{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36690/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36690","id":"gutenberg_36690","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36690","summary":null,"tags":["Anarchism","Anarchists","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics"],"text":"\n\n\n\nProduced by Fritz Ohrenschall, Martin Pettit and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nANARCHISM\n\nBY\nDR. PAUL ELTZBACHER\nGerichtsassessor and Privatdozent in Halle an der Saale\n\nTranslated by\nSTEVEN T. BYINGTON\n\nJe ne propose rien, je ne suppose rien, j'expose\n\n[Illustration]\n\nNEW YORK: BENJ. R. TUCKER.\nLONDON: A. C. FIFIELD.\n1908.\n\n\nCopyright, 1907, by\nBenjamin R. Tucker\n\n\n_Gratefully dedicated to the memory of my father_\n\nDR. SALOMON ELTZBACHER\n\n1832-1889\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n PAGE\nTRANSLATOR'S PREFACE vii\n\nBOOKS REFERRED TO xvii\n\nINTRODUCTION 3\n\nCHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM\n 1. General 6\n 2. The Starting-point 10\n 3. The Goal 13\n 4. The Way to the Goal 15\n\nCHAPTER II. LAW, THE STATE, PROPERTY\n 1. General 18\n 2. Law 24\n 3. The State 31\n 4. Property 36\n\nCHAPTER III. GODWIN'S TEACHING\n 1. General 40\n 2. Basis 41\n 3. Law 42\n 4. The State 45\n 5. Property 53\n 6. Realization 58\n\nCHAPTER IV. PROUDHON'S TEACHING\n 1. General 65\n 2. Basis 67\n 3. Law 69\n 4. The State 72\n 5. Property 80\n 6. Realization 86\n\nCHAPTER V. STIRNER'S TEACHING\n 1. General 93\n 2. Basis 96\n 3. Law 97\n 4. The State 100\n 5. Property 106\n 6. Realization 109\n\nCHAPTER VI. BAKUNIN'S TEACHING\n 1. General 115\n 2. Basis 117\n 3. Law 119\n 4. The State 121\n 5. Property 127\n 6. Realization 132\n\nCHAPTER VII. KROPOTKIN'S TEACHING\n 1. General 139\n 2. Basis 141\n 3. Law 145\n 4. The State 149\n 5. Property 159\n 6. Realization 171\n\nCHAPTER VIII. TUCKER'S TEACHING\n 1. General 182\n 2. Basis 183\n 3. Law 187\n 4. The State 190\n 5. Property 201\n 6. Realization 209\n\nCHAPTER IX. TOLSTOI'S TEACHING\n 1. General 219\n 2. Basis 220\n 3. Law 230\n 4. The State 234\n 5. Property 249\n 6. Realization 260\n\nCHAPTER X. THE ANARCHISTIC TEACHINGS\n 1. General 270\n 2. Basis 270\n 3. Law 272\n 4. The State 276\n 5. Property 280\n 6. Realization 284\n\nCHAPTER XI. ANARCHISM AND ITS SPECIES\n 1. Errors about Anarchism and its Species 288\n 2. The Concepts of Anarchism and its Species 292\n\nCONCLUSION 303\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR'S PREFACE\n\n\nEvery person who examines this book at all will speedily divide its\ncontents into Eltzbacher's own discussion and his seven chapters of\nclassified quotations from Anarchist leaders; and, if he buys the book,\nhe will buy it for the sake of the quotations. I do not mean that the\nbook might not have a sale if it consisted exclusively of Eltzbacher's\nown words, but simply that among ten thousand people who may value\nEltzbacher's discussion there will not be found ten who will not value\nstill more highly the conveniently-arranged reprint of what the\nAnarchists themselves have said on the cardinal points of Anarchistic\nthought. Nor do I feel that I am saying anything uncomplimentary to\nEltzbacher when I say that the part of his work to which he has devoted\nmost of his space is the part that the public will value most.\n\nAnd yet there is much to be valued in the chapters that are of\nEltzbacher's own writing,--even if one is reminded of Sir Arthur Helps's\nsatirical description of English lawyers as a class of men, found in a\ncertain island, who make it their business to write highly important\ndocuments in closely-crowded lines on such excessively wide pages that\nthe eye is bound to skip a line now and then, but who make up for this\nby invariably repeating in another part of the document whatever they\nhave said, so that whatever the reader may miss in one place he will\ncertainly catch in another. The fact is that Eltzbacher's work is an\nadmirable model of what should be the mental processes of an\ninvestigator trying to determine the definition of a term which he finds\nto be confusedly conceived. Not only is his method for determining the\ndefinition of Anarchism flawless, but his subsidiary investigation of\nthe definitions of law, the State, and property is conducted as such\nthings ought to be, and (a good test of clearness of thought) his\nillustrations are always so exactly pertinent that they go far to redeem\nhis style from dullness, if one is reading for the sense and therefore\ncares for pertinence. The only weak point in this part of the book is\nthat he thinks it necessary to repeat in print his previous statements\nwherever it is necessary to the investigation that the previous\nstatement be mentally renewed. But, however tiresome this may be, one\ngets a steady progress of thought, and the introductory part of the book\nis not very long at worst.\n\nThe collection of quotations, which form three-fourths of the book both\nin bulk and in importance, is as much the best part as it is the\nbiggest. Here the prime necessity is impartiality, and Eltzbacher has\nattained this as perfectly as can be expected of any man. Positively,\none comes to the end of all this without feeling sure whether Eltzbacher\nis himself an Anarchist or not; it is not until we come to the last\ndozen pages of the book that he lets his opposition to Anarchism become\nevident. To be sure, one feels that he is more journalistic than\nscientific in selecting for special mention the more sensational points\nof the schemes proposed (the journalistic temper certainly shows itself\nin his habit of picking out for his German public the references to\nGermany in Anarchist writers). Yet it is hard to deny that there is\nlegitimate scientific importance in ascertaining how much of the\nsensational is involved in Anarchism; and, on the other hand, Eltzbacher\nrecognizes his duty to present the strongest points of the Anarchist\nside, and does this so faithfully that one often wonders if the man can\nrepeat these words without feeling their cogency. So far as any bias is\nreally felt in this part of the book it is the bias of\nover-methodicalness; now and then a quotation is made to go into the\nclassification at a place where it will not go in without forcing, and\nperspective is distorted when some _obiter dictum_ that had never seemed\nto its author to be worth repeating a second time is made to serve as\nilluminant now for this division of the \"teaching,\" now for that, till\nit seems to the reader like a favorite topic of the Anarchist. However,\nthe bias of methodicalness is as nearly non-partisan as any bias can be,\nand its effect is to put the matter into a most convenient form for\nconsultation and comparison.\n\nNext to impartiality, if not even before it, we need intelligence in our\ncompiler; and we have it. Few men, even inside the movement, would have\nbeen more successful than Eltzbacher in picking out the important parts\nof the Anarchist doctrines, and the quotations that will show these\nimportant parts as they are. I do not mean that this accuracy has not\nexceptions--many exceptions, if you count such things as the failure to\ngive due weight to some clause which might restrict or modify the\napplication of the words used; a few serious exceptions, of which we\nreap the fruit in his final summary. But in admitting these errors I do\nnot retract my statement that Eltzbacher has made his compilation as\naccurate as any man could be expected to. More than this, it may well be\nsaid that he has, except in three or four points, made it as accurate as\nis even useful for ordinary reading; he has overlooked nothing but what\nhis readers would have been sure to overlook if he had presented it. As\na gun is advertised to shoot \"as straight as any man can hold,\" so\nEltzbacher has, with three or four exceptions, told his story as\nstraight as any man with ordinary attention can read. The net result is\nthat we have here, without doubt, the most complete and accurate\npresentation of Anarchism that ever has been given or ever will be given\nin so short a space. If any one wants a fuller and more trustworthy\naccount, he will positively have to go direct to the writings of the\nAnarchists themselves; nowhere else can he find anything so good as\nEltzbacher. Withal, this main part of the book is decidedly readable.\nEltzbacher's repetitiousness has no opportunity to become prominent\nhere, and the man is not at all dull in choosing and translating his\nquotations. On the contrary, his fondness for apt illustrations is a\ngreat help toward making the compilation constantly readable, as well as\ntoward making the reader's impressions of the Anarchistic teachings\nvivid and definite.\n\nI do not mean to say that this book can take the place of a\nconsultation of the original sources. For instance, the Bakunin chapter\nfollows next after the Stirner chapter; but the exquisite contrariness\nof almost every word of Bakunin to Stirner's teaching can be appreciated\nonly by those who have read Stirner's book--Eltzbacher's quotations are\non a different aspect of Stirner's teaching from that which applies\nagainst Bakunin. (Stirner and Bakunin, it will be noted, are the only\nAnarchist leaders against whom Eltzbacher permits himself a\ndisrespectful word before he has presented their doctrines.) It is to be\nhoped that many who read this book will go on to examine the sources\nthemselves. Meanwhile, here is an excellent introduction, and the\nchronological arrangement makes it easy to watch the historical\ndevelopment and see whether the later schools of Anarchism assail the\nState more effectively than the earlier.\n\nI have not reserved any expressions of praise for the small part of the\nbook which comes after the compiled chapters, because it calls for none.\nAll Eltzbacher's weak points come out in this concluding summary; the\nbest that can be said for it is that it deserves careful attention, and\nthat the author continues to be oftener right than wrong. But now that\nhe has gathered all his knowledge he wants it to amount to omniscience,\nand most imprudently shuts his eyes to the places where there is nothing\nunder his feet. He charges men with error for not using in his sense a\nterm whose definition he has not undertaken to determine. He accepts all\ntoo unquestioningly such statements as fit most conveniently into his\nscheme of method. His most glaring offence in this direction is his\nclassification of the Anarchist-Communist doctrines as mere prediction\nand not the expression of a will or demand or approval or disapproval of\nanything, simply because the fashionableness of evolutionism and of\nfatalism has led the leaders of that school to prefer to state their\ndoctrine in terms of prediction. Eltzbacher has forgotten to compare his\njudgment with the actions of the men he judges; _solvitur ambulando_; if\nKropotkin's proposition were merely predictive and not pragmatic, it\nwould have less trouble with the police than it has. Again, he does one\nof the most indiscreet things that are possible to a votary of strict\nmethod when he asserts repeatedly that he has listed not merely all that\nis to be found but all that could possibly exist under a certain\ncategory. For instance, he declares that every possible affirmative\ndoctrine of property must be either private property, or common property\nin the wherewithal for production and private property in the\nwherewithal for consumption, or common property. Why should not a scheme\nof common property in the things that are wanted by all men and private\nproperty in the things that are wanted only by some men have as high a\nrank in the classification as has Eltzbacher's second class? A look at\nthe quotations from Kropotkin will show that I have not drawn much on my\nown ingenuity in conceiving such a scheme as supposable. He claims to\nhave listed all the standpoints from which Anarchism has been or can be\npropounded or judged, yet he has omitted legitimism, the doctrine that a\npolitical authority which is to claim our respect and obedience must\nappear to have originated by a legitimate foundation and not by\nusurpation. The great part that legitimism has played in history is\nnotorious; and it lends itself very readily to the Anarchist's purpose,\nsince some governments are so well known to have originated in\nusurpation and others are so easily suspected of it. Nay, legitimism is\nin fact a potent factor in shaping the most up-to-date Anarchism of our\ntime; for it is largely concerned in Lysander Spooner's doctrine of\njuries, of which some slight account is given in Eltzbacher's quotations\nfrom Tucker. And he claims to have recited all the important arguments\nthat sustain Anarchism: where has he mentioned the argument from the\nevil that the State does in interfering with social and economic\nexperimentation? or the argument from the fact that reforms in the State\nare necessarily in a democracy, and ordinarily in a monarchy, very slow\nin coming to pass, and when they do come to pass they necessarily come\nwith all-disturbing suddenness? or the argument from the evil of\nseparating people by the boundary lines which the State involves? or the\nfact that war would be almost inconceivable if the States were replaced\nby voluntary and non-monopolistic organizations, since such\norganizations could have no \"jurisdiction\" or control of territory to\nfight for, and war for any other cause has long been unknown among\ncivilized nations? By these and other such unwarranted claims of\nabsolute completeness, and by the conclusions based on these pasteboard\npremises, Eltzbacher makes it necessary to read his final chapters with\nall possible independence of judgment.\n\nIt remains for me to say something of my own work on this book. I have\nconsulted the originals of some of the works cited--such as\ncircumstances have permitted--and given the quotations not by\ntranslation from Eltzbacher's German but direct from the originals. The\nparticulars are as follows:\n\nOf Godwin's \"Political Justice\" I used an American reprint of the second\nBritish edition. This second edition is greatly revised and altered from\nthe first, which Eltzbacher used. Godwin calls our attention to this,\nand especially informs us that the first edition did not in some\nimportant respects represent the views which he held at the time of its\npublication, since the earlier pages were printed before the later were\nwritten, and during the writing of the book he changed his mind about\nsome of the principles he had asserted in the earlier chapters. In the\nsecond edition, he says, the views presented in the first part of the\nbook have been made consistent with those in the last part, and all\nparts have been thoroughly revised. It will astonish nobody, therefore,\nthat I found it now and then impossible to identify in my copy the\npassages translated by Eltzbacher from the first edition. In particular,\nI got the impression that what Eltzbacher quotes about promises, from\nthe first part of the book, is one of those sections which Godwin says\nhe retracts and no longer believed in even at the time he wrote the\nlater chapters of the first edition. If so, a bit of the foundation for\nEltzbacher's ultimate classification disappears. Besides giving the\npages of the first edition as in Eltzbacher, I have added in brackets\nthe page numbers of the copy I used, wherever I could identify them.\nThroughout the book brackets distinguish footnotes added by me from\nEltzbacher's own, and in a few places I have used them in the text to\nindicate Eltzbacher's deviations from the wording of his original, of\nwhich matter I will speak again in a moment.\n\nThe passages from Proudhon's works I translated from the original French\nas given in the collected edition of his \"_OEuvres completes_.\" In this\nedition some of the works differ only in pagination from the editions\nwhich Eltzbacher used, while others have been extensively revised. I\nknow of no changes of essential doctrine.\n\nSince in Stirner's case German is the original language, I have accepted\nas my original the quotations given by Eltzbacher. It is probable that\nthey are occasionally condensed; but a fairly faithful memory, and the\nfact that it is less than a year since I was reading the proofs of my\ntranslation of Stirner's book, enable me to be confident that there is\nno change amounting to distortion. I have here made no use of that\ntranslation of mine[1] except from memory, because I well knew that in\ndealing with Stirner there is no assurance that the best possible\ntranslation of the continuous whole will be made up of the best possible\ntranslations of the individual parts. Neither have I used the extant\nEnglish translations of Bakunin's \"God and the State,\" Kropotkin's\n\"Conquest of Bread,\" Tolstoi's works, or any of the other books cited. I\nhave not had at hand any originals of Bakunin or Tolstoi, nor any of\nKropotkin except \"Anarchist Communism.\" Of this I had the first edition,\nand Eltzbacher, contrary to his habit, the second; but I judge that the\ntwo are from the same plates, for all the page-numbers cited agree.\n\nToward the Tucker chapter I have taken a special attitude. I am myself\none of Tucker's followers and collaborators; I may claim to be an\n\"authority\" on the exposition of his doctrine--\n\n\n _Nennt man die besten Namen,\n So wird auch der meine genannt_--\n\n\nand I have tried to have an eye to the precise correctness of everything\nin that chapter. That I used the original of \"Instead of a Book\" is a\nmatter of course; and I have not only taken Tucker's words where\nEltzbacher had translated the whole, but have had an eye to all points\nwhere Eltzbacher had condensed anything in a way that could affect the\nsense, and have restored the words that made the passage mean something\na little bit different from what Eltzbacher made it mean. (I did about\nthe same in this respect with Kropotkin's \"Anarchist Communism\"; and\nindeed something of the kind is inevitable if one is to consult\noriginals at all.) On the other hand, I have not, in general, drawn\nattention to passages where Eltzbacher makes merely formal changes for\nthe purpose of inserting in a sentence of a certain grammatical\nstructure what Tucker had said in a sentence of different structure.\n\nThe renderings of Tolstoi's biblical quotations are taken from the\n\"Corrected English New Testament,\" a conservative version which is now\nspoken of as the best English New Testament extant. It fits well into\nTolstoi, at least so far as the present quotations go.\n\nI have spoken above of Eltzbacher's qualities as compiler; it here\nbecomes necessary to say something of his work as translator. His\ntranslation is that of a very intelligent man, trusting to his\nintelligence to justify him in translating quite freely. He is confident\nthat he knows what the idea to be presented is, and his main concern is\nto express that in the language best suited to the purpose. He even\navows, as will be seen, that he has \"cautiously revised\" other people's\ntranslations from the Russian, without himself claiming to be familiar\nwith the Russian language. I would as soon entrust this extremely\ndelicate task to Eltzbacher as to anybody I know, for he is in general\nremarkably correct in his re-wordings. The justification of his\nconfidence in his knowledge of the author's thought may be seen in the\nfact that in passages which happen not to affect the main thought he\nmakes a few such slips as _zahlen mit ihrer Vergiftung_ for \"pay to be\npoisoned,\" _Willkuer_ for \"arbitrament,\" and even _eine blutige\nRevolution ruecksichtslos niederwuerfe_ for \"would do anything in his\npower to precipitate a bloody revolution\" (can he have been misled by\nthe chemist's use of \"precipitate\"?), but in passages where these\nblunders would do real harm he keeps clear of them, being safeguarded by\nhis knowledge of the sense. But it makes a difference whom you translate\nin this way. Tucker is a man who uses language with especial precision:\nevery phrase in a sentence of his may be presumed to contribute\nsomething definite to the thought; and Eltzbacher treats him as if the\nless conspicuous phrases were merely ornamental work which might safely\nbe omitted or amended when they seemed not to be advantageous for\nornamental purposes. I must confess that I have little faith in the\nEltzbacher method of translation for the rendering of any author; but it\nworks especially ill with an author like Tucker.\n\nOf course all defects of translation are cured, silently, by\nsubstituting the original English. Therefore, at the expense of slightly\nincreasing the bulk of the Tucker chapter, this edition gives American\nreaders a much more accurate presentation of the utterances of the\nAmerican champion of Anarchism than can be had in Eltzbacher's German;\nand, since I have the same advantage as regards Godwin, I think I may\nclaim in general terms that mine is the best edition of Eltzbacher for\nthose who read both English and German.\n\nBesides looking out for the accurate presentation of the passages quoted\nfrom Tucker, I have kept watch of the correctness of the subject-matter.\nWhatever seemed to me to represent Tucker's book unfairly, either by\nmisrepresenting his doctrine or by misapplying the quotations, has been\ncorrected by a note. This will be useful to the reader not only by\ngiving him a better Tucker, but also by giving a sample from which he\nmay judge what amount of fault the followers of Kropotkin or Tolstoi or\nthe rest would be likely to find with the chapters devoted to them. The\nmerely popular reader will probably get the impression that Eltzbacher\nis really a rather unreliable man. The competent student, who knows what\nmust be looked out for in all work of this sort, will have his\nconfidence in Eltzbacher increased by seeing how little of serious fault\nappears in such a search.\n\nThe index is compiled independently for this translation. Omitting such\nentries as merely duplicate the utility of the table of contents, and\nmaking an effort to head every entry with the word under which the\nreader will actually seek it, I hope I have bettered Eltzbacher's index;\nand I hope the index will be not only a place-finder but a help toward\nthe appreciation of the Anarchistic teachings.\n\nI have not in general undertaken to criticise those features of the book\nwhich embody Eltzbacher's own opinions. Whether it was in fact right to\nselect these seven men as the touchstone of Anarchism,--whether\nEltzbacher is right in discussing the definition of the State as he\ndoes, or whether he might better simply have taken as authoritative that\ndefinition which has legal force in international law,--whether he ought\nto have added any other feature to his book,--are points on which the\nreader does not care for my judgment, nor am I eager to express a\njudgment. Having had to work over the book very carefully in detail, I\nhave felt entitled to express an opinion as to how well Eltzbacher has\ndone the work that he did choose to do; I have also told what work I as\ntranslator claim to have done; and it is time this preface ended.\n\nSTEVEN T. BYINGTON.\n_Ballardvale, Mass., August 28, 1907._\n\n\n\n\nBOOKS REFERRED TO BY ABBREVIATED TITLES\n\n\nAdler, \"Handwoerterbuch\" = GEORG ADLER, \"Anarchismus,\" in\n_Handwoerterbuch der Staatswissenschaften_, 2d ed. (Jena 1898), vol. 1\npp. 296-327.\n\nAdler, \"Nord und Sued\" = GEORG ADLER, \"Die Lehren der Anarchisten,\" in\n_Nord und Sued_ (Breslau) vol. 32 (1885) pp. 371-83.\n\nBa. \"Articles\" = \"Articles ecrits par Bakounine dans l'Egalite de 1869,\"\nin _Memoire presente par la federation jurassienne de l'Association\ninternationale des travailleurs a toutes les federations de\nl'Internationale_ (Sonvillier, n. d.), \"Pieces justificatives\" pp.\n68-114.\n\nBa. \"Briefe\" = \"Briefe Bakunins,\" in Dragomanoff (see below) pp. 1-272.\n\nBa. \"Dieu\" = MICHEL BAKOUNINE, _Dieu et l'Etat_, 2d ed. (Paris 1892).\n\nBa. \"Dieu\" OEuvres = \"Dieu et l'Etat,\" in MICHEL BAKOUNINE, _OEuvres_,\n3d ed. (Paris 1895), pp. 261-326.\n\nBa. \"Discours\" = \"Discours de Bakounine au congres de Berne,\" in\n_Memoire presente par la federation jurassienne de l'Association\ninternationale des travailleurs a toutes les federations de\nl'Internationale_ (Sonvillier, n. d.), \"Pieces justificatives\" pp.\n20-38.\n\nBa. \"Programme\" = BAKOUNINE, \"Programme de la section slave a Zurich,\"\nin Dragomanoff (see below) pp. 381-3.\n\nBa. \"Proposition\" = \"Federalisme, socialisme et antitheologisme.\nProposition motivee au Comite central de la Ligue de la paix et de la\nliberte,\" in MICHEL BAKOUNINE, _OEuvres_, 3d ed. (Paris 1895), pp.\n1-205.\n\nBa. \"Statuts\" = \"Statuts secrets de l'Alliance\" and \"Programme et\nreglement de l'Alliance publique,\" in \"L'Alliance\" (see below) pp.\n118-35.\n\nBa. \"Volkssache\" = M. BAKUNIN, \"Die Volkssache. Romanow, Pugatschew oder\nPestel?\" in Dragomanoff (see below) pp. 303-9.\n\nBernatzik = BERNATZIK, \"Der Anarchismus,\" in _Jahrbuch fuer\nGesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich_\n(Leipzig) vol. 19 (1895) pp. 1-20.\n\nBernstein = EDUARD BERNSTEIN, \"Die soziale Doktrin des Anarchismus,\" in\n_Die Neue Zeit_ (Stuttgart) year 10 (1891-2) vol. 1 pp. 358-65, 421-8;\nvol. 2 pp. 589-96, 618-26, 657-66, 772-8, 813-19.\n\nCrispi = FRANCESCO CRISPI, \"The Antidote for Anarchy,\" in _Daily Mail_\n(London) no. 807 (1898) p. 4.\n\n\"Der Anarchismus und seine Traeger\" = _Der Anarchismus und seine\nTraeger. Enthuellungen aus dem Lager der Anarchisten von [**symbol:\ncircle in triangle], Verfasser der Londoner Briefe in der Koelnischen\nZeitung_ (Berlin 1887).\n\n\"Die historische Entwickelung des Anarchismus\" = _Die historische\nEntwickelung des Anarchismus_ (New York 1894).\n\nDiehl = KARL DIEHL, _P.-J. Proudhon_. _Seine Lehre und sein Leben._ (3\nvol., Jena 1888-96.)\n\nDragomanoff = MICHAIL DRAGOMANOW, _Michail Bakunins sozial-politischer\nBriefwechsel mit Alexander Iw. Herzen und Ogarjow, deutsch von Boris\nMinzes_ (Stuttgart 1895).\n\nDubois = FELIX DUBOIS, _Le Peril anarchiste_ (Paris 1894).\n\nFerri = \"Discours de FERRI\" in _Congres international d'anthropologie\ncriminelle, compte rendu des travaux de la quatrieme session, tenue a\nGeneve du 24 au 29 aout 1896_ (Geneve 1897) pp. 254-7.\n\nGarraud = R. GARRAUD, _L'Anarchie et la Repression_ (Paris 1895).\n\nGodwin = WILLIAM GODWIN, _An Enquiry concerning Political Justice and\nits Influence on General Virtue and Happiness_ (2 vol., London 1793).\n[Bracketed references are to the \"First American from the second London\nedition, corrected,\" Philadelphia, 1796.]\n\n\"Hintermaenner\" = _Die Hintermaenner der Sozialdemokratie. Von einem\nEingeweihten_ (Berlin 1890).\n\nKr. \"Anarchist Communism\" = PETER KROPOTKINE, _Anarchist Communism: its\nBasis and Principles_, 2d ed. (London 1895). [Reprinted from the\n_Nineteenth Century_.]\n\nKr. \"Conquete\" = PIERRE KROPOTKINE, _La Conquete du pain_, 5th ed.\n(Paris 1895).\n\nKr. \"L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste\" = PIERRE KROPOTKINE,\n_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_ (Paris 1892).\n\nKr. \"L'Anarchie. Sa philosophie--son ideal\" = PIERRE KROPOTKINE,\n_L'Anarchie. Sa philosophie--son ideal_ (Paris 1896).\n\nKr. \"Morale\" = PIERRE KROPOTKINE, _La Morale anarchiste_ (Paris 1891).\n\nKr. \"Paroles\" = PIERRE KROPOTKINE, _Paroles d'un revolte, ouvrage publie\npar Elisee Reclus, nouv. ed_. (Paris, n. d.)\n\nKr. \"Prisons\" = PIERRE KROPOTKINE, _Les Prisons_ (Paris 1890).\n\nKr. \"Siecle\" = PIERRE KROPOTKINE, _Un siecle d'attente. 1789-1889_\n(Paris 1893).\n\nKr. \"Studies\" = _Revolutionary Studies, translated from \"La Revolte\" and\nreprinted from \"The Commonweal\"_ (London 1892).\n\nKr. \"Temps nouveaux\" = PIERRE KROPOTKINE, _Les Temps nouveaux\n(conference faite a Londres)_ (Paris 1894).\n\n\"L'Alliance\" = _L'Alliance de la democratie socialiste et l'Association\ninternationale des travailleurs_ (Londres et Hambourg 1873).\n\nLenz = ADOLF LENZ, _Der Anarchismus und das Strafrecht. Sonderabdruck\naus der Zeitschrift fuer die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, Bd. 16,\nHeft 1_ (Berlin, n. d.).\n\nLombroso = C. LOMBROSO, _Gli Anarchici_, 2d ed. (Torino 1895).\n\nMackay, \"Anarchisten\" = JOHN HENRY MACKAY, _Die Anarchisten.\nKulturgemaelde aus dem Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts_. Volksausgabe (Berlin\n1893).\n\nMackay, \"Magazin\" = JOHN HENRY MACKAY, \"Der individualistische\nAnarchismus: ein Gegner der Propaganda der That,\" in _Das Magazin fuer\nLitteratur_ (Berlin und Weimar) vol. 67 (1898) pp. 913-15.\n\nMackay, \"Stirner\" = JOHN HENRY MACKAY, _Max Stirner. Sein Leben und sein\nWerk_ (Berlin 1898).\n\nMerlino = F. S. MERLINO, _L'Individualismo nell'anarchismo_ (Roma 1895).\n\nPfau = \"Proudhon und die Franzosen,\" in LUDWIG PFAU, _Kunst und Kritik_,\nvol. 6 of _Aesthetische Schriften_, 2d ed. (Stuttgart, Leipzig, Berlin,\n1888), pp. 183-236.\n\nPlechanow = GEORG PLECHANOW, _Anarchismus und Sozialismus_ (Berlin\n1894).\n\nPr. \"Banque\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _Banque du peuple, suivie du rapport de\nla commission des delegues du Luxembourg_ (Paris 1849). (In Proudhon's\n_OEuvres completes_, Paris 1866-83, this forms part of the volume\n\"Solution.\")\n\nPr. \"Contradictions\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _Systeme des contradictions\neconomiques, ou philosophie de la misere_ (2 vol., Paris 1846).\n\nPr. \"Confessions\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _Les Confessions d'un\nrevolutionnaire, pour servir a l'histoire de la revolution de fevrier_\n(Paris 1849).\n\nPr. \"Droit\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _Le Droit au travail et le Droit de\npropriete_ (Paris 1848). (In the _OEuvres_ this forms part of the volume\n\"La Revolution sociale.\")\n\nPr. \"Idee\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _Idee generate de la revolution au XIXe\nsiecle (choix d'etudes sur la pratique revolutionnaire et industrielle)_\n(Paris 1851).\n\nPr. \"Justice\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _De la justice dans la revolution et\ndans l'Eglise. Nouveaux principes de philosophie pratique_ (3 vol.,\nParis 1858).\n\nPr. \"Organisation\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _Organisation du credit et de la\ncirculation, et solution du probleme social_ (Paris 1848). (In the\n_OEuvres_ this forms part of the volume \"Solution.\")\n\nPr. \"Principe\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _Du principe federatif et de la\nnecessite de reconstituer le parti de la revolution_ (Paris 1863).\n\nPr. \"Propriete\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _Qu'est-ce que la propriete? ou\nrecherches sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement. Premier memoire_\n(Paris 1841).\n\nPr. \"Solution\" = P.-J. PROUDHON, _Solution du probleme social_ (Paris\n1848).\n\nProal = LOUIS PROAL, _La Criminalite politique_ (Paris 1895).\n\nReichesberg = NAUM REICHESBERG, _Sozialismus und Anarchismus_ (Bern und\nLeipzig 1895).\n\nRienzi = RIENZI, _L'Anarchisme, traduit du neerlandais par August\nDewinne_ (Bruxelles 1893).\n\nSernicoli = E. SERNICOLI, _L'Anarchia e gli Anarchici. Studio storico e\npolitico di E. Sernicoli_ (2 vol., Milano 1894).\n\nShaw = GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, _The Impossibilities of Anarchism_ (London\n1895).\n\nSilio = CESAR SILIO, \"El Anarquismo y la Defensa Social,\" in _La Espana\nModerna_ (Madrid) vol. 61 (1894) pp. 141-8.\n\nStammler = RUDOLF STAMMLER, _Die Theorie des Anarchismus_ (Berlin 1894).\n\nStirner = MAX STIRNER, _Der Einzige und sein Eigentum_ (Leipzig 1845).\n\nStirner \"Vierteljahrsschrift\" = M. St., \"Rezensenten Stirners,\" in\n_Wigands Vierteljahrsschrift_ (Leipzig) vol. 3 (1845) pp. 147-94.\n\nTo. \"Confession\" = GRAF LEO TOLSTOJ, _Bekenntnisse. Was sollen wir denn\nthun? deutsch von H. von Samson-Himmelstjerna_ (Leipzig 1886), pp.\n1-102.\n\nTo. \"Gospel\" = GRAF LEO N. TOLSTOJ, _Kurze Darlegung des Evangeliums,\ndeutsch von Paul Lauterbach_ (Leipzig, n. d.).\n\nTo. \"Kernel\" = \"Das Korn,\" in GRAF LEO N. TOLSTOJ, _Volkserzaehlungen,\ndeutsch von Wilhelm Goldschmidt_ (Leipzig, n. d.), pp. 87-9.\n\nTo. \"Kingdom\" = LEO N. TOLSTOJ, _Das Reich Gottes ist in euch, oder das\nChristentum als eine neue Lebensauffassung, nicht als mystische Lehre,\ndeutsch von R. Loewenfeld_ (Stuttgart, Leipzig, Berlin, Wien, 1894).\n\nTo. \"Linen-Measurer\" = \"Leinwandmesser. Die Geschichte eines Pferdes,\"\nin _Leo N. Tolstoj_, _Gesammelte Werke, deutsch herausgegeben von\nRaphael Loewenfeld_, vol. 3 (Berlin 1893) pp. 573-631.\n\nTo. \"Money\" = GRAF LEO TOLSTOJ, _Geld! Soziale Betrachtungen, deutsch\nvon August Scholz_ (Berlin 1891).\n\nTo. \"Morning\" = \"Der Morgen des Gutsherrn,\" in LEO N. TOLSTOJ,\n_Gesammelte Werke, deutsch herausgegeben von Raphael Loewenfeld_, vol.\n2, 2d ed. (Leipzig, n. d.), pp. 1-81.\n\nTo. \"On Life\" = GRAF LEO TOLSTOJ, _Ueber das Leben, deutsch von Sophie\nBehr_ (Leipzig 1889).\n\nTo. \"Patriotism\" = GRAF LEO N. TOLSTOJ, _Christentum und\nVaterlandsliebe, deutsch von L. A. Hauff_ (Berlin n. d.).\n\nTo. \"Persecutions\" = _Russische Christenverfolgungen im Kaukasus. Mit\neinem Vor- und Nachwort von Leo Tolstoj_ (Dresden und Leipzig 1896) pp.\n7-8, 38-48.\n\nTo. \"Reason and Dogma\" = GRAF LEO N. TOLSTOJ, _Vernunft und Dogma. Eine\nKritik der Glaubenslehre, deutsch von L. A. Hauff_ (Berlin n. d.).\n\nTo. \"Religion and Morality\" = GRAF LEO TOLSTOJ, _Religion und Moral.\nAntwort auf eine in der \"Ethischen Kultur\" gestellte Frage, deutsch von\nSophie Behr_ (Berlin 1894).\n\nTo. \"What I Believe\" = GRAF LEO TOLSTOJ, _Worin besteht mein Glaube?\nEine Studie, deutsch von Sophie Behr_ (Leipzig 1885).\n\nTo. \"What Shall We Do\" = GRAF LEO TOLSTOJ, _Was sollen wir also thun?\ndeutsch von August Scholz_ (Berlin 1891).\n\nTripels = \"Discours de Tripels,\" in _Congres international\nd'anthropologie criminelle, compte rendu des travaux de la quatrieme\nsession, tenue a Geneve du 24 au 29 aout 1896_ (Geneve 1897) pp. 253-4.\n\nTucker = BENJ. R. TUCKER, _Instead of a Book. By a Man Too Busy to Write\nOne. A fragmentary exposition of philosophical Anarchism_ (New York\n1893).\n\nVan Hamel = VAN HAMEL, \"L'Anarchisme et le Combat contre l'anarchisme au\npoint de vue de l'anthropologie criminelle,\" in _Congres international\nd'anthropologie criminelle, compte rendu des travaux de la quatrieme\nsession, tenue a Geneve du 24 au 29 aout 1896_ (Geneve 1897) pp. 254-7.\n\nZenker = E. V. ZENKER, _Der Anarchismus. Kritische Geschichte der\nanarchistischen Theorie_ (Jena 1895).\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[1] Entitled \"The Ego and His Own.\" N. Y., Benj. R. Tucker, 1907.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\n1. We want to know Anarchism scientifically, for reasons both personal\nand external.\n\nWe wish to penetrate the essence of a movement that dares to question\nwhat is undoubted and to deny what is venerable, and nevertheless takes\nhold of wider and wider circles.\n\nBesides, we wish to make up our minds whether it is not necessary to\nmeet such a movement with force, to protect the established order or at\nleast its quiet progressive development, and, by ruthless measures, to\nguard against greater evils.\n\n2. At present there is the greatest lack of clear ideas about Anarchism,\nand that not only among the masses but among scholars and statesmen.\n\nNow it is a historic law of evolution[2] that is described as the\nsupreme law of Anarchism, now it is the happiness of the individual,[3]\nnow justice.[4]\n\nNow they say that Anarchism culminates in the negation of every\nprogramme,[5] that it has only a negative aim;[6] now, again, that its\nnegating and destroying side is balanced by a side that is affirmative\nand creative;[7] now, to conclude, that what is original in Anarchism is\nto be found exclusively in its utterances about the ideal society,[8]\nthat its real, true essence consists in its positive efforts.[9]\n\nNow it is said that Anarchism rejects law,[10] now that it rejects\nsociety,[11] now that it rejects only the State.[12]\n\nNow it is declared that in the future society of Anarchism there is no\ntie of contract binding persons together;[13] now, again, that Anarchism\naims to have all public affairs arranged for by contracts between\nfederally constituted communes and societies.[14]\n\nNow it is said in general that Anarchism rejects property,[15] or at\nleast private property;[16] now a distinction is made between\nCommunistic and Individualistic,[17] or even between Communistic,\nCollectivistic, and Individualistic Anarchism.[18]\n\nNow it is asserted that Anarchism conceives of its realization as taking\nplace through crime,[19] especially through a violent revolution[20] and\nby the help of the propaganda of deed;[21] now, again, that Anarchism\nrejects violent tactics and the propaganda of deed,[22] or that these\nare at least not necessary constituents of Anarchism.[23]\n\n3. Two demands must be made of everybody who undertakes to produce a\nscientific work on Anarchism.\n\nFirst, he must be acquainted with the most important Anarchistic\nwritings. Here, to be sure, one meets great difficulties. Anarchistic\nwritings are very scantily represented in our public libraries. They are\nin part so rare that it is extremely difficult for an individual to\nacquire even the most prominent of them. So it is not strange that of\nall works on Anarchism only one is based on a comprehensive knowledge of\nthe sources. This is a pamphlet which appeared anonymously in New York\nin 1894, \"_Die historische Entwickelung des Anarchismus_\" which in\nsixteen pages gives a concise presentation that attests an astonishing\nacquaintance with the most various Anarchistic writings. The two large\nworks, _\"L'anarchia e gli anarchici, studio storico e politico di E.\nSernicoli_\" 2 vol., Milano, 1894, and \"_Der Anarchismus, kritische\nGeschichte der anarchistischen Theorie von E. V. Zenker_,\" Jena, 1895,\nare at least in part founded on a knowledge of Anarchistic writings.\n\nSecond, he who would produce a scientific work on Anarchism must be\nequally at home in jurisprudence, in economics, and in philosophy.\nAnarchism judges juridical institutions with reference to their economic\neffects, and from the standpoint of some philosophy or other. Therefore,\nto penetrate its essence and not fall a victim to all possible\nmisunderstandings, one must be familiar with those concepts of\nphilosophy, jurisprudence, and economics which it applies or has a\nrelation to. This demand is best met, among all works on Anarchism, by\nRudolf Stammler's pamphlet, \"_Die Theorie des Anarchismus_,\" Berlin,\n1894.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[2] \"_Der Anarchismus und seine Traeger_\" pp. 124, 125, 127; Reichesberg\np. 27.\n\n[3] Lenz p. 3.\n\n[4] Bernatzik pp. 2, 3.\n\n[5] Lenz p. 5.\n\n[6] Crispi.\n\n[7] Van Hamel p. 112.\n\n[8] Adler p. 321.\n\n[9] Reichesberg p. 13.\n\n[10] Stammler pp. 2, 4, 34, 36; Lenz pp. 1, 4.\n\n[11] Silio p. 145; Garraud p. 12; Reichesberg p. 16; Tripels p. 253.\n\n[12] Bernstein p. 359; Bernatzik p. 3.\n\n[13] Reichesberg p. 30.\n\n[14] Lombroso p. 31.\n\n[15] Silio p. 145; Dubois p. 213.\n\n[16] Lombroso p. 31; Proal p. 50.\n\n[17] Rienzi p. 9; Stammler pp. 28-31; Merlino pp. 18, 27; Shaw p. 23.\n\n[18] \"_Die historische Entwickelung des Anarchismus_\" p. 16; Zenker p.\n161.\n\n[19] Garraud p. 6; Lenz p. 5.\n\n[20] Sernicoli vol. 2 p. 116; Garraud p. 2; Reichesberg p. 38; Van Hamel\np. 113.\n\n[21] Garraud pp. 10, 11; Lombroso p. 34; Ferri p. 257.\n\n[22] Mackay \"_Magazin_\" pp. 913-915; \"_Anarchisten_\" pp. 239-243.\n\n[23] Zenker pp. 203, 204.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE PROBLEM\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\nThe problem for our study is, to get determinate concepts of Anarchism\nand its species. As soon as such determinate concepts are attained,\nAnarchism is scientifically known. For their determination is not only\nconditioned on a comprehensive view of all the individual phenomena of\nAnarchism; it also brings together the results of this comprehensive\nview, and assigns to them a place in the totality of our knowledge.\n\nThe problem of getting determinate concepts of Anarchism and its species\nseems at a first glance perfectly clear. But the apparent clearness\nvanishes on closer examination.\n\nFor there rises first the question, what shall be the starting-point of\nour study? The answer will be given, \"Anarchistic teachings.\" But there\nis by no means an agreement as to what teachings are Anarchistic; one\nman designates as \"Anarchistic\" these teachings, another those; and of\nthe teachings themselves a part designate themselves as Anarchistic, a\npart do not. How can one take any of them as Anarchistic teachings for a\nstarting-point, without applying that very concept of Anarchism which he\nhas yet to determine?\n\nThen rises the further question, what is the goal of the study? The\nanswer will be given, \"the concepts of Anarchism and its species.\" But\nwe see daily that different men define in quite different ways the\nconcept of an object which they yet conceive in the same way. One says\nthat law is the general will; another, that it is a mass of precepts\nwhich limit a man's natural liberty for other men's sake; a third, that\nit is the ordering of the life of the nation (or of the community of\nnations) to maintain God's order of the world. They all know that a\ndefinition should state the proximate genus and the distinctive marks of\nthe species, but this knowledge does them little good. So it seems that\nthe goal of the study does still require elucidation.\n\nLastly rises the question, what is the way to this goal? Any one who has\never observed the conflict of opinions in the intellectual sciences\nknows well, on the one hand, how utterly we lack a recognized method for\nthe solution of problems; and, on the other hand, how necessary it is in\nany study to get clearly in mind the method that is to be used.\n\n2. Our study can come to a more precise specification of its problem.\nThe problem is to put concepts in the place of non-conceptual notions of\nAnarchism and its species.\n\nEvery concept-determining study faces the problem of comprehending\nconceptually an object that was first comprehended non-conceptually, and\ntherefore of putting a concept in the place of non-conceptual notions of\nan object. This problem finds a specially clear expression in the\nconcept-determining judgment (the definition), which puts in immediate\njuxtaposition, in its subject some non-conceptual notion of an object,\nand in its predicate a conceptual notion of the same object.\n\nAccordingly, the study that is to determine the concepts of Anarchism\nand its species has for its problem to comprehend conceptually objects\nthat are first comprehended in non-conceptual notions of Anarchism and\nits species; and therefore, to put concepts in the place of these\nnon-conceptual notions.\n\n3. But our study may specify its problem still more precisely, though at\nfirst only on the negative side. The problem is not to put concepts in\nthe place of all notions that appear as non-conceptual notions of\nAnarchism and its species.\n\nAny concept can comprehend conceptually only one object, not another\nobject together with this. The concept of health cannot be at the same\ntime the concept of life, nor the concept of the horse that of the\nmammal.\n\nBut in the non-conceptual notions that appear as notions of Anarchism\nand its species there are comprehended very different objects. To be\nsure, the object of all these notions is on the one hand a genus that is\nformed by the common qualities of certain teachings, and on the other\nhand the species of this genus, which are formed by the addition of\nsundry peculiarities to these common qualities. But still these notions\nhave in view very different groups of teachings with their common and\nspecial qualities, some perhaps only the teachings of Kropotkin and\nMost, others only the teachings of Stirner, Tucker, and Mackay, others\nagain the teachings of both sets of authors.\n\nIf one proposed to put concepts in the place of all the non-conceptual\nnotions which appear as notions of Anarchism and its species, these\nconcepts would have to comprehend at once the common and special\nqualities of quite different groups of teachings, of which groups one\nmight embrace only the teachings of Kropotkin and Most, another only\nthose of Stirner, Tucker, and Mackay, a third both. But this is\nimpossible: the concepts of Anarchism and its species can comprehend\nonly the common and special qualities of a single group of teachings;\ntherefore our study cannot put concepts in the place of all the notions\nthat appear as notions of Anarchism and its species.\n\n4. By completing on the affirmative side this negative specification of\nits problem, our study can arrive at a still more precise specification\nof this problem. The problem is to put concepts in the place of those\nnon-conceptual notions of Anarchism and its species, having in view one\nand the same group of teachings, which are most widely diffused among\nthe men who at present are scientifically concerned with Anarchism.\n\nBecause the only possible problem for our study is to put concepts in\nthe place of part of the notions that appear as non-conceptual notions\nof Anarchism and its species,--to wit, only in the place of such notions\nas have in view one and the same group of teachings with its common and\nspecial qualities,--therefore we must divide into classes, according to\nthe groups of teachings that they severally have in view, the notions\nthat appear as notions of Anarchism and its species, and we must choose\nthe class whose notions are to be replaced by concepts.\n\nThe choice of the class must depend on the kind of men for whom the\nstudy is meant. For the study of a concept is of value only for those\nwho non-conceptually apprehend the object of the concept, since the\nconcept takes the place of their notions only. For those who form a\nnon-conceptual notion of space, the concept of morality is so far\nmeaningless; and just as meaningless, for those who mean by Anarchism\nwhat the teachings of Proudhon and Stirner have in common, is the\nconcept of what is common to the teachings of Proudhon, Stirner,\nBakunin, and Kropotkin.\n\nBut the men for whom this study is meant are those who at present are\nscientifically concerned with Anarchism. If all these, in their notions\nof Anarchism and its species, had in view one and the same group of\nteachings, then the problem for our study would be to put concepts in\nthe place of this set of notions. Since this is not the case, the only\npossible problem for our study is to put concepts in the place of that\nset of notions which has in view a group of teachings that the greatest\npossible number of the men at present scientifically concerned with\nAnarchism have in view in their non-conceptual notions of Anarchism and\nits species.\n\n\n2.--THE STARTING-POINT\n\nIn accordance with what has been said, the starting-point of our study\nmust be those non-conceptual notions of Anarchism and its species,\nhaving in view one and the same group of teachings, which are most\nwidely diffused among the men who at present are scientifically\nconcerned with Anarchism.\n\n1. How can it be known what group of teachings the non-conceptual\nnotions of Anarchism and its species most widely diffused among the men\nat present scientifically concerned with Anarchism have in view?\n\nFirst and foremost, this may be seen from utterances regarding\nparticular Anarchistic teachings, and from lists and descriptions of\nsuch teachings.\n\nWe may assume that a man regards as Anarchistic those teachings which he\ndesignates as Anarchistic, and, further, those teachings which are\nlikewise characterized by the common qualities of these. We may further\nassume that a man does not regard as Anarchistic those teachings which\nhe in any form contrasts with the Anarchistic teachings, nor, if he\nundertakes to catalogue or describe the whole body of Anarchistic\nteachings, those teachings unknown to him which are not characterized by\nthe common qualities of the teachings he catalogues or describes.\n\nWhat group of teachings those non-conceptual notions of Anarchism and\nits species which are most widely diffused among the men at present\nscientifically concerned with Anarchism have in view, may be seen\nsecondly from the definitions of Anarchism and from other utterances\nabout it. We may doubtingly assume that a man regards as Anarchistic\nthose teachings which come under his definition of Anarchism, or for\nwhich his utterances about Anarchism hold good; and, on the contrary,\nthat he does not regard as Anarchistic those teachings which do not come\nunder that definition, or for which these utterances do not hold good.\n\nWhen these two means of knowledge lead to contradictions, the former\nmust be decisive. For, if a man so defines Anarchism, or so speaks of\nAnarchism, that on this basis teachings which he declares\nnon-Anarchistic manifest themselves to be Anarchistic,--and perhaps\nother teachings, which he counts among the Anarchistic, to be\nnon-Anarchistic,--this can be due only to his not being conscious of the\nscope of his general pronouncements; therefore it is only from his\ntreatment of the individual teachings that one can find out his opinion\nof these.\n\n2. These means of knowledge inform us what group of teachings the\nnon-conceptual notions of Anarchism and its species most widely diffused\namong the men at present scientifically concerned with Anarchism have in\nview.\n\nWe learn, first, that the teachings of certain particular men are\nrecognized as Anarchistic teachings by the greater part of those who at\npresent are scientifically concerned with Anarchism.\n\nWe learn, second, that by the greater part of those who at present are\nscientifically concerned with Anarchism the teachings of these men are\nrecognized as Anarchistic teachings only in so far as they relate to\nlaw, the State, and property; but not in so far as they may be concerned\nwith the law, State, or property of a particular legal system or a\nparticular group of legal systems, nor in so far as they regard other\nobjects, such as religion, the family, art.\n\nAmong the recognized Anarchistic teachings seven are particularly\nprominent: to wit, the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin,\nKropotkin, Tucker, and Tolstoi. They all manifest themselves to be\nAnarchistic teachings according to the greater part of the definitions\nof Anarchism, and of other scientific utterances about it. They all\ndisplay the qualities that are common to the doctrines treated of in\nmost descriptions of Anarchism. Some of them, be it one or another, are\nput in the foreground in almost every work on Anarchism. Of no one of\nthem is it denied, to an extent worth mentioning, that it is an\nAnarchistic teaching.\n\n\n3.--THE GOAL\n\nIn accordance with what has been said, the goal of our study must be to\ndetermine, first, the concept of the genus which is constituted by the\ncommon qualities of those teachings which the greater part of the men at\npresent scientifically concerned with Anarchism recognize as Anarchistic\nteachings; second, the concepts of the species of this genus, which are\nformed by the accession of any specialties to those common qualities.\n\n1. The first thing toward a concept is that an object be apprehended as\nclearly and purely as possible.\n\nIn non-conceptual notions an object is not apprehended with all possible\nclearness. In our non-conceptual notions of gold we most commonly make\nclear to ourselves only a few qualities of gold; one of us, perhaps,\nthinks mainly of the color and the lustre, another of the color and\nmalleability, a third of some other qualities. But in the concept of\ngold color, lustre, malleability, hardness, solubility, fusibility,\nspecific gravity, atomic weight, and all other qualities of gold, must\nbe apprehended as clearly as possible.\n\nNor is an object apprehended in all possible purity in our\nnon-conceptual notions. We introduce into our non-conceptual notions of\ngold many things that do not belong among the qualities of gold; one,\nperhaps, thinks of the present value of gold, another of golden dishes,\na third of some sort of gold coin. But all these alien adjuncts must be\nkept away from the concept of gold.\n\nSo the first goal of our study is to describe as clearly as possible on\nthe one side, and as purely as possible on the other, the common\nqualities of those teachings which the greater part of the men at\npresent scientifically concerned with Anarchism recognize as Anarchistic\nteachings, and the specialties of all the teachings which display these\ncommon qualities.\n\n2. It is further requisite for a concept that an object should have its\nplace assigned as well as possible in the total realm of our\nexperience,--that is, in a system of species and genera which embraces\nour total experience.\n\nIn non-conceptual notions an object does not have its place assigned in\nthe total realm of our experience, but arbitrarily in one of the many\ngenera in which it can be placed according to its various qualities. One\nof us, perhaps, thinks of gold as a species of the genus \"yellow\nbodies,\" another as a species of the genus \"malleable bodies,\" a third\nas a species of some other genus. But the concept of gold must assign it\na place in a system of species and genera that embraces our whole\nexperience,--a place in the genus \"metals.\"\n\nSo a further goal of our study is to assign a place as well as possible\nin the total realm of our experience (that is, in a system of species\nand genera which embraces our total experience) for the common qualities\nof those teachings which the greater part of the men at present\nscientifically concerned with Anarchism recognize as Anarchistic\nteachings, and for the specialties of all the teachings that display\nthese common qualities.\n\n\n4.--THE WAY TO THE GOAL\n\nIn accordance with what has been said, the way that our study must take\nto go from its starting-point to its goal will be in three parts. First,\nthe concepts of law, the State, and property must be determined. Next,\nit must be ascertained what the Anarchistic teachings assert about law,\nthe State, and property. Finally, after removing some errors, we must\nget determinate concepts of Anarchism and its species.\n\n1. First, we must get determinate concepts of law, the State, and\nproperty; and this must be of law, the State, and property in general,\nnot of the law, State, or property of a particular legal system or a\nparticular family of legal systems.\n\nLaw, the State, and property, in this sense, are the objects about which\nthe doctrines which are to be examined in their common and special\nqualities make assertions. Before the fact of any assertions about an\nobject can be ascertained,--not to say, before the common and special\nqualities of these assertions can be brought out and assigned to a place\nin the total realm of our experience,--we must get a determinate concept\nof this object itself. Hence the first thing that must be done is to\ndetermine the concepts of law, the State, and property (chapter II).\n\n2. Next, it must be ascertained what the Anarchistic teachings assert\nabout law, the State, and property;--that is, the recognized Anarchistic\nteachings, and also those teachings which likewise display the qualities\ncommon to these.\n\nWhat the recognized Anarchistic teachings say, must be ascertained in\norder to determine the concept of Anarchism. What all the teachings that\ndisplay the common qualities of the recognized Anarchistic teachings\nsay, must be ascertained in order that we may get determinate concepts\nof the species of Anarchism.\n\nSo each of these teachings must be questioned regarding its relation to\nlaw, the State, and property. These questions must be preceded by the\nquestion on what foundation the teaching rests, and must be followed by\nthe question how it conceives the process of its realization.\n\nIt is impossible to present here all recognized Anarchistic teachings,\nnot to say all Anarchistic teachings. Therefore our study limits itself\nto the presentation of seven especially prominent teachings (chapters\nIII to IX), and then, from this standpoint, seeks to get a view of the\ntotality of recognized Anarchistic teachings and of all Anarchistic\nteachings (chapter X).\n\nThe teachings presented are presented in their own words,[24] but\naccording to a uniform system: the first, for security against the\nimportation of alien thoughts; the second, to avoid the uncomparable\njuxtaposition of fundamentally different courses of thought. They have\nbeen compelled to give definite replies to definite questions; it was\nindeed necessary in many cases to bring the answers together in tiny\nfragments from the most various writings, to sift them so far as they\ncontradicted each other, and to explain them so far as they deviated\nfrom ordinary language. Thus Tolstoi's strictly logical structure of\nthought and Bakunin's confused talk, Kropotkin's discussions full of\nglowing philanthropy and Stirner's self-pleasing smartness, come before\nour eyes directly and yet in comparable form.\n\n3. Finally, after removing widely diffused errors, we are to get\ndeterminate concepts of Anarchism and its species.\n\nWe must, therefore, on the basis of that knowledge of the Anarchistic\nteachings which we have acquired, clear away the most important errors\nabout Anarchism and its species; and then we must determine what the\nAnarchistic teachings have in common, and what specialties are\nrepresented among them, and assign to both a place in the total realm of\nour experience. Then we have the concepts of Anarchism and its species\n(chapter XI).\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[24] Russian writings are cited from translations, which are cautiously\nrevised where they seem too harsh.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nLAW, THE STATE, PROPERTY\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\n_In this discussion we are to get determinate concepts of law, the\nState, and property in general, not of the law, State, and property of a\nparticular legal system or of a particular family of legal systems. The\nconcepts of law, State, and property are therefore to be determined as\nconcepts of general jurisprudence, not as concepts of any particular\njurisprudence._\n\n1. By the concepts of law, State, and property one may understand,\nfirst, the concepts of law, State, and property in the science of a\nparticular legal system.\n\nThese concepts of law, State, and property contain all the\ncharacteristics that belong to the substance of a particular legal\nsystem. They embrace only the substance of this system. They may,\ntherefore, be called concepts of the science of this system. For we may\ndesignate as the science of a particular legal system that part of\njurisprudence which concerns itself exclusively with the norms of a\nparticular legal system.\n\nThe concepts of law, State, and property in the science of a legal\nsystem are distinguished from the concepts of law, State, and property\nin the sciences of other legal systems by this characteristic,--that\nthey are concepts of norms of this particular system. From this\ncharacteristic we may deduce all the characteristics that result from\nthe special substance of this system of law in contrast to other such\nsystems. The concepts of property in the present laws of the German\nempire, of France, and of England are distinguished by the fact that\nthey are concepts of norms of these three different legal systems.\nConsequently they are as different as are the norms of the present\nimperial-German, French, and English law on the subject of property. The\nconcepts of law, State, and property in different legal systems are to\neach other as species-concepts which are subordinate to one and the same\ngeneric concept.\n\n2. Second, one may understand by the concepts of law, State, and\nproperty the concepts of law, State, and property in the science of a\nparticular family of laws.\n\nThese concepts of law, State, and property contain all the\ncharacteristics that belong to the common substance of the different\nlegal systems of this family. They embrace only the common substance of\nthe different systems of this family. They may, therefore, be called\nconcepts of the science of this family of laws. For we may designate as\nthe science of a particular family of laws that part of jurisprudence\nwhich deals exclusively with the norms of a particular family of legal\nsystems, so far as these are not already dealt with by the sciences of\nthe particular legal systems of this family.\n\nThe concepts of law, State, and property in the science of a family of\nlaws are distinguished from the concepts of law, State, and property in\nthe sciences of the legal systems that form the family by lacking the\ncharacteristic of being concepts of norms of these systems, and\nconsequently lacking also all the characteristics which may be deduced\nfrom this characteristic according to the special substance of one or\nanother legal system. The concept of the State in the science of present\nEuropean law is distinguished from the concepts of the State in the\nsciences of present German, Russian, and Belgian law by not being a\nconcept of norms of any one of these systems, and consequently by\nlacking all the characteristics that result from the special substance\nof the constitutional norms in force in Germany, Russia, and Belgium.\nIts relation to the concepts of the State in the science of these\nsystems is that of a generic concept to subordinate species-concepts.\n\nThe concepts of law, State, and property in the science of a family of\nlaws are distinguished from the concepts of law, State, and property in\nthe sciences of other such families by this characteristic,--that they\nare concepts of norms of this particular family. From this\ncharacteristic we may deduce all the characteristics that are peculiar\nto the common substance of the different legal systems of this family in\ncontrast to the common substance of the different legal systems of other\nfamilies. The concept of the State in the science of present European\nlaw and the concept of the State in the science of European law in the\nyear 1000 are distinguished by the fact that the one is a concept of\nconstitutional norms that are in force in Europe to-day, the other of\nsuch as were in force in Europe then; consequently they are different in\nthe same way as what the constitutional norms in force in Europe to-day\nhave in common is different from what was common to the constitutional\nnorms in force in Europe then. These concepts are to each other as\nspecies-concepts which are subordinate to one and the same generic\nconcept.\n\n3. Third, one may understand by the concepts of law, State, and property\nthe concepts of law, State, and property in general jurisprudence.\n\nThese concepts of law, State, and property contain all the\ncharacteristics that belong to the common substance of the most\ndifferent systems and families of laws. They embrace only what the norms\nof the most different systems and families of laws have in common. They\nmay, therefore, be called concepts of general jurisprudence. For that\npart of jurisprudence which treats of legal norms without limitation to\nany particular system or family of laws, so far as these norms are not\nalready treated by the sciences of the particular systems and families,\nmay be designated as general jurisprudence.\n\nThe concepts of law, State, and property in general jurisprudence are\ndistinguished from the concepts of law, State, and property in the\nparticular jurisprudences by lacking the characteristic of being\nconcepts of norms of one of these systems or at least one of these\nfamilies of systems, and consequently lacking also all the\ncharacteristics which may be deduced from this characteristic according\nto the special substance of some system or family of laws. The concept\nof law _per se_ is distinguished from the concept of law in present\nEuropean law and from the concept of law in the present law of the\nGerman empire by not being a concept of norms of that family of laws,\nnot to say that particular system, and consequently by lacking all the\ncharacteristics that might belong to any peculiarities which might be\ncommon to all legal norms at present in force in Europe or in Germany.\nIts relation to the concepts of law in these particular jurisprudences\nis that of a generic concept to subordinate species-concepts.\n\n4. In which of the senses here distinguished the concepts of law, State,\nand property should be defined in a particular case, and what matters\nshould accordingly be taken into consideration in defining them, depends\non the purpose of one's study.\n\nIf, for example, the point is to describe scientifically the\nconstitutional norms of the present law of the German empire, then the\nconcept of the State as defined on this occasion must be a concept of\nthe science of this particular legal system. For scientific work on the\nnorms of a particular legal system requires that concepts be formed of\nthe norms of just this system. Consequently the material to be taken\ninto consideration will be only the constitutional norms of the present\nlaw of the German empire.--That the concepts defined in the scientific\ndescription of a system of law are in fact concepts of the science of\nthis system may indeed seem obscure. For every concept of the science of\nany particular system of law may be defined as the concept of a species\nunder the corresponding generic concept of general jurisprudence. We\ndefine this generic concept, say the concept of the State in general\njurisprudence, and add the distinctive characteristic of the\nspecies-concept, that it is a concept of norms of this particular system\nof law, say of the present law of the German empire. And then we often\nleave this additional characteristic unexpressed, where we think we may\nassume (as is the case in the scientific description of the norms of any\nparticular system of law) that everybody will regard it as tacitly\nadded. The consequence is that the definition given in the scientific\ndescription of a particular system of law looks, at a superficial\nglance, like the definition of a concept of general jurisprudence.\n\nOr, if the point is to compare scientifically the norms of present\nEuropean law regarding property, the concept of property as defined on\nthis occasion must be a concept of the science of this particular family\nof laws. For the scientific comparison of norms of different legal\nsystems demands that concepts of the sciences of these different legal\nsystems be subordinately arranged under the corresponding concept of the\nscience of the family of laws which is made up of these systems.\nConsequently the material to be taken into consideration will be only\nthe norms of this family of laws.--Here again, indeed, it may seem\nobscure that the concepts defined are really concepts of the science of\nthis family of laws. For the concepts that belong to the science of a\nfamily of laws may likewise be defined by defining the corresponding\nconcepts of general jurisprudence and tacitly adding the characteristic\nof being concepts of norms of this particular family of laws.\n\nFinally, if it comes to pass that the point is to compare scientifically\nwhat the norms of the most diverse systems of law have in common, the\nconcept of law as defined on this occasion must be a concept of general\njurisprudence. For the scientific comparison of norms of the most\ndiverse systems and families of laws demands that concepts which belong\nto the sciences of the most diverse systems and families of laws be\nsubordinately arranged under the corresponding concept of general\njurisprudence. Consequently the material to be taken into consideration\nwill be the norms of the most diverse systems and families of laws.\n\nHere,--where the point is to take the first step toward a scientific\ncomprehension of teachings which pass judgment on law, the State, and\nproperty in general, not only on the law, State, or property of a\nparticular system or family of laws,--the concepts of law, State, and\nproperty must necessarily be defined as concepts of general\njurisprudence. For a scientific comprehension of teachings which deal\nwith the common substance of the most diverse systems and families of\nlaws demands that concepts of this common substance--consequently\nconcepts belonging to general jurisprudence--be formed. Therefore we\nhave to take into consideration, as our material, the norms (especially\nregarding the State and property) of the most diverse systems and\nfamilies of laws.\n\n\n2.--LAW\n\n_Law is the body of legal norms. A legal norm is a norm which is based\non the fact that men have the will to see a certain procedure generally\nobserved within a circle which includes themselves._\n\n1. A legal norm is a norm.\n\nA norm is the idea of a correct procedure. A correct procedure means one\nthat corresponds either to the final purpose of all human procedure\n(unconditionally correct procedure,--for instance, respect for another's\nlife), or at any rate to some accidental purpose (conditionally correct\nprocedure,--for instance, the skilled handling of a picklock). And the\nidea of a correct procedure means that the unconditionally or\nconditionally correct procedure is to be thought of not as a fact but as\na task, not as something real but as something to be realized; it does\nnot mean that I shall in fact spare my enemy's life, but that I am to\nspare it--not how the thief really did use the picklock, but how he\nshould have used it. The idea of a correct procedure is what we\ndesignate as an \"ought\": when I think of an \"ought,\" I think of what has\nto be done in order to realize either the final purpose of all human\nprocedure or some accidental personal purpose. All passing of judgment\non past procedure is conditioned upon the idea of a correct\nprocedure--only with regard to this idea can past procedure be described\nas good or bad, expedient or inexpedient; and so is all deliberation on\nfuture procedure--only with regard to this idea does one inquire whether\nit will be right, or at any rate expedient, to proceed in a given\nmanner.\n\nEvery legal norm represents a procedure as correct, declares that it\ncorresponds to a particular purpose. And it represents this correct\nprocedure as an idea, designates it not as a fact but as a task, does\nnot say that any one does proceed so but that one is to proceed so.\nHence a legal norm is a norm.\n\n2. A legal norm is a norm based on a human will.\n\nA norm based on a human will is a norm by virtue of which one must\nproceed in a certain way in order that he may not put himself in\nopposition to the will of some particular men, and so be apprehended by\nthe power which is at the service of these men. Such a norm, therefore,\nrepresents a procedure only as conditionally correct; to wit, as a means\nto the end (which we are perhaps pursuing or perhaps despising) of\nremaining in harmony with the will of certain men, and so being spared\nby the power which serves this will.\n\nEvery legal norm tells us that we must proceed in a certain way in order\nthat we may not contravene the will of some particular men and then\nsuffer under their power. Therefore it represents a procedure only as\nconditionally correct, and instructs us not as to what is good but only\nas to what is prescribed. Hence a legal norm is a norm based on a human\nwill.\n\n3. A legal norm is a norm based on the fact that men will to have a\ncertain procedure for themselves and others.\n\nA norm is based on the fact that men will to have a certain procedure\nfor themselves and others when the will on which the norm is based has\nreference not only to others who do not will, but also, at the same\ntime, to the willers themselves also; when, therefore, these not only\nwill that others be subject to the norm but also will to be subject to\nit themselves.\n\nEvery legal norm, and of all norms only the legal norm, has the\ncharacteristic that the will on which it is based reaches beyond those\nwhose will it is, and yet embraces them too. The rule, \"Whoever takes\nfrom another a movable thing that is not his own, with the intent to\nappropriate it illegally, is punished with imprisonment for theft,\" is\nnot only based on the will of men, but each of these men is also\nconscious that, while on the one hand the rule applies to other men, on\nthe other hand it applies to himself.