On Principle
Comrade Austin’s criticism on the act of voting is very good; so far as was stated it meets with my indorsement. Her adverse comments upon Bryan, the champion of fraudulent Democracy, is quite apropos. Now, suppose a champion of Anarchy was up for office, would she strenuously object to voting for him? I should like very much to hear what the comrades have to say about Socialism and the late Socialist candidates Debs and Harriman. None of the Socialists were sanguine of victory, but there is this much about it, a very useful purpose was served – that of getting some new ideas before the human family that otherwise would be buried in oblivion were we to depend upon the feeble band of Anarchists for their propagation.
W. S. ALLEN.
My objections to voting were not based upon the personal imperfections of the respective candidates of the late campaign, but upon the principle they represented – the principle of government.
When a man is ‘up for office’ he becomes a champion of the state, seeking a position of authority over his fellow-men, and should an avowed Anarchist ever abdicate his principles to assume this position he would not be entitled to our respect, let alone votes.
Anarchy means no government – a social order based upon the natural laws of our being, instead of upon superstitions restrictions and formulas enacted by the tyrants and nobodies of past generations.
State Socialism is mere patchwork stretched upon rotten political frames, more driving down of stakes marking the dead line of human liberty; more seeking of good and pious men to lead humanity out of the quagmire of political corruption. There is nothing new in the idea that legislative enactments can be had that will give men what is rightfully theirs; that the government can be made the people, and the people the government; no, this idea is as old as the ‘plan of salvation,’ and about as empty.
The adherents of government argue that the repeated failures of the past were due to getting the wrong men in the right place. So they are continually finding new leaders and governors and putting them in the political pesthouses, and when they (the people) find that their rulers are contaminated they cast them out with bitter wrath. Ignorant that the real cause lies in the privileges they have deemed necessary to bestow upon these wretches, they are yet determined to delegate more power to other good (?) men who will be gracious enough to PROMISE to save the dear people.
Let us profit by the history of past saviors and beware of politicians.
In regard to Debs and Harriman I can do no better than to quote the following from R. L. Zin, editor of the Labor Record, published at Joplin, Mo.
‘As for Debs, he is a logical and thinking man, but he is in bad company. When I knew him as a writer in charge of the Firemen’s Journal he was a Revolutionary Socialist and not a politician. For Job Harriman, the office he is running for is too honorable; his ticket ought to read for sheriff, but God forbid he should be elected as he would not hesitate to execute anyone who did not agree with his opinions.’
Judging from the above, Debs is on the downward road from true progress, and Harriman a fair sample of the men who represent government.
The strength of an idea lies in its truth, not in the number of its adherents. Those State Socialists who acknowledge Anarchy as the ultimate good have little reason for withholding adherence. Progress is often delayed by those who hide in ambush, waiting to see whether an unpopular truth lives or dies. The only way to add to the ‘feeble band of Anarchists’ is for everyone who believes in their principles to come out and stand squarely for what they are convinced is just and right and conducive to the best interests of the race.
KATE AUSTIN.
Caplinger Mills, Mo.
Discontent 5 December 1900 https://archive.org/details/discontentvolume2/discontent-vol-3-no-18