually into application what Plato meant by his
organization of the guards. The community property here was similarly applied and the
celibacy of priests actually had the same objective as the community of women in Plato's
guardians, nl. to not permanently attached to a husband, but entirely to belong to the
state.

The second circle was that of feudalism , equally composed of people who do not
labor. The feudal castle was the characteristic feature of the political and social
organization of the Middle Ages. Every nobleman had his castle [16] . That was the sign
of power; protected its owner, it was a threat to its neighbors, the passers-by, any person
who was not defended by such a stone castle. That gentleman was the owner of the land
he had received in connection borrowing and disposal, as such, the people who lived on
that land. The personal slavery was abolished by the time it was more advantageous to
work without slaves and was replaced by serfdom. This is another form of slavery, but the
essence of the thing it comes down to the same thing. The serfs were still riveted to the
ground and requires labor services of all kinds. All the services that had to be made
necessary by the serfs, the strangest far, eg. Hitting the water in the ponds and moats
around the castle, so the lord and his family would not be hindered in their sleep by the
croaking of frogs, further known ius primae noctis (the law of the gentleman on the first
night of every daughter of his serfs) which duty was still in the 18th century from the sum
of money that had to give by way of redemption at the wedding Mr, or the gift that the lord
at that time was at the wedding of his subordinates, which was nothing more than a
remnant of that right; another right, that Messrs arrogated, consisted in taking two serfs
left cut open the belly to warm their feet in the warm entrails, eg. hunting coming or winter
cold. And all this happened under discretion, at least under authorization of the
dominating church alone, but what is worse, her servants, especially the dignitaries,
joined them. The church, which was usually so intolerant, always has great leniency
shown for the great lords, who supported her and maintained [17] .

There was almost nothing or Mr. had to have it. Several times go complaints in the
ancient chronicles of those days, where one can see how the mansion held, such as: "The
gentlemen do us nothing but harm, we can get from them neither right nor reason; they
have everything, take everything and let us live in poverty and suffering, "Cardinal
Jacques de Vitry writes in the 13th century." The robbery, the looting, the with violence
they sometimes openly and then secretly exert on the unfortunates who depend of them
make their cruel tyranny intolerable. These gentlemen leave despite the noble titles and
dignities, which they are proud, not after to go out for prey and to exercise the profession
of thieves and robbers by destroying entire regions through fire. "

It was not the Low German Columnist Jacob van Maerlant, who had a faint
understanding of the origin of evil in society, when he sang:

Two may be in that werelt sijn

Dats My allene and Dijn.
Should one which verdriven,
Pays tidings of peace bleve fine,
True though Fri, Niemen eigijn.

Yet these men were not capitalists, ie they were not people that the services
kapitaliseerden because they did not need to do because their subordinates who had to
deliver continuously. "Does the medieval landowner, the noble lord among his castles,
serfs, serfs, its in the most different ways loan officer villages and towns. Was this man
capitalist "as Lassalle early in his polemic with Schultze-Delitzsch and his answer was: no
way, though they were wealthy people, they could not capitalize. What they receive is best
for themselves stimulants to purchase, which they also did, so they created a cheerful and
opulent life, but the money has not yet been voorttelende force obtained and medieval
society as such is a very big contrast to the contemporary world.

The third circle was that of Marken and hofrecht .

Everywhere it has been found by the most recent studies that the land belonged to the
tribe and that there was no private property. The mir in Russia, the allmende in
Switzerland, the market in Germany and the Netherlands that the state remains. At first
everything was shared, later they took a piece of land for house and yard and it was
privately owned, but the land remained in the community and was also common
cultivated. This form still existed in Germania, when Caesar came and Tacitus tells us
some length, though it was also already private property was found. The market had self-
government and private law. They kept poverty. When one of the residents of an English
workhouse compares to the usufructuary of the Allmend in Switzerland, one sees the
great difference between the two systems, one of which leads to larger spreads wealth
alongside abject poverty, and the other more general prosperity. Of course, the situation
was quite different than now, because they produced for their own use and not for the
world. And if it is true that the mark an "organization of land ownership for the benefit of
many: a common use", then this should definitely be attributed as its merit. The mark was
a small state, because the device was the band that the mark enjoyed together covenant
pretty strong, because it was put together by community of interests, and that is actually
the strongest bond that connects people to each other.

The fourth circle was formed by knowing the organization of businesses in the
cities: the guilds . [18] These were the organization of labor and industry in the Middle
Ages and had in mind the interests of both producers and those of consumers. All kinds of
things which we now insist, whose achievement in the present tense as a benefit is seen,
existed in those dark ages. Thus, eg. A normal working day, labor courts, apprenticeship,
care to old age. It is not within our specifications in order to elaborate the guild system
with its ascent of apprentice, journeyman and master, but one can not understand the
Middle Ages as one with it does not give a bigger place than usual place in the history
books. The leading idea of the guilds and brotherhoods - Russia artels, Serbia and Turkey
esnaifs, Georgia amkari called - was mutually hulpbetoon and the annual feast of the
guilds or to be far from the main action, had no other purpose than to bond of brotherhood
to further strengthening. The city of the Middle Ages, therefore, was not a political
association to protect certain political freedom, it was much more like the old village
community association for mutual aid and aid for production and consumption and for all
the needs of society without people to impose the constraints that the modern state
imposes on them. In two respects had such a city more of a federation, ie. All the
inhabitants of a small territory, the street or the neighborhood and a certain number of
individuals on oath joined together in guilds. Certainly there were major drawbacks
associated with the guilds, but whether it was wise for the development not to change the
form depending on the circumstances, which have been revolutionized by the application
of steam to the industry overall, but him short and well purchase, this we want to leave in
the middle. Enough though to note that the workers are everywhere itself again to begin to
represent the common interests in the trade unions and create a new form of the guild
system into existence in a sense. They had at least one organization of work, allowing the
worker preserved hunger and unemployment and where its fate not now due to the fierce
competition was hanging by a thread, and the fear of tomorrow is not such a destructive
impact on man's existence exercised.

These four groups: church, feudal and guild marks form as it were four boxes, each
organized internally well, which were sharply opposed. It was the priests, the nobles, the
peasants and the artisans, which so rightly pointed out by Quack, which "were closed
circles, within which all sorts of social wires were visible and hung all kinds of elements
from each other, but who do not much influence on each permitted "and comparing him
did the Middle Ages with a mosaic," fur and color, but together from fragments to each
other, not entirely of one mind and emerge in one tone. There are many freedoms, but
there is not a single general freedom. The circles, classes and grades remain clearly
delimited and surrounded by walls. Here and there you can see only a prelude to greater
unity. Another mind sometimes feed on those circles there. "

The old Germanic spirit which included the community, the Roman seeded and instead
of reforming the old Germanic law was, which showed a much broader mind, they took
according to Maurer "the absurdity of written and secret justice to, cobbled together from
provisions of the Roman and canonical, and only faint remnants of the old Germanic
law. A true masterpiece to kill the public and national spirit, the tomb of all true depth and
all proper judicial source wander and pedantry, which eternal reading documents and
depreciation of instruments (which still make extracts from documents usually only is)
conduct was necessary, and until the next time even held talented and hardworking staff. "

Those walls now from time to time have been broken by socialist movements, which
sometimes threatened to destroy the artfully constructed building, now is targeting against
cathedral or monastery, then against the citadels of men, sometimes skipping to the town
hall in the city.

Strange that almost all of these movements showed a religious core and socialism so
often accompanied by religious fanaticism and mysticism. The accumulation of treasures
in the hands of the church, the opulent life of the clergy were the cause of many a
movement against the Church. However, the opposition took the anathema of the Church
on the neck. We can not dwell extensively on the work of Peter the Brueys Languedoc in
the early 12th century, his successor Henri Rug in Lausanne and La Mans, of Tanchelm or
TANDEMUS, the demagogue from Zeeland that the war in Flanders preached against the
tithe and property of the church and Antwerp for a time completely was the boss, but still
want to remind bring the abbot Joachim of Fiore in Calabria, who also practiced at a later
much influence and because of an obscure book is eternal life through the church has
canonized, as in Dante's Paradise Beatrice mentions him among the multitudes of the
blessed, saying:

And that shines there equally

Is Joachim, once abbot of Kalabreezen,
to whom was given the seer gift.

Later, when they are learning better understood, Pope Alexander IV talked about the
curse off. Abbot Joachim saw the corruption of the church and the social evils of his time,
sought to rescue and seemed to find her in communism.

He saw the emergence of a new society, speaking the millennium which the
Revelation. He distinguished three times, "first was the time when people had the
meat; This began with Adam and ended with Christ. Then the time came when they both
serve, both the flesh and the spirit; he lasts to the present. Another era is, which one is left
alive in spirit, whose beginning is in the days of the Saints Benedict. "The third condition is
the monks status (monachorum). Monasticism will include all humanity. To full realization
would be the third state in the 22th race since St. Benedict, so in the upcoming time. The
church will undergo great judgments and her remains will emerge a new society, the order
of the righteous, raising the private property. A time of full freedom and full knowledge
thus begins.

Especially on a part of the Franciscan order, the Fraticelli, he practiced great

impression, so that both Sagarelli with its order of the Apostle Brothers (Patarenes [19] )
as his pupil Dolcino of Navarre, both slain, the first burned to Parma in 1304 and the
second with his vanquished by the bishop of Vercelli and his army with banners and then
put to death in 1307, his working communist spirit, but also that of Thomas Mntzer was
said by Luther that he had drawn his "haughty ideas" from the interpretation of Jeremiah
by the abbot Joachim.

In the south of France and in the mountains of Piedmont, in the beautiful land between
the Alps and the Pyrenees, one finds the Albigenses and Waldenses and all the teachings
of heretics are primarily religious, it is undeniable that the desire to to return to the original
time of Christianity contributed to the development of communist tendencies. It goes too
far, as they claim that they all preached indiscriminately communism and community of
women - these scattered opponents - but it is equally untrue, as they say were found
among them no traces of communism. Since these sects strongly aangroeiden the church
began her acting and overall Crusades were organized to exterminate heretics by force
instead of them converting by persuasion. And while they went to work with
unprecedented cruelty, were controlled drive hunts which was the worst, that of the
Bishop of Beziers. When asked how one could distinguish heretics from the faithful
Catholics replied Christian pastor: kill them all but, God knows His own. There were
therefore in accordance with the story of the papal legate 20,000 people, but according to
the chronicler of those days killed 60,000 people, of which only 7000 at least in the church
of St. Magdalena.

The Albigenses derive their name from the small town of Albi, where they had their
center. The Waldenses to a wealthy merchant in Lyons, Peter Waldo, who has divided his
property among the poor for them to live in voluntary poverty. The fellow members of the
sect, who had not been founded yet gained more fame by him by him, also bore the name
of the Poor of Lyon and most of them were artisans and weavers mostly. They were later
peaceful, quiet people who did no man evil, they rejected military service and oath and
always had a lot of good educational objectives. The history of the Waldenses is the
general history an interesting chapter and is also a formidable indictment of driving the
Catholic Church.

Also in the north, in the Netherlands and Flanders, one finds communist sects. Thus,
the beguines [20] in the 11th century, associations of pious women, perhaps brought into
being as a result of the Crusades, since the exodus of large numbers of men to the east
remained a great abundance women and those for whom it marriage was impossible,
retreated to their common stay beguinages, who had this over monasteries that they were
free associations, where one could always go out at will. Later formed in the same way
men also associations, usually consisting of unmarried craftsmen, who lived together with
their handiwork as well as love gifts and formed a communist household. They also
distinguished themselves through works of charity, why they were even praised by Pope
Boniface.

Thus the sect of Free Spirits (liberorum spirituum) in the first half of the 14th century
and above all a woman, known under the name of Bloemardine, of whom an old
chronicler tells the following history: "There was in Brussels a heretical woman, commonly
called Bloemardine; was a great cry of sanctity of her, so extraordinary that it was
believed that her two angels accompanied and supported when they approached the holy
table. This shameless creature wrote a book about the spirit of liberty and carnal love,
which should be the last name of angel love gave and she was very excited by her party
and those worshiped her as the creator of a new and excellent teaching. When she
unfolded her principles, she placed herself in a silver chair like a queen and it is said that
this chair because the rumor caused by the teachings of her, who from clerk, was given in
continuation of time duchess Johanna. After her death her name was so great that several
of its supporters who had defects, healing believed to be able to get through the touch of
her skeleton. "

Although the famous preacher John Ruysbroek tried to bring these heretics to
repentance, the sect persisted and survived later continued under another name (Homo
intelligences). Among them, a process done to them in 1411, became known to the
Carmelite monk William of Hildernissem and Gilles Singer.

The Brethren of the Common Life, which order was created by Geert Groote Deventer,
remind us of something. They worked especially beneficial by the foundation of schools
and through the promotion of science. About 20 brothers lived in one house together and
had a common purse and table. "Woe to those who live in community is looking for what
is his or says something it is his" - so wrote a friend and disciple of Geert Groote.

The most radical were the brothers and sisters of the free spirit in the 13th century, a
sect founded by Amal Rich of Bena and above all brought to fruition by his pupil David of
Dinant. They proclaimed the community of goods and women, they rejected all
inequalities, including any government. A large part of the beguines joined them, and
gradually the name Beguine in the ordinary sense was as much as a heretic. In England,
where she lollharden called, it went similarly. It seems that this movement from Brabant
and Zeeland by weavers has been transferred to England and within a short time was the
capital Norwich Norfolk and especially with its strong wool industry headquarters
lollharden. The motto with which it occurred, the famous song was:

When Adam and Eve plowed spun

Where was the nobleman?

Their main spokesman was John Ball [21] , probably a Franciscan monk of strict
observance, and no doubt he exerted a great influence on the people who lived in misery
and poverty, burdened by the unbearable burden of labor.

Froissart, the chronicler, a contemporary of Ball, calls him "Kent crazy priest" one. He
was also banned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and King Edward III did capture
him. Released he began again and he could not preach in the churches, he did it in
squares and outdoors. As a sample of his sermons Froissart shares [22] indicate the
following:

"Dear people, it will not be better in England, before everything is common property and
there are no serfs and nobles, before we are all equal and men no more than we are. Why
do they keep us in bondage? How! Stems not only from the same parents, Adam and
Eve? So the men can prove that they are better than us? Perhaps that is why,
since we produce and edit what they consume? They wear velvet, silk and fur, we are
dressed in rags. They have wine, cake and spices, we have clay, and drink only
water. Their part is not doing fine in Castles, our effort and work, rain and wind under the
open sky, and yet, it's our work, so they can show off. They call us servants and saves us
when we are not at all at their service stand without delay, and we have no king who
wishes to hear us or to help us right. But our king is young; let us go to him, we put him
our servitude exposed and we will show him that it must come to an end, otherwise we
will give ourselves a good agent. If we go united to him, he will grant us something good
will, or we will help us in other ways. "

Froissart found him so dangerous that he adds that it would have been better if the
archbishop had slain him instead of locking him up for a few months in prison.

Although John Wicklef [John Wycliffe - MIA], one of the forerunners of the reform of the
16th century, which led courageous opposition in England against the greed and abuses
of the heads of the Church, and after a life of struggle and persecution by his death 1384
at the time escaped the clutches of the men themselves more sought consolation in the
nobility hostile to the popular classes, yet also have contributed his ideas to the popular
movement of the lollhards.

It did not stop at words, but a peasant uprising broke out. Following this purpose gave
the dishonor of the daughter of a slater, Wat Tyler, a tax collector. Tyler hit the onteerder
death and called upon the people to take the field against tyranny. Kent and Essex were
capable of resistance within days. Jack Straw (Straw Jaap) a cleric, and John Ball chose
the party of the people. They moved to London, where it was received with open arms by
the people. Several palaces of the nobles were burned, but they kept it strictly by hand in
order not to rob and steal. The young King Richard II had taken charge of the Tower. In a
meeting with the king, managed to obtain the insurgents abolition of serfdom and
amnesty. But the people had the Tower, abandoned by the king, stormed and occupied,
the Archbishop of Canterbury and killed others who were there, backward, and then
became more demanding. It also wanted to have: free fishing and free hunting in the
parks, on the fields and in the forests, so they demanded the forest and water for all. A
new congregation followed. What was unexpected Tyler slain by the mayor of London with
a club, and in the midst of the horror, that brought this vile murder, the king rode towards
the people and said, "What are you doing my subjects? Wat Tyler was a traitor, I am your
king. "The crowd, always good faith, believed him when he promised restoration of their
grievances. But as always, the heads are slain, namely John Ball, Wat Tyler and Jack
Straw, held a slaughter among the people and the restoration of the complaints -.
Forthcoming.
 When the king had a large army around him and felt powerful again, he said to the
representatives of the people, which reminded him of his royal promises: "Servants were
you and your servants. Thou shalt remain in bondage - not one in which you have lived so
far, but a lot worse. For as long as we live and rule this kingdom with God's grace, we will
do our minds, our strength and our ability to use this end to mistreat you that your slavery
will be a warning example for the offspring. "

Also Wicklef was drawn into the movement and helped it nothing, though he
condemned the peasant uprising in a document, which appeared in 1382, even his
patron, the Duke of Lancaster, released him, and Wicklef was dismissed from his post at
the university Oxford and was lucky that he was coming alive. Worse ran off with the
lollhards, which now were regarded as traitors and they were caught, it was death at the
stake their fate.

Although seemingly had suppressed this rebellion yet this influence that farmers in
England towards the end of the 14th century were freed from serfdom. they had all kinds
of riots on the mainland, such as that of Ditmarse farmers under Edemanns Jurgen in
1144, which ended in 1227 by a grant of freedom to the farmers, the efforts of the farmers
in Jutland and Skne, the struggle of the Stadingers with the counts of Oldenburg,
Kennemer uprising in 1268, known under the name of Bread and Cheese revolt, the
lawsuit was the distribution of the goods of the rich and noble. One of Kennemers said:
"Citizens of Utrecht, the free people of Kennemerland greeting you and desires that you
uitjaagt all the nobles of the city and their goods gives the poor."

France was not retarded, because they had called jacquerie in the 14th
century. Jacques Bonhomme [23] , so called the farmer who bore all expenses and if it
rebelled, then it must have been very bad. Their pent-up hatred avenged themselves on
the castles of the nobles and all they prevailed, was divided among themselves. All nobles
eradicating the world - that was their motto. Terror and fear spread in France, for a short
time were 60 castles to ashes in the neighborhood of Amiens, 100 in Valois and at
Laon. But the nobility got courage and well armed in their armor rushed they were kept
poorly armed peasants with the result that real massacres. At Meaux were well beaten to
death 7,000 farmers, they murdered so long that they could not fatigue. The king of
Jacques Guillaume Callet, was slain in public, after it him a hot iron as crown had beaten
the head. The entire jacquerie lasted no longer than a month, from May 21 to June 24,
1358.

At the same time the city came citizenry revolted and Etienne Marcel attempted to base
the first Paris Commune. Two uprisings, which ran parallel to the city a revolt against the
monarchy, the country ditto against the nobility and the high clergy, but they remain
parallel distance, instead of uniting in one point. Etienne Marcel shrank to connect to the
Jacques and the result was that both of them were crushed.

Also in Bohemia was an attempt by farmers to free themselves from the bondage. Was
this country in the 13th century economically with western neighbors, the rulers are trying
to improve this by German farmers, German craftsmen and merchants, German scholars
and artists to lure Bohemia. And so also took the national opposition a role in the
complications which took place there. As it was named in a document from 1437, "The
Bohemians have to be very wary, and all diligence to ensure that they do not come under
the dominion of the Germans; because as explained Bohemian chronicles, that nation is
the most formidable enemy of the Bohemians and Slavs. "This danger was great, as well
as in the management of the municipality and in the law and in college Prague and in the
church, were the Germans who predominated. The opulence of the church was large and
the high clergy usually surpassed the monarchs in brilliance and splendor. Nowhere was
richer decorated churches than in Bohemia. Thus there arose the desire for a church
reform for the people impoverished, as the fortified church.

As the main representative of the anti-papal and anti-German movement, John Huss
appeared, who carried out the teachings of Wicklef in Bohemia; German element, which
the university Prague mastered, she knew branding as heretics, but Huss, who had
managed to gain the favor of King Wenceslaus, granted three votes to the Czech nation in
the university and the other nations together only one vote . The majority of German
professors and students then left the university and made Huss to its rector. But it met
with the Archbishop of Prague, the Pope, and then Huss powerfully preached against
indulgences of the pope, there arose clashes between the Hussite Czechs, who burned
the papal bulls and assumed a threatening attitude against the clergy on the one hand
and the Catholic Germans on the other hand. People know the end of Huss, who,
Konstanz on the stake was his end, due to the treachery of King Sigismund, and at the
insistence of the church. For the Bohemians was the cause for the hussietenstrijd that are
unparalleled in history in severity and duration has not. One can distinguish between two
parties under the Hussites, namely: the aristocracy, who supported the nobility and the
city of Prague, it was called the calixtijnen or Utraquism [24] , and democratic, which
consisted of farmers and small citizens whose efforts was to free owners, regardless of
the nobility. The first course was the moderate direction, the second revolutionary.

Through the development of commodity trading, due to the expansion of the wool mill,
communist ideas were promoted because begharden male beguines, named by their
contemporaries "idlers", thereby in Bohemia, whereas came many Waldenses after
persecution in southern France to Bohemia went to find refuge. The confiscation and
looting of church property, due to the struggle of the church against Bohemians and rich,
after the burning of Huss, promoted the spread of communist ideas. At various places
came communist organizations and especially the three cities Pisek, Wodnian and Tabor,
the centers of the communists. Tabor front, because they were the boss. In the town Austi
was a strong weaver population and when to expel the Catholic party succeeded them out
of the city, when they settled in the vicinity, on a wide hill on the Luznic, a sort of peninsula
with steeply sloping mountains, and they christened this almost impregnable place in the
Old Testament name of Tabor.

The teachings of the Taborites came down to this:

"In this time on earth will be no king or ruler or subject, and will cease all taxes, no one
will force someone into something, because all will be equal brothers and sisters. There in
the town of Tabor no mine and thine exist, but everything is shared, will be all things to all
common and none have private property, and who does, commits a mortal sin. "
 Each community had its common purse, which each gave what he called his
property. The brothers sold their goods and possessions and laid it at the feet of the
administrators of the greenhouse, their aim was to restore the original Christianity, as it
had revealed himself to Jerusalem.

However, there arose in their midst matter as the extreme left introducing demanded of
pure communism and the dissolution of the family by the community of women, while the
majority chaired the opinion that every family worked for himself and only the surplus of
their work yielded to the common purse. The former called the nikolaten, to a certain
farmer Niklas, also Adamites because they considered the Adamic condition as the
sinless innocence. In their havens - as they called their meeting rooms - they came
together naked. According to Aeneas Sylvius "they lived in community of women, but it
was forbidden to touch a woman without the consent of the supervisor Adam; was one of
them seized by the desire, he kindled towards a woman, he took it at hand, and went to
the superintendent, saying my mind is in love for her ontgloeid. Then said the steward, go,
grow and multiply and fill the earth. " [25]

Both directions came into conflict with each other and the strict communists who
constituted the minority, were expelled from Tabor and attracted 300 people strong, in the
woods on the river Luznic. It was mainly the hussietenaanvoerder Ziska, who persecuted
them.

The common greenhouses were not mentioned again in the year 1422. There had
formed home and field municipalities, whose first worked in the field, while the latter were
engaged in the war and all that went with it, always ready as well as the ancient Germans
with his wife and child to face the enemy. They are the forerunners of the later standing
armies. The Taborites sect existed until 1434, when they suffered a major defeat at Lipan,
which they could never recover. Still missing the communist ideas, because the Bohemian
brethren - so they called that sects, including those of Peter Chilchicky was the main -
existed for some time. They were the forerunners of today's duchoboren because they
abhor all violence as well as the entire state based on social inequality. The true Christian
does not participate in the state and its administration, he leads a life in isolation from his
sinful environment. Though privately owned and family life is not prohibited, the fraternal
spirit and striving for equality were still found there. What therefore poorly matched, was
the strict discipline that existed among them. Later, they went a whole, as evidenced by
Gindelys History of the Bohemian brothers , where it writes: "From the Bohemian Puritans
yes from the Bohemian fanatics that about heroes to Peter Chilchicky than to Huss, who
questioned the celibacy according to the teachings of Paul, no oath swore occupied no
office, would permit no wealth, no wealth endured, not lent at interest money, detested the
war, were wealthy capitalists grown, all honorable married men, very able men of
business, all decent mayors and jurors, all good generals and statesmen. "

At that time could socialism impossible to develop, because the economic requirements
of the time did not permit the realization of that idea. There was too great a gap between
the need for products and the needs of the proletariat than they could be covered by
theoretical propositions and only when muted, the proletariat can be the carrier of the
historical development. Certainly the poor tended to communism, but not as soon as it
ceased to be poor, or the tendency was lost and, therefore, in the 15th century
communism could not possibly be the general form of society.

_______________
[15] The sweetest possession of things is common.
[16] Compare, clean booklet Ch. Delon. The history of the village before the French
Revolution, translation Nellie, which are described in an intelligible and enjoyable way
both Mr. at his castle with his duties as the priest and the peasantry, as they lived.
[17] Who wants to know all these rights, should read Les droits du seigneur sous la
fodalit (The rights of Mr. under feudalism) Ch. Fellens equipped with witty
vignettes. Nowhere else will get a horrible impression of those rights than two
particles. Also compare Histoire de la classe ouvrire par Robert du Var .
[18] Compare, of guilds, the beautiful chapter on this in the Sketches from the Middle
Ages by mr. S. Muller Fz. in response to the guilds of Utrecht in 1528 by mr. JC
Overvoorde and mr. JGC Joosting.
[19] This name comes from pates, old linen rags. Patari were rag collectors and the name
reminds us of the so-called lumpenproletariat.
[20] Perhaps this word derives from the old Saxon beg, beg. They were called popularly
known lollharden of lollen, singing, muttering. Lollharden called corpse singers, because
they often muttered at funerals corpse chants.
[21] This was, William Morris inspired work to one of its cleanest, titled The Dream of
John Ball (The Dream of John Ball).
[22] History and chroniquez mmorable the Messire Jehan Froissart.
[23] JorisGoedbloed we would say in a Dutch. And now it was the general opinion that the
farmer is a simple and gullible man, good enough to be crocked, created to be "battered"
and is grateful to him as one more "pounds". One finds this idea back in the old rhyme:

Oignez vilain. il vous poindra;

Poignez vilain, il vous oindra.
(pat the farmer, he'll beat you, beat the farmer, he'll stroke)

[24] From the Latin word calyx, chalice, because they at communion not only bread but
also wine, chalice, desired; Utraquism because they took the sacrament in both sexes
form (sub specie utraque), viz. in bread and wine.
[25] Adamites are also known in Holland. Amsterdam had the night of 10 on February 11
1535 the infamous scenes of naked runners place, people who walked through the streets
with the cry of woe, woe to the world and the wicked! According Ottius (Praefatio Annal.
Anabapt.) Are still found in the year 1581 were, and he said that the inauguration of the
new arrivals in the supposed sect was going naked in the whole middle by the meeting of
persons, who were all naked and those who felt in that state no temptation or challenge,
ie the sensitivity of their flesh by certain external signs, without which to judge it was not
possible on the sensations, letting appear not have been included under the Adamic
brothers. In Moubachs precise outward duties of religion, church, manners and customs
of all peoples of the world, Part 6, one finds two plates, the first of which one the nightly
meetings of the Adamites see pictured and where men and women already partially
undressed are partially trying to undress themselves and their clothes reveal the flames
and the second the Adamites in Amsterdam, which are picked up by the servants of the
sheriff in the Western Market. Moubach believes they mingled among the Anabaptists,
appear in public about the middle of the 16th century in the Netherlands.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 8

Socialism during the reform

Rare a century aroused as the 16th went to such great expectations. In any field not
started a fresher, freer mind blowing and it is amazing to us that the full enthusiasm Ulrich
von Hutten once said: "The spirits are up, bloom science, it is a pleasure to live!"

The invention for printing books with moveable letters and cast was the beginning of a
revolution in the spiritual realm, whose strength was still not understood long. Through her
yet the literature of classical antiquity was largely rescued an otherwise surely doom and
writings could easily be spread among the people. Even the cut of the censorship of
books was unable to mute all light. The emergence of newspapers was largely due to her
and who will deny that the daily press gradually developed into one of the powerhouses of
the new age? The postal institution was of invaluable importance for the movement and
went hand in hand with the development of the daily press. Also, one does not clear the
arithmetic impact on the school system.

The invention of the compass could and dared one better car on the vast sea and that
the plea was made according to traverse the world.

The invention of gunpowder was the death of the roofridderdom and opened so the little
guy the prospect to escape from the constraints of their men, seated on their strong
castles.

The discovery of America by Columbus and were finding the way to Cape of Good
Hope and thus the way to India by Vasco de Gama, two cases of revolutionary influence
on the whole world. The unprecedented increase of the precious metals, due to this
discovery, made the stability of the land ownership, peculiar characteristic of medieval
wealth, it remained, but instead had PLAYS A LARGE PART another, more mobile form of
wealth, which in money was provided. So it was that the money was now in the blood that
flowed through the veins of the social organism. Columbus already understood this
change, when he wrote in 1503: "Gold is a wonderful thing! Who holds master of all he
wants. By gold one can even get souls enter Paradise. "It definitely needs some
consideration without saying that was the death of the medieval worldview. Trade and
industry began to take an unprecedented flight. Commodity production and trade had
changed completely in character, as did the production for own use and exclusive form of
production had its time and began working for the world market. The need for money
increased and increasingly began to become powerful, to explain the robust thumbscrew
of the tax to the people. The center of gravity shifted from the Mediterranean to the shores
of the Atlantic.

Add to this the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, through which learning was
driven to the west and the so-called humanism got a powerful punch, and we understand
how the ancient world of the Middle Ages shook to its foundations.

The closed circles of the Middle Ages were largely initiated by the reform. A freer life
arose. The hierarchy was contested, the convent doors open beaten, deprived of
ecclesiastical goods in part to the Church and thus her removed a mighty support in the
body. The tires of the association, described as strong up were looser and the church
grounds partially engulfed deprived Mr and thus to the villagers.

Focused seemingly everything in the reform of the Church, it was because it was above
all, a purification needed in head and members. As was required in one area a revolution,
then should it be said that of the church. The corruption of the clergy is beyond all
description. Usury was driven to get to the satisfaction of the excesses resources,
presbyteries and convents were dens of debauchery, where prostitution rampant. Bishop
John Chiemsee stated that a father his child had to do before in a whorehouse than in a
monastery, because in the first one could still come, but from the latter never. Knocked out
all the high clergy of money so that one instance. Bijslaaptarieven had to be met for the
clergy, so they were a source of income. The Bishop of Constance only speculate
annually 6 to 7,000 guilders and he refused to dismiss the charge those who did not use
the mistress. Zwingli relied in his open letter to the Bishop of Constance on these two
facts: 1 . that the bishops raised formal charges from the nap of the clergy and their
children, and 2 . that many Swiss use the newly appointed ministers imposed the
obligation itself to purchase its own mistress for the sake of domestic peace and the honor
of the family. Celibacy, honored in appearance, so it was not much different than a sham
and everyone knew all this. The sale of indulgences in the most shameless manner driven
in Germany because they believed the country was rich by its mines and trade and thus a
good field of operation for the benefit of the papal greenhouse was a heavy burden for the
people and an obstacle to economic development. Did most other countries have largely
managed to break free of this papal exploitation, not so Germany it came back. The sale
of indulgences had regular rates, as eg. For sodomieterij 12 ducats for church robbery 9
manslaughter 7 for witchcraft 6 for fatherhood and fratricide 4. [26]

The painter Kaulbach put the reform on canvas, took her big, then he did not limit her to
the church, but so what in every field of human thought and action. Both the printing press
as a painter and sculpture, both astronomy and other sciences, both explorers and
inventors, both the literature and the theater, all found a place in his painting, yet he cuts
down the place of honor in the church reformers who as it were, formed the centerpiece in
this period of general reversal. His painting is the worthy counterpart of Raphael's The
School of Athens , which this whole Greek philosophy was able to portray.

Luther was the man who stood in front, not because he was the most learned, but
because his time the most loyal reflected. And once he had started it not pushed, on the
contrary, he was advanced by friend and foe, and as he cursed what he later blessed, this
was not the result of better understanding of the things, but the external circumstances
that carried him [ 27] .

Son of peasants, he knew he was the outstanding states, emerged from the lower
classes aware of the needs and requirements of the people and he never forgot to be a
farmer's son. Turns out this is not clear, he said: "What would be the benefits if the field of
peasant wore so many guilders as stalks and grains - the government would more take
more and spread greater splendor on display, and it would be good addictive honor to
clothing, food , drink, construction and the like if it were chaff. One had to curb the pomp
and reduce spending so that a poor man also which could hold "And who drew the
condition of the people better than Luther in the following example:. A widow prayed for
the tyrant who ruled over the land, fiery as she could, that God would grant him a long
life. The tyrant heard it wondered very much, as he well knew that he had done her much
suffering and such a prayer was rare. He asked her why she prayed so for him. They
answered him, I had ten cows, when your grandfather was alive, he took from me there
two; when I prayed that he would die and your father would be king. When this happened,
your father took me off three cows. Again I prayed that you would be lord and king and
your father die. Now that you have taken from me four cows, therefore, I pray now as for
you, because I fear that he comes after you, I still will deprive the last cow, with everything
I own.

The man who wrote so knew the farmer's complaint was not unfounded; He knew that if
the farmers came to revolt, so they just simply did and forced emergency.

The history of the people of that time can be no purpose in the call history of cutting off
the ears, noses cut off, protruding eyes, vingers- and chop off hands, behead, broken on
the wheel, burning, pinching with red-hot pincers, four parts, and so on. Behold the
suffering history of the people and if the people finally, after patiently as a beast of burden
to have so much ago, spilling out of desperation to revolt, because the measure finally
defected, this is not the most natural thing in the world?

When Luther appeared, all hopes were pinned on him and if the farmers to hear their
demands, then they understand their social reform on mental. Do not begin their religious-
political program laid out in the famous 12 articles, demanding to be allowed to elect their
own pastors, which they can sell if they do not behave properly?

It was not the first time that the farmers let their voices be heard. In 1476 there was the
movement of Hans Bheim the Tauber, which apart from the abolition of the tithes and
expenses, including community preaching of forest, water and pasture, which found that
each brother had been his neighbor, each with their own hands the had to earn a living,
that one could not have more than the other.

The Bundschuh of Alsatian farmers wanted to enter the jubilee, which everyone
returned to his property, and went on to plunder the Jews in 1493.

The Bundschuh of Breisgauer farmers in 1512 wanted community of hunting, fishing,

forest and meadow. The poor and the poor Kunz Konrad had similar requirements. The
ferment was richly piled up before the flame uitsloeg, otherwise the movement had not
gotten such an extension in such a short time.

Zwickau was a major city like grain market between Saxon plains and mining
regions. The Schneeberg silver treasures in the vicinity of that city made her rich. Among
the rich were many weavers who were on their way capitalist manufactured for export and
brought to the man. Perhaps had exiled Waldenses, also mostly weavers, influenced the
development of the industry. Already in 1520 there will be a church with pastors, apostles
called as the Waldenses. Max Stbner, who had studied at Wittenberg, was one of the
"apostles" and their main leader was the weaver Nicolaus Storch.

The Zwickauer "prophets" influence exercised outside the city and even to Wittenberg,
the seat of Luther, is undoubtedly the case. Even Melanchthon experienced this, so he
Stbner even took into his home at. Karlstadt, colleague and friend of Luther, showed
their sympathy. But above all, Thomas Mntzer, underwent the midpoint of the communist
movement in Germany during the years 1521 to 1525, that influence.

Luther was stored at the Wartburg to withdraw it temporarily on any danger, but when
he heard of the claims of those ideas, he understood his bourgeois instincts that as a
result reform, especially among princes, shipwreck would suffer and he suddenly left his
stay to act with all its power against those teachings. Storch was scared and went to
southern Germany. Karlstadt week on the land where he went peasant life. Thomas
Mntzer, whose popularity Luther was jealous, above all experienced the hatred of the
reformer, who did pursue him everywhere. Three trends were noticeable in the movement,
viz. In Upper Swabia, where the religious element was predominant, in Franconia, where
the national idea was greatly influential and Thuringia where the social element set the
tone. The well-known and moderate manifesto of the 12 items was the program of the
first, the design of which Wendel Hipler of the second, the communist aspirations of
Mntzer to third.

The Sthlinger farmers began and probably the Memminger Schappeler minister
suggested the famous 12 articles, which revealed their religious meaning, in the first
article, while the others were talking about restoration of ancient rights and the elimination
of any new charges. Although an abyss yawns between those items and Thomas
Mntzer, it is clear that Luther saw in the work of Mntzer - so he speaks of a "conniving
prophet" - and so he was immediately hostile voted against. Luther addressed an
"exhortation to peace" to farmers in response to the 12 items. In it he shares the right and
left unfold. To the princes and lords, he says: "Think not that ye are so stuck in the saddle,
that one you could be lights out." And he let them know that "it is not farmers, who oppose
you; God himself is the one who opposes you to recover your rage on you. "

Of the 12 articles he says, "many are so fair and just that they can for God and the
world take away all excuse." And to the farmers, he did not say that they were wrong, but
"that government is evil and unjust that is no excuse for conspiracy and sedition "and he
preaches that," suffering, suffering, cross, cross the duty of Christians, "he tells them that
they" abide must present the Our Father and pray plead their cause with God. " But if one
with Luther acknowledges that driving the men was "raging" that the government is wrong
and doing horrible injustice, one can understand how a terrible disappointment Luther
prepared the farmers. From the bold reformer they had other and better things to expect
such childishness and prate. In fact, he only accepts the first article well in his rebuttal and
he recommends to choose from the nobility and the cities only men amicably will discuss
and settle the case. This board was beaten in the wind, the men did not hear of to allow
recovery of fair complaints and when Luther stood squarely against the farmers and for
the men, so did his usual passionate manner, so that he even hallow against farmers
occurred.

When Luther violence heard, he dipped his pen in blood and wrote his sentence
speech: "Against predatory and murderous peasants" in which he accused the peasants
of "threefold heinous sins against God and the people, which they have repeatedly earned
the death to body and soul. First, they break up angry and malicious obedience to the
government. Second, they riot, loot and plunder maliciously monasteries and fortresses
that are not their accessories; thirdly, they cover their terrible sins with the gospel. "In
particular, the person of Thomas Mntzer and his communism bother him in the
stomach. Regarding the latter reads: "They drive vain devil's work and, in particular, is the
arch-devil who rules at Mhlhausen and nothing but robbery, murder and bloodshed
havoc, as Christ says of him that he was a murderer from the beginning." And at the
communism, he says: "the gospel does make goods common, but only those who want to
do this voluntarily of themselves, as the apostles and did youngsters who do not
demanded that the foreign goods Pilate and Herod were common, such as our foolish
peasants shout, but their own goods. But our farmers want to have foreign assets of other
common and own love for yourself, be nice Christians. I think there is no devil more will be
in hell, but they are all dangers farmers: raging goes beyond all measure and perk "And
then he goes to give unnecessary classes the men once more to grant mercy. and calls
on them "to whiz the rifles." The rulers may have on slashing and are martyrs in
addition; farmers have to save themselves as martyrs. Warned he used the princes:
"Though the peasants hundred times smaller, God may stones make farmers and again
strangle by one farmer hundred of yours so completely inadequate armor in force", now
he cries out, " hundreds dead will suffer a devout christian, before he allows a hair's
breadth in the case of the farmers. O many can now be martyrs by the bloodthirsty
peasants and murdered the prophets. " It seemed that he forgot aversion Thomas
Mntzer that farmers were still only in self-defense to revolt and he distorts the facts in
such a way that it is as if the men were in a state of self-defense against the
farmers. Main motif of his act that he thought threatened to see the work of his reform by
the farmers. But who believes that Luther was a sycophant of the princes who errs
grossly, because he fear not the emperor called a tyrant, spoke of Duke Georg of Saxony
as the "Dresden boar" yes went so far that he is a wise prince considered a rare bird,
because "the chiefs are usually the biggest fools and the worst scoundrels on earth". But
he, the pioneer of the new age, realized that time nothing, so he misunderstood the
popular movement of the 16th century, "the prophetic preparation work of the latest world
history," the prelude to the French Revolution of the 18th century.

Franconia, where Karlstadt had a hand in the movement, it was mainly directed against
the monasteries and clergy. If the nobility wanted to take the items, it would render this
understood. Two bands, the black under Hans Kolbenschlag and the light under Georg
Metzler pulled the country and nothing could withstand them. The high nobility bowed to
their power, low largely did it. Later, the farmer chiefs were replaced by Gtz von
Berlichingen and Florian Geier. The smaller cities began to do, and so they got an
association of city and country. Wendel Hipler, former chancellor of the counts of
Hohenlohe and Friedrich Weigant von Mittelberg said the reform plan of Heilbronn and 14
so-called Articles of Heilbronn to achieve "how made arrangements and reform to benefit,
foundation and prosperity of all Christian countries could be". These were already a lot
more radical than the familiar 12 items.

The field work of Thomas Mntzer was particularly Thuringia. These maligned and
slandered man was one of the noblest figures in the period of reform, which despite its
mystical power relations between state and society and knew quite a revolutionary act a
great statesman look covenant. can rightly deposed him are all rotation ideas of the new
time from the first quarter part of the century in his person were personified. He was a
man who understood that the political and religious freedom twins are of the reform. The
kingdom of God he wanted to found and this would be a realm of purity, freedom and
brotherly love, a creation of Christian communism. The antichrist was disputed not only by
word, but violence for this purpose was necessary. Therefore, he called himself a "servant
of God against the wicked" or also "Thomas Mntzer with the hammer" or "Gideon's
Sword". Muhlhausen to a communist commune was set up, where Mntzer law spoke
according to the revelation, was sitting on the board and whatever reigned as a
prophet. Luther called him Mlhusii Rex et Imperator, non solum Doctor (king and
commander of Muhlhausen, not only teacher). Melanchthon writes: "This was the
beginning of a new Christian government. Then they expelled the monks, monasteries
and took the pin goods; the Hospitallers had a monastery and great interest; the
monastery Thomas ... He also taught that took all goods had to be common, as it is
written in the Acts, they added together the goods. Therefore he made the people so
rowdy that it would not work anymore, but where was grist or required sheet, since they
went to the one or other rich, where they wanted, and demanded according to the
Christian right. Because Christ wished that they would share with the needy. Anywhere
rich not willingly gave what was claimed, because they took it off violently. This was done
by many, even by those who lived with Thomas in the Johannieterklooster. Such malice
Mntzer and others practiced daily and threatened all the neighboring princes, he would
humiliate them. "

How Thomas Mntzer not the princes feared to preach the truth, is evident from the
sermon he gave on the lock to Altstedt for the Saxon princes, Elector Frederick and Duke
Johan, a sermon which has been preserved and also provides an example of his
communist occur. He said, "See, the grondsop of usury, of theft and robbery are our lords
and gentlemen, they take all the creatures in possession: the fish in the water, the bird in
the air, the plants in the field, all must be of them. (Isa. 5). Then let them go the
commandment of God among the poor, saying God commanded, you shall not
steal; however, it does not help them. So they are the reason that all people poor farmer,
artisan and everything that lives, violate and planing (Micah 3) and if he then assaults the
very least, he should hang. Then then said Dr. Liar: Amen! Mr Editing themselves that the
poor man is their enemy. The cause of the riot like they did not remove, how can it be
good in the long run? When I say that, I am called a riot maker, so be it! "
 He calls Luther blinded while he still wants to be the blind conductor of the world and as
his deed to go to the Diet of Worms, so highly praised, then Mntzer says that he had to
do so because he had it wavered, the nobility would have stabbed him.

If there of is that the farmers are so little developed, he says, "They make it so that the
poor man does not learn to read because of the care for his daily bread and they preach
unashamedly: the lesser man must by tyrants let plucking and shaving, and when will he
learn to read the script? "and he adds that farmers are hard-working people who have
eaten miserable cost their lives, to the arch wicked tyrants fill the stomach ...
Hardly anyone has sense than the usury and the wiles of the world. One must clean up
the woekerzuchtige rogues and make them slaves dog, where she barely good enough
for it and that is to be prelates of the Christian Church! God despises the great hansen
Herod and Caiaphas and Annas and took his service the small as Mary, Zacharias and
Elizabeth. "
How wonderful his writings and sermons often, even usually, were, one can infer from
what follows here:
" In what Code God, their Lord, gave them such power that we, the poor, in their
servitude, must cultivate their land and have only in favorable weather, but wet weather
should spoil the processed bloody sweat of our poverty in the field ? God can this heinous
Babylonian captivity not stand in his righteousness that we poor would be so driven to cut
off their pastures and to dig, to till the fields and sow flax in it again to pick from, slating,
cranking and washing, crushing and spinning, to sift peas, carrots and asparagus
break. God knows where ever heard of so much misery? They make the poor tributary,
pulling their marrow from the bones and we should bear interest for. Where are here the
camp fighters and riders bosses, players and banquet tors, which are fatter than vomiting
dogs? Therefore we poor should pay their taxes, interest and tribute, and should the poor
have nothing, neither bread nor salt nor fat at home, even with their wives and small
children uneducated. Where they stay with their hand lending and head right? Cursed be
their disgrace loan and predatory law! Where they remain, the tyrants and violent that
appropriating tax, toll and head money and this is so shameful and dissolute wasting,
which still everything in general had to bag and serve for the benefit of the entire
country? And that nobody opposed them, if they will, rush to work with him as a
treacherous villain to hang him, to behead, to four parts; is used less sympathy with him
than with a rabid dog. God has given you such power, in what wig book is still written
this? Yes, their power is from God, but in that they are servants of the devil and Satan is
their captain. "

The commune of Muhlhausen did not last long, about two months, ie. On March 17,
1525 to May 25, almost as long and right at the same time as the Paris Commune in
1871, from 18 March to 25 May. Knows a contemporary as telling Melanchthon that they
existed for a year!

Mntzers position was not enviable, because he had not triumphed by the force of his
supporters, but a compromise with the direction of Pfeiffer, who was not communist but
bourgeois. And with this he had to take into account, for Pfeiffer had the majority behind
him. How small was his actual supporters, demonstrated by the low number, 300, that
followed him when he went out to help the farmers. It presents it as if he were a stupid
bigot, who thought he wonders could vanquish the armed enemy with his poorly armed or
not farmers, but this is not true. Melanchthon let him say to his people: "Do not scare and
engages the enemy a lot of; you need not fear the gun, as ye see me all the bullets they
shoot at you, it will catch on my arm! "

Mntzer did indeed show casting guns to defend themselves properly. But he could not
stand the force majeure was Frankenhausen totally defeated by the princes joined by
George and Frederick of Saxony and Philip of Hesse. And true to the board of Luther one
hit but all death that one could get. Similarly, in the Alsace region Wurtemberg, where
Georg Frundsberg and Georg Truchsess performed the butcher work. Mntzer himself
was captured and executed after brutal torture. Muhlhausen surrendered on May 25 at
about promise of grace, but it was as usual in the execution of any "ringleaders" and the
plundering of the city, which lost its independence. So did one of the greatest
conservatives who ever lived - Luther calls Ranke says - to stifle the just popular
movement in blood and Germany was again tied up for years in the power of the princes
and lords. Meanwhile, Thomas Mntzer remains gloriously in the pass book stand as the
finest representatives of the revolutionary communism to the reactionary Luther.

He had the worst of it is less to him than to the conditions of time, because truthfully
testified Friedrich Engels: "The worst thing that can happen to the leader of an extreme
party is this, he is forced to the government-owned at a time take if the movement is not
yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents and for the application and
implementation of the measures required by the rule of this class. What to do can not
depend on his will, but the level at which the contrast of each class has been driven and
the degree of development of the material conditions of production and of exchange
relationships, in which the degree of development of class antagonisms in those days
based. What to do should , what his own party of him, again depends not only on him but
also on the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions; he is bound to
have so far preached doctrines and requirements, which again is not the instantaneous
ratio of social classes against each other and the instantaneous, more or less fortuitous
position arise from the production and of exchange relationships, but of greater or less
insight in the general resultants of the social and political movement. He is so necessarily
in an insoluble dilemma: what to do can , in contradiction with all his previous appearance,
its principles and the immediate interests of his party; and what they do have is not to put
in application. In a word, he is compelled, not his party, his class but represent class for
whose domination the movement is just ripe. He must, in the interests of the movement
self-promote the interests of an alien class him with death, and his own class with phrases
and promises to satisfy and allay her that the interests of that alien class are their own
interests. Who got into this awkward position is irrevocably lost. "

A second attempt of the people to free himself, was the movement of the
Anabaptists. Already at the beginning of the reform, there was a democratic-communist
direction, which not only sought a reform of the Church in head and members, but also
insisted on improving the manners, so that nothing more or less objective then proposed
to fulfill the high ideal to organize society according to the ancient Christian principles of
brotherly love and community of property. Although under no opinion sect ever so much
difference existed as among the Anabaptists - it is almost impossible there to make sense,
and Sebastian Franck also wrote truthfully in his chronicle of the year 1531: "Although all
sects are divided among themselves, Anabaptists are in such a strange way disagreeing
and divided, that I have no certain and absolute about them knows how to write, "- yet
they all had two things in common: the chiliastisch faith, ie the belief in a millennium,
which under Christ's rule everything will be restored to the sinless state and the rejection
of infant baptism. No Christian who was not sanctified by baptism in adulthood, could hold
office, use the sword, swearing an oath, etc. Generally, they lived simple and they were
industrious and peaceful citizens. Yet there have been no sect has been exposed to such
a gruesome persecution of both Catholics and Lutherans of their martyr book is a dire
reading, which performs well with respect for the martyrs as with disgust for those who
torture.

It is very difficult to make you understand the movement of the Anabaptists, because
they almost never attempted to explain her and always out to taunt her and set a bad
light. We never forget that history is written by the victors and that, not satisfied with the
achieved triumph, also still leave the vanquished by their historians branding on the
lowest way.

In Saxony, Silesia and Bohemia carried the movement a proletarian character and
there was Thomas Mntzer as a giant amongst dwarfs; however, the Swiss was very
different, there teemed with civilized people who all more or less infected by the new
ideas. Among the humanists they found a sort of salon communism to that exercised
involuntarily influence. Basel, where the highly polished and scholar Erasmus was the
center of the learned world, was a focal point where numerous well-known figures worked
and lived. So Grebel, dr. Hubmaier, Reuchlin, prof. Hugwald, Htzer, Andreas auf der
Stlzen, Stumpf, who all played a role in the movement of the Anabaptists. Even Thomas
Morus wrong there and lived in intimate friendship with Erasmus. In 1516 appeared in
Leuven his Utopia , which was released a second edition in Basel in the same year. In
1524 the first German translation came out. That this book has exerted much influence on
the course of ideas, is common although it is difficult to determine how far it went. A letter
from Oekolampadius proves that this was in connection with Thomas Mntzer, though he
later before ashamed and even as far as he was he any relation brazenly denied.

Though Zwingli was undeniably higher than Luther, the course of reform in Switzerland
was virtually the same. At first worked on the reform with all the discontented elements,
high and low, learned and unlearned, but soon came cleavage. Luther attacked his "dear
brothers" yesterday in the fiercest manner and let the poor people that so much had
counted on his powerful support ugly down.

Had they Zurich hoped to win Zwingli to organize the church independent of the state, it
turned out that they saw themselves disappointed, because the introduction of the state
church was the response of Zwingli and so the decision came in all religious questions in
the hands of the great advice, ie, the propertied class, which virtually ran Zwingli's leash. It
was then a state church with religious coercion and the result was the persecution of
dissenters as heretics. Zwingli took opposite them, which the free development of the
spirits wanted to resort to state power and appealed that the situation was not the same
as in the apostolic times. On March 7, 1526, he announced that the council had decided
to apply the death penalty in the Anabaptist (Baptists), and on May 28 he wrote: "All the
early skirmishes were just child's play. This is rebellion, heresy, schism, and no baptism.
"The persecution began and also an ugly chapter in the life of Zwingli.

It went with the word Anabaptists in those days almost as in our day with the word
nihilist. Which different views below are not brought home, the ordinary liberal who would
be satisfied with a Western European constitution and a parliament, to the consistent
anarchist yours! We hear what Bullinger in his writings against the Anabaptists of them
says: Some Sundays, not others celebrate. Many have adopted rules concerning clothing
and food and separate themselves from the world. Others adapt to the existing
ratios. Some teach that they could not sin, most "preaching the cross" and makes an idol
of suffering. Some preach, others silent. Some suffer from visions, revelations,
prophecies. Some adhere to the letter of the scriptures, others do not attach any value to
predication and books. Some silent regularly go much with laws and external things ... as
in clothes, hair braiding, eat, speak. They call them the silent brothers. Others believe that
one is free in all these things. Some swear by the script, others give more to the
immediate promptings of God. Some do nothing but pray and just want to resist with
prayer all evil, they will not allow weapons to not be tempted to revenge. Others differ in
that regard, so one finds difficult two of those people who agree with each other. Many
believe that we would wish such people before in heaven or search then found on the
earth, or perhaps in the Republic of Plato. Many have millenarian ideas, others believe
that the Kingdom of God here on earth will come, others believe the last day to see
already dawn and therefore get rid of goods and chattels. Some people have an aversion
to images, others go to church and hear mass. Some adhere to the saints, they have all
things in common, nobody says anything, and all his property is regarded as a sin. Others
worry that no one needs to suffer from lack them. In some places, such as Austerlitz all
have a common kitchen, from which each gives what he needs. Others consider it
unnecessary. (Here the two directions are defined, one would apply the strict communism
as the Taborites and the other would accept private property, but which required that they
possess will, "though they did not possess.") Some teach that one must not live in a family
with dissenters. Many marriages are broken thereby. Others leave home and family to the
example of the apostles. There is also a sect that wants all things, including women, will
be common.

One can see an entire sample of opinions, which in any case provides evidence that
one is dealing with people who think and try to give them all accountable. Many will think
of anarchists in our time, who is also frequently testifies that no two agree with each
other. One finds among them passive resisters and others who do not shrink from
violence, but in general one can say that the Anabaptists extent that his anarchic, that
they want the state to be free to deny the state.

When wederdoperij in Switzerland was smothered in blood, they turned up in

Germany. Strasbourg, Worms, Nuremberg, Augsburg were successively foci of the
movement. First Strasbourg, called Erasmus Aurata, the golden city, rather than
Argentoratum, silver, where Stattler was highly regarded and where Hans Denck called
"the Pope of the Anabaptists' teaching. Their writings were very scattered and loved, so
they therefore exercised an amazing influence. According Butzer was the doctrine of the
Anabaptists of three points, namely: 1 . no government; 2 . any honor someone, and 3
. all property in common; So they were against the mode of production based on private
property, and against the authority, in the manner of the present communist anarchists. In
the latter city of Augsburg, the first two conferences were (synods) of Anabaptists place,
viz. In spring 1526 and in August 1527, at which second over 60 delegates from Germany,
Austria and Switzerland.

Also in Tirol they developed great strength, as evidenced by the rising of which the
pointed monk dr. Jacob Strauss made in 1521 and in the Sarnthal the simple cowherd
Wolfgang. Salzburg had formed brotherhoods who gardener brothers (Grtnerbrder)
called and who lived common contributions. Although they did not harm humans and lived
very calm, they were persecuted in the most cruel way and doomed to death.

But Moravia became the refuge of the persecuted and this was its natural cause in the
fact that the prince there completely powerless and the nobility was independent, so that
when a sect had won the favor of one of the barons, it gave its permission on dropping his
estate without the prince could do something. To Nikolsburg settled dr. Hubmaier. During
the invasion of the Turks in the German Empire there was a difference of opinion, as
some of the Anabaptists, the war itself rejected as contrary to Christian principles and
therefore neither the sword would gird nor pay the war tax, called "Stbler" or
Gemeinschaftler led by Hans Hut and Wiedermann, while others, including Hubmaier, this
would not refuse and therefore were called the "Schwertler" or "Sword Bearers". The
former wanted to apply a strict communism, while Hubmaier wrote in a polemic against
Zwingli: "I have always thus spoken everywhere on the community of property, it must
have a human compassion for others, the hungry indigent, the thirsty, the naked, dress
should, because we are not masters of our goods but only administrators and
stewards. There is no one among us who says that one of the other his need to deny and
make common, but rather give the skirt on the mantle. "

When Hubmaier was captured later, he tried to King Ferdinand of Bohemia get there by
grace to rely on his Accounting, he was not among the indecent kind as Hans Hut. But it
did him little burned in the eyes of the public were both directions equally indecent and in
1528 he was in Vienna on March 10 and eight days later, his wife drowned in the Danube.

In 1527 were Jacob the hatter, for his action called by the nickname Huter, and Gabriel
Ascherham, both students Storch, who formed the plan to the scattered and persecuted
"brothers" again unite in a non-densely populated country. They bought land for Rossitz in
Moravia and soon came the persecuted German and especially Tyrolean brothers
there. The company was best and the residents were called gabriella counters to Gabriel.

When they were there too little, pulled a section under Philipp Plener to Auspitz. These
are known as Philip the press. Later, the strict communists were 200 in number, obliged to
go away and she settled in Austerlitz. But there arose fight, as evidenced by a letter from
Wilhelm Reublin of Austerlitz wrote to his friend Pilgram Marbeek, January 26, 1531, in
which he follows describes how and why he was expelled with his family was from
Austerlitz: "The community the temporary and physical goods is driven by deceit and
falsehood. They retain the prestige, private houses licensed to the rich, so that Franz and
his wife live a life as the nobles. When eating, the vicious brethren peas and herbs to take
sweet, but the elders and their wives were meat, fish, poultry and good wine; many of
them women I have ever seen at the communal table. Another could neither shoes nor a
shirt, but they themselves had good pants, skirts and fur coats in abundance. "

But out of all these divisions was nevertheless finally born a communist organization,
which was long preserved a century and was then suppressed by violence. Catrou writes
about Moravian brother municipality [28] : "As soon as their estate was given the good
people moved there and lived all together in a secluded, quiet charming place. Each
household had its separate cabin without decorative but prevailed in an extraordinary
purity. In the middle of the colony had been public buildings for the joint work; they found a
refectory, where all the meals came together, further premises for those companies that
can be practiced under roof and separate rooms in which small children were raised. It is
difficult to bring the purity and precision in words that widows devoted themselves to this
work of charity: all breathed cleanliness and purity in the hall of the children.

In another place they had arranged a public school where the youth were instructed in
the teachings of the sect relative to the points that were suitable for that age. In this way
the parents were responsible neither the power nor the education of the children.

Since all goods were common ownership, all income of the colony and all the fruits
were given to an administrator who alternated every year and this could provide a duty for
the needs of the community. On the distribution of the goods the preachers and
Archimandrite rites were both on the good order and discipline to keep some sort of
control.

As a general rule applied no idlers were tolerated. After a prayer, each made for
themselves, they went to the fields to edit them, others practiced various crafts in public
workshops, which had taught them; none was exempted from labor. Thus, when a man of
state had come into the community, then they invited him to eat his Lord according to the
ruling bread in the sweat of his brow.

All work was performed in silence and it was considered a crime to break the silence in
the refectory during meals, which were started and ended with a silent prayer. Even the
women took a strict silence observed. All brothers and sisters wore clothes made of the
same substance and the same model.

The lifestyle among the Moravians was simple, labor extensive and persistent. There
they celebrated no parties, could be used every day and from it sprang the great wealth,
which backed the manager of each colony in silence, which only be made accountable to
the chief need of the sect.

The marriages were not of passion work. The drivers liked sex a list of young people of
both sexes, who were in the marriageable age and usually became the oldest female
companion to man for the oldest young lady. "
 It looks like everything here how an attempt was made to establish the kingdom of God
on earth and endeavor in a society of selfishness, meanness and cruelty resembles
already an oasis in the desert sand.

When Huter, after whom the Anabaptists in Moravia henceforth called huterische
brothers, due to the persecution in that country went to the Tyrol, where he was
imprisoned and in silence for fear of the people burned on March 3, 1536 Innsbruck.

His work, however, did not perish with him, because after the persecution had ceased,
joined the brothers again and the landowners on whose property they had settled, and
who saw the economic importance of this industrious and silent workers during the
persecution, let them happily working on their estates.

In the highest heyday was found in Moravia 70 households brethren, consisting each of
4 to 600 people, even from 2000. It had a kitchen, a bakery, a brewery, one school, one
room for maternity cases, one room where all the mothers together sores with her
children, and so on.

Then the lords of their power again got back and the nobility was destroyed at the
beginning of the Thirty Years War in the Battle of the White Mountain (1620), then also
had the brother municipalities that always enjoyed the men's protection, the prize and in a
Tee september 22 ordered Cardinal Dietrichstein commissioned by Ferdinand II that "all
those who belonged to the huterische brotherhood, whether male or female persons of
above mentioned date or over four weeks no longer are allowed to be on pain to the body
in Moravia and life."

So this brotherhood was suppressed by force. Some were Catholic, though they
remained faithful to the old doctrine, but many went to Hungary, where she settlers,
however, were very welcome, they went under because they heard nothing more from
them.

Now we have yet to describe the history of the movement of the Anabaptists in the
northern part of Germany and the Netherlands, which found its end in the violent
repression in Mnster, the new Jerusalem that Strasbourg should have been according to
Hoffmann.

Netherlands took vigorous part in the movement of the Anabaptists. It seems that the
soil there was very suitable, perhaps as a result of action by the Brethren of the Common
Life, who had great influence. All came before them traces of wederdoperij for, including
Jan van Walen et al in 1527, they were sporadic and one can safely say that it was the
preaching of Melchior Hoffmann, an eccentric and bigotry tending furrier from Swabia that
the doctrine of the Anabaptists brought there with good success among the
population. When this troubled nature again left for Strasbourg, it was his pupil Jan
Volkerts Trypmaker, who continued the work in the Netherlands. After these from East
Friesland had, he settled in Amsterdam, but he was soon arrested and seven others on
December 5, 1531 beheaded in The Hague, where they sent their heads to Amsterdam to
be exhibited. The supporters of Trypmaker got to Melchior Hoffmann name
melchioriten. Considerate Hoffmann was the first witness, Elijah, the forerunner of the
Lord, who would come in 1533 to establish his kingdom on earth, the baker Jan
Matthijsen from Haarlem, the successor Trypmaker, gave himself out for second witness,
when he preached: baptism starts again, I am Enoch, the second witness.

How alarming Rose wederdoperij, according to a letter which Erasmus received from a
friend in 's Hertogenbosch and where we read: "We are in fear and anxiety about it on fire,
the Anabaptists. There is hardly a town or city where the uprising torch opgloort not in
secret. Communism that they preach the masses from afar attracts. "The Martyrdom did
moreover grow them. Matthijsen spread a great fervor on display opposite the passive
wait Hoffmann he suggested an active action against the wicked, which must be
eradicated. He ensured that there were chosen 12 apostles who had spread the new
gospel over the whole earth. Bookbinder as Gerrit and Jan van Leiden Beukelsz went to
Munster, Houtzager to Leeuwarden, Jacob van Kampen to Amsterdam.

Mnster would be the place where the eruption exploded in the strongest manner, and
the arrival of the two envoys of Matthijsen wore certainly do so in theirs. One of those two
was still the man who later became king of Zion held sway and whose name Jan van
Leiden mark on the entire movement there. This figure, which the most fantastic ideas are
connected and which is loaded in official history books with all possible slander, the center
of all was what happened to Munster. He was the son of Beuckel (Bockold), a scout from
near Leiden and a serf, from Mnster. As a journeyman tailor he traveled to England,
where he lived for four years, and in Flanders, opened after his marriage to a widow
skipper an inn near Leiden, began commercial visited Lubeck and hit Lisbon and finally
bankruptcy. He was a skilled rhetorician and revealed his tendency to rhetoric repeatedly
Mnster. In learns the wederdoperij, especially those attracted to him and he was not yet
25 years old when he was admitted by baptism into the church of Jan Matthijsen. With
this, he hit the same direction of violence in, he was later in court testified that "John
Matthijsen was the man who first introduced the use of the sword and violence against the
government and promoted."

Mainly by the pastor Rothmann succeeded to give the upper hand to the reform in
Muenster, and then there was elected a new bishop could come not in the city, but had to
save his stay in the neighboring town Telgt, yes so strong Lutherans felt , which they Telgt
attacked and captured the main representatives of the Catholic church names, only the
bishop, who had just gone. As Mnster became an evangelical city, had triumphed
democracy with the help of the proletariat, but this could not be there, as usual, get rid of
the proletariat after the victory. Anabaptism was now the expression of proletarian
democracy.

Rothmann meanwhile increasingly moved further on and finally chose the side of the
Anabaptists. The new elections gave the majority to the Anabaptists, the councilors were
no different than artisans, but all bright Anabaptists. The effect of this victory was the
expulsion of the Lutherans from the city. Knipperdollinck and Kippenbroik were mayors of
the town and for the first time in the history of communism acted as an independent ruler,
revolutionary power.
 But under what conditions!

The bishop, supported by the Duke of Cleves, and the Elector-Archbishop of Cologne,
was beaten siege to the city and thus the Mnster of 1534 during the months of April and
May showed a lot of agreement with the Paris of 1871. And then all events for review, one
should take into consideration that the age in which they lived, one was anything but
gentle and that the besieged were in special circumstances, it did not apply the common
law of war for them was ruled an honorable capitulation and only the had choice between
victory or the most horrible martyrdom. All executions in Munster related to collusion with
the enemy, offenses against discipline, attempted desertion, etc. Thus one finds it terrible
that Leiden Jan and his deputy Knipperdollinck itself rightly stated and thus acted as
executioner, but needs to explain, what Kerssenbroik writes: "About this time, the prophet
and man of God, Johann Bock Elson (Beuckelszoon) to Knipperdollinck, to the shock of
the culprits, the sword and awarded him the name of the sword carrier for the entire
meeting. Because that's all the high humbled to be and Knipperdollinck hitherto mayor
and head of the city has been, is the will of the father, that he must take up it as low
estimated post of executioner. "It follows that it was understood as a proof of self-
abasement, which testifies not cruelty, but a high sense of equality. Moreover, it is
significant that a person who has the courage to condemn a fellow human being to death,
even the courage to take the execution own hands and not to leave it to someone else,
which itself into executioner services sake of it borrows money.

When Jan Matthijsen as commander of the fortress, at a failure manfully fighting, the
death took place on April 5, Jan van Leiden acted in his place. According to the Old
Testament, 12 elders and judges were appointed, who made up the board of the city and
also acted as a court.

Later changed the Judges is a theocratic monarchy and Jan van Leiden reigned
claimed divine inspiration with Rothmann next as "Werth Alter", a title of the mayors in
towns, Knipperdollinck as governor and Tilbecke as the king's household, while the Privy
Council consisted of ministers and zealots, including Redecker.

Already had communism partially found realization because the rich among the
"brothers" writes Kerssenbroick, "all put their money at the feet of Rothmann, tore and
burned all claims they owned and donated spend their debtors the entire debt; did not
only men but also women who throw nothing else commit road. For Brandsteinin,
Knipperdollincks law, a very rich woman, was driven by the spirit of God so that she gave
back her debtors their debt to those already ingebeurde interest. "

Although certainly the intention was to establish communism pure, one could not
accomplish what they wanted, just as in Paris during the Commune, since one had been
first invented in the defense against the enemy, which the city ever closer insloot. For
example, the abolition of private property was limited to money, gold and silver. This
money was to combat the traffic of the city with the outside world, namely the
transmission of agitators and winning lansquenets. So the production and consumption
funds were raised to the extent that the needs of the war such requirements.
 The inheritance remained, everything had lapsed after the death of the "rightful
heirs". Even the spoils of war could pass some privately owned, for in art. 14 of the 28
articles, the people presented by Jan van Leiden on January 2, 1535, one can read: "If
booty is taken to the enemy, no one will keep it for yourself or them make arbitrarily use,
but as is equitable; case appoint the government and bring her booty. If the government
wants to give him of something, he can make this its own benefit, without committing
injustice "and refer to the following article one:". A Christian may float on penalty of the
youngest aimed not his brother trade or him for cash surrender anything; he will swap and
change, none of the other cunning and deceitful treating. "

There communal meals were held, but these were partly festive occasion gatherings of
people, suppers, partly a war measure. "For every port they had a house that was the
home of the community. Since everyone was eating them, who kept watch at the gate and
worked on the walls or in the trenches. So they also preached usually in the common
house, daily morning and afternoon. The deacons were to provide a living in the house of
the community, every deacon at his gate. In every parish they had placed it in the house
of the community who had to leave there to cook and take care of the house. When it was
noon, however, there was a young man and read a chapter from the Old Testament or the
prophets. When they had eaten, they sang a German psalm. Then she got up and went
back to the guard. "

The country was not commonly cultivated, but its share assigned to each home. "Thus
the king has appointed landlords. Four were in the city. Who went were all the houses and
gave each one or two pieces of land, as there are many people in the house. As they
browsed and seeded cabbage and turnips and carrots, beans and peas. Anyone who had
a large garden, could not use more of it than the landlords either assigned to him. They
also had the intention all fences around the gardens, which were to break out in the city,
they would have the communal gardens. "Also kept all house doors open day and night to
cultivate the feeling of fraternity.

so private households remained, even allowed that in large households had servants,
just as they recognized it on the wife of the man power, as evidenced acting on an edict of
the elders, in which a section "about the rule of the spouse and the submission of a
woman "and another" the obedience of the servants across the householder and the duty
of the master of the house in front of the servants. "

Jan van Leiden gave food, labor and entertainment of the residents of the city. Terrible
stories doing the rounds of the orgies that this "king" did with his, as if he, if the truth were,
in that case did anything but commit ordinary princes to do without being told
anything! Also of great pomp and splendor, which he displayed in his clothes, but again
what do other sovereigns other than to show up in showing off clothes to their people?

One might infer from this most, how soon the ways of princes were taken over by those
who act as such.

What those excesses are concerned, the worst of which tells a contemporary, is this:
"After the selection of the 12 gate commanders, dukes called by the people, the king held
a banquet and invited all the dukes and advisers and the advisers of the king and all their
wives and all the senior officers of the king ... when they were together, they presented
themselves, as if they would have lifelong governance. And when the meal was over, they
have fun and dance, each with his wife. The king has made the Dukes of fun and had
invited them and they ate and drank and were of good cheer. "From this report, which is
no orgies, have made others that they braced and gezwelgd.

But the worst accusation is still, as he says further [29] : "The other common people
ran the city from hunger and some began to die of hunger." Sure, it would have been ugly,
but from personal observation knows this spokesman nothing, just hearsay, yes, he
reveals himself to announce that king John had also participated in the general distress,
he says: "most of the women pulled out of the city because of big appetite. So the king
had 16 women; he gave them all leave, except for the queen, he held alone. And the
other women, he said that everyone could go to her friends, so that they could get
something to eat, where they could find it. "

This story is not true with the prior of a binge and also points to the improbability of the
famous fairy tale, he would have slain one of his wives himself, because if he cried all by
himself, he can not get one killed beforehand .

The Anabaptists are known for their puritanical sense and yet they still suffer from the
accusation of polygamy. The one with the other difficult to reconcile. Compared to the
marriage one reads in the Bekentnes of Globens lebens und der gemein Christe zu
Monster : "The marriage we say and we keep to the script, which is the connection of a
man and a woman and the obligation in the Lord. God created man from the beginning
male and female he created them, unifying them in the marriage bond, so that will be both
two souls and one flesh. So a man must not separate such an association "And in the 28
articles of Jan van Leiden, we read:". Art. 24. Against his will, no one will become forced
by another in marriage, because marriage is a free connection and more by nature and is
tied by the bond of love than just words and outward ceremonies. Art. 25. But when
someone suffers from epilepsy, venereal or other illness, it should not get married at all,
except that part which one will marry, is known in advance by his illness. Art. 26. No one
who is not a virgin, will spend for it and hair confrere deceive them; such fraud will be
severely punished. Art. 27. Any unmarried woman or man who does not have to rule, shall
have the right, is to choose a guardian or protector of the church of Christ. "

Now how is it possible that there are such provisions that polygamy would be the order
of the day? We know that the rule of Communism is connected to the idea of community
of women, but one forgets that communism and prostitution, as if out of wedlock, mutually
exclusive; because communism can coexist with the most various forms of sexual
intercourse alone is not with love for sale, for which there is no commodity production is
more where bought and sold nothing, there also ceases to be the female body on
merchandise. And Mnster was nobody forced to sell themselves. It is
Kautsky [30] succeeded from the sources to explain that if not all, then at least clean up
the vast majority of objections which this hitherto obscure case sufficient brightens.
 By 1500 most able-bodied men were in Muenster 8 to 9,000 women, and in a narrow
enclosed city, this must inevitably lead either to adultery either to extramarital sexual
intercourse and the most severe punishment would be under those conditions prove
powerless to prevent it. Therefore required a new arrangement of the marriage
relationship. They sought a form corresponding to the strict morality of Anabaptists and
also with the sex ratios in Mnster. All marriages concluded before joining the church,
were declared invalid because it was indissoluble marriage, but a "pagan" wedding - so
they called a marriage - no marriage, just as infant baptism was a real baptism. And then,
we wanted to bring all women under roof. Now it was determined that women with no
male head is needed to connect to a household with a man, not as house slaves or
servants, but as companions of the woman. They appealed to the polygamy of the
patriarchs and what did it, was difficult being sinful. The polygamy of Anabaptists was in
the union of several women in one household, but not in a marriage, which one does not
mean that the last was not encouraged by the first. Sexual intercourse should not serve to
satisfy the lust, but only served to increase the species. Under circumstances it was
granted the man next to his first wife, others to his carnal husbands and then stood under
his wing. Rothmann wrote: "When a man richly God has blessed than to fertilize a woman
and he abused such a blessing not because of the divine commandment, then it's allowed
him, even necessary, to take more fertile women in marriage, because outside marriage
to admit a woman, that is adultery and fornication. "

Incidentally, not Luther was the Landgrave of Hesse to live with two women and he
blessed this second marriage while the first woman was still alive, not itself? Advised not
Melanchthon on August 27 1531 to the king of England to a second wife and he did not
explain that "according to divine law polygamy was not prohibited"?

It is therefore necessary to explain polygamy make a distinction among the Anabaptists

between the sexual and economic polygamy, the first was not among them, the second,
however. This distinction is not made, and therefore know more and to tell the historians
of the shameless debauchery, which would have taken place in Mnster.

While efforts were made within the walls to establish a kingdom of brotherhood and
equality, the city was besieged. Not that the faithful wondered about that, because it was
so done according to the will of the Lord, it was approaching the time of the trial, but the
rescue. Twice the besieged repulsed an assault, both men and women defended
themselves with incredible fury and courage, and when they began to starve the
city. Inside it was believed that it would help turn up and they drew glances at
Netherlands. In this country were thus made all kinds of attempts to enter help. By fourfold
sides they tried this, from Brabant to Cleves, from Friesland south to the borders of
Zeeland and South Holland from North Holland and West Friesland. When islet Ens 21
ships were stopped 3000 people, men, women and children. A small riot in Amsterdam
ended with the death of some apostles, as Bartholomew Book Binder, William the Cuiper
and Pieter Houtsager by hangman hands. The Restitution of Rothmann found many
readers in the Netherlands and his book Van der Wrake was strafpredicatie against those
who quietly waited, and a revival to come to the rescue. By cunning or by force they tried
to do something for Munster, but all attempts failed and so the long-awaited relief did not
show. The hunger had already been introduced in the investment and gradually the
situation was desperate. Through treason finally fell on June 24, 1535 the city in the
hands of the bishop and followed a stubborn street fight. To prevent further bloodshed,
was offered free passage to the Anabaptists, but not when they had laid down their arms,
if they were attacked and killed by the treachery lit besiegers. Terrible was then wreaked
havoc in the city. Jan van Leiden, Knipperdollinck and others fell alive into the hands of
their enemies. Iron collars were prepared for them and so they were like bears on a chain
dragged through the country. It seemed that no would end their torture, because until
January 22, 1536 they were executed in the public and in the presence of the Christian
bishop. The bodies were placed in cages and then hung up horrifying example of the
Lampertus church.

Wederdoperij was risen from the ashes of the peasant war, they disappeared in the
ashes of the burned and tortured. With the demise of Mnster was the socialism of the
16th century ruins. Yet it remains an attempt to the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of
truth and justice, to settle on the earth and this is true that the attempt is clean, though it
succeed not us. One targeted a religious-ecclesial, but also a socio-political reform of
society, who had so much need for change. It is the voice of freedom of conscience,
freedom of worship, freedom of thought, speech and writing, which echoed and could then
still be smothered at that time, there comes a time that hearing will be given to.

The peaceful direction continued to live mostly in the Netherlands, where they came
under the leadership of the former Roman Catholic priest Menno Simons, whom they
called Mennonites. Except this one had David Joris, but significant this movement was
not. Typical of the people is that while the brother of Menno Simons pulled up to help his
Munster Allies, Menno attacked them treacherously in the back and organized an agitation
against them. While the fate of Jan van Leiden was a violent death after gruesome torture,
Menno Simons and David George died both considered in peace, and well-off.

As was so slain Christian socialism, it lives on in the poor man and the voice of it
resounds through the ages, until finally recovery will come.

_______________
[26] Taxae Cancellariae ecclesiae romanae, printed in 's Hertogenbosch at jare 1517.
[27] Compare, my two treatises: Thomas Mntzer und Luther and Luther signaling
Verhltniss zu den Bauern in Lichtstrahlen and translated later included in the magazine
The Dawn . Volume 10 and 11.
[28] Histoire du fanaticism of religions Protestant, de l'Anabaptism.
[29] Gresbeck his Summarische ertzelungk und der message Wieder und Dope what sich
in der stat Mnster in Westphalen zugetragen im Jair MDXXXV . This was a
cabinetmaker, who belonged to the Anabaptists. However, he wrote his story 8 or 9 years
later, and his reminder. Also not forget that this was the man who betrayed Munster and
delivered into the hands of the bishop's troops.
[30] Compare his Geschichte des Socialismus, Vol. 1.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 9
Socialist state novels

The wide array of state novels, which appeared in imitation of Plato's Republic, was
opened by Thomas More (or Morus as Latin name), English humanist who, as chancellor
of England played a major political role, finally, but his head under the guillotine had to
lose a martyr of Catholicism treason because he refused to recognize Henry VIII as head
of the church. He fell on July 6, 1535, so a few days after the first dictatorship of the
proletariat revolutionary Mnster was suffocated in blood.

As author of the Utopia he has gained an immortal name as one of the best parser of
society and one of the most sighted spirits, the better future for themselves saw as the
present.

Utopia [31] , (Nowhere Oord of ou and topos no place), called the island where his
imagination put a better society and outlined by him in parts of the book, which has the
title De optimo reiplublicae statu deque nova insula Utopia libellus vere aurus (a truly
golden book about the best state status and on the new island Utopia), which first
appeared in 1516, many editions and translations polite and undoubtedly had great
influence then and in subsequent times.

The book is written in conversational form, Raphael Hythlodaeus (clever in talks), one
of the 24 people who had left their urgent request by Americo Vespuzzi in New Castile,
admitted in an interview with Peter Gilles (Aegidius) and Thomas Morus in Antwerp, at
their request a detailed description of an island state, as he claimed to have found it
around the equator between Brazil and India.

How he describes the situation in England, where the people were ousted from the
country by the sheep, or as he says, "Your sheep, how gentle too and content with little,
have now begun to be so voracious and greedy that they even people eat and fields,
houses and villages, destroying and depopulating. "his whole critique of existing society
excels in accuracy and sharpness and he expresses his innermost thought of that
wherever owned private property, where everything measured by money, one is unable to
get yours to control the law and prosperity, unless you find it as well, where the best revert
to the worst or that you find this happy there, where everything is shared between very
few who all enjoy, while the vast majority whole is in trouble. "

Utopia is an island in the shape of a crescent moon in the amount of 500 miles size; in
which 54 cities, all graceful and beautiful, whose inhabitants the same language, customs,
institutions and laws have the same appearance. The capital is Amaurotus (amauros =
obscure, unknown). Each city is assigned lands, no less than 20,000 fit for sowing and
harvesting. On land live the citizens who try to turn to the city. The population splits
purpose in farming families, not less than 40 persons strong, men and women, except two
serf slaves under the rule of a father and mother. About 30 such families is phylarchus
(headman). The service lasts for two years, but going there 20 families to the city, then
some 20 new in its place, so that they learn to work together. They produce more than for
their own use and convert the remaining affect the neighbors. Every month they get
together to celebrate. At harvest time one gets ample supply from the cities, so that
sometimes the whole harvest in almost lock up one day in good weather. Oddly already
spoken here is an artificial chicken hatchery! A description of Amaurotus, located almost in
a square on the slope of a mountain to the sea flowing river Anyder. On streets 20 feet
wide are the houses with big gardens. All ten years it changes from houses, because
there is no private property. There is a contest between the residents, who are the best
garden care. The houses usually have three floors with stone walls, while the roofs are
flat. Thirty families choose for one year a government person, or syphograntus philarchus
called 10 syphograntussen with their 300 families under one Traniborus or
protophilarchus. All these, 1,200 in number, elect by secret ballot a prince of the four
persons, who appointed the people. That prince holds his post for life. Every three days
the prince meets with Trani Borussenstadion. Each city chooses three experienced old
men, who form the Senate seat in Amaurotus. Outside the Senate or meetings one should
not discuss the common interests, and who does it is punished with death. Apart from
agriculture, which is practiced by all, each teach a craft, both men and women. The day is
thus divided: six hours work and eight hours of sleep, what's up there, each doing what he
wants. So work requirement and a zesurige working! As for the clothes, if they are at
work, but those dress with skins or leather clothing which lasts seven years, and when
they appear in public, they draw a cloak over to. The color as well as the cut are the same
for the entire island. Each family produces itself clothes.

Against overpopulation is watched by colonization.

Each city is divided into four equal quarters and center in each neighborhood is a
market where the staple of goods and where every householder asks as much as he
needs for himself and his family. There is plenty of everything and no need to deny
themselves anything. Outside the city one has the slaughterhouses.

In a large house lives the syphograntus, where 15 families living on both sides of the
afternoon and have dinner in the evening. Trumpet announces the hours of the
meals. Sick of course remain at home or in hospitals. The preparation of the food is the
work of women. Mothers with children at the breast have a separate room. Every mother
suckles her child. Before the meal is read something and the elderly start then run
instructive conversations. The food is short and in the evening they have music. Smelling
things become inflamed and sprinkled perfume. They seek pleasure, as long as it causes
no harm, is not forbidden pleasure.

If one wants to travel, one needs permission. They need to bring anything, because
one finds everywhere necessary. At the place where one resides, one performs his share
of work. Does someone without leave beyond the limits, it is considered a refugee and
severely punished; repeatedly one is enslaved. There is no freedom to lounge. Also to be
found at Utopia no wineries, beer no houses, no brothels. The inhabitants of the island are
in truth one big family. Arranged a statistic of the proceeds will be made so that they can
fill in what's deficit. For two years, one stock to insure against bad harvests. What is sold
in other countries at moderate prices, after a seventh part is distributed among the poor of
that country. Gold and silver have among them more value than nature gives them. They
eat and drink from earthen and glass vases of little value, but appropriated the gold and
silver for the communal houses and also for chamber pots and shackles for the slaves as
a sign of shame. Thus, bringing the gold and silver in contempt. As for pearls and
diamonds, where the children play or show them on there. The children get a good
education, especially in science. Morally they search for the external good of soul and
body, but there is above all to ensure the happiness of man. Virtue consists in their life
according to nature. Whoever follows its guidance, obeys reason. Pleasure exists in every
movement and position of body or mind, which one has the satisfaction to his
nature. Hazard Game and hunting are prohibited. The last hobby they mention the lowest
part of the slaughter art. Vanity of birth or nobility, vanity of any kind is regarded low at
them; good health, development of beauty, avoidance of pain are cultivated by
them. Slaves with them not the prisoner of war unless caught with weapons in hand, not
even the children of slaves, but those which have been brought by crime to slavery or in
other cities to death convicted criminals. Even when slaves used the people who do the
best work and present themselves voluntarily. These are treated well, but they have to
work more. The sick are taken care of.

Oddly, in the same chapter, which treats of the slaves, even marriage is discussed. The
woman may not marry before their 18th year, the man must be over four years. Husband
and wife caught on hidden dealings, then the marriage is forbidden, and his father and
mother dishonored in whose house took place the offense. Before they get married, have
husband and wife naked to each other so that they can see that they are not defective. At
too great a difference of character is permitted divorce, but this is not easy work. Marriage
violators are punished with the harshest slavery and the recidivist of adultery even death.

On other crimes no fixed penalty is determined, but it is controlled according to the

cruelty of the crime. Deprivation of liberty is considered the most severe punishment. She
needs more to virtue by honor and reward than they deterred by severe penalties. Who
kuipt a government post, which has every chance gone. The government acts as father to
all. The prince is distinguished by nothing in clothing or diadem, but with an ear of corn in
hand, as well as the license plate of the high priest consists of a taper, which is
propagated to him. They have few laws and set up the best without lawyers and their
turning factories. Allies they call those peoples, those of them asking people to govern
and friends such that they have done well. International treaties they have not, because it
has no value to attach. War is their abomination, a good thing for cattle although he in no
kind of animal appears as persistent as in humans. Everyone is practiced, even the
women. They feel not only smart but also embarrassment over a bloody victory. After the
declaration of war, they set a great reward for killing the enemy king or weighty
counselors. By the way they scatter division so as to break the force of the enemy. They
hire soldiers from other countries. They try to avoid the battle and end the war by means
of auxiliaries, but he goes through, they carry him unflinchingly. After the triumph, they do
not kill defenseless. The war costs are on the vanquished. Reckless they never wage war
in their own country and there is no necessity so great that forces them to admit foreign
auxiliaries to their island.
 As for their religion, this is different, but all take a supreme being, and they shall call
Mithra; one understands, however, something different than under the other. Forbearance
is the general rule.

They also believe the immortality of the soul. Many were converted to Christianity, to
which many contributed "to hear of the common life of Christ and his young men, some
still in use at most brotherly Christians." Death is a transition to a better life, so no one is
lamented, which good cheer and full of hope'm dying. Cremation among them was in
vogue. There are in every city no more than 13 priests for an equal number of temples
seven priests except in time of war, because then follow the military and their number is
replaced in cities by others. A high priest stands above the others. They are elected by
secret ballot by the people, ensuring religions and censors of morals. They may deny the
mysteries of the bad ones.

Furthermore, there is a strict sect who abstain from intercourse with women, meat and
all the pleasures of life, and another sect, whose members produce the marriage elect,
supposing the nature to require the children to the state the pleasures not escape,
provided this does not distract from work and eat the flesh of four-footed animals, as this
makes them stronger for work. The Utopirs consider this sensible, but the others
holier. The people of this painful procedure called Buthresci, what word religiosi,
religionists means. They celebrate festivals on the first and last day of each month,
dividing the year into months, which were determined by the interaction of the moon, while
the association to the sun determines the year. They have magnificent temples, no
animals slaughtered as sacrifices and burn incense and incense. The people are there in
white clothes and dressed priests in multicolored fitted with bird feathers.

As outlined Raphael Hythlodaeus the people of Utopirs and ended with the
comparison of the current states in a "conspiracy of the rich to look after their own affairs
best under the name and flag of the state interest. They seek and devise all the ways and
means such to carry out an evil, first to dissuade them from the fear of under, and then to
buy the toil and labor of the poor at the lowest possible price, and abusing them as beasts
of burden. Where the rich who tricks carry out on behalf of the state, which is also on
behalf of the poor, since they have made it into law. If those poor people with an insatiable
greed all have divided among themselves, which was destined for all, how far they are
away from the happiness of the Utopian state? With them is the use and eliminated the
desire for money and thus destroyed a load of worry, cut off one of the strongest roots of
crime! Who does not know that fraud, theft, robbery, quarrel, riot, murder, treason,
poisoning by the rigor of the law be punished but not be avoided, as they would disappear
all, if the money had been abolished? Also, would worry, fear, sorrow, pains and vigils
disappear. Poverty even that money seems to have, if necessary, would disappear once
the money was abolished. "Where so communism is found, there is no risk of domestic
strife and the guarantee of a happy life there.

Many customs and laws were Thomas Morus ridiculous for time and save their system
of warfare and their religion, above all, the foundation of the entire device, the life of the
Utopirs in the community, but he did not know if Raphael, who was also tired,
contradiction could tolerate and therefore he postponed it to a later opportunity to once
again talk to him about all this.

The Utopia of Thomas More we believe the community of production as well as

stimulants, as the basis of the state. For him Communism is not the monopoly of the
aristocracy, though it is the spirit like Plato, but it is democratic in its essence and
decor. And that communism itself combines science, which is accessible to all as the
highest of all pleasures. Labor, labor duty, short working hours, planned regulation of
production - there are all requirements, completed in Utopia. Morus let enter communism
by an enlightened monarch, Utopus called, and long was it before they had struggled to
release this misunderstanding, judging by the Robert Owen, who always appealed to the
princes. The Morus was who saw the class struggle and communism are trying to connect
to the modern state. His communism was able communism. And though it might be too
much to say to make it modern socialism with him beginning, especially Morus is among
the most seeing most brilliant people who have lived.

In Francesco Doni Florence Morus not only found a translator of his book, but also a
follower who in his I Mondi celesti, terrestri e Infernali degli academics Pellegrini ventured
(the celestial, terrestrial and infernal worlds) to a ditto description of a ideal city. This book
is a discussion of a way, the apostle of communism, and a fool, the defender of the
existing society, in which the first Citta Nuova describes maintaining the family, but with
the cancellation of the property. Everyone was doing nothing more than they wanted
because they were similar in food and dress to all others. No one knew his origin and
each was raised in the community. At a certain age come they learned a craft to his talent
and desire. Notaries, lawyers, judges, executioners, the rich, the poor were not found
there, but all live as equals in peace and plenty.

Another Florentine, Giovanni Bonifazio, later published his book Arti e LIBERALI
meccaniche imparate dagli animali brutti agli uomini [32] , in which he makes a witty
represent all human traits in animals. The bees society, la Republica delle api, is the
model of a communist society.

But above both state Thomas Campanella, one of the three Italian Dominican monks,
who constituted the glory of Italy with Giordano Bruno and Vanini. Both were first brought
death at the stake and Campanella, after dreadful torture, 26 years in prison. Restless
spirit, Telesio of Cosenza and Campanella were not cool stargazers, but people who
pursued the application of their ideas, forerunners of a new era, which Campanella gave
the goodly words in the pen: "Future ages will judge us, because the present century
crucifies its benefactors, but they will rise again on the third day of the third century. "

Born in Stilo in Calabria in 1568, he devoted himself as a Dominican monk in the study
of theology and philosophy, but once he did make an attempt to wrest the Neapolitan
people from the tyranny of the Castilian government. "Like Moses, like Numa, as
Mohammed and Christ even as he had hoped to be the legislature of a nation" - so
testifies a contemporary of him. And it bothered him to stand in the memory of the people
to book as an adventurer, but he did not foresee a long martyrdom would spread his fame
until the end of time. He needed her expensive fines, since he was captured and
subjected to unprecedented torture, which he describes thus: "I have been imprisoned in
50 prisons and seven times subjected to the cruelest tortures. The last time it took 40
hours. With ropes tied, which I tore the bones, hung, hands tied behind the back, above a
stake of pointed wood which I have torn the sixth part of my flesh and ten pounds bled,
thinking that I was dead after 40 hours , they put an end to my torture; Some insulted me
and to increase my pains they shake the rope that I was hanged, others praised my
courage in silence. Nothing has shaken me and it has made me able to wrest a single
word. Finally, if by a miracle cure after six months of illness I'm thrown into a pit. Fifteen
times I've been in interrogation. When they asked me the first time: how does he know
what he has never learned? Does he have a demon at his disposal? (one accused him of
witchcraft) I said, to learn what I know, I used more oil than you have been drinking
wine. Another time they accused me of being the author of the book From three
impostors [33] , which was written 30 years before my birth. They accused me to share
the view of Democritus, though I have made books against Democritus. They accused me
to have bad feelings against the church, as a doctrine and as a body, I, who wrote a book
on the Christian monarchy, in which I have shown that no philosopher has been able to
propose a republic similar to those in Rome by the apostles is established. They have me
accused of being a heretic, I, who made a dialogue against the heretics of our
time. Finally they accused me of heresy and rebellion, because I said that there are signs
in the sun, the moon and the stars, in front of Aristotle, who is the eternal and incorruptible
world. That's why they have me as Jeremiah thrown into the lake bottom, where there is
no air or light. "

In prison he wrote his Realis Philosophiae epilogisticae partes quatuor [34] , the first
part deals with the nature of all things, the second about the morals of the people, the
third on the Politics and the fourth on the Oeconomica. An appendage of the Politics is his
Sun State (Civitas Solis).

When he was released later through the Archbishop of Catanzaro and Pope Urban VIII,
despite the opposition and persecution of his enemies, the Jesuits, he went to France,
where he was received with much ado, even to the court of King Louis XIII . He took his
time in the Dominican convent in the Rue St. Honor in Paris, once again to make a trip to
Holland, and finally died at age 71 in May 1639 in Paris.

While Villegardelle the Solar State of Campanella in many respects exceeds,

the Utopia of Thomas More, as Malon and Lafargue to writing "one of the boldest, most
complete and most beautiful utopias" calls, it lacks according to prof. Quack entirely the
temptation of the quick clean forms, as attractive as the writings of Morus, although he
must recognize that every thought in it to its logical conclusion is made and the
"community" here is much more extensive than in the Utopia of Morus.

Campanella wrote once: "I am born to fight three major disasters: tyranny, hypocrisy
and sophistry" he spoke so truthfully, because no one can better describe his life than he
did in those few words.

In his book The Sun State he shows a conversation between a grand master of the
Knights Hospitaller and a ship's captain from Genoa. The latter tells of his travels and how
he went ashore to Taprobane and come in a wide plain, below the equator met a gang of
armed men and women who spoke Italian and brought him to the Sun City. This was a big
city, divided into seven rings, the names of seven planets bearing, each of which was
enclosed by walls.

Four blocks and four gates they went from one ring to the other. Inside were grand
palaces with balconies and terraces, which entirely resembled each other. Since the city
was built on a mountain, each ring was higher than the last, until they came to seventh at
the top of the mountain, where a round temple arose at that temple was a dome and then
rested a small temple on pillars which was the holy of Holies. The altar showed a sphere
in which the sky was painted and another who suggested the Earth. Inside the large dome
they had shown all the stars. There still were burning seven golden lamps, which bore the
names of planets. At the top of the small dome was a weather vane, above a book in
golden letters all the changes of temperature, climate and wind were recorded. On the
terrace around the temple were big and clean cells occupied by 49 priests. The prince of
this city was a priest, whom they the Sun called, we would say in our language the Meta
Physicist that the spiritual as well, guiding the worldly affairs. To his relief, he had three
heads (Triumviri): Pon, Sin and Mor , which means words: Power, Wisdom and Love . The
first is as much as Minister of War, the Second Minister of Arts and Sciences, the third
takes care of reproduction, so that the cleanest possible sex may be obtained, that
eugenics is not only fit for animals; He takes care of the education of youth, for the
practice of medicine, for sowing and harvesting, for animals, for food and clothes of all.

The residents, an Indian race, had left their country to escape the cruelties of the Magi,
true tyrants and robbers; They then went on to lead a philosophical life in
community. Everything was common among them, but the distribution was controlled by
the authorities. They said that creates ownership spirit within us and multiplies because
we have our own house, your own wife and children own. So egoism is created. The love
of country is with them unprecedented. Do we not see in history that the more the
Romans despised the property, the more they are to consecrate their country? We see no
great devotion to our monks and priests who are holy as they are less dominated by the
love of relatives and friends or by their own ambition to high dignities? Governments bore
the name of virtue, which they excelled from an early age, such as generosity, courage,
chastity, generosity, skill, criminal and civil justice, truth, kindness, gratitude, joy, activity,
temperance , etc. They know neither. theft nor murder, nor excess, neither adultery nor
any of the crimes that occur among us. Lie them the greatest of all crimes, and as a
punishment for the guilty are not common co-eating or women for a time determined by
the courts in relation to the gravity of their crime. The clothing is simple and almost equal
for both sexes, only extends those of women below the knee. The children learn
together; 1 to 3 years they learn the alphabet and the language while playing on the
walls. They walk with bare head and bare feet until the seventh year. They practice a lot in
gymnastics and all sorts of games and later taught needlework, cooking, painting
workshop according to their desire. After their seventh year we learn their science, the
higher mathematics, medicine and other sciences. Who knows most subjects, the highest
is honored. The authorities designated by the Meta Physicist, Pon, Sin and Mor. The
dignity of Meta Physicist is awarded by selection of all residents, but he must be someone
who excels in all the sciences and not below 35 years. The three other dignitaries must be
highly skilled in the art that they perform.

Houses, rooms, beds, everything is common and the government allocates every six
months on each circle, the house and the room to which one must live. Each name is
written on the door. The work is the same, only for both sexes is to ensure that the men
do the heavy work. Each circuit has its own kitchens, barns, tools. An old man and woman
his predecessors in every function. The young men serve all those who are over 40. At
the table the men sit on one side and the women on the other side. There is silence in the
dining room and in the convent, a young man reading what, what reading is repeatedly
interrupted by one of the most respectable members of the party to draw your attention to
one or the other. The dishes are prepared in accordance with the requirements of doctors,
watching age and illness. The governments get more and the tastiest food, they give
some of it to the children who have distinguished des morning at work. On holidays they
sing at the table, but only one or two voices accompanied by the winch. The pastors bring
the young people in the evening to their bedroom where they sleep alone or with their two,
and in the morning they send them where their duty calls them. All wear a white shirt and
taking a garment. Four Grinding in the year they change clothes when the sun is in the
sign of Aries, the lobster, the scale and the ibex. All the clothes are ready to be used as
they are needed. is well provided for bathing and bewassing. It has a very practical
system of drainage and a water pipe brings the water to the top of the city. Much is done
to study, especially in meteorology.

Regarding reproductive age is substituted therefor for women 19 for men at 21

years. Nothing can be done in these non-physician who has been added to the triumvir
Love. At the public play the young people appear naked as to the Lacedaemonians. It is
the mating given the appearance that the race will go ahead. After they have bathed in
each case, and only to the three nights may man and woman come together. Man and
woman sleeping in two separate cells until the hour of the association. A matron opens
the doors giving access to the bedrooms, decorated with beautiful images, so that the
woman can see the beautiful. A prayer precedes. If a woman is not pregnant by a first
hug, it unites her with another man, it appears barren, it is common for all, but she does
not enjoy the honors awarded to the mothers. Mothers suckle their children for two years
and longer. Thereafter, the common education begins. They are named for the
characteristic that distinguishes them.

In reproduction is the interest of society, but if the community extends to the bed, then
this does not happen in the manner of beasts, which take possession of the first female
they meet [35] , but according to the laws of reproduction. It also seeks to honor the
residents that no deformity do humans permission gives nothing. The lame, the blind, all
of them are suitable for anything. Only the old people can do anything and can still be
useful because of their counsels.

As for the war, both men and women received a military education. The duel is
prohibited. War occurs only for self-defense.
 The hardest work is considered the highest among them. They have very little trade
and it consists were exchanging them against other they need. This trade takes place at
the gates, that the corruption within step. Livestock is highly regarded and always one is
of eugenics. Of navigation they make a lot of work. Everything is available in
abundance. The food consists of meat, cheese, honey, butter, dates and different
vegetables. In principle, they would not kill animals, but they are destroying it as cruel and
plants so they eat both animal and plant, that they should perish otherwise. They eat twice
a day, the children four times. Most of the time they are 100 years old, sometimes they
even reach the age of 200 years. They are very moderate. Until 19 years of age, they may
have wine, but even then they usually drink it mixed with water. There they live in
accordance with the hygiene requirements, not come to us all kinds of diseases among
them.

The sun with the three councilors have others among themselves to regulate the
various components. It holds public meetings to debate on common interests. Individual
judges are not there, because everyone under his head and it may punish with
banishment, the whip, reprimand, denial of the common table and of dealing with
women. The law of retaliation prevails among them. The death penalty may be applied,
but only by the whole people, that the culprit killing or stoning.

As for religion, the sun is high priest and all the magistrates were priests. The
inhabitants confess to the government. 24 priests living in the temple to sing four times
daily psalms. Moreover, they take the stars where and determine the time for sexual
intercourse, sowing and harvesting. They celebrate four parties, as the sun is in the sign
of Cancer, the scales, the Capricorn and Aries, and great dramas are staged on those
occasions. Also every new and full moon is a holiday, which is sung in unison. The bodies
are burned for fear of the plague and fire because it is a pure element. It focuses not on
the statue before a person's death, but the names of those who made themselves useful,
are recorded in the book of heroes. Incidentally, they are committed to astronomy, believe
at the end of the world as a renewal, maybe a destruction. They take on two principles,
male and female, the sun and the earth, from which all things come lower and two
metaphysical principles being that God is, and non-being, which is sin. They believe in
free will, but man is under the influence of the stars. They also believe the immortality of
the soul. Who verifies the composition of all, sees in it the freedom and providence of God
and is forced to the maxim: do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.

Thus ends the book, because if the Grandmaster apparently wants to ask more, our
captain did not have time to continue the conversation.

We get now this bold thinker off, but bring only recall a sonnet to the people, in which
he expresses what increasingly felt all revolutionaries:

"The people are a fickle, foolish animal, that has no power and the heaviest blows and
expenses bear with patience; it is led by a weak child, that it can throw a single push on
the ground. But it fears this and present it in all its moods, do not know how much they
fear it and that his masters prepare a potion that makes it stupid. Unheard of sight! The
people strikes and excites himself with his own hands, the fights and fights for a single
carlino (one cent we would say), which the king gives. Everything between heaven and
earth is the people, but it knows nothing belongs, and when someone will be right reveals,
then stoned and kill him. "

The latter is quite true. Thomas Mntzer murdered with his family, John of Leyden and
his followers tortured and slain, beheaded Thomas Morus, Giordano Bruno and Vanini
burned, tortured Thomas Campanella and 26 years in prison. Yes, Goethe was right when
he said:

The few that their enlightened understanding

not kept to themselves,
but the rabble revealed their opinions and feelings,
they are of old crucified and burned.

There appeared numerous state novels, but not all had a socialist tendency. For
example, the English state chancellor Bacon embarked on a novel state, the Atlantis
nova , more general philosophical, then determined socialist nature, but that he lacked
either the courage or other reasons led to this, the book remained unfinished. He had the
description of Solomon's house, an academic establishment to promote the knowledge of
natural laws, and the expansion of the boundaries of the rule of man over nature,
complete, he probably would have given a chapter on "the laws of the best state status
". The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes and the Oceana of James Harrington belong not just
to this genre, though it limits it. First, the state or state violence as the huge sample,
mentioned in the Book of Job, making the "war of all against all," which would rule
otherwise, was brought into regular shapes, so the man the benefit of the fruits of his
labor was guaranteed. Secondly, praised by David Hume as a glory of the English
literature, describes an imaginary state - apparently that is England - which a good
constitution with good agricultural legislation would contribute to the lasting happiness of
its inhabitants. "The rule is aimed at the property" (government follows property), he says,
and therefore the evidence shows how right he realized that no political arrangement, the
ownership distribution, but reversed the ownership distribution determines the political
establishment and controls. A work of Bishop Hall, entitled Mundus alter et idem [36] ,
provides a satire on contemporary society, as well as the Tales of the barrel ,
the Gulliver's Travels and other writings in which many savory and sharp word is said
about society in its existing form.

A remarkable, almost entirely unknown utopia Gerard Winstanley entitled The law of
liberty as a program or true system of government restored [37] from the year 1651/52
and dedicated to Cromwell. Two roads are in his Cromwell open, namely: either to give
the land to the people and then make conferred honor or the power to pass into the hands
of other people, and then it's done with him and he will bring greater slavery than the
hitherto existing. The nation still suffers 1st. under the influence of the clergy, 2 . under
the opposition of many clerics against freedom, including even many supporters of the
monarchy; 3 . under the tithe: 4 . under the old arbitrariness with which justice is 5
. under the old laws against the people; instead of the royal law they spoke of state law
and that was all; 6 . under the economic disorders, so the landlord (lords of the manor)
feudal rights and did their "brothers" of the municipal land wegjoegen as they paid no
lease; in parishes with church land drove the wealthy landowners so many cattle that
could barely keep one cow to the poor peasants; the tax was unjust, and in the cities the
people were suppressed by high patent, market funds and similar matters.

The land belongs to all and now Winstanley gives a plan for consideration by
Cromwell. On the trade he wants to eliminate, for trade swindle. Wealth is not possible
without uitzuigerij, no one can be rich except by his own work or the work of others who
help him. The rich receive all the workers and all they give, they do not give their own
work but that of others away. The only honorary titles that may be tolerated are those of
age, office, or merit. All include land and warehouses common to all, each family is living
separately and each house, wife, children, furniture or supplies are her own. Lawyers
expire, "the eternal delights makers Simeon and Levi," may in a free society does not
administer. True freedom consists not in free trade, even in freedom of religion, not
freedom to have intercourse with women, not in it that the older brother will have the right
and the younger shall serve him, but the true Republican freedom lies in the free
enjoyment of the earth . "The glory of the kingdom of Israel was there that they had no
beggars among them." At length he describes the essence of the government. All officers
must be elected and every year. The production is still small production. However, the
municipality has public workshops, but each one must also produce at home. The product
is placed in the municipal warehouse and each takes from it what he needs either for
private use or to production. Each member is expected a certain amount of labor; he does
less, he is reminded of his duty and that does not help, then he is called to account by the
community. Usually, this helps, but this is not the case, then is punished. Similarly, in case
of destruction of tools. Education is universal and to the 40th year, they work duty. Then
one may do what one wants. The different items are: the family, the father, in the city or
parish peacemaker, four different kinds of overseers (peace overseer, work supervisor,
warehouse supervisor and superintendent general), bosses and right volt initiators, a
judge in the county, the peacemakers of cities, the overseers and soldiers, which together
form the county senate or the court that keeps alternately sitting in different places in the
country's parliament, a priesthood of the republic, postmaster, an army.

Men over 60 years to be elected by all the others their age overseers. Just as he is set
to practical knowledge, he's against school scholarship. Everyone is voter, who is 20
years old and eligible one is on his 40th. Marriage is free. If a man has had sexual
relations with a girl and there needs to be a child, he is obliged to marry her. Rape is
punishable by death. Attempted abduction of another's wife is punished for the first time
with a warning, the second time with 12 months loss of freedom, and that is, forced labor
for the community or serve in the families. The maximum penalties are on buying and
selling. Who sells land or its fruit shall be punished with death. Who ground calls his
property, 12 months hard labor and those words will be burned him on the forehead. No
one may hire labor and rent out his work. Gold and silver are only processed as furniture,
not currency. Incidentally, only one uses gold as a medium of exchange with other
nations.

The writer and his followers were even ruled by the most radical of his contemporaries
overly crazy and even Lilburne would not be mistaken that he belonged to them. The
writer is otherwise little known, it seems that he later took a place among the Quakers, so
at least he was among those elements which in the beginning was composed of the
movement of the Quakers.

Among those writings can also be arranged the book of Pieter Cornelis Plockboy of
Zierikzee, with its lengthy title Proposal of a way to make thereby the arms of this and
other countries fortunate that a number of matched and well-minded people united in a
common household or small republic, which each retain its property and without
oppression in the nature of the work, which he is capable, can find employment. The
means to this and other nations not to deliver only lazy, wicked and debauched persons,
but also of such persons, who sought and found ways to at the expense of the labor of
others to live. With an invitation to participate in this company or small republic like
appendage . A few years later, he emerges with a new plan that he wants to realize in the
Dutch colony of New Netherlands, and which he wrote in Dutch: "Short and Klaer design
by Pieter Cornelis Plockboy, 1662". Although he wants to communism, he still retains a
limited ownership. He wants a kind of partnership, in which each are loading what he
wants, without getting for interest. He wants to link the work on the land to the industry, he
believes that six hours of work daily is sufficient. The first part is purely economic and the
second is about the Christian love and ethics.

After the entry of these utopias, we care more about the completeness than to the
influence which went out of it, we come to France, where a few well-known writings came
out of that.

The virtually unknown, but after his death by one during his lifetime Testament very
familiar become village priest Jean Meslier 1664-1729 (according to others in 1678 -1729)
has not only contested the religion, by Christianity as a religion and is regarded as a
dogma low and despicable fanaticism, but his attacks were also directed against the
Christian ethics, whose flaws exist in the preference it gives to suffering and sorrow in the
condemnation of the flesh and the recommendation to certain rules, which aim down to
justice cast as the command of absolute defenselessness and love for the enemy. In
society, as it has become under the influence of Christianity, he looks not unlike a terrible
tyranny of the great and mighty of this earth. One class, all wealth held, including the king
and the princes, the nobility and the clergy and all the rich and redundant idlers who, with
their servants only life of the fruits of labor of the other class, especially the farmer -
because for him only fights the writer, the whole industry does not seem to exist for him -
and the other, which is completely used and sucked. Hear how he no punches winds,
when he says: "One, you speak of the devil, they chase you only already with that name
in fear, by making you believe that the devil is not only the biggest enemies of your
happiness but also the ugliest and afzichtelijkste figures, which can be imagined. But the
painters are mistaken when they mark the devils as ugly and hideous monsters; they
deceive themselves and their ministers as well as the ones in their images, the others in
their sermons demons so ugly, so deformed, silhouetted as monstrous. They should
rather introduce you to them and all the beautiful women and ladies, whom you dressed
so pretty, so graceful cut and powdered, perfumed and looks as radiant as gold, silver and
precious stones. The devils that your preachers and painters propose under such ugly
and hideous forms, exist only in the imagination, they hunt only children and ignorant fear
and cause only imagined harm to those who fear them. Those other demons and devils
on the other hand, the men and women of whom I speak do not exist in the imagination,
they are visible and exist in reality as well as the disasters they cause to the poor nations,
but all too real and tangible be. "when asked where the princes and the nobility have their
origin, he replied that as one climbs to their oldest ancestors, they are bloodthirsty and
cruel people, tyrants, rogues, thieves, murderers. The first abuse consists in the great
inequality and disproportionate nature of the living conditions of people, who are naturally
equal. The second abuse in the existence of rich idlers who are of no use to society. To
such he counts all clerics and priests, monks and nuns who are called to pray for us, but
"work well for one hour is better than all this." A third abuse he sees in the appropriation of
the goods of the earth, by some, while they ought to be common property. He wanted the
inhabitants of a town, a village, a spot along one large family would form, by treating each
other as brothers and sisters, as children of the same father and mother, equally well
dressed, in good homes and equipped with proper footwear. Each works in his profession
under the guidance of the best. All these villages and urban communities connect with
each other peace in order to help each other and to meet the needs. In this federated
community is not a new religion, that faith in God and idols makes people unhappy
again. A fourth abuse is the breakdown in families, making people again be divided. Thus,
inequality persists. And fifth abuse he regards the indissolubility of marriage, allowing men
and women to always have a very oppressive yoke, if they are unhappy once been their
choice. He wants a common education for all, so that everyone is trained to become a
useful member of the community. If all labored honestly and community enjoyed, they
would have realized the conditions for happiness. He calls the people: "You provided by
your labor is all that is necessary for the existence and opulent life of the dignitaries. They
would have nothing if you do not give them your wealth. They would have no power or
authority, if you do not bow the knee to them. "He hopes that those who force majeure will
always tolerate and calls to unite all peoples into a struggle against their
oppressors. "Unissez vous donc, peuples" - so unite, people - came from his mouth.

Pitiable must have been this man's life, which religious life preached in the church,
which he himself did not believe, who led a life of hypocrisy and hypocrisy for fear of
otherwise persecuted, who was minister of Christ, although he considered it as "a mean
and despicable man without spirit, without talent, without knowledge, in short, like a fool, a
stupid, miserable fanatic and an unfortunate galgenaas." Even Voltaire found the book,
which he knew an extract, some very scratch, so he "shuddered with horror" when he
read it. Nicely written meanwhile he did not, because "it is written in a style of a carriage
horse", but he testified that "the beast right rear exhaust". Maybe it was out of contempt
for himself and his cowardice to reveal his true feelings, he ended his life, at least it was
rumored that he starved himself. The boldness of thought, which is not always excelled by
correctness, stuck certainly miraculous off at the cowardice of the designer. And yet he
dared even to record the lot of the poor and oppressed. The lord of his village had some
peasants without mercy gagged. This outraged he left the official prayer for the lord of the
village road. When the nobleman complained filed by the archbishop, his spiritual head,
commanded him to pray that the ordinary form. The pastor did this in the following way:
"Behold the fate of ordinary poor village pastors: the archbishops, who are big men, them
and hear them to despise; they have ears only for the nobility. So we recommend in our
prayer to the lord of the manor, and we pray to God for that gentleman the Clairy. We ask
God to his conversion and that he prove him the grace not to mistreat the poor and do not
rob. "

Of course, the lord of the manor was who had to listen to that prayer, highly incensed
and our pastor suffered a further sanction on. No wonder he lived at odds with that great
gentleman, although his boldness still has not come to be too expensive to him.

Pity the man who was capable of such, the courage to be missed entirely themselves,
because the respect for his person would be significantly much higher than it could
be. Meanwhile, we do it only to point to the communist tendency, which already shines
through in this book.

Whole as the utopia can be considered History of Sevarambars by Denis Vairasse

d'Allais, a very popular book in several languages, also in Dutch, was translated.

After the first part of a ship voyage described, the second part contains the actual
utopia or the story of the institutions and laws of Sevarambers. The sea captain Siden first
gives a description of Sevarias, the founder and legislator of the state, who was born in
Persia, a fire worshiper, was a worshiper of the sun. This landed Sporoumbe when
Prestarambe known where the people lived in groups divided into community and after he
had helped the residents in their fight against the mountain-dwelling Stroukarambers, he
was after the victory over this their chief. The sun-worship and community life were the
basis pillars of the state. There was a large square building for 1000 people, Osmasie
called, in which the inhabitants lived in community of property. Community of women was
strictly forbidden, monogamy rule, which could be waived only by the senior
officials. Soon risen more Oamasin so that soon four were in a temple to the sun. The
head of a Osmasie was Osmasiont and formed heads together this big board. All lands
and resources were the property of the state. Labor Duty existed for all and - oddly, he
divided the day into three sections: eight hours for sleep or rest, eight hours for recreation,
and eight hours for work. The only distinction among them, which was recognized, which
was the years. The children were jointly raised as state children. The Constitution of the
state was this: no other sovereign than the Sun was recognized and adopted no laws than
those that had inspired his lieutenant and council; not to allow the ownership of property
would be in private hands; no hereditary rank or dignity; reverence for old age; no
idleness accepted as the cause of all evil; no useless arts, which only served to opulence
and vanity; moderation in all things; the laws on marriage recognized in view of the
reproduction of the species as well as the removal of adultery, incest and other
abuses; good upbringing of children; training of youth in the arms trade; religion as a band
for the conscience of the people with rewards for the good and punishment for the
wicked. After a long reign Sevarias voluntarily stepped down as viceroy. By lot a viceroy
was appointed. Thus followed seven each other and then Siden came in 1656, was the
eighth on the throne. The land consisted of 5000 Osmasin, capital Sevarinde only from
267 such buildings. Everything is pictured. The filthy and dirty work was done by slaves. If
the young man 19 years old and the girl was 16 years old, was given an opportunity
during a period of 18 months the young people to get acquainted with each other. Girl
chooses the young man she loves, or rather she asks him to marry. Which suffer
reproach, even to the second or third of women can be Sevarobasten and other senior
officials. The viceroy allowed to choose their own wife; The number of women may climb
to 12. Fornication and drunkenness are severely punished. Lying is their abomination; an
oath they can not do. The clothing is all the same. The food they take jointly except
supper, which used up every home in his apartments with his wife and children. Prayed a
lot to do; doctors have not very skilled. As food they use everything. Carriages they only
for the sick and elderly. The bodies are burned. Music is widely practiced; painting and
sculpture serve only to ornamentation. The death penalty is rarely used, usually is forced
labor as a punishment. Coins they have not, precious stones used as jewelry. Military
service, practiced by both sexes, lasts until the 49th year. They have a state cult, but they
act with tolerance. Christian doctrine is found next to the solar service. They have six big
parties. The people believe in immortality. Civil processes they do not know, because they
have no ownership, so only criminal trials, where the Osmasiont sayest. Do the parties to
various Osmasin, then certainly a Brosmasiont, head overnight Osmasin etc., up to four
courts. Nucleosides could eventually not resist the desire to Europe and left after
spending 15 years Sevarambe. He was killed on the road, because the ship on which he
was hit clashed with the English fleet.

An imitation of this book is La Terre Australe connue or rather it is an independent book,

there's a year after the English edition of the book Vairasse, so even before the French
appeared. As a writer mentions Bayle certain monk Gabriel Foigny that Protestant was of
a nobleman from Brittany and the book is primarily known as Les aventures de Jaques
bassador dans la decouverte et le voyage de la terre austral Paris 1692 (The
Adventures of Jaques bassador in the discovery and the journey of the Australian
country). This writer assumes that the Australians are not descended from Adam, but an
androgynous (woman man) not as cases from the state of innocence. In this state
surviving they have no government, they do not know what is yours and mine, so one
would infer from the words of an Australian old man, that they lived in utter anarchy. When
he was made the remark that they're not without order and rule could live and so needed
a head to which they are subjected, namely, he replied that the nature of man brought to
be born free; and to do so only by surrendering his nature subdued one human being to
another, but because he descends to the animal. Its essence is to deprive the freedom
and this one, which is to force him to exist without being. An Australian often does what
his fellows ask him, but he never acts as one it recommends him. The word "order" is
hated by him, he does just what his reason dictates him to do, because the reason is his
wife guides. Nature, moreover, supplies everything in abundance, so that everyone can
get without work what he wants. Strange that such vrijheidlievend nation controls the
population question by the law, which every resident is required to provide at least one
child to the community and that they have an aversion to intercourse, it always remains at
the one child. Apart from the objection that this is an infringement of the freedom, the
application of that law would lead to depopulation, because if any two people produces
one, one is soon in half and so ongoing disappears sex soon entirety.

An equal education to ensure all proper development. Where equality exists, since the
freedom to follow. Now, they claim an honor to be equal in every respect. The religious
element in this book takes a big place like that of Jacques Mass: Voyages et aventures
de Jacques Mass (travel and JM adventures). Although it is said not determined, seems
that outlined ideal country has to have some kind of communist economy, but it is the
writer therefore less than to make the adventures.

At Fontenelle is attributed writings: La rpublique des philosophes ou Histoire des

Ajaoiens (the republic of philosophers, or history of Ajaojirs). These two principles: 1
. what is not, can also consist grant to nothing; 2 . treat your fellow man as you would
wish to be treated.

"On the island Ajao is mine and thine unknown: yet not everything is absolutely in
community. Nobody owns land in private ownership. Everything belongs to the state,
which allows cropping and the products distributed to the families. "All four days, there is a
distribution site of supplies, provided by the heads of the villages. At age 20 must be
married and have two wives, what the author considers very wise, as these will
increasingly compete to win the love of the man. The children are raised by the state after
the fifth year. We find the technical work associated with the mental and physical
development. For both sexes the education is the same. However, the whole civilization of
this people is based on the enslavement of the natives of this island, which became state
property. Those slaves whose number is limited, live in separate neighborhoods in which
they are locked after sunset.

A whole series of writings follow each other, such as the Republic of Cessars by vd
Veck (a pseudonym), where poverty is unknown and all prosperity in life; the Thlphe by
Pechmeja, in which the pure communism is honored; the Supplement to the voyages of
Bougainville, the Republic of Galli Genes , by Diderot, which prevents an idyllic
description of the happiness of Otatirs who know neither property nor family nor
morals; The year 2440 by Mercier headed: the incomparable pleasure would be generally
lucky to foundations; the Incas by Marmontel; Arcadia by Bernardin de Saint
Pierre; Memoirs of Gaudence the Luques, prisoner of the Inquisition by Simon Berington,
which outlined realm of common brotherhood; the Australian discovery and Letters from a
monkey by Restif de la Bretonne, in which a people, the Megapatagonirs, describes
living under the following laws: be fair towards your brother, do justice to the animals, all
those common among equals, everyone working for the common good and everyone let
him take it equally part.

So we are already approaching the end of the century, but we want to go back a little
and without talking about the Lettres Persanes Montesquieu, showing how this famous
writer was not only republican, but very socialist-tinged (compare the 12th letter of Usbek
to Mirza, the 13th of Usbek to the same, the 14th ditto ditto) or Numa
Pompilius Florian [38] , monarchical colored, or the Golden Mirror of Wieland, which this
classic writer outlines the humanitarian action of an enlightened despot, like we dwell on a
few works that deserve a separate mention. We mean the Telemaque [39] of the famous
Fnlon, the governor of the Duke of Burgundy, grandson of Louis XIV, which the
communist tendencies of the writers transparent enough peeking through the cracks. His
description of the peoples of Btique who lived fraternally in community of property is so
attractive that one would want to go directly to share in an unprecedented state of
prosperity and peace. The description of Salente, where the land belongs to the state and
the right to existence was acknowledged by the labor for all, where all were required,
compares favorably with the scene that produce the civilized peoples.

In 1753 appeared the Basiliade (Book of Kings), or the Perishing of Floating Islands ,
which was called to be true to Messina and translated from the Indian to the famous
Pilpai, a prose epic in 14 cantos. Which describes a continent surrounded by ocean
prevailed and where nature and truth. Among the residents was community property,
harmony and happiness. But evil spirits invaded and selfishness took possession of the
hearts. Nature and Truth decided to punish the company. A deluge, accompanied by
volcanic explosions and fire tore strips of land from the mainland away. On the mainland,
only one pair of children remained a brother and sister, and that few people nature and
truth built a new and good society.

It was a happy place, where there was no private property and no one anything like his
consideration. Everyone drew on the wealth of nature to his needs and mutual aid made
the work easy and pleasant. People lived as a vegetarian. Slavery was unknown, there
was a marriage monogamy but need not always be made. The only distinction that
existed, the difference was in age. They lived in large quarters, each of 1,000 people,
where warehouses and workshops. The meals were common. These wooden houses
were surrounded by gardens, archways and fountains. So it was at the beginning of the
reign of the boy Zeinzemin king of "Happy lands", but they have to withstand an attack
from the Floating Islands, pieces of torn country. The List invades the palace of King
Zeinzemin and blows him that he has to divide the land, to make walks of life, bring
competition among the industrious and enter the market. He opposes any such moves
and advocated the benefits of the common property. There is a party, whose slogan was
to share the common property. Zeinzemin bring the rebels to their duty and frustrating as
all evil plans. The inhabitants of the Floating Islands he outlines the civilized states of
Europe. They send a fleet to Zeinzemin and wish to enter into an alliance. Among those
aliens pulls a known particularly attention Fadhilah. The king and Fadhilah became
friends. Fadhilah unfolded the construction and assembly of a society like that of the
Floating Islands, a society built on the principles of relevance and ownership. King
Zeinzemin will tour the ship and at the instigation of the list the ships sail away with their
precious booty. Storm robberies they all perish, just Zeinzemin and Fadhilah be
saved. Come on one of the floating islands they visited the ruins of the ancient worship,
until they find the top of the mountain the crumbling walls of the Temple of Truth, a temple
above are the words: go, admire and enjoy. Zeinzemin escaped. The Goddess of Nature
decided to destroy the inhabitants of the Floating Islands because of the criminal attempt
against Zeinzemin and while this criminal addressed took place, Zeinzemin landed with
his friends in his homeland and a happy communal life could continue undisturbed for
eternity.

In response to the many criticisms that provoked his book, gave the same writer, also
anonymously, in 1755, the memorable book Code de la Nature , Code of Nature, which
testified the marquis d'Argenson: "An excellent book: Book of booking well as high
above l'Esprit des Lois of the President de Montesquieu, as la Bruyre above the abbot
Trublet: but at what book no sulfur will be enough to burn the "the unknown schoolmaster
Morelly which the writer. was, after his death was not appreciated, but how does that work
was estimated, one can infer that a long time is considered to be from none other than
Diderot. First, it begins with a defense of his Basiliade. He formulates the social question
thus: finding a state in which the human being is almost impossible corrupted or
bad. Nature is violated and therefore one starts already in the upbringing of the
children. Man has learned to feel that he needs the help from others to everything and so
he finds himself placed in a moral appeal to all those who surrounded him.

Thus, the social life is resurrected. Nature gave to the people as well indivisible
ownership of the productive field and to each and every use of its tender mercies. "The
world is a well-equipped banquet, encouraged and equipped for all guests, from which
table the food sometimes accrue to all, because all are hungry, and then they become
part of only a few, because the others are saturated, but no one should call himself
perfectly master of the food. "the products are more abundant than to get the needs and
only through labor. In addition, it is indicated on the assistance. Instead of mutual affection
has been supported by self-interest. Entering the property is the unnaturalness which
spoils everything here. He shows the false spirit, which our laws are controlled. The basis
of civil law is: do not do to another what you do not want done to yourself. Instead of
saying, do good what you can do, they say: do no harm. The introduction of the 'mine and
thine' is afraid. Christianity had brought the true principle on earth, but they forgot the
proper ethics to go on a mysterious dogma. The concept of equality is suffocating among
men; by isolating people from each other, they do not feel related. The state is not a state
anymore, it is a set of privileges for the powerful, private property even has distorted the
government. Only when the idea of community is restored, there will be improvement.

It is particularly important pest and where there is no private property, one remains free
from the disastrous consequences. Morelly wants to maintain the indivisible unity of the
common ground and the common home, he wants to make use of the equipment as well
as of their products together, they want education for all are right, he wants around the
town preserve land that sufficiently able to feed the families that live there, he wants to
unite at least 1000 people, so that everyone working for his strength and user according
to his needs, an average consumption gain which does not exceed the common sources
and that a joint labor obtained a sum of productions, that makes it mean plentiful, he
wants the talent not allow other privileges than the regulation of labor in the common
interest and in the distribution of the products take into account the needs and not the
competence . In conclusion, he gives a code, which he manages all relations and
defines. The nation is divided into provinces, tribes and families. Everyone in turn is head
of the family, each family chooses to turn the head of the tribe, and each tribe in turn
elects the head of the province and all the heads of provinces in turn are senators. Every
citizen of a tribe or cit must practice time in agriculture accomplishing his 20th to the 25th
year. A cit consists of four large squares, which encloses the greater the smaller
ones. The first square includes the warehouses, the second the houses, the third and
fourth workshops a series of homes for the corps farmers and the barns and
stables. Outside this has been the hospitals, old monasteries and houses, prisons, etc.
Every law begins with the words. Wants reason, recommends the law. Every citizen
should marry at 15 to 18 years, this marriage lasts 10 years and thereafter may divorce
take place. The mothers nurse their children and they are five years old, then it is children
who are in appropriate homes - boys and girls separately - and under a certain number of
family fathers and mothers, who swapped every five days have been. At the age of 10
they go to workshops to learn labor. With the utmost care is taken to ensure sure that the
desire for property not creep into their hearts. Especially sociology should be
practiced. The death penalty does not exist, but the most severe punishment they have a
closure in a cave sealed with iron bars near the cemetery [40] . Adultery is punishable by
one year imprisonment; murderers and conspirators, who want to overthrow the sacred
laws to enter the horrible ownership were thus punished as enemies of the human race.

Morrelly is considered by many as one of the greatest socialists of his time and
whose code of nature carefully review each web site, comes to the belief that he is
dealing with a thinker first class, which is not afraid to accept the consequences of the
propositions he wrote down. It was he who came up against Rousseau, called him a
"presumptuous sophist," in his award-winning contest on progress. Morrelly wants
progress, but he opposes the fold given to it by the property. Only when one is which fold
to deprive and works in the opposite direction, the conditions will be met in order to make
man happy.

Do not forget the Abbe de Mably (1709-1785), is a man who has exerted great
influence on society and although he designed not a utopia, yet he was a convinced
communist, who never ceased to represent the community of goods the only order which
corresponded to the true purpose of the society, in order all members to ensure lasting
happiness. His main work is titled De la lgislation ou des lois principles (regarding the
law or principles of law), in which he lets conversations between a Swede and an
Englishman. "All evil stems from the private property and by this means the inequality of
fortunes has been the misfortune of the human race. I can not give up the pleasant notion
of community of property. Establish hair and equality shalt bring happiness to the people,
"He did very well in the ownership divides us into two classes:. Rich and poor. "The first
will always put their personal fortune above that of the state and the second will never
love a government that allows that they are unhappy. The community property just makes
good citizens. "However, he believes that religion must be the quickening principle that
state and society must go through a whole. He is otherwise very tolerant, want harmony
between religion and philosophy as well as a separation between spiritual and worldly
matters. As such, he sees achieved the ideal in Holland. It is mainly the greed and
ambition, he fights because these two vices, the impact of the property still oppressive.

A curious type is also Deschamps, prior of the Benedictines at Montreuil-Bellay, known

under the name of Dom Deschamps, who only focus was 80 years after his
death. Curiously especially as a precursor of Hegel and of the doctrine of transformism.

Although in appearance but actually Catholic atheist and communist, he was respected
for his clean life and his dedication to the order to which he belonged. He tried the great
men of his time, a Rousseau, a Voltaire, Diderot to convert one to his insights.

In one of his writings: The voice of reason against the spirit of the age [41] , he came
up against the materialists who wanted to overthrow the old religious order but
established a human in its place and this was to be communism. His main work , the
system [42] was not published and only eighty years later it announced the contents. One
can find in germ Darwin back. In addition to the depth of the philosophical ideas one is
struck by the bold social ideas proclaimed therein. For all the roots to eradicate the
inequality we must hand out the idea of the whole, our true archetype, all emotional and
moral ideas are forged, remove and partly from our institutions the two types of
ownership, "which moral evil have in our state of unity, I mean the goods of the earth and
the women. "only the community of goods, including women, can assure us happiness.

Ultimately we want completeness also mention the utopia of the well-known economist
JB Say, who published a book on 32 years of age in 1799 under the name Olbie that in
these kind of writings belong at home. Olbie the country is a model nation that as a result
of a revolution priests and tyrants have driven away, are parasites has shaken off and
destroyed the great inequalities of fortune and brought overall abundance by bringing the
work in honor and a better distribution of wealth by a some introduce progressive income
tax. The aim should be to general prosperity by virtue useful and make the vice harmful to
humans. At that time considered Say, "The future high priest of bourgeois political
economy in France," religion as a blatant hoax and the state as a cancer. The misery
come in his violence continues, extortion, prostitution, hypocrisy etc. and only wealth is
the means to live in peace and harmony with each living.

Although not a utopia in the true sense of the word, we want here locally also reported
a memorable book of the Flemish surveyor Napoleon de Keyser, which appeared in 1854
under the title of The Natuerregt or regtveirdigheyd to new bestuer as order of
saemenleving according to human destiny , where he describes the society in accordance
with natural law. Opponent of private property, which he caused sees all evil, he wants to
see given a piece of land every man in 25 years the size of 1 hectare 25 ares, that will
have everyone his fair share of the earth, the yield which he will be able to live
properly. And who are lawfully share can not edit himself, he will be the rightful lease
revenues and lower state of nature to enjoy what he needs for his first interview, while he
other work that he did to do, will be sufficient in all other to meet needs. His socialism is
as pure at all state socialism, as the state is the controller of everything. In all parts he
works this out in his book, which covers 735 pages. Everything he gives a religious tint,
because he always speaks of the will of the creators, whom he seems exactly or pretends
to know.

And when Chateaubriand, whose sage was referring to a sketch given by him of a fair
and perfected society - where it has remained, no one knows, perhaps he destroyed her
later in life, when he had become a Christian - in his Essais historiques (1796) took stock,
he came to the conclusion that "we do not just live in a time of revolution, but social
distortion" and the old society, which is now in the hospital, to die now to reproduce itself
under new forms . The man, who employed "the last form of slavery" called, knew very
well where the shoe roll and while he compared the company at the tower of Babel, he
wrote, "as educational descends into the lower classes, discover the secret wound that
rankles since the beginning of the world to the social order, a wound that is the cause of
all the disasters and all the popular movements. The excessive inequality of conditions
and fortunes may have existed as long as they were hidden, on the one hand due to
ignorance, the other by the artificial organization of the state, but as soon as this
inequality is generally noticed, her inflicted the final blow. "
 And he sees a powerful, free future in the fullness of evangelical equality, but ... it is still
far from us!

_______________
[31] In his letters he is also called Nusquama the latin nusquam (nowhere), which name
he initially wanted to give to his book.
[32] The spiritual and mechanical skills learned by the wild animals to humans.
[33] The tribes impostoribus, in which book of Moses, Christ and Muhammad are treated
as three impostors.
[34] Four parts of the descriptive real philosophy.
[35] This is incorrect. Also among the animals bitch indeed singles.
[36] The other, and yet the same world.
[37] It is called the Diggers, digging or dredging men who saw their gospel herein. Here
are some verses of a song Communists, which was then sung among them:

You noble Diggers all, stand up now, stand up now,

you noble Diggers all, stand up now;
The Waste Land to maintain, seing Cavaliers by name
Your digging does disdaine, and all persons defame
Stand up now, stand up now.

The aristocrats, the gentry, lawyers and priests get their turn:

With spades and hoes and plowes, stand up now so

Your Freedom to uphold, seing cavaliers are bold
To kill you if They could, and rights from you to hold.
Stand up now, all diggers.

The gentry, the bourgeoisie, it is said:

The gentry are all round, on each side They are found
Their wisdom is so profound to cheat us from our ground.

The lawyers called "the devil in them lies" because they help to tell the poor and the
priests:

The clergy they come in and say it is a sin

That we now shouldering beginning, our freedom for to win

Both are tyrants and finally they want to win the royalists by love.

To conquer them by love, come on now, come on now.

To conquer them by love, come in now;
To conquer them by love, as it does you edification
For he is king above, no power is like to love,
Glory hear Diggers all.
[O all ye people proud country, is on now, is on now,
Defend 's savage land, which is in rulers hand,
despised Your work - and you to disgrace' placed,
is on now, is on now.

With hoes, spade and plow, stands on now, is on now,

your freedom have preserved - no ruler you earn
Their power can kill you - your right to defend now,
is on now, country people proud.

If nobility cunning succeeds, you hounding everywhere,

Then, if it pleases them - you chased your ground. The priests preevlen together
that sin we commit,
when we shouldered standing around our freedom vane.

Verwint love it all; I love then, you love then

love verwint it all; I love then, I loved then,
Give your love token. No power is her equal,
In Love kingdom reaches your triumph.
Ere - all the land nation proud.

[38] Little is known that this fabulist the maker of the best-loved verse of Carmagnole:
Que faut-il au Rpublicain? (aa)
Du fer, du coeur et du pain pulse? (aa)
Du fer pour l'tranger,
Du coeur pour le danger,
et du pain pour nos Frres.
Viv 'le son! Viv 'le son!
Et du pain pour nos Frres (aa)
Viv 'le son du canon.
(Which requires a Republican? Lead, courage and then bread? Lead for the stranger,
courage danger and bread for our brothers. Long live the sound! Long live the sound! And
bread for our brothers. Long live the sound of the gun.)
[39] the title of this book is La ville d'Idomne, rorganise par Mentor, pour l'ducation
the Tlmaque, file d'Ulysse.
[40] Curiously this sharp thinker has not noticed how he here sins against his own
principle. Indeed, he states that the community of property is most consistent with the
nature and the source of all happiness. Yet he speaks of punishment here, that would be
required to ensure his happiness is! If one ascribes all crimes to private property, which is
the foundation of our social institutions, then disappear with it private property and
therefore he comes to such horrible punishments exist in our society, which is a logical
error which he is guilty.
[41] La voix de la raison contra l'esprit du temps.
[42] Le systme.
Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis
The history of socialism
Chapter 10

Christian religious socialism

That religion and socialism are not always hostile to each other, the coupling together
of the two words proves that even the religious occupies a place among the various types
of socialism. And especially in those countries where Christianity has penetrated. One
should also be beaten with utter blindness or so stuck in the straitjacket of dogma not to
perceive the common thread that runs through Christian principles. We will now devote a
chapter to the efforts of Christian side to socialism, consecrated by religion, to transfer to
in practice.

First we point than at the Jesuit colony in Paraguay. The Jesuits namely a Christian
state, a civitas Dei, founded in South America, numbering to about 150,000 residents and
more than 1 1 / 2 centuries of its existence, from 1610 to 1768.

When the Spaniards came to bring their "Christian civilization" in South America, they
found that country inhabited by various tribes, which were still in primitive
condition. Beestachtigste the way they showed their higher civilization and they were able
to appease their conscience by stating that the Indians "people without reason" were, an
intermediate thing between man and animal. There was a separate bull of Pope Paul III
necessary to bring them to explain people. The civilizers brought those people in a state
of slavery, but to escape the harsh embrace of civilization ran it into the woods. When the
Jesuits there came towards the end of the 16th century, when people hunt was underway,
they took the party which battered residents and they did get done by the King of Spain
that it permission were savages to Christianity to convert by persuasion and
gentleness. The first two missionaries Mazeta Cataldino and went into the woods among
the savages living and organized them into a force that would be able to cope with their
persecutors. So they managed to win the confidence of the natives and they were able to
bring the extent that the governor of Paraguay in 1612 on behalf of the Crown
promulgated a decree, according to which was strictly forbidden to keep Indians
yachts. The Jesuits were entirely masters of the state and founded and ruled from 1610 to
1768 thirty pueblos, who numbered 150,000 inhabitants together with their expulsion. The
most numerous were living 30,000 Indians, but they are also found with a population of
500 to 1,000 souls.

Although the Jesuits made every effort to conceal how they ruled there, yet we know
enough of the descriptions of the missionaries themselves in order to display it.

Smart as the Jesuits were usual, they knew the original, more or less to employ
communist habits to enrich their order. Under their existing community land was retained,
but was settled by them. The "property of God" consisted of lands, whose proceeds
belonged to the Jesuits. They knew the work to give the character of a party, such as was
the case with the development of the lands of the sun, the god of the Incas of Peru. They
came together in a public square of the city, the statue of Mary or a saint was put on a
stretcher and with a band in front and while singing pious songs they went to the fields of
the Lord. Having arrived there, they erected an altar of branches, the image was put and
in the face of it sowed and plowed and reaped it. Was the work finished, then they put the
image on the stretcher and in procession they went back to the village. The Indians were
not allowed to possess the proceeds of their country and of the products they obtained
during their two week released days. They knew what the yield and the harvest was under
the oversight of those who are the most interested had to watch over. The clergy were
powerful: they arranged everything, even to the procreation of children. It is said that the
church bell at night indicating the hour when men and women were allowed to hug each
other. They had ugly clothes for work use, but stayed the Sunday clothes and the
weapons stored in the church warehouses. The houses were in the beginning of bamboo,
they had neither windows nor chimneys, the stove stood in the middle and the smoke
went through the door. Later, they had stone houses with slate roofs. All belonging to the
same kazike and thus to the same tribe, lived in a gallery or long room, which was divided
into small rooms of 2 to 3 meters; in each room a family slept without a bed and without
furniture. This makes us completely reminiscent of the communal houses of the original
inhabitants, corresponding to the described by Morgan "longhouses" (long houses) of the
Iroquois. Strange it may be called the Jesuits always griped about the poverty of the
shipments, for the land is very fertile and the labor was obligatory for all; there was also a
flourishing trade of different products, grown by the Indians and made. But the
missionaries bothered little about the material living standards of the Indians and they
made that any benefit to their benefit. The churches eg. The cleanest and largest of the
colonies, of St. Francis Xavier could contain 4 to 5000 people. They never were empty, as
always, there was a large mass of people who spend their free time in prayer. Of morning
and evening, before and after work went all were brought to the church and Sunday by
people with religious ceremonies and they made the day deliberately annoying as
possible to again ask the residents to work. The punishment, administered by the clergy,
consisted of prayers, fasting, prison and whipping. Sometimes they kept auto da fe, in
order to make inveterate Indians and to provide a deterrent himself. The residents were
guarded by some police, which consisted of the sweetest Indians. The one who was
caught was put in a fine shirt and was brought to the church at any evil which he had to
confess openly blame than to be flogged in the public square.

The Jesuits left the Indians choose their own kaziken or war leaders, mostly from the
same family. They also were allowed to choose their urban drivers, which consisted of two
alcaldes [43] and several councilors, but this was done under the guidance of the clergy
and they never dared do anything against them. There was thus a sham democracy, but it
had universal suffrage as so often just to put the power firmly in the saddle.

A very different life consisting of prayer and work, was to suffer the wanted those free,
who were in the woods, but the Jesuits took care of some variety. Like all wished they did
a lot of dancing and now they got the Jesuits to leave from time to time to relax, both for
health and to promote cheerfulness.
 Each shipment made himself all things requiring the residents. There were workshops
for a wide variety of crafts. Besides the kaziken everyone was obliged to work, but the
task which they received was in accordance with any force.

In each place they had a shelter for women who nursed no children and whose
husbands were absent, and for widows, the sick, the infirm and the elderly.

Religion was also found in this state the best way to exercise dominion, because in fact
this is communist colony represents an agile organization of capitalist colonial
policy. Freedom was not the least question, the converted Indians lived in fact under a
savage slavery, which labor had to eat and drink, housing and cover, but all had to give to
their masters, the clergy, and mildness hit at the slightest resistance on the most severe
tyranny.

We have a lot here theocratic state socialism that truly exemplary not be called
uitlokkend.

When the Jesuits were expelled from Spain by the end of the 18th century, also fell
apart mission in Paraguay. On July 22, 1768 published his most unexpected of all
missions ruitereskadrons, who had orders to take short and well present Jesuits; 150
missionaries were then transported to the various cities of South America and the Spanish
colonies were "purified" of all Jesuits.

"The sludge of wederdoperij recorded cleaned later in the sixteenth century by the flood
of Calvinists." So writes Professor. Quack. And indeed across the aristocratic Lutheran
prince religion, with its docile subjects mind, is the democratic nation Calvinist religion. No
wonder there are so many sects arose among the Calvinists, including some not free from
fanaticism. The English Anabaptists is said that the peaceful Quakers emerged, but this
movement bears a more philanthropic than political in nature and although communist
tendencies were not completely foreign to, yet the Communist trek was far from
dominant. The name Quakers as most of the names originally a term of abuse, meaning
the "sidderaars", they themselves called themselves "professors" or "children of light". A
mystical haze distinguished them from the strictly religious and opposite the point service
of this they rely on the inner revelation in man's mind. George Fox and Barclay gave the
ideas of these simple souls, the "appetite of the country," a more solid form. Greatly they
stood in front of the servants of the church who "traded" and "selling gospel" and the more
times they attacked the pastors in their ministry in the speech. Awe As much they have
had to endure and few sects have prisons as overcrowded as the Quakers. However, not
religious, but the social character of the sect generates this interest, and now it seems
that they came into their secret meetings or in their secret circles against private property
and their emissaries in Holland, Germany and America were known for their preaching
that all goods had to be shared. Among themselves they helped each other and the more
well-off showed a great deal of sacrifice. They also attached great importance to
education, although they were averse to all official scholarship. The distinction between
laity and clergy is not found among them.
 We need here James Naylor, the "king of Israel", a disciple of Fox, not to commemorate
separately nor William Penn, who founded the Society of Friends in America, an
association which did much to promote the peace idea and those in the name of the city
of Philadelphia already have their mind as brothers wanted to tell. However floated their
life of primitive Christianity to mind, but efforts to achieve a communist gathering we see
not among them.

Caller John (1654-1725) was one of the Quakers in England through his writings:
" Proposals for the creation of a College of Industry (working class) of all useful
occupations and agriculture to benefit the rich, abundant life for the poor and good
education for the youth, which by increase of the population and its wealth to the
government will be an advantage. Motto: industry brings abundance. Loafer should go in
rags. Who does not work shall not eat. " [44]

He himself explains why he calls his device a college or industry and this because he
was afraid of the word workhouse, which was reminiscent of a penitentiary and the word
community (community), he did not fit, because not everything was common. A college
presupposes a voluntary stay.

The population of some college he shares thus:

44 artisans including a minister and a deputy;
82 women and girls who perform all homework and take care of the dairy;
24 laborers including a driver and his wife.

So together 150 people, is done by persons whose activity everything one needs
it. Further, cover 10 men through their work, the need for fuel and iron, 5 men take care of
the rental of the building and 35 for the lease of the land.

Savings might be made. The issue for shops, for the maintenance of intermediaries and
other useful data, for lawyers salaries for bad debts, etc. The cost of housing, heating,
cooking and stocking of food were much lower. The Board ensured the connection of
agriculture and industry. for their own use they mainly produced and what they additionally
had was kept as stock and used to increase the company. The annual gain was
calculated and the shareholders received this either paid or credited to their capital. The
shares could not be traded. They wanted to sell a stock, then the other shareholders had
the right to designate a buyer who came to the same rights.

The workers worked during normal working hours, but with increasing age they could
work an hour less and they reached the 60th year, one could be appointed as
superintendent, affording an easy and pleasant life. The overseers were the same in food,
beverages and tobacco, but not in cash.

The house consisted of four wings, one for married couples, one for unmarried men
and boys, one for girls and unmarried women and the sick and infirm. At meals, which
were held in common, serve the young men as boys and girls, by turns.
 The young man is in his 24th, the girl until her 21st year student, then they can leave or
marry the college of your choice.

Especially with the youth they wanted to begin. They united labor and education, "learn
that is not related to physical labor is nothing better to do not learn anything." Of course
everyone has a good library, a garden for growing medicinal herbs, laboratories for
preparing medicines, etc.

The number of sharers is estimated to be 300, but it can be much greater, for example.
3000 in districts where one has stacking areas. All actions can be recorded, it will be a
"small world".

That caller was a practical man, he showed by particularly focusing on the

advantageous side of such an undertaking. Precisely because he wanted to lure the
wealthy to care for the poor and he understood excellently well, that was no wealth
without work. "Because if somebody 100,000 acres of land have and as many pounds of
money and cattle, without a laborer - what would the rich man be but a worker" There will
be workers who make the people rich, there again will rich are, as there are more
workers. He now wants the wealthy, providing money for his college, the benefits do enjoy
it, because naughty he says, "that this is necessary because the rich would otherwise not
be able to live, by the labor of others, the landowners by the labor of their tenants and
merchants and tradesmen by the labor of their workers. "He's one of the brightest minds,
who was already understood that the value of the goods had to be sought in the stabbing
them work. The money he regarded as a crank, a country where there were healthy
relationships, not required, nor is a healthy body needs crutches. At the end of his writings
he discusses the various objections that are raised against his plans.

At the "children of light", to whom he turned, he found little support, the second edition
of his work was dedicated to the lords and members of parliament and the "thinkers and
such that are designed to the public welfare". 18,000 pound (216,000 guilders) he
deemed necessary operating capital for land, livestock, labor, equipment and buildings.

It is primarily by Robert Owen, the callers became more familiar, recognizing how much
he had to thank them for his plans.

In a later writing essays , he discusses how to provide the poor benefit-applying activity
under the motto: "If there were no workers, there would be no lords, and when the
workers brought forth no more food and products they consume, then each gentleman is
a laborer and had to starve all idlers. "He called for a parliamentary commission that
would examine his proposals. It was the cause of the poor, who lay him to the heart and
was his last work in favor of establishments to job creation for the unemployed. Marx, who
almost no one praises, this guy calls a "true phenomenon in the history of political
economy."

A third phenomenon of religious socialism is the foundation of the Moravian brother

municipalities or Herrnhutters. It was the Count von Zinzendorf (1700-1760), which can be
regarded as the father of this foundation [45] . We know how Bohemia has been the
scene of the Hussite movement, later the wederdoperij and so the soil was not
undeveloped to do well grow such a foundation. Pietism then found many supporters and
the state of the church did look at her many reform. Zinzendorf had a deep religious
disposition and wanted the true friends of the Lord and discover fraternize. Berthelsdorf
his estate near Dresden was a provisional inn, as he called it, in anticipation of a better
one in heaven.

There now settled several home Moravians fled. Their stay was designated at the foot
of a hill, the Hart Mountain, a quarter from Berthelsdorf. The first house there arose,
Herrnhut was called the "unto the Lord" and this circle of brothers soon expanded and as
Zinzendorf was in Dresden, where his employment in public service called him, he was
engaged in that circle to strengthen the faith in the preaching of the pure gospel, to
training of youth in Christian principles and to disseminate edifying writings. When this
house was too small, they built a larger, where she also wanted to establish a boarding
school. One of his friends, Baron de Wattsville, said his wealth goodbye to devote himself
entirely to the cause. Now there were 33 houses with 300 people. Zinzendorf also left his
job in order to live fully for Herrnhut. An organization designed and August 13, 1727
dagtekende and they remembered the foundation of the new church. It was a community
of brothers, in which people of different creed adopted. The fate decided on offices and
ministries, about the marriages. They distinguished "gangs" composed of members of the
same sex friendship which were joined together, and "corn" or departments in which the
members of a congregation under age, sex and marital status were divided. They had the
choir of the children, the boys, the girls, the unmarried brothers, the unmarried sisters of
the married men of the widowers and widows. Were in each of the two choirs, choral
workers, charged with the management, a chairman for external affairs taken care and a
choirmaster who took to heart the care of souls. This held the meeting of the elders
informed of what was going on in the grain and in the families. The unmarried brothers
lived together in Broederhuis, unmarried sisters in the Nurses' which were common
sleeping and dining rooms, also a kitchen, washer and separate rooms for sick and
convalescent. The married people lived in private houses and practiced their business
there under the supervision of the heads. Each family gave an annual contribution to the
church. Love times at certain times kept the band from the community. Labor was the duty
of all, and there was a "Council of Labour", which took care of all that were out of work, to
provide employment. The opulence was expelled from the community and simplicity was
the prevailing rule. In clothing they looked at each other, the men in gray or brown, the
women without any adornment and distinctively she wore a white cap with a silk ribbon
under the chin, the color of which was to distinguishing, ie. White widows, blue for married
couples, pink for unmarried people, red for girls aged 10 to 14 years. Especially their
education was close to the heart. They lived in peace and simplicity in preparation for and
anticipation of eternity. Thanksgiving and prayer days there were many, and each month
they celebrated the sacrament. Later they sent missionaries to the heathen world,
especially those who have been working in the West Indies.

But it seemed the government to hinder which were recorded by them refugees from
elsewhere, so even that Zinzendorf was banned in 1733. The death of the Elector of
Saxony took exile brief because he was back again under his successor. When everything
was at fixed rates, Zinzendorf traveling and he was also visited Holland. First settled some
brothers and sisters in IJsselstein in a house called "Herendijk". Later it was moved to
Zeist, which is still a brother congregation, which, however, the communal life has largely
said goodbye, and which only a spirit of brotherhood and concord to the outer
blowing. Also to Neuwied can be found around town. When Zinzendorf died brother were
several churches in Europe and America founded as a legacy, he left.

The Labadists, thus named after the Frenchman Jean de Labadie, the Netherlands
formed a communitarian who lived in Friesland on Walta slot to Wieuwerd. Among them,
especially the miracle man Anna Maria Schuurman famous [46] . They had founded a
congregation in Suriname and around New York. In the heyday there were 400 people on
the Walta slot, where they practiced agriculture. Those who adhere to that church
covenant, no longer had ownership. All clothing and belongings and money were received
by the shepherds and what was redundant, was sold and what was used was
preserved. The solid products were liquidated most of the time. Each family had its home,
large or small depending on the need, but the rooms had to be always accessible to the
so-called overseers. The dress was very simple, because they were averse to all
finery. Teachers and the principal sister-director ash usually ate at one table with the
brothers as registered members of the congregation. The other housemates were still
under preparation at different tables according to age or promotion. Certain rules were
given how to eat and drink, how to hold the spoon and lay down. Not a word was spoken
almost there. Many sitters barely knew each other or not at all. Sometimes they ate for
months together to know at the same table without another's name. The company was
very mixed, because they are Germans, British, Polish and Italians saw. The brother dis
conversation was free and there were conducted several times lively and pleasant
conversations after speech and song. Agriculture and animal husbandry were the main
activities, but they also practiced various crafts. Thus one had its own printing plant, a
foundry in Amsterdam. The shrink wool Labadists famous. Also they had a bakery and
brewery, private flour mill and a forge, while looms were available for wool and linen
fabrics. Masons, carpenters, cobblers and tailors are also mentioned. Averse to all luxury
and show, as giving rise to "lust, debauchery and illicit entertain," it caused great
simplicity. The heyday of the House City to Wieuwerd was 1680. But things did not go
well, the gifts of the rich no longer flowed and it was decided the community of goods,
which had long existed for 20 years to eliminate. They went to divide, not identical, but
each was as he had introduced a fourth off because there was no more. Most went into
the world, but there were those who remained and until the year 1725 have inhabited the
Labadists Walta slot. Overall it was the judgment handed down on them very favorably,
they were quiet, respectable citizens, who conducted their earthly interests with zeal, but
above were prepared for the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

Anna Maria Schuurman, a very peculiar woman, Europe's miracle is known as "the
mother of the church." With Labadie, Yvon and Hendrik van Deventer her name is best
known among the supporters of the Communist brotherhood.

Years later, between 1816 and 1832 had one in the village of Dordrecht in South
Holland a small religious brotherhood known as the Nieuwlichters Zwijndrecht, who tried
to live in the manner of the first Christian community in Jerusalem. [47] Among those who
even braved imprisonment for their faith, especially a woman, Mary Leather, which can be
equated with Anna Lee, the English woman who emerged from the forge of her father and
Christianity in the last century tried to reform and to stimulate the flagging brotherly love,
to find a suitable soil after misunderstanding and abuse in her native country in the
Americas for its efficacy. Just as averse as they were from the bonds of church, they were
also those of the state. The mandatory declaration at birth and the convocation of the
eighteen young men for military service had their abomination and three of their decidedly
refused military service. They were transported to the military prison in Leiden, where one
of them died under the daily torture, allegedly praying for his executioners. Here we take
so already three conscientious objectors to simple people who stood firm in their
conviction not to bear arms as this they were forbidden by Christ. King William I of the
case shall be informed by prof. Tydeman Leiden, set them at liberty and managed to find
a job for them in the hospitals, which is involved a gun, as he put it.

North America is the land of communist experiments, particularly of a religious

nature. The first of that type must have been Ephrata, a sect who moved to Pennsylvania
prosecuted in Germany in the early eighteenth century. They called themselves Baptists
of the seventh day (Seventh Day Baptists German). They lived in community of property
and strict celibacy. This sect had its heyday around 300 members, in 1858 it was still only
30 and it seems that she has since disappeared.

Furthermore, they found the Millennial Church, or United Society of Believers,

commonly called Shakers, after having endured many persecutions in England, traveled
to America. They counted according to a 58 and according to the other 70 families with
2415 or 4000 persons, who had collectively 100,000 acres of land and cultivated. They
live strictly communist, marriage and private property, they are not regarded as crimes but
as devices of a lower social order, they have overcome. They date from about 1780. Their
equipment is partly spiritual partly secular. They live in groups of 30 to 90 persons, who
live together in a big house, and there around their workplaces. Their main goal is to
produce home-made everything for its own use.

The harmonists or rappisten, thus named after a certain Georg Rapp from Wurtemberg,
after undergoing persecutions to have pulled the country church with a bunch of bigots to
America there found a true Christian congregation.

In the year 1803 he began to realize his plans, the foundation of Harmony, an
organization supportive of community of property and labor. They live in groups of 4 to 8
people separate houses with their own housekeeping. This colony is leading a community
of toiling peasants and artisans under the unlimited rule of 'Father Rapp "has become a
community of wealthy capitalists who own shares in mines, mills, oil resources and a
simple, quiet life.

In a book about the communist communes in America one finds further added: Zoar, a
colony which still existed in 1890 from 400 members with assets of about 3 1 / 2 million
guilders the Aurora and the Bethel church, which had 650 members in its heyday; Amana,
which existed from 1800 members in 1880; Bishop Hill congregation, which has fallen into
disrepair.
 It is remarkable that a feature of all these religious colonies is the dissolution of
monogamy. Most lived in strict celibacy or, they considered married life as a life of lower
order. When all is agriculture the main, where they practice the industry for their own
use. They make us somewhat reminiscent of the monasteries of the Middle Ages,
populated by people who have become reluctant to touch the world, a quiet life in
seclusion from the world often try to lead reflection outside the busy bustle about.

In the later years of this century, the number of such colonies, which appeared and
disappeared, many, too many to list them all. There are both religious and non-religious
nature. We think eg. The foundations inspired by Tolstoy and which England are only ones
possession, the Duchoboren in the Caucasus [48] who fled as a result of persecution to
Canada, to the experiments of the Italian Rossi and many others, too numerous to
mention. Completely we could be difficult and incomplete statements to be nothing, so
that we can suffice with the mere mention of its existence [49] .

_______________
[43] Spanish name for magistrates and mayors.
[44] Proposala for Raising a College of Industry of all usefull Trades and Husbandry with
Profit for the Rich, a plentiful living for the Poor and a good education for Youth, All which
will be advantage to the government by the Increase of the People and Their
Riches. Motto: Industry brings Plenty. The sluggard Shall Be cloathed with Roggs. He
thatwill not work Shall not eat.
[45] Those who want to get a good insight into the essence of the Herrnhutters, should
read the beautiful essay on Ludwig Feuerbach: Zinzendorf und die Moravian , occurring in
his Briefwechsel und Nachlass, edited by Karl Grn. He says it correctly, that Zinzendorf
in the eyes of the Orthodox is a free spirit, but rather a religious spirit, even a Christian
atheist. He tried to make life Christianity rather than a hypocritical doctrine.
[46] Compare, book Dr. Dish about Anna Maria Schuurman, the "incomparable", H. van
Berkum The Labadie and Labadists , as well as a small book Wieuwerd and its history ,
which in addition to the story of the remarkable vault there the history of the Labadists and
life of Anna Maria Schuurman briefly but vividly drawn. Appeared at Hepkema
Heerenveen.
[47] Compare Zwijndrechtse Nieuwlichters (1816-1882) according to the memoirs of
Maria Learning by Anagrapheus.
[48] Compare Christian Martyrdom in Russia. Persecution of the Doukhobors by Vladimir
Tchertkov.
[49] Kropotkin is said to know a hundred more or less communist communities in its
report on communism and anarchy, filed with the Revolutionary International Congress in
Paris in 1900. In the Netherlands there are some colonies, as Walden in Bussum and the
International Brotherhood in Blaricum.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 11
Socialism in the 17th and 18th centuries

England has its revolution had more than a century earlier than in France and that that
has had little impact on the mainland of Europe, should be attributed in part to the more or
less isolated position which England occupies the island and in part to the greater
backwardness of the economic development of other countries in Europe. Already in 1649
there was beheaded the representative of the "divine right" (Charles I), while the head lost
under the guillotine in France (Louis XVI) in 1794. And showed the French Revolution
here and there germs of socialism, they can also be shown in English. As Napoleon
Cromwell came from emerging revolution, her finally as a dictator with curbing violence.

