{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45827/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45827","id":"gutenberg_45827","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45827","summary":null,"tags":["Anarchism","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Nobel Prizes in Literature","Socialism"],"text":"+-----------------------------------------------------------------+\n    |                                                                 |\n    | Note:                                                           |\n    |                                                                 |\n    | Equals signs are used to surround =bold text=;                  |\n    | underscores to surround _italic text_.                          |\n    |                                                                 |\n    | Transcriber notes can be found at the end of the file           |\n    |                                                                 |\n    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+\n\n\n\n\n\n    Fabian Tract No. 45.\n\n    THE IMPOSSIBILITIES OF\n    ANARCHISM.\n\n    BY\n    BERNARD SHAW\n\n    PUBLISHED BY\n    THE FABIAN SOCIETY\n\n    PRICE TWOPENCE\n\n    LONDON\n    TO BE OBTAINED OF THE FABIAN SOCIETY, 276 STRAND, W.C.\n    REPRINTED NOVEMBER 1895\n\n\n\n\nTHE IMPOSSIBILITIES OF ANARCHISM.[1]\n\nAnarchists and Socialists.\n\n\nSome years ago, as the practical policy of the Socialist party in\nEngland began to shape itself more and more definitely into the\nprogram of Social-Democracy, it became apparent that we could not\nprogress without the gravest violations of principles of all sorts.\nIn particular, the democratic side of the program was found to\nbe incompatible with the sacred principle of the Autonomy of the\nIndividual. It also involved a recognition of the State, an institution\naltogether repugnant to the principle of Freedom. Worse than that,\nit involved compromise at every step; and principles, as Mr. John\nMorley once eloquently showed, must not be compromised. The result\nwas that many of us fell to quarrelling; refused to associate with\none another; denounced each other as trimmers or Impossibilists,\naccording to our side in the controversy; and finally succeeded in\ncreating a considerable stock of ill-feeling. My own side in the\ncontroversy was the unprincipled one, as Socialism to me has always\nmeant, not a principle, but certain definite economic measures\nwhich I wish to see taken. Indeed, I have often been reproached for\nlimiting the term Socialism too much to the economic side of the great\nmovement towards equality. That movement, however, appears to me to\nbe as much an Individualist as a Socialist one; and though there are\nSocialists, like Sir William Harcourt, to whom Socialism means the\nsum total of humanitarian aspiration, in which the transfer of some\nmillions of acres of property from private to public ownership must\nseem but an inessential and even undesirable detail, this sublimer\nshade of Socialism suffers from such a lack of concentration upon\ndefinite measures, that, but for the honor and glory of the thing,\nits professors might as well call themselves Conservatives. Now what\nwith Socialists of this sort, and persons who found that the practical\nremedy for white slavery was incompatible with the principle of\nLiberty, and the practical remedy for despotism incompatible with\nthe principle of Democracy, and the practical conduct of politics\nincompatible with the principle of Personal Integrity (in the sense\nof having your own way in everything), the practical men were at last\ndriven into frank Opportunism. When, for instance, they found national\nand local organization of the working classes opposed by Socialists on\nthe ground that Socialism is universal and international in principle;\nwhen they found their Radical and Trade Unionist allies ostracized\nby Socialists for being outside the pale of the Socialist faith one\nand indivisible; when they saw agricultural laborers alienated by\nundiscriminating denunciations of allotments as \"individualistic\";\nthen they felt the full force of the saying that Socialism would\nspread fast enough if it were not for the Socialists. It was bad\nenough to have to contend with the conservative forces of the modern\nunsocialist State without also having to fight the seven deadly\nvirtues in possession of the Socialists themselves. The conflict\nbetween ideal Socialism and practical Social-Democracy destroyed\nthe Chartist organization half a century ago, as it destroyed the\nSocialist League only the other day. But it has never gone so far as\nthe conflict between Social-Democracy and Anarchism. For the Anarchists\nwill recommend abstention from voting and refusal to pay taxes in\ncases where the Social-Democrats are strenuously urging the workers\nto organize their votes so as to return candidates pledged to contend\nfor extensions of the franchise and for taxation of unearned incomes,\nthe object of such taxation being the raising of State capital for all\nsorts of collective purposes, from the opening of public libraries to\nthe municipalization and nationalization of our industries. In fact,\nthe denunciation of Social-Democratic methods by Anarchists is just\nas much a matter of course as the denunciation of Social-Democratic\naims by Conservatives. It is possible that some of the strangers\npresent may be surprised to hear this, since no distinction is made\nin the newspapers which support the existing social order between\nSocial-Democrats and Anarchists, both being alike hostile to that\norder. In the columns of such papers all revolutionists are Socialists;\nall Socialists are Anarchists; and all Anarchists are incendiaries,\nassassins and thieves. One result of this is that the imaginative\nFrench or Italian criminal who reads the papers, sometimes declares,\nwhen taken red-handed in the commission of murder or burglary, that\nhe is an Anarchist acting on principle. And in all countries the more\nviolent and reckless temperaments among the discontented are attracted\nby the name Anarchist merely because it suggests desperate, thorough,\nuncompromising, implacable war on existing injustices. It is therefore\nnecessary to warn you that there are some persons abusively called\nAnarchists by their political opponents, and others ignorantly so\ndescribed by themselves, who are nevertheless not Anarchists at all\nwithin the meaning of this paper. On the other hand, many persons\nwho are never called Anarchists either by themselves or others,\ntake Anarchist ground in their opposition to Social-Democracy just\nas clearly as the writers with whom I shall more particularly deal.\nThe old Whigs and new Tories of the school of Cobden and Bright, the\n\"Philosophic Radicals,\" the economists of whom Bastiat is the type,\nLord Wemyss and Lord Bramwell, Mr. Herbert Spencer and Mr. Auberon\nHerbert, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. John Morley, Mr.\nLeonard Courtney: any of these is, in England, a more typical Anarchist\nthan Bakounin. They distrust State action, and are jealous advocates of\nthe prerogative of the individual, proposing to restrict the one and\nto extend the other as far as is humanly possible, in opposition to\nthe Social-Democrat, who proposes to democratize the State and throw\nupon it the whole work of organizing the national industry, thereby\nmaking it the most vital organ in the social body. Obviously there\nare natural limits to the application of both views; and Anarchists\nand Social-Democrats are alike subject to the fool's argument that\nsince neither collective provision for the individual nor individual\nfreedom from collective control can be made complete, neither party\nis thoroughly consistent. No dialectic of that kind will, I hope, be\nfound in the following criticism of Anarchism. It is confined to the\npractical measures proposed by Anarchists, and raises no discussion\nas to aims or principles. As to these we are all agreed. Justice,\nVirtue, Truth, Brotherhood, the highest interests of the people, moral\nas well as physical: these are dear not only to Social-Democrats and\nAnarchists, but also to Tories, Whigs, Radicals, and probably also to\nMoonlighters and Dynamitards. It is with the methods by which it is\nproposed to give active effect to them that I am concerned here; and\nto that point I shall now address myself by reading you a paper which\nI wrote more than four years ago on the subject chosen for to-night.\nI may add that it has not been revived from a wanton desire to renew\nan old dispute, but in response to a demand from the provincial Fabian\nSocieties, bewildered as they are by the unexpected opposition of\nthe Anarchists, from whom they had rather expected some sympathy.\nThis old paper of mine being the only document of the kind available,\nmy colleagues have requested me to expunge such errors and follies\nas I have grown out of since 1888, and to take this opportunity of\nsubmitting it to the judgment of the Society. Which I shall now do\nwithout further preamble.\n\n\nIndividualist Anarchism.\n\nThe full economic detail of Individualist Anarchism may be inferred\nwith sufficient completeness from an article entitled \"State Socialism\nand Anarchism: how far they agree, and wherein they differ,\" which\nappeared in March, 1888, in _Liberty_, an Anarchist journal published\nin Boston, Mass., and edited by the author of the article, Mr. Benjamin\nR. Tucker. An examination of any number of this journal will shew that\nas a candid, clear-headed, and courageous demonstrator of Individualist\nAnarchism by purely intellectual methods, Mr. Tucker may safely be\naccepted as one of the most capable spokesmen of his party.\n\n\"The economic principles of Modern Socialism,\" says Mr. Tucker, \"are\na logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the\nearly chapters of his _Wealth of Nations_--namely, that labor is the\ntrue measure of price. From this principle, these three men [Josiah\nWarren, Proudhon and Marx] deduced 'that the natural wage of labor is\nits product.'\"\n\nNow the Socialist who is unwary enough to accept this economic\nposition will presently find himself logically committed to the Whig\ndoctrine of _laissez-faire_. And here Mr. Tucker will cry, \"Why not?\n_Laissez-faire_ is exactly what we want. Destroy the money monopoly,\nthe tariff monopoly, and the patent monopoly. Enforce then only those\nland titles which rest on personal occupancy or cultivation;[2]\nand the social problem of how to secure to each worker the product\nof his own labor will be solved simply by everyone minding his own\nbusiness.