The record-union., 1894-01-11
ANARCHISM FROM THE SOCIALIST
POINT OF VIEW.

II. w. Lee, in the London Justice, the
the fears of the people that the anarchists
are organizing for the general use of dy
Mantle in the destruction Of life and
property. According to Mr.. Lee the one
thing of all others that the anarchist
abhors is organization, since any sort of
government is obnoxious to his creed.
Therefore, says Lee. the fear of any wide
spread secret conspiracy to undo society
by organized methods is absurd. and is
the result of the overheated imagina-
tion of capital. He repeats that the anar-
chist has holy horror of organization in
any shape or form.
We apprehend that it makes very little
difference whether there is or is not
center where destruction is plotted and
the plans laid under the supervision of
organization, so long as the act of one
anarchist. prompted by the teachings of
his school, serves to set the pace for an
other and another. Daring example that
results in the same evil to which organiza-
ton might direct energy, is precisely as
bad for society as conspiracy and pre-
concert among the perpetrators of out
RACES.
We are willing to concede what Mr..
Lee claims, that among the socialists who
think there is agreement that the anar-
chist methods are harmful, even ab--
horrent. The socialistic method involves
organization and moral suasion. 1t is
based upon conversion, rather than upon
the employment of force. 1t stands for
form of government of some sort, while
anarchism means no government what
ever, but absolute and unrestrained indi-
vidual freedom. Nevertheless, there is
point at which socialism veers toward
anarchism. That is to say, time when
the social democrats hold force to be JUS
tifable, even the employment of bombs.
As Lee himself admits:
We recognize clearly that there are times
when these fearful and terrible weapons are
the only ones left to the cause of progress.
But we recognize also that they are purely de-
structive, and can be used only to break down
the power of an autoeracy which allows no
freedom of speech, press or meeting, which |
fetterS expression OF opinion, prohibits the
diffusion OF knowledge and vigorously |
crushes all new ideas; or TO paralyZe the
executive of q foreign yoke which tyranniZes |
over people not strong enough TO take the |
field against it. The knife. the revolver the |
torch and the bomb never have been and |
never can be methods OF propaganda. They |
can only be used as means OF clearing away |
despotic power which prevents the tull and |
free discussion of ideas, without which no |
propaganda of any sort can be carried on; and |
even then only when all other methods have |
been tried and have failed, and when the |
people as a whole are prepared to applaud in |
secret the hand which strikes down the tyrant |
and to feel glad when the bomb skaters d |
council of despotic ministers. There are none |
OF these conditions with respect to the recent /
explosions. The bomb at Barcelona led to |
the state OF siege being proclaimed and popu- /
larly accepted in the province of Catalonia; |
the one thrown in the French chamber has |
restored to that assembly the public conf |
depce which 1t was fast losing. In fact, dis /
credited politicians should in future secretly |
take the anarchists TO their hearts, for in |
them may lie their political salvation.
We quote thus much from the essayist, |
because it is a fair and perfectly candid |
confession of the socialistic view of the |
necessity that would impel them to use
dynamite and pattern after the methods
Of the anarchists. in order, ss they put it,
to clear the way.
A notable reason for the present bitter
animosity manifest among socialists
against anarchists is that in the acts OF
the latter they fear that Governments will
find excuse for placing limitations upon
the liberty of speech and press, and the
freedom of public meeting, which the So
cisl democrats prize so highly. We con-
fess that as the opponent of both classes
of agitators we have felt something of the
same fear, and have held steadily that it
will be dangerous to enact in this coun-
try at least, laws specially directed against
the crimes of anarchists. It is safer far to
regard them as vulgar criminals, and
hold them amemable to the criminal laws
for their crimes than attempt to place any
Limitations upon free speech that will
narrow the liberties of the people.
But this is not in anywise inimieal to
the policy that treats incitement to crime
with severity and that would utterly pro-
hibit men from converting liberty of
speech into license to openly or otherwise
advise to crime aud assault upon the