Difference between revisions of "Anarchy 70/Anarchist anthologies"

Latest revision as of 11:44, 11 October 2021

ANARCHY 70 (Vol 6 No 12) DECEMBER 1966
Anarchist anthologies
by Nicolas Walter

374

Anarchist anthologies

After the histories of anarchism come the anthologies. We have already had Anarchism by George Woodcock, and The Anarchists by James Joll, which were reviewed in anarchy 28 and 46. Now we have The Anarchists (no connection) edited by Irving L. Horowitz, and Patterns of Anarchy edited by Leonard I. Krimerman and Lewis Perry, which are reviewed together now.

Both books are American paperbacks edited by American academics. Horowitz is Associate Professor of Sociology at Washington University, St. Louis, and The Anarchists is published by Dell as Laurel Book 0131 (1964, 95c.). Krimerman is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Louisiana State University, New Orleans, and Perry is Lecturer in History at New York State University, Buffalo, and Patterns of Anarchy is published by Doubleday as Anchor Book A501 (1966, $1.95).

Both books come from outside the anarchist movement. The Anarchists originated when C. Wright Mills, the left-wing American sociologist, planned “a reader on Anarchists, Criminals and Deviants” (shades of Lombroso!). He later “came to consider anarchism as one of the three major pivots of Marxism, the other two being Social Democracy

375

and Bolshevism”, and then planned a trilogy of anthologies of Marxist, Trotskyist, and anarchist writings. The only one he produced before he died in 1962 was The Marxists (1962, published as a Penguin Book in 1963). He hadn’t begun work on the anarchist volume, and it was taken over by his disciple Horowitz (who has edited a posthumous volume of his essays and a memorial volume of essays by his admirers). It is comforting to know that Horowitz has more sensible ideas about anarchism than Wright Mills: “My own view is that anarchism, far from being a ‘pivot’ of Marxism, as Mills believed, is an effort to fashion a radical alternative to the Marxist tradition in its orthodox forms.”

Patterns of Anarchy originated when Krimerman and Perry “began to discuss, in deep ignorance, the likelihood that the anarchist position had not been given its due.” Well, it is probably better to have no ideas than wrong ideas. “Agreed on the likely value of anarchism, we were almost stymied by the paucity of available materials. Slowly the idea of an anthology took hold, as we continued to uncover interesting but neglected anarchist writings. Our amazement at the wealth of anarchist literature has been growing ever since.”

The Anarchists has 640 pages. It begins with a Preface and an Introduction and ends with a Postscript by the editor. The rest of the book is divided into two parts containing 35 passages.

“The Theory” is divided into three sections. “Anarchism as a Critique of Society” contains extracts from Diderot’s Supplement to Bougainville’s “Voyage” (1772)^*; Malatesta’s pamphlet Anarchy (1891)*; Proudhon’s book What is Property? (1840); Godwin’s book Political Justice (1793); Bakunin’s essays “Science and the Urgent Revolutionary Task” (1870) and “The Programme of the International Revolutionary Alliance” (1871)*, both from G. P. Maximoff’s book The Political Philosophy of Bakunin (1953); Kropotkin’s book Modern Science and Anarchism (1903)*; Benjamin Tucker’s article “State Socialism and Anarchism” from his magazine Liberty (1886)* and his book Instead of a Book (1893); and Rudolf Rocker’s essay “Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism” from Feliks Gross’s book European Ideologies (1948).

“Anarchism as a Style of Life” contains extracts from Joseph Conrad’s novel The Secret Agent (1907); Dostoevski’s novel Notes from Underground (1864)*; Tolstoy’s book What Then Shall We Do? (1886)*; Albert Camus’s book The Rebel (1951)*; Emma Goldman’s essays “The Tragedy of Woman’s Emancipation” (1906)* and “Marriage and Love”,* both from her magazine Mother Earth and her book Anarchism and Other Essays (1910); and the letters of Sacco and Vanzetti (1927), from the edition by Frankfurter and Jackson.

“Anarchism as a System of Philosophy” contains extracts from Max Stirner’s book The Ego and His Own (1845)*; Thoreau’s essay “Resistance to Civil Government” (1848)*; Josiah Warren’s book True Civilisation (1869); William Hocking’s book Man and the State (1926); Herbert Read’s article “Anarchism in a Capitalist Society”, from the magazine Reconstruir (1962); and Paul Schilpp’s article “In Defence

376

of Socrates’ Judges”, from the magazine Enquiry (1944).

“The Practice” is divided into two sections. “The Historical Dimension” contains accounts of the anarchist movement in Spain up to 1902 (by Gerald Brenan), in Italy during the 1870s (by Richard Hostetter, in the United States during the 1880s (by Samuel Yellen), in France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United States during the 1890s (by Barbara Tuchman), in Russia up to 1883 (by Thomas Masaryk), in America outside the United States and in northern Europe outside Britain up to the 1930s (by George Woodcock), and in Spain during the 1930s (by Hugh Thomas), together with Alexander Berkman’s diary of the Kronstadt Rising (1921).

“The Sociological Dimension” contains extracts from Sorel’s book Reflections on Violence (1906)*; Paul Goodman’s book Drawing the Line (1946); Robert Presthus’s book The Organisational Society (1962); Philip Selznick’s article “Revolution Sacred and Profane”, from the magazine Enquiry (1944); and Karl Shapiro’s article “On the Revival of Anarchism”, from the magazine Liberation (1961).

Patterns of Anarchy has 570 pages. It begins with a Foreword and ends with an essay called “Anarchism: The Method of Individualisation” by the editors. The rest of the book is divided into seven sections containing 63 passages.

“Defining Anarchism” contains extracts from D. Novak’s article “The Place of Anarchism in the History of Political Thought”, from the magazine The Review of Politics (1958); John Mackay’s novel The Anarchists (1891); Senex’s article “Whither the Libertarian Movement?”, from the magazine Vanguard (1933); George Woodcock’s pamphlet Railways and Society (1943)*; James Estey’s book Revolutionary Syndicalism (1913); Ammon Hennacy’s Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist (1954); and Paul Goodman’s “Reply”, to Richard Lichtman on pornography and censorship from the magazine Commentary (1961).

“Criticising Socialism”—authoritarian socialism, that is—contains extracts from Benjamin Tucker’s article “State Socialism and Anarchism”, from his magazine Liberty (1886)* and his book Instead of a Book (1893); Tolstoy’s book The Slavery of Our Times (1900); Bakunin’s books Federalism, Socialism and Antitheologism (1867)* and The Knouto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution (1871)*, and some minor works of the same period from K. J. Kenafick’s book Marxism, Freedom and the State (1950); Emma Goldman’s book My Further Disillusionment in Russia (1924); the anarchy Editorial “Moving with the Times . . . but Not in Step” from anarchy 3 (May 1961); and Paul Goodman’s book People or Personnel (1965).

“Philosophical Foundations” contains extracts from Adin Ballou’s Non-Resistance in Relation to Human Government (1839)*; Nicolas Berdyaev’s book Slavery and Freedom (1944); Max Stirner’s The Ego and His Own (1845)*; William Godwin’s Political Justice (1793); Stephen Andrews’ book The Science of Society (1852); and Kropotkin’s pamphlets Anarchist Communism (1887)*, Anarchist Morality (1891)*, and Anarchy: Its Philosophy and Ideal (1896)*.

377

“Anarchism on the Attack” contains extracts from Lysander Spooner’s No Treason (1867); Benjamin Tucker’s article “The Relation of the State to the Individual”, from his magazine Liberty (1890)* and Instead of a Book; Max Stirner’s The Ego and His Own; John Beverley Robinson’s book The Economics of Liberty (1916); Frank Lanham’s article “Two Kinds of Unionism” from the magazine Why? (1947); Sam Weiner’s pamphlet Ethics and American Unionism (1958); Kropotkin’s pamphlet Law and Authority (1882); and Alex Comfort’s book Authority and Delinquency in the Modern State (1950).

“Constructive Anarchism” contains extracts from Josiah Warren’s book Equitable Commerce (1846); Charles Dana’s articles “Proudhon and His Bank of the People”, from the New York Tribune (1849)*; Alexander Berkman’s pamphlet What is Communist Anarchism? (1929)*; Senex’s article “Decentralisation and Socialism”, from the magazine Vanguard (1938); Rudolf Rocker’s book Anarcho-Syndicalism (1938); Ammon Hennacy’s Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist (1954); Dorothy Day’s book The Long Loneliness (1952); Paul Goodman’s People and Personnel (1965); and Colin Ward’s articles “Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation” and “Adventure Playground”, from anarchy 62 (April 1966) and anarchy 7 (September 1961).

“The Anarchists on Education” contains extracts from Herbert Read’s books Education through Art (1943) and Education for Peace (1949); Francisco Ferrer’s book The Origins and Ideals of the Modern School (1908)*; Bayard Boyesen’s pamphlet The Modern School (1911)*; William Godwin’s books The Enquirer (1797) and Political Justice (1793); Tony Gibson’s pamphlet Youth for Freedom (1951); Josiah Warren’s Equitable Commerce (1846); Paul Goodman’s book The Community of Scholars (1962); and Tolstoy’s essays “The School at Yasnaya Polyana” and “Are the Peasant Children to Learn to Write from Us?”*

“How Sound is Anarchism?”—consisting of passages attacking anarchism—contains extracts from Bertrand Russell’s book Roads to Freedom (1918)*; Georgi Plekhanov’s book Anarchism and Socialism (1894)*; Bernard Shaw’s pamphlet The Impossibilities of Anarchism (1893); Frédéric Bastiat’s Essays in Political Economy (1874); two letters from Hugo Bilgram to Benjamin Tucker’s magazine Liberty (1890)*, from Tucker’s Instead of a Book; James Estey’s Revolutionary Syndicalism (1913); Aylmer Maude’s Life of Tolstoy (1918 and 1928); Karl Marx’s attack on Max Stirner in The German Ideology (1846)*, as summarised in Sidney Hook’s book From Hegel to Marx (1962); and D. H. Monro’s book Godwin’s Moral Philosophy (1953).

General discussion of the books must unfortunately begin with general criticism. My first criticism is of their bibliographical and biographical apparatus. In both books—though The Anarchists is the worst offender—the notes about the sources of nearly half the passages are inadequate, and in too many cases they are inaccurate as well.

378

My next criticism is of the balance of the books. The Anarchists is the worst offender again, because Horowitz has made a highly personal choice of passages, which has led to many bad ones being included and many good ones being excluded. He tries to excuse “obvious omissions” on the grounds that the book “when initially delivered to the publisher was much longer,” and he adds that he has “tried to compensate for the gaps and defects by providing a Postscript of the questions most often asked of anarchists, the kinds of answers they in turn most frequently provide, and finally, my own beliefs on these matters of controversy.” It’s a good try, but it won’t do. If an editor has to cut an anthology to fit it into the available space, the first thing to go should surely be his own contribution. As it is, Horowitz’s Introduction and Postscript between them take up a tenth of the book, and, although they are interesting, more contributions by anarchists would have been more interesting.

Patterns of Anarchy has many more and much shorter passages, and manages to give a much wider view of anarchist thought, but there is still some distortion. Why is there nothing written before 1793, when the first passage in the book traces the anarchist tradition back to ancient Greece, and when even Horowitz goes back to 1772? Why is there nothing from outside Europe and North America? Why are there three passages about religious anarchism, and none about antireligious anarchism? Why are there eight passages about authoritarian socialism, and eleven about education?

To begin with The Anarchists. Horowitz’s Preface is promising. He says that he speaks “not as an anarchist but as a social scientist.” He considers that “the anarchist tradition is a particularly fruitful and frightfully neglected source in the common human effort to overcome manipulation,” and he adds that his “sympathies for the anarchists shall not be disguised.” He agrees that anarchism is not what it was once, but “the collapse of anarchism as a social movement does not signify its annihilation as an intellectual force.” Anarchism may have failed, but “the anarchist does not live in terms of criteria of success, and neither should his views be judged in such terms,” for “we inhabit a world of dismal success and heroic failure.” He comments that “this sort of orientation may not qualify me as a bona fide anarchist, but it is my belief that at least it does not disqualify me from writing on and introducing the reader to the wealth of anarchist literature.” No indeed.

After this, his Introduction is disappointing. It is full of the sort of abstract generalisation that disfigures much modern sociological writing—and disfigured James Joll’s book The Anarchists as well. Because of this, the good things he has to say are obscured.