Such revolutions, moreover, do not suddenly fall from the sky like so many surprises,
no it go numerous revolts in advance, which have been suppressed by the force of arms,
but that did not eliminate the ferment of discontent. So we would respect England may
indicate the revolt of the peasantry in Norfolk under Robert Ket, just about half of the 16th
century, violently suppressed by John Dudley, Earl of Warwick in the year 1549, at which
the Ket captain and his brother being captured and hanged. The belonging to all common
land was increasingly in private hands and all those fences that are party to the common
use were an annoyance in the eyes of the deprived peasantry.

And the battle turned mostly against it, as evidenced by the debris of a speech of that
time, which may not be held exactly in the form, but certainly what content enters
accurately reflects what lived there in the soul of the people. In it we read: "We want to
tear down the fences and hedges, filling up the ditches, make the municipality countries
and all fences, which they founded as infamous as mean and unfeeling, all together and
each in particular make to the ground" ( level to the ground). This word is also the name
levellers or equal makers arising, later carried the insurgents.

We can not dwell on the opposition of the Protestants under Queen Elizabeth (1558-
1603), the opposition of the so-called Puritans (puritans of pure, pure in relation to the
doctrine) against the state church. The movement of the lollhards was never completely
conquered, but lived on, albeit temporarily smoldering under the ashes.

The separatists, the separatists, also brownisten named after their first pastor (whose
life full of persecution can best be judged by the fact that he has been in 32 prisons) were
against the centralization of the church from the state and wanted complete independence
every community of godly. So they came back to the name of Independents, which
represented a freer, more or less anarchic direction in contrast to the state church; course
for their first anarchism extended only to the religion out. Autonomy and centralization
were then already opposed.

The revolution history of Cromwell John Lilburne is the radical element, dissatisfied with
Cromwell's opportunism it would propel and when this did not succeed was subdued by
him in self-defense by force. Equal in history so often been the case, also come here
revolutionary Cromwell to power, a reactionary, seeking to remain in power, did not fear to
stifle any revolutionary movement turn into blood. Was on the mark introduced by the
parliament, the edge lettering: "recovered in the first year of freedom by God's blessing in
1648," many wanted that freedom is not only mentioned on the seal show, but applied in
reality. In the year 1649 one could see about thirty men digging the ground at St. George's
Hill at Cobham in Surrey, beans and carrots legs sow headed by a certain Everard, which
he said was a prophet, and Gerard Winstanley. They invited everyone to help them out
and promised food to everyone, drink and clothes.

They wanted to open up the church grounds for everyone and as the owners in the
neighborhood thought that they would soon be forced those men to come to work up to
date, they rebelled and using a pair of rider bands they were not chased away many
compliments. Those were the diggers and excavators. When Everard and Winstanley had
to appear to account, showed how it is not so much the property of others aantastten or
break the fence of the park wanted, but to do them was to restore the old community and
the still common and onbeploegde land fertile make charitable. The earth was created for
all; the country one buys and sells, every third one just as good as the buyer and seller
and whoever has it, maintains its own only by the sword. The earth, their mother, they
would release the service and the ties which had been handcuffed creation. Cromwell and
Fairfax were afraid that would penetrate such ideas in the army and fear before they acted
forcefully against all, who preached such subversive ideas. Although now John Lilburne
out went all share those ideas, yet he was not far off. The Levellers - as they called
themselves - were not founded on the strong performance of Cromwell and Fairfax, but
they could not stand the force of this, and so they were crushed. The Walwijn writings
were very "subversive"; it was preached that no prosperity would reign on the earth, as
long as all things were common. A small scissors brave men could best the world upside
down, they did not need a government as there was prosperity, because they had no
thieves or greedy lake and broke a disagreement, one could take a cobbler or other
artisan, who was known as a righteous and who could best then make a decision. The
Poor Man's Advocate (lawyer of the poor man) represents the nationalization of all the
crown and church property as a heritage (inheritance) of the arms. As well as this
document had a different Samuel Hartlieb, a Protestant Pole various writings of Comenius
translated into English, and which describes the famous Makaria kingdom, where
residents in wealth, health and happiness of life. It also proclaims this kind of state
socialism, since the state must regulate the production and monitoring and the property
are linked certain obligations, which carry non-fulfillment for revocation of it to the
community.

Cromwell, who was master of his army position, called the Long Parliament chased
away and established a new authority, which consisted of the "Fijnen" the Puritans. This
college, which for a leather buyer of Fleet Street, London, Praise-God Barebones, small
or Barebone parliament called, tried during the short time of its existence, from July 4th
1653 to December 1653, England to set up a radical religious. Justice underwent a
change. The marriage was made a civil contract. Was attached not to the priority of a
mental state. The game was severely punished. A single oath was recognized and was
that done to the republic. called for the abolition of tithes, as they were lifted by the
gospel. But the parliament was confronted by citizens who felt dangerous such social
reforms, especially when a club was formed, known as the men of the Fifth Monarchy, in
the cause of destruction of church and state as manifestations of a bygone era: the Fourth
Monarchy and which called for the establishment of the church of Saints according to
Daniel's prophecy, even when there was great concern among many. It seemed as if they
went the way of Mnster, but Cromwell was too much statesman and practitioner to lend
itself to the role of Jan van Leiden and to avert the dangers which threatened the extreme
side, he made himself Protector of England in the year 1653 and so put an end to the
Barebone Parliament.

Lilburne who was imprisoned because of the setting up rebellion in the army, and then
was punished with banishment, thought that due to the dissolution of the Long Parliament
had destroyed his banishment statement and returned to London. This was not the
intention of Cromwell, who had to arrest him again, and despite great petitions in his favor,
he was brought before the assizes of Old Baily. The verdict was: not guilty. But it turned
out that it was not the same to also obtain the freedom in acquittal because Cromwell
abused his power as protector or dictator, to banish Lilburne as a state prisoner because
of "seditious utterances" during the course of the trial to the island of Jersey. It seems that
this spirit has much suffered exile and when he was deemed harmless by joining the sect
of Quakers, he got in 1657 permission to return on bail in England and settle in the vicinity
of London, but this decision Cromwell did not seem to please, or at least those ordered
Lilburne within ten days at Dover, where he held since 1655 residence had to be back in
the fortress. He apparently trusted the conversion, but luck was Cromwell because he
touched forever by Lilburne off by his sudden death on August 29, 1657.

The movement of the Levellers suppressed by Cromwell, but they once revived after
Lilburnes death, when Cooper Thomas Venner made an effort to be faithful to seize the
city government in London. However, he was persecuted by General Monck and when the
house in which he had barricaded, was taken by force, they found him almost dead
inside. However, one beheaded the dying on the scaffold. With the vision of the fifth
monarchy was done. A portion of the Independents resolved itself in the Baptist
churches. As heirs of the Levellers, the Chartists of the 19th century are considered,
people whose charter no point, except the right to vote to all adult men, was more radical
than the nation treaty of the levellers.

From England we go to France.

Showed the reform in France initially be democratic, so the supporters largely belonged
to the so-called people, and even talked about was to remove three kinds pests, namely:
nobility, clergy and judges, they soon lost that character and were aristocracy and the
wealthier bourgeoisie that brought them the upper hand. The precious book of Etienne de
la Botie the Voluntary slavery may have had some impact, but not enough to therein
proclaimed equality ideas do deep root in the midst of the people. Rarely is the nature of
slavery as just outlined and as pure by ground and in this booklet.

Louis XIV, the three eastern states: Turkey, Hindustan and Persia ideal, because all
land was state property and the question was considered under the Colbert minister or the
king had to be in possession of all the lands of France, so it whole empire was one big
royal domain and that was the case in the aforementioned realms. A certain traveler
Bernier got to be commissioned to prepare a report and also a critique of that system of
large-Mogul, but this was not favorable, because he saw in the abolition of private
ownership of land the implementation of tyranny and slavery, beggary and barbarism, and
thus the destruction of the state and the human race. His sketch of despotism in
Hindustan has so many traits of similarity with the situation in France, the suspicion
generated as reflected the French tyranny in the Hindoestanse mirror. Yet that thought
was there with the king, as he pronounced her in the famous instruction to the Dauphin in
the following words: "Everything is within our states, of whatever nature it may be, belongs
to us according to the same legal title. You must be convinced of this, that naturally kings
have free and full access to all goods in the possession of clergy and laity, to them at all
times as a way economists, that is, to the general requirement of the State Use to make."

And his confessor Letellier was able to raise any objections to such predation by
claiming that the king was the sole owner of all the property of his subjects, they only
ruled in his name in truth. A piece of state socialism, or would you rather say state
capitalism was to intervene in the grain market by in times of famine corn in too large
store and sell at cost. The government did this as an exceptional measure in times of high
prices, than assumed in principle that they should do it. Yet in 1770, so six years before
the reform draft Turgot in a Memoire said that it is the duty of the chief of the family (the
King) was the distribution of "this common wealth (corn), in which all nationals of a state
an equal and of course right there to regulate their existence and calm concerns as
substantial. "

How the states were among the farmers, we learn from the description of la Bruyre,
where it writes, "one can see wild animals, male and female, across the country spread,
black, pale and completely burnt by the sun; glued to the earth, they work with indomitable
tenacity; They have something like an articulate voice, and when they are on their feet
raising, they show a human face - and indeed the people; the night they retire to dens,
where they black bread, water and roots life; they save the other people bother to sow, to
work and bring in the harvest, to life, and deserve not to lack the corn which they have
sown. "

But they lived in the time when they "died of hunger among the singing of the Te
Deum," as Voltaire briefly and succinctly. The farmers were bound in the most shameful
manner, and whom this will have an adequate impression, should read the book of Jurieu
that in 1690 in Amsterdam under the title Les soupirs de la France esclave qui aspire
aprs la libert (the sighs of the slavish France striving for freedom) and whose
conclusion is: "the farmer lives in the most miserable way in the world; They are therefore
dark and tanned by the sun and the slaves from Africa and all that one among them will,
speaks the language of misery. "Even King Louis XIV received an anonymous letter, to
none other than Fnlon, the archbishop Cambrai attributed, that said: "Your people dying
of hunger; the cultivation of the land is almost abandoned; the cities and the country are
depopulated ... All of France is just a big, fierce left hospital without food; the people that
you (the king) has loved so much, the friendship begins, confidence, so the esteem in
relation to lose. The popular movements, which had long been unknown, begin to become
frequent ... You are now placed in the most pitiful state, either the riot unpunished or
murdered to your people that you have brought to despair and die daily from hunger
diseases. "
 The book of Taine on the Ancien Regime is particularly instructive in this regard. And
place it beside the luxury and extravagance of the court at Versailles, one understands
that at any time to come to a head. Here is a list of publications in 1740:

royal table 7,300,000 livres

Menus
844,000
plaisirs

Gifts to
800,000
mistresses

Royal
1,890,000
stables, etc.

Royal
1,900,000
wardrobe

unknown
44,000,000
expenses

etc.

So 44 million unknown expenses, while crepeerde the people with hunger!

Madame Dubarry, a mistress of Louis XV, the people came to stand at 180 million. Only
for his safety had the king in his employ 9050 people, which annually cost 7.681 million
livres, and he also had stalls with 1857 horses, 217 coaches, 1458 people whose clothing
alone cost 540,000 francs a year. Only the stable service and all that belonged to in 1775
cost a total of 4,600,000 livres and this expenditure rose to 6.2 million livres in 1787. The
expenses for the dogs alone amounted to 53 412 francs.

No, revolutions do not come out of thin air, but to know the lifestyle and circumstances
of persons and things they find its natural cause, as well as all things and wonder is rather
that as long as scalding could before there was an eruption. But it is a been via dolorosa,
which must pass the people, and when hopes emerged for improvement, the people for
achieving that joyful expectation worked and fought, it appeared that JorisGoedbloed, "les
peinards" for others the chestnuts had pulled out of the fire, but was itself finally recycled
back into the old house of slavery, though it was also a little externally decorated and
patched. As sharp as where Multatuli wrote: "What good is the People's drawn from the
French Revolution, as the site of the has-beens everywhere occupied by other
canaille? Pressed the load it in awe, goods and blood had to yield to evil knights, much
heavier than 'r is now applied to' t decent common? Is it such an advantage that we have
exchanged the wolves for vampires? Wounds and rapid death, consumption and slowly
dying? Moreover, what does this equality in church or lodge, the brotherhood that we hear
sermons in rooms, but that seems to expire immediately once the brothers have returned
to society? What helps, if one has a god who as general father is called to act, as he
treats his family so uneven, feeds, clothes and houses? Or if the more
fortunate brethren in the others look down with contempt? Would it here: un frre est un
ennemi donn par la nature? " [50]

That 18th century is particularly important because it was like the air as was full of
socialist ideas, not in the form that one can speak of a self-conscious and definite
socialism, but they were generally humanitarian concepts that were propagated, but the
spirits have worked to prepare the revolution. Such a wealth of ideas can be found in the
works of the Encyclopaedists and others, that there is almost no idea suggested in our
time, which is not found in them. And all circles bubbled socialism as it were. Sometimes
we find the origin of ownership in socialist manner illustrated by Pascal in the words, "that
dog is mine, said those poor children, that is my place in the sun: there the beginning and
image of usurpation (usurpation ) of all the earth "; we hear Montesquieu proclaim the
state socialist thought: "the state gives an insured service, adequate food and clothing
and a lifestyle that is not contrary to the health, payable to all citizens." A Hugo Grotius
thought that the community would consist of the earth, if not the vices have broken the
bond of brotherly love and Spinoza calls is granted the right to support in any civilized
society to anyone who is unable to work either by default or by disease or old age, and
the right to work to everyone who wants to work and may honorably to earn bread for
himself and his family. And the 18th century went on this track through. It was not a
minister Turgot, who believed that "nobody should be deprived of the means to work and
live, ie the labor and resources must be guaranteed to every individual" and he was not on
the "right work 'proclaimed as "the property of each human being, which owned the first,
most holy and imprescriptible was all right?"

What an incendiary language bezigde a minister of the king, a Necker, when he wrote,
"when one lets his thoughts about society and its laws, one is struck by one thing that
should be carefully considered: it is this that almost all of our civil institutions are made in
favor of the owners. Terror overtakes us when we record the code and find it merely
confirms this truth. One would really say that a small group of people, after the earth first
to have divided among themselves, has made laws of association and guarantee against
the large crowd, as she retreats would have set up in the forests to protect themselves
against wild animals. Meanwhile clamp the observation that, after the adoption of the laws
of property, justice and freedom, there is almost nothing has been done for the most
numerous class of citizens. What hit us your laws of property, might say the latter
citizens? We own nothing. Whatever your laws of right and justice? We have to defend
anything. Whatever your laws of freedom? If we do not act, we will die tomorrow. The
proletariat and the class that lives by its work, its lions and animals without defense who
live together. One can not increase the share of the latter except to deceive the vigilance
of others and prevent them to revolt. "Where is the minister in our time, who dares to
speak and stand up so naughty?

Yes, even the most bestial of all princes must Louis XV when he was briefed have said
about the living conditions of his subjects in a clear moment: "When I was a national, I
would rebel. The people have the right on his side, it is far too good-natured to much to
bear. "
 Usually, the interests that control the ideas, but some times there is such a fullness of
ideas, it has the appearance as if the ideas even controlling interests. One of those
periods was the time before the revolution, when everything as it were tingling of spirit and
life. As a Rousseau swinging the thought of the world: "The first to have fenced off after a
piece of land, decided to say this is mine , and fools did enough to believe it was the true
founder of civil society. What all crimes, what all wars, murder, poverty and dreariness,
would be spared to mankind, as another who had cast piles, which slammed digging and
had called out to his fellow companions: take heed to believe this impostor; you're lost if
you forget that the fruits of all, and the earth belongs to no one "- yet this not a
socialist. Rousseau is far from Morelly, though he also gives principles of equal caliber,
such as: "That the social situation may be perfected, everyone should have enough, and
no one too many." His feeling mastered him more than his mind, moreover, he is a lover of
paradoxes.

How a La Mettrie, a Condorcet, a Helvetius, a Diderot, a Holbach, a Volney, even with a

Voltaire with his aristocratic tendencies to toss the bottom of the ancient world completely
and make them suitable for the seed of revolution ! Some - among them, above all,
Diderot, who was anarchist of construction - were socialists without knowing it and others
were pioneers of socialism, without wanting it, because they tried the old prejudices to
banish from the minds and thinking promoted.

Hear how Condorcet in his Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progrs de l'esprit
humain hopes expressed which would reduce inequality "to make way for the de facto
equality final goal of social art, which even the effects of the natural distinction of
properties and reduces inequality only a late existence useful for the interests of all,
because it will promote the progress of civilization, education and industry. "

And what about the fictitious letter from a farmer from Picardy to Mr. Necker, in which
his own mind it in the mouth gave up and in the following manner: "Sir, I mock all
eigendomswetten, because I have nothing holds and with all the laws of justice, because I
have to defend anything; you are entitled to harvest grain you have sown; I have a right to
live: your rights with a notary, but my stomach is my patent, and if you are not 100 kroner
deposit tomorrow's first oak left at the entrance to the forest, along the main road, your
farm will be the day after tomorrow be burned. "

Hear how Volney in his Rubbish Heaps knows very well where the shoe pinches. He
wants to remove the loafers and idlers, as shown in the following dialogue.

The people.
And what work you live in our society?
The privileged.
We are not made to labor.
The people.
How have you acquired so much wealth?
The privileged.
By taking it upon ourselves to govern you.
The people.
How! We exhaust and you have the enjoyment of it. We produce and you
squandered. The resources come from us and you gobble them ... And you call
government?

Privileged class, separate body that is foreign to us, constitutes a separate nation and
we will see how you can exist.

Then enter the nobility, but at the mention of their origin and affiliation appears very
soon, the father, grandfather or great-grandfather, after having enriched in every way
possible for their money bought nobility.

If the privileged class appeals to violence to keep among the crowd, the people speak
the soldiers and says:

Soldiers! you are our own blood! Will you murder your brothers? If the people perish,
who will feed the army?

The soldiers, weapons depositing, said to their superiors: we are the people, we are
also your enemy!

Finally the clergy came to instill fear of the people by faith, but the people come of age
replied to the question:

"Will ye no gods and kings without life?" With the words:

We want to live without tyrants.

And when the people say they want to regulate its own affairs without kings, courtiers
and priests, because those gentlemen mediators are too expensive, the small band
reveals favor by saying the secret: We are lost! The crowd is illuminated . But the people
answered, you're saved , because as we are enlightened, we will not abuse our power, we
only claim our rights. We were slaves, now we could areas, but we would not be anything
but free. Freedom is nothing but justice.

Of the men who played a major role in the revolution and who nevertheless revealed
even before that time in humanitarian direction, we call Dr. Jean-Paul Marat, not only as a
pioneer acting on natural sciences and medical field, but also certainly on another
grounds. His Chains of slavery (chains of slavery), released in the UK and much later
published in French, may seem banal us what that book contains many beautiful thought
that bears witness to his progressive spirit. His Plan de lgislation criminelle even affected
to property as a result of usurpation, and he writes: "The right to possess stems from
which to live; all that is necessary for your existence, belongs to you and nothing
overdadigs can legally possess belong to someone, while others lack the necessary "Yes,
in his later pamphlet. La constitution ou projet de dclaration des droits de l'homme et du
citoyen, suivi d'un plan de constitution juste, sage et libre (the constitution or plan of the
declaration of the rights of man and citizen, followed by a plan of a just, wise and free
constitution) has unfolded socialist propositions he recognizes that the man has the right
to appropriate all that he needs for food and maintenance and if he can not get this, he
has the right to deprive the excess to others, rather than from starvation.

He lays claim to
1 the right to preserve life and pleasant to go through fulfillment of his needs;
2 the right of free disposal over all his powers;
3 equality of rights for all individuals, what difference also made nature;
4 the right to resistance against all oppression.

Who will not have to recognize that the right to life, to freedom, to equality and to
protest his socialist principles? And yet foolish Marat would incorporate the socialists him
nor many others. In any case, he would have shown many times not to have dared to
accept the consequences of his own statements.

not preached a Brissot before the revolution the idea that property was stolen and he
was not shy with it, when he recalled during the revolution was so he that statement then
formally renounced?

It is so difficult to answer the question whether the great French revolution was or was
not socialist. The term socialism any movement which aims to humanitarian reform, then
that whole revolution socialist, like Louis Blanc wants it, but it gives a more limited
definition of socialism, then we'll find traces of socialism in that revolution, but one will wait
to call her socialist [51] .

If you read through the various notebooks with grievances, which are composed by the
flower of the nation, they do contain many existing grievances, but workers count actually
not count. In no booklet we find expressed the desire for a general renewal of society or to
overthrow it. "The subject of the law is to secure liberty and property" - that's it in the
notebooks of Paris. Rarely ownership makes a topic of discussion from; equality before
tax, ie a tax equal and proportionate for all, the abolition of privileges, the creation of
workshops where everyone can work - there points where we talk about every time, but it
does not penetrate as far to the fundamentals of to affect the society. Nor in the stacks of
brochures from those days during the election period is estimated at 1,500, although that
estimate is too low and the number might be better assessed at 4000. condense these
brochures with notebooks the cherished wishes of those days. Babeuf have tried to expel
it that way, however, he suggested in those days at the academy in Arras for to hold a
competition the following content: "What would be the condition of the general sum of now
knowledge obtained from a nation would such whose social institutions that prevailed the
most perfect similarity between each of the individual members, that everything would be
common until the products of all kinds of industry? If such institutions are authorized by
the law of nature? It would be possible that such a society and even existed in that the
means to follow a completely uniform distribution, were practical to carry out? "
 But it never came. In his Cadastre perptuel revealed this clear thinker socialist
ideas. However, the time was not yet ripe, there first had so many other things to be
arranged.

Yet there are statements to collect enough, drenched with socialism and even the
pastors was a vague feeling that it was necessary to attack the property.

Or was it not Mirabeau, speaking in the National Assembly on August 10, 1789: "I know
only three ways to exist in society: one must be either a beggar or a thief either wage
slave. The owner is none other than the first of the wage slaves. What we used to call his
own, is nothing more than the price the company pays him for the distributions, which he
entrusted to do to others through their consumption and expenditure; the owners are the
agents and householders of the social body. "He called the property a" social creation
"and believed that the legacy of goods is only an indulgence of the law, which regulates
her to the public interest.

Moreover, it is a curious phenomenon that every revolution, in its origin politics, getting
more and more a social character.

Since 1790 already revealed more socialism. The Abbe Fauchet was the general
federation of the friends of truth, whose body was the Bouche de fer . He proclaimed that
"every man has a right to have the land and the domain of its existence the property. Now
he takes possession of it by labor and its portion to be defined by the rights of his
peers. All rights are common in a well-ordered society, social sovereignty must draw its
lines so that all have something and none has too much. Every human being has a
natural right to whatever he needs "One can read already clear socialism herein and
wishes made to look like line". All the people, all the people and all the people. "

As for the so-called captains of the revolution, Danton could fall sharply against the
abuses of inequality, he was a democrat, but not a socialist and a still very moderate.

Marat considered the similarity of goods as a distant landscape ideal which probably is
not capable of achieving. From his Ami du Peuple one could thread together an anthology
that no socialist dishonor would do, but one can not say that his ideas were readily
identifiable social field. He understood how people always gave the people bread and
circuses , bread to live and stage performances to forget anything, because then they
remained indifferent to tyranny.

"Everything is lacking to the people in front of the upper classes who oppress it. Have
they penetrated ceased need to crush us by their rank, now they do it through their state
payments, especially by whom it managed to deprive them our every defense. The arms
missing anything and no one comes to their aid; the rich lacks nothing and everyone
hurries to serve them. we see things again in the large, we believe that all people know
the freedom and love, the greatest number has forced them to renounce to have bread:
you have to remember to live before they think about it can to be free. Nearly all countries
are seven tenths of the members of the state poorly fed, poorly clothed, poorly housed,
poorly covered. Three tenths spend their days in hardship, suffering equally in the past,
the present and the future; their life is a constant penance, they fear the winter, they fear
being. And they brought what hartaangrijpende misery! Clothes to food to missing them,
starved and half naked they draw, after the daytime roots have searched overnight back in
burrows, where they lie stretched out the whole year the fog, a prey to the whims of the
seasons . And besides these unfortunates see people sleeping on the rich down, under
gilded partitions, whose table is covered with young vegetables, at whose disposal all
climates to delight their senses and in one meal devour the maintenance of a hundred
families. Unworthy minions of fortune it is they who commands others and who have
become the gold masters about the fate of the people. "

Indeed between this language and that of the Socialists is no difference.

As for Robespierre, for him is the goal of every revolution among the people to restore
balance and harmony, which are disturbed by the ambition of a few. Equality is the
principle that prevails must and can only clean up all abuse her triumph. Here is how he
describes it in his Dfenseur de la Constitution : "Do you consider well what the character
is, what should be the true purpose of our revolution. Is to change the yoke, which is a
great nation on the move and defy all dangers associated with these violent shocks which
the rich get agitated? When it shakes the throne of despotism or knock down, this is done
than on its ruins the fortune and power of an ambitious or creating a privileged class? If
the names have changed and not the abuses, as the form of government or another, but
is no better; as slavery and oppression must be eternal inheritance, what is then the
people if there are a dictator, a king, a parliament, senate, consuls or tribunes? As the
only goal of the society is the preservation of the inalienable rights of man, so must be the
only legitimate motive of the revolution to bring her to this sacred goal of restoring these
same rights, overwhelmed by violence and tyranny. I call on the nature of eternal justice,
and on the solemn declaration, which was decreed by the French nation itself through the
institution of the first representatives. The duty of every man and citizen is to work so
much in it together to the success of this exalted company by bringing the sacrifice of his
private interest to the general. They must, so to speak the common mass part public
power and popular sovereignty that they had, applying either they need the social contract
are excluded. Who unjust privileges, awards that do not match the general welfare is to
maintain; whom a new power at the expense of public liberty will attract to yourself, is as
much the enemy of the nation and of humanity. "

Student of Rousseau, he has never been able to wrest the idea of a social contract,
natural law and things like that, who in fantasy but not in reality exist.

He regarded the property as a natural right, a social institution, which he defines as "a
right that every citizen has to enjoy and to dispose of part of his property, which is
guaranteed to him by law." The law can not act "nor against the security or against the
freedom or against the existence or to the property of our peers." If she does, then it is
unlawful, because the first social law that, "which ensures the subsistence of all members
of society." He considers all "what is essential to life as the common property of society
and what is there, it is only an individual property that everyone can use to his will. "After
death, the company is re owner of its goods. The state is sovereign master about
it. Labour must be ensured to all and wages always proper and adequate. Moderate and
sober as he was for himself, he thought that no one should have more than 3,000 livres
income.

In its Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the citizen, coming from 1792 it states in
Article 1, the aim of every political association "the maintenance of the natural and
inalienable rights of man and the development of all its properties." If principal law he
considers that "to provide for the maintenance of his existence and freedom" (Art. 2),
while the ownership of Article 6 defines as "the right which every citizen at his discretion of
the part of the goods enjoy, it guaranteed by law and to dispose of them. "the company is
obliged" to provide for the maintenance of all to provide its members, either through their
work or by securing the livelihoods of those who are unable are to work "(Art. 11), and he
calls the necessary support to the poverty" a debt of the rich against the poor ", the
discharge of which the law must decide (Art. 12).

This is not the well-known declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen, which was
adopted and which was described purpose of the society as the "general happiness" (Art.
1) and the right to property as "the right of every citizens are permitted to freely enjoy the
free possession, being the outcome, the fruits of his labor and industry, and to dispose of
it "(Art. 16).

He sometimes approaching socialism but its legal conception of property as

"guaranteed by law" prevented him to extricate himself completely to the current view that
the right to free enjoyment and free disposal ensures the owners. Incidentally, inasmuch
as he was a socialist, he was, (yes with his understanding of the statement he had his)
state socialist, proclaiming the absolute right of the state as well as the monarchical
absolutists, although with inconsistency, rely on the grace of God. Such people forget their
theory that it is not the individuals, who are called forth by society, but rather they are the
ones who create the society, driven by some external necessity, as the labor and war.

The Jacobins had the desire not to interfere with private property in principle, and to
proceed with a reorganization of society on new foundations, they retain no respect for the
property and the convention proclaimed the sanctity on October 9, 1794 of the property
and rejected all doctrines, "dictated by immorality and laziness," which elevate the horror
of the property to learn.

Lest the revolution shipwreck would suffer, the constitution of the year 3 was made,
which actually was the result of a coalition of the conservative elements and clearly it was
ruled that "a country ruled by the owners lies in the social order" .

Saint-Just, Robespierre's friend continued, and in his Institutions rpublicaines he

designed a sketch resembling that of Plato and Thomas Morus. He wanted no rich or
poor, everyone had his own, and then there was great similarity. The state-owned
domains, whose revenues will cover the national spending, he raises the children, he
gives advances to young husbands, he granted land to the poor, he restores the calamity
of the members of the social body. One sees clearly how state socialism already getting
firmer shapes, because the state is as much as the earthly providence, charged with
caring for all. Saint-Just considered singular manner two occupations worthy of man,
namely the arms and agriculture. Every citizen aged 25 and above had to cultivate his
field, unless he was a civil servant or artisan, and four sheep breed annually on each
piece of land. The work was required. The simplicity of morals led to the prohibition of
keeping servants as well as gold and silver furniture. No child under 16 should eat meat
and adults were given permission to do so only a few days of Dekade (ten-day
week). Every citizen had to annually give an account of the state of its assets and one-
tenth of its fixed interest and one-fifteenth of its profits to the State as one and only tax
issue.

In order to make the children for such a condition, he wanted the boys to their seventh
year of the parents would be taken away to be educated in state schools, more or less
according to Spartan method, viz. Sober, trained in gymnastics and military service ,
thereby hardened. Man and woman who love each other are spouses. they have no
children, they can keep their connection secret, but the woman becomes pregnant, she
explained to the government that they are spouses.

Before the company was far enough to endure, Saint-Just, believed that a dictator
would be required, with a steady hand and so-called soft coercion would bring the people
that end, that happiness is and he found in Robespierre therefore the proper man.

Except Fauchet and Chappuis came to introduce the Anglo-Frenchman John Oswald in
his Gouvernement du Peuple against the "iron yoke of the property" and wanted the
"common heritage of the earth, the community of enjoyment without limit". In 1792, the
Committee of Public Education received a petition from a certain Sabarot, which said that
the earth is common property that neither the nation nor the persons sole owners of hair
can be and have all current non-owners right there as well enjoy as owners. He wanted to
make the common ground in each municipality to let him cultivate it in turns by all
citizens. Everyone would from the proceeds of the land are getting fair share. It was
raining when the true plans. There was also a plan (Plan de conciliation, reconciliation
plan) of a good-natured landowner who wanted to abolish the ownership and proclaim the
community of territory and industry. France would be divided into municipalities from 400
to 1200 people. Each municipality controls its own affairs. The workmen will be rewarded
properly. The heads of the families controlling the execution of the works. Each family will
have a decent house with a garden, which is the fruit may usurp. All foods are stored in
public warehouses, from which the distribution. By work of two or three hours a day,
provided by most citizens, one is led to a tenfold increase in the output of agriculture in 10
years. The author of this plan calling itself L'Ami du Peuple, but it finds no mercy and the
committee's rapporteur, who was to report on, thus characterizing: bonnes intentions mais
Beaux Reves (good intentions but clean dreams).

With respect to the question of ownership can be divided into three groups: 1 . those
who derive the private ownership of the work and the freedom to make a primitive human
right of; 2 . those deriving from the need and a social institution of it, subject to the
omnipotence of the state, and 3 . those who proclaim it as usurpation (robbery) and the
like to replace communism.
 But for most - we are not here forget that the chefs were all more or less wealthy
bourgeois - it is private property useful, beneficial and indispensable.

Certainly, when Robespierre wants to be assured of subsistence to all members of

society, when Jacques Roux says that "the products of the earth as well to all people
belong as the factors" when a Saint-Just asserts that " bread law in a well-ordered state
belongs to the people ", then such proverbs show unmistakably a socialist tendency, but
they are often loosely thrown through proverbs that find no precise expression in any well-
defined and logically thought out system. And not once there was fear that Chaumette,
Hebert and his followers in the commune would prevail, or Robespierre, the man of the
idea of the state par excellence, made for fear of anarchy by force an end to all attempts
that are severe state conception endangered spent. Was Robespierre too revolutionary
for the Girondins, he was too reactionary for Hbertists, but when he stripped had both
the right and the left, as he stood virtually alone against the reaction which vigorously
raised his head and he could easily as victims are dying of it to characterize the situation
quite correctly: the triumph robbers!

Without question formed the Hbertists in the revolution the most revolutionary
element, which undoubtedly socialism worked as a ferment, but they also had different
tendencies among them. Quack makes the following correct division: 1 . the actually
saying Hbertists, primarily compromisers politics and for whom the Pre Duchesne was
Hbert tone giving; 2 . the men as Jacques Roux and his friends were particularly
socialists, those were the ones known in history as the "Enrags" (the doll men); and 3
. some dreamers and world reformers like Anacharsis Clootz and Anaxagoras
Chaumette.

This is all the commune, the city council of Paris, the means to influence the convention
and thus in France. The vast majority of them ended their lives under the ax of the
guillotine and thus sealed their conviction with death. The tyranny of the state idea
prevailed for a moment, and the fanaticism of the supporters we see the terrifying
example of what is waiting, if this system ever victorious.

Mention may be made of the efforts Chaumette did as attorney of the commune, to
implement his ideas in the interest of Paris. He acted vigorously against prostitution by
dispelling all prostitutes and to give them a place in workshops, so that they could support
themselves by honest labor. With great severity he fought dirty prints and books, which
were displayed in the streets. He knew by putting it in the prisons, the children were
separated from the others, that they might not be totally spoiled. The punishment of
flogging was abolished by him in the houses and establishments of education.

Useful reforms he brought about in the hospitals, by each patient to give the right to a
separate bed, while the sick earlier in pairs or sometimes nursed more in number
were. He came up against the exhibition of drowning and dead people found in the
morgue, where the feast was pricked in scandals by an indelicate viewing. He made the
blood that flowed from the scaffold, was cleared away so that no dog could come to lick it
up. He arranged the funeral in a more appropriate manner. He took care of poor maternal,
diseased beggars and concerned about the fate of the poor, he wanted that one at all
places, the Tuileries potatoes would be injected into the garden in order in that way to
provide food for the poor.

The woman he referred to her home and domestic work and he suggested in the hall of
sessions of the commune no woman-using putative functions to allow more after Rosa
Lacombe with her companions, wearing the red cap, had entered by force into that
sanctuary . In this area, so he was not progressive and the women's movement, he was
unable to speak properly.

The education of the children he took very seriously and are known attempts to
produce artistic sense among the people and to inform the establishment of libraries
within the reach of the people.

From the foregoing, one can deduce that he seriously work made its concerns and that
the dreamer and fanatic in the short time of his administration gave more evidence of
common sense and discernment than many that always occur as eminently practical
men. Averse to the influence of the church, which had already done so much evil, he tried
to keep her out of everything and wanted to turn off everything from a "esprit Laco-
municipal" (an urban seemed to mind.) One can laugh about the service goddess of
reason and the comedy, which they then brought up in Paris at Notre Dame - and we find
it really ridiculous - but we see no reason why they should be considered more ridiculous
than the processions of Catholics and ordinary service Catholic churches. At most, one
could say that was not expected of men who put one folly to side, she immediately before
another would take its place. In itself, the service of the Blessed Virgin in no regard
whatsoever wiser and less ridiculous than that of the goddess of Reason and we see
among Protestants, even in all religious systems emerged from a transcendental faith, not
as foolish things?

Did they not see how inadequate it was to affix a revolution in spirits, but did not enter
her in the institutions, in things? Very true d'Armand de Meuse spoke in April 1793: "The
most fatal and most cruel mistake which the Constituent Assembly, the legislative body
and the national convention have fallen by slavishly to walk on the paths of the legislators
who preceded them, this, in that the boundaries of the property has not indicated and the
people left to greedy speculations of the insensitive rich man.

Do not look for us or there may be the natural owners and that not all people have an
equal right to the earth and its productions, for this is no doubt there is relative to this truth
no difference between us.

It is important to know and it is right there on to point out that if one is in the company
ownership has allowed for the sake of nuttigheid for all, they also use this right must
confine not overlaten at the mercy of the owner, because if one assumes this right without
reservation, then the man who had exposed his weakness in the state of nature to the
suppression of the strongest, nothing else done then move the injustice by bringing it
under the social bond. What weakness had become the first state is poverty in the
second. In the first he was the victim of the strongest in the second it is the rich and the
schemer. And society, far from a blessing for him to be, will instead robbed him of his
natural rights to more injustice and barbarism, as he naturally able at least to food could
contest the wildlife, while men more cruel than they have forbidden him by this same
social bond, so one does not know what is most surprising about either the profound
insensitivity of rich either the virtuous patience of the poor. At that moment based social
order, that patience supportive living the rich assured in his wealth. As a result of this
virtuous and generous patience rests the poor from childhood into the earth bowed his
attitude toward him close his eyes. Luckily he was in the last repose the end finds his
ailments and we would still leave him to pay for so much virtue in our barbarous
institutions and we would like to perpetuate the abuse and fraudulent use. One can pretty
say that the poor and the wealthy enjoy a common equality before the law , this is just a
political bait.

The man who is hungry or needs, needs no spiritual equality; he had this equality in the
state of nature. I repeat this because it is no gift of life, and because of him, where one
defines human rights as much and more was worthy to remain in the state of nature, its
existence seeking and enforcing in the woods or on the shores of the seas and rivers.

Not in the spirit one must make the revolution, that's what one should look for her
success: since long it has been made and as well, the whole of France testifies, but in the
institutions is finally need this revolution, of which the happiness of the human sex
depends, in whole voltrekke. What will the people, what are all those people a change of
ideas, which would give them only a perfect happiness? One can certainly get into
enthusiasm for this change of opinion, but this spiritual happiness fit only for strong minds
and people who enjoy all the gifts of fortune. Them it is easy to intoxicate themselves to
freedom and equality: the nation has also emptied the first cup of joy and enthusiasm, it
has also to intoxicated. It is feared if intoxication become is over and people again calmer
and more unhappy than before, this will attribute to the temptation of some insurgents and
will abide satisfied to have been the plaything of the passions or systems and the ambition
of some people. The moral condition of the people is now a beautiful dream that one has
to realize, and you can do it only with the same revolution that ye the spirits to bring've
brought to scale, the things , the institutions . "

All wearing the revolution thus no socialist character, undeniable that many issues have
been raised which was formerly thought little or nothing, and since then more and more
are pushed to the fore. The ideas of the great minds were finally put on the street and
once arrived there, they're not going down there. If the notebooks of 1789 had nothing
specifically socialist, it was because there was nothing before the revolution, which
resembled a truly conscious socialism, but although non-owners had no socialist
intentions, the owners still got the impression that private property however, it was indeed
come in danger. Can one deny that respect for the property since that time has been
reduced, because people realized how the property was not a fixed concept for all times
and for all countries, but also all change was subject so that a distortion of the idea of
property at any time could and would have caused a distortion in its essence? Now there
had entered a new sovereign in life, viz. The people, had ensured that it was released in
the first of the pitiful state it was wrong and bread. Rivarol crowds brief and peculiar in the
words: "The people are sovereign which only asks for Food: His Majesty is quietly among
the digestion."
 It was Edgar Quinet, who in his Revolution made the right note, that if you seriously
think about the events of the Great Revolution, one is struck by the audacity of
the deeds of our forefathers and by the timidity of their ideas . Ultra Revolutionary acts
alongside timid, conservative thoughts. Miracles of bravery and energy, the most sublime
contempt for life and its pleasures besides an incredible timidity with regard to the
conception of the near future. So when Babeuf to the realization of the ideas wanted to
go, it was astonished and rather than put a step on the path shown by him, they got rid of
him and his men to throw themselves into the arms of the military dictator France would
liberate such subversive ideas. The reaction was after the death of Robespierre bolder
than ever the head raised and Babeuf came forth from it. It was he who, as consistent
thinker wanted to print the brand on social revolution. He was the one who understood
what that revolution when he her, "said a social war between the plebeians and patricians,
between the poor and the rich."

The period of privileged and non-privileged was over, to make way for the class
struggle, the struggle between rich and poor. And in any case did socialism since that time
to be a reverie or bigotry of the scholars, it began to take a more assertive character and
got a more or less political. It should not peculiar called the forerunners of modern
socialism a Saint-Simon, Fourier, were hostile to the revolution and its not expected for
the reorganization of society on sound principles? They would also convinced came from
one of the students of Babeuf, who testified from her: "The revolution that was to establish
equality, has so far done nothing more than replace a bunch of old rogues by a multitude
of new?" [ 52]

_______________
[50] A brother is an enemy by nature.
[51] Compare, Le socialism pendant la rvolution franaise (1789-1798) by Amde Le
Faure and the great work Histoire Socialiste (1789-1900), which began under the direction
of Jaurs last year to appear.
[52] La rvolution devait tablir qui l'galit n'a fait que jusgu'ici remplacer une bande
d'anciens coquine par une foule the coquins nouveaux.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 12

The predecessors of the modern socialism

Hardly the threshold of the 19th century was exceeded or were in different countries
various thinkers, those affected by the sharp contrasts of life and by the appalling
imbalances in the society itself with all zeal and enthusiasm cast on the big social issue,
this sphinx of the new time, each in its way to provide a solution that would be satisfactory
to the justice.
 In France, Saint-Simon (17 October 1760-19 May 1825) and Fourier (7 April 1772-9
October 1837), Robert Owen in England (1771-17 May 14 nov. 1858) and in Germany
Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762 -1814).

So they were all contemporaries and yet worked each in his own way and
independently of the other so that one as well as several times the case with important
discoveries that are simultaneously done about - think of the so-called Darwinism, that
around the same time by Wallace, Spencer and Darwin was discovered - it can say that
socialism was as it were in the air.

Trad Saint-Simon at jare 1803 on stage with his writings: Lettres d'un habitant de
Genve ses contemporains (Letters from a resident of Geneva to his contemporaries),
followed in 1807 by his Introduction aux travaux scientifiques du XIXme
sicle (Introduction to the scientific works of the 19th century), Fourier gave in 1808 his
work entitled Thorie des quatre mouvements et des destines gnrales (Theory of the
four movements and general locations), in which he publicized was that he " discovery
"said and done by him in 1799, Robert Owen, the practical man, began to realize ideas
about 1800 in the factory at New Lanark, of which he was one of the directors, but when
he brought encountered resistance from his associates, his ideas on paper in the form of
four essays (essays) about the formation of human character , that they are not marketing
but to share in London and get as money around, to New Lanark entirely to his views to
exploit, which he also succeeded, so he bought the factory at public auction in 1813 for
114,000 pounds ( f 1.368 million) and his reformist ideas could freely take its
course; Fichte also gave in 1800 his writings from Der geschloszne Commercial
State (The closed trading state) in which he developed his ideas.

One can see that a lot of new ideas in the early years of this century were flung into the
world, much more powerful nawerkten than the countless wars of Napoleon I, which our
history books are filled while they remain silent either completely on those ideas or they
just casually mention, and yet Prof. Quack absolutely right when he writes. "the economic
currents of our century perhaps could obtain a broader and broader wave, when all had
developed circuits may also approve of the ideas of Saint-Simon and Fourier seriously
take note, rather they either mock either be left solely to the lower classes to spoil. " [53]

A peculiar trait these guys have in common. They were all more or less hostile to the
great French revolution, except Fichte, to understand her even knew in her wonderful
expressions and appreciate, or they were indifferent like Owen, who had, moreover, little
interest in political issues. Saint-Simon had initially not much reason to be pleased with
her, because of her he thanked a captive of about 11 months, but later he did not mind
having her. And Fourier, who was looking at everything in order, had to have aversion
disorder, originally installed by the revolution. He shot there also are small fortune and
nearly killed in in. However, should the main motive of their repugnance sometimes
sought herein, which they felt how this revolution to wearing only a political and not a
social character, while they were above the eye on a social organization of society? Our
thanks this gives the key to explain their attitude to the revolution of 1789.
 What they shared with each other, was a firm belief in the progress of the human race
and a good trust the people. That is why Saint-Simon, a Napoleon greeted with
complacency and later enlisted the help of Louis XVIII to realization of his plans, which
Fourier always waited with childlike trust in the millionaire who would provide him the
necessary capital for the creation of his phalansteres that Owen always addresses himself
to the princes with the result that he once received a visit from Alexander I of Russia and
received a sympathetic letter of king Frederich Wilhelm III of Prussia. As such, one can
label them with the name of Utopians, but they could be different in a time when capitalist
production was so little developed? If one wants to call them with Dhring "social
alchemists", they forget that the alchemy was necessary predecessor of the science of
chemistry. But above all, forget it not, that everyone tends to make his predecessors for
utopians, while still in the writings of the so-called Utopians - a somewhat scornful word -
so what are found all the ideas, which we are meditating now.

Saint-Simon (1760-1825)

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon, belonged to the old French nobility,
he even claimed to be descended from Charlemagne, but he was one of the first who
gave his title and rank voluntary price. The spirit of resistance was there early with him, so
he decides at the age of 18 refused to make his first communion, with the result that his
father had put him in prison. He was always energetic but had already early a high opinion
about himself and his vocation, which sufficiently showed the command that he had given
at age 17 to his valet, namely to wake him up all night with the words. "Grant on, Mr. Earl,
you have to do great things. "he also had an eventful life. At age 19 he went to America to
join the war of independence on the part of the insurgents. He has the greatest wealth
and knew great poverty, he knew what was for sale in the world through their own
experience. He was consumed by love of science and passion he devoted his energies to
public welfare. Unfortunately, twelve years of hardship and concern which had great
character bent and broken, so he tried to end in 1820 to his life. The ball, however, did not
penetrate the brains, but deprived him of an eye and then he lived another five years in
morbid conditions, but no one described his life better than he himself, when he was dying
in the arms of his faithful disciples uttered these words: " all my life drum themselves
together in a single thought, viz. to all the people to ensure the freest development of their
faculties. "

Undeniably Saint-Simon was a brilliant thinker and this proves enough when you
consider that almost all the ideas of later economists in bud were found with him. In his
Letters from a resident of Geneva to his contemporaries in 1802 he already spoke the
general principle that all people had to work. It was a grand idea to mention the French
Revolution a class struggle between nobility, bourgeoisie and dispossessed. And it
showed great acumen to already in 1816 called political science of the production, as he
foresaw with visionary glance the merging of politics in the economy and to understand
that the substance does not exist in the rule over people but in control of affairs.

He wanted to divide the people into three classes: 1 . scholars and artists; 2 . the
owners; 3 . the have-nots. He gave the spiritual power to the scholars, the secular power
to the owners and the power to appoint those who would carry out the task of leaders of
mankind in the hands of everyone. The rulers wage should exist in respect and
esteem. These are the skills, into whose hands he wanted to see the board of the society.

The geniuses would apply the ideas to mankind. "Room for the Archimedessen, no
more homage done to the Alexanders."

This, of his plan, he wanted to make the basis of a general organization of society.

He wanted to: 1 . reform of property rights; 2 . Generally, making the work; 3 . the
abolition of private inheritance and transfer thereof into the hands of the state.

It is the formula that would be used: to everyone according to his ability, to each
according to his works.

The woman should be considered the equal of the man, so that nothing prevented it
should coat the same relations as he. Christianity has the emancipated man, the new
religion will do the same for the woman. The man and the woman will unite freely and
leave, they constitute a single whole.

He believes to be perfect from the human race, so he put the golden age in the offing
and not the past. Progress is his elimination of ignorance and misery, elimination of
militarism, of privilege and exploitation of man by man. Was until now the law of humanity,
"the exploitation of man by man" in her three periods: slavery, lijfeigenschap and
proletariat, in the future should be the aim of the "exploitation of the earth by man
associated with the man".

One can identify four times in his philosophical life, which can be characterized as 1
. the era of social reform; 2 . the era of philosophy, which primarily was considered the
law of the endless refinement and perfection of the human race, as it sets put in its
introduction in 1807, where he preaches the replacement of Catholics by a philosophical
catechism according to the principles of organic encyclopedia of positive philosophy; 3
. the era of historical summary, in which he calls for a European parliament, standing
above the parliaments of the various countries in which the most eminent men of trade,
industry, judiciary and literature will take place as supreme regulators of the general
interests; This would draw up a code of secular ethics, which all had to behave; and 4
. the era of the religious rebirth which he preaches a new Christianity. This task is to
improve the moral and physical existence of the poorest and most numerous class of
mankind. Worship and dogma in it side issues, the ethics of the substance. By gentleness
and persuasion must new religion find its way. The arms should never do violence to the
rich. Everything had to be arranged so that the peoples of the scholars, artists,
industrialists will continue to see their true leaders and guides. Brotherly love must be the
principle of rebirth for the company.

At the end of his life, Saint-Simon fell in all sorts of religious reveries, without however
saying his reform plans goodbye.
 But Saint-Simon was authoritarian and dreamed of a hierarchical division of society into
competence. He once said: "I understand no association without the government of
someone, anyone," in which his adopted son and pupil, Augustin Thierry at replied: "I do
not understand association without freedom." Then parted company this two, whose
principles were so opposed.

Across from the old system, which was based on the law of the strongest, therefore he
called a military regime, Saint-Simon placed the new, which is a labor system. Between
them one must choose, because to unite both, giving something ambiguous, a "bastard
association", which is unsustainable in the long run.

How he always made the work at the center of everything, is evident from the
comparison of society with a beehive, where everyone worked and something uitrichtte
and the whole policy came down to him on this, to secure employment in the basket and
ward drones, which are not fragrant honey gathered by unremitting diligence may pilfer.

Notable for its position, the fragment, known under the name of "The Parable ', which
we will announce as example of his writing.

"Imagine - he writes - that one night in France died the first 50 physicists, 50 first
chemists, the 50 first physiologists, the 50 first mathematicians, the first 50 poets, the first
50 painters, 50 first sculptors, the 50 first musicians, the 50 first letters, the first 50
mechanics, the first 50 engineers, 50 first gunners, the first 50 engineers, the first 50
doctors etc., the first 50 surgeons, 50 first artsenijbereiders, the 50 first timepiece experts
the 50 first bankers, the first 200 merchants, the first 100 farmers, 50 first directors of blast
furnaces and metal factories, the 50 first arms manufacturers, the first 50 drivers tanneries
(they consecrated themselves to the list of branches of manufactures, which he lists), the
50 first masons, the first 50 carpenters, 50 first forges, the first 50 Locksmiths (again they
consecrated themselves from other professions), a total figure of three thousand first
scholars, artists and business men of France. Suppose they all suddenly died, then
France, since in them are productive men, the flower of his society, those who do advance
both civilization and prosperity, property, and with one stroke lose the soul of his life and
rank suddenly descend down the other nations; a whole race would at least be required to
compensate the loss. But suggest that France all those men retained, but that died in one
night "Monsieur" the brother of the king, the Duke of Angouleme, the Duke of Berry, the
Duke of Orleans, the Duke of Bourbon, the Duchess of Angouleme, the Duchess of Berry,
the Duchess of Orleans, the Duchess of Bourbon and mejonkvrouwe Cond; that France
at the same time lost all the great officers of the crown, all the ministers of state (whether
or not the head of a department), whether the state councils, all the members of the court,
all his marshals all his cardinals, archbishops , bishops and canons grootvicarissen all his
prefects and under prefects, all officials of the ministries, all judges and above the ten
thousand richest proprietors, then this accident would certainly afflict France, because the
French are a good-hearted people; but evil for the state would not mean much. There is
life yet many French, who as well as "Monsieur" could play the role of a brother of the
king, as well the task would observe a Duke of Angouleme, Berry etc. etc. The
"anterooms" of the palace are full of courtiers and candidates that all court and state
relations things. How many customs officers do not outweigh our ministers! In a word, the
loss would be easy to compensate. And yet all these people, whose loss to the state
would be small, the priority in our society over the productive members, and that, too,
while they indeed do harm, where they adhere to the old keep, and do their best to
perpetuate the dominance of conjectural theories on the positive. Indeed, it is so in
France: the world upside down . The authorized body is not healthy due to that
organization. The poor are forced to be mild for the benefit of the rich; those who illegally
remove the bulk of the national income, the general thieves ( "voleurs-gnraux"), helping
to protect society against small crimes: the incompetent executives have the responsibility
to lead the proficient and rule ".

This parable brought him a prosecution on the neck due to lack of respect for the royal
house, but he was acquitted, and the result was that more than ever drew attention to his
person.

Although his influence was not great during his lifetime, he then exercised his ideas and
by his eminent disciples undeniably great influence on the world, for as Professor
Thonissen wrote so rightly. "The Saint-Simonists have the first priority of the socialism
raised. In their writings, one must look for nine-tenths of the revolutionary ideas which
today bring France and Europe in turmoil. "

It was none other than the famous Michelet, who in his Histoire du sicle
XIXme proclaimed the praises of Saint-Simon.

His disciples worshiped him as a kind of messiah. Did not Enfantin: "The world was
waiting for a savior appeared ... Saint-Simon. Moses, Orpheus, Numa
have material organized work. Jesus Christ did mental. Saint-Simon has organized the
religious works of Saint-Simon summarized Moses and Jesus Christ. "

Among his disciples were several men of renown, such as Rodrigues, Enfantin, Bazard,
Augustin Thierry (the famous historian), Auguste Comte (the famous philosopher of
Positivism), Adolphe Blanqui (the famous economist) Buchez (later president of the
constituent assembly of 1848), Carnot (the leading minister), etc. etc.

First Olinde Rodrigues, Bazard and Enfantin formed the triumvirate that the principles
of the master propagated and after retiring from the first in 1829, the other two were the
leaders who gave an answer to a scornful expression of two MPs, speaking of Saint-
Simonists as a semi-religious, semi-philosophical sect, including community property and
women existed.

In that reply they said that the property was concerned, they were opposed to equal
distribution of goods, both fund the production of the fruits of labor. They wanted an array
of individuals to each skill, and a reward to everyone's work. They rejected all privileges of
birth and asked for the abolition of inheritance as the greatest of all
privileges. Coincidentally, if the numerous class not doom to destruction, ignorance and
misery. "They asked that all work tools, the land and the capital, which today is
fragmented" formed fund "of private property, would be united into a social fund, operated
by the association and by hierarchical way and it in such a way that everyone task the
expression of his abilities and everyone's wealth was the measure of his work. "

As for the women, they wanted a single man would have a single woman, but the
woman had to be the equal of the man and his partaker in the exercise of the threefold
activity in the temple, in the state and in the home. The Saint-Simonists wanted to end
legal prostitution, which exists under the name of marriage.

But the woman question was nevertheless eventually stumbling block, as Enfantin took
two forms of marriage, sustainable and decomposable, while still a mystical bond between
the male and female soul accepted as a third form.

This gave such a high current difference between Bazard - whose wife accused
Enfantin that he wanted to have a seraglio - and Enfantin, which both broke
up. Furthermore Enfantin went more and more lost in mysticism, and was looking with his
friends in the seclusion to Menilmontant some rest by way of a retreat to the monastic
life. Summoned to court because of sexual assault of morality, he was with two of his
friends were sentenced to one year imprisonment, while they were acquitted of another
charge of scam. And when Enfantin had served his sentence, he was set dusted his
disciples circle. It was from that moment alone. And his aim to found a new religion, to
unite all the people in a fixed order, to rehabilitate the fabric, to emancipate women and a
priest to instruct the charge of everything, he had to give up though. And he ended up in
the world of business by being a member of the board of the major railway Paris-Lyon-
Mditerranne.

It is remarkable how many men of renown at a time have been subjected to the
influence of Saint-Simon ism area of science, the literature and art, but also that of
industry and finance, and without now taking account with the excesses of the doctrine,
mainly from Enfantin with its system of free love among religious consecration, we can
say that the ideas of Saint-Simon in this century have not been without effect on the
mental state of the development of our nation. The society is more or less saturated with
the "utopian" ideas of Saint-Simon.

Fourier (1772-1837)

Two conditions have determined the direction of his life, Fourier has given all his views
and plans. Firstly, the rebuke he suffered as a five year old child because he had spoken
the truth, a truth that his father disadvantage caused to his business. Second, the
experience he gained in Marseilles, where he employed by a commercial company shed
was commissioned a large amount of rice unnoticed way into the sea. That rice was kept
so long that she was spoiled. Rather than that they gave her in time and food to the
starving people. There he learned how to imposed the lie to the children and how they
tried to make a profit by destroying edibles that many could benefit. Thus lies and deceit
were the foundations of society and thus he was led to think about a new form, which was
based on the sincerity in the relationships and the harmony of interests.
 Saint-Simon belonged by origin to the nobility, Fourier arose from the affluent middle
class, which is evident from the estate of his father, who was 200,000 livres, a nice capital
in those days. His paternal inheritance ( 2 / 5 of that sum) he started to drive business in
Lyon in 1793, but went his bales of cotton were used up to the barricades and are sugar
and rice in the siege of that city by the troops of the convention . Captured after the
capture he saved his life by all nice to lie to. Or impose his dislike of the French
Revolution should be attributed or that he had aversion to her because of the principles of
equality, it is difficult to decide, but the fact is that the revolution against him was in his
soul.

Some years after his "discovery" - as he called it - his book on the theory of the four
movements and general destinations. That discovery was the idea of the association,
applied to every sphere of life of the people. His critique of contemporary society is
unsurpassed sharp and still useful as a satirist and may his name always mentioned with
honor. Pity his writings as difficult to read because of the severity of style and the
obscurity of many parts.

In the new order of things are found only attraction and desires. He shows that 12
cardinal passions, on which everything rests; they can be divided into three types, viz. five
sensory desires (hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch), four affective (love
waking) passions (friendship, love, familiezin and ambition), and three
distributive (distributive) passions , which he said: la variant or alter ante (also
papillonne) [54] la dissident or cabaliste [55] and l'engrenante or coincident (also
composite) [56] . Cooperation and shading of the head rests desires harmony among
people. The number of shades that arises from the mixing of the passions, is entirely
through the action of three foci or purposes of attraction ( "foyers"): 1 . the meaning to
opulence or wealth (luxisme), to which the five sensitive pursue passions; 2 . the desire
to create groups , the purpose of the four affective passions; and 3 . the desire to form
SERIEN , the task of the three distributive passions. For example, the number of
affections easily climbs to 810, also the number of the human characters. All those
passions would be attracted by the various forms of human labor. Not equality, but
diversity was the condition of life. This diversity reached perfect harmony with the overall
pivot of all, the passion of Harmony or Unitesme.

Fourier considered himself all the founders of religions, viz. If someone wants revealed
to whom God. "I, simple clerk, am humble tool which God has served to bring the new
message to the earth."

He saw in the law of attraction of the passions the same law of attraction or gravity in
the material world, which was discovered by Newton. So there was unity of movement in
the material and spiritual world. In the universe are four kingdoms [57] asked: 1 . the
material; 2 . the organic; 3 . the animal or instinctive: 4 . social or passionate. Would in
all kingdoms are the same movement? The order relating to companies would be the
order of civilization in which the people lived now need replacing. That civilization with its
isolated households of families, its fragmented ownership and its disjointed, improper
work, had to go.
 Confident in his plan Fourier lived in the expectation that are there would find a prince
or a millionaire, which would give him an acre country to take a test on his farm
association and one trial would essentially sufficient to convince the world the excellence
of his invention. Touching it is to learn how Fourier every day, what his duties were, at the
stroke of 12 o'clock went home, because at that hour he had in his mind the rich
millionaire documents which would bring him the necessary funds to establish his
Phalanstre . Then he waited an hour, but afterwards, he stood up again and resumed his
work. For ten years he has maintained that habit.

What a disappointment experienced Fourier when he instead of joy and astonishment

among the people saw indifference. The book remained unsold, one there took almost no
notice of.

In the year 1822 he published his major work: Thorie de l'Unit Universelle (the theory
of general unit) in four parts, which he had worked out the ideas of the first lake, and so
gave the best idea of his thought.

It was with this work as the first, they hit very little heed. He set his hopes on Robert
Owen, but he conceived much deeper than the English reformer, the idea of association,
he was dismissed polite. This treatment was the cause that Fourier sharply criticizing
stood up against Owen and his communism and atheism, he even dubbed him less
flattering as a "quack, an alchemist and embezzler of truth." Also at Saint-Simon and his
school he became hateful to . Fourier's system is a construction of the association in its
full extent, Association of capital, labor and talent association of all and everything. Saint-
Simon is the workshop of the cell from which the society is developed, with the
Fourier series , the basic form of society.

Royband says it is "Fourierism few words summarized can be in the release and
combine the passions, associating properties and interests, the rule of the attraction in the
physical and moral world about the reluctance, finding the analogical voice our destination
in the scenic nature of the universe. "That one idea he has rotating thousand brilliant,
original and unexpected checks show to mankind.

Four scourges afflict society; 1 . diseases such as plague, typhoid, cholera, yellow
fever, which must be fought, as it goes against smallpox by vaccination; 2 . The climate,
which is spoiled by the felling of the forests along the mountain ridges, increasing the
flooding, agriculture languishes, plagues of vermin infest; 3 . raging political revolutionary
spirit; 4 . increase in public debt and growing agiotage [58] , pursuant to which the future
is eaten and ever climbing taxes.

Fourier association wanted to obtain an income of 6,000 francs a piece of land that
yielded only 2000 francs in crumbling buildings. The possibility he pointed to Owens
establishments at New Lanark, but according to him committed three errors: 1 . he spent
too many people together, about 3000, while the minimum should be 400 and the
maximum 16 to 1700; 2 . he applied the principle of equality far, and it works like poison
in the association; and 3 . he confined himself to the industry, while agriculture had to be
substantially.
 The work now hated, so that only the hunger drives people to the social or scientific
fellow (relating to companies) work will attract to these conditions: 1 . every worker has
essentially share and are not paid wages, but with dividends; 2 . everyone - man, woman
and child - must be paid according to three factors: capital, labor and talent; 3 . working
hours must be interspersed approximately eight times per day, as the enthusiasm for work
lasts no more than 1 1 / 2 to 2 consecutive hours; 4 . there must be labored with friends
who unite voluntarily and compete with each other; 5 . The workshops must be neat and
graceful; 6 . the division of labor must be brought to its zenith; 7 . everyone should have
the right to work and do work in the branch, which it chooses itself. All must in this new
scheme is a guarantee of prosperity and it exists in a sufficient minimum for the present
and the future, so that one can live carefree. This is made possible by an increased
production. Poverty will disappear and with it the discord, which largely stems from
poverty.

Industrial attraction is based on the design of the series.

What is the series?

The result of the arrangement of people to the passion one feels for one or more work
pieces. Each can satisfy a part of that passion, but the series represents the general type
of passion. Each series must have at least 7 to 9 parts, otherwise there is not enough
competition. The association must have at least in her mid 50 Serien. What is now called
twist is an incentive in the series. The series is the cell of society. The family is replaced
by Serien.

Genius was his division of history into four development periods; 1 . the wildness; 2
. barbarism; 3 . patriarchy; and 4 . civilization, which he preceded let the age of
innocence (eden ism to the Garden Eden), and is necessary to seek a sixth state
guarantees ism or guarantee state in which the private capitalist functions are taken over
by the municipalities or states to finally to get to the soziantisme, in which the work is
stripped of his professional bias and transferred in simple passionate rows and groups,
which will then develop further to full harmony.

Humankind will some time, 70,000 years in the fortunate period of harmony. Then as
for the individual man the time of old age, the downward movement in which different eras
be made in the opposite reason. Mankind will die, after her all dierlijk- and plant life,
finally, the globe itself and deliver the entire solar system, to dust again for a new
genesis. Here one sees developed throughout the materialist conception of history. After
all the ills of the dark time: 1 . disorder; 2 . fraud; 3 . affliction; 4 . murder and
manslaughter; 5 . guurte of weather and climate; 6 . conception of disease; 7 . rotating
in a fateful circle; 8 . general selfishness and 9 . duplicity of the social operation. The
latter two spindles why everything revolves. In contrast, he wants in the order relating to
companies: 1 . gradual, orderly distribution of wealth; 2 . truth in practice; 3 . ensure
true; 4 . enduring peace; 5 . well balanced himself standing weather; 6 . general
quarantine; 7 . experimental sciences; 8 . collective and individual philanthropy and 9
. unit of the social functioning. (The last two works as new spindles.)
 Well conceived could have led to the concept of freedom to the sixth era, the warranty
period, for the right to work, the only thing would be for the poor, but means in truth
nothing should replace four natural rights : hunting, fishing, grazing, plucking. Civilization
still had to each of its members the proper minimum of food, clothing and housing ,
proportional to the different ranks of men, should be granted.

What is true of freedom, which is also true of trade, which dominates the most complete
anarchy. Fourier has 36 pulling the trade, which are each divided again. The coffers of the
banker and merchant, has become the focus of world trade and generates contempt for
the public.

Also in Fourier found a strong hierarchy, which concentrated the supreme or global
governance to Constantinople under the omniarch or albeheerder. [59]

Women can obtain equal sovereignty.

As for marriage, Fourier mentions there are 12 defects: 1 . bold accident; 2

. inequality of taste; 3 . complications; 4 . digestion; 5 . vigilance; 6 . monotony; 7
. inconsistency in parenting; 8 . wedding gifts; 9 . separation of children; 10
. deceptive association; 11 . false information; 12 . adultery.

Effect of marriage on the one hand, the flowering of all forms of adultery - he says
these 72 forms - and on the other the swarm of ants' nest of children in the poor, who are
unable them to educate and further languish many girls and women outside marriage, that
was her vocation, away. He considers it high time for the wedding, as we buy the call
off. The marriage must be made easier, prostitution, poverty will disappear by spreading
prosperity, the families will have privileges; very true he saw that shapes the laws of
sexual union are changing with the times.

The four SERIEN or groups of social menss are fourfold, viz .: friendship, ambition,
love and familiezin . The first two he calls the "majors", the latter two the "miners".

They correspond to the four ages: the childhood works mainly the friendship, the love,
then the ambition, finally familiezin. They may be represented by the pictures of bud,
flower, fruit and cereal.

These SERIEN are no artificial inventions of Fourier, but, according to him. It was this
life that he discovered.

Fourier then gives a description of his Phalanstre or labor palace, because in the
future there will be no more towns and villages, but decent phalansteries spaced with
surrounding parks, fields, meadows, forests, etc. In each of these live 16 to 1,800 people,
all of whom are shareholders, as each property following estimate is deposited in the
greenhouse, where shares are issued under the context of the building. Arrange all in
groups for work, so that each performs the work that attracts him. One need not be
determined until one labor crossed, but can belong to several. From the proceeds of the
total labor costs to be paid by way of life and maintenance of the residents and what
remains, then, is divided into three parts, according to
3 4 5 7
Talent / December Capital / December and Labour / December . To take a test, causes / 8 part
consists of farmers and artisans, the others may be capitalists, scholars and artists. The
ratio of the genera should be on 21 men, 20 women.

The Phalanstre does not recognize the households of two people, though one can, if
one wants, communal life, but expects to individuals. Everyone - man, woman and child -
has a head in the book, in which everything is written off. Poor members to get a home
room and cabinet in addition to access to the common rooms. The food is paid a lot of
work; the three sexes (men, women and children) eat as a rule separately.

The building has three floors and consists of a central building with projecting wings. In
the central building, the dining rooms, the boardroom, the library, the stock exchange, the
telegraph, the temple, and above raises the big tower with its chimes and his
observatory. Behind this building is the winter garden. In one wing are the workshops with
noise-making work, and the children's rooms; the others stay for foreigners, ballrooms,
etc. All the rooms are rented, and there are to get at any price. The rooms of the old
people and children are insulated. Right through the whole building is a large, always well
heated corridor. Downstairs are the kitchen with accessories, from where everything can
be lifted up. Opposite the main building, separated by a square, are the stables,
warehouses, barns, etc. Surrounding the building are gardens and waterworks, and in the
distance you can see the fields and meadows with garden houses.

In the morning everyone goes to work, mainly the land company. Division of labor is
applied on a grand scale. One goes in procession to his work, undertaken under banners
and playing music. Everything resembles the movements of an army, it all dovetails into
each other. Each co-owner of the Phalanstre, but the income remains individually
distributed to talent, capital and labor. The series of the servers should collectively under
the title of "pages" and "pagesses" and that each member of many Serien, it may happen
that he who minister in one series, master's in another. Everyone is in turn master and
servant. The collective wealth is great. The work is not a burden but a joy.

There are large works, which should be performed, are formed from various industrial
armies phalansteres. Armies therefore, not to destroy but to produce. They consist of
men 3 / 6 , female 2 / 6 , children 1 / 6 . The clothing is simple. Fourier wants more meadows
and orchards, cornfields less. If he wants to drink wine and lemonade, no water. The
phalanx must always have stock for 2 years. Once there are too many people living on the
square mile, is one colonize.

The education system is in its essence, it is collective or shared under the same
rules. [60]

He divides the children choirs of boys and girls to the years thus:

Birth up to 18 nourishing sons lutins called

months,
 the
together;
18
3 years poupons;
months

Bambins and
3 years 4 1 / 2 the
bambines;

Chrubins and
41/2 6 1 / 2 the
chrabines;

Seraphins and
61/2 9 the
Seraphines;

licens and
9 12
licennes;

gymnasiens and
12 15 the
gymnasiennes;

Jouvenceaux and
15 18
Jouvencelles.

To 9 years physical education is the main thing. To a degree to move up, you have to
take some kind of examination at the time at individual particles, which are already in the
senior class.

The nourishing sons are divided into three: sweet kids, more or less difficult and little
devils. Each type has a separate room and is under special "bonnes", which have an
inverse character, so the sweet children are led by cheerful and noisy or troublesome
children below that of elderly bonnes. The mothers take care of the children with them at
home, but they leave as soon as possible to do their work, they only come back to suckle
them. Only those who love a lot of children are employed in that branch. Children from 4
years old already, if developed properly, earn their living through the different activities
they carry out. He takes 16 submissions, 7 and 9 of material of a spiritual nature, to
arouse the lust for work: 1 . the cleanliness of the miniature workshops; 2 . the migration
of prowling; 3 . the bait of insignia; 4 . the privilege of parades and handling tools; 5
. the advantage to be able to choose what one likes best; 6 . mimicking; 7 . the desire
to follow; 8 . the absence of any parental flattery; 9 . tend to imitate older comrades; 10
. it carried away by the sight of others; 11 . enjoying short, lively and varied lessons; 12
. the fear of being sent to lower corn; 13 . the enthusiasm for what bring higher corn; 14
. mutual jealousy; 15 . full freedom of choice of workers and working time; 16 . the
unofficial intervention of the patriarchs, who give their lesson and are very loved.

The work of the Bambins already-productive negative because it deter children from
destroying and positive because they do solid work, resulting in benefits for them, eg
reading peas.. Body exercises, in order to obtain the necessary agility and dexterity of
limbs must then be substantially. Taking care of animals, cultivation of plants and
vegetables, work in the kitchen - there what children like to do and watching the trait to be
benefited from it.

From 9 to 15 years, he has two settings: the small hurdles and small bands , the first
representing the concept of social sacrifice, the second of which charm. The small hurdles
are ordered troops children, who do all the dirty work in the Phalanstre. Many children
love dabbling in dirt and spills, this lust is very useful. By contrast, concerns the smaller
parties for all that is tasteful and graceful. They have the lead in play and dance and be as
much as the guardians of social grace.

15 year breaks the difficult times in which awakens sex life. He divides these children
cope in two parts: 1 . vestels and vestales who live together without the exercise of
sexual intercourse; which lasts until the 20th year and such live separately, are particularly
honored and marry later princes or princesses; 2 . the Damoiseaux and Damoiselles ,
offering no resistance to the first impulses of love. The first love is legally recognized and
as soon as children are born, it is called marriage.

The teachers are very seen, they called Sibyl and Sibylla . Public opinion points them to
their office, they perceive with passion. The purpose of education is above all the
knowledge of the society.

Fourier's so scared to death of equality. Not the product, but the work is paid. When the
payment is a distinction between necessary, useful and pleasant labor. The working time
is shorter as the labor jaunt is intense. The worker is paid in legal discourse on the
number SERIEN where he works and inversely to the duration of the work. The most
turbulent diversity will lead the way in settlements of SERIEN into a harmonious unit. A
unit that is not a uniformity, but an equilibrium, obtained by the correct connection of the
affections.

All circles of society should desire to cooperate and to those relating to companies
order, because it is very important.

In a later work, Le Nouveau Monde Industriel et relating to companies ou du Invention

process attrayante d'industrie et naturelle, distribue and sries passionnes . (The
industrial world or the discovery of the attractive and natural industry, divided into SERIEN
of passion), he gives the same ideas in more regulated form, only it is curious how it was
able to attach his system to the teachings of Christianity. [61]

For a moment it seemed as if Fourier would find the opportunity to realize his plan after
he was disappointed first by Baron de Frussac and later by one of the gentlemen
Hope. Certain Mr. Baudet Dulary bought in 1832 500 hectares of undeveloped land near
Versailles; they began to set up a building, but progressed halfway was to be given the
money and the plan. Later told his opponents the untruth that a pilot had taken his
system, which failed miserably. In his old age he became increasingly depressed, and in
the eyes of the public he was crazy. He gradually weakened and he had not the least
confidence in the medicine he wanted her help. Quiet in the solitude he had the last
breath exhaled on October 9, 1837, when the wife of the caretaker of his house, going
upstairs, found him dead in bed. In the cemetery of Montmartre buried one solitary thinker
and a lawn reminds the visitor to the man, who has worked for humanity with all the
power, which he could have. Paris has been now established a statue for him, so he
remains in the memory.

As there is much to criticize in his system, it remains true that one Fourier prof. Ahrens
hesitate to call a "true genius, a great talent in the art of analyzing and combining" and Mill
of its system testify that one of is the best combined forms of socialism, which one wishes
to have unhindered pilot companies will be taken.

A sample was taken in the year 1842 in Burgundy to Citeaux by the Englishman Arthur
Young, but it turned out that the participants were totally unsuitable. Students Fourier saw
then disdainfully that experiment and its failure meant nothing in their eyes. They took Mr.
Young seven tons.

Another test was taken in Algiers in the year 1848. Arable fields were mined, buildings
erected worth 450,000 francs but they failed as such, though they caused no financial
damage. About 1881 this company was transformed into a fourie humorous agricultural
colony for orphans and foundlings.

In America, have also been taken such experiments. In his book The Labour movement
in America Richard Ely talks about the North American Phalanx, founded by Brisbane in
New Jersey, Wisconsin Phalanx in the state of that name and Brook Farm Phalanx in
Boston, the latter is best known, perhaps because the known name of Channing is
attached to it. In the first tarried Victor Considerant in 1852 six weeks, long enough to see
that was only partially followed the principle of Fourier. Numerous other phalanxes risen
yet, but they failed ugly and although from such failures can not be deduced the
impossibility of the application, yet it has not been happy in general with the colonies to
any system. The familistre Godin at Guise is a partial realization of Fourier's system, all
came to the application with some changes and this plant cast kachels-, haard- and
kitchen appliances is still in a flourishing condition.

Fourier has left a school of talented students, among whom we call Muiron, Victor
Considerant, which brilliantly in writings wegslepende style contributed to the spread of
Fourier system. His book Destine Social (Social destination) and that of Toussenel Les
Juifs, rois de l'poque, histoire de la fodalit financire . (Jews, kings of the time, history
of financial feudalism) are certainly the most beautiful books from the mid-19th century,
the reading can still be done successfully. All the words even, so frequently used in the
later time, such as:. Class struggle, capital gains, etc., you will find them in a small booklet
of Considrant entitled Principles du socialism (Principles of Socialism), which is still little
known but the focus yet fully deserve.

In addition, though it is not realized in practice, its system, which is a ideas of Fourier
are not passed into practice. His Phalanstre is the germ of the cites ouvrires of our
workmen. Crches call us rooms for the children in the memories back. The associations
ouvrires reminiscent of Fourier's dream of labor. And so he has strewn unsparingly ideas
here and there arrested piecewise be realized in society, while he himself was declared a
madman, whom they looked down with pity.

As is the system of Fourier entirely utopian, yet his efforts continue to place the man in
an environment that favors the development of all his powers and fulfill his wishes, a
testament to his acumen as this idea still actual controls all political and social
reforms. Saint-Simon is the state's center, where everything is concentrated, with Fourier
lies in the Phalange, as much as the commune. As a pioneer of a better future Fourier will
also later generations always be mentioned with honor.

Robert Owen (1771-1858)

Were the first two major utopians men of the theory, one emerged from the nobility -
and the other from the middle class, the third was a practical man, a self-made man again
by descent was slightly lower on the social ladder. His father still had a saddlery Newtown
in Montgomeryshire (North Wales) and lost his money through a process. The school of
life was for him the most important, because currently only nine years old, he left school at
40 shillings ( f 24.-) on the wide pocket, going into wide world and to earn a living. Yet he
possessed much learning and reading pleasure, so he the little time left to him spent on
replenishing what he lacked.

Owen [62] led, in contrast to the other two, a hard life and had its formation is almost
entirely due to themselves. His shop boy Stamford in Lincolnshire, where he remained for
four years, first against costs and board and later at a salary of 8 to 10 pounds. ( F 96
at f 120), 14 years old, he became clerk in London, where he had to work at night to 'until
2 am early morning again beautifully cut and pulverized to help the customers. Besides
room and board he earned 25 (= f 300 per year). Half a year he held it out, but when he
could no longer and went to Manchester to act there as a shop assistant.

Lancashire lived as an important period because the cotton industry took a huge
momentum as a result of the newly invented spinning machine Arkwright. The enterprising
young Owen, only 18 years old, proven when, aided by 100 (= f 1200) which he
borrowed from a brother in London, for its own account to do business and this he
succeeded so well that he soon 40 workers had in his service. 20 years old he was at a
salary of 300 pounds sterling ( f 3600), administrator in the major cotton factory
Drinkwater Manchester, where 500 men were working. As a result of minor disagreements
with his boss, he left the matter to the help of some capitalists themselves to set up a
factory, the Chorlton Twist Company at Manchester.

Once on a trip to Scotland, he came to Glasgow in contact with the family Dale and he
managed to win the heart and hand of the eldest daughter of Mr. David Dale. He bought
Lanark his factory several hours from Glasgow and accepted on January 1, 1800 the
Board thereof at 1,000 pounds sterling (= f 12,000) per year.

There he began his reform work, difficult work in an environment where drunkenness
and brutality were the order of the day. Himself a rich man 29 years old and a happy and
carefree husband his heart was not hardened or plated by our own prosperity, but he
especially drew the fate of the children of the factory, which formerly were exposed to the
shameful exploitation. 1300 workers of the factory had 500 children needed and that New
Lanark could not deliver this number, the orthodox manufacturer Dale imagined and would
bring others in relation to the English working and orphanages, so that the supply of
children. By sending transports children between 7 and 12 years, sometimes five years,
providing for the needs of the producers and everyone, the Christian way, this was the
most natural thing in the world. Armed with the whip which children were crocked by the
supervisors, worked day and night and the beds were never cold, as one department
children were awakened to cede the bed to the other, which had accomplished its task.

Robert Owen had formed a peculiar opinion on the education of the people and against
the opinion of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who taught: "Man is good, as it comes from the
hands of God," he asked this other: "Man is neither good nor evil at birth, he is the
plaything of the circumstances that surround him; he is bad, if bad, and good like this are
good. "

Were other reformers more or less driven by Christian principles, Owen was there
averse and only driven by a highly developed sense of philanthropy, he began to change
the living conditions in the firm belief that it would be an end to the brutality of the workers.

He began by putting an end to two abuses, namely the inclusion of children from the
so-called charitable institutions and then limit the child itself. He first proposed the age of
children stuck on eight years later at 10 years, a reminder of his own life since he began
his career at the age of 10. He connected more productive labor with education and youth
education.

He founded kindergartens, he first, and tried to realize his educational ideas, which
were based on a rejection of the wage and punishment method and working on the
ambition of the children. He wanted the children escape as soon as possible to the homes
of the parents to provide them with a clean environment, where they are from stage to
stage, from class to class would be taught and educated. He closed the bars on his
property, improved housing and promoted purity and cleanliness in and around the
houses. He held talks among his workmen and all he experienced just them and their
wives much resistance, this did not deter him. He took care of flowers in the working-
class, again he, the forerunner of the later Floralia, but also before, that the women were
eating better and cheaper prepared. A large warehouse, he founded to save big and then
make everything available at cheap price. He was the father of the cooperative! He
performed a normal working day in 10 hours and thus the predecessor of the normal
working day. Averse to the intervention of the legal authorities, he made sure that the
workers themselves exercising their own judiciary and thus he put an end to the small and
large thefts, which occurred frequently. He brought the workers so far as to afzonderden
one-sixth of their salary for health insurance, which also took care of the infirm and the
elderly, but he did so under their own management.

He worked for nine years. But there arose opposition to his plans among the lenders,
although they had no reason to complain, because they regularly had their interest at 5%
and also as excess profits at that time a sum equal standing to the amount of the rate
which they had bought everything . It was called Owen was more philanthropist than
industrial. Therefore, Owen bought them for 84,000 pounds sterling (more than one
million guilders). He received difference and the case was sold publicly with his new
companions. How strange it all looked up when Owen purchased the case for 114,000
pounds sterling (almost 14 tons)! Now he was free to realize his ideas, to show how doing
so for the benefit of the entrepreneurs in good leadership entailed a significant concern for
the workers. He would show that the character of and not by formed the individual and the
society had it in her hand to benefit a permanent crease in all upcoming generations. New
Lanark was to become a model institution, which would stretch as an example for the
whole world.

In all, he was ahead of his time and no reform in the later time if it is found back at
Owen. He was the man who according to Quack:
1 . first started with good nursery schools;
2 . did sharper adopt prohibitions against child labor in the factories;
3 , the requirement of a normal working 8 to 10 hours understood and applied to its staff;
4 . the moral obligation of the pattern feel to care for the workers as a family and not
immediately dismiss them in times of crisis;
5 . agricultural colonies looked good against pauperism;
6 . organized the cooperative idea for the workmen.

In 1819 he opened a communal kitchen and dining room in addition to reading room
and library. He himself kept repeatedly lectures. His name was mentioned everywhere
and often praised. From all parts of the world, visitors showed up, sometimes 2,000 a year
to consider Owen's model device.

What could be called strange was that the man who inaugurated the doctrine that man
was the product of circumstances, hoped that the princes and nobles of this immoral
world would set by peaceful means at the cutting edge of social reform.

Again he got to do with opposition. Not for monetary reasons but to issues of principle,
since the religious lenders were unable to unite with his anti-religious doctrines and
institutions. Result was that he managed the business after 25 years to have retreated
from it.

He had bigger plans in the head and hoped to be able to gain wider publicity for his
ideas. He would become a world reformer.

And now admire him hit into opposition. Previously regarded as a philanthropist he tried
his communist doctrine to put into practice. Though he knew beforehand, remove the
hatred of the whole world on the neck, yet he went on to the three obstacles in the way of
social reform: private property, religion and the modern marriage from the road holds. The
men of the government of the Church and of the immoral morality conspired henceforth
together against him.

Had he already been made in 1815 on the dangers of the cotton industry for the
population, the excessively long working day, on the abuse of child labor, on the fateful
influence of the pubs etc., in 1817 he explained his proposal to improve the situation,
developed in the report to the committee of the association to hulpbetoon to the working
poor, over to parliament. The goal was the creation of what was later called "the
parallelograms."

He wanted to connect rural life and industry together and therefore he proposed around
1200 to unite the unemployed into one large settlement in the country. If one then 1,000 to
1,500 acres of land had, one was showing a large square (parallelogram) to build houses
with a large square between the four built-up sides that courtyard three large public
buildings were built, the middle contains the kitchen, ovens and dining rooms, a right
building for nursery, reading and church, left the school for older children, library and
meeting room. Of the square should be set three sides for housing, especially for married
couples - each property, based on man, woman and two children, must contain four
rooms - and the fourth for beds for all the children above the figure of two per family or
above 3 years old. On the space of the square are flowers and trees planted and allowed
to play and relax. In the middle of each of the four sides of the square stands a slightly
bigger house for administration, schoolteachers, doctors, nurses for the children, a
hospital for the sick, a guest house for visitors and a warehouse for the stock. Extend
beyond the gardens, fields and farmland from. At a distance rise factories and workshops
with stables and slaughterhouse, sheds for washing and bleaching and more removed
some countries do with all that is needed for crops and livestock. He believed that each
branch requires 96,000 pounds and if the land was leased 60,000 pounds sterling, but it
was a national work and the state could give advance, particularly since the Poor Law
then much less necessary.

In London he held speeches about the "villages of unity and cooperation," but there he
called religion the worst enemy of humanity and this view made him many enemies.

Had Saint-Simon in 1814 sent his sketch of the reorganization of Europe to Emperor
Alexander, the founder of the Holy Alliance, Owen addressed directly to the congress in
Aachen in 1818. But in both cases they took no note of it.

More and more, the cooperative became his password, but cooperative meant for him a
general scheme of human society to their mutual benefit of all.

At that time also had the great debates, of which John Stuart Mill mentions in his
autobiography and which he took a lively share with his young friends.

has mentioned how he acted opposite Malthus also to show that the main problem did
not exist in the reduction of the population, but in making the necessary rational social
arrangements, in order to allocate resources properly to. He harbored no fear of
overpopulation and consisted it here and there, then they must be attributed to the
blindness of the government, which it did not understand to design a social arrangement
which prosperity was assured to all.

A rich nobleman in Ireland, John Scott Vandeleur generated by Owens nominations,

took in 1830 on his estate to rahaline a trial, which lasted three and a half years and
actually succeeded beautifully. Nevertheless, the experiment collapsed, but not because
of poor results but because Vandeleur lost all his possessions.

Another experiment proposed by a country gentleman Hamilton in Scotland, did not

come into effect. Owen also wanted none of it when he saw that they had intended to set
up a penal colony.

Abram Combe, after a visit to New Lanark also a follower of Owen and founded
Orbiston, a fixture in the minds of Owen not far from Glasgow, but the designer, who on
March 18, 1826 everything began to focus on already died on August 11 in 1827 and then
the entire device was sold.

Owen put his faith in America and he bought a property of 20,000 acres, owned by a
German colony of followers of Father Rapp and opened his settlement at New Harmony in
April 1825. All sorts of people came forward to go with him and Owen took but everyone,
without choice or distinction. However, one should not forget that Owen was virtually
dictator. Soon there was division, Owen distracted by founding affiliate associations, so
that New Harmony in 1827 had become a central village surrounded by eight more or less
independent colonies.

For a moment it seemed averted the storm, but he had to encounter with regret that the
individual principle again and again emerged, and in 1828 he returned to England after he
had surrendered the land and land to the Wabash to his sons, at the ensuring an annual
rate of about f 3750.

In 1830 he moved to London where he soon went lectures in the hall Sans-Souci, and
he became a popular leader in a certain sense. His opposition to religion, which remained,
giving rise to fight him and discredit.

Owen had given impetus to the cooperative, he suggested to adopt another means of
exchange as money, greenback, representing no money, but the correct value of the
goods, because labor was the sole standard of value. In 1832 he opened a reading room
in Gray's Inn Road and established a labor market, the "Equitable Labour Exchange". In
the beginning was the best thing, because it was found in the first weeks of 1833, which
eg. On Saturday, January 12th the amount of the deposits was 6915 hours, while the
exchanges amounted to 5850 hours. The owner of the room, seeing how flourished case,
wanted to take her and Owen said the use of the premises, and then made these
protests, he was put on the street with his entire stock. Also began to emerge doubt the
soundness among the working public, and he was soon forced to give up the case, ornate
yet with plenty of blame. The connection of the cooperatives with the labor exchange and
the new measuring equipment worked so detrimental to the cooperative movement, which
of the hundreds of companies of this nature only four were over after a few years,
languishing slowly.

Although Owen averse was politics, and even would have cost the whole parliamentary
system to an enlightened despotism, as it is social reform but attracted, he still had some
points of contact with the great popular movements of those days in which the political
role played, if only as a means to obtain a better social relationship for the workman. So
he came into relation with the trade unions, as well as the Chartists. In 1835 he founded
the Association of all Classes of all Nations (Association of all classes of all nations); with
zeal, he threw himself back on this case and to many he was known as "social father". He
started a magazine The new moral world (the new moral world), and he knew there was a
proposal by getting in 1839 to establish a "community" on an estate in the county of
Hants. Though already old, he campaigned with the enthusiasm of a young man and he
tirelessly traveled hither and thither, visited France, Germany, Switzerland. The estate
where they settled, the Tytherly called Community, also called Queenswood. The building,
which was erected there, was baptized with the name of Harmony Hall in memory of
America. But again arose disagreements and some believed that Owen led the downfall
of the business. In 1844 he was replaced as governor by a certain Buxton, but already in
1845 it appeared that the case could not save and the "dream of the future, which had
begun as an idyll of love and peace, finished in common, violence, acid contention.
" Owen was again a trip to America, but returning to England he soon found that except
for a small circle of supporters, no one was watching more of him.

His main work is titled The new moral world , in which he summarized his ideas into a
system, and although this book some disappointing as Professor. Quack, we must admit
that few books left such an impression on us as correct that. As a consequence, the
combination and the clarity of his ideas show the comprehensive of its spirit and there is
hardly any question of the new time or has been touched by him. But his violent
crackdown on religion and marriage were never forgive him. The first place he knew in
this work to the education and it is amazing to us becoming the Owen name in the world
of education so little is known, while providing numerous reforms in the field of education
and upbringing can be returned to him.

Human nature is composed according to him, from 1st. animal propensities (need for
food, sleep, sexual intercourse); 2 . intellectual faculties and 3 . moral qualities. In
essence, each of these are united to varying degrees, hence the variety of the
individuals. Only then man will be happy, if there is harmony between these three
parts. To this end, it is necessary that the man learns to know the science of the influence
of the conditions on the human nature. Because this harmony is found so little that the
finest feel successors suffer the most and have suffered the imbalances of society. The
strong ruled over the weak and enslaved them. The distribution of tyrants and slaves
brought a classification society which is annoying in the way. As long as the people are
divided into masters and servants, sovereigns and subjects, tyrants and slaves, servants
and serve under him, so long as ignorance and misery will not go away. Only the
knowledge of human nature and society can bring improvement. Man is a social being
and all anti-social feelings must be destroyed in order to connect him with his
fellows. Until now, the society was in chaos, a scene of disorder and disharmony, man is a
being isolated that his mind only focuses on petty selfishness.

The conditions of happiness are:

1 . possession of a good organization, physically, mentally and morally;

 2 . the ability to provide pleasure, necessary to maintain healthy his organization;

3 . on the education of the birth;

4 . the means to continuously promote the happiness of our fellow men;

5 . the means to continuously increase its knowledge;

6 . the ability to unite with those to whom we feel most attracted;

7 . the means to travel with pleasure;

8 . the absence of superstition, supernatural death and fear;

9 . full freedom to express his views on all issues;

10 . individual freedom of action as long as the salvation of society permits;

11 . a character formed to speak the truth in love to the feelings of others;

12 . to live in society, whose laws are properly managed in accordance with those of
human nature;

13 . the knowledge that all who live so happy, as their nature allows.

He lists the settings that are founded on error and also place the institutions necessary
for happiness.

based on error:

1 . the so-called religions of the world;

2 . the governments of the world under any name and form;

3 . the civil and military relations with all countries;

4 . The measurement systems of all peoples;

5 . the way of building and selling at great profit;

6 . practices which create differences in the lives of civilian and military personnel,
individual and national character;

7 . the present mode of production and allocation of resources;

8 . the present method of character formation of man;

9 . the practice of violence and deception that prevails in every part of life;
 10 . the practice of individual interest and general divisions;

11 . Domestic several families;

12 . the education of women as slaves of the family instead of companions;

13 . artificial and indissoluble marriage;

14 . the system of fraud and forgery;

15 . the system of unequal education;

16 . the system of oppression of the weak by the strong;

17 . impose unequal burdens on the people,

18 . the system of production of lesser prosperity if it is more economical and more

desirable.

In contrast, he wishes to be asked:

1 . that the knowledge and experience of the human race should be directed and
concentrated so that a proper direction is given to all powers;

2 . that those powers are concentrated in order to bring prosperity as much as

possible with as little labor as possible and in the shortest possible time with the least use
of capital and the most beneficial for all;

3 . which all rational beings may be in feeling, thinking and doing, brought up from
birth in the same manner and under conditions, which are all good;

4 . that welfare is distributed in the most advantageous manner for all;

5 . which is there ruled as little as possible;

6 . that education will be as completely as possible, as the combined resources and

expertise allow and that the only distribution will be coming to the age, serving in youth,
producing and distributing company in adulthood, controlling and profiting in later life;

7 . that both sexes have equal education and equal rights, women companions of
men. The children raised together as children of one family, the human family;

8 . only truth spoken word, look and act without mystery, without fear of people or
without error;

9 . that general peace will exist and then use all the power to prevent war;

10 . that no taxes are levied but all expenses are borne out of the common stock.
 A rational society should include the production , the distribution , the formation of
character and governance .

Its goal should essentially in the shortest possible time with the least labor and
capital to produce the greatest prosperity for all, to distribute that wealth on the all
advantageous manner, to form characters that individuality comes into its own, to to
guarantee everyone the most possible happiness, to form a harmonious whole of each
small circle to the size circles out there in the world. Nobody has so strongly emphasized
and the influence of the designated education as Owen did [63] . The man, born helpless
and ignorant, which will create the external conditions of his. No child has the power to
decide when or where it will be born, who will be his parents, what religion he is, what
customs and manners given him. Each individual is organized so that it is susceptible to
both real ideas as false representations. The child is placed in unfavorable circumstances,
there is every chance that it gets a bad character; it has a good natural ability and be
placed in adverse conditions, so it neutralizes the other, then it becomes a mediocre
character; and amidst the laws, institutions and practices which lives in accordance with
the laws of his nature, the conditions exist to form an exalted character. The difference
between the people do not exist by , but for the people through anterior conditions. This is
devastating for all pride and vanity, no one will think more of themselves than others,
regardless of color, language and religion as the basis for a good ethics will be laid by
developing universal love for all. The main principle must be that no one has the right to
demand that someone do for him, what he does not want to perform for another. The only
classification, which he thinks rationally, based on the age.

Owen people so classified by the age of eight classes:

1 . from birth to the end of the fifth year. After nursing the children in nurseries and
kindergartens in education;

2 . end of 5 to 10 years. From 5 to 7 years of education at the nursery school with

physical and mental development; on the 8th year begins work in the house and garden to
be attached to it;

3 . 10 to 15. For the 12th year, the older the work of the working young people to
examine and begins on the 13th year in agriculture and industry;

4 . from 15 to 20, the development of sex life of freedom by a healthy ratio of the
genera to each other;

5 . from 20 to 25 years. The people at that age are supervisors and managers in every
branch of production and upbringing. Through the first five classes has done enough to
produce wealth and quite a character;

6 . from 25 to 30 years. This class must retain the acquired assets and regulate the
distribution. With effective devices is 2 hours daily work enough to fulfill this function;

7 . from 30 to 40 years. These are in charge of internal affairs;

 8 . from 40 to 60 years. The class of the elders who comes between them in case of
disputes and bring the relations to the outside in order.

Over 60 years of belonging to no class anymore.

Is he still in law, these apply to the transition period, because once the reorganization of
society ready and founded on truth and nature, all laws are unnecessary. He wants
freedom of conscience, religion and thought. Then he discusses the system of
maintenance and life law, education, upbringing and marriage. On settlement of the
community he puts the disadvantages of private ownership by the collective states argues
that the working time of 4 hours is enough essence and finally discusses the management
of the new company. Especially the General Board, which must govern relations between
the communities, has to perform a clean job.

Owens hopes are pinned on a core of students, who will work to help prepare this
realm of peace and love.

When the revolution broke out in 1848 in Paris hastened the old Owen is there, and in
many small leaflets he drew emphasis on his teaching and he wanted to drive the first
political revolution in social waters. But his voice did not find much resonance.

Again, during the first major international exhibition in London, he was there to
distribute tracts in all his ideas in different languages. In 1852 he received a visit from
Cabet in his return from America. Finally Owen even fell into table dance and such
phenomena. His autobiography was published in two parts in the years 1857 and 1858.

At the first meeting of the Association for the promoting of social science (Association
for the promotion of social science) to Birmingham he spoke against setting penalties and
criminal justice in society. At the second meeting he tried to Liverpool still to speak but
could not. After a few weeks of illness to have been, he recovered and allowed himself
transported to his hometown. Restless as he was, he went to Liverpool, but immediately
afterwards he returned to Newtown, where he died in the presence of his eldest son.

What a rich and eventful life!

We fully share the view of Buckle in his History of Civilization , where it says: "We must
not judge a man for the errors which he commits, but the truths which he proposes. Most
of his errors were not his in reality. He inherited them from his predecessors, and if he
only has passed, we should rejoice rather than be dissatisfied that he is not all paved.
"(Part V p. 234). This general truth may well be applied to Owen.

Such a person has worked for others, as long as it was day, the affected Owen. And by
the name of "dreamer", the world he may be labeled has just received a powerful blow in
social direction by which dreamers. Socialism matured to science and standing on the
shoulders of such men will not be ungrateful to forget what it owes to these
predecessors. He had an immense faith in humanity and he never doubted the progress
of the human race despite falling and tripping. His doctrine of the influence of the
conditions on the formation of the character of the individual has become a cornerstone in
the later time of the scientific opinion and as Fourier he proved a great service to
humanity by highlighting the goals, which in the social development of the future can be
achieved by the reorganization of the municipality or the self-government of working
groups.

Fichte (1762-1814)

The fourth of the prophets was a man of theory par excellence, a lofty spirit, a professor
of philosophy, viz. Johann Gottlieb Fichte [64] . Shines its name in the world of
philosophy, it is either not either mentioned only in passing, when it comes to the words of
those who worked in the economic and socialist area. In its composition of state and
society he comes to conclusions to be welcome to the Socialists. Not that he do so was
because of his observations in the real world, the compassion for the poor toilers, not his
reflections on the right to philosophical position brought him there. What was possible in
France, it was, therefore, not yet in Germany. The French materialists could snatch the
feudal, clerical state at the seams, because it had developed together civil society, so that
they could grow up and live independently, but this was in Germany, so deep stabbing in
feudalism, impossible. Kant said in his famous design for the eternal peace: "The state
does not have as well as the ground on which he stands. It is an association of people,
about whom no one but they have to have self "and led logically conclude that the
constitution had to be republican, he knew no other means of the state, which was the
substance of despots, to into a republic than the moral progress of the human race and so
their hints were harmless speculations.

Kant wrote: "The formation of a state (civitas) can either to the distinction of persons,
who have the highest power, either in the form of government of the people by his chief,
he may sense who he wants to be classified; the first is actually the kind of control and
there are only three kinds are possible, either one person or only among themselves, or
all together, which make up civil society, have the rule (autocracy, aristocracy and
democracy, principalities, nobility and people's rule). The second is the form of
government and refers to the way in which the State exercises his absolute power, held
on the constitution (the act of the general will, so that the mass is a people) and in this
respect either republican or despotic. Republicanism is the state principle of the
separation of the executive from the legislature; despotism is that of arbitrary execution by
the state of laws which he has given himself, as well as the public will, to the extent that it
is maintained by the regent wants as are private.

Among the three forms of government is that of democracy in the true sense of the
word, necessarily a despotism, because she was the executive authority foundation, it's
all about, and in any case too at a single (that does not comply with it), so by all who yet
not all, make a decision; which is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with
freedom. "

In a second document Understanding of a general history in the sense of global

citizenship , he sketches the lines of the evolution of the human race. He believes that the
struggle of passions, desires and vanities, selfish pretensions will be born the regular
social order to arrive at the moral ideal: a civil society on the basis of law.

Among Kant's pupils was one endowed with brilliant gifts, which came to Knigsberg in
1791 to put himself at the feet of the master. It was Fichte. Born of poor parents - his
father was a simple weaver - developed this early stage great gifts, so that a nobleman
from the neighborhood cared his fate and took care of his education. But he died when
Fichte was 12 years old. Meanwhile, he received a good education and went to Jena and
Leipzig to study for the ministry. He had a hard life, because he had to give lessons to
earn a living. Thus he became governor of children in Zurich, later in Warsaw until he
succeeded to go to Knig Mountains and there to attend the lessons of Kant. By Kant's
fault, he gave his first essay in which he was received directly name among the scholars
and although he, thanks to Kant, a government site in Danzig, he gave this soon to go to
Zurich and to take lectures. Carried away by the spirit of the French Revolution, which he
sympathized, he gave an anonymous pamphlet, in which he insisted on the return
requirements of the freedom of thought of the princes of Europe, its oppressed. Each
monarch is for him a tyrant and when he advises his hearers not to hate the princes, then
the previously alleged motive not exactly flattering to the princes. He says, viz .: "Hate
your princes, yourself must hate you. One of the main sources nevertheless out of your
misery that you from them and have their helpers too high ideas ... this can ye do indeed
assume that they what they should know their own destiny, human value and rights, know
less than the least developed among yourselves. "

More importantly, a second document, also published anonymously,

entitled Contribution to informing the judgment of the public about the French
Revolution . He saw in this revolution a challenging dawn, when the full day would
follow. The revolution is for him nothing but the cancellation of a treaty signed by people to
enter into a state to base in order to another and such an act is always lawful. Our
property does not become law because the state guaranteed us, but the state is only
there to educate us to freedom. The origin of the property lies only in the power to exclude
any other person from using a case that we have obtained from our forces. On some
matter nobody has a right to property. On the raw material of which God alone is the
owner, we only have a right of appropriation. This appropriation law so there is no
state. Not everything that has taken possession, but the individuals. The state only helps
to obtain ownership. As eg. By the law of succession . Actually, the whole of mankind is
the rightful owner of any dead, because everyone has the unrestricted right of
appropriation of property of a deceased, except that each of them can take the goods out
of his parents' house.

Also in the contract, the state aid. The state is not the origin, the source of our rights,
but he helps only here and there. One must also distinguish between state and
society. And now it is clear in that the treaty entered into to establish a state, can destroy
again and thus the right of revolution is fixed. For him it is fundamental that all the
essential must have for life. So, by a former treaty, one of us is unable to obtain it, it was
such a treaty be broken invalid and it should without any compensation. Until there is only
one man, who, as a result of such an agreement is impossible, the indispensable by his
labor to get, to be cut ruthlessly wealth of others. "The statement is certainly indisputable
that someone who does not work, neither shall he eat; but annoying in the extreme would
it be if only he who worked, or would not eat, either with oneetbaarste would have to feed.
"All this shows that Fichte felt the social issue was important and that" the issue the
distribution of wealth gained greater proportion than the contentious issue of political
balance. "

In 1793 he was appointed professor at Jena and great was the ascent, which he made,
and in 1796 he gave his Grundlage des Naturrechts nach Principien of
Wissenschaftslehre (Basis of natural law according to the principles of the philosophy of
science), in which he was the theory of Convention implements in all its
consequences. He likes to speak of foolish rebellion, applied to the people, for the people
is the supreme power, and so how can rise up the people against themselves? The State
Treaty is said to consist of three agreements: 1 . owned Convention; 2 . the protection
treaty and 3 . the union treaty. In the property convention, he sets the leather on, that the
purpose of the property is to ensure the life of all. In a speech on the state being built, any
of his work live. The state must intervene positively to all to ensure the livelihood, he must
ensure that there are no idlers, but also ensure that all have work. To this end he wants a
classification based upon the old guild system, but even more extensive. On the ground,
he does not allow actually said property, only the right to cultivate a piece of land; nor
recognizes the right of children to any inheritance.

Or is he to his ideas or for other disputes, sometimes with the church authorities and
then with the students compounds had resigned, we do not know, but that was the end of
the song, he lost his job in 1799 and to Berlin went.

There appeared in 1800 his major work on this subject, viz. Der geschloszne
Commercial State (Closed Commercial State), dedicated to the Russian Minister von
Struensee who NB found that Fichte drew up the ideal of a city, to which each state
servant who participates in the administration should seek, though it is doubtful whether it
will ever be achieved.

He begins this writing says: "There's a lot of people living together in the same
circle. Any moves in it and seeks to free his food and enjoyment. One enters the other in
the way, get what builds another, destroys or uses for itself, which it charged; the other
does the same on his part and if everyone in front of everyone. Of morality, fairness and
the like can not be discussed here, because we are in the area of legal doctrine. However,
the legal concept does not apply in the ratios described above. Undoubtedly, the soil will
tread, the tree is deprived of its fruits, not engage in a legal battle with the man who did
this. however took a different man, what ground he could argue for it, not any other
similarly enter the same soil or fruit from the same tree may not also take as himself? "

Now one concludes a treaty and the treaty creating the property. Originally did so all the
same right and just because everyone else from doing something away as a result of my
desire to keep it for me, it is my property. It is the state, which brings an unlimited amount
of people to a closed whole, a unity.
 The goal of all human work is to live; then all have an equal claim and thus the
distribution of such goods must take place that everyone can exist there. Live and let
live! Everyone wants to enrich lives and distribution must take place such that each and
everyone may as enjoyable life. The portion attributable everyone is legally his and
purpose of the state should be to help each to his own. For now seize the classification of
human endeavor to do the best place, he groups them into three parts: 1 . the cultivators
of the soil, one might call them producers; 2 . industrialists who edit everything; 3 , the
merchants who provide for the exchange of products. Each of these is further
subdivided. And the state by controlling the agreements of classes and professions
regulates the working life of a nation, labor organizing in all its ramifications. Now it must
first ensure the indispensable. First food, then sweeten or art. "First of all need to have
enough and a permanent residence, before someone decorates his house, first all go well
and warmly dressed, before someone dresses beautifully. It is wrong that a person can
pay the ontbeerlijke, while one of his fellow citizens can not find necessity. "

Now is the vocation of the state to maintain balance among all citizens: were fixed
certain amount, the determination of the number of people in an industry, everything is
precisely controlled by the state. One person inside the circle would break the
organization and therefore the transactions with foreign countries to the citizens must be
banned, the state should be completely closed; it only ensures the exchange with foreign
countries as it only creates war and peace.

And within that state rests everything on division of labor. The employment must be
art. "Man must work, but not as an animal, that sinks to sleep under his burden, and after
alleronontbeerlijkste rest of the depleted forces made again wakes to bear, the same
burden. No, the man has no fear, no work with pleasure and joy, and have time to focus
his mind and eye to heaven, until he formed whose sight. He should not eat together with
his beast of burden; its grain must be of the food, are of the stable property from that of
which likewise distinguished, as are physique is different from that of the beast. That is his
right and it therefore, because he happens to be human. "

Fichte brings out his work organization closely connected with his own theory. Because
"what would be the sole property of the non-farmers, manufacturers, merchants, when
their only property have ceded the land to the farmers? Clearly only the certainty that they
would ever find work or marketing their wares. "

Claiming that everything will go without saying that everyone will always find work and
bread, and then only to arrive at the accident that eight Fichte an untenable position. The
state can only, and therefore the scheme, based on reason, take in hand.

In the second book he gives a lot of history to show that represented pope and emperor
ideas of unity, but winning the field of Roman law and notions and especially the reform of
the 16th century brought separation between peoples. A war between buyers and sellers
anarchy reigns in traffic and an endless war of all against all, manifests itself in
increasingly. When they got mercantilism [65] , where each state above all seeks its own
advantage. There is more emphasis on the interests of the state treasury, than that of the
citizens, but remained all the disadvantages of the anarchic free trade existed.
 Finally he lays down the rules to which trade must be arranged in the third book, which
is based on reason. This is the political part, and covers the method of closing the trade
stands. A state socialism at its best . Everything is so regulated that it is even forbidden to
travel abroad, because the curiosity out of boredom and the desire for diversion should no
longer be stirred. Only the scholars and practitioners of the higher arts, having been given
leave.

Being able enough or get everyone, but everything is locked into a fixed harness,
allowing freedom of movement can be no question.

Fichte himself considered it one of his best writings. But soon he got other jobs, and as
a professor in Berlin, he founded his Patriotic Reason an die deutsche Nation (Speech to
the German people), at jare 1808. "In it, he calls as the resort in a national education of
the state and the lever to lift up Germany. The country took him completely. In 1814 he
died, without further have moved in this area.

Oddly may certainly be called that Lassalle felt obviously strongly attracted to Fichte,
and took two occasions to give the word about him, once a letter, Fichte politisches
Vermchtniss (Fichte's political will), and once to an official address keep the philosophy
of Fichte and the importance of it for the German national spirit. Or was it just the national
consciousness, the rave with the unity of Germany, which is such an attraction exerted on
him?

The legacy of social preparers

Gave the French revolution in 1789 and 1793 of the Declaration of Independence of the
United States, a political program in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen a few general propositions as the beginning, our preparers left a whole social
program in the world after as their inheritance. They gave the slogans and demands
which about 1830 and then were placed in the foreground at volksberoeringen. And we
can not do better than to listen to prof. Quack, where those requirements very peculiar
calls the new twelve commandments "first soft and dull mumbled through all deprived
people in Europe, which will be pronounced later louder."

He gives the following

Declaration of Human Rights.

Art. 1. All people have a right to live.

"2. They may claim compensation from the nature of goods taken by some in possession.
"3. They have a right to work.
"4. They demand appreciation of that work, as living manifestation of man.
"5. The time of their required daily work must be reduced to a set number of hours.
"6. They must be able to count on to protect their women and children, when they are put
to work.
"7. They are entitled to decent housing.
"8. They have a right to the full proceeds of their labor.
"9. They have a right to quality free education.
"10. They seek agreement from the state and legal concepts with the construction and
assembly of the society.
"11. They must produce a religion of brotherhood.
"12. They must be granted and guaranteed the privilege of the community in all its forms
and manifestations.

Now compare these commandments with the programs of the present social
democratic parties in the various countries and we will see how powerful the flow of ideas,
donated by the men of the world, has nagewerkt.

We continue to follow shortly neat explanation of these points, as they passed by

Quack is so right.

The first article contains the requirement that each man by his birth has the right to life
and therefore the means by which one lives. This recognition was necessary because it
was widely used in the old system, the theory of the French nobleman, a poor wretch who
begged alms with the words: "I have to live," replied: "I see the not of necessity in ". It was
that Malthus, sometimes referred to as one of the four evangelists of the economy (Adam
Smith, Say, Ricardo and Malthus) had donated to this teaching a formula whose meaning
until now accepted by many. It ran thus: "A man who is born into the world, which is
divided already as ownership, if he can not obtain relief from parents or family, and when
his work is not requested by the company, no claim or right on the smallest piece of
food. He actually has nothing to do, wherever he is. At the grand celebration banquet of
nature is there for him no secured place. Nature commands him to leave and will soon
implement its own command. "

This Christian cleric denies thus the right to life to those who have nothing and looming
them short and well to death. And he puts this teaching in an academic gown, which,
however, so full of holes and cracks that there is no need to a lot of ingenuity in order to
discover the falsity of. On the basis of Goodwin and others argued the socialists that
better distribution of natural gifts for everyone had the necessary sustenance and could
be found. Grasping the capitalists eagerly Malthusian doctrine as a welcome argument in
defense of their existence and behavior, the Socialists presented themselves diametrically
opposite. The population problem, insoluble for the former without a removal of the
redundant components, supposedly carried out by nature but in truth by the laws of
human society, took with them his solution in a better distribution of natural gifts.

In addition, they wanted to see followed the rule that every first would be necessary,
before had another opulence. Owen spoke of duty, babes or unfit could assert to the work
when it came to the maintenance of life and limb. He alluded to what Condorcet and
others to ensure the worker in case of illness, accident or old age, in the middle
spent. And all, especially Saint-Simon, they did come to a rational division of labor each
could exist without charity and poor relief.

As to the second article, the savages were in relation to the growing lush nature four
rights: picking fruit, grazing livestock, fishing and hunting. Now when these rights have
been taken away from "civilization", the people had as compensation the right to a decent
minimum of food, clothing and housing. Instead, they gave them the ridiculous privilege to
be allowed to live under a constitution or the phantom of political liberty. As if that freedom
was worth anything without the guarantee of the minimum! The disinherited are entitled to
an equivalent for the looting of their natural rights and it is the socialists who demand that
this injustice will be restored.

Thus they demand the right to work, already granted by Turgot to all people in
1776. Both Fichte as Fourier put them focus and Owen describes it right down to its
components. In the old English Poor Law of 1601 under Queen Elizabeth as well as in the
constitution of the French Convention in June 1793, but especially in terms of the
Prussian land law of February 5, 1794, where it is said: "It is the duty of the able to
maintain and ensure the care of the citizens, who can not support themselves; their,
whose only resources and the opportunity to earn the maintenance is lacking, need work,
corresponding to their strength and fitness, designated "This right is recognized in the
theory. The state should complement, and private entrepreneurs lead or may not work.

Thereby came into art. 4 in that human labor is not like an ordinary commodity, subject
to the law of supply and demand, but wished to be considered, because then the workers
were not much better than additives and appendages of the machines, which was
humiliating for man.

The worker could be any animal work (art. 5), and hence working had to be regulated
properly. Especially Owen explained this emphasis, he wanted the right to rest beside the
right to work. They also demanded protection for women and children (art. 6), with which
one has just begun, when the brutalization caused by the work of women and children
among the working population, was dangerous to society. Of course this is the
requirement of a good home (art. 7) and are above Fourier and Owen, who understood
the connection between prosperity and good housing. They, constituted their Phalanstre
or Paralellogrammen and they strove to make the homes to magical palaces, sufficient
both to the demands of convenience and comfort, as well as those of taste and
grace. Art. 8 they spoke right to the full proceeds of labor, and it was especially
Thompson, the pupil and friend of Owen, who can be called the father of the theory of
surplus value, which Marx paternity has wrongly appropriated. For the future generation
they demanded good and free education (art. 9), and no one put more emphasis on
education than these men. They continued, they wanted the states watching and making
sure they sent the eye of society. They came from that economically strong in the name of
freedom could destroy the economically weak. They pointed out how inconsistent the
state was where he used economically abstinence, while becoming the propertied classes
supported by his law books and favored in civil law. In the atmosphere of the property they
saw the state always act to strengthen the private property and protect. By that unilateral
bias of the laws they came. Already in 1812, Owen asked a code on labor, so already the
Socialists who in this respect deserves fatherhood. Since the abolition of the guilds was
broken all relation. No contract, no pupils contract, no association of workers who were
punished as a coalition or collusion. The so-called abstinence, which no withdrawal was
only a protection and favors the economically strong, was entirely in favor of the
owners. Across the doctrine of laissez-faire, laissez-aller (theory: let's go, let's blow) they
placed the intervention of the state.
 Fourier did that job for the state too much and wanted the leadership of all decentralize
again, to the municipality or phalanxes leave, but the leadership was assumed by him (art.
10). What they wanted was under some form of the devotion of the fraternity and it was
their religion (art. 11). Some like Saint-Simon spoke of a new Christianity. Facing the
devastating scope of the competition they placed the self-sacrificing principles of
brotherhood. Ultimately, however vague sometimes formulated, they all wanted an
organization of the community. Labor needed a collective character and the workers were
hitherto isolated, they were allowed to organize themselves and they worked as a
collective body, they would enjoy the benefits of labor concentration and harvest the fruits
of labor. So Owen worked for the cooperative idea and Fourier for the association, but
both wanted the same as Fichte with his modified restoration of the guild system. First by
the community to give her, should be considered as equality be promoted among the
people so that they really like brothers could live side by side.

_______________
[53] Quack, The Socialists, People and Systems.
[54] Papillone is the need for change, the word is derived from the butterfly, going from
flower to flower.
[55] Cabaliste is the need for noise, intrigue, emulation, which is now acting in
objectionable form, but resulted in a good bed, can work beneficial.
[56] Composite is the union of some pleasures of the senses or of the soul, together
tasted, which often leads to enthusiasm and unity.
[57] Later, he discovered a 5th in which he called l'aromal.
[58] Speculation in paper on the securities market.
[59] See here the table of ranks:

2,985,984
contr
unarchen 1 phalanx
ol
or barons

995 328
duarchen phalanx
3 or 4
or es
viscounts

248 832
triarchen 12
or dig

82 944
tetrarchen
48
or
awnings

20,786 144
pentarche
n or
 dukes

6912
hexarche
576
n or
caciqxes

1728
heptarche 1728
n or kings

576
oktarchen
6912
or
soudans

144
ennearch
20 736
en or
kaliven

48
dekarche
82944
n or
emperors

12
onzarche
248 832
n or
cesars

3
douzarch
995828
en or
illustrious

1 2,985,9
onaniarch 84

So an entire hierarchical device, resembling an army or the Catholic Church.

[60] See also the beautiful book by Victor Considerant: Thorie de l'ducation et naturelle
attrayante.
[61] One can easily understand how difficult it is to squeeze such a composite leather,
introduced in often faulty equipment and murky form, in a nutshell like this together. We
refer our readers who want to know more about other than work for Fourier himself, but
perhaps will deter them from books like: Fourier et son systme par mad. Gatti de
Gamond, Charles Fourier, sein Leben und pure Theories von A. Bebel, Fourier Oeuvres
choisies with a good introduction to Ch. Gide and Quack in his famous work.
[62] is for the knowledge of Robert Owen, besides his work, key his autobiography The
Life of Robert Owen written by himself with selections from his writings and
correspondence . A brief overview gives Liebknecht in his Robert Owen, sein Leben und
social-politisches Wirken . Also compare Quack, who treats him extensively.
[63] Compare also An outline of the system of education at New Lanark by Robert Dale
Owen , from which one can see all the latest ideas about pedagogy already been
discussed by Owen and partially applied. In teaching one always talks of Pestalozzi and
Froebel, but strangely enough, it fails to take note of the ideas of Fourier and Owen.
[64] It was a happy thought of Quack to give it a place of honor next to the other three,
utopians mentioned in all the books.
[65] Thus, we call the system, which is mainly applied in France Colbert (also called
Colbertism), under which it is believed that increasing the wealth of a country more one off
and less specific. This brings precious metals in the country and the more one possesses
it, the richer the country to be hot.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 13

Communists before 1848

It was Babeuf, who attempted after the actual end of the French Revolution to make her
fruitful for the whole nation. There was gradually a party arise, not wanting to see limited
changes to the political field, but it also wanted to apply in economic terms. What was
done for the poorer classes? Nothing. And therefore it finally showed no interest anymore,
because the fate of the poor among all the political state are kept as dark and just as
sad. Unlike the "patriots of 1789" they called themselves the "gaux" (matches).

Babeuf was the center of this circle.

About his life just this: he was born in 1762 in Saint Quentin in Picardy received a strict
upbringing from his father, a former soldier, and when he was grown up, he got a job with
the land register as a surveyor. Law clearly it is not what actually happened to him, for
although convicted forger as he lived as a free man in Paris. He was very poor and gave
include brochures, a republican calendar in 1793 out. Working as a writer in the office of
food he moved especially in the circle of Chaumette and his friends. Under Robespierre's
reign of terror he ran in prison and maybe he had when with so many suffered death,
were it not that he should appear to the revision of his trial before the judges of the
department de l'Aisme. Sints 1794 he gave a magazine Le tribun du Peuple (the People's
Friend) which he signed as Caius Gracchus. In it he brought out how Robespierre's fall
was all gone in the wrong direction, how they had done nothing, if one does not poverty
had overcome by eliminating the privileges of the rich. It was not long before the men of
Thermidor put him in prison, and see precisely this place and the touch that he had with
several men the reason was that his ideas matured and were certain. Among those men
belonged Darth and Buonarroti. When they were dismissed, they formed their own circle
that closely consecutive joined the club of the Panthon. Because of its sharp expressions
Babeuf had to keep hidden for a long time, until the club on February 28, 1796 was signed
by the Directory, which closure was done by General Bonaparte. The result was that
Babeuf with some friends formed themselves into a "secret" Directoire of general
welfare. If program suggested Sylvain Marchal a Manifesto of equals, in which they
demanded the communion of all goods, to obtain if necessary, by first destroying
everything. Instead, a manifesto was assumed, raised by Babeuf, which contained the
following items:
1 . Nature has given to all men an equal right to the enjoyment of all goods;
2 . The purpose of the society is to defend equality, which so often by the strong and
poor was attacked in the state of nature, and all cooperate to increase the common
enjoyments;
3 . Nature has imposed on any obligation to labor; Nobody without committing a crime,
can withdraw it;
4 . Labor and the enjoyment of life must be common;
5 . There is repression, as one exhausts his strength through work, while the other
bathes in abundance without labor;
6 . Nobody, without committing a crime, the goods of the earth or of the industry take
sole possession;
7 . In a true society should neither rich nor poor existence;
8 . The rich, who do not want to surrender their wealth in favor of the poor, are enemies
of the people;
9 . Nobody is allowed by the accumulation of all other foods rob the maintenance that is
necessary for his happiness: maintenance must be common;
10 . The aim of the revolution is to destroy inequality and the common good fortune to
foundations;
11 . The revolution has not ended, as long as the rich sip all goods, while the poor
working as a true slave, sighing in misery and nothing in the state.

They wanted to return to the Constitution of 1793 to build it. They brought a complete
organization of the new republic established. A national assembly consisting of one
Democrat department - they then had 97 departments - would be made, which the
preparatory work was done by secret Directoire. But they were disturbed in the execution
of their plans and captured by the treachery of one of the conspirators, some Grisel, the
main plotters on May 10, 1796 have been and then a lawsuit was started against them,
which ended with the sentencing to death of Babeuf and Darth for attempting to restore
the constitution of 1793, with exile of seven others, including Buanorotti and the acquittal
of 56 accused.

After the verdict Darth and Babeuf handles each a dagger to himself that stabbing in
the heart. However, it failed them to kill themselves, but the next day they climbed the
scaffold at a steady pace in order to find death (May 27, 1797).

How Babeuf was convinced of his principle is clear from the letter that he wrote the
night before his death to his wife: "I do not know how my memory will be appreciated,
although I think, to have worn me onberispelijkste manner .. . But do not think that I have
sacrificed for me the most beautiful thing I'm sorry ... it behooves the family of a martyr to
give the example of all virtues ... I knew no other way to make you happy, then the
common happiness ... Save my defense, it will always be dear to virtuous hearts and to
the friends of their country. The only good that you will keep me, that'll be my good name,
and I am sure that you and your children will be comforted by enjoying it. You'll find it
pleasant, all sensitive and hear righteous hearts tell your husband and father: he was
totally virtuous . "

Babeuf began his Manifesto with the quotation of Condorcet: "True equality is the
ultimate goal of social art", and called himself the equal of the first wish of nature. He was
not satisfied with a draw on paper, as was given in the Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of the Citizen, he wanted her in practice, under the roof of men. The French
Revolution was "merely the harbinger of another, much larger and more solemn
revolution, which will be the last. The people have walked on the body of kings and
priests, united against them, it will do it again from the new tyrants of political hypocrites,
seated at the place of the old. "The commons should be substantially while all have the
usufruct of the land. The only difference, he admits, is that of gender and age.

So it was communism, which was willed by him and his family, and in fact he drew the
conclusion from that which the revolution had wanted. Mirabeau still owned called the
creation of the society. It Robespierre led off the elimination of the inheritance, and
proclaimed a progressive income tax and right to work. St Just wanted abolition of
inheritance in the collateral line, deformation of the property and obtaining one large state-
owned. Eventually Babeuf drew the line to land with communism. When the fear of the
word communism sticking oddly out what the German philosopher Kirchmann, pointing to
the communist tendency of nature, which he calls the greatest Communist, said: "Nature
is not so fearful, she fears not only failed to word, but the case realized in a manner
whereby the extreme demands of Babeuf and his followers seem just child's play. "

Was thought to have slain communism through the elimination of its predecessors, this
soon proved to be a vain illusion. All kinds of clubs and secret societies formed under the
reign of the Bourbons. It was especially Buanorotti, who continued the work of Babeuf and
announced. The Socit des Droits de l'homme. (Society of Human Rights), which
churned forth ideas, and it was the babeuvisten, who understood that political democracy
was not the way to get to the greatest good and the most freedom. The brochure systme
politique et social des Egaux (Political and social system of equals), contained a
statement of Babeufs ideas, and apparently was the foundation of a communist state the
purpose of their efforts. It is a state communism, which is the sole owner, the sole trader
and the only distributor, so capable omnipotence to its logical conclusion. Every citizen is
actually official and the authority is there rife. No freedom of the press there is patience
and a kind of deism crowns everything.

In 1840 they made a program with a report, which says that immediately after the
victory will be located a triumvirate, not appointed by the vast majority of the people, but
by the builders of the uprising. This government will decree that every man has a right to
existence, that one must ban grain exports and master that one will abolish all taxes on
food and a ceiling for these items. The work should be organized. The government will,
warehouses furnish the supreme leadership of all companies for the supply and open
national workshops.

Among the men who exercised much influence on the course of events in France,
undoubtedly took Auguste Blanqui a prominent place. Of the 79 years (1804-1884) he
lived there he spent 37 in prison, and not unjustly, he is often represented as the type of
conspirator. He always believed that through a conspiracy of committed men, minorities,
the state could overthrow then to establish a new state on the basis of community and
justice. The authority naturally takes a big place in his system, because actually it's
already a communist state under the dictatorship of some predecessors. And such ideas
are encountered by his supporters, the Blanquists who still dream of a coup that will
suddenly make everything better.

Blanqui was a communist, as evidenced by his essay Le communism avenir de la

socit (Communism is the future of the company). However, he understands that
humanity can suddenly come to communism, that it is a result of previous development
and not "laid an egg and hatched in a corner of the human race by a bird on two legs
without feathers and without wings." civilization has to crown the community, and the
study of the past and present proof that any progress is a step in that
direction. Communism is not a utopia, it has no relationship with the three or four systems,
which is ready out of the great brains have come from some individuals, but will be the
result of normal development. Is not it strange that Saint-Simonists, Fourierists, positivists
declared war on the revolution and squats were all reactionary governments while
communism essence, the marrow of the revolution, the vanguard of democracy? He
expects everything from education. Ignorance and community are incompatible with each
other. General education without communism and communism without general education,
both are impossible. The man from the community it's not cheating, it does not. Each is an
ignorant dupe and a tool of deception, a serf and slave. The 1850 Clerical de
Montalembert said in the Legislative Body, "Two armies are advancing, the army of good
and evil. The army of the good consists of 40,000 priests; that the evil of 40,000 teachers.
"One sees that knowledge is the enemy of clericalism and there can be no progress
without knowledge, clericalism must be combated. Cesar, Shylock and Loyola, warrior,
priest and capitalist - there it triumvirate that dedicated to the addiction of mankind. What
should be done on the day of the revolution? After suddenly has no change. People and
things remain the same as the day before. Only hope and fear changed camp. The colors
are fallen, the nation is free and infinite face at that opens up for them. Common sense
should do follow two parallel paths, one leading to general education, the other to the
community. All obstacles must be removed. They are: the black army and the conspiracy
of capital. The first one sets the boundaries, capital flight or hiding, and so we must
prevent the disappearance of the impossible money and the property must be neighbors.

Here are the immediate measures to be taken:

In economic terms:
 1 . Command to all supervisors in trade and industry, on pain of exile, temporarily to
maintain their position, their staff and wages. The state will reach settlements with them. A
director will replace each cartridge, which is banned for refusing;

2 . Convening of meetings competent to settle the issue of import and export duties,
as well as the mines and the great freedom corporations, credit and swap;

3 . The meeting instructed to lay the foundations of the workers' associations.

In political terms:

1 . Abolition of the army and judiciary;

2 . Immediate dismissal of senior officials;

3 . Provisional enforcement of the lower ones;

4 . Expulsion of the black army of men and women;

5 . Confiscation of all movable and immovable property of the churches,

congregations of both sexes, as well as its "prte-nom" [66] ;

6 . Persecution against the serious enemies of the Republic for offenses prior to 1848;

7 . Destruction of any sale or mortgage, closed since then;

8 . Reorganization of the civil service personnel;

9 . No criminal code nor magistracy;

10 . Arbitration Courts in civil, juries in criminal cases;

11 . Penalties proportionate to the offense and always determined by the jury in

accordance with her conscience and without compulsory tariff, only for fixing the various
punishments;

12 . Formation of a national army resting;

13 . General reinforcement of the workers and of the republican population;

14 . No freedom left to the enemy.

In financial terms:

1 . Lifting of the ledger of the national debt;

2 . A commission for the regulation of the savings bank;

 3 . Replacement of all direct or indirect taxes by a direct, progressive tax on
inheritance and income.

Public education: establishment of a corps of teachers for higher, secondary and

primary education.

Government: Parisian dictatorship.

One can see that Blanqui wanted a state communism, at least in the transitional period,
and that he everything expected of Parisian dictatorship, if not a dictatorship, who also is
a despotism, and as if one could educate a people to freedom by despotism .

Although he had the motto: Ni Dieu ni matre (neither God nor master), he wanted to
start with the people to impose the dictatorship, without considering that once set to
dictatorship, she as soon not be put aside, for explaining the guardians of itself not as
soon empower their pupils. So he gets the mastery through the back door, after he had
spoken through the front door.

The essay in which he unfolded this idea, was written in 1869-70, and expresses the
inner thoughts of Blanqui out, so he deserves a place among the Communists.

Also Barbs, a noble figure, and Martin Bernard were among them.

Dezamy gave in his Code de la Communaut 1842 (Code of the community) a detailed
plan, in which square party was chosen atheism and materialism. New ideas of the Code
are not, but he stripped the Fourier system of all religious constituents. His system of
communism was built on the needs of the individual. He sums up his philosophy in a
nutshell thus: in the community is no God, only a single principle, and that is the material,
the active and passive, body and spirit. What is called spiritual life is a play of the
matter. Atoms move and do everything together. The inclinations of the people are neither
good nor bad, but they are either beneficial or detrimental to social cohesion, in which
they are placed. The whole of our passions as only agrees with the general interest, that
one is always obliged to do good in his own interest. Frankly it makes selfishness as the
basis of morality. In his Community belongs nothing individual to someone, everything is
one big common area, which one can get usufruct by labor. He divided the large
community into smaller, "communes", consisting of about 10,000 people, who live
together in one big palace and in the Phalanstre Fourier. The central management must
ensure that all municipalities have abundance. All products are available for everyone, he
can take out of the stock he needs. Each chooses the work he wants to perform. The
meals are shared, the system of Crete and Sparta must again be entered. He wants to
organize such work, he is varied, because simplicity works wrong. All kinds of inventions
will reduce the burden of labor and touching the dirty work that needs to be done, it is
done by turns, if it can not be otherwise. As for marriage, let men and women connect
with each other or separate from each other, as they wish, the community is one family,
the sexes are quite similar. The education of children is common place and the training to
work in it essentially. The highest value it attaches to hygiene laws. Hence he is
cremation. The state is for him the assembly of the communes. An electoral law means
nothing and universal suffrage will help nothing. The proletarians have to prepare for the
big day, when all rigged up artistic and political forms collapse. As regards matters of a
general nature, they are treated in a congress of the communes, which no delegates are
needed, but that all those who so wish, can participate. Each commune looks after her
own affairs and an annual national conference held in a pre-designated commune to treat
the affairs of a nation and finally there will be a great humanitarian occur congress, where
the common things of the globe.

Dezamy understands that such a major change can not happen in an instant, so he
speaks of a transition period in which the vaderlands- and marriage concept will be
modified and which are taken necessary measures in the interest of humanity. So all the
empty houses and deserted palaces could be given in use to the poor, that they may live
properly. His aim is to bring about a reconciliation between the freedom of the individual
and the demands of the community. In fact he has dealt with all the politics and he often
used this word, it is in another sense, viz. The leadership of labor, as management only.

He does not doubt, because he agrees with the words of Lamartine, "If a truth falls on
the earth, the people begin to curse her and stoned the man who brings her; they seize
this truth, which they did not kill him because she is immortal and it is their legacy. "

In many ways his counterpart still worked tienne Cabet same idea of communism
(1788-1856), who wrote not only a utopia in the year 1840, entitled Voyage en
Icarie (Travel in Ikari) but also sought to realize the plans of that book in America. He
sees the community as a general insurance or insurance of all for all. Subject to moderate
labor assures the community or community to everyone: education, education, the
prospect of being able to set up a household, food, clothing, housing, in a word,
everything.

"When we ask ourselves: what is your science? we reply: the brotherhood. What is your
principle? The brotherhood. What is your doctrine? The brotherhood. What's your
theory? The brotherhood. What is your system? The brotherhood. "

A worker boy Cabet was trained for teaching, but after he became assistant teacher,
succeeded him to study, initially in medicine and later in law. Once lawyer, he managed to
acquire soon name. But politics attracted him, and already under restoration, he played a
role, so it was after the July Revolution Attorney General. As a democrat, he was deputy
for the room. Came to Paris, he was part of the secret societies, repeatedly came into
contact with the law, especially since the publication of his paper, Le Populaire , and
finally guessed it was for him to flee. Arrived in London, there was a reverse with him
instead. He began to see that bringing democracy was impossible, what he was looking
for, viz. The welfare of the people. He taught the famous book by Thomas
Morus, Utopia know, and building on that basis, he hoped to give a solution of that great
problem. So he published his Journey in Ikari , a book, and in form and in influence
strongly reminiscent of the famous novel by state Morus. This book had great influence on
the people. In 1839 returned to Paris, and in contrast with Babeuf and Dezamy, he
accepted the violence off, who had just done the greatest harm to the communist
principle. He condemned the revolutionary attempts of Blanqui, Barbs and Bernard at
jare 1839. Gave Saint-Simon stuck his New Christianity , Cabet also wanted to connect
communism and religion together and wrote his True Christianity . Who wants to know his
teachings, must hear both brochures: How I am a Communist and my communist
creed and true to our method, to speak the authors prefer to self, because then the
greatest guarantee has their ideas good weather give their own meaning, we will apply it
here.

After a primary cause of all things, he called nature, has proposed, and has been
derived from nature that man on earth wants to be happy, he finds that ignorance is the
cause of his misfortune. "Started in a state of savagery, wrong mankind in ignorance, and
it is on them attributed that everywhere the right of life and death of the slave, women and
children, torture, superstition, religious persecution, positions and cabinets, privileges of
birth and remained at large disparity in law, education and power. "the social and political
organization is everywhere flawed, but humanity is too young yet, that this wonder
can. However, humans are reasonable, prone to perfection, and socializing. He shows to
be susceptible to development, so that he is now higher than before, and according to his
disposition living in association with others. Fraternity, love, devotion his natural instincts
in him, developed by reason and education and strengthened. All evil is to bring back the
wrong social and political organization, or as a result of the inequality that breeds
selfishness, hatred and envy.

Nature divides the people out of closets, classes, races, not lords and commanders,
who have all privileges, without bearing any burden and slaves was governed, arm and
bearing all expenses. The fraternity of men has equality as a result.

"I believe, says Cabet, that the diversity of growth, stature, strength and the like by no
means equal rights, duties, happiness closes out, nor the diversity of children prevents
them from equal claim to have the love of parents , nor the diversity among the citizens of
their equality before the law in the way.

I believe that the nature whatsoever is in the earth, created the whole human race,
everything is for all; that they meet all gave the same need, and therefore all have the
same rights to the resources intended to satisfy them and that when they had a
distribution of her estate among her children wanted, it to all equal parts according to the
needs of everyone would have been assigned. But I believe that she has never wanted
any distribution that it failed gave to all as common property, and all have equal right to
the earth and its productions, such as air, light, heat her entire inheritance.

I can not believe that nature gave man intellect, and created him as being sociable, so
that the mind and society would disturb the fraternal relationship and the equality of rights.

On the contrary, I believe they created him as an intelligent and sociable, prone to
perfection, so that mind and society would realize and perfect equality of happiness.

I believe that the introduction of social and political inequality has therefore only formed
upon all nations, since the human race began in overall rudeness and ignorance.
 I do not believe that the monarchical form of government the true and only cause of the
misfortune of the people, nor the republic simply true medicine - because history shows
us the accident in the republic as well as in monarchies.

I believe that inequality, which the minority wealth and dominion, giving misery and
oppression of the majority, the root cause of all evils of the rich, such as ambition, avarice
and stolidity and inhumanity - as well as the evils of the poor such as jealousy, envy,
hatred.

I believe it is also the cause of all enmity and jealousy, all the disorder and discord, of
all the crimes and misfortunes.

And I believe that these effects will last as long as those reasons exist and would
therefore be the only way to put an end to the misfortune of humanity: the replacement of
the aristocratic system, ie social and political inequality, the democracy, which is equality.

I believe that nature has given the earth to be held in common and undivided as well as
the air, the light, the heat; they only aimed at making a distribution for the products and
needs, is essential for the individual and the community is the natural system.

I believe the property is a purely human institution and invention.

I believe that this device could be only good and useful, as the earth among all people
was divided and each had an equal share, essentially inalienable.

I believe that the adoption of property ownership in almost all peoples in connection
with the inequality and alienated ability was a mistake and maybe the onzaligste of all
errors.

I believe that the unlimited property has promoted inequality of capabilities and has
become the main source of wealth and misery, of all evil and mischief.

I believe that this evil in its essence must survive essential and immutable, as long as
the property exists and that it is necessarily the cause must be removed in order to
suppress the effect.

I believe that one will have to edit the welfare of all in the place of the wealth of some
and the lack of the majority faith and whereas the natural community of goods with certain
completeness must be entered. "

And Cabet goes the community with respect to persons, property and industry after. He
wants to popular sovereignty, a constitution which decides all questions relative to food,
clothing, housing, marriage, family, education, labor, etc.

There will be allowed to do so far as they are established freedom in the community
that the law does not prohibit whatever they prescribe not. He believes that under the rule
of equality and community, coupled with good education and complete freedom of choice
of marriage is the most appropriate form of sexual relations between husband and
wife. He believes the life in the family corresponds to nature than separating children from
their parents. The education is the foundation of everything in the community. He wants to
make light work and enjoyable and that can by the use of the machines, now a curse but
a blessing in the community, so that man is not different from the driver of the
machines. All citizens must toil and every extent possible in this action, which attracts
him. Such a community will not be community of misery, on the contrary, community well-
being. He believes in it nor drunkards nor thieves nor the slothful shall be like that
processes and bankruptcies unknown that courts, punishment, prisons, gendarmes will be
unprofitable. The art will be in such a community to exercise its fullness.

With violence such a community can not be achieved, he believes that it can not take
place other than "by the power of public opinion, by the will of the people, by the consent
of all or at least the great majority, a word. the law "a parliamentary electoral reform
should precede as the means to get by peaceful means to the introduction of the
community, the ultimate goal of democracy. A transition period will be needed, in which all
steps are taken to increase the public or common property without raising the property, for
example. To abolish the law of succession in the air, to enter large companies and
communities, the organize labor, regulate wages, eliminate poverty and make the
common and free education generally.

To those principles has sought Cabet, when he responded to the desire of many to
such Ikari, as he had signed the joint, to edify. On February 8, 1848 were 69 emigrants
to America as the vanguard of a Ikarian colony, which Cabet dictator was appointed for 10
years.

The first disappointment they experienced already when they arrive in New Orleans on
March 27, when they learned that Louis Philippe was chased and brought the republic in
France. Many who wish to have it, were now restrained, so that the second consignment
on June 3 only consisted of 19 people. Still left a four hundred and Cabet himself left
France on December 15th. In 1849, 480 were so Ikarirs led by Cabet in New Orleans
with 86,000 francs and living in two sizes stone houses. There was disagreement and
Cabet was glad to get rid of 200 supporters fee of 30,000 francs. The 280 survivors pulled
with Cabet Mississippi, because he was lucky enough to buy the settlement of Mormons
in Nauvoo. The goal was there to found an agricultural colony, it failed because it could
not get any land in that region. One part was the daughter colony to Iowa in 1852 and
3115 there was acres of land. However Cabet was appointed dictator, but he would not,
he gave a constitution under which the board relied in the hands of six directors, while the
General Assembly, which met every Saturday, had all the power.

Cabet had to return to France to purify itself from the blame of fraud, because, he was
accused, so therefore even sentenced to two years imprisonment and deprivation of his
civic rights. He caught himself, the process was restarted and acquittal followed. Just as
he wanted to leave, the coup of Louis Napoleon took place and, like so many others, he
was arrested and stowed in the casemates of Bicetre. In February 1852 he was released
and in July he was back with his family back to Nauvoo. But it seemed that he had
become another dictator spirit came to him above. All kinds of disagreements followed
and the end of the song was that his community would cast him. On November 1, 1856
Cabet left with his followers, 180 people strong, Nauvoo to go to St. Louis, where the
captain was, however, died suddenly of a stroke.

Undoubtedly Cabet was a good man, who aspired to the highest and noblest, but he
was mistaken in the means, perhaps in the power of his own person. [67] The despair
and anguish were great at his followers who worshiped him as a god. Some were almost
insane with grief and a young German made even by hand.

But at the grave of their master they vowed to continue his work. Cheltenham they
settled in St. Louis, where they bought 28 acres of land. On July 31, 1858, the community
consisted of 145 people, including 68 women and young men and 42 women and girls. It
was the colony well, until new outbreaks contend in 1859 with the result that left 42
people. The rest melted away, leaving only 8 civilians, 7 citizen ash and any children in
1864 were over and it was forced because of the persecution of the creditors to give up
the colony.

As for the majority, they had to liquidate in 1857, which wound lasted two years. The
survivors went to Iowa, but they came under aggravating circumstances, as the main
creditor took a mortgage on the land in Iowa in payment. Pressed by debts which the
community declined rapidly to 35 members, which made it financially pretty good, but
amazing effort and hard work. None of the joy that was promised in Ikari. In 1876 they
owned land worth 800,000 francs, which was only 20,000 francs mortgage. But stalking
disagreement within between "old" and "boy" who split them in New Ikari and Young
Ikari. Left New Ikari financially much to be desired, spiritually dried up the partakers in
1883 and were the 34 members 8 over sixty years. They became farmers and the last of
them will get the possession of private property. As for Young Ikari because they suffered
in excess of spiritual forces. One part went to Florida, another part settled in
California. The name of it was Ikari Speranza where according to one of them, named
Peron, living without a president or leaders are abandoning the sense of duty and
responsibility of everyone. A first step on the road that leads to social anarchy or to the
principle of Rabelais'. Do what you like "According to statements, but they did not last
long, the properties were divided and the members went their separate ways. And
inasmuch as there is anything left over, it is an ordinary joint stock company, in which
labor contributions are given, but which the communist principle: each according to his
need , nothing is left.

It was the French ideas which the world was then soaked and here and there she fell
on fertile ground to shoot and develop. [68]

So it went with the German tailor Wilhelm Weitling (1808-1871). A man doubtless talent
and think independently, the first properly speaking German Communist who consider
themselves sang "Ich bin ein smaller Kommunist, und dazu auch ein guter Christ" (I am a
small communist and also a good Christian) from which words already readily apparent
how communism and Christianity tried to reconcile.
 As illegitimate child was born, he had a hard childhood, learned tailoring and wandered
around a lot. Living in Paris, he participated in the Bund der meals there. Later he moved
to Switzerland to work the better for communist propaganda. Wherever he could, he
founded boarding houses for workers hoping to save there money for the coffers of the
Communists. But this grievously attacked him. In 1842 he published a
document Guarantees of Harmony and Freiheit (Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom),
which made big rise in Germany among the revolutionaries. Many peculiar ideas not to be
found in him, but how could that even after Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and Cabet, which
have actually already exhausted the subject? First he delivers a sharp critique of existing
and shows that have essentially the general principle in society: all for all . He
distinguishes between the desires of threefold types: 1 . the desires of the acquisition,
which lead to the production; 2 . the desires of enjoying, extending over consumption; 3
. the desires of knowledge. He wants to see led the company through the surgery, whose
concern is to keep people physically and mentally healthy, by physics, whose concern is
to harness the forces of nature for the good of mankind, and by the mechanics,
knowledge of the different tools. In order to get the brightest at the head of the
government, he wants a comprehensive examination system. At the forefront is a
triumvirate consisting of the three greatest geniuses of medicine, physics and
mechanics. Among these is the central master-company chosen by the triumvirate and
administering the whole family union, the whole of society. It is divided into districts, and
each district is led by a master company. This elects a job board, which is responsible for
the management of labor. Some sort of hierarchical system again and he felt the folly of
choosing by majority vote, which the constitutional system is constructed, taking away his
examination system. Should all work. The teachings of all the necessary for society and
useful work is obtained in the military school. That army no one leaves without
examination. Each person chooses the profession, which he wants to take, it may take
several labor sectors. The work is divided into necessary, useful and pleasant labor. The
triumvirate defines a normal working day for the necessary and useful work. All work must
be arranged in such a way, which can take place in each case from two to two hours,
variety. Elderly days have lighter work. At harvest time stand still all universities and all
teachers and students, work in the fields to bring in the harvest. The imposed on all
working time is 4, 5 or 6 hours, which is the necessary labor. What worked there, overtime
and is the person who performs the work. Those hours are called Commerz OPENING
HOURS, which each may dispose at will. Everyone has a Commerz-book, which is
quoted Commerz how many hours he has to have and what pleasures he enjoyed before,
a kind of current account book. Once a year, there is a carnival week, which one the
Commerz-hour, that one still has good self to enjoy or do to others. The women are on an
equal footing with men, they have their own job boards, master companies of, Commerz-
hours, etc. The marriages are dissolved. The coexistence of man and woman should be
entirely voluntary and either party can cancel the connection. All children from the 5th or
6th year off set by the state at the military school. Only the revolution can bring this
improvement. The first steps of a revolutionary government will consist in: 1 . all poor
homes are burned and quartered arms in public buildings or on the rich; 2 . All
debentures and bills to be annulled, as well as inheritance rights and nobility; 3 . the
organization of work takes place through the election in any employment reached; each
selected to the striker must give everything to the community; 4 . all members of the
administration, army and all who are maintained by the state, communal life; 5 . by
possession being gold and silver you buy food and war needs, the money will be
abolished in the interior, load supplied products; 6 . the goods of those who leave the
country, be confiscated, as well as all uncultivated land that can be cultivated; 7 . all state
and church goods are withdrawn for the benefit of the community; any church that wants
to have a spiritual need to maintain himself; 8 . the clergy in the administration want to
work, they live with in the community; 9 . all who are in the community, living under the
same conditions; 10 . on which conditions they are also included, which are no longer fit
for work; 11 . except for the agriculture and the military administration should ensure
education; 12 . as three quarters of the inhabitants of a municipality to give their goods in
common, the last fourth part must submit to it; 13 . religious instruction in schools is of a
general nature and is not dogmatic color; 14 . all laws be abolished for all who live in the
community; only raging in the POW camp and where war, they are partially preserved; 15
. when war is every one that is declared incurable "lust sick" by the physicians, enlisted
in the army.

Weitling considers the association only if the shape, not the principle of the spirit and
will indeed stretch an association plan to benefit mankind, it must meet these conditions: 1
. everyone should have to join the freedom and resources; 2 . must be guaranteed to all
an equal place at the table of life; 3 . one must be able to live more freely and more
enjoyable then built a society on individualism. These three points he calls "the
touchstone of good revolutionary association."

As a revolutionary socialist, he also indicates which resources should be used to enter

the fastest and most effectively communist society. The proletariat is armed, the prisoners
receive amnesty, establishes a provisional administration, the arms quartered, courts and
police abolished by the rich, while everyone who offends against the communist principle,
be shot. "A perfect society has no government but an administration, no laws but
obligations, no punishments but medicines."

How he felt about the franchise, we learn from the following quotation:

"What good is it, if we have the right to throw a name in the ballot box? If the elections
are over, we still see that the rich always right and we are wrong. With the money you can
make five an even number and the opinions of people change as well as their whims. We
have seen the example of the revolutions of France and see it now everywhere in the
political elections of the monetary system. The killings and looting of the nobility prevented
the misery, because the system was not abolished poverty; they had just said, we want a
republic, a nation sovereignty, freedom and equality, but not exactly how you wanted
her. From the sale of the goods of those who left the country, the reduction of expenditure
benefited only those who had the most money in addition to the continued rich. These are
imprinted the fate of 38 million on their bank notes and stored in their safe. This now
govern with their scales, their cubits, their weight, their scholarship, their state papers and
money bags. For them, the people fought in two revolutions; they have taken part in the
robbery of the revolution murdered nobles and government overwhelmed by the power of
money. "
 Later, he gave out the Gospel of the poor sinner , in which he quotes from the Bible
with different texts proves how Jesus was a communist.

Already he was arrested by the announcement of the prospectus and sentenced to 10

months imprisonment and denial of residence in Switzerland for 5 years. When he was
released, he requested permission to go to America, but he was put briefly, well over the
German border, was arrested by the Baden police and extradited to Prussia. Finally he
was brought after a compulsory residence to Magdeburg to Hamburg, where they
released him. Since 1844 he wandered around. For some time he was in London, later in
Brussels, where he had intense discussions with Marx, whom he calls "a good
encyclopedic head, but no genius," to go to America finally in 1847. In 1848 he came
back, but more haunted and from the police hiding he again took refuge in England in
August 1849 to go a second time to America, where he founded a communist colony
called Communia. But they failed and then he worked in New York working on inventions
in the field of tailoring, which he brought to the extent that it has a book wanted to spend
on what he called "the most important book that has ever appeared or will appear" as well
as astronomy, until he died in 1871, leaving a large family and numerous manuscripts,
which have never been heard from again later.

When Ludwig Feuerbach had read the book of Weitling, he exclaimed: "How surprised I
was about the ideas and the spirit of the journeyman tailor! Indeed, he is a prophet of his
position. What struck me the seriousness, the attitude, the sense of development of the
craftsman! What does the majority of our academic lazy compared to the journeyman!
" [69] English called him the only German socialist who has actually done something and
Marx testified of him:" Where can the bourgeoisie - including our sages and scribes -
pointing out such work as his Guarantees of harmony and freedom [70] as that of Weitling
relative liberalization, political liberalization? If one is fasting petty mediocrity of German
literature with this litter-free and brilliant literary act of the German workers; if one
compares these gigantic children's shoes of the proletariat with the dwarfish trampled
political shoes of the bourgeoisie, the German Cinderella one should predict an athlete
shape. "Yet he made it a bit strongly, which therefore makes the German proletariat to the
theoretician of European proletariat, as well as having laid the English to be an economist
and the French to be a politician, because undeniably Weitling has built on the foundation
of Fourier and Cabet, without a foundation itself.

Weitling has been related to different progressive elements, some of whom were hostile
to communism, others went along with him in that direction. We call Georg Bchner, the
talented writer and poet who died young, Karl Schapper, Julius Froebel, the brother of the
famous founder of Frbelmethode in educational field, whose system of social policy still
deserves attention, the poet Georg Herwegh Moses Hess, even though Bakunin in
passing.

Finally Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the people who summarize the ideas in the
famous Communist Manifesto, here and there, more or less vague shapes floating in the
air of those days, laden with ideas.
 The first congress of the League of the Just was held in London in 1847. Marx was not
there, but English. Since the conspiratorial character of the association was made and
they organized themselves as Communist League. At the second congress was a draft,
read by Marx and Engels adopted substantially after a discussion of 10 days, and
commanded them to make it ready for the press.

The manifesto was published in 1848, and although it has had no impact on the labor
movement until after the year 1872, as Emile Vandervelde has recognized, yet it is
undoubtedly a milestone in the history of socialism.

This manifesto first deals with the relationship between bourgeois and proletarian to
show that the whole history has been nothing but a history of class struggle. The
development itself is the proletariat as a class, and be born as a revolutionary class. The
main condition for the existence and the rule of the bourgeoisie is the accumulation of
wealth in the hands of individuals, the formation and growth of capital. Capital formation is
only achieved through wage labor, and it is based on the competition of the workers
themselves. The triumph of the proletariat, obtained by association of workers, the
destruction of the bourgeoisie, which is its own gravedigger by the big production.

In the second chapter, the proportion of proletarians and communists is discussed. The
Communists do not form independent party to the other workers 'parties but are
increasingly driving forward part of the workers' parties. They wish "the formation of the
proletariat into a class, the destruction of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political
power by the proletariat." Dan explained four parts: property, family, country and religion ,
which celebrate communism, according to the suspicion of the bourgeoisie wants to
eliminate. As for the property, in the existing society, private property for nine-tenths of the
members already raised, it exists because it does not exist for nine-tenths. Communism
deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society, it removes only the
power itself by providing this appropriation dominion over the labor of others. "Does the
civil society only a means to increase accumulated labor living labor in the communist is
accumulated labor is only a means to extend the life of the laborer, to enrich, to promote."
The objection that with all industriousness abolition of private property will cease and a
general idleness will penetrate, would argue against the entire bourgeois society, because
who labor therein, acquire no property, and those who acquire property, not labor.

As regards the abolition of the family, we ask, which now rests bourgeois family? In the
capital. Such a family will disappear with the disappearance of capital. The allegation that
the Communists would introduce community of women, is a bit strange in a society in
which the bourgeois sees his wife simply as a production tool. However, one forgets that
the community of women as good as ever existed. Civil marriage is the overt sexual
intercourse of married women. It would thus exceed the Communists may complain that
instead of a hypocritical covered, want to introduce a formal, open community of women.

Incidentally, with the abolition of the present production relations disappears

consequent women community , ie the official prostitution.
 Thirdly, as regards the abolition of homeland, nationality, the workers have no country,
and therefore one can not abandon what does not exist. Sure, the enemy position,
occupied by nations facing each lapse with class antagonisms within the nation itself, and
as the national seclusion is already working to disappear, this process will be hastened by
communism.

Finally it is clear that the social condition of the people, including their ideas, intuitions
and conceptions, in one word change their consciousness. Production of mind deforms
the material production. The ruling ideas were always only those of the ruling
class. Across the claim that religion, ethics, philosophy, the politics, the law is always
maintained at any change of mind and as a communist by the abolition, walk into from all
previous historical development, say the Communists, that among all forms of society, the
operation of the one part of society by the other was a fact, for all ages in common. And
which therefore eliminate the class antagonism, as one breaks in the most radical way
with the traditional ideas.

The first step should be in the workers' revolution, the rise of the proletariat to the ruling
class. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to gradually withdraw all capital from
the bourgeoisie, and to bring all production tools in the hands of the state, ie, of the
proletariat organized as the ruling class. This can only be done through intervention
despotic in the property and the bourgeois conditions of production, so by measures that
appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement
grow himself on the head, and as a means of rotation of the whole production unavoidable
his.

Though different according to the different countries, the following measures will be the
most advanced countries may be applied fairly common, and it will be seen, alleging in
that demands nothing original, but all the pastors:
1 . Expropriation of land ownership and use of land rent for public spending ; [71]
2 . A heavy progressive taxation; [72]
3 . Abolition of inheritance; [73]
4 . Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels; [74]
5 . Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank
with state capital [75] and the sole monopoly; [76]
6 . Centralization of traffic being owned by the state ; [77]
7 . Propagation of national factories, the production equipment [78] , development and
improvement of the land in accordance with a common plan; [79]
8 . Equal compulsory labor for all [80] , establishing labor camp [81] , especially for the
agriculture; [82]
9 . Union of agriculture and industry, aiming at a gradual abolition of the distinction
between town and country; [83]
10 . Public and free education for all children. Prohibition of factory employment of
children in its present form. Connection of education with material production, etc. [84]

The class differences disappeared by the course of development, and all production in
the hands of associated individuals summary, the state power will lose its political
character. The political power in the proper sense is the organized power of one class to
suppress another. When the proletariat in the struggle against the bourgeoisie necessarily
brings to a class, a revolution makes itself the ruling class and the ruling class by force the
old relations of production, lifting, then destroy it with these conditions, the conditions of
existence of class antagonisms, classes in general, and thus its own supremacy as a
class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and divisions, shall have an
association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free
development of all.

The third chapter deals with the Socialist and Communist literature. A distinction is
made between the reactionary, conservative or bourgeois and critical-utopian socialism
and communism.

The reactionary divided into one: 1 . the feudal ; favored by nobility and clergy, from
hatred of the bourgeoisie, which destroyed their privileges; 2 . the bourgeois , would like
to restore the guild system in the crafts and the patriarchal Bestier in rural areas; and 3
. German or "true" socialism, that the German nation was the normal and the German
"Spieszbrger" to normal humans. It acted against the "crude destructive" tendency of
Communism, and announced his impartial loftiness all class struggles off.

Conservative or bourgeois socialism, which include "economists, philanthropists,

humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organizers of charity
establishments, animal welfare, temperance, supervisors of retail associations of the very
most colorful species." As an example retrieves the manifesto Proudhon and
his Philosophy of the misery . The bourgeois socialism is precisely the argument that the
bourgeois is a bourgeois - for the benefit of the working class.

The critical "utopian" socialism and communism, the various utopian writers having
their fantastic paintings of the future society, but they deliver their criticism of the
foundations of existing society material of the highest value for the development of the
workers. Though the designers in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples were
reactionary sects, which clung to the schemes of their masters in front of the historical
development of the proletariat. They act violently against any political movement of the
working class, which only can produce sprouts from blind unbelief in the new gospel.

Finally, the fourth chapter discusses the position of the Communists in relation to the
various opposition parties. They fight for the achievement of the immediately obvious
purposes and interests of the working class, but they also represent the future of the
movement. They therefore support everywhere every revolutionary movement and the
question of ownership and seek essentially to the forefront. They do not work in secret,
but openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all
existing social order. The ruling classes therefore have to tremble at a communist
revolution, because the proletarians have nothing to lose from, except their chains, but
there may be a world in winning and therefore ends with the call: Proletarians of all
countries, unite!
 The class struggle and the organization of the workers - there two ideas that were
formulated very clearly in the manifesto - would no longer be the banner, including the
proletariat would march.

