Confessions of an anarchist
Date: 2026-01-11T00:00:00+00:00

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Confessions of an anarchist

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Confessions of an anarchist

Author: W. C. Hart

Release date: January 11, 2026 [eBook #77674]

Language: English

Original publication: London: E. Grant Richards, 1906

Credits: deaurider, PrimeNumber and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONFESSIONS OF AN ANARCHIST ***

Confessions of an Anarchist

Liberty

THE ANARCHIST
LABOUR LEAF

THE TORCH
A Revolutionary Journal of
ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM.

The
New Order.

“Not by Might, nor by Power, but by my Spirit, saith The Lord.”

The Anarchist
A Revolutionary Review

Freedom
A JOURNAL OF ANARCHIST COMMUNISM

THE
COMMONWEAL
A REVOLUTIONARY JOURNAL OF
Anarchist Communism.

Some Anarchist Papers.

CONFESSIONS
OF
AN ANARCHIST

By
W. C. HART

“Last came Anarchy; he rode
On a white horse, splashed with blood;
He was pale even to the lips,
Like Death in the Apocalypse.”
Shelley.

LONDON
E. GRANT RICHARDS
1906

INTRODUCTORY.

The author of this work has spent some ten years among Anarchists, and in the study of Anarchist publications. He was for some time secretary to two Anarchist “groups,” and a well-known figure in Anarchist circles. Besides this, he was an occasional contributor with his pen to the Torch of Anarchy, Freedom, The Commonweal, Liberty, and The Alarm. He has, consequently, some claim to be considered an authority on the subject of which he treats.

CONTENTS

| | Page
I. | Anarchy a Negation of Morals and Principles | 1
II. | Anarchists Immoral and Unprincipled | 7
III. | Police-paid Spies | 17
IV. | Anarchist “Literature” | 26
V. | The “Groups” | 32
VI. | Bomb-making | 40
VII. | Anarchists at Work | 51
VIII. | An Anarchist Conference | 67
IX. | Anarchist Communities | 74
X. | Anarchism in England: Its History, Leaders, and Principles | 89
XI. | Some Anarchist Apostles | 99
XII. | Anarchist Precepts | 123
XIII. | How Anarchist Assassins are made | 136
XIV. | The Lighter side of Anarchism | 147
XV. | The Absurdities of Anarchism | 160
XVI. | Anarchism a Bundle of Contradictions | 169
XVII. | “Propaganda by Deed” | 185
XVIII. | Does Socialism lead to Anarchism? | 192
XIX. | A plea for the Suppression of Violent Anarchist Publications | 198

ILLUSTRATIONS.

| | Page.
Some Anarchist Papers | | Frontispiece
An Anarchist Print | To face page | 28
Mateo Morale | ” | 36
“Pineapple Bomb” used against King Alfonso | ” | 46
A Russian Revolutionist | ” | 52
Luccheni | ” | 62
Leon Czolgosz | ” | 64
The “Red Virgin” of the Commune | ” | 120
Anarchism and Socialism | ” | 196

I.
ANARCHY A NEGATION OF MORALS AND PRINCIPLES.

Association with Anarchists is not calculated to inspire one with feelings of love for such people. Rather the contrary. Lamartine, the historian, in a fit of disgust on witnessing some extra revolting spectacle of “man’s inhumanity to man,” is said to have exclaimed: “The more I see of my fellow-creatures the more I respect my dog.” Substitute “Anarchists” for “fellow-creatures,” and the phrase admirably sums up my sentiments regarding the preachers and promoters of Anarchy.

Happening, some years back, to become possessed of some of the writings of Prince Kropotkin, Elisée Reclus, and other Anarchist idealists, and being at the time of a somewhat utopian turn of mind, I became enamoured with the Anarchist idea of “emancipating” humanity from the “tyranny” of Parliaments, county councils and school boards, and replacing these “useless and effete institutions” with a spanking brand new set of arrangements, under which it was confidently expected everything would work out the very pink of perfection. I became a full-blown Anarchist, joined the “party,” and in course of time became secretary, first of one Anarchist “group,” and later of another. Like other devotees of the cult, I somehow managed to convince myself that every evil under the sun had its source in “Government;” and, having thus, in the Supreme Court of Anarchy, found the culprit guilty, I, like other Anarchists, straightway pronounced sentence of death on this “monster of iniquity,” confident in the belief that with its abolition would disappear—hey, presto! like—all the ills to which human flesh is heir, and life on this “vale of tears” at once become a veritable Eden minus the Tempter. Disillusion followed shortly on making closer acquaintance with the “companions.” Far from being the “perfect beings”—“laws unto themselves”—I had pictured them in my mind before joining the party, I found them quite the reverse. I left them ultimately in utter disgust, they themselves having convinced me of the folly (not to say criminality) of the whole Anarchist scheme. And here, lest it should be said I am misrepresenting, I hasten to confess my acquaintance with many calling themselves Anarchists whose lives prove them to have reached as near the pinnacle of perfection as is humanly possible. But these are merely fancied Anarchists, and not such in reality: their whole creed and life proclaiming them to be altogether out of touch with logical Anarchist formulæ. Defining their particular “Anarchism” as the “right of the individual to do as he pleases, provided that in so doing he does not infringe the like liberty of others,” they have nothing in common with that of the real Anarchist—who believes in the absolute and unrestricted liberty of the individual, and the total abolition of government and authority in all its forms—and are in reality the actual opposite of Anarchists, for they admit, by their definition, the necessity of authority and laws to enforce the will of society on its refractory members.

It will be said, no doubt, that to condemn an idea because of the anti-social and criminal characteristics of its professors is both unfair and misleading. That this would be so as regards most principles I readily admit. But this of Anarchism is an exception, inasmuch as, being an immoral and anti-social doctrine in itself (as I shall prove), it follows as a natural and consequential result that, in course of time, its practical followers must become demoralised also. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Before entering into detail, let me endeavour to substantiate my case. Anarchism being the doctrine which affirms the sacred, sovereign, and absolute right of the individual to do as he likes under all circumstances, at once shuts out of court, as incompatible with its “principles,” all governance, all organisation, all system, all ideas of society, all order, all restraint on the evilly-disposed, all ideas of morality—all institutions and principles, in short, which contradistinguish civilisation from barbarism, and denote the upward progress of man from savagedom, through slavedom and serfdom, to present-day commercial civilisation. This is not mere assertion—the statement carries its own proof.

Bearing in mind the foregoing, who then will be surprised to learn that the Anarchist affirms the total irresponsibility of man; that the individual is not accountable for his or her actions; that, to put it in plain language, the world is a huge lunatic asylum, and all its inmates more or less “touched”? Self-confessedly “up the pole” (to use a vulgarism) the Anarchist, of course, pictures everyone else in the same elevated position. George Etiévant, a prominent French Anarchist, stole dynamite cartridges, and, on his trial, pleaded that he was not responsible. Instead of consigning him to a lunatic asylum, the administrators of the law sentenced him to five years’ penal servitude. On his release, he gave further proof, if proof were needed, of the futility of the law’s attempt to cure mental disease with imprisonment, by stabbing two policemen whom he had never seen before, and firing into a police-station.

Now a consequence of a belief in the non-responsibility of man is the rejection of the idea of good and evil; of right and wrong. “There is no justice;” writes one Anarchist, “right nor wrong; no truth; no good, no evil.... You have no ‘rights’ except the rights you win by might.... Take what you can, and all you can; and take it while you may.”

Talk to the average Anarchist of morality and he will laugh in your face. And this reminds me. Some time back a number of Anarchists who had been expelled from Ticino and Northern Italy arrived in London. One of these was fond of telling how the “comrades” in Italy procured the wherewithal to carry on the “propaganda.” A large audience would be drawn together by means of placards to listen to an eloquent orator of the party discourse on the deliberately chosen subject of “Anarchist Morality,” the while others of the “comrades” scattered themselves among the spell-bound listeners, and quietly eased them of their watches and purses!

But to return. I have said that a logical Anarchist despises morality. Try to reason with him, and he will argue somewhat in this strain: “Every action of the individual, whether viewed from the orthodox moral standpoint as good, bad, or indifferent, is really performed because the individual cannot help performing it; ergo, there are no such acts as good and bad acts—all actions are indifferent.” So that, as was candidly admitted by a speaker at the Paris Anarchist Congress of September, 1889, and reported in the London Anarchist Journal Freedom, “Anarchy is a negation of both morals and principles.”

II.
ANARCHISTS IMMORAL AND UNPRINCIPLED.

I have shown, on the admission of Anarchists themselves, that Anarchy is minus morals and principles; that the words “good” and “evil” are not to be found in an Anarchist vocabulary. Putting aside the fact that Anarchists themselves give the lie to their teaching by battling against what they are pleased to term the “evil” of authority, I think sufficient evidence has been adduced to warrant the assertion that a belief in Anarchism must tend to corrupt rather than to elevate those who embrace its doctrines. Thus it comes about that the logical Anarchist is often a person of shady reputation. Will anyone be surprised to learn that the Anarchist has strong objections to hard work? Many Anarchists I have met abstain from work “on principle.” An article in the Sheffield Anarchist, headed “Don’t Work,” recommended “total abstinence,” so that industrious British workmen who like it in plenty may have their fill. The stricture upon Anarchists as a body, once passed in Justice, the organ of the Social Democratic Federation, of being “without moral character,” is certainly accurate. Criminals abound in the “party.” Surprising as it must appear to some to learn that Socialists are the bitterest enemies of Anarchists and Anarchism, yet anyone acquainted with the two theories will see at once that this is as it should be, for Socialism is the exact opposite of Anarchism, both in theory and tactics. The late Herr Leibknecht, the well-known Socialist Member of the German Reichstag, once divided the Anarchists into three divisions: (1) criminals and semi-criminals who throw an Anarchist cloak over their crime; (2) police agents; and (3) the defenders of so-called “propaganda by deed.” Strictly speaking, there is another section: (4) that of the “perfect beings” I have already mentioned; but these, as I said, are Anarchists only in name. As to which of the four sections predominate in the party it would be hard to say—certainly not the last-mentioned.

Class 1 comprises rogues of every description—pickpockets, “individual expropriators” (commonly called burglars and thieves), abortionists, professional swindlers, members of the “long firm,” souteneurs (these are confined to the French and German colony in and around Soho), dealers in bogus businesses, medical quacks (at least four can be seen in the streets and market-places of London), makers and passers of counterfeit coin, forgers, practisers of the “propaganda by deed” (Anarchist phraseology for murder and theft), incendiaries who fire houses for the insurance (some few years back this was reduced to a fine art among the foreign Anarchists of America until discovered, and several prominent Anarchists were sent to prison as a result), and the various other kinds of rogue that from time to time figure in the Criminal Courts.

At the back of a small shop in a certain street in St. Luke’s, Clerkenwell, as choice a set of desperadoes collected as ever met under one roof. They styled themselves the “Free Initiative Anarchist Group.” Among its members were well-known (to the police) Anarchist pickpockets, burglars, long firm schemers, clever jewel thieves, and so on. Here was hatched many a successful burglary and jewel robbery. One of the failures was the attempt of one of its members to secure £420 worth of jewels from a shop in Oxford Street by smashing the window with a brick draped in an Anarchist newspaper. One of the favourite dodges of the members of this “group” to secure the “needful” was to rent a shop (or, rather, not to rent it, for they had conscientious objections to paying rent), stock it well with empty boxes, so as to give it the appearance of substantiality, adding a little genuine stock procured by means of the long firm, then advertising the “business” for sale as a well-established concern. By this means they would net between £20 and £30 on each “business” disposed of, generally the hard-earned savings of some working man anxious to start in business for himself.

For nearly two years a large number of the most active members of the German Anarchist Group of the International Working Peoples’ Association in New York City, and of the Social Revolutionary Club, another German Anarchist organisation in that city, were persistently engaged in getting money by insuring their property for amounts far in excess of the real value thereof, secretly removing everything that they could, setting fire to the premises, swearing to heavy losses, and exacting corresponding sums from the insurance companies. Explosion of kerosene lamps was usually the device they employed. Some seven or eight fires, at least, of this sort were set in New York and Brooklyn in 1884 by members of the gang, netting the beneficiaries an aggregate profit of thousands of dollars. In 1885 nearly twenty were set, with equally profitable results. The record for the first three months of 1886 was six, if not more. The business was carried on with the most astounding audacity. One of these men had his premises insured, fired them, and presented his bill of loss to the company within twenty-four hours after getting his policy, and before the agent had reported the policy to the company. The bill was paid, and a few months later the same fellow, under another name, played the game over again, though not quite so speedily. In one of the fires set in 1885 a woman and two children were burned to death. The two guilty parties in this case were members of the Bohemian Anarchist Group and are now serving life-sentences in prison. Another of the fires was started in a six-storey tenement house, endangering the lives of hundreds, but fortunately injuring no one but the incendiary. In one case in 1886 the fireman saved two women whom they found clinging to their bedposts in a half-suffocated condition. In another, a man, woman and baby lost their lives. Three members of the gang were arrested in 1886 for murdering and robbing an old woman in Jersey City. Two others were convicted for carrying concealed weapons and assaulting an officer—they were, in fact, walking arsenals, and the circumstances under which they were found led to the suspicion that they were about to perpetrate a murder as well as a robbery.

A remarkable article in the New York Sun of May 3rd, 1886, corroborates the above by giving names and dates, together with facts and figures from the official records.

Of this class of Anarchists (Class 1 in our category) one may say with truth that they have no more compunction in “besting” one of their own comrades than in robbing outsiders; while for preference they would rather “do” their fellow-associate, relying on the victim’s detestation of the law not to hand them over into its clutches.

Consummate hypocrites and accomplished liars, they unite in their persons all the roguery and dishonesty of East-end sweaters, mingled with the unprincipled characteristics of Seven Dials rascaldom. Regard for honesty and morality they have none. Tired of theorising, the members of the Autonomie Anarchist Club would resort to practice by raiding the Grafton Anarchist Club; and the members of the latter would return the compliment by swooping down on the Autonomie in a body. And so on. It is said there is honour among thieves. But among this particular section of Anarchists this virtue is conspicuous by its absence. I speak on this subject with a feeling of bitterness, for I have been a victim to these rogues time and again.

Of Class 2 (spies in the pay of the police) I speak elsewhere. Of the believers in so-called “propaganda by deed” (Class 3), the major portion is composed of those who incite, or endeavour to incite, others to do that which they have not the courage to do themselves. “Propaganda by deed,” I have explained, is Anarchist jargon for murder, robbery, and crimes against morality. “Pillage and murder the rich” was the favourite theme of Le Père Peinard, the French Anarchist slang journal, and there are few Anarchists but who will and do endorse those sentiments. Some will even go further, and declare themselves at war, not merely with the rich, but with everyone else. Ravachol—thief, murderer, forger, counterfeiter, plunderer of graves—is the Anarchists’ patron saint, and is held up to the world as a “hero” whose “example is worthy of emulation.”

Ravachol, The desperate French Anarchist.

Scattered throughout this work will be found many extracts from the “literature” of Anarchism—advocating and applauding the most barbarous outrages conceivable, and recommending inhumanities and immoralities more to be expected among savages than among civilised men; articles approving the firing of opera houses, burning policemen alive, assassination of judges, jurymen, politicians, kings, presidents, etc., by knife, torch, bomb, strangulation, poison, etc.—writings favouring burglary, incendiarism, forgery, stopping trains for purpose of plunder, brigandage, prostitution, abortion. Such is the glorious gospel of Anarchy!

I could never understand, when among the Anarchists, why so many of them are so remiss in paying their debts, and loose in money matters generally, until enlightened by Dr. Creaghe, editor of the Sheffield Anarchist. “Let me tell you clearly,” he says, “once and for all, that I believe in, and as long as I live shall do all in my power to encourage, resistance on the part of the workers to all kinds of payment, be it rent or otherwise. I shall also try to persuade them to TAKE whatever they are short of, be it food or other things, wherever they find them.” The doctor soon found that this new and convenient “principle” could be applied in other ways than those he had contemplated. His own patients rapidly became ardent converts, and the doctor was soon glad to shake the dust of Sheffield off his feet, and seek out fresh fields and pastures new, having become, let us hope, a sadder but a wiser man.

The German Anarchist paper Vorbote once deploringly lamented the fact that many of the “companions” are given to “borrowing as much money as possible from their comrades, and, when asked to repay it, reply with a phrase from the programme of the party!”

Much more could be said on this subject of “propaganda by deed,” but the Sheffield Anarchists, in a “Manifesto to Criminals,” sum up all I could possibly say by candidly confessing that the “only difference between the criminal and the Anarchist is that the former thinks he is doing wrong, while the Anarchist knows he is doing right.” And of such is the fraternity of Anarchy! What a hell upon earth would these misguided wretches bring about if only they could have their way!

III.
POLICE-PAID SPIES.

It is, of course, impossible to speak on this subject with absolute certainty. But association with Anarchists brings one into contact with so many questionable characters that doubts naturally arise in one’s mind as to the genuineness of many active members of the party. Continued association confirms these doubts, and raises them almost to a feeling of certitude. But most of them “give the game away” (to use a vulgarism) by being extraordinarily flush of money whilst doing little or no work. Some will stump the country ostensibly for Anarchism, but really for Scotland Yard. Visiting the various “groups” in Scotland and England (there are none in Ireland) periodically, they usually stay just sufficiently long in each case to learn the movements and intentions of the local Anarchists, and then return to communicate the information they have gathered to the police authorities in London.

It may not be generally known that the notorious and now-dissolved “Club Autonomie” was closed simply and solely because it had become notorious as a rendezvous for spies in the pay of almost every European Government, who notified their respective Governments of every move on the part of the Anarchists here in London and the provinces.

The ranks of Anarchy are simply honey-combed with spies. Not only is Scotland Yard well represented in the secret councils of the party, but so also is the secret political police of every Continental Government. And of this the Anarchists are perfectly well aware, for mutual suspicion reigns supreme among them. So great is this feeling of distrust that few of the “companions” escape suspicion. David Nicoll, who, it will be remembered, underwent eighteen months’ imprisonment for an article in the Commonweal inciting to the murder of Mr. Justice Hawkins and the then Chief-Inspector Melville, has denounced two of the most respected and prominent financiers of the movement—Drs. Nettlau and Macdonald—as spies in the pay of the police. In this connection it is only fair to add that a dozen or so active and well-known Anarchists have replied through Freedom with a note of confidence in the two gentlemen named.

At the trial of the Walsall Anarchists for bomb conspiracy, it transpired that one of the prominent personages in the affair was in regular receipt of secret service money. Chief-Inspector Melville, then head of the political branch of the Criminal Investigation Department, charged solely with the care of Anarchists and Fenians, confessed at the Walsall trial to having “paid lots of Anarchists money.” And these people who sell their own comrades, are the people who prate of regenerating the world! Pah!

Here is a further instance: I know of a spy who himself confessed to having been in the pay of both the English and French police. He arrived in this country from France, apparently in great poverty, and his dire want was an excuse for accepting food from one “comrade,” lodging from another, and anything he could get from others. His professions of sympathy with the Anarchist propaganda were hearty, and the Anarchists trusted and believed him so far as to allow him to attend the secret meetings of the “French Group.” In consequence of this he was able to give information to both the French and English police. The plans of the “comrades” having been foiled on one or two occasions it was rumoured that a traitor existed in the camp. Shortly after this a “comrade” was deputed to go to France by the “group” on secret business, and the spy asked to be allowed to go with him. This was agreed to. At Dieppe the “comrade” was arrested, the police having been accurately informed as to the time of his arrival on French soil. The spy returned to England, and explained his return on the ground that he was not allowed to remain in France. The “comrades” in London called a special meeting of the “groups,” at which the spy was purposely permitted to attend. He was directly charged with being the spy, and with having supplied the French and English police with information as to the movements of the Anarchists in London. He vehemently protested his innocence. He was gagged and his pockets searched. Letters were found from the French police, instructing him to watch and report on the doings of certain French Anarchists then in London. The spy afterwards made a full confession of his connection with the French police, and also of his connection with the authorities at Scotland Yard. He was shamefully ill-treated, but escaped and fled to France, where he is now.

As an example of the way in which these police agents work themselves into the confidence of the Anarchist leaders, here is an advertisement from the Commonweal in proof—

“International Anarchist School, 19, Fitzroy-square, W. Conducted by Louise Michel and A. Coulon. Free education in English, French, and German. Any friend taking an interest in the School can now obtain a portrait group of teachers and scholars on application to A. Coulon, Secretary, at above address.”

The secretary of this school was the police informer in the Walsall case.

At one time there existed in London an international Anarchist news agency, where every kind of Anarchist publication, in almost any language, could be procured. A “comrade” enjoying the confidence of the party was placed in charge, and the shop became a rendezvous for almost every foreign Anarchist in London. The trusted “comrade” was a police spy! He had been instrumental in dragging his Anarchist customers into the great police net, even going to the lengths of procuring photos of them for the monster album of Scotland Yard. The truth leaked out gradually. One night the Anarchists assembled in force outside the shop, seeking the traitorous “comrade’s” gore. But, scenting trouble, and like a sensible person, the “comrade” had a few hours earlier sought out fresh fields and pastures new.

During my connection with the movement, several spies were discovered and denounced. I have in mind, as I write, the case of an Anarchist friend of mine—as good-hearted a fellow as ever breathed—who, but for my timely intervention, would be now in penal servitude, a victim to the machinations of one of these agents provocateurs. One day a letter came to the place where our “group” met, addressed to the “Communists’ Committee.” It was a long scrawl, in very bad English, from a Frenchman who signed himself in three different names. On the Sunday following, Monsieur came to our “group” meeting, and professed intimate acquaintance with the Walsall Anarchists, who had just then been sent to penal servitude. One of our English “comrades” somehow took a liking to this fellow, and as he professed to be homeless and without money, gave him shelter and food for some months; even, on one occasion, going so far as to pawn his carpenter’s tools to procure him food. During all this time, the Frenchman was endeavouring to persuade my friend to commit an outrage in London. At last a scheme was devised for the blowing-up of a big London institution. A difficulty now arose—my friend had to confess his ignorance regarding the making of explosives. “Zat ve vill soon rectify,” said the Frenchman. One evening I called on my English friend and found Monsieur had been out all day. “He has written a letter in French for me to send to Paris,” I was informed. Having my suspicions as to the man’s genuineness, and being acquainted slightly with the French language, I was allowed to examine the letter. It was addressed to M. Jean Grave—a well-known French Anarchist—at 140, Rue Mouffetard, Paris—and asked for a copy of “Le Anarchiste Indicateur,” a manual of instructions for the making of every kind of bomb known, to be sent to my friend’s address, “as he intends making an act of propaganda for the Cause” in London. Instead of sending the letter, I consigned it to the flames, and the plot was abandoned. Strange to say, the Frenchman never returned to my friend’s house again, but, in his place, appeared two detectives who, for some weeks, day and night, watched the premises, and shadowed my friend wherever he went. These facts aroused our suspicions. I heard nothing further until some months later when, the matter having blown over, a representative of Scotland Yard told me that, after writing the letter, and feeling confident that it would be sent, Monsieur had communicated with the French police, who, in their turn, had informed the authorities at Scotland Yard, with the result above mentioned. If that letter had been sent, my friend would be now in penal servitude for being in the possession of illegal publications.