The Introduction also contains a “typology of anarchist strategies and beliefs,” which is unfortunately never heard of again. Horowitz distinguishes eight varieties of anarchism; utilitarian (mentioning Helvétius, Diderot, Godwin, and Saint-Simon, peasant mentioning Münzer, Sismondi, Fourier, Proudhon, and Bakunin), syndicalist (mentioning Pelloutier), collectivist (mentioning Bakunin and Kropotkin),

379

conspiratorial (mentioning Most and Henry), communist (mentioning Malatesta, Stepniak, and Cafiero), individualist (mentioning Stirner, Warren, Spooner, and Tucker), and pacifist (mentioning Tolstoy and Gandhi). This is reasonable enough, though there are some oddities. Six of the people mentioned weren’t anarchists at all (Münzer, Helvétius, Diderot, Sismondi, Saint-Simon, and Gandhi); two of the varieties are surely wrongly named—Diderot and Godwin weren’t utilitarian, in the normal sense of the pragmatic tradition from Bentham and Mill to the Fabian Society and the Welfare State, but rationalist, interested not in the greatest happiness of the greatest number but in justice and truth; and Most and Henry weren’t just conspiratorial, like many other anarchists, but terrorist, interested not in conspiracy for its own sake but in conspiracy to murder. And is there not some confusion over Bakunin, who wanted an insurrection of workers as well as peasants and called himself a collectivist, and over Kropotkin, who always called himself a communist?

Horowitz’s Postscript was published in anarchy 50, and readers will remember it as a useful survey of some of the problems of anarchism—the liberative potentiality of the state, the utopian, metaphysical, destructive and reactionary tendencies of anarchism, and the personal peculiarities of anarchists—but it really has no place in this book.

“The Theory” contains some of the basic texts of anarchism, but readers who are unfamiliar with the movement should have been told about the passages which are not really anarchist, or even anarchic, or else they might get a rather confused impression. The contributions by Diderot, Tolstoy, Camus, and Thoreau have all been found valuable by anarchists, but they are hardly as central as those by Malatesta, Proudhon, Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, Rocker, Goldman, and Stirner. Read’s essay is a useful summary, and the letters of Sacco and Vanzetti provide a tragic glimpse of living—and dying—anarchism. The extract from Hocking’s forgotten book is diligent but dull, and Schilpp’s essay is a repetition of what Randolph Bourne said much better during the First World War—especially in The War and the Intellectuals (1917).

What are inexplicable and inexcusable are the contributions by Conrad and Dostoevski. Conrad’s novel was drawn ostensibly from the Greenwich Park Affair of 1894, but it is actually a grotesque misrepresentation of the British or any other anarchist movement. Conrad himself said in the Preface that his original feeling about anarchism was of “the criminal futility of the whole thing, doctrine, action, mentality,” and of “the contemptible aspect of the half-crazy pose as of a brazen cheat exploiting the poignant miseries and passionate credulities of a mankind always so tragically eager for self-destruction.” Incidentally, it is worth remembering that the “Secret Agent” of the title is an unsuccessful agent provocateur who arranges the explosion to discredit the anarchists, and that the “Professor” of the extract given here is an unbalanced nihilist who gives explosives to anyone who asks—neither of them coming near Samuels, the mystery

380

man of the Greenwich Park Affair (or Coulon, who played the same part in the Walsall Affair of 1892). As for Dostoevski’s novel, it is little more than a psychotic scream of hate against the ideas of humanity, progress, reason, and hope, which are surely essential to most kinds of anarchism. It would be interesting to know how it ever got into the book.

“The Practice” contains far fewer useful passages. The historical section, as I said, is very uneven. Gerald Brenan’s Spanish Labyrinth and George Woodcock’s Anarchism need no introduction, since their general high quality has already been noted in anarchy. Nor does Hugh Thomas’s Spanish Civil War, since its low quality has also been noted. Richard Hostetter’s Italian Socialist Movement and Samuel Yellen’s American Labour Struggles contain a great deal of information, so much indeed that it is easy to get confused. Barbara Tuchman’s article “The Anarchists” (originally published in the Atlantic Monthly, and now incorporated in her book The Proud Tower) is another matter altogether, being full of sensational nonsense—Reclus is “the soothsayer of the movement” and Malatesta is “the firebrand of anarchism” (who—of course—escapes from Lampedusa “in a rowboat during a storm”, and—of course—is shot at “by an Italian fellow-anarchist of the extreme anti-organizzatori wing”^**), and most of the passage describes the terrorist wave of the 1890s with a wealth of melodramatic detail.^† Berkman’s diary is certainly outstanding material for the history of the Kronstadt Rising, but by itself it gives a rather narrow view of a complex episode.

The “sociological” section has little sociological about it. Sorel was hardly a social scientist; nor was he one of “the classical anarchists,” as Horowitz claims (he ought to know, too, since he has written a whole book on Sorel, called Radicalism and the Revolt against Reason). Reflections on Violence is always interesting to read, but for some reason the passage here is not the one in which Sorel deals with the myth of the general strike—his most important idea. Paul Goodman is much admired by many anarchists, but I must say I find his writing quite antipathetic, and the passage here quite absurd (to use one of his favourite words); but other readers may well think otherwise. Presthus is a real sociologist, and his book seems to be similar to William Whyte’s better-known Organisation Man—not really anarchist, but certainly relevant to modern anarchism. Selznick rightly apologises for his essay, and it would really have been kinder to leave it out. Shapiro’s essay isn’t really about the revival of anarchism so much as the increasing attraction of libertarian ideas, with special reference to Gandhi, and it is a weak ending for an anthology described

381

by the publisher as “a ringing roll-call of the great non-conformists and dissenters”.

Turning to Patterns of Anarchy, Krimerman and Perry remark in the Foreword that “the peace movements, the civil rights struggles, the agitation of students for unshackled education have evinced vague feelings of affinity to anarchism,” and that disillusionment with Communism “has raised further interest in left-wing alternatives to Marxism.” Although most of the renewed interest in anarchism is not serious, they “are determined to take anarchism seriously,” for they “have become more and more amazed at how many perceptive social theorists have spoken in the anarchist tradition,” and they “have tried to restore anarchism to its rightful place as more than a rejection of politics, indeed as a rewarding full-scale theory of human conduct.”

There is much less detailed criticism to be made of the passages they have selected. They have had the help of the Freedom Press in London and of the Libertarian League in New York, and they have made good use of it. I must say that I am sorry to see so little from Bakunin and Malatesta, who I think are underrated, and so much from Berdyaev and Paul Goodman, who I think are overrated. But I am glad to see proper attention given to the neglected early American anarchists (Ballou, Warren, Andrews, and Spooner), and to at least some of the contemporary English anarchists (Herbert Read, Alex Comfort, Tony Gibson, and Colin Ward).

There are a few detailed criticisms to make. Novak’s essay is a weak opening for such an ambitious work, and Novak is hardly “one of the few scholars” to deal with the origins of anarchism, which is after all one of the commonest preoccupations of anarchist scholars, from Kropotkin onwards. It should have been explained that Estey’s study of syndicalism is confused about more than just Proudhon’s relationship with anarchism and syndicalism, above all in giving far too much prominence to the writings of Sorel. It should also have been explained that Dana, though an admirer of Proudhon’s economic ideas, later became an extreme reactionary newspaper editor, as well as Lincoln’s Assistant Secretary of War during the American Civil War.

Another very useful feature is the final section—“How Sound is Anarchism?”—but this is to some extent spoilt by the large claims made for it. Krimerman and Perry describe it as “far more than a sample of the serious efforts to evaluate the anarchist position,” and they even claim that, “with little exaggeration, we could offer them as the only efforts of this sort.” On the contrary, this is a huge exaggeration. Take for example the statement that there aren’t “anything approaching comprehensive critical works on such first-rank libertarian thinkers as Berdyaev, Bakunin, and the individualist anarchists.” Berdyaev was hardly a libertarian, or a first-rank thinker of any kind, but there are several books about him published just after the last war. There are also several books about Bakunin, as well as important contemporary criticisms by Herzen and Marx. There is a book about Max Stirner, as well as Marx’s attack in The German Ideology, which is after all given in this section—though in Sidney Hook’s words, “For

382

some reason, rather than that of Marx himself.”

There is in fact a much larger body of criticism of anarchism than Krimerman and Perry realise. They give Marx’s attack on Stirner, but not his attack of Proudhon in The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), though this is included in the bibliography. They give Plekhanov’s Anarchism and Socialism, but not the earlier works by Marx (Indifference in Political Matters) and Engels (On Authority), or the later works by Lenin (The State and the Revolution) and Stalin (Anarchism or Socialism). They give Monro’s modern criticism of Godwin, but not Hazlitt’s contemporary criticism in The Spirit of the Age (1825). They don’t mention the chapters on Godwin, Proudhon and Bakunin in Alexander Gray’s The Socialist Tradition (1946) and in John Bowle’s Politics and Opinion in the Nineteenth Century (1954). They don’t seem to be aware of the long list of 19th-century studies of anarchism mentioned in Eltzbacher’s Anarchism (1900). They don’t mention the Epilogue of Woodcock’s Anarchism or the Conclusion of Joll’s The Anarchists. And they don’t even mention the Postscript of Horowitz’s The Anarchists.

Patterns of Anarchy is clearly a better book than The Anarchists, though the latter does quote more basic anarchist texts at length, and is of course much cheaper. The real trouble is that neither book is as good as it could and should have been. Horowitz has a great deal of ability, and Krimerman and Perry have done a great deal of work, but somehow they have all missed their opportunity, and there is still room for a really good anthology of anarchism. In ideal circumstances both books would be almost valueless, because even the best anthology is only a second-best in comparison with original material, and these are far from the best. But the circumstances are not ideal, and in fact both books are extremely valuable, because even the worst anthology is better than nothing—and apart from them, there is almost nothing of the original material of anarchist literature in print.

This is indeed one of the most serious defects of the English-speaking anarchist movement today. Many important anarchist works have been written in, or translated into, English at one time or another, but very few are still obtainable. I wonder how many readers of anarchy have ever read any book by any major anarchist writer, and how many of those who have done so actually own one. It is possible to get hold of them, but it isn’t easy. Winstanley and Godwin were reprinted in the United States and Canada during the war, but were soon out of print again. The old translation of Stirner by Steven Byington was reprinted in the United States a few years ago, but it has aready gone. The old translations of Proudhon by Benjamin Tucker—and Tucker’s own Instead of a Book—have been out of print for years. Bakunin’s fragmentary output has long been obtainable only in digests, and Kropotkin’s enormous output only through a few pamphlets. Some of Tolstoy’s tracts are still in print, but mostly the religious rather than the political ones. Emma Goldman and Rudolf Rocker have virtually disappeared, and the same was true of Malatesta until Vernon Richards rescued him last year. Many more have com

383

pletely disappeared. Krimerman and Perry remark that “there is a need for full new editions of the best works of Proudhon, Tucker, Kropotkin, and many others, whom the reader can only begin to appreciate here.” There is indeed, but until then these two anthologies will give their readers at least some idea of what the major anarchist writers are like.

In the present circumstances, then, we must be grateful for both books, and they are certainly good value for only a guinea or so. But we must also consider the dangers of these circumstances. We have a weekly and a monthly paper, a new pamphlet every year or so, occasional reprints of old pamphlets (Berkman and Malatesta being the most recent), and very occasional books (such as Richards’ Malatesta). Apart from that, there are miscellaneous second-hand books and pamphlets in curculation, and occasional magazines appearing at irregular intervals. That’s about all, because that’s about all we can afford. The trouble is that there are not only old things which ought to be reprinted again, but also new things which ought to be printed or reprinted for the first time. It is important to remember the past, as these anthologies remind us, but not at the price of forgetting the future. In practice, what happens is that we are stuck in the present, running as fast as we can to stay in the same place, working so hard to fill up our papers and keep them going from week to week and from month to month, that we have no time or energy (or money) for anything else. Partly because of this, most of what is printed is disappointingly bad—most of the articles in freedom and anarchy are best forgotten, but the good ones are forgotten too. We have had to wait for Patterns of Anarchy to see a few of the valuable articles disinterred, and this is the sort of work we should be doing ourselves; it is not enough to bind up back numbers or annual selections.

It is true that if we pay too much attention to literature we may neglect other important things—direct contact with appropriate people, for example, and direct action in appropriate places—and it is true that both these anthologies, like most literature, stress the theory of anarchism at the expense of the practice. But no one can say that we are all so active that we have no time to preserve the literature of the past or create the literature of the future. Literature is after all the main voice of a movement. These anthologies may be only a faint echo, but then our own efforts are hardly more than a whisper. If we don’t like what people write about us, the remedy is in our hands. Both the anthologies refer to and result from the recent revival of interest in anarchism. It is a pity that this revival has taken place almost in spite of, rather than because of, what we have said or done. It is time that we took advantage of it, and raised our voice again.

* I have asterisked the passages which have something wrong with them, and this will give an idea of the problem; there is no room here to list all the mistakes in detail.

** These two stories have been demolished by Vernon Richards in his article “Anarchism and the Historians” (anarchy 46) and his book Malatesta: His Life and Ideas (1965).

† Thomas Masaryk’s Spirit of Russia may have been a good book when it was published, nearly half a century ago, but it has been completely superseded by Franco Venturi’s Russian Populism—published in this country as Roots of Revolution (1960).