But communism, which is preached here, is in fact so all what is communism. Even the
Communist Manifesto reflects the state communism, which is why we are always in the
requirements the word "state" underlined to bring out clearly. All production equipment are
centralized in the hands of the state and hence the conquest of political power as the
main means to achieve that goal. "What human is in this manifesto is drawn from the
French socialists and democrats. The monstrosities are taken from the Jesuits in
Paraguay, the Byzantine emperors, the cruel despot Nicholas I of Russia. " [85]

_______________
[66] Under a fake name (straw man).
[67] There is a very good description of his life and work written by Dr. H. Lux, headed
Cabet Etienne und der Ikarian Kommunismus.
[68] It should be remembered that the two novels by famous writers, namely George
Sand and Eugene Sue have had an immense influence on people's minds.
[69] We have always compared to him the old Gerhard from the Dutch movement, who
was a tailor and is also distinguished by Weitling think independently.
[70] Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom.
[71] This happens in Turkey, where land is owned by the state, sultan, which grants the
use of his faithful.
[72] Requirement of the French democrats.
[73] Ask of Saint-Simon.
[74] A requirement applied by all despots.
[75] Louis Blanc.
[76] It consists in Byzantium.
[77] realized by Bismarck and the Russian tsar.
[78] Louis Blanc.
[79] found in the Jesuits of Paraguay.
[80] As for the convicts in bagno programs.
[81] As with the Jesuits of Paraguay.
[82] Emperor Nicholas I had such military agricultural colonies.
[83] Saint-Simon.
[84] Requirements of the French radicals. One may compare this brochure W. Tchorkesov
Les prcurseurs de l'International.
[85] W. Tcherkesov.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 14
The Chartist movement in England

While the plans to reform the society, which we treated so far, sprang from the brain of
noble-minded people who were affected by the misery and the gross imbalances in
society - but those plans largely went off properly speaking people that there is very little
understood - we see in England create a genuine popular movement, like a growing
stream of ever-increasing, a moment threatened to drag them all into his sails along.

In industrial England - because we should not forget that England was above all an
industrial nation, as two thirds of the population were industrial workers - had a whole
revolution occurred with the machines. This brought about a great change in working
conditions. Did it used to be on the physical strength, so the man just did the work, this
changed completely, because the machine working women and children can also be
used. Shameful exploitation found it whatsoever anywhere in the world. Even the whip
was used in the workplace to chase the tired children sleep from the eyes.

The entry of women and children in the factories led to a decline in wages and earned
the working families more, because man, woman and children all went to the factory, this
was at the expense of that family. The machines also had caused the accumulation of
workers, as the machining industry demanded a larger staff than the isolated handiwork.

Despite the apparent progress, which only benefited a small part of the population,
there was an hungered, and was the state more and more sad.

In 1834, a new Poor Law created to somewhat curb rising poverty. Work Houses were
set up, which would not like to go into the poor because they had a lot of prisons, but that
would just drive them to greater efforts in order to remain outside. Also had the Reform
Bill (law reforming the electoral law) extended the limits of the right to vote. It was that the
protection of young people and children working was guaranteed by law in factories and
factory inspectors were appointed to take care of a faithful application of that law. The
Liberals did not understand how the people after all these beneficent provisions could still
dissatisfied, they found that "everything was arranged for the best in the best of worlds."

Still seething and it was brewing among the working people and Chartism was general
dissatisfaction with the expression.

What's Chartism?
The name comes from the people, charter or constitution, which was drafted in 1837 by
"The Working Men's Association" (Workman Association in London in consultation with the
radicals.)

That people charter consisted of the following six points:

1 . Universal suffrage for each adult man, healthy sentences and not convicted of a
crime;
2 . Annual elections to the parliament;
3 . Payment of MPs, in order to enable poor people to elect them;
4 . Secret ballot to prevent bribery and intimidation of the bourgeoisie;
5 . Division into equal electoral districts in order to obtain equal representation;
6 . Abolition of the requirement that in order to be elected, must have 300 pound (3,600
guilders) in the country, so that each voter would be eligible.

One sees that this program designed by William Lovett, was of a purely political nature,
but behind - it turned out very soon - lurked a far grander idea. Through these measures
we had to make the lot of possession of the state, for the majority of citizens in
overwhelming degree consisted of workers and by this means one would then transform
society. So it was the only way to get to his goal, and that goal was to improve living
conditions for the workers.

Some saw then already more like the Methodist minister Alphen, not so much all the
good expected from the only true franchise, but frankly said at the end of a speech: "My
friends, you give you a lot of trouble for your charter, I do not care I would like to help, for
thou make right voter, but I above all to give, which is to obtain a state that every son of
labor, each worker has a good, sufficient existence with all requirements a happy life. "But
it was also punishable by 18 months' imprisonment, to get in place of a seat on the seat of
honor!

As with the word Christian, geus and many others, which were first used as a term of
abuse, it was with the name of Chartists, the usual supporters of the people's charter.

O'Connell, according to tradition have handed to the document Lovett with the words:
"Here, Lovett, your charter. Agiteer before and never be satisfied with less. "

Although at first a good part of the petty bourgeoisie adhered to the Chartist movement,
yet one can say that the Chartists were the bearers of all the demands of the working
class.

Rarely took a motion in such a short time such a scale as this and therefore can be her
testified that she gave lived on what vague and unconsciously among the workers sounds
that she was taken from the soul of the people.

Oddly may call it, two Irishmen, the lawyer O'Connor and James Bronterre O'Brien,
popularly known as the "schoolmaster", both so from a country where they saw a spirit of
resistance by frequent collusion charge of the movement had largely held. When the first
began in 1837 with the publication of his paper, The Northern Star (The North Star), the
Law on the seal was still and behold on what agitational way he set the people against
this law. In the first issue he wrote: "Reader, look at that little red spot in the corner of my
blade. That's the seal, the beauty spot of the Whigs (Liberals) your death or
bloodstain. See her well; I have the right to put stain on my sheet, after the
accomplishment of all kinds of conditions. I was willing to submit myself to it, but do know,
that little spot took me about eighty pounds of money and above a lot of care and anxiety,
and nearly a thousand miles night- and day trips. You shall hear thereof: but for the
moment it is enough to tell you, over there is the spot: it is the sign of my "permission" to
be able to speak to you. "
 Add to these two men William Lovett, Woodworker, Henry Vincent, the printer
apprentice, John Collins, the Scottish metalworker, Robert Lowery, the journeyman tailor,
Thomas Cooper, the shoemaker and poet of the movement and not to forget Josef Reinier
Stephens, the pastor of the Wesleyan church and it has set the men together, which stood
in front of the ranks as speakers, writers and organizers.

One can almost not imagine the nervous zeal with which the movement was
driven. Thousands rushed to the meeting and was amazingly large number of meetings
held. Strikes were the order of the day as much outpost battles, in preparation for the big
battle. The people were called upon to defend themselves. With banners, with
revolutionary inscriptions, the men and women went to the meeting. Sometimes the
factories had to stop, because all workers were at the meetings. So great was the
enthusiasm!

The scare hit the bourgeoisie to the heart. They began to organize resistance and clubs
were established "in defense of person and property." The government gave itself the
weapons to these clubs to exert themselves in order to save "merry old England" (the old
happy England) for destruction . The Chartists also took weapons in hand. On November
14, 1838 was held a meeting at Hyde in Cheshire, when Stephens in a speech posed the
question to the assembled whether they were provided with weapons. A rifle volley was
the answer. Still not satisfied, he asked a second time, a general salvo sounded again. "I
see that everything is all right, good night" - he spoke and then had set the assembly.

Manchester once he spoke thus to the many gathered:

"You need not fear the power of the government, for the soldiers, bayonets and cannon,
which benefit your oppressors; you have a much more powerful tool than this; a weapon
against which bayonets and cannon no power and a ten year old child can handle this
weapon. You need only take a few matches, and a bundle of straw, soaked in pitch and I
want to see what the government and aligns its hundreds of thousands of soldiers against
this one weapon when it is used boldly. "

On another occasion, at a meeting on Kensall Moor, the Mons sacer (sacred mountain)
from Manchester, where 200,000 people were together, he said:

"It Chartism, my friends, is no political movement, which do primarily is to get the right to
vote. Chartism is a knife and fork question, the Charter means a good house, good food
and drink, well-being and a short spell. "

Here, the social character of the Chartist movement stands clearly in the eye.

And to all those meetings, the petition was signed to parliament to make the nation
charter to act as well as elected representatives were, who would discuss the matter
discussed at a large convention in 1839. The idea was to be the ruling classes would not
admit to begin a general strike saint.
 The government began to take measures in order to curb ask the people
excitement. The workers had torchlight processions organized in the factory towns after
work. A government ban followed, and this was accompanied by the arrest of several
leaders, including Stephens, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

On February 4, 1839, the convention of delegates was the Chartist meeting in London,
where it was decided to shift her to Birmingham and there the five questions were
identified, of which one could see the Chartists in the assemblies, namely:
1 . the decision to request all deposits at banks;
2 . the commitment to refrain from any articles, which raised the state excise;
3 . interconnecting them to purchase in selected stores;
4 . take measures to provide themselves with weapons;
5 . the statement to organize a general strike in a month, "a sacred month."

Vigorously propaganda was taken back in hand and although it was unarmed at the
meeting, the speeches were vigorous enough. When the convention met again, it was
generally reported that the workers would support these five points. Only with respect to
item 5 was some hesitation. Yet they decided to strike, as the people charter June 12,
1839 was not received favorably by Parliament. On August 12 would be the "holy month"
begin. O'Connor, who had said: "If the power to use force against the demands of the
petition, the Chartists violence must place in front of that violence," even suggested
handing a memoir to appoint the Queen with a request Chartistenministerie and this to
hand over "peaceful" by 500,000 gunmen.

There were about 1.28 million names under the petition, the 14th of June in rolls,
loaded on carts, was brought to the parliament by the two radical MPs Attwood and John
Fielden. July 12 was the matter discussed. The Government replied, through John Russell
with a definite "no" and the Parliament welcomed the wish of more than a million workers
with contempt and laughter. A proposal by Attwood to immediate treatment was matched
by 235 against 46 votes and thus was the petition ... buried.

What now?
The popular anger erupted and be the strongest in Birmingham, where entire
neighborhoods were looted and burned.

They had to proclaim the strike, according to his promise, but they dared not the
case. There was division and also lacked the necessary preparation. The holy month
could not continue, as did one in Manchester, Bolton and Macclesfield attempts to stop
work on August 12th.

The Convention declared her job for the past, but they resumed work, when police at a
meeting of the Chartists invaded by force. There was a fight in which overcame the
Chartists. The Convention protested against this act of unlawful violence. The government
began a prosecution against the leaders. Meetings were banned and all that remained
was to go in mass to the church and to attack the pastor in the speech, as he preached
the gospel of the rich. O'Connor, O'Brien and almost all the others were from 12 to 18
months in prison. The bitterness was so great that the Chartists in parliamentary elections
supported the territories, in order to make the liberal ministry fall.

The Chartists and the men who had put a rope on agitation for the abolition of the corn
laws oppressive, often hostile to each other. Not that the Chartists were opposed to
abolition, but they first demanded the charter. Each meeting of the anti-corn laws they
sought to interfere, for any reason this be the Chartists accused bribed by the Tories.

The Whig-ministry actually fell and the Tories came to the government.

Superficially, Chartism was dead in 1840, but the exact observer as Thomas Carlyle
looked better. He saw the flash fire under the ashes, who for a moment was sprinkled
over it. And then there was a crisis in the industry in 1842, as a result of which here and
there occurred hunger riots and assassinations against landowners were the order of the
day, when the movement began again. They came together again and formed the
National Charter Association of Great Britain (National Charter Association of Great
Britain), who decided to become involved in the political struggle in the parliamentary
elections. The old leaders were successively again released from prison and soon
resumed their place in the ranks, so they had been greeted with huge demonstrations by
the people.

However, there was controversy over whether one of the Whigs (Liberals) or would
support the Tories (Conservatives). O'Connor wanted the latter, O'Brien support the
former. The first triumphed, but none of their candidates were elected.

Besides this controversy there were differences on other matters, as the placement of a
new item on the agenda, viz. The expansion of education for the lower classes, so about
whether or not together coupling of the movement with the propaganda for abstinence
strong drink, so about giving a more or less Christian tinge to the movements, even some
clergymen wanted. Again, a petition was signed and by around 8 million signatures to
request the establishment of the People's Charter to parliament. The presentation took
place on May 2, 1842, and after the petition with the signatures transported on carts,
arrived in the parliament building, the member Duncombe presented the motion to hear
the addressees at the counter of the house. Strongly opposed by the Liberals Macaulay,
the request with the vast majority was rejected. Only 56 voted for it.

At the same time took the movement to abolish the Corn Laws a large scale, and at a
meeting of proponents of the abolition in London, said John Bright: "Besides the war
weapons, there are other weapons that work more powerful without the body
wounds. There is a wonderful and delicious system that should make the people
themselves, a system which should be addressed in my opinion quickly and that once
introduced, the struggle will only end victorious. We must bring back the masses from the
cities to the countryside, as they are driven into the cities, but not like a lot of beggars and
candidates for the poorhouses, but as an army, which inkwartiert the enemy. "

It seemed that the party wanted to make the Chartists common cause, but soon it
turned out - and the smartest Chartists noticed this soon - that they wanted to use the
Chartists as appendix to reinforce the movement for the abolition of the Corn Laws. They
spoke of a joint petition, in which both the Charter and the abolition of the Corn Laws was
required. Even the idea of the holy month rose again from the dead and now with the
cooperation of the manufacturers. But the organized workers walked out of the trap and
O'Connor stated in his paper against the strike.

And now what did the proponents of the repeal of the Corn Laws?

They were forcing the workers to strike by lowering wages and to strike by some
manufacturers forced laborers tried to make the general strike.

But it fell against the manufacturers, which was not discussed at the meetings of the
workers on the abolition of the corn laws, but a "fair day's wage for a fair day's work" (a
fair days wage for a fair days work).

The government began to come between them and wanted the workers terrify by a
proclamation, which was warned for holding illegal meetings "troublemakers who violently
invaded in mines, spinning mills and factories and the workers of their work by threats and
intimidation were turning. "

First the bourgeoisie did nothing to support the government because they harbored
hope to be able to enforce the abolition of the corn laws in that way, but when they saw
that the workers do not put that requirement in the foreground, and not for them the
chestnuts out wanted to take the heat when she suddenly "orderly" was and she handed
prefer the hand to the government than to join the revolutionary drive of the workers.

The government had to arrest 59 of their leaders and began a lawsuit against them, but
the grounds of the indictment were so weak that even though there was a conviction, the
never occurred execution of the sentence. Due to a lack in form, it was appealed and the
government dropped further in the matter. Only Thomas Cooper was convicted in a
separate trial to two years in prison.

The betrayal of the bourgeoisie against the working class brought a small rupture
caused by the Chartists, as did the fraction of the Quaker Sturge joined to the wishes of
the free traders and the common cause, but the laborers mostly stayed with the old
slogan " the charter, the charter and nothing but the charter. "

To characterize the Chartists mind at that time, we want out speeches from those days
cite a few pieces. First, from a speech by Ernest Jones, held a meeting in London,
organized by the radicals against the new Poor Law, the following piece:

"You may not submit objections - called riot;

You should not devise measures to put an end to your suffering - called conspiracy;

You should not reveal the appalling attitude of your masters - called defamation;
You can not take what belongs to you - it's called theft;

You can not walk on the earth, who gave nature at all - it's called assault of the property;

You can not ask alms - called vagrancy.

Such was the Poor Law!

But there is another law for another kind of English.

Man among the pairs (notables) has been registered, may acquire assets and not pay -
called privilege!

The soldier may split heads and violating women - called fame!

The hunting enthusiast can enter the flat corn, harvest, which we owe to your sweat,
destroy - called property!

The priests are allowed to eat tithes and sell indulgences - called religion!

The landowners may starve the workers while they fatten wild - called
protection. Manufacturers may increase the prices of their products and reduce wages -
called free trade!

The queen may have children and you must pay for their upkeep - called loyal subjects!

Such is the law of the rich!

Friends, we do not need a new Poor Law, but an entirely new law. Because not only the
Poor Law, but all laws imposed on us are miserable. God wrote the true Poor Law on the
bottom that he gave us. The sections of the Act are engraved in the many millions of
fertile fields and meadows, which declared the famine sufferers come and eat; the nudes:
come and clothe you!

We need a law for the poor in England, a law that restrains the rich and not the
poor. Raises the loafers in prison and not the industrious workman. Such a law would
soon be the last vestige of poverty blot on England's soil.

My Poor Law says, give the people what belongs to it. Ye men of the earth, render the
people which thou hast taken away. Church, give back what you have stolen. Crown,
aside from what you have eaten.

My Poor Law says millocraten, give a good wage for a good day's work, otherwise we
work for ourselves.

My Poor Law says, gives us the People's Charter and we need no Bastille throughout
England. No man has the right brace, as other defect suffers. That's the real Poor Law. No
man has the right to an excess room, as his brother does not know where to lay his head:
that the Poor Law in its justice. No man has a right to food above the necessary, if his
brother dies of hunger. No man has the right to live in a palace, as long as unfortunates
have only one prison to palace. That is the law of the poor. "

One sees that this orator dared to take the bull by the horns and are not allowed to
spawn with half measures or sham reforms.

Second, the end of a speech held by O'Connor on December 15, 1845.

"Three million people in our region are not live. Under sensible laws and ownership
could, however, 30 million live here there. Our opposition to the league, so we expect the
punishment to stave off the defenders of the monopoly alone has its basis in the fact that
we do not only for the league, but wanted to see covered for all the table of the gods. Until
now, opposition to the rightful our league, our only political; Now we can go one
step; because by the noise figures of the corn laws to fight now, which is to fight for a
terrorism of muskets and bats! But why we still want to remain a separate party. Never the
Democratic Party will only be a reserve corps for that matter, the FTA; Never will the
people really character losses propelling element and the fulfillment of one operation will
not end this movement. The chartistenleger, this noble army of martyrs, must further
march under his own field of music under his own banner, under its own slogan: "more
pork and less clerics! ' "Good day's wage for good day's work!" "The People's Charter and
no surrender."

The plans of colonization and cooperative, advocated by Robert Owen, urged the
movement inside. This turned into O'Connors booklet, in which he wanted to put the
requirement to provide everyone a house with a piece of land. He wanted to open the
individual worker the opportunity to stand on their own, by giving him four acres of land
rent and cultivate. (1 acre = 0.405 ha). The formation of a large country company, which
would be beneficial for this purpose, was now his head plan. But he ran into opposition
from O'Brien, who placed opposite his individualism collectivism, which demanded much
as the nationalization of the land.

Divisions, also with respect to these plans, broke the power of the
movement. O'Connor triumphed in the party, "land and charter" now was to complete the
slogan and as to his victory, he was given a place in parliament at the general election in
1847.

When the parliament in 1844 by law protection afforded to women and children in
industry, when parliament in 1847 even tienurendag firm suggested young people and
women in the factories, then no one will deny that this happened under the influence of
the Chartist movement, which terrified the bourgeoisie fears. Meanwhile continued to
brew among the workers and when the news came of the proclamation of the republic in
Paris in 1848, when stirred up this great joy among the Chartists. Even they sent a
deputation to Paris to greet the republic and to negotiate with her. The government was
anything but at ease and began to be devised against weather. Voluntary deputies were
registered with the police in number 150,000 and belonged among them - Louis
Napoleon. 2000 postal workers were armed.

When the convention of the Chartists met in London on April 4, 1848, they announced
that the new movement to provide a petition with signatures, was even bigger and grander
than the last. It was said that there are well over five million names were. O'Brien had no
answer to the sober question was finished and the consequences of his actions was
considered good, in other words, is the people able to accept the revolution?

On April 10 would be the petition to Parliament. All kinds of precautions were taken. All
meetings in the open air were banned and 12,000 soldiers contracted to London under
Lord Wellington.

The big day arrived. Military armaments hunted in fear, especially since found
themselves unarmed civilians against the well-armed troops. But O'Connor was afraid the
responsibility of a massacre that had followed, not to. Then he went to the meeting at
Kennington Common, was told to him by the chief of police, the government would go
ahead with the meeting, but that the procession was forbidden. O'Connor stated this in his
usual manner also to the people and suggested now to bring the petition to parliament on
the executive committee. And so it happened! The meeting broke up, partly sad, partly
choppy and the committee only spent seated in ordinary cars, the petition to Parliament.

The people felt that it was abandoned by its leader and simply to admire courage, even
where it is accompanied with great carelessness, it turned after that time by him and the
current movement. Certainly, it was very understandable that he shrank from a massacre
that would be terrible past for the people, but he had never thought that the government
would use its power to forcibly oppose a popular movement, it had focused on its
demise? An unarmed opposition armed government is irresponsible stupidity anyway.

On April 13 the parliament considered the petition, which turned out to be only drawn in
instead of 5.7 million people by 1,975,496, and again it met the same fate as before. She
was greeted with contempt and scorn and dismissed. Meanwhile, the repressive
measures were continued, and a new law designated any republican agitation with high
treason. Yet they made an effort to be present at the queen, in order to hand her an
address, but they had to leave empty-handed, the Queen refused to receive such a
deputation.

On May 16, 1848 the Chartistenconvent was dissolved.

Oddly may be called the chartism found no response from the British trade unions, so
that when chartistenvergaderingen Sheffield called for a general strike, to give the
Charter, declared the secretaries of seven local unions in the magazines, their
associations nor the meetings nor had to do with the resolutions anything.

In the month of June had arranged brawls between police and Chartists. Thus, eg. On
June 27 and the following Monday 46 policemen thrashed so that they lay on the
site. Also they captured 8 leaders, including Ernest Jones for a "malicious and seditious
speech and the use of outrageous words against the queen and the government." They
were sentenced to two years in prison and about 300 others were punishments for longer
or shorter time. Meetings were suppressed and banned.

After the June massacres in Paris wrote the Northern Star :

"The despotism of blood dripping and reigns in France, is the natural result of the half-
measures taken after February. May the workers of all countries take this to heart. Not
often enough the great truth can be repeated: " They dig their own graves, those who
make half a revolution ."

The Chartist movement was already very weak before April 10 and then the petty-
bourgeois element which was in it, fell off as a result of the Parisian revolution of
February, when they also lost many supporters. The French Revolution saved to some
extent the British bourgeoisie, since it gave impetus to weakening of the Chartist
movement.

In addition, the failure of O'Connors came country society and finally the founder was
accused to have used the funds from the land fund for personal purposes. Although
research showed that this was not true, however, did the collapse of this little utopia him
lose a lot of influence.

Ernest Jones later made another attempt to reorganize the movement, but it was in
vain. Times had changed, and now the trade unions were taking over the task that
previously had filled the Chartist movement. One should not forget that all the Chartists
disappeared from the scene, Chartism nevertheless became largely achieved.

The Chartists were the champions and martyrs of the English proletariat, and when the
workers succeeded by united efforts to shake off the yoke that capitalism has imposed on
them, they will certainly all remember who fought in less happy days ago the extent of
their forces to liberate the poor and disinherited of injustice and oppression, and
undoubtedly will give them a place of honor to the Chartists.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 15

Socialism in the economy

A certain forester, Georges Leroy tells us of an eagle, hovering far above the earth and
takes a look at what takes place down there. What does he see? First, he will notice no
difference from its elevated position between coal burners that sit in a hut, and the 40
"immortals" of the French Academy, which meet in the institute. He sees no details, but
mountains, rivers, forests, groups of houses. These phenomena also force themselves
upon us and give us a first idea of number, shape and movement, they gave them the
name of wiskunstige phenomena .

We drop a little lower, we discern things more closely. We see that all things tend to go
to the lowland, as the river comes from the mountains to fight their way to the valley, the
ripe fruit we see detach and fall to the ground. These are the physical phenomena , and
the scholars tell us that all this is due to a general law that governs the universe, which is
called the law of gravity. The force of gravity as well as the heat, light, electricity, etc. are
physical phenomena.

We penetrate into the earth, we find rocks, crystals, formed by the decomposition or
composition of other substances and the scholars will tell us that the chemists in the
laboratory these chemical phenomena of nature also can produce. They will tell us that
these spontaneously reveal the root of the trees, formed in the stomach of living beings
and that from the life that causes in turn movement, feeling, thought. This new order of
phenomena, less general than the previous ones, because they decide only to plants and
animals, is more composed as they presuppose the existence of these creatures of
physical and chemical phenomena. These are the biological phenomena . But now we are
not there yet. The different types of animals that we see on Earth, do not live isolated,
some form groups, communities, and among these there is one kind that develop while
the others remain stationary itself can do. Show the man is the sociological
phenomena . Among these are the purely material, the outer which we perceive the first
time, man consumes the natural resources of the earth, while he makes equipment to
produce new wealth. These resources are distributed among the different members of the
community. Later, the products of an exchanged for that of another. These phenomena
one more specifically mentions the economic and the object of study of science, which we
call economics . The extent to which it is entitled at this stage to call themselves science
and no art, let us discussed here. Almost not to be just understanding the scholars again
and it seems a feeling and touching, without any more there is to know . The
word economy is Greek and composed of the two words oikos (house) and nomos (law),
so the knowledge, the science of the house or the household. (This is why one speaks of
an economic woman, as someone who runs the house in economical fashion.) They Adds
politically when, as the French and English, which word is derived from the Greek
word polis , the city does, then it is so the science of the laws governing the household of
the city, and what city was the Greeks, later turned off to state, as it was the science of
laws that regulate the household of the state, either political economy. It is part of
sociology, because they shall aim to examine the foundations of social life, and therefore
we believe that when one wants to give a definition of it - and without provisions it floats
entirely in the air - the best : the economy is the science that teaches how to production,
have consumption and wealth distribution site and how they should be done to achieve
social or general welfare.

To the extent the economy can be regarded as a science, it nevertheless is of recent

date, as one Englishman Adam Smith mentions in the rule, as the father of political
economy.
 His famous work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (An
inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations), appeared only in 1776. This
is not to say that this book as a phenomenon from the air come fall, oh no, it had
predecessors and it even says he has richly drawn from their works.

We mention only the mercantilists and physiocrats [86] , we recall the work of the
Frenchman Vauban and others who supplied building materials, which could be built later.

It has been proposed several times like a good dose of economic knowledge was the
best antidote to be able to take the poison of socialism without danger, but in this
mistaken one is gross, for the very detailed introduction to the great economists and their
propositions make factual choirs the mill of socialism. The so-called classical authors,
sometimes called the four evangelists: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jean-Baptiste Say
and Frederic Bastiat, are full socialism and they need their work to only draw the logical
conclusion to come to socialism, give all we willingly allow that they have not accepted
them yourself.

We start with Adam Smith.

This calls "the product of labor is the natural reward or the wages of labor" and he
believes that "in this primitive state that the appropriation precedes the soil and the
accumulation of capital, the entire product of labor belonged to labor: he had neither an
owner nor a master with whom he had to share. "

Apparently he means the individual appropriation of the land, so he wants to say, that if
the earth we inhabit, was not individually appropriated or transferred, ie if the land
remained collective property, the entire product of labor then would belong to the
workers. And the writer of the product, ie the entire product called natural, so rational
remuneration of labor, and this by right the worker, so he had to be consistent against the
individual appropriation of the land, causing the natural order of things is disturbed.

"If this situation had continued, the wages would be increased by the entire growth of
the productive power of labor, to which the division of labor gives place."

So if the earth was not individually appropriated, wages would have increased with the
development of industry and the progress of science.

"All things would have been cascading less expensive. They would be produced by
lesser amounts of labor and they would have been purchased equal to the product of
lesser quantities. "

So would have increased the value of labor and which are reduced from the capital,
wages were thus brought to a maximum and profits to a minimum, just the opposite of
today. And whence this difference? The individual appropriation of the land according to
Adam Smith.

"Once the land is privately owned, the owner asks for his part almost the whole product
that the worker it can grow or can harvest it."
 So the individual appropriation of land is almost the entire product to him that has not
worked, while the collective ownership of the land the whole product is the natural reward
of labor. Thus the alienation of land, according to him the cause of pauperism, of the
resulting imbalances.

Socialists say anything else?

Adam Smith's "labor is the true measure of value ', which all wealth is produced and all
the men and princes, ministers, priests, soldiers, etc., despite their" honorable relations
"unproductive and therefore concludes in his book that the smaller a company, the
number of these "respectable" people, the better they can flourish.

He says, "The true value of any thing is worth the effort to obtain it. What is bought with
money or goods purchased with labor, as well as what we obtain through the effort of our
own body. Labor was the first price, the original coin, which was paid for the purchase of
all things. "He understood very well that the interests of the worker and the capital owner
was not the same, because" the workers want to earn as much as possible and the
bosses to give as little as possible, the former tend to unite to raise wages and others to
reduce them. "and the patrons can hold out longer in that fight, because" a landowner, a
farmer, a manufacturer or merchant may generally one or two year life of the funds he
amassed has without employing one worker and many workers could be no week without
work, very few a month and barely one a whole year long. Eventually the boss has the
workman much needed if the worker the boss, but the needs of the former is not so
urgent. "He also saw that the so-called" free "labor is not always better off than the slave
at least a couple of times he lets slip the phrase: "So we would not treat a slave."

Adam Smith is still regarded as the champion of selfishness and individualism, but how
is it to declare that he accepts the equality of all people, including the distinction is not
looking between a philosopher and a porter in nature, but the living conditions and the
associated education? "A sage is found naturally in talent and aptitude, not half so
different from a porter, as a mastiff from a greyhound, or a greyhound from a spaniel, or
this last from a shepherd." When Smith is the principle and the hub of everyone's work
and should be so "self-interest". He calls self-love (self-love) the basis of everything,
however: it is true that man first has in mind his own benefit, he adds directly to that "the
concerns that he cares for his personal benefit after chase him naturally, or rather
necessarily carry this purpose to correctly choose this type of use of its capital, it turns out
to be more beneficial to society. "Moreover, one can not expect from the man who in his
less known, but nevertheless exquisite writing the theory of moral sentiments [87] begins
with this statement: "What degree of self-love one can imagine in humans, there
apparently exists in its nature a principle of interest in what happens to others, that their
luck to him requires, then even if he no other pleasure than of that to his witness. This
principle takes pity on and the different conditions that we suffer from the misfortune of
others, whether we see it with our own eyes, whether we imagine violently. It is an
ordinary phenomenon for the suffering of others also suffer, than such a fact would prove
need. "Moreover, it is not true that every human being begins with himself, with his ego (I-
ness)? Why does it? In order to preserve his own life.
 And as a rule, it is self-preservation, the axis around which everything revolves. Even
the man who sacrifices for others, firstly doing to themselves, because life would not be
life for him, if it could be preserved in conditions which would be unbearable for him. The
promotion of enlightened self-interest is in the nature of things, the promotion of the
common good. There can be no separation made between private and public interest, as
both coincide with a good understanding. Even among serving the guise of public interest,
some work best and most beneficial to their own interests. So we accept the separation
sometimes think that one Adam Smith wrongly a bad name by displaying his theory sheet,
which everyone in practice they pursue. And we share no way the opinion of prof. Quack,
which Adam Smith criticizes "the factor of community band in social life entirely to have
neglected."

Anytime later Godwin wrote his book (1793), Inquiry Concerning Political
Justice. [88] (Study of political justice) and containing the benevolence of others called
the pivot of society rather than self-interest, we see there is no contradiction, since that
benevolence for others it arises from self-love. It was Bakunin, who expressed so
wonderfully: "I can not be truly free unless all human beings that surround me, men and
women are equally free. The freedom of others, far from being a border or the denial of
my freedom, on the contrary there is the necessary condition and confirmation. I am not
truly free unless the freedom of others, so that the greater the number of free people who
surround me, how is deeper and broader freedom, the more extensive, deeper and wider
my freedom. Instead, it is the slavery of the people is an obstacle to my freedom, or what
amounts to the same thing, it's their animality which is a denial of my humanity because it
will be recalled, I can not truly free to call me unless my freedom or some say the same
will, except my dignity, my human right, which is to not obey any man, and the only
determining my actions according to my own convictions, tested against the equally free
conscience of all, are confirmed to me by the permission of the whole world. My personal
freedom, thus confirming the freedom of the whole world, extends to infinity out. " [89]

The same applies not equally self-interest that well understood - especially one
distinguished between self-interest and loggerhead their sister, selfishness - not opposed
to the public interest, but that inextricable?

It is Adam Smith, who makes it clear that the alienation of land from individual general
holds the causes of pauperism and now under the circumstances almost the entire
product of the work comes to him who has not worked, while the entire product by the
collective ownership of the land would be the natural reward of labor.

David Ricardo tells us that "the interest exists in that part of the proceeds of the earth,
that they pay the owner to have the right to exploit the productive and indestructible
qualities of the soil."

So it is the landowner who for his part gets the price of which has not produced and this
should therefore be recovered from the workers who produced it and who therefore
receive less than their due share.
 He looks like Adam Smith, that the value of an object exists in the value of a certain
quantity of labor is represented in it, where he says: "It is certain that all these things only
represent the labor which created it has and if they have a value, or possibly two different
values (he means usage - and exchange value), which they can derive only to the value
of labor, from which they arise. "

And in the same spirit MacCulloch expresses himself, when he says: "What we actually
call rate, which is the sum paid for the use of natural forces and the power inherent
(intrinsic) to the ground. So the interest rate is always a monopoly. "And a monopoly can
never be obtained otherwise than by an act of violence, the interest rate is not based on
justice but injustice. Senior, definitely afraid that it is not yet clear enough said, there adds
the following: "The instruments of production are labor and the factors of nature. As the
latter are individually appropriated, let the owners will pay for its use in the form of
interest, which is the reward for any sacrifice and received by those who have not worked
and did not advance, but that there determination to keep on hand in order to receive the
offerings of the community. "

And possibly even clearer he makes it by saying: "The surplus is levied by the owners
of the factors of nature and forms his reward, not because he worked and saved, but only
because he has not kept when he could keep because he admitted that the gifts of nature
were received. "

Our happens that these statements by our authoritative economists all at the same
amount and witty, but nonetheless true picture of the type of landowner acknowledge as
such: "There lived in Dublin some years ago a gentleman named Murphy. "Easy" Murphy
are called by shortening it, because he was a Murphy, who had been very at ease. Easy
Murphy owned land in Tipperary; but he had Tipperary an agent to collect the rent and put
his tenants off if they did not pay. He himself lived in Dublin since this was the easiest
place for him. At last he came to realize that the easiest place in Dublin and indeed the
easiest place in the world was - in his bed. So he went nearly eight years to bed and
stayed there, not because he was ill, but because he loved. He ate his dinner and drank
his wine and smoked his cigar and reading and playing card and received visitors and
looked at the accounts of his agent after and pulled bills - all in bed. After eight years he
had been lying in bed, began to bore him this, he got up and dressed again, went back
some years around as an ordinary person and then came to die. His heirs, there were just
as well off as if he had never been to bed - in fact they were better off; because while his
income was reduced by a hoot to lie in his bed, his expenses were quite reduced. " [90]

We now come to Jean-Baptiste Say, who taught otherwise. Only hear: "The earth is an
admirable chemical workshop. Nature has given her charge as gift to man ... but some
have made themselves master among men, and said to me one this department, to me
the other; that comes from it will be only mine. And, wondrous thing, this usurped
privilege, far from disastrous to have been to the community, has been beneficial to. "That
benefit must surely also have been very relative in his eye, as he acknowledged that" the
savings of rich place at the expense of the poor "and finds it" to think depressing, but
nevertheless true, that even in the most prosperous nations, some of the people killed
annually from want. "Yes, he must also affirm that" landowner adds nothing personal to
the generated annually. "So the man who produces nothing useful, puts a great deal on
what others, who produce useful their work is produced. What he will always be deducted
from that which receives the useful producer.

He understands as well as Adam Smith, it is the pattern that must always draw the
longest straw. He says, "The pattern and the workman need each other, as can achieve
no benefit without the help of others, but the need of the pattern is less immediate, less
oppressive. There are few patrons who do not several months, several years may even
endure without operating a single worker, while there are few workers, some weeks may
be without work, without being brought to the extremity. It is hard not to make this
difference in status to a difference in the rules of the price of the craft "Hard - let us rather
say. Impossible. The result is that the capital owner prevails and the worker must be
satisfied, if he is fobbed off with what is strictly necessary.

Bastiat speaks in the same sentence and calls the "state the great discovery, under
which everyone does his best at the expense of everyone living." Everyone is trying to
draw profit from the labor of others, but each one also tries to hide that tendency and it
protects the public interest, community, etc., the better to be able to reach that goal. He
characterizes the state as having two hands, one to receive and the other to give and he
states that it never happened and will never happen that the state gives something he has
not taken in advance.

A few more citations by the same author:

"Would not at first glance to be a surprising fact that poverty, deprivation, were the lack
of produce to cause ... what? It is the abundance of produce? Is not it strange that leads
us to say that if people do not have enough to feed themselves, this is because there is
too much food in the world? That if they have to dress anything, this is because the
machinery shed too many clothes on the market? Sure, pauperism in England is an
undeniable fact; the inequality of wealth is striking. But why go look for some ridiculous
reason for these phenomena, if they can be explained by such a natural phenomenon: the
systematic robbery of the workers from the non-doers " [91]

And elsewhere:

"In the true sense of the word, the man born as an owner because he is born with
needs, whose satisfaction is essential for life, with bodies and properties whose exercise
is indispensable to satisfy the need."

It follows logically that one must grant the right of ownership to all, unless one is certain
and that is the most individuals to death looms.

"Man lives and develops by appropriation. The appropriation is a natural phenomenon,

providential, proper to the life and property is only appropriation to become law by the
labor. "
 The appropriation inherent in life, they must all were part of the fabric condemned by
labor can appropriate and then the property is a large part of the owners, since they are
not, by whom to -eigening to become law by the work because they toil not!

Zachariae wrote in his Vierzig Books vom works to foresee (40 Books on the State),
"The rent is a reduction in the wage wholly to the worker accessories, as the ground was
not the subject of an absolute monopoly" and "all the suffering where the civilized nations
have to fight, can be reduced to the only land ownership as to its origin. "

And one of the greatest jurists of our time, Professor von Ihering in his. Der Zweck im
Recht : "There will come a time when the property a different form to bear now, which
society the alleged right of the owners to the goods of this world so much to scrape
together, nor will recognize as the feud law, the robbery on the roads by the knights and
the beach right from the Middle Ages. "

The vermakelijkst makes Sismondi, who knows where the shoe pinches very well, but
apparently not dare the case and there of finish with the words: "As for the agent (viz. To
undermine the concept of ownership) I have courage to do it to give, because to that, I
would have to affect the present existing laws of property "And". We are in a new state of
society, we tend every kind of property off separate from any kind of work. "

When William Petty in picturesque way calls "labor the father and earth mother" of all
wealth, he hit the nail on the head as precisely as possible; and everything else, including
the capital, the child from this marriage. And had they stuck to this definition, our
economists would have not committed the mistake of land, labor and capital to mention
the three factors of production, while the third, the capital, is a derivative concept that only
the Secondly, may come into consideration. Did they build on the foundation laid by Adam
Smith, "that part of a person's stock which he expects that it will bring him some income,"
calls his capital, one would have ever made a split among the various destinations to the
stock is given. Goods that are immediately used to satisfy needs, not capital; goods which
are used in order to obtain more goods, on the other hand well. The capital does not
produce the raw materials that nature does, but the processed and exchange through
labor ready-made commodities are capital. It is clear that capital saved labor yesterday,
but equally clear that the capitalist, whose feature according MacCulloch exists in "the
insatiable thirst for gain, the auri sacri fames ," his capital does not acquire or accumulate
through their own labor, but the appropriation of the labor of others. And this he can usurp
because the work, the ground is the main, be monopolized in the hands of a few. So the
owner thereof is supreme, as he did or not to work in his power; and let him work, he lays
down the conditions which will work, and the worker, who none the decision, then his
labor, is forced to surrender to the mercy to him. As long as the worker and the work are
separated, so long will slavery exist. Was it right guaranteed by the fruits of their own
labor, one might with reason about the "sanctity" of speaking property right now, where
nothing else exists than the legal sanction of the appropriation of alien labor.

William Thompson was the economist to whom the socialist Karl Marx built his theory of
value and thus we see how great is the role played by the economy in socialism.
 It is strange how it goes many economists as the prophet Balaam in the IP, which
starting to curse the people of Israel, ended with the blessing. So it went ao Thiers, who
acted as champion of the existing property, to crush the pernicious theses of the evil
socialists and did not do much other than corn come up in an argument of more than 400
pages to the mill of those socialists [92 ] . Hink Ende in two minds, he works himself
completely fixed. Indeed kloekweg he puts to the fore that labor is the only legal source of
the property. But if this is true, then a society where so many workers in care and sorrow
of life as well as many idlers in excess, face all legal and raped them the basis of the
gross property. "The work should not only be the principle of ownership, but also its size
and border" and "to each one his work, through his work, and according to his work." -
Behold the principles which he goes and when he so fiercely contested socialists find no
contradiction. But soon we hear tell that same writer: "To work one must begin to take
possession of the raw material of his work, ie, the ground, the essential raw material of
agricultural labor, which in turn caused the seizure to be the first act which the property
begins and work second, "and historically, according to him the development thus:". Each
company will make in the beginning the phenomenon of a greater or lesser occupancy,
which gradually the appearance of a regular transmission follows through the exchange
against civil fruit of any work whatsoever. "So the man who Proudhon with his" property is
theft ", fighting will, here tells itself that a start is to rob and steal, and then a legal form to
the giving theft! He relies on the idea of Cicero, which compares the world to a theater
where each is entitled to the place he occupied. But this example shows just the opposite,
because first the viewer is only the owner of the place he occupied second possession
alone gives him a temporary and not an everlasting possession; and thirdly, it occupies
only one place, viz. That to which he sits. Everyone would, at most, according to the
equation as much ground as he may have to occupy himself and editing can, but this was
generally honored principle, it was indeed not the contradiction emerged, which - we see
now. Once the theft is accomplished, then for Mr. Thiers seems sufficient to exchange the
stolen object against civil fruit of any work whatsoever, in order to be the rightful owner!

Sometimes thus in his ownership to source labor, then the occupation and later the
lawful prey by exchange! Elsewhere he describes the man fishing and grows corn and
then exclaims: "That fish I've caught with so much patience, the bread that I made with so
much difficulty, to whom they belong? The whole human race will say that they belong to
me. "Yes, but how now, when human laws allocate the bulk of the fish and the bread, not
to those who they have acquired through their work, but to them, which the worker has
given permission to fish, to cultivate the land? So undermines defense contemporary
property this in the strongest manner.

But this writer and statesman, which helps maintain the present order at will any price
and therefore does not conduct a better social organization, also has only "two ways to
restore calm in the country and destroy the dangerous ideas: make war out or to brutalize
the abolition of primary schools ", in other words by the proletarians of them cannon
fodder. No wonder such a man did not hesitate completely unnecessary to point to a
massacre among the workers in Paris, as he did in 1871!

In that respect, is diametrically opposed to him economist Say that "violence calls a fact
to which one does have issues, but which one is obliged not submission and which one
has authority to free themselves from it the moment one so can" and thus authorizes
workers to disobedience to the laws and the existing social organization, which is
necessary to effect is to destroy pauperism and replace it with another order, once they
have been strong enough.

We are approaching more and more present and give our attention to one of the most
astute thinkers of our time. John Stuart Mill, which distinguishes in his major work on
political economy between land and other property. "The ground is not made by human
hands. He is the common heritage of all mankind. And the extent to which one is it can
usurp, is a question of general interest. If private land is not useful, it is unjust. There is
nothing hard about being excluded from what others have produced; they were not
obliged to produce for our use and we lose nothing by having no part of which would not
exist at all without their labor. But it is hard to be in the world and already impounded to
find the gifts of nature, so there is no room for the new arrival. To reconcile the people with
it, after they have once come to realize that, as people also have moral rights, one would
have to convince them that the exclusive appropriation for all is a blessing, so that they
too share. But it was not a man with healthy sentences ever convince, as the relationship
between owner and farmer was everywhere as if it has been in Ireland. "[Covering is
basically the same and we have never understood everywhere, why Irish farmers are
worse would be to add than that of elsewhere.]

Mill thus acknowledges: 1 . which by right the ground at all as common heritage, and 2
. only utility land changes may alter that legal position. That last statement is very
dangerous, because every oppressor and tyrant always relies on the use of general public
interest and similar expressions more beautiful. He was not willing that "in land to any
individual a right granted only, proof of which may not be delivered which will establish the
specific utility. Already having an exclusive right to a part of the common heritage, while
there are others that none of them obtained, is in itself a privilege. "So the land in private
hands is a privilege, a monopoly and eccentric must the thinking man prevent the liberal
economists, who always strive against monopolies never challenge the monopoly of the
main floor.

Increasingly this thinker slides further into his thoughts. Shortly before his death, he
spoke at a public meeting of the Land Tenure Reform Association (Association for the land
reformers) and he said: "We, land reformers, believe that the country - and below we
mean the mines and all the raw materials from the earth - a kind of property is different
from each other. The rights of individuals on something that they do not create or help
create themselves, but what they have acquired through inheritance from others, making
it also did not or helped, is entirely different from the right of each the product of his
labor. The land of the earth, the raw material of our celestial body, climbs in all countries
grew in value. The landowner needs only to sit still and nature for it to work itself, or rather
not expressed nature, but other people . Which has caused increased demand for building
land and making the colossal power of the emergence Grosvenors, Portmans, Stanley
and other families? Due to increasing industry and the growth of cities. And what is the
cause of this increase? Your work - Mill spoke almost exclusively to workers - and your
digestions, not the landowners. Which work and which digests, ie. You, not them, bring to
the continuing increase in demand for products of land and mines, which raised prices
and rents are driven up. No other part of society has such an advantage. Only landowners
hold a monopoly, the proceeds of which increases continuously, whether they do anything
for the land or not. "

And finally in his autobiography, published after his death, he declared openly that they
aspire to go to a social form, which achieved a "common ownership of the resources of
the Earth and an equal share of all the products of communal labor . " [93] Joint
ownership of the resources of the earth is the same as communal land ownership.

A writer of the systems of land tenure in various countries , published by the

Cobdenclub says plainly that "any attempt to provide a moral basis for the exclusive right
of ownership on the ground is a hidden deception."

The English philosopher Herbert Spencer came to a similar conclusion, where he

sharply philosophical issue brings back to its deepest ground: "Justice will not allow the
property, applied to the soil - can be as held as part of the basis of a person who keeps
his particular use as a matter on which he has exclusive rights, then can be assigned
different portions of the earth under the same law and thus the entire surface of the planet
would fall into the hands of a few people. Here thus the dilemma which one is: if the entire
living area of the earth private property of a few families, than those who have no owners,
no right to take a place on the earth. So people only exist by kindness or self all
usurpers; only with leave of the lords of the earth, they find a place to put the foot. If the
lords of the land refused to that place, people can be evicted without the basis of this
globe. If we allow that the earth may be the subject of private property, then it follows that
the earth privately some people can be, and in that case, all the others can not use their
abilities and even there only with permission of the owners. It is thus clear that the
exclusive possession of the land the principle of equal freedom for all raped, because
people who live and move and are, only with the consent of others, no free beings are
equal their suzereinen. Neither the Building of the ground, nor even make an absolute and
exclusive right arose equal distribution of land, because, carried to its logical conclusion,
carries such a right to the overall despotism of the landowners. " [94]

Was it not the learned author Maurer, who said that has emerged a "truly private
property originally in the whole did not exist" that "only from the dismemberment of the
municipality land, the people's land or the common mark private property "and that"
contemporary concepts of private property only from Roman law are drawn and the old
Germanic law did not even have a single name to denote ownership? " [95] was not it
Albert Lange, who the" private law on the basis of individual property called rule of thumb
right? "did not the eloquent lawyer Renouard, that the" sovereign harmony the main
business, beyond which life becomes impossible for them, which of them are excluded if
they are appropriated, has placed outside taking possession of the private domain? "and
below the ground still belongs as much as air, light and water. And when it claims that
"freedom and property support each other," then it follows that for all to be free, and all
owners should be and that therefore the present form of ownership, with relatively few
property is a privilege, as a result of which the great majority of mankind is in slavery.
 When we hear further how Kant teaches that "all people originally in the lawful
possession of the land, ie they have a right to be there, where nature or chance has put
down them against their will and possession of all people on the earth is an original
property "; how Fichte says: "We are a social organization of the property; it will lose its
exclusively private character to become a truly public institution; it will not be enough to
ensure each legally acquired property, it will have to acquire every one owned, because
that's everyone in exchange for his labor "; how Hegel thinks that "everyone should have
ownership, justice demands that every property"; how Schopenhauer says that "the
natural law puts no other property, which was acquired by own effort. The theory of taking
first possession I reject unconditionally. Now surely any property, which is founded on
positive law, albeit by still many links at the latest and for the origin based on the natural
property. But how far it is away from it, in most cases, that our own civil rid of that original
source of the natural property? Usually, it therefore has a very far or not at all to prove
cohesion; our property is inherited by marriage, won the lottery or if not, at least not
acquired his brow in sweat by actual labor, but by happy combinations, eg. in the
speculation market, so sometimes a stupid incident, which by chance or by the god Bonus
Eventus (success, good results) award and be glorified "; when we read how Krause and
his outstanding pupil, prof. Ahrens, the property as a necessary condition for the freedom
and the individual development of each human being, which therefore the vast majority is
left out, bound as it is by lack of ownership into slavery to be and according to Ahrens
ownership for every man a "condition of life and development" and that "the right is
derived directly from human nature, it is enough to be human in order to be entitled to
property"; Spir how his Recht und Unrecht judges that "originally all people have an equal
right to the ground, which is admitted by everyone and it is impossible to deny. Because
there is no conceivable basis, why in this respect the right of one person or larger would
be smaller than the other, there is no person to the ground in a different proportion than
the rest. How can it then be justified to the ground in the civilized countries monopolized
by relatively few people, and the remaining mass of the people of each share is
excluded? It is impossible for it to find a legal basis which can stand for reason and
criticism "; if we see that the philosophers join the economists and lawyers, one notices
how strong are the Socialists with their appeal to science.

The poets blend their voices in the choir, where Shakespeare to let the poor say:

the world nor its laws to be your friend,

the world has no law that enriched!
So do not be poor; break the law and take.

(Romeo and Juliet, V. Company, 1 stage).

Or where we hear of Schiller:

etwas muss sein there own nennen

oder der Mensch und wird brennen murmured.
(Something the man should call his property or he will murder and arson).
 Or elsewhere:

Sei im besitze und du wohnst im law,

und wird sacred that Menge dir bewahren.

(Wallenstein Schiller.)

(Be in possession, and ye dwell in the crowd will be the right and sacred save it for you.)

Was not it Goethe that the origin of the property so typical characterizing his catechism:

Remember, O man, woher end diese Gaben?

Du kannst nichts von dir selber haben.
Child.
Egg, all hab 'ich vom Papa.
Lehrer.
Und der, der hat's woher?
Child.
Vom Gros Papa.
Lehrer.
Egg yet! Woher hat's denn der Gros Papa bekommen?
Child.
Der hat's genommen.
(Remember, anyway, child of whom have been given?
They're still not sure applied by ravens.
Child.
Well, all I got from Dad.
Teacher.
And how did it get them?
Child.
Grandpapa.
Teacher.
Well done! But how great dad get it?
Child.
Those, which is, however that it has been taken.)

Or elsewhere:

Pflanzen es sich Gesetz und Straight

Gleich einer alten Krankheit fort;
Sie lower left Geschlechte von zu Geschlechte
Und schleppen sich von Ort zu Ort;
Vernunft wird Unsinn, Weisheit Plage.
Dir weh, daas du bist ein Only!
Vom Straight, das ist mit dir born,
Von dem leader ist nicht die Frage.
(The laws and the rights of plants
Himself forth like a erflijk evil,
which continues through the ages
Voortwoekrend always to all sides
Intellect is nonsense, beneficence late and pain
Child thy fathers, walk thou in their tracks,
because of duty with us born
Alas, can never be there.)

And the other poet, which the theory of the economists that accurately reflect this two-
line poem:

Scheltet doch nicht so viel drowsy Unrecht oder Gewaltthat:

Heute heisst es Besitz - einstens war es nur Raub.
(Scheldt not too much injustice or outrage: today is called the property - once was the only
prey.)

Or Heine with his biting mockery in Atta Troll:

"Ja, das Erbe der Gesammtheit

Wird dem einzelnen zur Beute
und von Rights of Besitzes
Spricht there dann von Eigenthum!

Eigenthum! Right of Besitzes!

O des Diebstahls! O of Lge!
Slch Gemisch von List Unsinn und
konnte nur der Mensch erfinden.

Keine Eigenthmer SchuF

Die Natur, denn taschenlos,
Ohne Taschen in Furs,
Bowls wir zur Welt, wir all.

Keinem von uns wurden Allen

Angeboren solche Sckchen
In den ussern Leibesfelle
Um hide the Diebstahl zu.
Nur der Mensch, das Wesen glatte,
Das mit Wolle fremder knstlich
Sich bekleidet, wusst 'auch knstlich
Sich zu mit Taschen reverse gene.

Eine Tasche! Unnatrlich

Ist sie, wie das Eigenthum,
Who the Straight of Besitzes -
Taschendiebe sind die Menschen!

(Yes, the inheritance of the community

Does the individual benefit,
and rights of the owners
he speak then of ownership!

Property! Right to property!

Oh, that theft! Oh, who lied!
Such a list, such folly also
could only think of man.

Nature did not create possessors

And they gave to anyone bags,
without bags in our body
come w 'all on deez' earth.

Nobody at birth
in the folds of its members
inherited Such pouches,
to hide his theft.

Only humans, slippery creature,

which with strange wool artfully
himself holds, he knew
himself to be covered with bags.

All those bags, unnatural

Are they like the property,
if the rights of the holders -
Pickpockets are the people)!

And how many other poems by Heine could be cited in the same spirit!

We could go on with quotations from Shelley, Thomas Hood, Victor Hugo, mrs. the
Pressense and many others, but where we had to stop when we wanted to walk that road
end?
 Laveleye has unfolded in his book about the property and its original form the various
theories ownership and reduced to six, namely: 1 . the theory of property and seizure
(jus primi occupantis); 2 . the theory of ownership, based on the work; 3 . the theory of
ownership, the result of a social contract; 4 . the theory that the law brings the property to
emerge [96] ; 5 . natural economic theory, formulated by Roscher said: "As well as the
work of man only comes to full productivity when it is free, also reached the capital are full
productive capacity only under the system of free private property. Who would want to
save, that renunciation of the immediate pleasure, if he could not count on the future
"? This theory is explained put in the great work of Adolph Wagner and Erwin Nasse
profound. Wagner, however, accept the "legal" theory, ie that he distracts the property
from the law; 6 . the theory of natural law. But that same economist adds after discussing
it the following remarks, adding, "If the property is necessary for freedom, it does not
follow from the recognition that all people have the right to be free, that all of them are the
right owners? In truth, they would have no property are dependent on those from whom
they received their reward "The famous jurist Stairs Long says in small writing:. La
proprit d'aprs le Civil Code (the ownership according to the Civil Code), published in
1848 for the errors of refuting the socialists "If freedom is the foundation of the property,
equality makes it holy. Since all people are equal and therefore equally free, everyone
should others recognize the sovereign independence of the judiciary. "The clean-sounding
phrase does not make sense or does it mean that we are" to everyone the enjoyment of
property, the guarantee of its independence must be insured. "He believes that the natural
right to property is raped by the destruction of municipal, so common property and that
freedom can never be maintained, as the equality bodies are gone.

So it seems that the entire science virtually unanimous view of Stuart Mill holds, the
"social organization of contemporary Europe as a starting point, the distribution of
property that the result was not a fair distribution of profits, using achievement of the
industry, but of conquest and violence , and in spite of all that has made the industry for a
number of centuries to modify the work of violence, the system carries many and deep
marks of its origin. The laws on the property have never been brought into line with the
principles underpinning the justification of personal property. "And although it is perfectly
true that" we know too little of what both individual efficacy and socialism, both in their
most excellent form can establish in order to determine which of them overcome with soil
and on human society give its final shape will, "we feel the correctness of Mills position
where he ventured the guess that the decision will depend on this question : which of the
two systems tolerates the greatest possible expansion of human freedom and
spontaneity? For obtained the supply of livelihood, it is undoubtedly freedom to man the
strongest of all personal needs and it grows and increases in strength as the mental and
moral faculties develop cleaner.

In all cases, we believe in this chapter - in which we determined we only have to pay
any quotations from the most authoritative economic work, our well aware that this series
to be continued indefinitely, since almost any economic work without wanting it or namely
corn contributes to the mill of socialism - have sufficient evidence that the economy and
philosophy, far from enemy collection of socialist principles, show themselves to be loyal
its allies. They are the arsenal where the ammunition is stored, which is used each time
by the Socialists. Completely could previously say Lassalle rightly, that, armed with the
armor of science entered the arena, when he was the giant camp began against the
bourgeoisie of his day and what could be personal testimony, which is even much higher
degree of socialism in its entirety. It is through awareness of economic science to the
world the recognition will come when Chateaubriand is right when he "the self-employed
the last form of slavery" calls and that peace and freedom can prevail prosperity and
happiness as long built a society remains on such principles as ours, instead of to make
her goal, which is the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle as just described: "obtaining a
dignified and happy life for all."

_______________
[86] Fysiocratie = domination of nature. So called followers of the system, according to
which agriculture is considered as the main source of national wealth and that therefore
only corresponds with nature. The founder of this school Quesnay.
[87] Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759.
[88] Perhaps this book Malthus has given rise to the publication of his work became
famous throughout the population doctrine, which is not nearly as important as one does
occur it often.
[89] Oeuvres de Michel Bakounine.
[90] Henry George. Social Problems.
[91] Cobden ou la Ligne Agitation ou l'anglaise pour la libert des changes.
[92] De la Proprit.
[93] A common ownership in the raw material of the globe and an equal partioipation of all
the benefits of combined labor.
[94] Social Statics. Fair to say that he has come back in later time on these
ideas. Nevertheless, the ideas coins so much by clarity and logical thoughts that we prefer
to keep to the old than the "better-educated" (?) Spencer later.
[95] See Chapter 1
[96] This theory, developed by Mirabeau in the tribune of the Constituent Assembly, in the
words: "A privately owned an estate acquired as a result of the laws. The law is only the
property, because it is only the public wants that can approve from all and give a common
title, a guarantee for personal use, "and formulated by Robespierre in the formula:" The
property is right that every citizen has to, to enjoy that part of the goods which he is
guaranteed by law. This theory finds many supporters. Thus, for example Laboulaye
at. History of the property : "The appropriation of land is a fact that does only observe the
violence until the company undertakes the case of expropriation. The laws not only
protect the property, they do arise ... The ownership right is not natural but social "and NG
Pierson in his Textbook of Political Economy , where he calls the basis of the existing
social order" ownership, a creation of the legislator, secured by the police. "However, the
concept of ownership is still the law in advance which it regulates, so ownership can be a
product of the law, but that does not own himself. The latter feels the injustice brought by
weighing the existing property, as in his Principles of Political Economy writes: "Take the
country's revenue to be constructed railroads and dug canals, marine science is making
great progress, finally pulling the landowner there profit from. The men of science work
hard themselves to discover truth, the application of which will increase production; The
state employs millions to improve the means of the community; diligently watch the
meteorologists during the high winds and their predictions, which are gaining in
confidence every day, reduce the number of maritime disasters. The landowner sees it
easy and thinks all this do ye for me. The main fruit of your work will be, that my income
increases, and if it were reduced temporarily, as this reduction is greater, the incentive to
increase of population will be more powerful, the pilot when my patience is made, are
shorter. So continue your work. Naturalists, increases our knowledge of the land and its
properties; shipowners bevlijtig you ever sail to lower freight; and thou, state, blot no fault
but your use surpluses to build public works. Will all this, yes, increase the share of
income; but that increase I get, landowner, a lion part. "Can a socialist as acting sharpen
the injustice of land ownership? And if he land tax called the "lawful share of the State, he
is entitled under grandfather rights in rent," the law must never give up the State
according to him, because it "is all that remained of the common property of the people on
the ground, "the socialist can exclaim triumphantly: habemus reum confitntem (the
accused confesses himself to be guilty) because Pierson acknowledges that the public
ownership has on the ground and there they do not own this, it needs her to be stolen and
therefore land ownership is theft.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 16

Modern socialism
Introduction

One of the things that are most essential in any science, is giving provisions. Thereby
misunderstanding can be avoided only. And yet nothing is more neglected than just
this. How many books were unwritten, how many threads can be unlined, as they had
begun with that, which one should always start, viz. With giving rules!

We will try to escape that mistake by making the necessary provisions in different
words, which are widely used in the future.

Socialism is derived from the Latin word socius = size, hence societas = partnership, an
association of oversized, remaining in our word societeit, a closed circle of people who
unite to social intercourse. The additive ism indicates a leather, a system, therefore, the
teaching relating to the society. One writes the first use of that word to Pierre Leroux, who
argued in front of individualism and so one gets socialism doctrine which society, the
community is essentially opposed to the individualism in which the individual is the main
thing. However, we find the word even in English writings between 1830 and 1840.

What provisions have already been given the word socialism!

The determination of a case should consist in that one characteristic, the characteristic
which sets it apart from one brings out another clear, ie not too general, too vague, too
much comprehensive, because it says nothing.

So we have nothing to provisions, as Laveleye one gives and which reads as follows:
"First, the object of socialist doctrine to bring greater equality in the social conditions of life
and secondly to the reforms by the law or the able to accomplish. " [97] that provision
suffers from two cardinal errors, viz., that the first part is too general and therefore says
nothing and the second too scary, because so many people are excluded from the circle
of socialists who there certainly belong inside. In this way state socialism would be
socialism, and that is not true. Either of prof. Von Scheel, who calls socialism "the
economic philosophy of the suffering classes". Or Prof. Adolph Held, whose socialist
classifies "any efforts aiming at the subjugation of the individual will to the community."
Whether Webster in his Dictionary: ". A theory or system of social reform which one strives
for an overall distortion of society and a more equitable division of labor "Whether the
Dictionnaire de l'Acadmie franaise". the teachings of those who want a change in the
conditions of society and who want to build it on entirely new foundations "Whether
Brockhaus.: "socialism is a system of cooperative or the totality of plans and doctrines
aimed at the overall transformation of bourgeois society and the practice of the principle of
common labor and fair distribution of things." Or Larousse " system for those who want to
transform the property through a common association. "

Yes, how many socialists too vague even continued to float in their provisions as these
writers! When to Proudhon in 1848 was asked by the president of the court: what is
socialism ?, he replied, striving to improve society. But the president gave them very witty
answer, but we are all socialists. And Proudhon said, that's just my idea. What has been
such a provision, which actually determines nothing? The Temps Nouveaux called
"socialist everyone who truly wants a social transformation within the meaning of justice,
equality and a better distribution of social wealth."

All these provisions have the peculiarity that they say nothing, and after all of them
have proofread well, one concludes, still not knowing what is socialism.

What is the core, the essence of socialism, which sets it apart from any other
phenomenon? It is the issue of private property and therefore the criterion of socialist
consists in whether one or not private property recognized want to see in
society. Socialism is the doctrine which replaced the private ownership is socialized by the
Common, where the means of production, that are made to shared ownership and
socialist is every one that this teaching is devoted.

Note that we also have to make a sharp distinction between ownership and possession,
which by very many socialists constantly forgotten, so that the two concepts in the most
wonderful way haspelt together. So it is not the slogan of socialism, what more times
before being published, away with private property! But, away with private property!

All that exists, has the right to seize under the existence of the conditions to allow the
survival. The plant shoot its roots to raise living conditions for themselves. It does so by
occupying its roots, so takes existing conditions held. Thus, all people have the right to
occupy, possess its conditions of existence. But may inbezitnemers which occupy more
than they need to survive? Which we perceive that they take more? Them that they do not
use all that they occupy. They then have at the expense of others . Worse, they are
occupying it yourself, let others seize and on what they need to survive and even more
that they do not need, but still want to retain, they appropriated it concentrates despite the
withdrawn and denied to those who need it to survive.

So what is needed to survive, that is "lawful possession" and nobody has the right, for
as long as there is enough to meet all needs, which to contest possession.

It possess more than necessary, that is "owned" because they involve appropriating
and not occupy = possess. Actually, therefore, the struggle of the socialists addressed
before the possession, but against the property.

Socialism is a general term that includes various components, such as communism,

which exists in community work and community use of the formula: each gives according
to his power, each receives according to his needs; collectivism, which exists in
community work but in the use according to the formula: each gets to his merits; land
nationalization, which advocates only the common land ownership desire owned by the
state, but also wish to retain the individual mode of operation, as it now exists.

Socialism is a purely economic phenomenon, which is silent on how the production will
be controlled either by the state or by free association.

The specification made by the twinning with the word democracy or anarchy.

Democracy, composed of: demos (people) and cracy (rule) so popular government, as
well as aristocracy = aristo (best) and cracy (rule) government so the best, plutocracy =
Pluto (rich) and cracy (rule) government so the rich, ochlocracy = ochlo (mob) and cracy
(rule), so government of the mob, acratie = a (without) and cracy (rule), so without
government.

However, rather than the last word is used mostly anarchy, which basically means the
same, as a means without and archie, government, without government, and monarchy
government of a single government oligarchy of a few. so one may as well connect social
anarchy, as they have done with the word Social Democracy and the sharper
determination deserves that combination is preferred.

Now some claim that an anarchist, not a socialist and a socialist can not be anarchist,
or even held in St. Gallen at a congress of the German Social Democratic Party in 1887,
Liebknecht declared under general approval of the party congress, that anarchism is anti
socialist, that it is incompatible with the requirement of socialization of the means of
production and that it is anti-revolutionary. We would say this simply as a curiosity, as if
something was not accepted as good coin by the strongest of all social democratic parties
in the respective countries. So few shows to understand this officer from others own the
philosophy of anarchy, that he knows only three categories of anarchists 1. criminals at
common law; 2. Police spies and 3. the men of the propaganda of the deed, which can be
divided into "schwadroneurs" and "mouth revolutionaries", though he has to admit that
there are passionate natures occur among them, fanatical, powerful men and women,
whom the development of the revolution is too slow and therefore proceed to individual
acts.
 But our definition of socialism properly, one has only to ask if the anarchists, whether or
not declared as supporters of the socialization of the means of production and, if so, then
they should take a place among the Socialists. Only one could deny that right to individual
anarchists who even want to allow private ownership.

Is eg an anarchist as Malatesta not a socialist, he declares. "We, the communist and

collectivist anarchists, we want the abolition of all monopolies, we want the abolition of
classes, the end of all domination and suctioning of man by the man, we want the land
and all means of production, as well as the wealth accumulated by the labor of past
generations, the common property of mankind through the expropriation of the current
owners, so that the workers can get the entire product of their labor, or the absolute
communism, either by giving each one to his strengths. We want brotherhood, solidarity
and work for the benefit of all rather than competition. We have been preaching this ideal,
we have fought for its creation and suffered for a long time and in some countries, eg. In
Italy and Spain, before the birth of parliamentary socialism. What honest person would
say that we are not socialists? "

And he adds to this: "It is easy to show that we if not the only, then at least the most
logical and consistent socialists in any case, because we want not only each one will have
its full share of social wealth, but also its share in social power, ie the power to apply as
well as others to bring its influence in the management of public affairs. "

Is an anarchist and not a socialist Merlino, who writes: "We are socialists before all
things, that we want to be the cause of all injustices, exploitations, destroying misery and
crime, namely private property. We want as the cornerstone of the new social organization
of production. We believe that the expropriation of the bourgeoisie can only be done than
through violence. "

His Cafiero, Kropotkin, Reclus no socialists who advocates communism and also of
anarchy, so who believe that one can only anarchist, if one is a Communist?

So it is simply a proof of narrowness or faction, if one wants to exclude the anarchists

of socialism [98] .

It thus goes exactly as with Christianity. There are Catholics, Reformed, Lutheran,
Mennonite etc. All call themselves Christians. A Catholic now is a Christian, but why is not
every Christian a Catholic.

Similarly here: an anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist therefore no anarchist. One
of the victims of Chicago, Adolph Fischer said so right: "Politically we are anarchists,
communists or socialists economically. Compared with the political organization, the
Communist Anarchists demand the abolition of the political authority, the state; we deny
the right of a single class or a single individual to govern or to make laws for another class
or another individual. We keep it that as long as one person is under the other, or as long
as one man can suppress his fellow man in any form as long as the resources are
monopolized by a certain class of people or by certain individuals, no freedom can
exist. As regards the economic form of society, we are communist or cooperative method
of production. "That of course should any compulsion be excluded, communism will grow,
grow out of the needs of society, as soon as the convenience and benefit of the people
will carry to it. It was Buckle, who rightly saw two elements hostile to civilization and
development which were: 1. the church who prescribes what you believe and 2. the state ,
which dictates what you do can and must. This opinion is confirmed throughout the entire
history. Both social democracy and social anarchy, therefore, we take in our discussion,
but to be completely full, we are supplementing it by also treating two currents, which are
not strictly belong at home, because they are not on the basis that we gave of socialism,
are: the Christian socialism and the individual anarchism and we think clearly enough to
have shown why we do this, there are both points of touch enough and although
deviations more or less in the bed of socialism end up.

Our distribution is therefore said:

SOCIALISM

Christian socialism State Socialism Pretty socialism (anarchism)

1. The Christian socialism we divide into two:

a. Catholic socialism;
b. Protestant socialism.

When Catholic socialism we discuss: Lamennais, Buchez, Pierre Leroux. Leplay, the Mun,
Lemire, Loesevitz, Perin, Francois Huet, von Ketteler, Moufang, Hitse, "father" Kolping,
Manning, Bishop of Meath, Cardinal Gibbons, Pope Leo the 13th and Rerum Novarum
encyclical.
When we treat Protestant socialism: Victor Huber, Carlyle, Kingsley, Maurice, Headlam,
"General" Booth and the Salvation Army, Stcker, Rudolph Todt Scharling.

2. The state socialism we thus divide:

a land nationalization: the English school, Henry George, Flurscheim, Hertzka,.
b. Social Democracy: Louis Blanc, Marlo, Rodbertus, Schffle, Lassalle, Marx and
Engels;
c. German Social Democratic Party and its branches in France, England and Belgium;
d. Mixed or semi-state and semi-free-socialism. Consisting of: 1. The rational socialism of
Colin and 2. the freedom of socialism Dhring.
e. Some sympathetic theorists Albert Lange, Johann Jacoby, Ludwig Buchner, Samter,
von Kirchmann, Laveleye, Letourneau, John Stuart Mill, Quack.

3. Freedom of socialism or anarchism we thus divide:

a The forerunners of anarchism;.
b. Christian anarchism: Tolstoy, Kenworthy, Eugen Schmitt;
c. mutualism: Proudhon, Mhlberger;
d. Communist Anarchism: 1. Bakunin; 2. the anarchist movement in the various countries
(Kropotkin, Cafiero, Tcherkesov, Malatesta, Most);
c. individual anarchism: Josiah Warren, Thoreau, Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker, Mackay;
f. anarchism of action: Salvador French, Pallas, Ravachol, Vaillant, Emile Henry, Caserio,
Angiolillo, Reindorf, Kammerer, Stellmacher, Lieske, Lucchni, Bresci, the passive
resisters;
g. Some sympathetic theorists: Herbert Spencer, Auberon Herbert, Donisthorpe, Nordau,
Novicow, Multatuli, Wagner, Ibsen, Zola, etc.

Then we will give a section on the International, about nihilism in Russia, about the
modern state of novels, to finish with a chapter containing some brief general
considerations as a summary of the whole.

_______________
[97] Hamon has in Humanit Nouvelle 1 e Anne, tome I (1897) to that provision, a very
interesting article devoted, and also we discussed different definitions in Le socialism and
danger, pp. 240 et seq.
[98] George Renard recognizes therefore the Revue Socialiste Tome VI, that "socialism is
similar to a strain, which divides into two main branches, each of which is divided in turn
into two main branches; on the one hand the moderate socialism , legislative intervention
rejecting or demanding; on the other, advanced socialism , as extreme and opposite limits
having communist anarchism and authoritarian socialism . "

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 17

Christian socialism

Earlier we pointed out that there is a common thread through the history of the
Christian church, often stamped as heresy by the official representatives of the church,
but who has undeniably influenced. Several times she homage to catch up in mystical
garb and it would not be difficult even in the writings of the mystics anarchist wires. Averse
to external formalism and Churchianity, they emphasize the individual, that even
"galvanizing" or "go" should be in the deity. "With a little book in a hoekske" deepens the
individual in the divine and the reform begins not from without but from within. And where
they went live in communities or brotherhoods, such as the Brethren of the common life in
Deventer, and Herrnhutterse foundations in Moravia and elsewhere etc., because they
actually already get a taste of communism herein distinctive of anarchism, that the
authority of the chief pastor or by all as the highest adoption. What are the present
Christian fraternities or International brotherhoods, which usually have a mystical hue, but
a repeat of that form of the past? No wonder, incidentally, because one need only two
scriptures in applying their consequences, namely: "If one member suffers, the whole
body suffers", so the health of all parts of civil radar as the condition of prosperity for all
society, "whatever you wish that men do to you, do even so to them" what the core, the
essence of socialism, one could say that socialism, in a nutshell, and it is where you
essentially need .
 Christian socialism shows two trends, namely: the Catholic socialism, in which the
individual is lost in the community, which is ideal, the church socialism. The only
difference between this and the state socialism, the latter state shall take the place of the
church, while the other is as it were absorbed by the Church. Instead of the Pope as chief,
they take a king or czar, instead of the priest shall take a president or parliament. The
name is changed, but the essence of the matter there is no distinction between the
worship of the church or the state. Not wrongly stated that the authority each time other
forms know to assume that if one has survived, another ready state to accept the
inheritance and so can distribute the enemies of freedom in three main types: 1. those
who openly oppose her and loathe and as a means and as a goal; the best
representatives of this species are the Catholic Church, the Russian autocracy and every
absolutism, either openly or softened as in Germany; 2. those who profess to believe in
freedom as a means of progress, but her only accept fact inasmuch as they can be made
to serve their selfish interests, her longing for itself, but not granting it to others, because
they supposedly not be able to bear the blessing; of this direction are the best
representatives of the Protestant Church and the Manchester School in the economic
field; 3. those who say her mistrust as a means of progress, but in her believing purpose
and which, in order to attain this goal, begin to trample her and reproach; the
representatives of this direction can be found in the Gambetta atheism and socialism of
Karl Marx. These three phases of opposition to freedom is found in every sphere of
thought and human action.

The second trend is the Protestant socialism, in which the individual acts more in the
foreground. As such, one Rome the religion of socialism and Protestantism which call of
individualism and it is no coincidence that Manchester Learning originated in a thoroughly
Protestant country like England. We will treat both types separately.

Catholic socialism

In the year 1834 published a small book entitled Paroles d'un croyant (Words of a
believer), which made an incredible ascent. Wegslepend shape fascinated by the
contents and many people felt the terrible accusation that was thrown by the writer in the
face of society. More than 100,000 copies were sold and new editions continue to appear
while it was translated into most European languages. The Pope explained that provoke
or feed the booklet was able riots and was condemned "as small in size but overwhelming
anger". The French minister asked the prosecution of the writer and the Council of
Ministers held a meeting. They spoke about it to close the writer in a lunatic asylum. The
booklet was characterized as a "red hat, planted on a cross. It's the Apocalypse
(Revelation) of Satan. It is Babeuf, retold by Ezekiel. " Mazzini testified: "the three
immortal sisters Religion, Love and Poetry are being heard in touching harmony". The
novelist George Sand writes the author, that he was "for us and our century crusade has
begun, more glorious and more important for future generations than the crusade,
preached by St. Bernard: for not grave, but the legacy of Christ is the prize of conquest, to
which we are led by the priest in Brittany. The battle is no longer with Islam, but with the
wickedness of the social thought; we do not seek the ration of a few Christians, but the
vast majority of the human race. "
 And who was the author of that book?

The Abbe de Lamennais (1782-1854), a Christian faithful man, who thought the
Christian alliance with the revolutionary, who fought for the freedom of the Church against
the despotism of the state, which immediately turned to the people who knew him and
loved, in order to link democracy to religion. No wonder that those in power in church and
state trembled in their seats and it will be if no one can be surprised when we mention that
he, rather than get honor and respect, ended up in prison, the place where the best, the
sensitive, the edelstdenkenden were stored at all times. He was no stranger when he did,
because he had already drawn the attention of the religion (Essay on indifference in
matters of religion) by written in 1817 Essai sur l'indiffrence en matire, so much so that
the Pope has thought about it to make him a cardinal. Only the Jesuits with their fine
nose, where the smelling of heresy, were suspicious of his reformist ideas and fought him
sharply. The attempt to connect to the cause of liberty, was a bad idea and the journey of
Lamennais, Lacordaire and Montalembert to Rome in 1831, to win the pope for their ideas
may certainly be called remarkable Rome. Of course this attempt came off the
unwillingness, or rather the inability of the church, of which just said: sit ut est aut non
sit (side as she is or she may not!). The Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI, dated August 15,
1832, can be regarded almost as a response to their attempt. In it, the indifference and
the consequent freedom of conscience, freedom of the press and independence against
the rulers are, strictly condemned. What Lamennais had tried had failed and should be
considered now as a criminal, sinful work.

Increasingly he deviated from the path of the Church and all he dressed his famous
book also provides a somewhat mystical garb, yet he was a Christian socialist . Several
writings flowed even from his pen, as Le Livre du Peuple (The Book of the people) in
1837, [99] De l'Esclavage modern (about modern slavery) in 1839, and all testified to his
compassion for the people, but how he expected only salvation of making a living faith in
God, if that makes people to matches, to brothers as sons of one father. His book Le pays
et le gouvernement (The country and the government) put him in prison, but from a
socialist point of view is especially remarkable considering that he took over the known
socialist systems. In his pamphlet Questions du Travail (1848) (Questions concerning the
employment), he writes: "I have been asked: are you a socialist or not? If one under
socialism means any of systems that have arisen since Saint-Simon and Fourier from all
sides and whose general character is the negation of the property and the family, no, I am
not a socialist. However, if one understands by socialism, on the one hand the principle of
association as one of the main foundations of the future order of things and also the firm
belief that under unchanging conditions of the physical and moral life, that order a new
society will foundations, which nothing can be compared in the past, yes, I am a socialist.
"

Lamennais apparently felt that would be exercised formidable constraint in a socialist

society. On that speaking that one requires socialists that each individual will dedicate to
the public interest, he says: "To this general happiness to attain, one begins with every
individual free will, depriving his freedom as a human being; and that individual, which are
spiritual gifts, are holding power, its efficacy may be, is, according to some, given a wage
that is set by the authorized authority or, according to others, as it were, a dispensation as
a monk in his monastery allowed. I understand, indeed, this is a great sacrifice. But this
sacrifice is obligatory for anyone, I ask, to whom it will benefit? What is this abstraction,
company called, which will be free and happy, while one really living member thereof will
be more slaves than the serfs in the Middle Ages, nothing will be allowed to call his own,
from cradle to grave any time on themselves will be available? They
will collectively rather, collective happiness and individual slave individually are more
miserable than the Negro from the colonies that form a small piggy bank and avail
themselves thereof may buy freely. And imagine that all these people to work. Who will
lead them? Who will supervise them? Who will be aware, how will each of them fulfill his
task? Who will collect the fruits? Who will they exchange, they sell? Because a part of it
should come from abroad through trade. Who will receive the price of the sale? Who will
divide that value? There will be - this goes without saying - as many guards and
inspectors, as many officers of the board are needed, as actual workers. And this is
something different than the slavery of antiquity: namely this format: one class of masters
who commands and controls, God knows in whose name, and one class of human
instruments at the service of the production? In all cases, there is no inheritance of these
classes, one might argue. But which heredity would come soon, the next day perhaps, if
not, all the impossible things this whole system was the most impossible. "Here, so he
feels the danger of coercion and control from above and yet he sees no other way to
come "from the extremely poor organization of work and the gross maldistribution of the
result of production" than "the law to an end is to the detriment and destruction of the
workers, the labor fruits, annually produced wealth, just to to establish centers and train,
where wealth accumulates in favor of some few, the people, however, want the labor fruit
to the laborer himself returns to a greater extent and thus, by the increase in consumption,
production itself an abundant source of general prosperity. "

After the revolution of 1848 Lamennais was elected deputy in the National Assembly,
which took place under the Mountain Party. He voted for the right to work and was always
on the side of the democrats, although Louis Blanc was contested by him. He thought he
could get the capital formation would require an association of workmen standing
credit. He continued further explained this plan to do to know the functioning of a state
credit bank. All men between 21 and 65 years would be required to work and then they
got a pension. The woman was free of work. The state must guarantee to all: free
education, exercise and implementation of the right to work, help and support in diseases,
ensuring resources for children and the elderly.

After the coup of 1851 by Napoleon he retired in deep dejection. He died in 1854 and
was buried according to his wish as the poor in their midst, and he did not want any
memorial would mark the place where his body had been stored in the earth.

Half saint and half-simonist believer was Buchez (1795-1865) founder of the Ecole
Catholico-Convention Elle, which aim was to reconcile the Catholic and revolutionary
ideas. The concept of freedom had to be linked to that of religion, and so he wanted the
revelation of God, as Christianity which gave foundation to create and rule of social
organization. No wonder he attracted some time felt the ideas of Joseph de Maistre. His
explanation of the productive association as a means to create independent working
people, to provide the benefits of the capitalists is that time certainly important. By this he
did without the intervention of the state a Caisse gnrale du Credit public connect (A
general treasury for general credit), so that the workers could get easy credit and making
some unity and order were obtained in the field of production and distribution.

Although Christian point of standing and with all respect for Catholicism, he thought that
the clergy since the 14th century had gone the wrong way because they had opposed the
social application of Christian ethics. The neglect of the social side of Christianity, the
church could no longer be the organ of progress. presented in front of this idea are
several of his students, who demanded a renewal of the Church, that she might still go
that route.

Undeniably Buchez has had much influence, especially the foundation of his productive
associations, with whom he had a dual purpose: 1 as a means of liberation from wage
labor and 2. the encouragement of a spirit of devotion and self-sacrifice in place of the
hard and cruel motives of greed and selfishness, under Christianity. The
magazine L'Atelier , which appeared from 1840 to 1848, workers found a body in which
they could write themselves. Buchez also fought especially Louis Blanc, which led to
bondage, which would transform the company into a large barracks.

When the revolution broke out in 1848, he had established them as many hope. Ardent
republican as he was, he thought that now would be realized the concepts of religion and
brotherhood. Chosen by the people as a member of the National Assembly, he became its
president, especially because they saw in him the symbol of progress and religious
faith. But for that task he was not calculated and sad voted him he saw that revolution
expired. After Napoleon's coup, on which occasion he was taken for a moment but soon
abandoned prison, he withdrew himself completely to go into his study.

His program he already in 1835 at best, when he was in the Europen wrote: "The time
has come for social way to meet the precepts of Christian morality. All her
commandments and doctrines must be turned into social establishments, but the
communist reform must without violence, without a roof, just by association of the workers
are established. In the association have the workers a means to procure the work, such
as raw materials and the like, and thus free themselves from the rule of the capitalists. "

As he sought to reconcile the irreconcilable with each other, namely Catholicism and
revolution, yet he has the seriousness and conviction with which he did it, gained the
esteem of all serious people, and he continued to live in grateful remembrance even
among those who broke away from him.

A third, who was attempting the same, was Pierre Leroux (1797-1871). Also this was a
follower of Saint-Simon, yes, a long time editor of the saint-simonis extremist magazine,
the Globe . He also saw the democratic origins of Christianity and wrote a book. He
developed the "Doctrine de l'Humanit" (doctrine of humanity) and finds her expressed in
three words: Solidarit, Triad and Circulus. Assuming the triune concept of God he sees
how the universal life is all inclusive. This was the dogma. In addition, was the
organization of society, represented by the word Triad, which means to all parts
implemented division in three of all phenomena, institutions and states of
society. Throughout three trees: individual, family, society; property, family, state; freedom,
equality, fraternity; civilians, associates, officers ; In general sensation, sentiment,
connaissance . At last came the circle, a loop between production and use. The man was
both producer and consumer, everyone produces the manure needed for reproduction of
its food and so one need not worry that the production could not keep pace with the
propagation of the human race.

Boussac he founded an association to its system where it agriculture and industry

together covenant. Also a cooperative printing. When the revolution broke out in 1848, he
went to Paris and although not immediately elected full of illusion, yet he was once
chosen by Thiers and Proudhon in the supplementary elections. Frequently he did not
worked and he felt himself out of place. His speech on the establishment of working is
very important. After he Napoleon's coup had to flee and he first lived in London in
miserable circumstances and then on the island of Jersey, until he later went to
Switzerland but as a result of the amnesty, he could return to France finally back. At his
advanced age he studied preferably in the Old Testament. His influence on the ideas of
his time was not small.

Another, Le Play, which made extensive studies on the situation of the workers in the
different countries had the slogan: return to the ten commandments, the revealed source
of all mores and laws of God. He wrote the unfortunate social situation in France to the
French Revolution of 1789, and the founder of the Rforme was social, whose goal can
be summarized in these two principles: decentralization politics, patronage and
association in the social field. The atmosphere of the state is to him very limited, as only
reform is expected of Christian love. Called his school also often charitable or
philanthropic, because he put the charity instead of justice. But even though it has a
Christian tinge of Christian socialism actually can be at Le Play and his school do not
speak.

More is the name also given to the Association Catholique, where Count de Mun played
an important role. This nobleman and Count de la Tour du Pin Chambly, both officers; who
attended the fall of the Commune, came to the conviction that a bloody suppression of a
case was evidence of her inability to master otherwise. "Healing is needed, no
oppression" - he said. And he began, strongly under the influence of Ozanam, founder of
the St. Vincent de Paul Society (a work of charitable capacity through home visits and
support), Cochin which opened in Paris reading rooms, recreation halls and job creation
tried to help the unemployed and of Le Play and his school, the oeuvre des cercles
catholiques in 1871. the upper classes in those Cercles had to exercise a kind of
patronage over the workers. As many times as it went here, the name of their socialist
added by others and was not chosen. On the contrary, Mun said: "People call us
socialists, but never, never shall we be. Socialism is the denial of the authority of God and
we are confirming it: socialism is the affirmation of the absolute independence of man,
and we deny it; Socialism is the passion to also own and our passion is justice; Socialism
is the logic of the revolution, and we are irreconcilable counterrevolution. There is nothing
in common between us. "
 The military element had appeared in the beginning much ascendancy as the first
general meeting, when the 250 persons 24 were officers. Later, he moved increasingly to
the left and as an MP he performed for social policy and several of his speeches could be
held almost entirely by a Social Democrat. He knew Robert Owen to appreciate, Decurtins
called in Switzerland, the Ultramontane, who does not work repeatedly together awe with
the Social Democrats, his friend and also handed sometimes enforce the socialists of the
type Millerand, who was in the room with him . Yet it was him to do more to stem the tide
against the revolution than against hunger and poverty. He is also known as "the man of
the pope and the king." Finally, the Catholic faith appeared to win it with him on the social
mind.

France was covered with such cercles, 1897, there were approximately 3000. The
establishment of the association was entirely hierarchical as the Catholic
Church. Opposite the individualist school of Le Play, the Association Catholique also to
the extent that they state very much desire and expect, to that end, that State must be
imbued with the Christian spirit. Actually social reform is a mission of the Church, but it
does not have the same power as the state and must therefore take up this hair. The state
should the poor, the worker, lend a helping hand in the fight against capitalism. A
minimum wage, the worker allows to perform with dignity and views, to save for sickness
and old age, opens to him; he wanted a maximum working time, to the abuse of the
powers of labor impossible; further funds to insurance against sickness and
unemployment and accident, funded by the patrons; protection of the labor of children and
women; prohibition of night work for women and children under 11 years; married women
excluded from the factories; girl child and labor limited; Sunday rest used everywhere.

No wonder the Socialists reluctantly saw this work and not unduly they suspected an
attempt to pull off the workers of socialism.

Later Mun sought more help from the industrialists, which he called essential to the
progress of his ideas, but this just took away those associations the confidence of the
workers. He had the satisfaction to see his work blessed by the Pope, but he
compromised himself in the Boulangist movement and lost a lot of influence, which he
unquestionably exercised a long time. His work has come to a halt and does not forward,
rather the contrary. To the religious character that is given, this may well be one of the
main causes. The coat of arms of the family is a globe, above which a cross with the
words: Nil Ultra (nothing is above). This he tried to remain faithful, but the world has
outgrown on the cross and so it was that he could make a time ascent in his attempt to
rejuvenate the Catholic Church, by seeking a connection between Catholicism and
democracy, but also here was true that a new patch soon tearing on an old garment.

Among its employees, which the magazine of the association were interesting, were
especially Loesewitz and Rudolph Meyer, two skilled men, the last of whom in later time
again veered more to the left.

This direction, however, has done much to open the eyes of the Catholic laborers and
there is not misidentified, that is where the recruits were trained, which took place later in
the ranks of the Socialists. Several French clergy as Naudet, Garnier, Lemire and others
also work with social direction, but they all remain primarily men of the church.

In Belgium it was Henri Charles Xavier Prin (1815-1881), who tried to reconcile as a
professor at the Catholic University of Louvain Christianity and economy with each other,
as evidenced by his writings: La Richesse dans les socits chrtiennes (The Christian
Resources companies) and Les doctrines conomiques depuis un sicle (Economic
teachings since a century). He bases the social order on the divine authority, and although
he loves the intervention of the state sometimes necessary, he considers still to get the
resuscitation of Christian love means to recovery. The medieval corporations laughed him
most, to cultivate a paternal and fraternal spirit between patron and worker, but he wanted
that have hierarchically arranged. Under the patronage of Christian-minded patrons, the
workers had to be guided and if the Christian spirit than society pervaded in head and
members, they could escape the looming dangers, which together took on the horizon, to
about her later death and destruction deposit, but not otherwise.

Influence exercised Francois Huet (1814-1869) in which, although a Frenchman, his life
mostly sleet in Belgium as professor at Ghent. In his book Le Rgne social du
Christianisme (The social domination of Christianity), he developed the thesis that the two
powers that be irreconcilable eight and the world always shake to its foundations, namely
the Church and its teachings, the Christianity energy, and the revolution and its doctrine,
socialism, on the other hand it can be reconciled. It showed him that the mission of the
Saviour not only was it to found a kingdom in heaven, but also to establish a free civil
society of brothers on earth. Both Christianity and democracy, seek the same ideal that
exists in the social realm of Christianity, supporting the slogan of liberty, equality and
fraternity. He called Paul's letters to the charter (constitution) of socialism. Individualism
leads to egoism, communism kills liberty, and socialism, between both of them standing,
solves the two contradictions at higher harmony. According to him, "the ownership or right
to view a certain part of things as his own, to enjoy it and have, subject to respect for the
rights of others, always one of the essential foundations of a true society been. "If man
has everyone entitled to a certain amount of goods. This stems from his right to life. Now
the man can not live freely without property and therefore everyone is entitled to
there. The man who has no property, lives only by the grace of others, his equals, and
thus falls into a state of slavery. To this end he established the right to the patrimony and
the establishment of social inheritance, which implied that each death the goals of free
general parental inheritance equally fall back on all young workers. The succession as of
social manner, according to each gender would bring forth the brotherhood of the original
inheritance. At 14 years each child would have the pleasure of a portion of the capital that
could accrue to him, eg. One third, always under the care of a guardian, and in his 25th
year, he would have access to the whole that accrued to him. As this could not even be
achieved, he wanted a heavy progressive tax on inheritance, the proceeds of which,
however, had to be devoted solely to expenditure on education and work tools for the
benefit of the poor class. What also concerns the organization of work, in which he was
individualistic. If access to the property was only open, but everyone had to see how he
came. All that the intervention of the state, he disapproved and this was not necessary as
the law was secured on property. Whether one than itself or associated with other people
to work, which was all out for yourself. The right to the patrimony and compulsory
education there what he wanted and they had acquired these two things, one could safely
use the laissez faire, laissez passer. He preached the duty on the product to the producer
after deduction of the portion of overall spending. The program of the Sermon on the
Mount and the Beatitudes especially golden him at all as a guide.

His influence is still clearly identified with the well-known economist, Emile de Laveleye,
whose beautiful book De la Proprit et de ses formes primitives [100] also reflects a
Christianity that "the world has been an ideal of justice, our institutions, how much better,
do not even realize at all. "this one is a supporter of socialism, however much restricted,
which he considered necessary the intervention of the state to make the general interest
prevail over personal egoism.

In Germany it was mainly pastor or rather "father" Bolping (1813-1865) - for that was
his name in the walk - as founder of the "journeyman associations" on practical grounds
set out to organize the Catholic workers. Self trained as a shoemaker he knew the life of
the young workers companions in a big city with experience and it was him when he felt
the vocation takes to do this thing. Already sounded the familiar: shoemaker, keep reading
you! repeatedly in the ears, he would not be dissuaded from his plan to become
spiritual. And with iron will he accomplished it, and was 32 years old priest to
Elberfeld. Since he became president in 1847 of a youth association and in 1848 he
continued his Gesellen-Verein on solid foundations. He strove for six things: 1. a moral
rein and harness to restrain the young worker and a willing hand to lead them; 2. a means
to rest after the fatigue of work (a local); 3. an opportunity to develop the handicraft that
they practiced; 4. a pleasant and decent relaxation, the inn and public amusements not
bestowed; 5. a rule to strengthen themselves in religious feelings through better education
and a strict sense of duty; 6. a direction to nourish piety through works of love and mercy.

The example of Elberfeld worked and risen elsewhere such associations. When
Kolping in 1849 became vicar of the cathedral of Cologne, this place became the center of
his work and that he was "the father companions." He pointed to the young worker on the
triple capital that he possessed: 1. his physical and mental strength; 2. The fruit of his
labor, which he had to use profitable and handle sparingly; 3. the time, the precious time
of youth. The various journeyman associations committed themselves to Rheinischer
Gesellenbund and later the Katholischen Gesellenverein. There Kolping she dedicated to
Saint Joseph, who had been a carpenter, she called later often Jozef Gezelle
Associations. Kolping she organized also in Bavaria and Austria. This foundation is
decidedly catholic and clung on to Rome and church. Undeniably, these associations
have been the strongest barrier in Catholic areas, in order to keep the workers from social
democracy, and it has the greatest difficulty to penetrate into regions where these
associations and prosper. got in 1862 "father" Bolping therefore personal blessing of
popes on his work. He also had his blade, soon had 30,000 subscriptions. Exactly as he
experienced the festive inauguration of the Hospice Gesellen Cologne, but he was
already suffering and then died very soon after. The bishop of Mainz, von Ketteler, said
his task was to provide a Catholic contribution to the solution of the labor question.

The bishop (1811-1877) took itself an effectual part in the movement, there he was, in
his book Die Arbeiterfrage und das Christenthum in 1864, as Dollinger at Munich in 1863,
called for the intervention of the Catholic associations the social movement. In his critique
of contemporary society he joined entirely with Rodbertus and Lassalle and have to
accept far from being the antithesis of Christianity and socialism, he pointed to how both
could go together at certain points. Especially sharp he performed against liberalism,
matches whose freedoms on the apples from the Dead Sea, clean the outside and inside
of ashes. Thus, the liberal proclamation of freedom of employment for the worker actually
no different than the freedom to die of hunger; the freedom to move (Freizgigkeit) not
much different than a sound, for the worker, the woman and has children, is still riveted to
the place where he was once established; Thomas Aquinas also he believes that full
ownership belongs to God and the people only have the right to use. He acknowledges
the ownership rights of the individual over the goods, he does so under the condition that
the rule of law which takes place in view of the peace in society and the economic
benefit. Man must never regard the fruit as his property but as commonplace. However,
the duty the proceeds of his property not only for their own benefit, but the benefit of using
it generally is only a moral obligation to love. The devices, which the church will offer the
worker are: 1. the establishment of facilities for workers who are unfit for work; 2. Christian
home with Christian marriage as a basis; 3. the truths and doctrines of Christianity; 4. the
establishment and promotion of artisans' associations, journeyman associations and the
like; 5. promotion of productive associations, however, are not State aid, as Lassalle
wanted, as this is a violation of state tax law, but by the voluntary contributions of the
Catholic people.

But even sharper observers outlined Schings as editor of the Christlich-social Bltter
and especially the canon Moufang the program of Catholics. The latter gave to the
question of how the state should and could help, replied: 1. the protection of the law; 2. by
financial support; 3. by reducing the tax burden and the military burdens; 4. by reducing
the domination of capital. Regarding point 1, it will: 1. Protection of workers'
associations; 2. legislation on working time by: a ban on Sunday work. B. limitation of
working hours, c. determination of wages; 3. legislation of wage ratios and 4. a law
regulating women and children. As regards paragraph 2, he wants to help pass the state
to solid productive associations. Compared with point 3 a system of taxation in the sense
that as they become more and enjoy more, it also yields more. And finally to point 4 usury
laws and the abolition or reduction of beurszwendelarij. This is almost a practical work
program, which resembles that of the Social Democrats.

Of course, the rescue of the society in the Catholic Church, where clergymen as
Pachtler demonstrate how the modern state in political, religious and social terms is the
precursor of social democracy, as against does not bring much. Was not Eduard
Bernstein, who also declared recently that liberals and social democrats, as regards the
principles, in fact, want the same thing? The abbot Broquet called the liberal "an
International fine lacquered cuffs and shoes" and the international "liberal wooden shoes
or barefoot."

However, when the Catholics attract a more or less socially robe, then this is done
more out of political calculation, that they will not be displaced from the labor movement,
than from genuine interest in the fate of the workers, all we want to deny any way, also
under the spokesmen from that side men are found, whose heart beats warm for the
interests of the oppressed and whose intellect exercises a critique on our heartless
society that is fully consistent with the criticism of the socialists. Was it not the abbot Hitze,
who wrote: "The logic is on the side of socialism, both of fact and those of ideas, because
nowadays production system has already lost its individual character to assume a social
character: the roads when it is towed, not of liberty but of socialism. Missing logically
nothing than to give legal expression to the fact that it corresponds with. Socialism seems
to be the fateful final frontier of evolution. The social reorganization must derive its
principle of socialism. " It looks like everything that one on that side knows where the shoe
pinches, but fails to find the solution to eliminate the causes.

In England it was the Cardinal Manning, who has linked his name to the great
longshoreman strike in London, which frankly acknowledged that "the natural right to life
must give all human laws." He considered it the duty of the church "to protect the poor, the
laborers who have gathered the common wealth of humanity." And all in socialist waters
he comes, he says, "to the order of nature and of God belongs the land to those who are
at birth and will be buried. That was my feeling even before 20 years and so I think. I
consider every effort to build a civilization or a society on this earth, which is contrary to
the eternal laws of God and nature, which recognizes private ownership of land, as foolish
and criminal. "

The Bishop of Meath, Dr. Thomas Nulty, relies on the judgments of the Gospel and the
common sense to prove "that the people are and should always be the true owner of the
land of his country." Cardinal Gibbons, the head of the Catholic Church in the United
States, wrote: "The heartless avarice, which, to win not only ruthlessly crushes the
workers of several companies, but in particular being women and children in their service,
doing all who love humanity and the law, understand that it is not only the right of workers
to protect each other, but the duty of all the people to support them, to find a cure for the
dangers which threatened the civilization and social order be avarice, oppression and
corruption. " Archbishop Ireland said in the United States, that "it was time the original
spirit to revive the gospel going out on roads and paths, preach from the housetops and in
the market place." For all "Leo XIII speaks fearlessly to the world of the rights of
labor; though Cardinal Lavigerie calls for the African slave; Cardinal Manning already is
intervened between the plutocratic merchant and the workman in the docks; devote Count
de Mun and his supporters of noble-minded friends talent and time to the interests of the
French worker ", yet he must recognize that" as a whole, we (ie Catholics) calm as
his. We say our prayers, we preach and listen to sermons about God's love and
resignation in suffering; or if we venture into the arena, it is the eleventh hour, and others,
our long gone before and as public opinion has already been formed. Wonderful is all
this! Christ made the social question to the foundation even from his teachings. "The blind
see, the lame to go, the lepers are healed and the poor have the gospel preached?" The
church has become scuffle in its entire previous history with any social issue that
eminently ours. Our days are days of struggle and action. For the timid and fearful virtue
of Thebaden is now not the time. In the arena priest and layman! Searches for social
suffering and set to head movements to heal. See with a spirit of compassion around the
workshops to the overworked young men and children. Blows fresh air into the experience
crammed dwellings of the poor. Follows the road the crowd of homeless
children. Decreases in the Railway and reveal service Sunday work, which makes it
impossible to observe their religious duties for thousands. Does your voice against the
terrible word of intemperance, hourly undermines countless victims in body and soul. That
is pure and unadulterated religion. That will ensure the centuries God's church. "We could
continue with numerous quotations from the dignitaries of the church, but despite that
keeps the church itself, the great remmachine and remains the representative of the most
absolute theocratic absolutism, whole and already forgetting its egalitarian, even
democratic, communist origins.

When the waves of the ever rising socialism were too high and threatening opbruisten
against the dams and dikes of the existing institutions, then finally the pope said in his
famous encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891). Already a year before his accession he had in
a pastoral letter strongly condemned the "avarice without heart" who does ask "whether
the advocates of civilization outside the church and without God, rather than to make us
progress, not only us centuries back swinging and returning to those times of shame,
which slavery such a large part of humanity crashed and where the poet sad
cried humanity lives only for some rare privilege . " What to say of the encyclical?

Aloft exalted and praised as a masterpiece of astute thinking and logical conclusions on
one side and a worthless trinket thrown by others in the area, they deserve "ni cet Excs
d'honneur ni cette indignit." [101] That the Catholic Church and its members, who all like
and need to find what writes an infallible pope, even before it is published, which is the
most natural thing in the world, but may be called more surprising that others outside the
church there is great praise over have, because we are convinced that its value consists
less in the content, which would long be forgotten in ordinary cases, or the person who
issued it. The pope still has as head of the church a power which one, whether one wants
to hear it or not, is forced to take into account and that gave high importance to this
otherwise insignificant piece, which a succession of the most contradictory statements,
sometimes the socialists aandragende grist to their mill and then fighting them strongly in
what they want. Really, it's too much honor that piece of evidence, when one of Prof.
Quack testifies. "Rarely is broader way started the problem and dared" and when he
speaks of "an all-encompassing harmonious flow."

Since then it has named Leo 13 "pope of the poor" and pointed the way to the
Catholics, through which they walk.

How informal chat socialists in his encyclical, appears eg from citations like this.:

"Since the last century the associations of craftsmen (viz. The guilds) are removed and
no other protection for its entry into the place, the time has gradually workmen delivered
alone and undefended to the inhumanity of employers and the far-reaching greed the
owners."

One would not think that these words are taken from some brochure from
socialists? Similarly, the following phrase:
 "The leadership of the works and the company of all the cases has fallen into the hands
of a few people, so that some wealthy and wealthy people, so to speak, the slavery
imposed on a vast multitude of proletarians."

And then stated: "As well as the effect the cause follows similarly yield follows the work
as the legitimate property of the person who performed the work." Would you not say that
someone who speaks as a pupil of the school of Socialists ? And soon he let "the goods
of the earth and accessories jointly shared by the great human family" - what is this
different than if the Socialists claim that everything belongs to all? When the pope sees
labor as the condition of all wealth, when he wants to "work the workman for housing,
clothing and food as much need to make, that he can live without great sorrow" when he
"maintain life for a all the necessary duty eight "and says that" all have natural rights to
livelihood, "then one must recognize that as a student in the school of socialism has
already made nice progress, which would make a good hope of him cherish for future, if it
has not already reached such an advanced age.

on the other side and he remains the inveterate defender of the particular property,
which he testifies: "All efforts must be maintained to alleviate the social distress in our day
to the principle particular property is inviolable and sacred." He therefore does not
examine the foundations of modern society, yes, let this investigation does not even
matter, he takes as dogma, as simple axiom to that particular property is inviolable and
sacred. The causes of the sad condition he sees the destruction of the guilds in the
cessation of the association among the workers, the growing religion unemployment in the
unbridled free competition in the overall superiority of the capital, usury under any
form . But the Socialists medicines he has not served, and he puts himself repeatedly
braced against them. However, he hinted repeatedly that either he himself or the men who
drafted that document are not sufficiently aware of what would the Socialists, and he is
fighting against windmills, while fighting the Socialists in which they do not claim. Averse
freedom as Rome always has shown, state socialism would make him the most attracting,
as the state authority he attributes great influence, yes, we are convinced that he is not
averse to it by the state authority to regulate everything, where that authority but in his
hands and he was thus the social pope.

In an open letter [102] concerns to Pope Leo 13 following his Encyclical Henry George,
the Pope gave a very nice lesson in political economy, and if we do not with this one, that
the drug, yet we believe that especially the criticism of him particularly title to the land may
be called indisputable. It also highlights the ambivalent of this piece, the pope-like Janus
with his two faces, one friendly toelachende capitalists and other coquettish ran with the
workers and in that regard he says very well: "From a well-known judgment of the
Supreme court in the United States, said it was felled before the start of the civil War said
in a matter of a fugitive slave, that the Court "the law of the North and the Negro gave the
South". Similarly your Encyclical gives the gospel to the workers and the earth to the
landlords. Can one then wonder that there are people who say scorn smiling, priests are
generous enough to give the poor share an equal of the things we can not see, but they fit
devilish well that the rich all things that we can see, hold firmly in their fingers. "
 In any event, it is clear that it is a piece with two handles, one for the rich to keep them
to a friend and another for the poor, whose support and help one wants to lose. Its value
is extremely overrated, because it is only the person who issued it. But its enactment was
already a triumph for socialism; because this is so powerful that the pope considers it
necessary about intentionally submitting an Encyclical the world, the socialists have every
reason on this fact alone is already satisfied. And lags the piece constantly in two minds
so or to deliver far from evidence of a clear, well-balanced, logical argument, one part the
other contradicts precisely, even this weakness stems from the desire by serving two
masters the power holding hands. Even the most astute lawyer who advocates a
desperate thing, but losing, though he piles should also quips with each other and all he
seeks to hide behind the most sought excuses.

Roma locuta est (Rome has spoken) - and after this piece is obtained from the Catholic
side no independent judgment, but explanations, digressions of the Encyclical and nothing
else.

The new century began with a new encyclical and again one sees the phenomenon as
Rome one step has put forward, as in the encyclical Rerum Novarum (Of New Things), it
will soon be a step does backwards and so finally at the same position remains, again
according to the famous words: sit ut est aut non sit (side as she is or she may not). This
encyclical nevertheless exudes a decidedly different spirit than its predecessor, because
this one could accuse you of flirting with socialism, now the pope chooses bluntly party for
the capitalists against the workers. Following this encyclical gave the nascent Christian
Democratic Party of priest Daens in Belgium, which also began to develop in other
countries. Due to its performance, they got two currents, one led by the higher clergy was
on the side of the maintenance men, while the other chose the party of working with some
of the lower clergy. Who does not think of the battle between the former Belgian minister
Fierce and the priest Daens? The pope now will hear his opinion on that party and as
usual cabbage and goat sparing he takes it to the name of Christian democracy, but its
significance is reduced to a pursuit of ... kindness. "One guard is to distort the name
Christian democracy into a political meaning. Indeed, although the word democracy and
the letter indicates a people's government in the language of philosophers, must be so
used this word in this case, that aside is of any political purpose and nothing else to know
bestowing the beneficent Christian action on the people. "and then one must also" avoid
the name Christian democracy to seek toeleg to shedding all subjection and of resisting
those who are legally held as a government. Both the natural and Christian moral law
require that those who in any grade also hold the state authority must be respected and,
where lawful orders obeyed "The right of the poorer class has a right to -. Love gifts of the
rich. Who recognizes this, according to the Pope a Christian democrat! If now is not a
distortion of the concept of democracy, we do not understand it.

All that the unit can disturb must be carefully avoided, and we can not but the wording
of all humanities and political oppression read phrases like these:

"To get the unity of efforts such as is required, one should abstain from any discussions
that are hurtful or mutual removal may give rise. so leave it in magazines and on popular
assemblies silence of those quibbles, which usually still have no use. The subtle issues
they are not only not easy to solve, but it only requires already understand great abilities
and unusual attentiveness. Certainly, it is man's own, to hesitate on doubtful points and
one may on some matters of opinion differences, but those who are looking at yet
uncertain issues diligently for the truth, belong to others composure, humility and courtesy
to be observed, so that arises from the difference of feeling no difference of occurrence. "

So in other words mention whatever doubts may give and which concerns the social
phenomena. On that Catholics can not just judge. And so ... they must leave that to their
ecclesiastical heads! Again therefore follow a spineless and thoughtless head of the
church - such is the alpha and omega of wisdom learned by the pope, such is the
quintessence of this 20th century wisdom. On one of the last pages in the bluntly said:

"What plans in this matter may also be made by individuals or organizations, we always
remember that one full submission owed to the episcopal authority. They let him not be
carried away by an overly ardent zeal. A zeal that leads to disrespect, is neither sincere
nor truly useful and efficacious nor pleasing to God. "

So the Catholic workers must surrender himself to the leadership of the bishops and
what it has done. All the independence of the working class is out of the question, and for
the sake of unity, one has to submit to the Church and its members. That is the death of a
labor movement and is thus applied this encyclical, it is done with the Christian-
Democratic labor movement in all countries.

Will this happen? We do not know. But either: either one submits and then it's done with
every progressive Catholic movement, or it is not subject, but one will curse and must put
up with the exclusion of Rome. A beautiful beginning of a new century! Rome remains the
old, though she wrapped herself for a moment in a democratic coat.

The Italian statesman Cavour predicted agree that Ultramontanism would connect once
with socialism. We see already come this prediction, eg. In Bavaria where both of them
together went to the polls to fight the liberals, or in Belgium, where a priest Daens with his
Christian Democratic Party so much approaches the Social Democrats that he sometimes
goes into its program than her. [103]

The time has passed, the smart Windhorst once testified: "Everyone talks about the
social issue and its solution; then one is smoking a cigar and drinking a glass of wine, but
no one wants to work. "No, now it is rather the time when everyone wants to work on it,
but despite that teaches the result that it is not nearly all chefs, wear long knives.

Protestant socialism

Rome - and not unjustly - very well understood that the revolution actually begins with
the reformation and therefore she has expressed this ban as the beginning of all
disasters. Those who still reject the mediation of the Church by the Vicar of Jesus and let
each man independently judge the man as an individual has made the supreme judge of
his own actions, it being given to anarchist thought.
 No wonder the peasants had all their hopes in the 16th century reformer Martin
Luther. If he did not give the people the Bible in their own language? He preached not the
gospel, the good news of salvation to the poor and oppressed? Was that not the gospel
cry of equality of all beings as children of the same God and Father, and thus as brothers
and sisters? The social reform of the farmers is based on the spiritual, hence they can not
rely on the law but on the gospel. However rudely knocked off Luther
farmers. Incomprehensible to many, because no one can Luther called a sycophant of
princes and lords, he was not the man to ask for the favor of the people but not to beg for
the favor of those in power. Yet the cause of this strange phenomenon must, apart from
the dislike of Thomas Muenzer, whose hand he thought he saw in the 12 articles of the
farmers, be explained by the fear that the church reform compromised would be the
farmers and that he therefore the help of the would lose him benevolent lords, so from
Pilate fear. As many, Luther was revolutionary, as long as it was in his favor, but he was
conservative of the moment that he possessed power. Luther was as a human being
humane and kind-hearted, but as a theologian, as a believer hard and narrow and one
has to better awareness of the era of reform Hellwald consent to his Civilization History in
its natural development , that 'the mind to the work of reform is not part had the freedom. "

Although pioneer of the new age Luther not understand him complacent and therefore
he misunderstood the popular movement of the 16th century, "the prophetic preparation
work of the latest world history," the prelude to the French Revolution. From that moment
a matter of princes reform became and ceased to be a people business. Luther was and
remained a theologian, so he kept the Catholic monk he had been. That the political and
religious freedom are twin sisters of reform, Luther never understood, but decried the
gelasterde Muenzer did. Therefore, Muenzer was the propulsive and Luther restrained
power and the accusation of Bossuet that "Luther and affirmant que le chrtien n'tait
sujet aucun homme, nourrissait l'esprit d'indpendance dans les peuples et des vues
donnait dangereuses leurs conductors " [104] , was entirely deserved. It was Luther
theory, not practice, because that same Luther was the man of the most narrow-minded
nationals mind, so that he even learned "that 2 and 5 equal 7, ye can understand with the
mind, however, if the government says that 2 and 5 is 8, then you have to believe her
against your better judgment and feeling in it. "Who teaches such statements, of course,
is the man who is in the mind of the government. The Lutheran Church has therefore
always been a spiritual instrument of power in the hands of the secular authorities in order
to keep the masses in check. Not surprisingly, it is therefore, that social movement carries
an anti-religious character for the most part. Although a Weitling sought his theses tried to
find relying on Bible texts, but the men of the church understood very well that his views
were in conflict with the interests of the church. A Saint-Simon hovered strict state
socialist and theocratic equipped society envisioned in his Nouveau Christianisme , a
Cabet wanted to join Christianity, a Lamennais, Buchez, Leroux also were more or less
Christian socialists, yet the men who seek a reconciliation between Christianity and
socialism, not seen by the dignitaries of the church. We see it on the opposition, which
Maurice experienced in England, when he said that we should be socialists because we
are Christians . And Kingsley was to further preach not prohibited by the Bishop of
London after his sermon in the Johannes there the message of the church to the workers?
 Yet we find in the latter part of the 19th century, there are also attempts were made to
bring socialism and Christianity together.

It was the German Victor Aim Huber (1800-1869), which is the main struggle of our
time called the "battle of the conservative reaction against the more than pagan savagery
of the Revolution in its causes and consequences, the decisive battlefield of that battle is
the field social issues. "Through his many travels, his horizon widened and his attention
much more than settled the problem of the society on the political conditions. Especially
against the cold, calculating liberalism, he was opposed. He could not see that
parliamentary constitutions help the people could.

His social program is:

1. Only a realization of the fair, yes just demands of the communist efforts to keep
Europe on the terrible devastation;

2. The achievement can be protected by the state and the church - and with wide
support made public resources - but actually and separately only gradually and by free
societies, where the best elements of the affluent or wealthy classes and the working
classes shake hands;

3. The only redress lies in the organization of the toiling masses on the material basis
of a newly set up joint ownership and on the religious and moral tenets that Christian
civilization, according to the needs and structure of each state offering;

4. The base material can actually be created, there is not so much lack the means to
form such a joint ownership, as on the proper use of existing resources, which he partially
and preferably the immense means charges, which brings the daily wage already in the
hands of the working masses, but also the significant contributions of the rich and
mediated and the state, which he as well as the importance of the case requires it,
expected of them;

5. The moral-religious basis will be all the more can be created, because only through
such an organization an enduring influence of the church on which masses will be
possible, now that escape to every influence in their atomic state.

Huber was conservative and orthodox Protestant and he wanted to reach out to the
poorer classes, which he saw drifting gently along an inclined plane into even greater
poverty, and he saw the social revolution with its elements of passion and vengeance
coming and understood that it could not be averted by sitting still and watched.

An organization of the workers he wished on Christian principles, as well as striving to

create new communal property. He was in favor of "internal colonization" and
"association". Family life was the cell of society, and they wanted to come to this end, the
workers had to associate for cheap housing with gardens and their necessities wholesale
purchase without intermediary. Workers Districts (cits ouvrires) so for a 400tal families
by railways and omnibuses connected to major cities, where the workshops were,
domestic colonies appointed by the state. The productive association he wanted to use as
a means of capital formation for the workers.

Though conservative, he supported Schulze-Delitzsch and "genossenschaftliche

Selbsthlfe der Arbeit assigns classes" [105] was his hobby. Still, he acknowledged that
state aid was sometimes justified. But he would have none of that association would be
made subservient to the political ideas of Schulze-Delitzsch. With Lassalle he also came
into contact, and although he stood squarely in front of him, where they urged the workers
to seize the state and then get state credit for the associations, yet both men knew how to
appreciate each other. One might almost say that Lassalle harbored the hope Huber
whole to win. Huber found that after Lassalle's death, the leadership of the labor
movement into the hands of miserable men without principle, and therefore he saw the
future of Germany in darkness. Pretty lonely living in Wernigerode in the Harz he
experienced many disappointments and yet Germany had at his death a great man less,
which meant well to the interests of the people, although the positive Christian fold of his
character made him something exclusive.

In England it was the philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who raised many to move in the
social field. The earth has only two owners, he wrote, viz .: God Almighty and all his
children, the people who have good farm the land and always will manipulate him well. Its
Past and Present (past and present) indicates that former England all raised its
inhabitants, but now has a floor from exhaustion. Carlyle and remains aristocrat and
Puritan, his chief merit lies in that he acknowledged the existence of a social issue, at a
time when it was denied by most writers, although he the interests of the ruling class
always represented. His Sartor Resartus [106] is a sharp sarcastic book from which much
can be learned. The people had for him a great multitude, which requires
leadership. "Crying inarticulate cries of the masses - similar to that of the grief and anger
of the dumb animal - has the ear of the way the application for content: lead me, govern
me; I am foolish and miserable and can not lead myself. "He calls it" the most
unquestioned of all human rights, the rights of the ignorant are led by knowing to be gently
or violently by being held them on the right track. " Carlyle's position on the social
struggles of the 19th century does show some resemblance to that of Luther in the 16th
century to the farmers. Both have many more eyes and ears of the spiritual needs than
those of everyday life and though both recognize that many complaints of the oppressed
are totally justified, though both do hear powerful admonitions and though they also
employ harsh words against the rulers, ruled it should be and that by "the noblest
surrounded by the nobles," and it then belong to the privileged class. Who Latter Day
Pamphlets (Swift scriptures of the last day) reads, appeared after the revolution of 1848,
may convince how he at all and quips on everything as a true prophet, no one gets to
hear what he had or wanted. How witty and cutting is eg. His catechism of pigs (probably
know pigs on four legs), in which he compares the world to a large trough full of things
that are accessible but also full of things that can be achieved impossible and now it is the
duty of pigs to reduce the number of the last and the first to be increased and whenever
the question: what is the purpose of the pig? The answer is: ". To take everything I can
find without running the risk of the gallows or prison" When Carlyle eloquently appealed to
the conscience of the ruling classes, then this was because he saw beyond this and
emerging storm meant to defuse by making concessions, without taking away the most
vexing situations.

It was Huber, which Germany is the first time attention was on another Englishman,
Maurice, whose aim was to establish a link between Christianity and socialism and who
worked in particular on economic and social field.

Frederic Denison Maurice (1805-1872) was undoubtedly also a figure which England
can be proud of, even though he shared the fate of many pioneering spirits, viz. The
unpopularity. His witness Stuart Mill, in many respects an opponent, he is one of the
winged spirits of our century was, can hardly be given too much praise to whose noble
exertions.

First pastor, later professor he wanted the Christian consecration of the association
principle higher feed the working class. In 1849 he founded the Society for promoting
working men's associations (Association for the promotion of associations of workmen)
and among those who were loyal to him aside, were the lawyers John Malcolm Ludlow
and Thomas Hughes, Lord Goderich which is more known as Marquess of Ripon and was
mainly discussed later much by his conversion to the Catholic church and last but not the
least the clergyman Charles Kingsley, that the sad fate of the tailors in London attracted
according to its brochure: Cheap and poor garments under the pseudonym "Parson lot
"and by his series of small lay sermons in the weekly Politics for the people (Politics of the
people) and his social novels Yeast (Yeast), published in 1848, Alton Locke in 1850, had
great influence on the workers.

The well-off saw dangerous demagogues in them and the workers all suspicious to
them spoke of Christianity and Bible, because according Kingsleys characteristic
expression she saw in that book nothing but a "manual for police officers, a dose of opium
for beasts of burden that one has overloaded , a book only to hold the arms in check. "

In their new club they went out of the basics:

1. The human society is a body composed of many members, and not a mass among
warring atoms;

2. True workers should be working companions, associates and not competitors;

3. A principle of justice and not of selfishness must dominate in the pattern of trade.

They founded a magazine on Christian Socialist to bring their ideas the better among
the masses. Already the title pointed to the connection between Christianity and
socialism, to which she aspired. As now the Anglican clergy attacked him brightly, to the
extent they won the confidence of the workers. And especially when they boldly rallied to
the side of the machine workers during the strike of 1851/52 last week distrust them.

They got a room, the Hall of association, they held lectures, they developed a high
degree of efficacy. Maurice was the very soul of the association, but the opposition to him
grew, as the association had more influence and finally we managed to the extent that the
positive Christian Maurice was dismissed as a professor at King's College.

Convinced that there is great power lurked in education, he founded a night school for
adult workers and founded the Working Men's College in 1854. In his six lectures
on Learning and Working (training) he has his ideas put plain and simple, to the harmony
to demonstrate, that exists between know and work. He wants to make the workers to
entire people, through them to lead in every field of knowledge. And also he linked to the
useful to the pleasant, by also cause some relaxation. Men like Ludlow, Hughes, Ruskin,
Martineau, Rosetti, Westlake Others felt there already pointing his education and took
enough, that education was inspired by an exalted ideal spirit.

After being in the book The Workman and the franchise had raised the workers to be
no longer clips, but parts of the organic society, gave to his main work Social
Morality (social morality), in which he three major circles of social life the three groups of
family, nation and society treat after another. He sees in the Sermon still the constitution
for human life. The idea of the universal Christian family is his top and his whole life one
powerful and heartfelt protest against the men of this century and was deservedly
deposed him by Professor Quack:. "The pain cry from the depths" (de profundis) which
has risen from the working classes, has almost no one found such a sentimental answer,
as what sounds in Maurice's speech to the wealthier classes. "Mercy, Mercy" when he
therefore was brought to the grave in April 1872, when it was felt he left behind a void that
would not be taken so easily, but he had not lived in vain, and when it was later found at
many a wider and wider conception in religious circles, it is so thanks to him.

In later years came the Christian Socialist Society, whose goal was to bring the
principles include the life and teachings of Jesus into practice in the industrial organization
of society. She possessed her body in the Christian Socialist and chairman came to the
fore dr. Westcott, Bishop of Durham. Beside her were working "the Guild of St.
Matthaeus," which the Church Reformer its organ and the minister Stewart D. Headlam, a
student of Kingsley, her brave spokesman. Later there are more clubs in this spirit arise
and when Henry George, who was also a kind of Christian-socialist propaganda journey
did in England, then ushered it that way: "Must be the Church of Christ dumb as the
people in those issues to turn her with the prayer for guidance? To proclaim its priests in
the name of God before the altars of his church: Thou shalt not steal? What is called
steal? "

A peculiar mixture of mysticism, rationalism and humanitarianism gave England Brother

Bood Church, which the tradition of Maurice and Kingsley related to the Christianity of
Tolstoy and Croydon a Brotherhood House, a kind of phalanstery, where the easily
inhabitants lived in common. This included, among others Kenworthy. Furthermore, the
Labour Church, the Unitarian minister John Trevor founded with the aim to achieve two
things: 1. the abolition of the monopoly of the land ownership and the gradual
development of national life on the principles of fairness, and 2. the development of the
individual character of the workman. This has the Labour Prophet her weekly, holds
lectures and publishes brochures.
 Even in the general labor movement in England is more to religious, Christian life than
in other countries. Or non Keir Hardie, president of the Independent Labour Party (ILP),
Tom Mann, Ben Tillett and other believers, who far from being averse to Christianity this
repeatedly in their socialist propaganda? One does not forget that the English home from
a religious people, and it's not easy with the traditional trek to break, because too much of
that spirit in the home and heart is stuck.

In 1890 in England, published a remarkable book entitled In Darkest England and the
Way Out [107] of "General" Booth of the Salvation Army. This book made a tremendous
impression, also again not the new that was it, because everything was at least as good
as already said several times now by this, but because the ideas came from such a
different side. Yes, we are not alien to the idea that the Pope has understood that book of
Protestant side, he had to provide a counterweight to the Catholic side by an encyclical
and we therefore owe them his enthusiasm in 1891. It is the merit of the Salvation Army,
it's not like the church withdraws from social life as a log, lifeless body without staying
influence on society, but is fully plunging into the maelstrom of life to acting and equal
those men and women call it, saving action. One could say that Christianity is in
practice. Booth sees himself as some kind of social pope, as a prophet who brings his
book to the world as a kind of revelation. The first part of his book is a major critique of
contemporary society, which can not even be easily corrected by the most ardent
socialist. To give a sample of his writing style we bring this pictorial comparison to:

"If in one of the streets of London Horse rental coachman stumbles and falls, either by
fatigue or by carelessness or by stubbornness, and amid all the utensils is vast, it is not
held a design contest or a debate open how it was that the horse has stumbled before we
try to help the animal on its feet. The rental horse is a very appropriate image of the poor
exhausted part of humanity; falls, this is usually because of too much work and too little
food. If it helps you on the leg, without changing its conditions, it can lead to nothing else
than to expose it to a recurrence of his sorrows. Yet in each case, the first thing thou must
do, is to help the bone. It was perhaps because of too much work, or too little food; maybe
it was entirely their own fault that it has fallen, bruised his knees and Lemoen has
broken; but that is of later concern, help the bone is paramount, if it was not for his sake
to, at least to prevent an obstacle to traffic. Behold, the most attention has been drawn to
help the leg again. One takes the 't horse collar off, the harness is unbuckled, even if it is
necessary, cut loose, everything is being done to help it. And then it is biased and another
back to his normal task put to work. This is the first of the two rules governing the rental
horse. The second is that each of these horses to London has three things: shelter for the
night, food for his stomach and so much work that he deserves his food with labor . These
are the three points that serve as the "laws of the rental horse." If it falls, it will be helped
back on their feet and as long as it lives, the food has a shelter and work. As this is now a
low standard, but there are millions - literally millions - of our fellow people in this country
that can not possibly reach this standard. Can what legally belongs to rent horses, also
become part of human beings? I say to me: yes. The standard, which applies to the rental
horse is in the same condition as these animals are also a measure of people. "

The first and critical part of the book is entirely written in this spirit. Then he goes after
what society is doing to provide all the nameless misery, the Poor Law discusses the
charity, prison, emigration, education and training, trade unions, cooperatives, savings
theory, the Socialist proposals in order to decide to come, which is caused by any of them
immediate help at this time. He always cries, well and good, but who takes care of the
victims in the meantime, ie the time that elapses before final improvement has been
made? He wants to ensure the meantime. But he wants the rotten society, as he calls
herself, maintain the same policies, he only wants to escape the disgusting spectacle of
starving in rags and the unemployed in the face, he is equal to the old-fashioned doctor
who bruised puts on the wounds, lest they be seen in all its hideousness and now
pretends to be healed. He wants to establish a threefold purpose colonies: 1. the colony in
the city; 2. agricultural colony and 3 overseas colony.

But his path is nevertheless also of philanthropy, which he rejects, and if anyone knows
how to save the big drum and raise funds gathered by advertising, it is this "General"
Booth. Almost one would be tempted to see a dam in the Salvation Army, which is made
to curb the rising power of socialism. And that is why the rich contribute to this salvation
army so much to. Yet such benefits "plan" not much, because in front of the few who are
removed from the misery are so many who just thrown by the nature of social
development in misery. Also this attempt to reconcile Christianity and practical socialism
with each other, the desired effect gives out. The future will prove to be purely personally
not too many have yet to determine whether the "General" Booth all the work so that it
hinges on his person or whether he is able there is a hereditary family work.

Also, the military, hierarchical structure of the Salvation Army, with his general, colonels,
majors, captains, lieutenants and soldiers very poorly consistent with the spirit of Jesus,
which testifies to equality in the word: one is your master and you are all brothers! There
is therefore great discipline in the army, where one is commanded from above. The time
of greatest impact of this association seems already over.

In Germany, the book by Rudolf Todt Der deutsche radical Socialismus christliche und
die Gesellschaft (1877) attempted to give an overview of the social core of Christianity
and social vocation of the Christian society. Within a year, the second edition appeared
already a proof that the minister had chosen a subject picked. One should say that he
dares things. The first part of the attention at once draws when he writes: "To understand
the social demand and contribute to its solution, the right hand should the national
economy, in the left the scientific literature of the Socialists and have saved themselves
the New Testament. Lacking any one of these factors, then the solution falls out wrong. All
three belong together. The national economy teaches us to understand the economies
hold political construction of the nation body - she's the expert decompose; Socialism and
the New Testament open eyes to the physical and soul ably suffering from this body - they
are pathologists, but also therapists, each in its peculiar way "First he gives a definition of
socialism, which reads as follows:. socialism is the pursuit of the deeply felt contradiction
of the present actual economies like political structure of society with the ideals that float
to the mind of some parts of the population, to solve a new economies hold political and
social order. This provision is far too vague and general, it does not define what the
essence of socialism is and why it is wrong. After he did this, he goes after and takes the
concept of radical German Socialism in imitation of the Social Democrat Dr. Boruttau to
which it pursues a threefold purpose: the republic in the political field;. in economies like
reproductive communism and religious atheism. Each of these assertions he will explain
the writings of the socialists, and then do hear the criticism of the NT about it. The second
section considers the principles of radical socialism and their conclusions, and provides a
detailed discussion of the program of the Social Democratic Party, which concludes: "With
the exception of atheism is the position of the gospel against the socialist theory nothing
bringing in. The basics of it are not only the test of criticism of weathered the NT, but
contain exactly evangelical, divine truths; its indictment of the contemporary social order is
largely justified, justified its demands. For the sake of these principles, therefore, we can,
if we want to remain true, do not fight the socialists have, however, to the manner in which
they intend to apply these principles and to the means by which they wish to realize this.
"He is therefore in principle a socialist and christian and believes that this can go together
best. And then he gives the task, which rests on the possessing classes , namely: 1.
change of ownership concept and its consequences; 2. restoration of moral values and
honor of the work; 3. return to positive Christianity of the New Testament. Then it is the
task of the non-possessing classes : 1. to not just their luck to find in the earthly
possession and enjoyment, in which endeavor they should be helped by the state and the
haves; 2. to use energetically of their rights granted and prescribed duties (general direct
suffrage, freedom to unite, economy, general development, press and reform it by the
State to protect the workers against unscientific, half, yes uncivilized people who corrupts
public opinion, patronage of the rich, limitation of wealth); 3. wise exposing their
complaints and demands. He then discusses the capitalist law, landowners law and labor
law, which should be divided into those of the agricultural and industrial workers, to end
with the identification of the role of the church in the area of social life. They must act in
the interests of the non-possessing classes, directly by promoting the material welfare of
the working classes, for this to provide a decent life, and indirectly through written and
spoken courageously and tirelessly to perform for the workers and not -bezittenden. In
this way the Church will regain the confidence of the non-possessing classes, she has lost
and both the state and the possessing classes to acquire esteem, which she now does
not have and which they feel painfully the loss. The church does this, it will undermine the
soil over time, which the atheistic socialism grows and flourishes.

Indeed it is a remarkable book that deserves attention because it discusses so frank

and free things and so says exactly where it comes.

The court chaplain Stocker, Jesus the "King of the proletariat" and the Bible "working
book" called par excellence, is in Berlin on Christian side had the captaincy, but he
verbruide in the long run and with the workers and to the court, so he finally lost the
influence he held for a time. Another pastor Naumann, who is the founder was the
National Social Party, also put in the foreground, "the need to know the church in its
ministry representatives, that they are the cause of the poor, the friends of the poor Lord
Jesus, to manage . A church of the rich is an "uncanny" appearance. "But he had to see,
finally, that one of his most zealous staff Paul Ghre [108] who as a candidate in theology
for three months as a worker spent in a factory to experimentally on plant life judge and
his experiences rendered in a book that made a lot entrance, said goodbye to him, to take
a place in the ranks of the social democracy. Was it his aim "to deprive her materialistic
backbone of the social-democratic worldview" [109] , we dare not say how this would be
achieved, but it is certain that social democracy with the loss of her edginess also
increasingly her strong character and has lost speaking atheist by religion "until private
matter" has opened the door to also take on religious elements. Engagement, it is
observable from both sides.

Among the evangelical theologians who dealt with social questions should also referred
to be bishop Martensen of Zealand in Denmark in his book Socialism and Christianity and
the Danish professor Scharling, but the topic is discussed as conclusive by Todt, that all
later times only echo of what he has given.

_______________
[99] International Library: the Lamennais, The Book of the people. f 0.75; International
Library: the Lamennais, the past and future of the nation . f 0.75.
[100] This book is in very free and augmented edition in Dutch appeared in the famous
International Library under the title: The property and its original form . Freely edited by F.
Domela Nieuwenhuis, f 1.25.
[101] Neither excessive honor nor indignation.
[102] International Library: Henry George, the issue of labor. Open letter to Pope Leo 13.
Translation of J. Stoffel, f 0.90.
[103] In our country has a young Catholic lawyer, Mr. SJ Fisher in. Social Weekly had
some articles in which he claims that "the socialist principle is not contrary to Christianity"
and expresses his opinion thus: "One can as a Catholic declare themselves for the
conversion of the currently still private production joint production, which thereby transfer
for such production requires a long legal way from private property into collective property
and do regulate the production by the state. " In other words, social democracy and
Catholicism are not incompatible. He agrees with the German Catholic writer Dr. Hayser
who thinks that not every socialism hostile to religion. It certainly does not mention that he
has that naughty assertion of Catholic side, including in newspaper De Tijd extremely hard
cases.
[104] Luther, fed by confirming that the Christian was to not only submissive man, the
spirit of independence among the nations and gave dangerous views to their leaders.
[105] Associate Friendly Self-help of the working classes.
[106] restored the tailor, which consists of a Dutch translation J. Zrcher, published by
John D. Brewer 1880. This book is for reading highly recommended.
[107] International Library. In Britain's darkest jungles and the way of
escape . Ed. Rev. CS Adama van Scheltema, f 1.25.
[108] International Library: Paul Ghre, Three months factory . Ed. Hell. Mercier, f 0.75.
[109] The same is committed in this country dr. Van den Bergh of Eysinga, pastor at
Zutphen, who belongs to the Social Democratic Workers Party.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 18
State Socialism
General considerations

we called socialism theory, according to which the work should be socialized, ie pass
from the hands of private persons in that of the community, then the word is socialism by
the addition of "state" to mean that the community, in whose hands move the equipment ,
must be the state. So state socialism is the theory according to which the equipment
operated by the state and should be monitored.

At the party congress of the Social Democratic Party in Germany in Berlin in 1892, the
ratio of social democracy and state socialism by intellectual chieftains of the party
discussed and we take these debates as a guide in our discussion, we will definitely aim
their view purest.

Liebknecht said, "The state socialism in the present sense, the" Verstaatlichung "to the
extreme thorough, the" Verstaatlichung "the most different branches of industry, as it has
already been largely implemented in the railways and was tested in the tobacco
industry. gradually they want one company after another "verstaatlichen", ie set the state
instead of private employers to continue the capitalist enterprise, only with a change of
exploiter. In place of the private capitalist the state. If the contemporary state "means
light," the State remains what he is now. He acts as an employer instead of individuals
and workers gain nothing there at, but the state has strengthened his power and
repression force "Then he says that above all from the tribune of the Reichstag post -.
Though wrongly - is called a socialist institution and the railways. "And now the state had
all owned businesses, the worker would, since he can not find another job, have to adapt
to any condition. And as the economic, also the political dependence by this so-called
state socialism, which is truly state capitalism, only reinforced in the highest possible
manner, and economic slavery of the political, the political, the increase economic and
intensification. "Furthermore, says he, what "state socialists want in today's state, is
squaring the circle - a socialism no socialism is in a state which is the opposite of
socialism."

But what the Social Democrats want else than that which is state socialism by them has
been proposed, though he conveniently replaces the word socialism is state
capitalism? Has not the same Liebknecht their talk that the socialist state "must grow into
today?" And how can he otherwise than by increasing its office and make one company
after another to a branch of state public service? He himself admits that the proposal of
productive associations with state aid proposed by Lassalle was state socialism, so that
we Lassalle and his party divide in the state socialists of that side may find difficult
opposition - but not the whole Social Democratic Party Germany after the merger of
Lassalleans and requirements acher to Gotha in 1875 had a productive association with
state credit in its program and was therefore not in any case - to the new program of Erfurt
in 1891, when this point fell - state socialist according to Liebknecht's own words? Was
not Kautsky in his Explanation of the Erfurt program [110] , a kind of unofficial statement,
without being contradicted by someone from the party, who said: "It is true when it is said
that can not coexist socialist production the overall freedom of labor, ie the freedom to
work when, where and as one wants. But freedom of the laborer is incompatible with any
systematic collaboration of several people, in whatever form it occurs, either capitalist or
at contemporary scientific basis. "He likes the freedom of labor is only possible in small
enterprises and there too but to some extent, and "with the demise of small businesses is
also necessary linked the demise of the freedom of labor. It is not the social democrats,
destroying her, but the incessant claims of big business "Again he says." It's true, it still
enjoys a certain freedom to the worker under the capitalist system. If it does not please
him in a workshop, it has come to look for him rather work elsewhere. He can go the other
from one service. In a socialist society all the means of production will be concentrated in
one hand, there is only a single employer [111] , so that change is impossible. In this
respect, the wage-worker in our days an advance freedom beyond that of socialist
society. But this one can not mention the freedom of labor. He can so often from one
factory to another move, freedom of labor, he will not find any, every, the work of each
worker in particular be accurately determined and controlled. This is a technical
necessity. Freedom, whose loss threatens the worker in socialist production, so it is not
freedom of labor, but only the freedom to find out his master. This freedom is now by no
means meaningless; she is a rampart for the worker, as everyone knows, who was
employed or in a monopolized business. But this freedom is increasingly doubtful by the
economic development; rising unemployment edited the number of vacant places is much
smaller than the number of applicants. The unemployed should be happy to find some
related rule. And the increasing concentration of the means of production in few hands
working there that finally the workers in any business the same "boss" or at least back
takes the same employment "Relatively is the freedom of the worker is now greater than
in a socialist society, where one is doomed to stay where they are, under penalty of
starvation.

And all this is not offset by the assurance that "not only loses its oppressive nature, the
lack of freedom of labor in a socialist society, it will also be the base are of the highest
freedom , which hitherto has been possible under the human race . "he himself admits
that this sounds like a contradiction, but it is only apparent when one listens how he
solves and knows to fold, because he says," not freedom of labor , but the liberation of
the labor , such as the machine essentially makes it possible to a large extent in a
socialist society will to mankind freedom of life bring, the freedom to devote himself to art
and science, freedom of the noblest pleasure . "But on the issue was no, it was the
question of whether the worker in a socialist society more would have freedom now, and
we have heard from Kautsky that this will not be the case.

The only distinction whatsoever is said to consist in this, that "the laborer instead of
being a function of a capitalist, standing whose interests before his own, find themselves
is a function of a society, of which he is a member of an association of comrades who
have the same rights and the same interests. "as if this would have been shut out all
tyranny! And if he makes himself with the excuse that "it is not the social democrats,
destroying the freedom of labor, but the continued progress of the big industry," we have
here in dispute [112] , that production in socialist society slavery will continue, even
increase, it only changes its master, but the mastery itself remains exist. Yes, he also
says: "All forms of remuneration: remuneration for time or piece; special premiums for
work above the overall remuneration, different pay for different types of work ... all forms
of modern wage system, changed a little, will be fully applicable in a socialist society "and"
distribution of goods in a socialist society will only take place in the future, according to
forms that the development of those nowadays applied. " [113]

A social democratic state so concentrated in one hand and it applied the wage system -
but this is the real basis of capitalism! So one preaches the abolition of the wage system,
while it sanctions the system of price giving the old communist formula of Louis Blanc,
taken over by Marx and Engels: everyone gives to his forces, and everyone receives
according to his needs.

Emile Vandervelde acknowledges that the socialization of the means of production

does not necessarily entail the abolition of the wage system. The workers of state
arsenals its employees as much as the women of the Ghent flax factory or the baker of
the Forward. And then he adds: "Certainly this is not our ideal. We strive earnestly for the
moral transformations which the cooperative will enable first of all manufacturers and
perhaps - because there is no ideal so pure that the future can realize exists - perhaps the
anarchist community, overflowing of brotherhood and wealth, where everyone will what he
wants, and at the abbey of Theleme, will give his powers and take it to his needs.

But to get to, the bark would our brains, so weathered and rough, very developed, and
should be improved. And to immediately realize reforms need to ask the first elements of
this transformation: education ample spread, shortening the working day, alcohol reduced
or abolished - there so many resources to improve the breed and to prepare for the
advent of social forms of the future. "

So this spokesman acknowledges that socialism is another form of the wage system
and strives for something which is not ideal. But why the anarchists, who strive to be
perfect, always repelled and so gesmaald on them? The means he suggests, are still
agents who use the anarchists and which they strive, though they always say that one
should not look for it refuge and the goal is to be kept in mind: the socialization of the
means of production and elimination of patronage. Vandervelde apparently limping
between two opinions, in his soul he is an anarchist, but in the meantime he works in a
line that does not lead to ideal, but to consolidate and strengthen the existing society,
which he disapproves. How it fits this together? However, one may say that man is a
bundle of contradictions.

Vollmar, who is this the consequentste wild agitation of the soc.-dem. Parties therefore
focus on these five points: 1. employment; 2. association law; 3. withdrawal of any State
interference in conflicts between employers and workers; 4. legislation in the field of
cartels and trusts; 5. elimination of taxes on food.

And this is, in other words to make it a reform party on the basis of contemporary
society.

What this now is socialist, and which therefore remains that way of socialism, he
forgets to tell. And he explains honestly:
 "I believe that social democracy has no reason to oppose the idea of state socialism
itself with particular zeal. On the contrary, a whole series of measures for gradual
preparation of a better social organization, is pursued by us and decided on, which may
be called socialist state. This consideration has also helped ensure that a separate clause
against state socialism, which stood in the design to the operation of the program of the
party in Erfurt in 1891, was omitted. "And while Liebknecht is playing out across Vollmar
as the radical, gives himself in the American journal Forum program, that's all, just not
socialist. Hears only what it wants the party, according to him: 1. freedom of the press; 2.
freedom of assembly; 3. freedom of religion; 4. universal suffrage in state and municipality
for all representative bodies and public relations; 5. National education; 6. all schools
open to all; 7. abolition of standing armies and the formation of a national militia, so that
each citizen soldier and every soldier a citizen; 8. international arbitration between the
different states; 9. equal rights for men and women; 10. measures for the protection of the
working class (reduction of working hours, health measures, etc.) [114]

Why the word Social Democratic Party does not replace the name of democracy or
merely workmen party?

But these two, (Vollmar and Liebknecht) which virtually said goodbye to socialism,
knew to be the party convention in Berlin a motion together on state socialism, which both
merged and adopted the party congress in unison. It reads as follows: [115]

"Social democracy is the so-called state socialism have nothing in common. The so-
called state socialism, to the extent that it seeks to "Verstaatlichung" for tax purposes, will
put the state in the place of the private capitalists and give him the power to the working
people to impose the double yoke of economic exploitation and political slavery .

The so-called state socialism, inasmuch as it deals with social reforms or improvements
in the condition of the working classes, a system of half-day, that owes its creation to fear
of social democracy. It aims by small concessions and all sorts of palliatives to alienate
the working class from social democracy and paralyze this result. Social democracy has
never refused, to require such constitutional reforms or justifiable, that can improve the
condition of the working classes under the present economic system, as they have been
proposed by other side. However, it considers such measures only as a small payment,
which in pursuit of the socialist transformation of state and society may have in no way
affected.

Social democracy is in its essence revolutionary, state socialism conservative. Social

Democracy and state socialism are irreconcilable opposites. "

That sounds robust and conclusive, but all these guys rub state socialism, is applicable
to them and their party, only here seems hateful tone explained by the fear of competition,
which one threatens to do as regards the other as his privative hunting ground .

But we ask, then would not the social democracy that the state takes responsibility for
all industrial branches, which acts as the regulator of production, the only employer? - As
Kautsky says: The ultimate goal of development, once the proletariat once reached the
state helm, is the association of joint enterprises into a single very large state, ie the
transformation of the state into a single "Wirtschaftsgenossenschaft". And this is
accompanied by utter dependence of the worker, since they can go anywhere! And brings
the political and economic slavery so this double yoke, which is in this resolution there is
also imposed on the workers by the Social Democracy.

Liebknecht understands this very well and this danger is not eliminated by the word
play of state capitalism in place of state socialism . Because state capitalism of him will be
state socialism of the moment when the social democratic state will have been introduced
worldwide. One is not free and slave, as a slave of the state, whether it monarchical or
social democratic, remains always a slave. And what Liebknecht said of the state of the
Jesuits in Paraguay is perfectly applicable to the social democratic state in the view of the
so-called Marxists. Across von Schweitzer, who tried to throw the German workers after
Lassalle's death in the arms of state socialism, at the time took Liebknecht the example of
the Jesuits is on, to indicate what state socialism in practice, saying: "In this model stands
were all state-owned enterprises, ie owned by the ruling Jesuits. Everything was
organized along military lines and drilled; the natives were fed very well, but they worked
under the strictest supervision and the galley slaves and enjoyed not the least freedom, in
short: the state was barracks and workhouse - the ideal of state socialism - the common
whip and common feeding trough. Spiritual food of course was not - the education which
was to slavery and thoughtlessness. "

Now Liebknecht may say that this is socialism is the mortal enemy of socialism - and
that's it, mind you: of the Socialism ! - But put in place of the name Jesuit Social
Democrats, and we say that that description perfectly fits the state of the Social
Democrats. Or would it into them not determine the value of labor to the socially
necessary labor time? And therefore the compulsory labor is its basis. Not labor for
pleasure and talent, not mandatory, ie forced labor is also applied there and then fit one:
who does not work, he shall not eat, it is starvation whip, which is used to force the
work. Liebknecht himself is led to say: "Socialism will and must destroy capitalist
society; it would snatch the monopoly of the means of production from the hands of a
class and do pass into that of the community; it will totally transform the mode of
production, making its socialist, so that no operation is possible and the most complete
political and economic and social equality reigns among men. All that is meant here by the
name of state socialism and with which we are concerned, has nothing in common with
socialism. "Perfectly true, but with social democracy, which shows that the social
democracy of socialism nothing reserves other than the name. And if Vollmar says, "But
we are after all in a very different basis as the state socialists. Their road is an
authoritarian, their resources, inasmuch as they could carry in general to the purpose are
so weak that mankind for many centuries could wait for the desired liberation, "we or
these words, ask not fully fit the social democracy? It will not be so naive to the freedom
to schools to social democracy, which relies on the party discipline as the highest merit
and that the authoritarian principle is exacerbated! Tonight's far from being irreconcilable
contradictions, but far from the word of Liebknecht: "The last battle, which has to fight the
Social Democracy, will be fought under the slogan: Here social democracy! That's where
state socialism ", we argue that these concepts coincide perfectly and so both will finally
come together in brotherly embrace.
 So when the motion Kanitz was treated on the grain monopoly in the German
Reichstag, Liebknecht declared in Vorwrts that the proposal concerned was purely
socialistic. Apparently it bothered him alone, that such a proposal would be made by
farmers and center men and thus was according to the words of the magazine "into the
wrong hands." So the thing was good, but the wrong hands - that is all!

For what purpose one branch of trade, industry or agriculture monopolizes, or for tax
purposes, as stated in the motion cited, or for any other purpose, yet will in principle be
the same. Monopolization by the State remains a monopoly, whether it takes place in the
interest of the tax authorities or supposedly to protect the working class as well as
poisoning by chloroform remains poisoning, whether it is effected by the relatives of a
dying in view of the estate or with the sincere objective to give the patient a quiet night.

If the working class is looking for support from the governments, to at implementing
reforms rather they enforce through their own organization, it is undeniably busy, willingly
or not, to bring in state socialism.

It's been Liebknecht who understands this very well when he says: "Do you suppose
that most English cotton manufacturers would not be very pleasant, if their industry"
means light "was? Compared to mining the state will be forced in any period of time to
"verstaatlichung". And the number of private capitalists who resist will day by day be
smaller. But not only the entire industry, including agriculture could over time become very
good "means light"; this is not outside the range of possibility, as it is sincere. And
Germany to the landlords, who always complain to exist, their land by the state was
deprived in name, but in its place appropriate "love gifts" and were given the right to a
certain extent as satraps of the state, as well as the satraps of the old empire of the
Persians, as supreme slave owners about the little people and farm workers, leading
agriculture - would not that be a great improvement for the junkers? And you do not think
that this idea is often already arisen in the minds of the smarter junkers? Of course they
would only consent if they win both income and influence; but this was on the basis of
state socialism easy to make in order. The idea is not as rejecting hanging in the air. "She
then capitalists would be public persons, hated operators on the labor of their fellows
honorable government commissioners, against whom the leaders of the production in the
state workshops every opposition was impossible excluded and the new principle of state
exploitation would subordination and dependence of nationals freely what better
guarantee than the old system of private exploitation.

They want to expand labor practice under the program of the party and they claim
thereby weaken the state! Thereby opposite is true, it strengthens the state. Not recognize
Fr. English in his book The Condition of the Working Class in England , which the factory
legislation "the state is not less powerful, but rather more powerful than before?" And after
he discovered is that two classes of workers, namely the most protected: the factory and
organized labor, those improvements have benefited permanently, he adds the remark:
"But as for the great mass of workers, the conditions of misery and insecurity in which
they are now, are as bad as ever , if not worse. "
 Moreover, while Marx says that "the state is powerless to abolish pauperism, that
inasmuch as States were concerned with pauperism, they remained in police regulations,
charities, etc .; the state can not do otherwise. To truly eliminate the misery, the state must
itself abolished, because the origin of evil lies in the existence of the state itself and not,
as well believe radicals and revolutionaries in a good formula for the state, which they set
the place of the existing state. The existence of the old state and slavery were not closely
joined together than the modern state and the usury society "- explained in direct contrast
Liebknecht in the Reichstag:" We consider that big contrast between rich and poor as a
proof of little civilization. We believe that the increasing civilization this contrast will
gradually disappear, and we believe that the state, which we have with regard to reaching
the highest conception, the civilizing mission to abolish the distance between rich and
poor and because we this calling to allocate the state, we will, in principle, the proposed
draft law. "So while one believes that the contrast between rich and poor can be obtained
only by the abolition of the state, the other believes that the state has the vocation its to
eliminate. Even though a difference! Moreover, already in 1881 Liebknecht was preaching
in the Reichstag state socialism - each member of a representative body and, moreover,
must be necessary, socialist state, because there is in these bodies only to work for state
socialism - when he said:

"The working relationships have evolved so much in modern times that the state, ie the
community, the function of the massive work which the community is based on the need
to take hand, would not harm incurred by the state and society, will not all the atomistic fall
apart, is to be maintained, the state in general. "

State and society he throws here together, because he first speaks of the state as the
community, then he is reflecting and distinguishes the company, which is the community,
or of the state. But he goes on to say: "One speaks of is conservative ideas. This is
conservative thought is first and foremost socialism. Without socialism have ye not in the
whole state. "So socialism has just founded the state! "What is the state?" He asks and
the answer is: "Summarize the state my part, such as you like - either you need from the
state set aside either the state is the duty of the community, to protect the weak against
the strong, the relationship of the people to organize together, to ensure prosperity and
civilization. If this is not the task of the state, he has absolutely no right to exist, the whole
concept - such as it is, this in passing, has developed the sharpest in Prussia - in its
essence a socialist basis. " no wonder then socialism can grow into! "The state concept
grew out of the human civilization, when humanity came forth from the animal
condition; when the bellum omnium contra omnes (war of all against all) ceased in the
rawest form, then it was not off by increasing its power. Whose number of branches of
state authority of the past and now compares [116] will detect the incredibly increased the
power of the state and every new branch of industry, trade or agriculture, which draws the
state to itself, increases his power over the life of a part of the citizens and the workers will
be the old slave and remain, for whom it is totally indifferent whether they are slaves of
the capitalists or the state.

Marx saw very well according to his Critique of the Gotha Programme in the Neue Zeit,
published in Volume 9, Part One [117] - wrongly they kept Marx de autor spiritualis (the
spiritual creator) of the program and Marx does it get lean! - The sociaaldemocratisch
partijprogram "from beginning to end afflicted with fetishism against the state" and
"despite all the democratic geklingklang the entire program ruined by the
onderdanengeloof the lassalleaanse sect to the state, or what is better, by the democratic
belief in miracles, or rather a compromise between these two kinds of belief in
miracles, which are both about as far from socialism . "(italics ours). What does this mean
other than that the program is state socialism? He thus considered it not socialist
program, but "of socialism removed" and yet the German party survived underneath until
the party congress in Erfurt, so for 16 years! Marx called it a "despicable and party
demoralizing program" that he is not "a diplomatic silence" will be called to approve what
he has done anyway, since his letter was not then made public after his death (1890) and
he understood that "however much the fact of the union satisfies the workers, however,
one wanders if one believes that this immediate success is not too expensive purchase."
What concerns practical work program, Marx says that "his political demands contain
nothing more than the old , world-known democratic litany: universal suffrage, direct
legislation, popular justice, people again, etc. they are mere echo of the bourgeois
people's party, the peace- and freedom of association, it is merely demands that so far as
they do not have to overly welcome in fantastic presentation. prepared are made a
reality. Only the state to which they belong home, not inside the German frontier, but in
Switzerland, the United States, etc. This sort of "future state" is present, although outside
the "framework" of the German empire existing. "

And took the party's appearance in the new program to have circumvented these cliffs
beneath awareness of the criticisms of Marx, one finds there all the ancient litany of the
bourgeois People's Party: universal suffrage, direct popular legislation, people again,
people, law, etc. again. back. No wonder radicals such as the Belgian Mr Lorand and
Fron them testified that they could accompany them almost entirely, ie it is not a
socialist, but a dead simple radical program. The Italian anarchist Merlino [118] testified
there also: "Behold the fruit of 15 years of socialist reaction and election agitation on the
basis of universal suffrage, granted to the working classes to distribute to deceive her, and
carry on the revolutionary road . "

Only the first, theoretical part is socialist, but operates only on solemn occasions as a
kind of parade horse, sometimes extracted from stable to travel around the beautifully
assembled and decorated, and then put away again carefully and put at rest . This just
reveals the ambivalent position of the party, a mix of socialism and democracy, which,
however, only the latter is honored and applied in practice.

Where to now has served the German Social Democratic Party as a model for those in
other countries such as Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Spain, Italy
and Austria, we need to not stand still. They are all soaked with state socialist notions,
even as it often is, the copies even stronger than the original.

That we have the right Lassalle and to the German Social Democratic Party with its
main branches in other countries home under state socialism, which is now shown clear
enough and is actually Marx and recognized by Liebknecht.
 But we share Finally, Marx and Engels in state socialism and believe that if one
Rodbertus called the father of state socialism in Germany, he has to share that honor with
Marx and Engels. The proof is not difficult to provide.

As to the Communist Manifesto, we refer to what we at the mention of it noticed, but

also the 1848 General Council of the Communist League formulated his demands and we
find mentioned therein 7. mines, quarries, feudal estate, etc. state ownership ; 8.
Mortgages state property, the interest paid by the peasants to the state ; 9. the ground
rent or lease as a tax paid to the s acetate ; 11. traffic means: tracks, channels, bolts,
roads, post, etc. owned by the state ; 16. establishment of national workshops where
the state guarantees the existence of all workers and care of the disabled.

If this is not all state socialism, then what is it?

Was not Marx, who wanted to put the words in the statutes of the International: "The
conquest of political power by the working class" Has not he in his major work Das
Kapital glorified labor, so that all the petty bourgeois reformers containing a wealth of
arguments find in order to obtain a controlled protection of the workers at the law? It is
true that he is also in the same book the development of the "already practically resting on
socialized production income" capitalist property in common advocated. But what proves
this but he was limping between two opinions, on one side Recognizing the need for
better regulation of capitalist society by legislation and on the other the necessity of
recognizing the total destruction of that society? He could say with Faust:

There live ah! two souls in my chest

and one wants the other separate.
Because the clasps with a hot love thirst
the world, where they will prepare home.
But Andre shakes onbetembre air
dust themselves off and yearns for higher spheres.

Of this also provides weather proof what Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist
Manifesto: "A second, less systematic but more practical form of socialism sought to make
the working class averse to any revolutionary movement by showing that no mere political
change, but only a change in the material conditions of existence it might be
useful. Among changes in the material conditions of existence this socialism means,
however, not at the abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, which is possible
only by a revolution, but the introduction of administrative improvements that are possible
on the basis of the present system of production, and is therefore absolutely no change
placing on the relation between capital and wage labor, but, at best, reduce the cost of the
rule of the bourgeoisie and simplify the administrative work. "

It will do well there to watch how the men in transient newspaper articles and small
leaflets keep the state cult alive and propagate, while in writings, which last longer and
that they want to quit their scientific reputation, writing completely different, because they
will all such liberal pronouncements of earnest respect.
 It was the Social Democrat H. Greulich, later Swiss labor secretary, who felt that there
were cliffs in the so-called people's state, as he in an essay on Fourier in the Jahrbuch fr
Sozialwissenschaft Jahrgang II, Part 2, pp. 28 and 29 writes: "As long as the work still
something unpleasant, lastigs, repulsive sticks, one could say the existing capitalist
exploitation aside by declaring all work for the common property and make the production
a common - but it will always can expect that will seek to place the smarter and more able
to conquer, which they can withdraw as much as possible to the unpleasant, difficult and
repulsiveness of the work. As a result, it formed an army of officials, which is also borne
by the labor of others, as nowadays the propertied classes, and there would be ongoing
election campaign and bustle reign in the communitarian, all the arts of demagogy would
flourish, as is now the case in several states with a representative system. The whole
advantage of such a distortion of society would perhaps be only located in a substantial
reduction of working and better nutrition of the people - but this could not be achieved
without the constraint - the new company would therefore soon a picture of causing
discord and discontent and soon even be unsustainable if the old has already become. "It
is the compulsion that already the cause could be of discord and discontent, and as the
social Democrats are such a scheme can not imagine different involve coercion, they
explain the impotence of their system, which contains within itself the germ of decay and
dissolution.

All may not see everyone still in the logical thinker must come to the conclusion that
state socialism along the lines indicated by Marx, and ending in a state religion, to whose
upkeep all should contribute, and for the altar of which all must kneel. A state hospital,
where the patients decided to be handled by its practitioners. A state school of hygiene, in
which "science" is put out what all people should eat and drink and wear and
do. A state code of morality, in which everything is forbidden what to call the majority vice
gelieft. A state education system, which cleans and prevents all private schools and
academies. A state nursery where all children are raised on common charges. And finally
a state family attempted stirpicultuur or scientific begetting children, taking on men and
women only being allowed to father children after inspection, if the state requires and
where it is forbidden to have children, if the State so prohibits. So by the authority in the
state are culmination monopoly and its highest power! [119]

Marxist side will be thrown in our way, we Marx assign a conception of the state, which
is entirely foreign to the meaning he himself to the word "state" granted because he
considered finally state and society as one, as is clear where he stands abolished want,
when classes are abolished and "thus the need of the organized power of one class for
oppressing another falls away," but we remember the correct equation in response to this
comment by Benjamin gave Tucker. Certainly, he says, Marx wants both: state and
society, identify, but in the same sense that became the lamb and the lion one, after the
lion has eaten the lamb . The unity of the state and society Marx resembles the union of
man and woman in the eyes of the law. Man and wife are one and that one is the
man! Thus Marx is in contemplation and social one and that one is the state. Marx state
and society had made one and that one was the society, the anarchists would in fact have
never quarreled with him. If the Marxist regime had not relied on the authority was so
authoritarian in marrow, why were his followers becoming so hostile to Bakunin and the
anarchists, where it stood up for freedom? And Dr. Aveling recognized whatsoever
overriding power of the state, when he wrote: ". With the abolition of private ownership of
land, raw materials, machinery, the abolition of private ownership of human life" and so if
land, raw materials, machines are state-owned, it is also human life state ownership and
done it all individuality, all selfhood in society.

