Sociology

Tucker in 18-86, in response to an invitation fr01l1 the editor of. the North American, Review. to .£urnish him a paper, on, Anarchism. It was accepted, 'announced, for publication, and was' paid for; but it •was never printed in that magazine, and, after numerous letters of inquiry ha.d been sent, the manuscript was returned to the author, although the .editor of the Review .•.volunteered the. dec laration thatit was the ablest article that he. had received dutinghiseditorship. It appeared.as the leading article in Hlnstead ofa Book," and, after forty years, it is still easily the. most important thing inthe.presen.t volume: PROBABLY no agitation •has ,ever .attained , the magnitude, either in the number of its recruits or the area of its influ-. ence,' which has been attained by Modern Socialism, and at; the<sametime heenso little understood and so misunderstood, not. only.by· the hostile and the.indifferent, .but by the friendly, ,an<.1.even .by the··great mass of its •adherents themselves. ,. This unfortunate and highly dangerousstateo£ things is··due partly I 2. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY to the fact that the human relationships which this move ment~if anything so chaotic can be called a movement-aims to transform, involve no special class or classes, but literally all mankind; partly to the fact that these relationships are infi nitely more varied and complex in their nature than those with which any special reform has ever been called upon to deal; and partly to the fact that the great moulding forces of society, the channels of information and enlightenment, are well-nigh exclusively under the control of those whose im mediate pecuniary interests are antagonistic to the bottom claim of Socialism that labor should be put in possession of its own.

Almost the only per~ons who may be said to comprehend even approximately the significance, principles, and purposes of Socialism are the chief leaders of the extreme wings of the Socialistic forces, and perhaps a few of the money kings them selves. It is a subject of which it has lately become quite the fashion for preacher, professor, and penny-a-liner to treat, and, for the most part, woful work they have made with it, exciting the derision and pity of those competent to judge. That those prominent in the intermediate Socialistic divisions do not fully understand what they are about is evident from the positions they occupy. If they .did; ·i£ they were consist ent, logical thinkers; if they were whatthe French call conse quent men,-their ~ea'soningf~culties would long since have driven them to one extreme or the other. For it is a curious fact that the two extremes of the vast army now under·..consideration,· though united, as has been hinted above, by the common claim that labor shall be put in possession of its own, are more diametrically opposed to each other in their fundamental principles of social action and their methods of reaching the ends aimed at than either is to their common enemy, the existing society. They are based on two principles the history of whose conflict is almost equivalent to the history of the world since man came into it; and all inter mediate parties, including that· of the upholders of the exist ing, society, are· base<J upon a compromise between them. It is clear, then, that any intelligent; deep-rooted opposition· to the prevailing order of things must come from one or the other of these extremes, for anything from any other source, far from being revolutionary in character, could be only in the INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY nature of such superficial rtlodifi~ation las would be utterly un.able to concentrate upon itself the degreeo£ attention and in.terest •now bestowed upon Mode:rn Socialism.

The two principles referred to are AuthorityartdLiperty, and the names of. the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly represent. one or the other· of .them are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism ... Whoso knows what these two schools want and how they propose to get •it unders1:~nds the Soci~listic 1novetnent. Pot':> just as ;t has been said that there is no half ..way .house between ,Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half ..way house be tween State Socialism. and Anarchism. There are, in fact, two currents steadily flowing from the centre of the Socialistic forces. which are concentrating· them on the left and on the right;and,if Socialism is to prevail, it is among the possibili ties that, after this movement of separation<has been com pletedand the existing order has. been crushed out between tlle two camps, the ultim.ate a'nd bitterer conflict will be still to come. I~ that case all the eight..hour men, all the trades unionists, .a11.the Knights of Labor, all tlae•land nationalization ists,all the greenbackers, and, in. short, all the members of the thousand and one different battalions belonging to. the great army of Labor, will have deserted their old posts, ·and, these beingarr,ayed on the one side and the other, the great battle will begin. What a final victory for· the-·State S<?ci~1ists will mean, and what a .final ... victory for· the Anarchists will mean, it is the purpose;,of this paper to briefly state.