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
-{{sc|After the histor&shy;ies of anarch&shy;ism}} come the an&shy;tho&shy;lo&shy;gies. We have already had ''{{l|Anarch&shy;ism|http://rebels-library.org/files/woodcock_anarchism.pdf}}'' by [[Author:George Woodcock|George Woodcock]], and ''{{l|The Anarch&shy;ists|http://www.ditext.com/joll/anarchists.html}}'' by {{w|James Joll|James_Joll}}, which were re&shy;viewed in [[Anarchy 28|{{sc|anarchy}} 28]] and [[Anarchy 46|46]]. Now we have ''The Anarch&shy;ists'' (no con&shy;nec&shy;tion) edited by {{w|Irving L. Horowitz|Irving_Louis_Horowitz}}, and ''Pat&shy;terns of Anarchy'' edited by {{l|Leonard I. Krimerman|http://web2.uconn.edu/philosophy/department/krimerman/vlik.html}} and Lewis Perry, which are re&shy;viewed together now.
+{{sc|After the histor&shy;ies of anarch&shy;ism}} come the an&shy;tho&shy;lo&shy;gies. We have already had ''{{l|Anarch&shy;ism|http://rebels-library.org/files/woodcock_anarchism.pdf|Full text at Rebel Studies Library (PDF)}}'' by [[Author:George Woodcock|George Woodcock]], and ''{{l|The Anarch&shy;ists|http://www.ditext.com/joll/anarchists.html|Full text at Digital Text International}}'' by {{w|James Joll|James_Joll}}, which were re&shy;viewed in [[Anarchy 28|{{sc|anarchy}} 28]] and [[Anarchy 46|46]]. Now we have ''The Anarch&shy;ists'' (no con&shy;nec&shy;tion) edited by [[Author:Irving Horowitz|Irving L. Horo&shy;witz]], and ''Pat&shy;terns of Anarchy'' edited by {{l|Leonard I. Krimerman|https://philosophy.uconn.edu/person/leonard-krimerman/|Web site}} and Lewis Perry, which are re&shy;viewed together now.
-{{tab}}Both books are Amer&shy;ican paper&shy;backs edited by Amer&shy;ican aca&shy;dem&shy;ics. Horowitz is As&shy;soci&shy;ate Pro&shy;fessor of So&shy;ci&shy;ology at {{w|Wash&shy;ing&shy;ton Uni&shy;ver&shy;sity|Washington_University_in_St._Louis}}, {{w|St. Louis|St._Louis}}, and ''The Anarch&shy;ists'' is pub&shy;lished by Dell as Laurel Book 0131 (1964, 95c.). Krimerman is As&shy;sist&shy;ant Pro&shy;fessor of Philo&shy;sophy at {{w|Louisi&shy;ana State Uni&shy;ver&shy;sity|Louisiana_State_University}}, {{w|New Orleans|New_Orleans}}, and Perry is Lec&shy;turer in History at {{w|New York State Uni&shy;ver&shy;sity|University_at_Buffalo}}, {{w|Buffalo|Buffalo,_New_York}}, and ''Pat&shy;terns of Anarchy'' is pub&shy;lished by Double&shy;day as Anchor Book A501 (1966, $1.95).
+{{tab}}Both books are Amer&shy;ican paper&shy;backs edited by Amer&shy;ican aca&shy;dem&shy;ics. Horowitz is As&shy;soci&shy;ate Pro&shy;fessor of So&shy;ci&shy;ology at {{w|Wash&shy;ing&shy;ton Uni&shy;ver&shy;sity|Washington_University_in_St._Louis|Washington University in St. Louis}}, {{w|St. Louis|St._Louis}}, and ''The Anarch&shy;ists'' is pub&shy;lished by Dell as Laurel Book 0131 (1964, 95c.). Krimerman is As&shy;sist&shy;ant Pro&shy;fessor of Philo&shy;sophy at {{w|Louisi&shy;ana State Uni&shy;ver&shy;sity|Louisiana_State_University}}, {{w|New Orleans|New_Orleans}}, and Perry is Lec&shy;turer in History at {{w|New York State Uni&shy;ver&shy;sity|University_at_Buffalo|University at Buffalo}}, {{w|Buffalo|Buffalo,_New_York|Buffalo, New York}}, and ''Pat&shy;terns of Anarchy'' is pub&shy;lished by Double&shy;day as Anchor Book A501 (1966, $1.95).
-{{tab}}Both books come from out&shy;side the anarch&shy;ist move&shy;ment. ''The Anarch&shy;ists'' ori&shy;gin&shy;ated when {{w|C. Wright Mills|C._Wright_Mills}}, the left-<wbr>wing Amer&shy;ican soci&shy;olo&shy;gist, planned {{qq|a reader on ''Anar&shy;chists, Crim&shy;in&shy;als and Devi&shy;ants''}} (shades of {{w|Lombroso|Cesare_Lombroso}}!). He later {{qq|came to con&shy;sider anarch&shy;ism as one of the three major pivots of {{w|Marxism}}, the other two being {{w|So&shy;cial {{p|375}}Demo&shy;cracy|Social_democracy}} and {{w|Bolshev&shy;ism|Bolsheviks}}}}, and then planned a tri&shy;logy of an&shy;tho&shy;lo&shy;gies of Marxist, {{w|Trotsky&shy;ist|Trotskyism}}, and anarch&shy;ist writ&shy;ings. The only one he pro&shy;duced before he died in 1962 was ''{{w|The Marxists|The_Marxists}}'' (1962, pub&shy;lished as a Penguin Book in 1963). He hadn{{t}} begun work on the anarch&shy;ist volume, and it was taken over by his dis&shy;ciple Horowitz (who has edited a post&shy;hum&shy;ous volume of his essays and a me&shy;morial volume of essays by his ad&shy;mirers). It is com&shy;fort&shy;ing to know that Horowitz has more sens&shy;ible ideas about anarch&shy;ism than Wright Mills: {{qq|My own view is that anarch&shy;ism, far from being a {{q|pivot}} of Marxism, as Mills be&shy;lieved, is an ef&shy;fort to fash&shy;ion a rad&shy;ical al&shy;tern&shy;at&shy;ive to the Marxist tradi&shy;tion in its ortho&shy;dox forms.}}
+{{tab}}Both books come from out&shy;side the anarch&shy;ist move&shy;ment. ''The Anarch&shy;ists'' ori&shy;gin&shy;ated when {{w|C. Wright Mills|C._Wright_Mills}}, the left-wing Amer&shy;ican soci&shy;olo&shy;gist, planned {{qq|a reader on ''Anar&shy;chists, Crim&shy;in&shy;als and Devi&shy;ants''}} (shades of {{w|Lombroso|Cesare_Lombroso|Cesare Lombroso}}!). He later {{qq|came to con&shy;sider anarch&shy;ism as one of the three major pivots of {{w|Marxism}}, the other two being {{w|So&shy;cial Demo&shy;cracy|Social_democracy|Social democracy}}{{p|375}} and {{w|Bolshev&shy;ism|Bolsheviks|Bolsheviks}}}}, and then planned a tri&shy;logy of an&shy;tho&shy;lo&shy;gies of Marxist, {{w|Trotsky&shy;ist|Trotskyism|Trotskyism}}, and anarch&shy;ist writ&shy;ings. The only one he pro&shy;duced before he died in 1962 was ''{{w|The Marxists|The_Marxists}}'' (1962, pub&shy;lished as a Penguin Book in 1963). He hadn{{t}} begun work on the anarch&shy;ist volume, and it was taken over by his dis&shy;ciple Horowitz (who has edited a post&shy;hum&shy;ous volume of his essays and a me&shy;morial volume of essays by his ad&shy;mirers). It is com&shy;fort&shy;ing to know that Horowitz has more sens&shy;ible ideas about anarch&shy;ism than Wright Mills: {{qq|My own view is that anarch&shy;ism, far from being a {{q|pivot}} of Marxism, as Mills be&shy;lieved, is an ef&shy;fort to fash&shy;ion a rad&shy;ical al&shy;tern&shy;at&shy;ive to the Marxist tradi&shy;tion in its ortho&shy;dox forms.}}
 {{tab}}''Patterns of Anarchy'' ori&shy;gin&shy;ated when Krimerman and Perry {{qq|began to dis&shy;cuss, in deep ignor&shy;ance, the like&shy;li&shy;hood that the anarch&shy;ist posi&shy;tion had not been given its due.}} Well, it is prob&shy;ably better to have no ideas than wrong ideas. {{qq|Agreed on the likely value of anarch&shy;ism, we were almost stymied by the paucity of avail&shy;able ma&shy;ter&shy;i&shy;als. Slowly the idea of an an&shy;tho&shy;logy took hold, as we con&shy;tinued to un&shy;cover inter&shy;est&shy;ing but neglec&shy;ted anarch&shy;ist writ&shy;ings. Our amaze&shy;ment at the wealth of anarch&shy;ist liter&shy;ature has been grow&shy;ing ever since.}}
-{{tab}}''The Anarch&shy;ists'' has 640 pages. It begins with a Pre&shy;face and an Intro&shy;duc&shy;tion and ends with a Post&shy;script by the editor. The rest of the book is di&shy;vided into two parts con&shy;tain&shy;ing 35 passages.
+{{tab}}''The Anarch&shy;ists'' has 640 pages. It begins with a Pre&shy;face and an Intro&shy;duc&shy;tion and ends with a [[Anarchy 50/A postscript to the anarchists|Post&shy;script]] by the editor. The rest of the book is di&shy;vided into two parts con&shy;tain&shy;ing 35 passages.
-{{tab}}{{qq|The Theory}} is di&shy;vided into three sec&shy;tions. {{qq|Anarch&shy;ism as a Cri&shy;tique of So&shy;ciety}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Diderot|Denis_Diderot}}{{s}} ''{{l|Sup&shy;ple&shy;ment to Bougain&shy;ville{{s}} {{qq|Voyage}}|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6501}}'' (1772){{ref|aster|*}}; {{w|Mala&shy;testa|Errico_Malatesta}}{{s}} pamph&shy;let ''{{l|Anarchy|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy}}'' (1891)*; {{w|Proudhon|Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon}}{{s}} book {{l|''What is Prop&shy;erty''?|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen}} (1840); {{w|Godwin|William_Godwin}}{{s}} book ''{{l|Polit&shy;ical Just&shy;ice|https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/g/godwin/william/enquiry/complete.html}}'' (1793); {{w|Bakunin|Mikhail_Bakunin}}{{s}} essays {{qq|Sci&shy;ence and the Urgent Revo&shy;lu&shy;tion&shy;ary Task}} (1870) and {{qq|The Pro&shy;gramme of the Inter&shy;na&shy;tional Revo&shy;lu&shy;tion&shy;ary Alli&shy;ance}} (1871)*, both from {{w|G. P. Maximoff|Gregori_Maximoff}}{{s}} book ''{{l|The Polit&shy;ical Philo&shy;sophy of Bakunin|https://libcom.org/files/Maximoff%20-%20The%20Political%20Philosophy%20of%20Bakunin.pdf}}'' (1953); [[Author:Peter Kropotkin|Kropot&shy;kin]]{{s}} book ''{{l|Modern Sci&shy;ence and Anarch&shy;ism|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-modern-science-and-anarchism}}'' (1903)*; {{w|Benjamin Tucker|Benjamin_Tucker}}{{s}} article {{qq|{{l|State Social&shy;ism and Anarch&shy;ism|https://archive.org/details/statesocialisman00tuck}}}} from his maga&shy;zine {{w|''Liberty''|Liberty_(1881–1908)}} (1886)* and his book ''{{l|Instead of a Book|https://archive.org/details/cu31924030333052}}'' (1893); and {{w|Rudolf Rocker|Rudolf_Rocker}}{{s}} essay {{qq|{{l|Anarch&shy;ism and Anarcho-<wbr>Syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ism|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchism-and-anarcho-syndicalism}}}} from {{w|Feliks Gross|Feliks_Gross}}{{s}} book ''European Ideo&shy;logies'' (1948).
+{{tab}}{{qq|The Theory}} is di&shy;vided into three sec&shy;tions. {{qq|Anarch&shy;ism as a Cri&shy;tique of So&shy;ciety}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Diderot|Denis_Diderot|Denis Diderot}}{{s}} ''{{l|Sup&shy;ple&shy;ment to Bougain&shy;ville{{s}} {{qq|Voyage}}|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6501|Full text at Project Gutenberg}}'' (1772){{ref|aster|*}}; {{w|Mala&shy;testa|Errico_Malatesta|Errico Malatesta}}{{s}} pamph&shy;let ''{{l|Anarchy|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy|Full text at the Anarchist Library}}'' (1891)*; {{w|Proudhon|Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon|Pierre-Joseph Proudhon}}{{s}} book {{l|''What is Prop&shy;erty''?|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1840); {{w|Godwin|William_Godwin|William Godwin}}{{s}} book ''{{l|Polit&shy;ical Just&shy;ice|https://web.archive.org/web/20170207024507/https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/g/godwin/william/enquiry/complete.html|Full text at eBooks@Adelaide via the Wayback Machine}}'' (1793); {{w|Bakunin|Mikhail_Bakunin|Mikhail Bakunin}}{{s}} essays {{qq|Sci&shy;ence and the Urgent Revo&shy;lu&shy;tion&shy;ary Task}} (1870) and {{qq|The Pro&shy;gramme of the Inter&shy;na&shy;tional Revo&shy;lu&shy;tion&shy;ary Alli&shy;ance}} (1871)*, both from {{w|G. P. Maximoff|Gregori_Maximoff|Gregori Maximoff}}{{s}} book ''{{l|The Polit&shy;ical Philo&shy;sophy of Bakunin|https://libcom.org/files/Maximoff%20-%20The%20Political%20Philosophy%20of%20Bakunin.pdf|Full text at libcom.org (PDF)}}'' (1953); [[Author:Peter Kropotkin|Kropot&shy;kin]]{{s}} book ''{{l|Modern Sci&shy;ence and Anarch&shy;ism|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-modern-science-and-anarchism|Full text at the Anarchist Library}}'' (1903)*; {{w|Benjamin Tucker|Benjamin_Tucker}}{{s}} article {{qq|{{l|State Social&shy;ism and Anarch&shy;ism|https://archive.org/details/statesocialisman00tuck|Full text at the Internet Archive}}}} from his maga&shy;zine ''{{w|Liberty|Liberty_(1881–1908)|Liberty (1881-1908)}}'' (1886)* and his book ''{{l|Instead of a Book|https://archive.org/details/cu31924030333052|Full text at the Internet Archive}}'' (1893); and {{w|Rudolf Rocker|Rudolf_Rocker}}{{s}} essay {{qq|{{l|Anarch&shy;ism and Anarcho-Syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ism|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchism-and-anarcho-syndicalism|Full text at the Anarchist Library}}}} from {{w|Feliks Gross|Feliks_Gross}}{{s}} book ''European Ideo&shy;logies'' (1948).