\n\nHere it might be alleged that, after all, the mere fact of men's will to\nhave a certain procedure for themselves and others does not always\nestablish law; for example, the efforts of the Bonapartists do not\nestablish the empire in France. But it is not when this bare will exists\nthat law is established, but only when a norm is based on this will;\nthat is, when it has in its service so great a power that it is\ncompetent to affect the behavior of the men to whom it relates. As soon\nas Bonapartism spreads so widely and in such circles that this takes\nplace, the republic will fall and the empire will indeed become law in\nFrance.\n\nOne might further appeal to the fact that in unlimited monarchies (in\nRussia, for instance) the law is based solely on the will of one man,\nwho is not himself subject to it. But Russian law is not based on the\nczar's will at all; the czar is a weak individual man, and his will in\nitself is totally unqualified to affect many millions of Russians in\ntheir procedure. Russian law is based rather on the will of all those\nRussians--peasants, soldiers, officials--who, for the most various\nreasons--patriotism, self-interest, superstition--will that what the\nczar wills shall be law in Russia. Their will is qualified to affect the\nprocedure of the Russians; and, if they should ever grow so few that it\nwould no longer have this qualification, then the czar's will would no\nlonger be law in Russia, as the history of revolutions proves.\n\n4. It has been asserted that legal norms have still other qualities.\n\nIt has been said, first, that it belongs to the essence of a legal norm\nto be enforceable, or even to be enforceable in a particular way, by\njudicial procedure, governmental force.\n\nIf by this we are to understand that conformity can always be enforced,\nwe are met at once by the great number of cases in which this cannot be\ndone. When a debtor is insolvent, or a murder has been committed,\nconformity to the violated legal norms cannot now be enforced after the\nfact, but their validity is not impaired by this.\n\nIf by enforceability we mean that conformity to a legal norm must be\ninsured by other legal norms providing for the case of its violation, we\nneed only go on from the insured to the insuring norms for a while, to\ncome to norms for which conformity is not insured by any further legal\nnorms. If one refuses to recognize these norms as legal norms, then\nneither can the norms which are insured by them rank as legal norms, and\nso, going back along the series, one has at last no legal norms left.\n\nOnly if one would understand by the enforceability of the legal norm\nthat a will must have at its disposal a certain power in order that a\nlegal norm may be based on it, one might certainly say in this sense\nthat enforceability belongs to the essence of a legal norm. But this\nquality of the legal norm would be only such a quality as would be\nderivable from its quality of being a norm, and would therefore have no\nclaim to be added as a further quality.\n\nAgain, it has been named an essential quality of a legal norm that it\nshould be based on the will of a State. But even where we cannot speak\nof a State at all, among nomads for instance, there are yet legal norms.\nBesides, every State is itself a legal relation, established by legal\nnorms, which consequently cannot be based on its will. And lastly, the\nnorms of international law, which are intended to bind the will of\nStates, cannot be based on the will of a State.\n\nFinally, it has been asserted that it was essential to a legal norm that\nit should correspond to the moral law. If this were so, then among the\ndifferent legal norms which to-day are in force one directly after the\nother in the same territory, or at the same time in different\nterritories under the same circumstances, only one could in each case be\nregarded as a legal norm; for under the same circumstances there is only\none moral right. Nor could one speak then of unrighteous legal norms,\nfor if they were unrighteous they would not be legal norms. But in\nreality, even when legal norms determine conduct quite differently under\nthe same circumstances, they are all nevertheless recognized as legal\nnorms; nor is it doubted that there are bad legal norms as well as good.\n\n5. As a norm based on the fact that men have the will to see a certain\nprocedure generally observed within a circle which includes themselves,\nthe legal norm is distinguished from all other objects, even from those\nthat most resemble it.\n\nBy being based on the will of men it is distinguished from the moral law\n(the commandment of morality); this is not based on men's willing a\ncertain procedure, but on the fact that this procedure corresponds to\nthe final purpose of all human procedure. The maxim, \"Love your enemies,\nbless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, pray for those\nwho abuse and persecute you,\" is a moral law; so is the maxim, \"Act so\nthat the maxims of your will might at all times serve as the principles\nof a general legislation.\" For the correctness of such a procedure is\nnot founded on the fact that other men will have it, but on the fact\nthat it corresponds to the final purpose of all human procedure.\n\nBy being based on the will of men the legal norm is distinguished also\nfrom good manners; these are not based on the fact that men will a\ncertain procedure, but on the fact that they themselves proceed in a\ncertain way. It is manners that one goes to a ball in a dress coat and\nwhite gloves, uses his knife at table only for cutting, begs the\ndaughter of the house for a dance or at least one round, takes leave of\nthe master and mistress of the house, and lastly presses a tip into the\nservant's hand; for the correctness of such a behavior is not based on\nthe fact that other men ask this of us,--to those who start a new\nfashion it is often actually unpleasant to find that the fashion is\nspreading to more extensive circles,--but solely on the fact that other\nmen themselves behave so, and that we want \"not to be peculiar,\" \"not to\nmake ourselves conspicuous,\" \"to do like the rest,\" etc.\n\nBy being based on a will which relates at once to those whose will it is\nand to others whose will it is not, it is distinguished on the one hand\nfrom an arbitrary command, in which one's will applies only to others,\nand on the other from a resolution, in which it applies only to himself.\nIt is an arbitrary command when Cortes with his Spaniards commands the\nMexicans to bring out their gold, or when a band of robbers forbids a\nfrightened peasantry to betray their hiding-place; here a human will\ndecides, indeed, but a will that relates only to other men, and not at\nthe same time to those whose will it is. A resolution is presented when\nI have decided to get up at six every morning, or to leave off smoking,\nor to finish a piece of work within a specified time--here a human will\nis indeed the standard, but it relates only to him whose will it is, not\nat all to others.\n\n6. What is briefly summed up in the definition of the legal norm may, if\none takes into account the explanations which have been given with this\ndefinition, be expanded as follows:\n\nMen will that a given procedure be generally observed within a circle\nwhich includes themselves, and their power is so great that their will\nis competent to affect the men of this circle in their procedure. When\nsuch is the condition of things, a legal norm exists.\n\n\n3.--THE STATE\n\n_The State is a legal relation by virtue of which a supreme authority\nexists in a certain territory._\n\n1. The State is a legal relation.\n\nA legal relation is the relation, determined by legal norms, of an\nobligated party, one to whom a procedure is prescribed, to an entitled\nparty, one for whose sake it is prescribed. Thus, for instance, the\nlegal relation of a loan is a relation of the borrower, who is bound by\nthe legal norms concerning loans, to the lender, for whose sake he is\nbound.\n\nThe State is the legal relation of all the men who by legal norms are\nsubjected to a supreme territorial authority, to all those for whose\nsake they are subjected to it. Here the circle of the entitled and the\nobligated is one and the same; the State is a bond upon all in favor of\nall.\n\nTo this it might perhaps be objected that the State is not a legal\nrelation but a person. But the two propositions, that an association of\nmen is a person in the legal sense and that it is a legal relation, are\nquite compatible; nay, its attribute of personality is based mainly on\nits attribute of being a legal relation of a particular kind; law, in\nviewing the association in its outward relationships as a person, starts\nfrom the fact that men are bound together by a particular legal\nrelation. A joint-stock corporation is a person not although, but\nbecause, it is a legal relation of a peculiar kind. And similarly, the\nfact that the State is a person is not only reconcilable with its being\na legal relation, but is founded on its being a peculiar legal relation.\n\n2. As to the conditions of its existence, this legal relation is\ninvoluntary.\n\nA voluntary legal relation exists when legal norms make entrance into\nthe relation conditional on actions of the obligated party, of which\nactions the purpose is to bring about the legal relation; for instance,\nentrance into the relation of tenancy is conditioned on agreeing to a\nlease. _Per contra_, an involuntary legal relation exists when legal\nnorms do not make entrance into the relation conditional on any such\nactions of the obligated party, as, for instance, a patent is not\nconditioned on any action of those who are bound by it, and the sentence\nof a criminal is at least not conditioned on any action whereby he\nintended to bring it about.\n\nIf the State were a voluntary legal relation, a supreme authority could\nexist only for those inhabitants of a territory who had acknowledged it.\nBut the supreme authority exists for all inhabitants of the territory,\nwhether they have acknowledged it or not; the legal relation is\ntherefore involuntary.\n\n3. The substance of this legal relation is, that a supreme authority\nexists in a territory.\n\nAn authority exists in a territory by virtue of a legal relation when,\naccording to the legal norms which found the relation, the will of some\nmen--or even merely of a man--is regulative for the inhabitants of this\nterritory. A supreme authority exists in a territory by virtue of a\nlegal relation when according to those norms the will of some men is\nfinally regulative for the inhabitants of the territory,--that is, is\ndecisive when authorities disagree. What we here designate as a supreme\nauthority, therefore, is not the men on whose will the legal norms in\nforce in a territory are based, but rather their highest agents, whose\nwill they would have finally regulative within the territory.\n\nWhat men it is whose will is finally regulative for the inhabitants of a\nterritory by virtue of a legal relation--for instance, members of a\nroyal family according to a certain order of inheritance, or persons\nelected according to a certain election law--depends on the legal norms\nby which the legal relation is determined. On these legal norms, too,\ndepends the question within what limits the will of these men is\nregulative. But this limited nature of the authority does not stand in\nthe way of its being a supreme authority; the highest agent need not be\nan agent with unrestricted powers.\n\nHere one might perhaps object that in federal States, in the German\nempire for instance, the individual States have not supreme authority.\nBut in reality they have it. For, even if there are a multitude of\nsubjects in reference to which the highest authority of the individual\nStates of the German empire has to bow to the imperial authority, yet\nthere are also subjects enough about which the highest authority of the\nindividual States gives a final decision. As long as there are such\nsubjects, a supreme authority exists in the individual States; if some\nday there should no longer be such, one could no longer speak of\nindividual States.\n\n4. As a legal relation, by virtue of which a supreme authority exists in\na territory, the State is distinguished from all other objects, even\nfrom those that most resemble it.\n\nBy being a legal relation it is distinguished on the one hand from\ninstitutions such as would exist in a conceivable kingdom of God or of\nreason, on the basis of the moral law, and on the other hand from the\ndominion of a conqueror in the conquered country, which can never be\nanything but an arbitrary dominion.\n\nBeing an involuntary legal relation, the State is distinguished from a\nconceivable association of men who should set up a supreme authority\namong themselves by an agreement, as well as from leagues under\ninternational law, in which a supreme authority exists on the basis of\nan agreement.\n\nThe fact that by virtue of a legal relation an authority over a\nterritory is given distinguishes the State from the tribal community of\nnomads and from the Church; for in the former there is given an\nauthority over people of a certain descent, in the latter over people of\na certain faith, but in neither over people of a certain territory. And\nfinally, in the fact that this territorial authority is a supreme\nauthority lies the difference between the State and towns, counties, or\nprovinces; in the latter there is indeed a territorial authority\ninstituted, but one that by the very intent of its institution must bow\nto a higher authority.\n\n5. What is briefly summed up in the definition of the State may be\nexpanded as follows, if one takes into consideration on the one hand the\nprevious definition of a legal norm and on the other hand the above\nexplanations of the definition of the State:\n\nSome inhabitants of a territory are so powerful that their will is\ncompetent to affect the inhabitants of this territory in their\nprocedure, and these men will have it that for all the inhabitants of\nthe territory, for themselves as well as for the rest, the will of men\npicked out in a certain way shall within certain limits be finally\nregulative. When such is the condition of things, a State exists.\n\n\n4.--PROPERTY\n\n_Property is a legal relation, by virtue of which some one has, within a\ncertain group of men, the exclusive privilege of ultimately disposing of\na thing._\n\n1. Property is a legal relation.\n\nAs has already been stated, a legal relation is the relation of an\nobligated party, one to whom a procedure is prescribed by legal norms,\nto an entitled party, one for whose sake it is prescribed.\n\nProperty is the legal relation of all the members of a group of men who\nby legal norms are excluded from ultimately disposing of a thing, to\nhim--or to those--for whose sake they are excluded from it. Here the\ncircle of the obligated is much broader than that of the entitled; the\nformer embraces, say, all the inhabitants of a territory or all who\nbelong to a tribe, the latter only those among them in whom certain\nfurther conditions (for instance, transfer, prescription, appropriation)\nare fulfilled.\n\n2. As to the conditions of its existence, this legal relation is\ninvoluntary.\n\nAs discussion has already shown, a voluntary legal relation exists when\nlegal norms make entrance into the relation conditional on actions of\nthe obligated party, of which actions the purpose is to bring about the\nlegal relation; _per contra_, an involuntary legal relation exists when\nlegal norms do not make entrance into the relation conditional on any\nsuch actions of the obligated party.\n\nIf property were a voluntary legal relation, then there could be\nexcluded from ultimately disposing of a thing only those members of a\ngroup of men who had consented to this exclusion. But all members of the\ngroup--for instance, all the inhabitants of a territory, all who belong\nto a tribe--are excluded, whether they have consented or not.\n\n3. The substance of this legal relation consists in some one's having,\nwithin a certain group of men, the exclusive privilege of ultimately\ndisposing of a thing.\n\nSome one's having, within a certain group of men, the exclusive\nprivilege of ultimately disposing of a thing means that this group is\nexcluded from the thing in his favor; that is, they must not hinder him\nfrom dealing with the thing according to his will, nor may they\nthemselves deal with it against his will. Now, the exclusive disposition\nof a thing within a certain group of men may by virtue of a legal\nrelation belong to several, part by part, in this way: that some--or\none--of them have it in this or that particular respect (for instance,\nas to the usufruct), and one--or some--in all other respects which are\nnot individually alienated. Whoever thus has, within a group of men, the\nexclusive disposition of a thing in all those respects which are not\nindividually alienated, to him belongs, within that group, the exclusive\nprivilege of ultimately disposing of the thing.\n\nTo whom this belongs by virtue of the legal relation--whether, for\ninstance, it belongs among others to him who by labor has made a thing\ninto some new thing--depends on the legal norms by which the legal\nrelation is determined. On them also depends the question, within what\nlimits this belongs to him: the dispository authority of him to whom the\nexclusive disposition of a thing within a group of men ultimately\nbelongs is limited not only by the dispository authority of those to\nwhom the exclusive disposition within the group proximately belongs, but\nalso by the limits within which such dispository authority is at all\nallowed to anybody in the group. Especially, it depends on these legal\nnorms whether a privilege of exclusive ultimate disposition belongs to\nindividuals as well as to corporations, or only to corporations, and\nwhether it applies to every kind of things or only to one kind or\nanother.\n\n4. As a legal relation by virtue of which some one has, within a certain\ngroup of men, the exclusive privilege of ultimately disposing of a\nthing, property is distinguished from all other objects, even from those\nwhich most resemble it.\n\nBy being a legal relation it is distinguished from all the relations in\nwhich one has the exclusive ultimate disposition of a thing guaranteed\nto him solely by the reasonableness of the men who surround him, or\nsolely by his own might, as might be the case in a conceivable kingdom\nof God or of reason, and as is often the case in a conquered country.\n\nBeing an involuntary legal relation, it is distinguished from those\nlegal relations by virtue of which the exclusive privilege of ultimately\ndisposing of a thing belongs to some one solely on the ground of a\ncontract, and solely as against the other contracting parties.\n\nThat by virtue of this legal relation some one has, within a group of\nmen, the exclusive privilege of ultimately disposing of a thing,\ndistinguishes property from copyright, by virtue of which some one has\nexclusively, within a group of men, not the disposition of a thing, but\nsomewhat else; and furthermore from rights in the property of others, by\nvirtue of which some one has, within a group of men, the exclusive\nprivilege of disposing of a thing, but not of ultimately disposing of\nit.\n\n5. What is briefly summed up in the definition of property may be\nexpanded as follows, if one takes into consideration on the one hand the\npreviously given definition of a legal norm, and on the other the above\nexplanations of the definition of property.\n\nSome men are so powerful that their will is able to affect in its\nprocedure a group of men which embraces them, and these men will have it\nthat no member of this group shall, within certain limits, hinder a\nmember picked out in a certain way from dealing with a thing according\nto his will, nor, within these limits, himself deal with the thing\nagainst the will of that member, so far as the will of another member is\nnot already in particular respects regulative with respect to that thing\nequally with the will of that member. When such is the condition of\nthings, property exists.\n\n * * * * *\n\n [Distinguishing the State from arbitrary dominion as he here does\n (p. 34), and then saying that Anarchism consists solely in the\n negation of the State, Eltzbacher implies the unsound conclusion\n that Anarchism does not involve the negation of arbitrary dominion.\n This is because he incautiously takes the word of the learned\n public that the only cardinal points of Anarchism are law, the\n State, and property, without making sure that those who say this\n are using the term \"State\" in the precise sense defined by him. But\n are not many of his \"arbitrary commands\" law and State by his\n definitions? Every robber in his band (p. 31) is as much required\n to keep the secret as are the peasantry, and under the same\n penalties. In restraining a subject population I restrict my\n liberty of emigration or investment, and forbid myself to be an\n accomplice in certain things.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nGODWIN'S TEACHING\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\n1. William Godwin was born in 1756 at Wisbeach, Cambridgeshire. He\nstudied theology at Hoxton, beginning in 1773. In 1778 he became\npreacher at Ware, Hertfordshire; in 1780, preacher at Stowmarket,\nSuffolk. In 1782 he gave up this position. From this time on he lived in\nLondon as an author. He died there in 1836.\n\nGodwin published numerous works in the departments of philosophy,\neconomics, and history; also stories, tragedies, and juvenile books.\n\n2. Godwin's teaching about law, the State, and property is contained\nmainly in the two-volume work \"An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice\nand its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness\" (1793).\n\n\"The printing of this treatise,\" says Godwin himself, \"was commenced\nlong before the composition was finished. The ideas of the author became\nmore perspicuous and digested as his inquiries advanced. This\ncircumstance has led him into some inaccuracies of language and\nreasoning, particularly in the earlier part of the work. He did not\nenter upon the subject without being aware that government by its very\nnature counteracts the improvement of individual intellect; but he\nunderstood the proposition more completely as he proceeded, and saw more\ndistinctly into the nature of the remedy.\"[25] Godwin's teaching is\nhere presented exclusively in the developed form which it shows in the\nsecond part of the work.\n\n3. Godwin does not call his teaching about law, the State, and property\n\"Anarchism.\" Yet this word causes him no terror. \"Anarchy is a horrible\ncalamity, but it is less horrible than despotism. Where anarchy has\nslain its hundreds, despotism has sacrificed millions upon millions,\nwith this only effect, to perpetuate the ignorance, the vices, and the\nmisery of mankind. Anarchy is a short-lived mischief, while despotism is\nall but immortal. It is unquestionably a dreadful remedy, for the people\nto yield to all their furious passions, till the spectacle of their\neffects gives strength to recovering reason: but, though it be a\ndreadful remedy, it is a sure one.\"[26]\n\n\n2.--BASIS\n\n_According to Godwin, our supreme law is the general welfare._\n\nWhat is the general welfare? \"Its nature is defined by the nature of\nmind.\"[27] It is unchangeable; as long as men are men it remains the\nsame.[28] \"That will most contribute to it which expands the\nunderstanding, supplies incitements to virtue, fills us with a generous\nconsciousness of our independence, and carefully removes whatever can\nimpede our exertions.\"[29]\n\nThe general welfare is our supreme law. \"Duty is that mode of action on\nthe part of the individual, which constitutes the best possible\napplication of his capacity to the general benefit.\"[30] \"Justice is the\nsum of all moral duty;\"[31] \"if there be such a thing, I am bound to do\nfor the general weal everything in my power.\"[32] \"Virtue is a desire to\npromote the benefit of intelligent beings in general, the quantity of\nvirtue being as the quantity of desire;\"[33] \"the last perfection of\nthis feeling consists in that state of mind which bids us rejoice as\nfully in the good that is done by others, as if it were done by\nourselves.\"[34]\n\n\"The truly wise man\"[35] strives only for the welfare of the whole. He\nis \"actuated neither by interest nor ambition, the love of honor nor the\nlove of fame. [He knows no jealousy. He is not disquieted by the\ncomparison of what he has attained with what others have attained, but\nby the comparison with what ought to be attained.] He has a duty indeed\nobliging him to seek the good of the whole; but that good is his only\nobject. If that good be effected by another hand, he feels no\ndisappointment. All men are his fellow laborers, but he is the rival of\nno man.\"[36]\n\n\n3.--LAW\n\nI. _Looking to the general good, Godwin rejects law, not only for\nparticular local and temporary conditions, but altogether._\n\n\"Law is an institution of the most pernicious tendency.\"[37] \"The\ninstitution once begun, can never be brought to a close. No action of\nany man was ever the same as any other action, had ever the same degree\nof utility or injury. As new cases occur, the law is perpetually found\ndeficient. It is therefore perpetually necessary to make new laws. The\nvolume in which justice records her prescriptions is for ever\nincreasing, and the world would not contain the books that might be\nwritten.\"[38] \"The consequence of the infinitude of law is its\nuncertainty. Law was made that a plain man might know what he had to\nexpect, and yet the most skilful practitioners differ about the event of\nmy suit.\"[39] \"A farther consideration is that it is of the nature of\nprophecy. Its task is to describe what will be the actions of mankind,\nand to dictate decisions respecting them.\"[40]\n\n\"Law we sometimes call the wisdom of our ancestors. But this is a\nstrange imposition. It was as frequently the dictate of their passion,\nof timidity, jealousy, a monopolizing spirit, and a lust of power that\nknew no bounds. Are we not obliged perpetually to revise and remodel\nthis misnamed wisdom of our ancestors? to correct it by a detection of\ntheir ignorance, and a censure of their intolerance?\"[41] \"Legislation,\nas it has been usually understood, is not an affair of human competence.\nReason is [our sole legislator, and her decrees are unchangeable and\neverywhere the same.]\"[42] \"Men cannot do more than declare and\ninterpret law; nor can there be an authority so paramount, as to have\nthe prerogative of making that to be law, which abstract and immutable\njustice had not made to be law previously to that interposition.\"[43]\n\nTo be sure, \"it must be admitted that we are imperfect, ignorant, and\nslaves of appearances.\"[44] But \"whatever inconveniences may arise from\nthe passions of men, the introduction of fixed laws cannot be the\ngenuine remedy.\"[45] \"As long as a man is held in the trammels of\nobedience, and habituated to look to some foreign guidance for the\ndirection of his conduct, his understanding and the vigor of his mind\nwill sleep. Do I desire to raise him to the energy of which he is\ncapable? I must teach him to feel himself, to bow to no authority, to\nexamine the principles he entertains, and render to his mind the reason\nof his conduct.\"[46]\n\nII. _The general welfare requires that in future it itself should be\nmen's rule of action in place of the law._\n\n\"If every shilling of our property, [every hour of our time,] and every\nfaculty of our mind, have received their destination from the principles\nof unalterable justice,\"[47] that is, of the general good,[48] then no\nother decree can any longer control it. \"The true principle which ought\nto be substituted in the room of law, is that of reason exercising an\nuncontrolled jurisdiction upon the circumstances of the case.\"[49]\n\n\"To this principle no objection can arise on the score of wisdom. It is\nnot to be supposed that there are not men now existing, whose\nintellectual accomplishments rise to the level of law. But, if men can\nbe found among us whose wisdom is equal to the wisdom of law, it will\nscarcely be maintained, that the truths they have to communicate will\nbe the worse for having no authority, but that which they derive from\nthe reasons that support them.\"[50]\n\n\"The juridical decisions that were made immediately after the abolition\nof law, would differ little from those during its empire. They would be\nthe decisions of prejudice and habit. But habit, having lost the centre\nabout which it revolved, would diminish in the regularity of its\noperations. Those to whom the arbitration of any question was entrusted\nwould frequently recollect that the whole case was committed to their\ndeliberation, and they could not fail occasionally to examine\nthemselves, respecting the reason of those principles which had hitherto\npassed uncontroverted. Their understandings would grow enlarged, in\nproportion as they felt the importance of their trust, and the unbounded\nfreedom of their investigation. Here then would commence an auspicious\norder of things, of which no understanding man at present in existence\ncan foretell the result, the dethronement of implicit faith, and the\ninauguration of unclouded justice.\"[51]\n\n\n4.--THE STATE\n\nI. _Since Godwin unconditionally rejects law, he necessarily has to\nreject the State as unconditionally. Nay, he regards it as a legal\ninstitution peculiarly repugnant to the general welfare._\n\nSome base the State on force, others on divine right, others on\ncontract.[52] But \"the hypothesis of force appears to proceed upon the\ntotal negation of abstract and immutable justice, affirming every\ngovernment to be right, that is possessed of power sufficient to enforce\nits decrees. It puts a violent termination upon all political science,\nand is calculated for nothing farther than to persuade men, to sit down\nquietly under their present disadvantages, whatever they may be, and not\nexert themselves to discover a remedy for the evils they suffer. The\nsecond hypothesis is of an equivocal nature. It either coincides with\nthe first, and affirms all existing power to be alike of divine\nderivation; or it must remain totally useless, till a criterion can be\nfound, to distinguish those governments which are approved by God, from\nthose which cannot lay claim to that sanction.\"[53] The third hypothesis\nwould mean that one \"should make over to another the control of his\nconscience and the judging of his duties.\"[54] \"But we cannot renounce\nour moral independence; it is a property that we can neither sell nor\ngive away; and consequently no government can derive its authority from\nan original contract.\"[55]\n\n\"All government corresponds in a certain degree to what the Greeks\ndenominated a tyranny. The difference is, that in despotic countries\nmind is depressed by a uniform usurpation; while in republics it\npreserves a greater portion of its activity, and the usurpation more\neasily conforms itself to the fluctuations of opinion.\"[56] \"By its very\nnature positive institution has a tendency to suspend the elasticity and\nprogress of mind.\"[57] \"We should not forget that government is,\nabstractedly taken, an evil, a usurpation upon the private judgment and\nindividual conscience of mankind.\"[58]\n\nII. _The general welfare demands that a social human life based solely\non its precepts should take the place of the State._\n\n1. Men are to live together in society even after the abolition of the\nState. \"A fundamental distinction exists between society and government.\nMen associated at first for the sake of mutual assistance.\"[59] It was\nnot till later that restraint appeared in these associations, in\nconsequence of the errors and perverseness of a few. \"Society and\ngovernment are different in themselves, and have different origins.\nSociety is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness.\nSociety is in every state a blessing; government even in its best state\nbut a necessary evil.\"[60]\n\nBut what is to hold men together in \"society without government\"?[61]\nNot a promise,[62] at any rate. No promise can bind me; for either what\nI have promised is good, then I must do it even if there had been no\npromise; or it is bad, then not even the promise can make it my\nduty.[63] \"The fact that I have committed an error does not oblige me to\nmake myself guilty of a second also.\"[64] \"Suppose I had promised a sum\nof money for a good and worthy object. In the interval between the\npromise and its fulfilment a greater and nobler object presents itself\nto me, and imperiously demands my co-operation. To which shall I give\nthe preference? To the one that deserves it. My promise can make no\ndifference. I must be guided by the value of things, not by an external\nand alien point of view. But the value of things is not affected by my\nhaving taken upon me an obligation.\"[65]\n\n\"Common deliberation regarding the general good\"[66] is to hold men\ntogether in societies hereafter. This is highly in harmony with the\ngeneral welfare. \"That a nation should exercise undiminished its\nfunction of common deliberation, is a step gained, and a step that\ninevitably leads to an improvement of the character of individuals. That\nmen should agree in the assertion of truth, is no unpleasing evidence of\ntheir virtue. Lastly, that an individual, however great may be his\nimaginary elevation, should be obliged to yield his personal pretensions\nto the sense of the community, at least bears the appearance of a\npractical confirmation of the great principle, that all private\nconsiderations must yield to the general good.\"[67]\n\n2. The societies are to be small, and to have as little intercourse with\neach other as possible.\n\nSmall territories are everywhere to administer their affairs\nindependently.[68] \"No association of men, so long as they adhered to\nthe principles of reason, could possibly have any interest in extending\ntheir territory.\"[69] \"Whatever evils are included in the abstract idea\nof government, are all of them extremely aggravated by the\nextensiveness of its jurisdiction, and softened under circumstances of\nan opposite species. Ambition, which may be no less formidable than a\npestilence in the former, has no room to unfold itself in the latter.\nPopular commotion is like the waves of the sea, capable where the\nsurface is large of producing the most tragical effects, but mild and\ninnocuous when confined within the circuit of a humble lake. Sobriety\nand equity are the obvious characteristics of a limited\ncircle.\"[70]--\"The desire to gain a more extensive territory, to conquer\nor to hold in awe our neighboring States, to surpass them in arts or\narms, is a desire founded in prejudice and error. Power is not\nhappiness. Security and peace are more to be desired than a name at\nwhich nations tremble. Mankind are brethren. We associate in a\nparticular district or under a particular climate, because association\nis necessary to our internal tranquillity, or to defend us against the\nwanton attacks of a common enemy. But the rivalship of nations is a\ncreature of the imagination.\"[71]\n\nThe little independently-administered territories are to have as little\nto do with each other as possible. \"Individuals cannot have too frequent\nor unlimited intercourse with each other; but societies of men have no\ninterests to explain and adjust, except so far as error and violence may\nrender explanation necessary. This consideration annihilates at once the\nprincipal objects of that mysterious and crooked policy which has\nhitherto occupied the attention of governments. Before this principle\nofficers of the army and the navy, ambassadors and negotiators, and all\nthe train of artifices that has been invented to hold other nations at\nbay, to penetrate their secrets, to traverse their machinations, to form\nalliances and counter-alliances, sink into nothing.\"[72]\n\n3. But how are the functions that the State performs at present to be\nperformed in the future societies? \"Government can have no more than two\nlegitimate purposes, the suppression of injustice against individuals\nwithin the community\" (which includes the settling of controversies\nbetween different districts[73]), \"and the common defence against\nexternal invasion.\"[74]\n\n\"The first of these purposes, which alone can have an uninterrupted\nclaim upon us, is sufficiently answered by an association of such an\nextent as to afford room for the institution of a jury, to decide upon\nthe offences of individuals within the community, and upon the questions\nand controversies respecting property which may chance to arise.\"[75]\nThis jury would decide not according to any system of law, but according\nto reason.[76]--\"It might be easy indeed for an offender to escape from\nthe limits of so petty a jurisdiction; and it might seem necessary at\nfirst that the neighboring parishes or jurisdictions should be governed\nin a similar manner, or at least should be willing, whatever was their\nform of government, to co-operate with us in the removal or reformation\nof an offender whose present habits were alike injurious to us and to\nthem. But there will be no need of any express compact, and still less\nof any common centre of authority, for this purpose. General justice and\nmutual interest are found more capable of binding men than signatures\nand seals.\"[77]\n\nThe second function would present itself to us only from time to time.\n\"However irrational might be the controversy of parish with parish in\nsuch a state of society, it would not be the less possible. Such\nemergencies can only be provided against by the concert of several\ndistricts, declaring and, if needful, enforcing the dictates of\njustice.\"[78] Foreign invasions too would make such a concert necessary,\nand would to this extent resemble those controversies.[79] Therefore it\nwould be \"necessary upon certain occasions to have recourse to national\nassemblies, or in other words assemblies instituted for the joint\npurpose of adjusting the differences between district and district, and\nof consulting respecting the best mode of repelling foreign\ninvasion.\"[80]--But they \"ought to be employed as sparingly as the\nnature of the case will admit.\"[81] For, in the first place, the\ndecision is given by the number of votes, and \"is determined, at best,\nby the weakest heads in the assembly, but, as it not less frequently\nhappens, by the most corrupt and dishonorable intentions.\"[82] In the\nsecond place, as a rule the members are guided in their decisions by\nall sorts of external reasons, and not solely by the results of their\nfree reflection.[83] In the third place, they are forced to waste their\nstrength on petty matters, while they cannot possibly let themselves be\nquietly influenced by argument.[84] Therefore national assemblies should\n\"either never be elected but upon extraordinary emergencies, like the\ndictator of the ancient Romans, or else sit periodically, one day for\nexample in a year, with a power of continuing their sessions within a\ncertain limit. The former is greatly to be preferred.\"[85]\n\nBut what would be the authority of these national assemblies and those\njuries? Mankind is so corrupted by present institutions that at first\nthe issuing of commands, and some degree of coercion, would be\nnecessary; but later it would be sufficient for juries to recommend a\ncertain mode of adjusting controversies, and for national assemblies to\ninvite their constituencies to co-operate for the common advantage.[86]\n\"If juries might at length cease to decide and be contented to invite,\nif force might gradually be withdrawn and reason trusted alone, shall we\nnot one day find that juries themselves, and every other species of\npublic institution, may be laid aside as unnecessary? Will not the\nreasonings of one wise man be as effectual as those of twelve? Will not\nthe competence of one individual to instruct his neighbors be a matter\nof sufficient notoriety, without the formality of an election? Will\nthere be many vices to correct and much obstinacy to conquer? This is\none of the most memorable stages of human improvement. With what\ndelight must every well-informed friend of mankind look forward to the\nauspicious period, the dissolution of political government, of that\nbrute engine, which has been the only perennial cause of the vices of\nmankind, and which has mischiefs of various sorts incorporated with its\nsubstance, and no otherwise to be removed than by its utter\nannihilation!\"[87]\n\n\n5.--PROPERTY\n\nI. _In consequence of his unconditional rejection of law, Godwin\nnecessarily has to reject property also without any limitation. Nay,\nproperty, or, as he expresses himself, \"the present system of\nproperty,\"_[88]--_that is, the distribution of wealth at present\nestablished by law,--appears to him to be a legal institution that is\npeculiarly injurious to the general welfare._ \"The wisdom of law-makers\nand parliaments has been applied to creating the most wretched and\nsenseless distribution of property, which mocks alike at human nature\nand at the principles of justice.\"[89]\n\nThe present system of property distributes commodities in the most\nunequal and most arbitrary way. \"On account of the accident of birth, it\npiles upon a single man enormous wealth. If one who has been a beggar\nbecomes a well-to-do man, we usually know that he has not precisely his\nhonesty or usefulness to thank for this change. It is often hard enough\nfor the most diligent and industrious member of society to preserve his\nfamily from starvation.\"[90] \"And if I receive the reward of my work,\nthey give me a hundred times more food than I can eat, and a hundred\ntimes more clothes than I can wear. Where is the justice in this? If I\nam the greatest benefactor of the human race, is that a reason for\ngiving me what I do not need, especially when my superfluity might be of\nthe greatest use to thousands?\"[91]\n\nThis unequal distribution of commodities is altogether opposed to the\ngeneral welfare. It hampers intellectual progress. \"Accumulated property\ntreads the powers of thought in the dust, extinguishes the sparks of\ngenius, and reduces the great mass of mankind to be immersed in sordid\ncares, beside depriving the rich of the most salubrious and effectual\nmotives to activity.\"[92] And the rich man can buy with his superfluity\n\"nothing but glitter and envy, nothing but the dismal pleasure of\nrestoring to the poor man as alms that to which reason gives him an\nundeniable right.\"[93]\n\nBut the unequal distribution of commodities is also a hindrance to moral\nperfection. In the rich it produces ambition, vanity, and ostentation;\nin the poor, oppression, servility, and fraud, and, in consequence of\nthese, envy, malice, and revenge.[94] \"The rich man stands forward as\nthe principal object of general esteem and deference. In vain are\nsobriety, integrity, and industry, in vain the sublimest powers of mind\nand the most ardent benevolence, if their possessor be narrowed in his\ncircumstances. To acquire wealth and to display it, is therefore the\nuniversal passion.\"[95] \"Force would have died away as reason and\ncivilization advanced, but accumulated property has fixed its\nempire.\"[96] \"The fruitful source of crimes consists in this\ncircumstance, one man's possessing in abundance that of which another\nman is destitute.\"[97]\n\nII. _The general welfare demands that a distribution of commodities\nbased solely on its precepts should take the place of property._ When\nGodwin uses the expression \"property\" for that portion of commodities\nwhich is assigned to an individual by these precepts, he does so only in\na transferred sense; only a portion assigned by law can be designated as\nproperty in the strict sense.\n\nNow, according to the decrees of the general welfare, every man should\nhave the means for a good life.\n\n1. \"How is it to be decided whether an object that may be used for the\nbenefit of man shall be my property or yours? There is only one answer;\naccording to justice.\"[98] \"The laws of different countries dispose of\nproperty in a thousand different ways; but only one of them can be most\nconsonant with justice.\"[99]\n\nJustice demands in the first place that every man have the means for\nlife. \"Our animal needs, it is well known, consist in food, clothing,\nand shelter. If justice means anything, nothing can be more unjust than\nthat any man lacks these and at the same time another has too much of\nthem. But justice does not stop here. So far as the general stock of\ncommodities holds out, every one has a claim not only to the means for\nlife, but to the means for a good life. It is unjust that a man works to\nthe point of destroying his health or his life, while another riots in\nsuperfluity. It is unjust that a man has not leisure to cultivate his\nmind, while another does not move a finger for the general\nwelfare.\"[100]\n\n2. Such a \"state of equality\"[101] would advance the general welfare in\nthe highest degree. In it labor would become \"so light, as rather to\nassume the appearance of agreeable relaxation, and gentle\nexercise.\"[102] \"Every man would have a frugal, yet wholesome diet;\nevery man would go forth to that moderate exercise of his corporal\nfunctions that would give hilarity to the spirits; none would be made\ntorpid with fatigue, but all would have leisure to cultivate the kindly\nand philanthropical affections, and to let loose his faculties in the\nsearch of intellectual improvement.\"[103]\n\n\"How rapid would be the advances of intellect, if all men were admitted\ninto the field of knowledge! It is to be presumed that the inequality of\nmind would in a certain degree be permanent; but it is reasonable to\nbelieve that the geniuses of such an age would far surpass the greatest\nexertions of intellect that are at present known.\"[104]\n\nAnd the moral progress would be as great as the intellectual. The vices\nwhich are inseparably joined to the present system of property \"would\ninevitably expire in a state of society where men lived in the midst of\nplenty, and where all shared alike the bounties of nature. The narrow\nprinciple of selfishness would vanish. No man being obliged to guard his\nlittle store, or provide with anxiety and pain for his restless wants,\neach would lose his individual existence in the thought of the general\ngood. No man would be an enemy to his neighbor, for they would have no\nsubject of contention; and of consequence philanthropy would resume the\nempire which reason assigns her.\"[105]\n\n3. But how could such a distribution of commodities be effected in a\nparticular case?\n\n\"As soon as law was abolished, men would begin to inquire after equity.\nIn this situation let us suppose a litigated succession brought before\nthem, to which there were five heirs, and that the sentence of their old\nlegislation had directed the division of this property into five equal\nshares. They would begin to inquire into the wants and situation of the\nclaimants. The first we will suppose to have a fair character and be\nprosperous in the world: he is a respectable member of society, but\nfarther wealth would add little either to his usefulness or his\nenjoyments. The second is a miserable object, perishing with want, and\noverwhelmed with calamity. The third, though poor, is yet tranquil; but\nthere is a situation to which his virtue leads him to aspire and in\nwhich he may be of uncommon service, but which he cannot with propriety\naccept, without a capital equal to two-fifths of the whole succession.\nOne of the claimants is an unmarried woman past the age of\nchild-bearing. Another is a widow, unprovided, and with a numerous\nfamily depending on her succor. The first question that would suggest\nitself to unprejudiced persons having the allotment of this succession\nreferred to their unlimited decision, would be, what justice is there in\nthe indiscriminate partition which has hitherto prevailed?\"[106] And\ntheir answer could not be doubtful.\n\n\n6.--REALIZATION.\n\n_The change which is called for by the general welfare should, according\nto Godwin, be effected by those who have recognized the truth persuading\nothers how necessary the change is for the general welfare, so that law,\nthe State, and property would spontaneously disappear and the new\ncondition would take their place._\n\nI. The sole requirement is to convince men that the general welfare\ndemands the change.\n\n1. Every other way is to be rejected. \"Our judgment will always suspect\nthose weapons that can be used with equal prospect of success on both\nsides. Therefore we should regard all force with aversion. When we enter\nthe lists of battle, we quit the sure domain of truth and leave the\ndecision to the caprice of chance. The phalanx of reason is\ninvulnerable; it moves forward with calm, sure step, and nothing can\nwithstand it. But, when we lay aside arguments, and have recourse to the\nsword, the case is altered. Amidst the clamorous din of civil war, who\nshall tell whether the event will be prosperous or adverse? We must\ntherefore distinguish carefully between instructing the people and\nexciting them. We must refuse indignation, rage, and passion, and desire\nonly sober reflection, clear judgment, and fearless discussion.\"[107]\n\n2. The point is to convince men as generally as possible. Only when this\nis accomplished can acts of violence be avoided. \"Why did the revolution\nin France and America find all sorts and conditions of men almost\nunanimous, while the resistance to Charles the First divided our nation\ninto two equal parties? Because the latter occurred in the seventeenth\ncentury, the former at the end of the eighteenth. Because at the time of\nthe revolutions in France and America philosophy had already developed\nsome of the great truths of political science, and under the influence\nof Sydney and Locke, of Montesquieu and Rousseau, a number of strong and\nthoughtful minds had perceived what an evil force is. If these\nrevolutions had taken place still later, not a drop of civic blood would\nhave been shed by civic hands, not in a single case would force have\nbeen used against persons or things.\"[108]\n\n3. The means to convince men as generally as possible of the necessity\nof a change consist in \"proof and persuasion. The best warrant of a\nhappy outcome lies in free, unrestricted discussion. In this arena truth\nmust always be victor. If, therefore, we would improve the social\ninstitutions of mankind, we must seek to convince by spoken and written\nwords. This activity has no limits; this endeavor admits of no\ninterruption. Every means must be used, not so much to draw men's\nattention and bring them over to our opinion by persuasion, as rather to\nremove every barrier to thought and to open to everybody the temple of\nscience and the field of study.\"[109]\n\n\"Therefore the man who has at heart the regeneration of his species\nshould always bear in mind two principles, to regard hourly progress in\nthe discovery and dissemination of truth as essential, and calmly to let\nyears pass before he urges the carrying into effect of his teaching.\nWith all his prudence, it may be that the boisterous multitude will\nhurry ahead of the calm, quiet progress of reason; then he will not\ncondemn the revolution that takes place some years before the time set\nby wisdom. But if he is ruled by strict prudence he can without doubt\nfrustrate many over-hasty attempts, and considerably prolong the general\nquietness.\"[110]\n\n\"This does not mean, as one might think, that the changing of our\nconditions lies at an immeasurable distance. It is the nature of human\naffairs that great alterations take place suddenly, and great\ndiscoveries are made unexpectedly, as it were accidentally. When I\ncultivate a young person's mind, when I exert myself to influence that\nof an older person, it will long seem as if I had accomplished little,\nand the fruits will show themselves when I least expect them. The\nkingdom of truth comes quietly. The seed of virtue may spring up when it\nwas fancied to be lost.\"[111] \"If the true philanthropist but tirelessly\nproclaims the truth and vigilantly opposes all that hinders its\nprogress, he may look forward, with heart at rest, to a speedy and\nfavorable outcome.\"[112]\n\nII. As soon as the conviction that the general welfare demands a change\nin our condition has made itself generally felt, law, the State, and\nproperty will disappear spontaneously and give way to the new condition.\n\"Reform, under this meaning of the term, can scarcely be considered as\nof the nature of action. [It is a general enlightenment.] Men feel their\nsituation; and the restraints that shackled them before, vanish like a\ndeception. When such a crisis has arrived, not a sword will need to be\ndrawn, not a finger to be lifted up in purposes of violence. The\nadversaries will be too few and too feeble, to be able to entertain a\nserious thought of resistance against the universal sense of\nmankind.\"[113]\n\nIn what way may the change of our conditions take place?\n\n1. \"The opinion most popular in France at the time that the national\nconvention entered upon its functions, was that the business of the\nconvention extended only to the presenting a draft of a constitution, to\nbe submitted in the sequel to the approbation of the districts, and then\nonly to be considered as law.\"[114]\n\n\"The first idea that suggests itself respecting this opinion is, that,\nif constitutional laws ought to be subjected to the revision of the\ndistricts, then all laws ought to undergo the same process. [But if the\napprobation of the districts to any declarations is not to be delusive,\nthe discussion of these declarations in the districts must be unlimited.\nThen] a transaction will be begun to which it is not easy to foresee a\ntermination. Some districts will object to certain articles; and, if\nthese articles be modeled to obtain their approbation, it is possible\nthat the very alteration introduced to please one part of the community\nmay render the code less acceptable to another.\"[115]\n\n\"This principle of a consent of districts has an immediate tendency, by\na salutary gradation perhaps, to lead to the dissolution of all\ngovernment.\"[116] It is indeed \"desirable that the most important acts\nof the national representatives should be subject to the approbation or\nrejection of the districts whose representatives they are, for exactly\nthe same reason as it is desirable that the acts of the districts\nthemselves should, as speedily as practicability will admit, be in force\nonly so far as relates to the individuals by whom those acts are\napproved.\"[117]\n\n2. This system would have the effect, first, that the constitution would\nbe very short. The impracticability of obtaining the free approbation of\na great number of districts to an extensive code would speedily manifest\nitself; and the whole constitution might consist of a scheme for the\ndivision of the country into parts equal in their population, and the\nfixing of stated periods for the election of a national assembly, not to\nsay that the latter of these articles may very probably be dispensed\nwith.[118]\n\nA second effect would be, that it would soon be found a proceeding\nunnecessarily circuitous to send laws to the districts for their\nrevision, unless in cases essential to the general safety, and that in\nas many instances as possible the districts would be suffered to make\nlaws for themselves. \"Thus, that which was at first a great empire with\nlegislative unity would speedily be transformed into a confederacy of\nlesser republics, with a general congress or Amphictyonic council,\nanswering the purpose of a point of co-operation upon extraordinary\noccasions.\"[119]\n\nA third effect would consist in the gradual cessation of legislation. \"A\ngreat assembly collected from the different provinces of an extensive\nterritory, and constituted the sole legislator of those by whom the\nterritory is inhabited, immediately conjures up to itself an idea of the\nvast multitude of laws that are necessary. A large city, impelled by the\nprinciples of commercial jealousy, is not slow to digest the volume of\nits by-laws and exclusive privileges. But the inhabitants of a small\nparish, living with some degree of that simplicity which best\ncorresponds with nature, would soon be led to suspect that general laws\nwere unnecessary, and would adjudge the causes that came before them,\nnot according to certain axioms previously written, but according to the\ncircumstances and demands of each particular cause.\"[120]\n\nA fourth effect would be that the abrogation of property would be\nfavored. \"All equalization of rank and station strongly tends toward an\nequalization of possessions.\"[121] So not only the lower orders, but\nalso the higher, would see the injustice of the present distribution of\nproperty.[122] \"The rich and great are far from callous to views of\ngeneral felicity, when such views are brought before them with that\nevidence and attraction of which they are susceptible.\"[123] But even so\nfar as they might think only of their own emolument and ease, it would\nnot be difficult to show them that it is in vain to fight against truth,\nand dangerous to bring upon themselves the hatred of the people, and\nthat it might be to their own interest to make up their minds to\nconcessions at least.[124]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[25] Godwin pp. IX-X [1. VI-VII].\n\n[26] _Ib._ pp. 548-9 [2. 132-3].\n\n[27] _Ib._ p. 90 [1, 120].\n\n[28] _Ib._ p. 150 [1, 164].\n\n[29] _Ib._ p. 90 [1, 120-21].\n\n[30] Godwin p. 101 [1. 134].\n\n[31] _Ib._ pp. 150, 80 [1. 120, 112].\n\n[32] _Ib._ p. 81 [1. 117-18?].\n\n[33] _Ib._ p. 254 [1. 253].\n\n[34] _Ib._ pp. 360-61 [1. ?42].\n\n[35] _Ib._ p. 361. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[36] _Ib._ p. 361 [1. 342; bracketed words omitted in ed. 2]\n\n[37] _Ib._ p. 771 [2. 294].\n\n[38] Godwin pp. 766-7 [2. 290-91].\n\n[39] _Ib._ p. 768 [2. 291].\n\n[40] _Ib._ p. 769 [2. 292].\n\n[41] _Ib._ p. 773 [2. 295].\n\n[42] _Ib._ p. 166 [1. 182, except bracketed words].\n\n[43] _Ib._ p. 381 [2. 3]\n\n[44] Godwin p. 774 [2. 296].\n\n[45] _Ib._ p. 775 [2. 296].\n\n[46] _Ib._ p. 776 [2. 297].\n\n[47] _Ib._ p. 151 [1. 165, except bracketed words].\n\n[48] _Ib._ pp. 121, 81 [1. 145, 118].\n\n[49] _Ib._ p. 773 [2. 295].\n\n[50] Godwin pp. 773-4 [2. 295].\n\n[51] _Ib._ p. 778 [2. 298-9].\n\n[52] _Ib._ p. 140-1 [1. 156].\n\n[53] Godwin p. 141 [2. 156]\n\n[54] _Ib._ p. 148. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[55] _Ib._ p. 149. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[56] _Ib._ p. 572 [2. 149-50].\n\n[57] _Ib._ p. 185 [1. 200].\n\n[58] Godwin p. 380 [2. 2].\n\n[59] _Ib._ p. 79 [1. 111].\n\n[60] _Ib._ p. 79 [1. 111; credited to Paine's \"Common Sense,\" p. 1].\n\n[61] _Ib._ p. 788 [2. 305].\n\n[62] _Ib._ p. 163 [1. 174-6? 180?].\n\n[63] _Ib._ p. 151 [1. 164-5; but see _per contra_ p. 170].\n\n[64] _Ib._ p. 156. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[65] Godwin p. 151. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[66] _Ib._ pp. 161-2 [1. 179].\n\n[67] _Ib._ 164-5 [1. 181].\n\n[68] _Ib._ p. 561 [2. 142].\n\n[69] _Ib._ 566 [2. 145].\n\n[70] Godwin p. 562 [2. 142].\n\n[71] _Ib._ 559 [2. 140].\n\n[72] Godwin p. 561 [2. 141. Obviously Eltzbacher has misunderstood this\npassage. His German translation shows that he mistook \"interests\" for\n\"interest\" in the sense of \"incentive.\" Note also that Godwin expressly\nrestricts the application of this paragraph, even in its right sense, on\npp. 111, 145].\n\n[73] _Ib._ p. 566 [2. 145].\n\n[74] _Ib._ p. 564 [2. 144].\n\n[75] _Ib._ p. 564-5 [2. 144].\n\n[76] _Ib._ pp. 773, 778, 779-80 [2. 295, 298-300]\n\n[77] Godwin p. 565 [2. 144].\n\n[78] _Ib._ p. 566 [2. 145].\n\n[79] _Ib._ p. 566 [2. 145].\n\n[80] _Ib._ pp. 573-4 [2. 150-51].\n\n[81] _Ib._ pp. 573-4 [2. 150-51].\n\n[82] _Ib._ pp. 568-9, 571-2 [2. 146, 149].\n\n[83] Godwin pp. 569-70 [2. 148].\n\n[84] _Ib._ pp. 570-71 [2. 148-49].\n\n[85] _Ib._ p. 574 [2. 151]\n\n[86] _Ib._ pp. 576-8 [2. 152-3].\n\n[87] Godwin pp. 578-9 [2. 154]\n\n[88] _Ib._ p. 794 [2. 326].\n\n[89] _Ib._ p. 803. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[90] _Ib._ p. 794. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[91] Godwin p. 795. [Not in ed. 2; cf. 2. 312].\n\n[92] _Ib._ p. 806 [2. 335].\n\n[93] _Ib._ p. 795. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[94] _Ib._ pp. 811, 810 [2. 339, 338--but the words \"in the poor\" seem\nto be added out of Eltzbacher's head].\n\n[95] Godwin p. 802 [2. 332].\n\n[96] _Ib._ p. 809 [2. 338]\n\n[97] _Ib._ p. 809 [2. 337]\n\n[98] _Ib._ p. 789. [Not in ed. 2; cf. 2. 306-7.]\n\n[99] _Ib._ p. 790. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[100] Godwin pp. 790-91. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[101] _Ib._ p. 821 [2. 351].\n\n[102] _Ib._ p. 821 [2. 352]\n\n[103] _Ib._ p. 806 [2. 335].\n\n[104] _Ib._ p. 807 [2. 336].\n\n[105] Godwin p. 810 [2. 338].\n\n[106] Godwin pp. 779-80 [2. 299-300].\n\n[107] Godwin p. 203 [1, 223, only the two sentences beginning at \"But\"].\n\n[108] _Ib._ pp. 203-4. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[109] Godwin pp. 202-3. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[110] _Ib._ p. 204. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[111] _Ib._ p. 223. [Not in ed. 2; cf. 1. 226.]\n\n[112] Godwin p. 225. [Not in ed. 2.]\n\n[113] _Ib._ pp. 222-3 [1. 222, except bracketed words].\n\n[114] _Ib._ pp. 657-8 [2. 210].\n\n[115] Godwin pp. 658-9 [2. 211-12; bracketed words a paraphrase].\n\n[116] _Ib._ pp. 659-60 [2. 212].\n\n[117] _Ib._ p. 660 [2. 212].\n\n[118] _Ib._ pp. 660-61 [2. 212-13].\n\n[119] Godwin pp. 661-2 [2. 213-14].\n\n[120] _Ib._ p. 662 [2. 214].\n\n[121] Godwin p. 888 [cf. 2. 396].\n\n[122] _Ib._ pp. 888-9 [2. 396].\n\n[123] _Ib._ pp. 882-3 [2. 392].\n\n[124] _Ib._ pp. 883-84 [2. 393].\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nPROUDHON'S TEACHING\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\n1. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was born at Besancon in 1809. At first he\nfollowed the occupation of a printer there and in other cities. In 1838\na stipend of the Academy of Besancon enabled him to go to Paris for\nscientific studies. In 1843 he took a mercantile position at Lyons. In\n1847 he gave it up and moved to Paris.\n\nHere, in the years from 1848 to 1850, Proudhon published several\nperiodicals, one after the other. In 1848 he became a member of the\nNational Assembly. In 1849 he founded a People's Bank. Soon after this\nhe was condemned to three years' imprisonment for an offence against the\npress laws, and served his time without having to interrupt his activity\nas an author.\n\nIn 1852 Proudhon was released from prison. He remained in Paris till, in\n1858, he was again condemned to three years' imprisonment for an offence\nagainst the press laws. He fled and settled in Brussels. In 1860 he was\npardoned, and returned to France. Thenceforth he lived at Passy. He died\nthere in 1865.\n\nProudhon published many books and other writings, especially in the\nfields of jurisprudence, political economy, and politics.\n\n2. Of special importance for Proudhon's teaching about law, the State,\nand property are, among the writings before 1848, the book \"_Qu'est-ce\nque la propriete? ou recherches sur le principe du droit et du\ngouvernement_\" (1840) and the two-volume work \"_Systeme des\ncontradictions economiques, ou philosophie de la misere_\" (1846); among\nthe writings from 1848 to 1851 the \"_Confessions d'un revolutionnaire_\"\n(1849) and the \"_Idee generale de la revolution au XIXe siecle_\" (1851);\nand lastly, among the writings after 1851, the three-volume work \"_De la\njustice dans la revolution et dans l'Eglise, nouveaux principes de\nphilosophie pratique_\" (1858) and the book \"_Du principe federatif et de\nla necessite de reconstituer le parti de la revolution_\" (1863).[125]\n\nProudhon's teaching regarding law, the State, and property underwent\nchanges in minor points, but remained the same in its essentials; the\nopinion that it changed also in essentials is caused by Proudhon's\narbitrary and varying use of language. Since no history of the evolution\nof Proudhon's teaching can be given here, I shall present, so far as\nconcerns such minor points, only the teaching of 1848-51, in which years\nProudhon developed his views with especial clearness and did especially\nforcible work for them.\n\n3. Proudhon calls his teaching about law, the State, and property\n\"Anarchism.\" \"'What form of government shall we prefer?' 'Can you ask?'\nreplies one of my younger readers without doubt; 'you are a Republican.'\n'Republican, yes; but this word makes nothing definite. _Res publica_ is\n\"the public thing\"; now, whoever wants the public thing, under whatever\nform of government, may call himself a Republican. Even kings are\nRepublicans.' 'Well, you are a Democrat.' 'No.' 'What? can you be a\nMonarchist?' 'No.' 'A Constitutionalist?' 'I should hope not.' 'You are\nan Aristocrat then?' 'Not a bit.' 'You want a mixed government, then?'\n'Still less.' 'What are you then?' 'I am an Anarchist.'\"[126]\n\n\n2.--BASIS\n\n_According to Proudhon the supreme law for us is justice._\n\nWhat is justice? \"Justice is respect, spontaneously felt and mutually\nguaranteed, for human dignity, in whatever person and under whatever\ncircumstances we find it compromised, and to whatever risk its defence\nmay expose us.\"[127]\n\n\"I ought to respect my neighbor, and make others respect him, as myself;\nsuch is the law of my conscience. In consideration of what do I owe him\nthis respect? In consideration of his strength, his talent, his wealth?\nNo, what chance gives is not what makes the human person worthy of\nrespect. In consideration of the respect which he in turn pays to me?\nNo, justice assumes reciprocity of respect, but does not wait for it. It\nasserts and wills respect for human dignity even in an enemy, which\ncauses the existence of _laws of war_; even in the murderer whom we kill\nas having fallen from his manhood, which causes the existence of _penal\nlaws_. It is not the gifts of nature or the advantages of fortune that\nmake me respect my neighbor; it is not his ox, his ass, or his\nmaid-servant, as the decalogue says; it is not even the welfare that he\nowes to me as I owe mine to him; it is his manhood.\"[128]\n\n\"Justice is at once a reality and an idea.\"[129] \"Justice is a faculty\nof the soul, the foremost of all, that which constitutes a social being.\nBut it is more than a faculty; it is an idea, it indicates a relation,\nan equation. As a faculty it may be developed; this development is what\nconstitutes the education of humanity. As an equation it presents\nnothing antinomic; it is absolute and immutable like every law, and,\nlike every law, very intelligible.\"[130]\n\nJustice is for us the supreme law. \"Justice is the inviolable yardstick\nof all human actions.\"[131] \"By it the facts of social life, by nature\nindeterminate and contradictory, become susceptible of definition and\narrangement.\"[132]\n\n\"Justice is the central star which governs societies, the pole about\nwhich the political world revolves, the principle and rule of all\ntransactions. Nothing is done among men that is not in the name of\n_right_; nothing without invoking justice. Justice is not the work of\nthe law; on the contrary, the law is never anything but a declaration\nand application of what is _just_.\"[132] \"Suppose a society where\njustice is outranked, however little, by another principle, say\nreligion; or in which certain individuals are regarded more highly, by\nhowever little, than others; I say that, justice being virtually\nannulled, it is inevitable that the society will perish sooner or\nlater.[133]\n\n\"It is the privilege of justice that the faith which it inspires is\nunshakable, and that it cannot be dogmatically denied or rejected. All\npeoples invoke it; reasons of State, even while they violate it, profess\nto be based on it; religion exists only for it; skepticism dissembles\nbefore it; irony has power only in its name; crime and hypocrisy do it\nhomage. [If liberty is not an empty phrase, it acts only in the service\nof right; even when it rebels against right, at bottom it does not curse\nit.]\"[134] \"All the most rational teachings of human wisdom about\njustice are summed up in this famous adage: _Do to others what you would\nhave done to you; Do not to others what you would not have done to\nyou._\"[135]\n\n\n3.--LAW\n\nI. _In the name of justice Proudhon rejects, not law indeed, but almost\nall individual legal norms, and the State laws in particular._\n\nThe State makes laws, and \"as many laws as the interests which it meets\nwith; and, since interests are innumerable, the legislation-machine must\nwork uninterruptedly. Laws and ordinances fall like hail on the poor\npopulace. After a while the political soil will be covered with a layer\nof paper, and all the geologists will have to do will be to list it,\nunder the name of _papyraceous formation_, among the epochs of the\nearth's history. The Convention, in three years one month and four days,\nissued eleven thousand six hundred laws and decrees; the Constituent and\nLegislative Assemblies had produced hardly less; the empire and the\nlater governments have wrought as industriously. At present the\n'_Bulletin des Lois_' contains, they say, more than fifty thousand; if\nour representatives did their duty this enormous figure would soon be\ndoubled. Do you believe that the populace, or the government itself, can\nkeep its sanity in this labyrinth?\"[136]\n\n\"But what am I saying? Laws for him who thinks for himself, and is\nresponsible only for his own acts! laws for him who would be free, and\nfeels himself destined to become free! I am ready to make terms, but I\nwill have no laws; I acknowledge none; I protest against every order\nwhich an ostensibly necessary authority shall please to impose on my\nfree will. Laws! we know what they are and what they are worth. Cobwebs\nfor the powerful and the rich, chains which no steel can break for the\nlittle and the poor, fishers' nets in the hands of the government.\"[137]\n\n\"You say they shall make _few_ laws, make them _simple_, make them\n_good_. But it is impossible. Must not government adjust all interests,\ndecide all disputes? Now interests are by the nature of society\ninnumerable, relationships infinitely variable and mobile; how is it\npossible that only a few laws should be made? how can they be simple?\nhow can the best law escape soon being detestable?\"[138]\n\nII. _Justice requires that only one legal norm be in force: to wit, the\nnorm that contracts must be lived up to._\n\n\"What do we mean by a _contract_? A contract, says the civil code, art.\n1101, is an agreement whereby one or more persons bind themselves to one\nor more others to do or not to do something.\"[139] \"That I may remain\nfree, that I may be subjected to no law but my own, and that I may\ngovern myself, the edifice of society must be rebuilt upon the idea of\nCONTRACT.\"[140] \"We must start with the idea of contract as the dominant\nidea of politics.\"[141] This norm, that contracts must be lived up to,\nis to be based not only on its justice, but at the same time on the fact\nthat among men who live together there prevails a will to enforce the\nkeeping of contracts, if necessary, with violence;[142] so it is to be\nnot only a commandment of morality, but also a legal norm.\n\n\"Several of your fellow-men have agreed to treat each other with good\nfaith and fair play,--that is, to respect those rules of action which\nthe nature of things points out to them as being alone capable of\nassuring to them, in the fullest measure, prosperity, safety, and peace.\nAre you willing to join their league? to form a part of their society?\nDo you promise to respect the honor, the liberty, the goods, of your\nbrothers? Do you promise never to appropriate to yourself, neither by\nviolence, by fraud, by usury, nor by speculation, another's product or\npossession? Do you promise never to lie and deceive, neither in court,\nin trade, nor in any of your dealings? You are free to accept or to\nrefuse.