University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
Dictionary of the History of Ideas

Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas
240 occurrences of e
[Clear Hits]
expand section 
expand section 

expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionII. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
16  expand sectionII. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIV. 
10  expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionV. 
10  expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
collapse sectionVII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionVI. 
12  expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIV. 
expand sectionIV. 
expand sectionIV. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionVI. 

240 occurrences of e
[Clear Hits]


General Principles. Anarchism is a social philosophy
and a political doctrine based on the value of individual
freedom. As such it is linked up with liberal and all
other kinds of progressive ideas. Essential for anarchist
thought, however, is the rejection of all coercive au-
thority exercised by men over men. The Greek word
an-archy must have meant absence of authority or


government. The word “anarchy,” describing a state-
less society, was for the first time used by Louis Armand
de Lahontan in his Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique
(1703), describing the Indians living in
a society without state, laws, prisons, priests, private
property, in short, “in anarchy.” Colloquially however,
anarchy became identical with confusion and disorder.

A wide diversity of anarchist views can be found
in the works of philosophers, religious thinkers, writers,
and poets throughout the ages; for example, in
Diderot's “I don't wish either to give or to obey laws,”
we have a short and perfect statement of the anarchist
creed. Opposing Plato's “state communism,” Zeno, the
founder of the Stoa school, advocated a society without
government. Laws should be abolished, since virtue and
morality could only be achieved in liberty.

As a general principle, anarchism advocates a society
from which the coercive elements have been removed.
Like anarchism, liberalism stemmed from the concern
for freedom, and the wish to keep the activities of the
state and the functions of government to a minimum.
Anarchism, however, holds that liberal postulates are
realizable only on the basis of the abolition of economic
monopoly and the coercive institutions of political
power because, while equality is quite possible without
liberty, there can be no liberty without social and
economic equality; “liberty without socialism is privi-
lege, injustice; and socialism without liberty is slavery
and brutality” (Bakunin). The liberal view of the “min-
imization” of the state and its replacement by free
federalist groups, was first expounded by Wilhelm von
Humboldt in his treatise, Ideen zu einem Versuch, die
Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen,

written in 1792 and published in 1851 (English trans.
The Sphere and Duties of Government, 1854). John
Stuart Mill was influenced by this work in writing On
(1859). Both works exposed the danger in de-
mocracy of the “tyranny of the majority,” using prin-
ciples very close to anarchist doctrine.

Anarchism holds that there is no conflict or irrecon-
cilability between the rights of the individual and
society. Sociologically anarchism is based on the dis-
tinction between state and society. As men continually
are bound to work together for almost any purpose,
their aims will be achieved more efficiently if the
guiding principle is solidarity or “mutual aid.” The
individual is not only a single entity, but his very
existence presupposes also a collective relationship.
Anarchism postulates that human potentialities, spon-
taneity, individuality, and initiative, buried in an au-
thoritarian society and in a network of bureaucratic
institutions, can be freed by de-institutionalizing soci-
ety. Life-enhancing processes of society will be liber-
ated with the passing of the domination of the state,
which is regarded as a tumor on the body politic. The
state, the supreme authority, with its machinery (the
government) which carries more power than is re-
quired for administration—i.e., the “political sur-
plus”—should be abolished.

Education has always played an important part in
anarchist doctrines. Modern psychology and education,
with its child-centered principle of self-education and
self-discipline, has distinctive anarchist implications in
this respect. In recent times new schools in criminology
(especially in the USA, and partly in England and the
Netherlands) have advocated a change of attitude in
judging delinquents and in recognizing their right to
some forms of deviant behavior, and to being regarded
as equals instead of being made by authority to adapt
to the actual dominant pattern. The abolition of the
punitive element in justice as well as the abolition of
prisons as “seminars of vice,” “where man comes out
worse than he enters” (William Godwin), is gaining

The essence of the artist as a creative individual
implies absolute freedom to realize his aesthetic aims,
and suo ipso anarchistic thought, even if he is not aware
of its theoretical basis. In our age, without abandoning
its traditional aesthetic norms in art this need for free-
dom becomes even more evident. Anarchism postulates
that without coercion and stringent outside regulations
everyone would have greater possibilities to develop
his potential creative personality.