-{{tab}}{{qq|Anarch&shy;ism as a Style of Life}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Joseph Conrad|Joseph_Conrad}}{{s}} novel ''{{l|The Secret Agent|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/974}}'' (1907); {{w|Dostoevski|Fyodor_Dostoyevsky}}{{s}} novel ''{{l|Notes from Underground|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/600}}'' (1864)*; {{w|Tolstoy|Leo_Tolstoy}}{{s}} book {{l|''What Then Shall We Do''?|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38690}} (1886)*; {{w|Albert Camus|Albert_Camus}}{{s}} book {{w|''The Rebel''|The_Rebel_(book)}} (1951)*; [[Author:Emma Goldman|Emma Goldman]]{{s}} essays {{qq|{{l|The Tragedy of Women{{s}} Eman&shy;cip&shy;a&shy;tion|https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1906/tragedy-women.htm}}}} (1906)* and {{qq|{{l|Marriage and Love|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-marriage-and-love}}}},* both from her maga&shy;zine {{w|''Mother Earth''|Mother_Earth_(magazine)}} and her book {{l|''Anarch&shy;ism and Other Essays''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays}} (1910); and the letters of {{w|Sacco and Vanzetti|Sacco_and_Vanzetti}} (1927), from the edition by Frank&shy;furter and Jack&shy;son.
+{{tab}}{{qq|Anarch&shy;ism as a Style of Life}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Joseph Conrad|Joseph_Conrad}}{{s}} novel ''{{l|The Secret Agent|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/974|Full text at Project Gutenberg}}'' (1907); {{w|Dostoev&shy;ski|Fyodor_Dostoyevsky|Fyodor Dostoyevsky}}{{s}} novel ''{{l|Notes from Underground|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/600|Full text at Project Gutenberg}}'' (1864)*; {{w|Tolstoy|Leo_Tolstoy|Leo Tolstoy}}{{s}} book {{l|''What Then Shall We Do''?|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38690|Full text at Project Gutenberg}} (1886)*; {{w|Albert Camus|Albert_Camus}}{{s}} book ''{{w|The Rebel|The_Rebel_(book)}}'' (1951)*; [[Author:Emma Goldman|Emma Goldman]]{{s}} essays {{qq|{{l|The Tragedy of Woman{{s}} Eman&shy;cip&shy;a&shy;tion|https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1906/tragedy-women.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}}}} (1906)* and {{qq|{{l|Marriage and Love|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-marriage-and-love|Full text at the Anarchist Library}}}},* both from her maga&shy;zine ''{{w|Mother Earth|Mother_Earth_(magazine)}}'' and her book {{l|''Anarch&shy;ism and Other Essays''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1910); and the letters of {{w|Sacco and Vanzetti|Sacco_and_Vanzetti}} (1927), from the edition by Frank&shy;furter and Jack&shy;son.
-{{tab}}{{qq|Anarch&shy;ism as a Sys&shy;tem of Philo&shy;sophy}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Max Stirner|Max_Stirner}}{{s}} book {{l|''The Ego and His Own''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own}} (1845)*; {{w|Thoreau|Henry_David_Thoreau}}{{s}} essay {{qq|{{l|Resist&shy;ance to Civil Govern&shy;ment|https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Aesthetic_Papers/Resistance_to_Civil_Government}}}} (1848)*; {{w|Josiah Warren|Josiah_Warren}}{{s}} book {{l|''True Civil&shy;isa&shy;tion''|https://archive.org/details/truecivilizatio00warrgoog}} (1869); {{w|William Hocking|William_Ernest_Hocking}}{{s}} book ''Man and the State'' (1926); {{w|Herbert Read|Herbert_Read}}{{s}} article {{qq|Anarch&shy;ism and Capit&shy;al&shy;ist So&shy;ciety}}, from the maga&shy;zine {{l|''Re&shy;con&shy;struir''|http://www.federacionlibertaria.org/editorial.html}} (1962); and {{w|Paul Schilpp|Paul_Arthur_Schilpp}}{{s}} article {{qq|In Defence {{p|376}}of Socrate{{s|r}} Judges}}, from the maga&shy;zine {{popup|''Enquiry''|Enquiry: A Journal of Independent Radical Thought}} (1944).
+{{tab}}{{qq|Anarch&shy;ism as a Sys&shy;tem of Philo&shy;sophy}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Max Stirner|Max_Stirner}}{{s}} book {{l|''The Ego and His Own''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1845)*; {{w|Thoreau|Henry_David_Thoreau|Henry David Thoreau}}{{s}} essay {{qq|{{l|Resist&shy;ance to Civil Govern&shy;ment|https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Aesthetic_Papers/Resistance_to_Civil_Government|Full text at Wikisource}}}} (1848)*; {{w|Josiah Warren|Josiah_Warren}}{{s}} book {{l|''True Civil&shy;isa&shy;tion''|https://archive.org/details/truecivilizatio00warrgoog|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1869); {{w|William Hocking|William_Ernest_Hocking|William Ernest Hocking}}{{s}} book ''Man and the State'' (1926); {{w|Herbert Read|Herbert_Read}}{{s}} article {{qq|Anarch&shy;ism in a Capit&shy;al&shy;ist So&shy;ciety}}, from the maga&shy;zine {{l|''Re&shy;con&shy;struir''|https://web.archive.org/web/20180806205005/http://www.federacionlibertaria.org/editorial.html|Federación Libertaria Argentina article (in Spanish) via the Wayback Machine}} (1962); and {{w|Paul Schilpp|Paul_Arthur_Schilpp|Paul Arthur Schilpp}}{{s}} article {{qq|In Defence {{p|376}}of Socrate{{s|r}} Judges}}, from the maga&shy;zine {{popup|''Enquiry''|Enquiry: A Journal of Independent Radical Thought}} (1944).
+{{tab}}{{qq|The Practice}} is di&shy;vided into two sec&shy;tions. {{qq|The Histor&shy;ical Di&shy;men&shy;sion}} con&shy;tains ac&shy;counts of the anarch&shy;ist move&shy;ment in {{l|Spain|https://archive.org/details/spanishlabyrinth001334mbp|Full text at the Internet Archive}} up to 1902 (by {{w|Gerald Brenan|Gerald_Brenan}}), in Italy during the 1870s (by {{popup|Richard Hostetter|Richard Jerome Hostetter (1913–1987), author of The Italian Socialist Movement (1958)}}, in the United States during the 1880s (by {{popup|Samuel Yellen|author of American Labor Struggles (1936)}}), in France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United States during the 1890s (by {{w|Barbara Tuchman|Barbara_W._Tuchman|Barbara W. Tuchman}}), in Russia up to 1883 (by {{w|Thomas Masaryk|Tomáš_Garrigue_Masaryk|Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk}}), in America out&shy;side the United States and in northern Europe out&shy;side {{w|Britain|United_Kingdom|United Kingdom}} up to the 1930s (by [[Author:George Woodcock|George Woodcock]]), and in Spain during the 1930s (by {{w|Hugh Thomas|Hugh_Thomas,_Baron_Thomas_of_Swynnerton}}), to&shy;gether with [[Author:Alexander Berkman|Alexander Berkman]]{{s}} [[Anarchy 81/Kronstadt diary|diary]] of the {{w|Kronstadt Rising|Kronstadt_rebellion|Kronstadt rebellion}} (1921).
+{{tab}}{{qq|The Socio&shy;logical Di&shy;men&shy;sion}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Sorel|Georges_Sorel|Georges Sorel}}{{s}} book {{l|''Re&shy;flec&shy;tions on Viol&shy;ence''|https://libcom.org/files/Sorel-Reflections-on-Violence-ed-Jennings.pdf|Full text at libcom.org (PDF)}} (1906)*; [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]]{{s}} book ''Draw&shy;ing the Line'' (1946); {{popup|Robert Presthus|American educator Robert Vance Presthus (1917–2001)}}{{s}} book ''The Organ&shy;isa&shy;tional So&shy;ciety'' (1962); {{w|Philip Selznick|Philip_Selznick}}{{s}} article {{qq|Revo&shy;lu&shy;tion Sacred and Pro&shy;fane}}, from the maga&shy;zine ''Enquiry'' (1944); and {{w|Karl Shapiro|Karl_Shapiro}}{{s}} article {{qq|On the Re&shy;vival of Anarch&shy;ism}}, from the maga&shy;zine ''{{w|Lib&shy;er&shy;a&shy;tion|Liberation_(magazine)|Liberation (magazine)}}'' (1961).
+{{tab}}''Patterns of Anarchy'' has 570 pages. It begins with a Fore&shy;word and ends with an essay called {{qq|Anarch&shy;ism: The Method of Indi&shy;vidu&shy;al&shy;isa&shy;tion}} by the editors. The rest of the book is di&shy;vided into seven sec&shy;tions con&shy;tain&shy;ing 63 pas&shy;sages.
+{{tab}}{{qq|Defin&shy;ing Anarch&shy;ism}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{popup|D. Novak|American political scientist Derry Novak (born 1919)}}{{s}} article {{qq|{{l|The Place of Anarch&shy;ism in the History of Polit&shy;ical Thought|http://www.ditext.com/novak/anarchism.html|Full text at Digital Text International}}}}, from the maga&shy;zine ''{{w|The Re&shy;view of Polit&shy;ics|The_Review_of_Politics}}'' (1958); {{w|John Mackay|John_Henry_Mackay|John Henry Mackay}}{{s}} novel {{l|''The Anarch&shy;ists''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-henry-mackay-the-anarchists-a-picture-of-civilization-at-the-close-of-the-nineteenth-centu|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1891); {{popup|Senex|Mark Schmidt}}{{s}} article {{qq|{{l|Whither the Liber&shy;tarian Move&shy;ment?|https://libcom.org/files/Vanguard%20(Vol.%201,%20No.%205,%20January%201933).pdf|Full text at libcom.org (PDF)}}}}, from the maga&shy;zine {{l|''Vanguard''|https://libcom.org/library/history-vanguard|Libcom.org article}} (1933); [[Author:George Woodcock|George Woodcock]]{{s}} pamph&shy;let ''Rail&shy;ways and So&shy;ciety'' (1943)*; {{popup|James Estey|Canadian economist James Arthur Estey (1886–1961)}}{{s}} book {{l|''Re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary Syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ism''|https://archive.org/details/revolutionarysy00estegoog|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1913); {{w|Ammon Hennacy|Ammon_Hennacy}}{{s}} {{l|''Auto&shy;bio&shy;graphy of a Cath&shy;olic Anarch&shy;ist''|https://archive.org/details/AutobiographyOfACatholicAnarchist|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1954); and [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]]{{s}} {{qq|{{l|Reply|https://www.commentary.org/articles/paul-goodman/pornography-censorship/|Full text at Commentary}}}}, to {{l|Richard Lichtman|https://web.archive.org/web/20180131013543/https://www.wi.edu/psyd-faculty-richard-lichtman|Biography at the Wright Institute via the Wayback Machine}} on porno&shy;graphy and cen&shy;sor&shy;ship from the maga&shy;zine ''{{w|Com&shy;ment&shy;ary|Commentary_(magazine)|Commentary (magazine)}}'' (1961).
+{{tab}}{{qq|Cri&shy;ti&shy;cising So&shy;cial&shy;ism}}—''au&shy;thor&shy;it&shy;arian'' so&shy;cial&shy;ism, that is—con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Benjamin Tucker|Benjamin_Tucker}}{{s}} article {{qq|{{l|State So&shy;cial&shy;ism and Anarch&shy;ism|https://archive.org/details/statesocialisman00tuck|Full text at the Internet Archive}}}}, from his maga&shy;zine ''{{w|Liberty|Liberty_(1881–1908)|Liberty (1881-1908)}}'' (1886)* and his book
