his own interests so long as they happen to coincide with those of the public.

There is a close parallelism between the condition of the laborer on the oversupplied labor market and the condition of the producer of vendible commodities on an oversupplied commodity market. In the early nineties of the last century, farm products were greatly oversupplied. There had been a rapid settlement of the fertile prairies of the West and a rapid increase in the tillable area on all the farms. The result was that a great flood of agricultural products was poured upon the markets of the world, depressing prices not only in this country but in Europe as well. In that situation the farmers were in a dependent condition. They had much to sell and there were apparently few buyers, — few at least relatively to the amount of produce that was offered. The average farmer had to take what he could get. Naturally enough this situation created dissatisfaction, and demands were made by the agricultural classes of the South and West for some kind of compulsory action by the government. On the basis of free contract they were at a great disadvantage, and not unnaturally desired to use some other method, for the time being at least. Freedom, to them, frequently meant freedom to become bankrupt and to go hungry.

At the time of the present writing (1918) the conditions are reversed and the boot is on the other foot. The world is experiencing a great shortage of agricultural products. Buyers are everywhere asking for products, and there appear to be few sellers, few at least relatively to the number of buyers and consumers. The consumers are now in a position of great dependence, but the farmers are in a position of great independence. On the basis of free contract the farmer has the advantage and the consumer the disadvantage. The farmer is not now calling for a limitation upon the right of contract. He is not demanding the substitution of compulsion for freedom. There are demands, however, on the part of consumers for government

action in the fixing of prices and the control of marketing processes. Since he is at a disadvantage in the bargaining process, the consumer feels that something else should be substituted. Freedom to buy food does not seem so very precious. Farmers, however, are inclined to protest against the substitution of compulsion for bargaining; that is, the substitution of price-fixing by the government for the policy of letting demand and supply determine the price.

There was a time in England, following the Black Death, when labor seemed to be abnormally scarce as compared with what had been known for centuries. The laborer was able to bargain to good advantage. He did not then demand anything better than free contract in the determination of wages. The demand for compulsion, however, came from the landowners and employing classes, and much severe legislation was passed fixing wages and punishing attempts on the part of laborers to bargain for higher wages..

Generally speaking, however, in the history of the greater part of the world, conditions have been such that laborers rather than employers have been at a disadvantage in bargaining. Unskilled laborers have generally been abundant. It has seldom been necessary for an employer to spend much time searching for men who were willing to work for him. The searching has been on the other side. Labor being thus almost permanently oversupplied, it has led to a great many demands for the substitution of compulsion for free bargaining as a means of fixing wages.

Now it is not necessary to have a scourge in order to thin out the ranks of unskilled labor. The case of the Black Death was cited merely because governments have generally been so stupid as to do nothing about it, and here was one case where a scourge proved to be in some respects more intelligent and generous than governments have been. It is quite possible, by the use of a little intelligence and progressiveness, to create conditions under which the demand for labor

will continually expand and the supply of unskilled labor continually contract, putting the unskilled labor in a continually improving situation with respect to the bargaining process, making it continually easier for the laborer to find a job at remunerative wages but, as a necessary consequence, continually more difficult for the employer to find unskilled labor at low wages. By this process the system of free contract could be preserved and labor could be made independent and prosperous at the same time.

If this were done, in all probability the demand for compulsion would again come from the employing classes. Finding themselves at a disadvantage in the bargaining process, they would seek government aid in the fixation of wages by compulsion. That evil, however, could be combated when it arose.

Libertarians and compulsorians. The reformers of our system of distribution may therefore be grouped into two main classes, the compulsorians and the libertarians. The compulsorians are those who wish to substitute some form of compulsion for the system of free trade. The libertarians are those who prefer to keep the system of free and voluntary agreement rather than resort to compulsion. They rely upon free initiative, not only in getting things produced but in determining the shares in distribution. Further, the compulsorians may be subdivided into two classes: first, those who believe in a benevolent despotism, such as that which produced most admirable results in the Canal Zone during the building of the Panama Canal, or that which prevails to a less degree in the German Empire; and, second, those who believe in the authority of the mass over the individual, where the will of the mass is indicated by majority votes and by the election of popular individuals as directors and administrators. The libertarians are likewise divided into groups: first, those who believe that there is a logical dividing line between the sphere of government action which must always be compulsory and the sphere

of private enterprise which must always be voluntary and on a free contractual basis; second, the extreme anarchists who do not believe in force or compulsion of any kind, not even the exercise of police power, much less of military power.

The real conflict between compulsorians and libertarians is between the two intermediate groups, namely, those who believe in the compulsion of a democratic mass over the individual and those who believe in a fairly definite dividing line between the sphere of compulsion and the sphere of freedom; in other words, it is the conflict between socialism and liberalism as we find it in the world to-day.

CHAPTER XLVII

ANARCHISM

Anarchism and socialism. In some respects anarchism is the diametric opposite of socialism; in other respects it is somewhat similar to socialism. They represent opposite tendencies in that the socialist proposes to enlarge the power and function either of the state or of some kind of public organization, whereas the anarchist proposes to eliminate all authority, or all control of one person by another. Such organization as shall exist under anarchism shall be purely voluntary. Voluntary groups may be formed as large or as small as the individual members care to have them. The relations of one group to another shall likewise be on a purely voluntary or contractual basis. There shall be no state with a military arm or with police power of any kind.

Anarchism and socialism resemble each other in that both revolt, either in part or in whole, against any system which gives one man power or authority over another. Many of the advocates of socialism object to private capital primarily on the ground that it gives one man, namely, the capitalist employer, power and authority over another man, the propertyless laborer. The anarchist says, regarding this opinion: It is good so far as it goes. We anarchists are likewise opposed to giving one man power or authority over another. The private ownership of capital does what the socialist says it does, and that is wrong. We are therefore opposed to the private ownership of capital. But capital is not the only source of authority. The government likewise gives one man power or authority over another; the capitalist employer does not in fact have as much power or authority as a judge or a policeman,