We believe sufficiently to have shown how Marx and Engels should be included under
the state socialists like Louis Blanc, Rodbertus and Lassalle.

the landnationaliseerders

The country's land nationalization or municipalization is eminently England and no

wonder, because the mismatches between doing nothing by large landowners and
landless land workers are there the most. In the past, the population has increased two
centuries of 14 1 / 2 to more than 30 million and the number of landowners has fallen from
165,000 to 30,700, ie a doubling of the population and a decrease in the number of
landowners by 550%. Formerly so one landowner to 88 people and now one in 1000.
About 116 people own half of England and 3 / 4 of Scotland's private property.

English schoolmaster Thomas Spence (1750-1814) was the eldest advocate of the
principle of land nationalization. He believed that the people of the country had a right to
exist and therefore equal right to the land and all that belongs to it, as the means to
achieve an existence. The unlawful appropriation of the land by the landowners is the
source of poverty of the working class, which is now forced to put himself in sacrifice for
the benefit of doing nothing landowners. That is why the land ownership must be
transferred to the municipality, which may alienate nothing and have to cultivate it
themselves, but leased using for a period of seven years to the highest bidders, this
income to cover all municipal expenses and what remains of it, is divided equally among
all residents.

That these ideas exercised great influence and on Robert Owen and many others in
England, so that eg. A William Cobbett preached a crusade against the English
landowners and asked in writing whether the landowners had the right to use their land in
a way, which is forcing the natives to die of hunger and cold, is beyond doubt. Also in
John Stuart Mill, we see the after-effects of these ideas, he makes a sharp distinction in
his famous book on political economy between land and other property and by Herbert
Spencer in his Social Statics , although this in later times the practical impossibility of land
nationalization advocated, as evidenced by his Principles of Ethics dl. 2 (1893).

Under the influence of the American Henry George, who defended the land
nationalization with great flare, talent and great clarity, this issue was also in England lake
in the foreground and the famous scientist Alfred Russel Wallace was their advocate in a
booklet Land Nationalization its necessity and its AIMS , which he reached these
conclusions: 1. it is clear that landlordism (grondeigenarendom) should be replaced by
owners who cultivate the soil; 2. arrangements should be made so that the lease of the
land for the farmer is safe and permanent and will not be allowed to limit him in the free
use of the land or to deprive him the certainty that he has the fruits of his labor self
harvest; 3. arrangements should be made so that every British citizen can get a piece of
land for personal use at a decent sum in accordance with the value; 4. all wild and
uncultivated lands should be opened under certain conditions to development; 5. the sale
and transfer of the lease of the farmers must be assured in the freest manner; 6. to make
permanent those conditions subletting should be banned and mortgage very limited.

To ensure these measures, the state is the landowner and the leased land needs some
conditions to anyone who needs into operation and grows. Instead of the tenants so bring
their rent to the landowner, they should give it to the state, and thus the land is a branch of
public service bureaucratic apparatus, and if it is then, that conditions be created as:
country only given to private builders, the amount of land is limited, all the improvements
made on the land, benefit the farmer, no subletting may occur, etc., yet we would think
that it was better to state once even to make tiller of the soil, although in both forms a
dependency on the state is created, which will provide the people might or certainly better
maintenance, but a kind of slavery will entail detriment of human development . Wallace
wants to give the landowners compensation. Later, the state also built property neighbors
will, and he is the main owner. An association of land nationalization exists, making a
diligent propaganda for these ideas and find support in this instance. The fabians in
England.

Yet this association is not the first, because in 1870 was already the Land Tenure
Reform Association, founded at the instigation of Stuart Mill, whose goal was: 1. disposing
of all legal and fiscal obstacles to the transfer of land; 2. The abolition of the right of
primogeniture; 3. a tax system in which the increase of rent, which emerged was brought
by the growth of the population, the state benefits; 4. the purchase of large tracts of land,
which are sold by the state and leasing them to associations and small farmers; 5. State
domains and lands belonging to public institutions, will be made to serve the same
purpose and no such country will proceed in the future in private hands, not even the
church property.

And had by the workers established Land and Labour League in 1871 to include
program: 1. nationalization of the country; 2. establishment of agricultural colonies.

At the Congress of the International, held in Brussels in 1868 already they passed a
resolution, stating that coal and other mines, railroads, quarries in a well-ordered society
belong to the community, beyond that agriculture and land ownership should be treated
the same way as the mines and therefore need to be changed in common, social
ownership and thus the basis of the state leased must be of agricultural associations in
the same way as mines, that the movement means must remain common property of
society, that forests should commonplace and are also the machinery and any other
equipment which belong to the workers themselves and should therefore be used to their
advantage.

And at the Congress in Basel in 1869 it was stated that: 1. the company the right to
abolish the private ownership of land and soil and to turn into joint ownership and 2. that
it is in the interest of society necessarily is, change the soil and land in common
ownership.
 One can see how the issue of land nationalization earliest and most in England in the
foreground urged to be particularly important, and how decisions have already been taken
in that spirit, long before Henry George occurred. The state-owned and state thus occurs
when all of which take the place of private property and private business, though many
also want that the state grants the lease of free agricultural associations.

But undeniably entered a different, a new phase in the issue of land ownership in the
book Progress and Poverty (Progress and Poverty) by Henry George. Only rarely is a
book and a writer so soon became well known and famous, if that book and this American
writer. The fresh, clear argumentation this is mainly due, for whatever one thought may on
the propositions of Henry George, everyone will have to admit that he deserves the honor
that he has written on a pretty dry topic from the nature of things with great ease and
pleasant change, so it's almost as if one reads a novel.

And yet he was already not the first, which drew attention in particular to the ground
conditions. In England we find, if we Winstanley leave aside, because he actually was a
communist, at least four ministers, namely: William Ogilvie, professor at Aberdeen in his
crystal clear study Essay on Property in Country (Essay on land ownership) from the year
1782; Thomas Spence, teacher and member of the Philosophical Society in Newcastle-
on-Tyne, on November 8, 1775 his treatise in which society was reading: On the mode or
Administering the Landed Estate of the Nation as a Joint Stock Property in Parochial
Partnerships at Dividing the Rent (About the mode of administration of the land of the
nation as a common ownership society parochial shares by dividing the rent), in which the
whole issue is resolved by the land ownership as in a nutshell, with this result for the
designer that he out the society was put not only themselves but also impossible in his
school, so he had to leave the city as dangerous to the social order. Actually the
landnationalisators are therefore nothing more than modern spenceanen; Thomas Paine,
in his Rights of Man (Human Rights) and Old-Age Pensions (Retirement for the elderly)
proposed Agrarian Justice Opposed to Agrarian Law and Agrarian Monopoly: being a plan
for Meliorating the Condition of Women by creating in every Nation A National Fund, to
pay to every Person, When arrived at the Age of Twenty-one Years, the Sum of Fifteen
Pounds Stg, to enable Him or Her to start the World and usefull Ten Pounds per Annum
during Life to every person now living, or the Age of Fifty Years, and to All Others
whenthey Shall arrive at That Age, to enable them to live in Old Age without
wretchedness, and to go decently out of the World (agricultural justice across agricultural
laws and agrarian monopoly, a plan to improve the condition of the people by founding in
each country of a National fund for each person aged 21 years to give the sum of 15
pounds sterling in order to him or her to set to start in the world and 10 pounds sterling
per year over the life of each now living person of 50 years and all the others, if they at
that age to come, to enable them to live in old age without misery and decent to go out of
the world); and finally Patrick Edward Dove, a country gentleman, whose work The
Elements of Political Science, otherwise the Theory of Human Progression and Natural
Probability of a Reign of Justice (Elements of political science or theory of human
progress and natural probability of a government of justice, 1850). These four men are not
oneigenaardig by David Morrison and his book Four precursors of Henry George (Four
predecessors of Henry George) baptized with the names: Euclid, the Martyr, the Politician
and the scientific man of the land reform.
 In Germany one point, although in later times, by predecessors like Gossen, which the
land through purchase by the state wild relatives voluntary alienation; as Th. Stamm, who
wanted the ground "verstaatlichen" through improved expropriation and land tax
legislation, to lease him in pieces, with a decrease in interest on capital will be the
necessary consequence and as Adolph Samter, which in addition to preserving the other
property that is to abolish the ground, to get a powerful social ownership as a balance
against private property. In England it was in later time John Stuart Mill, who
acknowledged: 1. that owning land is a completely different ownership than any other; and
2. the legal basis and soil belong to the community and thus are common property
properly. In his view, the land ownership privately owned monopoly and therefore a
privilege, which can only be justified by the possible usefulness. He would also land
repurchase and subsequent placing tenants with long lease term so that each can have
the enjoyment of the fruits of his labor against payment of a land tax, which should rise in
proportion whose progression is calculated in a manner which the value is swallowed.

However, this does not mean that Henry George gave the strongest impulse to raise
this issue.

Affected by the phenomenon that the material progress goes everywhere accompanied
by increase in poverty, he was looking for a solution to that great riddle to identify the law
that links poverty and progress together. First he criticizes political economy and argues
that wages are not taken out of the capital, but an advance on its capital, they come from
the proceeds of labor. Nipping he then fights the population doctrine of Malthus. There
according to economists three factors of production: land, labor and capital, each of which
receives a portion of the value of the product in the form of land interest, labor wages
and capital interest, he tries the consistency of these three elements to tracks. Interest
rate floor is for him the price of the monopoly, sprung from the conversion of natural forces
and ground components in individually owned. He accepts Ricardo's theory, according to
which the rent of a country is determined by the high yield above that which can be
obtained with the same efficacy of the least fertile land that is in use. It determines the
part that remains of the two other factors: labor and capital. It rises, then drop the other
two.

Interest is the part that receives the capital, separate from the compensation claimed
for risk of policy and supervision. It stems from the proliferation capacity, which provide
voorttelende force of nature and the corresponding susceptibility to exchange the
capital. Lifting interest he thinks he may deem just and wrong abolition. Capital is only one
form of labor, hence always interest and labor related. They descend and rise together
and have, in contrast to the ground interest.

Wages depend on the hem of production or yield which can be obtained employment at
the highest point of natural production strength that without payment of rent is open to
him.

The private ownership of the land is to blame for everything, because the ground is now
a monopoly, whereas he should be free and available to all. What do Henry George cure
for this ailment? The usually listed funds: 1. greater frugality by governments; 2. hotter
education of the working classes and improved habits of industry and thrift; 3.
associations of workers to increase wages; 4. cooperation between capital and labor; 5.
the involvement and leadership of the government and 6. a more general distribution of
land, are insufficient because they do not affect the cardiac vein evil. He fights socialism,
whose ideal he calls grand and noble, also prone to creation, only such a state can not be
obtained artificially, he has to grow, because society is not a machine but an
organism. Otherwise we might could get a repeat of what brought the Jesuits in Paraguay
established and though that situation might be better than the existing one, a religious
faith as the power to all hold together would be needed and this lack of contemporary
socialism, while the individual lives of the partakers in such a community is slain.

The entire social rebirth is contained in the slogan of the Russian nihilists: Land and
Freedom.

The only true medicine, he says to the land to communal ownership. The equal right of
all people to the use of the land is as clear as that, in order to breathe in the air. The
recognition of private, land ownership is essentially the negation of the natural right of
other individuals to live.

The soil should be a state monopoly and to get to this end it does not have to
confiscate it, one has only the ground rent to relatives through a tax. As if this is not
another form of confiscation! Actually is therefore state-owned land. All taxes are
abolished and replaced by a single load (single tax) on the ground rent. It complies
according to him, all the conditions that you can put on the best tax and these are: 1. it
must print as little as possible to the production, so that the general fund, which paid the
levy and the community is maintained as large as possible it; 2. it must be lifted easily and
inexpensively and fall as directly as possible to the payer; 3. It must be firmly controlled to
bring the officers to give the least cause for tyranny or corruption and taxpayers
temptation to minimize evasion and 4. it evenly pressing all, so no favoritism takes place.

The doctrine of Henry George can be summarized in these five propositions:

1. As the accretion of wealth increases, the proportion decreases, that goes to the working
class;
2. The working class brings its own reward forth, as it is untrue that the wage is pulled out
of the capital;
3. The population is not faster than the means of subsistence;
4. Poverty is caused by the land of some individuals;
5. Poverty would be healed by the confiscation of land by the state, or what amounts to
the same thing, by the appropriation of land rent by the state through the taxes on the
land.

Result would be to consider a substantial simplification in the legislative, judicial and

executive. The public debt as well as the standing armies would be put to one side and
would approach the ideal of Jefferson democracy, to the promised land of Herbert
Spencer, the abolition of all government. The government change of character sun and
the board of a cooperative society, the agency through which the common property for the
benefit of the public was managed. It would be ideal to achieve the socialist, but not by
suppression measures from the state, because he fears that state power and therefore he
will against the expansion of state activity, advocated by the Socialists, that the state will
not interfere with what the individuals may be left. "In some ways, our predominant system
to socialist, anarchist in to others. Proper separation between state administration and
individualism can be found there, where free competition, freedom of action and freedom
of development will hamper. The freedom we have to guarantee the full freedom of
everyone, bordered by the equal freedom of others. If it were absolutely necessary to
make a choice between full application of state socialism and anarchism, I would be
inclined to choose anarchism prefer indulging in absolutely no government, no matter how
bad and difficult it might be, above a government that would all try manage and control. "

He sees in the individualistic popular with the English-speaking nations, the reason why
the German socialism will never be native in America. And in this he could be right,
because in such socialism can only people feel happy that childhood militarily drilled and
that shows that the government is a providence entrusted with a special task.

Henry George was the party of the land nationalization, which is increasing in all parts
of the world to Australia - and perhaps the most - has its ramifications. he was in 1886 the
candidate of the Socialist Party for the civil mastery of New York, soon both went their
separate ways. Their common program consisted of two items: 1. equal rights for all
through the taxation of the full value of the proceeds for the benefit of the state; 2.
disposing of all monopolies. However, a freedom-loving husband could not long walk to
heel in such a socialism. Marx, the amazing rise of the ideas of George with sorrow
mistook, performed his usual scathing way against him and called his doctrine neither
more nor less than a "caparisoned attempt to save the rule of capital."

In his writings on the Irish land question is Henry George strongly against giving
compensation to the landowners. One generation can not transfer rights according to him
of a different gender. No one can sell what does not belong to him, no one can give up the
rights of others. And since the land belongs to the living mankind, none can give him one
or other sex. In this respect he is very radical steps because if there is any compensation,
it nevertheless is rather to the people who are deprived so long of his legitimate tenure
than the landowners, who already have many years of that robbery benefited.

A precious booklet also appeared to him under the title Social issues , a booklet that
can be called a writing propaganda for socialism. George may not have been a socialist
inasmuch as he was not part of the Socialist Party, his socialism radiates from every page
of this book, which incidentally by its fresh, the life examples derived by its attractive
shape made an amazing entrance.

His doctrine was adopted by Michael Flurscheim. But this made her undergo a major
change, in which attention should be drawn.

Henry George believes that the tribute demanding power of capital can continue to
safely exist after the introduction of the land nationalization and he has nothing against
the increase of the capital gains, Flurscheim is a very different road. Unlike George, he
believes that as the collection of land rent stop by individuals, capital gains indirectly will
disappear. Land Interest is the mother of the interest. Already taught Calvin, three and a
half centuries ago, that as long as one can buy for cash basis, which is paying ground
rent, one for borrowing money interest will require and we therefore can say that all capital
is paying legitimate interest, since the case, which one can buy another matter, which
throws off earnings or interest may also be regarded themselves as profit or interest
giving. When a capitalist who f 1000 holds, before land can buy that f 30 lease yields, he
will f 1000 not lend to another unless he at least f gets 30 Interest. So do the country to
folk, to common property and the interest will soon fall into the risk and the reward for
surveillance or even lower. Neither of these factors can be the source of constant self-
propagation of the capital, which is the cause of our misery. They do not constitute what is
called capital interest. Land Nationalization will fake capital and false interest nullify and,
by contrast, readily available real capital for the workers so that they can work on their
own account, either individually or as members of an association, and refuse will to accept
wages which are lower than the gain, which they may make in this manner.

What is false according Flurscheim capital?

A bond Dutch real fault f 1000, which gives 3% interest, is nothing but the capital value
of the right to be allowed to levy a tribute of 30 guilders through the tax-annually from the
producers. All property titles to land, all mortgages, all shares of public companies are
worth more than the means of production, they represent all that is nothing but the capital
value of a means to demand tribute. All this could be called "false capital" and the interest
that it brings, "false interest."

The bulk of the power of the capitalists is invested in false capital. There was not, there
would be no Rothschilds. The greater the capital investment is in real life, the greater the
risk for the investor, because the ability to manage and monitor such capital will be
smaller, as the field of the investment is greater.

Rothschild indicates a manufacturer with a mortgage of f 100,000 at 5% interest, which

means that these f 5,000 per annum to pay, even though he deserves it not. Rothschild is
benevolent enough to f write 5000 in the mortgage, which means that he from now until all
eternity increased the tribute blame the manufacturer with 5% interest on 5,000 guilders
or f 250. Gave this new investment of Rothschild employs the worker? Not at all. It
increased only false capital and further has the result that the manufacturer must reduce
its annual consumption by 250 guilders, while Rothschild will consume more in order for a
penny.

This process has now place all over the world. Demon "interest" and his son
"compound interest" multiply much faster than the production capacity of the human
genius. The opportunity to invest their money in land, mortgage, debt letters, railways, etc.
have given full play to the demon.

Now the destruction of the "fake" capital would not let capital penny really be
lost. Assuming that land nationalization, by removing the market value of the land, even
40 to 50 thousand million counterfeit capital destroyed, which the statistics of the national
wealth in the UK capital value estimates of the right of the landowner to lease to user
requirements on English soil, this would the nation have become richer or poorer? The
United States has become richer or poorer, when the release of the slaves had
disappeared declare a capital of 6,000 million guilders slave value of the list of national
wealth? Is the value of a country other than the value of a slave? One speaks of
improving the land, but slaves were also improved.

The quarrel between individualists and socialists similar course to that of the gardener
who had planted beans, which discovered the pigs without he had that were eaten and
who now claims that his beans have risen nicely since the natural law demands that out
leg beans will emerge beans, and a passer-by claiming that such a law of nature is
nonsense, because no single bean has risen. Individualists prove to incomplete statistics,
the beans of the common prosperity all around us grow delicious, though no one can see
them with healthy eyes. Socialists deny the existence of those economic laws, because
the result is so bad. Both sides have eaten, in other words, they have not given the private
ownership of land, which caused only that auspicious economic laws have provided such
poor results pigs overlooked that the leg beans. Weather Pig "private ownership of land"
from the civil court, the good old fence set up again - common land ownership - foolish by
our ancestors is torn down, the law will of the late-but-go late but -varen bear delicious
fruit.

A second consequence of the relationship between rent and interest is that it claims to
give full compensation to the landowners us for the expropriated land without it now
robbing living genus of the blessings of the reform. With an increasing production of
capital, while the most expandable field for investment funds (the ground) of the capital is
gone, the interest rate will drop rapidly. Government bonds, which currently give 3%, will
soon be converted to 2, 1, 1 / 2 , 1 / 4 , 1 / 8percent debentures and finally one will be able to
get no interest at all. On the other hand, the ground rent itself will greatly increase with the
rise of the people's welfare. The advantages arising for the State, it would be the national
debt incurred for the purchase of the land, can pay off in 25 years. The effect of the reform
would be felt as soon as the interest had fallen so low that to expand the unexpended
income, which now increase the tribute rights of an insatiable majority and reduce the
purchasing power of the masses, post and had been bed.

Flurscheim therefore differs in these two key points of Henry George 1. George did not
imply that the indirect effects of land nationalization of capital and interest is far greater
than its immediate consequences; 2. The inference that can be given full compensation to
the landowners relationship he developed between the rent and interest well Flurscheim
for expropriated land without detriment to the now living generation.

Flurscheim says there are three ways to bring the land into common property, namely
1.. Confiscation represents, as Henry George, for laying the burden on the land rent by a
load is equivalent to the confiscation of the land; 2. by the system of surrender ; 3. by
reacting a compound of both of them . He now wishes as a general principle redemption,
and only if the landowners after the law that assured compensation, still resist, would void
any claim to compensation. For there are two ways to draw up a new social structure, ie.
One can gradually cleaning up the rotting beams and replaced with sturdy base and so
renew all or one does anything to hasten the fall of the tottering building in order than to
build a new one. He prefers the first way, because - as he says peculiar - "I am among
those who in the old building have acquired a rather nice living corner, I do not gladly
would give price on that." So each one undergoes involuntary influence of his own
position! Increases one annual ground rent only 2%, then one has paid compensation in
40 years. [120]

From his writings, which were much spread, we call Auf friedlichem Wege, ein
Vorschlag zur Lsung der sozialen Frage, Deutschland 100 Jahren oder die Galoschen of
Glckes, ein soziales Mrchen , Rent, Interest and Wages or the real bearings of the land
question (interest, interest and wages or the real significance of the land question) in
Dutch under the title Individualism and socialism . Several of these have been translated
into several languages.

The right to private land ownership is also denied by dr. Hertzka in his widely circulated
book freiland , but this does not require the expropriation with or without
compensation. There is land enough that "gentlemen free" and "free men" can continue,
ie land belonging to no one. At such "free men" ground rent is impossible. And therefore
he wants to found a community on such land, where everyone will be his own boss and
capitalist exploitation of the labor of others is impossible. The full undiminished labor yield
a profitable workers association certain percentage deducted for the community and all of
this is also 30%, it is still much cheaper than now. He connects land nationalization of
productive association, while he looks for the mainspring of man's actions, which should
lead to social justice, not community or philanthropy but enlightened self-interest and
individualism. One could call him a disciple of Proudhon, since he insists on the logical
development of individualism, freedom of trade and the free credit and further the free
association of workers in productive associations. No wonder he wants nothing to do with
Marx and the German Social Democracy defended principles.

In his social vision, called Freiland, he developed his ideas in detail, doing more times
in terms of design and shape reminiscent of Cabet Travel in Ikari . There is established
an International Free Society and the partakers go together do a practical attempt to solve
the social question. They establish for this purpose a community on the basis of the fullest
freedom and economic justice, so that in the enforcement of the individual is to respect
everyone who labors, guaranteed the entire enjoyment of the fruits of his labor.

There is no land ownership nor the individual or the community, but form free
associations with completely self-government for cultivation of the land, the proceeds will
be distributed among the members in the measure of each work. Everyone can join the
association, which he prefers, and can leave her much at will. Because of that society
provides the working capital without interest to producers, but it must be repaid by
them. Individuals who are unfit for work and women are properly maintained by the
Company. These and such expenditure shall be covered by a tax or levy (Abgabe) which
is placed on the net income of each production. There are two kinds of work; natural
forces and capitals. Free usufruct of the first granted under certain conditions to the Free
Landers, while the Company contributed the second concern. As free, independent
people they had to produce association (association), not as a servant with the supporters
of masters and bosses, not as small capitalists, but as laborers. She herself had to know
who they are as a leader of the Association wished, however, except that he was always
monitored sufficiently, so that matters held in hands. In addition, unrestricted public
access to the production, making everyone immediately came the purpose could keep
everything.

The best view is obtained by the introduction to the following ten rules, which could be
considered as the constitution of the community:

1. Everyone has the right to become a member of an association, whether he is a

member of one or more others. Everyone can always retire there. the management
decided, what work they will be put;

2. Each member is entitled to a share of the net earnings of the quality and quantity of
his work;

3. This share is calculated in hours with the understanding that older members for
annual membership receive a "surcharge" or premium (praecipuum);

4. The work of the directors and leaders is calculated in accordance with any one of
their appointment to take a certain number of hours of full members;

5. The combined profits will first at the end of each business year and net of
repayments of capital and distributed among the members of the levy to the
community; this provided now advances to their number of working hours or allocated
according to the criterion of the net profit of the previous year;

6. In case of dissolution, members shall remain liable for any debts according to their
profit share; New members share in the old deficits; at retirement you will remain liable for
its relative share of already contracted loans;

7. The supreme governance rests with the General Assembly, where each member
electoral and voting rights; the general meeting shall take decisions by majority vote;

8. The General Assembly shall exercise its right either immediately, or indirectly elected
by and responsible officials;

9. The management is entrusted to a board of directors elected by the general

meeting. The junior officers are appointed by the Board. But the determination of the
salary - calculated in hours worked - by the General Assembly on the proposal of the
Management Board;

10. Each year, the General Meeting appoints a Supervisory Board, which shall exercise
control over everything.

All production facilities are commonplace, but the degree of utility, which can have any
of this common property, certainly no chance of owning even the precaution of everything
under its guardianship managing communist government, but only the skill and diligence
of each individual.

The upper management is banker. Any association, each person has his account in the
books of the central bank, which is responsible for collecting and paying. Through this
system, coupled with the most possible publicity, organization of Free Country has a great
transparency. The purchase and sale of all products was concentrated in large
warehouses and goods, even if we all buy and sell, he does so prefers, it is advantageous
to do it in those warehouses. All expenditures of general interest, such as education,
transport, public buildings, care of the sick and elderly, invalids and all men over 60 years
shall be set off against the amount of tax. Justice, finance and war orphans costs
nothing. Referees are selected in order to resolve emerging disputes. Criminals are
treated as sick. The division of labor is as follows: men usually work from 5 to 10 hours in
the morning and from 1 to 6 hours in the evening, but no one is bound by that time, one
can then will labor and as long as one wants. Extensive use is made of equipment:
without which millions steel servants the Free Landers were not born free men's
labor. They had 12 departments, which were managed by as many committees, namely:
1. the presidency; 2. care system; 3. education; 4. arts and science; 5. Statistics; 6. road
construction and traffic resources; 7. post and telegraph; 8. foreign affairs; 9. goods
warehouses; 10. central bank; 11. enterprises of general interest; 12. Hygiene and justice.

Production was extremely increased and abundance found everywhere. These five
basic rules summarized: 1. each resident of the Free Country has an equal inalienable
right to all the land and the means of production contributed by the common people; 2.
women, children, elderly and disabled have a right to good, answering maintenance of the
level of overall wealth; 3. no one can, as far as he does not intervene in the legal sphere
of another, shall be hindered in the exercise or realization of his individual free will; 4.
public affairs are managed in accordance with the decisions of all adult (over 20 years)
residents Vrijland without distinction of sex, since all possess the right to vote; 5. The
concluding both classified as the executive is to the branches of service and be that way,
to choose the joint voters separate representatives for the substantial public service
branches, individual decisions and exercise control over the actions of the care of those
matters entrusted governing bodies.

The woman had a right to care, it was not regarded as a wheel in the assembly of the
bread earning, it was not intended for productive work, but once partly to reproductive and
partly to improvement and beautification of human existence. However, she was released
from the degrading necessity in her caregiver husband and in marriage see the resort
from material need.

Fight continues to exist, only the unnatural form it disappears. A sensible self-interest is
the best spur to industrious zeal and social order. Free association is the charm, which
allows to bring and do not argue with each ground "without masters" in culture. No
prohibition of capital interest, but who will give her, as everyone can get enough interest
free capital? Capital Interest disappears as rent and entrepreneurial profit, because the
free associated labor as well its own capitalist employer and landlord is or rather they
continue to exist, but only lose loosened, of wages, separate existence, they melt with the
wages together into a single and indivisible labor yield.

Hertzka also is a fierce opponent of Malthus and his doctrine. By contrast, he glorified
Christianity, although he opposed to equality in poverty at its original appearance wants
equality in wealth. Finally, it provides an argument for the transition to peaceful
manner. As a result of his book attempts can be seen from the Vrijland Associations,
which rested expeditions in distant provinces, first attempt to realize the ideas on the east
coast of Africa and later in Venezuela, but so far should those efforts be deemed to have
failed . Money flowed in the beginning yet already far for such expeditions, the failure
contributed not matter at promoting the influx of money.

Except already mentioned main work appeared from Hertzka Eine Reise nach
Freiland in 1893 and a social novel in 1895 titled Entrckt in die Zukunft .

We have Henry George, Michael Flurscheim and Theodor Hertzka brought under one
head together and presented as landnationaliseerders as they all three mainly acted as
opponents of the private land ownership. Furthermore, they have a common aim with
each other, in order to make the people as little as possible, depending on the state. They
were led by great love of freedom and that socialism mainly occurred in the form of social
democracy, they were afraid that they satisfied with the solution of the social question as
stomach question would ensure the freedom and this would greatly disadvantage of the
development of mankind. They wanted to break the power of the state and were therefore
insofar as opponents of the expansion of statism. Spake Henry George undisguised out
that if there is no other choice was then between the coercion of socialism and anarchy,
he unconditionally inclined to give the final, Hertzka seeks certain forms of anarchist ideas
of Proudhon and in accordance with the correct expression of prof. Quack he "on
eminently practical way, the loose materials from Proudhon to a more or less
architecturally completely nailed together."

But socialist they undoubtedly all three and we would not know where to put them
under, if we gave them not a place inruimden under the Socialists, and they have not even
been recognized as such by those who have a closed socialist church to keep in front of
him and their friends, without broad look to have enough to also recognize others as
socialists, though they are a different shade.

Their work equally well would a socialist anthology can be gathered up and from that of
Marx, Lassalle, English and others.

Social Democracy
Louis Blanc

The state socialism father, Louis Blanc, for all we find in all his predecessors leaning on
the state, it is he who wants the state will immediately realize the social order. The state is
for him the "banker of the poor". According to Proudhon socialism the opposite of the
gouvernementalisme, Louis Blanc is reversed socialism highest blossom of it. A
government, a man of authority was Louis Blanc his life. He wanted to make the state the
leader and helmsman of socialism. For him the freedom of labor actually planning,
regulating employment.

Born in Madrid from a French father and a Corsican mother Louis Blanc in his youth
known poverty in its grim appearance and how an enormous impression it made on him,
evidenced by the so-called Hannibal Seed, which he made as he told himself in the
Luxembourg on april 29, 1848: "Yes, my friends, in my youth I suffered, as much more
than one of you: I've been too poor; I also wanted my bread by the sweat of my brow; I
also feel pressing on my chest all the gravity of this unjust society. And that is why I, as
just outgrown its infancy, I said: I swear by God and my conscience - so I might be called
once to help the conditions of the existence of this society rules - never to forget that I was
one of the unfortunate children of the people. And against the social order, which makes
so many of my brothers to the poor, I did Hannibal the oath. "

His hatred of the existing order so can be explained by personal experience, which he
gained in his youth of society and that made an indelible impression on him. This argues
for him, as most other circumstances little or no concern for their poor brothers and
preferably not even be reminded of its own past.

Already early he came to Paris to try it to find his living for himself and his younger
brother Charles, who later as an art critic has made such a big name. Characteristic of
Louis Blanc's it, he's the gold pieces, pushed him ignominiously on the general and
ambassador Pozzo di Borgo, a relative of his mother's side, refused to accept, although
he also needed. After some searching he managed to get a place as governor in a
wealthy manufacturer in Arras. When he started already writing articles for a radical leaf
out of that city, which aroused in him so many memories of Robespierre, his ideal, from
whom he inherited perhaps the incarnate state idea.

He joined the editorial staff of the magazine returned to Paris in 1834, Le Bon Sens and
began the battle against Louis Philippe and his government, which covered their poverty
deeds behind big words. The social field, however, attracted him most and to have a
platform from which he could quite handle the social issues, he founded in 1838,
the Revue du Progrs . That magazine was where the series of articles has been, who
have had such amazing influence later in book form at the turn of events. This
book L'organization du travail , by some contemptuously called a pamphlet, was
distinguished by clarity of thought and beauty of form. Who reads it, under its spell hit and
we can best explain the impression which has made it at that time.

After he made a sharp right critique of today's by-and-by sick society, he comes with
the resort, and that exists in the organization of work. Opposite the existing disorder, in
which everything is left to chance, he would make the state the highest regulator of
production. A loan must be issued for the establishment of sheltered workshops in the
main branches of production. One workshop for any business. It admitted all the workers
of the same company, which meet the requirements of morality up to a figure, which
together equal to the capital, which was recorded in labor tools. The wages would all be
equal. In the first year the government would establish a hierarchy of workers and work,
but then all would be in an election, because one had come to know each other and
judge. Each year, the balance would be made up. A portion of the profit was distributed
equally among the members and the other divided into three parts: 1. the maintenance of
the elderly, the sick and maimed; 2. to relieve the pressure of any crisis that could afflict
other industries, there were all inclusive; 3. for the acquisition of working tools for those
who wanted to belong to the workshops so that they could expand. Such workshops
would completely absorb the individual workplace. They got one main workshop with
succursales. The principle of competition would disappear. Had they once this scheme
and they went well, you could withdraw the state's protective hand. The workshops would
be on their own according to their own rules and self-sufficient. It would be as well as the
letters of former service, which was conducted by various corporations until the state
appealed the case and naastte benefits. Similarly, it could go with the industry. So they got
order rather than discord. All kinds of benefits were acquired in this way, such as: all
inventions would serve as a blessing for all; patents no longer necessary; the market
would not all have to be sacrificed to the profit; Credit could be better controlled, since
they had to deal with major associations - because that was the sheltered workshops -
and overcrowding would not be a disaster anymore.

The plan itself productive associations alleging Buchez, who developed the same idea
in l'Europen in 1831, with this difference, that he did not want equal pay, no advance
from the State and the associations had arisen from the free initiative of the workers, here
and there, aided by the patrons. Louis Blanc, they got the state leadership, the
authoritarian socialism was born. "Socialism can only be fruitful by the spirit of the policy."

Yes, in fact we find the sheltered workshop [121] already in the Decret conomique sur
l'organization de la communaut of Babeuf, which in Art. 9 states: "The municipal
administration constantly keeps in view of the condition of the workers of each class and
on the job to which they are subject. She does regular top administration about it. "

Citizens are divided into working classes (Art. 4); in each class are magistrates elected
by those who control the work, ensuring equal distribution, follow the orders of the
municipal administration and give an example of zeal and activity (Art. 5). The law
regulates the working hours for the season (art. 6). The administration will make use of
the machines, which alleviate the labor for the human being. (Art. 8). So there we have all
the apparatus of the sheltered workshop.

To get the necessary money, he wanted to abolish the inheritance tax in the air and the
values thus obtained to certify communal property. The succession in the air amounted to
about one quarter of the whole, and that power would thus suck the state. Or did he and
the entire inheritance would raise finally further thought, is not clear, but one would think,
because he spoke of a transitional measure. Asked whether he thus did not threaten the
family, he replied: "If the existence of the family is inseparable from the principle of
inheritance, we could understand the comment, because it is certain that by driving the
company into the direction to live a collective capital, we draw a state of affairs in which
the abolition of inheritance if not necessary, it is at least possible ... the family is a natural
fact that can not be destroyed while a succession of social convention is, which can
eliminate the progress of society. The family and inheritance law are inseparable only in
certain social order. The family comes from God, the heritage comes from people. The
family is sacred and immortal as God, the inheritance is intended to follow the same path
as the companies that transform and if the people who die. "(Fifth Edition, pp. 193, 195
and 196).

If the family is headed to the succession, right we see in his dug a chasm between the
social and domestic importance. "What does the principle of inheriting the one, it takes
away not to another? he does not allow this right to laziness? he withdraws prior to these
instruments indispensable for his wit and activity? If the rich elms touring the nobility,
"What have you done? Ye have you taken the trouble to be born, "the nobility would not it
appeal to the succession may reply to the rich: and thou?"

Lamartine gave the following assessment of the sheltered workshop: "This view
consists in to take possession in the name of the state of the property and the sovereignty
of the industries and the labor to remove any free will at the citizens possessing, buying,
selling, consuming, to randomly produce the products and distribute, to fix maximum
prices, to regulate wages, into everything to make the state as owner and industrialist in
the places of from their own regular citizens. "(1841).

Proudhon called him a "utopian full inconsistency" and fought him in his usual torturing
and principled manner by saying, "Blanc has progressed as little in logic as in political
economy, and he argues about the one as well as the other just like a blind about
colors. His reply is composed of a mixture of old prejudices ... what can be objected at a
notion so utterly worthless, so assailable as that of Blanc? ... By continuing
interchangeable mixing in his book of the most contradictory principles: authority and
rights, property and communism, aristocracy and equality, labor and capital, reward and
commitment, freedom and dictatorship, free inquiry and religious faith, Blanc is a true
hermaphrodite, a writer of dual gender. Located at the limits of socialism and democracy,
a step lower than the republic, two steps below Barrot, three down Thiers, he's still
himself, whatever he may say or do, a descendant in the fourth generation of Guizot, a
doctrinaire. "

With this judgment, it may grant provisional.

Meanwhile, a fact is that Louis Blanc is rife, the principle of authority must be
rehabilitated in order to protect the weak. The state wholesale, the commune in the small -
there the two pivots around which according to him should turn the people throughout
society. The state is the great association of the working classes. The workers stand to be
made to his employer. With what capital? State capital. So productive association with
state aid. And yet he was not entirely in the state - and in this he differs from many of later
times - once for the associations were organized, the state had no right to interfere in the
autonomous life of the association. He always was the communal autonomy,
communalism. In its response to various attacks he writes, "the Saint-Simon ism says:"
The state owns "; that was the absorb of the individual. But we say, "The company
owner." A big distinction, which we can not sufficiently insist. "From these words one might
conclude that he society and not consider the state as a substance, but otherwise it is
always the state, which comes to the fore in every way.
 To the ordinary yardstick Louis Blanc was one of the greatest happiness children of his
age, because at the age of 30, his name was known throughout the world and at 34 years
old he took, but no greater misfortune the highest position in France than by the force of
circumstances to be called to realize ideas which the time is not yet ripe. And that
accident was Louis Blanc. Add to this the silent opposition of his surroundings, which help
under the guise of him was out to undermine him and overthrow, and we understand the
difficulties he has encountered.

When the revolution broke out in February 1848 and the king fled, Louis Blanc was
among those who also were called to govern. It was on the 25th of February, which
appeared a worker called Marche, with the gun in hand and with its butt stomping ground
for members of the government and demanded the right to work. And touching was the
offer of the workers, the government gave three months and declared their readiness still
time to suffer misery! Louis Blanc knew the decree of 26 feb. by driving in which the
Provisional Government undertook to guarantee and ensure all work the subsistence of
the laborer. A Labor Department he wanted to see established and then Lamartine
refused, Louis Blanc offered his resignation. A compromise now followed by the
appointment of a permanent committee, "a government commission for the workers,"
which is the fate of the workers would wear and that committee Louis Blanc became
president. On the part of his opponents came this to stretch him a trap, because they
dared on one side or nothing to do outside of him because of his amazing popularity, the
other one just tried to make him this cheat. They proceeded to the establishment of
national workshops, but not for productive associations with state and advance led by
founding the state, but by way of job creation. He made a caricature of Louis Blancs
ideas, national workshops should serve to make forever impossible sheltered workshops.

Although still being told in most history books that national workshops were set up in
Paris by Louis Blanc, to get out of its failure to draw arguments against the validity of his
ideas can be demonstrated historically: 1. that the national workshops not by Louis Blanc
but by his enemies, by the fiercest opponents of socialism in the Provisional Government,
the Minister of Public Works, Marie and others who made up the majority of this rule have
been established; 2. they were explicitly set against Louis Blanc, opposite to his followers,
the socialist workers, in the elections as well as on other occasions to ask a paid army of
labor, which is in the hand of the government majority; 3. that national workshops,
precisely because they did not compete with private industry, only unproductive work was
done with the intention to provide workers become penniless alms from public funds and
put them in exchange for a barren work to carry out in order to prevent it fell into the
consequences of the total idleness. As director of national workshops was Minister Marie
deliberately declared opponent, Mr. Emile Thomas, appointed and whom his history of
national workshops ( Histoire des ateliers nationaux ) perceptive reading, and also
Lamartines Histoire de la rvolution the 1848 , which will see what the truth is. Emile
Thomas acknowledges this when he says: "Mr Marie tells me that it decided intention of
the government was to gain this experience with government commissioners for the
workers, for the workers throughout the hollowness and falsity of these impractical
theories and the sad consequences do perceive themselves. Disappointed for the future,
than their idolatry Louis Blanc disappear and he would be total respect, his whole power
losses and forever cease to be a danger. "
 Such was the pure truth, which is the result that whatever one thinks of Louis Blanc and
his ideas should never be deduced something to him from the failure of these workshops.

March 17 was a major event held in Paris and had Louis Blanc then had the courage to
raise as a dictator, it would have undoubtedly succeeded, but he preferred to his
colleagues of the Provisional Government, which in turn him so much possibly trying to
explain leg. It was on March 20, that he is the meeting of the standing committee, united
with the Committee of 10 workers and 10 employers, 40 people together, presided. His
plan was thus the State would be the patrons, whose affairs were bad, take the devices
from fixed rate bonds, secured by mortgages on the factories. The state would say the
workers: you shall labor and associates in the workplace. He was in favor of equal pay. In
all workplaces of the same industry would be so wrong, then at least pay a proportionally
equal pay. And the association would be extended to all the workshops of the same
industry. To this end they had to accept a purchase price and a lawful profit figure then
propose to arrive at a uniform price and any competition between the workshops to fend
themselves. They would start on the solidarity of the various branches. The needy were
supported by those who went well. A large Board of Administration, at the head of all
stand. The state did its model design and also private associations would exist until such
time as they wanted to move itself to the state. He gave the clean formula, which one had
to get cascading: everyone gives to his strength and everyone receives according to his
needs .

However, he ran primarily on opposition to the equality of wages and took control of his
communist ideas. And opposition still rose. And especially the provinces were outraged at
Paris. Then again on April 16 took place a major event, to provide back support to Louis
Blanc, when the rumor was spread what it was doing to overthrow the Provisional
Government and to introduce communism. Ledru Rollin had gathered drumming the
National Guard and then the procession marched workers, they could walk between the
double row of bayonets of the guard. From the ranks of the armed citizens was heard a
cry go up: away with the Communists! And Louis Blanc noticed since the day it sat Paris
opposed him and socialism. The bourgeoisie had become afraid of the workers and
fearing she was cruel.

The elections of April 27 would clearly see how the sun of Louis Blanc was to
wane. However, he was chosen, but in front of the 121 140 votes for him were the 259
800 votes cast on Lamartine. The labor element was almost not represented. Neither
Louis Blanc nor his friend Albert got a place in the executive committee, which replaced
the provisional government. His proposal for the establishment of a Ministry of Labour
was rejected. A rally for the Poles was a demonstration in honor of Louis Blanc, but when
the order had been restored, and the meeting could again gather peacefully, when Jules
Favre suggested to Louis Blanc able to make accusation, because the procession of
workmen at said the rally had gone to the town hall and one saw an attempt therein to
overthrow the government. Louis Blanc was not gone, so the accusation one could not
rub it. It was rejected, but with such a small majority (369 against 337 votes), they pointed
out how it was done with the influence of Louis Blanc. Once on the way of reaction, it
naturally continued. National workshops were closed. Its director, Emile Thomas, was
overthrown and taken captive to Bordeaux in silence. Thousands were thrown on the
street, the discontent increased and the general slogan was: bread or lead. Now the last
one would have, because under General Cavaignac began the massacre of Paris on June
23, at least when the labor movement was drowned in blood. An investigation followed the
men, which could give rise to the insurgency. The eye was generally drawn to him and the
report of the commission of investigation included a request to prosecute even Louis
Blanc. On August 25 he held his last speech to defend himself, but seeing that he was
lost, he took with Felix Pyat fled to England. That flight was his luck, as evidenced by his
conviction in absentia.

Louis Blanc has gone to his half-heartedness. Before 1848, so until March 17 of that
year he had implicit confidence of the workers, but he made off date common cause with
the bourgeoisie. He thus thought to save himself, but did not see that the bourgeoisie still
basically mistrusted him. It was on that day that a worker grabbed him by the arm and
indignant toebeet: are you a traitor, you know? And though he was not a traitor, he has
wrought weak and finally he fell as a victim of his own weakness, because the people let
him down and the bourgeoisie then had light game to destroy him completely. Blanqui
said of Ledru Rollin, Louis Blanc, Cremieux, and others: "It was the provisional
government, which has slain the revolution. On her head, the responsibility must fall on all
disasters, the blood of so many thousands of victims ... Those guys are big culprits and
among them the most they in whom the people, deceived by phrases, saw his sword and
shield those who . enthusiastically proclaimed to leaders of the future "But it was Blanqui
almost alone, in his manifesto of 1848 proved to understand the significance of the social
revolution, according to the words:" There is no freedom for him to lack of bread! There is
no equality, if the wealth is on display alongside spreads poverty! There is no
brotherhood, when the woman of the people were starved her children dragged to the
doors of the rich! The tyranny of capital is more ruthless than the saber and the censer,
one must break her ... No barren formulas! "

As long as the people are not released within 48 hours after the outbreak of the
revolution of hunger and housing shortages, the tyranny of capital will not be
broken. Louis Blanc wanted to save the people, but spared the capital, he envisaged an
impossible thing and was like all half thereby perish itself.

His end is been sadder because when the husband died in 1882, his death went
among the workers almost unnoticed. He was buried at state expense and that says
enough. And though there rose a statue of him in Paris, his attitude in 1871 will never be
forgiven by the proletariat in 1887.

Since his flight to England in 1848, he lived until 1870 in London, dedicating himself to
historical studies whose fruits are: Pages d'histoire de la rvolution de fvrier 1848, la
Rvolution de fvrier au Luxembourg and L'histoire de la rvolution franaise , and was
there also worked for the French press. Back in France he experienced the Commune
and again he showed the same weakness and indecision as in 1848. Lissagaray wrote in
his history of the Commune of him: "Opportunism is not of yesterday. It was born on
March 19, 71, had to be godfather Louis Blanc and Co., and was baptized in the blood of
30,000 Parisians. "It was at the session of the National Assembly on May 22, 1871, which
was proposed: The Legislative Assembly declares that the army and the head of the
executive authority (Thiers) have rendered towards the homeland. The adoption of this
proposal took place unanimously. Louis Blanc was present and so he became an
accomplice to the approval of the loss, which was administered entirely unnecessary
Paris. No wonder the Proltaire wrote after his death: "Louis Blanc is dead! ... He had
himself slain in the infamous meeting of May 22, 1871, that meeting in which the president
Grvy could conclude that the decision of the Paris killers unanimously and adopted
under the cheers of the meeting. Since that day, Louis Blanc was dead for socialism,
death of the Republic, accompanied by the Tolains, Martin Bernard and others. "And then
therefore it was proposed in the city council of Paris, to occur at the funeral represent,
when socialist member Joffrin stood up to protest against it, because "Louis Blanc was
partially responsible for the murder in May 1871." but he has not attempted to apologize to
the accusations hurled him in that regard to the head but his popularity was gone and
never came once again. The man of state socialism was the greatest opposite of the
direction that triumphed in the Commune, as compared to the anarchy he wanted the
state or commune firm organized as part of the centralized state.

***

Maybe we can find no better way for the entry of a small book, which is undoubtedly
appeared under the influence of the ideas of Louis Blanc, as well is perceived as its echo
in the novels of Eugene Sue, George Sand, Pyat and others. It is a brochure of Prince
Louis Napoleon, later Emperor Napoleon III, who was trying to win the hearts of the
people by his pamphlet, produced in the prison of Ham and published under the
title Extinction du pauprisme par le Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte . He wanted it, it
would be all unexplored (desert) land amounting to 9 million 190,000 hectares owned by
workers' associations, provided that it would reimburse the present owners of what they
now ventured. The state would provide payments to those associations, which he
estimated at 300 million francs, spread over four years and organize them. It would be
agricultural colonies, which in turn would give workers in the industry so that to give the
combination of agriculture and industry. As a model he took the army. Between the
workers and those who set it to work, were called prud'hommes and these intermediaries,
elected by the workers themselves, would stand at the head of eg. Ten workers. Any
agricultural colony fulfilled a mission as well as the monasteries in the Middle Ages. He
compared the workers present at Helots in the midst of a people of Sybarieten, and saw
that the industry as a true labor of Saturn devours her children and lives of their death. He
also pointed it out, how the division of labor today was left to chance or to the violence. He
hoped that they would soon say, "The triumph of Christianity has subdued slavery; the
victory of the French Revolution destroyed the servitude; the triumph of democratic ideas
has destroyed pauperism. "He said the cabinet government has ended and that one
should reign now with the masses, for" rule is no longer the master of nations by force and
power, but to implement them for a better future by relying on their minds and their hearts.
" Now that he has shown later, when he used the mass by means of a plebiscite or
popular vote to themselves declare emperor of the French, so that never a prince if he
had the right to say that he was under the will of the people on the throne from
France. Yet such a vote meant nothing to the popular will, because universal suffrage
without economic equality, so every vote without danger as he wants, is a big deceit under
the guise of truth. In this little book he used even ordinary socialist terms. Of course he
was emperor all those ideas clean forgotten, although he wanted to go for a social
emperor, but everything had to be done for nothing and the people, he demoralized as
much as possible to better control it all. If the rulers do in socialism, then it more to fear
than to hope.

Marlo

While the name Louis Blanc continued the globe and through his writings about
the organization of work a great work a professor of chemistry steel industry gave a
powerful impulse to prepare the revolution of 1848, was in a small German town together
to be determined. Quietly, almost isolated from the world, he was trying to separate the
economic concepts and connect. It was the Kassel Professor Karl Winckelblech, which,
however, has become known under the name of Karl Marlo. Known? Yes, in a small circle,
because if every German he has the measure of scientific nature made the thickness of
his book and he actually has his own ideas, which were so worth it, buried in his own
work. Give such a work of 4 parts once in operation in the hands of Louis Blanc or another
Frenchman, who understands the art by the French called l'art de savoir faire un livre and
there emerges a book that brings turmoil in the whole world. For what wisdom is buried in
that work, which who knows how many others have drawn later, without mentioning the
source! But otherwise it is a buried treasure remained until our day. Just as English call a
Louis Blanc, neither Marx does a Marlo, and yet it is hard to suppose that Marx, who
demonstrates a rare erudition, just would not have known this work. Rodbertus wrote
about it ". There are few scientific works written by more knowledge, thoroughness and
impartiality" And if a decent man like Rodbertus makes such favorable testimony, then one
may assume that it is worth it to know it make. But again there belongs courage to wade
through such work and that is why it is known only to relatively few. Those who did,
however, will take on their effort did not have to complain.

His outward life is soon told. He was a professor at Marburg and in the chemistry, but
versatile as he was, he also studied classical literature and philosophy, and even he
extended his studies to the field of art. In 1838 he visited Paris and who can determine the
impact that made this stay on him, because already then ferment it there nice. Come
back, he got a position as a professor at the higher Industrial School in Kassel in
1839. For the operation of a technological work, he made a trip to Norway in the year
1843 and he himself tells us how this trip has been a turning point in his life. For he visited
a cobalt acid plant at Modum in Norway and came into contact with a countryman who
sketched him the wretched state in which he and his companions found themselves. He
had hitherto only of the products and not the producers, the furnaces and machines, not
people from now on would be different and it causes and also decided the medicines for
the suffering of mankind Ideas go.

The first episode of his work in four parts, entitled Untersuchungen ber die
Organisation der Arbeit oder System der Welt-Oekonomie in 1848 appeared and the last
in 1865.

Once he came to the forum of public life. Indeed, there was in Germany a movement
called Federalists, under both bosses and among workers, a permanent control of the
industrial states tried and this also felt he attracted and thereby came he collided with
another group consisting of Berlin workers who thought more directly socialist and
worked. They went up a German Labor Federation and at a conference held in Heidelberg
in January 1849, led by Julius Froebel, he came into conflict with the leader of the
extreme ideas, securing Born, and he had to succumb, because the workers against him
chosen party. Since that time he retired, only to work on his book, until death overtook him
in 1865.

So it is up to the book that we should define us.

In it, he wants to see broken with the liberal economic order without falling to
communism. Now he knows communism only as compulsive communism in which the
concept of the freedom of the individual is completely lost. Both the regime of equality like
that of liberty would prove to be fatal. He believes that the solution of the social question is
dependent on a greater rise in production. The issue of overcrowding haunted even in his
head and he calls the thesis of Malthus irrefutable, though painful. He also points out how
the value of the production factor, nature has estimated far too low in the rule. Nature and
labor, both are equally necessary. He wants a transformation of the existing morality and
justice to the principle of equal rights for all in the new order of things to include. It needs
a great organization of the living and working society according to fixed rules, the
association would essentially the spindle. All the companies enjoyed both common and
private, should be included in a well-ordered set of guild associations. The great society,
not an appendage of the state but an independent association besides the state takes
over all the larger and smaller circles, working together as one union. That's why he calls
his Federalism system because he would like to solve the entire bourgeois society into a
confederation, an alliance of distinct societies together. No combinations of entrepreneurs
who work by wage-workers, but groups of like-interested. He always insists on cultivation
of community. This arises from the Germanic tradition and the Christian idea. His book is
a comprehensive indictment of the plutocracy, but sedate, not agitational form. He stands
in history three parties; the aristocratic, plutocratic and democratic, which he calls the
past, present and future. The latest power industry, which should be the starting point of
the economy. Yet he sees the disadvantages very well, that exist in fueling the
materialistic direction, where industry not as a means but as an objective, to disturb the
balance by too unequal distribution of goods, so great riches get into the hands of a few
and the producers of wealth are abandoned to poverty, the decline of the moral level,
which increases the industry. The industrial revolution was a great event in world
history. The so-called freedom of labor was the big crowd unfreedom, as they gave the
monopoly of capital or left in the hands of a few. So they got entrepreneurs with capital in
addition to the wide crowd of workers. What to do to remove that fight? Police Measures
income not, the introduction of the guilds can not but needed an organization of labor.

In examining the legal position of the social question he considers both ethical and
economic side of the issue. From an ethical standpoint, he distinguishes between the
Christian and ancient conception, the first contained in the regulations: love your neighbor
as yourself, whatever you want men to do to you, their do so, so justice and love the
spindles of life, second right now as the maintenance of power. He regrets that the
Pandects have had more influence than the gospel. The economy, he wants to make an
experience science. Both schools both liberal and communist, he calls utopian, for the first
inaugurates the utopia of abstract freedom, and the second that of the abstract
equality. Liberalism plunged us into the indirect social revolution and that the mother will
have a direct, against communist revolution. Tandem he deals extensively with the four
major directions of the present time: the monopoly, liberalism, communism and
federalism. The latter is his direction, which seeks the greatest possible personal freedom
and equality to show all and it does so through a common system of society. This is the
great federation, which includes all smaller groups. Federalism is not a middle thing
between liberalism and communism, but something zelfstandigs fact an orderly
participation of the entire human race to a dominion over nature. When asked whether the
private or the "relating to companies' corporate form rule should be, he replies: now this
way, than the former, but in many cases will last preferred over the former. In his
description of this federated society shows that social policy at him, a social administration
or as Auguste Comte once put it, less a government of persons or an administration of
things. Socialism will come and the future ruler of the world. In the second part one gets
the results of his historical studies.

He takes strict competition in judgment and 20 cons he sums up behind each other
on. He acknowledges to see any improvement in the new-liberal school, which he von
Mohl, Fr. List, Wilh. Roscher, S. Liedke others counts, but only fragmentary handles not
integral, no organic connection, no fixed system. As for him socialism comes from the
association, he prefers the word associalisme over socialism. Incidentally, he loves the
manufacture of new words. That associalisme treat manufacturing as a public affair and
wants to keep the salary scheme in the hands of society. Nevertheless recognizes the
inequality of ability and need among the people, let the individual ownership to the next
joint, divides the wages for the work done and the demands of individual freedom. It
divides into two parts: 1. the system of municipal (communal) associations and 2. the
system of professional (professional) associations; the first among home in the doctrine of
Fourier, the latter are at the heart of his so-called federalism. Isolated work does not help,
one must come to the big company. In private form only traders have the full autonomy to
the societairen all participants. Across the 22 benefits of the form relating to companies he
puts 10 disadvantages which he enumerates, to show thus how the benefits clearly catch
the eye. The association, the contemporary scientific form is not the essence of social
reform, but only one member, one link in a series of institutions. It is therefore not in itself
powerless to heal the evils of the existing social order, this is a different spirit, the sense of
community need, who do not selfishness and ignorance to cause the Christian-Germanic
order of the future, true panpolisme as opposed to the monopoly.

In the last two parts of his extensive work he tries to establish the fundamentals of the
economy. It inspires us his treatise on the property most interested in. First he describes
the forms of ownership, direct and indirect, then he discusses the distinction between
complete and incomplete property, in addition he discusses the difference between
common and individual ownership and finally he shares ownership in connected and
unconnected in under the first verse alone those whose owners are an ethical society, so
that they only exercise their property rights as members of the association. As to the
nature of the property, the person can use nature as a means to his goal, but man here
means human race. The natural goods must therefore be used in the most useful manner
for the community, so that each of it has the greatest enjoyment of life. A just rule must be
the fundamental principle of nature. While he makes front against the barren Roman legal
concepts he wants to bring fresh, viable Germanic principles of honor. The fourth and final
part, which remained unfinished, deals with the application of his concepts into four
chapters, namely: kindness, population, colonization and labor . Especially the last
chapter is important, as he puts it federal, that comes down on it in front of the liberal
labor law with full employment and reproductive freedom: 1. everyone may only
conditionally practice all labor sectors, requires an examination of competence; 2. Not all
workers branches may be practiced at any time, must be paid to the age of the working
classes, the working day should be prescribed generally for all subjects, night work
prohibited to set a day of rest; 3. Not all labor sectors must be practiced at any place; 4.
Not all labor sectors may be practiced in any form; 5. Not all work modes can be practiced
in a guild, the federal law requires guilds on all non home practiced labor sectors, the
functions of these guilds are numerous, as they Advisory participate in grant legislation,
tributes at work, exams and competitions set, etc .; 6. Not all labor sectors the business or
businesses may be driven in any measure; 7. alone productive employment branches are
allowed, not a game, lottery, speculation, futures, etc .; 8. Not all labor sectors may be
practiced in any manner, eg. No plundering, no adulteration, no placement of deceptive
marks, etc.

Marlo is on Christian principles and will practically realize and penetrate the social body
with the concept of love. The state thereby leaving the social functions of the society in
general or social clubs. The entire social life has a threefold sphere or circle: 1. The great
general association; 2. The well-ordered set of guild associations, which all companies
work properly; 3. the establishment of such companies themselves, preferably in a
scientific fellow (relating to companies) smaller or larger bodies. This is the whole essence
of federalism.

What affects especially in Marlo, his efforts to do justice to in addition to the acquisition
and assurance of prosperity to all is primarily the individuality, personal freedom. In many
ways he approaches the anarchy without being specific anarchist, but a society in which
the individual would blend into the community, seems to him an abomination, committed a
crime in the development of man. Even partly so he reacts against state socialism, but
another part he limits the area of the private company, as forestry, mining, hunting and
fishing, trade in all goods, which are suitable for displaying in public warehouses, nursing
the helpless, etc. all of which are owned by the state as well as the roads, such as
highways, railways, postal service, etc. For agricultural he wants relating to companies
association form of collective ownership and where farming associations are entered
through coercion and any association includes farmers of entire townships , it is still the
state, which are hereby occurs again. One system would thus be called a softened state
socialism, as he still strives for the award of degree of freedom. His book provides food for
thought awful lot of dust, is a rich source for graves and the place which is usually
assigned to him, deserves to be greater than it is given in the rule. However, too large and
more or less long-winded book is one of the reasons that he is so little known and read.
Rodbertus

As the father of the German state socialism always applies Rodbertus and no doubt he
deserves that name, though he has to share it with others. A strange figure, hermit on his
estate to Jagetzow, an aristocrat of talent and ideas, but a personality who independently
followed his path and therefore was not useful in practical political life or in any related
party.

A short time he took an active part in political life, since he was elected in 1847 to
delegate to the Diet later in the National Assembly, who as minister of worship met in
Berlin on May 22 1848 and even he joined the 25th June in order, however, on July 4 in
place to give up again. However, he remained in the Diet and was the proposer of the
motion, which was adopted by an overwhelming majority, in which the Prussian
government the order was given "fast and to take strong measures, including the popular
liberty prescribed in danger in the German states of Austria so help protect and restore
peace to the threatened existence of the Reichstag, in truth and with good results. "When
a deputation was sent to the king, to bring him up to date on the state of affairs,
Rodbertus was fit and so he lived the strange scene in which the noble Dr. Johann
Jacoby, the volksman, the king, who replied with a short Nay at the address and then
wanted to leave, cried:. "that's the misfortune of princes that they never want to hear the
truth. "the National Assembly was shifted from Berlin to Brandenburg, but this did not
liking this unlawful decision. They still met in Berlin until they were dispersed by a picket of
soldiers, at the very moment that they had accepted the proposal to reject the tax. Berlin
was then declared martial law and put Rodbertus as a "foreign" outside the gates of the
city. After the dissolution of the National Assembly by the king, he gave up his own hand a
constitution, were issued under which new elections. Three districts chosen Rodbertus
and he came back to Berlin. They had then offered the imperial crown from Frankfurt King
of Prussia. The king refused to take her to "without the free conformity of the crowned
heads, the princes and the free cities." It was Rodbertus who then filed a motion stating
that they fully agreed with the choice made in Frankfurt for which the authorization some
of the German government was not necessary. That motion was approved and then
shortly after the proposal was accepted, partly done by Rodbertus, to lift the state of siege
to Berlin, when the House was dissolved again. The reaction triumphed and Rodbertus
retired to his estate, never to do more to politics. Certainly this was the most turbulent
year in his usual quiet life. However, he did not meet the role played by him when, thanks
to the name he left behind, no, this is he owes to his various writings.

Already in 1837 he wrote for the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung are Forderungen der
Arbeit assigns classes , which piece was not incorporated until later and edited by him
was given a place in his Social Letters . One learns from it know the way he wanted,
which would be followed in the social field. Seeing the fate of the workers he asked three
questions: 1. What do workers want? 2. the other classes of society to them remember
what they ask? 3. what will be what they want, the grave of modern civilization?

Apparently it is to assert their political rights, but that is not their goal, but the means to
achieve greater possession. And this can not be deprived in the long run. Facing the
pressure of the workers know the propertied class nothing more than to make police and
cannons and ... economic stories of Miss Martineau. But the employment of violence can
not clear away the hunger. Two systems were traditionally in vogue: 1. That the discipline,
founded on obedience and 2. of civilization, held in upbringing and education. The arms,
the only thing one uses them against the barbarians can regard mind and morals in our
society to take the long out of service and to the question: how to save civilization ?, is all,
so to namely the extent to which nothing is able to create an organization in life, in which
production can be maintained at such a height that the increased production also benefits
the workers. Political economy can edit it, but then they have to answer to her name and
thus an economy of the State. He wants to limit the right of ownership, so that work is not
only constitutive but would essentially distributive principle of it. The prevailing system is
that of Adam Smith, making the war of all against all was found. This system must be
broken and the state leadership should be substantially. Ricardo labor theory points the
way here, so the work is returned to the working time. To this end he will: 1. legal value of
all goods to the work; 2. the creation of paper money, which would be closely connected
to this new valuation; 3. A system of storing inventory in warehouses, where
entrepreneurs, by delivery of that labor money will deliver their stock'd intended to
realization of that money. So the state center for the satisfaction of needs.

This document dates back actually already before half a century!

In 1842 he gave his Zur Erkenntniss unsrer staatswirthschaftlichen Zustnde , in which

he developed the five following propositions: 1. all economic goods cost labor; 2. When
the value of the goods was always equal to the labor costs calculated amount, the work
would be the best measure of its value; 3. interest rates generally splits into groundwater
and capital interest; 4. When the value of goods was only equal to the calculated amount
of costs for labor, for there is, in general, this includes both ground and interest on capital,
as well as return on capital, assuming that the productivity of labor in general, only the
existence of sufficient interest; 5. In a state where the value of goods held on the
calculated amount of costs for labor equally true, it would be possible to create a new kind
of money, which meets all the requirements as means of circulation and as a price gauge
and yet neither itself is a business good nor the present paper money on a business
estate would cover.

He took the historical development and took the following three configurations: 1.
ancient slavery; 2. modern with land and capital ownership and especially wage 3. the
future, which will only be individually owned income that a person acquires through his
work.

But these writings of Rodbertus passed without actually note was taken. He was too far
ahead of its time to be included in the backward Germany. "Do not individualism but
socialism closes the series of liberalization, which began with the reform" - he said, and
how many people would have understood this at the time?

When he after his turbulent years of practical political life was back on his estate, he
summed up his social studies, his real hobby, again, and he began his famous Social
Letter to von Kirchmann, the first of three he was finished in 1850.
 The first discussed the pauperism and commercial crises, both mainly borne by the
working class. These are the sacrifices which the company bought its freedom! The
workers are in fact placed under a regime in which the benefits of their labor benefit
others. For what benefit the workers of our vaunted progress? Macaulay says they have
the pleasure of gaslight. Rodbertus answers, the unemployed may have to beg the
privilege to gaslight! Five-sixths of the nation are excluded from civilization by their low
income. Yet they are the ones who produce all wealth. By the machines their fate was
pitiful. Overproduction is nonsense, it is precisely the abundance, which brings
defect. Still, one can not always leave the army, as workers demand their share in both
the product of labor as in the state. Now political economy has the task to edit an
organization in which the functions of the present land and capital ownership are
accomplished completely.

The second social letter directed against the doctrine of the so-called laws of freedom
of movement. He advocated them the necessity of management of the company and
requires agencies to do so. When yet the traffic related to the distribution of the national
product is left to itself, it must at increasing productivity of social labor, the wages of the
working classes are an increasingly smaller share of the national product. In 34
propositions he explained his theory put mainly on the distribution of the national
product. If we do not carry forward, it will spook suddenly. The natural laws must be put
apart by reason. The increase in productivity should benefit all, but then another
distribution required for increased productivity. Failure to do so, history will put the whip of
the revolution on the loins of society.

Then comes the third social letter, which deals with land rent, which is not something
separate, according to him, but part of the general interest, discharged from the value of
the national product, which is equal to the work it took. Even Marx had to admit that he
herein, "the essence of capitalist production completely see through."

The fourth social letter appeared under the title of Das Kapital , after Rodbertus
death. While he was concerned with the operation of it, was published in 1867, Marx's
book, which he dubbed as "a burglary in society." He set himself the task Marx, who
according to him, with each form of capital and capital understanding confused, to refute
his errors. He answered these four questions: 1. which capital exists? 2. What occurs and
increases capital? 3. How reproduces the capital? and 4. what proportion of capital to
income?

Rodbertus took decidedly opposite individualism and advocated communism. "I firmly
believe in a one to realize lifting of land and capital ownership. History has taught me
this. The present situation around me, I already everywhere wires community see hinted, I
always here indicates. Science eventually proves to me that lesson strong and solid. Yet
the lifting of land and capital ownership is not so near. People need to be trained. At
immediate establishment of such a waiver art and science would certainly lose, since the
concept of "free time" in which works of art and scientific researches are grown, would be
lost. The immediate task is, in the present times to create a compromise between labor
energy, raw materials and capital ownership on the other. This is made possible by a
system of pay. Naturally owning land and capital ownership is more than the holding,
office, the interest gets more in the nature of salary. But this is certain: the adoption of
such a compromise can not be left to practice. Science is needed. Science, which is both
prophecy of the future. "

Rodbertus made a lot of social studies in the field of history, like his writing: Zur
Geschichte der agrarischen Entwicklung Roms unter den Kaisern oder die Adscriptitier,
Inquilinen und Colonen [122] in 1864, in which he dealt with agricultural institutions in
Rome, his study the tax nature of the Roman empire, studying Zur Frage des
Sachwerthes des Geldes im Alterthum [123] evidence.

He believed that there would be a society without private land and capital ownership,
which alone would be individually owned income. Of collective property he wants to know
anything, not even in the future. The corporative ownership seemed to him an
anachronism, and productive associations, he shrugged his shoulders. He insisted on the
distinction between labor, capital and land, and wished only that the distribution of national
income between those three factors could have been arranged differently. The state must
come here to help through the law. An organization of credit referred to in the institute of
interest sale and interest letters, is a piece of social reform. The state must take up the
scale itself and the equator, which is now becoming nijgt to the capital, but later will lean
to work, maintain the right attitude among all the factors and elements of society. The
state must be the image of the justice process the social balance and maintain. He
recalled how King Frederick the Great in 1769 the land credit for his states arranged by
saying I want it thus and he hoped to transform the mortgage bonds again a king of
Prussia would interest letters with a second: if I want to !

He goes as strict monarchical man of the monarchy as the supreme authority and
believes that the social kingship should be proclaimed in a throne speech or deed state,
standing on one side above the liberal Manchesterdom and the other over the
Socialists. This proclamation must contain two kinds government measures:

1. Preparatory measures relating to the relationship between capital ownership and

labor, indirectly through a rigorous survey and a tax reform, with great sacrifices
demanded of the capital by inheritance taxes, and directly through the introduction of the
normal working of bv . 10 hours, immediately apply to big industry, prohibition of Sunday
work, and social peace, regulating night work, appointing completely independent factory
inspectors with high salary;

2. Measures, carrying the germ of the future organization. The state production itself
takes in hand. He can, however, address of mail, telegraph, etc. First he must modes
include a . where the new organization will benefit the entire population, b . where the
monopoly of a few raised and c . where the state itself is acting as a consumer.

So much for the first part of his plan.

A second section deals with the duties of the servants of the state. The state must
ensure that increased with the rise of national income also income from labor. Not by the
action of church and school, or the interference of private aid gratification can be
achieved. The state alone can give salvation, not free, left to himself traffic. The laws and
institutions should not prejudge measures which the freedom of the person and property
resulting individual rights (freedom of land ownership, inheritance, power of alienation and
guilt inclusion, freedom of capital in his business being; free choice of employment and
freedom to move) would hurt or assault. These laws should establish the standpoint of
pure salary system and improve it. Only the national economic conditions and resources
of a general nature should apply here, and these must have available the state
designated as supreme and obligatory representative and promoter of the development of
civil household. And finally, the statesman must use the resources that make that make it
more wages in the future, please refer to the increasing productivity through: 1. the
product value, at least from the wage goods, is constituted to normal work; 2. that the
wage share (fixed fraction) of these to work normally computed product value is
determined and 3. that measures are taken, ensuring the realization of these wages to the
applied measure of wage goods. Naturally this does not happen, solid state labor and
state leadership are needed for it.

In that spirit, working people will avoid the terrible ordeal that the worker, the third
brother, asking, because the inheritance of the earth is exclusively occupied by the two
brothers, landowners and capital owners. He claims are legal inheritance and the state
should give him that and prepare a state where only the property of the income will exist.

When the world exhibition in London took place in 1862, he sent a transmission letter to
the Workers' Congress during the exhibition, we do not know whether it has ever
accomplished his address, in which he has 14 points, persuading to organize the workers
of advice , with the proviso that one should never forget thereby, that all they are a main
class, they are still only one class of society. They can not decree but only negotiate. They
can and should make proposals, which are the initial letters of the liberation of the land
and capital ownership.

To what extent Rodbertus and Lassalle similar and different, it is clear from both answer
to the German Workers Association in Leipzig committee at jare 1863. Both the raw
material and advance associations oppose the model of Schulze-Delitzsch, but while
Lassalle stood productive association with state aid Rodbertus also approve it off as too
burdensome for national production. The association essentially he does not appreciate
the tangible progress that would be delivered by it to the workers, but the intellectual and
moral consequences as a school for them. They both want the workers to separate
themselves from the Forschrittspartij but while Lassalle it recommends universal suffrage,
eight Rodbertus wrong to attribute this solely on the banner of the workers, as it was no
undeniable prerequisite for the solution of the social question. He cried to them: "Does the
social question never subordinate to politics. Dwell a social party. Wards once the reaction
from you, by also "Freizgigkeit" and "free profession" to register your priorities. On that is
not to argue. "

Lassalle praised this letter of Rodbertus and tried to convert him to his opinion, which
he did not succeed despite the appreciation of Rodbertus compared Lassalle, and he also
claimed a witty expression was no different than the "silent partner of Lassalle."
 His book Normal Arbeitstag summarizes his views on wages. In it, he advocated under
the authority of their establishment of the state. And that determination will be reviewed
periodically in relation to the rise in productivity. A typical work-working takes the principle
of piece into itself, to which the workers are now facing, but which they do not have to be
more at such a wage settlement. The normal working day should be elevated to spell or
normal labor and at such time or normal labor must 1. the value be determined by the
product of each company and 2. The wages are determined in each company. But again
this is only possible by the strong hand of the state.

Rodbertus was a national man par excellence and his program is therefore best
reflected in the words: monarchical, national, social . Above all, he wants a peaceful
solution, because "not on the street, amid strikes, throws stones and pouring kerosene
solved the social question." The slogan now is: organizing. The social issue is almost
Mimosa pudica, she pulls terrified opposite rough violent hands. The conditions for its
solution are: sustainable social peace, unity of constitutional government power,
permanent connection of the working classes, trusting in this power, large preparatory
operations or institutions, which form a series of profound combinations and only in quiet
times, with order and his energy to bring about. Excluded are taking a distraught state
power, a turbulent working population and "Karlsbader" decisions [124] . He finds the
social question conservative par excellence, in so far as one among conservative means
"not keeping an already halfvergane prullenboel but strengthen the monarchical
staatsmacht in peace continued hervormingswerk, reconciliation of social classes under
the shield and the rule of the radiant suum cuique (each his own). "

He does not want to mix too much social issue with religion, ( niece allzusehr
Christianize siren ) "Christianize not too much."

Yet on November 30, 1871 he wrote: "As far as the core of the Social Democratic Party
is a pure economist, I belong to her with all my soul." And he even told on December 31,
1873 as "the workers and socialists him to choose the Reichstag, he will accept their
mandate "so that he would have lured in that case, in order to return to political life state.

He could turn himself sharply, as evidenced by his criticisms, eg. At the lectern
socialists, which he called "sugar water Socialists" said the Eisenacher professors, whom
he dubbed as "impotent Perrckenstcke." [125] Marx accuses "him constantly plunder
without quoting him. " Lassalle he complains constantly make mistakes. Adolph Samter
he calls a common "fair-jew". He criticizes the creation of trade unions to English model,
eight organize strikes a mistake, argues against the "bonuses" and only the works
councils find grace in his eyes. The landowner he called the "Gtergeier", the vulture, who
regarded nature as created only for themselves. The capitalist he gave the name of
"Bleifeder", an allusion to the famous banker Bleichroder that when everyone war
estimate imposed on France in 1871, was too high, said he was "in the figure of profits
was not just counting the birth of Christ, but from the beginning of the world "! The worker
finally he called "Esau who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage."

Then he blew out the breath in 1875, Germany lost one of its best sons, because he
was above all German and Bismarck he revered the man who had brought about the
unit. And how his mind nawerkte even after his death that showed the famous imperial
message of Emperor Wilhelm I on Nov 17. 1881, which could be called the Magna Carta
of state socialism, inspired by Wagener, but which can be clearly tasted the spirit of
Rodbertus than to his name can forget that.

Schffle

No booklet in terms of propaganda has worked so beneficial for social democracy in

Germany as Die Quintessenz des Sozialismus , translated into several languages and
thus spread very widely. First published anonymously in the Deutsche Blatter in a first
edition, the name of the writer was not known until the second. And this contributed to the
rise of the writing because it was none other than the former professor and former
Minister Albert Schffle. The author aims to define the essence, the core of socialism
briefly, clearly and objectively, as "the haters, the despisers, but also many believers in
the" new gospel "itself is not correct, partly not the slightest notion having the thing that
they fear or hate or despise or elevate to heaven. "that definition clearly shone through
certain sympathy for socialism. He even indicates that he might be the reader, for the
thing itself, is preparing a surprise. No wonder it was the Social Democrats, who most
contributed to the spread of the booklet widely.

Therefore belongs to him a place in the history of socialism, though he has also written
another booklet within a relatively short time completely opposite direction, viz. That
Aussichtslosigkeit of Sozialdemocratie , in which he seeks the impracticality and general
perversity of socialist planning to demonstrate. As such, it forms a curious counterpart
Frans Mehring, which first contribution to the history of social democracy did, which he
that strongly denounced and after his relation to the editor of the Volkszeitung lost,
defected later in the camp of the Social Democrats a large history of giving German social
democracy, which one and all glorification of hair. Although it is difficult to determine how
much matter or carry the hope of honor and name affect such sudden conversions to the
reputation of a man of science, they do not much good as a rule.

But Schffle did more. After he has shown in this small brochure that the purpose of
today's socialism is to replace private by collective capital, ie a production that, justified by
the collective ownership of the joint generators (workers), all means of production
collective social organization wants to implement national labor and the distribution of the
common product of all in all, the measure of the work performed; after it all usually
indicate objections to socialism has a set put and unnerved, he concludes that the
question is "whether the" unconscious "unitless to press so to speak socially statistical
control of it on each of the private interests, ie competition of the capitalists, or whether a
unit conscious and organized social power production and partition order will provide
better and more metabolism the digestive and circulatory process as it were economically
"and that question he says no one can answer with certainty. He noted only that the
principle now is not transit bar and still have for a long time, but he does it in order to call it
antisocial already own.

As is fitting the real "scientific" German, he also gave an obese book in four parts - it
seems that the four parts is the proper size, for Marlo, Marx and Schffle did all three -
under the title Bau und Leben des sozialen Krpers [126] regardless ever the other works
with which he enriched the world, and it addresses the third, entitled Capitalism and
socialism und this subject not only much detail, but he shows it to still be moved further
towards socialism. Not incorrect was the next characteristic of his work in relation to
socialism: Capitalism und Sozialismus (a work of 1870, "hostile
benevolent" Quintessence "friendly-benevolent", the third part of Bau und Leben under
the same title Kapitalismus und Sozialismus "socialist", (the barometer was still rising),
which Aussichtslosigkeit der Sozial-democracy [127] "hostile not benevolent."

Especially the twelfth chapter of the third part is from this point is important, because
the social metabolism and its economies keep political control of the organs and functions
of the national economy treats. [128]

Schffle understood the great importance of the concept of value in the struggle
between social and civil economics, he called in his Quintessenz the concept of value is
false, in this work he takes a more reserved attitude, saying that he "can only belong, in
what proportions theory state to that of Marx, as the positive side of it is known. "Marx had
then only just released the first part. But when Marx as a yardstick for determining the
value of the "socially necessary labor" picks and Schffle says that "products, which have
caused an equal amount of social potential minimally outgo on labor are equal", then
wants us seem that if the dark content of this formula deciphered has the meaning of both
is almost equal to each other, because we failed to detect any difference between the
"socially necessary labor" Marx and the "social potential minimally outgo labor "of
Schffle. When Schffle sees capitalism as a necessary link in the chain of historical
development, then he is no different from Marx, who always argued the same.

As Schffle believe in the triumph of socialism, soon they will not come, because the
decomposition of capitalist society is not yet complete. As he turns against the economies
hold political nihilists - he calls the men of the laissez faire, laissez passer , - just as he
does against the anarchists, whom he accuses they preach anarchy, although they do
also have to assume some kind of government, were it only to regulate the division of
labor groups. He denounces the capitalist system and indicates that in the very tough fight
for existence the equipment and to hold any means that does not put in prison, is
permissible, because "the state, law and religion have to party government, by
parliamentary and press corruption, by census electoral system and communication with
the church be made to serve the interests of capital. "instead the state controls the capital,
the reverse happens and that's crazier, because the state's largest employer is.

Defects of capitalism are: 1. that the competition for the largest portion of the national
income and does not have to place the highest premiums for professional skill through
guile, deceit, violence, corruption, unilateral supremacy of power and hereditary
privileges. The capital provides not only higher growth, but do not mind buying capital and
use, law and morality in its favor to knead; 2. that the entire downside as well as the full
advantage of the of the market price changes is not evenly applied to the whole, but
mainly on a part of the people, and have the advantage of the better-off, and the
disadvantage at the worst prescribed part of the population ; 3. increasing disturbances in
the balance between consumption and production and propagation of change in the
exchange value. This creates a "new feudal, unlimited arbitrary control of social power
functions by private ownership of capital; the sprouting of competition from many in the
monopoly of the few capitals and in the genetic inability to compete with the capital
stateless persons, so self-destruction and self-deformation of the competition on two
sides: an increase of priority interest in favor of parasitism; destruction of small- by large
property; ultimately increase of fluctuations in production, demand and sales far above the
size that is necessary to preserve the balance, due to which unnecessarily strong crises in
the areas of production, marketing, management and development: generating the urge to
gamble by game, swindle and agiotage [129] . "in addition, the lack of access and control
over the social needs. "The money magnates become a major power in the state, direct
dialing privileges, indirectly through party ministries by holding the press, by the corruption
of elected representatives, officials and journalists. Empires and kingdoms have to
celebrate the power of money ... government, parliament, administration, science, church,
school, people are brought into physical dependence ... The debts make is favored, the
capital gains in issuing loans for state extravagance and sticks in the form of debt interest
an increasing proportion of all resources that are appropriate for the needs of the state, in
his pockets (Europe 1 / 8 to 1 / 4 part). "

This devastating critique of capitalism can ask and he had her dressed in a less
ambiguous and more comfortable and understandable form, undoubtedly would be the
impact of his words on the workers have been much greater.

The separation between the leading minds and performing works hand in his back
detrimental to the production, all in the service of capital.

Schffle let the system of mutualistic anarchy (Proudhon) undiscussed and Christian
socialism, which the human society just as a big capital and Christianity is considered an
overall poor-box. Also, the system of productive association, wherein the capitalist
principle remains, though it is somewhat mitigated. Also known as the "lectern socialism"
that "state ideology of the liberals, which means the political rule of the capitalist class, a
supervisory expected to restrain capitalism." Response he sees in the transfer of the large
estates by redemption in the hands of farm income and laborers in the industrial
partnership, he sees nothing but put a new patch on the old garment of
capitalism. Eventually he also disapproves of the proposal, to the land to state ownership
and give in rent to the highest paying companies or associations, because it creates a
political dependence on the state, which all but may be considered desirable.

The only consistent system of socialism he finds the principle to make private capital to
capital from public production and sales establishments. Though not all individuals
employed by such public production and sales establishments therefore the same political
dependence of the state or municipality came as he feared in a previous case!

And then he designs a picture of national economy as it can be designed from the
principle of collective capital. The biggest difficulty he sees in the adoption of a measure
to determine the normal working time (a measure of value of labor), but it has been solved
once objection, showing the socialist fixed exchange value big lights. Indeed, the
exchange value is determined by a public body, on the one hand it presupposes
knowledge of the type and size of the entire requirement and secondly knowledge of all
the costs of the entire social production of each article and the average cost required for
traffic from any where. Instead of shopping from individuals one gets social warehouses,
where one can purchase what they need. The stockholders log in to the wholesalers and
these are in turn in direct contact with the producers. For which wholesalers, middlemen,
then serve, he leaves unexplained.

The valuation of the goods were made public as now happens with the market
prices. All special needs and individual workers would be classified under the influence
and is now below that of market and wages. Everything would be simpler and easier, are
less exposed to personal abuse and exploitation of a few. Each production facility would
have to go it alone with its workers, each local supplier only with its local customers.

The economies like political basis function would be organized as self-government

without centralization and avoiding even the slightest interference from or to other organs,
especially without the guardianship of the state. Socialism already required in the main
function in the formation of the exchange value, not to be able communism. He considers
it conceivable to get a big savings, so with less capital, with savings in the accounts, in
having to travel in market and fair visiting, cutting off all speculation and game, a much
better and more uniform definition of needs , the amount of products and their equivalents
would take place in the national economy "without interference from the state." One would
thus obtain a balance between supply and demand. Error with respect to the need would
be impossible, nor is falsification of goods or fraudulent bankruptcy or
overproduction. Crises would be avoided and all would equally affect all relative
differences and falls. For the ambition would alluring careers are open and every skilled
person could take part in the race. The measure of value is thus a "aliquots Theil der
wirklich geleisteten Gesammtmasse gesellschaft licher Arbeitszeit, bez. ihres Ertrages
" [130] . Suppose one million professionals and has labored through this 300 days and 8
hours each day, the annual amount of labor would consist of 300 million days or 24 million
hours of socially organized labor. The value meter of the working day is 1 / 800,000,000 of a
social working or working- 1 / 2400.000.000 the true social work. So one could so many pieces
working days or working hours give annually in bonds; The joint product would produce
the sum of values. Now we know how much is needed for public establishments, including
all necessary production facilities, set eg. 1 / 3 , that leaves 2 / 8 on individual
consumption. Up to this amount gives you vouchers depending on what one did and in
return the workers could get their needs from local warehouses. The hard money is thus
unnecessary; as a bargaining chip they can do without and as a measure of value is the
replacement. Only in traffic with other capitalist states would prevent money. The
accumulation of labor vouchers would be remedied by the cancellation of old bonds and
by setting a limit of vouchers. There would be less opportunity for private accumulation
and contrast more to issue general opulence and enjoyment for all. Instead of individuals
as leaders of the production boards, one would therefore have chosen from those who
work in the profession or craft, while one could determine that if they had made a bad
choice, fell the premium for the directorship. Thus one could have several stages and
relations, which one could ensure greater income, up to a central management which
would consist of representatives of the special departments. One could put a premium to
those who achieved the highest utility.
 The community would be generally possessor and innovator of the social means of
production. Lease fell away as the lease goods and means of production were formed this
collectively owned. House rent expired, there was arranged and divided the property
because of the company in accordance with the appeal. State credit was unnecessary,
because what the state is allocated as extraordinary need, in general terms could be
taken from production stock. Similarly, loans and credit would expire. One would all his life
assure a permanent residence at his profession. One could also make arrangements with
respect to devices for heating, washing, cooking, etc., so that the domestic work would
decrease significantly. The number of servants was reduced to a minimum. The
departments of nursing, care of small children could be filled by regular and public
parish. The domestic slavery, who lives in the maid's life would be eliminated
thereby. Family life was not abolished, but refined and improved.

He then deals with the implementation of the socialist principle in municipal, state,
church, science and art. In all there will be an improvement. However, transitional
arrangements are necessary, as not everything can be done suddenly. Moreover, real
estate, one could not take them, if they left the country and they constitute up to 3/4 of the
national capital, gives the argument is very little that one capital and knowledge through
socialism would expel the country. Only one could extract the metal money to the
community, but it indeed is no need in the socialist state. It is wrong to believe that only
the proletariat would have an interest in change, because it all concerns, when it comes to
the healthy development of the whole. This road to slow reform, the question is not what
one would like but what they might do in the line of historical development. Time for
everything and also required for this change of radical nature, since both are required for
the haves as an increase in the level of development in the non-possessing
classes. Socialism will come, or that the ruling classes, by use of force, the movement
seeking to suppress and then some social revolutions, with the danger that the people are
thrown back into despotism and barbarism, or that one of the drawbacks of seeking to
heal capitalism, but it winds along the path of reform, the advent of socialism. In these
words one hears the echo of what Lassalle once spoke prophetically, as the footsteps of
the revolution with wildly fluttering hair and iron sandals on the soles, which he already
heard in the distance.

In the fourth part of this great work he deals with the state doctrine and although a
discussion of it is worth, it is a little beyond the scope of our work. But this exposition of
his ideas shows enough how socialism far from a phantom in his eyes for creation is not
only feasible, but that it should come.

Schffle belongs to the men, who now probably have cooperated very reluctantly, to
ready the ground for socialism, always in the sense of state socialism.

Ferdinand Lassalle

A strange appearance, the man we are going to discuss now! By nature favored with
rare talents he handled the pen with such an attraction that now everyone who delved into
his writings, fallen under its spell; he spoke in a way that dragged his hearers and brought
into ecstasy. He also managed to act with energy and determination, which were not
many file.

A volksagitator par excellence, on the one hand - as he himself said, and could say -
"armed with the whole civilization of his age" the battleground Intradiscal and also
possessed the necessary passion for new ideas to sway in the world. An aristocrat in
spirit, he worked as he for democracy and militant was by nature, he only came in full
force, where he stimulated by all opposition could develop his talents. He was fully aware
of his own spiritual excellence and had the courage to come out before, the high courage
(arrogance) to own self-conscious high spirits. But he also possessed a boundless vanity,
and in all he made more impressed with the comedian who plays a role, the prophet who
claims to fulfill a calling.

He loved pomp and splendor - perhaps a remnant of his oriental origin - the upstart like
never entirely shook off and beloved also effectmakerij. Characteristic in this respect
seeming trifles. Thus, shares his beloved Helena von Dnniges also how she told him that
the wife of prof. Diderici him the nicest man and prof. Bckh him for "geist reich services
Kopf" [131] loved. Then he shook his head and said jokingly: "Oh, what spirit! Spirit is
nothing. But to be the best man that I like. That one should put on my grave. I have mind,
before I come on and that people notice, before that I shall take care, but the fame of my
beauty must know posterity. "Man of the world he enjoyed it went live to the fullest and to
Berlin a call from the delicious suppers and rich wine cellar that one saw him. Carefree
and completely independent he could live, because he is single year 7000 thaler
( f 12,600) had to digest - 4000 thaler as annuity of the Countess von Hatzfeldt and 3000
as interest on equity - yet he was not greedy but despised mammon nor as he himself
stated: "I despise the money only if it wants to compete with something higher and
noblest, what more grateful for my will. But the money is in itself one of the resources of
the highest efficacy on earth and as such a means for my sake, and not as an end, I know
how to estimate the value to. "

New ideas are not taught by him, but he popularized the ideas of others in such a clear
and attractive way that they left an unforgettable impression and in the history books is
almost single, somebody such an overwhelming impression in such a short time
made . Dictator, he was ordained, his will must be law and needed to bend or break
anything, if he had put his mind to. We see this most strongly at the end of his life when
he did not get Helena von Dnniges could and his pride was highly offended, and he
spoke these words to Johann Philipp Becker: "Oh dear friend, I could cry like a child,
when I think that I'm in this miserable, miserable affair will lose out, I who am just to win
grand slams, I who always looked calm in the face all the dangers, I would have walked
every moment with pleasure the scaffold for the great cause. "as a young man pulled him
the saying of" the one that leads "from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus as corresponding
to its dictator nature and as he wanted the woman that she" as the flute would be in hand
artist ", likewise the General Deutsche Arbeiter-Verein had to be" the hammer in the hand
of a single person, "and that person he was.

Born of wealthy parents in Breslau - his father had a "en gros" thing in silks and woven
goods - he received a careful upbringing, but he was a Jew and it wanted at that time a lot
else to say than it is today. Destined to be included in that case, he would know nothing of
it, and after some resistance he persuaded his father that he could go to college.

At 16 years old he was already revolutionary republican, though he was in a neglected

diary of that time honestly confesses that "if he had been born prince, he would be
thoroughly aristocrat." As a student, first at Breslau and later in Berlin, he enjoyed student
life in abundance, but he also worked and was in his 19th year finished. Then let his father
make him a trip to Paris where he enjoyed working with the German poet Heine, to whom
he was recommended by Alexander Humboldt as "child prodigy". How Heine judge him,
one learns from his recommendation to Varnhagen von Ense, which states: "A young man
with the most excellent spiritual gifts, with the most thorough scholarship, with the widest
knowledge, with the greatest acumen, as I have never met ; with the richest talent show
he commits an energy of will and a knack of doing things that bring me in
amazement. This union of knowledge and ability, talent and character is a joyous
phenomenon for me ... He's such a sharply defined, stamped son of modern times, who
wants to know the humility and self-denial nothing which we more or less hypocritical . our
time have doorgezanikt and lied "and in a letter he says:" I have no one so much passion
and clarity of mind, united in action, found. Why do you have to be right cheeky, others we
just usurp the divine right that heavenly privilege. Compared to you, I'm just a humble fly. "

Not yet 21 years old he got acquainted with the Countess von Hatzfeldt and the
relationship with her was decisive for his whole life. This was 41 years, but still a nice,
particularly imposing appearance, belonging to the most aristocratic families of Germany,
but who lived unhappy with a miserable man. Whether she was a motherly friend to him
than if he were in an intimate relationship with her, it is difficult to determine, but it is
certain that the young Lassalle, in the beginning probably concerned about her sad fate,
full of chivalrous feelings its defense to hand and took unprecedented and undeniable
energy brought her case to a successful conclusion, after she defended for 36 courts to
have a period of 8 years. The so-called cassette theft is not an unimportant episode in this
fight. He was en. Accused of complicity in the theft of a cassette of the Baroness von
Meyendorf, the matres of the Count von Hatzfeldt from a hotel in Aachen, but he knew
how to protect himself. The defense speech, which he then took to the court in Cologne,
called Cassette Speech, which lasted generally held for six hours a masterpiece and
shows the great talent that he subsequently spread in tone.

Marx edited in 1848, Neue Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne and the young Lassalle, who
lived with the Countess, Dsseldorf, since not only wrote but also had a lively traffic with
Marx. Lassalle stirred then also kept in the people's democratic club in Dsseldorf and
after a speech, which he Neuss on the political situation in which calling the nation to
support the National Assembly with the weapons in hand as the legitimate government
power in the country and to proceed instead of passive resistance to active opposition, he
was captured. Six months they kept him captive preventively, but again he was acquitted
on May 3 by the jury in Dsseldorf. A moment later he was captured and brought before
the criminal court, which sentenced him to six months in prison for excitement to violent
resistance against state officials. Despite medical certificates he had afzitten his sentence,
but he got all kinds of favors and guards very indulged him. Of course it was established
its name by all this, and he experienced the consequences, since it permitted him to live
was not in Berlin. He called the 10 years he spent in Dsseldorf, his involuntary exile, and
this time he let himself later in a speech (1863) says of: living "I had 10 years among the
workers on the Rhine, the revolution time as well as the period of the white terror of 1850
and next I spent with you. You had me as thou calls to contact me in your address in one
period as well as in other seen. You knew the house in spite of the white terror of
Hinckeldey-Westphalen, despite all savage lawlessness of that time, even until the last
moment of my stay in the Rhine Province, the fearless shelter of democratic propaganda,
loyal asylum of the most determined and fearless party assistance has been. "

In 1857 he was awarded by the intervention of Alexander von Humboldt leave to settle
in Berlin itself and thus was finally fulfilled his long-cherished wish. A provincial town when
Dusseldorf was too small for this Alexander, he had to live in the capital and work. It says
that if he tarried coachman dressed in Berlin and there waited what would be the
decision. He focused in very lush, appeared much in public places and did his best to be a
man of the world.

His attractive personality, interesting conversation were the cause that he had many
friends and all the more because he was a pleasant and generous host. Who hears the
names of Alexander von Humboldt, August Bckh, Varnhagen von Ense, Ludmilla Assing,
Lothar Bucher, Georg Herwegh, Franz Ziegler, Franz Duncker, Wilhelm Rustow, Holt Hoff,
Hans von Blow, JB von Schweitzer, Bernard Becker, Johann Philipp Becker Gustav
Lewy - to name only ones - who will have to agree that he occupied a place in the
intellectual world of Berlin. He managed to connect many entertainment and work a lot
together and lived a kind of double life. First he gave into two philosophical work The
Philosophy of Heraclitus of Ephesos Duncklen von [132] from (1858) in which he, the
disciple of Hegel, the Greek philosopher Hegel was an antique. Among other things, he
argued that the state thought for mankind was the one, not the individual but the
community had to be put in the foreground. This work was followed by a dramatic, Franz
von Sickingen (1859), in which he made a failed attempt - he thought he could and know
everything - to act as a man of letters. Importantly, this drama to the ideas because they
see the people of Franz von Sickingen and Ulrich von Hutten fully back the ideas of
Lassalle and whom this piece reads closely and thereby compares what he wrote later,
which will have to see, how as it were, since the road is signed off, followed by him. The
word, Ulrich von Hutten put in the mouth:

Schiecht kennt ihr die Geschichte:

Ihr habt ganz law, es ist ihr Inhalt Reason,
But ihre Form bleibt ewig - which Gewalt [133]

press so entirely from the mind which manifests itself in many other of his writings. Had
his piece a German-national basis, so that he appears to be a supporter of German unity
is still stronger this in a brochure of his hand, first anonymous but then was released with
his name: Der Italienische Krieg und die Aufgabe Preussens [ 134] , in which he in fact
has shown the way, later walked through Bismarck. He warned, as also Friedrich Engels
in his pamphlet Po und Rhein , against providing aid to Austria during the war, which
claimed the power of Napoleon III; he is against the small German party wants one big
Germany without dynasties. Georg Brandes understands that he brought with him during
a visit, after the peace of Villafranca to Garibaldi, has made an effort to move it to a trip to
Austria with his pretty scissors in order in this way to obtain Germany's unity. Also Fichte
had great influence on him and in his pamphlet: Fichte politisches Vermchtniss und die
neueste Gegenwart [135] He wrote, among other things: "An emperor, though he is
hereditary and wallpapered and decorated with all kinds of beautiful day, when at the
same time the 35 sovereign particles wiped out, for Germany at a higher ladder of
intelligence and political truth than our federal republicans. "He wants the unity of
Germany and is obtained, then the empire formed by the negotiated personal freedom,
the true realm of the law and this compels all nations to peace.

How different was the outcome! However, Germany was one, but instead of a
guarantee for the peace, it's just become an imminent threat to peace and quiet, and
since that time period occurred in the propagation of the armies and the ramp-up of
spending on war and navy, headed by ministers who are not unkind labeled with the name
of "ministers of dry and wet quarrel." and these ideas Lassalle placed himself under the
wing of the philosopher Fichte.

Apart from these smaller work he was doing a great work, which appeared in 1861
under the title of System erworbenen Straight, eine Vershnung of positiven Rechtes und
der Philosophy of Right [136] . He considered this book, which shows great wit and
learning, as the reasoning of socialist ideas. In the preface he asks: "What is the inner
surface of our political and social struggle? The term of the acquired right has once again
become a controversial issue. In the legal, political and economic, the term of the
acquired right the source of all other forms and where the legal and private whole appears
detached from the political, there is much more political than politics itself, because it is
the social element. "According to him, the only source of law the common consciousness
of the whole people, the general spirit and he believes that Europe is socially to the
question" whether the free use and development of labor-only private -owned by the
possessor of labor substrate and employment (capital) are allowed and that therefore the
employer as such, apart from the reward of his spiritual work, ownership of foreign labor
value (capital gain, capital gain, which is the difference between the sale price of the
product and the sum of wages and allowances of the joint also mental labor, who have
contributed in any way to the creation of products) allowed should be. "He sees the
development of legal history the aim" increasingly restrict the ownership sphere of the
private individual and to narrow and always bring more objects outside the circle of private
property "Very clever, he points out that emancipation (liberation) means e mancipio, so to
say. from put severe property; release is put out of the property, so no freedom without
property. Strange may be called his modern inheritance discussed here late, as he later
did in his socialist agitation.

When he was working on the editing of this book, he was affected by a chronic disease,
so he went to recovery to Aachen on medical advice, he had a love scene with a 19jarige
Russin, Sophie von Soluzeff which, however, ended unhappily for him because she was
unwilling to give him her hand.

Since 1860 he had the idea of Marx to create a great democratic magazine in Berlin,
since the expected death of King Friedrich Wilhelm IV by a general amnesty would also
open this opportunity to come to Berlin. The plan failed. Namely first, because Marx was
not covered by the amnesty and first naturalization should apply, that would be denied
him, and second, because Marx and Engels, both of whom would be editors, would have
only one vote, which required Lassalle not to be eclipsed by them, but that condition was
refused by them.

Now breaks the time in which he fought against against Fortschrittspartij. Two
speeches were doing as such service, one: Ueber Verfassungswesen [137] , a crystal-
clear argument to show that the actual balance of power was the real constitution, and not
a piece of paper disclosed that bears that name, and the other: Arbeiterprogramm more
the social field treating. The latter earned him a criminal "because of incitement of the
propertied classes to hatred and contempt against the propertied class." He was
sentenced to four months in prison. His plea made a lot of sensation, especially because
of the witty way he philosopher Schelling (the father) played off against his son, the state
attorney who acted as plaintiff against him. On appeal the sentence was changed to fines,
but the seizure of the pamphlet was maintained.

That nomination will get to know us his idea of the state. He fights the state idea of
liberalism, consisting of the guarantee of personal liberty of the individual and of his
property, which he calls a nightwatchman idea, because the state then is not much
different than the night watchman who "makes that one can essentially assured and sleep
at night safely. " By contrast, he sees in the state an association of individuals, all of them
provide a sum of civilization, power and freedom, which they could never get as
individuals. He sees in the state apparatus, which brings the human being developed, so
the education and development of the human race to freedom.

To give a proof of his compelling style, we pick the lock on:

"From the high peaks of science we see the dawn of the new day dawning earlier than in
the bustle of everyday life.

Have you ever seen a sunrise, standing on a high mountain?

A purple hem paint the outer horizon red and glowing, the new light announcing, mists
and clouds gather, express themselves together and throw themselves at the dawn,
enveloping its rays for a moment - but no power of the earth is capable of slow and
majestic rising of the sun to prevent itself, an hour later, visible to the whole world, bright
and shining and warming state in the firmament.

What an hour in the spectacle of nature of a single day, that one or two decades in many
plechtstatiger spectacle of a world history dawn. "

Standing idea he works even further in the speech he made ready for the
Kammergericht, but he did not because of hoarseness, entitled Die indirekten Steuern
und die Lage der Arbeit assigns Classes [138] and in which he says to the judges: "The
state I know the high, great task, to develop the germs of the human, as he does, founded
in history has done and do all eternity and as the body that exists for all, to his protective
hand the human condition of all to carry on. This doctrine, gentlemen, is not a doctrine of
destruction and barbarism, it is in the highest degree a state doctrine. You, gentlemen,
does not fall within the Manchester Men, those modern barbarians who hate the state, not
this or that particular state, not this or that form of government, but the state in
general; and which, as they give it here and there clearly known, preferably whole would
abolish the state, justice and police would be carried the least bidder and the war by
limited liability companies: that nowhere a moral point in the wide universe and guidance
would be left, from which its capital by armed exploitation sigh resistance could be
offered. How big difference you and also separates me, gentlemen, opposite the
destruction of all moral we stand hand in hand. The old Vesta-fire of civilization, the State,
I defend with you against those modern barbarians. "

One sees here the passionate defender of the idea of the state and if this is not the
solemn proclamation of state socialism, we no longer know what is meant thereby!

Sharp, he was challenged by the Fortschrittspartij, which formerly belonged nearly all
the intellectual part of Germany, but he was not a little afraid geruchtje and ruffed off her
vengeance. So among other things he threw the Liberals in his pamphlet Power und
Recht for the feet that they by no means had the right to invoke the law, since they just
had the right lifted the foot to master a lot of power.

Now begins the last part of his life, which he almost performed the superhuman. This
period lasted over a year and it has been written, spoken, done, that it is almost enough to
fill a lifetime. Lassalle now acts as a socialist and labor movement leads to new jobs, that
of socialism.

There was a plan of a general German workers congress and a call was made to meet
from 18 to November 25, 1862, following a visit, brought by several workers at the World
Exhibition in London. Both Berlin and Leipzig was working on this plan. The call for a
meeting to discuss the matter, we find the words "Gewerbefreiheit" and "Freizgigkeit"
next to the formation of associations and disabled greenhouses, while also speaking of a
world exhibition in Berlin. However Fortschrittspartij, whose lips when the workers hung,
was against it and then one with that party in the Berlin Tonhalle held a meeting on
November 2, where among other things, the well-known Schulze-Delitzsch, the "king in
the social realm" was present, who got no result, then they decided on a proposal from
the two Leipziger deputies Vahlteich and later secretary of the Allgemeine Deutsche
Abeiterverein, and Fritzsche, to postpone it to november 18 devised general congress
until the end of January and then to Leipzig to hold. The Fortschrittspartij hold this ground
in the hope of pushing the whole thing off the track and then the two Leipziger delegates
for discussion come to Berlin again with the men, saw that they were fobbed off with
words, promises and phrases, they turned to Lassalle and with this they were ready. It
was agreed that the committee, based in Leipzig, would invite him to present his views on
the labor movement and that Lassalle would respond.

His masterful Offenes Antwortschreiben [139] , not wrongly called "the foundation
charter of German socialism", was published on 1 March 1863. He himself was highly
welcomed, and he considered it a world historic act, which he wrote to his friend Lewy
Dsseldorf (March 9, 1863) about the operation attributed "as the 1517 theses on the
castle church in Wittenberg." In the speech, which he had prepared at the request of
Leipzig on March 16 he repeated this, as one at the end it may read: "A good omen, I in
fact that have been precisely those decisions here in Saxony and Leipzig from the
first; here in Saxony was that Luther's famous theses hit on the castle church in
Wittenberg, Saxony here was that the papal bull was burned by the students of
Wittenberg after the Leipzig disputation. We hope that the life-giving breath of the great
reform, which demands this century, will go here and broaden its effect on the soil of the
homeland. "(Zur Arbeiterfrage).

As this response contains the program of Lassalle's efficacy, we should briefly mention
their contents. After he remembered had the two tendencies among the workers, one is
not at all a political wild inlets and the other workers wanted to make an appendage of the
Fortschrittspartij, criticized his latter to the conclusion to come to the working class must
constitute an independent political party and make general equal and direct suffrage to
the principle banner and slogan of this party. The representation of the working class in
the legislative bodies of Germany - this alone can satisfy his legitimate interests
politically. A peaceful and legal agitation to start this by all legal means, this is and must
be politically from the working party program. As for the "Freizgigkeit" and
"Gewerbefreiheit" debates about only have one error, viz. That they come too late for over
50 years, because these are things that one does not argue, it decrees them without
discussion. Then he discusses the savings, the wheelchair, see, assistance and insurance
companies, which recognizes the relative usefulness, but whether thus asserts the
condition of the worker, as Schulze-Delitzsch is improved, he says decidedly
negative. After all, it's not as consumers but as producers that the worker
disadvantage. And now he is developing the iron law of wages, which provides, in the
present circumstances, under the rule of supply and demand, wages and in a manner that
the average wages remains on the verge of necessary sustenance, necessary for the
existence and for reproduction. To every one who speaks the workers of improvement, he
would refer the question you acknowledge that law, yes or no? he does not recognize her,
then he is either a fraud or a do not know. he recognizes her, must ask: how do you put it
aside? he does not have to answer this, then he is a Zwetser. And now he is going to
develop the entrepreneurial profit in the simplest, most peaceful and wettelijkste manner
can be eliminated, because the workers stand by a voluntary association acts as an
entrepreneur. But to make this possible at that position, he needs the help of the
state. This intervention by the state nor raise social assistance, if one would prevent
someone from their own strength to climb a tower, if you give him a ladder or rope, or that
the state prevents the youth to form by their own power through its to provide schools,
teachers and libraries. Those who see socialism or communism in this proposal, he
rejects as ignorant, as it has given nothing to stand out. Then he will explain what the
state and concludes that the poorer classes as the majority actually represent the
state. So the free and individual association of the workers and this was made possible by
the protective hand of the state - such is the only way for the working class, to get out of
the desert. And how to bring the state to this intervention? By general direct
suffrage. Therefor must be agitated and just for that, because "the whole art to achieve
practical effect, consists herein at any time at one point - namely the weightier matters - to
concentrate all power and not be seen to the right or to the left." and he ends with this
agitational phrases, "universal suffrage from 89 to 96% of the population, defined as
gastric demand and thus also with the warmth of the stomach to spread throughout the
national body - be carefree, there is no power, thereto can long resist. This is the sign that
you have plants. This is the sign that you will be victorious! There is nothing else for you! "

Lassalle's plan is very clear nothing to be desired, it consists of three parts: 1. cause of
misery is the iron law of wages; 2. the wage system can only be removed by workers'
associations with state credit; 3. This loan can be obtained only by giving voice to the
workers, so universal suffrage.

Revolution Airs there was nothing in this plan. Even we can not see the fundamental
distinction between his association and those of the so violently he contested Schulze-
Delitzsch, as this distinction is quantitative, not qualitative. Marx had there not openly and
saw from afar, but he did not sympathize with it, evidenced by his later criticism of the
Gotha Programme, in which he is the iron law of wages called "salvation through the
Prophet ', which the road "paved" should be. Rather than from the revolutionary
transformation process of the society, "creating" the "socialist organization of the total
labor" off "state aid" that the state gives to the productive associations that he not "calling
in life" Worker . It's the fantasy worthy of Lassalle, that with state loans just as well to build
a new society as a railroad. Out ... shame it represents the "state aid" - under the
democratic control of the "toiling people".

Apparently, he pokes fun at the whole plan, he takes it for a ride.

If one asks whether Lassalle it actually saw the salvation of society, one would
negatively have to answer this, at least in the correspondence he had with Rodbertus this,
we see how he and Rodbertus wanted the abolition of land and capital property without
which they did not come there, but that goal was only in the distant future. We see in
these letters the phrase to: "It can be the mob (dem Mob) does not mean", from which
word we deduce that he is something tactile and feel perch for the great hope wild, so he
swung his idea of association state aid, which is not to disregard the influence of Louis
Blanc, among the people. When he used to say: "Individuals can be deceiving, classes
never" then he is being still attempted. He wanted to move in the dead mass and was
once the thing rolling, they would move forward. If they agree, the finger, comes the hand
naturally.

Huber reproached him that he "brought the people of the economic and social work of
self-help on the path of political agitation, the purpose of which is the state in a big way,
the realization presupposes the full democratization of the state power or even completely
Bonapartist lilac, which perhaps Lassalle himself has not thought of. "Lassalle answered
the first complaint in detail, but he dropped the second and he would have done so
without intent is not to assume.

The goal was reached, the spark was thrown into a lot of combustibles and started a
huge battle in which Lassalle showed itself in all its strength. On April 16, he held a
speech in Leipzig, which included a broader discussion of the Antwortschreiben. Another
speech, Frankfurt / Main held in May, was a real triumph, as he mostly knew a hostile
audience to turn into a sympathetic. This speech later appeared as Arbeiter-Lesebuch.

On May 23, the Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeit Preserve Rein was founded in Leipzig, with
statutes designed by Lassalle and Ziegler. This association was highly centralized and its
president, appointed for five years, it ruled as a true dictator. A later letter of July 28, 1864,
one must deduce that Lassalle originally not act had the plan as president of the
association and only yielded to the express wish of the countess. He hesitated because
he was afraid of failure and "a failure case, we are ugly disgraced." But when he took it,
he did may identify the condition, itself a vice president.

Despite his work did the case not to be high expectations, because after three months
of agitation the association had only 900 members. His state of health made it necessary
that he took rest and went to Switzerland for three months. Which was relatively calm, for
there he designed his Bastiat-Schulze , the comprehensive brochure in which he called
the "king in the social realm" dethroned and beat up miserably. These are socio-
economically main work, which appeared in January 1864, is being hailed by some as his
best, but others find the tone too polemical and personal. However, one should not forget
that he Schulze-Delitzsch continues, because he's a type, "body, incarnate minds of our
citizens." As for the theoretical foundation, Lassalle built on the basis of Marx, whom he
dubbed as his "teacher in such matters." His argument is that "Eigenthum
Fremdenthum" [140] has become so that the fruits of labor come to him who does not
carry out the work, while economists defend the property and justify the statement that the
fruits of the labor sent to him who performed the work, so exactly the opposite of their
claim and that the socialists are not, as stated, would raise the property, but rather the
individual property to introduce as founded on the labor. In an epilogue, which he calls a
"melancholy contemplation" he pulls violently the field against the press, newspapers,
making public opinion, relieve the citizenry of self-thinking and judgment of the mediocrity
and vulgarity "the ochlocracy in science ". And he ends with the question: "Will we really
are a nation such distressing predictions say, intended to give some thinkers to the people
and then they go in on the Jews among the peoples of Europe"? he cries out, "Away with
these gloomy thoughts! Already I hear in the distance the muffled step of the workers
battalions! Save - Save - saves you from the tires of a production situation, you have to
where dehumanized. Save - Save - saves the German spirit of spiritual ruin. Also saves
the nation dismemberment. Already flickers in height the glittering light of the general right
to vote. In this way or that way, soon hits the hissing down. Since this word was uttered, it
has become a necessity. So you arm yourselves with this thunderbolt, save yourself, save
Germany. "

So he hope to bring the German people to rebirth through universal suffrage and shall
confident in the healthy core of the workers.

Switzerland from recurring in the autumn of 1863 he held speeches in the Rhineland
and talking about Die Feste, which Presse und der Frankfurter Abgeordnetentag drei
Symptome des ffentlichen Geistes. [141] For Solingen one hit scuffle, so the mayor
disbanded the meeting. A telegram to Minister Bismarck for his mediation remained
unanswered. He only workers sentenced to several months due to defend themselves
with knives against the invading Fortschrittsmannen on that fateful meeting, advised to
ask pardon to the king - but what the workers refused to do - did him no good and well
that board like that telegram gave suspicions to the allegation that he was an accomplice
of the government. That speech, in print, gave him a criminal and sentenced to six months
in prison.

His attempts to win the workers of Berlin, did not have much luck, the association had
there not two hundred members in December 1863. Following the booklet to the workers
of Berlin , he was prosecuted for treason, but acquitted after a brilliant plea. On May 22
1864 he held Ronsdorf his last agitational speech on the Rhine, which he clamp placed on
the education of the people, which he conveniently pronounced on the Catholic Church
and the Bishop of Mainz, von Ketteler, and very queer about itself. It is as if he had a
premonition of his downfall and already be seen in true advance hoped the words of the
Roman poet: Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus Ultor (! May from our bones get up an
avenger) and oddly, the word which he added "May go with me not to ruin this great
national and cultural movement, but the fire that I have infected, continue to wider and
wider, while still breathes one of you." Then a scene took place entirely calculated effect,
which he so badly led, because he said, "promise me this and to sign them raise your
right hand." and thus it came to pass under the greatest enthusiasm. Two things we want
to look here and do 1. how he speaks of the strictest unity and discipline, so he then
places particular emphasis and 2. how he mentions a national cultural movement, which
word not to him in the heat of his speech has perished but deliberately chosen. It was that
the persecution was raining, and there the courts on the Rhine were mostly occupied with
Fortschrittsmannen, peppered those gentlemen him his performance against that party. In
his final plea to Dsseldorf on June 27, 1864 he said, "it's hard for a man my age and life
habits for twelve months, or even for twelve days to go to prison and in that respect are
not going to me more like in my youth, when I walked into the dungeon with the same
calmness with which another went to a ball. But nevertheless I would prefer my life do not
leave the night of dungeons than to have struck such a verdict. "It did not help much,
followed a sentence of six months.

His mood was also depressed because he sometimes had trouble with the workers
who would no longer blindly do what he wanted. There were some who began to see that
gradually lower the target or the honor of himself stood in the foreground. Already he
should expel his secretary Vahlteich and he certainly saw the opposition grow against his
dictatorial power, and yet something other than the dictator he could not. He felt more and
more that he thus could not continue to go on, he asked once whether he had been
premature themselves or the people it was ripe for his ideas and if it was not useless to be
put in prison each , considering the poor results. Martyr blood he had not much, being he
was too much a man of the world, who was accustomed to comfort and luxury. Everything
made with each other that he wanted to be relieved of his post and certainly he spoke his
mind out in a letter to the Countess of July 28, 1864: "I wish for nothing better than free of
all political and pull me in science and nature. I'm tired of politics and have had
enough. Certainly I would passionately as ever inflame her if serious events took place or
if I did or saw an agent the power to conquer her - such means as is appropriate for me -
because without the supreme power is to do nothing . For child I'm too old and too
big. That is why I very reluctantly took the presidency on me. I only cared to
sake. Therefore now it presses me so strong. If I was off, then "So Lassalle also thought,
etc., that" now it was time to make his si j'tais roi " [142] , he would be able to arrange
things for his insights, he wanted have supreme power! It is strange that he Presidium of
an association that would do such great things, called child's play! But what is also clear
from this is that he has had enough and wants to decency break.

Immediately after pronouncing the verdict he left for Switzerland.

Before we end the tragic Lassalle state, we want to briefly draw his relationship with
two men on, viz. To Bismarck and Marx.

In 1878 Bismarck dropped his regards Lassalle in these terms: "Lassalle first visited
me. In any case, I am no longer approached the bebelse Social Democracy. On the
contrary, I have the other searched me or let her look, to act against the international
social democracy not to drive out the devil by Beelzebub, but since the Social Democracy
me a moment suitable seemed to develop up to a antidote in two respect, viz. against the
antimonarchale and cosmopolitan marxse social democracy and against the one-
sidedness of the Manchester Men. I should strike now me for the forehead, when I like a
Prussian minister had not observed beaten by a movement that immediately before my
eyes took place and had not asked myself: what is this new movement, which is intended
to Berlin ? A healthy or not? Sick movements were then enough! " But shortly afterwards
the matter again came up in the public session of the Diet and then declared Bismarck
that he had never negotiated with any social democrat and not a social democrat with me,
"because Lassalle I do not count for this purpose, which was a much grander nature than
his epigones, he was a man of importance, with whom one could argue it. "Later on
Lassalle speaking he said that he does not have three or four times weekly seen him, but
the whole three or four times. But our relationship could not have the nature of a political
negotiation. "What did Lasalle offer and give me? He had nothing behind. In all political
negotiations is the quid pro quo [143] one thing that stands in the background, even when
one is not talking about decency. If, however, one must say: what can you give poor
wretch? He had nothing, what he could give me the minister. What he had, which was
something that attracted me as a man apart; He was one of the most talented and
amiable people, with whom I have ever wrong, a man who was ambitious in great style,
not at all republican, he had a very sharp drawn national and monarchical unity, "the idea
that he was pursuing was the German emperor and in it we had a point of contact ... of
the German empire would just conclude with the Hohenzollern dynasty or with the dynasty
Lassalle, which for him was perhaps questionable, but monarchical his mind through and
through. But these clumsy epigones, who now exalt him, he would quos ego hurled to
have them turned away with scorn by their nothingness, and would have allowed them
stands out to exploit his name. Lassalle was a very energetic and talented man, with
whom one could talk with learning; our conversations lasted for hours and always
regretted me, when they were finished. It is not true that I would be estranged from this
kind of personal relationships that personal benevolence witnesses as they had formed
between us while he had the pleasant impression that I saw a man of spirit in him, with
whom it was pleasant to be and he on his part to him pleasing impression that I was an
intelligent and willing listener. Negotiations had been therefore no question, because I
came to the little word in our discussions; he bore the cost of maintenance alone, but he
wore them pleasant and amiable manner and everyone who knew him will agree with me
in my drawing. He was not a man with whom specific agreements on the quid pro
quo could be made, but I regret that his political position and mine did not allow much to
be with him, but I would have welcomed me as a person of talent and spirit beside me to
have as a neighbor on an estate. "

This shows that both men aanstonden each other, because Lassalle was attracted to
the man "iron" and thereby added this comment: "If one refines iron, steel and one can
also stinging, making ornate weapons, but it's always just weapons. "Both of them also
had a dictator nature and Lassalle had not been a Jew but old squire sex, he had best be
as good as a Bismarck Bismarck, sprung from Jewish Family, conversely quite a
Lassalle. They were kindred spirits and then usually decide the external conditions, what
is of someone. But maybe wanted to use one another and both already fancied himself to
be each other too smart, in the circumstances it can not be regarded otherwise than as
the conversation field exploration. What would have become later Lassalle, and
Rodbertus had been right in his view that Bismarck could have draw to themselves the
party of Lassalie or Georg Brandes, who denies this, who will decide? And Laas All are
related nature with Bismarck showed evident from the clear understanding of what he
expected of that statesman when he spoke in 1864: "I denounce you than on this festive
place, that perhaps will pass a year or Mr. von Bismarck played the role of Robert Peel
and general and established direct suffrage. " A prophetic word, because it already came
true in 1866.

The next peculiarity is told about both. One day Lassalle and Bismarck met on the
street. In conversation Bismarck must have taken the arm of Lassalle and arm in arm as
both walked by the Leipziger Strasse. Come close to the Wilhelmstrasse was the position
the president-minister. Laughing, he would have said if we had now met a member of the
Fortschrittspartij, our alliance would be in the morning papers. I can do no harm! - Me
neither! Lassalle said.

One might be inclined to think that Lassalle in the kingdom saw the natural protection
for the working class, although can be decided with certainty that respect nothing, and the
area of assumptions is too big and too dangerous to venture on. However, when Bismarck
the king gives the board some weavers who were laid off, give money to a productive
association - which, however, soon failed association - then one can say that this was
done under the influence of Lassalle.

As regards Lassalle's relationship to Marx, it seems to have been in the beginning

friendly, but later Marx saw with distrust, perhaps with envy, how Lassalle eclipsed him in
Germany. Recognized Lassalle him as his teacher, he had a quote Marx word of the
highest praise for him, none of this we find in Marx, on the contrary, they seemed so
annoyed that he could not resist, even though it was entirely unnecessary, for after his
death him in the preface of his Kapital in the note to bite the words that Lassalle
represents the spiritual core of his argument on these issues, but "significant
misunderstandings" also and then he adds, passing . "When F. Lassalle joint general
theoretical propositions of his economic work, eg. On the historical character of the
capital, on the link between relations of production and of production, etc. almost
verbatim, the terminology created by me, derives from my writings , and without giving
any source, this practice will become be determined by reasons of propaganda. I do not
speak of course of his treatment of components and applications that I have nothing to do.
"

This tone is anything but friendly and we read the tender by no assessment of the plan
of productive association with state aid and the apparent irony in some terms, one sees
that this relationship now was not the best.

Finished, tired, sick, discouraged Lassalle went to restore health to Switzerland. One
might almost say that he had a premonition of his death and one might infer this from the
story of Paul Lindau, with whom he Dusseldorf lately much wrong, as this explains how he
took him to the station, while the head once more put out by the door of the wagon, which
was Lassalle, saying to meet again, Mr. Lassalle, he answered: who knows? Lindau and
then he surprised them looked at, he added these words to it: a year or even six months, I
can not let it rob me of freedom. I keep it simple does not matter. I prefer to leave the
country. I'm quite touched underneath my nerves. Rigi Kaltbad is me, I hope, make it
usable. "

On July 25, the fateful meeting took place with Helena von Dnniges, which would give
rise to be sad, really unworthy end. Lassalle yet, the declared opponent of the clash,
himself fell in a duel and Marx already testified to the Countess: "He died young - in battle
- an Achilles', we find his death no heroic death on the field of honor. The only apology is
that he was sick and almost no longer responsible for the follies which he did. This girl he
had met in Berlin at the age of 18 in 1862, and both had made an immediate impression
on each other. Lassalle friend Holthoff acted as intermediary and when he certainty was
that they dared to marry a man who was not of noble birth and a Jew, when he turned to
her father, who was Beijers envoy in Switzerland, for the hand of his daughter for
Lassalle. But the answer was decidedly negative. They became engaged at the deathbed
of her grandmother with Yanko von Racowitza a Boyaar from Wallachia. They also came
on the Rigi, which she knew was Lassalle and visited him there. About a week they were
together at Wabern and led a happy life there. How he knew her to outline the possibility
that he once elected president of a German republic by the people, the capital would ride
in a carriage drawn by fungi with her at his side and how amused they are together in all
sorts of illusions!

It is difficult to determine whether the countess against this marriage also worked in
silence. Bernard Becker says Lassalle fell victim to two coquettes; We dare not go so far,
but we know the circumstances not so good. it is also sometimes claimed that Helen used
by his opponents to destroy him, but if this is the case, then this would greatly argue
against her parents.

It would be the decisive day on August 3, which Lassalle would come vows with the
parents in Geneva. He came with a train and later they moved into the guest Bovet close
to the residence of Mr. von Dnniges. When he arrived, he did not know what stage it was
played at home. She could not stand it in the house and shortly after she had sent him a
letter delivered by her maid, she ran up to him and surrendered unconditionally to him
with the words: "I am the unhappiest creature on earth. Here you have me (others claim
they said, here you have a case), do with me what you will, "And now the strangest place
what can be thought, now would not have Lassalle her unless he got her out. hand of her
parents and it was he who brought her back to her mother. Inexplicably, this act, unless it
is true that he had a disease, and it was not lawful for him to take her to him. But he has
insulted her as a woman and that moment changed her mood and turned against him. But
now he wanted her at any price and he moved heaven and earth to get her anyway. He
even wanted to use diplomacy to achieve his goal. Supposing that she was a Catholic, he
ordered the Countess steps to Bishop von Ketteler of Maintz in order themselves to be
baptized in the Catholic church record, but he no longer knew what he was doing, he
forgot to investigate, because they was not even catholic, she was Protestant. Her
resistance irritated him, he was hurt in his vanity and beside himself with rage, he
challenged the old Mr. von Dnniges to a duel and went into his writing so far as to call
Helena a "verworfene Dirne" [144] , without understand what he said, for someone so
they do not duel. Racowitza, who was adopted by her grace, if only to provoke Lassalle it
for his future father answered. The duel took place on August 28 in a grove in Carouge, a
suburb of Geneva, which is now in memory of that event is placed a memorial
stone. Lassalle was killed and on August 31 he was a corpse. Thus ended the life of
Lassalle certainly not the most dignified manner. Geneva had a big international corpse
ceremony site, which also called Bakunin. The countess took possession of his body,
which they solemnly by wild flying over Germany, but she was forced by the government
to deal with the corpse directly to Breslau, where he was buried. On his tomb are the
words: "Here ruhet was sterblich confused von Ferdinand Lassalle, dem Denker und
Kmpfer" [145]

In Germany, made his death into the working world much sensation, they did not
believe it and many thought he had been killed. Some waited for his sudden return,
something like the old Christians who hoped the return of Christ and true religion Lassalle
had some time in Germany instead. Us is the thought never been strange if he has not
sought the end of his life, he still completely indifferent before had become and that death
to him then was very welcome, as they only release him was the great difficulties over had
piled his head. In any case, the man who loved impact during his lifetime, had finally effect
a full death. It was Rodbertus, who pointed rightly to the dual-Lassalle, united in one
person, the esoteric (inner) and the exoteric (outer), and he believed he had grounds for
the opinion that "its national economic concepts himself no more pleased. "the countess
felt that" he was going to the substance of truth in his own power "and cast the idea as if
he had been weak, far from him, since he, he was weak, now as an ordinary man us to
live. "

This definitely remains that Lassalle has conquered the hearts of thousands of workers,
in whose eyes he was a kind of deity, whom even his lavish lifestyle, his elegant
appearance in popular assemblies was not blamed an enduring place in the short time of
its agitation . As his successor he foreshadowed Bernard Becker, who would now have to
steer the ship of his Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeit Preserve Rein. We will later have the
opportunity to say how he did it. Or man Lassalle can be called great, we doubt, but as a
thinker and agitator especially if he continues to shine in the sky workers.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

This Dioskuri throughout their lives connected by a bond of friendship that reminds us
of David and Jonathan or Orestes and Pylades, we will not separate after their
death. That can not hurry, because grown through a long traffic intimate and constant
exchange they were like each other, so that they thought the same about the main
points. It has English sometimes called the evil spirit of Marx, but to what extent this was
the case, we can not judge. No doubt both had a tremendous influence on the course of
development of socialism in the world and they have the stamp printed their mighty spirit
on one stream of socialism, which we would like to pronounce it with the name of authority
socialism, while the other was controlled by an equally powerful personality, Michael
Bakunin, which can be considered the father of anarchism or "vrijheidlievend socialism".

Already the exterior life of these two men has a great contrast. The one (Marx) is the
man of theory, the other (Bakunin) that of the act; the one the man of the study and the
other that of the practice; the ditch as it were, and separated himself from the world to live
with his books and a few chosen friends, the other was up to the middle of the multitude of
men and thirsting for action; one was the scholar, who almost witness can be: "All that is
in books, dangers in the head," a tough, patient researcher, the other the brilliant thinker,
throwing the thoughts in the world as well as Jupiter's thunderbolts, but does not award
the time to work them out, so that almost none of its handpiece completed came to
us; one a Semite of origin, in the Talmudic scheme of his book on the capital showed his
connection with the world of the rabbis, to which he belonged by birth, the other a
Christian who has not fully able to wrestle away from the faith to the absolute, though it
showed itself in a special way; one a German, who believed in the superiority of his race
and in Russia saw the hereditary enemy, against whom they had to be constantly on
guard, the other a Slave, who brought new blood into old veins of society, as well as his
race will probably once compared the Latin and Germanic races.

Nowhere do we read an equally striking as appropriate comparison of these "two

natures rocky" than Professor Quack in the following description clean.:

"When we first see Marx strategy, concentration, perseverance tough. He got his
strength in the silence of his study. He is much more comprehensive and versatile, but at
the same time unyielding and unrelenting. He is perfectly master of himself; cool to the
appearance. His subdued passion is expressed only in cold hatred. His program was
developed entirely dialectically into a solid and comprehensive system. Are the premises
conceded then the rest follows of itself. No sonorous phrases he gives at best, but solid
knowledge. He is a pessimist and bitter humor skinned his lips. He is a stout reckoner
does not move that is not fixed costs; he knows what is possible and impossible; he
appraises all forces. He directs the battles there, where they touch. He fights from afar by
artillery batteries.

The high figure of Bakunin, however, we still see in our imagination in the fire itself, as a
barricade. His long hair, his wide coat flapping around him. He swings round the flag. In
noise and noise he moves. He marches in the midst of flames. He acts to impulses and
gets, as Russian warriors of Tolstoy's novel, his best inspirations in the midst of battle. He
is powerful, rough, rough and fierce, but proud and grand. What dark corridors he goes,
he's cheerfully. His smile reflected everywhere anyway. There remains at all on the
surface on display materialism spread a mystical trait in his personality. He belongs to the
breed of Samson. He shakes to crack the pillars of the temple of order and columns. "

This drawing is quaint, it's real life, it characterizes both personalities. We ourselves
have always gotten the same impression of Marx as this professor, viz. A "shuddering
anguish," begotten by his enormous erudition, but "he does not pull, it does not feel at
home in his company. He is more the "oracle", which one looks up when he speaks. He
had followers and supporters in crowd, but the number of his friends was low. One can not
therefore say that he had a noble heart. Magnanimous he was not against opponents. On
the contrary, where one of his ideas diverged in his circle, he was relentless. It is
sometimes said of him that he had a temper of bile. Schadenfreude often came to him for
the vain driving his enemies. His character was imperious and hard. But his talent was of
the highest order, so he was easy in his circles first, His style has value. As he lacked the
pathos wegslepende Lassalle, however, missed his squat formulation and fixation of
thoughts rarely its purpose. His mode of expression is sometimes
monumental. Mathematical rigor mates joined him in searing glow. In ragfijnheid of
decomposition came under the comrades him nobody even close. Because of his talent,
he remained the strongest lever of his party. "

He reminds us of Calvin, whose powerful, logical mind has exerted so much

influence. Both were dogmatic minds, the one on religious, the other in the economic field,
defending the dogma with big consequences, provided by them. If one admits his
premise, then one is lost, because the rest does everything wonderfully well together - as
once said Professor von Sybel. [146] about Marx. And dogmatic in their minds they have
lived no regard for dissent and Marx in the 16th century, he would doubtless have done
without any qualms with Bakunin, what did Calvin in Michael Servetus and other so-called
"heretics".

His universal erudition, his great knowledge are then also drawn by anyone in
doubt. Prof Beesly says of him that he has no equal in knowledge of the history and
statistics of the industrial movement of all parts of Europe. Albert Lange called him the
most learned and astute economist of his time and Rudolph Meyer acknowledged the
work of Marx as the greatest scientific testimony of the modern German political economy.

This opinion is much more accurate than that of Professor Ziegler, as it testifies to
Marx.:

"Karl Marx was the man of the coolest sense, critical to erbarmingloosheid, without
ideals, because he was completely without illusions even an agitator but not in the
manner of Tabernacles, not like Mazzini, or if the image is permitted, such as the spider,
which stopped her just spins and catches its offerings with deadly certainty in it
" [147] . Marx "without ideals" had been, he would undoubtedly have had a brilliant
career, for he had all the conditions to get ahead in the world, if he had wanted to be as
practical as most college professors and statesmen!
 A completely different personality was Bakunin. According to the testimony of all who
knew him, he had something great. Had he lived a few centuries earlier, he would have
been one of those heroes including Hercules, Achilles, King Arthur, Charlemagne, around
which has formed a circle of legends and fulfilling the progenies with respect and
admiration. He rushed and no one came into contact with him or memorable was the
impression he left behind. He owned a large extent the ability to hypnotize people and
why he pulled. Who had been with him and, longed for the opportunity to meet him. He
also kept open and communicative lot of interaction with others. He practiced his personal
appearance from a peculiar charm. "His impressive appearance was reminiscent of an
embodied storm." And "where he, some kind of giant in stature, showed up, there have
sounded his savage eloquence, laughed his broad smile, echoed his cries, but was first
done." It is quite possible that prof. Quack is right in his remark that Bakunin as Rus
brought a new factor into socialism, namely: the Slavic element and therefore it should not
be called strange that this is not understood by many and could lead to violent conflict, not
to mention the psychological analysis of the character of these two strong personalities
speaking learns how it necessarily had to come to a collision. Did the system of Marx "is
sometimes reminiscent of a huge network, which would be carried away on humanity and
which one would be all tied", it may not be surprising that reaction should follow against it
and it has come in the person of Bakunin, which came up against the threats and
harassment of freedom, as he saw it, and feared.

While many in him saw a cruel and bloodthirsty demon, whose only desire was there to
pour out the ferocious revenge thoughts about the world, or else a madman with the
destruction mania, while Laveleye applied to him the description: "As Dante descends into
the tropics of hell than he is, came into the deepest darkness of "city without hope", facing
the terrible sovereign of the rebellious angels L'imperado doloroso del regno put others in
return a judgment that this is very different. . Thus Prof. Dragomanov from Sofia, who
draws his portrait with the following words: "a temperament of great activity and always
awake energy; a clean orator talent, which easily could attract the people and to drag
along, though it was temporary; a logical mind, able to judge correctly but with a lack of
independence; stripped of the genius of invention and observation, better able to absorb
the ideas of others and to introduce them to the limit, then to generate original ideas
themselves. Disinclined to in his review to examine the different sides of his subject, he
easily carried away and he was excluded; He looked at things subjectively and was
inclined to exaggeration. He finally allowed himself easily inspire others and above
underwent the influence of an energetic temperament. In politics more certain this
attribute him to the role of partisan than to that of party chief. "

Cafiero and his friends Elyse Reclus testified of him, "Friends and enemies know that
this man was great in thinking, like, persevering energy; They also know what contempt
he felt for fortune, rank, fame, all the misery that the majority of people have to covet the
baseness. Russian nobleman, related to the high nobility of the empire, he became one of
the first in that proud union of insurgents who managed to break away from tradition,
prejudice, rasbelangen who despised all prosperity. With them he fought the hard fight of
life, aggravated by prison, exile, all the dangers and bitterness which must undergo
people of devotion in their tormented existence. "
 Alexander Herzen found in his whole nature "something childlike, genuinely and simple,
and he had a special charm, which attracted the whole world - the weak and the
strong. Only genteel and haughty people moved away from him ... Bakunin also has many
faults, but they are small, while his good qualities are remarkable. His talent from the
different environments in which the fate threw him some characteristic features of each of
grasp this, that enabled him to discern the revolutionary element and separating, to urge it
forward by his own passion and vitality to communicate, which is not a noble trait? At the
bottom of the nature of this man is a seed of colossal task, which could not be
used. Bakunin has in him the opportunity to make themselves agitator, Tribune, apostle,
party or sect chief; priest, warrior. Place it where it pleases you, among the Anabaptists or
Jacobins, next Anacharsis Cloots or near Babeuf, but always to the extreme left - and he
will drag the masses and influence the destinies of nations. "

Petty and sneaky was the way in which Marx and Engels opponents tried to finish and it
seems that this trait of suspicion has become an international draw of Marxism. Not only
that once the accusation echoed by total ignorance of petty-bourgeois ideas, but soon
they attempt to naturalise in the mouchardstitel their party against everyone who does not
entirely subjugated to them. Their struggle with Proudhon, Bakunin, Cafiero, Mazzini,
Dhring gives them the saddest evidence, so who's actually been spared by the
adversaries of the series of accusations, which they lavishly scattered around in all
countries?

Karl Marx was born in Trier from an old family rabbi. His father was a prominent lawyer
in that city, but he could not get respect than to be baptized, because the government put
him between the choice: either give up either dip his relations lawyer. After the youthful
Karl studies completed had the rights, later in history and philosophy at the universities of
Bonn and Berlin, he wanted to Bonn will drop as a private tutor in order to follow a
scientific career, but his friend Bauer that this was in Berlin, advised him off and then this
the government was "gemassregelt" in 1842, he knew what fate awaited him and he also
gave his plan. However, he arrived as editor in 1842 founded the Rheinische Zeitung,
which sheet was lifted by force within six months. Then went Marx, who was now married
to the girlfriend of his childhood, Jenny von Westphalen, sister of the subsequent
reactionary Prussian minister and sister of the Jesuit priest Florentine Court, to Paris
where he met the famous Arnold Ruge the Deutsch-Franzsische Jahrbcher issued. He
wrote them an article on Hegel's Philosophy of Law and the Jewish Question. Hegel
disciple, he still remained essentially a Hegelian. Maternal Hollander, he wrote in March
1843, sat in the barge to Delft, a characteristic note to Ruge which he said that if one does
not feel any national pride, it still national shame feel just the tiniest Dutchman in Holland,
because "it is still a citizen in front of the largest German ". He rejoices that "the
ceremonial cloak of liberalism cases," for now "is the afzichtelijkst despotism in all its
nakedness bare before the eyes" and he has a quiet foreboding and hope for a revolution.

In 1844 the encounter began with Fr. English, a wealthy manufacturer from Barmen
son, who received training for the trade. After he had been a volunteer at an office in
Bremen, they went to England, where he was under 44 at Manchester in 1842 in a factory
business, partially belonging to his father. He then worked already with the blade of
Robert Owen, the New Moral World , and that of the Chartists, the Northern Star . The
young English also supplied the Annals two articles, in which he established himself as a
socialist, viz. A discussion of Carlyle's Past and Present and Umrisse zu einer Kritik der
National-Oekonomie . This article has given greatly impressed Marx and therefore
contains in embryo the whole system later. Likewise, clean book Die Lage der Arbeit
parties Class in England (1845), which is still worth reading and navigating proof of his
clear eyes as well as his practical studies, watching more reality than on speculative
thoughts. Marx and Engels lived a long time together in Paris and how the band is tied
between the two men, which was only terminated by the death of the first. In Paris
established German magazine Vorwrts wrote several German refugees, but it was not
long before the Prussian government filed its complaint with the French minister Guizot,
Marx and others chased across borders.

Marx came to Brussels, where he made his speech about the Free Trade spoke at the
congress of free traders in 1846 and also wrote his book against Proudhon, whom he
much wrong and whom he had at Paris learned a lot, entitled The Poverty of philosophy ,
in response to his writings: the philosophy of misery.

Marx joined then also in the Communist League, whose office in London was
established, and at a congress held in that city by delegates from Switzerland, Belgium,
France, England and Germany kept the Communists after heated debates, especially the
followers of Weitling and the anarchist-minded Young Hegelians, the grounds and the
famous Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels, it was the consequence,
which piece at an earlier chapter was handled by us and evaluated [148] .

Marx was pointed out by the Belgian Government in Brussels on March 2, 1848, he
was now received in Paris with open arms, recalled with a flattering letter through
Flocon. But when Germany began to come into revolutionary fairway, he hastened to
English to Cologne, for there the Neue Rheinische Zeitung to focus on, which appeared
on June 1, 1848 to May 19, 1849 to be lifted by the government at last. Acquitted by the
jury because of a summons, which he paid to a government who acted unlawfully and the
seat of government shifted from Berlin to Brandenburg, yet he was ordered by the
government of Cologne to leave town and country people calling for no tax. He then went
to Paris, but was expelled a second time, unless he wanted to settle in the clerical
Brittany, to engage with the housing to settle in London, where he remained until his
death. As leader of the Communist League he remained active until its dissolution in
1852. His insights were significantly changed, following the outcome of the revolution of
1848, which he is probably too much and the reaction was expecting too much of a
renewed revolutionary action. He found the time very unfavorable conditions for
revolutionary action and thought that only a new revolution would be possible if it was any
crisis coming. Particularly great importance he attached to the discovery of the gold fields
in California, "more important than the February revolution", even he thought it "will have
far greater results than even the discovery of America." Furthermore, he considered every
proletarian movement, which England does not participate as a "storm in a
teacup". Several other members, leading Karl Schapper and August Willich, had
completely different ideas, and the two groups clashed so alike that there was a
rupture. In addition to the Communist League, of which Marx's soul was and which he
headquarters moved to Cologne in order to work better in central and southern Germany,
we now got the Sonderbund, but neither the one nor the other had a long life, because
due to the renowned communists process, which took place in Cologne in 1852, first went
to the Communist League of the scene in November 1852, to be followed in early 1853 by
the dissolution of the Sonderbund. Marx's Enthllungen ber den Kommunistenprozess
zu Kln [149] giving its view an explanation or, if you prefer to justification.

After that time, Marx went on in his studies, though he sometimes gave free lectures for
workers on economic issues. And he took this study is not superficial, as is clear from
what Quack so truthfully testifies, "He read and edited all that the British Museum on own
economy. Previously he had shown in his writings against Proudhon, although he was at
home in which economics, although he knew the English writers on social topics of the
nineteenth century. He continues those studies. All the writers on economics to be
consulted by him. Even Rodbertus, whose name was unknown to him until the year
1848 [150] , is drawn into the circle of his reading. Especially he plows the authors of
classical economics, whose investigations always be praised by him, especially in
contrast to the writers and talkers of his day, the men of the vulgar political
economy. Ricardo, Marx has always been praised. "

Here, more is said than could justify the writer, for it is precisely struck Marx by a total
lack of appreciation of what others have done before him, while being silent about a few,
to whom he himself most borrowed. That he knew Lassalle reproach, viz. That it has
drawn from it without mentioning the source, the same accusation indeed Proudhon to
Marx.

For the sake of his daily bread, he wrote in the New York Tribune , which articles under
the title Evolution and counterrevolution [151] issued by his daughter Eleanor and contain
an important piece of history from 1851-52. How poor the family had it then appears from
which wrote the wife of Marx in the death of a daughter on the loose diary papers, found
after her death: "Easter of the same year - 1852 - our poor little Francisca was sick, she
had a severe bronchitis. For three days the poor child struggled with death. The suffering
so much. Her small lifeless body rested in the small back room, we all went to the front
room and then came the night, we laid us on the ground to rest. There were the three
living children with us and we wept for the little angel that cold and pale beside us
rested. The death of the dear child fell in the time of our bitterest poverty. Our German
friends could not help us. English, found unsuccessfully had attempted literary work in
London, was required to be under very unfavorable conditions clerk in his father's firm in
Manchester. Ernest Jones, who often visited us at the time and had promised to help,
could do nothing ... In fear of my heart, I went to a French exile, who lived near us and
who had visited us sometimes. I told him our distress. With the greatest kindness he gave
me two pounds. Thus we paid the little casket which my poor child now sleeps in peace. I
had no crib for her when she came into the world and the last little resting place had been
denied her for a long time. How was it us weary, when the corpse was brought to his final
resting place! "

Marx wrote for a magazine in New York in 1852, his masterful history of the coup d'etat
of Louis Napoleon under the title Der Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte , his
articles on the Oriental question concerning the Crimean War [152] and the French-
Austrian war of 1859. from that time also dates his fight with the famous Karl Vogt, who
spoke the accusation that Marx at the head of conspirators of low class, together
mustered into the strange, true dictatorship exercised over the men of the revolution and
of progress and by all sorts of slander suspect made the name of democratic good
guys. Marx was the answer not guilty and his lancinating sharp writing Herr Vogt , he
denounces "the dead buffoon" who glorify Napoleon as he pulls out the Napoleonic
greenhouse, which accusation is true, then one after the fall of the Empire in 1870 the
papers of the Tuileries was the mention of a sum of money, earmarked for Karl Vogt!

But amid all this he neglected his scientific study not, as evidenced by the appearance
of a first episode of his work Critique of Political Economy (1859). He dealt with the
concept of "true" and "the money or the simple circulation ', preparatory work for his great,
seminal work Das Kapital, of which the first volume in 1867. Undoubtedly, this remains a
monumental work of unparalleled diligence and rigorous study of sources. Although it's
been a truly German work, composed in a way - it appears from the later published parts
in a higher degree than the first - doing almost suspect that the author has given the
problem to solve, how would a book write, that would put the people through his dark and
complex form to get acquainted with the content. Not false characterizing someone who
by long stay in the capital of the "country of thinkers" - a title that the Germans assign
themselves in their modesty - the German language as the "most verbose", darkest, most
forced most to excess bending forms and outputs suffering of the Indo-Germanic
languages that he could practice, a language that only the Goethe write clear, but which
also created seems pointless "Worte philosophical Systeme zu bereiten" [153] . This
obscurity is any writings detrimental, although some writers, like Marx, seems to be
beneficial, for it has managed to wrap Marx in a cloud of learning, which can be seen at
on; just read the work only elect and of these only a few all and it was not popularized by
extracts its contents would be as unknown as the work of Marlo [154] . It has gone Marx
as Klopstock: he is praised more than read and it could go to him if Hegel, of whom it is
said that he said on his deathbed, which had one of his pupils he understood and that one
did not understand him !! And strange that there already stand commentators, to inform
him and give writing statements and of course they are then often disagree among
themselves, one throws together with places from Marx, the gospel of the Social
Democrats, as vengeance for the ears as ordinary believers to do so with Bible verses.

We can characterize this work no better than Quack did so using its description.

"In his published three parts sees the work, in terms of the shape, look like an etching,
of which only a certain portion is complete, by working and geacheveerd, while the other
parties have been treated more or less in circumference. Regarding the edge is "t" holy
book "of social democracy of our time. This was then the dogmatic book, which Lassalle
had longed for ever, but that he could not finish and which he only contributed in his Herr
Bastiat-Schultze oder Kapital und Arbeit . A strange coincidence: with the publication of
this first volume of Marx's work in 1867 at the same time begins the decline of
Lassalleanism. The workers - once they understand the book - to understand that here
the multiple Lassalle is speaking. Because of Marx's book was yes Talmudic clothed,
philosophical method, obscure and complicated sometimes in the form - but clearly
despairing of claim for the people. In addition, it was full of monumental expressions, as
inscriptions on stone tablets from a new law could be grooved to society. The worker saw
convincing evidence in this manuscript to his mind that the position of the workers to the
capitalist, the "surplus" produces, that the capitalist squeezes workers unpaid work and
labor "were" just in its favor fixes. That all this was proved cumbersome and heavy, was
specifically in the state of workmen at, to acknowledge the mastery of Marx. Popular light
written works not make anyone our leader. For establishing a certain authority there must
be something incomprehensible or apodictisch with all the other qualities are: something,
where you can see up to. One must believe that the leader alone knows. "

He'd Marx compares with Moses and especially like to throw this state signed off on a
Rembrandt painting in Berlin, at the point above the tablets of the law in pieces. But
anyway as someone who gives new tablets of the law rather than the old, because
without law tables can be mind imagine any society. That dark haze which Marx's work is
shrouded, always reminds us of the Latin of the clergy in the Catholic Church, which
precisely because of the incomprehensible does not fail to have a mysterious force.

To a proper appreciation of this work, we must never forget that it contains a critique of
the economy. It is doing Marx to discover the capital in its origin, its development, there to
decide on its dissolution. If he and others work mentions the source of all value - in fact,
this expression is strictly scientifically speaking incorrectly [155] , the work is not the
source, but the condition of all value, the source value as the storehouse, where
everything is contained and from which everything is available on the condition of labor -
and he sees no equivalents are exchanged, but the money gradually mediator between
true and what has changed in shape so that it ceases to play that role, now the contrary
by the which is played for money to make more money, then created along that path the
"added value", which is appropriated by the owner of the work at the expense of the man
who performed the work. This creates the capital from the surplus value and the money
came in the words of Augier "in the world with natural blood on one cheek, 'Marx shows
that" the capital from head to toe, dripping from every pore with blood and dirt. " And he
has a very witty remark in response to the claim that the capital tumult and struggle flees
and is fearful of nature: "That is very true, but not the whole truth. The capital has a horror
of the absence of profit or very little profit, as the nature of the empty space. With decent
profit capital is brave. Ten percent sure it can be used anywhere; 20%, it becomes
lively; 50% it is definitely a daredevil; 100% Rams all human laws underfoot; 300% and
there is no crime that dare not, even at the risk of the gallows. If tumult and strife make
profit, it will encourage the two. "

How Marx imagines the original accumulation of capital, ie its historical origin? The
expropriation of the immediate producers, the solution of its own work based upon private
property. The private ownership of the means of production is the foundation of small
businesses and this in turn is a prerequisite for the development of social production and
of the free individuality of the laborer himself. The concentration of the means of
production, the production brought within narrow limits, but reaches a certain extent, it
brings the material resources in the world for its own destruction. The prior history of the
capital is the expropriation of the great mass of land and soil and food and instruments of
labor, of course, along violent ways and in the most pitiless manner. The self-crafted
private property, in which the isolated, independent individual labor has grown together
with its benefits, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, based on the exploitation of
foreign, but formally free labor. As this process unfolds, the capitalist mode of production
stands on its own feet, the further expropriation of private owners take a new shape. Not
self-working laborer, but many workers exploitative capitalist must be expropriated. This is
done by the concentration of capitals. One capitalist always kills many dead. At the same
time develops the cooperative form of the labor process. With the constantly diminishing
number of the magnates of capital, which get all the benefits of that process and
monopolize, takes most misery, pressure, slavery, degradation, suctioning, but also the
resistance of the ever increasing and by the mechanism of the capitalist process itself
educated, united and organized working class. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter
of production, with and under her has flourished. The concentration of means of
production and socialization of labor reach a point where they are unbearable with its
capitalist integument. It stands apart. The hour of capitalist private property strikes. The
expropriators are expropriated.

However, the change in the fragmented private property, based on the personal labor of
the individuals in the capitalist is much harder and heavier than the change of the factually
already resting on socialized production, the capitalist private property in socially. Since
the force of the expropriation of the masses by a few usurpers, here the expropriation of
some few usurpers by the masses.

Of course containing this exposition and critique of capitalism in itself a statement of

socialism, at least the goal of Marx has been to develop the law of the economic
movement of the modern era. Since this movement is controlled by capital and thus the
history of the emergence, flowering and includes the overthrow of capitalism is the main
thing, to show how capitalism itself through its own development necessarily leads to
socialism. That is a historical process or the description of the social evolution. And if
Hegelian into the terminology he said that the denial of capitalist production by itself is
produced by the necessity of a natural process, it is the negation of the negation!

Only rarely leave Marx, anatomist more than visionary, decide on the future and it will
be so vain search for descriptions. Maybe he gives the best explanation of his insights in
this quote from Capital : "Let us imagine an association of people who work with common
means of production and self-consciously spend their many individual labor as a social
worker. The joint product of the community is a social product. Part of it once again serves
as a means of production. It remains socially. But another portion is consumed as a food
by the members of the association. It must thus be divided between them. The manner of
distribution will vary with the peculiar kind of social organism of production and the
corresponding historical level of development of the industry. Only if parallel with the
production of commodities, we assume that the share of each producer is determined to
food by his labor. The working hours will thus play a dual role. Socially planned
distribution regulates the proper relationship of the various working functions to the
different needs. And also working at the same time serves as a measure of their individual
share of the producer to the common labor and therefore the individual to digest part of
the common product. The social relations of people to their work and their work products
stay clear simple in manufacturing as well as in the distribution. " [156]
 The first part deals with the production of capital, the second the process of circulation,
the third total process of capitalist production and the fourth the history of the
theory. However, only one part Marx could spend itself, the other two after his death by
Engels delivered successively in 1885 and 1894, while the last and fourth has not yet
appeared.

By Marx's followers is increasingly claimed that the laws of capitalist production

"discovered" by Marx laws "are as solid as those of Newton and Kepler for the motion of
the solar system." Bebel tells us that "Germany role of guide has taken on the giant
struggle of the future. Having been ordained through development and geographical
location, "and he adds:" It is no coincidence that it is the Germans who have discovered
the dynamics of development of the contemporary society and the scientific foundations
laid by socialism. Among these Germans comes first to Marx and Engels: coming after
them Lassalle as organizer of the working class. "

If we all predecessors on whose shoulders we still undeniably is, first declares utopians
and then declare itself the sole bearer of scientific socialism and there are fools and
ignorant people who believe all this, one places himself or on a pedestal, but we doubt it
very much whether this abiding nature. In recent times, there is also already quite some
question the Marxism so even earlier avid supporters begin to let go and fight.

If we are to believe the Marxists, we owe to Marx:

1. materialist dialectics that "curiously enough, not only by us (Marx and Engels), but
moreover, independently of us and even of Hegel, again, was discovered by a German
worker, Joseph Dietzgen" (see Ludwig Feuerbach of English) .

2. The discovery of surplus value;

3. the materialist conception of history;

4. The law of concentration of capital, the expropriation of many capitalists by a small

number of them.

Unfortunately, this is not borne out by the facts, for which different criteria may be
impossible termed as "discoveries" of Marx, there discovering namely to uncover what
was unknown and all these things were before Marx by numerous others less or more
strong manner disclosed.

In his remarkable brochure Tcherkesov [157] all the land taken from the dogmatic
socialism of Marx and his school, by 1 to show that the dialectical method is condemned
by all major scientific men of our century, as they all followed the inductive method and
none of them is their servant, unless the German metaphysics; 2. recall how the concept
of surplus value had long been known, such as Adam Smith, like so many others in part,
by the patron, the owner and kept many vampires, net product called or Sismondi that the
part after deduction of the production costs of the exchange value remained, said value
(surplus value). The work which Sismondi told this, published in 1819, so - so it adds T.
naughty at - a year before the birth of Engels, Marx her later claims to have
discovered. Incidentally, at the Saint-Simonists, by R. Owen, with Proudhon, with Victor
Considerant and others we find them. Yes, the economist W. Thompson developed the
doctrine of surplus value in 1824 already so sufficiently that they truly do not need to be
discovered in 1845; 3. telling how actually the materialist conception of history, based on
the opinion that the method of production is one of the main factors has been in the
history of civilization and development is recognized and applied by the greatest
historians. Was it not the economist, Adolphe Blanqui, already in 1825 the role of
economic factors in history so well displayed "I did not fail to notice that there were such a
close relationship between these two sciences, history and political economy that one can
not practice one without the other and not separate themselves could deepen it ... the first
provides the facts, the second it explains the reasons ... I followed step by step the great
events ... there are always only two major parties have been facing each other: that of the
people who wanted to live their own work and that of people who wanted to live by the
labor of others ... Patricians and plebeians, slaves or free, bending and Ghibellines, white
and red rose, knights and round heads, and liberate serfs - they are only varieties of the
same species "Lay. the Communist Manifesto here beside you and will even back almost
word choice. Quetelet does not influence the social organization on the individual and the
environment in which he lives, outlined? Have we not a Stuart Mill, had a buckle, which it
advocated? and finally 4. to prove that the law of the concentration of capital is incorrect,
so far so now the capital is concentrated but still washing in a number of capitalists, so the
number of vampires, "magnates of capital", far from reduce, on the contrary greatly
increased.

More and more it appears that the major scientific discoveries are not the specific and
exclusive work of a single great spirit - the theory of the great men who control everything
- but the common work of many generations of all humanity and as it sometimes one
managed to summarize what brought all, one is often close at hand to give it the honor of
all. Thus, for example with Darwinism, which is not so much discovered by Darwin -. We
know how to simultaneously met a Wallace and Spencer to the same results, the different
ones already such an assumption statements before him, so how Lucretius Carus in
his De natura rerum and different Greek philosophers had a premonition of it and
expressed - but which Darwin has left the stamp of his mind more than anyone else. Now
one has attempted Marx to economic Darwin, but laws which rule according to Marx, with
the inevitability inherent in the metamorphoses of nature, in revealing the real life results
completely opposite to its rules, then we fear that he name will maintain difficult. It could
well turn out that what Engels regards as the greatest merit of the German labor
movement, viz., That she is the heir of classic German philosophy precisely proves to be
the biggest stumbling block, since we live in the age of science, which is out metaphysics
- and it plays in the German philosophy a key - driving back to their last hiding place.

To give a clear and accurate overview of the content of Marx's work, we again can not
do better than this on the basis of Professor Quack thus summarize.:

1. Each historical period of human society has its own economic conditions and laws of
existence. The assembly which is the material basis on which society and state of each
period, with its right, its religion, its science and art, rises as construction;
 2. The contemporary period of the society is capitalist, resigned to the separation of
producers from their means of production, so on appropriation of unpaid labor;

3. This appropriation is possible, because the capitalist class obliterates the difference
between the posted worker and the work done. By applying the wage system, the worker
is an enhancement of the capital;

4. Man is not now master of the production, but conversely the production process is
master of man;

5. The consequence of this is that the accumulation of capital goes together with
multiplication of proletariat;

6. Class Conversely class. Power must be opposed power. Hence powerful

organization of the workers is necessary, with their own will must be sacrificed to the
community and thus authority is needed. Most of Ring of the state, the fortress of the
capitalists must be the beginning;

7. As the gap goes deeper between the two classes, to the extent this social period
ends;

8. The capitalist period edited by itself its own destruction. In her lap capitalist society
already wear the new;

9. No revolution noise, no conspiracies or riots are needed for this, the urge of world
history drives that end, the violence will be the midwife who gives his help in the birth of
the new society;

10. The expropriators of the past, now the owners of the means of production, will be
expropriated in their turn;

11. Between capitalist period and the new society lies a period of revolutionary
transition and transformation from one period to another. It answers a political transition
period, whose state can not be other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat;

12. The abolition of the capitalist system will be completed, however, by the community
in bringing the means of production. The material basis of the new society will be: joint
production on the basis of common ownership of everything needed for the production.

Stripped of his often dark and mysterious envelope is the core properly here and then -
it can not be denied - the system fits well and logical. However, one can not deny that this
kind of socialism must necessarily enter into a state socialism, in which the freedom of the
individual is nothing, is lost completely in the community, which is all.