To do this intelligently, however, I must first describe the ground common. to both, the feat\:lres that make Socialists of each.of them. The economic principles. of Modern,·Socialism area logical deduction from the principle laid·dow~ by. Adam Smith in ,the early chapters .of his «Wealth. of N ations,"-namely, that labor .is the true measure· of •price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to' showing· what actually. does measure price,· and· how, therefore~ wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political··economists have followed his example by. confining their.function to the, description of society as it is, in its in dustrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary:.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY; extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it· up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic. philosophy. This seems to have been done independently by three differ ent men, of three different nationalities, in three· different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Prou dhon Jor his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx's presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and.

the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American,-a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of de claiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descends from the Wa.rren who fell at Bunker Hill. From Smith's principle that labor is the true measure of price-or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price-:-these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.) ; that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,-interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the .-INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of itsentlre product,. or natural, wage, is to strike down monopoly.

It must not be inferred that either Warren, Proudhon, or .Marx .used exactly this phraseology, .or followed exactly this line of thought, but it indicates. definitely enough thefunda ..' inertt~l . ground takert .by ~ll' three, an.d their substantial thought up to the limit to which they went in common. And, les~ •I. may be "accusedof stating' the positions and arguments of these men incorrectly, it may ,be well to say in advance that I have viewed them brQadly, and that, for the purpose of sharp, vivid, and emphatic comparison and contrast, I have taken· considerable liberty with their thought by rearranging it in an or:der, and often in,.a.phraseology, of my own, but, I am satisfied, without, in so doing, misrepresenting them in any essential particular.' It,wasatthispoint--the necessity of striking down. monop oly--that came the parting of their ways. Here the road forked. '.' They found that. they must turn either to the.right or to the left,~£ol1oweither the path of Authority or the path .ofLiberty. ,Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other .. ··Thus were born State,Socialism and Anarchism.

First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that aU the affairs o/men should be imanaged by the. government, .regardless.of, individ'Z!alchoice. Marx, its founder, concluded .that the only way to abolish the class' monopolies was to centralize and' consolidate all in dustrial.and commercial interests, all productive and distribu tiveagencies,jnonevast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker,manufacturer" farmer, carrier, •and merchant,. and, in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from indiyidual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products. to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man ma.y own his clothes and 'his food, but not the sewing machine', which. make$ ,his.'shirts, or the spade. which diss·' his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the.formeibelongs ·to individuals, the latter to, society. Society 6 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by rev;olution if it must. Once in possessionof it, it must administer it on the majority principle, through its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the' amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workships, farms, stores, etc. The nation mUSt be trans formed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must he done on the cost principle~ the people having no motive to make a profit out of them selves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one ~an employ another, or even himself. Everyman will he a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. Hewho will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All ·industrial and commercial activity must be centred in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive' monopoly. The remedy for l1'lonopoliesis monopoly.

Such is the economi~ programme of State Socialism as adopted from Karl Marx. The history of its growth and progress cannot be told here. In this country the parties ·that uphold it are known as the Socialistic Labor Party, which pre tends tofollow Karl Marx; the Nationalists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through Edward Bellamy; and the Christian Socialists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through Jesus Christ. What other applications this principle of Authority, once adopted in the economic sphere,' will develop is. very evident. It means the absolute control by the majority of all individual conduct. The right of such control is already admitted by the State Socialists, though they maintain that, as a matter of ~act, the individual would be allowed a much larger liberty than he now enjoys. But he would only be allowed it; he could not claim it as his own. There would be ho foundation of society upon a guaranteed equality of the largest possible liberty. Such liberty as 111ight exist would exist by sufferance and could be taken away at any moment. Constitutional guar antees would be of no avail. There would be but one article in the constitution of a State Socialistic country: cCThe right of the majority is absolute."

