I am glad to know that Celia B. Whitehead is investigating Anarchism, and I judge with some confidence, inasmuch as she is willing to cast her lot with us on that Isle of the Ocean the politicians propose to give us. And she is not the only one I guess who is puzzled to know how they (the Anarchists) propose to abolish government and usher in a free society. It was quite a puzzle to the Abolitionists how they would abolish slavery. Anarchists are somewhat divided on that question. But they are very unanimous in their opinion that it ought to be abolished, and it is said that where there’s a will, there’s a way. Our sister evidently sees the beauty of our belief, but is doubtful about our method. She seems to think that it requires authority to establish liberty, justice, equality, and fraternity. But she is mistaken. These things do not exist because of forceful authority. Cannot she see that liberty is impossible under government? Religious liberty did not exist until the authority of the Church was abolished; and I think she will find that legislation had very little to do with its abolition. The people’s refusal and the Church’s division, new denomination that were willing to teach without a tax, I imagine did it. I remember hearing a long descant on priestcraft that was written by an ancestor of mine which paid his tax. It concluded as follows:

Now grown sick of blood and slaughter,
Fuss and bother that was made,
We’ll have better times hereafter,
Many jockeys spoil a trade.

And it may be the increasing number of political jockies will spoil the trade of government.

Sister Whitehead seems somewhat imbued with the principle, so harped on by our Socialist friends—the indebtedness of the individual to the Community. They always capitalize community. She says, the amount of wealth created, or possible of creation without the cooperation of many individuals, is very small. This she said to offset Ross Winn’s statement that individuals create wealth and individuals should enjoy it. I fail to see the point. If individuals cooperate to create wealth, they may cooperate to enjoy it. But the enjoyment must be an individual affair. When the community enjoys it, it will be discovered that a few individuals get the cream. She quotes from a former article of mine, which she credits to Ross Winn, and says that is exactly what Socialists say. I know the Socialists say many things about liberty and equality, but their methods belie their talk. I suppose she means State Socialists, all others are Anarchists, and it seems to me those Socialists, not Anarchists, who advocate political action are the most consistent. There is no middle ground. The cooperative Commonwealth is another name for government. It is a social organism, a centralized government, to be administered by certain individuals. I ask her how can men be free and governed? The fact is their cooperation is coercion. Their liberty is simply license. We have some liberty now, we can get away from government. But when State Socialism takes possession of the government and the means of production and distribution—God help us, if there is a God. What is there in this new regime to make officials incorruptible? I want her to contemplate this Socialistic State. Will its politicians be better and purer men than the politicians now? But the Anarchists have not seemed to me to present any plan of action. Well, the governmental plan has been proposed by a good many parties, but wherever and however tried has completely failed. The Anarchist has no plan of action to force men into some regime. They advocate liberty, and liberty cannot exist under regime. State Socialism may abolish poverty, wages and commercialism, but they establish what is worse—dependency—slavery. I was acquainted with a Socialistic society in New York State—the EberezerEbenezer Society. Their men and women, horses and oxen were fat and lazy. They used to have five meals a day and all the beer and coffee they wanted. And yet, strange as it may appear, they could not keep their young people. They would jump the hedge and marry into the homes of the poorer farmers round about. It got too civilized for the colonists, and they sold out and went into the wilds of Iowa, I believe. It is called now the Amanna society. It was a great success financially, such schemes always are, until they get to fighting over the property. Yes, I admit the Socialists plan is definite and easily understood, but all the experience we have had of its working is not according to my idea very encouraging. It is an institution, a centralized organization, that is to say, individuals are going to be organs to be moved by a central hand. If I was sure it would be a Whitehead, I might be tempted to join its ranks. I have great respect for Whiteheads. My wife’s people were Whiteheads. But no, the ubiquitous politician will be their head, and can you trust him? I ask our comrade to analyze this organization, in the light of historical events. When and where did an organization exist, having power over its members, that did not become corrupt and tend to defeat the very object for which it was called into existence? I want her to question the fact that this organization, like all government organizations, has its plan of action on lines of policy determined by certain individuals. Another fact: Human nature is about the same all around; its principle is self-interest. Give him power and he will advance that interest without any consideration of others. And this organization would monopolize all wealth, would assume industry and direct all distribution. And you tell me that the people would be free? Angels and ministers of grace defend us. And our comrade tells us that she can conceive of no means except that of the Socialists for bringing about the condition Mr. Morton spoke of when no man would have either motive or opportunity for thriving at the expense of his fellows. What is it that gives a man such a motive or opportunity? Is it not that he has been given power over his fellows? How are these officials to live, if not at the expense of their subjects?

Of course I can see the position of our sister [7] comrade. She looks out upon the vast system of capitalism. She sees its wonderful adaptability to the wants of the people. She also sees its awful cruelty and oppression, a veritable juggernaut crushing blood and bones beneath its wheels. Thousands are thus sacrificed to the greed of gain. The Socialists would preserve all the conveniences and comforts, and abolish all the evil. The vast transcontinental railways would be doing business at the old stand; the transportation of men and means would be vastly augmented. The post office would carry letters from Denver to New York with greater facility and all gratis. The new system would eliminate all useless endeavor, all cruelty and oppression making the world’s wealth common to all. Is it not a beautiful picture? Yes, alas! but impossible. Can this monstrous machinery be run without the greed of gain? Without its victims of drudgery and danger and despair? Will men sacrifice all their comfort and convenience, simply to make others comfortable and convenient? I think not, without a good deal of compulsion. They have some hope now, by saving, and scramping, and starving they may accumulate a little capital, begin a little business, and by beating and cheating obtain an eminence, when they look down upon the less fortunate. But State Socialism would strangle all endeavor, and could only be maintained by absolute slavery.

Now what of Anarchism, or absolute liberty? She has no faith in private enterprise. And why? Because of the evils attendant on monopoly. But the Socialistic State would be all monopoly. But no one or few would be benefitted. How does she know? Would the power in State Socialism be unselfish? But who would operate the machinery. What could be operated by individuals or the cooperation of individuals for individual interests would be preserved; the rest would not. Decentralization would be the plan or plain of Anarchism.

A loss tremendous monopoly sustained.
Great source of profit, crumbled to the dust;
Machinery was wasted but liberty regain’d
And Labor no longer a slave to the lust
Of Profit and Power, has never complain’d
Of the toil entail’d, by machinery’s rust,
For great were the harvests, and luxuriant the soil,
When all men were laborers and willing to toil.

Tho great was the loss, humanity’s gain
Was greater still, think of the time employ’d
In toil, and moil, the scramble and the pain
Of gathering riches, which the very few enjoy’d;
Tho cities are deserted the countries remain
To bloom in greater beauty, being devoid
Of all the hustle, bustle, ramming, jamming crew
Who jostle in life’s highway, filthy lucre to pursue.

A. LeRoy Loubal