[ ] ,
Ariz., Sept. 13.
To the Editor of the Courier:
Dear Sir—If you don’t consider it
tres[p]assing too much upon your generosity I should like to reply
to the continued prattle of the editor of the Journal-Miner. It
seems almost useless to waste time upon a man of such minute brain
power that he cannot discern the difference between socialism and
anarchy. The premise that anarchists start out wit[h] is individual
liberty—therefore no law no government; to them individual liberty
is greater [t]han social protection. The premise that socialists
start out with is that society interests require protection for
mutual good—therefore society must have laws and government. But
this would be moulder of public opinion says that the assassin who
attempted the life of the president is an avowed socialist, and
that, so far as some socialists are concerned, the Journal-Miner
has them in the correct category. Right here the J.-M. editor a[d]mits
that he misrepresented the facts of the case and tries to bolster
up his malicious libel on socialists by trying to make out that
anarchists are socialists. He, no doubt, would try to make the public
believe there are white blackbirds if it didn’t know differently.
Czolgosz said himself that he was an anarchist and committed th[e]
deed as an anarchist for the cause, and that he became an anarchist
through hearing Emma Goldman’s lectures. But this crawfish editor
tries to make the public believe that all anarchists are socialists
while all socialists may not be anarchists. Their teachings are
as opposite as the antipodes as day and night, and no well informed
person would attempt to associate the two.
Then, to bolster up his muddle-headed
argument he adduces muddle-headed evidence. There is nothing in
the evidence to prove that the witnesses knew, either, what socialism
or anarchy is. The concluding evidence is that of Emma Goldman,
which proves only that she is an anarchist—she plainly states that;
the same with Czolgosz.
The Journal-Miner says that the underlying
principle of the anarchist is murder and that this is the means
whereby they intend to bring about socialism; in other words they
murder to bring about that to which they are opposed. It says that
the socialists do not go that far, another admission that socialism
and anarchism are different in principle and that socialists are
rational people and believe in constitutional me[a]ns of attaining
their ideal. Again, he says no man ever [b]ecame an anarchist without
going through the modern school of socialism. This shows that the
J.-M. don[’]t know anything of the history of modern socialism,
for socialism has has [sic] and is supplanting anarchy in every
country wherever it took root (History of Modern Socialism, by Lucian
S[a]neal, 2-6 New Reade St., New York). B[u]t as the J.[-]M. has
everything upside down or back foremost, I don’t wonder at this.
If the J.-M. s[e]eks to go to heaven he will find that he will land
in an opposite direction. He says that modern socialism consists
in fault finding. This he seems to consider a great evil. I suppose
had he lived in Revolutionary days he would have been a Tory and
been satisfied; but fault [fi]nders who were not satisfied found
[a] remedy and successfully applied it, and the result is that this
is the most progreesive [sic] nation on earth today.
While the socialists find fault with
existing conditions they see in it the seed of a new and better
state of [s]ociety. Again, he says that soc[ia]l[is]m is an [u]nobtainable
ideal beceuse [sic] of the evil desires of th[e] human mind. This
is what monarchists said about republicans when they agitated for
republican institutions; but republics came all th[e] same, and
so will socialism, throug[h] the higher expression of human intelligence
after it has grasped the economic conditions under which we are
living and know how to benefit by the knowledge.
J. A. L [ ] .