Different Trends. Although different trends—
anarcho-communism, individualism, collectivism, mu-
tualism, and all the intermediate programs—can be
distinguished, all anarchist schools of thought have a
fundamental conception in common, viz., freedom of
the individual, rejection of government, state, and all
coercive institutions. These forms of anarchism are
simply the ways considered best for achieving freedom
and solidarity in economic life, the ways believed to
correspond most closely with justice and freedom for
the distribution of the means of production and the
products of labor among men. It is the constant
searching for a more secure guarantee of freedom
which is the common factor amongst anarchists even
when divided into different schools. “The achievement
of the greatest measures of individualism is in direct
ratio to the amount of communism that is possible;
that is to say, a maximum of solidarity in order to enjoy
a maximum of freedom” (Malatesta [1926], p. 82).

Bakunist anarchism was called in the late 1860's
“collectivism.” Anarcho-communism, rejecting the ex-
treme of individualist anarchism, as a variation of
collectivism laid the emphasis on communist distribu-
tion and local and communal association. Developed
mainly by Kropotkin since the end of the seventies,


this communal form became the dominating trend of
anarchism in the following decades. The anarcho-
communists who regarded trade unions as instruments
in the struggle for the economic and social improve-
ment of the working class within the framework of
existing society and as the means to carry out revolu-
tion and social reconstruction, called themselves
anarcho-syndicalists. The ultimate goal of anarcho-
syndicalism, identical with that of collective anarchism,
is to raise the masses to independent management of
production and distribution by the common action of
all manual and intellectual working men of every
branch in industry.

Violence is not an essential part of anarchism. Nei-
ther is terrorism. Because of the spectacular attentats
and outrages, connected with the names of Ravachol,
Auguste Vaillant, Emil Henry, Santo Caserio, mainly
in France (1891-94), and of later syndicalist bombings,
anarchism and terrorism became associated in the
public mind. Their acts were usually retaliation for the
persecution and repression by the government and they
did not believe in any social organization by the work-
ing class, or in propaganda, and acted in a state of
rebellion against society. However, their acts of rebel-
lion were isolated, and the number of anarchists who
took part in them was always very small. Most of the
terrorists in modern times were not anarchists.

Some anarchist currents, like Christian and Tolstoyan
anarchism, reject all violence. Central to Leo Tolstoy's
religious anarchism, derived from the Scriptures, is the
rejection of the state and of all authority exercised by
men over men, the denial of property, and the need
for moral revolution by persuasion and example, as well
as by experiments of communal living. Men should
destroy the state by ceasing to cooperate with it, and
by forming new social organizations and patterns of
behavior. Refusal to obey, an essential principle of
Tolstoy's teaching, influenced Gandhi in his principle
of nonviolent noncooperation. Gandhi was inspired also
by Henry David Thoreau's treatise On the Duty of
Civil Disobedience
(1849). These ideas of individual
resistance can be summarized in the words of Étienne
de la Boétie: “Resolve no longer to serve and you will
be free.” Anselme Bellegarrique would write (1850):
“There are no tyrants, there are only slaves.” Non-
cooperation, nonretaliation, nonviolent resistance, war
resistance, boycott, and direct action are applications
all derived from these principles.

Political Doctrine. Anarchist thought exercised its
main influence as a political doctrine. As such it is part
of the history of socialist thought, of which it represents
the libertarian and anti-Jacobin trend. Like socialism,
anarchism is a product of the political and industrial
revolutions. As a matter of fact the history of modern
anarchist thought and anarchist movement is bound
up since the middle of the nineteenth century with
the history of the labor movement. It is strongly in-
fluenced by Marxist ideas about the class struggle and
the emphasis of the economic side of the emancipation
of the laboring classes.

