Death to Bourgeois Society: The Propagandists of the Deed (Revolutionary Pocketbooks) - Softcover

Softcover

ISBN 10: 1629631124 ISBN 13: 9781629631127

Publisher: PM Press, 2016

Synopsis

Never before presented in English, here are the actual words and explanations of the acts of the Propagandists of the Deed, which had enormous impact on French political and cultural life
 
Perhaps no period has so marked, so deformed, or so defined the anarchist movement as the three years in France from 1892 to 1894, the years known as the Age of Attentats, the years dominated by the Propagandists of the Deed. Death to Bourgeois Society tells the story of four young anarchists who were guillotined in France in the 1890s. The volume focuses on the main avatars of this movement and contains key first-person narratives of the events, from Ravachol’s forbidden speech and his account of his life, to Emile Henry’s questioning at his trial and his programmatic letter to the director of the prison in which he was held, to Auguste Vaillant’s confrontation with the investigators immediately after tossing his bomb, and Santo Caserio’s description of the assassination and his defense at his trial. In a time of cynicism and political decay for many, they represented a purity lacking in society, and their actions when they were captured, their forthrightness, their defiance up to the guillotine only added to their luster.

About this title

About the Author

Mitchell Abidor is the principal French translator for the Marxists Internet Archive and has published several collections of his translations. He is the editor of Voices of the Paris Commune. He lives in Brooklyn.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Death to Bourgeois Society

The Propagandists of the Deed

By Mitchell Abidor

PM Press

Copyright © 2015 PM Press
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-62963-112-7

Contents

Introduction, 
Ravachol, 
A Narrative, 
Ravachol's Forbidden Speech, 
My Principles, 
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, 
For Ravachol, 
La Ravachole, 
Eulogy for Ravachol, 
Guillotinade, 
Ravachol's Laugh, 
The Little Ravachols Will Grow Up, 
Auguste Vaillant, 
The Interrogation of Vaillant, 
Vaillant's Courtroom Speech, 
Émile Henry, 
Émile Henry's Indictment, 
La Rue des Bons-Enfants, 
The Courtroom Interrogation of Émile Henry, 
Émile Henry's Defense Speech, 
Letter to the Director of the Conciergerie, 
For Émile Henry, 
Émile Henry, 
Santo Caserio, 
The Trial of Santo Caserio, 
Caserio's Defense Speech, 
Coda: Simon Radowitzky, 

CHAPTER 1

* RAVACHOL

A Narrative

Editor's note: Three autobiographical texts by Ravachol date from his time in prison just prior to his execution on July 11, 1892. The first is an account of his most notorious crime, his attempt at grave-robbing; the second is a longer fragment about his youth, political development, and criminal life; and the last is an account dictated to the police, "My Principles." This first text, supposedly written in his own hand, complete with grammatical and spelling mistakes, appeared in a Parisian paper two days after Ravachol's death.

"Among the papers left by Ravachol is found the story of the violation of the grave of Mme la baronne de Rochetaillée. Someone who momentarily had it in his possession having sent it to us, we reproduce it in its entirety, respecting the spelling and grammar. The story is written with a cold and tranquil cynicism, which will inspire in readers the same horror we ourselves felt." — Le Gaulois, July 13, 1892 ... being without work I set myself to making false money, a means not very lucratif and but dangerous, so I soon abbandonned it. I learnd that there was a baroness named de Rochetaillée who had bin buried not to long before. I thought she must have some jewels on her, so I resolved to break into the toomb.

One day I got myself a hooded lamp and a jimmy and I set out.

I left home at nine at night. Along the way I went into a bakery with the intenshun of paying the owner with a two frank piece in exchange for a loaf of bred, but he reconized that it was false. I pretended not to no this and continued along my way. Further along I went into a café and asked for a drink to take with me and I managed to give the owner a two frank piece. Further along I went again to a baker, I asked for a small loaf, I gave him a two frank piece and went on my way.

