💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › herbert-l-osgood-scientific-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:47:51. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

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

Title: Scientific Anarchism
Author: Herbert L. Osgood
Date: March 1889
Language: en
Topics: introductory, scientific socialism, individualism, anarcho-communism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, socialism, communism, liberty
Source: *Political Science Quarterly* Vol. 4, No. 1 (Mar., 1889), pp. 1–36. DOI: 10.2307/2139424 https://archive.org/download/jstor-2139424/2139424.pdf

Herbert L. Osgood

Scientific Anarchism

IN ANARCHISM we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and communism.

The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of the state that it shall

embrace all the more important concerns of life. The communist, at least

of the older school, would make the sway of authority and the routine

which follows therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand,

would banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the most

perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme individualist. Using the

words of the famous revolutionary formula, he would secure equality

through liberty, while the socialist would secure it through fraternity.

The anarchist holds that the revolt against authority, which began in

the field of religion with the Protestant reformation, and which was

extended into the realm of politics by the revolutionary movement of the

last century, will end, when carried to its logical and necessary issue,

in the abolition of all government, divine and human. He subscribes to

the doctrine contained in the opening sentences of the Declaration of

Independence. He also claims that men who, like Jefferson[1] and Herbert

Spencer, express great jealousy of state control, would, if they were

logical and true to their principles, become anarchists and advocate the

complete emancipation of society.

I. Proudhon.

Anarchism, as a social theory, was first elaborately formulated by

Proudhon. In the first part of his work, What is Property?[2] he briefly

stated the doctrine and gave it the name anarchy, absence of a master or

sovereign. In that connection he said:

In a given society the authority of man over man is inversely

proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society

has reached.... Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever

since the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society

seeks order in anarchy.

About twelve years before Proudhon published his views, Josiah Warren[3]

reached similar conclusions in America. But as the Frenchman possessed

the originality necessary to the construction of a social philosophy, we

must regard him as altogether the chief authority upon scientific

anarchism.[4]

Proudhon, in his destructive criticism of existing institutions, made

constant use of the logical formula of Hegel: thesis, antithesis, and

synthesis. Negation he called his first principle, as that of God is in

religion and thought in the system of Descartes.[5] He denied the truth

of every dogma and showed the contradiction or “antinomy”[6] existing in

every human institution. Like all a priori reasoners, however, he was

forced to start with a dogma, and this was that justice and certain

rights—emphatically those of liberty and equality — are natural, exist

prior to law, and furnish the criteria for judging all legal and social

systems. He defined justice to be “the recognition of the equality

between another’s personality and our own.”[7] This, it will be seen, is

the golden rule put into philosophical language. Proudhon, in fact,

declares at the outset[8] that he accepts that declaration of Christ as

the correct rule of conduct; but he aims to make it more precise and

positive by expounding the idea of justice which it contains. Every one

should claim from others the full recognition of the manhood in him,

stripped of all its accessories, and should yield the same recognition

in return. If with this were combined the humanitarian spirit, which

Proudhon called tquiti, or social proportionality, a perfect form of

society would be the result.[9] Equality and liberty would be

harmonized, and both would be developed to the highest possible degree.

Society, justice, and equality would then be three equivalent terms. All

unequal, and therefore unnatural, conditions would disappear. Force

would no longer be resorted to. Everything would be regulated by reason

and persuasion. Thought, knowledge, virtue would hold undisputed sway.

Furnished with this ideal conception of society, which he had

deductively attained, Proudhon attacked and in his own opinion

demolished every institution which he found in society about him. In his

Systkme des contradictions economiques he went through the entire series

of economic phenomena, — value, division of labor, the use of machines,

competition, credit, property, international trade, taxation,

population, — showing first their beneficent effects and how they meet

the needs of a progressive society, and then by way of antithesis their

evil effects, their fatal, tendency toward the development of

inequality. Like the socialists, he borrows from Adam Smith the doctrine

that labor is the true measure of value. The utilities which it produces

should always exchange in proportion to their cost. In other words, cost

should be the limit of price. But value in exchange, arising from

demand, is “antinomical” to value in use, which arises from labor and

utility. The two tend in different directions and become divorced. We

have therefore this result: that the more utilities are multiplied, the

less becomes their value. In the natural or perfect society, where

exchange-value and utility are held in proper equilibrium, this would

not be true, but the value of any product would be the formula, or

monetary statement, which would express the proportion which the product

bore to the sum of social wealth.[10] Then the producer of a utility

would receive its full value in exchange. The laborer would reap the

full benefit of improvements in the methods of production, or, as

Proudhon expressed it, “all labor would leave a surplus.”

The way in which Proudhon deals with other and less obscure economic

phenomena will be readily seen. For example: he declares that the

division of labor is a prime condition of social progress. Without it,

labor would be sterile, and neither wealth nor equality could exist. But

the principle, when followed out to its natural consequences, becomes a

most prolific source of misery. The realization of justice in the

economic sphere, which is “to give equal wealth to each on condition of

equal labor,”[11] is prevented. Hours of labor are increased; the

conditions under which the work is done grow worse; and the laborer

suffers mentally, morally and physically. He tends downward to the

condition of a serf, while his master, the owner of the factory, becomes

a moneyed aristocrat. The gulf between the two grows ever wider, and

association, education or other schemes of improvement popular with

economists cannot bridge it. It would seem that the introduction of

machines might check the growing inequality, because through them the

forces of nature are made servants of man. They both increase and

cheapen production. They diminish the amount of human labor necessary to

accomplish a given result. The world cannot do without them. But they

are gradually eliminating the laborer, reducing his wages, making

useless the trade which he had learned and upon which he depended,

causing over-production, deterioration of products, disease and death.

Proudhon summed up his views on competition in these words: “

Competition destroys competition.”[12] By this he meant that, though

indestructible in its principle, competition in its present form should

be abolished. In fact, he believed that it was slowly preparing the

conditions necessary to its own destruction. Monopoly and credit he

treated in essentially the same way, and so the remaining economic

categories, till in the problem of population as stated by Malthus he

found the culmination of human misery. The conclusion which he reached

was that we are living in a condition of anarchy; meaning by that not

absence of government, but the other signification of the word, viz.:

disorder, confusion.

We need not follow Proudhon further in the application of his logical

method to social facts. He claimed that by his brilliant dialectics he

had reduced them all to absurdities, fraught however with infinite harm.

For the present purpose it is more important to note what he considered

to be the source of the antinomy, the cause of inequality and hence of

misery and decay. Like the socialists, he found this root of bitterness

not in man himself, not in the individual, but in society. Something was

wrong in the form of social organization; some evil institution had been

allowed to develop which by its influence had thrown the whole system

into disorder. If this could be swept away, order would be restored, the

diseased organism would become healthy and perfect. The Satan in the

social philosophy of Proudhon was property: not property right limited

by social expediency and high moral considerations, but the jus utendi

et abutendi of the Roman law, the absolutely unlimited right of private

property. But he did not stop there. Property, said he, is not a natural

right, but is guaranteed and upheld by the state. Property and the state

are correlative terms. The two institutions are reciprocally dependent

and must co-exist.

The chief function of the state is that of police, the object of which

is to secure to individuals the enjoyment of their possessions and of

the privileges connected therewith. In the thought of Proudhon, the

essence of property was not the thing possessed nor the act of

possession, but the privileges, the power, the possibility of gain, of

obtaining rent, profit or interest which accompanied it. To him private

property in the exclusive Roman sense was the very embodiment of

inequality, and so the efficient cause of all social evils. He sought to

sum up in the paradox, “property is robbery,” the problem of human woe.

The laborer, the result of whose work is embodied in material form, is

the only producer. The proprietor, whether he be landlord or capitalist,

is an unproductive laborer. He is a parasite because he does nothing but

consume. He receives without rendering an equivalent. But since he owns

the means of production, he can appropriate a share of the laborer’s

products. Because of the inequality thus developed, the tribute exacted

constantly increases. The laborer falls in debt and becomes more and

more dependent on his employer.[13] The tenant pays for his land or

house many times over, but never becomes its owner. The commodities

produced by the workman make his employer rich. The interest paid by the

borrower exceeds the capital, but the debt is never paid. The proprietor

virtually exercises the rights which of old belonged to a seignior over

his vassal or to a master over his slave. The state, which is organized

force, legalizes rent, profit, interest, and protects property owners

while they plunder the rest of society. Hence arises the poverty to

which the masses of men are condemned, and poverty is the mother of

every form of crime. Society thus appears amid terrible agony to be ever

consuming itself.

