STATE SUBIALISM
AND
ANARCHISM
How Far They Agree, and
Wherein They Differ
---
----------- - - - -------------
NEW YORK
BENJ. R. TUCPCER, Publisher
899

INSTEAD OF A B00K:
BY
A MAN TOO BUSY TO WRITE ONE.
FRAGMENTARY EXPOSITION
OF
PHILOSOPHICAL ANARCHISM.
Culled from the Writings of Benjamin R.
Tucker, Editor of “Liberty.”
WITH A FULL-PAGE HALF-TONE PORTRAIT OF THE AUTHOR.
A large, well-printed, and excessively cheap vol-
ume of 524 pages, consisting of articles selected
from Liberty and classified under the following
headings: (1) State Socialism and Anarchism:
How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ;
(2) The Individual, Society, and the State; (3)
Money and Interest; (4) Land and Rent; (5) So-
cialism; (6) Communism; (7) Methods; (8) Mis-
cellaneous. The whole elaborately indexed.
Cloth, $1.00; Paper, 50 cents.
Mailed, post-paid, by the Publisher,
BEN.J. R. TuckºR, Box 1312, New York City.













9-4-4-4*
STATE SOCIALISM
ANARCHISM.
HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND
WHEREIN THEY DIFFER
BY
BENJ. R. TUCKER
NEW YORK :
BENJ. R. TUCKER, PUBLISHER
1899


State Socialism and Anarchism:*
How FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
Probably no agitation has ever attained the
magnitude, either in the number of its recruits
or the area of its influence, which has been at-
*In the summer of 1886, shortly after the bomb-
throwing at Chicago, the author of this essay received
an invitation from the editor of the “North American
Review" to furnish him a paper on Anarchism. In
response this essay was sent him. A few days later
the author received a letter announcing the acceptance
of his paper, the editor volunteering the declaration
that it was the ablest article that he had received
during his editorship of the “Review.” The next
number of the “Review” bore the announcement, on
the second page of its cover, that the article would
appear at an early date. Month after month went by,
and the article did not appear. Repeated letters of
inquiry failed to bring any explanation. Finally,
after nearly a year had elapsed, the author wrote to
the editor that he had prepared the article, not to be
pigeon-holed, but to be printed, and that he wished
the matter to be acted upon immediately. In reply he
received his manuscript and a check for seventy-five
dollars. Thereupon he made a few slight changes in
the article and delivered it on several occasions as a
lecture, after which it was printed in Liberty of March
10, 1888.

4. STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
tained by Modern Socialism, and at the same
time been so little understood and so misunder-
stood, not only by the hostile and the indif-
ferent, but by the friendly, and even by the
great mass of its adherents themselves. This
unfortunate and highly dangerous state of
things is due partly to the fact that the human
relationships which this movement—if anything
so chaotic can be called a movement—aims to
transform involve no special class or classes,
but literally all mankind; partly to the fact
that these relationships are infinitely more
varied and complex in their nature than those
with which any special reform has ever been
called upon to deal; and partly to the fact that
the great moulding forces of society, the chan-
nels of information and enlightenment, are
well-nigh exclusively under the control of those
whose immediate pecuniary interests are antag-
onistic to the bottom claim of Socialism that
labor should be put in possession of its own.
Almost the only persons who may be said to
comprehend even approximately the signifi-
cance, principles, and purposes of Socialism are
the chief leaders of the extreme wings of the
Socialistic forces, and perhaps a few of the
money kings themselves. It is a subject of
which it has lately become quite the fashion
for preacher, professor, and penny-a-liner to

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 5
-
treat, and, for the most part, woful work they
have made with it, exciting the derision and
pity of those competent to judge. That those
prominent in the intermediate Socialistic divi-
sions do not fully understand what they are
about is evident from the positions they occupy.
If they did; if they were consistent, logical
thinkers; if they were what the French call
consequent men,_their reasoning faculties
would long since have driven them to one ex-
treme or the other.
For it is a curious fact that the two extremes
of the vast army now under consideration,
though united, as has been hinted above, by
the common claim that labor shall be put in
possession of its own, are more diametrically
opposed to each other in their fundamental
principles of social action and their methods of
reaching the ends aimed at than either is to
their common enemy, the existing society.
They are based on two principles the history of
whose conflict is almost equivalent to the his-
tory of the world since man came into it; and
all intermediate parties, including that of the
upholders of the existing society, are based
upon a compromise between them. It is clear,
then, that any intelligent, deep-rooted oppo-
sition to the prevailing order of things must
come from one or the other of these extremes,

6 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
for anything from any other source, far from
being revolutionary in character, could be only
in the nature of superficial modification such as
would be utterly unable to concentrate upon
itself the degree of attention and interest now
bestowed upon Modern Socialism.
The two principles referred to are Authority
and LIBERTY, and the names of the two schools
of Socialistic thought which fully and unre-
servedly represent one or the other of them are,
respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism.
Whoso knows what these two schools want and
how they propose to get it understands the
Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been
said that there is no half-way house between
Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there
is no half-way house between State Socialism
and Anarchism. There are, in fact, two cur-
rents steadily flowing from the centre of the
Socialistic forces which are concentrating them
on the left and on the right; and, if Socialism
is to prevail, it is among the possibilities that,
after this movement of separation has been
completed and the existing order has been
crushed out between the two camps, the ulti-
mate and bitterer conflict will be still to come.
In that case all the eight-hour men, all the
trades-unionists, all the Knights of Labor, all
the land nationalizationists, all the green-

