The record-union., 1894-11-08

antees the very freedom the anarchical
writers abuse and misuse.
Of course this is, as he suggests, a very
difficult thing to do; sit may be labor
OF Sisyphus," but society ought to be
equal to its own protection. If we can
restrain licentiousness in print, prohibit
lewd, criminal and infiamatory writings
and delivery; if we can hold by the
throat eorrupting assailants of our home;
If we can and rightfully esteem as crimi-
nal, conspiracies to undo the law and in
wade human rights. or to lead estray our
youth and teach them criminal arts, why
may we not lay the hand of restraint
upon those who, under the liberty of
modern society, preach, advise and con-
spire to overthrow that society and wreck
that liberty?
There is extreme danger in nominating
political crime; there is none in defining
social crime. AS rule, we would give
the anarchist rein to preach and print his
wild-eyed theories; society can afford to
refute them by permitting their advance
ment. But when it comes to attempts to
incite people to criminal action under the
plea of realizing upon those theories,
society must interfere or cease to be re-
spected.
In all this watchfulness and interposi-
ton. however, we should keep in mind
Ferrero's warning:
But first and foremost must stand the
warning to Parliaments and Governments TO
ehueaVor 10 let themselves be guided in this
matter more by reason than by passion so
easily excited through crimes that assume
such an unusual and grave form. The more
reason prevails over passion in the admins
tratlon OF human society, the nearer will
society approximate 10 state ofgeneral we'll
being anu security.
There are anarchical societies in San
Francisco. Sacramento, Los Angeles and
other centers of population on this coast.
as well as at the East They claim a
considerable membership, and, despite
denial, they have undoubtedly a pretty
large number of adherents. While claim
ing to be opposed to them, radical social
lists really aid then-perhaps many un-
consciously, but not the less materially.
The anarchist is but the pioneer of radi-
cal socialism; the black flag precedes the
red; the dynamitard is the preacher of an
idealistic state in which perfect equality
and perfect peace prevail in society of
imperfect human nature, and between
naturally opposed and contesting human
aims and ambitions.
Even Professor Ely, the much dis
cussed, charged with being upon the bor-
der land of extreme socialism, lifts warn
ing voice when he says that "belief in
party demanding the socialization of
national monopolies does not involve the
Endorsement of every schemer for carry
ing into effect this policy" (Foruns for
October) and he adds:
Ifa party arises which demands the social
1Zat1on OF natural monopoies, we may well
ask ourselves what KIND of leadership has
Inns party. adherence to older parties is pre-
lefaole TO support OF q party deficient IN
leadership, and which couples Unsound
planks with one which, differently brought
forward, might command our support
Furthermore, 1t should be clearly understood
that the policy OF sociaiizaton of natural
monopolies does not carry with it any idea
OF spoIiation. Whatever we think about that
poIlcy, we snould all, 1t seems to me, insist on
full payment for all property taken from
private owners.
But anarchism denies this, and holds if
it is right to take, it is an absolute right
and no consideration of compensation
enters into the matter.
Ely goes even further than in the
quotation we have made, and to the dis
gust of the extremists and cranks who
have been trumpeting his praises, he
says:
The outcome of Socialism then, it is to be
appfehended, would be such an amount of
dissatisfaction that one of two things would
happen: Either Socialism would result in a
series OF revolutions, reducing countries like
England and the United States to the condf-
tlon OF the South American republics, ard
rendering progress impossible, or the dIssat-
Isfactlon would cause a complete oyerthroy
OF Socialism and return TO the discredited
social order. Anarchy comprises the sum and
substance of all evils of a social nature Every
step in the direction of anarchy is a calamItv
The eighteenth-century doctrine of essential
equality among men is, in my opinion per-
hlclous. II seems to me that it has been a
most fruitful cause OF misfortune and misdi-
rected social effort. 1t nourishes false homes
ana turns attention away from facts OF the
utmost moment. There is no more marked
social iact, no one more momentous in its
consequences, than the essential inequality of
men. Men are unequal in power, Capacity
requirements. and the more one thinks about
1t the more marvellous do all these ineouali-
lies appear. Any social action based upon an
assumption OF equality is miSchieYouS,