ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without gov ernment (from Gr. av- and apxs, without authority)—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 aspira tions 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, con sumption 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. More over, 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 multitude 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 meta physical 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 indi vidualism, or under any system of State Socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular State).
The Anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their concep tion 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 tendencies 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.
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 lif e—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 ter ritorial 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 fol lowed 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 town ship 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 first International Working Men's Association in 1864, they have en deavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organizations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, distrusting parliamentary legislation.
As has been pointed out by Prof. Adler in his Geschichte des Sozialismus and Kommunismus, Aristippus (b. c. 430 B.c.), 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 27o B.c.), 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 sup plied 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. Unfortu nately, 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 mediaeval 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 Chris tian movements, beginning with the 9th 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 Wiedertdufer), 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 r 8th 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 cen tralize 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 consider able constructive work. They appropriated for themselves the election of the judges, the organization of supplies and equip ment for the army, as also for the large cities work for the un employed, 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 W. Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (2 vols., who was first to formulate the political and eco nomical 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 gradu ally 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., i i96).
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 man kind 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 pro tection 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 earn ing 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 products at cost-value, by means of labour cheques repre senting the hours of labour required to produce every given com modity. 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 %, or even less, for covering the cost of administration. Every one 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 ren dered 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 agree ment 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 be fore 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, It had also its precursor in America. Josiah Warren, who was born in 1798 (cf. W. Bailie, Josiah Warren, the First. American Anarchist, Boston, 5900), and belonged to Owen's "New Har mony," 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,' be cause 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. Keith's "House of Equity" at Boston, founded in 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 La mennais 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 lef t wing Hegelians in Germany, Moses Hess in 1843, and Karl Griin in 1845, who advocated anarchism. Besides, the authoritarian Communism of Wilhelm Weitling having given origin to oppo sition amongst the Swiss working men, Wilhelm Marr gave expres sion to it in the '4os.
On the other side, individualist anarchism found, also in Ger many, its fullest expression in Max Stirner (Kaspar Schmidt), whose remarkable works (Der Einzige and sein Eigenthum and articles contributed to the Rheinische Zeitung) 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'Individualisme anarchiste: Max Stirner 0904), 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 authori tarian 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, com plete "a-moralism" and the "association of the egotists." The final conclusion of that sort of individual anarchism has been in dicated by Prof. Basch. It maintains that the aim of all supe rior 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 individualism, 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 con ditions of oppression of the masses by the "beautiful aristocra cies." 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 Associa tion.—A general depression in the propaganda of all factions of Socialism followed, as is known, after the defeat of the upris ing 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 20 years. Nevertheless, even anarchist thought began to make some progress, namely in the writings of Bellegarrique (Coeurderoy) and especially Joseph Dejacque (Les Lazareennes, L'Humanisphere, an anarchist-Communist Uto pia, 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 agi tation, and this policy was followed until 1871. However, of ter the Franco-German War, when the International Association was prohibited in France after the uprising of the Commune, the Ger man working men who had received manhood suffrage for elec tions 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 repre sented), constituted among themselves a federal union which broke entirely with the Marxist general council of the Interna tional. 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 revindicated.
Bakunin (q.v.) soon became the leading spirit among these Latin federations for the development of the principles of an archism, 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 (Cesar De Paepe, James Guillaume, Schwitzguebel), a "col lectivist anarchist"—not in the sense of Vidal and Pecqueur in the '40s, or of their modern Social-Democratic followers, but to ex press a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the Labour groups and the free com munes, while the ways of retribution of Labour, Communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself. Social revo lution, the near approach of which was foretold at that time by all Socialists, would be the means of bringing into life the new conditions.
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 185o, and whose un finished work, Natural Law, was full of promise) and several others, whose names will be found in Dr. Nettlau's Bibliographie de l'anarchie.