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 7
backers, and, in short, all the members of the
thousand and one different battalions belonging
to the great army of Labor, will have deserted
their old posts, and, these being arrayed on the
one side and the other, the great battle will
begin. What a final victory for the State
Socialists will mean, and what a final victory
for the Anarchists will mean, it is the purpose
of this paper to briefly state.
To do this intelligently, however, I must first
describe the ground common to both, the
features that make Socialists of each of them.
The economic principles of Modern Socialism
are a logical deduction from the principle laid
down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of
his “Wealth of Nations,”—namely, that labor
is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith,
after stating this principle most clearly and
concisely, immediately abandoned all further
consideration of it to devote himself to showing
what actually does measure price, and how,
therefore, wealth is at present distributed.
Since his day nearly all the political economists
have followed his example by confining their
function to the description of society as it is,
in its industrial and commercial phases. Social-
ism, on the contrary, extends its function to the
description of society as it should be, and the
discovery of the means of making it what it

8 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
should be. Half a century or more after
Smith enunciated the principle above stated,
Socialism picked it up where he had dropped
it, and, in following it to its logical conclusions,
made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
This seems to have been done independently
by three different men, of three different
nationalities, in three different languages:
Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J.
Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German
Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at
their conclusions singly and unaided is certain;
but whether Marx was not largely indebted to
Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable.
However this may be, Marx’s presentation of
the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his
own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of
originality. That the work of this interesting
trio should have been done so nearly simulta-
neously seems to indicate that Socialism was in
the air, and that the time was ripe and the
conditions were favorable for the appearance of
this new school of thought. So far as priority
of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong
to Warren, the American,—a fact which should
be noted by the stump orators who are so fond
of declaiming against Socialism as an imported
article. Of the purest revolutionary blood,
too, this Warren, for he descends from the

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 9
Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.
From Smith's principle that labor is the true
measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it,
that cost is the proper limit of price—these
three men made the following deductions: that
the natural wage of labor is its product; that
this wage, or product, is the only just source
of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheri-
tance, etc.); that all who derive income from
any other source abstract it directly or indi-
rectly from the natural and just wage of labor;
that this abstracting process generally takes one
of three forms, interest, rent, and profit;
that these three constitute the trinity of usury,
and are simply different methods of levying tri-
bute for the use of capital; that, capital being
simply stored-up labor which has already re-
ceived its pay in full, its use ought to be
gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the
only basis of price; that the lender of capital
is entitled to its return intact, and nothing
more; that the only reason why the banker, the
stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer,
and the merchant are able to exact usury from
labor lies in the fact that they are backed by
legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only
way to secure to labor the enjoyment of its en-
tire product, or natural wage, is to strike down
monopoly.

10 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
It must not be inferred that either Warren,
Proudhon, or Marx used exactly this phrase-
ology, or followed exactly this line of thought,
but it indicates definitely enough the funda-
mental ground taken by all three, and their
substantial thought up to the limit to which
they went in common. And, lest I may be
accused of stating the positions and arguments
of these men incorrectly, it may be well to say
in advance that I have viewed them broadly,
and that, for the purpose of sharp, vivid, and
emphatic comparison and contrast, I have taken
considerable liberty with their thought by re-
arranging it in an order, and often in a phrase-
ology, of my own, but, I am satisfied, without,
in so doing, misrepresenting them in any
essential particular.
It was at this point—the necessity of striking
down monopoly—that came the parting of their
ways. Here the road forked. They found
that they must turn either to the right or to
the left, follow either the path of Authority
or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way;
Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were
born State Socialism and Anarchism.
First, then, State Socialism, which may be
described as the doctrine that all the affairs of
men should be managed by the government,
regardless of individual choice.

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 11
Marx, its founder, concluded that the only
way to abolish the class monopolies was to cen-
tralize and consolidate all industrial and com-
mercial interests, and productive and distribu-
tive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the
hands of the State. The government must be-
come banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier,
and merchant, and in these capacities must
suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all
instruments of production must be wrested
from individual hands, and made the property
of the collectivity. To the individual can be-
long only the products to be consumed, not
the means of producing them. A man may
own his clothes and his food, but not the
sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the
spade which digs his potatoes. Product and
capital are essentially different things; the
former belongs to individuals, the latter to
society. Society must seize the capital which
belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revo-
lution if it must. Once in possession of it, it
must administer it on the majority principle,
through its organ, the State, utilize it in pro-
duction and distribution, fix all prices by the
amount of labor involved, and employ the
whole people in its workshops, farms, stores,
etc. The nation must be transformed into a
vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a

