💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › henry-seymour-the-two-anarchisms.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:50:09. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Two Anarchisms
Author: Henry Seymour
Date: 1894
Language: en
Source: [[http://www.panarchy.org/seymour/anarchisms.html]]
Notes: This is a short text that presents two of the many facets of anarchism, the mutualistic and the communistic. Given the fact that the main feature of anarchy is the voluntary choice of personal and social organization, these two forms of anarchism should be both acceptable as long as they are practiced freely and voluntarily by those who believe in one or the other of them, without any imposition that would not be consonant with the conception and practice of anarchy.

Henry Seymour

The Two Anarchisms

Anarchist are divided into MUTUALISTS, who hope to bring about their

economic results by Banks of Exchange and a free currency; and

COMMUNISTS, whose motto is: “From every man according to his capacity,

to every man according to his needs.”

Hazell’s Annual Encyclopaedia, 1886

There are two Anarchisms. That is to say, there are two schools of

Anarchism.

One is communistic, the other mutualistic.

One is emotional, the other is philosophic. One is utopian, the other

practical.

One is dogmatic, the other rational.

One is destructive, the other constructive. One is revolutionary, the

other evolutionary.

One relies on the logic of force, the other on the force of logic.

One believes the State to be the cause of the economic status of the

people. The other that the economic status of the people is the result

of their economic ignorance.

Both agree that the State engenders evils of its own, and that the

present administration of justice is a sham.

One would destroy the State at once, the other believes that other evils

of equal magnitude would result from such a proceeding.

One regards Anarchism as a condition capable of immediate realization,

the other regards it as an ideal towards which humanity is unconsciously

tending, but which can only be permanently attained through a succession

of economic and moral developments in harmony with it and operating

along the lines of least resistance.

One seeks to replace State authority by the direct control of the

"community," the other objects equally to State authority and mob rule.

Both have one object - the greatest possible liberty and independence.

One would permit everybody to work when, where, and how they pleased,

and consume all they required from a common stock; the other objects to

the exploitation of industrious labor through idleness, and of talent

through incompetence.

One believes that everybody would cheerfully labor under communistic

conditions, the other has no faith in shirking being got rid of by

conditions which render it easier.

Both believe in Equality.

One believes in an equality of Comforts, the other believes in an

equality of Rights, which guarantees to each the opportunity to be

equally comfortable.

One regards Property as the fundamental cause of poverty and artificial

inequality, the other insists that it is Monopoly which is the cause

thereof.

One would abolish Property, the other would make Property possible.

One desires to expropriate everybody, the other desires to make the

producers the proprietors.

One says: "The product to the community, and to each according to his

needs." The other says: "The product to the producer and to each

according to his deeds."

One regards Competition as an evil, the other regards it as the

mainspring of progress.

One believes that the abolition of Competition would make social

improvement possible, the other that it would produce social stagnation.

The first would suppress economic laws, the other would give them free

play by removing the legislative restrictions which derange their true

development and consequently produce such abnormal manifestations.

One says that Competition keeps down wages to the cost of the laborer's

subsistence, the other says that wages are kept down to this level

through the monopoly by the privileged class of the right to represent

wealth by money.

One denies the possibility of accurately measuring the value of each

producer's contribution to production, the other affirms the simplicity

of doing so by the adoption of a true measure and representative

instrument of exchange.

One declares money to be the source of all evil, the other declares evil

to have manifold sources. One attributes the existence of gluts and

poverty to the money system per se, the other attributes it to a

privileged money system.

One would abolish money altogether, the other would introduce a free

currency based on all VALUES, instead of giving Specie an arbitrary,

seignorial prerogative over other commodities equally valuable.

One thinks that this system would eventually become as bad as its

predecessor, the other knows it would immediately abolish interest, and

tend to continuously lower, and finally eliminate rent.

One would declare civil war and confiscate existing wealth as well as

the means of production, the other would peaceably set in motion Banks

of Exchange through which credit could be organized and mutual exchange

effected, enabling everybody to start work at once, and gradually, but

surely, removing the impediments on future production without

confiscating anything.

One would make the family the basis of the social structure, the other

would make Equity the basis.

Both believe in free-love.

One favors irresponsible promiscuity in the sexual relation (inasmuch as

the community is responsible for the rearing of offspring), the other

favors free contract, giving both parties equal liberties and enforcing

mutual responsibilities.

One would therefore destroy marriage and the family; the other would

consolidate them.

One would get rid of the burden of taxation by having no government at

all, the other by means of a free government (the functions of which

would be limited to a mere preservation of equal rights) supported

exclusively by the criminals on whose account it were requisite.

One believes that the abolition of the State and the consequent free

access to the means of living would immediately reduce crime to a

minimum, the other believes that a large number of offences would be

touched by this means, but that it is through stirpiculture alone that

crime may be completely eradicated, and with it the necessity of the

State.

I have said that there are two schools of Anarchism; I beg leave to add

that there is only one logical and consistent school, which will

ultimately prevail.