This first international Anarchist organisation never became of

practical importance; only the "Jurassic Union" formed for almost ten

years a much feared centre of Anarchism in Romance-speaking

Switzerland and Southern France. Indeed it became the cradle of the

"Anarchism of action" generally. "The Jura Federation,"[2] wrote

Kropotkin, "has played a most important part in the development of the

revolutionary idea. If, in speaking of Anarchy to-day, we can say that

there are three thousand Anarchists in Lyons, and five thousand in the

valley of the Rhone, and several thousands in the South, that is the

work mainly of the Jura Federation. Indeed I must ask, How was this

possible? Is Anarchy in Europe only ten years old? Of course the

_Zeitgeist_ has carried us along with it; but this was first openly

manifest in a group, the Jura Federation, which thus must gain credit

for it." The Jurassic Union was in fact the Anarchist party. The head

and soul of this union was the Bakuninist, Paul Brousse, a zealous and

reckless Anarchist and clever journalist, who in his paper

_Avantgarde_ was one of the first to preach the "propaganda of

action." In December, 1878, this paper was suppressed by the Swiss

Government because it had approved the attempts of Hoedel and Nobeling.

Brousse himself was arrested and condemned to two months' imprisonment

and ten years' banishment, but after undergoing his imprisonment he

completely gave up Anarchism. Kropotkin, who had already helped him

with the _Avantgarde_, took his place, and founded in Geneva the

_Revolte_, directing with a feverish activity the work originally

begun by Bakunin into new channels, and afterwards doing so from

London.

[2] _Revolte_, July 8, 1862.

In the year 1876 the French Anarchists at the congress at Lausanne had

finally separated themselves from every party, by declaring the

Parisian Commune to be only another form of government by authority.

The congress of 1878 at Freiburg was of similar importance. Elisee

Reclus moved for the appointment of a commission, which was to

answer the following questions: (1) "Why we are revolutionaries";

(2) "Why we are Anarchists"; (3) "Why we are Collectivists." "We are

revolutionaries," said Reclus, "because we desire justice. Progress

has never been marked by mere peaceful development; it has always been

called forth by a sudden resolution. We are Anarchists, and as such

recognise no master. Morality resides only in freedom. We are

international Collectivists, because we perceive that an existence

without social grouping is impossible." The Congress accepted Reclus's

motion, and decided (1) in favour of the general appropriation of

social wealth; (2) for the abolition of the State in any form, even in

that of a so-called central point of public administration. Further,

the Congress declared in favour of the propaganda of theory, of

insurrectionary and revolutionary activity, and against universal

suffrage, since this was not adapted to secure the sovereignty of the

multitude.

At a congress held in the following year (1879) at Chaux-de-Fonds,

Kropotkin definitely urged the policy of the propaganda of action, and

the Anarchist Labour Congress at Marseilles in the same year declared

itself unhesitatingly in favour of universal expropriation. At the

next Swiss Anarchist Congress in 1880 Kropotkin finally demanded the

abolition of the term "Collectivism" which had hitherto been retained,

and proposed to replace it by the term "Anarchist Communism."

Here we can see, even upon a point of theory, the deep divergence

which was proceeding at this time. Hitherto Anarchism--and at least in

this first period of its development we can speak of a party--has

proceeded quite on the lines of Proudhon's Collectivism. Its main

representative is the "Alliance," or rather Michael Bakunin, and after

him the Jurassic Federation. This period is, with the exception of a

few revolutionary attempts, free from outrage and crime. But all this

was changed at the London Congress. Before speaking of this, however,

we must just glance at the branches of the "Alliance" in Spain, Italy,

and elsewhere.

The Italian peninsula has always been one of the chief centres of

Anarchism. It has been said that this is the fault of the weakness and

deficiency of the police, although the Italian Government repeatedly,

both in 1866 and 1876, and again recently, has required and supported

the strengthening of the executive power in every possible way against

certain phenomena of political and social passion. The police alone,

whether zealous or lax, is here, as elsewhere, only the most

subordinate factor in history. But if we remember the proletariat that

swarms in the numerous cities of Italy, in its economic misery and

moral degradation; if we consider the peculiar tendency of this nation

towards political crime and the paraphernalia of secret conspiracy; if

we remember the days of the Carbonari, the Black Brothers, the

Acoltellatori, and others,--we shall find in Italy, quite apart from

the police and their work, sufficient other reasons for the growth of

Anarchism.

During the war of independence, revolutionary literature in general,

and especially the works of Herzen and Michael Bakunin, had a great

sale among the younger generation, and so it came to pass that the

idea of nationalism was imperceptibly fostered by Socialist and

Nihilist influences. The leading part taken by a number of Italian

revolutionaries, especially Cipriani,--afterwards the leader of the

Apennine Anarchists,--in the Commune of 1871, contributed very

considerably to promote Socialist demagogy in the revolutionary

centres of Italy, in the Romagna, and the Marches. Closer contact with

Bakunin proved to be the decisive touch.

In those memorable days when the "International" separated into two

heterogeneous parts, we already find the majority of the Italian

Socialists adopting the standpoint of Bakunin; indeed the Italians,

even before the Hague Congress, took sides in favour of Bakunin

against the "Authority-Communists" of Marx. This first Anarchist

movement became no more important in Italy than elsewhere, and an

attempt at riot in April, 1877, near Benevento, headed by Cafiero and

Malatesta, gave an impression of childishness and comicality rather

than of menace. It was put down by a handful of soldiers; Malatesta

and Cafiero were taken prisoners, but set free. The severe repressive

measures afterwards adopted by the Government kept Anarchism down for

some time.

In Spain, also, at the beginning of the seventies, there was--as was

the case with all the Romance countries--a strong Bakuninist party,

which was said to have amounted to 50,000 men in 1873. During the

Federalist risings the Anarchists made common cause with the

Intransigeants, and succeeded in taking possession of several cities

for a short time. Their successes, however, did not last long, and

they were only able to hold out till 1874 in New Carthagena, where

they had finally to surrender after a regular siege by the Government

troops. The Anarchist societies and newspapers were suppressed, and

the severest measures taken against Anarchists, which only roused them

to the most sanguinary form of propaganda. The Anarchists declared

that if they were to be treated as wild beasts, they would act as

such, and cause death and destruction to the Government and to any

existing form of society at any time, in any place, and by any means.

In Belgium about this period there was also a great increase of

Proudhonish Anarchism, which, later on, as in Switzerland, Italy, and

Spain, attached itself to Bakunin, and at the congress at The Hague

formed the centre of the opposition to the Marxists. The rapid growth

of Social Democracy in Belgium during the second half of the seventies

almost extinguished Anarchism there.

* * * * *

If we wish to characterise briefly this first period of the Anarchism

of action, a period terminated decisively by the year 1880, we should

define it as the process of separation between the Socialist and the

Anarchist tendency. Karl Marx, who had already come into opposition

with the "Father of Anarchism," and had attacked his "philosophy of

want" with the bitter criticism of "want of philosophy," noted the far

greater danger which threatened Socialism from the clever agitator

Bakunin, and entered into a life-and-death struggle against him.

Although there was a large personal element in this conflict, it was

really more than a personal struggle between two opponents. There was

a deep division among the proletariat themselves, separating

them--unconsciously for the most part--into two great and

irreconcilable camps; the first battle had been fought, and the result

was decidedly not in favour of the Anarchists. Towards the end of the

seventies we notice everywhere, except perhaps in France, where social

parties were strongly marked, a remarkable retrogression in Anarchism.

It appeared as if, after playing the part of an episode, it was to

disappear from the political stage.

In view of the fact that the history both of practical and theoretical

Anarchism is a history pure and simple of the most violent opposition

to Social Democracy inside its own camp, it shows both ignorance and

unfairness to make Socialists bear the blame of Anarchist propaganda.

It is undeniable that Anarchism can only flourish where Socialism is

generally prevalent. But that does not imply much, and no special

wisdom is needed to find the reason for this phenomenon. But that is

all. It is just as indisputable a fact, that Anarchism only flourishes

where Social Democracy is feeble, divided, and weak, and that it

always is unsuccessful in its efforts where the Social Democratic

party is strong and united, as in Germany. All attempts to plant

Anarchism in Germany have failed, not because of the preventive and

repressive measures of the Government, but because of the strength of

the party of Social Democracy. In England where there is a Socialist

movement among the working classes, with a definite aim, Anarchism has

remained merely an imported article; in Austria both parties have for

years fought fiercely, and in proportion as one rises the other sinks.

