Puslapio vaizdai

Nevertheless, the proposition that the best and cheapest method of doing things, State sball become the sole employer, or shall but there grows up a dull, inefficient routine employ more laborers than it does now, will - officialism. But probably the chief reanot, we are convinced, be found true solu son why positions under the Government tion of the difficulty. The one thing for are so eagerly sought is that the men in its which governments could successfully employ employ look upon themselves as a part of the men in the past was to fight. But there is an Government, of the coercive force, and thus essential difference between fighting and their feeling of self-importance is gratified. working. Governments have been the most This feeling is strongest in policemen, as tyrannical of all employers, and must always might be expected from the nature of their be 80.

For what do we mean by a govern employment. A policeman, if we can trust ment? Simply a body of men who compel to several recent cases, seems to be a man other men to act in this way or that. Now, licensed to commit any crime he pleases it is well known that all men are fond of against an individual citizen. If, however, having their own way; a man placed in posi all things were done under Government mantion to command will not brook disobedience, agement, the body of workers would be if he has power to punish it. But it is the sharply divided from the body of rulers, as very essence of a government that it shall now the inass of citizens is divided from the have power to punish those who disobey its body of officials. commands. A government unable to do The present industrial relations with their this is a government unable to govern that inequities and disadvantages will give way as is, not a government at all. In war the soon as something better shall be discovered power to exact perfect, unhesitating obedi to take their place. But because many imence to arbitrary commands, or at least com perfections can be discovered in them, and mands which may seem arbitrary to the recip much misery results from them, is no reason ients, is necessary, however much of that for replacing them by something worse; and which is unpleasant it may involve to those mankind has had enough experience to show under the rule; the common platitudes upon that Government control of industry is much this point are perfectly sound; but in work worse than private control. such power is not necessary, and it is doubt ful whether Anglo-Saxons will ever submit We have received some copies of the True to a great deal of needless dictation.

Commonwealth, a monthly paper recently may be said that men are at present very started in Washington to advocate a certain eager to work in the employ of the Govern solution of what may be termed the industrial ment. But this only brings us to another problem. Its two chief prophets seem to be objection to the Government as an employer. Edward Bellamy and Richard T. Ely. It The object of employing men is to get things seems to us that it might have made a more done. But what does this eagerness to work judicious selection of prophets, and that its for the Government mean? Evidently that solution of the problem is not better than there is a belief abroad that in such em those proposed by Henry George, and by the ployment a man gets a great deal of pay for a

Socialists generally. little work. And this belief seems to be well Briefly, its solution is public ownership and founded if we consider the work accomplishe control of all natural monopolies. by the Government and the amount of money As roads, streets, canals, bridges, ferries, harbors, expended. The corollary of the popular parks, railways, telegraphs, telephones, street railbelief that a Government position is a desir ways, water-works, gas-works, post-offices, etc., are able thing, even though the tenure is uncer

necessary to the welfare of the general public, and

are of such character as to require that they be under tain, is that it costs more for the Government

some sort of public control or limitation to prevent to get any work performed than for a private

their becoming oppressive monopolies, that, thereindividual. This results partly from the fact fore, they are properly classed as "natural monopothat the men in its employ do not work as lies,” and ought to be owned and run by the nation, energetically as other workmen, and still State, county, or city, as the case may be, for the

benefit of the whole people. more because their labor is not directed as intelligently as that in private business. But is not land “necessary to the welfare There is not enough stimulus to find out the of the general public?” and does not Henry


George show that it is conceivable that the private ownership of land may become the most oppressive of all monopolies? And ought not land to be owned and managed for the benefit of the whole people? Again, is not capital – the agencies of production - necessary to the general welfare, and are not the Socialists right in maintaining that it should be managed for the benefit of the whole people? Lastly, is not the essence of private property, which, the lawyers tell us, means absolute, entire, and exclusive ownership, and includes jus possidendi, jus utendi, jus fruendi, jus abutendi, and jus vindicandi — is not this essentially monopoly? The proposition that all monopoly is baneful carries with it the implication that private property is a bad thing; and if this is true the Socialists come nearest the solution of the difficulty.

