Anarchism from The Encyclopaedia Britannica


from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910.

ANARCHISM (from the Gr. an and archos, contrary to
authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under
which society is conceived without government – harmony in such a society being
obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by
free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and
professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as
also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a
civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary
associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity
would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the
state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network,
composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and
degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less
permanent – for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange,
communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of
the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an
ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs.
Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary –
as is seen in organic life at large – harmony would (it is contended) result
from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the
multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to
obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would
not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive work by a
capitalist monopoly, maintained by the state; nor would he be limited in the
exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by obedience towards
individuals or metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of
initiative and servility of mind. He would be guided in his actions by his own
understanding, which necessarily would bear the impression of a free action and
reaction between his own self and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings.
Man would thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties,
intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered by overwork for the
monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great number. He
would thus be able to reach full individualization, which is not
possible either under the present system of individualism, or under any
system of state socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular state).

The anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a
utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have
been taken as postulates. It is derived, they maintain, from an analysis of
that are at work already, even though state socialism may find a
temporary favour with the reformers. The progress of modern technics, which
wonderfully simplifies the production of all the necessaries of life; the
growing spirit of independence, and the rapid spread of free initiative and
free understanding in all branches of activity – including those which formerly
were considered as the proper attribution of church and state – are steadily
reinforcing the no-government tendency.

As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all
socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now
prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production
for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the
principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle
which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the
service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider
the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress.
But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief
instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists
to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly
accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating the present
monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with
the same energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this or that
special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a
republic governed by means of the referendum.

The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and modern
history (Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, modern European states grown up on
the ruins of the autonomous cities), the instrument for establishing monopolies
in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction
of these monopolies. The anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to
the state all the main sources of economical life – the land, the mines, the
railways, banking, insurance, and so on – as also the management of all the
main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated
in its hands (education, state-supported religions, defence of the territory,
etc.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would
only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism. True progress lies in
the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional,
in the development of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free
federation from the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy
from the centre to the periphery.

In common with most socialists, the anarchists recognize that, like all
evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society is followed from time to
time by periods of accelerated evolution which are called revolutions; and they
think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed. Periods of rapid changes
will follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be taken
advantage of – not for increasing and widening the powers of the state, but for
reducing them, through the organization in every township or commune of the
local groups of producers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually
the international, federations of these groups.

In virtue of the above principles the anarchists refuse to be party to the
present state organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood into it.
They do not seek to constitute, and invite the working men not to constitute,
political parties in the parliaments. Accordingly, since the foundation of the
International Working Men's Association in 1864-1866, they have endeavoured to
promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organizations and to induce
those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith
in parliamentary legislation.

The historical development of

The conception of society just sketched, and the tendency which is its
dynamic expression, have always existed in mankind, in opposition to the
governing hierarchic conception and tendency – now the one and now the other
taking the upper hand at different periods of history. To the former tendency
we owe the evolution, by the masses themselves, of those institutions – the
clan, the village community, the guild, the free medieval city – by means of
which the masses resisted the encroachments of the conquerors and the
power-seeking minorities. The same tendency asserted itself with great energy
in the great religious movements of medieval times, especially in the early
movements of the reform and its forerunners. At the same time it evidently
found its expression in the writings of some thinkers, since the times of
Lao-tsze, although, owing to its non-scholastic and popular origin, it
obviously found less sympathy among the scholars than the opposed tendency.

As has been pointed out by Prof. Adler in his Geschichte des Sozialismus
und Kommunismus
, Aristippus (b. c. 430 BC), one of the founders of the
Cyrenaic school, already taught that the wise must not give up their liberty to
the state, and in reply to a question by Socrates he said that he did not
desire to belong either to the governing or the governed class. Such an
attitude, however, seems to have been dictated merely by an Epicurean attitude
towards the life of the masses.

