"Gentlemen, the time is coming when there will be two great classes, Socialists, and Anarchists. The Anarchists want the government to be nothing, and the Socialists want government to be everything. There can be no greater contrast. Well, the time will come when there will be only these two great parties, the Anarchists representing the laissez faire doctrine and the Socialists representing the extreme view on the other side, and when that time comes I am an Anarchist."
by:
William Graham Sumner
(1840-1910) American classical liberal (now a branch of "libertarianism" in political philosophy), social scientist, professor of sociology, polymath
Source:
quoted in Mark Thornton, The Economics of Prohibition (University of Utah Press, 1991), p. 17
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
 -- Anonymous      
I believe this thinking is totally outdated - if anything, it will be the fascists, representing the far right and the church, against the liberals, representing the people - the Elephant and the Donkey will be replaced by Darth Vader and Yoda
 -- Robert, Sarasota     
  • 2 5
    		•  
    William was exactly right...and who've thought that it would be a 'conservative' administration what would be Statist - read Socialist? Alas, it most certainly is in its actions if not it's verbiage.
     -- A.Jurgensen, Stuart, FL     
  • 2 1
    		•  
     -- Anonymous      
    Statists come in many flavors. Socialist is just one of them. Outside of that, Sumner is right. Anarchy is the only possiblility now that the statists have bankrupted government. Like most individuals, they won't or don't know how to manage money. It's not important to them and so they bring on their own destruction, like idiots shooting themselves and everyone else in the foot, looking for Heaven at everyone else's expense. Ma Nature's still a bitch.™ Now if you don't believe government is dead, you haven't been paying attention. http://djomama.blogspot.com
     -- jomama, Planet Earth     
  • 2 1
    		•  
    Interesting....but I think this may be a false dichotomy. I certainly see his point, but the showdown isn't between government and no government. It is between liberty and slavery. Government just happens to be on the side of slavery in so many cases.
     -- Ben, Orem, UT     
  • 6
    		•  
    Ben, you're absolutely right, this is a false dichotomy. And, jomama is also right about the many flavors. Man will always organize with others for his self preservation and betterment. Even Lysander Spooner called himself a Christian Anarchist - meaning there will always be some sort of government. Only if Anarchy were defined as government limited to absolute narrow segments of secular law could this concept get 5 stars. That which is occurring, and will continue to occure, is the clash between those desiring freedom (life in harmony with natural law) and those power mongers that believe man can make law and can't imagine an existence outside some level of slavery.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 4
    		•  
    Rather the struggle is between globalist slave mongers and people of free will. The globalists greatest tool of the day (and he is a "tool") is the annointed one. The greates tool of the free willed comes in many flavors...Colt, S&W, Remington....
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 3
    		•  
    The man died 100 years ago and lived to be 70 years old. Assuming he said this even in middle life say age 50 it would have been in 1890, over 120 years ago. If socialism is simply organization and anarchism is disorganization I suggest that they have both come and gone in societies since the dawn of time. When the mechanisms of society no longer function or the underlying principles of the societal fabric are torn asunder by economic forces (drought, or natural disaster or war) anarchy results and then the folk regather and start over building their social systems. So what is new. Summer however forgot the middle way, there is always a middle way. There cannot really be an Anarchist Party, for to be in a party is to be organized with an agenda, the concept of Anarchist Party is an oxymoron.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 1 2
    		•  
    I am about to believe the time Sumner speaks of has come. I would join him as an Anarchist. The showdown has started and the elections next year and in 2012 will determine if people are listening!
     -- cal, lewisville, tx     
  • 2
    		•  
    Jim,Sarasota, correction please, the fascists are not of the right, they are of the left.
     -- jim k, austin     
  • 3
    		•  
    Jim K, They are neither of the right nor the left...they control both. Ever notice that no matter who is in power, you get the same things... meaning the system itself is corrupt beyond repair. Time for America to once again reinvent itself.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 4
    		•  
    Yes, Waffler, you are with the Socialists, we know. The Democrats are the left-wing fascists, and the GOP are the right-wing fascists. Why? Because the form of de facto government we now have is fascism. Wake up, goose-steppers!
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 4
    		•  
    LOL, and we have people here claiming that facists are leftists... what a riot!!! and the claim that today's Democrats are "left-wing" (to say nothing of "facist") shows a complete lack of understanding of either term or the very fabric of today's society.
     -- Anonymous, Reston, VA, US     
  • 1 3
    		•  
    If the left can be defined as "more government" then the Dems are definately in that category and yes they are completely fascist. But then, any more, so are the Republicans...
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 3
    		•  
    Jim and J know nothing of political language or history. America thak goodness has not suffered the vagaries of European politics, but anyone who has studied even a little knows that the Communists were the lefties and the Fascists were the righties. As far as Big Brother watching over us I experiened it very blatantly today while driving through Texas. Now Texas and some Texans might make a big thing out of appearing to be virulent individualists and independent swaggering cowboys but their highways are littered with Big Brother signs that read, "Maintain Your Vehicle", "Drive Clean Across Texas", "Don't Mess With Texas" etcetera. People complained about Karl Marx's qutote the other day about "working hard" etcetera as being offensive. Is it not offensive to be told by "the state" to maintian your vehicle, etcetera.? If the wild wild west is now espousing Big Brother comments how far have we really come. (Counter point: neither Marx or Texas are guilty of Big Brother tactics just espousing common sense efforts at helping their fellow man.)
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 2
    		•  
    It seems there has never been a lack of persons predicting a time of two great classes. The only things that change are the perspective of the speaker and the class labels. However, to say such a time is coming overlooks the fact that humans have been so classified since the advent of civilization. While Professor Sumner's quote is interesting for his choice of labels and his provisional embrace of anarchy it offers little insight to either the subject or his remarkable intelligence.
     -- A.WOODS, Gloucester     
  • 1
    		•  
    Sumner was making an off-the-cuff point in class. This was not part of his deeper sociological work, or his political philosophy as such. He was merely trying to show that socialism invariably leads to totalitarianism - its premises lead there, even when its advocates don't want to go there - and that the idea of laissez faire is closer to anarchism than socialism. Oh, and by the way, fascism was a left-deviationism, part of the leftist movement. Benito Mussolini was a socialist theoretician and then turned nationalist, which put him at odds with international socialism, but kept his anti-individualistic, anti-liberal bent. Fascism meant, after all, a bundling together of activists, a collectivism of supporters of the total state - the "bundling" from the bundle of twigs, a "fasces." And Hitler called his movement "National Socialism." He was of the left. Pretending otherwise is something American liberal-progressives do to lie to themselves about the dangers of their own ideology.
     -- wirkman, Ecotopia     
  • 3
    		•  
    I think jomama, Planet Earth is "right on".
     -- John, Long Island, NY     
    		•  
    Someone said that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is this ; Republicans are Socialists and Democrats are Communists. Maybe not the whole truth, but close.
     -- jim k, Austin     
  • 2
    		•  
    You are right Jim K
     -- cal, lewisville, tx     
  • 1
    		•  
    Nice display of the extremes of ideology. Lenin and Hitler were two "flavors" of socialists, one where the State (gov't) owns all and the other where the State is content to own some but control ALL (crony-socialism like US). And then there's the chaos of anarchy-- what happens when the weight of gov't/state becomes too much to bear and it all starts to collapse.

