A FIERCE WORKING CLASS PROPAGANDIST, MOTLER COULDN’T STAND THE STILTED, ESOTERIC TONES OF MANY ANARCHIST AND SOCIALIST WRITERS – AND WASN’T SHY IN SAYING SO ~ Rob Ray ~ Freedom was contacted, around this time last year, by a small production company interested in doing a documentary for the British Sign Language Broadcasting Trust. What would a small publishing house in Whitechapel have to interest them, you ask? Well the tale, and the subject of today’s reprint, is that of a deaf-mute political firebrand. One of the anarchist movement’s lesser-known figures (bar the occasional historical talk), Leonard Motler was initially brought into the anarchist movement thanks in part to its trenchantly anti-war position and proved an immediate boon to the struggling London scene. A trained printer, talented artist and incisive writer, he was able to essentially function as his own publishing house, though he lent his energies to multiple projects around the movement, including as the printer of Freedom itself. Motler had written in to Freedom a few times previously, but his article in the December 1914 edition of the paper was laser focused on the question of how it had come to pass that the Great Unrest had become the Great War with nary a revolutionary whimper. In Motler’s view the left generally, the anarchists included, was far too fond of talking to its own reflection rather than making the effort to speak in ways the working class would identify with, and had thus talked itself into irrelevance. His pitch was clarity and, while he would go on to be the first of the anarchists to identify Russia’s revolution as a dud (describing it as “running agley” in 1917), he was in step with the radicals there on his quest for blunt, effective language. Like the Russians with their Rosta windows he was a proponent of the striking, illustrated front page. His writing was mostly shorn of references to proletariats and classic literature. An example of this style can be found online in his explanation of anarchist communism. Motler was key to keeping Freedom running during the war even through the State’s attempts to repress and imprison its editorship, and managed to keep Satire printing until April 1918, when it was shut down by the police. Sadly we’ve not heard back from the production team about their project at time of writing (though it is still listed at BSL’s website) so we can only keep our fingers crossed that Motler gets his documentary! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ON WAYS AND MEANS During the last few years the Anarchist movement appears merely to have marked time nearly everywhere. Several reasons for this partial standstill may be put forward. Amongst these the late labour unrest has been conspicuous. This unrest, culminating in the great strikes, brought matters to a head in the industrial world. Conciliation boards had been found out; agreements had proved one-sided; leaders too ready, nay eager, to temporise and compromise. Trade Union discipline broke down; the officials were flouted. In spite of a gradual rise in wages, food prices lowered the purchasing power. A sullen, bewildered policy of despair held sway. Apparently there was no absolute remedy, Anarchism and Socialism were rejected as not being immediately practicable. But shrinking as they did from the prospect of a revolution, Syndicalism with its crude simplicity was almost on the point of being welcomed with open arms. Then the government stepped in; the situation was saved; Capitalism breathed again. How could such a remarkable collapse occur when the workers were so evidently animated with a class-conscious solidarity? The answer lies in the brutal fact that the stomach bulks largely in working-class argument. They prefer the substantial crumb to the somewhat shadowy loaf in the distance. This is the reason Anarchism was — and will yet be — postponed for further consideration. This is the one fault of our propaganda; this is the stumbling-block in the path of our progress. We are idealists, not materialists. On the one hand, the workers see the evil of Capitalism and all its works. On the other, they see the glimmer of the City of Light, as yet to them intangible and unattainable. They understand the contrasts. Their minds readily grasp the fact that however delusive, the future may seem to be, it can at least be no worse than the desolation of the present. But between these two their minds cannot bridge the chasm. This is our work, then. We must bridge that chasm. Our propagandist energies must be devoted to this. We must come down from the clouds and face the problem on solid ground. Anarchism must, at least initially, be explained in terms of bread and butter. Let this be understood. I do not stand for mere Labourist compromise. I do not suggest the movement be side-tracked in favour of plaister and pilules. There is no danger whatever of the main idea being lost in a maze of palliatives. All that is wanted is a little plain-speaking. Let us be frank. We have had enough of the economic cant, We have used the dictionary too often. Exploitation, surplus-value, proletariat, infantile mortality, bourgeoisie — all these are but meaningless catchwords to the man in the street, Shades of Marx and Engels! What is a working man, to know of the “materialistic conception of history”? Let us be frank. We have had enough abuse of capitalists, rent-lords, and financiers. They, at least, do not misunderstand us. We have had enough abuse of the working class. Let us give Carlyle’s “twenty-five millions — mostly fools,” a decent burial — a good long rest. The working class do not understand us, They are not to be caught in the fine web of our verbiage. If we will persist in writing pamphlets and making pretty speeches in polysyllables, they will go on not understanding. Either we must