i].,, *e**g~ *C*e. *~*4* *.re* *, e~~) aee~.,~...... * * e I.;.a~o ooooo000 Qo o oo o o o oo:i 0 0 00000000 0. 0 0*@**@. 0~..* 0~.. 0:0: 0 0:0:g':Barret 0::00 00 TO.0: 0. 0.:0: 0:0: TO 0~0,4.0: 00000 0000 00 00 00 0.0 0 0 S0 0 0 *00 S0::0: A 1 THF ROAD- TO RIPREDOI F.O..Box 486. Mad. Sq. Sta. ftew York, N Y. ~I d a" 000 *0r 40. *a 4w 4mb "m 1w. 410 -sw fta 4". oft tow~i ~ r~rr c~~L "boom owdmbdw WAD oft.0m ~ Mw 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 9 4 0 '*;*** 6o ~.~ ~.~+~~~~ ~ ~ c~1 George Barrett 0 B J E C T I ON S to ANARCHI SM * Published by:. THE LIBERTARIAN GROUP 0: of Detroit, Mich.: * 0 0 * S * * e CC* C ~ S O C O ANARCHISM-The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made laws; the theory that all formg of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.-- Emma Goldman in the FUNK and WWAGNALL' S STANDARD DICTIONARY. PREFACE In these answoers to Objections, an instalment of his writings vhich are being posthumously published, Georgve Barrett produced a propagandist work of very great value to the cause of Anarchism, and one which we may be assured will occupy an important place in its literature. The form itself is fortunate: the method of deibate, the swift encomiter of wits in the antagonism of qiuestion and answer, is an advantaoe vivicl din ito effect, rousing in some degree even to the avathetic; and few with these exam-1es before them will lightly attempt to gainosay the extraordinary power, directness, and logic o1f Barrett in the field of controversy. The reader, friend and opponent alike, wdill be intereateJ to n-ote not only that each objection is fati~y and squarely met, but that out of a varietyT of possible answers only the line oiL argr-ument most vital to the issue is here put forward, briefly yet comprehensively, and witth all the mt-thematical rigour of demonstration- the author's mind required, We are left in no doubt as to where the weight of the answer lies, countuer it if we can. Barrett, however, is more than a clear and vogorous propagandist and disputant. His writings., while they t e a c h and uniquely emphasise the teaching,, are. unceasingly a vibrant call to thought, they promote thought. Argumentatively none can be more finely aatisfying, more conclusive than he. Neverthe-. less the thought somehow does not finally rest on that,, By its aid we free ourselvas possibly from a misapprehension -or a prejudice, in itself a notable experience, a means of growth, Yet, exceeding this achievement, on which alone he is intent, the tremendous energy of Barrett's thought imparts its thrill, its impulse; there appears even to be something causative in it; it is as though a vista opens rather than that a scene closes, and a new world swims into our ken, amazing in its pos.sibilities. We are stimulated not'only to think along the same lines but to think for ourselves creatively, as with quickened in.sight webegin to realise the solvent.greatness of the principle of Freedom from which we perceive his reasoning derives, and to what simplicity and harmony' of result it leads uo. He has come closer to the fact of things by the more than moral sincerity of his thought; and that high baeuty which Emerson says is ever proportionate to the 'depth of thought adds its influence to the message, so that the very expression which conveys the thought is liberative and inspiring.0 Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty; and in Barrett mathematician and poet unite to establish the maxim. Skilled engineer, born journalist to whom the columns of the best technical journalsin Englan& were always open, practical designer, mathematician familiar with the deepest intricacies of the Calculup, he was yet-poet, orator, dreamoer (one supposes)-and Anarchist. And his finest integration, the important thing he would have us understand in all its bearings, that "one thought, one grace, one wonder at the leas't" which it is his virtue to have envisaged and inspirEd,, is the practicalit1y, the sufficiency, the splendour, and the entire reasonableness of Liberty. W. Wilson. Glasgow. INTRODUCTION. A few years of rough and tumble of propaganda in the Anarchist movement leaves a stuange impression of crowds on the speaker's mind. His answers to questions and opposition form much the most satisfactory part of his work after he has sufficient experience to be able to deal with them adequately, and it is just from them he gets to understand his crowd. One of the strangest things that experience at such work reveals is the similarity of the crowd's mind (if one may use such an expression) wherever it may be found. Let the speaker choose his pitch in the middle of London, or let him go to the strange mining villages north of the Forth, and in both cases he will get the same questions in almost the same words. If he is able to understand his crowd, he will find it suffering from the same difficulties, and making the same weary and half-hearted struggle to break the bonds of the old superstitions that still bind it. It is passing strange that amid the theatres, the picture galleries, and museums of London--so suggestive of the fulness and richness of life; among the great engineering works and structures of Manchester and the Clyde, which speak so eloquently of the power man has of producing wealth; in the midst of the fruitful valleys of England, or among the vast Scotch mountains--it matters not where-- there is the same lack of vision, the same sad, kind-hearted men willing to hear the new gospel, but alas! the same despair. This hopelessness on the facesof men who are allpowerful is thk moot exasperating and the m o s t tragic thing in all human existence. -4 - "Your strength lies no nearer and no further off than your own limbs. The world grows rich by your strength, no more surely than you grow poor by the same power. It were easier for you to make yourselves great than to make others so while you bring misery on yourselves." Such is the message of the revolutionist, and the mute answer might be expressed in the tragic words of Goethe:-- "Hush! Leave us where we are, resigned, Wake not ambitions longings in the mind, Born of the night, akin with night alone, Scarce to ourselves, and to none others ( lknowno." But I write so far of crowds, and crowds after all do not count. He who speaks merely to his crowd will become an orator, a success, and probably a Member of Parliament; but he who sees in each face confronting him a potential individual will have an experience as dear to him as it is painful. He will never grow to the size of an M. P. He will not set out to teach the ignorant people, for they will teach him. Above all, he will not sacrifice his pleasure for the movement, for in it he will find all the meaning of his life, and with the unshakeable confidence of the great Titan he will say: "I know but this, that it must come." But I fear I grow too sensible, and must apologise to my reader for thus wasting his time. The questiorswhich I have set myself to answer are not arranged to give an exhibition of skill in dealing with them. Everyone of them is an old friend. They have turned up persistently and cheerfully in all sorts of halls, and at any street corner. Be they crushed with the greatest severit, they, boldly and serenely, come tumbling up to the platform on the very.next occasion, until one comes to know them, and to love them for their very stupidity-for there is no denying that some of them are stupid in the extreme. It is strange indeed to wonder how some of these questions have been born; who originated them, and why they have become so widespread. Thus, for example, No. 2 (which implies that the House of Commons can be used to obtain our ends because it has been successfully used by the capitalists to obtain theirs) is a question as common as any, and is, as its nature implies, usually put by a Parlamentary Socialist. Now, is it not a strange problem whence this question can have come, and why it should be so persistent? It is surely certain that the man who originated it must have had intelligence enough to see that the thing is absurd on the face of it. I am perfectly sure that the men who generally ask it would be quite capable of thinking out the answer to it if they devoted two minutes to the attempt. Yet that question has been created by someone, and either re-created or repeated endlessly throughout the whole country. It forms a good example of the blindness with which people fight for their political party. This party blindness and deafness (a pity it were not dumbness also) is one of the greatest difficulties to be overcome. Against it our weapons are useless. Let our arguments be of the boldest or most subtle type, they can make no headway against him whose faith is in his party. This is indeed a subject fit for the introduction to not merely a little pamphlet, but to the whole world's literature, for it is diffi.cult to realise how many books are sealed, how many