💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › freedom-press-london-names-and-opinions.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:18:39. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Names and Opinions Author: Freedom Press (London) Date: February, 1888 Language: en Source: Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, Vol. 2, No. 17, online source http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3050, retrieved on April 12, 2020.
There is a considerable amount of confusion, even among Socialists, as
to the real meaning of words that run off the end of our tongues every
time we speak of the revolutionary movement. Take, for instance, the
words Socialist, Communist, Collectivist, Social Democrat, Anarchist,
and collect the opinions of the first half dozen men you meet as to what
they understand by them, and you will hear as many interpretations as
replies. Yet amid this seeming confusion it is quite possible to gather
the general lines of tendency expressed in these disputed terms.
Thinking a little about the matter, one soon comes to see that Socialism
is an economic term; it refers to man in his relation to wealth.
Further, that in spite of all differences of opinion among Socialists,
there are certain definite and extremely important points upon which all
Socialists are agreed. All Socialists look on the wealth of a community
as the result of the common labor of the working men and women of that
community in the past and present, and therefore. the common possession
of all of them.
All Socialists are agreed that individuals ought not to be allowed to
monopolize (to claim an absolute right to prevent others from using) the
necessary means for the production of wealth, whether land and raw
material or capital created by past labor, because this monopoly gives
to the monopolists dominion over the lives of all other people, who
must, of course, work that they may live, and who cannot get at the
means for doing so without the monopolists' permission. And we, very
well know that this permission is not granted except in return for the
lion's share of all the worker can produce. Hence the extremes of idle
luxury and toil-worn misery which disgrace our civilization. All
Socialists are, therefore, agreed upon the attempt to change the
existing method of producing and distributing wealth.
Socialism, however, is a very general term covering a variety of
opinions as to the exact character of the new economic system; opinions
that group themselves round the two main schools of modem
Socialism-Collectivism and Communism
Collectivists hold that only certain big monopolies of the direct
instruments of production are practically hurtful-e.g., land, factories,
machinery, and such like. These they would nationalize, leaving other
wealth in private ownership. This dividing line between public and
private property seems somewhat hard to draw, and the unconverted are
prone to inquire on which side such things as sewing machines, for
instance, are to be placed. But a more serious difficulty is to find a
just principle for the distribution of individual possessions. Are the
'workers to receive according to their skill and industry, or according
to time, or at a fixed time rate adjusted according to the average
amount produced per hour? But in any case Collectivists are agreed that
the principle of distribution ought to be, To each according to his
deeds.
Communists, on the contrary, would have society recognize no rights of
private property at all. In the creation of all wealth the united
efforts of brain and muscle of the whole community have home their part,
and the exact fraction contributed by each is impossible to distinguish.
In a society of workers all the wealth consumed is in the broadest sense
capital, since all is devoted to increasing and developing the resources
and capacities of wealth producers. A shirt and a steam-engine are both
means for enabling a man to work to the best advantage to himself and
his neighbors. Moreover, there is scarcely a form of wealth which, if
monopolized, may not be used as a means of extorting unpaid labor from
the needy. All wealth, therefore, is a public possession and the
principle upon which it must be shared among the members of the
community is, To each according to his needs. The supply of our needs is
the object of our labor. We associate ourselves in our work because thus
we can supply our needs better and with less effort. Let us, therefore,
share what we produce according to the needs which are the reason of our
work and our association. This principle of distribution according to
needs is recognized in England, after a fashion, in the Poor Law. But
whilst the object of the Poor Law is to supply as few people's needs as
inadequately as possible, the object of Communism is to supply
everyone's needs as fully as possible.
So much for the two schools of Socialism. But these economic views do
not necessarily imply any one special political creed. A man may be a
Socialist and believe in absolutism, or in the rule of the wisest, or of
the majority, or he may disbelieve in any rule at all. Practically,
however, in the great popular Socialist movement of our time there are
only two ideas of political organization which have serious hold of the
masses--Democracy and Anarchism.
Democrats claim for Democracy that it means the rule of the people by
themselves; but as after all everybody cannot actively rule everybody
else, the administration of affairs rests with the delegates of the
majority, controlled (theoretically) by the majority itself, that is, by
the noisiest and most energetic portion of it.
If this form of social organization be, as some of our Social Democrat
comrades are fond of saying, the counterpart in politics of Socialism in
economics, then it is a very curious fact that the political development
of the future society has so far outrun its economic development that
the democratic idea has already (in America and Switzerland, for
instance) attained almost complete practical realization, while
Socialism has as yet scarcely been put into practice at all.
Anarchism, as the word implies, is the theory of social organization on
the basis of the equal freedom of all members of the community, without
the recognition of any rule or authority of one man over put it another
way, it is the theory of the autonomy another. Or, to of the individual
, the rule of each by himself.
Society has already adopted, this principle as the bads of social
relations in matters of opinion; Anarchists would adopt it in all
departments of human life. They would, in fact, substitute the principle
of unanimity, of free consent, for the principle of majority rule. They
would extend the principle of association of the jury, and abolish the
principle of association of the vestry and the parliament.
Anarchism, like Democracy, is a political theory compatible with diverse
economical opinions. As there are Individualist and Socialist Democrats,
so there are Individualist and Socialist Anarchists. In. newly settled
countries there-is plenty of room for economic individualism.
Accordingly we find Individualist Anarchism represented in Australia by
the Melbourne "Honesty", and in America by four or five papers:
"Liberty" in Boston, "Lucifer" and the "Sun" in Kansas and, since its
revival by Dyer Lum, the "Alarm" in Chicago; whilst in Europe its
adherents are few and far between. The Auberon Herbertites in England
are sometimes called Anarchists by outsiders, but they are willing to
compromise with the iniquity of government to maintain private property.
In fact, Individualist Anarchism would seem to be represented on this
side the ocean in the person of comrade Robert Harding, who aided to
assert the right of public meeting by chaining himself to the railings
in Trafalgar Square.
Space fails here to discuss the economic theories of these political
comrades of ours. Most of them are Mutualists, disciples of Proudhon,
who have accepted the master's views unmodified by the experience of the
last thirty years of the labor movement.
We, as our readers know, are Socialists, and share with our European
comrades and the brave men who recently sealed their faith with their
blood in Chicago, the conviction that Anarchism and Communism are
political and economic counterparts. Both intrinsic elements of that
tremendous popular revolt which has been gathering head, like an
incoming sea, throughout this century of middle-class domination, that
uprising of the deepest well-springs of human nature fated in the end
,to sweep away both property and authority in the full tide of free,
brotherly association.