\n\n\"If you refuse, you form a part of the society of savages. Having left\nthe fellowship of the human race, you come under suspicion. Nothing\nprotects you. At the least insult anybody you meet may knock you down,\nwithout incurring any other charge than that of cruelty to animals.\n\n\"If you swear to the league, on the contrary, you form a part of the\nsociety of free men. All your brothers enter into an engagement with\nyou, promising you fidelity, friendship, help, service, commerce. In\ncase of infraction on their part or on yours, through negligence, hot\nblood, or evil intent, you are responsible to one another, for the\ndamage and also for the scandal and insecurity which you have caused;\nthis responsibility may extend, according to the seriousness of the\nperjury or the repetition of the crime, as far as to excommunication and\ndeath.\"[143]\n\n\n4.--THE STATE\n\nI. Since Proudhon approves only the single legal norm that contracts\nmust be lived up to, he can sanction only a single legal relation, that\nof parties to a contract. Hence he must necessarily reject the State;\nfor it is established by particular legal norms, and, as an involuntary\nlegal relation, it binds even those who have not entered into any\ncontract at all. _Proudhon does accordingly reject the State\nabsolutely, without any spatial or temporal limitation; he even regards\nit as a legal relation which offends against justice to an unusual\ndegree._\n\n\"The government of man by man is slavery.\"[144] \"Whoever lays his hand\non me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my\nenemy.\"[145] \"In a given society the authority of man over man is in\ninverse ratio to the intellectual development which this society has\nattained, and the probable duration of this authority may be calculated\nfrom the more or less general desire for a true--that is, a\nscientific--government.\"[146]\n\n\"Royalty is never legitimate. Neither heredity, election, universal\nsuffrage, the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of\nreligion and time, makes royalty legitimate. In whatever form it may\nappear, monarchical, oligarchic, democratic,--royalty, or the government\nof man by man, is illegal and absurd.\"[147] Democracy in particular \"is\nnothing but a constitutional arbitrary power succeeding another\nconstitutional arbitrary power; it has no scientific value, and we must\nsee in it only a preparation for the REPUBLIC, one and\nindivisible.\"[148]\n\n\"Authority was no sooner begun on earth than it became the object of\nuniversal competition. Authority, Government, Power, State,--these words\nall denote the same thing,--each man sees in it the means of oppressing\nand exploiting his fellows. Absolutists, doctrinaires, demagogues, and\nsocialists, turned their eyes incessantly to authority as their sole\ncynosure.\"[149] \"All parties without exception, in so far as they seek\nfor power, are varieties of absolutism; and there will be no liberty for\ncitizens, no order for societies, no union among workingmen, till in the\npolitical catechism the renunciation of authority shall have replaced\nfaith in authority. _No more parties, no more authority, absolute\nliberty of man and citizen_,--there, in three words, is my political and\nsocial confession of faith.\"[150]\n\nII. _Justice demands, in place of the State, a social human life on the\nbasis of the legal norm that contracts must be lived up to._ Proudhon\ncalls this social life \"anarchy\"[151] and later \"federation\"[152] also.\n\n1. After the abrogation of the State, men are still to live together in\nsociety. As early as 1841 Proudhon says that the point is \"to discover a\nsystem of absolute equality, in which all present institutions, minus\nproperty or the sum of the abuses of property, might not only find a\nplace, but be themselves means to equality; individual liberty, the\ndivision of powers, the cabinet, the jury, the administrative and\njudiciary organization.\"[153]\n\nBut men are not to be kept together in society by any supreme authority,\nbut only by the legally binding force of contract. \"When I bargain for\nany object with one or more of my fellow-citizens, it is clear that\nthen my will alone is my law; it is I myself who, in fulfilling my\nobligation, am my government. If then I could make that contract with\nall, which I do make with some; if all could renew it with each other;\nif every group of citizens, commune, canton, department, corporation,\ncompany, etc., formed by such a contract and considered as a moral\nperson, could then, always on the same terms, treat with each of the\nother groups and with all, it would be exactly as if my will was\nrepeated _ad infinitum_. I should be sure that the law thus made on all\npoints that concern the republic, on the various motions of millions of\npersons, would never be anything but my law; and, if this new order of\nthings was called government, that this government would be mine. The\n_regime of contracts_, substituted for the _regime of laws_, would\nconstitute the true government of man and of the citizen, the true\nsovereignty of the people, the REPUBLIC.\"[154]\n\n\"The Republic is the organization by which, all opinions and all\nactivities remaining free, the People, by the very divergence of\nopinions and of wills, thinks and acts as a single man. In the Republic\nevery citizen, in doing what he wishes and nothing but what he wishes,\nparticipates directly in legislation and government, just as he\nparticipates in the production and circulation of wealth. There every\ncitizen is king; for he has plenary power, he reigns and governs. The\nRepublic is a positive anarchy. It is neither liberty subjected TO\norder, as in the constitutional monarchy, nor liberty imprisoned IN\norder, as the provisional government would have it. It is liberty\ndelivered from all its hobbles, superstition, prejudice, sophism,\nspeculation, authority; it is mutual liberty, not self-limiting liberty;\nliberty, not the daughter but the MOTHER of order.\"[155]\n\n2. Anarchy may easily seem to us \"the acme of disorder and the\nexpression of chaos. They say that when a Parisian burgher of the\nseventeenth century once heard that in Venice there was no king, the\ngood man could not get over his astonishment, and thought he should die\nof laughing. Such is our prejudice.\"[156] As against this, Proudhon\ndraws a picture of how men's life in society under anarchy might perhaps\nshape itself in detail, to execute the functions now belonging to the\nState.\n\nHe begins with an example. \"For many centuries the spiritual power has\nbeen separated, within traditional limits, from the temporal power. [But\nthere has never been a complete separation, and therefore, to the great\ndetriment of the church's authority and of believers, centralization has\nnever been sufficient.] There would be a complete separation if the\ntemporal power not only did not concern itself with the celebration of\nmysteries, the administration of sacraments, the government of parishes,\netc., but did not intervene in the nomination of bishops either. There\nwould ensue a greater centralization, and consequently a more regular\ngovernment, if in each parish the people had the right to choose for\nthemselves their vicars and curates, or to have none at all; if in each\ndiocese the priests elected their bishop; if the assembly of bishops,\nor a primate of the Gauls, had sole charge of the regulation of\nreligious affairs, theological instruction, and worship. By this\nseparation the clergy would cease to be, in the hands of political\npower, an instrument of tyranny over the people; and by this application\nof universal suffrage the ecclesiastical government, centralized in\nitself, receiving its inspirations from the people and not from the\ngovernment or the pope, would be in constant harmony with the needs of\nsociety and with the moral and intellectual condition of the citizens.\nWe must, then, in order to return to truth, organic, political,\neconomic, or social (for here all these are one), first, abolish the\nconstitutional cumulation by taking from the State the nomination of the\nbishops, and definitively separating the spiritual from the temporal;\nsecond, centralize the church in itself by a system of graded elections;\nthird, give to the ecclesiastical power, as we do to all the other\npowers in the State, the vote of the citizens as a basis. By this system\nwhat to-day is GOVERNMENT will no longer be anything but\n_administration_; all France is centralized, so far as concerns\necclesiastical functions; the country, by the mere fact of its electoral\ninitiative, governs itself in matters of eternal life as well as in\nthose of this world. And one may already see that if it were possible to\norganize the entire country in temporal matters on the same bases, the\nmost perfect order and the most vigorous centralization would exist\nwithout there being anything of what we to-day call constituted\nauthority or government.\"[157]\n\nProudhon gives a second example in judicial authority. \"The judicial\nfunctions, by their different specialties, their hierarchy, [their\npermanent tenure of office,] their convergence under a single\ndepartmental head, show an unequivocal tendency to separation and\ncentralization. But they are in no way dependent on those who are under\ntheir jurisdiction; they are all at the disposal of the executive power,\nwhich is appointed by the people once in four years with authority that\ncannot be diminished; they are subordinated not to the country by\nelection, but to the government, president or prince, by appointment. It\nfollows that those who are under the jurisdiction of a court are given\nover to their 'natural' judges just as are parishioners to their vicars;\nthat the people belong to the magistrate like an inheritance; that the\nlitigant is the judge's, not the judge the litigant's. Apply universal\nsuffrage and graded election to the judicial as well as the\necclesiastical functions; suppress the permanent tenure of office, which\nis an alienation of the electoral right; take away from the State all\naction, all influence, on the judicial body; let this body, separately\ncentralized in itself, no longer depend on any but the people,--and, in\nthe first place, you will have deprived power of its mightiest\ninstrument of tyranny; you will have made justice a principle of liberty\nas well as of order. And, unless you suppose that the people, from whom\nall powers should spring by universal suffrage, is in contradiction with\nitself,--that what it wants in religion it does not want in\njustice,--you are assured that the separation of powers can beget no\nconflict; you may boldly lay it down as a principle that _separation_\nand _equilibrium_ are henceforth synonymous.\"[158]\n\nThen Proudhon goes on to the army, the customhouses, the public\ndepartments of agriculture and commerce, public works, public education,\nand finance; for each of these administrations he demands independence\nand centralization on the basis of general suffrage.[159]\n\n\"That a nation may manifest itself in its unity, it must be centralized\nin its religion, centralized in its justice, centralized in its army,\ncentralized in its agriculture, industry, and commerce, centralized in\nits finances,--in a word, centralized in all its functions and\nfaculties; the centralization must work from the bottom to the top, from\nthe circumference to the centre; all the functions must be independent\nand severally self-governing.\n\n\"Would you then make this invisible unity perceptible by a special\norgan, preserve the image of the old government? Group these different\nadministrations by their heads; you have your cabinet, your _executive_,\nwhich can then very well do without a Council of State.\n\n\"Set up above all this a grand jury, legislature, or national assembly,\nappointed directly by the whole country, and charged not with appointing\nthe cabinet officers,--they have their investiture from their particular\nconstituents,--but with auditing the accounts, making the laws, settling\nthe budget, deciding controversies between the administrations, all\nafter having heard the reports of the Public Department, or Department\nof the Interior, to which the whole government will thenceforth be\nreduced; and you will have a centralization the stronger the more you\nmultiply its foci, a responsibility the more real the more clear-cut is\nthe separation between the powers; you have a constitution at once\npolitical and social.\"[160]\n\n\n5.--PROPERTY\n\nI. Since Proudhon sanctions only the one legal norm that contracts must\nbe kept, he can approve only one legal relation, that between\ncontracting parties. Hence he must necessarily reject property as well\nas the State, since it is established by particular legal norms, and, as\nan involuntary legal relation, binds even such as have in no way entered\ninto a contract. _And he does reject property[161] absolutely, without\nany spatial or temporal limitation; nay, it even appears to him to be a\nlegal relation which is particularly repugnant to justice._\n\n\"According to its definition, property is the right of using and\nabusing; that is to say, it is the absolute, irresponsible domain of man\nover his person and his goods. If property ceased to be the right to\nabuse, it would cease to be property. Has not the proprietor the right\nto give his goods to whomever he will, to let his neighbor burn without\ncrying fire, to oppose the public good, to squander his patrimony, to\nexploit the laborer and hold him to ransom, to produce bad goods and\nsell them badly? Can he be judicially constrained to use his property\nwell? can he be disturbed in the abuse of it? What am I saying? Is not\nproperty, precisely because it is full of abuse, the most sacred thing\nin the world for the legislator? Can one conceive of a property whose\nuse the police power should determine, whose abuse it should repress? Is\nit not clear, in fine, that if one undertook to introduce justice into\nproperty, one would destroy property, just as the law, by introducing\npropriety into concubinage, destroyed concubinage?\"[162]\n\n\"Men steal: first, by violence on the highway; second, alone or in a\nband; third, by burglary; fourth, by embezzlement; fifth, by fraudulent\nbankruptcy; sixth, by forgery; seventh, by counterfeiting. Eighth, by\npocket-picking; ninth, by swindling; tenth, by breach of trust;\neleventh, by gambling and lotteries.--Twelfth, by usury. Thirteenth, by\nrent-taking.--Fourteenth, by commerce, when the profits are more than\nfair wages for the trader's work.--Fifteenth, by selling one's own\nproduct at a profit, and by accepting a sinecure or a fat salary.\"[163]\n\"In theft such as the laws forbid, force and fraud are employed alone\nand openly; in authorized theft they are disguised under a produced\nutility, which they use as a device for plundering their victim. The\ndirect use of violence and force was early and unanimously rejected; no\nnation has yet reached the point of delivering itself from theft when\nunited with talent, labor, and possession.\"[164] In this sense property\nis \"theft,\"[165] \"the exploitation of the weak by the strong,\"[166]\n\"contrary to right,\"[167] \"the suicide of society.\"[168]\n\nII. _Justice demands, in place of property, a distribution of goods\nbased on the legal norm that contracts must be lived up to._\n\nProudhon calls that portion of goods which is assigned to the individual\nby contract, \"property.\" In 1840 he had demanded that individual\npossession be substituted for property; with this one change evil would\ndisappear from the earth.[169] But in 1841 he is already explaining that\nby property he means only its abuses;[170] nay, he even then describes\nas necessary the creation of an immediately applicable social system in\nwhich the rights of barter and sale, of direct and collateral\ninheritance, of primogeniture and bequest, should find their place.[171]\nIn 1846 he says, \"Some day transformed property will be an idea\npositive, complete, social, and true; a property which will abolish the\nold property and will become equally effective and beneficent for\nall.\"[172] In 1848 he is declaring that \"property, as to its principle\nor substance, which is human personality, must never perish; it must\nremain in man's heart as a perpetual stimulus to labor, as the\nantagonist whose absence would cause labor to fall into idleness and\ndeath.\"[173]\n\nAnd in 1850 he announces: \"What I sought for as far back as 1840, in\ndefining property, what I am wanting now, is not a destruction; I have\nsaid it till I am tired. That would have been to fall with Rousseau,\nPlato, Louis Blanc himself, and all the adversaries of property, into\n_Communism_, against which I protest with all my might; what I ask for\nproperty is a BALANCE,\"[174]--that is, \"justice.\"[175]\n\nIn all these pronouncements property means nothing else than that\nportion of goods which falls to the individual on the basis of\ncontracts, on which society is to be built up.[176] The property which\nProudhon sanctions cannot be a special legal relation, but only a\npossible part of the substance of the one legal relation which he\napproves, the relation of contract. It can afford no protection against\na group of men whose extent is determined by legal norms, but only\nagainst a group of men who have mutually secured a certain portion of\ngoods to each other by contract. Proudhon, therefore, is here using the\nword \"property\" in an inexact sense; in the strict sense it can denote\nonly a portion of goods set apart in an involuntary legal relation by\nparticular legal norms.\n\nAccordingly, when in the name of justice Proudhon demands a certain\ndistribution of property, this means nothing more than that the\ncontracts on which society is to be built should make a certain sort of\nprovision with respect to the distribution of goods. And the way in\nwhich they should determine it is this: that every man is to have the\nproduct of his labor.\n\n\"Let us conceive of wealth as a mass whose elements are held together\npermanently by a chemical force, and into which new elements incessantly\nenter and combine in different proportions, but according to a definite\nlaw: value is the proportion (the measure) in which each of these\nelements forms a part of the whole.\"[177] \"I suppose, therefore, a force\nwhich combines the elements of wealth in definite proportions and makes\nof them a homogeneous whole.\"[178] \"This force is LABOR. It is labor,\nlabor alone, that produces all the elements of wealth and combines them,\nto the last molecule, according to a variable but definite law of\nproportionality.\"[179] \"Every product is a representative sign of\nlabor.\"[180]\n\n\"Every product can consequently be exchanged for another.\"[181] \"If then\nthe tailor, in return for furnishing the value of one day of his work,\nconsumes ten times the weaver's day, it is as if the weaver gave ten\ndays of his life for one day of the tailor's. This is precisely what\noccurs when a peasant pays a lawyer twelve francs for a document that it\ncosts one hour to draw up; and this inequality, this iniquity in\nexchange, is the mightiest cause of poverty. Every error in commutative\njustice is an immolation of the laborer, a transfusion of a man's blood\ninto another man's body.\"[182]\n\n\"What I demand with respect to property is a BALANCE. It is not for\nnothing that the genius of nations has equipped Justice with this\ninstrument of precision. Justice applied to economy is in fact nothing\nbut a perpetual balance; or, to express myself still more precisely,\njustice as regards the distribution of goods is nothing but the\nobligation which rests upon every citizen and every State, in their\nbusiness relations, to conform to that law of equilibrium which\nmanifests itself everywhere in economy, and whose violation, accidental\nor voluntary, is the fundamental principle of poverty.\"[183]\n\n2. That every man should enjoy the product of his labor is possible only\nthrough reciprocity, according to Proudhon; therefore he calls his\ndoctrine \"the theory of _mutuality_ or of the _mutuum_.\"[184]\n\"RECIPROCITY is expressed in the precept, 'Do to others what you would\nhave done to you,' a precept which political economy has translated into\nits celebrated formula, 'Products exchange for products.' Now the evil\nwhich is devouring us results from the fact that the law of reciprocity\nis unrecognized, violated. The remedy consists altogether in the\npromulgation of this law. The organization of our mutual and reciprocal\nrelations is the whole of social science.\"[185]\n\nAnd so Proudhon, in the solemn declaration which he prefixed to the\nconstitution of the People's Bank when he first published it, gives the\nfollowing assurance: \"I protest that in criticising property, or rather\nthe whole body of institutions of which property is the pivot, I never\nmeant either to attack the individual rights recognized by previous\nlaws, or to dispute the legitimacy of acquired possessions, or to\ninstigate an arbitrary distribution of goods, or to put an obstacle in\nthe way of the free and regular acquisition of properties by bargain and\nsale; or even to prohibit or suppress by sovereign decree land-rent and\ninterest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human\nactivity should remain free and optional for all; I would admit no other\nmodifications, restrictions, or suppressions of them than naturally and\nnecessarily result from the universalization of the principle of\nreciprocity and of the law of synthesis which I propound. This is my\nlast will and testament. I allow only him to suspect its sincerity, who\ncould tell a lie in the moment of death.\"[186]\n\n\n6.--REALIZATION\n\n_The change which justice calls for is to come about in this way, that\nthose men who have recognized the truth are to convince others how\nnecessary the change is for the sake of justice, and that hereby,\nspontaneously, law is to transform itself, the State and property to\ndrop away, and the new condition to appear._ The new condition will\nappear \"as soon as the idea is popularized\";[187] that it may appear, we\nmust \"popularize the idea.\"[188]\n\nI. Nothing is requisite but to convince men that justice commands the\nchange.\n\n1. Proudhon rejects all other methods. His doctrine is \"in accord with\nthe constitution and the laws.\"[189] \"Accomplish the Revolution, they\nsay, and after this everything will be cleared up. As if the Revolution\nitself could be accomplished without a leading idea!\"[190] \"To secure\njustice to one's self by bloodshed is an extremity to which the\nCalifornians, gathered since yesterday to seek for gold, may be reduced;\nbut may the luck of France preserve us from it!\"[191]\n\n\"Despite the violence which we witness, I do not believe that hereafter\nliberty will need to use force to claim its rights and avenge its\nwrongs. Reason will serve us better; and patience, like the Revolution,\nis invincible.\"[192]\n\n2. But how shall we convince men, \"how popularize the idea, if the\n_bourgeoisie_ remains hostile; if the populace, brutalized by servitude,\nfull of prejudices and bad instincts, remains plunged in indifference;\nif the professors, the academicians, the press, are calumniating you; if\nthe courts are truculent; if the powers that be muffle your voice? Don't\nworry. Just as the lack of ideas makes one lose the most promising\ngames, war against ideas can only push forward the Revolution. Do you\nnot see already that the _regime_ of authority, of inequality, of\npredestination, of eternal salvation, and of reasons of State, is daily\nbecoming still more intolerable for the well-to-do classes, whose\nconscience and reason it tortures, than for the mass, whose stomach\ncries out against it?\"[193]\n\n3. The most effective means for convincing men, according to Proudhon,\nis to present to the people, within the State and without violating its\nlaw, \"an example of centralization spontaneous, independent, and\nsocial,\" thus applying even now the principles of the future\nconstitution of society.[194] \"Rouse that collective action without\nwhich the condition of the people will forever be unhappy and its\nefforts powerless. Teach it to produce wealth and order with its own\nhands, without the help of the authorities.\"[195]\n\nProudhon sought to give such an example by the founding of the People's\nBank.[196]\n\nThe People's Bank was to \"insure work and prosperity to all producers by\norganizing them as beginning and end of production with regard to one\nanother,--that is, as capitalists and as consumers.\"[197]\n\n\"The People's Bank was to be the property of all the citizens who\naccepted its services, who for this purpose furnished money to it if\nthey thought that it could not yet for some time do without a metallic\nbasis, and who, in every case, promised it their preference in\ndiscounting paper, and received its notes as cash. Accordingly the\nPeople's Bank, working for the profit of its customers themselves, had\nno occasion to take interest for its loans nor to charge a discount on\ncommercial paper; it had only to take a very slight allowance to cover\nsalaries and expenses. So credit was GRATUITOUS!--The principle being\nrealized, the consequences unfolded themselves ad _infinitum_.\"[198]\n\n\"So the People's Bank, giving an example of popular initiative alike in\ngovernment and in public economy, which thenceforth were to be\nidentified in a single synthesis, was becoming for the _proletariat_ at\nonce the principle and the instrument of their emancipation; it was\ncreating political and industrial liberty. And, as every philosophy and\nevery religion is the metaphysical or symbolic expression of social\neconomy, the People's Bank, changing the material basis of society, was\nushering in the revolution of philosophy and religion; it was thus, at\nleast, that its founders had conceived of it.\"[199]\n\nAll this can best be made clear by reproducing some provisions from the\nconstitution of the People's Bank.\n\n\n Art. 1. By these presents a commercial company is founded under the\n name of _Societe de la Banque du Peuple_, consisting of Citizen\n Proudhon, here present, and the persons who shall give their assent\n to this constitution by becoming stockholders.\n\n Art. 3.... For the present the company will exist as a partnership\n in which Citizen Proudhon shall be general partner, and the other\n parties concerned shall be limited partners who shall in no case be\n responsible for more than the value of their shares.\n\n Art. 5.... The firm name shall be P. J. Proudhon & Co.\n\n Art. 6. Besides the members of the company proper, every citizen is\n invited to form a part of the People's Bank as a co-operator. For\n this it suffices to assent to the bank's constitution and to accept\n its paper.\n\n Art. 7. The People's Bank Company being capable of indefinite\n extension, its virtual duration is endless. However, to conform to\n the requirements of the law, it fixes its duration at ninety-nine\n years, which shall commence on the day of its definitive\n organization.\n\n Art. 9.... The People's Bank, having as its _basis_ the essential\n gratuitousness of credit and exchange, as its _object_ the\n circulation, not the production, of values, and as its _means_ the\n mutual consent of producers and consumers, can and should work\n without capital.\n\n This end will be reached when the entire mass of producers and\n consumers shall have assented to the constitution of the company.\n\n Till then the People's Bank Company, having to conform to\n established custom and the requirements of law, and especially in\n order more effectively to invite citizens to join it, will provide\n itself with capital.\n\n Art. 10. The capital of the People's Bank shall be five million\n francs, divided into shares of five francs each.\n\n ... The company shall be definitively organized, and its business\n shall begin, when ten thousand shares are taken.\n\n Art. 12. Stock shall be issued only at par. It shall bear no\n interest.\n\n Art. 15. The principal businesses of the People's Bank are, 1, to\n increase its cash on hand by issuing notes; 2, discounting endorsed\n commercial paper; 3, discounting accepted orders (_commandes_) and\n bills (_factures_); 4, loans on personal property; 5, loans on\n personal security; 6, advances on annuities and collateral\n security; 7, payments and collections; 8, advances to productive\n and industrial enterprises (_la commande_).\n\n To these departments the People's Bank will add: 9, the functions\n of a savings bank and endowment insurance; 10, insurance; 11, safe\n deposit vaults; 12, the service of the budget.[200]\n\n Art. 18. In distinction from ordinary bank notes, payable in\n _specie_ to some one's _order_, the paper of the People's Bank is\n an order for goods, vested with a social character, rendered\n perpetual, and is payable at sight by every stockholder and\n co-operator in the _products_ or _services_ of his industry or\n profession.\n\n Art. 21. Every co-operator agrees to trade by preference, for all\n goods which the company can offer him, with the co-operators of the\n bank, and to reserve his orders exclusively for his fellow\n stockholders and fellow co-operators.\n\n In return, every producer or tradesman co-operating with the bank\n agrees to furnish his goods to the other co-operators at a reduced\n price.\n\n Art. 62. The People's Bank has its headquarters in Paris.\n\n Its aim is, in the course of time, to establish a branch in every\n _arrondissement_ and a correspondent in every commune.\n\n Art. 63. As soon as circumstances permit, the present company shall\n be converted into a corporation, since this form allows us to\n realize, according to the wish of the founders, the threefold\n principle, first, of election; second, of the separation and the\n independence of the branches of work; third, of the personal\n responsibility of every employee.[201]\n\n\nII. If once men are convinced that justice commands the change, then\nwill \"despotism fall of itself by its very uselessness.\"[202] The State\nand property disappear, law is transformed, and the new condition of\nthings begins.\n\n\"The Revolution does not act after the fashion of the old governmental,\naristocratic, or dynastic principle. It is Right, the balance of forces,\nequality. It has no conquests to pursue, no nations to reduce to\nservitude, no frontiers to defend, no fortresses to build, no armies to\nfeed, no laurels to pluck, no preponderance to maintain. The might of\nits economic institutions, the gratuitousness of its credit, the\nbrilliancy of its thought, are its sufficient means for converting the\nuniverse.\"[203] \"The Revolution has for allies all who suffer oppression\nand exploitation; let it appear, and the universe stretches its arms to\nit.\"[204]\n\n\"I want the peaceable revolution. I want you to make the very\ninstitutions which I charge you to abolish, and the principles of law\nwhich you will have to complete, serve toward the realization of my\nwishes, so that the new society shall appear as the spontaneous,\nnatural, and necessary development of the old, and that the Revolution,\nwhile abrogating the old order of things, shall nevertheless be the\nprogress of that order.\"[205] \"When the people, once enlightened\nregarding its true interests, declares its will not to reform the\ngovernment but to revolutionize society,\"[206] then \"the dissolution of\ngovernment in the economic organism\"[207] will follow in a way about\nwhich one can at present only make guesses.[208]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[125] Not (as stated by Diehl vol. 2 p. 116, Zenker p. 61) 1852.\n\n[126] Proudhon \"_Propriete_\" p. 295 [212. Bracketed references under\nProudhon are to the collected edition of his \"_OEuvres completes_,\"\nParis, 1866-83.--The passage quoted above is probably the first case in\nhistory where anybody called himself an Anarchist, though the word had\nlong been in use as a term of reproach for enemies].\n\n[127] Pr. \"_Justice_\" 1. 182-3 [1. 224-5].\n\n[128] Pr. \"_Justice_\" 1. 184-5 [1. 227].\n\n[129] _Ib._ 1. 73 [132? but there he says _must be_, not _is_].\n\n[130] _Ib._ 1. 185 [1. 228].\n\n[131] _Ib._ 1. 195 [1. 235].\n\n[132] _Ib._ 1. 185 [1. 228].\n\n[133] Pr. \"_Justice_\" 1. 195 [1. 235].\n\n[134] _Ib._ 3. 45 [3. 276, but with the bracketed sentence much\nabridged. For the phrase \"rebel against right,\" remember that in French\n_right_ and _common law_ are one and the same word].\n\n[135] Pr. \"_Propriete_\" p. 18 [24-5].\n\n[136] Pr. \"_Idee_\" 147-8 [136-7]\n\n[137] _Ib._ 149 [138].\n\n[138] Pr. \"_Idee_\" pp. 149-50 [138].\n\n[139] Pr. \"_Principe_\" p. 64 [44].\n\n[140] Pr. \"_Idee_\" p. 235 [215].\n\n[141] Pr. \"_Principe_\" p. 64 [44].\n\n[142] Pr. \"_Idee_\" p. 343 [312].\n\n[143] Pr. \"_Idee_\" pp. 342-3 [311-12].\n\n[144] Pr. \"_Confessions_\" p. 8 [29].\n\n[145] _Ib._ p. 6 [23].\n\n[146] Pr. \"_Propriete_\" p. 301 [216].\n\n[147] _Ib._ pp. 298-9 [214].\n\n[148] Pr. \"_Solution_\" p. 54 [39].\n\n[149] Pr. \"_Confessions_\" p. 7 [24].\n\n[150] _Ib._ p. 7 [25-6].\n\n[151] Pr. \"_Propriete_\" p. 301 [216], \"_Confessions_\" p. 68 [192],\n\"_Solution_\" p. 119 [87].\n\n[152] Pr. \"_Principe_\" p. 67 [46].--Proudhon's teaching was not, as\nasserted by Diehl vol. 2 p. 116, vol. 3 pp. 166-7, and Zenker p. 61,\nAnarchism till 1852 and Federalism thenceforward; his Anarchism was\nFederalism from the start, only he later gave it the additional name of\nFederalism.\n\n[153] Pr. \"_Propriete_\" pp. XIX-XX [10-11].\n\n[154] Pr. \"_Idee_\" pp. 235-6 [215-16].\n\n[155] Pr. \"_Solution_\" p. 119 [87].\n\n[156] Pr. \"_Propriete_\" pp. 301-2 [216].\n\n[157] Pr. \"_Confessions_\" p. 65 [180-3; bracketed words a paraphrase.]\n\n[158] Pr. \"_Confessions_\" pp. 65-6 [183-4, except bracketed words].\n\n[159] _Ib._ pp. 66-8 [185-9].\n\n[160] Pr. \"_Confessions_\" p. 68 [191-2].\n\n[161] Pfau pp. 227-31, Adler p. 372, Zenker pp. 26, 41, fail to see\nthis, being influenced by the improper sense in which Proudhon uses the\nword \"property\" for a contractually guaranteed share of goods.\n[Eltzbacher's statement, on the other hand, is not so much drawn from\nProudhon himself as deduced from a comparison of Eltzbacher's definition\nof property with the statement that Proudhon admits no law but the law\nof contract. I do not think this last statement is correct; I think\nProudhon would have his voluntary contractual associations protect their\nmembers in certain definable respects--among others, in the possession\nof goods--against those who stood outside the contract as well as\nagainst those within. Then this would be, by Eltzbacher's definitions,\nboth law and property.]\n\n[162] Pr. \"_Contradictions_\" 2. 303-4 [2. 237-8].\n\n[163] Pr. \"_Propriete_\" pp. 285-90 [205-9].\n\n[164] Pr. \"_Propriete_\" p. 293 [211].\n\n[165] _Ib._ pp. 1-2 [13].\n\n[166] _Ib._ p. 283 [204].\n\n[167] _Ib._ p. 311 [223].\n\n[168] _Ib._ p. 311 [223].\n\n[169] _Ib._ p. 311 [223].\n\n[170] _Ib._ pp. XVIII-XIX [10; consult the passage].\n\n[171] _Ib._ pp. XIX-XX [11].\n\n[172] Pr. \"_Contradictions_\" 2. 234-5 [2. 184].\n\n[173] Pr. \"_Droit_\" p. 50 [230].\n\n[174] Pr. \"_Justice_\" 1. 302-3 [1. 324-5].\n\n[175] _Ib._ 303 [1. 325].\n\n[176] Pr. \"_Idee_\" p. 235 [215]; \"_Principe_\" p. 64 [44].\n\n[177] Pr. \"_Contradictions_\" 1. 51 [1. 74].\n\n[178] _Ib._ 1. 53 [1. 75].\n\n[179] _Ib._ 1. 55. [1. 76-7].\n\n[180] _Ib._ 1. 68 [1. 87].\n\n[181] _Ib._ 1. 68 [1. 87].\n\n[182] _Ib._ 1. 83 [1. 98-9].\n\n[183] Pr. \"_Justice_\" 1. 302-3 [1. 325].\n\n[184] Pr. \"_Contradictions_\" 2. 528 [2. 414].\n\n[185] Pr. \"_Organisation_\" p. 5 [93].\n\n[186] Pr. \"_Banque_\" pp. 3-4 [260].\n\n[187] Pr. \"_Justice_\" 1. 515 [2. 133].\n\n[188] _Ib._ 1. 515 [2. 133].\n\n[189] Pr. \"_Confessions_\" p. 71 [201].\n\n[190] Pr. \"_Justice_\" 1, 515 [2, 133. Eltzbacher finds the sense \"all\nwill be enlightened\" where I translate \"everything will be cleared up.\"\nEltzbacher's view of the sense--that to those who say \"Enlightenment\nmust come by the Revolution\" Proudhon replies, \"No, the Revolution must\ncome by enlightenment\"--correctly gives the thought brought out in the\ncontext].\n\n[191] Pr. \"_Justice_\" 1. 466 [2. 90].\n\n[192] _Ib._ 1. 470-71 [2. 94].\n\n[193] _Ib._ 1. 515 [2. 133-4].\n\n[194] Pr. \"_Confessions_\" p. 69 [196].\n\n[195] _Ib._ p. 72 [203].\n\n[196] _Ib._ p. 69 [196].\n\n[197] _Ib._ p. 69 [196].\n\n[198] _Ib._ pp. 69-70 [197].\n\n[199] Pr. \"_Confessions_\" p. 70 [197-8].\n\n[200] [French dictionaries leave us somewhat in the lurch as to\ncommercial usages which differ from the English. Eltzbacher translates\n8, \"investment as silent partner\"; 12, \"balancing accounts.\"]\n\n[201] Pr. \"_Banque_\" pp. 5-20 [261-77].\n\n[202] Pr. \"_Confessions_\" p. 72 [202-3].\n\n[203] Pr. \"_Justice_\" 1. 509 [2. 128-9].\n\n[204] _Ib._ 1. 510 [2. 129].\n\n[205] Pr. \"_Idee_\" pp. 196-7 [181].\n\n[206] _Ib._ p. 197 [181].\n\n[207] _Ib._ p. 277 [253].\n\n[208] _Ib._ pp. 195, 197 [180-81].\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nSTIRNER'S TEACHING\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\n1. Johann Kaspar Schmidt was born in 1806, at Bayreuth in Bavaria. He\nstudied philosophy and theology at Berlin from 1826 to 1828, at Erlangen\nfrom 1828 to 1829. In 1829 he interrupted his studies, made a prolonged\ntour through Germany, and then lived alternately at Koenigsberg and Kulm\ntill 1832. From 1832 to 1834 he studied at Berlin again; in 1835 he\npassed his tests there as _Gymnasiallehrer_. He received no government\nappointment, however, and in 1839 became teacher in a young ladies'\nseminary in Berlin. He gave up this place in 1844, but continued to live\nin Berlin, and died there in 1856.\n\nIn part under the pseudonym Max Stirner, in part anonymously, Schmidt\npublished a small number of works, mostly of a philosophical nature.\n\n2. Stirner's teaching about law, the State, and property is contained\nchiefly in his book \"_Der Einzige und sein Eigentum_\" (1845).\n\n--But here arises the question, Can we speak of such a thing as a\n\"teaching\" of Stirner's?\n\nStirner recognizes no _ought_. \"Men are such as they should be--can be.\nWhat should they be? Surely not more than they can be! And what can they\nbe? Not more, again, than they--can, _i. e._ than they have the\nability, the strength, to be.\"[209] \"A man is 'called' to nothing, and\nhas no 'proper business,' no 'function,' as little as a plant or beast\nhas a 'vocation.' He has not a vocation; but he has powers, which\nexpress themselves where they are, because their being consists only in\ntheir expression, and which can remain idle as little as life, which\nwould no longer be life if it 'stood still' but for a second. Now one\nmight cry to man, 'Use your power.' But this imperative would be given\nthe meaning that it was man's proper business to use his power. It is\nnot so. Rather, every one really does use his power, without first\nregarding this as his vocation; every one uses in every moment as much\npower as he possesses.\"[210]\n\nNay, Stirner acknowledges no such thing as truth. \"Truths are phrases,\nways of speaking, words (_logos_); brought into connection, or arranged\nby ranks and files, they form logic, science, philosophy.\"[211] \"Nor is\nthere a truth,--not right, not liberty, humanity, etc.,--which could\nsubsist before me, and to which I would submit.\"[212] \"If there is a\nsingle truth to which man must consecrate his life and his powers\nbecause he is man, then he is subjected to a rule, dominion, law, etc.;\nhe is a man in service.\"[213] \"As long as you believe in truth, you do\nnot believe in yourself; you are a--servant, a--religious man. You\nalone are truth; or rather, you are more than truth, which is nothing\nat all before you.\"[214]\n\nIf one chose to draw the extreme inference from this, Stirner's book\nwould be only a self-avowal, an expression of thoughts without any claim\nto general validity; in it Stirner would not be informing us what he\nthinks to be true, or what in his opinion we ought to do, but only\ngiving us an opportunity to observe the play of his ideas. Stirner did\nnot draw this inference,[215] and one should not let the style of the\nbook, which speaks mostly of Stirner's \"I,\" lead him to think that\nStirner did draw it. He calls that man \"blinded, who wants to be only\n'Man'.\"[216] He takes the floor against \"the erroneous consciousness of\nnot being able to entitle myself to as much as I want.\"[217] He mocks at\nour grandmothers' belief in ghosts.[218] He declares that \"penalty must\nmake room for satisfaction,\"[219] that man \"should defend himself\nagainst man.\"[220] And he asserts that \"over the door of our time stands\nnot Apollo's 'Know thyself,' but a 'Turn yourself to account!'\"[221] So\nStirner intends not only to give us information about his inward\ncondition at the time he composed his book, but to tell us what he\nthinks to be true and what we ought to do; his book is not a mere\nself-avowal, but a scientific teaching.\n\n3. Stirner does not call his teaching about law, the State, and property\n\"Anarchism.\" He prefers to use the epithet \"anarchic\" to designate\npolitical liberalism, which he combats.[222]\n\n\n2.--BASIS\n\n_According to Stirner the supreme law for each one of us is his own\nwelfare._\n\nWhat does one's own welfare mean? \"Let us seek out the enjoyment of\nlife!\"[223] \"Henceforth the question is not how one can acquire life,\nbut how he can expend it, enjoy it; not how one is to produce in himself\nthe true ego, but how he is to dissolve himself, to live himself\nout.\"[224] \"If the enjoyment of life is to triumph over the longing or\nhope for life, it must overcome it in its double significance which\nSchiller brings out in 'The Ideal and Life'; it must crush spiritual and\ntemporal poverty, abolish the ideal and--the want of daily bread. He who\nmust lay out his life in prolonging life cannot enjoy it, and he who is\nstill seeking his life does not have it, and can as little enjoy it;\nboth are poor.\"[225]\n\nOur own welfare is our supreme law. Stirner recognizes no duty.[226]\n\"Whether what I think and do is Christian, what do I care? Whether it is\nhuman, humane, liberal, or unhuman, inhumane, illiberal, what do I ask\nabout that? If only it aims at what I would have, if only I satisfy\nmyself in it, then fit it with predicates as you like; it is all one to\nme.\"[227] \"So then my relation to the world is this: I no longer do\nanything for it 'for God's sake', I do nothing 'for man's sake', but\nwhat I do I do 'for my sake'.\"[228] \"Where the world comes in my\nway--and it comes in my way everywhere--I devour it to appease the\nhunger of my egoism. You are to me nothing but--my food, just as I also\nam fed upon and used up by you. We have only one relation to each other,\nthat of utility, of usableness, of use.\"[229] \"I too love men, not\nmerely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the\nconsciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love\nbecause love is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no\n'commandment of love'.\"[230]\n\n\n3.--LAW\n\nI. _Looking to each one's own welfare, Stirner rejects law, and that\nwithout any limitation to particular spatial or temporal conditions._\n\nLaw[231] exists not by the individual's recognizing it as favorable to\nhis interests, but by his holding it sacred. \"Who can ask about 'right'\nif he is not occupying the religious standpoint just like other people?\nIs not 'right' a religious concept, _i. e._ something sacred?\"[232]\n\"When the Revolution stamped liberty as a 'right' it took refuge in the\nreligious sphere, in the region of the sacred, the ideal.\"[233] \"I am to\nrevere the sultanic law in a sultanate, the popular law in republics,\nthe canon law in Catholic communities, etc. I am to subordinate myself\nto these laws, I am to count them sacred.\"[234] \"The law is sacred, and\nhe who outrages it is a criminal.\"[235] \"There are no criminals except\nagainst something sacred\";[236] crime falls when the sacred\ndisappears.[237] Punishment has a meaning only in relation to something\nsacred.[238] \"What does the priest who admonishes the criminal do? He\nsets forth to him the great wrong of having by his act desecrated that\nwhich was hallowed by the State, its property (in which, you will see,\nthe lives of those who belong to the State must be included).\"[239]\n\nBut law is no more sacred than it is favorable to the individual's\nwelfare. \"Right--is a delusion, bestowed by a ghost.\"[240] Men have \"not\nrecovered the mastery over the thought of 'right,' which they themselves\ncreated; their creature is running away with them.\"[241] \"Let the\nindividual man claim ever so many rights; what do I care for his right\nand his claim?\"[242] I do not respect them.--\"What you have the might to\nbe you have the right to be. I deduce all right and all entitlement from\nmyself; I am entitled to everything that I have might over. I am\nentitled to overthrow Zeus, Jehovah, God, etc., if I can; if I cannot,\nthen these gods will always remain in the right and in the might as\nagainst me.\"[243]\n\n\"Right crumbles into its nothingness when it is swallowed up by\nforce,\"[244] \"but with the concept the word too loses its meaning.\"[245]\n\"The people will perhaps be against the blasphemer; hence a law against\nblasphemy. Shall I therefore not blaspheme? Is this law to be more to me\nthan an order?\"[246] \"He who has might 'stands above the law'.\"[247]\n\"The earth belongs to him who knows how to take it, or who does not let\nit be taken from him, does not let himself be deprived of it. If he\nappropriates it, then not merely the earth, but also the right to it,\nbelongs to him. This is egoistic right; _i. e._, it suits me, therefore\nit is right.\"[248]\n\nII. _Self-welfare commands that in future it itself should be men's rule\nof action in place of the law._\n\nEach of us is \"unique,\"[249] \"a world's history for himself,\"[250] and,\nwhen he \"knows himself as unique,\"[251] he is a \"self-owner.\"[252] \"God\nand mankind have made nothing their object, nothing but themselves. Let\nme then likewise make myself my object, who am, as well as God, the\nnothing of all else, who am my all, who am the Unique.\"[253] \"Away then\nwith every business that is not altogether my business! You think at\nleast the 'good cause' must be my business? What good, what bad? Why, I\nmyself am my business, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has\nmeaning for me. What is divine is God's business, what is human 'Man's.'\nMy business is neither what is divine nor what is human, it is not what\nis true, good, right, free, etc., but only what is mine; and it is no\ngeneral business, but is--unique, as I am unique. Nothing is more to me\nthan myself!\"[254]\n\n\"What a difference between freedom and self-ownership! I am free from\nwhat I am rid of; I am owner of what I have in my power.\"[255] \"My\nfreedom becomes complete only when it is my--might; but by this I cease\nto be a mere freeman and become a self-owner.\"[256] \"Each must say to\nhimself, I am all to myself and I do all for my sake. If it ever became\nclear to you that God, the commandments, etc., do you only harm, that\nthey encroach on you and ruin you, you would certainly cast them from\nyou just as the Christians once condemned Apollo or Minerva or heathen\nmorality.\"[257] \"How one acts only from himself, and asks no questions\nabout anything further, the Christians have made concrete in the idea of\n'God.' He acts 'as pleases him'.\"[258]\n\n\"Might is a fine thing and useful for many things; for 'one gets farther\nwith a handful of might than with a bagful of right.' You long for\nfreedom? You fools! If you took might, freedom would come of itself.\nSee, he who has might 'stands above the law.' How does this prospect\ntaste to you, you 'law-abiding' people? But you have no taste!\"[259]\n\n\n4.--THE STATE\n\nI. _Together with law Stirner necessarily has to reject also, just as\nunconditionally, the legal institution which is called State._ Without\nlaw the State is not possible. \"'Respect for the statutes!' By this\ncement the whole fabric of the State is held together.\"[260]\n\nThe State as well as the law, then, exists, not by the individual's\nrecognizing it as favorable to his welfare, but rather by his counting\nit sacred, by \"our being entangled in the error that it is an I, as\nwhich it applies to itself the name of a 'moral, mystical, or political\nperson.' I, who really am I, must pull off this lion's skin of the I\nfrom the parading thistle-eater.\"[261] The same holds good of the State\nas of the family. \"If each one who belongs to the family is to recognize\nand maintain that family in its permanent existence, then to each the\ntie of blood must be sacred, and his feeling for it must be that of\nfamily piety, of respect for the ties of blood, whereby every\nblood-relative becomes hallowed to him. So, also, to every member of the\nState-community this community must be sacred, and the concept which is\nsupreme to the State must be supreme to him too.\"[262] The State is \"not\nonly entitled, but compelled, to demand\" this.[263]\n\nBut the State is not sacred. \"The State's behavior is violence, and it\ncalls its violence 'law', but that of the individual 'crime'.\"[264] If I\ndo not do what it wishes, \"then the State turns against me with all the\nforce of its lion-paws and eagle-talons; for it is the king of beasts,\nit is lion and eagle.\"[265] \"Even if you do overpower your opponent as a\npower, it does not follow that you are to him a hallowed authority,\nunless he is a degenerate. He does not owe you respect, and reverence,\neven if he will be wary of your might.\"[266]\n\nNor is the State favorable to the individual's welfare. \"I am the mortal\nenemy of the State.\"[267] \"The general welfare as such is not my\nwelfare, but only the extremity of self-denial. The general welfare may\nexult aloud while I must lie like a hushed dog; the State may be in\nsplendor while I starve.\"[268] \"Every State is a despotism, whether the\ndespot be one or many, or whether, as people usually conceive to be the\ncase in a republic, all are masters, _i. e._ each tyrannizes over the\nothers.\"[269] \"Doubtless the State leaves the individuals as free play\nas possible, only they must not turn the play to earnest, must not\nforget it. The State has never any object but to limit the individual,\nto tame him, to subordinate him, to subject him to something general; it\nlasts only so long as the individual is not all in all, and is only the\nclear-cut limitation of me, my limitedness, my slavery.\"[270]\n\n\"A State never aims to bring about the free activity of individuals, but\nonly that activity which is bound to the State's purpose.\"[271] \"The\nState seeks to hinder every free activity by its censorship, its\noversight, its police, and counts this hindering as its duty, because it\nis in truth a duty of self-preservation.\"[272] \"I am not allowed to do\nall the work I can, but only so much as the State permits; I must not\nturn my thoughts to account, nor my work, nor, in general, anything\nthat is mine.\"[273] \"Pauperism is the valuelessness of Me, the\nphenomenon of my being unable to turn myself to account. Therefore State\nand pauperism are one and the same. The State does not let me attain my\nvalue, and exists only by my valuelessness; its goal is always to get\nsome benefit out of me, _i. e._ to exploit me, to use me up, even if\nthis using consisted only in my providing a _proles_ (_proletariat_); it\nwants me to be 'its creature'.\"[274]\n\n\"The State cannot brook man's standing in a direct relation to man; it\nmust come between as a--mediator, it must--intervene. It tears man from\nman, to put itself as 'spirit' in the middle. The laborers who demand a\nhigher wage are treated as criminals so soon as they want to get it by\ncompulsion. What are they to do? Without compulsion they don't get it,\nand in compulsion the State sees a self-help, a price fixed by the ego,\na real, free turning to account of one's property, which it cannot\npermit.\"[275]\n\nII. _Every man's own welfare demands that a social human life solely on\nthe basis of its precepts should take the place of the State._ Stirner\ncalls this sort of social life \"the union of egoists.\"[276]\n\n1. Even after the State is abolished men are to live together in\nsociety. \"Self-owners will fight for the unity which is their own will,\nfor union.\"[277] But what is to keep men together in the union?\n\nNot a promise, at any rate, \"If I were bound to-day and hereafter to my\nwill of yesterday,\" my will would \"be benumbed. My creature, _viz._, a\nparticular expression of will, would have become my dominator. Because I\nwas a fool yesterday I must remain such all my life.\"[278] \"The union is\nmy own creation, my creature, not sacred, not a spiritual power above my\nspirit, as little as any association of whatever sort. As I am not\nwilling to be a slave to my maxims, but lay them bare to my constant\ncriticism without any warrant, and admit no bail whatever for their\ncontinuance, so still less do I pledge myself to the union for my future\nand swear away my soul to it as men are said to do with the devil, and\nas is really the case with the State and all intellectual authority; but\nI am and remain more to myself than State, Church, God, and the like,\nand, consequently, also infinitely more than the union.\"[279]\n\nRather, men are to be held together in the union by the advantage which\neach individual has from the union at every moment. If I can \"use\" my\nfellow-men, \"then I am likely to come to an understanding and unite\nmyself with them, in order to strengthen my power by the agreement, and\nto do more by joint force than individual force could accomplish. In\nthis joinder I see nothing at all else than a multiplication of my\nstrength, and only so long as it is my multiplied strength do I retain\nit.\"[280]\n\nHence the union is something quite different from \"that society which\nCommunism means to found.\"[281] \"You bring into the union your whole\npower, your ability, and assert yourself; in society you with your\nlabor-strength are spent. In the former you live egoistically, in the\nlatter humanly, _i. e._ religiously, as a 'member in the body of this\nLord'. You owe to society what you have, and are in duty bound to it,\nare--possessed by 'social duties'; you utilize the union, and, undutiful\nand unfaithful, give it up when you are no longer able to get any use\nout of it. If society is more than you, then it is of more consequence\nto you than yourself; the union is only your tool, or the sword with\nwhich you sharpen and enlarge your natural strength; the union exists\nfor you and by you, society contrariwise claims you for itself and\nexists even without you; in short, society is sacred, the union is your\nown; society uses you up, you use up the union.\"[282]\n\n2. But what form may such a social life take in detail? In reply to his\ncritic, Moses Hess, Stirner gives some examples of unions that already\nexist.\n\n\"Perhaps at this moment children are running together under his window\nfor a comradeship of play; let him look at them, and he will espy merry\negoistic unions. Perhaps Hess has a friend or a sweetheart; then he may\nknow how heart joins itself to heart, how two of them unite egoistically\nin order to have the enjoyment of each other, and how neither 'gets the\nworst of the bargain.' Perhaps he meets a few pleasant acquaintances on\nthe street and is invited to accompany them into a wine-shop; does he go\nwith them in order to do an act of kindness to them, or does he 'unite'\nwith them because he promises himself enjoyment from it? Do they have to\ngive him their best thanks for his 'self-sacrifice' or do they know\nthat for an hour they formed an 'egoistic union' together?\"[283] Stirner\neven thinks of a \"German Union.\"[284]\n\n\n5.--PROPERTY\n\nI. _Together with law Stirner necessarily has to reject also, and just\nas unconditionally, the legal institution of property._ This \"lives by\ngrace of the law. It has its guarantee only in the law; it is not a\nfact, but a fiction, a thought. This is law-property, legal property,\nwarranted property. It is mine not by me, but by--law.\"[285]\n\nProperty in this sense, as well as the law and the State, is based not\non the individual's recognizing it as favorable to his welfare, but on\nhis counting it sacred. \"Property in the civil sense means sacred\nproperty, in such a way that I must respect your property. 'Have respect\nfor property!' Therefore the political liberals would like every one to\nhave his bit of property, and have in part brought about an incredible\nparcellation by their efforts in this direction. Every one must have his\nbone, on which he may find something to bite.\"[286]\n\nBut property is not sacred. \"I do not step timidly back from your\nproperty, be you one or many, but look upon it always as my property, in\nwhich I have no need to 'respect' anything. Now do the like with what\nyou call my property!\"[287]\n\nNor is property favorable to the individual's welfare. \"Property, as the\ncivic liberals understand it, is untenable, because the civic\nproprietor is really nothing but a propertyless man, a man everywhere\nexcluded. Instead of the world's belonging to him, as it might, there\nbelongs to him not even the paltry point on which he turns around.\"[288]\n\nII. _Every one's own welfare commands that a distribution of commodities\nbased solely on its precepts should take the place of property._ When\nStirner designates as \"property\" the share of commodities assigned to\nthe individual by these precepts, it is in the improper sense in which\nhe constantly uses the word property: in the proper sense only a share\nof commodities assigned by law can be called property.[289]\n\nNow, according to the decrees of his own welfare, every man should have\nall that he is powerful enough to obtain.\n\n\"What they are not competent to tear from me the power over, that\nremains my property: all right, then let power decide about property,\nand I will expect everything from my power! Alien power, power that I\nleave to another, makes me a slave; then let own power make me an\nowner.\"[290] \"To what property am I entitled? To any to which I--empower\nmyself. I give myself the right of property in taking property to\nmyself, or giving myself the proprietor's power, plenary power,\nempowerment.\"[291] \"What I am competent to have is my\n'competence.'\"[292] \"The sick, children, the aged, are still competent\nfor a great deal; _e. g._ to receive their living instead of taking it.\nIf they are competent to control you to the extent of having you desire\ntheir continued existence, then they have a power over you.\"[293] \"What\ncompetence the child possesses in its smile, its play, its crying,--in\nshort, in its mere existence! Are you capable of resisting its demand?\nor do you not hold out to it, as a mother, your breast,--as a father, so\nmuch of your belongings as it needs? It puts you under constraint, and\ntherefore possesses what you call yours.\"[294]\n\n\"Property, therefore, should not and cannot be done away with; rather,\nit must be torn from ghostly hands and become my property; then will the\nerroneous consciousness that I cannot entitle myself to as much as I\nwant vanish.--'But what cannot a man want?' Well, he who wants much, and\nknows how to get it, has in all times taken it to him, as Napoleon did\nthe continent, and the French Algeria. Therefore the only point is just\nthat the respectful 'lower classes' should at length learn to take to\nthemselves what they want. If they reach their hands too far for you,\nwhy, defend yourselves.\"[295] \"What 'man' wants does not by any means\nfurnish a scale for me and my needs; for I may have a use for more, or\nfor less. Rather, I must have as much as I am competent to appropriate\nto myself.\"[296]\n\n2. \"In this matter, as well as in others, unions will multiply the\nindividual's means and make secure his assailed property.\"[297] \"When it\nis our will no longer to leave the land to the land-owners, but to\nappropriate it to ourselves, we unite ourselves for this purpose; we\nform a union, a _societe_, which makes itself owner; if we are\nsuccessful, they cease to be land-owners. And, as we chase them out from\nland and soil, so we can also from many another property, to make it our\nown, the property of the--conquerors. The conquerors form a society,\nwhich one may conceive of as so great that by degrees it embraces all\nmankind; but so-called mankind is also, as such, only a thought (ghost);\nits reality is the individuals. And these individuals as a collective\nmass will deal not less arbitrarily with land and soil than does an\nisolated individual.\"[298]\n\n\"What all want to have a share in will be withdrawn from that individual\nwho wants to have it for himself alone; it is made a common possession.\nAs a common possession every one has a share in it, and this share is\nhis property. Just so, even in our old relations, a house which belongs\nto five heirs is their common possession; but the fifth part of the\nproceeds is each one's property. The property which for the present is\nstill withheld from us can be better made use of when it is in the hands\nof us all. Let us therefore associate ourselves for the purpose of this\nrobbery.\"[299]\n\n\n6.--REALIZATION\n\n_According to Stirner the change which every one's own welfare requires\nis to come about in this way,--that men in sufficient number first\nundergo an inward change and recognize their own welfare as their\nhighest law, and that these men then bring to pass by force the outward\nchange also: to wit, the abrogation of law, State, and property, and\nthe introduction of the new condition._\n\nI. The first and most important thing is the inward change of men.\n\n\"Revolution and insurrection must not be regarded as synonymous. The\nformer consists in an overturning of conditions, of the existing\ncondition or state, the State or society, and so is a political or\nsocial act; the latter has indeed a transformation of conditions as its\ninevitable consequence, but starts not from this but from men's\ndiscontent with themselves, is not a lifting of shields but a lifting of\nindividuals, a coming up, without regard to the arrangements that spring\nfrom it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements: the Insurrection\nleads to no longer having ourselves arranged but arranging ourselves,\nand sets no brilliant hope on 'institutions.' It is not a fight against\nthe existing order, since, if it prospers, the existing order collapses\nof itself; it is only a working my way out of the existing order. If I\nleave the existing order, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, since\nmy purpose is not the upsetting of an existing order but the lifting of\nmyself above it, my aim and act are not political or social, but, as\ndirected upon myself and my ownness alone, egoistic.\"[300]\n\nWhy was the founder of Christianity \"not a revolutionist, not a\ndemagogue as the Jews would have liked to see him; why was he not a\nLiberal? Because he expected no salvation from a change of _conditions_,\nand this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a\nrevolutionist, like Caesar for instance, but an insurgent; not an\noverturner of the State, but one who straightened _himself_ up. He waged\nno Liberal or political war against the existing authorities, but wanted\nto go his own way regardless of these authorities and undisturbed by\nthem.\"[301]\n\n\"Everything sacred is a bond, a fetter. Everything sacred will be, must\nbe, perverted by perverters of law; therefore our present time has such\nperverters by the quantity in all spheres. They are preparing for the\nbreak of the law, for lawlessness.\"[302] \"Regard yourself as more\npowerful than they allege you to be, and you have more power; regard\nyourself as more, and you are more.\"[303] \"The poor become free and\nproprietors only when they--'rise'.\"[304] \"Only from egoism can the\nlower classes get help, and this help they must give to themselves\nand--will give to themselves. If they do not let themselves be\nconstrained into fear, they are a power.\"[305]\n\nII. Furthermore, in order to bring about the \"transformation of\nconditions\"[306] and put the new condition in the place of law, State,\nand property, violent insurrection against the condition that has\nhitherto existed is requisite.\n\n1. \"The State can be overcome only by a violent arbitrariness.\"[307]\n\"The individual's violence [_Gewalt_] is called crime [_Verbrechen_],\nand only by crime does he break [_brechen_] the State's authority\n[_Gewalt_] when he opines that the State is not above him, but he above\nthe State.\"[308] \"Here too the result is that the thinkers' combat\nagainst the government is wrong, _viz._ in impotence, so far as it\ncannot bring into the field anything but thoughts against a personal\npower (the egoistic power stops the mouths of the thinkers). The\ntheoretical combat cannot complete the victory, and the sacred power of\nthought succumbs to the might of egoism. It is only the egoistic combat,\nthe combat of egoists on both sides, that clears up everything.\"[309]\n\n\"The property question cannot be solved so gently as the Socialists,\neven the Communists, dream. It is solved only by the war of all against\nall.\"[310] \"Let me then retract the might which I have conceded to\nothers out of ignorance regarding the strength of my own might! Let me\nsay to myself, 'Whatever my might reaches to is my property,' and then\nclaim as property all that I feel myself strong enough to attain; and\nlet me make my real property extend as far as I entitle (_i. e._\nempower) myself to take.\"[311] \"In order to extirpate the unpossessing\nrabble, egoism does not say, 'Wait and see what the Board of Equity\nwill--donate to you in the name of the collectivity', but 'Put your hand\nto it and take what you need!'\"[312]\n\nIn this combat Stirner agrees to all methods. \"I will not draw back with\na shudder from any act because there dwells in it a spirit of\ngodlessness, immorality, wrongfulness, as little as St. Boniface was\ndisposed to abstain from chopping down the heathens' sacred oak on\naccount of religious scruples.\"[313] \"The power over life and death,\nwhich Church and State reserved to themselves, this too I\ncall--mine.\"[314] \"The life of the individual man I rate only at what it\nis worth. His goods, the material and the spiritual alike, are mine, and\nI dispose of them as proprietor to the extent of my--might.\"[315]\n\n2. Stirner depicts for us a single event in this violent transformation\nof conditions. He assumes that certain men come to realize that they\noccupy a disproportionately unfavorable position in the State as\ncompared with others who receive the preference.\n\n\"Those who are in the unfavorable position take courage to ask the\nquestion, 'By what, then, is your property secure, you favored ones?'\nand give themselves the answer, 'By our refraining from interference! By\nour protection, therefore! And what do you give us for it? Kicks and\ncontempt you give the \"common people\"; police oversight, and a catechism\nwith the chief sentence \"Respect what is not yours, what belongs to\nothers! respect others, and especially superiors!\" But we reply, \"If you\nwant our respect, buy it for a price that shall be acceptable to us.\" We\nwill leave you your property, if you pay duly for this leaving. With\nwhat, indeed, does the general in time of peace pay for the many\nthousands of his yearly income? or Another for the sheer\nhundred-thousands and millions? With what do you pay us for chewing\npotatoes and looking quietly on while you swallow oysters? Only buy the\noysters from us as dear as we have to buy the potatoes from you, and\nyou may go on eating them. Or do you suppose the oysters do not belong\nto us as much as to you? You will make an outcry about violence if we\ntake hold and help eat them, and you are right. Without violence we do\nnot get them, as you no less have them by doing violence to us.\n\n\"'But take the oysters and done with it, and let us come to what is in a\ncloser way our property (for this other is only possession)--to labor.\nWe toil twelve hours in the sweat of our foreheads, and you offer us a\nfew groschen for it. Then take the like for your labor too. We will come\nto terms all right if only we have first agreed on the point that\nneither any longer needs to--donate anything to the other. For centuries\nwe have offered you alms in our kindly--stupidity, have given the mite\nof the poor and rendered to the masters what is--not the masters'; now\njust open your bags, for henceforth there is a tremendous rise in the\nprice of our ware. We will take nothing away from you, nothing at all,\nonly you shall pay better for what you want to have. What have you then?\n\"I have an estate of a thousand acres.\" And I am your plowman, and will\nhereafter do your plowing only for a thaler a day wages. \"Then I'll get\nanother.\" You will not find one, for we plowmen are no longer doing\nanything different, and if one presents himself who takes less, let him\nbeware of us.'\"[316]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[209] Stirner p. 439. [The page-numbers of Stirner's first edition, here\ncited, agree almost exactly with those of the English translation under\nthe title \"The Ego and His Own.\" Any passage quoted here will in general\nbe found in the English translation either on the page whose number is\ngiven or on the preceding page; for the early pages, subtract two or\nthree from the number.]\n\n[210] _Ib._ pp. 435-6.\n\n[211] _Ib._ p. 465.\n\n[212] _Ib._ p. 464.\n\n[213] _Ib._ p. 466.\n\n[214] Stirner p. 473.\n\n[215] No more do his adherents, _e. g._ Mackay, \"Stirner\" pp. 164-5.\n\n[216] Stirner p. 322.\n\n[217] _Ib._ p. 343.\n\n[218] _Ib._ p. 45.\n\n[219] _Ib._ p. 318.\n\n[220] _Ib._ p. 318.\n\n[221] _Ib._ p. 420.\n\n[222] _Ib._ pp. 189-90.\n\n[223] Stirner p. 427.\n\n[224] _Ib._ p. 428.\n\n[225] _Ib._ p. 429.\n\n[226] _Ib._ p. 258.\n\n[227] _Ib._ p. 478.\n\n[228] _Ib._ p. 426.\n\n[229] Stirner p. 395.\n\n[230] _Ib._ p. 387.\n\n[231] [To understand some of the following citations it is necessary to\nremember that in German \"law\" (in the sense of common law, or including\nthis) and \"right\" are one and the same word.--While it is probably not\nfair to say that these assaults of Stirner are directed only against\nsome laws, it does seem fair to say that they deny to the laws only some\nsorts of validity. We have very little material for compiling the\nconstructive side of Stirner's teaching, for he avoided specifying what\nthings the Egoists or their unions were to do in his future social\norder; he said explicitly that the only way to know what a slave will do\nwhen he breaks his fetters is to wait and see. But, while he may nowhere\nhave stated a law which is to obtain in the good time coming, neither\nhas he said anything which authorizes us to declare that none of his\nunions will ever make laws on such a basis as (for instance) the rules\nof the Stock Exchange. On page 114 below is quoted a passage where he\ndistinctly and approvingly contemplates the possibility that a union of\nhis followers may fix a minimum wage, and may threaten violence to any\nperson who consents to work below the scale. This would be law, and\nmight easily be the germ of a State. On pages 108 and 109 are quoted\npassages which strongly suggest that the Egoistic union would undertake\nto defend its member against all interference with his possession of\ncertain goods; this would be both law and property.]\n\n[232] Stirner p. 247.\n\n[233] Stirner p. 248.\n\n[234] _Ib._ p. 246.\n\n[235] _Ib._ p. 314.\n\n[236] _Ib._ p. 268.\n\n[237] _Ib._ p. 317.\n\n[238] _Ib._ pp. 317, 316.\n\n[239] _Ib._ pp. 265-6.\n\n[240] _Ib._ p. 276.\n\n[241] _Ib._ p. 270.\n\n[242] _Ib._ pp. 326-7.\n\n[243] _Ib._ pp. 248-9.\n\n[244] Stirner p. 275.\n\n[245] _Ib._ p. 275.\n\n[246] _Ib._ pp. 259, 256.\n\n[247] _Ib._ p. 220.\n\n[248] _Ib._ p. 251. [The German idiom for \"it suits me\" is \"it is right\nto me\"].\n\n[249] _Ib._ p. 8.\n\n[250] _Ib._ p. 490.\n\n[251] _Ib._ p. 491.\n\n[252] _Ib._ p. 491.\n\n[253] _Ib._ p. 7.\n\n[254] Stirner p. 8.\n\n[255] _Ib._ p. 207.\n\n[256] _Ib._ p. 219.\n\n[257] _Ib._ p. 214.\n\n[258] _Ib._ p. 212.\n\n[259] _Ib._ p. 220.\n\n[260] Stirner p. 314.\n\n[261] _Ib._ p. 295.\n\n[262] _Ib._ pp. 231-2.\n\n[263] _Ib._ p. 231.\n\n[264] _Ib._ p. 259.\n\n[265] _Ib._ p. 337.\n\n[266] Stirner p. 258.\n\n[267] _Ib._ p. 339.