'It is important to remember that the term "anarchist" is inevitably rather loosely used in public in connection wi.h the authors of a cer tain class of murderous outrages, and that the same looseness of defini tion often applies to the professions of "anarchism" made by such per sons. As stated above, a philosophic anarchist would repudiate the connection. And the general public view, which regards anarchist doctrines indiscriminately, is to that extent a confusion of terms. But the following résumé of the chief modern so-called "anarchist" inci dents is appended for convenience in stating the facts under the head ing where a reader would expect to find them.
Between 1882 and 1886 in France, Prince Kropotkin, Louise Michel and others were imprisoned. In England, Most, one of the German anarchist leaders, founded Die Freiheit, and, for defending in it the assassination of Alexander II. at St. Petersburg, was sentenced to i8 months' imprisonment with hard labour. After this he moved to the United States, and re-established his paper there in New York, in May i 886. During this period there were several anarchist congresses in the United States. In one at Albany, in 1878, the revolutionary element, led by Justus Schwab, broke away from the others; at Allegheny city, in 1879, again there was a rupture between the peaceful and the revo lutionary sections. The Voice of the People at St. Louis, the Arbeiter Zeitung at Chicago, and the Anarchist at Boston, were the organs of the revolutionary element. In 1883, at Pittsburgh, a congress of 28 delegates, representing 2 2 towns, drew up an address to the working men of America. The programme it proposed was as follows:— First, Destruction of the existing class rule by all means; i.e., ener getic, relentless, revolutionary and international action.
Secondly, Establishment of a free society, based upon co-operative organization of production.
Thirdly, Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the productive organizations, without commerce and profit-mongery.
Fourthly, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and equal basis for both sexes.
Fifthly, Equal rights for all, without distinction of sex or race.
Sixthly, Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting on a federalistic basis.
This, together with an appeal to the working men to organize, was published in Chicago, Nov. 1883, by a local committee of four, repre senting French, Bohemian, German and English sections, the head of the last being August Spies, who was hanged in 1887 for participation in the Haymarket affair in Chicago, May 4, 1886. This affair was the culmination of a series of encounters between the Chicago working men and the police, which had covered several years. The meeting of May 4 was called by Spies and others to protest against the action of the police, by whom several working men had been killed in collisions growing out of the efforts to introduce the eight-hour day. The mayor of the city attended the meeting, but, finding it peaceful, went home. The meeting was subsequently entered by the police and commanded to disperse. A bomb was thrown, several policemen being killed and a number wounded. For this crime eight men were tried in one panel and condemned, seven—Spies, Parsons, Engel, Fischer, Fielden, Schwab A prominent position among the individualist anarchists in America has been occupied by Benjamin R. Tucker. His jour. nal Liberty was started in 1881 and his 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 domina tion 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 "de. fence" all the functions of the State. His criticism of the present State is very searching, and his defence of the rights of the indi vidual very powerful. As regards his economical views B. R. Tucker follows Proudhon.
and Ling—to death, and one—Neebe—to imprisonment for i 5 years. The sentences on Fielden and Schwab were commuted by Governor Oglesby to imprisonment for life, on the recommendation of the pre siding judge and the prosecuting attorney. Ling committed suicide in gaol, and Spies, Parsons, Engel and Fischer were hanged, Nov. II, 1887. On June 26, 1893, an unconditional pardon was granted the survivors, Fielden, Schwab and Neebe, by Governor Altgeld. The reasons for the pardon were stated by the governor to be that, on an examination of the records he found that the jury had not been drawn in the usual manner, but by a special bailiff, who made his own selec tion and had summoned a "prejudiced jury"; that the "State had never discovered who it was that threw the bomb which killed the policemen, and the evidence does not show any connection whatever between the defendants and the man who did throw it," . or that this man "ever heard or read a word coming from the defendants, and consequently fails to show that he acted on any advice given by them." Judge Gary, the judge at the trial, published a defence of its procedure in the Century Magazine, vol. xxiii., p. 803.
