Lizzie M. Holmes

May I be permitted a few words more in defense of the position I have taken? I value friend Kuhn’s friendship and good opinion, but as he says I am not yet convinced.

Friend Kuehn seems to have read whole libraries of best socialist authors to very little purpose A after all: he does not seem in the least to have arrived at a comprehension of their meaning. To him a socialist is a human being rampant for authority first, last and all the time, whether he ever gets anything else or not. I do not pretend to compare myself with a man of Mr. Kuhen’s attainments and abilities, I am an average, thinking person but I get much more than he does from my reading of good socialist writers. We wentwant to get a new viewpoint. B Despotism, oppression, robbery, poverty, are evils we all want to grow away from — we hope to evolve toward freedom, plenty, security, comfort. We hope to escape despotism in the same degree that we hope to escape from robbery and want. But want, the being without everything a human needs for existence and development, is the worst of wrongs. If, in order to secure some degree of comfort and a decent chance to live, we must accept some little measure of authority for the time being, we simply C accept it, that is all; knowing full well that a well nourished, leisurely people will not cease to progress. It is a great step gained and the authority that seems necessary just at the moment, is not a thing to be feared since no one will have any object in enforcing non-essential laws.

It seems to me that sovereign authority is unduly emphasized. It may be true that it is a pre-requisite to social tranquility, and it may be a mere statement of that fact is all that is necessary. But oh! there is so much to come before we have anything like tranquility of society. Sovereignty of the individual is not all, is not even a large part of what goes to make life whole and sane and enjoyable. d If individual sovereignty were all we needed, a a human being might go hang up in space somewhere uninterfered with by any one and become a thoroughly developed and perfectly happy creature.

Despotism is not a primitive, a fundamental wrong, nor is abstract freedom a fundamental need. The first primitive demand of every human being is for some other human being to do something for him. e A new-born babe cries the first thing it does: it wants warmth, food, comfort; it wants somebody to get busy and furnish these things. Service is required. From babyhood to old age, from the most primitive to the latest free and enlightened society, the demand has ever been: Give! Give your service! The babe does not yell for its freedom, nor for the singletax nor for mutual credit. Primitive society does not analyze its wants. But each and every one wants somebody else to do something for him individually; nature has been prolific but still she has left something for each human being to do before his wants can be supplied. To compel somebody else to do this something is what all have been trying to do, and the whole terrible, blood-stained course of society has been a dark history of methods and systems by which this could be accomplished.

The first slavery was probably established by saving the lives of prisoners of war and compelling them to labor. Primitive slavery was no doubt long upheld by brute force. But as intelligence developed the conquerors learned to control their servers through their mentalities, and a great deal of trouble and exertion was saved. Slaves were taught to consider service a duty to be mysteriously requited in a misty future; obedience was an honor, faithfulness a great virtue, and thus a fixed custom of submission to established authority was implanted in the institutions of mankind.

As one form of slavery became in its turn more and more unbearable and revolts loomed imminent, a new system was adopted, terms were juggled with, new catchwords given to the people and they were induced to go on serving by being made to believe they were ever so much better off. There were many forms of chattel slavery; serfdom was considered a great improvement on conditions of slavery that had gone before. Then, finally, the ownership of the body came to be thought immoral (and unprofitable) other methods of forcing service from the common people grew up. f Monopolization of natural resources, restriction and control of the medium of exchange, the ownership of machinery and tools with which the toiler must work, private ownership of the means of communication and transportation, are all methods of compelling the masses of the people to serve without adequate return or of preventing hte individual to be his own sovereign. And this is why the Mutual Bank, the Singletax, Governmental ownership of the trusts all seem (what friend Kuehn has so constantly ridiculed) legitimate causes.