\n\n[268] _Ib._ p. 280.\n\n[269] _Ib._ p. 257.\n\n[270] _Ib._ p. 298.\n\n[271] _Ib._ p. 298.\n\n[272] _Ib._ p. 299.\n\n[273] Stirner p. 298.\n\n[274] _Ib._ p. 336.\n\n[275] _Ib._ pp. 337-8.\n\n[276] _Ib._ p. 235; Stirner \"_Vierteljahrsschrift_\" p. 192.\n\n[277] Stirner p. 304.\n\n[278] Stirner p. 258.\n\n[279] _Ib._ p 411.\n\n[280] _Ib._ p. 416.\n\n[281] _Ib._ p. 411.\n\n[282] Stirner pp. 417-18.\n\n[283] Stirner \"_Vierteljahrsschrift_\" pp. 193-4.\n\n[284] Stirner p. 305.\n\n[285] _Ib._ p. 332.\n\n[286] _Ib._ pp. 327-8.\n\n[287] _Ib._ pp. 328, 326.\n\n[288] Stirner pp. 328-9.\n\n[289] Zenker fails to recognize this when he asserts (p. 80) that\nStirner demands property based on the right of occupation\n\n[290] Stirner p. 340.\n\n[291] _Ib._ p. 339.\n\n[292] _Ib._ p. 351.\n\n[293] Stirner p. 351.\n\n[294] _Ib._ pp. 351-2.\n\n[295] _Ib._ pp. 343-4.\n\n[296] _Ib._ p. 349.\n\n[297] _Ib._ p. 342.\n\n[298] Stirner pp. 329-30. [See footnote on page 97.]\n\n[299] _Ib._ p. 330.\n\n[300] Stirner pp. 421-2.\n\n[301] Stirner p. 423.\n\n[302] _Ib._ p. 284.\n\n[303] _Ib._ p. 483.\n\n[304] _Ib._ p. 344.\n\n[305] _Ib._ p. 343.\n\n[306] _Ib._ p. 422.\n\n[307] _Ib._ p. 199.\n\n[308] _Ib._ 259.\n\n[309] Stirner pp. 198-9.\n\n[310] _Ib._ p. 344. [But Stirner does not mean that all are to fight\nagainst all; they are merely to declare themselves no longer bound by\nthe obligations of peace, and then those who are able to agree with each\nother can at once make terms to suit themselves.]\n\n[311] _Ib._ p. 340.\n\n[312] _Ib._ p. 341.\n\n[313] Stirner p. 479.\n\n[314] _Ib._ p. 424.\n\n[315] _Ib._ pp. 326-7.\n\n[316] Stirner pp. 359-60.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nBAKUNIN'S TEACHING\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\n1. Mikhail Alexandrovitch Bakunin was born in 1814 at Pryamukhino,\ndistrict of Torshok, government of Tver. In 1834 he entered the\nArtillery School at St. Petersburg; in 1835 he became an officer, but\nresigned his commission in the same year. He then lived alternately in\nPryamukhino and in Moscow.\n\nIn 1840 Bakunin left Russia. In the following years revolutionary plans\ntook him now to this part of Europe, now to that; in Paris he associated\nmuch with Proudhon. In 1849 he was condemned to death in Saxony, but was\npardoned; in 1850 he was handed over to Austria and was condemned to\ndeath there also; in 1851 he was handed over to Russia and was there\nkept a prisoner first at St. Petersburg, then at Schluesselburg; in 1857\nhe was sent to Siberia.\n\nFrom Siberia Bakunin escaped to London in 1865, by way of Japan and\nCalifornia. He took up his revolutionary activities again at once, and\nthereafter lived by turns in the most various parts of Europe. In 1868\nhe became a member of the _Association internationale des travailleurs_,\nand soon afterward he founded the _Alliance internationale de la\ndemocratie socialiste_. In 1869 he came into intimate relations with the\nfanatic Nechayeff, but broke away from him in the next year. In 1872 he\nwas expelled from the _Association internationale des travailleurs_ on\nthe ground that his aims were different from those of the Association.\nHe died at Berne in 1876.\n\nBakunin wrote a number of works of a philosophical and political nature.\n\n2. Bakunin's teaching about law, the State, and property finds its\nexpression especially in the \"_Proposition motivee au comite central de\nla Ligue de la paix et de la liberte_\"[317] offered by him in 1868; in\nthe principles[318] of the _Alliance internationale de la democratie\nsocialiste_, drawn up by him in 1868; and in his work \"_Dieu et\nl'Etat_\"[319] (1871).\n\nWritings which cannot with certainty be assigned to Bakunin are here\ndisregarded. Among such we may name especially the two works \"The\nPrinciples of the Revolution\"[320] and \"Catechism of the\nRevolution,\"[321] in which Nechayeff's views are set forth. They are\nindeed ascribed to Bakunin by some,[322] but their matter is in\ncontradiction to his other utterances as well as to his deeds; he even\nused vehement language on several occasions against Nechayeff's\n\"Machiavellianism and Jesuitism.\"[323] Even on the assumption that they\nare by Bakunin, they would at any rate express only a very insignificant\nchapter in his development.\n\n3. Bakunin designates his teaching about law, the State, and property as\n\"Anarchism.\" \"In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, all\nprivileged, chartered, official, and legal influence,--even if it were\ncreated by universal suffrage,--in the conviction that such things can\nbut redound always to the advantage of a ruling minority of exploiters\nand to the disadvantage of the vast enslaved majority. In this sense we\nare in truth Anarchists.\"[324]\n\n\n2.--BASIS\n\n_Bakunin regards the evolutionary law of the progress of mankind from a\nless perfect existence to the most perfect possible existence as the law\nwhich has supreme validity for man._\n\n\"Science has no other task than the careful intellectual reproduction,\nin the most systematic form possible, of the natural laws of corporeal,\nmental, and moral life, alike in the physical and in the social world,\nwhich two worlds constitute in fact only a single natural world.\"[325]\n\nNow \"science--that is, true, unselfish science\"[326]--teaches us the\nfollowing: \"Every evolution signifies the negation of its\nstarting-point. Since according to the materialists the basis or\nstarting-point is material, the negation must necessarily be\nideal.\"[327] That is, \"everything that lives makes the effort to\nperfect itself as fully as possible.\"[328]\n\nThus, \"according to the conception of materialists, man's historical\nevolution also moves in a constantly ascending line.\"[329] \"It is an\naltogether natural movement from the simple to the compound, from down\nto up, from the lower to the higher.\"[330] \"History consists in the\nprogressive negation of man's original bestiality by the evolution of\nhis humanity.\"[331]\n\n\"Man is originally a wild beast, a cousin of the gorilla. But he has\nalready come out of the deep night of bestial impulses to make his way\nto the light of the mind. This explains all his former missteps in the\nmost natural way, and comforts us somewhat with regard to his present\naberrations. He has turned his back on bestial slavery, and is now\nmoving toward freedom through the realm of slavery to God, which lies\nbetween his bestial and his human existence. Behind us, therefore, lies\nour bestial existence, before us our human; the light of humanity, which\nalone can light us and warm us, deliver us and exalt us, make us free,\nhappy, and brothers, stands never at the beginning of history, but\nalways only at its end.\"[332]\n\nThis \"historical negation of the past takes place now slowly,\nsluggishly, sleepily, but now again passionately and violently.\"[333] It\nalways takes place with the inevitable certainty of natural law: \"we\nbelieve in the final triumph of humanity on earth.\"[G] \"We yearn for the\ncoming of this triumph, and seek to hasten it with united effort\";[334]\n\"we must never look back, always forward alone; before us is our sun,\nbefore us our bliss.\"[335]\n\n\n3.--LAW\n\nI. _In the progress of mankind from its bestial existence to a human\nexistence, one of the next steps, according to Bakunin, will be the\ndisappearance--not indeed of law, but--of enacted law._\n\nEnacted law belongs to a low stage of evolution. \"A political\nlegislation, whether it is based on a ruler's will or on the votes of\nrepresentatives chosen by universal suffrage, can never correspond to\nthe laws of nature, and is always baleful, hostile to the liberty of the\nmasses, if only because it forces upon them a system of external and\nconsequently despotic laws.\"[336] No legislation has ever \"had another\naim than that of confirming, and exalting into a system, the\nexploitation of the laboring populace by the ruling classes.\"[337] Thus\nevery legislation \"has for its consequence at once the enslavement of\nsociety and the depravation of the legislators.\"[338]\n\nBut mankind will soon leave behind it the stage of evolution to which\nlaw belongs. Enacted law is indissolubly connected with the State: \"the\nState is a historically necessary evil,\"[339] \"a transitory form of\nsociety\";[340] \"with the State, law in the jurists' sense, the so-called\nlegal regulation of popular life from above downward by legislation,\nmust necessarily fall.\"[341] Everybody feels already that this moment is\napproaching,[342] the transformation is at hand,[343] it is to be\nexpected within the nineteenth century.[344]\n\nII. _In the next stage of evolution, which mankind must speedily reach,\nthere will be no enacted law to be sure, but there will be law even\nthere._ What Bakunin predicts with regard to this next stage of\nevolution enables us to perceive that according to his expectation norms\nwill then prevail which \"are based on a general will,\"[345] and which\neven secure obedience by forcible compulsion if necessary,[346] so that\nthey are legal norms.\n\nAmong such legal norms of our next stage of evolution Bakunin mentions\nthat by virtue of which there exists a \"right to independence.\"[347] For\nme as an individual this means \"that I as a man am entitled to obey no\nother man, and to act only in accordance with my own judgment.\"[348]\nBut, furthermore, \"every nation, every province, and every commune has\nthe unlimited right to complete independence, provided that its internal\nconstitution does not threaten the independence and liberty of the\nadjoining territories.\"[349]\n\nLikewise Bakunin regards it as a legal norm of the next stage of\nevolution that contracts must be lived up to. To be sure, the obligation\nof contracts has its limits. \"Human justice cannot recognize anything as\ncreating an obligation in perpetuity. All rights and duties are founded\non liberty. The right of freely uniting and separating is the first and\nmost important of all political rights.\"[350]\n\nAnother legal norm mentioned by Bakunin as belonging to the next stage\nof evolution is that by virtue of which \"the land, the instruments of\nlabor, and all other capital, as the collective property of the whole of\nsociety, will exclusively serve for the use of the agricultural and\nindustrial associations.\"[351]\n\n\n4.--THE STATE\n\nI. _In the progress of mankind from its bestial existence to a human\nexistence the State will shortly, according to Bakunin, disappear._ \"The\nState is a historically temporary arrangement, a transitory form of\nsociety.\"[352]\n\n1. The State belongs to a low stage of evolution.\n\n\"Man takes the first step from his bestial existence to a human\nexistence by religion; but so long as he remains religious he will never\nreach his goal; for every religion condemns him to absurdity, guides him\ninto a wrong course, and makes him seek the divine in place of the\nhuman.\"[353] \"All religions, with their gods, demigods, and prophets,\ntheir Messiahs and saints, are products of the credulous fancy of men\nwho had not yet come to the full development and entire possession of\ntheir intellectual powers.\"[354] This holds good also, and particularly,\nof Christianity: it is \"the complete inversion of common-sense and\nreason.\"[355]\n\nThe State is a product of religion. \"In all lands it is born of a\nmarriage of violence, robbery, spoliation,--in short, of war and\nconquest,--with the gods whom the religious enthusiasm of the nations\nhad gradually created.\"[356] \"He who speaks of revelation speaks thereby\nof revealers enlightened by God, of Messiahs, prophets, priests, and\nlawgivers; and, if once these are recognized on earth as representatives\nof the Deity, as sacred teachers of mankind chosen by God himself, then\nof course they have unlimited authority. All men owe them blind\nobedience; for no human reason, no human justice, is valid against the\ndivine reason and justice. As slaves of God, men must be also slaves of\nthe Church, and of the State so far as the Church hallows the\nState.\"[357]\n\n\"No State is without religion, and none can be without religion. Take\nthe freest States in the world,--for instance, the United States of\nAmerica or the Swiss Confederacy,--and see what an important part divine\nprovidence plays in all public utterances there.\"[358] \"It is not\nwithout good reason that governments hold the belief in God to be an\nessential condition of their power.\"[359] \"There is a class of people\nwho, even if they do not believe, must necessarily act as if they\nbelieved. This class embraces all mankind's tormentors, oppressors, and\nexploiters. Priests, monarchs, statesmen, soldiers, financiers,\noffice-holders of all sorts; policemen, _gendarmes_, jailers, and\nexecutioners; capitalists, usurers, heads of business, and house-owners;\nlawyers, economists, politicians of all shades,--all of them, down to\nthe smallest grocer, will always repeat in chorus the words of Voltaire,\nthat, if there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him; 'for\nmust not the populace have its religion?' It is the very\nsafety-valve.\"[360]\n\n2. The characteristics of the State correspond to the low stage of\nevolution to which it belongs.\n\nThe State enslaves the governed. \"The State is force; nay, it is the\nsilly parading of force. It does not propose to win love or to make\nconverts; if it puts its finger into anything, it does so only in an\nunfriendly way; for its essence consists not in persuasion, but in\ncommand and compulsion. However much pains it may take, it cannot\nconceal the fact that it is the legal maimer of our will, the constant\nnegation of our liberty. Even when it commands the good, it makes this\nvalueless by commanding it; for every command slaps liberty in the face;\nas soon as the good is commanded, it is transformed into the evil in the\neyes of true (that is, human, by no means divine) morality, of the\ndignity of man, of liberty; for man's liberty, morality, and dignity\nconsist precisely in doing the good not because he is commanded to but\nbecause he recognizes it, wills it, and loves it.\"[361]\n\nAt the same time the State depraves those who govern. \"It is\ncharacteristic of privilege, and of every privileged position, that they\npoison the minds and hearts of men. He who is politically or\neconomically privileged has his mind and heart depraved. This is a law\nof social life, which admits of no exceptions and is applicable to\nentire nations as well as to classes, corporations, and individuals. It\nis the law of equality, the foremost of the conditions of liberty and\nhumanity.\"[362]\n\n\"Powerful States can maintain themselves only by crime, little States\nare virtuous only from weakness.\"[363] \"We abhor monarchy with all our\nhearts; but at the same time we are convinced that a great republic too,\nwith army, bureaucracy, and political centralization, will make a\nbusiness of conquest without and oppression within, and will be\nincapable of guaranteeing happiness and liberty to its subjects even if\nit calls them citizens.\"[364] \"Even in the purest democracies, such as\nthe United States and Switzerland, a privileged minority faces the vast\nenslaved majority.\"[365]\n\n3. But the stage of mankind's evolution to which the State belongs will\nsoon be left behind.\n\n\"From the beginning of historic society to this day, there has always\nbeen oppression of the nations by the State. Is it to be inferred that\nthis oppression is inseparably connected with the existence of human\nsociety?\"[366] Certainly not! \"The great, true goal of history, the only\none for which there is justification, is our humanization and\ndeliverance, the genuine liberty and prosperity of all socially-living\nmen.\"[367] \"In the triumph of humanity is at the same time the goal and\nthe essential meaning of history, and this triumph can be brought about\nonly by liberty.\"[368] \"As in the past the State was historically\nnecessary evil, it must just as necessarily, sooner or later, disappear\naltogether.\"[369] Everybody feels already that this moment is\napproaching,[370] the transformation is at hand,[371] it is to be\nexpected within the nineteenth century.[372]\n\nII. _In the next stage of evolution, which mankind must speedily reach,\nthe place of the State will be taken by a social human life on the basis\nof the legal norm that contracts must be lived up to._\n\n1. Even after the State is done away, men will live together socially.\nThe goal of human evolution, \"complete humanity,\"[373] can be attained\nonly in a society. \"Man becomes man, and his humanity becomes conscious\nand real, only in society and by the joint activity of society. He frees\nhimself from the yoke of external nature only by joint--that is,\nsocietary--labor: it alone is capable of making the surface of the earth\nfit for the evolution of mankind; but without such external liberation\nneither intellectual nor moral liberation is possible. Furthermore, man\ngets free from the yoke of his own nature only by education and\ninstruction: they alone make it possible for him to subordinate the\nimpulses and motions of his body to the guidance of his more and more\ndeveloped mind; but education and instruction are of an exclusively\nsocietary nature. Outside of society man would have remained forever a\nwild beast, or, what comes to about the same thing, a saint. Finally, in\nhis isolation man cannot have the consciousness of liberty. What liberty\nmeans for man is that he is recognized as free, and treated as free, by\nthose who surround him; liberty is not a matter of isolation, therefore,\nbut of mutuality--not of separateness, but of combination; for every man\nit is only the mirroring of his humanity (that is, of his human rights)\nin the consciousness of his brothers.\"[374]\n\nBut men will be held together in society no longer by a supreme\nauthority, but by the legally binding force of contract. Complete\nhumanity can be attained only in a free society. \"My liberty, or, what\nmeans the same, my human dignity, consists in my being entitled, as man,\nto obey no other man and to act only on my own judgment.\"[375] \"I myself\nam a free man only so far as I recognize the humanity and liberty of all\nthe men who surround me. In respecting their humanity I respect my own.\nA cannibal, who treats his prisoner as a wild beast and eats him, is\nhimself not a man, but a beast. A slaveholder is not a man, but a\nmaster.\"[376] \"The more free men surround me, and the deeper and broader\ntheir freedom is, so much deeper, broader, and more powerful is my\nfreedom too. On the other hand, every enslavement of men is at the same\ntime a limitation of my freedom, or, what is the same thing, a negation\nof my human existence by its bestial existence.\"[377] But a free society\ncannot be held together by authority,[378] but only by contract.[379]\n\n2. How will the future society shape itself in detail?\n\n\"Unity is the goal toward which mankind ceaselessly moves.\"[380]\nTherefore men will unite with the utmost amplitude. But \"the place of\nthe old organization, built from above downward upon force and\nauthority, will be taken by a new one which has no other basis than the\nnatural needs, inclinations, and endeavors of men.\"[381] Thus we come to\na \"free union of individuals into communes, of communes into provinces,\nof provinces into nations, and finally of nations into the United States\nof Europe and later of the whole world.\"[382]\n\n\"Every nation,--be it great or small, strong or weak,--every province,\nand every commune has the unlimited right to complete independence,\nprovided that its internal constitution does not threaten the\nindependence and liberty of the adjoining territories.\"[383]\n\n\"All of what are known as the historic rights of nations are totally\ndone away; all questions regarding natural, political, strategic, and\neconomic boundaries are henceforth to be classed as ancient history and\nresolutely disallowed.\"[384]\n\n\"By the fact that a territory has once belonged to a State, even by a\nvoluntary adhesion, it is in no wise bound to remain always united with\nthis State. Human justice, the only justice that means anything to us,\ncannot recognize anything as creating an obligation in perpetuity. All\nrights and duties are founded on liberty. The right of freely uniting\nand separating is the first and most important of all political rights.\nWithout this right the League would be merely a concealed centralization\nstill.\"[385]\n\n\n5.--PROPERTY\n\nI. _In the progress of mankind from its bestial existence to a human\nexistence, according to Bakunin, we must shortly come to the\ndisappearance--not indeed of property, but--of property's present form,\nunlimited private property._\n\n1. Private property, so far as it fastens upon all things without\ndistinction, belongs to the same low stage of evolution as the State.\n\n\"Private property is at once the consequence and the basis of the\nState.\"[386] \"Every government is necessarily based on exploitation on\nthe one hand, and on the other hand has exploitation for its goal and\nbestows upon exploitation protection and legality.\"[387] In every State\nthere exist \"two kinds of relationship,--to wit, government and\nexploitation. If really governing means sacrificing one's self for the\ngood of the governed, then indeed the second relationship is in direct\ncontradiction to the first. But let us only understand our point\nrightly! From the ideal standpoint, be it theological or metaphysical,\nthe good of the masses can of course not mean their temporal welfare:\nwhat are a few decades of earthly life in comparison to eternity? Hence\none must govern the masses with regard not to this coarse earthly\nhappiness, but to their eternal good. Outward sufferings and privations\nmay even be welcomed from the educator's standpoint, since an excess of\nsensual enjoyment kills the immortal soul. But now the contradiction\ndisappears. Exploiting and governing mean the same; the one completes\nthe other, and serves as its means and its end.\"[388]\n\n2. Private property, when it exists in all things without distinction,\nhas such characteristics as correspond to the low stage of evolution to\nwhich it belongs.\n\n\"On the privileged representatives of head-work (who at present are\ncalled to be the representatives of society, not because they have more\nsense, but only because they were born in the privileged class) such\nproperty bestows all the blessings and also all the debasement of our\ncivilization: wealth, luxury, profuse expenditure, comfort, the\npleasures of family life, the exclusive enjoyment of political liberty,\nand hence the possibility of exploiting millions of laborers and\ngoverning them at discretion in one's own interest. What is there left\nfor the representatives of handwork, these numberless millions of\nproletarians or of small farmers? Hopeless misery, not even the joys of\nthe family (for the family soon becomes a burden to the poor man),\nignorance, barbarism, an almost bestial existence, and this for\nconsolation with it all, that they are serving as pedestal for the\nculture, liberty, and depravity of a minority.\"[389]\n\nThe freer and more highly developed trade and industry are in any place,\n\"the more complete is the demoralization of the privileged few on the\none hand, and the greater are the misery, the complaints, and the just\nindignation of the laboring masses on the other. England, Belgium,\nFrance, Germany, are certainly the countries of Europe in which trade\nand industry enjoy greatest freedom and have made most progress. In\nthese very countries the most cruel pauperism prevails, the gulf between\ncapitalists and landlords on the one hand and the laboring class on the\nother is greater than in any other country. In Russia, in the\nScandinavian countries, in Italy, in Spain, where trade and industry are\nstill embryonic, people but seldom die of hunger except on extraordinary\noccasions. In England starvation is an every-day thing. And not only\nindividuals starve, but thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of\nthousands.\"[390]\n\n3. But mankind will soon have passed the low stage of evolution to which\nprivate property belongs.\n\nAs there has at all times been oppression of the nations by the State,\nso has there also always been \"exploitation of the masses of slaves,\nserfs, wage-workers, by a ruling minority.\"[391] But this exploitation\nis no more \"inseparably united with the existence of human society\"[392]\nthan is that oppression. \"By the force of things themselves\"[393]\nunlimited private property will be done away. Everybody feels already\nthat this moment is approaching,[394] the transformation is already at\nhand,[395] it is to be expected within the nineteenth century.[396]\n\nII. _In the next stage of evolution, which mankind must speedily reach,\nproperty will be so constituted that there will indeed be private\nproperty in the objects of consumption, but in land, instruments of\nlabor, and all other capital, there will be only social property. The\nfuture society will be collectivist._\n\nIn this way every laborer has the product of his labor guaranteed to\nhim.\n\n1. \"Justice must serve as basis for the new world: without it, no\nliberty, no living together, no prosperity, no peace.\"[397] \"Justice,\nnot that of jurists, nor yet that of theologians, nor yet that of\nmetaphysicians, but simple human justice, commands\"[398] that \"in future\nevery man's enjoyment corresponds to the quantity of goods produced by\nhim.\"[399] The thing is, then, to find a means \"which makes it\nimpossible for any one, whoever he may be, to exploit the labor of\nanother, and permits each to share in the enjoyment of society's stock\nof goods (which is solely a product of labor) only so far as he has, by\nhis labor, directly contributed to the production of this stock of\ngoods.\"[400]\n\nThis means consists in the principle \"that the land, the instruments of\nlabor, and all other capital, as the collective property of the whole of\nsociety, shall exclusively serve for the use of the laborers,--that is,\nof their agricultural and industrial associations.\"[401] \"I am not a\nCommunist, but a Collectivist.\"[402]\n\n2. The collectivism of the future society \"by no means demands the\nsetting up of any supreme authority. In the name of liberty, on which\nalone an economic or a political organization can be founded, we shall\nalways protest against everything that looks even remotely similar to\nCommunism or State Socialism.\"[403] \"I would have the organization of\nsociety, and of the collective or social property, from below upward by\nthe voice of free union, not from above downward by means of any\nauthority.\"[404]\n\n\n6.--REALIZATION\n\n_The change that is promptly to be expected in the course of mankind's\nprogress from its bestial existence to a human existence,--the\ndisappearance of the State, the transformation of law and property, and\nthe appearance of the new condition,--will come to pass, according to\nBakunin, by a social revolution; that is, by a violent subversion of the\nold order, which will be automatically brought about by the power of\nthings, but which those who foresee the course of evolution have the\ntask of hastening and facilitating._\n\nI. \"To escape its wretched lot the populace has three ways, two\nimaginary and one real. The two first are the rum-shop and the church,\nthe third is the social revolution.\"[405] \"A cure is possible only\nthrough the social revolution,\"[406]--that is, through \"the destruction\nof all institutions of inequality, and the establishment of economic and\nsocial equality.\"[407] The revolution will not be made by anybody.\n\"Revolutions are never made, neither by individuals nor yet by secret\nsocieties. They come about automatically, in a measure; the power of\nthings, the current of events and facts, produces them. They are long\npreparing in the depth of the obscure consciousness of the masses--then\nthey break out suddenly, not seldom on apparently slight occasion.\"[408]\nThe revolution is already at hand to-day;[409] everybody feels its\napproach;[410] we are to expect it within the nineteenth century.[411]\n\n1. \"By the revolution we understand the unchaining of everything that\nis to-day called 'evil passions,' and the destruction of everything that\nin the same language is called 'public order'.\"[412]\n\nThe revolution will rage not against men, but against relations and\nthings.[413] \"Bloody revolutions are often necessary, thanks to human\nstupidity; yet they are always an evil, a monstrous evil and a great\ndisaster, not only with regard to the victims, but also for the sake of\nthe purity and perfection of the purpose in whose name they take\nplace.\"[414] \"One must not wonder if in the first moment of their\nuprising the people kill many oppressors and exploiters--this\nmisfortune, which is of no more importance anyhow than the damage done\nby a thunderstorm, can perhaps not be avoided. But this natural fact\nwill be neither moral nor even useful. Political massacres have never\nkilled parties; particularly have they always shown themselves impotent\nagainst the privileged classes; for authority is vested far less in men\nthan in the position which the privileged acquire by any institutions,\nparticularly by the State and private property. If one would make a\nthorough revolution, therefore, one must attack things and\nrelationships, destroy property and the State: then there is no need of\ndestroying men and exposing one's self to the inevitable reaction which\nthe slaughtering of men always has provoked and always will provoke in\nevery society. But, in order to have the right to deal humanely with men\nwithout danger to the revolution, one must be inexorable toward things\nand relationships, destroy everything, and first and foremost property\nand its inevitable consequence the State. This is the whole secret of\nthe revolution.\"[415]\n\n\"The revolution, as the power of things to-day necessarily presents it\nbefore us, will not be national, but international,--that is, universal.\nIn view of the threatened league of all privileged interests and all\nreactionary powers in Europe, in view of the terrible instrumentalities\nthat a shrewd organization puts at their disposal, in view of the deep\nchasm that to-day yawns between the _bourgeoisie_ and the laborers\neverywhere, no revolution can count on success if it does not speedily\nextend itself beyond the individual nation to all other nations. But the\nrevolution can never cross the frontiers and become general unless it\nhas in it the foundations for this generality; that is, unless it is\npronouncedly socialistic, and, by equality and justice, destroys the\nState and establishes liberty. For nothing can better inspire and uplift\nthe sole true power of the century, the laborers, than the complete\nliberation of labor and the shattering of all institutions for the\nprotection of hereditary property and of capital.\"[416] \"A political and\nnational revolution cannot win, therefore, unless the political\nrevolution becomes social, and the national revolution, by the very fact\nof its fundamentally socialistic and State-destroying character, becomes\na universal revolution.\"[417]\n\n2. \"The revolution, as we understand it, must on its very first day\ncompletely and fundamentally destroy the State and all State\ninstitutions. This destruction will have the following natural and\nnecessary effects. (a) The bankruptcy of the State. (b) The cessation\nof State collection of private debts, whose payment is thenceforth left\nto the debtor's pleasure. (c) The cessation of the payment of taxes, and\nof the levying of direct or indirect imposts. (d) The dissolution of the\narmy, the courts, the corps of office-holders, the police, and the\nclergy. (e) The stoppage of the official administration of justice, the\nabolition of all that is called juristic law and of its exercise. Hence,\nthe valuelessness, and the consignment to an _auto-da-fe_, of all titles\nto property, testamentary dispositions, bills of sale, deeds of gift,\njudgments of courts--in short, of the whole mass of papers relating to\nprivate law. Everywhere, and in regard to everything, the revolutionary\nfact in place of the law created and guaranteed by the State. (f) The\nconfiscation of all productive capital and instruments of labor in favor\nof the associations of laborers, which will use them for collective\nproduction. (g) The confiscation of all Church and State property, as\nwell as of the bullion in private hands, for the benefit of the commune\nformed by the league of the associations of laborers. In return for the\nconfiscated goods, those who are affected by the confiscation receive\nfrom the commune their absolute necessities; they are free to acquire\nmore afterward by their labor.\"[418]\n\nThe destruction will be followed by the reshaping. Hence, (h) \"The\norganization of the commune by the permanent association of the\nbarricades and by its organ, the council of the revolutionary commune,\nto which every barricade, every street, every quarter, sends one or two\nresponsible and revocable representatives with binding instructions. The\ncouncil of the commune can appoint executive committees out of its\nmembership for the various branches of the revolutionary administration.\n(i) The declaration of the capital, insurgent and organized as a\ncommune, that, after the righteous destruction of the State of authority\nand guardianship, it renounces the right (or rather the usurpation) of\ngoverning the provinces and setting a standard for them. (k) The summons\nto all provinces, communities, and associations, to follow the example\ngiven by the capital, first to organize themselves in revolutionary\nform, then to send to a specified meeting-place responsible and\nrevocable representatives with binding instructions, and so to\nconstitute the league of the insurgent associations, communities, and\nprovinces, and to organize a revolutionary power capable of defeating\nthe reaction. The sending, not of official commissioners of the\nrevolution with some sort of badges, but of agitators for the\nrevolution, to all the provinces and communities--especially to the\npeasants, who cannot be revolutionized by scientific principles nor yet\nby the edicts of any dictatorship, but only by the revolutionary fact\nitself: that is, by the inevitable effects of the complete cessation of\nofficial State activity in all the communities. The abolition of the\nnational State, not only in other senses, but in this,--that all foreign\ncountries, provinces, communities, associations, nay, all individuals\nwho have risen in the name of the same principles, without regard to the\npresent State boundaries, are accepted as part of the new political\nsystem and nationality; and that, on the other hand, it shall exclude\nfrom membership those provinces, communities, associations, or\npersonages, of the same country, who take the side of the reaction. Thus\nmust the universal revolution, by the very fact of its binding the\ninsurgent countries together for joint defence, march on unchecked over\nthe abolished boundaries and the ruins of the formerly existing States\nto its triumph.\"[419]\n\nII. \"To serve, to organize, and to hasten\"[420] \"the revolution, which\nmust everywhere be the work of the people\"[421]--this alone is the task\nof those who foresee the course of evolution. We have to perform\n\"midwife's services\"[422] for the new time, \"to help on the birth of the\nrevolution.\"[423]\n\nTo this end we must, \"first, spread among the masses thoughts that\ncorrespond to the instincts of the masses.\"[424] \"What keeps the\nsalvation-bringing thought from going through the laboring masses with a\nrush? Their ignorance; and particularly the political and religious\nprejudices which, thanks to the exertions of the ruling classes, to this\nday obscure the laborer's natural thought and healthy feelings.\"[425]\n\"Hence the aim must consist in making him completely conscious of what\nhe wants, evoking in him the thought that corresponds to his impulses.\nIf once the thoughts of the laboring masses have mounted to the level\nof their impulses, then will their will be soon determined and their\npower irresistible.\"[426]\n\nFurthermore, we must \"form, not indeed the army of the revolution,--the\narmy can never be anything but the people,--but yet a sort of staff for\nthe revolutionary army. These must be devoted, energetic, talented men,\nwho, above all, love the people without ambition and vanity, and who\nhave the faculty of mediating between the revolutionary thought and the\ninstincts of the people. No very great number of such men is requisite.\nA hundred revolutionists firmly and seriously bound together are enough\nfor the international organization of all Europe. Two or three hundred\nrevolutionists are enough for the organization of the largest\ncountry.\"[427]\n\nHere, especially, is the field for the activity of secret\nsocieties.[428] \"In order to serve, organize, and hasten the general\nrevolution\"[429] Bakunin founded the _Alliance internationale de la\ndemocratie socialiste_. It was to pursue a double purpose: \"(a) The\nspreading of correct views about politics, economics, and philosophical\nquestions of every kind, among the masses in all countries; an active\npropaganda by newspapers, pamphlets, and books, as well as by the\nfounding of public associations. (b) The winning of all wise, energetic,\nsilent, well-disposed men who are sincerely devoted to the idea; the\ncovering of Europe, and America too so far as possible, with a network\nof self-sacrificing revolutionists, strong by unity.\"[430]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[317] Printed in \"_OEuvres de Michel Bakounine_\" (1895) pp. 1-205, under\nthe title \"_Federalisme, socialisme et antitheologisme_.\"\n\n[318] Printed in \"_L'Alliance de la democratie socialiste et\nl'Association internationale des travailleurs_\" (1873) pp. 118-35.\n\n[319] Only fragments have been printed: one under the title \"_L'Empire\nknoutogermanique et la Revolution sociale_\" (1871), a second under the\ntitle \"_Dieu et l'Etat_\" (1882), a third under the same title in\n\"_OEuvres de Michel Bakounine_\" (1895) pp. 261-326.\n\n[320] Printed in Dragomanoff, \"_Michail Bakunins sozial-politischer\nBriefwechsel mit Alexander Iw. Herzen und Ogarjow_,\" German translation\nby Minzes (1895) pp. 358-64.\n\n[321] A part is printed in French translation, in \"_L'Alliance de la\ndemocratie socialiste et l'Association internationale des travailleurs_\"\n(1873) pp. 90-95, the rest in Dragomanoff pp. 371-83.\n\n[322] \"_L'Alliance de la democratie socialiste et l'Association\ninternationale des travailleurs_\" p. 89; Dragomanoff p. IX.\n\n[323] Ba. \"_Briefe_\" pp. 223, 233, 266, 272.\n\n[324] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 34.\n\n[325] _Ib._ p. 33.\n\n[326] _Ib._ p. 3.\n\n[327] _Ib._ p. 52.\n\n[328] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" p. 104.\n\n[329] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 52.\n\n[330] _Ib._ p. 7.\n\n[331] _Ib._ p. 16.\n\n[332] _Ib._ p. 16.\n\n[333] _Ib._ p. 16.\n\n[334] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" p. 155.\n\n[335] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 16.\n\n[336] _Ib._ pp. 27-8.\n\n[337] Ba. \"_Programme_\" p. 382.\n\n[338] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 30.\n\n[339] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ p. 287.\n\n[340] _Ib._ p. 285.\n\n[341] Ba. \"_Programme_\" p. 382.\n\n[342] Ba. \"_Articles_\" p. 113.\n\n[343] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 125.\n\n[344] _Ib._ p. 125.\n\n[345] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ p. 281.\n\n[346] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" pp. 129-31.\n\n[347] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" pp. 17-18.\n\n[348] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ p. 281.\n\n[349] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" pp. 17-18.\n\n[350] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" p. 18.\n\n[351] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 133.\n\n[352] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ p. 285.\n\n[353] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" p. 134.\n\n[354] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 19.\n\n[355] _Ib._ p. 87.\n\n[356] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ p. 287.\n\n[357] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 20.\n\n[358] _Ib._ p. 97.\n\n[359] _Ib._ p. 9.\n\n[360] _Ib._ p. 11.\n\n[361] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ p. 288.\n\n[362] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" pp. 29-30.\n\n[363] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" p. 154\n\n[364] _Ib._ p. 10.\n\n[365] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ pp. 287-8.\n\n[366] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 14.\n\n[367] _Ib._ p. 65.\n\n[368] _Ib._ p. 53\n\n[369] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ p. 287.\n\n[370] Ba. \"_Articles_\" p. 113.\n\n[371] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 125.\n\n[372] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 125.\n\n[373] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 11.\n\n[374] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ pp. 277-8.\n\n[375] _Ib._ p. 281.\n\n[376] _Ib._ p. 279.\n\n[377] _Ib._ p. 281.\n\n[378] _Ib._ p. 283.\n\n[379] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" pp. 16-18.\n\n[380] _Ib._ p. 20.\n\n[381] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" p. 16.\n\n[382] _Ib._ pp. 16-17.\n\n[383] _Ib._ pp. 17-18.\n\n[384] _Ib._ p. 17.\n\n[385] _Ib._ p. 18.\n\n[386] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 128.\n\n[387] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" _OEuvres_ p. 324.\n\n[388] _Ib._ pp. 323-4.\n\n[389] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" pp. 32-3.\n\n[390] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" pp. 26-7.\n\n[391] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 14.\n\n[392] _Ib._ p. 14.\n\n[393] Ba. \"_Programme_\" p. 382.\n\n[394] Ba. \"_Articles_\" p. 113.\n\n[395] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 125.\n\n[396] _Ib._ p. 125.\n\n[397] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" pp. 54-5.\n\n[398] _Ib._ p. 59.\n\n[399] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 133.\n\n[400] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" p. 55.\n\n[401] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 133.\n\n[402] Ba. \"_Discours_\" p. 27.\n\n[403] Ba. \"_Proposition_\" p. 56.\n\n[404] Ba. \"_Discours_\" p. 28.\n\n[405] Ba. \"_Dieu_\" p. 10.\n\n[406] _Ib._ p. 18.\n\n[407] _Ib._ p. 45.\n\n[408] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 132.\n\n[409] _Ib._ p. 125.\n\n[410] Ba. \"_Articles_\" p. 113.\n\n[411] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 125.\n\n[412] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 129.\n\n[413] _Ib._ p. 126.\n\n[414] Ba. \"_Volkssache_\" p. 309.\n\n[415] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" pp. 127-8.\n\n[416] _Ib._ p. 125.\n\n[417] _Ib._ p. 131.\n\n[418] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" pp. 129-30. [Bakunin is writing in a world where\nthe Church is everywhere part of the State machine. Would his words\nabout Church property apply equally, according to him, in the United\nStates, where the Church property is in general made up of the free\ngifts of individual believers? Perhaps; for he would have no love for\nthe Church even here, and he is obviously hostile to anything in the\nnature of mortmain. If so, how about college property?]\n\n[419] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" pp. 130-31.\n\n[420] _Ib._ p. 125.\n\n[421] _Ib._ p. 131.\n\n[422] Ba. \"_Volkssache_\" p. 309.\n\n[423] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 132.\n\n[424] _Ib._ p. 132.\n\n[425] Ba. \"_Articles_\" p. 103.\n\n[426] Ba. \"_Articles_\" p. 103.\n\n[427] Ba. \"_Statuts_\" p. 132.\n\n[428] _Ib._ p. 132.\n\n[429] _Ib._ p. 125.\n\n[430] _Ib._ pp. 125-6.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nKROPOTKIN'S TEACHING\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\n1. Prince Peter Alexeyevitch Kropotkin was born at Moscow in 1842. From\n1862 to 1867 he was an officer of the Cossacks of the Amur; during this\ntime he traveled over a great part of Siberia and Manchuria. From 1867\nto 1871 he studied mathematics at St. Petersburg; at this time he was\nalso secretary of the Geographical Society; under its commission he\nexplored the glaciers of Finland and Sweden in 1871.\n\nIn 1872 Kropotkin visited Belgium and Switzerland, where he joined the\n_Association internationale des travailleurs_. In the same year he\nreturned to St. Petersburg and became a prominent member of the\nTchaikoffski secret society. This was found out in 1874. He was arrested\nand kept in prison until in 1876 he succeeded in escaping to England.\n\nFrom England Kropotkin went to Switzerland in 1877, but was expelled\nfrom that country in 1881. Thenceforth he resided alternately in England\nand France. In France, in 1883, he was condemned to five years'\nimprisonment for membership in a prohibited association; he was kept in\nprison till 1886, and then pardoned. Since then he has lived in England.\n\nKropotkin has published geographical works and accounts of travel, and\nalso writings in the spheres of economics, politics, and the philosophy\nof law.\n\n2. For Kropotkin's teaching about law, the State, and property, the most\nimportant sources are his many short works, newspaper articles, and\nlectures. The articles that he published from 1879 to 1882 in \"_Le\nRevolte_\" of Geneva, appeared in 1885 as a book under the title\n\"_Paroles d'un revolte_.\" The only large work in which he develops his\nteaching is \"_La conquete du pain_\" (1892).\n\n3. Kropotkin calls his teaching \"Anarchism.\" \"When in the bosom of the\nInternational there was formed a party which no more acknowledged an\nauthority inside that association than any other authority, this party\ncalled itself at first federalist, then anti-authoritarian or hostile to\nthe State. At that time it avoided describing itself as Anarchistic. The\nword _an-archie_ (it was so written at that time) seemed to identify the\nparty too much with the adherents of Proudhon, whose reform ideas the\nInternational was opposing. But for this very reason its opponents\ndelighted in using this designation in order to produce confusion;\nbesides, the name made the assertion possible that from the very name of\nthe Anarchists it was evident that they aimed merely at disorder and\nchaos, without thinking any farther. The Anarchistic party was not slow\nto adopt the designation that was given to it. At first it still\ninsisted on the hyphen between _an_ and _archie_, with the explanation\nthat in this form the word _an-archie_, being of Greek origin, denoted\nabsence of dominion and not 'disorder'; but it soon decided to spare the\nproof-reader his useless trouble and the reader his lesson in Greek, and\nused the name as it stood.\"[431] And in fact \"the word _anarchie_,\nwhich negates the whole of this so-called order and reminds us of the\nfairest moments in the lives of the nations, is well chosen for a party\nthat looks forward to conquering a better future.\"[432]\n\n\n2.--BASIS\n\n_According to Kropotkin, the law which has supreme validity for man is\nthe evolutionary law of the progress of mankind from a less happy\nexistence to an existence as happy as possible; from this law he derives\nthe commandment of justice and the commandment of energy._\n\n1. The supreme law for man is the evolutionary law of the progress of\nmankind from a less happy existence to an existence as happy as\npossible.\n\nThere is \"only one scientific method, the method of the natural\nsciences,\"[433] and we apply this method also \"in the sciences that\nrelate to man,\"[434] particularly in the \"science of society.\"[435] Now,\na mighty revolution is at present taking place[436] in the entire realm\nof science; it is the result of the \"philosophy of evolution.\"[437] \"The\nidea hitherto prevalent, that everything in nature stands fast, is\nfallen, destroyed, annihilated. Everything in nature changes; nothing\nremains: neither the rock which appears to us to be immovable and the\ncontinent which we call _terra firma_, nor the inhabitants, their\ncustoms, habits, and thoughts. All that we see about us is a transitory\nphenomenon, and must change, because motionlessness would be\ndeath.\"[438] In the case of organisms this evolution is progress, in\nconsequence of \"their admirable adaptivity to their conditions of life.\nThey develop such faculties as render more complete both the adaptations\nof the aggregates to their surroundings and those of each of the\nconstituent parts of the aggregate to the needs of free\nco-operation.\"[439] \"This is the 'struggle for existence,' which,\ntherefore, must not be conceived merely in its restricted sense of a\nstruggle between individuals for the means of subsistence.\"[440]\n\n\"Evolution never advances so slowly and evenly as has been asserted.\nEvolution and revolution alternate, and the revolutions--that is, the\ntimes of accelerated evolution--belong to the unity of nature just as\nmuch as do the times in which evolution takes place more slowly.\"[441]\n\"Order is the free equilibrium of all forces that operate upon the same\npoint; if any of these forces are interfered with in their operation by\na human will, they operate none the less, but their effects accumulate\ntill some day they break the artificial dam and provoke a\nrevolution.\"[442]\n\nKropotkin applies these general propositions to the social life of\nmen.[443] \"A society is an aggregation of organisms trying to combine\nthe wants of the individual with those of co-operation for the welfare\nof the species\";[444] it is \"a whole which serves toward the purpose of\nattaining the largest possible amount of happiness at the least possible\nexpense of human force.\"[445] Now human societies evolve,[446] and one\nmay try to determine the direction of this evolution.[447] Societies\nadvance from lower to higher forms of organization;[448] but the goal of\nthis evolution--that is, the point towards which it directs\nitself--consists in \"establishing the best conditions for realizing the\ngreatest happiness of humanity.\"[449] What we call progress is the right\npath to this goal;[450] humanity may for the time err from this path,\nbut will always be brought back to it at last.[451]\n\nBut not even here does evolution take place without revolutions. What is\ntrue of a man's views, of the climate of a country, of the\ncharacteristics of a species, is true also of societies: \"they evolve\nslowly, but there are also times of the quickest transformation.\"[452]\nFor circumstances of many kinds may oppose themselves to the effort of\nhuman associations to attain to the greatest possible measure of\nhappiness.[453] \"New thoughts germinate everywhere, try to get to the\nlight, try to get themselves applied in life; but they are kept back by\nthe inertia of those who have an interest in keeping up the old\nconditions, they are stifled under long-established prejudices and\ntraditions.\"[454] \"Political, economic, and social institutions fall in\nruins, and the building which has become uninhabitable hinders the\ndevelopment of what is sprouting in its crevices and around it.\"[455]\nThen there is need of \"great events which rudely break the thread of\nhistory and hurl mankind out of its ruts into new roads\";[456] \"the\nRevolution becomes a peremptory necessity.\"[457]--\"Man has recognized\nhis place in nature; he has recognized that his institutions are his\nwork and can be refashioned by him alone.\"[458] \"What has not the\nengineer's art dared, and what do not literature, painting, music, the\ndrama dare to-day?\"[459] Thus must we also, where any institutions\nhinder the progress of society, \"dare the fight, to make a rich and\noverflowing life possible to all.\"[460]\n\n2. From the evolutionary law of the progress of mankind from a less\nhappy existence to the happiest existence possible Kropotkin derives the\ncommandment of justice and the commandment of energy.\n\nIn the struggle for existence human societies evolve toward a condition\nin which there are given the best conditions for the attainment of the\ngreatest happiness of mankind.[461] When we describe anything as \"good,\"\nwe mean by this that it favors the attainment of the goal; that is, it\nis beneficial to the society in which we live; and we call that \"evil\"\nwhich in our opinion hinders the attainment of the goal, that is, is\nharmful to the society we live in.[462]\n\nNow, men's views as to what favors and what hinders the establishment of\nthe best conditions for the attainment of mankind's greatest happiness,\nand hence as to what is beneficial or harmful to society, may certainly\nchange.[463] But one fundamental requisite for the attainment of the\ngoal will always have to be recognized as such, whatever the diversity\nof opinions. It \"may be summed up in the sentence 'Do to others as you\nwould have it done to you in the like case'.\"[464] But this sentence \"is\nnothing else than the principle of equality\";[465] and equality, in\nturn, \"means the same as equity,\"[466] \"solidarity,\"[467]\n\"justice.\"[468]\n\nBut there is indisputably yet another fundamental requisite for the\nattainment of the goal. This is \"something greater, finer, and mightier\nthan mere equality\";[469] it may be expressed in the sentence \"Be\nstrong; overflow with the passion of thought and action: so shall your\nunderstanding, your love, your energy, pour itself into others.\"[470]\n\n\n3.--LAW\n\nI. _In mankind's progress from a less happy existence to an existence as\nhappy as possible, one of the next steps, according to Kropotkin, will\nbe the disappearance--not indeed of law, but--of enacted law._\n\n1. Enacted law has become a hindrance to mankind's progress toward an\nexistence as happy as possible.\n\n\"For thousands of years those who govern have been repeating again and\nagain, 'Respect the law!'\";[471] \"in the States of to-day a new law is\nregarded as the cure for all evils.\"[472] But \"the law has no claim to\nmen's respect.\"[473] \"It is an adroit mixture of such customs as are\nbeneficial to society, and would be observed even without a law, with\nothers which are to the advantage only of a ruling minority, but are\nharmful to the masses and can be upheld only by terror.\"[474] \"The law,\nwhich first made its appearance as a collection of customs which serve\nfor the maintenance of society, is now merely an instrument to keep up\nthe exploitation and domination of the industrious masses by wealthy\nidlers. It has now no longer any civilizing mission; its only mission is\nto protect exploitation.\"[475] \"It puts rigid immobility in the place of\nprogressive development,\"[476] \"it seeks to confirm permanently the\ncustoms that are advantageous to the ruling minority.\"[477]\n\n\"If one looks over the millions of laws which mankind obeys, one can\ndistinguish three great classes: protection of property, protection of\ngovernment, protection of persons. But in examining these three classes\none comes in every case to the necessary conclusion that the law is\nvalueless and harmful. What the protection of property is worth, the\nSocialists know only too well. The laws about property do not exist to\nsecure to individuals or to society the product of their labor. On the\ncontrary, they exist to rob the producer of a part of his product, and\nto protect a few in the enjoyment of what they have stolen from the\nproducer or from the whole of society.\"[478] And as regards the laws for\nthe protection of government, \"we know well that all governments,\nwithout exception, have it for their mission to uphold by force the\nprivileges of the propertied classes--the nobility, the clergy, and the\n_bourgeoisie_. A man has only to examine all these laws, only to observe\ntheir every-day working, and he will be convinced that not one is worth\nkeeping.\"[479] Equally \"superfluous and harmful, finally, are the laws\nfor the protection of persons, for the punishment and prevention of\n'crimes'. The fear of punishment never yet restrained a murderer. He who\nwould kill his neighbor, for revenge or for necessity, does not beat his\nbrains about the consequences; and every murderer hitherto has had the\nfirm conviction that he would escape prosecution. If murder were\ndeclared not punishable, the number of murders would not increase even\nby one; rather it would decrease to the extent that murders are at\npresent committed by habitual criminals who have been corrupted in\nprison.\"[480]\n\n2. The stage of evolution to which enacted law belongs will soon be left\nbehind by man.\n\n\"The law is a comparatively young formation. Mankind lived for ages\nwithout any written law. At that time the relations of men to each other\nwere regulated by mere habits, by customs and usages, which age made\nvenerable, and which every one learned from his childhood in the same\nway as he learned hunting, cattle-raising, or agriculture.\"[481] \"But\nwhen society came to be more and more split into two hostile classes, of\nwhich the one wanted to rule and the other to escape from rule, the\nvictor of the moment sought to give permanence to the accomplished fact\nand to hallow it by all that was venerable to the defeated. Consecrated\nby the priest and protected by the strong hand of the warrior, law\nappeared.\"[482]\n\nBut its days are already numbered. \"Everywhere we find insurgents who\nwill no longer obey the law till they know where it comes from, what it\nis good for, by what right it demands obedience, and for what reason it\nis held in honor. They bring under their criticism everything that has\nuntil now been respected as the foundation of society, but first and\nforemost the fetish, law.\"[483] The moment of its disappearance, for the\nhastening of which we must fight,[484] is close at hand,[485] perhaps\neven at the end of the nineteenth century.[486]\n\nII. _In the next stage of evolution, which, as has been shown, mankind\nmust soon reach, there will indeed be no enacted law, but there will be\nlaw even there._ \"The laws will be totally abrogated;\"[487] \"unwritten\ncustoms,\"[488] \"'customary law,' as jurists say,\"[489] will \"suffice to\nmaintain a good understanding.\"[490] These norms of the next stage of\nevolution will be based on a general will;[491] and conformity to them\nwill be adequately assured \"by the necessity, which every one feels, of\nfinding co-operation, support, and sympathy\"[492] and by the fear of\nexpulsion from the fellowship,[493] but also, if necessary, by the\nintervention of the individual citizen[494] or of the masses;[495] they\nwill therefore be legal norms.\n\nOf legal norms of the next stage of evolution Kropotkin mentions in the\nfirst place this,--that contracts must be lived up to.[496]\n\nFurthermore, according to Kropotkin there will obtain in the next stage\nof evolution a legal norm by virtue of which not only the means of\nproduction, but all things, are common property.[497]\n\nAn additional legal norm in the next stage of evolution will, according\nto Kropotkin, be that by virtue of which \"every one who co-operates in\nproduction to a certain extent has, for one thing, the right to live;\nfor another, the right to live comfortably.\"[498]\n\n\n4.--THE STATE\n\nI. _According to Kropotkin, in mankind's progress from a less happy\nexistence to an existence as happy as possible the State will shortly\ndisappear._\n\n1. The State has become a hindrance to mankind's evolution toward a\nhappiness as great as possible.\n\n\"What does this monstrous engine serve for, that we call 'State'? For\npreventing the exploitation of the laborer by the capitalist, of the\npeasant by the landlord? or for assuring us of work? for providing us\nfood when the mother has nothing but water left for her child? No, a\nthousand times no.\"[499] But instead of this the State \"meddles in all\nour affairs, pinions us from cradle to grave. It prescribes all our\nactions, it piles up mountains of laws and ordinances that bewilder the\nshrewdest lawyer. It creates an army of office-holders who sit like\nspiders in their webs and have never seen the world except through the\ndingy panes of their office-window. The immense and ever-increasing sums\nthat the State collects from the people are never sufficient: it lives\nat the expense of future generations, and steers with all its might\ntoward bankruptcy. 'State' is tantamount to 'war'; one State seeks to\nweaken and ruin another in order to force upon the latter its law, its\npolicy, its commercial treaties, and to enrich itself at its expense;\nwar is to-day the usual condition in Europe, there is a thirty years'\nsupply of causes of war on hand. And civil war rages at the same time\nwith foreign war; the State, which was originally to be a protection for\nall and especially for the weak, has to-day become a weapon of the rich\nagainst the exploited, of the propertied against the propertyless.\"[500]\n\nIn these respects there is no distinction to be made between the\ndifferent forms of the State. \"Toward the end of the last century the\nFrench people overthrew the monarchy, and the last absolute king\nexpiated on the scaffold his own crimes and those of his\npredecessors.\"[501] \"Later all the countries of the Continent went\nthrough the same evolution: they overthrew their absolute monarchies and\nflung themselves into the arms of parliamentarism.\"[502] \"Now it is\nbeing perceived that parliamentarism, which was entered upon with such\ngreat hopes, has everywhere become a tool for intrigue and personal\nenrichment, for efforts hostile to the people and to evolution.\"[503]\n\"Precisely like any despot, the body of representatives of the\npeople--be it called Parliament, Convention, or anything else; be it\nappointed by the prefects of a Bonaparte or elected with all conceivable\nfreedom by an insurgent city--will always try to enlarge its competence,\nto strengthen its power by all sorts of meddling, and to displace the\nactivity of the individual and the group by the law.\"[504] \"It was only\na forty years' movement, which occasionally even set fire to\ngrain-fields, that could bring the English Parliament to secure to the\ntenant the value of the improvements made by him. But if it is a\nquestion of protecting the capitalist's interest, threatened by a\ndisturbance or even by agitation,--ah, then every representative of the\npeople is on hand, then it acts with more recklessness and cowardice\nthan any despot. The six-hundred-headed beast without a name has outdone\nLouis IX and Ivan IV.\"[505] \"Parliamentarism is nauseating to any one\nwho has seen it near at hand.\"[506]\n\n\"The dominion of men, which calls itself 'government,' is incompatible\nwith a morality founded on solidarity.\"[507] This is best shown by \"the\nso-called civil rights, whose value and importance the _bourgeois_ press\nis daily praising to us in every key.\"[508] \"Are they made for those who\nalone need them? Certainly not. Universal suffrage may under some\ncircumstances afford to the _bourgeoisie_ a certain protection against\nencroachments by the central authority, it may establish a balance\nbetween two authorities without its being necessary for the rivals to\ndraw the knife on each other as formerly; but it is valueless when the\nobject is to overthrow authority or even to set bounds to it. For the\nrulers it is an excellent means of deciding their disputes; but of what\nuse is it to the ruled? Just so with the freedom of the press. To the\nmind of the _bourgeoisie_, what is the best thing that has been alleged\nin its favor? Its impotence. 'Look at England, Switzerland, the United\nStates,' they say. 'There the press is free and yet the dominion of\ncapital is more assured than in any other country.' Just so they think\nabout the right of association. 'Why should we not grant full right of\nassociation?' says the _bourgeoisie_. 'It will not impair our\nprivileges. What we have to fear is secret societies; public unions are\nthe best means to cripple them.' 'The inviolability of the home? Yes,\nthis we must proclaim aloud, this we must inscribe in the\nstatute-books,' say the sly _bourgeois_, 'the police certainly must not\nbe looking into our pots and kettles. If things go wrong some day, we\nwill snap our fingers at a man's right to his own house, rummage\neverything, and, if necessary, arrest people in their beds.' 'The\nsecrecy of letters? Yes, just proclaim its inviolability aloud\neverywhere, our little privacies certainly must not come to the light.\nIf we scent a plot against our privileges, we shall not stand much on\nceremony. And if anybody objects, we shall say what an English minister\nlately said among the applause of Parliament: \"Yes, gentlemen, it is\nwith a heavy heart and with the deepest reluctance that we are having\nletters opened, but the country (that is, the aristocracy and\n_bourgeoisie_) is in danger!\"' That is what political rights are.\nFreedom of the press and freedom of association, the inviolability of\nthe home, and all the rest, are respected only so long as the people\nmake no use of them against the privileged classes. But on the day when\nthe people begin to use them for the undermining of privileges all these\n'rights' are thrown overboard.\"[509]\n\n2. The stage of evolution to which the State belongs will soon be left\nbehind by man. The State is doomed.[510]\n\nIt is \"of a relatively modern origin.\"[511] \"The State is a historic\nformation which, in the life of all nations, has at a certain time\ngradually taken the place of free associations. Church, law, military\npower, and wealth acquired by plunder, have for centuries made common\ncause, have in slow labor piled stone on stone, encroachment on\nencroachment, and thus created the monstrous institution which has\nfinally fixed itself in every corner of social life--nay, in the brains\nand hearts of men--and which we call the State.\"[512]\n\nIt has now begun to decompose. \"The peoples--especially those of the\nLatin races--are bent on destroying its authority, which merely hampers\ntheir free development; they want the independence of provinces,\ncommunes, and groups of laborers; they want not to submit to any\ndominion, but to league themselves together freely.\"[513] \"The\ndissolution of the States is advancing at frightful speed. They have\nbecome decrepit graybeards, with wrinkled skins and tottering feet,\ngnawed by internal diseases and without understanding for the new\nthoughts; they are squandering the little strength that they still had\nleft, living at the expense of their numbered years, and hastening their\nend by falling foul of each other like old women.\"[514] The moment of\nthe State's disappearance is therefore close at hand.[515] Kropotkin\nsays now that it will come in a few years,[516] now that it will come at\nthe end of the nineteenth century.[517]\n\nII. _In the next stage of evolution, which, as has been shown, mankind\nmust soon reach, the place of the State will be taken by a social human\nlife on the basis of the legal norm that contracts must be lived up to._\nAnarchism is the \"inevitable\"[518] \"next phase,\"[519] \"higher\nform,\"[520] of society.\n\n1. Even after the State is done away men will live together socially;\nbut they will no longer be held together in society by a governmental\nauthority, but by the legally binding force of contract. \"Free expansion\nof individuals into groups and of groups into associations, free\norganization from the simple to the complex as need and inclination are\nfelt,\"[521] will be the future form of society.\n\nWe can at present perceive a growing Anarchistic movement; that is, \"a\nmovement towards limiting more and more the sphere of action of\ngovernment. After having tried all kinds of government, humanity is\ntrying now to free itself from the bonds of any government whatever, and\nto respond to its needs of organization by the free understanding\nbetween individuals prosecuting the same common aims.\"[522] \"Free\nassociations are beginning to take to themselves the entire field of\nhuman activity.\"[523] \"The large organizations resulting merely and\nsimply from free agreement have grown recently. The railway net of\nEurope--a confederation of so many scores of separate societies--is an\ninstance; the Dutch _Beurden_, or associations of ship and boat owners,\nare extending now their organizations over the rivers of Germany, and\neven to the shipping trade of the Baltic; the numberless amalgamated\nmanufacturers' associations, and the _syndicats_ of France, are so many\ninstances in point. But there also is no lack of free organizations for\nnobler pursuits: the Lifeboat Association, the Hospitals Association,\nand hundreds of like organizations. One of the most remarkable societies\nwhich has[524] recently arisen is the Red Cross Society. To slaughter\nmen on the battle-fields, that remains the duty of the State; but these\nvery States recognize their inability to take care of their own wounded;\nthey abandon the task, to a great extent, to private initiative.\"[525]\n\"These endeavors will attain to free play, will find a new and vast\nfield for their application, and will form the foundation of the future\nsociety.\"[526]\n\n\"The agreement between the hundreds of companies to which the European\nrailroads belong has been entered into directly, without the meddling of\nany central authority that prescribed laws to the several companies. It\nhas been kept up by conventions at which delegates met to consult\ntogether and then to lay before their principals plans, not laws. This\nis a new procedure, utterly different from any government whether\nmonarchical or republican, absolute or constitutional. It is an\ninnovation which at first makes its way into European manners only by\nhesitating steps, but to which the future belongs.\"[527]\n\n2. \"To rack our brains to-day about the details of the form which public\nlife shall take in the future society, would be silly. Yet we must come\nto an agreement now about the main outlines.\"[528] \"We must not forget\nthat perhaps in a year or two we shall be called on to decide all\nquestions of the organization of society.\"[529]\n\nCommunes will continue to exist; but \"these communes are not\nagglomerations of men in a territory, and know neither walls nor\nboundaries; the commune is a clustering of like-minded persons, not a\nclosed integer. The various groups in one commune will feel themselves\ndrawn to similar groups in other communes; they will unite themselves\nwith these as firmly as with their fellow-citizens; and thus there will\ncome about communities of interest whose members are scattered over a\nthousand cities and villages.\"[530]\n\nMen will join themselves together by \"contracts\"[531] to form such\ncommunes. They will \"take upon themselves duties to society,\"[532] which\non its part engages to do certain things for them.[533] It will not be\nnecessary to compel the fulfilment of these contracts,[534] there will\nbe no need of penalties and judges.[535] Fulfilment will be sufficiently\nassured by \"the necessity, which every one feels, of finding\nco-operation, support, and sympathy among his neighbors;\"[536] he who\ndoes not live up to his obligations can of course be expelled from\nfellowship.[537]\n\nIn the commune every one will \"do what is necessary himself, without\nwaiting for a government's orders.\"[538] \"The commune will not first\ndestroy the State and then set it up again.\"[539] \"People will see that\nthey are freest and happiest when they have no plenipotentiary agents\nand depend as little on the wisdom of representatives as on that of\nProvidence.\"[540] Nor will there be prisons or other penal\ninstitutions;[541] \"for the few anti-social acts that may still take\nplace the best remedy will consist in loving treatment, moral influence,\nand liberty.\"[542]\n\nThe communes on their part will join themselves together by\ncontracts[543] quite in the same way as do the members of the individual\ncommunes. \"The commune will recognize nothing above it except the\ninterests of the league that it has of its own accord made with other\ncommunes.