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.

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.