tion of freedom, both subjectively and objectively, equally in
political and in economic life. In this, Anarchism is distinct from
Liberalism, which, even in its most radical representatives, only
allows unlimited freedom in economic affairs, but has never questioned
the necessity of some compulsory organisation in the social
relationships of individuals; whereas Anarchism would extend the
Liberal doctrine of _laisser faire_ to all human actions, and would
recognise nothing but a free convention or agreement as the only
permissible form of human society. But the formula stated above
distinguishes Anarchism much more strongly (because the distinction is
fundamental) from its antithesis, Socialism, which out of the
celebrated trinity of the French Revolution has placed another figure,
that of Equality, upon a pedestal as its only deity. Anarchism and
Socialism, in spite of the fact that they are so often confused, both
intentionally and unintentionally, have only one thing in common,
namely, that both are forms of idolatry, though they have different
idols, both are religions and not sciences, dogmas and not
speculations. Both of them are a kind of honestly meant social
mysticism, which, anticipating the partly possible and perhaps even
probable results of yet unborn centuries, urge upon mankind the
establishment of a terrestrial Eden, of a land of the absolute Ideal,
whether it be Freedom or Equality. It is only natural, in view of the
difficulty of creating new thoughts, that our modern seekers after the
millennium should look for their Eden by going backwards, and should
shape it on the lines of stages of social progress that have long
since been passed by; and in this is seen the irremediable internal
contradiction of both movements: they intend an advance, but only
cause retrogression.

* * * * *

Are we, then, to take Anarchism seriously, or shall we pass it by
merely with a smile of superiority and a deprecating wave of our hand?
Shall we declare war to the knife against Anarchists, or have they a
claim to have their opinions discussed and respected as much as those
of the Liberals or Social Democrats, or as those of religious or
ecclesiastical bodies? These questions we can only answer at the
conclusion of this book; but at this point I should like to do away
with one conception of Anarchism which is frequently urged against it.

Those who wish nowadays to seem particularly enligh