\"[544] \"Owing to the multiplicity of our needs, a single league\nwill soon not be enough; the commune will feel the necessity of entering\ninto other connections also, joining this or that other league. For the\npurpose of obtaining food it is already a member of one group; now it\nmust join a second in order to obtain other objects that it\nneeds,--metal, for instance,--and then a third and fourth too, that will\nsupply it with cloth and works of art. If one takes up an economic atlas\nof any country, one sees that there are no economic boundaries: the\nareas of production and exchange for the different objects are blended,\ninterlaced, superimposed. Thus the combinations of the communes also, if\nthey followed their natural development, would soon intertwine in the\nsame way and form an infinitely denser network and a far more consummate\n'unity' than the States, whose individual parts, after all, only lie\nside by side like the rods around the lictor's axe.\"[545]\n\n3. The future society will be able easily to accomplish the tasks that\nthe State accomplishes at present.\n\n\"Suppose there is need of a street. Well, then let the inhabitants of\nthe neighboring communes come to an understanding about it, and they\nwill do their business better than the Minister of Public Works would do\nit. Or a railroad is needed. Here too the communes that are concerned\nwill produce something very different from the work of the promoters who\nonly build bad pieces of track and make millions by it. Or schools are\nrequired. People can fit them up for themselves at least as well as the\ngentlemen at Paris. Or the enemy invades the country. Then we defend\nourselves instead of relying on generals who would merely betray us. Or\nthe farmer must have tools and machines. Then he comes to an\nunderstanding with the city workingmen, these supply him with them at\ncost in return for his products, and the middleman, who now robs both\nthe farmer and the workingman, is superfluous.\"[546] \"Or there comes up\na little dispute, or a stronger man tries to push down a weaker. In the\nfirst case the people will know enough to create a court of arbitration,\nand in the second every citizen will regard it as his duty to interfere\nhimself and not wait for the police; there will be as little need of\nconstables as of judges and turnkeys.\"[547]\n\n\n5.--PROPERTY\n\nI. _According to Kropotkin, the progress of mankind from a less happy\nexistence to an existence as happy as possible will shortly bring us to\nthe disappearance not indeed of property, but of its present form,\nprivate property._\n\n1. Private property has become a hindrance to the evolution of mankind\ntoward a happiness as great as possible.\n\nWhat are the effects of private property to-day? \"The crisis, which was\nformerly acute, has become chronic; the crisis in the cotton trade, the\ncrisis in the production of metals, the crisis in watchmaking, all the\ncrises, rage concurrently now and do not come to an end. The unemployed\nin Europe to-day are estimated at several million; those who beg their\nway from city to city, or gather in mobs to demand 'work or bread' with\nthreats, are estimated at tens of thousands. Great branches of industry\nare destroyed; great cities, like Sheffield, forsaken. Everything is at\na standstill, want and misery prevail everywhere: the children are pale,\nthe wife has grown five years older in one winter, disease and death are\nrife among the workingmen--and people talk of over-production!\"[548] One\nmight reply that in peasant ownership of land, at least, private\nproperty has good effects.[549] \"But the golden age is over for the\nsmall farmer. To-day he hardly knows how to make both ends meet. He gets\ninto debt, becomes a victim of the cattle-dealer, the real-estate\njobber, the usurer; notes and mortgages ruin whole villages, even more\nthan the frightful taxes imposed by State and commune. Small\nproprietorship is in a desperate condition; and even if the small farmer\nis still owner in name, he is in fact nothing more than a tenant paying\nrent to money-dealers and usurers.\"[550]\n\nBut private property has still more sweeping indirect effects. \"So long\nas we have a caste of idlers who have us feed them under the pretext\nthat they must lead us, so long these idlers will always be a focus of\npestilence to general morality. He who lives his life in dull laziness,\nwho is always bent merely on getting new pleasures, who by the very\nbasis of his existence can know no solidarity, and who by his course of\nlife cultivates the vilest self-seeking,--he will always pursue the\ncoarsest sensual pleasures and debase everything around him. With his\nbag full of dollars and his bestial impulses he will go and dishonor\nwomen and children, degrade art, the drama, the press, sell his country\nand its defenders, and, because he is too cowardly to murder with his\nown hands, will have his proxies murder the choicest of his nation when,\nsome day, he is afraid for his darling money-bag.\"[551] \"Year by year\nthousands of children grow up in the physical and moral filth of our\ngreat cities, among a population corrupted by the struggle for daily\nbread, and at the same time they daily see the immorality, idleness,\nprodigality, and ostentation of which these same cities are full.\"[552]\n\"Thus society is incessantly bringing forth beings who are incapable of\nan honorable and industrious life, and who are full of anti-social\nfeelings. It does homage to them when success crowns their crimes, and\nsends them to the penitentiary when they are unlucky.\"[553]\n\nPrivate property offends against justice. \"The labor of all has produced\nthe entire accumulated mass of wealth, that of the present generation as\nwell as that of all that went before. The house in which we happen to be\ntogether has value only by its being in Paris, this glorious city in\nwhich the labor of twenty generations is piled layer upon layer. If it\nwere removed to the snow-fields of Siberia, it would be worth\nsubstantially nothing. This machine, invented and patented by you, has\nin it the labor of five or six generations; it has a value only as a\npart of the vast whole that we call nineteenth-century industry. Take\nyour lace-making machine to the Papuans in New Guinea, and it is\nvalueless.\"[554] \"Science and industry; theory and practice; the\ninvention and the putting the invention in operation, which leads to new\ninventions again; head work and hand work,--all is connected. Every\ndiscovery, every progress, every increase in our wealth, has its origin\nin the total bodily and mental activity of the past and present. Then by\nwhat right can any one appropriate to himself the smallest fraction of\nthis vast total and say 'this belongs to me and not to you'?\"[555]--But\nthis unjust appropriation of what belongs to all has nevertheless taken\nplace. \"Among the changes of time a few have taken possession of all\nthat is made possible to man by the production of goods and the increase\nof his productive power. To-day the land, though it owes its value to\nthe needs of a ceaselessly increasing population, belongs to a minority\nwhich can hinder the people from cultivating it, and which does so--or\nat least does not permit the people to cultivate it in a manner\naccordant with modern needs. The mines, which represent the toil of\ncenturies, and whose value is based solely on the needs of industry and\nthe necessities of population, belong likewise to a few, and these few\nlimit the mining of coal, or entirely forbid it when they find a better\ninvestment for their money. The machines, too, are the property of a\nhandful of men; and, even if a machine has indubitably been brought to\nits present perfection by three generations of workers, it nevertheless\nbelongs to a few givers of work. The roads, which would be scrap-iron\nbut for Europe's dense population, industry, trade, and travel, are in\nthe possession of a few shareholders who perhaps do not even know the\nlocation of the lines from which they draw princely incomes.\"[556]\n\n2. Mankind will soon have passed the stage of evolution to which private\nproperty belongs. Private property is doomed.[557]\n\nPrivate property is a historic formation: it \"has developed\nparasitically amidst the free institutions of our earliest\nancestors,\"[558] and this in the closest connection with the State. \"The\npolitical constitution of a society is always the expression, and at the\nsame time the consecration, of its economic constitution.\"[559] \"The\norigin of the State, and its reason for existence, lie in the fact that\nit interferes in favor of the propertied and to the disadvantage of the\npropertyless.\"[560] \"The omnipotence of the State constitutes the\nfoundation of the strength of the _bourgeoisie_.\"[561]\n\nBut private property is already on the way to dissolution. \"The economic\nchaos can last no longer. The people are tired of the crises which the\ngreed of the ruling classes provokes. They want to work and live, not\nfirst drudge a few years for scanty wages and then become for many years\nvictims of want and objects of charity. The workingman sees the\nincapacity of the ruling classes: he sees how unable they are either to\nunderstand his efforts or to manage the production and exchange of\ngoods.\"[562] Hence \"one of the leading features of our century is the\ngrowth of Socialism and the rapid spreading of Socialist views among the\nworking classes.\"[563] The moment when private property is to disappear\nis near, therefore: be it in a few years,[564] be it at the end of the\nnineteenth century,[565] in any case it will come soon.[566]\n\nII. _In mankind's next stage of evolution, which, as has been shown,\nmust soon be attained, property will take such form that only property\nof society shall exist._ The \"next phase of evolution,\"[567] \"higher\nform of social organization,\"[568] will \"inevitably\"[569] be not only\nAnarchism, but \"Anarchistic Communism.\"[570] \"The tendencies towards\neconomical and political freedom are two different manifestations of the\nvery same need of equality which constitutes the very essence of all\nstruggles mentioned by history\";[571] \"these two powerful currents of\nthought characterize our century.\"[572]\n\nIn this way a comfortable life will be guaranteed to every person who\nco-operates in production to a certain extent.\n\n1. Mankind's next stage of evolution will no longer know any but the\nproperty of society.\n\n\"In our century the Communist tendency is continually reasserting\nitself. The penny bridge disappears before the public bridge; and the\nturnpike road before the free road. The same spirit pervades thousands\nof other institutions. Museums, free libraries, and free public schools;\nparks and pleasure grounds; paved and lighted streets, free for\neverybody's use; water supplied to private dwellings, with a growing\ntendency towards disregarding the exact amount of it used by the\nindividual; tramways and railways which have already begun to introduce\nthe season ticket or the uniform tax, and will surely go much further on\nthis line when they are no longer private property: all these are tokens\nshowing in what direction further progress is to be expected.\"[573]\n\nSo will the future society be Communistic. \"The first act of the\nnineteenth-century commune will consist in laying hands on the entire\ncapital accumulated in its bosom.\"[574] This applies \"to the materials\nfor consumption as well as to those for production.\"[575] \"People have\ntried to make a distinction between the capital that serves for the\nproduction of goods and that which satisfies the wants of life, and have\nsaid that machines, factories, raw materials, the means of\ntransportation, and the land are destined to become the property of the\ncommunity; while dwellings, finished products, clothing, and provisions\nwill remain private property. This distinction is erroneous and\nimpracticable. The house that shelters us, the coal and gas that we\nburn, the nutriment that our body burns up, the clothing that covers us,\nand the book from which we draw instruction, are all essential to our\nexistence and are just as necessary for successful production and for\nthe further development of mankind as are machines, factories, raw\nmaterials, and other factors of production. With private property in the\nformer goods, there would still remain inequality, oppression, and\nexploitation; a half-way abolition of private property would have its\neffectiveness crippled in advance.\"[576]\n\nThere is no fear that the Communistic communes will isolate\nthemselves.[577] \"If to-day a great city transforms itself into a\nCommunistic commune, and introduces community of the materials for both\nwork and enjoyment, then in a very few days, if it is not shut in by\nhostile armies, trains of wagons will appear in its markets, and raw\nmaterials will arrive from distant ports; and the city's industrial\nproducts, when once the wants of the population are satisfied, will go\nto the ends of the earth seeking purchasers; throngs of strangers will\nstream in from near and far, and will afterward tell at home of the\nmarvelous life of the free city where everybody works, where there are\nneither poor nor oppressed, where every one enjoys the fruit of his\ntoil, and no one interferes with another's doing so.\"[578]\n\n2. The Communism of the future society will \"not be the Communism of the\nconvent or the barrack, such as was formerly preached, but a free\nCommunism which puts the joint products at the disposal of all while\nleaving to every one the liberty of using them at home.\"[579] To get an\nentirely clear idea of every detail of it, indeed, is not as yet\npossible; \"nevertheless we must come to an agreement about the\nfundamental features at least.\"[580]\n\nWhat form will production take?\n\nThat must first be produced which is requisite \"for the satisfaction of\nman's most urgent wants.\"[581] For this it suffices \"that all adults,\nwith the exception of those women who are occupied with the education of\nchildren, engage to do five hours a day, from the age of twenty or\ntwenty-two to the age of forty-five or fifty, of any one (at their\noption) of the labors that are regarded as necessary.\"[582] \"For\ninstance, a society would enter into the following contract with each of\nits members: 'We will guarantee to you the enjoyment of our houses,\nstores of goods, streets, conveyances, schools, museums, etc., on\ncondition that from your twentieth year to your forty-fifth or fiftieth\nyou apply five hours every day to one of the labors necessary to life.\nEvery moment you will have your choice of the groups you will join, or\nyou may found a new one provided that it proposes to do necessary\nservice. For the rest of your time you may associate yourself with whom\nyou like for the purpose of scientific or artistic recreation at your\npleasure. We ask of you, therefore, nothing but twelve or fifteen\nhundred hours' work annually in one of the groups which produce food,\nclothing, and shelter, or which care for health, transportation, etc.;\nand in return we insure to you all that these groups produce or have\nproduced'.\"[583]\n\nThere will be time enough, therefore, to produce what is requisite for\nthe satisfaction of less urgent wants. \"When one has done in the field\nor the factory the work that he is under obligation to do for society,\nhe can devote the other half of his day, his week, or his year, to the\nsatisfaction of artistic or scientific wants.\"[584] \"The lover of music\nwho wishes a piano will enter the association of instrument-makers; he\nwill devote part of his half-days, and will soon possess the longed-for\npiano. Or the enthusiast in astronomy will join the astronomers'\nassociation with its philosophers, observers, calculators, and\nopticians, its scholars and amateurs; and he will obtain the telescope\nhe wishes, if only he dedicates some work to the common cause--for there\nis a deal of rough work necessary for an observatory, masons' work,\ncarpenters' work, founders' work, machinists' work--the final polish, to\nbe sure, can be given to the instrument of precision by none but the\nartist. In a word, the five to seven hours that every one has left,\nafter he has first devoted some hours to the production of the\nnecessary, are quite sufficient to render possible for him every kind of\nluxury.\"[585]\n\n\"The separation of agriculture from manufactures will pass away. The\nfactory workmen will be at the same time field workmen.\"[586] \"As an\neminently periodic industry, which at certain times (and even more in\nthe making of improvements than in harvest) needs a large additional\nforce, agriculture will form the link between village and city.\"[587]\nAnd \"the separation of mental from bodily labor will come to an\nend\"[588] too. \"Poets and scientists will no longer find poor devils\nwho will sell their energies to them for a plate of soup; they will have\nto get together and print their writings themselves. Then the authors,\nand their admirers of both sexes, will soon acquire the art of handling\nthe type-case and composing-stick; they will learn the pleasure of\nproducing jointly, with their own hands, a work that they value.\"[589]\n\"Every labor will be agreeable.\"[590] \"If there is still work which is\nreally disagreeable in itself, it is only because our scientific men\nhave never cared to consider the means of rendering it less so: they\nhave always known that there were plenty of starving men who would do it\nfor a few pence a day.\"[591] \"Factories, smelters, mines, can be as\nsanitary and as splendid as the best laboratories of our universities;\nand the more perfectly they are fitted up the more they will\nproduce.\"[592] And the product of such labor will be \"infinitely better,\nand considerably greater, than the mass of goods hitherto produced under\nthe goad of slavery, serfdom, and wage-slavery.\"[593]\n\nHow will distribution take place?\n\nEvery one who contributes his part to production will also have his\nshare in the product. But it must not be assumed that this share in the\nproduct will correspond to that share in the production. \"Each according\nto his powers; to each according to his wants.\"[594] \"Need will be put\nabove service; it will be recognized that every one who co-operates in\nproduction to a certain extent has in the first place the right to\nlive, and in the second place the right to live comfortably.\"[595]\n\"Every one, no matter how strong or weak, how competent or incompetent\nhe may be, will have the right to live,\"[596] and \"to have a comfortable\nlife; he will furthermore have the right to decide for himself what\nbelongs to a comfortable life.\"[597]\n\nSociety's stock of goods will quite permit this. \"If one considers on\nthe one hand the rapidity with which the productive power of civilized\nnations is increasing, and on the other hand the limits that are\ndirectly or indirectly set to its production by present conditions, one\ncomes to the conclusion that even a moderately sensible economic\nconstitution would permit the civilized nations to heap up in a few\nyears so many useful things that we should have to cry out 'Enough!\nenough coal! enough bread! enough clothes! Let us rest, take recreation,\nput our strength to a better use, spend our time in a better way!'\"[598]\n\nHowever, what if the stock should in fact not suffice for all wants?\n\"The solution is--free taking of everything that exists in superfluity,\nand rations of that in which there is a possibility of dearth: rations\naccording to needs, with preference to children, the aged, and the weak\nin general. That is what is done even now in the country. What commune\nthinks of limiting the use of the meadows so long as there are enough of\nthem? what commune, so long as there are chestnuts and brushwood enough,\nhinders those who belong to it from taking as much as they please? And\nwhat does the peasant introduce when there is a prospect that firewood\nwill give out? Rationing.\"[599]\n\n\n6.--REALIZATION\n\n_The change that is promptly to be expected in the course of mankind's\nprogress from a less happy existence to an existence as happy as\npossible,--the disappearance of the State, the transformation of law and\nproperty, and the appearance of the new condition,--will be\naccomplished, according to Kropotkin, by a social revolution; that is,\nby a violent subversion of the old order, which will come to pass of\nitself, but for which it is the function of those who foresee the course\nof evolution to prepare men's minds._\n\nI. We know that we shall not reach the future condition \"without intense\nperturbations.\"[600] \"That justice may be victorious, and the new\nthoughts become reality, there is need of a frightful storm to sweep\naway all this rottenness, to vivify torpid souls with its breath, and to\nrestore self-sacrifice, self-denial, and heroism to our senile,\ndecrepit, crumbling society.\"[601] There is need of \"social revolution:\nthat is, the people's taking possession of society's total stock of\ngoods, and the abolition of all authorities.\"[602] \"The social\nrevolution is at the door,\"[603] \"it stands before us at the end of this\ncentury,\"[604] \"it will be here in a few years.\"[605] It is \"the task\nwhich history sets for us,\"[606] but \"whether we will or not, it will\nbe accomplished independently of our will.\"[607]\n\n1. \"The social revolution will be no uprising of a few days: we shall\nhave to go through a period of three, four, or five years of revolution,\ntill the transformation of the social and economic situation is\ncompleted.\"[608] \"During this time what we have sown to-day will be\ncoming up and bearing fruit; and he who now is yet indifferent will\nbecome a convinced adherent of the new doctrine.\"[609] Nor will the\nsocial revolution be limited to a narrow area. \"We must not assume, to\nbe sure, that it will break out in all Europe at once.\"[610] \"Germany is\nnearer the revolution than people think\";[611] \"but whether it start\nfrom France, Germany, Spain, or Russia, it will anyhow be a European\nrevolution in the end. It will spread as rapidly as that of our\npredecessors the heroes of 1848, and set Europe afire.\"[612]\n\n2. The first act of the social revolution will be a work of\ndestruction.[613] \"The impulse to destruction, which is so natural and\njustifiable because it is at the same time an impulse to renovation,\nwill find its full satisfaction. How much old trash there is to clear\naway! Does not everything have to be transformed, the houses, the\ncities, the businesses of manufacturing and farming,--in short, all the\narrangements of society?\"[614] \"Everything that it is necessary to\nabolish should be destroyed without delay: the penitentiaries and\nprisons, the forts that threaten cities, the slums whose disease-laden\nair people have breathed so long.\"[615]\n\nYet the social revolution will not be a reign of terror. \"Naturally the\nfight will demand victims. One can understand how it was that the people\nof Paris, before they hurried to the frontiers, killed the aristocrats\nin the prisons, who had planned with the enemy for the annihilation of\nthe revolution. He who would blame the people for this should be asked,\n'Have you suffered with them and like them? if not, blush and be\nstill.'\"[616] But yet the people will never, like the kings and czars,\nexalt terror into a system. \"They have sympathy for the victims; they\nare too good-hearted not to feel a speedy repugnance at cruelty. The\npublic prosecutor, the corpse-cart, the guillotine, speedily become\nrepulsive. After a little while it is recognized that such a reign of\nterror is merely preparing the way for a dictatorship, and the\nguillotine is abolished.\"[617]\n\nThe government will be overthrown first. \"There is no need of fearing\nits strength. Governments only seem terrible; the first collision with\nthe insurgent people lays them prostrate; many have collapsed in a few\nhours before now.\"[618] \"The people rise, and the State machine is\nalready at a standstill; the officials are in confusion and know not\nwhat to do; the army has lost confidence in its leaders.\"[619]\n\nBut it cannot stop with this. \"On the day when the people has swept away\nthe governments, it will also, without waiting for any directions from\nabove, abolish private property by forcible expropriation.\"[620] \"The\npeasants will drive out the great landlords and declare their estates\ncommon property; they will annul the mortgages and proclaim general\nrelease from debt\";[621] and in the cities \"the people will seize on the\nentire wealth accumulated there, turn out the factory-owners, and\nundertake the management themselves.\"[622] \"The expropriation will be\ngeneral; nothing but an expropriation of the broadest kind can initiate\nthe re-shaping of society--expropriation on a small scale would appear\nlike ordinary plunder.\"[623] It will extend not only to the materials of\nproduction, but also to those of consumption: \"the first thing that the\npeople do after the overthrow of the governments will be to provide\nitself with sanitary dwellings and with sufficient food and\nclothing.\"[624]--Yet expropriation will \"have its limits.\"[625] \"Suppose\nby pinching, a poor devil has got himself a house that will hold him and\nhis family. Will he be thrown on the street? Certainly not! If the house\nis just big enough for him and his family, he shall keep it, and he\nshall also continue to work the garden under his window. Our young men\nwill even lend him a hand in case of need. But, if he has rented a room\nto somebody else, the people will say to this one, 'You know, friend,\ndon't you, that you no longer owe the old fellow anything? Keep your\nroom gratis; you need no longer fear the officer of the court, we have\nthe new society!\"[626] \"Expropriation will extend just to that which\nmakes it possible for any one to exploit another's labor.\"[627]\n\n3. \"The work of destruction will be followed by a work of\nre-shaping.\"[628]\n\nMost people conceive of revolution as with \"a 'revolutionary\ngovernment'\"[629]--this in two ways. Some understand by this an elective\ngovernment. \"It is proposed to summon the people to elections, to elect\na government as quickly as possible, and entrust to it the work which\neach of us ought to be doing of his own accord.\"[630] \"But any\ngovernment which an insurgent people attains by elections must\nnecessarily be a leaden weight on its feet, especially in so immense an\neconomic, political, and moral reorganization as the social\nrevolution.\"[631] This is perceived by others; \"therefore they give up\nthe thought of a 'legal' government, at least for the time of\ninsurrection against all laws, and preach the 'revolutionary\ndictatorship.' 'The party which has overthrown the government,' say\nthey, 'will forcibly put itself in the government's place. It will seize\nthe authority and adopt a revolutionary procedure. For every one who\ndoes not recognize it--the guillotine; for every one who refuses\nobedience to it--the guillotine likewise.' So talk the little\nRobespierres. But we Anarchists know that this thought is nothing but an\nunwholesome fruit of government fetishism, and that any dictatorship,\neven the best disposed, is the death of the revolution.\"[632]\n\n\"We will do what is needful ourselves, without waiting for the orders\nof a government.\"[633] \"If the dissolution of the State is once started,\nif once the oppression-machine begins to give out, free associations\nwill be formed quite automatically. Just remember the voluntary\ncombinations of the armed _bourgeoisie_ during the great Revolution.\nRemember the societies which were voluntarily formed in Spain, and which\ndefended the independence of the country, when the State was shaken to\nits foundations by Napoleon's armies. As soon as the State no longer\ncompels any co-operation, natural wants bring about a voluntary\nco-operation quite automatically. If the State be but overthrown, free\nsociety will rise up at once on its ruins.\"[634]\n\n\"The reorganization of production will not be possible in a few\ndays,\"[635] especially as the revolution will presumably not break out\nin all Europe at a time.[636] The people will consequently have to take\ntemporary measures to assure themselves, first of all, of food,\nclothing, and shelter. First the populace of the insurgent cities will\ntake possession of the dealers' stocks of food, and of the grain\nwarehouses and the slaughter-houses. Volunteers make an inventory of the\nprovisions found, and distribute printed tabular statements by the\nmillion. Henceforth free taking of all that is present in abundance;\nrations of what has to be measured out, with preference to the sick and\nthe weak; a supply for deficiencies by importation from the country\n(which will come in plenty if we produce things that the farmer needs\nand put them at his disposal) and also by the inhabitants of the city\nentering upon the cultivation of the royal parks and meadows in the\nvicinity.[637] The people will take possession of the dwelling-houses in\nlike manner. Again volunteers make lists of the available dwellings and\ndistribute them. People come together by streets, quarters, districts,\nand agree about the allotment of the dwellings. But the evils that will\nat first still have to be borne are soon to be done away: the artisans\nof the building trades need only work a few hours a day, and soon the\nover-spacious dwellings that were on hand will be sensibly altered, and\nmodel houses, entirely new, will be built.[638] The same procedure will\nbe followed with regard to clothing. The people take possession of the\ngreat clothiers' establishments, and volunteers list the stocks. People\ntake freely what is on hand in abundance, in rations what is limited in\nquantity. What is lacking is supplied in the shortest of time by the\nfactories with their perfected machines.[639]\n\nII. \"To prepare men's minds\"[640] for the approaching revolution is the\ntask of those who foresee the course of evolution. This is especially\n\"the task of the secret societies and revolutionary organizations.\"[641]\nIt is the task of \"the Anarchist party.\"[642] The Anarchists \"are to-day\nas yet a minority, but their number is daily growing, will grow more and\nmore, and will on the eve of the revolution become a majority.\"[643]\n\"What a dismal sight France presented a few years before the great\nRevolution, and how weak was the minority of those who thought of the\nabolition of royalty and feudalism; but what a change three or four\nyears later! the minority had begun the revolution and had carried the\nmasses with it.\"[644]--But how are men's minds to be prepared for the\nrevolution?\n\n1. First and foremost, the aim of the revolution is to be made generally\nknown. \"It is to be proclaimed by word and deed till it is thoroughly\npopularized, so that on the day of the rising it is in everybody's\nmouth. This task is greater and more serious than is generally assumed;\nfor, if some few do have the aim clearly before their eyes, it is quite\notherwise with the masses, constantly worked upon as they are by the\n_bourgeois_ press.\"[645]\n\nBut this does not suffice. \"The spirit of insurrection must be aroused;\nthe sense of independence and the wild boldness without which no\nrevolution comes about must awake.\"[646] \"Between the peaceable\ndiscussion of evils and tumult, insurrection, lies a chasm--the same\nchasm that in the greater part of mankind separates reflection from act,\nthought from will.\"[647]\n\n2. The way to obtain these two results is \"action--constant, incessant\naction by minorities. Courage, devotion, self-sacrifice are as\ncontagious as cowardice, servility, and apprehension.\"[648]\n\n\"What forms is the propaganda to take? Every form that is prescribed by\nthe situation, by opportunity, and propensity. It may be now serious,\nnow jocular; but it must always be bold. It must never leave a means\nunused, never leave a fact of public life unobserved, to keep minds\nalert, to give aliment and expression to discontent, to stir hate\nagainst exploiters, to make the government ridiculous, and to\ndemonstrate its impotence. But above all, to arouse boldness and the\nspirit of insurrection, it must continually preach by example.\"[649]\n\n\"Men of courage, willing not only to speak but to act; pure characters\nwho prefer prison, exile, and death to a life that contradicts their\nprinciples; bold natures who know that in order to win one must\ndare,--these are the advance-guard who open the fight long before the\nmasses are ripe to lift the banner of insurrection openly and to seek\ntheir rights arms in hand. In the midst of the complaining, talking,\ndiscussing, comes a mutinous deed by one or more persons, which\nincarnates the longings of all.\"[650]\n\n\"Perhaps at first the masses remain indifferent and believe the wise\nones who regard the act as 'crazy', but soon they are privately\napplauding the crazy and imitating them. While the first of them are\nfilling the penitentiaries, others are already continuing their work.\nThe declarations of war against present-day society, the mutinous deeds,\nthe acts of revenge, multiply. General attention is aroused; the new\nthought makes its way into men's heads and wins their hearts. A single\ndeed makes more propaganda in a few days than a thousand pamphlets. The\ngovernment defends itself, it rages pitilessly; but by this it only\ncauses further deeds to be committed by one or more persons, and drives\nthe insurgents to heroism. One deed brings forth another; opponents\njoin the mutiny; the government splits into factions; harshness\nintensifies the conflict; concessions come too late; the revolution\nbreaks out.\"[651]\n\n3. To make still clearer the means by which the aim of the revolution is\nto be made generally known and the spirit of insurrection is to be\naroused, Kropotkin tells some of the history of what preceded the\nRevolution of 1789.\n\nHe tells how at that time thousands of lampoons acquainted the people\nwith the vices of the court, and how a multitude of satirical songs\nflagellated crowned heads and stirred hatred against the nobility and\nclergy. He sets before us how in placards the king, the queen, the\nfarmers-general, were threatened, reviled, and jeered at; how enemies of\nthe people were hanged or burned or quartered in effigy. He describes to\nus the way in which the insurrectionists got the people used to the\nstreets and taught them to defy the police, the military, the cavalry.\nWe learn how in the villages secret organizations, the jacques, set fire\nto the barns of the lord of the manor, destroyed his crops or his game,\nmurdered him himself, threatened the collection or payment of rent with\ndeath. He sets forth to us how then, one day, the storehouses were\nbroken into, the trains of wagons were stopped on the highway, the\ntoll-gates were burned and the officials killed, the tax-lists and the\naccount-books and the city archives went up in flames, and the\nrevolution broke out on all sides.[652]\n\n\"What conclusions are to be drawn from this\"[653] Kropotkin does not\nthink it necessary to explain. He contents himself with characterizing\nas \"a precious instruction for us\"[654] the facts which he reports.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[431] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 99.\n\n[432] _Ib._ p. 104.\n\n[433] Kr. \"_Temps nouveaux_\" p. 39.\n\n[434] _Ib._ p. 39.\n\n[435] _Ib._ pp. 8, 39.\n\n[436] _Ib._ p. 5.\n\n[437] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 4.\n\n[438] Kr. \"Studies\" p. 9.\n\n[439] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" pp. 8-9.\n\n[440] _Ib._ p. 9.\n\n[441] Kr. \"_Temps nouveaux_\" p. 13.\n\n[442] _Ib._ p. 12.\n\n[443] _Ib._ p. 7.\n\n[444] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 4.\n\n[445] Kr. \"Studies\" p. 24.\n\n[446] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 7.\n\n[447] _Ib._ p. 4.\n\n[448] _Ib._ p. 7.\n\n[449] _Ib._ p. 4.\n\n[450] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 28.\n\n[451] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 17.\n\n[452] Kr. \"_Temps nouveaux_\" p. 59.\n\n[453] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 4.\n\n[454] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 275-6.\n\n[455] _Ib._ pp. 277-8.\n\n[456] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 17.\n\n[457] _Ib._ p. 275.\n\n[458] Kr. \"Studies\" p. 9.\n\n[459] _Ib._ p. 10.\n\n[460] Kr. \"_Morale_\" p. 74.\n\n[461] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 4.\n\n[462] Kr. \"_Morale_\" pp. 24, 31.\n\n[463] _Ib._ p. 30.\n\n[464] Kr. \"_Morale_\" pp. 30-31.\n\n[465] _Ib._ p. 41.\n\n[466] _Ib._ p. 42.\n\n[467] _Ib._ p. 38; Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 296.\n\n[468] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 342, 129.\n\n[469] Kr. \"_Morale_\" p. 57.\n\n[470] _Ib._ pp. 61-2.\n\n[471] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 215. [In Eltzbacher's general discussions, and\nhis summaries of the different writers' views on law, the word\ntranslated \"law\" is everywhere _Recht_, French _droit_, Latin _jus_, law\nas a body of rights and duties. But in the quotations from Kropotkin\nunder the heading \"Law\" the word is everywhere (with the single\nexception of the phrase \"customary law\") _Gesetz_, French _loi_, Latin\n_lex_, a law as an enacted formula to describe men's actions; and the\nsame is the word translated \"law\" in Eltzbacher's summaries under the\nheading \"Basis\" in the different chapters.]\n\n[472] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 214.\n\n[473] _Ib._ p. 227.\n\n[474] _Ib._ p. 227.\n\n[475] _Ib._ p. 235.\n\n[476] _Ib._ p. 219.\n\n[477] _Ib._ p. 226.\n\n[478] _Ib._ p. 236.\n\n[479] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 239.\n\n[480] _Ib._ pp. 240-42.\n\n[481] _Ib._ p. 221.\n\n[482] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 226.\n\n[483] _Ib._ pp. 218-19.\n\n[484] Kr. \"_Morale_\" p. 74.\n\n[485] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 264-5.\n\n[486] _Ib._ p. 235; Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" pp.\n28-9.\n\n[487] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 227, 235.\n\n[488] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 29.\n\n[489] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 221.\n\n[490] _Ib._ p. 221.\n\n[491] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" pp. 229, 109.\n\n[492] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 24.\n\n[493] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 202.\n\n[494] Kr. \"Studies\" p. 30.\n\n[495] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 110, 134-5, \"_Conquete_\" p. 109.\n\n[496] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" pp. 169, 128-9, 203-5.\n\n[497] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 136-7.\n\n[498] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 229.\n\n[499] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 14.\n\n[500] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 11-14.\n\n[501] _Ib._ p. 172.\n\n[502] _Ib._ p. 173.\n\n[503] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 175.\n\n[504] _Ib._ pp. 181-2.\n\n[505] _Ib._ pp. 183-4.\n\n[506] _Ib._ p. 190.\n\n[507] _Ib._ p. 19.\n\n[508] _Ib._ p. 33.\n\n[509] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 35-9.\n\n[510] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 30.\n\n[511] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 7.\n\n[512] Kr. \"_Temps nouveaux_\" pp. 49-50.\n\n[513] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 10.\n\n[514] _Ib._ pp 9-10.\n\n[515] _Ib._ pp. 264-5.\n\n[516] _Ib._ p. 139.\n\n[517] _Ib._ p. 235; Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" pp.\n28-9.\n\n[518] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 30.\n\n[519] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 4.\n\n[520] _Ib._ p. 7.\n\n[521] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 26.\n\n[522] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 23.\n\n[523] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 117-18.\n\n[524] [_Sic_, edition of 1891].\n\n[525] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" pp. 25-7.\n\n[526] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 118.\n\n[527] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 174.\n\n[528] Kr. \"Studies\" p. 25.\n\n[529] _Ib._ p. 26.\n\n[530] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 117.\n\n[531] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" pp. 169, 203.\n\n[532] _Ib._ pp. 145, 136, 128-9.\n\n[533] _Ib._ pp. 203-5.\n\n[534] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" pp. 29-30, \"_Conquete_\" p. 188.\n\n[535] Kr. \"_Prisons_\" p. 49.\n\n[536] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 24. [Kropotkin prefixes \"his own\nsocial habits and.\"]\n\n[537] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 202.\n\n[538] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 139.\n\n[539] _Ib._ p. 111.\n\n[540] _Ib._ p. 175.\n\n[541] Kr. \"_Prisons_\" p. 49.\n\n[542] _Ib._ pp. 58-9.\n\n[543] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" pp. 44-5.\n\n[544] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 108.\n\n[545] _Ib._ pp. 115-16.\n\n[546] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 166.\n\n[547] Kr. \"_Studies_\" p. 30.\n\n[548] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 5-6.\n\n[549] _Ib._ pp. 322-3.\n\n[550] _Ib._ p. 326.\n\n[551] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 24.\n\n[552] Kr. \"_Prisons_\" p. 47.\n\n[553] _Ib._ p. 49.\n\n[554] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 10.\n\n[555] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" pp. 8-9.\n\n[556] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" pp. 9-10.\n\n[557] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 30.\n\n[558] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 11.\n\n[559] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 169.\n\n[560] Kr. \"_Temps nouveaux_\" p. 45.\n\n[561] Kr. \"Studies\" p. 17.\n\n[562] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 7-8.\n\n[563] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 4.\n\n[564] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 139, \"_L'Anarchie--sa philosophie son ideal_\"\np. 25.\n\n[565] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 235, \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\"\npp. 28-9.\n\n[566] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 264-5.\n\n[567] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 4.\n\n[568] _Ib._ p. 7.\n\n[569] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 30.\n\n[570] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 88, \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\"\np. 30.\n\n[571] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 8.\n\n[572] _Ib._ p. 8.\n\n[573] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 21.\n\n[574] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 110.\n\n[575] _Ib._ p. 137.\n\n[576] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 136.\n\n[577] _Ib._ p. 114.\n\n[578] _Ib._ pp. 113-14.\n\n[579] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 12.\n\n[580] Kr. \"Studies\" p. 25.\n\n[581] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 239.\n\n[582] _Ib._ pp. 128-9.\n\n[583] _Ib._ pp. 203-4.\n\n[584] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 136.\n\n[585] _Ib._ pp. 150-51.\n\n[586] _Ib._ p. 96.\n\n[587] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 330-1.\n\n[588] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" pp. 195-6.\n\n[589] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 137.\n\n[590] _Ib._ p. 153.\n\n[591] Kr. \"Anarchist Communism\" p. 31.\n\n[592] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 156.\n\n[593] _Ib._ p. 193.\n\n[594] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 12.\n\n[595] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 229.\n\n[596] _Ib._ p. 26.\n\n[597] _Ib._ p. 28.\n\n[598] _Ib._ p. 20.\n\n[599] Kr. \"L'_Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 13.\n\n[600] _Ib._ p. 28.\n\n[601] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 280.\n\n[602] _Ib._ p. 261.\n\n[603] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 22.\n\n[604] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 28. [The\nnineteenth century, of course, is meant.]\n\n[605] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 139.\n\n[606] Kr. \"_Siecle_\" p. 32.\n\n[607] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" p. 29.\n\n[608] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 90, \"Studies\" p. 23.\n\n[609] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 90-91.\n\n[610] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 85.\n\n[611] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie. Sa philosophie--son ideal_\" p. 26.\n\n[612] Kr. \"_L'Anarchie dans l'evolution socialiste_\" pp. 28-9.\n\n[613] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 263.\n\n[614] _Ib._ p. 342.\n\n[615] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 342.\n\n[616] Kr. \"_Prisons_\" p. 57.\n\n[617] Kr. \"_Studies_\" p. 16.\n\n[618] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 166.\n\n[619] _Ib._ p. 246.\n\n[620] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 134-5.\n\n[621] _Ib._ p. 167.\n\n[622] _Ib._ p. 135.\n\n[623] _Ib._ p. 337.\n\n[624] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" pp. 63.\n\n[625] _Ib._ p. 56.\n\n[626] _Ib._ p. 109.\n\n[627] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 56.\n\n[628] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 263.\n\n[629] _Ib._ p. 246.\n\n[630] _Ib._ pp. 248-9.\n\n[631] _Ib._ p. 253.\n\n[632] _Ib._ pp. 253-5.\n\n[633] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 139.\n\n[634] _Ib._ pp. 116-17.\n\n[635] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" p. 75.\n\n[636] _Ib._ p. 85.\n\n[637] Kr. \"_Conquete_\" pp. 76-96.\n\n[638] _Ib._ pp. 104-7.\n\n[639] _Ib._ pp. 114-16.\n\n[640] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 260.\n\n[641] _Ib._ p. 260.\n\n[642] _Ib._ pp. 99, 254; Kr. \"_Temps nouveaux_\" p. 54.\n\n[643] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 90.\n\n[644] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 92-5.\n\n[645] _Ib._ p. 312.\n\n[646] _Ib._ p. 285.\n\n[647] _Ib._ p. 283.\n\n[648] _Ib._ p. 284.\n\n[649] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 284.\n\n[650] _Ib._ p. 285.\n\n[651] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" pp. 285-8.\n\n[652] _Ib._ pp. 293-304.\n\n[653] _Ib._ p. 292.\n\n[654] Kr. \"_Paroles_\" p. 304.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTUCKER'S TEACHING\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\nBenjamin R. Tucker was born in 1854 at South Dartmouth, near New\nBedford, Massachusetts. From 1870 to 1872 he studied technology in\nBoston; there he made the acquaintance of Josiah Warren[655] in 1872. In\n1874 he traveled in England, France, and Italy.\n\nIn 1877 Tucker took the temporary editorship of the \"Word,\" published at\nPrinceton, Massachusetts. In 1878 he published the quarterly \"The\nRadical Review\" in New Bedford; but only four numbers appeared. In 1881,\nin Boston, he founded the semi-monthly paper \"Liberty,\" of which there\nalso appeared for a short time a German edition under the title\n\"Libertas\"; in Boston, also, he was for ten years one of the editorial\nstaff of the \"Globe.\" Since 1892 he has lived in New York, and \"Liberty\"\nhas appeared there as a weekly.[656]\n\n2. Tucker's teaching about law, the State, and property is contained\nmainly in his articles in \"Liberty.\" He has published a collection[657]\nof these articles under the title \"Instead of a Book. By a Man Too Busy\nto Write One. A fragmentary exposition of philosophical Anarchism\"\n(1893).\n\n[Illustration]\n\n3. Tucker calls his teaching \"Anarchism.\" \"Circumstances have combined\nto make me somewhat conspicuous as an exponent of the theory of Modern\nAnarchism.\"[658] \"Anarchy does not mean simply opposed to the _archos_,\nor political leader. It means opposed to _arch[=e]_. Now, _arch[=e]_, in\nthe first instance, means _beginning_, _origin_. From this it comes to\nmean _a first principle_, _an element_; then _first place_, _supreme\npower_, _sovereignty_, _dominion_, _command_, _authority_; and finally\n_a sovereignty_, _an empire_, _a realm_, _a magistracy_, _a governmental\noffice_. Etymologically, then, the word anarchy may have several\nmeanings. But the word Anarchy as a philosophical term and the word\nAnarchist as the name of a philosophical sect were first appropriated in\nthe sense of opposition to dominion, to authority, and are so held by\nright of occupancy, which fact makes any other philosophical use of them\nimproper and confusing.\"[659]\n\n\n2.--BASIS\n\n_Tucker considers that the law which has supreme validity for every one\nof us is self-interest; and from this he derives the law of equal\nliberty._\n\n1. For every man self-interest is the supreme law. \"The Anarchists are\nnot only utilitarians, but egoists in the farthest and fullest\nsense.\"[660]\n\nWhat does self-interest mean? My interest is everything that serves my\npurposes.[661] It takes in not only the lowest but also \"the higher\nforms of selfishness.\"[662] Thus, in particular, the interest of society\nis at the same time that of every individual: \"its life is inseparable\nfrom the lives of individuals; it is impossible to destroy one without\ndestroying the other.\"[663]\n\nSelf-interest is the supreme law for man. \"The Anarchists totally\ndiscard the idea of moral obligation, of inherent rights and\nduties.\"[664] \"So far as inherent right is concerned, might is its only\nmeasure. Any man, be his name Bill Sykes or Alexander Romanoff, and any\nset of men, whether the Chinese highbinders or the Congress of the\nUnited States, have the right, if they have the power, to kill or coerce\nother men and to make the entire world subservient to their ends.\"[665]\n\"The Anarchism of to-day affirms the right of society to coerce the\nindividual and of the individual to coerce society so far as either has\nthe requisite power.\"[666]\n\n2. From this supreme law Tucker derives \"the law of equal liberty.\"[667]\nThe law of equal liberty is based on every individual's self-interest.\nFor \"liberty is the chief essential to man's happiness, and therefore\nthe most important thing in the world, and I want as much of it as I can\nget.\"[668] On the other hand, \"human equality is a necessity of stable\nsociety,\"[669] and the life of society \"is inseparable from the lives\nof individuals.\"[670] Consequently every individual's self-interest\ndemands the equal liberty of all.\n\n\"Equal liberty means the largest amount of liberty compatible with\nequality and mutuality of respect, on the part of individuals living in\nsociety, for their respective spheres of action.\"[671] \"'Mind your own\nbusiness' is the only moral law of the Anarchistic scheme.\"[672] \"It is\nour duty to respect others' rights, assuming the word 'right' to be used\nin the sense of the limit which the principle of equal liberty logically\nplaces upon might.\"[673]--On the law of equal liberty is founded \"the\ndistinction between invasion and resistance, between government and\ndefence. This distinction is vital: without it there can be no valid\nphilosophy of politics.\"[674]\n\n\"By 'invasion' I mean the invasion of the individual sphere, which is\nbounded by the line inside of which liberty of action does not conflict\nwith others' liberty of action.\"[675] This boundary-line is in part\nunmistakable; for instance, a threat is not an invasion if the\nthreatened act is not an invasion, \"a man has a right to threaten what\nhe has a right to execute.\"[676] But the boundary-line may also be\ndubious; for instance, \"we cannot clearly identify the maltreatment of\nchild by parent as either invasive or non-invasive of the liberty of\nthird parties.\"[677] \"Additional experience is continually sharpening\nour sense of what constitutes invasion. Though we still draw the line by\nrule of thumb, we are drawing it more clearly every day.\"[678] \"The\nnature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man\nupon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one\nman upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by\nall other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern\ndemocracy.\"[679]\n\n\"On the other hand, he who resists another's attempt to control is not\nan aggressor, an invader, a governor, but simply a defender, a\nprotector.\"[680] \"The individual has the right to repel invasion of his\nsphere of action.\"[681] \"Anarchism justifies the application of force to\ninvasive men,\"[682] \"violence is advisable when it will accomplish the\ndesired end and inadvisable when it will not.\"[683] And \"defensive\nassociations acting on the Anarchistic principle would not only demand\nredress for, but would prohibit, all clearly invasive acts. They would\nnot, however, prohibit non-invasive acts, even though these acts create\nadditional opportunity for invasive persons to act invasively: for\ninstance, the selling of liquor.\"[684] \"And the nature of such\nresistance is not changed whether it be offered by one man to another\nman, as when one repels a criminal's onslaught, or by one man to all\nother men, as when one declines to obey an oppressive law, or by all\nother men to one man, as when a subject people rises against a despot,\nor as when the members of a community voluntarily unite to restrain a\ncriminal.\"[685]\n\n\n3.--LAW\n\n_According to Tucker, from the standpoint of every one's self-interest\nand the equal liberty of all there is no objection to law._ Legal norms\nare to obtain: that is, norms that are based on a general will[686] and\nto which obedience is enforced, if necessary, by every means,[687] even\nby prison, torture, and capital punishment.[688] But the law is to be\n\"so flexible that it will shape itself to every emergency and need no\nalteration. And it will then be regarded as _just_ in proportion to its\nflexibility, instead of as now in proportion to its rigidity.\"[689] The\nmeans to this end is that \"juries will judge not only the facts, but the\nlaw\";[690] machinery for altering the law is then unnecessary.[691]--In\nparticular, there are to be recognized the following legal norms, whose\ncorrectness Tucker tries to deduce from the law of equal liberty:\n\nFirst, a legal norm by which the person is secured against hurt. \"We are\nthe sternest enemies of invasion of the person, and, although chiefly\nbusy in destroying the causes thereof, have no scruples against such\nheroic treatment of its immediate manifestations as circumstances and\nwisdom may dictate.\"[692] Capital punishment is quite compatible with\nthe protection of the person against hurt, for its essence is not that\nof an act of hurting, but of an act of defence.[693]\n\nNext, there is to be recognized a legal norm by virtue of which\n\"ownership on a basis of labor\"[694] exists. \"This form of property\nsecures each in the possession of his own products, or of such products\nof others as he may have obtained unconditionally without the use of\nfraud or force.\"[695] \"It will be seen from this definition that\nAnarchistic property concerns only products. But anything is a product\nupon which human labor has been expended. It should be stated, however,\nthat in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which\nis so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism\nundertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual\noccupancy and use.\"[696] Against injury to property, as well as against\ninjury to the person, Anarchism has no scruples against \"such heroic\ntreatment as circumstances and wisdom may dictate.\"[697]\n\nFurthermore, there is to be recognized the legal norm that contracts\nmust be lived up to. Obligation comes into existence when obligations\nare \"consciously and voluntarily assumed\";[698] and the other party thus\nacquires \"a right.\"[699] To be sure, the obligatory force of contract is\nnot without bounds. \"Contract is a very serviceable and most important\ntool, but its usefulness has its limits; no man can employ it for the\nabdication of his manhood\";[700] therefore \"the constituting of an\nassociation in which each member waives the right of secession would be\na mere _form_.\"[701] Furthermore, no one can employ it for the invasion\nof third parties; therefore a promise \"whose fulfilment would invade\nthird parties\"[702] would be invalid.--\"I deem the keeping of promises\nsuch an important matter that only in the extremest cases would I\napprove their violation. It is of such vital consequence that associates\nshould be able to rely upon each other that it is better never to do\nanything to weaken this confidence except when it can be maintained only\nat the expense of some consideration of even greater importance.\"[703]\n\"The man who has received a promise is defrauded by its non-fulfilment,\ninvaded, deprived of a portion of his liberty against his will.\"[704] \"I\nhave no doubt of the right of any man to whom, for a consideration, a\npromise has been made, to insist, even by force, upon the fulfilment of\nthat promise, provided the promise be not one whose fulfilment would\ninvade third parties. And, if the promisee has a right to use force\nhimself for such a purpose, he has a right to secure such co-operative\nforce from others as they are willing to extend. These others, in turn,\nhave a right to decide what sort of promises, if any, they will help him\nto enforce. When it comes to the determination of this point, the\nquestion is one of policy solely; and very likely it will be found that\nthe best way to secure the fulfilment of promises is to have it\nunderstood in advance that the fulfilment is not to be enforced.\"[705]\n\n\n4.--THE STATE\n\nI. _With regard to every man's self-interest, especially on the basis of\nthe law of equal liberty, Tucker rejects the State; and that\nuniversally, not merely for special circumstances determined by place\nand time._ For the State is \"the embodiment of the principle of\ninvasion.\"[706]\n\n1. \"Two elements are common to all the institutions to which the name\n'State' has been applied: first, aggression.\"[707] \"Aggression,\ninvasion, government, are interconvertible terms.\"[708] \"This is the\nAnarchistic definition of government: the subjection of the non-invasive\nindividual to an external will.\"[709] And \"second, the assumption of\nauthority over a given area and all within it, exercised generally for\nthe double purpose of more complete oppression of its subjects and\nextension of its boundaries.\"[710] Therefore \"this is the Anarchistic\ndefinition of the State: the embodiment of the principle of invasion in\nan individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as\nrepresentatives or masters of the entire people within a given\narea.\"[711]\n\n\"Rule is evil, and it is none the better for being majority rule.\"[712]\n\"The theocratic despotism of kings or the democratic despotism of\nmajorities\"[713] are alike condemnable. \"What is the ballot? It is\nneither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the\nbilly, and the bullet. It is a labor-saving device for ascertaining on\nwhich side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the\nmajority saves bloodshed, but it is no less the arbitrament of force\nthan is the decree of the most absolute of despots backed by the most\npowerful of armies.\"[714]\n\n2. \"In the first place, all the acts of governments are indirectly\ninvasive, because dependent upon the primary invasion called\ntaxation.\"[715] \"The very first act of the State, the compulsory\nassessment and collection of taxes, is itself an aggression, a violation\nof equal liberty, and, as such, vitiates every subsequent act, even\nthose acts which would be purely defensive if paid for out of a treasury\nfilled by voluntary contributions. How is it possible to sanction, under\nthe law of equal liberty, the confiscation of a man's earnings to pay\nfor protection which he has not sought and does not desire?\"[716]\n\n\"And, if this is an outrage, what name shall we give to such\nconfiscation when the victim is given, instead of bread, a stone,\ninstead of protection, oppression? To force a man to pay for the\nviolation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury.\nBut that is exactly what the State is doing.\"[717] For \"in the second\nplace, by far the greater number of their acts are directly invasive,\nbecause directed, not to the restraint of invaders, but to the denial of\nfreedom to the people in their industrial, commercial, social, domestic,\nand individual lives.\"[718]\n\n\"How thoughtless, then, to assert that the existing political order is\nof a purely defensive character!\"[719] \"Defence is a service, like any\nother service. It is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an\neconomic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand. In a free\nmarket this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production. The\nproduction and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State.\nThe State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices. Like\nalmost all monopolists, it supplies a worthless, or nearly worthless,\narticle. Just as the monopolist of a food product often furnishes poison\ninstead of nutriment, so the State takes advantage of its monopoly of\ndefence to furnish invasion instead of protection. Just as the patrons\nof the one pay to be poisoned, so the patrons of the other pay to be\nenslaved. And the State exceeds all its fellow-monopolists in the extent\nof its villany because it enjoys the unique privilege of compelling all\npeople to buy its product whether they want it or not.\"[720]\n\n3. It cannot be alleged in favor of the State that it is necessary as a\nmeans for combating crime.[721] \"The State is itself the most gigantic\ncriminal extant. It manufactures criminals much faster than it punishes\nthem.\"[722] \"Our prisons are filled with criminals which our virtuous\nState has made what they are by its iniquitous laws, its grinding\nmonopolies, and the horrible social conditions that result from them. We\nenact many laws that manufacture criminals, and then a few that punish\nthem.\"[723]\n\nNo more can the State be defended on the ground that it is wanted for\nthe relief of suffering. \"The State is rendering assistance to the\nsuffering and starving victims of the Mississippi inundation. Well, such\nwork is better than forging new chains to keep the people in subjection,\nwe allow; but is not worth the price that is paid for it. The people\ncannot afford to be enslaved for the sake of being insured. If there\nwere no other alternative, they would do better, on the whole, to take\nNature's risks and pay her penalties as best they might. But Liberty\nsupplies another alternative, and furnishes better insurance at cheaper\nrates. Mutual insurance, by the organization of risk, will do the utmost\nthat can be done to mitigate and equalize the suffering arising from the\naccidental destruction of wealth.\"[724]\n\nII. _Every man's self-interest, and equal liberty particularly, demands,\nin place of the State, a social human life on the basis of the legal\nnorm that contracts must be lived up to._ The \"voluntary association of\ncontracting individuals\"[725] is to take the place of the State.\n\n1. \"The Anarchists have no intention or desire to abolish society. They\nknow that its life is inseparable from the lives of individuals; that it\nis impossible to destroy one without destroying the other.\"[726]\n\"Society has come to be man's dearest possession. Pure air is good, but\nno one wants to breathe it long alone. Independence is good, but\nisolation is too heavy a price to pay for it.\"[727]\n\nBut men are not to be held together in society by a concrete supreme\nauthority, but solely by the legally binding force of contract.[728] The\nform of society is to be \"voluntary association,\"[729] whose\n\"constitution\"[730] is nothing but a contract.\n\n2. But what is to be the nature of the voluntary association in detail?\n\nIn the first place, it cannot bind its members for life. \"The\nconstituting of an association in which each member waives the right of\nsecession would be a mere _form_, which every decent man who was a party\nto it would hasten to violate and tread under foot as soon as he\nappreciated the enormity of his folly. To indefinitely waive one's right\nof secession is to make one's self a slave. Now, no man can make himself\nso much a slave as to forfeit the right to issue his own emancipation\nproclamation.\"[731]\n\nIn the next place, the voluntary association, as such, can have no\ndominion over a territory. \"Certainly such voluntary association would\nbe entitled to enforce whatever regulations the contracting parties\nmight agree upon within the limits of whatever territory, or divisions\nof territory, had been brought into the association by these parties as\nindividual occupiers thereof, and no non-contracting party would have a\nright to enter or remain in this domain except upon such terms as the\nassociation might impose. But if, somewhere between these divisions of\nterritory, had lived, prior to the formation of the association, some\nindividual on his homestead, who for any reason, wise or foolish, had\ndeclined to join in forming the association, the contracting parties\nwould have had no right to evict him, compel him to join, make him pay\nfor any incidental benefits that he might derive from proximity to their\nassociation, or restrict him in the exercise of any previously-enjoyed\nright to prevent him from reaping these benefits. Now, voluntary\nassociation necessarily involving the right of secession, any seceding\nmember would naturally fall back into the position and upon the rights\nof the individual above described, who refused to join at all. So much,\nthen, for the attitude of the individual toward any voluntary\nassociation surrounding him, his support thereof evidently depending\nupon his approval or disapproval of its objects, his view of its\nefficiency in attaining them, and his estimate of the advantages and\ndisadvantages involved in joining, seceding, or abstaining.\"[732]\n\nFor the members of the voluntary association numerous obligations arise\nfrom their membership. The association may require, as a condition of\nmembership, the agreement to perform certain services,--for instance,\n\"jury service.\"[733] And \"inasmuch as Anarchistic associations recognize\nthe right of secession, they may utilize the ballot, if they see fit to\ndo so. If the question decided by ballot is so vital that the minority\nthinks it more important to carry out its own views than to preserve\ncommon action, the minority can withdraw. In no case can a minority,\nhowever small, be governed without its consent.\"[734] The voluntary\nassociation is entitled to compel its members to live up to their\nobligations. \"If a man makes an agreement with men, the latter may\ncombine to hold him to his agreement\";[735] therefore a voluntary\nassociation is \"entitled to enforce whatever regulations the contracting\nparties may agree upon.\"[736] To be sure, one must bear in mind that\n\"very likely the best way to secure the fulfilment of promises is to\nhave it understood in advance that the fulfilment is not to be\nenforced.\"[737]\n\nOf especial importance among the obligations of the members of a\nvoluntary association is the duty of paying taxes; but the tax is\nvoluntary by virtue of the fact that it is based on contract.[738]\n\"Voluntary taxation, far from impairing the association's credit, would\nstrengthen it\";[739] for, in the first place, because of the simplicity\nof its functions, the association seldom or never has to borrow; in the\nsecond place, it cannot, like the present State upon its basis of\ncompulsory taxation, repudiate its debts and still continue business;\nand, in the third place, it will necessarily be more intent on\nmaintaining its credit by paying its debts than is the State which\nenforces taxation.[740] And furthermore, the voluntariness of the tax\nhas this advantage, that \"the defensive institution will be steadily\ndeterred from becoming an invasive institution through fear that the\nvoluntary contributions will fall off; it will have this constant motive\nto keep itself trimmed down to the popular demand.\"[741]\n\n\"Ireland's true order: the wonderful Land League, the nearest approach,\non a large scale, to perfect Anarchistic organization that the world has\nyet seen. An immense number of local groups, scattered over large\nsections of two continents separated by three thousand miles of ocean;\neach group autonomous, each free; each composed of varying numbers of\nindividuals of all ages, sexes, races, equally autonomous and free; each\ninspired by a common, central purpose; each supported entirely by\nvoluntary contributions; each obeying its own judgment; each guided in\nthe formation of its judgment and the choice of its conduct by the\nadvice of a central council of picked men, having no power to enforce\nits orders except that inherent in the convincing logic of the reasons\non which the orders are based; all co-ordinated and federated, with a\nminimum of machinery and without sacrifice of spontaneity, into a vast\nworking unit, whose unparalleled power makes tyrants tremble and armies\nof no avail.\"[742]\n\n3. Among the prominent associations of the new society are mutual\ninsurance societies and mutual banks,[743] and, especially, defensive\nassociations.\n\n\"The abolition of the State will leave in existence a defensive\nassociation\"[744] which will give protection against those \"who violate\nthe social law by invading their neighbors.\"[745] To be sure, this need\nwill be only transitory. \"We look forward to the ultimate disappearance\nof the necessity of force even for the purpose of repressing\ncrime.\"[746] \"The necessity for defence against individual invaders is\nlargely and perhaps, in the end, wholly due to the oppressions of the\ninvasive State. When the State falls, criminals will begin to\ndisappear.\"[747]\n\nA number of defensive associations may exist side by side. \"There are\nmany more than five or six insurance companies in England, and it is by\nno means uncommon for members of the same family to insure their lives\nand goods against accident or fire in different companies. Why should\nthere not be a considerable number of defensive associations in England,\nin which people, even members of the same family, might insure their\nlives and goods against murderers or thieves? Defence is a service, like\nany other service.\"[748] \"Under the influence of competition the best\nand cheapest protector, like the best and cheapest tailor, would\ndoubtless get the greater part of the business. It is conceivable even\nthat he might get the whole of it. But, if he should, it would be by his\nvirtue as a protector, not by his power as a tyrant. He would be kept at\nhis best by the possibility of competition and the fear of it; and the\nsource of power would always remain, not with him, but with his patrons,\nwho would exercise it, not by voting him down or by forcibly putting\nanother in his place, but by withdrawing their patronage.\"[749] But, if\ninvader and invaded belong to different defensive associations, will not\na conflict of associations result? \"Anticipations of such conflicts\nwould probably result in treaties, and even in the establishment of\nfederal tribunals, as courts of last resort, by the co-operation of the\nvarious associations, on the same voluntary principle in accordance with\nwhich the associations themselves were organized.\"[750]\n\n\"Voluntary defensive associations acting on the Anarchistic principle\nwould not only demand redress for, but would prohibit, all clearly\ninvasive acts.\"[751] To fulfil this function they may choose any\nappropriate means, without thereby exercising a government. \"Government\nis the subjection of the _non-invasive_ individual to a will not his\nown. The subjection of the _invasive_ individual is not government, but\nresistance to and protection from government.\"[752]--\"Anarchism\nrecognizes the right to arrest, try, convict, and punish for wrong\ndoing.\"[753] \"Anarchism will take enough of the invader's property from\nhim to repair the damage done by his invasion.\"[754] \"If it can find no\nbetter instrument of resistance to invasion, Anarchism will use\nprisons.\"[755] It admits even capital punishment. \"The society which\ninflicts capital punishment does not commit murder. Murder is an\noffensive act. The term cannot be applied legitimately to any defensive\nact. There is nothing sacred in the life of an invader, and there is no\nvalid principle of human society that forbids the invaded to protect\nthemselves in whatever way they can.