a
freedom that is worth something." Such expressions may certainly show
Ibsen's Anarchist tendencies, but they by no means elevate him to the
position of a teacher; for that position one might sooner quote one of
his own most powerful characters, Brand, that modern Faust after the
style of Stirner. But Brand is a gloomy figure, who would not make
many converts to individualism.

[5] Even in a philosophic sense, Nietzsche's Anarchism is a
mere fable. Schellwien truly remarks: "Max Stirner replaces
freedom by individuality, by the evolution of the individual
as such, but he cannot shew that anything else would happen
but the oppression of the weaker individuality by the
stronger; a state of things in which not individuality but
brute force would reign. Friedrich Nietzsche draws this
conclusion, and would have this oppression of the weak by the
strong; he would have the aristocratic will of the stronger,
who in his eyes are alone the good. He raises the 'will for
power' to a world-principle." Elsewhere Nietzsche positively
advocates, _e. g._, the reduction of some men to slavery for
the benefit of the aristocracy of the strong. This sort of
thing is hardly Anarchism.

* * * * *

We may here cursorily notice the position of Johann Most in the theory
of Anarchism, although this man, fateful and gloomy as has been his
role in the history of Anarchist action, can hardly be taken into
account as a theorist, and, moreover,--which is more important,--he is
not even a pure Anarchist. Johann Most forms the link between social
Democracy, to which he formerly attached himself, and Anarchism, to
which he now devotes his baleful talents. But, as a matter of fact,
Most goes no farther than ancient and modern followers of Baboeuf have
gone at all times; the "decision of society" is the authoritative
boundary which separates him from the communist Anarchists.

Land and all movable and immovable capital should, in his opinion, be
the property of the whole of society,--here we perceive a very
conservative notion as compared with Kropotkin,--but should be given
up for the use of the single groups of producers, which may be formed
by free agreement (_libre entente_) among themselves. The products of
industry should remain the property of those organisations whose work
and creation they are, thus becoming collective property. To determine
value and pri