These thoughts and more of a similar nature Proudhon poured forth in

volume after volume during the years immediately before and after the

revolution of 1848. He lived amid the ideas, the enthusiasm for liberty

and equality, from which that movement sprang. So vividly did he see and

feel the tragedy of human existence that he regarded revolution as the

only conserving force. He considered it inevitable, imminent: no force

could check its progress. It rested with society only to determine

whether it should be gradual and peaceful, or violent.[14] He taught the

theory of revolution as a permanent factor in social life. Reaction, he

said, could only quicken the onward movement. The revolution must

continue till right was done, till justice was established.

According to Proudhon the great uprising of 1789 was not a revolution,

but only an important step of progress.[15] It was an attempt to

establish justice; but it failed, because it only substituted one form

of government for another. Had it abolished government and instituted

the rule of reason, it would have been a genuine revolution. As it was,

however, the work of revolution was only half done. Parliamentary

government, democracy, the rule of the bourgeoisie took the place of the

old absolutism. The reign of force was not brought to an end, but rather

entered upon a new phase. Militarism continued, though under a slightly

different form. Now the contest is waged for the control of the markets

of the world rather than for political supremacy. England has led the

way in this struggle by the development of manufacturing and the

overthrow of her protective system.[16] But monopoly supported by force

is as triumphant as ever. The corrupting influence of wealth is seen in

all departments of political life. Hence the work of August 4 must be

taken up where the Constituent Assembly left it and carried on to

completion.

To Proudhon, the revolution of 1848 was the proclamation of a new era.

It meant the substitution of an economic and social regime for one of a

governmental, feudal and military character.[17] By this he meant not a

system in which any economic class should become dominant, its rule

being based upon political power, but, as he expressed it, an

organization of economic forces based upon contract and operating

according to the principle of reciprocity. This means the entire

abolition of the state and the transfer of the control of social

interests to individuals, acting either singly or in voluntary

association. Such is the programme of the anarchists. It will be

interesting to examine a little more closely the course of thought which

led Proudhon to adopt it.

Like all social reformers, he was led to the study and criticism of

society by the sight of human misery. In the early pages of What is

Property?[18] he says that perhaps he would have accepted property as a

fact without inquiring into its origin, had all his fellow citizens been

in comfortable circumstances. As they were not, he would challenge this

chief of social institutions and put it upon its defence. The result of

his examination has already been stated. But property and the state he

found to be inextricably bound up together. The state, property,

inequality, misery, became to him synonymous terms. It made no

difference what the form of the government might be; its essential

nature remained always the same. History shows that nations are

revolving in a fatal circle of imperial despotism, constitutionalism,

democracy, and from this by political means they can never escape.[19]

Experience finally proves [he says] that everywhere and always

government, however popular it may be in its origin, has taken sides

with the richer and more intelligent class against the poorer and more

numerous; that, after having for a time shown itself liberal, it has

little by little become exclusive and partial; finally, that, instead of

maintaining liberty and equality among all, it has, because of its

natural inclination toward privilege, labored obstinately to destroy

them.

According to Proudhon, contract is the only bond which can unite

individuals into a society. But Rousseau’s theory of contract he

rejects, and in the most admirable manner reduces to an absurdity. He

says that the idea of contract excludes that of government. It imposes

upon the contracting parties no obligation but that which results from

their personal promise; it is not subject to any external authority; it

alone constitutes the common law of the parties; it awaits execution

only from their initiative.[20] It should embrace all citizens, with

their interests and relations. If one man or one interest is left out,

it is no longer social. The welfare and liberty of each citizen should

be increased by the contracts; otherwise it is a fraud, and should be

overthrown. It should be freely debated, individually assented to, and

signed, nomine proprio, by all those who participate in it. Otherwise it

is systematic spoliation. “All laws which I have not accepted I reject

as an imposition on my free will.”[21] The true social contract has

nothing in common with the surrender of liberty or submission to a

burdensome solidarity. The premise from which Rousseau starts, viz. that

the people is a collective entity having a moral personality distinct

from that of the individual, is false. The conclusions drawn from it,

viz. the alienation of liberty for the sake of all, a government

external to society, division of powers, etc., are equally false.

Rousseau has in his theory misrepresented social facts and neglected the

true and essential elements of contract itself. His theory is like a

commercial agreement with the names of the parties suppressed, the

values of the products and services, the conditions of quality,

delivery, price, etc., in short all essential things omitted, and with

only the penalties and jurisdictions given. In other words, the theory

is absurd.[22]

Equally without reason in their practical operations are the

constitutional systems of government, whether monarchical or republican,

which are based upon this theory. The election is the pivot about which

they revolve. Its fundamental idea is decision by number or lot. In what

respect is this principle better or more just than generation, the basis

of the family; than force, the basis of the patriarchate; than faith,

the central dogma of the church; than primogeniture, upon which

aristocracy rests? Elections, votes never decided anything. Inferior

matters of little importance may be decided by arbitration; but

important things, the organization of society, my subsistence, I will

never submit to an indirect solution. I emphatically deny that the

people in elections are able to recognize and distinguish between the

merits of rival candidates. But when presidents and representatives are

once chosen, they are my masters. What do numbers prove? What are they

worth? You refer my interests, subsistence, etc., to a Congress. What

connection is there between the Congress and me? What guarantee have I

that the law which the Congress makes and hands to me on the point of

the bayonet will promote my interest?[23] Furthermore, how can I, in

such a situation, maintain my dignity as a sovereign and party to the

social contract? The democratic theory is thus an attempt to harmonize

two wholly inconsistent principles, those of authority and of contract.

The origin of authority is in the family. The necessity for the

maintenance of order, for the establishment of an artificial, and

therefore of an impossible, harmony between individual and common

interests, is the only argument in its favor. This means that government

is based upon force, is in its nature and operation wholly arbitrary.

The belief that the people, either collectively or individually, consent

to its acts, or that the will of the people can be ascertained, directly

by thz plebiscite or indirectly through so-called public opinion, is a

superstition. It is one of the fictions with which the law and politics

abound. But, Proudhon would say, if it were really possible that the

majority should rule and carry its desires into effect, its government

would be as tyrannical as that of a single despot, for it would impose

upon the citizen the will of another, it would violate the true

principle of contract.

Returning then to the point whence we started, it appears that

Proudhon’s social ideal was that of perfect individual liberty. Those

who have thought him a communist or socialist have wholly mistaken his

meaning. To be sure there is an expression here and there in his works

which savors of communism,[24] but when more closely examined it will be

found to be in harmony with the general trend of his thought. No better

argument against communism can be found than is contained in the chapter

on that subject in the Systkme des Contradictions iconomiques. In What

is Property? he speaks of communism as follows:

The disadvantages of communism are so obvious that the critics never

have needed to employ much eloquence to thoroughly disgust men with it.

The irreparability of the injustice which it causes, the violence which

it does to attractions and repulsions, the yoke of iron which it fastens

upon the will, the moral torture to which it subjects the conscience,

the debilitating effect which it has upon society, and, to sum it all

up, the pious and stupid uniformity which it enforces upon the free,

active, reasoning, unsubmissive personality of man, have shocked common

sense, and condemned communism by an irrevocable decree.[25]

This passage, together with his famous sayings: “Communism is

inequality”; “Communism is oppression and slavery ”; “Property is the

exploitation of the weak by the strong, communism is the exploitation of

the strong by the weak,” furnish sufficient documentary evidence upon

the question. Proudhon regarded the rise of socialistic and communistic

opinions as an added sign that the times were out of joint. Writers of

that school make a diagnosis of the social disease very similar to his

own, but when it comes to the application of the remedy Proudhon differs

from them in most essential particulars.

