 Chapter three of proposed roads to freedom. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by John Thomas Kuzmarski. Proposed roads to freedom by Bertrand Russell. Chapter number three. The syndicalist revolt. Syndicalism arose in France as a revolt against political socialism. And in order to understand it, we must trace in brief outline the positions attained by socialist parties in the various countries. After severe setback caused by the Franco-Prussian War, socialism gradually revived. And in all the countries of Western Europe, socialist parties have increased their numerical strength almost continuously during the last 40 years. But as is invariably the case with a growing sect, the intensity of faith has diminished as the number of believers has increased. In Germany, the socialist party became the strongest faction of the Reichstag. And in spite of differences of opinion among its members, it preserved its formal unity with that instinct for military discipline, which characterizes the German nation. In the Reichstag election of 1911, it polled a third of the total number of votes cast and returned 110 members out of 397. After the death of Bibel, the revisionists, who received their first impulse from Bernstein, overcame the more strict marches. And the party became in effect merely one of advanced radicalism. It is too soon to guess what will be the effect of the split between majority and minority socialists, which has occurred during the war. There is in Germany hardly a trace of syndicalism. Its characteristic doctrine, the preference of industrial to political action, has found scarcely any support. In England, Marx has never had many followers. Socialism there has been inspired in the main by the Fabians founded in 1883, who threw over the advocacy of revolution, the Marxian doctrine of value and the class war. What remained was state socialism and the doctrine of permeation. Civil servants were to be permeated with the realization that socialism would enormously increase their power. Trade unions were to be permeated with the belief that the day for purely industrial action was passed, and that they must look to government, inspired secretly by sympathetic civil servants, to bring about, bit by bit, such parts of the socialist program as were not likely to rouse much hostility in the rich. The independent party, formed in 1893, was largely inspired at first by the ideas of the Fabians, though retaining to the present day, and especially since the outbreak of the war, much more of the original socialist arger. It aimed always at cooperation with the industrial organizations of wage earners, and chiefly through its efforts, the Labour Party was formed in 1900 out of a combination of the trade unions and the political socialists. To this party, since 1909, all the important unions have belonged. In spite of the fact that strength is derived from trade unions, it has stood always for political rather than industrial action. Its socialism has been of a theoretical and academic order, and in practice, until the outbreak of war, the Labour members in Parliament, of whom 30 were elected in 1906 and 42 in December 1910, might be reckoned almost as part of the Liberal Party, of which the Independent Labour Party is only a section. France, unlike England and Germany, was not content merely to repeat the old chiboleths with continually diminishing conviction. In France, a new movement, originally known as revolutionary syndicalism, and afterwards simply as syndicalism, kept alive the vigor of the original impulse, and remained true to the spirit of the older socialists, while departing from the latter. Syndicalism, unlike socialism and anarchism, began from an existing organization and developed the ideas appropriate to it, whereas socialism and anarchism began with the ideas and only afterward developed the organizations which were their vehicle. In order to understand syndicalism, we have first to describe trade union organization in France and its political environment. The ideas of syndicalism will then appear as the natural outcome of the political and economic situation. Hardly any of these ideas are new, almost all are derived from the vacuumist section of the old international. The old international had considerable success in France before the Franco-Prussian War. Indeed, in 1869, it is estimated to have had a French membership of a quarter of a million. What is practically the syndicalist program was advocated by a French delegate to the Congress of the International at Bale in that same year. And also in Italy, a good short account of the Italian movement is given by A. Lanzillo, Le Mouvement Ouvrier in Italie, Bibliothèque du Mouvement Portalatérien, C. also Paul-Louis, Le Syndicalism European Chapter 6. On the other hand, Coal World of Labor Chapter 6 considers the strength of genuine syndicalism in Italy to be small. This is often recognized by syndicalists themselves. See, example, an article on the old international in The Syndicalist of February, 1913, which after giving an account of the struggle between Marx and Bakunin from the standpoint of a sympathizer with the latter says, Bakunin's ideas are now more alive than ever. This is a very objective and reliable account of the origin and progress of French syndicalism. An admirable short discussion of its ideas and its present position will be found in Coal's World of Labor, G. Bells and Sons, especially Chapters 3, 4 and 11. The War of 1870 put an end for the time being to the socialist movement in France. Its revival was begun by Jules Gies in 1877. Unlike the German socialists, the French have been split into many different factions. In the early 80s, there was a split between the parliamentary socialists and the communist anarchists. The latter thought that the first act of the social revolution should be the destruction of the state and would therefore have nothing to do with parliamentary politics. The anarchists from 1883 onward had success in Paris and the south. The socialists contended that the state will disappear after the socialist society has been firmly established. In 1882, the socialists split between the followers of Gies, who claimed to represent the revolutionary and scientific socialism of Marx, and the followers of Paul Bruce, who were more opportunists and were also called possibilities and cared little for the theories of Marx. In 1890, there was a succession from the brusists, who followed Aleman and absorbed the more revolutionary elements of the party and became leading spirits in some of the strongest syndicates. Another group was the independent socialists, among whom were Juarez, Milerand and Viviani. The disputes between the various sections of socialists caused difficulties in the trade unions and helped to bring about the resolution to keep politics out of the unions. From this to syndicalism was an easy step. Since the year 1905, as a result of a union between party socialists de France, part ouvert socialist-revolutionaire français led by Gies, and the party socialist français Juarez, there have been only two groups of socialists. The United Socialist Party and the Independence, who are intellectuals or not willing to be tied to a party. At the general election of 1914, the former secured 102 members and the latter 30 out of a total of 590. Tendencies toward a rapprochement between the various groups were seriously interfered with by an event which had considerable importance for the whole development of advanced political ideas in France, namely the acceptance of office in the Waldeck-Rousseau ministry by the socialist Milerand in 1899. Milerand, as was to be expected, soon ceased to be a socialist and the opponents of political action pointed to his development as showing the vanity of political triumphs. Very many French politicians who have risen to power have begun their political careers as socialists and have ended it not infrequently by employing the army to oppress strikers. Milerand's action was the most notable and dramatic among a number of others of a similar kind. Their cumulative effect has been to produce a certain cynicism in regard to politics among the more class-conscious of French wage earners and this state of mind greatly assisted the spread of syndicalism. Syndicalism stands essentially for the point of view of the producer as opposed to that of the consumer. It is concerned with reforming actual work and the organization of industry not merely with securing greater rewards for work. From this point of view its vigor and its distinctive character are derived. It aims at substituting industrial for political action and at using trade union organization for more purposes for which orthodox socialism would look to parliament. Syndicalism was originally only the French name for trade unionism but the trade unionists of France became divided into two sections, the reformist and the revolutionary of whom the latter only professed the ideas which we now associate with the term syndicalism. It is quite impossible to guess how far either the organization or the ideas of the syndicalists will remain intact at the end of the war and everything that we shall say is to be taken as applying only to the years before the war. It may be that French syndicalism as a distinctive movement will be dead but even in that case it will not have lost its importance since it has given