The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1901-10-09 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

THE REV. J. CROSSLEY ON ANARCHISM  TO THE EDITOR OF THE EIRICESHEAD NEWS.  Srs,—Will you kindly allow me a portion of space in your paper to deal with the above subject. In my opinion the rev, gentleman made some erroneous and misleading statements regarding Anarchy, which leads me to the conclusion that he had not a suacient knowledge of the subject he was speaking upon. It is all very well for the rev, gentleman to get up in a pulpit and make a crushing onslaught on principles and ideals that he himself is not conversant with, but such sophistry will have little or no effect upon those people who have made a study of the subject, and are capable of using their intellectual faculties. It would be gratifying to know what Anarchist writers the has been reading on the subject (he certainly mentions Krapotkin as one). Anarchy, says the rev. gentleman is the negation of government. The individual is to be placed under no restraint" . . . until he "encroaches upon the rights and liberty of ethers," he proceeds to say. "But Anarchists . . . have a pathetic and profound faith that humanity would become perfect .f this systern (Anarchy) were adopted." Now, if Anarchists believed and advocated such contradictory rot as this, the rev, gentleman would be somewhat justified in terming Anarchy as "Individualism run mad." I think if the rev, gentleman will read any work he will find they do not advocate any such thing. Is there one Anarchist in the movement who contended that under Anarchy a man could not commit an action that was hurtful to society, and then state that liberty of the individual must be safeguarded from encroachment (which, if humanity were perfect, 'would be impossible) of his fellows? This is what the rev, gentleman wishes us to believe is the teachings of Anarchists. Now to quote a passage from Malatesto—" The society that shares in its geniuses must also share in its criminals," and Krapotkin "Providing that you yourself do not abdicate your freedom; provided you yourself do not allow others to enslave you; and provided that to the violent and anti-social passions of this or that person you oppose your equally vigorous social passions; then you have nothing to fear from liberty." Both show that it is false to assert that Anarchists have faith in the perfectness of humanity. But they do say, "Leave men absolutely free; do not mutilate them, as religions have done enough, and to spare. Do not fear even their passions; in a free society these are not dangerous." Those who have read Anarchist manifestoes and expositions of Anarchist leaders (the rev, gentleman continues), are struck with the curious—not to say extraordinary—inability of the Anarchist to be practical. This is an assertion often indulged in, but is not a fact. I admit there are but a few Anarchists in most countries—men who believe in the practicability of Anarchy. But at the same time, look at the small percentage of people who have ever studied the subject. I should like to knew how many members of Mr. Crossley's church has. It is not that people are struck with the inability of the Anarchist to be practical that stunts its growth, but the intolerance el individuals such as the rev, gentleman, who contend "that you pay too great a price for your liberty if you allow men who advertise and teach such doctrines to remain at large," notwithstanding the fact "that their criticism of social institutions are often powerful and in some respects unanswerable," and what is to forward "human progress and social evolution" more than powerful and unanswerable criticism of existing institutions? Is it not by this that all social evolution is made possible? Then it must follow that Anarchism is responsible to a great extent in aiding social evolution. Perhaps the rev, gentleman has not thought of this. The rev, gentleman goes on to state that "it (Anarchy) seeks ends which it declares to be great and noble by any and every wicked and unscrupulous means." This, sir, the same as many other assertions, is not true. Such assertions need no refutation. He chars Anarchists with disclaiming all moral obligation and responsibility, and making no distinction between right and wrong. What is moral obligation and responsibility, of which we hear act much from our theist friend? If you mean actions which are useful and beneficial to society, hien I say an Anarchist cannot ignore it. The happiness of each is closely bound up with all about him. "To feel within oneself that one is capable of acting is at the same time to become conscious of what is one's duty to do." Duty is nothing but the superabundance of life which demands to be exercised; to give itself, at the same time it is the consciousness of its power—power to act is duty to act. (If this is not responsibility, what is?) And all this moral obligation (says Krapotkin) of which so much has been said and written, thus stripped of all its mysticism, is reduced to conception. The condition of the maintenance of life is its expansion. The pleat cannot prevent itself from flowering. Sometimes to flower is to die, says Guyon. Never mind, the sap rises all the same. Precisely the same with man. He spreads his love, his energy, broadcast among others. Sometimes to do so means to die. Never mind, the sap rises all the same. This is his life. This is what all moral teaching comes to, stripped of all the hyprocrisies of Oriental asceticism. This is the morality of the Anarchist. Anarchists do not advocate that it ia "just as right to kill as to eat," "isiist as wrong to drink as to , commit suicide; no sane person ever contended or believed they did. The rev, gentlemen should remember that "right' and "wrong" are abstract terms. Both are words borrowed from the "law." "Right," because the "law" upholds' "wrong" because the "law" condemns it. Rather let us take a higher standard of morality. We say then "that man is neither good or bad; man is but the product of a set of circumstanose." etc., etc., but that cannot be saying that  Fos Gmg Tna eoturula Unthask's jargo Cloak in Gimp window. sod for good•vollable it•psirs of Waaolhos, Olooke, oodiewoiley, try Ir. Umbhaok, 96, Oxon-rood. Gun time away. imp*. =Moat'  The Bost and Cheapest Hesse to bey Prevtiest arid Graceless to at