Proudhon believed that if the state in all its departments were

abolished, if authority were eradicated from society, and if the

principle of laissez faire were made universal in its operation, every

form of social ill would disappear. According to his view men are wicked

and ignorant because, either directly or indirectly, they have been

forced to be so: it is because they have been subjected to the will of

another, or are able to transfer the evil results of their acts to

another. If the individual, after reaching the age of discretion, could

be freed from repression and compulsion in every form, and know that he

alone is responsible for his acts and must bear their consequences, he

would become thrifty, prudent, energetic; in short he would always see

and follow his highest interests. He would always respect the rights of

others; that is, act justly. Such individuals could carry on all the

great industrial enterprises of to-day either separately or by voluntary

association. No compulsion, however, could be used to force one to

fulfil a contract or remain in an association longer than his interest

dictated. Thus we should have a perfectly free play of enlightened

self-interests: equitable competition, the only natural form of social

organization. The dream which had floated before the mind of the

economist of the Manchester school would be realized.

Among the different forms of monopoly which afflict society at present,

Proudhon considered the money monopoly to be fraught with the greatest

evil.[26] By this he meant, in the first place, the selection of two

commodities, gold and silver, from among all the rest, to be the

standard of value and the intermediaries in all exchanges. This gave

them sovereign power, established as it were the monarchical regime

among commodities; for he who possesses money, the universal

representative of value, can command wealth in all its forms. To

metallic money, in course of time, the idea and forms of credit were

added. This greatly facilitated exchange and made more convenient the

form of the circulating medium. But the issue of paper, as well as of

metal money, was made a monopoly, in the hands either of the government,

or of bankers designated by the government. In all the more important

business operations paper has taken the place of metal, and property may

now almost be said to exist in the form of credit documents. Those who

issue and deal in these virtually control the rate of interest and,

through that, rent and prices. Proudhon condemned usury as strongly as

did Aristotle or the mediaeval theologians. To him it was the direct

result of monopoly, and the taking of it, theft. Its percentage

indicated the rapidity with which the borrower was being expropriated.

According to his view, if usury or interest could be abolished, monopoly

in every other form ‘would fall with it. Rent and profits, considered as

the return which the proprietor can exact by virtue of his position as

monopolist of land and of the instruments of production, would

disappear, and wages or reward for actual service would alone remain. In

one of his brochures,[27] written during the excitement of the

revolution of 1848, Proudhon recommended that the state should take the

initiative and, first, reduce incomes by a progressive scale, increasing

the percentage of reduction with the size of the income. Then prices

should be lowered to an equivalent degree. This should be followed by a

corresponding reduction of taxation. By these measures the industrial

equilibrium would be maintained, hoarded capital would be brought out,

and general prosperity would ensue. He thought, however, that in order

to help the peasantry and prevent their migrating to the cities this

policy should not be applied to agriculture. Proudhon did not attempt to

justify such wholesale confiscation of incomes by the state, but said

that it was necessary to resort to it preparatory to the organization of

credit.

This suggests the most important feature of Proudhon’s scheme of social

reform. His idea was that in the perfect social state services should

exchange for services, products for products. To this end money must be

abolished; for so long as products and services are exchanged for it,

discount, interest, and other forms of tribute to monopoly must be paid.

As a substitute for money he would “generalize the bill of exchange.”

Now the whole problem of circulation consists in generalizing the bill

of exchange; that is to say, in making of it an anonymous title,

exchangeable forever, and redeemable at sight, but only in merchandise

and services.[28]

In other words, using the language now current in the money market, he

would base bank paper upon products. By means of the bill of exchange he

would mobilize all products, make all as readily exchangeable as money

is now. It was this which Proudhon in company with Coignet tried to do

in Paris by means of their banque d’^change or banque du peuple,

established there in 1848.[29] Its operations however were soon brought

to an end by the exile of its founder. Let us see what results Proudhon

hoped would follow from his plan, if it could have been carried into

successful execution.

“In obedience to the summons of the government, and by simple authentic

declaration,” as many producers from every department of industry as

could be induced to do so, should unite, draw up articles of agreement

and promise to abide by them. They would in this way organize the bank.

Every subscriber should keep an open account at the institution and bind

himself to receive its notes at par in all payments whatsoever. The bank

would thus do the ordinary business of deposit and issue. “Provisionally

and by way of transition, gold and silver coin will be received in

exchange for the paper of the bank, and at their nominal value.” But as

the new institution should grow in popular favor and become universal,

gold and silver would go out of use as the exclusive bases of currency.

They would be estimated solely as commodities.

What reason had Proudhon for believing that his bank, if put into open

competition with moneyed institutions as they now exist, unsupported by

the state, would out-compete them all, force them to close or to change

their method of doing business and, finally, entirely reorganize

society? It was this: the bank would charge no interest or discount on

loans and would pay none on deposits. Nothing whatever would be taken or

received for the use of capital. The only charge made by the bank would

be enough to pay its running or office expenses. These would never

amount to more than one per cent and probably could be reduced as low as

one-half of one per cent. “Services should exchange for services,

products for products.” Reciprocity is the principle at the basis of the

plan. The fact that no interest was charged would attract borrowers from

the other banks and thereby force capitalists to place their funds with

the new bank.

But this plan may be viewed from another standpoint, which will give it

a familiar look to those who are acquainted with the most advanced

socialistic schemes. If producers living at different places could know

at the same time their mutual needs, they could exchange their products

without the use of money. The bank could furnish that knowledge and so

bring producers and consumers together. What it could do for one

community, a network of banks could do for a nation or for the civilized

world. This could be effected without the interposition of a government.

The bank need not even own warehouses or magazines for the storing of

commodities. The producer could, while keeping possession of his

product, consign it to the bank by means of a bill of lading, bill of

exchange, etc. He would receive in return notes of the bank equal to the

value of his consignment, minus a proportional share of the cost of

running the establishment. With these he could purchase of other

producers, made known to him if necessary by the bank, such commodities

as he desired. Meantime the bank would find for him and all others who

had dealings with it purchasers of their goods. Thus supply would be

adapted to demand; over-production and crises would be prevented. Every

one would be assured of a market for whatever product or obligation he

might possess, through the general intermediary, the bank. The bank

would deal in credit documents, notes, mortgages, etc., if properly

indorsed and secured.

It will be seen at once that, if this form of exchange should become

universal, rent, profits, interest, every form of proprietary and

capitalistic expropriation would disappear. The bank, if it ever became

strong enough, would fix the reward for the use of property of all kinds

and for effecting exchanges. The former would be nil, and the latter, as

we have seen, would be less than one per cent. For example, Proudhon

argued,[30] while the process of transition was going on, capital would

flow toward city lots and buildings and reduce their rents till the

conditions prevailing in “laborers’ cities” should become approximately

universal. Rents would only yield enough to make good the capital spent

in building, repairs and taxes. Finally, the commune could decree the

abolition of rent by providing that after a certain time all payments

should be carried to the account of the property, which itself should be

valued at twenty-five times the yearly rent. When the payments had been

made in full, the commune could give to the occupiers a title to

perpetual domicile, provided they kept the property in as good condition

as it was when the grant was made. Proprietors need not be disturbed in

the occupancy of their own estates till they pleased. All changes, after

the first mentioned above, must be made by contract between citizens,

and the execution of the contracts should be intrusted to the commune.

In this way Proudhon would ultimately extend the capitalization of rent

through the agricultural districts of the nation and everywhere

transform proprietorship into possession. He claimed that the saving of

wealth made possible by the abolition of interest would be so great, and

the stimulus thereby given to production so strong, that all public and

private debts could be quickly paid off, taxation reduced and finally

abolished. The expense of administering government would be

correspondingly lessened. But with the permanent and abounding

prosperity which would be felt by all classes in the nation, poverty,

the cause of crime, would gradually disappear. Courts and police

administration would then be no longer necessary. Finally, as the new

system extended among the nations, their internal well-being would so

increase that wars would be no longer necessary. Hence the army and the

navy could be dispensed with and diplomacy would become a lost art. By

this process of development the departments of finance, of justice, of

police, and of foreign affairs would disappear. There would be no more

use for them. The state itself then would be thrown aside like an old

and worn-out garment, and society would enter upon a new period of

existence, the period of liberty and of perfect justice. This is what

Proudhon thought could be accomplished through the organization of

credit. Then the perfect individual described above would need only

freedom and the equality of conditions insured by freedom to reach the

highest development of all his powers. Such is the anarchistic ideal.