\"[3]\n\nLet us see whether it will or not. Suppose we decree that henceforth no\nmore rent shall be paid in England, and that each man shall privately\nown his house, and hold his shop, factory, or place of business\njointly with those who work with him in it. Let everyone be free to\nissue money from his own mint without tax or stamp. Let all taxes on\ncommodities be abolished, and patents and copyrights be things of the\npast. Try to imagine yourself under these promising conditions with\nlife before you. You may start in business as a crossing sweeper,\nshopkeeper, collier, farmer, miller, banker, or what not. Whatever\nyour choice may be, the first thing you find is that the reward of\nyour labor depends far more on the situation in which you exercise it\nthan on yourself. If you sweep the crossing between St. James's and\nAlbemarle Streets you prosper greatly. But if you are forestalled not\nonly there, but at every point more central than, say, the corner of\nHolford Square, Islington, you may sweep twice as hard as your rival in\nPiccadilly, and not take a fifth of his toll. At such a pass you may\nwell curse Adam Smith and his principle that labor is the measure of\nprice, and either advocate a democratically constituted State Socialist\nmunicipality, paying all its crossing sweepers equally, or else cast\nyour broom upon the Thames and turn shopkeeper. Yet here again the same\ndifficulty crops up. Your takings depend, not on yourself, but on the\nnumber of people who pass your window per hour. At Charing Cross or\nCheapside fortunes are to be made: in the main street at Putney one\ncan do enough to hold up one's head: further out, a thousand yards\nright or left of the Portsmouth Road, the most industrious man in the\nworld may go whistle for a customer. Evidently retail shopkeeping is\nnot the thing for a man of spirit after Charing Cross and Cheapside\nhave been appropriated by occupying owners on the principle of first\ncome first served. You must aspire then to wholesale dealing--nay, to\nbanking. Alas! the difficulty is intensified beyond calculation. Take\nthat financial trinity, Glyn, Mills and Currie; transplant them only\na few miles from Lombard Street; and they will soon be objects of\npity to the traditional sailor who once presented at their counter a\ncheque for \u00a325 and generously offered to take it in instalments, as he\ndid not wish to be too hard on them all at once. Turning your back on\nbanking, you meddle in the wheat trade, and end by offering to exchange\nan occupying ownership of all Salisbury Plain for permission to pay a\nrack rent for premises within hail of \"The Baltic\" and its barometer.\n\nProbably there are some people who have a blind belief that crossing\nsweepers, \"The Baltic,\" Lombard Street, and the like, are too utterly\nof the essence of the present system to survive the introduction of\nAnarchism. They will tell me that I am reading the conditions of the\npresent into the future. Against such instinctive convictions it is\nvain to protest that I am reading only Mr. Tucker's conditions. But at\nleast there will be farming, milling, and mining, conducted by human\nagents, under Anarchism. Now the farmer will not find in his perfect\nAnarchist market two prices at one time for two bushels of wheat of the\nsame quality; yet the labor cost of each bushel will vary considerably\naccording to the fertility of the farm on which it was raised, and the\nproximity of that farm to the market. A good soil will often yield\nthe strongest and richest grain to less labor per acre or per bushel\nthan must be spent on land that returns a crop less valuable by five\nshillings a quarter. When all the best land is held by occupying\nowners, those who have to content themselves with poorer soils will\nhail the principle that labor is the measure of price with the thumb\nto the nose. Among the millers, too, there must needs be grievous\nmistrust of Proudhon and Josiah Warren. For of two men with equally\ngood heart to work and machinery to work with, one may be on a stream\nthat will easily turn six millstones; whilst the other, by natural\ndefault of water, or being cut off by his fellow higher up stream, may\nbarely be able to keep two pairs of stones in gear, and may in a dry\nseason be ready to tie these two about his neck and lie down under the\nscum of his pond. Certainly, he can defy drought by setting to work\nwith a steam engine, steel rollers, and all the latest contrivances\nfor squashing wheat into dust instead of grinding it into flour; yet,\nafter all his outlay, he will not be able to get a penny a sack more\nfor his stuff than his competitor, to whose water-wheel Nature is\ngratuitously putting her shoulder. \"Competition everywhere and always\"\nof his unaided strength against that of his rival he might endure; but\nto fight naked against one armed with the winds and waves (for there\nare windmills as well as watermills) is no sound justice, though it\nbe sound Anarchism. And how would occupying ownership of mines work,\nwhen it is an easier matter to get prime Wallsend and Silkstone out\nof one mine than to get slates and steam fuel out of another, even\nafter twenty years' preliminary shaft-sinking? Would Mr. Tucker, if\nhe had on sale from a rich mine some Silkstone that had only cost\nhalf as much labor as steam coal from a relatively poor one, boldly\nannounce:--\"Prices this day: Prime Silkstone, per ton, 25s.; best steam\nditto, 50s. Terms, cash. Principles, those of Adam Smith--see 'Wealth\nof Nations' _passim_\"? Certainly not with \"competition everywhere\nand always,\" unless custom was no object to him in comparison with\nprinciple.\n\nIt is useless to multiply instances. There is only one country in\nwhich any square foot of land is as favorably situated for conducting\nexchanges, or as richly endowed by nature for production, as any other\nsquare foot; and the name of that country is Utopia. In Utopia alone,\ntherefore, would occupying ownership be just. In England, America\nand other places, rashly created without consulting the Anarchists,\nNature is all caprice and injustice in dealing with Labor. Here you\nscratch her with a spade; and earth's increase and foison plenty are\nadded to you. On the other side of the hedge twenty steam-diggers will\nnot extort a turnip from her. Still less adapted to Anarchism than\nthe fields and mines is the crowded city. The distributor flourishes\nwhere men love to congregate: his work is to bring commodities to\nmen; but here the men bring themselves to the commodities. Remove\nyour distributor a mile, and his carts and travellers must scour the\ncountry for customers. None know this better than the landlords. Up\nHigh Street, down Low Street, over the bridge and into Crow Street, the\ntoilers may sweat equally for equal wages; but their product varies;\nand the ground rents vary with the product. Competition levels down\nthe share kept by the worker as it levels up the hours of his labor;\nand the surplus, high or low according to the fertility of the soil or\nconvenience of the site, goes as high rent or low rent, but always in\nthe long run rack rent, to the owner of the land.\n\nNow Mr. Tucker's remedy for this is to make the occupier--the actual\nworker--the owner. Obviously the effect would be, not to abolish his\nadvantage over his less favorably circumstanced competitors, but simply\nto authorize him to put it into his own pocket instead of handing it\nover to a landlord. He would then, it is true, be (as far as his place\nof business was concerned) a worker instead of an idler; but he would\nget more product as a manufacturer and more custom as a distributor\nthan other equally industrious workers in worse situations. He could\nthus save faster than they, and retire from active service at an age\nwhen they would still have many years more work before them. His\nownership of his place of business would of course lapse in favor\nof his successor the instant he retired. How would the rest of the\ncommunity decide who was to be the successor--would they toss up for\nit, or fight for it, or would he be allowed to nominate his heir, in\nwhich case he would either nominate his son or sell his nomination for\na large fine? Again, his retirement from his place of business would\nleave him still in possession, as occupying owner, of his private\nresidence; and this might be of exceptional or even unique desirability\nin point of situation. It might, for instance, be built on Richmond\nHill, and command from its windows the beautiful view of the Thames\nvalley to be obtained from that spot. Now it is clear that Richmond\nHill will not accommodate all the people who would rather live there\nthan in the Essex marshes. It is easy to say, Let the occupier be the\nowner; but the question is, Who is to be the occupier? Suppose it were\nsettled by drawing lots, what would prevent the winner from selling\nhis privilege for its full (unearned) value under free exchange and\nomnipresent competition? To such problems as these, Individualist\nAnarchism offers no solution. It theorizes throughout on the assumption\nthat one place in a country is as good as another.\n\nUnder a system of occupying ownership, rent would appear only in its\nprimary form of an excess of the prices of articles over the expenses\nof producing them, thus enabling owners of superior land to get more\nfor their products than cost price. If, for example, the worst land\nworth using were only one-third as productive as the best land, then\nthe owner-occupiers of that best land would get in the market the\nlabor cost of their wares three times over. This 200 per cent premium\nwould be just as truly ground rent as if it were paid openly as such\nto the Duke of Bedford or the Astors. It may be asked why prices must\ngo up to the expenses of production on the very worst land. Why not\nascertain and charge the average cost of production taking good and bad\nland together?[4] Simply because nothing short of the maximum labor\ncost would repay the owners of the worst land. In fact, the worst\nland would not be cultivated until the price had risen. The process\nwould be as follows. Suppose the need of the population for wheat\nwere satisfied by crops raised from the best available land only.\nFree competition in wheat-producing would then bring the price down\nto the labor cost or expenses of production. Now suppose an increase\nof population sufficient to overtax the wheat-supplying capacity of\nthe best land. The supply falling short of the demand, the price of\nwheat would rise. When it had risen to the labor cost of production\nfrom land one degree inferior to the best, it would be worth while to\ncultivate that inferior land. When that new source came to be overtaxed\nby the still growing population, the price would rise again until it\nwould repay the cost of raising wheat from land yet lower in fertility\nthan the second grade. But these descents would in nowise diminish\nthe fertility of the best land, from which wheat could be raised as\ncheaply as before, in spite of the rise in the price, which would apply\nto all the wheat in the market, no matter where raised. That is, the\nholders of the best land would gain a premium, rising steadily with the\nincrease of population, exactly as the landlord now enjoys a steadily\nrising rent.