Anarchism—in contrast with Marxian theory—
rejects the theory of the political organization of the
labor class with a view to the conquest of the state.
It rejects pressure through the mechanism of parlia-
mentary parties as well as dictatorship in the period
of the revolution as instruments to achieve these ends.
It objects to representative government and to parlia-
mentary democracy because it denies that in a political
sense one man should represent another, unless he is
a delegate to represent a group in relation to a definite
issue or form of activity, and is always subject to recall.

Marx, and Engels too, defined anarchy as the final
stage of socialism, i.e., a classless and stateless society.
Anarchism however regards the Marxian theory of the
inevitability of the historical economic process, leading
to the conquest of power and subsequently the
“withering away of the state” as a fallacy and as uto-
pian dialectics.

Anarchism recognizes only regional differences and
demands for every group the right of self-deter-
mination in solidarity with all other associations of an
economic or territorial order. Federalism is an essen-
tial part of its doctrine. In place of the present state
organization, anarchism would establish a federation
of free communities which would be bound to one
another by their common and social interests, and
would arrange their affairs by mutual agreement and
free contract.

Theorists. The first systematic exposition is the po-
litical treatise of William Godwin, An Enquiry con-
cerning Political Justice and its Influence on General
Virtue and Happiness
(1793). The title is a good sum-
mary of the content. The main claim of Godwin as
founder of modern anarchism is that in Godwin's opin-
ion all moral evils are caused by political institutions.
A disciple of eighteenth-century philosophical ration-
alism and belief in the perfectibility of man, i.e., a
continuous advance towards higher rationality, Godwin
believed that men behaved irrationally because the
conventional institutions of society led them to stray
from reason. Man's character depends on external cir-
cumstances, and social prejudice and government
should be abolished, as government constitutes the
frequent source of crime, villainy, and injustice.
Godwin questioned the legitimacy of every form of
government and coercion, and envisaged a future of
free enlightened cooperation of individuals, grouped
in small communities.


The importance Godwin attached to education, i.e.,
to the purpose of developing the child's autonomy, is
common to most anarchist schools of thought. The
emphasis on the influence of environment in the for-
mation of character and in the shaping of human con-
duct, was to be taken over by Robert Owen and de-
veloped as an integral part of Owenite socialism.
Godwin's anarchism rested on an absolute exaltation
of the claim of individual conscience enlightened by
reason, involving a repudiation of any duty of obedi-
ence, save to the demands of reason. Through Shelley,
who adopted his philosophy and who wrote to Godwin:
“You are the regulator and former of my mind,” an-
archism became a theme of world literature.

If Godwin tried to persuade, Charles Fourier empha-
sized the example of small communities (phalanstères),
free and voluntary associations (communes socié-
), mainly agricultural, without any authority and
coercion, and with a variety of types of work suited
for every person, corresponding to the natural variety
of human desires. He analyzed the psychological con-
ditions of work, and believed he had discovered the
law of “attraction,” a permanent contribution to the
problem of work and of the incentives and their rela-
tions to it. Free experiments are an essential part of
anti-authoritarian socialism.

William Thompson, influenced by Godwin, Ben-
tham, and Owen, advocated direct action by the pro-
ducers, using trade unionism as a means for their own
emancipation without the help of the government. He
devised a constructive plan for the emancipation of
labor by establishing cooperative societies of produc-
tion and thus constructing a new society.

The system of Co-operative Industry accomplishes this, not
by the vain search after foreign markets throughout the
globe, no sooner found than over-stocked and glutted by
the restless competition of the starving producers, but by
the voluntary union of the industrious or productive classes,
in such numbers as to afford a market to each other, by
working together for each other, for the mutual supply,
directly by themselves, of all their most indispensable wants,
in the way of food, clothing, dwelling, and furniture

(Thompson, p. III).