12 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
State official. Everything must be done on the
cost principle, the people having no motive to
make a profit out of themselves. Individuals
not being allowed to own capital, no one can
employ another, or even himself. Every man
will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only
wage-payer. He who will not work for the
State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison.
All freedom of trade must disappear. Compe-
tition must be utterly wiped out. All indus-
trial and commercial activity must be centred in
one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly.
The remedy for monopolies is Monopoly.
Such is the economic programme of State
Socialism as adopted from Karl Marx. The
history of its growth and progress cannot be
told here. In this country the parties that up-
hold it are known as the Socialistic Labor
Party, which pretends to follow Karl Marx;
the Nationalists, who follow Karl Marx filtered
through Edward Bellamy; and the Christian
Socialists, who follow Karl Marx filtered
through Jesus Christ.
What other applications this principle of
Authority, once adopted in the economic
sphere, will develop is very evident. It means
the absolute control by the majority of all in-
dividual conduct. The right of such control is
already admitted by the State Socialists,

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 13
though they maintain that, as a matter of fact,
the individual would be allowed a much larger
liberty than he now enjoys. But he would
only be allowed it; he could not claim it as his
own. There would be no foundation of society
upon a guaranteed equality of the largest
possible liberty. Such liberty as might exist
would exist by sufferance and could be taken
away at any moment. Constitutional guaran-
tees would be of no avail. There would be
but one article in the constitution of a State
Socialistic country: “The right of the majority
is absolute.”
The claim of the State Socialists, however,
that this right would not be exercised in
matters pertaining to the individual in the more
intimate and private relations of his life is not
borne out by the history of governments. It
has ever been the tendency of power to add to
itself, to enlarge its sphere, to encroach beyond
the limits set for it; and where the habit of
resisting such encroachment is not fostered, and
the individual is not taught to be jealous of his
rights, individuality gradually disappears and
the government or State becomes the all-in-all.
Control naturally accompanies responsibility.
Under the system of State Socialism, therefore.
which holds the community responsible for the
health, wealth, and wisdom of the individual,
14 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
it is evident that the community, through its
majority expression, will insist more and more
on prescribing the conditions of health, wealth,
and wisdom, thus impairing and finally destroy-
ing individual independence and with it all
sense of individual responsibility.
Whatever, then, the State Socialists may
claim or disclaim, their system, if adopted, is
doomed to end in a State religion, to the ex-
pense of which all must contribute and at the
altar of which all must kneel; a State school of
medicine, by whose practitioners the sick must
invariably be treated; a State system of
hygiene, prescribing what all must and must
not eat, drink, wear, and do; a State code of
morals, which will not content itself with pun-
ishing crime, but will prohibit what the majo-
rity decide to be vice; a State system of in-
struction, which will do away with all private
schools, academies, and colleges; a State nur-
sery, in which all children must be brought up
in common at the public expense; and, finally,
a State family, with an attempt at stirpiculture,
or scientific breeding, in which no man and
woman will be allowed to have children if the
State prohibits them and no man and woman
can refuse to have children if the State orders
them. Thus will Authority achieve its acme
and Monopoly be carried to its highest power.


STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 15
|
Such is the ideal of the logical State Socialist,
such the goal which lies at the end of the road
that Karl Marx took. Let us now follow the
fortunes of Warren and Proudhon, who took
the other road, the road of Liberty.
This brings us to Anarchism, which may be
described as the doctrine that all the affairs of
men should be managed by individuals or vol-
wntary associations, and that the State should
be abolished.
When Warren and Proudhon, in prosecuting
their search for justice to labor, came face to
face with the obstacle of class monopolies, they
saw that these monopolies rested upon Autho-
rity, and concluded that the thing to be done
was, not to strengthen this Authority and thus
make monopoly universal, but to utterly uproot
Authority and give full sway to the opposite
principle, Liberty, by making competition, the
antithesis of monopoly, universal. They saw
in competition the great leveller of prices to the
labor cost of production. In this they agreed
with the political economists. The query then
naturally presented itself why all prices do not
fall to labor cost; where there is any room for
incomes acquired otherwise than by labor; in a
word, why the usurer, the receiver of interest,
rent, and profit, exists. The answer was found
in the present one-sidedness of competition. It

16 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
was discovered that capital had so manipulated
legislation that unlimited competition is allowed
in supplying productive labor, thus keeping
wages down to the starvation point, or as near
it as practicable; that a great deal of compe-
tition is allowed in supplying distributive labor,
or the labor of the mercantile classes, thus
keeping, not the prices of goods, but the mer-
chant’s actual profits on them, down to a point
somewhat approximating equitable wages for
the merchant's work; but that almost no com-
petition at all is allowed in supplying capital,
upon the aid of which both productive and dis-
tributive labor are dependent for their power
of achievement, thus keeping the rate of inte-
rest on money and of house-rent and ground-
rent at as high a point as the necessities of the
people will bear.
On discovering this, Warren and Proudhon
charged the political economists with being
afraid of their own doctrine. The Manchester
men were accused of being inconsistent. They
believed in liberty to compete with the laborer
in order to reduce his wages, but not in liberty
to compete with the capitalist in order to reduce
his usury. Laissez-faire was very good sauce
for the goose, labor, but very poor sauce for the
gander, capital. But how to correct this incon-
sistency, how to serve this gander with this