I got to the cematary at eleven. Before going in I ate my bred and drank some wine, and climb the wall and head for the grave that I attentively inspect.

So using my jimmy I lifted the toombstone and I entered the toomb; seeing the name I was looking for on a marble stone I set myself to unsealing it with the jimmy. So that the stone shouldn't fall on me I went into an empty compartment beside it. In falling the stone made a great noise and it broke into many pieces.

I quickly went back up to see if anyone was passing by. Not seeing anything suspishus, I went back down. I broke the three or four circles that closed the coffin. It wasn't easy to do this.

Afterward I tried to fit my jimmy into a joint in the coffin and was able to do so. I bust open the planks by pressing on them, but there was a layer of led wrapped around the corpse. I banged on it with the point of the jimmy and managed to make an opening big enough to take out the arm to see her left hand. I had to take out several small pakages which I didn't know what they contained. Once her left arm was out I pulled it too me and looked attentively at the fingers which was covered with mold. I didn't find what I was looking for. I looked at the throat and didn't see nothing there neither, and since my lamp didn't light anymore since it had no more oil, in order to finish my operation I set on fire a wreath of flowers I'd found in a chapel over the fault. It spred a thick smoke as it berned which caused me to go rush back up if I didn't want to asfixiate.

When I opened the coffin I had only one fear and that was that a large escaping of asfixiating gas would take place, but because I was in a hurry do to a certain need I didn't hesitate because its preferable to die risking yourself than succumming to hunger.

Once I climbed up I put the toombstone back in place and I started back home but on leaving I saw about a hundred meters away two men coming across the fields who seemed to want to cut me off in order to stop me.

I put my hand on my revolver and slowed down a little. They passed in front of me not saying anything. Later, on the Rue da la Monta, I meet a man at about a hundred meters who asked the way to the Chateau Creux. I didn't clearly understand him and he came up to me and repeated the question. I told him to follow me, that I passed write by it. He said to me that I was wearing a fake beard on my face which made me smile since I thought I had nothing to fear from this man who was all alone.

This happened on the Rue de la Monta. Coming up on the station I showed him the way and continued on mine. I went back home.

Ravachol's Forbidden Speech

Editor's note: On trial for murder after a series of bombings, Ravachol attempted to give the following speech, not to deny his guilt but to accept and explain it. According to contemporary accounts, he was cut off after a few words and the speech was never delivered. He was guillotined shortly afterward.

If I speak, it's not to defend myself for the acts of which I'm accused, for it is society alone that is responsible, since by its organization it sets man in a continual struggle of one against the other. In fact, don't we see today, in all classes and all positions, people who desire, I won't say the death, because that doesn't sound good, but the ill fortune of their fellows if they can gain advantages from this? For example, doesn't a boss hope to see a competitor die? And don't all businessmen reciprocally hope to be the only one to enjoy the advantages that their occupations bring? In order to obtain employment, doesn't the unemployed worker hope that for some reason or another someone who does have a job will be thrown out of his workplace. Well then, in a society where such things occur, there's no reason to be surprised about the kind of acts for which I'm blamed, which are nothing but the logical consequence of the struggle for existence that men carry on who are obliged to use every means available in order to live. And since it's every man for himself, isn't he who is in need reduced to thinking: "Well, since that's the way things are, when I'm hungry I have no reason to hesitate about using the means at my disposal, even at the risk of causing victims! Bosses, when they fire workers, do they worry whether or not they're going to die of hunger? Do those who have a surplus worry if there are those who lack the basic necessities?"

There are some who give assistance, but they are powerless to relieve all those in need who will either die prematurely because of privations of various kinds, or voluntarily by suicides of all kinds, in order to put an end to a miserable existence and to not have to put up with the rigors of hunger, with countless shames and humiliations, and who are without hope of ever seeing them end. Thus there are the Hayem and Souhain families, who killed their children so as not to see them suffer any longer, and all the women who, in fear of not being able to feed a child, don't hesitate to destroy in their wombs the fruit of their love.

