Anarchy means, in its ideal sense, the perfect, unfettered self-government of the individual, and, consequently, the absence of any kind of external government. This fundamental formula, which in its essence is common to all actual and real Theoretical Anarchists, contains all that is necessary as a guide to the distinguishing features of this remarkable movement. It demands the unconditional realization of freedom, both subjectively and objectively, equally in political and in economic life. In this, Anarchism is distinct from Liberalism, which, even in its most radical representatives, only allows unlimited freedom in economic affairs, but has never questioned the necessity of some compulsory organization in the social relationships of individuals; whereas Anarchism would extend the Liberal doctrine of laisser faire to all human actions, and would recognize nothing but a free convention or agreement as the only permissible form of human society. But the formula stated above distinguishes Anarchism much more strongly (because the distinction is fundamental) from its antithesis, Socialism, which out of the celebrated trinity of the French Revolution has placed another figure, that of Equality, upon a pedestal as its only deity. Anarchism and Socialism, in spite of the fact that they are so often confused, both intentionally and unintentionally, have only one thing in common, namely, that both are forms of idolatry, though they have different idols, both are religions and not sciences, dogmas and not speculations. Both of them are a kind of honestly meant social mysticism, which, anticipating the partly possible and perhaps even probable results of yet unborn centuries, urge upon mankind the establishment of a terrestrial Eden, of a land of the absolute Ideal, whether it be Freedom or Equality. It is only natural, in view of the difficulty of creating new thoughts, that our modern seekers after the millennium should look for their Eden by going backwards, and should shape it on the lines of stages of social progress that have long since been passed by; and in this is seen the irremediable internal contradiction of both movements: they intend an advance, but only cause retrogression.
What little literature exists upon the subject of Anarchism is almost exclusively hostile to it, which is a great drawback for one who is seeking not the objects of a partisan, but simply and solely the truth.
CONTENTS.
PART I.--EARLY ANARCHISM.
PREFACE
CHAP.I. PRECURSORS AND EARLY HISTORY
II. PIERRE JOSEPH PROUDHON
III. MAX STIRNER AND THE GERMAN PROUDHONISTS
PART II.--MODERN ANARCHISM.
CHAP.IV. RUSSIAN INFLUENCES
V. PETER KROPOTKIN AND HIS SCHOOL
VI. GERMANY, ENGLAND, AND AMERICA
PART III.--THE RELATION OF ANARCHISM TO SCIENCE AND POLITICS.
CHAP.VII. ANARCHISM AND SOCIOLOGY: HERBERT SPENCER
VIII. THE SPREAD OF ANARCHISM IN EUROPE
IX. CONCLUDING REMARKS