This article on anarchist thought comes from this link.
I
Those who have closely watched the growth of certain ideas among the workers must have noticed that on one momentous question — the housing of the people, namely — a definite conclusion is being imperceptibly arrived at.
It is a known fact that in the large towns of France, and in many of the smaller ones also, the workers are coming gradually to the conclusion that dwelling-houses are in no sense the property of those whom the State recognizes as their owners.
This idea has evolved naturally in the minds of the people, and nothing will ever convince them again that the “rights of property” ought to extend to houses.
The house was not built by its owner.
It was erected, decorated, and furnished by innumerable workers — in the timber yard, the brick field, and the workshop, toiling for dear life at a minimum wage.
The money spent by the owner was not the product of his own toil.
It was amassed, like all other riches, by paying the workers two-thirds or only a half of what was their due.
Moreover — and it is here that the enormity of the whole proceeding becomes most glaring — the house owes its actual value to the profit which the owner can make out of it.
Now, this profit results from the fact that his house is built in a town possessing bridges, quays, and fine public buildings, and affording to its inhabitants a thousand comforts and conveniences unknown in villages; a town well paved, lighted with gas, in regular communication with other towns, and itself a centre of industry, commerce, science, and art; a town which the work of twenty or thirty generations has gone to render habitable, healthy, and beautiful.
A house in certain parts of Paris may be valued at thousands of pounds sterling, not because thousands of pounds’ worth of labour have been expended on that particular house, but because it is in Paris; because for centuries workmen, artists, thinkers, and men of learning and letters have contributed to make Paris what it is to-day — a centre of industry, commerce, politics, art, and science; because Paris has a past; because, thanks to literature, the names of its streets are household words in foreign countries as well as at home; because it is the fruit of eighteen centuries of toil, the work of fifty generations of the whole French nation.
Who, then, can appropriate to himself the tiniest plot of ground, or the meanest building, without committing a flagrant injustice?
Who, then, has the right to sell to any bidder the smallest portion of the common heritage?
On that point, as we have said, the workers are agreed.
The idea of free dwellings showed its existence very plainly during the siege of Paris, when the cry was for an abatement pure and simple of the terms demanded by the landlords.
It appeared again during the Commune of 1871, when the Paris workmen expected the Communal Council to decide boldly on the abolition of rent.
And when the New Revolution comes, it will be the first question with which the poor will concern themselves.
Whether in time of revolution or in time of peace, the worker must be housed somehow or other; he must have some sort of roof over his head.
But, however tumble-down and squalid your dwelling may be, there is always a landlord who can evict you.
True, during the Revolution he cannot find bailiffs and police-serjeants to throw your rags and chattels into the street, but who knows what the new Government will do to-morrow? Who can say that it will not call in the aid of force again, and set the police pack upon you to hound you out of your hovels?
We have seen the Commune proclaim the remission of rents due up to the first of April only!
After that rent had to be paid, though Paris was in a state of chaos, and industry at a standstill; so that the revolutionist had absolutely nothing to depend upon but his allowance of fifteen pence a day!
Now the worker must be made to see clearly that in refusing to pay rent to a landlord or owner he is not simply profiting by the disorganization of authority.
He must understand that the abolition of rent is a recognized principle, sanctioned, so to speak, by popular assent; that to be housed rent-free is a right proclaimed aloud by the people.
Are we going to wait till this measure, which is in harmony with every honest man’s sense of justice, is taken up by the few socialists scattered among the middle-class elements, of which the Provisionary Government will be composed?
We should have to wait long — till the return of reaction, in fact!
This is why, refusing uniforms and badges — those outward signs of authority and servitude — and remaining people among the people, the earnest revolutionists will work side by side with the masses, that the abolition of rent, the expropriation of houses, may become an accomplished fact.
They will prepare the ground and encourage ideas to grow in this direction; and when the fruit of their labours is ripe, the people will proceed to expropriate the houses without giving heed to the theories which will certainly be thrust in their way — theories about paying compensation to landlords, and finding first the necessary funds.
