<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As PDF<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Foreword<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is compiled from a series of\nthree articles in the Socialist Standard by Adolph Kohn in August,\nOctober and November of 1911.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, there are some workers who shun the duty of\nthinking out these \u201cproblems,\u201d and they, therefore, fall a prey\nto the plausible plea of the Anarchist, who misrepresents, besides\nmisunderstanding, the views of the Socialist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The idea widely prevails that the difference between Socialism and\nAnarchism is simply one of methods\u2014the end in view being the same.\nFar is this from being the case, however. The whole philosophy of the\nSocialist is at variance with the Anarchist position. A brief survey\nof the history of the Anarchist theory will make that clear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The pioneer of Anarchism was Max Stirner, who, in \u201cThe\nIndividual .and his Property\u201d<\/em> (published in 1845), expounded\nthe \u201cphilosophy\u201d that lies at the root of all Anarchist teaching.\nThe only \u201creality\u201d that he recognised was that of the individual.\nIn his own words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAway with everything that is\nnot wholly and solely thy own affair. You think that my own concerns\nmust at least be good ones? A fig for good and evil! I am I, and I am\nneither good nor evil. Neither has any meaning for me. The godly is\nthe affair of God, the human that of humanity. My concern is neither\nthe Good, the Right, the Free, etc., but simply my own self, and it\nis not general, it is individual as I myself am individual.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Stirner\u2019s views may well be summed up as Idealism run mad. For\nhim there was no such process as evolution in society and the\nmajority of the institutions of social life were but phantoms. He\nstarts with a pure abstraction, the individual, but this afterwards\nstands unmasked as an individual of the bourgeoisie!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Very Much Like Capitalism.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It is in opposing Communism that Stirner \u2014 as is inevitable with\nthe logical Anarchist \u2014 shows the bourgeois nature of his ideal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCommunists think\nthat the Commune should be property owner. On the contrary I am a\nproperty owner and can only agree with others as to my property. I am\nthe owner of property but property is not sacred. Should I only be\nthe holder of property? No, hitherto one was only the holder of\nproperty, assured of possession of a piece of land, but now\neverything belongs to me. I am the owner of everything I need and can\nget hold of. If the Socialist says society gives me what I need the\nEgoist says I take what I want. If the Communists behave like beggars\nthe Egoist behaves like an owner of property.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Stirner only objected to the State of his day because it\ninterfered with his freedom as owner of commodities. Individual\n\u201crights\u201d and desires were alone to be regarded, and to maintain\nthem he advocated the formation of \u201cLeagues of Egoists.\u201d Shades\nof Individualism !<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stirner was followed by Proudhon, who took the same Utopian point\nof view. The whole mechanism of our social life is not the growth of\nmore and more complex relations between man and man\u2014developed\nthrough the connection established by industrial operations \u2014 but\nis born of men\u2019s ideas! \u201cThe political constitution was conceived\nand gradually completed in the interest of order for want of a social\nconstitution, the rules and principles of which could only be\ndiscovered as a result of long experience, and are even to-day the\nsubject of Socialist controversy.\u201d (\u201cConfessions of a\nRevolutionist<\/em>.\u201d ) ,<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hence we see that epochs in human history are not viewed as\nnecessary stages in the upward march of men from the time when, faced\nwith only the elemental forces of nature, they slowly but steadily\nbecame masters of implements and powers, and by their influence arose\nthe differing and progressing forms of social life. No, the Anarchist\nsays that right down the ages men have been seeking.the perfect\nsociety ; but it is only discovered in all its charm and beauty, now\n\u2014 by the Anarchists!<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Utopian Spirit of Anarchism.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Stirner and Proudhon have been dealt with to show the Utopian\nnature of Anarchism in all its majesty. Go right through the\nAnarchist writings, from Stirner to Bakunine and Kropotkin and notice\nthe same spirit through it all. Like all Utopians, they start out\nwith an abstract principle, and endeavour to apply it so as to form a\nperfect society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Proudhon plainly showed in his \u201cPhilosophy of Misery<\/em>,\u201d\nthe petty bourgeois nature of his \u201csystem.\u201d Individual ownership\nand control of the instruments of industry, with State regulation of\nprices so as to avoid industrial crises !<\/p>\n\n\n\n This great Anarchist even denounced Trades Unionism as as outrage\nagainst \u201cthe liberty of the individual.\u201d This is the man whom\nKropotkin acclaims as \u201cthe founder of Anarchism.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Proudhon\u2019s theories underwent but slight change at the hands of\nhis successor. Michael Bakunine, \u201cthe Apostle of Universal\nDestruction.\u201d Although claiming to believe in the common ownership\nof the means of life, his views demonstrated that Individual\nAnarchism is the only logical alternative to the opponent of\nSocialism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At a Congress in Berne in 1869 Bakunine pleaded for \u2018\u2019the\neconomical and social equalisation of classes and individuals.\u201d\nThis is the same as Proudhon\u2019s theory of the unity of Capital and\nLabour. Continuing, Bakunine said \u201cI detest Communism because it is\nthe negation of Liberty.\u201d The mental kinship of Bakunine with his\nUtopian predecessors is well established by his idealistic views. \u201cI\ndesire the radical extirpation of the principle of the authority and\ntutelage of the State, which has until now enslaved, exploited,\noppressed and depraved men. I desire the abolition of property,\nindividually hereditary, which is nothing hut a result of the\nprinciple of the State.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anarchism Ignores Evolution.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The private ownership of the means of life has its roots, then, in\nthe principle of the State!