Another article from the author of the "Property Rights" article below. It is in the same (1902) volume of The Railroad Trainman.
Who Are the Anarchists?
Florence A. Burleigh
1902
The Railroad Trainman
According to the popular idea and the ordinary daily paper, an anarchist is a person who goes about the world with a bomb hidden in each pocket and a pistol in his hand, seeking whom he may devour. By the same warrant anarchism is a synonym for murder or assassination. Especially during these last few months has the subject of anarchism been discussed more or less hysterically by all kinds of people and in all kinds of periodicals. It is well, therefore, to look at the subject calmly, and without prejudice, in order that we may fully understand what real anarchism is, what its upholders hope, or wish to do, and also ask, incidentally, if the real anarchists are in the anarchist camp.
Let me state at the outset that I do not believe that any school of anarchism will ever be possible, even if it were just. No anarchist has ever, to my knowledge, talked for any length of time without admitting the necessity among citizens of some kind of a settlement of questions relating to public policy, even though they don't call it government. No anarchist has ever, to my knowledge, proposed any solution of the land question that did not involve injustice. I, therefore, am not writing from the standpoint of a supporter of the much-maligned anarchism, but from the standpoint of one who likes fair play and a clear understanding of a proposed system of social life which must be reckoned with. Let me say, also, that I number among my acquaintances and friends several avowed anarchists who are conscientious, kind, peace-loving and' thoroughly good citizens — men and women who would, and do, sacrifice much of their own comfort and convenience to help their fellowmen, who deprecate as much as any one possibly can such a deed as the killing of any human being.
That there are anarchists who have used this cowardly, as well as useless way of attempting to abolish government, is true, but that all the advice to murder or all the deeds of murder are done by anarchists is not true.
Many people who are not anarchists advocate the killing of certain classes of people, and to class all anarchists as assassins or instigators of assassination, is as unjust as it is untrue. The unpopular anarchists are usually poor and of a "lower class" of society, and are therefore under the ban whatever they do. The popular anarchists sit in high places and are respected citizens, using the word anarchist in its popular meaning as one who acts contrary to existing laws and not in its strictly correct sense, meaning one who believes in no government. For an anarchist is really one who holds that when all barriers are removed and every one is free to do what seems to him right he will not wish to do harm to any human being; that absolute freedom brings with it the possibility for every one to be kind and just to his fellowmen and that as government to a greater or less degree limits the freedom of the individual it must be unjust in the nature of the case and that it is also unnecessary, as human nature is ever good when let alone.
There are doubtless anarchists who say — as they believe — that a social revolution is coming in this country; a revolution which may or may not be bloody; that it will be brought on by the continued injustice of those in power, and that force will be used by the plutocrats — a belief that is not dissipated by the building and enlarging of armories and militia and such affairs as that at Latimer — and, therefore, the oppressed must be ready to use force in return. But even those who say this advise force only for self-defence. But the belief in a coming revolution is not confined to anarchists, but is shared by men and women of other economic schools, and does not necessarily imply in either case that the revolution will come in any other way than as a natural result of causes. Society is indeed on a wrong basis, and it seems as though nothing but a miracle could save it from a revolution which we pray may be a peaceful one. Men and women of a despised or down-trodden race, or class, are sometimes arrested and punished for acts which are entirely harmless, while those in high places may act entirely in opposition to both statute and moral law and still be looked up to.
A few months ago a poor, deluded, ignorant fellow took the most sacred thing in the world — a human life. What might have been his motive, or whose life it was, is for the moment not essential. Suffice it to say he killed a brother man and gave as an excuse that the deed was done because of a speech he had recently heard from a noted anarchist, which speech had been also heard by a vigilant police and not considered "inflammatory." But immediately after the deed was done there were cries from all classes of people, including followers of the Great Teacher, not only demanding that he be lynched on the spot, and in other ways trying to "stamp out anarchy by anarchy," but calling for dire punishment to be meted out to the woman who had delivered the lecture in question and who was hunted out and imprisoned for a time. The man had committed a crime and was punished according to law, but the woman had committed no crime, yet was threatened with violence from those who professed the highest respect for law. Both of these people belonged to an unpopular class. I am not excusing murder, or even apologizing for it; murder in all its forms, whether done by an ignorant, crazy man, or any one else, whether the murdered be one man or a thousand men, whether done in passion or in battle, Is a terrible crime. I only wish to call attention to the fact that all the defying of law and morals is not confined to the class called anarchists.