A number of outbreaks in later years were attributed to the propa ganda of reform by revolution, like those in Spain and France in 1892, in which Ravachol was a prominent figure. In 1893 a bomb was ex ploded in the French Chamber of Deputies by Vaillant. The spirit of these men is well illustrated by the reply which Vaillant made to the judge who reproached him for endangering the lives of innocent men and women: "There can be no innocent bourgeois." In 1894 there was an explosion in a Parisian café, and another in a theatre at Barcelona. For the latter outrage six men were executed. President Carnot of the French Republic was assassinated by an Italian at Lyons in the same year. The Empress Elizabeth of Austria was assassinated in Sept. 1898. These events, all associated by the public with "anarchism," led to the passage by the United States Congress of a law, in 1894, to keep out foreign anarchists, and to deport any who might be found in the country, and also to the assemblage of an international conference in Rome, in 1898, to agree upon some plan for dealing with these revolu tionists. It was proposed that their offences should no longer be classed as political, but as common-law crimes, and be made subject to extra dition. The suppression of the revolutionary press and the inter national co-operation of the police were also suggested. The results of the conference were not, however, published; and the question of how to deal with the campaign against society fell for a while into abeyance. The attempt made by the youth Sipido on the (then) prince of Wales at Brussels in igoo recalled attention to the subject. The acquittal of Sipido, and the failure of the Belgian Government to see that justice was done in an affair of such international im portance, excited considerable feeling in England, and was the oc casion of a strongly-worded note from the British to the Belgian Gov ernment. The murder of King Humbert of Italy in July 'goo renewed the outcry against Italian anarchists. Even greater horror and indig nation were excited by the assassination of President McKinley by Czolgoscz on Sept. 6, ' go,, at Buffalo, U.S.A. and by an attempt made to blow up the young king and queen of Spain on their wedding-day in Igo6. (ED. E.B.) 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 economists, or they retire into a sort of Epicurean a-moralism, or super-man-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—Elisee Reclus, Jean Grave, Se bastien Faure, Emile Pouget in France; Enrico 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 occupied an intermediate position in Holland. The chief anarchist papers which have been published since 188o also belong to that direc tion; 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.
Without naming himself an anarchist, Leo Tolstoi, like his predecessors in the popular religious movements of the 15th and r6th centuries, Chojecki, Denk and many others, took the an archist 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, sup ported by brutal force. Robbers, he says, are far less dangerous than a well-organized Government. He makes a searching criti cism 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 con demnation 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 liber tarian ideas of the best contemporary writers have exercised upon the development of anarchism. One ought to consult the ten big volumes of the Supplement litteraire to the paper La revolte 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 Fouillee's La morale, Part et le 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, Ed ward Carpenter and so on; and in the domain of fiction, the dramas of Ibsen, the poetry of Walt Whitman, Tolstoi's War and Peace, Zola's Paris and Le travail, the works of Merezhkovski 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. (P. A. K.) Anarchism Since Kropotkin's Death.—Peter Kropotkin, the author of the foregoing article, died in 1921, at the age of 79. The son of a distinguished Russian family, he renounced the life of the soldier and courtier which opened to him to devote himself to the natural sciences. But the reading of Proudhon turned his mind to social questions, and he became an anarchist of the Proudhonian school. To the propagation of these ideas he devoted the last 6o years of his life ; and after the death of Bakunin he was probably the best known anarchist of the last two generations. Imprisoned in both Russia and Switzerland for his activities, he ultimately settled in London, where he was the centre of a distinguished circle of liberal-minded writers and Russian exiles. He wrote prolifically, some of his works, espe cially Memoirs of a Revolutionist (Igor), Mutual Aid (19o4) and The Conquest of Bread (1906) exercising considerable influence; while his History of the French Revolution is one of the best analyses of its subject written from the angle of extreme hostility to the State. In 1917, the revolution of March permitted him to return to Russia, where he lived until his death. It cannot be said that his last years were happy. He had never sympathised with the Marxist system; and his own passion for anarchist federalism found no comfort in the rigorous and authoritarian centralization of which the Bolshevists were the sponsors. He was, however, honoured by the new regime as a great figure in the history of Russian revolutionary effort; and his house has been turned into a museum of social history.