Proudhon has repeatedly set it forth. I quote one of the passages:

Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation everywhere stopped, the giving

and receiving of wages in its present form abolished, exchange equal and

really guaranteed, value constituted, a market assured, the principle of

protection changed, the markets of the globe opened to the producers of

all countries; consequently the barriers broken down, old international

law replaced by commercial conventions, police, justice, administration

put everywhere into the hands of those engaged in industry; economic

organization taking the place of the governmental and military regime in

the colonies as well as the mother countries; finally the free and

universal commingling of races under the sole law of contract; that is

the revolution.[31]

II. The Individualistic Anarchists .

Proudhon’s theory is the sum and substance of scientific anarchism. How

closely have the American anarchists adhered to the teachings of their

master?

One group, with its centre at Boston and with branch associations in a

few other cities, is composed of faithful disciples of Proudhon. They

believe that he is the leading thinker among those who have found the

source of evil in society and the remedy therefor. They accept his

analysis of social phenomena and follow his lead generally, though not

implicitly. They call themselves Individualistic Anarchists, and claim

to be the only class who are entitled to that name. They do not attempt

to organize very much, but rely upon “ active individuals, working here

and there all over the country.”[32] It is supposed that they may number

in all some five thousand adherents in the United States. But they

measure their strength by the tendency towards greater liberty which

exists in society. The progress of liberty everywhere and in all

departments of social life they welcome as an added pledge of the future

realization of their ideal. So they would reckon the nominal adherents

of anarchism, the potential anarchists, by the hundreds of thousands.

Their views and plans are deductions from the theory of Proudhon. They

are a commentary on his works, an extension and occasionally a

clarifying of his thought. It will be necessary, however, to explain

more precisely the attitude of the anarchists toward the political and

social institutions of this country.[33]

They, like Proudhon, consider the government of the United States to be

as oppressive and worthless as any of the European monarchies. Liberty

prevails here no more than there. In some respects the system of

majority rule is more obnoxious than that of monarchy. It is quite as

tyrannical, and in a republic it is more difficult to reach the source

of the despotism and remove it. They regard the entire machinery of

elections as worthless and a hindrance to prosperity. They are opposed

to political machines of all kinds. They never vote or perform the

duties of citizens in any way, if it can be avoided. They would not pay

taxes, if there were any means of escaping it. Judges are regarded by

them as the hirelings of power, and courts as centres of despotism. They

regard the proceedings of legislative assemblies as vain and worthy only

of contempt. They would destroy all statute books and judicial

decisions. Josiah Warren stated the principle[34] that, in the case of

the infliction of injury by one individual upon another, the government

might, with the consent of the injured person, interfere and cause

reparation to be made. But the penalty imposed upon the offender should

never exceed in amount the damage which he had done. In accordance with

this, the anarchists contemplate for a time at least the maintenance of

a mild system of penal law, and with it trial by jury, though they do

not believe in compulsory jury service. As long as there are individuals

so imperfect that they insist upon infringing their neighbor’s rights,

they must be restrained.

The anarchists have no words strong enough to express their disgust at

the scheming of the politician, the bidding for votes, the studied

misrepresentation of facts, the avoidance of serious issues, and all the

forms of corruption which stain our political life. Our municipal

governments furnish them unlimited material for comment. They call

attention to the immense labor which it takes to keep the political

machinery in motion, and compare with it the little which is

accomplished towards the solution of the really important social

problems. No good, only evil, can be done by such methods. The influence

of money in politics, the wanton disregard of law by corporations and

the inability of our legislators and executives to restrain them, the

self-seeking which enters into all political contests and the genera]

lack of earnestness which characterizes them are to the anarchist proofs

that the state is decaying and will soon fall to pieces at a touch. It

is of no use, they say, to labor for any of the plans of reform which

are now agitating parties. The state is too corrupt to be reformed:

abolish it altogether.[35]

Concerning the family relation, the anarchists believe that civil

marriage should be abolished and “autonomistic” marriage substituted.

This means that the contracting parties should agree to live together as

long as it seems best to do so, and that the partnership should be

dissolved whenever either one desires it. Still, they would give the

freest possible play to love and honor as restraining motives. They

claim that ultimately, by this policy, the marriage relation would be

purified and made much more permanent than it is to-day. They are “free

lovers/’ but not in the sense of favoring promiscuity of the sexes. They

hope to idealize the marriage relation by bringing it under the regime

of perfect liberty. They would not restrain those who wish to practise

polygamy or any social vice.[36] They view with abhorrence all efforts

to prevent by legislation and through the interference of the police the

traffic in obscene literature. This is not because they wish to uphold

vice: on the contrary, they desire the purification of society, but

believe that it can be brought about only by the abandonment of every

form of compulsion. Organize credit, let people know that the individual

must endure all the results of his conduct, and that he will be held

responsible for the deeds of no one else, and in process of time vice

will disappear. The operation of self-interest will secure its

abolition. In no sense do the anarchists advocate community of

wives.[37] They desire to preserve the home and to keep the children in

it, subject to parental government, till they reach such a degree of

maturity that they can assume the responsibilities of life for

themselves. Family government should secure its ends by reason and love,

rather than by force. Should the parents separate, the young children

will go with the mother. While the children remain in the family, there

would of course be an opportunity for their education; but, after they

leave parental control, that, like everything else, would depend solely

upon their own choice. Compulsory education is inconsistent with the

anarchistic system.

Proudhon, who wrote the eloquent prayer to the God of liberty and

equality which concludes the first part of What is Property? spurned the

God of the bible as the chief antagonist of man and foe of

civilization.[38] The problem of human evil drove him to this

conclusion. He found a fatal antinomy between God and man. Man’s nature

involves constant progress and development, while that of God is fixed

and unchangeable. Therefore as man advances, God retrogrades. Man was

created deformed rather than depraved, and a Providence, called all-wise

and beneficent, has therefore condemned him to eternal misery. To

Proudhon such a being possessed the worst qualities of man intensified

and expanded till they reached the scope of deity. What the state is in

politics and property in economics, God is in religion, a source of

inequality, oppression and woe. The idea of authority originates in the

conception of God; therefore, as Bakunine said: “If God existed, it

would be necessary to abolish him.”[39] “Who denies his king, denies his

God,” said Proudhon. Yet, though the anarchists believe that the church

is one of the bulwarks of the state and that its spirit is essentially

hierarchical, they uphold the doctrine of absolute religious freedom.

Those who choose to believe in religion and to worship the Christian

God, or any other divinity, should be permitted to do so without

molestation. But every form of worship should be self-supporting. “Let

the hearer pay the priest.” If religion is of any value, let it be shown

in open and free competition with all other forms of belief.[40] The

anarchists of to-day are wholly atheistic, and will probably remain so,

however much their number may be increased.

It thus appears that the anarchists have a programme which is as simple

as it is sweeping. To every social question they answer laissez faire,

laissez passer; Throw off all artificial restraint. Leave men to

themselves. Liberty is the great, the only educator. Every question will

solve itself by the operation of natural laws. All that is needed is

equality of conditions. They are anti-monopolists pure and simple.

Referring to the contest for the abolition of slavery, they compare

themselves to the abolitionists proper[41] and constitutional

republicans to the colonizationists. The latter are constantly applying

palliatives; there is but one remedy, and that is the destruction of

inequality at the source. Therefore the anarchists who are strictly

logical, while they sympathize with all criticism unfavorable to

existing institutions as tending to weaken confidence in the state,

refuse to co-operate with any party of social or political

reformers.[42] They believe that there is no positive power for good in

association; therefore co-operative schemes have no attraction for them.

Attempts to deal with men in the mass, to educate them by united effort,

do not awaken their confidence.

I do not admit [says Tucker] anything except the existence of the

individual as the condition of his sovereignty.... Anarchy has no side

that is affirmative in the sense of constructive. Neither as anarchists

nor as individual sovereigns have we any constructive work to do, though

as progressive beings we have plenty of it.