In Italy there are notorious centres of the Anarchism of action in

Leghorn, Lugo, Forli, Rome, and Sicily. In Milan and Turin, where

Social Democracy has established itself on the German pattern, and

has great influence among the lower classes, there are hardly any

"Anarchists of action." On the other hand, France, where the Socialist

party by being broken up into numerous small fragments is condemned to

lose its influence, is the headquarters of Anarchism. But anyone who

is not satisfied with these facts need only look at the causes of the

most significant turning-points which the history of modern Anarchism

has to offer, the London Congress of 1881, when the Anarchism of

action raised its Gorgon head, officially adopted the programme of the

propaganda of action, when the system of groups in every country was

accepted, and that era of outrages began which, instead of promoting

the work of the self-improvement of society, rather alienates it under

the pressure of a dreadful terrorism. To-day a small group, which in

number hardly equals a single one of the famous twelve nationalities

of Austria, has succeeded in making the whole world talk of them,

while the parliaments of every nation pass their laws with reference

to this group, and often in aiming their blows against Anarchists

strike those who are merely followers of a natural evolution.

And, it may be asked, On what day or by what act was so fortunate a

chance offered to Anarchism? The occasion was the German Socialist

law. This fact is indisputable.

It was only in the natural order of things that, in 1878, when the

German policy of force happened partially to paralyse the legal

agitation of the Social Democrats by exceptional legislation, a

radical group arose among the Socialist working classes which, led by

the agitator Most, always an extremist, and Hasselmann, drew from

these circumstances the lesson that now, being excluded from

constitutional agitation, they must devote all their powers to prepare

for revolution. This preparation, Most declared, should consist in the

arming of all Socialists, energetic secret agitation to excite the

masses, and, above all, revolutionary acts and outrages. The agitation

was to be carried on by quite small groups of at most five men. Like

Bakunin, Most, who, on being expelled from Berlin early in 1879,

emigrated to London, where he founded his journal _Freedom_, had gone

on in advance of the general Socialist movement, and for a time

proceeded with it; but, like Bakunin too, he had been disowned and

violently attacked by the Social Democratic party, when he showed the

Anarchist in him so openly. The immediate consequence of Most and

Hasselmann's programme was the formal expulsion of both agitators from

the party by the secret congress at Wyden, near Ossingen, in

Switzerland.

But just because of the disposition engendered by the Socialist law,

this decision was quite powerless to stifle the Most and Hasselmann

movement. On the contrary, Most's following grew from day to day,

aided in no small degree by his paper _Freedom_, written in the

glowing language of the demagogue, and now calling itself openly an

"Anarchist organ." When Most came to London, he soon took the lead of

the "Social Democratic Working Men's Club," then a thousand strong,

the majority of which, after the separation of the more moderate

members who did not like the new programme, went over to Most's side.

From these adherents Most formed an organisation of the "United

Socialists," in which the "International" was to be revived again upon

the most radical basis. The seat of this organisation was to be

London, and from thence a Central Committee of seven persons was to

look after the linking together of revolutionary societies abroad.

Side by side with this public organisation, Most formed a secret

"Propagandist Club," to carry on an international revolutionary

agitation and to prepare directly for the general revolution which

Most thought was near at hand. For this purpose a committee was to be

formed in every country in order to form groups after the Nihilist

pattern, and at the proper time to take the lead of the movement. The

activity of all these national organisations was to be united in the

Central Committee in London, which was an international body. The

organ of the organisation was to be the _Freedom_. The following of

this new movement grew rapidly in every country, and already in 1881 a

great demonstration of Most's ideas took place at the memorable

International Revolutionary Congress in London, the holding of which

was mainly due to the initiative of Most and the well-known Nihilist,

Hartmann.

Already, in April, 1881, a preliminary congress had been held in

Paris, at which the procedure of the "parliamentary Socialists" had

been rejected, since only a social revolution was regarded as a

remedy; in the struggle against present-day society all and any means

were looked upon as right and justifiable; and in view of this the

distribution of leaflets, the sending of emissaries, and the use of

explosives were recommended. A German living in London had proposed an

amendment involving the forcible removal of all potentates after the

manner of the assassination of the Russian Czar, but this was rejected

as "at present not yet suitable." The congress following this

preliminary one took place in London on July 14 to 19, 1881, and was

attended by about forty delegates, the representatives of several

hundred groups.

"The revolutionaries of all countries are uniting into an

'International Social Revolutionary Working Men's Association' for the

purpose of a social revolution. The headquarters of the Association is

at London, and sub-committees are formed in Paris, Geneva, and New

York. In every place where like-minded supporters exist, sections and

an executive committee of three persons are to be formed. The

committees of a country are to keep up with one another, and with the

Central Committee, regular communication by means of continual reports

and information, and have to collect money for the purchase of poison

and weapons, as well as to find places suitable for laying mines, and

so on. To attain the proposed end, the annihilation of all rulers,

ministers of State, nobility, the clergy, the most prominent

capitalists, and other exploiters, any means are permissible, and

therefore great attention should be given specially to the study of

chemistry and the preparation of explosives, as being the most

important weapons. Together with the chief committee in London there

will also be established an executive committee of international

composition and an information bureau, whose duty is to carry out the

decisions of the chief committee and to conduct correspondence."

This Congress and the decisions passed thereat had very far-reaching

and fateful consequences for the development of the Anarchism of

action. The executive committee set to work at once, and sought to

carry out every point of the proposed programme, but especially to

utilise for purposes of demonstration and for feverish agitation every

revolutionary movement of whatever origin or tendency it might be,

whether proceeding from Russian Nihilism or Irish Fenianism. How

successful their activity was, was proved only too well by now

unceasing outrages in every country.

The London Congress operated as a beacon of fire; scarcely had it

uttered its terrible concluding words when it found in all parts of

Europe an echo multiplied a thousand-fold. Anarchism, which was

thought to be dead, celebrated a dread resurrection, and in places

where it had never existed it suddenly raised its Gorgon head aloft.

The reason is mainly to be found in the fact that all the numerous

radical-social elements which had not agreed with the tactics of the

Social Democrats in view of Government prosecutions, now adopted

Most's programme without asking in the least what the Anarchist theory

was or whether they believed in it. The two catchwords of the

Anarchism of action, Communism and Anarchy, did not fail to have

their usual effect upon the most radical and confused elements of

discontent. Communism is, to speak plainly, only "the absolute

average"; and as there are large numbers of men who fall even below

the average both mentally, morally, and materially, Communism can have

at any time nothing terrible in it for these people, and even

represents to them a highly desirable Eldorado. Collectivism is the

impractical invention of a man of genius, that may be compared to a

mechanical invention that consists of so many screws, wheels, and

springs that it never can be set going. But Communism seems an easy

expedient for the average man; it can always reckon upon a public;

certainly one is always to be found. By Anarchy, of course, the mob

understands always only its own dictatorship, and this remedy, too,

always has a great attraction for the uneducated masses. But as

regards the tactics commended by the London Congress, it was

completely adapted to the mental capacities of the representatives of

"darkest Europe." The "new movement" could thus count upon success,

especially as skilful agitators like Kropotkin, Most, Penkert,

Gautier, and others devoted to it all their remarkable powers. This

success was gained with surprising rapidity.

In Paris in 1880 Anarchism was almost extinguished; its organ, the

_Revolution Sociale_, had to cease when Andrieux, the Prefect of

Police, who had supplied it with money, left his appointment, and

supplies were stopped. The party was disorganised both in Paris and

the provinces, and the Jurassic Federation was nearly extinct.

Immediately after the London Congress, the "Revolutionary

International League" was established, an active intercommunication

was kept up with London, and an eager agitation was developed. In

consequence, however, of the strong opposition of the other

Socialists, this League remained weak, and scarcely numbered a hundred

members. On the other hand, Anarchism increased all the more in the

great industrial centres of the provinces. In the South were founded

the _Federation Lyonnaise_ and the _Federation Stephanoise_, which,

especially after Kropotkin took over the leadership and cleverly took

advantage of the discords prevailing among other Socialists (_e. g._,

at the congress of St. Etienne), made astonishing progress in Lyons,

the main centre of the movement, St. Etienne, Roanne, Narbonne, Nimes,

Bordeaux, and other places. According to Kropotkin, these unions

already numbered in a year's time 8000 members. In Lyons they

possessed an organ, which, like Most's _Freedom_, appeared under all

kinds of titles in order to elude the police, and which openly

advocated outrages and gave recipes for the manufacture of explosives.

The consequences of this unchecked agitation soon became visible. The

first opportunity was given by the great strikes which broke out at

the beginning of 1882 in Roanne, Bezieres, Molieres, and other

industrial centres of Southern France, and were used by the Anarchists

for their own purposes. A workman, Fournier, who shot his employer in

the open street, was honoured in Lyons by the summoning of a meeting

to present him with a presentation revolver. For the national fete on

the 14th July, 1882, a larger riot was planned to take place in Paris,

for which purpose help was also sought from London. But as there

happened to be a review of troops in Paris on that date, the

Anarchists contented themselves with issuing a manifesto "to the

Slaves of Labour," concluding with the words: "No Fetes! Death to the

Exploiters of Labour! Long Live the Social Revolution!" In autumn,

1882, riots broke out in Montceau-les-Mines and Lyons, in which

violent means were employed, including dynamite. Next spring (March,

1883), there and in Paris great demonstrations of the "unemployed"

took place in the streets, combined with robbery and dynamite

outrages, and on July 14th there were sanguinary encounters with the

armed forces of the State in Roubaix and elsewhere, when the populace

was incited to arise against the _bourgeoisie_, "who" (it was said)

"were indulging in festivities while they had condemned Louise Michel,

the champion of the proletariat, to a cruel imprisonment."

