The Conquest of Bread Peter Kropotkin (best summer reads of all time .txt) š
- Author: Peter Kropotkin
Book online Ā«The Conquest of Bread Peter Kropotkin (best summer reads of all time .txt) šĀ». Author Peter Kropotkin
After all, the Collectivists know this themselves. They vaguely understand that a society could not exist if it carried out the principle of āEach according to his deeds.ā They have a notion that necessariesā āwe do not speak of whimsā āthe needs of the individual, do not always correspond to his works. Thus De Paepe tells us: āThe principleā āthe eminently Individualist principleā āwould, however, be tempered by social intervention for the education of children and young persons (including maintenance and lodging), and by the social organization for assisting the infirm and the sick, for retreats for aged workers, etc.ā They understand that a man of forty, father of three children, has other needs than a young man of twenty. They know that the woman who suckles her infant and spends sleepless nights at its bedside, cannot do as much work as the man who has slept peacefully. They seem to take in that men and women, worn out maybe by dint of overwork for society, may be incapable of doing as much work as those who have spent their time leisurely and pocketed their ālabour-notesā in the privileged career of State functionaries.
They are eager to temper their principle. They say: āSociety will not fail to maintain and bring up its children; to help both aged and infirm. Without doubt needs will be the measure of the cost that society will burden itself with, to temper the principle of deeds.ā
Charity, charity, always Christian charity, organized by the State this time. They believe in improving the asylums for foundlings, in effecting old-age and sick insurancesā āso as to temper their principle. But they cannot yet throw aside the idea of āwounding first and healing afterwardsā!
Thus, after having denied Communism, after having laughed at their ease at the formulaā āāTo each according to his needsāā āthese great economists discover that they have forgotten something, the needs of the producers, which they now admit. Only it is for the State to estimate them, for the State to verify if the needs are not disproportionate to the work.
The State will dole out charity. Thence to the English poor-law and the workhouse is but a step.
There is but a slight difference, because even this stepmother of a society against whom we are in revolt has also been compelled to temper her individualist principles; she, too, has had to make concessions in a communist direction and under the same form of charity.
She, too, distributes halfpenny dinners to prevent the pillaging of her shops; builds hospitalsā āoften very bad ones, but sometimes splendid onesā āto prevent the ravages of contagious diseases. She, too, after having paid the hours of labour, shelters the children of those she has wrecked. She takes their needs into consideration and doles out charity.
Poverty, we have said elsewhere, was the primary cause of wealth. It was poverty that created the first capitalist; because, before accumulating āsurplus value,ā of which we hear so much, men had to be sufficiently destitute to consent to sell their labour, so as not to die of hunger. It was poverty that made capitalists. And if the number of the poor increased so rapidly during the Middle Ages, it was due to the invasions and wars that followed the founding of States, and to the increase of riches resulting from the exploitation of the East. These two causes tore asunder the bonds that kept men together in the agrarian and urban communities, and taught them to proclaim the principle of wages, so dear to the exploiters, instead of the solidarity they formerly practiced in their tribal life.
And it is this principle that is to spring from a revolution which men dare to call by the name of Social Revolutionā āa name so dear to the starved, the oppressed, and the sufferers!
It can never be. For the day on which old institutions will fall under the proletarian axe, voices will cry out: āBread, shelter, ease for all!ā And those voices will be listened to; the people will say: āLet us begin by allaying our thirst for life, for happiness, for liberty, that we have never quenched. And when we shall have tasted of this joy, we will set to work to demolish the last vestiges of middle-class rule: its morality drawn from account books, its ādebit and creditā philosophy, its āmine and yoursā institutions. āIn demolishing we shall build,ā as Proudhon said; and we shall build in the name of Communism and Anarchy.ā
XIV Consumption and Production ILooking at society and its political organization from a different standpoint than that of all the authoritarian schoolsā āfor we start from a free individual to reach a free society, instead of beginning by the State to come down to the individualā āwe follow the same method in economic questions. We study the needs of the individuals, and the means by which they satisfy them, before discussing Production, Exchange, Taxation, Government, and so on. At first sight the difference may appear trifling, but in reality it upsets all the canons of official Political Economy.
If you open the works of any economist you will find that he begins with production, i.e., by the analysis of the means employed nowadays for the creation of wealth: division of labour, the factory, its machinery, the accumulation of capital. From Adam Smith to Marx, all have proceeded along these lines. Only in the latter parts of their books do they treat of consumption, that is to say, of the means resorted to in our present Society to satisfy the needs of the individuals; and even there they confine themselves to explaining how riches are divided among those who vie with one another for their possession.
Perhaps you will say this is logical. Before satisfying needs you must create the wherewithal to satisfy them. But, before producing anything, must you not feel
Comments (0)