Translation by Paul Sharkey
This letter addresses anarchist involvement in both national liberation and the labour movements. During the Greco-Turkish War (February–December 1897), a group with anarchist tendencies, the Internationalist Revolutionary Socialist Students (Étudiants Socialistes Révolutionnaires Internationalistes, or ESRI) had been contacted by anti-semitic students about mounting a joint campaign in support of Cretan independence from Turkey. The group publicly refused the offer (in Le Temps Nouveaux, 6th March, 1897) and asked Kropotkin’s opinion about national liberation struggles and other issues. The response was this letter, addressed to the student Maria Isidine Goldsmith, a Russian member of the ESRI.
11th May 1897
Dear comrade,[16]
Please forgive me for leaving your extremely interesting letter unanswered for such a long time. I was still unwell, so much so that I was obliged to abandon a very pressing task and seek care in town. I have pretty much recovered, although not entirely.
I am now going to write to a comrade in Geneva about matters in Paris. I see that in Les Temps Nouveaux [Jean] Grave and [André] Girard[17] have declared that they have only the friendliest feelings towards your group—which is what I was expecting—and nothing more. Polemic in the press is normal practice among us. I mean to say that when I read the article signed “Kroujok,” the thought that immediately occurred to me was “that is not the way to put it” and I deplored the fact that in polemics people never stick to the essential point; quite the opposite.[18] That’s human nature, unfortunately. Had you forwarded your letter—in which everything is laid out to perfection (as all three of us, [Warlaam] Tcherkesoff, my wife Sophie and I, having read it, unanimously agreed) in its entirety, the controversy would immediately have been steered in the present direction.
(I have just been re-reading the “Kroujok” letter. Plainly it was written in anger, in a rather too provocative, overly personal tone that does not get to the nub of things). Well, none of that is serious and it is all in the past. Let me now move on to the nub, which is to say, your letter and your very fine way of posing the problem with regard to the future.
As far as the matter of Crete goes, your position strikes me as having been perfectly correct. Indeed, [Errico] Malatesta endorses all activities of the sort, but even [his newspaper] L’Agitazione has been obliged to pour cold water on the heads of those who were setting off as volunteers. It would take too long to write about this subject, too long because of a mass of political intrigues and complications.
But all of this relates only to one single instance, Crete, rather than to the national question overall.
In the phrasing of your rejection, Points 1 and 3 are perfect: you want no truck with anti-semites or other scum and have no wish to look to government (naturally! That’s all it would need!). But with regard to Point 2 you “fail to see the point of joining in with demonstrations that are purely national in character”; that is more debatable, as formulated, at any rate.
It seems to me that the “purely nationalist character” of national movements is a fiction. There is an economic basis everywhere, or some basis for freedom and respect for the individual. There was an economic basis to be found in the national movements of Serbia and Bulgaria. What happened was that after the war, the Turks (which is to say, not just the Turks but the Turkish members of the government and aristocratic officialdom, pro-Turkish Bulgars, Greeks, etc.) were big landowners enforcing serfdom. There was serfdom in Bulgaria right up until the 1878 war.[19] Lavellye [Laveleye], who, it seems, was on the ground there, offers a very fine explanation of this. The Bulgarian government entered into a commitment to pay an indemnity to the big Turkish landowners as a means of doing away with serfdom. That was what lay at the root of the Russians’ intrigues in Bulgaria: “Look what your princes are up to. You earned your freedom in battle, yet they force you to pay indemnities.”
It seems to me that the same situation exists in Crete, where the peasants are Greek but the town dwellers Turks, and where, in particular, the Sultan himself (in accordance with feudal law) is the largest landowner and—I believe—representative of serfdom.
Our task should be to raise the economic question. I even reckon, after much thought on the subject, that the failures of all national movements (Polish, Finnish, Irish, etc., and even, I reckon, Georgian, even though Tcherkesoff denies this, albeit “mildly”), have this feature common to all national movements, namely, that the economic question—always an agrarian issue—is left to one side. In Finland, the Russian government relies upon the Finnish campaign against the big Swedish landlords. Once Russia was beaten, Shamil set about abolishing the serfdom and slavery to which the mullahs and the like clung (Tcherkesoff has explained this very well).[20] In Ireland, the greatest blight derives from the fact that the leaders (Parnell, for one[21]) are also landowners, like the English, and then there is the power of Catholicism and the priests.
