The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-10-30
LECTURE ON "ISMS'
Mr.. RappapOrt's Talk Before the
Progress Club Yesterday.
His Ideas Upon Socialism, Individual
ism and Anarchism-He ADJ
mires Marx.

Mr.. Rappaport said that in economies, as
well as in every other science, there are
so-called schools founded upon certain fun
damental theories, and every one who has
any views in political economy at all must
either be Socialist, an individualist or an
Anarchist. Socialists believe that the So
ment must correspond to the collective will,
must consider human society as an aggre-
gate whole, as a body. the units of which
are individuals; individualsm sees in So
ciety nothing but a heterogeneous mass of
individuals; according to it the laws or the
government must allow free play to every
individual. which they call free competi-
ton. and anarchism is either communism
or individualism without any laws or gov
eminent at ALL
In speaking of anarchism he said: az do
not mean the blood-and-plunder anarchism
The use of bombs and dynamite is not a
principle, but method, and / do not in
tend 10 deal with methods. Yet L wish to
say mat oppose anarchiSm which has a
netho1 as we'll as the one which has no
netnon. The attempt to make a reVolu-
tlon Is futile and foolish, and the of vio-
lence by individuals against individuals is
balanced mind. In speaking of anarchism
mean that the philosophy or theory which
rejects all kinds of government and be-
!feVes men will get along better, and will
be better without it, a philosophy which
has more advocates in America than in
any other country"
lectivity and governed by the collective
VIII of the individuals. He quoted fire.
quently from Buckles History OF Civiiza-
ton In England, insisting upon that the
regularity in the actions of men ever where
they seem entirely dependent on individual
wills shows that human actions depend
not on the peculiaritieS of each individual,
but on the general state of society. Then,
he said, If 1T is true that there is no abso-
lutte free individual will, if the individual
Will is the result Of conditions then COM
plete individualism exists only in the i'm
agination of it's advocates.
The Socialists recognize the social or col
lectfve Will; they know that man cannot
by the agency Of his free will create new
conditions, but that on the contrary social
conditions give direction to the mind Here
IS the great difference between Socialists
on the one hand and individualists and
Anarchists upon the other The latter ere
ate new conditions in their mind and then
the Socialists study the conditions as they
are, the drift and tendency of their evo-
lutlonary progress and then show where at
the end this must lead to.
Socialism, he said, follows the his
toric or inductive method of reasoning.
while anarchism and individualism follow
the dedpctlve or metaphysical method. And
the deductive method. says Buckle, has
always been barren of any results The
metnO1, ne continued, starts
from a So-called priori truth and inves-
tigates the facts upon the basis of it, while
the inductive method first investigates the
facts and tries to find the law from the
study of the facts. Adam Smith, Proud
hon, Elise Reclus, John Henry Mackay,
Max Simmer, all of them except the
first Anarchists. used the deductive meth
cd of reasoning, based their Investigations
upon an idea not necessary of proof, name
ly, that selfishnesS of man is the motive
power of his actions, never stopping for
mn ont 10 fnlx hot aff oil lffcl-
ness may not be the cause, but the result,
Of social conditions"
He showed that Henry George is entirely
deductive, depicted his fallacies. and called
. his ignorance lamentable. He then showed
that che great Socialists Karl Marx, En-
gels and Lassalle followed the inductive
method; that there is consequently a gen.
eral unanimity among Socialists in princi-
pie, while the Anarchists and individual
lists diverge in many directions.
Mr.. Rappaport gave number of quota
tons from prominent Anarchists-Prince
Krapotkin, Prof. Elise Reclus, John Henry
Mackay,, Benjamin Tucker and others
criticised their no-government idea, showed
mat their high-sounding phrases are really. really
we, in our Progress Club, find ourselves un-
able to carry on these meetings without
government, without a tyrant who handles
the gavel."
To illustrate further the difference be-
tween the inductive and the deductive
method, and to show the dangers hidden in
the latter as he said. he cited the Declara-
ton of Independence, which, he said, is i'm
I fact nothing but a piece of deductive phi
losophy. 1t says: 1--WE hold these truths
equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights;
among these are life liberty and the pur-
suit of happiness
Now, the fact is" said Mr. Rappaport.
that all men are not created equal and
alienable rights, but that equality liberty
and civil rights are social requirements for
which nations not unfrequently had hard
EGpht cr7D ctr
acquired them. The views expressed in the
declaration OF Independence are the basis
81 81 lndlvlduallsm; all our laws and institu-
tons are based upon individualism; all the
evils resulting from them are the evils of
individualism, and yet there are advocates
OF better conditions basing their PROPOSE
tons upon that very. indiVidualisfic basis
What they desire to be free actually is free
and the evils result from what they call
believe that laws create economic condi-
ions, While, on the contrary, economic con-
dltions create laws. Laws are made only
to preserve economic conditions existing,
and they are made. of course, by those to
whom these conditions are favorable.
1t is the easiest thing in the world" he
said, Ito explain the no-gOvernment the
DRY in words, but the words will not convey
an. idea. 1t is impossible to comprehend
they do comprehend it deceive themselves
we do not live to work, but work to live.
The principal object of life is not work,
but the enjoyment of life The necessities
OF life should be gained with the least pos
sible effort Reforms must be directed
toward the utmost freedom, not to work
but to enjoy life. social organization is
SO much better as it makes the use Of less
time for work and more time for the en-
{ joyment of life possible. OF course. rea-
sonable amount of work is even necessary
for the enjoyment of life, but the work
must be congenial to the individual and
adapted to his physical conditions.
1.-The liberty which men need is not the
liberty to toll, the liberty to rob each other
. OF the products of their labor to act as
If men were only living for the purpose of
gaining the means of living and something
mere, but the liberty of enjoying life. This
alone IS true liberty. The productive power
OF mankind is so great that under proper
arrangements there is more than enough for
everybody. Social arrangements which IA
cilitate production and give more time.
more opportunity, more liberty for the en-
joyment of life are a blessing The more
production and distribution are made the
business OF society, the greater will be the
Individual freedom to enjoy life. The sub
mission to the social ARRANGEMENTS for pro-
duction and distribution would be a thou
sandfold made up by the individual liberty
to enjoy life. Such blessed state of So
ciety, such true freedom is only possible
under socialism,
After the reading Of the paper the MEM
bers of the club discussed the questions i'm
manifested in this discussion, and there
were number of persons who took eXcep-
lions To the views expressed by Mr.. Kappa
port. The disciples Of Henry George were
especially antagonistic TO the doctrines of
the paper. Some of them thought there was
system, and feared that our civilization
would go the way of the former ones if
there was not a change. Mr.. RaDpaport
replied in five-minute talk, in which he