Universal suffrage is the cornerstone of this entire building. Through this universal
suffrage, one must conquer political power, to get to the conquest of the state, the fortress
of the capitalists. To that end, as a transitional measure required the dictatorship of the
proletariat. What does that mean? In practice, this is the dictatorship of the leaders, the
party leadership of the Social Democratic parties in the various countries. A kind of
General Council of the International. That Council at the time Marx was the soul and
therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat is equal to the dictatorship of the leaders and
the leaders of the dictatorship is the dictatorship of Marx. The papacy itself is not
abolished, but instead of the church, we then get a social pope. And will now take charge
of the regulation of production. So this is not the case, how does one then this dictatorship
for? Everything does best, only the premise is no good, and thus the building is, of course,
as a house of cards collapse at the first gust of wind. Or is it conceivable that political
freedom exists in economic servitude? After all, no! Politics is as good as law, religion,
science, art, mirror, the reflection of the economic conditions of existence. It is not the
policy that the economic conditions can change, but it reversed the economic conditions
that dominate politics. Political power is never conquered, as long as it is not economically
the strongest. Even universal suffrage is nothing but one big eyewash, as long as
economic equality has not been obtained in advance. And that the dictatorship was that
one introduced himself, is evident from the orders, which the General Council of the
International sent from London to Paris during the Commune. Instead the staff went to
Paris to lead the situation on the ground and to arrange, it remained in London and
wanted to do from there from the scheme. Give a ludicrous impression orders as Fiaux
she communicates in his History of the International by a bourgeois . Eg. Order of April 9:
"We await the outcome, to give our instructions." Bismarck, v. Moltke, Wilhelm I, who give
leadership had owned, were on site and so they were able instructions, but imagine you
folly, that the men of the Commune, in the midst of battle, reports were preparing to send
them to London, then in order to get instructions on how they should act! As if the enemy
would wait for them!

Incidentally, the Commune was not greeted with joy by Marx, he had her only wish,
when they simultaneously broke out in the main cities of Europe, but hardly she has been
crushed, or Marx gave a masterful dissection of and - this to his credit - flinkweg accepted
all solidarity with her, so that he no peace, no truce can exist between the workers of
France and the far-owners in the Manifesto of the General Council of may 30, 1871 briskly
away wrote that "after Pentecost 1871 of their labor productions. The iron hand of a
mercenary soldiers dominion shall Common suppress both classes for some time, but the
fight must again and again broke out in ever greater extent and there is no doubt who will
be the ultimate victor, the few far-owners or the amazing large working majority. And
French workers are only the vanguard of the modern proletariat. "

The role, which Marx played in the International, so closely together with the history of
the association, which we deem it better to let her out of here and be treated in the
chapter of the International. After the demise of the International Marx came not in public
life, he retired to his studies, although he by the relation in which he stood with different
people, in many ways was the spiritual counselor to major issues in the respective
countries . At the end of his life he was staggering and the death of his eldest daughter,
who was married with Longuet, and then founded his ruined body of his wife, so he tired
and [down] was probably pleased that death him too soon then, very calmly took away
what happened on March 14, 1883.
 Complementing are we still a few things to say about English.

As we have already said, to separate these two are hardly of one another, inasmuch as
long and intimate association moved into the same vein. Authoritarian they were both, but
the fact remains that they do repeatedly, especially English, in their purely scientific
writings, came into anarchic waters. In general, it is strange to note that in each person
lights a piece anarchist, though in each one also reveals the Imp of the authority and
depending on one's temperament and personal experiences will be one or the other side
in him the upper hand get.

A strong example of this is English, which approved the German party tactics
impressed by the victories at the ballot box and applauded, even in his enthusiasm in
1892 is so much forgot that he was the prophet mantle omdeed and wrote: "Along the
road from the universal suffrage ensures the peace of the German social democratic party
in the win approximately ten years "and yet it was the same who once complained about
the" practical "action of the social Democrats in parliament and this very strictly
condemned in the following words:". a kind of petty-bourgeois socialism has its
representatives in the social democratic party, even in the parliamentary group and in
such a way that it is true to the principles of modern socialism properly acknowledge and
accept the transformation of all means of production into collective property, but it is
believed only their possible realization in a distant, almost incalculable future. This is
simply social patchwork, and in this case one can sympathize with the reactionary
tendency for the 'removal of the working class. "

Although English is not great works of omits several parts, yet he has worked a lot and
clarity of style, he was more of Marx. A man of diverse development he moved with ease
in many areas. We only mention are: Zur Wohnungsfrage, Der deutsche Bauer Krieg,
Herrn Eugen Dhring Umwlzung der Wissenschaft , to do any writing service to break
the influence, which started to get this much talked about Berlin's private tutor in the
circles of the Social Democrats. And tender he was not going to work with his counterpart,
as evidenced by the conclusion of this book, which is to this effect that Dhring
"irresponsible by megalomania".

Perhaps this was a revenge because Dhring in his Critical History of National-
Oekonomie und des Socialismus both Marx as well as English, had taken it focused on
very competitive manner. He called their "state communism theocratic and authoritarian
as it is unjust, immoral and contrary to freedom. Assuming that all property was done in
the Marxist jubilee get inside the coffin of the Marxist state, then would all of Mr. Marx and
his followers clues, which they were allowed to eat and drink and get out of the crate, too
much labor services they in labor barracks Marx, in which no money and no preventing
return, had to perform. Judging by the content of the Marxist press and agitation, justice
and truth would certainly be the last of which in the Marxist authoritarian staatsdespotisme
was discussed. Spic and span the opposite of a free society, viz. The most arbitrary and
despotic confiscation of freedom of individual movement would be the result, even the
disorganization of the robber in the form of bureaucratic communist arbitrariness would be
the basic form of this unsustainable and occasional building. Thus, eg. The spiritual
production in the Marxist state may only take place with the permission of Mr. Marx and
his followers and Marx as chief of police, the chief censor and chief priest would definitely
heresies which he alone with his bad literary agents can treat, suppress in the name of
the socialist welfare state. Physically as well as spiritually would have only communist
state servants or to use the old expression exist only public servants. How the flock from
these communists stable is in parts together and how it offers and book would be held on
the feed matters, portions of the trough, chains, shackles, aided and abetted "allerhchst
state spiel centric" which is a secret, hidden continues until after the jubilee, because the
disclosure of this would be fantastic socialism in the eyes of Marx. The public, which must
be mystified, will therefore by the same Mr. Marx who invented the jubilee, be fobbed off
with the excuse that it can not obtain information about the image of the future state of
affairs. " And further: "Indeed it was a strange trinity of teachers, to whom he told
himself. Disciple of Moses, Ricardo and Hegel, he mingled a strange hybrid and half
development, from which only one could be born not viable sample. Moses he borrowed
communism of the jubilee, his fellow tribesman Ricardo economic drape with a semblance
of economic development and the reactionary romantic Berlin professor of state
philosophy Hegel ambiguous mystifying patois of a so-called dialectic, for there the jubilee
by historical road to construct. As is evident, he showed that borrowing by Moses, that he
is also concealing what he borrowed from French socialists tried to interest bearing, not
the least notice. "One can see from these few tests how the men were evenly
matched. Dhring find it shameless that Marx him behind the mask of a servant, namely
by a manufacturer named Friedrich Engels, who uitzoog former workers, slandered and
reviled, and he characterized the social democracy, which he called Jewish -. Dhring was
a fierce anti-Semite! - As "a reactionary family, whose state coercion not freedom and
good economy, but it is more commonly make slavery and suctioning by state servitude,
had run out in the interest of leading Jews and proselytes." And about Marx he let himself
ao says from:

"Is now anticipated the so-called scientific activity of Mr. Marx on such an obstacle to
science. Despite Jesuit advertising, despite alliance with the most reactionary elements,
even flirt with professors over and over again, despite the mutual compliments and
exchanging praise of the two armies of scientific Chinezendom, despite all the literary
devices of a self-created sort of Alliance Isralite despite still coming up propaganda
machine of the social democratic press of the different countries, it is more than 20 years,
announced and in 1867 the world came fragment in the course of more than a dozen
years from a single print run and has not yet, more advanced. [158] A forward in this
direction is not to be expected; most could still enter a downturn for Mr. Marx and this not
even in the role of a book writer, but in those of the pamphleteer and agitation schemer. At
such a part, viz. As a spoiler of the International and to the attempts to in the absence of
its own scientific property to that of others to rubbing warm, can only be highlighted in
connection with the different agitations, which in the next chapter will be handled. Here it
is just to do the shortage of science and already hereby beboerende moral physiognomy.
"

Although here lies in much truth, yet he cijfert away all the value of Marx and one may
think about this as you like, yet the impartial man will have to admit that Marx was a man
of sense and anything but mundane personality. Such polemics between truly learned
men - because Dhring holds in the scientific world a high place - is not particularly
edifying and does not work in the eyes of the masses to confirm the aureole, which is
involuntarily extended over the men of science.

To return to English, he also wrote a drawing Der Ursprung der Familie, des
Privateigenthums und des Staates (1884), in which he outlined the origins of society on
the basis of the American writer Lewis H. Morgan using notes, Marx had made in his
work. To explain their position is his pamphlet on Ludwig Feuerbach very
important. Besides many articles here and placed there, he foresaw several new editions
of Marx's writings, for any reason, sometimes very instructive to characterization of its
position. As eg. The French Civil War, for the second part of Marx's Capital, etc. The
operation of the failed script of Marx's later volumes of Das Kapital was done by him in a
very meticulous manner, which reflects a pieuze worship for his friend. English had an
extensive correspondence, for he was the counselor and friend of many, so that his death
in 1895 to weigh spent a great loss in the ranks of the Social Democrats because, as
the Neue Zeit pointed out oneigenaardig, "while still alive English whose spiritual life with
which Marx was so intimately connected, these also were still alive in our midst, we were
under the influence of both lively. Now both are gone. "

Although English, for whatever reason, always sharply opposed the anarchists deliver
precisely his writings in so many places so much grist to the mill of anarchism, he assured
in his conception of the role of the state can be ranked among them. He wrote, among
others in the speech on the civil war in France, dating from 1891: "The Commune was at
once recognize that the working class, once come to the rule could not continue with the
old state machine; that the working class, she did not want its newly won sovereignty lose
again, one hand already put aside the old, to date against herself suppression equipment,
but on the other hand had to insure against its own deputies and officials, by them without
exception at all time to declare revocable "He knew very well that the state organs from
servants of society had changed in her masters and ended with this statement:".
According to the philosophical conception, the state is the 'realization of the idea "or the
empire transferred in philosophical language God on earth, the area in which eternal truth
and justice is realized or must realize. And it follows a superstitious reverence for the state
and what the state is linked and which has easier place if one of childhood it is
accustomed to imagine that the matters common to the whole of society and interests are
not can be delivered differently than they have been delivered so far, viz. by the state and
its well-paid servants. And is believed to have already made an extremely bold step, if one
is freed from the belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. But
in reality the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another,
and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil
that is inherited by the struggle for class supremacy victorious proletariat and whose worst
effects it nor the Commune could fail at once to circumcise as much as possible, until a
generation that has grown up in new, free , social conditions will be able to rid himself of
his statewide mess. "

In his Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staates , he writes: "The
state is thus not from everlasting. There have been societies that state existed without
that state and state power had no understanding. At a certain stage of economic
development, which was necessarily linked to the division of society into classes, from
that division became the state a necessity. We are now rapidly approaching a stage of
development of society, on which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to
be a necessity, but to which it is a particular hindrance in production. They will fall as
inevitably as they arose earlier. With this inevitably falls to the state. The company, which
re-organize production on the basis of free and equal association of producers, the whole
machine put there, where it will then belong, viz. In the museum of antiquities next to the
spinning wheel and the bronze ax. "

And finally Dhringian Umwlzung der Wissenschaft we read: "The state was the
official representative of society as a whole, its personification in a visible form, but he
only inasmuch as was the state of that class which itself represented the whole society of
her time: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens, in the Middle Ages of the
feudal nobility, in our time of the bourgeoisie. While he is finally the actual representative
of the whole society, it makes itself superfluous. Once there is no suppressing social class
is, as soon as class domination and the struggle for existence, based on the current
anarchy in production, including the resulting collisions and excesses are put aside, there
is nothing to suppress, what a individual oppression machine, a state requires. The first
act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -
the seizure of the means of production in the name of society - is also its last independent
act as a state. The intervention of state power in social relations becomes, in one area
and the other superfluous, and then dies of itself. In place of the government of persons
shall administer affairs and the management of production processes. The state is not
'abolished,' it withers away. Accompanied by temporary agitational phrase of the free
people's state must be assessed, so both her right as to its ultimate scientific irresponsible
merchantability, accordingly also the requirement of the so-called anarchists that the state
of disappointment, should be abolished tomorrow. "

And yet the same assures that "the proletariat overpowers state power and the means
of production first change in state ownership"! Centered he adds: "But it also raises itself
as proletariat, it also raises the all class distinctions and contradictions, thereby raises
itself as standing on." [159] A powerful state as the owner of all means of production and
then himself as state raises - how this fits together?

In which it different view from that of the well-known anarchist Kropotkin in his study of
the revolution: "The abolition of the state, such is the task of the revolutionary of him who
has the courage to think, without which no revolution is possible. In that respect, he has
all the traditions of the bourgeoisie against him. But he has before him the whole evolution
of humanity, which we at that historical moment imposes the duty to redeem us from a
form of group, perhaps made necessary by the ignorance of the past times, but now
enemy standing in front of any progress "? Both the so-called anarchist and opponent of
anarchy here shake hands and English actually advocated anarchy. He is a Janus with
two faces, one as a scientific man facing anarchy, because this is the future, the other as
a practical man facing social democracy, because it is the present, which he could not or
would not break. That ambivalence he perishes.
German Social-Democracy and its branches in other countries

There is a lot of truth in the assertion of prof. Quack, that "after the dual personification
of socialist development in Marx and Bakunin, there is not much news has more to
prove. The great leaders of the stage. The epigones have taken over the job. There is
within the circle of socialist regimes little original about more: only the multiple reflection of
the former. Yet sometimes late prism flicker sorts of new combinations of colors. "Yet we
can remark accept only under benefice of inventory, because 1. the originality of Marx and
Bakunin was not as great as one usually thinks that they too stand again the shoulders of
their predecessors, whose ideas one part, albeit in different form, found in their writings,
and 2. history would thus not be different from the history of great men, as if this were not
great because they expression were the ideas that already lived among the people. Not
they gave the people the direction to be followed, on the contrary, the people gave them
the ideas they developed, ideas that already dozed and had only needed the people in
order to give the proper shape. Again, the familiar word applies: one thinks slide and one
gets pushed.

Of course the first time Germany our attention, because it is this country that actually
pulls the representative of one flow, described by us as the custody or coercion
socialism. We have the efficacy of Marx as in and outside Germany ascertained, we have
the foundation of the Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiter-Verein described by Lassalle and the
nature thereof determined as national and centralist-dictatorial. On the death of Lassalle,
more than one year after the foundation, the child was so weak and could so badly miss
the leadership of the father. However, the father of a guardian had provided and
designated by testamentary disposition as it were, his successor. Bernard Becker was the
man who had fallen Lassalle prophets cloak, but the choice was not to be
happy. However, one should not forget how hard was that task, because 1. Lassalle had a
certain aura around himself, who missed the other; 2. girlfriend Lassalle, Countess
Hatzfeldt had to tell what its peculiar position to the founder of the association, her money
and her talent; 3. London were Marx and Engels, who works Lassalle always with after-
zealous eyes had watched beaten and feared for his influence on the German workers
and now with eagle eyes every, even the slightest mistake, tried to trace her on to blowing
a big one.

Becker began a quarrel with the Countess and this awkwardness already once
undermined his position, let alone whether he was right or not. In addition, a second
conflict. Still in the life of Lassalle was between him and the lawyer Dr. JB von Schweitzer
agreed to establish a socialist magazine in Berlin and it was carrying out this plan, so on
January 1, 1865 there appeared the Social-Demokrat. Among the staff there had also
included the old eight forties Johan Philipp Becker of Geneva, Fr. English Manchester,
Georg Herwegh Zurich, Hess Paris Liebknecht Berlin, Karl Marx London, Rustow Zurich
and Wuttke Leipzig, but a series of articles under the heading: The Ministry Bismarck, in
which he indicated the national vocation of Germany as it has manifested itself later,
caused a split so that most of those mentioned above under protest reciting their
cooperation. National Socialism by Lassalle and the internationally Marx
collided. President of Becker did not last long and it was thought the election of Tlcke
Iserlohn an order to have the dispute. However, this was not the case. He also resigned to
make way for Perl from Hamburg.

There was a schism in 1866, so there is another association was established, was at
whose head first and then Frsterling Mende and because the countess it was the very
soul, was called this game the "female line". But then in 1867 v. Schweitzer was elected
president, there was at least a man of talent at the helm. Now, the influence, so that the
newly established North German Reichstag three of them: v. Schweitzer, Fritzsche and
Hasenclever and were two of the female line: Frsterling and Mende.

The enmity between the imperialist socialism and Bismarck Cesarism like Liebknecht
dubbed socialism Schweitzer, and the International Rose also increasing. In several
meetings, the supporters of the two groups were so hard it together that it repeatedly
ended in brawls. To be more united v. Schweitzer himself with the fraction Mende
Hatzfeld, but this female line could not stand it as a political party and thus the gain was
only imaginary. Liebknecht had Bebel found a considerable strength and both were
agitating now together against the Arbeiter-Verein. They sought themselves out of making
these masterpieces by suing v. Schweitzer betrayal of the working case to the Prussian
government, this attempt failed, since v. Schweitzer acquired at the annual meeting to
Barmen a vote of confidence of 42 of the 54 deputies in 1869. When joined
Liebknecht [160] and Bebel [161] their supporters around himself and founded in
Eisenach Social-Democratic Workers' Party, to that place often called Eisenacher or also
the nickname of their opponents the "honest". The best part was that the internationals in
their program took the principle of Lassalle: the promotion of Genossenschaftswesen by
the state and state loans for productive associations under democratic safeguards. A
principle difference therefore, there is not actually.

Edited Liebknecht the Democratic Wochenblatt , this magazine was later transformed
into the People's State . Since the Franco-Prussian War broke out and this led naturally to
weigh great confusion. Had the King of Prussia declared in a proclamation that he took no
struggle against the French people, but against the French emperor, he had to keeping
their word after the fall of the empire and the proclamation of the republic on September 4,
1870 should the war finish. He did not, and Liebknecht and Bebel were absolutely right
when they protested on behalf of the Social Democrats in the Reichstag against the
annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. This protest was so little favor in the eyes of the war party
that General Vogel von Frankenstein captivated some of the board members to let bring
the fortress Ltzen and were captured on the orders of the headquarters at Versailles
Liebknecht, Bebel and Hepner treason in Leipzig. Schweitzer withdrew from the
movement, to be replaced by Hasenclever [162] ; the leaders of the internationals were
trapped. The workers were thus left to their own fate. At the 1874 elections, nine Social
Democrats were elected, of whom 6 to the internationals and three were among the
Lassalleans. The urge for unification of the two groups was increasingly felt and at the
congress in Gotha in 1875 the merger of the two parties took place on the basis of a
program which was accepted by both parties and the Gotha Programme has long been
the constitution sixteen years German socialist workers party. We have already pointed
out, that although people generally believed that Marx was the father of this program and
the world quietly into that delusion left because he never protested during his life against it
fatherhood, not only not been the case, but rather that Marx subjected the program to a
sharp criticism and found wanting. That program was a real compromise and it definitely
belongs to what one a Jesuit style piss fraus [163] mentions that one against his better
judgment, the world into thinking showed that the Social Democratic Party is constituted
had the approval of Marx. The official journal of the Party was Vorwrts edited by
Liebknecht and Hasenclever, an amalgamation of the People's State of Liebknecht
and Neuer Social Democratic of Hasenclever. The attacks of Hodel and dr. Nobiling on
the life of the emperor in 1878 came to the party very inappropriately, but if one compares
the attitude of the German Social Democrats with those of the Russian nihilists, it is
strongly in the benefits of the latest from . Their press overflowed with all kinds of
pleasures to address the perpetrators as "Wahnsinnsstreich", "Schandthat des Nobiling",
"Mordbube", [164] etc.

Fear gave them in this, as was moreover tyrannicide always appreciated it and
glorified. The socialist law of 1878 was the response of the government in those
attacks. Usually it presents it as if the party when it was so powerful that it seemed
necessary such a law to suppress, but although this self-deception is very understandable
with the leaders, yet one can equally well say that the movement already diluting since the
association in 1875 and was the government thought he could tame her way through
brutal repression. Hence the bourgeoisie at the first stop, which Hodel, seemed not even
worth it and this draft rejected and only the second stop could stir up enough pressure, in
order to get such a law. The result proved that the government properly had seen and
already boasted the party press in the lifting in 1890, the party even had to admit the man
of blood and iron forced, it was a fact that the Party watered down already so far was that
they yielded in the whole no danger. She had no need of exception, it had already
become what they wanted from her make an ordinary party reform. The Jahrbuch fr
Sozialwissenschaft, which appeared abroad for the money of the rich Karl Hochberg,
stated: "The party shows right now under the pressure of socialist law, they do not want to
follow the path of violent revolution, but decided despite many past improprieties and
excesses, which they, like all other parties, guilty of her childhood, the path of legality, ie to
walk the reform. "

The leaders lost at that time the head, which was not surprising when one considers
that most lost their lives. This was given an unfavorable impression on the workers who
looked up high in a line against the leaders. It was a year of confusion, as Mehring calls it,
especially when the little state of siege in Hamburg, Berlin and other places was
pronounced.

Brussels Karl Hirsch began with the publication of a magazine: which Laterne in
imitation of the famous magazine of Rochefort in Napoleon's time. Johann Most [165] ,
one of the most radical elements of the German party and much loved among the
workers, was just caught in Pltzensee and released on December 9, 1878 he was
expelled directly from Berlin and urged the party members as it were from
Germany. London came addressed this the Freiheit in the beginning of the year 1879.
Both magazines names not mince words and criticized the situation very sharp. They
were also banned soon in the kingdom. But what did the publishers of the Freiheit ? They
left the magazine always appear under a different title, such as:. Deutschland, Bismarck,
Lehmann und Co., Hunger, Gerechtigkeit, etc., so that each required a new ban officially,
and all year round then also appeared in the official Reich Anzeiger ban this or that
magazine, which was published in London and posed as the continuation of the
banned Freiheit . This, however, went beyond the German party itself and it pleased the
leaders only half, mostly Most recommended as a revolutionary tactic, the Germans were
not served. To counterbalance gave the party on September 28 in Switzerland, the trial
issue of a new magazine Der Sozial-Demokrat, Internationales Organ der
Sozialdemokratie deutscher Zunge .

Also Hasselmann, another revolutionary-minded member of the party [166] , was done
by the party under the spell after he had declared its solidarity in the Diet (4 May 1880)
with the Russian nihilists and said that "die Zeit des Parliament Aryan Schwtzens
vorber ist und die Zeit der Thaten beginnt. " [167] these soon left Germany, it became
more and more uninhabitable for any man of character and independence. Colorless
blades taunt the revolutionary-minded, compromise, patriotism, tendencies toward
monopolies, etc. -. There one could observe within the party at this time of socialist law.

It was that Bismarck is not allowed at curbing social democracy through the socialist
law, he began to do in practical social reforms, so the Social Democrats to take the work
off your hands. In 1881 appeared the imperial message that said to be also promoted the
positive welfare of the workers. So there was a law on insurance against accidents and all
kinds of other laws supposedly to protect the workers and it became more and more
demand, especially in elections, which the workers most would flip. Who wants to learn
the spirit of the time, should especially read the handbills at the polls. Thus one finds in a
note recommending a certain Habermann: "How would Habermann be a pitcher down,
even as the chancellor of the German Empire, prince Bismarck, do experiments with the
program of the socialists? When even our German emperor in his imperial message of
November 17, 1881 the socialist fundamental idea announced to his people that should
be guaranteed to the economically weak protection, so the protection of poverty against
the power of the exploitative capital? When Habermann same wish - though it is also freer
way - what if desirable means of salvation from the evil of the prevailing capital power and
great production by the chancellor, prince Bismarck, is recommended, it can not possibly
be a "down pitcher. '" so Bismarck or Habermann, it does not matter much.

Increasingly it became worse and slowly they behaved as if they were governing
party. Of socialism no longer. The "practical" demands came to the fore. Thus, among
other things, strongly speculated by Bebel with the threat that if the Social Democracy
would be increased not supported, the beer tax. And it comes at a German beer, then one
comes to his life.

As Bismarck says the worker give the right to work as long as he is healthy, assure him
nursing when he is sick, make him care when he is old (session of the Diet on May 9,
1884) and comparing this the " practical "work of the social Democrats, we see no
difference between them. If one once the way of "practical" reforms, then one has lost as
a socialist, one is like the man who pulls on one end of a rope while pulling the other
government and the bourgeoisie. Giving this far, then it is, after all, on the back. So it went
with the government and bourgeoisie energy, social democracy on the other, both of them
went to the line of reforms, the government gave some to the effect that social democracy
fell back, which it still is to struggle.

Bismarck knew very well what was the weak point of social democracy and said after
the election of 1884, when the number had risen elected Social Democratic deputies to
25, that he hoped they would soon reach the three dozen, because "if the men only first
arrive with positive plans, they will be much buddy than they are now. " He would like to
give them even an in-house Province, to see how they were home. He saw very well that
even the modest reforms in the social sphere would not have existed without the Social
Democrats and as such he considers them to be an extremely useful element. And when
the Social Democrats shouted bravo, he said, "Yes, you see, at some points we are still
together sometimes."

Incidentally, he was too much a statesman, not to understand that one had to be
socialist in part, to remain consistent with the spirit and acknowledged that it "did not go
longer without some measure of socialism."

Bebel should not recognize that as the party had won in width, it lost in depth? He did
not say that nine-tenths of the elements that formed the party, were only do so because of
the practical reform and only one tenth was to do the basic propaganda? And he did not
join the government when his party, which once the bad word said no man in this system
and not a penny away with militarism! blameerde saying in the Diet that a loan contracted
for the acquisition of dull, not shiny uniforms, would be supported by him, because in truth
no more productive expenditure could be done? But it gives militarism finger, then it takes
the hand, the arm, the whole body. On the same grounds, yet it must allow money to
continue carrying guns, for more ships, improved rifles, in a word for what the military
fit. And it is therefore increasingly made their way, until they even dared to defend the
"offset policy" of the lawyer Heine successfully, which consists in that with the government
will negotiate on the manner of Ultramontanes, so if the government promises some
reform, which require the social Democrats, in turn, will also allow some demands of
government. That language other than that of Liebknecht in 1869: "The Social Democracy
may negotiate under in no circumstances and in no area of the opponents. Negotiation
can only when standing on common ground. Negotiating principled opponents, which give
the principle of sacrifice. Principles are indivisible, they are kept or wholly or
sacrificed. The smallest concession principle is to give up the principle. Who enemies'
parlementelt (parlementje plays) which parliament operates and whom parliament itself,
which surrenders. "And not only that it was so employed in Germany and socialism went
up as much as possible in all kinds of small reforms within the current window state, which
one, as it was called, took on installment, but they tried to print the same mark on the
movement in other countries. Finally came the extent that the party praise garnered from
a bourgeois magazine, in a sense of belonging to the party of order and to those wishing
to be counted, and when they called revolutionary yet, this magazine rightly states that the
rhetorical sidepieces for certain purposes and nothing else. The danger was over for
social democracy, one could speak Shakespeare here of "taming of a shrew '(taming of a
shrew), which is completely managed to Bismarck, in spite of all boast of the Social
Democrats that they have even conquered Bismarck. One can safely say that Bismarck
has achieved its purpose, viz. The capitulation and their renunciation of revolutionary, in
the eyes of the ruling class dangerous ideas. Or who shall dare to say that the Social
Democratic Party and its leaders are the same people from the past? Yet it took to dance
a lot, because under the anti-socialist were in 1300 periodic and non-periodic printed
works and 332 workers' organizations banned of all sorts were 900 persons from the
places banned small state of siege, were together 1000 years imprisonment handed out
to 1500 people and this figures have obviously a lot to be increased to give a completely
faithful picture of reality, because how many were outside that still bear the brunt of
capitalist persecution? At the expense of so many victims social democracy has been
tamed and far from there that it has come as a muscle strong and weather-hardened man
of the fight, showed how the party so far been taken in tow by Bismarck, that the struggle
between these and social democracy is no longer a principle fight, but what is more or
less in the field of labor law. Does one Liebknecht, who have said that socialism is not a
question of theory, but simply a question of power, which in parliament, but on the street,
must be resolved on the battlefield as well as any other question of power, do not belong
in the Reichstag in 1869 say now it is still possible on the path of reform to pave the
solution of the social question?

We can not show all changes, a Liebknecht and Bebel [168] went through, all but
testimony laying aside of a development process that would lead us too far, but only want
to point out that which followed the elimination of the anti-socialist. It was the young
Emperor Wilhelm II who drove through the elimination and for a moment even raised the
idea that he, as a second Constantine II would occur and as such posed as a Christian
emperor would pose social emperor. His words were sometimes sharply against the
capitalists and imperial messages showed that he too "socialist reform" was going to
do. At the first congress after the abolition of the anti-socialist, held in Halle (1890), it has
already revealed that there was an opposition in the party, especially in Berlin, which is far
from satisfied with the leadership of the party and outraged by the "iron mask "that
signaled all elements of the opposition during that law and mysterious worked as the
infamous council in Venice, now determined required that would have occurred
otherwise. Had you hoped Schippel and People's Tribune found a support, they appeared
not mated the necessary strength of character to his undeniable good spiritual gifts to
dare to challenge the old leaders, it was grossly disappointed in him. Schippel still left
Wilhelm Werner alone in Halle. Vollmar also tended to some party congress in Halle left
and believed in him will be one of the leaders of the radical group. But this was later
"turn". The opposition expressed its strongest against the Reichstag Group attitude to the
celebration of May Day 1, which was decided at the international conference in
Paris. Upon failure of the group to call for that celebration, did some Berlin party
members, including Schippel and Albert Schmidt, instead of the group call, to hold public
meetings in the morning and devote the afternoon to the coziness in it your field. This
was lse-majest against the Reichstag Group, who had to give the watchword, and it is
now called in response all on, if not sooner to take the necessary steps in this matter,
before and before the fraction, spoke as a representative of the party, . French Mehring
(when no Social Democrat), came violently against the celebration of the 1st May as a
public holiday. Schippel wrote after that statement that circles the group that he was
expecting nothing more from the 1st May. The group took a hesitating position, as they
explained to bring to advise the German workers not match her conscience to the 1st of
May until the day of a general peace. This was not to implement and would cause all sorts
of conflicts, but who could take time off without getting conflict who could do it. Thus the
Reichstag Group of the 1st May Day stifled as a rest day in the birth.

What a difference from Austria, where the party although much weaker, by leaving the
rest, although they knew that the guns were loaded ready to Vienna to shoot it
immediately at the slightest tumult of the workers in. More and more manifested itself in
the party a class struggle between the proletariat and the revolutionary possibilistisch-
petty-bourgeois element. The opposition put so strong head, that Bebel and Liebknecht all
to do their best to suppress it and like them this is successful, then this was due less to
sound arguments or to the faithful to the old leaders, who one did not want to leave. It was
singer, who gave expression to this way of doing things by saying, as on one side Bebel
and Liebknecht and the other Wille, Werner and Wildberger stand, the party members will
know where they have to turn. Certainly he wanted to show graphically how the appeal by
the party consisted of a mass "Heerdenthieren" [169] , which Wille had accused anger of
many. [170]

Not just from the left but from the right the old leaders were harassed and or by
Vollmar [171] , who wanted even more reformist than the group all agitation concentrate
on the previously cited five points and a large mass, especially in South Germany, was
behind him, so he had to be respected. At the party congress in Erfurt (1891) would be
held the great battle, and although it is called Toeging, they dared Vollmar not, where
even Bebel declared that Vollmar had harvested more approval in the Congress than he
imagined and expected and not fear to say that one should not be tempted "by the
beautiful phrases or clean eyes Vollmar". Sharp and accurate Vollmar said opposite Bebel
and Liebknecht: either you believe the accessibility and usefulness of the
palliatiefmiddelen listed in the program and then you can not say give palliatiefmiddelen
nothing the people, but you must do as I do and for this action the first goal, or you do not
believe in, then you must remove them from the program. So in other words: either radical
and reformist either anarchist. And in fact, the opportunism of Vollmar earned the victory
of the revolutionary words of the ancients. But when it came to the opposition to the left,
then were the same revolutionaries from there just in their appearance as reactionary and
opportunistic as Vollmar and his friends. Very strange it was, how Bebel almost the same
words bezigde against the opposition in the party as Emperor Wilhelm opposite the Social
Democrats in his kingdom. Kaiser Wilhelm spoke of the "Nrgler", and said that if it did not
like them here, but they had to leave Germany. And Bebel said that there should be an
end to the "Wandering Nrgelei und das ewige Unruhestiften in der Partei. (That eternal
grumbling and establish unrest in the party), and if the opposition could not agree with the
attitude of the party, it has to establish a place private party.

Liebknecht and supported his friend, there bijvoegende: who did not like the party,
which could "hinausfliegen". It happened that some were put off the party. The party of the
boy came to Berlin and a few other places, who own magazine Der Sozialist founded, but
they were actually made impossible and by the persecutions of the government and by
the opposition of the powerful big party. It was that many, disgusted by the blind
obedience of the party members, lost their faith in humanity and withdrew from the
movement, to look elsewhere for a field of activity. Much strength is the boy who first
ordinary revolutionary socialists but were gradually driven to anarchism, not gone,
because they too engrossed in speculation and not enough interventions in the full human
life in practical labor movement. One moment they were looking for, even though the
desire to do something, their salvation with Landauer in the cooperative, but it could meet
in the long run impossible to their desire. Now work some in the trade unions and they try
it at least to develop seeds of freedom that they hope that later come to fruition, others go
the road of establishing colonies, keeping others engaged in literary work in general
humanitarian purposes.

At that conference, we wrote almost Council of Nicaea, but it's true, we count so many
centuries later, Marxism was purified in the same conference at Erfurt all Lassallean
heresies, consolidated and established dogma or program, without which we in the Social
Democratic party of Germany can not find salvation. Weather is program divided into a
theoretical part, which is socialist furnished to the criticism exercised by Marx himself of
the Gotha Program, and a practical work program, which almost corresponds to the old
and also "the ancient, world-known democratic litany: general suffrage, direct legislation,
popular jury, people again, etc. "included by Marx in the old program called the" echo of
the bourgeois people's party. " Indeed we see some deterioration, because while the
former 'decision on war and peace by the people "had on the program, this formula thus
changed' decision on war and peace by the elected representatives of the
people." Furthermore, the content remained the state socialist as it was, because it is the
state which must act protectively in all respects in education, in labor legislation so that
the power of the state in the implementation of this program will being much greater than
now and strengthening of state to come to its abolition, indeed it may certainly be called a
peculiar method, which can be compared in medicine with homeopathy.

But what is characteristic for the party, principle program is that after one party
convention speech, and that of Liebknecht, adopted unanimously and without
discussion. It had much of a proclamation, like those of the Popes, which ex cathedra to
the faithful is imposed easily. Or is it conceivable that in a meeting of all self-thinking
people will agree on a foundational principle program?

The attitude of the Social Democrats against the unemployed move to Berlin in 1892,
which was her very inconvenient, is also characteristic not to be
reminded. The Vorwrts said the "ragtag Berlins" had given rise to "Strungen der
ffentlichen Ordnung" (disturbance of public order) and shook the "Lumpenproletariat"
from her, by the unemployed to describe as "Leute mit den seidenen Tchern und
Ballonmtzen "(pimps), and although the court found that those who were in opposition,
indeed workers had been without work remained that magazine say the 't' was Kanaille in
Ballonmtzen". No wonder that many foreign socialist newspapers sharply denounced this
and the German Social Democrats row elms with a social democratic
magazine Volksanwalt of Cincinnati: "If one absolutely does not want to forward, yet it
provides at least not deteriorate."

Comedian was also impressed that the indignation of the Vorwrts made, then that
leaves the important fact reported that "among the plundered merchants were three
known social democrats." Imagine the brutality of those unemployed in the eyes of a
sheet that acts as representative of the propertied class, and that upset about the brutality
of non-owners, to assault the property of three well-known and well propertied social
democrats!

Odd as it may be called that as the party is increasingly moving in the direction of state
socialism, albeit at the party convention in Berlin in 1892 boldly adopted a resolution
declaring that the social democracy "has nothing in common with the so-called state
socialism", yes she called social democracy and state socialism "irreconcilable
contradictions", the first of which is "revolutionary" and the second "conservative". This
operation is similar to that of the thief, seeking to divert attention from himself, yelling as
loud as possible, keep the thief! And again they unanimously adopted the resolution,
which was previously ready-made by Vollmar (right) and Liebknecht (left).

The following year discussed it mainly teaches the attitude of the party to the trade
union movement, and although the practice in many examples that it is actually the
economic activity of less importance and it only stands to the extent they political help and
support, yet it expresses again with big words sympathy with the union movement. If one
compares the political and economic action with the two hands of the man that they both
have and use shall require, then this equation in this very correct, since one exerts one
(right) hand and used, while the other untrained only service lets do to help the other.

How the men of political action can actually advocates of the trade union movement, for
while the aim of the latter is to do action the working independently and decide on their
own interests, like the last, that one dedicates his interests to others, which they must
defend in political bodies? When implementing the economic action therefore the men of
political action unnecessary, because if one drives his own affairs, one does not need
others who will perceive your interest, whether they are called to represent you. The best
representation is that it represents itself. However, practical as they are, they will lay
hands on all. The cooperative must disclose their source from which they can draw
money. The trade unions must provide their men who vote for their candidates, while the
political association myself will be to designate the guardians of the people so gracious
when they may vote.

The propaganda in the countryside had more and more powerful to be taken in hand
and made the party congress in Frankfurt / Main a topic of discussion in 1894, ending with
the appointment of the so-called agrarian commission that would deal with this matter in
detail to the party congress to come next year with proposals for the day. Vollmar, who
also served on the committee knew Bebel also to win over - do not have beautiful eyes? -
That Frankfurt so sharp in front of him, and an agricultural program was designed.

The petty-bourgeois character of social democracy reveals itself especially strong in the
agrarian program that they have made in different countries, to thus win the country
population for themselves, understanding that it was she who hitherto smothered every
revolution, and so also in the future would do, when not in time took care to include this
also in the fray.

But in doing so they met with peculiar difficulties, where one finds a major obstacle in
the rent farmers, a kind of intermediaries, with, however, who have the farm workers to do
alone without there to worry about whether they are sucked in turn by the
landowners. Now the interests of rent farmers are not the same as that of the agricultural
laborers and the working party has drafted anywhere agricultural programs, which have
hit farmers rent, but neglecting the agricultural workers. They had no chance to do in one
bag this dual interests, and the result was that it suffered from ambiguity.

Reference is the agricultural program of the Parti Ouvrier Franais, adopted at the
congress in Nantes in 1894, representing a ditto program of the Belgian Workers Party,
adopted at the Congresses of Brussels (1893) and Quaregnon (1894), or the proposals of
the agricultural committee of the German social democratic party, which, although
rejected by the congress of Breslau in 1895, but which are nevertheless indicative,
because they express what lives under very many of that party.

What one sees in all this?

An attempt by measures that are anti-socialist to win the small farmers and to gain their
votes in the elections.

After all, while socialism has always shown that small farmers should include, as the
small property can be maintained impossible, they give here all kinds of measures to
protect the small property and to safeguard against extinction.

Among other things, says the Belgian agriculture program:

1. Reorganization of rural municipalities:

A. The appointment of deputies in equal number by the owners, the farmers and the
workers;

b. intervention of the municipalities in the collective and disputes between owners,

tenants and agricultural workers.

2. Regulation of the lease with:

A. Adoption of the lease by committees of arbitration or the reformed agricultural

communities;

b. compensation of the outgoing tenant for more value placed on the property;

c. participation by the owner more extensively than by law established for the losses
suffered by the lessee;

d. waiver of the privilege of the owner.

3. Insurance and reinsurance by the province by the state against plague, diseases,
plants, hail, floods and agriculture danger.
 4. Organisation of free agricultural by the public powers. Formation or development of
model farms and agricultural laboratories.

5. Organisation of a national health service.

6. Reform of the Hunting Law. Right of the tenant to destroy the animals in each
season, which are harmful to agriculture.

7. Intervention of the public powers in the rural cooperative:

A. The purchase of seed corn and fertilizer;

b. the manufacture of butter;

c. the joint purchase and operation of agricultural machinery;

d. purchasing products;

e. collective exploitation of the land.

No wonder Vandervelde testifies: "If one knows the reasons, which they accompany,
and will only keep the decreed section are the majority of laws and draft laws proposed by
the Belgian Government and its friends in favor of small property , utterly convincing for
all, what opinion one may have about the advantages or inconveniences of the family
property. " [172] " the expropriation of the expropriators, "as stout brought to the fore by
Marx and Engels, is still very much else a form of "associated property" of some small
owners, whom it deludes that way save if they just throw in the arms of the social
democracy.

The Sociaaldemocratische Arbeiderspartij in the Netherlands brings that boerenvangerij

in application, as it preys [on] "improving pachtcontract" on behalf of the
landbouwbevolking or rather the huurboeren a requirement to draw up the rules governing
the right of municipalities to "to resident workers giving much ground and working capital
at the lowest possible price in use, they can consist entirely of work on the ground. "

We could also include the design [of] agricultural program of the Germans, but that it
can not be dismissed serve as a benchmark. This design is similar to the other two, the
French and Belgian, only it is more comprehensive and allows the state all act as earthly
providence, in order to help farmers from the pressure. Where men like Bebel and Vollmar
were however, as one can assume that a large part of the German social democracy at
that position is.

This program is another important step in the direction of state socialism and written in
a language that farmers still could not understand, and under declaration that they would
first work "within the framework of the existing state and social order." So it socialism (?)
grafted onto the existing state and the existing Prussian laws! The contents proves one
thing sufficient viz., That represents farmers should play the role of earthly
providence. Ten times the word "State" at least for. They want: compulsory visit of the
public and public repetition schools, the establishment of adequate industrial, agricultural
vocational schools, model farms and research stations, holding regular courses for
agricultural education (section 7); abolition of all government functions and privileges
attached to the land (Section 11): the preservation and propagation of the public-law land
ownership (state and communal property of all kinds, allmende, etc.), in particular the
transfer of goods the dead hand of the real communities [173] , forests, water power, etc.
in. public property under the supervision of the parliament ; introduction of a preferential
right of municipalities in the sale of goods, which has place of execution (paragraph
12); cropping of the state and municipal lands for its own account or leasing associations
of rural workers and small farmers, or to the extent that this does not appear to be
rational, leasing to private builders under the supervision of state or
municipality (paragraph 13); State credit associations (paragraph 14); mortgage and land
debt state case (point 15); insurance of movable and immovable property, state matter
and help from state failure in specific disasters caused by nature (paragraph
16); extension of insurance to all persons in paid employment or relationship. Developing
legislation for the protection of workers on agricultural workers, a government office for
agriculture, local agencies for agriculture and chambers of agriculture. We see here the
proof in hand, how the state was rife of this program. Now been rejected, this is not
because it is able socialist direction, but because "the peasantry to improve his condition,
thus strengthening its private property shall view and thereby contributes to a new revival
of their own fanaticism. "

Kautsky [174] said there also, it gave the impression "as if the Social Democracy only
one kind of democratic reform party" that we did not have a social democratic agrarian it,
but an agrarian program that the proletarian class struggle into bondage the interests of
the land, because "the proposals of the agricultural committee for the protection of the
working class contain no requirement for the protection of agricultural workers alone " (we
underline) and he calls "a social democratic agrarian program an absurdity of the capitalist
mode of production. "the well-known Max Schippel called it a" piece of political quackery
"and expressed hope that it would prevent rejection of the draft, that" we (the social
Democrats) keep our entry in the countryside, as well as Buerger's Abbot: wrong, instead
of the bridle with the tail in hand, "while Calwer his word even at this recurrence relation
is:" We sail in the theoretical treatment of the agrarian question already happily in an
ideal, petty-bourgeois socialism, which in reality, however, as reactionary as utopian. "

But Bebel will probably get the same, that it is only a postponement, because the party
will have to decide whether it wants to be socialist or she either goes up all the way from
the reform with the radicals and in view of the party's past we know enough that they tend
to the vast majority to the latter road.

The after party days are dull, until Bernstein [175] , the faithful watchmen on the walls
of genuine Marxism, began to tamper with Marxism and the party urged even more to go
to the right and even change the name of " democratic reform party ", as more
corresponding to its efforts. This stirred up great indignation, because as orthodox
Marxists his book [176] the "solemn renunciation of the principles of social democracy by
a man who so far has gone to one of its supporters." Yet Bernstein continued along the
line that the party for years followed and the only reproach that he is by law is that of Auer,
who wrote to him: "You are a donkey, such things do men, but they say they do not ". This
criticism and characteristic is the best of all, because it is a fact that the party did things
long, though they said they did not. The crowning glory of his work is put by the
government of Emperor Wilhelm, who gave him his request permission to enter Germany
again. Why not? He has in the Social Democratic party to help bring such a spirit that,
since it could be his reward.

At the party congress in Lbeck (1901) the question Bernstein was the main course,
but after heated discussions they came to old habit to compromise. The whole party
congress was in accordance with a witty expression "the sign of compromise"! Well now
called Bernstein tamed, now he has been revoked mistake by focusing down on the Bebel
resolution, but it is feared that he will pose greater danger in than outside the party and
we shall have to wait and see whether the spirit of Bernstein not more and more the spirit
of the party will be. The adopted resolution states:

"The party congress unreservedly acknowledges the necessity of self-criticism for the
spiritual development of our party. But the completely unilateral manner in which
Bernstein its activity in the last few years, ignoring the critique of bourgeois society and its
carriers, has brought him induced in an ambivalent position and the detuning of a large
part of the party members. "

This resolution reminds us of the law of censorship in Prussia (1819), which states:
"Censorship should not be severe and moderate prevent investigation of the truth." And
this law is ridiculed and condemned by Marx .... Funny, that a congress of socialists in
order to preserve his teachings against the criticism, adopted a resolution lifting the
freedom of criticism indirectly! Instead of declaring Marxism to Marx private matter has
been taboo, ie canonized, so one can not touch him.

So be criticism, but like the result of the criticism, then it is one-sided and it offends the
party! Another criticism, "which should investigate everything" as it is called, "just not the
most critical." This reminds us of the laity poet who satirized witty this method in the
words:

The research is clear, however, what do you need -

And if ye are suffering in this life, and the Andre! -
Does the attached result: because this alone is good
and all the rest is inspired by the devil.

Vollmar, who was not present at the party congress, allowed himself therefore very
unfavorably on this resolution, saying: "When eight days the entire civilized world keeps
eyes upon us, we must do so worn that we can offer; whereas, however, was not the
case. Action against Bernstein should I strongly disapprove and even more how the
matter was taking effect. Right there in science is just an absolute freedom of criticism or
none at all, so also here. Because of the way someone criticizes, one should not bully
him. The decision is simply impossible. Bernstein have now either completely silent either
act very soon in conflict with the resolution of the party congress. "
 The whole thing reminded us vividly remember the gray Galileo before the Inquisition,
including the withdrawal, only Bernstein is not reported that he would have said, and she
moves anyway!

The highly acclaimed unit of the German party is more appearance than internally and
with interest the attentive observer watches the further development of this process.

From everything we see how two principles are facing each other: state socialism,
represented by the Social Democratic Party in Germany and all parties of that name in
other countries, which are shaped to that model, the party of reform within the framework
of the contemporary state and thus seeking to strengthen the state, and anarchism, acting
for the socialist idea, but its implementation will not by compulsion, not as the result of a
necessary course of development. Undoubtedly, the first direction predominantly in
Germany, but more and more this bourgeois party, since capitalism notice his influence in
her late and the petty bourgeois, even big bourgeois influences assert themselves. When
examining the proposed socialist law in the Diet said Liebknecht verbatim: "In short,
gentlemen, in the organs of our press and was unanimously declared by the delegates of
our party in the Reichstag, which is accepted as the anti-socialist, we the law will honor
course, because our party is a reform party in the strictest sense of the word and not a
party that wants to make revolution by force, which is incidentally nonsense ... I loochen
all-decided that our efforts aimed at the overthrow of the existing state and social order.
"Thus far was the" old soldier of the revolution "Liebknecht, he called the violence a"
reactionary " [177] and not" revolutionary "factor, quite contrary to his teacher Marx,
violence once called the obstetrician of a new society. " Yet in several developments, the
freedom idea germinate more and more and we must never forget that the German party
is affected by the environment in which it is situated, and that Germany is the land of the
discipline and docile obedience, it can not surprise us that these properties, from
childhood to be cultivated, not suddenly shaken but rather transplanted in the
party. Germany is politics as behind the Western countries, it is hardly, even in all parts
even now not yet fully outgrows the feudalism, and therefore can not as Russia's leader in
the social field. That is why the German spirit, inspired by the more liberal spirit of the
western countries, has worked wrong and no benefit has stretched the socialist
movement.

If appendage of the German movement can be Austrian. An actual working class

movement in Austria dating back to 1867, when two large meetings had to Vienna
instead, one is placed in the position of self-help, in Germany advocated by renowned
Schultze-Delitzsch and the other the view of Lassalle its state aid. The latter won it and so
it was a labor movement with a very tame program, consisting of: universal suffrage, right
to unite, separation of church and state, a people's army, removal of obstruction of press
freedom, the free right to gather and unite, promotion of the free association of individual
workers by the state.

The influence of Germany was on the Austrian labor movement so great that one can
hardly speak of an independent movement, because it did not look as if Austria was part
of Germany. After they had sent some delegates to Eisenach, in order there to attend the
conference, which was convened by cs Liebknecht and then to join the party, the reaction
put the head. Was regarded social democracy as subversive and started prosecutions.

After a demonstration in front of the building of the Reichstag, which have participated
15,000 people were 14 tone generators or leaders imprisoned. A trial began, whose
outcome was that Upper Winder to 6, Most, Scheu and Pabst were sentenced to five
years and the rest for two to ten months. By changing ministry followed an amnesty in
February 1871. Most, however, was a German soon deported. Winder waiter was traitor
to the working class thing, to take up employment later in Germany the Christian-Social
Party.

In 1874 had a big process to Grtz place again against Dr. Tauschinsky and 31
medeaangeklaagden, an attempt to suppress the Social Democracy. Yet this did little, the
movement went calmly and quietly forward.

Although the Austrian party was completely under the influence of the German Social
Democrats, however, also found the Freiheit of Most, which appeared in 1878, there many
readers. So there was a split between the moderates and the revolutionary-minded in the
party. By the prosecution, which the radical elements were exposed, it was driven to
terrorism. They organized themselves in secret and to obtain funds for propaganda,
began to apply the theft tactics. Certain shoe manufacturer Mers Tall Inger was
gechloroformiseerd in order to rob him better. The police brought the act of a few people
on the whole lot about, so as a result, 32 of the most active propagandists were charged
with treason and robbery and taken to court. Instead, the result was slain party, they grew
in power and influence. Major strikes took place, among other things, to dissolve the
bakers in Vienna in 1883, the government began unions and confiscate its
greenhouses. The press was opposed in every possible way and prosecuted. Again all of
this provoked a strong protest from the side of the workers. On December 15, 1883
Illubek the policeman was shot dead in the street. A 22 year-old young man named
Kammerer, the perpetrator and how much effort was the police had to make himself
master of this, found during his arrest. Three silent policemen were waiting for him at a
beer house and when they wanted to attack him, he offered resistance so powerful that
they would not have succeeded without the help of passers-by to get him. Yet he still
down a policeman and even then shot him surrounded by a crowd, was already on the
ground, he defended himself like a lion. While a police officer put the knee on his chest, to
bind him, it succeeded in wounding him this badly by a shot, even when he was bound
hand and foot with thick ropes, he still tried to get loose. As a deserter, he was brought
before a court martial and sentenced to death. Also, they accused him of the murder of a
certain Eisert and his two minor children, but the evidence for that one never can
deliver. At that time Stellmacher shot the secret police Bloch death and he was captured
after a fierce battle and sentenced to death. Kammerer just as he was suspected of the
murder Eisert. Both died calm and resigned when they were beheaded on January 30,
1884.

Of Vienna and the surrounding state of emergency was issued. Proceedings had been
expelled from that area are frequent and place up to 500 people. Thus, 18 people were
sentenced to a combined 105 years in prison. It was in those days that Joseph Peukert in
the movement played a major role. This said, in a process to demand from the president
whether he shared the views of Most, "I am not a centralist, but federalist." Anarchism
occurred, but in the guise of terrorism and only in 1886 they began to distinguish between
terrorism and anarchy ideal.

Count Taaffe, the minister, now made attempts through Walecka, who was an audience
with the minister, to form a centrist party, which had room for the moderate and radical
elements. But these Walecka had no desire to play that role, as he stated, at least, and
withdrew from the movement. Yet he led that a meeting was held in trust men to discuss
the idea of founding a center party. And it was especially dr. Victor Adler, a very wealthy
man who made himself master of the idea. If both parties admitted that, then it could best
be played finished. So in December 1886 appeared the social democratic
magazine Gleichheit , which were the main points: organization as a political party,
struggle for political freedom, the right to free expression of ideas and the like. Adler stood
in relation to the leaders of the Social Democracy of every country and knew through his
money to get good articles for its magazine, in order to make it important. Moreover, the
money always plays a major role in the transformation of the Social-Democratic Party into
a political one. One need only think of the large number of renegades in all countries,
which once as anarchists or revolutionaries had a woeful existence and later as a wealthy
citizens in the political movement participated. It was that radical elements still were
subjected to persecution, of penniless, etc. Finally the party was constituted for the
purpose of Dr. Adler on a specially convened party congress in Hainfeld. With the
necessary revolutionary phrases, however, was the practical program very tame, not
much different from ordinary democratic litany. The result was that the emergency laws
were lifted, just in front of the anarchists was allowed to go to time in the old
way. Finishing off the German party leaders by the infamous "Iron Mask", in Austria
operated one is so-called "confidential communications", that is to say, by secret
suspicion. However the revolutionary spirit is not completely extinguished, as evidenced
by the organization of the anti-authoritarian socialists who united in 1892 to the party of
the independent socialists. But immediately they had to suffer the persecution of
government and while the Social Democratic Party as well as any other recognized, the
revolutionaries had always perceive that they were persecuted and sentenced to shorter
or longer prison sentences. Kreal, Rismann, Friedlnder and others experienced this in
abundance. If one calculates that in eighteen months, ie. From January 1893 to July 1894
were only handed out 45 heavy prison sentence and seven years for judgment, one can
understand how difficult for the battle is the revolutionary socialists or anarchists. Of the
Social Democrats, there are only people entered the Reichstag, but despite all the effort
succeeded Dr. Adler hitherto not there to win a place.

Thought Thiers by inflicting the loss of the Parisian proletariat in 1871 to have the
socialist movement well subdued, he must be disappointed felt as early as the latter part
of 1871 and numerous strikes broke out in the early months of 1872 which showed that
the social question could not be wiped out by killing people and to dispel. Why did one of
the law against the International May 15, 1872, every free movement of workers has been
hampered so they had to raise the pure trade union movement, without being able to
devote himself to socialism, but the result was that socialist-minded workers propagated
their ideas in the popular movement. Prevailed initially after the violent suppression of the
commune dejection and despondency, gradually they came to the battle upstairs. the
National Assembly refused yet in 1873 the subsidy requested by Tolain, 100,000 fr. to
send some workers at the World Exhibition in Vienna, so one had to resort to subscription
lists, which yielded 80,000 fr within three months., already in 1876 was such a subsidy
granted by the state, large 50,000 fr. to send workmen delegates to the exhibition of
Philadelphia, while the Paris municipality still bijvoegde 50.O00. It was when the tame
practitioners who fought still dominate and the meetings were held at the corporative
congress in Paris in 1876 amid respectable bourgeois and under acclaim from the
press. No wonder, because there they proclaimed that the period of revolution in France
was over. Yet despite all this conference the first awakening of the French proletariat after
the bloody May days of 1871.

It may certainly be called remarkable, that they are just a few anarchists, which the
collectivist movement have been rolling in France. We mean Dr. Paul Brousse. [178] and
Jules Guesde [179] - his real name is Basile, but because of the bad sense of that name
attached [180] , he wears his mother's name - a leaf spending Montpellier Les droits de l
'homme during the emperor. Guesde was soon introduced to the prison. When the
Commune of Paris was proclaimed, he campaigned for her in Montpellier, so he was
sentenced after the suppression up to 5 years' imprisonment for an article for the
glorification of the Commune. However, he managed to escape to Geneva, where he
joined the International. Jules Guesde, the head of the French Marxists, and Paul
Brousse, the chief of the possibilisten, once both were members of the Alliance de la
dmocratie-socialist, they were anarchists and Guesde was even suspected by the
General Council as a policeman. Conversely, he fought the council, to organize laborers
prevented freely in each country according to their own understanding and accused the
Germans in that council, that they wanted to lord it over all and pretended there was no
salvation was beyond their orthodox authoritarian church . Banished from Switzerland, he
settled in Italy, but was back again in France by an amnesty in 1876. To what extent Paul
Lafargue [181] , the son of Marx, influence exerted on him, we do not know, but when he
in 1877 Egalit founded, he was shifted to the right noticeable. One dared even to the
workers' congress in Lyon in 1877 saying that the teachers and students of socialism had
to find a different stand from that of a national congress of the French workers, was felt
even then that was a more socialist movement approaching. They wanted to hold an
extraordinary congress at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1878, but was banned by the
unlawful actions of the chief of police and then Guesde with his still decided to come
together into a private discussion, the approximately 34 participants were captured
because of offense against the law relating to the International. Guesde kept the defense
speeches and made this process a wonderful propaganda for socialism. Precisely
because the attention of the workers became more established and collectivism at the
congress in Marseille in 1879, the collectivists achieved even victory. Everything pointed
to a change in the spirits. On April 20, 1879 the old revolutionary Blanqui was elected
deputy and on June 9 it was released from prison in which he all taken together had spent
the best part of his life.

His party organized itself and brought movement among the workers of Paris. Paul
Brousse gave Proltaire and repeatedly came across this in fierce polemics with Guesde
and his Egalit . The jealousy was already present. Was Guesde at the congress in
Marseille in charge of the control of a program and joined thereto in connection with
Malon [182] , the old Internationalist and Communard, who could return after years of
exile by the amnesty in France, Lafargue, and he later went to London, of using Marx and
Engels to draw up a program, which also later became the program of the workers'
party. It has already split the program into two parts, a principle which is socialist program
and talks about the socialization of work and a practical work program, which contains
nothing socialist and an ordinary radical reform program. The London imported program
that worked unfavorably for the first election of 1881, even though it did fight. The majority
of the National Committee, which was established in Paris, arose as a band to serve
between six provincial unions, namely: Paris (center), Lyon (east), Marseille (south),
Bordeaux (west), Lille ( north) and Algiers, which was the party, was on hand from
Brousse that nor Malon intend was to submit to Guesdes leadership. Bush wanted to
place the emphasis on the fight on communal area, thinking that they could reach as more
practicality and he said: "Nous Voulons fractionner notre but jusqu'au le rendre possible
(we'll crumble our aim to make it possible). Therefore Guesde called him and his
"possibilisten", which name soon inburgerde. To St. Etienne came in 1882 to a split and
the so-called Marxists or guesdisten 24-strong which 34 groups representing, left the
congress there to constitute itself to Roanne. How does one then thought about this
group, one can deduce from the words with which Clovis Hugues, the poet and the only
former representative of the workers' party in the House are leaving greeted: "One does
not undertake serious with men, led by a Torquemada with pince-nez ... you're Basile
what the name and Basile about your act, but now you are turned out, you're fled, ye have
saved you, you have left St. Etienne, afraid of the light, which is about city spread. "the
name of the called party possibilistic was Fdration franaise des travailleurs socialists
rvolutionnaires that the guesdisten Parti Ouvrier. Lafargue and Guesde called the first of
the Fdration des lcheurs socialists de France (men who unleashed
socialism). Brousse joined the notion of Csar De Paepe, who wanted beginning to
neighbor the services publics (public services). Thus, eg. The railways, municipal
bakeries, which give the bread free of charge only to the poor and later to all, and once in
this area, one expands the scope of the municipal and state activity more and more. He
fears nothing more than a revolution, which would harm back to work, he prefers the path
of evolution. Of a general strike, he wants to know nothing. Later again split in the party at
the congress in Chatellerault, (1890) and each of the groups calls to her captain, viz.
Broussisten and allemanisten. The scourge of boulangism brought confusion everywhere,
including in the labor movement, because it led to all sorts of compromises. As received
broussisten support and money from the government, that they would fight the scourge of
boulangism, while part of the Blanquists openly sided with the "social" General Boulanger
and it is an open secret that the guesdisten were about to pack bag and turn to the
Boulangist party, just then the fall of Boulanger kept them for this shameful step.

It has been in France the following socialist groups:

1. allemanisten, purporting Parti ouvrier socialiste rvolutionnaire;
2. Broussisten or Fdration des travailleurs socialists and France;
3. guesdisten or Parti Ouvrier franais;
4. Blanquists or rvolutionnaire central committee.
 Apart from these groups has been the Independants or Independents who aversion of
all parties united to form a new party, enclose the different schools of anarchist and one
has a sample of the socialist groups, which are found in France.

Fundamental difference exists between the parties, to the exclusion of anarchism, not
because all walk the same parliamentary road, all of them in the ground of the matter
possibilisten and although the party name the least impact - outside Paris nearly all - its
principles have triumphed, because the others have all fallen into its waters. The
allemanisten are the most in the economic field and as workers - no match exists
exclusively of workers than this - an aversion to all politicians, and if they participate in the
elections, they see this as less important, but this does not way that if one goes once to
concentrate on the slippery path of elections, one forced by the urge of the circumstances
themselves with all the force reforms. Again, that one can not serve two masters at the
same time. Those that choose the political path as carrying the conquest of political
power, which must wholeheartedly concentrate on it and can not have much heart for the
economic struggle, even then if he wants to participate in that field. Who spends money
eg. For the election, he can not do it for strikes, because the money can only be spent
once. so one must choose whether to share, but not halting between two opinions. Is it
practical work program with its demands for reform within the context of contemporary
society generally, then the theoretical socialist principle program aside will be made and
makes this service only as a showpiece to be on solemn occasions festively decorated
and shown around, eg. On meifeesten but to return quietly then be put in the stable. The
allemanisten inform the general strike in the foreground, so the struggle between
employers and wage-earning. Allemane himself asks this as a peaceful battle, in which
the vanquished employers will beg for mercy, but it is necessary that each participant in
that battle, so each worker has an adequate stock in reserve, in order to live for some
time without working. Others want to make a war chest and thus count: Set the number of
workers at six million, this is - the family calculated on 4 people - 24 million people. And
one 1 franc counts daily, this 24 million is frank, needed daily, and thus to maintain the
one month - that that is the likely duration of a strike - required 30 times 24 or 720 million
francs. Still others want to start the strike on the eve of a payment for the workers to be
able to sustain a long-term in any case. The allemanisten are also advocates of direct
legislation by the people, and as a result, hence eliminating chamber, senate and council
of state. Of course they are therefore diametrically opposed to the politicians who just
want to preserve these bodies, for which they were different? In place of the political
wheels like they purely economic or administrative, in the form of commissions, to do
nothing else than to give effect to the decisions of the nation. Especially in Paris they have
a lot of influence and Allemane, an old communard which always his duty as a
revolutionary held brave, is also well regarded by the proletariat in Paris. However, in the
House came in 1900 he showed how depraved acts of the political atmosphere, as he
went, his independence prize-giving, through thick and thin along with Minister Millerand.

A small fraction, called failletisten to the councilor Faillet, seceded in 1896 because the
sum demanded by the committee central of elected officials as part of their salary to their
party, their was too high and they do not comply with that provision subjects wanted. The
Blanquists, following their master proponents of great centralization, always a
revolutionary party and show themselves supporters of the general strike. After they have
let us use at the congress of the International by the Marxists, to banish the anarchists,
they have a short time later at enmity with this hit, but more towards each other in later
time both groups extended and undoubtedly personal friendship Edouard
Vaillant [183] with Liebknecht contributed purpose hers.

It was Benoit Malon, which provided the impetus in 1885 to a party formation of
independents. This took a position between Marx and Bakunin and practiced by
his Revue Socialiste , founded in the same year, no doubt much influence. His amiable,
being already spent peaceful nature hers in, so he later as a kind of high priest had a
circle of admirers. A writer he was, though he made several books. His uncritical Histoire
du socialism delivers this sufficient evidence. He called his socialism "le socialism
intgral" [184] - the title of a book in two parts, in which his best essays united - which
took some of all systems in order to come finally to a very vague socialism, in which
nearly all people of good will could find a place. At his death in 1893 turned pro. Georges
Renard continued his task as editor of the Revue Socialiste and the level of this magazine
was much increased since that time. Rouanet later took over the editorship and that
generally distinguishes the magazine by a less sectarian spirit than many others.

Among the independent came to join several former radicals and then the skilled lawyer
Millerand [185] as editor of the Petite Republique this sheet mainly resulted in their
interest when they were considerably strengthened. The Court explained that in its
meeting on February 19 for a program that was co-signed by Jaurs, Lafargue, Jourde,
Dumay. Baudin Hovelaque and Boyer, in which the major political and social reforms
deemed necessary to combat reactionary barriers exist: revision of the 1875 law in
democratic spirit sweeping changes in the condition of the working classes in city and
country, social legislation and taxation, as well as reversals of national ownership, the
Bank of France, the mines and railways from the hands of the big financiers. Of course,
this program was rejected by an overwhelming majority, but as a minimum program they
went with it into the sea at the elections in 1893, they achieved an unexpected
success. Both this program of St. Mande and the agriculture program, created with the
goal to win the laborers for himself, both show how one moves toward state
socialism. Here are the demands of the congress in Nantes (1894) on agriculture:
agricultural fund for invalids and old men, formed by a special tax on the income of the
large estates; purchase of agricultural machinery by the municipality, with support from
the state, or lease at cost; establishment of associations of rural workers to buy fertilizer,
seed corn, plants, etc. and for the sale of goods.; abolition of transfer fees for properties
below 5000 francs; reduction of leases by committees of arbitration in Ireland, and
compensation for the increased value given to the land to tenant farmers and farmers rent
their departure; waiver of Article 2102 of the Civil Code, a privilege granting the harvest to
the owners; lifting may put the batter on the field used fruit; formation of a reserve by the
farmer, which are paid plowing, fertilizer and livestock indispensable to the conduct of the
business; revision of the register and, pending the overall implementation of this measure
revision of parc up to the municipalities; free courses in agricultural sciences and
experimental fields.

On the one hand it preaches the destruction of the small land and the other one wants
to protect small landowners against the tax, usury and competition from the big
landowners. There lurks nothing socialist in those requirements, each radical can unite,
and even English, though his French friends save to compromise as much as possible,
said in a critique of the program: "How easy it slides down, once one on the ramp is "and
acknowledged that the different points" could be implemented without causing substantial
damage to the existing capitalist society "better codification of small landed property is still
completely different from the socialist requirement:. abolition of all private ownership of
land, because the land belongs to all. Also can be seen from such programs, how they will
increasingly rely on the state.

In 1899 Millerand dropped them to the Ministry Waldeck Rousseau, and he went even
sit next to the infamous murderer of the Commune, the General Gallifet. This was too
much and the guesdisten in association with the Blanquists protested against in a
manifesto. Where it is the duty of socialists to wrest power from the bourgeoisie to exploit
them for their own benefit itself, since one can hardly her with her. Yet we see in
condemning Millerand, rather than taking in a bourgeois ministry, consistent
condemnation of parliamentary action in general, because nor the socialist party to share
power with the bourgeoisie, in whose hands the state can only be a tool conservation and
social oppression, nor can it share the representative power of the bourgeoisie, in whose
hands the parliamentary system can only be a tool of conservation and social
oppression. In two ways one can get their hands on power, either by revolutionary means
or by gradual, parliamentary road. One has first abandoned for several years, what
remains but to walk the other? The logic is on the side of Millerand, backed by
Jaurs [186] , Viviani and others, but on the other hand follows the consequence that
people say socialism goodbye to simply be a normal democratic reform party. All the
guesdisten are right in their opposition, they also condemn the policy being followed by
them, and this will not acknowledge it. A conference was held in Paris, where the parties
violently collided, but the end of the song was that it spared the cabbage and the goat
because Millerand applied the word: j'y suis et j'y reste (I'm and there I stay there). In
appearance, there was a unit has been established between the various groups and they
now had a moment one big socialist workers party in France as in Germany, but in France
yeast and churns and boils. How long this unity would last? Nobody had power to say it,
but it is clear that only what can sustainably remain together what belongs together and
that artificial aggregation of hostile elements for a short time it may take, but impossible to
essentially permanent. Socialism is in any case pushed to the background and all that one
sees, as in France as elsewhere, is this that are applied under the name of social
democracy reforms of radicals and that moves toward state socialism.

The National Congress, which was kept to Paris after the International in September
1900, gave some paragon of confusion, it is almost a caricature to speak of unity
here. After one of the deputies had been injured, left the guesdisten with the cry "we
escape the murderers!" The audience. The moderate towards Jaurs triumphed. It
adopted a motion with the following content: "The Congress, whereas the debates shows
that already followed a different tactic, all members of the socialist party have acted in
good faith and with the sole purpose to serve their party's to the order of the day, "with the
addition of Vaillant to express his disapproval of the perpetrators, who are liable for the
killings of Chalon (where some workers have been shot dead during a strike) and their
accomplices, but the latter after the statement that the addition was not confined to
submitting a blemish on any socialist deputy. Finally, it was assumed that a new general
committee will be assembled to prepare a draft global association of the party, which will
be submitted for approval at a new conference. Meanwhile guesdisten go in the daily
newspaper Le Petit Sou continue to fight against Millerand and Jaures. Thus wrote
Lafargue: "One should either not familiar with modern socialism either distort it boldly to
meet Millerand to grant the status of socialist" and he called the party of Jaures "les lucky
ones," the people who want to come, a very correct name, especially when we know that
several friends of Millerand are already equipped with good jobs, among other things,
Jaures. We will see if there is a single artificial gefabriekt will then see how long it
lasts. [187]

The Pentecostal Congress in Lyon (May 28, 1901) Jaures would do a great piece of art
and unite the French Socialists into one big socialist party. But for the first group of so-
called guesdisten appeared there not, therefore, no unity, and between the Blanquists and
the ministerial socialists came to such a high current twist, the former left the meeting
room. Friends of Millerand, with Jaures at the head, had the slogan: either the socialist
unity with Millerand either no unity. They wanted to apply the so-called "sponge" theory
versus Chalon, Martinique and Montceau-les-Mines, where shot on work striking workers
as well as at the time to Fourmies Minister Constans, the extradition of Sipido to the
Belgian government, the expansion of the Italian Morgari from France, the knee bends for
the Russian Tsar. Of them wanted the others know nothing, they would no longer have
fellowship with a socialist as Millerand, which allows and tolerates everything, so he's
making itself complicit in any case. The ministerial resolution, which was adopted stated
that Millerand qualified had "hors du contrle du Parti" (beyond the control of the party),
the other other hand, told them that he had placed "hors du Parti" (outside the
party). There were harsh words alone, but also blows. One might say that this attempt at
union has failed miserably and still read it afterwards in the Petite Republique , "The Lyon
conference was the conference in Paris received the order to realize unity among
socialists. The Congress of Lyon has fulfilled that mission. "If one dares write that the
unity of the party is established, after which unit failed because one group is removed, this
is such a counterproductive misrepresentation of the case, that the word "humbug" this is
entirely appropriate. And yet there was a unit established, although not as intended, ie.
Between the guesdisten and Blanquists. However, it will be seen in the future, or two
groups who actually want the same thing and only diverge to formalities and personalities
eventually not have to come together. It summed up the matter in principle, one should
come to the anarchist critique of parliamentarism and one does not. Therefore, one can
speak quite a "querelle d'Allemagne". Millerand is a deterrent to all that as a socialist think
that can come to the desired reforms slowly and gradually by the parliamentary road,
because all Millerand doing a little very bold and awkward - think of his attitude when
receiving Russian emperor in France! - However, any socialist as have acted in the same
circumstances, even have to act. A socialist in a parliament or the head of a department is
required - there is no other! - Socialist state.

It seemed as if the fall of Chartism in England had slain the spirit of resistance, so that
relatively few signs of life were felt in the labor movement during the third quarter of the
19th century, a declaration for this should be taken two circumstances. First is the policy
of the show giving men been in England always wiser than those on the mainland. Each
time when the labor movement began to take a dangerous character, they gave one or
other desired reform, either wholly or in part, for in doing so break the strength of the
movement. They followed the tactic of throw a bone to a hungry dog, to keep him quiet for
a while and wondered. At that time, many of the demands of the Chartists partially
completed and one could almost say that Chartism was dead, but the Chartist principles
gradually been incorporated into political life. And secondly, it was a time of relative
prosperity and progress, by the huge development of trade and industry, so that national
wealth increased enormously. Exports tripled in 20 years and if it was true what Minister
Gladstone let slip once that a very small portion of that increase in wealth only benefited
the working classes, yet it is also true that in that period little was detected unemployment
and the demand for 'hands more hands "was high. Even the International, although
established in London, has never been able to shoot straight root in England and the
English workers knew for most of Marx's names and English is not, although both lived in
their midst, and their influence was strong, particularly in the German labor
movement. Just after that period of greatest prosperity in the field of trade and industry,
approximately by the year 1880 can be seen in almost all countries a revival of
socialism. In England, Belgium, Netherlands dates back to the founding of the Social
Democratic organizations of that time and various socialist newspapers and justice in
England, Social-Demokrat in Switzerland, Freiheit in London, Allen Law in the
Netherlands are all well established in those days.

The oldest club in England is the Social Democratic Federation, which

Hyndman [188] holds sway and is a thoroughbred in Marxist theory. This arose in 1883
from the 1881 founded Democratic Federation, including by Hyndman brought to life
include using the stepdaughter of John Stuart Mill, the famous Miss Helen Taylor.

Yet he was never really in the grace of the German Marxists, because he kept a certain
independence from them and did not use it as a blind tool of Marx and Engels. So they
saw the strange phenomenon that the Englishman, who was in the purest Marxist
doctrine, however, was not in the grace of the Marxists and personally more or less was
hostile to both men. Only at the International Congress in London in 1896 succeeded
Hyndman to bring in the waters of the German Social Democracy, so he was adopted
since also grace. He characterized, moreover, by the same hostile mind against
everything but smacks somewhat anarchic and every one who is not pure can to it in
Marxist doctrine, that in the Justice , the magazine of the party is underway. He also
followed Lassalle in his fight against the liberals and in this he went so far as to cover the
costs for a set of candidates in two London constituencies, was taken to the Tory party in
the arm in the years 1885, so that they are largely paid , only to thereby obtain divisions
and to fight the defeat of the liberals. Later, the Social Democratic Party sought to restore
its popularity by diligently to join the large unemployed movement of 1886 and 1887. The
"bloody" Sunday, November 13th, 1887, when the government violently ban to gather
persisted in Trafalgar Square, caused a process to the leaders as intellectual plotters, but
they were acquitted in court. Only John Burns, the well-known agitator, ran a small
punishment for resisting the police, which is not contributing enough to make him popular,
especially in the "unskilled" workers (the individual workers, who have no specific course).
 Already in 1884 there was split within the party caused by the overly authoritarian
Hyndman. The Socialist League was then established next to which William
Morris [189] and Eleanor Marx [190] , the daughter of Karl Marx participated with her
unworthy husband Edward Aveling. She gave her own magazine, the Commonweal out,
mainly led by Morris in more freedom-loving sense. Gradually, the magazine moved
entirely anarchist direction, until it disappeared in 1892 and different ones, like Aveling and
his wife returned back into the lap of the federation.

Despondent become about the snail's pace of the socialist movement Hyndman has by
thanking the members of the Board of the Social Democratic Federation, which he was
always the soul, retired in 1901 as the masses in England showed himself so little room
for socialist propaganda and he could not keep it full to work for the revolution amid
imbeciles.

Hyndman has three times had a very important discussion, viz. Agree with the known
Labouchre, the radical, agrees with Charles Bradlaugh, an equally radical but more
commonly known as a freethinker and finally once with Henry George. It was Bradlaugh,
him on that occasion asked the awkward question: "Will it be in a country where the
production and consumption are regulated by the state, are permissible, either by word or
pen about to criticize?" One might add: how far will be granted that right? Because we
know that the Social Democrats are very narrow-minded in allowing criticism in their own
circles and that ketterjagerij occasions already has occurred in all countries.

In 1883 there arose at the instigation of prof. Thomas Davidson of New York another
association, which called itself the Fabian Society, which was named after the famous
Roman general Fabius Cunctator, who exercised the afmattingtactiek against the
Carthaginian general Hannibal. Their motto is: "We must wait for the right moment, as
Fabius did with great patience when he made war against Hannibal, though he was
criticized by many. But when the time comes, we must make the offensive vigorously
following the example of Fabius, otherwise it would have been waiting in vain and
useless. "

This association, consisting largely of men and women and according to the annual
report in 1896, counting 739 members, including 148 women, operates in the following
manner: 1. by holding meetings to discuss issues pertaining to socialism; 2. by
establishing an economic issues; 3. by publishing documents in the social field with
arguments in favor of socialism; 4. by giving lectures and debates in other associations or
clubs; 5. by representing the association in other meetings or conferences. Thus, the
association had its representatives at the London Congress of 1896. In principle, it
assumes that society must be reorganized by transferring the ownership of the factors of
production to the community for public benefit. So the abolition of private property and the
associated appropriation of the rent and also the transfer of the management of all capital
in the service of production, for so distant that can be driven by the community. They
declare themselves openly state socialists and are strong supporters of municipal
socialism, as it reveals itself in taking over and managing various branches of public
service, such as gas, water, telephone, tram, etc. The honest recognition that it is
socialists. - which is denied by the social Democrats, although they work exactly in the
same sentence - draws us into them and all the more because they are not as narrow-
minded and intolerant of dissenters, if that is the case with the sectarian socialists who
have some sort of church with the only true faith, Marxism is without which no
salvation. The Fabian Essays in socialism [191] , a series of lectures by Bernard Shaw,
Sidney Webb, William Clarke, Sydney Olivier, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas and Hubert
Bland, lights completely in about purpose and aim of the fabians. Useful labor is supplied
by several of them, eg. The classic book on the British trade union nature of the couple
Sidney and Beatrice Webb [192] .

Their influence in all circles is undoubtedly great and all their socialism is not wrongly
called a "salon socialism", as it is beyond the workers, yet they work their way favorable
and they bring a very different spirit among many. The new fraternity with its leaf Seed-
time (sowing time) and Macdonald as its secretary works more from the inside out,
because they want to do radiate by example in the home and social life impact on the
environment.

In addition to the Social Democratic Federation (SDF), the Independent Labour Party,
popularly called ILP which Keir Hardie's Glasgow president since 1893. Both associations
are more or less hostile to each other, in any case they are competitors. When Keir Hardie
in 1896 as Member of Parliament resigned, he was not supported by the Federation, and
then put a little bad blood. He attacked at the polls, however, to be re-elected in 1900. The
protest of Keir Hardie does against the intolerance of the Marxists to keep the anarchists
of the conference in London, shown, it had a broader view, which, however, was resented
by the narrow-minded Marxists. Also this association wants the general property of all
production, exchange and distribution resources, parliamentary work and exerts little
influence. Attempts to both associations, which want the same thing actually, do merge,
have so far been encountered mainly in personal rivalry. ILP will find her body in
the Labour Leader , the SDF has in Justice .

Among the Socialists also included Blatchford, who with his magazine The Clarion was
very successful and whose book Merrie England (Happy Kingdom) [193] under the
pseudonym Numquam sold in unprecedented numbers. He takes it to the "socialist
nonsense," his work calls it "hiring recruits for the socialist camp, for he is not a general,
but an officer of the depot yard," but it actually is a socialist. Only reads what he writes:
"We would nationalize the railways, ships, canals, shipyards, mines and farms and bring
all these industries managed by the state . We would have a minister of agriculture, as
well as present a postmaster-general. This should ensure that his department enough
bread and vegetables for all delivered as the Postmaster General is now responsible for
the transport and delivery of our letters. So we would gradually bring all the land and all
the means of production owned by the State and thus gradually organize our
industry. (Chapter XIV. Italics ours.) Even the degree of freedom would depend on the
state, as "a socialist state would all give us as much freedom as we need." But who
decides who needs? Of course, the state. It takes so round in circles. Yet he is in his
reflections freer than we are used to this from others, if at least for the possession of
power his actions were consistent with his words. Incidentally, he showed to be endowed
with very chauvinistic sentiments during the war in South Africa, not asking for justice and
fairness, but only to Britain's power and greatness.
 The landnationaliseerders also drive a very lively propaganda and their Red Van
company (Red Pickup) has quite a success and emulated. With a president of the
association, the learned naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, therefore can best come to the
fore.

Apart from all these anarchists are also found in England, though their number is not
large, and they have only the monthly magazine Freedom . Generally, it is individualism in
England have been highly regarded and we find therefore more tolerance between the
parties themselves than in other countries. England is covered with associations of all
kinds and in it than the adherents of the different systems meet in person. William Morris
and his freedom-loving spirit worked beneficial to many and if he woke, especially after
the numerous attacks in Paris, for a moment, hoping for the Social Democrats, that he
would return to them, yet it turned out that the freedom it won him over dogmatism and
worked more anarchic spirit.

If we want to compare the parties in England with those in France, do the fabians our
most reminiscent of the possibilisten, the SDF to guesdisten and the ILP to
allemanisten. The names may differ, the essence remains the same everywhere, though
reveals the mind here too tolerant and less dogmatic narrow-minded than elsewhere.

We could continue in the same way and each country in particular treating, but with
change of names reveals socialism are developing the same characteristics
everywhere. First one was by far the most countries anarchic mood, especially in the Latin
countries such as Italy, France, Spain, but also the Netherlands and Belgium voted for the
Congress of the International against the exclusion of Bakunin; later found the political
path as enviable as there along various socialists were able to satisfy their ambition by
being part of the political bodies in the state. In most countries towards won it, which is not
surprising since they opened the field for the "strevers", which are found everywhere
except there, where there are no prospects for strevers to gain name, fame or benefit and
there the streversras at a time, which is not a lack of knowledge, but exists in nature, has
become increasingly bigger, maybe we find them nowhere stronger than in this party, so
that the rising sun. The more detailed discussion of the three great empires of Europe that
set the tone in all, France is the country of the ideas and ideals, England, the land of the
practice are all superlative economic development and Germany, the land of the stiff
discipline, where the established military and semi-absolutist mind can not imagine
another organization than that reveals itself in the bureaucracy, it is almost unnecessary
to deal with the other countries, the more so because the movement gives nothing new
viewpoints. Everywhere there are socialists of an original revolutionary party that
understands as a party to stand squarely in front of the society in all its manifestations and
do not want to know transigeren or closing a compromise, so unforgiving is gradually
getting under the influence of German political method and thereby turn it into a legal
party, which could be called English model as "Her Majesty's most loyal opposition." Was
it not the Frankfurter Zeitung , which with pleasure noted after the party days of the
German Social Democratic Party, which she started as a decidedly revolutionary, but it is
no longer in reality, and that for those who have attentively followed the last batch days
this no doubt, and there is only one thing missing, viz., that the party pronounce openly
and with clarity? Did not write the Nieuwe Rotterdam Courant : "Our Socialists have
become so mannered in recent years, have so nice parliamentary crimped and pomaded,
that one should admit it to the idea: it stands for the slow beginning transformation of a
totally revolutionary idea party to do not really radical party, but still under the existing
social order yet elastic enough and sufficiently eight to party gradually, as it is with any
counter endeavor is to take on? "How the actual working element entirely on the light
touches and well as if the herd seemed to be considered in the church in which the clergy,
leaders, overseeing, lest they stray, one can see the best of circumstances, which the
deputies of the party in the legislative bodies . In Germany, the group was composed of a
few years ago: one lawyer, two rentiers, 10 editors, 4 brasserie holders, seven cigar
manufacturers and traders, three publishers, three merchants, and six people drove their
own business, so 0 actual wage workers. It is also impossible to keep wage laborer and
his deputy in a legislative body. Also at the party days is the actual wage laborer white
raven, while, moreover, a comparison of the names of delegates to party days shows that
it is almost a solid club that each year there rendezvous passes. Which wage worker
would also be a week - the time it takes such a party congress - can get time off to go to
attend a party convention and the wage worker would freely his opinion can say without
running to be penniless danger? Hence the petty-bourgeois element in the movement
sets the tone.

When we ask how it is that the petty-bourgeois element has crept into the social
democratic party to deprive stripping it of its sharp edges and its originally purely
proletarian and revolutionary character, than giving dr. Hans Mller in his Der
Klassenkampf in der deutschen Sozialdemokratie and Richard Calwer in his Das
Communist manifesto und die heutige Sozialdemokratie then the answer very satisfactory
manner. They point out that several workers who lost their position came to the fore, and
obviously were looking for a different profession to make a living. They found in a beer
house, a cigar shop, a bookstore, etc., but started coming in a different environment, they
unwittingly adopt a philistine standpoint. Nowadays one can whatsoever meet all his
needs, the clothes off the cigars far, with Social Democrats. The Social Democratic press
is ready for the carriage of a reactionary effort to advertise these petty matters and so one
timber according Calwer "the horses of socialism and the worker must put good money on
this useless, dangerous car. No one can blame these people, they driven by the need
create these companies and to agitate, they mean for themselves and the workers
best. But from the standpoint of the proletariat, these companies are a reactionary swindle
that damages the proletariat. Because they are attracted to support such companies pay
their money and have had before, they can get better with the large retailer. All of these
have yet such honest social-democratic views, their do onsocialistisch and is finally out
that civil strive, that the worker recommends to obtain the possibility of improving his
condition through self-help. Now is precisely these "petty bourgeois existenzen" in the
local movement is most active as agitators and leaders. "

It has become the Social Democratic Party to the petty-bourgeois socialism, which
Marx and Engels already prophetically warned the Communist Manifesto, speaking of
those "new petty bourgeoisie, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is" and they
condemn strongly in these words: " a second, less systematic but more practical form of
socialism sought to make the working class averse to any revolutionary movement by
showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in material conditions of
existence, in economic relations , it could be useful. Among changes in the material
conditions of existence this socialism means, however, not at the abolition of the
bourgeois relations of production, which is possible only by a revolution, but the
introduction of administrative improvements that are possible on the basis of the present
system of production , and is therefore absolutely no change placing on the relation
between capital and wage labor, but, at best, reduce the cost of the rule of the bourgeoisie
and simplify the administrative work. "(italics ours.)

And they end up with the manifest overt statement that the goal can only be achieved
"by the forcible overthrow of all existing social order."

It's that petty-bourgeois socialism, which presides in social democracy, and thereby has
actually ceased to be a socialist party. When I was about 10 years ago pointed out that
the Social Democratic Party had lost in depth what they had gained in breadth, when I
was accused of slander and suspicion certainly be called a remedy, when a few years
later one of the accusers, Bebel came the recognition: "the party has grown in spiritual
development more in breadth than in depth, we have quantitatively greatly increased, but
have not improved in quality." He pointed to the civilian people, who as moderates the
party broke and did perish by the party which opportunism. It was a small party, who
knows what she wants, rather than a large and unruly. Even he has thought about after
the congress in Berlin to take in his place in the party leadership, because he could not
reconcile himself with the course of business. But he has the Rubicon could not move, he
did not place the moral power had its principle over his position as party leader and the
end of the song was that the same Bebel plenty threw into the arms of the opportunism, to
vigorously join help, in order that party to do so to perish and deform into a petty-
bourgeois democratic reform party.

And when Liebknecht battle mode, all of parliamentarism, the participation in any
activity by legislation (party congress in Halle, protocoll p. 56/57) called anarchist, then
condemn one has as yet not always thought the same thing about, at least in an article
the Sozialdemokrat from the year 1883 can read one of Bernstein's hand, saying:

"The parliamentarism is generally nothing can be sympathetic to what a democrat and

especially not for the extreme consequence going democrat, ie a social democrat. Rather,
it is to his whole being undemocratic, because it means the board of a class, or the
bourgeoisie. "

At our meeting, we want to make an exception in one country and be with Belgium,
because a different method has been followed, we would like to distinguish the German
mention the Belgian. There were two methods, which finally flowed together into a single,
because they joined hands. We mean the cooperative made to serve socialism. We know
how the German Social Democrats under the influence of Lassalle's scathing criticism,
demonstrating that the workers are not the best and strongest were printed as consumers
but as producers, never were particular proponents of the cooperative. Yes, one could in
front of the self-help of the cooperative Schultze-Delitzsch places state aid Lassalle. In
England, the cooperative movement was independently its own way. So it was in Belgium
that the honor (?) Belonged to link cooperative and socialism together. That is why we are
somewhat closer in to take consideration the Belgian movement.

During the International Belgium took vigorous part in the movement and it is instructive
to follow the movement of the hand of a man who has seen her almost from the
beginning, and so can speak from experience. [194]

The foundation of the first division of the International dates from 1867, but rebounded
soon set to rise reborn in 1870, this second edition is the later socialist movement and
hence forward. Was the spiritual headquarters of the International in Brussels, where dr.
Csar De Paepe the weekly magazine L'International issued where the democratic
newspaper La Libert was edited by Victor Arnould and with the support of Hector Denis
and Guillaume Degreef. The Belgians were on the side of Bakunin, they rejected the
political direction, universal suffrage derided as a means for the people to deceive,
laughed with cooperative and save as many sleeping pills, invented by the liberals, to the
people sweetly hold. But they had no control over the people. The trade union movement
was paralyzed and quarrels spent another division among those who see the point of
uniting.

The bread was expensive in 1873, viz. 50 centimes the kilogram, and so they came to
the idea to found a cooperative bakery. Not that this idea was new, oh no there were
already 4 or 5 in Ghent cooperating bakeries, but it was not the taste. Edmond van
Beveren and Paul White, who had already become friends during the International Ghent,
joined thereto to spite their few welcomed the cooperative. Again they founded the
International in 1874 and thereby soon joined the youthful Edward Anseele to. Although
full of goodwill they did not have much knowledge of socialism and now to get informed,
they took out a subscription to the People's State , the principal organ of the German
Social Democracy, which Beveren and White could read. So they came into the school of
the Germans, and they have the party therefore completely finalized their model. Unlike
other Belgian socialists and the tradition of the International they rejected the autonomy of
the groups and sections on tactics and principle and carried it to the iron discipline and
centralization, which the Belgian party to date stands as the German. They could be seen
severely and managed to get such support. The bakery was not well in the beginning and
we must say that the socialist leaders left are situated little attention to the case. To make
her entrance with the public find it spent part of the principle, ie. Good bread baking,
sacrifice to the material benefit, profit. And so it began to gain customers. They went
peddling with the weekly The Worker , they founded a library, in a word, they worked
vigorously and diligently for propaganda.

Although they were convinced that with questions and beg to get nothing but that one
had to take by force, it was found that the revolutionary or purely economic tactics not
particularly going and why they started down a different path. "We thought they should, by
doing politics in the revolution" - so says Paul White very naive. They wanted to start a
Belgian Socialist Workers Party and for that purpose they met in Ghent on April 1, 1877,
but it failed because the Walloons wanted to preserve their independence and Beveren
and Anseele wanted a strong party under their leadership. Flemings went their separate
ways and then founded at Pentecost Mechelen Flemish Socialist Workers Party on the
basis of the old International. Gradually also joined the Brussels associations and
Verviers, and so grew there, the Belgian Socialist Workers Party. Ghent was the main
stronghold of socialism in Belgium. There was also held a congress of the International in
1877, where again Marxists and Bakuninists collided. The latter, however, lost it and it
was done in Belgium with the International. Still increased arrogance of Beveren and
Anseele, whose conjoined twin brothers to the end always went together and there were
no prosecutions brought, which the propaganda which flickered, the inner strife would
have gotten the upper hand. The People's Will was born edited by Anseele. Since the
bakery went well, the profits began to be hungry, which threw off the cooperative, but it did
not succeed to get them and when they saw this, they seceded and founded the
Forward. To do that the company had not again would escape the hands of the socialists,
they put in the rules that the board could only be chosen from the members of trade
unions, which are members of the socialist party guarantee. It is mainly due to Emiel de
Cock that the case of bloomed ahead and although Anseele and Beveren, in the
beginning not so bad raved, she reconciled with the plans of the Cock. It was Paul White,
who was already Anseele entertained the ambition which he revealed in all his doings and
on that occasion Anseele recognized to want to be a great man, because a life without
honor and glory it seemed to him not worth it but he never said it would make abuse of, as
he would use his greatness for the benefit of the people.

The example of Jacob van Artevelde, whose image p Friday Market, one of the squares
in Ghent, state, certainly has always been envisioned him.

It was not long Beveren and Anseele seized ahead and soon the company was the
main bakery of the city. For a moment it seemed as if Anseele [195] would perish. He had
to give way and volunteered at Domela at The Hague in order to be positioned as a
typesetter. This felt sorry that he would not stay in Ghent. Upon written DN addressed the
comiteit and managed to settle the matter, so that he could return to Ghent again. The
enemies of previously reconciled to pull together on the same line. From that time Anseele
remained the soul of the cooperative in Ghent and there one cooperative and socialism
for the same issued, including the Social Democratic party there. In 1885, but Anseele
founded the Belgian Workers' Party was could it not supreme lord it, as he beside, if not
faced a talented man found standing, especially Jean Volders [196] , which received a lot
of influence in Brussels and later of the captains was the Belgian Workers Party. As a
theorist remained Csar De Paepe [197] have much impact. This, an anarchist from
home, swerved back to the right under the influence of Marx, but although he participated
in the reformist party of social democracy, yet he remained averse to fanaticism, a
peculiar characteristic of her in all countries, and wide enough to view to appreciate
dissenters. Not partisan enough in the bad sense of the word, he is also quite forgotten
soon after his death in 1890 by the party, all will be apparent to, to uphold his
memory. Socialism became more and more in the background; the program of the party is
largely radical, and are already fulfilled the enumerated rules and regulations, one has
only a statutory system of wage slavery, nothing more.

Who goes to Belgium and there will notify you, coming soon discover that there are
socialist means to being co-operator and which very few know anything of socialism,
though they will vote for the Social Democratic candidates. Incidentally, the general trend
in this country is very low, so there is little read and propaganda, that is made often exists
in pub propaganda under the influence of intoxicating beverages, which are used in large
quantities.

The movement for universal suffrage took large proportions. The

brothers. Defuisseaux [198] stood by the front and one of them, Alfred gave a People's
Catechism from, who made an amazing entrance. After a procession of unemployed in
Lige in March 1886 several shops were looted. Everything was in that area in motion, the
movement soon hit on to Charleroi, where castles and monasteries were looted and
caused widespread devastation in various glassworks at Lodelinsart, Dampremy and
Ransart. The large glassworks Baudoux in Jumet was reduced to ashes. General fear
seized the citizenry, the government sent the notorious general of Smisek upon it and it
soon brought calmness so that order prevailed in Belgium, but at the cost of several
people who were short and well shot. Heavy penalties were handed out to the so-called
instigators. So got two glassblowers, Oscar Schmidt Falleur and every 20 years in prison,
Alfred Defuisseaux for his People's Catechism five years, but they knew in time for the
spring dance to flee to France. Strange that Ghent, called the focus of socialism,
remained calm. What was the reason? The cooperative. They possessed something and
hold always makes conservative. Anseele brought the excited tempers calm down and
cried all yours: let our institutions do not compromise, let us remain calm!

Of course this made an unfavorable impression, one accused of Walloon side to

Anseele he knew to stoke the fire, but it died down as it was burning. Several people saw
this phenomenon and understood the conservative force, which was trapped in the
cooperative, thus fueled the founding of collaborative bakeries along the lines of Forth
Ghent and most came therefore to growth and prosperity. In the heat of his speech
Anseele misspoke himself once, so he took a trial for majesty insult to the neck, as a
result of which he was sentenced to six months. As his popularity with the masses was
increased, although his attitude in court was anything but proud because he testified that
the words to the king had escaped him in the heat of his speech.

The Liberals, who were subdued by the clericals, managed to use the Social
Democrats in order to obtain the extension of suffrage in the hope that thereby they would
come to power again. In August 1890 they held a brilliant successful demonstration in
Brussels and peculiar how the advocates of political action made use of the economic,
viz. A strike to obtain their political rights. While the miners went on strike in Hainaut, and
the Borinage, again remained calm Ghent. This aroused discontent, especially against
Anseele, nicknamed Sweet flag was shown. [199]

Finally we managed to get it so far by the strikes, which came a constitutional

amendment raised in the House in 1892 and was so decided. To force the Constituent
Assembly threatened they always stopped with a general strike and although Ghent,
Anseele could stop the flow no longer and at the Congress of the workers party, held in
Ghent on 2 and April 3, 1893, he stated that Ghent would participate as they decided to
strike. On April 11, the Constituent Assembly rejected universal suffrage, which was
proposed by Janson. The general strike was declared by the National Council, although
Anseele warned that there should not be expected too much succor from Forward, yet
they also decided to Ghent increasing. The strike took place on two large factories, others
followed. In other places it went so well. But how to maintain? That was the issue. It was
thought the government to have cornered and they sat themselves. Luckily the mediation
proposal of Fron both by the government and by the General Council of the Labour Party
was accepted, because that both came from the inconvenience: the government could not
caved boast to be the revolt and the workers party raised there at that they are universal
suffrage, if the plural had enforced. Forward came off well, because the strike cost a
penny to society. Finally, the workmen were as usual the deceived, she also said it's been
worthwhile to strike, because what benefit there two and three our one vote, as citizens
and rich have so stay crush us? They understood more and more that the strike had been
one big hoax of the leaders.

The devices of Forth became bigger and more beautiful, but the number grew
increasingly dissatisfied. They said, what we have those magnificent buildings? They are
among us, even as the town hall, St. Bavo, the big gun, etc. belong to us. Could you sell
your share in it? Try to take a few of your property and you soon get locked up.

In the first elections were different Social Democrats in parliament. They were beside
themselves with joy. The radicals came off badly, but Lorand was perfectly right when he
said our men have been defeated, but victorious our principles. Indeed won the Social
Democrats, but ... because they had put socialism on hand. If ever there has been
tampered with in any country, then it can safely be said of Belgium, where even in some
areas liberals, radicals and socialists together went.

How clean everything ahead resembled, as one saw it from outside and from afar, it
appeared that the inside was so nice not. At least after a speech by Anseele in the
Chamber, which he fulminated against one of the big manufacturers, said one of the
clerks in the Forward: "It is fortunate that we do not know in the House, which we know
whether he had been soon stopped the mouth. All of which he has since sued, exists in
Forth. "

Moreover, the tyranny there is unbearable and as Emperor Wilhelm once said: who
resists me, crush me, Anseele once said after the dismissal of an employee in the middle
of winter, a man with nine children (Penning): who is Come to me will feel my iron
arm. Also, the device according to the regulations so that there is no recourse against
injustice committed by the board, because the board consists of five members, who are
really only three belong and it actually dissolve in one person, namely: Anseele.

All depend on each other, throwing the ball to each other and so it is possible that
everything goes its own way, with no possibility of opposition. Members meetings mean
absolutely nothing, it cries every opponent down, as in publicizing complaints against
forward in the magazine Law for All by Paul White, a man who knows could and knew,
has shown, it tolerates no criticism and press the man that the brutality has to make its
public, quite simply without trial out.

The cooperative puts forward and once socialists do business, they get the famous
Trojan horse inside the fortress. Opposite the material advantages that the cooperative as
a means to pay off, it keeps too many eyes closed for much greater moral disadvantages,
which should bring the business. If the claim of the Socialists is true that reconciliation
between capital and labor is not possible, as long as both are not in the same hands are
united so coincide mutual interests, so longing for freedom and sense of responsibility are
in balance, there must collision, between a group that is doomed to the role of capitalist
(the board) and another who plays the role of wage slave (staff) or exist same links
between them, though they are wrapped in velvet, and between patterns and laborer.

It has been in Belgium the workers by trying to win the material benefits of the
cooperative for socialism, but many have been won - their socialism exists in the
cooperative. In addition, it adds the German parliamentary method in order thereby to
conquer political power to bring his men in the legislative bodies. But both the one and the
other method, either individually or united, is used to the detriment of genuine socialism
that neither parliaments nor cooperative to realize.

The youthful lawyer Emile Vandervelde has especially after the death of Volders that
insane by megalomania - he thought to be the king of the poor! - Is deceased, had great
influence. Occasionally he had radical tendencies, but rather one in the party and in
parliament he will not compromise, so he follows the mainstream. But he knows very well
that parliamentarianism is impossible to meet the expectations raised by many, as
evidenced by what he once in a lecture on Les contrepoids du parliamentarism (The
counterbalance of parliamentarism) according to the Avenir Social 1st ep. . No. 7 said:
"The parliamentary machine, excellent to pull the strings of the purse for the governments
of the ancien regime, is an odious instrument of social reform. She works slowly, slowly,
its effectiveness will be present at a minimum and as we progress, multiply the problems,
the solutions are necessary, business is getting worse and increases the discredited in
representative institutions.

Previously, the good people were convinced that doing a parliament all was well off, just
make a wife of a man or vice versa. Nowadays perhaps overreacting in the opposite
sense, but in any case one understands very well that legislative action is very limited,
relatively shallow, much less profound example. Than that of free associations or local
groups. "

How is it possible to make the ballot in such considerations to the hub for all the
reforms of the present and the future? If parliamentarism "is odious instrument of social
reform" one, why would they then spend thousands each year? Why so much time and
power wasted it? And if the "action of free associations or local groups" goes deeper than
that of the parliament, why not all the forces it spent to develop it? If the cause of
parliamentarianism is so weak, it may be assumed safely lost. So therefore represents
one of the spokespersons of the parliamentary socialist anarchists in their criticism of
parliamentarism actually in favor and we could say after such a statement as Caiaphas:
What we have further witnesses?

How are the opposition, also encountered Alice Source, faithful to the building of the
party participated, but who finally Eye scales have fallen. She has broken with the party
and of the reasons accounted for in a brochure Apple honntes aux gens (Action on the
honest people). It expressed its views thus very clear and clearly defined in the words: "If I
balance sheet layout, I acknowledge that if I was voter, I would vote for the candidates of
the Labour Party, but I repeat that these political party nothing with socialism, with which it
adorned "she concludes that". Whatever the motive they which they have responded by
showing such a hateful indifference, the fact remains: the socialist deputies, sent to the
Chamber to defend the rights of the poor, have not fulfilled their promises, have failed to
discharge their duty - they are unworthy word breakers and their silence is the conviction
of the party to which they belong "and it accuses the leaders of the People's House too.
Brussels, that "if one of their misfortune was going mad and imagining having a kingdom
held in, he would believe to be king - no more." an allusion to Volders, who still have love
in his illness to the poor and kept himself king imagined the poor.

In addition to the official party, which has many of its members in the Chamber and
local councils, a small fraction is found from libertarians, some opposition to her and partly
leaning to anarchism. Namur one has the weekly La Bataille , in Brussels, the bi-monthly
magazine L'Emancipation recently three times a week has begun to appear, in Liege the
bi-monthly magazine Le Rveil des Travailleurs dr. Hnault, in the French part of the
freedom-loving ideas acting and recently banished from the Workers' Party, while in the
Flemish big cities like Antwerp, Ghent, Mechelen, etc. small groups count in its midst, who
takes hold the banner of freedom from state socialism up.

Since now all other countries show the same symptoms, but it would be a repetition to
tell its history. The international labor movement is through the application here of German
elsewhere on the Belgian method, also known by the application of them, has become a
regular reformist movement, which the revolutionary character of yesteryear more or less
is considered contraband, yes, sometimes reactionary factor is denounced. But thus it
actually occurs in the context of actually saying socialism, whose propaganda is left to
libertarian socialists and anarchists.

Mixed or semi-state and semi-free-socialism

The rational socialism of Colins

A separate place belongs to the Belgian Baron de Colins, made by his friends is the
real father of socialism, because he's in a book entitled Le pacte social and dating from
1835, even before Pecqeur so, often as a father it is called, has advocated the view that
the property belongs to all.

At age 17 he went to Paris to leave the polytechnic school to visit there, but carried
away by the fame of Napoleon took place in his army, the great battles of the commander
attended to France after his fall. After some wandering, we find him in Havana on a
plantation, while he also held the position of physician. Then in Paris the revolution broke
out in 1830, he rushed there to help with the coronation of Napoleon II, but when he died
in 1832, he said goodbye to politics to devote himself to his social studies. Most of his
writings date from between the years 1840 and 1850, but they mostly stayed at first in
manuscript, since he had no money to give them self and not a publisher could find who
dared take on their risk, until finally one wealthy man thought she had printed.
 Those books [200] have a right tiresome reading because they are systematic and
coherent so little and very true is the picture of prof. Quack, who imagines him, "as he
wrapped in his home games in his room, surrounded by dusty books which opened
beaten ahead of him, as does a kind of social Faust, muses, combines, and from all the
obvious replacement materials are magical constructs building. But the mind always drag
him: the one incident displaces the other: sometimes suddenly rising skyward spirit and
dreams the mind, while the eyes seemingly engaged in sightings on Earth. There is in
those transitions of impressions and sensations little order and coherence. The quote
from the book, which was canned, the corridor states of ideas. "

He studied diligently lived during his years in Paris and colleges visited the five
faculties, is to criticize everything, but one can not say that all these substances, which he
took in his duly processed by him that he is subject to express it so, had mastered. That
stately list of volumes produced by him, it is more preparatory work than they create the
impression of being completed work. Or maybe he took a bigger task then cleared his
head?

Colin says discovers absolute truth and to have invented the only possible social
system and the small crowd of students, he has also performed faithfully to stiffen him in
that thought. He calls his system the "rational socialism ', thus all other irrational
rejecting. It is based on a philosophy which is based on the immortality of our spiritual
being. He believes in the soul, but deny God, because if there was a God, the people
would be no different than he made machines. He spiritualist-atheist. "If man is dust,
then there is no freedom except in appearance ; if man is dust, there is no similarity
except in appearance ; if the substance is human being, there is no fraternity, except in
appearance . Then there is only power, absence of real individualities, existence of ghost
and real zeros. "Every man is responsible for every act he performed on earth and both
reward and punishment will make you feel a next one, as the soul is
eternal . Predominates in nature the law of necessity (fatality) so that everything is done
as it should be, when humanity prevails sensibility, shoot the moral order, a kingdom of
justice and freedom. He takes an impersonal speech to a "rational thought, which Rede
guidance of human acts the name of sovereignty, accept". Although he imagines himself
and called rationalist, he builds a metaphysical system, that is based on an a priori
conception, as he takes the soul ais a substance and not as a phenomenon.

He wants to re-organize society "mentally by the destruction of the moral pauperism so

scientifically the existence of the real right will be shown and temporarily by the
destruction of the material pauperism, which is possible by making the land to collective
(shared) property. "the moral order is nothing more than the eternal harmony between
freedom of action and the necessity of events.

As to the first, the passions should never dominate reason, man must conscientiously
do watch incessantly about the consequences of his actions. The actual law, the
expression of eternal reason prescribes: 1. not only the land but also the majority of the
capital acquired by the generations to bring collective ownership and 2. to reason,
conscience of every individual to conform to the eternal reason to pass free of charge to
all children except food, housing and clothing, a . an education in accordance with the
line, b . education according to science, to destroy ignorance.

On the second point, he wanted to abolish material poverty in less than a quarter of a
century by deciding:

Art. 1. The direct inheritance without a will , the law, as the only necessary as an
incentive to work;

Art. 2. The legacy in the air, without a will , has been abolished, if not necessary as an
incentive to work;

Art. 3. Each succession intestate , without direct heirs, has been transferred to the state
and belongs to the collective ownership;

Art. 4. The absolute freedom to entertain is legally necessary as an incentive to work;

Art. 5. Each inheritance by will is burdened with 25% tax;

Art. 6. The land came into collective property is declared inalienable, and all that is
attached to it.

As funds allow, the following provisions shall be made:

1. The children are 2 years off voluntarily entrusted to the care of the state, which
provides training and maintenance. The sexes are separated. The boys will become
adults against wage devote five years of their lives to works of public utility, ordered by the
state. Their wages are paid after five years. They are allowed only for public relations.

2. State debts are eliminated. Perpetual interest is abolished. They pay interest for 50
years.

3. Each loan is for a time. Dies debtor, the creditor will be paid out of the inheritance
after the deceased debts are settled against the state. The succession is insufficient, then
the creditor will suffer the loss.

4. The land is collectively owned and the houses and the equipment necessary for the
use, which is leased to the highest bidder.

5. Any association of private capital is prohibited and will liquidate all existing
associations. Only private associations of workers will be permitted.

6. A new division of land will take place after the liquidation of private capital.

7. Traffic Resources as: the state mint, bank, telegraph, mail, roads, canals, etc.
properly and will be operated at the lowest possible price and without profit by the
state.. Competition from individuals and associations of individuals will be permitted by the
state.

8. A state bank will be set up, which will also be a deposit bank, but paper of the
individual is not adopted.

As regards the first administration, it is the community, the district, then the department,
then an assembly of departments under the name of France, England, Germany, etc. etc.
and finally our entire globe. It is the general republic under the sovereignty of the eternal
reason of eternal justice, essentially impersonal.

Universal suffrage has not to speak about social organization, but on the social
administration. It is also incompetent with respect to all terms of science, but competent in
all matters of public opinion. But Colin's thought that there had to get a dictator or autocrat
who imposed all this to the people. In such a transitional period people will be convinced
of the beneficial such a scheme, then humanity itself will accept the system as a condition
for the happiness of all. And he made the proclamation at the ready in advance, in which
all those provisions are put and writes: "We (the name is of course not completed) in the
name of social necessity, and under our own responsibility, us autocrat." Probably a social
Napoleon floated him for the mind.

Two principles are possible: the violence and "sensibilite". The latter is independent of
the first, it is absolute, immaterial, eternal, real. There is a moral order and the
unchangeable justice is the harmony between the material and rational world, between
necessity and freedom, between the acts of the will and the events that are due to be
necessary. There are three types of sovereignty: the impersonal God, the brutal violence
and reason, and three forms of government are being similar: the theocracy, democracy
and logocratie [201] . There are three types of appropriation of the land: the loan,
releasing erfleen and soil in general community (le fief, l'alleu terre et la mise en
communaut universelle). And each of sovereignties harmonizes with any of the
organizations of the property; so drag the theocracy itself with feudal ownership,
democracy and the allodial necessarily go together and the overall soil community can
only exist with the sovereignty of reason.

Socialism of Colins, however, in the application of capital relative and therefore one
could call his teachings better than relatively rational socialism.

Marxists call socialism of Colin's semi-socialism, because it covers the ground and
some work, but not all. Without influence was not Colin because he founded a school of
men who do not many in number but due diligence complement what they are lacking in
quantity and which survives to this day. He turns not to the people, because "for the
unenlightened masses need communism, somnambulism, homeopathy, commanditisme,
etc., no, he wants to apply to the." Men of interest "(hommes d'intrt); with them, one can
call the order in life, the only other disorders. Not that I do not like disorder, I adore
anarchy. But just to make the men of importance to feel that they are on the wrong track
and that the order can not be based on violence. "Yes, he wants to speak to the interests,
because" what is not important, it is folly. Reason, calculation interest: this is entirely the
same. As long as the commitment is not reasonable, only fools dedicate themselves; and
the fools of this kind are happy with the day less in number. "Among his students come to
Hugentobler from the Canton of Neuchatel, Switzerland, who provided work for the
release of Colin, Louis de Potter, and especially his talented son, the physician Agathon
Brussels, the Spaniard Ramon de la Sagra, Frdric Borde Paris, the publisher of
the Philosophie de l'avenir , the institution of the school, the lawyer Berger Brussels,
notary Brouez Wasmes in Belgium [202] , which his two sons Jules and Fernand
educated according to the principles of rational socialism and one of whom, viz. Fernand
later the leading magazine La Socit nouvelle issued that lived on after him under the
name of Humanite nouvelle , edited by A. Hamon Paris, etc. etc. Do not forget dr. Csar
named De Paepe, who in the beginning was colinsiaan, though he accepted never his
metaphysical philosophy and was defended by one from Colin collectivism us at the
congress of the International Basel, so that even a conclusion was adopted to that
effect. De Paepe later went on to Marx, but remained wide enough view to be not as
exclusive as the Marxists. Also Poulin, an independent thinker whose works Dieu selon la
Science (God according to science) and Nouveau Dieu, nouveau monde (New God, new
world) except sharp critical pages contain enough, which gives food for thought, was first
a student of Colins, but later fought the two kinds of justice, defended by Colin. And finally
the Belgian Putsage also belongs to Colin's students so that it can truly be witnessed from
him: "The old Baron is not without echoes speechless' to fall grave."

The freedom of Socialism Duhring

An entirely peculiar position within the socialist movement Eugen Dhring takes, one
might almost say a transition from state socialism of the Social Democrats to
anarchism. One does not know where to share him, because he has taken a completely
independent position. Eugen Dhring (born 1833) is undoubtedly one of the most
handsome men of Germany resulted in the latter half of the century and even Franz
Mehring, which looks at everything through a Marx-Engels glasses, can not deny that he
was "ohne Zweifel grosse Fhigkeiten Besass "(undoubtedly possessed great skills). It is
remarkable that social democrats with a certain disdain talk about "civil adepts of
socialism", as Mehring expresses it. without thinking that they themselves belong to this
category as well as Marx, Lasalle and many others of the main spokesmen.

In the circles of the Social Democrats, where the authority belief grew so rampant, he
goes for a do not know, an insignificant man, because English has him once finished
his Herrn Eugen Dhring Umwlzung der Wissenschaft , as someone who has the right in
any field had to speak, and since that time he has been provisionally death for socialism,
although it later, if one's business is considered more impartial, will show that his alleged
death was only apparent death. The conclusion of English was "irresponsible ability from
megalomania" and he, himself a stranger in the field of physics and mechanics [203] , did
Dhring throw the feet that he knew nothing in that area and that while the Gttingen
faculty to Dhring's Critical History of Principien of Mechanics [204] wrote the first prize
awarded and in iudicium (judgment): "the most complete and free control of the case and
with amazing breadth of accurate, literary knowledge not only all the main points treated,
but many smaller discussions, which did not essential to the faculty, but acknowledges
with thanks, as they everywhere have a fuller understanding of the case, at the same time
show the great love and the caution with which the author himself in his task deepened
". And under the rate spikes belonged to the famous Wilhelm Weber. The certificate of
disability, awarded to him in the field of physics and mechanics by an ignorant and English
will be made a ridiculous impression on all who have authority there Dhringian know in
the eyes of all the experts. And of course generates some adverse judgment in one area
of legitimate doubt, when it comes to English judgment in other areas.

But ... Eugen Dhring had undermined the sanctity and infallibility of Marx and all other
sins are forgiven rather an orthodox social democrat than that which they have committed
against Marx.

From 1864 to 1878 was Dhring private lecturer at Berlin University, but he was
discharged from covering because it another authority, prof. Helmholtz had undermined
his dignity by showing that this scholar, who let go himself the discoverer of the law of
conservation of force, had taken this theory to the physician Robert Mayer. His second
cardinal sin consisted in that in his Critical History of National-Oekonomie und des
Sozialismus did a negative criticism (1871) on Capital Marx. And Dhring has had a time
when he had much impact on the workers of Berlin. Most, Bernstein [205] and others
more heroes to his side on than to that of English, which fear Dhringian influence, as
dangerous to Marx, it needs considered writing a series of articles, published later as a
pamphlet under the above title, included in the party paper Vorwrts , which was,
however, protested on several sides. If English is so far going to call Dhring "the most
distinctive types one of these wijsneuzige sham science, now in Germany everything
drowns her strong high schetterklanken", it is not surprising that many who had learned to
appreciate Dhring as a highly skilled and serious and brave man thereon were highly
disturbed. But on the other hand Dhring was not the man to deal with someone
glachandschoen and in turn anything but flattering epithets uitstrooide over the head of
Marx. In that respect they are quite risky to each other and they want to know the case,
the difference of both position, one must rid her of her personal envelope. Most of those
who speak about Dhring know him either not either in English writing, so he is usually
judged by the authority of his opponents. Everything was done to work in that direction,
because when eg. Abraham Ensz sent in a response to the Berliner Freie Presse in
English work, when they refused after long hesitation to take it and when it did appear it
anyway as a booklet under title: Herrn English Attentat auf den gesunden Mensch wits
oder der wissenschaftliche Bankerott im Marxistischen Socialismus (An attack by Mr
English on the common-sense or scientific bankruptcy of the Marxist socialism) when it
was thwarted in party circles and ignored as much as possible. Almost nowhere to be
found an equal dose of authority and faith in the social-democratic circles, whether it
should be the Catholic's ditto.

What now wants Dhring?

Rejection of domination in political, combat exploitation in the economic field. He

shares the income sources in this, based on their own labor and those only rely on
property rights. The first is earned, the second own interest. Wages, salaries of teachers,
professors, doctors fee for belonging to the first kind, while profits, interest and rents are
among the ownership interest. This is the same, what Marx called surplus value. The
landowner gets the land rent by virtue of its ownership of the land; Manufacturer
entrepreneurs profit by virtue of its ownership of the machines, etc. And these rights are
maintained by the state power. Which authorizes the ownership of a piece of land for
example.? Not one, but several powers of all kinds. Firstly may I use my property,
secondly - and this is something else - I have a different exclude the shared use. The one
is to use, and the other the right of exclusion. The second now only leads to
exploitation. Because I possess the legal power, supported by the authority and the
violence of the state, to each other to close out of the shared use of my property, so I
have the power to authorize the use to eliminate a certain tribute. The requirement of
socialism is: the abolition of the exclusion law.

In contrast, he advocates "socialitair system" or "anticratisch-socialitair system", the

principle is the free association of producer groups, which the owners but not the sole
owners of the means of production. They have a free right to dispose of them as the
products of their labor; only not this limitation: they have the right to close out outside
another of the shared. Each is offering labor needs as someone with equal rights are
recognized. So one gets the "lords of charge" of land and inputs. No controlling central
power, but the necessary officers to lead the production, which depend only on the small
group, by whose choice they received their office. Three advantages, the socialitair
system: 1. Freedom is guaranteed 2. exploitation either in a group or between the groups
is not possible, because a socialist commune, every house hold. B. favoring one group
over another can not find place because no group an exclusive competence.

Hertzka at one finds yet put further explained how production and consumption
interlock despite or rather precisely because of the absence of state interference. Dhring
and Hertzka show in this respect very similar. Dhring later spoke very carefully about the
formation of the company in the future, as the third edition of his Kursus der und
Nationalbank Socialkonomie learns. The "Wirthschafts kommunen" Dhring or the
Associations of Hertzka, which everyone seeks his advantage without being hindered
therein by an exclusive ownership of some land and means of production and without the
other the opportunity to give the equal right of other people to hurt the usurpation of
property rights to exploitation, matches similar.

What Dhring wants in his last period, he summarized in these words, which can go as
far as its program:

"In the property question, the socialitarian system in principle know nothing of the
correctuur (improvement) of the roof with new roof, but supportive of the natural laws of
morality demands that one principle, not the actual accumulations of the property as such,
but only further continuing operation of its controversial fellow man enslaved and prevents
uitrovende forces. Not in the bare fact of possession, but in the continuation of the
attributes and the limitlessness, making it a force majeure uitwoekert and uitrooft the
dispossession or less property, not so in that the now wealthy retain the pure business
possesses elements of their ability but in the fact that the opportunity remains open to this
pent owns or more on personal carriers seeing the labor to neighbors for an amount only
necessary for his maintenance, and thus the worker in the form of law the most to him
own to make take, which he fairly for himself should have - in the main event of the fallacy
of the society must be challenged and to clean side of the property were searched. What
so aside to be given is held, which is available at any given time, but the artificial and
excessive profitability of this property, which is based on political influence and the
enslaving labor. One ontneme with political privilege based on slave-making and it
deprives it thus its power. They stand not further increase the property-less man to
enslave and to hinder him in the serious and positive working association with its peers in
Krperschaften (bodies) and one will see consummated soon as the release of wage
labor in the form of penal and civil codes. Here is the permanent and just point at which
the lever must be turned on. The whole so-called right to revise according to the principle
of socialization and before all things, the legislation must be removed, which aim artificial
subservience of the landless and the serving classes politically sophisticated way create
or keep in existence, far across the reaching economic consequences of natural bare
holds power. Not hold as such it is socially guilty, but the uitzuigende power with its
political origins and rear restraint. She is the one who must retreat step by step, by placing
the working personality as a socializing force in the foreground. "

All well and good, but one must admit that it arrives here on resources. "One ontneme
holding with political privilege based on slave-making and it deprives the thus his power" -
exquisite, but after these generally have proclaimed as pontificating, the writer puts his
cloak and go, his hearers in silent amazement leaving behind . But they say come to my
senses: now we know nothing, because we'd just like to know how this was done. "They
stand not further increase the property-less man to enslave the form of penal and civil
codes." But are they the criminal and civil codes which make servitude and maintain or
are simply paper provisions, the term of a social form, in which slavery takes place? And
then those "serious and positive working association with its peers in bodies" - what this
means other than the most absolute freedom of association, without interfering in
ownership, so while preserving and respecting the existing ownership, thus closing
access to the work? As long as one does not complete this issue in the spirit of Henry
George by a reform of land tax, it means in practice nothing. Such a program is not
sufficiently long, since it leaves us in the dark as to how they should be aimed at the
realization. With the proclamation of such phrases ex cathedra one will not reach the goal
just as with phrases such as: the happiness of all people act with justice towards
everyone, because of its all depends on the manner in which they achieve it once and for
all wants and needs.

Opposite the Marxists state Dhring because he says of them: "To the backward
elements in the modern environment include lectern socialists and Marxists, because in
the context of modern society and under denial of modern science an equally reactionary
and in every form of freedom hostile" Verstaatlichung "of social relations mean very
confused." ( Critical Gesch. Der Nationalkonomie und des Sozialismus , 3 Auflage, p.
563). And against the communist anarchists he describes his position thus: "A progressive
development is the so-called anarchist socialism, which is firmly tied to the ideas of
Proudhon, but joined it himself late developed and agitational first is represented by the
Russian Bakunin. But it was more urgency and direction, then it descends into particulars,
that specializes economically. Despite that it has, namely by more vrijheidlievend and
radical principle, wherever they seriously considered a revolutionary transformation of the
future, visible ground won and a soothing contrast formed the Marxist type which dilutes
opportunistic with Hebrew zakenzin to coercive socialism . "(3rd Auflage des Kursushotel,
pg. 509).

Dhring had less to anarchism than against communism and yet he was entirely hostile
also did not return. When he writes: "Just as the individual his need, nor even him be
particularly attributed his excellencies, he has to claim any other remuneration for greater
work than that which already lies in the ability to accomplish it." Then comes the argument
already almost close to that of the communist anarchists: each gives according to his
ability. In any case vote the communist anarchism and anticratisch-socialitair system
Dhring herein agree that both places the sovereignty of the individual in the foreground
and reject any kind of coercive domination.

As Bakunin in Nettlau, Max Stirner in Mackay, Proudhon in Mhlberger, so too has

Eugen Dhring found his loyal defender in Friedlnder, whose pamphlet Der Freiheitliche
Sozialismus im Gegensatz zum Staatsknechtsthum of Marxists is designed to keep the
honor of Dhring [206] .

Later Dhring completely got into the camp of the anti-Semites, but in the history of
socialism he finds his place only for its economies like political and socialitarian writings,
besides the two already mentioned writings consist of: Carey's Umwlzung of
Volkswirthschaftslehre und Sozialwissenschaft in 12 letters, Kapital und Arbeit auf neue
Antworten alte Fragen , Critical Grundlegung of Volkswirthschafslehre and who
Verkleinerer Carey's und die Crisis of Nationalkonomie [207] in 16 letters, while his
philosophical writings der Werth des Lebens. Eine Denkerbetrachtung im Sinne
Heroischer Lebensauffassung [208] is also able to shed much light on general human
standpoint.

His system is a transition to achieve the ideal of a free society as the end of social
evolution, which is born as the moral perfection of the individual, the protection and makes
the action of the state unprofitable and where people will end no other forms of
association to recognize than that of the industrial production.

The blindness of these universal and learned man casts a tragic light on his eventful life
and it is sad that someone so undeniable talent has been brought by his personal
experiences to a state of bitterness, that he, as an old grouch finally over everything and
everyone the rod breaks.

Some theorists sympathizing

Besides the men as decidedly socialist, at least in their works, may be considered, is
also a row of others, which if not entirely, at least to a greater or lesser extent on the side
of the Socialists stand with their sympathies.

Among them we count first and foremost prof. Friedrich Albert Lange , the
sympathetic, progressive professor, already in 1862 as a teacher at the gymnasium in
Duisburg stood for the right of teachers to interfere with the political agitation as
citizens. And when he received a warning because of an editorial written by him, he laid
down his concerns and he became co-editor of the Rhein-Ruhr-Zeitung und give up,
because he had no intention of fighting Bismarck and his ministry. In 1864 he was elected
alongside Bebel and Max Hirsch in the standing committee of the workers'
associations. Self still supporter of Schulze-Delitzsch, he still preached tolerance towards
the Lassalleans. Through his book Die Arbeiterfrage , first appeared in 1865, he ran into
conflict with Eugen Richter and Fortschrittpartij, as he did to socialism too many
concessions and when this fight was tightened, he moved to Switzerland, to
the Winterthurer Country Boats from to give. Even there he was in front in the ranks of
Democrats, established himself as a private tutor in philosophy at Zurich until he left
Switzerland, offended by the sympathy of the Swiss to France during the Franco-Prussian
War of 1870, in order to respond to an appointment as professor at Marburg. He suffered
already when the ailment that dragged him early grave, but he worked tirelessly in the
service of science. His materialism History made him a European name. Inspire us to our
topic two other writings the most interest, viz. The already five editions published
book Who Arbeiterfrage and John Stuart Mills Ansichten ber die Frage und die
angebliche social Umwlzung der Wissenschaft Social durch Carey [209] . Especially the
first one has had a significant impact both on the workers as in other circles and how high
it is estimated, one can infer that Bernstein says in its latest brochure at the end: back to
Long!

After Lange in the last chapter has set put on the solution of the workers demand that
the workers demand the core of the social question, the weightier factors are: the ongoing
development of industrialization, the development of social science and the idea of
humanity; after the two slogans: has decompose "self-help" and "state aid", to show that
the true secret of the party of "self-help" does not lie in what it says word, but what it
conceals, as for the majority of spokespersons not the actual self-help of the workers on
their own initiative is intended or is considered desirable, but the goal is to keep calm the
working class under that slogan and do walk on their leash and that the slogan of state
aid, by Lassalle so enthusiastically advocated, many leave in the darkness, what should
be known still necessary, he gives some general principles that should be taken into
account in the solution. These are: 1. the recognition of the workers' demand in its
broadest sense; 2. Any measure should aim at a true and complete emancipation of the
workers from their unworthy dependence on employers, which can only take place by the
republican or constitutional managed factory system and this presupposes a high degree
of education and self-education of the workers; 3. the non-separation of the physical
removal of the workers from the intellectual and moral, so that legal equality is introduced
in all branches of public life and 4. workers question must be construed in conjunction with
the general social question, because they there is a part of, and that the weightier.

Long understood that "the private law on the basis of private ownership rule of thumb is
straight, only to savings of wars, the stronger acknowledged." He believed that "if the
company acquiring goods through other way than by holding labor for immoral and
dangerous, they obtain as well ban by heirs, as they acquire through on an equal basis
robbery or lottery winnings disapprove can. "he cited the Germanic inheritance in principle
communist, since it is based on the assumption that the owners do not must be
considered as individuals, but as a tribe, as a family, conversely, he believes that to
reconcile very well with communism every imaginable variety of social status of the
individuals. "The fact of the commonality of all possessions close yet not at all in them,
that everyone as much receive the fruits of the common labor." And he also understood
very well that "the doctrine according to which once acquired right in the rest of time
should continue, is nonsense. "He also did not see that a man should recognize a legal
situation that has been or is not his fault if it denies him any share of the goods and
pleasures of society and even robbed of the means to acquire such goods through his
work on a piece of land. The company, which embodied such disinherited in her womb,
should not wonder if it will resort to heavy-handed, even if they are many, the entire
existing legal overthrow, to organize themselves on the rubble as they can, irrespective of
whether that device is better or worse than previously existed. Several times he calls upon
benevolent and thoughtful people in the hope that they will do theirs, to transition from the
old to illuminate the new situation, to mitigate the battle and save the eternal goods of
humanity, what they can do . With sadness, he exclaims: "Should mankind forever begin
again with the barbarity as a cultural period is tired and a new period begins? We say
no. It is the development of today unworthy to cherish this idea, a new flowering of art and
science of humanity and morality will develop fast and delicious on the ruins of the past
world order. Civilization and fraternity will be the good spirits that carry humanity from
stage to stage up. Centuries may pass before the struggle for life in a peaceful community
of nations has changed the earth, just the turning point of time, the victory of good will can
not be at too great a distance to improve our conditions. Certainly this day will never be
complete, but it is already a great thing, if the principle of sincere and lasting employment
to the welfare of the masses comes to public recognition and the principle supplants of
unconditional preservation of all existing rights and liabilities from the consciousness of
governments and peoples. "

Indeed, as the impact of such men on the way things had been bigger, undoubtedly the
evolution of mankind would have taken a different and better way.

The first edition contained six points, which indicated the way of salvation:

1. The workers must interfere with their own affairs;

2. The most important part of their aid is political;

3. Wherever they can, they must establish associations that are independent of the
upper classes and the state, they should not only cover the individual, but the entire
working class;

4. The efforts of the workers to development must connect themselves to serving any
purpose;

5. If the state picks up the cause of the workers, the following requirements must be
asked:

A. Review of the legislation in relation to the needs of the deprived and underprivileged;

b. overall freedom of association and brotherhood of all kinds;

 c. elimination of all criminal laws, so that the proclamation of the truth and the public
discussion of existing abuses are prohibited;

d. overall press freedom and prohibition of all measures, which hinders their
performance and made expensive;

e. general and free public education to all that is necessary for all citizens;

f. promotion of productive association, especially for the large industry of agriculture,

through cash and appropriate laws.

6. Only after obtaining this basis can be considered to raise the consciousness of
humanity and peace in a position in which the struggle for existence loses its horror.

For what reasons he let fall this more elaborate, though still very vague program from
later editions, is unknown to us, but it affects us more human, lofty spirit or the sharp
formulation of what he deemed necessary, and though he was not a social democrat in
the ordinary sense of the word, since he could not fundamentally break with the bourgeois
society, yet he saw with clarity, when the labor movement was still in its infancy, where it
went, his heart testified warm love for the cause of the oppressed. And that meant even
though something for a man of his position at that time. To the question: what resources
can enable the worker against the unwillingness of so many ?, he replied with one word, it
still can not be read without fruit "Instead of trying to threats to persuasion, excesses, in
general beginning of the social war act against the haves, as they are connected to the
former rough and little organized strikes in England and nowadays often to the Belgian
strikes. Such action of the workers is to be pitied in the interests of morality and
civilization, but a century, still looking for her strength not shy in large armies and wars of
conquest, no right is too much to complain about such a breach of a rule of law, who
already donates its benefits to the haves and the disinherited nothing more than threats
and punishment. Earlier, one has to wonder about the right idea so much power exerts on
minds so little experience of the benefits of law and who from their point of view
everywhere only in artificial process are shrouded law of the jungle confronts. Also leave
the haves are only too happy to the workers on the fear that the courts, backed by the
force of police and army - to weigh the disgruntled crowd - in an emergency bullets. It is
therefore agreed to try this one thought on their part obvious, what can be worked out with
fear. Not fail so completely this reasoning goes like one often believes, because all
commit all such companies - as recently in Belgium - also end with a defeat of the
workers, they nevertheless ensured that even the haves keep a direct sensation the
unpleasantness that the desperate situation of the workers is linked. There are situations
conceivable in which the recurrent insurrections - like the revolts of the serfs in Russia,
connected with all horrors - the main form of resistance against further pressure, as do the
few who skip to such a revolt, finally terrible retaliation can be expected, but also the
whole of the oppressed class defends itself by the fear of such outbursts of despair. For
the great mass of workers in the European civilized countries, moreover, the rawest form
of social war a defeated position; they think it often enough to a large and general
revolution, but they only take in the rarest cases resorted to standing stir itself. Increasing
development, hoping to reach their goal by another way and lust in a planned and orderly
move forward have those rough form of workers' uprisings increasingly decommissioned.
"

It may come as no surprise to hear from Bernstein's mouth "to back Long," not in the
sense of going back to all the socio-political insights of these, but choose the union of
sincere and fearless party's efforts to liberalize the working class with a high scientific lack
of prejudice, to confess always ready errors and recognize new truths.

Another Democrat who pushed forward in the direction of socialism, is the noble
dr. Johann Jacoby Knig Mountains. The nobility of his nature he showed already in
1830, when he was one of the first physicians who offered to study the nature and
character of the cholera invaded from Russia and Poland. His first writing was a plea for
equal rights of all the citizens, because "as long as even one right is denied to the Jew
just because he is Jew, so long as he remains a slave and other concessions are unable
to feel offense to take away. " Already in 1841 he wished the legislative participation of
independent citizens to the state affairs. He incurred when a prosecution on the neck
because of no less than treason, majesty insult and reprimand the country laws. Though
initially sentenced to 2 1 / 2 years in a fortress; however, he was acquitted on appeal. In
1848 he took zealous part in the event and he stated that in his opinion was inseparable
political freedom of the social, because history taught him that are essentially two handle
inserts, whose imperious lords avail themselves to overthrow the people constitutions: 1.
the standing army, trained to blind obedience and 2. fear of the possessing classes for the
non-possessing classes. And that's why he wanted the overall equation of the working
class. Then came the reaction, Jacoby retired, to delve into the study of his favorite
writers Spinoza, Lessing, Kant and Schiller. In 1862 he took up a mandate for the second
constituency of Berlin, but a speech, he spoke to his constituents in 1863, gave him six
months in prison. He said it would vote against any budget, as long as Bismarck was a
minister and he continued to maintain his opposition after the success of 1866. Germany
able freedom united, the surest guarantee for the peace of Europe, but Germany under
Prussian military rule is a threat to neighboring nations, the beginning of the war period,
which takes us back to the sad times of the fist right - that was his opinion. He always
alienated more of the party to which he belonged and which give practical politics and
take wanted to follow and when he made his speech about the purpose of the labor
movement expressed in January 1870, he called his social creed, the rupture was
complete. He argued for the abolition of the wage system and its replacement by
contemporary scientific work and this must be done by peaceful means through
cooperation of all social forces involved in this, namely: the worker, the capital featuring
employer and the state. He understood the power and usefulness of the association and
called the "foundation of the smallest workers union in the history of civilization more
important than the battle of Sadowa" (in the Austro-Prussian war of 1866). Robert Owen,
he saw in the union of men, the great way to solve all the issues. He proposed in parallel:
each for all - that's people duty , all for everyone - that's people right . The state requires
it: unrestricted freedom of opinion and association, general, direct voting by general direct
participation in legislation and administration, kosteloos education in public, the church
independent schools, weerplicht instead of standing armies, shorter working hours and
down a normal working day, prohibition of child labor in factories, equal pay for men and
women for equal work, the abolition of indirect taxes and introduce a tax on income, rising
in proportion to the ownership, reform of the monetary and credit system, promoting
industrial and rural productive association with state or state credit guarantees. All this in
preparation for the abolition of wage labor by smoothing lining of the wage system in
which the free, enjoyed moderate labor.

Put alongside the practical program of the Social Democratic Party and one will see
that these democrat actually wanted the same.

When he had the courage in 1870 to protest publicly against the annexation of Alsace-
Lorraine and the continuation of the war after the surrender of Emperor Napoleon, when
he was all right and law captured by General Vogel von Falkenstein, which and let him
spend more than a month imprisoned in the fortress Boyen in Ltzen.

As the Democrats left him more and more alone, he approached the Social Democrats
and after the condemnation of Bebel, Hepner and Liebknecht in Leipzig high treason trial
of 1872, he declared to agree with the objectives of the Social Democratic Party to protest
against this law rape. Although elected to the Reichstag in 1874, he refused to accept the
choice. His death in 1877 was a great loss to Germany, which lost in him one of his most
honest and bravest sons. As in the history of civilization and the Bismarck v. Moltke go
more into the background, to that extent will males and Jacoby later be honored as
pioneers of a better future, as fighters for justice and truth.

When his speeches and writings in 1872, collected in two parts, spent, he said in the
preface that "the fight out the task of our time was the final, decisive battle of the
oppressed, freedom desiring humanity against the three only enemy: the church, the
state, the social order, because through that triple magic form, the existing lightsituation
and selfishness of a few of the mind , the will and the labor of the nations chained and
operated. The church - which is the arrogance of the priests that faith demands because
the mind is too weak to think. The state - that's the lust of the secular authorities, who
demand total submission to the will of the government, to be preserved from anarchy and
destruction. The company - which is the greed of the possessing classes, which require
them of the fruits of the sweat of the workers as much as is released when they consider
fair and it does not accept this, then the workers freely without starving labor and
wages. "Thoughtless - unresisting - nonpossessory as the mass of the people subjected
to the goal of church, state and society."

That the life of someone with such ideas only fight was certainly no need to be noticed.

A third is the famous Ludwig Buchner , by his power and Dust has exerted much
influence amazing. Brother of the talented Georg Bchner - who became known for his
tragedy Danton's death on the field of literature, but died already at the age of 23 - Ludwig
devoted himself to the natural and medical studies. As a private teacher working in
Tbingen, he lost his place because of his book published in 1855, Force and Matter ,
which was formidable ascent, but annoyance aroused because of the bad course of
action against spiritualism. As a practical physician when he settled in Darmstadt. Several
books he has written which he undeniably has much contributed to the undermining of
faith and the promotion of scientific studies. On the political position he was radical and it
was he who served as President most of the major meeting in Frankfurt, where in 1863
Lassalle won such a brilliant victory over the Fortschrittspartij. The description of his
encounter with Lassalle he later published in book form.

Although meermalen standing in front of the sociaaldemocratische party, he has above

all in his book Man and his place in nature and in society (1869) as much corn delivered
to the mill of socialism that one is entitled to say that in his been socialist soul should
be. He understood that political liberalization was not enough, but supplement needed by
the social, he acknowledged that "every individual at the time of his birth acquired the
same right to the entire material and spiritual possessions of humanity, in particular that of
its own people. This right now is shortened in the most gruesome manner, because while
one mortal is born with a crown on the head, another in the cradle already bathed in
millions, another is already at his first breath much of the land on which we are all born,
calls his property, while it may be called lawful property of all, or even before he began to
think, to rank, wealth, status, knowledge and dominion intended for his fellow men, the
other naked and helpless comes as the animal world, and he's like the son of man is not a
place where he can lay his head "and then he designed the character of our society in the
following way:". here boundless poverty, there boundless wealth, this limitless
violence, there boundless impotence, here boundless happiness over there boundless
misery, here boundless slavery over there boundless arbitrariness here boundless
hardship over there boundless abundance, this fabulous ignorance, over there the most
fabulous learning, here the hardest work over there pleasure without work, here it
cleanest and most wonderful of all that exists over there of being human, the deepest
valleys - such is the nature of our society, which surpasses the most frightened times of
political oppression and slavery in hoegrootheid and contradiction of these contradictions.
"

What socialist agitator can win it in the eyes of the propertied classes in sharpness of
expression of this writer?

And while especially many Darwinists fight socialism by relying on nature, where a
fierce struggle for existence only ensures the life of the fittest, those who can conquer the
best living conditions, Bchner occurs just as ardent Darwinist up to argue that "all these
anomalies and monstrosities in society in life are created as a result of a not yet reason
and fairness regular social struggle for existence , moreover, supported in this by many
oppressions, robberies, conquests, etc. of a political nature with which the history of
nations is filled and whose sad aftermath today the ignorant believes to be regarded as
necessary consequences of the social movement. For example, therefore, the present-
day state of society and the property not at all, as many believe, the result of
a natural development, but of a concatenation of circumstances and causes, including the
personal diligence and the mental effort of the individual, a self perhaps large, but in
relation to the whole thing play very subordinate role. "He sees it as the task of harmon
ism, in order to fight the battle to replace the forces consist of nature through the power of
reason in order forming a contrast with the rough state of nature, and this is only possible
by bringing the greatest possible equality in the means and conditions to and including
each individual's struggle to enter existence.
 Indeed such writings cooperate to overcome many prejudices and prepare the minds
for socialism.

A fourth, which deserves separate mention is Adolph Samter , who has written a
book: Das Eigenthum in seiner sozialen Bedeutung , which goes in the direction of
socialism. To the question of ownership, as the hub around which everything revolves, it is
above all to do and if he does not come to the conclusion that private property should be
abolished, he still cleans a great place to state and municipal property, so that on thus the
private ownership is significantly reduced. His goal is to show that private property in any
case not the only form of ownership and therefore any attack on the exclusive right of
existence of private property should not be considered as an attack on the property
itself. After he gave a historical overview of the ownership forms in the past, he comes to
the following conclusions: the existence of private property stems from the
personality. The highest expression of communal ownership is the state, because the
state owned social property. The private property is the starting point, the state owned the
final goal of the property. The private property is the first social the last word. But a
counterbalance to be formed at the joint ownership by granting individual political rights,
the enforcement of private property as few people as of free associations and municipal
property. The duty of the state consists in: 1. the establishment of a social order in which
individuals can legally develop their personality freely; 2. as much as possible to eliminate
the social inequalities that have developed over time; 3. to provide necessary support for
the disadvantaged; 4. to constantly take the initiative to all claims which could be useful
for the welfare of mankind.

To this end, now the state must be self-owner, that he does not depend on the
individual owners. The difference between private and national property consists in the
private interest works only for the individual, while the national ownership dominates the
will of all and thus the private interest is obliterated by the social. He sees in the
productive property of state and municipal social future, because much more than private
property is the social able to play a major role in satisfying the needs of all.

The destination of the productive property of the state, to create an adequate means of
production and to distribute it equitably. But he also wants to preserve private property as
an incentive to encourage productivity. Furthermore, the existence of the ownership of
consumable resources may prevent possible one and as for the private ownership of
capital, one can only raise its abuses. The municipal property can become a social force
to rein in the state's overwhelming power, which one would have to conclude that
according to him the city and not the state should be the krachtdadigste factor of social
ownership. But this is not clear to him and he does not make a proper distinction between
ownership and possession. However, he does great concessions where he finds an
institution of private property, which corresponds to the essence of man, but it is a social
institution only eight tenable if it is made accessible to all, as he very well understands
that inequality has its origin in private ownership and this is therefore primarily
responsible. His program for the future is: harmony between the private, enjoyed social
and forced joint-production on the basis of private, genootschappelijk- and state and
municipal property. How harmony could be arrived at, however, failed to find him at
us. Apparently he feels the injustice of private property in its unlimited form and he tries to
put aside their abuses, but he does not come to the understanding that if one abuses it all
raises, nothing remains, because it is the sum abuses.

We were several others who are ranked among the lectern socialists can cite that
despite their opposition to wear were constantly choirs from socialism to the mill of
socialism, such as Adolph Wagner in his Grundlegung [210] , the famous jurist Ihering
who in his book Der Zweck im Straight [211] discusses the factors which social life is
governed in society and after extensive coercive means to have discussed, permitted by
law, is at the end mentions two factors, without compelling power but of only moderate
importance: the sense of duty and the feeling of sympathy . But when he went to work out
this, they were all gradually so much importance it a second book, twice as large as the
first, only wrote about these two factors: voluntary abstinence and mutual support, while
still leaving behind the powerful factor of personal sympathy and barely making mention of
the free cooperation of social institutions. So the sage Spir, which ruled that "originally all
people have an equal right to the ground, which is admitted by everyone and it is not
possible to deny such. There is no conceivable basis, why in this respect the right of one
person would be greater or less than the other, there is no person to the ground in a
different proportion than the rest. How can it then be justified to the ground in the civilized
countries monopolized by relatively few people, and the remaining mass of the people of
each share is excluded? It is impossible for it to find a legal basis which can stand for
reason and criticism. "The philosopher prof. Von Kirchmann, has a memorable
speech Ueber den Communismus der Natur , held in Berlin the year 1866 in the Arbeiter-
Verein - to which nomination he was sacked as deputy president of the Appellation Aiming
to Ratibor under forfeiture of all pension entitlements - set put how nature is communist,
as evidenced by these three laws: 1. the equivalent effect of its forces all people, so that
the grain grows in the same way, whether it was sown by a monarch or by a farmer, so
the sun's arms heats as well as the rich, so that no more than can full of food, so that all
are subject to illness and death; 2. settlement between internal and external cause
susceptibility (Empfnglichkeit), so that the enjoyment, happiness is dependent on two
conditions, an exterior and an interior and that both are placed in such a proportion that
each increase of one with itself brings the decrease of the other; and 3. the pleasure is
separable from the external consequences and therefore man can in a sensible direction
of his passions without abstinence and castigation Mr remain about his own fate. He ends
by saying: "Nature is the worst communist, she has done infinitely more for the equal
distribution of happiness and enjoyment to all people than the inventions of man power to
do. In these three communist laws is a goodness, a natural love which all people work far
exceeds. "The series could be complemented by plenty of others, thus all contributed
easy to cultivate the soil, which later sprouting socialism those prejudices wegruimden
and the "softening of the heart" worked through some detected at this time.

But besides these Germans surely we should also assign a location to the Belgian
professor Laveleye which and through his book Le socialism contemporain [212] (1881)
and his beautiful writing De la proprit et de ses formes primitives [213] immensely to
did education. Historically it has been shown that in the early history of the land was
owned collectively and not individually. He thereby proved that the property had gone
through a series of varied and not a fixed concept was only one which developed
according to time and people. He himself is in favor of socialism, though he also wants the
intervention of the state, to make the general interest prevail over personal egoism. He
wants to obtain equality by maintaining the natural right to property, such as in
Switzerland, where the allmende, the common property alongside democracy has evolved
to preserve the land for so terribly sharp contrasts between rich and poor. Because
freedom can not be retained, according to him in a democratic state, if the institutions do
not maintain equality. And he called especially the citizens of America and Australia, which
still may be a lot, which in Europe has existed since centuries, to ensure that they do not
take the narrow and hard law of Rome, leading to the social war. He believes that modern
democracies do not miss the old fate, unless they adopt laws that aim to divide the
property back in many hands and establish a great equality of living conditions; while he
wants to apply the principle of justice, namely, that everyone gets to his work, so that the
property is indeed the result of the work and welfare of each is proportional to the
cooperation he provides to the work of production. He distinguishes two elements in the
ownership, social and individual. Today it is owned stripped of every social character and
completely different from what it was in its origins, it has nothing collectiefs more, it is a
privilege without obligations without reservations and seems to have no purpose other
than ensuring the well-being of the individual. In the future, must now and will be given a
greater role in the collective element such as Fichte put it, it will be lost solely private
nature of the property, to make it a public institution, so the state will henceforth have to
call, to make everyone in the possession of the property, which his needs and abilities
entitle him. It Laveleye has a great influence to Christianity, which has given an ideal of
justice in the world; but he forgets to give an explanation of how precisely the Christian
world so little reflection shows that justice ideal. Can the old companies claimed not come
to him until that more equitable, Christian form except through a series of social wars,
which he cherishes fears that freedom will endure, escape the new companies in other
parts of the world from this terrible trials, if they want to learn take take in the history and
institutions of democratic nature, without compromising the order and freedom. One can
see from the foregoing how Laveleye major political concessions in the direction of
socialism. Later professors such as Hector Denis and Guillaume Degreef, both in
Brussels, approaching even closer, so that they come to occupy a place finally, even
among the Socialists.

Yet another, who has done a lot to explore the grounds and preliminary studies made in
this direction, the French professor Letourneau, who in his book La sociology d'aprs
l'ethnographie says the property itself nothing detestable and nothing sacred has. Like all
great sociological facts has had its right to exist but it's like the other intended to modify
continuously, as the heart and mind of man will be larger, as the right feeling more pick
and social solidarity will be scarier. Later he published a series of books in which he
verifies the evolution in the field of religion, morality, trade, politics, jurisprudence,
marriage and family life, education, property, slavery and literature, very educational
studies whose last part actually become covered the least. As can in his personal and
hereditary property, as it exists in countries with Roman and feudal law are a good armor,
it is also for many nothing but a pillow on which it is pleasant to sleep in.

This row is also a place to the astute Englishman Stuart Mill, one of the brightest
thinkers of modern times, discussing the objections against communism in particular
objective, scientific way to first come to the confession that nowadays "the product of
labor is divided into inverse of labor itself, so that the majority comes to those who have
never worked, then most to those who work in name only, and so in descending order,
until the most strenuous and toil Finally, nothing gets more than the most-most necessary
for living. "Stronger condemnation of the current system is difficult to imagine. And then he
comes to the conclusion that force it to make a choice between Communism with all its
good and bad chances and the present state with all its suffering and hardship, and had
the institution of private property necessary by what he above described, then "all
objections would, big and small, attached to communism, as many dust on the scales."
But the principle of private property is still nowhere in its true form to pass the test and he
dares to lack of knowledge which both individual activity as socialism can achieve both
their outstanding stature, decide not overcome any of these principles and will give its
final shape to the human society. But when he gently as he may venture a guess, he
expresses its conviction that the decision on the question of which of the two victory will
achieve depends on the other: which of the two systems ensures the greatest expansion
of human freedom and spontaneity, because one should never forget that after the filling
of their livelihood, freedom for the people is the strongest of all personal needs. Full
independence and freedom of action, limited only by the duty to do no harm to others,
which in his view the ideal and both educational and social institutions, which require that
the free self-determination of doings sacrifice must be in order to gain a higher degree of
vitality and abundance would extinguish one of the noblest attributes of human
nature. Here he is anarchic mood, because these are precisely the concerns that bring
the anarchists against the Social Democracy with its all-controlling state socialism. He just
raises some concerns, such as: whether there is a refuge, would leave some leeway for
individual character, or public opinion would not be a tyrannical yoke, or the absolute
dependence of each on all finally all would tame a mindless uniformity of thinking, feeling
and acting that no harm would be caused to the so much desired multi-faceted
development of human nature, to the manifold variety of tastes and talents, to the wealth
of spiritual knowledge, which not only human life as create interesting, but which are also
the main source of spiritual civilization and moral progress. Objections, which the serious
man should not overrule with seven-league boots, but they certainly deserve
consideration and reflection. He considers the supposition cobweb that a single or several
human beings, with much care also chosen, in would be able to get through the
intervention of the device or any means, the work of everyone to his aptitude to adapt and
thus stewards of the retributive justice for every member of society. He can not accept that
a handful of people -. Eg the dictatorship of the proletariat - everyone would weigh equal
in scale to each according to his bare discretion and judgment, unless it has to do with
more than ordinary people either by supernatural terrors helped. The entire chapter on the
property is an example of calm, sedate discussion, the reading can never be
recommended enough. One will then see that his mind too wide and too broad to be able
to find the rigid straitjacket of state socialism that would essentially slaying of spiritual
development and to this end it is useful to read the chapter that deals with the grounds for
the principle of non-interference and its limits. And they do not forget to also have
excellent essay about freedom to read (On Liberty), what no one can do in earnest,
without there to experience a beneficial influence. In other chapter about the likely future
of the working classes, he speaks of it to gradually change the relationship between
capitalists and workers in an association between workers and capitalists either an
association between the workers themselves on an equal footing. And Mill has exerted
great influence on his work, it may be inevitable that many passed through his school to
come to socialism, as is the case with his stepdaughter, Miss Helen Taylor.

Wistfully looking to the so-called progress, he let himself slip further, saying: "It is
doubtful whether all the mechanical inventions that have been made, the daily burden of
work of any human being to have something light. They only have a larger population
enabled the same life of hard toil and incarceration for life. "Such somber tones he drew
his lyre, no wonder they left a sad echo. But he forced to think about the conditions and as
such he founded immensely useful.

Also Jevons in his book The State in its relation to the work concedes that "the laws
relating to labor, almost always been class legislation"; Anton Menger in his book The
right to the full product of labor , especially so by the introduction of prof. Foxwell enriched
English translation and many others wore theirs in order to release the spirits of the
ancient teachings and susceptible to the new to consider. Once one has been the
recognition that the property is no fixed term for all times and all peoples, but changeable,
movable, for development subject, it will be appreciated that the present form of
ownership is not the highest and last, but soon will be replaced by another, which fits
better in the context of a society in which a larger place is given to the community, social
element.

In addition to these persons should not be forgotten the man who by his grand
conceived and clean finished work has a powerful punch, in order to force many to do
research and pass on the socialists in their thinking and do a different conclusion. We
mean prof. HPG Quack in his book Socialists, People and Systems in four parts [214] as
well as in its separate studies, published in the four individual works from the Circle of the
Community , Outlines and Figures , Statues and Groups , Studies and Sketches . A
strange appearance, this author, because as it applies to anyone "There dwell, alas, two
souls in my breast," it may be said of him.

As director of the Dutch bank to exercise one of the most prosaic jobs from which
imaginable, but not as soon as he shakes off the dust of the bank branches from him, or
he separates himself and immerses himself completely in the flow of the socialism. At
home in the socialist literature as few, he knows very well that socialism represents the
future and that today's society is doomed. Though himself a liberal, he lashed the liberal
politics, which was to serve selfish self-interest, as he raised up to do the concept of
community waking up among the people of the 20th century. He sees in his mind a
reversal of hang around and asking society he appears to say "whether it would be really
seriously think that the Roman doctrine of ownership, eg. On the ground as we have
described in our civil codes, firm will stand like a rock? Can we bring the voice silenced
which says that the day is approaching when no one will be able to make more master of
another's work product: which will come all the profits, which is not the specific result of
one's work done, to the community, benefit of all members? Is not there anything that
vibrates in us, when deprived of our society complain that the present distribution of social
income rational and moral basis fog? Begins one does not understand that there is
certainly truth in the assertion that the brutal inequalities in the world are less the result of
nature, construction and blame the people, then general settings and laws that change
be? "

Who decides such questions, prompts the exclamation: Saul also belongs among the
prophets!

And he continues: "By the way already cracking and shifting beams and anchors of the
present social structure. The number of skeptical (doubtful) men that when one mentions
social question of the word, used to cry out, yes, it creates the fact by repeating again that
it exists: this number dies. The incidents to speak through us too loud. One can already
gruesome chances of economic business of our existing society no longer ignore
(deny). Under the operation of the factory system, including the full application of the
competition for jobs, life had become a living hell. The long day and night work, low
wages, preferred the labor of women, jade and emaciation of children, the lack of concern
for education, lack of health measures in the workplace itself, the disgusting housing, the
disgusting filth , the destruction of family life - there also some results and consequences
of the system of free labor. The man did so no fate, no human existence ... The workers
wish to live on God's earth to work, yes, but also to rest: rejoice in their family, eyes
grateful lift: humans are "Continue.: for all people on earth, for all must have equal
opportunities in life. Everyone must have an opportunity to develop all his powers and
abilities. All this need not revolutionary to come about, but it means a more or less radical
reversal of our existing conditions. Our society is based on past data and therefore
inequality. Respect for what has been obtained, by whatever means, prescription,
maintenance of acquired rights, form the background of our society. Not the efficiency, but
to be especially considering the origin. Rights are that way often privileges for a small
minority; a mosaic of privileges for the few. All our civil law is a consecration of the rights
of those who own something. It is geselreven for the Conservatives. It cares little for
getting elements, but only makes the already consolidated (confirmed) capabilities more
powerful. It confirms in the most detailed manner all the ramifications of an individualistic
inheritance ... He has only to have labor and labor-power is always disadvantaged in our
law. The entire contract, the contract of hire and rental services under the rule of complete
freedom: a fiction - as if the worker is free when he is about to make the choice between
something or starvation. So our society is living now under control of inequality. As living
conditions will, however, be changed and bent in the direction of equality. " [215]

These phrases can be used by the very first socialist orator and it is not wrong, when
the author calls out the word: "You are not far from the kingdom of God," the last
opvattende as socialism!

Two roads lead according to him, to that end of life: self-development and self-
denial. Not everyone can go along the narrow path of renunciation and though they
sometimes vibrates with hate, when one thinks of the suffering of this century, it will take
some vibration or shudder at most only a moment, because the impressions and concerns
take man so consuming that they are not permanent. Men like Quack see very well that
the economy of the former Liberal Party has dismissed and fair way is utterly bankrupt
store that closed the period scary "bourgeoisie" and also how our society by blowing the
new breath has come in a state of deformation and reversible. The slogan of
Guizot: Enrichissez vous , (enriched you!) Had become general and more features than
any other of our time, making the financial feudalism was established, which is the
strongest repression, which ever existed in the world. And certainly sounds strange to our
ears in order to hear of a bank manager: "The fair gave the tone and firm Gauwdief,
Gannef and cie. flourished "The nineteenth century was the period of paid" bourgeoisie
"and he believes that the prospect of the twentieth peace will bring, because in the social
fabric are already everywhere, in many places, threads woven of different nature and with
other colors than loved economists. And those wires are the elements of feasible
socialism. But the social question must first be understood as an ethical issue. The
materialist philosophy can not be the word of life puzzle and he believes that the ideals of
the socialists will be realized, but ... by anti-socialist means. The experience will have to
decide whether this is just seen. Quack has blown the Socialists ago, raved, bubbles of
illusion and ... such sympathy can not but leave deep scars. He had hoped to build a
bridge that brought the economy and socialism together, he noticed that the gap yawns
wider than ever and the struggle has sharply accentuated in the last twenty years. "The
class struggle is over there. The working masses are beginning to move as in war
march; the propertied classes introduce themselves anywhere in position to weather. My
book was started as an idyll; it often ends up as rains, storm and tempest. "But his goal is
not reached, yet he did as they had done something and it has the views and actions of
the Socialists appear and thus spread knowledge about the Socialists and their systems
and secondly he has had, which made against an economy a doctrine of plutocracy and
against the hypocritical appeal to freedom emitted a cry for the community. Moreover, he
believes that it will be a tremendous indictment of the 20th century from its predecessors
in that it has never dared to realize the ideas of Christianity, still under the pretense that
those ideas was incomplete. Was not dare? Or not? We believe the latter. Bakunin once
said: "Every religion is nothing but a heavenly socialism, as socialism is nothing else than
the earthly realization of the religious instincts." Hiding deep inside? This is not a deep
truth? Very carefully Quack shifts the implementation of socialism, by saying "if it is
conceivable that once land and capital will be in the hands of the community, so there only
remains an individual ownership of income" to a distant, very distant future as well as
Rodbertus with whom he sympathizes most shining, which proposed the development of
mankind in three configurations: 1. ancient slavery; 2. modern with private land and
capital ownership and furthermore with wage labor; 3. the future, which can only
individually owned nature of the income that a person acquires through his work. We live
at the moment in the second, the economic phase, it will according to him, still three,
maybe take five hundred years before the third period commences. But all this is so,
Quack is nevertheless believes that it prima facie an equitable division created to bring
the income of society between the landowners, the capitalists and the workers. And that
change the minds and states should cooperate also convinced socialists, according to
him, for "crazy it would be to think that Monday the sun is rising over a socialist society
that Saturday evening '' was. 'Capitalist Where him to do was, was to make you
understand socialism to penetrate the readers of the truth that socialism is more than an
"incomprehensible aberration, not something accidental, something which if necessary
could disappear, but rather one of the historic circumstances emerged necessary
expression of life and living way, which so and not otherwise was revealed. "
 Strange how many today would wish socialism and anarchy considered a high and holy
ideal, but in the meantime continue to fight socialism and curb the anarchy. . Even Mr. NG
Pierson mentions the fight against socialism "a struggle in which one should wish to be
defeated; in this sense, namely that one should wish to believe in the usefulness and
practicality of what that side is proposed. "So we recognize the greatness and beauty of
socialism, only one doubts the usefulness and practicality. But is it not always so with all
the principles, which in the beginning to be rejected by the ordinary: it is beautiful, but it
may in practice not be realized? Yet prudence would not be out of place that just has
proven experience repeatedly that impractical yesterday's practice is today also the
impractical today may be the practice of tomorrow. It is ideal clean, it must still go in any
case the aim in that direction, the contact with the reality, it will of course be impractical to
get rid of the components which might stick to. No wonder, however, that precisely by the
writings of such men many, raised by their writings, are brought to a closer examination of
socialism. So they are, often against their will, the pioneers of socialism.