The condition of the people at this stage of the game is really worse than any which has gone before it. It is more unendurable, more like a sweeping calamity from which we must escape at all hazards. First, because humanity g is finer and suffergs more keenly; second because the world is so full of new and delightful things, which we all know about and want eagerly; third, and most of all because we have been so damnably fooled! We have been believing that we were free, were sovereigns, possessed equal opportunities, etc., yet we know that thousands are freezing, drudging, prostituting themselves; h that horrible wars are going on because of rulers’ insatiable greed for power, that needless agony rules everywhere. Is it strange that a few are grasping the meaning of the onward march of progress, seizing the best in the recognized forms of society to help usher in a better, juster system of producing and distributing what humanity needs, even though it may entail a little of the old authority? Those who use up words, emphasizing the ego and analysing consciousness seem to have no real comprehension of the awful tragedy of life under the present regime. Why lay so much stress on the sovereignty of the individual when the individual has nothing else that he wants? He is a bruised, battered, hungry, freezing, wretched creature. j Shall we simply sit down and write about the freedom he needs and how it would get him all that is necessary? A first aid to the oppressed seems more appropriate. Especially as the full cure, freedom, is not available.

Friend Kuehn is much afraid that he will be ruled should the Cooperative Commonwealth administer his product. Now if he can pick out and set aside his particular bit of product created by himself alone, I’ll guarantee the C.C. will never disturb him by trying to administer it. But he knows that he cannot produce anything, at this stage of progress, without depending on the makers and workers and inventors of a thousand inter-related industries, k and that these in turn depend upon the labor, studies, experiences, successes and failures of all the past armies of servers. He does not stand alone in the world a mere sovereign individual. He is related to all other human beings, has like needs and desires, and these are to be satisfied in like ways. His interests are bound up, interwoven and concerned with the interests of every other human being. m The great problem, the tremendous lesson of the ages, is, how to adjust these interlocking relations and coordination of interests so as to bring about the greatest happiness — not to the greatest number — but to every one. When we have thoroughly learned this lesson, there will be light and society will be tranquil.

Comment

Let no socialist beguile himself into the notion that what he is after is so profound that it baffles the ken of plain people. My reading of best socialist authors and some second, third and lesser best convinces me that a socialist — every socialist — is a well-intentioned, big-hearted person with an abiding faith in compulsion first, compulsion last and nothing but compulsion at any time. If my good frend Lizzie Holmes does not alredy A kno that I do not ascribe to any socialist a craving for authority for its own sake, let me hasten to assure her that I understand what she, for instance, wants with authority is to enable her to do all manner of excessivly kindly things for me. B I thank her but I do not care for the freedom she would grant me nor the freedom she would establish. I consider freedom as a descriptiv term of a status in which no one hinders or obstructs. Therefore I decline to participate in or submit to any scheme of hindrance and obstruction however kindly its avowed purpose or by whatever grandiloquent name designated. And if meddlesomeness could further general plenty and security I should promptly becom a meddler myself, and associate with others who wer intent on a benevolent administration of meddlesomeness.

Ther is but one cause of Want. That one cause is a belief in what c comrade Lizzie Holmes calls a little measure of authority, — which seems to mean that little measures wil do less harm than great measures. And as no one wil hav any object in enforcing non-essential laws, it wil be interesting to lern what essential laws L.H. finds needful in order that those who produce plenty be permitted to enjoy that plenty. Wil frend Holmes enumerate som of these essential laws? No need to compile a catalog. Just one will serv. If she can cite one she has made my entire position untenable — a job that her parable printed abov has faild to achieve.

I hav never denied the orthodoxy of my frend L.H. and I grant that her parable of the obtuse individualist who hangs in space is quite an orthodox socialist position with respect of individualism. d It is rather a sad commentary on the understanding of socialists that they are utterly unable to conceiv of individuals combining voluntarily. Every socialist, (even the most scientific) subscribes by inference if not forthrightly, that persons who ar not compeld to do so wil not or cannot associate. As for the undue emphasis on sovereign authority it is probable that som one has applied it—but not the editor of Instead of a Magazine.