+{{l|''Instead of a Book''|https://archive.org/details/cu31924030333052|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1893); {{w|Tolstoy|Leo_Tolstoy|Leo Tolstoy}}{{s}} book {{l|''The Slavery of Our Times''|https://archive.org/details/slaveryourtimes00tolsiala|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1900); {{w|Bakunin|Mikhail_Bakunin|Mikhail Bakunin}}{{s}} books {{l|''Fed&shy;er&shy;al&shy;ism, So&shy;cial&shy;ism and Anti&shy;theo&shy;lo&shy;gism''|https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/reasons-of-state.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}} (1867)* and ''The Knouto-Germanic Empire and the So&shy;cial Re&shy;volu&shy;tion'' (1871)*, and some minor works of the same period from {{w|K. J. Kenafick|Kenneth_Kenafick|Kenneth Kenafick}}{{s}} book {{l|''Marx&shy;ism, Free&shy;dom and the State''|https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/index.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}} (1950); [[Author:Emma Goldman|Emma Goldman]]{{s}} book {{l|''My Further Dis&shy;il&shy;lu&shy;sion&shy;ment in Russia''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-my-further-disillusionment-in-russia|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1924); the {{sc|anarchy}} Edit&shy;or&shy;ial {{qq|[[Anarchy 3/Moving with the times … but not in step|Mov&shy;ing with the Times {{e}} but Not in Step]]}} from [[Anarchy 3|{{sc|anarchy}} 3]] (May 1961); and [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]]{{s}} book ''{{w|People or Person&shy;nel|People_or_Personnel}}'' (1965).
+{{tab}}{{qq|Philo&shy;soph&shy;ical Founda&shy;tions}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Adin Ballou|Adin_Ballou}}{{s}} {{l|''Non-Resist&shy;ance in Rela&shy;tion to Human Govern&shy;ment''|https://archive.org/details/Non-resistanceInRelationToHumanGovernments|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1839)*; {{w|Nicolas Berdyaev|Nikolai_Berdyaev|Nikolai Berdyaev}}{{s}} book ''Slavery and Free&shy;dom'' (1944); {{w|Max Stirner|Max_Stirner}}{{s}} {{l|''The Ego and His Own''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1845)*; {{w|William Godwin|William_Godwin}}{{s}} {{l|''Polit&shy;ical Just&shy;ice''|http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/godwin-an-enquiry-concerning-political-justice-in-2-vols|Full text at the Online Library of Liberty}} (1793); {{q|{{w|Stephen Andrews|Stephen_Pearl_Andrews|Stephen Pearl Andrews}}|r}} book {{l|''The Sci&shy;ence of So&shy;ciety''|http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm|Full text at anarchism.net}} (1852); and [[Author:Peter Kropotkin|Kropotkin]]{{s}} pamph&shy;lets {{l|''Anarch&shy;ist Com&shy;mun&shy;ism''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-anarchist-communism-its-basis-and-principles|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1887)*, {{l|''Anarch&shy;ist Moral&shy;ity''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-anarchist-morality|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1891)*, and {{l|''Anarchy'': ''Its Philo&shy;sophy and Ideal''|http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-anarchism-its-philosophy-and-ideal|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1896)*.
+{{p|377}}{{tab}}{{qq|Anarch&shy;ism on the At&shy;tack}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Lysander Spooner|Lysander_Spooner}}{{s}} {{l|''No Treason''|http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-no-treason-no-i-1867|Full text at the Online Library of Liberty}} (1867); {{w|Benjamin Tucker|Benjamin_Tucker}}{{s}} article {{qq|{{l|The Rela&shy;tion of the State to the Indi&shy;vidual|http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual|Full text at the Fair Use Repository}}}}, from his maga&shy;zine ''{{w|Liberty|Liberty_(1881–1908)|Liberty (1881-1908)}}'' (1890)* and {{l|''Instead of a Book''|https://archive.org/details/cu31924030333052|Full text at the Internet Archive}}; {{w|Max Stirner|Max_Stirner}}{{s}} {{l|''The Ego and His Own''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own|Full text at the Anarchist Library}}; {{popup|John Beverley Robin&shy;son|American anarchist (1853–1923)}}{{s}} book {{l|''The Eco&shy;nom&shy;ics of Liberty''|https://archive.org/details/economicsofliber00robi|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1916); Frank Lanham{{s}} article {{qq|Two Kinds of Union&shy;ism}} from the maga&shy;zine {{l|''Why''?|https://libcom.org/library/why|Full text at libcom.org}} (1947); {{w|Sam Weiner|Sam_Dolgoff|Sam Dolgoff}}{{s}} pamph&shy;let {{l|''Ethics and Amer&shy;ican Union&shy;ism''|https://libcom.org/library/ethics-american-unionism-sam-dolgoff|Full text at libcom.org}} (1958); [[Author:Peter Kropotkin|Kropotkin]]{{s}} pamph&shy;let {{l|''Law and Author&shy;ity''|https://archive.org/details/lawauthorityanar00kropuoft|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1882); and [[Author:Alex Comfort|Alex Comfort]]{{s}} book {{l|''Author&shy;ity and De&shy;lin&shy;quency in the Modern State''|https://libcom.org/library/authority-delinquency-alex-comfort|Full text at libcom.org}} (1950).
+{{tab}}{{qq|Con&shy;struct&shy;ive Anarch&shy;ism}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Josiah Warren|Josiah_Warren}}{{s}} book {{l|''Equit&shy;able Com&shy;merce''|https://archive.org/details/equitablecommerc00warr|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1846); {{w|Charles Dana|Charles_Anderson_Dana|Charles Anderson Dana}}{{s}} articles {{qq|{{l|Proudhon and His Bank of the People|https://archive.org/details/proudhonandhisb00danagoog|Full text at the Internet Archive}}}}, from the {{w|New York ''Tribune''|New-York_Tribune|New-York Tribune}} (1849)*; [[Author:Alexander Berkman|Alexander Berkman]]{{s}} pamphlet {{l|''What is Com&shy;mun&shy;ist Anarch&shy;ism''<!-- 'Anarchist Communism' in original -->?|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1929)*; {{popup|Senex|Mark Schmidt}}{{s}} article {{qq|{{l|De&shy;central&shy;isa&shy;tion and So&shy;cial&shy;ism|https://libcom.org/library/decentralization-socialism-senex|Full text at libcom.org}}}}, from the maga&shy;zine {{l|''Van&shy;guard''|https://libcom.org/library/history-vanguard|Libcom.org article}} (1938); {{w|Rudolf Rocker|Rudolf_Rocker}}{{s}} book {{l|''Anarcho-Syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ism''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1938); {{w|Ammon Hennacy|Ammon_Hennacy}}{{s}} {{l|''Auto&shy;bio&shy;graphy of a Cath&shy;olic Anarch&shy;ist''|https://archive.org/details/AutobiographyOfACatholicAnarchist|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1954); {{w|Dorothy Day|Dorothy_Day}}{{s}} book ''{{w|The Long Lone&shy;li&shy;ness|The_Long_Loneliness}}'' (1952); [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]]{{s}} ''{{w|''People and Person&shy;nel''|People_or_Personnel|People or Personnel}}'' (1965); and [[Author:Colin Ward|Colin Ward]]{{s}} articles {{qq|[[Anarchy_62/Anarchism as a theory of organisation|Anarch&shy;ism as a Theory of Organ&shy;isa&shy;tion]]}} and {{qq|[[Anarchy 7/Adventure Playground: a parable of anarchy|Ad&shy;ven&shy;ture Play&shy;ground]]}}, from [[Anarchy 62|{{sc|anarchy}} 62]] (April 1966) and [[Anarchy 7|{{sc|anarchy}} 7]] (September 1961).
+{{tab}}{{qq|The Anarch&shy;ists on Edu&shy;ca&shy;tion}} con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Herbert Read|Herbert_Read}}{{s}} books ''Edu&shy;ca&shy;tion through Art'' (1943) and ''Edu&shy;ca&shy;tion for Peace'' (1949); {{w|Francis&shy;co Ferrer|Francesc_Ferrer_i_Guàrdia|Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia}}{{s}} book {{l|''The Origins and Ideals of the Modern School''|https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/francisco-ferrer-the-origin-and-ideals-of-the-modern-school|Full text at the Anarchist Library}} (1908)*; {{l|Bayard Boyesen|http://margins.fair-use.org/note/Bayard_Boyesen|Biography at the Fair Use Repository}}{{s}} pamph&shy;let {{l|''The Modern School''|http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/ferrer/boyesen/boyesen.html|Full text at Anarchy Archives}} (1911)*; {{w|William Godwin|William_Godwin}}{{s}} books {{l|''The En&shy;quirer''|https://archive.org/details/enquirer00godwgoog|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1797) and ''{{l|Polit&shy;ical Just&shy;ice|https://web.archive.org/web/20170207024507/https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/g/godwin/william/enquiry/complete.html|Full text at eBooks@Adelaide via the Wayback Machine}}'' (1793); [[Author:Tony Gibson|Tony Gibson]]{{s}} pamph&shy;let ''Youth for Freedom'' (1951); {{w|Josiah Warren|Josiah_Warren}}{{s}} {{l|''Equit&shy;able Com&shy;merce''|https://archive.org/details/equitablecommerc00warr|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1846); [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]]{{s}} book [[Anarchy 24|''The Com&shy;mun&shy;ity of Schol&shy;ars'']] (1962); and {{w|Tolstoy|Leo_Tolstoy|Leo Tolstoy}}{{s}} essays {{qq|{{l|The School at Yasnaya Polyana|https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Yasnaya_Polyana_School|Full text at Wikisource}}}} and {{qq|{{l|Are the Peas&shy;ant Chil&shy;dren to Learn to Write from Us?|https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Who_Should_Learn_Writing_of_Whom;_Peasant_Children_of_Us,_or_We_of_Peasant_Children%3F|Full text at Wikisource}}}}*
+{{tab}}{{qq|How Sound is Anarch&shy;ism?}}—con&shy;sist&shy;ing of pas&shy;sages at&shy;tack&shy;ing anarch&shy;ism—con&shy;tains ex&shy;tracts from {{w|Bertrand Russell|Bertrand_Russell}}{{s}} book {{l|''Roads to Free&shy;dom''|https://archive.org/details/roadstofreedomso00russuoft|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1918)*; {{w|Georgi Plekhanov|Georgi_Plekhanov}}{{s}} book {{l|''Anarch&shy;ism and So&shy;cial&shy;ism''|https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/anarch/index.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}} (1894)*; {{w|Bernard Shaw|George_Bernard_Shaw|George Bernard Shaw}}{{s}} pamph&shy;let {{l|''The Im&shy;pos&shy;sibil&shy;it&shy;ies of Anarch&shy;ism''|https://archive.org/details/impossibilitieso00shawuoft|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1893); {{w|Fr&eacute;d&eacute;ric Bastiat|Frédéric_Bastiat|Frédéric Bastiat}}{{s}} {{l|''Essays in Polit&shy;ical Eco&shy;nomy''|http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.html|Full text at the Library of Economics and Liberty}} (1874); two letters from {{l|Hugo Bilgram|http://margins.fair-use.org/note/Hugo_Bilgram|Biography at the Fair Use Repository}} to {{w|Benjamin Tucker|Benjamin_Tucker}}{{s}} maga&shy;zine ''{{w|Liberty|Liberty_(1881–1908)|Liberty (1881–1908)}}'' (1890)*, from Tucker{{s}} {{l|''Instead of a Book''|https://archive.org/details/cu31924030333052|Full text at the Internet Archive}}; {{popup|James Estey|Canadian economist James Arthur Estey (1886–1961)}}{{s}} {{l|''Re&shy;volu&shy;tion&shy;ary Syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ism''|https://archive.org/details/revolutionarysy00estegoog|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1913); {{w|Aylmer Maude|Aylmer_and_Louise_Maude|Aylmer and Louise Maude}}{{s}} {{l|''Life of Tolstoy''|https://archive.org/details/lifeoftolstoy01mauduoft|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1918 and {{l|1928|https://archive.org/details/lifetolstoy00maudgoog|Full text at the Internet Archive}}); {{w|Karl Marx|Karl_Marx}}{{s}} at&shy;tack on {{w|Max Stirner|Max_Stirner}} in {{l|''The German Ideo&shy;logy''|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}} (1846)*, as sum&shy;mar&shy;ised in {{w|Sidney Hook|Sidney_Hook}}{{s}} book ''From Hegel to Marx'' (1962); and {{l|D. H. Monro|http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100206529|Oxford Reference: David Hector Monro}}{{s}} book ''Godwin{{s}} Moral Philo&shy;sophy'' (1953).
