Idéal bourgeois ou idéal capitaliste.
IDEALISME (et matérialisme)
IDEE GENERALE de la Révolution au XIXème siècle
Historique du mouvement Idiste.
Chez les Anarchistes.
ILLÉGALISME (Le vol)
ILLÉGALISME (Son aspect, sa pratique et ses aboutissants.)
IMPULSIVE adj. Giving or producing impetus (for example: the impulsive force of gunpowder.) Acting without reflection, yielding to the impressions of the moment. In general, we call impulsive those who are quick-tempered, who get worked up over trifles, who see red as soon as something impedes them, who, in discussion, will use violence in place of arguments. The opposite of the impulsive being is the level-headed being, the one who knows how, in every circumstance, to maintain their composure.
In the social domain, the anarchist are impulsive, in the sense that they give impetus to the revolutionary movement; in the moral domain, they must be level-headed, for they must always maintain their composure with the single aim of only carrying out, as much as they can, conscious and reasonable acts.
IMPUNITY n. f. Absence of punishment. A fact to not in our Society, which is codified in every way, is that while the revolutionaries are pitilessly tracked by all the governments, the stock-jobbers, the shady dealers, the hucksters, the traders in adulterated goods, the corrupt ministers, the negligent senior officials enjoy an almost complete impunity. The ministers and generals who each day send men to their deaths are also protected by impunity.
We often use this word in the sense of immunity. (See the words immunity, punishment, repression).
IMPUTATION n. (from the Latin imputare, to account for)
Indictment, well-founded or not. Attribution of blameworthy acts. Quite often the imputation is only a calumny (see that word). How many people, through envy, resentment or hatred, have sent their fellows to prison, even to the penal colony, through imputations entirely animated by the aim of vengeance or harmfulness. How many persons are still commonly given to imputations against those who surround them, sometimes bringing about tragic outcomes…
We must take care not to make an imputation lightly. We must hold in suspicion the imputations that are not accompanied by obvious, irrefutable proofs, to only engage with them wisely and subject to doubt, and apart from all preconceived hostility. Common sense and critical examination are the first obstacles to be raised against reckless or malicious imputations. Only demonstration, the light of truth and a firm will to defend will reduce to impotence the often poisoned weapon of ignorant, obsessive, or malicious imputation.
INCONSISTENCY n. Lack of stability, of solidity. In gastronomy, the inconsistency of a dish, that of an opinion in sociology or in politics. In physics, absence of bonding of the molecules. The inconsistency of a good or of a business are factors of fragility or of powerlessness. A work lacking in depth, with an equivocal plan, [and] a weak character, insufficiently tempered, are called inconsistent. Also, a lack of development, of coordination in the ideas, marked by weakness and incapacity, and considered apart from all deceit or intentional laxity: the inconsistency, for example, of a party, of a government, of a reigning personality. Charles VII, Louis XVI and Nicholas II have been inconsistent royal types. We can have no hope for an informed, firm, coherent activity from inconsistent individuals and with them we waste our efforts at propaganda. Inconsistency holds them or draws them back into mass and they can at best make up the vacillating element and unpredictable auxiliary of the parties. At their critical point, however, revolutions have had the balance of their success determined by these amorphous forces. And no sociology can be uninterested in the inconsistent or neglect the sudden, weighty surges and reactions of its fitful tides.
INDEFINITE adj., occasionally subs. (from the Latin indefinitus) That which is not delimited, either in an absolute sense or with regard to our knowledge. Humanity appears to us capable of an indefinite development, but this progress is not necessarily conditioned par by the divine infinite. In philosophy, the indefinite designates the undetermined, not the infinite. “It is opposed to the definite, as infinite is to finite. It means that which does not have limits that our mind perceives, but which may have them in reality. The idea of the indefinite expresses a possible experience, that of the infinite conveys an idea posited a priori.” (Larousse). An idea that lacks definition is called indefinite. In logic, the term indefinite designates the proposition that is suited to the general, not to the particular. In grammar, it expresses a vague a vague idea that we do not apply to a precise object or a specific time: article article, adjective, noun, sense, subject, past. The infinitive, the participle, modes without persons, are indefinite modes. In chemistry, the indefinite combinations are those that are made in all proportions.
INDIVIDUALISME (Anarchisme altruiste)
INDIVIDUALISME (Anarchisme individualiste)
INDIVIDUALISME (ou Communisme ?) (FR/EN)
INDIVIDUALISM (or Communism?)
I have been struck for a long time by the contrast existing between the of the aims of anarchism and well-being for all — and the narrowness of the economic programs of individualist and communist anarchism.
I am strongly inclined to believe that the weakness of the economic basis — exclusively communist or individualist (the terms communism or individualism applying, throughout this article, to the anarchist partisans of one or the other; it is in not a question of the communism of the 3rd Internationale), according to the school — a weakness of which they are conscious — prevents men from having practical confidence in anarchism, the general aspirations of which appear to such a great number as a magnificant ideal. As far as I am concerned, I am certain that if one of the other became the sole economic form of a society, neither communism nor individualism would achieve liberty, for, in order to manifest itself, liberty demands a choice of means, a plurality of possibilities.
I am not unaware that the communists, when one insists, affirm that they will present no obstacles to those individualists desiring to live in their own way, without creating new authority or new monopolies. And vice versa. But that affirmation is never made without hesitation and in a friendly manner — the two schools being too well persuaded that liberty is only possible on the condition that their own plan is realized.
I admit willingly that there are communists and individualists for whom their respective doctrines, and those doctrines alone, provide an absolute satisfaction and a solution to all the problems (or so they say); those individuals will not, naturally, allow their fidelity to a single economic ideal be shaken. They only consider others produced on their own pattern, and ready to rally to their views, or as irreconcilable adversaries, unworthy of any sympathy! So let them cast a glance at real life, which is bearable only because it is varied and differentiated, despite all official uniformity.
We all recognize the survivals of primitive communism in the various aspects of present-day solidarity, a solidarity from which it is possible that new forms of future Communism may emerge and evolve, even under the claws of the dominant capitalist Individualism. But this miserable bourgeois Individualism also creates the desire for a true, disinterested individualism, where the liberty of action serve to crush the weak or favor the creation of monopolies.
Neither communism nor individualism will disappear. If, through some action of the masses, the foundations of some rough communism were established, individualism would assert itself even more in order to oppose it. Each time that a uniform system prevailed, the anarchists, if they took their ideas to heart, would take their place at its margins. They will never resign themselves to to the role of fossilized partisans of any regime, be it that of the purest communism. But will the anarchists be always dissatisfied, always in a state of struggle, never at peace? They might move comfortably through a milieu in which all the economic possibilities found full opportunities to develop. Their energy could be applied to a peaceful emulation and no longer to continuous combat and demolition. This desirable state of things could be prepared for now, if it were honestly admitted among anarchists that both communism and Individualism are equally important and permanent, and that the exclusive predominance of either of them would be the greatest misfortune that could befall humanity.
We seek a refuge from isolation in solidarity. We seek relief from too much society in isolation: both solidarity and isolation are for us, at the appropriate moments, liberating and invigorating. All human life vibrates between these two poles in an endless variety of oscillations.
Permit me to imagine myself living in a free society. I would certainly have diverse occupations, manual or intellectual, demanding strength or skill. It would be very monotonous if the three or four group with which I freely associated were organized in the same manner. I think that that communism would manifest itself there in various forms. Could it not happen that I would grow tired of them and that I would feel the desire for relative isolation — for individualism? I would turn then to one of the numerous forms of individualism by “equal exchange.” Perhaps we would be associated with one form in youth and some other in middle age. The average producers could continue to work in their groups; the more skillful producers could lose patience and no longer wish to work in the company of the beginners — unless a very altruistic temperament made them find pleasure in working as teachers or advisors of the younger workers. For my part, I assume that, to begin, I would practice communism with my friends and individualism with the others, and that I would adjust my later life according to my experiences.
The ability to pass easily and freely from one variety of communism to another, then to whatever variety of individualism — this would be the essential trait, the characteristic of a really free society. And if a group of men attempted to oppose it, tried to make a particular system prevail, they would be fought as bitterly as the present regime is by the revolutionaries.
Why, in this case, should we divide anarchisme into two hostile camps: communists and individualists? I blame the element of human imperfection, inherent in human nature. It is absolutely natural that communism is more pleasing to some and that individualism is more pleasing to others. Starting from this point, each camp has developed its economic hypothesis with great enthusiasm and a dogged conviction; then, stimulated by the opposition of the other camp, it comes to consider its hypothesis as the only solution unique and remains firmly attached to it in the face of all objections. So it happens that the individualist theories, after a century, and the communist or collectivist theories, after roughly half a century, have assumed a fixity, a certainty, an apparent permanence that they should never have attained, for stagnation — and that is the word — is the tomb of progress. There has hardly been any effort to reconcile the differences between the schools. So the two tendencies have had complete latitude to grow and embellish themselves, to become widespread!
And what has been the result of all that? Neither of the two tendencies has been able to defeat the other. Wherever communists meet, individualists emerge from their milieu; and, so far, no individualist wave has succeeded in submerging the communist fortress. While the aversion or hostility reigns between beings so close to one another intellectually, we see anarchist communism step aside for syndicalism, no longer fearing to compromise itself more or less, accepting the syndicalist solution as an almost inevitable intermediary stage. On the other hand, we see the individualists fall back, or nearly so, into the misguided ways of the bourgeoisie.
And this as the misdeeds of authority and the increasing encroachments of the state have never provided a more propitious opportunity and wider sphere of action for a propaganda that is thoroughly anarchist and free of any alloy.
I do not claim to combat — and let this be clearly understood — either communism or individualism. For my part, I see much good in communism, but it is the idea of seeing it generalized that makes me protest. It does not make sense for me to bind my future in advance, let alone the future of another. The question, as it concerns me, personally, remains to be resolved; experience will show which of the extreme resolutions and which of the intermediary resolutions, which are so numerous, will be best adapted to each circumstance and each moment. Anarchism is too dear to me to wish to see it depend on one economic hypothesis, however plausible it may be presently. Single formulas will never satisfy us, and if everyone is free to possess and propagate those to which they are partial, it is on the condition that he understands that he can spread them only as a simple hypothesis. Now, everyone knows that the anarchist-communist and anarchist-individualist literatures are far from keeping within these limits. We are all at fault in this respect. My desire is to see those who revolt against the actions of authority work on a general plan of entente instead of splitting up into little schools of thought, as a result of the pretensions of each school to possess an sure, exact economic solution to the social problem.
In order to combat the authority that dominates in the present capitalist systems or that will dominate tomorrow in a socialist regime — whatever its tendency — or syndicalist regime, an immense movement, truly anarchist in sentiments, is absolutely indispensable, and that well before the question of economic remedies arises. So let us recognize it and the creation of a vast sphere of solidarity will ensure. Communism will benefit from it and its brilliance will be entirely different from that with which it shines present before the world, lending its brightness to the rays of activity of the syndicalist masses, while its own lights, like that of a star that goes out, flickers and gradually fades.
ENMITY n. (From the Latin in, non; amicitia, amity) Feeling of malice, of hatred, antipathy, aversion, rancor. Great, ancient, old, profound, deep-rooted, irreconcilable, vindictive or hereditary enmity. “Enmities are very dangerous among a free people.” (Montesquieu).
Enmity is opposed to rancor, in the sense that enmity ordinarily expresses a hostility that has been declared, and rancor concealed ill will. Enmity does not exclude dignity, nobility; rancor incorporates weakness, cowardice, meanness.
INITIATION n. (from Latin initiatio) Act of initiating or of being initiated. Ceremony by which one was initiation into knowledge of and participation in certain mysteries in ancient religions and secret societies. By extension, introduction, first knowledge: artistic initiation, literary initiation.
In antiquity the initiation was the ceremony by which a candidate was admitted into the mysteries of some cult, which gave them the right to witness and participate in the honors rendered to the divinity that was the object of worship. All the religions have had their mysteries and, consequently, their initiates. It is through initiation that the ancient clergy was recruited, and the more mysterious the esoteric meaning of a cult was, the longer and more difficult were the trials judged necessary in order to be initiated. Secrecy was always imposed on the initiates. There were several degrees in the initiation, by which one arrived at the contemplation of the holy mysteries. Christianity has also had its initiatives. In the Middle Ages, the adepts of magic were recruited through initiation, which was for them a security measure.
The associations created with a mystical aim are not the only one that have practiced initiation. It has also be practiced by the schools of philosophy, as well as societies having a political or social goal: freemasonry, for example.
INJUSTICE n. from the Latin injustitia. Lack of justice, of equity. To abhor injustice. Also said of an act of injustice: they have done a great injustice.
“There are no small reforms, no small economies, no small injustices.” (Proudbon)
“To see injustice and remain silent, is to commit the injustice ourselves.” (J.-J. Rousseau)
“An injustice done to one alone is a threat made to all.” (Boiste)
“All the injustices have been rendered into law.” (Lanjuin)
ANT.: Justice. Equity. (See these words).
1° Point de vue matériel.
2° Point de vue intellectuel.
INVERSION SEXUELLE (Homosexualité, Uranisme)
IRREGULIER (l’) (et l’Anarchiste)