The Anarchist Banker

by Fernando Pessoa

  — It does not appear to me that this decision reveals any great lucidity on your part … You did not solve the problem … You continued on through a purely sentimental impulse …

  — No doubt. But what I am telling you now is the history of how I became an anarchist, and how I continued being one, and still continue. I am explaining faithfully to you the hesitations and difficulties that I had, and how I overcame them. I agree that at that moment, I overcame the logical problem with a sentiment, and not in a rational manner. But you will see later, when I arrived at a full understanding of anarchist doctrine, how this difficulty, up to then without a logical response, received a full and absolute solution.

  — It’s curious …

  — It is … Now let me continue with my story. I had this difficulty, and I resolved it, for better or for worse, as I had said to you. Immediately after, and in line with my thinking, there arose another problem that troubled me greatly.

  “It was all very well—let us agree—that I was disposed to sacrifice myself, without a reward that was truly personal, that is a reward that was truly natural. But suppose that the future society did not in any way turn out to be what I expected, that there never could be a free society, what the devil then would have been the point of sacrificing myself? To sacrifice myself for an idea without personal recompense, without gaining anything for my effort on behalf of this idea, is acceptable; but to sacrifice myself without at least having the certainty, that for which I worked, would exist some day, without the idea for which I struggled ever being reached—this was a little too much … I tell you now that I resolved the difficulty by the same sentimental process by which I resolved the other; but I want you to know also that, in the same way as the other, I resolved it by logic, automatically, when I arrived at a full understanding of my anarchism … You will see later … At the time about which I am telling you, I escaped my difficulty with one or two empty phrases. ‘I will do my duty for the future, let the future do for me’ … This or something similar …

  “I expounded this conclusion, or rather these conclusions, to my comrades, and they were all in agreement with me; they agreed that it was necessary to go forward and sacrifice all for a free society. It is true that one or another, the most intelligent among them, were a little disturbed by the exposition, not because they did not agree, but because they had never seen the situation quite so clearly, nor the difficulties that it involved … But finally, they all agreed … We would all work for the great social revolution, for a free society, whether or not the future would justify us! Some of us formed a group and began a great campaign of propaganda—great, of course, within the limits of what we could do. For a long time, in the midst of difficulties, troubles and at times persecutions, there we were, working for the anarchist ideal.”

  The banker having arrived here, paused a little longer. He did not light his cigar, which had again gone out. Suddenly he gave a slight smile, stared at me with the air of someone arriving at an important point, and proceeded, speaking more distinctly and emphasizing his words.

  — At this point, something new appeared. ‘At this point’ is a manner of speaking. I mean that, after some months of propagandizing, I began to notice a new complication, one that was the most serious of all, really serious …

  “You recall, don’t you, how by a rigorous logic I established that which must be the process of anarchists … A process or processes through which is attained the destruction of the social fictions, but at the same time, without obstructing in any way the creation of future freedom, without, moreover, obstructing in any way the limited freedom of those presently oppressed by the social fictions; a process which, when possible, to create something now for the freedom of the future …

  “Well then: once agreeing with this criterion, nothing more remained to work out … Now at the time of the propaganda campaign of which I am speaking, I discovered something. In our propaganda movement—we were not many; we were forty, more or less—a situation arose in which tyranny was created.”

  — Tyranny was created? … Tyranny was created how?

  — In the following manner … Some gave orders to others and led them about; some imposed themselves on others and obliged them to do what they wanted; some dragged others along through craftiness and wile. I do not say this was done in grave matters; there were not really grave matters in which they could do so. But the fact is that this happened all the time, and it happened not only in matters related to propaganda, but in ordinary matters of daily life. Imperceptibly, some became chiefs, others imperceptibly subordinates. Some became chiefs through force; others through cleverness. This occurred in the simplest matters. For example; two young men were going down the street together; they arrived at the end of the street and one wanted to go to the right the other to the left; each had a reason to go toward his side. But the one who wanted to go to the left said to the other, “come with me this way”; the other answered and justifiably, “I can’t, I have to go the other way” for whatever reason… But finally, against his will and convenience, he would go with the other to the left … This would happen one time by persuasion, another time by insistence, the third time for a different reason whatever it might be … That is, it would never be for a logical reason; there was always in this imposition and subordination something spontaneous and instinctive … And in this simple case, so it was in all the other cases; from the least up to the most important … Do you see what I mean?”

  — I see. But what the devil is so unusual about that? All of that is perfectly natural! …

  — So it is. We are coming to it. What I ask you to remember is that it is exactly the opposite of anarchist doctrine. Note well that this happened in a little group, in a group without influence or importance, in a group not entrusted with the solution of any important question or the decision about any significant problem. And notice that it happened in a group of people who had come together specifically to do what they could to achieve the goals of anarchism—that is, to combat, as much as possible, the social fictions, and to create future freedom as much as possible. Did you clearly notice these two points?

  — I noticed.