    ...Unless sufficient relief from that crushing burden is given by someone who starts removing unnecessary rules, regs, agencies, entire departments so the people can once again be about their lives.
     -- empty pockets, NO, La     
  • 2
    		•  
    Say that to the fascists fighting the popular front in the Spanish civil war!
     -- Robert, Somewhere in Europe     
  • 1
    		•  
    Revolution, comes by way of Class Consciousness. !!. The Awakening to Revolt !! Judgement does come, The earth WILL NOT BE BOUGHT AND SOLD FOREVER !!. Regardless of Capitalism unchecked, or Socialistic Oppression in any degree !
    The UN, courting the inevitable conclusion of confiscation. And corralling of power into fewer hands for the sake of false equality. This will usher in false peace. The Appearing is Very close, but of heavenly influences, already known to exist ! Th UN following very closely the process of " The Awakening " ! We are in the eleventh house, a GREAT TIME OF CHANGE. Saad Al Melik, Saad Al Sund ! Foreshadowing of things to come ! Sumner leaves out the Divine Government of Nature !
     -- Ronw13, USA     
    		•  
    The "A" from Reston was watching far to much msnbc and cnn. The scale of right / left referenced by jim was freedom vs socialism; freedom on the right, socialism (tyranny, slavery, etc. on the left). Socialism's right / left dichotomy is illustrated in the administration of socialism (socialism's left is communism; socialism's right is fascism). 
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2
    		•  
    To feel like we belong to something that really matters, something that we need and needs us, something that the implications can possess eternal effects, yes this Mr Summer does appear to observe some of the defining characteristics of Socialism. And with that said, Mr Sumner still chooses to have the senses of a simple bologny bauble or tricky tricket, I choose being a Socialist because I want the senses of human being.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Correction: trinket, not tricket 
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Believe the fascists when they call themselves socialists.  Hitler & Mussolini being the two most famous fascists, both were the Socialist party leaders of the day.  Right and left are merely the same scale of Statism.  Top vs bottom is Liberty vs Authoritarianism.  "Liberals" in the classic sense are for Liberty. Statists are for any version of government that places itself above the people.  A republican form of government keeps power distributed among the people, while a statist form centralizes power into fewer and fewer hands.  