In short, it seems to me that in the nationalist movement we have a huge task ahead of us in setting the question [of national liberation] on an economic footing and in waging a campaign against serfdom whilst combating [oppression by] foreign nationality.
Furthermore, there are plenty of other considerations. I despise the Russian government in Poland not merely because it underpins economic inequality (such as for the liberal Polish nobles who were crushed during the 1863 insurrection), but because it stifles the individual (the Polish tongue, Polish song, etc.) and I despise anyone who is an oppressor. The same thing is going on in Ireland where certain friends of mine have been taken into protective custody for having sung “Green Erin” and wearing green scarves.[22] In those lands under the sway of the Turks, the situation is even worse. Obviously, the workers are suffering everywhere: they are of course decimated by childhood diseases in the factories: it is all ghastliness over there, to be sure. But the difference resides in that oppression and in the mothers raped and the children sabred to death. If ten women workers were to suffer the Armenians’ fate in Paris tomorrow, if two children were to be killed by factory-owners, Paris would rise up and sweep the factories from the face of the earth.
Wherever people have not risen up against the exploitation of an individual, exploitation by the economy, the government and even religion, and more especially the nation, we must stand by them [the exploited]. [Those who say] “No rebels they,” take note. Which is why all my sympathies lie with the blacks in America, the Armenians in Turkey, the Finns and the Poles in Russia, etc.
Note, further, my dear friend, that all of these movements march in step. You did not live through the years 1859 to 1860. But let me assure you that Garibaldi’s brave campaigns did more to spread the liberal, radical spirit of revolt and socialism right across Europe than anything else.[23]
The Russian peasants were waiting for Garibaldi. “There’ll be no freedom until Garibaldi comes,” I have heard with my own ears. And you know, but for rebellious peasants in Russia there would be no freedom there. And their past achievements deserve recounting.
In relation to the Cretan issue, we should do nothing. (The movement has been moulded from above, by the State, and, besides, the issue is complicated by British capital or insurrectionary activities of the peasants). But do not shun national movements. The times are not yet ripe, but it falls to us to play our part. Just one more thing—until such time as the national question is resolved—it engages every force in the land. Or else lots of activities hinge upon the national issue, as in, say, Serbia or Ireland.
In relation to national questions as in everything, we should play our part. You will be aware that a party has been formed within the Irish movement (with a great friend of mine and a comrade of his, [Michael] Davitt) which has set out, in addition to the take-over of the land, a social programme and, more especially, a workers’ programme. You will be aware of Tom Mann’s campaign on behalf of the “dock labourers.” But did you know that it was launched by the Glasgow Irish?[24] There was a plan by some Irishmen, too few in number, to cripple England’s trade by means of a big dock strike. To which end delegates were despatched to the Irish national groups in America. Tom Mann has taken up the baton but I am well aware of the Irish origins of this campaign. That, it seems to me, is how in each nationalist movement we should raise the people’s issues alongside nationalist ones. But in order to do that, we need to have a foothold in all the national movements. In short, our relations should go something like this: “You want to shrug off the yoke of the Russians, Turks, British? Excellent! Set to it! Tackle the issue of the people and then you’ll have the national problem resolved. We too hate your oppressors, but we look deeper and we see the oppressed people. We are not going to amalgamate with you and we will not be distanced from you, but we shall raise the question of the people. And the more honest among you will be with us!”
(Doesn’t it strike you—this has only just occurred to me—that there is an analogy with our dealings with radical politicians? “You seek political freedom? Make it a people’s issue!” That is our stance on Russia for sure. We too hate autocracy, but we go beyond that and raise the [social] problem as a whole). There you have it, my dear friend: a hurried answer to your first question about whether anarchism should whole-heartedly support the nationalist movement and the one in Crete in particular.