In France, spying is done on a grand scale. M. Andrieux, in his “Memoirs of a Prefect of Police,” gives the following instance:—

“The companions were looking for someone to advance funds, but ‘infamous capital’ did not seem in a hurry to reply to their appeal. I urged on ‘infamous capital’ and succeeded in persuading it that it was to its own interests to facilitate the publication of an Anarchist paper.... But don’t imagine that I with frank brutality offered the Anarchists the encouragement of the Prefect of Police. I sent a well-dressed bourgeois to one of the most active and intelligent of them. He explained that having made a fortune in the druggist line, he wanted to devote a part of his income to advancing the Anarchist propaganda. This bourgeois, anxious to be devoured, inspired the companions with no suspicion. Through his hands I placed the caution-money” (caution-money has to be deposited before starting a paper in France) “in the coffers of the State, and the journal, La Revolution Sociale, made its appearance. It was a weekly paper, my druggist’s generosity not extending to the expenses of a daily.”

IV.
ANARCHIST “LITERATURE.”

The literature of Anarchism is interesting only in so far as it denotes the peculiar mental characteristics of its devotees. Couched in an exalted strain, its sickening grossness and sentimentalism leave little or no impression on the mind of the thinking social student (unless it be that of disgust). Strictly speaking, there are two classes of Anarchist literature. The one—the idealist—voices the sentiments of the “perfect beings” I have before enumerated, but who in reality are not Anarchists at all; the other is the advocate of that pessimistic and criminal Anarchism which sees no good in any institution extant, nor hope for the future, and consequently seeks to destroy. My object, however, is not so much to criticise the literature of Anarchism, as to expose the canting professions of these humbugs who pose as the “real and only friends of labour.” For whilst there are none so loud as Anarchists in denouncing sweating and lauding trade-unionism, yet, strange to say (or, is it strange?) the difference between precept and practice is alarmingly conspicuous. The Anarchists have reduced sweating to a fine art!

The “society” rate for compositors’ work is 38s. per week. But the “labour-emancipating” Commonweal paid its compositor the extravagant remuneration of 10s. per week! Liberty, at the outset of its career, was produced by boy labour, but later was brought out entirely on the voluntary principle. The Alarm paid for composing 15s. per week—sometimes; at others, the paper was brought out by exploiting the labour of poor wretches out of employment, who, to this day, have never received payment. These papers have now ceased publication. Freedom, the only one remaining, was for many years a trade-union production, but in 1897, it paid the princely salary of 10s. per week for “comping,” and was “machined” by boy and non-union labour at prices which make the sweater’s wage pall in comparison.

It is interesting to note the names of prominent Anarchists connected with these ventures. Prince Kropotkin is a member of the “group” which publishes Freedom. But, in answer to a letter of mine, the Prince assures me that he was altogether unaware of the sweating conditions under which it was produced. (This is accounted for by the fact that the Prince lives at Bromley, in Kent, and the “group” holds its meetings at Camden Town.) Other members of the “group” are Prince Tcherkesov, Errico Malatesta, A. Marsh, Mrs. C. M. Wilson, and other middle-class men and women.

The history of the Anarchist movement in England is strewn with the corpses of dead journals; and among them may be mentioned the following:—The Commonweal, which described itself as a “revolutionary journal of Anarchist-Communism,” was first suspended at the time its editor was arrested and sentenced to serve a term of eighteen months’ imprisonment for an article inciting to the murder of Mr. Justice Hawkins, and Home Secretary Matthews, in 1892. Two years later the compositor who set up the paper was arrested for a speech which he had made on Tower Hill, and sentenced to the small term (on account of his lack of influence in the inciting direction) of six months’ imprisonment with hard labour for advising the assassination of Royalty on the occasion of the opening of the Tower Bridge. That seemed to be the death-blow to the Commonweal, for it was not found possible to continue its publication afterwards.

SPLENDID PHOTO,
Of DAN. CHATTERTON.
ATHEIST, ad COMMUNIST.
Cabinet Size, 1. s.
The Surplus Profits of Picture to Pay
Chattertons. Cremation Fund.

One Penny,
BIOGRAPHY
Of DAN. CHATTERTON.
ATHEIST, and COMMUNIST.
By CHAT.

PARLIAMENTARY
PLUNDER!
the
Abolition of Lords & Commons
A PLEA for REVOLUTION.
By Dan Chatterton.

POPULAR PARSONS,
Priestly Plunderers
Of LABORS WEALTH.
a open letter
To Henry Carey Shuttleworth.
Rector of St Nicholas Cole Abbey.
By Chat.

Henry. Carey. Shuttleworth.

Eleven years ago, I. challenged
you to debate. with me the
Existence of God. You assert-the
subject is not in your line.
but you would think it over.
Why Sir. ’True or False. the
actuality of this (so called-God.)
Is the corner stone of
your Church, The only Plea
for a lazy useless Priesthood.
Later on, You—are not sure
a public debate—on such a
subject. Is a good thing. ’Ah
Priest, Well may you doubt on
being able to change my views
or that I. shall change yours,
True, you can ask me all
manner of questions, which
admit of no satisfactory answer,
’What a pitiful admission,
’What, No satisfactory
Proof for God.? The boneless
backless thing, Unable
with the aid of a Priest

An Anarchist Print.

Note the Spelling and Punctuation Marks.

The New Order was the organ of the “Christian Anarchists,” and was opposed to violence of every description—even going so far as to approve the non-resistance theories of Count Tolstoi.

The Anarchist was published in 1886, and was the first Anarchist paper ever published in England. L’Internationale was noted for the violence of its language and its open advocacy of the dagger and bomb. The Anarchist Labour Leaf was an eight-page pamphlet issued monthly by the East End Anarchists, and distributed by them on Sundays round the various meetings which are held in Victoria Park. Liberty was edited by James Tochatti, a Hammersmith tailor, and was opposed to the policy of indiscriminate outrage. For this reason it was little supported by the Anarchists, and soon gave up the ghost. It was the best among the many Anarchist papers. Of the many others there was the Alarm, which, notwithstanding its stirring title, did not strike often; the Herald of Anarchy, a “journal of consistent individualism;” the Worker’s Friend, a Yiddish publication; the Walsall Anarchist; the Sheffield Anarchist, which was inscribed “Pay what you like;” Der Lumpen Proletaire, a German production, a writer for which is still “wanted” by the police on suspicion of murdering a woman in Shaftesbury Avenue some years back; the Torch of Anarchy; Die Autonomie, which, during the German anti-socialist laws, was smuggled into Germany by all manner of curious means; and Die Freiheit, whose editor, the notorious Johann Most, underwent sixteen months’ imprisonment for an article applauding the assassination of the Czar in 1881.

As a sample of the unscrupulous lengths to which some Anarchists will go, I may mention that in 1889 a tract of George Bernard Shaw’s, entitled “Anarchism v. State-Socialism,” appeared in defence of Anarchism. Soon after, Mr. Shaw saw fit to discard Anarchism as unreasonable, and wrote a masterly pamphlet on its “Impossibilities” (Fabian Society). Yet, in 1896, the “Associated Anarchists” actually reprinted the first-mentioned tract, and spread it broadcast as if it were the opinion of Mr. Shaw at the time. Similar dishonesty was shown by the Anarchists actually at the open grave of William Morris, by resuscitating opinions he had long since repudiated. Such dishonesty Anarchists seem to glory in.

V.
THE “GROUPS.”

Anarchists associate in “groups.” These, for obvious reasons, seldom muster more than a dozen members each. Whilst the Anarchist creed—the elimination of authority in all its forms—admits of no kind of organisation whatever, still it must be admitted, in justice to a section of the party, that some of them profess to believe in a form of “voluntary co-operation,” as distinct from the “coercive” institutions of government. I say “profess to believe” advisedly, for I have never yet found the practices of Anarchists square with their professions. In vain do we look in the Anarchist party for a sample of organisation. There is none. Attempts at organisation among them have been frequent, but all have ended in ignominious failure. The fact is, the Anarchists are incapable of organisation, and, far from being fit for a “society without government” (could such an anomaly maintain itself a day), they have shown themselves incapable of managing a decent-sized apple stall. The manifesto of the “Associated Anarchists” bears out what I say. “We have been present,” say the issuers of this manifesto, “at many of the meetings of our Anarchist comrades, where discussions of important matters were to be conducted, and where it was hoped that some mutual and collective agreement would be come to as to an expression of opinion and as to action. In every case, however, where perfect unanimity was not hit upon, as it were, by accident, it was found impossible to decide anything in the shape of a general opinion of the meeting, or with regard to what action should be taken by them in all these particular and important affairs. Instead of this, violent altercations have arisen; the utmost disorder has prevailed, and the whole of the meetings, from the standpoint of organisation, have been absurd farces and ridiculous frauds.”

THE ASSOCIATED ANARCHISTS,
“ANARCHY IS ORDER,”
GROUP No. 1.

At Anarchist conferences it is amusing to observe the shifts to which the “companions” are put, to obviate the inconvenience arising from this lack of system. At these so-called conferences and congresses there is no chairman (he being a “relic of authority”), and it is always left to “individual initiative” to start the discussion on matters concerning the “propaganda.” The consequence is that order is conspicuous by its absence. Anyone can roll off a speech when he likes, where he likes, for as long as he likes, and on any subject he likes. No vote is taken of the feeling of the “comrades” present—who, by a convenient fiction, are supposed to be delegates of the various “groups”—consequently no action is taken, and the so-called conference resolves into a mere talking shop. So loosely are the party affairs carried on that anyone can gain admittance to a “group,” and anyone can enter their congresses even without being a member of a group. No credentials are asked for, and it is not an extraordinary occurrence to see one or two detectives sitting among the “comrades.”

The names of some of the “groups” are interesting, inasmuch as they indicate the thoughts uppermost in the Anarchist mind: the Torch, Alarm, Rebel, Necessity, Ni Dieu, ni Maitre (no God, no master), Firebrand, Liberty, Revenge, Free Initiative, British Nihilists, etc. The last-named “group” loudly prated their belief in the “propaganda of action.” They talked of naught save dynamite and daggers. They were the party’s dare-devils. (And if daring consists in breathing fire and slaughter all the twenty-four hours of the day, then the Anarchists are the pluckiest folk I know of.) One of the British Nihilists managed to muster up sufficient courage to perform the revolutionary act of firing a revolver at the House of Commons, doubtless expecting to see it collapse, like the walls of Jericho at the trumpet’s blast. As a result of the Deptford Group’s propaganda, Rolla Richards blew up three post-offices in South London with pennyworths of gunpowder, “in memory of Ravachol, Santo, Bourdin, Polti,” and others.

The “Associated Anarchists” were not long in becoming dissociated. They were a body of about a dozen youths who had become disgusted with orthodox Anarchist “organisation.” They decided on reform, and accordingly drew up a code of “non-compulsory agreements.” Members on joining agreed beforehand to voluntarily abide by the decision of the majority (the contrary of Anarchist principles), but still were free not to so abide. They printed and published the Alarm (an alarming little sheet printed in gorgeous blue, like an oilman’s circular). Dissensions soon arose among the associates as to the management of this property. A minority of two, in the exercise of their “individual liberty,” claimed the lot to do as they liked with, and shut the door in the face of the other “brothers,” who, in their turn, “burgled” the premises at dead of night. Then the minority called in the police (by no means strange for Anarchists). However, a reunion took place between the opposing factions, and everything went as merrily as a marriage bell, until, one fine day, the majority found that this time the minority had sold up all the happy home and pocketed the proceeds! And now, dear reader (as they say in tracts), just picture in your mind the beauty of Anarchy adopted nationally!

Some of the groups, for obvious reasons, adopt a disguise of respectability! Thus, the “South London Progressive Association,” which met at one of the coffee-houses in the Old Kent Road, was a group of Anarchists. So also was the “North London Progressive Association” of Kentish Town. The Jewish Anarchist Club in Berner Street, E., was known as the “International Workpeople’s Educational Society,” and was composed of the lowest class of Russian and Polish Jews. The “Deptford Educational Society,” which met above a shop in New Cross Road, was a group of English Anarchists, who dissolved soon after the conviction of Rolla Richards for blowing up post-offices in the neighbourhood. Another Anarchist club was the Scandinavian Club in Rathbone Place. The Commonweal Group met in a mews off Gray’s Inn Road. Its members were believers in the “propaganda of deed,” and were often in the hands of the police.

Mateo Morale

And his flower-bedecked bomb.

The old Autonomie Club, in Windmill Street, Tottenham Court Road, was the home of a number of groups: the French, German, and Italian groups; the “Knights of Liberty” and the “Young Anarchists”—a group of mere boys who actually conducted classes for the study of explosive chemicals.

Some of the so-called groups comprise only one or two individuals. For instance, Freedom speaks of the “Somer’s Town Group” as being very active. This formidable revolutionary organisation comprised three individuals—one of whom, in true Anarchist fashion, appointed himself secretary, treasurer, librarian, and everything else. The two men who composed the Torch group after its founders, the Misses Rossetti, had left the movement, appointed themselves delegates to one of the May Day Celebration Committees, wrote out their own credentials, and sat and voted on every proposal brought forward. This “group” was the loudest in shrieking for the admission of Anarchists to the International Socialist and Labour Congress held in London in 1896, and was the originator of the agitation having that object in view. The cool and impudent demand of these self-elected and unrepresentative nonentities to sit and vote side by side with bonâ fide trade-union delegates representing thousands of members, is only equalled by its astounding hypocrisy, for Anarchists profess not to believe in democracy, voting, or representation, and consequently have no place in any organisation based on democratic principles.

The English Anarchists (who, by the way, are looked upon by their foreign and practical brethren more with contempt than “fraternity”) are to-day a mere handful, and the “party” is becoming smaller and beautifully less owing to the numerous secessions of the more intelligent, who, in course of time, become disgusted with the lack of system, want of order, and contempt for moral conduct which pervades the practical section of the party. I doubt if there are fifty Englishmen in London of the Anarchist persuasion. The strength of the entire movement may be judged by the fact that their oldest established, and now only existent organ in the Press—Freedom—has a paltry circulation of about 500 copies monthly throughout the entire country.

Very few of these “groups” exist otherwise than in name. By this I mean that few are conducted on genuine business-like principles, such as the periodic appointment of officers, the holding of weekly or fortnightly members’ meetings, the issuing of balance-sheets, and so on.

VI.
BOMB-MAKING.

Let no one think that all London Anarchists are mere talkers who have not the courage of their convictions. It is a fact that many of the outrages which have taken place on the Continent were arranged beforehand here in London, within the four walls of the Club Autonomie. In the month of November, 1891, the following advice was given to the “companions” by a London Anarchist newspaper: “A knowledge of chemistry is very useful, and all young men should join a chemistry class at once. There is no need to proclaim the fact that you are an Anarchist, but study diligently and quietly till you have mastered all the secrets of modern explosives.” And it concluded by suggesting that a result of such a knowledge might be that the rich and the rulers of the country would be “swiftly translated to Paradise.”

MURDER!

Workmen, why allow yourselves, your wives, and children, to be daily murdered by the foulness of the dens in which you are forced to live?

The average age of the working-classes is some 29 years, and the average age of the rich 55 years.

It is time the slow murder of the poor, who are poisoned by thousands in the foul, unhealthy slums, from which robber landlords exact monstrous rents, was stopped.

You have paid in rent the value over and over again of the rotten dens in which you are forced to dwell. Government has failed to help you. The time has come to help yourselves.

PAY NO RENT
to land-thieves and house-farmers, who flourish and grow fat on your misery, starvation, and degradation.

A MASS MEETING
WILL BE HELD IN
VICTORIA PARK
(Near the Band Stand)
On Sunday, July 26th, at 3 p.m.,

When the following Speakers will address the meeting in support of a No Rent Campaign:—

D. J. Nicoll, W. B. Parker, S. Mainwaring, C. W. Mowbray, J. Turner, R. Jane, and E. Hall.

Hurrah! for the kettle, the club, and the poker,
Good medicine always, for landlord and broker;
Surely ’tis best to find yourselves clobber,
Before paying rent to a rascally robber.

An Anarchist Handbill.

This advice was acted on largely by the “comrades” in London, and classes for the study of chemistry were instituted in various parts. Some Anarchists even joined the chemistry classes established by the various institutions in and around London. Following on this came the publication of a series of dynamite manuals. Johann Most (who, it may be remembered, was in 1881 sent to prison here in London for a violent article in Die Freiheit applauding the assassination of the Czar, Alexander II.) wrote a bomb-manual entitled “Revolutionary War Science.” This was published by the German Anarchists of London in their native tongue, and circulated largely in and around the German colony in West London. The book was afterwards translated into English and published in America, whence large quantities were imported into this country and distributed among the English-speaking “comrades.” In this book Johann Most explains exactly where bombs should be placed in churches, palaces, ball-rooms, and festive gatherings. Never more than one Anarchist is to take charge of any attempt, so that in case of discovery the Anarchist party may suffer as little harm as possible. The book contains also a complete dictionary of poisons, and preference is given to poison from dead bodies. Poison is advocated for use against politicians, traitors and spies.

“VIVE L’ANARCHIE”

Among the French Anarchists in London, “Le Anarchiste Indicateur” was the Bible of the bombists. This work, it is said, was written by an ex-member of the French Detective Service. Another dynamite manual was entitled, “Advice and Warning to the Commercial Classes,” by “Father Gavroche,”—the nom de guerre of a certain Irish-American revolutionist—and contained instructions for the making of every kind of bomb known, as well as for the mixing of a composition known as Greek Fire, which it advocated as useful for throwing over policemen and setting them afire. These publications explained the use and manufacture of all kinds of explosives—gun-cotton, dynamite, roburite, woodite, fulminate of mercury, picrate of potash, besides endless explosive mixtures, of which a common one was chlorate of potash and sugar. This latter would be mixed in about equal parts, and a small glass tube containing sulphuric acid inserted. When the bomb was thrown, the tube would break and an explosion result.

A curious advertisement once appeared in the Commonweal. It was as follows:—

“Special Notice to Emancipator Groups in Scotland and England. The ‘Emancipator’ (the new holey Bible) will shortly be published.”

This “holey Bible” was in reality a manual of instructions for the making of every kind of explosive known, and was partly set up in type when the police raided the offices of the Commonweal. But our smart police were certainly out-witted by the Anarchist compositor in charge of the place. The type, for safety, had been placed near the ceiling, on top of a number of shelves. Having, as they thought, ransacked every nook and cranny in the place, the police officers were about to depart without having giving this place a thought. One of them, however, on reaching the door, noticed the omission, and carelessly asked the “comp” to bring down the contents. Placing a small pair of steps against the shelves in such a way as to render them totally unsafe to stand upon, the wily “comp” rushed up them, and, to make believe of saving himself from falling, purposely clutched hold of the type, dragged it to the floor with him and “pied” the lot; or, in plain English, broke it completely up. And the police lost a “find.”

The second time the police raided the Commonweal they discovered a manuscript of explosive recipes hidden behind a loose brick in the wall. This formed part of the indictment of the compositor who was convicted at the Old Bailey soon afterwards for seditious libel, incitement to murder, etc.

In August, 1891, a Revolutionary Conference was held at the Jewish Anarchist Club, in Berner Street, E., to consider the advisability of “action.” Representatives of Anarchism from various provincial centres, as well as from different parts of London, attended. The Conference decided that a number of bomb outrages should take place in this country at an early date. One of the delegates present from Walsall happened to be employed in an iron foundry in that place, and, it being thought that an order from an employee would disarm suspicion, it was agreed that he should get his firm to make a number of iron castings for bombs. Of course, orders were not given for bomb-shells, but for “electrical lubricators.” The matter was placed in the hands of a prominent member of the Commonweal Group. A letter was sent to Walsall by this individual, containing a sketch of the kind of bomb required. This was to be a large, pear-shaped, shell, with a hole at the top for receiving the explosive matter, and three holes at the bottom for the insertion of detonators. The object in having the bombs pear-shaped was so that, when thrown, they were bound to fall on the detonators and thereby cause an explosion. When the scheme had thoroughly matured, the bombs being safely stowed away in the cellar of the Anarchist Club in Goodall Street, Walsall, the police, who had all along known of the conspiracy, pounced down upon the conspirators and conveyed them to the police station. It turned out during the trial that the “comrade” of the Commonweal Group to whom we had entrusted the London management of the whole affair was a police informer!

The Bomb with its nuts and screws.

Section shewing the detonator.

“Pineapple Bomb” used in the first attempt on King Alfonso in 1905.

One curious fact in connection with these Anarchist chemistry classes was that they were made up almost entirely of mere boys. One of these took home some explosive substance given him to experiment with, but the stuff was found by his father, who, not liking the look of it, buried it in the garden in his son’s absence. Next day the police raided the house. This incident raised the “comrades’” suspicions—there was evidently a spy somewhere in the camp. Following on this came a number of police raids on the Club Autonomie, and many private houses in London. As a result many of the schemes the Anarchists had decided upon were hastily abandoned.

Mingling with the Anarchists I have been greatly amused at the numerous brilliant schemes of revenge proposed by the breathers of fire and slaughter—for, after all, most of their propositions are mere talk and talk only. Conceited beyond belief, the average Anarchist delights in impressing the “outsider” with his supposed bloodthirstiness and daring. Most Anarchists I have met harbour schemes of outrage of some kind or other, but are prevented from carrying them out by a wholesome dread of the law. One has designs on the King or the Prime Minister; another proposes to blow up the Stock Exchange or the Bank of England; a third, misanthropically inclined, hates the working-classes more bitterly than he does the makers and administrators of the law, who are his natural enemies, and would, if he could, kill them by thousands. Why this hatred of the working-classes it is easy to understand, for the workers are the great obstacle between the Anarchist and the carrying out of his crazy crotchets.

An original, if not altogether brilliant, scheme, was that the “comrades” should invade the galleries of the large theatres, armed with bags of lice, which were to be emptied on the occupants of the parts below. Another scheme was to fumigate with sulphuretted hydrogen the carriages waiting for their rich owners outside the opera houses. A “comrade” once proposed to me a scheme whereby we were to cause a number of explosions in one night. The idea was this: Armed with strong catapults and several small bombs made of thick glass (I was shown one), and filled with chemical explosives, we were to mount an omnibus passing through the West End, and fire the bombs, by means of the catapults, through the windows of the mansions as we passed. Needless to say, I did not fall in with the idea.

Perhaps the most important things captured by the police as a result of their raids were a number of secret manifestoes. One of these was headed: “Death to the Judges! Death to the Jurors!” and concluded with the significant words: “Comrades, you shall see us at work!” Another secret document captured by the police was an English translation of a French document—“The Manifesto of the French Anarchist Soldiers.”

MANIFESTO
of the French
ANARCHIST SOLDIERS.

Reproduction of Heading.

As everyone knows, in France military service is compulsory, even Anarchists having to serve. The “French Anarchist Soldiers” conclude their manifesto as follows: “We are the revolted—the judges! We will be the avengers! When they give us orders to fire, we will turn the muzzles of our firearms upon the dressed-up scoundrels who command us! Hurrah for Anarchy!”

At the Revolutionary Conference before-mentioned several “comrades” volunteered to join the army, with the object of “permeating it with revolutionary ideas.” Accordingly, a special manifesto—“An Address to the Army”—was published and circulated largely among the soldiers. Its watchword was “Revolt! Revolt!” and the soldiers were asked, “What shall yours be? Several of our comrades are in your midst.” It continued: “Will you answer their signal, or obey the commands of your officers? Let us hope when our comrades cry ‘Revolt,’ that your answer will thunder forth, ‘Revolt! Revolt against tyranny and robbery! Hurrah for Anarchy and the Social Revolution!’”