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bakunine\u2019s influence is very marked on his follower, the leading\nliving Anarchist, Prince Kropotkin. Like the whole school of\nAnarchists, be ignores the trend of social evolution and invents a\n\u201cperfect society\u201d of the future. In the \u201cConquest of Bread<\/em>\u201d\nhe says \u201cIt is of an Anarchist Communist society that we are about\nto speak, a society that will recognise the absolute liberty of the\nindividual.\u201d (Chap. XII.) In his address to the Jura Federation he\nsaid : \u201cThis ideal is not the product of the dreams of the study,\nbut flows directly from the popular aspirations, that is in accord\nwith the historical progress of culture and ideas.\u201d This\nmetaphysical vein permeates all Anarchist teaching. Jean\nGrave<\/a>, the prominent French Anarchist, in his \u201cMoribund\nSociety and Anarchy<\/em>,\u201d tells us that the conceptions of\nAnarchists \u201care in harmony with the physiological and psychological\nnature of man and in harmony with the observance of natural laws,\nwhile our actual organisation has been established in contradiction\nof all good logic and all good sense.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Socialist is a materialist, the Anarchist an idealist. The\nSocialist recognises social development as a consequence of the\nevolution of economic forces. The Anarchist view is well stated by\nKropotkin in \u2018Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal,\u201d as follows: \u201c\nThe fact is that each phase of development of a society is a\nresultant of all the activities of the intellects which compose that\nsociety; it bears the imprint of all those millions of wills.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Socialist Position<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n With the materialist conception of history as his guide, the\nSocialist correctly grasps the relation which prevailing institutions\nhear to the slavery of the working class. But turn to the\nbewilderingly vague writings of the Anarchists and you will find them\nfilled with the most vain tirades against the State and every form of\nauthority. \u201cThe State,\u201d \u201cAuthority,\u201d and \u201cLaw\u201d are held\nto be the real cause of the workers\u2019 sufferings, and the immediate\nabolition of the State is said to be \u201cthe only way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Against this the Socialist places the scientific position. The\nState is not born of a despot\u2019s ideas \u2014conceived and built up to\ndo his bidding. Frederick Engels. in his brilliant work \u201cThe\nOrigin of the Family, Private Property and the State<\/em>,\u201d shows\nthat the State as we know it, is but the final form of an institution\nwhich fulfilled a useful service in the social economy of the past.\nIt arose as a part of the division of labour in early societies, and\ncarried on the administration of public affairs. The advent of\nprivate property in the means of producing wealth gradually\ninfluenced the form of the State till it became the instrument of the\nruling class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The State has been the State of the chattel-slave owner, the State\nof the feudal nobility, and now it is the State of the industrial\ncapitalist. It exists to day because there is a class to be kept in\nsubjection. When the present subject class become organised and seize\npolitical power, their supremacy will have sounded the death-knell of\nthe State. The working class being the last class to achieve its\nfreedom, its emancipation will end class distinctions: neither a\ndominant nor a subject class can exist when the ownership of the\nmeans of life is vested in the community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anarchists are fond of accusing Socialists of wanting to increase\nthe power of the State. Marx and Engels are denounced by Kropotkin\n(\u201cConquest of Bread<\/em>\u2019\u2019 and elsewhere) for this reason.\nYet every student of these Socialist pioneers knows that they pointed\nout that when the toilers triumph the day of the State will be gone\nfor ever. The Anarchist lament about tyranny under Socialism will be\nseen to be without foundation. Tyranny presupposes power, but when\nthe instruments of production are commonly owned, power to oppress\ncan no longer exist. Further, when wealth is no longer privately\nowned there is no incentive to tyrannise. There are no clashing\ninterests \u2014the mainspring of tyranny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All Anarchist conceptions are vitiated by their misunderstanding\nof the nature of society. W\nC. Owen<\/a>, in the pamphlet \u201cAnarchy versus Socialism<\/em>,\u2019\u2019\nsays: \u201cAnarchy concentrates its attention on the individual,\nconsidering that only when absolute justice is done to him or her\nwill it be possible to have a healthy and happy society. For\nsociety is merely the ordinary individual multiplied indefinitely<\/em>.\u201d\nThe Socialist, on the contrary, holds to the view accepted\nuniversally in scientific circles to-day, viz<\/em>., that society\nis something more than a number of individuals\u2014society is an\norganism. Even the great anti-Socialist, Herbert Spencer, proved\nconclusively the organic nature of society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the result of their erroneous view, the Anarchists are wholly\nconcerned with the individual. \u201cAbsolute liberty of the individual\u201d\nis their cry. Ever busy discussing the \u201crights\u201d of the individual\nand the tyranny of other than individual control of affairs, they\nlose sight of the importance of the economic necessities of society\nitself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consider the possibilities and needs of modern life. A great\npopulation covers the globe. These people need \u201cfood, clothing, and\nshelter\u201d and a hundred and one other things that centuries of\neconomic advance have accustomed them to and made part of their\nstandard needs. How are these things to be supplied ? What are the\nmeans at our disposal ? To provide the things required the great\nmachinery, etc., has to be used in accordance with the best and most\nproductive methods. Association of the wealth producers is an\nimperative necessity of the future. This involves the organisation of\nindustry, the division of labour, and the arrangement of processes in\nproper sequence. The distribution of wealth has to be organised, too,\notherwise chaos and starvation ensue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where Anarchism plainly fails, for it repudiates the very\nmainspring of organisation. It proclaims each individual a law unto\nhimself. It stands for the universal play of \u201cfree agreement.\u201d\nApply that to industrial life and see how it would work out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the production and distribution of social necessaries were to\nwait on the \u201cfree agreement\u201d of all the industrial population to\ncertain methods being pursued; if industry were to depend upon the\nwhim and caprice of the members of society, then Nemesis would await\nus. The running of a railroad, the sailing of a ship, the building of\na bridge, all these involve centralised control and speedy action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Socialist does not advocate Socialism as \u201cthe perfect\nsystem.