+{{tab}}General dis&shy;cus&shy;sion of the books must un&shy;for&shy;tun&shy;ately begin with general cri&shy;ti&shy;cism. My first cri&shy;ti&shy;cism is of their bib&shy;lio&shy;graph&shy;ical and bio&shy;graph&shy;ical ap&shy;par&shy;atus. In both books—though ''The Anarch&shy;ists'' is the worst of&shy;fender—the notes about the sources of nearly half the pas&shy;sages are in&shy;ad&shy;equate, and in too many cases they are in&shy;ac&shy;curate as well.
+{{p|378}}{{tab}}My next cri&shy;ti&shy;cism is of the bal&shy;ance of the books.  ''The Anarch&shy;ists'' is the worst of&shy;fender again, because Horo&shy;witz has made a highly per&shy;sonal choice of pas&shy;sages, which has led to many bad ones being in&shy;cluded and many good ones being ex&shy;cluded. He tries to ex&shy;cuse {{qq|obvi&shy;ous omis&shy;sions}} on the grounds that the book {{qq|when ini&shy;tially de&shy;livered to the pub&shy;lisher was much longer,}} and he adds that he has {{qq|tried to com&shy;pens&shy;ate for the gaps and de&shy;fects by pro&shy;vid&shy;ing a [[Anarchy 50/A postscript to the anarchists|Post&shy;script]] of the ques&shy;tions most often asked of anarch&shy;ists, the kinds of answers they in turn most fre&shy;quently pro&shy;vide, and fin&shy;ally, my own be&shy;liefs on these mat&shy;ters of con&shy;tro&shy;versy.}} It{{s}} a good try, but it won{{t}} do. If an editor has to cut an an&shy;tho&shy;logy to fit it into the avail&shy;able space, the first thing to go should surely be his own con&shy;trib&shy;u&shy;tion. As it is, Horo&shy;witz{{s}} Intro&shy;duc&shy;tion and Post&shy;script between them take up a tenth of the book, and, although they are inter&shy;est&shy;ing, more con&shy;trib&shy;u&shy;tions by anarch&shy;ists would have been more inter&shy;est&shy;ing.
+{{tab}}''Pat&shy;terns of Anarchy'' has many more and much shorter pas&shy;sages, and manages to give a much wider view of anarch&shy;ist thought, but there is still some dis&shy;tor&shy;tion. Why is there nothing writ&shy;ten before 1793, when the first pas&shy;sage in the book traces the anarch&shy;ist tradi&shy;tion back to {{w|an&shy;cient Greece|Ancient_Greece|Ancient Greece}}, and when even Horo&shy;witz goes back to 1772? Why is there nothing from out&shy;side Europe and North Amer&shy;ica? Why are there three pas&shy;sages about reli&shy;gious anarch&shy;ism, and none about anti&shy;reli&shy;gious anarch&shy;ism? Why are there ''eight'' pas&shy;sages about author&shy;it&shy;arian so&shy;cial&shy;ism, and ''eleven'' about edu&shy;ca&shy;tion?
+{{tab}}To begin with ''The Anarch&shy;ists''. Horo&shy;witz{{s}} Pre&shy;face is pro&shy;mis&shy;ing. He says that he speaks {{qq|not as an anarch&shy;ist but as a so&shy;cial sci&shy;ent&shy;ist.}} He con&shy;siders that {{qq|the anarch&shy;ist tradi&shy;tion is a par&shy;tic&shy;u&shy;larly fruit&shy;ful and fright&shy;fully neg&shy;lected source in the com&shy;mon human ef&shy;fort to over&shy;come mani&shy;pu&shy;la&shy;tion,}} and he adds that his {{qq|sym&shy;path&shy;ies for the anarch&shy;ists shall not be dis&shy;guised.}} He agrees that anarch&shy;ism is not what it was once, but {{qq|the col&shy;lapse of anarch&shy;ism as a so&shy;cial move&shy;ment does not sig&shy;nify its an&shy;nihil&shy;a&shy;tion as an intel&shy;lect&shy;ual force.}} Anarch&shy;ism may have failed, but {{qq|the anarch&shy;ist does not live in terms of cri&shy;teria of suc&shy;cess, and neither should his views be judged in such terms,}} for {{qq|we in&shy;habit a world of dismal suc&shy;cess and heroic fail&shy;ure.}} He com&shy;ments that {{qq|this sort of ori&shy;ent&shy;a&shy;tion may not qual&shy;ify me as a ''bona fide'' anarch&shy;ist, but it is my belief that at least it does not dis&shy;qual&shy;ify me from writ&shy;ing on and intro&shy;ducing the reader to the wealth of anarch&shy;ist lit&shy;era&shy;ture.}} No indeed.
+{{tab}}After this, his Intro&shy;duc&shy;tion is dis&shy;ap&shy;point&shy;ing. It is full of the sort of ab&shy;stract gener&shy;al&shy;isa&shy;tion that dis&shy;figures much modern so&shy;cio&shy;logical writing—and dis&shy;figured {{w|James Joll|James_Joll}}{{s}} book ''{{l|The Anarch&shy;ists|http://www.ditext.com/joll/anarchists.html|Full text at Digital Text International}}'' as well. Because of this, the good things he has to say are ob&shy;scured.
+{{tab}}The Intro&shy;duc&shy;tion also con&shy;tains a {{qq|typo&shy;logy of anarch&shy;ist strat&shy;egies and be&shy;liefs,}} which is un&shy;fortun&shy;ately never heard of again. Horo&shy;witz dis&shy;tin&shy;guishes eight vari&shy;eties of anarch&shy;ism; ''util&shy;it&shy;arian'' (men&shy;tion&shy;ing {{w|Hel&shy;v&eacute;tius|Claude_Adrien_Helvétius|Claude Adrien Helvétius}}, {{w|Diderot|Denis_Diderot|Denis Diderot}}, {{w|Godwin|William_Godwin|William Godwin}}, and {{w|Saint-Simon|Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy,_comte_de_Saint-Simon|Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon}}, ''peasant'' men&shy;tion&shy;ing {{w|M&uuml;nzer|Thomas_Müntzer|Thomas Müntzer}}, {{w|Sis&shy;mondi|Jean_Charles_Léonard_de_Sismondi|Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi}}, {{w|Fourier|Charles_Fourier|Charles Fourier}}, {{w|Proudhon|Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon|Pierre-Joseph Proudhon}}, and {{w|Bakunin|Mikhail_Bakunin|Mikhail Bakunin}}), ''syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ist'' (men&shy;tion&shy;ing {{w|Pel&shy;loutier|Fernand_Pelloutier|Fernand Pelloutier}}), ''col&shy;lect&shy;iv&shy;ist'' (men&shy;tion&shy;ing Bakunin and [[Author:Peter Kropotkin|Kropotkin]]), {{p|379}}''con&shy;spir&shy;at&shy;orial'' (mentioning {{w|Most|Johann_Most|Johann Most}} and {{w|Henry|Émile_Henry_(anarchist)|Émile Henry}}), ''com&shy;mun&shy;ist'' (men&shy;tion&shy;ing {{w|Mala&shy;testa|Errico_Malatesta|Errico Malatesta}}, {{w|Stepniak|Sergey_Stepnyak-Kravchinsky|Sergey Stepnyak-Kravchinsky}}, and {{w|Cafiero|Carlo_Cafiero|Carlo Cafiero}}), ''in&shy;di&shy;vidual&shy;ist'' (mentioning {{w|Stirner|Max_Stirner|Max Stirner}}, {{w|Warren|Josiah_Warren|Josiah Warren}}, {{w|Spooner|Lysander_Spooner|Lysander Spooner}}, and {{w|Tucker|Benjamin_Tucker|Benjamin Tucker}}), and ''pacif&shy;ist'' (men&shy;tion&shy;ing {{w|Tolstoy|Leo_Tolstoy|Leo Tolstoy}} and {{w|Gandhi|Mahatma_Gandhi|Mahatma Gandhi}}). This is reason&shy;able enough, though there are some oddit&shy;ies. Six of the people men&shy;tioned weren{{t}} anarch&shy;ists at all (M&uuml;nzer, Hel&shy;v&eacute;tius, Diderot, Sis&shy;mondi, Saint-Simon, and Gandhi); two of the variet&shy;ies are surely wrongly named—Diderot and Godwin weren{{t}} ''util&shy;it&shy;arian'', in the normal sense of the prag&shy;matic tradi&shy;tion from {{w|Bentham|Jeremy_Bentham|Jeremy Bentham}} and {{w|Mill|John_Stuart_Mill|John Stuart Mill}} to the {{w|Fabian So&shy;ciety|Fabian_Society}} and the {{w|Wel&shy;fare State|Welfare_state|Welfare state}}, but ''ration&shy;al&shy;ist,'' inter&shy;ested not in the great&shy;est happi&shy;ness of the great&shy;est number but in justice and truth; and Most and Henry weren{{t}} just ''con&shy;spir&shy;at&shy;orial,'' like many other anarch&shy;ists, but ''terror&shy;ist,'' inter&shy;ested not in con&shy;spiracy for its own sake but in con&shy;spiracy to murder. And is there not some con&shy;fu&shy;sion over Bakunin, who wanted an in&shy;sur&shy;rec&shy;tion of workers as well as peas&shy;ants and called himself a ''col&shy;lect&shy;iv&shy;ist,'' and over Kropot&shy;kin, who always called himself a ''com&shy;mun&shy;ist''?
+{{tab}}Horo&shy;witz{{s}} [[Anarchy 50/A postscript to the anarchists|Post&shy;script]] was pub&shy;lished in [[Anarchy 50|{{sc|anarchy}} 50]], and readers will remem&shy;ber it as a useful survey of some of the prob&shy;lems of anarch&shy;ism—the liber&shy;at&shy;ive poten&shy;ti&shy;al&shy;ity of the state, the uto&shy;pian, meta&shy;phys&shy;ical, de&shy;struct&shy;ive and re&shy;ac&shy;tion&shy;ary tend&shy;en&shy;cies of anarch&shy;ism, and the per&shy;sonal pecu&shy;li&shy;ar&shy;it&shy;ies of anarch&shy;ists—but it really has no place in this book.
+{{tab}}{{qq|The Theory}} con&shy;tains some of the basic texts of anarch&shy;ism, but readers who are un&shy;fa&shy;mil&shy;iar with the move&shy;ment should have been told about the pas&shy;sages which are not really anarch&shy;ist, or even an&shy;archic, or else they might get a rather con&shy;fused im&shy;pres&shy;sion. The con&shy;tribu&shy;tions by Diderot, Tolstoy, {{w|Camus|Albert_Camus|Albert Camus}}, and {{w|Thoreau|Henry_David_Thoreau|Henry David Thoreau}} have all been found valu&shy;able by anarch&shy;ists, but they are hardly as central as those by Mala&shy;testa, Proudhon, Godwin, Bakunin, Kropot&shy;kin, Tucker, {{w|Rocker|Rudolf_Rocker|Rudolf Rocker}}, [[Author:Emma Goldman|Goldman]], and Stirner. {{w|Read|Herbert_Read|Herbert Read}}{{s}} {{popup|essay|“Anarchism and Capitalist Society”}} is a useful sum&shy;mary, and the letters of {{w|Sacco and Vanzetti|Sacco_and_Vanzetti}} pro&shy;vide a tragic glimpse of living—and dying—anarch&shy;ism. The ex&shy;tract from {{w|Hocking|William_Ernest_Hocking|William Ernest Hocking}}{{s}} for&shy;gotten {{popup|book|Man and the State}} is dili&shy;gent but dull, and {{w|Schilpp|Paul_Arthur_Schilpp|Paul Arthur Schilpp}}{{s}} {{popup|essay|“In Defence of Socrates’ Judges”}} is a re&shy;pe&shy;ti&shy;tion of what {{w|Randolph Bourne|Randolph_Bourne}} said much better during the {{w|First World War|World_War_I|World War I}}—es&shy;pe&shy;cially in {{l|''The War and the Intel&shy;lect&shy;uals''|http://bigeye.com/thewar.htm|Full text at BigEye via the Wayback Machine}} (1917).
+{{tab}}What are in&shy;ex&shy;plic&shy;able and in&shy;ex&shy;cus&shy;able are the con&shy;trib&shy;u&shy;tions by {{w|Conrad|Joseph_Conrad|Joseph Conrad}} and {{w|Dostoev&shy;ski|Fyodor_Dostoyevsky|Fyodor Dostoyevsky}}. Conrad{{s}} {{l|novel|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/974|Full text at Project Gutenberg}} was drawn os&shy;tens&shy;ibly from the {{w|Greenwich Park Affair|Royal_Observatory,_Greenwich#Bomb_attack_of_1894|Royal Observatory, Greenwich: Bomb attack of 1894}} of 1894, but it is ac&shy;tu&shy;ally a grot&shy;esque mis&shy;repre&shy;sent&shy;a&shy;tion of the British or any other anarch&shy;ist move&shy;ment. Conrad himself said in the Preface that his ori&shy;ginal feeling about anarch&shy;ism was of {{qq|the crim&shy;inal futil&shy;ity of the whole thing, doc&shy;trine, action, men&shy;tal&shy;ity,}} and of {{qq|the con&shy;tempt&shy;ible as&shy;pect of the half-crazy pose as of a brazen cheat ex&shy;ploit&shy;ing the poignant miser&shy;ies and pas&shy;sion&shy;ate cred&shy;ul&shy;it&shy;ies of a man&shy;kind always so tragic&shy;ally eager for self-de&shy;struc&shy;tion.}} In&shy;cid&shy;ent&shy;ally, it is worth re&shy;mem&shy;ber&shy;ing that the {{qq|Secret Agent}} of the title is an un&shy;suc&shy;cess&shy;ful agent pro&shy;vocateur who ar&shy;ranges the ex&shy;plo&shy;sion to dis&shy;credit the anarch&shy;ists, and that the {{qq|Pro&shy;fessor}} of the ex&shy;tract given here is an un&shy;bal&shy;anced nihil&shy;ist who gives ex&shy;plos&shy;ives to anyone who asks—neither of them coming near Samuels, the mystery {{p|380}}man of the Greenwich Park Affair (or Coulon, who played the same part in the {{w|Walsall Affair|Walsall_Anarchists|Walsall Anarchists}} of 1892). As for Dostoev&shy;ski{{s}} {{l|novel|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/600|Full text at Project Gutenberg}}, it is little more than a psych&shy;otic scream of hate against the ideas of human&shy;ity, pro&shy;gress, reason, and hope, which are surely essen&shy;tial to most kinds of anarch&shy;ism. It would be inter&shy;est&shy;ing to know how it ever got into the book.