descend to their plain brutality of words or we shall go on talking over their heads. They cannot see the argument for the wrapping of fine phrases. We must be curt, crisp, and to the point. There are two sides only to whom we can make any appeal. The first and largest consists of the working class world. The second consists of those idealists — call them what you will —who are more or less of our kidney. For these latter our present pamphlets and fuller works will suffice. For the former a new literature must be brought into being — plain, large-typed, and cheap. Also let us have more pictures. The workers love pictures. They can see things better with the help of a simple illustration. A symbolic representation of Labour as an armed Don Quixote leaves them cold. A corduroy-breeched labourer is more to their understanding. Finally, we must organise our propaganda. At present it is too scattered. There is no need to drill each group into distributing pamphlets with military precision. What I mean is that there must be some system in what we do. We have plenty of meetings, in sooth, but not enough distribution. The spoken word is readily understood — and as readily forgotten. The printed word lingers. Let us make our pamphlets, our books, our leaflets as plain and as interesting as speech. Let us see to it that the working class is reached by these. Let our propaganda be constant. The movement has marked time too long. Now for the grand march. Forward! ~ L A Motler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF YEAR NOTE: As we come to the close of 2024, so I will close this chapter of Freedom Press’s history, looking at the events of 110 years ago through our ancestors’ eyes. There’s much more to be said about the paper’s activities during the war itself, but in 2025 I’d like to leap forward a few decades, to the end of World War II. Like 1914, the year 1945 was a key period in the history of British anarchism, though for very different reasons. It includes the infamous War Commentary trial and its aftermath, a split which would characterise many decades to come — and the re-emergence of Freedom itself as a regular newspaper and hub of the post-war movement in London. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Image: A sketch believed to be of Leonard Motler in Satire, March 1918, alongside some of his publications The post Radical Reprint: The frustration of Leonard Motler appeared first on Freedom News.

THE ANARCHIST SPLIT OVER THE GREAT WAR (WW1) BURST INTO PRINT IN NOVEMBER 1914, WITH GRAVE CONSEQUENCES ~ Rob Ray ~ One of the most famous articles Freedom ever carried, at least in historical terms, was a piece by Errico Malatesta, that titan of the Italian anarchist movement, entitled ‘Anarchists Have Forgotten Their Principles‘, in November 1914. This strident rebuttal of the hawkish attitudes being displayed by some of Europe’s major anarchist theorists, most notably Peter Kropotkin, is broadly considered a turning point in the movement’s attitude towards the Great War (later “World War 1”), helping to solidify a pro-revolution, anti-militarist message that would characterise its writing and activism for the next several decades. In it, Malatesta notes: We have always preached that the workers of all countries are brothers, and that the enemy—the “foreigner”—is the exploiter, whether born near us or in a far-off country, whether speaking the same language or any other. We have always chosen our friends, our companions-in-arms, as well as our enemies, because of the ideas they profess and of the position they occupy in the social struggle, and never for reasons of race or nationality. We have always fought against patriotism, which is a survival of the past, and serves well the interest of the oppressors; and we were proud of being internationalists, not only in words, but by the deep feelings of our souls. And now that the most atrocious consequences of capitalist and State domination should indicate, even to the blind, that we were in the right, most of the Socialists and many Anarchists in the belligerent countries associate themselves with the Governments and the bourgeoisie of their respective countries, forgetting Socialism, the class struggle, international fraternity, and the rest. What a downfall! This essay has, however, already been pored over extensively , to the point where it overshadows just how even-handed editor Tom Keell was trying to be on the topic. The same issue, for example, contains sentiment in favour of resistance by both the Belgian and French peoples from the likes of Tscherkesoff, Verbelen, and Kropotkin himself. Malatesta’s piece being well known already, with lots of links to it, I will instead pick out a piece from Jean Grave, a long-time and very well-respected figure who had worked with Kropotkin on several French-language newspapers. Grave, who like Kropotkin came out as pro-war, eventually co-signed the Manifesto of the Sixteen calling for anarchists to join the fight against Germany, a document which primarily served to alienate the signatories from the movement at large. Grave’s write-up is impassioned, and highlights both correct and incorrect ideas in the dissenters’ overall viewpoint. It is now known to be correct, for example, that the groundswell of social revolution was not potent enough, outside of Russia, to end the war. And it was dead wrong to think that this would be the last war, that the horror would persuade all peoples to finally end the dominion of those who sent them to die in muddy trenches and starve for lack of food. As a historic artefact, the whole paper is one to be read and thought about. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUGHT ANARCHISTS TO TAKE PART IN THE WAR? Ought we who are Anarchists to take part in the war which is now devastating Europe? Or ought we to abstain from doing so? The question presents itself to our English comrades in a way that it has never done in France, where the German invasion left no doubt of the attitude to take: that of self- defence. Surely there should have been a better solution, one more logical, more dignified: an appeal to the proletariat to free themselves from oppression, to take possession of the national wealth, to invite the peoples to the Communistic life, to arm all those capable of wielding a weapon, transform each house into a fortress, break up the roads, destroy all on the enemy’s road, organise flying columns to harass him day and night, cutting off his communications, making a desert round about him. But for such a course public opinion should have been previously prepared, and we Anarchists more numerous, more resolute. The atmosphere of 1792 was needed, when revolution was in the air. Under the actual circumstances, to attempt such an insurrection would be worse than madness. Not only could there be no chance of success, but no chance of being understood; on the contrary, it would have been playing into the hands of the invaders. Now, if we are against the oppression of our masters at home, this is no reason why we should desire to help those who present themselves from without, especially when we know their rule would be a hundred times more irritating, more arbitrary and crushing. A question of degree ? No! The triumph of German militarism would mean the stifling of free thought for centuries the impossibility of continuing to wage our war against social iniquities. Human thought is crushed beneath the heel of the Prussian trooper. As to remaining neutral, mere onlookers, an Englishman hag only to put himself in imagination in the place of a French comrade, whose country is invaded. Could ho submit to the exactions of a conqueror in cold blood? Could he calmly look on the excesses of triumphant soldiers, who, difficult to support in ordinary times, have become worse than infuriated brutes in a conquered country ? To refuse to take part in the defence is to play into the hands of the invader. Respect for our own dignity forbids us to remain neutral. No doubt the war was willed and prepared for by Germany, but she was not alone responsible. It would be wilfully shutting our eyes to evidence if we refused to believe that German diplomacy has been driven to develop her dream of Pan-German nation by the intrigues of the foxy diplomats who have striven to isolate her. But to establish all the responsibilities would lead us too far, and may form the subject of another article should it interest the readers of Freedom. What, is certain is that the war let loose, France would speedily have been crushed, and the turn of England would have followed; therefore the British Government may be excused their decision to participate in the war, It was their one means of self-defence and self-preservation. No doubt we seem to have gone back on our theories. We have nothing of our own to defend in this land which is called “ours,” and which ought in reality to be ours. But if in defending it we defend the property of our masters, we also defend the little liberty we have gained, which we should certainly lose under the conqueror’s rule. We defend, above all, the right to continue our struggle towards a more complete freedom in the future. Unless we push things to a logical absurdity, we must, in trying to decide any question, consider every new factor in the case. Theoretically, in our native land, as things are at present constituted, we have nothing to defend but our skins. But is this really so? We live in society, and we suffer in our liberty and our well-being the repercussion of social changes. Now, if the oppression of our masters at home is insupportable, that of foreign conquerors were a hundredfold worse. And the new factor which has come to complicate our problem is the invasion of France by Germany, which has thrust us into a war that we have been unable to prevent. In submitting to the senseless growth of armaments for forty years, in permitting our diplomats to carry on their secret intrigues, the English and French peoples have their part in the responsibility for the war, just as the German people have their part of the responsibility, in that they submitted to the oppression of their junkers; and we and they pay for it by being dragged into a war which we condemn, but are forced, to suffer, and even to participate in if we do not care to Buffer worse things. This war must be the last, the end of wars. This fever of militarism must be the fall of militarism everywhere. Bat in order to arrive at tins, Prussian, militarism must first be destroyed. It must be disarmed, the German hordes must be driven back., the clique of agrarians, vestiges of the Middle Ages, must be humbled to the dust and when we come to talk of peace, it must be not with them, but with delegates drawn from the German people and chosen by them for the purpose. It has been too often forgotten, even by revolutionists and internationalists, that the German people consist of oppressed and oppressors. There are not only the masters who are the instigators of this storm which threatens to submerge Europe; there are also the serfs, who are no more guilty than we ourselves, save for acquiescence in serfdom and ignorance. We must destroy the caste of their masters, and force our own to treat with humanity those whom we have been obliged to combat in order to get at their oppressors. Peace, when it comes, must be a true and lasting peace — not an armistice, not a new beginning of a piling up of armaments leading up to another war no less frightful than this one, It is possible that the horrors of this war may render impossible another; that the misery in which the nations are plunged may teach them