The claim of the State Socialists, however, that this right would not be exercised in matters pertaining to the individual in the more intimate and private relations of his life is not INDIVIDU At LIBERTY borne out by the history of governments., It has ever been the 'tendency of power to add to itself, to enlarge its sphere, to en croachbeyond the limits. set for It;. and where ·the habit of resisting such encroachment is not fostered, and the individual is not taught to bejealous of his rights, individuality gradu ally disappears and the" government or State becomes the all in~all •.·.. Control naturally accompanies responsibility. Under the system of State Socialism, therefore, which holds the com.. munityresponsihle for thehealth~ wealth~ and wisdom of the individual,.it is evident that the oommunity, through its ma jority .•expression, will insist more •and ". more "on prescribing the conditions of health, wealth, and. wi:sdo~, thus ~mpairing and-nnally destroying individual independence and with it .all $enseo£ individual responsibility.

Whatever, .then, .the· State. Socialistsmaycla.im ordis.claim, th.eir system,if adopted, is doomed to end in a State religion, to the expense of which all must contribute and at the altar of which all must kneel; •a State school. of. medicine, by whose .. pra.ctitionersthesickmustinvariablybe treated; a State system of hygiene, prescribing what all must and must not. eat, drink, weu, and do; a State code Q£morals, which will not content itself with punishing· crime, but will pro¥ibitw:hat the major ity <lecideto· be vice; a State system.of irlstruction, which will do>away with alLprivate schools, academies, and colleges;a State nursery, in -which all· children must be. brought up 'in cOllunop. at •the •• public expense; and, finally, a.· State. family, with ..an attempt at stirpiculture, or scientific· breeding, in whiCh.no man and woman will be 'allowed' to have children if the. State prohibits' them and .no' man and woman can refuse to nave ~hi1dl'en if the St-ate orders them. Thus will Author ...· 1£y .achieve its acme and Monopoly be carried ,to its. highest power.

Such .is· ·the ideal•• o£ ~he logical State· Socialist, such the goal which .li~s .at 'the end of the road that .Karl· Marx tOok. Let .U.s now follow the fortunes of Warren and Proudhori, who took the ·other .road,-the road of .Liberty. This ··brings us to Ana:rchism, which maybe described as tchedCIctrinethatCfll the affairs of men should be managedby individuals or voluntary associations,·and. that the State shoull beaboltshed. When' W-arren, and Proudhon, in prosecuting' .their search 8 INDIVIDUAL LIBER TX for justice to labor, came face to face with the obstacle of class monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested upon Authority, and concluded that the thing to be done was, not to strengthen this Authority and thus make monopoly uni versal, but to utterly uproot Authori~y and give full sway to the opposite principle, Liberty, by making competition, the antithesis of monopoly, universal. They saw in competition the great leveller of prices to the labor cost of production.

In this they agreed with the political economists. The query then naturally presented itself ... why all prices do not fall. to labor cost; where there is a~y room for incomes acquired otherwise than by labor; in a. word, why the usurer, the re ceiver d£ interest, rent, and profit, exists. The answer was found in the present one,..sidednessof competition. It was discovered that capital had so manipulated legislation that un limited competition is allowed in supplying productive labor, thus keeping wages down to the starvation point, or as near it as practicable; that a great deal of competition is allowed in supplying distributive labor, or the· labor of the mercantile classes, thus keeping, not the prices of goods, but the mer chants' actual profits on them down to a point somewhat approximating equitable wages for the merchants' work; but that almost no competition at all is allowed in supplying capi tal, upon the aid of which both productive and distributive labor are dependent for their power of achievement, thus keeping the rate of interest on money and of house-rent and ground-rent at as high a point as the necessities of the people will bear.