It cannot be said, indeed, that anarchism has been other than a declining movement in recent years. It still has its groups of enthusiasts, especially in the Latin countries. Attention was drawn to it in I 9o9 by the execution, in the face of all the evi dence, of the Spanish anarchist Francisco Ferrer, who had mainly been concerned with educational reform movements and was, on all the evidence, a man of the highest nobility of character. A wave of excitement in America in 1919 led to the deportation of certain well-known anarchists to Russia. Among these were Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, both of whom were well-known for their propaganda work. They found the new regime intolerable by reason of its sternly authoritarian character, and the constant imprisonment of their anarchist colleagues led them to leave Russia in disgust. Both published angry denuncia tions of the new system, of which My Disillusionment in Russia (1925), by Emma Goldman, is an interesting picture of the reac tion of the Bolshevist State upon a mind strongly wedded to free dom. America again became the centre of attention in the civi lized world in the summer of 1927 when, after a delay of seven years, two Italian anarchists, Sacco and Vanzetti, were executed for supposed participation in a crime of violence (see F. Frank furter, The Sacco-Vanzetti Case, 1927). As with Ferrer, 20 years before, the public opinion of the world felt that the execution had taken place less upon the evidence than for the crime of holding extreme opinions.
While anarchism in its classic form has made little headway in recent years, it can, however, claim that its central doctrines have not been without considerable influence. In the form of Proudhonian federalism it has created something like a revival of federalism in France: and the traces of this revival are to be found in the most diverse quarters. Its most usual thesis has been the danger of the centralized State to individual liberty, and under the name of Proudhon, a movement for decentraliza tion has assumed considerable proportions. (See Charles-Brun, Le Regionalisme ['9' I ] ; Cahiers du Cercle Proudhon [1913], and the prefaces to the new complete edition of Proudhon now in course of publication in Paris.) Another neo-anarchist current of opinion in France derives from Stirner and is ably represented by H. L. Follin, M. L. Lefort and E. Armand. (See especially the latter's Initiation individualiste-anarchiste [1923] and, gen erally, G. Pirou, Les Doctrines Econorniques en France depuis ).
In England there has been no important anarchist thinker for many years. But, as in France, the reaction against the sovereign State had led to the growth of a political pluralism in which the influence of anarchist theories is apparent. (See, for instance, Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom [3rd ed., 192o] ; H. J. Laski, A Grammar of Politics [1925]. G. D. H. Cole, Social Theory [ 2nd ed., 1921 ]) . Anarchist groups, of course, remain but there is no evidence to suggest that they are at all largely influential. (H. J. L.) BIBLIOGRAPHY.-W. Godwin, An Enquiry concerning Political JusBibliography.-W. Godwin, An Enquiry concerning Political Jus- tice and its influence on General Virtue and Happiness (1st ed., 1793). Mutualism:-J. Gray, A Lecture on Human Happiness (1825), and The Social System, a Treatise on the Principles of Exchange (1831) ; P. J. Proudhon, Qu'est-ce que la propriete? (ier memoire, 1840), What is Property? (Eng. trans. by B. Tucker, 1898-1902), Contradictions economiques (1846), Confessions d'un revolutionnaire (1849), Idee generale de la revolution (1851) ; M. Hess, "Sozialismus and Com munismus, Philosophic der That" (on G. Herwegh, Ein-und-Zwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz, 1843) ; K. Griin, Die soziale Bewegung in Frankreich and Belgien (Darmstadt, 1845) ; W. Marr, Das junge Deutschland (1845) ; J. Warren, Practicable Details of Equitable Com merce (New York, 1852), and True Civilisation (Boston, 1863) ; S. P. Andrews, Cost, the Limit of Price (New York, 1853), and The Science of Society (2nd ed., 1913). Anarchist Individualism:-M. Stirner (J. K. Schmidt) , Der Einzige and sein Eigenthum (1845, Fr. trans. 1900) ; J. H. Mackay, Max Stirner, sein Leben and sein Werk (1898) ; V. Basch, L'Individualisme anarchiste 0904). Transition Period:-J. De jacque, Les Lazareennes (1851) , Le Libertaire (weekly, New York, 1858-61) , containing L'Humanisphere (re-edited at Brussels, Bibl. des temps nouveaux) . Anarchist-collectivism of the International:-The papers Progres (Locle, 1868-70) , L'Egalit e (Geneva, 1869) , and Soli darite (Neuchatel, 1870; Geneva, 1871), and the Comptes rendus of the congresses of the International Working Men's Association ; M. Bakunin, Federalisme, socialisme et anti-theologisme. Proposition motivee au Comite Central de la Ligue de la Paix et de la Liberte (Berne, 1867-68), first published in portions under the names of The State Idea and Anarchy (Russian), L'Empire knouto-germanique (Ge neva, 1871) , Dieu et l'Etat (Eng. trans. by R. B. Tucker, 1894) , and rep. in full in his Oeuvres (Paris, 1905, etc.) ; Sozialpolitischer Brief wechsel (1896) ; M. Nettlau, Biographic von Michael Bakunin (1898). The famous Revolutionary Catechism attributed to Bakunin was not his work. James Guillaume's four volumes entitled L'Internationale (1905) are a history of the First International containing a great deal of information on anarchist history. Modern Anarchism:-The best sources aye the collections of newspapers which, although compelled sometimes to change their names, were run for considerable lengths of time: Freedom (London, still issued) ; Le Libertaire (New York, 1858-61) ; Le Revolte (Geneva, Paris, 1879-87), continued as La Re volte (Paris, 1887-94) ; Les Temps Nouveaux (Paris, 1895-1901) . See also J. Grave, L'Autonomie selon la science (1882) ; La Societe an Lendemain de la Revolution (1st ed., 1882) ; E. Reclus, "Anarchy by an Anarchist" Contemp. Review (May, 1884) ; La Societe Mourante et L'Anarchie (1893) ; Evolution and Revolution (5th ed., 1894), The Ideal and Youth (1895), La Societe Future (5th ed., 1895) ; M. Nett lau, Bibliographic de l'Anarchie (Brussels, 1897) ; "L'Anarchie, son But, ses Moyens," Bibliotheque Sociologique, No. 27 (1899) ; P. Kropotkin, Paroles d'un Revolte (1885) ; Freedom Pamphlets, Nos. 3, 4, 7, To, II: Anarchist Communism (1891) , Anarchist Morality (1894), The State, its Historic Role (1902), Anarchism, its Philosophy and Ideals (1904), Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution (19o4), The Conquest of Bread (1906), Fields, Factories and Workshops (new ed., 1919) ; C. Wilson, "Anarchism" in What Socialism is, Tracts No. 4 (1886), Anarchism and Outrage, Freedom Pamphlets No. 8 (1893) ; A. Parsons, Anarchism, its Philosophy and Scientific Basis (Chicago, 1889) ; S. Faure, La Douleur Universelle (1892) ; A. Hamon, Les Hommes et les theories de l'anarchie (1893), Psychologie de l'Anar chiste-Socialiste (1895) ; E. Malatesta, A Talk about Anarchist Com munism, Freedom Pamphlets, No. 3 (5th ed., 1894), Anarchy, Freedom Pamphlets No. 5 (3rd ed., 1894), Fra Contadini (Eng. trans., 1891). Modern Individualist Anarchists:-B. Tucker, The paper Liberty (New York, 1881, etc.), Instead of a Book, by one too busy to write one (Boston, 1893) ; L. Spooner, Natural Law, or the Science of Jus tice (Boston, 1882) ; D. Lum, Social Problems (1883) ; Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (trans. by C. Garnett, 1894), A Confession; and What I Believe-"My Religion," World's Classics (1921) . See also:-F. W. Adler, Handworterbuch der Staatswissen schaften, vol. i. (Jena, 189o) ; E. Bernatzik, "Der Anarchismus" in G. Schmoller, Jahrbuch f iir Gesetzgebung (1895) ; M. Nettlau, Bibli ographie de l'Anarchie (Brussels, 1897) ; E. V. Zenker, Anarchism (1898) ; P. Eltzbacher, Anarchism (trans. by S. T. Byington, New York and London, 1908) .