I have followed with considerable interest the discussions in INSTEAD OF A MAGAZINE between editor Kuehn and the socialists and singletaxers, and must say that to man on the hill the manouvres of our friends scrapping in the valley are quite edifying. It certainly looks as if our friend Kuehn were seeing things. The mere mention of the socialist commonwealth seems to excite him, and right heartily his blows are distributed against the creations of Fancy. Cold logic is fortified by the fiery darts of ridicule and anathema; even the impossible is cited as argument to buttress biased opinions, and in the mind of our worthy editor the issue is settled beyond all doubt.

In putting in my oar let it be understood that I am not an apologist of socialist principles or tactics. I am aware that both are open to criticism, as indeed are all theories outside the domain of demonstrable fact — even the philosophy of plumb-line individualism. I have always held that belief in any particular doctrine was largely a matter of temperament. I have met intelligent men and women to whom the principles expounded by Proudhon, Warren, Tucker and Kropotkin were utterly unintelligible; others who could not assimilate socialism and became ardent singletaxers; others again who ridiculed the arguments and deductions of Henry George and joined the socialist party. To aid these enthusiastic seekers after Truth (as they saw it) I have given away scores of copies of Merrie England, Looking Backward, Progress and Poverty and other thought-provoking books, even when I believed myself an anarchist and strove with might and main to convert the heathen to anarchism. Being in the position therefore, of an unbiased onlooker, I can at once appreciate comrade Kuehn’s drastic onslaughts on the — something which he thinks is socialism — the real thing — and at the same time sympathize with the socialists and singletaxers who have felt the weight of his mighty blows.

But let us have Fair Play. Even in a discussion where Truth supported by unanswerable Logic is supposed to be all on one side, that side is not made stronger by setting up creatures of straw or drawing upon Fancy to aim a shaft of ridicule. It is easy enuf to invent theories which shatter themselves to pieces by their own absurdity; but in an honest [2] endeavor to discover facts such tactics cut a mighty poor figure. But to be more specific:

In the issue of May 25, commenting on my letter in which I stated that I have affiliated with the socialists because it seems to me that socialism is the next step in the evolution of society, friend Kuehn attempts to take a fall out of me by making the bald assertion that An act of congress, (probably among the first to be signed by the first socialist president) will be a prohibition of any competitive enterprise; and doubtless such a contest which obtains between the centripetal and centrifugal forces in physics will be declared against public policy and come under a sacred governmental tabu. The first part of this declaration seems to be made in good faith, and will require strong evidence to support it; the last part is a mere gibe, to be taken for what it is worth. I have been a somewhat painstaking reader of socialist literature for many years, but I have never come across anything that gave me the impression that socialists would prohibit competition. They would so organize cooperation and solidarity as to render competitive efforts ineffective and absurd, which is a very different thing from prohibiting competition. Lack of space forbids illustration of this point, but the ingenuity of my readers will readily supply the deficiency.

It seems to me that friend Kuehn’s antagonistic attitude towards socialism is based upon the assumption that the cooperative commonwealth would be the worst kind of tyranny. In this view he sees individualism suppressed, competition prohibited, even the right of the individual to come and go at will denied. Upon what is this assumption based? Is it on statements by a few half-baked socialists that the government should own and operate everything? That the state (political community) must be the arbiter of our fortunes and destinies? If so I recommend him to read again the standard works on socialism, and I believe he will end by having a different opinion of the proposed socialist commonwealth.

Now I am not writing the above from any desire to be fault-finding, and of course the editor is at liberty to throw the whole thing into his waste-basket [25] if he so elect; but I, like he, was educated in the open forum of give and take and I have always believed that a little kindly criticism was good for the system. In this spirit the above is respectfully submitted.