ABOUT ANARCHY

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1544, 2 October 1901, Page 47

ABOUT ANARCHY

(By P. J. O’Regan.)

. Now that Ave are hearing so much about Anarchy, it is perhaps appropriate ■ to point out that the term is generally • confounded, "even, in this enlightened .. age, jrith Socialism. The error is wide. . •spread,, but it can scarcely be called a .. vulgar one, since it is common among reputedly'educated men. Nothing is more usual, for instance, than for some facile journalist to denounce something ne does pot understand, as savouring of: ‘.‘Aparehy and Socialism,” are others equally culpable. ... a Mr Grogan, who lectured recently in . this country, on African travel,--wrote a •; letter to a Napier paper condemning the ‘ Government, land policy a s tending towards “anarchic socialism,” whatever

that \ may mean. As a matter of fact, . Socialism aiid Anarchy mean directly op- ■ pesite. principles—-the one State ownership of everything; .the other either In_ ‘ dividualism pure and simple, or Communism, for there are two schools of Anarchy ; the former probably predominating, and its greatest, parent is Herbert . Spencer. - “Anarchy” comes from two Ureek words, meaning ‘"‘without government.” The Socialist, seeing the rampant social injustice round him, ascribes it all to private ownership. He would remove the fear of want by assuring everyone of plenty, and he would effect this by abolishing private property in everything. He . would make, the State a huge co- , operative agency. This is sometimes called Collectivism, but more often Socialism) although there are many self, named Socialists who do not go so far. The Anarchists, on the other Uand, v state that all governments are more or less corrupt, and he says to the Socialist—with some show, of reason—“to increase- the functions of the State, as you propose,. would place greater facilir: ties in the hands of governments to do mischief ’ He contends that, left to themselves, the pieople are much better ■ : without government; that the machinery of society would, as it were, work automatically, without direction—each individual ci his own volition, in the ■ words hf Herbert Spencer, doing that Which he wills, without interfering with the oaual rights of others. Philosophical Anarchists, like M r Spencer, apply the theory of evolution to sociology, and contend that just as

certain animal functions, such as re- ■ spiration, arc performed independently | of : the will, so the, units of society will ' ultimately perform their respective func- j tioiis -in the social organism. Anarchists, j therefore, condemn all conscious direction or. State interference. Anarchists of the Tolstoi school, on the other hand, ai% Communists, and they believe that, society can only be built on _an endur- j ing basis by men actively practising the ' doctrine of self denial. But each school ' is opposed diametrically to Socialism. I From the foregoing it will be seen that tne difference between your everyday ‘'practical man” who deplores tbe decadence of “private enterprise.’' | and the Anarchist is one of degree only, and the same applies to the “prudent” social reformer who advocates . moderate State interference and the Socialist. Without discussing the merit s of either Anarchy cr Socialism, I think there is an element of truth in each. I But it is preposterous to say that ' Anarchy is a convertible term for assassination. That there are professed Anarchists who advocate assassination proves just what the excesses of professed Chartists or Land Leaguers did, and no nioro. But, however, much we may differ from Spencer or Tolstoi, we can find nothing in their '.teachings in pallation or defence of murder. s Since writing the foregoing I have read the able contribution bv “Ufc Prosim” in the “Times.” It will be , seen that my explanation of Anarchy s practically on all fours with his.