STATE socialism. AND ANARCHISM. 17
-
sauce, how to put capital at the service of busi-
ness men and laborers at cost, or free of usury,
—that was the problem.
Marx, as we have seen, solved it by declaring
capital to be a different thing from product,
and maintaining that it belonged to society
and should be seized by society and employed
for the benefit of all alike. Proudhon scoffed
at this distinction between capital and product.
He maintained that capital and product are not
different kinds of wealth, but simply alternate
conditions or functions of the same wealth;
that all wealth undergoes an incessant trans-
formation from capital into product and from
product back into capital, the process repeating
itself interminably; that capital and product
are purely social terms; that what is product
to one man immediately becomes capital to an-
other, and vice versa; that, if there were but
one person in the world, all wealth would be to
him at once capital and product; that the fruit
of A's toil is his product, which, when sold to
B, becomes B’s capital (unless B is an unpro-
ductive consumer, in which case it is merely
wasted wealth, outside the view of social
economy); that a steam-engine is just as much
product as a coat, and that a coat is just as
much capital as a steam-engine; and that the
same laws of equity govern the possession of

18 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
the one that govern the possession of the
other. -
For these and other reasons Proudhon and
Warren found themselves unable to sanction
any such plan as the seizure of capital by
society. But, though opposed to socializing
the ownership of capital, they aimed neverthe-
less to socialize its effects by making its use
beneficial to all instead of a means of impove-
rishing the many to enrich the few. And when
the light burst in upon them, they saw that this
could be done by subjecting capital to the natu-
ral law of competition, thus bringing the price
of its use down to cost,-that is, to nothing be-
yond the expenses incidental to handling and
transferring it. So they raised the banner of
Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as
well as with foreign countries; the logical
carrying out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez
faire the universal rule. Under this banner
they began their fight upon monopolies,
whether the all-inclusive monopoly of the State
Socialists, or the various class monopolies that
now prevail.
Of the latter they distinguished four of prin-
cipal importance: the money monopoly, the
land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the
patent monopoly.
First in the importance of its evil influence

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 19
they considered the money monopoly, which
consists of the privilege given by the govern-
ment to certain individuals, or to individuals
holding certain kinds of property, of issuing
the circulating medium, a privilege which is
now enforced in this country by a national tax
of ten per cent. upon all other persons who at-
tempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by
State laws making it a criminal offence to issue
notes as currency. It is claimed that the hold-
ers of this privilege control the rate of interest,
the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and
the prices of goods,-the first directly, and the
second and third indirectly. For, say Proud-
hon and Warren, if the business of banking
were made free to all, more and more persons
would enter into it until the competition should
become sharp enough to reduce the price of
lending money to the labor cost, which statistics
show to be less than three-fourths of one per
cent. In that case the thousands of people
who are now deterred from going into business
by the ruinously high rates which they must
pay for capital with which to start and carry on
business will find their difficulties removed. If
they have property which they do not desire to
convert into money by sale, a bank will take it
as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion
of its market value at less than one per cent.

20 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
discount. If they have no property, but are
industrious, honest, and capable, they will
generally be able to get their individual notes
endorsed by a sufficient number of known and
solvent parties; and on such business paper
they will be able to get a loan at a bank on
similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will
fall at a blow. The banks will really not be
lending capital at all, but will be doing business
on the capital of their customers, the business
consisting in an exchange of the known and
widely available credits of the banks for the
unknown and unavailable, but equally good,
credits of the customers, and a charge therefor
of less than one per cent., not as interest for
the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of
running the banks. This facility of acquiring
capital will give an unheard-of impetus to busi-
ness, and consequently create an unprecedenter.
demand for labor, a demand which will
always be in excess of the supply, directly the
contrary of the present condition of the labor
market. Then will be seen an exemplification
of the words of Richard Cobden that, when
two laborers are after one employer, wages fall,
but, when two employers are after one laborer,
wages rise. Labor will then be in a position
to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its
natural wage, its entire product. Thus the

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 21
same blow that strikes interest down will send
wages up. But this is not all. Down will go
profits also. For merchants, instead of buying
at high prices on credit, will borrow money of
the banks at less than one per cent., buy at
low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce
the prices of their goods to their customers.
And with the rest will go house-rent. For no
one who can borrow capital at one per cent.
with which to build a house of his own will
consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher
rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by
Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the
simple abolition of the money monopoly.
Second in importance comes the land monop-
oly, the evil effects of which are seen principally
in exclusively agricultural countries, like Ire-
land. This monopoly consists in the enforce-
ment by government of land titles which do not
rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation.
It was obvious to Warren and Proudhon that,
as soon as individuals should no longer be pro-
tected by their fellows in anything but personal
occupancy and cultivation of land, ground-rent
would disappear, and so usury have one less
leg to stand on. Their followers of to-day are
disposed to modify this claim to the extent of
admitting that the very small fraction of
ground-rent which rests, not on monopoly, but

22 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
on superiority of soil or site, will continue to
exist for a time and perhaps forever, though
tending constantly to a minimum under con-
ditions of freedom. But the inequality of soils
which gives rise to the economic rent of land,
like the inequality of human skill which gives
rise to the economic rent of ability, is not a
cause for serious alarm even to the most
thorough opponent of usury, as its nature is
not that of a germ from which other and graver
inequalities may spring, but rather that of a
decaying branch which may finally wither and
fall.
Third, the tariff monopoly, which consists in
fostering production at high prices and under
unfavorable conditions by visiting with the
penalty of taxation those who patronize pro-
duction at low prices and under favorable con-
ditions. The evil to which this monopoly gives
rise might more properly be called misusury
than usury, because it compels labor to pay, not
exactly for the use of capital, but rather for the
misuse of capital. The abolition of this
monopoly would result in a great reduction in
the prices of all articles taxed, and this saving
to the laborers who consume these articles
would be another step toward securing to the
laborer his natural wage, his entire product.
Proudhon admitted, however, that to abolish