VII.
ANARCHISTS AT WORK.

It was not until the death of Bakounine, in 1876, that the propaganda of action can be said to have commenced in earnest. At the revolutionary conference of Berne, held this very year, was proclaimed the era of violence by Italian extremists who had attached themselves to the Anarchist doctrines of Bakounine. “The Italian Federation,” they announced, “is of opinion that open rebellion, resorted to with a view to back up by deeds the profession of Anarchist principles, is the only effective method of propagating the doctrine.” These words were soon to be carried into effect. In April, 1877, an Anarchist revolutionary attempt took place in the Italian province of Benevento. Malatesta, Cafiero, and Ceccarelli, at the head of a band of revolutionaries, burnt the archives at Letino and San Galo, and laying hands on whatever arms and money they could find, distributed them to the mob. The next year, 1878, was a record year for its attempts on the lives of monarchs. On May 11, at Berlin, whilst the Emperor was passing, a boy of nineteen, Hoedel, fired several revolver shots, for which he was afterwards executed. In the following month a second attempt was made by a Dr. Nobiling, resulting in the Emperor being wounded in seven places. October saw an attempt on the life of the King of Spain at Madrid, for which a young Anarchist named Moncasi was executed. On November 17, at Naples, a cook of twenty-nine years, Passanate, stabbed the King of Italy, but the wound was only slight. Early in the same year General Trepoff, the Chief of Police at St. Petersburg, was assassinated by a young woman named Vera Zassulitch, in revenge for his alleged ferocity towards a Nihilist named Bogolionboff, for which she was afterwards, strange to say, acquitted. On August 16, at St. Petersburg, General Metzenseff, Chief of the Imperial Police, was stabbed to death by two Nihilists, who escaped by using their revolvers.

[Exclusive News Agency.

A Russian Revolutionist,

Who shot herself to escape arrest for complicity in a plot against the Czar in 1905.

Next year saw the Chief of the Odessa Secret Police murdered also—this time by strangulation. The murderers left a note on the table saying that the execution was carried out by the Revolutionary Committee. Prince Kropotkin established this year at Geneva the Anarchist paper, Le Revolte. Several daring attempts were made this year upon the life of the Czar of Russia, Alexander II. On April 14, Solovieff fired several shots without hitting him. On December 1, 1879, a mine, tunnelled out beneath the railway over which the Czar had to pass, exploded at the passing of the Imperial train, but the Czar had fortunately passed by another train half an hour earlier. Another attempt was made on February 17, 1880. This time the Czar’s dining-room was blown up with dynamite; but again the Czar providentially escaped, his dinner having been put off to a later hour. However, fate overtook him in the year following. A bomb was thrown under his carriage on March 13, by a young Nihilist named Ryssakoff, but missed; the Czar got out to walk, but was mortally wounded by a second bomb thrown by another Nihilist named Grinevetsky, who died the next day of wounds received from the guard. Six persons in all were executed for this, one of whom, Sophie Petrovskaya, daughter of an ex-Governor of St. Petersburg, organised the whole series of plots. This last was a determined attempt, for had the Czar gone another way, a loaded mine awaited him. The bombs were brought from a house occupied by Navorotsky and Hess Helfmann. When the police came to arrest them, Navorotsky fired on his comrade, but missed him in the darkness, and then blew out his own brains.

On December 30, 1880, a young Anarchist named Otero fired two shots at the King and Queen at Madrid, for which, on April 17, he was executed. In March, a young man, Mlodetsky, who fired on General Melekoff, was hanged.

On May 27, 1882, was first published in Italian, the work of Stepniak on “Underground Russia.” A meeting of French and Swiss Anarchists at Geneva proclaim their total separation from the political parties, Socialist, or otherwise.

In 1883, sixty-six Anarchists were sentenced at Lyons for conspiracy, including the famous and undoubtedly sincere Prince Kropotkin, who is now living in England. On May 26, in Spain, the trial of the “Mano Negra” (black hand) secret society of Christian Anarchists began. Louise Michel, the “Red Virgin” of the Commune, was this year condemned to six years’ imprisonment for plundering bakers’ shops, after an unemployed demonstration. Cyvoct, condemned to death for having incited the riots of October 22 and 23 at Lyons, was afterwards reprieved and sent to penal servitude.

At Leipzig, on January 18, 1885, Reinsdorf and two other Anarchists were condemned to death, and two others to penal servitude, for causing explosions in the Frankfort-on-Maine police-barracks. In revenge for these hangings, a police commissioner named Rumpf was stabbed in front of his own house. On October 11, Kropotkin’s “Words of a Rebel” was published in French.

In 1886, the French Anarchist Gallo was sentenced to twenty years’ penal servitude for attempted murder. At a meeting of Anarchists in the Haymarket, Chicago, a bomb thrown kills eight policemen. For this four German Anarchists—Parsons, Spies, Fischer, and Engel—were tried on a charge of “constructive murder” and executed in the year following.

Convicted of burglary and incendiarism, Clement Duval, a French Anarchist, is sent to penal servitude for life, on January 29, 1887.

In 1888, at an Anarchist meeting in Havre, Louise Michel was fired at by a fanatical anti-anarchist named Lucas. Although dangerously wounded, Louise protected Lucas from the fury of the Anarchists, and afterwards appeared as a witness on his behalf at the trial, and managed to get him acquitted.

Next year, 1889, another French Anarchist, Pini, was sentenced for forging bank-notes. The following year saw the assassination of General Seliverstoff, formerly Chief of the Russian Secret Police, by Stanislaus Padlewski, a Pole, who managed to escape arrest and reach America, where, a few years back, he committed suicide.

“VIVE LA COMMUNE!”

In 1892, six Anarchists were arrested at Walsall and sentenced to terms of five and ten years for bomb-making. This was the first indication of the existence of active Anarchism in England by British subjects. From this year occurred a perfect epidemic of bomb-throwing. In Paris, several explosions occurred, for which the Anarchist Ravachol was arrested. On the eve of his trial the Café Very, in which he was recognised, was the scene of an explosion; and an intimidated jury found him “guilty with extenuating circumstances.” He was sent to penal servitude for life, but was tried afterwards for murdering a poor old hermit and executed. The execution of the “Chicago Martyrs” was “avenged” this year, on October 29, by the assassination of the Mayor of Chicago. In January the peasantry of Xeres, in Spain, incited by the Christian Anarchists of the “Mano Negra” secret society, armed themselves and attempted to take possession of that town, with the object of pillage. They were driven back by the soldiery, and four leaders, the Anarchists Zarzuella, Lamela, Bisiqui, and Lebrijano, taken prisoners, and afterwards put to death. This was followed by numerous bomb-explosions all over the peninsula. In Paris an abortive attempt was made to blow up the house of the Princess de Sagan. In America, the great strike at Carnegie’s Steel Works, at Homestead, at which pitched battles between armed strikers and Pinkerton police were frequent, culminated in the attempt of the Anarchist Berkmann to shoot the manager, Frick, for which he was afterwards sent to penal servitude. In Spain an attempt was made to blow up the Parliament (Cortes), for which, two years later, an Anarchist named Ferriera was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. On November 8, a bomb placed before the Paris offices of the Carmaux Mining Company was discovered by the police and removed to the Rue des Bons Enfants police station, where it exploded and killed four policemen.

In 1893, at Barcelona, a bomb was thrown from the gallery of the Liceo Theatre, killing some twenty persons. For this iniquitous crime Salvador Franch and six other Anarchists were shot. In Paris, August Vaillant threw an explosive bomb into the French Parliament from one of the public galleries. The missile exploded in mid-air, wounding more or less severely some sixty persons, including deputies, ushers, and visitors. He was guillotined two months later. In England an Anarchist leader named Conway was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment for an attempted jewel robbery. On September 24, a dynamite bomb was thrown by the Spanish Anarchist Pallas at Marshal Martinez Campos, who was about to review the troops at Barcelona. The bomb exploded among the staff-officers, killing a sergeant of the Civil Guard and injuring a general. The Marshal’s horse was killed under him, but he himself escaped with a severe contusion. Pallas was afterwards tried by court-martial and shot. At Madrid, on July 2, a bomb exploded before the house of Signor Canovas, ex-President of the Council, killing an Anarchist named Ruiz, who was the author of the attempt. This same year the Anarchist Schinhi was sentenced at Viterbo in Italy to eleven years’ penal servitude for shooting a policeman. During some popular disturbances in Italy, the Anarchists attempted to throw a train off the line at Avenza, and to cause a bomb explosion at the Monarchical Club at Leghorn.

The year 1894 was a year of great Anarchist activity. In England, the Anarchist Martial Bourdin blew himself to pieces with his own bomb while bent on destroying the Royal Observatory in Greenwich Park. Two Italian Anarchists, Polti and Farnara, who had given a Blackfriars Road firm of engineers an order for iron bomb-shells, were sentenced in June to ten and twenty years respectively. It is surmised that their intention was to blow up the Stock Exchange or the Houses of Parliament. In this year, also, David Nicoll, editor of the notorious Commonweal, was sent to prison for an article advising murder. In July, the compositor and assistant of this paper were sentenced to six months apiece for seditious libel. This year, also, Rolla Richards, a Deptford Anarchist, was condemned to seven years for blowing up a number of post-offices in South London. A Birmingham Anarchist, C. C. Davis, for smashing a jeweller’s window with a brick wrapped in a copy of the Walsall Anarchist, and scattering the jewellery in the roadway, was sent to eighteen months’ imprisonment. In France, the chief Anarchist event was the assassination of President Carnot. As the French President was driving at Lyons a young Anarchist named Caserio Santo mortally wounded him with a dagger. The assassin acted on his own initiative alone, but the police depositions made it abundantly clear that he must have heard the assassination of Carnot continually discussed in Anarchist circles. On July 26, the Anarchist Meunier, extradited from England, was sent to penal servitude for life for an explosion at the Café Very. Early in the year Emile Henri threw a bomb from the balcony of the Café Terminus, wounding twenty-four persons and causing two deaths. He also confessed himself to be the author of the abortive attempt in 1893 against the Carmaux’s Company’s office, and was afterwards guillotined. On March 15, Joseph Pauwells exploded a bomb and himself at the Madeleine Church, Paris; and an unsuccessful attempt was made to blow up the Chamber of Deputies at Rome. On April 4, an explosion occurred at the Café Foyet, opposite the Luxembourg Palace, wounding an Anarchist poet named Laurent Tailhade. In the same year, a bomb placed over the door of a room in the Rue Saint Jacques, by an unknown person giving the fictitious name of “Rabardy,” wounded the landlady, Madame Calabresi, who afterwards died. The police were directed by “Rabardy” to a house in the Rue Faubourg St. Martin, where also a bomb was placed over a door, but this was detected and exploded by them at a safe distance, by means of electric wires. For these crimes a German Anarchist named Muller, in May, confessed himself the author. A French Anarchist shoemaker, Leauthier by name, aged twenty years, was this year condemned to hard labour for life for wounding M. Georgevitch, the Servian Minister in France, at a Paris restaurant. From the age of sixteen, when Leauthier first became an Anarchist, his character was observed to change; he showed signs of a disturbed mind; became morose; and in November of 1893 wrote to Sebastian Faure, the Anarchist leader, saying that he felt he must attack a bourgeois. In Italy an attempt was made to assassinate Signor Crispi.

The two following years saw a lull in Anarchist activity, due mainly to the severe repressive measures employed by the various Governments. But in 1897 occurred the murder of Antonio Canovas del Castillo, the Spanish Premier, by the Anarchist Angiolillo.

This was followed shortly after, in 1898, by the cowardly murder of the Empress Elizabeth of Austria by an Anarchist named Luccheni, who, condemned to life-long solitary confinement, is reported to be more or less demented, spending the grey hours of his silent existence in abyssmal despair, varied by periods of ethereal and frightful excitement.

In 1900, King Humbert of Italy was stabbed to death by the Anarchist Bresci, who, unable to endure the terrible punishment of solitary immurement for life, preferred to die in his cell by his own hand.

Luccheni,

The cowardly assassin of the Empress of Austria.

In the following year, 1901, President McKinley was assassinated by a Polish Anarchist named Czolgosz while in the act of holding a reception at the Temple of Music in the Buffalo Exhibition. On February 27, this same year, M. Bogoliepoff, Russian Minister of Education, was killed.

In 1902, Hirch le Kuch, a Russian Anarchist, made a murderous attack on Lieutenant-General Whal, Governor of Wilna, for which he was hanged on June 11. April 15 saw the assassination of M. Sipiaguine, Russian Minister of the Interior, who was shot four times in the vestibule of the Council of the Empire, in St. Petersburg.

In 1903, the Russian General Bogdanovitch, Governor of Ufa, was killed on May 19.

1904 saw the assassination of General Bobrikoff, Governor of Finland. In the same year, M. de Plehve, the iron-handed Russian Minister of the Interior, was blown to pieces by a bomb as he was driving through St. Petersburg on July 28. Only a month before he had said: “My police easily control the Nihilists—every one of them is known.” A ragged man standing in the door of a café threw the De Plehve bomb. “If the police persists in its present policy M. de Plehve’s successor will meet with the same doom,” he told the police.

In 1905—on January 19—an extraordinary attempt was made to assassinate the Czar, Alexander III.—a cannon loaded with case shot being fired at him during the ceremony of blessing the waters of the Neva in St. Petersburg. The crime failed in its object, but a policeman was killed by one of the bullets, while two other persons were injured. Bullets also broke the windows of the Winter Palace. The astonishing feature of this attempt was that the loaded cannon—one of a battery of eight saluting guns—was fired by the Guards corps, who are the custodians of the Emperor’s person. On February 16, the Russian Grand Duke Sergius was blown to pieces by a bomb, in revenge for the events of “Red Sunday” (January 22) when peaceful men, women, and children were massacred in the streets of St. Petersburg, while exercising their constitutional right of petitioning their sovereign. Prince Andronnikoff, also, was stabbed to death in Warsaw for the part he took in these outrages, and so also was Prince Vasiltchykoff “removed.”

Leon Czolgosz: the assassin of President McKinley, and the platform in the Temple of Music, Buffalo Exposition, where he was shot.

The cross shews the place where he was standing at the moment of the attack.

On March 23, 1905, was concluded the sensational trial at Amiens of the Abbeville gang of forty Anarchist thieves, with the passing of life-sentences on the leader, Marius Jacob, and Bour. Ferré was sentenced to ten years’ solitary confinement, and Pelisard to eight years’ penal servitude. Jacob’s mother, and the woman Lazarine, Roux, and Ferré each received five years’ imprisonment. Shorter terms were served out to the lesser members of this unique organisation. They received their sentences with cries of “Long live Anarchy!”

An attempt to assassinate General Maximovitch, Governor-General of Warsaw, was frustrated on May 19, by two detectives, who paid with their lives the penalty of their zeal. On going to arrest the would be assassin, an Anarchist named Dobrowolski, the bomb exploded, killing all three. An attempt was also made this year to assassinate the King of Spain in Paris, a bomb being thrown at the carriage in which His Majesty and the President of the French Republic were driving after a visit to the Opera.

At the Old Bailey, two Italian Anarchists, Adolfo Antonelli and Francesca Barberi, were sentenced to ten months’ and nine months’ imprisonment respectively for publishing in L’Insurrezione, a justification of political assassination, and inciting to the murder of the sovereigns and rulers of Europe, notably King Victor Emmanuel III. of Italy.

On March 17, 1906, the notorious Johann Most died in Cincinnatti, U.S.A., of erysipelas. In 1881 he was sent to prison here for applauding the assassination of the Czar, and his paper, Die Freiheit, and printing-press, were confiscated.

A bomb was thrown at the carriage in which the King and Queen of Spain were returning from their wedding on Thursday, May 31, 1906, fatally injuring twenty-five people and inflicting serious wounds on thirty-four others. The assassin, an Anarchist named Mateo Moral, escaped, but was arrested on June 2, fourteen miles from the scene of the outrage, by a gendarme, whom he shot on the spot, afterwards turning the weapon on himself.

VIII.
AN ANARCHIST CONFERENCE.

The Anarchist is nothing if not unconventional. At his “conferences” chairmen, voting on resolutions, and the other necessary conditions for the preservation of order, are altogether dispensed with, as savouring of the “authority” he so much detests, with, of course, the consequence that order is conspicuous by its absence, and, more often than not, the “conference” ends up in a free fight between the various factions present.

My first experience at an Anarchist conference was as follows:—An announcement had appeared in the Commonweal to the effect that a conference of London and provincial Anarchists would be held on a certain date at a notorious rendezvous of the cult off Tottenham Court Road, to which “all comrades were invited.” I decided to accept the invitation and be present at their deliberations. The subject down for the “comrades’” discussion was “The Right of Individual Expropriation,” or, in plain English, “The Right to Thieve.” Presenting myself to time at the place of meeting, and finding the door ajar, I walked in, and found myself in a narrow passage which led into a small hall, where I took a seat among the other “companions” assembled.

Right here let me explain that, contrary to general belief, among Anarchists, the various paraphernalia of Freemasonry—signs, passwords, etc.—are altogether dispensed with, being contrary to Anarchist “principles,” which allow of no form of authority or organisation whatsoever. No credentials are required, for the Anarchist does not admit the possibility of one person representing anyone but himself. Secretarial work, according to the Anarchist theory, is done by anyone who feels that way inclined; and if volunteers are not forthcoming the work remains undone.

But to resume my story. Once inside the hall, a spectacle greeted my sight I shall not soon forget. Seated about in confusion were a number of evil-looking men and women of almost every nationality—shouting, stamping, and gesticulating. On the walls, in gorgeous red, were painted a number of Anarchistic mottoes in German, and at the end of the hall a small stage was erected, on the facia of which, in bold English, appeared the legend—“Anarchy is Order.” Among the distinguished personages present I noticed Louise Michel, E. Malatesta, and several Continental Anarchists who later ended their careers on the gallows or under the guillotine.

A Sketch at the old Autonomie Club.

By permission of The Daily Graphic.

An hour beyond the advertised time had passed, and there were no signs of the seance commencing. Suddenly, one of the “comrades” was heard shrieking for order, which, after great trouble, was obtained. A “comrade” of unmistakably Jewish countenance rose and addressed the meeting. His sentiments were nothing more or less than incitements to all kinds of crime. “Pillage and murder the rich,” he shrieked. That was the sentiment of the whole meeting. Space will not allow of my reproducing any of the speeches, which were revolting in the extreme. Suffice it to say that the speakers declaimed hotly anent the injustice of everything in general, and the necessity for the “removal” of monarchs and all in authority, who, they claimed, were responsible for the ills of the world. One speaker held up Ravachol, the Anarchist scoundrel who lived by thieving, coining, and forgery, and who ended under the guillotine for brutally murdering an old man in order to get his money, as a “hero” worth copying. “We want some English Ravachols,” he shrieked. These sentiments, however, roused the ire of the more peaceably inclined, who are known as “Christian Anarchists,” and more potent arguments than words were the outcome of the debate.

During the progress of the conference a thick bordered mourning card was distributed among those assembled—

“IN LOVING MEMORY
of
MARTIAL BOURDIN;
who was killed by the bursting of a bomb
in Greenwich Park.”

and containing the following piece of alleged poetry:—

“Spurning the name of a slave,
Fearless of gaol or of grave,
Fighting for Freedom, he gave
His life in the Revolution.
Time shall not rob him of fame;
Hating the tyrant, and game
In the spirit that rings in his name,
He died for the Revolution.”

At this conference it was proposed to burn monarchs, lawyers, and persons in authority in effigy, as a means of calling attention to the Anarchist propaganda. A discussion arose as to the advisability of a “No Rent” campaign. One “comrade” formulated a plan of occupying model dwellings, and a French “comrade” told how they worked the “Anti-Broker Brigade” in Paris. There, he said, whenever a comrade is in trouble with his landlord, six or seven Anarchists go to his house in a body and carry off the furniture. This, he explained, would be easy work in England, as in Paris every house has a porter, who usually tries to interfere with the departure of the household goods, and has to be knocked down before he will be quiet—while in London this is not the case. He concluded by saying: “Persevere with this propaganda, comrades; there is none better.”

Sipido,

Who fired at King Edward in Brussels.

Then an ex-editor of Le Père Peinard, who had escaped from France to avoid imprisonment, urged the claims of “Expropriation” (Anarchist jargon for stealing). He pressed the “comrades” to do their utmost to persuade the people to seize upon the wealth of the capitalists on every possible occasion; and, after some discussion it was agreed that the “principle” was good, and that we should preach and practise it whenever possible.

The conference was brought to a close by the singing of revolutionary songs, one of which extolled the virtues of “Petroleum” as the “stuff which makes the bourgeois fly!” and concluding with the terrible “Carmagnole,” the last verse of which goes as follows:—

“O what is it the people cry?

Arms! Arms! to make our rulers fly!

Bombs, powder, pikes and lead

Shall bring our brothers bread!

Cold on the earth shall tyrants lie!

Vive le son, du canon!”

IX.
ANARCHIST COMMUNITIES.

There have been many communities founded on Anarchist methods (or rather, lack of methods), but everyone has resulted in ignominious failure. From 1890 to 1894 there existed at Palmira, in Brazil, a community of 300 Italian Anarchists known as the Cecilia Community. Its object was to illustrate Anarchist teaching by practical example. The colonists were, indeed, a motley crowd; they included peasants, mechanics, criminals, professional men, illiterate men, and men highly trained—men of every shade of personal character, religious faith, and technical ability. Everyone had in his or her turn been an active propagandist of Anarchist theories, but yearned to see their practical application. The Cecilia Community, consequently, was founded that the unbelieving world might witness the possibility and desirability of living in a condition of absolute freedom, without laws or restrictions of any kind whatever. Everybody in Cecilia did as they “darned-well pleased.” There was no social organisation, no rules, no officials, and everyone was free to work or not, as he pleased. Anything which savoured of system was religiously tabooed as being contrary to the Anarchist evangel; there was no programme, no table of hours, no standard of efficiency of labour. Laws were relegated to limbo; voting and the settlement of differences by majority-rule, being contrary to Anarchist “principles,” were consigned to the same place. Their village, which they designated “Anarchy,” consisted of log-huts 6 feet long, 4 feet deep, and 9 feet high; some had a wooden flooring, but most had only the earth stamped down; a bed constituted the regulation furniture, but some possessed the luxury of a table. During their four years’ existence as a community their clothes remained the same, and presented a sorry picture of patchwork. Their diet consisted mainly of vegetables, and bacon was looked upon as a great luxury. One of the balance-sheets shows an item of £263 received from the Brazilian Government for mending roads, showing that the Anarchists were partly dependent on the enemy for their livelihood.

Dr. Rossi, one of the colonists, describing his experiences, says: “Our life was filled with a systematic spirit of contradiction, which caused us to lose many working hours in endless discussion; when we met in the evening, the noise of our conversation could be heard nearly a mile off, though the doors were shut.” Everywhere was universal mistrust, quarrelling, and back-biting; and of course Anarchist “principles” admitted of no method of remedying these evils. The result was soon seen. Acting in accordance with the Anarchist principle of separating, rather than submit to majority or any other rule, the larger number went its own way and the minority took up its position outside the communal land. But later on differences again sprang up, and, following the same and only permissible policy with Anarchists, they separated once more, and thus, instead of remaining one harmoniously-acting body, they became disunited into four. Shortly again, fresh differences showed themselves, and again they separated into eight parts, and so on, until, out of the 300 “emancipated” colonists but a mere handful remained, and the “community” was surrounded on all sides by minorities larger than itself. This last handful sold the place to a group of seceders, paid all the debts with the proceeds, and finally disbanded, having proved conclusively the impracticability and rank idiocy of Anarchist “principles” in practice.

