The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-06-11
THE NEW |NOWDUAUSM" IS SUBJECT 0F
SPLENDID ADDRESS BY JUSTICE "A. BRUCE

the militant Saxon; there is the in
there is the tndividualism Of Jeremy
Bentham.
Not Anarchism of Terrorist.
when we speak Of anarchism and
Of the anarchist. we are speaking Of
of the anarchism of Tolstoi and of
Proudhon, not of the anarchism of
the ,terrorist-of the anarchism Of
Bakunin. He who believes in it be-
lieves that where Righteousness and
kindness and q true sense of civic
duty prevails. no law is necessary. He
believes perhaps. in an idealistic. in
an Impractical and in a foolish the
DRY, but in one which is compare
resistant philosophy, one which is
based on the premise of brotherly love
and of the golden rule.
VIVA is the use OF law say Toll
stoi. Are there criminal statutes.
are there prisons in the family? Is
not society, is not the nation. but a
larger family? Is it not love which
is after all supreme?' I have. noticed
the herds Of wild deer in Siberia
says Prince Kropotkin. 4 have seen
them as they were crossing a stream
and We're exposed to the attacks of
wolves. The stays formed themselves
into an advance guard, a rear guard,
and circled around the banks. In the
center were the weak, the females and
the young. To reach them it was
necessary that the wolves would break
through the outer circle. There was
no law. There were no gendarmes.
no Cossa.ks, nc jails. There was the
instinct Of law, of service and of pro-
lection. Are men and women less
chivalrous, less loving than the beasts
Of the f1eld?'
This is the individualism of the
n~on-resisting anarchist. 1t is eX-
IRENE. 1t involves an utter negation
OF the necessity for any superimposed
law. 1t is the antipodes to socialism
which involves a blind belief in law.
1t is hardly, however, the individual
ism of the Anglo-SaXon, OR of modern
predatory commercialism. Their in
dividualism is of the self-assertive,
acquisitive kind. The believers in ii
were and still to a large extent are.
The Anglo-SaXon warriors who laid
the foundation of the English state
and whose descendants have ever
since made its laws and formulated its
political thought, were individualistic
because they themselves We're strong.
They believed in the private and un-
restrained right to property because
they had won it by the sword. They
believed in personal liberty because
not admit the need of the govern.
mental protection of The weak. Even
their kings were at first merely wal
lords. They had at first no concep-
ton of the brotherhood of man, or OF
the solidarity that there is in all man.
kind. Even at the time of the Magma
Charta the rights and privileges de.
manded were for the freemen of Eng
land alone, and seventy-five per cent
of the people We're in practical serf-
dom. Even up to the year 1924 one
ishable with death, and of these a
very large proportion were offenses
against property. At the time when
under this brutal code a child could
be hanged for stealing a sheep, it was
considered perfectly legitimate tc
work children of six years of age fol
sixteen hours a day in the factories
and in the mines and to harness al.
most naked women TO the coal trucks
however, were not anarchists. They
believed in law. The only trouble
with them was that they had merely
a class conscience. To them the le-
Ultimate and only function of the Law
was their own individual protection
and advancement.
Bentham Individualisln,
1.-THE individualism of Jeremy Ben
than, on the other hand, was altru-
istic and ethical. 1t was founded on
the theory of the greatest good for
the greatest number. 1t insisted on
the premise that the prime end of ex
istence is happiness and that every
person Is in the main and as a general
rule the best judge of his own happi-
ness. Legislation, therefore, it is
maintained, should aim at the re.
moval of all those restrictions on the
free action Of the individual which
are not necessary for securing like
freedom on the part of his neighbors
1t differed from scientific. non-resist.
ant anarchy in conceding that some
restraint and some law was necessary
to keep men from e%ncroaching on the
from the collectivism which followed
it in England and from what we be-
lieve to be the dominant and wiser
thought of the day, in failing to ad.
NIT that in numerous cases the indi-
vidual needs legislative help to en-.
able him to compete on terms Of ever
seeming equality with others, and
that by the rendering of this aid the
welfare of the majority is not only
subserved but that of the state itself,
1t laid the foundation for an intelli-
gent collectivism. In emphasizing
the dignity of the individual, and
in seeking to remove the numerous
legal obstacles which had been cased
around the struggling worker by the
class interests. and selfishness of gen.
erations, 1t paved the way for further
steps in advance. It's fault was
merely that it did not go far enough.
This neglect. writes DIR. Arnold. in
1898. namely to provide a proper po-
turing population. is encouraged by
one of the falsest maxims which ever
pandered to human selfishness under
the name of political wisdom-'I
mean the maxim that civil society
ought to leave its members alone,
eac hto look after their several inter-
ests. provided they do not employ d.
rect fraud or force against their
neighbors. That is. knowing full
natural powers. and that still less
have they ever within historical men,
DRY started with equal artificial adj
vantages, knowing also. that power of
every sort has Il tendency to increase
itself. we stand by and let this most
unequal race take its own course for
getting that the very name Of society.
implies that it shall not be a mere
race. but that it's object is to provide
for the common good Of all. by re-
straining the power of the strong and
protecting the helplessness of the
weak
Arnold's Collectivism.