[5] As the agricultural industry is in this respect\ntypical of all industries, it will be seen now that the price does not\nrise because worse land is brought into cultivation, but that worse\nland is brought into cultivation by the rise of price. Or, to put it\nin another way, the price of the commodity does not rise because more\nlabor has been devoted to its production, but more labor is devoted\nto its production because the price has risen. Commodities, in fact,\nhave a price before they are produced; we produce them expressly to\nobtain that price; and we cannot alter it by merely spending more\nor less labor on them. It is natural for the laborer to insist that\nlabor _ought to be_ the measure of price, and that the _just_ wage of\nlabor is its average product; but the first lesson he has to learn\nin economics is that labor is not and never can be the measure of\nprice under a competitive system. Not until the progress of Socialism\nreplaces competitive production and distribution, with individual greed\nfor its incentive, by Collectivist production and distribution, with\nfair play all round for its incentive, will the prices either of labor\nor commodities represent their just value.\n\nThus we see that \"competition everywhere and always\" fails to\ncircumvent rent whilst the land is held by competing occupiers who\nare protected in the individual ownership of what they can raise from\ntheir several holdings. And \"the great principle laid down by Adam\nSmith,\" formulated by Josiah Warren as \"Cost is the proper limit of\nprice,\" turns out--since in fact price is the limit of cost--to be\nmerely a preposterous way of expressing the fact that under Anarchism\nthat small fraction of the general wealth which was produced under the\nleast favorable circumstances would at least fetch its cost, whilst all\nthe rest would fetch a premium which would be nothing but privately\nappropriated rent with an Anarchist mask on.\n\nWe see also that such a phrase as \"the natural wage of labor is its\nproduct\" is a misleading one, since labor cannot produce subsistence\nexcept when exercised upon natural materials and aided by natural\nforces external to man. And when it is so produced, its value in\nexchange depends in nowise on the share taken by labor in its\nproduction, but solely to the demand for it in society. The economic\nproblem of Socialism is the just distribution of the premium given\nto certain portions of the general product by the action of demand.\nAs Individualist Anarchism not only fails to distribute these, but\ndeliberately permits their private appropriation, Individualist\nAnarchism is the negation of Socialism, and is, in fact, Unsocialism\ncarried as near to its logical completeness as any sane man dare carry\nit.\n\n\nCommunist Anarchism.\n\nState Socialism and Anarchism, says Mr. Tucker, \"are based on two\nprinciples, the history of whose conflict is almost equivalent to the\nhistory of the world since man came into it; and all intermediate\nparties, including that of the upholders of the existing society,\nare based upon a compromise between them.\" These principles are\nAuthority--the State Socialist principle, and Liberty--the Anarchist\nprinciple. State Socialism is then defined as \"the doctrine that all\nthe affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless\nof individual choice,\" whereas Anarchism is \"the doctrine that all\nthe affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary\nassociations, and that the State should be abolished.\"\n\nNow most revolutionists will admit that there was a stage in the\ngrowth of their opinions when the above seemed an adequate statement\nof the alternatives before them. But, as we have seen, when the\nIndividualist Anarchist proceeds to reduce his principle to practice,\nhe is inevitably led to Mr. Tucker's program of \"competition everywhere\nand always\" among occupying owners, subject only to the moral law of\nminding their own business. No sooner is this formulated than its\neffect on the distribution of wealth is examined by the economist, who\nfinds no trouble in convicting it, under the economic law of rent,\nof privilege, monopoly, inequality, unjust indirect taxation, and\neverything that is most repugnant to Anarchism. But this startling\nreverse, however it may put the Anarchist out of conceit with his\nprogram, does not in the least reconcile him to State Socialism. It\nonly changes his mind on one point. Whilst his program satisfied him,\nhe was content to admit that State Socialism was the only possible\nalternative to Individualist Anarchism--nay, he rather insisted\non it, because the evils of the State Socialist alternative were\nstrong incentives to the acceptance of the other. But the moment it\nbecomes apparent that the one is economically as bad as the other,\nthe disillusioned Individualist Anarchist becomes convinced of the\ninsufficiency of his analysis of the social problem, and follows it\nup in order to find out a _tertium quid_, or third system which shall\ncollect and justly distribute the rent of the country, and yet prevent\nthe collecting and distributing organ from acquiring the tyrannous\npowers of governments as we know them. There are two such systems at\npresent before the world: Communism and Social-Democracy. Now there is\nno such thing as Anarchist Social-Democracy; but there is such a thing\nas Anarchist Communism or Communist Anarchism. It is true that Mr.\nTucker does not recognize the Communist Anarchist as an Anarchist at\nall: he energetically repudiates Communism as the uttermost negation\nof true Anarchism, and will not admit any logical halting place\nbetween thoroughgoing State Socialism and thoroughgoing Individualist\nAnarchism. But why insist on anybody occupying a logical halting place?\nWe are all fond of shewing that on any given subject there are only\ntwo of these safe spots, one being the point of agreement with us, and\nthe other some inconceivable extremity of idiocy. But for the purposes\nof the present criticism it will be more practical to waive such crude\nrationalizing, and concede that to deal with Mr. Tucker without also\ndealing with Peter Kropotkine is not to give Anarchism fair play.\n\nThe main difficulty in criticising Kropotkine lies in the fact that,\nin the distribution of generally needed labor products, his Communism\nis finally cheap and expedient, whereas Mr. Tucker's Individualism, in\nthe same department, is finally extravagant and impossible. Even under\nthe most perfect Social-Democracy we should, without Communism, still\nbe living like hogs, except that each hog would get his fair share of\ngrub. High as that ideal must seem to anyone who complacently accepts\nthe present social order, it is hardly high enough to satisfy a man in\nwhom the social instinct is well developed. So long as vast quantities\nof labor have to be expended in weighing and measuring each man's\nearned share of this and that commodity--in watching, spying, policing,\nand punishing in order to prevent Tom getting a crumb of bread more or\nDick a spoonful of milk less than he has a voucher for, so long will\nthe difference between Unsocialism and Socialism be only the difference\nbetween unscientific and scientific hoggishness. I do not desire to\nunderrate the vastness of that difference. Whilst we are hogs, let\nus at least be well-fed, healthy, reciprocally useful hogs, instead\nof--well, instead of the sort we are at present. But we shall not have\nany great reason to stand on the dignity of our humanity until a just\ndistribution of the loaves and fishes becomes perfectly spontaneous,\nand the great effort and expense of a legal distribution, however just,\nis saved. For my own part, I seek the establishment of a state of\nsociety in which I shall not be bothered with a ridiculous pocketful of\ncoppers, nor have to waste my time in perplexing arithmetical exchanges\nof them with booking clerks, bus conductors, shopmen, and other\nsuperfluous persons before I can get what I need. I aspire to live in a\ncommunity which shall be at least capable of averaging the transactions\nbetween us well enough to ascertain how much work I am to do for it in\nreturn for the right to take what I want of the commoner necessaries\nand conveniences of life. The saving of friction by such an arrangement\nmay be guessed from the curious fact that only specialists in sociology\nare conscious of the numerous instances in which we are to-day forced\nto adopt it by the very absurdity of the alternative. Most people will\ntell you that Communism is known only in this country as a visionary\nproject advocated by a handful of amiable cranks. Then they will stroll\noff across the common bridge, along the common embankment, by the light\nof the common gas lamp shining alike on the just and the unjust, up the\ncommon street, and into the common Trafalgar Square, where, on the\nsmallest hint on their part that Communism is to be tolerated for an\ninstant in a civilized country, they will be handily bludgeoned by the\ncommon policeman, and haled off to the common gaol.[6] When you suggest\nto these people that the application of Communism to the bread supply\nis only an extension, involving no new principle, of its application\nto street lighting, they are bewildered. Instead of picturing the\nCommunist man going to the common store, and thence taking his bread\nhome with him, they instinctively imagine him bursting obstreperously\ninto his neighbor's house and snatching the bread off his table on the\n\"as much mine as yours\" principle--which, however, has an equally sharp\nedge for the thief's throat in the form \"as much yours as mine.\" In\nfact, the average Englishman is only capable of understanding Communism\nwhen it is explained as a state of things under which everything is\npaid for out of the taxes, and taxes are paid in labor. And even then\nhe will sometimes say, \"How about the brainwork?\" and begin the usual\nnovice's criticism of Socialism in general.\n\nNow a Communist Anarchist may demur to such a definition of Communism\nas I have just given; for it is evident that if there are to be taxes,\nthere must be some authority to collect those taxes. I will not insist\non the odious word taxes; but I submit that if any article--bread, for\ninstance--be communized, by which I mean that there shall be public\nstores of bread, sufficient to satisfy everybody, to which all may come\nand take what they need without question or payment, wheat must be\ngrown, mills must grind, and bakers must sweat daily in order to keep\nup the supply. Obviously, therefore, the common bread store will become\nbankrupt unless every consumer of the bread contributes to its support\nas much labor as the bread he consumes costs to produce. Communism or\nno Communism, he must pay or else leave somebody else to pay for him.