On discovering this, Warrena~d Proudhon charged the political economists with being afraid of their own doctrine. The Manchester men were accused of being inconsistent. They believed in liberty to compete with the laborer in order to reduce his wages, but not in liberty to compete with the capitalist in order to reduce his usury. Laissez faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but very poor sauce for the gander, capital. But how to correct this inconsistency, how to serve this gander with this sauce, how to put capital at the service' of business men and labor.ers at cost, or free of usury, -that was the problem. Marx, as we have seen, solved it by declaring capital to be a different thing from product, and maintaining that it beINDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 9 long~dtosociety and should be seized by society and employed for~hebenetit of all alike••Proudhon scoffed,atthis distinction between capital ,and product. He maintained that capital and] product are not different kinds of wealth, but simply alte~nateconditionsor functions. of the same wealth ; that 'all wealth,.,undergoes ,an •incessant . transformation from capital intp, ,product and £rom product back into capital, the •process repe~tingitself interminably; that capital and product -are pUfe;lysocialterms; that what is, product to one man imIDe diat¢ly becomes capital to another, and vice versa;,that if there wer~, but one person.,in the· world, all wealth would. be,to him at,QJJJ;e,capital and product; that the Jruit of A's, toil is his product, which, when sold toB,becomes,.B's capital (unless.

B is: an ,unproductive consumer, in ',which ,case ,it is merely was~ed wealth, outside the view of ,social economy) ; that a stea~-engine is just as much product as a coat, and that a coaf.is just as much capital asa steam-engine; and that the ~a111~ •laws. of eqtlity govern .•the ,'pos$ession of the one ••• that gdv~rn.t.he"possession of the "other. F~r these and 'other reasons Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to sanction any •such plan ••as the seizure of capital by society. But, though opposed to "socializing the ow,n.ership of papital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its eff~qts ,by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means ofimpoverishil1g '. the many ,'.to .' enrich. th~ ,few. Andwhen the Jight burst in upon them, they sawithat this could be dOl1e by subjecting capital to ,the natural~aw of, competition, thus hringing the. priceo! its own use down to, cpst,--that is, to ,nothing beyond the expenses incidental to handling '. and transferring, it. ,So they, raised' the' banner of, Absolute Free ' Tra-de; free trade at home', as well as with foreign countries; th~ logical carrying Qut of the ~anc;hest,er doctrine; laissez faire the universal rule." Under, this banner they began their fight uponrnonopolies, whether the all-inclusive monopoly of the State Socialists,.or the various' class monopolies that now' preyail.

Of ,the latter they distinguished four of principal impor tance:themoney monopoly, the land mongpoly, the tariff mo nopoly, and, the patent monopoly. First in the ,importance of its evil.,influence they, considered thetnoneY,rnonopoly, which consists 01 the. privilege given by 10 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY the government to certain individuals, or to indivduals hold ing certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating me dium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent. upon all other persons who at tempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offence to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods,-the first directly, and the second and third indi rectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of one per cent.

In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from' going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which .to start and carryon business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral fora loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. dis count. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and. solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. -Thus inter est will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the un known and unavailable, but equally good, credits of the cus tomers, and a charge therefor of less than one per .cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for I the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently cre ate an unprecedented demand for labor,-a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly the contrary of the present condition of the, lahor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labo~ INDIV'lDUAL LrBE;RTY II: will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure. its natural wage,· its entire product. Thus the same bJow that strikes interest down walsendwages up. .But this is not all. Down will go profits also. FQr merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of .the b,anksat less than' one per cent., buy at low prices for ·cash> and corre~pondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers.. And with the rest will go hous~-rent.. For no one who can borrow capital at one percent. with which 1:0 build a house of. his own will consent to pay rent to a land IOfd at a higher rate, than that.. Such is the 'vast claim made qyProudhon and Warren as to ,the results '·of the simple abo lition •of the money··monopoly.