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 23
this monopoly before abolishing the money
monopoly would be a cruel and disastrous
policy, first, because the evil of scarcity of
money, created by the money monopoly, would
be intensified by the flow of money out of the
country which would be involved in an excess
of imports over exports, and, second, because
that fraction of the laborers of the country
which is now employed in the protected indus-
tries would be turned adrift to face starvation
without the benefit of the insatiable demand for
labor which a competitive money system would
create. Free trade in money at home, making
money and work abundant, was insisted upon
by Proudhon as a prior condition of free trade
in goods with foreign countries.
Fourth, the patent monopoly, which consists
in protecting inventors and authors against
competition for a period long enough to enable
them to extort from the people a reward enor-
mously in excess of the labor measure of their
services, in other words, in giving certain
people a right of property for a term of years
in laws and facts of nature, and the power to
exact tribute from others for the use of this
natural wealth, which should be open to all.
The abolition of this monopoly would fill its
beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of compe-
tition which would cause them to be satisfied
24 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
with pay for their services equal to that which
other laborers get for theirs, and to secure it by
placing their products and works on the market
at the outset at prices so low that their lines of
business would be no more tempting to com-
petitors than any other lines.
The development of the economic programme
which consists in the destruction of these
monopolies and the substitution for them of the
freest competition led its authors to a percep-
tion of the fact that all their thought rested
upon a very fundamental principle, the freedom
of the individual, his right of sovereignty over
himself, his products, and his affairs, and of
rebellion against the dictation of external
authority. Just as the idea of taking capital
away from individuals and giving it to the
government started Marx in a path which ends
in making the government everything and the
individual nothing, so the idea of taking capital
away from government-protected monopolies
and putting it within easy reach of all individ-
uals started Warren and Proudhon in a path
which ends in making the individual everything
and the government nothing. If the individual
has a right to govern himself, all external gov-
ernment is tyranny. Hence the necessity of
abolishing the State. This was the logical con-
clusion to which Warren and Proudhon were


STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 25
forced, and it became the fundamental article
of their political philosophy. It is the doctrine
which Proudhon named An-archism, a word
derived from the Greek, and meaning, not
necessarily absence of order, as is generally
supposed, but absence of rule. The Anarchists
are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats.
They believe that “the best government is that
which governs least,” and that that which gov-
erns least is no government at all. Even the
simple police function of protecting person and
property they deny to governments supported
by compulsory taxation. Protection they look
upon as a thing to be secured, as long as it is
necessary, by voluntary association and coöpe-
ration for self-defence, or as a commodity to be
purchased, like any other commodity, of those
who offer the best article at the lowest price.
In their view it is in itself an invasion of the
individual to compel him to pay for or suffer a
protection against invasion that he has not
asked for and does not desire. And they fur-
ther claim that protection will become a drug
in the market, after poverty and consequently
crime have disappeared through the realization
of their economic programme. Compulsory
taxation is to them the life-principle of all the
monopolies, and passive, but organized, resis-
tance to the tax-collector they contemplate,

26 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
when the proper time comes, as one of the most
effective methods of accomplishing their
purposes.
Their attitude on this is a key to their atti-
tude on all other questions of a political or
social nature. In religion they are atheistic as
far as their own opinions are concerned, for
they look upon divine authority and the relig-
ious sanction of morality as the chief pretexts
put forward by the privileged classes for the
exercise of human authority. “If God ex-
ists,” said Proudhon, “he is man’s enemy.”
And, in contrast to Voltaire's famous epigram,
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to
invent him,” the great Russian Nihilist, Michael
Bakounine, placed this antithetical proposition:
“If God existed, it would be necessary to
abolish him.” But although, viewing the di-
vine hierarchy as a contradiction of Anarchy,
they do not believe in it, the Anarchists none
the less firmly believe in the liberty to believe
in it. Any denial of religious freedom they
squarely oppose.
Upholding thus the right of every individual
to be or select his own priest, they likewise
uphold his right to be or select his own doctor.
No monopoly in theology, no monopoly in
medicine. Competition everywhere and
always; spiritual advice and medical advice

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 27
allke to stand or fall on their own merits. And
not only in medicine, but in hygiene, must this
principle of liberty be followed. The indi-
vidual may decide for himself not only what to
do to get well, but what to do to keep well.
No external power must dictate to him what he
must and must not eat, drink, wear, or do.
Nor does the Anarchistic scheme furnish any
code of morals to be imposed upon the indi-
vidual. “Mind your own business” is its only
moral law. Interference with another's busi-
ness is a crime and the only crime, and as such
may properly be resisted. In accordance with
this view the Anarchists look upon attempts to
arbitrarily suppress vice as in themselves crimes.
They believe liberty and the resultant social
well-being to be a sure cure for all the vices.
But they recognize the right of the drunkard,
the gambler, the rake, and the harlot to live
their lives until they shall freely choose to
abandon them.
In the matter of the maintenance and rearing
of children the Anarchists would neither insti-
tute the communistic nursery which the State
Socialists favor or keep the communistic school
system which now prevails. The nurse and the
teacher, like the doctor and the preacher, must
be selected voluntarily, and their services must
be paid for by those who patronize them.

