New Ulm review., 1901-09-25
SOCIALISM AND ANARc

SOCIALISM AND ANARCH
There are in this state upwards OF
three thousand men who voted the
socialistic ticket for governor year
ago, there are many in New Ulm. 1t is
absured to call them anarchlsts-they
are not, and they feel hurt because they
are classed with anarchy. The true the
ory of both anarchy and socialism is too
chimerieal, too utopian to ever be sue
cessful, were all men of even temper
ment, equal ability and like passions
such condition might be possible. To
an intelligent person the study of social
ism and even anarchy does little harm,
it is the ignored ones, goaded on by the
hope that new life awaits them in the
removal of the rulers or the dominating
power, they set about accomplishing
their purpose with religious zeal. In
the hope to create the conditions their
theories teach they offer their own lives as
a sacrifice.
In the light of all that the Review has
been able to find so far, anarchy is but a
perfected stage of socialism. 1t Is a
higher type, according to the teachings
of Emma Goldman. That is, in its pure
condition, not as interpreted by some
ignorant fool, thinking to accomplish in
in a second what ages have endeavored
to work out
Enthusiastic anarchists will tell you an
archy is theory and that it presupposes
a condition of society under which rul-
ers would be superfuous. Broadly
speaking anarchism seeks state of soci-
ETY. SO pure and elevated that govern
ment is rendered unnecessary, socialism
on the other hand aims for govern
ment SO comprehensive that everybody
owns everything and nobody owns any
thing. 1t ls too ideal. It has its foun-
dation on the breaking of the great NOR
al law that says, "Thou shalt not covet!"
1t is the division of, property, the unity
ing of intellect, and only when man is
ready to put on the wings of an angel
can he hope to enter into such condition.
It is probably the study of this ideal
condition and the utter hopelessness of
it's attainment that drives weak minds
into a frenzy to secure it through vio-
lent means. E"'
Socialism claims that it has nothing
whatever in common with anarchy ex-
cept in opposing political parties.
which accounts for socialists being
classed as anarchists. Anarchy and so.
cialism lnstheory is one thing and anar-
chists and socialists as we know them is
another; just as politics in theory is one
thing and politicians as we know them
IS another. The theory of both anarchy
and socialism as advocated by the most
intelligent votaries is the ultima thule of
progressiveness, beyond which there is
nothing better. There is a difference,
however. Webster defines anarchy as
want of government in society, lawless-
ness, confusion. He defines socialism,
as doctrine or theory of better ar
rangement of the social conditions of
mankind than that which already pre-
walls. s.a
That nation is the best governed which
is least governed. The accumulation of
laws is no safeguard to the people
Mankind is not but always hopes to be
blossed. Restriction is the stone IN the
shoe Of personal liberty. These are axi-
IONS that are true in all conditions of So
ciety, and no theory can ever be worked
out that will put premium on intel
lect, for all men are not created equal
in the sense that they can share all things
alike and be happy. The present form
of government rightly carried out is the
best, it's betterment lies only IN higher
education of the people.
THE LESSON 1T TEACHES.
To those, if any there be, who do not
thoroughly understand the nature of a