+{{tab}}{{qq|The Practice}} con&shy;tains far fewer useful pas&shy;sages. The his&shy;tor&shy;ical sec&shy;tion, as I said, is very un&shy;even. {{w|Gerald Brenan|Gerald_Brenan}}{{s}} {{l|''Spanish Labyrinth''|https://archive.org/details/spanishlabyrinth001334mbp|Full text at the Internet Archive}} and [[Author:George Woodcock|George Woodcock]]{{s}} {{l|''Anarch&shy;ism''|http://rebels-library.org/files/woodcock_anarchism.pdf|Full text at the Rebel Studies Library (PDF)}} need no intro&shy;duc&shy;tion, since their general high qual&shy;ity has already been noted in {{sc|anarchy}}. Nor does {{w|Hugh Thomas|Hugh_Thomas,_Baron_Thomas_of_Swynnerton}}{{s}} ''Spanish Civil War,'' since its low qual&shy;ity has also been noted. Richard Hostetter{{s}} ''Italian So&shy;cial&shy;ist Move&shy;ment'' and Samuel Yellen{{s}} ''Amer&shy;ican Labour Strug&shy;gles'' con&shy;tain a great deal of in&shy;form&shy;a&shy;tion, so much indeed that it is easy to get con&shy;fused. {{w|Barbara Tuchman|Barbara_W._Tuchman|Barbara W. Tuchman}}{{s}} article {{qq|{{l|The Anarch&shy;ists|https://archive.org/details/TheProudTower/page/n79/mode/2up|Full text at the Internet Archive}}}} (origin&shy;ally pub&shy;lished in the ''{{w|Atlantic Monthly|The_Atlantic|The Atlantic}},'' and now in&shy;cor&shy;por&shy;ated in her book ''{{l|The Proud Tower|https://archive.org/details/TheProudTower|Full text at the Internet Archive}}'') is another matter al&shy;to&shy;gether, being full of sens&shy;a&shy;tional non&shy;sense—{{w|Reclus|Élisée_Reclus|Élisée Reclus}} is {{qq|the sooth&shy;sayer of the move&shy;ment}} and Malatesta is {{qq|the fire&shy;brand of anarch&shy;ism}} (who—of course—escapes from {{w|Lampe&shy;dusa|Lampedusa}} {{qq|in a row&shy;boat during a storm}}, and—of course—is shot at {{qq|by an Italian fellow-anarch&shy;ist of the ex&shy;treme ''anti-organ&shy;izza&shy;tori'' wing}}{{ref|aster2|**}}), and most of the pas&shy;sage de&shy;scribes the terror&shy;ist wave of the 1890s with a wealth of melo&shy;dra&shy;matic detail.{{ref|dagger|†}} [[Author:Alexander Berkman|Berkman]]{{s}} [[Anarchy 81/Kronstadt diary|diary]] is cer&shy;tainly out&shy;stand&shy;ing ma&shy;terial for the history of the {{w|Kronstadt Rising|Kronstadt_rebellion|Kronstadt rebellion}}, but by itself it gives a rather narrow view of a com&shy;plex episode.
+{{tab}}The {{qq|so&shy;ci&shy;olo&shy;gical}} sec&shy;tion has little so&shy;ci&shy;olo&shy;gical about it. {{w|Sorel|Georges_Sorel|Georges Sorel}} was hardly a so&shy;cial sci&shy;entist; nor was he one of {{qq|the clas&shy;sical anarch&shy;ists,}} as Horo&shy;witz claims (he ought to know, too, since he has written a whole book on Sorel, called ''Rad&shy;ical&shy;ism and the Re&shy;volt against Reason''). {{l|''Re&shy;flec&shy;tions on Viol&shy;ence''|https://libcom.org/files/Sorel-Reflections-on-Violence-ed-Jennings.pdf|Full text at libcom.org (PDF)}} is always inter&shy;est&shy;ing to read, but for some reason the pas&shy;sage here is not the one in which Sorel deals with the myth of the general strike—his most im&shy;port&shy;ant idea. [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]] is much admired by many anarch&shy;ists, but I must say I find his writing quite anti&shy;path&shy;etic, and the pas&shy;sage here quite ab&shy;surd (to use one of his favour&shy;ite words); but other readers may well think other&shy;wise. {{popup|Presthus|American educator Robert Vance Presthus (1917–2001)}} is a real so&shy;ci&shy;olo&shy;gist, and his {{popup|book|The Organisational Society}} seems to be similar to {{w|William Whyte|William_H._Whyte|William H. Whyte}}{{s}} better-known ''{{w|Organ&shy;isa&shy;tion Man|The_Organization_Man|The Organization Man}}''—not really anarch&shy;ist, but cer&shy;tainly relev&shy;ant to modern anarch&shy;ism. {{w|Selznick|Philip_Selznick|Philip Selznick}} rightly apo&shy;lo&shy;gises for his {{popup|essay|“Revolution Sacred and Profane”}}, and it would really have been kinder to leave it out. {{w|Shapiro|Karl_Shapiro|Karl Shapiro}}{{s}} {{popup|essay|“On the Revival of Anarchism”}} isn{{t}} really about the re&shy;vival of anarch&shy;ism so much as the in&shy;creas&shy;ing at&shy;trac&shy;tion of liber&shy;tarian ideas, with spe&shy;cial re&shy;fer&shy;ence to {{w|Gandhi|Mahatma_Gandhi|Mahatma Gandhi}}, and it is a weak ending for an antho&shy;logy de&shy;scribed {{p|381}}by the pub&shy;lisher as {{qq|a ring&shy;ing roll-call of the great non-con&shy;form&shy;ists and dis&shy;senters}}.
+{{tab}}Turning to ''Pat&shy;terns of Anarchy,'' Krimer&shy;man and Perry re&shy;mark in the Fore&shy;word that {{qq|the peace move&shy;ments, the civil rights strug&shy;gles, the agita&shy;tion of stu&shy;dents for un&shy;shackled edu&shy;ca&shy;tion have evinced vague feel&shy;ings of af&shy;fin&shy;ity to anarch&shy;ism,}} and that dis&shy;il&shy;lu&shy;sion&shy;ment with Com&shy;mun&shy;ism {{qq|has raised further inter&shy;est in left-wing altern&shy;at&shy;ives to Marxism.}} Although most of the re&shy;newed inter&shy;est in anarch&shy;ism is not serious, they {{qq|are de&shy;term&shy;ined to take anarch&shy;ism seri&shy;ously,}} for they {{qq|have become more and more amazed at how many per&shy;cept&shy;ive so&shy;cial theor&shy;ists have spoken in the anarch&shy;ist trad&shy;i&shy;tion,}} and they {{qq|have tried to re&shy;store anarch&shy;ism to its right&shy;ful place as more than a re&shy;jec&shy;tion of polit&shy;ics, indeed as a re&shy;ward&shy;ing full-scale theory of human con&shy;duct.}}
+{{tab}}There is much less de&shy;tailed crit&shy;icism to be made of the pas&shy;sages they have se&shy;lected. They have had the help of the {{w|Freedom Press|Freedom_Press}} in {{w|London}} and of the {{w|Liber&shy;tarian League|Libertarian_League}} in {{w|New York|New_YorK_City|New York City}}, and they have made good use of it. I must say that I am sorry to see so little from Bakunin and Mala&shy;testa, who I think are under&shy;rated, and so much from {{w|Berdyaev|Nikolai_Berdyaev|Nikolai Berdyaev}} and Paul Goodman, who I think are over&shy;rated. But I am glad to see proper at&shy;ten&shy;tion given to the neglected early Amer&shy;ican anarch&shy;ists ({{w|Ballou|Adin_Ballou|Adin Ballou}}, Warren, {{w|Andrews|Stephen_Pearl_Andrews|Stephen Pearl Andrews}}, and Spooner), and to at least some of the con&shy;tempor&shy;ary English anarch&shy;ists (Herbert Read, [[Author:Alex Comfort|Alex Comfort]], [[Author:Tony Gibson|Tony Gibson]], and [[Author:Colin Ward|Colin Ward]]).
+{{tab}}There are a few de&shy;tailed crit&shy;icisms to make. {{popup|Novak|American political scientist Derry Novak (born 1919)}}{{s}} {{l|essay|http://www.ditext.com/novak/anarchism.html|Full text at Digital Text International}} is a weak open&shy;ing for such an ambi&shy;tious work, and Novak is hardly {{qq|one of the few scholars}} to deal with the origins of anarch&shy;ism, which is after all one of the com&shy;mon&shy;est pre&shy;oc&shy;cu&shy;pa&shy;tions of anarch&shy;ist schol&shy;ars, from Kropot&shy;kin onwards. It should have been ex&shy;plained that {{popup|Estey|Canadian economist James Arthur Estey (1886–1961)}}{{s}} {{l|study|https://archive.org/details/revolutionarysy00estegoog|Full text at the Internet Archive}} of syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ism is con&shy;fused about more than just Proudhon{{s}} rela&shy;tion&shy;ship with anarch&shy;ism and syn&shy;dic&shy;al&shy;ism, above all in giving far too much promin&shy;ence to the writ&shy;ings of Sorel. It should also have been ex&shy;plained that {{w|Dana|Charles_Anderson_Dana|Charles Anderson Dana}}, though an ad&shy;mirer of Proudhon{{s}} eco&shy;nomic ideas, later became an ex&shy;treme re&shy;action&shy;ary news&shy;paper editor, as well as {{w|Lincoln|Abraham_Lincoln|Abraham Lincoln}}{{s}} {{w|As&shy;sist&shy;ant Secret&shy;ary of War|United_States_Assistant_Secretary_of_War|United States Assistant Secretary of War}} during the {{w|Amer&shy;ican Civil War|American_Civil_War}}.
+{{tab}}Another very useful feature is the final sec&shy;tion—{{qq|How Sound is Anarch&shy;ism?}}—but this is to some ex&shy;tent spoilt by the large claims made for it. Krimer&shy;man and Perry de&shy;scribe it as {{qq|far more than a sample of the serious ef&shy;forts to evalu&shy;ate the anarch&shy;ist posi&shy;tion,}} and they even claim that, {{qq|with little ex&shy;ag&shy;ger&shy;a&shy;tion, we could offer them as the only ef&shy;forts of this sort.}} On the con&shy;trary, this is a huge ex&shy;ag&shy;ger&shy;a&shy;tion. Take for ex&shy;ample the state&shy;ment that there aren{{t}} {{qq|any&shy;thing ap&shy;proach&shy;ing com&shy;pre&shy;hens&shy;ive crit&shy;ical works on such first-rank liber&shy;tarian thinkers as Berdyaev, Bakunin, and the in&shy;di&shy;vidual&shy;ist anarch&shy;ists.}} Berdyaev was hardly a liber&shy;tarian, or a first-rank thinker of any kind, but there are several books about him pub&shy;lished just after the {{w|last war|World_War_II|World War II}}. There are also several books about Bakunin, as well as im&shy;port&shy;ant con&shy;tempor&shy;ary crit&shy;icisms by {{w|Herzen|Alexander_Herzen|Alexander Herzen}} and {{w|Marx|Karl_Marx|Karl Marx}}. There is a book about Max Stirner, as well as Marx{{s}} at&shy;tack in {{l|''The German Ideo&shy;logy''|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}}'','' which is after all given in this sec&shy;tion—though in {{w|Sidney Hook|Sidney_Hook}}{{s}} words, {{qq|For {{p|382}}some reason, rather than that of Marx himself.}}
