Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1889-08-17


70 the Uorkmen's AdrOcot~
In referring to the objection Social
lstic society would have to private en-
terprisp, Mr.. Iarros, Of LjbeHH IN
reply to my letter in the WoRHMEN
ADVOCATE Of July p, remarks, among
other things, that "peopIe will laugh at
the simpleton who frankly coDfesses that
his reform won't work unless every dis
agreeable rival is suppressed,
1t is astonishing how difficult it is for
an able man like Mr.. Iarros III the |
present anarchlal state Of his mind to |
grappc with the plainest piece OF logic |
| I'm fact cannot persuade myself that
Mr. Yarros does not deliberately shut .
his eyes TO the absurdity Of his remark.
am 10th to believe that he would set
down for "A fool one who, advocating
absolutely non-competitlon, demanded
the abolition Of competition.
One might Justly turn with laughter
from liquor dealer who offered to es-
tablish the superior quality Of his bev-
erage, provided all other liquor stores
were shut down. But to laugh at any
social reformer who admitted the i'm
possibility Of demonstrating the sound
ness of his doctrine by putting 1t III OPP
Grafton alongside Of other social systems
in one and the same community IS a
pleasure none but anarchists are likely
To indulge in. Theories Of social recon-
structon are not So many kinds OF
whiskev offered to the consumer by
rival gin mills. To eXpermentaily test
the merits Of social system, 1t must
be made the pith and substance OF the
entire social organism, and allowed free
and unrestrained play. Why, even our
ouack physicians Will tell you that
their prescriptions won't work un-
less the patient ceases taking other
medicine.
Now if the idea Of social systems COM
peting for the prize of recognition is III
itself preposterous, then it would really
v take the most hopeless simpletOn an
archism is capable of producing to con-
ceive rivalry within soCialistC society
AS philosophy, as theory Of reform
offered TO camtalstic humanity. Social
IS ism has competed with all other socla
>, systems, and Mr. Narros knows that il
y" very city of Boston, where many year.
" of LibntTS effort have net increased by
A. one man the handful, of anarchists.
20 Whether it is silly to accuse Cumpe
titiun Of causing wrong, lisa question
! which has nothing to do with the sub
n leCt under consideration. For the an
ID sWer to this al(impOrtant question
J., take the occasion, however, to refer MI
w. IArrus to the first truly soClahstlc pub
III location he comes across Let Mr
IL Narros, first OF all, clear away the to
II. of mental anarchy which has bee
-, weighing upon MS naturally sound an
- capable mind for the last few years. Che
~. let him bestow another perusal upol
NV the works of the very Marx, Enget
NV Lu>sac kirkup, lIyndman and Gror
~, Iund, with whom, in his contrlhutO
", to the IreHtiH CCRt'UN he tine
~, fault for nattentlon to the doctrine {
~, ideally free competition, and he Wi
-, awake to the responsibility OF compel
~ ton per Sc for the evils which We a
~ seek to remove.
~, Whether the view taken by SocialiS
~. be correct or erroneous, ConstruCti>
' ~ Socialism, being the upshot of this vie,
I'o Is obviously the antlthesls of comp
W titiun by competing with other sy
Wy TENS the Socialist form Of life w0u
,r' therefore not be what It's name imphe
~ To make short of it, competing SOci;
~, ~ ism is no more compatible with log
''' than dry water or chaotic order. T.
90 ~, only place where the connection
sal such contradictory terms seems acce
ma table il, perhaps, the office of n
tN fuckers Llbertg which simultaneous