Ariz., Sept. 13.
To the Editor of the Courier:
Dear Sir—If you don’t consider it
trespassing 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 with is individual
liberty—therefore no law no government; to them individual liberty
is greater than 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 admits 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 the 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 means of attaining
their ideal. Again, he says no man ever became 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
Saneal, 2-6 New Reade St., New York). But as the J.[-]M. has everything
upside down or back foremost, I don’t wonder at this. If the J.-M.
seeks 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 finders 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 society. Again, he says that socialism is an unobtainable
ideal beceuse [sic] of the evil desires of the human mind. This
is what monarchists said about republicans when they agitated for
republican institutions; but republics came all the same, and so
will socialism, through 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 .