The French Government now thought it no longer possible to look on

quietly at these proceedings, and sought to secure the agitators,

which proved no light task. Of the fourteen prisoners accused of

complicity in the riots of Montceau-les-Mines, only nine were

condemned to terms of imprisonment of one to five years or less

important counts. On the other hand, at the Lyons trial of 19th

January, 1883, only three out of sixty-six were acquitted; the

others, including Kropotkin, his follower Gautier, a brilliant orator

and fanatical propagandist, Bordas, Bernard, and others, were

condemned to imprisonment with the full penalty on the strength of

the law of March 14, 1872, against the "International." Almost

all the accused, including Kropotkin, openly confessed that both

intellectually and in deed they were the originators of the excesses

at Lyons and Montceau-les-Mines, and that they were Anarchists, but

denied the existence of an international organisation, and protested

against the application of the law of the 14th March, 1872.

Similarly the Government succeeded in securing the ringleaders of the

demonstrations in Paris. At the same time the Government endeavoured

to check the Anarchist agitation by administrative methods; but

nothing could stay the progress of the new movement that had started

since the London Congress. France is the headquarters of Anarchism,

Paris contains its leading journals, over all France there exists a

network of groups; the propaganda of action here celebrated its

saddest triumphs, as is only too well shown by the cases of Ravachol,

Henry, and Caserio.

Switzerland, the original home of the Anarchism of action, now gives

rise to but little comment. Immediately after the London Congress

Kropotkin developed his most active agitation in the old Anarchist

centre, the Lake of Geneva district. On July 4, 1882, at Lausanne, at

an annual congress of some thirty delegates, Kropotkin estimated the

number of his adherents at two thousand. Lausanne Congress adopted

the same attitude as the London Congress, and took the opportunity on

the occasion of the international musical festival at Geneva, August

12 to 14, 1882, to hold a secret international congress there. At this

the question of the separation of the Anarchists from every other

party was discussed. As a matter of fact this separation had long

since taken place; the long-drawn struggle between Marxists and

Bakuninists had caused a complete division between the Social

Democrats and Anarchists; latterly even the adherents of Collectivism,

the Possibilists, and other groups had separated from the Anarchists;

and thus the Geneva Congress merely gave expression to the complete

individualisation of the new movement, and it was decided to make the

new programme officially known in a manifesto. This manifesto ran:

"Our ruler is our enemy. We Anarchists, _i. e._, men without any

rulers, fight against all those who have usurped any power, or who

wish to usurp it. Our enemy is the owner who keeps the land for

himself, and makes the peasant work for his advantage. Our enemy is

the manufacturer who fills his factory with wage-slaves; our enemy is

the State, whether monarchical, oligarchical, or democratic, with its

officials and staff of officers, magistrates, and police spies. Our

enemy is every thought of authority, whether men call it God or devil,

in whose name the priests have so long ruled honest people. Our enemy

is the law which always oppresses the weak by the strong, to the

justification and apotheosis of crime. But if the landowners, the

manufacturers, the heads of the State, the priests, and the law are

our enemies, we are also theirs, and we boldly oppose them. We intend

to reconquer the land and the factory from the landowner and the

manufacturer; we mean to annihilate the State, under whatever name it

may be concealed; and we mean to get our freedom back again in spite

of priest or law. According to our strength, we will work for the

annihilation of all legal institutions, and are in accord with

everyone who defies the law by a revolutionary act. We despise all

legal means because they are the negation of our rights; we do not

want so-called universal suffrage, since we cannot get away from our

own personal sovereignty, and cannot make ourselves accomplices in the

crimes committed by our so-called representatives. Between us

Anarchists and all political parties, whether Conservatives or

Moderates, whether they fight for freedom or recognise it by their

admissions, a deep gulf is fixed. We wish to remain our own masters

and he among us who strives to become a chief or leader is a traitor

to our cause. Of course we know that individual freedom cannot exist

without a union with other free associates. We all live by the support

one of another, that is the social life which has created us, that is

the work of all, which gives to each the consciousness of his rights

and the power to defend them. Every social product is the work of the

whole community, to which all have a claim in equal manner. For we are

Communists; we recognise that unless patrimonial, communal,

provincial, and national limits are abolished, the work must be begun

anew. It is ours to conquer and defend common property, and to

overthrow governments by whatever name they may be called."

In spite of the severe repressive measures taken against the Swiss

Anarchists in consequence of the outrages in the south of France, in

which they were rightly supposed to be implicated, they held their

annual congress from July 7 to 9, 1883, at Chaux-de-Fonds, at which

the establishment of an international fund "for the sacrifice of the

reactionary _bourgeoisie_," the disadvantage from the Anarchist

standpoint of a union of revolutionary groups, and the necessity of

the propaganda of action were decided upon.

The beginnings of German Anarchism in Switzerland date from the

characteristic year 1880, when the division among German Socialists

(arising from Most's influence) was felt among the Swiss working

classes also. In the summer of 1880 Most himself was in Switzerland,

and succeeded in collecting round him a small following, which, as

early as October, felt itself strong enough to hold on the Lake of

Geneva a sort of opposition congress to the one at Wyden, in order to

declare its decisions null and void. At the same time the _Freedom_

was recognised as the organ of the party. The London Congress gave a

new impulse to the agitation. Proceedings were at once taken to

realise in Switzerland the London programme; groups were formed,

and connection made between them by special correspondents

(_trimardeurs_), a propaganda fund established, and messages sent to

Germany inciting to commit outrages as opportunity offered. In

consequence of this active agitation, the Anarchist groups in France

and N. E. Switzerland continually increased, and when in 1883 Most's

_Freedom_ no longer could be published in London, it appeared in

Switzerland under the editorship of Stellmacher, who was afterwards

executed in Vienna, until Most, after performing his sentence of

imprisonment in London, transferred it with him to New York. In this

year (1883) the growth of Anarchism was so rapid that its adherents

even succeeded in gaining the majority in many of the German

working-men's clubs or in breaking them up. In August, 1883, the

Anarchists held a secret conference in Zuerich, which declared Most's

system of groups to be satisfactory; drew up a new plan for extending,

as far as possible and with all possible safety, the spread of

Anarchist literature; and considered the establishment of a secret

printing-press. The activity of the Swiss Anarchists consisted mainly

in smuggling Anarchist literature into Germany and Austria, while the

Jurassic Federation again concerned itself chiefly with doing the same

for Southern France. Both parties now had the most friendly relations

one with another.

Swiss Anarchism leads us directly to Germany and Austria. Germany may

be termed the most free from Anarchists of any country in Europe. In

the seventies a few groups had been founded here from Switzerland, and

by means of the _Arbeiterzeitung_ (_Working-Mens' Journal_), appearing

in Bern, and conducted by Reinsdorf, a former compositor and

enthusiastic agitator, an attempt was made to convert the working

classes of Germany to Anarchism. But owing to the strength of Social

Democracy in this country, all Reinsdorf's efforts at agitation were

in vain. Even the superior skill of Johann Most could only produce

very feeble and transitory results. When he openly professed

Anarchism, and was expelled from the Social Democratic party, a small

following remained to him in Germany; but in the German Empire only a

dozen or so groups were formed (chiefly in Berlin and Hamburg) which

adopted Most's programme; but their numbers did not rise above two

hundred, and they remained quite unimportant.

The effects, however, of Most's agitation in Switzerland were all the

more strongly felt in Austria, the classic land of political

immaturity and insecurity. To-day the Austrian Empire is almost free

from Anarchists; other elements have come to take up the _role_ of

fishing in troubled waters. But at the time of the general increase of

Anarchism, after the London Congress, Austria-Hungary was one of the

strongholds of Anarchism. A former house painter, Josef Penkert, a man

who had given himself a very fair education by his own efforts, and

was Most's most eager pupil, conducted the agitation in Vienna and

Pesth. Groups sprang up, and the agitation was so strong that the new

Social Democratic party was soon relegated to the background.