In England there have been at least two Anarchist colonies. One was established in 1895 at Clousden Hill Farm, near Newcastle-on-Tyne, and was conducted on Anarchist-Communist principles. Some Anarchists resident in the vicinity of Newcastle and Sunderland had become impressed by an article by the Russian ex-prince Kropotkin (the leader of London Anarchists) in one of the magazines describing the “advanced” methods of agriculture in operation in Guernsey and the Channel Islands, where almost everything is reared under glass. In this article Kropotkin prophesied that “before long immense vineries would grow up round the coal-pits of Northumberland, where artificial heat can be obtained from coals selling at 3s. per ton.” With the financial assistance of a wealthy London Anarchist, the Newcastle “comrades” were enabled to purchase the farm before-mentioned, which they converted into an Anarchist colony. A portion of the land they covered with glass, and organised a poultry and dairy farm, besides vegetable gardens and orchards, the produce from which they despatched weekly to the local co-operative store and the Newcastle market. Their aim was “to give an object lesson” in Anarchism. The colonists, who comprised men and women of several nationalities, had large ideas regarding the regeneration of mankind, but, as is usually the case, forgot to apply them to themselves. The rule of the colony was no rule, everybody doing as he or she pleased, and disputes were supposed to be settled on “love and brotherhood” principles. Even the live stock on the farm approved the general Anarchist principle of do-as-you-like, for, according to one of the colonists, the fowls would not lay, the bees refused to swarm, the rabbits ran away, and the ducks died. One of their cows proved to be blind, another went mad, whilst a third died when calving. With horses matters fared no better. One fine-looking young beast became so infatuated with Anarchist principles of revolt that he contracted a habit of bolting whenever he was yoked; a second preferred lying down to pulling a load for tyrant man, and another manifested his contempt for things communal by kicking the front out of every cart to which he was harnessed.

Very few of the colonists had had any previous experience of the work they were undertaking. An amateur built a 30-feet smoke shaft, and disdained the use of such a simple tool as a plumb-line. The consequence was that the shaft refused to maintain its tower of Pisa-like position, and came to earth with a crash.

The colony prospered for a while, but when differences began to show themselves the members saw at once the impossibility of settling them amicably without discarding the Anarchist principles upon which the colony was founded. They flung Anarchy to the winds, and for days spent their time in framing sets of rules. But gradually the membership of the colony decreased until but twelve were left, of whom only six were voters. Will it be believed that among this six there actually were two parties?

The colony came to grief in a tangle of quarrelling. Two of the colonists bought their colleagues out, and started a flower business on their own account. This turned out a failure, and the affairs of the concern came before the Newcastle Bankruptcy Court in April, 1902.

In 1897 was founded the Whiteway Anarchist colony in Gloucestershire, which, I believe, exists to this day, but based on different principles. The colony was founded by Samuel Bracher, a Gloucester journalist, who, for £450, purchased a farm of 41 acres, provided implements, seeds, cattle, food, etc., in all spending some £1,200—his whole capital. At the beginning the colonists numbered only about eight, but ultimately the number rose to forty. Their first act was to show their contempt for “conventionality” by burning the title-deeds of the farm!

The colonists were, indeed, a curious crowd. They comprised a Leipsic doctor of philosophy, an Oxford tutor of Greek, a son of a wealthy Birmingham manufacturer, an ex-science lecturer, several artisans, a farmer, two or three Quakers, and a few women. They had no rules of any kind, and everyone did as he or she liked. To become a colonist no application was needed; all that anyone had to do was to take a seat at the common table. All things were supposed to be held in common (although how this was possible without some form of rules and authority passes comprehension), and all the money they possessed was kept in a small open box upon the mantel shelf. The result was that, whilst some of the colonists worked hard, the majority sponged idly upon their labours. Gradually the indolence and licence of some of the members became more pronounced, until in disgust, Bracher, the founder, his wife, and others, left the colony. No idea can be given of the indolence and sheer animalism of this Whiteway Anarchia, with its lawless licence and its cadging. So disgusted were some of the colonists that they renounced Anarchy straightway, and on an adjoining farm started a co-operative colony based on laws and authority, the chief law being “He that will not work, neither shall he eat.”

Whilst the foregoing, avowedly Anarchist in character, all ended in failure, there are several instances on record of successful but unconscious Anarchism. A work published in Paris, in 1888, on “La Russie Sectaire,” by M. Taskin, gives some curious information concerning the various sects, religious and political, to be found throughout the Colossus of the North. One of the most numerous and widespread is that known as the Doukoborys, presumably the sect which has now taken up its abode in Canada in order to avoid Russian compulsory military service, and which is more often called the Dukobortsi, whose fundamental dogma is the negation of all religious ceremony and pomp, and the adoration of God “by the spirit and truth of the Creator, which everybody bears in his own heart.” Man, they say, carries God in himself when he seeks to attain the ideal of goodness, simplicity, and honesty. Wealth and poverty are to them an anomaly and an injustice, and so there are no servants and masters, no chiefs or subjects. Equality is carried to the extent of denying the obedience of children to their parents, and consequently parental authority is nil. Women enjoy the same rights as men. All constraint is prohibited and free-love the order of the day. No authority, whether in temporal or spiritual affairs, is recognised. Every person obeys only his own conscience. All the affairs of the community are arranged in a general assembly. Strange to say, this singular society, although based on the negation of all authority, according to M. Taskin, works relatively well. The moral level of it is said to be superior to that of the neighbouring orthodox population. The members are thriving, more active, and healthier. Crime is unknown among them; quarrels are rare, and always end in reconciliation. Mutual assistance is universally practised. In short, the Doukobory appear to be the very ideal of society dreamt of by Louise Michel and her acolytes. The Anarchist points to this sect as an example of the results which must follow from the adoption of Anarchist principles, but where would the society have been but for the binding influence of religion?[1]

[1] The latest information regarding this sect dates from Winnipeg, and states that the colony is in danger of being broken up, owing to its members having been seized with acute religious mania. They have abandoned the use of horses, cows, and all domestic animals, and turned them adrift in the hills, as they refuse to keep them in servitude. Moreover, they will not wear wool or leather because these are the products of animals, and the men now perform the work of beasts of burden.

The Anarchist journal Freedom has given what it describes as a “capital example of practical Anarchy.” It appears that in January, 1857, Mr. A. R. Wallace, travelling among the islands of the Malay Archipelago, went in a native trading boat to the Aru Islands, and stayed at Dobbo, the settlement inhabited by the traders of various nationalities who visit this island every year and live there from four to six months. Quoting Mr. Wallace (The Malay Archipelago), Freedom continues: “I dare say there are now 500 people in Dobbo of various races, all met in this remote corner of the East, as they express it, ‘to look for their fortune,’ to get money any way they can. They are most of them people who have the very worst reputation for honesty, as well as every other form of morality—Chinese, Bugis, Ceramese, and half-caste Javanese, with a sprinkling of half-wild Papuans from Timor, Babber, and other islands—yet all goes on as yet very quietly. This motley, ignorant, blood-thirsty, thievish population live here without the shadow of a Government, with no police, no courts, and no lawyers; yet they do not cut each other’s throats; do not fall into the disorder such a state of things might be supposed to lead to. It is very extraordinary!”

“The Dobbo people,” Mr. Wallace continues, “are all traders, and all know that peace and order are essential to successful trade, and thus a public opinion is created which puts down all lawlessness. Often in former years, when strolling along the Campong Glam, in Singapore, I have thought how wild and ferocious the Bugis sailors looked, and how little I should like to trust myself among them. But now I find them to be very decent, well-behaved fellows; I walk daily unarmed in the jungle, where I meet them continually; I sleep in a palm-leaf hut, which anyone may enter, with as little fear and as little danger of thieves or murder as if I were under the protection of the Metropolitan police.”

An occasional Dutch commissioner, from Molucca, turns up once in the season sometimes to hear complaints, settle disputes, and now and again to carry off some heinous offender. Twice Mr. Wallace had an opportunity of seeing the little community under circumstances of difficulty. During his first visit a man was caught trying to steal a piece of iron from a neighbour, in whose wall he had made a hole for the purpose. That evening most of the traders met to discuss the affair, and decided to give the would be robber twenty lashes then and there. “They were given with a small rattan, in the middle of the street—not very severely, as the executioner appeared to sympathise a little with the culprit. The disgrace seemed to be thought as much of as the pain; for though any amount of clever cheating is thought rather meritorious than otherwise, open robbery and housebreaking meet with universal reprobation.” After a visit to the natives in the interior, Mr. Wallace returned to Dobbo, and one evening saw a dispute going on over a game of football. There was a great row, he says, and he feared the disputants would betake themselves to their knives, not only the two who began, but a dozen or twenty of their backers on each side. But no. “After a large amount of talk, it passed off quietly, and we heard nothing about it afterwards.” In fact, during the whole seven months that Mr. Wallace was at or near Dobbo there does not appear to have been any serious disturbance or any act of violence. “Where this is possible amongst a casual population of rough and ready traders, one of whose principal amusements is cock-fighting, it should not be impracticable,” comments Freedom, “in a settled industrial community, where the motives for peaceful mutual understanding would be far stronger than amongst the semi-socialised self-seekers of Dobbo.”

It is interesting to know that the British Empire includes at least two successful but unconscious Anarchist communities. The one is at the island of St. Kilda, in the remote Hebrides, where government and police are conspicuous only by their absence; the other is at Tristan d’Acunha and Gough Island, the principal of a group of islands, which, according to the “Colonial Office List,” are situate in lat. 37° 6′ S. and long. 12° 2′ W. It was taken possession of by a military force during the residence of Napoleon at St. Helena. Upon his death, the garrison was withdrawn, with the exception of three men, who, with certain shipwrecked sailors, became the founders of the present settlement. For a long time only one of the settlers had a wife, but subsequently the others contracted with a sea captain to bring them wives from St. Helena. The population has since increased to about a hundred, and remains practically stationary, as the younger and more ambitious settlers migrate in batches to the Cape. The inhabitants practically enjoy the possessions in common, and there is no strong drink on the island, and no crime. It was at one time proposed to give them laws and a regular Government, but this was found unnecessary, for the above reasons, and they remain under the moral rule of the oldest inhabitant, Governor Green, successor to Governor Glass, corporal in the Royal Artillery, and founder of the settlement. The inhabitants are spoken of as highly religious, and this must be the explanation of their success.

When will he get there?
(From an Anarchist Print.)

X.
ANARCHISM IN ENGLAND: ITS HISTORY, LEADERS, AND PRINCIPLES.

It is now some twenty odd years since the gospel of knife, revolver, torch, and bomb was first introduced into the arena of English politics. At this time a “group” of Anarchists—among them the famous Prince Kropotkin—met at a house in Newington Green Road and issued a monthly “anti-political and revolutionary” publication called the Anarchist, which later appeared as the Revolutionary Review. Dissensions arising among the “companions,” a number, among whom was the Prince, dissatisfied with the conduct of the paper, now seceded and started a rival journal—Freedom—which appears at irregular intervals to this day. Following on these events came the split in the Social Democratic Federation, in 1884, owing to the political and anti-anarchist policy of that body, a number of whose members left and formed themselves into the Socialist League, which, from its inception, evinced Anarchistic leanings, in that it favoured forcible methods. A field having been created for their activity, several Anarchists joined the new body with the object of diverting its propaganda into Anarchistic channels. This they soon succeeded in accomplishing, for, one by one, the Socialists deserted the League in disgust, leaving the Anarchists masters of the situation, and in possession of printing plant and machinery which had been presented to that body by William Morris, the poet, for the furtherance of Socialist principles. The Socialist League now-dissolved, and in its place appeared the “Commonweal Anarchist Group” (named after the paper it published), a number of whose members soon after, for various criminal offences, fell into the hands of the police.

By its propagandist activity the “Commonweal Group” inspired the formation of a number of English “groups” throughout London and the provinces. In London, these “groups” were to be found at Canning Town (with close on a hundred members), Hoxton, Peckham, Clerkenwell, Mile End, Stratford, Woolwich, Brixton, and Deptford. In the provinces, “groups” of English Anarchists were active in Leicester, Sunderland, Hull, Northampton, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Walsall.

Among the foreigners who, in England, espoused the Anarchist gospel, there existed a feeling of utter contempt for their moderate English companions. Some half dozen first met in a small back room in Little Goodge Street, Soho, about the time of the formation of the Socialist League. As their numbers augmented, so they took more pretentious premises in Rathbone Place, till eventually the lease of a house was taken in Windmill Street. This latter establishment was the now-historical “Club Autonomie,” within whose four walls was planned more than one outrage which was destined to startle the world. One of the earliest members of this club was Stanislaus Padlewski, who some time afterwards murdered the Russian General Seliverstoff, and himself escaped to America. A considerable sum was offered by the Russian Government for the body of Padlewski, dead or alive. Tracked by the police to Italy, to Malta, to Gibraltar, he arrived in London, much broken down by this life of a hunted wild beast, and was taken in charge by the “comrades” of the Autonomie. But no sooner had he arrived in London than the police got scent of him, and commenced a real orgie of espionage. He was hidden, however, and in a disguise provided by members of the Autonomie, arrived safely on American soil, where, in 1891, he committed suicide in the park of San Antonio, Texas.

Malatesta addressing the “comrades” at the “Club Autonomie.”

At this club, also, at different times, were to be seen men and women whose names and appearance were familiar to the secret police of practically every capital in Europe: Dedajeff, the slayer of Colonel Sudekin; Louise Michel, the “Red Virgin,” who fought behind the barricades in the Paris Communist Insurrection of 1871, and who, in 1883, was sentenced to six years’ supervision for helping the mob of Lyons to sack the bread shops; Enrico Malatesta, the leader of the Italian Anarchists, and the most dangerous plotter of modern times—who, however, whenever trouble comes—when the death of kings and presidents is in the air—appears in the background; Felix Volkovski, the one time sub-editor of Stepniak’s paper, Free Russia, who, although not an Anarchist, was a frequent visitor; François Meunier, who, extradited to France, was sent to penal servitude for an explosion at the Café Very in Paris; Emile Henri, who blew up the Café Terminus; Pietro Gori, the expelled Italian Anarchist lawyer; Dr. Merlino; Emile Pouget, ex-editor of Le Père Peinard; Bernard Kampffmeyer, and many others of lesser note. It may also be remembered that one of the Walsall prisoners was arrested while passing the Tottenham Court Road police station on his way to the Autonomie Club with a large bottle of chloroform in his possession.

Bombs were even made in this club, and, in one or two instances, the actual explosives with which the bombs were charged were stored for a considerable time on the premises. Chemistry classes were formed and experiments made, with the result that the club was burnt to the ground. When the premises were rebuilt, the Anarchists did not inhabit them long. One of the “comrades,” the Frenchman Martial Bourdin, bent on destroying the Greenwich Observatory, was, one afternoon, blown to pieces with his own bomb. In his possession was found a card of membership of the Autonomie. That evening the police raided the premises, and the club ceased to be.

Contemporary with the Autonomie there sprang up also a number of foreign Anarchist clubs in London and the provinces—the Scandinavian Club in Rathbone Place; the “Communistische Arbeiter Bildungs Verein” in Great Charlotte Street; the German Club in Grafton Street, three of whose members are now in penal servitude for an attempted burglary in Dulwich and shooting a policeman; the German “Forwards” Club, Hoxton; the Jewish International Club in Berner Street, E.; the Italian Club, Clerkenwell, which comprised among its members the man Farnara, who, with the boy Polti, were sentenced to ten and twenty years’ penal servitude respectively for making bombs. In the provinces the most active among the foreign groups were the German “Club Liberty” in Hull, and the Jewish Club, Leeds.

Among the leaders of Anarchist thought in England it is surprising how many, during the past few years, have recanted their opinions: Henry Seymour, editor of the first Anarchist journal ever published in English, is now a peaceful individualist, and occasionally takes part in political agitation; H. B. Samuels, the one-time sensational editor of the notorious Commonweal, has discarded Anarchist opinions for those of Social Democracy; Dr. Merlino, once leader of the Italian section, and Miss Agnes Henry of the Freedom Group, are now moderate constitutional Socialists; Carl Quinn, the “Christian Anarchist,” has severed his connection with the party, and is now a “Perpetualist” (whatever that may be); and the Misses Rossetti, who edited and printed the Torch, and who are related to Dante Gabriel Rossetti, have left the movement for good.

Among the leaders of present-day Anarchism in England may be mentioned the names of John Turner, president of the Shop Assistants’ Union; Enrico Malatesta, the stormy petrel of revolt; and Prince Peter Alexeivitch Kropotkin, the most distinguished of all Russian exiles. It is difficult to imagine the latter—this quiet scientist—as a leader of revolt, yet leader of revolt he certainly is. He is a regular contributor to Freedom, as well as to Anarchist publications abroad. His ideas may be judged by the following phrases taken from one of his writings—“Law and Authority”—“Instead of inanely repeating the old formula, ‘Respect the law,’ we say, ‘Despise law and all its attributes!’ In place of the cowardly phrase ‘Obey the law,’ our cry is, ‘Revolt against all laws!’ ... No more laws! No more judges! Burn the guillotines; demolish the prisons; drive away the judges, policemen and informers, the impurest race upon the face of the earth; treat as a brother the man who has been led by passion to do ill to his brother.”

A wit has said that the profession of faith of the Anarchists reduces itself to two articles of a fantastic law: (1) There shall be nothing. (2) No one is charged with carrying out the above article. According to the Manifesto of the Anarchist-Communist Alliance, the object of Anarchism is the “paralysation of all existing authoritarian institutions and organisations, the prevention of new organisations of this character, and the expropriation of the rich.” And it further candidly confesses that “when asked what we intend to put in their place we reply, ‘Nothing whatever.’” Verily, to the Anarchist, all is vanity and vexation of spirit; to him, social reformers are “mere quacks, place-hunters, etc.;” political work is “idle electioneering;” patriotism and religion are the “first and last refuges and strongholds of scoundrels;” the very word “church” is a “disgusting word” to the Anarchist; he has “no belief in trade-unions;” “co-operation is” to him “impracticable;” while the “meanest and most repulsive ‘friends’ of the workers,” he thinks, “are the teetotallers and advocates of thrift and saving.”

To-day there are practically no purely English Anarchists, and the foreign element here is gradually but surely dwindling and disappearing. This is due largely to the political branch of the Criminal Investigation Department, which, by its elaborate system of espionage, has so estranged the “comrades” that mutual suspicion reigns among them, and one “comrade” is afraid to trust another. It may be asked, What of the English “groups” I have spoken of? Numbers of their members, disgusted with the propaganda of violence, and convinced of the falsity of Anarchy, have reverted to the political bodies they, in most cases, originally seceded from, namely, the various Socialist organisations throughout the country. Let no one imagine that these latter bodies at all favour revolutionary methods. On the contrary, every Socialist now-a-days is a constitutional political reformer, who believes in achieving his ideal Commonwealth through the ordinary channels of Parliamentary and municipal activity.

I have spoken of the Anarchist “movement,” but I have used the word solely for convenience’ sake. For the only movement among the Anarchists here in England is a struggle with fast-approaching dissolution. What with the ever-increasing number of seceders who desert the party to join the individualists or the Tolstoyans, and the still larger number who enlist under the banner of Social Democracy, together with the systematic police-spying, the cessation of the various journals and the break-up of so many “groups” and clubs, the Anarchists, as a party, are fast becoming defunct. I could give a long list of groups and clubs which have lately become non est. In a year or two Anarchism will be as extinct in England as the dodo.

XI.
SOME ANARCHIST APOSTLES.

I.—P. J. Proudhon.

Pierre Joseph Proudhon has been described as the “Father of Anarchy.” He was born at Besancon on the 15th January, 1809. His writings and correspondence, which, in their entirety, fill no fewer than forty-seven volumes, are regarded by the Anarchists as their Bible.

“What is Property?”—Proudhon’s first great work—was issued in 1840, and created quite a stir. The question contained in the title he himself answered in the words so often since adopted as a summary of their belief on the point by Anarchists—“property is theft.” In 1842 his work, “A Notice to Proprietors,” was seized, and its author summoned to the Assizes at Doubs. He read a written defence to the jurors, who acquitted him.

In June, 1848, Proudhon was elected to the Constituent Assembly, as a representative of the Département de la Seine, in opposition to his Anarchist principles which forbade all dealings with authority or with the State. Proudhon, says Langlois, “saw that the Constituent Assembly was endangered by the coalition of the monarchical parties with Louis Buonaparte, who was already planning his coup d’état.” He did not hesitate to openly attack the man who had just received 5,000,000 of votes. He wanted to break the idol; he succeeded only in getting prosecuted and condemned himself. The prosecution demanded against him was authorised by a majority of the Constituent Assembly, in spite of the speech which he delivered on that occasion. Declared guilty by the jury, he was sentenced, in March, 1849, to three years’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine of 4,000 francs, which he evaded by fleeing to Belgium.

Anarchy, according to Proudhon, was the culmination of social progress, and he deprecated and violently condemned the existence of any authority other than a man’s own moral sense. “No more parties,” he says; “no more authority; absolute liberty of the man and the citizen—in three words, such is our political and social profession of faith” (“Les Confessions d’un Révolutionnaire,” pp. 25-36). Such opinions, even when put into writing, are all very well when held in theory by people possessing education and a fair share of ordinary commonsense, but it will at once be seen that tremendous danger arises when half-educated men and women of the type of modern Anarchists, who, owing to their own laziness or the pressure of circumstances and environment, cherish a grievance against society at large. Such writings, couched in violent language, only have the effect of feeding the hatred of the discontented until at last they take the revolutionary statements literally, and carry out in practice what was taught as a theory. The faith the Anarchists have in Proudhon and his writings proves the danger of such ideas being put into circulation by the educated. Certainly there were some before Proudhon’s days who preached the rottenness of society and occasionally hinted at the desirability of a revolutionary upheaval, but it was Proudhon who collated these opinions, and enlarged upon them with results the disastrous effect of which can never be fully known.

Proudhon died near Paris, on the 19th of January, 1865.

II.—Michael Bakounine.

Michael Bakounine, “founder of Nihilism and apostle of Anarchy,” was born of an ancient aristocratic Russian family in 1814. He was an enthusiastic admirer of Proudhon. In Paris, in the year 1848, he delivered a public appeal inciting the Poles and Russians to organise a grand Pan-Slavonic revolutionary confederation. The Czar of Russia demanded Bakounine’s expulsion from France, which was acceded to. A reward of 10,000 roubles was next offered for his arrest and transportation into Russian territory, but the Revolution of February brought him back to France. However, he quickly quitted to attend at the Congress of Slavs. After this he went to Dresden and became one of the chiefs of the May revolution. Forced to fly from Dresden, he was arrested, sent to prison, and condemned to death in May, 1850, which sentence was afterwards commuted to imprisonment for life. Bakounine escaped and fled to Austria, but was again arrested and sentenced to death for high treason, which sentence was again commuted to life imprisonment. The Austrian Government finally handed him over to the Government of Russia. He was confined in a fort for several years, and finally banished to Siberia, from which he managed to escape and obtain passage to Japan, and from there to California. In 1860, he alighted, like a thunderbolt, in London.