28 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
Parental rights must not be taken away, and
parental responsibilities must not be foisted
upon others.
Even in so delicate a matter as that of the
relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not
shrink from the application of their principle.
They acknowledge and defend the right of any
man and woman, or any men and women, to
love each other for as long or as short a time
as they can, will, or may. To them legal mar-
riage and legal divorce are equal absurdities.
They look forward to a time when every indi-
vidual, whether man or woman, shall be self-
supporting, and when each shall have an inde-
pendent home of his or her own, whether it be
a separate house or rooms in a house with
others; when the love relations between these
independent individuals shall be as varied as are
individual inclinations and attractions; and
when the children born of these relations shall
belong exclusively to the mothers until old
enough to belong to themselves.
Such are the main features of the Anarchistic
social ideal. There is wide difference of opin-
ion among those who hold it as to the best
method of obtaining it. Time forbids the
treatment of that phase of the subject here. I
will simply call attention to the fact that it is
an ideal utterly inconsistent with that of those

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 29
Communists who falsely call themselves Anar-
chists while at the same time advocating a
régime of Anarchism fully as despotic as that of
the State Socialists themselves. And it is an
ideal that can be as little advanced by the for-
cible expropriation recommended by John Most
and Prince Kropotkine as retarded by the
brooms of those Mrs. Partingtons of the bench
who sentence them to prison; an ideal which
the martyrs of Chicago did far more to help by
their glorious death upon the gallows for the
common cause of Socialism than by their un-
fortunate advocacy during their lives, in the
name of Anarchism, of force as a revolutionary
agent and authority as a safeguard of the new
social order. The Anarchists believe in liberty
both as end and means, and are hostile to any-
thing that antagonizes it.
I should not undertake to summarize this al-
together too summary exposition of Socialism
from the standpoint of Anarchism, did I not
find the task already accomplished for me by a
brilliant French journalist and historian, Ernest
Lesigne, in the form of a series of crisp anti-
theses; by reading which to you as a conclusion
of this lecture I hope to deepen the impression
which it has been my endeavor to make.
“There are two Socialisms.
“One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.

30 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
“One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
“One is metaphysical, the other positive.
“One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
“One is emotional, the other reflective.
“One is destructive, the other constructive.
“Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible
welfare for all.
“One aims to establish happiness for all, the
other to enable each to be happy in his own
way.
“The first regards the State as a society sui
generis, of an especial essence, the product of a
sort of divine right outside of and above all
society, with special rights and able to exact
special obediences; the second considers the
State as an association like any other, generally
managed worse than others.
“The first proclaims the sovereignty of
the State, the second recognizes no sort of
sovereign.
“One wishes all monopolies to be held by
the State; the other wishes the abolition of all
monopolies.
“One wishes the governed class to become
the governing class; the other wishes the dis-
appearance of classes.
“Both declare that the existing state of
things cannot last.
“The first considers revolution as the indis-

STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 31
pensable agent of evolution ; the second teaches
that repression alone turns evolution into
revolution.
“The first has faith in a cataclysm.
“The second knows that social progress will
result from the free play of individual efforts.
“Both understand that we are entering upon
a new historic phase.
“One wishes that there should be none but
proletaires.
“The other wishes that there should be no
more proletaires.
“The first wishes to take everything from
everybody.
“The second wishes to leave each in pos-
session of his own.
“The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
“The other wishes everybody to be a
proprietor.
“The first says: “Do as the government
wishes.”
“The second says: “Do as you wish
yourself.”
“The former threatens with despotism.
“The latter promises liberty.
“The former makes the citizen the subject
of the State.
“The latter makes the State the employee
of the citizen.

32 STATE SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM.
“One proclaims that labor pains will be nec-
essary to the birth of the new world.
“The other declares that real progress will
not cause suffering to any one.
“The first has confidence in social war.
“The other believes only in the works of -
peace.
“One aspires to command, to regulate, to
legislate.
“The other wishes to attain the minimum of
command, of regulation, of legislation.
“One would be followed by the most atro-
cious of reactions.
“The other opens unlimited horizons to
progress.
“The first will fail; the other will succeed.
“Both desire equality.
“One by lowering heads that are too high.
“The other by raising heads that are too low.
“One sees equality under a common yoke.
“The other will secure equality in complete
liberty.
“One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
“One frightens, the other reassures.
“The first wishes to instruct everybody.
“The second wishes to enable everybody to
instruct himself.
“The first wishes to support everybody.
“The second wishes to enable everybody to

STATE SocIALISM AND ANARCHISM. 33
support himself.
“One says:
*** The land to the State.
***The mine to the State.
*** The tool to the State.
“‘The product to the State.”
“The other says:
*** The land to the cultivator.
*** The mine to the miner.
*** The tool to the laborer.
“‘The product to the producer.’
“There are only these two Socialisms.
“One is the infancy of Socialism; the other
is its manhood.
“One is already the past; the other is the
future.
“One will give place to the other.
“To-day each of us must choose for one or
the other of these two Socialisms, or else con-
fess that he is not a Socialist.”

LIBERTY'S LIBRARY.
Any of the following works, mailed, postpaid, by
BENJ. R. TUCKER, Box1312, New York, N.Y."
A BLoW AT TRIAL BY J Ury. By Benj. R. Tucker.
An examination of the special jury law passed by the New York
legislature in 1896. A speech delivered by the editor of Libert
at a mass meeting held in Cooper Union, New York, June 25, 1897,
under the auspices of the Central Labor Union, Typographical
Union No. 6, and other labor organizations. 48 pages. Single
copy, 5 cents: 10 copies, 28 cents: 100 copies, $2.40.
THE ANA recºr ISTS: A Picture of Civilization at the Close
of the Nineteenth Century. A poet's prose contribution to the
literature of philosophic and egoistic Anarchism. The author
traces his own mental development in London amid the exciting
events of 1887,-the manifestations of the unemployed, the rioting
at Trafalgar Square, and the executions at Chicago. The antag-
onism between Communism and Anarchism sharply brought out.
By John Henry Mackay. Translated from the German by George
Schumm, 315 pages, with portrait of the author. Cloth, $1.00:
paper, 50 cents,
No Triº Asow.—No. VI. Showing that the constitution is of
no authority. By Lysander Spooner. 59 pages. 25 cents.
A Pol ITICLAN IN sight or HAIPIEN: Being a Pro.
test Against Government of Man by Man. By Auberon Herbert.
10 cents.
INºor, UNTARY IDLENEss. An exposition of the causes
of the discrepancy existing between the supply of and the demand
for labor and its products. By Hugo Bilgram. 119 pages. Cloth,
50 cents.
THE THIRTY-SIX TrADEs or THE STATE. By
Arsène Alexandre. Translated from the French by Benj. R.
Tucker. Showing the State as a jack-at-all-trades and good at
none. Single copy, 3 cents; 10 copies, 10 cents, 100 copies, 80 cents.
THE QUINTEssº NCE OF IBSFNISM. By G. Bernard
Shaw, Pronounced by the London Saturday Review a "most
diverting book,” and by the author the most complete assertion
of the validity of the human will as º all laws, institutions,
isms, and the like now procurable for a quarter.” Mr. Shaw
takes up Ibsen's plays seriatiºn, subjects each to searching
analysis, and extracts the quintessence of the whole. Nearly 200
pages. Paper, 25 cents.

LIBERTY'S LIBRARY.
Any of the following works, mailed, postpaid, by
BENJ. R. TUCKER, Box 1312, New York, N.Y.
THE SCIENCE OF sociº T.Y. By Stephen Pearl Andrews.
Consisting of two essays bearing the following titles respectively:
“The True Constitution of Government in the Sovereignty of
the Individual as the Final Development of Protestantism, De-
mocracy, and Socialism:” “Cost the Limit of Price: A Scientific
Measure of Honesty in Trade as One of the Fundamental Prin-
ciples in the Solution of the Social Problem.” This work is an
elaborate exposition of the teachings of Josiah Warren by one of
his foremost disciples. Cloth, $1.00; paper, 50 cents.
Frºud Pol ITICAL INSTITUTIONs: Their Nature, Es-
sence, and Maintenance. An abridgment and rearrangement of
Lysander Spooner's “Trial by Jury.” Edited by Victor Yarros.
47 pages, 25 cents.
what Is Pro PERTY” Or, an Inquiry into the Principle
of Right and of Government. By P. J. Proudhon. Prefaced by a
Sketch of Proudhon's Life and Works. Translated from the
French by Benj. R. Tucker. A systematic, thorough, and radical
discussion of the institution of property, its basis, its history,
its present status, and its destiny, -together with a detailed and
startling expose of the crimes which it commits, and the evils
which it engenders. 500 pages octavo. Cloth, $2.00; paper, $1.20.
GoD AND THE STATE. "One of the most eloquent pleas
for liberty ever written. Paine's "Age of Reason' and "Rights of
Man' consolidated and improved. It stirs the pulse like a trum-
pet call." By Michael Bakounine. Translated from the French
by Benj. R. Tucker. 52 pages. 15 cents.
_1 ºr NIDICATION or NATUr-11, so CIETY. A serious
denunciation of States and Governments, under whatever name
or form they may exist. By the famous statesman, Edmund
Burke. 36 pages. 10 cents.
Love, MA fºr IAGE, AND DIvorce, and the Sov-
ereignty of the Individual. A discussion between Henry James,
Horace Greeley, and Stephen Pearl Andrews. Including the final
replies of Mr. Andrews, rejected by the New York Tribune, and a
subsequent discussion, occurring twenty years later, between Mr.
James and Mr. Andrews. 121 pages. 35 cents.
PolluxT4 fºr social LISM. By F. D. Tandy. A complete
and systematic outline of Anarchistic philosophy and economics,
written ºn a clear, concise, and simple style. It is followed by a
suggestive bibliography of books of service to those who wish to
study the subject more deeply, and contains also a complete index.
228 pp. 12-mo. Cloth, $1.00; paper, 50 cents.

MUTUAL BANKING.
By
w ILLIAM B. GREENE.
Showing the radical deficiency of the existing
circulating medium and the advantages of a free
currency; a plan whereby to abolish interest, not
by State intervention, but by first abolishing State
intervention itself.
One of the most important works on finance
in the English language.
New and Cheap Edition.
Price, 10 cents,
Mailed, post-paid, by
BENJ. R. TUCKER, Box 1312, New York City.
Chas. A. Dana's Plea for Anarchy
PROUDHON
AND
HIS “BANK OF THE PEOPLE.”
-Y CHAs. A. D.A.N.--
Being a Defence of the Great French Anarchist,
Showing the Evils of a Specie Currency, and That
Interest on Capital Can and Ought to be Abolished
by a System of Free and Mutual Banking.
Price, 10 cents; Leatherette, 25 cents.
Mailed, post-paid, by the Publisher,
BENJ. R. TUCKER, Box 1312, New York City.

If Illi Hill llll
A FULL REPORT,
FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES,
OF THE
Fifteen Days' Proceedings in the Assize Court
of the Seine, including Zola's letter to
the President of France, for which he was
tried, Testimony of Witnesses, and Speeches
of Counsel.
The Speech of Maitre Labori, M. Zola's Coun-
sel, fills nearly 100 Pages of the Book, and gives
a Complete History of the Celebrated Dreyfus
Case up to the time of the Zola Trial.
355 Pages. 25 Cents.
Mailed, post-paid, by the Publisher,
BEN.J. R. Tucker, Box 1312, New York City.
MoDERN MARRIAGE.
BY EMILE ZOL.A.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH BY BENJ. R. TUCKER.
In this story Zola takes four typical marriages,
—one from the nobility, one from the bourgeoisie,
one from the petty bourgeoisie, and one from the
working-people, and describes, with all the power
of his wondrous art, how each originates, by what
motive each is inspired, how each is consummated,
and how each results.
Price, 15 cents.
Mailed, post-paid, by the Publisher,
BEN.J. R. TuckºR, Box 1312. New York City.
L I B E R T Y.
A Bi-Monthly Organ of
Anarchism.
BEN.J. R. TUCKER, - - - Editor.
EXPOUNDING THE THEORY THAT ONLY IN EQUAL
L-L-E-T - Is TO LE FOU-1) - T-UL- --Tº-F-C-
TORY SOLUTION OF SOCIAL QUESTIONS, AND
THAT MAJORITY RULE, OR DEMOCRACY,
EQUALLY WITH MON ARCHICAL RULE,
Is A DENIAL OF EQUAL LIBERTY.
G. Bernard Shaw, editor of the “Fabian
Essays,” and author of “The Quintessence of
Ibsenism,” charactizes LIBERTY as a lively
paper, in which the usual proportions of a half-
pennyworth of discussion to an intolerable deal
of balderdash are reversed.”
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION .
Twelve issues, 60 Cents: Twenty-four
Issues, $1.O.O.
SINGLE COPIES, 5 CENTs.
AddressBENJ. R. TUSKER, Bºx 131%, New York City.






- 18 7 1/
ſ — º CH
-
- ºut UN Livº A PUBLIER, ºn dicº
mºre don't a necessiº devient ºrgente. Son
ſº sº a Dictionnaire de Allemands on
Encyclopédie hºme cºmeºne de lear.
nºmics, nºnquements a la for ſurge, aux tº
tº a toº les engagements oranº, moratºr, sº
le pººr ºf sur l'honneur; w comprisles ense
ºmen's de leurs motºres, endºn, poºr mieu.
dº º justifier ces manquements, suicant le.
º ºr des considérations de science, droit
| ºtion, morale, religion, socialisme: on
tº et la Manière de connaire les. Allemands,
lºs ruses, measonses, ſourberies, imposture.
ºf les impostures de leº Kºlºur, leº. hypocrisie.
ºdºre, leurs pººres, incheries, ºr brº
industrialisme, barbºre congenitale, science
º, cquiele héréditºre, lear joic-de-ſaº
ºnal, ºr colupté de mal faire le toº
usage des pauvres desprit qui anonment ºn
core ºres tout, c'est des homes comme
| " ". des ignorants de l'histoire, deceux qui,
ºur se guider dans leurs jugements internatio-
ºur n'ont pas ſombre dºme idée de cete
ºnce essentielle qui s'appelle la psychologº
is peºples; a l'usage de ceux qui s'imaginent
mºre ºn peuſ octroyer in constitution ame:
ºne º des anthropophages et le tempºrament
ºublicºn a des Boches. Ef ºssi º ºusage
de fºls ºutes qui ne ſºon que poºr sºnsºre
-- ºr ,
Un ºl dictionnaire, répandu partout, empe-
cherº pººre enjin, º chaºue seconse qui
ºnle "Allemagne, certains commentºres cº-
de renººre, et d'ºcher trop dºmpon-
a question de squoi, sº les Hohenzo-
ºn Bethmann sera renºlacº ºr Schº-
denºm, Hindenburg pº Hinderburg. Lº-
dendº º Erzberger ºr Eisen-
º, ºr Pºlº e von Stein ºr ºn
- - º ºn nº