_______________
[110] International Library: Karl Kautsky, The Erfurt program in its main explained. Ed. C.
van Gelder. f 0.90.
[111] Italics ours.
[112] In confession.
[113] This almost unbelievable phrases are found bl in those notes. 167 and 168.
[114] The Forum Library April-June 1895, New York.
[115] We are thinking of Goethe's words:
Im Interpretiren seid ihr Munter,
Lays ihr nicht aus, so ihr unter explains.
(in explaining are you going merrily to work, you do not explain, then you show up).
[116] In France, increased the number of state employees from 188,000 in 1846 to
400,000 in 1896 and salaries increased from 245 million francs in 1846 to 616 million in
1896. See Grandeur et decadence de la guerre Molinari.
[117] The disclosure of those of Marx's letter to Bracke came by the editors of the Neue
Zeit "Without the fraction insider and party leadership, which is not approved of would
have the publication in the present form", apparently against the wishes of these, but for
the knowledge of things is fortunate that this piece has become
known. The Vorwrts wrote:

"When Bebel was the copy of Marx's article under the eyes, the number of the Neue Zeit
had already finished and a telegram the next day sent after consultation with Dietz that
the issue sought to prevent, came too late. We can explicitly declare on behalf of Bebel,
that if this act play he was sent in good time, it probably would not be included in the
published form. "

The article Marx escaped so by any chance the social-democratic censorship or

mutilation.
[118] Today, this parliamentary anarchist or something of that nature.
[119] The known brochure of Eugen Richter "Social Democratic Zukunft Bilder" is
perfectly understandable if one knows only that form of socialism, which acts as a social
democracy. And it contains a large dose of truth. Fortunately, however, that there is a
different kind of socialism exists, that nothing need to pull on of these objections, because
it does not touch it at all.
[120] To be sure, to give his teachings faithfully, we followed an outline of his ideas, as he
gave himself.
[121] Is not it strange that already Marat in his Plan de lgislation Criminelle developed
the idea of national workshops where he writes: "Do not walk around in idleness arms,
using them, put them in a condition that they provide through their labor what they
need; to teach their sole occupation and let them live as free people; this will make the
establishment of several public workshops necessary to take them on. But where are the
funds to settle them? Let them be levied on the people in affluent circumstances,
especially the rich people. Let the board be given to any good man and let an honest
magistrate found the inspection. I know the establishments I propose will have many
obstacles and I dare not hope that the abuses that they want to take away will stop
suddenly. Because since princes wish to areas of slaves, they desire as nationals both:.
Empires by opulence spoiled and arms corrupted by misery "
[122] Contribution to the history of agricultural development of Rome under the emperors
of the Adscriptitii (labor slaves), which parents to children were held on the same piece of
land). Inquilinen (serfs as house slaves) and Colonen or those of the landowners got a
piece of their large estates on lease, the lease was paid in nature goods.
[123] Study on the demand for the business value of money in ancient times.
[124] Thus, called the decisions taken in 1819 held at the Congress of Ministers, to
Carlsbad, partly to decisions of the German and partly were made to guide the various
governments of the individual states and the opening formed in the reactionary Politics in
Germany.
[125] With impotence beaten wig sticks (we would say old wigs).
[126] Construction and assembly of the social body.
[127] By me this work is discussed in the Questions of Time of the year 1880.
[128] The lack of prospect of social democracy.
[129] Usury Profit.
[130] A proportion of the total mass actually delivered social labor relative to the yield.
[131] The most spiritually gifted man.
[132] The philosophy of the Dark Heracleitos of Ephesos.
[133] Poor you know the history; you have entirely the same, its content is the reason, but
its form remains eternal - the violence.
[134] The Italian war and the task of Prussia.
[135] Political will and the youngest present.
[136] A system of acquired rights, a reconciliation of the law and the philosophy of law.
[137] On the nature of the constitution.
[138] The indirect taxes and the condition of the working classes.
[139] Open Letter.
[140] What we call property, belongs to strangers.
[141] The parties, the press and the day of Representatives to Frankfurt, three signs of
the public mind.
[142] If he was king.
[143] I would that ye give.
[144] A poor girl.
[145] Here lies what was mortal of Ferdinand Lassalle, the thinker and fighter.
[146] Die Lehren des heutigen Sozislismus und Communismus.
[147] That Geistigen und socialists Strmungen des XIX Jahrhunderts von prof. Dr.
Th. Ziegler.
[148] See Part 1, Chapter 13, Communists before 1848.
[149] Revelations of Marx the communist trial in Cologne.
[150] This says Quack on the authority of English in the preface of Part II of Capital ,
where the struggle for primacy between Rodbertus and Marx of course covered in
favorable sense for the latter. But the most amusing is that the honor of the surplus value
theory, neither the one nor the other belongs, there are already several writers before
them, like Thompson, Proudhon, Victor Considerant, to the words that proclaimed
doctrine.
[151] Revolution and Counter-Revolution or Germany in 1848.
[152] Certainly be called the odd, which communicates Quack, viz., That he is the best
information about the Jewish banking houses in Amsterdam in 1855 derived from the
book of Marx, among others The Eastern Question by Karl Marx .
[153] In the words prepare philosophical systems.
[154] Eg given an extract thereof by me in 1881 that I had the pleasure, that Marx himself
have expressed approval over to me in a letter. Strange that someone "plus que Marxiste
Marx" (more Marxist than Marx) later in the New Age dared write that I had not understood
Marx. Who knew so better than Marx himself!
[155] Marx himself acknowledged this in his Kritik des
sozialdem. Parteiprogramms ; See Neue Zeit 1890/91 No 18. which Arbeit ist die Quelle
all Reichthums.
[156] Das Kapital , 2nd edition, vol. 1, p. 56.
[157] Pages d'histoire et Socialiste 1. Doctrines actes de la Social-Democracy.
[158] Later, the sequel appeared, viz. Parts II and III, while the fourth was expected.
[159] This addition is consistent with the Communist Manifesto, p. 24 (Dutch edition
appeared in the People's Library p. 77/78).
[160] Liebknecht, born in Giessen in 1826, studied at the University of philosophy and
philology. He took over in 1848, serving in the volunteer corps of Herwegh and Struve and
the uprising in Baden in 1849. From 1850 to 1862 he lived in exile in London. He returned
to Germany after the amnesty of 1862, to continue to take an active part in the social
democratic movement, first residing in Leipzig, then Borsdorf near Leipzig until he after
removal of the anti-socialist moved to Berlin, to act as editor of the social democratic
newspaper Vorwrts. He died in 1900.
[161] Bebel was born in Cologne in 1840, was turner by profession. Leipzig he settled in
1860 as a boss. Since 1862 he was involved in the labor movement. He first acted against
Lassalle. Liebknecht later won him for socialism and since then have always worked both,
to the Social Democratic Party in Germany to what she is.
[162] Hasenclever, born in Arneberg in 1827, was a tanner by trade. He took a very active
part in the labor movement. Hurt in spirit he died in 1889.
[163] A pious fraud.
[164] Madwoman region. Infamy of Nobiling. Killer.
[165] Most, born in Augsburg in 1846, was a bookbinder by trade. A restless zealous he
was for the socialist ideas as a result of which he spent eight years together in different
prisons of Austria, Prussia, England and America. London he founded the Freiheit , which
he moved to America after undergoing a sentence of 16 months' hard labor "(forced labor)
in an English prison. Still, he is tireless in his post, to defend the cause of anarchy in that
sheet.
[166] Wilhelm Hasselmann, born in Bremen in 1844, received his education at the poly
technicum Hanover and was as a chemist working at different factories. By Lassalle's
writings in the agitated he was always on the extreme left, the authoritarian behavior of
Liebknecht could not bear, but was finally expelled from the party to go to America. Since
little was heard of him, and us even known whether he is alive or dead.
[167] The time of the parliamentary talk is over and the time of the acts begins.
[168] Instructive in this reading of the official records of the party consecutive days, for
that one particular sees Bebel make potsierlijkste antics, now to the left and then right. He
once spoke of the "Mauserung" (moulting) of the party, but above all one has right to
speak of the Mauserung Bebel himself. Compare also "le Socialisme en danger" on this.
[169] Herd Animals.
[170] Also Vollmar pointed to the depressing impression that he had obtained from the
mass of party members. "For Berlin, a meeting was held; 5000 people today, all agree
with Wille. Then comes Bebel, speaks for 6000 men and 6000 men all agree with Bebel
once. Magdeburg went likewise. "(Report of the party congress in Erfurt.) Indeed, one
gets no increase dunk of" consciousness "and independence of thought at such a party!
[171] Knight Georg von Vollmar, b 1850 in Augsburg, was trained for military service, later
went as a volunteer in the papal zoeavenleger, took part in the Franco-Prussian War of
1870 and was wounded in the war. Lying in the hospital he joined Catholic faithful to a
social democrat. Clear head and gifted with diplomatic skills, he soon became one of the
leaders of the party, so its influence in southern Germany is prevalent, so one never dared
him. His role is not played long.
[172] J. Destre et Emile Vandervelde: Le socialism and Belgium.
[173] These are entities within a municipality, who have the right of use of goods that are
publicly owned.
[174] Kautsky, born in Vienna in 1854, there studied history, founded in connection with
Dietz socialist weekly newspaper Die Neue Zeit on for a time in London, lived in great
friendship with English and applies to one of the best theoreticians of the German party .
[175] Eduard Bernstein, born in Berlin in 1850, joined in 1872 by the Social Democrats to,
in 1881 acted as editor of the Zurich appearing Sozialdemokrat and remained in
Switzerland until he was expelled from there. When he lived in London and became one
of the main staff of the Neue Zeit . The last time his name was often mentioned by his
criticism of Marx.
[176] That Voraussetzungen of Socialismus und die Aufgaben of Social Democracy in
Dutch appeared in a translation by JF Ankersmit entitled The conditions for socialism and
the task of social democracy by Ed. Bernstein .
[177] Gewalt ist ein seit Jahrtausenden reaktionarer Factor. (Violence is a reactionary
factor for thousands of years.) Report party congress in Erfurt p. 206.
[178] Brousse, born in Montpellier in 1851, studied medicine in Paris and received his
doctorate there in 1867. Originally zealous anarchist, advocate even of the "propaganda
of the deed", he wandered abroad around, returned to Paris in 1878 entirely changed to
act for a petty-bourgeois, opportunist socialism. As councilor of Paris, he still exerts much
influence.
[179] Guesde, born in 1845 in Paris, already devoted early to journalism. As anarchists
began he later converted to the most rigid Marxism.
[180] A figure of bet known piece of Beaumarchais' Le Mariage de Figaro , which there
plays the role of the greedy.
[181] Paul Lafargue, who was born in Cuba in 1840 of French parents, studied in Paris in
the medicine. Had participated in the student conference in Lige excluded in 1866 from
the French universities, he completed his studies in London. There he was introduced to
Marx, whose son he was by marrying one of his daughters, and he came into the socialist
movement. He stood Marx and Engels faith aside in the persecution of anarchists. With
Guesde Deville and he was one of the founders of the Marxist party in France. His
writings are often sharply satirical.
[182] Benoit Malon, born in the vicinity of St. Etienne in 1841, was in his youth herdsman,
later painter in Paris. He joined the International in 1868, worked vigorously along the
strike of Creuzot in 1870, repeatedly imprisonment walked. He participated in the
Commune knew after the crushing of the escape to Switzerland. Affiliated to the Alliance
of Bakunin he fought the General Council of the International. After the amnesty returned
to Paris, he took a position between Marxism and anarchism, as evidenced by his many
writings and the he founded Revue Socialiste .
[183] Vaillant, Vierzon born in 1840, studied in Paris science and medicine, later in
Germany. He took part to escape the Commune, but knew after the demise of this to
London. He was and remained a diligent Blanquist.
[184] This formula summarizes socialism seen together from all sides, in all its elements
of formation, in all possible manifestations. Thus understood, it is the synthetic (= method
of single rises to the composite) end of all the progressive work of the present humanity.
[185] Millerand, born in Paris in 1853, studied law in Paris and practiced there from the
legal profession. As a journalist he worked on the blade of Clemenceau, to come later as
radical in the House.
[186] Jaurs was born in Castres in 1859, enjoyed an academic education, later became
a teacher at the lyce in Albi, and then as much as a private tutor in Toulouse. Came into
the room he was in the center gauche (left center), later to be socialist. He is collectivist,
but as he put it: "Mais tout de mme avec plus de libre initiative pour l'individu" (but with
more free initiative of the individual). A nice short critique of collectivist socialism on!
[187] Compare, Paul Louis, Histoire du franais Socialism, Jean Bourdeau L'volution du
socialism, both books published in 1901.
[188] Hyndman studied at Trinity College. In English was published a booklet with
biographical sketches of Hyndman, Belfort Bax, Morris, Walter Crane, Hunter Watts, John
E. Williams, Andreas Scheu, HW Lee, James Macdonald, R. Blatchford, Quelch and Tom
Mann, each of these himself tells us how he became a socialist. (How I became a
socialist.)
[189] Morris, born in London in 1834, studied at Oxford and later devoted himself to arts
and crafts and painting. He is one of the best poets of England in the later period. The
expression, including his Earthly Paradise (Earthly Paradise) and other poems. He died in
1897.
[190] The talented youngest daughter of Marx, who in onzaliger hour covenant to be
handsome but thoroughly bad Aveling, to end her life sadly in 1898.
[191] Fabian essays on socialism, in Dutch and translated by FM Wibauthuis under the
title Socialism in two volumes published in the International Library.
[192] In a Dutch translation by H. Polak published under the title History of the British
Trade Union Being .
[193] Published in the International Library under the title of the present and the
future . H. Polak translation.
[194] We refer to the book by Paul White, a former editor of the Forward, entitled The
History of Forth and the Ghent socialist workers movement since 1870 . Was then
expressed a desire in 1895 to see appearing the history of Forth, was one of the members
of the central administration on the question of who would be able to tax it, replied:
nobody can do that better than Paul White, he's beginning experienced and familiar with
all further events.
We have here a book by an expert and all the content is out very differently than we had
intended - they wanted a glorification of Forth and it was a criticism strongly disapproving
sense - still no one can the power of the writer to this topic treat, doubt. No one therefore
attempted a rebuttal.
[195] Edward Anseele, born in Ghent in 1856, worked as a notary clerk, when he felt
called to socialism. He went to learn typesetting to better serve the party giving
the People's Will and later the Forward . Gifted writer with talent, he later went on to the
cooperative at whose head he stood.
[196] Jean Volders, born in 1856 was one of the most active leaders of the Belgian
Workers' Party, which he helped found. As chief of the magazine Le Peuple , as director
of the Maison du Peuple in Brussels and the cooperative he exercised great influence
until he was insane in 1894.
[197] Csar De Paepe, born in Ostend in 1841, studied for a physician, but by the early
death of his father he had to abandon his studies and became typographer. Yet he still
found time in addition to his daily business to continue the brode and his socialist
propaganda his studies so that he became a physician in 1871. He was one of the
founders of the International. Originally a student of Colin He later went on to Proudhon
and anarchism to be later collectivist. He was an educated and tolerant man whose
conversation was always instructive. After a long suffering he died in 1890 at Cannes in
France. Compare his clean lecture, held in Patignies, where he ultimate objective
indicated the revolution "the destruction of all power, ie after a transformation of society,
the removal of politics from the economy, the government organization by the industry,
which is:. anarchy "
[198] Two brothers, Leon and Alfred, son of a Belgian senator, had much influence in
Mons, above Alfred, who was born in 1843 as a lawyer was working, had an eventful life
died in 1901.
[199] Because he always urged for calm as soon as inclination or was to be seen only
stand a tendency to general strikes or riots. They had become owners and - ownership is
conservative.
[200] Among his works we would particularly like to draw attention to his book De la
Justice dans la science et l'glise hors hors la rvolution . (On the equity in science
outside the church and outside the revolution) in 3 parts and L'conomie politique; Source
des rvolutions et des utopies prtendus socialists (the economy, the source of the
alleged socialist revolutions and utopias) into 4 parts. In his pamphlet Le socialism
Rationel (1849), he advocated an international connection of workers, which all sectarian
socialism will disappear "like mist before the sun."
[201] Government of God, of the People, of Reason.
[202] Compare his Etudes Social Science (Studies in Social Science), published after his
death by his widow.
[203] He himself admits in the preface that he had to follow different area Dhring, "which
I can move me most of the claims of a dilettante." So his criticism is in many ways
dilettantism and thus had English must not engage .
[204] Critical History of the principles of mechanics.
[205] Friedlander sees nothing in the bernsteiniade the last time more than a revival of
the ideas of Dhring without naming him, as his name is, after all, once put on the Index
of Forbidden Books. He speaks of continuing Dhringdebatten under the title of bernstein
debates. "The Dhringse allusions are somewhat modeled weakened and mixed, but they
are nonetheless undeniable and would also then be for the connoisseur, if one did not
know that Bernstein has been a personal pupil of Dhring."
[206] The vrijheidlievend socialism Unlike the state thrall of the Marxists. Compare, also
the recently published work of these, entitled Those four Hauptrichtungen of moderns
socialists Bewegung (The four main directions in modern social movement), ie 1. Marxist
social democracy; 2. anarchism; 3. socialitair system of Eugen Dhring; 4. Henry George
neofysiocratie.
[207] Carey's revolution of economies like science and social science, capital and labor,
new answers to old questions, critical foundations of economies like science and the
people who reduce Carey and the Crisis of Political Economy.
[208] The value of life. A thinkers consideration within the meaning of heroic outlook.
[209] The Labor Question and John Stuart Mills insights about the social question and the
alleged revolution of social science by Carey.
[210] Principles.
[211] The purpose of the law.
[212] The modern socialism.
[213] International Library: E. de Laveleye, the property and its original form . Translation
F. Domela.
[214] The second issue consists of 6 parts.
[215] Images and groups.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 19

Liberal socialism or anarchism

The precursors of anarchism

The term anarchism direction that sees the highest goal of society in the full
development of individual strengths, we find the traces of almost every great mind. This
still does not let curbing and wants nothing more and nothing else than to develop
completely free. But the aversion of the state is nothing new. Already at Aristippus, a
disciple of Socrates and founder of the hedonistic [216] school, one finds a declared
aversion to the state. The method has no more precious good than freedom and must
therefore attempt to evade political life, which always suppresses individual freedom
part. When questioned by Socrates whether he rather wanted to belong to the ruling class
than to the controlled, he also replied to neither.

In the main work on the cultural history of the country, in Lives of Hellas by Dicaearchus
we think about prehistoric times the performance of a society in peace and harmony,
which is due to him from the lack of needs.

The Cynics school [217] took the same view and the concept of need statelessness
forward to the denial of cultural needs and thus to the denial of all the institutions of the
so-called civilization: marriage, property, state. Pity we do not work anymore Zeno,
because from what others say to us from him, we should greet the actual father of
anarchism in him.

In addition to the pull of self-preservation he sees in the human migration to community,

so he comes to justice and philanthropy. "Life according to nature" efforts should be and
then it cares not about artificial things like property, honor and the like. Zeno want to know
unlike Plato nothing of state omnipotence, guardianship and regulation, for man must be a
law to themselves. All must act according to the laws lying in nature itself, peace manifest
themselves in man. One of these laws requires the neighbors, even those with whom they
come into contact, to love. Where love and harmony prevail, there are courts and police
superfluous. Where each knows what suits him, because the marriage bond is
unnecessary. Where all the true ratio found to God, there is a political organization of the
religion and its temples unnecessary. Where one obtains the desired products by
exchange, there is no need for cash or swaps. So all coercion is excluded by him.

From the little we know of the cynics - and that little remains from the second and third
hand - we would think they have the right to them to greet the only thinkers of antiquity,
which the sanctity of labor and moral equality the conditions of life for all defended, while
their moral distinguished by simplicity and purity, and they sharply criticized the people's
superstition.

Oddly may be called the later Stoics [218] precisely the master's political work, which
he anarchist doctrine preached, regarded as a pernicious and thus certainly depends
remark in Zeno biography by Diogenes Laertius together, that the Director of library at
Pergamum, although self stoic, the offending places copies of library destroyed. So what
we know is very vague and general, and that is certainly very regrettable.

Also in the original Christian sects such as the Karpokratianen one finds anarchic
thoughts, even in Paul's letters and the Gospels. The whole mystique of the Middle Ages -
take for instance Thomas a Kempis in his. On the imitation of Christ - exudes a more or
less anarchic, or at least strongly individualistic spirit.

Nine centuries ago there lived an Arab poet Ebou-Ala-el-Muarri, to his native named
Muarret el-Numan, a small country village in the district Haleb. In the east it has a big
name, although it is almost unknown in the West, only under the Orientalists of course he
is known. As a poet he has elevated views which stamp him as a forerunner of the
Anarchists [219] . The poor social organization of the world had caught his attention and
he preached the necessity of a social reform. Especially he sharply against the inequality
of living conditions among people, eg, he said. "Winter is coming on the earth, he not only
expresses the people are warm covered under good blankets, but also the poor
unfortunates who are naked . A rich man, a noble seizes the livelihood of a whole people
and is harshly deprived of the piece of bread, which is necessary for its existence. "With
contempt he looked down on the people that was bowed in the dust for his oppressors
and said, "What are they ignorant, the nations that I know! Undoubtedly were the last
races that I can not see or know, even more stupid and foolish than this. They pray weekly
for their chiefs and tyrants wish them a long life. This is the result of their disastrous
mental state. '

He saw among men two classes of people, including "one religion holds and no reason
and the other reason and not religion." And he called all comments: "Awake, you got
lost! Your dogmas hypocrisy of the ancients, tricks used by them to accumulate property
and be clothed with glory. They succeeded and died, but their cowardly teachings lived
on. "Pessimist as he was, he put the death over life. He lived from plant foods, because
he slaughtered animals to the meat to eat, considered immoral and cruel. He was
unmarried and disapproved reproduction, so he put on his grave: "Here is the crime which
my mother has committed against me. As for myself, I have molested anyone's life. "

When the French writer Rabelais (1483-1553) we even get into the issue of Free Will
(the Thelemiten of thelo, voluntarily), founded by Giargantua, an anarchist utopia. It was a
strange monastery where lived Thelemites, a hexagonal building with a round tower at
each corner with 9000 rooms, each with a bedroom, cabinet, dressing room and
chapel. Middle of the garden stood a marble fountain, which the three Graces, which
shone with antennae in the hands of breasts, ears and eyes water. In a society of civilized
people is no compulsion. Everyone living there as he wants; they are on if they want, eat
and drink as they desire, work and sleep as they prefer. They had only to rule: fais ce que
tu veux (do what you want), so no limits on individual freedom. The only thing that drives
them is the sense of honor. And precisely as a result of that unconditional freedom one
finds the highest harmony. All vying to do what is pleasing to others. But ... it was the
utopia of the privileged classes. Still makes us agreeable to that distinguishes it from
Plato's communist republic or More's Utopia , because not everything is controlled and
regulated, but everything naturally going.

In Stenko Razine, the Cossack chieftain, we find a peculiar type, called the oppressed
Russians to arms in the 17th century and wherever he could, cried the commune where
they lived chosen in small groups, administered by one from their midst " hetman "and in
community of property. These groups worked together to communal interests and
communes again for major public interest with a selected from the respective communes,
general counsel, who lived in Astrakhan, after that city in his hands had fallen. In 1671,
government forces defeated the communists army Symbirsk and his supporters left when
Razine down, which captured and put to death. This was the end of the Cossack
Commune.
 Also, in the movement of the Anabaptists one finds elements, which exhibit anarchistic
inclinations, as we have demonstrated this in the treatment of this sect.

Incidentally, in the Protestant principle itself lies at the heart of anarchism, for which the
conscience of the individual has the highest decision because the man has himself
become the supreme authority. And Protestantism refers not man to his own conscience
as a supreme court? "Every heretic has his letter" - goes an old saying. What does this
say otherwise, then that everyone has the same right to rely on a biblical place that
pleases him, like any other? Not so in dissent, are subject to the judgment of priest,
bishop or pope or clergyman (authority outside), no one has finally come to find
themselves (res inside). So the man himself highest authority - but is not that an anarchist
principle? That they later all dogmas are going to build, pleads not prevent itself is locked
anarchism in principle. Strange is also the large number of sects that originated among
Protestants and each of which claims to be in possession of the truth.

When we examine Lessing humanity ideal, as he this, in his Education of

Mensengeschlechts [220] and his Gesprche fr Freimaurer [221] , we find that it is ideal
and ultimate goal of the moral education of mankind, a society for the mind state, which
an orderly society without government, in which every individual is able to govern
themselves. That already proves the anthill, where all carrying and dragging and sliding,
help each other and not interfere with the other, and yet they have no one above him, who
governs them or determine the activities. Read the dialogue about soldiers and monks,
where he was on the question: what are monks and what his soldiers? with answers:
soldiers are the guardians of the state, the monks pillars of the church. And then it reads:
" Away with your church! Away with your state ! "

His friend Jacobi wrote of him: "He saw the ridiculous and miserable making all moral
and political institutions clearly. In an interview he once so lost in zeal, he claimed that the
civil society should be eliminated entirely and how crazy this sounds, yet this statement is
near the truth. People will only be then governed well, as they do not need more
government. "He therefore wants a free association of the noblest and wisest, ideally
Masonic association.

Schiller did not give up the demand for the best state replied:

Woran recogniti 'ich the best condition? Woran du which best

Frau kennst - daran mein Freund, daas man nicht spricht von both.

(I recognize the best state what do you know the best woman - it, my friend, that one can
not speak of them.)

Absence of state is the highest.

And one can not Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre and Wahlverwandtschaften place
enough tightening, indicating how Goethe as the highest goal, the self-government of the
people? Yes it would be no trouble to put together an anthology of the works of the best
minds and thinkers kloekste, demonstrating how they all strove for the utmost
development and the most freedom for the individual.

However, this refers only to a more or less unconscious anarchist movement, inasmuch
as anarchism aims for the most possible freedom, but more conscious we find developed
the anarchist thought the Englishman Godwin (1756-1836) in his Enquiry into the
Principles of political justice (Research on the principles of political justice), published in
the year 1793. in his criticism of the state and any majority government, he says: "Here
are (the new company) would not demagogue opportunity to make the masses to
implement his plans. People would understand their luck in such a state of society and
love it. The true cause, which the mass of humanity as often as the sacrifice of being
impostors, was the mysterious and complicated form of the social system. As was first
destroyed the quackery of the government, ordinary people sense will mock the low tricks
of the state magician who want him in the nose ... With what delight, any sensible man out
to meet happy time to go, the solution political governments, the raw machine, the only
constant cause of the crimes of humanity and errors of different nature contains in its
inner being, which in no other way can be removed than by its total destruction. "Godwin
looks so right in that the existing social relations are the cause of all evil, for "how big and
wide the disasters of the monarchies and hofhoudingen of the deception of the clergy and
of the injustice of the criminal laws - they are weak and powerless compared to the
disasters resulting from the existing property system. "If the" immediate effects of the
existing property system "he considers" the spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and
the spirit of deception "and therefore he is a proponent of" equal property "( same
property). He considers the abolition of the state is necessary and want to see it replaced
by a voluntary society of groups of people who administer themselves. "We must never
forget that all governments are wrong and the dethronement of our own judgment and
conscience." He distinguishes between society and state, the first of which "arose from
our needs, the statement by our wickedness, society is in any case, a blessing, the state,
at best, a necessary evil. "If one defines fatherhood looking for anarchism, Godwin than
one might almost be called the father of anarchism, although he himself does not
name. Yet he fears less than despotism, for "anarchy is a terrible evil, but despotism even
worse. Where anarchy has beaten hundreds, it has brought despotism millions of sacrifice
and thereby granted durability to the ignorance, vice and misery. Anarchy is a disaster of
short duration, despotism is almost immortal. It is undoubtedly a very terrible way for
people to give in to all the raging passions, until the intuition of its operating new power
grants to the reason; but is just as horrible as the physic as surely helps. "As one can
William Thompson called an anarchist, still comes his teachings down on free labor, the
entire product of labor to the labor and free trade, and it can certainly not be reckoned
among the state socialists. Shelley, one of the most consistent and likeable poet figures
from England, was a geestdriftvol fighter for freedom, the most perfect liberty and joined
the ideas of Godwin.

Apart from a number of passages in his major poetry and prose works, including the
beautiful Queen Mab , one has a poem from him The Masque of Anarchy , published by
Leigh Hunt first time in 1832. Shelley wrote it after a blood smothered riots in Manchester
and he let go by a parade in a vision, in which the protagonists occurred Deception,
Murder and Hypocrisy to be the king finally Anarchy sitting on a white, bloodstained horse,
do appear.

Did not even Montesquieu that "in a free state every man who is considered to have a
free soul, should be ruled by themselves?" Was not Rousseau, who disapproved of the
representation when he writes: "If the work of any human being is to use his own
judgment, he may transfer in any case this function in the hands of others."

The fabulist in this respect is a happy man, because in the garb of the fable he could
tell hard truths, without being resented him. Thus, Jean de la Fontaine, the famous French
fabulist, despite the platitudes and submissive present for the king, a very dangerous
reading and Florian no less. Was not de la Fontaine, whose word comes: notre ennemi
c'est notre matre (our enemy is our master.) Book 6, 8 fable? He was not advised the
people to do their own affairs and not to carry out others by proxy (ne fais la point by
proxy) Book 11, Fable 3? He was not referring to the man himself (ne t'attends qu' toi
seul) Book 4, fable 22)? He was not that the value of freedom so highly valued, he said,
"Oh, what shall it profit a full dis, if one is without freedom" (Hlas sert que la bonne chre
Quand on n'a pas la libert!? ) Book 4, fable 13? He was not realized very well that "the
strongest is always right" (la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure) Book 1, fable
10)? It was not him, who said: "Help one another! Nature dictates "(il faut se entr'aider:
c'est la loi de nature) Book 8 fable 17? And he knew the princes well, as he recalls: "One
sire is lightly touched, and - Lions have claws" Book 11, 5 fable? He was not that an old
cat to his companion dog, to say: "My poor tailor! Did ye indeed, that you assess
yourself wast loved by your bosses "Was not he the one who said," Jupin pour chaque
tat mit deus tables au monde L'adroit, le vigilant et le fort sont Asais A la premire;? et
les petits mangent leur reste la seconde. "? (Jupiter placed two tables in the world for
each mode Smart, the bijdehandse and strong at the first sitting,.. And the little ones eat
their remains of the second), but one should read the whole fable book with his human
expert comments and they will see so they Fontaine may not rank among the conscious
anarchists, we can still safely say that there are anarchist blood flowing through his
veins. And Florian, though less well known, especially not for less, where he shows mutter
monkeys: "Playing with the big ones, not even the loveliest has claws on its feet", in which
he expresses the view that "only the goods that they fraternal divides, give us true
advantage because simple pleasure is no pleasure. " The stories do especially not inferior
to those of La Fontaine, and as I know that many have been edited to the Greek fabulist
Aesop, it is already kindled this apparently by anarchism.

Among the forerunners also deserves to be awarded a place on the Italian Carlo
Pisacane, who was killed in 1857 in the expedition to Sapri. Certainly he Bold laws of
representative system, but compares it while his right ideas about law and order, one sees
only there, how he had not yet reached the necessary clarity.

About the American Josiah Warren and the German Max Stirner we speak in another
chapter, but their names may still not be forgotten here. A remarkable anarchist was
definitely the Frenchman Joseph Dejacque who do not still come to the position of the
communist anarchists but who was still working in the direction of anarchism. He differs
from Proudhon in that he does not like these could imagine a peaceful revolution: "The
time of the peaceful progress will only open the bones of the civilized world, as the
monopoly would have given the last sigh and products the labor public domain will be. "he
says Proudhon does have anarchist tendencies, but is not an anarchist, he's" not a
humanist, but masculinist, since half his being is paralyzed and that is unfortunately the
side of the heart "( this refers to Proudhon backward opinions on the woman) and he calls
the great merit of Proudhon "not that he has always been logical, but he raised others to
strive for logic."

His Humanisphre certainly deserves attention, since he is already the process of

development in nature from the lower to the higher sketched, which was later supported
by Darwin with evidence. In his Humanisphre - he mentions a row of groups living in the
same place - there is no government. A rebounding organization serves as their law. The
sovereign, individual liberty underlies all collective decisions. The authority of anarchy, the
absence of all and every dictatorship in the number or power replaces the arbitrariness of
authority, the despotism of justice and law. Each governs itself by its own laws and the
government all by itself based social order. Authority was never anything other than the
suicide of the individual, the order is always just "the order which reigns in Warsaw", ie
murder. The authority is laziness. Freedom labor. Coercion is the mother of all evil, why is
it banned from the area of Humanisphre. Enlightened, rational egoism is highly
developed there than it would someone raids to suppress his neighbor. Selfishness is
man. Without egoism man would not exist. Selfishness teaches him to produce, consume,
others like to be treated kindly, loving others in order to be loved them, laboring for others
that they labor for him. The old society calls it wrongly devotion (dvotion), it's just
speculation and that more human as she is wiser and less human, as it is stupid. In
Humanisphre they do not vote. Neither the majority nor the minority makes something
into law. This or that plan has prepared a sufficient number of workers to carry it out:
whether a majority or a minority, it is implemented, as the proponents want it. And usually
it is done in such a way that the majority joins the minority either the minority to the
majority. Dejacque had not the least confidence in working in parliament and in a polemic
against the Blanquists he wrote: "The workers called to the government! Truly, one must
have lost his memory. Had we not Albert in the provisional government? Can one imagine
anything more stupid? What was he but a drive for mockery? In the Constituent and
Legislative Assembly we had Lyon delegates; if one wanted to evaluate their constituents,
it would be a sad proof of the understanding of the workers of Lyon. Paris gave us
Nadaud, a melancholy nature with the mind of a mortar, which dreamed of changing his
mason trowel into a presidential scepter - the weak-headed! Then also Corbon, generally
considered the Workshop (half and half socialist magazine before 1848), perhaps the
least Jesuit of all, for he tarried at least not to throw off the mask and sit in the middle next
to the reactionaries, as well as the courtiers at the foot of the throne are more royalist than
the king, as well as on the steps of the official or legal authority the republican workers are
more bourgeois than the bourgeois themselves. And that is understandable, freed the
slaves and itself become master, exaggerating the evils of the planter, who raised him. He
is more inclined to abuse the rule, to the more subservience and humiliation he was
tempted or forced. A dictatuurcomit, consisted of working, is undoubtedly the most
significant and inflated self-esteem, which can be found and thus the most anti-
revolutionary. "
Christian anarchism

Although anarchism is the doctrine that no government, no authority from whom or

whatever will and therefore should not be linked to a person, one has the so-called
Christian anarchism, so anarchism that Christ accepts as the highest authority. Now say
the Christian anarchists that they do not accept the teachings of Jesus, because she
loves him, but because their souls are wholly consistent with those teachings, but they
associate his name with their anarchism and thus begin to act struggle with
anarchism. Both words in their connection a contradiction in adjecto (contradiction).

It was Count Tolstoi, a Russian nobleman, according to his own biography the first 35
years of his life completely atheist who could be called the father of Christian
anarchism. But then there was a big change in his soul instead. Not that he went back to
the Church's teaching of the Greek Orthodox Church, where he was raised, no church did
give teachings and instructions but no precepts founded on the teachings of Jesus. It was
the Sermon on the Mount that attracted him especially and in it he found the key to the
whole teaching of Jesus in the words: "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil."
(Matthew 5:39.). So the core, the quintessence was to the effect that the follower of Jesus
could resist void under pretext violence or violence against his fellow man.

This was not the first "discovered" by Tolstoy, for already were the Quakers in this
position and, above all William Lloyd Harrison, supporter of efforts to liberalize the
negroes, who founded an association in 1838 to foundation of the world, and a statement
of principles adopted by the members of the Society for the promotion of universal peace
among men with the principle expounded by never resist evil with evil, but only by
subjecting themselves passively to the penalties and other consequences the application
of this principle. He gave a magazine, the Non Resistant (the no resistive, so the passive),
but soon this movement went out.

In that statement is said to recognize the supporters of that doctrine no human

authority, because they assume only one king and legislator, one judge and one head of
mankind. Their homeland is the whole world, their countrymen are all mankind. According
to them, one has no right to defend itself against foreign enemies or to attack
them. Individuals have the right nor in their mutual relations. Not only wars, but every
military organization, arsenals, fortresses, warships, standing armies, memorials in
memory of victories, trophies, military ceremonies, conquests by violence, they consider
un-Christian and unlawful. They exclude themselves from any condition related, but also
deny the right to choose other people before. No appeal may they ever do the
justice. They subject themselves to all laws except those which are contrary to the
precepts of the gospel and then they oppose only by being passively submit to the
punishments resulting from their refusal to comply with the law. They want neither
conspiracies nor rise, nor violence and are therefore in principle anti-revolutionary. They
want to clean up all the authorities that can not possibly be appointed by God to commit
violence, but not by violence but by the moral regeneration of mankind.

Adin Ballon, one of the members of the association, however, persisted long and
devoted 50 years to the spread of the principle of peace through patience. He has a
catechism of not resist issued communicated by Tolstoy in his book: The kingdom of God
is within you .

But this was forgotten and left hardly any trace.

Tolstoy tells of a work of certain Czech from the 15 e century. Kheltchitsky entitled net of
faith , where such a doctrine is developed. He still recalls Dymons work about the war,
which appeared in 1824 and that of Musser on the non-resist in 1864. Yet these writings
are passed without influence and only when the powerful voice of the famous and
celebrated novelist Leo Tolstoy that doctrine brought to the fore, there is listened to and
they found acceptance by many.

Tolstoy forgot to recall a book that cast in romantic form, at the time made enormous
entrance. We think of the True History of Josuah Davidson by mrs. Lynn Linton. This
raises the question: how a modern Jesus would be received in today's society? And then
performs a certain Josuah Davidson - the name is clear enough - the scene who want
whole life learning to Jesus and so consistent exercise will between word and deed. The
church and ejected her servants as a heretic by the men of science with his back since
and mocked as a do not know, considered by public opinion as an immoral man, ruled by
the philanthropists and aristocrats for an agitator, with no help required but requested that
the working class itself could work up, he found no place. Finally, he went to Paris during
the Commune because he was hoping it would finally come up the light for the oppressed
and suffering. To the extent that he was no passive verzetter, just as Jesus was when he
changers and merchants themselves with a whip of ropes uitjoeg the temple when he
advised his followers when they had two coats, there to sell, and a sword buying, but his
aim was the same, viz. unity between doctrine and life. Sad was his end, because he
excitement of a minister, he had once exposed as a hypocrite, mistreated by any rude
people in a meeting and was trampled to death. And then the writer asks the question: is
the practical following of Jesus a morally wrong and socially a crime? For if Christ is right,
then the present Christianity wrong, that does not affect nor our state institutions nor our
social arrangements and if the science of society is true, then Jesus is not only vain
preached and acted, but also against the immutable law committed. The teachings of the
brotherhood of all people, Jesus and his disciples preached and for which they died,
taught in the churches and in writings as Christian doctrine and now a practical Christian
is cursed as Josuah, impossible and finally murdered [222 ] .

To the knowledge of the reversal of the mind, which took place in Tolstoy, one must
read his three writings: the confession , what I believe and what should be done? But to
know his teachings, is no better written than The kingdom of God is within
you [223] and the Christian doctrine , a sort of catechism, in which he displays his ideas,
although he himself admits that the book is unfinished and the hope pronounce give it
back fuller, clearer and shorter. The latter is an old catechism booklet, as we us remember
from our childhood.

He later gave a translation and explanation of the four Gospels into a work of three
parts, which he often very arbitrary, anything but critically proceed.
 For Tolstoy is the essence of the Sermon on the Mount in these five commandments:
1. Thou shalt not be angry with your brother;
2. Thou shalt not respect woman to lust after her, and thou shalt not cast a woman;
3. Thou shalt not swear at all, but your speech be yes, yes; Nay, nay;
4. Resist not evil;
5. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

In recent times, the Doukhobortsi (Spirit Champions) gained some renown in southern
Russia, because they have put into application Christian anarchism. Which celebrity they
owe to their military service and the tough persistence with which they have managed this
by putting in front of an all-powerful government as the Russian, who in the cruellest and
most barbaric way acted against them. We think talk of them in the second half of the last
century. A thorn in the eyes of the Greek Orthodox Church continued this government
against them. The persecution began in 1792, when they were sentenced to be burned,
but this sentence was commuted to banishment to Siberia. Alexander I gave them
permission to live together in Tauris province. Overall, the persecution did not, but in 1840
and 50 they were resumed with renewed vigor and the sect was out of Tauris banished to
Transcaucasia in the "Wet Mountains" in Tiflis Government, 1500 meters above the
sea. They knew that region by working diligently to recreate in flourishing colonies. In
1887, general conscription was introduced in the Caucasus and now were those who
used the military service afkonden to be performed by other services or by banishment,
forced to come into the ranks. Initially, they prostrated themselves, but soon they came to
the conclusion that bearing of arms in violation of their principles. In 1893 they decided to
drink intoxicating beverages, not to smoke and not to eat meat, and in 1894 they split after
the payment of all debts of the members of their possessions equally among all. This
measure was done not by constraint, but willingly and out of love. When they started
common plowing and harvesting, and the workshops were common property. Each
working according to his needs without paying. Once again Intradiscal inequality, divided it
again. They lived entirely to the regulations of Jesus, and as they were against all acts of
violence and thus refused military service. Now began the proceedings with new force:
Cossacks were billeted with them their belongings were looted, men and women with the
whip and abused in other ways. The 300 soldiers who put prisoners refused service, and
were sent to penal battalions, where many died as a result of abuse and hardship. More
than 400 families were driven out of house and home and were thus a prey to all kinds of
diseases and lack. In the book of Vladimir Tchertkov Christian Martyrdom in
Russia [224] one can find this in detail. It was to pay for this exiled from Russia. Because
that book by Tolstoy and the attention of the world was drawn to the horrors that took
place here. Public opinion, especially in England, came against protests and under the
pressure of it were this simple but unwavering farmers finally leave to go to Canada and
settle there, to live according to their principles.

In Russia we find more such sects. Thus we read of the sect of the Wanderers, who
consider their participation in the political system or the church as a work of the devil, as
the pious man by air and by restless wanderings must withdraw from the world. Swagger
has no wife, no property; he recognizes neither the state nor the church, he shed no blood
and therefore performed no military service, he labors. Only "because of the weakness
sake" some may have a permanent residence and perform an action, but they are
required to keep rooms Disponibel which they give at all times shelter and asylum to the
Wanderers. This sect must be in high honor by the Russian people. The Wanderer is a
truly national type of the great Slavic world of the East.

Tolstoy's anarchist; he sees in the state of the violent power means to coerce the
people and thus wants to destroy the state. The state is for him the rule of the wicked. He
calls the basis of the authority physical violence and therefore he says that "in spite of the
ongoing efforts of the directors to hide it and give another meaning to the authority, the
front man is a rope, which he gagged, a chain which he dragged the whip with which he
will be beaten, the cleaver or hatchet, which earned him the arms, legs, nose, ears, will
cut off the head; so it was under Nero and Genghis Khan, and so it is still today among
the most liberal government, that of the American or French republic. "He finds confirmed
by the whole history, that it is not the best but the worst that have always held power and
yet, because lust is not associated with goodness, but rather with arrogance, cunning and
cruelty. One can take it as you will, but "without raising themselves and humiliation of
others, without hypocrisy and deceit, without prisons, fortresses, executions can not
obtain authority nor saved." After all rule is, to exercise violence, violent exercise is, do
what he does, who it violated not want and what he, calling the violence certainly would
not tolerate, will "prevail" in effect say, others do what they would not like they did to us,
that is evil do. It may be added that "the possession of power corrupts the people." How
many resources people have devised to prevent the powers that the welfare of the whole
subordinate to their own advantage, so it is not to be just proved effectual. "Everyone
knows that those who have the power, whether they be the emperor, minister, police
officer or agent, precisely because they hold the power, more prone to immorality, to
subordination of the common good to their personal benefit they who have no power; and
it can not be otherwise. "Having and the abuse of power is the same for him. "The most
terrible gang is not as bad as an organization of the state. Each captain is therefore
limited, the people who form his gang, or at least maintain a part of human liberty and
may refuse operating activities, as they fight against their conscience. "But not in the state
is such a restriction ; No crime is so enormous, that it was not committed by officials and
the army in accordance with the will of him who happens at the head, whether he
Boulanger, Pugatschev, Napoleon called. "The time will come when everyone
understands clearly that governments totally useless, touching only inconvenience is the
time when all the settings that are based on violence will disappear because it is found
that they are useless, nonsensical and even tangible unsuitable.

The supreme law for him is love and there he deduces the commandment not to resist
by force evil. He wants one will refuse military service, no oath to take, no tax will pay no
state relate will hold, not persons for any government nor himself let you choose in any
government of country, province or municipality, in a word, that they all will refuse which
brings into contact with the state. He wants to start a conversion of people from within,
because how can one make a rational and moral society with people who are so blunted
that they would kill their own parents, as it was commanded them? Refusal of all those so-
called duties governments will come in the extreme embarrassment, because they bribe
does not matter, after all, they prove their disinterestedness by the danger to which they
expose themselves; cheat them by the assurance that obeying the law is commanded by
God, nor does anything, as their refusal is based on the clear and indisputable law of
God; frighten them by threats avail nothing, for the hardship and suffering which their
guard, will make them earnestly desire to follow the divine law, which says to obey God
rather than men; imprison them for life or put to death would only help to make promoters
of disobedience rise. Tolstoy believes that "the socialists, communists, anarchists with
their bombs, riots, revolution nowhere near as dangerous for the government, as
independent people who proclaim their denials everywhere loud and are taking lands in
the same doctrine which all know. "the revolutionaries fighting the government with
external agents and therefore they are not as dangerous as the Christians who internally
destroy all the principles on which the state is founded. Christianity in its true meaning
destroys the state.

In his recently published brochure Modern slavery he desires: 1. that it neither voluntary
nor forced to take part in the work of the state and not a soldier, field marshal, minister,
collector of taxes, mayor, judge, member of parliament or a witness in the service of
government will be; 2. do not pay taxes, direct or indirect, not money use that has been
collected by taxes, either in the form of wages or those of retirement, and do not use state
institutions, which are maintained by the taxpayers' money, violently taken from the people
; 3. Do not ask to make state violence to protect ownership of land or other property,
either for their own safety and that of his neighbors and the land only possess the extent
that other people as well as all the products of others or their own labor no claims.

This is to say down on the board to hang himself but, because that way it is impossible
to live in the existing society. Life imprisonment, voluntarily starve, or kill himself - such is
the choice of which one is made in this way. It seems to us that it is his goal to overshoot
by making such demands, which no one has ever met, Tolstoy nor anyone else, or can
fulfill only. And the impossible is no mandatory.

All that he substantiated a mystical haze, without thinking that he will work as arbitrary
in his choice of texts from the Gospels as the servants of the church. Each takes from it a
rule that is involved in his stall and covers it with a text, but he forgets that the anarchist
who takes himself to authority, should not rely on the external authority of anyone.

Yet Tolstoy remains a peculiar type, "high personification of mercy and compassion",
surrounded by his followers with a certain halo of sanctity to the temples of his head. He
now lives very basic at this beautiful resort Jasna Polyana in Tula to have resulted after a
wild passionate life and works with the workers along on the field or at home keeps busy
with shoemaking. He also founded a school in his village, which is based entirely on the
freedom of the children and that what school is as far away as possible. Or the depiction
of absolute chastity in the Kreutzer Sonata demonstrates a sound understanding of
human nature, we doubt. As Solomon life after having thoroughly enjoyed are: "All is
vanity" preaches, also sounds peculiar Tolstoy in his old age and after a life fully enjoyed
having heard the proposals chastity as the highest ideal. It will be wise to do the reading
of his works not to get carried away, but to sift calm themselves and differentiate to let the
chaff scatter to retain the wind and the corn. He has as it were, a school formed of people
who call themselves Tolstoyans to him, a school that finds adherents in several countries.
 Many points of contact Tolstoy did so with the anarchists, particularly where he attacks
militarism and authority, but otherwise there is a big difference between him and the
anarchists. Tolstoy seeks to answer the question what happiness a life can yield that is
only a slow death. He finds fourfold kind of outcome, to get out of the sad state in which
we all are, namely: 1. ignorance consists in not knowing that life is an evil; 2. The
Epicurean conception, according to which we enjoy all the goods that present themselves
to us; 3. strength and energy, which result in suicide, and 4. weakness existing in the
dragging of life, although it is evil and nonsense understands very well.

Tolstoy differs from the anarchists in the fact that he imagines hostile to science and
progress regarded as a superstition, while the anarchists proper science expect the
salvation of mankind. Peter Lavrov writes of Tolstoy: "This soul reproductive process is
very painful, but it does not have to grant a logical character. On the contrary. The
tendency even to ask the question: what is it good? gives in these cases to have an
aversion to the logical solution of his own problems. Logically the demand for the ultimate
goal can only be made by the various parts of a series of acts performed by the creature
that reasoning and results will weigh these actions, so that the result and the case belong
to the same series. In a series of questions that lead to a certain conclusion, one might
wonder which it is to take this or that issue into consideration. A man who represents a
particular purpose, may ask: what is this or that act, met with respect to this goal. A man a
certain practical belief holds, may ask the same question with respect to any act, which is
associated with that conviction, which, moreover, has to content: the idea of a life beyond
the grave, the desire of a general peace, the destruction of the capitalist system or the
desire for personal revenge. But it is contrary to the logic to ask: what is life? as long as
one has not developed a conviction to ask why something to be desired? because the
desires are located outside the domain that is subject of our reasoning. He who wants to
logical reasoning, can not repeat with Tolstoy: "These issues are legal issues and say
that" science is guilty "to not reply on it, while it claims to do so. As long as one has not
developed a belief, the question is: what is it good to be alive? not only illegal but
absurd. And once a conviction has been formed, the science claims not only to solve this
problem, but does it really, because they allow us to determine the means able to create a
purpose specified by this conviction. Everyone can then answer the question: why does
he live? This response may be very low: on enrichment; it might be mystical: for the
happiness of paradise; it may finally consist in that I consider myself to be allowing as
morally rational: to contribute to the development of conscience and solidarity among
mankind. But whatever the answer, they also, the last question: then? is excluded. Any
man who thinks logically, committed a specific goal for which he aims ... In any case, he
does not look yonder side of the goal. "

While anarchists enjoyments like flavors of life, Tolstoy demands that he will deny
it. Like the former so the greatest possible happiness, the latter wants to kill the
individual. The former are on the side of Guyau, who believes that "the highest intensity of
life to necessary supplement has its widest expansion" while sipping Tolstoy regarded as
a sin.

If Tolstoy's emphasis on manual labor as essential to the health of the individual as well
as the good state of society, then the anarchists by itself agree with him, but they drive not
to disregard all the intellectual work, they wish that both of them are connected to lead
man to the highest state of perfection. Tolstoy wants to bring us back to life on land, where
all do the same work, the anarchists want to benefit from the progress of industry by
machinery, division of labor, etc. Tolstoy distinguishes the ancient mystics between two
lives.; the animal or lower, and the mental or higher, of which the first has to die in order to
promote the second. And how useful may also be critical to society, he turns people away
from the socialism of the revolution. By putting all the emphasis on the inner conversion of
the man they still come to a refined selfishness that so many thinks and works for himself
that there is no opportunity left to work for others. Maybe he's an outstanding Christian of
the old church, an anarchist in the modern sense of the word, he is not, because life is
not renunciation but life enjoyment is the pursuit of this.

Strange it must seem that the Russian government, which is otherwise so easily at
hand, with imprisonment and exile to Siberia, not dares him apparently. Even the ban,
imposed on him by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, has not harmed him. A proof of
the great influence he has in Russia, no less abroad, especially in England, where a storm
of indignation would raise if one hand stretched out to the old man, whose death the
government, however, will be very welcome.

This school can also be arranged dr. Eugen Heinrich Schmitt, whose brochure Without
State is certainly one of the best indictments ever issued against the state. He calls the
foundation of the State of the crime, but not the "evil", but the sanctified, the privileged
legal crime. "The moral basis of the state's respect for the crime is elevated to the dignity,
to holiness said crime." The state is the "father of lies" and the great "murderer from the
beginning". He wants the religion of community and freedom, the religion of the free
spirit. But, like most others, he wraps himself in a mystical veil, so that only vaguely hears
what he wants and thinks. Rather than remain at the bottom of reality, the surest
foundation on which to build, they lose too much in mystery itself, but rather that mystical
haze, which lies stretched out exercises over their writings on many a great attraction on
many who are blinded when the veil of the image of Sais is torn completely, so that one
can see the truth as it is.

England have founded several colonies Tolstoyans to bring the spirit of brotherhood in
practice and although most of these Christian anarchists, they show themselves tolerant
also towards revolutionary anarchists, they even in their colonies. For example, the
International Christian Brother Bood arose, and followed suit and the International
Brotherhood in the Netherlands, which began to Blaricum an agricultural and horticultural
colony in 1890.

Among the English we call John C. Kenworthy, whose book Anatomy of

Misery [225] and From Bondage to Brotherhood [226] are very readable. In the first, he
points to the inadequate political action, so the working class nothing has improved, as
the example of England learned since the beginning of the century. As long as private
property exists, will make no difference. Too violent revolution will, according to him no
salvation, he calls for the inner reform, which you can only benefit. And the second
discusses more the best practical application of the principles which he unfolded in the
first.
 J. Bruce Wallace, editor of the monthly script Brotherhood , and others are diligently
him aside to propagate the ideas of Christian anarchism, actually another name for
tolstojanisme.

Mutuellisme
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

"The clearest and most astute mind who has lived in the world since Lessing and Kant"
- as testified Karl Grn Proudhon, which was led by him in the dialectical philosophy of
Hegel. The "Mephistopheles of the revolution" - was the name given him by Mazzini. And
Victor Considerant dubbed him with the name of "enfant terrible" of economism. He
himself called himself the "sentinelle perdue du Proletariat" (the lost sentinel of the
proletariat) and his work Qu'est ce que la proprit? [227] he gives the following dialog at
best: "What kind of government we prefer? - Well, you can do this any further questions,
call undoubtedly one of my young readers, you're Republican - Republican, yes; but that
word specifies nothing. Respublica , now, that's the general thing: so everyone who wants
the general case, under what government form, call themselves Republican. The Kings
also are Republicans. - Well, then you democrat? - Yes. - What! Would you be
monarchical? - Yes. - Constitutional? Heaven forbid! - So you're an aristocrat? - In the not
remotely. - Do you or a mixed form of government? - Even less. - What are you then? - I'm
an anarchist ... Anarchy, the absence of a master, of a sovereign, which is the government
that we come closer every day. "

It is very difficult to say what was Proudhon. Why was his motto: destruam et
aedificabo (I will break down and build up), but his mastery manifested itself most strongly
in the art of dissecting and criticizing and even opponents, such as the Catholic professor
Thonissen, knew how to appreciate him to some extent. Hears only what it testifies, "Man
of genius he feels his strength and rises up. Man of work and profound knowledge in an
age when ignorance and half out to meet often experiencing the considerable circles of
society and expresses he holds a deep contempt for the race, that the fate of the
fatherland. That is the first source of that titanic pride, which now goes beyond all
boundaries and who has dared to turn against God, after he had thrown down the gauntlet
to the institutions and people. What a subject of bitter meditation! How fortunate for
France and the world as a man, instead of devoting himself to a work of destruction and
anarchy had devoted the power of his genius to the maintenance of order and the healthy
doctrines, to the defense of civilization, threatened by the onslaught of a new barbarism. "

However much the party had such a man! This is the recognition of his powerful
personality. How unfortunate for her that he just remained faithful to the promise made by
him in his first statement about the property: "I will not cease to pursue the truth of rubble
and destruction there. I have previously taken the oath, I shall be faithful to my job of
breaking down. "

Proudhon knew what poverty, because as a child he tended cattle for farmers and later
he helped his father in the cooperage. But already early he showed a happy disposition
and this was the cause that the former pattern of his father was able to provide a place in
the gymnasium at age 12. Although he attended the school disorderly, as he had often
help out at home, he was so fast that he not only caught up with his failure, but won all the
prizes at the end of the course. On his 18th birthday ended his study life, he had to earn a
living and was also Pierre Leroux typesetter and proofreader soon. Happiness served him
while he his father Besancon town received a grant from Fr. 1500, as a result of which he
could study carefree in Paris three years. In 1839 he answered a competition on the
Sunday celebration, in which he defended the Sunday rest and stood from a social
perspective, but how extraordinary was the work, the men dared not crowning yet an
honorable mention they could not remember. When he published his writings in
1840. What is property? There was a storm of indignation against him. A man who boldly
dared say it's property theft, which wanted to replace the property by property right that
anarchy, the absence of binding authority stood for - no, it ran out of control. And
someone who had a scholarship, it was brutal! Some chose his party, to the extent this
was true a scientific issue. Proudhon was voted very bitter because he had to struggle
with great misery, so he was repeatedly about to throw himself into the Seine, to thus
create an end.

Without the support of Adolphe Blanqui, the economist and brother of the famous
socialist Auguste, he would probably have been prosecuted. Out of gratitude he dedicated
his second statement on the ownership of Blanqui on. His third statement, "A warning to
the owners" was a response to the criticisms, made by Victor Considerant. Now, however,
it was too bad, a prosecution was instituted but the jury acquitted him. His misery rose,
because the stock market stopped and his printing shop yielded only worry and debt. He
had just enough not to die, but lived as a stoic.

In this writing on the property "discovered" Proudhon already "economic materialism",

which discovered twenty years later was made with great fanfare by Marx! He also
distinguished between two sides of the value, use value (valeur en soi, valeur d'usage)
and the exchange value (valeur and change, valeur d'opinion) and he came to the theory
of surplus value, which has been prepared by others then the workers, a theory that even
"discovered" hot Marx.

Had he in 1842 hoping for a small post that would give the mayor of Besancon, he hit
his own glass in an election pamphlet and he remained what he was, a "pur proltaire" (a
purely proletarian) as Sainte Beuve put it, or a "proletarian 6000 francs below zero", as he
himself said. He thought with the publication of his work De la cration de l'ordre dans
l'humanit ou Principles d'organization politique (about the creation of order in humanity
or principles of political organization) in 1843 that it would weigh a revolution bring in
philosophical studies, greater even than that Kant was processed and compare only with
the discovery of Newton, later he called from his youth this work "au dessous du
mdiocre" (below average). In the same year he was at Lyon a place in the large coal and
transport case gebr. Gauthier, a friend of his youth, where he was lucky enough time to
hold on to his studies. He remained lively interest in the political and social development
of his time, though he took no part in directly.

He wrote in July 1844 to a friend: "I see few people and love me as much as possible,
far from political meetings. Cabet is currently here. This good man to me already
designate as his successor in the apostolate; this successorship I give away for coffee. I
do not know how many new gospels nowadays preaches a gospel of Buchez, a gospel of
Pierre Leroux, a gospel of Lamennais, of Considrant, George Sand and Flora Tristan, a
gospel of Pecqueur and many others. I have no desire to increase the number of these
fools; I therefore make a wonderful impression on those who see me for the first time, as
they perceive at once that I still have my common-sense. "

He saw already that the Socialist party began to organize and though she was herself,
according to him still conscious, as they called themselves communist, yet he thought that
the first half of the century would pass without the European society, would face powerful
influence of socialism.

At that time, the winter of 1844 and 45, Proudhon came into contact with Karl Grn and
through him with the German intellectual life. What influence it exerted on him that he got
to know Hegel, shows the composition of his book Systeme des contradictions
Economiques ou Philosophie de la misery in 1846 . (System of economic contradictions
or philosophy of misery). He called himself also are three main teachers: the Bible, Adam
Smith and Hegel. It was during that time that he was related to Karl Marx, who invited him
in 1846 to participate in the Deutsch-Franzsische Jahrbcher. His answer was
characteristic to the invitation from the year 1846 and perhaps gave rise to Marx so
sharply put in front of him. The fear of dogmas was there when already, for he wrote: "Let
our common search for the laws of society, the way those laws themselves realize,
progress due to which we arrive at the discovery, but let us for God's sake fullest the
people do not want to make doctrinaire, after we have destroyed all a priori
dogmatisms; let us not fall into the contradiction of your compatriot Martin Luther, who
after he had thrown the Catholic theology overboard, immediately went to work,
Protestant theology by utilizing anathemas to foundations. Three centuries Germany has
long been working on it destroying the patchwork of Luther. We put the human race not
the new task with new cement. I am with you to have a say in all opinions; let us conduct
a good and honest polemic; let us give the world the example of a wise and prudent
tolerance, but let us be on our guard, because we are of the movement at the head, to
cast us as leaders of a new intolerance, we do not behave ourselves as apostles a new
religion, not even then if this religion of logic, which is the reason. We must welcome
include all protests; We must fight against any exclusion, any mysticism; we should never
keep a question settled and if we consume our last argument, let us with eloquence and
irony to start from the beginning. Under this condition, I will enter into the circle with
pleasure, but not otherwise. "In response to further Marx, who had spoken of the moment
of the act (au moment de l'action), he pointed out that the opinion was wrong, if no reform
was possible without a handle or revolution and the revolutionary act should not be used
as a means of reform, as it was an appeal to the violence, the arbitrary. He wanted the
ownership theory turn against the property itself in a manner that will bring forth what the
Germans call community of property (communaut), but freedom and equality. He
believed the property to better ruin by small gunfire than to give new strength to the
owners by a bartholomeus eight and referred to his work (contradictions), which had
already been printed half in which he further explained this idea.
 Without now say with his German admirer Mhlberger that "a single chapter of
Contradictions a greater harvest of ideas gives the joint work of Marx", we nevertheless
believe that this work is far from reproach, Marx earns about it poured in his reply the
comprehensive brochure misere de la philosophie (the philosophy poverty) and all the
more, because Marx has several ideas in common with him, so the presumption is made
that he has a lot drawn from his work and now berating him for suspicion to escape
plagiarism. Proudhon says such criticism: "I have received the libel of Dr. Marx, the Misere
de la philosophie response to the Philosophie de la misery.. It is a tissue of rudeness,
slander, falsification and plagiarism. "

Proudhon deals with the history of mankind in this work with all its economic
evolutions. Here are the ten periods, which he distinguishes it: I. Period of the division of
labor; II. Period of the machine; III. Period of the competition; IV. Period of monopoly; V.
Period of the state welfare or tax; VI. Period of the trade; VII. Period of the
loan; VIII. Period of the property; IX. Period of the community's (communism) and Xavier
period in which man keeps out of concern deals with the population problem.

Where the contradictions accumulate, so that society resembles the wrong side of a
tapestry, as he still sees something better for his mind: "It must be a law of return, a theory
of health insurance, a system of guarantees that the old forming solves our civil and
trading company and meets all the requirements of clarity, progress and justice marked by
criticism; a society not only conventional but really; which divide into parc up turns into a
tool of science; abolishing slavery of the machine and prevents the appearance of the
crisis; which is a benefit of competition and monopoly a guarantee of security for all; by
the power of her principle of the capital and is subject to labor rather than capital and
credit protection to apply to the state, by the sincerity of the exchange establishes a true
solidarity between peoples; those without prohibiting individual initiative, without domestic
savings to prevent the incessant wealth in society which feeds the appropriation removes
it; by this movement of removal and return of capital ensures the political and industrial
equality of citizens and a good system of public education provides the equality of
functions and equivalence of suitability by the ever raising level; by justice, welfare and
virtue, the human conscience regenerating, ensures the harmony and balance of the
sexes; a society in one word, which is being simultaneously organization and transition
escapes the fleeting, all guarantees and commits to nothing. " [228]

What he is, is difficult to say, as we have noted already, because he is a real "wild", an
adventurer on your own, a franc-tireur which wages war on his way without disturbing
others. he wants to know nothing of communism, so it has no fierce opponent than
him. "The Communists are similar to oysters, which are connected together, without
activity, without feeling the rock of brotherhood. The irreversibility of the unfairness of the
community of property, the violence they do to the injustices and the disgust, the iron yoke
to be imposed on the will, the moral torture to which it meets the conscience, the slack in
which they collapsed society and to finally everything to say bigoted and stupid uniformity
which they are free, active, reasoning, chains not subject personality to man, have been
revolted general common sense and irrevocably divided ... communism, unhappy loan
made to the grind the owners, the aversion to labor, the boredom of life, the suppression
of thought, the death of the ego, confirming not ... communism is a caricature of the
property. It is the elevation of the state, the glorification of the police ... What a wise and
progressive philosophy that communism! ... Communism is the religion of misery ...
Depart from me, communists! Your presence is my stench and your view disgusts me. "

Is he a socialist?

One would think, because he was the representative of socialism in the room in the
public opinion and just to be socialism he loaded the curse of the whole world in itself, and
yet we hear from him: "Socialism is a logomachie (disputations ) ... it has nothing to own,
what distinguishes it, build it, it does what it is, it is the arbitrariness and absurdity of his
borrowed propositions (emprunts). "It's just a poor logician as a contemptible charlatan."
And elsewhere in a letter to Villegardelle "You know socialism in its people as well as in
his books ... Have you seen anything in socialism than vanity and folly? Say if I slander ...
As for his actions and conduct, I see them off in order to maintain on, the task would be
beyond my patience and it would reveal too much misery and shame. As a man of
progress and reality point I with all my strength off socialism, empty of ideas, powerless,
lewd, only able to make dupes and impostors ... I declare the purpose of this
subterranean propaganda, hiding in the darkness of increased rather than seeking the full
light and to defy the criticism; the purpose of this shameless sensationalism, this dirty
literature, these begging without a bridle, this verstomping of mind and heart that begins
to win a share of the workers in front of him, that I pure am this socialist baseness. "

he wants to know what the religion?

Neither! He says: "God is the folly and cowardice; God is evil. As long as mankind will
bow down to the altar, they will be the slave of kings and priests, be rejected; while a man
in the name of God will receive the oath of another man, society will be founded on
perjury, peace and love will be exiled among mortals. God, you pull back because of this
day I swear, cured of the fear and become wise lifted by hand to heaven, that you are
nothing but the executioner of my speech, the specter of my conscience ... Your name, so
long the last word of the wise, the consecration of the court, the power of the prince, the
hope of the poor, the refuge of the repentant culprit that ineffable name now given up to
scorn and cursing, will jeered be among men ... If there is a being before us and more
than we deserved hell, I have to call him, it's God. "

The same man issued a few years later, a manifesto, in which he "in the presence of
God and hand on the Holy Gospels" vowed to have favor with today's owners when they
are Volksbank wanted to promote and expand. But one could believe for a moment of his
conversion, we soon learned that "a God who reigns and does not agree is a God I deny
that I hate above all things."

While we can not classify him a heretic he was in most respects - only against the
woman he was as conservative as possible because he wanted to know nothing of its
release - and he directed his blows against capital, the government and Catholicism as
the three elements of the tyranny. "The capital, which in the political order of the
government, the analogy has the religious order to Catholicism synonymous. The
economic notion of capital, the policy of the government or of authority, the theology of the
Church are all identical and mutually amenable to change: one to attack the other to
attack. What does the capital versus labor, and is opposed to the freedom that made her
turn the church opposite reason. Democracy is the elimination of all powers: the spiritual,
the temporal, the legislative, the executive, the judiciary and the owner power ... The true
form of government is the anarchy. No parties, no authority, complete freedom of man and
the citizen. " [229]

But we do not forget the time in which he lived, we forget how socialism and
communism only knew of the side of the state, as he put it: "All the socialist sects are
invariably seized with the same prejudice; all confess it, under the influence of the
economic contradiction against her will her powerlessness, on the necessity of the capital,
all they are waiting for the realization of their ideas until they hold the government and the
money. The utopias of socialism, as to the association, show more than ever to step forth
the truth, we are in the beginning pronunciations: is found, there is nothing in socialism,
not in the economy; and this perpetual plagiarism is the irrevocable condemnation of
both. Nowhere looming large main idea that emerges as clearly emerges from the series
of economic categories: the higher formula of the association is not at all have to be
concerned with the capital, the object of the bill of a few, but it only refers to the balance of
production, the conditions of the exchange, the progressive decline in producer prices, the
only source of increasing wealth. Rather than determine the relations across industries,
from worker to worker, from province to province, and from nation to nation, think the
Socialists only to gain assets, while the question of the solidarity of the workers always
consider if it was to do the foundation of a new house of monopoly. The world,
humankind, the capital, the industry, the way things are in place; one need only look at
their philosophy, in other words organizing them: and the Socialists seek capital! There
they still are unreal, how is it surprising that that reality escapes them? "

As can be seen, communism and socialism, which he alone knew, was able
communism and state socialism and he leaning on the state and wait for the conquest of
political power considered depraved, he opposed against all forces. To employ a familiar
expression with the bathwater, he also swept the child away.

In 1847 Proudhon gave his concerns, to live by his pen. All kinds of plans haunted
around in his head when he like many others, was raided by the revolution in February
1848. The new republic did not in any way to what he wanted and by the end of March
published two issues of a book in which he the title solution de la question social (solution
of the social question) gave a solution as he who suggested. The gold here, according to
him a true popular movement, because no leader gave impetus contrary they all preached
patience. But the gentlemen of the Provisional Government committed the error that it
took over the old case to continue her without understanding that it was the liquidation of
bankrupt mass. Coercion and reglementation were rife. Also, the delegation of
sovereignty to others, even though they were elected by universal suffrage,
counterproductive wrong. Democracy focused Jacobin as a tyranny of the majority who
relied on the power of the figure. Was the social revolution began, it soon became
politically and as the republic was not much different than the continuation of the
constitutional monarchy, while they had to be a positive anarchy. "This is not the freedom
subject obedient to the order, as in the constitutional monarchy, nor imprisoned freedom
within the order, such as the Provisional Government understood this. It is freedom, rid of
all obstacles: the superstition, prejudice, sophistry, the agiotage, the authority; It is the
mutual freedom and not freedom, that is confined within narrow limits: the freedom, in a
word, not the daughter of order, but the mother of order ".

In the press he was looking for a platform to speak regularly to the people. From April to
September, he edited Le reprsentant du Peuple (the Congressman) Replace any blade
was by Le Peuple , which appeared to October 1, 1849. Again this sheet was followed
by La Voix du Peuple (The People's Voice), who lived until July 1850 and after that time
once again appeared as Le Peuple until the end of 1850. On June 4, 1848 Proudhon was
elected deputy. Across the organization of work of Louis Blanc he proposed the
organization of credit, any idea he further explained in a separate document. Free credit
and circulation was based on the law of reciprocity (rciprocit), what he called elsewhere
mutuellisme (mutuel = mutual, reciprocal). In that word called his adherents mutuellisten.

He wanted to see three grounds taken in hand by the republic.

1. A consistently implemented so-called tiercering revenue from leasing, rental and

capital, largely for the benefit of the state and further the benefit of the farmers, tenants
and debtors of the capitalists. So a third of the revenue was genaast. This was
accompanied by a deferred payment of all overdue trade paper and extending from 8 to
40 days, postponing the interest of mortgages and the redemption of treasury bills and all
the buildings in the savings and even for six months, deferred payment to the holders of
government bonds, extension of payment for rent and leases to approximately 3 months,
"cash on delivery" of all mortgage debt;

2. An equivalent reduction in the prices of all goods and services;

3. An organization of circulation, which he wanted to establish an Exchange Bank to

abolish the rule of gold (Banque d'change) who would spend nameless paper, to be used
in exchange, payable at sight, but only against merchandize and services. This paper
would be covered only by products.

If consequences he introduced himself: shrinking mortar and thus discarding of bankers

and financiers, increasing the Debouche by expanding everyone's purchasing power,
abolishing the existing forms of taxation as they could be replaced all by raising the
discount premium, which then comes to the state, the abolition of customs duties,
purchase of public debt. State and society would transform into a state of anarchy
positive: society would regulate and monitor themselves.

The revolution of 1848 was unlike the previous one economic, the most bourgeois that
exists. "It's the workplace, office, household greenhouse - the most prosaic things in the
world, which provide most of the dust to the revolutionary energy and big words. How are
we the participation of the worker to profit, making the share of labor and capital,
expressing the balance between imports and exports in verse and set to music! The
organization of the circulation and credit, the increase of production, the increase in
revenues, the provision of new forms of industrial societies - all this does not match the
mood of 1793. "

Parliamentarism he hated, because "not in the clubs must blow delivered to the
property; in your workplace, on the market should this happen. Soon we will be with you
study this new strategy (military science). Let the bourgeoisie about the politics and
rhetoric. The rhetoric of clubs you can learn anything. All those words stand is an insult to
the practical sense, at the expense of labor, against the severity of the cases against the
silence of the study, against the dignity of the spirit. Do you remember that one under
Napoleon, the man that the work symbolized by the war, did not speeches. The clubs
belong neither to our age or our genius nor our character. Those artificial excitement is
boredom and hairsplitting automatically collapse. This does not happen, then the adverse
consequences will that sprouts from it for you, are incalculable. "

He rejected the statement and called the "government of men by men slavery. Who
puts his hand on me to command me, that is a usurper (usurper, a tyrant), I declare him
my enemy. "Instead, he wants a friendly society of men, based on mutually signed. He
saw in every dominion of men over men kingship, whether it occurred in monarchic,
oligarchic or democratic form, in particular he called "not democracy contrary to
constitutional arbitrariness, following other constitutional arbitrary, it has no scientific value
and can be regarded at most as a preparation for one indivisible republic. "With the
exception of the property, ie his abuse, he wants to retain all existing institutions, only
make them instruments of equality, but people should not be held together by any
supreme authority, only the legally binding force of the Convention, the company should
keep together. Once the Convention enters into the place of the law, one has the true
government of man and citizen, the true popular sovereignty, the republic.

It was on the 31 th July 1848 that he made his famous speech of 2 1 / 2 hours held in the
National Assembly on the reorganization of the tax and credit, amid the outrage of his
fellow members, who then unanimously 2 post (Proudhon and Greppo) the following
motion assumptions:

"The National Assembly

whereas the proposal of citizen Proudhon is a hateful assault on the principles of public
morality, the raped 's ownership, encourages the denunciation;

it appeals to the bad passions;

whereas, moreover, the speaker has slandered the revolution of February 1848, claiming
that it complicit in the theories he developed,

proceeds to the order of the day. "

Louis Blanc, Victor Considerant, Pierre Leroux, all declared themselves against him,
the heretic-anarchist was expelled from the synagogue of official socialism. His political
role in that body was finished, he never should have gone in. Only later he realized this
when he wrote in his Confessions:

"The memory of the June days will always pushing me as a reproach to the heart. I
acknowledge with sorrow the 25 th , I foresee nothing, knew nothing, nothing
guessed. Since fortnight elected representative of the people I had come to the National
Assembly with the timidity of a child, with the zeal of a novice. After continuously 19 hours
in meetings, offices and committees have been, I left the meeting until the evening,
exhausted from fatigue and disgust. Since that time I had ceased to stand in relation to
the mass; I went up to my legislative work I had lost the current business completely out
of sight. One must have lived in that solitary (isoloir) which is called National Assembly, to
understand how the people who are the most ignorant of the state of the country, almost
always representing.

Fateful apprenticeship! The effect of this legislative morass in which I had to live was
that I had no sense ... No, I was not a coward in June, as you've added me offensive in
the National Assembly, Mr. Snard, I am as thou and many others have been a
jackass. I'm through parliamentary stupidity came short of my duty as a representative. I
was over there to see it and I have not seen; to create alarm and I did not scream. I did
like the dog that does not bite, in the presence of the enemy. I, the chosen of the plebs, of
the proletariat journalist, this mass should not have let without guidance and advice: one
hundred thousand people deserve that I interfered with them. That was better than freeze
in your offices. I've done ever since I could to make up for my fatal error; I was not always
happy, I've often cheated - my conscience accuses me nothing. "

This sincere confession certainly advocates the honesty of character for the man who
took her.

Proudhon remained since that time the actual "homme-terror" of the revolution. "I'm like
a salamander," he wrote. "I live in the fire, abandoned, betrayed, outlaw, cursed by
everyone, I'm right in front of everyone and keep one reaction and all the enemies of the
republic under control. The people that keep me in the future for his sole representative,
comes in bulk to me. One only swear at me or against me. "

Then in the middle of October the great revolutionary banquet was held in the Rue
Poisonire, he was proposed by the Socialist Party as president. He thanked and referred
to Ledru Rollin, but also when these thanked for Lamennais. General Cavaignac,
however, replaced the day the Ministry Senart before the banquet by Dufaure-Vivien and
as the Mountain Party interpellated the government and proposed a vote of confidence for
the Cabinet resigned, Proudhon abstained. Indignant about the Mountain Party declared
no part will assume the banquet, when Proudhon came. These reproached her that this
was just a pretext, they dared not openly accept socialism. At that banquet Proudhon
brought his famous toast to the revolution and enthusiasm, he said: "It brings gospel -
equality before God, the Renaissance or philosophy - equality for reason, the 1789
Revolution - equality before the law . Revolution of 1848, how do you call you? I call
myself the right to work. What is your priority? The association. Your motto? Equality of
fate. Where you carries around us? To the fraternity. "
 At that time, is the duel with Felix Pyat, he later became a "great stupidity" (une grosse
btise) said, since he with this bias wanted to break as with so many others and then
shortly afterwards Charles Delescluze challenged him on the occasion of the candidacy
Raspail, he refused therefore decided.

At the end of 1848, he made all aanstalten to the establishment of its Exchange
Bank. Everything drove him to do so: the inability of the political parties, the auspicious
occasion, the impatience of the workers. His goal was this:

1. For an example of voluntary, independent and special centralization of economic

interests to stabbing the better of the future political reform;

2. The ruling party thus attack, that given a new time on the popular initiative and
individual freedom is increasingly confirmed by reciprocity;

3. Labour and welfare to ensure all producers, by bringing them directly with each
other, ie organize them as capitalists and consumers.

In 88 articles he has designed the statutes, memorandum provided in the book Banque
du Peuple (People's Bank). "When the people recognize and does not resolve to reform
the government, but a revolution of society its own sake", then "the solution took place the
government in the economic organism in a way, which one can speak now only
suspicions."

Although the time of preparation, the first three months of 1849 called him "the most
beautiful time of his life", the actual plan itself, he may never attain. He had, in six weeks
around 20,000 statements from people who joined, representing at least 60,000 people
have left everything a good appearance, but an attack on Napoleon gave him a
prosecution, which was granted on February 14, 1849 through the room. Because of
"inciting hatred and contempt against the government", he was sentenced to three years
in prison and fined 3,000 francs. He fled to go to Belgium and thought to Switzerland
when he discovered on secretly stay in Paris and was arrested. Still, he had founded a
people bank on their own hands, PJ Proudhon et cie, whose bases were: free credit and
direct exchange of products for products without the mediation of money, only to
circulation vouchers. The 11 e February, carried this bank, whose number of participants
was 12,000, whereas it had been registered amount of shares 36 000 francs, but due to
the indictment and subsequent conviction he liquidated the matter so that nobody
something came up short.

His Confessions d'un rvolutionnaire , written in prison Saint Plagie make a wonderful
contribution to the revolution of February, which is to be known by everyone who may
appreciate knowledge of writing things about this event.

Also appeared during his imprisonment L'ide gnrale de la rvolution au XIX

sicle . (The general idea about the revolution in the 19 e century). In it, he defines what
he means by the mutuellisme and one sees that this is in fact nothing more than
socialism, adopted in 1868 by the International. He wrote:
 "Across individuals and families whose activity is the subject of the association, the
association (free producers) to rules:
that every individual employed in the association, man, woman, child, old man, clerk,
foreman, worker, student has a undivided right to the property of the association;
he is entitled to it successively to fulfill all conditions, all degrees, according to the use of
sex, age and talent;
his upbringing, education and age should be therefore controlled in such a way that worn
by him his share of the horrific and painful corveen and he goes through a series of
activities and skills to assure him an encyclopedic competence and sufficient income in
mature years ;
that the functions are given by election and subject to the regulations on the approval of
the associates;
the reward is proportional to the nature of the function, the importance of talent, the extent
of responsibility;
in that each associated participating in the benefits as well as at the expense of the
association in proportion to the service rendered;
that everyone is free to his will to leave the association, to settle because his account and
liquidate its rights and reciprocal association mistress continues to always accept new
members.
These general principles provide the solution to two major issues of social economy, that
of the collective power and the division of labor. " [230]

During captivity he married a young, poor maid, who gave him a warm home and three
girls.

Emerged from the prison in June 1852 saw everyone how it would not be long before
President Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor would soon rule over France. His book La
rvolution social dmontre par le coup d'tat (the social revolution demonstrated by the
coup) is a curious and perceptive work. He puts it explain how the crime of December 2,
how deplorable in itself, only the strict and precise consequence of the flow of ideas that
have prevailed in France from February to December 1851. All parties conspireerden, all
called for the dictatorship, all wanted to do a coup. The success belonged to the boldest
or the most observant. Louis Napoleon he calls the "representative of the revolution." His
book was confiscated by the police, he turned to the prince-president, who released the
book. Anarchy and Cesarism posted here purely clash.

Although he regards stood with Prince Napoleon - the letters from him to that prince
kept by Sainte Beuve in his biography - and though it were made later financial deals that
would have come to him for good in his poverty, he refused the money and no one can do
cast the least blame on the selflessness of Proudhon.

Let us be practical works such as the Manuel des speculators la Bourse (Handbook
of speculators on the stock exchange) and Des Rformes oprer dans l'exploitation des
chemins de fer (Reforms in the operation of the railways should have taken place)
irreproachable order pointing to his great book De la justice dans la rvolution et dans
l'glise (about justice in the revolution and in the church) in three thick volumes and
published in 1858. This book, in which he for the principles of the revolution and not that
the church expects salvation, which he violently enters into judgment against the French
society that has lost all grip under Napoleon, gave him a further prosecution and a new
sentence to three years imprisonment and a fine of Fr. 4000.

This time he managed to escape to Brussels and even then there was a general
amnesty in 1859, he made it no use. Again he wrote some books, such as La guerre et la
Paix (War and Peace) in 1860, Thorie de l'Impt (Theory of tax) and Les Majorats
littraires (The literary Major ate). Opposite the unity theories of foreign policy he
advocated federalism. Belgium put off by the pressure of the liberals he returned to Paris
in 1862, to further defend that principle.

His book De la capacit politique des classes ouvrires (about the political capacity of
the working classes) was as much as his testament, he died even before it was fully
completed on January 19, 1865. In it he opposes the strict organization and centralization
in the field of production, advocated by various socialist schools, which leads to the
greatest tyranny, the principle of mutuellisme that leads to freedom and justice. In
economics he wants mutuellisme, in politics and federalism along that path one will come
to the fraternity.

Prof Quack recalls that he three terrifying slogans has bequeathed to the world,
namely: property is theft - we know that already Brissot long before he said the same
thing - God is evil and the order is anarchy.

Certainly Proudhon occupies a peculiar place in the history of socialism, for he was a
shrewd and independent thinker, not to speak of his unimpeachable character. He felt that
he belonged to no party because he would always stand out any party related. "I belong to
the party of labor across the capital and I have labored all my life. And that they know: all
the freeloaders I know, is the worst kind of revolutionary freeloaders. I want neither to rule
nor to be ruled. "In those words he has his position very well characterized. And although
socialism has moved back in the opposite direction to his own, yet his influence here and
there unmistakable. Moreover, he has scattered the seeds vrijheidlievend socialism, which
have not choked, but gave rise to new life, as it reveals itself in other forms. Among the
apostles of liberty will continue taking his name through the ages a place of honor.

communist anarchism
Michael Bakunin

The mighty person who has mastered the socialist movement in the third quarter of the
19th century, next to Marx, the man whose name is at the head of this chapter. They both
are the incarnation of the two currents in the socialism that can be displayed under the
names: Authority and Liberty. Strange that they both came from the same school, viz. That
of Hegel. Although Bakunin in a small fragmentary autobiography specify his birth as
1815, has been found by research to be the 1814. From his father's side he belonged to
the old Russian nobility, and that must have been his father's empire. Evident from the
fact that he was the owner of 1,000 males (serfs) - women did not count, so the number
was actually in 2000 - about whom he was absolutely master. Maternal side he was
related to the Mouraviev, a notorious minister - and executioner slaughtered in
Russia. Bakunin's father was a liberal man, his children - 11 in number - gave a liberal
education, despite the unfortunate outcome of the conspiracy in 1825, which he himself
escaped by a happy coincidence, created the move with him brought, so he then children
are educated to loyal subjects of the tsar. After training at the artillery school in Petersburg
Michael was already in its 17th year officer. An adventurous trek undeniably existed in
Bakunin, this is not surprising when you consider that his father many had been traveling
and finally returned had such an aversion to the Russian society, he retired to his estate in
the government of Tver (district Torjok), located between Moscow and Petersburg. Ideally,
he maintained his children with itineraries and with nature, of which he was a passionate
lover.

As the young Michael - for what reason we do not know - was not included in the guard,
he had just as an officer into the interior. He was bored there so that he soon resigned
and then partly in the parental home, lived partly in Moscow. Except boredom purpose
certainly have contributed much to his resignation the abuse of Russians in Lithuania, of
which he was an eyewitness for two years. Perhaps he had then already a premonition of
what he later thought about the professional soldier, who ceases to be a man to be a
soldier, numbered automaton without will, blind instrument in the hands of others, to
whom he is absolute obedience required. A friend of liberty is no place in the army, where
freedom is contraband. It seems that his father did not blame this resignation, at least we
know anywhere that relations between thereby disturbed father and son.

The year 1835 brought him acquainted with Stankevitch, who led him into the
philosophy of Germany and soon he was in Moscow a center for many who are
grouped. We think there Belinsky, the poet Ogarjov, later known as Katkov and these
were all in relation to Alexander Herzen, who lived in exile in Vladimir. Bakunin, who could
not count on financial support from his father managed to borrow a sum of money from
Herzen and thus succeeded to get him to Berlin in 1840. There he worked hard and like
Marx underwent its rebirth in Paris, as Bakunin took her to Berlin. There he came into
contact with Varnhagen von Ense who praised him as a "righteous young man of noble
spirit," and was busy with the famous novelist Ivan Tourguenjev. Whether he has been in
personal touch with Max Stirner, who has to develop his ideas, can not be said with
certainty had much influence according to English, but he had with them, English, both
Bauer and others belonged to the so-called circuit Fucking of Berlin, we would certainly
have heard. Under the name of Jules Erysard he wrote in Arnold Ruges Deutsche
Jahrbcher fr Wissenschaft und Kunst. In it he made himself known as an apostle of
freedom and if one focuses on his word: "The lust of destruction is both a creative lust",
you already know one learns from it later Bakunin.

It was unsafe for him to Prussia, as Russia demanded him and Prussia seemed to want
to extradite him. He has found it guessed to go and in the company of the German poet
George Herwegh he went about Leipzig and Dresden to Switzerland, where he stayed in
1843. The process was then conducted against Weitling and the Communists, led also by
Bluntschli, the name of Bakunin also occurs. He was pursued by the Russian police, in
1844 to Paris.
 Residing at the musician Reichel, whose wife was a Russian, he met Proudhon home
he repeatedly and kept with him a lively exchange of views. He also got to know in 1845
Marx, but this encounter did not bring much luck to him, because it seems that Marx
almost instantly silent, insidious war has begun against Bakunin, at least Victor Dave
testifies that "this master slanderer soon began living forever poison of this honest man
(Bakunin), which is at least as certain and certainly brighter guarantee gave his political
loyalty and revolutionary sincerity than Karl Marx ever did from his. " [231] Whether Marx
once in Bakunin a dangerous contender saw or other reasons rasverschil - one was Slave
and the other Germanic, one was a Jew and the other does not - either personal
impressions were the cause, we do not know to say, but actually there was between them
never actually saying good harmony. Becoming one whispered in Marx's circle of a
Russian spy while one spoke against it in public. In 1848, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung
published in Paris (the number of 6 July) that the famous writer George Sand had let out a
very ambiguous manner Bakunin and almost had warned him. Now asked Bakunin
clarification from her and Marx took until 3 August a letter from her, dated July 20, which it
contradicts the message and adding that it "has never cherished the slightest doubt on the
loyalty of Bakunin's character and sincerity of his conviction "Although Marx launched in
1853 the same rumor, as evidenced by an article by Alexander Herzen, in which one
reads:". While Bakunin in the Saxon fortress Knigstein was imprisoned awaiting his
death sentence, Marx proclaimed in his leaf Bakunin was an agent of the Russian
government "Bakunin later wrote:". Herzen have myself said that citizen Karl Marx, later
became one of the principal founders of the International, which I had always regarded as
a man of great talent and full devotion to the great cause of the emancipation of labor, had
participated diligently to those blasphemies. I was surprised there is not too much about,
knowing my past experience - because I know him since 1845 - the famous German
socialist, whose great qualities I have always honored while I will never do fail it full justice
to, his character has some features which one would be less surprised to see a bellet
humorous jew, correspondent for German newspapers, then in a serious and ardent
defender of humanity and justice. So when I came to London in 1862, I abstained, to visit
him, of course, little longing for the renewal of acquaintance with him. But being on my
transit to London in 1864 he came to see me himself and he assured me that he directly
or even indirectly took part in these calumnies, which he himself had considered low. I had
to believe him, "Bakunin in turn behaved never base across Marx, but had despite
everything a certain respect for him, as evidenced by a letter, which he October 28 1869
wrote to Herzen, in which he writes about Marx." I praised him, I've done more than that: I
gave him the title of giant. For two reasons, value Herzen. First, for the sake of justice. All
baseness aside leaving he vomited against us, we will not ignore, at least I do not, the
great services he has rendered to the cause of socialism for almost 25 years ... He is also
one of the first organizers, as not the founder of the International. In my opinion it is a
great achievement that I will always grant him how his attitude towards us ... she Marx is
undoubtedly a man of great utility in the International. To this day he carries out a sensible
influence on his party and he is the most powerful support of socialism, the strongest
support against the domination of the ideas and tendencies of the bourgeoisie. And I
would never forgive myself if I even had tried to cover his beneficent influence or even to
weaken with the simple goal to avenge me on him. " [232]
 It was after the escape of Bakunin from Siberia, the Free Press , a magazine of which
Marx was fixed employee, contained an unsigned article, beginning with the words
"another one of these agents is released." Herzen wrote in consequence ' Among the
Russians no one stupid enough faith to save this slander, and no contemptible enough to
repeat it. "Bakunin himself wrote in an English magazine that his" noble "friend, the head
of the German communists, low slander refused to sign, he smite him with the pen in
hand, but the hand without pen would answer. "by leaving both each other as good
friends, as Bakunin wrote brought after visiting him in 1863 by Marx, but he did it anyway
not allowed to visit.

From the same box came later the same slander, because Liebknecht had at the
congress of the International in Basle again proposed him as a spy of the Russian
government. At the request of Bakunin was appointed a jury of 10 members, including
Csar De Paepe, Moritz Hess, and Eccarius were unanimously declared to him, that
Liebknecht had acted wrongly by repeating such low slander. Liebknecht Bakunin reached
then the hand with the statement that he Bakunin thought was an honest man and a good
revolutionary. "I have deceived me with your relative," he said, "I contributed to propagate
slanderous accusations, I am restoring honor guilty." And he promised to write an article in
the German press for rectification. But despite his formal promise that article never
appeared. However, he then took on correspondences from Paris, where the same
slander was repeated again without it ever came up against. Thus one continued to
operate the slander, to better be able to act against Bakunin.

But who the two characters, both of which Marx as it watches Bakunin who must come
to the conviction that the men had to collide. One is the man of the theory, the painstaking
workman in studeercel formed in the dialectic of the university, a German scholar in the
entire structure and composition of its work, the other a man of action, more the natural
child-free and fresh occurs without academic scholarship. One fashioned into the form of
knowledge, full of respect for authority, despite his fighting against all the authorities
because he wanted to put his authority in the place of others; the other a man of impulses,
which wanted to get everything down as some barrier to the free development of man
stood in the way. Although based on the same premises, their worldview was a whole
other, we regard them as the personification of two principles: authority and freedom .

A speech pronounced on the occasion of the 17th anniversary of the Polish uprising of
1830, which was caused Bakunin was put off France. He settled now in Brussels, but
hardly the February Revolution broke out and he was back in Paris, and although his help
was worth a lot in the beginning - Caussidire told him this curious word: "What a
guy! Worth gold on the first day: the second one should shoot him! " - One hit shy with him
and sent him away with a mission to provoke an agitation in Russia. Prague was to be a
Slavonic Congress. Bakunin went there to try to establish a pan-Slavonian board. He
succeeded there, in association with the Serb Zach, to make an appeal to bring together
the peoples of Europe, in order a pan-European Peoples Congress. The friction between
Germans and Czechs was causing an uproar in Prague on June 12 and as a result
thereof splashed Congress apart [233] .
 General Windischgrtz left with his soldiers the city and threatened her with a
bombardment, when the peace was not restored. Bakunin did all his best to fire on the
population, but when the bombing started and became violent, the urban population
leaving only standing committee and surrendered. Of course Bakunin had to make sure
he came from the feet. Dress he wandered into Germany around, full of hope for a new
revolt of the Czechs in Bohemia, in order to make it a lever for further revolutionary action
of the Slavs. His revolutionary instinct drove him to Dresden, where it was unsafe. Indeed,
the king of Saxony did not feel safe in his own capital, he thought it better to leave the city
on May 4, 1849 and go to the fortress Knigstein. This was for the people the signal to
start. A "provisional government" was appointed, it would bring in Dresden state of
defense. Bakunin was back in his element. Averse small means he gave to the
commanders of the barricades the written authorization of the Government, to stabbing
each house on fire when they could not drive otherwise the soldiers there. Although the
population defended bravely against the royal troops, against the odds they were not
resistant. Members of the Government fled. Bakunin was arrested on May 10 and brought
handcuffed to Dresden. He was sentenced to death, but the king "gifted" to change him by
this sentence to life imprisonment. At the request of the Austrian Government, he was
extradited to that country in May 1850. It was hoped of him to know details of the
Slavonian movement, but he did not answer even to the questions put to him. He was
then transported in March 1851 to the prison to Olmtz where he was chained to the wall
for six months. When he was sentenced to death in Austria, but again he was saved for
the execution of this judgment, since he was extradited at the request of the Russian
government to Russia.

Therefore sentenced twice to death Bakunin, and twice he escaped the execution of
this sentence!

In Russia, he remained imprisoned for ten years, three years in the notorious Peter and
Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg. Did they attempt to make him bend, everything came
down to his indomitable will and he became as a "dangerous man" - the word of Tsar
Nicholas I - imprisoned. After the first three years he spent the next three by in
Schlsselburg, where he got the thrush, lost all his teeth and suffered terribly. Excluded
from the amnesty to the accession of Alexander II - this personally deleted his name from
the list of gracious - he got to be the choice to remain caught either or exiled to
Siberia. He chose the latter and was transported to Tomsk in Western Siberia in April
1857. There he found his wife, the daughter of a Polish exile. In 1859 he moved to Irkoetst
in Eastern Siberia, where he joined the Amour society. When he was strong through
Katkov 6000 rubles, he used this money to escape and actually succeeded him to flee to
Japan. From there he went to San Francisco and arrived there gave his countrymen him
money to go to New York. It was December 1861 and 27 December of that year he was in
London for Alexander Herzen and Ogarjov after he from May 10, 1849 off, so over
12 1 / 2 had years in Saxon, Austrian and Russian jails and Siberia. And a man had to be
still under suspicion are a police spy!

In the beginning Herzen and Bakunin worked together, but in respect of Poland existed
between them no unanimity. Bakunin won in the editorial board of The Clock by choosing
open party for the rebels in Poland, but it was the demise of the magazine. Doer, he did
not stop at sympathy, he went to Sweden in 1863 and hoped to get from there done that
the Finnish revolution would help the Polish. He also cherished the expectation of a
general peasant revolt in Russia. His little expedition failed, however, the resources at his
disposal were insufficient. Through this venture he went into further discord with Herzen.

In 1864 Bakunin went to Italy and lived two years in Florence and now begins his work
again for the anarchy. He was there the Alliance of Social Democracy, the forerunner of
the Alliance, which was created a few years later. The first was directed mainly against
Mazzini and had a revolutionary socialist program, which front was made against the
religious fanaticism of Mazzini wild "complete denial of any authority and any
violence." Overall it is considered in Italy Bakunin as the man who brought socialism
there. "To him we owe our first revolutionary education" - says Malatesta. In 1866 he went
to Naples, there founded a new international brotherhood in the spirit of his Alliance and
found broad support among the youth. The names of Count Cafiero, Caporusso,
Malatesta and others we see among those who gathered around him to work towards the
abolition of the state in its political, legal, social and religious realization and the
reorganization of society through the free initiative of free individuals in free groups.

Then in 1867 in Geneva convened the first Congress of the Peace and Freedom
League, was also Bakunin drawn there. Over there amid revelations about disarmament
and fight against the war, he threw his ideas of rebellion against the bureaucracy,
centralization and violence. He campaigned for the rule of freedom and independence not
only of each nation, but every province and every municipality. The state had to disappear
and everything will dissolve into an autonomy of the municipality (commune). From the
first moment he appeared in public international movement, he made himself known as an
anarchist.

Why Bakunin left Italy to settle in Geneva, is unknown to us, but we see him there
founded the Alliance de la dmocratie socialiste and is the bone of contention between
him and Marx energy with the International other. From the side of Marx was his hurt
interpreted that he was part of such a bourgeois organization part as the Peace and
Freedom League, but this would also have applied for Johann Philip Becker, who was one
of the callers to the conference, and others also belonged to the International. Bakunin
tried to obtain cooperation between the Peace and Freedom League and the
International, as he well understood how one would prove impotent without the working
element to perform something. From this period dates his treatise Le federalism,
socialism le et l'antithologisme which, however, even though it remained unfinished. His
position, however, one learns to know enough of it. In July 1868 he joined as a member of
the central section of the International in Geneva on. The Brussels Congress of the
International (1868) stated that "believe the delegates of the International, the Peace
League has no reason to exist in view of the work of the International and invite to close
the league is reflected in her and her fellow members to engage in one or other section of
the International recording. "

At the league's congress in Berne in 1868 Bakunin made a last attempt to bring her to
the recognition of the rights of workers. He performed for the "economic and social
equalization (galisation) of classes and individuals." This word Marx used the opportunity
to argue that Bakunin did not accept the class point of view, but this was just
woordenzifterij, as Bakunin said plainly: "I want to eliminate (suppression) of classes in
economically and socially as well as politically." According to the Mmoire prsente par
la fdration jurassienne toutes les Fdrations de l'Internationale (Pleading, offered by
the Jurafederatie all federations of the International) also the General Council of the
International, the word "galisation" recognized as a misprint. Further, Bakunin spoke out
sharply against communism, which they then realized state communism: "I detest
communism because it is the denial of freedom, and I can understand nothing human
about without freedom. I am not a communist because communism concentrates all the
forces of society in the state and thereby allows swallow because it necessarily leads to
the centralization of ownership in the hands of the state, while the abolition of the state
wish - radical eradication of the concept of custody and guardianship of the state, to
moralize the people under the pretense and civilize, brought them to this day to servitude,
oppressed, exploited and corrupted. I like the organization of society and of the collective
or social ownership from bottom to top, by the voice of free association and not from the
top down by any authority whatsoever, as was always the case. I want the abolition of the
state, I want the abolition of hereditary personal property, which is just a polity, nothing but
a consequence of the state principle itself. In that sense, I collectivist and even no
communist. "

They watched though, that when the anarchists called themselves collectivists, while
now reversed the collectivists nothing but state socialists, that is, the collective concept: in
the hands of the state.

now founded the minority, who went from the Peace League, the Alliance, but wanted
to ask from the outset in connection with the International. The General Council of the
association hit off the connection at the International, where he was in the Alliance saw a
state within a state. Then later that General Council asked if he shared her principles - in
which case they would be able to dissolve and merge into sections of the International -
the Council replied to rule on the scientific value of the program of the Alliance, but not to
raise objections if the sections of the Alliance itself morphed into sections of the
International and thus the Alliance itself disbanded. This was done and the General
Council was satisfied. Later claimed one of Marxist side, that connection only for shape
had taken place and that the secret organization of the Alliance was still persist, but
Bakunin had done this in order to challenge the leadership of the whole of Marx.

One should try to judge at this fair. On one side, we fully understand that Marx feared
for his International, which was threatened by the influence of Bakunin and that in every
man who assaulted it, saw a foe. But on the other side we know Marx's attitude toward
Bakunin and instinctive dislike of these Slavic influences and so the collision was
inevitable. Probably one tends all due to personal issues, but we forget how difficult
people and things distinguished are and how, in any case - if we deny the personal
element of the struggle in the least - behind the persons concerned indeed hidden a
principle difference lag. Prof Quack says very true: ". Who well recognized that entirely the
anarchy system the greatest danger and a mud could be the already organized socialism,
Marx was" Right, freedom was the greatest threat to the authoritarian organized socialism
and thus Bakunin had to be thrown out of the International, the necessity to do so
forced. The two principles of authority and liberty, personified in these two strong
personalities collided as they can coexist as possible contradictions.

We used to be on the basis of Professor Quack Marx's doctrine in 12 points, the new
law tables of social democracy, in summary, we now want the teachings of Bakunin in the
same way you summarize by him in these 8 points.:

1. A society without authority or restraint or direction. Complete freedom and equality of

all must be the conditions of society. When the need arises to go together and work
together, people will automatically connect to each other, but always temporary. The
organization thus created is a living, entirely different from that which we are by the
stiffening of state and undergo law. Everything will go from bottom to top. No uniformity,
but variety. Joint consultations will always, at every stage of development, establish a
balance. So life comes to full development and strength. Life is a continual
becoming. Fools are the ones with weak cribs and palisades bustling swelling stream
would give a certain direction invented them! Which is becoming the development. The
highest level of freedom is at the end of the runway. With effort and fight they will reach
her. The solidarity is the natural constitution of human society, and history is nothing but
the series of successive manifestations of that law. No joy for man, if not common
place. The freedom of the individual is also the freedom of everyone, because a person is
through the law of solidarity only free when freedom finds its ratification in the freedom of
all people are equals. This solidarity is the only authority that requires bending and no
other conceivable.

2. The starting point and purpose of the society is the sovereignty of the
individual. Each man must consciously set by law for themselves and in full
consciousness, if he wants to consult with others commit or follow. Man is not a servant of
the community, but autonomous. But not the isolated individual, but the individual living in
the atmosphere of solidarity. A single person is an abstraction, a fiction. He would be
personified selfishness and fiction that the free trade school built of economists her
ruthless regime. Humanity is not a mass independent and rolling atoms moving in motley
crew together and fight against each other, but each man depends on his group. As a
requirement, he may propose that everyone should have the material and moral
resources to develop his humanity. In case of refusal, he revolts and resistance that he
seals the value of his individuality.

3. The beginning should be to break down the state. Each state should be a
compulsory condition and once accustomed to it, it pushes everything on that state, which
must do all what one fails itself. The state demoralized the free initiative and the moral
power of the individual. No improvement in the form of government, not the state, should
be set aside the authority idea itself. By the mistakes of the Jacobins and Blanquists Paris
Commune fell, which continued to celebrate the old state idea. One must arrive at the
establishment of free communes, like the Middle Ages, they knew. No centralized state,
hence no centralized workers' state, in which the Marxist regime anticipates logical. No
parliamentary socialism, which it is acting on the very basis of the state. The anarchists
had to be: anti-parliamentary, anti-state, anti-statists and so anti-authoritarian.
 4. Especially on religious grounds one must be anti-authoritarian. One had indeed
grapple against the fiction of Deity. Both, both church and state should disappear from the
earth, as long as the person to not know free of these two institutions, he will never be
free.

5. The existing order should be everywhere destroyed. Man must not wait for the
complete reversal undergoing social order in history, he has to perform acts and destroy
anywhere where he can. Attacks must be bold. The time is now. Everywhere general
chaos exists. One should not be deterred because they are a small minority, not all
groups representing a new idea, counted in the beginning always few
supporters. Freedom is not given, one must take her. Man has only those rights that he
has conquered already struggling. The principle of resistance must be cultivated. The
strikes indicate a collective movement in that spirit. Individual resistance and ventures will
not be left behind and the immediate purpose of all must be the destruction of the existing
order. The social revolution is a wild and savage work that progresses men strength and
fiery energy. Only the violence spikes will win the prize.

6. The individual-man must come to a state of community. Not a regulated system of

rights and duties, but a main fold of life they should be. Everything belongs to all. No
authoritarian regime will organize everything, but mutual settlement will have to set the
tone. The company can essentially only a result of the application of the mutual
support. Everything would be matter of habit: the full recognition of equality among men,
the urge to unite the association to produce and consume, the unification to defend
himself, to federate and no other judges to respect for settlement disputes or arbitrators
that they found in their own hearts. No fixed system should things tight in a
straitjacket. Although he called himself collectivist, he studied not so complex system of
Marx, he tended to communism and the precepts of Cossacks were envisioned him
that. The brewing anarchy would excite communism, which would produce by habit.

7. While Marx the class of workers in closed columns as an army wants to march
against the capital and its organization must serve that purpose, Bakunin takes workers in
broader sense. He sees the issue not as a sole stomach issue, he also recognizes the
right to intellectual and artistic delight. Marx continues in his stand on the first rung of the
ladder, Bakunin wants more and wants the satisfaction of material needs do accompany
the full development of the individual originality of each person, so that he could develop a
whole as it is.

8. Now when prof. Quack the difference between the two people wants to implement it,
that Marx enters the relative of human development in the foreground, while Bakunin to
the absolute lingers, he feels more to say than he answer is because he adds directly to
that Bakunin would come to that distinction in opposition. Quack believes in anarchism the
idealistic moment, the belief in a natural order, the belief in the absolute goodness of man
slumbers. Marx had the time, Bakunin contrast hurry. Marx did not know what he would
get stuck, Bakunin knew that after the destruction of the existing would come an idyllic
state.
 It is clear that despite the many disappointments and sad experiences Bakunin had an
imperturbable confidence in the good nature of man, such as touching turns out one of the
last letters from the collection of his published correspondence. It is a letter to a stranger
who must have done him much evil during his life, but he who despite the hand will reach,
as he expresses his loyalty to the Russian case. He ends his letter with these words:
"Tracht in relations to new people with whom you will enter into further relates to impose
much truth, sincerity and cordiality, as it will be possible to shut nature. Yet understand
finally that one in Jesuit spitsboeverij nothing is alive and firm can build; see that
revolutionary activity, it would lead to a result, may never find a foothold in ordinary and
low passions and understand that without higher, it goes without saying human ideals no
revolution can lead to victory . " [234]

Thus only writes a naturally idealistic created man!

we go back to history.

At the congress of the International in Basle Bakunin and that he appeared to assert its
influence, so that against the opinion of Marx, who was not present at the congress
adopted a resolution, proposed by Bakunin, the abolition of inheritance . Marx was
defeated in his own association and that certainly has perched him. However, it appears
from a letter from Bakunin to Herzen to 1869 he Marx awe for two reasons: 1. because he
was one of the first founders of the International; and 2. a political reason, which implied
that he, although feeling that between him and Marx had to come to a clash, not because
of personal insults, but because a question of principle, namely the state communism, the
time they do not at had come. "I fear Marx and stabbed him even in the height of tactics,
from personal politics ... Just wanted pour me now in open conflict with Marx, I would
have against me three-fourths of the International. I would be at a disadvantage and only
lose the ground under my feet. But I start the battle with an attack on his troops, I get most
of my hand and Marx himself, in whom a boundless sense of schadenfreude crosses
others, will be very happy that I have friends to body check and toetakel. I could be wrong
and he was protecting them me this, he would still be the first to get started openly; I
would retreat and "le beau rle. '"

In that year he set up residence at Locarno, where he moved into a small house with
his wife and with her and his one-year-old son as an earthly paradise tarried only afraid
"that the softness of life and air in him the wildness of socialist motives who knew no
change, would dampen and soften. "Out of need of money, he began the work of
Marx, Das Kapital to translate into Russian!

Meanwhile, he was not silent but worked sections of the Jura and it was the Fdration
Jurassienne, who was previously in breach occurred without the war of 1870 with the
General Council of the International. And behind these two were Bakunin and Marx.

The intrigue began and it seemed as if the purpose all means sanctified, at least, the
old accusation of Russian spy was heated up again and spread. And thereby used
against Bakunin was a wealthy Russian, especially Outin who harassed him everywhere,
even piloting it into the drafting of the Egalit. At a conference in Chaux-de-Fonds (1870)
arose battle over whether the section of the Alliance of Geneva or would not be included
in the Fdration Romande. When the majority of 21 persons are there for declared
minority of 18 left with the president. The break was complete. After all kinds of polemics
with the General Council Bakunin Jurasecties the proposed independent. She turned back
to the Fdration Romande and, constituted themselves as October 31, 1871 Fdration
Jurassienne.

It was the anarchist group who did apply themselves more and more in the
International.

The attitude of the two people in front of the War of 1870 and the Commune of 1871 is
characteristic because it so completely assign their personality. Marx was sitting in
sackcloth and ashes at the outbreak of war in 1870, because it all the bonds of
brotherhood, knotted by the International between the workers of different countries, were
cruelly torn by national hatred, which, speculating all baser passions, the people set up
against each other, as if they were animals. Bakunin other hand, thought precisely that
war could overcome the principle that was prone to immediate realization, namely the
idea of the commune. He wrote on August 31 1870 Locarno "If not directly prevent a
social revolution in this war, socialism in Europe will be destroyed for a long time." And he
was full of hope for things to come, as evidenced by the collapse of the empire and the
establishment of the republic. "So far it is not in France real revolution, but it will be; I
throw myself in it to the death "He also wrote:". This war gives me fever "Full burning
desire he wrote. Lettres un Franais sur la crise actuelle (Letters to a Frenchman on the
present crisis), in which he maintains that open after the defeat of Napoleon, two paths:
either submit to Germany from Alsace and Lotbaringen plus 5 billion war indemnity and
the adoption of a government, such as Bismarck will impose it, or a leve en masse (the
people in the armor) where the people aanwent the means to save themselves. The
bourgeoisie will probably choose the first path because the second as far as the social
revolution. However, it was the Empire fallen, but the imperial machine continued to
operate. That existing administrative mechanism dare you not to touch, because they had
to save the document and proclaim the revolutionary commune, stripped of any
centralizing administration and of any guardianship. When Paris began, the example
would provoke such a movement in the provinces. This brochure was the reason for the
movement, which began in Lyon on September 28, 1870. Bakunin was already there
11 e come. A Committee was central du Salut de la France formed, which included
Cluseret. On September 26 the following manifesto was posted:

"French Republic, Revolutionary Federation of Communes.

The unfortunate situation in which the country finds itself, the impotence of official
power and the indifference of the privileged classes have raised the French nation to the
brink of collapse.

If the people organized revolutionary, not act hastily, his future, the revolution is
lost. Carried by the immense size of the risk and in the belief that desperate act of the
people must not be delayed any time, inform the delegates of the federated committee du
Salut de la France for united to committee central, take the following decisions:
 Article one . The governmental and administrative apparatus of the state are abolished
because they have become impotent.

Section two . All criminal and civil courts have been abolished and replaced by the
people's courts.

Article three . The payment of taxes and mortgages is eliminated. Taxes are replaced
by contributions of the federated communes, which are collected from the rich to the
needs of the welfare of France.

Article four . The state may, as he has ceased to exist, no longer occur between them
in the payment of private debts.

Article five . All existing mental bodies are removed and replaced in all federated
communes by Committees du Salut de la France, exercising all power under immediate
control of the people.

Article six . Each committee of the chief town of a department will send two deputies to
form the revolutionary convention of Salut de la France.

Article seven . This convention will come together at once at the city hall in Lyon, as
this is the second city of France and the opportunity exists to carry energetic responsible
for the defense of the country.

This convention, supported by the entire French people, will save France.

To arms !!! "

Among the signatories is number one Bakunin.

On September 27 he came with some others on the balcony of City Hall, where they
were invaded and declared that the officers were dropped, the fatherland in danger and
Cluseret appointed general of the revolutionary forces in southern France. But was the
reactionary city council still in the hall and he imprisoned Bakunin by the National
Guard. He remained for several hours until he was liberated there. All kinds of decisions
were taken, but Bakunin seems that, for whatever reason, we do not know, not having
been in today. The reactionaries lifted up their heads, the board came back together, and
the following requirements, the council was asked by a popular assembly: deposition of
the military authorities, election of officers by the soldiers, common people reinforcement
of all useful citizens, release of the soldiers who captured were due to political and
disciplinary offenses occupation of the fort by the people, the subtraction of the soldiers to
the enemy, requisitions on the rich.

The council explained the requirements as fully justified, but also that he could not
perform. Bakunin was here today. This attempt at rebellion failed completely. Bakunin
wrote the 28th a letter in which he says that the movement would have succeeded without
the betrayal of Cluseret and he added: "I leave Lyon with a heart full of sadness and
foreboding. I'm beginning to think that it is done with France. It will be a sub-kingdom of
Germany. Instead of a live and real socialism we shall get the doctrinaire socialism of the
Germans, that will not say more than what the Prussian bayonet will allow to say. The
bureaucratic and military intelligence of Prussia, united with the clout of the Czar in St.
Petersburg will be at least 50 years to ensure peace and order in the entire continent of
Europe. Goodbye Freedom! Farewell socialism! Goodbye justice for the people and
triumph of humanity! All of this could have come from the present misfortune of France, so
it would have come, as the people of France, the people of Lyon but would have liked.
"Have the last 30 years of the 19th century, these words are not fixed like?

Bakunin went to Marseilles. His share in the movement there we know nothing, just that
on October 31 the revolutionary Commune triumphant came about and was not the
Machiavellianism of Gambetta is pushed in between, who knows how things were run
there. Bakunin was no longer in Marseille. As it was dangerous for him to stay there, he
traveled to return with bobbed hair and beard and blue glasses in mid-October by vessel
opportunity to Genoa in order from there to Switzerland again.

On August 13 1871 he was sentenced in absentia to banishment to a confirmed place

(fortress) had participated in the uprising of Sept. 25. Lyon. A new sentence so at the
many he already had!

Had managed the attack to Lyon, then Bakunin had a manifesto ready which would be
announced and implemented. As mentioned, there is nothing came of this, but Bakunin's
insights concerning the Commune of Paris, which acted according to some, these ideas, it
is important enough to share it with.

At the head of it "Destruction" and ushered in the inscription "French Republic", and
then "Revolutionary Commune ...." The manifesto contained 15 articles and five
transitional and read as follows:

Article 1 . The revolutionary communes of Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Lille, Bordeaux,

Nantes, etc. who have prepared for solidarity and uniformly the revolutionary movement in
the subjugation of the imperial tyranny and led declare that they only then will consider
affected her job, when they are assured by applying the equality principles they profess
the triumph of the revolution. Accordingly, they unite in federated way they behave
provisional authoritarian and they adhere to the following rules.

Article 2 . Whereas the system of political and economic exploitation, including France
to have lived on this day, the owners of the placed to the public owned wealth in terms of
the law in a fundamentally abnormal situation and their own tracks an obvious character
of illegality gave a general seized all public, private, movable and immovable properties,
which are scattered over the surface of the French Republic.

Article 3 . For the same reasons, all debts, mortgages and obligations entered into
under the previous governments, including the consolidated public debt and floating,
either it enters into state, county or town, destroyed and deemed not done.
 Article 4 . Whereas the transfer of property by right of inheritance is the source of all
inequality and the main power of that spirit of selfishness and individualism, which is the
importance of doing some preference to the interests of all, the right of inheritance is
abolished.

Article 5 . Whereas pure and simple justice, the basis and the public interest should be
the goal of every law, all codes in force under the previous government, decrees and
regulations abolished.

Article 6 . As a natural consequence of the foregoing provisions, the till now prevailing
tax system, which was only a compulsory levy, which unfairly cover down pushed the
workers and peasants, entirely abolished.

Article 7 . All magistrates, civil servants and employees of dilapidated government

declared across the courts, administrations, receivers, offices, public services, etc. with
and in addition to the police officers of any rank and suit are sent home.

Article 8 . The army land and is dissolved in the sea, except that part of the army, which
was stationed in the colonies and will later provide whose situation.

Article 9 . Whereas organized religions among the people maintaining the ignorance
and superstition, and so prepare the people to tolerate the despotism and confirm, all
religions should be abolished and their ministers removed from office.

Article 10 . All religious associations, communities and fraternities of men and women
are dissolved.

Article 11 . Those who will try to hide anything from the property down to complete, to
rob or to bring about the strange, will be treated as thieves.

Article 12 . The death penalty is pronounced in advance to all those who will attempt
the operation of the revolutionary communes by any action or intrigue to hinder or some of
the abolished institutions will try again to create.

Article 13 . The revolutionary communes will wherever it is needed to send delegates

either to establish new communes or to house the enacted provisions apply.

Article 14 . The revolutionary communes and its delegates will all complaints and
proposals, bearing the signatures of at least one hundred civilians or civilian platforms,
consider: however, it then will only be addressed when proposing in no way prevent the
development and feasibility of the revolutionary principles of equality .

Article 15 . To facilitate the implementation of all these measures, a lasting

revolutionary militia of able-bodied citizens of any age constituted by the voluntary
commitment of six months or more. The soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the
disbanded army who want to enter into this militia have jurisdiction to do so, but the
officers, which would also have this intention, need to be included, providing advance
convincing evidence of devotion to the revolutionary cause.

5 read transitional provisions:

1. The revolutionary communes will appoint working committees assigned to reorganize

the work.

2. Those committees will establish in the hands of the workers or workers' associations
all capitals that are their necessary. This measure will not only extend to workers in
industry or agriculture, but to all individuals who will require work.

3. The pattern of trade will be entirely free: meanwhile be set up in all cities warehouses
and the producers over there will be able to exchange their goods for a fee, which
nheidsbedrag and nature will be determined later.

4. The capital that will be provided to the workers' associations, will be brought on
behalf of the commune and in the registers of labor committees. The species of capital, its
value, the place where it is put into operation, the name of the owner, will be carefully
recorded.

5. If workers or workers' organizations through their work to get there far to generate
capital for themselves, they can enjoy complete freedom of it until their death or until the
withdrawal of two-thirds of the associates and therefore to the dissolution of the
association .

During the Commune of Paris Bakunin seems to have remained in Switzerland, France
was closed to him. In Germany he was outlawed. But his heart will probably have
gepopeld. He saw the Commune went wrong with the old idea of the state and whether he
foresaw her fall, he would have loved to seen it as the true commune, as the symbol of
anarchy, would have gone to ruin. To what extent did he attempt to bring distraction to the
Commune of Paris by supporting movements in the provinces, we do not know. There
seem then plans to have at Johann Philip Becker and W. Rustow to an uprising in
southern France from Geneva to work [235] , but it is unlikely that Bakunin was involved
in those plans, because he had long ceased in relation to Becker and his friends. The
legacy of Bakunin is a fragment found on the community and the state concept, which
appeared later, which we know his thoughts exactly. In a letter of April 16, we see that he
lost Paris night, there arose no serious movement in the provinces, but he had two wishes
in case of failure, he thus formulated: "May firstly the Versailles Paris otherwise
overwhelm than overt support of Prussia! May secondly Parisians rushing to their doom at
least half Paris in the fall! Then the revolutionary social issue, in spite of all the victories of
the military, as an incredibly irrefutable fact for its well raised. "

It is known that Marx, the Commune refused and actually greeted with suspicion, even
though he immediately after her fall taken with itself its full liability in masterly manifesto,
which was published by the International by the General Council. It appears from what he
said during the congress of the International in 1872, at a meeting in Amsterdam, he
expressed his opinion that the Commune of Paris had fallen, because it is not
simultaneously in all capitals, Berlin, Madrid, etc. proclaimed. He thought therefore not
recommend going there, but he was, as we already were to communicate, transmit orders
to Paris. A commander of an army to Paris, which is based in London!

Published in 1871 written by Bakunin two booklets: l'Empire Knouto-Germanique et la

Rvolution social (The Knoeto Germanic empire and revolution) and La politique
thologie the Mazzini et l'International (Political Theology of Mazzini and the
International ). After he first had called a farewell to France, he showed how the seated
citizens are almost more afraid of the social revolution than the Prussians. And yet
throughout the state government prevents the free development of the popular
forces. The citizens were mainly thinking of discipline and discipline of the state. Bakunin
would also discipline, but voluntary, arising from its own impulse and passive obedience
as the condition demands. Incidentally, he has no superstitious reverence for universal
suffrage, as long as the nation is dominated economically by a minority, which owns the
property and the capital, the elections are illusory. The proletariat is not withstand the
intrigues of the clergy, adels- and bourgeois politics so that it runs into each. It is a
misfortune that the farmers and the workers do not go together in the cities. The farmer
hate each government, as always all get him what he has. One farmers must give the
reasons for the clergy and the peasants will fight well, because they do it for their
own. The Bonapartists are ready to deliver France to the Prussians to have recovered
their emperor in doing so. Prussia and Russia are chained together, so that the social
revolution now faces a Knoeto Germanic state. This will last until Germany awakes to the
concept of freedom.

In the second he fights Mazzini, whom he personally cherished the greatest sympathy
for all the difference principle, and his mystical and metaphysical point of view. The crimes
of Mazzini consist in this, that he slandered the Paris Commune in its struggle for the
liberation of all workers and the International cursed.

Mazzini called the International devil, Bakunin accepted that name and said: "We are
the party of Satan. And what does that devil? He wants: 1. that they assured to each
laborer the full proceeds of his productive work; 2. that as long as the working masses
remain in misery, all the political reforms and revolutions nothing in the world benefits; 3.
That therefore remain subordinate all political issues to economic requirements; 4. that
the workers will free themselves; 5. That no power on earth can do something against
them with good national and international organization; 6. the elimination of any rule; 7.
solidarity of all the workers of the world; that the workmen of all subjects and companies
unite as one man act and will assert with strikes and demands to shorten the working day,
in order to arrive at the international liberation. "He calls Mazzini, the great revolutionary,
cleanliness and goodness itself, and he appreciates it in him that they defended him when
he languishing in Siberia, was still haunted by calumny emigration of the German
Jews. Against Marx then took Mazzini party on Bakunin and as he stands in front of
Mazzini and recording the party of Marx, it is because its principles forbid him to do
otherwise.
 Mazzini built his theory on the duties. He wanted to transform the nation into small
seated civilians and had no regard for the collective work of the whole nation. However,
there are only two types of society: either that of the modern bourgeoisie, the exploitation
of the many by the either of the collective ownership of resources, voortgebracht by
collective labor, and that is the social form. The two historical fictions: God and the State
have incalculable harm done in Asia, Christianity, the people will not be able to help
freedom. The salvation of the future can only come from the spontaneous organizations
that lead to federation, from complete autonomy, which wants to know nothing of the
cursed authority.

Bakunin was working on a big work, under the title of God and the state would fully
develop his principles. However, it never appeared and what we have of it, are only
fragments like him more. But when critics accused him it was a fragment, disarmed it to
them by saying: "My life itself is a fragment." In that document, he rejects any idealistic
system and any kind of authority, whether it originates from a sovereign or universal
suffrage. "The liberty of man consists only in that he obeys the laws of nature, because he
himself has recognized as such and not by a stranger wants him whatsoever, human or
divine, collective or individual, is imposed. "And he gives this wonderful hymn to freedom,
which we would call the Song of freedom:" I am not truly free if all human beings that
surround me, both men and women are equally free. The freedom of others, far from
being a border or the denial of my freedom, on the contrary there is the necessary
condition and confirmation. I'm only in truth freely by the freedom of others, so how
numerous the free people who surround me, how is deeper and broader freedom, the
more extensive and deeper and wider my freedom. The slavery of men on the contrary
represents an impediment in my freedom, or what amounts to the same thing, their
animality is a denial of my humanity, because once again I can not truly be freely unless
my freedom or some say the same will, except my dignity as a human being my human
rights that it exists to obey one and only determine my actions according to my own
convictions, taking into account also be attached with the free consciousness of all, by the
consent of all. My personal freedom so confirmed by everyone's freedom extends to
infinity. "

He sees the state as a "historian temporary arrangement, a transient form of society", it

belongs as well as the religion to a lower stage of development. The religion is the state
emerged because there is "no state without religion, and he can not be without religion."
Hence, "the governments of theistic belief without good reason do not consider as an
essential condition of its power."

"There is a class of people who though they themselves do not believe, do

nevertheless necessary need as they believed. This class includes all kwelgeesten,
oppressors, vampires of humanity, priests, monarchs, statesmen, soldiers, financiers,
officials of all kinds, politiemannen, gendarmes, gevangenbewaarders and executioners,
capitalists, usurers, producers and huiseigenaars, lawyers, economists, politicians of all
gradation, all to the last retailer to will continue in chorus repeat the words of Voltaire: if
there were no god, then one had to invent him, because not, the people must have
religion, "he compares religion to the safety valve of. machine. The state will disappear
once and cozy coexistence of people that will survive, will be based on mutual
agreements, which have legal force. In the future, one can get a "free association of
individuals in communities, municipalities in the provinces, of provinces into nations and
finally nations in the United States of Europe and later the world." But each of these
reserves the unlimited right full independence, provided the internal rules of province or
municipality does not threaten the independence and freedom of the natures. All rights
and duties are based on the freedom for him, so that the right of free association and free
separation is first and most important of all political rights, without which every link is a
disguised centralization. Only through revolution can this goal be achieved. The only thing
we can do is to organize it and to hasten. We need to provide midwifery services to the
new era, to "promote the birth arid revolution." A very large number of people are not
required to start the revolution. "For the international organization throughout Europe one
hundred resolute and serious associated revolutionaries enough. Two or three hundred
revolutionaries are sufficient for the organization of the largest country. "His teaching
about law, state and property he calls anarchism. "In a word, we reject every law, every
authority, every privileged, proprietary, official and legal influence, even if he would have
been obtained by means of universal suffrage, in the belief that something can only be
achieved for the benefit of a ruling minority of vampires to the detriment of the enslaved
masses. In this sense we are in truth anarchists. "

Meanwhile Bakunin worked vigorously participated in the creation of sections of the

International, all in anarchist sense. Did he get the Egalit on his hand, that sheet was
conquered by the Marxists. However, he continued his work in the Solidarity under
Guillaume, followed by the Rvolution social and then it disappeared through the Bulletin
de la Fdration Jurassienne . With dismay saw the General Council, that Marx, the
increasing influence of Bakunin, among others visible at the congress of Sonvillier on
October 31, 1871 and in the summer of 1872, the Council issued a circular entitled Les
prtendues scissions de l'International ( the alleged divisions in the International).

Marx knew himself as a skilled politician to secure the support of the Blanquists and
when he challenged Bakunin and his supporters before the judgment seat of the
conference, which was convened at The Hague in 1872. Already once was the choice of
the place unhappy, for Bakunin, who was in Switzerland and hence no side free travel
could make it was denied him access to all the surrounding countries, was unable to get
there in the occasion. However, there were his friends Guillaume Schwitzguebel,
Joukowski and Cafiero. Everything was collected that could be used against Bakunin,
especially the Russian business that could not assess the most due to lack of knowledge
of the Russian language; there had been dutifully vote and some questionable sections,
including an Australian, had helped lift the elimination of the hated work Bakunin.

A committee of four people were appointed, of which two proved to be spies, and the
Belgian Splingard was added as a fifth to these four. The meetings of these five yielded
any result until the committee finally out Splingard to who protested later was Discuss
such by Marx, that they came to the following conclusion: 1. The Alliance has existed, but
it has not been sufficiently whether it still exists; 2. The statutes and letters of Bakunin's
proven that he tried to base the Alliance and that it might be successful; 3. Citizen
Bakunin has operated deceptive maneuvers himself master to make all or part of power of
others, rip (escroquerie) and that, moreover, he or his agents against those who did not
fulfill their duty, went over to frighten.

Thus Marx succeeded indeed get his way. Bakunin and his followers were expelled
from the International, but this victory Marx at the time was the death of that
association. To correct assessment should be read carefully: l'Alliance de la Dmocratie
Socialiste et l'Association Internationale des Travailleurs. Rapports et Documents
PUBLIES par ordre du Congrs International de la Haye, which thus prevents the
indictment with explanations as well as the response by the Party of Bakunin: Mmoire
prsente par la Fdration Jurassienne de l'Association Internationale des Travailleurs.

The seat of the General Council was shifted to New York and this decision by three
votes majority Ough, has caused the associated groups of Marxists and Blanquists who
standing together went on the Elimination of Bakunin, explode, because immediately after
the Blanquists departed from the Congres. Marx later did it appear that the International
had perished in the Commune. No, it was as Professor Quack precisely understands:.
"The dogmas of socialism, as Marx had formulated was no place for anarchism." Marx
"discipline and order" required for its International and thus the anarchist elements there
must at all costs out. Bakunin called the conference in The Hague a "distortion of Marx"
and it would seem to us that the expulsion was a preformatted matter which one only
wanted the sanction at the conference. Another anti-authoritarian congress in St. Imier, in
which decisions of the Hague congress null and void were declared in September of the
same year the Spanish, Italian and Jurafederatie held with delegates from other
countries. All this reminds us vividly remember the time when they had several popes,
one in Rome and one in Avignon, who went together under the spell. In a letter to the
comrades of the Jurafederatie wrote Bakunin (1873): the one was permitted before the
Congress of Geneva in 1873 to leave the International, but after the two congresses,
whose Marxist was a funeral is to each one his freedom restore to act, the victory is
decided. By birth he was both by bringing a bourgeois and could therefore only theoretical
propaganda. The time is now past. In the nine years of its existence, the International
developed more ideas than were needed to save the world, said that ideas can save
her. The time has come for deeds and actions. Before all things the organization of the
working class. He did not have enough physical strength more for the fight. There is
another board, the international response has its headquarters out of France, but in Berlin
and is also represented by the socialism of Marx as the diplomacy of Bismarck; its goal is
the pangermanisatie Europe. It has set itself between the workers and their eventual
release and must be fought with all his strength.

Did that words are not prophetic significance?

The Alliance claimed to be the true Internationale and it is curious that in four
conferences, which held the International after the Hague, namely Geneva, Brussels,
Bern and Ghent, the tone was indicated by the supporters of the Alliance. Marx's victory in
the International was thus one of very dubious.

Undoubtedly the influence of Bakunin has been great in the Latin countries of Italy,
Spain, French-speaking Switzerland and France, not to speak of its influence on the
Slavic countries. Much of this has yet to be elucidated. He would have participated in
1874 in an anarchic attack and insurrection at Bologna and only narrowly escaped. In the
same year 1874, when he was part of his inheritance which he was entitled, received from
his family, he moved to Locarno, where he very shabby lived and miserable would have
been stand without Cafiero's help, to Lugano, where he still alive in memories of the
past. became ill he brought himself to Bern rest with his friend Dr. Gustav Vogt and there
blew the last breath from 1 July 1876. A simple gravestone in the cemetery at Berne
indicates the spot where the remains of Bakunin. It seemed as if his tomb was silent
hatred, as socialists different direction spoke very appreciative words, it did not last long,
because soon the social democrats took appeared that ordinary life messages from him in
several of their bodies. It formed an international committee of collecting and publishing
his manuscripts after his death. Undoubtedly, he brought the fairest tribute by Dr. Netlau
who collected everything with unlimited patience and unparalleled piety that relates to
Bakunin, to manufacture fifty copies of the autocopyist, which he has given to libraries and
some friends. The whole is completed in three main parts, and of course makes an
invaluable contribution to the lives of Bakunin so that no biographer, whom to do truth is,
there may be outside to draw from that source.

Curiously certainly throughout this fight because it applies two principles. State
socialism and anarchism, authority and liberty were in conflict with each other and this
was no different, as both stand as opposites against each other, so that even after the
death of Marx and Bakunin, the two main representatives of the two principles, the
struggle continued and to be had.

The anarchist movement in the different countries

First was the direction of Proudhon and his mutuellisme predominant, both in France
and in Belgium, later socialism gained the upper hand among the anarchists. It was
especially dr. Csar De Paepe from Belgium, who contributed much to do so. In a speech,
which he delivered to Patignies, he said in 1863: "The ultimate goal that the revolution he
seeks the destruction of all power, that means - after a transformation of society - the
disappearance of politics by the social economy, . government organization by the
industry and that is anarchy "and then he gives the glorification of anarchy in these words:

"Anarchy, dream of the lovers of full freedom, idol of true revolutionaries! For a long
time people have you slandered and insulted unworthy; in their blindness they have you
confused with disorder and chaos, while on the contrary the government, your sworn
enemy, only the result of social disorder, economic chaos, as you will be the result of the
order, the harmony, the balance, justice. But already the prophets have seen under the
veil that covers the future and you have proclaimed to the ideal of democracy, the hope of
freedom, the supreme goal of the revolution, the sovereign of future times, the promised
land of reborn humanity! ... For you fell Hbertists in 1793, they did not think it had not yet
come your hour! And in this century, many thinkers have had a premonition of coming and
fell to the grave, while they hailed as the patriarchs dying hailed the savior! That Thy
kingdom come, anarchy! "
 He belonged then to the mutuellisten, which require that "no one robbed or will be
suppressed, which only the reciprocity requirements proper justice equally to the
exchange of guarantees and insurance against accidents in the exchange of goods and
also require the value 2 can only be exchanged at 2 and not at 1 or 3 and who hope that
the worker as lord of his entire working product will only be exchanged for another of
equal value, so it according to his needs may repurchase its product for the sale price. "

But in 1867 it was he who at the congress of the International in Lausanne socialism
defended against state communism energy and mutuellisme other. One should not forget
especially that when revolutionary Socialism was the same as the collectivist anarchism.

Strange it may be called that, apart from De Paepe many others, now in the Social
Democracy occupy a prominent place, also started as anarchists, like Paul Brousse and
Jules Guesde in Paris, Turati and Andrea Costa in Italy and several others.

Numerous people were involved in addition to the coercive socialism of the Social
Democrats the seed of anarchy lavish scatter in society. The work of Proudhon and
Bakunin has not gone down to the grave with their person, on the contrary, it has
continued and is a force that must be taken.

Among them, we first think of Elyse Reclus (born 1830), the famous geographer, who
in his pomp work Gographie Universelle leaves a monument of industry and labor in 20
parts, favorable testimony laying aside of the writer and an asset to science. In 1871 he
took part in the Paris Commune, but already at the first failure of April 3, in which Gustave
Flourens was so sad to his end, he was taken prisoner; due to the mediation of many
foreign scholars punishment was determined in exile outside France. Working and living in
Clarens in Switzerland, he remained a source of information and refuge for anarchists and
he always managed to find time alongside his extensive study, to work propaganda for
anarchy. Diligently he was assistant to the weekly Le Revolte , which in 1878 was founded
by his friend Peter Kropotkin in Geneva, later moved to Paris in 1885 jare to be verdoopt
in 1887 in La Rvolte .

Although temporarily halted after the frequent attacks, the later resurrected under Jean
Grave and still lives under the title Les Temps Nouveaux .

It is Reclus, clearly the folly of the distinction between "evolution" and "revolution"
showed, saying that both are two successive operations of the same phenomenon. One
could say that the revolution is the end point of a series of evolutions. Both therefore differ
only in the era of its appearance, but in no way constitute a contradiction, since they
complement each other and often unnoticed almost the whole of nature into each
other [236] . His book, published as No. 19 of the sociological library of Stock in
Paris.; L'volution, la rvolution et l'idal anarchique (Evolution, revolution and the
anarchist ideal) that unfolds in wider pull. Idealist Reclus remains in everything he says
and does, as is particularly evident in the small piece in the Almanach de la question
social of Argyriads (jr. 1897), in which he compared the Civitas Dei of the Catholic
Church places the cit du bon Accord, the city of collective friendship, which will all find
common bread by labor. There he wants freedom for himself, he will cooperate to provide
it to all. "Once a person is endowed with some authority, whether ecclesiastical or military
or administrative or financial, revealed his natural tendency to make uncontrolled use; no
jailer who does not have a happy feeling of omnipotence when turning the key in the lock
the prison door, not a forester who does not monitor the ownership of his masters with
looks of hatred against poachers, no bailiff who does not feel a sovereign contempt for
poor devil, he summons. "Therefore, he wants a society without authority. His brother Elie
has written several useful sociological work [237] , moving in the same direction.

And next to him worked the Russian Peter Kropotkin [238] . This prince was one of the
oldest Russian nobility, who according to his statement to the court in Lyon in 1883, being
16 years old, came to the school of pages, following which he was 19 1 / 2 years old
adjutant of the governor General of the province of Amur in Siberia. He had the
opportunity to see how the liberalism of those days was only a mask, and he sought to
find in the scientific study what military service not offered him. Twenty-six years old, he
left the army to sit on the benches of the University of Petersburg. Already in his childhood
- his father had many serfs, or rather slave - he had seen things the same as those which
are described in the Uncle Tom's Cabin by mrs. Beecher Stowe and he had learned in the
hut of the poor to have this love, he had learned to despise the great men at court. On a
trip abroad during 1871 and 72 he came into contact with the socialists, became a
member of the International and returned as a socialist back. His sympathy was not
platonic, no, he threw himself fully into the revolutionary movement, held under an
assumed name talks among the workers of the International. But - like so many - betrayed
in 1873, he was sent to the notorious Peter and Paul Prison, where he lived three difficult
years. There he experienced, that was insane nine of his fellow prisoners and eleven rose
lace. Sick of hardship and sorrow, he was transferred to the hospital from the citadel, from
where he managed to escape on June 29, 1876 to settle in Geneva.

Everything: rank, honor, power gave price in order to devote himself to the heavy hand
of the emancipation of the masses. He thought that France gave more freedom, he found
what he there was imprisoned in 1881 for taking part in the International, which was
forbidden, and wrapped in the famous anarchists process, which was treated in 1882 at
Lyon in court and with numerous others he was also sentenced to five years in prison. In
January 1886, he was set free from prison in Clairvaux, to live not far from the
cosmopolitan city of London, where he earns his living by literary work in magazines and
publishers. When he was imprisoned, was published by the concern of Elyse Reclus a
book of his hand Paroles d'un Revolte (Words of a rebel), or actually a collection of
previously issued articles. Prof Quack calls the writing "a sign of the times" and the writer
"a type from the end of our dark age." Good, but still a rare type, because people like that
are few and far between in our belangzuchtige and interest-seeking time. He says of him:
"When will later describe a modern Dante's Hell of the nineteenth century, he will meet
one of the circles of the funnel-shaped deep, deep in the valley, this stature. Over there
then encamped around him crowds of fellow sufferers, shadows of nihilists and anarchists
him, treating the prince rough colloquially as companion. They take a dangerous
reproachful outcry. They cry out, how they burn with desire of oak trees under the green
branches to see the soft blue sunlit sky. However, he falls deeper and deeper, silent,
determined, the one circle after another. "And they -. They should follow him" The purpose
of these words is not clear to us straight.
 Among his other works has many stairs made Conqute du Pain (The Conquest of
Bread), which in various languages, including Dutch, was translated. From this whole
work exudes a special benevolence, when it comes to the future society. Each refers to
"people of good will who will offer their services", soon again from such of the endeavor
will be to immediately take stock of everything, etc. It concerns us a bit very soon to
assume that eg. The Commune Paris will know how much food there is available within
24 hours and within twenty-four hours twice millions of copies accurate tables of all were
indicating the places where they are stacked and the method of allocation will be ready for
distribution. The wand of the fairy tale book is also some highly used here. Always will be
counted on the common sense, the organizing talent, etc. of the people, and we give
directly to that, collectively taken greater will prove than is assumed in the rule, but one
has greater account also then keep doing Kropotkin, that people, by poverty and misery,
police, judiciary and army for years restrained, came suddenly in freedom can not directly
change its nature and cover the defects which it is due to the coercive system burdened
and that the counterparty will use all means to make people averse to the new situation, if
necessary by inciting to murder, etc. in order to return to the old. Often he is too
vague. Thus, for example. He wants a big city like Paris will lay hands on the houses and
factories, which she links up relations with farmers in rural areas, she railways will
neighbor. But who is that? Is that the legitimately elected body of the city council doing all
this must or who else? In that regard, was allowed to be made a bit more clarity.

When we read: "Our task is to ensure that no human suffering from a lack of bread from
the first day of the revolution now and as long as it takes", we ask who the "us" is. We
believe that Kropotkin in this book disinterest an optimism that borders on the
unbelievable and develops a degree of benevolence, which pleads for his person, but that
should result in the biggest disappointments in practice.

Are Reciprocal hulpbetoon (Mutual Aid) is a beautiful study, in which the recognition of
the Darwinian struggle for existence that nature is complemented by the other, who
speaks to us in the nature of mutually hulpbetoon. His anarchist morality, his study of the
prisons are l'Anarchy, sa philosophy, son idal (Anarchy, its philosophy, its ideal) all
deserve much consideration. His study Fields, Factories and Workshops (From field,
factory and workshop) shows the seriousness of his versatile work. And still he moves in
the line of anarchy, of which he is a convinced supporter. Then formed a party to the
International, which authorized nor an authority within this union as any other authority,
she called herself first federalist, when anti-authoritarian and hostile to the state. He
avoided calling it then appeared anarchist. The word anarchy - as he wrote in those days -
the party seemed too much to peg to the followers of Proudhon, whose reform ideas
challenged the International. But just to confuse the opponents made use of that
word; moreover, made the assertion may already revealed the name of anarchists, they
pursued only disorder and chaos, without thinking of the rest. The anarchist party did not
hesitate to accept the name that they gave her. In the beginning, they still insisted on the
separation stabbing between an and archiving with the assertion that the word anarchy,
Greek by origin, in that form meant dominion negligence and not "disorder" but soon they
decided to give the reader the useless effort and the reader to save the definition in Greek
and helped himself by name, as he was. He wants to call the union of communism and
anarchy, and that's why he and his preferably: Communist anarchists. Not so coercive
communism, the ideal of the German socialist school of Marx, but communism without
government, communism of free people, the merger of the two ideals, which has nurtured
mankind through the centuries: economic equality and political freedom .

Kropotkin sees the state of comparatively late origin, as a step in the development
process that mankind will soon have behind us. Then the friendly society will support
people on mutual agreements and will be superfluous. Anarchy is "inevitable, neighbor,
higher stage of development of society." Already he sees how "free associations of the
whole field of human activity appropriating." Municipalities will exist, but these are not
"accumulations of people in certain area, they know neither borders nor walls; it is the
grouping of like-minded, not strictly closed completely. The different groups in a
community will be attracted to such groups in other municipalities; they will just stuck with
it as connect with their fellow citizens and as communities of interest will be made in
whose fellow members are scattered over a thousand towns and villages. "Until such
municipalities will the people" through treaties "again. They will "obligations towards the
society take on," which for its part undertakes to certain things in front of them. It will not
enforce compliance with these treaties, there will be neither punish nor rights. Compliance
shall be adequately insured "by the needs of each one of cooperation, help and
benevolence" and who does not fulfill his obligations, which will be able to
exclude. "Across the few anti-social acts, which will still take place, the best way to be a
loving treatment, moral influence and freedom will." The future society will be the task now
performed by the state, to take over with ease. "Among Imagine that a road is
needed. Then the residents of the neighboring communities will understand each other
and they will go about their business better than the minister of public works. Whether one
needs a railway. Again, the participating municipalities will bring something completely
different than the established entrepreneurs, who only build bad roads and thereby earn
millions. Or, there is a need for schools. It will be they can organize at least as good as
the men in Paris. Whether the enemy is in the country. We then defend ourselves instead
of relying on generals who will betray us anyway. Whether farmers should have tools and
machines. Then they negotiate with the city workers, they deliver them to them at cost
price in return for their products and the entrepreneur, who is now one peasant and
worker steals, can be missed. Or there is a small dispute or a stronger attempt to
suppress weaker. In the first case, the people will be able to form a tribunal and the
second will each citizen to intervene in his duty deem themselves and not to wait for the
police, they will not need the police and judges and jailers. "

Simultaneously with Kropotkin was in Lyon condemned the lawyer Emile Gautier, who
had obtained soon name his writings. Although he spoke naughty words in court: "If after
your prosecution remains only one anarchist, I will be that one," they saw little of him after
his return from prison. Through his preface to the book by Sbastien Faure La douleur
universelle showed that he was not dead for anarchism, or at least sympathy apparently
belonged to that side. We would also like to mention in France Jean Grave, the
shoemaker-typographer-philosopher who and as editor of the Temps Nouveaux and his
three volumes La socit mourante et l'anarchy (The dying society and anarchy) La
socit au lendemain de la rvolution (society on the day after the revolution) and La
socit future (future society) [239] a focal point of the anarchist movement was
Paris. News these books contain, but they popularize anarchist doctrine. Further
Sebastien Faure, the Jesuit robe sat to exchange it before the anarchist propagandist,
migrating the country to his gospel everywhere to unfold the force of reason and with a
high degree of eloquence. Several times he was in prison, but his zeal therefore not
chilled. In his book La douleur universelle he writes the causes of the general pain is first
and foremost to the authority and even he believes that the authority took private property
in the world, more than the private property would be the source of authority. After a while,
the weekly Le Libertaire was published, he managed to do some months a newspaper
appearing Le Journal du Peuple , but could not hold it. Then he decided only to go away
and next to the weekly Le Libertaire , he again conceived after the disappearance of his
newspaper, he gave a short while Les Plebeennes out that only written by him, however,
for very soon to the grave .

A. Hamon, after quitting the deserving magazine of the Belgian Fernand Brouez La
Socit Nouvelle This continued under the name of L'Humanite Nouvelle , around forming
a bevy of anarchist writers who fought in every field and devoted themselves to the
freedom-view . Emile Pouget also should not be forgotten, by written in the Parisian
accent Pre Peinard has exerted much influence on the working population of the French
capital. Had the issue be withdrawn for a time, in 1900 appeared again, left and right
lashes share, but it disappeared quickly.

Completely self-contained as a sniper at your own risk worked So d'Axa

his L'Endehors (Outer all standing) because he is outside the law, outside school standing
as isolated seeker went his own way.

Even Charles Malato working in that direction as well as the "red Louise", the name by
which everyone Louise Michel recognize the woman with rare sacrifice and courage the
cause of the oppressed always stood for and defended completely disregarding her
person. While living in London she is keeping her spirit still surrounded by its French
people and they come from time to time lectures in France [240] .

It is impossible in this to be complete, because unmistakably reveals itself in literature

and art in every area an anarchist movement and without determined to take a place
among the militant anarchists, many people work together to revolutionize the spirits in
freedom-loving direction.

In Italy it was the noble earl Cafiero who devoted his ability to the cause of the workers,
the International; it was the fiery Malatesta already as a boy participated to plant the red
flag to Benevento and his life partly partly spent in exile in prison, but always worked for
the interests of the suffering people and toward anarchy; it was the learned jurist Merlino,
the son of a high magistrate in Naples, as economist distinguished and finally in his
country returned to stand for a kind of parliamentary anarchism was Amilcare Cipriani,
already as a 15-year-old boy and since that time always took part in all the battles for
Italian independence. Under Garibaldi contending he was after the construction of
Garibaldi at Aspromonte and its defeat there to leave the country. But one soon finds him
in Greece to assist the Greeks against King Otto. When the French Republic was
proclaimed in 1870, he rushed to Paris and distinguished himself by his bravery in the
battle of Montretout such that he was offered the Legion of honor, knighthood which he
refused as contrary to his ideas. He participated in the Paris Commune as adjutant of
Flourens, but after the failure of April 3 he was captured along with Elyse Reclus to be
sentenced to death by court martial on 4 April. On April 6 would take place the execution,
but due to an injury to his leg, he remained somewhat behind and "it was lucky, because
an order from Thiers came to transport him to Belle-Isle and later his sentence was
commuted in lifelong deportation in a fortified stronghold. He returned to Paris after the
amnesty of 1880, but soon he was expelled from France. In Italy he returned was due to
an old case, for cases with him to Alexandria, was sentenced to 25 years for the
bano. The basest manner treated in prison, the people he liberated him again and choose
whenever Member. After his release he went to Paris and stayed there, always working
for the freedom and the brotherhood of nations. How deeply moved he was when he saw
the Social Democrats freedom trampled and smothered in international conferences by
the exclusion of the anarchists! Because freedom was above him and he saw the
oppressed, he was at his post to defend her. As such, he belongs among the anarchists,
although his sense brings him more on their side than the clear consciousness of the
anarchist idea.

The German anarchism father can call one August Reinsdorf. As a young workman
wandered lived these around in Germany but also in Switzerland, where he was hanging
out in Geneva by Johann Philipp Becker, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Brousse and others, and
later some time in Zurich. Under another name in 1877, he went to Germany because he
could not stand it any longer "in this free country, where one loves and knows me
everywhere for a man-eater." He came to Berlin also in contact with must and always he
was an advocate of the propaganda of the deed. He said there was "only one logical view
of modern socialist ideal, which is anarchy, and this ideal could be completed only in one
way, viz. By the application of anarchist tactics." The Social Democrats indulged not give
him as many branding as a police spy and now they can say what they want and the
person and the ideas of Reinsdorf, his character can only be one verdict and that is in
favor of him. His grand plan of attack on the Niederwald and the failure of it we discuss
elsewhere, be enough to note here that, as a hero on the scaffold died under pronouncing
the words: "Down with barbarism! Long live anarchy "In court he replied to the question of
who he was, with the words: I am an anarchist. And when they knew asked him what he
was underneath, his answer was: "A society in which every person of normal construction
can develop all his abilities completely. In order to make this possible, must be imposed to
anyone an excessive work load; distress and misery must disappear; must cease any
coercion; all stupidity and superstition all should be removed from the world. " And in his
defense speech he said that "would prevail the anarchist movement, even though there
were 10 state courts."

Under the German Social Democrats Johann Most certainly takes a prominent
place. This workman - he was a bookbinder by profession - developed an unprecedented
agitational activity, had a great, compelling eloquence, so he managed to drag a meeting
and bring in zeal, had a great convenience to incorporate ideas in themselves and in to be
processed itself. He has worked in Austria, Germany, England and the United States and
he practiced on the international movement of great influence. When he left post-socialist
Germany, he was a social democrat, but belonging to the revolutionary school, even when
he is in spite of the German leaders on their own initiative Freiheit in London issued, and
only under the influence of the Belgian Victor Dave as well as by the attitude that his old
comrades assumptions against him, he was an anarchist. He found London a loyal and
sacrificing comrade Johann Neve, who later Liege to dwell allowed himself to lure out on
German territory to be delivered under the direction of the Austrian anarchist Peuckert to
the police, and in 1887 by the High Reich Court in Leipzig to be sentenced to 15 years
penal servitude to die in prison Halle.

In England Most experienced freedom of the press, which existed there, for because of
an article about the murder of the Russian Emperor Alexander II, he ran hard labor (forced
labor) a sentence of 16 months. During his captivity Leaf was Freiheit still confiscated and
the English police chased twice printers so the fear, that none of them dared to spend. So
they were forced to go with the blade to Switzerland, but also had the Federal Council of
the Swiss free republic decided to put an end to the publication of the magazine. Most
took place at his release from prison matters so stand. He immediately suggested to the
blade under his full responsibility to do reappear in London, but the people were
financially exhausted and showed little zeal for the cause. Most then received an invitation
from America, there to make a round trip, he accepted the offer and moved the issue of
that magazine to New York.

In 1882, he set foot on American soil and remained there since that time working for the
communist anarchism and edits to this day the weekly newspaper,
the Freiheit . Everywhere formed groups for Most also developed there the old agitational
force. Already after half a year they formed the American Federation of the International
Workers Association, which adopted the following declaration of principles in accordance
with the design of Most at the congress of Pittsburg in October 1883:

1. Destruction of the existing class rule by any means, ie by an energetic, revolutionary

and international action;

2. Establishment of a free society based upon a contemporary scientific organization of

production;

3. Free exchange of equivalent products by the productive associations themselves,

without middlemen and profijtmakerij;

4. Organisation of the education being on the basis of equality, science and religion
negligence;

5. Comprehensive equal rights for all without distinction of gender and race;

6. Settlement of all public affairs by free contracts of the autonomous (independent)

communes and connections.

When they saw the ramp, which Most made the terror hit to the heart of the capitalists
and sought an opportunity to defuse it. On April 23, 1886 Most New York gave a fiery
speech about the armament question and he called the many attendees, became
equipped with rifles, revolvers, bombs, etc., so that they are equipped for the day of
judgment. Result was an indictment of Most and a warrant was issued to arrest.

In the meantime, in Chicago on May 4 the infamous thing bomb site, allowing their
minds completely lost the capitalists fear. On May 11 they captured Most and although he
was set free again by posting a bond, already began on May 27 and his trial on June 2
followed his sentencing to one year prison sentence and $ 500 fine or 500 days. Although
they tried to mix it in the case of the accused Chicago, being one saw no
chance. Otherwise, he would undoubtedly have been hanged along. Now he was sitting
pretty with 1 year on Blackwells Island. After his release he resumed his position as editor
of Freiheit . Increasingly Most endeavored to propaganda for anarchism and how
tirelessly he it is, despite the climb of his years - he is now 54 years old - he showed by
making big propaganda tour throughout the United States, which he now recently has
returned to health in New York (March 1900).

During his imprisonment in America (1886) published a brochure Eight Jahre hinter
Schloss und Riegel (eight years behind bars), which are extremely eventful and turbulent
life is sketched.

Several small agitational leaflets issued by him, in which he explains his strange,
catchy, sharp, drastic way his ideas and his opponents unable to speak.

How far Wilhelm Hasselmann, who had great influence in the party a long time in
Germany, can count the anarchists, we do not know. However, it is known that he had a
burning hatred against the "party popes" and that he emigrated to America because the
land in Germany was it too hot, worked there in revolutionary spirit, but in later times he
disappeared completely from the stage.

Among the anarchists, who played a role in the movement, so does Joseph Peuckert a
place, but for most it goes through a police spy, which its attitude to Neve has helped a lot
- and the revelations of the former police spy Max Trautner, which also had to pay money
share to the imprisonment of Neve, let this respect hardly any room for doubt about - and
why we let him rest, being in the inability to spot to delve into this issue here.

The opportunistic attitude of the Social Democrats there was opposition in the German
party, but was already the case for a moment critic for the official party, when Dr. Bruno
Wille Berlin seemed many in a huge meeting to drag, yet succeeded to Bebel, Liebknecht
and theirs through their personal influence and their traditional position than by their
business refutation, for this opposition of "Boy" to be expelled from the party. Once out
pushed it more and more to the anarchists, but some of them were discouraged and
retreated, others had mostly to brode leave the country and the survivors lost themselves
too much in theoretical reflections than that in practical life much could exert
influence. Wille except we find on that side Gustav Landauer, Wilh. Spohr, Albert Weidner,
Bernard Kampffmeyer and some others, who Sozialist spending. Later, also a second
magazine Neues Leben , but already performed the first languishing for two magazines
was no place at all. Had the Sozialist give up, Neues Leben still exists and this little
weekly paper therefore represents anarchism in Germany. Extremely difficult in the given
proportions to make propaganda in Germany for anarchism, there constantly confiscated
the leaflets, the editors are put in prison. And besides still glowing hatred, which the Social
Democrats pursue the anarchists, that they even claim that it owes to the Social
Democracy is that anarchism was so little foot in Germany.

we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter dr. Csar De Paepe as one of the most
zealous defenders of the socialist movement in Belgium, we heard how he acted first as
defender of anarchism, later he went completely the trail of German social democracy,
although he to have free look at the things that he would ignore the freedom-loving ideas,
once cherished by himself. He was too critical and eclectic than he could his party leader
in the bad sense of the word. At the congress of the International in Lausanne in 1867 he
defended socialism - that was when the name of the collectivist anarchism - against state
communism energy and mutuellisme of Proudhon other.

Beside him fought Victor Dave, who was sent as a student in Lige as a delegate to the
international conference. In Switzerland Dave was informed by Bakunin and experienced
largely his influence. He later became the teacher of Most in anarchism. Averse
parliamentarism he is always hostile to all who have had socialism for the jobs of
parliamentarism. He now lives in Paris and has worked as literary.

At the Brussels gazette Libert , in the years 1871 and 72, worked except De Paepe
and Dave also Hector Denis Guillaume Degreef and others also, at that time all the title of
liberty held up considerably. A well-known figure in the Belgian movement is "father"
Rottmeyer of origin as a German does see his name clearly, a revolutionary temperament,
which the propaganda of the deed considered as the only practical means of realization of
socialist purposes. In no country in the world is so rampant opportunism headway among
the Socialists and Belgium, creating a mishmash originated under the name Parti Ouvrier,
which one finds everything but that socialism is only in the last place into
consideration. Still, anarchism has never eclipsed, witness the Moineau now lost in prison
for a crime for an attack in Liege which was not made by him [241] , witness the
Flaustier [242] , which in recent times in anarchist direction makes propaganda, the
witness dr. Hnault Lige, which has much influence in the Walloon country. Eventually
freedom may still not be stifled.

The Spanish Socialist movement was and still is predominantly anarchist. Especially
Barcelona is the center of the anarchist movement and thanks to the federalist
organization was the International there existence, though it was outlawed. Although
many persecuted horrible than the German Social Democracy, since the introduction of
the anti-socialist, anarchists remained there continue to work without a common reform
party. The uprising in Karthagena to Jerez in southern Spain, the attacks in Barcelona, all
contributed to a barbaric persecution, so the old inquisition at Montjuich fortress was
reinstated and the death penalty applied to a few, a lot more humane wash torture,
undergoing many.