The distinction of roads, canals, harbors, railways, telegraphs, gas-works, etc., as "nat ural " monopolies does not seem very happy. Land may be regarded as natural, much more natural than a railroad or a telegraph, in fact, land would seem to be one of the most "natural" things in existence; and there would be no violence to language in calling a monopoly of land a “natural monoply; but it does seem at first rather a perversion of terms to call monopolies of artificial things natural monopolies. It would not be worth while to cavil over the terms used if it were not for the fact that the most taking argument for the puplic ownership of railways and telegraplis consists in calling them “natural monopolies,” and, that being the case, the appropriateness of the name ought to be vindicated. After this has been done, it ought to be shown, far more clearly than any one has yet succeeded in showing, why a monopoly of railroads is any more injurious than a monopoly of land or of any kind of property; and then it would be in order to demonstrate that the public would be betier off if the Government owned and managed the railroads, in face of the experience of European nations, in some of which the roads are managed by the governments, and the freights are two or three times as high as here, though the wages of employees are only half as much. Perhaps the True Commonwealth will succeed in showing all this, but until it does it really has no righ to advocate public ownership of natural monopolies."

In one respect, Mr. Yarros's objecEasy Knowl.

tion to my casual remarks apropos of edge.

his criticism of Miss Gardener's letter in the Twentieth Century seems warranted. He says:

Aware as I am of the uselessness of any attempt to emulate the editor of To-Day in gentleness, I can do no better than say at once, in my own blunt way, that I consider the criticism both silly and unfair."

No, iny remarks were not very “gentle.” But it will no doubt furnish material for hilarity to any one cognizant of the antecedents, that I should be taken to task for a want of gentleness by the Anarchist critic of Miss Gardener. In one of the English comedies The Rivals, I think - the irate father stands and storms away, brandishing fists and cane, stamping feet, and commanding the silent son, all the while, "tobecool.” “Be calm, sir! be calm!" shouts the old gentleman; Keep cool, you rascal !And so, if we transpose Mr. Yarros's style of addressing Miss Gardener to the article in which he rebukes my manner, his language would take on a tone something like this: Be gentle, you numskull! Gentle, silly-pate! you — you . logarithm! you - editor! you. ... I confess that the rebuke is deserved; but, nevertheless, it is provocative of mirth.

Besides, I am said to have misquoted him. I deny it. But if I am to accept the amended meaning, the implication seems still less favorable to Mr. Yarros. It appears that he does not believe that "knowledge on sex” is easily acquired, but that knowledge in general is. Well, well, as I said be

I realize my misfortunes all the more keenly from seeing how easily knowledge comes to Socialists and Anarchists. There is nothing more to be said on this head, I fancy.

If Mr. Yarros does not believe that the knowl. edge of the facts necessary to the solution of the "Woman Question” is easily acquired, I am glad of it. Very well, that is enough to nullify any criticism I may have made on the assumption that he meant what he said. My asperity is quite mollified.

By the way, what " problem” is it that the Anarchists have solved? Is it pretended that the conclusion that women and men should be free from regulation and constraint in their industrial, sexual, and social relations is an Anarchist solution? Is this the conclusion that Grant Allen accepts? If so, I am glad of it. As far as Grant Allen is concerned, that goes for nothing. I have expressed my opinion of his crude conceptions (Waterman's Journal, No. 1); and if Mr. Yarros wishes to dispute the correctness of those observations, I am all attention. If the above conclusion is one of the provisional solutions of the “Woman Question,” I can only say, that, in my opinion, humble or other, the conclusion must stand as final; but then it is no solution of the “Woman Question," it is a solution of the political question. One side of the “Woman Question” is political, and, in common with all other political questions, it is so far solved - primordially, intermediately, finally solved - by the colle clusion summarily described as laissez faire. If the Anarchists wish to claim this not only as their conclusion but as their solution, I am content. Ques


tions of priority do not, as a general thing, interest me; anyhow, not for long at a time. But the Woman Question” is not to be narrowed down to politics, any more than politics is to be narrowed down to it.