And all these things happen in the midst of an abundance of all sorts of products. We could understand if these things happened in a country where products are rare, where there is famine. But in France, where abundance reigns, where butcher shops are loaded with meat, bakeries with bread, where clothing and shoes are piled up in stores, where there are unoccupied lodgings! How can anyone accept that everything is for the best in a society when the contrary can be seen so clearly? There are many people who will feel sorry for the victims, but who'll tell you they can't do anything about it. Let everyone scrape by as he can! What can he who lacks the necessities when he's working do when he loses his job? He has only to let himself die of hunger. Then people will throw a few pious words on his corpse. This is what I wanted to leave to others. I preferred to make of myself a trafficker in contraband, a counterfeiter, a murderer, and an assassin. I could have begged, but it's degrading and cowardly and even punished by your laws, which make poverty a crime. If all those in need, instead of waiting took, wherever and by whatever means, the self-satisfied would perhaps understand a bit more quickly that it's dangerous to want to consecrate the existing social state, where worry is permanent and life threatened at every moment.

We can immediately see that the anarchists are right when they say that in order to have moral and physical peace the causes that give rise to crime and criminals must be destroyed. We won't achieve these goals by suppressing the man who, rather than die a slow death caused by the privations he had and will have to put up with without any hope of ever seeing them end, prefers — if he has the least bit of energy — to violently take what can ensure his well-being, even at the risk of death, which would only put an end to his sufferings.

So that is why I committed the acts of which I am accused, and which are nothing but the logical consequence of the barbaric state of a society that does nothing but increase the rigor of the laws that pursue the effects without ever touching the causes. It is said that you must be cruel to kill your fellow man, but those who say this don't see that you resolve to do this only to avoid the same fate.

In the same way you, gentlemen of the jury, will doubtless sentence me to death, because you think it is necessary and that my death will be a source of satisfaction for you who hate to see human blood flow. But when you think it is useful to have it flow in order to ensure the security of your existence you hesitate no more than I do, but with this difference: you do it without running any risk, while I, on the other hand, acted at the risk of my very life.

Well, messieurs, there are no more criminals to judge, but the causes of crime to do away with! In creating the articles of the Criminal Code, the legislators forgot that they didn't attack the causes, but only the effects, and so they don't in any way destroy crime. In truth, the causes continuing to exist, the effects will necessarily flow from them. There will always be criminals, for today you destroy one, but tomorrow ten will be born.

What, then, is needed? Destroy poverty, that seed of crime, by assuring everyone the satisfaction of their needs! How difficult this is to realize! All that is needed is to establish society on a new basis, where everything will be held in common and where each, producing according to his abilities and his strength, could consume according to his needs. Then and only then will we no longer see people such as the hermit of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and others, begging for a metal whose victims and slaves they become! We will no longer see women surrendering their charms, like a common piece of merchandise, in exchange for this same metal that often prevents us from recognizing whether or not affection is sincere. We will no longer see men such as Pranzini, Prado, Berland, Anastay, and others who kill in order to have this same metal. This shows that the cause of all crimes is always the same, and you have to be foolish not to see this.

Yes, I repeat it: it is society that makes criminals and you, gentlemen of the jury, instead of striking you should use your intelligence and your strength to transform society. In one fell swoop you'll suppress all crime. And your work, in attacking causes, will be greater and more fruitful than your justice, which belittles itself in punishing its effects.

I am nothing but an uneducated worker; but because I have lived the life of the poor, I feel more than a rich bourgeois does the iniquity of your repressive laws. What gives you the right to kill or lock up a man who, put on earth with the need to live, found himself obliged to take that which he lacks in order to feed himself?

I worked to live and to provide for my family; as long as neither I nor my family suffered too much, I remained what you call honest. Then work became scarce, and with unemployment came hunger. It is only then that the great law of nature, that imperious voice that accepts no reply, the instinct of preservation, forced me to commit some of the crimes and misdemeanors of which I am accused and of which I admit I am the author.

Judge me, gentlemen of the jury, but if you have understood me, while judging me judge all the unfortunate who poverty, combined with natural pride, made criminals, and who wealth or ease would have made honest men.

An intelligent society would have made of them men like any other!

My Principles

Editor's note: Ravachol dictated this document to the police while in prison. It remained unpublished until the historian Jean Maitron found it in the Paris Police Archives in 1964.

The above named, after having eaten his fill, spoke to us as follows:

"Messieurs, it is my habit, wherever I am, to do propaganda work. Do you know what anarchism is?"

We answered "No" to this question.

"This doesn't surprise me," he responded. "The working class, which, like you, is forced to work to earn its bread, doesn't have the time to devote to the reading of pamphlets they're given. It's the same for you.

"Anarchy is the obliteration of property. There currently exist many useless things; many occupations are useless as well, for example, accounting. With anarchy there is no more need for money, no further need for bookkeeping and the other forms of employment that derive from this. There are currently too many citizens who suffer while others swim in opulence, in abundance. This situation cannot last; we all should profit by the surplus of the rich; but even more obtain, like them, all [of] which is necessary. In current society it isn't possible to reach this goal. Nothing, not even a tax on income, could change the face of things. Nevertheless, the bulk of workers think that if we acted in this way, things would improve. It is an error to think this way. If we tax the landlord, he'll increase his rents and in this way he will arrange for those who suffer to pay the new charges imposed on them. In any event, no law can touch landlords for, being the masters of their goods, we can't prevent them from doing whatever they want with them. What, then, should be done? Wipe out property and, by doing this, wipe out those who take all. If this abolition takes place we have to also do away with money in order to prevent any idea of accumulation, which would force a return to the current regime. It is in fact money that is the cause of all discord, all hatred, all ambitions; it is, in a word, the creator of property. This metal, in truth, has nothing but an agreed-upon price, born of its rarity. If we were no longer obliged to give something in exchange for those things we need to live, gold would lose its value and no one would seek it. Nor could they enrich themselves, because nothing they would amass could serve them in obtaining a life better than that of others. There would then no longer be any need of laws, no need of masters.

"As for religions, they'd be destroyed, because their moral influence would no longer have any reason to exist. There would no longer be the absurdity of believing in a God who doesn't exist, since after death everything is finished. So we should hold fast to life. But when I say life I mean life, which does not mean slaving all day to make the bosses fat and, while dying oneself of hunger, become the authors of their well-being.

"Masters aren't necessary, these people whose idleness is maintained by our labor; everyone must make himself useful to society, by which I mean work according to his ability and his aptitude. In this way, one would be a baker, another a teacher, etc. Following this principle, work would decrease and each of us would have only an hour or two of work a day. Man, not being able to remain without some form of occupation, would find his distraction in work; there would be no lazy idlers, and if they did exist, there'd be so few of them that we could leave them in peace and, without complaint, let them profit from the work of others.

"There being no more laws, marriage would be destroyed. We would unite by inclination, and the family would be founded on the love of a father and mother for their children. For example, if a woman no longer loved the man whom she had chosen as a companion, she could separate from him and form a new association. In a word, complete freedom to live with those we love. If in the case I just cited there were children, society would raise them, that is to say, those who will love the children will take them in charge.

"With this free union, there will be no more prostitution. Secret illnesses would no longer exist, since these are only born of the abuse of the coming together of the sexes; an abuse to which women are forced to submit, since society's current conditions oblige them to take this up as a job in order to survive. Isn't money necessary in order to live, earned at whatever cost?

"With my principles, which I can't in so little time lay out in full detail, the army will no longer have any reason to exist, since there will no longer be distinct nations; private property would be destroyed, and all nations would have joined into one, which would be the Universe.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Death to Bourgeois Society by Mitchell Abidor. Copyright © 2015 PM Press. Excerpted by permission of PM Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: PM Press
• Publication date: 2016
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 1629631124
• ISBN 13: 9781629631127
• Binding: Paperback
• Number of pages: 128
• Editor: Abidor Mitchell