We certainly could not complain (supposing we had the inclination) of any scantness of attention to Anarchism in current magazine discussion,—I mean on the principle that it is better to be abused than ignored. Anarchism is not ignored; almost everybody who deals with reform feels the propriety of referring in some way or other to the ideas and practices of Anarchism. The fact that the ideas and practices generally cited as Anarchistic are the illegitimate and unhealthy offspring of complacent ignorance does not effect the statement I wish to make,—that a good deal of attention is being paid to what is mistaken for Anarchism by the writers in the leading magazines. It is gratifying to have to note a circumstance which argues so well for the conscience, if not for the understanding, of the enlightened teachers who appear in the literary arena (presumably) to disseminate knowledge and truth. It is not our fault that the same fact which is so favorable to the contributors happens to put the editors in a rather unfavorable light. The writers who fall into amusing and other blunders in their well-meant criticisms of Anarchism may plead misinformation as an extenuating circumstance; but what plea is there left for the editors who are informed of the true state of the case and who allow ignorance to go unexposed and injustice unrebuked; who, by refusing a hearing to the misrepresented, deliberately assume responsibility for the circulation of error and baseless charges? Of course the average editor would think it highly diverting to hear that his conduct stands in need of apology; his magazine being published in the interest of his pocket rather than of sweetness and light, it must be apparent to every one that to burden his pages with commercially valueless matter would be the height of unreason. But there are other editors, who profess to apply another test than popularity and to be governed by considerations of fairness to some extent; how will they explain their apparent determination to screen their readers from an introduction to the ideas of real Anarchists?

In at least two December magazines are we treated to grave criticisms of what the writers imagine to be the Anarchistic position. In the Arena Mr. Thomas B. Preston, in attempting to answer the question, Are We Socialists? finds it necessary to define or characterize the various reformatory schools of the day; and this is how he discharges his duty with reference to Anarchism:

It would abolish all government, and leave individuals subject only to natural laws. In a perfect state of society, the Anarchists claim, men would do right without any laws. Education and self-control would rule the individual, and any other kind of regulation would be an unwarranted interference with personal freedom. Communities would be formed of individuals attracted to each other by a similarity of tastes and desires. If a member of one of these groups became dissatisfied, he would leave it, and join some other group more congenial to his tastes. Truth, justice, and honor would be followed for their own sake, and not through fear of any repressive laws. … Theoretical Anarchy may thus be defined as a state of society in which every one does as he pleases without doing wrong. Indeed, such perfect Anarchy is only possible in heaven. As long as men are subject to the physical necessities of the body, it is morally certain that there will be a clash of material interests which requires regulation; and such regulation requires government. The trouble with many Anarchists, however, is that they wish to bring about their system by violence if necessary, and consider the first step towards its attainment to be the forcible destruction of present systems of government. In theory they simply carry out to an exaggerated absurdity the doctrine of non-interference with personal liberty,—that the best government is that which governs least.

Were I addressing the readers of the Arena, I should take up Mr. Preston’s assertions one by one and proceed to prove that not one of them applies to genuine Anarchism. Of course it would be easy to show that Mr. Preston has Communistic Anarchism in mind, and that the logical and philosophical Anarchism of the individualists not being taken cognizance of, the points made against something radically opposed to it could not affect it in the least. It would be easy to convince Mr. Preston and his readers that the talk about perfect society, groups, or similarity of tastes, is totally irrelevant to a discussion of true Anarchism. But I am not now addressing Mr. Preston or his readers, and therefore do not need to go into those questions. My thoughts are now busy with the editor of the Arena, Mr. Flower, who, I have ample reason to believe, knows full well that his contributor is unintentionally misleading and therefore unfair to his readers as well as to the real Anarchists who will be condemned unheard and through a comedy of errors and misunderstandings. Mr. Flower understands the Anarchistic position, and he realizes that the Communistic usurpers of the name Anarchists neither profess nor follow the cardinal principles of scientific Anarchism; yet he permits an indiscriminate and erroneous indictment of Anarchism to appear in his magazine, regardless of the inevitable injustice of any verdict based upon it. I am not irrational enough to expect Mr. Flower to append critical comment and correction to articles dealing with general problems or movements; but I do expect him to welcome such comment and correction from those who are entitled to make it and to give Anarchists the floor for the purpose of presenting their side of the question.