I have several times been admonished in Liberty that I was not of much account anyway, because I was unable to deal with the great and pressing industrial questions, — economic questions, I believe, is the approved appellation. Of course, I shall not be surprised to find that Anarchists regard the solution of the “Woman Question " as also involved in their political conclusion. I am prepared now for the worst.

“But would the editor of To-Day discourage any and all efforts to provisionally solve the ‘Woman Question' in the light of what is socially, industrially, politically, and historically known of sex? If so, he has no conception of the development of scientific and philosophical knowledge, and he does not deserve to be consulted. It behooves him to sing small when the Socialists and Anarchists have the authority of such biologists as Wallace and Grant Allen for continuing to offer solutions of the “Woman Question” and doing the best they can with the material at hand.” Liberty, No. 169.

The misconstruction of the issue is quite adroit. What evidence is there that I object to speculation, - even by Anarchists and Socialists, though, heaven knows, there is reason! What is it that I object to? So much, at any rate, might be rescued from confusion.

“Neither the Socialists nor the Anarchists have neglected the · Woman Question,' neither have remained silent upon the vital questions and problems, comprehended in the subject of sexual and family relations. Socialists and Anarchists have abundantly discussed the · Woman Question’ in all its phases, - economic, social, and sexual; and if Miss Gardener is not aware of it, it is only because she has not sought to inform herself, because she has a convenient habit of dispensing with study and reflection.”

“Miss Gardener has nothing positive to announce. She is ignorant of the results of scientific research, and she is not equipped for fighting established wrongs, inasmuch as she lacks the criterion by which right may be distinguished from wrong, truth from imposture, freedom from aggression.

" But the sources of information are open, and knowledge is easily acquired.” -- Liberty, No. 167.

That is what I object to. Mr. Yarros now says that he does not wish these two paragraphs read together. Still, the matter is not much improved when they are taken separately. He says that the question has been abundantly discussed, that knowledge is easily acquired, that the infomation necessary for the solution of social questions in generalof which the “Woman Question" is one – is collected, and to be found in Anarchist and Socialist literature. I suppose they call it literature. Finding these statements in print, I said they were stuff; and I say again they are stuff. If they were made by Wallace, or by Herbert Spencer himself, I would

say they are stuff, because I know they are stuff. Armed with such audacity, it is not likely that I shall hesitate to ride a tilt at Mr. Yarros. If any man knows the nature and origin of sex, from which knowledge may be inferred the most essential outlines of the part sex is to play in the future of the human race, or of some section of it, let him speak gut. And if he does not know this, but has only some vague notion of the opinions of students of the subject, and still vaguer notions of the facts themselves, again I say let him speak out, for I believe in freedom of speech even to that extent. Only I must in this case conclude as I began, verily, this is stuff. On the other hand, if, realizing the utter inadequacy of his knowledge, a man wishes to amuse himself with constructing fanciful representations of what sex might, could, would, or should have been if the world were, had been, or might have been thus or so, — why, if a man merely wishes to amuse himself in this way, I can see no cogent objection to his doing so, and whether he amuses mé or not will depend on circumstances. But then I do not purpose to be berated in the end for not agreeing with him. I know nothing of an issue with Miss Gardener. I made an issue for myself; and that issue has nothing to do with the question of the value of speculation.