\u201d He seeks but to adapt institutions and customs to the\nchanges in the mode of producing wealth. He claims that, subject to\nevolution, therefore, imperfect though it be, it is the best system\npossible in the circumstances that face us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The common ownership of wealth is decreed as the only alternative\nto private ownership, and the method of production conditions the\nmethod of control. Democratic control is the complement of communal\nownership. The Anarchist hates democracy, while the Socialist takes\nit for his constant guide. The Anarchist rejects the view that the\nemancipation of the workers must be the work of the masses, and\nbelieves that the action of an \u201cintelligent minority\u201d suffices.\nThe rest will be carried along. Autocracy is the logical outcome of\nhis method, and reaction the inevitable aftermath. Majority decisions\nare anathema to the Anarchist. He asserts that \u201cthe majority\nhave ever erred.\u201d Let us again quote Owen\u2019s pamphlet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf the workers were to come into possession of\nthe means of production tomorrow, the administration, under the most\nperfect system of universal suffrage\u2014which we attained in this\ncountry years ago, and have been vainly trying to doctor into decent\nshape for generations past \u2014would simply result in the creation of\na special class of political managers, professing to act for the\nwelfare of the majority. Were they as honest as the day, which it is\nfolly to expect, they could only carry out the dictates of the\nmajority, and those who did not agree to those dictates would find\nthemselves outcasts.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n How do the Anarchists propose to administer affairs? How are means\nof production to be controlled? Kropotkin, in \u201cAnarchist\nCommunism, its Basis and Principles<\/em>,\u201d says they \u201cmust be\nmanaged in common by the producers of wealth.\u201d Though freely\ndenouncing democratic methods the Anarchists never face facts and\nstate how the socially owned means of production are to be \u201ccommonly\ncontrolled\u201d except through democratic channels (i.e<\/em>., \u201cunder\nthe most perfect system of universal suffrage\u201d).\nIndividualist-Anarchism offers the only retreat for the\n\u201cAnarchist-Communist,\u201d and this involves the individual\nownership<\/em> and control of wealth producing instruments. In other\nwords, the evolution of industry and the immense amount of wealth now\nrequired for our use must be ignored, and we are to return to\nhandicraft and petty enterprise!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Democracy, to the Socialist, does not only mean the counting of\nheads. It implies opening all the means of knowledge to the entire\npopulation; giving access to every source of information and\nadvancement to all \u2014 thus ensuring, as far as is humanly possible,\nthat the vote is the deliberate expression of the will of equals. And\nif all do not agree, then ample justification exists for acting on\nthe decision of the majority in matters of social <\/em>importance.\nThere is no other way. The minority are ever free to try to change\nthe opinions of the majority, but they must loyally abide by the\nsupreme views in the meantime. Without this all organisation is\nimpossible, whether its ramifications extend to society or are\nextremely limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though the Anarchists condemn democratic procedure, by stating\nthat nobody can represent us but ourselves, they have to destroy\ntheir own theory when they begin to act. Of course, such times are\nvery infrequent, but one such occurred at the last Anarchist congress\n(Amsterdam, Aug. 1907). There representatives<\/em> of various\nbodies in different countries attended, and besides voting, they\nconstituted an International Bureau \u201ccomposed of five delegates.\u201d\n(\u201cFreedom\u201d report.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is the Anarchist tribute to the soundness of Socialist\ncriticism. It must be obvious that great populations cannot come\ntogether and discuss and arrange all matters in detail, but must\ndelegate<\/em> their authority to representatives. \u2018Though the\n\u201cReferendum\u201d and \u201cInitiative\u201d are serviceable methods, they\nmust be supplemented by delegation when occasion demands. Even the\nfirst two methods turn on majority rule in the last analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In economics the Anarchist rivals the Anti-Socialist in\nmisrepresentation of the Socialist position. Kropotkin attacks Marx\n(in \u201cThe Wage System<\/em>\u201c) for advocating the use of labour\nnotes as a method of paying wages under Socialism, in spite of Marx\u2019s\nrepudiation of them in his \u201cCritique of Political Economy<\/em>\u201d\nand the \u201cPoverty of Philosophy<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx and Engels analysed capitalist society and laid bare the\nprocess of exploiting the working class. In his three great volumes\non the Production and Circulation of Capital, Marx demonstrates the\ntrue nature of Value, Price, and Profit, and buttresses his own\ntheories by quotations from the classic writers of the nineteenth\ncentury. Yet the Anarchist \u201ceconomists\u201d continually accuse him of\naccepting the views of Smith, Ricardo, and others, without\nindependent inquiry!<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt was from Malthus\u2019 supposed law of population that\nRicardo deduced his famous theory of rent which Henry George has made\nfamiliar to everybody, and on which Marx founded hie \u2018Scientific\nSocialism \u2019 \u201d !<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Thus the Anarchist pamphlet \u201cAnarchy\nand Malthus<\/em><\/a>,\u201d by C. L. James, published recently. In it we\nare also told that \u201cthe difference between Anarchism and\nSocialism as we usually understand the later term is the difference\nbetween Malthus and Ricardo.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The whole pamphlet is typical of Anarchist confusion. Malthus\u2019\nmoonshine is supported, and no praise seems sufficient for the\npriestly defender of the must inhuman methods capitalism used in its\nprime. Malthus is commended \u201cwith those who abolished slavery,\nrepealed the Corn Laws, put an end to imprisonment for debt,\u201d and \u201c\nestablished the policy of peace.\u201d Apart from this highly\nimaginative \u201chistory,\u201d the Anarchist forgets to remark that\nMalthus was mainly occupied with such things as opposing Poor law\nrelief \u201cbecause it fostered the perpetuation of the unfit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kropotkin\u2019s \u201ccriticism\u201d of the Marxian Surplus-Value theory\nis remarkable. He says (\u201cConquest of Bread<\/em>\u201c): \u201cThe evil\nof the present organisation is not that the \u2018surplus-value\u2019 of\nproduction passes over to the capitalist\u2014as Robertus and Marx had\ncontended. Surplus value itself is only a consequence of more\nprofound causes. The evil is that there can be any kind of\n\u2018surplus value,<\/em>\u2018 instead of a surplus not consumed by each\ngeneration.