shall produce.  If there are too many preachers and too few shoemakers, the preacher will be taken from the pulpit and assigned to the bench; if there are too many shoemakers and too few preachers, the shoemaker will be taken from the bench and assigned to the pulpit.  Anarchy says, no government; Socialism says, all government; Anarchy leaves the will of the individual absolutely unfettered, Socialism leaves nothing to the individual will; Anarchism would have no social organism which is not dependent on the entirely voluntary assent of each individual member of the organism at every instant of its history; Socialism would have every individual of the social organism wholly subordinate in all his lifework to the authority of the whole body expressed through its properly constituted officers.  It is true that there are some writers who endeavor to unite these two antagonistic doctrines by teaching that society should be organized wholly for industry, not at all for government.  But how a cooeperative industry can be carried on without a government which controls as well as counsels, no writer, so far as I have been able to discover, has ever even suggested.

—­Lyman Abbott:  Anarchism:  Its Cause and Cure.

+Theme XCIII.+—­Write an exposition that makes use of comparison:—­

Suggested subjects:—­
  1.  A bad habit is a tyrant.
  2.  Typewritten letters.
  3.  The muskrat’s house.
  4.  Compare Shylock with Barabas in Marlowe’s Jew of Malta.
  5.  Methods of reading.
  6.  All the world’s a stage.
  7.  Compare life to a flower.

(Can you suggest any other comparisons which you might have used?  Have you been careful in your selection of facts and arrangement?)

+167.  Exposition by Obverse Statements.+—­In explaining an idea it is necessary to distinguish it from any related or similar idea with which it may be confused in the minds of our readers.  Clearness is added by the statement that one is not the other.  To say that socialism is not anarchy is a good preparation for the explanation of what socialism really is.  In the following selection Burke excludes different kinds of peace and by this exclusion emphasizes the kind of peace which he has in mind.

The proposition is peace.  Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of a complex government.  It is simple peace; sought in its natural course, and in its ordinary haunts.—­It is peace sought in the spirit of peace; and laid in principles purely pacific.  I propose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the Mother Country, to give permanent satisfaction to your people; and (far from a scheme of ruling by discord) to reconcile them to each other in the same act, and by the bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to British government.