The Anarchist Banker Read online

  “This appeared to be conclusive to me. But let us suppose that it is not so; let us suppose that all this is very well, but that the anarchist principle is not realizable in practice. Let us examine this aspect of the problem.

  “Why should the anarchist system not be realizable? We progressive thinkers begin with the assumption that not only is the present system unjust, but that that there is virtue, because there is justice, in replacing it with one that is more just. If we do not think this way, we are not progressive; we are bourgeois. Now where does this criterion of justice come from? From what is natural and true as opposed to the social fictions and lies of conventions. Now what is natural is entirely natural, not a half or a quarter or an eighth natural. Very well. Now, there are two choices, one: either the natural is socially realizable or it is not; in other words, either society is able to be natural or it is essentially fictitious and cannot be natural in any way. If a society is able to be natural, then one is able to have an anarchist or free society, and must have it because such a society is entirely natural. If a society is not able to be natural, if (it does not matter for whatever reason) it is required to contain fictions, then let it be the least bad fictions; let us make it, within the inevitable lies, the most natural society possible, so that it can contain the most possible justice. What is the most natural social fiction? None are natural in themselves because they are fictions; the most natural in our situation would be that which appears more natural, which feels as if it is natural. It is that to which we are habituated. (You understand: that what is natural is what is from instinct; and that which is not instinct but appears to be instinct is habit. To smoke is not natural, it is not an instinctive necessity; but if we are habituated to smoking, it seems to be quite natural, it is felt by us to be a necessary instinct.) Now which is the social fiction that constitutes a habit for us? It is the present system, the bourgeois system. If we find then, logically, the natural society to be possible, we will be supporters of anarchism; if we do not find it possible, we will be supporters of the bourgeois regime. There is no intermediate hypothesis. Do you follow me? …”

  — Yes sir; this is conclusive.

  — Yet it is not quite conclusive … There is still another objection of the same type to deal with… One could agree that the anarchist system is realizable, but doubt that it would be realizable all at once— that is, that one could pass from a bourgeois society to a free society without having one or more intermediate states or regimes. Whoever makes this objection accepts the anarchist system as good, and as realizable; but imagines that there has to be some kind of transition state between it and the bourgeois society.

  “Now then, let us suppose that this is so. What is this intermediate state? Our goal is the anarchist or free society; this intermediate state is only able, however, to be a stage of preparation of humanity for a free society. This preparation is either material, or simply mental; that is, it is either a series of material or social preparations that will adapt people to a free society, or simply propaganda that will prepare them mentally to desire and accept it.

  “Let us consider the first case, the gradual material adaptation of people to a free society. This is impossible; it is more than impossible: it is absurd. There can be no material adaptation except to something that is already there. None of us can adapt materially to the social milieu of the twenty-third century even if one knows what it will be like; one cannot adapt materially because the twenty-third century and its social milieu do not yet exist materially. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that, in the passage of the bourgeois society to a free society, the only kind of adaptation or evolution that is possible is a mental one, it is the gradual adaptation of minds to the idea of a free society … In any case, in the area of material adaptation, there is still another hypothesis …”

  — The devil with all these hypotheses! …

  — Listen son, a lucid person must examine all possible objections and refute them, before being able to be secure in his beliefs. After all, this is all in response to the question you put to me …

  — All right.

  — In the area of material adaptation, as I was saying, there is in any case another hypothesis. It is the revolutionary dictatorship.

  — A revolutionary dictatorship how?

  — As I have explained to you, one cannot make a material adaptation to something that does not yet exist materially. But if, by a decisive act, one made a social revolution through which was established, not a free society (because the society would not be ready for that), but a dictatorship by those who want to establish a free society. There would now exist materially, although in rough form and only as a beginning, something of the free society. There would be a material thing to which humanity could adapt itself. This is the argument by which the idiots who defend the “dictatorship of the proletariat” would defend it if they were capable of arguing or thinking. The argument is clearly not theirs; it is mine. I pose it as an objection to myself. And, as l am going to show you …, it is false.

  “A revolutionary regime, for as long as it lasts, and whatever its purpose or idea might be, is materially only one thing—a revolutionary regime. Now a revolutionary regime means a war dictatorship, or more clearly, a despotic military regime, because a state of war is imposed on society through a part of it—that part which assumed power through revolution. What is the result? The result is that whoever adapts himself to this regime adapts himself to a despotic military government for that is what it is materially at first. The idea that guided the revolutionaries, the purpose to which they had aimed, has disappeared completely in the new social reality, dominated entirely by a war mentality. So what has arisen from a revolutionary dictatorship—and the more firmly the dictatorship is established, the longer it will last—is a militarized society of a dictatorial type, that is, a military despotism. It cannot be otherwise. And it has always been so. I don’t know much history, but that which I know fits with what I have said; it could not avoid it. What came of the political troubles of Rome? The Roman Empire and its military despotism. What came of the French Revolution? Napoleon and his military despotism. And you will see what will come of the Russian Revolution … Something that will retard for decades the realization of a free society … Besides, what can be expected from a society of illiterates and mystics? …

  “Well, this is already straying from our subject … You have understood my reasoning?”

