Organised Vengeance Called 'Justice;' The Superstition of Government/The Superstition of Government

by Henry Glasse

THE SUPERSTITION OF GOVERNMENT.

 

 

An impression fixed by long habit of mind, especially where that habit has been transmitted through many generations, ends by assuming the form of instinctive knowledge, too clear to admit of discussion, still less to require demonstration. If such impression is originally based on facts accepted by reason, we call it common sense; if, on the other hand, it springs from error in matter of fact or is the result of distorted reasoning, we call it prejudice. In expounding Anarchism we are met by a certain stolid repugnance as well as a seeming inability to grasp our idea, and this we find to be owing to a prepossession in favor of Government. Let us therefore examine and see if this superstition is based on common sense, or whether it is not the result of prejudice carefully maintained and cultivated in the past by those who have put themselves forward as the guides of humanity.

Throughout the whole of authentic history this fact of Government is continually presented to us as a permanent factor of human life, as well as its most important and interesting aspect; even the legends and myths which precede history are full of the glorious or terrible deeds of rulers—giants on earth, and gods and devils innumerable throughout the universe divide between them the government of men and things. Are we therefore to conclude that government is natural to man? or that it is a requisite of man's social life? We might be tempted to answer this question in the affirmative, but for another fact which is co-universal with Government and which entirely upsets its claim to be in harmony with man's moral and social nature. That fact is Revolt. In no historic time has Government failed to encounter Revolt, either overt or covert; individuals or classes have at all times contended to subvert the dominion of other classes or individuals in order to win that dominion for themselves. This traditional spirit of revolt is also presented to us in those legends and myths which are the echoes of prehistoric times: Jehovah has to struggle for pre-eminence with the archangel Satan, who leads to rebellion a portion of the angelic host, and who continues, even after his expulsion from heaven we are told, to keep up a fairly successful warfare against heaven's monarch. So, also, in the ancient classic story, Jupiter dethrones his father Saturn, and in his turn becomes "Father of the gods and King of men." I have spoken of the hostility of individuals and classes who happen for the time to be out of power, as directed against those who for the moment are in power; but of course this hostility would be powerless without the co-operation of the people or a considerable section thereof, and therefore it is that whoever raises the standard of revolt or of opposition (which is only revolt minus military warfare) professes to do so in the interest of the people, who are led to hope for a betterment of their condition as a result of a successful change. Insurrectionary and opposition leaders have always posed as deliverers of the people in order to gain its support, and have taught it to regard the exercise of power and the spoils of office as the just reward of their condescension in taking up the cudgels on behalf of its interests. Obviously, therefore, during the many ages that personal ambitions and rival castes hare warred for supremacy, it has never suited them to so much as even hint to the vile populace whose help they were soliciting that the evils it suffered were inherent in Government itself; on the Contrary, it was their policy to leave the principles of Government and Authority unchallenged, and to insist only upon the transfer of power to themselves, together with the privileges and perquisites of power, whilst promising the people as its share of the advantage gained some alleviation of its servitude, generally, in practice.

When, therefore, the Anarchist proposes the abolition of Government and the rejection of Authority, and claims that the affairs of society shall he arranged by mutual understanding of the people themselves, instead of being imposed on them by some external force, he finds that the minds of those he addresses never having been used to contemplate such a possibility, the suggestion bewilders them, and no clear corresponding idea is awakened. This is shown by the question almost invariably asked by those who for the first time hear of Anarchism: "How, then, will you regulate this, that, or the other, for us?" not grasping the fact that Anarchism (or Libertarianism, if you prefer the word) repudiates regulation and leaves the persons concerned to manage each matter for themselves by mutual agreement, compromise, or concession.

Moreover, so accustomed are people to regard those who propose political changes as candidates for political power, that when they hear that Anarchist propagandists do not desire power or place, and reject authority for themselves as well as for others, they are puzzled to conceive the motive which actuates them, used as they themselves have always been to regard the desire for personal advancement as inseparable from the role of an agitator; hence a suspicion is apt to affect them that there must be something hidden, something kept back in such an unusual proceeding as that of an individual championing an unpopular and persecuted cause and, at the same time, disclaiming any special personal advantage as his proposed reward.

There is, it seems to me, no other way of combating this prejudice—for prejudice, I think, it has been shown to be—than by patient reiteration of our principles and repeated pointing out of their logical character; in this way we shall go on in the future, as we have already begun, to familiarise the popular mind with our ideas, which is the indispensable preliminary to their acceptance. In this good work let us persevere; our success will be commensurate with our efforts.

HENRY GLASSE.