The best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno
(342-267 or 270 BC), from Crete, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, who
distinctly opposed his conception of a free community without government to the
state-utopia of Plato. He repudiated the omnipotence of the state, its
intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law
of the individual – remarking already that, while the necessary instinct of
self-preservation leads man to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it
by providing man with another instinct – that of sociability. When men are
reasonable enough to follow their natural instincts, they will unite across the
frontiers and constitute the cosmos. They will have no need of law-courts or
police, will have no temples and no public worship, and use no money – free
gifts taking the place of the exchanges. Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno
have not reached us and are only known through fragmentary quotations. However,
the fact that his very wording is similar to the wording now in use, shows how
deeply is laid the tendency of human nature of which he was the mouthpiece.

In medieval times we find the same views on the state expressed by the
illustrious bishop of Alba, Marco Girolamo Vida, in his first dialogue De
dignitate reipublicae
(Ferd. Cavalli, in Mem. dell'Istituto Veneto,
xiii.; Dr E. Nys, Researches in the History of Economics). But it is
especially in several early Christian movements, beginning with the ninth
century in Armenia, and in the preachings of the early Hussites, particularly
Chojecki, and the early Anabaptists, especially Hans Denk (cf. Keller, Ein
Apostel der Wiedertaufer
), that one finds the same ideas forcibly expressed
– special stress being laid of course on their moral aspects.

Rabelais and Fenelon, in their utopias, have also expressed similar ideas,
and they were also current in the eighteenth century amongst the French
Encyclopaedists, as may be concluded from separate expressions occasionally met
with in the writings of Rousseau, from Diderot's Preface to the Voyage
of Bougainville, and so on. However, in all probability such ideas could not be
developed then, owing to the rigorous censorship of the Roman Catholic Church.

These ideas found their expression later during the great French Revolution.
While the Jacobins did all in their power to centralize everything in the hands
of the government, it appears now, from recently published documents, that the
masses of the people, in their municipalities and 'sections', accomplished a
considerable constructive work. They appropriated for themselves the election
of the judges, the organization of supplies and equipment for the army, as also
for the large cities, work for the unemployed, the management of charities, and
so on. They even tried to establish a direct correspondence between the 36,000
communes of France through the intermediary of a special board, outside the
National Assembly (cf. Sigismund Lacroix, Actes de la commune de Paris).

It was Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (2 vols.,
1793), who was the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions
of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in
his remarkable work. Laws, he wrote, are not a product of the wisdom of our
ancestors: they are the product of their passions, their timidity, their
jealousies and their ambition. The remedy they offer is worse than the evils
they pretend to cure. If and only if all laws and courts were abolished, and
the decisions in the arising contests were left to reasonable men chosen for
that purpose, real justice would gradually be evolved. As to the state, Godwin
frankly claimed its abolition. A society, he wrote, can perfectly well exist
without any government: only the communities should be small and perfectly
autonomous. Speaking of property, he stated that the rights of every one 'to
every substance capable of contributing to the benefit of a human being' must
be regulated by justice alone: the substance must go 'to him who most wants
it'. His conclusion was communism. Godwin, however, had not the courage to
maintain his opinions. He entirely rewrote later on his chapter on property and
mitigated his communist views in the second edition of Political Justice
(8vo, 1796).

Proudhon was the first to use, in 1840 (Qu'est-ce que la propriete?
first memoir), the name of anarchy with application to the no government state
of society. The name of 'anarchists' had been freely applied during the French
Revolution by the Girondists to those revolutionaries who did not consider that
the task of the Revolution was accomplished with the overthrow of Louis XVI,
and insisted upon a series of economical measures being taken (the abolition of
feudal rights without redemption, the return to the village communities of the
communal lands enclosed since 1669, the limitation of landed property to 120
acres, progressive income-tax, the national organization of exchanges on a just
value basis, which already received a beginning of practical realization, and
so on).