libraries ar3 oloted to that great crowd who remain loyal to their party, -6 - and consequently regardless of the truth. If it is necessary to take an example we may always find one near at hand. The Socialist politicians are as good as any. For years their energies have been expended in advocating State control and guardianship in all things. To-day we have Old-Age Pensions, Insurance Acts, and Mr. Lloyd George's p 1 a n for "Socialisation," as he terms it, J. i.., Government control of the munition works, and some prospect of compulsory military service; but though these things work towards the universal State, the average party Socialist quarrels with them all-and why? They are not perfect from his point of view, it may be admitted; but who can deny that they are steps in the direction he has been advocating? Why then does he not hail th e m with delight? They have not been introduced by his party. For such men the arguments in this little Jbook are not written. They lie under a heavy curse, which no wit of mine can lessen. Their lives in their own small way are like that of Ibsen's Emperor Julian, and with him, on the eve of battle, they c r y with their petty voices: "I must call upon something without and above me... I will sacrifice to this god and to that. I will sacrifice to many. One or the other must surely hear me." Our advanced men have ceased to pray and sacrifice to the gods in the hour of need, but still at every little difficulty they feel the necessity of some power outside themselves. Almost every objection given here is prompted by this modern form of superstition, and almost every answer may be put in the words of the philosopher Maximus, who tries in vain to stimulate self-reliance in his friend Julian: "To what gods, oh fool? Where are they... and what are they?... I believe in ym." No. 1*----&WHAT WIlL YOU 1)0 WITH THEE MAN WO rWILL NOT WORK? First of all, let us notice that this question belongs to a class to which many others belong. All social theories m u 8 t obviously be based on the assumption that men are social: that is, that they will live and work together naturally, because by so-doing they can individually better enjoy their lives. Therefore all such difficulties, which are really based, on the supposition that men are not social, can be raised not against Anarchism alone, but against any system of society that one chooses to suggest, Questions 11, 12, 13 and 15 belong to this class, which are merely based on suppoo. sition. *My opponents will realise how futile they are if I use a similar kind of argument against their system of government. Suppose, I argue, that having sent your representa-ttives into the House of Commons they will not sit down and legislate, but that they will just play the fool, or, perhaps, vote themwselves comfortable incomes, instead of looking after your welfare. It will be answered to this that they are sent there to legislate, and that in all human probability they will do so. Quite so; but we may still say "Yes, but s u p p o s e they don't?" and whatever arguments are brought forward in favour of government they can-*always, by s i mn p 1 y sRuppoins, be. rendered quite useless, since those w*ho oppose us would never be able to actually guarantee that our governors would govern. Such an argument would be absurd, it is quite true; for though it may happen that occasionally legislators will sit down and vote themselves incomes instead of attending to the affairs of the nation, yet we could not use this as a logical argument against the government system. Similarly, when we are putting forward our ideas of free co-operation or Anarchism, it iasnotrigeod enough to argue, "Yes, but suppose your co-operators will not.co-operate?' for that is what questions of this cla ss amount to. It is because we claim to be able to show that it is wrong in principle that we, as Anarchists, are against government. In the same way, then, those who oppose Anarchism ought not to do so by simply supposing that a man will do this, or won't do that, but they ought to set themselves to show that Anarchism is in principle opposed to the welfare of mankind. The second interesting point to notice about the question is that it is generally asked by a Socialist. Behind the question there is obviously the implication that he who asks it has in his. mind some way of forcing men to wokc. Now the most obvious of all those who will not work is the man who is on strike, and if you have a method of dealing with the man who will not work it simply means that you are going to organise a system of society where the government will be so. all-powerful that the rebel and the striker will be completely crushed out. You will have a government class dictating to a working class the conditions under which it must labour, which is exactly what both Anarchists and Socialists are supposed to be struggling against to-day. In a free society the man who will not work, if he should exist at all, is at least brought on equal terms with the man who will. He is not placed in a position of privilege so that he need not work, but on the contrary -9 - that argument ' which is so often used against Anarchism comes very neatly into play here in its- favour. It is often urged that it is necessary to organise in order to live, Quite so, and for this reason the struggle for life compels us to organise, and there in no need for any further compulsion on the part of tha government. Since to organise in society is really to work in society, it is the law of life which constantly tends to make men work, whilst it is the artificial laws of privilege which put men in such a position that they need not work. Anarchism would do away with these artificial laws, and thus it is the only system whfnich constantly tends to eliminate the man who will not work. We might perhaps here quote John Stuart Mill's answer to this objection:--~ "The objection ordinarily made to a system of co7mmunity of property and equal distribution of produce-'that each person would be incessantly occupied in evading hb s share of the workl'-*is, I think, in general, considerably overstated... Neither in a rule nor in a civilized society has the supposed difficulty been experienced. In no community has idleness ever been a cause of failure." -.-J.S.MlvIll. ("Political Economy," Vol. I., p.251.) No,. 2.-THE House of Commons AND THE Law HAVE BREN USEiD1 BY THE PR1SENT DOMINANT CLASS TO GAIN --THiIR EN1DS; WHY CANNOT THEY BE USPED BY US TO GAIN OU~RS? This question is based upon an extraor. dinary misunderstanding. It seems to be taken for granted that Capitalism and the workers' movement both have the same end in view. If this were so, they might perhaps use the same *~140 - means; but: as the capitalist is out to perfect his system of exploitation and government, whilst the worker is out for emancipation and liberty, naturally the same means cannot be employed for both purposes. This surely answers the question sufficiently so far as it is a definite question. In so far, however, as it contains the vague suggestion that government is the agent of reform, progress, and revolution, it touches the very point upon which Anarchists differ from all political parties. It is worth while, then, to examine the suggestion a little more closely. It is thought by the enthusiastic politicians that once they can capture government, then from their position of power they would be able very quickly to mould society into the desired shape. Pass ideal laws, they think, and the ideal society would be the result. How simple, is it not? We should thus get the Revolution on the terms promised us by the wonderful Blatchford--"without bloodshed, and without losing a day's work." But, alas! the short cut to the Golden Age is an illusion. In the first place, any form of society shaped by law is not ideal. In the second place, law cannot shape society; indeed, rather the reverse is true. It is this second point which is all-important. Those who understand the forces behind progress will see the law limping along in the rear, and never succeeding in keeping up with the progress made by the people; always, in fact, resisting any advance, always trying to start reaction, but in the long run always having to give way and allow more and more liberty. Even the champions of government recognise this when they want to make a drastic change, and then they throw aside the pretence of the law and turn to revolutionary methods. The present ruling class, who are supposed to be a living proof that the Government can do anything, are in them-11 - selves quite candid in the akrnissio that it can do very little. Whoever will stucid. thoAir rise to power will find that to fret tihero they preach in theory, and establicsh in '1 t, the principle of resistance to the lawe. v 1- 1d1, curious as it may seem, it ýs a fact thnat iimmediately after the Revolution, it t~e!La,-.) P2e3.hrc& seditious to preach agrainst.oisttmco to law, just as to-day it i8 seditiotL;s to speOak in favour of it. To sum up, than, if there v-i any logic in the question, which there is not,?e m"it t restate it thus: "Since the prc.sent dominant class wmere unable to gainl their enr'.s by ase of the Houise of Commons and thv -a, why should we hope to gain ours by th.hem?" No. 3.