The Secretary wants every reader of Liberty to send in his name for enrolment. Those who do so thereby pledge themselves to write, when possible, a letter every fortnight, on Anarchism or kindred subjects, to the target
assigned in Liberty for that fortnight, and to notify the secretary promptly in case of any failure to write to a target (which it is hoped will not often occur), or in case of temporary or permanent withdrawal from the work of the Corps. All, whether members or not, are asked to lose no opportunity of informing the secretary of suitable targets. Address, Stephen T. Byington, 108 W. 13th St., New York City.
A member of the Corps writes, I observe the suggestion made as to sending Mr. Tucker’s name to our targets, but I think a better one would be to send a copy of Liberty to each target. Then the recipient will know just where the shots come from, and can also note the literature that is advertised.
I hardly think so. Better not let the recipient know how the shots came to be sent. Many will guess more or less clearly that they are being attacked by an organized body, and there is probably no good in trying to blind them artificially; but, if they are ready to think that your letters are individually spontaneous, better let them think so.
I would add that it is not every letter that can profitably have a recommendation of Tucker’s literature inserted. But I think the best letters are generally such as make the Anarchistic point so strongly, positively, and definitely that the recommendation of literature will go well with them. Cohen objects to many of the letters he has received because they are generalizations and do not go to the heart of the question in detail.
Generalizations are easy and pleasant writing, but they have little convincing power; and, even when you have got a man to assent to a generalization, you have not yet got him ready to make any particular practical application of it.
A parallel fault is that of merely pointing out an opponent’s error in some unimportant detail, not coming to the heart of the question at all. This also is easy and pleasant writing, but kills very little game. This is what is especially likely to give no fair opportunity for recommending Anarchist literature; a letter of pointless generalization may take in a recommendation of literature well enough, and that may be the only useful point in it.
Both faults lead to the result that your letter seems to have been written from the standpoint of conservative individualism; whatever effect you produce goes to the benefit of that cause, and whatever a reader knows of the weakness of that cause is brought forward in his mind as an argument against you. The only way to avoid this is to make some practical application of your principle, bolder than the conservative individualist dares make.
A collection of my own Corps letters would show many examples of both faults. I shall probably commit them again when I feel lazy; but the less I do this, the better I shall like myself.
Target, section A.—Bolton Hall, 111 Broadway, New York City, writes me, I have printed, I think, all the Anarchist letters on Taxation. I could use some more.
He adds several particular lines on which he would like letters, of which the first is those aiming to show how Anarchist principles would obviate the necessity of resorting to taxation to prevent land monopoly.
Give him letters on this point.
Section B.—The Farmer’s Voice, 334 Dearborn Street, Chicago, Ill., a Populist paper which has been strongly advocating coöperation by farmers in the way of mutual insurance, coöperative buying and selling, etc., while standing for an exclusive government currency. In the number for June 22, J. T. Small has a letter making a very clear and strong argument for the mutual system of banking as a development of the coöperative principle. He specially emphasizes the point that it is really the customers’ credit that gives the security on which the banknotes depend. Endorse Small; prove the practicability of mutual banking and its efficiency in furnishing good money and breaking down monopoly; show its special points of superiority to government currency.