Second in importance 'comes the land .monopoly, the· evil effects of which are seen principally in exclusively agricultural countries, like Ireland. This monopoly·,consists,in the enforce ment by government of lalld titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation. It was obvious to War~ ren •• andProudhon that, as, soon •. as individualists should· no longer be protected. by their fellows in anything but personal occupancy and, cultivation of land, ground-rent would dis appear,and so usury have one lessleg to stand on. '. Their £01 ;lowers.•of to-day ,are dispose4 to modify this claim to the extent ·of admitting that >the 'very, small fraction of ground rent which rests, not. on. monopoly, but on·,superiority of soil or site,.will continue to exist for 'a· time and perhaps forever, though,tending constantly tpa minimum under conditions of freedom. But the inequality of soils which gives rise to the economic rent of land, like the inequality of human skill which gives rise to the economic rent of ability, is not a ca\!se for serious .alarm eyen. to the most thorough opponent of usury, as its nature is not that of a germ from which other' and graver inequalities may spring, but rather that of a decay ing.branch which may finally wither and fall.

Third, the tariff monopoly, which consists in fostering pr<r du,ction at high prices and under unfavorable cci;nditionsby visiting ,with the penalty of t<txation.those who patronize pro du,ctioIi .at low. prices and under favorable· conditions. The evil to which this monopoly gives·rise might more properly be' calledmisusury than usury, because it compels labqr to pay, not exactly for· the· use of, capital, but rather for the :Q1isuse 12 INDIVIDU AL LIBER TY of capital. The abolition of this monopoly would result in a great reduction in the· prices of all articles taxed, and this saving to the laborers who consume these articles would be another step toward securing to the laborer his natural wage, his entire product. Proudhon admitted, however, that to abolish this monopoly before abolishing the money monopoly would be a cruel ~ and disastrous policy, first, because the evil of scarcity of money, created by the money monopoly, would he intensified by the flow of money out of the country which would be involved in an excess of· imports over exports, and, second, because that fraction of the laborers of the country which is now employed in the protected industries would be turned adrift to face starvation without the benefit of the in satiable demand for labor which a competitive money system would create. Free trade in money at home, making money and work abundant, was insisted upon by Proudhon as a prior condition of free trade in goods with foreign countries.

Fourth, the patent monopoly, which consists in protecting inventors and authors against competition for a period long enough to enable them to extort. from the people a reward enormously in excess of the .labor measure of their services, in other words, in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years in laws and facts of Nature, and the power to exact tribute from others for the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all.. The abolition of this monopoly ~ would fill its beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of com petition which would cause them to be satisfied with pay for their services equal to that which other laborers get for theirs, and to secure it by placing their products and works on the market at the outset at prices so low that their lines of busi ness would be no more tempting to competitors than any other lines. The development of the economic programme which con sists in the destruction of these monopolies and the substitu tion for them of the freest competition led its authors toa perception of the fact that all their thought rested· upon a very fundamental principle, the freedom of the individual, his right of sovereignty over himself, his products, and his affairs, and of rebellion against the dictation of external authority.

Just as the idea of taking capital away from individuals and giving it to the government started Marx in a path which INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY I) ends in making the government everything and the individual nothing, so the idea of taking capital away from government protected monopolies and putting it within easy reach of all individuals started Warren andProudhonin a path which ends ill making •the individual everything . and the government nothing. .If the individual has a right. to .govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing. the State. This was the logical conclusion to which Warren andProudhon. were forced, .a.n.d it bec~u.ne the fundamental article of their political philosophy. It •is the doctrine which Proudhon named Anarchism, a word· derived from. •the Greek, and meaning, not necessarily absence··of order, .. as is.. generally supposed, but· absence of. rule. The Anarchists are simply. unterrified· Jeffersonian Democrats.

