hich he had published in 1848-9 before the _Voix du
Peuple_.

[21] "Confessions," pp. 7-8.

[22] For Proudhon the principle of association invoked by most schools
(he means the various Socialist schools), "a principle essentially
sterile, is neither an industrial force nor an economic law ... it
supposes government and obedience, two terms excluded by the
Revolution." (_Idee Generale de la Revolution au XIX Siecle_, 2 ed.,
Paris 1851, p. 173).

[23] "Idee Generale de la Revolution." Paris, 1851, pp. 124-127.

[24] "Idee Generale," pp. 298-299.

[25] "Idee Generale," p. 304.

[26] Ibid. p. 324.

[27] Ibid. p. 328.

[28] It was thus that Proudhon understood the determining of value by
labour. He could never understand a Ricardo.

[29] "Idee Generale," p. 268.

[30] See his book, "Du Principe Federatif."

[31] _Socialism: Utopian and Scientific._ By F. Engels. Translated by
Edward Aveling. Pp. 75-77.

CHAPTER V

BAKOUNINE

We have seen that in their criticism of the "political constitution,"
the "fathers" of anarchy always based themselves on the Utopian point of
view. Each one of them based his theories upon an abstract principle.
Stirner upon that of the "Ego," Proudhon upon that of the "Contract."
The reader has also seen that these two "fathers" were individualists of
the first water.

The influence of Proudhonian individualism was, for a time, very strong
in the Romance countries (France, Belgium, Italy, Spain) and in the
Slaav countries, especially Russia. The internal history of the
International Working Men's Association is the history of this struggle
between Proudhonism and the modern Socialism of Marx. Not only men like
Tolain, Chemale or Murat, but men very superior to them, such as De
Paepe, _e.g._, were nothing but more or less opinionated, more or less
consistent "Mutualists." But the more the working class movement
developed, the more evident it became that "Mutualism" could not be its
theoretical expression. At the International Congresses the Mutualists
were forced by the logic of facts to vote for the Communist
resolutions. This was the case, _e.g._, at Brussels in the discussion on
landed property.[32] Little by little the left wing of the Proudhonian
army left the domain of Individualism to intrench itself upon that of
"Collectivism."

The word "Collectivism" was used at this period in a sense altogether
opposed to that which it now has in the mouths of the French Marxist