udhon, Grave, and Saurin in France, Schmidt ("Stirner"),
Faucher, Hess, and Marr in Germany, Bakunin and Krapotkin in
Russia, Reclus in Belgium, with Most and Tucker in America, sum up
the principal lights,--with the exception of the geographer
Reclus, not a sound and sane man among them; in fact, scarcely any
two agree upon a single proposition save the broad generalization
that government is an evil which must be eliminated. Until they do
agree upon some one measure or proposition of practical
importance, the world has little to fear from their discussions
and there is no reason why any attempt should be made to suppress
the debate. If government is an evil, as so many men who are not
anarchists keep repeating, then the sooner we know it and find the
remedy the better; but if government is simply one of many human
institutions developed logically and inevitably to meet conditions
created by individual shortcomings, then government will tend to
diminish as we correct our own failings, but that it will entirely
disappear is hardly likely, since it is inconceivable that men on
this earth should ever attain such a condition of perfection that
possibility of disagreement is absolutely and forever removed.

Anarchism as a doctrine, as a theory, involves no act of violence
any more than communism or socialism.

Between the assassination of a ruler and the doctrine of anarchy
there is no necessary connection. The philosophic anarchist simply
believes anarchy is to be the final result of progress and
evolution, just as the communist believes that communism will be
the outcome; neither theorist would see the slightest advantage in
trying to hasten the slow but sure progress of events by deeds of
violence; in fact, both theorists would regret such deeds as
certain to prove reactionary and retard the march of events.

The world has nothing to fear from anarchism as a theory, and up
to thirty or forty years ago it was nothing but a theory.

The "propaganda of action" came out of Russia about forty years
ago, and is the offspring of Russian nihilism.

The "propaganda of action" is the protest of impatience against
evolution; it is the effort to hasten progress by deeds of
violence.

From the few who, like Bakunin, Brousse, and Krapotkin, have
written about the "propaganda of action" with sufficient coherence
to make themselves understood, it appears that it is not their
hope to destroy government by removing all executive h