-ALL CHAN(x IS SLJO'*j BY i1-volauti-on, AID NOT 3UDP"IMI1' AS THE Anarchists WfISH TO. MA1i2 IT B3Y Rr)volution. It is quite true that every greaat change is slowly prepared by a process of evolution almost imperceptible. Sometimes changes are carried right through from becinning oto end by this slow process, but on the other hand it is quite quite clear that very often evolution leads slowrly up to a clima3 and then there is a sudden change in the condition of things. T h i s is so obvious that it seems scarcely worth while to elaborate the point. Almost anywhere in Nature we can see the double process: the plant which slowly, very slowly, ripenes its germs of new life, quite suddenly exposes these to new conditions, a'nd when they enter these new conditions they slowly begin to change again. An almost laughably good example-of this, amongst Amany others, is furnished by a little fungus called the 122: bolus. This, which very slowly and innocently ripens its spores like any other ordinary 1 ~2 -w little- plant, will, when the moment comes suddenly shoot out a jet of water in.which the spores are carried, and which it throws to a distance of sometimes as much as three feet, although the plant itself is very-small. Now it is perfectly true that in this 'ease the necessary pressure is 'slowly evolved; it has taken 1 o n g for allthe conditions to imperceptibly ripen, and. as the 'pressure has increased the cell wall has been giving way. There comes a time, however,, when that wall can stretch no further-and then it has suddenly burst asunder, and the new germs of life have been throwni violently into their new conditions-, and according to these new conditions so do they develop. So is it with the conditions of society. There is always amongst the people the spirit of freedom slowly developing, and tyranny is slowly receding, or stepping back to make room for this development. But there comes a time when the;!overi-rnental or tyrannical part has not enough elasticity to stretch so far as the. pressure of Liberty,..developing within., wouldm iake. it. Wfhen this point is reached the pressure of the new development bursts the bonds that bind it, and a revolution takes place. In-the actual case in point the change proposed is so radical that it would meean.the ent~ire extinction of the governmental element in so.ciety. It is certain, then, that it will not gently.stretch itself to this pointt, eapecially as it. shows us on every possible occasion that it 'is, ready to use violence in its most brutal fo-4fts,. Por this reason most Anarchists belie-ve that the change will be sudden, and therefore we use the t e rm "revolution,. " recognising that it does n ot replace the.term "tevolution," but accompanies it.:1a3 - No. 4.--IT- IS NEC3SSARY TO ORiGANI, INrPRI)Bii TO 3LIVEu, AND TO OIRGANPSiS 103ErANS Governmcat; TIE IOR E Anarchism IS3ILI205331271. It is true that it is necessar; to orrlaznise in order to live, and rcince w..ll wish to live we shall a 1 1 of our oxm_ fr: e will organise, and do not neek. Ct.1 coJ-1.-~ In of government to make us do so. rgrnisation doce not mean government, All t)!ro u{hour ordinary daily work we are orianising without goverflmffnt. If two of us lift a tablpe from one sido. of the room to the other, we natUrally take hold ono at each end, and wr' need no Government to tell us that we must not overbsl-l.-znce it by both rushing to tlhe same end; the revson why we agree si-lently, and organtise ourselv'rs to the correct pos-Litions, is because wze both have a common purpose: we. both wish to see the table moved.. In more corrmplex orge:1ations the samne thing takes place. So lone as organisations are held together only by a common purpose they will automatically do their work smoothly. But when, ini s ite of conflicting interests, you have people held together in a common organisation, internal conflict results, and some outside force becomes necessary to preserve order; you have, in factgovernxental society. It is the Anarchist's purpose to so organise society that the conflict of interests will cease, and men will co-operate and work together simply because they have interests in common. In such a society the organisations or institutions which they will formzn will be exactly in accordance -with their needs; in fact, it will be a representative society. Free organisation is more fully discussed~in answer to Questions 5 and 23. -1l4 - No.6 5.-HIOW WOULD YOU RE~cGULATE THE TRAFFIC? We should not regulate it. It would be oaft to those whose business it was to concern.,hneselves in the matter. It would pay those iho used the roads (and therefore had, in the.a:nt, interests in common in the matter) to bome together and discuss and make agreements,s to the rules of the road. Such rules in fact which at present exist have been estaolished by custom and not by law, though the law may sometimes take it on itself to enforce them. This question we see very practicallyr anblwered to-day by the great motor clubs, which are entered voluntarily and which study the interest of.this portion of the traffic. At dangerous or busy corners a sentry is stationed who with a wave of the hand signals if the coastis clear, or if it is necessary to co slowly, irst-aid boxes and repair shops are established all along the road., and arrangementa are. m a d e for conveying home motorists whose cars are broken down* A very different section of road users, the carters, have found an equally practical answer to the question. There are, aven today, all k i n d s of understandings and agreements amongst these men as to which goes first, and as to the position they shall each take up in the yards and buildings where they work. Amongst the cabmen and taxi-drivers the same written and unwritten agreements exist, which are as rigidly maintained by free understandings as they would be by the penalties of law. Suppose now the influence of government were withdrawn from our drivers. Does anyone believe that the result would be chaos? Is it not infinitely m o r e likely that the free -15~ agreements at present existing would extend to cover the whole necessary field? And those few useful duties now undertaken by the Government in the matter: would they not be much more effectively carried out by f r e e organisation among the drivers? This question has been much more fully answered by Kropotkin in "The Conquest of Bread." In this he shows how on the canals in Holland the traffic (so vital to the life of that nation) is controlled by free agreements, to the perfect satisfaction of all concerned. The railways of Europe, he points out, also, are brought into co-operation with one another and thus welded into one system, not by a cetralised administration, but by agreements and counter-agreements between the various companies. If free agreement is able to do so much even now, in a system of competition and government, how much more could it do when competition disappears, and when we trust to our own organisation instead of to that of a paternal government. No. 6.-IF A MAN WILL NOT VOTE FOR THE Revolution, HOW CAN YOU Anarchists EXPECT HIM TO COME OUT AND FIGHT FOR IT? This question is very often asked, and that is the only excuse for answering it. For my part, I find it generally enough to suggest to the questioner that though I find it very difficult to imagine myself voting for him, I do not find it half so unlikely that I might shoot him. Really the objection entirely begs the question. Our argument is that to vote for a labour leader to have a seat in Parliament -16 - is,,qV: to vote for the Revolution, And it is br-cýaruse the people.instirtively know that they will not get Liberty by such means that the parliamentarians are unable to awaken any.".nthusiasm. No, 7.,-- I? YOU ABOLISH COMPE-liTITION YOU ABOLISHI THE INCi.NTIVE TO WORK. One of the strangest things about society to-dab is that whilst we show a wonderful power to produce abundant wealth and luxury, we fail to bring forth the sirfplest necessities. Everyone, no matter what his political, religious or social opinions may be, will agree in this. It is too o b v i o u s to be disputed. On the one hand there are children -without boots; on the other hand are the boot-vmakers crying out that they cannot sell their stock. On the one hand there are people starving or living upon unwholesome food, and on the other hand merchants complain of bad trade, Flere are homeless men and women sleeping on the pavements a n d wandering nightly through our great cities, and here again are the property-owners complaining that no one will come and 1 i v e in their housea. And