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]

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”!

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.”