\nCommunism will cheapen bread for him--will save him the cost of scales\nand weights, coin, book-keepers, counter-hands, policemen, and other\nexpenses of private property; but it will not do away with the cost\nof the bread and the store. Now supposing that voluntary co-operation\nand public spirit prove equal to the task of elaborately organizing\nthe farming, milling and baking industries for the production of\nbread, how will these voluntary co-operators recover the cost of their\noperations from the public who are to consume their bread? If they\nare given powers to collect the cost from the public, and to enforce\ntheir demands by punishing non-payers for their dishonesty, then they\nat once become a State department levying a tax for public purposes;\nand the Communism of the bread supply becomes no more Anarchistic than\nour present Communistic supply of street lighting is Anarchistic.\nUnless the taxation is voluntary--unless the bread consumer is free\nto refuse payment without incurring any penalty save the reproaches\nof his conscience and his neighbors, the Anarchist ideal will remain\nunattained. Now the pressure of conscience and public opinion is by\nno means to be slighted. Millions of men and women, without any legal\ncompulsion whatever, pay for the support of institutions of all sorts,\nfrom churches to tall hats, simply out of their need for standing\nwell with their neighbors. But observe, this compulsion of public\nopinion derives most of its force from the difficulty of getting the\nwherewithal to buy bread without a reputation for respectability.\nUnder Communism a man could snap his fingers at public opinion without\nstarving for it. Besides, public opinion cannot for a moment be relied\nupon as a force which operates uniformly as a compulsion upon men\nto act morally. Its operation is for all practical purposes quite\narbitrary, and is as often immoral as moral. It is just as hostile\nto the reformer as to the criminal. It hangs Anarchists and worships\nNitrate Kings. It insists on a man wearing a tall hat and going to\nchurch, on his marrying the woman he lives with, and on his pretending\nto believe whatever the rest pretend to believe; and it enforces these\nordinances in a sufficient majority of cases without help from the\nlaw: its tyranny, in fact, being so crushing that its little finger is\noften found to be thicker than the law's loins. But there is no sincere\npublic opinion that a man should work for his daily bread if he can\nget it for nothing. Indeed it is just the other way: public opinion\nhas been educated to regard the performance of daily manual labor as\nthe lot of the despised classes. The common aspiration is to acquire\nproperty and leave off working. Even members of the professions rank\nbelow the independent gentry, so called because they are independent of\ntheir own labor. These prejudices are not confined to the middle and\nupper classes: they are rampant also among the workers. The man who\nworks nine hours a day despises the man who works sixteen. A country\ngentleman may consider himself socially superior to his solicitor or\nhis doctor; but they associate on much more cordial terms than shopmen\nand car-men, engine drivers and railway porters, bricklayers and\nhodmen, barmaids and general servants. One is almost tempted in this\ncountry to declare that the poorer the man the greater the snob, until\nyou get down to those who are so oppressed that they have not enough\nself-respect even for snobbery, and thus are able to pluck out of the\nheart of their misery a certain irresponsibility which it would be a\nmockery to describe as genuine frankness and freedom. The moment you\nrise into the higher atmosphere of a pound a week, you find that envy,\nostentation, tedious and insincere ceremony, love of petty titles,\nprecedences and dignities, and all the detestable fruits of inequality\nof condition, flourish as rankly among those who lose as among those\nwho gain by it. In fact, the notion that poverty favors virtue was\nclearly invented to persuade the poor that what they lost in this world\nthey would gain in the next.\n\nKropotkine, too optimistically, as I think, disposes of the average\nman by attributing his unsocialism to the pressure of the corrupt\nsystem under which he groans. Remove that pressure, and he will think\nrightly, says Kropotkine. But if the natural man be indeed social\nas well as gregarious, how did the corruption and oppression under\nwhich he groans ever arise? Could the institution of property as we\nknow it ever have come into existence unless nearly every man had\nbeen, not merely willing, but openly and shamelessly eager to quarter\nhimself idly on the labor of his fellows, and to domineer over them\nwhenever the mysterious workings of economic law enabled him to do\nso? It is useless to think of man as a fallen angel. If the fallacies\nof absolute morality are to be admitted in the discussion at all, he\nmust be considered rather as an obstinate and selfish devil, who is\nbeing slowly forced by the iron tyranny of Nature to recognize that in\ndisregarding his neighbor's happiness he is taking the surest way to\nsacrifice his own. And under the present system he never can learn that\nlesson thoroughly, because he is an inveterate gambler, and knows that\nthe present system gives him a chance, at odds of a hundred thousand\nto one or so against him, of becoming a millionaire, a condition which\nis to him the summit of earthly bliss, as from it he will be able to\nlook down upon those who formerly bullied and patronized him. All this\nmay sound harsh, especially to those who know how wholesomely real is\nthe workman's knowledge of life compared to that of the gentleman, and\nhow much more genuinely sympathetic he is in consequence. Indeed, it\nis obvious that if four-fifths of the population were habitually to\ndo the utter worst in the way of selfishness that the present system\ninvites them to do, society would not stand the strain for six weeks.\nSo far, we can claim to be better than our institutions. But the fact\nthat we are too good for complete Unsocialism by no means proves that\nwe are good enough for Communism. The practical question remains,\nCould men trained under our present system be trusted to pay for their\nfood scrupulously if they could take it for nothing with impunity?\nClearly, if they did not so pay, Anarchist Communism would be bankrupt\nin two days. The answer is that all the evils against which Anarchism\nis directed are caused by men taking advantage of the institution of\nproperty to do this very thing--seize their subsistence without working\nfor it. What reason is there for doubting that they would attempt\nto take exactly the same advantage of Anarchist Communism? And what\nreason is there to doubt that the community, finding its bread store\nbankrupt, would instantly pitch its Anarchism to the four winds, and\ncome down on the defaulters with the strong hand of a law to make them\npay, just as they are now compelled to pay their Income Tax? I submit,\nthen, to our Communist Anarchist friends that Communism requires either\nexternal compulsion to labor, or else a social morality which the\nevils of existing society shew that we have failed as yet to attain.\nI do not deny the possibility of the final attainment of that degree\nof moralization; but I contend that the path to it lies through a\ntransition system which, instead of offering fresh opportunities to\nmen of getting their living idly, will destroy those opportunities\naltogether, and wean us from the habit of regarding such an anomaly as\npossible, much less honorable.\n\nIt must not be supposed that the economic difficulties which I pointed\nout as fatal to Individualist Anarchism are entirely removed by\nCommunism. It is true that if all the bread and coal in the country\nwere thrown into a common store from which each man could take as\nmuch as he wanted whenever he pleased without direct payment, then no\nman could gain any advantage over his fellows from the fact that some\nfarms and some coal-mines are better than others. And if every man\ncould step into a train and travel whither he would without a ticket,\nno individual could speculate in the difference between the traffic\nfrom Charing Cross to the Mansion House and that from Ryde to Ventnor.\nOne of the great advantages of Communism will undoubtedly be that huge\nmasses of economic rent will be socialized by it automatically. All\nrent arising from the value of commodities in general use which can\nbe produced, consumed, and replaced at the will of man to the full\nextent to which they are wanted, can be made rent free by communizing\nthem. But there must remain outside this solution, first, the things\nwhich are not in sufficiently general use to be communized at all;\nsecond, things of which an unlimited free supply might prove a\nnuisance, such as gin or printing; and thirdly, things for which the\ndemand exceeds the supply. The last is the instance in which the rent\ndifficulty recurs. It would take an extraordinary course of demolition,\nreconstruction, and landscape gardening to make every dwelling house\nin London as desirable as a house in Park Lane, or facing Regent's\nPark, or overlooking the Embankment Gardens. And since everybody cannot\nbe accommodated there, the exceptionally favored persons who occupy\nthose sites will certainly be expected to render an equivalent for\ntheir privilege to those whom they exclude. Without this there would\nevidently be no true socialization of the habitation of London. This\nmeans, in practice, that a public department must let the houses out\nto the highest bidders, and collect the rents for public purposes.\nSuch a department can hardly be called Anarchistic, however democratic\nit may be. I might go on to enlarge considerably on the limits to the\npracticability of direct Communism, which varies from commodity to\ncommodity; but one difficulty, if insurmountable, is as conclusive as\ntwenty.\n\nIt is sufficient for our present purpose to have shewn that Communism\ncannot be ideally Anarchistic, because it does not in the least do\naway with the necessity for _compelling_ people to pay for what they\nconsume; and even when the growth of human character removes that\ndifficulty there will still remain the question of those commodities\nto which the simple Communist method of so-called \"free distribution\"\nis inapplicable. One practical point more requires a word; and that\nis the difficulty of communizing any branch of distribution without\nfirst collectivizing it. For instance, we might easily communize the\npostal service by simply announcing that in future letters would be\ncarried without stamps just as they now are with them, the cost being\nthrown entirely upon imperial taxation. But if the postal service were,\nlike most of our distributive business, in the hands of thousands of\ncompeting private traders, no such change would be directly possible.\nCommunism must grow out of Collectivism, not out of anarchic private\nenterprise. That is to say, it cannot grow directly out of the present\nsystem.\n\nBut must the transition system therefore be a system of despotic\ncoercion? If so, it will be wrecked by the intense impulse of men\nto escape from the domination of their own kind. In 1888 a Russian\nsubject, giving evidence before the Sweating Inquiry in the House of\nLords, declared that he left the Russian dominion, where he worked\nthirteen hours a day, to work eighteen hours in England, _because he is\nfreer here_. Reason is dumb when confronted with a man who, exhausted\nwith thirteen hours' toil, will turn to for another five hours for\nthe sake of being free to say that Mr. Gladstone is a better man than\nLord Salisbury, and to read Mill, Spencer, and _Reynold's Newspaper_\nin the six hours left to him for sleep. It brings to mind the story of\nthe American judge who tried to induce a runaway slave to return to\nthe plantation by pointing out how much better he was treated there\nthan the free wage-nigger of the Abolitionist states. \"Yes,\" said the\nrunaway; \"but would you go back if you were in my place?\" The judge\nturned Abolitionist at once. These things are not to be reasoned away.\nMan will submit to fate, circumstance, society, anything that comes\nimpersonally over him; but against the personal oppressor, whether\nparent, schoolmaster, overseer, official chief, or king, he eternally\nrebels. Like the Russian, he will rather be compelled by \"necessity\"\nto _agree_ to work eighteen hours, than ordered by a master to work\nthirteen. No modern nation, if deprived of personal liberty or national\nautonomy, would stop to think of its economic position. Establish a\nform of Socialism which shall deprive the people of their sense of\npersonal liberty; and, though it double their rations and halve their\nworking hours, they will begin to conspire against it before it is a\nyear old. We only disapprove of monopolists: we _hate_ masters.\n\nThen, since we are too dishonest for Communism without taxation or\ncompulsory labor, and too insubordinate to tolerate task work under\npersonal compulsion, how can we order the transition so as to introduce\njust distribution without Communism, and maintain the incentive to\nlabor without mastership? The answer is, by Democracy. And now, having\ntaken a positive attitude at last, I must give up criticizing the\nAnarchists, and defend Democracy against _their_ criticisms.\n\n\nDemocracy.\n\nI now, accordingly, return to Mr. Tucker's criticism of State\nSocialism, which, for the sake of precision, had better be called\nSocial-Democracy. There is a Socialism--that of Bismarck; of the\nextinct young England party; of the advocates of moralized feudalism;\nand of mob contemners generally--which is not Social-Democracy,\nbut Social-Despotism, and may be dismissed as essentially no more\nhopeful than a system of Moralized Criminality, Abstemious Gluttony,\nor Straightforward Mendacity would be. Mr. Tucker, as an American,\npasses it over as not worth powder and shot: he clearly indicates a\ndemocratic State by his repeated references to the majority principle,\nand in particular by his assertion that \"there would be but one article\nin the constitution of a State Socialistic country: 'The right of\nthe majority is absolute.'\" Having thus driven Democracy back on its\ncitadel, he proceeds to cannonade it as follows:\n\n     \"Under the system of State Socialism, which holds the community\n     responsible for the health, wealth and wisdom of the individual,\n     the community, through its majority expression, will insist\n     more and more on prescribing the conditions of health, wealth,\n     and wisdom, thus impairing and finally destroying individual\n     independence and with it all sense of individual responsibility.\n\n     \"Whatever, then, the State Socialists may claim or disclaim, their\n     system, if adopted, is doomed to end in a State religion, to the\n     expense of which all must contribute and at the altar of which all\n     must kneel; a State school of medicine, by whose practitioners\n     the sick must invariably be treated; a State system of hygiene,\n     proscribing what all must and must not eat, drink, wear and do; a\n     State code of morals, which will not content itself with punishing\n     crime, but will prohibit what the majority decide to be vice; a\n     State system of instruction, which shall do away with all private\n     schools, academies and colleges; a State nursery, in which all\n     children must be brought up in common at the public expense; and,\n     finally, a State family, with an attempt at stirpiculture, or\n     scientific breeding, in which no man or woman will be allowed to\n     have children if the State prohibits them, and no man or woman\n     can refuse to have children if the State orders them. Thus will\n     Authority achieve its acme and Monopoly be carried to its highest\n     power.\"\n\nIn reading this one is reminded of Mr. Herbert Spencer's habit of\nassuming that whatever is not white must be black. Mr. Tucker, on the\nground that \"it has ever been the tendency of power to add to itself,\nto enlarge its sphere, to encroach beyond the limits set for it,\"\nadmits no alternative to the total subjection of the individual, except\nthe total abolition of the State. If matters really could and did come\nto that I am afraid the individual would have to go under in any case;\nfor the total abolition of the State in this sense means the total\nabolition of the collective force of Society, to abolish which it would\nbe necessary to abolish Society itself. There are two ways of doing\nthis. One, the abolition of the individuals composing society, could\nnot be carried out without an interference with their personal claims\nmuch more serious than that required, even on Mr. Tucker's shewing,\nby Social-Democracy. The other, the dispersion of the human race into\nindependent hermitages over the globe at the rate of twenty-five to the\nsquare mile, would give rise to considerable inequality of condition\nand opportunity as between the hermits of Terra del Fuego or the Arctic\nregions and those of Florida or the Riviera, and would suit only a\nfew temperaments. The dispersed units would soon re-associate; and\nthe moment they did so, goodbye to the sovereignty of the individual.\nIf the majority believed in an angry and jealous God, then, State or\nno State, they would not permit an individual to offend that God and\nbring down his wrath upon them: they would rather stone and burn the\nindividual in propitiation. They would not suffer the individual to go\nnaked among them; and if he clothed himself in an unusual way which\nstruck them as being ridiculous or scandalous, they would laugh at,\nhim; refuse him admission to their feasts; object to be seen talking\nwith him in the streets; and perhaps lock him up as a lunatic. They\nwould not allow him to neglect sanitary precautions which they\nbelieved essential to their own immunity from zymotic disease. If the\nfamily were established among them as it is established among us, they\nwould not suffer him to intermarry within certain degrees of kinship.\nTheir demand would so rule the market that in most places he would find\nno commodities in the shops except those preferred by a majority of the\ncustomers; no schools except those conducted in accordance with the\nideas of the majority of parents; no experienced doctors except those\nwhose qualifications inspired confidence in a whole circle of patients.\nThis is not \"the coming slavery\" of Social-Democracy: it is the slavery\nalready come. What is more, there is nothing in the most elaborately\nnegative practical program yet put forward by Anarchism that offers the\nslightest mitigation of it. That in comparison with ideal irresponsible\nabsolute liberty it is slavery, cannot be denied. But in comparison\nwith the slavery of Robinson Crusoe, which is the most Anarchistic\nalternative Nature, our taskmistress, allows us, it is pardonably\ndescribed as \"freedom.\" Robinson Crusoe, in fact, is always willing to\nexchange his unlimited rights and puny powers for the curtailed rights\nand relatively immense powers of the \"slave\" of majorities. For if the\nindividual chooses, as in most cases he will, to believe and worship as\nhis fellows do, he finds temples built and services organized at a cost\nto himself which he hardly feels. The clothes, the food, the furniture\nwhich he is most likely to prefer are ready for him in the shops; the\nschools in which his children can be taught what their fellow citizens\nexpect them to know are within fifteen minutes' walk of his door; and\nthe red lamp of the most approved pattern of doctor shines reassuringly\nat the corner of the street. He is free to live with the women of his\nfamily without suspicion or scandal; and if he is not free to marry\nthem, what does that matter to him, since he does not wish to marry\nthem? And so happy man be his dole, in spite of his slavery.\n\n\"Yes,\" cries some eccentric individual; \"but all this is untrue of me.\nI want to marry my deceased wife's sister. I am prepared to prove that\nyour authorized system of medicine is nothing but a debased survival of\nwitchcraft. Your schools are machines for forcing spurious learning on\nchildren in order that your universities may stamp them as educated men\nwhen they have finally lost all power to think for themselves. The tall\nsilk hats and starched linen shirts which you force me to wear, and\nwithout which I cannot successfully practice as a physician, clergyman,\nschoolmaster, lawyer, or merchant, are inconvenient, unsanitary, ugly,\npompous, and offensive. Your temples are devoted to a God in whom I do\nnot believe; and even if I did believe in him I should still regard\nyour popular forms of worship as only redeemed from gross superstition\nby their obvious insincerity. Science teaches me that my proper food\nis good bread and good fruit: your boasted food supply offers me cows\nand pigs instead. Your care for my health consists in tapping the\ncommon sewer, with its deadly typhoid gases, into my house, besides\ndischarging its contents into the river, which is my natural bath\nand fountain. Under color of protecting my person and property you\nforcibly take my money to support an army of soldiers and policemen\nfor the execution of barbarous and detestable laws; for the waging\nof wars which I abhor; and for the subjection of my person to those\nlegal rights of property which compel me to sell myself for a wage to\na class the maintenance of which I hold to be the greatest evil of our\ntime. Your tyranny makes my very individuality a hindrance to me: I\nam outdone and outbred by the mediocre, the docile, the time-serving.\nEvolution under such conditions means degeneracy: therefore I demand\nthe abolition of all these officious compulsions, and proclaim myself\nan Anarchist.