Now Proudhon advocated a society without government, and used the word
anarchy to describe it. Proudhon repudiated, as is known, all schemes of
communism, according to which mankind would be driven into communistic
monasteries or barracks, as also all the schemes of state or state-aided
socialism which were advocated by Louis Blanc and the collectivists. When he
proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property is theft', he meant
only property in its present, Roman-law, sense of 'right of use and abuse'; in
property-rights, on the other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession,
he saw the best protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same
time he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land,
dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to attain the same
end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest; and this he proposed to
obtain by means of a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those
who are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among themselves
their produces at cost-value, by means of labour cheques representing the hours
of labour required to produce every given commodity. Under such a system, which
Proudhon described as 'Mutuellisme', all the exchanges of services would be
strictly equivalent. Besides, such a bank would be enabled to lend money
without interest, levying only something like I per cent, or even less, for
covering the cost of administration. Everyone being thus enabled to borrow the
money that would be required to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any more
a yearly rent for the use of it. A general 'social liquidation' would thus be
rendered easy, without violent expropriation. The same applied to mines,
railways, factories and so on.

In a society of this type the state would be useless. The chief relations
between citizens would be based on free agreement and regulated by mere account
keeping. The contests might be settled by arbitration. A penetrating criticism
of the state and all possible forms of government, and a deep insight into all
economic problems, were well-known characteristics of Proudhon's work.

It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in
William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist, and in
his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The
Social System
, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy,
1839). It had also its precursor in America. Josiah Warren, who was born in
1798 (cf. W. Bailie, Josiah Warren, the First American Anarchist,
Boston, 1900), and belonged to Owen's 'New Harmony', considered that the
failure of this enterprise was chiefly due to the suppression of individuality
and the lack of initiative and responsibility. These defects, he taught, were
inherent to every scheme based upon authority and the community of goods. He
advocated, therefore, complete individual liberty. In 1827 he opened in
Cincinnati a little country store which was the first 'equity store', and which
the people called 'time store', because it was based on labour being exchanged
hour for hour in all sorts of produce. 'Cost – the limit of price', and consequently
'no interest', was the motto of his store, and later on of his 'equity
village', near New York, which was still in existence in 1865. Mr Keith's
'House of Equity' at Boston, founded in 1855, is also worthy of notice.

While the economical, and especially the mutual-banking, ideas of Proudhon
found supporters and even a practical application in the United States, his
political conception of anarchy found but little echo in France, where the
Christian socialism of Lamennais and the Fourierists, and the state socialism
of Louis Blanc and the followers of Saint-Simon, were dominating. These ideas
found, however, some temporary support among the left-wing Hegelians in
Germany, Moses Hess in 1843, and Karl Grün in 1845, who advocated anarchism.
Besides, the authoritarian communism of Wilhelm Weitling having given origin to
opposition amongst the Swiss working men, Wilhelm Marr gave expression to it in
the forties.

On the other side, individualist anarchism found, also in Germany, its
fullest expression in Max Stirner (Kaspar Schmidt), whose remarkable works (Der
Einzige und sein Eigenthum
and articles contributed to the Rheinische
) remained quite overlooked until they were brought into prominence
by John Henry Mackay.

Prof. V. Basch, in a very able introduction to his interesting book, L'lndividualisme
anarchiste: Max Stirner
(1904), has shown how the development of the German
philosophy from Kant to Hegel, and 'the absolute' of Schelling and the Geist
of Hegel, necessarily provoked, when the anti-Hegelian revolt began, the
preaching of the same 'absolute' in the camp of the rebels. This was done by
Stirner, who advocated, not only a complete revolt against the state and
against the servitude which authoritarian communism would impose upon men, but
also the full liberation of the individual from all social and moral bonds –
the rehabilitation of the 'I', the supremacy of the individual, complete
'amoralism', and the 'association of the egotists'. The final conclusion of
that sort of individual anarchism has been indicated by Prof. Basch. It
maintains that the aim of all superior civilization is, not to permit all
members of the community to develop in a normal way, but to permit certain
better endowed individuals 'fully to develop', even at the cost of the
happiness and the very existence of the mass of mankind. It is thus a return
towards the most common individual ism, advocated by all the would-be superior
minorities, to which indeed man owes in his history precisely the state and the
rest, which these individualists combat. Their individualism goes so far as to
end in a negation of their own starting-point – to say nothing of the
impossibility for the individual to attain a really full development in the
conditions of oppression of the masses by the 'beautiful aristocracies'. His
development would remain unilateral. This is why this direction of thought,
notwithstanding its undoubtedly correct and useful advocacy of the full
development of each individuality, finds a hearing only in limited artistic and
literary circles.