\"[756] \"It is allowable to punish\ninvaders by torture. But, if the 'good' people are not fiends, they are\nnot likely to defend themselves by torture until the penalties of death\nand tolerable confinement have shown themselves destitute of\nefficacy.\"[757]--\"All disputes will be submitted to juries.\"[758]\n\"Speaking for myself, I think the jury should be selected by drawing\ntwelve names by lot from a wheel containing the names of all the\ncitizens in the community.\"[759] \"The juries will judge not only the\nfacts, but the law, the justice of the law, its applicability to the\ngiven circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because\nof its infraction.\"[760]\n\n\n5.--PROPERTY\n\nI. _According to Tucker, from the standpoint of every one's\nself-interest and the equal liberty of all there is no objection to\nproperty._ Tucker rejects only the distribution of property on the basis\nof monopoly, as it everywhere and always exists in the State. That the\nState is essentially invasion appears in the laws which \"not only\nprescribe personal habits, but, worse still, create and sustain\nmonopolies\"[761] and thereby make usury possible.[762]\n\n1. Usury is the taking of surplus value.[763] \"A laborer's product is\nsuch portion of the value of that which he delivers to the consumer as\nhis own labor has contributed.\"[764] The laborer does not get this\nproduct, \"at least not as laborer; he gains a bare subsistence by his\nwork.\"[765] But, \"somebody gets the surplus wealth. Who is the\nsomebody?\"[766] \"The usurer.\"[767]\n\n\"There are three forms of usury: interest on money, rent of land and\nhouses, and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is\na usurer. And who is not? Scarcely any one. The banker is a usurer; the\nmanufacturer is a usurer; the merchant is a usurer; the landlord is a\nusurer; and the workingman who puts his savings, if he has any, out at\ninterest, or takes rent for his house or lot, if he owns one, or\nexchanges his labor for more than an equivalent,--he too is a usurer.\nThe sin of usury is one under which all are concluded, and for which all\nare responsible. But all do not benefit by it. The vast majority suffer.\nOnly the chief usurers accumulate: in agricultural and thickly settled\ncountries, the landlords; in industrial and commercial countries, the\nbankers. Those are the Somebodies who swallow up the surplus\nwealth.\"[768]\n\n2. \"And where do they get their power? From monopoly maintained by the\nState. Usury rests on this.\"[769] And \"of the various monopolies that\nnow prevail, four are of principal importance.\"[770]\n\n\"First in the importance of its evil influence they [the founders of\nAnarchism] considered the money monopoly, which consists of the\nprivilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to\nindividuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the\ncirculating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by\na national tax of ten per cent. upon all other persons who attempt to\nfurnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal\noffence to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that holders of this\nprivilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and\nbuildings, and the prices of goods,--the first directly, and the second\nand third indirectly. For, if the business of banking were made free to\nall, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition\nshould become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the\nlabor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of one\nper cent.\"[771] \"Then down will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow\ncapital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will\nconsent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that.\"[772]\nFinally, \"down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at\nhigh prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one\nper cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the\nprices of their goods to their customers.\"[773]\n\n\"Second in importance comes the land monopoly, the evil effects of which\nare seen principally in exclusively agricultural countries, like\nIreland. This monopoly consists in the enforcement by government of\nland-titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and\ncultivation.\"[774] \"Ground-rent exists only because the State stands by\nto collect it and to protect land-titles rooted in force or fraud.\"[775]\n\"As soon as individuals should no longer be protected in anything but\npersonal occupancy and cultivation of land, ground-rent would disappear,\nand so usury have one less leg to stand on.\"[776]\n\nThe third and fourth places are occupied by the tariff and patent\nmonopolies.[777] \"The tariff monopoly consists in fostering production\nat high prices and under unfavorable conditions by visiting with the\npenalty of taxation those who patronize production at low prices and\nunder favorable conditions. The evil to which this monopoly gives rise\nmight more properly be called _mis_usury than usury, because it compels\nlabor to pay, not exactly for the use of capital, but rather for the\nmisuse of capital.\"[778] \"The patent monopoly protects inventors and\nauthors against competition for a period long enough to enable them to\nextort from the people a reward enormously in excess of the labor\nmeasure of their services,--in other words, it gives certain people a\nright of property for a term of years in laws and facts of nature, and\nthe power to exact tribute from others for the use of this natural\nwealth, which should be open to all.\"[779] It is on the tariff and\npatent monopolies, next to the money monopoly, that profit in exchange\nis based. If they were done away along with the money monopoly, it would\ndisappear.[780]\n\nII. _Every one's self-interest, and particularly the equal liberty of\nall, demands a distribution of property in which every one is guaranteed\nthe product of his labor._[781]\n\n1. \"Equal liberty, in the property sphere, is such a balance between the\nliberty to take and the liberty to keep that the two liberties may\ncoexist without conflict or invasion.\"[782] \"Nearly all Anarchists\nconsider labor to be the only basis of the right of ownership in harmony\nwith that law\";[783] \"the laborers, instead of having only a small\nfraction of the wealth in the world, should have all the wealth.\"[784]\nThis form of property \"secures each in the possession of his own\nproducts, or of such products of others as he may have obtained\nunconditionally without the use of fraud or force, and in the\nrealization of all titles to such products which he may hold by virtue\nof free contract with others.\"[785]\n\n\"It will be seen from this definition that Anarchistic property concerns\nonly products. But anything is a product upon which human labor has been\nexpended, whether it be a piece of iron or a piece of land. (It should\nbe stated, however, that in the case of land, or of any other material\nthe supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited\nquantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are\nbased on actual occupancy and use.)\"[786]\n\n2. A distribution of property in which every one is guaranteed the\nproduct of his labor presupposes merely that equal liberty be applied in\nthose spheres which are as yet dominated by State monopoly.[787]\n\n\"Free money first.\"[788] \"I mean by free money the utter absence of\nrestriction upon the issue of all money not fraudulent\";[789] \"making\nthe issue of money as free as the manufacture of shoes.\"[790]\n\nMoney is here understood in the broadest sense, it means both\n\"commodity money and credit money,\"[791] by no means coin alone; \"if the\nidea of the royalty of gold and silver could once be knocked out of the\npeople's heads, and they could once understand that no particular kind\nof merchandise is created by nature for monetary purposes, they would\nsettle this question in a trice.\"[792] \"If they only had the liberty to\ndo so, there are enough large and small property-holders willing and\nanxious to issue money, to provide a far greater amount than is\nneeded.\"[793] \"Does the law of England allow citizens to form a bank for\nthe issue of paper money against any property that they may see fit to\naccept as security; said bank perhaps owning no specie whatever; the\npaper money not redeemable in specie except at the option of the bank;\nthe customers of the bank mutually pledging themselves to accept the\nbank's paper in lieu of gold or silver coin of the same face value; the\npaper being redeemable only at the maturity of the mortgage notes, and\nthen simply by a return of said notes and a release of the mortgaged\nproperty,--is such an institution, I ask, allowed by the law of England?\nIf it is, then I have only to say that the working people of England are\nvery great fools not to take advantage of this inestimable\nliberty.\"[794] Then \"competition would reduce the rate of interest on\ncapital to the mere cost of banking, which is much less than one per\ncent.,\"[795] for \"capitalists will not be able to lend their capital at\ninterest when people can get money at the bank without interest with\nwhich to buy capital outright.\"[796] Likewise the charge of rent on\nbuildings \"would be almost entirely and directly abolished,\"[797] and\n\"profits fall to the level of the manufacturer's or merchant's proper\nwage,\"[798] \"except in business protected by tariff or patent\nlaws.\"[799] \"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard-of\nimpetus to business\";[800] \"if free banking were only a picayunish\nattempt to distribute more equitably the small amount of wealth now\nproduced, I would not waste a moment's energy on it.\"[801]\n\nFree land is needed in the second place.[802] \"'The land for the\npeople,' according to 'Liberty', means the protection of all people who\ndesire to cultivate land in the possession of whatever land they\npersonally cultivate, without distinction between the existing classes\nof landlords, tenants, and laborers, and the positive refusal of the\nprotecting power to lend its aid to the collection of any rent\nwhatsoever.\"[803] This \"system of occupying ownership, accompanied by no\nlegal power to collect rent, but coupled with the abolition of the\nState-guaranteed monopoly of money, thus making capital readily\navailable,\"[804] would \"abolish ground-rent\"[805] and \"distribute the\nincrement naturally and quietly among its rightful owners.\"[806]\n\nIn the third and fourth place, free trade and freedom of intellectual\nproducts are necessary.[807] If they were added to freedom in money,\n\"profit on merchandise would become merely the wages of mercantile\nlabor.\"[808] Free trade \"would result in a great reduction in the prices\nof all articles taxed.\"[809] And \"the abolition of the patent monopoly\nwould fill its beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of competition which\nwould cause them to be satisfied with pay for their services equal to\nthat which other laborers get for theirs.\"[810]\n\nIf equal liberty is realized in these four spheres, its realization in\nthe sphere of property follows of itself: that is, a distribution of\nproperty in which every one is guaranteed the product of his labor.[811]\n\"Economic privilege must disappear as a result of the abolition of\npolitical tyranny.\"[812] In a society in which there is no more\ngovernment of man by man, there can be no such things as interest, rent,\nand profits;[813] every one is guaranteed the ownership of the product\nof his labor. \"Socialism does not say: 'Thou shalt not steal!' It says:\n'When all men have Liberty, thou wilt not steal.'\"[814]\n\n3. \"Liberty will abolish all means whereby any laborer can be deprived\nof any of his product; but it will not abolish the limited inequality\nbetween one laborer's product and another's.\"[815] \"There will remain\nthe slight disparity of products due to superiority of soil and skill.\nBut even this disparity will soon develop a tendency to decrease. Under\nthe new economic conditions and enlarged opportunities resulting from\nfreedom of credit and land classes will tend to disappear; great\ncapacities will not be developed in a few at the expense of stunting\nthose of the many; freedom of locomotion will be vastly increased; the\ntoilers will no longer be anchored in such large numbers in the present\ncommercial centres, and thus made subservient to the city landlords;\nterritories and resources never before utilized will become easy of\naccess and development; and under all these influences the disparity\nabove mentioned will decrease to a minimum.\"[816]\n\n\"Probably it will never disappear entirely.\"[817] \"Now, because liberty\nhas not the power to bring this about, there are people who say: We will\nhave no liberty, for we must have absolute equality. I am not of them.\nIf I can go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my\nneighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men\nrich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not)\nmake all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally\npoor in all that makes life best worth living.\"[818]\n\n\n6.--REALIZATION\n\n_According to Tucker, the manner in which the change called for by every\none's self-interest takes place is to be that those who have recognized\nthe truth shall first convince a sufficient number of people how\nnecessary the change is to their own interests, and that then they all\nof them, by refusing obedience, abolish the State, transform law and\nproperty, and thus bring about the new condition._\n\nI. First a sufficient number of men are to be convinced that their own\ninterests demand the change.\n\n1. \"A system of Anarchy in actual operation implies a previous education\nof the people in the principles of Anarchy.\"[819] \"The individual must\nbe penetrated with the Anarchistic idea and taught to rebel.\"[820]\n\"Persistent inculcation of the doctrine of equality of liberty, whereby\nfinally the majority will be made to see in regard to existing forms of\ninvasion what they have already been made to see in regard to its\nobsolete forms,--namely, that they are not seeking equality of liberty\nat all, but simply the subjection of all others to themselves.\"[821]\n\"The Irish Land League failed because the peasants were acting, not\nintelligently in obedience to their wisdom, but blindly in obedience to\nleaders who betrayed them at the critical moment. Had the people\nrealized the power they were exercising and understood the economic\nsituation, they would not have resumed the payment of rent at Parnell's\nbidding, and to-day they might have been free. The Anarchists do not\npropose to repeat their mistake. That is why they are devoting\nthemselves entirely to the inculcation of principles, especially of\neconomic principles. In steadfastly pursuing this course regardless of\nclamor, they alone are laying a sure foundation for the success of the\nrevolution.\"[822]\n\n2. In particular, according to Tucker, appropriate means for the\ninculcation of the Anarchistic idea are \"speech and the\npress.\"[823]--But what if the freedom of speech and of the press be\nsuppressed? Then force is justifiable.[824]\n\nBut force is to be used only as a \"last resort.\"[825] \"When a physician\nsees that his patient's strength is being exhausted so rapidly by the\nintensity of his agony that he will die of exhaustion before the medical\nprocesses inaugurated have a chance to do their curative work, he\nadministers an opiate. But a good physician is always loth to do so,\nknowing that one of the influences of the opiate is to interfere with\nand defeat the medical processes themselves. It is the same with the use\nof force, whether of the mob or of the State, upon diseased society; and\nnot only those who prescribe its indiscriminate use as a sovereign\nremedy and a permanent tonic, but all who ever propose it as a cure, and\neven all who would lightly and unnecessarily resort to it, not as a\ncure, but as an expedient, _are social quacks_.\"[826]\n\nTherefore violence \"should be used against the oppressors of mankind\nonly when they have succeeded in hopelessly repressing all peaceful\nmethods of agitation.\"[827] \"Bloodshed in itself is pure loss. When we\nmust have freedom of agitation, and when nothing but bloodshed will\nsecure it, then bloodshed is wise.\"[828] \"As long as freedom of speech\nand of the press is not struck down, there should be no resort to\nphysical force in the struggle against oppression. It must not be\ninferred that, because 'Libertas' thinks it may become advisable to use\nforce to secure free speech, it would therefore sanction a bloody deluge\nas soon as free speech had been struck down in one, a dozen, or a\nhundred instances. Not until the gag had become completely efficacious\nwould 'Libertas' advise that last resort, the use of force.\"[829]\n\"Terrorism is expedient in Russia and inexpedient in Germany and\nEngland.\"[830]--In what form is violence to be used? \"The days of armed\nrevolution have gone by. It is too easily put down.\"[831] \"Terrorism and\nassassination\"[832] are necessary, but they \"will have to consist of a\nseries of acts of individual dynamiters.\"[833]\n\n3. But, besides speech and the press, there are yet other methods of\n\"propagandism.\"[834]\n\nSuch a method is \"isolated individual resistance to taxation.\"[835]\n\"Some year, when an Anarchist feels exceptionally strong and\nindependent, when his conduct can impair no serious personal\nobligations, when on the whole he would a little rather go to jail than\nnot, and when his property is in such shape that he can successfully\nconceal it, let him declare to the assessor property of a certain value,\nand then defy the collector to collect. Or, if he have no property, let\nhim decline to pay his poll tax. The State will then be put to its\ntrumps. Of two things one,--either it will let him alone, and then he\nwill tell his neighbors all about it, resulting the next year in an\nalarming disposition on their part to keep their own money in their own\npockets; or else it will imprison him, and then by the requisite legal\nprocesses he will demand and secure all the rights of a civil prisoner\nand live thus a decently comfortable life until the State shall get\ntired of supporting him and the increasing number of persons who will\nfollow his example. Unless, indeed, the State, in desperation, shall see\nfit to make its laws regarding imprisonment for taxes more rigorous, and\nthen, if our Anarchist be a determined man, we shall find out how far a\nrepublican government, 'deriving its just powers from the consent of the\ngoverned,' is ready to go to procure that 'consent,'--whether it will\nstop at solitary confinement in a dark cell or join with the czar of\nRussia in administering torture by electricity. The farther it shall go\nthe better it will be for Anarchy, as every student of the history of\nreform well knows. Who shall estimate the power for propagandism of a\nfew cases of this kind, backed by a well-organized force of agitators\noutside the prison walls?\"[836]\n\nAnother method of propaganda consists in \"a practical test of\nAnarchistic principles.\"[837] But this cannot take place in isolated\ncommunities, but only \"in the very heart of existing industrial and\nsocial life.\"[838] \"In some large city fairly representative of the\nvaried interests and characteristics of our heterogeneous civilization\nlet a sufficiently large number of earnest and intelligent Anarchists,\nengaged in nearly all the different trades and professions, combine to\ncarry on their production and distribution on the cost principle,\nand,\"[839] \"setting at defiance the national and State banking\nprohibitions,\"[840] \"to start a bank through which they can obtain a\nnon-interest-bearing currency for the conduct of their commerce and\ndispose their steadily accumulating capital in new enterprises, the\nadvantages of this system of affairs being open to all who should choose\nto offer their patronage,--what would be the result? Why, soon the whole\ncomposite population, wise and unwise, good, bad, and indifferent, would\nbecome interested in what was going on under their very eyes, more and\nmore of them would actually take part in it, and in a few years, each\nman reaping the fruit of his labor and no man able to live in idleness\non an income from capital, the whole city would become a great hive of\nAnarchistic workers, prosperous and free individuals.\"[841]\n\nII. If a sufficient number of persons are convinced that their\nself-interest demands the change, then the time is come to abolish the\nState, transform law and property, and bring about the new condition, by\n\"the Social Revolution,\"[842] _i. e._ by as general a refusal of\nobedience as possible. The State \"is sheer tyranny, and has no rights\nwhich any individual is bound to respect; on the contrary, every\nindividual who understands his rights and values his liberties will do\nhis best to overthrow it.\"[843]\n\n1. Many believe \"that the State cannot disappear until the individual is\nperfected.\n\n\"In saying which, Mr. Appleton joins hands with those wise persons who\nadmit that Anarchy will be practicable when the millennium arrives. No\ndoubt it is true that, if the individual could perfect himself while\nthe barriers to his perfection are standing, the State would afterwards\ndisappear. Perhaps, too, he could go to heaven, if he could lift himself\nby his boot-straps.\"[844] \"'Bullion' thinks that 'civilization consists\nin teaching men to govern themselves and then letting them do it.' A\nvery slight change suffices to make this stupid statement an entirely\naccurate one, after which it would read: 'Civilization consists in\nteaching men to govern themselves by letting them do it.'\"[845]\nTherefore it is necessary to \"abolish the State\"[846] by \"the impending\nsocial revolution.\"[847]\n\n2. Others have the \"fallacious idea that Anarchy can be inaugurated by\nforce.\"[848]\n\nIn what way it is to be inaugurated is solely a question of\n\"expediency.\"[849] \"To brand the policy of terrorism and assassination\nas immoral is ridiculously weak. 'Liberty' does not assume to set any\nlimit on the right of an invaded individual to choose his own methods of\ndefence. The invader, whether an individual or a government, forfeits\nall claim to consideration from the invaded. This truth is independent\nof the character of the invasion. It makes no difference in what\ndirection the individual finds his freedom arbitrarily limited; he has a\nright to vindicate it in any case, and he will be justified in\nvindicating it by whatever means are available.\"[850]\n\n\"The right to resist oppression by violence is beyond doubt. But its\nexercise would be unwise unless the suppression of free thought, free\nspeech, and a free press were enforced so stringently that all other\nmeans of throwing it off had become hopeless.\"[851] \"If government\nshould be abruptly and entirely abolished to-morrow, there would\nprobably ensue a series of physical conflicts about land and many other\nthings, ending in reaction and a revival of the old tyranny. But, if the\nabolition of government shall take place gradually, it will be\naccompanied by a constant acquisition and steady spreading of social\ntruth.\"[852]\n\n3. The social revolution is to come about by passive resistance; that\nis, refusal of obedience.[853]\n\n\"Passive resistance is the most potent weapon ever wielded by man\nagainst oppression.\"[854] \"'Passive resistance,' said Ferdinand\nLassalle, with an obtuseness thoroughly German, 'is the resistance which\ndoes not resist.' Never was there a greater mistake. It is the only\nresistance which in these days of military discipline meets with any\nresult. There is not a tyrant in the civilized world to-day who would\nnot do anything in his power to precipitate a bloody revolution rather\nthan see himself confronted by any large fraction of his subjects\ndetermined not to obey. An insurrection is easily quelled, but no army\nis willing or able to train its guns on inoffensive people who do not\neven gather in the street but stay at home and stand back on their\nrights.\"[855]\n\n\"Power feeds on its spoils, and dies when its victims refuse to be\ndespoiled. They can't persuade it to death; they can't vote it to death;\nthey can't shoot it to death; but they can always starve it to death.\nWhen a determined body of people, sufficiently strong in numbers and\nforce of character to command respect and make it unsafe to imprison\nthem, shall agree to quietly close their doors in the faces of the\ntax-collector and the rent-collector, and shall, by issuing their own\nmoney in defiance of legal prohibition, at the same time cease paying\ntribute to the money-lord, government, with all the privileges which it\ngrants and the monopolies which it sustains, will go by the board.\"[856]\n\nConsider \"the enormous and utterly irresistible power of a large and\nintelligent minority, comprising say one-fifth of the population in any\ngiven locality,\" refusing to pay taxes.[857] \"I need do no more than\ncall attention to the wonderfully instructive history of the Land League\nmovement in Ireland, the most potent and instantly effective\nrevolutionary force the world has ever known so long as it stood by its\noriginal policy of 'Pay No Rent,' and which lost nearly all its strength\nthe day it abandoned that policy. But it was pursued far enough to show\nthat the British government was utterly powerless before it; and it is\nscarcely too much to say, in my opinion, that, had it been persisted in,\nthere would not to-day be a landlord in Ireland. It is easier to resist\ntaxes in this country than it is to resist rent in Ireland; and such a\npolicy would be as much more potent here than there as the intelligence\nof the people is greater, providing always that you can enlist in it a\nsufficient number of earnest and determined men and women. If one-fifth\nof the people were to resist taxation, it would cost more to collect\ntheir taxes, or try to collect them, than the other four-fifths would\nconsent to pay into the treasury.\"[858]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[655] [Recognized by Tucker as the originator of Anarchism, so far as\nany man can claim this title. See Bailie's life of Warren.]\n\n[656] [At present (1908) a bi-monthly magazine.]\n\n[657] [Or rather a selection.]\n\n[658] Tucker p. 21.\n\n[659] _Ib._ p. 112.\n\n[660] _Ib._ p. 24.\n\n[661] _Ib._ pp. 24, 64.\n\n[662] _Ib._ p. 64.\n\n[663] Tucker p. 35. [This passage refers merely to what it mentions, the\nalleged intent utterly to destroy society. As to identity of interests,\nI believe Tucker's position is that the interest of society is that of\n_almost_ every individual.]\n\n[664] _Ib._ p. 24.\n\n[665] _Ib._ p. 24.\n\n[666] _Ib._ p. 132.\n\n[667] _Ib._ p. 42. [Eltzbacher does not seem to perceive that Tucker\nuses this as a ready-made phrase, coined by Herbert Spencer and\ndesignating Spencer's well-known formula that in justice \"every man has\nfreedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal\nfreedom of any other man.\"]\n\n[668] _Ib._ p. 41.\n\n[669] _Ib._ p. 64.\n\n[670] Tucker p. 35. [This citation is again irrelevant, but Eltzbacher's\nmisapplication of it does not misrepresent Tucker's views.]\n\n[671] _Ib._ p. 65.\n\n[672] _Ib._ p. 15.\n\n[673] _Ib._ p. 59. [It should be understood that a great part of\n\"Instead of a Book\" is made up of the reprints of discussions with\nvarious opponents whose language is quoted and alluded to.]\n\n[674] _Ib._ p. 23.\n\n[675] _Ib._ p. 67.\n\n[676] _Ib._ p. 153.\n\n[677] _Ib._ p. 135. [Since the publication of \"Instead of a Book\" Tucker\nhas had a notable discussion of the child question in \"Liberty,\" which,\nwhile developing much disagreement on this point among Tucker's friends,\nhas at least brought definiteness into the judgments passed upon it.]\n\n[678] Tucker p. 78.\n\n[679] _Ib._ p. 23.\n\n[680] _Ib._ p. 23.\n\n[681] _Ib._ p. 59. [The wording of this clause is so thoroughly\nEltzbacher's own that his quotation-marks appear unjustifiable; but the\ndoctrine is Tucker's.]\n\n[682] _Ib._ p. 81.\n\n[683] _Ib._ p. 80.\n\n[684] _Ib._ p. 167.\n\n[685] Tucker p. 23.\n\n[686] _Ib._ pp. 60, 52, 158, 104, 167.\n\n[687] _Ib._ p. 25.\n\n[688] _Ib._ p. 60. [But see below, page 200, where Tucker's page 60 is\nquoted _verbatim_.]\n\n[689] _Ib._ p. 312.\n\n[690] _Ib._ p. 312. [Tucker is not likely to think that he is fairly\nrepresented without a fuller quotation: \"not only the facts, but the\nlaw, the justice of the law, its applicability to the given\ncircumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its\ninfraction.\" He would emphasize \"the justice of the law\"--a juryman will\ndisregard a law that he disapproves. Tucker here prefixes \"All rules and\nlaws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries.\"\nNevertheless the juryman is to be guided by norm and not by caprice: see\n\"Liberty\" Sept. 7, 1895, where he says: \"I am asked by a correspondent\nif I would 'passively see a woman throw her baby into the fire as a man\nthrows his newspaper'. It is highly probable that I would interfere in\nsuch a case. But it is as probable, and perhaps more so, that I would\npersonally interfere to prevent the owner of a masterpiece by Titian\nfrom applying the torch to the canvas. My interference in the former\ncase no more invalidates the mother's property right in her child than\nmy interference in the latter case would invalidate the property right\nof the owner of the painting. If I interfere in either case, I am an\ninvader, acting in obedience to my injured feelings. As such I deserve\nto be punished. I consider that it would be the duty of a policeman in\nthe service of the defence association to arrest me for assault. On my\narraignment I should plead guilty, and it would be the duty of the jury\nto impose a penalty on me. I might ask for a light sentence on the\nstrength of the extenuating circumstances, and I believe that my prayer\nwould be heeded. But, if such invasions as mine were persisted in, it\nwould become the duty of the jury to impose penalties sufficiently\nsevere to put a stop to them.\"]\n\n[691] Tucker p. 312.\n\n[692] _Ib._ p. 52.\n\n[693] _Ib._ pp. 156-7. [Compare the exact words of this passage as\nquoted on page 200 below.]\n\n[694] _Ib._ p. 131. [Not _verbatim_.]\n\n[695] _Ib._ p. 60.\n\n[696] _Ib._ p. 61.\n\n[697] Tucker p. 52.\n\n[698] _Ib._ p. 24.\n\n[699] _Ib._ pp. 146, 350.\n\n[700] _Ib._ p. 48.\n\n[701] _Ib._ p. 48.\n\n[702] _Ib._ p. 158.\n\n[703] _Ib._ p. 51.\n\n[704] _Ib._ p. 158.\n\n[705] Tucker pp. 157-8.\n\n[706] _Ib._ p. 25.\n\n[707] _Ib._ p. 22.\n\n[708] _Ib._ p. 23.\n\n[709] _Ib._ p. 23.\n\n[710] Tucker p. 22.\n\n[711] _Ib._ p. 23.\n\n[712] _Ib._ p. 169.\n\n[713] _Ib._ p. 115. [The words are Lucien V. Pinney's, but Tucker quotes\nthem approvingly.]\n\n[714] _Ib._ pp. 426-7.\n\n[715] _Ib._ p. 57.\n\n[716] _Ib._ p. 25.\n\n[717] Tucker pp. 25-6.\n\n[718] _Ib._ p. 57.\n\n[719] _Ib._ p. 26.\n\n[720] _Ib._ p. [32-]33.\n\n[721] Tucker p. 54.\n\n[722] _Ib._ p. 53.\n\n[723] _Ib._ pp. 26-7.\n\n[724] _Ib._ pp. 158-9.\n\n[725] Tucker p. 44. [See my note below, page 195.]\n\n[726] _Ib._ p. 35.\n\n[727] _Ib._ p. 321.\n\n[728] _Ib._ p. 32.\n\n[729] _Ib._ p. 44. [Or rather p. 167, and sundry other passages; on p.\n44 see my note below, page 195.]\n\n[730] _Ib._ p. 342.\n\n[731] _Ib._ p. 48.\n\n[732] Tucker pp. 44-5. [All this is a discussion of the characteristics\nwhich the State of to-day would have to possess if it were to deserve to\nbe characterized as a voluntary association. The same conditions must of\ncourse be fulfilled by any future voluntary association; but it does not\nfollow that all the points mentioned are such as Anarchistic\nassociations would have most occasion to contemplate.]\n\n[733] Tucker p. 56.\n\n[734] _Ib._ pp. 56-7.\n\n[735] _Ib._ p. 24.\n\n[736] _Ib._ p. 44. [For context and limitations see page 195 of the\npresent book.]\n\n[737] _Ib._ p. 158.\n\n[738] _Ib._ p. 32. [It is not necessary that taxation exist, though it\nmay be altogether presumable that it will. Still less is it necessary\nthat the taxation be considerable in amount.]\n\n[739] Tucker pp. 36-7.\n\n[740] _Ib._ p. 37.\n\n[741] _Ib._ p. 43.\n\n[742] Tucker p. 414.\n\n[743] _Ib._ p. 159. [Tucker himself would assuredly have given the\nemphasis of \"especially\" to the mutual banks. The defensive associations\nreceive especially frequent mention because of the need of incessantly\nanswering the objection \"If we lose the State, who will protect us\nagainst ruffians?\" but Tucker certainly expects that the defensive\nassociation will from the start fill a much smaller sphere in every\nrespect than the present police. See _e. g._ \"Instead of a Book\" p. 40.]\n\n[744] _Ib._ p. 25.\n\n[745] _Ib._ p. 25.\n\n[746] _Ib._ p. 52.\n\n[747] _Ib._ p. 40.\n\n[748] Tucker p. 32.\n\n[749] _Ib._ pp. 326-7.\n\n[750] _Ib._ p. 36.\n\n[751] _Ib._ p. 167. [But the restraint of aggressions against those with\nwhom the association has no contract, and also the possible refusal to\npay any attention to some particular class of aggressions which it may\nbe thought best to let alone, are optional; in these respects the\nassociation will do what seems best to serve the interests (including\nthe pleasure, altruistic or other) of its members; those who do not\napprove the policy adopted may quit the association if they like.]\n\n[752] Tucker p. 39.\n\n[753] _Ib._ p. 55 [where Tucker explicitly refuses to approve this\nstatement unless he is allowed to add the caveat \"if by the words wrong\ndoing is meant invasion\"].\n\n[754] _Ib._ p. 56.\n\n[755] _Ib._ p. 56.\n\n[756] _Ib._ pp. 156-7. [But accompanied by a disapproval of the ordinary\npractice of capital punishment.]\n\n[757] _Ib._ p. 60 [where the particular torture under discussion is\nfailure to \"feed, clothe, and make comfortable\" the prisoners].\n\n[758] _Ib._ p. 312. [But \"Anarchism, as such, neither believes nor\ndisbelieves in jury trial; it is a matter of expediency,\" pp. 55-6.]\n\n[759] Tucker p. 56.\n\n[760] _Ib._ p. 312.\n\n[761] _Ib._ p. 26.\n\n[762] _Ib._ p. 178.\n\n[763] _Ib._ pp. 178, 177.\n\n[764] _Ib._ p. 241.\n\n[765] _Ib._ p. 177. [This is given as an answer to the question here\nquoted next, about \"surplus wealth.\"]\n\n[766] _Ib._ p. 177. [Quoted from N. Y. \"Truth.\"]\n\n[767] _Ib._ p. 178.\n\n[768] Tucker p. 178.\n\n[769] _Ib._ p. 178. [Not _verbatim_.]\n\n[770] _Ib._ p. 11.\n\n[771] Tucker p. 11.\n\n[772] _Ib._ p. 12.\n\n[773] _Ib._ p. 12.\n\n[774] _Ib._ p. 12.\n\n[775] _Ib._ p. 178.\n\n[776] _Ib._ p. 12. [This is given as the view of Proudhon and Warren;\nthe next sentence states Tucker's belief that for perfect correctness it\nshould be modified by admitting that a small fraction of ground-rent,\ntending constantly to a minimum, would persist even then, but would be\nno cause for \"serious alarm.\"]\n\n[777] Tucker pp. 12-13.\n\n[778] _Ib._ p. 12.\n\n[779] _Ib._ p. 13.\n\n[780] _Ib._ pp. 12-13, 178.\n\n[781] _Ib._ pp. 59-60.\n\n[782] Tucker p. 67.\n\n[783] _Ib._ p. 131.\n\n[784] _Ib._ p. 185. [Quoted, with express approval, from A. B. Brown.]\n\n[785] _Ib._ p. 60.\n\n[786] _Ib._ p. 61.\n\n[787] _Ib._ p. 178.\n\n[788] _Ib._ p. 273.\n\n[789] _Ib._ p. 274.\n\n[790] _Ib._ p. 374.\n\n[791] Tucker p. 272.\n\n[792] _Ib._ p. 198.\n\n[793] _Ib._ p. 248.\n\n[794] _Ib._ p. 226.\n\n[795] _Ib._ p. 474.\n\n[796] Tucker p. 287.\n\n[797] _Ib._ pp. 274-5.\n\n[798] _Ib._ p. 287.\n\n[799] _Ib._ p. 178.\n\n[800] _Ib._ p. 11.\n\n[801] _Ib._ p. 243.\n\n[802] _Ib._ p. 275.\n\n[803] _Ib._ p. 299.\n\n[804] _Ib._ p. 325.\n\n[805] _Ib._ p. 275.\n\n[806] _Ib._ p. 325. [Meaning, of course, John Stuart Mill's \"unearned\nincrement\" in the value of land.]\n\n[807] _Ib._ pp. 12-13.\n\n[808] Tucker pp. 474, 178.\n\n[809] _Ib._ p. 12.\n\n[810] _Ib._ p. 13.\n\n[811] _Ib._ p. 403.\n\n[812] _Ib._ p. 403.\n\n[813] _Ib._ p. 470.\n\n[814] _Ib._ p. 362. [\"Socialism\" is here used as including Anarchism;\nand Tucker prefers so to use the word.]\n\n[815] _Ib._ p. [347-]348.\n\n[816] Tucker pp. 332-3.\n\n[817] _Ib._ p. 333.\n\n[818] _Ib._ p. 348.\n\n[819] Tucker p. 104.\n\n[820] _Ib._ p. 114.\n\n[821] _Ib._ pp. 77-8.\n\n[822] _Ib._ p. 416.\n\n[823] Tucker pp. 397, 413.\n\n[824] _Ib._ p. 413.\n\n[825] _Ib._ p. 397.\n\n[826] _Ib._ p. 428.\n\n[827] _Ib._ p. 428 [where the subject is not \"violence\" of all sorts\ngreat and small, but \"terrorism and assassination\"].\n\n[828] _Ib._ p. 439.\n\n[829] Tucker p. 397.\n\n[830] _Ib._ p. 428.\n\n[831] _Ib._ p. 440.\n\n[832] _Ib._ p. 428 [with limiting context quoted above, page 211].\n\n[833] _Ib._ p. 440.\n\n[834] _Ib._ p. 45.\n\n[835] _Ib._ p. 45 [where nothing is said as to whether the work is the\nbetter or the worse for being \"isolated\"].\n\n[836] Tucker p. 412.\n\n[837] _Ib._ p. 423.\n\n[838] _Ib._ p. 423.\n\n[839] _Ib._ p. 423.\n\n[840] Tucker p. 27.\n\n[841] _Ib._ pp. 423-4.\n\n[842] _Ib._ pp. 416, 439.\n\n[843] _Ib._ p. 45.\n\n[844] Tucker p. 114.\n\n[845] _Ib._ p. 158.\n\n[846] _Ib._ p. 114.\n\n[847] _Ib._ p. 487.\n\n[848] _Ib._ p. 427.\n\n[849] _Ib._ p. 429.\n\n[850] _Ib._ pp. 428-9.\n\n[851] Tucker p. 439.\n\n[852] _Ib._ p. 329 [where the course it must take is somewhat more\nprecisely described].\n\n[853] _Ib._ p. 413.\n\n[854] _Ib._ p. 415.\n\n[855] _Ib._ p. 413.\n\n[856] Tucker pp. 415-16.\n\n[857] _Ib._ p. 412.\n\n[858] Tucker pp. 412-13. [This chapter should be completed by a mention\nof Tucker's doctrine that we must expect Anarchy to be established by\ngradually getting rid of one oppression after another till at last all\nthe domination of violence shall have disappeared. See, for instance,\n\"Liberty\" for December, 1900: \"The fact is that Anarchist society was\nstarted thousands of years ago, when the first glimmer of the idea of\nliberty dawned upon the human mind, and has been advancing ever\nsince,--not steadily advancing, to be sure, but fitfully, with an\noccasional reversal of the current. Mr. Byington looks upon the time\nwhen a jury of Anarchists shall sit, as a point not far from the\nbeginning of the history of Anarchy's growth, whereas I look upon that\ntime as a point very near the end of that history. The introduction of\nmore Anarchy into our economic life will have made marriage a thing of\nthe past long before the first drawing of a jury of Anarchists to pass\nupon any contract whatever.\" Also \"Instead of a Book\" p. 104:\n\"Anarchists work for the abolition of the State, but by this they mean\nnot its overthrow, but, as Proudhon put it, its dissolution in the\neconomic organism. This being the case, the question before us is not,\nas Mr. Donisthorpe supposes, what measures and means of interference we\nare justified in instituting, but which ones of those already existing\nwe should first lop off.\" Tucker has lately been laying more emphasis on\nthis view than on the more programme-like propositions cited by\nEltzbacher, which date from the first six years of the publication of\n\"Liberty.\" Indeed, I am sure I remember that somewhere lately, being\nchallenged as to the feasibility of some of the latter, he admitted that\nthose precise forms of action might perhaps not be adequate to bring the\nState to its end, and added that the end of the State is at present too\nremote to allow us to specify the processes by which it must ultimately\nbe brought about. All this, however, does not mean that Tucker's faith\nin passive resistance as the most potent instrument discoverable both\nfor propaganda and for the practical winning of liberty has grown\nweaker; he has no more given up this principle than he has given up the\nplan of propaganda by discussion.]\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTOLSTOI'S TEACHING\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\nI. Lef Nikolayevitch Tolstoi was born in 1828 at Yasnaya Polyana,\ndistrict of Krapivna, government of Tula. From 1843 to 1846 he studied\nin Kazan at first oriental languages, then jurisprudence; from 1847 to\n1848, in St. Petersburg, jurisprudence. After a lengthy stay at Yasnaya\nPolyana, he entered an artillery regiment in the Caucasus, in 1851; he\nbecame an officer, remained in the Caucasus till 1853, then served in\nthe Crimean war, and left the army in 1855.\n\nTolstoi now lived at first in St. Petersburg. In 1857 he took a lengthy\ntour in Germany, France, Italy, and Switzerland. After his return he\nlived mostly in Moscow till 1860. In 1860-1861 he traveled in Germany,\nFrance, Italy, England, and Belgium; in Brussels he made the\nacquaintance of Proudhon.\n\nSince 1861 Tolstoi has lived almost uninterruptedly at Yasnaya Polyana,\nas at once agriculturist and author.\n\nTolstoi has published numerous works; his works up to 1878 are mostly\nstories, among which the two novels \"War and Peace\" and \"Anna Karenina\"\nare notable; his later works are mostly of a philosophical nature.\n\n2. Of special importance for Tolstoi's teaching about law, the State,\nand property are his works \"My Confession\" (1879), \"The Gospel in Brief\"\n(1880), \"What I Believe\" (1884) [also known in English as \"My\nReligion\"], \"What Shall We Do Then?\" (1885), \"On Life\" (1887), \"The\nKingdom of God is Within You; or, Christianity not a mystical doctrine,\nbut a new life-conception\" (1893).\n\n3. Tolstoi does not call his teaching about law, the State, and property\n\"Anarchism.\" He designates as \"Anarchism\" the teaching which sets up as\nits goal a life without government and wishes to see this realized by\nthe application of force.[859]\n\n\n2.--BASIS\n\n_According to Tolstoi our supreme law is love; from this he derives the\ncommandment not to resist evil by force._\n\n1. Tolstoi designates \"Christianity\"[860] as his basis; but by\nChristianity he means not the doctrine of one of the Christian churches,\nneither the Orthodox nor the Catholic nor that of any of the Protestant\nbodies,[861] but the pure teaching of Christ.[862]\n\n\"Strange as it may sound, the churches have always been not merely alien\nbut downright hostile to the teaching of Christ, and they must needs be\nso. The churches are not, as many think, institutions that are based on\na Christian origin and have only erred a little from the right way; the\nchurches as such, as associations that assert their infallibility, are\nanti-Christian institutions. The Christian churches and Christianity\nhave no fellowship except in name; nay, the two are utterly opposite and\nhostile elements. The churches are arrogance, violence, usurpation,\nrigidity, death; Christianity is humility, penitence, submissiveness,\nprogress, life.\"[863] The church has \"so transformed Christ's teaching\nto suit the world that there no longer resulted from it any demands, and\nthat men could go on living as they had hitherto lived. The church\nyielded to the world, and, having yielded, followed it. The world did\neverything that it chose, and left the church to hobble after as well as\nit could with its teachings about the meaning of life. The world led its\nlife, contrary to Christ's teaching in each and every point, and the\nchurch contrived subtleties to demonstrate that in living contrary to\nChrist's law men were living in harmony with it. And it ended in the\nworld's beginning to lead a life worse than the life of the heathen, and\nthe church's daring not only to justify such a life but even to assert\nthat this was precisely what corresponded to Christ's teaching.\"[864]\n\nParticularly different from Christ's teaching is the church\n\"creed,\"[865]--that is, the totality of the utterly incomprehensible and\ntherefore useless \"dogmas.\"[866] \"Of a God, external creator, origin of\nall origins, we know nothing\";[867] \"God is the spirit in man,\"[868]\n\"his conscience,\"[869] \"the knowledge of life\";[870] \"every man\nrecognizes in himself a free rational spirit independent of the flesh:\nthis spirit is what we call God.\"[871] Christ was a man,[872] \"the son\nof an unknown father; as he did not know his father, in his childhood he\ncalled God his father\";[873] and he was a son of God as to his spirit,\nas every man is a son of God,[874] he embodied \"Man confessing his\nsonship of God.\"[875] Those who \"assert that Christ professed to redeem\nwith his blood mankind fallen by Adam, that God is a trinity, that the\nHoly Spirit descended upon the apostles and that it passes to the priest\nby the laying on of hands, that seven mysteries are necessary to\nsalvation, and so forth,\"[876] \"preach doctrines utterly alien to\nChrist.\"[877] \"Never did Christ with a single word attest the personal\nresurrection and the immortality of man beyond the grave,\"[878] which\nindeed is \"a very low and coarse idea\";[879] the Ascension and the\nResurrection are to be counted among \"the most objectionable\nmiracles.\"[880]\n\nTolstoi accepts Christ's teaching as valid not on the ground of faith in\na revelation, but solely for its rationality. Faith in a revelation \"was\nthe main reason why the teaching was at first misunderstood and later\nmutilated outright.\"[881] Faith in Christ is \"not a trusting in\nsomething related to Christ, but the knowledge of the truth.\"[882]\n\n\"'There is a law of evolution, and therefore one must live only his own\npersonal life and leave the rest to the law of evolution,' is the last\nword of the refined culture of our day, and, at the same time, of that\nobscuration of consciousness to which the cultured classes are a\nprey.\"[883] But \"human life, from getting up in the morning to going to\nbed at night, is an unbroken series of actions; man must daily choose\nout from hundreds of actions possible to him those actions which he will\nperform; therefore, man cannot live without something to guide the\nchoice of his actions.\"[884] Now, reason alone can offer him this guide.\n\"Reason is that law, recognized by man, according to which his life is\nto be accomplished.\"[885] \"If there is no higher reason,--and such there\nis not, nor can anything prove its existence,--then my reason is the\nsupreme judge of my life.\"[886] \"The ever-increasing subjugation\"[887]\n\"of the bestial personality to the rational consciousness\"[888] is \"the\ntrue life,\"[889] is \"life\"[890] as opposed to mere \"existence.\"[891]\n\n\"It used to be said, 'Do not argue, but believe in the duty that we have\nprescribed to you; reason will deceive you; faith alone will bring you\nthe true happiness of life.' And the man exerted himself to believe, and\nhe believed. But intercourse with other men showed him that in many\ncases these believed something quite different, and asserted that this\nother faith bestowed the highest happiness. It has become unavoidable to\ndecide the question which of the many faiths is the right one; and only\nreason can decide this.\"[892] \"If the Buddhist who has learned to know\nIslam remains a Buddhist, he is no longer a Buddhist in faith but in\nreason. As soon as another faith comes up before him, and with it the\nquestion whether to reject his faith or this other, reason alone can\ngive him an answer. If he has learned to know Islam and has still\nremained a Buddhist, then rational conviction has taken the place of his\nformer blind faith in Buddha.\"[893] \"Man recognizes truth only by\nreason, not by faith.\"[894]\n\n\"The law of reason reveals itself to men gradually.\"[895] \"Eighteen\nhundred years ago there appeared in the midst of the pagan Roman world a\nremarkable new teaching, which was not comparable to any that had\npreceded it, and which was ascribed to a man called Christ.\"[896] This\nteaching contains \"the very strictest, purest, and completest\"[897]\napprehension of the law of reason to which \"the human mind has hitherto\nraised itself.\"[898] Christ's teaching is \"reason itself\";[899] it must\nbe accepted by men because it alone gives those rules of life \"without\nwhich no man ever has lived or can live, if he would live as a\nman,--that is, with reason.\"[900] Man has, \"on the basis of reason, no\nright to refuse allegiance to it.\"[901]\n\n2. Christ's teaching sets up love as the supreme law for us.\n\nWhat is love? \"What men who do not understand life call 'love' is only\nthe giving to certain conditions of their personal comfort a preference\nover any others. When the man who does not understand life says that he\nloves his wife or child or friend, he means by this only that his\nwife's, child's, or friend's presence in his life heightens his personal\ncomfort.\"[902]\n\n\"True love is always renunciation of one's personal comfort\"[903] for a\nneighbor's sake. True love \"is a condition of wishing well to all men,\nsuch as commonly characterizes children but is produced in grown men\nonly by self-abnegation.\"[904] \"What living man does not know the happy\nfeeling, even if he has felt it only once and in most cases only in\nearliest childhood, of that emotion in which one wishes to love\neverybody, neighbors and father and mother and brothers and bad men and\nenemies and dog and horse and grass; one wishes only one thing, that it\nwere well with all, that all were happy; and still more does one wish\nthat he were himself capable of making all happy, one wishes he might\ngive himself, give his whole life, that all might be well off and enjoy\nthemselves. Just this, this alone, is that love in which man's life\nconsists.\"[905]\n\nTrue love is \"an ideal of full, infinite, divine perfection.\"[906]\n\"Divine perfection is the asymptote of human life, toward which it\nconstantly strives, to which it draws nearer and nearer, but which can\nbe attained only at infinity.\"[907] \"True life, according to previous\nteachings, consists in the fulfilling of commandments, the fulfilling of\nthe law; according to Christ's teaching it consists in the maximum\napproach to the divine perfection which has been exhibited, and which is\nfelt in himself by every man.\"[908]\n\nAccording to the teaching of Christ, love is our highest law. \"The\ncommandment of love is the expression of the inmost heart of the\nteaching.\"[909] There are \"three conceptions of life, and only three:\nfirst the personal or bestial, second the social or heathenish,\"[910]\n\"third the Christian or divine.\"[911] The man of the bestial conception\nof life, \"the savage, acknowledges life only in himself; the mainspring\nof his life is personal enjoyment. The heathenish, social man recognizes\nlife no longer in himself alone, but in a community of persons, in the\ntribe, the family, the race, the State; the mainspring of his life is\nreputation. The man of the divine conception of life acknowledges life\nno longer in his person, nor yet in a community of persons, but in the\nprime source of eternal, never-dying life--in God; the mainspring of his\nlife is love.\"[912]\n\nThat love is our supreme law according to Christ's teaching means\nnothing else than that it is such according to reason. As early as 1852\nTolstoi gives utterance to the thought \"That love and beneficence are\ntruth is the only truth on earth,\"[913] and much later, in 1887, he\ncalls love \"man's only rational activity,\"[914] that which \"resolves all\nthe contradictions of human life.\"[915] Love abolishes the insensate\nactivity directed to the filling of the bottomless tub of our bestial\npersonality,[916] does away with the foolish fight between beings that\nstrive after their own happiness,[917] gives a meaning independent of\nspace and time to life, which without it would flow off without meaning\nin the face of death.[918]\n\n3. From the law of love Christ's teaching derives the commandment not to\nresist evil by force. \"'Resist not evil' means 'never resist the evil\nman', that is, 'never do violence to another', that is, 'never commit an\nact that is contrary to love'.\"[919]\n\nChrist expressly derived this commandment from the law of love. He gave\nnumerous commandments, among which five in the Sermon on the Mount are\nnotable; \"these commandments do not constitute the teaching, they only\nform one of the numberless stages of approach to perfection\";[920] they\n\"are all negative, and only show\"[921] what \"at mankind's present\nage\"[922] we \"have already the full possibility of not doing, along the\nroad by which we are striving to reach perfection.\"[923] The first of\nthe five commandments of the Sermon on the Mount reads \"Keep the peace\nwith all, and if the peace is broken use every effort to restore\nit\";[924] the second says \"Let the man take only one woman and the woman\nonly one man, and let neither forsake the other under any pretext\";[925]\nthe third, \"make no vows\";[926] the fourth, \"endure injury, return not\nevil for evil\";[927] the fifth, \"break not the peace to benefit thy\npeople.\"[928] Among these commandments the fourth is the most important;\nit is enunciated in the fifth chapter of Matthew, verses 38-9: \"Ye have\nheard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I say to\nyou, Resist not evil.\"[929] Tolstoi tells how to him this passage\n\"became the key of the whole.\"[930] \"I needed only to take these words\nsimply and downrightly, as they were spoken, and at once everything in\nChrist's whole teaching that had seemed confused to me, not only in the\nSermon on the Mount but in the Gospels altogether, was comprehensible to\nme, and everything that had been contradictory agreed, and the main gist\nappeared no longer useless but a necessity; everything formed a whole,\nand the one confirmed the other past a doubt, like the pieces of a\nshattered column that one has rightly put together.\"[931] The principle\nof non-resistance binds together \"the entire teaching into a whole; but\nonly when it is no mere dictum but a peremptory rule, a law.\"[932] \"It\nis really the key that opens everything, but only when it goes into the\ninmost of the lock.\"[933]\n\nWe must necessarily derive the commandment not to resist evil by force\nfrom the law of love. For this demands that either a sure, indisputable\ncriterion of evil be found, or all violent resistance to evil be\nabandoned.[934] \"Hitherto it has been the business now of the pope, now\nof an emperor or king, now of an assembly of elected representatives,\nnow of the whole nation, to decide what was to be rated as an evil and\ncombated by violent resistance. But there have always been men, both\nwithout and within the State, who have not acknowledged as binding upon\nthem either the decisions that were given out as divine commandments or\nthe decisions of the men who were clothed with sanctity or the\ninstitutions that were supposed to represent the will of the people; men\nwho regarded as good what to the powers that be appeared evil, and who,\nin opposition to the force of these powers, likewise made use of force.\nThe men who were clothed with sanctity regarded as an evil what appeared\ngood to the men and institutions that were clothed with secular\nauthority, and the combat grew ever sharper and sharper. Thus it came to\nwhat it has come to to-day, to the complete obviousness of the fact that\nthere is not and cannot be a generally binding external definition of\nevil.\"[935] But from this follows the necessity of accepting the\nsolution given by Christ.[936]\n\nAccording to Tolstoi, the precept of non-resistance must not be taken\n\"as if it forbade every combat against evil.\"[937] It forbids only the\ncombating of evil by force.[938] But this it forbids in the broadest\nsense. It refers, therefore, not only to evil practised against\nourselves, but also to evil practised against our fellow-men;[939] when\nPeter cut off the ear of the high priest's servant, he was defending\n\"not himself but his beloved divine Teacher, but Christ forbade him\noutright and said 'All who take the sword will perish by the\nsword.'\"[940] Nor does the precept say that only a part of men are under\nobligation \"to submit without a contest to what is prescribed to them\nby certain authorities,\"[941] but it forbids \"everybody, therefore even\nthose in whom power is vested, and these especially, to use force in any\ncase against anybody.\"[942]\n\n\n3.--LAW\n\nI. _For love's sake, particularly on the ground of the commandment not\nto resist evil by force, Tolstoi rejects law; not unconditionally,\nindeed, but as an institution for the more highly developed peoples of\nour time._ To be sure, he speaks only of enacted laws; but he means all\nlaw,[943] for he rejects on principle every norm based on the will of\nmen,[944] upheld by human force,[945] especially by courts,[946] capable\nof deviating from the moral law,[947] of being different in different\nterritories,[948] and of being at any time arbitrarily changed.[949]\n\nPerhaps once upon a time law was better than its non-existence. Law is\n\"upheld by violence\";[950] on the other hand, it guards against violence\nof individuals to each other;[951] perhaps there was once a time when\nthe former violence was less than the latter.[952] Now, at any rate,\nthis time is past for us; manners have grown milder; the men of our time\n\"acknowledge the commandments of philanthropy, of sympathy with one's\nneighbor, and ask only the possibility of quiet, peaceable life.\"[953]\n\nLaw offends against the commandment not to resist evil by force.[954]\nChrist declared this. The words \"Judge not, that ye be not judged\"\n(Matt. 7.1), \"Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned\" (Luke 6.37),\n\"mean not only 'do not judge your neighbor in words,' but also 'do not\ncondemn him by act; do not judge your neighbor according to your human\nlaws by your courts.'\"[955] Christ here speaks not merely \"of every\nindividual's personal relation to the court,\"[956] but rejects \"the\nadministration of law itself.\"[957] \"He says, 'You believe that your\nlaws better the evil; they only make it greater; there is only one way\nto check evil, and this consists in returning good for evil, doing good\nto all without discrimination.'\"[958] And \"my heart and my reason\"[959]\nsay to me the same as Christ says.\n\nBut this is not the only objection to be made against law. \"Authority\ncondemns in the rigid form of law only what public opinion has in most\ncases long since disallowed and condemned; withal, public opinion\ndisallows and condemns all actions that are contrary to the moral law,\nbut the law condemns and prosecutes only the actions included within\ncertain quite definite and very narrow limits, and thereby, in a\nmeasure, justifies all similar actions that do not come within these\nlimits. Ever since Moses's day public opinion has regarded selfishness,\nsensuality, and cruelty as evils and has condemned it; it has repudiated\nand condemned every form of selfishness, not only the appropriation of\nothers' property by force, fraud, or guile, but exploitation\naltogether; it has condemned every sort of unchastity, be it with a\nconcubine, a slave, a divorced woman, or even with one's own wife; it\nhas condemned all cruelty, as it finds expression in the ill-treating,\nstarving, and killing not only of men but of animals too. But the law\nprosecutes only particular forms of selfishness, like theft and fraud,\nand only particular forms of unchastity and cruelty, like marital\ninfidelity, murder, and mayhem; therefore, in a measure, it permits all\nthe forms of selfishness, unchastity, and cruelty that do not come under\nits narrow definitions inspired by a false conception.\"[960]\n\n\"The Jew could easily submit to his laws, for he did not doubt that they\nwere written by God's finger; likewise the Roman, as he thought they\noriginated from the nymph Egeria; and man in general so long as he\nregarded the princes who gave him laws as God's anointed, or believed\nthat the legislating assemblies had the wish and the capacity to make\nthe best laws.\"[961] But \"as early as the time when Christianity made\nits appearance men were beginning to comprehend that human laws were\nwritten by men; that men, whatever outward splendor may enshroud them,\ncannot be infallible, and that erring men do not become infallible even\nby getting together and calling themselves 'Senate' or something\nelse.\"[962] \"We know how laws are made; we have all been behind the\nscenes; we all know that the laws are products of selfishness,\ndeception, partisanship, that true justice does not and cannot dwell in\nthem.\"[963] Therefore \"the recognition of any special laws is a sign of\nthe crassest ignorance.\"[964]\n\nII. _Love requires that in place of law it itself be the law for men._\nFrom this it follows that instead of law Christ's commandments should be\nour rule of action.[965] But this is \"the Kingdom of God on earth.\"[966]\n\n\"When the day and the hour of the Kingdom of God appear, depends on men\nthemselves alone.\"[967] \"Each must only begin to do what we must do, and\ncease to do what we must not do, and the near future will bring the\npromised Kingdom of God.\"[968] \"If only everybody would bear witness, in\nthe measure of his strength, to the truth that he knows, or at least not\ndefend as truth the untruth in which he lives, then in this very year\n1893 there would take place such changes toward the setting up of truth\non earth as we dare not dream of for centuries to come.\"[969] \"Only a\nlittle effort more, and the Galilean has won.\"[970]\n\nThe Kingdom of God is \"not outside in the world, but in man's\nsoul.\"[971] \"The Kingdom of God cometh not with outward show; neither\nwill men say, 'Lo here!' or, 'There!' for, behold, the kingdom of God is\nwithin you (Luke 17.20).\"[972] The Kingdom of God is nothing else than\nthe following of Christ's commandments, especially the five commandments\nof the Sermon on the Mount,[973] which tell us how we must act in our\npresent stage in order to correspond to the ideal of love as much as\npossible,[974] and which command us to keep the peace and do everything\nfor its restoration when it is broken, to remain true to one another as\nman and wife, to make no vows, to forgive injury and not return evil for\nevil, and, finally, not to break the peace with anybody for our people's\nsake.[975]\n\nBut what form will outward life take in the Kingdom of God? \"The\ndisciple of Christ will be poor; that is, he will not live in the city\nbut in the country; he will not sit at home, but work in wood and field,\nsee the sunshine, the earth, the sky, and the beasts; he will not worry\nover what he is to eat to tempt his appetite, and what he can do to help\nhis digestion, but will be hungry three times a day; he will not roll on\nsoft cushions and think upon deliverance from insomnia, but sleep; he\nwill be sick, suffer, and die like all men--the poor who are sick and\ndie seem to have an easier time of it than the rich--\";[976] he \"will\nlive in free fellowship with all men\";[977] \"the Kingdom of God on earth\nis the peace of men with each other; thus it appeared to the prophets,\nand thus it appears to every human heart.\"[978]\n\n\n4.--THE STATE\n\nII. _Together with law Tolstoi necessarily has to reject also, for the\nmore highly developed nations of our time, the legal institution of the\nState._\n\n\"Perhaps there was once a time when, in a low state of morality with a\ngeneral inclination of men to mutual violence, the existence of a power\nlimiting this violence was advantageous--that is, in which the State\nviolence was less than that of individuals against each other. But such\nan advantage of State violence over its non-existence could not last;\nthe more the individuals' inclination to violence decreased and manners\ngrew milder, and the more the governments degenerated by having nothing\nto check them, the more worthless did State violence grow. In this\nchange--in the moral evolution of the masses on the one hand and the\ndegeneration of the governments on the other--lies the whole history of\nthe last two thousand years.\"[979] \"I cannot prove either the general\nnecessity of the State or its general perniciousness,\"[980] \"I know only\nthat on the one hand the State is no longer necessary for me, and that\non the other hand I can no longer do the things that are necessary for\nthe existence of the State.\"[981]\n\n\"Christianity in its true significance abolishes the State,\"[982]\nannihilates all government.[983] The State offends against love,\nparticularly against the commandment not to resist evil by force.[984]\nAnd not only this; in founding a dominion[985] the State furthermore\noffends against the principle that for love \"all men are God's sons and\nthere is equality among them all\";[986] it is therefore to be rejected\neven aside from the violence on which it is based as a legal\ninstitution. \"That the Christian teaching has an eye only to the\nredemption of the individual, and does not relate to public questions\nand State affairs, is a bold and unfounded assertion.\"[987] \"To every\nhonest, earnest man in our time it must be clear that true\nChristianity--the doctrine of humility, forgiveness, love--is\nincompatible with the State and its haughtiness, its deeds of violence,\nits capital punishments and wars.\"[988] \"The State is an idol\";[989] its\nobjectionableness is independent of its form, be this \"absolute\nmonarchy, the Convention, the Consulate, the empire of a first or third\nNapoleon or yet of a Boulanger, constitutional monarchy, the Commune, or\nthe republic.\"[990]--Tolstoi carries this out into detail.\n\n1. The State is the rule of the bad, raised to the highest pitch.\n\nThe State is rule. Government in the State is \"an association of men who\ndo violence to the rest.\"[991]\n\n\"All governments, the despotic and the liberal alike, have in our time\nbecome what Herzen has so aptly called a Jenghis Khan with\ntelegraphs.\"[992] The men in whom the power is vested \"practise violence\nnot in order to overcome evil, but solely for their advantage or from\ncaprice; and the other men submit to the violence not because they\nbelieve that it is practised for their good,--that is, in order to\nliberate them from evil,--but only because they cannot free themselves\nfrom it.\"[993] \"If Nice is united with France, Lorraine with Germany,\nBohemia with Austria, if Poland is divided, if both Ireland and India\nare subjected to the English dominion, if people fight with China, kill\nthe Africans, expel the Chinese from America, and persecute the Jews in\nRussia, it is not because this is good or necessary or useful for men\nand the opposite would be evil, but only because it so pleases those in\nwhom the power is vested.\"[994]\n\nThe State is the rule of the bad.[995] \"'If the State power were to be\nannihilated, the wicked would rule over the less wicked,' say the\ndefenders of State rule.\"[996] But has the power, when it has passed\nfrom some men to some others in the State, really always come to the\nbetter men? \"When Louis the Sixteenth, Robespierre, Napoleon, came to\npower, who ruled then, the better or the worse? When did the better\nrule, when the power was vested in the Versaillese or in the Communards,\nwhen Charles the First or Cromwell stood at the head of the government?\nWhen Peter the Third was czar, and then when after his murder the\nauthority of czar was exercised in one part of Russia by Catharine and\nin another by Pugatcheff, who was wicked then and who was good? All men\nwho find themselves in power assert that their power is necessary in\norder that the wicked may not do violence to the good, and regard it as\nself-evident that they are the good and are giving the rest of the good\nprotection against the bad.\"[997] But in reality those who grasp and\nhold the power cannot possibly be the better.[998] \"In order to obtain\nand retain power, one must love it. But the effort after power is not\napt to be coupled with goodness, but with the opposite qualities, pride,\ncraft, and cruelty. Without exalting self and abasing others, without\nhypocrisy, lying, prisons, fortresses, penalties, killing, no power can\narise or hold its own.\"[999] \"It is downright ridiculous to speak of\nChristians in power.\"[1000] To this it is to be added \"that the\npossession of power depraves men.\"[1001] \"The men who have the power\ncannot but misuse it; they must infallibly be unsettled by such\nfrightful authority.\"[1002] \"However many means men have invented to\nhinder the possessors of power from subordinating the welfare of the\nwhole to their own advantage, hitherto not one of these means has\nworked. Everybody knows that those in whose hands is the power--be they\nemperors, ministers, chiefs of police, or common policemen--are, just\nbecause the power is in their hands, more inclined to immorality, to the\nsubordinating of the general welfare to their advantage, than those who\nhave no power; nor can it be otherwise.\"[1003]\n\nThe State is the rule of the bad, raised to the highest pitch. We shall\nalways find \"that the scheming of the possessors of authority--nay,\ntheir unconscious effort--is directed toward weakening the victims of\ntheir authority as much as possible; for, the weaker the victim is, the\nmore easily can he be held down.\"[1004] \"To-day there is only one sphere\nof human activity left that has not been conquered by the authority of\ngovernment: the sphere of the family, of housekeeping, private life,\nlabor. And even this sphere, thanks to the fighting of the Communists\nand Socialists, the governments are already beginning to invade, so that\nsoon, if the reformers have their way, work and rest, housing,\nclothing, and food, will likewise be fixed and regulated by the\ngovernments.\"[1005] \"The most fearful band of robbers is not so horrible\nas a State organization. Every robber chief is at any rate limited by\nthe fact that the men who make up his band retain at least a part of\nhuman liberty, and can refuse to commit acts which are repugnant to\ntheir consciences.\"[1006] But in the State there is no such limit; \"no\ncrime is so horrible that it will not be committed by the officials and\nthe army at the will of him--Boulanger, Pugatcheff, Napoleon--who\naccidentally stands at the head.\"[1007]\n\n2. The rule in the State is based on physical force.\n\nEvery government has for its prop the fact that there are in the State\narmed men who are ready to execute the government's will by physical\nforce, a class \"educated to kill those whose killing the authorities\ncommand.\"[1008] Such men are the police[1009] and especially the\narmy.[1010] The army is nothing else than a collectivity of \"disciplined\nmurderers\",[1011] its training is \"instruction in murdering\",[1012] its\nvictories are \"deeds of murder.\"[1013] \"The army has always formed the\nbasis of power, and does to this day. The power is always in the hands\nof those who command the army, and, from the Roman Caesars to the Russian\nand German emperors, all possessors of power have always cared first and\nforemost for their armies.\"[1014]\n\nIn the first place, the army upholds the government's rule against\nexternal assaults. It protects it against having the rule taken from it\nby another government.[1015] War is nothing but a contest of two or more\ngovernments for the rule over their subjects. It is \"impossible to\nestablish international peace in a rational way, by treaty or\narbitration, so long as the insensate and pernicious subjection of\nnations to governments continues to exist.\"[1016] In consequence of this\nimportance of armies \"every State is compelled to increase its army to\nface the others, and this increase has the effect of a contagion, as\nMontesquieu observed a hundred and fifty years since.\"[1017]\n\nBut, if one thinks armies are kept by governments only for external\ndefence, he forgets \"that governments need armies particularly to\nprotect them against their oppressed and enslaved subjects.\"[1018] \"In\nthe German Reichstag lately, in reply to the question why money was\nneeded in order to increase the pay of the petty officers, the\nchancellor made the direct statement that reliable petty officers were\nnecessary for the combating of Socialism. Caprivi merely said out loud\nwhat everybody knows, carefully as it is concealed from the\npeoples,--the reason why the French kings and the popes kept Swiss and\nScots, why in Russia the recruits are so introduced that the interior\nregiments get their contingents from the frontiers and the frontier\nregiments theirs from the interior. Caprivi told, by accident, what\neverybody knows or at least feels,--to wit, that the existing order\nexists not because it must exist or because the people wills its\nexistence, but because the government's force, the army with its bribed\npetty-officers and officers and generals, keeps it up.