Didactic fiction; Political fiction; Social problems -- Fiction
"Isadore pooh-poohs the idea of bloodshed. The social revolution is
going to be a kid-glove affair. He will admit the possibility of
sporadic riots. But the great victory is to be won at the voting booths.
Justice is to be enthroned by ward caucuses and party conventions.
Victor Berger instead of Dick Croker. The central committee instead of
Tammany Hall. He really believes this, but it is based on two
suppositions, both of which seem to me very uncertain. First, reason is
to conquer the earth and the great majority is to vote reasonably--that
is, the Socialist ticket. Second, the grafters and all the contented,
well-fed, complaisant people are going to resign without a struggle.
"I don't think they will. They may not have the courage to defend their
privileges themselves. But bravery, the fighting kind, is one of the
cheapest things on the human market. Our government buys perfectly good
soldiers for $13.50 a month. The privileged class always has hired
mercenaries to defend their graft and I think they will in the future.
They've already begun to do it with their State Constabulary in
Pennsylvania. Read about how the French capitalists massacred our
comrades after the Paris Commune. That was only thirty years ago. I
don't see any reason to hope for a very startling change in their
natures.
"And then is reason going to rule the world--the cold intellectual
convictions that Isadore means? I doubt it. The great movements in the
world's history have come from passionate enthusiasms. Take the
Reformation, or the English Commonwealth, or the French Revolution. Not
one man in ten of all the actors in those crises were what Isadore would
call reasonable. Reason is powerless unless it is backed by a great
enthusiasm. And if we have that, we can turn the trick quicker with a
general strike and insurrection than we could by voting.
"This question of violence or peace is a thorny one. We've got to
separate what we would like to see from what seems probable. Bloodshed
is abhorrent. But it is pretty closely associated with the history of
human progress. Before the great Revolution the mass of the French
people were in the very blackest ignorance. They've had a century of
revolution and bloodshed, and to-day they are the most cultured nation
in the world. The same thing is happening to-day in Russia. We read in
the papers of assassinations and executions and insurrections. It means
that the intellect of a great people is coming to life. And the mind of
our nation has got to be shaken into wakefulness, too. We've got to
learn new and deeper meanings to the old words justice and liberty. I'd
like to believe we could learn them in school, by reading socialist
pamphlets. But all the race has ever learned about them so far has been
in battle-fields and behind barricades. I hate and fear bloodshed. I
believe it's wrong. Just as you said you thought it was wrong to lie.
But I love liberty more.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account