In the beginning, also contributed to the Russian movement, with the exception of some
Blanquists and very few Marxists, an anarchic character, although they also differed with
respect to the resources that were to lead to the goal. Not until 1880 they performed for
immediate political reforms through a centralized organization, it can be said since 1883
that most spokespersons Marxist Social Democrats. Lately, however, insists anarchism
again more forward, which the writings of the London living W. Tcherkessov not contribute
little. His criticism of Marx and Engels bears a strong destructive character, since holes
have been discovered in the infallibility honorable teachings of Marx, since those accused
of academic plagiarism, in the economic area of Thompson, and as to the famous
Communist Manifesto of Victor Considerant is his sun which touched on the wane, as an
authority, which is doubtful, ceases to be authority.

As for America, we have already talked about how particular Most has blown an
anarchic spirit in motion. Chicago were all key leaders in 1886 anarchists and when the
bourgeoisie, the labor movement would push the head by letting throwing a bomb at the
Hay Market there, as a result of which seven policemen were killed when she focused her
attack on the anarchists, and the tone generators in the movement. We know how eight
people, namely: August Spies, Albert Parsons, Louis Lingg, Adolph Fischer, George
Engel, Samuel Fielden, Michael Schwab and Oscar Neebe were imprisoned [243] , who
were sentenced seven former to death, after the process so that was held eighteen
months lingering, and eight to 15 years in prison.

Despite the efforts of applied different sides, the bourgeoisie has exercised its revenge
and the five first were indeed hanged, or rather four of them, there's Lingg succeeded
himself in the prison side while Fielden and Schwab were pardoned, ie saw their
sentences changed to life imprisonment. Rare was this process, because all were quite
clear as anarchists acquaintances and went out to the court that it was doing to see
anarchism in their persons, but also the heroism with which they all died [244] . Their
arguments in court are a true indictment against the whole of society [245] . Later Fielden
and Schwab have been released and the governor Altgelt has officially acknowledged that
there has occurred a judicial murder, there has not thrown the bomb conscious of the
accused. This of course gave execution have required a major setback to the whole
movement and years to bring back together the scattered elements. On the other hand,
this act has shown the workers what to expect on the part of the bourgeoisie is once
begins to fear this threat to its rule. The well-edited newspaper Vorbote that appears at
Chicago, is proof that the anarchist movement has not been contained, but still continues
to push his way among the American people. As propagandists for this direction are well
known Lucy Parsons, the wife of the suspended Albert and Emma Goldmann, while the
recent and well successful propaganda tour of Most shows that the anarchist idea still
finds enough supporters in the United States of North America. The Free Society , now
moved from San Francisco to Chicago, is in the English language propaganda for
anarchism.

Does Lombroso sought to discover the anarchists, at least many of them, to find the
insignificance, others argue that the study of the physiognomy of many of them, including
the martyrs of Chicago, everyone requires in their energetic features, coupled with a high
degree of intelligence.

In a German book Die Hintermnner of Social Democracy von einem Eingeweihten ,

from the year 1890 we find the remark that the writer is to distinguish them come up to by
long traffic with many famous anarchists into two types: 1. the men, filled hatred, noticing
intellectually only the darker side of contemporary scientific and states whose passionate
temperament leads them there to regard the destruction war against existing and sacred
duty; and 2. the good-natured, soft-hearted people, to whom the misery of others deeper
impression than does own distress. Gushing with liberty, equality and fraternity they seek
to fulfill an ideal, which it adopted as principles. There would be not a third direction to be
placed adjacent to, wherein both of which are found mixed? The majority of people are
not so classify, since they possess characteristics from different classes.

Hamon in his Psychology de l'anarchist-socialist done the curious attempt to have

come from a study of the way in which various anarchists to get to their anarchism, the
composition of the "average" anarchist. His soul parsing the brain condition of the
socialist-anarchist has led him to the discovery that it is distinguished by: 1. the spirit of
resistance; 2. The love of liberty; 3. Love for Me or individualism; 4. love for others or
altruism; 5. sensitivity; 6. sense of duty; 7. logical sense; 8. lust for knowledge; 9. make
spirit of proselytes. We do not adhere to this, the least scientific value, but parts
decomposition partly because of curiosity. This is sure that despite the repeated
declarations of Social Democrats, which they apparently do not believe myself, that
anarchism is dead, does the anarchist towards its influence in all countries there
are indirect , since it is up to her to thank that social democracy is not deeper has fallen
into the swamp of reforms on the foundations of the modern state, immediately , because
it fosters everywhere the freedom-loving spirit and promotes and in all circles of society,
the idea of freedom and individuality to authority and coercion from above keeps high.

Individual anarchism

Besides the communist-anarchism has been the individual, in which the sovereignty of
the individual is pushed to the extreme. The distinction between the two directions is
clearly indicated by Mackay in his book The Anarchists . There he lets have a discussion
with the representatives of both directions and then gives the individualist with him the
following distinction: both agree on the autonomy of the individual, his self-rule and the
right of his own will, but the communist-anarchist builds to its ideal the ideal of mankind
and believes that any "real and true" man of that ideal should be as happy as he is. In
contrast, the individual anarchist wants to give everyone the freedom to live according to
his own ideal. He wants you leave him alone and spared demands that are put to him in
the name of "the ideal of mankind." The first few fights and only for his own freedom, the
other for what he calls the freedom of others. While the communist-anarchist wants to
abolish religion, dispel the priests eradicate the faith, the individualist believes that religion
by increasing knowledge will abolish itself. As knowing the location of taking believe, no
man asks for a church, a religion, a dogma, and so there is for those things no
more. While the communist-anarchist wants free love, but that the union of man and
woman shot children will belong to society, which is to ensure compulsory education and
individual households, as well as the only current person will go on in the great family of
mankind, the individualist wants the free union of two people who stay together as long as
they want it, the association for one night, one spring, life exactly as they see fit.
 While the communist-anarchist wants to abolish private property and says that the state
must fall so that it is ownership, because the state protects the ownership, individualist
claims that the state must fall so that the property could exist because the state
suppresses the property, he wants to expel the illegal ownership by everyone to make an
owner, he wants the organization of free credit ie the possibility for anyone to get hold of
work.

The individualist therefore does not abolish private property, but retained. However, for
more accurate assessment to be attached are: personal property for their own use .

Nothing is more foolish and more untrue than that it constitutes the individual anarchists
Manchesterlui, who want to apply the doctrine of: late-faire, laissez-go . Indeed, between
them lies a deep gorge. The Manchesterlui proclaimed free competition, but they left the
work as private property existed. In contrast, the individualist is based on the assumption
that the possibility for each exists to gain possession of the equipment and thus against
any monopoly in the hands of a few.

Based on the correct principles of Adam Smith, that labor is the true measure of the
price that wealth, the annual yield of the earth and labor, the product of labor the natural
reward them or wages, that before the period of the appropriation of land and the
accumulation of capital, the whole product belonged to the worker, since no part had to
leave for an owner or boss, one has failed - and even Adam Smith also made that error
guilty - to draw the inferences to derive necessarily from that doctrine. Until half a century
later it was so and so socialism was not unlike the new economy, which drew the logical
conclusions from the principles laid down in the book of Adam Smith. This socialism
realized that the only way to deliver the work to the enjoyment of its entire product, it was
to abolish all monopolies. About all socialists agreed, but there was separation from the
road along which they had to reach that goal. Warren, Proudhon and others wanted this
purpose the path of freedom; Louis Blanc, Marx and others of authority. State Socialism
and Anarchism were born.

State Socialism is the doctrine according to which all things must be controlled and
regulated by the government that the people themselves had been appointed by universal
suffrage, so the rule of half plus one, without regard to the will of the individual, which
must be valid in the will of the community or rather half plus one. It means to get rid of the
resulting monopolies is to make everything into one large monopoly.

Anarchism is the doctrine according to which all matters governed and must be
regulated by the individual or by a voluntary association of individuals who group to a
specific number or group of such part as long as they like so themselves, and that the
state will be abolished.

And how impure it is, to the individual anarchist for a regular ManchesterMAN or liberal,
it appears most clearly from what one of them, Benjamin Tucker, in this regard says:
"Manchester Men believe that extent the freedom of workers to competition between it
concerns thereby lower their wages, but do not reduce the freedom of the capitalists to
competition between them to the extent that the result of their profiteering. Laissez
faire (let's go) was a good sauce for the goose, labor, but a very poor sauce for the swan,
capital. But how to overcome this inconsistency, how all to serve with that sauce, how to
put capital at the service of doing business people and workers at cost price or free of
usury - that was the big question. "

To that extent the communist-anarchism indeed coercion would like to exercise by eg.
To compel communism to life or all squeeze to relinquish their children for education to
the community, a salutary reaction is here exerted by the individual anarchism and
conversely when the individual anarchism in one way or another would like to prevent
people rallied in communities where the communist-anarchism occurs beneficial in order
to come here to resist. Both forms can coexist best and if the benefits of communism are
much larger by saving a lot of labor and cost, the individualists will naturally and of their
own free election form preferable to the individual and there are whose proud that all it's
individual life above all, well what objection could exist in the world, to do not allow this or
allow?

Already Cicero understood that "the essence of freedom is to live exactly as he

chooses." And the English philosopher Herbert Spencer, who is difficult to classify,
because while he has done using so many arguments to the anarchists and the state idea
fought vigorously, once he might also front made against the anarchists, expressed
perfectly anarchist idea: "people should have the freedom to go and come and see, to
feel, to speak, to work, food, clothing, housing and getting each as much as for all to
satisfy the needs of nature. He should be free to do anything that is either directly or
indirectly necessary for the satisfaction of any mental and physical need. "And as an ideal
of a social order he considers it as" anyone with the free rein to his own nature also
function a social unit performs, and therefore that all others do the same, the loner will be
given the opportunity to live his own life. "

Josiah Warren (1799-1874) is one of the predecessors in the way of individualist

anarchism. Once forming part of the Owense colony of New Harmony, they came to the
view that the failure had been caused by the principle of association. The individual is
there too much restricted and can not develop in full freedom. He therefore wants no
government, no laws, no external authority but also no regulations, no statutes, no
executive or administrative, not an organization. Each must be able to completely leave
what he considers good or where he likes or has fun. According to that rule he founded in
1851 the village Modern Times on Long Island in New York. At various places he founded
called "time-stores" (time shops), where the goods could be exchanged for other goods or
even at work bench notes, which value was expressed in working time required for the
manufacture of a product with a small increase which was a compensation for the time,
the buyer spent in the store. He wrote a book entitled Equitable commerce, a new
development of principles as Substitutes for laws and government, for the harmonious
Adjustment and Regulation of the pecuniary, intellectual and moral intercourse of
mankind , (Fair trade, a new development of principles rather than laws and government
to harmonic control and distribution of monetary, intellectual and moral movement of men)
and another a letter Inquiry into the natural rights of man, his duties and interests, with an
outline of the principles, laws and Institutions by-which Liberty , equality and fraternity
may be realized throughout the world (a brief study of the natural rights of man, his duties
and interests, with an outline of the principles, laws and institutions, which liberty, equality
and fraternity realized may be the whole world ). Many impact has not gone out of him, at
least in Europe, and his writings are virtually unknown here, even the name of the person
can not rejoice in fame. Incidentally, as for the ideas, this was not necessary, because
Proudhon wanted and tried essentially the same.

There undeniably blowing an anarchic spirit through the writings of Emerson, Wendell
Phillips, the poetry of Walt Whitman, even Benjamin Franklin, a Jefferson, a Thomas
Paine are not free and that's because one in England and in America an individualistic
tendency for many is found, which generally reveals the sigh, the often vague longing for
freedom and who joined a few, ready to consciousness, sales to anarchism.

How much more would you be now if you had tried to put the Declaration of
Independence of 1776 into action, where it says: "We recognize that all men are created
equal with certain inviolable rights; which are considered life purpose, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness; that a government by the people appointed, which receives its
power from the hands of the people themselves, to enforce these rights; that if the
government violates those rights, the people make the right changes in the management
or turn it off and to appoint a new guarantee whose principles that the salvation of the
nation will promote "Because democracy with its general suffrage, reflected in all
respects, without economic equality means nothing, one could arrive at a consistently
implemented plutocracy and mammon service, such as one finds it in the United States
despite such a statement.

Another American was Thoreau (1817-1862), who in his writings Anti-

slavery and Reform Papers thinks anarchic and writes. Accused of skepticism, cynicism,
misanthropy, arrogance and bad faith because he came up against nine-tenths of the best
institutions, he continued on his way proudly good and evil report. His aim is "back to
nature", as he this explains in Walden or Life in the Woods [246] (Walden, or Life in the
woods), and although not opposed to the civilization he demonstrated the benefits at the
expense of the sacrifices of civilization have been obtained and he wanted to designate
how all the benefits of civilization could partake, without suffering the disadvantages of
present.

When the noble John Brown, obtained over whose corpse the abolition of slavery in the
United States, was sentenced to death, then it was Thoreau who stunning Plea for
Captain John Brown did. In his essay Disobedience to the laws he tells how he paid no
taxes last six years and before that was put in prison, but how it was that he stayed only
one night that he does not share co. But through that means showing the state how one
poor idiot he was, and the last vestige of respect he had for the state, lost to make way for
a feeling of pity. The tax refusal was recommended by him as the peaceful revolution
against which nothing would prove to be resistant. If a thousand people refused to do so
and the state was placed between the choice to either close all righteous people in jail
either to abandon war and slavery, he will not hesitate which to choose. If the collector of
taxes or ask any other state official, as one of them actually did to Thoreau - what he had
to do? Should read the answer: if you want to do something, well then do away from your
relationship. If the national obedience refused and the officer are specified relation, then
the revolution is complete. It took him less trouble to run to fight because of disobedience
to the laws than it would cost him to obey them. He would not want to feel that he could
not live outside the protection of a state, a government, because it always gives the
evidence of their own weakness, so one needs a support from outside.

A wise man will not allow it to be used as a piece of clay, with which a hole is stopped in
order to stop the wind. He considers himself than high birth to belong to subject someone
to a control or to be the useful servant and instrument of whatever master in the
world. One need not wait until they have persuaded the majority to abolish bad laws, no
individual act of refusal is much more powerful to such abolition. Voting is always a lottery
and a wise man let the law do not have the opportunity, just as he wants to see
determined by the majority, as in the work of the majority puts little virtue. Man is not born
to be forced, he wants to breathe freely, he must act at his pleasure, and at the time
circumstances. Thoreau considered the individual as the basis of society and as a man
thinks unobscured, loves and looks bright, then that does not exist to exist it no longer
appear and low legislators and reformers will do their best without him ever in their power
or coming.

It was in the years before 1848, a time of spiritual life generated when the left side of
the Hegelians the world almost lifted off its hinges by the radical writings, which she did
appear. David Friedrich Strauss and Ludwig Feuerbach - these two names are already
enough to recall the revolution brought about by the theologians and philosophers of
those days. Then came Bruno Bauer, Arnold Ruge, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Karl Grn
and many others, who provided us with Ulrich von Hutten about who would cry out time: it
was a pleasure to live! And Proudhon, not to mention, of whom Karl Grn testifies that he
was the "French Feuerbach, practical Feuerbach, who does not ask about the essence of
Christianity, but the essence of the property. The question is the same, but viewed from a
different perspective, the question is, where does the dependency, slavery in the
world? Feuerbach answers there, that man alienates the working of his mind and handed
over to a transcendent being as property. Proudhon says there, that humans are
essentially labor and its product and alienates the superhuman God worships the owner,
whose grace he lives. What will Feuerbach? The god of dissolution religion and the
absolute spirit of philosophy, enabling the man to his true position. What would
Proudhon? The property lifting, the owner explained without rights, to bring honor to the
essence of human labor. "Karl Grn tried to connect the German socialism on the German
philosophy. He fought the state, which had to disappear to make way for a free society, a
self-government of free and independent people.

But in 1844 published a book, which brought the world into dismay. It was titled The
Ego und sein Eigenthum (The only and are the property) by Max Stirner, the pseudonym
under which Dr. Johann Casper Smidt wrote (1806-1856). Now was the government
seized the copies not been sent by the publisher, 250 in number, but some days after the
seizure was lifted, because the book was "too absurd" to be dangerous. Made it into the
starting ramp, it became very differently, since one did not find words enough to admire it
and the writer regarded as a genius, while others thought it was rubbish and put the book
with a shoulder-shrugging disdain aside. But it was not long before the book was forgotten
and remained, until there appeared a new edition in 1882 and finally the author of the
famous John Henry Mackay was an enthusiastic full trailer, which gave a biography of him
testifying great piety on manner, as Bakunin those found in Dr. Nettlau. He regards
Stirner's book as the guide of anarchism. A French translation appeared, and now after
half a century, one begins to understand the book in its whole conception and appreciate.

Still, it remains a very different judgment against because prof. Quack calls it "spicy in
the bad sense of the word, because throughout the book reflects the purpose of the writer
going to give birth at all sensation" and it was him at the lecture, when he attended a
"student-commers" when seated at "a narrow table below enjoying an uncountable set of
glasses of beer, to discuss with the students of philosophy and theology, puffs, laughter,
blare, laughing, cursing and save. " He believes that there is "an atmosphere of beer and
tobacco smoke from the long German pipes about this book hangs." So in other words, he
considers it a pub philosophy. By contrast, Franz Mehring, today declared an ardent
Marxist who so truly not bias so will write that "one Marx and Engels no negates to
mention the name of them in the same breath as that of Max Stirner." And from this book
he testifies: "If ever a book was written, which is often abused equation applies: it is
written with the heart's blood of his writing, then applies the the Ego und sein
Eigenthum ". Arnold Ruge called his work a "liberating act", since the "liberation is the
most stupid of all stupidities, of the Social Worker dogmatism, this new Christianity that
the simple preaching and whose realization would be a low sheepfold life." Feuerbach
characterized him as "the gewaltigste freieste und Schriftsteller, the ich gelernt know." (the
most powerful and most liberal writer, I know). It was this bold thinker like so many before
him - and how many after him? - He was poor, so poor that he was in jail twice for debt in
1853, once for 21 days and later for 36 days and when he died, took almost nobody note,
while others are idolized and celebrated far below him stand. His aim can best be
summed up in this word from him: "Wer ein Mensch ist ganzer, braucht keine Autoritat zu
sein" (Who is a whole human being, need not authority).

Max Stirner is the consistent individualist or would you prefer the philosopher of
egoism. He divides his book into two divisions, namely: the Man and the ego. It's nothing
I. Was hitherto discussed the rights and duties of man, where they begin and end, he
proclaims the sovereignty of the individual. Because whether we like it or do not know,
we're all egoists.

To understand the book well, we must place it in the list of his time and then we will be
in position eg. Against communism, he obviously knew only the utopian state communism
of Weitling, summarize. A free, communist-anarchist aim was not there, so he had to write
as he did. Stirner did not know the social development of modern society and therefore its
conclusions, one should always consider that point. As he seeks the highest power in the
individual, it is therefore not against cooperation. we hear what he writes about (p 240 et
seq.). "The loner is on himself, he is not a member of any party. He unites freely, and
separates freely again. The party is nothing but a state within the state and in that small
state bee should also again "peace" reign as the big ones. Precisely those who shout the
loudest that the state should be an opposition, strive against all odds of the party. A proof
that they too want only one state. Not the state, but the loner suffer all parties shipwreck.
"He argues that" the party can not exist with impartiality and it is revealed precisely
egoism. As the party of my business? I'll find plenty there who unite with me without
swearing on my priorities. "When asked if the singletons form a party? he replied, how
they can be themselves, if they belong to a party! And one asks, one must then hold with
no party? Then he says: "Just because one joins them and enter into their circle, it
entered into a union with them that lasts as long as party and I pursue the same goal. But
today I still share the direction of the party and already tomorrow I can no longer and
become her "infidelity". The party has nothing binding (obligatory) for me and I do not
respect her; they do not like me anymore, I am hostile to her. An egoist can never take
party? Sure, but he can not get swayed by the party. The party remains for him at all times
nothing more than a party; He is the party, he takes part. "

So Stirner, the individualist par excellence, speaks of a "union of egoists", ie a cozy

community of men, according to the requirements of the common good, which take place
in the state with its laws. In it, some see an inconsistency, because as Mehring says: "In
every society holds the I to be the only one." Nevertheless, we believe that this goes very
well, as long as one has free societies, where the individuals go together so long and to
the extent to go without giving away their independence they feel together. No individualist
will be against it from "Prinzipienreiterei" ever want to go with someone else, because if
any singletons want the same thing, they are involuntarily and without other ties than their
own free election driven to another. The individualist will be necessary to allocate as much
common sense, he knows how man is a social being and therefore can not possibly
completely separate from others, but there is a big distinction between the singleton,
which supposedly in the public interest rises in the whole and between the sum of
individual persons, each standing on its own but whenever urge to exist, come together
soon, if that urge ceases again, go out together.

Against his critic Moses Hesz Stirner gives some examples of existing
associations. "Perhaps running right now for his children window together to form a
camaraderie to play; He sees them well, and he expects to see happy, selfish
associations. Maybe Hesz has a friend, a loved one; he can know how the heart goes to
the heart, how these two unite selfish to have together pleasure and how neither of them
while coming short. Maybe he met a few acquaintances in the street and he was invited to
accompany them to a winery; he goes along, to prove their love service, or "unite" it with
them, because he committed them pleasure. Should they because of the "sacrifice"
before thanking whether they know that they were together for an hour a "selfish society"?
"

It was Albert Lange, who regrets expressed that Stirner his book has not been
supplemented by a second part, which assumes that "I have to get out of my limits I, a
kind of idealism which then, in turn, can make as the expression of my will and my
thinking. "But if one forgets that Stirner did not occur to build, only to break down and he
never says that can be built any social system to its foundations. One might almost be
tempted to say that this idea was far from him because he writes somewhere: "Friends,
our time is not sick, but he's old and hit his last hour; tease him not with your medicines,
but relieves him the agony by shortening him and let him -. Die "So he sees the agony of
the time and what good would it have to come to bear on a new system? What then is to
come or happen, he does not know and he did not speak about. Nobody can give more
than he has and the only question is whether what he gives, the difficulty of giving is worth
it.

Undoubtedly the book by Max Stirner remains a phenomenon of lasting value and, far
from it as a product of pub philosophy, we believe that it will be more appreciated, more
one the individuality of people will celebrate and instead of this ceremony will stretch the
detriment of social life, we consider it to society the best, when it is complete in all
freedom, as a society of people who speak the individuality strong, will be much higher
than a collection of machines, which imitate all movements occurred by few. Mackay
reproach our time that "we are a race between night and day. Half awake, we rub our
eyes still half asleep, and dare not be seen in full light. We can not separate us from the
ancient dwellings of our concepts, though they are also above our heads together; we are
too cowardly to leave and us to rely on the sea of self-consciousness, which can only
wear our old house to the other shore; We do not yet entitled to rely on the future, despite
or rather because we have lost faith in ourselves "(p. 161). In other words, we hobble too
much in two minds, be it with one foot in the new world, but the others dare not pull away
yet completely out of the old.

Among his supporters may well primarily be named Mackay, in his

biography [247] wanted to build the most beautiful monument next to the stone on the
grave, which must state the name with gilded letters of the simple man whose life a
continuous fight was against prejudice on religious, political and social spheres and also
with care and sorrows.

Although it is almost impossible to take that Nietzsche, the unfortunate insane sage that
much influence over the minds of intellectually developed, Stirner's work would not have
known, as his assured of friendly manner, yet a strong relationship of ideas between them
is undeniable.

In America, the individualists have a strong defender Benjamin Tucker, the pupil and
friend of Josiah Warren, whom his remarkable book, Instead of a Book by a man too busy
to write one (instead of a book by someone who is too busy has to write one) has
instructed. This book contains the articles of his hand in Liberty . It is often polemical
character since he left and right sometimes and then attacking defender manner
proceed. Communism, he fights and he denies the right to Most, Kropotkin and the
communist anarchists to call themselves anarchists, since the concepts of communism
and anarchism can not understand each other. Most of the accusation that individual
anarchists are consistent Manchesterlui, Tucker said that this was so because the
Manchester principle is freedom and consistently Manchesterdom landscape is consistent
supporter of freedom. The only inconsistency of the Manchesterlui lies in their lack of
freedom. And unfaithful to freedom is precisely the fatal inconsistency der Freiheit School
(Most, et al), as the only difference between the supporters of this and Manchesterlui
herein exists that in many ways, in which the latter infidelity and the first to be faithful
while in others the latter infidelity, and the first true. Anarchism is really consistent and
Manchesterdom communist or pseudo-anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterdom. Tucker
and his then also in line with Proudhon, the "father of the anarchist school of socialism,
the anarchist par excellence". Their influence is relatively not large, although one does not
forget should the individualistic tendencies of America open a wide field of activity for
them, more than in Europe, where the military dressage has worked in education for
individuality not the highest, but when be considered incidental.

Anarchism of action

In the various programs could read the Social Democratic Party, which they would use
to achieve his goal "of all our available means." And no wonder, because it was a party at
war with the whole of society. Where now the enemy, ie, the propertied class robbery
committed on the labor of workmen and violence exerted against them, to keep them
there under, as it is understandable that the regular la guerre comme la
guerre application began to find.

The earth is the common property of the residents, the common storehouse filled by the
common labor. It follows that the community, ie the sum of its inhabitants have the right to
obtain all products of common labor. But if the community that right property, or does not
have a portion of it, that there is need thereof, the right to take a part of it? And a part of it
this right, has not the individual, a single person, the right person to take his share from
the common revenue? If one denies the ownership wholesale, how can we demand that it
recognizes the small? When the law takes on existence of every human being, then it
follows that it recognizes the right of each of the means by which they exist, the conditions
of life, so a sufficient amount of food, clothing, shelter, in a word on what a man needs to
live. Here the reasoning which one had to logical if one consistently occurred
most. Similarly commit relative to the violence. The rulers constantly commit
violence. They force someone to serve as soldiers, they force anyone to pay taxes, they
conclude the man who comes to his right, locked up in opposition, so spare not to where
the death penalty exists, it to be fit. The prisons are filled with people who are punished by
means of violence as victims of a wrong society. But why should not man have the right to
oppose violence against them, calling it violence? When a king or emperor sends his
army troops to capture a piece of land here and there, which is the same as steal, and to
that end fights the population and murders, he is hailed as a hero and applauded by a
whole nation. But as a private individual doing the same and even then for his
maintenance, he is punished and imprisoned. The position of the alleged robber in one of
the short stories of Sacher Masoch is so well described in the words: "He who has
nothing, is at war with him who has, as was the existence of the world off. There was a
time when people together robbed and murdered, as now do the animals, but later the
children were Cain, who had saturated the blood of their brethren out among themselves
and gave laws, and since they live, that the property, at the expense of those who are
without property. Would you like food make use of the rich, well one submits, but if one is
not inclined to let shoes Cutting own skin on the feet of others, one must revolt. they grasp
through their paid servants to you, well then you have not to be pitied, if they lock you up
and hang up, but conversely it also did not catch on that tone, when ministers are
captured and slain in turn. In times of war goes so far and one lives in the social field in
state of war. "

Even Albert Lange considers this position perfectly explainable, as evidenced by these
words: "That man will recognize a law without his actions created or made, as it deprives
him of all and of each share in the goods and pleasures of society and even the means to
him to acquire such goods on a piece of the earth by his labor, which is to be expected or
whether to require, as a man, one has outlawed, protects members of society, banished
him and prosecute. Society must, if it entails such disinherited in her womb, let this reach
for the fist law and they are many in number that they overthrow the entire existing legal
order and is set up at the ruins as they can, whether that establishment better than it is
worse than the pre-existing. "

And even Lombroso seems to feel this, he writes: "One can not with impunity glorify
violence, though one thinks only to a very specific type of application. Sooner or later, the
gospel is the power of one party to another. "And he points out that the Ultramontanes the
stab of Ravaillac, the conservatives, the massacre of the Paris Communards,
Republicans glorify the bombs of Orsini, yes all parties praise the glory of bloody deeds,
as they use for themselves have learned. Where one admires Napoleon I, as one can not
wonder that the brutal act of violence from time to time burst comes [248] .

From theory to practice - which is largely a matter of temperament and the 'propaganda
of the deed is nothing but the personal application of a general theory. Absolutely correct
once wrote revolt: the act can not be recommended or discuss or describe, it does her ...
Sometimes a finished act more than a whole long period of writings: the revolt will always
be the first to them to cheer acting. We are so far from it to reject the propaganda of the
deed. Alone (we have said and repeat it) it can not be the work of a magazine ... We did
not say to the people: do this or do that! If they are not aware and convinced, they should
know what they have to do.

It affects eg. A miscreant, a human monster as a Canovas in Spain, who was slain by
the dagger of Angiolillo fact the perpetrator is welcomed in all circles, since all feel how
the land is cleared of a tyrant. on the other hand one finds an elderly woman, as the
Empress of Austria, who fell by the hand of Luccheni, one loses the sympathy of the
masses. The verdict so much depends on the sacrifice falls. Its not a Harmodius and
Aristogeiton for the murder of the tyrant Pisistratus, not because Brutus killing Caesar, not
William Tell praised and admired for the murder of the cruel Gessler? Were they not the
heroes of plays?

Is not Schiller, who aptly describes how the propaganda of the deed arises when he
sings:

Wenn der gedruckte Nirgends law finden kann,

wenn unertrglich wird die stuff - greift there
Hinauf getrosten Muthes in den Himmel
und holt herunter pure ew'gen Straight,
who Droben hang unverusserlich
Und unzerbrechlich who die Sterne selbst -
Zum letzten Mittel, wenn kein andres mehr
Verfangen will, ist ihm das Schwert gegeben!

Wilh. Tell, 2nd Company, 2nd Stage.

 Is not it Goethe who Faust say that in the beginning was not the word, was not the
sentence was not the strength, but the Deed?

However, the propaganda of the deed itself is not anarchism, though it is often taken up
by anarchists. Under the Russian nihilists, under the Fenians in Ireland, among social
democrats even one will find men and women who apply it and so it is not tied to a
particular direction, it is much more a matter of temperament.

When Emile Henry are bomb tossed at the Cafe Terminus, Octavo Mirbeau wrote: "A
mortal enemy of anarchy had not acted any better than this Emile Henry when he threw
his inexplicable bomb" and yet after his logical defense speech, which we return later, will
no longer be able to claim that his bomb was "inexplicable". And even far Mirbeau went,
he wrote: "Each party has its criminals and fools because every party has its people." And
Elisee Reclus wrote in the Travail of Liege, "If one wants to take a person, they will find
him , one makes the matter with him, but they do not let innocent people feel the weight of
his enmity. Anarchy is the highest point of Humanitarian theory. Who calls himself an
anarchist, should be good and gentle.

All attacks in the genre of yesterday (there is the Emile Henry stop) the true comrades
regarded as crimes. If those who perform such acts of barbarism, do this with the goal of
making propaganda for the anarchist ideas, they deceive themselves very much.

One will get to such a point of disgust for the comrades, they will instill such a horror,
that they will not even want to talk about the anarchy.

Yet the idea is clean, big. In that the reverent! The men who act through evil, pollute our
teachings. Unfortunately, there are many such among us. " [249]

Yet, also here the word mad. de Stal: tout comprendre est tout pardonner (understand
everything is to forgive everything). And understanding, explaining everything comes
on. Does it sometimes a logical thinker like Emile Henry would give anything to know if
others act accepted or refused? No, the explanation is all the approval or rejection of
purely personal nature.

In December 1876 the Bulletin de la Fdration Jurassienne published a statement by

the Italian federation, signed by Enrico Malatesta and Carlo Cafiero, which reads: "Italian
federation believes that the act of rebellion, destined to affirm socialist principles by acts,
the best and only means of propaganda that without spoiling the masses and to deceive,
can penetrate into the deepest strata and the living forces of humanity to draw in the
struggle waged by the International. "

In 1877 they added the action to the word. With a gang insurgents they did attack
Beneventum, took possession of the city " main arme au nom de la rvolution social"
(armed aggression in the name of social revolution) as it is called in the manifesto of
Cafiero, resided at City Hall, burned the archives, annexation taxes and divided the
money among the people. It was not long, just two days they remained in the possession
of the town hall, as soon challenged the troops to go and then it was time to leave as soon
as possible, no protection as they were against the odds.

It was Kropotkin, who declared in 1878 at the Congress of the Federation Jurassienne
that "through acts of resistance to the anarchists in the people's feeling and the popular
initiative seeking awake from the double perspective of violent expropriation of the
property and the disorganization of the state."

Russian Kropotkin moreover knew this way of working too well and he saw too much in
their necessity that he would reject her. Stepnjak wrote in his Underground Russia that it
"should be after 1866 either blind or hypocritical to believe in recovery through other way
than violence."

In that year Karakosov fired in the summer garden to Petersburg Emperor Alexander II,
without touching, and the prince threw himself out of fear into the arms of reaction. The
terrorists in Russia were all proponents and practitioners of propaganda of the deed. The
shot of Vera Sassulitsch on General Trepov opened the period of systematic terrorism
(1878). Five months after the acquittal of Vera followed the assassination of General
Mesentzev, chief of the gendarmerie and the whole camarilla. The Hartmann attack, the
explosion in the Winter Palace and finally the welgeslaagde attack on the Emperor's life
are so many events of notoriety, which demonstrate how the terrorism of nihilists was the
answer to the terrorism of the government. And who will count the numerous smaller
attacks, who report the enormous number of victims, which is made only in Russia? And
the terrorists were and martyrs and heroes who reached the superhuman almost in
devotion and selflessness, so that even if one rejects the tactics, we must respect the
people who gave themselves for a cause deemed by them good and holy. They were
powerful personalities, the type of individual power that tolerated no bondage. We draw
near to them in the chapter on nihilism.

Spain is a country where social democracy has never been able to settle down well, but
anarchism and Barcelona, the intellectual capital of Spain and therefore much more
important than the bureaucratic Madrid - in the Netherlands is the same distinction
between Amsterdam and The Hague - was always the its focal point. But not only in
Catalonia, also in the southern provinces raged anarchism rampant. In the year 1882,
after it was called Mano Negra (Black Gang) which city and country ended in the
Andalusia province, to stabbing farms and houses on fire, to throw bombs in churches to
murder landowners, cattle poisoning and for some time it was the terror of the population,
most of the more well-off.

Among the anarchists was divided on this action because some, applauded and others
strongly condemned, result of which was a split in the Spanish federation. Exception Laws
were made in 1883, no less than 2,000 anarchists arrested under the pretext that they
belonged to the Mano Negra and with rigor the anarchists were persecuted
everywhere. In 1884, a sample process took place: 7 anarchists were sentenced to death
and hundreds to life or temporary imprisonment. Until the year 1891 was heard little from
the anarchists in Spain, but had hong out stirring place in the city of Jerez in Andalusia,
which were suppressed by force in August 1891 and ended with the strangling of four so-
called troublemakers: Lamela, Zarzuela, Busiqui and Lebrijano on 10 February 1892. on
that occasion had a 500 number of armed peasants seized the city of Jerez with the aim
to free their imprisoned comrades still. A few hours they were indeed the boss in town and
it looked for a moment critical enough for the government, but after a bitter battle with the
garrison they had to retreat, leaving behind dead and wounded. They however do not
forget that all revolutionary upheavals dubbed simply been called anarchist. This is now
persisted in several provinces. Shortly thereafter jumped a few dynamite cartridges for the
house of the mayor and of the Military Governor. As a result, 157 persons were known as
anarchists, short and well-arrested. It was soon pretty well leave half without them even
saying why they were arrested. Then the process would take place of the 68 accused,
who are still out of 157 were imprisoned people, the fear was there such a way that no
one wanted to be part of the jury. When the government sent all the prisoners simply to
Cadiz, where it hoped to obtain a conviction. The Advocate General claimed there for
each defendant sixty years, say, sixty years imprisonment. A new ministry replaced that of
Canovas and the same judicial official, who did insane requirement, then pleaded for
acquittal of all the accused and now suddenly declared that the police testimonies him
now more than suspicious occurred. Acquittal followed, but one of them, who was
particularly hated by the government, Fermin Salvochea was immediately after his
acquittal rearrested and convicted by a deliberate purpose appointed court-martial to 12
years hard labor. Simultaneously with him nine others were sentenced to life in solitary
confinement, 2 to 20 years 3 to 12 years and 1 day, 1 to 15 and 1 to 8 years and one
day. That was the revenge for the invasion of Jerez and also in a particularly hated
person, whose great popularity was a thorn in the eye of the government.

How little the terror it brought in, evidenced by the fact that in the year 1892 in Spain
more than 60 outbreaks more or less serious uprisings and have the majority in Catalonia
and Andalusia. Here was found stabbed dead a mayor in his bed, where a landowner was
slain by dynamite, elsewhere a judge strangled. In a word, the revolution was in full
swing. Marshal Martinez Campos governor of Catalonia was to put an end to violence in
that state. A reign of terror has now been introduced. Numerous people were arrested and
several months thrown into filthy, stinking dungeons, soon to be released "for lack of
evidence." It was Paolina Pallas, who wanted to rid the province of the inhuman and threw
a bomb during a review of the troops on September 24, 1893, when Martinez Campos at
the head of his staff inspecting his troops. His horse was slain but he himself walked free
with a minor injury; an officer from his entourage, was seriously injured.

The man who had thrown her, remained calm with arms crosswise on the chest, crying,
"I did it! Long live anarchy! "Captured, he acknowledged that the freeing was giving him
Barcelona of his executioner, expressed his regret when he learned that Campos was hurt
only and died a hero on October 6, shot in the citadel Montjuich. Before his death, when
the soldiers aanlegden their guns on him, he cried with a loud voice: "The revenge will be
terrible."

Now that she was whatsoever. On 7 November, a month after Paolino Pallas was shot,
was in Liceotheater to Barcelona, especially during the performance of William Tell,
thrown a bomb. The audience applauded at the shooting of the Austrian tyrant, governor
Gessler by Tell, who in his time was a propagandist of the act, when suddenly thrown a
bomb among the spectators, who killed apart leaping about thirty men and women and an
even greater number of more or less hurt. Barcelona has long been a dead city, where the
rich fled and was avoided by others. The council requested the government the recall of
Martinez Campos and there is a riot broke out just under the Moors in Morocco, they sent
him there and Barcelona got rid of him. The gruesome tortures knew one other accused to
wrest the name of the chief culprit, Salvador French, who then was captured late January
1894 in Saragossa.

French drove a bullet through the head, but before his arrest was not mortally
wounded, and also an attempt to take poison, failed. brought into the hospital and barely
move may establish he was still with heavy iron chains riveted to his bed. he being
restored was tortured in every possible way until he himself converted to the apparent
better to be treated and on November 21, so more than a year after the attack in the
Liceotheater, he was put to death. Just at the last moment he refused to sign the death
sentence and he cried Long live anarchy! All attempts of the spiritual and his wife to
convert him were fruitless and one foot on the scaffold Waxing he cried out with all
religions! And the other treading the scaffold, he said, long live anarchy! While the
executioner gagged his hands and feet, he raised an anarchist song to, to be then
strangled.

Based on the indictment, that as Pallas friends had attended meetings with him whose
function is to destroy the current social conditions, five others Cercezuela, Archs, Sabat,
Bernat and Sagas sentenced to death and executed, while four others, namely: Miralles,
Mir, Carbonnel and Villarubias were sentenced to hard labor for life.

No agent awe one in Spain to prosecute the anarchists. So was thrown a bomb in 1896
in Barcelona in the street Cambios Nuevos during a procession, as a result of which 12
people slain and 35 were injured, mostly women and children, who participated in the
procession, and soldiers off the streets, and this gave rise to a new persecution of all
progressive, most anticlerical elements. 400 lots of people from all kinds of direction:
freethinkers, republicans, Masons, anarchists, socialists, were arrested. Among them prof.
Tarrida del Marmol, director of the Technical University of Barcelona and five other
professors, all belonging to the Liberal Party. But escaped in time to the torture done to
others. By all kinds of torture, such as tearing of the nails, violating genitals, the run
throughout the night under the flogging, providing salt fish without water to quench the
thirst, sleep deprivation, setting up an iron helmet, inhuman mistreatment did think back to
the times of the Inquisition, forced his confessions and as a result were in the month of
May of the year 1894 six people were shot in the canals of fort Montjuich, namely Marcel
Archs, Joseph Sabat Jos Codina, Mariam Cerezuela Jos Bernat and Jaime Sagas. And
how was sentenced, one can deduce from the words of the Attorney General, so a judicial
officer, who literally said: "We need to close our eyes to reason. We must not take into
account legal requirements and despite the lack of evidence, declare that all the accused
perpetrators and accomplices. " [250] Thus, despite the lack of evidence, he claimed the
death of 28 defendants, he sought the galleys for life for 50 of them and he wanted the
others were banished. Public opinion was the cause that of the 28, but eight were
sentenced to death acquitted a 20 TA1 to the galleys and 63. On May 4, 1897 the death
penalty was carried out in five of the eight who were executed. They died with composure,
asserting their innocence and shouting: "Murderers! Long live anarchy! We are
innocent! Long live the socialist revolution! The death of the Inquisition! "

It is now sufficient evidence that none of them is guilty of the capital complained of
fact. The real culprit is dead in America and named - this is two years later released -
Franois Goro, only to have made the attack declared on his deathbed, and that the
others were all innocent. Public opinion, especially in England, was so strong that finally
remain imprisoned Montjuich martyrs were released, although it is very difficulty
them. Many of them have gone to France and England, where they found great favor with
their friends.

Is it any wonder that after such facts someone felt called Prime Minister Canovas, the
monster that allowed all this and commanded to make lace? It was the Italian Michael
Angiolillo which Spain delivered by this tyrant by a gunshot on August 8, 1897. His fate
was predictable. Although neither Canovas nor Angiolillo were soldiers, he was put in the
hands of a court-martial and keep unison without taking into account the act itself or the
reasons which led to that act, sentenced to death. Even they dealt with the case in
camera, but how thick the walls were, we know what did the prisoner before his
judges. And find us how he and calmly stated that he had no accomplices, how he said no
murderer to be but someone who does justice, who sought committed the scene of misery
to the responsible persons and found above the gendarmes as executioners acted above
the officers who served as judges in the person who gave all the orders. "Is it a bad deed
to pass down a bloodthirsty tiger, whose claws lacerate his chest, crushing jaws people
whose heads? Is it a crime to crush the vermin crawling poisonous? Well, my victim was
only worse than 100 tigers, worse than 1000 reptiles. He personified in himself the odious
what makes you think: religious cruelty, military brutality, the ruthlessness of the
government, the tyranny of power and greed of the propertied classes. I've Spain, Europe,
freed from the world. See why I'm not a killer, but someone who does justice. "On August
20, he mounted the scaffold without the assistance of the executioner and sat without
visible emotion on the gewurgden sofa and a moment later he was a corpse. He had just
time to pronounce the word "Germinal", thus speaking of the future, which would move
the seeds of liberty and fraternity.

And indeed it was as if Spain verademde when it was liberated from the tyrant who
oppressed heavy on all and have seen far from being a criminal in the man who gave
comforted his life to save many people recognized either aloud or in silence him a
benefactor and as a William Tell was an eloquent worshiper Schiller, also will glorify a later
generation Angiolillo tyrants like a murderer and appreciate him.

August Reinsdorf is almost a type of propaganda of the deed. A man of conviction, still,
more or less withdrawn into herself, determined, he tried a little band of determined men,
imbued with a revolutionary spirit, to cultivate that would enforce by deeds what seemed
impossible by other means. The propaganda of the deed is of the opinion that if any
manufacturer or boss or patron, who behaved very brutally and arbitrarily towards his
workers, was shot dead on the spot, if such a fate befell the judge, the policeman, the
government person who guilty of reaching tyranny opposite defendants or subordinates,
would be brought terror among the people, so it would be more prudent acted in the
sequel. The remark: it does not matter, because such people are in fact replaced by
others, the answer was that we know too well, but do the same, then their are awaiting a
similar fate, and would not you think that if this was quite by put a salutary terror would be
instilled, who held in check such persons? Indeed, the Damocles sword of vengeance
always hovering over their heads.

Already in 1877 Reinsdorf wrote: "Whether mankind from above artificially organized -
what is unnatural - and it needs an authoritarian government and it is not free; or they
organize themselves freely from the bottom to its needs, and every government is
unnecessary and even harmful. "The doctrine of the authority also is as ridiculous as that
of God. Only the servant will act servant, the free human will, free from coercion, all
developing qualities that we now only be admired by those who strongly enough to save
some of their humanity in the present ontzedelijkende and inhuman conditions.

In 1878 shot Hodel fell to the German emperor; but irrelevant. It was followed by that of
Dr.. Nobiling. This wounded the emperor and soon followed the socialist law, which the
socialists now legally were outlawed, what they actually already. That attacks on the
German Emperor as the representative of the German tyranny in silence and sometimes
noisy were well recognized among the proletariat, evidenced by the 800 lawsuits for insult
majesty that followed. The attitude of the Social Democrats in Germany was simply a
coward and bore witness of fear.

Reinsdorf had long been reported to the police and the Social Democrats, and he was
captured, but one could prove anything to him than that he lived under a false name and a
dagger in his hand. He came there with a few months. An attempt to wrap him in the
treason trial of Dave and his failure, but he continued the object of a manhunt on the part
of police. He left for France and was there introduced to various supporters of the
propaganda of the deed. He was also an avid contributor to the Freiheit of Most. Returned
to Germany, he settled in Elberfeld himself, supposing there to find a good field for his
propaganda, because in Wuppertal contradictions occurred as sharp as possible to
daylight.

On September 28, 1883 the Germania memorial would be unveiled in the Niederwald in
Rudesheim. Since the emperor would by now have been and Bismarck and all that lived
great and mighty Germany.

Reinsdorf thought this was a unique opportunity for an attack, said all troop together
would soar. Everything was prepared by him personally, but he met an accident, due to
which he was brought into the hospital to be discharged therefrom until October 21. He
had to leave everything and divided his sickbed roles under his accomplices. But the wick,
which was causing the explosion, was soggy and not burned. Thus the plan failed and
when Reinsdorf heard this, he said simply: such a thing can only happen to me (so etwas
kann auch nur mir passiren). But postponement is not a cancellation, with this thought he
consoled himself. A well-known police officer, Rumpff, are particularly strove to find the
perpetrators of the attack, which they still did not know, he ordered the arrest of the right
and left anarchists, to subject them to a rigorous examination. All in vain! Reinsdorf, who
had gone to Hamburg from hospital after his dismissal, but also there fell ill and was
nursed in the hospital until January 9, 1884, was arrested on January 11 and transported
to Frankfurt, to be interrogated by Rumpff there. All these questions when confronted with
witnesses: Mr. Reinsdorf, was Sie haben zu hierauf sagas? Was always the same answer
from him der Herr Reinsdorf hat nichts zu Ihnen gar sagas. In this way one would never
have achieved his goal, but brasserie was cause chatter that one of the members of the
group and it was taken prisoner they knew to hear this, what they wanted to know. From
15 to December 22 the treason trial of Reinsdorf and his accomplices was conducted
before the Supreme Court in Leipzig. One cowardly and sad as was the attitude of his
medeaangeklaagden Bachmann, Rupsch and Kchler, equally stout and haughty
Reinsdorf behaved in court. To the question: who are you? He replied: I am an
anarchist. And when he was asked: What is anarchism? The answer was: "A society in
which every normal person can fully develop its entire construction. In order to make this
possible, must be imposed to anyone an excessive work load; distress and misery must
disappear; must cease any coercion; all stupidity and superstition each has to be cleared.
" He acknowledged to be the instigator of the attack on the Niederwald and regretted that
he was prevented by illness to bring the plan itself enforced, because it was better
managed. He further stated that would overcome the anarchist movement, even though
there were a thousand rich courts and he said in a firm voice: "I consider the whole thing -
namely that I am here - a question of power.. If we had a couple of German anarchists
armies at our disposal, I did not need to speak to a state court. I have nothing more to
say. Do what ye will. "

The verdict was death by the ax and on February 7, 1885, he was beheaded in
Halle. His last word was: Nieder mit der Barbarei! Hoch die Anarchy! (Down with
barbarism! Supreme anarchy!)

Among the defendants were two [251] sentenced to death, another to 15

years [252] detention center, one to 10 years penitentiary sentence, while three were
acquitted.

The zealous police Rumpff underwent a similar fate, as he was stabbed to death in
Frankfurt on January 13, 1885, so still Reinsdorf before undergoing his sentence. If
perpetrator was caught and put to death the 22-year-old journeyman shoemaker Julius
Lieske, which, however, insisted to the last his innocence. It adds that the theory reject the
deed deem even devilish, yet enforces the person Reinsdorf respect and as he points to
the continuing murder, committed on workers and their families in factories, on land and in
the workplace, then they will have to recognition, which has become a powerful factor of a
sense of compassion for the fate of his fellow men, which led him to the propaganda of
the deed. Without an immense amount of love hate this theory is not conceivable. He in
turn found the suffering to which the proletarians were exposed by the capitalist system,
backed by the government, devilish. Or that the bombs Ryssakov, Jelabov Sophia
Perovskaja, Mikhailov, Helfmann, Kibaltchitck in Russia, in general, the terrorist
movement in that country have given warrants, or other circumstances have led to eg.
The hope of the movement, which was too slow to provide a quicker pass, in any event, in
addition to the propaganda by speech and writing came of the act increasingly on the
agenda. In France, Emile Florion who plotted an attack in 1881 on Gambetta, but when he
could not find it when he shot his gun off in a certain Dr. Meymar, the first gedecoreerden
bourgeois, which he loved. As a motive he gave at the hearing, that he was out of hatred
against society first vampire, and then tried to kill himself.

To Percy Les Forges in 1882 had a major theft of dynamite and place on March 24 of
that year, dissolved the 20-year-old anarchist Fournier two shots to the manufacturer
Brchard. The jury acquitted him after he had declared to have done his attack driven by
misery, in order to identify the propertied class to the misery suffered by the workers. In
1882 also had a common occurrence place in Monceau-les-Mines, France, at which a
church was set on fire. Twenty-three accused were in court and some of the galleys had
to pay their resistance. The looting of some bakeries in Paris by starving after a meeting
on the Esplanade des Invalides in March 1883 gave Louise Michel and Emile Pouget five
years confinement in prison for incitement to looting. A few months before was a bomb
explodes in the cafe Bellecour in Lyon, where one person slain and several were
injured. Although the culprit managed to escape, one has Cyvoct prosecuted as
perpetrator or accomplice and though acquitted for the crime, they were sentenced to
death for murder provocation as a manager of an anarchist magazine in Lyon. That this
judgment, which was changed in exile punishment on the Devil's Island where he spent
many years not long ago to be released, put a lot of bad blood, for sure. Later showed
that another had written the letters, which gave him his punishment. In France followed a
fight in the newspapers about whether or not desirable from the propaganda of the deed,
which also existed in the individual molesting ownership. To those who do so aanraadden,
was the institution of Grave, Reclus, Kropotkin, in which one reads inter alia: "The workers
say: do this, burn it, the person hangs up, that's child's play, as the reader can with good
reason wonder why he is taking us to speak of this, not himself what he advises us
"propaganda of the deed, advocated by the blade, rather is this:". Benefiting from all walks
of life to bring its operations in accordance with his ideas, there a propaganda of the deed
slowly but works over time and the results will be. "proponents founded in London a leaf
on, l'International , but it contained no name neither an editor nor a printer can also very
well have gone to the police, who too often had a hand in all sorts of attacks, and then just
to make at the right time victims who were defused for quite some time. So they found
therein a course of practical chemistry in the use of anarchists, later appeared separately
in a brochure, l'Indicateur Anarchiste . France remained the propaganda of the deed is
individual and all the true criminals against common law have repeatedly benefited from
ventured to defend their actions by invoking the anarchist theories, though they had
nothing to do with anarchism, yet there are plenty of deeds done, which did not take place
to enrich themselves, eg. those of Duval, Pini and therefore in no way be considered in
the same light. Pini defended in court the right to theft as a form to destroy private
property, as the beginning of expropriation applied in miniature.

In December of 1891 there was an attempt to do instead of police in Clichy the police
station in the sky flying. A few months later there was an explosion place in a house on
the Boulevard Saint Germain, where lived a magistrate. A few days later in another house
in the Rue Clichy, where also attended a magistrate. The culprit was Ravachol, who had
violated killed a curious hermit to Chambles and the tomb of the Marquise of
Larochetaille to steal her jewels. No wonder hit the terror to the hearts of
many. Ravachol was not a coward, as has been alleged against him, on the contrary, his
works testified to a large dose of courage, he was convinced no crime committed and the
defense that he had intended to keep - he was prevented from this by the presiding judge
- is a remarkable piece, because it contains the explanation of his actions. His defense is
an indictment of society. He argues that in a society which has to appropriate denies the
right to life for many, this right what they need for their maintenance. The right to robbery,
murder is recognized wholeheartedly by him in such a society. We know that Ravachol
lost his head under the ax of the guillotine 10th July 1892 to Montbrison. But it seemed as
if his act was the beginning of a period of attacks, which had caused everywhere fear and
trembling.

The well-known writer Paul Adam published an article Praise Ravachol , in which he
wrote: "Politics was placed outside our interference, as the legend of the sacrifice, the
dedication of life to human happiness, was suddenly reborn in this period the martyrdom
of Ravachol ... After so many legal debates, chronicles and notices convening the legal
murder Ravachol continue preaching the propagandist of the great idea of the ancient
religions that seek individual death for the good of the world; the denial of self, of his life
and of his name by the excitement of the poor and lowly. . He is definitely the innovator of
the substantial sacrifice "And finally:" Around himself Ravachol saw the sorrow and he has
others glorified the pain by offering his atonement. His love, his undeniable selflessness,
the strength of his deeds, his courage against raising the grim death to him the splendor
of legend. In this age of cynicism and irony is a saint born among us. His blood will be the
example where new courage and new martyrdom will drench. The great idea of universal
altruism will bloom in the red lake at the foot of the guillotine. A fruitful act will be
fulfilled. An event in human history will be recorded of the peoples in the yearbooks. The
legal murder of Ravachol will open a new epoch. "This sounds different from the usual
condemnations of Ravachol.

In the year 1892 was a major strike in the factories of Andrew Carnegie at Homestead
in America, on the occasion of which a bloody clash took place between strikers and the
Pinkertonse police gang - the Pinkertons constitute a private police force, whose help it by
paying money buy - with the result that fell about 200 deaths on both sides. A youthful
anarchist Berck Mann shot at one of the directors Frick, which was slightly wounded and
fruitlessly Leishman, since bounced the weapon. This act was not only in America but also
in Europe, including in the Rvolte, hailed as a "true anarchist act" as Berck Mann wanted
to free the people of one of its greatest oppressors and therefore he was compared with
Brutus and Aristogithon. He atoned for his suicide heavy and long imprisonment (22
years) since they made from this single crime on legal and sophistical manner six
offenses, namely; 1. An attempted assassination of Frick; 2. attack Leishman; 3. entry into
a house with criminal plan; 4. ditto; 5. ditto; 6. carrying concealed weapons.

Most thought otherwise and approved the deed off, regretted that the energy of a Berck
Mann was not spared for a larger and more appropriate action and he said that a good
deed, therefore, was no propaganda of the deed in the eyes of some. The tyrant par
excellence wrote in response to the failed attack in a search for his own forum
(Leaf Freiheit of February 1892) thus:
 "Rejects thou propaganda of the deed itself? No! Do you believe that they will have
more effect, as the national spirit for there has been prepared by word and writing, faster
and more powerful stroke on stroke can be accomplished? Yes.

Is it your opinion that even in countries where the revolutionary movement is still in its
infancy and where the carriers of the existing easily beats that can answer nature with the
destruction and paralysis of all revolutionary fighters, the propaganda of the deed
deserves applied to become? No.

But ye have not previously in this respect several times incited without distinction? Yes.

Are you tamer, more peaceful, softened? No! They are the experiences that you have
gained over the course of time, and you calculate learned better, that you have brought to
this award? Yes. So it's not your opinion that one instance. Should not give up forever the
propaganda of the deed in America? No.

You may be convinced that it is precisely in this country, once the time has come, that
when the inevitable conditions have occurred so, the propaganda of the deed will show
more effective than elsewhere? Yes."

Auguste Vaillant threw in 1893 to get a bomb into the French Room, a political attack
that is easier to understand, because according to parliamentary position one has the
chance of a better room by new elections, being mistaken for being the main culprit for the
neglect of interests of the people. He gave a short speech to the jury, who held his fate in
which he places himself in this position, which both parties have a duel and now he's just
wounded his opponent, it is natural that this in turn affects him to kill him. The court makes
him laugh, because "you, atoms lost in the dust, O, because you might own, wilt thou
judge your peers?" He hurled his bomb in the Chamber, because there are people "who
are most responsible for the social evil. " The sentence was death, his response was:
Long live anarchy! Calm and dignified as a philosopher he renounced living in a world in
which for him and thousands of others had no place.

Less well understood were other attacks, eg. Those of the youthful Emile Henry, who
was not recognized by Octave Mirbeau as an anarchist, because it was now in fashion all
criminals to call himself an anarchist. However, one should read the strictly logical
defense or statement which he made to his judges and one will no longer call in question
whether one does not find an anarchist in that energetic young man, one will not rank him
among criminals or fools, even though one can not agree with his reasoning. Emile Henry
had witnessed the draconian measures of the government and the terrible persecution of
anarchists after the attack of Vaillant in the Palais Bourbon (the building meets the French
room). He had seen the anarchist no longer a man, but as wild beast was attacked and
treated. The bourgeoisie continued all anarchists, as did an attack anarchist one, then he
went also to her body as a whole without respect of person, and he cast, without asking
who the visitors, a bomb in the Cafe Terminus. He opened a new section by this
attack. Besides the political one now got the social attacks and his defense speech is
actually a statement of the justice of this. He understood himself that his act
misunderstood by many and convicted, would be understood by very few. Emile Henry is
the perpetrator of the dynamite attack in the Rue des Bons Enfants, which cost directly
the lives of five people and had caused the death of a sixth indirectly; Also the stop at the
cafe Terminus where one man fell at once as a victim, a second later as a result of his
wounds and a certain number of others were wounded, and of the six revolver shots that
he fired at those who persecuted him after the attack. He understands perfectly that now
that he has fallen into the hands of his enemies, they are prepared for revenge and he
submits left there to. A short time attracted by the Social Democracy, he abandoned her
"out of hatred of all that incorporation is to take in a rank number in the studbook army of
the fourth estate." The first attack was a response to the events at Carmaux during the
strike and the Secondly, the terrible persecutions to which the anarchists were exposed
on the part of government after the failed attempt of Vaillant. The right of association was
lifted, the organs of liberty idea, the magazines and brochures confiscated. The anarchist
was outlawed. And in the room Raynal, the Minister stated that these measures had a
positive outcome. Henry considered this as a challenge thrown to the anarchists. So he
took the challenge and the attack in Cafe Terminus was his "answer to all the freedom
violations, arrests, house searches, laws against the press, mass uitbanningen aliens,
guillotinades". When asked why he was so struck all without distinction of person, guilty
and innocent, he replied: "The bourgeoisie has the anarchists a" bloc made "(whole). A
single man, Vaillant threw a bomb and nine-tenths of the anarchists did not even know
him. But nothing bothered. It went into mass. Everything was only in relation to something
that resembled anarchism, was harassed. Well! Where ye therefore proposes already
liable supporters of an idea for the deeds of one man and "en bloc" will find, as we hit hit
"en bloc". Where the bourgeois do not have the slightest respect for human life, such as
one sees on the battlefield of labor where they killed thousands of men, women, children,
as they should not be surprised that the suffering show their teeth and more take mightier
as one violent acts against them. He swung the judges in the face, "Have yet at least the
courage of your crimes, gentlemen bourgeois, and recognizes that our retaliation is amply
justified." He knows that they will condemn him, even among the workers, even among
individuals who call themselves anarchist, but hasten to shed all solidarity with the
propagandists of the deed.

Of course, he was sentenced to death, as he had expected, and he died calmly and
with dignity on May 21, 1894 and then his head was already under the guillotine, his last
cry was a shrill: "Courage comrades! Long live anarchy! "

In the same year the dagger Italian Caserio met the President of the French Republic
Carnot, Lyon and again we saw in that gentle jongenman the convicted man, whose
attitude in court was a comedy-like but firm and in full consciousness to do his duty
have. Such a person, then he acted as one of the classic heroes of antiquity, which are
entered in the history books as tyrants killers. Not that Carnot was such a tyrannical man -
to that end he was even mediocre! - But Carnot was the bearer of authority, the head of
the republic and as such Caserio pointed the dagger at him, as Louis XVI in a sense,
atoned for the crimes of his predecessors. A statement he gave to the judges more than a
defense because there was nothing to defend. Even Lombroso, who entertained with
enumerating physical and psychical deviations from anarchist persecuted party, against
whom he stands as hostile as possible, was obliged to recognize that the young baker's
apprentice was a onesto nato , a naturally honest man. And prof. Ferrero Bologna, who
published letters from him, written shortly before the attack, gave a characteristic
according to which he is a man of honor, a political "criminal" in the full sense of the
word. "His mind was healthy, certainly his ideas and fantasies by no means full. He does
not speak much, but he acts, he is a man with a purpose in mind and full devotion to his
beliefs ... In a time of revolution, he might have played the role of an energetic, powerful
leader, was in Italy he 30 years ago have been a captain in the Garibaldi volunteer
corps; grew up in a different environment it would be a good soldier, became a missionary
or an exploration of travelers. "Persecuted by the police, because, how timidly even in
nature, was an enthusiastic propagandist, he was hunted like venison. Hatred was largely
sown by raids, prosecutions, exile, waivers, and it can hardly be surprised that the
collective wrath of the guillotine reprisals had to call forth through dynamite and dagger,
because the law has its executioner, the braised idea also has its avengers. The three
guillotines of Ravachol, Vaillant and Emile Henry, established under the presidency of
Carnot, the attention of Caserio focused primarily on him as he performed his act, he still
indubitable that end guided by his love for the oppressed and his hatred against all
injustice. His life story is from beginning to end a lingering suffering history. In his youth he
was a religious mystic, supposing his ideal world found in the biblical promises of the
Christian prophets. He lost his faith but he did work with the same warmth and glow in the
offing in the coming of that ideal world. And he went the way of violence, which was not in
his gentle nature, he did so, driven by the actions of those in power. "When governments
apply to our guns, chains and dungeons, we have anarchists who defend our lives, stay at
home? Shall we deny our idea, that's the truth? No, on the contrary, we will answer the
government with dynamite and bombs, with steel and dagger. In a word, we must do all
we can to crush the bourgeoisie and the governments. "And he believed the day of violent
revolution which will put an end to kings and presidents, ministers and senators, deputies
and judges.

When the sentence was pronounced against him: capital punishment, when he uttered
the word with full force: long live the social revolution! The crowd whistled him on the way
to the guillotine, he looked serious and sympathetic to her and put his head left under the
knife. The cry: "Courage, comrades! Long live anarchy! "Was cut by the knife, the young
head separated from the body.

The same year also had the so-called "procs des trente" (process of thirty) instead,
accused of conspiracy against the public peace. 22 of them were acquitted, one convicted
of theft to 15 years hard labor, because one ditto to 8 years, 1 to 6 months due to bear
arms, while four were sentenced in absentia to 20 years. Later, at a revision of the verdict
were acquitted them.

Lombroso, who supposedly made a study of the anarchists, starts from the strange
view that anarchism as which is the same as delinquency and now he thinks he can prove
a few portraits of people that such persons have the type of criminal and
because they were zealous anarchists were therefore now all diligent anarchists
criminals. Yet he dares not all be lumped together, so he zealous adherents of anarchism
for the most part belonging to criminals or madmen, often both simultaneously, "with the
exception of men like Kropotkin, Reclus and Ibsen". Lombroso is certainly afraid that he
himself would be ranked among the lunatics. We leave it to the reader or to such claims a
true scientific thought is based. He would Pini and Ravachol have been sentenced to
death, but Caserio and Henri not. Is not it strange that it denies justice to the anarchists to
commit violence, but still want to grant the right to the opponents to fight them with
violence? If one goes in one case for criminal or crazy, why not the other?

The last attack was on the president [253] of the United States McKinley (1901) by the
Pool Czolgosz. A storm of indignation went from almost all circles against the perpetrator
and that of people who quietly tolerated each week in the same United States lynched
some blacks that thousands upon thousands in Cuba, the Philippines, in Aceh, in China,
South Africa, even where not all be killed under authorization of the whole civilized
world! Not long ago, during the election campaign, McKinley was suggested by many as a
disaster for America, whose disappearance would thus be a blessing and now blending
those same people in the choir of them that the "horrendous" murder condemn and
deplore. His successor Roosevelt speaks of the perpetrator as a whole "demoralized
criminal". Queer cross against this accusation attitude Czolgosz court and off during his
captivity. Nothing even remotely be advertising or affectation. Still he was calm and
dignified, in full consciousness to have done a good deed. At the last moment, when he
was tied to the electric chair, in order to meet the "course of justice", he said calmly: "I
killed the president because he was an enemy of the good workmen and I die because I
thought that the benefit would be of good people "And after he expressed his regret his
father not even have seen, he said:". I regret my crime is not ", with particular emphasis
on the words" regret "and" no. "So someone, he could declare to have given his life a
ransom or ransom for many. Apart from any other consideration or appreciation or
condemnation of the act will be serious man on Czolgosz can not but without a sense of
respect for a man who so well knew what he was doing and so calm was willing to bear
the full responsibility of his deed.

Dr. Schemeil wrote in Bassir result of this attack include the following: "The
assassination of the President of the United States held the entire press working, the
subject of great debate was the crowned heads spent a lot more confused than the
murder of a completely peaceful nation that lowly paid his tribute, much more than the
murder of thousands of individuals in these cruel and unjust war in South Africa, much
more than the murder of public interests, committed every day and in all countries under
the most civilized governments . He kept them busy not to look at the ills of society and
they are trying to heal, but to the movement of anarchists, that dreadful oppressors,
paralyzing !!!! The two great emperors holding the helm of the world have committed
themselves and to think, not to stifle their pride and to try to improve the lot of the peoples,
but to maintain the scepter allowing them to people like animals to live, in order to the
gang of thieves the means to secure to themselves through theft and woekerwinst enrich,
thieves who the poor people by robbing themselves the product of his labor to
appropriating and who enjoy complete freedom, by laws supported and protected by
governments. "

Prof Huxley says that one of the acts of violence by some who call themselves
anarchists or are called by others as not changing needs with the very purpose of the
anarchist movement. The latter wants the greatest possible individual freedom or a state
that every dominion of one over the other excludes. The well understood anarchy will in
case of realization show probably as the most perfect social system; all murder weapons
could then be turned into agricultural or other tools, judges and police would be
superfluous, when no man no longer threatens the other, but all constantly only doing
good. have this generalized system of justice all fear, who just cut his from the skin of the
toiling people straps. Against his better judgment, they cry incessantly to the whole world
that the goal of the anarchists exists only in murder, arson and mischief like that - it be
noted in passing - perpetrated daily by the ruling class.

This unprejudiced judgment shows more common sense than the ludicrous opinion of
those who spread that the anarchists want to destroy everything, as if one could build on
such a basis! Was not it better to seek a declaration from the views of a Elyse Reclus,
Kropotkin and many others who still are not fools or asses than to condemn what they do
not know?

Never be forgotten that the anarchists never have claimed that freedom will bring
perfection - this man never reached! - Only that its results will be far preferable to that
which carries the authority.

We could still recall Willis, who fired a gunshot at the Place de l'Opra, in Lauthier
during the Russian celebrations, which struck George Witch, to Etievant who has shown
by his defense very well know what he did, and many others. But involuntarily it sets itself
in the most high-profile cases and individuals, we have dealt with now.

In Ireland it is the fenians that the propaganda of the deed took in hand. For a time they
are under various names like Maanlichters, invincible, etc. brought terror across the
world. O'Donnovan Rossa has been among them a certain name. The number of attacks
carried out by them is large and under this one will remember the death of the viceroy,
Lord Cavendish, in the Phoenix Park in Dublin. Several persons were therefore
suspended, others liable to life or temporary labor.

In Austria, one Kammerer and Stellmacher as the representatives of the terrorist

direction, which suspended the propaganda of the deed of standing (1884). They had to
make money for the propaganda, all their available means uses such as robbery and
murder. It seems that the police had a hand in these matters and they claim that an
anarchist conference in Zurich, where the policeman Kaufmann gave a lecture on the
robbery and murder politicians and police Schrder held the presidency was decided in
that direction working to his. Consequences were the emergency laws and the small state
of siege of Vienna, making a 500 or so people were put out of the city, hoping to cripple
the whole labor movement in this way. The Italian Lucheni did a good successful attack in
Geneva in 1898 on the life of the old Empress Elisabeth of Austria and is therefor life in
prison. His touch seemed less directed against the person of the Empress as such, but he
was doing it as a poor man to take revenge on the world, so he took the first best, he
could get. This is the position of despair, which can not be understood by the saturates,
but perfectly understandable is that the starving. And explaining it should be striving for
disapprove and condemn is easy, but to be fair, one must try to imagine the mind of the
perpetrator. A well-known anarchist testified of him, n'est pas anarchist, c'est un idiot qui
anarchist (which is not an anarchist, but a fool doing in anarchism).
 Having already twice had made an attempt on the life of King Humbert, once by Passa
Ante (1879) [254] and another time by Acciarito (1897), who both failed, a third of Bresci
succeeded in Monza (1900). This said: "I have not slain King Humbert of Italy, I have slain
a princiep." He goes down like the two others in prison, which must surpass in cruelty all
because it leads to insanity, as is already the case with the second. Because the death
penalty as inhumane abolished in Italy, although they should be praised as humane, as
long as they are replaced by such penalties. Of Bresci has been apparently know nothing
bad to say and prof. Lombroso considers him to be a completely normal person, as an
opportunity killer. Although he had no accomplices, 2,000 more or less anarchist-minded
persons arrested and remained longer or shorter time, without that one seems to
understand that he who sows thus wind, will reap necessary storm.

Among the propaganda of the deed is also the newest form of resistance, the so-called
passive resistance that exists in denial of what the state has imposed mandatory, such as
military service, eedweigering, belastingweigering, ETC Following the duchoboren in
Russia who leather permeated Europe and they find here and there input. Many believe it
can go no power of such individual resistance and reject, therefore, though they have
regard for those who by contrast are therefore exposed to all kinds of punishments, others
are of the opinion that the example of the few most powerful encourages imitation ,
according to the famous saying: wake teachings but draw examples. From the
perspective of the state, this propaganda as dangerous, for which one had to go to the
army, and the military service was generally where the state and its institutions, as the
idea of tax refusal penetrated? Hence, these shall incur heavy penalties. Now there are
these conscientious some who do not want because they deny the authority of another to
rule over the man and others who refuse military service, as Jesus said, the evil not resist
and elevating this principle to the basic rule of society . In our country we have the young
de Bruin, who refused military service, punishable by one year imprisonment and later
repeated the refusal to 1 year and 4 months.

As they have in France the religious sect of hinschisten in Russia duchoboren, in

Austria the Nazarenes and perhaps elsewhere still others who prefer to endure everything
than to be trained in the murder arts as soldiers. Will the first type propagandists return
violence with violence, the latter wants to overcome violence through love is put
across. Which of those two methods it follows, will be largely depend on the temperament
of the people. Passive resistance may be clean, but when it comes down to it, nature is
above teachings. The pull of self-preservation is the people so innate that it will not be to
eradicate, and if the choice is made to proceed under either themselves or to place
another there, then that trait at all, except perhaps a some, the effects have to prefer the
latter over the former.

The propaganda of the deed can not call only anarchist principle, although it is also,
above all anarchists are using it, because one finds among all interested people who
apply it as it comes down to it, and in fact it is the agent whose ruling party, which has all
the means of power, makes use to others in order to stay in control. When that doctrine
itself applies in all rigor, by killing the rebels, confining and prosecute all possible ways,
one misses actually right there others difficult to attack, who can say with complete right:
we apply same resources to which you uses against us. It is society, which relies entirely
on the violence, and that generates the violence men, in turn, whose aim is to overthrow
that society.

Glorified in theory and in close, the deed praised as a rule, as it is part and condemned,
if the act is not like or bothersome for the temporary power. Be doers of the word - that is
it often, but damned if it do go against the flow and yet we understand the poet, who act
glorified in these words:

Yes, the thought is free! What redemption is preparing to volkren

His ideas, hoog're that the new progress, mean.
But what thought the way, must still obtain and form life,
not the mere evokes desired verbet'ring,
But just the act .

Some theorists sympathizing

Although the line is not to align with mathematical certainty, yet the sympathetic
theorists can very well perceive or their inclination in the direction of the state or whether
the idea of liberty them drain thereof. So alone a Bastiat, a Molinari theoretically more on
the side of those who are afraid of expanding State intervention, as Mill now has even
tendencies to the right and to the left, but there's also a category of people whose main
tendency manifests itself in aversion to everything that concerns the state and in the
greatest possible free development of the individual sees only salvation.

Among them take first place in the versatile Herbert Spencer , an encyclopedic cup as
there are found few. Lewes early in his History of Philosophy or "England has ever
produced a thinker of finer caliber"; Darwin saw in him the "greatest, now living
philosopher of England, perhaps the equal of anyone in ancient times", while Mill him
rated very high and placed on a par with Auguste Comte, French philosopher, who in his
time already defended the thesis that the lake will be an administration of things one rule
over people in the future. We have already talked about the position he took in his first
work, the Social Statics and how he later retracted what he had said then. In his dates of
sociology he outlined the factors and social phenomena, first the outer, ie. The
environment with climate, nature of soil, flora and fauna and then the inner, ie the
physical, state of mind and mental signs of primitive man.

In four main companies and individual organisms seem to bring him to correspond with
each other:
1. They take imperceptibly, so that some are thousands of;
2. While the structure in the beginning is so simple that it seems almost no structure, it will
be more tailored to the growing;
3. While exist in the original undeveloped state of the parts hardly mutual dependence, it
is decreasing, until it finally becomes so large that the life of each part which is to the
condition of rest;
4. The life of society takes longer and is independent from that of the units, which are born
its forms, grow, work, multiply and die, while the social body, they represent, surviving
families and thereby to completeness and versatility increases.

Social development thus follows the general development law, which applies to all other
organisms.

Yet he fails to recognize the distinction between the two is not that consists in:
1. Companies have no definite external shape;
2. The living tissue, which make up an individual organism, forms a closed whole, the
living elements of a company are more or less scattered over a portion of the earth;
3. The last living units of an individual organism usually have determined its relative state,
which of the social organisms are allowed to move from place to place;
4. The main difference is this: while in the animal body tissue with a special feeling is
gifted in all social units feel gifted.

He says, "we must distinguish it never overlook. It reminds us that the individual
organism welfare of all remaining parts it is rightly subject to the welfare of the nervous
system, which of joy or sorrow full efficacy are the weal or woe of life, but in the body
politic this may apply not, or only to a certain extent. It is true that has absorbed the life of
all parts of an animal that of the whole, while the whole has a corporative consciousness,
joy or sorrow may encounter. In society that ratio but a different one. Because lose its
living units are not and can not lose this its individual consciousness and the community
as a whole has no corporative consciousness. That is the eternal reason why it is not
appropriate to bring the welfare of the citizens sacrificed to an assumed welfare of the
state and why the other side is the state only for the welfare of citizens. The corporate life
must serve here the life of the parts and not the reverse. "

He then makes a distinction of the social model in military, industrial and mixed. The
military is the coercive principle, by the cooperation of the people rests and development
to pure industrial type is characterized as a slow transition to a more and more voluntary
cooperation and thereby an ever increasing realization of the law of equal freedom .

Spencer is above all the man of evolution, but we think that it has a high abuse made
by her against the revolution doctrine, which is completely untrue, as we have already
noted elsewhere. What is revolutionary however is an opponent of evolution? We do not
know these shall. Indeed, the revolution is not excluded by the evolution or vice
versa. They are two successive phases in the period of development.

Spencer is the main question: how to preserve the true rights of individuals and against
external and internal enemies are protected? And every government system should never
be anything other than a system of resources to achieve this goal. He is against the
direction, insisting on extension of state interference and he sees her the most strongly
represented in socialism, it is strongly opposed to socialism, which he sees the upcoming
form of slavery.

He spoke about it in this sentence: "Among the considerations which I particularly

wanted to see emphasized, is perhaps the most practical important this that no lasting
improvement of a society is possible without improving the individuals that social type and
the shapes of their efficacy necessarily be determined by the character of loners and that
in spite of all superficial changes, as to its essence, can not change faster than the
individuals themselves change, and so all these plans of rapid and fundamental
restructuring, which today many enchant should be no effect and will simply end up with a
return to a state, that the former differs only to the superficial form. It is as impossible from
lower people through a special kind of social arrangement to form a good society it is
impossible from poor materials by a special method of construction to make a good
home. However, I believe that no argument, however conclusive they may be, will have
some impact; because in the great periods of social change are too powerful forces than
to be inspected by individual influences. I believe that socialism is inevitable, but that the
greatest misfortune will be that the world has ever seen and that it will end in a military
despotism of the worst kind. "He fears a great fear that we face a state where "no man
can do what he likes, but everyone must do what he is told."

Now only he knows, strangely enough, socialism in the form of social democracy and
mark on account of socialism that which may be made only on account of social
democracy. He is bad to speak of the German Social Democracy and explains the large
dimensions that made the socialist movement in Germany, the military, civil and industrial
coercive organization in that country. As a result, and from childhood brought up in it, the
German is generally difficult to imagine anything other than a bureaucratic state and as
well as other parties is that the reflection of such a device in miniature. Of freedom within
that party nor there is freedom in the German state. At every step one gets in life, one
encounters the police, in one way or another official and the patriarchal concern of the
government for its citizens - that is the right term, because in contrast with England where
officials believe are the servants be of the public, which pays them, consider officials in
Germany as a class, which stands above the crowd and the public as their servants or
citizens - are often extends into the ridiculous and petty. A free spirit feels probably bound,
but miserable he must feel in such countries as Germany, Turkey and Russia.

In his Introduction to Sociology , he says: "A people that is itself neither good nor wise,
can not choose a good and wise autocrat. The goodness and wisdom will the successive
families of hereditary oligarchy, emerged from a poor and ill people, not characterize more
than they do a dynasty of princes. No representative system, general or limited, directly or
indirectly, will do anything other than represent the typical nature of the citizens. Our friend
has only to study the election speeches; he will see how to win votes by flattering absurd
prejudices and unrealizable cherish expectations, but that they will lose votes if they say
openly harsh truths and does his best to destroy chimerical hope. This lecture will deprive
him the idea that a people which itself is not wise, can give a government at will. They
note how things take place and it will be seen that the verkiezingsdistilleerketel not only
wisdom but also distills foolishness, if one of the fearsome ferment of the passions and
political views discord; sometimes it is the folly which prevails. The issue closely to see,
he will find that the conscience of the elected body is lower than the average conscience
of the individual but also the understanding of the elected body participates in such an
infamy. In a college has been exposed to the intelligent minority to be overwhelmed by the
antics majority, frequently ends thus the folly is only represented. At the meeting, the
mass of mediocrities reigns some lofty spirits: the lofty people are required only to preach
ideas that are within everyone's apprehension and keep the deeper, the better
perspectives for themselves. Our friend has to remember just which cry encounter
between the abstract principles in parliament and he will feel at once that the wisdom to
be silent, to leave the folly itself fully develop. If he desires a good example to show that
the mind of the members as the body a result indicates below that which would cause the
mind of the average member, he will find it in the many decisions that contradict each
other and in the confusion of language which have recently provoked protests of the
judges against the Acts (Acts) of the parliament. "

With disgust for all this must be someone fulfilled, which is Herbert Spencer imbued
with freedom of ideas and whose ideal of represents a social form that 'must carry
everyone with the free life of his own being also the function of a social unit and because
all the others do the same, the individual be able to live his own life needs. "When it is
pointed out the analogy that exists between the government and people of father and
child, he says that it is only justified by the childishness of the people who believe in such
an analogy. No, comprehensive state functions are a characteristic of a low social type
and according to him shows how to specify functions properly progress to a higher social
type. he calls the great political superstition of the past, the divine right of kings, which
today is the divine right of parliaments. The head of the few is the oil for anointing now
dripped that of many. Has changed the shape, essentially persist and do so, as long as
one has a divine right, which also recognizes. Is called the first monarchical lie, one might
call the second parliamentary trickery, because the distinction between the divine right of
the king and the "selected person" is in principle the same. It is not to do, to put different
wigs according to a witty expression on the same header, because that we do not affect
the coronary artery to the evil.

In theory, Spencer is on the side of anarchy and had her examined and noted the ideas
of Kropotkin and others, he would draw a lot of similarity between these and himself have
discovered. We have always surprised that Spencer has not taken a position on the
anarchist movement, unless he did prudently, because he not tell her was not for
her wild action. However, this does not mean that he often went to the arguments, the
anarchists operate as a wholly appropriate in their mindset.

To his school belongs Auberon Herbert, who socialism fights on the same grounds,
because he knows it only as coercive socialism, but which also flogs the majority lies,
does violence ridiculed as a solution to social problems, the government wants to deny
any function except that of police, in order to consider it as an evil of necessity short. He
also supplies building materials, which are used by the anarchists as a whole appropriate
in their context.

Next to them is a peculiar personality, the judicial officer Wordsworth

Donisthorpe and his book Individualism, a system of politics [255] . Benjamin Tucker
said of him and his followers: "In principle, they advocate political faith find a lawyer
in Liberty (the Tucker sheet). They call individualism only what Liberty calls anarchism
". One of them expresses it thus: "If we suffer a poison, we are good to take a second
poison that acts as an antidote to the first. But if we are wise, we limit our second dose of
poison so toxic effects of both of them together are reduced to a minimum. If we take up
more of it, then it brings out itself toxic effects forth above those which are necessary in
order to prevent the first poison as well as possible. If we take less of it, the first poison to
some extent his bad effect will freely. This example illustrates the ratio of the individualist
opposite the Socialist on the one hand and the opposite anarchist on the other hand. I
recognize that a government is an evil. It always means the use of violence against our
fellow man, and at best his submission to a greater or lesser extent on the will of a
majority of his fellow citizens. But if these organized or controlled intervention was
abolished at the outward appearance, some people would not escape attacks. He would
need to be in a society like yours, are exposed to more violence and deceit, which would
be a greater evil than the intervention of a government. But if the government's
intervention thrusts above the point of maintaining the widest possible freedom equally to
all citizens, it is itself the aggressor and not the least because its motives are good. "So
says Tucker, individualism wants an organization to maintaining the widest possible
freedom equally to all citizens, but that's the same thing will anarchism. Individualism
would such an organization no longer than is strictly necessary, anarchism
either. According to him, there are not three, but two points of view: that of authoritarian
socialists who want a government and a state and that of the individualists and anarchists
who are against a government and a state.

Donisthorpe see in socialism the great danger on the road of social progress, which is
to be feared, because that doctrine gaining in popularity everywhere. Lord Wemyss
distributed in a speech, which he delivered in the House of Lords, the Socialists into three
classes, viz. The Socialists of the street from the school and the Senate. The first class he
considered not worth serious consideration. And as for the socialism of the communist, he
applied them these four lines:

What is a Communist? One Who has yearnings

For equal division of UNEQUAL earnings:
An idler or bungler, or both, he is willing
To fork out his penny and pocket your shilling!

(What is a communist? Someone who longs for a similar dispensation of unequal income.
An idler or bungler, or both, which means it is his giving penny and your to stabbing in
shillings).

Determined flattering is that description does not and very strange in the mouth of a
member of the House of Lords, because that description fits the capitalists, only with this
difference that they are not willing to do this, but do the daily reality.

Strangely, however, again it Donisthorpe socialism fighting itself only determines the
coercive socialism of the Social Democrats, like no other, sustained by the free
cooperation existed.

He calls the entire history of civilization, "the history of the struggle to establish a
relationship between the company and its units, between the whole and its parts, which is
neither absolute socialism nor absolute anarchy, but a state in which by action and
reaction of them together can take place such a settlement, the welfare of the whole and
that of its units will possibly coincide and are not hostile to each other. That is the problem
of the civilization, of the development of the state-of-organism; having a whole without the
individuality of the units, in which it is composed, to harm. The ultimate goal that we
always will approach but never reach, will be perfectly civil liberty or the greatest freedom
that goes along with most welfare of society as a whole, and completely law or any such
subordination of the individual will to that of society as are late treaties with most being of
the individual. "Is not that exactly what the anarchists want? And if he fights the
anarchists, if he raises objections, which he called "the four lights of anarchy" requires the
solution (Herbert Spencer, Auberon Herbert, Benjamin Tucker and Victor Yarros), all this
does not mean that he himself as individualist opposes any compulsion imposed on the
individual for common things, and that he therefore into the merits of the case
sympathizes with the efforts of the anarchists. Certainly, we feel the difficulty of the
question, how to remove the injustice that allows one to enjoy what has brought about
another, but believe that one is worse off by coercion devices than it is allowed to freely
enjoy it, but also him taking hold, how was his desire honor, that if he enjoy it, he wants to
wants to be part of the work. Freedom is to be expected that more than coercion. Whether
this injustice will ever be avoided entirely, the question we should just leave it to the
future, meanwhile forward such a state striving always to approach more.

Incidentally, what these individualists did differently than the footsteps of the great
philosopher Spinoza, in his Ethics [256] proclaims the constitution of nature: "Everyone
loves himself and protect his own existence. Everything physical or psychological help my
existence, which is an all-round strength development evokes, which carries a lower to a
higher stage, everything is happiness; everything works out the contrary, is suffering. The
stronger our soul life, the greater is our joy; the greater our joy, the greater our
perfection. Everyone has a right to everything, as far as his power extends. But each man
his own I can best holding together with other people, can develop its completeness and
to exercise his power, creates the necessity that no one interferes of another, that
everyone is entitled limits to the extent to others not require that they endure and do what
one can not tolerate or do it yourself will. To this end admonish my own interest. For I the
development of others are, is also hamper my being not as rich and developed as it could
be by the interaction with the essence of others. "

Or who in his Teylers Godgeleerd-political discourse [257] makes a plea in Sec. 20 for
complete freedom of opinion, "It is impossible that a person's conviction entirely at the
disposal of another State; After all, there no one to explain his innate right or ability of free
and judge all kinds of things can transfer to another nor can it be forced to. Hence one
every dominion over the minds violent eight and to the general perception of the high
government does nationals injustice and violates their right, if they want to write anybody
he embrace as truth and falsehood has to reject and ideas which each should be guided
by his worship. To this decision has any innate right, he, though he did can not give up. "

He describes in the same chapter, the goal of the state with the following words: "The
ultimate goal of the state is not to rule, nor the people to keep fear at bay and bring under
the dominion of another, but each of fear and liberate him, as far as possible, do live in
safety, ie it is of course right to exist and to operate, without harm to themselves and
others, to ensure the best possible way. It is not the purpose of the state, to make people
from rational beings into beasts or even moving dolls, but that their minds and bodies
perform their operations without interruption and they make use of reason in freedom, not
compete with each other in hatred, anger or deceit, and well disposed towards each other
no ill will. The purpose of the state is indeed the freedom. "

But the same philosopher speaks quite differently in the fifth chapter of the Teylers
Godgeleerd-political discourse , where he says that "no society endures without a
government and without force, and hence without laws, for man's passions and
moderating unrestrained appetites and to conquer. "

And the Political Discourse chapter 3 he not only says that "every citizen not his own
master, but depends on the state, whose he commands must follow without
discrimination," but he even goes so far that "even every citizen, though he believes that
the state laws are unfair, is nevertheless obliged to follow them precisely. "

However, in this respect, Spinoza little unclear whether he dares the consequence not
of which he preached freedom, because while in Chapter 16 in terms of religion
recognizes that one must obey God above all, he relies on the many errors to to make the
argument that everyone is having could afford the freedom pretext a flared opinion, to do
whatever he wished. And since in such a manner the law of the state is violated in every
way, he assumes that "the government, which has jurisdiction only in accordance with
divine and natural right to preserve the state's rights and to protect, above all the right is
granted in cases relating to religion, conditions for its approval, and kept all to follow its
decisions and regulations in that regard, by virtue of its pledged loyalty that God certainly
recommends to observe. " He does not seem to feel that if he gives that right to the
government, he is the freedom of man in terms of religion is a sham. One should read
especially Chapters 16, in which he discusses the foundations of the state, the natural
and civil right of every human being and the right of the high authorities, 17, in which he
argues that nobody can already transfer his to the public power, and 20 demonstrating
that in a free commonwealth to each is free to think what he wants and what he intends to
say.

So here he wants the state coercion and freedom over there, what two things would not
be compatible with each other. The "do not prevail and not be controlled" still is an
anarchist principle, against which state the necessity of the coercive apparatus of the
state. He limps here in two minds. Moreover freedom of thought means very little if it is
not preparing for freedom of action. And it can certainly sound strange, if one is a man
who defied the ban and persecution of the Jewish synagogue at an early age, should
declare the end of this discourse, that he willingly wants to submit to the inspection and
assessment of the governments of his country and "they might think that some of what I
have said, contrary to the country's laws or detrimental to the public interest, one reserved
for it not said; I know I'm a man and I can err. " The distinction may also lie in the age so
the young Spinoza would have died full of spirit and enthusiasm for his conviction, while
the other was more aware of self-preservation, peace and
tranquility? Prof Menzel [258] expresses the suspicion that Spinoza possibly due to the
upheavals that have plagued our republic in 1672, at the end of his life has become more
conservative, as evidenced by his later written Politically discourse [259] . In this paper
we show how even a precursor of Henry George, as he gives an argument for bringing
crops and soil and if possible of him ruling houses in state ownership, viz. In the hands,
while then a annual rent she rents out to the citizens, ie to townspeople and farmers. He
leans over here to state socialism.

In all great minds we see the highest desire to live his own life in his own way, to be
themselves and to develop and hence is an anarchist vein through the work of all writers
who serve as pastors of the human race . It's just the word anarchy, which deters many,
but they have, often unwittingly, anarchy preached and sown.

Who Lies of society reads Max Nordau and especially the chapter on the political lie,
and it's how this writer says that the state machine in practice still remained the same
precision and with the same force acts as the gloomy era of the Middle Ages, with this
distinction if they present less heavily upon the individual, this is only due to wear. When
one hears how it considers that "the restriction of liberty which the government imposes
on each person bears to the blessings it provides him of proportion and parliament
considers a" device to caress of vanity and promote the personal interests of the
delegates. " If one hears from his mouth the way a mandate must be obtained from the
outset meets all noble characters in the chest and that governs the brightest and boldest
that while selected in theory, the best and wisest citizens to representatives of the nation,
according to practice, it is precisely the eerzuchtigsten and ruwsten who insist most on the
foreground. See, if you such and such things read by authors of renown, whose works are
read by many, then one will have to agree to be taught by them anarchism without using
the word, and thus manipulate the people in anarchist thinking and working.

When the early asleep French philosopher Guyau says, that life can be maintained only
on condition of spread and increases the juice of the plant, continues to rise and
necessitates bloom or she likes it or not, even though this is accompanied by her
death; when he so rightly points out that "we do not have enough to ourselves, that we are
more tears than necessary for our own suffering, more joy than for our own existence is
justified," that "they need in order to help others, with to help his shoulder to push the car
that humanity painful to drag in any case revolves around "that we must develop our life,
our own life in all directions, to taste the greatest pleasure and the most possible
happiness spread - what does he apply different grist to the mill of anarchism, which, after
all, wants nothing more than to do develop man in all its fullness and therefore take all
obstacles that prevent this?

When the Russian writer Novicov his Gaspillages des socits modernes (Wastes in
modern societies) tells us that "the state of origin to a gang to plunder. The usurper first
contented himself with making raids, then he set up residence in a territory in order to levy
taxes in its favor. But the conquest aims wealth. Thus, it is a company started with the
purpose of profit. One tries to seize power because of the advantages it provides. And in
the republics this is exactly the same as in the monarchies. It has been rightly said that
France belongs to 50.000 politicians. They also occupy the first rank in the United States
where this career is one of the most profitable. The entire organization of the modern
states has been made with the aim to provide benefits to a few tens of thousands of
persons. Hence the excessive centralization, the perception of all social relations, the
unity of church and state, the confiscation of public education in favor of the government
in order to finalize the spirit of the future generations in a direction conforming to the
interests of the rulers . Hence, as Tolstoy says, systematic hypnotize the masses through
a set of ceremonial and other institutions. "But that whole book is a comprehensive
indictment of contemporary society in a way that can hardly be surpassed by the violent
anarchist.

In the scientific field, the harvest is great, if they wanted to continue in this way to cook
together, because the scientific man who moves freely without threading into the
straitjacket of religious, political or social prejudice, he wants to self-examination, the
promote self thinking and so averse to all regulations, designed to make others on a leash
walk, he will work above all in free direction. But precisely because it provides nutrients to
the anarchist, who desires nothing more than that every man freedom can grow up to
fulfill its peculiar construction and will be able to lead his own life. Wilhelm von Humboldt
in his remarkable writings Ideen zu einem Versuch which limits the Wirksamheit des
Staats zu bestimmen , and Pestalozzi, the famous pioneer in teaching, were also infected
with socialist ideas of freedom-loving direction as Froebel.

One may regret it or not, but the fact is that Friedrich Nietzsche , the unfortunate
philosopher who ended his life in insanity, exercised great influence, especially in the
young generation. When many are Nietzsche's works Gospel, which they swear. He first
was regarded as the pre-eminent aristocratic philosopher, who with his "superman" the
dominion of geniuses or heroes proclaimed in the manner of Carlyle, later on it was
discovered an anarchist vein in his work and was seen even in Nietzsche the continuer of
the work of Max Stirner. Especially his glowing hatred against the state and its upholding
of the individual above all else, led him to anarchism, but his distinguished nature
abhorred the "canaille" and he did not see the anarchy (anarchy) at the end of the
development, on the contrary, archie (government) of the strong and powerful, either in
the form of an aristocracy, a kind of caste of senior people, either as tyranny, and violence
reign of Napoleon I, or the like "superman". The ideal of socialism he calls "Pbel-
MischMasch (rabble-mishmash) and ridicule he overwhelms all the" equalization ". But
equally averse he is from the state, so he writes: "Dort, wo der State aufhrt - so seht mir
but hin, meine Brder! Seht ihr ihn nicht, Rainbows und die Brcke Uber des Menschen?
"(Where the state ends - look there, my brothers, Do you not see it, the rainbow and the
bridge of the ber men?). Considered by some as a madman, whose work only fools can
attract, he is in the eyes of others, the biggest, the last of the philosophers. We believe
that the present generation still too close to him, to give him the place to which he is
entitled, but also understand the influence that emanates from him and except for the odd-
clean form also must be sought in the original his views and his glorification of the
individual, which is particularly attractive for strong individuals. Sometimes he reminds us
of Multatuli, especially in his aristocratic tendencies, but he missed the sympathy which
compassion for the disinherited of society.

A strange figure was also the former Prussian infantry officer, later Saxon cavalry
officer Moritz von Egidy , which had an independent and foremost stressed the "ethical"
element. Vrijheidlievend as he was, he felt drawn to the anarchy, but the violent nature
which it clung, met him in the chest and across the "blood" -anarchisten he called himself
a "Noble-Anarchist". His teaching was permeated with certain mystical Christianity, so he
can be called a Christian anarchist. "If we of the word anarchism everything, but really
everything, scraping what criminal or even the crude, which connects them in our
minds; We also also deleted the word Christianity everything, but really everything, which
is contrary to reason or is unnecessary it connects in our minds - then each gets two
concepts a figure, so in other similar, they merge . "What hinders him in anarchism, which
seemed to him to be the biggest mistake of anarchism, is his name. "Why" no rule ", why
not prefer" selfishness "," self "? Discipline and rule its value parameters without which we
can not imagine human existence. It just comes down to who exercises dominion over us
and who wields the rod of discipline on us; either others or ourselves. "As we examine
how many prejudices a man if he had to overcome and how short he independence has
been able to move since the death surprised him (1900), one will understand that it could
be much expected now what could come true. Still, it was already a deed for someone in
his position and origin, to be sympathetic to the anarchist movement.

Emerson in America provided a powerful argument for individualism in his essay Self-
reliance (confidence), in which he urged the people to self-being, self-confidence. "Only
when someone is shaking off all outside support and alone, I see that he is strong and will
overcome." It is like Ibsen hears. "We have to go alone. Isolation true society must
precede. Trust yourself and do not disturb the public, that's just mediocre, and when you
are in the first, later, as the horizon of the crowd was cleared not understood that you
understand, you follow will and echoing ... someone who stands on his own feet, is
stronger than someone who stands on his head. No one, except you, you can bring
peace. Nothing can bring you peace except the triumph of principles. " [260] Similarly
Clemenceau in France, recently described his position in a way that assures him a place
among the anarchists:

"Is a master? Mankind has all been a test: with the lawful master by the grace of God,
with the Caesar, in whose view the fatherland one big cemetery should be, and then also
with the faceless, irresponsible master, the people that do not know will and do not know
it can .

They have all been bad and unjust masters and it seems that the slogan should
be: absolutely no master !

That man himself it, pretty, good or bad, big or small, stingy or extravagant, with its good
or bad qualities, but he himself it!

Leave no oppressor him his wickedness, his meanness, forcing his selfishness ...

We make this a revolution, the biggest and the most beautiful: the peaceful revolution by
the thought.

Revolutions with powder and shot, we were already enough: they are our only instead of
one master given another. Our revolution they revolutionized the Freedom! " [261]

(Speech at a eremaaltijd for Urbain Gohier).

 Further Fouillee, Urbain Gohier, the Pressense and others in France, Gumplowicz in
Austria. They send all in anarchist, although they often feel aristocratic tendencies,
because they exalted fancy above the great hope of mortals - and born or reared under a
lucky star, they are also in fact - so if they are in favor of a social aristocracy Unlike social
democracy.

But we want to allocate a separate place in this row of men in his homeland so
ungrateful treated and often unsung Dutch thinker, Eduard Douwes Dekker , better
known under his adopted name Multatuli (I've suffered a lot). Began to describe the
abuses to which the Javanese was exposed, in his fascinating wrote Max Havelaar, or the
Coffee Auctions of the Dutch Trading Company , which book "a shiver did go through the
country," alas! of short duration, he showed equally sharp eye to see what is missing in
our society. His argument: missing much to the welfare of the people, divided into three
parts, namely a description of the moral, intellectual and physical condition of the country,
is one continuous, eloquent philippic against the whole of society and stands as a
monument. his noble heart as well as his keen judgment. It was he who slavery of blacks
called an abomination, but betrekkelijkerwijze preferable to the slavery of the white
slave. The first was open, honest, frank, the slave was protected by law, the second is
slavery, a horror, but additionally aggravated by hypocrisy and falsehood. Bitter but where
he says, "the introduction of a regulated slavery, with an obligation on the part of the
masters to maintain its ownership properly, it being a boon for many a Dutch worker - if
they exist could. But no one would dare to offer something for a white man and therefore it
is impossible. That's why, not because our morals would be beyond the concepts that
tolerate slavery. On the contrary, they are down there and cover her selfish shrink from the
responsibility of the bosses, with a false coloring of respect for human rights. For the
workman in our society is a slave. His stomach gives him bound over to anyone who will
pay him a meal of potatoes with vinegar. He is a slave, minus the right to
relief, minus registration fee, minus sealed the purchase, minus interest and risk. Yes,
without risk. Because if he is ill or unfit for work, old, poor ... well, then one hires a new
slave who can work and pay him as its predecessor, with a meal of potatoes a day. "

Who writes the depth gauges of the wound, which society is suffering. Parliamentarism
is none so conclusive on display in all its nakedness as he [262] and when he says that
"the very proponents of the parliamentary form of government, those who pretend to
abhor all domination, stand for a most-zotst individualism in the promotion of specialties,
"when he writes that the political market the commodity which they sell, has never
exhibited or geannonceerde because that one there" talks about honesty and mean
profit; on concepts, opinions, insights, beliefs and mean interest; on legal issues and
mean injustice; about economics and mean theft; about freedom and tyranny mean; on
human rights and mean murder, "then he finds evil as in the coronary artery, that one is
amazed. Disciplinary Loos as he is, he belonged to no party and although sometimes in
his aristocratic tendencies - aristocratic in the sense of the best, the highest - yet he is
always on the side of the oppressed and mistreated. For him the main thing: the vocation
of man is to be human. Majority voting, the representative system, the authority, how is it
everything he put the criticism of the table and decompose - then little remains of it.
 What an impression must not be Vorstenschool make because of the ideas, put them
apart! His unsurpassed Tales of the Authority a golden booklet, a guide to all anarchists
who do say: who writes that, in his soul anarchist. It is difficult to classify a man as
Multatuli, because he was a "wild" in the legal sense of the word. Perhaps he was never
better than in these few lines of a critic: "What was Multatuli? A politician? An agitator? A
researcher? A freethinker? A poet? All is not applicable to him, sometimes it says too
much and too little, I know no better name than this: he was a heretic in everything and
everywhere. Lieven a heretic against the Lord, against the State, against the morals and
manners, against the laws of aesthetics as well as of decency, against the dogmas of the
progressives as well as against those of the theologians. If one wants to place him in a
category and compare, one must make a jumble: a mixture of Lessing, Fichte, Heine,
Lassalle and Rabelais and then one still has no understanding of the specific-original and
impressing his mind and his elementary vehemence. "

Multatuli was a demolisher, a terreinzuiveraar, a pioneer and without actually saying to

know modern labor movement, to understand, to appreciate, he might be an awful lot
done to release the spirits of prejudice on religious, moral, political and social spheres, he
has so many ghosts freed from the shackles of education and authority and made
susceptible to new impressions. Never urged anyone to stronger self thinking, self-will,
self, then he. Because of these qualities, he has the dirty work of cleaning up dirty
accomplished, it was necessary to lay new foundations for a cleaner and more solid
building in the place of those which our society is rotten, every moment threatened with
collapse.

Next and often with him did the "non-honorably" discharged engineer SEW Roorda of
Eysinga, whose pen is dipped in bile and also worked in the direction of anarchism, which
he was ushered by his friend Elyse Reclus, when both still dwelt at Clarens, on lake
Leman.

In art, in literature, is a free everywhere reveals individual anarchist movement. The

wonderful book by Richard Wagner, Art and Revolution written in 1849 and still fresh as it
appeared today, shows how the "real essence of art is the industry make its moral
purpose of profit, its aesthetic pretext scattering for people who are bored "how" very
sacred and highly noble god Five Percent, the head and the controller of the celebrations
among contemporary art ", the modern art is the" humble servant of Mercury, "but also
how efforts should be clean and to form strong free man. And instead of the revolution of
mankind, which lasts for thousands of years, the slave is freed, the free man has become
enslaved. Is the purpose of art: the clean and strong man, the way to get to this end the
revolution, which gives the manpower, art and beauty. If man knows that he himself is the
object of his existence and thus a self-goal, he will be able to get through the true freedom
to equal strength, the strength of the true love, the true love of beauty. Now the efficacy of
beauty is art. If acquisition of livelihood for the free man is no longer the goal of life, as the
industry is no longer our mistress, but our servant, we will target set of life in the joy of
living and the upbringing we will give our children the ability and strength, making them
the joy in the best possible way will taste. Art is the highest activity of the sensuous clean
developed man, which is in harmony with itself and with nature. First as man is free,
himself, only then art can flourish and grow. " [263] Thus we see that the artist
liberalization envisaged by the pure human nature in all its spontaneity and entangled got
into the flow of ideas of most progressive thinkers of our time, which stream is called
anarchism according to contemporary terminology.

Can not the entire work of one of the indisputably greatest playwrights of our time, are
summarized Ibsen in these words: the revolt of the individual against society? He
proclaims, through Dr. Stockmann in Enemy of the People , the assertion that "the
strongest is he who stands alone"? And he does not mention the Flood "the only
revolution, not by a bungler which remains halfway?" And is not the literature generally
governed by that spirit? A Zola in his Paris, his Work, an Octave Mirbeau in his Mauvais
bergers, a Henri Leyret, a Lucien Descaves, a Whalt Witman in America, a Dickens,
Oscar Wilde in England, not Shelley, John Ruskin and others speak and just to name a
few of the multitude, they manipulate the human mind in that direction and that the
communist anarchism ultimately a dream of philanthropists and fanatical mystics, that of a
man an angel and of the earth a paradise like Yves Guyot says that will remain to be
seen. In any case, one can see how in addition to striving to society, the community
everything and the individual nothing to do, everywhere reveals the direction in which the
main thing is to be himself . Irrespective of how the ruler is called autocrat, parliament or
state, they deny the right to rule and would be governed either. The individual has created
the society and not vice versa, the individual existed before society so that one can say:
the society for man and not man for society. Nobody can deny that society will gain in
strength if the individuals have developed into the highest beauty and the most energy; far
from getting a tedious sameness, will the variety then be infinitely richer and cleaner than
it is or can be. And where science and art such a trend can be observed, call her
individualistic, anarchist or whatever, because one can not deny that work for the future in
this direction.

_______________
[216] Hedonism is the moral of the pleasure.
[217] The name of an ancient Greek school of philosophers who the comforts and
pleasures of life despised. The word is derived from Kuon, genitive Kunos, meaning
dog. One could say, whose ideal is to live a dog's life. Diogenes among them occupies a
prominent position, which has remained famous in the vernacular by the ton, which he
lived, and by the lantern, which he was looking for a man according to his say. Too bad
that we no longer know with certainty from him, because now we can little or as well say
nothing of him, and yet he seems to have been among the most peculiar types of ancient
Greece.
[218] The name of another school of Greek philosophers, disciples of Zeno, who strove to
live as strict as possible. They derive their name from the Stoa, instead of their meetings.
[219] His main work is titled Luzaumi-Malogelzem, undeniable necessity and was
reprinted in 1891 in Cairo by taking care of Aziz-efendi-Zend, the learned editor of the
magazine Elmahronie .
[220] education of the human race.
[221] calls for freemasons.
[222] In this booklet we would much prefer over the long-winded, convoluted, more or
less femelende book by Sheldon in his steps (in his footsteps).
[223] International Library Leo Tolstoy, The kingdom of God is within you. Translation of
Rev. J. van Witzenburg.
[224] Christian martyrdom in Russia.
[225] Analysis of affliction.
[226] From bondage to brotherhood.
[227] What is the property?
[228] Systme, Vol. 2, p. 414.
[229] Confessions d'un rvolutionnaire.
[230] L'Ide gnrale de la Revolution, p. 256/57.
[231] Compare, for his article in the Humanit Nouvelle : Michel et Bakounine Karl Marx ,
in Dutch as a brochure published by J. Sterringa under the title: Michel Bakunin and Karl
Marx. (The history of a smear campaign).
[232] Thologie Mazzini et politique de l'International.
[233] The famous novelist Sacher Masoch shares from the memoirs of his father, the
director of police Lemberg in 1848 also, how pleasant was the impression made by
Bakunin on him how he regretted the growing antagonism between Germans and
Czechs. "In the house in Prague, where my family lived on the first floor, were on one of
the other floors several delegates of the Slavonic congress and quartered among them
Bakunin. In one of the conversations he had with Bakunin, it said already: "What we need
is complete anarchy. It only can the new world that we want to build, arise for the salvation
of mankind. Instead of separate revolutionary uprisings, we must introduce a state which
exists in a persistent unrelenting war against the state and society. Not with barricades
and even with the dagger of the Carbonari, no science will ever deliver new and better
arm us, above all, I count most of the perfecting of explosive substances. These will in the
future make up the artillery of the revolution. It will not take to the streets and fight with the
soldiers, they will be only the ruling circles and have continuously decimate both those
who govern states as the aristocrats and capitalists. "
[234] Italics ours.
[235] Rugg announced this feature in the Neue Zeit, vol. 1888.
[236] One clean as where already wrote Professor de Bosch Kemper are in. Science of
Society : "When the society was a plant similar, one could imagine a gradual
development, which, by way of evolution, the blades themselves slowly deployed and the
knob opened up to do behold the fairest flower; Now the earthly society provides only the
raw material, which the mind sets up a realm of the spirit, find, many more revolutions in
the transition from the natural life to the spiritual life than slow evolution from one good
state to the other place. "
[237] We call Les Primitifs, le Primitif d'Australie, et Dmonisme Animism , which three
works are published in Dutch by J. Sterringa under the title: the original, man Australian
soil and Demonism and Animism, studies on the development of religions.
[238] In his recently published memoirs in English one finds his comprehensive
biography, while an important piece of cultural history from the last half of this
century. Few books so attractive content and form - memoirs in which the person only
enter the stage where it is needed, but without the usual affected of or confidentiezucht,
on such descriptions own - have come in lately. It has appeared in a translation by me in
Dutch with Grentzebach and Wink under the title Memoirs of a revolutionary .
[239] The first and third published in Dutch by J. Sterringa.
[240] See her memoirs . As a teacher working in Paris she entered in 1871 with the
Commune and took until the last part of the street fighting. To deport convicted she went
to New Caledonia, to return by the amnesty pardoned, in France, in 1880. In 1888 for
participating in a demonstration of the Esplanade des Invalides sentenced to six years in
prison, she was set free in 1886. When they saw that they wanted to declare her insane,
to lock in a hair founded, it took rather directs the district to London, where she is now a
calm life. It is (born April 20, 1830 at Vroncourt castle) next year 70 years old.
[241] This has recently been released (1901), to take his place among the anarchists
again.
[242] These augmented the corps of defectors because he has returned to the bosom of
the Parti Ouvrier.
[243] , the fate much as they themselves were convinced that the process would end with
acquittal, this shows that Parsons, the only one who had managed to flee, volunteered on
the day of the treatment process voluntarily to the court his friends to share. Little did he
suspect how when he clean his act put the head in the mouth of the lion, which would
later toebijten.
[244] The following little-known specialty is peculiar not to report it. Precisely at that time
Liebknecht made with his wife Eleanor Marx Aveling and gave a lecture tour of America
and on that occasion Liebknecht visited Parsons in Cook County's jail. After he Parsons,
he did not, it was suggested, he said to them in pitying tone: "I regret in my soul, Mr.
Parsons, to you see in this sad situation." Parsons, decisive as ever, answered him: "This
saying reminds me of a great anecdote. You're probably heard of William Lloyd Garrison
and Wendell Phillipe. When Garrison in Boston was in jail because of the agitation against
slavery, he got a visit from Wendell Phillips, who had then adopted a very moderate
stance. Phillips said to Garrison: "I am suffering for you to have to see behind bars."
Garrison said, "And I am sorry not to be able to see on my side."
Liebknecht understood the move and withdrew soon. (Reported by Charles of Boston).
[245] Published in Dutch at J. Sterringa titled Words For a judge (?) Chair . Accountability
of convicted Chicagor anarchists. It also may compare the clean section on the
execution of Anarchists of John Henry Mackay at the same publisher. Also compare
Aug. Spies Reminiscenzen and Anarchism: its philosophy and scientific basis as defined
by some of its apostles by AR Parsons and Life of Albert R. Parsons with history of the
labor movement in America.
[246] It is this book that Dr. Frederik van Eeden his colony Walden in Bussum which gave
name. We believe that Thoreau was first introduced in the Netherlands in the
weekly Dawn , in which an article was taken from him. Just compare: Thoreau, His Life
and AIMS (Thoreau, his life and strive) by HA Page. (London, Chatto and Windes).
[247] Max Stirner. Sein Leben und sein Werk von John Henry Mackay . It also gave an
edition of its smaller scriptures und seine Entgegnungen auf die Kritik seines Werkes: The
Ego und sein Eigenthum. Aus den Jahre 1842-47 .
[248] In a free comprehensive brochure dr. Sagittarins, recently published by D. Reidel,
Dordrecht and entitled Is stolen property? We especially found in the sixth chapter: Thou
shalt not steal, discussed this point and treated in a strictly logical way. The question of
ownership is set put so clear and bright that book, in a relatively short space, that we the
readers who do not otherwise than to recommend strongly brochure.
[249] These words appear in the drawing Dubois Le pril anarchist and from that source
over by different writers. But Reclus himself replied to a question in this regard: "I have
never said or written the words that Flix Dubois attributes to me in his Pril
anarchist. Moreover, I have had the opportunity to refute them formally in a letter to the
newspaper Le Temps . Moreover, I am annoyed to be attributed to me phrases which are
arranged in such a bad style. You will give me a disservice to argue with them. "For the
propaganda of the deed they also compare it to the Ravachol at Caserio par
Varennes and the thesis of Mr. FB Enthoven Study on anarchism of the act .
[250] Reference is this book Tarrida del Marmol Les inquisitors d'Espagne and the
brochure of one of the victims, Joseph Thioulouse, who appeared at Lapel Dordrecht with
pictures, under the title The turpitude to Montjuich. The horrors of the Spanish Inquisition
during the process to Montjuich .
[251] One of them, Rupsch was "gifted" and saw his sentence changed to life penitentiary
sentence. He's still in jail.
[252] This, Holzhauer, hanged himself the September 19 of the same year in prison.
[253] This is the third president, another brainchild the offender came to an end by force
and was again. Abraham Lincoln was by the hand of someone who was not exactly
attributable; Garfield by someone who seemed to do something pleasing to God work so
he imagined to be an instrument in the hand of God. Precisely this indicates sufficient that
attacks and acts of violence is not decidedly anarchist propaganda.
[254] In his defense before the court in Naples said he "did not feel personal hatred
against King Humbert or against the present government, but against all the kings,
because they achieve my ideal: the general republic" prevent. Political reforms, he says
nothing. "The old government was symbolized by the three F's: Festa Farina, Forca
(parties, flour, gallows). The present government may be three Ps:. Parlate, pagate,
Piangete (Talking, paying, vienna) "Was that the language of a madman or a man of
conviction, who was willing to die for it?
[255] Individualism, a system of politics.
[256] Classical writers. B. Spinoza Ethics . From Latin by W. Meijer. Amsterdam, SL van
Looy.
[257] Classical writers: B. de Spinoza, Teylers Godgeleerd-political discourse . From Latin
by W. Meijer. Amsterdam, SL van Looy.
[258] Wandlungen in the Staatslehre Spinoza's . 1898.
[259] Classical writers: B. de Spinoza's Treatise Staatkundig . From Latin by W.
Meijer. Amsterdam, SL van Looy.
[260] He begins his discourse with these beautiful poetic lines:
Man is his own star; and the soul That can
Render an honest and a perfect man,
Commands all light, all influence, all fate;
Nothing to him falls early or too late.
(Man is his own star and the soul that can give an honest and perfect man, recommends
all light, all influence over the destiny; nothing to him early or too late).
[261] By itself to elect a senator, he has again given this position, unless perhaps he is a
parliamentary anarchist as well as the Italian Merlino.
[262] Compare his Thousand and some chapters about specialties and well MVIII.
[263] It is said that the image of the young Bakunin stood him in the creation of his
Siegfried, Wagner mind.
 Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis
The history of socialism
Chapter 20

the International

As the traffic means the interconnection of nations made easier to the extent ever arose
more the need for closer unification in each area. Hence, the 19th century can be called
the century of international connections. It was a talented French woman, a disciple of
Saint-Simon, in particular, Flora Tristan who suggested first the idea in 1843 of an
international association of proletarians of all countries. She said the association, which
they wished, a Union Ouvriere, said, "I propose a general association between working
men and women, regardless of profession, the same kingdom dwelling, an association
that has to constitute the working class aims and different devices establish (Palais de
l'Union Ouvriere), divided equally over the whole of France. The children of both sexes
from 6 to 18 years would be raised and they would defective or injured workers, as well as
the elderly, include. "The nobility followed the bourgeois class, which was already more
numerous and more useful, but the association remains of the working class. If they unite,
they will be strong and may require the bourgeois and the right to work and the
organization of labor. Since these Ouvriere union emanates from the overall unity, it must
not discriminate between the different nationalities and each individual, called stranger,
can benefit the association of the benefits. Its standard color is white, the symbol of unity
and its motto: Union ouvrire complainant le droit au travail et l'organization du
travail [264] .

Existed in Paris by German refugees founded democratic-republican secret society of

"Gechteten" in 1834 and from that developed the new secret "Bund der Dishes", but
these associations in 1836 were of a general nature and were not limited to the
workers. Later evolved from this German international federation, called
"Kommunistischer Arbeiter-Verein Bildung," were the words on whose membership
cards: All men are brothers . In 1847, the first federal congress was held where it was
decided to reorganize the league, so he in the nature of a secret conspiratiebond lost and
where he got to name "Bund der Communists". At the second conference, held in the
same year, was also present Marx - Engels had already been the first - and both were
commissioned to compose a manifesto. This happened recently and appeared to go
unnoticed, however, quite as over before the February Revolution in Paris. This is the
famous Communist Manifesto, in which the old union slogan: All men are brothers , was
replaced by a new one: Proletarians of all countries! Unite !

In 1849 we find two women Pauline Rolland and Jeanne Deroin at the head of the
Federation ouvrire the 1849 'which was disbanded by Louis Bonaparte. Yet all dreamed
of a more general revolutionary or a sole workers' International.

The latter would appear later and or as a result of the great World Exhibition in London in
the year 1862. It was on that occasion that some industrialists and some newspapers
suggested the idea to send French workers to the exhibition. The Opinion National wrote:
"The visit that they would make would be to establish links between them on their English
comrades, that would be beneficial in all respects. While they could account for the great
artistic and industrial works of the exhibition, they could better feel the solidarity that
bound them; the old levers of international discord would disappear and the blind would
make room for the healing efforts of fraternal rivalry. "Strange that the industrialists have
developed the International program, not knowing how that plan once would be
implemented in as a whole opposite direction as they were intended. Napoleon III thought
favorably about the plan and then already dreaming rich do support by workers and
peasants, he choose any profession through universal suffrage men who went to London
as delegates. On August 5 the English workers organized for "their brothers from France"
in Freemason's Tavern, a party and so the ground was laid for the later International with
the French tyrant Napoleon.

Shortly after the return of the deputies of the Polish uprising broke out and it seems that
Napoleon wanted to support them and therefore had put pressure on the workers in the
public view. There Collects were held in the workplace to send a deputation of workers to
London, to launch a large demonstration sympathy with the London workers. At a big
meeting in St. Paul Hall on July 22, 1863 French workers took part. Later, it was sent by
the British workers an address of sympathy for Poland to France, where they chose a new
committee that would go to London, to establish an association.

On September 28, 1864 a large meeting was organized by workers of all nations in St.
Martin's Hall in London, chaired by prof. Beesly. Among Participants included among
others the famous Italian Mazzini, Karl Marx, Tolain and many others. Mazzini wanted to
make a highly centralized union of the spirit of the Carbonari in Italy, but he was defeated
by Marx, who wanted to respect local autonomy and just wanted a federal, rather loose
tie. The result was that Mazzini, who did not understand the class struggle and therefore
hostile opposite set themselves angrily withdrew. Marx was the union the soul. The
Inaugural Address was written by him as well as the draft statutes, which were later
adopted. The General Council, London dwelt was composed of three Englishmen: the
president, the treasurer and the secretary, which were chosen Odger, Wheeler and
Cremer, and as corresponding secretaries for the different countries: le Lubez for France,
Major Wolff (the Secretary of Mazzini) in Italy, Karl Marx Germany, Holthorp for Poland,
Jung Switzerland. The manifesto begins with the reminder that the distress of the working
class has not diminished in the years from 1848 to 1864, although this period indicates an
unprecedented development of industry and commerce. The intoxicating augmentation of
wealth and power comes according to the Prime Minister Gladstone statement solely for
the benefit of the propertied classes [265] . It notes the reports of the factory inspectors,
from which the true working conditions in all their abominations learns and also on the
other side of the coin: the concentration of wealth, the merging of land. The means of
production repeatedly appear in fewer hands. "Neither the perfecting of machinery or
taken together, the application of science to industry and agriculture, nor the improvement
of traffic resources or new colonies or emigration, or the conquest of new markets or free
trade or all of these things, be able Been to eliminate the miseries of the industrious
masses. "on the contrary, the social contradictions were tightened. Starvation was almost
a social institution in the midst of this period of heady economic progress. This one was
the rapid return, the increased size and the deadly effects of the social pest, which is
called commercial and industrial crises. Still, two facts are noteworthy: 1. The statutory
tienurendag with its beneficial effect on the English proletariat, thus directly intervening in
the great battle between supply and demand. Therefore, "was the tienurenwet not only a
great practical results, but also the victory of a principle: first the bourgeois economy had
to taste defeat against the working class economy"; and 2. The cooperative movement. It
became clear that associated labor was possible and that people could come to abolish
wage labor. But the cooperative should be extended to national proportions and therefore
favored by state resources. This would only be possible now, as the working class
conquered political power. And you can, because the workers have the power of the
figure. The brotherhood of workers'll allow that goal and therefore should at shoulder
stand shoulder as battle cry accept the word Proletarians of all lands, unite! In short
words, here masterfully the position of the working class set put in front of the middle
class. Oddly, however that this last part together so agrees entirely with the requirement
of Lassalle: productive association with state credit, which later by Marx so sharply is
contested and rejected as utopian. And one should not forget that the slogan of uniting
itself somewhat vague, as one does not know where sharp around it unites. Laveleye
correctly notes that Michel Chevalier and Stuart Mill could best sign this manifesto, but he
adds, quite correctly, that it was revolutionary movements ever increasing in great
performance so the designers soon be surpassed in the rule. The statutes go some
considerations in advance, which thus:

Whereas the liberation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves; that
the efforts of the workers to win their release should not lead to the establishment of new
privileges, but for all to establish equal rights and duties and to destroy the mastery of
each class:

Whereas the economic subjection of the worker to the owners of labor, ie the sources
of life, the first cause of political, moral and material slavery;

Whereas the economic emancipation of the workers is therefore the great end to which
every political movement as a means must be subordinate;

Whereas all efforts so far made have suffered shipwreck in lack of solidarity between
workers in different occupations of each country and of fraternal unity between the
workers of different countries;

Whereas the liberalization of the labor is not a local, not a national but a social issue
and involves all countries in which modern life exists and their theoretical and practical
cooperation needed to solve;

Whereas the movement, which again among the workers of most industrial countries in
Europe appear, new hope and creates a solemn warning not to fall more into the errors
and drives them once their still isolated attempts to do together;

For these reasons, the undersigned, members of the board elected by the meeting,
held in St. Martin's Hall on September 28, 1864 adopted the measures necessary to
establish the International Workers Association. They explain that this international
association and all associations or individuals who join will recognize as the basis of their
behavior towards their fellow human beings: truth, morality, justice, regardless of skin
color, religion or nationality. They consider it a duty for everyone to demand the rights of
man and citizen: no duties without rights, no rights without duties ".

Here we already have to report a forgery, which took place and which we find in any
history neither socialism nor the International reported, but in the business Memoire
prsente par la Fdration Jurassienne de l'association universelle des Travailleurs
toutes les Fdrations de l'International , dated on 15 april 1873. Everyone who wants
review of Marx and Bakunin the difference really is required also for this piece to
hear. The third recital standing innocently inserted a few words that were not in the
original considerations, namely the words. As agent . In the original statutes, drawn up at
the conference in Geneva in 1866, we read: "que l'Emancipation conomique des
travailleurs est le grand but auquel doit tre tout Subordonn mouvement
politique" [266] . How come there are the words "comme moyen" at? In the English
translation, they are joined by Marx, viz. As a Means and the English translation, they are
again taken in the French text, and this is decisive tone for most writers. This happened
by accident or on purpose? The first is unthinkable and we do so for a deliberate
falsification of Marx, to give the appearance to the International that she has always
wanted, what Marx wanted personally, but what has not been adopted at the conference
in Geneva (1866) viz., that political action was the practical means, what the International
could use to obtain economic liberalization. This distortion raises a peculiar, less favorable
light on Marx, who apparently all means were good, as they helped to make him reach his
goal.

A second distortion is found in the English edition, namely the words. "The General
Council authorizing itself new members to add". In the original French text of the statute,
drawn up in Geneva, those words do not. And now, after the General Council made, like
the English version of the 1867 original was and the French association from the year
before an unfaithful translation. At least one adopted at the conference in London in 1871,
consisting only of the friends of Marx in the 9th resolution:

"Given the considerations of the original Statutes, which states:" the economic
emancipation of the workers is the great end to which every political movement ought to
be subordinate as a means. "

Whereas unfaithful translations of the original Statutes have given rise to false
declarations, which have been detrimental to the development and operation of the
International Workingmen's Association "

Thus one decreed that the false association are the original, for there to be able to invoke
a repetition of the false decretals [267] of the Catholic Church, to which they appealed to
the infallibility of the Pope at the infamous council of 1870 by retrieving.

Marx has been fulfilled by the Foundation of the International a long-cherished wish,
because as Engels pointed out somewhere, he had found the hope "a workers'
association, which would include the most advanced countries of Europe and America,
and the international nature of the socialist movement both to the workers themselves as
against the bourgeoisie and the governments should serve as a model graphically, so to
speak - the proletariat encouragement and reinforcement, his enemies to fear. "

It was therefore beside the Black International of the Catholic Church, and the golden
International of capitalists finally got the Red International of the workers, which a lot of
fear and turmoil triggered in the world.

The first congress was held in Brussels in 1865, but the Belgian government put
difficulties in the way, so that that year had to be content with holding a meeting of the
General Council of the few leading committees on the mainland. In 1866 held the first
conference in Geneva city, where about 60 delegates came together, but Marx himself
was not there, nor on the later conventions, except that in the Hague in 1872. This is a
special feature that certainly does not oneigenaardig may be considered, as surely
everyone knew he was the pivot around which the International wholly or largely
revolved. The association, created by Marx, were adopted there. At this conference
formed the mutuellisten or Proudhonists the majority, so therefore the French
magazine La Libert in Paris as conclusion of this conference indicated a statement,
which was acquired in the Compte-Rendu of the Congress and ran thus: "It is the formal
denial of communism: the recognition of individual rights as the basis of future
society. Socialism, the old utopias rejecting, is now determined as mutuellisme. It's finally
out of the period of mysticism came into the scientific and positive method "The topics
treated were affected more practical issues, such as:. The workers' associations,
cooperative societies, direct and indirect taxes, international credit, the reduction of the
working day, the labor of women and children, standing armies, religious ideas, the power
of Russia and the restoration of Poland, the secours mutuel (mutual aid provision) in
international associations.

London remained to 1867 the seat of the General Council, whose members all but one
were re-elected.

At the second congress in Lausanne held in 1867, a proposal was first raised by Perron,
which gave rise to heated discussions and it was this: the deprivation of political freedoms
will not be an obstacle to the social emancipation of workers and main cause of social
troubles? What are the means to hasten the restoration of political freedoms? Would not
meet the unrestricted right and press a requirement laid down by all workers? After much
discussion it adopted the following motion: "Whereas the deprivation of political freedoms
is an obstacle to the social development of the people and for the liberation of the
proletariat, the Congress declares: 1. that the social emancipation of the workers is
inseparable their political; 2. the establishment of political freedom is a measure of
absolute necessity.

But what the conference was particularly important, so one could say that a step forward
was in a socialist direction, the discussion was in response to a resolution on the co-
operative societies, that said it is necessary that the proletariat convince themselves well
to this thought: that the social transformation will not be able to take place in a radical and
decisive way than by means acting on the whole of society and in accordance with the
reciprocity and justice, that the Belgian Csar De Paepe, himself Proudhonist as he said,
a amendment proposed to several of the resources for them in study and underneath he
called the transformation of the Central banks to "Banques Crdit gratuit", bringing the
land collectively owned by the society, the abolition of intestate-heritages within certain
degrees kinship, a tax on inheritances in the air, etc. etc. against such a claim came
mutuellisten of the ancient species, such Tolain and Coullery, strongly and this achieved
by 27 against 11 votes the victory. But De Paepe said immediately that he would bring up
the matter in the next year. Also they took on this Congress to send the act delegates to
the Congrs de la Paix et de la Libert, which would meet in Geneva since the
"Emancipation social Inseparable tait de l'Emancipation politique" (social liberation was
inseparable from the political ). That's where that conference was Michael Bakunin, the
man who would later become a member of the International and with whom the struggle
would be tethered by Marx. One can safely assume that if Marx had been present at the
conference, this proposal would not be adopted because it was according to him, the first
step to themselves to demonstrations in tow taken by the liberal bourgeoisie. As showed
the Paris working on the tomb of Manin (2 nov. 1867), as they protested against the re-
occupation of Rome. They took themselves hence the hatred of Napoleon III and his
government on the neck. The persecutions began, and therefore won the club
popularity. Convictions followed due to participate in a non lawful union of over 20
persons, whose leadership resided in London. The International had to destroy, but its
members joined now personally. Strikes took place, which like those in the building trades
in Geneva with the International gelukten and gradually arose the legend that the
International had to possess treasures.

No wonder that the third congress in Brussels in 1868 by a much larger number of
delegates, with 98, was visited. As the battle over the transfer of land in communal
ownership was raised again and this time the mutuellisten were defeated, even by a small
majority. One sees how the union moved forward. Originally intended as a major general,
international trade union they are now working on the abolition of the wage system, "this
new form of slavery." And by bringing all work to the community. Socialism - so they called
this system - the new doctrine was the International It was De Paepe, who gave this
victory to Marx. This was also that adopted at that conference proposed a general strike in
response of the workers to a declaration of war by the rulers and this proposal was then
unanimously.

International meanwhile increasingly grew in power and prestige among the workers. The
big strike at Creusot in France and at Seraing in Belgium wore next to the persecution of
the association in France, much to her bloom. They were followed by many other strikes.

The British magazine, The Times , worried about the amazing rise of the International
throughout Europe and wrote: "One must ascend to the origins of Christianity or the
invasion of the barbarians, to find a movement similar to that of the present-day workers. "

According Elyse Reclus was the foundation of the International after the discovery of
America and circumnavigate the Cape of Good Hope, the most important fact in
history. Had Columbus, Magellan and other material found unity of the earth, the
International led her moral unity, already previously anticipated by many philosophers and
revolutionaries.

In September 1869 challenged the fourth congress in Basel attended by 80 delegates,

and it concluded that "the company is entitled possession to abolish private property and
turn it into joint ownership and explained this change as a necessity." At this congress
Bakunin was the first site, on the Peace and Freedom Congress in Berne in 1868 had
been defeated and then with his followers founded the Alliance Internationale de la
dmocratie socialiste. Although Marx was favored, as to the ownership question, he
suffered a defeat at the point of inheritance law, which came on the agenda against the
wishes of Marx. This called the general abolition of inheritance, by some desired, a
"vieillerie Saint Simoni Adrienne" and suggested the General Council report, which as
transitional measures for the succession were shown: a. Extension of the tax on
inheritance, and b . restriction of the right of entertainment. Bakunin especially able to edit
which was rejected by the General Council report by 37 votes to 19 with 6
abstentions. For Marx, a hint that the great threat to its influence in the International lay in
the person of Bakunin, which would seek to drive the association more revolutionary than
Marx fairway or wanted.

The year 1870 was in the movement of great importance. First, the Franco-Prussian War,
which gave rise to the General Council the adoption of a manifesto of July 23, in which the
war for Germany was declared a war of defense. The German workers had to ensure that
the war continued to preserve that character and not degenerated into a war against the
French people. After the fall of the empire existed in Marx undoubtedly the plan for
socialist uprisings in nearly all provoke countries of Europe and not just the community to
proclaim in France but also in major cities of Europe. This plan failed because the
proclamation of the republic by the blue Democrats and that the movement in Germany
was stifled in the bud, as General Vogel von Falkenstein he imprisoned the chiefs of the
German International so that there is a real panic in the ranks of the workers arose. We
can deduce this plan from the speech of Marx, held in The Hague on the occasion of the
conference in 1872, in which he said: "The revolution must show solidarity and we think a
great example of the Commune of Paris, which has fallen, because not simultaneously in
all capitals, Berlin, Madrid, etc. has broken a great revolutionary movement which was
connected with this great uprising of the proletariat in Paris.

When he saw only the failure of a social revolt in Paris, he was not sympathetic to this
mood, even though he took after the fall of the Commune in his masterfully manifest the
appearance of good disposition and though he accepted bypass solidarity with her. And
he did when he wrote that "the Paris of the workers with its Commune would be glorified
forever as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are engraved in the heart of
the working class. History has been set aside already pilloried and all the prayers of the
clergy are not able to save her! "That is language other than that of Vollmar, the Social
Democratic deputy in the German Reichstag, which at the party congress in Stuttgart in
1898 under applause of those present declared that the Parisian workers had done better
to sleep than to proclaim the Commune! So just Marx explains that the working class can
not simply take possession but the ready state machine and move for their own use.
The distrust of the "German Jew Marx" but was awakened by himself and in Latin
countries it remained in existence very many. The attempt of the General Council - and
the General Council was in fact Marx - to lead the Commune from London by giving all
kinds of orders, was only able to make him ridiculous and Tcherkesov also said truthfully:
"Bismarck and Wilhelm who pretended to command, were at least on the battlefield. But
the General Council, led by Marx and Engels preferred to remain in safety in the fire to
give instructions. And what instructions "!

After the crushing of the Commune in 1871, the time was unfavorable, considering the
excited mood against her throughout Europe, to hold a public conference and one
contented himself therefore with a conference in London from 17 to 23 of
September. Overall though it was believed that it was the International, which the
Commune had created and therefore all hatred of the bourgeoisie against the Commune
was transferred doubled degree at the International. And yet historically established that
this was not the case. On the contrary, the Commune was in the beginning with distrust
towards the men of the International and in elections for members of the Commune on
March 26 of only a dozen around 90 places were taken by supporters and leaders of the
International and even later declared a organ of the party: "the International has neither
the Commune created, nor was it identical with it. But the fellow members of the
International were the most zealous and loyal supporters of the Commune, because they
have understood its significance for the working class "and Rudolph Meyer explains in
his Emanzipationskampf of celebrating standes :" I do not take the protection of the
International, but as historian I want the truth and these messages is that the uprising of
the Commune, as well as yet any civil war in modern France, started and led by the
bourgeoisie; International has only participated for the first time as the most powerful and
independent ally, since workers no longer just cannon flesh in the hands of ambitious
bourgeois, but pursue independent purposes. "The well-known French economist Molinari
also stated that the International itself had taken no part in the Commune.

On November 12, 1871 had Sonvillier in the Bernese Jura a congress of the Romance
sections in Switzerland and so the Fdration jurassienne came into being, which
protested against the General Council despotic behavior and adopted resolutions on the
conference held in London, where in a "huddle" stipulated that "in the present war
situation of the working class's economic action and political activity were inseparably
linked." the institution of the Federation Jurassic was the Rvolution Sociale , which in
Geneva appeared but soon had to be stopped for lack of money. Henceforth, they gave a
fortnightly bulletin, which first appeared geautografeerd. In Belgium declared a national
congress on December 24, 1871, the "International nothing else or ever was one group of
federations, which are fully autonomous and that the General Council is nothing if ever is
a center of correspondence and information. "

In Italy they took at the congress in Bologna (March 12, 1872) in order "to recognize the
General Council in London and those of the Jura nothing but simple agencies of
correspondence and statistics" and on the Congress to Rimini 5 in August 1872 it adopted
a resolution on a proposal by Cafiero and Andrea Costa from the General Council,
because it wanted to impose a doctrine contrary to the revolutionary sentiments of the
Italians.
At the congress at Saragossa (April 4, 1872) the Spaniards declared themselves
homogeneously with the Jurafederatie. The opposition against the autocratic General
Council took the day in several countries and Marx, who saw threatened its position in the
international and especially the dreaded danger from the side of Bakunin, had to strike a
decisive blow. Before that was held a conference in 1872 at The Hague, and so weighty it
was considered that Marx for the first time in his life came to attend a congress of the
International. But beforehand was intrigued enough to be sure of victory. First, the place
where the congress was held, was a place where his opponent Bakunin, who was living in
Switzerland and trapped, he was expelled, could be possible in the surrounding
countries. They later wrote his absence to cowardice on his part, but forgot to say that the
General Council had just chosen a place where his appearance was impossible. Then
one has tampered with the mandates in order to win votes, while they had also secured
the support of the Blanquists. From 2 to 7 September. met the Congress. 26 of the 41
deputies present was Bakunin and by 25 votes Guillaume, who was present, solemnly
banned from the International [268] . The third person Schwitzguebel merciful came
down, he was allowed to stay there. Furthermore, there was no time to pronounce
sentence against three others, namely: Malon, Bousquet and Louis Marchand, so it was
not what fate really knew their lot either. Opposite the federalists (the Spaniards, Belgians
and representatives of the Fdration Jurassic), who wanted to abolish the General
Council, since one needed no executive body and a correspondence bureau was
adequate, was adopted at the congress to increase the power of the Council by give him
the power to suspend sections and federations, although with appeal to the next
congress. Directly against Marx was the attack directed by Guillaume, when he said: "It is
said that the International invention is an able man clothed with infallibility socially and
politically, against whom there is no right of opposition. Our association should obey the
despotic authority of a council set up to maintain a new orthodoxy. We are of the view that
the International was born spontaneously from the contemporary economic conditions and
we do not want a boss who judge heresies. "But Marx triumphed and the political way was
completely marked by the proposal of the Blanquist Vaillant, adopted by the majority,
which the conquest of political power was the first duty of the proletariat. This victory
achieved by Marx, could be witnessed: one more such victory and we are lost
forever. Now after all, then let Marx assume that moved the seat of the General Council to
New York and one can safely say that the Hague Congress gave the death blow to the
International. The Blanquists, with whose assistance Marx had obtained a moment before
the victory of the federalists were about to move so angry that they direct the congress left
and Ranvier, who acted as President, even his hammer surrendered into the hands of
another. The actual view of Marx we can derive from the confidential communication in his
letter about the program of the German Social Democratic Party: "The international action
of the working class depends in no way on the existence of the International Labour
Organization. International which was only the first attempt, which the impulse which she
gave would have a lasting effect, but no longer had to maintain in its first historical form
after the fall of the Paris Commune. "

In a speech held by Marx in Amsterdam after the conference, he said: "The conference in
The Hague has accomplished important things. It has proclaimed the necessity that the
working classes in political as well as social field fighting the old society, which collapses
and we wish ourselves luck from now on to see the resolution of the London Conference
contained in our statutes. A group has formed among us, demanding political abstention
of the workers. We have been on to explain how dangerous and fatal we keep these
principles to our cause. The worker must once conquer political supremacy to establish
the new organization of work, he has the old politics, holding the old institutions,
overthrow, or it will be him as the early Christians, who were scorned and neglected and
now never saw their empire of this world. However, we have no means for data that, in
order to achieve this goal, the means must be identical. We know the opinion one must
have towards the institutions, mores, traditions of different countries and we do not deny
that there are countries, such as America, England, and if I know your settings properly,
Netherlands, where workers can reach their goal! peaceful means. If this is true, we must
recognize that the violence in most continental countries the lever of our revolution must
be; the violence they will in due course have to rely, to finally establish the rule of labor.
"From this we can clearly see how Marx rejoiced at last the idea of the conquest of
political power triumphed in the International, but as we said, this victory was at the time
of the International death.

The Jurassiens held thereon a conference in Saint-Imier in Switzerland, which they

decided not to submit to the decisions of the Hague Congress and Bakunin and Guillaume
to continue to regard as members of the International.

Also, they invited all the federations of the International to enter into a treaty of solidarity
on these principles: no Council imposed a doctrine, no Council to suspend the right
sections, complete autonomy doctrine, administrative autonomy, federative solidarity.

Three months later declared the Congress of the Spanish Federation to Crdoba, the
conference in The Hague "wrong in its origin, composition, decisions, entirely went
contrary to the corridor that had to follow the proletariat" and adopted the Convention on
solidarity, which had decided to Saint-Imier.

The Belgian federation has already stated at the conference in Brussels (December 25,
1872) that "the decisions of the conference in The Hague, by an artificially created
majority null and generwaarde were and they did not recognize because they are"
arbitrary, authoritarian and are contrary to the spirit of autonomy and federalist principles.
"

The US Federal Council, composed of representatives of all American federations, took

on January 16, 1873, the illegality of the composition of the Congress of The Hague and
his decisions as contrary to the principle of association and stated that it would liaise with
all federations and cooperate with the majority of the realization of an international
conference.

The General Council in New York issued a Manifesto to argue that a central power was
needed and in which he tried to prove that as a principle of anarchy could not possibly
accept the struggle with the organized forces of the bourgeoisie. It then went along as the
councils of the Christian church. Instead of one it held two conferences in Geneva in
1873, viz., That of the Marxists on September 8 and that of the excluded on September
2. At the last of the Abeele was instructed to go to the Congress and Marxists as possible
there to bring about a unification of the two factions. This attempt at rapprochement came
down to the unwillingness of the Marxists and so we now had two Internationals.

That congress of the autonomists had 28 delegates. The award of both associations was
actually between whether or not to accept the dictatorship of Marx. Odd that they again
could see here the Germanic or authority element and romance or vrijheidlievend
element. Eccarius, the old adjutant of Marx, from whom he had separated himself, said at
the conclusion of this conference, "The old International, founded on September 28, 1864
in St. Martin's Hall, the building seven years ago at the conference in Geneva was
completed, is dead; the present, very many of her different lives; the initiative had taken
the London political unions and non-political Proudhonists; this put more weight on
unionism, thats the realization of their ideas. In Basel the Proudhonists had to taste defeat
and now the element of the trade unions was buried in the personalities of the London
Council; Paris on the other hand the union men had become stronger in the place of
Proudhonists. In 1870 would be a congress everything back in the right have been able to
trace, but the war the old association founded to ruin. As new members were added to the
General Council, the balance was broken, and already 12 months before the Hague
Congress was this divided into two hostile camps. The power to exclude federations had
they demanded and obtained - but by giving her is finally not passed the old society. "

They decided to eliminate the General Council, although it often in this fight people has
seen a struggle between Marx and Bakunin, is the thing actually deeper. In those two
people clashed two principles together. Marx imitated in the organization of the
International Catholic church after a General Council, national, provincial, local and
general secretaries from opposing wide centralized device itself many others. Hence the
difference, hence the fury! One program (which Marx) of future social innovation was the
centralized People's State, the other Free Federation of free groups. Between these two
principles was the fight and he is still and it is likely that neither the one nor the other will
be achieved, but one thing between that of taking something from both. However, the
freedom will ultimately prevail, though it must also 40 years wandering in the desert of the
more or less strong state socialism.

The Marxists also met in Geneva with a number 30 delegates. Two main issues were
discussed: 1. that the working class had to take part in the political struggle and, if
necessary, to consult with the bourgeoisie, in order to obtain all the reforms that the
benefit came to the workers, and 2. that the workers had to organize themselves around
in trade unions, which were to form national federations, which would unite into a general
union.

Brussels gathered the autonomists in 1874, almost exclusively Belgians so that the
international character was lost. It was there Csar De Paepe important report produced
on public services. The Eighth Congress met in Bern in 1876, but nor was international,
since there were mainly representatives of the Fdration Jurassic. A new stage of
development increasingly revealed itself showed clearly from the position that we took
against the Commune. Had the anarchists hitherto considered the communalist
movement in Paris as a whole in accordance with their principle, now one spoke clearly
that the Commune, although anarchic in its origin, midway stopped and could not be
otherwise, because at that time the anarchist principles yet too little penetrated into the
minds. Kropotkin rightly pointed out, that the Commune was born to, so to speak, between
two periods of development in modern socialism. "In 1871 it had authoritarian
communism, governmental, and more or less religious in 1848, no vessel more practical
and libertarian minds of our time. Which today hosts a Paris Add to that would get trapped
in a Phalanstre or barracks? On the other hand remained collectivism that would span
the wage system and collective ownership for the same cart, incomprehensible,
unattractive, full of difficulties in its practical application. And freedom, anarchist
communism only began to emerge, barely dared defy the attacks of the admirers of the
gouvernementalisme. The indecision prevailed in the minds and the Socialists had the
audacity not to throw himself on the destruction of private property, since they had no
well-defined goal. When they dropped lulled to sleep by this reasoning, repeat asleep
sussers centuries, let us first assure us of victory, they will then see what they will do ...
"The Commune was not about to expropriation of the capital nor to the organization of
work ... they do not even broke with the tradition of the state, of the representative system
and sought out the Commune that organization from the simple to the complex to apply,
they introduced by proclaiming the independence and free federation of communes ... the
people of Paris dropped determining when governmental fetishism ... it sent his children to
the town hall to make it there immobile amid the paperwork; for the inspiration that comes
from the constant contact with the masses, they saw themselves condemned to
impotence. Paralyzed they paralyzed in turn the citizens' initiative [269] . It was decided
at this conference to convene a general socialist congress in Ghent by the following year
(1877). This was really together, but the difference between authoritarians and libertarians
accented increasingly sharper, the anarchists always remained in the minority - there
were nine, including Kropotkin, who acted under the name of Levashov - and it was stated
that the principles too much diverged to work together in common. Also had a congress in
Verviers in that year. The Second International was thus destroyed as well as the
first. Marx had completely withdrawn and immersed herself from that time in his economic
studies, whose great work Das Kapital was the fruit.

The congress at Freiburg in 1878 alone had any interest by a statement of Kropotkin and
Elysee Reclus, from which one could see how more and more clarity and definiteness
came into the spirits. They declare themselves revolutionary because progress never took
place through a peaceful evolution, but by a sudden revolution. Beginning preparing ideas
slowly, its the rapid realization place. They declare themselves as international
collectivists, because life without social grouping is impossible. They want one with the
people through the theoretical propaganda and especially by revolts the mind, feelings,
awaken the initiative of the people, in two ways, viz. By the forcible expropriation of the
property and the disorganization of the state. That is why they hope that the Congress will
give its: 1. the collective expropriation of social wealth; 2. for the abolition of the state in all
its forms, even as the central agency of public services. With regard to resources, they
stand for: 1. the theoretical propaganda; 2. the action of revolutionary uprisings, while they
are against universal suffrage, as the votes can not be regarded as a legal principle in a
position to achieve the so-called popular sovereignty.
But the seed sown by the International was not lost, had not fallen on barren field, had not
borne fruit. In several countries they went diligently to organize and when this organization
had reached a certain point, then again the need arose for international connection [270] .

At the end of 1880 the National Council founded the Socialist Party in Belgium an
invitation to the socialists of the whole world to hold a conference in Switzerland, in order
to achieve a closer union. Originally held in Zurich it was banned there, but it met and or
Berne in October 1881. It was decided there not to establish general program, but the
time seemed not yet ripe for the restoration of the International, at least this attempt
remained stand on its own. First under the leadership of the Parliamentary Committee of
the Trades Unions in England a congress of representatives of trade unions held in 1888
in London, where six nations were represented, namely: England, France, Belgium,
Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands. Due to the exceptional situation in Germany and
Austria, which international connections as criminal penalties, these two countries were
not represented at the conference.

Five nations against (England) it was decided to establish a new International on a basis
broad enough to cover the entire proletariat. It was assumed:

1. invite all workers to unite in trade unions and various groups;

2. all trade associations and corporate groups to invite to form with or without the support
of the municipal labor exchanges, which will unite themselves in all matters of importance
of his profession and statistics;

3. organized labor will form to class party against all other political parties on political and
economic basis for mobilization of the working class;

4. each party and each of the nations will form a National Committee and the National
Committees will be in constant interconnection to bring agreement between the workers of
all countries on all issues affecting their interests;

5. An international conference will take place every year in one of the countries belonging
to this organization;

6. at the forthcoming international conference the details will be settled by the

international organization, which connects the national committees of different countries.

This upcoming international conference would be held in Paris in 1889, while the
invitations and arrangements were entrusted to the Fdration des travailleurs socialists
de France, these were the possibilisten Paul Brousse. This took the guesdisten and
Blanquists not satisfied and so it happened that were addressed two calls to hold a
congress. Despite the efforts to achieve unity, done mainly through Belgium and Holland,
came all depends on the reluctance of the guesdisten and so it happened that in the
commemorative year of the French Revolution in Paris two international socialist
conferences came together that the possibilisten, the most numerous, where among other
things beside the French Joffrin and Lavy (now the right hand of Minister Millerand)
present the English were Hyndman, Annie Besant, John Burns, Herbert Burrows and
Fenwick, the Italians Cipriani and Costa, the Belgians Csar De Paepe and Jean Volders
and that which was called by different individuals of the international movement, which
among others were present Liebknecht, Bebel and Vollmar from Germany, Guesde,
Lafargue and Vaillant from France, Morris Cunningham Graham and Eleanor Marx Aveling
with her husband from England, Anseele from Belgium, Domela from the
Netherlands. The issues examined, primarily stretched to the field of the international
labor movement, one sees that there is no fundamental difference existed, but the
differences had given rise among the French Socialists, that two congresses were
held. The anarchist element was heard by the mouth of the Frenchman Montant and
Italian Merlino, while Domela doubted the usefulness of parliamentarism and remembered
how the composition of the word "parliament" (parler et mentir, talking and lying), very the
very thing REFLECT, which provoked a protest from the side of Liebknecht [271] .

In 1891, the second congress was held namely in Brussels. Under the French
representatives seemed to have concluded a kind of truce, at least one little noticed in
Brussels of the contentions of the parties in France. The anarchists were excluded as
such, but there they were admitted, inasmuch as they were representatives of trade
unions, yet the anarchist element was present. At this conference the main course was
the attitude of socialists across militarism. Across the Platonic statement that the
International Socialist Party is the only true peace party and the responsibility of the war
for history and humanity fell to the ruling class, a certificate designed by Liebknecht and
Vaillant, Domela suggested Nieuwenhuis for which the Congress would decide that the
socialists of all countries would respond to a declaration of war by appealing to the people
to military service and a general strike. This gave rise to stinging debates, while the result
of the vote showed that England and France only agreed with the Netherlands and the
majority was satisfied with that general statement.

The third conference was held in Zurich. Thought they kept the anarchists have to say,
"were admitted to the conference all workers 'trade unions, moreover, the socialist parties
and associations, recognized the necessity of the workers' organization and political
action", this proved not to be the case. The anarchists were not against political action,
but understood as not parliamentary action, which was actually meant by that word. Yet
they shut them off, mainly at the instigation of the German official party, which would have
left the Congress to authorize the boy from Berlin. A counter-conference was held in the
evening by the excluded, however, where even today several representatives of the other
congress were that zealously participated in the discussions. Again gave the issue of
militarism, the Netherlands put on the agenda, led to heated discussions. Compared to
the political tactics determined that political action was only a means to obtain the
economic emancipation of the workers and therefore declared the conference: 1. that the
national and international organization of the workers was necessary in trade unions and
other organizations; 2. that political action is needed, both for the purpose of agitation and
onbewimpelde proclamation of the principles of socialism, as well as for the purpose to
provide the urgently needed reforms. Therefore, the Congress recommends that the
workers of all countries, the conquest and exercise of political rights, which if necessary
occur to make the demands of the workers in all legislative and administrative bodies in
the most emphatic and most effective method applicable, furthermore, to take possession
of political power resources, this which now means the domination of capital are to be
converted into tools for the liberation of the proletariat; 3. that the choice of forms and
methods of economic and political struggle should be left to the nationalities themselves
according to circumstances, but the congress declares it necessary: that the revolutionary
goal of the socialist movement remains in the foreground and in no case may serve for
compromises and alliances, which would cause a disadvantage for our principles or our
independence political action as a pretext. It declared itself for the proportional vote, the
right of initiative and referendum of the people [272] . All indications are that the break
with whole and half anarchism was dead, although it had held at the end of the congress
to the authoritarian socialism solemnly do distribute the blessings brought by the old
Friedrich Engels, as an apotheosis on the scene needed .

The fourth congress in London in 1896 continued the work in that direction. Yet once was
waged the struggle between anarchism and social democracy, but ended with the defeat
of the anarchists after two speakers: Jaurs and Hyndman before and two others: Tom
Mann and Domela against the exclusion of the anarchists had spoken. The latter said
clearly: "You speak from square and you will not suffer more from us, but you can not hide
behind ambiguous formulas. If you say that only take the proponents of parliamentary
action part in the conference, then you will not see in the midst of us, and you can now
keep your conferences without disorder ". How to do was to keep the anarchists,
according to a proposal which had wanted to do the parliamentarians to London and had
also been formulated, although they have dared to bring it at the eleventh hour not on the
table and that said: "The anarchists and their allies, even if they call themselves anti-
parliamentary communists, can not take part in this conference, to which organization
they belong. "It was signed among others by Bebel, Liebknecht and Singer Germany,
Adler and Kautsky Austria, Greulich and Brandt for Switzerland , Troelstra and Kol for
Netherlands, Sanial for America, Branting of Sweden, Plekhanov Russia, Bertrand
Belgium. One of the French delegates, Eugne Gurard, to whose brochure about the
conference in London we derive this peculiarity, therefore rightly wrote that at that
conference in conflict even subordinated to the teachings of Karl Marx, the economic
action on the political the opposite therefore of what was written in the statutes of the old
International.

The separation is a fait accompli and in 1900 were also convened two conferences in
Paris, the International Revolutionary Congress, where free socialists and anarchists meet
and the International Socialist Congress, which was intended for the
parliamentarians. Already immediately revealed itself which of them was held for the most
dangerous by the government, because the French republican government, radical and
by the presence of Millerand in the ministry somewhat social-democratic oriented, the first
congress banned as falling under the "lois sclrates" of 1894, at the time as an MP
vehemently opposed by Millerand, but now used by him against the hated anarchists. The
other could gather peacefully, at least on the part of government, although internally
harassed since the two factions of the French Socialists, called guesdisten and supporters
of Millerand-Jaurs, nipping faced each other. While the reports of the first congress, in
print appeared in the Temps Nouveaux , demonstrate how socialism there was rife and it
worked for laying new foundations for another airline, emerged from the debates of the
second, how the soul of parliamentarians houses somewhere else than in socialism. One
that has made an attempt to restore the old International, which was now called by the
younger generation "dream bold, big-hearted men who had their time far ahead with their
ideas and uitstrooiden seed among the masses, from which contemporary International
has grown up "- Marx also been reckoned among the dreamers, soon among the
utopians; so everyone gets a turn! - The creation of a sustainable, international central
committee consisting of a representative of all the conference participating
countries. Brussels was elevated to the seat of the International Secretariat.

But the main course was a social democrat or be part of a bourgeois ministry and how
you can enter into alliances with bourgeois parties. Resolution Kautsky called not bad of
rubber by Ferri Italian - a pun seems to have been this to be: the German word Kautschuk
and name Kautsky - assumed that with so many "ifs" and "buts" were interlaced that she
deftly between the difficulties sailed by without saying where it stood. Was on the one
hand declared that "the conquest of governmental power levels where it is centralized, not
part way can take place and the entry of a single socialist in a bourgeois ministry can not
be regarded as the normal beginning of the conquest of political power, but still only
transient relief may exceptionally be forced state, "the other one, said the decision or
forced state, or is not present, a question of tactics and not of principle. Juggling "tactics"
against which one should, and "principle" in which all one must be different, (Liebknecht
screened continue with it), which always reminds us to "demonstrate" and "semblance" of
Minister lived in Multatuli's frost School , is one of the characteristics of all
conferences. Very witty was fighting that resolution by Ferri, where it said that the
bourgeoisie according to the development of socialism different methods applied to
combat. The infant socialism is slandered and mocked the child continues with
reactionary measures, the youth it tries to hypnotize and to divert from the path of
virtue. She is like a mother who likes marries her daughter. The daughter is nicely
decorated, it makes advances and as the young man is trapped by its allowance, it is a
tame, tamed, unfortunate husband. He further said that the Kautsky resolution was
composed of "if" and "but", it had its loopholes. By her is sometimes closed the door for
the return of a case Millerand, but the window is open. The principle is written on a
placard and saved, but in practice it is all permissible. Thus one speaks of a "dangerous"
experiment, but they will say: we have such strong guys, that we dare it anyway! The
resolution recommends a bourgeois tactic with socialist principles to. We thus arrive at an
ugly slope. There is no distinction between tactics and principles. The practice is only
applied theory and theory nothing more than a general practice. However, all this did not
help. The logic being beaten temporarily for the alleged party interests, if such a victory
over the logic is not revenge at any time! By 29 votes against 9 of the rubber Kautsky
resolution was adopted, which results led to stormy scenes. The guesdisten cried: A
Chalons (where striking workers were shot by the gendarmes) and Les bons
ministriels! (Those brave ministerilen!)

The entire conference was devoid of socialist character and in no way distinguished itself
from an ordinary radical. Moreover, the interest that drew that of 1889, was far to find in
the press. With platonic statements it does not bring old society at tombs and since
everything must be decided by the parliaments and killed a large part of the proletariat
declared himself immaturity and again - this time from our own election! - Placed under
guardianship. They are the "lucky ones" - this word Lafargue is very well chosen - ie the
people who have come or will come, which predominate in the camp of the international
social democratic proletariat. Several Social Democrats are therefore already under roof
by Minister Millerand as Lavy who is his secretary, Jaures who became a member of the
Supreme Labour Council and many others. Incidentally, it is quite understandable that
everyone who to go has the power laps - and consists in the great power of Ministers -
rather relations indicates nephews, friends and friends of friends or completely unknown
persons to him unless he sees again advantage therein to strengthening of its position,
and instead of them about to fall hard, we must honestly admit that we would do the same
thing in the same case. Would it therefore affect the evil in the heart artery, it deprived
ministers the power to appoint people to all kinds of relations. This is the only means that
can bring improvement and curb imposes on all kinds of corruption.

We have seen how the air is gradually purified and how the disappearance of all the
opposition intermediaries more and become sharper: social democracy either anarchy, or
rather social anarchy. Also, one could make the opposition is socialism either free
socialism , as the ones the conquest and seizure of state power, the bottom line is, while
others just work for the elimination or abolition of the state. How could both go together,
as both target runs so completely opposite direction? The known Blanquist socialist
Edouard Vaillant described the action as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and although
it was perhaps imprudent to say this openly, yet it is a fact that this idea is alive in the soul
of the Social Democrats.

Jaures has said that the essence of socialism politics and Rouanet described socialism as
the conquest of public power. So this is no longer the agent in order to attain the goal, but
has itself become target. Incidentally, we have in this respect are not the expressions of
this or that author, which are denied by others, we have an official statement from an
official congress and therefore the decision of the Social Democracy as a whole. At the
congress in London yet been adopted in 1896, that "the conquest of political power is the
means par excellence, so that the workers can achieve their liberation, the liberation of
man and citizen, allowing them to international socialist republic settle "In that respect, the
English fabians are the fairest, saying frankly:". socialism, advocated by the Association of
Fabians, only state socialism. The difficulty is not in England to ensure more political
power to the people, but to convince the people to make better use of the power that it
has already "When the English magazine, the. Clarion testifies:" Development of a true
democracy - that is, I am sure, the most urgent and fundamental task that lies ahead. That
is the doctrine that our ten-year socialist campaign has taught us. That is the doctrine
which is the result of all my experience and knowledge of political things. Before socialism
can be possible, we must form a nation of democrats ", then Bernstein agrees [273] and
is one of the latter a step further, to change the name and call it a" democratic socialist
reform party " one will have first made the separation, which has already taken place in
reality. Democracy is the legitimate heir of liberalism and, according to Bernstein "no
liberal idea that not even belong to the circle of ideas of socialism." Social democracy is a
common reform party on the basis of existing society in the distance the objective
socialization of work as well as the faithful places Millennium in the distant future.