Everywhere Anarchist papers arose--in Vienna the _Zukunft_ (_Future_)

and the _Delnicke Listy_, in Reichenberg the _Radical_, in Prague the

_Socialist_ and the _Communist_, in Lemberg the _Praca_, in Cracow the

_Robotnik_ and the _Przedswit_, imported from Switzerland. The chief

organs of Austrian Anarchism, however, flourished on the other side of

the river Leitha, where the press laws were interpreted more liberally

than in the west of the kingdom. In Hungary there were numerous

Anarchist journals, some of which, like the Pesth _Socialist_,

preached the most sanguinary and merciless propaganda. This was acted

upon in Vienna, under the guidance of Penkert, Stellmacher, and

Kammerer, in such a way that Most's _Freedom_, which was smuggled in

in large quantities, was delighted at it. In 1881 Anarchist meetings

had collisions with the authorities. The money for the agitation was

obtained by robbery, as the trial of Merstallinger proved. The most

prominent Anarchist speakers were examined judicially in consequence

of this trial, which took place in March, 1882, but had to be

acquitted, which naturally only increased the confidence of the

propagandists. The Socialists succeeded no better in making headway

against this rapidly increasing movement. The "General Workmen's

Conference," sitting at Bruenn on the 15th and 16th of October, 1882,

certainly passed an open vote of want of confidence against the

Anarchist minority, but a resolution to the effect that

Merstallinger's offence was a common crime, that the tactics preached

by the Anarchists ought to be rejected as unworthy of Social

Democrats, and that all adherents of such tactics were to be regarded

as enemies and traitors to the people--this was rejected after a hot

debate. All this naturally increased the confidence and recklessness

of the Anarchist agitation. Secret printing-presses were busily

engaged spreading incendiary literature, which advocated the murder of

police officials and explained the tactics suitable for this purpose.

On the 26th and 27th October, 1883, at a secret conference at Lang

Enzersdorf, a new plan of action was discussed and adopted, namely, to

proceed with all means in their power to take action against

"exploiters and agents of authority," to keep people in a state of

continual excitement by such acts of terrorism, and to bring about the

revolution in every possible way. This programme was immediately acted

upon in the murder of several police agents. On December 15, 1883, at

Floridsdorf, a police official named Hlubek was murdered, and the

condemnation of Rouget, who was convicted of the crime, on June 23,

1884, was immediately answered the next day by the murder of the

police agent Bloect. The Government now took energetic measures. By

order of the Ministry, a state of siege was proclaimed in Vienna and

district from January 30, 1884, by which the usual tribunals for

certain crimes and offences were temporarily suspended, and the

severest repressive measures were exercised against the Anarchists, so

that Anarchism in Austria rapidly declined, and at the same time it

soon lost its leaders. Stellmacher and Kammerer were executed, Penkert

escaped to England, most of the other agitators were fast in prison,

the journals were suppressed and the groups broken up. The same

occurred in Hungary, which had only followed the fashion in Austria,

for in Hungary the social question is by no means so acute and the

public movement in it is merely political.

At present Anarchism in Germany and Austria is confined to an (at

most) harmless doctrinaireism, and it will be well to accept with

great reserve any statements to the contrary; for neither those who

were condemned at the last Anarchist trial at Vienna, nor the Bohemian

Anarchist and Omladinist trials, nor the suspected persons who have

recently migrated to Germany, appear to have been more than half

conscious of Anarchism, nor do they appear to have had any

international associations.

In Belgium, also, after the passing of the German Socialist laws, a

difference of opinion became manifest among the working classes, which

gave new life to Anarchism, almost extinct as it was at the end of the

seventies. The "German Reading Union" in Brussels split into two

parties, the more radical of which was filled with Most's ideas and

eagerly agitated for the dissemination of his _Freedom_. As this

radical tendency had found many supporters among the German

Socialists, it made itself noticeable at the Brussels Congress of

1880. The keener became the struggle between the Most-Hasselmann and

the Bebel-Liebknecht parties, the more sharply defined became the

opposition in the ranks of the Belgian working classes. The Radicals

united into a "Union Revolutionnaire"; founded their own party organ,

_La Perseverance_, at Verviers; and declared themselves in favour of

the London Congress as against that at Coire. The others held

quarterly advisory congresses at Brussels, Verviers, and Ceresmes, at

which it was agreed to revive the "International Working-Men's

Association" on a revolutionary basis and not to limit the various

groups in their autonomy. These meetings also adopted the resolution

which the German members in Brussels had suggested about the

employment of explosives. But in spite of the active agitation, and

the founding of the "Republican League" to show the activity of the

Anarchists as opposed to the Socialist "Electoral Reform League,"

Anarchism in Belgium made no progress, mainly on account of internal

dissension, and the annual congress arranged for 1882 did not even

take place. In spite of the most active propaganda, circumstances have

not altered in Belgium during the last ten years. We must be careful

not to set down to the Anarchists the repeated dynamite outrages which

are so common during the great strikes in Belgium, although in certain

isolated cases, as in the dynamite affair at Gomshoren, near Brussels,

in 1883, the hand of the Anarchists cannot be mistaken.

England, the ancient refuge of political offenders, although it has

sheltered Bakunin, Kropotkin, Reclus, Most, Penkert, Louise Michel,

Cafiero, Malatesta, and other Anarchist leaders, and still shelters

some of them; although London is rich in Anarchist clubs and

newspapers, meetings and congresses, yet possesses no Anarchism

"native to the soil," and has formed at all times rather a kind of

exchange or market-place for Anarchist ideas, motive forces, and the

literature of agitation. London is especially the headquarters of

German Anarchism; the English working classes have, however, always

regarded their ideas very coldly, while the Government have always

regarded the eccentric proceedings of the Anarchists, as long as they

confined themselves merely to talking and writing, in the most logical

spirit of the doctrine of _laisser faire_. Certainly, when Most went a

little too far in his _Freedom_, the full power of the English law was

put in motion against him, and condemned him on one occasion to

sixteen, and on another to eighteen months' imprisonment with hard

labour. But of greater effect than this punishment was the fact that

in all London no printer could be found to set up the type for

_Freedom_. Thereupon Most left thankless Old England grumbling, and

went to the New World, where, however, he was, if possible, taken even

less seriously.

Spain was the only country where Anarchism, even under the new impulse

of the London Congress, really kept in the main to its old

Collectivist principles. In consequence of the movement proceeding

from the London Congress, the Spanish Anarchists called a national

congress at Barcelona on September 24 and 25, 1881, at which, in the

presence of one hundred and forty delegates, a programme and statutes

of organisation were drawn up and a "Spanish Federation of the

International Working-Men's Association" was founded. Its aim was to

be the political, economic, and social emancipation of all the working

classes by the establishment of a form of society founded upon a

Collectivist basis, and guaranteeing the unconditional autonomy of the

free and federally united communes. The only means of reaching this

aim was declared to be a revolutionary upheaval carried out by force.

The organisation sketched out at the Barcelona Congress is quite in

Proudhon's spirit; the arrangement of its members was to be a double

one, both by trades and districts, and both divisions had mutually to

enlarge each other. The basis of the trade organisation was to be

formed by the single local groups; these were to be united into local

associations, these into provincial associations, and these again into

a national association, the "Union." Monthly, quarterly, and yearly

conferences, and the committees attached to them, were to form the

decisive and executive organs of these associations. Parallel with the

arrangement by trades was to be the territorial arrangement, all the

local trade associations of the same district being formed into one

united local association, this again into provincial associations,

these into the national association of the whole country, _i. e._,

into the "Federation"; and here again local, provincial, and national

congresses performed all executive functions as local, provincial, and

national committees. The National Committee established by the

Congress developed immediately an active agitation, so that at the

next congress at Seville (24th to 26th September, 1883), attended by

254 delegates, the Federation numbered already 10 provincial, 200

local unions, and 632 sections, with 50,000 members. Their organ, the

_Revista Social_, which appeared in Madrid, possessed about 10,000

subscribers, although besides this there were several local journals.

But this rapid growth of the Anarchist movement in Spain was followed

by a retrogression, mainly caused by the increased severity of the

measures taken by the Government in consequence of the terrorism

created by the Andalusian secret society of "The Black Hand" (Mano

Negra), and proceedings were taken against the Anarchists. Their

examination, however, failed to reveal the supposed connection between

the Mano Negra and Anarchism, and the Anarchists, who had been

arrested wholesale, had to be acquitted. The Federation itself had

expressed to every society its disapproval of the "secret actions of

those assassins," and had pointed to the legality and public nature of

their organisation and agitation, as well as to their statutes, which

had received the approval of the authorities. The congress at Valencia

(1883) repeated this declaration. Henceforth Spanish Anarchism

proceeded on peaceful lines, and only in the last few years did it

have recourse to force after the example of the French, as, _e. g._,

in the attack on Campos, and the outrage in the Liceo Theatre at

Barcelona.

As to Italy, here also after 1880 Anarchism awoke to new life, as it

did everywhere else, and at the same time broke finally with the

Democratic Socialists. In December, 1886, the Anarchists held a secret

congress at Chiasso, at which fifteen delegates of cities of North

Italy took part. These professed Anarchist Communism, viewed with

horror any division _au choix_, and recommended "the use of every

favorable opportunity for seriously disturbing public order." In

agreement with this the Italians, represented by Cafiero and

Malatesta, took part in the London Congress in the following year. On

their return these two men developed an active agitation, and began a

bitter campaign against the moderate Socialists, especially when their

leader Costa was elected to Parliament, which the Anarchists regarded

as a betrayal of the proletariat to the _bourgeoisie_. In the year

1883 Malatesta was arrested at Florence, and, with several companions,

condemned by the royal courts, on February 1, 1884, to several years'

imprisonment, it being proved that groups had already been formed in

Rome, Florence, and Naples on the basis of the London programme, and

that these groups had planned and prepared dynamite outrages. Leghorn,

which in the time of the Romans was a refuge for criminals, may be

regarded as the centre of modern Italian Anarchism. "In Leghorn,"

writes one who knows his facts, "the number of the Anarchists of

action is legion. The idea of slaking their inborn thirst for blood on

the 'fat _bourgeoisie_' could not fail to gain many adherents among

the descendants of that Sciolla, who at the time of the last Grand

Duke founded the celebrated dagger-band and slew 700 people; how many

adherents it gained may be seen from the figures of the last election

(March, 1894), when 3200 electors voted for the Anarchist murderer

Merga." Lugo (the home of Lega), Forli, and Cesena form important

centres of Italian Anarchism. The _role_ which it has played in the

international propaganda is fresh in the memory of all, and is

sufficiently indicated by the names of Lega and Caserio.

* * * * *

It will be seen from the foregoing that Anarchism, after retrograding

till the end of the seventies, made unexpectedly rapid progress in

every country after 1880, lasting till about 1884, but after that a

new reaction, or at least a diminution of propaganda, is to be

noticed. The renewed force with which the Anarchism of action has

during the last three years or so made itself felt in the Latin

countries, appears already to present new features; this may be termed

the third epoch of Anarchism. The epoch dating from the London

Congress is characterised by certain party features (federations,

alliances, etc.), which have now quite disappeared.

With Most's departure for America, the central government created by

him--if we can speak of a central government in view of the complete

autonomy of the groups--appears to have completely lost its power, and

when, at the congresses of Chicago (1891) and London (1892), Merlino

and Malatesta moved that some form of leadership of the party should

be established, their motion was rejected, it being pointed out that

it was inconsistent with the main Anarchist principle: "Do as thou

wilt." When nowadays we hear talk of an "International Organisation"

of an Anarchist party and so forth, this must be taken merely in the

very wide meaning of a completely free _entente_ between single

groups.

Everything at present rests with the "group," which is, at the same

time, very small and of an extremely fluctuating character. Five,

seven, or at most a dozen men unite in a group according to

occupation, personal relationships, propinquity of dwelling, or other

causes; only after a certain time to separate again. The groups are

only connected with each other almost entirely by means of moving

intermediaries, called _trimardeurs_, a slang expression borrowed from

the thieves. This organisation completely corresponds to the purely

individual character of their actions; Anarchist riots and

conspiracies are out of fashion; and the outrages of recent years have

arisen almost exclusively from the initiative of individuals. This

circumstance, as well as the whole organisation of the Anarchists, of

course renders difficult any summary proceedings on the part of the

Government of the country; which is probably by no means the least

important reason for the adoption of these tactics by the Anarchists.

As to the numerical strength of Anarchism, different estimates are

given by the Anarchists and their opponents; but all of them are very

untrustworthy. Kropotkin, in 1882, gave the numbers of those living at

Lyons at 3000; those in the basin of the Rhone at 5000; and spoke of

thousands of others living in the south of France. One of the

sixty-six defendants at the Lyons trial wrote: "We are _all_

captured"--a remarkable difference of numbers compared with

Kropotkin's 3000. Lately, the Paris _Figaro_ has published some data,

said to be from an authentic source, about the strength of the

Anarchists, and, according to this journal, about 2000 Anarchists are

known to the police in France, among whom are about 500 Frenchmen and

1500 foreigners. The majority of these foreign Anarchists consists of

the Italians (45 per cent.), then come the Swiss (25 per cent.), the

Germans and Russians (20 per cent., each), Belgians and Austrians (5

per cent., each), Spaniards and Bulgarians (each 2 per cent.), and the

natives of several minor States. This proportionate percentage of

course only refers to Anarchists living in France or known there, and

cannot be taken as trustworthy for international numbers. We have in

fact practically no knowledge of its present strength, for it is as

often undervalued as overrated. When this is done by those who are not

Anarchists, it cannot be wondered at, since one of the leaders of the

Anarchism of action in Paris confessed his own ignorance by the

remark: "There are in the world some thousands of us, perhaps some

millions."

CHAPTER IX

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Legislation against Anarchists -- Anarchism and Crime --

Tolerance towards Anarchist Theory -- Suppression of

Anarchist Crime -- Conclusion.

When about a year ago (1894) the Italian Caserio, a baker's

apprentice, assassinated the amiable and respected President of the

French Republic, probably thinking that he was thereby ridding the

world of a tyrant, the public, in a mood perfectly comprehensible if

not justifiable, was ready to take the severest measures against

anyone suspected of Anarchism. An international convention against the

Anarchists was demanded, but this was almost unanimously rejected by

European diplomatists. Parliaments, however, showed themselves more

subservient to the anxiety of the public than the diplomatists. Italy

gave its Government full powers over administrative dealings with all

suspected persons, and France passed a Press law limiting very

considerably, not only the Anarchist press, but the press generally.

Spain had already anticipated this action. Germany took all manner of

trouble to frame exceptional laws, although one cannot quite see how

this country was concerned in the matter. England alone, true to its

traditions, rejected the proposal of the House of Lords to pass

exceptional laws against the Anarchists, Lord Rosebery, who was then

Premier, declaring that the ordinary law and the existing executive

organisation were amply sufficient to cope with the Anarchists.

The question as to which State has pursued the better policy appears

at first extremely difficult to answer. It is believed that we have in

Anarchism something quite new, which has never occurred before,

something monstrous and not human, against which quite extraordinary

measures are permissible. To judge whether this standpoint is correct,

we must, before everything, distinguish carefully the theory from the

propaganda.

The common view--or prejudice--soon disposes of the Anarchist theory:

the anxious possessor of goods thinks it is nothing less than a direct

incitement to robbery and murder; the practical politician merely

regards the Anarchist theory as not worth debate, because it could not

be carried out in practice; and even men of science, as we have seen

in the case of Laveleye, and could prove by other examples, look upon

Anarchist theories merely as the mad and feverish fancies of

extravagant minds.

None of them would much mind if all Anarchist literature were consumed

in an _auto da fe_ and the authors thereof rendered harmless by being

sent off to Siberia or New Caledonia. Such judgments are easily

passed, but whether one could settle the question permanently thereby

is another matter.

That the theory of Anarchism is not merely a systematic incitement to

robbery and murder we need hardly repeat, now that we have concluded

an exhaustive statement of it. Proudhon and Stirner, the men who have

laid down the basis of the new doctrine, never once preached force.

"If ideas once have originated," said Proudhon once, "the very

paving-stones would rise of themselves, unless the Government has

sense enough to avert this. And if such is not the case, then nothing

is of any use." It will be admitted that, for a revolutionary, this is

a very moderate speech. The doctrine of propaganda, which since

Proudhon's time has always accompanied a certain form of Anarchist

theory, is a foreign element, having no necessary or internal

connection with the fundamental ideas of Anarchism. It is simply a

piece of tactics borrowed from the circumstances peculiar to Russia,

and accepted moreover only by one fraction of the Anarchists, and

approved by very few indeed in its most crude form; it is merely the

old tactics of all revolutionary parties in every age. The deeds of

people like Jacques Clement, Ravaillac, Corday, Sand, and Caserio, are

all of the same kind; hardly anyone will be found to-day to maintain

that Sand's action followed from the views of the _Burschenschaft_, or

Clement's from Catholicism, even when we learn that Sand was regarded

by his fellows as a saint, as was Charlotte Corday and Clement, or

even when learned Jesuits like Sa, Mariana, and others, _cum licentia

et approbatione superiorum_, in connection with Clement's outrage,

discussed the question of regicide in a manner not unworthy of

Netschajew or Most.