They believe that. cCthe best government is that which governs least,"and •that that which governs least. is no government at all.• Even the simple police function of protecting person and property they deny to governments supported by' compul sory taxation. Protection they look upon as a. thing to be se.cured, as. long ·as it is necessary, by voluntary association '3.nd·coOperationfor self-defence,. or as a commodity to be pur chased, like any other commodity? of those who offer the best article at the lowest price. In their vi.ew it is in itself an in vasionofthe individual tocompel'him to pay for or suffer a protection against invasion that he has not asked for and does nOt desire. And they··furthert;;laim· that! protection will become a. drug in themarket,after poverty and consequently , crime, have, disappeared through the realization of their. eco nomi,c programme. Compulsory taxation is. to them the life ptinciple of all the monopolies, .and .passive, but organized, resistance to the tax-collector .they contemplate, .when .the proper. time comes, as one of the most effective methods of accomplishing their purposes.

Thei~ attitude·.on this isa key. to their attitude ·on aU. other questions .. of a' political or social nature. In religion they are atheistic as far. as their own opinions are concerned, for they l09k upon divine authority and· "the. religioussanctiofl .of J1l0ralitx as the chief pretexts put forward by the privileged cl~sses •for the exercise·of human authority. . ccIf God exists,'~ said Proudhon, ,Cthe is man's' enemy." And .in Contrast to V9ltaire's .famous epigram,~clfGod did not exist, it would be 1:4 I N D I V I D U ALL I BE R T Y necessary to invent him," the great Russian Nihilist, Michael Dakounine, placed this antithetical proposition: Hlf God ex isted, it would be necessary to abolish him." But although, viewing the divine hierarchy asa contradiction of Anarchy, they do not believe in it, the Anarchists none the less firmly believe in the liberty to believe in it. Any denial of religious freedom they squarely oppose.

Upholding thus the right of every individual to be or select his own priest, they likewise uphold his right to be or select his own doctor. No monopoly in theology, no monopoly in medicine. Competition everywhere and always; spiritual advice and medical advice alike to stand or fall on their own 'merits. And not only in medicine, but in hygiene, must this principle of liberty be 'followed. The individual may decide tor himself not only what to do to get well, but what to do 1:Q keep well. No external power must dictate to him what; he must and must not eat, drink, wear, or do. N or does the Anarchistic scheme furnish any code of morals to be imposed. upon the individual HMind your own busi ness" is its only moral law. Interference with another's busi ness is a crime and the only crime, and as such may properly he resisted. In accordance with this view the Anarchists look upon attempts to arbitrarily suppress vice as in themselves crimes. They believe liberty and the resultant social well-be ing to be a .sure cure for all the vices. But they recognize the right of the drunkard, the gambler, the rake, and the harlot to live their lives until they shall freely choose to abandon them.

In the matter of the maintenance and rearing of children the Anarchists would neither institute the communistic nur sery which the State Socialists favor nor keep the communistic school system which now prevails. The nurse and the teacher, like the doctor and the preacher, must be selected voluntarily, and their services must be .paid for by those who patronize them. Parental rights must not be taken away, and parental responsibilities must not be foisted upon others. Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of 'their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as •long or as short a time as they can, will, or maY.J INDIVIDU At LIBERTY 15 To them legal marriage and legal divorce are equal absurdities. They .look forward to a· time when every.individual, whether man .• or woman, shall be self-supporting, and when. each·shall have an independent home of his or her own; whether it be a separate house or rooms inah9use with· others; when' the .love relations between these independent· individuals shall be as varied as are individual·inclinations and attractions; and when the .children born of. these relations shall belortg.. exclusively to the mothers until old enough ,to be1ongto themselves.

Such •are· the main features of the Anarchistic 'social ideal. There is wide difference of opinion among those who hold it as to, the best method of obtaining it. Time forbids' the treatment of'that phase.of the •. subject here. I will. simply caU attention to the fact th~t it is an ide:alutterly inconsistent with that of those Communists who falsely call themselves Anarchjsts while at, the same time advocating a,regime of Archislll fully as despotic as that of the State Socialists them selv~s. 'Afid, it is an ideal that can be as little advanced by the. forcible ·expropriation.recomlllended by.John Most and Prince Kropotkine as retarded by"the brooms··of those Mts. Partingtons of the bench who> sentence them to prison;. an, ideal which the. martyrs of Chicago·,did far more to. help by their '. glorious,death upon the· gallows '. for the common cause of SQchtlislllthan by their unfortunate advocacy during their lives, i~· the name of Anarchism, of force as. a revolutionary agent artdauthority as a safeguard of .the' new' social order.

The Alllarchists' believe i11 liberty both as end and ,means~ and arehostHe. to anything -that antagonizes it. I sh()uld not undertake to summar~ze this altogether too summary exposition of Socialismfrom the standpoint of Anar chism, did 1 not find the task already accomplished for mehy a brilliant French Journalist and historian, Ernest Lesigne,in the form of a series of crisp antitheses; by reading which to you. asa conclusion of this lecture I -hope to deepen the im pression which it has been my endeavor to make. ttThe~eare two Socialisms. ttone,is ~ommunistic, the other solidaritarian• .cfOne·is dictatorial, the other libertarian. :fOne! is.metaphysical, the other positive. nOrte is dogm~tic, the other scientific. «tOne is emotional, the other reflective.

16 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY UOne is destructive, the other constructive. CCBoth are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all. ceOne aims to establish happiness for 'all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way. ctThe first regards the State' as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an asso ciation like any other, generally managed worse than others. ctThe :first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign. uOne wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies. C(One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes. ctBoth declare that the existing state of things cannot last.

C(The :first considers revolution as the indispensable agent of evolution; the second teaches that repression alone turns evo lution into revolution. uThe first has faith in a cataclysm. cCThe second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts. tCBoth understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase. C(One wishes that there $hould be none but proletaires. uThe other wishes that there should be no more proletaires. uThe :first wishes to take everything from everybody. cCThesecond wishes to leave each in possession of its own. cCThe one wishes to expropriate everybody. cCThe other wishes everybody to be a proprietor. ctThe first says: cDo as the government wishes.' ccThe second says: CDo as you wish yourself.' ctThe former threatens with despotism. UThe latter promises liberty. ccThe former makes the citizen the subject of the State. ccThe latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.

ccOne proclaims that labor. pains will be necessary to the birth of the new world. C(The other' declares •that real progress will not cause su:ffer~ ing to anyone. UThe first has confidence in social war.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY UThe other believes only in the works of peace. f:COne .;tspires'to command,toregulate, to legislate. (CThe other wishes to attain the· minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation. (COne would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions'l uThe other opens.unlimited horizons to progress. (CThe first will fail; .. the other will·succeed. (tBoth desire equality. uOne by lowering heads that are' too high. (tThe other by raising heads that· are· too low. ttOne sees equality under a common yoke. ttThe other will secure equality in complete liberty. «tOne is intolerant, the other tolerant. «tOne frightens, .. theotherl'eassures. uThe first wishes to instruct everybody. uThesecond wishes to enable' everybody to instruct him..; self. UThe first wishes to support everybody. ~tThe second wishes to enable everybody to support himself. nOne says: ttThe land to the State. ttThe mine to the State.

uThe tool to the State. ctThe product· to the State. UTheother says: ttThe land to the cultivator. (tThe mine to· the miner. (tThe tool to ·the laborer. (tThe product to the producer. ttThere are only these two Socialisms. UOne is the infancy of Socialism; the other in its manhood. <tOne is already the past; .. the other is the. future. uOnewill give place ·to the oth¢r. (CTo-day each of us must choos~ for one or the other of these two SocialisJl1s,or else confess' that he is not a Socialist." POSTSCRIPT Forty •years ago, when •the foregoing essay .was writ ten, the denial of competition had not yet effected the enor mous concentration of wealth that now so gravely threatens social order. It was not yet too late to stem. the currento£ August I I, 1926. 18 INDIVIDU AL LIBERTY accumulation by a reversal of the policy of monopoly. The Anarchistic remedy was still applicable. Today the way is not so clear. The four monopolies, un hindered, have made possible the modern development of the trust, and the trust is now a monster which, I fear, even the freest banking, could it be instituted, would be unable to de stroy. As long as the Standard Oil group controlled only fifty :millions of dollars, the institution of free competition. would have crippled it hopelessly; it needed the money monopoly for its sustenance and its growth. Now that it controls, directly and indirectly, perhaps ten thousand millions, it sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no longer a necessity. It can do without it. Were all restrictions upon banking to be removed, concentrated capital could meet suc cessfully the new situation by setting aside annually for sacri fice a sum that would remove every competitor from the field.

If this be true, then monopoly, which can be controlled permanently only by economic forces, has passed for the mo ment beyond their reach, and must be grappled with for a time solely by forces political or revolutionary. Until meas ures of forcible confiscation,. through the State or in defiance of it, shall have abolished the concentrations that monopoly has created, the economic solution proposed by Anarchism and outlined in the foregoing pages-and there is no: otper solution-will remain a thing to be taught to the rising gen eration, -ehat conditions may be favorable to its application after the great levelling. But education is a slow process, and for this reason we must hope that the day of readjustment may not come too quickly. Anarchists who endeavor to hasten it by joining in the propaganda of State Socialism or revolu tion· make a sad mistake indeed. They help to so force the march of events that the people will not have time to find out, by the study of their experience, that their troubles have been due to the rejection of competition. If this Jesson shall not be learned in sea.son, the past will be repeated in the fu ture, in which case we shall have to turn for consolation to the doctrine of Nietzsche that this is bound to happen any how, or to the reflection of Renan that, from the point of view of Sirius, all these matters are of little moment.

B. R. T.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 19 The foregoing postscript was originally written in 191 I. Today Mr. Tucker sees .fit to modify it to its present form~ which makes it. unavoidably i111Ply that 'the aboli tionofall four of the great mOllopoliescould even now loosen the grip of capitalism. His statement amounts to the prediction that the inauguration offreebanking t which IndividualistAn~rchists comJ1lonly anticipate as "the first step in "the realizationottreec1oID, would not alone achieve that result.· But it should be recorded that the· editor of. this book, and those·other adherents to· the ideas set Jorth in it, who by their advice and otherwise have aided him in the. task~ ,do. not share .Mr. Tucker~s pessimism. Unlike him, they have been in intimate con tact with the industrial and .commercial life of the United States .for the past two decades and have th~re fore been able to observe that the trend of· events-is ~ot now inevitably toward .either State confiscation or revo lution .. The enormous strides .made by voluntary asso ciation, especially among those opposed.to the domination of capitalism,· point the way clearly .to the peaceful elimination of the financial·oligarchy "Wllichnow. rules thenation.~The Editor. 11-.THE INDIVIDUAL, SOCIETY, AND THE STATE THE RELATION OF THE STATE TO THE INDIVIDUAL The following is an address by Mr. Tucke'r delivered before the Unitarian Ministers' Institute, at the annual session held in Salem, Mass., October 14, 1890. On ac count of the clear and concise manner in which the sub ject is treated, it may well engage the attention of any student seeking to understand Anarchism: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:-Presumably the honor which you have done me in inviting me to address yeu to-day upon ((The Relation of the State to the Individual" is due princi pally to the fact that circumstances have combined to make me somewhat conspicuous as an exponent of the theory of Modern Anarchism,-a theory which is coming to be more and more regarded as one of the few that are tenable as a basis of political.and social life. In its name, then, I shall speak to you in discussing this question, which either under lies or closely touches almost every practical problem that confronts this generation. The future of the tariff, of taxa tion, of finance, of property, of woman, of marriage, of the family, of the suffrage, of education, of invention, of liter ature, of science, of the arts, of personal habits, of private character, of ethics, of religion, will be determined by the conclusion at which mankind shall arrive as to whether and how far the individual owes allegiance to the State.