Anarchism in the International
Working Men's Association

A general depression in the propaganda of all fractions of socialism
followed, as is known, after the defeat of the uprising of the Paris working
men in June 1848 and the fall of the Republic. All the socialist press was
gagged during the reaction period, which lasted fully twenty years.
Nevertheless, even anarchist thought began to make some progress, namely in the
writings of Bellegarrique (Caeurderoy), and especially Joseph Déjacque (Les
Lazareacute'ennes, L 'Humanisphère
, an anarchist-communist utopia, lately
discovered and reprinted). The socialist movement revived only after 1864, when
some French working men, all 'mutualists', meeting in London during the
Universal Exhibition with English followers of Robert Owen, founded the
International Working Men's Association. This association developed very
rapidly and adopted a policy of direct economical struggle against capitalism,
without interfering in the political parliamentary agitation, and this policy
was followed until 1871. However, after the Franco-German War, when the
International Association was prohibited in France after the uprising of the
Commune, the German working men, who had received manhood suffrage for elections
to the newly constituted imperial parliament, insisted upon modifying the
tactics of the International, and began to build up a Social Democratic
political party. This soon led to a division in the Working Men's Association,
and the Latin federations, Spanish, Italian, Belgian and Jurassic (France could
not be represented), constituted among themselves a Federal union which broke
entirely with the Marxist general council of the International. Within these
federations developed now what may be described as modern anarchism.
After the names of 'Federalists' and 'Anti-authoritarians' had been used for
some time by these federations the name of 'anarchists', which their
adversaries insisted upon applying to them, prevailed, and finally it was

Bakunin (q.v.) soon became the leading spirit among these Latin federations
for the development of the principles of anarchism, which he did in a number of
writings, pamphlets and letters. He demanded the complete abolition of the
state, which – he wrote – is a product of religion, belongs to a lower state
of civilization, represents the negation of liberty, and spoils even that which
it undertakes to do for the sake of general well-being. The state was an
historically necessary evil, but its complete extinction will be, sooner or
later, equally necessary. Repudiating all legislation, even when issuing from
universal suffrage, Bakunin claimed for each nation, each region and each
commune, full autonomy, so long as it is not a menace to its neighbours, and full
independence for the individual, adding that one becomes really free only when,
and in proportion as, all others are free. Free federations of the communes
would constitute free nations.

As to his economical conceptions, Bakunin described himself, in common with
his Federalist comrades of the International (César De Paepe, James Guillaume,
Schwitzguébel), a 'collectivist anarchist' – not in the sense of Vidal and
Pecqueur in the 1840s, or of their modern Social Democratic followers, but to
express a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in
common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of
retribution of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group
for itself. Social revolution, the near approach of which was foretold at that
time by all socialists, would be the means of bringing into life the new