We may quote the remarks of a specialist[1] upon the connection

between politics and criminality. "History is rich in examples of the

combination of criminal acts with politics, wherein sometimes

political passion and sometimes a criminal disposition forms the chief

element. While Pompeius the Sober has all honest people on his side,

his talented contemporaries, Cicero, Caesar, and Brutus have as

followers all the baser sort, men like Clodius and Cataline,[2]

libertines and drunkards like Antonius, the bankrupt Curio, the mad

Clelius, Dolabella the spendthrift, who wanted to repudiate all his

debts by passing a law. The Greek Clephts, those brave champions of

the independence of their home, were, in times of peace, brigands. In

Italy the Papacy and the Bourbons in 1860 kept the brigands in their

pay against the national party and its troops; and Garibaldi had on

his side in Sicily the Maffia, just as in Naples the Liberals were

supported by the Camorra. This alliance with the Camorra is not even

yet quite dissolved, as the occurrences in Naples at the time of the

recent disturbances in the Italian Parliament have shown, nor will

matters probably improve. Criminals usually take a large share in the

initial stages of insurrections and revolutions, for at a time when

the weak and undecided are still hesitating, the impulsive force of

abnormal and unhealthy natures preponderates, and their example calls

forth epidemics of excesses.

[1] Lombroso, _Die Anarchisten_, p. 33. Hamburg, 1896.

[2] Cataline as a follower of Cicero is a new version of the

supposed facts.--TRANS.

"Chenn, in his remarks upon revolutionary movements in France before

1848, has shown that political passion gradually degenerated into

unconcealed criminal attempts; thus the precursors of Anarchism at

that time had for leader a certain Coffirean, who finally became a

raving Communist, and exalted thieving into a socio-political

principle, plundered the merchants with the aid of his adherents,

because in his opinion they cheated their customers; by thus doing

they believed they were only making perfectly justifiable reprisals,

and at the same time converting the plundered ones into discontented

men who would join the revolutionary cause. This group also occupied

themselves in the manufacture of forged bank notes, which led in 1847

to their being discovered and severely punished after the real

Republicans had disowned them. In England at the time of the

conspiracies against Cromwell, bands of robbers collected in the

neighbourhood of London, and the number of thieves increased; the

robber-bands assumed a political colouring and asked those whom they

attacked whether they had sworn an oath of fidelity to the Republic,

and according to their answer they let them go or robbed and

ill-treated them. Companies of soldiers had to be sent to repress

them, nor were the soldiers always victorious. Hordes of vagabonds,

bands of robbers, and societies of thieves in unheard-of numbers also

appeared as forerunners of the French Revolution. Mercier states that

in 1789 an army of 10,000 vagabonds gradually approached Paris and

penetrated into the city; these were the rabble that attended the

wholesale executions during the Reign of Terror and later took part in

the fusilades at Toulon and the wholesale drownings at Nantes; at the

same time the revolutionary troops and militia were, according to

Meissner, merely organised bands who committed every kind of murder,

robbery, and extortion. The criminals who happened to be caught

occasionally during the Revolution sought to save themselves by the

cry of _a l'aristocrate_; when on trial they behaved in the most

audacious manner, and grinned at the judges when condemned, and the

women behaved most shamelessly. In 1790 only 490 accused, and in 1791

not more than 1198, were sent to the Conciergerie. A similar state of

affairs prevailed in the Commune of 1871. Among the population then in

Paris, deceived as they were in their patriotic hopes, unnerved by

inglorious combats, weakened by hunger and alcohol, no one cared to

bestir themselves but the unruly elements, the _declasses_, the

criminals, the madmen, and the drunkards who imposed their will upon

the city; that these were the main elements in the rising is shown by

the slaughter of helpless captives, by the refined cruelty of the

murderers, who compelled their victims to jump over a wall, and shot

them while doing so, while others were riddled by bullets; thus one

citizen received sixty-nine bullets, and Abbe Bengy had sixty-two

bayonet wounds."

The foregoing examples could easily be increased in order to show that

the criminal tactics of the Anarchists are nothing new. If they are

more formidable and more monstrous than those of the religious

dissenters of the Renaissance or the political criminals of the

Revolutionary period, the reason lies in the age in which we live. We

mean that those who use the progress of modern mechanics, chemistry,

technical science, and so on, solely in order to increase the terror

inspired by organised murder, and to make the furies of war

invincible, ought not to be so surprised if the revolutionaries in

their turn no longer content themselves with old-fashioned weapons,

but seek to utilise also the achievements of modern chemistry.

_Exampla trahunt._ The Anarchist propaganda should not be judged so

severely; new and wonderful as it appears to the majority, it is by no

means so in reality; it is the stock piece of all revolutionaries,

somewhat modernised and adapted to a new age and a new doctrine.

Certainly the Anarchist doctrine is something new, if you will; but we

consider this means little if it merely expresses the fact that these

new demands exceed all previous changes in society. This is too

trivial to justify the application of exceptional measures and the

suspension of the principle of tolerance to all opinions. The

Anarchists are not, after all, so very original; they are a modernised

version of the Chiliasts of more than a thousand years ago, and differ

from them only as the mental conception of the present differs from

that of Irenaeus. For he sought to justify his dreams by an appeal to

religion, while the Anarchists appeal to modern science. That is all.

But if we blame for its intolerance, and stigmatise as belonging to

the "dark ages," the age that persecuted the Chiliasts with fire and

sword, we certainly ought not to show a still greater intolerance to

the Chiliasts of our own day.

But it may be said that this fantasy, this Anarchist theory, is far

more dangerous than all the other errors that have preceded it; it

wishes to abolish property, reduce the family to Hetairism, and so

forth. We hope we have shown clearly in the preceding pages that, at

bottom, all Anarchist theories, even Kropotkin's, are very harmless,

and would merely result in leaving everything as before, merely

changing the present compulsory system into a voluntary one. A large

group of Anarchists, indeed the most extreme, are pure Individualists,

even maintaining individual property; how this could be maintained

without some legal guarantee is a question for themselves; but it is

evident that the Anarchist theory would alter the existing state of

things much less than the social-democratic theory; for the latter

demands the cessation of Individualist economy, and would punish any

opposition to its views as a crime, just as we punish theft to-day. It

is the same with marriage. Anarchists of all parties merely wish the

family to be changed into the "family group"; but that means that

everything could practically remain unchanged; only the legal

guarantees and privileges associated with marriage must be abolished.

We will neither discuss the morality, or lack of it, nor the

practicability or impracticability of this idea; but in this the

Anarchists go no further than what Fichte, or that moderate liberal,

Wilhelm von Humboldt, or even F. A. Schlegel, the poet of Lucinde,

have demanded as regards natural marriage; and Schlegel certainly is

somewhat of the national-Christian-Socialism type. In any case, here,

too, Socialism with its more drastic measures is more formidable, for

even if it would respect the sexual group--which may be doubted in

view of the artificial organisation of work in the social State--yet

the character of the "family" would quite disappear owing to the

Socialists' violent interference with the care and bringing up of

children. It is certainly characteristic in this respect that the

authoritative Socialists regard even Anarchism as merely a modern form

of the Manchester Liberal School, sneering at Anarchists as "small

_bourgeoisie_," and representing them as quite harmless against the

reforms planned by themselves.

But whether it is more or less dangerous need not be considered, when

it is a question of whether an opinion is worth discussion. If an

opinion contains elements which are useful, serviceable, or necessary

for the majority of the members of society, these opinions will be

realised in practice without regard to whether danger thereby

threatens or does not threaten single forms or arrangements of present

society. Exceptional legislation may check criticism of unhealthy or

obsolete forms of society, but cannot hinder the organic development

of society itself; for society will then only develop through a

series of painful catastrophes instead of by a gradual evolution;

catastrophes which are the consequence of opinions which have not had

free discussion. It would be more than sad if we had to demonstrate

the truth of these views again to-day, although our own age, or at

least, we Continentals, seem in our condemnation of Anarchism to have

lost all calmness, and to have abandoned those principles of

toleration and Liberalism of which we are generally so proud. It has

been rightly said that the freedom of conscience must include not only

the freedom of belief, but also the freedom of unbelief. In that case

the right of freedom of opinions must not be confined merely to the

forms of the State: one should be equally free to deny the State

itself. Without this extension of the principle, freedom of thought is

a mockery.

We therefore demand for the Anarchist doctrine, as long as it does not

incite to crime, the right of free discussion and the tolerance due to

every opinion, quite without regard to whether it is more dangerous,

or more probable, or more practicable than any other opinion; and this

we do not merely from _a priori_ and academic reasons, but in the best

interests of the community.