Founder of Nihilism and Apostle of Anarchy. (From The Anarchist.)

Here he assisted Herzen and Ogareff in editing and publishing the “Kolokol” (The Bell), a revolutionary sheet which appealed to the Poles and Russians to join hands in a revolutionary confederation. On September 28, 1870, he organised an insurrection at Lyons, the failure of which necessitated his flight to Geneva. The Paris Communist rising of 1871 is attributed largely to the teaching and influence of Bakounine.

Of the many writings of Bakounine, “God and the State” is, undoubtedly, the most important. In opposition to Voltaire’s famous phrase, “If God does not exist it will be necessary to invent him,” Bakounine puts this extraordinary opposite, “If God exists, it will be necessary to abolish him.” His Anarchistic sentiments may be judged from the following excerpt from his “God and the State”: “In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can only turn to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interests of the immense majority in subjection to them. Such is the sense in which we are really Anarchists.”

The famous “Revolutionary Catechism,” which some attribute to Bakounine, and others to the Anarchist Netschajef, is as follows: “The Revolutionist is a man under a vow.... If he continues to live in this world, it is only in order to annihilate it all the more surely. A revolutionary despises everything doctrinaire, and renounces the science and knowledge of the world in order to leave it to future generations; he knows but one science, that of destruction. For that, and for that only, he studies mechanics, physics, chemistry, and even medicine. For the same purpose he studies day and night living science—men, their character, positions, and all the conditions of the existing social order in all imaginary spheres. The object remains always the same; the quickest and most effective way possible of destroying the existing order.... For him exists only one pleasure, one consolation, one reward, one satisfaction, the reward of revolution. Day and night he must have but one thought—inexorable destruction.... For the purpose of irrevocable destruction a revolutionist can, and may, often live in the midst of society, and appear to have the most complete indifference to his surroundings. A revolutionist may penetrate everywhere; into high society, among the nobility, among shopkeepers, into the military, official or literary world, into the ‘third section’ (the secret police), and even into the Imperial Palace.”

The Catechism divides society into several categories; those in the first of these categories are condemned to death without delay. “In the first place we must put out of the world those which stand most in the way of the revolutionary organisation and its work.” The members of the second category are to be allowed to live “provisionally” in order that “by a series of abominable deeds they may drive the people into unceasing revolt.” The third class, the rich and influential, must be exploited, for the sake of the revolution, and made to become “our slaves.” With the fourth class, of Liberals of various shades of opinion, arrangements must be made on the basis of their programme; they must be initiated and compromised, and made use of for the perturbation of the State. The fifth class, the doctrinaires, must be urged forward, while the sixth and most important class consists of the women, for making use of whom, for revolutionary purposes, the Revolutionary Catechism gives explicit directions.

Bakounine died at Berne, in Switzerland, on July 2, 1876.

III.—Elisée Reclus.

Although a leader of Anarchism in France, is also a professor of geography at the Brussels Free University. He is the author of a gigantic work entitled, “The Earth and its Inhabitants,” for which he has been decorated by a French scientific society.

A revolutionist by nature, he took part in the Paris Communist Insurrection of 1871, and was taken prisoner. Imprisoned for some time on the convict ships in Brest Harbour, he was ultimately released at the instance of an international appeal of men of science. His Anarchist writings are not many, but they have been translated into several languages.

Elie Reclus, brother of Elisée and librarian of the National Library under the Commune, is also an Anarchist and an ethnologist of high repute, and is employed in scientific work by the publishing house of Hachette & Co.

Elisée Reclus was once asked, as an educated man, to condemn the violence of his uneducated associates. “Condemn the propaganda by deed,” he asks, “but what is this propaganda except the preaching of well-doing and love of humanity by example? Those who call the ‘propaganda by deed’ acts of violence prove that they have not understood the meaning of this expression. The Anarchist who understands his part, instead of massacring somebody or other, will exclusively strive to bring this person round to his opinions, and to make of him an adept who, in his turn, will make ‘propaganda of deed’; by showing himself good and just to all those whom he may meet.” This same Elisée Reclus was asked by the editor of the Sempre Avanti his true opinion of Ravachol, the Anarchist scoundrel who lived by thieving, coining, robbing graves, and who ended up under the guillotine for murdering an old man in order to get his money. “I admire his courage,” says Reclus; “his goodness of heart, his greatness of soul, the generosity with which he pardons his enemies, or rather, his betrayers. I hardly know of any men who have surpassed him in nobleness of conduct. I reserve the question as to how far it is always desirable to push to extremities one’s own right, and whether other considerations moved by a spirit of human solidarity ought not to prevail. Still, I am none the less one of those who recognise in Ravachol a hero of a magnanimity but little common.”[2]

[2] Quoted from the Twentieth Century, New York, September, 1892, p. 15.

IV.—Prince Kropotkin.

Prince Pierre Alexeivitch Kropotkin was born in Moscow in 1842. He is one of the most remarkable men of the day! A man of high ideals, of infinite fortitude and courage, and brilliant intellectual parts, he can find no home in his native Russia, but is driven forth to seek asylum among strangers. He has known the misery of captivity in gaol as well as the bitterness of expulsion from home! Arrested in 1874 for secretly propagating his principles in Russia, he spent two years and a half in the Peter and Paul fortress without a trial, but afterwards escaped to England. He was expelled from Switzerland for participation in the London International Congress of 1881; arrested in France in the autumn of 1882, and tried at Lyons in January, 1883, for belonging to an “association of malefactors,” was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; was released early in 1886, left France, and has since resided in England. He lives at Bromley, in Kent, where, after his writings, bookbinding and carpentry are his recreations. It may surprise students of the Encyclopædia Britannica and Chambers’s Encyclopædia to learn that in the former the article on Russia, and in the latter, those on Russia, Asia, and France, are from the pen of Prince Kropotkin. He is sixty years of age now; a frequent contributor to the London Anarchist journal Freedom, as well as to various continental Anarchist journals, and a well-known figure in London Anarchist circles.

V.—Amilcare Cipriani.

Amilcare Cipriani. (From Freedom.)

A man of action rather than of theory, Amilcare Cipriani, the Italian Anarchist, has spent nearly twenty-five years in prison. In 1861, 1862, 1866, and 1869 he took part in the Mazzini and Garibaldi insurrections in Italy. After the disaster of Aspromonte in 1862, doubly a deserter and rebel (for he had twice left his regiment to join Garibaldi), Cipriani had to leave the country as best he might, his revolutionary instincts turning him to the troubles of Greece, where he threw himself energetically into the insurrection, and finally shared the fate of exile with those whose cause he had taken up. We find him next in Egypt, organising the “Società Democratica Italiana” among the Italian residents in Alexandria, and gathering around himself youthful enthusiasm into a “Falange Sacra,” who held themselves in readiness for a call from Garibaldi. After returning to Italy to help in the ’66 fight, he joined in the insurrection of Crete, and enrolled himself among the “rebel band” of Zimbrakàkis. It was here he met Flourens, with whom he afterwards worked in the Paris Commune. When the struggle in Crete was suppressed, Flourens was arrested and handed over to the care of the French police, and Cipriani took refuge again in Alexandria, where certain incidents took place which led to his condemnation to penal servitude by the Italian Government. In Egypt Cipriani was the representative of Dervieux & Co., the great bankers. He was invited one night to a supper party of his own “comrades,” where a dispute arose which became of a violent nature. Some of the “comrades,” thinking he had money, attacked him and demanded that money. Cipriani was forced to save himself against the aggression of his friends, and in so doing mortally wounded one of them, an Italian named Santini. Whilst trying to escape from his dangerous position, he was surrounded by zaptiehs (police), and was on the point of being arrested, but he resisted, and as they used their arms, he forced his way through them by shooting at them and killing one. Having escaped, he took refuge in the interior of Egypt, where he lived for some time under a false name. He succeeded in embarking for and reaching London, where he was a photographer for some time. On September 4, 1870, when the French Republic was proclaimed, he joined the first battalion of the National Guards, together with Flourens. On October 31 of the same year and January 21, 1871, he was one of the chief participators in the unsuccessful attempts made in Paris to capture the Hotel de Ville and to drive out the Provisional Government. On March 18, and after, Cipriani fought for the Paris Commune. He raised the Battalions of Belleville (the most revolutionary part of Paris), which was commanded by Flourens, whose aide-de-camp he was, and whose devoted friend he had become whilst fighting for the liberty of the Cretans. In the last sortie made by the Communists towards Mont Valérien, Flourens, deceived by a Versailles spy, was treacherously killed. Cipriani, in defending him, was seriously wounded and afterwards carried to Versailles, where a court-martial condemned him to be shot. His wound saved his life; for the five soldiers who were to be shot with him arrived at Satory before Cipriani could be lifted from his bed and carried to the place of execution. At the moment they were taking him down from the cart to be led before the platoon which was to shoot him, a messenger from Thiers arrived with orders to put off the execution. For eighteen months he was kept in solitary confinement. Tried a second time by court-martial, he was condemned to transportation to New Caledonia for life. On the transport boat, “La Danaé,” he showed his usual rebellious spirit in resisting orders. He was condemned by the admiral to seventy days’ imprisonment in a cell, with nothing but bread and water, for refusing to clean the floor. In New Caledonia it was the same. He was condemned to three years’ hard labour for having denounced an order of the Governor of the island. On his return to Paris, after the amnesty, he was expelled from France, on January 1, 1881, whence he returned to Italy. He was arrested at Rimini on a charge of revolutionary conspiracy, and taken to Milan. There he was kept in prison until an amnesty came granting his release. He was, however, immediately re-arrested and sentenced to twenty-five years’ hard labour for the affair in Alexandria. He was released in 1888, in consequence of the great popular agitation in his favour—nine times during his imprisonment was he elected as deputy, though, as an Anarchist, he declined to take his seat in Parliament on his liberation. In Rome, 1891, he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for his part in the May Day riots of that year, when a planned insurrection was frustrated only by the presence of 25,000 troops. Over 500 Anarchists were arrested on this occasion. During the last Greco-Turkish War Cipriani received several wounds; and in 1900 offered to raise a regiment of volunteers to fight on behalf of the Boers, but his offer was not accepted.

VI.—Carlo Cafiero.

Carlo Cafiero was one of the most energetic and revolutionary of Italian Anarchists, and an intimate associate of Michael Bakounine, the founder of Nihilism. Born of a rich family in Barletta, he was educated at a Catholic seminary and at the University of Naples, and intended for a diplomatic career. Whilst still quite young, he inherited a large fortune from his parents. Nevertheless, he became a convinced Anarchist, threw up his profession, and left Florence, the then capital of Italy, for London, where he gave himself up to the study of revolutionary doctrines. His wealth was henceforth given up to the cause of Anarchism. In 1873 he joined the International, and with Bakounine formed an active propagandist centre in Switzerland. In 1874 he took part in the Bologna insurrection, and afterwards, with Malatesta and thirty-five other Anarchists, took active share in organising the armed revolt at Benevento. He was captured, and, after seventeen months’ imprisonment, went to France, was expelled, and eventually returned to Italy. Already in bad health, he was again imprisoned, and consigned to solitary confinement, from the effects of which he never recovered. Shortly after his release he became hopelessly insane, and finally ended his days in a madhouse.

VII.—Emma Goldman.

The “High Priestess of Anarchy in America,” as she is called, is Emma Goldman, whose speeches it is said, incited the Anarchist Czolgosz in his attack on President McKinley. She was born in Russia, but educated in Germany. Eight years ago Emma Goldman was sent to prison for ten months in New York for her incentives to violence. She is exceedingly popular among the American Anarchists. Her almost masculine face, adorned with pince-nez, her plain black dress, often with red ribbon at the neck, her peculiar half-closed eyes, are familiar to the “groups.”

She has spent the greater part of her life in America; while she has also visited England and addressed audiences in London. All her family were orthodox, but, commencing as an ardent Radical, she was converted to Anarchism by the hanging of the Chicago Anarchists in 1887. She says of herself: “I have since led strikes and done everything I could for the people. I am a member of no group. I believe only in individual freedom and responsibility as the true basis of Anarchy.”

The writer attended her lectures in London. She ridiculed the ideas and methods of Socialism, and upheld the theory of violence. As an orator she is neither original nor even effective, and leaves her audience quite unimpressed. Whatever she is as an orator, there is no doubt that her writings are followed with a great deal of interest by the men and women who share her opinions. She has just married (I use the word “married” for want of the Anarchistic substitute) Alexander Berkmann, the Russian Jew Anarchist who shot Mr. Carnegie’s manager in 1892, and her association with him—“martyr” as he is regarded as being—lends to her position in Anarchists’ affections a force which her teachings and personality alone could not inspire.

VIII.—Louis Lingg.

One of the Chicago “martyrs,” who, condemned to death for complicity in the bomb-throwing of 1886, committed suicide in jail by means of a cigar loaded with dynamite.

Louis Lingg was born in Mannheim, Germany, in 1864. His father was employed as a lumber-man, his mother did laundry work. Life was pleasant enough to young Lingg in his boyhood days, but when his father met with an accident at his work which ruined his health, hunger and want were soon experienced in the family, despite the strenuous efforts of the mother to keep the home going. The harsh treatment his father received from his master created in Lingg’s heart a hatred of capitalists which speedily turned his energies in the direction of revolutionary propaganda.

Louis Lingg. (From Freedom.)

Meanwhile, having served his apprenticeship as a carpenter, Lingg left home for the United States, in 1885. He went to Chicago, joined the union of his trade, and became one of the chief organisers of the eight hours movement. He had an ardent belief that the great revolutionary struggle between capital and labour was close at hand, and that the people needed arms to fight those in authority. He therefore studied explosives, and made a supply of bombs to be ready in case of need. His figure stands apart somewhat from those of the other real martyrs—Parsons, Spies, Fischer, and Engel—with whom he was very slightly acquainted, or not acquainted at all, until they met in the dock. They were propagandists; he a man of action.

Addressing the Court, in answer to the Judge’s question as to why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon him, he defiantly concluded his speech with the following: “I have told Captain Schaak (chief of the police) and I stand by it, ‘If you cannonade us, we shall dynamite you!’ You laugh! Perhaps you think ‘You’ll throw no more bombs!’ But let me assure you that I die happy on the gallows, so confident am I that the hundreds and thousands to whom I have spoken will remember me, and when you shall have hanged us, then, mark my words, They will do the bomb-throwing! In this hope do I say to you, ‘I despise you; I despise your order, your laws, your force-propped authority! Hang me for it!’”

IX.—Louise Michel.

Louise Michel, who has been variously styled the “Joan of Arc of Anarchism” and the “Red Virgin of the Commune,” started life as a devout young school-teacher in a French village.

She went to Paris, became a Communist, and, dressed in the uniform of the National Guard, and armed with a carbine, she led bands of Communists at the barricades in 1871. She sacrificed her liberty to save her mother, whom the soldiers had arrested. At the subsequent court-martial, where many of her co-revolutionists were condemned to execution, Louise Michel cried defiantly, “You would sentence me to death? You dare not! You are afraid lest I should show before your rifles more courage than you showed before the Prussian shot.” The verdict was imprisonment for life. When in St. Lazare Prison, this woman of contradicting and warring moods deprived herself of food for days together so that the other prisoners might have it. She was later deported to the penal settlement of New Caledonia.

After the lapse of a few years the woman revolutionary received her liberty. M. Rochefort was at the railway station to welcome her back to Paris. “Take care,” she exclaimed, as he embraced her; “do not suffocate the little blind cat I have in my pocket.” The animal had been her companion throughout the long voyage.

Louise Michel, The “Red Virgin” of the Commune.

Some years later Louise Michel lived in London, where, for some time, she conducted a school in Fitzroy Square, Soho, for the children of Anarchists. Based entirely on Anarchist principles, the school was, of course, a failure. In a not very large room Louise and two or three others attempted to teach simultaneously several different subjects. Ordinary notions of school discipline received scant attention. The fundamental Anarchist principle of individual liberty for all and everyone was here carried out in its fulness. The teachers did try to teach, but the boys and girls could not possibly learn or even hear anything, for the children moved about in the room, talked and shouted, or sat quietly just as they pleased. While in one part of the room the teachers tried to attract their pupils to lessons of arithmetic, or other subjects, Louise herself gave them practical lessons in piano playing, the children surrounding her, climbing on chairs, and even on her shoulders; the general noise being so great that nobody could be heard at all by either teacher or pupil. Two or three “comrades” stood about also in the room, usually, discussing and gesticulating, adding to the general disorder.

A feature of Louise Michel’s character was her great love for the poor, to whom she practically devoted her life and her meagre earnings.

Among her notable sayings were the following—

“What is human life when great ideas are at stake? The killing of a few means the emancipation of many.”

“A revolution in Russia may begin the great movement of progress in the world.”

“People are learning that this is not a time for killing; but for life, for work, for art, for science, for fraternity.”

Asked what she would do if the Presidency of the French Republic were offered her, she replied: “I should accept it for twenty-four hours—just long enough to empty all the banks and all the prisons.” She finished her stormy career at Marseilles on January 9, 1905.

XII.
ANARCHIST PRECEPTS.

1. Repudiation of just debts.—“We do not look forward to a revolt in the future, but a revolt to-day—a revolt from the moment we become Anarchists. We know that all men can revolt by refusing rent to landlords; by refusing payment to shopkeepers whose goods we take when we want them; by refusing to be married before the law, and by many other means.” (Cyril Bell, in Freedom, December, 1891.)

2. Stealing a virtue.—“Tortellier, Brunet, Faure, and Devertus approved of stealing from the rich as a method of carrying on the social war.... Madame Elise read a paper on ‘Theft,’ which she thought only justifiable for propaganda purposes. There must be, she said, some Anarchist principles and morals. Comrade Ridoux, an individualist, affirmed, on the other hand, that Anarchy is a negation of morals and principles.” (From Report of International Anarchist Congress, Paris, 1889, in Freedom, October, 1889.)

3. Duty a curse.—“To do one’s duty is not only to degrade one’s self; it is to insult one’s fellow-men. Duty is as contemptuous as sincerity is respectful. To do one’s duty by others is to treat them as on a lower level than one’s self ... to pass them counterfeit coin ... one of the curses of our civilization of shams.” (Freedom, March, 1887.)

4. “Do as you please.”—“That Anarchism has such a vague and at times an unhealthy form in the minds of some people calling themselves Anarchists ... is not to be wondered at. That some people should be drawn to it who see in some of the phrases used by Anarchist orators and writers a justification of their own meanness and selfishness is not to be very much wondered at. They think of the good time coming as one when each shall be able to wallow in the filth of their own selfishness, and do ‘as they bloody-well please’ ... because, there shall be no laws.” (James Brown, in Freedom, July, 1893.)

5. Stopping trains for purposes of plunder.—“The existence of one Anarchist has more value than a thousand bourgeois, and he (the Anarchist) will not hesitate in stopping trains and plundering the wealthy passengers of their money, to carry on propaganda by deed, as comrades Pini, Duval, and Reinsdorf understood it. Either society is right and we must submit to its laws, or it is wrong, and in that case let us fight it, not with manifestoes and songs, but with anything the individual may think best to strike terror in the brains and bodies of the usurpers of our freedom.” (Commonweal, December 5, 1891.)

6. The Gospel of “take.”—“England and Spain are the only countries in Europe where Anarchists are not expelled. Foreign Anarchists are allowed to starve in those countries, unless they have pluck enough to expropriate the big robbers. This is what most of our comrades do on stepping on Spanish soil. What would be impracticable in England—poaching collectively—is easily done there on account of the scattered population and the police being badly paid. Our comrades there, on the tramp, have always back numbers of El Productor and La Anarquia, which they give freely in return for the food and clothing they TAKE.” (Commonweal, December 12, 1891.)

“The Italian comrades refuse to work to benefit capitalists.... Hunger has taught them not to work but to plunder their old masters, and this has two good results; it shows us a good example and accustoms us to the doctrine of TAKE. We learn also how to do without masters.” (Commonweal, September 5, 1891.)

7. Murder justifiable.—“Bread or lead was the question put by Rutzerveld to his master, who had sacked him for being an Anarchist. This happened in Sclessin in a mining district. His master even refused to pay him for the work he had done and told him to go to the law courts. Rutzerfeld went not to the law courts, but to a gunsmith, took a revolver, and went back to meet his tyrant, and fired three shots in succession, one shot hitting the boss in the head. He is not quite dead; yet if he recovers it will not be our comrade’s fault, for he said when arrested, ‘I am only sorry I did not finish him!’” (Commonweal, November 7, 1891.)

8. “An Example.”—“Thus finished another stage in the career of a man who has shaken capitalism to its foundations, and shown the workers an example worthy of emulation.... We are anxiously awaiting the advent of some English Ravachols.”[3] (Commonweal, July 2, 1892.)

[3] Ravachol was the Anarchist scoundrel who lived by thieving, counterfeit-coining, grave robbing, and who ended up under the guillotine for killing an old man in order to get his money.

“We say that the individual acts have always been a success. The men who strangled Watrin (a mine-owner in France whose men were on strike), Pini, who robbed the banks, have opened more eyes than all the pamphlet writers in a century. Our aims can only be attained by accumulated individual actions against property and the men who hold it.” (Commonweal, December 19, 1891.)

9. Abortion.—“Why should not women, even when they are not in a weak state of health ... and do not dread the physical pain of childbirth, abort, if they choose to do so? How, in such a case, can the interference of judges, as representative of society—that rotten abstraction—be justified? ... Wretched women; be sterile; close your wombs; abort!” (From The Torch of Anarchy, December 18, 1895.)

10. The bomb for working men.—“‘The masses are brutalised; we must force our ideas on them by violence.’ ‘One has the right to kill those who preach theories.’ ‘The masses allow us to be oppressed; let us revenge ourselves on the masses.’ ‘The more workers one kills the fewer slaves remain.’ Such are the ideas current in certain Anarchist circles. And, an Anarchist review, in a controversy on the different tendencies of the Anarchist movement, replied to a comrade with this unanswerable argument, ‘There will be bombs for you also.’” (From The Torch of Anarchy, April 18, 1895.)

11. “Blacklegging.”—“We proclaim the maxim ‘Do as you please.’ Therefore, the non-unionists have a right to work, and you establish the rights of blacklegs on a logical and scientific basis.... The blackleg is entirely within his liberty, and, consequently, those persons are exceeding their liberty who attempt to interfere with his.” (Freedom, December, 1891.)

12. Might is Right.—“Whoever has might, has right; if you have not the former you have not the latter.” (Max Stimer, “Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum,” 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1882, pp. 196-197.)

“The strong must ever rule the weak, is grim primordial law—
On earth’s broad racial threshing floor, the meek are beaten straw—
Then ride to Power o’er foemen’s necks; let nothing bar your way.
If you are FIT you’ll rule and reign, is the logic of to-day.”—Ragnar Redbeard.

“So far as inherent right is concerned, might is its only measure. Any man, be his name Bill Sykes or Alexander Romanoff, or any set of men, whether the Chinese highbinders or the Congress of the United States, have the right, if they have the power, to kill or coerce other men and to make the entire world subservient to their ends. Society’s right to enslave the individual and the individual’s right to enslave society are unequal only because their powers are unequal.” (Benj. R. Tucker, in Liberty, New York, November 15, 1890.)

