one which went
straight to the heart of the masses, and if they acclaimed the Republic
and universal suffrage, it was because they hoped to attain to Communism
through them. In 1871, also, when the people besieged in Paris desired
to make a supreme effort to resist the invader, what was their
demand?--That free rations should be served out to everyone. Let all
articles be put into one common stock and let them be distributed
according to the requirements of each. Let each one take freely of all
that is abundant and let those objects which are less plentiful be
distributed more sparingly and in due proportions--this is the solution
which the mass of the workers understand best. This is also the system
which is commonly practised in the rural districts (of France). So long
as the common lands afford abundant pasture, what Commune seeks to
restrict their use? When brush-wood and chestnuts are plentiful, what
Commune forbids its members to take as much as they want? And when the
larger wood begins to grow scarce, what course does the peasant
adopt?--The allowancing of individuals.

Let us take from the common stock the articles which are abundant, and
let those objects whose production is more restricted be served out in
allowances according to requirements, giving preference to children and
old persons, that is to say, to the weak. And, moreover, let all be
consumed, not in public, but at home, according to individual tastes and
in company with one's family and friends. This is the ideal of the
masses.

But it is not enough to argue about, "Communism" and "Expropriation;" it
is furthermore necessary to know who should have the management of the
common patrimony, and it is especially on this question that different
schools of Socialists are opposed to one another, some desiring
authoritarian Communism, and others, like ourselves, declaring
unreservedly in favour of anarchist Communism. In order to judge between
these two, let us return once again to our starting point, the
Revolution of last century.

In overturning royalty the Revolution proclaimed the sovereignty of the
people; but, by an inconsistency which was very natural at that time, it
proclaimed, not a permanent sovereignty, but an intermittent one, to be
exercised at certain intervals only, for the nomination of deputies
supposed to represent the people. In reality it copied its institutions
from the representative government of England. The Revolution was
dr