We consider the Anarchist idea unrealisable, just as is any other

scheme based only on speculation; we think Proudhon's picture of

society quite as Utopian as Plato's, and certainly none the less a

product of genius. Moreover, we are convinced that grave complications

have already arisen in society owing to the fanatical pursuit of these

Utopian ideas, and still greater ones will arise; and yet we do not

belong to those who deplore the appearance of these ideas, or who

believe that serious and permanent danger is threatened to the

development of society by the Anarchist idea. This, indeed, would be

the place in which to write a chapter on the value of the error; but

we must leave this to writers on ethics, and content ourselves with

pointing out that the development of culture does not depend mainly

upon the truth or falsehood of ruling ideas. As we have often said in

these pages in our criticism of the Anarchists, life is not merely the

fulfilment of philosophic dreams or the embodiment of absolute truths;

on the contrary, it can easily be proved from history that error and

superstition have rather been the most potent factors in human

development. When discussing Stirner's views, we have shewn the

cardinal error that lies in the conclusion that only the absolutely

true is useful and admissible in practice. Certainly, philosophy has

taught us the insufficiency of all _a priori_ proofs of the truth of

the conception of God; critical science has shown us its empirical

origin, and taught us that our ideas of the soul, God, and the future

life have proceeded from the most erroneous and crudest attempts to

explain certain physiological and psychological phenomena: but even if

the conception of the Deity were the greatest error committed by

mankind, it is yet incontestable that this conception has produced and

still produces the greatest blessings for mankind. We have taken up

this standpoint against the Anarchists, and now it may turn out in

their favour; for, if it is not a question of doing away with the

State altogether, merely because (as Stirner discovered, though he was

not the first to do so) it is not sacred, nor absolute, nor real in

the philosophic sense, so one need not consider an idea absolutely

worthless, and therefore unworthy of discussion merely because it

arises from and leads to errors.

Anarchism is certainly one of the greatest errors ever imagined by

man, for it proceeds from assumptions and leads to conclusions which

entirely contradict human nature and the facts of life.

Nevertheless, it also has its purpose in social evolution, and that

not a small one, however frightened at this certain timid spirits may

be. What is this mission? In so small a space as is now left us, it is

hard to answer this without causing misunderstandings to arise on

every side. But after what has been said, it will readily be perceived

that Anarchism will be a factor in overcoming Socialism, if not by

Anarchy yet at least by freedom.

A military trait runs through the whole world; the great wars and

conquests of the last few decades and present international relations

which compel most European states to keep their weapons always ready;

all this has called forth a military strain of character, a necessity

for defence based upon guardianship and compulsory organisation, which

is increased by a similar need for defence in the province of

economics, as a consequence of previous economic and social phenomena.

This feature is seen in the universal endeavour to increase the power

of the State at the expense of the individual, and to solve economic

problems in the same way as one organises an army. State Socialism,

the Socialism of the chair, and the Christian Social movement prove

the simultaneity of this characteristic of the age in every circle of

modern society; the Social Democratic party merely represents the

group to whose impulse we must ascribe the fact of governments

including Socialism in their programme, of professors inoculating

young intelligences therewith from their chairs, of Rome eagerly

seizing it as a welcome instrument wherewith to revive her faded

popularity; and the fact of politicians, who still call themselves

liberal, giving up, often without a struggle, one position after the

other in the defence of economic freedom.

We will not go so far as to brand every concession to the Socialist

spirit of our time as blamable and harmful. After almost a century of

continually increasing economic freedom, after the old form of

society, with its ranks and institutions, has been completely broken

up by Liberalism, an increase of social discipline, a rallying of

mankind round new social standpoints, is perfectly natural. But it is

just as natural that evolution will not be able to proceed in the

one-sided direction begun by Socialism. Already the most unpleasant

phenomena are visible. The power of the State profits most of all by

the Socialist movement, which it combats as Social Democracy; the

rights of the individual retire to the background; in the "industrial

army," as in the military force, the individual is only a number, a

unit; the sense of freedom has almost disappeared from our age.

Freedom in its signification as to culture and civilisation is now

completely misunderstood and underrated, and even considered an idle

dream. But the gloomiest feature of Socialism is a renaissance of the

_religiose_ spirit and all the disadvantages it entails. The

_religiose_ attitude, as I have shown elsewhere,[3] is connected with

an inclination for tutelage, and places the individual in quite a

secondary position. In an age when the weak are only too surely

convinced of the impossibility of maintaining themselves in the midst

of the social whirlwind, when everyone seeks to join some community or

society, it is easy to make religious proselytes. People mostly

console a nation that has a low position in the economic scale with

religion, as we console the sick. To those who suffer so bitterly from

the inequality of power and wealth in our social system, there is

shown a prospect of a future eternal recompense; and those who are

continually seeking the support of some power higher than themselves

are referred to the Highest Power of all. That always convinces them.

The Socialist and the religious view of the world are one and the

same; the former is the religion of the absolute, infallible,

all-mighty, and ever-present State. The reawakening of the religious

spirit simultaneously with the growth of Socialist parties is no mere

chance. Socialism has slipped on the cowl and cassock with the

greatest ease, and we have every reason to believe that this sad

companionship is by no means ended; the regard for personal freedom

will decrease more and more; the tendency towards authority and

religion will increase; the comprehension of purely mental effort will

continue to disappear in proportion as society endeavours to transform

itself into an industrial barrack. Whether the end of it all will be

the Social Democratic popular State, or the Socialist Absolute

Monarchy, matters but little. In any case, before things reach this

point, a counteracting tendency will make itself felt from the needs

of the people, which will endeavour to force evolution back into the

opposite path. The old implacable struggle between the Gironde and the

Mountain will again be renewed; and the impulse in this contest of the

future will come from Anarchism, which is already preparing and

sharpening the weapons for it. That Socialism will be overthrown by

the introduction of Anarchism we do not believe; but the conquest will

be won under the banner of individual freedom. The centralising

tendency and the coercive character of the system of doing everything

in common, without which Socialism cannot have the least success, will

naturally and necessarily be replaced by Federalism and free

association. In these two distinctive features of a future reaction

against a Socialism that would turn everything into one vast army, we

recognise those two demands of theoretical Anarchism which are capable

of realisation, and capable of it because they are not dogmas, like

absolute freedom, but only methods.

[3] _Mysticismus, Pietismus, Anti-Semitismus, am Ende des

XIXten Jahrhunderts_, p. 5, foll. Wien, 1894.

Thus it appears not _a priori_ but _a posteriori_, that the Anarchist

theory must not be considered as absolutely worthless because in

itself it is an error and in its main demand is impracticable. Our

opinion is that it contains at least as many useful elements as

Socialism; and if to-day governments, men of learning, and even

bishops proceed without alarm upon the path of Socialism, then a

discussion of Anarchist theory should not be so coolly waved aside.

* * * * *

But it is entirely different as regards the criminal propaganda of

action. If Anarchists wish to spread their opinions abroad, there are

quite sufficient means for doing so in civilised society. No one can

be allowed the right of giving a sanguinary advertisement to his views

by the murder of innocent visitors to a cafe or a theatre; still less

have Anarchists the right, when they appeal to force, to complain if

force is used against them.

It is perfectly fair that the State should proceed against criminal

propaganda by legal measures, and that Anarchist criminals should

suffer for their action, the punishment which a country inflicts even

if it be the death penalty. There is no difference of opinion[4] as

regards this view except among Anarchists themselves, who arrogate to

themselves the right to kill, but deny it to the State. There remain

only two points that we might add.

[4] The opinion which would relegate Anarchist criminals to

the madhouse instead of to the guillotine deserves mention.

In this connection, in spite of Neo-Buddhist peculiarities,

the little work _Anarchismus und Seine Heilung_, by Emanuel

(Leipsic, 1894), gives fresh points of view.

First of all, exceptional legislation should be avoided. It is in no

way justified. Just as the motive of Anarchism to any offence affords

no extentuating circumstances, so, too, it should not make matters

worse. Secondly, we should not indulge in the vain hope that Anarchism

itself, or the criminal results of it, can be combated by mere

condemnation of Anarchist criminals, however just or unjust the

sentence may be. Punishment appears to fanatics who long for the

martyr's crown, no longer a deterrent but an atonement. In France in

less than two years, Ravachol, Henry, and Vaillant were guillotined;

but that did not deter Caserio in the least from his mad act.

Numerous Anarchist crimes are to be regarded merely as means to

indirect suicide, a method by which those who commit them may end

lives that are a burden to them, while they lack the courage to commit

suicide directly. Lombroso, Krafft, Ebbing, and others cite a long

list of political criminals who must certainly be regarded as such

indirect suicides.

We will not enter the controversial province of criminal pathology,

although it seems certain that in the criminal deeds of the Anarchism

of action a large share is taken by persons pathologically diseased or

mentally affected. For these also punishment loses its deterrent

effect. Taken all in all, one cannot expect any other result from the

punishment of Anarchist criminals, except the moral one of having

defended the rights of society. On the other hand, the Anarchists

regard the justification of one of their own party as the strongest

means of propaganda, and it cannot be denied that the Ravachol cult

resulting from the execution of that common criminal, Ravachol, caused

a considerable accession of strength to Communist Anarchism. The State

cannot, of course, allow itself to look on at Anarchist crimes and "to

shorten its arm"; but it must not delude itself that it will remove

such crime or stop the Anarchist movement by means of the guillotine.