Nineteenth-century anarchism first received form
and content from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The use of
the words “anarchy” and “anarchist” in the nineteenth
century goes back to Proudhon, who used “anarchy”
for the first time in the sense of absence of sovereignty
(What is Property?, 1840). Later Proudhon spoke, in
his Solution du problème social, of the ideal republic
as a positive anarchy. “It is neither liberty, subordi-
nated to order, as in a constitutional monarchy, nor
liberty in presenting order. It is reciprocal liberty and
not limited liberty; liberty is not the daughter but the
mother of order” (Cole, I, 202). Proudhon's influence
on subsequent anarchist thought has been threefold:
(1) his attack on the Jacobin principle, his denunciation
of the State, and his rejection of representative democ-
racy; (2) his proposal to replace the State by groups
of individuals, united for productive purposes; (3) his
theory of federalism. According to Proudhon, economic
and social exploitation was correlated with political
oppression. Nothing is feasible by spontaneous initi-
ative, independent actions of individuals and collectiv-
ities as long as they are in the presence of this colossal
power which is given to the State by centralization.
Proudhon rejected a state corporation as advocated by
Louis Blanc. Although he thought mainly in terms of
small-scale economic activity, he envisaged for the
future large industry and agriculture developed from
association. Proudhon advocated a great central Credit
Bank, an independent institution apart from the State,
making through subsidiary branches interest-free ad-
vances of capital, to ensure means of labor to each
producer, or workers' organizations to ensure to each
producer the full product of his labor. Products would
be exchanged at cost value by means of labor checks
based on the labor-time theory of value associated with
Robert Owen and the Ricardian socialists. Proudhon
called this system “mutualism.”

Two outstanding representatives of anarchist indi-
vidualism are Max Stirner and Benjamin Tucker. In
Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum (1844; trans. as The
Ego and his Own
), Stirner, a philosopher and a social
and political thinker, developed the view that law and
the State deprived the individual of his uniqueness. As
all forms of government arise from the principle that
all right and all authority belong to the collectivity,
it is indifferent who exercises the authority, for the
collectivity is always above the individual. The State
acts with violence and claims that its laws are sacred.
He who affronts them is a criminal. Every man's wel-
fare demands that a social life based solely on the
welfare of the individual take the place of the State.
The State exists through voluntary servitude. What do
laws amount to if no one obeys them? What do orders
amount to if nobody lets himself be ordered? The State
is not imaginable without rulers and servitude; for the
State must will to be the lord of all that it embraces,
and this will is called the “will of the State.” The
workers have the most enormous power in their hands
and if they once became thoroughly conscious of it
and used it, nothing would withstand them. The State
rests on the slavery of labor. If labor becomes free,
the State is lost.

Benjamin R. Tucker rejected any communistic solu-
tion of the social problem as incompatible with the
“sovereignty of the individual,” as postulated by the


first American exponents of individual anarchism such
as Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews. Their
intellectual development was not influenced by
European libertarian or radical ideas, but rooted in the
liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence.
In the first half of the nineteenth century, American
“philosophical anarchism” was a product of the social
conditions of the country. There was a belief in the
effectiveness of practical experiments, and their social
and economic ideas were based on the right to full
product of one's labor, an equitable commerce on the
basis of cost as the limit of price, i.e., similar to what
Proudhon had conceived in his “mutualist” ideas.

Michael Bakunin, a prolific but incoherent writer,
developed his anarchist ideas from 1864 on. Starting
from Hegel's idealism, Bakunin's philosophical ideas
were molded by the humanism of Ludwig Feuerbach.
Atheism became an essential part of his doctrine. He
regarded the idea of God as fundamentally inconsistent
with human freedom. With Bakunin, anarchist thought
became linked with anarchist organizations and
working-class movements, and became a political
movement. His doctrine inspired socialist movements
in France, Italy, Switzerland, and in Spain, where its
influence lasted longest. Like Proudhon, Bakunin at-
tacked the concept of the centralized state even when
it appeared as the democratic representation of the
people or as the instrument of a hitherto exploited
class. He envisaged a revolution to expropriate capital
and land, but not by the state, which to be able to
fulfil its political and economic mission (as state-
socialists advocate) would necessarily have to be very
powerful and strongly concentrated. He foresaw even
greater exploitation, and in the development of the
modern great powers and in the growing influence of
economic monopoly, the greatest danger for the future
of Europe.

Bakunin's anarchist ideas are most fully expressed
in the programs—mostly drafts—which he wrote for
the secret societies he tried to organize. He was con-
vinced that a small number of individuals, acting in
common with the masses, could and should essentially
influence the course of historic events. Bakunin's social
theory is a critical application of anarchism with a view
to changing the political and social system. He rejected
Proudhon's mutualism as a solution of the social prob-
lem, and also the belief in the possibility of eliminating
capitalism by peaceful means. However, Proudhon's
anti-Jacobin and federalist ideas influenced him, but
he rejected every form of state socialism:

I detest communism because it is the negation of liberty
and I can conceive nothing human without liberty. I am
no communist because communism concentrates and aims
at the absorption of all powers of society; the radical extir
pation of that principle of authority and guardianship of
the state which under the pretext of moralizing and civi-
lizing men, has hitherto enslaved, oppressed, exploited and
depraved them

(Bakunin [1873], p. 28; trans. G. D. H. Cole).

He stood for the organization of society arranged from
below upward on the basis of collective and social
property, by way of free association.

Bakunin, the great antagonist of Marx in the “First
International” (1864), not only objected to the theory
of the state and dictatorship but regarded the Marxian
interpretation of Hegel's dialectic, that socialism would
be the result of an inevitable, historically determined,
scientific process, as a fallacy. He was very critical of
the prospect that science would regulate human and
social affairs, “the reign of scientific intelligence would
be a despotism, more demoralizing and worse than any
previous despotism, and resulting in a new class, a
hierarchy of real and fictitious scientists, and the world
would be divided between a minority in the name of
science and an immense ignorant majority” (Archives
II, 204).

Peter Kropotkin, scientist, historian, and social re-
former, contributed perhaps more then anyone else to
the elaboration and propagation of anarchism. In his
classic, anti-Darwinist, sociological work Mutual Aid:
a Factor of Evolution
(1902) he sets out to show that
mutual aid is as important an aspect in nature and in
society as the struggle for survival. The dominating
importance of the principle of mutual aid appears also
in the domain of ethics. Konrad Lorenz wrote that
mutual aid is the only phylogenetical adapted mecha-
nism of behavior. By combining his scientific and social
aspirations, Kropotkin tried to find a scientific basis of
anarchism but never found a very convincing one. The
very basis of his faith is a belief in cooperativeness as
a natural human quality. The process of individ-
ualization, or “individuation” as modern psychologists
would call it, i.e., self-realization, will not lead to
isolation, but to an intense and more universal col-
lective solidarity. He believed in the coordination of
industry and agriculture; small communities which
would control the means of production and counteract
the tendency of centralized mass production. He al-
ways stressed the importance of the institutes created
by the workers themselves as cooperative societies and
trade unions. After the Russian Revolution he stated
(1919) that as long as the country was governed by
a party dictatorship, the workers' and peasant councils
lost their entire significance.

Errico Malatesta, who spent a life of incessant revo-
lutionary activity spreading anarchist propaganda in
Europe and in America, was, like Kropotkin, an
anarcho-communist. But while Kropotkin stressed the


importance of free association, Malatesta emphasized
the role of the conscious minority and of revolutionary
actions. Malatesta started his anarchist career in the
1870's as a follower of Bakunin, but in later years he
thought the economic and historical approach of
Bakunin too Marxist. Although no opponent of syndi-
calism, he did not share with the anarcho-syndicalists
their belief that creating a mass movement through
the trade unions was an essential, constructive element
in the revolution. He accepted the syndicalist theory
of the general strike insofar as it was insurrectional
and expropriative, in fact, insofar as it was an effective
means of social transformation. He did not share
Kropotkin's optimism, or his scientific interpretation
of anarchism. He was a pragmatic anarchist and held
that the mean task of anarchists was to make and to
help to make the revolution. He advanced the revolu-
tion as much as possible in his constructive as well as
destructive roles, always opposing the formation of any
government. He also held that abolition of political
power without the simultaneous destruction of eco-
nomic privilege was not possible. He shared these
views with Bakunin, including the rejection of terror.
In revolution one must attack institutions; then it will
not be necessary to destroy people, and to foster the
inevitable reaction which is always caused by the mas-
sacre of men. “Terror,” wrote Malatesta, “has always
been the instrument of tyranny.”

The Russian Revolution developed initially on
Bakuninist lines: the state and its institutions were
destroyed and replaced by “soviets,” i.e., councils of
workers and peasants, who expropriated the factories
and the land. These soviets, in which the constructive
element of the revolution was embodied, disintegrated
after the Bolsheviks had succeeded in founding a “rev-
olutionary state” and a party dictatorship. The liqui-
dation by the Red Army (March 1921) of the Commune
of Kronstadt, which stood for “all power to the Soviets
and not to the Party,” marked the end of the inde-
pendent soviets.

The most important historical example of an attempt
to put anarchist principles into practice was the in-
dustrial and agricultural “collectivizations” during the
first months of the Spanish Civil War. Within forty-
eight hours of the uprising, on July 19, 1936, the whole
economic and social life of Catalonia and many other
parts of Spain was taken over by the syndicates. Fac-
tories, railways, and workshops, as well as all social
services, were run by workers' councils. The continu-
ation of the armed struggle, the government control
of production and finance, the counterrevolutionary
policy of the communists after the Stalin intervention,
the compromises made in the name of “victory over
Franco,” e.g., the participation of the anarchists'
leaders in the government, were all factors tending to
undermine this kind of social reconstruction.

In order to define the role played by anarchism in
the light of the experience of a rapidly changing soci-
ety, two different tendencies can be noticed. Since the
defeat of the powerful anarchist movement in the
Spanish Civil War, anarchist movements everywhere
have declined and lost their impetus. But anarchist
ideas have outlived their partisans and may still be of
value as doctrines of social reconstruction. The state
has changed its character. The laissez-faire state of the
nineteenth century has developed into an ever in-
creasing bureaucracy. In a growing process powerful
political institutions and industrial monopolies are in-
tertwined in an excessively centralized structure not
dreamed of by any anarchist thinker.

The anarchist criticism of the state and of authority,
far from being invalidated by this modern develop-
ment, may be more relevant than when the theory was
created. This may explain the growing interest in the
1960's in anarchist ideas. Kropotkin's ideal of a region-
ally decentralized economy could be regarded at the
time as rather utopian and irreconcilable with the
economic and political trend of society. But the new
developments in an age of cybernetic potentially un-
limited technology could easily free society of work
and want, to live in a world of plenty. The use of new
sources of power may reduce the necessity of present-
day, gigantic economic units, and may make the widest
distribution of industry, agriculture, and culture possi-
ble in the political as well as in the social field. This
however would not guarantee automatically a de-
creased authority, as new communications and com-
puter techniques could just as well produce a greater
development of authority. In other words, such a trend
to decentralization would only be realized if based on
an interregional federation, in which the region, as
defined by Lewis Mumford, is the basic configuration
in human life, a permanent sphere of cultural influence,
and a center of economic activity.


General. The standard work on the history of anarchism
is by Max Nettlau, whose works, collections, and manu-
scripts, acquired by the International Institute of Social
History in Amsterdam, are a monumental source for the
history of anti-authoritarian thought and libertarian social-
ism. Max Nettlau, Der Vorfrühling der Anarchie: Ihre histor-
ische Entwicklung von den Anfängen bis zum Jahre 1864

(Berlin, 1925); idem, Der Anarchismus von Proudhon zu
Kropotkin. Seine historische Entwicklung in den Jahren 1859-
(Berlin, 1927); idem, Anarchisten und Sozialrevolu-
tionäre: Die historische Entwicklung des Anarchismus in den
Jahren 1880-1886
(Berlin, 1931). Four more volumes dealing


with the period 1886-1914 are still unpublished. Spanish
summary: l'Anarquía a través de los tiempos (Barcelona,
1935); Max Nettlau, Bibliographie de l'Anarchie (Brussels,
1897). The most complete bibliography today is the subject
catalog on anarchism (about 18,000 titles) of the Library
of the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam.

Other works are: G. D. H. Cole, History of Socialist
2 vols. (London and New York, 1953-60), Vol. I:
The Forerunners, 1789-1850; Vol. II: Marxism and An-
archism, 1850-1890
(London, 1953, 1954); Paul Eltzbacher,
Anarchism: Seven Exponents of the Anarchist Philosophy
(1900; rev. ed New York, 1960); Charles Gide and Charles
Rist, A History of Economic Doctrines, 2nd. ed. (Boston,
1948); Daniel Guérin, l'Anarchisme. De la doctrine à l'action
(Paris, 1965); idem, Ni Dieu, ni maître: Anthologie historique
du mouvement anarchiste
(Paris, 1966); James Joll, The
(London, 1964); Leonard I. Krimerman and
Lewis Perry, Patterns of Anarchy: A Collection of Writings
on the Anarchist Tradition
(New York, 1966); Peter
Kropotkin, “Anarchism” in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th
ed. (London and New York, 1910-11); D. Novak, “The Place
of Anarchism in the History of Political Thought,” Review
of Politics,
20 (July 1958); George Woodcock, Anarchism,
A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements

Special works, biographies, studies. Michel Bakounine,
Oeuvres, 6 vols. (Paris, 1895-1913); idem, Werke, 3 vols.
(Berlin, 1921-24); idem, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin,
edited and compiled by G. P. Maximoff (Glencoe, Ill., 1953);
idem, Archives Bakounine (Leyden, 1961--), edition of the
complete works in progress; idem, Mémoire de la Fédération
pièces justificatives (Sonvillier, 1873); also Max
Nettlau, Bakunin. Eíne Biographie, 3 vols. (London, 1896-
1900); previous hit E next hit. H. Carr, Michael Bakunin (London, 1937);
A. Comfort, Authority and Delinquency in the Modern State:
A Criminological Approach to the Problem of Power
don, 1950); Peter Kropotkin, Memoirs of a Revolutionist
(1900; reprint New York, 1962); Kropotkin's Revolutionary
ed. Roger N. Baldwin (New York, 1927); Errico
Malatesta. “Comunismo previous hit e next hit Individualismo,” Pensiero previous hit e next hit Vol-
(1 April, 1926). Max Nettlau, Errico Malatesta: Das
Leben eines Anarchisten
(Berlin, 1922); idem, Elisée Reclus,
Anarchist und Gelehrter, 1830-1905
(Berlin, 1928); Pierre-
Joseph Proudhon, Les confessions d'un révolutionnaire. Pour
servir à l'histoire de la Révolution de Février
(Paris, 1849);
idem, Idée générale de la révolution au XIXe siècle (Paris,
1851); English trans. (London, 1923); idem, l'Actualité de
Proudhon, Colloque de novembre 1965
(Brussels, 1967);
Herbert Read, Education through Art (New York, 1945);
idem, “Pragmatic Anarchism,” in Encounter, 15 (January
1968); Vernon Richards, ed., Errico Malatesta: Life and
(London, 1965); Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Cul-
(New York, 1937); idem, Pioneers of American Freedom
(Los Angeles, 1949); William Thompson, Practical Directions
for the Speedy and Economical Establishment of COM-
MUNITIES on the principles of Mutual Co-operation, United
Possessions and Equality of Exertions and of the means of
(London, 1830); Franco Venturi, Roots of Revo-
lution: A History of the Populist and Socialist Movements
in 19th-century Russia
(New York, 1960); G. Woodcock and
I. Avakumovič, The Anarchist Prince: A Biographical Study
of Peter Kropotkin
(London, 1950).


[See also Authority; Education; Equality; Freedom; Ideol-
ogy; Individualism; Law, Natural; Perfectibility; Socialism;
State; Work.]