“The natural law concerning possessions is this: ‘That they should take who have the power, and they should keep who can.’” (Freedom, August, 1889.)

13. Opposed to all organisation.—“It is perfectly true that there exists a large number of Anarchists who do not believe in representation or organisation of any kind, and who declare that, no individual can represent or act for any other under any circumstances. This position is a perfectly logical one.” (From The Torch of Anarchy, October 18, 1895.)

14. “Expropriation.”—“Another brave deed of expropriation has been committed by comrade Conway, who broke a large jeweller’s window and tried to make off with £420 worth of diamond rings. He conducted himself very defiantly in court.... The only pity is that he didn’t succeed, as the movement is very hard up at present.” (Torch of Anarchy, September, 1893.)

15. Strike Tactics.—“At this moment (April, 1895) there are 200,000 shoemakers locked out of work. Instead of stopping at home and starving, or of parading the streets like wild beasts on show, they ought to enter quietly into their respective factories and workshops, and then send the employers their ultimatum. Naturally the masters will reject it, and then, what could be easier than to cut up a skin ready tanned for use? What could be more amusing than to place a piece of iron under a sewing machine and thus destroy it; or to forget a file in a cog-wheel, or to riddle with holes the uppers of boots laid aside ready for use? What can be more enjoyable for a father than to carve toys for his children out of the wooden lasts on which he makes boots for the employer who starves him? What can sound pleasanter to the ear of a striker than stones whizzing through his workshop windows? And we feel sure that if the strikers made up their minds that the employers must give way on the very first day of the strike, under penalty of having their machinery, their tools, their stock, in a word, their whole capital, destroyed, strikes would not drag on month after month,” etc. (Torch of Anarchy, April 18, 1895.)

16. The “Revolution.”—“We revolutionists, knowing that other means than violence are neither possible nor practical, frequently think about the Revolution, and frequently talk about it.... We know that we must disorganise present society—break the wheels on which it now moves—and make it impossible to reconstitute it. Thus we know that all our forces must be directed towards the attack—to the destruction of legal archives, the register of national revenue, the banks and the prefectures; we know that during the fight the register of the public debt, etc., must disappear; all that goes to establish, regulate, and register rent, capital and property. We know also that by setting the example ourselves in expropriation, we must initiate the masses to seize on all the means of production, tools, machinery, factories, workshops, and mines, to work for themselves. We should not forget that as soon as the first outbreak of the revolt occurs, industry and commerce will be at a standstill. For purposes of tactics and defence the revolutionists will be obliged to tear up the railway lines; to cut the telegraph and telephone wires; in some places even the gas and water supplies will have to be destroyed,” etc. (Torch of Anarchy, July 15, 1894.)

17. Burglary.—“An outcry has been raised not only in the middle-class press, but even amongst revolutionary Socialists themselves, against the French (Anarchist) workman condemned to death for taking some jewellery from an empty(?) house, offering armed resistance to the policeman who arrested him, and boldly asserting at his trial that he had acted upon principle.... Duval was firmly convinced that the appropriators of existing wealth are nothing but thieves unjustly appropriating the fruit of the labour of past and present generations; that the pleasures with which they are gorged are wrung from the misery caused to the producers by this appropriation. Therefore he found means to relieve one of these appropriators of a portion of the capital thus unfairly retained, and he did it with the purpose of supplying the (Anarchist) propaganda with funds.... In fact, he simply passed from theory to practice.” (Freedom, March, 1887.)

18. The Remedy for “Tyrants.”—“Remember, a sharp knife or a bomb of dynamite will rid you of them for ever.” (Commonweal.)

19. Prostitution, Free-Love, and Promiscuity.—“The courtesan is sexually free; the wife is a slave. The superior moral condition of the former consists in the fact that she can refuse to co-habit or associate with whom she loves not, at any time.” (From the “Anarchy of Love.”)

“The emancipation of woman from her domestic slavery is to be found in the abolition of the marriage laws. Her complete economic independence in the abolition of all other laws.” (Anarchy of Love.)

“Freedom in love relations would, of a certainty, favour variety, which in some instances is a physiological necessity, both for man and for woman.” (The Anarchist, May, 1887.)

20. No Rent and Pillage.—“Let ‘No Rent’ be the war-cry.... Let people universally refuse to pay, and what can stand against them? The landlords may send their brokers—well, hot water, brickbats, and pokers are excellent medicine for these gentlemen.... But there is another way to strike at the capitalist classes, and that is by helping ourselves to the wealth they have stolen from us ... their warehouses remain full of wealth of all kinds.” (Commonweal, September 5, 1891.)

21. Window-Smashing.—“Two brave men have set a good example to starving workmen.... We hope the unemployed will follow the example set by Bruce and Primmer (who smashed Messrs. Benson’s, the jeweller’s windows) in their thousands next winter. We hope they will do even more, and supply their needs by taking the wealth.” (Commonweal, September 5, 1891.)

22. The Bomb for Policemen.—“Some people condemned the throwing of the bomb at Chicago; for his part he thought it would have been well in London if a man had been found courageous enough to hurl death and destruction among the ruffians who attacked a peaceful meeting.”—(D. J. Nicoll in Commonweal, November 21, 1891, and referring to the prohibited Trafalgar Square meeting of November 11, 1887.)

23. Indiscriminate Murder.—“Colonna was an honest worker ... he was sacked. The outlook was now dreadful, and he resolved to chastise those who stood in his way. He flew at the throat of the boss, was arrested, and in the police-station he stabbed a bobby and ran out in the street. Another man in blue attempted to arrest him and got stabbed in the heart. Well done! A third bobby and one civilian got the same lesson.... This happened in Marseilles.” (Commonweal, October 24, 1891.)

24. “Practical” Anarchism.—“At Coal Creek the convicts were also released (by the strikers), and directly they were free they showed they were practical Anarchists by helping themselves to £200 worth (of goods) from the stores. Bravo, Tennessee miners! You have shown, by taking the advice of our brave comrades of Chicago, that you are worthy descendants of the men who made Boston Harbour black with tea.... You have shown the workers of America—aye, and of the world—how to free themselves, not at the ballot-box, but with the rifle, the torch, and the dynamite bomb. Bravo, convicts, too, for you have taught the people how to bring the power of the capitalist robbers to the ground, by seizing upon the wealth they have stolen from the people.” (Commonweal, November 28, 1891.)

25. Anarchist Sympathy.—“The poor and lowly are a creeping pestilence; there are no innocent ones, and the downtrodden are the justly damned.” (Ragnar Redbeard.)

The foregoing extracts are fair samples of Anarchist “literature.” So long as the English Government permits the circulation of such demoralising stuff, it should not be surprised when some weak-minded or criminally-inclined person acts upon the advice given.

XIII.
HOW ANARCHIST ASSASSINS ARE MADE.

That the time has arrived when some move of a drastic nature should be taken by all civilised nations, in the direction of preventing the publication, rather than in the punishment of Anarchist assassins, no sane person will deny. For of what avail are the gallows, the guillotine, or the electric chair, if the causes which produce the Anarchist miscreant are left untouched? It is said that out of evil cometh good; and certainly Anarchist outrages will not have been in vain if public opinion is directed towards the source from which Anarchist assassins derive their inspiration: I refer, of course, to the speeches and publications (especially the publications) of these international pests of society. Czolgosz, the assassin of President McKinley, has confessed to having heard the leader of American Anarchism, Miss Emma Goldman, but three times. Yet the inflammatory ravings of these three speeches proved sufficient incitement to move this weak-minded fool to commit murder. “She set me on fire,” said the miscreant; “her doctrine that all rulers should be exterminated set me thinking, so that my head nearly split with pain. Miss Goldman’s words went right through me, and when I left the lecture I made up my mind that I would have to do something heroic for the cause I love.”

Thus it will be seen that this particular assassin was a person of low intellectual organisation. But this is also the fact with all other Anarchist desperadoes. Professor Cæsare Lombroso, the great Italian criminologist, has demonstrated conclusively that the Anarchist assassin is very closely related to the insane. From a careful study he has found that these modern Thugs possess peculiar physical characteristics common among the inmates of our idiot and imbecile asylums. Among 100 Turin Anarchists arrested in the rebellion of May Day, 1890, he found 34 per cent. possessed the criminal type of face, as compared with 43 per cent. among ordinary criminals of the prison at Turin. He found 40 per cent. of the criminal type among photographs of Chicago Anarchists, seventeen out of forty-three having disagreeable peculiarities of the face. Lombroso has further shown that along with degenerate peculiarities of physique the Anarchist is still further accursed with mental traits, characteristics “common to criminals and to the insane, and possessing these traits by heredity.”

The belief that murder and theft are actions not only innocent but virtuous when perpetrated with the professed design of benefiting humanity, sounds marvellously comforting to those of a weak-minded or criminal nature, and who have a natural propensity to commit them. Accordingly, such persons flock to the Anarchist standard. Cranks and criminals abound in the party. The Anarchist assassin is invariably a young person of ill-balanced mind who has imbibed too freely the poison of Anarchist oratory, and the “literature” of murder which pours forth from the printing presses which the Governments of the world are foolish enough to allow these reckless madmen to possess. To stop the supply of Anarchist murderers the civilised nations must unitedly attack the evil at its source—the murder-inciting “lecturer” and his equally murderous pamphlet and manifesto.

Here, in London, Anarchists turn out by the hundred thousand pamphlets, newspapers and manifestoes in various languages, inciting to, and approving the most brutal and inhuman outrages conceivable. The following horribly brutal screed was found in the possession of one of the Anarchists concerned in the Walsall bomb conspiracy, and although some English Anarchists have expressed disapproval of the sentiments contained in this production, the fact remains that an Anarchist outrage planned on somewhat similar lines to that indicated was perpetrated at a theatre in Barcelona some few years back.

“An Anarchist Feast at the Opera.—Who is the starving wretch, an Anarchist or slave, that has not shuddered with rage in thinking of the luxurious enjoyments that the rich come to seek (by means of a little gold) in a box at the opera, on the evening of a first representation?

“In fact, on that day, the sweaters, financiers, middlemen, magistrates, diplomatists, and moralists, all the cream of the rich and rulers of the people, have gathered together, certain of not being elbowed by low people, in order to enjoy in comfort and without trouble, a fresh spectacle, or the intoxicating music, the singing and the feminine forms (more or less tainted by disease), and to incite their senses and to awaken the passions never satiated of that race of bandits, who on the morrow are unanimously ready to draw the sweat and blood of the workers in order to recover at once the handful of gold spent on the previous evening. Well, comrades, we for whom the opera has never had any charms, because it has not been established to admit us at the auditory of the magnificent soirées, where the munificence of art contends with the brightness of diamonds and lights, can we not likewise enjoy in our turn the delightful spectacle of seeing on a fine day, or rather on a fine evening, this splendid building all in flames in the middle of a brilliant feast, and as a veritable apotheosis carried towards heaven?

“Would not a single one among us feel his heart beat with an immense joy in hearing the shrivelling of the grease of the rich and the howlings of that mass of flesh swarming in the midst of that immense vessel all in a blaze? In fact, what delight, in our town, to see, even at a distance, such a red conflagration! A thousand times more beautiful to our eyes than the dazzling of the purest diamond! To hear howlings, the cries of pain and rage of the wolves, their females and young ones in midst of the furnace—a thousand times more vibrating and more pleasant to our ears than the songs of half-a-dozen prostitutes above an orchestra. As to our sense of smelling, what delight of smell that flesh burning alive—an odour a thousand times more pleasant to our organs than the most delicious perfumes with which that race of men and women impregnate themselves in order to conceal the rottenness which runs out of their bodies. Ah! how happy are the cannibals to be able, when chance favours them, not only to smell the flesh of their enemies broiling, but also to eat it. ‘The corpse of an enemy smells nice,’ said a despot.

“Then, comrades, admitting that all tastes are natural, and ours, though different they may be, have need to be appeased in their turn. We will content ourselves by indicating the means which we think proper to satisfy them. For the present we will continue the series by saying what we think suitable concerning a gala reception at the opera. In fact, nothing more easy. A single man may act, but two are better, in order to succeed properly in the operation without any danger to them. Thus: two comrades, each provided with a strong knife, having a saw blade, and each man carrying a small bomb of very small dimensions, loaded with chlorate of potash, and having in the middle a small glass tube containing a tablespoonful of sulphuric acid. This small tube is placed erect and buried half its length in the chlorate, must be closed at top by a strong cork, and at bottom by a round piece of cork four millimetres thick (if you wish the bomb to burst at the end of two hours), because the acid requires about half an hour to pierce each millimetre through the thickness of the round piece of cork. If you wish the bomb to burst at the end of three hours the round piece of cork must be six millimetres thick, and so on, half an hour for every millimetre thickness. Moreover, comrades may try beforehand with a small pinch of chlorate (the explosion in the open air does not make much noise), and cover their faces and hands for fear of the broken pieces. These little preparatory experiments will serve them to appreciate the quality of the acid and cork used, as well as the exact time which the acid requires to pierce each millimetre of cork of the same piece. As we have said, the bombs do not require to be voluminous. A simple small glass mustard pot, having the shape of a small cask lengthened, is quite sufficient for the quantity of matter, of which here is the description:—Let us suppose that the vase contains 500 grammes of matter. You will then put—1st, 3-5, viz., 300 grammes chlorate of potash; 2nd, 2-5, viz., 100 grammes sulphur; 3rd, 1-5, viz., 100 grammes sugar, maintaining always these proportions according to the size of the vase. Afterwards each of these matters must be ground very fine separately, then mixed gently and thoroughly (although the operation offers not the least danger). The efficacy of the operation depends on the fine grinding and perfect mixture. After that charge the bomb, as it has been said, in a manner that the round piece of cork, four or six millimetres, be fully mixed in the matter above mentioned. These matters cost but little. The chlorate of potash is sold nearly in powder and crystallized. It must be quite dry. The sulphur is sold in small sticks of two or three centimetres diameter. The sugar must be of good quality, and quite dry. All these matters are easily crushed—afterwards the mixing is easy. The greater expense is for the two comrades, on account of the payment of their seats, which must be hired beforehand, on gala days especially. Their seats must be at the top of the theatre. Thus, the two comrades having their tickets in their pockets, go home and load their bombs only at the moment of setting out for the theatre, having calculated for the time of explosion at the end of three hours, supposing that time to be suitable. Afterwards let us suppose they have required half an hour to reach their seats in the theatre, the bombs will have then only two hours and a half to sleep. As soon as arrived the men will keep as close as possible to the walls or pillars along which the gaspipes are fixed. Then, when no one is noticing them, they begin by bursting slightly those pipes with their saw blades. It is easily done, because the lead can be cut through without any noise. When two, or three, or four of these pipes are slightly open, the men place their bombs on the ground by the side of the pipes, concealing them as much as possible from the sight of the public. They may go away quietly at the end of the first act; the rest of the operation will be completed without them. Then they have time to go home, and even go to bed, so as to prove an alibi at the time of the explosion. Now, this is how the rest of the operation will conclude: At first, the gas escaping will ascend and accumulate under the vault of the theatre during the two hours required for the explosion of the bombs. At that time there will be a quantity sufficient to set fire everywhere and burst the roof and walls of the theatre, and the débris falling back will have the effect of grapeshot on the jolly spectators. Afterwards the fire, fed by the wood, the stuffs, and the grease, will terminate the operation suitably. As we have said at the beginning, the work is easy for two companions who live in a town where there is a large theatre suitable to receive the higher class of the inhabitants. For that it requires only hatred in the heart and to be pitiless. After all, what do we care for feelings of humanity, even with regard to the women and children of that race of robbers and real criminals? Do not their young become wolves likewise? Are their females less eager for prey than the males? On another part the workers or starving people may be tranquil, because none of them are to be seen at those feasts of gold and diamonds which too often are given in honour of any travelling monarch at the expense of the poor people. Therefore, it is pious work to profit by those frequent occasions; to crown worthily those revels which the bandits throw as a defiance at our misery and sufferings. For an Anarchist gala of that kind the little money necessary must be easier to find than for a platonic propaganda. It is saying, comrades, that certain enjoyments are still permitted to us, waiting for the grand day when the social equilibrium will be brutally established.”

The above is a fair sample of the vile stuff by which Anarchist assassins are made.

XIV.
THE LIGHTER SIDE OF ANARCHISM.

Paradoxical and absurd as it must appear to people of ordinary intelligence (and Anarchists are certainly of extra-ordinary intelligence), it is nevertheless the fact that among the devotees of knife, torch and bomb, the motto “Anarchy is Order” is a favourite one. It is inscribed on their banners, and is reiterated in their speeches with a persistency which becomes positively tiresome to listen to. Yet, strange to say (or, is it strange?) the very reverse of order is the prevailing condition among Anarchists themselves. For example, if I desire to become the happy possessor of an Anarchistic newspaper, I find that, in some cases, it has no fixed price; that, in place of the familiar “Price One Penny” of conventional journalism, it is inscribed “Pay What You Like,” or “Subscription Voluntary.”

THE
COMMONWEAL

Vol. II.—No. XV.
November, 1900.
[Voluntary Subscription].

The natural outcome of such a method (or, rather, lack of method) is that a journal produced on such “principles” speedily becomes defunct. Such was the fate of the Sheffield Anarchist, the first English Anarchist journal courageous enough to reduce its chaotic “pay what you like” “principles” to practice.

THE SHEFFIELD
ANARCHIST.

Vol. I. No. 4.
Sunday, Aug. 9, 1894.
[Pay What You Like].

Having produced your paper on the “pay what you like” system, you scan its contents, and find disorder in its very lines, as witness the following, reproduced from the Alarm, the organ of the Associated Anarchists:—

WE TAKE ANYTHING!!!

Although money is handiest, stern
necessity compels us to be universalist,
and we therefore wish to make known
here, that in payment for literature
supplied by us, we take anything
which we can use for The Alarm, or
sell in support of it. Odd type, ink,
furniture, wearing apparel, boots,
jewellery, books, back numbers or sets
of any paper, used or unused stamps.
American paper currency, tea, sugar,
cocoa, crockery ware, cutlery, etc.
We ought not to have any bad debts at
this rate.

Here is Anarchy indeed! You will notice that the right hand side of the column is uneven, giving it the appearance of poetry. This is due to the fact that, to use a printer’s idiom, the lines have not been “justified;” or, in plain English, the spaces between the words should have been so altered as to make each line spread out to fill the column exact.

As a further instance of this Anarchistic disorder, I give the following: From the offices in Drury Lane of a curious four-page journal, printed by hand on yellow tissue paper, entitled the Atheistic Communistic Scorcher, emanated a still more curious, and, in many respects, amusing, pamphlet, entitled, “An Appeal to the Half-Starved, Herring-Gutted, Poverty-Struck, Parish-Damned Inhabitants of a Disunited Kingdom.” The following extract is an exact reproduction from the original (note the capitals and punctuation marks):—

We Require A Commune, to Take every Child,—Woman, and Man. Register them on the Roll of the Commune—Find how many Houses,—Tables, Chairs, Boots, Coats, Hats,—how much Food,—Animal, Vegetable, Cereal, are required for the Citizen. Then how many hours Labor from each Citizen.—(About One or Two hours.) from each one will do it, Them that wont work hang them, Labor will then be pleasant,—Why Is it so Irksome—To-Day? Because of excessive work and Insufficient pay,—That Land & Money Theives, may Batten and Fatten—On the Plunder of the Proletaire.

Some Anarchist journals—the Paris La Revolte, for example—even dispensed with editors, and allowed every comrade connected with the “group” which ran the paper to “have his say,” so far as the exigencies of space would allow him. This explains the fact that articles in direct contradiction to each other often appeared in the same journal.

Some of the advertisements to be found in Anarchistic newspapers are certainly amusing, as witness the following:—

A Severe Winter is Inevitable: therefore advertiser intends making preparations accordingly. Anyone willing to help form a “Help Myself” society should communicate with W. G. C., office of ——.

Poacher wants trustworthy comrade; mostly night work. Apply ——.

Another advertisement offered £5 reward for an honest lawyer. We know there is one somewhere in the East End; he is painted on a public-house sign-board, with his head under his arm.

The Anti-Broker Brigade having reached a sufficient strength is ready to assist comrades and friends who require its services, free of charge. Apply to W. C., office of this paper.

The above advertisement appeared in the Commonweal, and referred to a group of fifteen stalwart Anarchists who conscientiously and on principle objected to pay rent under any circumstances, and who helped each other “shoot the moon.”

At the offices of the Torch of Anarchy, in Ossulton Street, Somer’s Town, occurred a number of amusing episodes. One in particular is worth recounting. Some “comrades” who had been expelled from Italy struck a bargain with the Anarchist printer of the Torch to get out some revolutionary pamphlets in Italian, and in consideration of the working of his press by them he agreed to quote very reduced prices. It was a glorious sight to see these brawny sons of the Revolution perspiring at the press, singing Caserio’s “Hymn to Liberty,” and rejoicing in the thought that through their efforts the principles of Anarchy would be spread through their native land. Everyone was happy until some inquisitive fellow looked at the “proofs,” and made a terrible discovery. The wily printer, it seems, had undertaken a large printing contract for some local clergymen, and for months these firebrands had been printing tracts and sermons!

To the crank, the Anarchist movement acts as a magnet. It was while working as a compositor in the offices of Freedom that I came across as fine a specimen as one could wish to meet in a day’s march. And among Anarchists one finds the crank par excellence. One day a middle-aged, respectably-dressed person of ordinary appearance, except for a wild gleam in the eyes, entered the office and asked to see the manager. He wanted an estimate for printing a twenty-page pamphlet. A satisfactory quotation having been given, he produced a roll of MS. from the inside pocket of his coat, and gave an order for the printing of 1,000 copies. After he had gone we examined the MS., and found it to contain as curious a medley of sense and nonsense (mostly of the latter) as one could hope to find outside the four walls of a lunatic asylum.

The brochure, a printed copy of which I have before me as I write, was entitled, “The Truth—the Way to the Physical, Moral, Mental, and Spiritual Regeneration, and the Life,” by Alfred E. Gaynor, who modestly described himself as follows:—

“Water Bearer.
Spirit Architect and Constructor of the Universe,
The Osiris, or Incarnate Representative of the Solar Power.
Occultist and Metaphysician.
Social Surveyor, Counsellor, and Transformer.
Boudha, Krishna, and Jesus Christ Resurrected.
Second Person of the Trinity.
The Messiah, or Son of Man.
Redeemer of Humanity from the Powers of Darkness.
Leader of the Heavenly Hosts,
and Spiritual Commander of the Forces against Mammon.
Lion of the Tribe of Judah.
Last Avatar of Vishnu.”

The Anarchist Messiah.

Interspersed through the pages of this pamphlet are a number of quotations from such curiously assorted sources as the Bible, the Free-thinker, Sir Monier-Williams, the Torch of Anarchy, the Bhagavadgita, and Volney’s “Ruins of Empires.”