I regret to say that I do not as confidently expect such hospitality from the editor of the Popular Science Monthly, against whom we have a case that is even stronger than that I have made out against Mr. Flower. He prints in the December number of his magazine an address by Arthur Kitson on the Fallacies of Modern Economists, in which the single-tax, State Socialism, and Philosophical Anarchism are referred to. The address is brimful of inconsistencies and superficialities. But I leave everything that does not directly concern Anarchism to one side, and quote the following:

The Anarchists, observing that many laws work injustice and wrong to thousands, and that great advantages have been brought about by the repeal of them, reason that the summit of human happiness will be attained by the repeal of all laws and the abolition of all government, strangely forgetting that mankind have found both government and law essential to the organization and stability of society, forgetting also that well-merited punishment is very generally meted out to criminals by law. It does not follow that, because within certain limits the benefits of a given system are found to vary in a direct ratio with its extent of application, the same ratio will be continued ad infinitum. Trees do not grow up to the skies. The man who gradually reduced his donkey’s daily rations in hopes of eventually accustoming him to do without food succeeded in accomplishing his purpose. But the donkey died. May I ask my Anarchist friends if they have contemplated under their scheme the possibility of the death of their donkey,—society?

Philosophical Anarchism and the doctrine of non-invasion must fall short of its purpose unless all men confine themselves to their own business and do not interfere with their neighbors. But the presence of a handful of men in an Anarchistic community who determined to live by plunder would suffice to destroy either Anarchism or the community. Anarchy reminds one of a certain Chinese puzzle, the solution of which depended upon getting a number of different-shaped blocks together and dropping them at the same instant, so that they fell exactly into their respective places. If one happened to fall slightly out of place, it upset the entire number. Philosophical Anarchy can only exist when all men have attained that condition where each fits his place and is content to remain in it.

The only thing to be said in comment is that Mr. Kitson has not the remotest notion of what philosophical Anarchism is. There is absolutely no more reason why one or a few invaders should overthrow a whole Anarchist society than why the criminals of today should make social life utterly impossible for all of us. We have tacitly agreed to avoid such low species of competition as murder and robbery in the legal sense, and we manage to carry on existence without these. When some of us violate that tacit agreement, they are more or less effectually quashed,—and life goes on as before. Criminals do not create any panic; we pursue the even tenor of our way, taking due precautions against unpleasant surprises. Why, then, would not an Anarchist society be equal to the task of protecting itself against aggressors? Mr. Kitson manifestly talks without any knowledge of his subject; he does not understand that Anarchists simply mean that men should, tacitly or otherwise, agree to deprive themselves of the pleasure of certain other encroachments and interferences with liberty in addition to those already ruled out. He evidently thinks that the abolition of all government and the repeal of all laws is equivalent, in intention and fact, to the deliberate abandonment of all attempts to restrain and punish crime. Imagining that Anarchists predicate absolute liberty and non-resistance (or at least no regular and systematic resistance) to crime, Mr. Kitson seeks to impress them with the fatuity of the proposal by the old but ever instructive tale of the donkey. He virtually makes the point that absolute liberty is something unthinkable under social conditions and is invariably reduced to license for some and slavery for others. Had he taken the trouble to inform himself of the definitions given by Anarchists of law and government, he would have learned that Anarchists make due provision for the health and comfort of the donkey,—that they do not propose to encourage crime and violence and do not intend to endanger the stability of society. The Anarchists are convinced that the law of equal freedom, if obeyed, assures the donkey life and health, and they will abolish nothing that can show a valid title to existence under the seal of equal freedom. Everything and everybody not in rebellion against equal liberty will be fully protected and guarded. No doubt there would be attempts to disregard the social compact in an Anarchistic society, as there are attempts to violate present agreements; but the difficulties of disposing of criminals would not (to say the least) be greater than they are today.

Ignorance, however, does not excuse any one in the republic or Anarchy of letters. The fact that Mr. Kitson made unintelligent remarks on Anarchism in the Popular Science Monthly makes it only fair that he should allow an Anarchist to correct his contributor and counteract the mischief done by him. Mr. Kitson named the victims of his contempt, and, if injustice has been done them, they should be afforded an opportunity for self-defence. True, society has not yet tacitly agreed to be scrupulously fair in such matters; unfairness of this kind and degree does not involve serious consequences to the contributor or editor. But Mr. Youmans and his contributors pose as leaders and teachers of a higher ethical code; they profess to desire the application of a higher standard to conduct; and surely no great sacrifice is demanded of them when we ask the privilege of addressing their constituency. I move that the Anarchists be given the floor. Is the motion seconded? Is it a vote?

V. Y.