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kropotkin and his followers also attack Marx for his scientific\ntheory that control over capital concentrates into proportionately\nfewer hands along with its expansion. This is so plainly seen to-day\nthat it is superfluous to deal with the Anarchists denial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the foregoing the unscientific and visionary character of\nAnarchist \u201cphilosophy\u201d is established beyond cavil. Anarchism\nattracts to its ranks a motley gathering. Its lack of cohesion, its\nindividualism and its Utopianism, have enabled it to embrace the most\nill assorted set of votaries that ever nestled under one banner. From\nthe proud Prince Kropotkin to the official John\nTurner<\/a>, it includes suppliers of every movement but ours. From\nMalthusians to anti morganatic marriage apostles, advocates of\neight-hour and other piece-meal reforms, supporters of the Liberal\nGovernment like Morrison Davidson, and of the Labour Party like\nEdward\nCarpenter<\/a>\u2014these are the revolutionary Anarchists!<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Anarchist ranks have steadily dwindled in Britain, and their\nmembers apathetically drop away. Its Press makes a sporadic\nappearance. Accusations of being police spies lead to continual\nrecrimination and permanent distrust among the \u201ccomrades.\u201d Hence\nAnarchism\u2019s decline, and its inability to organise the working\nclass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But still the danger exists that those workers who have been\nsickened by the compromise, confusion, and betrayal of the Labour and\npseudo-Socialist parties may succumb to the plea that because the\nfake political parties have failed to help them and advance their\ncause, Socialism is useless and Anarchism the only hope. Those who\nfollow in the Anarchists\u2019 footsteps and ramble in the Utopian\nwilderness, but delay the time when they must inevitably come to see\nthat the Socialist Party of Great Britain alone is sound, for its\naims are revolutionary, its methods scientific, and its working\ndemocratic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Loyalty to its principles and devotion to its aims will do far more to hasten the workers\u2019 emancipation than the will-\u2019o-the-wisp notions of Anarchists and the dangerous policy they pursue. But the latter must be dealt with in the next issue.Loyalty to its principles and devotion to its aims will do far more to hasten the workers\u2019 emancipation than the will-\u2019o-the-wisp notions of Anarchists and the dangerous policy they pursue. But the latter must be dealt with in the next issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 2.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The false conception of social laws leads the Anarchists to the\nunsound und dangerous methods in which they indulge. The wild\ndenunciations of the \u201cState\u201d and \u201cgovernment\u201d and everybody\nvested with authority turns the heads of their ignorant followers.\nThese uneducated worshippers of Anarchist fallacies, believing that\nthis and that official is the real enemy, plan to make away with\nthem, and they are inspired by the \u201cpropaganda by deed\u201d teaching.\nOf course, they receive direct incitement to do so from the\nfountain-heads of Anarchist \u201cphilosophy.\u201d Jean Grave, in his\n\u201cMoribund Society and Anarchy,\u201d teaches individual violence thus\n: \u201cLet us suppose a struggle between employers and workmen \u2014 any\nsort of strike, In a strike there are surely some employers more\ncruel than others, who by their exactions have necessitated this\nstrike, or by their intrigues have kept it up longer than was\nnecessary ; without doubt these employers draw upon themselves the\nhatred of the workers. Let us suppose one of the like executed in\nsome corner with a placard posted explaining that he had been killed\nas an exploiter, or that his factory had been burned from the same\nmotive. In such a case there is no being mistaken as to the reasons\nprompting the authors of the deeds, and we may be sure they will by\napplauded by the whole labour world. Such are intelligent deeds which\nshow that action should always follow guiding principle.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the flourishing days of Anarchism in England, when they had\ncaptured the \u201cSocialist League,\u201d after William Morris, Eleanor\nMarx and others had left it in disgust., the Anarchists used its\norgan, the \u201cCommonweal,\u201d to push its reactionary propaganda. Thus\nD. J. Nichol, the editor, wrote of a Trafalgar Square meeting : \u201cSome\npeople condemned the throwing of the bomb at Chicago ; for my part I\nthink it would have been well in London if a man had been found\ncourageous enough to hurl death and destruction among the ruffians\nwho attacked a peaceful meeting.\u201d (Nov. 11, 1891)<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the next issue they eulogised the Tennessee escaped prisoners\nwho carried on open pillage in these terms : \u201cYou have shown the\nworkers of America\u2014aye, and of the world\u2014how to free themselves,\nnot at the ballot-box but with the rifle, the torch, and the dynamite\nbomb.\u201d It commended the Anarchist, Ravachol, who murdered and\nrobbed an old man and was guillotined, in the following words : \u201cThus\nfinished another stage in the career of a man who has shaken\ncapitalism to its foundations and shown the workers an example worthy\nof emulation. We are anxiously awaiting the advent of some English\nRavachols.\u201d (July 2, 1892.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many other examples could be quoted but one more must, suffice.\n\u201cWe say that individual acts have always been a success. The man\nwho strangled Watrin [a French mine-owner whose men were on strike],\nPini, who robbed the banks, have opened more eyes than all the\npamphlet writers in a century. Our aims can only be attained by\naccumulated individual actions against property and the men who hold\nit.\u201d (Dec. 19, 1891).