\"\n\nThe proclamation is not surprising under the circumstances; but it does\nnot mend the matter in the least, nor would it if every person were\nto repeat it with enthusiasm, and the whole people to fly to arms for\nAnarchism. The majority cannot help its tyranny even if it would. The\ngiant Winkelmeier must have found our doorways inconvenient, just as\nmen of five feet or less find the slope of the floor in a theatre not\nsufficiently steep to enable them to see over the heads of those in\nfront. But whilst the average height of a man is 5ft. 8in. there is no\nredress for such grievances. Builders will accommodate doors and floors\nto the majority, and not to the minority. For since either the majority\nor the minority must be incommoded, evidently the more powerful must\nhave its way. There may be no indisputable reason why it ought not;\nand any clever Tory can give excellent reasons why it ought not; but\nthe fact remains that it will, whether it ought or not. And this is\nwhat really settles the question as between democratic majorities and\nminorities. Where their interests conflict, the weaker side must go to\nthe wall, because, as the evil involved is no greater than that of the\nstronger going to the wall,[7] the majority is not restrained by any\nscruple from compelling the weaker to give way.\n\nIn practice, this does not involve either the absolute power of\nmajorities, or \"the infallibility of the odd man.\" There are some\nmatters in which the course preferred by the minority in no way\nobstructs that preferred by the majority. There are many more in\nwhich the obstruction is easier to bear than the cost of suppressing\nit. For it costs something to suppress even a minority of one. The\ncommonest example of that minority is the lunatic with a delusion;\nyet it is found quite safe to entertain dozens of delusions, and be\ngenerally an extremely selfish and troublesome idiot, in spite of the\npower of majorities; for until you go so far that it clearly costs\nless to lock you up than to leave you at large, the majority will not\ntake the trouble to set itself in action against you. Thus a minimum\nof individual liberty is secured, under any system, to the smallest\nminority. It is true that as minorities grow, they sometimes, in\nforfeiting the protection of insignificance, lose more in immunity\nthan they gain in numbers; so that probably the weakest minority is\nnot the smallest, but rather that which is too large to be disregarded\nand too weak to be feared; but before and after that dangerous point\nis weathered, minorities wield considerable power. The notion that\nthey are ciphers because the majority could vanquish them in a trial\nof strength leaves out of account the damage they could inflict on\nthe victors during the struggle. Ordinarily an unarmed man weighing\nthirteen stone can beat one weighing only eleven; but there are very\nfew emergencies in which it is worth his while to do it, because if\nthe weaker man resists to the best of his ability (which is always\npossible) the victor will be considerably worse off after the fight\nthan before it. In 1861 the Northern and Southern States of America\nfought, as prize-fighters say, \"to a finish\"; and the North carried its\npoint, yet at such a heavy cost to itself that the Southern States have\nby no means been reduced to ciphers; for the victorious majority have\never since felt that it would be better to give way on any but the most\nvital issues than to provoke such another struggle. But it is not often\nthat a peremptory question arises between a majority and minority of\na whole nation. In most matters only a fragment of the nation has any\ninterest one way or the other; and the same man who is in a majority on\none question is in a minority on another, and so learns by experience\nthat minorities have \"rights\" which must be attended to. Minorities,\ntoo, as in the case of the Irish Party in the English Parliament,\noccasionally hold the balance of power between majorities which\nrecognize their rights and majorities which deny them. Further, it is\npossible by decentralization to limit the power of the majority of the\nwhole nation to questions upon which a divided policy is impracticable.\nFor example, it is not only possible, but democratically expedient, to\nfederate the municipalities of England in such a manner that Leicester\nmight make vaccination penal whilst every other town in the island made\nit compulsory. Even at present, vaccination is not in fact compulsory\nin Leicester, though it is so in law. Theoretically, Leicester has been\nreduced to a cipher by the rest of England. Practically, Leicester\ncounts twelve to the dozen as much as ever in purely local affairs.\n\nIn short, then, Democracy does not give majorities absolute power,\nnor does it enable them to reduce minorities to ciphers. Such limited\npower of coercing minorities as majorities must possess, is not given\nto them by Democracy any more than it can be taken away from them by\nAnarchism. A couple of men are stronger than one: that is all. There\nare only two ways of neutralizing this natural fact. One is to convince\nmen of the immorality of abusing the majority power, and then to make\nthem moral enough to refrain from doing it on that account. The other\nis to realize Lytton's fancy of _vril_ by inventing a means by which\neach individual will be able to destroy all his fellows with a flash\nof thought, so that the majority may have as much reason to fear the\nindividual as he to fear the majority. No method of doing either is\nto be found in Individualist or Communist Anarchism: consequently\nthese systems, as far as the evils of majority tyranny are concerned,\nare no better than the Social-Democratic program of adult suffrage\nwith maintenance of representatives and payment of polling expenses\nfrom public funds--faulty devices enough, no doubt, but capable\nof accomplishing all that is humanly possible at present to make\nthe State representative of the nation; to make the administration\ntrustworthy; and to secure the utmost power to each individual and\nconsequently to minorities. What better can we have whilst collective\naction is inevitable? Indeed, in the mouths of the really able\nAnarchists, Anarchism means simply the utmost attainable thoroughness\nof Democracy. Kropotkine, for example, speaks of free development from\nthe simple to the composite by \"the free union of free groups\"; and his\nillustrations are \"the societies for study, for commerce, for pleasure\nand recreation\" which have sprung up to meet the varied requirements of\nthe individual of our age. But in every one of these societies there is\ngovernment by a council elected annually by a majority of voters; so\nthat Kropotkine is not at all afraid of the democratic machinery and\nthe majority power. Mr. Tucker speaks of \"voluntary association,\" but\ngives no illustrations, and indeed avows that \"Anarchists are simply\nunterrified Jeffersonian Democrats.\" He says, indeed, that \"if the\nindividual has a right to govern himself, all external government is\ntyranny\"; but if governing oneself means doing what one pleases without\nregard to the interests of neighbors, then the individual has flatly no\nsuch right. If he has no such right, the interference of his neighbors\nto make him behave socially, though it is \"external government,\" is\nnot tyranny; and even if it were they would not refrain from it on\nthat account. On the other hand, if governing oneself means compelling\noneself to act with a due regard to the interests of the neighbors,\nthen it is a right which men are proved incapable of exercising without\nexternal government. Either way, the phrase comes to nothing; for it\nwould be easy to show by a little play upon it, either that altruism is\nreally external government or that democratic State authority is really\nself-government.\n\nMr. Tucker's adjective, \"voluntary,\" as applied to associations for\ndefence or the management of affairs, must not be taken as implying\nthat there is any very wide choice open in these matters. Such\nassociation is really compulsory, since if it be foregone affairs will\nremain unmanaged and communities defenceless. Nature makes short work\nof our aspirations towards utter impunity. She leaves communities in no\nwise \"free\" to choose whether they will labor and govern themselves.\nIt is either that or starvation and chaos. Her tasks are inexorably\nset: her penalties are inevitable: her payment is strictly \"payment by\nresults.\" All the individual can do is to shift and dodge his share of\nthe task on to the shoulders of others, or filch some of their \"natural\nwage\" to add to his own. If they are fools enough to suffer it, that\nis their own affair as far as Nature is concerned. But it is the aim\nof Social-Democracy to relieve these fools by throwing on all an equal\nshare in the inevitable labor imposed by the eternal tyranny of\nNature, and so secure to every individual no less than his equal quota\nof the nation's product in return for no more than his equal quota of\nthe nation's labor. These are the best terms humanity can make with\nits tyrant. In the eighteenth century it was easy for the philosophers\nand for Adam Smith to think of this rule of Nature as being \"natural\nliberty\" in contrast to the odious and stupid oppression of castes,\npriests, and kings--the detested \"dominion of man over man.\" But we,\nin detecting the unsoundness of Adam Smith's private property and\n_laisser-faire_ recipe for natural liberty, begin to see that though\nthere is political liberty, there is no natural liberty, but only\nnatural law remorselessly enforced. And so we shake our heads when we\nsee LIBERTY on the title-page of Mr. Tucker's paper, just as we laugh\nwhen we see THE COMING SLAVERY on Mr. Herbert Spencer's \"Man and the\nState.\"\n\nWe can now begin to join the threads of our discussion. We have seen\nthat private appropriation of land in any form, whether limited by\nIndividualist Anarchism to occupying owners or not, means the unjust\ndistribution of a vast fund of social wealth called rent, which can by\nno means be claimed as due to the labor of any particular individual\nor class of individuals. We have seen that Communist Anarchism,\nthough it partly--and only partly--avoids the rent difficulty, is,\nin the condition of morals developed under existing Unsocialism,\nimpracticable. We have seen that the delegation of individual\npowers by voting; the creation of authoritative public bodies; the\nsupremacy of the majority in the last resort; and the establishment\nand even endowment, either directly and officially or indirectly and\nunconsciously, of conventional forms of practice in religion, medicine,\neducation, food, clothing, and criminal law, are, whether they be evils\nor not, inherent in society itself, and must be submitted to with the\nhelp of such protection against their abuse as democratic institutions\nmore than any others afford. When Democracy fails, there is no antidote\nfor intolerance save the spread of better sense. No form of Anarchism\nyet suggested provides any escape. Like bad weather in winter,\nintolerance does much mischief; but as, when we have done our best in\nthe way of overcoats, umbrellas, and good fires, we have to put up with\nthe winter; so, when we have done our best in the way of Democracy,\ndecentralization, and the like, we must put up with the State.\n\n\nThe Anarchist Spirit.\n\nI suppose I must not leave the subject without a word as to the value\nof what I will call the Anarchist spirit as an element in progress.\nBut before I do so, let me disclaim all intention of embarrassing\nour Anarchist friends who are present by any sympathy which I may\nexpress with that spirit. On the Continent the discussion between\nAnarchism and Social-Democracy is frequently threshed out with the help\nof walking-sticks, chair-legs, and even revolvers. In England this\ndoes not happen, because the majority of an English audience always\ndeclines to take an extreme position, and, out of an idle curiosity\nto hear both sides, will, on sufficient provocation, precipitately\neject theorists who make a disturbance, without troubling itself\nto discriminate as to the justice of their views. When I had the\nprivilege some time ago of debating publicly with Mr. G. W. Foote on\nthe Eight Hours question, a French newspaper which dealt with the\noccasion at great length devoted a whole article to an expression of\nenvious astonishment at the fact that Mr. Foote and I abstained from\nvilifying and finally assaulting one another, and that our partisans\nfollowed our shining example and did not even attempt to prevent\neach other's champions from being heard. Still, if we do not permit\nourselves to merge Socialism, Anarchism, and all the other isms into\nrowdyism, we sometimes debate our differences, even in this eminently\nrespectable Fabian Society, with considerable spirit. Now far be it\nfrom me to disarm the Anarchist debater by paying him compliments. On\nthe contrary, if we have here any of those gentlemen who make it their\nbusiness to denounce Social-Democrats as misleaders of the people and\ntrimmers; who declaim against all national and municipal projects, and\nclamor for the abolition of Parliaments and County Councils; who call\nfor a desperate resistance to rent, taxes, representative government\nand organised collective action of every sort: then I invite them\nto regard me as their inveterate opponent--as one who regards such\ndoctrine, however sincerely it may be put forward, as at best an\nencouragement to the workers to neglect doing what is possible under\npretext of waiting for the impossible, and at worst as furnishing\nthe reactionary newspapers in England, and the police agents on the\nContinent, with evidence as to the alleged follies and perils of\nSocialism. But at the same time, it must be understood that I do not\nstand here to defend the State as we know it. Bakounine's comprehensive\naspiration to destroy all States and Established Churches, with their\nreligious, political, judicial, financial, criminal, academic, economic\nand social laws and institutions, seems to me perfectly justifiable\nand intelligible from the point of view of the ordinary \"educated\nman,\" who believes that institutions make men instead of men making\ninstitutions. I fully admit and vehemently urge that the State at\npresent is simply a huge machine for robbing and slave-driving the\npoor by brute force. You may, if you are a stupid or comfortably-off\nperson, think that the policeman at the corner is the guardian of\nlaw and order--that the gaol, with those instruments of torture, the\ntreadmill, plank bed, solitary cell, cat o' nine tails, and gallows,\nis a place to make people cease to do evil and learn to do well. But\nthe primary function of the policeman, and that for which his other\nfunctions are only blinds, is to see that you do not lie down to sleep\nin this country without paying an idler for the privilege; that you do\nnot taste bread until you have paid the idler's toll in the price of\nit; that you do not resist the starving blackleg who is dragging you\ndown to his level for the idler's profit by offering to do your work\nfor a starvation wage. Attempt any of these things, and you will be\nhaled off and tortured in the name of law and order, honesty, social\nequilibrium, safety of property and person, public duty, Christianity,\nmorality, and what not, as a vagrant, a thief, and a rioter. Your\nsoldier, ostensibly a heroic and patriotic defender of his country, is\nreally an unfortunate man driven by destitution to offer himself as\nfood for powder for the sake of regular rations, shelter and clothing;\nand he must, on pain of being arbitrarily imprisoned, punished with\npetty penances like a naughty child, pack-drilled, flogged or shot,\nall in the blessed name of \"discipline,\" do anything he is ordered\nto, from standing in his red coat in the hall of an opera house as a\nmere ornament, to flogging his comrade or committing murder. And _his_\nprimary function is to come to the rescue of the policeman when the\nlatter is overpowered. Members of Parliament whose sole qualifications\nfor election were \u00a31000 loose cash, an \"independent\" income, and a\nvulgar strain of ambition; parsons quoting scripture for the purposes\nof the squire; lawyers selling their services to the highest bidder\nat the bar, and maintaining the supremacy of the moneyed class on the\nbench; juries of employers masquerading as the peers of proletarians\nin the dock; University professors elaborating the process known as\nthe education of a gentleman; artists striving to tickle the fancy\nor flatter the vanity of the aristocrat or plutocrat; workmen doing\ntheir work as badly and slowly as they dare so as to make the most\nof their job; employers starving and overworking their hands and\nadulterating their goods as much as _they_ dare: these are the actual\nliving material of those imposing abstractions known as the State,\nthe Church, the Law, the Constitution, Education, the Fine Arts, and\nIndustry. Every institution, as Bakounine saw, religious, political,\nfinancial, judicial, and so on, is corrupted by the fact that the men\nin it either belong to the propertied class themselves or must sell\nthemselves to it in order to live. All the purchasing power that is\nleft to buy men's souls with after their bodies are fed is in the hands\nof the rich; and everywhere, from the Parliament which wields the\nirresistible coercive forces of the bludgeon, bayonet, machine gun,\ndynamite shell, prison and scaffold, down to the pettiest centre of\nshabby-genteel social pretension, the rich pay the piper and call the\ntune. Naturally, they use their power to steal more money to continue\npaying the piper; and thus all society becomes a huge conspiracy and\nhypocrisy. The ordinary man is insensible to the fraud just as he is\ninsensible to the taste of water, which, being constantly in contact\nwith his mucous membrane, seems to have no taste at all. The villainous\nmoral conditions on which our social system is based are necessarily\nin constant contact with our moral mucous membrane, and so we lose our\nsense of their omnipresent meanness and dishonor. The insensibility,\nhowever, is not quite complete; for there is a period in life which\nis called the age of disillusion, which means the age at which a man\ndiscovers that his generous and honest impulses are incompatible with\nsuccess in business; that the institutions he has reverenced are shams;\nand that he must join the conspiracy or go to the wall, even though\nhe feels that the conspiracy is fundamentally ruinous to himself and\nhis fellow-conspirators. The secret of writers like Ruskin, Morris and\nKropotkine is that they see the whole imposture through and through,\nin spite of its familiarity, and of the illusions created by its\ntemporal power, its riches, its splendor, its prestige, its intense\nrespectability, its unremitting piety, and its high moral pretension.\nBut Kropotkine, as I have shewn, is really an advocate of free\nDemocracy; and I venture to suggest that he describes himself as an\nAnarchist rather from the point of view of the Russian recoiling from\na despotism compared to which Democracy seems to be no government at\nall, than from the point of view of the American or Englishman who is\nfree enough already to begin grumbling over Democracy as \"the tyranny\nof the majority\" and \"the coming slavery.\" I suggest this with the\nmore confidence because William Morris's views are largely identical\nwith those of Kropotkine: yet Morris, after patient and intimate\nobservation of Anarchism as a working propaganda in England, has\ndefinitely dissociated himself from it, and has shewn, by his sketch of\nthe communist folk-mote in his _News from Nowhere_, how sanely alive he\nis to the impossibility of any development of the voluntary element in\nsocial action sufficient to enable individuals or minorities to take\npublic action without first obtaining the consent of the majority.\n\nOn the whole, then, I do not regard the extreme hostility to existing\ninstitutions which inspires Communist Anarchism as being a whit more\ndangerous to Social-Democracy than the same spirit as it inspires the\npeculiar Toryism of Ruskin. Much more definitely opposed to us is the\nsurvival of that intense jealousy of the authority of the government\nover the individual which was the mainspring of the progress of the\neighteenth century. Only those who forget the lessons of history the\nmoment they have served their immediate turn will feel otherwise than\nreassured by the continued vitality of that jealousy among us. But this\nconsideration does not remove the economic objections which I have\nadvanced as to the practical program of Individualist Anarchism. And\neven apart from these objections, the Social-Democrat is compelled,\nby contact with hard facts, to turn his back decisively on useless\ndenunciation of the State. It is easy to say, Abolish the State; but\nthe State will sell you up, lock you up, blow you up, knock you down,\nbludgeon, shoot, stab, hang--in short, abolish you, if you lift a hand\nagainst it. Fortunately, there is, as we have seen, a fine impartiality\nabout the policeman and the soldier, who are the cutting edge of the\nState power. They take their wages and obey their orders without asking\nquestions. If those orders are to demolish the homestead of every\npeasant who refuses to take the bread out of his children's mouths in\norder that his landlord may have money to spend as an idle gentleman in\nLondon, the soldier obeys. But if his orders were to help the police to\npitch his lordship into Holloway Gaol until he had paid an Income Tax\nof twenty shillings on every pound of his unearned income, the soldier\nwould do that with equal devotion to duty, and perhaps with a certain\nprivate zest that might be lacking in the other case. Now these orders\ncome ultimately from the State--meaning, in this country, the House of\nCommons. A House of Commons consisting of 660 gentlemen and 10 workmen\nwill order the soldier to take money from the people for the landlords.