  — I understood it perfectly.

  — You understand, therefore, how I arrived at this conclusion: Purpose: the anarchist society, the free society; Means: the passage without any transition, from a bourgeois society to a free society. This passage will be prepared and made possible by intense propaganda, complete and all-encompassing, preparing all minds and weakening all resistance. It is clear that by “propaganda” I don’t mean only the written or spoken word, I mean every action, directly or indirectly, leading toward a free society and weakening the resistance to its coming. Thus, there being virtually no resistance to overcome, the social revolution, when it does come, will be rapid, easy and not require a revolutionary dictatorship, for no one will be opposed to it. If it does not occur in this way, it is because the anarchist society is not realizable; and if it is not realizable, then only the bourgeois society, as I have shown, is defensible and just.

  “There you have why and how I became an anarchist, and why and how I rejected other, less bold social doctrines as false and unnatural.

  “And that’s it … Let’s continue with my story.”

  He struck a match and slowly relit his cigar. Composing himself for a moment, he continued on:

  — There were various other young men with the same opinions as mine. The majority were workers, but there were a few who were not; all of them were poor, and as I recall, were certainly no fools. The people had a strong desire to instruct themselves, to learn things, and at the same time, to spread our ideas. We wanted for ourselves and for others—for all humanity�
�a new society, free from all the prejudices that make men artificially unequal and impose upon them inferiorities, sufferings, and constraints that Nature had not imposed on them. As for myself, what I read confirmed me in these opinions. I read almost all of the inexpensive anarchist tracts available at the time. I went to conferences and meetings of the ‘propagandists’ of that time. Each book and each discussion convinced me more of the truth and justice of my ideas. What I thought then—I repeat to you, my friend—is what I think today; the only difference is that then I only thought it, today I think it and practice it.

  — Well then, this is all very well as far as it goes. It’s clear how you became an anarchist, and I see clearly that you were an anarchist. It’s not necessary to prove this any more. What I want to know is how is it that the banker emerged? How is that he emerged without contradiction … This is, more or less, what I imagine …

  — No, no you imagine nothing … I know what you mean … You base your opinions on what you have just heard from me, and imagine that I found anarchism to be unrealizable and therefore, as I had said to you, only the bourgeois society was defensible and just—isn’t this so? …

  — Yes, I imagined more or less it was this …

  — But how could this be, if from the beginning of our discussion, I have said and repeated that I am an anarchist, that I not only was an anarchist, but have continued to be one? If I had become a banker and man of business for the reason that you thought, I would not be an anarchist, I would be a bourgeois.

  — Yes, you are right … But then how the devil …? Go on, keep talking …

  — As I said to you, I was (and always have been) more or less lucid, and also a man of action. These are natural qualities; nobody gave them to me in my cradle (if I had had a cradle), I myself acquired them. Well then. Being an anarchist, I found it intolerable to be one passively, only for the purpose of hearing discourses and talking about them with my friends. No: it was necessary to do something! It was necessary to work and fight for the cause of oppressed peoples and of the victims of social conventions! I decided to take on this to the degree that I could. I devoted myself to thinking about how I would be useful to the cause of liberty. I began to work out my plan of action.

  “What does the anarchist want? Freedom—freedom for himself and for others, for all of humanity. He wants to be freed from the influence and the pressure of the social fictions; he wants to be as free as when he was born and came into the world, to be in fairness how he ought to be and he wants this freedom for himself and everyone else. Not everyone is equal before Nature; some are born tall, others short; some strong, others weak; some more intelligent, others less so … But all are able from that point on to be equal; only the social fictions prevent it. It was those social fictions that it was necessary to destroy.

  “It was necessary to destroy them … But one thing did not escape me: it was necessary to destroy them but in the service of freedom, and having always in mind the creation of a free society. Because the destruction of social fictions ought to be for the creation of freedom, or for preparing the road toward freedom, rather than for the establishment of other social fictions, equally bad because equally fictitious. At this point it was necessary to be careful. It was necessary to find a plan of action, whether violent or nonviolent (because against social injustices everything is legitimate), by which one acted to destroy social fictions that would not at the same time prevent the creation of future freedoms, but wherever possible create something of these freedoms.

