Takver's Initiatives. P.O. Box 1078, Brunswick M.D.C, Victoria, 3056, Australia Previous Page TOC Next Page

'Revolution and Physical Force'
(a reply to W.R. Winspear), J.A. Andrews, in 'The Australian Radical' July-August, 1889.

J.A. Andrews - 'A Leading Sydney Anarchist'

Following the most obvious mode of procedure, I shall comment upon the position taken up by Comrade Winspear before I define my own separately; these comments will however largely define it.

"Will we be able to rid ourselves of the warriors and robbers wihout one last hand to hand encounter with them?" No. "Will the revolution of the future be also a bloody one?" Yes. "War has assisted to bring us so far; will it be necessary to use it still further?" In the ordinary sense, assuredly No. What we signify by the Revolution is the refusal to pay rent, the resistance to eviction, the persistent entry upon lands, upon factories, machines, magazines, the reiterated practice of working and keeping the whole produce, of leaving employment and not leaving work or the workshop, but maintaining the right to labor freely, the breaking into buildings and seizure of them, of machines and of materials, not to become the property of those entering into possession, but to be freed to them and others. Sometimes no force would be necessary, sometimes great violence would ensue; but the greater determination shown from the first in seizing and holding free all that is required, the less bloody will the revolution be, and the less will it partake of the nature of war, for the simple reason that there will be no organised force on the revolutionary side, for an organised force of the enemy to proceed against, and the reconquest in detail of several millions of things would be a task obviously beyond the powers of any army. The people of Ireland by forcibly maintaining their right to the land have won more than their small population could ever do by war, and if they persist will win all, in spite of the fact that England could bring an army against them of two to one. But without physical force they could not have resisted eviction, they could not even have upheld the boycott; had they used more physical force in carrying off cattle and stores, in resisting evictions, and in regaining what they were evicted from, they would not have had to maim so many cattle or kill so many landlords. Having thus briefly replied to the questions, I proceed to comment upon the arguments used in supporting the opposite conclusions.

"If the robbery of labor was a simple march upon the laborer's possessions to carry off his productions by sheer force of arms," - and this is in effect, precisely the case. Where ignorance fails to render tribute, brute force comes into gather it. Therefore, when the workers are enlightened, the position will simply assume this character, and there will be a "tremendous fight to a finish." Let us see if it is not so. Refuse to pay rent 'voluntarily.' Result? a 'simple march upon your possessions to carry off your productions by sheer force of arms." Buy goods, refuse to pay profit, result ditto. Enter the factory where you have worked afl your life, and from which you were discharged yesterday, attempt to use the machinery lying idle to produce for your own requirements, and it will be taken from you, or what is the same thing, you will be taken away from it, by sheer force of arms. If you are employed, try to use the machinery, the materials that your labor has bought, for yourself, and you will be ejected by sheer force of arms, your product appropriated by sheer force of arms, and you yourself imprisoned for larceny, by sheer force of arms.

"The robbery of today is involved, is intricate, and so hard to understand." It is involved and intricate but quite easy to understand - the only difficulty is in trying to see it by any other process than that of understanding it. Complication and intricacy do not necessarily or even generally imply difficulty of unravelling.

For example, a cryptogram constructed by simply writing the sentence backwards, yrebbo rsi ytreporp - seems simple and one constructed by substituting different characters oqnod qsxhrq noa dqx seems simple, although less so (as a matter of fact the latter is easier to read than the former) and a combination of the two (xqdaanqrhxsq donqo) seems somewhat complex, yet it is practically as easy to read as the simple reversion; if you now change x for w, q for p and so on, (wpczzmpqgwrpcnmpn) although the process is getting complex enough there is absolutely no further difficulty in deciphering. If you try to understand it by examining the processes by which it is arrived at, it may be very difficult indeed; but to understand it straight away, by analysing the result, is easy, and the more of it, the easier it is. The most complicated cipher human ingenuity can form is decipherable with greater ease than its formation can be detailed, provided it is long enough.

Exactly the same with the social problem - which undoubtedly is long enough to be deciphered in twenty parts at once. The peasantry of France could not have learned by studying the intricacies of the feudal system that they were robbed by it. But they came to know that they were robbed, and how they were robbed. A slave, unable to read, sent often to the flogger with a letter for fifty lashes, the baker for half a dozen loaves, and his masters friends for various things, would soon infer that the letter was a method of communication, he would judge at first the likely result of each letter, and if he were an intelligent man he might find means to compare the letters, note the points of difference between those apparently similar in style, pick out words here and there, eventually analyse words into letters and become able to read. Doubtless many hundreds of negroes in America acquired a little education in this way. Many an illiterate Cockney has learned a little reading and writing by observing tickets in shop windows, the legends of illustrated placards, and so forth, like Weller senior.

The same process went on with regard to the social problem in France, and the same is going on now. In proportion as the means of spreading the primary idea among the people increase, so the necessity in a manner decreases, or rather in proportion as we advance so the distance between us and them behind us lessens, because they are advancing too, and more rapidly. The entire lesson of the present having been spelled out from word to letter, the people are then ready to act in accordance with it. Here the difficulty arises, that, proceeding from effect to cause, and not from cause to effect, they are liable to be led astray by constructive schemes. But this liability does not show that they have not solved the immediate question, and in fact they only need to be led back a step farther in their own process, to perceive the elements of evil, and thus know how to avoid them, although they may not be able to trace forward their effects in any given combination. The People is analytical. It is constructive, also, but to be ably constructive it should be imaginative and capable of carrying analysis forward as well as backward. The deficiency in this respect being characteristic of the present condition of even the best educated average human intelligence must be supplied by the elucidation of principle (i.e., a generic standard of comparison) by retrospective analysis, so that systems proposed may stand condemned of principle by those who cannot forecast their results. But this is an education which will come best by whatever leads the people to study the question most often and most ardently. And for that there is nothing to be compared with the prospect of effecting a change for the better by destroying the oppressive institutions in the present time. Therefore it may be concluded that the excitement of an expected revolution to be made by themselves would produce sooner than anything else a knowledge of the basic principles from which the new society must not by or for any institutions depart, and the more so in proportion with the simplicity of the plan of revolution itself.

Evidently a change can only be effected by the workers taking and keeping possession of the things and conditions of which they are now deprived. The difference between the evolutionist and the revolutionist may, I think, be summed up thus: that the Evolutionist thinks it possible to create conditions under which the mere monopoly of the means of production will be capable of being rendered so profitless, that the proprietors will not deem it worthwhile to protect it, and will let it be broken down and possession restored to mankind in common, without rendering necessary by their opposition, any personal conflict. But inasmuch as the exploiter is just as well able to see what is going on, and has moreover the advantage of possession, will he not be able to wreck the plan by manipulating what he possesses, or even if he thinks fit, to oppose such measure by force? It is then of no avail to say that man's inclination to redress his wrongs by force of arms will be modified, unless in the sense of a greater promptness to resort to force for possession, rendering the liklihood of the evil assuming such magnitude that violence between persons can largely occur, very remote indeed.

Are you still inclined to believe that any resort to arms will not bring the era to justice, but perpetuate the reign of barbarism? If so, here are some questions worth considering:

  1. A man lives with others on a small island. He and a few more conspire to enslave and plunder the rest by direct force of arms. This being at length resisted by force of arms, to a dangerous extent, he makes concessions that he will take a certain tribute and refrain from assault, making at the same time a fraudulent agreement by means of which he is enabled to extract more plunder than before, and resorting to force of arms whenever payment is refused. The others cannot escape payment unless they are ready to resort to force to repel his forces, or to seize what he keeps locked up in order to starve them into submission. Now, will such a resort to arms or the abstention from it be the more likely on the one hand to perpetuate the reign of barbarism, or on the other to establish the era of justice?
  2. If it is the great-grandchildren of the parties who hold the like relations or even if the great-grandchfidren of the oppressed are now the oppressors, does that alter the state of affairs as between oppressors and oppressed in any way, and are not the conditions of remedy precisely the same?
  3. If it is morally certain that some of the exploiters must be killed in that resort to arms does that lessen the necessity for that resort to arms, or at any rate for the firmly intentioned threat of it, to be followed by the actual resort if the threat is ineffectual? Does it render any other remedy possible?

The phenornena referred to in the second instalment of the article are certainly deplorable, but neither unprecendented in the history of revolutions, nor yet indicative of such a hopeless case as may be thought. It is the lack of revolutionary action to inspire the people with courage of their opinions, and to breed contempt of privilege and authority, which is mainly responsible for these melancholy exhibitions. If a few men hooted the Prince of Wales at one reception they might indeed have been hooted themselves, but probably a good number would have joined in hooting the Prince at any reception held shortly afterwards, before the influence of example had had tune to fade.

The crowd acts at first in direct opposition to its own tendencies, because being absolutely novel they are painful or horror-stirring to it, and the more so the more powerfully it will be afterwards affected by them. In evidence let each look in his own mind - the boy, arrived at puberty, is invariably horror- stricken at the sensation of his first seminal emission; the gym- nast is horrified at the first sensation of muscular freedom in a new direction; the sublime enthusiast is painfully awed at the first sight of that to which he would for ever afterwards return, but from which his immediate impulse is to fly. The firmest friendships are those formed between individuals who feel, at the first meeting not, indeed a repugnance but a fascinating repulsion. And the lover of liberty stands aghast when he first frames in his own mind the picture of liberty and knows it is such. Nay, he who loves any woman knows that at the first her attraction was well-nigh overpowered by an immeasurable feeling of repudiation - that, had anyone charged him with his love he would have angrily retorted it was a lie, would have fought like a wild beast to prove it such and would even without that provocation almost have insulted and ill-treated her for no other reason than that the painful novelty of his love impelled him perversely to thrust its own denial into his very soul. There is a psychological reason for these things, reducible to the same mathematical laws which express the relationship between a fired bullet and the stock of the gun, upon which it is not necessary for me to enter just now, as the study would fill many volumes, but from a knowledge of which I am enabled to see hope where others only perceive despair, and from the very facts which afford so slavish and degraded aspectacle to infer that the end of slavery and degradation, and the beginning of sovereign liberty is at hand.

Meanwhile I cite from Kropotkin:

But here I come to an expression which seeme like an admission that, after all, force is necessary, with the qualification that it is undersirable at the present time only: 'that we have all to lose by a resort to force, and all to gain by postponing it' etc. If this is indeed the meaning, as seems possible from the use of such phrases as 'if a revolution took place today or within the next few years,'-

'What is more unavoidable than that the oppressors should object to be dispossessed of their privileges suddenly and violently?' Well, what is more unavoidable than that they should object to be dispossessed of them all? 'What more natural than that they should feel an attachment for the sentiments in which they were educated? Because a lad has been brought up a thief from the cradle and taught what a fine thing it is to be a Bold Brigand or a Prize Purse Prigger, and doesn't know any better, we are to respect his sentiments and not attempt to recover,suddenly and violent,' our watches and our cash; which we certainly will not recover otherwise, as he will object to hand them back, on the ground that he has won them and is justly and equitably entitled to keep them! Why if we never show by a forcible recovery that we at least consider his action unjust, he will be a long time in coming to discover that it is so, unless he is a genius - to say nothing of our loss and the encouragement we give him by leaving him to enjoy that which he has stolen, to repeat the robbery. Suppose him to be multiplied by a million and the titles under which the robbery passes to be a trifle more elegant, does that alter the position.

As a matter of fact the proportion of capitalists (and probably up till recently the actual number of capitalists) knowing the social system to be theft and themselves to be the thieves, far exceeds the proportion (and probably exceeded till recently the actual number) of workers having the same knowledge. As a matter of fact a capitalist is subjected to exploitation by other capitalists, in every way that the worker is, and living in an atmosphere of arithmetic he is perfectly cognisant of the fact, but he does not say so to the working classes, for obvious reasons, unless he is a great cynic. Of course there are some who don't know as much, but they are perfectly capable of comprehending that we are acting in the hope of bettering ourselves; they also know that they try to better themselves, and that they cannot do so as a body except by either letting us have less or taking more from us. This latter fact is a plain ground of hostility even under their code of morals and the only point that most of them can complain upon is that we propose dispossessing them in a plain straightforward way instead of trying to beat them at their own game of profit and loss, with the law to back the rules of the game. If they lose all, what does the method matter to them? They have, then, no option but to admit that if it is a right to take things from them by commerce it is right to do so by force of arms, and that if it is wrong for us to take things from them by commerce it is wrong for them to take things from us by commerce and we are quite justified in regaining them by force of arms.

'A bloody revolution would not tolerate the man' (opposed to them of course) who held to his principles and dared to vindicate them, yet such a man might not be the worst we could meet'. In the first place as I have in the beginning pointed out, the objects of the Revolution would not be to slaughter persons, but to gain liberty of things now monopolised to our detriment. Bloodshed although foreseen as inevitable is merely incidental. But I quite grant it would not tolerate robbery with honest intentions, although it would, unless forced by his own action, tolerate such a robber - not as a robber but as a man. This is no more compulsion than compelling a man to abstain from his intention to kill me. It is compulsion, but only the compulsion not to compel which is necessary to the maintenance of anarchy so long as there is one archist in the world. And even if it did not tolerate the man it would be merely fighting him with his own weapons, for it would certainly only be thus intolerant of a man who endeavoured to suppress those of the new opinions. As to preventing him from acting up to his opinions if we did not do so he would be preventing us from acting upon ours. It is a case where there is no option but for one or the other party to submit altogether. Either he has a right to his privileges or he has not, and he must either exercise his privileges or not exert them. Either we have the right to be free from his privileges or we have not, and we must either exercise that right, in which case he cannot exercise his privileges, or not exercise it, and remain oppressed by his privileges.

As to the influence of revolution upon free flow of opinion, I, in common with Kropotkine and others must assert diametrically opposite views to those here expressed. Kropotkine as a student of history and as one who has some experience of the development of thought under the influence of danger writes:-

As for myself I simply say, do not tell me that in a time of mental excitation as the epoch of a revolution it is possible for the generation and development of ideas to be otherwise than increased, to do otherwise than spread far and wide with the intensity of a fire. That the reverse should be the case is contrary to all experience of psychology. Comrade Winspear in the 'Radi- cal' for January 5th, 1889 says:-

And if our foes are honest in their opinions the same remark will apply to them, even supposing that we so far forgot our anarchist principles (which if we are really anarchists we cannot) as to seek to suppress the expression of their opinions.

In the third part of Comrade Winspear's article the same misconceptions occur. The nature of the Revolution is thoroughly misunderstood, for one thing, in the same way as a man who does not know what anarchy means will tell you that if, by the repeal of the criminal laws permission were given to murderers and garotters to commit their crimes with impunity, a reign of terror and a condition of tyrannical oppression would result, or that if men run about the streets committing rape, instead of continuing the marriage system, the worst qualities will come to be those most developed and most prized. All very true, but quite outside of the argument. That a mere war against the persons of the exploiters would be of no avail, and also that any attempt to rescue a community (contrary to its opinions and by a compulsory changement) from evils which are not commonly understood is to court calamity and provoke defeat, are two points which the true Revolutionists are never ceasing to impress. That in altering men's opinions we are altering their institutions, however, is a statement which cannot be taken without explanation to this effect: in altering mens opinions we are altering or at least going to alter those institutions which those men have the power to alter, or as they may have the power to alter them. If they have not the power to alter them without coming into conflict with those who seek to compel their observation, then either the statement as to the effect of opinion is false, or, being true, the conflict will take place. The same thought has been expressed in 'La Revolte' in a clearer manner:

but if anything exists which prevents him from acting, he cannot be seeking to act without seeking to impose his own power over that obstacle.

Those who imagine that they are going to revolutionise society in any length of time by measures which will leave their adversaries too feeble and few to entertain the thought of resisting claims which are based on the 'universal' sense of mankind' are certainly looking to a 'fight between two parties, each persuaded (possibly) of the justice of their cause and really no settlement of the mutual animosities.' 'Such a revolution would be decided by force, and not by discussion and expostulation.' Only instead of direct force of arms, there would be compulsion by majority - will, equal to a threat or force if the claims of the majority are resisted, that is, in the case of a piece of land for instance, either the monopolist must give it up although he thinks he is entitled to keep it and to keep everybody else off it unless they pay his rents, or the majority, or some individuals with the majority at their backs, will take possession of it as they please and he cannot prevent them. There is only one other issue, and that is, for the monopolist to rule and the rest to pay tribute so long as he will accept it, which leaves nothing but voluntary slavery for the masses whilst anyone desires to enslave them, or to do anything which will have that effect.

If you look into it closely therefore you may fancy that the strictures against compulsion as a means of stopping exploitation fall more severely upon the 'peace' advocate than upon the most hasty Revolutionist. The latter wants to use compulsion to prevent his enemy from depriving him of his rights, and is willing to make the attempt even when there is a contingency that he may be beaten, but the 'peace' advocate wants either to make sure that he must be the compeller and not the compelled, and then compel, or nothing at all.

1 do not see that it is any more brutalising to effect my will contrary to the will of my adversary by killing, flogging or maiming him (provided I do so simply as the means, and not for the sake of killing, flogging or maiming) than to do so by starving him out or by cowing him on account of my superior power. Nor yet do I see any difference between doing so where the matter of dispute remains in my hands and he is trying to take from me, and doing so where the matter has fallen into his hands and I am trying to take it back - that is, as to brutality; I do indeed see this difference, that whereas the possessor is the possessor, the non-possessor must use force to get the thing, either direct physical force, or else the power of fear which is nothing but commanding the physical force of the opponent.

Granted that murder or direct force is more 'brutalising' to Comrade Winspear, I say it is only because he has realised that his pacific measures are as bad. It was not brutalising for a soldier to kill his father in a civil war, because he thought he was doing right, but the same man would have shrunk with horror from inflicting even momentary pain, unnecessarily, upon his mortal enemy if not opposed to him in the ranks. When all is said, it is only brutalising to consciously inflict an injury un-necessarily, and Comrade Winspear may find it brutalising to use force directly because he is (mistakenly) conscious that he can avoid inflicting the injury thereby entailed on his opponents, quite overlooking that his 'peaceful' measures have in effect the same result, and it is these same 'peaceful' measures, adopted by our oppressors, from which we suffer far more than from their direct force of arms, because if they were not in reserve the 'peaceful' measures would be ineffectual. If it were not for this fact I would not be paying 6/- rent weekly for a house that is very old and that was let when new for 3/-, nor for that matter paying any rent at all. I want here to emphasise the fact that the Revolution does not however premeditate bloodshed as a means, it only recognises it as an inevitable accompaniment.

Certainly the propaganda, to which we attach the greatest importance, will greatly diminish the extent and the severity of the struggle. Many of the bourgeoisie are merely creatures of circurnstances, and at the first evidence that the system is in fact at last going to be changed, will readily enough fall in with the new ideas. But they have not the force of character to give up their mode of life in the meantime and run the risk of the endeavour to live whilst others are continuing the exploitation. These, upon the proletariat taking action, which they having nothing to lose are more likely to do, will be an accession to our ranks but not before.

I would even say that Jesus of Nazareth was not such a fool when he advised the policy of offering the exploiters and aggressors more than they demand. It is just likely that if you offer a man an exaggeration of his own terms, so much so that he can see he would be wrong in exacting so much, you may find the quickest way to convince him that his demands are wrong altogether. I daresay if, instead of striking for improved conditions or demanding them at all, a body of workers went to their employer and said:

that that employer would, if he had in his mind any further exactions from those men, he probably too much ashamed to propound them, and that he would very often feel - 'Well, I must do with less myself and let the men work 8 hours for 25/-. I really begin to think that I am simply living as a burden upon them, and that I have no right to anything at all of what I am enjoying."

he might begin to enquire of himself whether profit-mongering was not really a way of living on other people.

But then we have to deal with men like Duncan Gillies, who knows what freedom is, and 'believes' in it yet asserts that he does not see the use of being premier unless he can govern everybody else by his own will, and that it rests with the privileged rulers as to whether the true principles shall be put into practice. With men who, upon demanding thy cloak and being offered thy coat also, would take both, and ask for your trousers as well, and be disappointed if you did not offer your boots and shirt into the bargain, and if you did, would be sorry that they had not asked for your hat, socks and skin. Prove these men by their actions, and there remains nothing but to emancipate ourselves from their domination by expropiration, and by bloodshed if that becomes necessary to enable our object to be accomplished. We have to deal with the Schaaks and Bonfields, the Pinkertonians, the Garys of society, and since they will exert their dominion over us while they have the power, we must use our force to deprive them of the power, even if the way be no other than their extermination, individually by steel, poison, bullet or dynamite. Whether these measures are necessitated depends on the action of the men themselves before our force. Now, the more force we display in taking and holding possession of our rights, the more they will be inclined to submit without necessitating our resort to bloodshed; The more will they be apt to consider themselves 'too feeble and few to entertain the thought of resisting claims that are based on the universal sense of mankind.'

In conclusion, I shall show the means and the nature of the Revolution to which we look forward.

The Revolution is no war in the common interpretation of the term. We are well aware that it will be accompanied by scenes of hard fighting and bloodshed in the earlier stages, but the way to minimize this evil is to get the earlier stages over as quickly as possible, and this will be achieved by earnest propaganda and by the propagation of the idea of revolt as well as that of mere theory. We refer to a revolution within the next few years in a slightly different sense. This we simply forsee. We know very well that if it simply rested with us we could not create it, but we also know that it is coming. All history, all science, the universal predictions of mankind point to the fact that a vast revolution is approaching and will take place about the end of this century.

For this past fifty years it has been predicted by writers and thinkers of all opinions, including the greatest mind which this earth has seen for at least nineteen hundred years, and in certain respects since Buddha - Edgar Allan Poe. If we look at the signs of the times as compared with the past; we see that we are living on the crater of a volcano. Nothing in the remotest degree approaching the same universality of the upheaval has been indicated since the fall of the Roman Empire. We are on the eve of the greatest event in history for thousands of years. We see a world about to crumble into ruins at our feet. We have not effected the stupendous overthrow - we are ourselves but the crushing and crumbling at the first lines of fracture that indicate the direction which the whole will take. We are entitled therefore to anticipate that the course of events will inevitably force the world in the same direction and to recognise that our influence is not our own, but that of Nature - the reaction from the stresses imposed on humanity, and that even should we be silent, were that possible, the earth would raise up her sucessors to our thoughts and desires. It is more than a cosmopolitan - it is a cosmical movement of which we are not the motive power but the index. We are not the wind moving the straw, we are the straw moved by the wind, and behind us is the hurricane in its fury.

Don't argue upon these metaphors - they are, I know imperfect, as no one thing in this almighty Universe more than distantly and superficially resembles any other. They but serve to show the general trend of our convictions. But in as far as human actions and aspiration are the causes, and not simply the effects of the causes of the Revolution, listen to what we are saying:-

The Revolution in the abstract is the aggregation of many individual acts of revolt, that is, of disobedience to the tyranny which ever commands us to deliver up what we should keep, work when we should be at rest, be idle when we should be working, and abstain touching what we should take and use, were it not for that tyranny.

As each believes, really and thoroughly believes, he will continually endeavour to act. Believing that he ought to be free, the Revolutionary will act as if he were in fact free. He believes freedom and he will act freedom. He will not conform his life any more than what he cannot help to the rules of the social system or of the State. When he sees himself threatened he will baffle attack and elude vengeance, and if possible he will avoid losing anything, should it be necessary to defend or reacquire possession by force of arms, and the same as regards his bodily liberty. His policy of defence will be to fatigue and waste the powers of the enemy - not to kill, because that avails nothing, and because the struggle, thus conducted, will be a continued triumph for him and a lengthened disappointment and weariness of the flesh to his antagonists. His policy of attack will similarly be the impromptu and unforseen, he will seek no arm to any man, but will not shrink from the contingencies of combat if that should become necessary. He will as far as possible aim at making his enemies, themselves, pronounce their defeat, and not so much their defeat as their hopeless failure. He will be ready to extend the hand of comradeship to them as soon as they cease individually from taking part against him and his fellows and are attempting to live by their own efforts, and will endeavour to show them practically that they can be really happier so. Those who perish will carry their blood on their own heads. He will use as much force, muscular, mental and mechanical as he can, perceiving that in this way conbat and bloodshed will be minimized.

At a time when the people are discontented and nothing goes well, an individual act of revolt, and the more so in proportion as it is committed with impurity, gives a powerful impetus to the propaganda, and incites others to follow. The teaching of ideas being earnestly carried forward at the same time, finds the people in a receptive frame of mind, because the question is now obviously verging upon the immediately practicable. The multiplication of such acts is increased rapidly, and every success, every triumph on however small a scale, swells the increase in geometrical ratio. Nothing succeeds like success, and the practical relisation of our principles, so simple that it is their simplicity alone which makes people timid of admitting their practicability, will do more to assist the growth of the theory than years of mere speaking and writing. Theory and practice and practice and theory will advance hand in hand, the first steps being always the most difficult and the most dangerous, and the way becoming easier and safer after the march is fairly begun, until at length the end is attained.

The methods of force will depend upon the circumstances of each case and the judgement of the individual revolter. In some cases the force will take the form of resistance to eviction or to distress, or to attempted imprisonment. It may take the form of carrying away articles which it is attempted to seize. In other cases it will be the taking possession of and working ships, rail- ways etc, as may become necessary or desirable; the forcible throwing open of public museums and libraries when arbitrarily closed by the authorities; the seizure of goods in warehouses, freight or load, and distribution far and wide; the sudden demolition of buildings used for adverse purposes and their re-erection in fitting localities as dwellings and workshops for those who now live in hovels, or their bodily transporation, entire, for such purposes, to suitable positions or their transformation as they stand, in to places of public utility and convenience.

The day when a Government depot of ammunition can be safely and suddenly made to vanish into the hands of those who will use it only in self-defence or for industrial purposes, the prestige of the State will have received a shock from which it will find it hard to recover. The day when a train load of wheat consigned to a speculator can vanish directly into the kitchens of the consumers, and a factory full of furniture and clothing and manufactured produce be sent whirling at express speed to the farmers in the country, before speculator, capitalist or State can take the alarm, the efficacy of any armed force to cope with the revolution will have received a practical denial and the very roots of the present system will be shaken dry. It will be impossible to maintain or to live by the old order, and little by little practice which contains the most direct and therefore the most effective application of force, which is the necessary element of all labor, will become habitual with the people as the means of supplying their mutual requirements when the necessity for exerting preliminary force in order to be able to adopt the practice in each instance, is at the same time passing away, and out of the chaos of the incipient revolutionary period will come naturally and with a speed porportioned to the force that has been employed in giving it the first impetus, the order and perfection of a free and prosperous humanity.

Contact Takver with questions or comments about this web site.

Last modified: May 1, 1999

[ Top of Page ] [ Takver's Initiative ] [ Radical Tradition Contents ]
Previous Page Page Top TOC Next Page