On the day that the expropriation of houses takes place, on that day, the exploited workers will have realized that the new times have come, that Labour will no longer have to bear the yoke of the rich and powerful, that Equality has been openly proclaimed, that this Revolution is a real fact, and not a theatrical make-believe, like so many others preceding it.
II
If the idea of expropriation be adopted by the people it will be carried into effect in spite of all the “insurmountable” obstacles with which we are menaced.
Of course, the good folk in new uniforms, seated in the official arm-chairs of the Hôtel de Ville, will be sure to busy themselves in heaping up obstacles.
They will talk of giving compensation to the landlords, of preparing statistics, and drawing up long reports.
Yes, they would be capable of drawing up reports long enough to outlast the hopes of the people, who, after waiting and starving in enforced idleness, and seeing nothing come of all these official researches, would lose heart and faith in the Revolution and abandon the field to the reactionaries.
The new bureaucracy would end by making expropriation hateful in the eyes of all.
Here, indeed, is a rock which might shipwreck our hopes.
But if the people turn a deaf ear to the specious arguments used to dazzle them, and realize that new life needs new conditions, and if they undertake the task themselves, then expropriation can be effected without any great difficulty.
“But how?
How can it be done?” you ask us.
We shall try to reply to this question, but with a reservation.
We have no intention of tracing out the plans of expropriation in their smallest details.
We know beforehand that all that any man, or group of men, could suggest to-day would be far surpassed by the reality when it comes.
Man will accomplish greater things, and accomplish them better and by simpler methods than those dictated to him beforehand.
Thus we are content to indicate the manner by which expropriation might be accomplished without the intervention of Government.
We do not propose to go out of our way to answer those who declare that the thing is impossible.
We confine ourselves to replying that we are not the upholders of any particular method of organization.
We are only concerned to demonstrate that expropriation could be effected by popular initiative, and could not be effected by any other means whatever.
It seems very likely that, as soon as expropriation is fairly started, groups of volunteers will spring up in every district, street, and block of houses, and undertake to inquire into the number of flats and houses which are empty and of those which are overcrowded, the unwholesome slums and the houses which are too spacious for their occupants and might well be used to house those who are stifled in swarming tenements.
In a few days these volunteers would have drawn up complete lists for the street and the district of all the flats, tenements, family mansions and villa residences, all the rooms and suites of rooms, healthy and unhealthy, small and large, foetid dens and homes of luxury.
Freely communicating with each other, these volunteers would soon have their statistics complete.
False statistics can be manufactured in board rooms and offices, but true and exact statistics must begin with the individual and mount up from the simple to the complex.
Then, without waiting for any one’s leave, those citizens will probably go and find their comrades who were living in miserable garrets and hovels and will say to them simply:
“It is a real Revolution this time, comrades, and no mistake about it.
Come to such a place this evening; all the neighbourhood will be there; we are going to redistribute the dwelling-houses.
If you are tired of your slum-garret, come and choose one of the flats of five rooms that are to be disposed of, and when you have once moved in you shall stay, never fear.
The people are up in arms, and he who would venture to evict you will have to answer to them.”
“But every one will want a fine house or a spacious flat!” we are told.
No, you are mistaken.
It is not the people’s way to clamour for the moon.
On the contrary, every time we have seen them set about repairing a wrong we have been struck by the good sense and instinct for justice which animates the masses.
Have we ever known them demand the impossible?
Have we ever seen the people of Paris fighting among themselves while waiting for their rations of bread or firewood during the two sieges?
The patience and resignation which prevailed among them was constantly held up to admiration by the foreign press correspondents; and yet these patient waiters knew full well that the last comers would have to pass the day without food or fire.
We do not deny that there are plenty of egotistic instincts in isolated individuals in our societies.
We are quite aware of it.
But we contend that the very way to revive and nourish these instincts would be to confine such questions as the housing of the people to any board or committee, in fact, to the tender mercies of officialism in any shape or form.
Then indeed all the evil passions spring up, and it becomes a case of who is the most influential person on the board.
The least inequality causes wranglings and recriminations.
If the smallest advantage is given to any one, a tremendous hue and cry is raised — and not without reason.
But if the people themselves, organized by streets, districts, and parishes, undertake to move the inhabitants of the slums into the half-empty dwellings of the middle classes, the trifling inconveniences, the little inequalities will be easily tided over.
Rarely has appeal been made to the good instincts of the masses — only as a last resort, to save the sinking ship in times of revolution — but never has such an appeal been made in vain; the heroism, the self-devotion of the toiler has never failed to respond to it.
And thus it will be in the coming Revolution.
But, when all is said and done, some inequalities, some inevitable injustices, will remain.
There are individuals in our societies whom no great crisis can lift out of the deep ruts of egoism in which they are sunk.
The question, however, is not whether there will be injustices or no, but rather how to limit the number of them.
Now all history, all the experience of the human race, and all social psychology, unite in showing that the best and fairest way is to trust the decision to those whom it concerns most nearly.
It is they alone who can consider and allow for the hundred and one details which must necessarily be overlooked in any merely official redistribution.
III
Moreover, it is by no means necessary to make straightway an absolutely equal redistribution of all the dwellings.
There will no doubt be some inconveniences at first, but matters will soon be righted in a society which has adopted expropriation.
When the masons, and carpenters, and all who are concerned in house building, know that their daily bread is secured to them, they will ask nothing better than to work at their old trades a few hours a day.
They will adapt the fine houses which absorbed the time of a whole staff of servants, and in a few months homes will have sprung up, infinitely healthier and more conveniently arranged than those of to-day.
And to those who are not yet comfortably housed the anarchist Commune will be able to say: “Patience, comrades! Palaces fairer and finer than any the capitalists built for themselves will spring from the ground of our enfranchised city.
They will belong to those who have most need of them.
The anarchist Commune does not build with an eye to revenues.
These monuments erected to its citizens, products of the collective spirit, will serve as models to all humanity; they will be yours.”
If the people of the Revolution expropriate the houses and proclaim free lodgings — the communalizing of houses and the right of each family to a decent dwelling — then the Revolution will have assumed a communistic character from the first, and started on a course from which it will be by no means easy to turn it.
It will have struck a fatal blow at individual property.
For the expropriation of dwellings contains in germ the whole social revolution.
On the manner of its accomplishment depends the character of all that follows.
Either we shall start on a good road leading straight to anarchist communism, or we shall remain sticking in the mud of despotic individualism.
It is easy to see the numerous objections — theoretic on the one hand, practical on the other — with which we are sure to be met.
As it will be a question of maintaining iniquity at any price, our opponents will of course protest “in the name of justice.”
“Is it not a crying shame,” they will exclaim, “that the people of Paris should take possession of all these fine houses, while the peasants in the country have only tumble-down huts to live in?”
But do not let us make a mistake.
These enthusiasts for justice forget, by a lapse of memory to which they are subject, the “crying shame” which they themselves are tacitly defending.
They forget that in this same city the worker, with his wife and children, suffocates in a noisome garret, while from his window he sees the rich man’s palace.
They forget that whole generations perish in crowded slums, starving for air and sunlight, and that to redress this injustice ought to be the first task of the Revolution.
Do not let these disingenuous protests hold us back.
We know that any inequality which may exist between town and country in the early days of the Revolution will be transitory and of a nature to right itself from day to day; for the village will not fail to improve its dwellings as soon as the peasant has ceased to be the beast of burden of the farmer, the merchant, the money-lender, and the State.
In order to avoid an accidental and transitory inequality, shall we stay our hand from righting an ancient wrong?
The so-called practical objections are not very formidable either.
We are bidden to consider the hard case of some poor fellow who by dint of privation has contrived to buy a house just large enough to hold his family.
And we are going to deprive him of his hard-earned happiness, to turn him into the street!
Certainly not.
If his house is only just large enough for his family, by all means let him stay there.
Let him work in his little garden too; our “boys” will not hinder him — nay, they will lend him a helping hand if need be.
But suppose he lets lodgings, suppose he has empty rooms in his house; then the people will make the lodger understand that he need not pay his former landlord any more rent.
Stay where you are, but rent free. No more duns and collectors; Socialism has abolished all that!
Or again, suppose that the landlord has a score of rooms all to himself, and some poor woman lives near by with five children in one room.
In that case the people would see whether, with some alterations, these empty rooms could not be converted into a suitable home for the poor woman and her five children.
Would not that be more just and fair than to leave the mother and her five little ones languishing in a garret, while Sir Gorgeous Midas sat at his ease in an empty mansion?
Besides, good Sir Gorgeous would probably hasten to do it of his own accord; his wife will be delighted to be freed from half her big, unwieldy house when there is no longer a staff of servants to keep it in order.
“So you are going to turn everything upside down.” say the defenders of law and order.
“There will be no end to the evictions and removals.
Would it not be better to start fresh by turning everybody out of doors and redistributing the houses by lot?”
Thus our critics; but we are firmly persuaded that if no Government interferes in the matter, if all the changes are entrusted to those free groups which have sprung up to undertake the work, the evictions and removals will be less numerous than those which take place in one year under the present system, owing to the rapacity of landlords.
In the first place, there are in all large towns almost enough empty houses and flats to lodge all the inhabitants of the slums.
As to the palaces and suites of fine apartments, many working people would not live in them if they could.
One could not “keep up” such houses without a large staff of servants.
Their occupants would soon find themselves forced to seek less luxurious dwellings.
The fine ladies would find that palaces were not well adapted to self-help in the kitchen.
Gradually people would shake down.
There would be no need to conduct Dives to a garret at the bayonet’s point, or install Lazarus in Dives’s palace by the help of an armed escort.
People would shake down amicably into the available dwellings with the least possible friction and disturbance.
Have we not the example of the village communes redistributing fields and disturbing the owners of the allotments so little that one can only praise the intelligence and good sense of the methods they employ.
Fewer fields change hands under the management of the Russian Commune than where personal property holds sway, and is for ever carrying its quarrels into courts of law.
And are we to believe that the inhabitants of a great European city would be less intelligent and less capable of organization than Russian or Hindoo peasants?
Moreover, we must not blink the fact that every revolution means a certain disturbance to everyday life, and those who expect this tremendous lift out of the old grooves to be accomplished without so much as jarring the dishes on their dinner tables will find themselves mistaken.
It is true that Governments can change without disturbing worthy citizens at dinner, but the crimes of society towards those who have nourished and supported it are not to be redressed by any such political sleight of parties.
Undoubtedly there will be a disturbance, but it must not be of pure destruction; it must be minimized.
And again — it is impossible to lay too much stress on this maxim — it will be by addressing ourselves to the interested parties, and not to boards and committees, that we shall best succeed in reducing the sum of inconveniences for everybody.
The people commit blunder on blunder when they have to choose by ballot some hare-brained candidate who solicits the honour of representing them, and takes upon himself to know all, to do all, and to organize all.
But when they take upon themselves to organize what they know, what touches them directly, they do it better than all the “talking-shops” put together.
Is not the Paris Commune an instance in point? and the great dockers’ strike? and have we not constant evidence of this fact in every village commune?
This series of posts will insure that these anarchists' works live on in living memory.
If only a few.
There is a reason these books are not taught in the modern skools.
Setting rewards to burn only burns the author portion of the payout.
If you think this type of content should be eligible for author rewards, make your voice heard in this discord: https://discord.gg/t4VRHD8MXt.