The Jurassic, the Spanish and the Italian federations and sections of the
International Working Men's Association, as also the French, the German and the
American anarchist groups, were for the next years the chief centres of
anarchist thought and propaganda. They refrained from any participation in
parliamentary politics, and always kept in close contact with the labour
organizations. However, in the second half of the 'eighties and the early
'nineties of the nineteenth century, when the influence of the anarchists began
to be felt in strikes, in the 1st of May demonstrations, where they promoted
the idea of a general strike for an eight hours' day, and in the
anti-militarist propaganda in the army, violent prosecutions were directed
against them, especially in the Latin countries (including physical torture in
the Barcelona Castle) and the United States (the execution of five Chicago anarchists
in 1887). Against these prosecutions the anarchists retaliated by acts of
violence which in their turn were followed by more executions from above, and
new acts of revenge from below. This created in the general public the
impression that violence is the substance of anarchism, a view repudiated by
its supporters, who hold that in reality violence is resorted to by all parties
in proportion as their open action is obstructed by repression, and exceptional
laws render them outlaws. (Cf. Anarchism and Outrage, by C. M. Wilson,
and Report of the Spanish Atrocities Committee, in 'Freedom Pamphlets'; A
Concise History of the Great Trial of the Chicago Anarchists
, by Dyer Lum
(New York, 1886); The Chicago Martyrs: Speeches, etc.).

Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction of Proudhonian
'mutuellisme', but chiefly as communist-anarchism, to which a third direction,
Christian-anarchism, was added by Leo Tolstoy, and a fourth, which might be
ascribed as literary-anarchism, began amongst some prominent modern writers.

The ideas of Proudhon, especially as regards mutual banking, corresponding
with those of Josiah Warren, found a considerable following in the United
States, creating quite a school, of which the main writers are Stephen Pearl
Andrews, William Grene, Lysander Spooner (who began to write in 1850, and whose
unfinished work, Natural Law, was full of promise), and several others,
whose names will be found in Dr Nettlau's Bibliographie de l'anarchie.

A prominent position among the individualist anarchists in America has been
occupied by Benjamin R. Tucker, whose journal Liberty was started in
1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of those of Proudhon with those of
Herbert Spencer. Starting from the statement that anarchists are egotists,
strictly speaking, and that every group of individuals, be it a secret league
of a few persons, or the Congress of the United States, has the right to
oppress all mankind, provided it has the power to do so, that equal liberty for
all and absolute equality ought to be the law, and 'mind every one your own
business' is the unique moral law of anarchism, Tucker goes on to prove that a
general and thorough application of these principles would be beneficial and
would offer no danger, because the powers of every individual would be limited
by the exercise of the equal rights of all others. He further indicated
(following H. Spencer) the difference which exists between the encroachment on
somebody's rights and resistance to such an encroachment; between domination
and defence: the former being equally condemnable, whether it be encroachment
of a criminal upon an individual, or the encroachment of one upon all others,
or of all others upon one; while resistance to encroachment is defensible and
necessary. For their self-defence, both the citizen and the group have the
right to any violence, including capital punishment. Violence is also justified
for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker thus follows Spencer,
and, like him, opens (in the present writer's opinion) the way for
reconstituting under the heading of 'defence' all the functions of the state.
His criticism of the present state is very searching, and his defence of the
rights of the individual very powerful. As regards his economical views B. R.
Tucker follows Proudhon.

The individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians finds, however, but
little sympathy amongst the working masses. Those who profess it – they are
chiefly 'intellectuals' – soon realize that the individualization they
so highly praise is not attainable by individual efforts, and either abandon
the ranks of the anarchists, and are driven into the liberal individualism of
the classical economist or they retire into a sort of Epicurean amoralism, or
superman theory, similar to that of Stirner and Nietzsche. The great bulk of
the anarchist working men prefer the anarchist-communist ideas which have
gradually evolved out of the anarchist collectivism of the International
Working Men's Association. To this direction belong – to name only the better
known exponents of anarchism Elisée Reclus, Jean Grave, Sebastien Faure, Emile
Pouget in France; Errico Malatesta and Covelli in Italy; R. Mella, A. Lorenzo,
and the mostly unknown authors of many excellent manifestos in Spain; John Most
amongst the Germans; Spies, Parsons and their followers in the United States,
and so on; while Domela Nieuwenhuis occupies an intermediate position in
Holland. The chief anarchist papers which have been published since 1880 also
belong to that direction; while a number of anarchists of this direction have
joined the so-called syndicalist movement- the French name for the
non-political labour movement, devoted to direct struggle with capitalism,
which has lately become so prominent in Europe.