a new impulse and direction to the more vigorous part of the labour movement in all civilized countries with the possible exception of Germany. The organization upon which syndicalism depended was the confederation Generale du Travail, commonly known as the CGT, which was founded in 1895 but only achieved its final form in 1902. It has never been numerically, very powerful, but has derived its influence from the fact that in moments of crisis many who were not members were willing to follow its guidance. Its membership in the year before the war is estimated by Mr. Cole at somewhat more than a half a million. Trade unions, syndicats, were legalized by Waldeck Rousseau in 1884 and the CGT on its inauguration in 1895 was formed by the confederation of 700 syndicats. Alongside of this organization there existed another, the federation des Bours du Travail, formed in 1893. A Bours du Travail is a local organization not of any one trade but of local labour in general, intended to serve as a labour exchange and to perform such functions for labour as chambers of converse perform for the employer. A syndicate is in general a local organization of a single industry and is thus a smaller unit than the Bours du Travail. Under the able leadership of Pelloutierre, the federation des Bours prospered more than the CGT and at last in 1902 coalesced with it. The result was an organization in which the local syndicate was federated twice over, once with the syndicate in its locality forming together the local Bours du Travail and again with the syndicats in the same industry in other places. It was the purpose of the new organization to secure twice over the membership of every syndicate, to get it to join both its local Bours du Travail and the federation of its industry. The statutes of the CGT i3 put this point plainly. No syndicate will be able to form a part of the CGT if it is not federated nationally and an inherent of a Bours du Travail or a local or departmental union of syndicats grouping different associations. Thus, Monsieur Lagardel explains the two sections will correct each other's point of view. National Federation of Industries will prevent parochialism, localism and local organization will check the corporate or trade union spirit. The workers will learn at once the solidarity of all workers in a locality and that of all workers in a trade and in learning this they will learn at the same time the complete solidarity of the whole working class. This organization was largely the work of Pelloutis who was secretary of the Federation des Bourses from 1894 until his death in 1901. He was an anarchist communist and impressed his ideas upon the Federation and then posthumously on the CGT and after its combination with the Federation des Bourses. He even carried his principles into the government of the Federation. The committee had no chairman and votes very rarely took place. He stated that the task of the revolution is to free mankind, not only from all authority but also from every institution which has not for its essential purpose the development of production. The CGT allows much autonomy to each unit in the organization. Each syndicate counts for one, whether it be large or small. There are not the friendly society activities which form so large a part of the work of English unions. It gives no orders but is purely advisory. It does not allow politics to be introduced into the unions. This decision was originally based upon the fact that the divisions among socialists disrupted the unions but it is now reinforced in the minds of an important section by the general anarchist dislike of politics. The CGT is essentially a fighting organization. In strikes it is the nucleus to which the other workers rally. There is a reformist section in the CGT but it is practically always in a minority and the CGT is, to all intents and purposes, the organ of revolutionary syndicalism which is simply the creed of its leaders. The essential doctrine of syndicalism is the class war to be conducted by industrial rather than political methods. The chief industrial methods advocated are the strike, the boycott, the label and sabotage. The boycott in various forms and the label showing that the work has been done under trade union conditions have played a considerable part in American labor struggles. Sabotage is the practice of doing bad work or spoiling machinery or work which has already been done as a method of dealing with employers in a dispute when a strike appears for some reason undesirable or impossible. It has many forms, some clearly innocent, some open to grave objections. One form of sabotage which has been adopted by shop assistants is to tell customers the truth about the articles they are buying. This form, however it may damage the shopkeeper's business, is not easy to object to on moral grounds. A form which has been adopted on railways, particularly in Italian strikes is that of obeying all rules literally and exactly in such a way as to make the running of trains practically impossible. Another form is to do all the work with minus care so that in the end it is better done as all ordinary morality would consider criminal. For example, causing railway accidents. Advocates of sabotage justify it as part of war but in its more violent forms in which it is seldom defended. It is cruel and probably inexpedient. While even in its milder forms it must tend to encourage slovenly habits of work which might easily persist under the new regime that the syndicalists wish to introduce. At the same time when capitalists express a moral horror of this method it is worthwhile to observe that they themselves are the first to practice it when the occasion seems to them appropriate. If report speaks truly, an example of this on a very large scale has been seen during the Russian Revolution. By far the most important of the syndicalist methods is the strike. Ordinary strikes for specific objects are regarded as rehearsals as a means of perfecting organization and promoting enthusiasm. But even when they are victorious so far as concerns the specific point in dispute they are not regarded by syndicalists as affording any ground for industrial peace. Syndicalists aim at using the strike not to secure such improvements of detail as employers may grant but to destroy the whole system of employer and employed and win the complete emancipation of the worker. For this purpose what is wanted is the general strike. The complete cessation of work by a sufficient proportion of the wage earners to secure the paralysis of capitalism. Sorrell, who represents syndicalism too much in the minds of the reading public suggests that the general strike is to be regarded as a myth like the second coming in Christian doctrine. But this view by no means suits the active syndicalists. If they were brought to believe that the general strike is a mere myth their energy would flag and their whole outlook would become disillusioned. It is the actual vivid belief in its possibility which inspires them. They are much criticized for this belief by the political socialists who consider that the battle is to be won by obtaining a parliamentary majority. But syndicalists have too little faith in the honesty of politicians to place any reliance on such a method or to believe in the value of any revolution which leaves the power of the state intact. Syndicalist aims are somewhat less definite than syndicalist methods. The intellectuals who endeavor to interpret them, not always very faithfully represent them as a party of movement and change. Following a Bergsonian alone vital without needing any very clear provision of the goal to which it is to take them. Nevertheless the negative part at any rate of their objects is sufficiently clear. The wish to destroy the state which they regard as a capitalist institution designed essentially to terrorize the workers. They refuse to believe that it would be any better under state socialism. They desire to see each industry self-governing. But as to the means of adjusting the relations between different industries they are not very clear. They are anti-militarists because they are anti-state and because French troops have often been employed against them in strikes also because they are internationalists who believe that the sole interest of the working man everywhere is to free himself from the tyranny of the capitalist. Their outlook on life is the very reverse of pacifist but they oppose wars between states on the ground that these are not fought for objects that in any way concern the workers. Their anti-militarism more than anything else brought them into conflict with the authorities in the years preceding the war. But as was to be expected it did not survive the actual invasion of France. The doctrines of syndicalism may be illustrated by an article introducing it to English readers in the first number of the syndicalist Railway Man, September 1911 from which the following is quoted. All syndicalism, collectivism, anarchism aims at abolishing the present economic status and existing private ownership of most things but while collectivism would substitute ownership by everybody and anarchism ownership by nobody syndicalism aims at ownership by organized labor it is thus a purely trade union reading of the economic doctrine and the class war preached by socialism it vehemently repudiates parliamentary