in all these cases production is held up because there in no demand. Is not this an.intolerable state of affairs? What now shall we say about the inventive to work? Is it not obvious that the present incentive is. wrong- and mischievous up to the point of starvation and ruination. That which induces us to produce silks and diamonds and dreadnoughts and toy pomeranians, whilst bread and boots and houses are needed, is, wholly and absolutely wrong. Towday the scramble is to compoete for the. greatest profits. If there is more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's passing 47L' ;whim than there.ia in feeding*hungry children, then competition brings us in fcvcrii'h haste to supply.the former, -whilst cold ch'l-ity or the poor law caan su-aply -th ie ltte'r, oI lave it unsu-ppie4, just as it fee~ls 'iapo- ed. That is how it wvorks out. Thai is the reason: the prooucdr au c i the cofns-umer are the two essentials; a constant fldw of w *ealth- passes from oiae to the 'other, but between them stands the profit-maker and his competition system, and he iac ablo to 'divert -that stream into i'what channel best pleases him. Sweep hIim away and the producer and t;li.e consumerare. brought into direct relitionship w*,ith one an-other. When he and his com-otitivo e.s-ystemi i are gone there will still remain the'- only- usiehl incentivo to work,, and that will. be the.needs of the:eople. The neod for the.-conmoi n, tco.s` sities, and t he h1igrhe st 1luxuvrie' -1' of-life w1Xill b e not only f undamfental1 as it i' to*c!ay, but the direct yrnotive towver behind- all,rncrilction and distribution. It is obvious, I tfhinik, that-this is the ideal to. 'animod'at, fdr it is only. in such circumstances that ''pro duct-ion and distribution will -be carried onfar 'its %legitimate purpose-to satisfy the o'neas of the people; and. for no other reason.--. No. 8.---Socialism OR Sobial. Democracy MUST COIL," FIRST; THEITJN WFn MAY GB? Anarchism. FIRST,, THEN,,"WORK POR Social Democracy. (1) This is one of those: oft-repeated statemonts which apparently have no argiument or meaning behind them. The modern Socialist, or at least the Zocial Democrats, have steadily worked for -centralisation, and complete and (1) The Pseud-Communists objecting too that Bolshevism must cozme first and then we may get Anarchism, the author's answer holds good for them &Lso-.*W ' -18-~ perfect organisation and control by those in authority above the people. The Anarchist, on the other hand, believes i*n the abolition of that central power, and expects the free society to grow into existence from below, starting with those organisations and free areements among `the people themselves. It is difficult to soe how, by making a central nower control everything, we can be making a stop towards the abolition of that power. No. 9.* U'D2 Anarchism T1ThS COJTITTRY WOULD BE INVADTEI) IBY A FORMIGN }NEMYe At present the country is held by that wnrlhich we consider to be an ane-nV-the landlord and capitalist class. If we are able to free oulcsolves from this, which is well established and at home on the land, surely we should be able to make shift. against a foreign invading force of men, who are fighting, not for their own country, but for their weekly wage. It must be remembered, too, that Anarchism is an international movement, and if we do establish a revolution in this country, in other co~untries the people would have become at least sufficiently rebellious for their master class to consider it advisable to keep their armies at home. Nol, 1O,-W AEID AME ALLDETENDINT UPON ONE ANOTHE3R, AND CAITIMOT LIVE ISOLATED LIVE8. ABSOLUTE PREEDOM, TH4RnFORME IS IMPOSSIBLE. Enbugh has been said already to show that we. do not believe people would live isolated lives in a free society. To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such:1.9 - agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. lf we are going to invent a dogma thatto make agreements is to damage freedom, then at o n c e freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordiznary everyday pleasures. For exam~ple, I cannot Po for a wallk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meat him..Icannot in the least extend my own powrer Qeyond myself, because to do so I must co-operUte with someone el1se ana co-operation implies an agreemIent, and that is arfjnst Tiberty. It w-ill e seen at once that this ar;-qumeflt is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but si-iayly exercise it. when I agree with my friend to Fco for a walk. If, on the other hand, I decide from my supe rior 10orledg that it is good for my friend to taire exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freecan. This is the difference between free agreement and government. No. 1le-IT TWO PEOPLE WANT THE S.AM2E PIECE OF * LEND IJDER Anarchism, HOW WILL YOU SETTLE THE' DISPUTE? First of all, it is well to notice here that Questions 11, 12, and 13 all belong to the same class. No. 11, at least,. is based upon a fallacy. If tQhre are two persons who want the exclusive right to the same thing, itis quite obvious that there is no satisfactory solution to the problem., It does not matter in the least what system of society you suggest, you cannot possibly satisfy that position. It is exactly as if I were auggest-.20. ing a new system of mathematics, and someone asked me: "Yes, but under this new system suppose you want to make ten go into one hundred eleten times?" The truth is that if you do a problem by arithmetic, or if you do it by algebra, or trigonometry, or by any other method, the same answer must be produced for the given problem; and just as you sannot make ten go into one hundred more than ten times, so you cannot make more than one person have the exclusive right to one thing. It two people want it, then at least one must remain in want, whatever may be the form of society in which they are living. Therefore, to begin with:, we see that there cannot be a satisfactory way of settling this trouble, for the objection has been raised by simply supposing an unsatisfactory state of affairs. All that we can say is that such disputes are very much better settled without the interference of authority. If the two were reasonable, they would probably mutually agree to allow their dispute to be settled by some mutual friend whose judgement they could trust. But if instead of taking this sane course they decide to set up a fixed authority, disaster will be the inevitable result. In the first place, this authority will have to be given power wherewith to enforce its judgment in such matters. What will then take place? The answer is quite simple. Feeling it is a superior force, it will naturally in each case take to tself the best of what is disputed, and allot the rest to its friends. What a strange question is this. It supposes that two people who meet on terms of equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just. But, on the other hand, it supposes that a third party, starting with an unfair advantage, and backed up by violence, will be the incarnationof justice itself. Commonsense -21 - biiutuA cer-E3ainly warn us againel such a supposition, and i~f we are lacking in this commodity, then we may learn the lesson by turning to the facts of life. There we see everywhere Authority standing by, and in the name of justice and fair play using its organised violence in order.to take the lion's share of the worl's wrealth for the governmental C'la-M. * We can only say, then, in answer to such.a question, that if people are going to be quarrelsome and constantly disagree, then, of course, no state of society will suit them, for they are unsocial animals,. If they are only occasionally so, then each case must stand on its merits and be settled by those concerned. No. l2.