While the Social Democrats individual blends into the community, and that all the
individual is nothing, the anarchists start from the individual, to achieve a society not of
slaves but of free individuals. Who kills the individual, destroys the best, the noblest, the
highest in man only by his individuality given the right to call themselves human. Man to
make "someone" - that was the goal, and where all the one driven by mutual interests into
community, as they will form a partnership and there are some who do not feel
comfortable in it, and their remains right given individual to live. With Stuart Mill we agree,
where it says that that form of society belongs to the future, which is the most possible
individual freedom guarantees to all.

_______________
[264] Workers' Union, demanding the right to work and the organization of work.
[265] It has been claimed that Marx here distorted words of Gladstone and in any case it
is true that he has cited incomplete so does not distort the words, but had instead of the
sentence. Indeed, the writer to whom Marx borrowed the words of Gladstone, did say:
"This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is Entirely confined to classes of
property" (This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is entirely in favor of the
propertied class), but Gladstone let them follow: "Now the augmentation of capital is of
indirect benefit to the laborer because etc." (Now the increase of capital is indirectly
beneficial for the workers because etc.) and these words had gone Marx. In the same
speech Gladstone include even said: "The average condition of the British laborer, we
have the happiness to know, was improved during the last 20 years into a degree-which
we know to be extraordinary and we-which May almost pronounce to be unexampled in
the history of any country and of any age. "(the average condition of the British laborer, we
are fortunate to observe this was during the last 20 years increased to an extent that we
are exceptionally allowed to be called and of which we can say that they unexampled in
the history of any country and of any age). From the entire argument can so clearly see
that Gladstone certainly did not mean, as Marx put it in the mouth, viz., That the increase
only benefited the propertied classes. See Brentano, which addresses this issue in detail
and the answer of English.
[266] That the economic emancipation of the workers is the great goal that must be
subordinated any political movement.
[267] Thus, called the epistles (Epistolae Decretales) of the Bishop of Rome, which
formed a part of the canon law.
[268] The minority who voted against, consisted of four Spaniards, five Belgians, two
Jurassiens, two Dutch and one American.
[269] Kropotkin, Paroles d'un Revolte and they compare, also especially his study of the
revolution.
[270] Compare, especially the Memoirs of a Revolutionary by Kropotkin and the
description he gives of the Jurofederatie there.
[271] From that time dates the resentment of Liebknecht against Domela. The criticism
yet of law for Allen liked especially the Germans not yet recognized the British
magazine Commonweal 17 Jul. 1889, that 'the report on the Paris conference, made
public by law for Allen on Aug 4., The purest report was that we saw at any social
democratic body and the many blunders that were committed, denounced ". The Belgian
magazine Le Peuple acknowledged that "the pettiness and narrow-mindedness of some
people have shipwrecked the amalgamation of the workers' organizations." This has
never forgive DN and indene IRA (hence the wrath) of the German leaders against our
person.
[272] And that despite the spiritual adviser of the German social democracy, Karl Kautsky,
have recently been in a brochure: Der Parlementarismus that Volksgesetzgebung und die
Sozialdemokratie had argued that "folk law for us, Eastern Europe, belongs to the
inventory of the future state. "One can see how Germany despite himself was pushed
forward to now to explain these things. This was done under the indirect influence of
anarchism, without which the German Social Democracy undoubtedly much sooner and
deeper had slid down.
[273] Compare his much controversial pamphlet Die Voraussetzungen of
Sozialdemocratie .

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 21

Nihilism in Russia

Russia, with its immense territory and its Slavic population is a world in itself and the
movement there has nominated such a peculiar character, which may be considered
necessary individual treatment. In the Western European countries - England, France,
Belgium, Netherlands - absolutism polled by constitutional forms, as one goes further
east, one finds absolutism still in its power. Thus Prussia is a best transition to come to
Russia and Boruasia (Prussia) shows much agreement with Russia (Russia). The dynasty
of the Hohenzollern and the Romanovs exhibit absolutist tendencies, the biggest draw of
the agreement and slavish nature, cultivated by absolutism, belongs equally oddly at
home in Germany and in Russia. That once the impact will be from Russia, which is
difficult to determine, but it should certainly be considered, it is a country of the future and
that "only after the 19th century Russia will have its full development and influence." Said
Napoleon I agree that the world, or rather Europe at the end of this century republican or
Cossack will be, this prediction becomes more and more true, but sad it is that the world,
despite all the cries of progress itself earlier in the Cossack direction than in which
develops from the Republic, so that Kozakkendom even let feel its influence in the
republic. But if one of the names of Alexander Herzen, Turgenev, Bakunin,
Tchernichevsky, Stepniak (Kravchinsky), Kropotkin and Tolstoy calls and the influence
verifies exerted by them on the whole mental development of the last half of the 19th
century, not only in their country but also on the whole world, one sees that there in that
size Russian forces lurking interest, suggesting that that eastern anything other than
barbarism will go westward.

To understand Russia properly, one must take into account its collectivist commune, the
mir in the country, and the artel industrial sites, both the seeds of a system of community-
containing and the demand will be whether Russia will have the same development
through as the Western countries, as Marx and Engels assert, or whether one of those
original forms that were still preserved there, can not the new ideas grafting, so as to
arrive at a satisfactory solution. As Herzen found in the Russian country town with
communal land ownership, with an elected government and with equal right of each
member the key to the solution of the social question, the saving principle that underlies
must serve as the transformation of society. The artel is a free professional association,
adopt jointly work to earn jointly. It was the Italian statesman Cavour, which must have
once said to a Russian diplomat: "What will make your land later master of Europe, which
are not your armies, but that's your communal system."

Many consider Herzen (1812-1871) as the father of nihilism, but this is not the case,
one would rather it be called a precursor of nihilism. Undeniably he has had an amazing
influence on his countrymen and his leaf Bell found despite all measures of customs and
police large spread in Russia. Most universities were under his influence, and one can
safely say that youth in those days was mainly raised by Herzen, eg. Clear from
the Memoirs of Kropotkin. When they spoke also of herzenisten and not nihilists. But
Herzen was also not on the position originally occupied by him, he deteriorated and move
forward, with the result that he gradually her estranged and although it was later saluting
Herzen as the veteran of the party, it was going to be own way, so it was actually passed
over him. There was a time when he wrote: "We do not build, we abort. We announce no
new revelations to, we remove the old lie. Modern man, a sad Pontifex Maximus, will only
fix the bridge, a future unknown others will go about it ... do not keep us to the old
bank. The world in which we live, dies and their successors have her, they want to create
free breath, buried first; Instead, try the modern people to heal her and slow her
death. The people are so hard to come to their present way of being, it seems to them
such a happy refuge after the folly of feudalism and the stupid repression that followed,
they were afraid of change. They are accustomed to forming the habit has taken the place
of love, the horizon has become narrower, reduced the flight of thought, the will is
weakened. Old world ringing in the new one should take nothing with them. Long live the
chaos, devastation, place for the future. "

This nihilistic sound enough and those who read such statements will can not imagine
that Herzen was an opponent of nihilism, which he later testified: "Nihilism is logic without
order, science without dogma, unconditional submission to the experience and undeniable
adoption of all the consequences, which are demanded by the mind, because they follow
from the assumed paramount way of consideration. Nihilism does not change a bit in a
Nothing, but it discovers that nothing that was held for a little, is a delusion. "

Over the years, the fearsome anarchist was just an evolutionary socialist. But another
knew better to take the heart of the Russian youth, which was Tchernichevsky (1829-
1889), by dr. Csar De Paepe called a "very meritorious economist" and Marx "the
learned and excellent critic."

However, pre-check a single statement about the word nihilist. It is derived from zero,
nothing, and would mean an advocate of nothingness, which is pretty much nonsense. It
was the novelist Turgenev, who in his novel Fathers and Sons the first time used the
name of nihilists. Kropotkin said that: "The name was not chosen badly at all, because he
expresses an idea: it expresses the negation of the whole of the facts of modern
civilization, founded on the oppression of one class by another, the denial of the existing
economic system, the denial of the gouvernementalisme and the power of the bourgeois
politics of the official science, of bourgeois morality, of service in the service of vampires,
the habits and grand or odious use of hypocrisy, the legacy of past centuries to
contemporary society - in short, the denial of all that bourgeois civilization now surrounded
with veneration ".

Among the nihilists, however, one can find very different components, for absolutism in
Russia makes it necessary for everyone who makes opposition to rally under the banner
of nihilism. One finds among them also liberals who would be happy if Russia a
constitutional empire was in the manner of Western countries, but also the most violent
anarchists.

When the heavy hand of Emperor Nicholas I no longer rush to the Russian people,
there was a sense of relief and they cherished the hope that his successor Emperor
Alexander II would open a period of reform. Were hitherto freely dreams suppressed with
violence, such as the conspiracy of the decabristen in December 1825 (to which month
they obtained their name), which ended with the execution of the main participants, as the
conspiracy in March 1848, which took a similar course - among the participants belonged
to the famous writer Dostoyevsky, who suffer in Siberia so heart touching managed to
draw - it was hoped for better times and Alexander Herzen thought that would come a
new and better period with the new emperor. Also Tchernichevsky initially had high
expectations of the emperor, but gradually he realized that all these might want myself
well, he was so entangled in the net of nobility and clergy, he had to do what it prescribed
to him. The so-called peasant mobilization Tchernichevsky soon turned out to be only
apparent, and instead of the emperor set his hopes on the farmers themselves, to fight
freely through uprisings. His articles in the journal The Contemporary , witness of many
acumen and impartiality, exerted much influence. They think of his criticism of John Stuart
Mill, Malthus and others. Soon he was considered one of the leaders, especially from the
academic youth and therefore he had to be above all harmless. In 1862 he was arrested
in the notorious Peter and Paul citadel he was sighing two years, before being transported
to Siberia, where he did not return. During his preventive detention, he produced a
book: Que faire? (What to do?), It made an astounding rise in Russia. He chose the form
of the novel, and although he there appeared to be no master, it was to make him more to
the ideas that he developed, than the form in which they were cast. Essentially it was the
issue of marriage, and he wished to propose three conditions the society of men and
women, namely: individual rooms for two, received after entering together leave and one
abstention to do other kinds of questions. So he thought he could maintain the
independence of women and to implement the principle of equal rights for men and
women. He also discusses it productive association, which according to him have
common cohabitation and mutual development. It shows what an impression the ideas
had made Fourier him. In one of his people, he draws the new man of serving love, a type
of foolish people in the eyes of the world, but for him the yeast of life, without which the
world would stultify and wither. Of course Tchernichevsky was lost and this man so
promising was also a victim of absolutism. Rightly is his testimony that he proved three
major services to Russia, namely: he managed to give rise to the belles lettres, the arts in
general, he brought clarity in the economic field and he exercised influence on the social
position woman.
 Believed Alexander II with the removal of Tchernichevsky have slain socialism in
Russia, the opposite soon proved to be the case. It does not kill ideas by incarcerate their
carriers, to exile or kill. While the mighty monarch dropped in the esteem of all right-
minded, progressive people, the simple Tchernichevsky rose to the rank of a saint.

Already experienced the revolutionary movement in Russia the influence of the ideas of
Western Europe, so far they had, so to speak, the domestic flow, two other men of
meaning Michael Bakunin and Peter Lavrov spent an international current. First as
founder and promoter of the anarchist federalist or international, the second as a
philosopher and political writer. About Bakunin, we have already spoken at length, but as
the place to be designated by the general beloved "father" of the Russian colony, Peter
Lavrov [274] , who died in Paris in 1899. Born in 1823, he was 19 years old officer and
two years later professor of mathematics at the artillery school. Through its active
participation in political life, he was arrested in 1866 and exiled to prove despite the
complete lack. In his exile he wrote his Historical Letters, which exerted such a profound
influence on Russian youth. He succeeded to escape in 1870 and included in the
scientific world by prof. Broca, who had make him part of the Revue d'Anthropologie , and
ushered in the socialist world by Varlin, he divided henceforth his life between his
scientific studies and the revolutionary movement. Lavrov was federalist, but he saw
many advantages in centralizing absent. This point of view he represents in the
journal Vperiod (Forward), which he published in 1873 in Zurich and later lived in London,
where he lived until 1876 to return to Paris that year. Against the influence of Tolstoy and
his passive resistance he came on as a "historic immorality" with all the energy. From
1892-96 he worked on the publication of the material for the history of the revolutionary
socialist movement , probably the most complete work over that period, which he dubbed
with the name of "spring of the movement." Although both (Bakunin and Lavrov) rather
diverged since the first was a passionate defender of the extreme party and the second
leaned more to moderate ideas, both of them were in this together, that was the only way
the revolution in Russia to profound change. What in Russia a peculiar characteristic of
the movement is this that almost all the participants in the drama of the revolutionary
movement among the upper classes of society. Think of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Lavrov
Sophia Perovakaja and many others. And a second point of interest is the strong
participation of young women in the movement, which is probably due to the fact that so
many were expelled the country for lack of universities, where access to her was opened
to study mainly in Zurich which the seminary city was of revolutionary propaganda. Secret
societies were formed. To reach the people and make propaganda, were different
persons, both men and women, working in factories or in the fields, doing away from the
comforts of life and the bread of poverty, sharing with the workers. There is an enthusiasm
in those days, developed a commitment unprecedented in history, so it can not surprise
could be summed impressed during the so-called trial of fifty in 1877, saying that his
saints!

Among the numerous societies at universities there were two who got the most
influence, which was the Lavristy who called for Lavrov and more peaceful working and
the other Tchaykovsky, also named after the leader, a student in 1873 to America was and
now lives in exile in England. In the latter association prevailed more the spirit of
Bakunin. Among the members included the then 30-year Prince Kropotkin, the youthful
Perovskaja Sophia, who was hanged in 1881, Serge Kravchinsky, better known as
Stepniak, and others.

Already in 1866, an attack took place on the tsar by Karakosov, a young man of noble
birth who was sickly, but the effect was wrong, just increased the popularity of the
emperor by the attack. In 1871 the conspiracy of Netchajev followed, which was
discovered and meant that 87 people stood trial. The emperor threw himself more and
more into the arms of reaction. A few years later, did the trial of fifty place (1877), on
which occasion a valor bestowed, which borders on the unbelievable. Among the
defendants were 16 women, including the noble Sophia Bardina, whose defense in court
was a real propaganda speech. The last session of this sensational trial, above all, wore a
tragic character. The vast majority accused had any defense denied officially, but in the
last session Tsitsianov made use of the right to have the last word. Hardly had he begun
his plea if he got up blood and fell unconscious to the ground. The two-year preventive
detention had broken him. Thkoidz spoke to him, but the same scene repeated
itself. he was consumptive. Then there was a farmer from Smolensk, Peter Alexjev, who
subdued the whole society with its uitzuigstelsel in a beautiful speech to a sharp
criticism. Does it state that he could not complete his speech, but on the orders of the
judges was forcibly dragged away by the gendarmes? Exile to Siberia was the verdict.

The sample process 193 in the following year made a similar statement. One thing
forgot the Government, viz. The terrible propaganda that was made by these processes,
and all she received formal victory as they held the power, everyone felt that she suffered
moral defeat. In 3 years were captured over 1400 agitators and 37 provinces were
according to a report from the Minister to the Tsar "affected by the socialist epidemic". In
his writings , the subterranean Russia Stepniak marks the emergence of the terrorist. Was
the propaganda in the first period in character more religious than revolutionary, the grim
reality gave a strong impetus to the enthusiasm and belief in socialism. After the first
unsuccessful attempts, he no longer hoped for victory and he wanted more than the
crown of thorns to the laurel. He underwent martyrdom with resignation and the severity of
the Christians of the first centuries, he was completely love and nobody could hate, not
even his executioners. That was the period of 1872-75.

1875 date their first associations, called Buntari (furious) to Kiev, Odessa and Kharkov,
whose goal was to organize an immediate insurrection. Hence demonstrations at every
opportunity, but it availed nothing, the were small tools revolutionaries and that big
government. It is perceived that the only result was the sacrifice of the best youthful
forces. Since 1878, no demonstrations were therefore more space.

The shot of Vera Saesulitch (February 1878), no terrorist, on General Trepov who had
distinguished by the abuse of the student Bogoljubov in prison, and her acquittal by the
jury, made a deep impression. That act gave a powerful impetus to terrorism. Powerless
as it was the government flinkweg tackle from the front and to harass, it was understood
that was the only means to attack her in the back. On August 16, 1878 the hated chief of
the gendarmerie, was General Mesentzev, slain by Stepniak and since that time were
many attacks on each other.
 Heyking colonel, chief of the gendarmerie in Kiev, Prince Alexis Kropotkin (nephew of
the anarchist), governor of Kharkov and others fell, General Drenteln yet escaped the
danger, widely prevailed fear and trembling. It had become the battle of eye for eye, tooth
for tooth. The government hanged the liberty men used this dagger and pistol to avenge
themselves and their friends. It was not legal, but still a legitimate resistance.

Hear how Stepniak Terrorist notes: "stout as Satan, who rebels against his god, he has
made a will against that of the man who in the midst of a slave nation the exclusive right"
to "has usurped. But how different is this earthly god of the Jehovah of Moses! How he
couched under the bold strokes of the terrorist! How hides himself, how he trembles! It's
true: he is still on his feet, because the invisible hand swung by lightning often fog, but
when he finds, he kills. But the terrorist is immortal, the refresh him wrested members
miraculously itself and he is exalted, willingness to new fight until he has put his adversary
to death and therefore his country to freedom. And already he sees him stagger, lose the
head, take the most absurd decisions, which can only hasten his downfall. It is this
consuming battle, this grand mission, this certainty of victory to be achieved before long,
conferring cold and calculating enthusiasm, and he brings surprise the world. When he
was given a character by nature, which is capable of lofty flight, there will be a hero out of
him; He has a hard character, then this is where iron and iron, he will equal the diamond
will be invincible. "

He sees in the terrorist "type of individual power that brooks no bondage." As he fights
for the people he is fighting for himself, he has vowed to be free and if he dedicates his
strong arm to the cause of the people, he worships it anymore.

The government felt all the severity of the battle, as evidenced by the proclamation of
Alexander II to the entire Russian society, to combat Kramola (revolutionary
bands). Especially the secret society Land and Liberty (Semlja i Volya) was
prosecuted. They founded the fight now against the emperor himself. On April 2, 1879
resolved the 30-year-old teacher Solovjev five shots at the Emperor, who saw none of
them. The empire was now divided into six districts, in each of which a governor-general
was appointed, who got the most unlimited power. The revolutionaries formed an
executive administration, the executive committee, the former serf, Andreas Scheljabov,
constituted the soul and beside whom Sophia Perovskaya worked [275] . The committee
condemned the August 26, 1879, the emperor to death, and they gave him this
message. It was a struggle of life and death. In November 1879 an attack was
implemented on the train, where the emperor would sit, but he failed in that preceded
another train that was thrown and shattered the track. Scheljabov and Sophia Perovskaya
had laid the mine itself, but knew when to escape the persecution. On February 5, 1880
followed the attack on the Winter Palace of the emperor to Petersburg, but again it was a
trifle, who did all fail. Stopped by visiting foreign princes, the emperor arrived too late to
the table and so he escaped the blast, which tore apart walls and halls. But the third time
he escaped. Scheljabov was in charge of this attack, but two days before he was captured
by an unfortunate coincidence, so he could not fulfill his last duty. This task was entrusted
to Sophia Perovskaya, who found the same life with him and three others. After 10 days
after the attack she was arrested. On March 1, 1881 Parade coming, the emperor in his
carriage drove past the first post, when a bomb exploded, but do not hit him. Then he
went to the scene of the accident, had a second blast site, who struck goal but also killed
the thrower (Grinevizki). Scheljabov, Michailov, Kibaltchick, Ryssakov, who had thrown the
first bomb, and Sophia Perovskaya were hanged on 3 (15) April following, while Jesse
Helfmann received mercy because she was in pregnant state, ie it was not slain but in
prison stopped where she died a year later. Sophia asked the judges not to pay attention
still on her sex and thus be allowed to die with her friends. Submitting a request for
clemency that her defender for her as of nobility up, she pointed to the hand with the
words: "I will do more good by my death to the holy cause of Russia's liberation than as
my life is given." the execution of the death sentence was terrible, the unfortunates were
more strangled then hanged so that the correspondent of the Klnische Zeitung testified:
"I've been in the east witnessed many executions, but such I have never experienced,"
and Sophia declared this "Sophia Perovskaya showed a miraculous steadfastness; They
even had light red colored cheeks, her face was always serious, without any expression of
splurge, but full of real courage and unexampled devotion. "It was Sophia Perovskaya
standing Turgenev to mind when he is on the threshold wrote. The executive committee
wrote to the new tsar, in which the situation was explained clearly put and were also listed
the conditions which must be fulfilled in order to terminate the revolutionary
movement. How moderate moreover that were conditions, one can see that piece. They
were: 1. a general amnesty for all those who have been convicted so far for political
crimes; 2. Election of representatives of the whole people is to examine the best forms of
social and political life, according to the wishes and needs of the people. Then the
elections were to take place under the following conditions: 1. The delegates are selected
indiscriminately from all classes and classes of society and in proportion to the number of
inhabitants; 2. voters and delegates impose any restrictions or limitations; 3. elections and
electoral propaganda will be completely free. To this end, the government will allow the
meeting of the people's position as an interim measure: a perfect freedom of the
word. b. complete freedom of the press; c. complete freedom of assembly; d. complete
freedom to choose programs.

The Executive (Executive) Committee ends by saying: "We declare solemnly to the
nation and the whole world that our party unreservedly will submit to the National
Assembly, if it be justified by the relevant conditions are met, and that they will not afford
that one is legitimate, will oppose the government, through the national assembly. "

So in other words, give us a constitutional form of government with the necessary

guarantees, as it has in Western European countries and we will discontinue our
propaganda.

No one can argue that these conditions were demanding, and they do not know what to
wonder more: about the blindness of the government, which refuses to accept such
conditions or the sobriety of a revolutionary party that declares itself satisfied with such
meager harvest . But - who want to destroy the gods that they strike first with blindness.

These conditions were made at 10 (23) in March 1881 and reiterated in the latest issue
of the Narodnaya Volya (March 1882).
 But the government's response consisted of new executions thousandfold exiles to
Siberia, many seams violence against the press and each somewhat liberal bent. But the
culmination of the movement was reached, a movement can not remain at such a height
and did all the nihilism later repeatedly presence felt, there was still no more operation as
before 1881.

Among the revolutionary figures, whose Stepniak drew the portrait come for Jacob
Stephanovitsch, Demetrius Clemens (Steblin Samenski), Valerian Ossinsky, Peter
Kropotkin, Demetrius Lisogub Vera Sassulitch Sophie Perovskaya. And if one reads these
short biographies, one feels respect for such conviction and dedication, as exhibited by
them, then even if one disapproves of their actions and regrets that so much sacrifice was
lost for so little result.

The magazine Zemlia i Volia (Land and Freedom) protested against the systematic
terrorism and said that on the day when the freedom and security are safeguarded
against arbitrariness, will stop the terrorist regime, because "it is by this means that we will
come until the liberation of the proletariat. One class can only revolt against the other and
the people can destroy the system which it is crushed. "

The Social Democracy got more control over the movement and one sees former
revolutionaries like Axelrod, Vera Sassulitch and especially Plekhanov work diligently to
bring the movement under the care of the Marxists. Yet in addition, one sees the other, the
anarchist movement, which has enough adherents in Russia. One should not forget that
even in the good times two major directions were found among the revolutionaries; One
was that of the federalist-minded socialists Narodniks, the old men of Land and Liberty,
which mainly placed the distribution of lands to their program as essential. They were also
called the men of the "Black Division," below ground and meaning to the title of the
magazine, which they issued since January 1880 (Tchorniy Peredel). The other was
formed by basically saying terrorists who were given the names of the men of the
People's Will (Narodnaya Volya). But both parties compromised and was composed of
both the Executive Committee, of which we already spoke.

The strength of the nihilist movement was broken, since many of the most energetic
and most ardent men and women were hanged and others their lives broken saw in the
Siberian exile, which the American writer George Kennan such has written an informative
book: Life and sufferings of the exiles in Siberia . It was also a few managed to escape
abroad, such as Bakunin, Kropotkin, Stepniak, Lavrov Tcherkesov and others who live
partly in London, partly in Paris lived as Lavrov.

Lately evidence the attacks against two ministers, both of whom were slain, the various
attacks on the police chief, General Trepov, the various studentenoproeren and the
awakening of vigorous life among the workers and peasants, reviving the return of the
more revolutionary nihilist movement.

But the description of the Russian movement would not be complete if we did not
mention a man who, although others still working spirit also worked to undermine
authority. We mean Count Leo Tolstoy, who says not revolutionary to want to work by
making violence against violence, but whose passive resistance, revealing itself in
refusing military service, tax payment, oath, etc. In a word all the things that contacting the
man with the state, yet equally revolutionary works, albeit in another form.

Born in 1828, he also belonged to the most distinguished families of Russia. After living
fully enjoyed to have it, he came to himself and formed a serious view of life on the basis
of the Sermon on the Mount. That he was not informed of so many nihilists fate by being
exiled to Siberia, is only due to the fact that one does not dare him behave as he is by the
sympathy of thousands, especially in England, where his literary works stand tall
touted. Living on his estate Yasnaya Polyana, he made a lot of labor, including labor, is
simple in every way and by its surroundings as a kind of saint. Finally, the Russian Holy
Synod the anathema pronounced on him as an apostate (1901), but nonetheless he
remains quiet life on his estate, although staying in Moscow should be denied. Although
old in years, he reveals a great fertility of mind by the numerous works he still spends in
many areas. We have previously reported a lot about him and so can meet with this brief
mention, but thought his name was not unnoticed be allowed to leave this place, where
we briefly discuss the Russian movement. The main thing is for him that any reform must
start from the inner self of man and the rule of life is shown in the words, "I am among you
as one that serves" (Lk. 22: 27 ) and thus the principle of serving love must be made
according to him the principle of life. [276]

_______________
[274] Compare: Historic Briefe von Peter Lavrov aus dein Russian bersetzt von S.
Dawidow mit einer Einleitung von Dr. Rappoport. (The name spelling is different from that
of Kropotkin, but repeatedly exists big difference in the spelling of Russian names.
[275] portraits Schelbajov and Sophia Perovskaya are less successful, but this should be
the only ones of their existence is understood that it is not very safe in countries such as
Russia, to let create portraits of themselves.. [not included Pictures - MIA] .
[276] for more details see Chapter 1, Christian anarchism.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 22

Modern state novels

After the Journey to Ikari of Cabet and the foundation of the colony under the plan was
heard in quite some time nothing of such books, until at last the century both the need for
such tangible form a community and the desire to experimentation with new vigor
awoke. Especially the Anglo-Saxon race does not like speculation, but would prefer a vivid
manner the transit feasibility of a plan established. Practical as it is, wants to take the
tests and see, to judge afterwards.

In 1887 in America published a booklet Looking backward, 2000-1887 , translated into

Dutch with the title in 2000 [277] that would make an unprecedented rise. In a relatively
short time were sold 300,000 copies, and how great is now the number is, it is difficult to
estimated, although it is known that far exceeds half a million. The writer Bellamy (1850-
1899) was within a short time the most famous writer of his time, men like Marx and
Engels immediately put in the shade. Which was due to amazing ascent?

Bellamy tells us himself that he previously very few have dealt with the philosophy of
the class distinctions in our society or sociology and economics, too, that he had never
thought of in the social field to act as a reformer. As a writer, he was working on a novel of
social life, the act took place in the distant future. In it, the production and distribution of
goods played a subordinate role. There he is now a picture of the future economic
conditions was no basis in the present, something new had to be made and now he came
upon the idea of using a military organization to regulate the whole mode of production
and distribution and the whole society in which military footing. So he put his novel
together, which fell particularly in the mind of the public. So this sensation novel owes its
existence to a happy and instantaneous invasion is by no means the thoughtful work of
someone who loved seriously concerned with the future forms of society. In Liberty Tucker
one could at the time read: "It has probably heard of the crazy book Looking backward , it
read by about 1 million people, with many of whom Edward Bellamy, the writer, is
regarded as a kind of messiah and his book the bible of socialism. The rise of this book is
one of the greatest follies that have ever existed. Assuming it could be proved that Mr
Bellamy wrote this book as a satire on socialism and the completed manuscript is suitable
for the pressure has been released to Mr. Harper and Son and that the company, although
the script is not entirely rejecting , nevertheless refused to give it, when the satire not
given less exaggerated and there is a greater probability was granted, assuming that this
is a fact - and it will be published everywhere - then not only a man made impossible who
now poses as a socialist, but to thousands of weak-minded but well-meaning people
might therefore would benefit long and less spiritual walks and this country will be spared
a bitter authoritarian socialist experience. Personally, I can not vouch for the accuracy of
the accusation, but I can say that I got my knowledge I doubt any member of the firm
Harper and Son and by three persons, whose credibility I have no reason. Is this
representation of the matter entirely incorrect, it must be denied; it is partially incorrect,
they should improved, but it is correct, then it is high time that the people this will be
informed. "

In any case we are not dealing with a scientific man and can therefore show no record
seriously, much less lift his book to the gospel of socialism. It is a novel transient and it is
already now after more than 10 years many have not known than by name. And that's
fortunate, because as a socialist society should take the form of compulsion therein
advocated state socialism, then it looks unhappy with the progress of the human race
out. A society of well-fed state slaves without initiative and without will, no one can
consider an uplifting future.

The performance of the writer is this: certain Julius West, a rentier who have little or no
heed to what is going on in the world, wants to get married but is thwarted in his plans by
a strike, so his new house is not finished . This angry he went to bed, but he suffered from
insomnia, he had to Boston in his house make a subterranean vault, where his bed while
he got the necessary supply of fresh air through the windpipe. he slept some nights not,
he let himself be hypnotized by a magnetizer and in the morning to wake by his
servant. Once again he did so, but they forgot to wake him up, because there was a great
fire place, so that the whole house he burned down over his head with his servant
included. Generally it was thought that Dr. West was burned. More than a century later, in
2000, does one build a laboratory in that place and in laying the foundations identified a
vault, and the opening, it took the sleeping man. brought into the house of Dr. Leete, he
made careful up and now it gets in the book the description of how the world looked in
those days. The nation was the only capitalist and landowner, and now to keep everything
in order they had entered the general occupational requirement from 21 to 45 years. After
that time it is completely free to do what one wants. The first three years are devoted to
serious work, during which they are under strict discipline and the young people are very
happy to leave this school and turn to the relative freedom of the business work. Following
the army plays the discipline in that society a major role. "Neglect of work as determined
bad job or gross negligence by people with evil mind - discipline in the army is far too
severe to allow any of this. A man who is able to do his duty and refuses persistently
being put on bread and water in the cell until he resumed his work. "It has different
classes and grades, a very bureaucratic, hierarchical arrangement. Three classes running
the promotion to officer rank and thence the lieutenant put the kapiteins- or hoofdmans-
and kolonels- or superintendent rank. Then the general of the guild, under whose direct
control will be carried out all the activities of the guild. These generals have a wonderful
position, which attracts all, but above them, the chief of one of the 10 major departments
or groups of related subjects. These ten chiefs each have twelve to twenty guild generals
under him. Finally above these ten senior officers, who make up his board, the chief
captain, who is also president of the United States. Everyone has to start from the bottom
and go through all the ranks. The general of the guild appoints to the ranks under him, but
he himself is not named, he is elected and does not by his subordinates, not by the
honorary members of the guild, that these shall who have served their time and are thus
45 years and above. How the writer thinks about the anarchists, one can see from the fact
that he presents them as the party of the red flag, which was paid by the great monopolies
to boost the fearful terror and thus stop any real reform. After everything has been
carefully explained to Julius West, he goes himself dr. Leete, either with his wife and
daughter, the new society of Boston to take into consideration. He finds no poverty. The
use of money is unknown. In place of the old shops one can find stores where one can
see samples of what they want and then do his orders. The value of it is taken on the
credit card, which everyone has depreciated. The schools are open to everyone and in
addition to the spiritual development, it also takes care of the body, so that one has grown
a strong and healthy sex. Prisons there are not any crime is considered a disease and
treated in a hospital. Courts, lawyers and attorneys, all of that is gone. All issues will be
settled mutually by a single judge and only for very serious cases three judges are
needed. Everything is simple, because there is no private property exists and all the
inheritance is not abolished, it is limited to utensils, so they prevent the accumulation of
wealth.

It would be in this new situation merely be a burden to inherit much because they would
know what to do with all these objects because they do not sell. The family usually retains
some cases in which it is made, to keepsake or memento, but usually leave all further
rights boating on the estate. As for the woman, her position is completely
independent. There is in the female labor force and the same discipline at the head of it is
a female general. Since the woman taking an independent place in society, the
intercourse of the sexes casual and honest. Marriage is sacred and now relies on natural
love. Unmarried persons are considered as those who fail in their obligations. In all, one
can see the development of a collectivist society, sustained by coercion and discipline. Of
course Julius West fell in love with the daughter of Dr. Leete, but again he dreams, and
woke up he finds himself back in the old society of the 19th century.

Although not a utopia in the narrow sense of the word, sketch supplies of Fritz
Mauthner A Aturir the upper world a nice critique of the above worldly
earth [278] . Aturirs can not lie and now must of course Aturir, which makes a visit to
our earth, supportive and permeated with lies, constantly very strange experience
doing. The reading of George Pellerin's Le monde sous deus mille ans [279] is not bad,
although the book is little known. The same ignorance is the book of Chirac: Si ... tude
d'aprs demain (If ... a study by the day after tomorrow). This enables anyone for that fled
to the Black Sea, to the Russian peasants live in their mir, but when he heard how in
Europe the fight had started and how one was in France at the realization of socialism, he
returned return to his country. Germany initially had triumphed Karl Marx supporters, but
when the company was there, crushed under the weight of regulations and rules, much
sharper than before, everything was again overthrown, and the workers did overthrow
their socialist chancellor himself after him having first welcomed and a bourgeois
dictatorship, the son of Bismarck, held sway. France came back he will find a
comprehensive settlement of public services. Nowhere government, but the administration
of things for the greatest benefit of the people. Afraid of centralization and hierarchy, this
writer attempted objection to mitigate as much as possible. Hence, the system constraint
with him not in the foreground acts like Bellamy.

Includes the famous poet William Morris attempted a utopia and do such one, which
according to Quack "from the perspective of art and style is the only one from among the
so-called state novels, which in addition to Utopia (Thomas Morus) are grade "because"
the other state novels are heavy movement and grinding and romantic decorated as
Cabet Icarie storey, somewhat vulgar, like arguing when Bellamy's writings or convenient
artificial prospectus ish put together like Herztkas Freiland. "his book is called News from
Nowhere (News Refuge from nowhere) [280] and already that name evokes Thomas
Morus, which after all somewhere says he first thought about has to name his Utopia
Nusquama of Nuaquam, nowhere. And it is the worthy counterpart of. Morris attempted to
remove as much as possible coercion and to establish a society free basis in accordance
with his anarchist beliefs and get one of Bellamy's society the impression I wanted to
make love to sprout again and would most soon as possible - Morris outlined world wants
one or stay, because there is room for the development of the individual, it does not set
him in the community. Because he thought was the artistic environment, he also makes
them attractive. What obstructs us is that all the claims of the human spirit to be put aside
so that machinery, railways, iron bridges, etc. disappear and the country work again takes
the place of machining work. We can understand our reluctance to modern factories
which man instead of a self-thinking and self-acting being is reduced to a power
accomplice, an appendage of the machine, but we wonder whether this effect is
necessarily connected to the machine or not the common property of the machines as
well as for the further perfection of it all disadvantages can be overcome, there to stick
now. Take eg. The tedious, monotonous and stultifying work of the typesetter and then
say whether the typesetter which man redeemed, must not be called a blessing. And this
is true of the vast majority of subjects equally. In society, as he who dreamed, the church,
the community is the center of gravity and settle in it all citizens according to mutual free
settlements. No State or Government is coming down, no law or authority plays the boss
of the man opposite the period of organized tyranny, facing the pyramid of slavery stands
out beautifully, the community of free-thinking, freely acting people.

How Morris thinks about parliamentarism, one can deduce that he made the parliament
a "fertilizer market" because "our present parliament can be difficult under one roof, as it
includes the entire people." And peculiar is the small chapter, which deals with politics,
actually just to say "we are very happy with politics, because - we know no politics." But
neither one knows that courts, police, justice, laws, prisons, etc. at the unwilling Bellamy
Was put in a cell on bread and water -., And this presupposes a building with cells and
what is that but a prison? And custodians cells and what are they different than prison
guards? - He lets the man who commits violence to his own reflection and repentance.

Oddly, it is how he solves the majority and minority issue. Someone comes up with a
proposal, plan or whatever. Does he at no aid, it automatically lapses, but he is confirmed,
it will be discussed about the pros and cons will be announced and considered. Finally
one goes about to vote. Is the difference of supporters and opponents low, then adjourned
the case; it differs a lot, then one asks the minority, whether they want to accept the will of
the majority. Usually this is done, but when refusing postponed the case. So they try to get
to as many line and can not get it done no one complains, right through persuasion and
delay an attempt to reduce the number of opponents to a minimum and would not be
required to work on something, anything at his will was accomplished. Of course, the
society founded on the work and where everyone has the freedom to do what he does
best and prefer to do, because they will perform this without coercion.

When asked how they came to that better society, it is his reply: by a general strike
implemented in all. For Morris, this revolution. Thus they came to a truce, later a
settlement and then came the time of equality and community. He ended up having to
wake up and find that he did not live in the beautiful world he had dreamed, but, he says,
to see if others what is seen by him, it is a revelation rather than a dream.

It will be a good thing to do his beautiful fantasy about John Ball, entitled A Dream of
John Ball read (A Dream of John Ball).

The well-known Dr. Hertzka said in his Freiland a vision, but he was doing it at the
same time to generate many for an experiment on the realized by him ideas. This book
also tries as much as possible to maintain the freedom of the individual in addition to living
in the community. His aim was to ensure, by granting unlimited individual self-
determination right, to any who labors throughout and full enjoyment of the fruits of his
own labor. Later he gave a book: Entrtckt in die Zukunft, sozialpolitischer Roman ,
translated into Dutch under the title A vision of the future [281] . This book is back as the
great majority of German some heavy-handed, it is missing the artistic master hand in a
Morris. But associated with this book is a history, because to beget succeeded Hertzka
enthusiasm enough to put his ideas into effect and to found several Freiland
Associations. Twice an experiment was done, once in Africa and a second time in
Venezuela, but both have failed miserably. What may be considered peculiar, is that Dr.
Hertzka himself stayed home and not as Cabet also went to distant regions to ensure that
his ideas were faithfully implemented. One might be tempted to conclude from this that he
does not put too much faith in the feasibility of his plans.

We should also mention a book that came from the side of the land nationalization
parameters and titled My dictatorship , translated into Dutch under the title: When I was a
dictator. [282] It is drawn a society in which the single-tax [283] Henry George was
introduced under the absolute dictatorship of a follower of his teachings. If the soil is very
hands so that access is open to the treasury of nature and all that there emerged
extracted belongs to the man who works the land, it will put more life and the foundation
no poverty by this author for communism, which he considers "the last form of civil
society." The writer does not want to resort to compulsion, for his "ideal of a model state is
not in a collection of several million pieces of human cattle, that good nutrition and has a
roof over their heads."

The Italian dr. Giovanni Rossi (Cardias) in his book Utopia und
Experiment [284] communicated both his utopias as his experiments, a book that is a
precursor of Bellamy's , the year 2000 . It dates back to 1878. The strange thing is that
this dual tests be recovered, in a collectivist and an anarchic sense. The first took place in
Cittadella in Stagno Lombardo, in the province of Cremona, the second to Cecilia in
Palmeira, Parana in Brazil. Both failed. The author now adds to the description of these
experiments a utopia, which he dubs: Parana in the 20 th century , which he proves that
confidence in such a colony with him is still unshaken. He calls her a vision of an
intoxicated man told by himself. The book is very informative and recommendable
especially for those who find delight in the foundation of such colonies.

Really social democratic again the book by Johann Petzler entitled Grosse
Jubilumsfeier und imposing Triumphzug in Erinnerung des hundertjhrigen Best
Stephens of Sozialdemokratischen State Sein Richtung Britannien in 1897 . (Great
Jubilee and impressive triumphal procession in commemoration of the centenary of the
Social Democratic polity in Britain). This writer had previously, in 1879, in his The social
Baukunst shown (social engineering), how was his hobby to tinker a state building
together. Now he is going to make a step further with the eye of imagination he sees the
very existence of such a society for 100 years, without the question of whether it is
probable that thinking people will resign voluntarily last 100 years in a state in which their
freedom is being robbed. To give a small test of the system that prevails there, we want to
strengthen the three penalties applied against those who offend against
discipline. Incidentally, the author says that "the same discipline as a regular army of real
soldiers" required in the great army of labor, and we know that the discipline in the army
relies on blind obedience to superiors, in whose hands it is to will-less tools, we come to
the conclusion that the ideal of the writer is, a society of weak-willed individuals who are
under discipline of the people, who have been above them. Now there are three
sentences: 1. minor offenses, which are published in the appropriate journals; 2. in larger
breach of the obligation to work and discipline a worker called his bright and pleasant
work and put heavy; 3. stubborn refusal to cooperate and arbitrary destruction of material
and make the piece of equipment a worker is punished as a criminal and put in prison,
where he has to work hard and get sober living.

Incidentally, this performance corresponds to that which haunts the minds of most
Social Democrats. Or was it not Emile Vandervelde, who stated at the session of the
Belgian Chamber of March 8, 1895: "If there is a Socialist government, that would be
forced to maintain a corps of gendarmes in order to arrest the criminals at common law
and therefore we do not want to vote against the budget, and we must continue beyond
mood "?

We could still talk about various writings of this kind, which are more or less important,
such as Caesar's Column, a story of the twentieth century by Edmund Bois Gilbert
(Caesar's column, a history of 20 th century), a counterpart of Bellamy's book, the content
of which is summarized in the motto by this writer: "instead of Bellamy's painting of peace
and contentment we have a future of violence and blood, the results of the arrogance and
selfishness of civilization." in addition, the book by Paul Mantegazza year 3000 . A dream,
however, less social than it was a medical and technical utopia. Then the booklet in JR
Dutch titled The year 1999 , in which an attempt is made to reshape society into a cozy
world order, which works everyone, but common with some others linked to a group of
workers, a circle of friends so as basis the entire social organization. Also Elyse Reclus,
the famous geographer, gave the Almanach de la Question social of Argyriads of 1897 in
contrast to the Civitas Dei of the Catholic Church a brief outline of "la Cit du bon Accord",
the city of harmony, in which each bread will but also freedom and defining the concept of
state has been completely aside. Paul Adam designed in his Lettres de Malaisie a utopia,
at least he showed in those letters the ridiculous arrangement of contemporary society,
while Bellamy in a second book Equality wiped out the initial rush. They say that the ideas
of this second, where more space is given for freedom and individual development, his
family, whereas he wanted to write a satire in the first book on the compulsory state social
democracy.

We should also mention Oswald Khler's Der Sozialdemokratische States. Grundzge

einer ersten muthmasslichen Form sozialdemokratischer Gesellschafts-Verfassung (The
soc.dem. Condition. Ground Pulling a supposedly first form of a social democratic social
control) and AJ burgeons Sozialismus fr Alle , like so many proofs that the utopians are
far from extinct.

Although the site almost clean is mowed, the Jean Grave succeeded still spend a nice
book entitled Les aventures de Nono , illustrated published by Stock in Paris and is an
excellent book for young men to initiate them into the country of Autonomy, a future world
free of all the horrors that are all too cling to our vaunted civilized society.

One sees that the harvest is rich and many in the realm of fantasy look, what they are
not given in reality. Over the twists of ingenuity these books can not be considered as the
society as a living and growing organism is not made for such a book, but develops from
previous states to finally arrive where they essentially have.
 _______________
[277] International Library. Edw. Bellamy. In 2000. Translation of F. van der Goes.
[278] This book reminds us of the witty Subterranean journey of Niels Klim of Ludwig von
Holberg from the year 1741, translated into Dutch under the name of Klaas Climb, in
which the states with their many laws are mocked witty but which queer wise ownership
did not come up.
[279] The world over two thousand years.
[280] International Library: William Morris, News from Nowhere Refuge. Translation F.
van der Goes.
[281] In PW Weasel Haarlem.
[282] In HD Tjeenk Willink, Haarlem.
[283] A tax on the ground as any tax.
[284] This is a German translation of some works of Rossi un comune
socialista; Cittadella in Comune di Stagno Lombardo, Cremona; Cecilia in Palmeira,
Parana, Brazilia; Parana; Seculo XX, collected and translated by Sanftleben.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

The history of socialism
Chapter 23

The social anarchy and the future

The error, if socialism would have emerged from the mind of some thinker and
therefore would be something artificial, gradually gave way to a healthier and better
view. "Die Zeit ihre power Geister, Die Geister nicht die Zeit" [285] - says Goethe
truthfully. It was rather the sad relationship that existed and which the focus was on
people with heart, consequently, to sharpen their wits in order to search for the causes of
such tragic consequences. They showed that the system, which leads to such outcomes
and had to lead, and that was fatal to be served first, to determine whether the human
being to the production or the production was to the human being. The cowardly division
has dismissed talk about and those who seek to use it, are almost laughed at by every
sensible man.

On the one hand we especially saw in the last century advances in industrial and
scientific fields that bordered on the incredible. The production has risen so huge, that it
has been an accumulation of goods, which can be called fabulous, while it still could be
increased indefinitely, if not for lack of customers should be limited production. This is why
some people acquire great wealth. But on the other hand, we see an increase in poverty
and misery, or at least if one denies this, one sees not that this progress contributes to
poverty eradication and alleviation of pressure on those condemned to hard labor.

On the contrary, "the gap between the rich man and Lazarus the one on the other side
was dilated and the struggle for existence was tightened only." In so clean first chapter of
the work of Henry George, entitled Progress and Poverty , it says the statement from that
"anticipates tangible progress even heavier oppression of the lower classes" in the
circumstances and he says that a lot of is "like a giant wedge was driven in society, not in
its soil, but its middle" so that, "rising above the point of separation are, be lifted, but who
among his are engaged squeezed and crushed." indeed, this is the great riddle that the
Sphinx of fate holds our civilization and that it must solve on pain of being destroyed and
perish because "as long as the growing wealth to nothing needs than to accumulation of
large capabilities, to increase the wealth and sharpening the contrast between the House
of have and the House of lacking, progress is not true and can not be sustainable ". And
he points out that there is a lack, where large standing armies are kept afloat, but also
where standing armies are known only by name; where burdensome tariffs hamper as
foolish as wasteful trade but also, where trade is nearly free; where a monarchical
government still prevails, but also where the political power is entirely in the hands of the
people; in countries where paper money, and in countries where gold and silver are the
only currency. Thus, it can be the cause not located and there should be essentially a
common cause, which underlies it.

In fact all the conditions are in place at all to deliver a decent, dignified life. Take eg.
The western part of Europe or the United States of North America. It boasts rich
seashores, wide waterway, big ports, fertile pastures, inexhaustible mines, a temperate
climate and an industrious population, so in other words, everything is in place to deliver
on all wealth and prosperity. And yet we find that whole crowds of unemployed, crowds of
beggars, vagrants, lunatics, prisoners.

Is it any wonder that such phenomena, which occur together, give rise to reflection?

Socialism is therefore a natural phenomenon, emerged from the status quo itself.

In a society of beings, who themselves boast with reason to be gifted, one would
expect that they would first answer this question: what should be done, given a certain
number of people who live in a certain expanse of land at cost to help board and clothing,
in a word to the first conditions for the people to live properly.

But nothing like that. A few managed to enrich themselves by appropriating land and
water and allowed either by guile or by force others work for them, which fobbed were by
an amount large enough not to die, but too small to properly live on [286] . Mill could
truthfully testify that "the social organization of contemporary Europe as a starting point,
the distribution of property that the result was not a fair sharing of profits with the industry,
but of conquest and violence." So our society is according to this thinker a predatory
society. Precisely which had to bring think illegal distribution of wealth inversely in
proportion to the work itself, and so it was the Socialists who were looking for a different
form for the distribution of the wealth of the earth.

All kinds of formulas, however, were identified, sustained by common ownership of the
land and soil as the main means of labor where one can not do without. So we know that
Saint-Simonists one wanted to assign different reward to the three factors: labor, capital
and talent, but whether such a division it will lead to the complete emancipation of labor,
we are extremely doubtful. Others want to see the usage regularly to the product of labor,
so that as the working day in the United States 9 hours and that the average value of the
voortbrengst of each worker there 10,194 francs a year at Paris 11 hours and an average
yield of 6.123 francs per year, whole France 12 hours and an average yield of only 3,342
francs, should be the ratio for the division of labor yield ratio of 100, 60 and 33. the
unfairness of this measure to regulate the pay jumps very eye than that there are many
words devoted need. Indeed, inequality in natural gifts should not lead to inequality of
rights in the distribution of the product of labor, since the strength of the muscles, the
strength of the nerves and the power of brains depend on circumstances which the
individual has contributed very little. Such a reward would lead to the greatest inequities
and the result would be a very unequal society like the present. Evil would not be cleaned,
moved at most.

Still others want to pay for work of every man according to his ability. If the labor
compensation is proportional to the work effort, this is undoubtedly less unjust, but some
thought will have to admit that that standard yet not fair and that the labor effort also not
determine exactly is. Indeed, already one immediately detects the difficulty in determining
a distinction in value between muscle, nerve and brain work. Each work immediately as a
result has a certain degree of wear of the parts of the body, which can be used. Every
thought as well as any arm movement requires a certain amount of food to recover the
loss of life. The engineer of Kol, writing under the pseudonym of Rienzi, believes that
there can be invented tools to determine the various forces, so that at each work through
the so-called dynamografen (force writers) will be able to say so much muscle, so many
nerve and brain as much labor is consumed. The vibrations is demonstrated visible in the
pencil line when someone is tired by hand or brain labor. The question of whether hands-
or cerebral labor has the priority, is almost equal to that of the sages, which lose their time
with the question whether the chicken there was rather than the egg or the egg rather
than the chicken. Both can not be separated, since no muscle or manual exists without
brain labor nor brain work without muscular work. Both are equally indispensable. Just as
the false opposites of spirit and matter, must be fought body and soul, just as it must be
made with the contrast of hands- or muscle and brain work. A French writer, pointing out
the one-sided development of the brains in our society, once said: "Our brains destroy us,
just the muscles can save us," and he meant to emphasize the inseparable link between
them for a healthy overall development of society. It is possible that the distribution
method in the invention of very perfect tool would work very true, especially when going
on could connect a tool which again inpompte in the body of food or other supplies, which
has been pumped out was through labor. But how ingenious this may seem, the question
remains whether such a method is just as well that they do not again inequality, albeit in
another form, will return, while the composite and complexity of the case makes it less
advisable. It is mainly among the collectivists that one recommends the taxable
distribution.

The laws of nature always coins from a special simplicity, so that they fall within each
range. As long as one link sees between work and pleasure - which one it will come back,
because this is not "in the nature of things" in nature - deserves the old communist
formula: "Everyone gives his strength and everyone receives according to his needs
"vastly preferable. then we know for us a criterion that is as fair as simple and at the same
time. After all, no one can be asked more than he possesses power and if one asks who
can determine a person's strength, then the answer will surely have read: the
individual. And though it seems the formula that everyone receives according to his needs
somewhat vague, yet we believe that the only thing is the content, which can lay claim to
accuracy and fairness. Who will determine the needs? So one asks and the answer is
you, the individual. If you know that there is plenty for all, then there will be no disparities
on the volume that takes each one of them. Take eg. The table d'hote in a hotel. Although
there are no written laws or regulations, each one behaves normally quite opposite to the
others. Nobody will bother about the other portion, which one takes, because everyone
knows that he indeed can take enough to cover its needs. The stock is large enough, then
there arises no objection, because after all, everyone can get whatever and as much as
he likes. If this is not the case, well, then what is fairer than to be rationed as in a
besieged city? And appreciate this ration will then also the first and earliest lead to
increase such stocks that everyone can take to election. Kropotkin says that political
economy as much a science should be like physiology (theory of operation of the organs
in humans) and dubs her as the physiology of society (social physiology) to determine
than it says: the study of the needs of mankind and of the means of satisfying them with
the least possible loss of human labor. Unmistakable yet it is the object of the production
in order to satisfy the felt needs. As people feel more human, increasing his needs and
also related to that will one build the only rational criterion, ie. First necessary for all, then
the pleasant and finally the excess, ie for every one that which he most pleasing has.

Us is it always that many objections that are now blown up sky high mountains, in
practice, will disappear like snow in the sun. It will unite once a common interest driving
this end, one will again diverge each his own way, and obtained what they want. And the
general formula can nobody anything against have to strive "to form a company or to
prepare for that in every human conditions insures for as lucky as in every age will be
possible, in connection with the kick development that will reach mankind
" [287] . Something similar was Spinoza mind, which he called "the ultimate goal of the
state is not looking for it to rule, or to keep the people with fear at bay and bring under the
dominion of another, but each one of fear and liberate him, as far as possible, do live in
safety, ie it is of course right to exist and to operate without guarantees harm to
themselves and others, in the best way. It is not to the purpose of the state, the people of
rational beings into beasts or even moving dolls, but that mind and body perform their
operations without interruption and they make use of reason at liberty. " [288] Spinoza
only knows to state the purpose to which it is applicable only to the society. Now they say
that this is the aim of anarchism and it has overcome the fear of a word, we are convinced
that all right-minded which opwillen away. And all the anarchists know very well that the
society, the result of centuries of struggle and injustice [289] can not be improved on a
single day, yet one should work in that direction. But then delete everything disturbing in
the way to achieve that goal. And all the thinkers, the best of all time, the hand reaching
out to each other where they recognize that the shining ideal, living in community and
fraternity, outlined by the writer of Acts, as a prophetic revelation will be written above the
entrance to the Paradise of mankind.
 One has the hypocrisy sometimes called the unconscious homage, bringing the vice to
virtue, one sees here how often the people who go out and sent to curse socialism, finally
blessing as this was the case with Balaam from the legend.

Did not write Dr. Kuyper. "The socialist system has the sympathy of our heart, the
paradise-longing of our soul and speaks to contribute, as opposed to the competitive
system for our sense a heavenly character"? He did not recognize: "Indeed, the paradise
state a state of human society without private property, without labor by the sweat of face,
without fighting the mine and thine, without competition system and so without
government"? Strange that these shall, to speak, reverse back out where it comes down
to it to realize the heavenly ideal!

Does not Mr. NG Pierson: "The struggle against socialism - although more against
communism, for socialism, or seen, is one. Compromise - a struggle in which one should
wish to be defeated; in this sense, namely, that one wishes should be able to believe in
the usefulness and practicality of what that side is represented ... It has its priests, its
prophets, its martyrs, which we, like all priests, prophets and martyrs, often fill with
admiration. But we can not assume that it has devised a useful form of social life, and
least of all a shape preferable to the existing one is " [290] .

But the socialist movement did not develop as the best among the socialists hoped her
and expected. Great was the disappointment which thereby became part of those who
considered it seriously with socialism. When they had gone in opposition, was not doing
their pocket to get ahead personally better. "He disapproves, show that his judgment is
right, he has worked and not devoted himself from inertia to the contemporary fashion
design, the pis-aller of sloths: opposition ." They looked in the state not "their office,
career, a reflection path for the gentlemen of the court, a lathe fortune particles, a factory
of Nuremberg ambition dive boot. " [291] That disappointment was largely to blame,
because they are the people judged for themselves and not as they were in reality . Their
goal was socialism, even if they were personally at below; the others a means to get
there.

No, as hopeful as the Socialists, especially after 1880, went into the future, not
doubting the 19th century would not fall, in graves without a revolution, which does not at
once would put everything in the right track, but again would be a vigorous push giving
apparently necessary to do a good final move forward the car of progress, at least to lift
off the loose sand in which he was stuck, - were equally disappointed it at the entrance of
the 20 th , because the results had answered so little to all expectations. I say deliberately
to all expectations, there was no "ladies" of the socialist school in those days, whether he
lived in the joyful hope of the things that were coming. What naughty expectations they
went not out to meet the year 1889, the centenary of the great French Revolution, the
bourgeoisie gave dominion over the world! The memories of those days would revive and
who knows - as many thought - and therefore would not be aroused the enthusiasm in the
minds and hearts of the workers, to make them an attempt to release from the house of
bondage, which they spite all the talk of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity had gone. And the
bourgeoisie felt anything but at ease. Witness the 1 st May of the year 1890, when the
international proletariat for the first time execution would give the decision of the
International Congress in Paris in 1889, to act in all countries with the same requirement,
the eight-hour day. We still remember vividly how the bourgeoisie was armed, in order to
stifle any attempt at resistance again in blood and it was for the ruling class a true breath
of fresh air when the messages reported everywhere that nothing had happened.

All thought that capitalism had already progressed so far in the process of dissolution, it
needed only a small shock to fall apart. Even men like English let themselves be tempted
to venture on the thin ice of prophecy and for Germany to determine the time at 1898.
The Almanach du Parti Ouvrier pour 1892 can be read in an article of his hand, and in all
probability voting digit social Democrats, which amounted to a total of 1,427,298 in 1890,
would rise in 1895 to at least 2 1 / 2million, and that figure would rise around 1900 to
3 1 / 2 to 4 million. And he adds the words: "A pleasant" end of the century! "Our
bourgeoisie" If he had lived, he could see how he had made a mistake a second time,
because like him in the introduction to Marx's Klassenkampfe in Frankreich 1848-
1850 wrote about the revolution of 1848: "history has given us and all those who also
thought unsuccessful", similarly he would experience now, how miserable was his
prophecy in the water and how still attached capitalism in the saddle, firmer than people
think.

The main strength of the German Social Democracy is by no means according to him,
the number of voters, because it is only voter at the age of 25, but a soldier at 20 years,
and that the younger generation the greatest number of recruits to the party supplies, it
follows that the German army increasingly ignited by socialism. "We now have one soldier
in five, in a few years we will have one to three, and by the year 1900 will be the army,
formerly the most Prussian element of the country, the majority socialist. This time is
approaching incessantly as a result of fate. The Berlin government sees it coming, just as
we do, but it is powerless. The army runs its way between the fingers. "

And Bebel joined in such a way in to these considerations of English, he said at the
party congress in Erfurt: "I am convinced that the achievement of our final purpose is so
near that there are few people in this room, which will not experience those days . "and
when English is a reversal of things in perspective proposed by the year 1898, Vollmar
thus mocked, Bebel wrote to Engels:" Elder, you and I, we are the only "kid" in our party. "

One sees here the sanguine expectations when they harbored.

Compare this reality and we understand the disappointment that has gripped so many,
because everyone feels militarism strengthened rather than weakened and the wars both
of England in South Africa as the allied powers in China, not to speak again the war of the
United States of North America against Spain, are so many proofs that the power of the
awakening proletariat was not large enough to prevent them or unstoppable.

Far from there that socialism militarism has weakened and undermined, one can see
that the militarist spirit with its discipline and blind obedience is infiltrated into the ranks of
the Socialists, in order to do devastating impact notice for the free and independent
spirit. Whether one does not see how the military dressage is reflected in the German
Social Democratic Party and all those who have conformed to that model?
 However, capitalism was much stronger in the stirrup one of their suspected. They had
apparently all wrong. And what we saw when done in the last decade of the 19th
century? Many began to think our time keeps still and - after us the deluge! They chose to
get practical way and tried under roof. Only the "impractical" people, the "bigots" who
started the fight in principle, kept working for socialism. Party strevers [292] - lucky ones,
as Lafargue them quite correctly dubbed - was a new and wide field of activity. No longer
in isolation one seeks power, they started to adapt to the existing world and some art
could apply so excellent that they feel at home in the company of kings and emperors,
dignitaries of church and state. Yes, how many ideals are not already beaten to pieces
against the rocks of reality! How many fighters who swear allegiance to their youth priority,
to "fight on the battlefield of the spirit against stupidity and tyranny", it did not fall,
"wrestling tired" to betray the cause of freedom for the sweet peace; to employment; for
an honorable award; to a life of ease and luxury, more attractive than seeing always
despised and set back!

Never a movement purer and more idealistic than in its action. No ambition corrupts
her, because there is nothing to gain and everything to lose. no one yet knows intrigues,
no compromise, no spirit of opportunism, ready to bend the principles to the interests. A
beneficent spirit of solidarity, freedom and fraternity still inspires all and one can truthfully
all participants testify that they are one of soul and of spirit. It is in such times that people
managed to elevate to the level at which they are able to bring their good, their calm, even
their lives in sacrifice for their principles. These are the apostles ready if the conditions are
demanding, martyrs for the cause, which they are so together grew that the death of their
more welcome seems to than a life with disclosure of which is their above all sweet and
dear.

Striking is the similarity between our time and the beginning of our era and all of this
was already so often and from very different sides drew attention, however, it must be
repeated, because it's true. Then as now, an old world is slowly but steadily eroded and
also to see a new world in the making, which they boldly without looking her sternly
delineated his imagination.

Dr. Kuyper describes the situation in ancient Rome with short words says [293] :
"Even when broken the balance of positions; Defying wealth besides crying
need; immense capital accumulated and miserable poverty tucked away in Rome's
slums; and as a necessary consequence: corruption in the state administration; pleasure
in stee of moral impulse tone rendering in public opinion; and every moment ready by
emergency and passion transported crowd to rebellion, murder and pillage. "

The same applies verbatim from our society? Yes, it is not involuntarily struck by the
resemblance between the society in Rome in the era of emperors and those of our
century? Only one could say that luxury when only was child's play compared to now,
despite the abolition of legal slavery the antithesis of positions is now even sharper than
when, for though slavery has been abolished, but the men's landscape has remained, and
as long as this exists, such abolition is only a change of name.
 The doctrine of the simple carpenter's son from Palestine, "the Jews a stumbling block
and to the Greeks foolishness," locking in her lap a renewal of the world, and despite the
bitter persecution which were exposed its supporters - they think for example of Paul, who
five times. forty stripes received less one who flogged three times with rods, once stoned,
which "more excellent in stripes, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft" was - they knew
in relatively short time course of three centuries to conquer the world, so one of the best
emperors, the philosophical landscaped Julian, by the Christians bear the nickname the
Apostate, after a lifetime of fighting for his opinion pernicious sect of Christians dying to
say: "So you have to overcome now, ye cursed Galilean "!

The Great French Revolution of 1789, the emerging bourgeoisie began to wrestle
himself free from the yoke of the privileges of nobility and clergy, so that what was the
most natural thing loved the world that "the bourgeoisie paid her well, the nobility his blood
and the clergy prayed for her, "paved the way to ensure the domination of the bourgeoisie,
but again at the expense of the productive working class, which was also free in name,
but in reality lacked any means to get to that end . And so dominated than at present in
Europe a portly bourgeoisie an impoverished, working class, which steadily its capital to
feed and is doomed to which can do no service for that capital nutrition, to sink into the
morass of the proletariat. A social emergency, aggravated thereby, that the opulent
bourgeoisie also displays items from its opulence. "

Hearing giving the call of the Christian statesman Guizot: " Enrichissez-vous " (!
Enriched you) did the bourgeoisie nothing but along all the roads and all the resources
estimated to hope, because human flesh was cheap - it cost nothing at labor market since
the abolition of slavery - and if one is too "civilized" and "decent" to live to roast people in
a piping made juggernaut image, as did uncivilized nations, already emits give them not
the knife in the chest such as Jephthah did with his daughter, they let the people, in full
freedom, to death working in factory or workshop, on the field or in the cities. The annual
hecatombs, brought by the working class to adopt the capitalist system, are even
approximately. For them to get an idea, one takes into consideration the following fact:

The population of Europe is approximately 300 million souls. Of them die each year
about 15 million. Now, the overall mortality rate similar to that among the well-off, then that
mortality should amount to 5 million normal. So that makes a difference of 10 million
people. Where are they? That is the annual massacre, brought by our "civilized" society
on the altar of capitalism. The present organization of society crushes like a big vise the
mass of the people at every turn inexorably. With chilling calm proclaims science, through
its representatives, as the sum of her wisdom, "an annual part of the population should die
of misery, even in the midst of the most prosperous nations" [294] . They have
academies, where the brightest burst of finding a place; they have many universities,
where hundreds of professors gave education to thousands of young men inside to open
the mysteries of science - and despite all that dare give such testimony as the result of his
wisdom!

As a professional. Quack, himself a spokesman of the liberal party, criticizing it did

nothing in the rule everywhere in Europe, "nothing for the regulation of the employment
contract between employer and workman, not to establish works councils to resolve
disputes between patrons and workers, nothing for the laws betreffendde health and
safety of the workers in the factories, nothing for vocational training of the laborers nothing
for purposes of apprenticeship, nothing for true day of rest, nothing for combat were fake,
nothing for all those parts of the state intervention " [295] and when he compares the
state of the liberals with respect to all these issues naughty with king Louis Philippe, who
during a trip in the Alsace region at the sight of so much misery and distress among the
workers, expressed the meager consolation "I can only sigh at" one understands surely
the extent of the shortcomings which one was guilty. Sharper and can not sign the
signature of our time than was done by the same author in his book on socialism: "That
had nothing, still had actually almost no right to live." The "have" supplanted "being". This
was the unspoken conclusion of a period, which is to let stand to move the position of the
so-called "freedom of labor". Freedom, free trade were the slogans, but indeed and in fact
it was a time of monopolists. The bijnbrengen of large masses of capital under joint
supervision of some worked as a monopoly. Thus was established the financial feudalism,
the most powerful oppression that once existed in the world. The fair set the tone, and the
firm prospered Gauwdief, Gannef and co. "

The mammon ism fourth ever greater triumphs than the much vaunted 19th century,
despite the glorification of what is done for the working class, it is difficult with handedness
look down at a time which can be said that still the rule: "The stronger the weaker eat. Not
if the cannibal one put the tooth in each other's flesh, but mighty mergelde weaker by a
weapon which was not defense. " [296] It kills a lot safer with high percentages, with
deceitful words, aided by the so-called law and order using the law, then that one dares
and has the courage to be an adversary to stabbing the knife into his chest. Our time is
even exactly what the old preacher testified already stirring complaining of his followers: "I
saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of the
oppressed, and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no
comforter. "

Now if comforter came at the beginning of our era Christianity, and which has made this
apparent fiasco, since socialism took over the role of comforter for the oppressed, and
though not a clean future in an imaginary hereafter, but by the earth to want to make a
place of bliss.

But not only that the contract is large between the Roman world from the imperial era
and our present time, it is equally the case between the original Christianity and Social
Democracy in the course of their development.

Christianity at that time brought a gospel good tidings to the poor, the oppressed, the
disinherited. Among the first followers of the Christian doctrine was not one many scholars
or rich or powerful, but almost exclusively the so-called ordinary people: fishermen,
artisans, beggars. Even the pastors were simple visserlui as Peter and others, or
craftsmen such as Paul, who was a tentmaker. They worked to earn a living and after the
day's work finished, they were proclaiming their principle without any ambition or hope of
profit. Increasingly they had to contend with a lack of money and numerous complaints
that the gifts were come so bad. But Paul is eg. Grand, that he never came at the
expense of the city and always provided for his needs. Gradually formed a group of
speakers, in part because they had so many speaking engagements to perform in
different places, that they could not perform work at, partly because they were forced out
of their jobs and therefore have had to look for another relationship. Thus arose the paid
propagandists or clergy. Among them was one the earliest grades, so the lesser brothers
remained in the countryside and the best bespraakten a place in the cities. This began to
exert a kind of guardianship. They were power parties or bishops. Among the bishops of
the principal places were given a kind of superiority. Rome, Alexandria and Byzantium
were the three places that competed for primacy, until the former city and won the papacy
was born. So one saw the hierarchical system slowly and grow naturally.

Exactly the same way it went in the social democratic movement. Who were social
democrat? With few exceptions, the proletarians, poor factory and craftsmen, scorned by
scholars and power parties, hated and persecuted by the rulers and the official tone-giving
world. Their spokesmen were mostly men who had suffered much, which were driven
away from the factory, the workshop, whose livelihood was taken away from them,
because they came to the floor or were forced. A new life had to be found for them. They
were either ale holder either tobacconist either editor of a magazine either printer. They
held on to his workman in the narrow sense of the word. Now every man in varying
degrees depending on the environment in which he finds himself, and the changing
lifestyle also joined them imperceptibly and involuntarily to get a change of opinion. They
were no longer the wage laborers of the past who daily felt the lash of the patron or
boss. They represented no more purely proletarian movement and torn from the ranks of
the proletarians, they exchanged a portion there in their revolutionary conviction. They
began to talk about improving the situation of the little people within the context of
contemporary society. Caution was advised. Already once they had put their existence at
risk, they would now think of his wife and children, they had something to lose. Thus, the
new-fangled everyman dropped his sail proletarian revolutionary position and became a
very practical small bourgeois socialist. In the Communist Manifesto written already Marx
and Engels so rightly: "The middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the
artisan (meaning small own boss), the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie to
their existence as middle for the decline harmless. They are therefore not revolutionary,
but conservative. What's more, they are reactionary. They seek to turn back the wheel of
history. "

As won the Social Democratic Party in width - and most people are blinded by
appearances, was this growth, eg in the polls, former -. It lost in depth and an increase in
quantity meant no means an increase in capacity . On the contrary, the representatives of
the middle classes were, which now set the tone in the Social Democratic Party and
therefore it can not have escaped the attentive observer, which has become the social
democracy increasingly reactionary party under such circumstances in the sense
indicated by Marx.

Gradually triumphed and Christianity in the 4th century considered an emperor

Constantine in his political interest to repent and become Christians. The official world
naturally followed the emperor and the Christian religion became the state religion. But
the sincere Christians saw this with great concern: they understood that once to do a
service movement in the interest of politics, it is irretrievably lost. Constantine the triumph,
which he gave to the Christian church, slain Christianity and the spirit of Jesus. Of course,
were the small sects of that spirit were fulfilled and not count sacrificed on the altar of
appearances, as schismatics and heretics expelled from the community and at blood
persecuted. In the church of Jesus was finally no place for the spirit of Jesus!

Marx once wrote very witty: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic
events and people to find place twice, so to speak. He forgot to add there:. One time as
tragedy, the other as a farce " [297] At that word we are involuntarily reminded when we
the early Christian party formerly (church) and the Social Democratic today
compared. Christianity fixed itself in Catholicism; the name was retained, but the mind
was out. Can not say much now: Socialism fixed itself in social democracy?

In both movements was revealed a desire for one size party and nothing more
unpleasant than the revealing differences in each case. But they forgot that precisely the
times when there was the greatest variety of ideas were also the times of the greatest
advances. In one of the letters of Paul (. 1 Corinthians chapter 1:12.) He speaks that one
says, "I am of Paul; I am of Cephas; I am of Apollos; I am of Christ. "To allow free this
something to the advancement of Christianity? During the reform the same
phenomenon. One cried: I Luther, the other I am Zwingli, a third: I am Thomas Mntzer, a
fourth I am of Calvin. And yet, despite all these differences paved reform his way. And
now the same. One says, I am of Proudhon, the other I'm Marx, a third: I Bakunin, a
fourth: I Tolstoy. This harms the progress of ideas? Precisely, because it brings to
compare, so to think. Nothing is more advantageous than the pursuit of size unity party,
where the ideas will sacrifice on the altar of so-called consensus, in order to shine out
great and powerful. The same method also applies the Catholic Church. Nothing is more
dangerous than the spirit of discipline, obedience, for the mind is the one who gives life,
while the letter kills.

Both have their dogma proclaimed by councils or conferences, the all saving. What is
the right of free criticism gets taught us the German party congress in Lbeck (1901),
where Ed. Bernstein, for years one of the spiritual advisers of the party as an editor of the
journal Die Neue Zeit , and formerly very fond of the name of the "red Ede", on pain of
banishment compelled solemnly to recant his errors, or at least to submit to the wishes of
the party with loud signs of approval from the party members. Galileo always one says
that after his withdrawal to the spiritual tribunal when leaving the room would have
muttered: "And they (the earth) moves anyway!" From Bernstein's something not heard. ...
Tragedy and farce!

Bebel once wrote: "As far as principled or serious differences over the tactics of the
party, there can be no question of his. Nowhere principle differences exist. The party is for
all supporters on the basis of one single principle, enshrined in the program. There is no
room in the party for anyone who would like to have a different opinion; he must go to the
anarchists either landing in the camp of the bourgeoisie. The party has nothing to do with
him. " [298]

Both have their chief: the Catholic Church, the Pope, and the Social Democratic Party,
the dictatorship of the proletariat, which represents the dictatorship of the leaders.
 Both have their censorship and establish the discipline as a prerequisite for any good
party member. What then becomes of the individual, as reality is what Guesde on the
socialist congress of 1899, said: "In the first place, the socialist press, which must be
entirely placed under the control of the federated organizations; there is no independent
press may be the day on which a central organization consists of socialism. After the
press elected; their independence must disappear. They are not even to their
constituents, they belong to the proletariat of France. "

Both have their book, which is considered sacred and not to give the necessary
comments because of its obscurity, given by the scribes. Among Christians is the Bible by
the Socialists Capital Marx.

Remarkably, in almost all points of the agreement between the two movements.

Since there are also those who have been in the socialist movement, yes Front
participated for years, but who gave courage, seeing how it evolved, how few are
managed to work up just by the movement, came up once, its more or more turning their
backs. And the people, deceived again, let himself constantly fooled again shone but not
prone to do independently their own affairs without guardians, who threw up, or leaders
who managed to mesmerize getting the crowd by their glib tongue to their place in spite of
everything taking. They said it gives all of them nothing, because soon you shall find that
they now went along, let alone again when they see opportunity, albeit with disloyalty to
the principle chance to acquire a position. Will you start over again, to find again the same
disappointment again, thank you kindly.

The pessimist is here speaking.

However, it should be noted that there also be found that just came through the party
life to the conclusion that they as individuals are stronger in battle, then permanently
coexist with others. One hears them as individualists.

One louse delicate consider what Emerich Madach says in his Tragedy of
Man (translation of ASC Wallis)

O Pharaoh, you idolized: the crowd,

believe me, was destined by fate to beast of burden,
which voortzwoegt left under the heavy yoke,
and made the thing work imposed challenge.
That which you give price comes her not to run,
because tomorrow she seeks herself a new master.
Or do you mean that you would dominate her,
not that she felt that she needs a gentleman
Thus self-consciousness sat in her chest?

Adam
Why does she, or her service
she bitterness?
Lucifer
She complains, it 's not knowing why.
She complains, while iedren man's desire to dominate
Is innate. This feeling, not
the charity carries out the great hope
in the arms of freedom - no ready insight,
only a faint awareness drives these slaves
Until nieuwighen, to fight with al 's existing,
full of hope that they in this new once embodied
their dreams of happiness will see.
The people are like the sea; how the sunlight ray,
it does not penetrate into the deep, dark lives there;
Only the wave sparkles on the surface, -
And ye be upon this wave.

Adam
Why me?

Lucifer
or one that is related,
who well knows the incentive to choose 't people,
and if the freedom much admired hero
to push himself can do in your honor.
The crowd there will be nothing to beget.
The only name changes but remains the ruler.

Here we have just said, that if the people had enough self-awareness, self-esteem
enough that it would be impossible to act as ruler. There lies an immense dose of truth in
the word deserves to be a nation that it is. If a tyrant governed the people, then this is
proof that the slavish sense of the people providing the man allows himself to raise up
tyrant. Would it be possible to being a tyrant indeed free, self-conscious people? After all,
no! It is not the tyrant who makes people slaves, but the slavish sense of the people is, so
the tyrant, the possibility is opened as such to secure a place.

Once an idea otherwise come into contact with reality, it is much planed and polished
that all that was fresh and noble, it is rubbed off, only to find application in society.

Again, this idea is played masterfully in the tragedy: Jesus of Nazareth Nicolai Count
Rehbinder in the following conversation:

Pilate
say, what can the benefits
That you from all your power hard rock
bashing of people and delusional people foolishness?
That rock still will not wanklen or succumb;
But you is crushed his foot down!
What can a single, also create the best?
His death extinguishes all the light kindled by him
and his lifeless body go
Humanity cold waves over.
Believe you, if you have died on the cross,
that your learning will remain a trace?
When you stop your heart is the influence:
disappear Your teaching, as your followers fled.

Jesus
What is eternal is eternally also exist.
Who 's good seed is sown in the earth,
who can go comforted d'field; because later,
how long 't takes, once will surely come harvest time,
the sower is Al' s sacrifice of his work.

Pilate
Suppose we assume it will come so
that your learning does not set with you,
that they have the earth is spreading and growing,
Yes, they will one day rule the world;
Think ye to your doctrine remains the same ?
With its pure brightness disappears.
There they spread among people should
Will also in her soul something human thing mix.
And among men it is about people.
Yes, many a low drive from the mind
Will the new religion to cover themselves:
Mr. sigh, formalism and arbitrariness,
Conscience and Compulsive huichlarij, which will
also your leather minvormen and abuse;
For those who like their priests once verkonden,
they follow clear the road of all priests.
They will make use of 't priesthood
In order for you and God set in place.
Say, it would ge then recognize your learning?
Must verbastring 's reward of your efforts?
Is that worth it, is to die for?
Believe me, Jesus! so once you have
could go back into the world, oh!
Then would those who called your name is,
you again continue, as it now does,
and if it could, the second time you cross.

Jesus
The future is with d'result of my attempt
in God's hand. I have completed my work,
my struggles volstreden - while 'k had to.
 How human reproductive it is said! And also how exactly does Jesus give to why he still
continues his work despite the irrefutable arguments Pilate end. He could not do
otherwise . Precisely, the inner urge was too strong for him, he should have been another
man to give up. He was not, and so he continued, without regard to the result of his
attempt.

It seems that people rarely can be themselves. He always has to lean on someone or
something, so that, spiritually speaking, always walks on crutches. Hardly he has thrown
one crutch or he feels a need for a new and believes without crutches not be able to
walk. Hence the hour of death of an old dogma governed the birth hour was a new
dogma. And the anarchist who calls to him, still throwing away your crutches and standing
on your own two feet is considered a fool or a bigot. It's as easy as another thinks and
acts for us. To human inertia and laziness is attributable to the church and the state
exercise such power over man. It is the church that determines what one should believe ,
it is the state which requires us what we must do . And between them as between two
millstones, the free initiative of the man pressed flat. So is having a dogma in the fact that
even some not-have a dogma again raised to a dogma. My principle is to have no
principle - as they say then and now they cover their lack of principle with - a
principle. The man should not be doing to shake off one yoke in order immediately to
focus on another, even though it is a chosen yoke. No change of masters, but abolition of
mastery - there which one should strive as a man who feel ownership of his vocation and
self-esteem.

Often hear people say that

social democracy and anarchy

Two lines, one of which is the extension of the other, and especially social democratic side
one hears often argue: we also acknowledge the anarchy as a clean, lovely and holy
ideal, but one can not come suddenly to this end, we need the social democracy get back
to the anarchy. So social democracy would be a period of transition to achieve anarchy.

That assertion is based on an error. Social Democracy and anarchy are not two lines,
which finally touch each other and thus converge at one point, on the contrary, are those
who will never touch two parallel lines. Both method, mutual love, mutual principles are in
direct contradiction to each other. No law! - So calls one. Everything by the law! - The
other answers. The law is a plague, a buoy! - A repeat. And the other one says, the law is
the anchor of the social order. No authority! - This is again the one hand, because the
principle of slavery is contained therein. Well authority - on the other hand our sound
matter, because therein lies the guarantee for everyone's freedom. The anarchist is so
against all authority, law and government, the Social Democrat believes that all three and
wants to expand its functions. However, it is waiting to participate in the confusion,
founded by the Social Democrats deliberately, by socialism and social democracy of
similar meaning words and by using each other. Which agreement now exists between
two such divergent principles? Unless one might want to use the homeopathic method
and equal with equal want to fight, so that the transhipment of laws will come to its
abolition, but that's not the intention.
 Is the premise of the anarchist individuals, that social democracy is the community, not
to mention the state. Now as long as the sovereignty of the community, requested by the
Social Democrats, is not the same as the sovereignty of the individual, living in the
community, as long as both are opposites that do not dissolve in higher unity.

And it may well be called a proof of the effort is to give clear accounts of what others
want, when one sees that even a man like Professor. Quack, who apparently striving to do
so, saying that "for some anarchy only amounts to a consistent and fixed by pulling the
data of individualist economic society. The anarchists use only on their way to destroy the
existing society, it means that the absolute proponents of the freedom of contract, as
decent men of business, use in the development of contemporary society. "Yes, he even
dares write that Bakunin and Kropotkin "reach out to the ManchesterMAN" go-ahead
"and" struggler for life ". Nothing is more false than that. After the ManchesterMAN
proclaims freedom, after the work is monopolized in the hands of a privileged few and the
anarchist says that only then there can be freedom, if access is opened to provide the
work for all. Is not that an enormous difference? The ManchesterMAN equals those who
leave hold a duel between an armored knight, equipped with the best weapons and
whose body is covered by a breastplate, and a naked man, who none the decision than
his fists and legs. The first anarchist contrast makes both parties in all respects, to make
them enter then into the arena on equal terms wrestle not against each other, but side by
side against the disruptive forces of nature. What do we do so as not shake hands
Manchesterlui the contrary totally want something different. If ManchesterMAN protects
the freedom of the individual, this is a mask behind which he hides, for him there is no
freedom, where he is the workers expelled from the possession of all work, hands to
hands and feet bound the mercy and grace of the owners of those resources.

Authority and freedom

We mistake not us, then we see in battle made two lots, one of which is fighting under
the banner of the authority and the other below that of freedom. On one side, viz. That of
the authority, are all drawn from the Pope in Rome to the Social Democrat member, to join
hands all the differences over the preservation of the social order and the other
proponents of freedom . Actually owns it ever so little faith in freedom. Even the men of
science shrink the giant figure of liberty, whose power no one can calculate when they will
develop further in its power and glory. How few see even with Cicero that "the essence of
freedom is to live exactly as he chooses?" And he himself is a restriction, which in his De
Republica writes (On the Republic): "Freedom can not have a permanent home in any
state except where the laws are equal and the power of public opinion the most." it still
appears that they may not live exactly as you prefer, but as the laws permit you! How few
dare repeat Spencer: "Man must have the freedom to go and come and see, to feel, to
speak, to work, to food, clothing, obtain housing and to each as well as for all in to be able
to provide the natural needs. He should be free to do whatever, either directly or indirectly,
is required to comply with any mental and physical need. "But immediately afterwards we
find that he by no means perceive that freedom, as one would suspect. Indeed, let him
follow these words: "This is not the echo of a few, but of all. All are equipped with
features. Therefore all are free to do those things which the application is made. That is,
that all should have freedom of action. And hence there will necessarily be a restriction
upon. Because if people equal rights to the freedom that is necessary for the application
of their properties, must the freedom of each person bound by the equal freedom of
all. When two individuals differ in the pursuit of their respective purposes, the movements
of the one only to the extent remain free as they do not come into contact with the same
movements of the other. This sphere of existence in which we are thrown, leaving no
room for the unrestricted activity of all and yet all their constitutions similar claims on
possessing such unlimited efficacy, there is no other way than to distribute the
unavoidable limitation. We therefore arrive at the overall proposal, that every man may
claim the fullest liberty to apply its properties, to reconcile with the possession of equal
liberty for each other. " [299] This limitation actually raises his own determination of
freedom completely.

What is freedom, is difficult to say because it is a relative term, a contradiction. It is

quite something and now it depends only of wonder, what this something is. Thus speak
the anti-revolutionaries of a "free" school, ie the religious opposition in the state
school. Free will so here is, free from state coercion, but otherwise nothing to do with
freedom. As himself adorns the least free setting with the word free, just from opposition.

Freedom is in itself a thing without content, something negative. Freedom is the

atmosphere in which one wants to breathe and live. Freedom is the shape, the content of
which is equality. These two belong together and form as it were a two-unit. Equality
contributes freedom in itself. Who will eg. To another subject, if he does not need it? Only
those who are equally independent and equipped with similar power resources are
free. And why? Because they are equal. Equality contributes freedom in itself, because
inequality means arbitrariness and bondage.

The social anarchy now demanding a threefold freedom for man:

1. An economic or free access to the work;
2. A mental or an opportunity to think freely and to investigate;
3. A moral or the opportunity to be free construction, to develop his inclinations.

Bakunin said this very precisely: "The first word of the general liberalization can only be
the freedom , not so acclaimed political bourgeois freedom, recommended as an object of
conquest, which precedes according to Marx and his followers, but the great human
freedom , which all dogmatic, metaphysical, political and legal shackles verbrekende,
which the whole world is now chained to anyone, will give to the community as well as to
the individuals, the overall freedom of movement, as it once was forever freed from all
inspectors, directors and guardians.

The second word of this release is the solidarity . Not Marx solidarity, from above to
below organized by any government and imposed upon the masses, either by guile or by
force; not solidarity of all, that the denial of the freedom of each and that is a lie, therefore,
a fiction that slavery to actual supplement - but the solidarity that is contrary to the
affirmation and realization of freedom, its source is not borrowing to any political law, but
that which is in the collective nature of man, and as a result of which no one is free, as all
the people who surround him, and even the slightest influence, either directly or indirectly,
carry on his life, it not be equally. This solidarity has to base the equality, collective labor ,
obligatory for everyone, not under law, but by the power of things, and the collective
ownership , if steering guide having the experience, that the practice of collective life and
science and it has the ultimate objective of the constitution of mankind, hence the ruin of
all states. "

Now it has been accused of anarchism that rejects not only the exercise of political
authority but also any administration, without which one is still can not imagine producing
controlled manner. But this is incorrect. It rejects a solid and lasting administration as
administrator will prove to be another name for driver and ruler. Each group of people
standing together for any purpose, of course, will make arrangements for that work,
however, an arrangement that can be changed any time if one sees that it is not working
properly and ending in any case with the work, so that each new work has its own scheme
in accordance with the requirements deemed necessary for this.

Precisely because of the tradition of the world, based on the general experience has
shown that power corrupts people, anarchism is there on out, to prevent spoilage by
granting no the least power of one over the other . The tendency of the people, either as
drivers or as managers or under any other name too, their own feelings and sensations as
a rule of conduct to prescribe to others, can be constrained by lack or lack of power. Even
the best man by the power corrupted and therefore it has a sacred diffidence to be clothed
with power. Across the maxim: everyone should be able to be saved in his own way,
which only requires the addition, that one should have the freedom not to be saved, it
often puts the principle that everyone must be happy in his own way, without the way it is
prescribed by others. And how serious it takes one with the power that it holds, the more
intolerant they are. A striking example is given in Robespierre put the people under the
guillotine, to their own happiness, because they would not be happy in his way. All
attempts to cast the different people in the same form, should be considered out of the
question, because they exert a constraint on the mind, which can only harm working
man's development.

In general it can be said that no one so suited to determine any matter or treat as he
who called on has a personal interest, while it also must seem absurd that a man should
not use his life to his own use, such as it sees fit. All well and good, they say, provided
one by his freedom not of others after coming or restricted. Like the freedom of others
would restrict my freedom! The opposite is true. My freedom presupposes the freedom of
others. Without this is my freedom is not worth much. I'm not in truth freely, unless the
freedom of others, so as the number of free people surrounding me is greater and greater
and greater independence, to that extent, my own freedom bigger and stronger and
wider. Would eg. A real man can be quite happy in the midst of a slavish people? The
slavish sense of others nibble own freedom. So much the people with one another are
dependent on each other.

Freedom for a single individual or a few is not freedom. Freedom for me and slavery
you mean slavery for us both. No one was ever born with a saddle on its back, and
another would drive out and nobody was ever born with spurs on his heels to enable him
to drive to another. We are all born equal and it is our duty to stand together as equals
with upright heads. Nobody they lord or master, that no servant or slave need to be. Even
better: every man shall be master of himself, because who himself owns, is stronger than
he that taketh a city and when I own is captured, then no triumph can more be achieved.

Freedom presupposes the absence of any other than by nature has imposed
restrictions in the exercise of personal will. The laws of nature, we are bound by itself, in
the sense we are never free. Nor can we ever escape the influence of heredity, the press
and the environment of our first youth, all determining factors in our development
process. In this sense can therefore be no question of free will. But we mean by freedom
in this sense the removal of all barriers, which are artificially created by laws, rules,
regulations made for us.

What fallacies in that regard yet exist, one can see for example in the book of
Rienzi: Socialism and Liberty , a barrel of contradictions, since the writer almost settled on
one page contradicts what he said to another. The article reads: "Freedom and authority
in no way need to be enemies, they can support each other and develop
together. Freedom albeit purpose, authority the agent; freedom they have the right,
authority guarantee that right. "

Apart from that freedom can never be objective, but always means or condition, how
can power be the means to achieve the objective of freedom? It is exactly the same as
when using the cellular jail as the best means to educate the people to
freedom! sometimes as little logical writers who make more confusion by such treatment
of a subject than good!

But one should forget the other side is not that one must not fall into the worst slavery
that exists, viz., That man is his own slave. Is it true that "man is free, even though he was
born in chains" (Schiller), it is equally true that man despite all the other freedoms still is
not free. As long as he is a slave of his own lusts and desires. Freedom is not random but
perfunctory and therefore they will always see that the truly free man stiptst in the
performance of his duties. The inner drive is much more powerful than the external
pressure. And it is in the last resort not the obedience of reason, which makes
free? Schiller sang so clean:

Freiheit liebt das Thier der Wste

Frei im Aether wohnt der Gott,
Ihrer Brust gewaltige Lste
Zhmet tie Naturgebot.
But the Man in ihrer Mitte
Soll sich an den People reihn
und allein durch seine Sitte,
Kann there frei sein und powerful.

(Freedom loves animals of the wilderness, not in the air living deity, the nature injunction
restrains the great passions of her chest. But people need between God and beast join
together only by their nature they can be free and powerful ).
 As Multatuli free trial so just some saying that it consists in "the unimpeded pursuit of
truth", likewise is the freedom to live freely according to the knowledge and
conscience. Prof Melle writes in his inaugural speech: "Those who seek true freedom,
searching for self-determination; searches for the realization of his deepest self; looking
for those laws which, because they arise from the depths of their own talent, never can be
felt as a foreign force. "The complete freedom is required that no one hinders us to put
into practice that which is most beneficial to our firm conviction for ourselves and for
others. True freedom friend is not satisfied with freedom of thought, he wants freedom of
action. Act still follows the thought, one is worthless without the other. A freethinker who is
not a free agent man is only half so. What does the free thought without the right to put his
thoughts in application? Freedom of thought is no freedom of action and will always be
half measures. Most diseases are not caused by too much, but too little
freedom. However, it lacks a rule relying on the freedom that they have good night for
himself, but that can not then gives to others with trepidation. And yet again Schiller was
right when he said: "Fr den Mensch, wenn er which Ketten bricht, fr den freien Mensch
zittre niece (tremble for the man if he breaks the shackles, the free man tremble not)."

To what extent can moreover be the man when he has received training in freedom,
which we may make us even approximate no idea yet. So rightly believes Stuart Mill, that
"the state, which allows its citizens to dwarfs, that they more instructive Instruments may
be in his hands, whether it is for useful purposes, will find that they can not do big things
with little people and that the perfection of a machine, which he sacrificed everything to
him in the end to nothing will serve, for want of living power, he chose to destroy, so the
machine would work more easily. " The character is slain and pollarded and we need
more character than competence and woe to us to be witnessed once ours:

Eine grosse era hat unser Jahrhundert born

Aber der grosse Moment findet ein kleines Geschlecht.

(A large period has borne our century, but the big moment is a small race).

We understand that you let sit the authority in God and this should even do the
believer. But as soon as you drop the faith is also the land taken away under the feet of
the authority. From that moment it is floating in the air. Social contract, law, public welfare
- what are the different subjective expressions without any moral basis? Which man has
the right to a fellow human areas to rule over him, and how he can do this without using
violence? And whether that violence is now in the stronger fists, helped in universal
suffrage by armed forces or by something else, which is in fact entirely the same. What is
universal suffrage different right fist minus fighting? One of them thus: either an external
authority derived from God as the source, or the man himself to authority. What lies in
between is illogical, is inconsistent.

We are against authority, because it works wrong in every respect, both for him who
exercises it as him on whom it is exercised. It makes tyrants and toadies, not free people.

Which emerges all our suffering?

 From an unmet need.

Why does this need not met?

By coercion or of a law, a regulation, a threat or of manners and customs.

Someone is hungry. The warehouses, including foodstuffs, are full to bursting. Yet he
does not eat. Why not? Because his conscience - a lesson learned because it speaks to
the conscience learned in the environment in which they live - not to adopt him what he
needs, either because he harbors fears of police, justice and prison. He has, he needs
food and coercion are prevented from fulfilling that need.

Two young men wish to belong to each other completely, and yet they deny themselves
this wish. Why? Because they have learned that it is contrary to the "honor" to live
together without getting married or because they can not get permission. Coercion them
thus prevented from fulfilling their heartfelt desire. It is said that freedom will be obtained
for each of the disappearance of the capitalist mode of production. But is that
true? Certainly, with the loss of that production will disappear form of authority attached to
it, but not yet any form of authority. Who do you say that this is the last form of
authority? We will not examine the private property of the authority or the authority of
private property arose a philosophical issue again resemblance to the question of who it
was first: the chicken or the egg, but certainly there is interaction between both. would be
that much freedom is not true, because it is quite conceivable that a tyrant provide bread
for all. By contrast, freedom or bread, because it is inconceivable that a free people or
indeed free man will undergo voluntary starvation. Therefore it is logical true that the
struggle must be directed not only against private property, but also against authority.

But what is power? Exercise authority is to impose my will on another, even if it conflicts
with his desire and also presupposes the possession of power resources whatsoever, in
order to refuse to enforce it, is to arrange the sense of me. And for freedom, I know of no
better definition than that given by Spinoza in these words: "This object is called free ,
which exists because of the necessity of his nature and is determined by itself to
act; necessary , however, and much more forced that which is determined by another to
exist and act on certain and fixed manner. "

Now the authority is much less harmful, as it shows itself as it is, eg. As blind obedience
to perinde ac cadaver in the Jesuit order, as it shows the latest in the clothes of liberty. It
is horrible but consistently, as a Jesuit in Bungener says: "Freedom is the source of all
misfortune and the mother of all evil, the authority's order, faith, virtue, everything. No,
man is born free; he is not free, he can not be, he never will be. Do you know why you
hate us, you philosophers, statesmen, despots of every name and type? It is not because
we are despots; it is because we more courage, more seriously, with happier results than
you. You deny freedom because they can is a nuisance; we, because we do not believe
in. Thou chains man and he flounders against; we, we make him a corpse, and he
flounders not stand. But the secret of our strength, that we seem to be in control of the
power that supports us and drives. Ye think that the power of the Rome
headquarters. That's a mistake. The adhesive as well as the point is everywhere. Ye
believes that power is represented in some people. This is also a mistake. All our
superiors seem. Our General is a corpse. The Pope is a corpse. So look for that power
everywhere or nowhere, because it is everywhere. Paris, wherever a person is, in Rome,
in the deserts of the New World, because wherever a man, his passions and
consequently a servant waiting for his master. It also helps little that you hate us who want
to rule by divine or human right, on its own authority or agents of the people, over the
nations. Julie are our allies, our allies, our brothers in that eternal work, which aims to
make the human race enslaved. Kill us, you will find us in others, what am I saying? In
yourself. Scatters the spirit that dwells in us and thou shalt breathe the air. Yes, we are
incarnate despotism, but despotism is the nature of things, man is God. "Therefore, it is
not that handful of Jesuits, which compels the world to hypocrisy, but it is the hypocritical
nature of the people, making it the Jesuits as possible to exercise their dominion over the
world. Thus depriving the soil of Jesuitism, to educate the people to free, self-thinking,
independent people and you will see that it disappears without a waiver by law, without
coercive measures. It is the only freedom that can eradicate the bondage root and
branch. There is no more demand for the product, supply stops automatically.

And that is the distinction between most people and the anarchists. Each one believes
in freedom for themselves, the anarchist only believes in freedom for all. The anarchist
believes in the freedom and the principle to act properly. The magic sound of the word is
already sufficient to arouse enthusiasm and all these will also be extinguished by the civil
society, completely smothered it can never be.

With the same cynicism, the American Lloyd discusses the issue of the large trust
directors whether samples are evil and he replies: "Our tyrants have become our own
ideals, meat in men born to command us. What are these men that we have made of
them. All government representatives, including the government in the industry. We are off
the road, so we look for the solution of our problems in the belief that our business kings
are worse kind of people than ourselves. They are only stronger in the bad. There is a
competition in the bad and the winners are the strongest. But if there was lower than low,
they would be the meekampen and if they do not win, will scold. The men, the leaders are
the true representatives of the spirit of our age and those who challenge it are not of our
time, at most they are the preparers, the predictors of a new era. "And quite correct, his
conclusion "the similarity of the words know and conscience is not accidental. We must
know what is right before we can do right. But if the facts are known, the man can not
endure the monopolies as he can tolerate slavery and Roman rule. The first step to
change is that the people desire change. When they first know they will covet. To help
them know, desire to generate new hatred of the poor, new love of good, new sympathy
for the victims of power and, more able to generate a new conscience, this collection of
facts gathered. "

And now we ask whether all this better can and will be if the existing monopolies will be
concentrated according to the wish of the Social Democrats in a larger amount, viz. Into
one large state monopoly? Sure, it's possible that then all get bread, but at the expense of
the best and noblest in man, his freedom. Well-fed slaves is elected among themselves
masters can be difficult, the ideal of free citizens in a free society. And the author was
absolutely right that if our civilization is being destroyed, as Macaulay predicted, this will
not be by the barbarians of the lower strata of society, not our barbarians come from
above .

To correct assessment never be forgotten that capitalism could not possibly exist or
survive as non-owners were not in their heart owners and secretly hoping to be cherished
it. For very many it is more envy presiding, or the principle of justice. The more powerful
or richer is not worse than the weaker, because hardly one sees coming up from the lower
class in his heart, if he does turn the same, what he used to be so sharply condemned,
and sometimes even more annoying way, like already been adopted popularly in the
famous words: if not to no, he's all man's grief. And all taken together, this is very
understandable, because it is between the choice to be hammer or anvil, to be sucking
out or sucked, one prefers the former. The pattern can not help but suck on pain of
extinction - there he is pattern. So is the workman pattern, he comes under the same
conditions and therefore do like this, because the pattern system this brings with it is
necessary.

It has all sorts words that serve to hide the true state of affairs to the eyes, but it
decomposes them, one notices quickly that they have to work as Death Eaters.

Defenders of the social order, which is the largest disorder is, judging by the 't that they
can not but be taken by force into position, they do not actually find more and Heine was
absolutely right when he noted that "for communism is an incalculable favorable
circumstance that the enemy who fights, with all his might in itself holds no moral
support. The present society defends itself only out of necessity, without belief in her right,
even without regard for himself, entirely the same way as the old society, whose rotten
beams collapsed, when the son was "the carpenter. It would be extremely difficult to do
this, if one is able to have a society whose most eloquent proofs of prosperity: the
workhouse, hospital, the insane asylum and prison. Add to this the prison of the body or
the barracks and the prison of the mind or the church, and you understand that society is
as it is. We recognize, they say that the states have an urgent need for change, but it can
not suddenly, it must be a gradual development without bumps and knocks.

So along the road of evolution?

Here we get so much used distinction between

evolution and revolution ,

considered by many wrongly as a contradiction. And yet the opposite is true, evolution
and revolution are two successive phases of the same phenomenon. Both phases differ
only with respect to the time of appearance. One might call the revolution the endpoint of
evolution. See how the chick develops in the egg, how the flower swells on the tree until
the time the chick shell forcibly piece up to be released from the shell, which has become
too narrow, which bursts open the flower because they it can not keep.
 The latter revolutionary act contrary to previous evolutionary development? Not at all,
on the contrary, it is the cornerstone of. Mainly use the Darwinists claim and professionally
income on: natura non facit saltus (Nature makes no jumps) they managed to beat the
revolutionary dead by claiming how the whole nature pointed out that everything gradually
and along the line of evolution was so that intervention by means of the revolution was
unnatural. Much more appropriate was the view of Professor Bosch Kemper, where he in
his book. The science of society wrote: "When a society was a plant similar, one could
imagine a gradual development, which, by way of evolution , the blades slowly deployed
and the knob opened up to do behold the fairest flower; Now the earthly society provides
only the raw material, which the mind a rich founder of mind, find, in the transition from the
natural life to the spiritual revolutions much more than slow evolution from one state to
another good place. The natural selfishness - when feeling weak a cause of anarchy and
blind submission, all kinds of clashes in the society in sense of power is a source of
arbitrariness and recklessness, notify the uneven development of the individuals occur -
autocratic state changes, great uprisings, wide expansive revolutions which take on a
different form each time, but a common cause possess the powerful tendencies of
oppressors and oppressed to the existing another form. "and he calls the great
revolutions" just as the sins sad, but also highly beneficial revelations of wrong. As nations
grow in development, the evolution of a powerful advancing people's will replace the
revolutions. One has the causes of revolutions accurately detect are to obtained
knowledge they can occur, as it evades the natural disasters by giving notice of the
phenomena of nature, not by man-made organizations, but, if possible, the causes of evil
road " . Thus the revolutions an inevitable element in the evolutionary process of
development. But recently also brought the famous botanist and Darwinian, prof. Hugo de
Vries, come up with numerous experiments to prove that nature just does make jumps
and so the science just does work revolutionary. He showed that the swing variation in the
nature, and not the jump or variation contributes to the formation of the species. No
contradiction therefore between evolution and revolution, the nature does not only work
through the gradual way but with leaps - such are the truths which science compels
us. So it will be wise to do to put it totally unscientific talk of evolution and revolution as
opposed to the junk room of outdated prejudices. Whether evolution or revolution will win,
is a foolish, having no right to exist.

Darwinism with his famous formula of "struggle for existence" must do often employ
against socialism and there has been a fight between two groups of scientists, one in
Darwinism an ally saw socialism (prof. Virchow) and the other other hand, saw an agent in
Darwinism to demonstrate the impracticability of socialism (prof. Hckel). First, it noted
that the struggle for existence is perceived to be biased as a struggle between individuals
of the same species. Darwin also pointed out in his Descent of Man on how to lots of
social animals battle to stop the resources between individuals and replaced by
cooperation. He claimed that in such cases the fittest are not the ones who were
physically strongest or the smartest, but those who have learned so to unite the weak and
strong support each other mutually to promote the welfare of the community. "Those
companies would provoke the most blooming and most offspring that contain the largest
number of thoughtful members."
 But often forgotten, however, in addition to the "struggle for existence" another nature
can be observed in nature, no less potent, viz. The reciprocal hulpbetoon as a factor for
development. It is especially Kropotkin who has examined this law among the animals,
including wild and uncivilized peoples in the Middle Ages, in modern times in connection
with others.

. The great Russian zoologist, Professor Kessler says, "As a zoologist who have
dedicated my entire life to science, I feel compelled to protest me against the abuse of the
term" struggle for existence "which is borrowed from zoology and I warn against
overestimating its importance. Zoology and related sciences, which also relate to the life
of man, always focusing on what they call the ruthless law of the struggle for
existence; but they forget that there is another law, which we might call the law of mutual
hulpbetoon and that at least for the animals much more important than the former. The
need to propagate the race, bringing animals and plants necessary to each other and the
more the individuals keep together, the more they help each other and more likely that the
species in the battle to win the life and spiritual development will advance. Among all
classes of animals, and especially among the higher dominating the habit of helping each
other and many are the examples taken from the life of beetles, birds and mammals. I will
fight to not deny its existence, but I maintain that progress in the animal kingdom,
especially those of humanity, much more is promoted by mutual aid than fight ... All
organic beings have two main needs: to to feed and reproduce their gender. The first
brings them to struggle and to mutual extermination, while the need to mate leads them to
approach and help each other. However, I am inclined to believe that in the development
of the organic realm mutual ministry of individuals a much more important role than their
mutual struggle "The pursuit of nature must be summarized in the words." Does not
struggle for food. Contrary conduct is always detrimental to the species and there are
plenty of ways to escape those "So nature teaches us." Unite and help each other. That is
the surest way to all to provide the greatest safety, this is the best guarantee for life and
progress on the physical, mental and moral sphere. "

This is now demonstrated by keeping it in a number of examples.

Hobbes claimed that the state of nature was nothing but a constant struggle between
the individuals, who met in their lives, that error had its origin in the belief that humanity
began his career as isolated families. But the family is not an original setting, it indicates a
much later period in human development. Within the limits of the strain prevailed indeed
the principle: each for all , as long as the formation of the family had not been broken the
unit of the strain.

So it is a mistake, if one wants to use Darwinism as a weapon, to prove the unnatural

nature of socialism. The Socialists are so often criticized: you can best criticize and tear
down, we will be the last to deny that in which criticism of the existing society does not
project a large dose of truth, though she often sided and exaggerated, but when it comes
to building arrives, you're amazingly weak. And yet, how beneficial is critical, it can not
live, and if it is not constructive at the same time, one will be able to destroy, but nothing
before entering the place.
 In response to that comment, we say, but do not always precede the negative? One
can not build at the same spot, and another, there is a decayed house, without throwing it
first hit the ground! So break down, to build. Moreover, even if occasionally given a sketch
of a society of the future, as they are presenting the data today, then be left undiscussed
the main rule and all sorts of trifles minor one stays dead. If not the designers of such
sketches - and never more it can essentially - very well know that their work is incomplete
and flawed, and that a single invention is able to topple their fantasies with one gust of
reality. Do they not, how true it is, what Schiller said ?:

Das Alte strzt, ndert es sich die Zeit

und neues Leben blht aus den geldings.

(The old collapses, time changes and new life sprouted from the ruins)

First the old building should be torn down, cleaned up the rubble, to build on the ruins
of old something new and better. The revolutionary method is the much shorter and more
economical than that of the reformists. They are tied with two persons, eg. Want to
establish a bakery. One has a large capital, so can break some fields and on that basis
establish a beautiful plant, provided in accordance with the requirements of the times of all
the newest, time- and money-saving machines. The other other hand, should start in
miniature, each time to buy a plot to purchase a lot of money and a new machine. It
actually always mess job despite higher expenses because if finally the bill was made of
them, it would show how the first lot cheaper everything was accomplished than the
second and a lot sooner was his goal. Similarly here and it always goes to whether
Herbert Spencer has no equal in this comment: "The stones of a house can not be used in
any other way, before the house itself is brought to the ground. If the stones are
connected by cement will cause special effort to destroy their present state before they
can be used again. And if the cement she has confirmed for centuries, breaking
accompanied by such difficulties that building with new materials comes more economical
than rebuilding old. "

This is a practical note, the truth will be recognized by all builders. And now the
demolition work may often be regarded as inferior, yet it is not advisable for everyone to
venture into it, because it could happen that they themselves buried under the rubble. But
as good as the builders of the temple in Jerusalem had to work after the return of the
Jews from exile with the trowel in one hand and a sword in the other hand, similarly, this
should be done now. Build and defend itself must be simultaneously against all attacks,
including in the social sphere.

For the mass size, which owns nothing, it also abort is not risky work because less they
may not be on. Schier any change for its improvement. This is the condition in which the
working class of the world is located. On the other hand it is understandable that all those
who have something to lose, be afraid of the "leap in the dark" (leap of faith), as others
call it, who prefer to stay in maintaining what they have, all this goes at the expense of the
majority of their fellow men, then they would venture into the unknown, the
uncertain. They bring the old saying in application, so-conservative tendency, because it
is the death of any change: "What you have, my child, you know that. What you get, you
do not know. "Also with respect thereto are the interests of those who, according to the
Communist Manifesto" have nothing to lose but their slave shackles "and everything to
gain, a world of prosperity, joy and freedom, in contrast with those who have something to
lose, facing each other, separated by a gulf which yawns so wide that they can not be
overcome as long as the evil is not affected in the root. Everything is a "be forever" and
therefore nothing remains the same. "Everything that exists is worth it to ruin"; as well as
the seed dies, but after having given life to something else, likewise goes into the whole
world and the poet expressed it very well, as he thought this REFLECT on these pithy
sentence:

Was soll leben Unsterblichkeit

Muss erst im Leben untergehn.

(What will live immortal, must first undergo in life).

Egoism and altruism

Also on the mind is much talk of community, among people has woken up and again it
makes a contrast, which is no contradiction in truth. One speaks of egoism and altruism ,
and then writes the first to the period is behind us and the second as more and more
driving principle of our time. Ego means I, Alter means an Other. So we get the contrast of
a life for themselves and live for others. And triumphant hear people sometimes say our
time is dedicated to the altruism. They talk about the individual and the social impulse as
the two pivots around which the society takes. But again, there exists such a
contradiction? It refers to the period of the Manchester School and the concomitant
liberalism as the individualistic era. Sure, that individualism was atomism, as were the
people a lot of atoms together without inner connection instead of an organism whose
prerequisite welfare of different sections for the good of the whole. But self-interest, ie the
interest of the individual is not against the public interest, for how can I be happy at the
misfortune of others? Everyone starts with himself and despite all the talk will care for
themselves, driven as it is in every being, the first with which they engaged. Yes, doing
good to others is even the result of caring for themselves. Therefore, it proves nothing for
an altruistic spirit that would haunt when one shows how much more is being done for the
people in comparison with the past. For first, it would be very difficult to prove that
something is done much more, though not numerous charitable institutions date back to
an earlier time, and then secondly, these are nothing but signs of philanthropy and is and
will always remain a kindness and not a right, so it conforms precisely to what is not
required. In a healthy society, after all, invalidate all philanthropy and as long as it exists,
one can say that the situation is unhealthy. "Under any form - whatsoever - will be the"
right to work "for every human being must be recognized" - says Quack, but what we have
theoretical recognitions, as long as we untouched leave the private property and access is
not to everyone guaranteed to work? That law still was already recognized in France by
the National Convention of 1793, declaring that "every person has the right to
maintenance work, provided he is able to do so and to free assistance if it is to operate
outside state" and "the maintenance of the poor national debt" above instead of
acknowledging the elimination of poverty as such. Here lies an inconsistency that can not
be overcome. The Declaration of Human Rights will provide work or providing resources
to those who are unfit to work called a duty of society. Babeuf well as Fourier proclaimed
that idea; the National Assembly in 1848 proclaimed the solemnity. Bismarck spoke the
great principle in the Diet of 1878: "Give the worker the right to work, as long as he is
healthy, make him care if he is sick, guarantee him a good care when he is old", relying on
a section in the Prussian law of 1794. But still awaiting the first steps in that direction. And
with all the shouting on the penetration of the sense of community even that little, what
was done to cover the need, nothing but pure selfishness, in order to prevent worse things
for which they feared. The foundation of all that altruism is nothing but selfishness, though
it is at most refined form. No, it is not true that man himself behind proposes to another,
because when it comes down to is everyone himself the neighbor and those who speak
differently, are guilty of self-deception or hypocrisy, because they know very well that they
just by that give better their own I can serve.

When a father takes away the last piece of bread to his child, everyone agrees that it is
guided by his selfishness, who went to him above all else. However, if a mother gets rid of
her clothes to cover her little darling and myself prefer to sit shivering from the cold, to
think that her child cold would suffer, then that act is praised and see in it evidence of self-
denying love.

Yet, how different those two actions are the result of humankind, both persons are
driven by the same motive, viz. The hunt for pleasure. Indeed, as the person who
removes the last piece of bread, rather than cede another, or his own clothes earmarked
to cover it with others, there was no joy, he did not.

Both therefore act to themselves, by providing satisfaction to that to which they are
forced irresistible. The motive is the same, only the nature of the act is different. Pleasure
pursuit, remove pain - actually both the same - there at all striving.

No word game so that too often to serve to allow the very best free game behind pretty
words to his selfishness, like Mephistopheles understood this so precisely in Faust, when
he said: "It is precisely there where the sentence can the appropriate word occupy its
place; with words is being fought perfectly with words, a system prepared and cultivated. "

When Max Stirner, the apostle of selfishness, boldly says, "Me Nothing beats me", that
sounds terrible, but if we turn inwards honest to ourselves and want to be sincere, we will
have to recognize that we all act according to that doctrine . And who dares speak and do
accordingly, that the majesty of the I conquered. After all, that is to say: do not trample,
think highly of your own ego. When all Iks doing so, would there be more talk of
trampling? Just because one thinks less of himself, precisely because it lets her pleasure
which no man shall suffer with self-esteem. Individuals make the society. Would not the
sum of the highest individual necessarily result have a high society? Really you need not
be afraid of exaggerated individualism, because others take care of it, that if the
individuality too strong calls in the foreground, is torn down again. Goethe remarked
rightly so, that "we are in the merits of the case all collective beings, which we may
imagine us, for how little we have and are we that we call in the strict sense our
property! We all need to receive and learn both of those before us as those who live with
us. Even the greatest genius would not get very far, if wanted owes it all to his own inner
life. " so there is likely much greater danger that men will leave stifle his individuality, then
they will play too big a role in life. Certainly dealings, dealings with others is in turn
individuals, so here is reciprocal action instead of the parts on the whole and the whole to
the parts. Is there a more appropriate comparison than that of the society in the human
body? If one member suffers, though it is' t smallest, then suffers the whole body. Only
then the body is healthy if all parts of the cleanest harmony to each other.

It was on the last day of Socrates' life, his friends came to him in prison to say goodbye
to him. When the end began to draw near, asked one of them, Crito, to the master, "What
can we do for your children?" The sage did this in reply: "Nothing other than that ye take
care of yourself. Thus you do me and mine and yourselves the greatest service, all
promising you nothing now. But if you neglect yourself, you will have nothing more to do,
though ye now promises a lot and with strong words. "

A seemingly strange answer yet is contained therein what a deep sense of truth!

The least a man for others, can do for the community, will be, to ensure that he none of
the others until they are either canceled. So take care of yourself, therefore you doing
others a favor. Here comes only by Multatuli as correctly chosen adage of "proximate
duties".

The sick, the community does not have much. Care therefore, out of love for others, for
your own health.

The poor, the community does not have much. Care therefore, out of love for others, for
your own good.

Ignorant to the community does not have much. Care therefore, out of love for others,
for your own knowledge.

You see it, how "selfish" to be, in order to essentially "altruist"? In other words, that
there is no contrast to this, but the two concepts, well understood, cover each other
completely? What is true of the flower: "Decorates the rose herself, she immediately
adorns the garden", is equally true of man who best fulfills its vocation as an individual,
extends immediately mankind honor.

Please just look at how each individual noble as it were rays going out, throwing light
on its entire area. If therefore the improvement of the conditions does not increase the
level of the individual is accompanied, yet improvements galvanizing soon not. We look at
all the nature, for man is not above or outside it, for he is himself a part of nature. we seek
the right knowledge of the relationship of the human race and each individual human
being. It was the fault of liberalism that took care of some parts of the social body, but
others do and most neglected. Could the result so different than being a totally sick body?

Apply to those who wish to see placed the ethical side in the foreground, we ask how
can a starving population, who lack any thing. How flat materialistic as it may sound, we
say that the first ethical question is eetvraag.
 "Nichts mehr davon ich bitt 'Euch! Zu
essen gibt ihm, zu wohnen Habt ihr die bedeckt Blosse,
giebt which Wrde sich von selbst. "

(Nothing more on that, I beg you. Give him to eat, to live! If you have covered the
nakedness, the value will follow)

- As Schiller writes correctly. And therefore had Lassalle right when he social question
as "stomach issue" placed in the foreground, even though he knew as well as all morality
preachers who themselves plenty good to enjoy the earth and search, that man does not
live by bread alone. Foods are proper resources and therefore: start with the
beginning. Do not say thoughtless what should the rich people who have plenty of food,
you are virtuous because you say it is not good; saying only that they possess the
conditions to be good, if not other things they neutralized again. Or would you deny that
poverty leads to wickedness? Oh, it's so easy to be brave when one has everything one
desires. Civilization can not flourish without material wealth. Who already has needed
time to himself by defending its work for hunger, cold and disease, how could he think of
other things?

Morality is a beautiful thing, especially for the wealthy men who come up with a
beautiful, well-assured future in the world as well as the snail with her little house on the
back. But not all animals have that privilege and morals of slag does not fit enough for
every creature. And when we are not on the allegation of a neighbor, who says I have to
live, dare to say: I see the necessity not in - the actual answer that gives the owner
practically non-owner - then shoot nothing otherwise recognize on than the man who has
nothing should use all means to make a living. The famous Cardinal Manning
acknowledged that "the natural right to life neighborhoods all human laws." So for hunger
sufferer is no law, no virtue, no morality, for him only one demand, and that is this: how
can I give satisfaction to the needs of my stomach, asking for food?

The recognition that the 19th century in its fullness the period has been paid to the
"bourgeoisie" (Prof. Quack) is only afgedwongen by socialism and these look into that as
"not all voortekenen cheating, even with the end of the 19th century, the period of the
dictatorship of the industrious middle class, the "regime" of the liberal party, has been
closed. " And how heavy the accusation seem, it is fully justified that "do Messrs
economist, if they do not see all that, chapters and devise a new mathematical theory of
value or a spiked theory of price formation. They are like the king of the Visigoths, who
Jorn Andes relates in his chronicle. The battle rages; the warriors deposit together:
against the Lombards to fight the crowds. But aside from the battlefield is chess king
under a tree with one of his courtiers, and he invents new place on the
chessboard. Moreover, the defeat of his army with rolling thunderous thunders and drag
him and his cronies and his chess in the shame of death and destruction. "

This is not to say the same as what we repeatedly told them: the politicians
are irrational , the men of science distraught and amid them the people
are irretrievably destroyed, if not beyond this to take in hand their own affairs?
 Especially this show in relation to the problem of unemployment, which is insoluble in
the context of contemporary society. After all, it is based on the wage system and
precisely that system has unemployment as a result. If one wants to fight a case
successfully, one must identify the cause and raise. Fight against the effects without
removal of the cause is the same as the filling of the vessel of Danaides, where one first
has taken out the bottom. Indifferent to it to pass, as the priest and the Levite did it in the
famous parable against the man who was lying on the road injured and infirm, is
eventually impossible because interferes society not with the unemployed, then one can
assured that the unemployed start interfering with the company one day and then in a
rather brutal fashion. Read what the learned economists writing on that matter and you
will be amazed about the awkwardness, they flaunt that. And yet, in the sign of the
unemployment is going to ruin this company. Our time with all his learning is the old word
applicable: "In the evening you say, it will be a beautiful day, for the sky is red and in the
morning you say, today there will be thunderstorms, because the sky looks sad
red. Hypocrites! The shape of heaven can you judge, why not also the signs of the times?
"That word still hits the nail so right on the head. Because actually we know much more
on the course of celestial bodies, the appearance of the sky, the laws that prevail there
than what around us takes place right before our feet in the human society.

The application of steam to the industry, the stronger division of labor in modern
industry and the accumulation of capital through the trusts - there three causes, which
lead to unemployment and did not expect is that this will change, they will have to
increase necessary in the future. Every new invention, witnessing the human spirit that
works to free man from all the tedious and mind-numbing labor, should be met with fear
and trembling. One can think for example. To the typesetter. So again our society is
actually hostile to progress. A single invention can put a whole industry such revolutionize,
he disappears. And we think of the nomination of the renowned chemist Berthelot, who
have the role of chemistry in the society of the future speaking, said that no farm and no
peasantry will exist around the year 2000, no coal mines will be operated as the fuels will
be replaced by chemical and physical methods of heating. It will exploit the summer heat
and the heat of the interior of the earth and of the two heat sources will be an unlimited
use. This shall be realized, then many other issues will be resolved, eg. The most difficult
of all, the production of foods. This is of a purely chemical nature, because at the same
day that one gets force in an inexpensive way, it will be with carbon from the carbonic
acids, with hydrogen and oxygen from the water and not create nitrogen from the
atmosphere foodstuffs of all sorts. What hitherto did the plants will do well in the industry
and more perfect way than nature can do so far. There will then be a rotation, of which
one can make is currently no understanding yet; vegetable gardens, vineyards and fields
will disappear, people will be more gentle and better, as they will no longer live by killing,
the destruction of living beings. The earth will be a garden where one will be able to grow
at its lust grass and flowers, woods and thickets and where humanity will live in the
abundance of the Golden Age. Therefore, he will not degenerate yet, as part of happiness
is work, and man will labor as good as ever, because he no longer selfishly only for
themselves, but better than ever, will also work for others the spiritual, moral and artistic
development of all to bring ever higher goal. Is not Zola, who in his latest
novel Travail (Work) electrical power above become necessary, efficient cause of all work
for all community life, which sees science as the great liberator of man, as the
revolutionary par excellence, making it possible is created on the ruins of the old,
destroyed, blown swept world the sublime and to realize pure dream of anarchism: the
free man in a free society, each being freed from all ties with integration to infinity of all
feelings and all talents, uitlevende his right to be alive and happy through the common
property of all the goods of the earth?

The clairvoyant men of science know where the fault lies, like Sismondi, who, after all,
so just put it: "As for the medicine, I did not give it to the courage, because if one does
that, one would the present property laws must affect "and Professor Quack testifies:"..
Besides fully the teachings of the property will be revised gradually ", he only dares the
case is not enough to where he rejects the almost absolute nature of the property and
want to convert it into a properly limited character, based on the principle that the exercise
of property rights must not harm the community, but does not feel that the title must either
be completely or it is lost, nor an authority, which is linked to restrictive rules, authority can
be called. After all, who will determine whether that right harms to the community? Has
one here within the arbitrariness? And what if it turns out that the right to property as such
harm to the community? They apparently dare not issue.

The foundations of the contemporary society, the pillars supporting the building, are
the authority and ownership . And now one may agree that both of them are no good in
the form in which they act now because we are not satisfied with it. One must prove, not
that then can be built up an unhealthy society - after all, we know the existing - but that it
is possible thereafter to establish healthy. The fruits one knows the tree and no thinking
person the fruits of this society may deem fit. Stuart Mill in these extremely cautious, but
nevertheless said truthfully: "We know too little of what both individual efficacy and
socialism, both bring in their most excellent form, may be effected in order to determine
soil which overcome both and to give human society its final form will be. "Whether it
however true that in general education and effective determination of the members of
society just no poverty could exist even under the present institutions, we are extremely
doubtful. Namely 1. because general education without other reforms can coexist very
well with oppression and injustice, witnessing the different countries where general
education, even schooling is found, and 2. because necessarily reflect lost the advantage
in overall penetration limitation of families go, now draw some of them by limiting their
families. Mill says that "the principle of personal property yet nowhere has stood the test in
its true form," but he forgets to inform you that the true form exists, so this claim is
withdrawn from an investigation. He understands personal property to guarantee to
individuals the fruits of their own labor, but what is this different from what the socialists
want, viz. The product of labor to the person who carries out the work? Or the inability to
determine each share of the product of labor, the joint product of labor to the collective
members of society. The old formula still: each the product of his labor in the word with
the emphasis his , has proved to be inaccurate, since no one can say the work of his
hands: this is the product of my work and only my work, there participated the whole
society, so not only the society in which we live, but also the last on whose shoulders we
stand, in order to enable the individual capable of the labor of others to live. Even the
families had participated in and therefore the accuracy of the formula can not possibly
stand the test of close examination. But the writer of the golden book On Liberty (On
Liberty) venture a guess and believes that the victory of such a system will belong that
"condones the largest expansion of human freedom and spontaneity."

We see that common ownership and freedom does not necessarily have to go together,
witnessed the coercion in the monasteries, in Paraguay and elsewhere.

We also see that not coexist personal property and freedom, witness the contemporary
society.

Case is therefore to find a form in which common ownership associated with

freedom. This is not one particular lose sight of the distinction between ownership and
possession, which we used to being. The abolition of private property presupposes not
necessarily the elimination of private property.

Herbert Spencer [300] found "supremacy and subordination" very natural, because "as
long as the people are so grounded that they interact, either by physical force or strength
of character, the fight must to decide the supremacy finally be at favor of the one or the
other and the difference, once commenced, must have the tendency to become more and
kennelijker ". He considers the emergence of differences among people in the absence of
perfect uniformity in life that each of their leads, necessary and this difference leads at the
latest "social differentiation" and "even accidentally caused need of health inequalities,
through the co-marketing of inequalities of physical and mental abilities, disrupt the
balance of the mutual influences among the units and the balance once disturbed, must
inevitably be lost. " But he does not forget that there is a difference between equality and
uniformity? Forget it not, that there is no question of his every action, the influence of one
person to another to lift - which otherwise would be impossible - but whether is granted
the power to this effect to the one the opportunity to deliver his will, if necessary by force,
to impose on the other? Uniformity would be death and is desired by anyone, but equality
of conditions, open to everyone. Nobody will have anything against the influence
exercised by more knowledge and higher morality, but if it be connected to any external
power resources, which one will be able to compel others.

The assumption would be foolish, the authoritarian socialists would seek deliberately to
bring some of their individual liberty sacrificed to a certain social order, no, we have to
assume that they pursue that particular social form, because they believe that this is the
basis of the individual freedom of movement for each makes it possible, which is needed
for the most highly developed form of individual well-being. But they misled if they believe
in their system that degree of individual freedom, which they wish for themselves, to
guarantee adequate to all. They are guilty of a fallacy that serious consequences after
dragging himself, because by and in their system not only the freedom to do justice, but it
is the contrary of death for individual freedom.

Undeniably, there is a commitment to strengthen and reduce the power of the individual
to society, because it does not contradict the authority and the power of the state today go
far beyond 25 or 50 years ago. It moves in the direction of the state and municipal
socialism, dubbed by some in the name of socialism feasible. The sharp contrast between
the Social Democrats and the other parties has already disappeared. A split in the fourth
position, the babes in the eyes of the liberal bourgeois, is in full swing. The small middle
class increasingly reaches more reference to the aristocracy among the workers and so is
gradually formed a fifth class, consisting of the unemployed and all the unfortunate victims
of today's society. The unions, aware of the preservation of himself, let the unemployed
shoot rather than understood why they are the ones who forced strikebreaking, out of
necessity, the enemies of organized labor. This is shown in each case with every
movement of the unemployed. They think eg. The attitude of the member of the Social
Democrats in Berlin that the unemployed might scolded worse than the other sheets by
making them out for "Balonmtze" (as many as pimps) "Lumpen", etc. None single word
of protest was heard from the mouth of the social Democrats in the Reichstag at Berlin's
saber party. And that of people who claim to be representatives of the working class! All
improvements are at best only makes the proletariat organized as well and if this common
cause with the bourgeoisie against the unemployed, rather than understanding that a
single invention may revolutionize a whole box such that the vast majority of practitioners
will be placed on the street and thus sharing the fate of the unemployed - not every
worker actually a candidate unemployed? - Then is thereby served the interests not of the
proletariat, but the bourgeois state.

English understood this very well, as evidenced by the end of his book The Condition
of the Working Class in England "A permanent improvement can for two 'protected'
sections of the working class are recognized only. First, the factory workers. And second,
the large trade unions. But as the masses, the state of misery and insecurity in which they
live now is as low as ever, if not lower. The East End of London is a vast pool of
permanent misery and desolation, of starvation for those who are out of work, and
degradation, physical and moral, for those who have a short time work. And so it goes in
all other major cities -. With the exception of the privileged minority of the workers both in
the smaller towns and agricultural areas "What he wrote (in 1844) is still in force. And
also: "The factory legislation, once the terror of patrons, was not only pleased employed
by them, but they extended her more or less across all of the industries. The trade unions,
not long ago called the devil's work, now flattered by the patrons and protected as lawful
institutions and energetic way to spread healthy economic ideas among the workers. "

The Social Democracy loses the influx of petty-bourgeois elements, which are
increasingly the first violin to play in the party, its proletarian character and as one of the
social democratic party programs and comparing the radicals with each other, one
principle discerns no difference, at least as regards the action in the present. A Vollmar, a
Bernstein and many others are the pioneers of this bridge between the aristocracy of the
proletariat and the small middle class, while the actual revolutionary proletarian elements
are ejected as heretics and persecuted. Through the course of time, push all parties and
the Social Democrats have become decent by the anarchists on whose head now all the
bowls of wrath are poured by the propertied class. And yet it is the only anarchists who
are actually holding the banner of socialism up.

As presented Professor Quack hand to the Social Democrats, where he disinterest of

extension of State intervention in favor, although he admits reduction of freedom for some
may be, although assuring -. The freedom of the majority - can there be so sure his? - And
therefore that it is as an organ of the community lets take preparatory measures. He
wants to expand the field of activity of state and municipality, taking the following line to
start the easiest and later, if necessary, to the more complex in hand. Second, he wants to
improve the positive regulation of private relationships among the people, so not the
individual but the community is the starting point. And then rise in the third place
questions like this: the state can act on the large area of measures to better regulate the
production and adapt it to the consumer? Can the state influence on the distribution of
wealth? Behold the area which according to him "experiments social policy of our
days." We would like to ask whether this is not an experiment in corpore vili is (in the living
body), to which people are exposed? But time has won a lot of wins, so think of the men,
and this is - to speak with Rodbertus - or a hundred or five hundred years passed, and
then the deluge! Again therefore the same doctrine that every time floating above include
forms.

We also believe that state socialism in the air and have to, but we believe that humanity
should be happy about the influence exerted by the anarchist idea out, making this state
socialism can not develop its full freedom throat shape and so strong tempered must
act. This is recognized even by opponents as Bernstein, where he says: "If I'm bitter
opponent of the anarchy, which preaches robbery and murder, I am also an opponent of
the anarchy that the importance of political action by the working class and the use
disregards the law. But I recognize and I have long since recognized the libertarian
anarchism a natural and healthy reaction against the excessive statism. "

The worship of the state that modern idol, which is elevated above the individuals, us
all being or hot encouraging, as will all idols appear to be anything and everything helps
warning that direction nothing, yet it can be useful to have word of Ihering, the astute
German jurist to remind you where he writes: "May the state anything to him good, moral
and practical seems to enactment, there are no limits to that right; the movement that
permits the state, is just a concession, a gift! Those considering an all-devouring and all
by itself has emerged bringing state omnipotence, pride gorgeous robe in which she
dresses so gladly, proudly pompous phrases of people's well-being, respect for objective
principles of moral law, is and remains a miserable product of the arbitrariness, the theory
of despotism, no matter whether they are being put into practice by an absolute monarch
by a popular assembly. Her to assume, means for the individual moral suicide. It takes
away man's ability to be good, because one him the opportunity to do good of his own
accord not bestows. "

Just so it's all just and true, therefore, one would do well to acknowledge the beneficial
influence of anarchism in this direction. No victory so provisionally state socialism, not a
victory of anarchism, but a somewhat miraculous mixture of both or go side by side the
two currents occasionally some rapprochement through a compromise. Behold what we
expect in the near future.

When we as the history of socialism follow through the centuries, it is undeniable that
the advocates of this direction were always at the forefront of progress. At most, one can
say that they were ahead of their time, but also they gave essentially the lines along which
progress would move. They were often the brightest thinkers, but also the deepest feeling
people whose hearts gave them no peace if they had to see how the happiness of some
was built on the misery of the masses. What a wealth of ideas not well up from the works
especially Fourier and Owen, so there really is no reform during the course of the last
century has occurred, or its one finds rationale back at them. And when one then,
watching the great wealth of thought, given by them to humanity, are wondering: how is it
that the socialist idea yet penetrated comparatively so few in society ?, of course, the
question arises: what is allowed the reason that so fair idea so often failed in practice?

One speaks today about scientific and utopian socialism and using English one sees
the development of socialism from utopia to science, but it is forgotten that the so-called
scientific socialism includes no truth which is not found in the so-called utopian
socialism. The history of the development of capital, withdrawal of the small producers by
large, the theory of value and surplus value, the economic conception of history - sees
that all are found in the older socialist writers. Who gives himself the trouble to study their
writings or even browse through, he comes to the conclusion that all the supposedly new
already old [301] .

It is obvious that the serious thinker will have to ask the question: if the socialism of
thought lies much truth, how is it still the socialist word has become so little meat, that has
not translated into action?

Our answer must be: because the production has not yet permitted the
realization . There were not produced sufficient and as long as this is not the case, fail
any attempt at realization of socialism. Common hungry is a poor ideal. This can now no
longer be said. When sufficient data they need to determine over the yield of the earth to
what we know, and one can argue with soil, the yield of Europe and the United States of
North America is large enough to provide more than adequate at all need. But this
production is surprisingly increased by the use of the inventions of science, through a
rational, planned agriculture, which still have to replace too many prevailing plundering, by
the significant savings that can be obtained, and there is still room for an increase above
all calculation. Thus, once this condition is met, one of the causes is removed, which was
to edit the failure of socialism. First, the material must be possible, otherwise any attempt
to realization too early and therefore not viable. Again, the profound word from one of
Paul's letters: "When the time had come, God sent his Son," which means in other words,
when the appointed time was present. And likewise here: when the completed time is ripe,
it will be practiced socialism no doubt by the urge of necessity. The law of causality
teaches us that all that is must be so necessary as it is. Only, who can determine ahead of
time whether or not ripe? When failure is one readily on hand to talk about lack of insight,
but the best helmsmen are ashore.

And then the failure is due to the application of authoritarian socialism. For all that goes
with coercion, thereby missing all viability. All socialist plans now had a barracks-like
character and this repelled. All socialism was actually coercion socialism and
vrijheidlievend man must loathe it. We can imagine that communism and individualism in
society coexist, so that everyone chooses one or the other according to its nature. Forcing
one people, one takes them counterclockwise. Let them be free, then that form will win,
who has the most viability. Not by much, on the contrary too little freedom members all
revolutions shipwreck. Of course one can not imagine that the people who were still stuck
in forged irons, release, all at once will go well. It is quite possible that there are excesses
of all kinds will take place, but we see no reason why the excesses of liberty would be
worse and more damaging than the constraint which a society like forth our calling, where
behind a very thin veneer, the man still has in his animal form. Crab off the Russian and
Tatar emerges says hot proverb. We can safely thus vary: crab bourgeois occasionally
Cannibal emerges.

And behold what was the biggest reason for the failure. Socialism could not be realized
in the absence of socialists , as in France, the republic can not thrive in the absence of
republicans. Republicans are not born, nor socialists, they must be developed and
educated.

So education and development - such is the way to succeed is to [302] . Where

these existed hitherto? One can say that the education at the school was intended, or has
the formation of self-thinking and self-judgmental people? One should already be very
naive to believe that. No, the teachers themselves often starving proletarians do
unconsciously as a spiritual instrument of power in the hands of capitalism, to divert
young people from an early age on into submission and docility.

Very true one has understood that he who has the youth, has the future, and therefore
one should not be surprised that the school in all countries has given rise to such a
caustic battle. "With a mature race is never much to begin in things political as well as
spiritual life, in matters of taste as well as character. Therefore, be wise; begins in the
schools and it will go "- this man botanist remark thinker Goethe in accordance with the
experience and the Jesuits, who always managed to speculate masterfully on the
weaknesses of the human race [303] to grow this already from an early age, that they are
grown is difficult or impossible to extricate, brought this application in by saying, give us
children.

The whole school is based on lies and hypocrisy. And how else can, where the teacher
is a civil servant, so one of the wheels of the state chariot because his duty is to work on
the preservation of the state or the municipality, which forms part of the state. If the
master does not prevent to think the child under present circumstances, he has already
done a lot of this negative role. How many spiritual lies the mind of the child is fed at the
school! Love of the fatherland , the country where they may be hungry, allowed to roam
unemployed, as wage slave work to increase the national wealth without there to enjoy
themselves, and that one should love as the best of all homelands, although his children
really shabbily allots and treats; obedience to the laws made by the rich to oppress the
poor; respect for the property by the proletarians who possess nothing
themselves; respect for law and justice by those who have nothing to defend; respect for
freedom by those who are themselves slaves and will die tomorrow if they do not have to
find work happiness; satisfaction , while barely has enough to satisfy his most-most
necessary maintenance; the blessing of the work , while young age to experience the
nobility letter of work, the calluses of hands, is highly valued in words, but that one is very
generous to let it to others; the power of knowledge , and it will later find that knowledge
with an independent character is a prerequisite to bring it close to the world, and that the
old preacher had it right conclusion when he said: Knowledge is good, but with an
inheritance, so if there is a bag of florins approaches - such social virtues that are fostered
at school, that they will apply them in an anti-social society! Why do they teach that? To
bring everything later in life as a citizen in practice.

The school, as it is now, is thus forming human in the way. Or should not be the aim to
develop the children [304] , ie, loosen the wraps which it is located, in order to show
themselves as they are? Rousseau described it as correct, when he said: "The education
takes place either by nature or by man or by things. The internal development of our
properties and organs is the education of nature: the use that we learn to make us of this
development is educating the people and gaining our own experience about the things
that affect us upbringing "Develop. so, not wrapping or wrapping. That man is a being with
its own will and initiative, independence and character, hating all external authority and
supporting themselves and what they find attractive, and aspiring to organize his life
according to the dictates of reason. That everything is possible only if the child from an
early age was brought up in freedom. Self-esteem must be cultivated and that is only
possible through the knowledge of self and of the environment in which one lives. It
mainly concerns the man is not separate from nature, for he is a piece of nature, to which
he belongs [305] . Praxis, the reality, that is the real nature and there always applies: two
times two is four, no more and no less. "Grey, friend! Is all theory. Green and golden tree
of life "not in contemplation, in scholar argue in fine formulas they seek his strength -.
There is already more than enough contemplated in argued formulated - but
in doing . Indeed formulas man can not live, and yet they make their first and most-often
the most work. They throw "pearls before swine". Teaches children not algebra, but the
ABC, does not require people who are not yet ready for things and actions, going beyond
their concepts and thus going over them, but learns to understand them first and then act
accordingly. Because "you're finally - who you are. You may wear a wig with curls
thousand, hunting lengthy stilts, so you'll always what you are. "(Goethe). However, it
always beginning with the start, which is with itself. Self-criticism, self-improvement is the
first and best condition to progress. It also saw Bakunin well when he wrote: "Man is
rebelling against himself first, then against society." Where this is neglected, since it lacks
the prerequisite to recovery. Let us be better and it will be better, the same applies
here. Once the direction of thinking and feeling turns to the people, it will be seen that will
change the entire structure of society. They often promise more than they want to give the
best. The people cried then, they have deceived us. The leaders pledged: to catch the
people's literally nothing. And yet everything was natural and the debt was one with the
people, which had deceived by the others and did not trust and built on itself, and the
leaders who set themselves up to guardians. The laziness, inertia shakes like all of
themselves to others, and the eternal shift was the cause, the brut eels had half the world,
because they dare everything. Like the single man must take full responsibility for the acts
committed by him, likewise it should do humanity. Now we know very well that man is the
product of the circumstances, but one too often forgets that man is also a factor: the man
and the circumstances are not, as it were hostile to each other, but complement each
other. Even the great champions of the materialist conception of history can not fail to
communicate to consider man as a factor which has to take circumstances into
account. Fr. English said that in the future, "the boundary conditions of life which surround
man and him as yet limited, are subject to the management and supervision; only now he
is truly lord of nature, because and when he became lord of his own society. The laws of
their society that the people so far as foreign toeschenen them controlling natural laws are
now being used by them with perfect business knowledge and also controls ... Only now
the people will make their history with full consciousness. "And gives Kautsky Make that
"the course of development is by no means independent of some personalities. Every
person living in society, it exerts more or less influence on it. Some people, excellent by
talent or social argument may in the course of things for entire states, exercising for
several years a major influence. "It has even respect that the power of personality in
social relations through time rather larger then it will be less. Too often, he still
experiences the truth of "I, wretched man, the good that I would I do not: but the evil which
I would not, that I do." The great difficulty consists in finding the environment for
themselves, which one can best develop and evolve. Because only there, where man can
develop in the fullness of its independence, which is its individuality throughout fruition, as
he shows himself in all his power, as he reveals the essence of his existence. Robert
Owen in his New Moral World set put very well that every individual is so organized that
he made to receive what is commonly called a bad character, when he created what is
called now an unfavorable ratio of the elements of his nature and is placed on his birth
under the worst conditions; that each individual is organized so that it is made to receive
an average or mediocre character when he created is what is called now is a favorable
ratio of the elements of his nature and of his birth is placed it under adverse conditions,
either when unfavorable ratio present the elements of his nature and external conditions
were favorable; that each individual is so organized that he made a lofty receive
character, when its original frame, the best ratio includes the elements of human nature
and when the circumstances around surrounded him from his birth and the life of that
nature are that they produce only lofty sensations or in other words when the laws,
institutions and practices, under which he lives, in accordance with the laws of his
nature. The vital question for the future is the realm of the individual to demarcate in his
freedom to society or rather how man so to educate, that he own instinct draws those
limits. No person still is a completely self-contained being and it is a great mistake to think
that the people have nothing to do with each other's behavior; that they need not bother
themselves to the welfare of others, because one man can eg. be a focal point of
infection, which lit many others. So we have to do with each other. Which stands as a sore
thumb. Would even the greatest genius, left to itself, growing dull and undergo. The
human being is to speak with Darwin, a social animal, which was driven into joining by his
social instinct of sociality, probably because it felt too weak to stand alone. As such, he is
a roedel- or herd animal. But as man rises in development, to the extent violates the
individuality more and more to the fore and the highest final form, as even opponents of
anarchy witnesses, is at the top lined individuality. At a lower position going
submissiveness, obedience, docility by major virtues. Darwin has preferably to the
baboons. Carl Vogt shares of Dr. Brehm. Illustrirtes Thier Leben on monkeys companies
indicate the following: "The member of a gang which possesses the most experience, is
captain or leidaap. This dignity, however, it is not instructed by the "universal suffrage", but
granted only after a very stubborn camp with other contenders. The longest teeth and
powerful arms decide. Who does not want to willingly subject is geringeloord by bites and
blows, until he was brought to reason. The strong crown is far, is his wisdom in his
teeth. However, this is very understandable: the oldest monkeys are always the strongest
and must also approve or unwillingly younger inexperienced submit to them. The leidaap
desires and enjoys unconditional obedience and well in every way. "The leidaap shall
perform his duties with great dignity. Already the esteem which he enjoys, gives him some
security and independence in his actions, which lacks his subordinates "and Vogt hereby
adds the remark:". We do not know whether the difference between the morality that in
these monkeys society completely of the will depends of the heirs and those of a horde
New Hollanders, which also makes the strongest law, may seem big enough to
understand the whole distinction of an empire that. The theoretical absolutism, after all,
has absolutely no other morality than that of the rulers. He makes the law, he writes the
faith, he determines morality - who acts differently, anyone who thinks otherwise, he has
the right to kill or punish - the morality of absolute despotism theoretically different from
that of a monkies? "

Now, as the people are still so close to the state of barbarism that they are actually
quite exhibiting lower nature - which means several thousand years in the development of
human history? - May very many, if not most said that they are baboons at altitude in the
constellation of the herd status. We feel good to be above the apes, but look at our
society and people wonder yourself once, or under other names have not been numerous
policy monkeys, which are blind obedience? And now people mostly have so many traits
of the baboons nature of their ancestors, then it is obvious that work must be in the
direction of anarchy, because it is the salvation of the baboons time and therefore the
actual incarnation of man promotes. Darwin also gives to know this yourself, where he
writes: "Thus driving the social instincts, which have been obtained by man, when he was
very rude and probably already through his former on apelike ancestors him now until
many of his best operations; but these actions are determined by the expressed wishes
and judgment of his fellow men, and even more unhappy by his own strong selfish
desires. But once the feelings of love and compassion and the ability of self-control are
strengthened by habit, and once the ability to reason is more developed, so that man can
assess the fairness of the judgment of his fellows, he will be independent of any joy or
sorrow, feel driven to a certain course of action. Then he will say: I am the supreme judge
of my own behavior and in the words of Kant: I will not violate my own person the dignity
of mankind. " [306]

So bearing animal standpoint man is a herd animal roedel- or all the properties
associated with that state, but by increasing development he will be able to rise from that
state to an individual being, an individuality .

The majesty of the I conquer , it must be the pursuit of the man whose self-esteem is
developed, and all obstacles that will be placed in her way, must be removed. The
German poet Chamisso depicts us the unfortunate Schlemihl, who had lost his
shadow. But how unfortunate are those who even do not have a shadow of
individuality! Delicious is the saying of the Gnestet "Be yourself! I said to someone. But
he could not, he was nobody. "Especially not-to-itself is the misfortune of so many,
because self-thinking and self doing since childhood were unable to develop. How to work
with the schools to stop thinking! How small is the number of those who see with their own
eyes, hear with their own ears, think with their own brains! These people without shade,
without individuality are the bane of the modern world and who sometimes think if it joined
a collection of zeros together a celebrity is that mistaken miserably. Ibsen, which went so
far as to claim that "the strongest man is the one who stands alone", then saw in the state
the curse of the individual and he hoped to be able to be a revolution in which to do it is to
able to lift, because he is in the voluntary and related mental saw any decisive element for
an association and the beginning of a freedom that is worth something. And what is the
anarchy but a disposition, which Goethe bold:

Freigesinnt, sich selbst beschrnkend

Immer Fort tie Nchste thinking;
Nicht vom Road, dem grilde, weichend
und zuletzt das Ziel erreichend.

(Free minded, self-limiting, becoming the neighbor thinking, not deviating from the right
way and at last the goal achieving).

not sign the delicious Prometheus Tragedy fate and suffering of the Titan, which would
elevate the people and civilize, they want independent from the arbitrariness of the gods,
a tragedy that still be true after 20 centuries, because "we too are on the boundaries of
the known world, the rock of a cliff, riveted to the necessity ... in us the knowledge that
God as a guilty will punish everyone who labors to civilization, our zeal will reward you
with suspicion, our effort dissatisfaction with our combat ailments new set of ping while
everything dies except the melancholy "(dr. A. Pierson).

Education and development is the way to achieve improvement, but it is necessary to

bring education in an entirely different course. It was Thiers, who once said: "There are
only two ways to bring peace in the country and destroy the dangerous ideas:. The war
out of the abolition of primary schools" This means in other words that there him there
were only two ways to preserve the social order, namely: brutalization of the proletarians
either make them into cannon meat. How can governments, imbued with such a spirit -
and so all of them are! - Expect that they would seriously needs a rational and free
education for the people? Schools are for her a necessary evil, which they can not do
without and why they make them to drilling machines, in which good and docile citizens
are formed, which obey the government.

On the one hand therefore development, self-development of the individual and the
other the development of the economic situation, which is so "zuspitzt" that he becomes
unbearable for the masses. In that respect, America is going to be all trusts others and so
it is expected that there are strong conflicts between labor and capital, as already seen in
the huge strikes and the unemployed parade Coxey to Washington. Though it is possible
that the revolution will begin again at the crowing of the Gallic cock, as Marx put it, we
believe that America, which Europe is far ahead economically, even in this will
go. Therefore, one should not imagine that suddenly and at once will be freed the
terminally ill society of all evils and disasters, no, we will have a period of getting each
repeating revolutions of the "revolution in Permanenz", as Marx understood very well that
the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat are not the same. He wrote: "The
democratic petty bourgeois want the revolution to end as soon as possible, but our
interest and our task is to make permanent the revolution, to the more or less propertied
classes chased from power and the proletariat has conquered power and the association
of proletarians not only in one country but has progressed so far in all countries of the
world, the competition of the proletarians has ceased in these countries and that at least
the decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletariat. " However,
precisely those petty-bourgeois elements who have firmly nestled in the social democratic
party, the block will be the leg of the proletariat. By concessions from the ruling class has
this helped to make the Social Democracy to participate in the legal protection of labor,
indeed it makes use of the leaders of the Social Democracy as counselors and
administrators, and has therefore one of putting the slickest ever are put on the political
chessboard. Legal protection to state socialism il n'y a qu'un pas , like von Vollmar has
also recognized, where he said that "social democracy everywhere has actually sought
and still seeks a whole range of measures, which are very best to call state socialist .
"these concessions will be considered by the social Democrats, as they say like"
installment on the big bill, "but if one wants to know how the ruling class regards them,
then they remembered the words of Chamberlain, the British minister and former radical
who secretly verklapte "the sacrifices by the ruling class in favor of the proletariat they
should only be considered a moderate insurance, which she kept at the outbreak of the
otherwise inevitable social revolution."

Assigns one of the insane and stupid idea to the perfection of modern weapons to bring
the proletariat into armed resistance, which they must be crushed necessary and it only
comes to an amazing massacre, one forgets how science also means by shows that even
very elaboration of fall by the cheapness within the range of the proletarians. Who tells us
that the new arming of the workers will not play the same role for the liberation of the
proletariat, as the powder has previously done to liberate the peoples of the armored
nobility? The swords and armor of medieval robber barons aged and were worth nothing -
can the same would not occur with the guns and cannons of our time? Have the Cubans,
the Boers are not shown how a guerrilla war can be waged against a more powerful
enemy successfully and how it all of modern military science resources are actually
knocked down or were found to be inadequate?

Dynamite - and this is even more true of other, even more working blast means -is
rightly called the reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd) of the crude
violence. Indeed, there is a force that causes the violence of the force to be
nullified. However devastating violence that each person has at his disposal, the wisdom
of the absolute state stores bankruptcy. Against dynamite help no rules or laws, but only
the prosperity and freedom of nations. Do the rulers do not see this in spite of the
experience, they will increasingly have to learn to be wise by their own bitter
experience [307] .

All yeast and it is actually a general search and groping. Our time is truly a time of
transition, which many people say I wish he passed. What a warrelstroom of ideas! Yet
stumbling and wandering one will progress. Recently we read a nice picture, which
sometimes is applicable to all. Have you ever been lost on a plain in thick fog? It then still
going in the wrong direction in the firm to have imagination and the right direction - it
strays further and further away. There is only one way, to get back in the right direction, no
matter how silly it may seem, one must be self denying and smash against their own
belief in the wrong way and, oh miracle, one enters again. If we apply this to our social
and spiritual life, one will repeatedly point out how well it goes like this.

Here segregate people from the world, to live in communist colonies, hoping thus acting
to lay the foundations of a new group like the future will want her, somewhat resembling
the pious monks of the past who disliked the touch of this wicked world retreated behind
high walls to live behind in communion and fraternity. That's where deny young people the
military service, mistreatment and prison defying, rather than let themselves buggy up
killer and through their individual sample to show the way by which we come to the
abolition of one of the greatest disasters of our time: militarism. There we see others who
give their lives to an atoning sacrifice for others to murder tyrants, in the solid expectation
that if their example is being copied and every government person who does wrong, any
court inequitable his rulings, each cartridge performing random acts, affected as
punishment for his crime, the tyrants themselves or will think twice before they expose
themselves to the righteous wrath of the getiranniseerden. Again we see elsewhere ... but
where would we stop, if we were to point out all signs of the times, which nevertheless are
the characteristics of a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo. One feels how it is
working to outgrow, even partially already outgrown in civil dress in which one is inserted,
and yet one does not yet know what will fit garment for today's race. If we start taking out
of himself, he always asks what I would want for myself? And would you then make this
general guideline, surely one would therefore move in the right direction. And then the evil
will improve themselves, for whatever against nature, contrary to reason, does not own
viability and so it can not continue to exist. Is "all that exists, noting that it perish," we must
not forget that it still did his service in the development process. As we stand on the
shoulders of our predecessors, we naturally see beyond it, but would not it be foolish to
look down low with abject contempt or scornful jeers at them, forgetting that if they had
not gone before us, we do not their shoulders could climb and were therefore not able to
reach our altitude?

It has been the vanguard. Those are the people that we recorded in this book, they
were the pioneers, pioneers who made open the way by which others are now
underway. They were ruled by their contemporaries for fools, dreamers,
zealots [308] . Why?

For the same reason why people in the land of the lame man who no longer wanted to
hobble, bitterly accused and considered him equal to a cripple. And because he no longer
wanted to hobble but go , go without crutches or the help of others, so he was called a
variety. But the foolishness of yesterday proved repeatedly to be the wisdom of the
present. Would the folly of today was not sometimes be the wisdom of tomorrow? The
beautiful dream of a better future is still sometimes realized, especially when those who
dreamed him work with all the strength and passion to make it a reality. Because naturally
he certainly does not come to reality, the time of miracles from the mythical world is
over. And though we cheated us, that might prove to be unattainable efforts and
performances of a future society, we have erred, because we considered that the nature
of the people was higher, not lower; we have erred, because we did so a high
representation of man; because we thought they could acquire prosperity, peace and
freedom for all. But such errors we feel happy, more than we had done also with great
hope, speculating on the baser passions and frailties of man. And to sweeten the short life
by what one hears mocking salute as "a vision of the new era," it also gives some
satisfaction.

In his play King Law late Mr. Paap say the old Fritz:. "For those who want good, who
wants good deeds, who became man, who has before him and behind the eyes of the
dragon whose heart anger and whose head is stupidity. It is a cowardly beast. It stings the
tongue but out. But it bothers you, do your work.

Fools bother you, mean ones you oppose. Against these two you have to fight. It is still
the question of who can lose the most time of the short life, the fools and the mean
ones. Amid those two you stand like crazy. Always and always fight all against all. Every
good deed makes the soul bigger, wanting more powerful. And that you are alone, that too
is not bad. Who sticks out is self-sufficient. But ... you would want to achieve
something. And that is what can make sad, you achieve nothing. Gods dreams are not
realized, but those actions we must try to do. "

What forms also assumes the company, becoming the free man shall be aware that the
individual character does not undergo as this can not be done at the expense of
society. In accordance with the maxim that if one member suffers, suffers the whole body,
we must strive for the correct understanding of the relationship of the human race and of
each human being, or to the place to take human nature. And the road so often traveled
by the pioneers of a new world, will now versus socialism same as traditionally shown
again, briefly but clearly in these words:

Verachtet man erst es

denn man laughs es
denn betrachtet man es
endlich macht man es.

(First one despises, one laughs out, then think about it and finally it brings it into
applicable).

_______________
[285] Time makes its own ghosts, the spirits do not make the time.
[286] The poor are always excited to sing:
"must do without you, still lacking"!
Such is the eternal song,
That each of us may sound in the ears,
We, hour to hour, our lives
repeating hear With a hoarse voice.
(Goethe's Faust).
[287] Sbastien Faure La douleur universelle . (Instaurer un qui assure social
environment chaque individual toute la somme de bonheur adquate toute poque, au
dveloppement progressif de l'humanit).
[288] Teylers Godgeleerd-political discourse, Chapter 20.
[289] Multatuli wrote very sharp, but nonetheless true: "After 18 centuries goddienerij,
after 4 to 5 centuries of chivalry and nobility, now falling at last into the hands of bankers -
our progress is singular in nature. "
[290] Textbook of Political Economy.
[291] Multatuli.
[292] Witty was written Le manuel de l'arriviste . (The Handbook of arriviste) by Chteau,
with Villerelle Paris.
[293] Dr. Kuyper The social question and the Christian religion .
[294] JB Say.
[295] Social Weekly, vol. 1888. It will be said that these words are written in the year 1888
and since that time just a lot has been done in the field of social legislation in the various
countries of Europe. This is partly so. But why? Just because one of his sleep was
awakened by socialism, so that such did not by itself but by the urge from below. That
have contributed to the "evidence of concern", laid against the working class, can hardly
be denied by many governments on numerous attacks on government persons in the
course of the 19th century. Marx called revolution the locomotive of progress and certainly
the revolution and the fear of revolution have been the two most powerful factors to bring
humanity into forward motion.
[296] Dr. A. Kuyper.
[297] Der Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.
[298] Neue Zeit, 1895, bd. 1.
[299] Social Statics.
[300] Compare his General Axioms , translated by Th. Tricht and published by SL van
Looy, p. 469.
[301] One should read the interesting articles by prof. Quack about Thompsons old
forgotten books about Thomas Hodskins nonsense, appeared in the 1902 guide, which he
most clearly demonstrates that the so-called discoveries of Marx's economic field all back
to found in these two English economists.
[302] The wir den Feind am tive services hassen
Der uns umlagert Schwarz und close
Das ist der Unverstand der Massen
Den nur of Spirit Schwert durchbricht.
(The enemy we hate the worst that our black and densely surrounds, which is the folly of
the masses, which can only be broken by the sword of the spirit).
[303] We should just speculate on the slumbering good qualities of the child's education.
[304] This is also the word educatio of email and ducere , pull and in the German
Erziehung from there and ziehen , not from the outside but from the inside out. And so it
should be! Very true Krythe expresses it in his Einfache Lieder der Liebe und
Freundschaft gewidmet (Simple songs dedicated to the love and the friendship) where he
says
Erziehende Art
Meint ihr, erziehen sei Schaffen, bowel werdet ihr immer betrogen Weder Gutes nor
Bses schafft ihr hinein nor heraus.
Pflegend das Gute, damit es so ppig gedeihe und Wachse
Daas es das Bse erstickt, das ist erziehende Art.
( Art of parenting .
Suppose ye to educate job is, then you shall stand still deceived. Neither the good nor the
evil creates you in or out. The good cultivation, that the rampant groeie and gedije, so it 's
evil stifled that the art of education).
[305] Compare the precious recommendation of Multatuli on free education , so give a lot
of food for thought by the wealth of ideas and originality of conception.
[306] Ein Jeder giebt den Werth sich selbst. Who hoch ich
Mich selbst anschlagen will, das steht bei mir.
So hoch gestellt Keiner ist auf der Erde
Dass ich mich selber neben ihm despised.
(Schiller. Wallenstein's Tod ).
(One each indicates the value itself. How much I want to evaluate myself, that's me. So
high is no one on earth that I despise myself next to him).
[307] Machiavelli knew this already very good, and therefore, in his famous work
about Frost as follows: "Whoever believes that between someone who has the weapons
in the hand and someone who no weapons possession, a relationship of equality can
exist, which is a fool. It fights against the mind that anyone who possesses the weapons
willingly obeys him who possesses no weapons and that the unarmed safe against a well-
equipped "International Library:. N. Machiavelli, The Prince . Translation of JT
Jelgersma. Amsterdam, SL van Looy.
[308] Involuntarily we think here the answer of Queen Louisa from Multatuli's Frost
School on the charge of her mother, she is a dweepster:
Is rave,
when I want, that all that if you
and I were created, which as we
Move, aadmen, mermaids, and, as we
Their eyes focus on immortality ...
Is it rave, mother, and I want them to
not be lower than 't dumb beast of the field,
Dan' s unreasoning animals?