As one of the anarchist-communist direction, the present writer for many
years endeavoured to develop the following ideas: to show the intimate, logical
connection which exists between the modern philosophy of natural sciences and
anarchism; to put anarchism on a scientific basis by the study of the
tendencies that are apparent now in society and may indicate its further
evolution; and to work out the basis of anarchist ethics. As regards the
substance of anarchism itself, it was Kropotkin's aim to prove that communism
at least partial – has more chances of being established than collectivism,
especially in communes taking the lead, and that free, or anarchist-communism
is the only form of communism that has any chance of being accepted in
civilized societies; communism and anarchy are therefore two terms of evolution
which complete each other, the one rendering the other possible and acceptable.
He has tried, moreover, to indicate how, during a revolutionary period, a large
city – if its inhabitants have accepted the idea could organize itself on the
lines of free communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling,
food and clothing to an extent corresponding to the comfort now available to
the middle classes only, in exchange for a half-day's, or five-hours' work; and
how all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by
everyone if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free
associations pursuing all possible aims – educational, literary, scientific,
artistic, sports and so on. In order to prove the first of these assertions he
has analysed the possibilities of agriculture and industrial work, both being
combined with brain work. And in order to elucidate the main factors of human
evolution, he has analysed the part played in history by the popular
constructive agencies of mutual aid and the historical role of the state.

Without naming himself an anarchist, Leo Tolstoy, like his predecessors in
the popular religious movements of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Chojecki,
Denk and many others, took the anarchist position as regards the state and
property rights, deducing his conclusions from the general spirit of the
teachings of the Christ and from the necessary dictates of reason. With all the
might of his talent he made (especially in The Kingdom of God in Yourselves)
a powerful criticism of the church, the state and law altogether, and
especially of the present property laws. He describes the state as the
domination of the wicked ones, supported by brutal force. Robbers, he says, are
far less dangerous than a well-organized government. He makes a searching
criticism of the prejudices which are current now concerning the benefits
conferred upon men by the church, the state and the existing distribution of
property, and from the teachings of the Christ he deduces the rule of
non-resistance and the absolute condemnation of all wars. His religious
arguments are, however, so well combined with arguments borrowed from a
dispassionate observation of the present evils, that the anarchist portions of
his works appeal to the religious and the non-religious reader alike.

It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the
penetration, on the one hand, of anarchist ideas into modern literature, and
the influence, on the other hand, which the libertarian ideas of the best
contemporary writers have exercised upon the development of anarchism. One
ought to consult the ten big volumes of the Supplément Littéraire to the
paper La Révolte and later the Temps Nouveaux, which contain
reproductions from the works of hundreds of modern authors expressing anarchist
ideas, in order to realize how closely anarchism is connected with all the
intellectual movement of our own times. J. S. Mill's Liberty, Spencer's Individual
versus the State
, Marc Guyau's Morality without Obligation or Sanction,
and Fouillée's La Morale, I'art et la religion, the works of Multatuli
(E. Douwes Dekker), Richard Wagner's Art and Revolution, the works of
Nietzsche, Emerson, W. Lloyd Garrison, Thoreau, Alexander Herzen, Edward
Carpenter and so on; and in the domain of fiction, the dramas of Ibsen, the
poetry of Walt Whitman, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Zola's Paris and
Le Travail, the latest works of Merezhkovsky, and an infinity of works
of less known authors, are full of ideas which show how closely anarchism is
interwoven with the work that is going on in modern thought in the same
direction of enfranchisement of man from the bonds of the state as well as from
those of capitalism.


Вашият коментар

Вашият имейл адрес няма да бъде публикуван. Задължителните полета са отбелязани с *