It is doubtful whether speculation by persons who do not keep in constant touch with the facts is of any value. Wallace in not a physiologist; and the question of the nature and origin of sex is a physiological question. The issue I made was that neither Anarchists nor Socialists had made any valuable contribution to the “Woman Question.” If Wallace or Grant Allen has made a valuable contribution to the subject, I am not aware.* I stated my impression, founded on a knowledge not of the facts but of biological literature, that biologists know very little more about sex than Anarchists and Socialists know about biology. If any of the latter are acquainted with the same literature, I count that nothing: the thing to be learned is the fact. He has not profited as he should by the Origin of Species and the Principles of Biology who has not learned that social phenomena have their roots in organic phenomena, and that the rationalization of the former depends upon a knowledge of the latter. I do deny scientific value to those “provisional” solutions of the “Woman Question” which are founded merely on social, industrial, political, and historical information,- except in the sense that all notions have value; as, if they are wrong, one of the wrong ways gets discovered. It is not merely that one element, one group of facts, is omitted from such generalizations, it is that the group of facts is omitted, and the deficiency can in no manner whatever be atoned.

[blocks in formation]

many in 1878 on the occasion of Nobiling's enough known to exist. Yet when the emattempt on the life of the Emperor William I. peror took possession of his hereditary estate was very stringent. Everything written or by the coup d'état which ousted Prince Bisprinted by Socialists was proscribed; as were marck, and, summoning a “labor confereven musical and athletic societies that ence” to Berlin, announced his determinaadmitted Socialists to membership. At that tion to take up with socialism, the whole time the number of Socialists in the Reichstag editorial world stood agog, as though some was nine, and the Socialist vote throughout wonderful portent had suddenly appeared on the empire was less than half a million.

the German horizon. That the American The results of repression (the editor goes editors should have seized this occasion for on to say) are now before us. At the last exhibiting their assorted stock of ignorance election in Germany the Socialists polled over and misinformation is not so surprising; sura million and a half votes, and elected thirty prising or not, it is quite true that the English five members of the Reichstag, It is open to

purveyors of editorial clap-trap commented in question, to say the least, whether the in a similarly ignorant manner. Ye gods! here crease in the Socialist vote may be regarded was an emperor, a royal master,” possessed as the result of oppression. Just what con with the D—, with socialism. What vast and stitutes socialism in Germany is by no means astonishing transformations shall we now easy of determination. It seems clear, at witness! exclaimed the daily quill-drivers. any rate, that adherence to what we call Hardly a one of them who knew that WilDemocratic principles as distinguished from liam's escapade was only a step, and a short monarchical or aristocratical doctrines is and insignificant step, along the path Gerthere associated with socialism. Else how many had been treading while Bismarck was shall we understand the opposition to the per king. sonal rulers and to the traditions of imperialism It is best not to be misled about these displayed by the Socialists? It is tolerably things. In Germany what goes by the name evident that there is no necessary connection of socialism at the polls and in debate on the between democracy and socialism, although floor of the Reichstag is a particular brand of much of the prevalence of the latter in this socialism deriving a very large part of its country must no doubt be attributed to the

support from the fact of its being confounded confusion that exists in the minds of many with democracy. Democracy, not having between democracy and freedom, or absence gained much headway simply as a political inof all government. Nevertheless, if, by no stitution, all the tendencies that make toward other signs, the distinctness of democracy and democracy in the modern world have in Gersocialism is sufficiently shown by the greater many got diverted into the industrial current, prevalence of socialism in some countries and have become associated with socialism. where democracy flourishes least and mon But the forces tending toward industrial archy and aristocracy sit most secure. As in change — reformation, if you like, — have Germany. I have several times called atten not been similarly confined to democratic tion to the socialistic performances of Prince lines. Instead of democratic socialism, the Bismarck; and the theatrical accompani rulers of Germany have put imperial socialments of the accession to power of the young ism, only they have not called it that. Wise man who at present embodies the monarchi supervision, I suppose, they call it; but it cal idea in Germany did more to call atten matters little what they call it: socialism tion to the case than my humbler, though more allied to military imperialism is what preintelligent, efforts had done. Many persons vails; socialism allied to iudustrial democracy know now who did not know before young has a monopoly of the name just now. It is William of Hohenzollern cut his first caper, difficult to tell which of the parties to this that Germany tends strongly to socialism. latter alliance has been gaining at the polls.

The Prussian system of compulsory educa It would not be judicious to attribute much, tion supported by taxation, the state-owner if any, of the gain to the anti-socialist law of ship of railways, the tariff laws, were more or 1878. There is always a presumption that less well known. Prince Bismarck's factory way, it is true, but the truth is that the tendand insurance laws, of more recent date, were ency toward socialism is very strong and less notorious, to be sure, but still well widespread, having overleaped national boun


daries years ago and entered into alliance, Germany have succeeded only in driving the conscious or unconscious, here with the unreflecting toward democracy plus party, there with another.

socialism. The less the Democratic spirit, In Germany the alliance with the demo

allied with so-called Liberalism in Europe, cratic tendency is probably unconcious. The seems to advance toward the true end, the majority of the Socialists no doubt rega d the

more those anxious for change in Germany two as inseparable. Of course they can only

are diverted to socialism. If Germans do not do so by shutting their eyes to patent facts of

have a mind to what they are about, they will the past and present; but eye-shutting is not

discover when it is too late that, while they an unusual or difficult matter for Socialists. have been guarding frontiers from French To the apologists of democracy, on the other, and Russian, the real danger has centred in the case usually seems reversed, and demo Berlin itself. If one man has contributed so cracy appears to many of them an infallible largely to the anti-monarchical impulse, what check to over-regulation and paternalism. In may not a second Ferdinand Lasalle accomGermany we must, I think, believe that those plish, with so much of his work already done? who are attracted toward democracy fall into an unconscious alliance with the stronger in

REPARATIVE JUSTICE, II. dustrial party, not from any special liking for

A thoughtful French writer defends State interthe industrial programme, but solely from vention for the purpose of social amelioration as opposition to imperialism. Take the two being a mere duty of what he calls reparative justendencies together, and the surprising thing

tice. Popular misery and decadence, he would say, is not so much that the socialist party has

are always very largely the result of bad laws and

other bad civil conditions, as we see it plainly to trebled its numbers at the polls as that the gain

have been in the case of the Irish cottiers, the Scotch has not been greater. It is, as I have said, crofters, and the rural laborers of England, and difficult, if not impossible, to determine which when the community has really inflicted the injury, tendency has been gaining in the twelve years. the community is bound in the merest justice to The Socialists pure and simple are no doubt

repair it. — JOHN RAE, Cont. Rev. still the larger party; but the gain may have Although experience proves that justice been with the others. And there is this spe

is one of the most easily abused of words, cial reason for believing that democracy is

the assertion of the duty of the community the increasing force, namely, that the official

contained in the last clause of the above household of the emperor evidently believe that the contrary is true, and that the gain is quotation recommends itself so fairly to in the iudustrial ranks. For it will of course

every one that it will not probably be gainpass without question that the probability

said. Many men have asserted that it is always is that officials are wrong. The prob the merest justice that a “ community” ability is, I confess, much stronger in the case should provide those of its members reduced of a Democratic government; still the rule is to want with bread to keep soul and body pretty general even for monarchical govern

together; others, that justice demanded of ments. So the Palace may wake up some

the State to give every child an education morning to find that while they have been

that would fit it for the coming struggle ; camping over against the army of socialism, the Democrats have gathered a force in the

and not a few have pretended that justice rear and undermined the empire.

required nothing less of the community than If there are any wise men in Germany they to stave off forever the struggle itself, and will leave no stone unturned to break up the the need of bread, by simply bestowing on unconscious alliance of the Democratic ten each and every individual, either in a lump dency with socialism. Nothing I have said

or annually, the wherewithal to make himwas intended to intimate that there were not

self or herself comfortable in the world. in Germany, and even in the Reichstag, true

It is evident that the meaning of justice is Democrats, who are not misled by the specious promises of socialism. But the fact re

very different in these cases from the meanmains that the forces, which, in France and

ing in the quotation from Mr. Rae, and England, and even in Russia, tend chiefly or from the meaning ordinarily attached to almost wholly toward simple democracy, in the word, at least in theory, in the courts

« AnkstesnisTęsti »