\"[1019]\n\n3. The rule in the State is based on the physical force of the ruled.\n\nIt is peculiar to government that it demands from the citizens the very\nforce on which it is based, and that consequently in the State \"all the\ncitizens are their own oppressors.\"[1020] The government demands from\nthe citizens both force and the supporting of force. Here belongs the\nobligation, general in Russia, to take an oath at the czar's accession\nto the throne, for by this oath one vows obedience to the\nauthorities,--that is, to men who are devoted to violence; likewise the\nobligation to pay taxes, for the taxes are used for works of violence,\nand the compulsory use of passports, for by taking out a passport one\nacknowledges his dependence on the State's institution of violence;\nwithal the obligation to testify in court and to take part in the court\nas juryman, for every court is the fulfilment of the commandment of\nrevenge; furthermore, the obligation to police service which in Russia\nrests upon all the country people, for this service demands that we do\nviolence to our brother and torment him; and above all the general\nobligation to military service,--that is, the obligation to be\nexecutioners and to prepare ourselves for service as executioners.[1021]\nThe unchristianness of the State comes to light most plainly in the\ngeneral obligation to military service: \"every man has to take in hand\ndeadly weapons, a gun, a knife; and, if he does not have to kill, at\nleast he does have to load the gun and sharpen the knife,--that is, be\nready for killing.\"[1022]\n\nBut how comes it that the citizens fulfil these demands of the\ngovernment, though the government is based on this very fulfilment, and\nso mutually oppress each other? This is possible only by \"a highly\nartificial organization, created with the help of scientific progress,\nin which all men are bewitched into a circle of violence from which they\ncannot free themselves. At present this circle consists of four means of\ninfluence; they are all connected and hold each other, like the links of\na chain.\"[1023] The first means is \"what is best described as the\nhypnotization of the people.\"[1024] This hypnotization leads men to \"the\nerroneous opinion that the existing order is unchangeable and must be\nupheld, while in reality it is unchangeable only by its being\nupheld.\"[1025] The hypnotization is accomplished \"by fomenting the two\nforms of superstition called religion and patriotism\";[1026] it \"begins\nits influence even in childhood, and continues it till death.\"[1027]\nWith reference to this hypnotization one may say that State authority is\nbased on the fraudulent misleading of public opinion.[1028] The second\nmeans consists in \"bribery; that is, in taking from the laboring\npopulace its wealth, by money taxes, and dividing this among the\nofficials, who, for this pay, must maintain and strengthen the\nenslavement of the people.\"[1029] The officials \"more or less believe in\nthe unchangeability of the existing order, mainly because it benefits\nthem.\"[1030] With reference to this bribery one may say that State\nauthority is based on the selfishness of those to whom it guarantees\nprofitable positions.[1031] The third means is \"intimidation. It\nconsists in setting down the present State order--of whatever sort, be\nit a free republican order or be it the most grossly despotic--as\nsomething sacred and unchangeable, and imposing the most frightful\npenalties upon every attempt to change it.\"[1032] Finally, the fourth\nmeans is to \"separate a certain part of all the men whom they have\nstupefied and bewitched by the three first means, and subject these men\nto special stronger forms of stupefaction and bestialization, so that\nthey become will-less tools of every brutality and cruelty that the\ngovernment sees fit to resolve upon.\"[1033] This is done in the army, to\nwhich, at present, all young men belong by virtue of the general\nobligation to military service.[1034] \"With this the circle of violence\nis made complete. Intimidation, bribery, hypnosis, bring men to enlist\nas soldiers. The soldiers, in turn, afford the possibility of punishing\nmen, plundering them in order to bribe officials with the money,\nhypnotizing them, and thus bringing them into the ranks of the very\nsoldiers on whom the power for all this is based.\"[1035]\n\nII. _Love requires that a social life based solely on its commandments\ntake the place of the State._ \"To-day every man who thinks, however\nlittle, sees the impossibility of keeping on with the life hitherto\nlived, and the necessity of determining new forms of life.\"[1036] \"The\nChristian humanity of our time must unconditionally renounce the heathen\nforms of life that it condemns, and set up a new life on the Christian\nbases that it recognizes.\"[1037]\n\n1. Even after the State is done away, men are to live in societies. But\nwhat is to hold them together in these societies?\n\nNot a promise, at any rate. Christ commands us to make \"no vows,\"[1038]\nto \"promise men nothing.\"[1039] \"The Christian cannot promise that he\nwill do or not do a particular thing at a particular hour, because he\ncannot know what the law of love, which it is the meaning of his life to\nobey, will demand of him at that hour.\"[1040] And still less can he\n\"give his word to fulfil somebody's will, without knowing what the\nsubstance of this will is to be\";[1041] by the mere fact of such a\npromise he would \"make it manifest that the inward divine law is no\nlonger the sole law of his life\";[1042] \"one cannot serve two\nmasters.\"[1043]\n\nMen are to be held together in societies in future by the mental\ninfluence which the men who have made progress in knowledge exert upon\nthe less advanced. \"Mental influence is such a way of working upon a man\nthat by it his wishes change and coincide with what is wanted of him;\nthe man who yields to a mental influence acts according to his own\nwishes.\"[1044] Now, the force \"by which men can live in societies\"[1045]\nis found in the mental influence which the men who have made progress\nin knowledge exert upon the less advanced, in the \"characteristic of\nlittle-thinking men, that they subordinate themselves to the directions\nof those who stand on a higher level of knowledge.\"[1046] In consequence\nof this characteristic \"a body of men put themselves under the same\nrational principles, the minority consciously, because the principles\nagree with the demands of their reason, and the majority unconsciously,\nbecause the principles have become public opinion.\"[1047] \"In this\nsubordination there is nothing irrational or self-contradictory.\"[1048]\n\n2. But in the future societary condition how shall the functions which\nthe State at present performs be performed? Here people usually have\nthree things in mind.[1049]\n\nFirst, protection against the bad men in our midst.[1050] \"But who are\nthe bad men among us? If there once were such men three or four\ncenturies ago, when people still paraded warlike arts and equipments and\nlooked upon killing as a brilliant deed, they are gone to-day anyhow;\nnobody any longer carries weapons, everybody acknowledges the commands\nof philanthropy. But, if by the men from whom the State must protect us\nwe mean the criminals, then we know that they are not special creatures\nlike the wolf among the sheep, but just such men as all of us, who like\ncommitting crimes as little as we do; we know that the activity of\ngovernments with their cruel forms of punishment, which do not\ncorrespond to the present stage of morality, their prisons, tortures,\ngallows, guillotines, contributes more to the barbarizing of the people\nthan to their culture, and hence rather to the multiplication than to\nthe diminution of such criminals.\"[1051] If we are Christians and start\nfrom the principle that \"what our life exists for is the serving of\nothers, then no one will be foolish enough to rob men that serve him of\ntheir means of support or to kill them. Miklucho-Maclay settled among\nthe wildest so-called 'savages', and they not only left him alive but\nloved him and submitted to his authority, solely because he did not fear\nthem, asked nothing of them, and did them good.\"[1052]\n\nSecondly, the question is asked how in the future societary condition we\ncan find protection against external enemies.[1053] But we do know \"that\nthe nations of Europe profess the principles of liberty and fraternity,\nand therefore need no protection against each other; but, if it were a\nprotection against the barbarians that was meant, a thousandth part of\nthe armies that are now kept up would suffice. State authority not\nmerely leaves in existence the danger of hostile attacks, but even\nitself provokes this danger.\"[1054] But, \"if there existed a community\nof Christians who did evil to nobody and gave to others all the\nsuperfluous products of their labor, then no enemy, neither the German\nnor the Turk nor the savage, would kill or vex such men; all one could\ndo would be to take from them what they were ready to give voluntarily\nwithout distinguishing between Russians, Germans, Turks, and\nsavages.\"[1055]\n\nThirdly, the question is asked how in the future societary condition\ninstitutions for education, popular culture, religion, commerce, etc.\nare to be possible.[1056] \"Perhaps there was once a time when men lived\nso far apart, when the means for coming together and exchanging thoughts\nwere so undeveloped, that people could not, without a State centre,\ndiscuss and agree on any matter either of trade and economy or of\nculture. But to-day this separation no longer exists; the means of\nintercourse have developed extraordinarily; for the forming of\nsocieties, associations, corporations, for the gathering of congresses\nand the creation of economic and political institutions, governments are\nnot needed; nay, in most cases they are rather a hindrance than a help\ntoward the attainment of such ends.\"[1057]\n\n3. But what form will men's life together in the future societary\ncondition take in detail? \"The future will be as circumstances and men\nshall make it.\"[1058] We are not at this moment able to get perfectly\nclear ideas of it.[1059]\n\n\"Men say, 'What will the new orders be like, that are to take the place\nof the present ones? So long as we do not know what form our life will\ntake in future, we will not go forward, we will not stir from this\nspot.'\"[1060] \"If Columbus had gone to making such observations, he\nwould never have weighed anchor. It was insanity to steer across an\nocean that no man had ever yet sailed upon toward a land whose\nexistence was a question. With this insanity, he discovered the New\nWorld. It would certainly be more convenient if nations had nothing to\ndo but move out of one ready-furnished mansion into another and a\nbetter; only, by bad luck, there is nobody there to furnish the new\nquarters.\"[1061]\n\nBut what disquiets men in their imagining of the future is \"less the\nquestion 'What will be?' They are tormented by the question 'How are we\nto live without all the familiar conditions of our existence, that are\ncalled science, art, civilization, culture?'\"[1062] \"But all these, bear\nin mind, are only forms in which truth appears. The change that lies\nbefore us will be an approach to the truth and its realization. How can\nthe forms in which truth appears be brought to naught by an approach to\nthe truth? They will be made different, better, higher, but by no means\nwill they be brought to naught. Only that which was false in the forms\nof its appearance hitherto will be brought to naught; what was genuine\nwill but unfold itself the more splendidly.\"[1063]\n\n\"If the individual man's life were completely known to him when he\npasses from one stage of maturity to another, he would have no reason\nfor living. So it is with the life of mankind too; if at its entrance\nupon a new stage of growth a programme lay before it already drawn up,\nthis would be the surest sign that it was not alive, not progressing,\nbut that it was sticking at one point. The details of a new order of\nlife cannot be known to us, they have to be worked out by us ourselves.\nLife consists only in learning to know the unknown, and putting our\naction in harmony with the new knowledge. In this consists the life of\nthe individual, in this the life of human societies and of\nhumanity.\"[1064]\n\n\n5.--PROPERTY\n\nI. _Together with law Tolstoi necessarily has to reject also, for the\nmore highly developed nations of our time, the legal institution of\nproperty._\n\nPerhaps there was once a time when the violence necessary to secure the\nindividual in the possession of a piece of goods against all others was\nless than the violence which would have been practised in a general\nfight for the possession of the goods, so that the existence of property\nwas better than its non-existence. But at any rate this time is past,\nthe existing order has \"lived out its time\";[1065] among the men of\nto-day no wild fight for the possession of goods would break out even if\nthere were no property; they all \"profess allegiance to the commands of\nphilanthropy,\"[1066] each of them \"knows that all men have equal rights\nin the goods of the world,\"[1067] and already we see \"many a rich man\nrenounce his inheritance from a specially delicate sense of germinant\npublic opinion.\"[1068]\n\nProperty offends against love, especially against the commandment not to\nresist evil by force.[1069] But not only this; in founding a dominion of\npossessors over non-possessors it also offends against the principle\nthat for love \"all men are God's sons and there is equality among them\nall\";[1070] and it is therefore to be rejected, even aside from the\nviolence on which it is based as a legal institution. The rich are under\n\"guilt by the very fact that they are rich.\"[1071] It is \"a crime\"[1072]\nthat tens of thousands of \"hungry, cold, deeply degraded human beings\nare living in Moscow, while I with a few thousand others have tenderloin\nand sturgeon for dinner and cover horses and floors with blankets and\ncarpets.\"[1073] I shall be \"an accomplice in this unending and\nuninterrupted crime so long as I still have a superfluous bit of bread\nwhile another has no bread at all, or still possess two garments while\nanother does not possess even one.\"[1074]--Tolstoi carries this out into\ndetail.\n\n1. Property means the dominion of the possessors over the\nnon-possessors.\n\nProperty is the exclusive right to use some things, whether one actually\nuses them or not.[1075] \"Many of the men who called me their horse,\"\nTolstoi makes the horse Linen-Measurer say, \"did not ride me; quite\ndifferent men rode me. Nor did they feed me; quite different men fed me.\nNor was it those who called me their horse that did me kindnesses, but\ncoachmen, veterinary surgeons, strangers altogether. Later, when the\ncircle of my observations grew wider, I convinced myself that the idea\n'mine,' which has no other basis than men's low and bestial propensity\nwhich they call 'sense of ownership' or 'right of property,' finds\napplication not only with respect to us horses. A man says 'this house\nis mine' and never lives in it, he only attends to the building and\nrepair of the house. A merchant says 'my store, my dry-goods store,' and\nhis clothing is not of the best fabrics he has in his store. There are\nmen who call a piece of land 'mine' and have never seen this piece of\nland nor set foot on it. What men aim at in life is not to do what they\nthink good, but to call as many things as possible 'mine.'\"[1076]\n\nBut the significance of property consists in the fact that the poor man\nwho has no property is dependent on the rich man who has property; in\norder to come by the things which he needs for his living, but which\nbelong to another, he must do what this other wills--in particular, he\nmust work for him. Thus property divides men into \"two castes, an\noppressed laboring caste that famishes and suffers and an idle\noppressing caste that enjoys and lives in superfluity.\"[1077] \"We are\nall brothers, and yet every morning my brother or my sister carries out\nmy dishes. We are all brothers, but every morning I have to have my\ncigar, my sugar, my mirror, and other such things, in whose production\nhealthy brothers and sisters, people like me, have sacrificed and are\nsacrificing their health.\"[1078] \"I spend my whole life in the following\nway: I eat, talk, and listen; eat, write, and read--that is, talk and\nlisten again; eat and play; eat, talk, and listen again; eat and go to\nbed; and so it goes on, one day like another. I cannot do, do not know\nhow to do, anything beyond this. And, that I may be able to do this,\nthe porter, the farmer, the cook, the cook's maid, the lackey, the\ncoachman, the laundress, must work from morning till night, not to speak\nof the work of other men which is necessary in order that those\ncoachmen, cooks, lackeys, and so on may have all that they need when\nthey work for me--the axes, barrels, brushes, dishes, furniture,\nlikewise the wax, the blacking, the kerosene, the hay, the wood, the\nbeef. All of them have to work day by day, early and late, that I may be\nable to talk, eat, and sleep.\"[1079]\n\nThis significance of property makes itself especially felt in the case\nof the things that are necessary for the producing of other things, and\nso most notably in the case of land and tools.[1080] \"There can be no\nfarmer without land that he tills, without scythes, wagons, and horses;\nno shoemaker is possible without a house built on the earth, without\nwater, air, and tools\";[1081] but property means that in many cases \"the\nfarmer possesses no land, no horses, no scythe, the shoemaker no house,\nno water, no awl: that somebody is keeping these things back from\nthem.\"[1082] This leads to the consequence \"that for a large fraction of\nthe workers the natural conditions of production are deranged, that this\nfraction is necessitated to use other people's stock,\"[1083] and may by\nthe owner of the stock be compelled \"to work not on their own account,\nbut for an employer.\"[1084] Consequently the workman works \"not for\nhimself, to suit his own wish, but under compulsion, to suit the whim of\nsome idle persons who live in superfluity, for the benefit of some rich\nman, the proprietor of a factory or other industrial plant.\"[1085] Thus\nproperty means the exploitation of the laborer by those to whom the land\nand tools belong; it means \"that the products of human labor pass more\nand more out of the hands of the laboring masses into the hands of the\nunlaboring.\"[1086]\n\nFurthermore, the significance of property as making the poor dependent\non the rich becomes especially prominent in the case of money. \"Money is\na value that remains always equal, that always ranks as correct and\nlegal.\"[1087] Consequently, as the saying is, \"he who has money has in\nhis pocket those who have none.\"[1088] \"Money is a new form of slavery,\ndistinguished from the old solely by its impersonality, by the lack of\nany human relation between the master and the slave\";[1089] for \"the\nessence of all slavery consists in drawing the benefit of another's\nlabor-force by compulsion, and it is quite immaterial whether the\ndrawing of this benefit is founded upon property in the slave or upon\nproperty in money which is indispensable to the other man.\"[1090] \"Now,\nhonestly, of what sort is my money, and how have I come by it? I got\npart for the land that I inherited from my father. The peasant sold his\nlast sheep, his last cow, to pay me this money. Another part of my\nassets consists of the sums which I have received for my literary\nproductions, my books. If my books are harmful, then by them I have\nseduced the purchasers to evil and have acquired the money by bad\nmeans. If, on the contrary, my books are useful to people, the case is\nstill worse; I have not given them without ceremony to those who had a\nuse for them, but have said 'Give me seventeen rubles and you shall have\nthem,' and, as in the other case the peasant sold his last sheep, so\nhere the poor student or teacher, and many another poor person, have\ndenied themselves the plainest necessities to give me the money. And\nthus I have piled up a quantity of such money, and what do I do with it?\nI bring it to the city and give it to the poor here on condition that\nthey satisfy all my whims, that they come after me into the city to\nclean the sidewalks for me, and to make me lamps, shoes, and so forth,\nin the factories. With my money I take all their products to myself, and\nI take pains to give them as little as possible and get from them as\nmuch as possible for it. And then all at once, quite unexpectedly, I\nbegin to distribute to the poor this same money gratis--not to all, but\narbitrarily to any whom I happen to take up at random\";[1091] that is, I\ntake from the poor thousands of rubles with one hand, and with the other\nI distribute to some of them a few kopeks.[1092]\n\n2. The dominion which property involves, of possessors over\nnon-possessors, is based on physical force.\n\n\"If the vast wealth that the laborers have piled up ranks not as the\nproperty of all, but only as that of an elect few,--if the power of\nraising taxes from labor and using them at pleasure is reserved to some\nmen,--this is not based on the fact that the people want to have it so\nor that by nature it must be so, but on the fact that the ruling\nclasses see their advantage in it and determine it so by virtue of their\npower over men's bodies\";[1093] it is based on \"violence and slaying and\nthe threat thereof.\"[1094] \"If men hand over the greatest part of the\nproduct of their labor to the capitalist or landlord, though they, as do\nall laborers now, hold this to be unjust,\"[1095] they do it \"only\nbecause they know they will be beaten and killed if they do not.\"[1096]\n\"One may even say outright that in our society, in which to every\nwell-to-do man living an aristocratic life there are ten weary,\nravenous, envious laborers, probably pining away with wife and children\ntoo, all the privileges of the rich, all their luxury and their\nabundance, are acquired and secured only by chastisement, imprisonment,\nand capital punishment.\"[1097]\n\nProperty is upheld by the police[1098] and the army.[1099] \"We may act\nas if we did not see the policeman walking up and down before the window\nwith loaded revolver to protect us while we eat a savory meal or look at\na new play, and as if we had no inkling of the soldiers who are every\nmoment ready to go with rifle and cartridges where any one tries to\ninfringe on our property. Yet we well know, if we can finish our meal\nand see the new play in peace, if we can drive out or hunt or attend a\nfestival or a race undisturbed, we have to thank for this only the\npoliceman's bullet and the soldier's weapon, which are ready to pierce\nthe poor victim of hunger who looks upon our enjoyments from his corner\nwith grumbling stomach, and who would at once disturb them if the\npoliceman with his revolver went away, or if in the barracks there were\nno longer any soldiers standing ready to appear at our first\ncall.\"[1100]\n\n3. The dominion which property involves, of the possessors over the\nnon-possessors, is based on the physical force of the ruled.\n\nThose very men of the non-possessing classes who through property are\ndependent on the possessing classes must do police duty, serve in the\narmy, pay the taxes out of which police and army are kept up, and in\nthese and other ways either themselves exercise or at least support the\nphysical force by which property is upheld.[1101] \"If there did not\nexist these men who are ready to discipline or kill any one whatever at\nthe word of command, no one would dare assert what the non-laboring\nlandlords now do all of them so confidently assert,--that the soil which\nsurrounds the peasants who die off for lack of land is the property of a\nman who does not work on it\";[1102] it would \"not come into the head of\nthe lord of the manor to take from the peasants a forest that has grown\nup under their eyes\";[1103] nor would any one say \"that the stores of\ngrain accumulated by fraud in the midst of a starving population must\nremain unscathed that the merchant may have his profit.\"[1104]\n\nII. _Love requires that a distribution based solely on its commandments\ntake the place of property._ \"The impossibility of continuing the life\nthat has hitherto been led, and the necessity of determining new forms\nof life,\"[1105] relate to the distribution of goods as well as to other\nthings. \"The abolition of property,\"[1106] and its replacement by a new\nkind of distribution of goods, is one of the \"questions now in\norder.\"[1107]\n\nAccording to the law of love, every man who works as he has strength\nshould have so much--but only so much--as he needs.\n\n1. That every man who works as he has strength should have so much as he\nneeds and no more is a corollary from two precepts which follow from the\nlaw of love.\n\nThe first of these precepts says, Man shall \"ask no work from others,\nbut himself devote his whole life to work for others. 'Man lives not to\nbe served but to serve.'\"[1108] Therefore, in particular, he is not to\nkeep accounts with others about his work, or think that he \"has the more\nof a living to claim, the greater or more useful his quantum of work\ndone is.\"[1109] Following this precept provides every man with what he\nneeds. This is true primarily of the healthy adult. \"If a man works, his\nwork feeds him. If another makes use of this man's work for himself, he\nwill feed him for the very reason that he is making use of his\nwork.\"[1110] Man assures himself of a living \"not by taking it away from\nothers, but by making himself useful and necessary to others. The more\nnecessary he is to others, the more assured is his existence.\"[1111] But\nthe following of the precept to serve others also provides the sick, the\naged, and children with their living. Men \"do not stop feeding an\nanimal when it falls sick; they do not even kill an old horse, but give\nit work appropriate to its strength; they bring up whole families of\nlittle lambs, pigs, and puppies, because they expect benefit from them.\nHow, then, should they not support the sick man who is necessary to\nthem? How should they not find appropriate work for old and young, and\nbring up human beings who will in turn work for them?\"[1112]\n\nThe second precept that follows from the law of love, and of which a\ncorollary is that every man who works as he has strength should have as\nmuch as he needs and no more, bids us \"Share what you have with the\npoor; gather no riches.\"[1113] \"To the question of his hearers, what\nthey were to do, John the Baptist gave the short, clear, simple answer,\n'He who hath two coats, let him share with him who hath none; and he who\nhath food let him do likewise' (Luke 3.10-11). And Christ too made the\nsame declaration several times, only still more unambiguously and\nclearly. He said, 'Blessed are the poor, woe to the rich.' He said that\none could not serve God and Mammon at once. He not only forbade his\ndisciples to take money, but also to have two garments. He told the rich\nyoung man that because he was rich he could not enter into the Kingdom\nof God, and that a camel should sooner go through a needle's eye than a\nrich man come into heaven. He said that he who did not forsake\neverything--house, children, lands--to follow him could not be his\ndisciple. He told his hearers the parable of the rich man who did\nnothing bad except that he--like our rich men--clothed himself in costly\napparel and fed himself on savory food and drink, and who plunged his\nsoul into perdition by this alone, and of the poor Lazarus who did\nnothing good and who entered into the Kingdom of Heaven only because he\nwas a beggar.\"[1114]\n\n2. But what form can such a distribution of goods take in detail?\n\nThis is best shown us by \"the Russian colonists. These colonists arrive\non the soil, settle, and begin to work, and no one of them takes it into\nhis head that any one who does not begin to make use of the land can\nhave any right to it; on the contrary, the colonists regard the ground\n_a priori_ as common property, and consider it altogether justifiable\nthat everybody plows and reaps where he chooses. For working the fields,\nfor starting gardens, and for building houses, they procure implements;\nand here too it does not suggest itself to them that these could of\nthemselves produce any income--on the contrary, the colonists look upon\nany profit from the means of labor, any interest for grain lent, etc.,\nas an injustice. They work on masterless land with their own means or\nwith means borrowed free of interest, either each for himself or all\ntogether on joint account.\"[1115]\n\n\"In talking of such fellowship I am not setting forth fancies, but only\ndescribing what has gone on at all times, what is even at present taking\nplace not only among the Russian colonists but everywhere where man's\nnatural condition is not yet deranged by some circumstances or other. I\nam describing what seems to everybody natural and rational. The men\nsettle on the soil and go each one to work, make their implements, and\ndo their labor. If they think it advantageous to work jointly, they form\na labor company.\"[1116] But, in individual business as well as in\ncollective industry, \"neither the water nor the ground nor the garments\nnor the plow can belong to anybody save him who drinks the water, wears\nthe garments, and uses the plow; for all these things are necessary only\nto him who puts them to use.\"[1117] One can call \"only his labor his\nown\";[1118] by it one has as much as one needs.[1119]\n\n\n6.--REALIZATION\n\n_The way in which the change required by love is to take place,\naccording to Tolstoi, is that those men who have learned to know the\ntruth are to convince as many others as possible how necessary the\nchange is for love's sake, and that they, with the help of the refusal\nof obedience, are to abolish law, the State, and property, and bring\nabout the new condition._\n\nI. The prime necessity is that the men who have learned to know the\ntruth should convince as many others as possible that love demands the\nchange.\n\n1. \"That an order of life corresponding to our knowledge may take the\nplace of the order contrary to it, the present antiquated public opinion\nmust first be replaced by a new and living one.\"[1120]\n\nIt is not deeds of all sorts that bring to pass the grandest and most\nsignificant changes in the life of humanity, \"neither the fitting out\nof armies a million strong nor the construction of roads and engines,\nneither the organization of expositions nor the formation of\ntrade-unions, neither revolutions, barricades, and explosions nor\ninventions in aerial navigation--but the changes of public opinion, and\nthese alone.\"[1121] Liberation is possible only \"by a change in our\nconception of life\";[1122] \"everything depends on the force with which\neach individual man becomes conscious of Christian truth\";[1123] \"know\nthe truth and the truth shall make you free.\"[1124] Our liberation must\nnecessarily take place by \"the Christian's recognizing the law of love,\nwhich his Master has revealed to him, as entirely sufficient for all\nhuman relations, and his perceiving the superfluousness and\nillegitimateness of all violence.\"[1125]\n\nThe bringing about of this revolution in public opinion is in the hands\nof the men who have learned to know the truth.[1126] \"A public opinion\ndoes not need hundreds and thousands of years to arise and spread; it\nhas the quality of working by contagion and swiftly seizing a great\nnumber of men.\"[1127] \"As a jarring touch is enough to change a fluid\nsaturated with salts to crystals in a moment, so now the slightest\neffort may perhaps suffice to cause the unveiled truth to seize upon\nhundreds, thousands, millions of men so that a public opinion\ncorresponding to knowledge shall be established and that hereby the\nwhole order of life shall become other than it is. It is in our hands\nto make this effort.\"[1128]\n\n2. The best means for bringing about the necessary revolution in public\nopinion is that the men who have learned to know the truth should\ntestify to it by deed.\n\n\"The Christian knows the truth only in order to testify to it before\nthose who do not know it,\"[1129] and that \"by deed.\"[1130] \"The truth is\nimparted to men by deeds of truth, deeds of truth illuminate every man's\nconscience, and thus destroy the force of deceit.\"[1131] Hence you ought\nproperly, \"if you are a landlord, to give your land at once to the poor,\nand, if you are a capitalist, to give your money or your factory to the\nworkingmen; if you are a prince, a cabinet minister, an official, a\njudge, or a general, you ought at once to resign your position, and, if\nyou are a soldier, you ought to refuse obedience without regard to any\ndanger.\"[1132] But, to be sure, \"it is very probable that you are not\nstrong enough to do this; you have connections, dependents,\nsubordinates, superiors, the temptations are powerful, and your force\ngives out.\"[1133]\n\n3. But there is still another means, though a less effective one, for\nbringing about the necessary revolution in public opinion, and this \"you\ncan always\"[1134] employ. It is that the men who have learned to know\nthe truth should \"speak it out frankly.\"[1135]\n\n\"If men--yes, if even a few men--would do this, the antiquated public\nopinion would at once fall of itself, and a new, living, present-day one\nwould arise.\"[1136] \"Not billions of rubles, not millions of soldiers,\nno institutions, wars, or revolutions, have so much power as the simple\ndeclaration of a free man that he considers something to be right or\nwrong. If a free man speaks out honestly what he thinks and feels, in\nthe midst of thousands who in word and act stand for the very contrary,\none might think he must remain isolated. But usually it is otherwise;\nall, or most, have long been privately thinking and feeling in the same\nway; and then what to-day is still an individual's new opinion will\nperhaps to-morrow be already the general opinion of the majority.\"[1137]\n\"If we would only stop lying and acting as if we did not see the truth,\nif we would only testify to the truth that summons us and boldly confess\nit, it would at once turn out that there are hundreds, thousands,\nmillions, of men in the same situation as ourselves, that they see the\ntruth like us, are afraid like us of remaining isolated if they confess\nit, and are only waiting, like us, for the rest to testify to it.\"[1138]\n\nII. To bring about the change and put the new condition in the place of\nlaw, the State, and property, it is further requisite that the men who\nhave learned to know the truth should conform their lives to their\nknowledge, and, in particular, that they should refuse obedience to the\nState.\n\n1. Men are to bring about the change themselves. They are \"no longer to\nwait for somebody to come and help them, be it Christ in the clouds with\nthe sound of the trumpet, be it a historic law or a differential or\nintegral law of forces. Nobody will help us if we do not help\nourselves.\"[1139]\n\n\"I have been told a story that happened to a courageous commissary of\npolice. He came into a village where they had applied for soldiers on\naccount of an outbreak among the peasants. In the spirit of Nicholas the\nFirst he proposed to make an end of the rising by his personal presence\nalone. He had a few cart-loads of sticks brought, gathered all the\npeasants in a barn, and shut himself in with them. By his shouts he\nsucceeded in so cowing the peasants that they obeyed him and began to\nbeat each other at his command. So they beat each other till there was\nfound a simple-minded peasant who did not obey, and who called out to\nhis fellows that they should not beat each other either. Only then did\nthe beating cease, and the official made haste to get away. The advice\nof this simple-minded peasant\" should be followed by the men of our\ntime.[1140]\n\n2. But it is not by violence that men are to bring about the change.\n\"Revolutionary enemies fight the government from outside; Christianity\ndoes not fight at all, but wrecks its foundations from within.\"[1141]\n\n\"Some assert that liberation from force, or at least its diminution, can\nbe effected by the oppressed men's forcibly shaking off the oppressing\ngovernment; and many do in fact undertake to act on this doctrine. But\nthey deceive themselves and others: their activity only enhances the\ndespotism of governments, and the attempts at liberation are welcomed by\nthe governments as pretexts for strengthening their power.\"[1142]\n\nHowever, suppose that by the favor of circumstances (as, for instance,\nin France in 1870) they succeed in overthrowing a government, the party\nwhich had won by force would be compelled, \"in order to remain at the\nhelm and introduce its order into life, not only to employ all existing\nviolent methods, but to invent new ones in addition. It would be other\nmen that would be enslaved, and they would be coerced into other things,\nbut there would exist not merely the same but a still more cruel\ncondition of violence and enslavement; for the combat would have fanned\nthe flames of hatred, strengthened the means of enslavement, and evolved\nnew ones. Thus it has been after all revolutions, insurrections, and\nconspiracies, after all violent changes of government. Every fight only\nputs stronger means of enslavement in the hands of the men who at a\ngiven time are in power.\"[1143]\n\n3. Men are to bring about the change by conforming their lives to their\nknowledge. \"The Christian frees himself from all human authority by\nrecognizing as sole plumb-line for his life and the lives of others the\ndivine law of love that is implanted in man's soul and has been brought\ninto consciousness by Christ.\"[1144]\n\nThis means that one is to return good for evil,[1145] give to one's\nneighbor all that one has that is superfluous and take away from him\nnothing that one does not need,[1146] especially acquire no money and\nget rid of the money one has,[1147] not buy nor rent,[1148] and, without\nshrinking from any form of work, satisfy one's needs with one's own\nhands;[1149] and particularly does it mean that one is to refuse\nobedience to the unchristian demands of State authority.[1150]\n\nThat obedience to these demands is refused we see in many cases in\nRussia at present. Men are refusing the payment of taxes, the general\noath, the oath in court, the exercise of police functions, action as\njurymen, and military service.[1151] \"The governments find themselves in\na desperate situation as they face the Christians' refusals.\"[1152] They\n\"can chastise, put to death, imprison for life, and torture, any one who\ntries to overthrow them by force; they can bribe and smother with gold\nthe half of mankind; they can bring into their service millions of armed\nmen who are ready to annihilate all their foes. But what can they do\nagainst men who do not destroy anything, do not set up anything either,\nbut only, each for himself, are unwilling to act contrary to the law of\nChrist, and therefore refuse to do what is most necessary for the\ngovernments?\"[1153] \"Let the State do as it will by such men, inevitably\nit will contribute only to its own annihilation,\"[1154] and therewith to\nthe annihilation of law and property and to the bringing in of the new\norder of life. \"For, if it does not persecute people like the Dukhobors,\nthe Stundists, etc., the advantages of their peaceable Christian way of\nliving will induce others to join them--and not only convinced\nChristians, but also such as want to get clear of their obligations to\nthe State under the cloak of Christianity. If, on the other hand, it\ndeals cruelly with men against whom there is nothing except that they\nhave endeavored to live morally, this cruelty will only make it still\nmore enemies, and the moment must at last come when there can no longer\nbe found any one who is ready to back up the State with\ninstrumentalities of force.\"[1155]\n\n4. In the conforming of life to knowledge the individual must make the\nbeginning. He must not wait for all or many to do it at the same time\nwith him.\n\nThe individual must not think it will be useless if he alone conforms\nhis life to Christ's teaching.[1156] \"Men in their present situation are\nlike bees that have left their hive and are hanging on a twig in a great\nmass. The situation of the bees on the twig is a temporary one, and\nabsolutely must be changed. They must take flight and seek a new abode.\nEvery bee knows that, and wishes to make an end of its own suffering\ncondition and that of the others; but this cannot be done by one so long\nas the others do not help. But all cannot rise at once, for one hangs\nover another and hinders it from letting go; therefore all remain\nhanging. One might think that there was no way out of this situation for\nthe bees\";[1157] if and really there would be none, were it not that\neach bee is an independent living being. But it is only needful \"that\none bee spread its wings, rise and fly, and after it the second, the\nthird, the tenth, the hundredth, for the immobile hanging mass to become\na freely flying swarm of bees. Thus it is only needful that one man\ncomprehend life as Christianity teaches it, and take hold of it as\nChristianity teaches him to, and then that a second, a third, a\nhundredth follow him, and the magic circle from which no escape seemed\npossible is destroyed.\"[1158]\n\nNeither may the individual let himself be deterred by the fear of\nsuffering. \"'If I alone,' it is commonly said, 'fulfil Christ's teaching\nin the midst of a world that does not follow it, give away my\nbelongings, turn my cheek without resistance, yes, and refuse the oath\nand military service, then I shall have the last bit taken from me, and,\nif I do not die of hunger, they will beat me to death, and, if they do\nnot beat me to death, they will jail me or shoot me; and I shall have\ngiven all the happiness of my life, nay, my life itself, for\nnothing.'\"[1159] Be it so. \"I do not ask whether I shall have more\ntrouble, or die sooner, if I follow Christ's teaching. That question can\nbe asked only by one who does not see how meaningless and miserable is\nhis life as an individual life, and who imagines that he shall 'not\ndie'. But I know that a life for the sake of one's own happiness is the\ngreatest folly, and that such an aimless life can be followed only by an\naimless death. And therefore I fear nothing. I shall die like everybody,\nlike even those who do not fulfil Christ's teaching, but my life and my\ndeath will have a meaning for me and for others. My life and my death\nwill contribute to the rescue and life of others--and that is just what\nChrist taught.\"[1160]\n\nIf once enough individuals have conformed their lives to their\nknowledge, the multitude will soon follow. \"The passage of men from one\norder of life to another does not take place steadily, as the sand in\nthe hour-glass runs out, one grain after another from the first to the\nlast, but rather as a vessel that has been sunk into water fills itself.\nAt first the water gets in only on one side, slowly and uniformly; but\nthen its weight makes the vessel sink, and now the thing takes in, all\nat once, all the water that it can hold.\"[1161] Thus the impulse given\nby individuals will provoke a movement that goes on faster and faster,\nwider and wider, avalanche-like, suddenly sweeps along the masses, and\nbrings about the new order of life.[1162] Then the time is come \"when\nall men are filled with God, shun war, beat their swords into plowshares\nand their spears into pruning-hooks; that is, in our language, when the\nprisons and fortresses are empty, when the gallows, rifles, and cannon\nare out of use. What seemed a dream has found its fulfilment in a new\nform of life.\"[1163]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[859] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 244-5, 280, 315, 325.\n\n[860] _Ib._ pp. 263, 285-6, To. \"Gospel\" p. 25, \"Religion and Morality\"\np. 14.\n\n[861] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 251.\n\n[862] To. \"Gospel\" pp. 13-14, 16-17.\n\n[863] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 96-7.\n\n[864] To. \"What I Believe\" pp. 247-8.\n\n[865] To. \"Reason and Dogma\" p. 5.\n\n[866] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 196.\n\n[867] To. \"Gospel\" pp. 51, 29-30.\n\n[868] _Ib._ p. 47.\n\n[869] To. \"Patriotism\" p. 118.\n\n[870] To. \"Gospel\" p. 29.\n\n[871] To. \"Gospel\" p. 50; To. \"Religion and Morality\" p. 27.\n\n[872] To. \"On Life\" p. 214.\n\n[873] To. \"Gospel\" p. 31.\n\n[874] _Ib._ pp. 32, 31, 40, 112.\n\n[875] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 164.\n\n[876] To. \"Gospel\" p. 21.\n\n[877] _Ib._ p. 21.\n\n[878] To. \"What I Believe\" pp. 160, 174.\n\n[879] _Ib._ p. 166.\n\n[880] To. \"Confession\" p. 92.\n\n[881] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 75-7, 79.\n\n[882] To. \"What I Believe\" pp. 195, 272, \"Kingdom\" pp. 72-3, \"Gospel\" p.\n5.\n\n[883] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 234.\n\n[884] To. \"On Life\" p. 48.\n\n[885] _Ib._ pp. 72, 66.\n\n[886] To. \"Confession\" p. 54.\n\n[887] To. \"On Life\" p. 101.\n\n[888] _Ib._ p. 100.\n\n[889] _Ib._ p. 100.\n\n[890] _Ib._ pp. 160, 101.\n\n[891] _Ib._ pp. 160, 101.\n\n[892] _Ib._ pp. 262-3.\n\n[893] To. \"On Life\" p. 263.\n\n[894] _Ib._ p. 263.\n\n[895] To. \"Religion and Morality\" pp. 21-2.\n\n[896] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 71.\n\n[897] To. \"Gospel\" p. 25.\n\n[898] _Ib._ p. 25.\n\n[899] To. \"What I Believe\" pp. 138-9\n\n[900] _Ib._ p. 268.\n\n[901] _Ib._ p. 148.\n\n[902] To. \"On Life\" pp. 159-60.\n\n[903] _Ib._ p. 165.\n\n[904] _Ib._ p. 164.\n\n[905] _Ib._ pp. 170-71.\n\n[906] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 140.\n\n[907] _Ib._ p. 139.\n\n[908] _Ib._ p. 138.\n\n[909] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 142, \"What I Believe\" p. 17.\n\n[910] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 123.\n\n[911] To. \"Religion and Morality\" p. 12.\n\n[912] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 124-5.\n\n[913] To. \"Morning\" pp. 70-71.\n\n[914] To. \"On Life\" p. 148.\n\n[915] _Ib._ pp. 147, 148.\n\n[916] _Ib._ pp. 122, 133-5, 174, 176.\n\n[917] _Ib._ pp. 121, 174.\n\n[918] To. \"On Life\" pp. 26, 122-3, 196, 206.\n\n[919] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 17.\n\n[920] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 144.\n\n[921] _Ib._ pp. 142-3.\n\n[922] _Ib._ p. 160.\n\n[923] _Ib._ p. 144.\n\n[924] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 122.\n\n[925] _Ib._ p. 123.\n\n[926] _Ib._ p. 123.\n\n[927] _Ib._ p. 123.\n\n[928] _Ib._ p. 123.\n\n[929] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 12.\n\n[930] _Ib._ p. 12.\n\n[931] _Ib._ p. 15.\n\n[932] _Ib._ pp. 21-2.\n\n[933] _Ib._ p. 22.\n\n[934] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 68-9.\n\n[935] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 269-70.\n\n[936] _Ib._ p. 282.\n\n[937] _Ib._ p. 63.\n\n[938] To. \"What I Believe\" pp. 17, 20; \"Kingdom\" p. 268. [Has Tolstoi\ncompared in a Greek concordance the other occurrences of the word\ntranslated \"resist\"?]\n\n[939] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 49-50.\n\n[940] _Ib._ p. 50.\n\n[941] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 268-9.\n\n[942] _Ib._ p. 269.\n\n[943] [\"He speaks only of the _Gesetz_, but he means all _Recht_\"; see\nfootnote on page 145 of the present book.]\n\n[944] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 268, 300-301.\n\n[945] _Ib._ pp. 361-2.\n\n[946] To. \"What I Believe\" pp. 29, 32.\n\n[947] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 361-2, 172.\n\n[948] _Ib._ p. 172.\n\n[949] _Ib._ p. 300.\n\n[950] _Ib._ p. 361.\n\n[951] _Ib._ p. 241.\n\n[952] _Ib._ p. 240.\n\n[953] _Ib._ p. 256.\n\n[954] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 29.\n\n[955] _Ib._ pp. 28-9.\n\n[956] _Ib._ p. 32.\n\n[957] _Ib._ p. 32.\n\n[958] _Ib._ pp. 45-6.\n\n[959] _Ib._ p. 29.\n\n[960] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 361-2.\n\n[961] _Ib._ p. 172.\n\n[962] _Ib._ p. 268.\n\n[963] _Ib._ p. 172.\n\n[964] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 120.\n\n[965] _Ib._ pp. 180, 235.\n\n[966] _Ib._ pp. 235, 180.\n\n[967] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 393, \"What I Believe\" p. 121.\n\n[968] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 393-4.\n\n[969] _Ib._ pp. 486-7.\n\n[970] To. \"Persecutions\" p. 47.\n\n[971] To. \"Gospel\" p. 50.\n\n[972] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 526.\n\n[973] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 121.\n\n[974] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 142-3, 144.\n\n[975] To. \"What I Believe\" pp. 122-3, 179, 124, 219-20; \"Gospel\" pp.\n59-60; \"Kingdom\" pp. 143-4.\n\n[976] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 225.\n\n[977] _Ib._ p. 225.\n\n[978] _Ib._ p. 121.\n\n[979] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 240-41.\n\n[980] _Ib._ p. 336.\n\n[981] _Ib._ pp. 335-6.\n\n[982] _Ib._ p. 332.\n\n[983] _Ib._ p. 211.\n\n[984] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 21; \"Persecutions\" p. 46.\n\n[985] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 209-10.\n\n[986] _Ib._ pp. 167, 164.\n\n[987] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 25.\n\n[988] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 332.\n\n[989] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 50.\n\n[990] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 429-30, 244.\n\n[991] _Ib._ pp. 209-10.\n\n[992] _Ib._ p. 274.\n\n[993] _Ib._ pp. 271-2.\n\n[994] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 271.\n\n[995] _Ib._ pp. 341, 339.\n\n[996] _Ib._ p. 340.\n\n[997] _Ib._ p. 340.\n\n[998] _Ib._ p. 339.\n\n[999] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 339-40.\n\n[1000] _Ib._ p. 342.\n\n[1001] _Ib._ p. 243.\n\n[1002] To. \"Patriotism\" p. 91.\n\n[1003] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 239.\n\n[1004] _Ib._ p. 243.\n\n[1005] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 281.\n\n[1006] _Ib._ p. 442.\n\n[1007] _Ib._ p. 442.\n\n[1008] To. \"Persecutions\" p. 41.\n\n[1009] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 327.\n\n[1010] _Ib._ p. 238.\n\n[1011] To. \"Patriotism\" p. 120.\n\n[1012] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 443.\n\n[1013] To. \"Patriotism\" p. 119.\n\n[1014] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 238.\n\n[1015] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 248-9.\n\n[1016] To. \"Patriotism\" p. 91.\n\n[1017] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 249.\n\n[1018] _Ib._ p. 245.\n\n[1019] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 246-7.\n\n[1020] _Ib._ pp. 250, 423-4.\n\n[1021] _Ib._ pp. 314-28.\n\n[1022] To. \"What I Believe\" pp. 26-7.\n\n[1023] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 274.\n\n[1024] _Ib._ p. 276.\n\n[1025] _Ib._ p. 422.\n\n[1026] _Ib._ p. 277.\n\n[1027] _Ib._ p. 276.\n\n[1028] To. \"Patriotism\" pp. 40-41, 100-102; \"Kingdom\" pp. 429-32.\n\n[1029] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 275.\n\n[1030] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 422.\n\n[1031] _Ib._ pp. 275-6, 420-22, 444-5.\n\n[1032] _Ib._ p. 278.\n\n[1033] _Ib._ p. 278.\n\n[1034] _Ib._ p. 279.\n\n[1035] _Ib._ p. 279.\n\n[1036] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 511; \"Patriotism\" p. 117.\n\n[1037] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 189.\n\n[1038] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 123.\n\n[1039] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 143-4.\n\n[1040] _Ib._ pp. 300-301.\n\n[1041] _Ib._ p. 300.\n\n[1042] _Ib._ p. 301.\n\n[1043] _Ib._ p. 301.\n\n[1044] _Ib._ p. 236.\n\n[1045] _Ib._ p. 461.\n\n[1046] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 461.\n\n[1047] _Ib._ pp. 461-2.\n\n[1048] _Ib._ p. 461.\n\n[1049] _Ib._ p. 255.\n\n[1050] _Ib._ p. 255.\n\n[1051] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 255-6.\n\n[1052] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 290.\n\n[1053] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 255, 258.\n\n[1054] _Ib._ p. 258.\n\n[1055] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 289.\n\n[1056] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 255, 257.\n\n[1057] _Ib._ p. 257.\n\n[1058] _Ib._ p. 510.\n\n[1059] To. \"Persecutions\" pp. 46-7.\n\n[1060] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 372.\n\n[1061] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 510.\n\n[1062] _Ib._ p. 512.\n\n[1063] _Ib._ pp. 513-14.\n\n[1064] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 372-3.\n\n[1065] _Ib._ p. 518.\n\n[1066] _Ib._ p. 256.\n\n[1067] _Ib._ p. 164.\n\n[1068] _Ib._ p. 376.\n\n[1069] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 21; \"What Shall We Do\" pp. 157-8.\n\n[1070] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 167, 164.\n\n[1071] _Ib._ p. 273.\n\n[1072] To. \"What Shall We Do\" p. 19.\n\n[1073] _Ib._ pp. 18-19.\n\n[1074] _Ib._ p. 19.\n\n[1075] To. \"Money\" p. 18.\n\n[1076] To. \"Linen-Measurer\" pp. 602-3.\n\n[1077] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 164.\n\n[1078] _Ib._ p. 168.\n\n[1079] To. \"What Shall We Do\" p. 143.\n\n[1080] To. \"Money\" p. 18.\n\n[1081] _Ib._ p. 13.\n\n[1082] _Ib._ p. 13.\n\n[1083] _Ib._ p. 16.\n\n[1084] _Ib._ p. 15.\n\n[1085] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 166.\n\n[1086] To. \"What Shall We Do\" p. 139.\n\n[1087] _Ib._ p. 152.\n\n[1088] To. \"Money\" p. 6.\n\n[1089] To. \"What Shall We Do\" pp. 151-2.\n\n[1090] _Ib._ p. 160.\n\n[1091] To. \"What Shall We Do\" pp. 134-5.\n\n[1092] _Ib._ p. 135.\n\n[1093] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 247-8.\n\n[1094] _Ib._ p. 406.\n\n[1095] _Ib._ p. 407.\n\n[1096] _Ib._ p. 407.\n\n[1097] _Ib._ p. 409.\n\n[1098] _Ib._ p. 492.\n\n[1099] _Ib._ pp. 247, 447.\n\n[1100] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 492-3.\n\n[1101] _Ib._ pp. 314-28.\n\n[1102] _Ib._ pp. 424-5.\n\n[1103] _Ib._ p. 425.\n\n[1104] _Ib._ p. 425.\n\n[1105] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 511.\n\n[1106] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 249.\n\n[1107] _Ib._ p. 249.\n\n[1108] _Ib._ p. 228.\n\n[1109] _Ib._ pp. 227-8.\n\n[1110] _Ib._ p. 227.\n\n[1111] _Ib._ p. 229.\n\n[1112] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 230.\n\n[1113] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 520.\n\n[1114] To. \"What Shall We Do\" pp. 157-8.\n\n[1115] To. \"Money\" p. 10.\n\n[1116] To. \"Money\" p. 11.\n\n[1117] _Ib._ pp. 11-12.\n\n[1118] \"Kernel\" p. 89.\n\n[1119] _Ib._ p. 89.\n\n[1120] \"Patriotism\" p. 116.\n\n[1121] To. \"Patriotism\" pp. 108-9.\n\n[1122] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 301.\n\n[1123] _Ib._ p. 474.\n\n[1124] _Ib._ p. 302.\n\n[1125] _Ib._ p. 301.\n\n[1126] To. \"Patriotism\" pp. 116-17.\n\n[1127] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 358.\n\n[1128] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 508.\n\n[1129] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 290.\n\n[1130] _Ib._ p. 290.\n\n[1131] _Ib._ p. 293.\n\n[1132] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 523.\n\n[1133] _Ib._ p. 523.\n\n[1134] _Ib._ p. 523.\n\n[1135] To. \"Patriotism\" p. 116.\n\n[1136] _Ib._ p. 109.\n\n[1137] To. \"Patriotism\" pp. 112-13.\n\n[1138] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 509.\n\n[1139] To. \"What I Believe\" pp. 147-8.\n\n[1140] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 306-7.\n\n[1141] _Ib._ p. 326.\n\n[1142] _Ib._ pp. 279-80.\n\n[1143] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 280-81.\n\n[1144] _Ib._ p. 298.\n\n[1145] To. \"What I Believe\" p. 292.\n\n[1146] To. \"What Shall We Do\" p. 164; \"What I Believe\" p. 291.\n\n[1147] To. \"What Shall We Do\" p. 162.\n\n[1148] _Ib._ p. 161.\n\n[1149] To \"What Shall We Do\" p. 161.\n\n[1150] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 314.\n\n[1151] _Ib._ pp. 327-8.\n\n[1152] _Ib._ p. 330.\n\n[1153] _Ib._ p. 328.\n\n[1154] To. \"Persecutions\" p. 44.\n\n[1155] To. \"Persecutions\" p. 44.\n\n[1156] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 293.\n\n[1157] _Ib._ pp. 302-3.\n\n[1158] To. \"Kingdom\" pp. 303-4.\n\n[1159] \"What I Believe\" p. 148.\n\n[1160] _Ib._ pp. 179-80.\n\n[1161] To. \"Kingdom\" p. 353.\n\n[1162] _Ib._ p. 356.\n\n[1163] _Ib._ p. 392.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE ANARCHISTIC TEACHINGS\n\n\n1.--GENERAL\n\nWe have now gained the standpoint that permits us to view\ncomprehensively the entire body of Anarchistic teachings.\n\nThis comprehensive view is possible only as follows: first we have to\nlook and see what the seven recognized Anarchistic teachings here\npresented have in common, and what specialties are to be found among\nthem; next we must consider how far that which is common to the seven\nteachings may be equated to that which the entire body of Anarchistic\nteachings have in common, and, in addition, how far the specialties\nrepresented among the seven teachings may be equated to the specialties\nrepresented in the entire body of Anarchistic teachings.\n\nTo characterize those qualities of the Anarchistic teachings to which\nattention is to be paid, words already existing are here used as far as\nhas been found practicable. Where such were totally lacking, the need of\na concise formula has of necessity overcome repugnance to neologisms.\n\n\n2.--BASIS\n\nI. As to their basis the seven teachings here presented have nothing in\ncommon.\n\n1. In part they recognize as the supreme law of human procedure merely\na natural law, which, as such, does not tell us what ought to take place\nbut what really will take place; these teachings may be called\n_genetic_. The other part of them regard as the supreme law of human\nprocedure a norm, which, as such, tells us what ought to take place,\neven if it never really will take place; these teachings may be\ncharacterized as _critical_. Genetic are the teachings of Bakunin and\nKropotkin: the supreme law of human procedure is for Bakunin the\nevolutionary law of mankind's progress from a less perfect existence to\nan existence as perfect as possible, and for Kropotkin that of mankind's\nprogress from a less happy existence to an existence as happy as\npossible. Critical are the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner,\nTucker, and Tolstoi.\n\n2. The critical teachings, again, are partly such as set up a duty as\nthe supreme law of human procedure, the duty being itself the ultimate\npurpose,--these teachings may be characterized as _idealistic_,--and\npartly such as set up happiness as the supreme law of human procedure,\nall duty being only a means to happiness,--these may take the name of\n_eudemonistic_. Idealistic are the teachings of Proudhon and Tolstoi:\nProudhon sets up as the supreme law of human procedure the duty of\njustice, Tolstoi the duty of love. Eudemonistic are the teachings of\nGodwin, Stirner, and Tucker.\n\n3. The eudemonistic teachings, finally, regard as the supreme law of\nhuman procedure either the happiness of mankind as a whole, which the\nindividual is accordingly to further without regard to his own\nhappiness,--these teachings may be characterized as _altruistic_,--or\nthe happiness of the individual, which he is accordingly to further\nwithout regard to the welfare of mankind as a whole,--these teachings\nmay be called _egoistic_. Altruistic is Godwin's teaching, egoistic\nStirner's and Tucker's.\n\nII. With regard to what they have in common in their basis, the seven\nrecognized Anarchistic teachings here presented may be taken as\nequivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings. They\nhave in their basis nothing in common with each other; all the more is\nit impossible, therefore, that the entire body of recognized Anarchistic\nteachings should have in their basis anything in common.\n\nFurthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in respect to\ntheir basis the teachings here presented may be taken as equivalent to\nthe entire body of Anarchistic teachings without limitation. For the\nspecialties represented among them can be arranged as a system that has\nno room left for any more co-ordinate specialties, but only for\nsubordinate. No Anarchistic teaching, therefore, can have any specialty\nthat will not be subordinate to these specialties.\n\nTherefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of\nAnarchistic teachings altogether. In their basis they have nothing in\ncommon, and are to be divided with respect to its differences as shown\nin the table on page 273.\n\n\n3.--LAW\n\nI. In their relation to law--that is, to those norms which are based on\nmen's will to have a certain procedure generally observed within a\ncircle which includes themselves--the seven teachings here presented\nhave nothing in common.\n\n1. A part of them negate law for our future; these teachings may be\ncalled _anomistic_. The other part of them affirm it for our future;\nthese teachings may be characterized as _nomistic_. Anomistic are the\nteachings of Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoi; nomistic those of Proudhon,\nBakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker.\n\n\n ======================================================\n |_Genetic_ | _Critical Teachings_ |\n |_Teachings_| |\n | |----------------------------------------|\n | | _Idealistic_ | _Eudemonistic_ |\n | | |-----------------------|\n | | | Altruistic | Egoistic |\n |===========+================+============+==========|\n | Bakunin | Proudhon | Godwin | Stirner |\n | Kropotkin | Tolstoi | | Tucker |\n\n\nThere cannot be given a more precise definition of what is common to the\nanomistic teachings on the one hand and to the nomistic on the other,\nand what is peculiar to the one group as against the other, than has\nhere been given. For both the negation and the affirmation of law for\nour future have totally different meanings in the different teachings.\n\nThe negation of law for our future means in the cases of Godwin and\nStirner that they reject law unconditionally, and so for our future as\nwell as everywhere else: Godwin because it is always and everywhere\ncontrary to the general happiness, Stirner because it is always and\neverywhere contrary to the individual's happiness.\n\nIn Tolstoi's case the meaning of the negation of law for our future is\nthat he rejects law, though not unconditionally, yet for our future,\nbecause it is, though not at all times and in all places, yet under our\ncircumstances, in a higher degree repugnant to love than its\nnon-existence.\n\nThe affirmation of law for our future means in the cases of Proudhon and\nTucker that they approve law as such (though certainly not every\nparticular form of law) unconditionally, and hence for our future as\nwell as elsewhere: Proudhon because law as such never and nowhere\noffends against justice, Tucker because law as such never and nowhere\nimpairs the individual's happiness.[1164]\n\nIn the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin, finally, the affirmation of law\nfor our future has the meaning that they foresee that the progress of\nevolution will in our future leave in existence law as such, even though\nnot the present particular form of law: Bakunin meaning by this the\nprogress of mankind from a less perfect existence to an existence as\nperfect as possible, and Proudhon its progress from a less happy\nexistence to an existence as happy as possible.\n\n2. The anomistic teachings part company again in regard to what they (in\nthe same different senses in which they negate law for our future)\naffirm for our future in contrast to the law.\n\nAccording to Godwin, in future the general happiness ought to be men's\ncontrolling principle in the place of law.\n\nAccording to Stirner, in future the happiness of self ought to be men's\ncontrolling principle in the place of law.\n\nAccording to Tolstoi, in future love ought to be men's controlling\nprinciple in the place of law.\n\n3. On the other part, the nomistic teachings part company in regard to\nthe particular form of law that they affirm for our future.\n\nAccording to Tucker, even in future there ought to exist enacted law, in\nwhich the will that creates the law is expressly declared,[1165] as well\nas unenacted law, in which such an express declaration of this will is\nnot present.\n\nAccording to Bakunin and Kropotkin, in future only unenacted law will\nexist.\n\nAccording to Proudhon, there ought to exist in future only the single\nlegal norm that contracts must be lived up to.[1166]\n\nII. With regard to what they have in common in their relation to law,\nthe seven recognized Anarchistic teachings here presented may be taken\nas equivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings. In\ntheir relation to law they have nothing in common. Much less, therefore,\ncan the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings have anything in\ncommon in their relation to law.\n\nFurthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in their\nrelation to law the teachings here presented may be taken as equivalent\nto the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without limitation. For the\nspecialties represented among them can be arranged as a system in which\nthere is no room left for any more co-ordinate specialties, but only for\nsubordinate. No Anarchistic teaching, therefore, can have any specialty\nthat will not be subordinate to these specialties.\n\nTherefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of\nAnarchistic teachings altogether. In their relation to law they have\nnothing in common, and are to be divided as follows with respect to the\ndifferences of this relation:\n\n\n ================================================\n | _Anomistic Teachings_ | _Nomistic Teachings_ |\n |=======================+======================|\n | Godwin | Proudhon |\n | Stirner | Bakunin |\n | Tolstoi | Kropotkin |\n | | Tucker |\n\n\n4.--THE STATE\n\nI. In their relation to the State--that is, to the legal relation by\nvirtue of which a supreme authority exists in a territory--the seven\nteachings here presented have something in common.\n\n1. They have this in common, that they negate the State for our future.\n\nThere cannot be given a more precise definition of what the teachings\nhere presented have in common in their relation to the State than has\nhere been given. For the negation of the State for our future has\ntotally different meanings in them.\n\nIn the cases of Godwin, Stirner, Tucker, and Proudhon, the negation of\nthe State for our future means that they reject the State\nunconditionally, and hence for our future as well as everywhere else:\nGodwin because the State always and everywhere impairs the general\nhappiness, Stirner and Tucker because it always and everywhere impairs\nthe individual's happiness, Proudhon because at all times and in all\nplaces the State offends against justice.\n\nIn Tolstoi's case the negation of the State for our future means that he\nrejects the State, though not unconditionally, yet for our future,\nbecause the State is, though not always and everywhere, yet under our\ncircumstances, more repugnant to love than its non-existence.\n\nFinally, in the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin the negation of the State\nfor our future has the meaning that they foresee that in our future the\nprogress of evolution will abolish the State: Bakunin meaning mankind's\nprogress from a less perfect existence to one as perfect as possible,\nKropotkin its progress from a less happy existence to one as happy as\npossible.\n\n2. As to what they affirm for our future in contrast to the State (in\nthe same different senses in which they negate the State for our future)\nthe seven teachings here presented have nothing in common.\n\nOne part of them affirm for our future, in contrast to the State, a\nsocial human life in a voluntary legal relation--to wit, under the\nlegal norm that contracts must be lived up to; these teachings may take\nthe name of _federalistic_. The other part of them affirm for our\nfuture, in contrast to the State, a social human life without any legal\nrelation--to wit, under the same controlling principle that they affirm\nfor our future in contrast to law; these teachings may be characterized\nas _spontanistic_. Federalistic are the teachings of Proudhon, Bakunin,\nKropotkin, and Tucker; spontanistic those of Godwin,[1167] Stirner, and\nTolstoi.\n\n3. The spontanistic teachings in turn part company in respect to the\nnon-legal controlling principle which they affirm in contrast to the\nState as the basis of the social human life for our future.\n\nAccording to Godwin, the place of the State ought to be taken by a\nsocial human life based on the principle that the general happiness\nshould be every one's rule of action.\n\nAccording to Stirner, the place of the State ought to be taken by a\nsocial human life based on the principle that each one's own happiness\nshould be his rule of action.\n\nAccording to Tolstoi, the place of the State ought to be taken by a\nsocial human life based on the principle that love should be every\none's rule of action.\n\nII. With regard to what they have in common in their relation to the\nState, the seven recognized Anarchistic teachings here presented may be\ntaken as equivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic\nteachings. In their relation to the State they have only this one thing\nin common, that they negate the State for our future--and in very\ndifferent senses at that. But this is common to all recognized\nAnarchistic teachings: observation of any recognized Anarchistic\nteaching shows that in one sense or another it negates the State for our\nfuture.\n\nFurthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in their\nrelation to the State the teachings here presented may be taken as\nequivalent to the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without\nlimitation. For the specialties represented among them can be arranged\nas a system which affords no room for any more co-ordinate specialties,\nbut only for subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching, therefore, can have\nany specialty that will not be subordinate to these specialties.\n\nTherefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of\nthe Anarchistic teachings altogether. In their relation to the State\nthey have in common their negating the State for our future; and with\nregard to the differences in what they affirm for our future in contrast\nto the State they are to be divided as shown in the table on page\n280.\n\n\n =======================================================\n | _Federalistic Teachings_ | _Spontanistic Teachings_ |\n |==========================+==========================|\n | Proudhon | Godwin |\n | Bakunin | Stirner |\n | Kropotkin | Tolstoi |\n | Tucker | |\n\n\n5.--PROPERTY\n\nI. In their relation to property--that is, to that legal relation by\nvirtue of which some one has within a certain group of men the exclusive\nprivilege of ultimately disposing of a thing--the seven teachings here\npresented have nothing in common.\n\n1. One part of them negate property for our future; these teachings may\nbe characterized as _indoministic_. The other part affirm it for our\nfuture; these teachings may be called _doministic_. Indoministic are the\nteachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, and Tolstoi; doministic the\nteachings of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker.\n\nThere cannot be given a more precise definition of what is common to the\nindoministic teachings on the one hand and to the doministic on the\nother, and what is peculiar to the one group as against the other, than\nhas here been given. For both the affirmation and the negation of\nproperty for our future have totally different meanings in the different\nteachings.\n\nIn the cases of Godwin, Stirner, and Proudhon, the negation of property\nfor our future means that they reject property unconditionally, and so\nfor our future as well as elsewhere: Godwin because it is always and\neverywhere contrary to the general happiness, Stirner because it is\nalways and everywhere contrary to the individual's happiness, Proudhon\nbecause it always and everywhere offends against justice.