Again:

History shows that liberty results in more perfect men, and that greater

human perfection in turn makes increased liberty possible. It is a

process of growth through action and reaction, and it is impossible to

state which is antecedent and which consequent. But the action of

propagandism is more effective when brought to bear upon institutions

and conditions, than when aimed immediately at human nature. So we do

not preach the gospel of goodness, but teach the laws of social life.

It naturally follows, from what has been said, that the anarchists who

fully accept the doctrines of Proudhon believe that a long process of

evolution is necessary before their programme can be put into successful

operation. They are opposed to the use of violence:

But one thing can justify its exercise on any large scale, viz. the

denial of free thought, free speech and a free press. Even then its

exercise would be unwise, unless repression were enforced so stringently

that all other means of throwing it off had become hopeless. Bloodshed

in itself is pure loss. When we must have freedom of agitation, and when

nothing but bloodshed will secure it, then bloodshed is wise. But it

must be remembered that it can never accomplish the social revolution;

that that can never be accomplished except by means of agitation,

investigation, experiment and passive resistance; and that, after all

the bloodshed, we shall be exactly where we were before, except in our

possession of the power to use these means.... The day of armed

revolution is gone by. It is too easily put down.[43]

Again:

What we mean by the abolition of the state is the abolition of a false

philosophy, or rather the overthrow of a gigantic fraud, under which

people consent to be coerced and restrained from minding their own

business. The philosophy of liberty can be applied everywhere; and he

who successfully applies it in his family, in the place of avenging

gods, arbitrary codes, threats, commands and whips, may easily have the

satisfaction of abolishing at least one state. When we have substituted

our philosophy in place of the old, then the palaces, cathedrals and

arsenals will naturally fall to pieces through neglect and the rust that

is seen to corrupt tenantless and obsolete structures.[44]

Or, stating the anarchistic programme a little more definitely, it is

expected that political corruption and capitalistic tyranny, coupled

with revolutionary agitation, will after a time so undermine respect for

law and confidence in government that it will be possible for a small

but determined body of anarchists to nullify law by passive resistance.

When the experiment has once been successfully tried, the masses of men,

tired of the old system, will accept the new as a welcome deliverance.

Then it will no longer be possible to enforce obedience to law. People

will meet in conventions, organize upon the principle of voluntary

associations, and choose their natural leaders.[45] These leaders

however can exercise no authority, but only use persuasion and advice

coming from a wider practical experience. Those who do not wish to

follow, may go their own way. Each individual can take possession of and

use what property in land and raw materials he needs, but he must not

thereby infringe the equivalent right of every other person. Property,

thus, must be so used as to contribute to the highest social weal. Human

nature will be so purified from gross selfishness that it is believed

that the system of private property can be preserved formally intact.

All the functions of social life, now classed as public and private,

will be performed by individuals, either singly or in voluntary

association. The system of mutual banking will be established, or, as

the American anarchists express it, each man will be allowed to issue

his own notes, based upon such property or security as he may command,

and make them circulate as far as he is able.[46] In banking, in

carrying of the mail, in railway and telegraph business, as in

everything else, the fittest institutions and companies will survive.

These results — the banishment of crime, the elimination of poverty,

prosperity so great and generally diffused that the spectre which

Malthus raised will never return to affright society, perfect solidarity

combined with perfect individuality, the true harmony of interests, the

reign of righteousness, the golden age, the millennium—will be realized

and made permanent, not by multiplying the bonds which unite society,

not by increasing administrative machinery and strengthening the

tendencies toward centralization, as the socialists propose, but by

perfect decentralization, by destroying all political bonds and leaving

only the individual, animated and guided by intelligent egoism. In a

society thus regenerated the anarchists expect that their system of

agitation will culminate.

III. The Communistic Anarchists.

The Individualistic Anarchists accordingly profess to have very little

in common with the Internationalists. The latter are Communistic

Anarchists. They borrow their analysis of existing social conditions

from Marx, or more accurately from the “communistic manifesto ” issued

by Marx and Engels in 1847.[47] In the old International Workingman’s

association they constituted the left wing, which, with its leader,

Bakunine, was expelled in 1872. Later the followers of Marx, the

socialists proper, disbanded, and since 1883 the International in this

country has been controlled wholly by the anarchists.[48] Their views

and methods are similar to those which Bakunine wished to carry out by

means of his Universal Alliance, and which exist more or less definitely

in the minds of Russian Nihilists. Like Bakunine, they desire to

organize an international revolutionary movement of the laboring

classes, to maintain it by means of conspiracy and, as soon as possible,

to bring about a general insurrection. In this way, with the help of

explosives, poisons and murderous weapons of all kinds, they hope to

destroy all existing institutions, ecclesiastical, civil and economic.

Upon the smoking ruins they will erect the new and perfect society.[49]

Only a few weeks or months will be necessary to make the transition.

During that time the laborers will take possession of all lands,

buildings, instruments of production and distribution. With these in

their possession, and without the interposition of government, they will

organize into associations or groups for the purpose of carrying on the

work of society. To Krapotkine and the continental anarchists the

commune appears best suited to become the centre of organization. The

idea of the Russian mir, or of the primitive village community, is also

very attractive to them. They would carry the principle of local

self-government to an extreme. They would have no centralized control

beyond that pertaining to the village or city, and, within that, the

actual exercise of authority should be restricted as far as possible. A

member, if dissatisfied, would be allowed to retire at any time and join

another commune. The members of the commune would jointly control all

its property and business. Perfect community of relations would exist

within each group. The spirit of enterprise would be kept up by

competition between the communes or associations. The larger ones would

contain within themselves productive groups enough for the satisfaction

of nearly all the needs of their inhabitants. Where such should not be

the case, commodities could be obtained by inter-communal traffic. The

industrial bonds thus established would prevent strife and war. Thus

universal peace would prevail after the final catastrophe of revolution

was passed, and by no possibility could the state, the system of force,

revive. This is the ideal of the Communistic Anarchists.[50] It is the

system of economic federalism: the substitution of the free competition

of local groups, holding property in common, for the complex social

order which now exists. Within this social order, nations and national

hate will no longer exist; a purely economic regime will take their

place and make political struggle impossible. It is claimed that this is

essentially different from all the older communistic schemes, because

with the destruction of the state and of religion the basis upon which

authority could rest would be entirely removed. The earlier writers and

experimenters, like Baboeuf, Cabet, Owen, are called state communists,

because they proposed to establish their system with the aid of

government or under its grants and protection. This later plan is purely

anarchistic. The earlier apostles would destroy liberty; the later would

preserve it in a perfect form, make it consistent with a stable society,

and harmonize it with the greatest possible equality.

The difference between the ideals of these two bodies of anarchists,

when traced back to its source, seems to spring from this. Proudhon, in

his search for the root of social evil, hit upon the principle of

authority, of monopoly and privilege supported by it and indissolubly

connected with it. If that could be eradicated, private property would

no longer be fraught with harm and might continue. That was the order of

his thought. All socialists, however, from Rodbertus and Marx down, have

considered private property and competition to be the cause of poverty

and the evil entailed thereby. They have not gone back of property and

competition to find the source of their perversion in the legal system

which sanctions and upholds them. Therefore the followers of Proudhon

primarily attack the state and proceed from that to their criticism of

property right. On the other hand the Communistic Anarchists direct

their chief assaults against private property, and through those are led

to seek the entire overthrow of the state. Proudhon really leaves the

individual member of his regenerated society with only the right of

possession, of usufruct conditioned upon his subordinating his interest

to the common weal. What restrictions this would practically lead to,

neither he nor any of his followers, so far as I know, have ever

shown.[51] On the other hand the Internationalists, though believing

that hitherto force has been the instrument of all human progress, yet

protest that it will be banished from society when organized according

to their ideal. Absence of government, Herrschaftslosigkeit, is their

ideal, as well as that of the disciples of Proudhon. The declaration of

principles issued by the International in 1883 stated that the economic

functions of society should be performed by free associations, and that

they should also “by free social contracts ” regulate all public

affairs. The tendency of their writings seems to be in substantial

harmony with this.[52] The truth seems to be that the one party has been

led by its abhorrence of authority to dilute its communism, while the

other, to ward off the charge that its theory leads to a bellum omnium

contra omnes, has left the way open for a plentiful infusion of public

spirit and humanitarian motives. The result is that, with the perfected

individual whom they both contemplate, the ideal social states of the

two anarchistic schools, if ever realized, would be very similar. Both

must from the necessities of the case take largely the form of voluntary

association.[53] If on the other hand the individual remained imperfect,

animated very often by passion, ambition, and the lower forms of

self-interest, the system of federalism would necessarily degenerate

into the strictest communism, while the system of individual sovereignty

would plunge society into the worst evils of unrestricted competition.

In either case the restoration of the state in some form would be a

necessity.

Yet, whatever may be true of their ideals, the methods of reaching them

which are advocated and practised by the two anarchistic schools are

wholly different. The one expects to attain success through a long

process of peaceful evolution culminating in perfect individualism.

Although extremely hostile to the church, their programme, so far as it

concerns human relations, is essentially Christian.[54] Christianity

first posited the individual as distinct from society, and began the

process of freeing him from the restraints of the ancient political

system. The strongest historical impulse toward the perfection of the

individual has come from Christianity. The Individualistic Anarchists

show its influence most clearly, for there is a decided tinge of

Quakerism in their attitude toward the state.[55] But the Communistic

Anarchists are revolutionists of the most violent sort. They form the

extreme left wing of the modern revolutionary movement. They teach

materialism and atheism in their most revolting forms. The method which

they propose to use for the destruction of society and the institution

of the new order is beneath scientific consideration. It is fit only to

be dealt with by the police and the courts. It furnishes the strongest

possible proof of the necessity of authority and of a government to

enforce it. Thus the plots of one body of the anarchists are among the

most serious obstacles in the way of society ever being able to assume

that form which the other group desires.

IV. Conclusions.

Having stated as objectively as possible the theory of anarchism, what

is to be said concerning it?

In the first place it is useless to claim that it is wholly a foreign

product, and for that reason to clamor for restrictions upon

immigration. Newspaper utterances on this phase of the subject have

consisted too largely of appeals to ignorance and prejudice. There

probably are good reasons why immigration should be restricted, but this

should weigh very lightly among them. It provokes a smile when we think

that the agitation carried on by a few thousand anarchists — probably

not more than ten thousand in all — should force this people to change

its policy in so important a matter as that of immigration. Such a

suggestion goes to confirm what the socialists say about the cowardice

of the bourgeoisie. And then, unless the restrictions were made so

severe as to check the peopling of this country, the spread of anarchism

would not be prevented. Such crude means do not reach the seat of

opinion. Anarchism, so far as it has a scientific basis, is, like

socialism, a natural product of our economic and political conditions.

It is to be treated as such, both theoretically and practically.

Anarchism is a product of democracy. It is as much at home on American

soil as on European. The general belief to the contrary is one of the

survivals of the notion that Providence has vouchsafed us a peculiar

care and an especial enlightenment. If we wished to argue that anarchism

is a peculiar and characteristic American product, reasons would not be

lacking. Our political system is based on the ideas of liberty and

equality. The minds and the writings of our revolutionary heroes were

full of the theory of natural rights and social contract. The founder of

one of our political parties was a living embodiment of that theory. The

anarchists ask for no better statement of their premises than the

opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence. From the

standpoint of the doctrine of natural rights, it is impossible to

overthrow their argument. Theoretically no fault can be found with the

way in which Proudhon dealt with Rousseau, nor with his statement of

what he considered to be the true doctrine. But Proudhon by his analysis

showed the total lack of historical basis for the theory in any form,

and at the same time its practical absurdity. It appears, then, that we

might expect theoretical anarchism to originate either in France or in

America, because in those countries the notion of social contract has

played the greatest r61e. As a matter of fact, it originated

independently and at about the same time in both, in the minds of

Proudhon and of Josiah Warren, and, leaving Russia for good reasons out

of the account, in these countries it has obtained most of its

adherents. Then our economic conditions, in the mining and manufacturing

districts and large cities, are so far similar to those of the old

world, that they may well occasion, when combined with the more

independent spirit prevailing here, the rise of theories very extreme in

their nature. Finally, the faults in our political system, especially in

municipal government and in the relations between representatives of the

people and corporations, are such as to give a certain amount of

justification to the criticisms of the anarchists. These things furnish

the food upon which such criticism thrives. If we wish to find the

source of anarchism, we should contemplate the extremes of poverty and

wealth which face each other in all our centres of population; weigh the

arrogance, brutality and vice, which prevail too much in the employing

class, over against the disappointment, hopelessness, and positive

suffering so common among the employed; study, until it is definite and

clear, the picture of manipulated caucuses, purchased ballots and

falsified returns, of bribery, direct or indirect, in the halls of

legislation, of political deals wherein the interests of the locality or

the country are sacrificed for party success, of efforts on the part of

the great majority of public men to secure party triumph rather than the

country’s weal; and consider, finally, the superficial nature of the

questions at issue in nearly all political contests. In certain quarters

of this country, such is the rapidity with which one political scandal

follows another, so great the number of crimes of a semi-public nature,

so intense and essentially brutal the struggle for wealth and power,

that one is at times almost tempted to say with Proudhon that we are

living in a state of anarchy. Our civilization at its great centres has

a dark side, and an exclusive contemplation of this side will make a

pessimist of any man. A profound dissatisfaction with very much that

exists in our political and social system is widespread among our most

intelligent population. Those who would look to the state for a certain

amount of efficient aid in solving the deeper problems that confront us

are always met by the thought: if this plan should be carried out, it

will enlarge the sphere of political corruption and open another field

for partisanship. We had better not increase the domain of state action

till we have a better organized state. The prevalent distrust of our

legislative bodies finds utterance in all newspapers and periodicals and

even in the state constitutions themselves. These are phenomena to which

it is useless, nay dangerous, to shut our eyes. The cry of

sentimentalism will not brush them aside. They are tangible facts, as

real as those celebrated in the song of triumphant democracy.

But, admitting that our civilization is thus imperfect, does that prove

that it is wholly bad or that anarchism has anything better to offer? It

is noticeable that the anarchist, in carrying on his crusade against the

state, avails himself of the freedom of the press and assembly, and of

the protection which the state gives to his person and property so long

as he does not attempt to destroy the life or property of anybody else.

He also uses the post office, the telegraph, the railway and all other

means at hand for spreading intelligence. He uses the printing press, a

good quality of paper, and movable metal type. In all his daily life he

employs commodities and lives in buildings which have been produced or

constructed under the capitalistic system of production, guaranteed by

the state. He makes use of knowledge and practical experience,

formulates scientific truths, employs arguments and illustrations,

appeals to moral ideas and motives, which have been developed in society

and have become its common possession since the state came into

existence. Really the whole substratum of his work, material, mental,

and moral, is furnished by a politically organized society. The vantage

ground on which he stands, and from which he works, is not of his own

construction, but has been built for him by the labor of all the

preceding generations. These different classes of facts, which we have

space only to hint at, represent the progress of civilization hitherto;

they constitute its favorable side, and should be marshalled over

against the wrongs and evils mentioned above. How did the anarchist get

the conception of the indefinite perfectibility of man, except through a

knowledge of what has already been accomplished? The civilized man is so

far in advance of the savage that we can scarcely measure the

difference. But all this progress has been made since government

originated; most of it before the dogma of popular sovereignty was ever

heard of. It was achieved in ages when the control of the state reached

the innermost concerns of the individual, when in fact the conception of

an individual apart from the state and the organic whole of society was

not known. Shall I not then infer that the state, the principle of

authority, is the cause of all good? Would it not be quite as logical

and justifiable as to argue that it is the cause of all evil? Would not

the former conclusion stand the test of historical examination quite as

well as the latter? In the one case the induction would be quite as

satisfactory as in the other.

But this whole method of reasoning, whatever the purpose for which it is

used, is fallacious. No social or political institution, no form of

organization, is in itself responsible for all the evils of society. The

alleged cause is not adequate to produce the result. Here is one of the

fatal errors in the entire socialistic and anarchistic argument. Our

friends of that way of thinking indulge in a great deal of denunciation;

but did they ever show that the existence of the state and of private

property makes A cruel, B licentious, C avaricious, when they would not

be so to a greater or less degree under any conceivable organization of

society? The source of what we call social evil is in the individual and

in the limitations of external nature. Forms of social organization have

their influence, but it is wholly subordinate to these cardinal facts.

Improvement can be made by civilizing the individual and adapting his*

social surroundings to his enlarged needs, but progress is inevitably

conditioned by the forces of the world within us and the world around

us.

The perfection of the individual is therefore an idle dream. Man has

lived for at least six thousand years upon the earth, and, after making

allowance for all the changes caused by increasing civilization, the

fundamental characteristics of human nature remain the same. Man has the

animal qualities combined with the spiritual. He needs food, shelter and

rest In the struggle to obtain the commodities which will supply these

wants, he is often dominated by the worst forms of selfishness and

passion. Because the supply of the necessities and comforts of life is

at least relatively limited, men monopolize them. Then the development

of social inequality begins. The degree of knowledge, foresight,

self-control which men possess is limited and exceedingly variable. The

results which they achieve differ in proportion. View them as we may,

these, and others like them, are primary facts; they lie beyond the

reach of forms of organization. They are always to be taken for granted

in discussing any social system, whether real or ideal. Every scheme of

reform must adapt itself to them. Therefore no direct practical benefit

can be derived from imagining a form of society where perfect justice,

liberty, and equality may co-exist, and then applying it as a criterion

to the existing order. There is so little similarity between the

criterion and the system judged, that no satisfactory conclusions can be

drawn. We must deal with realities and pursue methods of reform which

conserve and promote all the best interests of society. This may be

modest and unattractive, but it is the only true or fruitful method. We

admit that society is imperfect, but the cause of imperfection lies back

of society. If the institution of private property results in

unnecessary inequality, it is because it is controlled by imperfect men.

So it would be if we lived in voluntary associations, or under any other

imaginable system. Individuals would remain essentially the same, and

the old phenomena of inequality would continue. The introduction of

Proudhon’s system of credit would be accompanied by a great financial

crisis, the result of inflation. It would tend to make inflation

chronic. The scheme, as conceived by Spooner, would work much as

“wild-cat” banking did before the crises of 1819 and 1837. After such

convulsions in the business world, interest would be certain to

reappear, and it would be the salvation of society if it did. As men

are, and are ever likely to be, to throw off restraint would be

equivalent to the realization in society of the Darwinian struggle for

existence and survival of the fittest. This does not open an attractive

prospect in any event. The trouble with us now, especially in the

workings of our political system, is that the purely individualistic

motives are given too full swing. The cause of political corruption is

the predominance of self-seeking over public spirit.

For a justification of the state we need not construct any artificial

theory, like that of natural rights and social contract. It came into

existence with the dawn of society; it is as old as the individual. The

existence of society without it, that is without organization and power

in the organism to enforce conformity to the necessities of life and

growth, would not only be contrary to all experience, but is absolutely

unthinkable. To conceive society without government, the anarchists have

to construct an imaginary individual; and even in this imaginary

individual there is the possibility of lynch law and of the evolution of

jury trial and state prisons. We see no prospect at present of the lapse

of society into the Kleinstaaterei of the old German Empire, or into a

state where all public questions will have to be decided by Polish

parliaments with the liberum veto in full operation.

Still, practically the only answer to that which is reasonable and just

in the anarchistic argument is the pursuance of vigorous measures of

political and social reform, which shall sweep away the evils among us

that are degrading to any civilized people.

Herbert L. Osgood.

[1] “The Declaration of Independence contains numerous internal

evidences to show that, were Thomas Jefferson living to-day, he would be

a pronounced anarchist.” Liberty (the organ of the Boston anarchists),

vol. ii, no. 5. “The anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian

Democrats.” Article by Benj. R. Tucker, in Liberty, vol. v, no. 16.

[2] See Tucker’s translation, pp. 271–288.

[3] For an account of this man, see Ely’s Labor Movement in America, p.

238. Also Warren’s books: True Civilization an Immediate Necessity, and

Practical Details of Equitable Commerce. His views are best stated in

Stephen Pearl Andrews’ True Constitution*of Government, New York, 1852.

[4] So far as I know, all scientific writers who have discussed Proudhon

have placed him among the socialists. But at the same time they have

either expressly or tacitly protested against the classification. It has

always been admitted that he stands apart from the other revolutionary

leaders. In the light of the development of anarchism during the last

ten years, his position seems to be clearly defined. Amid all the

inconsistencies and contradictions which may be found in his works, his

central thought is clear. His contemporaries did not understand him

because they had not conceived of anarchism.

[5] Œuvres completes, tome 6, p. 144.

[6] In his Systeme des Contradictions economiques, tome 1, p. 67,

Proudhon explains antinomy to mean a law with a double face or with two

tendencies, like the centripetal and centrifugal forces into which

attraction may be analyzed. These opposite tendencies do not destroy one

another, but if kept in equilibrium “are the procreative cause of

motion, life, and progress.”

[7] What is Property? trans. p. 231. Proudhon repeated this definition

and expounded it at length in a six-volume work entitled La Justice dans

la Revolution.

[8] What is Property? trans, p. 26.

[9] What is Property? trans. p. 242.

[10] Systeme des Contradictions economiques, tome I, p. 82.

[11] What is Property? trans. p. 234.

[12] Systfcme des Contradictions Economiques, tome I, pp. 179 et seq.

[13] See the monograph entitled Banque d’Echange, in Œuvres completes,

tome 6, pp. 150 et seq.

[14] Systeme generale tie la Revolution, p. 9.

[15] What is Property? trans. p. 32.

[16] See chapter on Balance of Trade, in Systeme des Contradictions

economiques, tome 2.

[17] Idee generale de la Revolution, pp. 177 et seq. This idea was also

enforced by Proudhon in his speech delivered before the National

Assembly, July 31, 1848, in reply to criticisms of the committee of

finance on his report in favor of gratuity of credit. Œuvres completes,

tome 7, pp, 263–313.

[18] Translation, p. 53. In La Justice dans la Revolution, tome, 4, p.

291, Proudhon spoke in most pathetic terms of the feeling of inferiority

which oppressed him because of his inherited poverty. He felt powerless

to raise himself to a position among the learned and happy. He therefore

resolved to search for the origin of inequality. He found that the

economists affirmed the natural origin and necessity of inequality,

while the revolution said that equality was the law of all nature.

[19] For Proudhon’s political philosophy see Idee generale de la

Revolution, pp. in et seq. Also Du Principe Federatif, Œuvres completes,

tome 8.

[20] Idee generale de la Revolution, p. 117.

[21] Idee generale de la Revolution, p. 138. In Du Principe F6d£ratif,

p. 53 n., Proudhon defines a law to be “a statute arrived at as the

result of arbitration between human wills.”

[22] In connection with the history of political theories it is

interesting to note what the anarchists have to say about the doctrine

upon which the American Revolution was fought, and its conformity with

actual political facts. Lysander Spooner, in his Letter to Grover

Cleveland, says: “It was once said in this country that taxation without

consent is robbery. But if that principle were a true one in behalf of

three millions of men, it is an equally true one in behalf of three men,

or of one man. Who are ever taxed without their consent? Individuals

only. Who then are robbed, if taxed without their consent? Individuals

only. If taxation without consent is robbery, the United States

government has never had, has not now, and is never likely to have an

honest dollar in its treasury.” As soon as taxes are paid, he says

further, all natural rights are lost. The individual cannot maintain

them against the police and armies which the government will procure

with the money.

[23] For another brilliant specimen of the destructive criticism which

the anarchist applies to representative government see Prince

Krapotkine’s chapter on that subject in his Paroles d’un Revolte, Paris,

1885. One could not wish to see the demos krateo principle more

completely demolished than it is here. The superficiality and crudity of

the notion that great public questions can be properly decided by

elections; the petty self-seeking of politicians and party managers, to

say nothing of their positive corruption; the disturbing influence of

parliamentary tactics; the enormous disparity between the knowledge and

strength of the legislator and the number and magnitude of the public

questions with which he has to deal, are admirably stated and

illustrated. The files of any daily newspaper will substantiate it all.

[24] See, for example, What is Property? trans. p. 244, where he says

that “inequality of wages cannot be admitted by law on the ground of

inequality of talents;” But on p. 132 of the same treatise he explains

his meaning as follows: “Give me a society in which every kind of talent

bears a proper numerical relation to the needs of the society, and which

demands from each producer only that which his special function requires

him to produce, and, without impairing in the least the hierarchy of

functions, I will deduce the equality of fortunes/’ This means that

utilities must be brought into such perfect proportionality that there

will be just as many Platos and Newtons as are needed and no more. The

same shall be true of all other producers down to the lowest grade.

[25] What is Property? trans. p. 259.

[26] Proudhon’s theory of money and credit may be found in the sixth

volume of his Complete Works, and in the second volume of his Economic

Contradictions.

[27] Organization du Credit et de la Circulation, Œuvres completes, tome

6, pp. 89–131.

[28] Œuvres completes, tome 6, pp. 114 et seq.

[29] The theory was first stated by one Fulerand-Mozel in 1818. He

founded such an institution at Paris in 1829, and another at Marseilles

in 1832. In 1848, John Gray, a Scotchman, tried to carry the same theory

into practice in Edinburgh, and published a book upon it, entitled

Lectures on the Nature and Use of Money, Edinburgh, 1848.

See Courcelle-Seneuil, Traite des Operations de Banque, pp. 411 et seq.

Also, by the same author, Liberte et Socialisme, pp. 100 et seq.

[30] Œuvres completes, tome 10, p. 203.

[31] Idee generale de la Revolution, p. 297. In Justice dans la

Revolution, tome 2, pp. 99–134, may be found one of the best statements

of Proudhon’s views of the future system of industrial and political

federation, and of the method of transition to it.

[32] Letter from Benj. R. Tucker, at present the leader of the Boston

anarchists.

[33] The following statements are taken directly from the columns of

Liberty, the paper published by the Boston anarchists; from Lysander

Spooner’s Letter to Grover Cleveland; William B. Greene’s pamphlet on

Mutual Banking; Bakunine’s God and the State, and other books and

documents recognized by the anarchists as authoritative.

[34] True Civilization, p. 12.

[35] The anarchists believe that universal suffrage is a snare prepared

to entrap the unwary. As to the extension of suffrage to women, Lysander

Spooner wrote: “They have just as much right to make laws as men have,

and no better; and that is just no right at all.” “Women want to put us

all into the legislative mill and grind us over again into some shape

which will suit their taste. Better burn all existing statutes. Liberty,

vol. ii, no. 22.

[36] Liberty, vol. i, no. 12: “ Liberty therefore must defend the right

of individuals to make contracts involving usury, rum, marriage,

prostitution, and many other things which it believes to be wrong in

principle and opposed to human well being.” — Some of the anarchists

hold to the monogamic ideal; others reject it, believing in what they

term “variety,” which they distinguish from promiscuity in the sense

that human refinement is distinct from bestial recklessness. One of the

most eloquent pleas for the monogamic family ever made is Proudhon’s

Amour et Mariage. He was utterly opposed to divorce. See Œuvres

completes, tome 24.

[37] See Proudhon’s bitter condemnation of this in his chapter on

Communism and Population, Contradictions economiques, tome 22, pp. 258

et seq.

[38] See chapter on Providence in Contradictions economiques, tome I,

pp. 351 et seq.

[39] God and the State, trans. p. 17.

[40] Idee gen6rale de la Revolution, p. 261.

[41] Any standard history of the anti-slavery conflict, or the files of

the Liberator, will show the close connection between the doctrines of

the Garrisonian wing of the abolitionists after about 1840 and those of

the anarchists. The appeals of the abolitionists to ” the higher law ”

were decidedly anarchistic.

[42] See discussion carried on in Liberty, vol. iv, 1886 and 1887,

between Tucker and Henry Appleton.

[43] Liberty, vol. iv, no. 3, May 22, 1886, editorial suggested by the

bomb-throwing at Chicago.

[44] Liberty, vol. i, no. 19.

[45] Liberty, vol. i, no. 19.See a description of this process in

Liberty, vol. i, no. 5.

[46] Liberty, vol. i, no. 19. See Spooners Letter to Grover Cleveland.

[47] In Freiheit the manifesto is constantly referred to as of the first

importance.

[48] See proceedings of Pittsburg Congress, 1883, and the manifesto

there issued in Freiheit, Oct. 22 and 27, 1883. Also Ely’s Labor

Movement in America, p. 228, and appendix.

[49] For full details as to the ” propaganda of deed,” see the files of

Most’s Freiheit; the Chicago Alarm and Arbeiter-Zeitung; and Most’s

Science of Revolutionary Warfare, an outline of which was printed as a

part of the testimony in the Anarchists’ case at Chicago. The testimony

in that case is given in outline in Northeastern Reporter, vol. 12. The

speeches of the anarchists and a history of the trial (favorable to the

condemned) has been issued by the Socialistic Publishing Society of

Chicago. — In book form, the most important statement of the programme

of the Communistic Anarchists is Krapotkine’s Paroles d’un Revolte,

Paris, 1885. See also Ely’s Labor Movement in America, and Laveleye’s

Socialisme contemporaine.

[50] “We desire no property. All that exists upon the earth must serve

for the satisfaction of the needs of all. The appropriation of these

things, — of land, mines, machines, and in general of all instruments

which contribute toward producing the necessities of mankind, which

should serve the community, and which can be produced only by the

co-operative efforts of all humanity, — the appropriation of these

things as the property of individuals or of certain groups is the

retaining of them to the exclusion of their rightful possessor, the

community, it is robbery committed against the latter. We would see it

abolished. If all the instruments of production were once restored to

the possession of the community, then would the latter by a rational

system of organization care for the satisfaction of human needs, so that

all men who are able to work could be supplied with useful occupation,

and every one could secure the means necessary to an existence worthy of

a human being.... But with private property will disappear at once the

chief supports of all civil authority. For only upon the gradation of

classes which private property produces could that instrument of popular

oppression, the state, be erected.” Freiheit, Oct. 31, 1883.

“What we are striving after is simply and clearly: I. The destruction of

the existing class rule, and that by the use of all possible means, by

energetic, pitiless, international revolution. 2. The establishment of a

free society based upon community of goods. 3. Associative organization

of production. 4. Free exchange of products of equal value by the

productive associations themselves, without middlemen or profits. 5. The

organization of education upon an altruistic, scientific, and equal

basis for both sexes. 6. Regulation of all public affairs by the free

social contracts of autonomous communes and associations resting upon a

federalistic basis.” Freiheit) Oct. 13, 1883.

“While communism will form the basis of the future society, anarchy,

absence of government, is the future form of public organization.”

Freiheit, Dec. 15, 1883.

[51] In an editorial in Liberty, vol. i, no. 3, are the following

statements: “We do not believe that any one can stand alone. We do wish

social ties and guarantees. We wish all there are. We believe in human

solidarity. We believe that members of society are interdependent. We

would preserve these interdependencies untrammelled and inviolate, but

we have faith in natural forces. The socialists wish a manufactured

solidarity, we are satisfied with a solidarity inherent in the

universe.”

[52] See various articles in Freiheit, 1885 and 1886, containing a

discussion with the Individualistic Anarchists. Also Krapotkine’s

writings, especially two articles by him in The Nineteenth Century for

1887.

[53] Proudhon in Du Principe Federatif, 1863, stated at length his

belief that the ultimate social system would be one of voluntary

associations for specific purposes, each member retaining his

independence to the fullest possible extent. He also claimed that local

powers would increase as society advanced, so that in the end liberty

would win a complete victory over authority.

[54] They must agree with many of the ideas expressed by Tolstoi in My

Religion.

[55] See Bancroft’s account of the principles of the Quakers, History of

the United States, vol. ii, pp. 336–355: “Intellectual freedom, the

supremacy of mind, universal enfranchisement, — these three points

include the whole of Quakerism, as far as it belongs to civil history.