Let me explain first why I am not satisfied with the word commonly used, which I have often used myself; and which, in some contexts, is quite the right word to use.  I mean the word “rebel.”  Passing over the fact that many who understand the justice of our cause (as a great many at the Universities) would still use the word “rebel” in its old and strict sense as meaning only a disturber of just rule.  I pass to a much more practical point.  The word “rebel” understates our cause.  It is much too mild; it lets our enemies off much too easily.  There is a tradition in all western life and letters of Prometheus defying the stars, of man at war with the Universe, and dreaming what nature had never dared to dream.  All this is valuable in its place and proportion.  But it has nothing whatever to do with our ease; or rather it very much weakens it.  The plutocrats will be only too pleased if we profess to preach a new morality; for they know jolly well that they have broken the old one.  They will be only too pleased to be able to say that we, by our own confession, are merely restless and negative; that we are only what we call rebels and they call cranks.  But it is not true; and we must not concede it to them for a moment.  The model millionaire is more of a crank than the Socialists; just as Nero was more of a crank than the Christians.  And avarice has gone mad in the governing class to-day, just as lust went mad in the circle of Nero.  By all the working and orthodox standards of sanity, capitalism is insane.  I should not say to Mr. Rockefeller “I am a rebel.”  I should say “I am a respectable man:  and you are not.”

Our Lawless Enemies

But the vital point is that the confession of mere rebellion softens the startling lawlessness of our enemies.  Suppose a publisher’s clerk politely asked his employer for a rise in his salary; and, on being refused, said he must leave the employment?  Suppose the employer knocked him down with a ruler, tied him up as a brown paper parcel, addressed him (in a fine business hand) to the Governor of Rio Janeiro and then asked the policeman to promise never to arrest him for what he had done?  That is a precise copy, in every legal and moral principle, of the “deportation of the strikers.”  They were assaulted and kidnapped for not accepting a contract, and for nothing else; and the act was so avowedly criminal that the law had to be altered afterwards to cover the crime.  Now suppose some postal official, between here and Rio Janeiro, had noticed a faint kicking inside the brown paper parcel, and had attempted to ascertain the cause.  And suppose the clerk could only explain, in a muffled voice through the brown paper, that he was by constitution and temperament a Rebel.  Don’t you see that he would be rather understating his case?  Don’t you see he would be bearing his injuries much too meekly?  They might take him out of the parcel; but they would very possibly put him into a mad-house instead.  Symbolically speaking, that is what they would like to do with us.  Symbolically speaking, the dirty misers who rule us will put us in a mad-house—­unless we can put them there.