\nA House of Commons consisting of 660 workmen and 10 gentlemen will\nprobably, unless the 660 are fools, order the soldier to take money\nfrom the landlords for the people. With that hint I leave the matter,\nin the full conviction that the State, in spite of the Anarchists,\nwill continue to be used against the people by the classes until it is\nused by the people against the classes with equal ability and equal\nresolution.\n\n     Printed by G. STANDRING, 7 and 9 Finsbury Street, London, E.C.\n\n\n\n\nFABIAN SOCIETY.--The Fabian Society consists of Socialists. A statement\nof its Rules, etc., and the following publications can be obtained from\nthe Secretary, at the Fabian Office, 276 Strand, London, W.C.\n\n\nFABIAN ESSAYS IN SOCIALISM.\n\n(35th Thousand.)\n\n     Library Edition, 6/-; _or, direct from the Secretary for Cash_,\n     4/6 (_postage_, 4 1/2_d._). Cheap Edition, Paper cover, 1/-; plain\n     cloth, 2/-. At all booksellers, or post free from the Secretary\n     for 1/- and 2/- respectively.\n\n\nFABIAN TRACTS.\n\n     =63.--Parish Council Cottages, and how to get them.= 4 pp., 6 for\n     1d. 1/- 100.\n\n     =62.--Parish and District Councils: What they are and what they\n     can do.= 1d. each; or 9d. per doz.\n\n     =61.--The London County Council: What it is and what it does.=\n     1d.; 9d. doz.\n\n     =60.--The London Vestries.= Including a complete statement of the\n     changes made in London by the Local Government Act, 1894. 1d.; 9d.\n     doz.\n\n     =58.--Allotments and How to Get Them.= 4 pp., 6 for 1d.; or 1/-\n     per 100.\n\n     =55.--The Workers' School Board Program.= 20 pp., 1d.; or 9d. per\n     doz.\n\n     =54.--The Humanizing of the Poor Law.= By J. F. OAKESHOTT. 24 pp.,\n     1d.\n\n     =52.--State Education at Home and Abroad.= By J. W. MARTIN. 16\n     pp., 1d.\n\n     =51.--Socialism: True and False.= By SIDNEY WEBB. 20 pp., 1d. ea.;\n     9d. doz.\n\n     =50.--Sweating: its Cause and Remedy.= 16 pp., 1d. each; or 9d.\n     per doz.\n\n     =49.--A Plan of Campaign for Labor.= A detailed scheme for\n     Independent Labor Representation. 36 pp., 2d. 1/6 per doz.\n\n     =48.--Eight Hours by Law.= 16 pp., 1d. each; or 9d. per doz.\n\n     =47.--The Unemployed.= By JOHN BURNS, M.P. 20 pp.,\n                                               1d. each; or 9d. per doz.\n\n     =46.--Socialism and Sailors.= By B. T. HALL. 16 pp.,   \"   \"   \"\n\n     =45.--The Impossibilities of Anarchism.= By G. B. SHAW. 28 pp.,\n     2d.; 1/6 per doz.\n\n     =44.--A Plea for Poor Law Reform.= (Revised 1894). 4 pp., 6 for\n     1d.; or 1/- 100.\n\n     =42.--Christian Socialism.= By the Rev. S. D. HEADLAM. 16 pp., 1d.\n     9d. per doz.\n\n     =41.--The Fabian Society=. By BERNARD SHAW. 32 pp., 1d. each; or\n     9d. per doz.\n\n     =39.--A Democratic Budget.= 16 pp., 1d.; or 9d. per doz.\n\n     =38.--A Welsh Translation of No. 1.= 4 pp., 6 for 1d.; or 1/- per\n     100.\n\n     =29.--What to Read.= A List of Books for Social Reformers.\n     Contains the best books and blue-books relating to Economics,\n     Socialism, Labor Movements, Poverty, etc. 3rd edn.; revised 1895.\n     Paper cover, 3d. each; or 2/3 per doz.\n\n     =23.--The Case for an Eight Hours Bill.= 16 pp., 1d.; or 9d. per\n     doz.\n\n     =22.--The Truth about Leasehold Enfranchisement.= 6 for 1d.; or\n     1/- per 100.\n\n     =19.--What the Farm Laborer Wants.= (Revised 1894). 6 for 1d.; or\n     1/- per 100.\n\n     =17.--Reform of the Poor Law.= By SIDNEY WEBB. 20 pp., 1d.; 9d.\n     per doz.\n\n     =16.--A Plea for an Eight Hours Bill.= 4 pp., 6 for 1d.; 1/- per\n     100.\n\n     =15.--English Progress towards Social Democracy.= By S. WEBB. 1d.;\n     9d. doz.\n\n     =14.--The New Reform Bill.= 15th thous. 20 pp., 1d.; 9d. per doz.\n\n     =13.--What Socialism Is.= 80th thous. 4 pp., 6 for 1d.; or 1/- per\n     100.\n\n     =12.--Practicable Land Nationalization.= Revised 1894. 4 pp., 6\n     for 1d.; 1/- 100.\n\n     =7.--Capital and Land.= A survey of the distribution of property\n     amongst the classes in England. 5th edition; revised 1895. 16 pp.,\n     1d.; or 9d. doz.\n\n     =5.--Facts for Socialists.= A similar survey of the distribution\n     of income and the condition of the people. 7th edn.; revised 1895.\n     1d.; or 9d. per doz.\n\n     =1.--Why are the Many Poor?= 4 pp., 6 for 1d.; 1/- per 100.\n\n\nQUESTION LEAFLETS. Each 4 pp., 6 for 1d.; or 1s. per 100.\n\nThese contain Questions for Candidates for the following bodies:--No.\n20, Poor Law Guardians (Revised 1894). No. 21, London Vestries (Revised\n1894). No. 24, Parliament. No. 25, School Boards (Revised 1894). No.\n26, London County Council. No. 27, Town Councils. No. 28, County\nCouncils, Rural (Revised 1895). No. 56, Parish Councils. No. 57, Rural\nDistrict Councils. No. 59, Urban District Councils.\n\n\nFABIAN MUNICIPAL PROGRAM (Tracts Nos. 30 to 37).\n\n=1. The Unearned Increment. 2. London's Heritage in the City Guilds. 3.\nMunicipalization of the Gas Supply. 4. Municipal Tramways. 5. London's\nWater Tribute. 6. Municipalization of the London Docks. 7. The Scandal\nof London's Markets. 8. A Labor Policy for Public Authorities. Each 4\npp.= The eight in a red cover for 1d. (9d. per doz.); or separately 1/-\nper 100.\n\n\n=FABIAN ELECTION LEAFLETS.=--No. 64, How to Lose and How to Win; No.\n65, Trade Unionists and Politics; No. 66, A Program for Workers. Each\n2 pp., 6d. per 100, or 5s. per 1000.\n\n[Illustration: (pointing finger)] =The Set post free 2/3. Bound in\nBuckram post free for 3/9.=\n\nBoxes for set of Tracts 1s., post free 1s. 3d.\n\n=Manifesto of English Socialists.= In red cover. 8 pp., 1d. each; or\n9d. per doz.\n\nParcels to the value of 10/- and upwards, post free.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: A paper read to the Fabian Society by G. Bernard Shaw, on\n16th October, 1891.]\n\n[Footnote 2: This is an inference from the following paragraph in Mr.\nTucker's article:\n\n\"Second in importance comes the land monopoly, the evil effects of\nwhich are seen principally in exclusively agricultural countries, like\nIreland. This monopoly consists in the enforcement by government of\nland titles which do not rest on personal occupancy and cultivation.\nIt was obvious to Warren and Proudhon that as soon as individuals\nshould no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal\noccupation and cultivation of land, ground rent would disappear, and so\nusury have one less leg to stand on.\"\n\nSee also Mr. Tucker's article entitled \"A Singular Misunderstanding,\"\nin _Liberty_ of the 10th September, 1892. \"Regarding land,\" writes\nMr. Tucker, \"it has been steadily maintained in these columns that\nprotection should be withdrawn from all land titles except those based\non personal occupancy and use.\"]\n\n[Footnote 3: \"Nor does the Anarchistic scheme furnish any code of\nmorals to be imposed on the individual. 'Mind your own business,' is\nits only moral law.\"]\n\n[Footnote 4: This would of course be largely practicable under a\nCollectivist system.]\n\n[Footnote 5: English readers need not baulk themselves here because\nof the late fall of agricultural rents in this country. Rent, in the\neconomic sense, covers payment for the use of land for any purpose,\nagricultural or otherwise; and town rents have risen oppressively.\nA much more puzzling discrepancy between the facts and the theory\nis presented by the apparent absence of any upward tendency in the\nprices of general commodities. However, an article may be apparently\nno less cheap or even much cheaper than it was twenty years ago; and\nyet its price may have risen enormously relatively to its average cost\nof production, owing to the average cost of production having been\nreduced by machinery, higher organization of the labor of producing\nit, cheapened traffic with other countries, etc. Thus, in the cotton\nindustry, machinery has multiplied each man's power of production\neleven hundred times; and Sir Joseph Whitworth was quoted by the\nPresident of the Iron and Steel Institute some years ago as having\ndeclared that a Nottingham lace machine can do the work formerly done\nby 8,000 lacemakers. The articles entitled \"Great Manufacture of Little\nThings,\" in Cassell's _Technical Educator_, may be consulted for\nexamples of this sort in the production of pins, pens, etc. Suppose,\nthen, that an article which cost, on the average, fivepence to make in\n1850, was then sold for sixpence. If it be now selling for threepence,\nit is apparently twice as cheap as it was. But if the cost of\nproduction has also fallen to three-halfpence, which is by no means an\nextravagant supposition, then the price, considered relatively to the\ncost of production, has evidently risen prodigiously, since it is now\ntwice the cost, whereas the cost was formerly five-sixths of the price.\nIn other words, the surplus, or rent, per article, has risen from\n16 2/3 per cent. to 100 per cent., in spite of the apparent cheapening.\nThis is the explanation of the fact that though the workers were\nprobably never before so monstrously robbed as they are at present, it\nis quite possible for statisticians to prove that on the whole wages\nhave risen and prices fallen. The worker, pleased at having only to pay\nthreepence where he formerly paid sixpence, forgets that the share of\nhis threepence that goes to an idler may be much larger than that which\nwent out of each of the two threepences he paid formerly.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Written in the 1887-92 period, during which Trafalgar\nSquare was forcibly closed against public meetings by the Salisbury\nadministration.]\n\n[Footnote 7: The evil is decidedly _less_ if the calculation proceeds\nby the popular method of always estimating an evil suffered by a\nhundred persons as a hundred times as great as the same evil suffered\nby only one. This, however, is absurd. A hundred starving men are not\na hundred times as hungry as one starving man, any more than a hundred\nfive-foot-eight men are each five hundred and sixty-six feet eight\ninches high. But they are a hundred times as strong a political force.\nThough the evil may not be cumulative, the power to resist it is.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    +--------------------------------------------------------------+\n    |            Transcriber Notes:                                |\n    |                                                              |\n    | P.17. 'antonomy' changed to 'autonomy'                       |\n    | P.22. 'Tuc er's' changed to 'Tucker's'                       |\n    +--------------------------------------------------------------+","title":"The Impossibilities of Anarchism","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":14402}