Is it becaus the blood-stained course of society derives from compulsion that e frend Lizzie Holmes thinks compulsion is the remedy? If not why read me this lecture? Or does she gather from anywhat I hav written that Individuals free to associate wil not associate. Possibly I am guilty of whatever appears to be charjd in this count of the indictment, and if so I wil plead guilty as soon as I get the application of the observation. Perhaps I hav (in my sleep, if at all) said that Despotism is a fundamental rong or freedom a fundamental need. If so I admit I said a very silly thing. But I did not say so. Those straw men of L.H. ar quite easily demolisht. Just how her dissertation on services applies I do not grasp. Surely friend Holmes is not ready to intimate that mothers wil not render loving servis to their offspring, but must be compelld to serv the child. I do not accus frend Holmes of such an outrageus doctrine, but what els is intended? Perhaps it is her purpose to imply that the normal requirement of mutual servis justifies whatever restraints the benevolent may be disposed to apply to the theorists who hav an irrational dislike of meddlers.

f I am obliged to plead gilty to frend Holmes’ charj that I ridicule not one but every scheme based on the notion that unhinderd men cannot manaj their affairs. I do not deny the sincerity of meddlers. I dout their capacity for profiting by the experiences of mankind. No governmental scheme has ever fulfild its avowd purpos. Nevertheless these ardent philanthropists assure us that their scheme of meddlesomeness has never been given a fair chance; and when it has its innings the records of history wil be reverst. It is in this connection that the trite and hackneyd moralism: Hell is paved with Good Intentions takes cogency and virility.

g Yes, I agree with frend Holmes that we hav been damnably fooled. That is my diagnosis, precisely. But when we com to examin as to how we hav been fooled what shall we do about it? The only way we hav been fooled is by believing the lie that human beings will not profitably and capably and peacefully associate unless they ar fooled into the notion that some little measure of authority is wholesome. I think L.H. was induljing in mere rhetoric when she wrote that we must escape from the present predicament at all hazards. I suspect that ther is one hazard she would most sedulusly avoid—that of depending on authority.

h No, it is not strange that people who hav been damnably foold heretofore should be foold over and over again and again. It is a little of the old authority that has kept them miserable, and it is not in the nature of things that any measure of authority can or need be granted to any persons, however wise and kind, without producing always disappointment and despair.

j It is a pity, truly, that only governmentalists can rise to the heights of understanding the current situation. The times call for action and it seems to matter little what sort of action it is so that it consists of some kind of meddling interference. I ask myself what it is that makes frend Holmes’ batterd wretch batterd; what keeps her hungry wretch hungry, and similar questions. I hav an answer, but as ther is no meddlesomeness in its indication of the remedy it will not satisfy. Nevertheless I shal reply to the queries as best I may: No, we need not simply sit down and write altho that wer a thousand times more sagacius (or let’s say a thousand times less hurtful) than doing unwise things for the mere licentius gratification of an impuls to be doing somthing regardless of consequences. The question is not what shall we do? But what shall I do? If each person who has a capacity to form a judgment in accord with experience wil quit playing at the role of brother’s keeper and mind his own business ther wil be plenty for all. I stand redy to go into particulars as to this.

k Here frend L. Holmes induljes one of the delusions whereby and wherewith the people hav been damnably foold from the day of the medicine man to that of the scientific socialist. The argument lends itself to something like this: Here am I using an alphabet that was invented by men of another era; I write on a typemachine made in Pennsylvania by men I never saw; and the ribbon was made in New Jersey, and the machine I use in printing in Illinois, and so along a great line of incidental contributing factors. Therefore other gentlemen and ladies who had no more to do with inventing alfabet, typemachine, press and the rest of the catalog demand that they be permitted to exercise some little measure of authority over me. Where is the connection? And where in all the world is that particular Individualist that frend Holmes is lecturing on the far-reachingness of cooperation? I admit, of course, that it is scientific socialism to claim that cooperation is impossible without the supervision of governmental flunkies. But one can (strange as this must seem to socialists of a certain calibre) conceiv of cooperation among men who see the absurdity of subjecting themselvs to meddlesomeness except when compeld to do so by the great preponderance of less sagacius contemporaries.

m I agree with frend Holmes that the tremendous lesson of the ages is what she states it to be. But ther is no monopoly of the lerning of that lesson on the governmental side of it. However, if those who think they can pursue happiness under conditions in which it is the province of some rank outsider to determin what happiness ought to consist of, I am perfectly content that the pursuit be so conducted. The great problem of the ages is not at all difficult. Nature solvs it for us every day and every minute of the day. I prefer to pattern after the natural forces but let those who think that the National Executiv Committee of their party can correct the mistakes of nature be loyal to their faith in hindrance, obstruction and meddlesomeness.