  “It is clear that this freedom, which one must be careful not to obstruct, is a future freedom; and, at present, it is freedom of the oppressed from social fictions. Clearly, we do not have to concern ourselves about disturbing the ‘freedom’ of the powerful, of the well-off, of all those who represent the social fictions and get advantages from them. That is not freedom; that is the freedom to tyrannize which is the opposite of true freedom. On the contrary, this is what we should think about avoiding and combating. It appears to me that this is clear …”

  — It is very clear. Continue …

  — For whom does the anarchist want freedom? For all of humanity. What is the means of obtaining freedom for all of humanity? To completely destroy all the social fictions. How can one completely destroy all of the social fictions? I have already anticipated the explanation when, because of your question, I discussed other progressive systems and explained how and why I was an anarchist … You remember my conclusion? …

  — I remember …

  — … A social revolution, sudden, overwhelming, all at once transforms society from a bourgeois regime to a free society. This social revolution, prepared by intense and continuous work, by direct and indirect action, disposes all minds toward the coming of a free society, and weakens to a moribund state, all the resistances of the bourgeoisie. Excuse me from repeating to you the reasons that inevitably lead to this conclusion for anarchists; I have explained them and you have understood them.

  — Yes.

  — This revolution will be preferably worldwide, occurring simultaneously in all areas, or in the most important areas of the world, or if this does not happen, it will spread rapidly from some areas to others, but in every case, in every area, in every nation, it will be overwhelming and complete.

  “Very well. What would I be able to do toward this end? Alone by myself, I would not be able to make a world revolution, I would not even be able to make a revolution in the country where I lived. What I could do would be to work with all my might, to help prepare for this revolution. I have already explained how: fighting the social fictions with all available means; but while making propaganda and fighting for a free society, never impeding either the future freedom of the world or the current freedoms of the oppressed; creating, wherever possible, something of future freedoms.”

  He inhaled smoke; paused briefly; began again.

  — Right here, my friend, I put my lucidity into action. To work for the future, that’s fine, I thought; to work for others to have freedom, of course. But then what about me; am I nobody? If I had been a Christian, I would have worked cheerfully for the future of others because I would have had my reward in heaven; but also, if I had been a Christian, I would not have been an anarchist, since then, the social inequalities would not have been important in our short life; they would have only been conditions of our trials and be compensated during eternal life. But I was not a Christian, as I am not now, and I asked myself: for whom am I going to sacrifice myself in all this? Even more, why am I going to sacrifice myself?

  “Periods of loss of faith came upon me; and you can appreciate that they were justified … I am a materialist, I thought; I have no other life than this one; why am I worrying myself with propaganda and social inequalities and other stories, when I could enjoy life and amuse myself much more if I weren’t preoccupied with these things. Whoever has only this life, whoever does not believe in eternal life, whoever admits no law than that of Nature, whoever opposes the state because it is not natural, marriage because it is not natural, money because it is not natural, all the social fictions because they are not natural, for what reason could he defend altruism and self-sacrifice for others, or for humanity, if altruism and sacrifice are also not natural? Yes, the same logic that shows me a man was not born to be married, or be Portuguese, or to be rich or poor, shows me also that he is not born to be in solidarity with others, that he is born only to be his own self, and therefore, the opposite of altruist and working for the masses, and therefore exclusively egoist.

  “I debated this question with myself. Have you considered, I said to myself, that we are born part of the human race, and that we have a ‘duty’ to be in solidarity with all mankind. But was the idea of ‘duty’ a natural one? Where does this idea of ‘duty’ arise? If this idea of duty requires me to sacrifice my well-being, my comfort, my instinct of self-preservation and other natural instincts, how does the effect of this idea differ from the action of any social fiction t
hat produces in us exactly the same effect?

  “This idea of duty, of solidarity with mankind, can only be considered natural if it carries with it an egoistical compensation, because then, while in principle contrary to natural egoism, provides a compensation for this egoism that ultimately is not contradictory. To sacrifice a pleasure, merely to sacrifice it, is not natural; to sacrifice one pleasure for another one, that is in itself part of Nature: it is to choose the better of two natural things, both of which cannot be possessed. Now what egoistical or natural compensation can give me a dedication to the cause of a free society and future human happiness? It is only the consciousness of a duty fulfilled, of a struggle toward a good end; and none of these things is an egoistical compensation, none of these things is a pleasure in itself, but a pleasure, if it be one, born from a social fiction, as would be the pleasure of being immensely rich or of having been born into a high social position.

  “I confess to you, my old friend, that there came upon me moments of disbelief … I felt myself disloyal to my faith, traitor to it … But in a short time all this passed. The idea of justice exists within me, I thought. I felt it to be a natural idea. I felt that there exists a duty superior to preoccupation with my own fate. And I continued forward with my purpose.”