Page:Socialism and Anarchism, Antagonistic Opposites - Socialistic Labor Party (1886).djvu/5

 changeable in their ideas, purposes and whims, each of the group societies and their connections may dissolve and differently reorganize themselves, as often as they see fit, without ever applying constraint upon one another.

It must not be assumed that we misrepresent the Anarchistic theory. We would gladly quote from their writings to prove the correctness of our statements; but as no book is in existence in which their theory is taught connectedly, we would need a great deal of scattered sayings found in their newspapers, in order to present their own documentary evidence. Our readers may, however, find in Benjamin R. Tucker's weekly "Liberty" (box 3366, Boston, Mass.)an Anarchistic organ which they may take for an authority on the subject, and an interesting one, too. Our readers will, of course, call the above ideas an Utopia and utterly unpractical; of our own opinion in this respect we will speak later on.

Socialism, on the other hand, is an antipode of Anarchism. It presupposes human society as a growth which develops itself from the simplest beginnings in oldest tines through many changes into what it is. Society cannot be dissolved and reorganized. If it is to be renewed, it has to do it and does so gradually at all times. It obeys its own inborn laws, and the efforts of single men and sects cannot even give it any other direction but the one which is inherent and prepared. Scientific truth and discoveries may hasten or retard its development, but can little change it. This is the fundamental doctrine of that most modern form of Socialism which was originated by Karl Marx, which calls itself Social Democracy, and is so widely spread in Germany and many other countries of Europe, and bids fair to convert mankind.

According to this doctrine which is well established by historical and scientific research, human society began in tribes which were enlarged families of blood relationship and had a communistic and democratic institution, such as we still find preserved among Indians, Arabs, nomadic tribes generally, and traces or remnants of which may yet be witnessed in old customs of every civilized nation. At this stage of development the first division of labor was invented, together with the first attempts at agriculture, the taming of wild animals and the improvement of plants into plants of culture. When the working in metals was invented, and new, powerful weapons gave some tribes an ascendancy over others, wars on a larger scale were inaugurated for the conquest of land and the enslavement of weaker tribes—and thus monarchic and feudalistic institutions, based on enslaved labor, arose and founded large realms, laws for the government of the slaves and all but the lawgivers who rarely obeyed their own laws. At this stage private property came into existence. After a vain at-