The Labor enquirer., 1885-01-31
Differences.

|
rants the charge. >
1. l cannot concede the word Socialism
to Anarchists. Socialism implies tn,
science of society, but destruction is no
ascience. Socialists have faith in growth
while Anarchists, according to "Cato,
desire a general destruction, followed by
"a rejuvenated world" that is, worle
going back to youth for a start, O
course with the inexperience of youth.
Anarchists love analogies, but they
produce none that fits the case. They
can find nothing in nature to show thai
destruction is necessary to progress
Nature may build the new upon the de.
cay Of the old, but not on destruction.
A man dying Of old age, is an instance
of decay, but it startles no one, while
death by violence gives an unnecessary
shock.
We believe the old system will be
overthrown by force, and we have the
history of the world to prove no great
change was ever brought about in any
other way" says Cato.
A great change" ia not necessarily a
change for the better. All the aggressive
force that has ever been applied was
simply an attempt to transfer privilege
from one party or nation to another. II
history proves anything it is that with
all the wars, blood and murder, people
still starve. Victims of injustice are as
much oppressed as they ever were, for
in any past age they could do no more
than suffer and die. Our much ap-
plauded revolt from England was merely
protest, BY Shareholders here against
sending wealth created BY their slaves
over to other slave drivers in England.
L is not enough to prove that force and
blood will bring change; it must be
shown that they will bring improve
ment. Murder is but revenge and re-
venge can never be reform.
Cato remarks: 1--WE cannot prevent the
agony of a new birth the throes of the
Revolution"
No analogy exists between birth and
the improvement of society. AS well
might We say of a drunkard that to re-
form, he must again become an infant
If to destroy part of society will reform
it, then to destroy the drunkard's abused
stomach will reform him.
Society may be compared to a sick
man. The old theory that bleeding will
cure disease is probably the basis of the
Anarchists idea that bleeding will cure
society.
l admire the zeal of the Anarchist but
he reverses every.truth. He wants mat
ural selection and natural law" yet be-
gins by violating natural law. Man is
the unit of society. Natural law says he
must have head, body, limbs and or
gans in proper relation. Cato would dis
integrate these parts with dynamite de-
stroy the units that the whole may be
perfect. He would abolish evil by force
and thinks good system will grow up of
itself and therefore offers no plan for
reconstruction. Against this is the doc
trine that if we establish the new svs-
TEN the evil will decay. Plenty of facts
support the latter theory. Elias Howe
did not demand that all sewing by hand
should be stopped so that his sewing
machine could succeed. Stage coaches
did not have to be destroyed 50 that the
railroad could be used. Prof Morse did
not ask that the mails be abolished to
make his telegraph a success. Improve
,mept in the healing art was not affected
by killing doctors of the old school, nor
can a new system of diet be- established
by killing the ld-fashioned cooks. Do
you like analogies, you destructionists
Answer this: If a few improvements
have been made without blood, how do
YOU know a complete reform requires 1t :?
What particular features of the new So
cety can be established only by murder :?
Prove a scientific connection between
murder and reform.
do not say Anarchists desire blood
shed for itself, nor that force should
never he used in an emergency, such as
an invasion. But to admit the Justice of
using force in derEnse, IS far from saying
it can be used asa means of social -ad
vancpment. The method would bear no
relation to the object sought To defend
what we have is not progress.
Troops sent to Hooking Valley would
act on the defensive. They would de-
fend what has always been considered
a just system of working the mines. AS
the matter stands the strikers are the in
vaders. Would it remedy the evil to
blow up soldiers who are just as willing
to defend the equal right of all to the
coal should that be made the law? |
cannot persuade myself that it would
; Take your destruction behind the tools
of the law and destroy the law itself
You can do that bv a majority sooner
than yo can muster a decisive fighting
force. The miners donot vet know for
what they should fight, and they cannot
learn by hurting some one. If their &c
cents per ton is their sole object they
had better drop the whole matter. Nc
object, short of the. ownership of the
mines by the miners or the state, is worth