Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1889-03-09
A co M P R IS0N
ANARCHICAL CONFUSION AND
SOCIALIST LOGIC.
Either Personal DespOtism or Law.
Socialists Prefer Law-AuthOr.
ity Necessary to Uphold
Natural Rights-La.
boris Ally.

OOHle years ago LlOse TdulCal peO-
pie now known as anarchists were
members of socialistic societies. They
withdrew, claiming superior and
more advanced doctrines. Their
attempt to retain the title socialist"
is no credit to them, but is a con-
fession of the failure of their seces-
sion, and evinces desire to preserve
their identity with the original
school. Their attitude confuses
the public mind in regard to both
socialistic and anarchistic doctrines.
Distinct and frequent statement
Of this difference of doctrine should
eventually silence those who, from
ignorance or malice, confuse the two
schools.
Anarchists would abolish both
law and personal rulers-an impos-
sibility. "Anarchy" signifies alb
sence of personal despots or mon
archs, but not absence of law,
strictly speaking, nor government of
law. In this exact meaning a de-
mocracy is an anarchy.
There should be little doubt as to
meanings. The Greek words from
which the word "anarchy' is de-
rived have no more literal value in
English than the Latin words COM
bined in the word "sincore. " To
make peculiar use of words leads to
misunderstanding, and we have no
desire to introduce q phiIology; nor
is it profitable. In speaking Eng
lish, the word anarchy" means
without rule, disorder, and has so
been used by English writers of note
for hundreds of years. -ED.
Nor do anarchists actually be-
lieve the negation Of law Il pos
sibility. They believe natural law
will spontaneously assert itself
in the absence of statute laws,
which hypothesis is absolutely with
out verifcation. But they them
selves are divided, one party decid-
ing that natural law will establish
individual ownership of all wealth,
public and private; the other, that
natural law will destroy al. owner
ship. The anarchist who ado0cates
either is heretical, for he must de-
termine scientifically, if possible,
what natural law will actually pro-
duce after the State is abolished and
abide by it. When it is declared
that each of these two opposites, ex-
treme individualism and commun.
ism, will be the natural product,
how can anarchists expect converts?
Anarchists condemn the "wor-
ship of law as such," and favor vio-
lations of bad laws instead of repeal
ing tt I'm. They refuse to wait for
the majority to become converted.
Whether it be wise to violate a bad
law and thereby become martyr IS
a matter for personal choice, but is
surely not good basis for a doc
trlne to be propagated. A man 60
ing about advising others to be mar
tyrs is not typical hero. Under
the law of equal freedom, people, ig-
norant or learned, may worship
whatever they please, be it an i'm
age, planet, law, or nothing. To
break a worshiper's image will not
convert him.
If a law concerned only those who
worship it, to repeal it would be
wrong; but when greater number
are governed by it against their will,
their right becomes the greater, and
should prevail. The bad law cannot
be both repealed and retained: hence
majority rule becomes unavoidable,
unless the test of arms be prefer
able. 1t follows that the socialist
respects the weightIer right of the
majority, while the anarchist does
not; the socialists are entitled to
the same respect when they are the
majority, but this the anarchists
need not expect.