<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the Anarchist \u201cmovement\u201d was less feeble its votaries\ncarried out its teachings. In 1893 August Vaillant, the French\nAnarchist, threw a bomb into the French Parliament from the public\ngallery. Over 60 people were wounded and he was guillotined. In 1894\nMartial Bourdin blew himself to atoms while fixing a bomb near the\nRoyal Observatory, in. Greenwich Park. In the same year a Deptford\n\u201ccomrade,\u201d Rolla Richards, got 7 years for blowing up several\nSouth London Post offices, Emile Henry, too, threw a bomb from the\nbalcony of the Paris Cafe Terminus, and 2 persons were killed arid 21\ninjured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The foregoing demonstrate that Anarchism is hostile to working\nclass organisation. While it advocates individual violence, it paves\nthe way for the armed forces of the State to intervene and crush it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The need of the age is a virile organisation of the toilers, but\nthe murder, violence, pillage, and riot that the Anarchists teach has\nled to their ranks being honeycombed with police spies. It reminds\none of the story told by Alexander Herzen, who upon reaching a little\nItalian town, found, he said, only priests and bandits, but he was\ngreatly puzzled to decide which were the priests and which the\nbandits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just so with the members of the Anarchist groups. It is often\ndifficult to find out which are the genuine \u201ccomrades\u201d and which\nthe spies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Its secrecy and underground working make treachery possible : that\nis why they have never really started to organise the working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the Walsall trial in 1892 it leaked out that the man who\ninformed the police of the proposed bomb outrage was a trusted\n\u201ccomrade\u201d named Coulon, who actually managed Louise Michel\u2019s\nAnarchist school in Fitzroy Square !<\/p>\n\n\n\n Their clubs all perish owing to the one cause. The \u201cAutotomie,\u201d\nthe \u201cGrafton,\u201d the \u201cScandinavian,\u201d are cases in point. The\n\u201ccomrades\u201d spend a lot of time accusing each other of being\npolice spies. David Nicoll (of the \u201cCommonweal\u201d) bitterly\ndenounced two of the leading members, \u201cDr.\u201d Netllau and \u201cDr.\u201d\nMacdonald, yet many others testified to the genuineness of these men.\nA late editor of the \u201cCommonweal\u201d came under suspicion, and is\nstill under a cloud, though he left the \u201ccause\u201d long since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the Anarchists\u2019 numbers have declined their methods have been\nsomewhat modified. They do not appeal with the same frequency to\nindividual violence, yet they cannot stop their ignorant supporters\nfrom forever harping on its necessity. Indeed, the extent to which\nthe Anarchist followers gloat over deeds of violence, high-sounding\nthreats and the fury they delight in, prove a distinct menace to the\ntrue revolutionary movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Emma Goldman\u2019s (the American Anarchist) manager, Ben Reitman,\nvisited this country a short while since, and the wild, idiotic\nadvice he gave his audiences \u2014 urging them to break policemen\u2019s\nheads, etc. \u2014 could not been have surpassed by an\nagent-provocateur, for it openly invited the suppression of public\nmeetings, and the condemnation of any anti capitalist movement to\nlasting persecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Anarchists are frequently the best friends the capitalists\nhave. Whenever they consummate one of their melodramatic outrages the\npolice and Press use it to brow beat the Socialists. The working\nclass are shown how the \u201cfoes of capitalism\u201d avoid any civilised\nweapon at their hand, and appeal to the fruitless and insane personal\nattack, street battle, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How thoroughly dishonest the Anarchists arc when attacking\nSocialists may be judged from their plea that Parliament has been\ntried and has failed ! Listen to the voice of \u201d Freedom\u201d (Aug.\n1911):<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe complete failure of the Labour Party to bring to the\ntoilers any relief from the burdens of capitalist exploitation and\nthe barefaced lust of personal aggrandisement shown by the majority\nof Labour M.P.s have compelled the workers not, only to again resort\nto the strike to resist the capitalists, but to realise with more or\nless certainty that other means than Parliamentary action arc needed\nto help his cause.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Who expected the labour leeches to advance the cause of the\nworkers? Only those who, like the Anarchists, ignored the facts\naround them. \u201cParliament has failed !\u201d the Anarchist bleats.\nSeeing that it has been filled by supporters of the present system \u2014\nLiberals and Tories and their allies for centuries, what else but\ncontinued working-class enslavement could result ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe political machine has been used for the exploitation of the\nworker,\u201d says the Anarchist, and it is therefore useless to our\nclass.\u201d One might as well say that because a cotton weaving machine\nhas been used for the exploitation of the workers, it cannot be used\nin their interest when they control it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As with the loom, so with the political machine. Controlled to-day\nby the capitalists, it is worked in their interests as far as\npossible, but upon the working class controlling it, they will use it\nfor their purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The whole of the writings of Anarchists teem with the condemnation\nof political action. Marx and Engels are denounced by every leading\nAnarchist, from Kropotkin to Malatesta, for their far-seeing and\nscientific conception of the value of political action to the\nproletariat. Malatesta \u2014 perhaps the best known Anarchist in Europe\nspeaking at their International Congress in 1907 said (\u201cFreedom\u201d\nreport) : \u201cHe often heard Political Action referred to as if it\ninvolved Parliament. This was a great mistake. What, for example, was\nBresci\u2019s act (killing a king) ? Was it economic? No! it was\npolitical. Marx was responsible for this confusion<\/em>.\u201d In\norder to see whether it is confusion let us review the facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the \u201cCommunist Manifesto\u201d Marx points out that \u201cthe\nproletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy.\u201d What\ndoes \u201cpolitical supremacy \u201d and \u201cpolitical action\u201d mean? Are\nthey necessary ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The growth of private property in society led to the parting off\nof those who possessed it from those who did not. A section of the\npossessors gradually became installed into offices of State, and\ntheir reign lasted until changes in the material conditions favoured\nthe rise of a new class to power. The struggle between those who own\nand those who do not manifests itself as a class struggle, and its\nfinal purpose is the seizure of the political machine by the\nsubmerged class. The class struggle is waged also on the field of\nmodern industry, and is typified by the suppression of discontented\nworkers, the attempt to reduce the worker\u2019s share and the workers\u2019\nresistance to those attempts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This action relating to the field of industry is rightly termed\nEconomic <\/em>Action. Action pursued through the channels of\nlocal and national control and government is Political<\/em>\nAction. For politics is but the science dealing with the laws of the\ncontrol of society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That the workers are scientific in using their political power\n(i.e. possession of the suffrage \u2014the weapon) to obtain political\nsupremacy is clearly seen by surveying the class struggles of the\npast and their lessons for us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Constitutional history \u2014 the only appeal \u2014tells us that the\nbourgeoisie in every land, though holding some economic power (i.e.,\nmeans of production), were compelled to prosecute a long and often\nbitter struggle against the feudal nobility and the Church in order\nto secure political supremacy (executive power) and so rid themselves\nof the hindrances and embargos put in their path by the nobility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Hansa towns, the staple cities, etc., had to petition the King\nand his feudal co rulers for charters granting them the privilege of\ntrading, in certain merchandise and in certain districts thus showing\nthe value of political<\/em> control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The political machine is represented by different institutions\naccording to the state of the country ruled the material condition.