Workmen's advocate., 1888-05-26
A SOPHlST FlOORED.
Xeno Etlectually ENtinuishcS Ego
 Tucker, of Boston.

harp on what ne calls State S0Clal- ism, l would not annoy him further with riddles. am not surprised at receiving no explanations, surmlsjng that Mir. Tucker notices only editors his humble pupils, and those he deems (and so denominates) fools. But it is a mistake for him to think that any, not on the above lisl would feel eIated by his attention. Mir. Fuckers silence affords the most hilarious enjoyment.
 What answer but silence would serve when, for instance, a compari- son like the following is made:
 'Proudhon and We must apply Warren found on large scale the unable principle of collec- to sanction any tive production, such plan as the give the State emi- seizure of capital nent domain over by society. "-Nr. all capital - M, Tucker houdItoH.
 To notice these things would shat ter cherished convictions regarding Proudhon, and necessltate cha nge in a paragraph of the essay entitled "Stato Socialism and Anarchism: l: How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ" " Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other," should read: " Warren went one way; Proudhon and Marx the other" :"
 Again: "Marx concluded that the nation must be trans formed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official" :"
 Why, so did Proudhon, as is shown by continuing my first quota tion: "And transform every trade and profession into public funo- tion."
 On the whole it is humiliating; but if any explanation is possible l willingly consider myself a pupil.
 To prove that Mir. Fuckers State Socialism is nothing but d terrible dream which he criticizes on waking with a piercing shriek, it is only necessary to quote his definition;
 "State Socialism, which may be de scrbed as the doctrine that dH the 0GuirS Qf mem should be managed by the corern- meut, regcudleSs of incliuiduM choice,"
 l doubt that Marx taught such q doctrine. But State Socialists, like Mir. Tucker, may admire a man without swallowing him whole. At any rate there exists no State Social istic platform that can be so con strued, and who has right to go outside of the platform? Are State Socialists not allowed to discard follles, if they ever held them? The quotations from Pr0udhon selected by me are his conclusions, not "a passage or two.
 The extremest despotism charged to State Socialists has heretofore been monopolistic control of indus tries, and men expert in figures have calculated that very short hours of labor will suffice, the calculations ranging from one hour and forty minutes to four hours daily. No one has yet charged that the slavery will extend over the remaining twenty or twcnty-two hours. Now we learn that all will be perpetual slaves-the minority to the majority, and the majority slaves to themselves.
 Ut means the absolute control by the majority of all individual conduct. The right of such control is already admitted by the State Socialists"
 No State Socialist ever thought of admitting such thing. It is a very silly falsehood. State Socialism is in harmony with the existing ten dency of the State to assume S0ciai fnnctj0as 0Hiy, which now furnish a field for private greed, but no plat form ever proposed any infrluge- ment of true individuallsm.
 There would be no rights; only priv ileges.'
 Another statement regardless of facts. State Socialism is based upon natural rights and personal liberty. If the platform does not forbid men to till free soil, nor say that a man "must work or starve," we have no right to infer those absurdities. Let us read plank or two:
 "These conditions, which under the present industrial system cannot but be