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.”

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.

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]

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]

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!