At the same time that this tragedy was enacting, Judges were issuing illegal injunctions; negroes were being burned at the stake for crimes which there was no proof they had committed — but their lynchers were "respectable" men — trust companies were evading the laws, and city, state and national officials were breaking laws with impunity.
These examples are given merely to show that in public opinion what is legal and what is not, or what is "anarchy," or what is not, depends upon the person and not the deed. No wonder justice is represented with blinded eyes — to shut out the crimes committed in her name. I do not wish to excuse wrong-doing of any kind, but only to point out the growth of class feeling in this country; the lapse from the fundamental principles of equality upon which our fore-fathers prided themselves.
Rev. John R. Crosser said recently: "I am not afraid that the anarchy on Carroll avenue will ever destroy our institutions. It is too black and ugly. The anarchy to be found on the boulevards is the most dangerous, the anarchy which buys a legislature. Anarchy cannot be put down with laws. We can learn nothing from European countries in this regard, except what not to do. We must be careful not to go too far In annihilating the class of anarchists found on Carroll avenue, lest we injure many others who really have the best Interests of our country at heart."
It is not anarchy, then, which some people are trying to stamp out, but the claim of the oppressed, even though rudely expressed, and roughly comprehended, for equal rights. The only governments which many people know about are those which oppress certain classes and give special privileges to others. The way to "stamp out anarchy" is not to pass stringent laws against allowing anarchists to come to this country or to suppress meetings at which anarchism may be discussed. It is only by discussion that we learn the truth. The way to "stamp out anarchy" is to repeal all laws granting special privileges and to accord equal justice to all men.
Anarchy, whether it be among the avowed anarchists or those who sit in legislatures, or wear broadcloth bought with the lives and sufferings of their fellowmen, can be abolished only by equal freedom and equal justice. No suppression of free speech or laws against the coming to this country of anarchists will ever avail except to increase the number and zeal of those of whom the government would be rid.
But, it may be said: "'Inflammatory speeches' cannot be allowed because as a result someone with a weak mind may be influenced thereby to commit some crime." Is not the reason deeper than that? The spirit of war — of killing — is rampant all over the country. Even Christian ministers advocate killing — not of one man, but of many, when they counsel war and rejoice when the newspapers announce, the murder by their sons and friends of their fellowmen who live in far away Islands.
Louis F. Post says in The Public: "The gospel of strenuous life has been preached from high places. Its ideal was war. This was welcomed for its own sake, as inspiring robust ambitions and giving strength to character. War was described as making heroes, and peace milksops. Throughout this strenuous life there ran rivulets of human blood, and over it there hung the heavy shadow of wholesale murder. It was to be the middle age tournament come again, but with slaughter enough to have turned the stomach of your middle age knight. And in this sanguinary spirit an imperial destiny was working out. The first republic of Asia had been strangled in infancy by the first republic of America. * * * The American republic, turning its back upon its ideals of liberty and peace, was exchanging the substance of world influence for the reputation of world power. * * * In the common mind a spirit of anarchy was being generated in the name and by the methods of the strenuous life."
The official reports state that 100,000 people go insane annually in Italy from hunger, and many are on the verge of starvation all their lives. Italy is creating anarchists by her unjust laws and nothing but a change of laws giving her people a chance to earn a living and to be free will "stamp out anarchy" there. In our own country over 90% of the people possess about 25% of the wealth, leaving the other 75% of wealth for only 10% of the people. Is it any wonder that anarchy is growing among this 90%? It is unnecessary to say that this 10% will do everything in their power to retain possession of their "property," which means, rather, their privilege to tax the other 90%. They will stop at nothing, for they know the power of the masses should they ever realize how great it is and what is the cause of their condition.
We have, then, three classes of anarchists;
- first, the poor, despised ones who are preyed upon and hunted down and imprisoned on the least provocation:
- second, the rich, respected ones who would indignantly repel the name anarchist, but who prey upon the first kind and make them what they are; who continually oppress them legally and illegally and who hold over them the whip of starvation;
- the third class is composed of intelligent, conscientious, peaceful men and women who believe that in the absence of statute law people will not only not wish to injure their fellowmen but will do all they can to assist them; who are opposed to all kinds of violence and are willing and expect to wait for their "good time coming" a long time. No one deprecates more than these people the killing of any human being, whether he be king, president or one of the plain people. They hold human life to be the most sacred thing in the world, unless it be human freedom.
Which of these classes is the dangerous one?
Comments