-SUPOSE ONE DISTRICT WANTS TO CONSTRUCT A RAILWAY TO PASS THROUGH A NEJG-HBOURIN(G COMMUNT1TITY, 9f41CH OPPOSES IT*. HOW WO'T'D )YOU SETTLE THIS? It is curious that this question is not only asked by those who support the present systesm, but it is also frequently put by the Socialists. Yet surely it implies at once the a gressive spirit of Capitalism, fori not the capitalist who talks of opening up the various countries of the world, and does he notdo this in the very first instance by having a war in order that he may run his ra.lways through, in spite of the local Qppo!ition by the natives? Now, if you have a Counixtry in which there are various communes, it stanids to reason that the people in those ocomlnimous will want facilities for travolling, and for receiving and sending their goods. That will not be much more trite of one little ooilmziity than of another. This, then, not -y,r-iies a local railwvay, but a continuous raiuu~y running from one end of the country -22 - to ine other. If:ertain district, then, is going to object to have such a valuable asset given to it, it will surely be that there is some reason for such an objection. That being so, would it not be folly to have. an authority to f orc e that community to submit to the railway passing through? If this reason does not exist, we are simply supposing a society of unreasonable people and asking how they should co-operate together. The truth is that they could not co-operate together, and it is quite useless to look for any.state of society which will suit such a people. The objection, therefore, need not be raised against Anarchism, but against society itself. What would a government society propose to do? Would it start a civil war over the matter?. Would it build a prison large enough to enclose this community, and imprison all the people for resisting the law? In fact, what power has any authority to deal with the matter which the Anarchists have not got? The question is childish. It is simply based on the supposition that people are unreasonable, and if such suppositions are allowed to pass as arguments, then any proposed state of society may be easily argued out of existence. I must repeat that many of these questions are of this type, and a reader with a due sense of logic will be able to see how worthless they are, and will not need to read the particular answers I have given to them. No. 13.-SUPOSE YOUR FREE PEOPLE WANT TO.BUILD A BRIDGE ACROSS A RIVER, BUT THEY DIS"AGREE AS TO POSITION. HOW WILL YOU SiETTE EIT? To begin with, it is obvious, but im. pr -23 - zant, to notice that it is not j, but they,,w'Lo- would settle it. The way it would work "IUt, I imagine, is something like thi s:We will call the tw'o groups who differ A -1 3. T h e hen-- (1) A.-may be of opinion that the B. scheme would be utterly useless to it, and that the only possible prosition for the bridge is where it has suggested. In which case it will say: "Hel- our scheme, or don't co-operate at all. (2) A. may be of opinion that the B. scheme is useless, but, recognising the value of B.'s help, 'it may be willing to budge a few yards, a n d so effect a compromise with B. (3) A., Linding it can get no help from B. unless it gives way altogethermay do so, believing that the help thus obstairedis worth ir..ore than the sacrifice of position. These are, I think, the three courses open to A. The s a m e three are open to B. I will leave it to the reader to combine the two, and I think 'he will find the result will be 3.1tther(1) T h a t the bridge is built in the A. position, with, we will say, the halfhearted support of B.; or (2) The same thing, but with letters A. and B. reversed; or (3) The bridge is built -omewhere between, with the partial suppoit of both parties; or '(4) Each party pursues its own course, independent of the other. In any case it will be seen, I hope, that the final structure will be reoresentative,.n~d that, on the other hand, if one party was tible to force the other to pay for what it did riot want, the r e 8 u 1 t would not be 'representative or just. -24 - The usefulness of this somewhat dreary argument will be seen if it be applied not merely to bridge-building but to all the activities of life. By so doing we are able to imagine growing into existence a state of society where groups of people work together so far as they agree, and work separately when t h e y do not. The institutions they construct will be in accord with their wishes and needs. It will indeed be representative. How different is this from the politician's view of things, who always wants to force the people to co-operate in running his idea of society! No. 14.-WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THE CRIMINAL? There is an important question which should come b e f o r e this, but which our opponents never seem to care to ask. First of all, we have to decide who are the criminals, or rather, even before this, we have to come to an understanding as to who is to decide who are the criminals? To-day the rich man says to the poor man: "If we were not here as your guardians you would be beset by robbers who would take away from you all your possessions." But the rich man has all the wealth and luxury that the poor man has produced, and whilst he claims to have protected the people from robbery he has secured for himself the lion's share in the name of the law. Surely then it becomes a question for the poor man which he has occasion to dread more -the robber, who is very unlikely to take anything from him, or the law, which allows the rich man to take all the best of that which is manufactured. To the majority of people the criminals in society are not to be very much dreaded even to-day, for they are for the most part -25 - Deopige who are at war with those who ox.-.o the [lanid and h-ave captured all the means of life. In a free society, where no such owncership e-x.isted, and wrhere all t'hat is necessary couIl'd be obtained by all that have any1l need, the,crim;inal will always tend to die out. To-d.a--%yf under our present system, he is altvrays t.endinc to become more niunerous. No. 15.-IT IS IýE(hiSSARY FOR C"rRPY G-RET TOV MT A DFUIN-AGE R_:i-1-'1UF~3~TSES TO0 HA 1A71I-(-1.$UP3 44TLP32U3.TO COH2CT UP, iVWHAT IOUiOiD YOU DO WITH HIM? This objection9is a n o t h e r of the "SUjp-ooit-Atio.n class, all of whichl have really been auswered in dealing. with question 1.o. 1. Itis base;d on the unsocial man, wheioreas all systems of society m u s t be organised for social o1o a. The truth, of course, is that in a free society the experts on sanitation would get together and organise our drainage system, and the people who -lived in the district xrrould be only too glad to find these convenient arrangements made for them. But still it is nossible to suppose that somebody will not agree to this; what then will you do with him? What do our Government friends suglge et? The only thing that they can do which in our Anarchist society we would not do, is to put him in prison, for we can uee all the arguments to persuade him that they can. How much would the town gain by doing this? Here is a description of an up-to-date prison cell -into which he might be tbrown: "I slept in one of the ordinary cells, which have sliding panes,. leaving at the best two openingls about six inches square. The windows are set in the wall high up, and are 3 by 1 1/2 or 2 feet area. Added to this they are very, dirty, so that the light o-2 6 "M in the cell is always dim. After the prisormr has been locked in the.cell all n i g h t the air is unbearable, -and its unhnealthiness i increasod by-damp.2' "The 'convenience' su-p lied in the cell is totally inadequatetarid even if it be of.a proper size and does rot leak, the fact that it remains unenmptied from evening till mo rning is, in cr-se of illness especial)y, very insanitary and dangerous to health. 'Tavatory time' is permited onlyat a fixed hour twice a day, only one water-closet owing provided for twenty-three cells." (1) Thus we see that whilst we are going to guarantee this man being'cleanly by means of vi olence, vwe have no guarantee that the. very violence itself which wee use w i 1 1. not be filthy. But there is1 another way of looking at this quceNtion. Mr.. Charlos Maylf M.B. of New eallege, Oxford, after an outbreak of typhoid fever, was asked to examine the- drainage of Winiidsor; he state-d that~-O "In a previous visitation of typhoid rfever the poorest and lowe-st-."parts.-of the town had entirely escaped-, whilst the e idemic had been very fatal. in good hoes.us The d ifference was that, whilst the better houses were all-connected with sewers, the poor part of the town had no drains, but made use of cesspools in the gardens. And this is by no means an-isolated instance." - it would not.be out of place to quote Herbert Spencer here:"One part of our Sanitary Administration having insisted upon a drainage sydtem by which Oxford, Reading, Maidenhead,~-, Windsor. etc., pollute the water which Lond'oners (lP)"Women Prisons," Fabian Tract Noa. 16. -27-. I -- r - have to drink, ano i;er part. of our Sanitary Administration makres loud protests against the impurity of wvater _nrWhich he charges- with causing diseases-not remarking-, hoever, t h a t law-enforced arrangc.inmtS h a ve produced the impurity." We begin to see therefore that the man who objectedto comnctic hio, house with the drains would probably bo a man who is interested in the subjcct, and Who knwow;s somo tthingP about oanittivon. itvwold. be of the utimost importance that l h. sou-ld. blistened to and his objections i'reliovea, i lstc:ad of shutting him up in an uSheol y prison.. PPh. fact is, the rebel is hero just as iimpiortant as he is in other matters, and hie, can only profitably be eliminated by givingrf him satisfaction, not by trying to crush him out. As the man of the drains has only been taken as an extamrle by onr objector, it would be interesting-ý here to euote a'- simi3Al xcase where the recrulttions for stamping out caztle diseases were obj!cted. to b1 someone who was impoorting cattle, In a letter to the Times, signed "Landowner," dated 2nd August, 1872, the writertells how be bougrht "ten fine young steers, perfectly. free from any symptom of disease, and passed sound by the inspector of foreign stock." Soon after their arrival in England they were attacked by foot and mouth disease. On inquiry he found that foreign stock, however healthy, "mostly all go down with it after the passage." The Government regulations for stamping out this disease were that-the stock should be driven from the steamer into the pens for a limited. number of hours. There seems therefore very' ittle doubt that it was in this quarantine that the healthy animals contracted the disease and spread it among the English cattle. "Eve ry new drove of cattle is kept for hours in an -28 - infected pen. Unless the successive diroves have been all healthy (which the very instit-ktton of the quarantine implies that they have not been) some of them have left in the Apen diosease matter from their mouths and feet. Eiven if disinfectants are used after each occupation, the r i s k is great-the disinfectant is almost certain to be inadequate. Nay, even if the pen is adequately disinfected every time, yet if there is not also a complete disinfection of the landing appliances, the landing-stage and. the trackto the pen, the disease will be communicated... The quarantine regulations...might nroperly be c a 1 1 e d 'regulations for the better diffusion of cattle diseases.'" Would our objector to Anarchism suggest that the man who refuses to put his cattle in these pens should be sent to prison? No. 16. -EVEN IFii YOU COULD OVijRTHROVI THE Goveriunent TO-MORROW AND) 3TABILI"SH An,Anrchism, THIE SAMI3 SYSTEM WOULD SOON GROW UP AGAIN. This objection is quite true, except that we do not propose to overthrow the Government to-morrow. If I (or we as a group of Anarchists came to the conclusion that I was to be the liberator of humanity, and if by some means I could manage to blow up the King, the Houses of Lords and Commons, the police force, and, in a word, all persons and institutions which make up the Government-if I were successful in all this, and expected to see the people enjoying freedom ever afterwards as a result, then, no doubt, I should find myself greatly mistaken. The chief results of my action would be to arouse an immense indignation on the part of the ma j o-r it y of the people, and a re-organisation by them of all the forces of -29 - =.;. government. The reason why this method would fail is very easy to understand. It is because the strength of the Government restsnot with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool, and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves. Suppose, however, t h a t the people develop, and become strong in their love of liberty, and self-reliant, then the foremost of its rebels will overthrow tyranny, and backed by the general sentiment of their age their action will never be undone. Tyranny will never be raised from the dead. A landmark in the proress of humanity will have been passed and put behind for ever. So the Anarchist rebel when he strikes his blow at Governmentb understands that he is no liberator with a divine mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards towards liberty. If, then, by some external means an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and thrust up o n the people, it is true that they would reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the other hand, the people develop their ideas of freedom, and then themselves get rid of the last stronghold of tyranny--the Government-- then indeed the Revolution will be permanantly accomplished. -30 - No. 17.--IF YOU ABOLISH GOVERNMhLUNT, WHAT WILL YOU PUT IN ITS PLACE? This seems to an Anarchist very much as if a patient asked the doctor, "If you take away my illness, what will you give me in its Dlace?" The Anarchist's argument is that government fulfils no useful purpose. Most of what it does is mischievous, and the rest could be done better without its interference. It is the headquarters of the profit-maker., the rent-takers,and of all those who take from but who do not giveto society. When this cass is abolished by the people so organising themselves that they will run the factoriea and use the land for the benefit.of their free communities, i.e.., for their own benefit, then the Government must also be swept away, since its purpose will be gone. The only thing then that will be put in the place of government will be the free organisations of the workers. When Tyranny is abolished Liberty remains, just as when disease is eradicated health remains. No. 18.--WE CANNOT ALL AGREE AND THINK ALIKE AND BE PERFECT, AND THEREFORE LAWS ARE NECESSARY, OR WE SHALL HAVE CHAOS. It is because we cannot all agree that Anarchism becomes necessary. If we all thought alike it would not matter in the least if we had one common law to which we must all submit. But as many of us think differently, it becomes absurd to try to force us to act the same by means of the Government which we are silly enough to call representative. A very important point is touched upon here. It.is because Anarchists recognise the absolute necessity of allowing for t h i s difference among men that they are Anarchists. -31 - The truth is that. all progress is accompanied by a process of differentiation, orofthe increasing difference of parts. If we take the most primitive organism we can find it is simply a tiny globule of plasm, that is, of living substance. It is entirely undifferentiated: that is to say, all its parts- are alike. An organism next above this in the evolutionary scale will be found to have developed a nucleus. And now the tiny living thing is composed of two distinctly different parts, the cell-body and its nucleus. If we went on comparing various organisms we should find that all those of a more complex nature were made up of clusters of these tiny organism s or cells. In the most primitive of these clusters there would be very little difference between one cell and another. As we get a little higher we find that certain cells in the clusters h a v e taken upon themselves certain duties, and for this. purpose have arranged themselves in special-ways. By and by, when we get to the higher animals, we shall find that this process has advanced so far that some cells have grouped together to form the breathing apparatus, that is, the lungs; others are responsible for the circulation of the blood; others m a k e up the nervous tissue; and so on, so that '*e say they form the various "organs" of the body. The point we have to notice is that the higher we get in the animal or vegetable kingdom, the more differecewe find between the tiny units or cells which compose the body or organism. Applying this argument to the social body or organism which we call society, it is clear that the more highly developed that organism becomes, the more different -will be the units (i.e. the people) and organs (i.e. institutions and clubs) which compose it. (For an answer to the argument based on the supposed need of a controlling -32 - centre for. the %kocial organism,," see O-jcction ifo. 21.) When, therefoe, we want progress we must allow peoý)le to differ. This is the very essential i~fference between the Anarchists and. the rxovernrilentalits. -Th-Le Government is always endeavou-rirL* 'o mnake men unifona.So literally true is this that in most countries it actually frtchs them into the iuniform of the sOlio-,ajr or the convict. Thuas Government shov,,s itself as the great reactionary tendency. The The Anarchist, on the other hardl, would break down this and would. allow always for the develo-%ment of new ideas, new growth, and new insti tutions; so that society would be responsive alwiayus to the influence of its really gre-at.est m and, ad t o the! surrouw-din influencel, whatever tho-,,-y may be. it would be easlaier to get at this argumenrt frocin aa simpler standpoint. It is really quite clear that if we were all agreed, or if we were all forced to act as if we did agree, we could not have any progreas whatever. Change can take place only when someone diaagree with What is, and with the help of a small minority succeeds in putting that disagreement into practice. No Government makes allowance for this fact, and consequently all progress which is made has to come in spit-e of Governments, not by their agency. I am tempted to touch upon yet another argument here, although I have already given this question too Tnuch space. Let me add just one example of th-e findings of modern science. Everyone knows that there is sex relationship and sex romance in plant life just as there is in the animal world, and it is the hasty conclusion wi'th most of us that sex has been evolved for the rnurposes of reproduction of the species. A study of the subject, howvever, -33 - proves that plants were ampoly provided with the means of reproduction before the first signs of sex appeared. Science then has had to ask itself: what was the utility of sex.evolution? The answer to this conundrum it has been found lies in the fact that "Vte s ex u a 1 method of reproduction multiplies variation as* no other method of reproduction can." (i) If I have over-elaborated this answer it is because I have wished to interest (but by no means to satisfy) anyone who may see the importance of the subject. A useful work is waiting to be accomplished by some enthusiast who will1 study differentiation scientifically, and show the bearing of the facts on the or'ganisation of human society. No. 19.