  — Now see clearly what this means … A small group, of sincere individuals (I assure you they were sincere!), formed and united expressly to work for the cause of freedom, had accomplished only one thing at the end of a few months that was positive and concrete—the creation of tyranny among themselves. And observe what kind of tyranny … Not a tyranny derived from the effect of social fictions which, while unfortunate, are understandable to a degree, although less so in those of us who are supposed to be combating these fictions; nevertheless, we did live in a society based on these fictions and we were not entirely guilty if we could not escape their influence. But this was not it. Those who dominated others, who made others do their bidding, did not do these things by virtue of money, or social status, or some other fictitious authority that they took upon themselves; they did it through a process outside of the social fictions. I mean to say that this tyranny was, relative to the social fictions, a new tyranny. It was a tyranny exercised over people already oppressed by the social fictions. It was, moreover, tyranny exercised among themselves by people whose sincere aim was only to destroy tyranny and create freedom.

  “Now apply this situation to a much larger group, much more influential, already dealing with important questions and decisions of a fundamental character. Make this group direct its energies, as ours did, to the formation of a free society. And now tell me, under this weight of intermingled tyrannies, you can foresee any kind of future society that will resemble a free society or a humanity worthy of itself …”

  — Yes: it’s quite curious …

  — It is curious, isn’t it? … And see that there are other points that are also quite curious … For example; the tyranny of helping.

  — The what?

  — The tyranny of helping. There were those among us, instead of ordering others, inste
ad of imposing themselves upon others, on the contrary, aided them in whatever way they could. It appears to be the opposite from tyranny, right? But see that it is the same, it is the same new tyranny. It is the same way of going against anarchist principles.

  — That’s odd? In what way?

  — To help someone, my friend, is to treat him as being incapable; if this person is not incapable, making him so or assuming him to be so, is in the first case tyranny, and in the second contempt. In one case someone limits the freedom of another; in the other someone starts out, at least unconsciously, with the assumption that the other person is worthless and unworthy or incapable of freedom.

  “Let us return to our situation … You can see how this point was very serious. Let it be that we work for a future society without hope of thanks, even that we risk that it may never come into being. Let all this be. But what was too much was working for future freedom and not doing anything positive except creating tyranny, and not only tyranny, but a new tyranny, a tyranny exercised by ourselves, the oppressed, by some of us over the others. Now this is what couldn’t be …

  “I set myself to thinking. There was an error here, some kind of mistake. Our motives were good; our doctrines appeared certain; was the fault in our processes? It must be that. But where the devil was the error? I became obsessed over this to the point of feeling myself going crazy. One day, suddenly, as is always the case with these things, the solution came to me. It was the great day in my anarchist theories; the day in which I discovered, so to speak, the technique of anarchism.”

  He gazed at me a moment without seeing me. Then he continued, in the same tone.

  — This is what I thought … We have here a new tyranny, a tyranny that is not derived from the social fictions. Where is it derived from? Is it derived from natural qualities? If it is, goodbye free society! If a society in which only the natural qualities of men are in effect—those qualities with which they are born, which are due only to Nature, and over which we have no power—, if a society in which only these qualities are in effect becomes a heap of tyrannies, who is going to raise a finger for the coming of this society? Tyranny for tyranny, it remains the same, that to which we are accustomed, and therefore from which we feel less than from a new tyranny, and with the terrible character of all tyrannies that are directly from Nature—no revolt is possible against it, as there is no revolution possible against death, or being short when one prefers to have been born tall. I have already proven to you that, if for whatever reason, an anarchist society is not possible, then a bourgeois society should exist because it feels more natural than any other.

  “But had this tyranny that grew among us really been derived from natural properties? Now what are natural properties? They are level of intelligence, of imagination, of willpower, etc., with which everyone is born—this is in the area of the mind, since the physical qualities are not relevant in this case. Now an individual who, without the support of social fictions, dominates another, necessarily does so by being superior in one or another natural qualities. He dominates through use of his natural qualities. But there is another thing to consider: is this use of natural qualities legitimate, that is, will it be natural?

  “Now what is the natural use of our natural qualities? To serve the natural purposes of our personality. Now is to dominate someone a natural purpose of our personality? It can be; there is a situation in which it is: it is when someone becomes our enemy. For the anarchist, it is clear, the role of the enemy is taken by whoever represents the social fictions and their tyranny; but no one else, because all other men are like himself and are natural comrades. Now you can easily see, that the tyranny we had been creating among ourselves was not of that type; the tyranny we had been creating was exercised over men like ourselves, natural comrades, and, even more, over men who were our comrades twice over, because they shared our common ideal. Conclusion: our tyranny, if it was not derived from social fictions, also was not derived from natural qualities; it was derived from a wrong application of them, from a perversion of natural qualities. But how did this perversion come about?

  “It had to arise from one of two things: either man is naturally bad, and therefore all natural qualities will be naturally perverted; or from a perversion resulting from the long existence of humanity in an atmosphere of social fictions, all of them creators of tyranny, and therefore tending to almost instinctively turn the most natural human qualities into tyranny. Now, of these two hypotheses, which is the correct one? It was impossible to determine this in a satisfactory manner—that is, according to rigorous logical or scientific means. Reasoning is not able to resolve the problem, because reasoning is founded on historical or scientific method, and depends upon knowledge of facts. On its side, science cannot help us either, because, as far as we go back in history, we always encounter humans living under one or another system of social tyranny, and therefore always in a condition that does not permit us to decide how they would be if they lived in pure and entirely natural circumstances. Not being able to decide with certainty, we have to lean toward the side of greater probability; and the greater probability is on the side of the second hypothesis. It is more natural to suppose that the long existence of mankind in social fictions creating tyranny makes every individual begin with his natural qualities already perverted in the sense of tyrannizing spontaneously, even among those who do not mean to tyrannize, rather than to assume that natural qualities are naturally perverted, an idea that, in a certain sense, represents a contradiction. For this reason, a logical person will settle, as I settled with almost absolute assurance, upon the second hypothesis.

  “We have then, something that is quite evident … In the present social circumstances, it is not possible for a group of individuals, as well-intentioned as they all may be, as dedicated as they all may be to combating social fictions and working for freedom, to work together without spontaneously creating tyranny among themselves, without creating among themselves a new tyranny added on to that of the social fictions, without destroying in practice all that they wish for in theory, without involuntarily obstructing in every way the purpose they wish to promote. What can be done? It is very simple … It is for all to work toward the same end, but separately.”

  — Separately?!

  — Yes. You didn’t follow my reasoning?

  — I followed it.

  — And don’t you find it to be logical, don’t you find this conclusion to be inescapable?

  — I find it, well, I find it … What I don’t see very well is how all this …

  — I am going to explain it … I said: we all work for the same goal but separately. By all working for the same anarchist goal, each one contributes his own energies, wherever they may be directed, to the destruction of the social fictions and the creation of the free society of the future; and by working separately we are not able, in any way, to create new tyrannies, because no one has any control over another and is not able, therefore, to dominate him, to diminish his liberty nor by aiding him, to extinguish it in him.

  “Working thus separately and for the same anarchist goal, we have two advantages—that of a common effort, and that of not creating a new tyranny. We continue to be united, because we are so morally and we work in the same way toward the same end; we continue to be anarchists, because each one works for the free society; but we stop being, voluntarily or involuntarily, traitors to our cause, we even stop being able to do so, because we place ourselves, by isolation in anarchist work, outside of the deleterious influence of the social fictions, through their hereditary influence over the natural qualities that Nature gave us.

  “It is clear that these tactics are to be applied to what I called the period of preparation for the social revolution. Undermining the bourgeois defenses, and reducing the entire society to the stage of acceptance of anarchist doctrines leaves only the social revolution remaining to be completed; at that point, for the final blow, it is not possible to continue in separate actions. But, at that p
oint, the free society has already virtually arrived and the situation will be very different. The tactics to which I refer are only applicable to anarchist activity in the midst of bourgeois society, as now, as in the group to which I belonged.

  “It was—finally!—the true path of anarchism. Together, we were worth nothing of consequence and, what is more, we tyrannized each other and obstructed each other and our theories. Separated, we might also achieve little, but at least we would not obstruct our freedom, we would not create a new tyranny; that which we would achieve, little as it was, would really be achieved without damage or loss. Gradually, thus working separately, we would learn to trust ourselves more, to not lean upon others, to become more free ourselves, to prepare ourselves for the future, as much personally as by example to others.

  “I was ecstatic over this discovery. I immediately rushed to explain it to my comrades … It was one of the few times in my life when I was foolish. Can you imagine that I was so full of my discovery as to expect that they would agree! …”

  — They did not agree, that’s clear …

  — They rebuked me, my friend, they all rebuked me! Some more, others less, but they all protested! … This can’t be! … This couldn’t be! … But no one said what could be or what had to be. I argued and argued, and in response to my argument, I heard empty phrases, trash, things such as ministers utter at meetings when they have no answers … Then it was that I saw with what fools and cowards I was involved! They revealed themselves. That rabble had been born for slavery. They wanted to be anarchists at the expense of others. They wanted freedom as long as it was others who arranged it for them, as long as it was given to them just as a king gives a title! Almost all of them are this way, those great lackeys!

  — You became angry?

  — Became angry? I became infuriated! I began to lash out. It went from bad to worse. I almost came to blows with two or three of them. And finally I walked out. I went into seclusion. There came upon me a loathing for all that flock of sheep as you cannot imagine. I almost lost faith in anarchism. I almost decided not to bother myself any more with all this. But after some days, I recovered. I realized the anarchist ideal was above these petty quarrels. They didn’t want to be anarchists? I would be one myself. They only wanted to play at being freedom lovers? I would not play with them in that case. They did not have the will to fight except huddled together, and thus creating among themselves a new version of the tyranny they said they wanted to combat? Well let them be so, the fools, if they weren’t good for anything else. I am one who was not going be a bourgeois for so little.