\n\nIn Tolstoi's case the meaning of the negation of property for our future\nis that he rejects property, though not absolutely, yet for our future,\nbecause it is, though not at all times and in all places, yet under our\ncircumstances, in a higher degree repugnant to love than is its\nnon-existence.\n\nIn Tucker's case the affirmation of property for our future means that\nhe approves property as such (though certainly not every particular form\nof property) unconditionally, and hence for our future as well as\nelsewhere, because property as such is never and nowhere contrary to the\nindividual's happiness.[1168]\n\nFinally, in the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin the affirmation of\nproperty for our future is as much as to say that they foresee that in\nour future the progress of evolution will leave in existence property as\nsuch, even though not the present particular form of property: Bakunin\nmeaning mankind's progress from a less perfect existence to one as\nperfect as possible, Kropotkin its progress from a less happy existence\nto one as happy as possible.\n\n2. The indoministic teachings part company again as to what they affirm\nfor our future (in the same different senses in which they negate\nproperty for our future) in contrast to property.\n\nAccording to Proudhon, a distribution of goods determined by a voluntary\nlegal relation, and based on the legal norm that contracts ought to be\nlived up to, ought to take the place of property.\n\nAccording to Godwin, Stirner, and Tolstoi, the place of property ought\nto be taken by a distribution without any legal relation, based rather\non the same rule of action that is affirmed by them in contrast to law.\n\nAccording to Godwin, therefore, that distribution of goods which is to\ntake the place of property ought to be based on what is prescribed to\neach one by the general happiness.\n\nAccording to Stirner it ought to be based on what is prescribed to each\none by his own happiness.\n\nAccording to Tolstoi it ought to be based on what is prescribed to each\none by love.\n\n3. The doministic teachings on their side part company again as to the\nparticular form of property that they affirm for our future.\n\nAccording to Tucker there ought to exist in future, as at present, both\nproperty of the individual and property of the collectivity, in all\nthings indiscriminately.[1169] This teaching may be called\n_individualistic_.\n\nAccording to Bakunin, in future there will exist property of the\nindividual and of the entire community only in goods for consumption,\nindiscriminately, while in the materials and instruments of production\nthere will be solely property of the collectivity. This teaching may be\ncharacterized as _collectivistic_.\n\nAccording to Kropotkin, in future there will exist solely property of\nthe collectivity in all things indiscriminately. This teaching may be\ncalled _communistic_.\n\nII. With regard to what they have in common in their relation to\nproperty, the seven Anarchistic teachings here presented may be taken as\nequivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings. They\nhave nothing in common in their relation to property. All the more is it\nimpossible, therefore, that the entire body of recognized Anarchistic\nteachings should in their relation to property have anything in common.\n\nFurthermore, in regard to the specialties that they exhibit in their\nrelation to property the teachings here presented may be taken as\nequivalent to the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without\nlimitation. For the specialties represented among them can be arranged\nas a system in which there is no room left for any more co-ordinate\nspecialties, but only for subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching,\ntherefore, can have any specialty that will not be subordinate to these\nspecialties.\n\nTherefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of\nAnarchistic teachings altogether. They have nothing in common in their\nrelation to property, and are to be divided with respect to the\ndifferences of this relation as shown in the table on page\n284.\n\n\n =================================================================\n |_Indoministic_| _Doministic Teachings_ |\n | _Teachings_ +-----------------+----------------+-------------+\n | |_Individualistic_|_Collectivistic_|_Communistic_|\n |==============+=================+================+=============|\n | Godwin | Tucker | Bakunin | Kropotkin |\n | Proudhon | | | |\n | Stirner | | | |\n | Tolstoi | | | |\n\n\n6.--REALIZATION\n\nI. With regard to the manner in which they conceive their\nrealization--that is, the transition from the negated condition to the\naffirmed condition--as taking place, the seven teachings here presented\nhave nothing in common.\n\n1. The one part of them conceive their realization as taking place\nwithout breach of law: they have in mind a transition from the negated\nto the affirmed condition merely by the application of legal norms of\nthe negated condition; these teachings may be characterized as\n_reformatory_. Reformatory are the teachings of Godwin and Proudhon. The\nother part conceive their realization as a breach of law: they have in\nmind a transition from the negated to the affirmed condition with\nviolation of legal norms of the negated condition; these teachings may\nbe called _revolutionary_. Revolutionary are the teachings of Stirner,\nBakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, and Tolstoi.\n\nThere cannot be given a more precise definition of what is common to the\nreformatory teachings on the one hand, to the revolutionary on the\nother, and what is peculiar to the one group as against the other, than\nhas here been given. For the conceiving the transition from a negated to\nan affirmed condition as taking place in any given way has totally\ndifferent meanings in the different teachings.\n\nIf Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, and Tolstoi conceive the\ntransition from a negated to an affirmed condition as taking place in\nany given way, this is as much as to say that they demand that we should\nin a given way first prepare for, and then effect, the transition from a\ndisapproved to an approved condition.\n\nIf, on the contrary, Bakunin and Kropotkin conceive the transition from\na negated to an affirmed condition as taking place in any given way,\nthis means that they foresee that in the progress of evolution the\ntransition from a disappearing to a newly-appearing condition will of\nitself take place in a given way, and that they only demand that we\nshould make a certain sort of preparation for this transition.\n\n2. The revolutionary teachings part company again as to the fashion in\nwhich they conceive of the breach of law that helps in the transition\nfrom the negated to the affirmed condition.\n\nSome of them conceive of the breach of law as taking place without the\nemployment of force; these teachings may be characterized as _renitent_.\nRenitent are the teachings of Tucker and Tolstoi: Tucker conceiving the\nbreach of law chiefly as a refusal to pay taxes and rent and an\ninfringement of the banking monopoly, Tolstoi especially as a refusal to\ndo military, police, or jury service, and also to pay taxes.\n\nThe other revolutionary teachings conceive of the breach of law that\nhelps in the transition from the negated to the affirmed condition as\ntaking place with the employment of force; these teachings may take the\nname of _insurgent_. Insurgent are the teachings of Stirner, Bakunin,\nand Kropotkin: Stirner and Bakunin conceiving only of the transition\nitself as attended with the use of violence, but Kropotkin also of\npreparation for it by such acts (propaganda of deed).\n\nII. With regard to what they have in common in respect of the conceived\nmanner of realization, the seven recognized Anarchistic teachings which\nhave been presented may be taken as equivalent to the entire body of\nrecognized Anarchistic teachings. In respect of the conceived manner of\nrealization they have nothing in common. Much less, therefore, can the\nentire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings have anything in common\nin this respect.\n\nFurthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in respect of\nthe conceived manner of realization the teachings here presented may be\ntaken as equivalent to the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without\nlimitation. For the specialties represented among them can be arranged\nas a system in which there is no room left for any more co-ordinate\nspecialties, but only for subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching,\ntherefore, can have any specialty that will not be subordinate to these\nspecialties.\n\nTherefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of\nthe Anarchistic teachings altogether. In respect of the conceived manner\nof realization they have nothing in common, and are to be arranged as\nfollows with reference to the differences therein:\n\n\n ===============================================\n |_Reformatory_ | _Revolutionary Teachings_ |\n | _Teachings_ +--------------+---------------|\n | | _Renitent_ | _Insurgent_ |\n |==============+==============+===============|\n | Godwin | Tucker | Stirner |\n | Proudhon | Tolstoi | Bakunin |\n | | | Kropotkin |\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1164] [I shall not indorse this statement till I understand it, and I\ndoubt if Tucker will. Perhaps Eltzbacher might have been content with\nsaying \"is in no case more injurious to the happiness of most\nindividuals than its non-existence.\"]\n\n[1165] [This, if interpreted by Eltzbacher's quotations from Tucker,\nmust refer to the right of a voluntary association of any sort to make\nrules for its own members. But in this sense it seems in the highest\ndegree doubtful whether Eltzbacher is justified in denying the same to\nall the other six, who have omitted to mention this point (perhaps\nregarding it as self-evident) while they were talking against laws in\nthe sense of laws compulsorily binding everybody in the land.]\n\n[1166] [But see on Proudhon and Stirner my notes on pages 80 and 97.]\n\n[1167] [It will be seen by consulting the footnotes on pages 46, 47, and\n48 that the warrants for this statement about Godwin are drawn\nexclusively from the first one-fifth of his book, contrary to\nEltzbacher's profession at the top of page 41; that the passages quoted\n_verbatim_ are not in Godwin's second edition; and that the quotations\nwhich are not _verbatim_ are of doubtful correctness by the second\nedition. This makes it appear that Godwin's sweeping rejection of the\nprinciple of contract was one of those over-hasty propositions about\nwhich he changed his mind even before they were published (see his words\nquoted on page 40, and the preface to his second edition). Yet I am not\nprepared to assert that Godwin would at any time have made contract the\nbasis of his civil order.]\n\n[1168] [On Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, see my notes on pages 80, 97,\n274.]\n\n[1169] [We are getting into an ambiguity of language here. The\n\"collectivity\" in which Kropotkin vests property is, as I understand,\nthe entire population; the only \"collectivity\" which Tucker could\nrecognize as owning property would be a voluntary association, whose\nmembership, whether large or small, would in general be limited by the\narbitrary choice of men.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nANARCHISM AND ITS SPECIES\n\n\nI.--ERRORS ABOUT ANARCHISM AND ITS SPECIES\n\nIt has now become possible to set aside some of the numerous errors\nabout Anarchism and its species.\n\nI. It is said that Anarchism has abolished morality and bases itself\nupon scientific materialism,[1170] that its ideal of society is\ndetermined by its peculiar conception of the way things come to pass in\nhistory.[1171] If this were correct, the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon,\nStirner, Tucker, Tolstoi, and very many other recognized Anarchistic\nteachings, would have to be regarded as not Anarchistic.\n\n2. It is asserted that Anarchism sets up the happiness of the individual\nas final goal,[1172] that it appraises every human action from the\nabstract view-point of the unlimited right of the individual,[1173] that\nto it the supreme law is not the general welfare but every individual's\nfree preference.[1174] Were this really the case, we should have to look\nupon the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tolstoi, and\na multitude of other recognized Anarchistic teachings, as not\nAnarchistic.\n\n3. The moral law of justice is set down as Anarchism's supreme\nlaw.[1175] Were this assertion correct, the teachings of Godwin,\nStirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, Tolstoi, and numerous other\nrecognized Anarchistic teachings, could not rank as Anarchistic.\n\n4. It is said that Anarchism culminates in the negation of every\nprogramme,[1176] that it has only a negative goal.[1177] If this were in\naccordance with truth, the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner,\nBakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, Tolstoi, and well-nigh all other recognized\nAnarchistic teachings, would not admit of being regarded as Anarchistic.\n\n5. It is asserted that Anarchism rejects law,[1178] the compulsion of\nlaw.[1179] If this were so, the teachings of Proudhon, Bakunin,\nKropotkin, Tucker, and very many other recognized Anarchistic teachings,\ncould not rank as Anarchistic.\n\n6. It is declared that Anarchism rejects society,[1180] that its ideal\nconsists in wiping out society to make a fresh start,[1181] that for it\nfellowship exists only to be combated.[1182] Were this correct, we\nshould have to look upon the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner,\nBakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, Tolstoi, and pretty nearly all other\nrecognized Anarchistic teachings, as not Anarchistic.\n\n7. It is said that Anarchism demands the abolition of the State,[1183]\nwills to destroy the State off the face of the earth,[1184] wills to\nhave the State in no form at all,[1185] wills to have no\ngovernment.[1186] If this were correct, the teachings of Bakunin and\nKropotkin, and all the other recognized Anarchistic teachings which\nonly foresee the abolition of the State but do not demand it, could not\nrank as Anarchistic.\n\n8. It is asserted that in Anarchism's future society the individual's\nconsent binds him only so long as he is disposed to keep it up.[1187]\nWere this really so, then the teachings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin,\nTucker, and very many other recognized Anarchistic teachings, would have\nto be looked upon as not Anarchistic.\n\n9. It is said that Anarchism wills to put a federation in the place of\nthe State,[1188] that what it is striving for is the ordering of all\npublic affairs by free contracts among federalistically instituted\ncommunes and societies.[1189] Were this in accordance with truth, the\nteachings of Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoi, and very many other recognized\nAnarchistic teachings, would not admit of being regarded as Anarchistic,\nand no more would the teachings of Bakunin and Kropotkin and the rest of\nthe recognized Anarchistic teachings that do not demand, but only\nforesee, a fellowship of contract.\n\n10. It is declared that Anarchism rejects property.[1190] If this were\ncorrect, we should have to rate the teachings of Bakunin, Kropotkin,\nTucker, and all the other recognized Anarchistic teachings that affirm\nproperty either unconditionally or at any rate in some particular form,\nas not Anarchistic.\n\n11. It is asserted that Anarchism rejects private property,[1191]\nendeavors to establish community of goods,[1192] is necessarily\ncommunistic.[1193] Were Anarchism necessarily communistic, then, in the\nfirst place, the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Tolstoi, and\nall the other recognized Anarchistic teachings which negate property in\nevery form, even as the property of society, could not rank as\nAnarchistic; and furthermore, neither could the teachings of Tucker and\nBakunin, and such other recognized Anarchistic teachings as affirm\nprivate property either in all things or at least in goods for direct\nconsumption. And if in addition to this it were a matter of rejection or\nendeavor, then not even Kropotkin's teaching, and the rest of the\nrecognized Anarchistic teachings which do not demand, but foresee, a\ncommunistic form of property, could be regarded as Anarchistic.\n\n12. A distinction is made between Communist, Collectivist, and\nIndividualist Anarchism,[1194] or simply between Communist and\nIndividualist Anarchism.[1195] Were the first division a complete one,\nthe teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Tolstoi, and all the other\nrecognized Anarchistic teachings that do not affirm property in any\nform, could not rank as Anarchistic; were the second complete, these\nagain could not, nor yet could Bakunin's teaching and such other\nrecognized Anarchistic teachings as affirm a property in the means of\nproduction only for society, but in the supplies of consumption for\nindividuals also.\n\n13. It is said that Anarchism preaches crime,[1196] looks to a violent\nrevolution for the initiation of the new condition,[1197] seeks to\nattain its goal with the help of all agencies, even theft and\nmurder.[1198] If Anarchism conceived of its realization as taking place\nby crime, we should have to look upon the teachings of Godwin and\nProudhon and very many more recognized Anarchistic teachings as not\nAnarchistic; and, if it conceived of its realization as taking place by\ncriminal acts of violence, the teachings of Tucker and Tolstoi and\nnumerous other recognized Anarchistic teachings would also have to be\nregarded as not Anarchistic.\n\n14. It is asserted that Anarchism recognizes the propaganda of deed as a\nmeans toward its realization.[1199] If this were correct, the teachings\nof Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Tucker, Tolstoi, and most of the\nother recognized Anarchistic teachings, could not rank as Anarchistic.\n\n\n2.--THE CONCEPTS OF ANARCHISM AND ITS SPECIES\n\nIt is now possible, furthermore, to determine the common and special\nqualities of the Anarchistic teachings, to assign them a place in the\ntotal realm of our experience, and thus to define conceptually Anarchism\nand its species.\n\nI. _The common and special qualities of the Anarchistic teachings._\n\n1. The Anarchistic teachings have in common only this, that they negate\nthe State for our future. In the cases of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, and\nTucker, the negation means that they reject the State unconditionally,\nand so for our future as well as elsewhere; in the case of Tolstoi it\nmeans that he rejects the State, though not unconditionally, yet for our\nfuture; in the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin it means that they foresee\nthat in future the progress of evolution will do away with the State.\n\n2. As to their basis, the Anarchistic teachings are classifiable as\n_genetic_, recognizing as the supreme law of human procedure merely a\nlaw of nature (Bakunin, Kropotkin) and _critical_, regarding a norm as\nthe supreme law of human procedure. The critical teachings, again, are\nclassifiable as _idealistic_, whose supreme law is a duty (Proudhon,\nTolstoi), and _eudemonistic_, whose supreme law is happiness. The\neudemonistic teachings, finally, are on their part further classifiable\nas _altruistic_, for which the general happiness is supreme law\n(Godwin), and _egoistic_, for which the individual's happiness takes\nthis rank (Stirner, Tucker).\n\nAs to what they affirm for our future in contrast to the State, the\nAnarchistic teachings are either _federalistic_--that is, they affirm\nfor our future a social human life on the basis of the legal norm that\ncontracts must be lived up to (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker)--or\n_spontanistic_--that is, they affirm for our future a social human life\non the basis of a non-juridical controlling principle (Godwin, Stirner,\nTolstoi).\n\nAs to their relation to law, a part of the Anarchistic teachings are\n_anomistic_, negating law for our future (Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoi); the\nother part are _nomistic_, affirming it for our future (Proudhon,\nBakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker).\n\nAs to their relation to property, the Anarchistic teachings are partly\n_indoministic_, negating property for our future (Godwin, Proudhon,\nStirner, Tolstoi), partly _doministic_, affirming it for our future. The\ndoministic teachings, again, are partly _individualistic_, affirming\nproperty, without limitation, for the individual as well as for the\ncollectivity (Tucker), partly _collectivistic_, affirming as to supplies\nfor direct consumption a property that will sometimes be the\nindividual's, but as to the means of production a property that is only\nfor the collectivity (Bakunin), and, finally, partly _communistic_,\naffirming property solely for the collectivity (Kropotkin).\n\nAs to how they conceive their realization, the Anarchistic teachings\ndivide into the _reformatory_, which conceive the transition from the\nnegated to the affirmed condition as without breach of law (Godwin,\nProudhon), and _revolutionary_, which conceive this transition as a\nbreach of law. The revolutionary teachings, again, divide into\n_renitent_, which conceive the breach of law as without the use of force\n(Tucker, Tolstoi) and _insurgent_, which conceive it as attended by the\nuse of force (Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin).\n\nII. _The place of the Anarchistic teachings in the total realm of our\nexperience._\n\n1. There must be distinguished three lines of thought in the philosophy\nof law: that is, three fashions of judging law.\n\nThe first is _jurisprudential dogmatism_. It judges whether a legal\ninstitution ought to exist or not, and it judges quite unconditionally,\nsolely by what the institution consists of, without regard to its\neffect under this or that particular set of circumstances. It embraces,\ntherefore, the doctrines of a _proper law_: that is, the schools that\nseek to determine what law--for instance, whether the legal institution\nof marriage--is under all circumstances to be approved or to be\ndisapproved. Its best known form is \"natural law.\"\n\nThe weakness of jurisprudential dogmatism lies in its not taking account\nof the fact that our judgment of legal institutions must depend on their\neffects, and that one and the same legal institution has under different\ncircumstances altogether different effects.\n\nThe second line of thought is _jurisprudential skepticism_. In view of\nthe weakness of jurisprudential dogmatism it foregoes judgment on\nwhether a legal institution ought to exist or not, and pronounces\njudgment only on whether the tendency of evolution gives ground for\nexpecting that a legal institution will persist or disappear, arise or\nremain non-existent. It embraces, therefore, the doctrines of the\n_evolution of law_: that is, the schools that undertake to inform us\nwhat sort of law is to be expected in future--for instance, whether the\nlegal institution of marriage has a prospect of remaining in force among\nus. Its best-known forms are the historical school in the science of\nlaw, and Marxism.\n\nThe weakness of jurisprudential skepticism consists in its not meeting\nour want of a scientific basis that shall enable us to recognize as\ncorrect or incorrect the incessantly-appearing judgments on the value of\nlegal institutions, and to approve or disapprove the manifold\npropositions for changes in law.\n\nThe third line of thought is _jurisprudential criticism_. In view of\nthe weakness of jurisprudential dogmatism it foregoes passing judgment,\nwithout regard to the particular circumstances under which a legal\ninstitution operates, on whether that institution ought to exist or not;\nbut yet in view of the weakness of jurisprudential skepticism it does\nnot forego answering the question whether a legal institution ought to\nexist or not. It therefore sets up a supreme governing principle by\nwhich legal institutions are to be judged with regard to the particular\ncircumstances under which they operate, the point being whether, under\nthe particular circumstances under which a legal institution operates,\nit fulfils that supreme governing principle as well as is possible under\nthese circumstances, or at least better than any other legal\ninstitution. It embraces, therefore, the doctrines of _the propriety of\nlaw_: that is, the schools that set up fundamental principles by which\nit is to be determined what law--for instance, whether the legal\ninstitution of marriage--ought under any particular circumstances to\nexist or not to exist.\n\n2. With respect to the State these three lines of thought in the\nphilosophy of law may arrive at different judgments, each one from its\nstandpoint.\n\nFirst, to the _affirmation of the State_.\n\nSo far as the schools of jurisprudential dogmatism affirm the State,\nthey approve of it unconditionally, and so for our future as well as\nelsewhere, without any regard to its effects under this or that\nparticular set of circumstances.\n\nAmong the numerous affirmative doctrines of the State in the sense of\njurisprudential dogmatism, the teachings of Hobbes, Hegel, and Jhering\nmay perhaps be selected for emphasis as belonging to different sections\nof history.\n\nSo far as the doctrines of jurisprudential skepticism affirm the State,\nthey foresee, looking to the course evolution is taking, that in our\nfuture the State will continue to exist.\n\nThe most notable representatives of jurisprudential skepticism, such as\nPuchta and Merkel, have offered no teaching regarding the State; but\naffirmative doctrines of the State in the sense of jurisprudential\nskepticism may be found, for instance, in Montaigne and Bernstein.\n\nFinally, so far as the doctrines of jurisprudential criticism affirm the\nState, they commend it for our future in consideration of the particular\ncircumstances that at present prevail in our case.\n\nJurisprudential criticism has thus far been most clearly set forth by\nStammler, who, however, has offered no teaching with regard to the\nState; but, for instance, Spencer's teaching may rank as an affirmative\ndoctrine of the State in the sense of jurisprudential criticism.\n\nSecond, the three lines of thought in the philosophy of law may arrive\nat the _negation of the State_, each one from its standpoint.\n\nSo far as the doctrines of jurisprudential dogmatism negate the State,\nthey reject it unconditionally, and so for our future as well as\nelsewhere, without any regard to its effects under this or that\nparticular set of circumstances.\n\nNegative doctrines of the State in the sense of jurisprudential\ndogmatism are the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, and Tucker.\n\nSo far as the doctrines of jurisprudential skepticism negate the State,\nthey foresee, looking to the course evolution is taking, that in our\nfuture the State will disappear.\n\nNegative doctrines of the State in the sense of jurisprudential\nskepticism are the teachings of Bakunin and Kropotkin.\n\nSo far as the doctrines of jurisprudential criticism negate the State,\nthey reject it for our future in consideration of the particular\ncircumstances that at present prevail in our case.\n\nA negative doctrine of the State in the sense of jurisprudential\ncriticism is Tolstoi's teaching.\n\n3. Therefore, the place of the Anarchistic teachings in the total realm\nof our experience is defined by the fact that they, as a species of\ndoctrine about the State in the philosophy of law,--to wit, as negative\ndoctrines of the State,--stand in opposition to the other species of\ndoctrine about the State, the affirmative doctrines of the State.\n\nThis may be represented as shown in the table on the following page.\n\nIII. _The concepts of Anarchism and its species._\n\n1. Anarchism is the negation of the State in the philosophy of law: that\nis, it is that species of jurisprudential doctrine of the State which\nnegates the State.\n\n2. An Anarchistic teaching cannot be complete without stating on what\nbasis it rests, what condition it affirms in contrast to the State, and\nhow it conceives the transition to this condition as taking place. A\nbasis, an affirmative side, and a conception of the transition to that\nwhich it affirms, are necessary constituents of any Anarchistic\nteaching. With regard to these constituents the following species of\nAnarchism may be distinguished.\n\n\n ================================================================\n | |_Affirmative Doctrines_|_Negative Doctrines_|\n | | _of the State_ | _of the State_ |\n |=================+======================+=====================|\n | | Hobbes | Godwin |\n | In the sense of | Hegel | Proudhon |\n | jurisprudential | Jhering | Stirner |\n | dogmatism | | Tucker |\n +-----------------+----------------------+---------------------+\n | In the sense of | Montaigne | Bakunin |\n | jurisprudential | Bernstein | Kropotkin |\n | skepticism | | |\n +-----------------+----------------------+---------------------+\n | In the sense of | | |\n | jurisprudential | Spencer | Tolstoi |\n | criticism | | |\n\n\nFirst, as to basis, _genetic Anarchism_, which recognizes as supreme law\nof human procedure only a law of nature (Bakunin, Kropotkin), and\n_critical Anarchism_, which regards a norm as supreme law of human\nprocedure; as subspecies of critical Anarchism, _idealistic Anarchism_,\nwhose supreme law is a duty (Proudhon, Tolstoi), and _eudemonistic\nAnarchism_, whose supreme law is happiness; and, finally, as subspecies\nof eudemonistic Anarchism, _altruistic Anarchism_, for which the supreme\nlaw is the general happiness (Godwin), and _egoistic Anarchism_, for\nwhich the supreme law is the individual's happiness (Stirner, Tucker).\n\nSecond, as to the condition affirmed in contrast to the State, there\nmay be distinguished _federalistic Anarchism_, which affirms for our\nfuture a social human life according to the legal norm that contracts\nmust be lived up to (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker), and\n_spontanistic Anarchism_, which affirms for our future a social life\naccording to a non-juridical governing principle (Godwin, Stirner,\nTolstoi).\n\nThird, as to the conception of the transition to the affirmed condition,\nthere may be distinguished _reformatory Anarchism_, which conceives the\ntransition from the State to the condition affirmed in contrast thereto\nas taking place without breach of law (Godwin, Proudhon), and\n_revolutionary Anarchism_, which conceives this transition as a breach\nof law; as subspecies of revolutionary Anarchism, _renitent Anarchism_,\nwhich conceives the breach of law as without the use of violence\n(Tucker, Tolstoi), and _insurgent Anarchism_, which conceives it as\nattended by the use of violence (Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin).\n\n3. An Anarchistic teaching may be complete without taking up a position\ntoward law or property. Whenever, therefore, an Anarchistic teaching\ntakes up a position toward the one or the other, it contains an\naccidental adjunct. The Anarchistic teachings that contain this adjunct\nmay be classified according to its character; but, since Anarchism as\nsuch can be classified only according to the character of the necessary\nconstituents of every Anarchistic teaching, such a classification _does\nnot give us species of Anarchism_.\n\nSo far as the Anarchistic teachings take up a position toward law, they\nare either _anomistic_--that is, they negate law for our future\n(Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoi)--or _nomistic_--that is, they affirm it for\nour future (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker).\n\nSo far as they take up a position toward property, they are either\n_indoministic_, negating property for our future (Godwin, Proudhon,\nStirner, Tolstoi), or _doministic_, affirming it for our future; the\ndoministic teachings, again, are either _individualistic_, affirming\nproperty, without limitation, for the individual as well as for the\ncollectivity (Tucker), or _collectivistic_, affirming as to supplies for\ndirect consumption a property which may be the individual's, but as to\nthe means of production a property that is only for the collectivity\n(Bakunin), or, last of all, _communistic_, affirming property for the\ncollectivity alone (Kropotkin).\n\nAll this is brought before the eye in the table on page 302.\n\n\n [**Symbol: hand pointing right][The table is given as compiled by\n Eltzbacher. For correction of errors either certain or probable,\n see footnotes to pages 80, 97, 278; note also that under \"condition\n affirmed\" the distinction is excessively fine between Stirner, who\n would have men agree on the terms of a union which they are to\n stick to as long as they find it advisable, and Bakunin and Tucker,\n who would have them bound together by a contract limited by the\n inalienable right of secession.]\n\n\nKEY: A - Genetic\n B - Idealistic\n C - Altrustic\n D - Egoistic\n E - Federalistic\n F - Spontanistic\n G - Reformatory\n H - Renitent\n I - Insurgent\n J - Anomistic\n K - Nomistic\n L - Indoministic\n M - Individualistic\n N - Collectivistic\n O - Communistic\n\n =====================================================================\n | _Doctrines of the State_ | _Anarchistic Teachings_ |\n | _in the Philosophy of Law_ | _may possibly be_ |\n |-----------------+--------------------+ |\n | Affirmative | Negative | |\n | Doctrines | Doctrines | |\n | of the State | of the State | |\n |-----------------+ | |\n | ANARCHISM | |\n |-----------------+---------+----------+--------+-------------------|\n | |_As to |_As to its| _As to | _As to their |\n | |condition|conception| their | attitude toward |\n | |affirmed | of the |attitude| property_ |\n |_As to its basis_| in |transition| toward | |\n | |contrast | to the | law_ | |\n | | to the | affirmed | | |\n | | State_ |condition_| | |\n |---+-------------+---------+--+-------+---+----+----+--------------|\n | | Critical | | | |Revolu-| | | | Doministic |\n | +----+--------+ | | |tionary| | | +--------------|\n | | |Eudemon-| | | +-------+ | | | | | |\n | | | istic | | | | | | | | | | | |\n | | +--------+ | | | | | | | | | | |\n | A | B | C | D | E | F |G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O |\n |---+----+----+---+---+-----+--+---+---+---+----+----+----+----+----|\n | | | Go | | |Go* |Go| | | Go| | Go | | | |\n |---+----+----+---+---+-----+--+---+---+---+----+----+----+----+----|\n | | Pr | | |Pr | |Pr | | | | Pr |Pr* | | | |\n |---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+--+---+---+----+----+----+----+----|\n | | | |St | | St* | | |St |St*| |St* | | | |\n |---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+--+---+---+----+----+----+----+----|\n |Ba | | | |Ba | | | |Ba | | Ba | | | Ba | |\n |---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+--+---+---+----+----+----+----+----|\n |Kr | | | |Kr | | | |Kr | | Kr | | | | Kr |\n |---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+--+---+---+----+----+----+----+----|\n | | | |Tu |Tu | | |Tu| | | Tu | | Tu | | |\n |---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+--+---+---+----+----+----+----+----|\n | | To | | | | To | |To| |To | | To | | | |\n =====================================================================\n\n* [See note, p. 301.]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1170] \"_Der Anarchismus und seine Traeger_\" pp. 127, 124, 125.\n\n[1171] Reichesberg p. 27.\n\n[1172] Lenz p. 3.\n\n[1173] Plechanow p. 80.\n\n[1174] Rienzi p. 43.\n\n[1175] Bernatzik pp. 2, 3.\n\n[1176] Lenz p. 5.\n\n[1177] Crispi p. 4.\n\n[1178] Stammler pp. 2, 4, 34, 36.\n\n[1179] Lenz pp. 1, 4.\n\n[1180] Garraud p. 12, Tripels p. 253.\n\n[1181] Silio p. 145.\n\n[1182] Reichesberg pp. 14, 16.\n\n[1183] Bernstein p. 359.\n\n[1184] Lenz p. 5.\n\n[1185] Bernatzik p. 3.\n\n[1186] \"_Hintermaenner_\" p. 14.\n\n[1187] Reichesberg p. 30.\n\n[1188] \"_Hintermaenner_\" p. 14.\n\n[1189] Lombroso p. 31.\n\n[1190] Silio p. 145, Dubois p. 213.\n\n[1191] Proal p. 50.\n\n[1192] Lombroso p. 31.\n\n[1193] Sernicoli vol. 2 p. 67, Garraud pp. 3, 4.\n\n[1194] \"_Die historische Entwickelung des Anarchismus_\" p. 16; Zenker p.\n161.\n\n[1195] Rienzi p. 9; Stammler pp. 28-31; Merlino pp. 18, 27; Shaw p. 23.\n\n[1196] Garraud p. 6; Lenz p. 5.\n\n[1197] Sernicoli vol. 2 p. 116; Garraud p. 2; Reichesberg p. 38; Van\nHamel p. 113.\n\n[1198] Lombroso pp. 31, 35.\n\n[1199] Garraud pp. 10-11; Lombroso p. 34; Ferri p. 257.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\n1. The personal want that impelled us toward a scientific knowledge of\nAnarchism has met with some satisfaction.\n\nThe concepts of Anarchism and its species have been defined; the most\nimportant errors have been removed; the most prominent Anarchistic\nteachings of earlier and recent times have been presented in detail. We\nhave become acquainted with Anarchism's armory. We have seen all that\ncan be objected against the State from all possible standpoints. We have\nbeen shown the most diverse orders of life as destined to take the\nState's place in future. The transition from the State to these orders\nof life has been represented to us in the most manifold ways.\n\nHe who would know Anarchism still more intimately, investigate the less\nnotable teachings as well as the most prominent, and assign to both\nthese and those their place in the causal nexus of historical events,\nwill now find at least the foundation laid for his work. He knows with\nwhat sorts of teachings, and what parts of these teachings, he must\nconcern himself, and what questions he must put to each of them. In this\ninvestigation he must expect many surprises: the teaching of the unknown\nPisacane will astonish him by its originality, and that of the\nmuch-talked-of Most will show itself to be only a coarsened form of\nKropotkin's. But on the whole it is hardly likely that the investigation\nwill be worth the trouble it takes: the special ideas that Anarchism\nhas to offer are given with tolerable completeness in the seven\nteachings here presented.\n\n2. The external want on account of which Anarchism had to be\nscientifically known may now also be satisfied.\n\nOne thing we must at any rate do with regard to Anarchism: examine its\nteachings, as to their soundness or unsoundness, with courage,\ncomposure, and impartiality. But success in this task can be expected\nonly if we no longer wander about aimlessly in the night of\njurisprudential skepticism, or try to light it up with the lantern of\ndogmatism, but rather keep our eye fixed upon the guiding star of\ncriticism.\n\nWhether, besides this, it is requisite to oppose Anarchism or at least\none or another of its species by especial instrumentalities of\npower,--whether, in particular, crime committed for the realization of\nAnarchistic teachings is a more serious misdeed than any political or\neven ordinary crime,--as to this the legislators of each country must\ndecide with a view to the special conditions existing therein.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\nOF DETAILS, EXEMPLIFICATIONS, AND CATCHWORDS IN THE QUOTATIONS FROM THE\nSEVEN WRITERS\n\n\n The following index is not a translation of Eltzbacher's, and does\n not index his part of the work, but only the matter quoted from the\n seven writers. Furthermore, it does not index such parts of their\n work as are readily found by consulting the table of contents and\n Chapter X. The reader will therefore, in general, for Justice, see\n the sections \"Basis\" and \"Property\" in each chapter, and the whole\n of Chapter IV; for Self-Interest, \"Basis\" in each chapter and the\n whole of Chapters V and VIII; for Classes, \"State\" and \"Property\"\n in each chapter; for Organization, \"State\" and \"Realization\"; for\n Government, Democracy, Tyranny, \"State\"; for Capitalism, Poverty,\n Inequality, \"Property\"; for Communism, Chapters VII and IX,\n especially \"Property\" and \"Realization\", comparing Chapter VI; for\n Propaganda, Social Revolution, \"Realization\" in each chapter; and\n so on. So far as general points of this nature are mentioned in the\n index, it is in most cases only on some incidental occasion, and\n does not supersede this general reference: nor could this be\n superseded without thereby misleading the reader. \"Law\" has\n received somewhat exceptional treatment.\n\n The reader will of course not assume, because in the index he does\n not find a certain author among those who are cited on a certain\n topic, that this author has not mentioned it. While the index shows\n a wider range of topics than might have been expected in such a\n book, the nature of Eltzbacher's compilation forbids us to expect\n that it should serve as a complete Cyclopedia of Anarchism.\n\n\nAbsenteeism, Kr. 162-3, To. 250-51, 256, 259\n\nAged, see Dependent\n\nAgriculture, Kr. 168, 177, To. 234\n\nAmerican Revolution, Go. 59\n\nAnarchism, first use of name, Pr. 67, Kr. 140\n\nAnarchy, lesser evil, Go. 41\n\nAreas of jurisdiction, ideally:\n small, Go. 48-50\n nation-wide, Pr. 76-80\n larger and larger, Ba. 127\n undefined, Kr. 156, Tu. 195\n\nArmy:\n cannot crush revolution, Kr. 173\n basis of State, To. 239-43\n refuse to serve in, To. 262, 266\n of revolution, Ba. 136, 138, Kr. 176\n\nAssociations, voluntary, St. 104-5, Kr. 155-6, Tu. 194-200\n\nAstronomy, Kr. 168\n\nAuthority:\n object of competition, Pr. 73-4\n sought only by the bad, To. 237-8\n\nBad men, see Criminals\n\nBallot, see Voting\n\nBank, Pr. 65, 88-91, Tu. 206-7, 214\n\nBees swarming, To. 267\n\nBloodshed:\n insignificant, Ba. 133, Kr. 173\n see Force, War\n\nBoundaries:\n abolished, Ba. 127, 137\n no economic, Kr. 158\n see Areas\n\nBribery by State, To. 242-3\n\nCalifornia, Pr. 87\n\nCentral authority in future, Go. 51-2, Pr. 79-80, Ba. 136\n\nCentralization, Pr. 76-80\n\nChildren, Tu. 185, ftn. 187;\n see Dependent\n\nChristianity, To. 220-69\n\nChurch:\n anti-Christian, To. 220-2\n organization, Pr. 76-7\n property, Ba. 135\n\nCollectivism, Ba. 131, Kr. 165-6\n\nColonists, To. 259-60\n\nColumbus, To. 247-8\n\nCommune:\n economic unit, Kr. 156-9, 166, 170, 176-7\n political unit, Ba. 136\n\nCommunism in present society, Kr. 164-5, 170\n\nContract:\n basic, Pr. 71, 75, Kr. 157, Tu. 194-6\n eschewed, Go. 46-8 (but see footnotes), 51, To. 244\n scope of, Ba. 120, Tu. 189\n\nCourts, future:\n drawn by lot, Tu. 200\n elective, Pr. 78\n free from law, Go. 45, 50\n partly free from law, Tu. 201, ftn. 187\n merely recommend, Go. 52\n\nCriminals:\n State gives power to, To. 237-8\n State makes, Kr. 147, 161, Tu. 193, 198, To. 245-6\n\nDebts:\n private, Ba. 135, Tu. 189-90\n of State, Ba. 135, Kr. 150\n\nDefence:\n a commodity, Tu. 192, 198-9\n force justified in, Tu. 185-90, 200, 215\n force not justified in, To. 227-8\n see Invasion\n\nDefensive associations, Tu. 198-200\n\nDeliberative assemblies, Go. 48, 51-2, 61-3;\n see Central\n\nDependent:\n the poor are, To. 251-4\n provision for the, Go. 57-8, St. 107-8, Kr. 170, To. 258\n\nDestruction, Kr. 172-3\n\nDiscussion, Go. 59, Kr. 178, Tu. 210\n\nDistress, relief of, Tu. 193\n\nEgoism, St. 93-114, Tu. 183\n\nEnglish history, Go. 59, Kr. 151-2\n\nEvolution no excuse for inertness, Kr. 142-5, To. 222-3, 263\n\nExample, propaganda by, Pr. 88, Ba. 136, Kr. 178-9, Tu. 212-14,\n To. 262, 267-9\n\nExploitation, State stands for, Ba. 117, 119, 128\n\nExpropriation, Kr. 174-5\n\nExpulsion, Pr. 72, Kr. 148, 157\n\nExtradition in future, Go. 50-51\n\nForce:\n inadmissible, To. 227-30\n justification of, Tu. 186, 190, 215\n in law, To. 231\n may be necessary, Tu. 211-12\n necessary, St. 111, 114\n in property, To. 255-6\n in State, St. 101, Ba. 123, Tu. 191, To. 239-43\n undesirable, Pr. 87\n unreliable, Go. 58\n useful, Kr. 151, 180\n works badly, Tu. 211, 215-16, To. 264-5\n\nFrankness, To. 233, 262-3\n\nFreedom, see Liberty;\n also Speech, etc.\n\nFrench Revolution:\n events, Go. 59, Kr. 150, 176-8, 180-1\n legislatures, Go. 61, Pr. 70\n\nGovernment, see State\n\nHeirs dividing property, Go. 57-8\n\nHouses, Kr. 174, 177\n\nHypnotizing the people, To. 242\n\nIndependence, Ba. 120, 126-7\n\nInequality will persist but diminish, Tu. 208-9\n\nInstitutions to be preserved, Pr. 74, 82\n\nIntelligence, government checks progress in, Go. 40, 46\n\nIntercourse of social organizations, Go. 49-50 and ftn., Kr. 157-8,\n Tu. 199\n\nIntimidation, To. 243\n\nInvasion:\n foreign, Go. 51, Kr. 159, To. 246\n personal, Tu. 185-6\n\nIrish Land League, Tu. 197-8, 210, 217\n\nJudge, Jury, see Courts\n\nLabor:\n amount of, Go. 56, Kr. 167-8\n basis of distribution, Pr. 84, Ba. 131\n basis of ownership, Tu. 188, 205\n basis of sharing, Kr. 167, 169-70\n of past generations, Kr. 161-2\n product of, Tu. 201, 205\n seeking higher pay, St. 103, 114\n universal duty, To. 234, 257\n\nLand:\n monopoly, Tu. 203\n tenure, Tu. 188, 205, 207\n\nLaw:\n dwarfs character, Go. 44\n is changeful, Go. 43\n is consecrated, St. 97-8\n is hostile in purpose, St. 102-3, Ba. 119, To. 238\n is inadequate, To. 231-2\n is not agreed to, Pr. 70, Kr. 148, To. 228-9\n is not impartial, Pr. 70, St. 101, Kr. 146-7, 151-3\n is not up to date, To. 231-2\n is obstructive, St. 102, Kr. 151\n is prophetic, Go. 43\n is rigid, Go. 42-3, Kr. 146, Tu. 187\n is uncertain, Go. 43\n is violent, To. 231\n is voluminous, Go. 43, 63, Pr. 69-70, Kr. 150\n origin of, Go. 43, Kr. 146-8, To. 232\n tends to encroach, Go. 43, Pr. 69, St. 102, Kr. 151, To. 238\n\nLiberty, equal, Tu. 184-7, ftn. 184\n\nLiquor, Tu. 186\n\nMental influence, To. 244-5\n\nMilitary, see Army\n\nMoney:\n monopoly, Tu. 202-3, 205-7\n power of, To. 253-4\n see Bank\n\nMonopoly:\n economic, Tu. 202-8\n State is, Tu. 192\n\nMusic, Kr. 168\n\nMutuality, Pr. 85\n\nNon-resistance, To. 227-8\n\nOccupancy and use:\n title to land, Tu. 188, 203\n title to everything, To. 259-60\n\nPaine quoted, Go. 47 and ftn.\n\nPapers, legal, Pr. 70, Ba. 135\n\nPassive resistance, Tu. 216-18, To. 266-7\n\nPatents, Tu. 204, 208\n\nPeasants:\n beating each other, To. 264\n condition of, Kr. 160, To. 253\n economic practices of, Kr. 170-71, To. 259-60\n how to reach, Ba. 136\n revolutionary achievements of, Kr. 151, 180;\n see Irish\n\nPolice:\n agency of governmental violence, To. 239, 241\n depraved, To. 238\n in future society, Tu. ftn. 187, 198-9, ftn. 198;\n see Extradition\n lawless, Kr. 152\n obstructive, St. 102\n to be replaced by voluntary intervention of citizens, Kr. 159\n the support of property, To. 255\n\nPower, see Authority\n\nPress, freedom of, Tu. 211\n\nPrinting, Kr. 169\n\nPrivate wants in Communism, Kr. 168-9\n\nProduct, see Labor\n\nProduction will increase, Kr. 169-70, Tu. 207\n\nPromise, see Contract\n\nProperty, definition of, Pr. 80-81, To. 250\n\nPublic opinion:\n in advance of law, To. 230-32\n to be changed, Pr. 86-7, Ba. 137, Tu. 210, To. 260-61\n doctored by State, Ba. 137, To. 242-3\n society to be ruled by, To. 245\n\nPunishment:\n is antiquated, To. 245\n is not wanted, Kr. 157\n is proper, Tu. 187-9, 200\n is useless, Kr. 147\n makes criminals, Kr. 147, To. 246\n see Expulsion\n\nRailroads:\n agreement of, Kr. 156\n building, Kr. 158\n ownership of, Kr. 163\n\nRationing, Kr. 170-71, 176\n\nRed Cross Society, Kr. 155\n\nReligion foundation of State, Ba. 121-2\n\nRent:\n economic, Tu. 208-9, ftn. 203\n of landlord, Kr. 174, Tu. 203, 207, 210, 217\n\nResistance, see Defence, Force, Passive\n\nRevolution part of evolution, Kr. 142-3\n\nRich, the:\n depraved, Ba. 129, Kr. 160-61\n guilty, To. 250, 253-4\n will help us, Go. 64, Pr. 87\n\nRight, Rights:\n admissible sense, Tu. 185\n a delusion, St. 98-9, Tu. 184\n to enforce contract, Tu. 189-90\n to independence, Ba. 120, 126-7\n to live comfortably, Go. 55-6, Kr. 149, 170\n only for rich, Kr. 151-3\n of secession, Ba. 127, Tu. 194-7\n State has no, Tu. 214\n\nRobbery, forms of, Pr. 81-2\n\nRuling classes:\n bad men originally, To. 237-8\n depraved by ruling, Ba. 123, To. 238\n incompetent, Kr. 163\n\nSchools, Kr. 159, To. 247\n\nSecession, Ba. 127, Tu. 194-7\n\nSecret societies, Ba. 132, 138, Kr. 177\n\nSelf the thing to be changed, St. 110-11, To. 233-4, 265\n\nSick, see Dependent\n\nSociety:\n distinguished from government, Go. 47\n indispensable, Ba. 125, Tu. 194\n organism, evolving, Kr. 142-4\n values all due to, Kr. 161-2\n see Secret\n\nSoldiers, see Army\n\nSpeech, freedom of, Tu. 211\n\nSpencer quoted, Tu. 184 and ftn.\n\nSpooner, Lysander, xi\n\nStaff of revolutionary army, Ba. 138\n\nState defined, Tu. 190-91\n\nStop beating each other, To. 264\n\nStreet-making, Kr. 158\n\nTariff, Tu. 204\n\nTaxation:\n robbery which vitiates all State's acts, Tu. 191\n refuse to pay, Tu. 212-13, 217-18, To. 266\n\nTheft, see Robbery\n\nViolence, see Force\n\nVirtue, State hostile to, Ba. 123\n\nVoting:\n for officers now appointed otherwise, Pr. 76-9\n in State, a form of force, Tu. 191\n irrational, Go. 51-2\n in voluntary association, Tu. 196\n\nWar:\n a fight for dominion, To. 240\n State stands for, Kr. 150\n See Force, Invasion\n\nWarren, Josiah, Tu. ftn. 182, 202 (for \"they\" see ftn. 203)\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Adventures of Caleb Williams\n\nOR\n\nThings as They Are\n\nBY\n\nWILLIAM GODWIN\n\n\n\"_It was proposed, in the invention of the following work, to\ncomprehend, as far as the progressive nature of a single story would\nallow, a general review of the modes of domestic and unrecorded\ndespotism by which man becomes the destroyer of man._\"--FROM THE\nPREFACE.\n\nLimp lambskin, gilt top, $1.29\n\nPhotogravure Frontispiece\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\n\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks of\n\nP. J. PROUDHON\n\nIN THE ORIGINAL FRENCH\n\n\n+Qu'est-ce que la propriete?+ Premier memoire: Recherches sur le\nprincipe du droit et du gouvernement. Deuxieme memoire: Lettre a M.\nBlanqui sur la propriete. 355 pages. 79 cents.\n\n+Avertissement aux proprietaires.+ Celebration du dimanche; De la\nconcurrence entre les chemins de fer et les voies navigables; Le\nmiserere. 308 pages. 72 cents.\n\n+De la creation de l'ordre dans l'humanite: ou, principes d'organisation\npolitique.+ 394 pages. 77 cents.\n\n+Systeme des contradictions economiques: ou, philosophie de la misere.+\n2 vols. 796 pages. $1.51.\n\n+Solution du probleme social.+ Organisation du credit et de la\ncirculation; Banque d'echange; Banque du peuple. 315 pages. 75 cents.\n\n+Du principe federatif et de la necessite de reconstituer le parti de la\nRevolution.+ Si les traites de 1815 ont cesse d'exister. 320 pages. 75\ncents.\n\n+Les confessions d'un revolutionnaire.+ Pour servir a l'histoire de la\nRevolution de fevrier. 234 pages. 75 cents.\n\n+Idee generale de la Revolution au XIXe siecle.+ 320 pages. 72 cents.\n\n+Des reformes a operer dans l'exploitation des chemins de fer, et des\nconsequences qui peuvent en resulter soit pour l'augmentation du revenu\ndes compagnies, soit pour l'abaissement des prix de transport,\nl'organisation de l'industrie voituriere, et la constitution economique\nde la societe.+ 342 pages. 75 cents.\n\n+La guerre et la paix.+ Recherches sur le principe et la constitution du\ndroit des gens. 2 vols. 652 pages. $1.49.\n\n+Theorie de l'impot.+ 328 pages. 75 cents.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks of\n\nP. J. PROUDHON\n\nIN THE ORIGINAL FRENCH\n\n\n+Les majorats litteraires:+ examen d'un projet de loi ayant pour but de\ncreer, au profit des auteurs, inventeurs, et artistes un monopole\nperpetuel. La federation et l'unite en Italie; Nouvelles observations\nsur l'unite italienne; Les democrates assermentes et les refractaires.\n327 pages. 75 cents.\n\n+Melanges.+ Articles de journaux. 1848-1852. 3 vols. 936 pages. $2.20.\n\n+Philosophie du progres, and La justice poursuivie par l'eglise.+ 336\npages. 77 cents.\n\n+De la justice dans la Revolution et dans l'Eglise.+ 4 vols. 1,500\npages. $3.03.\n\n+De la capacite politique des classes ouvrieres.+ 359 pages. 77 cents.\n\n+Theorie de la propriete.+ Suivi d'un projet d'exposition perpetuelle.\n310 pages. 75 cents.\n\n+France et Rhin.+ 264 pages. 72 cents.\n\n+Contradictions politiques.+ Theorie du mouvement constitutionnel au\nXIXe siecle. 265 pages. 72 cents.\n\n+La pornocratie: ou, les femmes dans les temps modernes.+ 269 pages. 78\ncents.\n\n+Cesarisme et Christianisme+ (de l'an 45 avant J. C. a l'an 476 apres).\nWith a preface by J. A. Langlois. 2 vols. 611 pages. $1.51.\n\n+Commentaires sur les memoires de Fouche.+ Suivis du parallele entre\nNapoleon et Wellington. Manuscrits inedits publies par Clement Rochel.\n348 pages. $1.44.\n\n+Correspondance.+ With a biographical sketch by J. A. Langlois. 14\nvols., of nearly 400 pages each. $7.00.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks of\n\nP. J. PROUDHON\n\n\nIN ENGLISH\n\n+What is Property?+ An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of\nGovernment. Translated by Benj. R. Tucker. With a biography by J. A.\nLanglois. 498 pages. $2.00.\n\n\n \"In a given society the authority of man over man is inversely\n proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that\n society has reached.\"--_The Author._\n\n \"That element in the idea of property which is necessary,\n immutable, and absolute is reducible to individual and\n transmissible possession, susceptible of exchange but not of\n alienation, founded on labor, and not on fictitious occupancy or\n idle caprice.\"--_The Author._\n\n\nIN GERMAN\n\n+Was ist das Eigentum?+ Erste Denkschrift. Untersuchungen ueber den\nUrsprung und die Grundlagen des Rechts und der Herrschaft. Translated,\nwith a preface, by Alfons Fedor Cohn. 255 pages. 27 cents.\n\n+Kapital und Zins.+ Die Polemik zwischen Bastiat und Proudhon.\nTranslated, with an introduction, by Arthur Muelberger. 237 pages. 97\ncents.\n\n\nIN ITALIAN\n\n+La soluzione del problema sociale.+ Portrait and biographical sketch.\n60 pages. 11 cents.\n\n+Psicologia della rivoluzione.+ 58 pages. 11 cents.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks Relating to\n\nP. J. PROUDHON\n\n\nIN ENGLISH\n\n+DANA, CHARLES A.+ +Proudhon and His \"Bank of the People.\"+ 74 pages.\nLeatherette, 10 cents; paper, 5 cents.\n\n+GREENE, WILLIAM B.+ +Mutual Banking.+ Showing the radical deficiency of\nthe present circulating medium and the advantages of a free currency.\nPortrait. 104 pages. 10 cents.\n\n\nIN FRENCH\n\n+BOURGIN, HUBERT.+ +Proudhon.+ Portrait. 97 pages. 15 cents.\n\n+DESJARDINS, ARTHUR.+ +P.-J. Proudhon: sa vie, ses oeuvres, sa\ndoctrine.+ 2 vols. 605 pages. $1.62.\n\n+LAGARDE, EDMOND.+ +La revanche de Proudhon: ou, l'avenir du socialisme\nmutuelliste.+ These pour le doctorat presentee et soutenue le vendredi 9\njuin 1905. 528 pages. $1.59.\n\n+SAINTE-BEUVE, C. A.+ +P. J. Proudhon: sa vie et sa correspondance.+\n1836-48. 352 pages. 70 cents.\n\n\nIN GERMAN\n\n+BIERMANN, W. ED.+ +Anarchismus und Communismus.+ 177 pages. 80 cents.\n\n+MUeLBERGER, ARTHUR.+ +P. J. Proudhon: Leben und Werke.+ 240 pages. 93\ncents.\n\n\nIN ITALIAN\n\n+ZANI, BARTOLOMEO.+ +La questione monetaria in relazione alla questione\nsociale.+ 39 pages. 26 cents.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks of\n\nMAX STIRNER\n\n\nIN ENGLISH\n\n+The Ego and His Own.+ Translated from the German by Steven T. Byington,\nin collaboration with other students of German and of Stirner. With an\nintroduction by J. L. Walker. 525 pages. The only edition, in any\nlanguage, that has an index. Ordinary cloth, $1.50; superior cloth, full\ngilt edges, $1.75.\n\n\n The most revolutionary book ever written, its purpose being to\n totally destroy the idea of duty and assert the supremacy of the\n will, and from this standpoint to effect a \"transmutation of all\n values\" and displace the State by a union of conscious egoists.\n\n \"If you devour the sacred, you have made it your own. Digest the\n sacramental wafer, and you are rid of it.\"--The Author.\n\n \"This work of genius is not inferior in style to that of Nietzsche,\n and in philosophical value surpasses Nietzsche's by a thousand\n cubits.\"--Eduard von Hartmann.\n\n \"That there was a pen to write such things is incomprehensible. One\n must have read the book to believe that it exists.\"--Revue des Deux\n Mondes.\n\n\nIN GERMAN\n\n+Der Einzige und sein Eigentum.+ 429 pages. 36 cents.\n\n+Kleinere Schriften.+ 185 pages. Cloth, 72 cents; paper, 46 cents.\n\n\nIN FRENCH\n\n+L'unique et sa propriete.+ Translated by Robert L. Reclaire. 471 pages.\n73 cents.\n\n+L'unique et sa propriete.+ Translated, with a preface, by Henri\nLasvignes. 501 pages. $1.45.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks Relating to\n\nMAX STIRNER\n\n\nIN GERMAN\n\n+DUBOC, JULIUS.+ +Das Ich und die Uebrigen.+ Fuer und wider M. Stirner. 60\npages. 23 cents.\n\n+HARTMANN, EDUARD VON.+ +Ethische Studien.+ 247 pages. $1.20.\n\n+MACKAY, JOHN HENRY.+ +Max Stirner: sein Leben und sein Werk.+ 270\npages. Cloth, $1.12; paper, 86 cents.\n\n+MESSER, MAX.+ +Max Stirner.+ 71 pages. 34 cents.\n\n+RUEST, ANSELM.+ +Max Stirner.+ 336 pages. 64 cents.\n\n+Stirnerbrevier.+ 284 pages. 51 cents.\n\n\nIN FRENCH\n\n+BASCH, VICTOR.+ +L'individualisme anarchiste: Max Stirner.+ 294 pages.\n$1.39.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks of\n\nMICHAEL BAKOUNINE\n\n\nIN ENGLISH\n\n+God and the State.+ With a preface by Carlo Cafiero and Elisee Reclus.\nTranslated from the French by Benj. R. Tucker. 52 pages. 15 cents.\n\n\n \"One of the most eloquent pleas for liberty ever written. Paine's\n 'Age of Reason' and 'Rights of Man' consolidated and improved. It\n stirs the pulse like a trumpet-call.\"--_The Truth Seeker_.\n\n\nIN FRENCH\n\n+Correspondance.+ Letters to Herzen and to Ogareff. 1860-74. With\npreface and annotations by Michel Dragomanow. Translated by Marie\nStromberg. 382 pages. 81 cents.\n\n+Oeuvres.+ Vol. I. Federalisme, socialisme, et antitheologisme; Lettres\nsur le patriotisme; Dieu et l'etat. 366 pages. 74 cents.\n\n+Oeuvres.+ Vol. II. Les ours de Berne et l'ours de Saint-Petersbourg\n(1870); Lettres a un Francais sur la crise actuelle (Septembre, 1870);\nL'Empire knouto-germanique et la revolution sociale (1870-71). With\nbiographical sketch, prefaces, and notes by James Guillaume. 83 cents.\n\n\nIN GERMAN\n\n+Michail Bakunins sozial-politischer Briefwechsel mit Alexander Iw.\nHerzen und Ogarjow.+ With preface and annotations by Michail Dragomanow.\nTranslated by Boris Minzes. 528 pages. 91 cents.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks of\n\nPETER KROPOTKINE\n\n\nIN ENGLISH\n\n+Fields, Factories, and Workshops+; or, Industry combined with\nAgriculture and Brain Work with Manual Work. Illustrated. 268 pages. 97\ncents.\n\n\n \"The main subject of social economy--_i. e._, the economy of energy\n required for the satisfaction of human needs--is the last subject\n which one expects to find treated in a concrete form in economical\n treatises.\"--_From the Preface._\n\n\n+Memoirs of a Revolutionist.+ With an introduction by Georg Brandes.\nPortrait. 533 pages. Gilt top. $2.00.\n\n\n \"One will find in this volume a combination of all the elements out\n of which an intensely eventful life is composed: idyl and tragedy,\n drama and romance.\"--_Brandes._\n\n\n+Russian Literature.+ 341 pages. Gilt top. $2.69.\n\n\nIN GERMAN\n\n+Memoiren eines Revolutionaers.+ Translated by Max Pannwitz. Illustrated.\n2 vols. 689 pages. $2.64.\n\n+Ideale und Wirklichkeit in der russischen Literatur.+ Translated by B.\nEbenstein. 405 pages. $2.42.\n\n+Gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwickelung.+ Translated by Gustav Landauer.\n343 pages. $2.28.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nInstead of a Book\n\nBY A MAN TOO BUSY TO WRITE ONE\n\nA FRAGMENTARY EXPOSITION OF\nPHILOSOPHICAL ANARCHISM\n\n_Culled from the writings of_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER\nEDITOR OF LIBERTY\n\n_With a Full-Page Half-Tone Portrait of the Author_\n\n\nA large, well-printed, and excessively cheap volume of 524 pages,\nconsisting of articles selected from Liberty and classified under the\nfollowing headings: (1) State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They\nAgree, and Wherein They Differ; (2) The Individual, Society, and the\nState; (3) Money and Interest; (4) Land and Rent; (5) Socialism; (6)\nCommunism; (7) Methods; (8) Miscellaneous. The whole elaborately\nindexed.\n\n_Cloth, One Dollar; Paper, Fifty cents_\n\nMAILED, POST-PAID, BY BENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nState Socialism\nAND\nAnarchism\n\n_How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ_\n\nBY\n\nBENJ. R. TUCKER\n\n\nThe opening chapter of \"Instead of a Book,\" reprinted separately. The\nbest pamphlet with which to meet the demand for a compact exposition of\nAnarchism.\n\n_Price, 5 cents_\n\nMAILED, POST-PAID, BY\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks of\nLEO N. TOLSTOI\n\n\nIN ENGLISH\n\n+War and Peace.+ Translated by Nathan Haskell Dole. 2 vols. 805 pages.\n$3.00.\n\n+Anna Karenina.+ Translated by Nathan Haskell Dole. 780 pages. $1.25.\n\n+Resurrection.+ Translated by Louise Maude. Illustrated. 529 pages. Gilt\ntop. $1.50.\n\n+Twenty-Three Tales.+ Translated by L. and A. Maude. 271 pages. 40\ncents.\n\n\nIN ITALIAN\n\n+La potenza delle tenebre.+ 111 pages. 24 cents.\n\n+Resurrezione.+ Translated by Nina Romanowsky. 2 vols. 701 pages. 57\ncents.\n\n+La sonata a Kreutzer.+ 251 pages. 27 cents.\n\n+Anna Karenine+. Con uno studio di Domenico Ciampoli sui romanzi russi.\n2 vols. 663 pages. 57 cents.\n\n+La guerra e la paco.+ With a preface by M. de Voguee. 4 vols. 1,270\npages. $1.09.\n\n+Che cosa e l'arte?+ 29 cents.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks of\nLEO N. TOLSTOI\n\n\nIN FRENCH\n\n+Paroles d'un homme libre.+ Translated by J. W. Bienstock. 420 pages. 81\ncents.\n\n+Le patriotisme et le gouvernement+. 39 pages. 17 cents.\n\n+La guerre Russo-Japonaise.+ Translated by E. Halperine-Kaminsky. 298\npages. 79 cents.\n\n+Plaisirs vicieux.+ Translated by Halperine-Kaminsky. With a preface by\nAlexandre Dumas. 254 pages. 70 cents.\n\n+Plaisirs cruels.+ Contenant la profession de foi de l'auteur.\nTranslated by Halperine-Kaminsky. With a preface by Charles Richet. 290\npages. 72 cents.\n\n+La fin de notre ere.+ A propos de la Revolution en Russie. Translated\nby J. W. Bienstock. 64 pages. 14 cents.\n\n+Les Decembristes.+ Translated by B. Tseytline and E. Jaubert. With a\nhistorical introduction by E. Jaubert. 300 pages. 70 cents.\n\n+La puissance des tenebres.+ Translated by E. Halperine-Kaminsky. 250\npages. 70 cents.\n\n\nIN GERMAN\n\n+Anna Karenina.+ Translated by Hans Moser. 2 vols. 1,096 pages. 72\ncents.\n\n+Krieg und Frieden.+ 2 vols. 1,257 pages. 74 cents.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks Relating to\nANARCHISM\n\n\nIN GERMAN\n\n+BORGIUS, W. Die Ideenwelt des Anarchismus.+ 68 pages. 28 cents.\n\n+ELTZBACHER, PAUL. Der Anarchismus.+ 317 pages. $1.27.\n\n+FRIEDLAeNDER, BENEDICT. Marxismus und Anarchismus.+ 240 pages. 69 cents.\n\n+HUMBOLDT, WILHELM VON. Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grenzen der\nWirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen.+ 204 pages. 14 cents.\n\n+IBSEN, HENRIK. Ein Volksfeind.+ Translated by Wilhelm Lange. 105 pages.\n8 cents.\n\n+MACKAY, JOHN HENRY. Die Anarchisten.+ Kulturgemaelde aus dem Ende des\nXIX. Jahrhunderts. 339 pages. Cloth, 96 cents; paper, 65 cents. Sturm.\n49 cents.\n\n+SAITZEFF, HELENE. William Godwin und die Anfaenge des Anarchismus im\nXVIII. Jahrhundert.+ Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des politischen\nIndividualismus. 77 pages. 49 cents.\n\n+ZENKER, E. V. Der Anarchismus.+ Kritische Geschichte der\nanarchistischen Theorie. 271 pages. $1.28.\n\n\nIN ITALIAN\n\n+IBSEN, ENRICO. Un nemico del popolo.+ 26 cents.\n\n+ZOCCOLI, ESTORE G. L'anarchia: gli agitatori, le idee, i fatti.+ Saggio\ndi una revisione sistematica e critica e di una valutazione etica. 552\npages. $2.97.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nWorks Relating to\nANARCHISM\n\n\nIN ENGLISH\n\n+BURKE, EDMUND. A Vindication of Natural Society+. Pamphlet. 36 pages.\n10 cents.\n\n\n \"In vain you tell me that artificial government is good, but that I\n fall out only with the abuse. The thing--the thing itself is the\n abuse.\"--From the above pamphlet.\n\n\n+DONISTHORPE, WORDSWORTH. Law in a Free State.+ 313 pages. $1.81.\n\n\n \"If the doctrine of passive obedience to the Odd Man had been\n universally held by our forefathers, there would have been no\n Smithfield fires to light the way to liberty.\"--The Author.\n\n\n+IBSEN, HENRIK. An Enemy of Society.+ Translated by William Archer. 130\npages. Paper covers. 25 cents.\n\n+OUIDA. The Waters of Edera.+ 348 pages. Gilt top. $1.16. A thoroughly\nAnarchistic novel.\n\n+TANDY, FRANCIS D. Voluntary Socialism.+ A sketch. 228 pages. 75 cents.\n\n\nIN FRENCH\n\n+ELTZBACHER, PAUL. L'anarchisme.+ Translated by Otto Karmin. 417 pages.\n87 cents.\n\n+GHIO, PAUL. L'anarchisme aux Etats-unis.+ 212 pages. 58 cents.\n\n+IBSEN, HENRIK. Un ennemi du peuple.+ Translated, with a preface, by the\nComte Prozor. 300 pages. 73 cents.\n\n+MACKAY, JOHN HENRY. Les anarchistes.+ Moeurs de la fin du XIXe siecle.\nTranslated by Auguste Lavalle (Louis de Hessem). 441 pages. 74 cents.\n\n+RABANI, EMILE. L'anarchie scientifique.+ 111 pages. 38 cents.\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nLIBERTY\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, _Editor_\n\n\nAn Anarchistic journal, expounding the doctrine that in Equal Liberty is\nto be found the most satisfactory solution of social questions, and that\nmajority rule, or democracy, equally with monarchical rule, is a denial\nof Equal Liberty.\n\n\n_APPRECIATIONS_\n\nG. BERNARD SHAW, _author of_ \"_Man and Superman_\":\n\n\n \"Liberty is a lively paper, in which the usual proportions of a\n half-pennyworth of discussion to an intolerable deal of balderdash\n are reversed.\"\n\n\nWILLIAM DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, _author of_ \"_The Good Gray Poet_\":\n\n\n \"The editor of Liberty would be the Gavroche of the Revolution, if\n he were not its Enjolras.\"\n\n\nFRANK STEPHENS, _well-known Single-Tax champion, Philadelphia_:\n\n\n \"Liberty is a paper which reforms reformers.\"\n\n\nBOLTON HALL, _author of_ \"_Even As You and I_\":\n\n\n \"Liberty shows us the profit of Anarchy, and is the prophet of\n Anarchy.\"\n\n\nALLEN KELLY, _formerly chief editorial writer on the Philadelphia_\n\"_North American_\":\n\n\n \"Liberty is my philosophical Polaris. I ascertain the variations of\n my economic compass by taking a sight at her whenever she is\n visible.\"\n\n\nSAMUEL W. COOPER, _counsellor at law, Philadelphia_:\n\n\n \"Liberty is a journal that Thomas Jefferson would have loved.\"\n\n\nEDWARD OSGOOD BROWN, _Judge of the Illinois Circuit Court_:\n\n\n \"I have seen much in Liberty that I agreed with, and much that I\n disagreed with, but I never saw any cant, hypocrisy, or insincerity\n in it, which makes it an almost unique publication.\"\n\n\n_Published Bimonthly. Twelve Issues, $1.00_\n_Single Copies, 10 Cents_\n\nADDRESS:\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nJOSIAH WARREN\nThe First American Anarchist\n\nA Biography, with portrait\n\nBY\nWILLIAM BAILIE\n\n\nThe biography is preceded by an essay on \"The Anarchist Spirit,\" in\nwhich Mr. Bailie defines Anarchist belief in relation to other social\nforces.\n\n\n_Price, One Dollar_\n\nMAILED, POST-PAID, BY\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. BOX 1312, NEW YORK CITY\n\n * * * * *\n\nBENJ. R. TUCKER'S\nUNIQUE BOOK-SHOP\n502 Sixth Ave., near 30th St.\n\n\n_OPEN EVENINGS_\n\n\nLargest Stock in the World\nOf Advanced Literature in English, French,\nGerman, and Italian\n\n\nLowest Prices in the United States\nBy 20 to 30 Per Cent.\nFor All Books in French, German, and Italian\n\n\nPromptest Service in America\nFor Importation of Books from Europe\n\n\nBenj. R. Tucker's Unique Catalogues\n\nOf English Books, 125 pages, 1400 Titles\nOf French Books, 57 pages, 1400 Titles\nOf Italian Books, 24 pages, 500 Titles\nOf German Books, 64 pages, 1500 Titles\n\n_English Catalogue, 10 Cents; French, 5 Cents; German, 5 Cents;\nItalian, 3 Cents\nAny catalogue sent to any address on receipt of price_\n\nMail Address:\nBENJ. R. TUCKER,\nP. O. BOX 1312, NEW YORK CITY\n\n * * * * *\n\nTHE SANITY OF ART\n\nBY\nBERNARD SHAW\n\n\nThis is the first publication in book or pamphlet form of Bernard Shaw's\nfamous open letter to Benj. R. Tucker, the editor of _Liberty_, in\nreview of Max Nordau's \"Degeneration,\" and originally contributed to the\npages of _Liberty_. The issue of _Liberty_ containing it is out of\nprint, and copies of it are very valuable. The volume contains also a\ncharacteristic Shaw preface in which he declares that the essay was\nprepared in response to the highest offer ever made for a magazine\narticle. \"The Sanity of Art\" is Mr. Shaw's most important pronouncement\non the subject of Art, and admittedly one of the finest pieces of art\ncriticism ever penned.\n\n\n_114 pages. Cloth, gilt top, 75 cts.; paper, 35 cts._\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nTWO OF A KIND!\n\nA Brace of Anarchist Classics\n\nSPENCER AND THOREAU\n\n\nThe Right to Ignore the State\n\nBy Herbert Spencer\n\nBeing a reprint of the suppressed chapter from the original edition of\n\"Social Statics,\" now rare and costly.\n\n\n_Price, Ten Cents_\n\n\nOn the Duty of Civil Disobedience\n\nBy Henry D. Thoreau\n\n\"I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will\nstill make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in\nsuch cases.\"--_Thoreau._\n\n\n_Price, Seven Cents_\n\n_Mailed, post-paid, by_\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City\n\n * * * * *\n\nANARCHIST STICKERS\n\nAggressive, concise Anarchistic assertions and arguments, in sheets,\ngummed and perforated, to be planted everywhere as broadcast seed for\nthought. Printed in clear, heavy type. Size, 2-1/8 by 1-1/4 inches.\n\nExcellent for use on first, third, and fourth class mail matter. There\nis no better method of propagandism for the money.\n\nThere are 48 different Stickers. Each sheet contains 4 copies of one\nSticker.\n\n\nSAMPLE STICKERS\n\nNo. 2.--It can never be unpatriotic to take your country's side against\nyour Government. It must always be unpatriotic to take your Government's\nside against your country.\n\nNo. 7.--What I must not do, the Government must not do.\n\nNo. 8.--Whatever really useful thing Government does for men they would\ndo for themselves if there was no Government.\n\nNo. 9.--The institution known as \"government\" cannot continue to exist\nunless many a man is willing to be Government's agent in committing what\nhe himself regards as an abominable crime.\n\nNo. 12.--Considering what a nuisance the Government is, the man who says\nwe cannot get rid of it must be called a confirmed pessimist.\n\nNo. 18.--Anarchism is the denial of force against any peaceable\nindividual.\n\nNo. 24.--\"All Governments, the worst on earth and the most tyrannical on\nearth, are free Governments to that portion of the people who\nvoluntarily support them.\"--Lysander Spooner.\n\nNo. 32.--\"I care not who makes th' laws iv a nation, if I can get out an\ninjunction.\"--Mr. Dooley.\n\nNo. 33.--\"It will never make any difference to a hero what the laws\nare.\"--Emerson.\n\nNo. 34.--The population of the world is gradually dividing into two\nclasses--Anarchists and criminals.\n\nNo. 38.--\"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread\nit.\"--Bernard Shaw.\n\nNo. 44.--\"There is one thing in the world more wicked than the desire to\ncommand, and that is the will to obey.\"--W. Kingdon Clifford.\n\nNo. 46.--The only protection which honest people need is protection\nagainst that vast Society for the Creation of Theft which is\neuphemistically designated as the State.\n\nNo. 47.--With the monstrous laws that are accumulating on the\nstatute-books, one may safely say that the man who is not a confirmed\ncriminal is scarcely fit to live among decent people.\n\n\nSend for circular giving entire list of 48 Stickers, with their numbers.\nOrder by number.\n\nPrice: 100 Stickers, assorted to suit purchaser, 5 cents; 200, or more,\nStickers, assorted to suit purchaser, 3 cents per hundred. Mailed, post\npaid, by\n\nBENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, New York City.\n\n\n\n\n\n
","title":"Anarchism","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":93719}