Does this mean that society is helpless in face of Anarchism? It is,

if it possesses only force to suppress and not the power to convince;

if society is only held together by compulsion, as the present State

partly is, and the Socialist State would be still more, and threatens

to fall to pieces if the apparatus of compulsion were given up; if the

State, instead of trying to redress the unfortunately unalterable

natural inequality of its members, only intensifies them by legalising

all kinds of new inequalities, and if it regards its institutions, and

especially the law, as instruments for the unalterable conservation of

all present forms of society with all their imperfections and

injustices. If right is done, and right is uttered arbitrarily, in a

partisan and protectionist method; if equality before the law is

disregarded by those who are called to defend the law; if belief in

the reliability of the indispensable institutions of authority is

lightly shaken by these very institutions themselves, then it is no

wonder if men despair of the capability of the State to practice or to

maintain right; and if the masses, always ready to generalise, deny

right, law, State, and authority together. We have already pointed out

repeatedly that Anarchism cannot be explained by pauperism alone.

Pauperism justifies Socialism; but this movement against authority,

which certainly does not bear in all cases the name of Anarchism, but

which is to-day more widely spread than is often imagined, can only be

explained by a confused mass of injustice and wrongdoing, of which the

_bourgeois_ State is daily and hourly guilty towards the weak.

The average man does not much mind his rich fellow-man riding in his

carriage while he himself cannot even pay his tram fare; but that he

should be abandoned by society to every chance official of justice, as

a prey that has no rights, while justice often falters anxiously

before those who are shielded by coats of arms and titles,--that makes

his blood boil, and causes him to seek the origin of this injustice in

the institution itself instead of in the way it works. How many

Anarchists have become so merely because they were treated as common

criminals when they happened to have the misfortune to be suspected of

Anarchism? How many became Anarchists because they were outlawed by

society on account of free and liberal views?

Anarchism may be defined etiologically as disbelief in the suitability

of constituted society. With such views there would be only one way in

which we could cut the ground from under the Anarchists' feet. Society

must anxiously watch that no one should have reason to doubt its

intention of letting justice have free sway, but must raise up the

despairing, and by all means in its power lead them back to their lost

faith in society. A movement like Anarchism cannot be conquered by

force and injustice, but only by justice and freedom.

THE END.

SOUND MONEY.

=THE SILVER SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES.= By F. W. TAUSSIG, LL.B.,

PH.D., Professor of Political Economy in Harvard University; author of

"The Tariff History of the United States." (No. 74 in the Questions of

the Day Series.) Second Edition. Revised and enlarged. 8vo, cloth $.75

"Professor Taussig is already-well known by his admirable

'History of the United States Tariff'; and at a time when

currency problems are attracting attention in Europe, Asia,

and America, the appearance of a treatise from his pen on the

history of silver in the United States during the last decade

is peculiarly opportune."--_London Times._

"We do not hesitate to say that this book is in all respects

as excellent as it is opportune. It is extremely concise in

statement, and deserves to be read by the learned as well as

by the ignorant, while the times should insure it the widest

circulation."--_New York Evening Post._

=THE QUESTION OF SILVER.= By LOUIS E. EHRICH (of Colorado). (Questions

of the Day Series, No. 70.) New and revised edition, with statistics

brought down to date. 12mo, paper, 40 cents; cloth $.75

"The author has incorporated much valuable historical

information in the essay on silver and a subsequent reply to

his critics, and all who wish to study the subject will do

well to possess themselves of the work, which will prove

highly rewarding to the reader."--_Commercial Advertiser._

New York.

=THE CURRENCY AND THE BANKING LAW OF CANADA.= Considered with

Reference to Currency Reform in the United States. By WILLIAM C.

CORNWELL, President of the City Bank of Buffalo. 8vo, paper $.75

"One of the clearest expositions of the Dominion law with

reference to its bearing on Currency Reform that we have yet

seen."--_The Financier._

"A very valuable volume. It will undoubtedly prove to be an

effective contribution to the campaign of currency

education."--_Buffalo Courier._

=A SOUND CURRENCY AND BANKING SYSTEM: HOW IT MAY BE SECURED.= By ALLEN

RIPLEY FOOTE, author of "The Law of Incorporated Companies Operating

under Municipal Franchises," etc. (No. 81 in the Questions of the Day

Series.) 8vo, cloth $.75

"He attributes the depression in business to the ignorance of

the people on monetary questions.... Mr. Foote's arguments

are logical, and the whole discussion shows a wide knowledge

of all monetary questions. It is to be hoped that our

troubles may be solved in the simple way which Mr. Foote

points out."--_Detroit Free Press._

=A HISTORY OF MODERN BANKS OF ISSUE.= With an Account of the Economic

Crises of the Present Century. By Charles A. Conant. 8vo $3.00

"We can only express our hearty appreciation of the book as a

whole. It is extremely interesting. It cannot but be useful,

and to us it is very cheering. Mr. Conant's book, from

beginning to end, is a proof that sound currency is evolved

necessarily from the progress of an industrial and commercial

people. We have unhesitating, unfaltering faith in the

progress of the people of our country in industry and

commerce, and that sound currency will therefrom be

evolved."--_N. Y. Times._

G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS

NEW YORK AND LONDON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.

=AMERICA AND EUROPE.= A Study of International Relations.

I.--THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN: THEIR TRUE

GOVERNMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS. By DAVID

A. WELLS.

II.--THE MONROE DOCTRINE. By EDWARD J. PHELPS, late

Minister to Great Britain.

III.--ARBITRATION IN INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. By CARL

SCHURZ.

(No. 87 in the "Questions of the Day" Series.)

Together, 1 vol. 8vo, 75 cents.

"This is an extremely interesting book, a book which should

make for peace."

=COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.= An Analysis of the Administrative

System, National and Local, of the United States, England, France, and

Germany. By FRANK J. GOODNOW, Professor of Administrative Law in the

University Faculty of Political Science, Columbia College in the City

of New York. Two volumes, 8vo (each complete in itself, with index),

price per volume, $2.50.

Volume I.--ORGANIZATION. Volume II.--LEGAL RELATIONS.

"A work of great learning and profound research ... remarkable

alike for analytical power and lucidity of method ... unique

and of permanent excellence."--_New York Tribune._

=OUTLINES OF ROMAN LAW.= Comprising its Historical Growth and General

Principles. By WILLIAM C. MOREY, PH.D. 12mo, $1.75

"The work possesses more than ordinary interest, for it marks

an epoch in American legal literature."--_Albany Law

Journal._

"The whole work is executed with care and accuracy, and shows

a wide knowledge of modern scholarship."--_Boston

Advertiser._

=THE FOREIGN POLICY OF GREAT BRITAIN.= By MONTAGUE BURROWS, Professor

of Modern History, University of Oxford. 8vo, $3.00.

=THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN EUROPE.= From the Congress of

Vienna to the Present Time. By CHARLES M. ANDREWS, Associate Professor

of History in Bryn Mawr College. To be completed in two volumes. Sold

separately. With maps. 8vo, gilt tops, per volume, $2.50.

Part I.--FROM 1815-1850.

Part II.--FROM 1850 TO THE PRESENT TIME. (In preparation.)

=THE NICARAGUA CANAL AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE.= A Political History of

the Various Projects of Interoceanic Transit across the American

Isthmus, with Special Reference to the Nicaragua Canal, and the

Attitude of the United States Government Thereto. By LINDLEY M.

KEASBEY, Associate Professor of Political Science, Bryn Mawr College.

With maps. 8vo.

=INTERNATIONAL LAW.= A simple statement of its Principles. By HERBERT

WOLCOTT BOWEN, United States Consul-General at Barcelona, Spain. 12mo.

G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS, NEW YORK AND LONDON.

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES

1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_.

2. Passages in bold are indicated by =bold=.

3. The words phoenix, Poena, Baboeuf and oeconomiae use an oe ligature

in the original.

4. The words Chelcicians and Chelcic use c with caron in the original.

5. Some quotes are opened with marks but are not closed. Obvious ones

have been silently closed, while those requiring interpretation have

been left open.

6. The original text includes Greek characters. For this text version

these letters have been replaced with transliterations.

7. The following misprints have been corrected:

"divison" corrected to "division" (page 40)

"agains" corrected to "against" (page 53)

"from" corrected to "form" (page 93)

"that" corrected to "than" (page 131)

"russicher" corrected to "russischer" (page 152)

"the the" corrected to "the" (page 165)

"Arbeiterfwegung" corrected to "Arbeiterbewegung" (page 206)

"Socialty" corrected to "Sociality" (page 222)

"pesecution" corrected to "persecution" (page 225)

"Edigy" corrected to "Egidy" (page 230)

"aer" corrected to "der" (page 235)

"completly" corrected to "completely" (page 316)

"iself" corrected to "itself" (page 318)

8. Other than the corrections listed above, printer's inconsistencies

in spelling, punctuation, hyphenation, and ligature usage have been

retained.