Your second point “regarding feelings” and your third regarding polemics require no response. Sure, polemics can be engaged in without insult and never in a personalised way, but people never stay within those boundaries. Which is why I prefer to keep well clear of polemics and speak for myself. Comments and replies will follow. What is my position on such-and-such a matter? In which case I look to the opinions not of a given person or group, but the general consensus, and following the example of our beloved Darwin, I strive to bolster the school of thought that I intend to criticise, by means of a range of arguments that could be raised or that are not cited in certain cases, but that could be used. Whether that is a good example to follow, I do not know. Maybe it would be better to engage in direct polemic. Be that as it may, we should do so dispassionately. And neither Girard nor the Circle has demonstrated such calm in this specific instance. You write that there is “a very striking show of contempt for theory” and you cite the examples of [Le Père] Peinard, “Le Pain Gratuit,”[25] etc. Your group reckons that these schools of thought need opposing, and so do I. But try to grasp this very important, crucial point. Crucial in that this is a very marked tendency. Only very recently I heard a similar remark from one “theoretician”! Now we have to wait for anarchists to cast their votes: Merlino, for one.[26] Why not? These are what are described as practical folk.
It is an issue terrifying for all of us without exception, for every party and individual, an issue to which each of us must provide an actual answer so that some response or other on this matter can definitively encapsulate the ethical and political stance of individuals and parties. Of the two extreme answers, “steer well clear” and “get involved in everything,” neither suits. As a general rule, compromises are unproductive, so we have to look for a different tack.
What “get involved in everything” leads to, we know. We have a ready-made example in the social democrats. Back in 1869 Liebknecht wrote: “Wer parlamentiert, parlamentelt: wer parlamentelt, paktiert” (He who goes to parliament becomes a parliamentarian, and he who becomes a parliamentarian makes compromises). His prediction came true, but annoyingly, there is no trace of socialism left in social democracy these days. And if anarchists were to succumb to the spell of [Le Père] Peinard—echoing many other members of that tendency—before ten years were out, there would be nothing left of the anarchist party.[27] We would have to conjure up another one and the very idea would be sunk. And in need of reviving. Then again, “steer well clear” is not suitable either. The outsider stays there and has no influence over the course of history. Others, rogues for the most part, go with the trend and turn into leaders for their own benefit or that of their class. And after a political change-over, the people would find themselves as bewildered and unhappy as ever. In the life of any party there comes a time spent wandering in the desert. As for us, we have been though this already when we had only three-, five- or ten-man groups to thrash out our theory, our theoretical foundations and their practical implementation. One stands apart in order to do so. True, each of us has to take his turn at this before we can arrive at our personal view. But lo and behold, the notion of the party is starting to bounce back, winning over broader and broader swathes of people, and it looks as if it offers an answer—not theoretically, but through deeds—to the crucial question: how are we to go about it? The vast majority of people, and thus of parties, trade in compromises, and between one compromise and the next, they slip down the slope of utter depersonalisation. But why? It is because their personality is inadequately defined, so that, on arriving in a new environment, they bring no influence to bear or find only a partial acceptance, since they lack dynamism.
There is a significant band of folk, publishers of a journal or the core of a party, who keep faith with themselves and with their ideals. They do not confine themselves in a monastery but operate in the public arena, taking a hand in the course of history, in the collectivity or alongside other people. This handful of resolute battlers sustain the ideal, the principle, in the huddle of those who stand ready to swap their ideals for a toy rattle or anything that lets them express themselves noisily. Unfortunately, such resolute militants are generally few, all too few in number. Some drift away, others cloister themselves away and are soon waxing wrathful over some trifle, or indeed give it all up. Not for a second do I doubt where your sympathy lies. You are not tempted by any of these escape routes. So you should remain in the ranks of the fighters, the resolute militants.
So much for the broader framework; now for the detail. You mention co-operators, so let me seize upon that point. Is there anything worse! These days they are bourgeois. But the idea that gave rise to that movement was not bourgeois. And at present that idea which has inspired lots of militants in their ranks is not quite bourgeois either. One could declare: I want no truck with them; they are bourgeois. And that is what we did. Back when we numbered a hundred and ten people and when there was no hope of the co-operator community espousing communist ideas, much less anarchist ideas. But thanks to the spirit of the times, those ideas have cropped up among them too. Furthermore, the essence, the very idea of that movement is to set up producer and consumer groups that exchange products and the fruits of their labours. But for that hidden idea their movement would long since have evaporated. To set your cap at converting Rothschild would be pointless, but spreading the communist ideal to co-operators, that is feasible. Indeed, if a determined individual comes along who thinks and lives the principles of anarchism and throws himself into anarchist or communist propaganda in co-operator ranks, let him set to it. As a surety against loss of heart, all he needs is to feel the support of a compact band of friends not disposed to compromise and who fly their colours. At present the English co-operators and I are on good terms. State socialism is not to their taste. They asked me to write an article on agriculture for their Annual and I did so. Just recently they asked me for an article on nationalisation of the railways for the forthcoming Annual. I know that they want no truck with “Bismarck-and-Liebknecht-or-Plekhanov-style” nationalisation and I wonder: how can the railways be wrested from the hands of capitalists and placed in the people’s service? State nationalisation disgusts them and they are searching for an anarchist course. And had I known that and thought so, and above all, had I lived among railwaymen down the years, I would have written about the subject. I would have written, and others who cannot or will not write because they do not associate with us, why not nudge them in the direction of socialism and enlighten them as to the anarchist viewpoint?
Note that if we decline to even consider such cases, to look for formulas or to help these people in their quest, what is going to happen? Seeing as they get no help from us, they will embrace the appropriate statist formula and will embrace statist socialism, the narrow path of social democracy and politicking. Look at what happened in 1878 with the Bulgars who have thrown themselves into the Russian embrace because they could find no help anywhere else. Out of this came the kingdom of Bulgaria, a pathetic construct, given the absence of any republican, socialist or anarchist forces which might help them out. Take Russia. There is a strong workers’ movement (and, as one Englishman who lived in Russia for several years recently declared, “Two years does not a worker make”). Nobody bothered with the workers, nobody but the social democrats. And now they have the workers’ movement in their grip, and they are steering it towards their goals, towards catastrophe. And is that not what has happened in Western Europe as well? The entire workers’ movement has fallen into the hands of the politicians who smother it, just as they already have done to the revolutionary 1st of May, and why? Because we anarchists are very few in number, and what happens is that we steer clear of the workers’ movement (when the workers are not steering clear of us), instead of going to it. And even during strikes, some people find it “very anarchistic” not to side with the strikers and to carry on working.
They cling to purity of principle in remaining aloof and not engaging with any social matter, and there is no merit in that and it brings no advantage. We have to cling to our principles while working with others, among others. I note, by the way, with great bitterness, that in practice it is constantly the case that some people, die-hard supporters of the repudiation of everything—strikes, labour agitation, etc.—having turned forty, make an abrupt about-face.
Our party is—right now—at a critical juncture. Our sympathisers are many and people are coming over to us from every direction, signing up to one point in our programme. There are bourgeois under [Herbert] Spencer’s spell, bourgeois economists, the religious-minded, Tolstoyans, etc. Certain anarchists would have us turn them all away whilst others would have us welcome them all. Both those approaches are wrong. We must not turn them all away nor welcome them all in. We need to build up a group of determined people who will go out on strike and stay anarchists. They will join the Poles, but as I once told a gathering of Poles, the first bullet must be for the Polish dictator and the first noose for the Polish lord and estate-owner. They will pour into the workers’ movement in order to bring our principles into it and hold out against the politicians, but lots of them will leave and will become turncoats like Merlino or Costa.[28] “Bon voyage!” Those we do not need. Better that they should go to hell right now than later, when the movement has grown and taken to the streets, when their leaving would be tantamount to treachery. Ultimately, nothing human ought to be beyond our influence. We can have our say, offer our fresh and fruitful ideas. We have to anticipate what is going to happen all around us in hundreds of movements. We cannot convert everyone to anarchism, and, being anarchists, we know that not everyone is of the same mind. For every movement has its cause and its rationale. But we are duty-bound to examine our view in all these movements with the candour of a Bazarov, and, if possible, bring our influence to bear on them.
For us there is only one prohibition: we will never be in the ranks of the exploiters, the bosses and the religious leaders. We shall never allow ourselves to be chosen as or turn into exploiters, bosses, leaders. That is a lot—more than it may seem at first glance, and it is enough. As for everything else, we can and should dabble. We shall never have any truck with the building of some pyramidal organisation, be it economic, governmental or educational-religious (even be it a revolutionary one). We shall never have any hand in conjuring up man’s governance of his fellow man in the realm of production and distribution, political organisation, leadership, revolutionary organisation, etc. As for the rest, it strikes me that we ought to get involved and put our criticisms and propositions everywhere. Should somebody cave in along the way and embrace other people’s views instead of ours, we shall cope without him, and that’s that! Just as Bazarov would do, we need to tell them bluntly: “Farewell Costa, farewell Brousse, farewell Barrucand, farewell Merlino: do as you please. We shall press on with our work and come the day of the great battle we shall find ourselves in opposite camps.”
There is a danger, of course. But only one: how could such a group selflessly applying its principles in their full extent and bravely flying its red flag during strikes or national uprisings disappear? And it is my belief that just such a group will emerge. Which is why we at Les Temps Nouveaux have not thrown in our lot with [Le Père] Peinard or Le Libertaire, for our view was that the priority was to widen the circle of our friends and sympathisers so as to found that group. That M. P. (who is that, actually?) should have raised the issue of becoming outsiders is a good thing. That he may have overstated it, well, what can we do about that? We need to understand this question. In fact, we must not abandon the entire workers’ movement to the mercy of the politicians, and the latter must not capture the reins of every social agitation. In every social upheaval we have to have our own say, and (if possible) must demonstrate with deeds what we are capable of.
And once that band of “determined militants” comes into existence, there will be no threat to us: contrary to what has been the case, the threat will be facing socialism which is today precisely as I described it in “All of us Socialists.”[29] Bismarck, Alexander II, the lawmaker who gave us the 8–hour day and the prosecutor who acknowledged that in a couple of hundred years’ time anarchy would be genuinely desirable, but, in the meanwhile, off to jail!, might say: “All of us anarchists!” That really is a dangerous reef. But it exists, it has not been done away with and it simply remains for the ship of anarchism not to run aground the way the social democrat vessel has, to the extent that there are no more socialists left.
One more thing: each movement should be evaluated separately on its merits. For instance, Crete where (even though no uprising has taken place) it struck me from the outset that we have nothing to say. Or indeed “Boulangism,” where, again right from the outset, it was plain “that this was Boulangism’s last card.” Needless to say, we want no part of a movement in favour of dictatorship. In addition to what I have set down above, I see no general yardstick. But there is something better than written prescriptions. There is the sentiment and intuition accrued by every politicised militant and which enable him to get the measure of a movement and divine its secret recesses.
But that will do for today. I got your notes this morning and I started this letter yesterday evening. Write me, please, if I am slow in answering you: do not think twice about writing down your criticisms, as you now do. In the throes of work we must sometimes take a breather and a little reflection always does one good. It always pleases me greatly to answer your letters. Let me close with a big handshake and cordial best wishes. Give my best wishes to your mother.
Sincerely yours,
P. Kropotkin
[P.S.] I can see that there is still much to be said, particularly about crucial activity to be done by a band of determined people among the workers. The same might well be as true of a vast anarchist movement as of the group in question. But this letter is not the last.
16[] Maria Isidine Goldsmith (1873–1933) was an anarchist and scientist of Russian and French decent. She became a close friend of Kropotkin, and a prolific contributor to the French and Russian anarchist press of her day. (Editor)
17[] André Girard (a.k.a. Max Buhr, 1860–1942) was a French anarchist, later a syndicalist. (Editor)
18[] In the pages of Les Temps Nouveaux, following the ESRI’s declaration, a debate had ensued; when the ESRI were accused of “intolerance” and “sectarianism,” a member, Marc Pierrot, wrote in defense of the group, drawing a polemical reply signed by “Kroujok” (10th April, 1897).
19[] The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 was fought between the Ottoman Empire and the Eastern Orthodox coalition led by the Russian Empire and composed of several Balkan countries. It reflected both emerging 19th-century Balkan nationalism and Russian hopes of recovering territorial losses suffered during the Crimean War, including access to the Black Sea. Russia succeeded in claiming several provinces in the Caucasus, the principalities of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro formally proclaimed independence from the Ottoman Empire and, after almost five centuries of Ottoman domination, the Bulgarian state was re-established as the Principality of Bulgaria. The Congress of Berlin also allowed Austria-Hungary to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina and the United Kingdom to take over Cyprus. (Editor)
20[] Imam Shamil (1797–1871) was an Avar political and religious leader of the Muslim tribes of the Northern Caucasus. He was a leader of anti-Russian resistance in the Caucasian War, defeating them in 1843 and 1845. He was caught by the Russians in 1859 and forced to swear allegiance to the Tsar and move to live in Central Russia. (Editor)
21[] Charles Stewart Parnell (1846–1891) was an Irish landlord, nationalist political leader, land reform agitator, and the founder and leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party. He led the Irish Parliamentary Party as Member of Parliament through the period of Parliamentary nationalism in Ireland between 1875 and his death in 1891. He was revered by many subsequent Irish parliamentary republicans and nationalists. (Editor)
22[] From 1536, Henry VIII of England decided to conquer Ireland and bring it under his control although this was finally completed during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I after several brutal conflicts. From the mid-16th to the early 17th century, crown governments carried out a policy of land confiscation and colonisation known as Plantations using Scottish and English Protestants. This produced Irish nationalist movements and continuing attempts to regain independence, including numerous rebellions. Kropotkin is referring to repression by the British state against expressions of Irish culture and nationalism used to combat struggle for independence. (Editor)
23[] Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807–1882) was an Italian general and politician. He is considered as one of Italy’s “fathers of the fatherland.” He was a central figure in the Italian Risorgimento, personally commanding and fighting in many military campaigns that led eventually to the formation of a unified Italy. While Garibaldi himself was a well known socialist, his men were of different political leanings and banded together in the name of national freedom and unity. (Editor)
24[] Tom Mann (1856–1941) was a British trade unionist, a successful organiser and a popular public speaker in the labour movement. Initially a Social Democrat, his experiences in the Australia with the Labour Party saw him move to a syndicalist position. Returning to Britain in 1910, he founded the Industrial Syndicalist Education League and led the 1911 Liverpool General Transport Strike. In 1917, he returned to Marxist-Socialism and became active in the Communist Party. (Editor)
25[] Victor Barrucand (1866–1934) was a prolific and respected journalist who wrote on many subjects (history, politics, forgotten texts, poetry). He was an anarchist for a period, producing a book in 1896 entitled and conducted propaganda in Paris in favour of Free Bread (Le Pain Gratuit). (Editor).
26[] Francesco Saverio Merlino (1856–1930) was an Italian lawyer and leading anarchist activist and thinker between the 1870s and 1890s. He moved away from anarchism to a reformist socialist position in the late 1890s but remained close to his former colleagues, successfully defending Malatesta and other anarchists in 1921 when they had been arrested on spurious charges during the near-revolutionary biennio rosso (the “two red years” of 1919 and 1920) in Italy. (Editor)
27[] A reference to those anarchists like Pouget who argued that syndicalism was sufficient in itself and that the anarchist movement should merge into the unions, rejecting the need for specific anarchist organisations. While Kropotkin was in favour of anarchist participation in the labour movement, he opposed those libertarians who failed to see the necessity for anarchists to organise as anarchists to influence it. (Editor)
28[] Andrea Costa (1851–1910) was originally an Italian anarchist, before becoming a Social Democrat in 1879. He co-founded the Partito dei Lavoratori Italiani in 1892. He became an active politician, being the mayor of Imola and a representative in the Italian Parliament. (Editor)
29[] “Tous socialistes” was published in Le Révolté, 17th September 1881 and included as a chapter in Words of a Rebel. (Editor)