wisdom; but it would be foolish to rely upon the fatality of things. If we will not be taken in by the snares of diplomacy, we must declare dearly our determination that when once we have crushed German militarism, the autonomy of the German people bhal1 be respected, and that no servitude shall be imposed on them, no war tax or indemnity, Of course, the restitution of those indemnities which they themselves may have levied during the course of the war may be rightly exacted, but these should be paid from the private fortunes of those primarily responsible for the war, the Hohenzollerns, the Krupps, etc., etc. There should be no annexation of territory, The small nations should he set free to choose what form of government they prefer, and their independence should, be assured by their neutralisation. If we did not know the fear which our governments entertain for anything approaching the revolutionary idea, we should be surprised that some such campaign, urging conquered nations to free themselves, has not been already undertaken, together with one to enlighten the German people m to the true state of affairs. In order to claim the right of intervention in settling the conditions of peace when the moment arrives, we must take our part in helping to crush the nearest danger, Prussian militarism, not losing sight meanwhile of anything likely to secure our hopes for the future. It may appear strange that we, who did not know how to prevent the war, should occupy ourselves with the discussion of peace. But we must always act as we think right, without speculating as to whether we shall be strong enough to realise our aspirations, For my part, I think that our antlmilitarist propaganda has not been useless and that the air is permeated with our ideas even to-day; and that in this war, despite all the spirit of the public is other than it has been hitherto in any preceding war. It has been accepted as something inevitable, the work of a handful of bandits, who must be destroyed without exciting our hatred against the obscure soldiers, in whom we recognise their victims. And this makes us hope that we shall find aid in our new campaign in and from beyond our own ranks. J. Grave. The post Radical Reprint: Conflict and class struggle appeared first on Freedom News.

There is a very obvious article to reprint from the October 1914 issue of Freedom, which is precisely why I’m selecting a different one. The obvious article is ‘A Letter on The Present War’, an infamous piece by Peter Kropotkin in which he called on anarchists to “to do everything in one’s power, according to one’s capacities, to crush down the invasion of the Germans into Western Europe.” Freedom was somewhat grudging in its publishing of the venerable theorist’s lengthy piece, making sure to highlight that it was a personal letter rather than representative of the group and burying it on page four. The letter, obviously, was somewhat controversial, going against both the broad anti-war analysis Freedom had been putting out as international tensions rose, and Kropotkin’s own writing from the years before. The fallout from its publication, in which the movement suffered a partial split between a majority anti-war position and the group who eventually wrote the Manifesto of the Sixteen, is however well covered elsewhere (indeed, on this very website), and the full letter has been reproduced many times. But internicine arguments over the best path to take in Europe were not the only thing happening in October, 110 years ago. In China there was a significant socialist movement taking place, with a not incosiderable anarchist influence both inside and outside the country, particularly from the Paris Group. Writing in Freedom, “P G” talks about the then-recent history of anarchism and socialism in China, expressing frustration at the socialists’ lack of organisation and repression by both the forces of the second revolution and the Portugese. His approving menion of Sifo and interest in Esperanto is characteristic of many Chinese anarchists of the time, the former being well known in the movement and regarded today as something of a Chinese Proudhon. ~Rr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANARCHISM IN CHINA Anarchism in China is in its infancy, but, in comparison with the last two years, it seems, to make marked progress at present. State socialists, whose number is estimated at 400,000 (!), begin to throw off their false ideas and join us and most of the students who know some#thing about the idea of evolution become, gradually interested with the Anarchist movement. We would have made more progress if we were not hindered by the second revolution — partly Yuan-Shi-Kai, and partly the so-called political revolutionists. Yuan-Shi-Kai is, of course, a great monster; but the idea of the political revolutionists is also ridiculous. Among them there may be some men who are extremely fervid, but, as far as I can see, what their leaders do is nothing more than farcical. If Yuan-Shi-Kai is knocked down, his position, I can give assurance, will be taken by a second Yuan-Shi-Kai. They will then seize the high offices of State, pocketing what they can lay their hands on, and we people will suffer miserably and be exploited as before. All around us are opponents and obstacles, but, as was said in Freedom, we do not know failure or defeat, but go on our way until our ideal is realised. In China true anarchists are scarce; but there is one whom I ‘regard as an excellent comrade. It is Mr Sifo. He is a man of 28, having one of his hands lost, caused by the explosion of bombs which he intended to throw on the Manchu admiral in the previous revolution about the year 1906. I am only in my nineteenth year; I know I am too young, so I desire to acquire more scientific knowledge. My ardent desire is to come to England or France and study, but am hindered by a single reason — financial difficulty. Isn’t it the most unequal and unhappy thing that one can’t have the right to be educated only because he is poor? And is it possible to delay the social and economical revolution when those exploiters are continuing with all their might to destroy us? The day of the Anarchist Congress is approaching. I am very sorry that I have nothing to report, yet, I cannot refrain from asking you to convey my idea to the Congress. The existence of so many languages at present is a great hindrance to the progress of the world, and to the anarchists it is the worst, so I advise all anarchists to take up the course of Esperanto and study. The reason why there are so few Chinese or Japanese who know “What is Anarchism?” is because there are not many pamphlets about anarchism printed in Chinese or Japanese, so if a Chinese or Japanese wants to have some knowledge about anarchism he must know foreign languages, read foreign pamphlets, and communicate with foreigners. The study of foreign languages is not an easy task. In studying English, it requires five or six years before a Chinese or Japanese can read an English, newspaper; and if he wants .to have a common knowledge of the French language, he has to spend seven years. Besides, there are still German, Italian, Spanish, etc. Is it possible to learn so many languages? I am sure no one will say “possible.” So, Esperanto is the most convenient thing for the Orientals and for anarchists also. I beg also to define briefly the history of anarchism in China. About the year 1907, Chinese students in Paris published a weekly gazette named La Nova Tempo. It was an organ of Chinese revolutionists against the Manchu government, and its opinion was wholly on Anarchism, the editors being Mr Li-Yu-Ying, the founder of the world-famed “Beancurd Company” in Paris, and Wu-Che-Vai. Mr Li translated many books on anarchism, such as Mutual Aid, The State, etc. Law and Authority, A Talk about Anarchist Communism between Two Workers, An Appeal to the Young etc, have also been translated. This gazette lasted for three years, and in 1910 it disappeared. Mr Li spent several hundred thousand dollars in these affairs, entirely on his own cost, for his grandfather had been the Prime Minister of the Manchu dynasty. Although Mr, Li and his comrades did their best to propagate the anarchist ideal, yet there was very little effect, the chief reason being that their paper was published far away from China — in Paris. Since the disappearance of La Nova Tempo there existed not a breath of the anarchist ideal, until in 1911 the revolution broke out when Kiang-Kou-Fu founded the Socialist Party in Shanghai. At the same time, in Canton, Mr Sifo started the “Fujmin Lernejo” and the “Conscience Group,” a free federation, wholly on individual morality. Its prospectus is thus:— (1) Not to take meat (2) not to,smoke, (3) not to drink wine or spirits, (4) not to use servants, (5) not to use rickshaws (vehicles for passengers drawn by human hands), (6) not to marry — free love, (7) not to use surname (in China, surname is a great necessity in family), (8) not to occupy himself as an official, (9) not to occupy himself in Parliament, (10) not to join a political party, (11) not to enter military circle, (12) not to enter religious circle. Siio also published many books and pamphlets for propagation, and some 30,000 copies have been distributed free. At that time Kiang-Kou-Fu had a wonderful career. According to his report, there were over 40 branches of the Chinese Socialist Party, and the number of its members some four hundred thousand. But, strange to say, less than one in a thousand of that number know what socialism is. It is a wonder, for their leader, Kiang-Kou-Fu himself, is always confused with socialism. Seeing this, a minority of the said Chinese Socialist Party became aroused, and so started another new Socialist Party in opposition to the old one, which was then very near to a political party in character. Shortly after its birth, the new Socialist Party was suppressed, arid the following year that old one shared the same fate, in the time of the Second Revolution. By this time, China was in a very confused and shocking state. The revolutionists were defeated, everywhere the people were threatened with arrests and shots, and in Canton arrests were made several times a day. All around the city were brutal spies, and one who had a breath of complaint would soon find himself in conflict. Those arrested were shot. But at this time we went on with our work. We had a printing machine, so we composed and printed for ourselves. The first and second copy of La Voco de la Popolo (Voice of The People in Esperanto) had been published, when early one morning news reached us that we were to be arrested and that our last moment was approaching!. We then took counsel, and after everything was in good order we sailed for Macau, with a hope that we could continue the propagation of the anarchist ideal. But, unfortunately, we suffered a second suppression, this time by the Portuguese government. Being quite disappointed, I sailed to the Malaya; and after a month, Sifo removed to Shanghai. La Voco de la Popolo is reappearing, but published secretly. The Chinese Socialist Party lies scattered and dispersed. Of the 400,000 members there remain only 20 or 30 persons who dare to talk about socialism, and some of them are beginning to combine with us. The leader has fled to America. As to the new Socialist Party, the leader has been shot, and the members begin to throw off their false ideas and join us ~ P G Singapore -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pic: Li Yu-Ying’s beancurd factory, Mr Li, and Sifo The post Radical Reprint: Anarchism in China appeared first on Freedom News.

By the time Freedom‘s September issue hit the streets in 1914 the disaster that was to become known as World War One was already underway, and anarchists found themselves shouting sanity into a world that no longer wanted to listen ~ Rob Ray ~ The edition is a curious beast, mixing a thunderous front page article denouncing the war (today’s reprint) with an otherwise very standard series of essays talking about anarchist literature, a bombing in New York and an appreciation of Edward Carpenter. Most notorious are the articles by Freedom’s famed social commentator Peter Kropotkin, neither of which talk about the war at all with one analysing monopoly in the modern State, and a second musing over communist kitchens. This was in fact the public manifestation of a huge argument going on behind the scenes, in which the influential Russian was calling to aid the French against Germany, in the belief a victory for Prussian ideology would stifle the chances for social revolution. On the other side editor Tom Keell was firmly in the anti-war camp, calling for the public to reject the war and turn their ire on the ruling classes. In the event, Keell won out, at least initially, with RR’s anti-war article taking prime position and Kropotkin filling in with something less controversial. The truce would last only until October, however, at which point the cracks in the Freedom Group would become a gaping chasm. As for who RR was, the most famous figure and one whose views would fit with the article’s tone would be anarcho-syndicalist organiser and Arbeter Fraint editor Rudolf Rocker, who would have just had time to write it before his internment as an enemy alien in December 1914, but this would merely be speculation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOOD AND IRON Who is responsible?, Now, when the red deluge has so suddenly and unexpectedly surprised the whole of Europe, we hear on every hand the same question: Who is responsible? Evidently, each country has its own particular answer to the query. The rulers of every land throw the blame on their rivals, and the Press, whose special concern it is to manufacture “public opinion,” makes the necessary observations and comments. The Kaiser declares that it was the enemies of Germany who compelled him to wage war, and that he was the sole person in Europe who continually strove to maintain peace among the European nations. In England and France,on the other hand, the Kaiser is the “mad dog” of Europe, the only one who continually hindered and disturbed the peaceful relations of its peoples. And the Tsar, the red-handed executioner of Russian freedom, who converted Russia into a huge cemetery, and endeavoured to stifle the last hope of his oppressed subjects in a sea of blood — he talks of a holy war, a just war, in order to ensure the happiness and well-being of Europe! And in all lands the sounding church-bells are calling the pious Christians to come and unite their prayers that the Lord should destroy the enemy, and bless “their banners.” The same God! the same Christians! the same Gospel, whose founder said, “ Love thy neighbour as thyself”! What scandalous comedy! And how deep the ignorance and deception of the people who neither will nor can see this colossal and fraud, and the unscrupulous intrigue of their oppressors. Who is responsible? you ask. Do not look for the responsibility in others. Look for it in yourselves. Seek it in the cursed system whose victims we all are; in the State capitalistic civilisation which is based on organised violence, on the shameful exploitation of all the nations! You do not know, it seems, that we have been living in a state of war for many, many years past; you have ignored the war that is being waged daily in our beautiful society, therefore you now have a real war. You were silent when men, women, and children fell in great numbers upon the industrial field, therefore you now see your sons falling on the battlefield. For the same powers that deprived you of the fruits of your labour, and compelled you by hunger and starvation to create, riches for a minority of privileged thieves and idlers — the same powers will now take away the lives of your sons and brothers, and force you with their guns to die for their interests. In a word, you did not want the revolution, so you now have war — the wholesale murder of the nations. The revolutionaries only appeared to you as Utopians, dreamers, unpractical men. Your rulers were more practical, and the thunder of cannon, lacerated human bodies, and rivers of blood now speak to you of the results of their practicability. Who is to blame? Capitalism and its twin brother, the modern State! You yourselves are to blame, because you ignored the great doctrine of a new social culture, because you would not prevent the catastrophe while there was yet time to do so. No-one knows what the future has in store for us. One thing, however, is certain: Capitalism is war — Socialism means peace among the nations. So long as the producing classes will allow a minority of privileged robbers to monopolise the fruit of their labour, and to condemn millions of human beings to a state of eternal misery, just-so long will you have war among the different races and nationalities. The immense fortunes that are today accumulating within the hands of a few do not arise merely from the usual exploitation of the workman by the master or — manufacturer, but are the result of international speculations in the great hunt for the domination of the world’s markets. That is why Capitalism in every country was obliged to increase the power of the modern State, and to develop militarism to such mad proportions. For a strong military and centralised State is the only guarantee for the realisation of the modern Imperialistic tendencies of Capitalism everywhere. Bat Imperialism means nothing else but the economic exploitation of other nations upon the basis of the exploitation of its own people. In other words, militarism is the inevitable result of the capitalistic regime, and therefore the cause of ceaseless strife. The great misfortune is that the majority of people cannot see this connection, and many will gauge the culture of a nation by the strength of its armies and its external technical improvements. But this is one of the greatest mistakes ever made. Germany offers us the best instance for this. The national unity of that country, under the supreme rule of Prussia, upon a basis of, extreme militarism and an all-powerful bureaucracy, has certainly not produced what we call German culture. On the contrary, that unity has proved the greatest hindrance to the development of a true popular culture, and has always endeavoured to force the spiritual powers of the German people down to the level of the barracks. The finest examples of German culture were produced before the military system and the renowned unity came into being. The classical philosophy of Germany, her wonderful art and literature — all that developed when the country consisted of separate little kingdoms, and had not yet come under the influence and domination of Prussian culture-hating militarism. The so-called national unity and the conversion of Germany into a military State have no doubt been a great gain for German capitalism, but by no means for the culture of the German people. Under the rule of militarism, Germany has become a peril to the intellectual development of Europe/and a German victory in this war would be a great blow to every libertarian movement in Europe, a blow to the German people themselves. The violation of France in 1870, and the annexation of Alsace- Lorraine, were the real causes of the crazy development of militarism in Europe. It is also known that Bismarck and the Prussian Junker class intended to make of France what has been made of Poland. To this end Bismarck carried on secret negotiations with England, and France was obliged to throw herself into the bloody arms of the Tsar in order to maintain her existence as an independent State. As a result of this we have witnessed the frightful development of Chauvinism all over Europe, the weakening of revolutionary and libertarian Socialism, and the triumph of the dread reaction under which the European peoples are groaning to this day. The present war, the most outrageous crime mankind has ever seen, is but the last word of this reaction, tie last-word of Imperial, capitalist and the military State. And not only in Germany, but wherever this system exists, the same results will follow. The best Constitutions and most glorious traditions of liberty will not prevent these evil consequences. “You cannot combat militarism by means of Parliament.” This sentence was already pronounced as far back as forty years ago by the old democrat Johan Jakobi. A new revolutionary renaissance of the European people is the only means against this deadly enemy of mankind. And it is not unlikely that the present bloody catastrophe will at last awaken the people from their indifference. The bitter pain and fearful suffering will perhaps make a deeper impression than the words of the revolutionaries. It is possible that the Social Revolution will be the last act in the present tragedy; possible that murderous, militarism will be drowned in the blood of its numberless victims; that the people of the different countries will unite against the bloody regime of modern Capitalism and its institutions, and finally produce a new social culture upon the basis of free Socialism. At the same time, the progressive elements must not lose courage, however great the disaster that has befallen us. We must be on our guard, and, if necessary, risk our lives for the triumph of a new social order. ~RR The post Radical reprint: War arrived, and with it the anarchists despaired appeared first on Freedom News.