\nAs every land advances out of Feudalism into Capitalism, it sooner or\nlater throws off the \u201cabsolute,\u201d and finally all, rule of King\nand Court, and is forced to delegate power to representatives of the\nnow enfranchised ruling class. These latter possess money which makes\nkings bow \u2014 therefore they finally prevail over the effete\naristocracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Germany, Japan, Persia, Turkey \u2014 as each of these countries has\nemerged from Feudalism proper, it has had to introduce a Constitution\nwith a Parliament as its central feature. The Executive later is\nchosen from this assembly and becomes a Cabinet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The powerful nature of political control is shown by the light in\nEngland between merchant and noble and the victory of Parliament over\nthe Crown. The Crown was re-introduced later, but shorn of its power,\nprivileges, and noted prerogatives. All specialists in Constitutional\nhistory \u2014 from Gardner to Professor Dicey and Lord Courtney \u2014 are\nagreed that Parliament is the real arbiter, and that survivals such\nas the House of Lords are trimmings that matter not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Political machinery, then, in modern society, includes, as its\ncentral feature, Parliament, and the Socialists, in urging the\nworkers to displace their enemies from that citadel, are but pointing\nthe right road. Parliament controls \u201csupplies\u201d \u2014 the force\nagainst Court and Bureaucracy alike. Through its control over\n\u201csupplies\u201d it rules the Army, though it employs a War Minister,\nand he in turn an Army Council, to arrange details. Political control\nrelies eventually upon power over the armed forces, and these are\nunder the control of Parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore Politics DO include Parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ITS\nFALLACIES AND DANGERS EXPOSED.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One\nthing is plain : if you reject political action you are left only\nwith individual action \u2014 \u201cpropaganda by deed.\u201d The Anarchists\nhave tried to find substitutes, and Syndicalism and the General\nStrike have held the stage \u2014 until they have been examined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They\npoint to France as an example of successful Syndicalism, but France\nis surely Syndicalism\u2019s grave ! It is represented there by the\nConfederation Generale du Travail \u2014 composed of 300,000 members, a\nsmall number of whom are Anarchists, though, through lack of\ndemocracy, they set the official positions. The small unions have the\nsame, voting power at Congresses as the large ones, and it is well\nsaid that<\/p>\n\n\n\n THREE\nUNITED CHIMNEY SWEEPS<\/p>\n\n\n\n have\nthe same voting power as a union of 10,000 members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Owing\nto the tempestuous, excitable nature of the people of southern\nclimes, they are more prone to display and impetuous action than\nother races. Hence the sudden strikes and the equally sudden and sad\ncollapse of them. The majority of the organised French workers are\noutside the Confederation, and even the number of organised workers\nall told is far less than here. Yet with all the lack of organisation\nand the reactionary politics of the majority of unionists, the\nSyndicalists keep announcing a great general strike. But these\nstrikes, ordered by the Anarchist minority at the helm, have turned\nout to be general fiascos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even\na strike such as the first Paris Postal strike temporarily claimed a\nvictory, but after Government preparations their succeeding strike\ncollapsed amid dismissals and persecution. The Syndicalists preach\ndirect action, but direct action for reform<\/em>. The Union Label,\nthe Eight Hour Day, the Reduction of High Food Prices\u2014these are\nsome of their ideals. And \u201csabotage\u201d is their trump card. Known\nunder the English name of \u201drattening,\u201d it consists of breaking\nand making useless machinery, and other such revolutionary (!) deeds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n WRECKING\nTRAINS<\/p>\n\n\n\n follows,\nand it promotes wide-spread dissension and lack of sympathy with the\nstrikers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These\nmethods indicate backward organisation and unscientific conceptions,\nand are reminiscent of early English trade unionism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nAnarchists fiercely denounce authority, but they become officials of\nthe trade unions and paid ones at that! They impeach reprsentation\nand delegation, but have to resort to them ! They condemn political\naction but vote for the politicians who promise Government subsidies\nfor union premises !<\/p>\n\n\n\n But\nthe criticism from their own side is, perhaps, the most damaging.\nSaid Malatesta (at International Congress) : \u201cHe expected some\ncomrades would be surprised to hear him speak against Syndicalism and\nthe General Strike.\u201d He would have nothing to say against it\n(Syndicalism) if he could believe that Syndicalism could alone, as\nwas claimed for it, destroy Capitalism. But who could expect to\noverthrow Capitalism while remaining a servant of capitalist\nproduction? . . . The fact of the matter was that as the Syndicalist\norganisations grew nearer and nearer to perfection, the number of\nunemployed grew greater and greater . . . It is only too obvious that\nthe Syndicalists make a<\/p>\n\n\n\n SERIOUS\nDIVISION OF THE WORKERS<\/p>\n\n\n\n without\nharassing the capitalists.\u201d Sighing for a \u201cmoral struggle\u201d he\nsaid : \u201cWe may as well confess that the purely economic struggle is\nnot sufficient.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ridiculing\nthe success of French Syndicalism the same speaker said \u201che did not\nsee why France should consider herself in a novel condition. English\ntrade unionism began in just the same revolutionary way and look at\nit now . . . What he objected to was the idea freely propagated by\nsome Syndicalists that the General Strike can replace insurrection.\nSome people fondly cherish the idea that we are going to starve the\nbourgeoisie. We should starve first. . . . He considered that some of\nthe pamphlets published on the General Strike did nothing but harm. \u2026\nHe had read somewhere that we ought to go and smash the railway\nbridges ! He wondered whether the advocates of such foolishness ever\nrealised that corn has to come the same way as the cannons come . . .\nWe must face the cannons if we want the corn. \u2026 If the Government\nhave perfected the arms of repression we must purfect those of\nrevolution. We need more knowledge \u201d !<\/p>\n\n\n\n From\ntheir own ranks, then, the exposure has come. But we do not adopt the\nview of another of their delegates who asked : \u201cWhat was the use of\nagitating for higher wages when the cost of living automatically\nrises in price ?\u201d That is capitalist economics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\nrecognise that the workers, having only their energy to sell, have to\nget the best price possible, and therefore must oppose any attempt to\nbeat them down or make them work longer. The present trade unions are\nnot Socialist, but mere alteration in the form is not the remedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nworkers in and out of the unions must be taught the Socialist\nposition, and when the members become Socialists, they will see that\nthe unions take the class form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CHANGE\nTHE FORM<\/p>\n\n\n\n how\nyou like while the workers are not revolutionary, they will be misled\nstill and will fail to see the limits of their powers and the remedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While\nwe strongly sympathise with all real struggles against the employers\u2019\nattacks, we never cease to urge upon the workers the need for\nclass-consciousness for ending this system of society altogether, by\npolitical control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nGeneral Strike as a means of emancipation must surely fail, for the\nworking class are propertyless, and if they cease work even the\n\u201cshort commons\u201d that \u201cwork\u201d means cease too. Starvation\nstares them in the face. All acquainted with proletarian life know\nthe terrible privation that strikes entail; the suffering writ large\non the faces of the helpless babes, the toddling children and the\nstruggling wives. Such agonising scenes as were to be witnessed on\nthe hillsides and in the valleys of South Wales during the year-long\nCambrian Strike. The stripped homes; the crammed pawnshops; the\nrising mortality: these remind us that<\/p>\n\n\n\n STRIKES\nSTRIKE THE WORKERS<\/p>\n\n\n\n us\nwell as the masters. This is but a sectional strike; a strike with\nthose at work helping those who are out. But when all the workers\nstrike even that help fails, for they are all in the same boat. Even\nin sectional strikes we have seen how the workers often appeal to the\nbourgeoisie for aid for their wives and little ones, and soup\nkitchens, etc., are opened. Their purchasing power also grows worse\nas strikes continue, for prices rise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nmasters, strongly entrenched in the economic field, also control the\npolitical machine, and when they think the aims of the strikers\nimportant enough they use the armed forces to butcher, baton, and cow\nthe strikers. Though always at their command, they do not use the\narmed forces wantonly. They weigh the pros and cons. \u201cIs massacre\nnecessary?\u201d they ask themselves. \u201cCan\u2019t we arbitrate their\ndemands out of existence? Won\u2019t a Royal Commission do? Shall we\ngive their leaders jobs?\u201d Just as they bought Briand, the pioneer\nof the General Strike. Only when these other means fail do they risk\ninflaming the populace by resorting to open and<\/p>\n\n\n\n WIDESPREAD\nMASSACRE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But\nother means generally do not fail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n True,\na general strike can paralyse industry. A prolonged General Strike\ncan destroy society. For we depend upon continued production and\ncessation means death. But death snatches its first victims from the\ntoilers : they are most vulnerable\u2014they have no stores, no\nreserves. Our masters have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nGeneral Strike figured largely in speeches 30 years ago, and found\nits chief exponent in Michael Bakunine. The greater part of his life\nhe was a prominent figure in the reactionary pan-Slavist crusade. He\nturned his attention to the International founded by Marx, Engels,\nand others, and in the Latin countries and Switzerland he carried on\na bitter campaign against Marx and other members of the London\nGeneral Council of the International.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx\nbelieved in effective organisation, strong and well knit, and\npolitical action as against street fights. The unscrupulous methods\nBakunine used to smash the International from within, together with\nhis past, often laid him under suspicion of being a spy, but against\nhis intrigues the sturdy Socialist pioneer proved too strong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From\nthe days of the International onward Marx and Engels continued to\npress the need for the conquest of political supremacy by the\nworkers. Engels incurred the especial hatred of the Anarchists for\nhis condemnation of their General Strike tactics. The Anarchist\nrising in Spain in 1873 served as an occasion for his pamphlet\nagainst them entitled \u201cThe Bakunist on Labour,\u201d and he afterwards\ncarried the war into<\/p>\n\n\n\n THE\nENEMY\u2019S TERRITORY<\/p>\n\n\n\n with\nhis \u201cSocial Conditions in Russia,\u201d a polemic against the\nBakunists circulated widely in Russia. W. Tcherkesoff, the Anarchist,\nbitterly denounces Engels for these pamphlets in his falsified \u201cPages\nfrom Socialist History\u201d and elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nlast work from Engels\u2019 pen was the introduction he wrote a few\nmonths before he died (1895) to Marx\u2019s \u201cThe Class Struggles in\nFrance.\u201d Of it the writer of the \u201cLife of Engels\u201d says: \u201cWith\nmerciless criticism he destroyed the fanciful representation of the\nall-powerful barricade and destroyed the hope of the European\nreaction that the labourers could be provoked to a street-fight in\nwhich they could be repulsed with decimated ranks. He showed how the\nrevolution in the art of warfare had made the old form of struggle\nimpossible, while a new weapon had been provided for the labouring\nclass in the new political right of suffrage against which the ruling\nclass were helpless. \u2018The irony of the world\u2019s history,\u2019 says\nEngels, \u2018 places everything on its head. We, the \u201crevolutionaries,\u201d\nthe \u201coverturners,\u201d we succeed better with the legal means than\nwith illegality and force. The self-named \u201cParty of Order\u201d goes\nto pieces on the legal conditions created by itself. They\ndespairingly cry with Odillon Barrot<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cLEGALITY\nIS OUR DEATH\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n while\nwe from the same legality gain strong muscles, ruddy cheeks, and the\nappearance of eternal life. If we are not so foolish as to please\nthem by allowing ourselves to be led into street fights there remains\nnothing for them but to be broken to pieces upon this fatal\nlegality.\u2019 \u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just\nas Engels shows, we, the revolutionists, are prepared to use legal\nmeans in so far as they can be used in the workers\u2019 interest, and\nignore them when they cannot. When legal means fail illegal means are\njustifiable and commendable. Therefore we have no qualms about using\nthe suffrage, enacted by the capitalists. We know that just as the\nbourgeoisie before us had to be enfranchised for the free and easy\ndevelopment of society an ever wider and more extended suffrage is\nimperative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One\nsection or another had sooner or later to pass the Franchise Bill,\nand it was the Tories who actually did it\u2014to dish the Liberals was\ntheir immediate aim. It is with the enlightened use of this weapon\nthey were forced to give us that their graves will be dug. Marx well\nsays : \u201cThe capitalists are their own gravediggers.\u201d Enactments\nthey pass to conserve their own interests often have effects they\nlittle dream of at the time. They made \u201ceducation\u201d compulsory the\nbetter to compete with other nations, but with even that miserable\neducation the worker\u2019s child may afterwards read the message of\nSocialism and be converted into a fighter in<\/p>\n\n\n\n THE\nONLY CAUSE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anarchists\nand their allies say \u201cLook how the suffrage has been tampered with\nabroad,\u201d but they forget that even in semi-feudal Prussia, despite\nstifling of the vote, the candidates it was intended to keep out have\nstill increased, to the dismay of their enemies. In the same way,\nshould a headstrong Government suspend the suffrage, they meet\ndisaster in the resentment they inflame in the masses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But\nthe Anarchists\u2019 point really shows the value of Parliamentary\naction, for if the House of Commons is useless against the\ncapitalists, why do they attempt to manipulate the suffrage to\nprevent the Socialists getting in? Just as their plea that real\nrevolutionists will never be allowed in Parliament brings its fitting\nanswer, if it is the futile institution the Anarchists pretend, why\nshould they raise barriers to prevent their election?<\/p>\n\n\n\n No\n! the Anarchists ought to see, just as we do, that the millions spent\non elections by our masters to get their nominees returned; the money\nspent on agents to teach the workers the \u201cvirtues\u201d of capitalism\nand the \u201cvices\u201d of Socialism, signify much. They spent millions\nto prevent the workers getting the vote, and for forty years brutally\nilltreated, massacred and persecuted the Chartists fighting for mere\nmanhood suffrage. They evidently know its portent and its value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While\nSocialists are in the minority in Parliament they can but use its\nplatform to oppose capitalist villainy; to point the lesson of its\ndaily deeds; to examine the measures brought before them and show\ntheir failure and their fraud, and in the long run, by the continued\nwork and criticism of the revolutionists, and the growing number of\nthe Socialists they represent, they will doubtless witness the\npassing of measures intended to<\/p>\n\n\n\n CONTENT\nTHE TOILERS,<\/p>\n\n\n\n but\nany grains of good they may contain will be used but as a further\nfoothold in the fight for Socialism, the fight against all the\nenemies of the Red Flag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\nbelieve sufficient has been said in this article to show the firm,\nscientific attitude of the Socialists toward the fallacies and\ndangers of Anarchism. One by one their so called arguments have been\nexposed in the light of history and of science. In the area of theory\nas well as of practice their \u201ccase\u201d is seen to be Utopian and\nfutile. Their \u201cdirect action\u201d turns out to be direct reaction,\nfor to ignore the political machinery is to play the game of the\nruling class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nfinal plea of the Anarchists usually is that politicians always have\nsold out and always will sell, but this cannot apply to our movement,\nfor informed Socialist men and women are not material for the man\non-the make. But what is true is that on the economic field the\nbetrayals of the toilers have been frequent and many. From the\npioneer of the General Strike in France\u2014Aristide Briand\u2014to John\nMitchell and Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labour,\nthey illustrate the puerility of the Anarchist view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Have\nwe not in Britain a whole tribe of tricksters from the industrial\nfield ? What of Isaac Mitchell, David Cummings, Richard Bell, and\nDavid Shackleton? Trade union leaders all! And the Anarchist reliance\nupon an intelligent minority as against the Socialist policy of an\nenlightened whole will give these tricksters<\/p>\n\n\n\n MORE\nSCOPE THAN EVER.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\nappeal to the men and women of our class to take their place in the\nonly revolutionary party in this country\u2014the Socialist Party of\nGreat Britain. All around us are signs of the \u201cfret and fever\u201d of\nour fellows under the lash of capitalist oppression. Governments are\nmarshalling their forces for attacks upon our class. Surely here is\nthe need for a strong, revolutionary, disciplined movement inspired\nby the Socialist ideal to battle against the influence of false\nfriends and foul foes. Cease your fruitless wanderings in the desert\nof Anarchism ere your enthusiasm dies away. Guided by the beacon lit\nby Marx and Engels and the landmarks on the road travelled by our\nclass, enlist in the only Socialist Party and lift your voice and use\nyour pen to dispel the moonshine of the missionaries of capitalism\nand help to bring nearer the sunshine of Socialism\u2014the fruitfulness\nof the co-operative Commonweal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A.\nKOHN<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As PDF Foreword This is compiled from a series of three articles in the Socialist Standard by Adolph Kohn in August, October and November of 1911. Part 1 The Difference is Fundamental The evils of modern society stand out for all men to see, but the remedy is far less obvious. To arrive at the … <\/p>\nPart 1<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Difference is Fundamental <\/strong>\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\nThe\nevils of modern society stand out for all men to see, but the remedy\nis far less obvious. To arrive at the conclusion that Socialism is\nthe real remedy involves patient study and investigation of the\naffairs of modern life.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIts Fallacies and Dangers Exposed<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why Socialists Oppose Anarchism: Part 3<\/h3>\n\n\n\n