Aggression is simply another name for government.
Marx, as we have seen, solved it by declaring capital to be a different thing from product, and maintaining that it belonged to society and should be seized by society and employed for the benefit of all alike.
The exercise of authority over the same area by two States is a contradiction.
Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism.
Defence was an afterthought, prompted by necessity; and its introduction as a State function, though effected doubtless with a view to the strengthening of the State, was really and in principle the initiation of the State’s destruction.
First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.
But which is the State’s essential function, aggression or defence, few seem to know or care.
And this is the Anarchistic definition of the State: the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area.
Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital.
Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be.