Smyrna times., 1896-08-05
ANARCHIST, SOCIALIST, POPULISr.

A reader has requested us to explain
for his benefit, and for the benefit of
others, the difference between an an
9rchist, a socialist and a populist.
ferhaps the answer to this question
can be best found in brief statement
OF three systems of social economy
represented by the three classes re-
ferred to.
In the first place, let us say that an
anarchist, in the popular sense. is one
who seeks to Overturn, by violence, all
constituted forms and institutions of
society and government, all law and
order, and all right of property, with
no purpose of establishing any other
system of order in the place of that de-
stroyed. This is the popular idea, but
1t Is not the true one as to that school
OF philosophers who are generally
classed as anarchists. Properly speak
ing, then, and answering the question
of our inquirer in the spirit in which
he asks 1t, an anarchist is one who
advocates the absence of government,
not from any evil design, but as the
true political idealist. Anarchists seek
the establishment of a social theory
which regards the union of order with
the absence of all direct government of
man by man as the best possible condi-
ton of humanity. Absolute individ
ual liberty is their creed. The most
noted expOunder of this theory was
Pierre Joseph Proudhon 18O9-186
whose views have been adopted with
various notifications by many agita-
tors. His complete works NAV be had
at the Wilmington Institute Free Lib
rary. PrOudhOn contended that the
true form of the state is anarchy, mean
ing by anarchy, of course, not posi-
tive disorder, but the absence of anv
human ruler, whether king, president,
governor or convention.
Socialism, as generally received, is
that theory or system of social organi-
cation which seeks to abolish entirely.
or at least in great part, the individual
effort and competition on which the
modern social structure mainly rests,
and substitute for it cooperative action.
making land and capital, as the in
struments and means of production,
the joint possession of the members of
the community, thereby securing, it is
claimed, a more perfect and equal dis
tribution of the products and benefits
of labor. The doctrine of socialism, as
advocated by the leading thinkers of
that school, does not exclude private
ownership in articles of consumption.
POpulism is allied somewhat to Soci-
alism, though there are between the
two some distinctive and radical points
of difference. The populists believe
that all enterprises that partake of
public nature should be under the
| direct control of the government.
Railroads, for instance, and all man
ner of ventures that are in the nature
of natural monopoly should be, they
contend, operated and controlled by
the public at large, though its govern
mental representatives, including the
lOaning of money to the people at a
low rate of interest. They do not
carry their theory of governmental
control to the extent of denying to
private enterprise the right of private
management, and therein lies the chief
difference between populism and So
cialism.
This exposition of three classes of
social economists referred to is not
very exhaustive one, but we trust that
it is sufficiently explicit to give our in
quirer a fair idea of the different
theories of government taught by
them. m.-SUnddy Star.