    Just like the word "democracy", the right-left scale is a misnomer designed to discredit republican governance and obfuscate the power grab of those who aim to be rulers of us all.  

    The battle is for hearts and minds, and to get people to believe they are beholden to authority other than themselves.  Such an idea is considered 'anarchy' today, but it is merely the classic liberalism upon which republican government has been founded.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    Mr Archer, Once again the equations:   fascism=inequality
                      Socialism=equality
    You will only realize your true governing qualities we you realize you are a Social organism first and foremost. You will then understand authority.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  
    A false equivalence, Fred. 

    Socialism, whether from the left (communism) or the right (fascism) is a form of Statism in which all power resides with the State, and the rights of the people are granted or refused by those holding the reins of power, whether through democracy or dictatorship in its many forms.

    True Liberalism, particularly in its republican form, acknowledge all power and rights reside with the People who charter a government with citizens to represent them and protect their natural-born rights.  In this form, the government is subservient to the People and have only the powers the People grant them, and those powers being the powers the People themselves already possess.  If an individual cannot dictate to his neighbors, the representative republican government cannot do so either.  With such a government, power is distributed, not concentrated.  The government cannot grant rights, it can make no laws that abridge the natural-born rights of every individual — true equality.

    There is no limit to the power a Statist government may claim in the name of 'the common good.'  However, a republican government has no power it has not been granted explicitly by the People through the government charter, i.e. Constitution.

    Inequality is the basis of Socialism — some are more equal than others.  Whereas in a republican government, all are equal before the law — justice is blind, and 'social justice' is but a clever form of statism.  Socialism is a form of servitude, the ultimate appropriation of all into the hands of authoritarians who call themselves experts who rule the less 'expert' common people.  Inequality in its most obvious form.

    Classic Liberalism does not claim for itself the seats of power in which the common people must submit to 'experts' or authorities.  No claims are made to the lives, liberty and property of the people, in fact its sole purpose to is to protect their rights above the insidious wiles of 'experts' who deign to rule.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
    		•  
    You've overwhelmed me a little Mr Archer. I just want to say this idea of being representing by others is throwing off the social order. You have to represent yourself. You have to adamantly,  conscientiously and routinely respesent yourself in the social order. You have to make yourself known and understood as a very solid contributor to the social order. Being represented by others is manipulative as well as being manipulated.  You must take your stand. You must tell the world who you are, what you believe, and how you make a difference. Speak out, say something, be something.
     Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create the transparent society. 

     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  
    Sillik, as Archer so accurately described the relationship of individual sovereign(s) and his/her hired actor(s) to represent individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty (NOT, the person themselves), you have resorted to circular off topic word salad to express your ignorance of the concept(s). Archer, you and/or me are not personally represented, no matter what the patrons of socialism or other patrons of the statist theocracy infesting this land say. Being personally represented is a false mysticism's dogmatics of democracy, socialism, etc.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    		•  
    Sillik, hahahaha — lololol — WHAT ? ? ? your circular word salad, attempting to redefine words is only an example of one of your gods: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth" (Lenin) FYI, no matter how you falsely attempt to redefine words, concepts, and otherwise methods of communication — fascism, communism, wokeism are any and all, each and every nothing more than administrative methods of socialism. Socialism (ab initio / telos, from the beginning through fruition) is a collective economic system theocratically enlarged to enslave all chattel specie.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  

    Fred, you are very close to understanding the roles and responsibilities of the freeman, i.e. the sovereign individual, the independent thinker, the empowered man.  I know it is a little overwhelming, but I hope you get there.

    Your definition of socialism is an attempt to squeeze classical liberalism into a utopian authoritarianism.  You can't have it both ways.  Either you are for the empowerment of the individual and the responsibilities that come with it or you are not. 

    Representing yourself adamantly and conscientiously, contributing to society of your own free will, making yourself known and understood, not manipulating or coercing others, and taking a stand are quintessential qualities of the freeman.  I support you in that.

    Know that the challenge of socialism is to get others to follow those that create the rules for a socialist society.  The challenge of the Freeman is to resist being ruled by and dependent upon the dictates of others.  You are free to pursue your utopian dreams, and I am free to follow my own.  The real challenge of the socialist is to allow others to live their own lives as they see fit.

    I acknowledge your compassion for others, Fred.  Perhaps you might consider that among the freemen, we, too, have compassion and value the freedom to choose what causes we wish to support and those we do not. 

    One final note, you frequently end your posts with some form of "Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create [...]"  Please understand that 'socialism' does not and cannot create anything.  People do, ideologies do not.  Capitalists in fact create; they produce, invent, plant and harvest.  Socialists lay claim to what they did not create.  They lay claim to the fruits of the labors of others, to be used for their own plans for 'society.' 

    At least be honest with yourself, that your ideas of what would make for a better society would be for others to give of their labors and capital to your utopian plans, for that is the real challenge, eh?  Getting Mike and I and millions of others like us to act in accordance with your ideals and plans. 

    That's a real challenge, I know, because we don't agree with your ideas, and we are in fact living and acting exactly as you say we should by 'representing ourselves adamantly and conscientiously, contributing to society of our own free will, making ourselves known and understood, not manipulating or coercing others, and taking a stand.'

    There may be hope for you yet, Fred. ;-)


     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
    		•  
    No, Mike,, Norwalk you have nothing but yourself, if you believe in anything but mob mentality. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create the individual.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  
    Thanks, Mr Archer, I appreciate that.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Oh, Mr Archer, I believe I am in the process of actually creating authentic Socialism. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create Socialism.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Sillik, so if I take your circular word salad at face value as written — there is mob mentality or nothing but my sovereign self. WOW, socialism is then a nothing that does not even show up on the scale of existence.  I say hmmm.  Are you including socialism in mob mentality?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    Oh by the way Mr Archer, I really don't understand much of what you say, but I really appreciate the sentiment of hope for me.

     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    It's not complicated, Fred. 

    When you make a concerted effort to try and understand the other's point of view, and respect people's varied ideas and ways of life, freedom and taking responsibility is really the best solution for society. 

    Socialism benefits a few at the expense of many who wish to live their own lives as they see fit. 

    Be a freeman, Fred, and allow others to do the same.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    Mr Archer, sorry I can't allow our citizens to be free to kill, crush, and destroy, "the other's view." At present I am aware no responsible individuals, and never hear of any nonviolent directions. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to reveal the violent citizenry to themselves. 

     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Oh, Mr Archer, I do hear a nonviolent voice, however, because I talk to myself, a lot. If a want to ever hear a reasonable perspective, that's the only alternative left to me.  Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create  reasonable individuals.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Correction: Oh, Mr Archer, I do hear a nonviolent voice, however, because I talk to myself. If I want to ever hear a reasonable perspective, that's the only alternative left to me. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create reasonable individuals.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Thankfully for us, Fred, you have no power to impose your authoritarian dreams.  Yes, authoritarian, because you claim yourself to be the only true authority on socialism, as you define it.  Your vision, as you have described it ad infinitum, is in fact fascism, clear as day to all but yourself.  Narcissism coupled with a denial of reality leads into the abyss.  Maybe watch your step...
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    		•  
    Mr Archer, I am only echoing the laws of nature. I would have to say you are arguing with mother nature, calling her both authoritarian and fascist. The poet sings that "you turn your back on mother nature." I would never attempt such foolishness. I call her righteousness, beauty, responsibility, equality, and justice. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create proper representation for nature. 

     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  
    Mr Archer, you've never really stated a position. You seemed to have taken what I stated and called libertarian. I am the only Socialist, it's not narcissism. It is a fact. I'm the only voice of the human. And the whole world knows it and jealously tries to avoid my presence. Tries daily to kill me. Look around, you have nothing but a psuedo society and I'm the only real individual. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create another real person.
     
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
    		•  
    Again, Fred, not only do you express authoritarian views, your arrogance and narcissism is on full display, maybe even with a touch of paranoia thrown in.  ;-)

    If you cannot figure out what my position is, even after reading everything I have posted above quite succinctly, I don't know what else to tell you.

    I am for Liberty and the Responsibility that comes with it. 

    And for the record, natural law and socialism are absolute opposites on the spectrum.  Natural law is self-enforced, while socialism absolutely requires force — i.e., by any means necessary.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    		 Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    Today's Quotes
    More Quotations
    Most Popular
    Recent Comments
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2024 Liberty-Tree.ca