-I? YOU ABOLISH GOVERWERNT, YOU WILL DO AWAY WITH THIE MARRIAGE LAWS. Wie shall. No. 20.--HOW WILL YOU REGULATE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP AND?AMvII.Y AFFAIRS? It is curious thatt sentimental people will declare that love is our greatest attribute, and that freedom is the highest pos-,sible condition. Yet if we propose that love shall go free. they are shocked and horrified. There is one really genuine-difficulty, (1) "The Evolution of Sex in Plants," by Professor J. Merle Coulter. It is interesting to add that he closes his book with these words: "Its (sexuality's) significance lies in the fact that it makes organic evolution more rapid and-far more varied." - 34 - however, which people do meet in regard to this question. With a very limited understanding they look at things-.as they'are today, and see all kinds of repulsive happe7nings: unvwanted children', husbands longing to be -free from their wives, and--there is no need to entuiierate them.For all this, the si-ncere thinker is able to see the mar'riage law is no remedy; but, on the other hand, he sees also that the abolition of that law1 woud also in itself be no remedy. This is true, no doubt, We c6Lnnot expect a well-! balanced humanity if we' give freedom on one point and slavery on the remainder. The movement towards free love is only logical and useful if it takes its 1a1ar as part of the general movement towards emancipation. Love will only come to a'normal and healthy coriition when it -is set'in a world w'ithout slums and poverty, anid without allthe incentives to crime whiche7xist to-day. When such a condition is reached* it 'Will be folly to bind men and women'together, or keep them, apart, by laws. Liberty and free agreement must* be the basis of this m o a t essential relationship as surely as it must be of all others. No. 21.- Society IS A ýORGAJII, AND AN ORGANISM IS CONTROLLED1 AT ITS CENTRE; THUS' ANMI S CONTROLLED BY HIS BRAIN, AND) SOCIE2TY BY ITS Government. This is one of the arguments so often used by the so-called scientific Socialists. It is quite true that society as a whole, if it is not an organism, at least can be very closely compared to one. Bt the m o, t interesting thing is that our scientific objectors have quite forgotten one of the most -35 - I ~I I _ I I important facts, about the classification of #organisms, All organisms may be divided into one of two classes---the "morphonta"l or the "bionta.1' Now each morphonta organism- is bound together into one whole necessarily by its structure; a bionta organis8m on the contrary, is a more or less simple.structure, bound together ohysiologically; that is, by functions rather than by its actual form. This can be made much simpler. A dog, for example, which we all know is an organism, is a morphonta, for it is bound together necessarily by its structure; if we cut a dog in twowe do not expect the two halves to live, or- to develop into two compolete dogs. But if we ta'ke a plant and ca it in twvo, the Probability is that if we place it in proper con ditions each half of that plant will develop into r -healthy an orgaanism as the origi a a 1 single one. Now, if we are going to call society an organism, it is quite' clear to which of these clasps it belongs; for if we cut society in two ande take away one half the people which compose it, and place them in proper conditions, they will develop a new society akin to the old one from which they have been separated. The really interesting thing about this is that the morphonta--mtho. dog--is by all means an organism controlled by the brain; but, on the other hand, the bionta is in no case a-centralised organism. So that so far as the analogy does hold good it certainly is entirely in favorof the Anarchist conception of society, and not of a centralised State, There is, too, another way of-looking at this. In all organisms the simple cell is the unit, just as in society the individual is a # nit of the organism. Uow, if we study the evolution of organisms (which we have touched *upon in Question No. 18), we shall find that. -36 - the simple cell clusters with or oo-operates with its fellow-cells, not because it is bossed or controlled into the position, but because it found, in its simple struggle for existence, that it could only live if the whole of which it formed a part lived also. This principle holds good throughout all organic nature. The cells which cluster together to form the organs of a man are not compelled to do so, or in any way controlled by any outside force; the individual struggle for life forces each to take its place in the organ of which it forms a part. Again, the organs themselves are not centralised, but are simply interdependent; derange one, and you upset more or less the organs of all, but neither can dictate.how the other shall work. If the digestive organs are out of order, it is true that will probably have an eff e c t upon the brain; but beyond this they have no control or authority over the brain. The reverse of this is equally true. The brain may know absolutely well that the digestive organs are for some reason or other neglecting their duties, but it is unable to control them or tell them to do otherwise. Each organ does its duty because in doing so it is fulfilling its life-purpose, just as each cell takes its place and carries on its functions for the same purpose. Viewed in this way, we see the complete organism (the man) as the result of the free co-operation of the various organs (the heart, the brains, the lungs, etc.), whilst the organs in their turn are the result of the equally free co-operation of the simple cells. Thus the individual life-struggle of the cell results in the highest product of organic nature. It is this primitive struggle of the individual cell which is, as it were, the creative force behind the whole complexity of o r g a n i c nature, including man, of this -37 - wonderful civi-isation. If we apply the analogy to society, we must take it that the ideal. form would be that in which the free individuals in developing their lives group together into free institutions, and in which these free instiut ions are naturally mutually dependent upon the other, but in which there is no institdiVion claming authority or the power to in any way control" or curb the development of any of the o. t h e r institutions or of the individual* Thus society would grow from the simple individual to the complex whole, and not as our contralisers try to see it-a development -from. the complex centre back to the simple partsA No. 22.-YOU CAN'T CHANGE1 HOifPN4 NATURE. To bapin with, let me point out that I am a part of human nature, and by all.my own development I am contributing to and helping in the development and modification of. humn nature. If the argument is that I cannot change human nature and mould it into any form at will, then, of course, it is quite true. If, on the other hand, it is intended to suggest that human nature remains ever the same, then the argument is hopelessly unsound, Change seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence, and especially of organic nature. Man has developed from the lowest animals, and who can say that be has reached the limits of his possibilities? However, as it so happens,. 0 o c I a' 1 reformers and revolutionists do not so 0uoh -C3:8 - rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do u p o n the theory that the same nature will act differently under different circumstances. A man becomes an outlaw and a. criminal to-day because he steals to feed his family.. In a free society there would be no such reason for theft, and consequently this same criminal born into such a world might become a respectable family man. A change for the worse? Possibly; but the point is that it is a change. The same character acts differently under the new circumstances. To sum up, then: (1) Human nature does change and develop along certain lines, the direction of which we may influence. (2) The fundamental fact is that nature acts according to the condition in which it finds itself. The latter Vart of the next answer (Nt. 23) will be fotund to apply equally here. No. 23.-WHO WOULD DO THE DIRTY WORK UNDER Anarchism? To-day machinery is introduced to replace, as far as pobsible, the highly paid man. It can only do this very partially, but it is obvious that since machinery is to save the cost of production it will be applied to those things where the cost is considerable. In those branches where labour is very cheap there is not the same incentive to supersede it by machines. Now things are so strangely organised at present that it ii just the dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently there is no great rush to invent machines to take theitr place. In a free -59 - sooiety, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It is quite fair to argu-e, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a 1 a r g e extent, disappear in a state of Anarchism. This, however, leaves the question only partially answered. 3ome time ago, during a strike at Leeds, the roadmen and scavengers refused to do their work. The respectable inhabitants of Leeds recognised the danger of this s t a t e of affairs, and organised themselves to do the dirty work, University students w e r e sweeping the streets and carrying boxes of refuise. They answered the question better than I can. They have taught us that a free people would recognise the necessity of such work being done, and wiould one way or another organise to do it. Let me give another examole more interesting than this and widely differing from it, thus showing how universally true is my answe r Within civilised society probably it would be difficult to find two c 1 a s s e s differing more widely than the Untiversity student of to-day and the labourer of Western Ireland nearly a hundred years ago. At Ralahine in. 1830 was started the most zuccessful of the many Co-operative or Coirz;mu)-nist experiments for which that period. was -Lerfiarkable. There, on the poorest of bog-soil, amongst "the lowest order of Irish poor, discontented, disorderly and vicious, and under the worst circumstances imaginable,"' an ideal little experimental community wcus fcrmed.. Among the agr (erments entered into by these practical ir~p ssibilists was one which said that "no member be expected to perform any c 40 - service or work but such as is agreeable to his or her feelings," yet certain it is that the db.tsagreeable work was daily performed. The following dialogue between a passing stage-coach passenger and a member of the community, whom* he found working in water which reached his middle,,is recorded:-m "Are you working by yourself?" inqruired the traveller. "Yes," was. the answer. "Where is your steward?" "We have no steward." ý"Who is your master?" "We have no master. We are on a new system." "Then who sent you to do this work?" "The committee," replied the man in the dam. "Who is the. committee?" asked the mail-coach visitor. "Some of the members." "Vlhat members do you mean?" "The ploughmen and labourers who are appointed by us as a committee. I belong to the new systemites." Members of this community were elected by ballot among the peasants of Ralahine. "There was no inequality established among them," says G. J. Holyoake, (1) to whom I am indebted for the above description. He adds:%-- "It seems incredible that this simple and reasonable f o r m of government (2 should supersede the government of the bludgeon and the blunderbuss-the customary mode by which Irish labourers of that day regulated their industrial affairs. Yet peace and prosperity prevailed through an arrangement of equity." The community was successful for three and a half years, and then its end was brought (1) "History of Co-ooperation." (2) 1 need not, I think, stay to explain the sense in which this word is used. The committee were workers, not specialised advisers; above all, they had no authority and could only suggestandnot issue ordars. They were, therefore, not a Government. sbcaiut ba caUea enti'reiy excternal. The - man who had given his land. up for the purposes of the* experiment lost his money, bry gambling, and the c olo n y of 618 acres had to be forfeited. This example of the introduction of a new a y a t-e m among such unpromising circumstances might well have been used in answer to Objection No,, 22-1"You can't change human nature." No. 24.-BUT YOU MUST HAVE A Government, EVERY ORCHESTRA HAS ITS COIDUCTOR TO WMHOM ALL MUST SUBMIT. IT IS THI E SATVD ITH SOCIETY* This objection would really not be worth answering but that it is persistently used by State Socialists against Anarchists, and is even printed by them in the writings of one of their greaztt leaders. The objection is chiefly of interest in that it shows us painfully plainly the outlook of these wonderful reformers, who evidently want to see society regulated in every detail by the batons of Government. Their confusion, however, between the control of the conductor's baton and that of Government really seems to indicate that they are rnlo- aware of any difference between Government and. I'iberty. The relationship of the subjec-t to the Government is entirely unlike that of the musician to the conductor. In a free society the musician would unite with others interested in music for one reas o n only: he wishes to express himself, and. finds that he can do so better with the assistence of others. Hence he makes use of his brother musicians, while they similarly make use of him. Next, he and they find they are up aga,,.st a difficulty unless they have a "-'&.I a1m-9n to relate their various notes. They therefOre aetermine to make use of someone S42 00 who is capable to do this. He, on the other hand, stands in just the same relationship to them: he is making use of them to express himself in music. If at any time either party finds the other unserviceable, it simply ceases to co-orerate. Any member of the party may, if he feels inclined, get up at anry moment andl walk away. The conductor can at any minute throw dowrn his baton, or uptset the rest by wilfully going wrong. Any member of the party may at any time spoil all their effor'dif he chooses to do so, There is no provision for such emergencies, and. no wvay-of preventeing thorn. 4o one can be compielled to contribute towards the upkeep of the enterprise. Practically all tihe objections which are raise_.d against Araarchmm may be ralsed a. gainst this free OrWi sation. What will you do with thtk drummer who won't drum? What will you do with the man who laays out of tune? What will you do with the rmlan who talks instead of playing? What will you do with the uinclean man who rmeay sit next to you? 'ehat will you do with the man who won't pay his share?etc., etc. The objections are endless if you choose to base them on what might happen-, but, ths fails to alter the fact that if..we consider what factually does happen we. find a free organisation of this kind entirely practical. It is not, I hopenecessary now to point Out the folly of those who pretend that such an organisation is analogous to Government. In a Government organisation pe'ople are bound. together not by a common purpose, butby law, with the threat of prison behind. The enterprise is supported, not in accordance with the amnount of interest taken in it, but by a general compulsion. The part played by each is dictated, and can be enforced. In a free organisation it is merely suggested, aad the* suggest~ion is followed only if the india. vidual agrees, for there can bo no compualsion..0m a now W "M -M de By The Same Author. THE ANARCHIST MREsVOIMTION. THE, ROAD TO FR1c.Z1X-M A Periodical of Anarchist Thought, Wiork and Literature. Subscription-One Dollar a Year, Single Copies-Five Cents., BOOK LIST: BERKMANAlexanderA The A.B.C. of Anar1chist Communism. ~0075 Prison Momoirs of.- an Anarchist.......3100 GOLDMIAIIEmma Anarchism and Othor 1Essays,...............O40 Mýy Further Diuillusionment in Russia,.0100 KR0PO0TKITIE, Poter The Comquost of Broad......... 0175 Field, iPactories and Workshops, 0.. O75 -Mutual Aid.........0.1....O75 Revolutionary Pamrphlets (Bound) 01.75 Modern Science and Anarchism.... 0150 Memoirs of a Revolutionist.........O85 Great Fronch Revolution (2 vols.) 11.l50 BAKUNIN, Michael God and the State.,',.......0150 O0rders, with cash, to be sent to: THE; ROAD..OFREO P.]O.,Box 486.-. Mad. Sq. Sta. New York, N. Y. :&_.6 to **0 4. 4.. A1IA -RC H{IS)T THOUJCGHTS Go vernrine Lit, what is it -but a:: tradi 1t ionI though1 a recent one..:::end 'oavoring to 't-ransmit itself unft:~impared to pos~terity;" but* e c h: i ns taIn cv losing its intagrity~;'i': has not the vitality and. force of a: sige iig a.Law never mademnan a whit more, juot; and. by means::,of their respect for it e-ven the::;well J~isIvosed are- daily made, agents of injustice. David. Thoreau. All government,, in essence,, is: ~:tyranny. -Emerson.: Gavernment at best i s a ne c( spaalry evil, at wortat an intolerable:;:one. Jefferson.: Civil governmonts,, like m4,i-:;:tary governm'ents, are institu~ted::;.and. controlled. by the rul~ing class.,:::Their purpose is to keep the earth:;:and. its resources in the hanis of:;:those who directly and indirectly:::have,,taken it for themselves. - ~Cla'rence Darrow,,: