Men Against the State

No full-scale study of the scope and significance of anarchistic writings and teachings in the United States has ever been undertaken by an American.1 The bulk of American references to anarchists and anarchism have been confined to three principal sources: (1) emotional polemics and frankly sensational accounts;2 (2) English translations of the works of German, French, and Italian writers, of varying merit; (3) the writings of anarchists themselves, either in the form of original source materials of wide circulation or books and articles of semi-objective nature. In view of this situation, it is not strange that in the main, the contributions of the American-born have either been almost wholly neglected, or have been attached to the tail of the European comet. With the exception of the works of Max Nettlau, comprehensive studies usually date from the first decade of the present century. These continue to be used almost exclusively, a situation partially due to the relative inactivity of the present day anarchist press, especially in the United States.

Little definitive work either by American writers or doing justice to Americans involved in anarchist groups is to be found in encyclopedias3 or in bibliographies of radical literature. The two outstanding students of anarchist bibliography, both of whose works are over forty years old, remain practically unused and uncited. The three volume compilation by the German Josef Stammhammer, Bibliographie des Socialismus und Communismus,4 contains the most comprehensive and systematic study of anarchist writings for the period before 1909. Ignored by students of anarchist thought because of its misleading title, it remains of great value, especially with regard to the contributions of the native Americans.

The only other work of merit in the field of bibliographical material is the one volume by Max Nettlau, Bibliographie de L’Anarchie.5 It is based in part on the first volume of Stammhammer but contains many items unlisted by the latter. Not only is Nettlau superior from the point of view of arrangement, in that only anarchist writings are listed, but additional helps have been provided through his effort to classify the authors according to country of origin and particular “school” of no-government thought.6 Later compilations have been fragmentary, incomplete, and disappointingly brief.7

European scholarship has been dominant not only in bibliographies but also in the field of general works. Inspired by the wave of assassinations and associated terroristic acts of the ’80’s and ’90’s, a torrent of books poured from the presses of western Europe, most of them ephemeral in nature, superficial in treatment, and generally embodying a violent and abusive approach. Few if any showed an acquaintance with anarchist literature,8 and the tendency to arraign all anarchists as criminals was widespread. Early observers, such as Augustin Frederic Hamon and the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso, investigated this direct action with particular attention to its alleged criminal and psychopathic implications.9

The first study of a general nature which showed an understanding of the scope of the source material of anarchism was the work of the German critic Ernst Victor Zenker, Der Anarchismus, Kritische Geschichte der Anarchistische Theorie, which appeared in 1895.10 Although not sympathetic with the aims of the exponents of total abolition of the state, Zenker upbraided contemporaries for their failure to read the works of Proudhon and others before rushing into print. He recognized that there existed a cleavage between the European and American anarchist philosophies, even though he was unable to clearly state the principal differences. Zenker did deplore, however, the facile generalizations which placed all the protagonists of anarchism in the camp of the supporters of “propaganda by action.” He observed, as did Lombroso and others, that the beginning of nearly all violent revolutions found criminals and other disreputable elements taking part, thus making worthy of examinations even the profession of anarchism on the part of participators in violence.11

Zenker’s effort was followed by that of another German, the judge Dr. Paul Eltzbacher, whose Der Anarchismus (Berlin, 1900)12 was a trail-breaking historical analysis of anarchist ideology. It is noteworthy from the American point of view in that he selected the New England-born Benjamin R. Tucker as the most succinct and comprehensive expositor of individualist anarchism. Eltzbacher, despite the meticulous scrutiny which he brought to the materials he used, gave no indication of knowledge of the bibliographical researches of Nettlau, nor an awareness of the vitality of Tucker’s associates or predecessors, or the eclectic character of his ideas.

The only general account of anarchism by an objective observer which demonstrates a thorough mastery of the voluminous source material related to the subject remains that of the careful Italian scholar Ettore Zoccoli, L’Anarchia.13 Unfortunately, it has never appeared in an English translation. Documented in four languages, Zoccoli’s formidable survey lists many additional anarchist writings mentioned in no other work before his time, and constitutes a valuable addition to the bibliography available to investigators. The reason for its obscurity remains unexplained. Like the essays of other Europeans, unfortunately his treatment of the Americans was weak, due mainly to the unavailability of most of their publications in overseas libraries.

With the success of fascist and communist regimes in Italy and Russia, the study of anarchism shifted to northwestern Europe. Germany became the center of a vigorous anarchist press for more than a decade. The process of going underground was repeated here after the emergence of the authoritarian National Socialist government in 1933. Highly centralized states have generally conducted intensive repression of anarchist writing and propaganda, regardless of their orientation.

If Max Nettlau had established himself as a prominent figure in anarchist bibliography, he was to become even more prominent as the historian of anarchism during the period 1925-35. By 1931 he had published a three volume account of its development from early beginnings to 1886.14 Four years later he rounded out his survey of the entire field in a fourth volume, La Anarquia a troves de los Tiempos (Barcelona, 1935).

Nettlau’s interest in the subject was no ephemeral fancy. No other person has approached his almost fifty years of persistent scholarship in this particular field.15 Although sympathetic to the doctrines of Kropotkin and Bakunin, he devoted some part of his work to a consideration of the influence of the Americans in the delineation of world anarchist thought. The absence of non-partisan diligence equal to that displayed by Nettlau has established his productions as the definitive treatment of the subject to this time, despite the fact that his last two volumes remain almost unknown in the United States. Numerous other studies by various French, German and Russian observers, of varying merit, have appeared over a fifty year period but few contain anything of value to the student of American anarchism in its individualist manifestations.16

It is significant that the first person to deem the study of anarchism in the United States worthy of a separate examination was a French student of economic and social history, Paul Ghio, later a professor of political economy at the University of Brussels. His L’Anarchisme aux Etats-Unis is valuable less for its presentation of American anarchism and its sources than for its examination of American industrial conditions as a force productive of unrest.17 Ghio’s knowledge of American anarchist progenitors was of the most rudimentary kind. Moreover, his personal acquaintance18 with the then current prominent anti-state protagonists in the United States served to distort his perspective. This was particularly true with respect to the origins of American mutualism and individualism then receiving considerable attention in the radical press. In the main, however, Ghio’s account is hardly more than an introduction to the subject.19

Other European students of radicalism had shown some interest in the purely American aspects of anarchist activity before the time of Ghio’s introductory study; yet, extensive investigations of the whole field remained unattempted. Zoccoli, undertaking an examination of the revived interest among the American individualists in the vigorously egoistic writing of Max Stirner,20 the first large-scale survey of a particular part of anti-statist thought in the United States, was the lone exception. Like his later comprehensive critique, his I Gruppi Anarchici degli Stati Uniti e L’Opera di Max Stirner remains practically unknown.21

Despite pioneer research of this type there remained a large twilight zone penetrated by no more than two or three scholars until well into the twentieth century. Included under this head were the anarchist and allied equitist communities of the period from 1830 to 1870, already a lost episode in American history. This was hardly due to neglect on the part of those outside the movement. Much of it was due to the uncommunicativeness of the participants, seeking to avoid the attention of sensationalist newspapers and a scandal-loving public. Another prominent reason was the paucity of literature concerning the functioning of these unique settlements, which contained few of the literati commonly associated with the various contemporary Fourierist colonies.22 Early historians were not able, therefore, to properly estimate the significance of native anti-statism in American history, and little written since their original efforts varies from the conclusions first arrived at. The works of Richard T. Ely,23 Herbert L. Osgood,24 Charles Edward Merriam,25 when supplemented by the more exhaustive researches of the group of investigators headed by John R. Commons26 and the previously mentioned contributions of Nettlau, constitute practically the whole body of secondary materials on the subject.27

Biographical work of definitive quality on any of the nearly fifty individual anarchists whose published works appeared during the period 1825-1925 has yet to be done. William Bailie’s uncritical Josiah Warren, The First American Anarchist,28 remains the only full scale attempt of this kind. It is marred by eulogistic treatment and use of too few source materials.29 Recent essays of biographical nature dealing with two other prominent men in the movement have also appeared,30 but in the larger sense this group of radicals has received little attention.

Labor historians have been aware of the existence and contributions of Warren and his associates in the field of radical economic reform proposals and experiments for some time, but rarely from a first-hand examination of his writings.31 John R. Commons has no doubt conducted the closest study of the influence of the ideas of the New England-born dissidents upon the American labor movement from the time of Andrew Jackson down to the end of Reconstruction. The results of his evaluations and those of his co-workers in the valuable History of Labor in the United States32 are useful but incomplete.

Observation of anarchism in the United States by students of and spokesmen for other segments of the radical movement has often been less objective than that of the more orthodox and conventional. The socialist Morris Hillquit offers an opportunity for scrutiny on this point. In his History of Socialism in the United States,33 Hillquit, as did the majority of his contemporaries, exaggerated the importance of Johann Most. The ideals and objectives of Most and the Germans for whom he was the spokesman have been uncritically accepted as those for which all American anarchists stood. It was as plain then as now, however, that Most could reach a limited audience at best, since he was limited to his native tongue in directly communicating ideas. The prominence of the Germans in the Haymarket affair tended to cloud over other considerations, and Hillquit, in a similar manner to the non-radical critics, participated in accepting and promoting this generalization. Anarchist membership and thought beyond the narrow scope of the struggle for power in the labor movement was something which he considered hardly worth a cursory glance. Heavy reliance on John Humphrey Noyes’ History of American Socialisms for the beginnings of the non-political socialist communities had acquainted him with Robert Owen, the early group of equitists, and their labor exchange ideas. But Warren, the later group of mutualists and Tuckerite school of anarchist intellectuals were completely ignored.34 American individualist anarchism has received little sympathy or consideration from advocates of collectivism.35

Cultural and industrial integration have proceeded together in the United States. One of the principal non-material results has been a growing standardization of thought. This has been fostered by the centralized flow of information and communication, promoting an uniformity of response which has steadily grown more and more hostile to nonconformism. The end product has been, in time of stress, a tendency to widespread hysteria, followed by castigation and persecution of all deviates. This blanket apprehension of divergence has an uncritical character which has had curious and lamentable implications.36 It is certain, nevertheless, that despite the tendency to accept the tastes and judgments of the majority without challenge as to evidence of superiority,37 an examination of American radicalism from other vantage points than that of purely external effect is worthy of effort. Most writers have taken this latter approach toward the less sensational phases of the radical movement, one of these being the origins and development of native American anarchist thought.38

___________

39.  A brief account in this direction is contained in Eunice Minette Schuster, “Native American Anarchism,” in Smith College Studies in History, XVII (October 1931—July 1932), 118-187. Tucker thought the Schuster study “very interesting,” containing “much information as well as many errors.” Tucker to Baskette, December 28, 1934, Baskette Collection. A summary of individual anarchist thought has appeared in a general account dealing with libertarian notables in the United States by Rudolf Rocker, Pioneers of American Freedom (Los Angeles, 1949).

40.  Journalistic and flippant accounts of various phases of American social history, during which anarchist activity has been noted, exist in part of a number of secular volumes. For instance see Grace Adams and Edward Hutter, The Mad Forties (New York, 1942); Heywood Broun and Margaret Leech, Anthony Comstock, Roundsman of the Lord (New York, 1927); Emanie Louise Sachs, “The Terrible Siren,” Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927) (New York, 1928); Lillian Symes and Travers Clement, Rebel America; The Story of Social Revolt in the United States (New York, 1934).

41.  One instance of the bankruptcy of objective scholarship with reference to the study of anarchism is pointed up by the fact that the current (1947) edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica continues to use the article written by the communist anarchist Peter Kropotkin which appeared in the eleventh (1910) edition, to which is appended an undistinguished addition by the late Harold J. Laski. Kropotkin placed little emphasis on the importance of American contributions to the belief in the social order without government. Kropotkin’s bibliography remains valuable in part. The article “Anarchism” by Oscar Jaszi in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (15 vols. New York, 1930-1935), I, 46-53, remains too filled with conjecture to be of more than cursory interest to students seeking a knowledge of the scope of American participation in the development of anarchist thought.

42.  Jena, 1893-1909.

43.  Published in Brussels in 1897, but completed in England the year before. Nettlau has contributed valuable additions to bibliography in his excellent short book Esbozo de Historia de las Utopias (Buenos Aires, 1934).

44.  Nettlau is without doubt the most prolific of the writers on anarchism. He has written original works in four languages, as well as editing significant collections of anarchist material of documentary nature. See Michael Bakunin Gesammelte Werke (3 vols. Berlin, 1921-1924).

Of considerable value from an internal viewpoint in understanding anarchism is the four volume L’Encyclopédic Anarchiste, edited by Sebastien Faure (Paris, n.d.).

45.  Some anarchist entries are contained in the following: Frederick B. Adams, Jr., Radical Literature in America (Stamford, Conn., 1939); Rena Reese, List of Books and Pamphlets in a Special Collection in the Library of the Workingmen’s Institute, New Harmony, Ind. (New Harmony, Ind., 1909); Savel Zimand, Modern Social Movements; Descriptive Summaries and Bibliographies (New York, 1921). Some entries of interest to researchers in anarchist literature are to be found in Harold Lasswell, Ralph D. Casey, and Bruce Smith, Propaganda and Promotional Activities (Minneapolis, 1935). For a partial list of anarchist literature but valuable also as an indicator of allied sentiments found in contemporary poetry, drama and fiction, see B. R. Tuckers Unique Catalog of Advanced Literature (New York, 1906).

46.  See the statement by Zenker on this matter in Anarchism, 49.

47.  See note 4. Hamon’s Psychologie de I’Anarchiste-Socialiste (Paris, 1895) should be used with caution. The greater part of Lombroso has been vitiated by recent research as well.

48.  Published originally in Jena, an English translation two years later had wide circulation. All citations are from this later edition.

49.  Zenker, Anarchism, 6, 211-241; Ernest C. F. Babelon, Encyclopedia Britannica, XI ed., I, 916-917, note.

50.  A French edition appeared in Paris in 1902, but no English translation was available until that of Steven T. Byington was published by Tucker (New York, 1908).

51.  Originally published in Turin in 1907, another Italian edition was published as recently as 1944 in Milan. A German translation of the first edition was available in Leipzig and Amsterdam in 1908 as Die Anarchie. Ihre Verkünden. Ihre Ideen. Ihre Taten.

In this volume Zoccoli dismissed Eltzbacher as a serious student of anarchism from the point of view of comprehension of source materials. He was unable to understand the latter’s failure to know of Nettlau’s exhaustive bibliographical work, nor why he referred to a sixteen page pamphlet as the only work “based on a comprehensive knowledge of the sources.” L’Anarchia, introd., xxii; Eltzbacher, Anarchism, (1908 English transl.), 5. For the work of another Italian scholar in this field, see E. Sernicoli, L’Anarchia e gli Anarchici; Studio Storico e Politico (2 vols. Milan, 1894).

52.  Der Forfrühling der Anarchie, Ihre Historische Entwicklung den Anfängen bis zum Jahre 1864 (Berlin, 1925); Der Anarchismus von Proudhon zu Kropotkin; Seine Historische Entwicklung in den Jahre 1859-1880 (Berlin, 1927; Anarchisten und Sozial-Revolutionäre; die Historische Entwicklung des Anarchismus in den Jahren 1880-1886 (Berlin, 1931).

53.  Nettlau died in Amsterdam July 23, 1944. He lived in retirement, unmolested by the Nazis, although his anarchist writings were part of the literature proscribed by the Hitler regime. For details of his last days, see Nettlau MSS, Labadie Collection, General Library, University of Michigan, Annie Adama van Scheltema to Agnes Inglis, November 2, 1946. The former is the librarian of the International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

54.  Rudolf Stammler, Die Theorie des Anarchismus (Berlin, 1894); Georgii Valentinovich Plekhanov, Anarchism and Socialism (Chicago, 1908), a socialist critique; Felix Dubois, Le Péril Anarchiste (Paris, 1894); Alfred Naquet, L’Anarchie et le Collectìvisme (Paris, 1904); Gustave de Lamarzelle, L’Anarchie dans le Monde Moderne (Paris, 1919). For others consult Nettlau, Bibliographie, 211-243; same author, Esbozo, 7; Zoccoli, L’Anarchia, introd., xvii-xxix.

55.  Ghio, L’Anarchisme, 21-55; same author, La Formation Historique de L’Économie Politique (Paris, 1923), 163.

56.  Ghio became acquainted with Tucker in New York. See his description of Tucker in L’Anarchisme, 80-81, 101-103.

Ghio later sent Tucker a copy of his book from Paris, including a warm note of appreciation on the fly-leaf. This particular volume was loaned to the writer for examination by the late Pearl Johnson Tucker.

57.  Nettlau went much further than Ghio in his delineation of American anarchist activity, although he never considered the individualist variety worthy of separate consideration in an extended work.

58.  The pseudonym of Johann Caspar Schmidt (1806-1856), whose Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (Leipzig, 1845), is doubtless the most vigorous statement of individualism in Western literature. Translated by Byington, as was Eltzbacher’s book, and published by Tucker (New York, 1907), under the title The Ego and His Own, it had a profound influence on many of the group. There is a revived interest in Stirner in post-war Europe. A French translation by Henri Lasvignes, L’Unique et Sa Proprieté, appeared in Paris in 1948, while Zoccoli’s study of Stirner was reprinted in Italy in 1944.

59.  Modena, 1901. For recent scholarship on the relations between American anarchists, Stirner, and Stirner’s biographer, John Henry Mackay, see Thomas A. Riley, “New England Anarchism in Germany,” in New England Quarterly, XVIII (March, 1945), 25-38; same author, “Anti-Statism in German Literature,” in Modern Language Association of America Publications, LXII (September, 1947), 828-843.

60.  Josiah Warren was so apprehensive of publicity that he refused to state the location of the Ohio colony at Clermont, near Cincinnati, in his own publications. Eight and a half years after its founding he saw fit to remark, “Equity demands that every one have the disposal of his or her time, and the choice of their visitors and associates, but public notoriety to this place and the people would render both impossible. . . . I do not feel free to give publicity at present, to the name or locality of this place; but each citizen can invite such friends to his own house as he may see fit.” The Periodical Letter on the Principles and Progress of the “Equity Movement,” II (March, 1856), 46-47.

61.  The Labor Movement in America (New York, 1886).

62.  “Scientific Anarchism,” in Political Science Quarterly, IV (March, 1889), 1-36.

63.  The Merriam thesis applying to anarchism in the United States described in the introduction can be found in a number of his representative works; see for example his A History of American Political Theories (New York, 1903); American Political Theories (New York, 1920); American Political Ideas; Studies in the Development of American Political Thought 1865-1917 (New York, 1920), and also Paul H. Douglas, “Proletarian Political Theory,” in Charles Edward Merriam and Harry Elmer Barnes, eds., History of Political Theories (New York, 1924), 197-200.

64.  History of Labor in the United States (4 vols. New York, 1918-1935).

65.  Schuster, “Native American Anarchism,” in Smith College Studies in History, cited above, draws heavily upon these authorities with respect to theory and documentation. Supplemented by original research, it remains, despite several errors, the only work of merit by an American on native anarchism.

The attempt to see anarchist thought in seventeenth century religious un-orthodoxy is unsound. Anarchism, categorically rejecting arbitrary authority, is by nature an atheistic doctrine. For another theory of the origins of anarchism as understood by modern standards, see Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class, 271-273. Mosca sees anarchist and socialist thought and reform movements as developments from eighteenth and nineteenth century rationalism, not from any recognized religious emanations.

66.  Boston, 1906. See also Dorothy W. Douglas, article “Josiah Warren,” va Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, XV, 364-365, based heavily upon Bailie.

67.  It remains virtually unrecognized that this book is the product of the research of an anarchist. Bailie, one of the group of literary philosophical egoists who made Liberty the best-known anarchist periodical in the English language at the turn of the century, was a pamphleteer of considerable merit in the cause. For example, see his essay, “The Anarchist Spirit,” the introduction to his brief study of Warren’s life, Josiah Warren, xi-xxxviii.

Bailie is also the author of the chapter dealing with Warren in George Browning Lockwood, The New Harmony Movement (Marion, Ind., 1902), an accomplishment which he is almost never credited with.

68.  Harvey Wish, “Stephen Pearl Andrews, American Pioneer Sociologist,” in Social Forces, XIX (May, 1941), 477-482; Charles A. Madison, “Benjamin R. Tucker; Individualist and Anarchist,” in New England Quarterly, XVI (September, 1943), 444-467.

69.  Minor treatments occur in Mary Ritter Beard, A Short History of the American Labor Movement (New York, 1928), and Selig Perlman, A History of Trade Unionism in the United States (New York, 1923).

70.  John R. Commons, Introduction, I, 14-21; David J. Saposs, “Colonial and Federal Beginnings to 1827,” I, 95-99; Henry E. Hoagland, “Humanitarianism (1840-1860),” I, 494-556; John B. Andrews, “Nationalism (1860-1877),” II, 126-138; Selig Perlman, “Upheaval and Reorganization (Since 1876),” II, 204, 210.

The pre-occupation of most native political scientists with the externals of practical politics has caused them, as a rule, to ignore the growth of anarchist doctrines which have been the product of conditions distinctively American. The most able and original among a number of brief considerations are those of Charles Edward Merriam previously noted, and Raymond G. Gettell, History of American Political Thought (New York, 1928), 584586.

The evaluation of anarchist beliefs from a political point of view results in the interpretation of paucity of numbers and political impotence as direct evidence of inferiority. This approach, along with the charge of visionary intellectualism, constitute the methods of which such un-ordinary thinking is consigned to obscurity. No satisfactory method has yet been employed to correctly determine the worth of the propositions which constitute what Herbert Read calls “the politics of the unpolitical.”

71.  New York, 1906.

72.  Hillquit, History of Socialism, 230-252. The probable reason may have been the assumption that the individualist and Fourierite communities had an identical mode of operation. Harry W. Laidler, A History of Socialist Thought (New York, 1927), contains no development of anarchism in the United States, but does present a fair evaluation of the difference between anarchism and socialism. Of special value with reference to anarchist bibliography in works devoted primarily to socialism is Donald D. Egbert and Stow Persons, Socialism and American Life (2 vols. Princeton, 1952), II. This includes mention of a considerable number of standard works applying to anarchism in the United States, but includes no significant additions not mentioned in Stammhammer and Nettlau, and suffers from the lack of inclusion of the numerous small periodicals of the anarchist press.

Anarchism was by no means ignored by the socialists, however. A vast amount of criticism can be observed in the press of the socialist groups after 1880 in particular, with Laurance Gronlund and the Christian Socialist William D. P. Bliss prominent among the critics.

73.  Albert Weisbord, Communist labor leader of the 1920’s, saw little difference between the advocacy of Warren’s principles and the arrangements existing in the conventional capitalist economy. See his extensive Conquest of Power (2 vols. New York, 1937), I, 225-236. This was substantially the verdict of Marx in condemning the teachings of Proudhon, Warren’s French contemporary, as the outlook of the “petty bourgeois.” A current sympathetic survey incorporating this approach is Jacob Salwyn Schapiro, “Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Harbinger of Fascism,” in American Historical Review, L (July, 1945), 714-737, and the same author’s Liberalism and the Challenge of Fascism (New York, 1949), 332-369. See as well the severely critical review of Schapiro’s article by Nicola Chiaromonte, “P. J. Proudhon an Uncomfortable Thinker,” in Politics, III (January, 1946), 27-29, and the unfavorable evaluation of the Schapiro thesis by Philip Taft, Movements for Economic Reform (New York, 1950), 109. An early defense of Proudhon against such charges is Arthur Mülberger, “Karl Marx, Das Elend der Philosophie,” in Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, LIX (Jena, 1892), 536-545. This article was translated by George Schumm and published under the title “Marx vs. Proudhon,” in Liberty, IX (April 29, 1893), 1-3. Anarchist circles have tended to regard Marxism in its political manifestations as deeply reactionary, including in this matter the Communist Manifesto itself. Of considerable interest relating to this is G. P. Maximov, The Guillotine at Work, Twenty Years of Terror in Russia (Chicago, 1940), 19-20.

74.  The deportations of anarchists to Soviet Russia, where hostility to their doctrines was even more extreme than in the United States, is one incident that stands out. For their subsequent mistreatment, imprisonment and execution see André Gide, Communist and Co-Operative Colonies (New York, 1928), 155-157, the previously cited work of Maximov, and the celebrated autobiography of Emma Goldman, Living My Life (2 vols. New York, 1931). For other aspects of this matter as dealt with by generally ignored anarchist writers, consult Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia (New York, 1923); same author, My Further Disillusionment in Russia (New York, 1924); Alexander Berkman, The Bolshevik Myth (New York, 1925); and the voluminous La Revolution Inconnue (1917-1921), Documentation Inedite sur la Revolution Russe (Paris, 1947). This was written by Vsevolod Mikhailovitch Eichenbaum, better known as Voline in anarchist circles, and published through the efforts of his friends after his death in 1945. (Now in English translation; 2 vols., New York, 1954-55).

75.  For a provocative discussion of ochlocratic tendencies in aspects of majority rule, despite its aristocratic bias, see Francis Stuart Campbell, The Menace of the Herd (Milwaukee, 1943).

76.  Ralph H. Gabriel, The Course of American Democratic Thought (New York, 1940); Merle Curti, The Growth of American Thought (New York, 1943); Herbert W. Schneider, A History of American Philosophy (New York,1946), contain faint references to the presence of native anarchist tendencies. The highly regarded work of Alice Felt Tyler, Freedom’s Ferment, Phases of American Social History to 1860, omits accounts of the anarchist colonies in Ohio and New York. The numerous publications of New England anarchists find no mention in major studies by Vernon Lewis Parring-ton and Van Wyck Brooks, although the highly original character of the early efforts of Warren and Spooner has been observed by Edwin R. A. Seligman; see “Economists,” The Cambridge History of American Literature (3 vols. New York, 1921), III, 437. A partial survey of the economic propositions of the American anarchists can be found in Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization (3 vols. New York, 1946-1949), II, 671-678. The bibliography of books concerned with American political theory or with the social, economic or intellectual history of the United States which fail to deal with anarchism is impressive.

—————————

The place and date of publication of most recent editions of individualist anarchist books have been noted in either the bibliography or in appropriate notes in this edition; the stepped-up interest in these works is especially noticeable in the 1960s.

Of recent works not mentioned elsewhere but of substantial bibliographical merit is Leonard Krimerman and Lewis Perry (eds.), Patterns of Anarchy (New York, 1966).

The London journals Anarchy (1961- ) and Minus One (1961- ) and of course the London weekly Freedom are exceptional for bibliographical assistance for the most recent decade. A file of such journals as Individual Action and The Struggle would be extremely useful for the years following the first edition of this book.

The most substantial bibliographical help undoubtedly would be the Bulletins of the Centre International de Recherches sur l’Anarchisme, located in Geneva, Switzerland.

• 1It has been evident to thoughtful observers for more than two generations that the words “anarchist,” “anarchism,” and “anarchy” have been used so loosely by writers and the general public alike that they have practically ceased to have any definite meaning. The problem here is similar to that existing in many other cases where abstract terms or generalizations having no or little substance have been overused or misused. Nor has the use of these terms by scholars tended to promote any greater degree of understanding. In too many cases the tendency has been to resemble the weaknesses of the general observer. Here the situation has been usually created by the repeated interpretation of expressions of hostility to the status quo as evidence of anarchist thought.
• 2It has been evident to thoughtful observers for more than two generations that the words “anarchist,” “anarchism,” and “anarchy” have been used so loosely by writers and the general public alike that they have practically ceased to have any definite meaning. The problem here is similar to that existing in many other cases where abstract terms or generalizations having no or little substance have been overused or misused. Nor has the use of these terms by scholars tended to promote any greater degree of understanding. In too many cases the tendency has been to resemble the weaknesses of the general observer. Here the situation has been usually created by the repeated interpretation of expressions of hostility to the status quo as evidence of anarchist thought.
• 3The idea has long been prevalent that violent conduct is characteristic of anarchists, and that anarchism is a doctrine of destruction. There exists little justification for such a stand, in actuality. In addition, the rejection of one particular variety of authority in favor of its replacement by another finds continual identification with anarchism, while social philosophies which are utterly opposed to it are on occasion labeled “anarchistic.” This merely adds to the already large amount of confusion existing on the subject, setting up extremely vague limitations and permitting the inclusion of many elements which are quite controversial.
• 4Since 1880 and thereabouts people have almost universally thought of anarchists in terms of violence and conspiracy. The result has been the regarding of anarchist literature as a product of a handful of criminals. In Europe the advent of this revolutionary movement was accompanied by a number of sensational acts which led to the identification of anarchism with socially pathological developments. In the United States there have been similar implications, to the point where even governmental policy incorporated the layman’s conception of anarchism and anarchists. The definition of anarchism employed by the Department of Justice in modern times is essentially derived from this earlier period.
• 5Although the tendency to blame destruction of property and loss of life during industrial disputes on “agitators,” “doctrinaires,” and “communists” prevailed for some time previous to the celebrated Haymarket incident in Chicago in May, 1886, such predilections received a powerful stimulus from this event. The now-familiar stereotype of the black whiskered, bomb-throwing vandal came into being at this time and created a new political symbol which has been used to manipulate mass opinion with an impressive degree of success. As a consequence of this and other factors, anarchism became so tainted with diabolism that rational study of its place in American history has rarely taken place.
• 6Although the tendency to blame destruction of property and loss of life during industrial disputes on “agitators,” “doctrinaires,” and “communists” prevailed for some time previous to the celebrated Haymarket incident in Chicago in May, 1886, such predilections received a powerful stimulus from this event. The now-familiar stereotype of the black whiskered, bomb-throwing vandal came into being at this time and created a new political symbol which has been used to manipulate mass opinion with an impressive degree of success. As a consequence of this and other factors, anarchism became so tainted with diabolism that rational study of its place in American history has rarely taken place.
• 7The attempt to link these varied phenomena into a logical sequence has been undertaken by others as well, with less success. It now appears that the assumption that American anarchism stemmed from Puritan Antinomianism and was associated with the peculiar variety of resistance to the state found in the non-resistant and “no government” sentiments of the Garrison school of “Christian Anarchist” abolitionists is untenable. It is more probable that, rather than being a derivative of native American conditions, the real source of the anti-statist evidences observed in Antinomianism and other varieties of early colonial dissidence and unrest can be discovered in the radicalism, both religious and socio-economic, already developing in England before the times of Charles I, and which found expression through lower class spokesmen at the time of the English Civil War. Concerning other aspects of this matter, it can be argued quite effectively that the designation “Christian Anarchist” is really a contradiction in terms, and that religious rebellion along individualist lines can be interpreted as anarchism only under highly specialized circumstances. The rejection of one variety of religious authority in favor of its replacement by another can hardly be related to anarchism, which categorically rejects authority. In another connection, the interpretation of American anti-statism as an evolutionary process, passing from religious to economic spheres, is also open to serious objections. There is not only lack of continuity in influence, but no logical sequence in the elaboration of a program of propaganda. In searching the field it becomes more apparent that the elements of a radical movement with a fully developed propaganda structure can be found in one of the sub-areas only. It is the contention of this work that individualist anarchism can be seen to satisfy the requirements mentioned elsewhere. Not only is it the only part of the radical movement native to America with a propaganda, but it has depended on natives for its promotion. Furthermore, it is unique in that members of the group actually attempted under practical conditions to try out its theory.
• 8In the United States there seems to have been little notice of an extensive literature hostile to the state and its functions until after Haymarket. The dominant conception of anarchism after the violence in Chicago was in accord with the inflammatory utterances of the European-born revolutionaries now gathered in the several large Northern cities. Lack of attention had resulted in the failure to note that a serious split had been developing within the worldwide anarchist movement, and that various distinct elements could now be recognized.
• 9The semantic smokescreen raised up by the moral uproar here and overseas after Haymarket and a number of sensational assassinations in Europe covered over in the process the uncompromising stand taken by the American individualist anarchists, who deplored the use of force, or “direct action,” and asserted as before their traditional hope of the eventual adoption of noncoercive individualist equity as a result of education and rational conviction. Much of what they had to say had been propagated here for nearly a half century before there developed a competing body of beliefs put forward by followers of Bakunin and Kropotkin. In the form in which it appeared during the 80’s and 90’s, but especially as broadcast by Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman and other Russians after the turn of the century, it is possible to see emerging the full outlines of what has since become known as communist anarchism. It has since received its best statement by Italian and Spanish radicals. (Further examination of the famed Haymarket Germans suggests a serious question as to whether these men were not far closer to state socialism, actually, than anarchism.)
• 10The semantic smokescreen raised up by the moral uproar here and overseas after Haymarket and a number of sensational assassinations in Europe covered over in the process the uncompromising stand taken by the American individualist anarchists, who deplored the use of force, or “direct action,” and asserted as before their traditional hope of the eventual adoption of noncoercive individualist equity as a result of education and rational conviction. Much of what they had to say had been propagated here for nearly a half century before there developed a competing body of beliefs put forward by followers of Bakunin and Kropotkin. In the form in which it appeared during the 80’s and 90’s, but especially as broadcast by Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman and other Russians after the turn of the century, it is possible to see emerging the full outlines of what has since become known as communist anarchism. It has since received its best statement by Italian and Spanish radicals. (Further examination of the famed Haymarket Germans suggests a serious question as to whether these men were not far closer to state socialism, actually, than anarchism.)
• 11The two groups differed sharply on basic issues. The communist anarchists rejected private property, and taught the ideal of the collective autonomous commune. A portion of their number advocated the overthrow of the State by violence. The individualist anarchists held that the collective society in any form was an impossibility without the eventuality of authoritarianism, and ultimately, totalitarianism, and adhered resolutely to the concept of private property insofar as the term could be defined as the total product of a given individual’s labor, but not more broadly than this. They abandoned the idea of an equalitarian utopia, and worked for a world free from arbitrary restrictions on opportunity and legal privilege, which breakdowns they claimed “laissez faire” really produced. No other radical group denounced the prevailing system more vigorously than the spokesmen for individualist anarchism.
• 12The two groups differed sharply on basic issues. The communist anarchists rejected private property, and taught the ideal of the collective autonomous commune. A portion of their number advocated the overthrow of the State by violence. The individualist anarchists held that the collective society in any form was an impossibility without the eventuality of authoritarianism, and ultimately, totalitarianism, and adhered resolutely to the concept of private property insofar as the term could be defined as the total product of a given individual’s labor, but not more broadly than this. They abandoned the idea of an equalitarian utopia, and worked for a world free from arbitrary restrictions on opportunity and legal privilege, which breakdowns they claimed “laissez faire” really produced. No other radical group denounced the prevailing system more vigorously than the spokesmen for individualist anarchism.
• 13The individualist anarchists had no blueprint for the future of social organizations under conditions free from coercion. The direction to be taken by voluntary associations was left for the future, and no predictions of a static millennium filled their writing. The group had within their number adherents to a system of decentralized local communities of small size, and at the same time proponents of free associations of producers and consumers within large urban industrial centers. The best known of this group of native radicals, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, William B. Greene, Ezra Heywood, and Benjamin R. Tucker, came in for a measure of attention during the peak of the furor over radicalism reached at about the time of the Spanish-American War. But the greater part of the attention of the time was focussed on their German and Russian contemporaries, with whom they were already at variance in many respects. Those most familiar with the individualist suggestions for the solution of the currency, labor and other pressing problems dismissed them as the fulminations of a group of irresponsibles, dreamers and cranks. Their work along practical lines at an earlier time was practically unknown in any circles, and much of what they had to say later on was mostly forgotten when the stage was taken over by the Industrial Workers of the World, The Socialist Party and the First International.
• 14.  George Warren, “Josiah Warren,” 1. This brief biographical reminiscence of Warren by his only son is an unpublished manuscript written in Evansville, Indiana in 1893, apparently at the request of Lockwood, who was engaged in preparing his study of the New Harmony communities. See Warren MSS., Workingmen’s Institute, George B. Lockwood to George W. Warren, November 10, 1893. Many of the early dates mentioned in this manuscript have proven inaccurate.
• 15.  George Warren, “Josiah Warren,” above. This lamp was patented February 28, 1821, but Warren paid little attention to this matter after becoming part of the New Harmony community. Dictionary of American Biography, XIX, 483. See also note 80, below.
• 16.  The standard work on Owen’s life is Frank Podmore, Robert Owen, A Biography (2 vols. London, 1906). Other works of value are William L. Sargant, Robert Owen, and His Social Philosophy (London, 1860); Lloyd Jones, The Life, Times, and Labours of Robert Owen (2 vols. London, 1890); G. D. H. Cole, The Life of Robert Owen (London, 1930). Owen’s autobiography, The Life of Robert Owen by Himself (New York edition, 1920), is a valuable source.
• 17.  A brief, concise statement of Owen’s stand on this matter may be found in George Milton Janes, Who Should Have Wealth and Other Papers (Milwaukee, 1925), 48. Owen’s “Five Fundamental Facts of Human Nature” are reproduced by Podmore, Robert Owen, 481-482. Page citations are from the one volume edition (New York, 1910).
• 18.  Owen was born at Newtown, Montgomeryshire, Wales, on May 14, 1771. He purchased and began operating the mills at New Lanark in 1798. See the brief, approved biographical sketch in his periodical The New Moral World (London and Leeds, 1834-1845), I (November 1, 1834), 7. This publication was a continuation of The Crisis (London, 1832-1834), which is an extremely important source for the origin and early operations of the renowned Labor Exchanges. Other indispensable periodicals for material concerning Owen are Robert Owen’s Journal (London, 1850-1852), and Robert Owen’s Millennial Gazette (London, 1856-1858). The biography by Podmore contains the most adequate bibliography of Owen’s works, among the standard treatments, which may be supplemented by National Library of Wales, A Bibliography of Robert Owen, the Socialist 1771-1858 (Aberystwyth, Wales, 1914).
• 19.  A brief account stressing the accomplishments of the Rappites at New Harmony is Jacob Schneck and Richard Owen, The History of New Harmony, Ind. (Evansville, Ind., 1890). See also Lockwood, New Harmony Movement, 19-57; John S. Duss, George Rapp and His Associates (Indianapolis, 1914), an account by a specialist in Rappite history.
• 20.  Podmore, Robert Owen, 288; Lockwood, New Harmony Movement, 75; Robert Dale Owen, Threading My Way. Twenty-Seven Years of Autobiography (New York, 1874), 211. Owen claimed that the purchase price was $140,000. The New Harmony Gazette, II (August 15, 1827), 353.
• 21.  Owen’s brief stopover in Cincinnati on his way to New Harmony on December 9, 1824 did not include a speaking engagement there, according to his son William, who was with him on this journey. Joel W. Hiatt, ed., “Diary of William Owen from November 10, 1824, to April 20, 1825,” in Indiana Historical Society Publications, IV, 61. Owen left New Harmony January 7, 1825, and spoke in Cincinnati on his way to Washington where he addressed the House of Representatives in February and March. Hiatt, ed., “Diary,” 97. For further corroboration consult The Diaries of Donald Mac-Donald 1824-1826 (Indiana Historical Society Publications, vol. XIV) (Indianapolis, 1942), 236, 296.
• 22.  The name of the community was not decided upon at first, the space being left blank in the preamble. Warren’s suggestion that the association adopt the title “Commonwealth of New Harmony” was negatived, and William Owen’s motion that the space remain blank was carried. The name “New Harmony Community of Equality” was adopted February 5, 1826. See “Minutes of the Convention for Forming a Constitution for the Society of New Harmony held Jan. 25, 1826,” February 2, 1826, February 5, 1826. The preamble is reproduced in the minutes for February 1, 1826. In the valuation list prepared at the direction of the select committee on February 8, 1826, Warren and his family were assigned $169 per annum. Warren might have arrived in the spring of 1825. MacDonald reported that several families arrived at New Harmony from Cincinnati between April 13 and April 24, but did not mention Warren specifically. MacDonald Diaries, 292.
• 23.  “When I reached New Harmony, early in 1826, . . . I looked at everything with eyes of enthusiasm. . . . The evening gatherings too, delighted me . . . the weekly concert, with an excellent leader, Josiah Warren, and a performance of music . . . much beyond what I had expected in the backwoods . . .” Robert Dale Owen, “My Experiences of Community Life,” in Atlantic Monthly, XXXII (September, 1873), 338.
• 24.  The first entry of the Warren family in the account book of the community store is dated March 8, 1826. The family pass books have never been located, and constitute another Warren document of considerable interest for which search continues. For a description of the account books see William Pelham to William Creese Pelham, September 7, 1825, in Harlow Lindley, ed., Indiana as Seen by Early Travellers (Indiana Historical Collections, vol. Ill) (Indianapolis, 1916), 371.
• 25.  Warren MSS. notebook, Labadie Collection, University of Michigan, undated, unpaginated. This is another obscure Warren source, unrelated to the series of notebooks which are apparently in the nature of a diary, containing entries through June, 1873, and of which only one has so far been located. See note 13. For mention of the above document elsewhere, consult R. C. Stewart, “The Labadie Labor Collection,” in Michigan Alumnus Quarterly Review, LIII (May 10, 1947), 250.
• 26.  Periodical Letter, II (July, 1856), 55; Warren, Practical Details in Equitable Commerce, showing the workings in actual experiment, during a series of years, of the social principles expounded in the works called “Equitable Commerce” by the author of this and “The Science of Society,” by Stephen P. Andrews, 71, cited hereafter as Practical Details. A second edition from the same plates was published in 1854. Although this book was not published until 1852, some of the material existed in manuscript for twenty-five years before revision and release under the above title. For the most part, this latter work is the principal source of information concerning the decision to leave New Harmony and the events of the three years following. Any account of Warren’s early experiments in social reform is bound to rely upon it heavily.
• 27.  Warren’s views have been summarized adequately in Ely, Labor Movement, 238. A fuller treatment by Warren is contained in Periodical Letter, 2nd. series, I (December, 1856), 34.
• 28.  Periodical Letter, II (July, 1856), 55-56. Dr. Lyman O. Warren has raised some interesting points in speculating upon the intellectual origins of Josiah Warren’s unorthodox thinking. He has called attention to the observation of the famous philosopher George Santayana in his Persons and Places that the Brighton Warrens, of whom Josiah was a member, were “a dissentient family.” Santayana was a boyhood friend of the uncles of Dr. Warren. The record for independent intransigence appears to go back at least as far as his first American ancestors. John Warren of the Arbella is noted in Bond’s History of Watertown as having been arrested on one occasion for nonattendance at church and for harboring Quakers on another. Further investigation into the family prior to migration to America, itself an act of extraordinary self-assertion and independence, might establish a much longer record of nonconformism. A future biographer of Josiah Warren might well consider the pertinence of this durable tradition.
• 29.  Six years after leaving New Harmony, Warren wrote, “It is the influence of surrounding circumstances which . . . divided society into rich and poor, which enables some to command and others unable to do otherwise than obey. It is the influence of circumstances which produces different classes in society, and that influence only, which divides men into different political parties and ranges them under different banners of religion. . . . It will be seen that this knowledge warrants us in making a critical examination into our own condition, and all the circumstances which have surrounded us from birth, to see whether they have been . . . such as are most favorable to our happiness, and it teaches us not to reverence or perpetuate bad circumstances simply because we are born under them. . . . This knowledge therefore lays a broad, rational and consistent foundation for unlimited improvement; . . .” The Peaceful Revolutionist, I (February 5, 1833), 5. This short-lived Warren periodical continues to be considered the first anarchist publication in existence.
• 30.  Warren MSS., Labadie Collection, undated entry in notebook. It is thought from the arrangement of the material that this notebook was intended as reference at impromptu meetings in private homes, where Warren was a more convincing speaker than he was on the public lecture platform.
• 31.  The idea of paper money representing a certain amount of labor rather than a certain precious commodity was held in common and developed separately by several radical economic thinkers in the first half of the nineteenth century as well. Besides Owen in England, similar conceptions on a different scale can be found in the writings of John Gray, A Lecture on Human Happiness (London, 1825); William Thompson, An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness (London, 1824; another edition, 1850); John Francis Bray, Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedy; or, the Age of Might and the Age of Right (Leeds, 1839). Johann Karl Rodbertus in Germany and Pierre Joseph Proudhon in France evolved similar monetary substitutions. Short summaries of their theories can be found in Edward C. K. Gonner, The Social Philosophy of Rodbertus (London, 1899); Dennis W. Brogan, Proudhon (London, 1934); Henry Cohen, Proudhon’s Solution of the Social Problem (New York, 1927). The simplicity of application of this idea by Warren is unique during a time confined almost entirely to theorizing about this matter.
• 32.  These were later published as a bound collection under this title. (Manchester, Eng. 1837). A contemporary edition appeared in London in 1813 under the title A New View of Society; or, Essays on the Principle of the Formation of the Human Character, with separate pagination.
• 33.  Consult Edger A. J. Johnson, Predecessors of Adam Smith (New York, 1937), Chapters XII-XIII, for a development of the background of the labor cost theory. Whether Warren was acquainted with the writings of Adam Smith is not known but unlikely. However Proudhon, developing a similar line of thought to Warren in a French environment, mentioned Smith, along with the Bible and Hegel as his three principal sources of inspiration. Zenker, Anarchism, 35.
• 34.  The following extract from the diary of William Owen, referring to his father’s visit in Kentucky on the way to New Harmony in the late fall of 1824, is of great interest in the effort to assign proper credit for the labor note idea: “We walked through the town-Mayesville [sic] and found a good front and a tolerable second street. Hunter and my father bought mits and Mr. Owen had a bantering conve[r]sation with the storekeeper regarding money and labor notes. He told us that a gallon of whisky, which will make twelve individuals quite drunk, can be bought for 12½ cents.” Hiatt, ed., “Diary of William Owen,” 61. Italics are the present writer’s.
• 35.  John R. Commons and Associates, A Documentary History of Industrial Society, V, 79.
• 36.  Practical Details, 75.
• 37.  It should be remembered that Warren’s continual use of the term “equitable commerce” occurred with the understanding that the word “commerce” was being used in its overall sense as the sum total of human activities and not merely economic considerations alone. There is no doubt that Warren believed that major reforms in the economic sphere were the most important, nevertheless.
• 38.  The first systematic and extended arrangement of Warren’s convictions was his Equitable Commerce: a new developement [sic] of principles for the harmonious adjustment and regulation of the pecuniary, intellectual and moral intercourse of mankind, proposed as elements of New Society (New Harmony, Ind., 1846), hereafter cited as Equitable Commerce.
• 39 An example of the problem involved in the matter of accurately using such specialized words can be found in the interesting study by Arthur E. Bestor, Jr., “The Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary,” in Journal of the History of Ideas, IX (June, 1948), 259-302.
• 40 Ernest A. Vizetelly, The Anarchists (London, 1911), and Peter Latouche, Anarchy! An Authentic Exposition of the Methods of Anarchists and the Aims of Anarchism (London, 1908), are prime examples of popular writing concerned with anarchism primarily as a program of calculated terrorism aimed in particular to those in high places. Latouche, in his zeal to lay all prominent international political assassinations at the door of the anarchists, even included those of Presidents Lincoln and Garfield. Anarchy!, 238. For vindication of the employment of violence by anarchists, see Peter A. Kropotkin, article “Anarchism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, XI ed., (29 vols. London, 1910), I, 916.
• 41 There is virtually no credible evidence for the assumption that violence is a basic element of the strategy of the anarchists. In distinguishing between the doctrine and the coercive action sometimes associated with it, the non-anarchist German observer and critic Ernst Victor Zenker remarked, “That the theory of Anarchism is not merely a systematic incitement to robbery and murder, we need hardly to repeat. . . . Proudhon and Stirner . . . never once preached force. . . . The doctrine of propaganda which since Proudhon’s time has always accompanied a certain form of anarchist theory, is a foreign element, having no necessary or internal connection with the fundamental ideas of anarchism. It is simply a piece of tactics borrowed from the circumstances peculiar to Russia, and accepted moreover only by one fraction of the Anarchists, and approved by very few indeed in its most crude form; it is merely the old tactics of all revolutionary parties in every age.” Anarchism, a Criticism and History of Anarchist Theory (English translation, New York, 1897), 306.
• 42 Zenker, Anarchism, 6. An early and exhaustive inquiry into the matter is Césare Lombroso, Gli Anarchici (Turin, 1894). A German edition was published in Hamburg the next year under the title Die Anarchisten. Eine Kriminal Psychologische und Sociologische Studie. Lombroso’s methods and techniques as well as most of his conclusions have been discarded for some time.
• 43 Henry David, The History of the Haymarket Affair, continues to be the most thorough account of this unfortunate occurrence. In American history the identification of anarchism with terroristic activities dates from this time, an impression which neither time nor attempts at rectification of the injustice inflicted at the time have succeeded in erasing.
• 44 An accompanying attitude has been the double standard which has tacitly been adhered to with respect to the employment of extra-legal violence. No public condemnation accompanied the use of coercion on the part of industrialists and local groups of citizènry, acting in a vigilante capacity, in disputes with strikers and radicals, until very recently. For an account of this matter see Robert Hunter, Violence and the Labor Movement (New York, 1914), 276-326.
• 45 See especially David W. Petegorsky, Left Wing Democracy in the English Civil War; A Study of the Social Philosophy of Gerrard Winstanley (London, 1947), Chapters I-V, and Mildred A. Gibb, John Lilburne, The Leveller (London, 1947), introduction. See also Mosca, Ruling Classes, 271-272, for the advancement of a cyclical theory dealing with the persistence of anarchist and allied sentiments in the ancient literature of China, India, Persia, Israel, Greece and Rome, and continuing down through the Christian Fathers and the Muslims. The influence of Merriam’s view on subsequent writers dealing with anarchism in the United States is readily observable, however.
• 46 The 1880’s saw the presence in the United States of anarchists in numbers almost equal to those of socialists. Morris Hillquit, Loose Leaves from a Busy Life (New York, 1934), 4.
• 47 For a presentation of this matter as it came to a head at the time of the badly-ignored Anarchist convention in Pittsburgh in 1883, see Chester McA. Destler, “Shall Red and Black Unite? An American Revolutionary Document of 1883,” in Pacific Historical Review, XIV (December, 1945), 434-451.
• 48  For brief expert summaries of both “schools” from the individualist point of view see Victor Yarros, article “Individualist or Philosophical Anarchism,” 41-45, and Clarence Lee Swartz, article “Anarchist Communism,” 45-50, in William D. P. Bliss and Rudolph M. Binder, (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Social Reform (New York, 1908). For an admirable and sympathetic treatment of the European anarchist philosophy and its exponents by a conservative, consult Alvan F. Sanborn, Paris and the Social Revolution (Boston, 1905), Chapters I-VII.
• 49  For other aspects of this conflict consult Ernest Armand, Formas de Vida en común sin Estado no Autoridad (Carlos Espinosa, trans.) (Madrid, 1934); Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture (Los Angeles, 1937); same author, La Juventud de un Rebeide (Buenos Aires, 1947); Helmut Rüdiger, Federalismen (Stockholm, 1947).
• 50  “In a world where inequality of ability is inevitable, anarchists do not sanction any attempt to produce equality by artificial or authoritarian means. The only equality they posit and will strive their utmost to defend is the equality of opportunity. This necessitates the maximum amount of freedom for each individual. This will not necessarily result in equality of incomes or of wealth but will result in returns proportionate to service rendered. To base society on the supposition that the laborer of great capacity will content himself, in favor of the weak, with half his wages, furnish his services gratuitously, and produce for that abstraction called “society,” in the words of Proudhon, ‘is to base society on a sentiment, . . . which, erected systematically into a principle, is only a false virtue, a dangerous hypocrisy.’ A hypocrisy, unfortunately, eagerly subscribed to by a weak, downtrodden, and misguided portion of the populace.” Quoted from Laurance Labadie, Anarchism Applied to Economics (a leaflet). Emphasized portions are his.
• 51  For example, the presence at the Warrenite colony of “Modern Times” of such a wide variety of the most extreme types of unconventional behavior has resulted in the estimation of this experiment in anarchist voluntarism as a gathering of spiritualists, Fourierites, free lovers, Comtean Positivists, and even Swedenborgians. Scarcity of contemporary accounts is in a large way responsible for the confusion of interpretations.
• 52The details concerning Warren’s birthplace and parentage are still obscure. Beyond the knowledge of his birth in 1798, practically nothing of an authoritative nature exists. One thing is quite definite, nevertheless; sharing an illustrious colonial name did not mean a similar sharing of the general good fortune of the Warren clan. The year 1819 found him making the familiar trek westward and southward down the Ohio which a vast number of Americans continued to make until the midway point in the century was reached, with the principal aim in view of bettering their economic conditions. Warren and an elder brother, George, had shown considerable promise as musicians while still very young, and had become members of the “Old Boston Brigade Band” while still boys of school age. When he and his recently-acquired wife settled in Cincinnati, Josiah continued to earn his livelihood as a musician and teacher of music, an activity he never completely deserted.
• 53The change of locale seems to have sharpened a native inventive genius. Here he began a restless career of invention and innovation in the fields of illumination, printing-press manufacture, stereotyping and musical notation worthy of closer examination in connection with contributions of the Ohio valley to the growing industrial consciousness of the nation. His first contribution was a lamp of revolutionary construction, devised to burn lard instead of the much costlier tallow. It had unusual success, and led to the construction and operation of a factory devoted to its production which prospered, lard oil not yet being known.
• 54It is highly probable that with this background and bent, Josiah Warren might have become one of the early men of wealth in the growing Midwest, had not the personality of Robert Owen intruded and so impressed him with the exciting and disturbing spirit of social reform. Owen’s attempt to remake the pattern of mankind’s affairs is doubtless an occurrence without comparison in the social history of the new West. One of the few early industrial millionaires, the Welsh textile magnate and philanthropist conceived of a new world on a scale which was lavish far beyond the imagination of his time.
• 55Owen was an environmental determinist. Beginning with the assumption that human nature was a constant, he related all behavior patterns to subsequent reactions to environmental forces. The core of his doctrine was that man’s character was a product of exterior stress which he as an individual had no appreciable part in forming. Thus the social system was responsible for its wayward folk, and desirable modes of conduct could be brought about by proper education and supervision. Owen decried the idea of personal responsibility, believing the tenet absurd and productive only of harm; praise and blame on a personal level formed no part of his working social vocabulary.
• 56Having already partially developed his environmental thesis in his model factory town of New Lanark, Scotland, which enjoyed unsurpassed living and working conditions, Owen was determined to put it into operation on an even more striking level, with a new continent as a backdrop. He purchased the colony of Harmony, Indiana from its founders and occupants, a divergent German Lutheran sect known as Rappites. A communal venture with a deeply religious flavor, this group had developed an extensive and strikingly productive estate out of raw wilderness on the Indiana bank of the Wabash River some fifty miles upstream from its juncture with the Ohio. Desiring once more to return to their earlier home in western Pennsylvania, they sold the tract of 30,000 acres of land and the sturdy buildings thereon to Owen for the sum of $150,000. He then renamed it New Harmony and brought in settlers sympathetic to his philosophy and anxious to experience practical success. It was the largest and most promising experiment in environmentalism in the nineteenth century.
• 57Having already partially developed his environmental thesis in his model factory town of New Lanark, Scotland, which enjoyed unsurpassed living and working conditions, Owen was determined to put it into operation on an even more striking level, with a new continent as a backdrop. He purchased the colony of Harmony, Indiana from its founders and occupants, a divergent German Lutheran sect known as Rappites. A communal venture with a deeply religious flavor, this group had developed an extensive and strikingly productive estate out of raw wilderness on the Indiana bank of the Wabash River some fifty miles upstream from its juncture with the Ohio. Desiring once more to return to their earlier home in western Pennsylvania, they sold the tract of 30,000 acres of land and the sturdy buildings thereon to Owen for the sum of $150,000. He then renamed it New Harmony and brought in settlers sympathetic to his philosophy and anxious to experience practical success. It was the largest and most promising experiment in environmentalism in the nineteenth century.
• 58Having already partially developed his environmental thesis in his model factory town of New Lanark, Scotland, which enjoyed unsurpassed living and working conditions, Owen was determined to put it into operation on an even more striking level, with a new continent as a backdrop. He purchased the colony of Harmony, Indiana from its founders and occupants, a divergent German Lutheran sect known as Rappites. A communal venture with a deeply religious flavor, this group had developed an extensive and strikingly productive estate out of raw wilderness on the Indiana bank of the Wabash River some fifty miles upstream from its juncture with the Ohio. Desiring once more to return to their earlier home in western Pennsylvania, they sold the tract of 30,000 acres of land and the sturdy buildings thereon to Owen for the sum of $150,000. He then renamed it New Harmony and brought in settlers sympathetic to his philosophy and anxious to experience practical success. It was the largest and most promising experiment in environmentalism in the nineteenth century.
• 59Warren was to know the exhilaration and dejection of the founding and decline of the Owenite interlude at New Harmony before striking out on his own as a social radical. Although unable to hear Owen speak until 1825, he was a member of the first group gathering for the purpose of forming a community of property at the appointed place. By the fall of this same year he was taking active party in the Preliminary Society, and was a participant in the drafting and approving of the first constitution of the New Harmony Community of Equality in February, 1826. His musical training was soon employed; as leader of the community’s band, he was long remembered by the first settlers. By the late winter Warren, his wife and baby daughter were an established family unit of the settlement, and were to remain there for over a year.
• 60Warren was to know the exhilaration and dejection of the founding and decline of the Owenite interlude at New Harmony before striking out on his own as a social radical. Although unable to hear Owen speak until 1825, he was a member of the first group gathering for the purpose of forming a community of property at the appointed place. By the fall of this same year he was taking active party in the Preliminary Society, and was a participant in the drafting and approving of the first constitution of the New Harmony Community of Equality in February, 1826. His musical training was soon employed; as leader of the community’s band, he was long remembered by the first settlers. By the late winter Warren, his wife and baby daughter were an established family unit of the settlement, and were to remain there for over a year.
• 61Warren was to know the exhilaration and dejection of the founding and decline of the Owenite interlude at New Harmony before striking out on his own as a social radical. Although unable to hear Owen speak until 1825, he was a member of the first group gathering for the purpose of forming a community of property at the appointed place. By the fall of this same year he was taking active party in the Preliminary Society, and was a participant in the drafting and approving of the first constitution of the New Harmony Community of Equality in February, 1826. His musical training was soon employed; as leader of the community’s band, he was long remembered by the first settlers. By the late winter Warren, his wife and baby daughter were an established family unit of the settlement, and were to remain there for over a year.
• 62Warren was to know the exhilaration and dejection of the founding and decline of the Owenite interlude at New Harmony before striking out on his own as a social radical. Although unable to hear Owen speak until 1825, he was a member of the first group gathering for the purpose of forming a community of property at the appointed place. By the fall of this same year he was taking active party in the Preliminary Society, and was a participant in the drafting and approving of the first constitution of the New Harmony Community of Equality in February, 1826. His musical training was soon employed; as leader of the community’s band, he was long remembered by the first settlers. By the late winter Warren, his wife and baby daughter were an established family unit of the settlement, and were to remain there for over a year.
• 63Warren made a quick and incisive deduction as to the cause of the debacle which placed him at once in a camp far removed from that in which the faithful Owenites would henceforth gather. He felt that the common property scheme of the New Harmony colony had been instituted by Owen as a means and not as an end; that what had been desired was a social situation in which the interests of the different individuals would coöperate instead of clash one with the other. Even though thirty years of retrospection upon the experience continued to bring back pleasant memories of what had transpired there, the management of financial and property affairs convinced him of the failure of their mission; “but for property considerations the experiments never would have commenced,” was his pithy summation of the situation. Why did an amicable settlement of material affairs fail to become a reality? Warren blamed it upon the submergence of the individual within the confines of the community. The consequences of such a procedure, said Warren, were inevitable. Not only was individual initiative stifled by failure to provide a place within the structure for personal rights and interests beyond the sphere of religious matters, but the elimination of individual property rights resulted in almost total dissipation of responsibility for the occurrence of individual incapacity, failure, and short-comings of other kinds. This was not all. He had noted that the expressions of natural differences of opinion were increasingly looked upon as unfortunate developments and obstacles to success, which had damaging effect on the continuance of courtesy and tolerance. Thus, despite frequent reorganizations, failures became more abrupt and chaos drew nearer. Warren summed up the whole matter in one vigorous outburst:
• 64Warren made a quick and incisive deduction as to the cause of the debacle which placed him at once in a camp far removed from that in which the faithful Owenites would henceforth gather. He felt that the common property scheme of the New Harmony colony had been instituted by Owen as a means and not as an end; that what had been desired was a social situation in which the interests of the different individuals would coöperate instead of clash one with the other. Even though thirty years of retrospection upon the experience continued to bring back pleasant memories of what had transpired there, the management of financial and property affairs convinced him of the failure of their mission; “but for property considerations the experiments never would have commenced,” was his pithy summation of the situation. Why did an amicable settlement of material affairs fail to become a reality? Warren blamed it upon the submergence of the individual within the confines of the community. The consequences of such a procedure, said Warren, were inevitable. Not only was individual initiative stifled by failure to provide a place within the structure for personal rights and interests beyond the sphere of religious matters, but the elimination of individual property rights resulted in almost total dissipation of responsibility for the occurrence of individual incapacity, failure, and short-comings of other kinds. This was not all. He had noted that the expressions of natural differences of opinion were increasingly looked upon as unfortunate developments and obstacles to success, which had damaging effect on the continuance of courtesy and tolerance. Thus, despite frequent reorganizations, failures became more abrupt and chaos drew nearer. Warren summed up the whole matter in one vigorous outburst:
• 65Warren made a quick and incisive deduction as to the cause of the debacle which placed him at once in a camp far removed from that in which the faithful Owenites would henceforth gather. He felt that the common property scheme of the New Harmony colony had been instituted by Owen as a means and not as an end; that what had been desired was a social situation in which the interests of the different individuals would coöperate instead of clash one with the other. Even though thirty years of retrospection upon the experience continued to bring back pleasant memories of what had transpired there, the management of financial and property affairs convinced him of the failure of their mission; “but for property considerations the experiments never would have commenced,” was his pithy summation of the situation. Why did an amicable settlement of material affairs fail to become a reality? Warren blamed it upon the submergence of the individual within the confines of the community. The consequences of such a procedure, said Warren, were inevitable. Not only was individual initiative stifled by failure to provide a place within the structure for personal rights and interests beyond the sphere of religious matters, but the elimination of individual property rights resulted in almost total dissipation of responsibility for the occurrence of individual incapacity, failure, and short-comings of other kinds. This was not all. He had noted that the expressions of natural differences of opinion were increasingly looked upon as unfortunate developments and obstacles to success, which had damaging effect on the continuance of courtesy and tolerance. Thus, despite frequent reorganizations, failures became more abrupt and chaos drew nearer. Warren summed up the whole matter in one vigorous outburst:
• 66Warren made a quick and incisive deduction as to the cause of the debacle which placed him at once in a camp far removed from that in which the faithful Owenites would henceforth gather. He felt that the common property scheme of the New Harmony colony had been instituted by Owen as a means and not as an end; that what had been desired was a social situation in which the interests of the different individuals would coöperate instead of clash one with the other. Even though thirty years of retrospection upon the experience continued to bring back pleasant memories of what had transpired there, the management of financial and property affairs convinced him of the failure of their mission; “but for property considerations the experiments never would have commenced,” was his pithy summation of the situation. Why did an amicable settlement of material affairs fail to become a reality? Warren blamed it upon the submergence of the individual within the confines of the community. The consequences of such a procedure, said Warren, were inevitable. Not only was individual initiative stifled by failure to provide a place within the structure for personal rights and interests beyond the sphere of religious matters, but the elimination of individual property rights resulted in almost total dissipation of responsibility for the occurrence of individual incapacity, failure, and short-comings of other kinds. This was not all. He had noted that the expressions of natural differences of opinion were increasingly looked upon as unfortunate developments and obstacles to success, which had damaging effect on the continuance of courtesy and tolerance. Thus, despite frequent reorganizations, failures became more abrupt and chaos drew nearer. Warren summed up the whole matter in one vigorous outburst:
• 67Although Warren broke sharply with Owen’s collective plans for producing the good life, in other respects the cleavage was not so clearly marked. Indeed, his championing of individual sovereignty was to posit a dilemma which was never satisfactorily reconciled. His writings continued to put forth the doctrine of environmentalism, but liberally interleaved with a persistent promotion of belief in free will and individual responsibility which Owen would have categorically dismissed as prime heresy. Conventional society lost Warren forever, despite all this. For almost half a century he followed a course of ceaseless activity, attempting several experiments embracing his own conception of societary reorganization. He never repudiated Owen in an overt way, his attitude toward the founder of New Harmony remaining one of deep respect to his last days. Many years after the break took place Warren declared:
• 68Although Warren broke sharply with Owen’s collective plans for producing the good life, in other respects the cleavage was not so clearly marked. Indeed, his championing of individual sovereignty was to posit a dilemma which was never satisfactorily reconciled. His writings continued to put forth the doctrine of environmentalism, but liberally interleaved with a persistent promotion of belief in free will and individual responsibility which Owen would have categorically dismissed as prime heresy. Conventional society lost Warren forever, despite all this. For almost half a century he followed a course of ceaseless activity, attempting several experiments embracing his own conception of societary reorganization. He never repudiated Owen in an overt way, his attitude toward the founder of New Harmony remaining one of deep respect to his last days. Many years after the break took place Warren declared:
• 69One element of Owen’s thought found ready acceptance, in contrast to the lukewarm attitude toward social experimentation. In the hands of Warren and a large number of Warren’s followers throughout the remander of the century, the basic economic doctrine of coöperation met no opposition whatever, despite the serious trouble encountered in putting it into action. This was the proposal to exchange all labor employed in the production of goods and services equally, hour for hour, substituting for the state or privately controlled currency based on metallic commodities a circulating medium consisting of “labor notes.” These were simply bills issued in the form of currency, limited in issue and signed by the issuer, promising to furnish labor at specified occupations or activities for specific periods, in exchange for services desired of and rendered by another. These were to be issued on the basis of hours of labor or fractions of hours, depending upon the amount of another’s labor consumed.
• 70Owen had been mulling over the labor theory of value before coming to America. His four Essays on the Formation of Human Character, published in New Lanark in 1812-1813, contained indications of his whole-hearted conversion to this doctrine. The contention that the true price of a thing is the amount of labor expended in its production had been espoused by political economists generations before Adam Smith, although Smith had stated it in classic form in 1776. Owen’s labor note idea was a ground-breaker in the direction of practical realization of this idea, and this he also had fully developed in his own mind before reaching New Harmony.
• 71Owen had been mulling over the labor theory of value before coming to America. His four Essays on the Formation of Human Character, published in New Lanark in 1812-1813, contained indications of his whole-hearted conversion to this doctrine. The contention that the true price of a thing is the amount of labor expended in its production had been espoused by political economists generations before Adam Smith, although Smith had stated it in classic form in 1776. Owen’s labor note idea was a ground-breaker in the direction of practical realization of this idea, and this he also had fully developed in his own mind before reaching New Harmony.
• 72Owen had been mulling over the labor theory of value before coming to America. His four Essays on the Formation of Human Character, published in New Lanark in 1812-1813, contained indications of his whole-hearted conversion to this doctrine. The contention that the true price of a thing is the amount of labor expended in its production had been espoused by political economists generations before Adam Smith, although Smith had stated it in classic form in 1776. Owen’s labor note idea was a ground-breaker in the direction of practical realization of this idea, and this he also had fully developed in his own mind before reaching New Harmony.
• 73Warren became a permanent convert to this new system, propagandizing for its adoption both verbally and through practical attempts for almost forty-five years. Its operation was never realized at New Harmony, so Josiah Warren became the first person to employ the device in everyday economic intercourse. His Cincinnati Time Store of 1827-1830 became the first scientific experiment in coöperative economy in modern history, despite its limited objectives as such, as well as its obscurity resulting from the modest unsophisticated structure employed and the stark utilitarianism which prevailed during its existence.
• 74While Warren was forming his own philosophy, rejecting part of Owen’s convictions and accepting another part, his New Harmony experiences as a member of the original Community of Equality were producing other repercussions. His observation of human differences, among other things, shattered his faith in the ideal of economic equality. Basing his conclusions on the assumption that different persons put differing amounts of energy and time toward the accomplishment of various ends, and satisfied with the motivational drives which “enlightened self-interest” might supply, he proposed the substitution of the ideal of equal opportunities to the access to land, raw materials and credit. Equal opportunities being provided, individual differences and completely free competition would gradually work toward the establishment of an equitable society, in which returns would be measured by the amount of work performed, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To Warren the striving for equity was the highest possible goal of human effort.
• 75While Warren was forming his own philosophy, rejecting part of Owen’s convictions and accepting another part, his New Harmony experiences as a member of the original Community of Equality were producing other repercussions. His observation of human differences, among other things, shattered his faith in the ideal of economic equality. Basing his conclusions on the assumption that different persons put differing amounts of energy and time toward the accomplishment of various ends, and satisfied with the motivational drives which “enlightened self-interest” might supply, he proposed the substitution of the ideal of equal opportunities to the access to land, raw materials and credit. Equal opportunities being provided, individual differences and completely free competition would gradually work toward the establishment of an equitable society, in which returns would be measured by the amount of work performed, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To Warren the striving for equity was the highest possible goal of human effort.
• 76Warren’s complete program was a cumulative affair which did not receive definitive statement for almost twenty years. A part of this period of growth was his growing disregard for constituted authority, partially a product of attachment to a number of attitudes which convinced him that institutional government was a superfluous part of human society. His primary source of dissatisfaction with what he called the “communistic experiments” in New Harmony was the combination of interests. This combination required, as he saw it, a government based on authority and demanding obedience which resulted in the death of individual liberty. The alternative which he proposed and crusaded for was a system based on voluntary coöperation, but at no place rising above any individual within its structure; “the sovereignty of the individual” had to be preserved at all costs. This matter he considered more important than any artificial arrangement of individuals which demanded the fidelity of all. There was no compensation which could equate the sacrifice of this principle of individuality. There is a frontier flavor to his own blunt declaration of individualist war upon the hobbling tendencies of institutionalism which still commands at-tention: