Of course I mean State Socialism, there is none other but non-State Socialism, which is Anarchism. And while true Socialism is Anarchism, it is well to line up our forces as Anarchists.

The final battle will be between the forces of Anarchism and State Socialism. Let us hope that those Socialists who do not like to have their Socialism qualified by the word State, will drop politics and acknowledge themselves Anarchists, for so long themselves Anarchists, for so long as they hope to compass their ends by the use of politics they are, and must be, State Socialists.

And I want to draw the line right here between Anarchists and all other reformers: Whoever engages in politics is, in so doing, no Anarchist.

The forces of government are fast being absorbed by Socialism, and a Socialist government, or as they prefer to call it, an administration, is quite possible in the near future. This does not depend upon Socialists altogether; it is the evolution of government.

Still it seems just now as tho this evolution was to be hurried up a little. Our late election shows a tremendous increase in the vote of the Socialists; and the moment politicians realize that Socialism is a winning card, they will rush into the game and play that card for all it is worth.

Industrialism, or more properly commercialism, is forcing the people into Socialism, by centralizing industry, with the aid of labor saving machinery, destroying competition, by combining the captains of industry, reducing the laborer to a wage slave, its mighty machinery and factories destroying the efficacy of trades.

The Socialist, seeing the great benefit these captains enjoy, and the economy of their system, would substitute government for the captains, and by retaining their system turn the great profit into the pockets of the people.

He would cure the trust by turning it over to government. He would cure monopoly by a greater monopoly. He would destroy wage slavery by making government the only employer. He would capture the powers of government, and turn their forces to the advantage of labor instead of capital. He would keep the party politics of Socialism up to date, and full of fun.

Centralization, the main principle of Socialism, is beginning to dominate the old parties, especially the party in power, while their scheme of government ownership is advocated by both parties, especially the Democratic.

Of course the Socialist contends that their centralization and their municipal ownership is something very different. The fact seems to be the Socialist presupposes a difference in individuals. The individuals that run their administration will be good men and do it for the good of the community.

The Anarchist takes no stock in any institution, knowing that human nature is about the same all around. He knows that any scheme for the good of all must be run by individuals, and their good will be looked after first.

He takes no stock in any government. It must be run by individuals who, being human, must consider self first.

The government is simply a political trust. When it absorbs the industrial trust, it may be more trust-full, but the Anarchist wouldn’t trust it.

He takes no stock in monopoly, whether private or public. Monopoly is the result of government protecting capital and giving it advantage over labor. If Socialism, capturing government, turns their advantage to labor, would conditions be better? The object of government is to give certain parties advantage. Under Socialism laborers would become officials. Under present conditions we have capitalistic aristocracy. [7] Under Socialism it would be official aristocracy.

The Anarchist takes no stock in politics, believing it based on the principle of war. Its object is to get an advantage over its opponent, its ballot is simply the bullet of force. It is idle to talk of balloting for principles instead of men. It is men we have to elevate to power. It is men we have to trust to introduce and execute those principles. And the whole science of politics is how not to do it. I know our Socialist friends propose to have a system under which men will be mere instruments, devoid of political power. And tho their methods in capturing the powers of government are very similar to ordinary politics, when once they get control they will subordinate men to principle. But will men do this? We know they subordinate principle to political advancement. Will Socialist politicians do different?

I believe it is a fact that most, if not all, the foremost advocates of Socialism, are in reality Anarchists in theory, but are blinded by its unpopularity to the real dangers attending the success of the Socialist party. I appeal to them to consider the danger of centralizing power in the hands of individuals, before the Socialist party saddles the country with its system.

When a political party is fairly launched its increase is in geometrical progression until its object is accomplished, and power to control the destinies of the people is received. Then it begins its decay; power always degenerates. This is the history of all parties, and the Socialist party will be no exception. Still there is a danger in the Socialist program not found to such an extent in any other party. That is centralization. If it succeeds in establishing a system such as its advocates dream, its career will demonstrate a gigantic slavery, and it will die hard.

The Anarchist takes no stock in the science of politics, nor in scientific Socialism. Emerson said, Politics signifies cunning, intimidating the State, to be a trick. Politicians are men devoted to policy. The question with them is what policy will best advance the interests of our party, and incidentally, of course, advance my own standing.

The Anarchist sees no difference between the politics of our present partyism, and Socialism, except that the latter be the most dangerous of the two, as it proposes to extend the powers of government.

A plague on both your houses, say the Anarchists. We will trust no man with power. We ask no favors, and we grant no privileges.

“Go tame the wild torrent, or stem with a straw The proud surges that sweep o’er the sands that confin’d them: But presume not again to give freeman a law, Or think with the chains they have broken to bind them!”

A. LeRoy Loubal