The mission of the new Messiah was to “pull down all the old devil-erected structures—the kingdoms, governments, and religious institutions of the world—by nullifying the means by which they are enabled to maintain their Satanic dominance, i.e., Money; abolishing barter and trade, and cancelling all mammon-made laws, deeds, charters, stocks, bonds, notes, and other red-tape and paper chains which hold mankind in the bondage of delusion, and upon their site to build up a New Dispensation and a New Humanity.” The name of the new world was to be “Olombia, or the New Columbia State of the World.” It was to be a “Saturnian, or No-Money Commonwealth”; its members the “Spirit-Builders of the White Light and the Truth University.” Everything under the new dispensation was to be free, gratis, and for nothing—free material, free labour, free habitation—in fact, free beer, free ’bacca, and free mutton-chops.

Individuals in Olombia, or the “Realm of Celestial Light”—the “Kingdom of Heaven now established on Earth”—were to be organised on the Anarchist pattern of “groups” freely federated, and classified under various industrial denominations called Orders, such as the Order of Agriculturists, the Orders of Engineers, Carpenters, Masons, Tailors, Bootmakers, Electricians, Journalists, Designers, Musicians, Teachers, etc., which were to take upon themselves the Commonwealth management and operation of the sources of production and supply; of its land, buildings, storages, manufactories, farming, means of transportation, etc. (which, of course, existed only in our “Messiah’s” imagination).

Every person between the ages of 21 and 50 who partook of the Commonwealth supplies was to identify himself with one of these Orders, and in return the “Kingdom of Heaven now established on Earth” was to guarantee to each of its members a free livelihood, free conveyance, free education, free literature, free amusements—in fact, free everything!

Six hours was to be the Commonwealth working day; five days the Commonwealth working week; twenty days the Commonwealth working month; ten months the Commonwealth working year, and twenty-nine years the Commonwealth working limit. Starting work at the age of twenty-one, the “Spirit-Builders of the White Light” were to retire at the age of forty-nine—the fiftieth birthday beginning each individual’s Jubilee, the entering into which bestowed “Olombia Citizenship,” together with “an undivided, untaxed, and untrammelled interest in the Whole Earth with all its productions, and a right to all that is desired for the maintenance of life, health, liberty, development, culture and pleasure, ‘without money and without price.’”

One can only exclaim, “Oh, what must it be to be there!”

Another beautiful and rather rare specimen of the Anarchist crank I discovered in the same printing office. He was a believer in natural living, and a “dress reformer” with a vengeance. He existed entirely on a diet of nuts and cold water—aye, and what is the most amazing part about it, flourished and grew fat on that diet. In the office the Anarchists possessed a large old-fashioned printing-press, which was turned by hand. This was very exhausting work, and would knock an ordinary man out of breath in about ten minutes or so. The machine had, consequently, to be worked by some four or five men in shifts of about a quarter of an hour each. But this nut-eater outdid all of us roast beef and pudding devourers, for he was able to work at the machine for about an hour right off without any apparent sign of exhaustion. His greatest fad, however, was in the “dress reform” line. He believed in “natural dress,” and detested “conventionality.” Barbers, hatters, hosiers, and bootmakers he abominated, and walked the streets in all weathers hatless, bare-footed, and minus shirt, collar and tie, and even waistcoat. One fine hot summer’s day he was arrested in the City, a howling mob following him to the Guildhall, where he was charged with being insufficiently clad. He was actually parading the streets “mid nodings on” except a pair of short bathing pants!

The Anarchist Style.

An amusing incident once occurred at an Anarchist meeting in South Place Chapel, Finsbury. It was a public meeting to “commemorate the Chicago Martyrs.” One of the orators on this occasion was vehemently dramatic in his style, and was trying to inspire someone among his listeners with the necessity of “acting.” Warming to his work, he concluded his speech with this fiery peroration: “Comrades! the Cause of Anarchy is worth working for! worth fighting for!—aye, and, if needs be, worth dying for!”—and down came his fist with tremendous force on a small three-legged table which stood on the platform, smashing it to utter smithereens, amid the uproarious laughter of everyone present.

XV.
THE ABSURDITIES OF ANARCHISM.

The Anarchist is nothing if not an utopist. His ideas have their foundation, not in the sure and solid basis of science, but in the unstable grounds of sentiment. Facts, in his scheme, are not necessary; in his blissful ignorance he dreams of stepping out of the “hell of commercialism” right into that questionable heaven of Anarchist-Communism. For him the laws of social evolution are as nothing, or do not exist; and the angelic creatures he sometimes depicts as modern men and women capable of living harmoniously without government are but creatures of his own vivid imagination.

An instance of this general Anarchist ignorance of the laws of social evolution, in a literature teeming with instances, occurs in No. 1 of the Alarm, a now happily defunct weekly (and weakly) sheet issued by the (once) Associated Anarchists, who conclude a statement of policy with the following interesting but laughable information: “And we mean to have Anarchy in our time.”[4]

[4] In one sense this prophesy was fulfilled; for, within a few months disorder reigned supreme among the “Associated,” who constituted themselves into rival factions, each faction in turn carrying out the Anarchist doctrine of “individual expropriation” by means of periodic raids (at dead of night) on the possessions of the opposing faction (a common occurrence among Anarchists): the whole culminating in the introduction of the police on the invitation of the Anarchists themselves!

Passing from this, let us look at another phase of the folly of Anarchism. A Communist-Anarchist is certainly a political freak; his creed, as he himself tells us, is “two-sided” (not to say one-sided)—“its political theory is absolute individual liberty, its economic substance that of Communism.” What better evidence could one require of the absurdity of Communist-Anarchism? Communism, meaning the collective ownership and control of the land and instruments of labour, necessarily involves authority to enforce the will of the collectivity; Anarchism, on the other hand, is the negation of authority—the doctrine of individual supremacy. Consequently, to talk of Communist-Anarchism is to talk arrant nonsense; it is to talk of authority without authority, organisation without organisation, administration without administration! So that “Communist-Anarchist” is simply another name for Socialist-Individualist, or, Socialist-Anti-Socialist! What could be plainer?

Now, a consequence of holding such a mixture of opposite ideas is that the Anarchist “movement” in time resolves itself, as we find it to-day, into a medley of different sects, all at variance with each other. One thing, anyway, is certain, and that is, that the Anarchists have not made a mistake in choosing their name; for where two or three are gathered together in the name of Anarchy, there also, of a surety, are chaos and confusion. Much as rum follows missionary, so chaos dogs the footsteps of Anarchy. Chaos in the “movement” and chaos in the brains of those who compose it. Anarchy is emphatically not order—Kropotkin, Malatesta and Co. to the contrary notwithstanding.

Again, a logical consequence of a belief in Anarchist-Communism is that a thinking person, conscientiously holding such paradoxical views, is certain, sooner or later, to renounce one or the other—Anarchism or Communism.

Dr. Merlino—who has now happily seen the folly of Anarchy—writing in the Commonweal for January 9, 1892, deploringly complains of the lengths to which his (then) fellow-Anarchists have gone in their following of this will-o’-the-wisp of Anarchy. “There are,” he says, “in our ranks people who evidently regard themselves as the ‘pure’ Anarchists, and who never fail, whenever their comrades propose practical work of any kind, to stand up and speak against it in the name of Anarchy.” My object in referring to this article here is simply to point out that the kind of Anarchist there depicted is in the ascendancy in the party, and is the real and only logical Anarchist. Let us take a glance at him as he is pictured by Merlino: Opposed to organisation, he yet belongs to his Anarchist “group.” He objects to the latter appointing anyone to make the necessary arrangements for lectures, sending round invitations for speakers, issuing bills, collecting money, and so on. This he stamps with the word “officialism.” He shuns officialism. He gets angry at the very idea of appointing somebody to do something. He hates the very names “chairman, secretary, organiser,” etc., and detests majority decision as the Devil is said to detest holy water. Should some poor half-fledged Anarchist in his “group” propose to issue a manifesto or start a club, the out-and-out Anarchist sees at once the impossibility of doing any such thing on Anarchist “principles.” He is scandalised at the very idea. He looks upon these “philosophers” (as he will contemptuously call them) as future dictators, and their plan as a mortal sin against Anarchy. He will never tolerate working on a settled plan; and he is afraid of Anarchism becoming a force for fear of his comrades being led astray. Should his half-fledged “comrade” see in this or that particular event—say, a strike—an opportunity for propagating his ideas, the out-and-out Anarchist steps in and cries: “What business have you to mix with these unworthy workers? They are not Anarchists at all! They have a chairman and secretary in their union; they strike merely for less hours and more pay, and not for an immediate reconstruction of society; they don’t even help themselves from the shops. Will you run the risk of becoming acquainted with them, perhaps making yourself popular, and by-and-by getting into office, and then, turn against your principles? Hold aloof, sirs, or else, we tell you, you are no Anarchists.”

The above, absurd though it may seem to anyone unacquainted with the Anarchists, is an unexaggerated word-picture of the farcical yet logical consequences to which a belief in the sovereignty of the individual must necessarily lead. The logical Anarchist, therefore, is a down-with-everything-that’s-up advocate; his creed is a creed of negations; sans Government, sans order, sans decency, sans everything necessary to the making of a prosperous and peaceful community.

I remember reading in Freedom an answer to an enquirer who wanted to know what would be done under Anarchist conditions of do-as-you-please in the following circumstances: The members of an Anarchist (ahem!) Commune require a bridge; the majority favour one design, the minority another. And what, think you, is the solution according to the infallible gospel of Anarchy? Stand firm, poor human brain—it is this: Build two bridges!!! Ye gods! What next will they be asking us to subscribe to? And supposing there be three, or for that matter, fifty differences of opinion? Why, of course, build fifty bridges! Verily, and of a truth, the Anarchist never opens his mouth but he puts his foot in it. Designing and constructing such gigantic undertakings as modern bridges seem to be, to him, about on a par with the designing and erection of pig-sties. Cost—and it is here as well to remember that the Tower Bridge cost £850,000—and waste of labour, to the all-knowing Anarchist, are mere minor details, not worthy of consideration. And then, just as if the foregoing “solution” of our Anarchist world-regenerator was not sufficiently startling in itself, we are actually told, “in cold blood,” that this Anarchical method is “economical”!

“Do I sleep? Do I dream?

Do I wander in doubt?

Are things what they seem?

Or is wisions about?”

I look at my Freedom again; yes, it is there right enough. Then I think to myself, do these Anarchists mean what they say, or are they only Bernard-Shawing? Build two bridges! Yes, run opposition railroads side by side; block the public streets with double sets of tram-lines; allow every crank to have everything just as he “darned-well” pleases; but, above all, erect a double quantity of lunatic asylums, for under such imbecile conditions they will be needed!

One could almost respect the Anarchist if he were consistent—even a trifle consistent. But he is the very incarnation and embodiment of inconsistency. In one of his manifestoes he says: “No man can honestly and truly represent anyone but himself, and if he says he can, he is a humbug”—and straightway he lays claim to that not very flattering appellation by presenting himself at the door of an International Socialist Congress as the representative of his Anarchist group! He believes in the liberty of the individual, and tolerates no manner of rule whatsoever—and his patron saint, Ravachol, in his autobiography, confides in us that, had he and his comrades the power (anti-authoritarians shrieking for authority!) they would “suppress the majority”!!! He rails at Parliament as a useless institution, forgetful of the fact that Parliament does at times accomplish something socially beneficial, however little that something may be; and, having delivered himself thus, will attend his Anarchist Congress, which, mark you, is made up of “representatives” of Anarchism from all parts of the world, who meet—to do something practical? not at all—merely to “exchange ideas”—and then, having gone through successfully this interesting farce of a Mutual Admiration Society, return to the four corners of the earth, having accomplished nothing! not even passed a resolution, for that is not Anarchistic, you understand! He believes in freedom, execrates authority, anathematises coercion—and throws bombs at religious processions, and murders unoffending occupants of restaurants and theatres! But enough! The follies and crimes of this absurd yet hideous phantasmagoria of Anarchism are so numerous that, like unto the alleged unreported sayings of Christ, were they recorded, “the earth would not contain them.”

XVI.
ANARCHISM A BUNDLE OF CONTRADICTIONS.
Credo quia absurdum.

Anarchism has been described as “individualism run mad”—certainly in the Anarchist “Idea” there is a “tile loose” somewhere.

I well remember once listening to a lecture by a certain “Christian Anarchist,” who, in the course of his remarks, happened to say something which did not fit in with the ideas of another Anarchist present. Rising in his place, Anarchist No. 2 indignantly and vehemently protested against the “Christian Anarchist’s” heretical views being palmed off as the true Anarchist gospel; and, producing from his coat pocket a manifesto of some Anarchist-Communist Alliance, quoted chapter and verse in contradiction. “Oh, yes,” exclaimed the “Christian Anarchist” in reply; “I have seen that manifesto; indeed, a long acquaintance with Anarchists has convinced me that there are as many Anarchist Alliances as there are Anarchists, for every Anarchist I have met has a special Anarchism of his own.”

This, coming from one “companion” to another, I thought somewhat rich, but it certainly possessed the merit of being true—a merit not always associated with Anarchists’ statements. Verily, where two or three are gathered together in the name of Anarchy, there, of a surety, are chaos and confusion.

A writer in the Commonweal, May 9, 1891, recognises this fact and deplores it. “Anarchism,” he says, “includes among its advocates men of the most divergent and irreconcileable opinions,” and, “as an Anarchist-Communist,” he declines to “make common cause with an Anarchist of the mutualist school”—in fact, wouldn’t touch him with a pole. Edward Carpenter, taken to task by another Anarchist for the mildness of his opinions, pleads for toleration (Commonweal, December 5, 1891) on the ground that, “after all, there are so many sections among the Anarchists. There are,” he says, “the Anarchists who denounce the blackleg ... and the Anarchists who cherish and embrace him; then there are the Academic Anarchists ... and the Tarnation Anarchists (followers of Albert Tarn), and the B.A.’s, or Bloody Anarchists.” Add to these a few more, and the list will even then be far from complete: Individualist-Anarchists (described by the Communists as “cranks,” which we can quite well believe); Communist-Anarchists (described by the Individualists as “charlatans,” which also we can quite well believe); Collectivist Anarchists, (a Spanish freak); Christian, or “non-resistance” Anarchists; ultra-revolutionary Anarchists; “Tuckerites” (worshippers of Benjamin R. Tucker, of Boston); Socialist-Anarchists (a peculiar species and very rare); Mutualist-Anarchists; Democratic or majority-rule Anarchists; Political Anarchists—in fact, a fine lot. One is forcibly reminded of the exclamation of a noted artist on hearing the names of certain Royal Academicians—“O Gemini! What a bally crew!”

If we take the definition of M. Proudhon, the supposed “father” of Anarchism,[5] we find that in the Anarchist régime there is to be “no more authority, absolute liberty of the man and the citizen.” (“Les Confessions d’un Révolutionnaire.”) This was published in 1868; twenty-five years later one of the “father’s” small but noisy progeny—les enfants terrible of politics—the London Freedom, rounds on its “father” for putting forward such a “ridiculous claim!” “Where is the Anarchist,” it asks (April, 1893), “who makes such a ridiculous claim as absolute liberty?” Where, indeed! Freedom should have a better memory. If it will refer to its own issue for August, 1889, it will find these words: “Anarchist Communism ... means absolute freedom for every human being of either sex.” Nor is Freedom alone among the advocates of the “ridiculous.” The American Firebrand (a very appropriate title, by the way) week by week contained a stereotyped definition of Anarchy as “absolute individual liberty;” the Anarchist (March, 1888) makes the same “ridiculous claim.”

[5] I say “supposed” advisedly, for there appear to be several “fathers” and disputations among Anarchists regarding the parentage of this political illegitimate are without end. Some cast the blame on Proudhon; others on Max Stirner; a third section makes Josiah Warren responsible; while yet others lay the crime at the door of Bakounine. Be this as it may, no one has yet disputed the right of Kropotkin to be called the “father” of that political monstrosity christened “Anarchist-Communism.” The editor of the Anarchist (April, 1888) has been good enough to tell how the brat first saw the light. This is what he says: “Before Bakounine died, Kropotkin once told me that he (Bakounine) said that some day somebody would solve the synthesis between Anarchism and Communism. Kropotkin, no doubt, desired to be the ‘somebody,’ and said to some others (if I remember aright, Reclus and Cafiero), ‘Let us do it now.’ And forthwith, Communism went into partnership with Anarchy, and, scientific-like—hey presto!—Communist-Anarchism was manufactured on the spot.”

Let us take the programme of the “International Federation of Revolutionary Anarchists” (an organisation with a name which in itself was calculated to make the tyrants of the earth shake in their shoes, but which, sad to relate, lasted but a month). “The aim of the party,” we are told, “is the abolition of the State ... and the prevention of its reconstitution.” Nevertheless, according to another Anarchist “authority,” “Anarchy even covers the right of Governments to exist for those who want and support them.” (Anarchist, July, 1887.) Here’s a pretty fine how-do-you-do! “Government in all its forms” is to be totally destroyed, yet still exist! Verily, as one Anarchist has truly said, “the beauty of Anarchy is that its advocates differ.” And so say all of us!

Stepniak, lecturing against Anarchism, is reported to have said as follows: “In spite of Proudhon, work must be done in common, and there must be, under what name you please, a directing body.” A writer in Freedom (March, 1893) commenting on these remarks, says: “No one denies this.” So you see there is to be no government, but a directing body! What could be plainer?

“The object of Anarchy” (Anarchist, October, 1887) “is for every individual to do as he pleases, subject only to the only rule that by so doing he does not infringe the like freedom of others.” Such appears to me a fair statement of true, i.e., equal liberty. But equal liberty involves authority (and there is to be no authority, you understand) to prevent and punish those who overstep the bounds. If equal liberty be the object of Anarchism, then the abolition of government cannot also be its final aim—the two things being as different as chalk is from cheese.

“The claim of government is no other than the claim of the strongest.” (“Anarchy: Theory and Practice.”) But still, “whoever has might he has right.” (Max Stirner, “Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum,” p. 196.) So that Anarchists not only condemn government but justify it! “There exists no natural right but might ... there is, therefore, no such thing as natural justice, no natural morality, no society, nor any liberty but license.” (Anarchist, August 1, 1888.) Under the new Anarchist régime “organisation would be necessary,” of course, says Liberty (January, 1895). Nevertheless we are told, (Truth-seeker, January, 1900) that “‘organisation,’ ‘government,’ ‘discipline,’ ‘loyalty,’ ‘duty,’” are merely “pet phrases invented by would be dictators,” and the “magic machinery through which the subjection of the people is effected.” Thus, you see, there is to be organisation and no organisation! We are getting on.

Bresci,

The assassin of the King of Italy.

Let us further examine this precious thing called Anarchist organisation. Leaving out of account for the moment the fact that organisation is impossible under conditions of “do-as-you-like,” the fact remains that some Anarchists profess to believe in organisation. Dr. Macdonald, writing in Freedom (October, 1893), tells us that “trade-unions are based on Anarchical lines.” Very well, then, the basic principle underlying trade-unionism is that of authority, punishments (fines), majority-rule, etc. Are we to understand that all these will exist under Anarchy? On the contrary, according to Dr. Nettlau (“Why we are Anarchists”), “a consequence of freedom is the rejection of laws and majority-rule.” For these they would “substitute the principle of unanimity” (Freedom, February, 1888). There is to be no difference of opinion under Anarchy—all will be the very pink of perfection. But stay! John Turner, debating with Herbert Burrows (reported in Freedom, September, 1889) doesn’t think anything of the kind. “I do not believe,” he says, “that people will agree on everything—that is not my idea of Anarchism.” So you see that, after all, Anarchism is not to be a paradise of stained-glass angels. On the contrary, there will be differences of opinion just the same as now. How will these differences be settled, always remembering that “majority-rule is the vilest form of tyranny”? (Freedom, December, 1890). It appears they would have public meetings to discuss communal affairs (and we all know the amicable spirit which animates a crowd of disputants!). “Trifling objections,” it seems, “would disappear in the discussions which would take place, and only differences of opinion too strong to be bridged over would remain. Then each party would set to work to carry into effect the plan it favoured. It might result from this that two, or even three, buildings might be erected in the place of one originally intended. But who could complain?” asks our Anarchist world-regenerator. Who, indeed! “What we have said,” continues our Anarchist friend, “about the constitution of a building may be applied to all the wants of society—as well as to the making of railways, canals, and telegraph lines ... in fact, to all the branches of human activity”!!! (“Society on the Morrow of the Revolution,” by Jean Grave.)

Let us see. “Majority-rule crushes individual initiative, self-reliance, and reduces the individual to a State slave.” (Freedom, November 1890.) However, “in all practical problems, if men will not or cannot separate, and if it is not expedient to adopt several different solutions at once, it is needful that one fraction yield to the other, and I am very willing to admit,” says E. Malatesta, “that it should be the minority which yields.” (“Parliamentary Politics in the Socialist Movement.”) And again, “the traveller will still, under Anarchy, be obliged to adapt his arrangements to the hours and regulations which the majority have thought best.” (“A Talk between Two Workmen,” p. 29, Malatesta.) This is what one vulgarly calls “giving the game away.” We are even told that it will be needful to suppress the minority should it persist in exercising its “right to do as it pleases,” by “forcible action”! (“A Talk,” p. 29.) No wonder that Jean Grave, the French Anarchist writer, whom Octave Mirbeau has described as a “great authority,” almost “despairs of ever seeing a settlement issue from the chaos of ideas which go by the general name of Anarchy!” (“Société Mourante et l’Anarchie.”)

As a further illustration of the beauties of Anarchist “organisation” the following will be of interest. El Productor, the Spanish Anarchist paper, discussing the desirability of an International Anarchist Conference in Chicago, proposed that all Anarchists should send in a voluntary subscription, accompanied by the name of the delegate whom they thought best to represent them; when these votes had all come in, they were to be collected, counted up, and verified, and the men whose names had most supporters (that hated majority-rule again) were to be sent to Chicago, there to give voice to the opinions and wishes of the Spanish groups, and to bring back an account of the proceedings, and the conclusions arrived at. To these propositions six Valencia Anarchists answered by a declaration in which they state that they are opposed to the programme put forward by El Productor, which they denounce as opposed to the Anarchist principle, which denies the possibility of one man representing another under any circumstances. To these objections El Productor replies by saying that it does not consider the idea of representation to be opposed to Anarchy. The Valencia Anarchists go on to explain that their idea of what an Anarchist conference should be, is that any Anarchist who feels inclined to go should go; that he should go on no one’s behalf and represent no one but himself; that the Anarchists thus assembled should discuss for their own benefit any subjects they feel inclined to, and they point to the Paris Congress of 1889 as a beau ideal of an Anarchist conference. El Productor answers this by asking if a single object was attained, or result arrived at, by the Paris Congress, and replies in the negative.... Could any good come out of the Anarchist Nazareth?

Speaking of Individualist-Anarchists, like Benjamin R. Tucker, of Boston, Dr. S. Merlino, a one-time leader of London Anarchists, says, “Individualists they are ... but certainly they are not Anarchists. Mr. Tucker ... distinctly affirms that Anarchism ‘does not mean no laws and no coercion,’ and advocates the institution of ‘Defence Associations,’ otherwise called Pinkerton police.” “Anarchist policemen ... would be a fine spectacle,” exclaims Kropotkin (“Conquest of Bread”). Aye! a sight for the gods![6]

[6] “Police and jails do not contradict Anarchism.” (Liberty, New York, December 26, 1891.) “Anarchism recognises the right to arrest, try, convict, and punish for wrong-doing, if by wrong-doing is meant invasion.... If it can find no better instrument of resistance to invasion, Anarchism will use prisons.” (Liberty, New York, October 24, 1885.)

“The Anarchism of to-day affirms the right of society to coerce the individual, and of the individual to coerce society, so far as either has the requisite power.” (Liberty, New York, June 7, 1890.)

In retaliation Mr. Tucker retorts that “Anarchist-Communists advocate a régime of Anarchism fully as despotic” as he imagines State-Socialism would be! And Henry Seymour, in the Anarchist (March, 1888) supplements this by saying that Anarchist-Communism is “arbitrarily conventional and tyrannic—however professedly free.” “I have been behind the scenes,” he caustically adds.

Let us try to understand the Anarchist theory regarding property. There is to be “possession in common.” (Malato, Freedom, November, 1894.) There is also to be private property: “We consistent Anarchists strive to even extend private property.” (Freedom, June, 1891.) “The natural law concerning possession is this: ‘that they should take who have the power, and they should keep who can.’” (Freedom, August, 1889.) There is also to be neither private property nor common property. “Private owning means despotism unalloyed, while common owning means mob-rule, so far as it is not officialism, and officialism so far as it is not mob-rule” (L. S. B., in Freedom, October, 1893.)

Bequest is both allowed and denied. According to the “Anarchist’s Programme” (Anarchist, March, 1888) bequest is permitted in the new régime (“not denying the right of bequest”). On the other hand, the Chicago Vorbote (July 9, 1890), “entirely denies the right of bequest.” However, to right this, “Anarchy proclaims the right of every individual to help himself out of the common stock to what he needs.” (Freedom, June, 1891.) But stay! “In an Anarchist society the man who would steal from his neighbour, I hope his neck would be introduced to a piece of hempen cord.” (Freedom, July, 1893.) Here is a pretty fine kettle of fish! I am to “do as I please;” to “help myself to what I need,” but stand the risk of being precipitately jerked into Kingdom Come should I attempt to reduce the theory to practice! It is a queer world, my masters!

But still, let us be thankful for small mercies. According to Malato (“Philosophie de l’Anarchie,” p. 51) we shall still, under the new Anarchist dispensation, be able to say “‘my’ comb and brush, ‘my’ pencil, ‘my’ newspaper.” Thank God (or Anarchy) for that!

The Anarchists are consistent only in their inconsistency. “Don’t do as I do but do as I tell you,” is a maxim favoured by religionists and Anarchists alike. By his very “principles” an Anarchist is excluded from participating in what he calls “parliamentarianism.” Yet some of the “companions” recommend the sending of Anarchists to Parliament. “The only means left open to us now is to vote, and a few Anarchists in Parliament would do an immense amount of good” (Morrison Davidson at Autonomie Club, Freedom, March, 1894.)[7]

[7] “Anarchism is as hostile to the ballot as peace is to gunpowder.” (Liberty, New York, August 29, 1891.) “Inasmuch as Anarchistic associations recognise the right of secession, they may utilise the ballot, if they see fit to do so.” (Liberty, New York, October 24, 1885.)

The Anarchist is an enemy of the State, opposed to majority-rule, yet has the brazen effrontery to support them. “All that is necessary is to combine and elect a majority of one House to do nothing.” (Van Ornum, “Why Government at all?”) But why go to the trouble and expense of electing Anarchists to Parliament “to do nothing,” when they accomplish that same result so very effectually outside? So little even did Proudhon himself think of the Anarchist “principles” he himself is supposed to have originated, that he stood as a candidate for the Constituent Assembly of France, and advised the working men of that country to vote for certain candidates who pledged themselves to “constitute value.” The Anarchist’s “principles,” in fact, change with the condition of his liver. He reminds one of the candidate for Parliamentary honours who concluded an election speech by saying, “Them’s my principles, gentlemen, but if you don’t like them I can change them!”

Briefly summarised, the case stands thus: In the coming “society of free men called Anarchy,” there is to be no Government, you understand, but a “directing body;” no authority, but “regulations;” majority-rule is to be relegated to limbo, and in its place we are to have—the rule of the majority; there is to be organisation and no organisation; private property, common property, and no property; I am, in theory, to do as I please, but risk my neck if I act upon it; there are to be two, three, or more kinds of railways, tramways, buildings, canals, systems of drainage, bridges, etc. (not to mention lunatic asylums) side by side as experiments (why not padded rooms fitted to each house?). But enough! My brain begins to whirl.

And now, dear reader (as they say in tracts), after you have read, marked, learned, and thoroughly masticated the above precious items of Anarchist “philosophy,” you will appreciate with me the beautiful harmony of “Anarchist society” on the “morrow of the Revolution.” Oh, what must it be to be there!

XVII.
“PROPAGANDA BY DEED.”

The following article is taken from the Anarchist journal Liberty (London, March, 1894), and shows the attitude taken toward the matter of bomb outrage:—

Why I Advocate Physical Force
to repel the aggressive force of the governing class.

By G. Lawrence.

“In order to make clear my advocacy of such force as has been used on the Continent (and will no doubt be used sooner or later in this country too) it is well to state what position in, or rather outside, Society it is from which I have to deal with the social problem.

I am an economic slave; that is, I have to sell my labour, being the only thing I possess, to anyone who will purchase it; considering myself lucky if even I can sell it to advertise the adulterated food which poisons me, to build a church which robs me of my intellect, to build a wall which prevents my looking upon natural scenery or, worst of all, to advertise the cause of the candidate for office whose interests I believe to be diametrically opposed to mine; I am in a vice. I must sell myself to help do some job I would rather not have done, or I must starve if I refuse so to sell myself. I am a slave because I cannot choose my work according to my aptitude or my principles; a slave because I must starve, beg, or steal, if not employed on the terms laid down by another; a slave because I cannot choose whether, even on terms not my own, I will be employed—and so be able to live or not. A slave, because Society treats me, not as one of its members, but as a tool or a ware, to be disposed of at any market value like a log of timber or a bale of goods. I must do the bidding of the commercialist if I desire to live; the alternative is starvation and death. Thus, being an economic slave, I have no political rights.

Now while those who form Society, i.e., those who hold the property of the nation and as a consequence enjoy political freedom, are discussing the situation, I am suffering under it. It must not be forgotten that there are plenty of nostrums advocated for the regeneration of Society, by men who are politically free. Hundreds of nostrums; but no particular hurry to come to any agreement about them. And if one comes to review the many schemes put forward, it is plain that the advocates of each of them are willing to do something, provided only that the something to be done does not affect the schemer’s individual position. The consequence is that nothing actually is done. It is all very natural; self-preservation is the first law of nature. But we must remember that the economic slave is also a natural being, and must therefore act in precisely the same way.

It is because I believe so strongly in the law of self-preservation that I predict that the conflicting schemes propounded by the propertied classes, each of which schemes is so devised as not to interfere with the present position of those who devise them, must inevitably fail. What then? The same natural law which thus robs the rulers of power, will assert itself in the slaves, causing them to resort to the only means of self-preservation which they possess, namely, physical force. They will thus compel Society either to make concessions, or to dissolve. In the latter case a new society would begin to grow according to the real aspirations of the people, who, having no longer any immediate interests apart from the rest of humanity, would be inclined to act in a perfectly just and equitable way.

But now what about acts of individual revolt? and are they beneficial?

They are just as truly a natural phenomenon as the general revolution itself; justifiable, therefore, in the same way and proportionately beneficial. They are, in short, part and parcel of the total revolution, and an important part inasmuch as they contribute to its success by forcing upon the attention of Society the desperate condition into which it has got, bringing home to people otherwise indifferent that something is really and radically wrong. This cannot but induce thought as to how matters can be remedied. Even though Society concludes that it is best to hang the individual rebel, at least it has been moved. The chances are that when action becomes more frequent Society will begin to alter the manner of its response. Deeper consideration will be given, and minds thus unconsciously prepared for the actual revolution.

My belief is that through the acts of such men as Ravachol, Pallas and Vaillant all Society is roused to give at least a passing thought to the social question; and the hard ground is broken for those whose work it is to teach the philosophy of that question.”

The following article is taken from The Torch of Anarchy, and was written by Emile Henri, the Anarchist who was guillotined for blowing up a coffee-house in Paris.

Propaganda by Deed.

By Emile Henri.

“What does the Anarchist want? The autonomy of the individual, the development of his free initiative which alone can ensure his happiness, and it is solely by reasoning that he becomes a communist, for he understands that he can only find his own happiness in that of all men, free and independent like himself.

When a man in our present society becomes a rebel conscious of his actions, and such was Ravachol, it is because his brain has been engaged in a work of reasoning which embodies his whole life, analysing the causes of his sufferings, and he alone is therefore entitled to judge whether he is right or wrong in his hatred, in being savage and even ferocious. As for ourselves, we believe that acts of brutal revolt like those which have been committed hit the right nail on the head, for they awake the masses by striking a heavy blow at them and showing the vulnerable point of the Bourgeoisie, who still tremble at the moment the rebel ascends the scaffold.

We perfectly understand that all Anarchists have not the temperament of a Ravachol; each of us have a physiognomy of his own and special aptitudes which distinguish him from his fellow-combatants.

We say that love engenders hatred; the more we love liberty and equality, the more must we hate all that which hinders men from being free and equal.

Thus without being led astray by mysticisms we look at the matter from the standpoint of reality, and say: It is true that men are but the products of institutions, yet these institutions are but abstract things which exist only so long as there are men of flesh and blood who represent them.

There is therefore only one way of striking at these institutions, i.e., to strike the men themselves, and we are happy to vindicate any energetic act of revolt against the Bourgeois society, for we do not lose sight of the fact that the Revolution can only result from the individual acts of rebellion all together.”

This manifesto was issued to the unemployed in 1886, and was largely responsible for the West End riots of February 8 of that year.

ANARCHIST MANIFESTO.

TO THE UNEMPLOYED.

The war-cry of revolution—“Work or Bread”—is ringing in the air. Thousands of you are demonstrating in the streets; thousands of you are parading your poverty instead of putting an end to it. You cry for the crumbs of the wasted produce of your underpaid and over-stocked labour—you, who create all and are entitled to all! Bread, indeed! “Man cannot live by bread alone.” Being apostrophized as paupers, you now beg for Work—that snare by which your idle exploiters fatten themselves and starve you; work—that seal of your slavery! Cowards, not to take all you make! To work is to prolong your present misery. Your condition to-day—and it will become worse—is one of the natural and necessary effects of the capitalistic commercial system in which you are enslaved by law.

You are starving because you have worked too much! The markets are glutted, the factories are closed, because you have been too industrious. You have performed all the work that is needed and demanded by Society, but you have not been paid. It is true that your capitalistic exploiters doled out a miserable portion of your earnings, sufficient to keep you alive merely, until they were done with you. But it is your turn now—you have not done with them. Your day of reckoning has arrived. Only 20 per cent. of the products of labour goes back to labour: 80 per cent. is therefore the extent of the combined fleecings of the wolves of usury!

Labour produced all artificial wealth. Artificial wealth is the only kind of wealth that anyone has a right to own, and as labour alone created all artificial wealth, it rightfully belongs to labour alone. Those who monopolise all the natural, as well as the artificial wealth, to-day, never had a just title to either. They are the real rogues and vagabonds, the only thieves and loafers. They bribe their newspaper hacks to howl you down, and pay and pamper the police to truncheon you when you speak out these facts in the name of outraged justice! Is it not time, then, that you ceased to talk, and made up your minds to act? Rally under the banner of Anarchy.

XVIII.
DOES SOCIALISM LEAD TO ANARCHISM?

It has been said that Socialism is merely the half-way house to Anarchism. This belief, so widespread among Englishmen, is so palpably absurd that one marvels how an intelligent person can be deceived therewith.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE “COMMONWEAL.”

The progress of the Commonweal from Socialism to Anarchism is instanced in proof. It will be seen from the headings of this journal, which are herewith reproduced, that originally the paper appeared as the “official journal of the Socialist League”; that later it blossomed forth as a “journal of revolutionary Socialism”; and finally as a “revolutionary journal of Anarchist-Communism.” This, it is said, is proof of the close connection between Socialism and Anarchism. What are the facts? Simply these: that from its inception the Socialist League (to whom the Commonweal originally belonged), from its anti-political constitution, offered a field for Anarchistic propaganda. Whilst consistently repudiating Anarchist doctrines, the Socialist League differed from other Socialist organisations which attempted to realise Socialistic projects by constitutional methods, in that it favoured the anarchical policy of physical force revolution. A number of Anarchists joined the League (as I have pointed out elsewhere), with the avowed object of turning its efforts into out-and-out Anarchistic channels. In this they were successful, for gradually but surely the Socialists left the League in disgust at their “revolutionary” associates, and the Anarchists were soon masters of the situation, having secured the printing plant and machinery, as well as the Commonweal itself, immediately converting the paper into an exponent of revolutionary Anarchist opinions. This is the real explanation of the Commonweal’s change of attitude. Moreover, when the Commonweal was the property of the Socialist League it spoke out plainly against Anarchism, and when it fell into the hands of the Anarchists it most bitterly declaimed against Socialism and all its works.

It is quite true that a person who has but an imperfect grasp of Socialist principles may possibly tend in an Anarchist direction, so true is it that a little learning is a dangerous thing. But to the Socialist who is also a student of history and economics no such mental contortion is possible; he sees that as between Socialism and Anarchism there must be war to the death—the one being the actual antithesis of the other.

In the early infancy of the Socialist movement, when the essentials were a red tie and a belief in the daily expected “revolution,” many well-intentioned but certainly unlearned men and women flocked to the Socialist banner in the expectation of the near approach of the millennium. When the Socialist party attained its majority these childish notions were cast on one side, and the task it set out to accomplish was not that of overturning society and establishing the complete Socialist Commonwealth at a blow, but that of convincing men and women that the gradual adoption of Collectivist principles by the State and the municipalities would prove so plainly beneficial to the community that the principle would be extended until finally all industries would be absorbed. In this they have been eminently successful, for to-day, private capitalism for private gain is being gradually but surely superseded by public co-operation for public benefits.

This change of attitude on the part of the Socialists, of course, did not satisfy the few discontents who, still faithful to the “Revolution” and the red tie, naturally went over to the Anarchists, as being the only party left which still stood for the old nonsensical ideas. Some few years back splits occurred in three or four branches of the Social Democratic Federation, notably at Canning Town, Deptford, and Peckham. Some of the members who either resigned or were expelled that body, now constituted themselves into local Anarchist “groups.” They were composed almost entirely of young and inexperienced persons—many mere youths (and everyone knows that youth is the period of indiscretions). To-day the persons who once composed these three Anarchist “groups” are anything but Anarchist in their sympathies; many, in fact, having gone back to their old love—riper age having brought saner ideas. Of the “groups” at Peckham and Deptford but two persons to-day remain faithful to the Anarchist cause!

Anarchism and—

Socialism.

The belief that Socialism and Anarchism are synonymous can be explained only on two grounds; either the person who makes the statement is ignorant of the meaning and purport of either or both Socialism and Anarchism, or he is a person interested in misrepresenting Socialism from personal or political motives. Socialism is the exact opposite of Anarchism, both in theory and tactics. Socialism means State and municipal ownership of the nation’s industries for the nation’s interest. Anarchism means the abolition of the State—central and municipal—and of every form of organisation, system, and authority whatsoever. Socialism proposes to reach its ideal commonwealth through the constitutional medium of parliamentary and municipal action. Anarchism seeks not to alter the social system, but to strike at its representatives, and its weapons are the cowardly ones of knife, torch, revolver, and bomb. The two theories have nothing in common.

XIX.
A PLEA FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF VIOLENT ANARCHIST PUBLICATIONS.

The idea is becoming general that the propagandist of violent Anarchist doctrine should be treated with the same severity as is accorded those who carry out the hateful tenets he preaches.

Human beings, as we know, have sometimes held beliefs of which crime was the logical and necessary outcome—as, for instance, the Thugs in India, who looked upon the murder of travellers as a religious obligation. That Anarchism in its violent form is such a belief; that, in fact, its creed is merely a cloak for crime of every description, we have already seen.

Passing through a rather low-class part of East London, one fine Sunday morning, I was pained to hear a crowd applaud an Anarchist street-orator, who was openly and boldly advocating burglary and crimes of almost every description. On my expressing my surprise to a constable near by that Englishmen should approve such criminal sentiments, he replied, “Why, sir, them people practise what that fellow’s preaching—they’re thieves, sir, every man jack of them.”

This was some years ago; since then I have made a special study of Anarchist publications, and become acquainted with various Anarchists in different parts of the country. The result of my experience is the conviction that that constable was right—that the Anarchist agitator is simply the mouthpiece of the criminal classes. We punish the man who breaks the law, but leave the maker of law-breakers untouched.

The belief that “property is theft” (vide Proudhon, the “father” of Anarchism); that, according to the notorious Malatesta, everyone should be free “to do as he pleases” under all circumstances; that “everything belongs to everyone” (Kropotkin); and that a life of idleness and robbery culminating in murder, such as was led by the Anarchist miscreant, Ravachol, is a life which, according to the Commonweal, is “worthy of emulation,” is a belief which is marvellously comforting to those of criminal inclination, and to weak-minded persons who have a natural propensity to commit acts of an anti-social character. Such persons, in fact, flock to the Anarchist standard.

“Put money in thy purse,” wrote the notorious Johann Most, in his Freiheit of 1880. And the Anarchists have not been slow to act upon it. And why should they not? Has not their creed erased the words “right” and “wrong” from the vocabulary? “A fig for good and evil,” exclaims the Anarchist Max Stirner ... “neither has any meaning ... my concern is neither the godly nor the human; is not the true, the good, the right, the free, etc., but simply my own self.”

“Pillage and murder the rich,” was the favourite theme, not only of the French Anarchist slang journal Le Père Peinard, but of the various London Anarchist journals, as I have shown. Cyril Bell, a well-known London Anarchist, is reported in Freedom (December, 1891) as advising “revolt by refusing payment to shopkeepers whose goods we take when we want them,” etc. The Sheffield Anarchist said, “Don’t work;” and Dr. Creaghe, its editor, says that the “only logical way for an Anarchist to make a livelihood is by pillage,” which, with others, he attempted to put into practice. However, after a while, he wrote in the Commonweal that he was “discouraged with regard to the No Rent and Robbery Propaganda.” Not, mark you, because they were immoral—oh, dear no!—but because they were rather risky. He then proposed a poaching expedition as the easiest way of “living on the enemy.” “We should have to fight though, and perchance kill an occasional keeper or policeman,” he says, but this was only a mere detail, hardly worthy of consideration.

The following is an extract, not from some Burglary Manual, but from the writings of Prince Kropotkin, the leader of London Anarchists: “Instead of inanely repeating the old formula ‘Respect the law,’ we say ‘Despise law and all its attributes!’ In place of the cowardly phrase ‘Obey the law,’ our cry is ‘Revolt against all laws!’” The effect of such teaching can only be to demoralise rather than to elevate those who embrace it. But it is especially the mischievous meddling of Anarchists in strikes that is likely, one day, to produce results in this country similar to what has often taken place on the Continent and in America. There, acting upon the advice of Anarchist agitators, strikers have introduced the weapons of the knife, revolver, torch and bomb. It is true that here in England working men have not been led upon this path of criminality. But it is not for want of trying on the part of the Anarchists. During the great London dock strike thousands of Anarchist manifestoes headed “Fight or Starve!” were distributed among the men on strike, advocating the pillage of the shops, the blowing-up and setting fire to the docks and wharves. When the East End tailors struck, the Anarchist cry was altered to “Death to Sweaters!” While the London busmen’s strike was in full swing the Commonweal came out with an article recommending the poisoning of the horses. It is true the paper said don’t poison the horses, but it was advice of the don’t-nail-his-ear-to-the-pump order.

Among working men on strike, especially if the position is getting desperate and hopeless, there are always a number of hot-heads ready for mischief. This the Anarchists know and take full advantage of. Thus, if they are able to get the ear of men on strike, their advice is always to “seize the wealth in the shops,” hoping thereby, should a riot occur, they will themselves come out of the scrimmage the richer. One Anarchist I know, during the riots of 1886, when the unemployed sacked the shops in the West End, secured valuables which, to my certain knowledge, enabled him to dress in “purple and fine linen and fare sumptuously every day” for over a twelve month.

To sum up. We have seen that the Anarchist looks upon all acts from the point of view of the right of the individual to “do as he pleases” under all circumstances, and who, in the name of that “right,” passes a verdict of “not guilty” on the most atrocious deeds, the most revoltingly arbitrary acts. “What matter the victims,” exclaimed the Anarchist poet, Laurent Tailhade, on the evening of Vaillant’s outrage in the French Chamber; “what matters the death of vague human beings if thereby the individual affirms himself?”[8]

[8] Anarchists certainly have no liking for their own physic. It appears that M. Tailhade was wounded by an explosion at the Restaurant Foyet. A telegram in La Tribune de Geneve of April 5th, 1894, says: “M. Tailhade is constantly protesting against the Anarchist theories he is credited with. One of the house surgeons, having reminded him of his article and the famous phrase quoted above, M. Tailhade remained silent, and asked for chloral to alleviate his pain.”

It is sometimes said that often the violent language of Anarchists is but the hare-brained rattle of fools seeking a sensation. Be this as it may, the fact remains that weak-minded persons, and those with criminal leanings, are apt to take their writings and speeches seriously, and act upon them. It is a fact that every Anarchist group is composed largely of mere youths. To such, Anarchist views have some attraction, as being calculated to allow a reckless independence, freedom from control, and a kind of intellectual audacity which, for a time, fascinates. Accordingly, in the interests of such, my call is to everyone who has the moral and material welfare of the nation at heart—to political and social reformers, to Socialists, and to every kind of ethical and religious propagandist—to unite in calling for the total suppression of violent Anarchist publications, and the dealing out of equal punishments to those who incite to crime as for those who commit the actual offences.

“Thy hand, great Anarch, lets the curtain fall,

And universal darkness buries all.”—Pope.

Wyman and Sons, Ltd., Printers, London and Reading.

Transcriber note
Spelling and punctuation errors have been corrected.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONFESSIONS OF AN ANARCHIST ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

- CONFESSIONS OF AN ANARCHIST
- CONTENTS
- ILLUSTRATIONS.

- I. ANARCHY A NEGATION OF MORALS AND PRINCIPLES.

- II. ANARCHISTS IMMORAL AND UNPRINCIPLED.

- III. POLICE-PAID SPIES.

- IV. ANARCHIST “LITERATURE.”

- V. THE “GROUPS.”

- VI. BOMB-MAKING.

- VII. ANARCHISTS AT WORK.

- VIII. AN ANARCHIST CONFERENCE.

- IX. ANARCHIST COMMUNITIES.

- X. ANARCHISM IN ENGLAND: ITS HISTORY, LEADERS, AND PRINCIPLES.

- XI. SOME ANARCHIST APOSTLES.

- XII. ANARCHIST PRECEPTS.

- XIII. HOW ANARCHIST ASSASSINS ARE MADE.

- XIV. THE LIGHTER SIDE OF ANARCHISM.

- XV. THE ABSURDITIES OF ANARCHISM.

- XVI. ANARCHISM A BUNDLE OF CONTRADICTIONS. Credo quia absurdum.

- XVII. “PROPAGANDA BY DEED.”

- XVIII. DOES SOCIALISM LEAD TO ANARCHISM?

- XIX. A PLEA FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF VIOLENT ANARCHIST PUBLICATIONS.

- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE