|
CHAPTER 3 |
If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. (Matthew 18: 6)
One cannot struggle against the calls of conscience. These calls come from God; that is why it is preferable to answer them at once. (Daily Reading, October 23rd)
The evil committed by man not only weakens his soul and deprives him of true happiness, but the more often falls back on the one who commits it.
To do wrong is as dangerous as to provoke a wild beast. More frequently than not evil falls back on the one who has committed it. (Daily Reading, June 6th)
Most men of our time, perceiving the constant increase, of their misfortunes, employ the only means of salvation that, according to their conception of life, they consider rational: the oppression of part by the rest. Those who see that their interest lies in the maintenance of the present State defend it with the force that the Church puts at their command. Those who wish to change the order of existing things also have recourse to violence in order to replace the former State by a new one that they think better. The number of revolutionaries and counter revolutionaries in the Christian world cannot be counted. However, if the social forms are modified, the base remains the same. The domination of a few over the majority, corruption, lies, the fear of the oppressed, servitude, anger and the brutalizing of the masses – all these things remain as they were, and even spread and develop.
What is going on now in Russia, in particular, gives evidential proof of the futility and harm of using violence as a means of uniting men. The incidents of highway robbery, assassination of policemen, officers, and detectives, and attacks on high functionaries, so frequent a short time ago, are becoming more rare every day, while death sentences and executions are increasing. They have not stopped shooting and hanging people for the past two years, and those executed can be counted by the thousand. Thousands were also killed by revolutionary bombs. But since the number of those killed by the leaders of the State is incomparably greater than those killed by revolutionaries, the former triumph and believe that they have conquered. They do not doubt that they will be able to continue their usual existence of maintaining lies by violence, and violence by lies.
The mistake of all political doctrines, from the most conservative to the most advanced, which has brought men to their present lamentable condition, is the same: to keep men in society by the aid of violence so as to make them accept the present social organization and the rule of conduct that it imposes. Certainly, it is possible to push a man forcibly in the direction that he refuses to take. It is thus that animals act, as well as men who are led by passion. It is natural and comprehensible. But how shall one understand the reasoning by which violence is a means of inviting men to do everything we wish them to do?
Constraint always consists in forcing others, by threats of suffering or death, to do what they refuse to do. That is why they act against their own wishes as long as they consider themselves weaker than their oppressors. From the moment that they feel themselves stronger, they will not only cease to obey, but, irritated by the struggle and by all that they have suffered, they will first gain their liberty, and then in their turn they will impose their will upon those who disagree with them. So it should be quite evident that the struggle between oppressors and oppressed, far from constituting a means of social organization, leads to disorder and general disagreement.
This disorder is so certain that it would be superfluous to speak of it, had not the lie, according to which violence is a means of reunion, been implanted for so long a time, and been admitted by tacit consent to be an indisputable truth. Such consent is given as much by those who profit by it as it is given by the majority of those who are victims of violence.
This lie existed before the Christian era, and has since survived in all its strength. The only difference between former times and our own is that then the nonsense of violence as a means of grouping was hidden from men, while today the truth of Christ, according to which violence is a means of disunion, stands out more and more clearly. The moment that men understand it they will no longer be able to endure violence without revolting against it.
This is observed today among the oppressed in every country. And not only the oppressed are beginning to perceive this truth. The oppressors, in their turn, are also aware of it. They are no longer certain of acting well and justly when they use violence towards the weak. Accustomed to their reciprocal situations, the leaders and the led are seeking to persuade each other by arguments, mostly false, that brute force is necessary and useful, but they already feel deep within themselves that their acts of cruelty, instead of gaining, draw them further away from the desired end.
The men who, in the opinion of the directing classes, do the greatest harm to society are hung, banished, or locked up in prisons. Thousands of other men, less dangerous, are driven away from the capitals and large cities and wander, hunger stricken and in rags, across Russia. Police agents, in uniform or in civilian clothes, watch them, spy upon them, and arrest them. Books and newspapers, considered reprehensible, are seized.
While this is taking place, there are animated debates at the duma as to the best way to assure the prosperity of a nation and on the necessity of constructing a fleet, of using certain systems for organizing the property of the peasants, or of levying or not levying certain taxes. In this Russian parliament everything takes place as it does among other civilized nations. There are leaders, lobbyists, quorums, parties, and the like. It would seem as if there were nothing missing. However, it is precisely among us, in Russia, and at this moment, that the order of existing things is approaching nearer and nearer to the moment of its disappearance.
In fact, let us admit that you, men of the government, still shoot five, ten, and even thirty thousand condemned people, besides which you are inclined to follow the example of the governments that repressed former European revolutions.
But there are other forces than these forces of repression: moral forces, which are the most powerful, and much more powerful than the gallows, guns, prisons, and spies. You are not ignorant of the fact that all those whom you have strangled or shot have fathers, brothers, wives, sisters, friends, and co-religionists. If, by executions, you get rid of those whom you send to their graves, you will not only arouse their relations, but you will also make a much greater number of enemies even among strangers, who will be much angrier than were those whom you have killed. The more people you cause to disappear, the less you will get rid of your principal enemy, universal hate. By means of your crimes you only set loose this hate, and render it more dangerous.
The worst of it is that you arouse sentiments of cruelty, which you believe you can counteract by executions. You know well that the latter are not accomplished only with the aid of your writings in the courts and in the ministries. They are done by men to other men.
A young soldier of the reserve, puzzled, told me how he was obliged to dig a long trench to bury ten men condemned to be shot, and how some soldiers were forced to kill the condemned, while others were posted behind the murdering soldiers, ready to shoot them if they hesitated to carry out their brutal orders. Can an act like that take place without leaving any trace in the human soul, an act commanded by the very people whom the soldiers are taught to look upon as estimable and sacred?
I read lately in a newspaper that a wretched governor general had given to be published an order of the day in which he complimented two “brave” policemen because they had shot an unarmed prisoner who was trying to escape. As a reward, the governor saw that each of the policemen was paid 25 rubles. Not being able to believe in such an act of authority, I wrote to the newspaper that published the order of the day to confirm it. I received the order itself, and was informed that praise for these murderous acts is habitual and is given by the highest dignitaries.
Can these words and acts take place without leaving any trace of corruption or cruelty upon those who read these orders of the day, or who participate in these acts? They cannot help arousing distrust and disgust for those who order these acts, which are so against one’s conscience, and for those who reward the people who execute them. It is evident that, if thousands of people are suppressed, tens and hundreds of thousands are depraved by their participation in these barbarous acts. They lose the remainder of their religious and moral scruples and are prepared by this to commit the same atrocities to the very men who now force them into violence.
And what do you say of the news spread by the newspapers among millions of readers giving the number of those condemned to death and executed, news repeated each day, like the necessary news about the changing of the weather? If the readers do not ask themselves how the acts of the authorities can be reconciled with the Scriptures, or even with the sixth commandment of Moses, these contradictions can only arouse disdain for this commandment, for religion in general, and for the authorities, as acts contrary to both religious law and to conscience.
Is it not clear that these crimes of the authorities, instead of causing their enemies to disappear, only increase their number? It ought to be evident to the authorities themselves.
If Marcus Aurelius, in spite of his gentleness and wisdom, could make war against and execute people without pangs of conscience, Christians can no longer do as much without recognizing their criminality. The very fact of imagining peace conferences and conditional condemnations, as hypocritical as they are stupid, shows that the leaders know perfectly well that what they are doing is wrong. They can try to persuade themselves and others that they are acting in virtue of superior considerations, but they cannot hide from themselves or from others all the degradation and all the horror of their activities. Everybody today knows that murder is a crime, whatever the motive may be. Kings, ministers, and generals know it just as well.
It is the same with revolutionaries of all parties, from the moment that they admit assassination as a means to an end. They may say that they will no longer make use of violence, as they are doing today, when the reins of power are in their hands, but their acts are as immoral and as cruel as those of governments. That is why, like governments, they are the cause of the hatred, bestiality, and corruption that are becoming more and more prevalent among us.
The revolutionaries differ from the present masters because of the fact that the vanity of the latter’s activity is evident, while the activity of the former, generally theoretical and rarely applied during revolutions, is less evident. That is why it seems less criminal. In any case, the methods of both are equally foreign to human nature and to the principles of Christian doctrine. In sowing hatred and madness among men to the same degree, they both not only do not attain the end that they follow, but take us further away from it.
The two opposite camps – governors and revolutionaries – as much in Russia as in the rest of the world, can be compared to people, who, wishing to warm themselves better, break up the walls of their house to feed its furnace.