action on which collectivism relies and it is in this respect much more closely allied to anarchism from which indeed it differs in practice only in being more limited in range of action. In truth so thin is the partition between syndicalism and anarchism that the newer and less familiar ism has been shrewdly defined as organized anarchy it has been created by the trade unions of France but it is obviously an international plant whose roots have already found the soil of Britain most congenial to its growth and fructification collectivist or Marxian socialism would have us believe that it is distinctly a labor movement but it is not so neither is anarchism the one is substantially bourgeois the other aristocratic plus an abundant output of book learning in either case, syndicalism on the contrary is indubitably laborist in origin and aim owing next to nothing to the classes and indeed resolute to uproot them the times October 13, 1910 which almost single-handed in the British press has kept credibly abreast of continental syndicalism thus clearly set forth significance of the general strike to understand what it means we must remember that there is in France a powerful labor organization which has for its open and avowed object a revolution in which not only the present order of society but the state itself is to be swapped away this movement is called syndicalism it is not socialism but on the contrary radically opposed to socialism because the syndicalists hold that the state is the great enemy and that the socialists ideal of state or collectivist ownership would make the lot of the workers much worse than it is now under private employers the means by which they hope to attain their end is the general strike an idea which was invented by a French workman about 20 years ago and by the French Labour Congress in 1894 after a furious battle with the socialists in which the latter were worsted since then the general strike has been the avowed policy of the syndicalists whose organization is the Confederation Generale du Travail in fact the general strike was invented by a Londoner, William Benbow and Owen Knight in 1831 or to put it otherwise an intelligent French worker has awakened as he believes to the fact that society society and the state, civita can note two separable spheres of human activity between which there is no connection necessary or desirable without the one man being a gregarious animal cannot subsist while without the other he would simply be in clover the statesman whom office does not render positively nefarious is at best an expensive superfluity syndicalists have had many violent encounters with the forces of government in 1907 and 1908 protesting against the bloodshed which had occurred in the suppression of strikes the committee of the CGT issued manifestos speaking of the government as a government of assassins and alluding to the prime minister as Clemenceau, the murderer similar events in the strike at Villeneuve, Saint George in 1908 led to the arrest of all the leading members of the committee in the railway strike of October 1910 Montche-Briand arrested the strike committee mobilized the railway men and sent soldiers to replace strikers as a result of these vigorous measures the strike was completely defeated and after this the chief energy of the CGT was directed against militarism and nationalism the attitude of anarchism to the syndicalist movement is sympathetic with the reservation that such methods as the general strike are not regarded as substitutes for the violent revolution which most anarchists consider necessary their attitude in this matter was defined at the international anarchist congress held in Amsterdam in August 1907 this congress recommended comrades of all countries to actively participate in autonomous movements of the working class and to develop in syndicalist organizations the ideas of revolt individual initiative and solidarity which are the essence of anarchism comrades were to propagate and support those forms and manifestations of direct action which carry in themselves a revolutionary character and lead to the transformation of society it was resolved that the anarchists think that the destruction of the capitalist and authoritarian society can only be realized by armed insurrection and violent expropriation and that the use of the more or less general strike and the syndicalist movement must not make us forget the more direct means of struggle against the military force of government syndicalists might retort that when the movement is strong enough to win by armed insurrection it will be abundantly strong enough to win by the general strike in labor movement generally success through violence can hardly be expected except in circumstances where success without violence is attainable this argument alone even if there were no other would be a very powerful reason against the methods advocated by the anarchist congress syndicalism stands for what is known as industrial unionism as opposed to craft unionism in this respect as also in the preference of industrial to political methods it is part of a movement which has spread far beyond France the distinction between industrial and craft unionism is much dwelt on by Mr. Cole craft unionism unites in a single association those workers who are engaged on a single industrial process not of the work done but of the actual structure of industry all workers working at producing a particular kind of commodity may be organized in a single union the basis of organization would be neither the craft to which a man belonged nor the employer under whom he worked but the service on which he was engaged this is industrial unionism properly so called industrial unionism is a product of America and from America it has to some extent spread to Great Britain it is the natural form of fighting organization when the union is regarded as the means of carrying on the class war with a view not to obtaining this or that minor amelioration but to a radical revolution in the economic system this is the point of view adopted by the industrial workers of the world commonly known as the IWW this organization more or less corresponds to America to what the CGT was in France before the war the difference between the two are due to the different economic circumstances of the two countries but their spirit is closely analogous the IWW is not united as to the ultimate form which it wishes society to take there are socialists, anarchists and cynicalists among its members but it is clear on the immediate practical issue the class war is the fundamental reality in the present relations of labor and capital and that it is by industrial action especially by the strike that emancipation must be sought the IWW, like the CGT is not nearly so numerically as it is supposed to be by those who fear it its influence is based not upon its numbers but its own power of enlisting the sympathies of the workers in moments of crisis the labor movement in America has been categorized on both sides by very great violence indeed the secretary of the CGT Mancheux Juhot recognizes that the CGT is mild in comparison with the IWW the IWW he says preach a policy of militant action very necessary in parts of America which would not do in France a very interesting account of it from the point of view of an author who is neither wholly on the side of labor nor wholly on the side of the capitalist but disinterestedly anxious to find some solution of the social question short of violence and revolution is the work of Mr. John Graham Brooks called American syndicalism the IWW Macmillan 1913 American labor conditions are very different from those of Europe in the first place the power of the trust is enormous the concentration of capital has in this respect proceeded more nearly on Marxian lines in America than anywhere else in the second place the great influx of foreign labor makes the whole problem quite different from any that arises in Europe the older skilled workers, largely American born have been organized in the American Federation of Labor under Mr. Gompers these represent an aristocracy of labor they tend to work with the employers against the great mass of unskilled immigrants and they cannot be regarded as forming part of anything that could be truly called a labor movement there are, says Mr. Cole now in America, two working classes with different standards of life and both are at present almost impotent in the face of the employers nor is it possible for these two classes to unite or to put forward any demands the American Federation of Labor and the industrial workers of the world represent two different principles of combination but they also represent two different classes of labor the IWW stands for Industrial Unionism whereas the American Federation of Labor stands for Craft Unionism the IWW were formed in 1905 by a union of organizations chief among which was the Western Federation of Miners which dated from 1892 and started a split by the loss of the followers of De Leon who was leader of the Socialist Labor Party and advocated a don't vote policy while reprobating violent methods the headquarters of the party which he formed are at Detroit and those of the main body are at Chicago the IWW though it has a less definite philosophy than French syndicalism is quite equally determined to destroy the capitalist system as its secretary has said there is but one bargain the IWW will make with the employing class complete surrender of all control of the industry to the organized workers Mr. Haywood of the Western Federation of Miners is an out and out follower of Marx so far as concerns the class war and the doctrine of surplus value but like all who are in this movement he attaches more importance to industrial as against political action than do the European followers of Marx this is no doubt partly explicable by the special circumstances of America where the recent immigrants are apt to be voteless the fourth convention of the IWW revised a preamble giving the general principles underlying its action the working class and the employing class they say have nothing in common there can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few who make up the employing class have all the good things in life between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class take possession of the earth and the machinery of production and abolish the wage system instead of the conservative motto a fair day's wages for a fair day's work we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword abolition of the wage system numerous strikes have been conducted or encouraged by the IWW and the western federation of minors these strikes illustrate the class war in a more bitter and extreme form than is to be found in any other part of the world both sides are always ready to resort to violence the employers have armies of their own and are able to call upon the militia and even in a crisis upon the United States Army what french syndicalists say about the state as a capitalist institution is peculiarly true in America in consequence of the scandals thus arising the federal government appointed a commission on industrial relations whose report issued in 1915 reveals a state of affairs such as it would be difficult to imagine in Great Britain the report states that the greatest disorders and most of the outbreaks of violence in connection with industrial disputes arise from the violations of what are considered to be fundamental rights and from the perversion or subversion of governmental institutions it mentions among such perversions the subservience of the judiciary to the military authorities the fact that during a labor dispute the life and liberty of every man within the state would seem to be at the mercy of the governor and the use of state troops in policing strikes at Ludlow Colorado in 1914 April 20th a battle of the militia and the miners took place in which as the result of the fire of the militia a number of women and children were burned to death many other instances of pitched battles could be given but enough has been said to show the peculiar character of labor disputes in the United States it may, I fear, be presumed that this character will remain so long as a very large proportion of labor consists of recent immigrants when these difficulties pass away as they must sooner or later labor will more and more find its place in the community and will tend to feel and inspire less of the bitter hostility which renders the more extreme forms of class war possible when that time comes the labor movement in America will probably begin to take on forms similar to those of Europe although uniformly held that the writ of habeas corpus can only be suspended by legislature in these labor disturbances the executive has in fact suspended or disregarded the writ in cases arising from labor agitations the judiciary has uniformly upheld the power exercised by the military and in no case has there been any protest against the use of such power or any attempt to curtail it except in Montana where the conviction of a civilian by military commission was annulled final report of the commission on industrial relations, 1915 appointed by the United States Congress paid 58 literary digest May 2nd and May 16th 1914 meanwhile though the forms are different the aims are varied similar and industrial unionism spreading from America has had a considerable influence in Great Britain an influence naturally reinforced by that of French syndicalism it is clear I think that the adoption of industrial rather than craft unionism is absolutely necessary if trade unionism is to succeed in playing that part in altering the economic structure of society which its advocates claim for it rather than for the political parties industrial unionism organizes men as craft unionism does not in accordance with the enemy whom they have to fight English unionism is still very far removed from the industrial form though certain industries especially the railway men have gone very far in this direction and it is notable that the railway men are peculiarly sympathetic to syndicalism and industrial unionism pure syndicalism however is not very likely to achieve widespread popularity in Great Britain its spirit is too revolutionary and anarchistic for our temperament it is the modified form of guild socialism that the ideas derived from the CGT and the IWW are tending to bear fruit this movement is as yet in its infancy as no great hold upon the rank and file but it is being ably advocated by a group of young men and is rapidly gaining ground among those who will form labor opinion in years to come the power of the state has been so much increased during the war that those who naturally dislike things as they are find it more and more difficult to believe that state omnipotence can be the road to the millennium guild socialists aim at autonomy in industry with consequent curtailment but not abolition of the power of the state the system which they advocate is, I believe the best hitherto proposed and the one most likely to secure liberty without the constant appeals to violence which are to be feared under a purely anarchist regime the ideas of guild socialism were first set forth in national guilds decided by A. R. O'Rage Bell and Sons 1914 and in Cole's World of Labor Bell and Sons first published in 1913 Cole's self-government in industry Bell and Sons 1917 and Rickett Beckhoffer's the meaning of national guilds Palmer and Hayward 1918 should also be read as well as various pamphlets published by the National Guilds League the attitude of the syndicalists to guild socialism is far from sympathetic an article in the syndicalist for February 1914 speaks of it in the following terms a middle class of the middle class with all the shortcomings we had almost said stupidities of the middle classes writ large across it guild socialism stands forth as the latest lucrebration of the middle class mind it is a cool steel of the leading ideas of syndicalism and a deliberate perversion of them we do protest against the state idea in guild socialism middle class people even when they become socialists cannot get rid of the idea that the working class is their inferior that the workers need to be educated drilled, disciplined and generally nursed for a very long time before they will be able to walk by themselves the very reverse is actually the truth it is just the plain truth that when we say that the ordinary wage worker of average intelligence is better capable of taking care of himself than the half educated middle class man who wants to advise him he knows how to make the wheels of the world go round the first pamphlet of the National Guilds League sets forth their main principles in industry each factory is to be free to control its own methods of production by means of elected managers the different factories in a given industry are to be federated into a national guild which will deal with marketing and the general interests of the industry as a whole the state would own the means of production as trustee for the community the guilds would manage them also as trustees for the community and would pay to the state a single tax or rent any guild that chose to set its own interests above those of the community would be violating its trust and would have to bow to the judgment of a tribunal equally representing the whole body of producers and the whole body of consumers this joint committee would be the ultimate sovereign body the ultimate appeal court of industry it would fix not only guild taxation but also standard prices and both taxation and prices would be periodically readjusted by it each guild will be entirely free to apportion what it receives among its members as it chooses its members being all those who work in the industry which it covers the distribution of this collective guild income among the members seems to be a matter for each guild to decide for itself whether the guild would sooner or later adopt the principle of equal payment for every member is open to discussion guild socialism accepts from syndicalism the view that liberty is not to be secured by making the state the employer the state and the municipality as employers have turned out not to differ essentially from the private capitalist guild socialists regard the state as consisting of the community in their capacity as consumers while the guilds will represent them in their capacity as producers thus parliament and the guild congress will be two co-equal powers representing consumers and producers respectively above both will be the joint committee of parliament and the guild congress for deciding matters involving the interests of consumers and producers alike the view of the guilds socialists is that state socialism takes account of men only as consumers while syndicalism takes account of them only as producers the problem say the guilds socialists is to reconcile the two points of view that is what advocates of national guilds set out to do the syndicalist has claimed everything for the industrial organization of producers the collectivist everything for the territorial or political organizations of consumers both are open to the same criticism you cannot reconcile two points of view merely by denying one of them but although guild socialism represents an attempt at readjustment between two equally legitimate points of view its impulse and force are derived from what it has taken over from syndicalism like syndicalism it desires not primarily to make work better paid but to secure this result along with others by making it in itself more interesting and more democratic in organization the above quotations are all from the first pamphlet of the national guilds league national guilds and appeal to trade unionists capitalism has made of work a purely commercial activity a soulless and joyless thing but substitute the national service of the guilds for the profiteering of the few substitute responsible labor for a saleable commodity substitute self-government and decentralization for the bureaucracy and demoralizing hugeness of the modern state and the modern joint stock company and then it may be just once more to speak of a joy in labor and once more to hope that men may be proud of quality and not only of quantity in their work there is a can't of the middle ages and a can't of joy in labor but it were better perhaps to risk that can't than to reconcile ourselves forever to the philosophy of capitalism and of collectivism which declares that work is a necessary evil never to be made pleasant and that workers only hope is a leisure which should be longer richer and well adorned with municipal amenities the guild idea number two of the pamphlets of the national guilds league page 17 whatever may be thought of the practicability of syndicalism there is no doubt that the ideas which it has put into the world have done a great deal to revive the labor movement and to recall it to certain things of fundamental importance which it had been in danger of forgetting syndicalists consider men as producer rather than consumer they are more concerned to procure freedom to work than to increase material well-being they have revived the quest for liberty which has grown somewhat dimmed under the regime of parliamentary socialism and they have reminded men that what our modern society needs is not a little tinkering here and there nor the kind of minor readjustments to which the existing holders of power may readily consent but a fundamental reconstruction a sweeping away of all the sources of oppression a liberation of men's constructive energies and a wholly new way of conceiving regulating production and economic relations this merit is so great that in view of it all minor defects become insignificant and this merit syndicalism will continue to possess even if as a definite movement it should be found to have passed away after the war End of Chapter 3 Recording by John Thomas Kuzkosmarski www.validateyourlife.com Chapter 4 of Proposed Roads to Freedom This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Recording by John Thomas Kuzkosmarski Proposed Roads to Freedom by Bertrand Russell Chapter 4 Work and Pay The man who seeks to create a better order of society has two resistances to contend with one that of nature the other that of his fellow men Broadly speaking it is science that deals with the resistance of nature while politics and social organization are the methods of overcoming the resistance of men The ultimate fact in economics is that nature only yields commodities as a result of labour The necessity of some labour for the satisfaction of our once is not imposed by political systems but by the exploitation of the working classes It is due to physical laws while the reformer must admit and study Before any optimistic economic project can be accepted as feasible we must examine whether the physical conditions of production impose an unalterable veto or whether they are capable of being sufficiently modified by science and organization Two connected doctrines must be considered in examining this question First, Malthus' doctrine of population and second, the vaguer but very prevalent view that any surplus above the bare necessities of life can only be produced if most men work long hours at monotonous or painful tasks leaving little leisure for a civilized existence or rational enjoyment I believe that either of these obstacles to optimism will survive a close scrutiny The possibility of technical improvement in the methods of production is, I believe, so great that at any rate for centuries to come there will be no inevitable barrier to progress in the general well-being by the simultaneous increase of commodities and diminution of hours of labour This subject has been specially studied by Kropotkin who, whatever may be thought of his general theories of politics is remarkably instructive concrete and convincing in all that he says about the possibilities of agriculture Socialists and anarchists in the main are products of industrial life and few among them have any practical knowledge on the subject of food production but Kropotkin is an exception. His two books The Conquest of Bread and Field Factories and Workshops are very full of detailed information and even making great allowances for an optimistic bias I do not think it can be denied that they demonstrate possibilities in which few of us would otherwise have believed Malthus contended, in effect that population always tends to increase the limit of subsidence that the production of food becomes more expensive as its amount is increased and that therefore apart from short exceptional periods when new discoveries produce temporary alleviations the bulk of mankind must always be at the lowest level consistent with survival and reproduction. As applied to the civilized races of the world this doctrine is becoming true through the rapid decline in the birth rate but apart from this decline there are many other reasons why the doctrine cannot be accepted at any rate as regards the near future. The century which elapsed after Malthus wrote saw a very great increase in the standard of comfort throughout the wage earning classes and owing to the enormous increase in the productivity of labor the more greater rise in the standard of comfort could have been affected if a more just system of distribution had been introduced In former times when one man's labor produced not very much more than was needed for one man's subsidence it was impossible either greatly to reduce the normal hours of labor or greatly to increase the proportion of the population who enjoyed more than the bare necessaries of life and trade of affairs has been overcome by modern methods of production At the present moment not only do many people enjoy a comfortable income derived from rent or interest but about half the population of most civilized countries in the world is engaged not in production of commodities but in fighting or in manufacturing munitions of war. In a time of peace the whole of this half might be kept in idleness and the other half poorer than they would have been if the war had continued and if instead of being idle they were productively employed the whole of what they would produce would be divisible surplus over and above present wages The present productivity of labor in Great Britain would suffice to produce an income of about one pound per day for each family even without any of those improvements in which are obviously immediately possible but it will be said as population increases the price of food must ultimately increase also as the sources of supply in Canada, the Argentine, Australia and elsewhere are more and more used up there must come a time so pessimists will urge when food becomes so dear that the ordinary wage earner will have little surplus for expenditure upon other things it may be admitted that this would be true in some very distant future if the population were to continue to increase without limit if the whole surface of the world were as densely populated as London is now it would no doubt require almost the whole labor of the population to produce the necessary food from the few spaces remaining for agriculture but there is no reason to suppose that the population will continue to increase and in any case the prospect is so remote that it may be ignored in all practical considerations. Returning from these dim speculations to the fact set forth by Kropotkin we find it proved in his writings that by methods of intensive cultivation which are already in actual operation the amount of food produced on a given area can be increased far beyond anything that most uninformed persons suppose possible. Speaking of the market gardeners in Great Britain in the neighborhood of Paris and other places he says they have created a totally new agriculture they smile when we boast about the rotation system having permitted us to take from the field one crop every year or four crops each three years because their ambition is to have six and nine crops from the very same plot of land during the twelve months. They do not understand our talk about good and bad soils because they make the soil themselves and making it in such quantities as to be compelled yearly to sell some of it otherwise it would raise up the level of their gardens by half an inch each year they aim at cropping not five or six tons of grass on the acre as we do 50 to 100 tons of various vegetables on the same space not five pounds worth of hay but 100 pounds worth of vegetables of the plainest description cabbage and carrots Kropotkin fields factories and workshops page 74. As regards cattle he mentions that Mr. Champion at Whitby grows on each acre the food of two or three head of cattle whereas ordinary high farming it takes two or three acres to keep each head of cattle in Great Britain. Even more astonishing are the achievements of the culture marriage shares around Paris it is impossible to summarize these achievements but we may note the general conclusion there are now practical marriage shares who venture to maintain that of all the food animal and vegetable necessary for the 3,500,000 inhabitants of the department of Seine and Seine et Ois had to be grown on their own territory 3,250 square miles it could be grown without resorting to any other methods of culture than those already in use. Methods already tested on a large scale and proved successful it must be remembered that these two departments include the whole population of Paris Kropotkin proceeds to point out methods by which the same result could be achieved without long hours of labor indeed he contends that the great bulk of agricultural work could be carried on by people whose main occupations are sedentary and with only such a number of hours as would serve to keep them in health and produce a pleasant diversification he protests against the theory of excessive division of labor what he wants is integration a society where each individual is a producer of both manual and intellectual work where each able-bodied human being is a worker and where each worker works both in the field and in the industrial workshop Kropotkin field factories and workshops page 6 these views as to the production have no essential connection with Kropotkin's advocacy of anarchism they would be equally impossible under state socialism and under certain circumstances they might even be carried out in a capitalist regime they are important for our present purpose not from any argument which they afford in favor of one economic system as against another but from the fact that the veto upon our hopes which might otherwise result from a doubt as to the productive capacity of labor I have dwelt upon agriculture rather than industry since it is in regard to agriculture that the difficulties are chiefly supposed to arise broadly speaking industrial production tends to be cheaper when it is carried on a large scale and therefore there is no reason in industry why an increase in the demand should lead to an increased cost of supply passing now from the purely technical and material side of the problem of production we come to the human factor the motives leading men to work the possibilities of efficient organization of production and the connection of production with distribution defenders of the existing system maintain that efficient work would be impossible without the economic stimulus and that if the wage system were abolished men would cease to do enough work to keep the community in tolerable comfort through the alleged necessity of the economic motive the problems of production and distribution become intertwined the desire for a more just distribution of the world's goods is the main inspiration of most socialism and anarchism we must therefore consider whether the system of distribution which they propose would be likely to lead to a diminished production there is a fundamental difference between socialism and anarchism as regards the question of distribution socialism at any rate in most of its forms would retain payment for work done or for willingness to work and except in the case of persons incapacitated by age or infirmity would make willingness to work a condition of substance or at any rate of subsistence above a certain very low minimum anarchism on the other hand aims at granting to everyone without any conditions whatever just as many of all ordinary commodities as he or she may care to consume while the rarer commodities of which the supply cannot easily be indefinitely increased would be rationed and divided equally among the population thus anarchism would not impose any obligations of work though anarchists believe that the necessary work could be made sufficiently agreeable for the vast majority of the population to undertake it voluntarily socialists on the other hand would exact work some of them would make the incomes of all workers equal while others would retain higher pay for the work which is considered more valuable all these different systems are compatible with the common ownership of land and capital though they differ greatly as regards the kind of society which they would produce socialism with inequality of income would not differ greatly as regards the economic stimulus to work from the society in which we live such differences as it would entail would undoubtedly be to the good from our present point of view under the existing system many people enjoy idleness and affluence through the mere accident of inheriting land or capital many others through their activities in industry or finance and joint income which is certainly very far in excess of anything to which their social utility entitles them on the other hand it often happens that inventors and discoverers whose work has the very greatest social utility are robbed of their reward either by capitalists or by the failure of the public to appreciate their work until too late the better paid work is only open to those who have been able to afford an expensive training and these men are selected in the main not by merit but by luck the wage earner is not paid for his willingness but only for his utility to the employer consequently he may be plunged into destitution by causes over which he has no control such destitution is a constant fear and when it occurs it produces undeserved suffering and often deterioration in the social value of the sufferer these are a few among the evils of our existing system from the standpoint of production all these evils we might expect to see remedied under any system of socialism there are two questions which need to be considered when we are discussing how far work requires the economic motive the first question is must society give higher pay for the more skilled or socially more valuable work if such work is to be done in sufficient quantities the second question is could work be made so attractive that enough of it would be done if idlers receive just as much of the produce of the work the first of these questions concerns the division between two schools of socialists the more moderate socialists sometimes concede that even under socialism it would be well to retain unequal pay for different kinds of work while the more thoroughgoing socialists advocate equal incomes for all workers the second question on the other hand forms a division between socialists and anarchists the latter would not deprive a man of commodities if he did not work while the former in general would our second question is so much more fundamental than our first that it must be discussed at once and in the course of this discussion what needs to be said on our first question will find its place naturally wages or free sharing abolition of the wages system is one of the watchwords common to anarchists and advanced socialists but in its most natural sense it is a watchword to which only the anarchists have a right in the anarchist conception of society all the commoner commodities will be available to everyone without stint in the kind of way in which water is available present advocates of this system point out that it applies already to many things which formerly had to be paid for e.g. roads and bridges they point out that it might very easily be extended to trams and local trains they proceed to argue as Kropotkin does by means of his proofs that the soil might be made indefinitely more productive that all the commoner kinds of food could be given away to all who demanded them since it would be easy to produce them in quantities adequate to any possible demand if this system were extended to all the necessaries of life everyone's bare livelihood would be secured quite regardless of the way in which he might choose to spend his time as for commodities which cannot be produced in indefinite quantities such as luxuries and delicacies they also according to the anarchists are to be distributed without payment but on a system of rations the amount available being divided equally among the population no doubt though this is not said something like a price will have to be put upon these luxuries so that a man may be free to choose how he will take his share one man will prefer a good wine another the finest Havana cigars another pictures or beautiful furniture presumably every man will be allowed to take such luxuries as are his do in whatever form he prefers the relative price is fixed so as to equalize the demand in such a world as this the economic stimulus to production will have wholly disappeared and if work is to continue it must be from other motives not withstanding the egotistic turn given to the public mind by the merchant production of our century the communist tendency is continually reasserting itself and trying to make its way into public life the penny bridge disappears before the public bridge and the turnpike road before the free road the same spirit pervades thousands of other institutions museums free libraries and free public schools parks and pleasure grounds paved and lighted streets free for everybody's use water supply to private dwellings with a growing tendency towards disregarding the exact amount of it used by the individual tramways and railways which have already begun to introduce the season ticket or the uniform tax and will surely go much further on this line when they are no longer private property all these are tokens showing in what direction further progress is to be expected kropotkin anarchist communism enable discussion of this question at of various others from the standpoint of reasoned and temperate opposition to anarchism will be found in alfred naquettes l'anarchy et la collectivism paris 1904 is such a system possible first is it technically possible to provide the necessaries of life in such large quantities as would be needed if every man and woman could take as much of them from the public stores as he or she might desire the idea of purchase and payment is so familiar that the proposal to do away with it must be thought at first fantastic yet I do not believe it is nearly so fantastic as it seems even if we could all have bread for nothing we should not want more than a quite limited amount as things are the cost of bread to the rich is so small a proportion of their income as to afford no check upon their consumption yet the amount of bread that they consume could easily be supplied to the whole population by improved methods of agriculture I'm not speaking of wartime the amount of food that people desire has natural limits and the waste that would be incurred would probably not be very great as the anarchist points out people at present enjoy an unlimited water supply but very few leave the taps running when they are not using them and one may assume that public opinion would be opposed to excessive waste we may lay it down I think that the principle of unlimited supply could be adopted in regard to all commodities for which the demand has limits that fall short of what can be easily produced and this would be the case if production were efficiently organized with the areas of life including not only commodities but also such things as education even if all education were free to the highest young people unless they were radically transformed by the anarchist regime would not want more than a certain amount of it and the same applies to plain foods plain clothes and the rest of the things that supply our elementary needs I think we may conclude that there is no technical possibility in the anarchist plan of free sharing but would the necessary work be done if the individual were assured of the general standard of comfort even though he did no work most people will answer this question unhesitatingly in the negative those employers in particular who are in the habit of denouncing their employees as a set of lazy drunken louts will feel quite certain that we got out of them except under threat of dismissal and consequence starvation but is this as certain as people are inclined to suppose at first sight if work were to remain what most work is now no doubt it would be very hard to induce people to undertake it except from fear of destitution but there is no reason why work should remain the dreary drudgery and horrible conditions that most of it is now if men had to be tempted to work instead of driven to it the obvious interest of the community would be to make work pleasant so long as work is not made on the whole pleasant it cannot be said that anything like a good state of society has been reached is the painfulness of work unavoidable overwork is repulsive to human nature not work overwork for supplying a few with luxury not work for the well-being of all work labor is a physiological necessity a necessity of spending accumulated bodily energy a necessity which is health and life itself if so many branches of useful work are so reluctantly done now it is merely because they mean overwork or they are improperly organized but we know old Franklin that four hours of useful work every day would be more than sufficient for supplying everybody with the comfort of a moderately well-to-do middle-class house if we all gave ourselves to productive work and if we did not waste our productive powers as we do waste them now as to the childish question repeated for 50 years who would do disagreeable work frankly I regret that none of our has ever been brought to do it be it for only one day in his life if there is still work which is really disagreeable in itself it is only because our scientific men have never cared to consider the means of rendering it less so they have always known that there were plenty of starving men who would do it for a few pence a day Kropotkin anarchist communism at present the better aid work that of the business and professional classes is for the most part enjoyable I do not mean that every separate moment is agreeable but that the life of a man who has work of this sort is on the whole happier than that of a man who enjoys an equal income without doing any work a certain amount of effort and something in the nature of a continuous career are necessary to vigorous men if they are to preserve their mental health and their zest for life a considerable amount of work is done without pay people who take a rosy view of human nature might have supposed that the duties of a magistrate would be among disagreeable trades like cleaning sewers but a cynic might contend that the pleasures of vindictiveness and moral superiority are so great that there is no difficulty in finding well to do utterly gentlemen who are willing without pay to lend helpless wretches to the torture of prison and apart from enjoyment of the work itself desire for the good opinion of neighbors and for the feeling of effectiveness is quite sufficient to keep many men active but it will be said the sort of work that a man would voluntarily choose must always be exceptional the great bulk of necessary work can never be anything but painful who would choose an easy life or otherwise open to him to be a coal miner or a stoker on an Atlantic liner I think it must be conceded that much necessary work must always remain disagreeable or at least painfully monotonous and that special privileges will have to be accorded to those who undertake it if the anarchist system is ever to be made workable it is true that the introduction of such special privileges would somewhat more the rounded logic of anarchism but it need not I think make any really vital breach in its system much of the work that needs doing could be rendered agreeable if thought and care were given to this and more scientific methods a very great deal of work which is now felt as a burden would quite cease to be so if as Kropotkin suggests agriculture work instead of being the long drudgery of an ignorant laborer living very near the verge of abject poverty were the occasional occupation of men and women normally employed in industry or brain work if instead of being conducted by ancient traditional methods without any possibility of intelligent participation by the wage earner it's were alive with the search for new methods and new inventions filled with the spirit of freedom and inviting the mental as well as the physical cooperation of those who do the work it might become a joy instead of a weariness and a source of health and life to those engaged in it what is true of agriculture is said by anarchists to be equally true of industry they maintain that if the great economic organizations which are now managed by capitalists without consideration for the lives of the wage earners beyond that trade unions are exact were turned gradually into self governing communities in which the producers could decide all questions of methods conditions hours of work and so forth there would be an almost bound list change for the better grime and noise might be nearly eliminated the hideousness of industrial regions might be turned into beauty the interest in the scientific aspects of production might become diffused among all producers with any native intelligence and something of the artist's joy in creation might inspire the whole of the work all this which is at present utterly remote from the reality might be produced by economic self government we may concede that by such means a very large proportion of the necessary work of the world would ultimately be made sufficiently agreeable to be preferred before idleness even by men whose bare livelihood would be assured whether they worked or not as to the residue let us admit that special rewards whether in goods or honors or privileges would have to be given to those who undertook it but this need not cause any fundamental objection there would of course be a certain proportion of the population who would prefer idleness provided the proportion were small this need not matter and among those who would be classed as idlers might be included artists writers of books men devoted to abstract intellectual pursuits in short all those whom society despises while they are alive and honors when they are dead to such men the possibility of pursuing their own work regardless of any public recognition in its utility would be invaluable whoever will observe how many of our poets have been men in private means will realize how much poetic capacity must have remained undeveloped through poverty for it would be absurd to suppose that the rich are better endowed by nature with the capacity for poetry freedom for such men few as they are must be set against the waste of mere idlers so far we have set forth the arguments in favor of the anarchist plan they are to my mind sufficient to make it seem possible that the plan might succeed but not sufficient to make it so probable that it would be wise to try it the question of feasibility of the anarchist proposals in regard to distribution is like so many other questions a quantitative one the anarchist proposals consist of two parts one that all the common commodities should be supplied ad lib two that no obligation to work or economic reward for work should be imposed on anyone these two proposals are not necessarily inseparable nor does either entail the whole system of anarchism though without them anarchism would hardly be possible as regards the first of these proposals it can be carried out even now with regard to some commodities and it would be carried out in no very distant future with regard to many more it is a flexible plan since this or that article of consumption could be placed on the free list or taken of as circumstances might dictate its advantages are many and various and the practice of the world tends to develop in this direction I think we may conclude that this part of the anarchist system might well be adopted bit by bit reaching gradually the full extension that they desire but as regards the second proposal that there should be no obligation to work and no economic reward for work the matter is much more doubtful anarchists always assume that if their schemes were put into operation practically everyone would work but although there is very much more to be said for this view than most people would concede at first sight yet it is questionable whether there is enough to be said to make it true for practical purposes perhaps in a community where industry had become habitual through economic pressure public opinion might be sufficiently powerful to compel most men to work but it is always doubtful how far such a state of things would be permanent if public opinion is to be really effective it will be necessary to have some method of dividing the community into small groups and to allow each group to consume only the equivalent of what it produces this will make the economic motive operative upon the group which since we are supposing it small will feel that its collective share is appreciably diminished by each idle individual such a system might be feasible but it would be contrary to the whole spirit of anarchism and would destroy the main lines of its economic system as to the so often repeated objection that nobody would labor if he were not compelled to do so by sheer necessity we heard enough of it before the emancipation of slaves in America as well as before the emancipation of serfs in Russia and we have had the opportunity of appreciating it at its just value so we shall not try to convince those who can be convinced only by accomplished facts as to those who reason they ought to know that if it really was so with some parts of humanity at its lowest stages and yet what do we know about it or if it is so with some small communities or separate individuals brought to sheer despair by ill success in their struggle against unfavorable conditions it is not so with the bulk of the civilized nations with us work is a habit and the islandness and artificial growth Kropotkin anarchist communism page 30 the attitude of orthodox socialism on this question is quite different from that of anarchism among the more immediate measures advocated in the communist manifesto is equal liability of all to labor establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture is that in general work alone gives the right to the enjoyment of the produce of work to this theory there will of course be exceptions the old and the very young the infirm and those whose work is temporarily not required through no fault of their own but the fundamental conception of socialism in regard to our present question is that all who can should be compelled to work either by the threat of starvation or by the operation of criminal law and of course the only kind of work recognized will be such as commends itself to the authorities writing books against socialism or against any theory embodied in the government of the day would certainly not be recognized as work no more would the painting of pictures in a different style than that of the royal academy or producing plays any new line of thought would be banned unless by influence or corruption the thinker could crawl into the good places of the pundits these results are not foreseen by socialists because they imagine that the socialist state will be governed by men like those who now advocated this is of course a delusion the rulers of the state then will bear as little resemblance to the present socialists as the dignitaries of the church after the time of Constantine bore to the apostles the men who advocate an unpopular reform are exceptional in disinterestedness and zeal for the public good but those who hold power after the reform has been carried out are likely to belong in the main to the ambitious executive type which has in all ages possessed itself of the government of nations and this type has never shown itself tolerant of opposition or friendly to freedom while holding this synthetic view on production the anarchists cannot consider like the collectivists that a remuneration which would be proportionate to the hours of labor spent by each person in the production of riches may be an ideal or even an approach to an ideal society Kropotkin anarchist communism page 20 it would seem then that if the anarchist plan has its dangers the socialist plan has at least equal dangers it is true that the evils we have been foreseeing under socialism exist at present but the purpose of socialists is to cure the evils of the world as it is they cannot be content with the argument that they would make things no worse anarchism has the advantage as regards liberty socialism as regards the inducements to work can we not find a method of combining these two advantages it seems to me that we can we saw that provided most people work in moderation and their work is rendered as productive as science and organization can make it there is no good reason why the necessaries of life should not be supplied freely to all our only serious doubt was as to weather in an anarchist regime the motives for work would be sufficiently powerful to prevent a dangerously large amount of idleness but it would be easy to decree that though necessaries should be free to all whatever went beyond necessaries should only be given to those who were willing to work not as as usual at present only to those in work at any moment but also to all those who when they happened not to be working were idle through no fault of their own we find at present that a man who has a small income from investments just sufficient to keep him from actual want almost always prefers to find some paid work in order to be able to afford luxuries so it would be presumably in such a community as we are imagining at the same time the man who felt a vocation for some unrecognized work of ours or science or thought would be free to follow his desire provided he were willing to scorn delights and live laborious days and the comparatively small number of men with an invincible horror of work the sort of men who now become tramps might lead a harmless existence without any grave danger of their becoming sufficiently numerous to be a serious burden upon the more industrious in this ways the claims of freedom could be combined with some economic stimulus to work such a system seems to me would have a far greater chance of success than either pure anarchism or pure orthodox socialism stated in more familiar terms the plan we are advocating amounts essentially to this that a certain small income sufficient for necessaries should be secured to all whether they work or not and that a larger income as much larger as might be warranted by the total amount of commodities produced should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the community recognizes as useful on this basis we may build further do not think it is always necessary to pay more highly work which is more skilled or regarded as socially more useful since such work is more interesting and more respected than ordinary work and will therefore often be preferred by those who are able to do it but we might for instance give an intermediate income to those who are only willing to work half the usual number of hours and an income above that of most workers to those who choose a specially disagreeable trade for the present I'm content to urge that it combines freedom with justice and avoid those dangers to the community which we have found to lurk both in the proposals of the anarchists and in those of orthodox socialists.