+{{tab}}There is in fact a much larger body of cri&shy;ticism of anarch&shy;ism than Krimer&shy;man and Perry real&shy;ise. They give Marx{{s}} at&shy;tack on Stirner, but not his at&shy;tack of Proudhon in {{l|''The Poverty of Philo&shy;sophy''|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}} (1847), though this is in&shy;cluded in the bib&shy;li&shy;o&shy;graphy. They give {{w|Plekhanov|Georgi_Plekhanov|Georgi Plekhanov}}{{s}} {{l|''Anarch&shy;ism and So&shy;cial&shy;ism''|https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/anarch/index.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}}, but not the earlier works by Marx ({{l|''In&shy;dif&shy;fer&shy;ence in Polit&shy;ical Mat&shy;ters''|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/01/indifferentism.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}}) and {{w|Engels|Friedrich_Engels|Friedrich Engels}} ({{l|''On Author&shy;ity''|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}}), or the later works by {{w|Lenin|Vladimir_Lenin|Vladimir Lenin}} ({{l|''The State and the Revo&shy;lu&shy;tion''|https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}}) and {{w|Stalin|Joseph_Stalin|Joseph Stalin}} ({{l|''Anarch&shy;ism or So&shy;cial&shy;ism''|https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}}). They give {{l|Monro|http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100206529|Oxford Reference: David Hector Monro}}{{s}} modern {{popup|cri&shy;ticism|Godwin’s Moral Philosophy}} of Godwin, but not {{w|Hazlitt|William_Hazlitt|William Hazlitt}}{{s}} con&shy;tempor&shy;ary cri&shy;ticism in {{l|''The Spirit of the Age''|https://archive.org/details/aea8982.0001.001.umich.edu|Full text at the Internet Archive}} (1825). They don{{t}} men&shy;tion the chap&shy;ters on Godwin, Proudhon and Bakunin in {{w|Alex&shy;ander Gray|Alexander_Gray_(poet)}}{{s}} {{l|''The So&shy;cial&shy;ist Trad&shy;i&shy;tion''|https://mises.org/library/socialist-tradition-moses-lenin|Full text at Mises Institute}} (1946) and in {{w|John Bowle|John_Edward_Bowle|John Edward Bowle}}{{s}} ''Polit&shy;ics and Opin&shy;ion in the Nine&shy;teenth Cen&shy;tury'' (1954). They don{{t}} seem to be aware of the long list of 19th-cen&shy;tury studies of anarch&shy;ism men&shy;tioned in {{w|Eltz&shy;bacher|Paul_Eltzbacher|Paul Eltzbacher}}{{s}} {{l|''Anarch&shy;ism''|http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/eltzbacher/eltzbacher.html|Full text at Anarchy Archives}} (1900). They don{{t}} men&shy;tion the Epi&shy;logue of Wood&shy;cock{{s}} ''Anarch&shy;ism'' or the Con&shy;clu&shy;sion of Joll{{s}} ''The Anarch&shy;ists''. And they don{{t}} even mention the Post&shy;script of Horo&shy;witz{{s}} ''The Anarch&shy;ists''.
+{{tab}}''Patterns of Anarchy'' is clearly a better book than ''The Anarch&shy;ists,'' though the latter does quote more basic anarch&shy;ist texts at length, and is of course much cheaper. The real trouble is that neither book is as good as it could and should have been. Horo&shy;witz has a great deal of abil&shy;ity, and Krimer&shy;man and Perry have done a great deal of work, but some&shy;how they have all missed their op&shy;por&shy;tun&shy;ity, and there is still room for a really good antho&shy;logy of anarch&shy;ism. In ideal circum&shy;stances both books would be almost value&shy;less, because even the best antho&shy;logy is only a second-best in com&shy;par&shy;ison with original ma&shy;terial, and these are far from the best. But the circum&shy;stances are not ideal, and in fact both books are ex&shy;tremely valu&shy;able, because even the worst antho&shy;logy is better than nothing—and apart from them, there is almost nothing of the original ma&shy;terial of anarch&shy;ist lit&shy;er&shy;at&shy;ure in print.
+{{tab}}This is indeed one of the most seri&shy;ous de&shy;fects of the English-speak&shy;ing anarch&shy;ist move&shy;ment today. Many im&shy;port&shy;ant anarch&shy;ist works have been written in, or trans&shy;lated into, English at one time or an&shy;other, but very few are still ob&shy;tain&shy;able. I wonder how many read&shy;ers of {{sc|anarchy}} have ever read any book by any major anarch&shy;ist writer, and how many of those who have done so ac&shy;tu&shy;ally own one. It is pos&shy;sible to get hold of them, but it isn{{t}} easy. {{w|Win&shy;stanley|Gerrard_Winstanley|Gerrard Winstanley}} and Godwin were re&shy;printed in the United States and Canada during the {{popup|war|1939–1945}}, but were soon out of print again. The old trans&shy;la&shy;tion of Stirner by {{w|Steven Byington|Steven_T._Byington|Steven T. Byington}} was re&shy;printed in the United States a few years ago, but it has aready gone. The old trans&shy;la&shy;tions of Proudhon by Benjamin Tucker—and Tucker{{s}} own ''Instead of a Book''—have been out of print for years. Bakunin{{s}} frag&shy;ment&shy;ary out&shy;put has long been ob&shy;tain&shy;able only in di&shy;gests, and Kropot&shy;kin{{s}} enorm&shy;ous out&shy;put only through a few pamph&shy;lets. Some of Tolstoy{{s}} tracts are still in print, but mostly the reli&shy;gious rather than the polit&shy;ical ones. Emma Gold&shy;man and Rudolf Rocker have virtu&shy;ally dis&shy;ap&shy;peared, and the same was true of Mala&shy;testa until Vernon Richards res&shy;cued him last year. Many more have com&shy;{{p|383}}pletely dis&shy;ap&shy;peared. Krimer&shy;man and Perry re&shy;mark that {{qq|there is a need for full new edi&shy;tions of the best works of Proudhon, Tucker, Kropot&shy;kin, and many others, whom the reader can only begin to ap&shy;preci&shy;ate here.}} There is indeed, but until then these two antho&shy;logies will give their read&shy;ers at least some idea of what the major anarch&shy;ist writers are like.
+{{tab}}In the present circum&shy;stances, then, we must be grate&shy;ful for both books, and they are cer&shy;tainly good value for only a guinea or so. But we must also con&shy;sider the dangers of these circum&shy;stances. We have a weekly and a monthly paper, a new pamph&shy;let every year or so, oc&shy;ca&shy;sional re&shy;prints of old pamph&shy;lets (Berk&shy;man and Mala&shy;testa being the most re&shy;cent), and very oc&shy;ca&shy;sional books (such as Richard{{s|r}} {{l|''Malatesta''|https://libcom.org/files/Malatesta%20-%20Life%20and%20Ideas.pdf|Full text at libcom.org (PDF)}}). Apart from that, there are mis&shy;cel&shy;laneous second-hand books and pamph&shy;lets in cur&shy;cu&shy;la&shy;tion, and oc&shy;ca&shy;sional maga&shy;zines ap&shy;pear&shy;ing at ir&shy;regu&shy;lar inter&shy;vals. That{{s}} about all, because that{{s}} about all we can af&shy;ford. The trouble is that there are not only old<!-- 'not old' in original --> things which ought to be re&shy;printed again, but also new things which ought to be printed or re&shy;printed for the first time. It is im&shy;port&shy;ant to re&shy;member the past, as these antho&shy;logies remind us, but not at the price of for&shy;get&shy;ting the future. In practice, what hap&shy;pens is that we are stuck in the present, run&shy;ning as fast as we can to stay in the same place, work&shy;ing so hard to fill up our papers and keep them going from week to week and from month to month, that we have no time or energy (or money) for any&shy;thing else. Partly because of this, most of what is printed is dis&shy;ap&shy;point&shy;ingly bad—most of the articles in {{sc|{{w|freedom|Freedom_(newspaper)|Freedom (newspaper)}}}} and {{sc|anarchy}} are best for&shy;got&shy;ten, but the good ones are for&shy;got&shy;ten too. We have had to wait for ''Pat&shy;terns of Anarchy'' to see a few of the valu&shy;able articles dis&shy;in&shy;terred, and this is the sort of work we should be doing our&shy;selves; it is not enough to bind up back numbers or annual selec&shy;tions.
+{{tab}}It is true that if we pay too much at&shy;ten&shy;tion to lit&shy;er&shy;at&shy;ure we may neglect other im&shy;port&shy;ant things—di&shy;rect con&shy;tact with ap&shy;pro&shy;pri&shy;ate people, for ex&shy;ample, and di&shy;rect action in ap&shy;pro&shy;pri&shy;ate places—and it is true that both these antho&shy;logies, like most lit&shy;er&shy;at&shy;ure, stress the theory of anarch&shy;ism at the ex&shy;pense of the practice. But no one can say that we are all so active that we have no time to pre&shy;serve the lit&shy;er&shy;at&shy;ure of the past or create the lit&shy;er&shy;at&shy;ure of the future. Lit&shy;er&shy;at&shy;ure is after all the main voice of a move&shy;ment. These antho&shy;logies may be only a faint echo, but then our own ef&shy;forts are hardly more than a whisper. If we don{{t}} like what people write about us, the remedy is in our hands. Both the antho&shy;logies refer to and re&shy;sult from the re&shy;cent re&shy;vival of inter&shy;est in anarch&shy;ism. It is a pity that this re&shy;vival has taken place almost in spite of, rather than because of, what we have said or done. It is time that we took ad&shy;vant&shy;age of it, and raised our voice again.
-{{tab}}{{qq|The Practice}} is di&shy;vided into two sec&shy;tions. {{qq|The Histor&shy;ical Di&shy;men&shy;sion}} con&shy;tains ac&shy;counts of the anarch&shy;ist move&shy;ment in {{w|Spain}} up to 1902 (by {{w|Gerald Brenan|Gerald_Brenan}}), in {{w|Italy}} during the 1870s (by {{popup|Richard Hostetter|Richard Jerome Hostetter (born 1913), author of The Italian Socialist Movement (1958)}}, in the {{w|United States|United_States}} during the 1880s (by {{popup|Samuel Yellen|author of American Labor Struggles (1936)}}), in {{w|France}}, Italy, {{w|Switzerland}}, and the United States during the 1890s (by {{w|Barbara Tuchman|Barbara_W._Tuchman}}), in {{w|Russia}} up to 1883 (by {{w|Thomas Masaryk|Tomáš_Garrigue_Masaryk}}, in {{w|America|Americas}} out&shy;side the United States and in {{w|northern Europe|Northern_Europe}} out&shy;side {{w|Britain|United_Kingdom}} up to the 1930s (by [[Author:George Woodcock|George Woodcock]]), and in Spain during the 1930s (by {{w|Hugh Thomas|Hugh_Thomas,_Baron_Thomas_of_Swynnerton}}), to&shy;gether with [[Author:Alexander Berkman|Alexander Berkman]]{{s}} [[Anarchy 81/Kronstadt diary|diary]] of the {{w|Kronstadt Rising|Kronstadt_rebellion}} (1921).
 -----
@@ Line 37: / Line 97: @@
 <font size="2">{{hang|{{note|aster|*}} I have aster&shy;isked the pas&shy;sages which have some&shy;thing wrong with them, and this will give an idea of the prob&shy;lem; there is no room here to list all the mis&shy;takes in detail.
-{{note|aster2|**}}<!-- single asterisk in original --> These two stories have been de&shy;mol&shy;ished by [[Author:V.R.|Vernon Richards]] in his article {{qq|[[Anarchy 46/Two views on 'The Anarchists' 2|Anarch&shy;ism and the His&shy;tor&shy;i&shy;ans]]}} ([[Anarchy 46|{{sc|anarchy}} 46]]) and his book {{l|''Malatesta'': ''His Life and Ideas''|https://libcom.org/files/Malatesta%20-%20Life%20and%20Ideas.pdf}} (1965).
+{{note|aster2|**}}<!-- single asterisk in original --> These two stories have been de&shy;mol&shy;ished by [[Author:V.R.|Vernon Richards]] in his article {{qq|[[Anarchy 46/Two views on 'The Anarchists' 2|Anarch&shy;ism and the His&shy;tor&shy;i&shy;ans]]}} ([[Anarchy 46|{{sc|anarchy}} 46]]) and his book {{l|''Malatesta'': ''His Life and Ideas''|https://libcom.org/files/Malatesta%20-%20Life%20and%20Ideas.pdf|Full text at libcom.org (PDF)}} (1965).
-{{note|dagger|†}} {{w|Thomas Masaryk|Tomáš_Garrigue_Masaryk}}{{s}} ''{{l|Spirit of Russia|https://archive.org/details/spiritrussiastu00masagoog}}'' may have been a good book when it was pub&shy;lished, nearly half a cen&shy;tury ago, but it has been com&shy;pletely super&shy;seded by {{w|Franco Venturi|Franco_Venturi}}{{s}}  ''{{l|Russian Pop&shy;u&shy;lism|https://archive.org/details/rootsofrevolutio008262mbp}}''{{dash}}pub&shy;lished in this country as ''Roots of Revo&shy;lu&shy;tion'' (1960).
+{{note|dagger|†}} {{w|Thomas Masaryk|Tomáš_Garrigue_Masaryk|Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk}}{{s}} ''{{l|Spirit of Russia|https://archive.org/details/spiritrussiastu00masagoog|Full text at the Internet Archive}}'' may have been a good book when it was pub&shy;lished, nearly half a cen&shy;tury ago, but it has been com&shy;pletely super&shy;seded by {{w|Franco Venturi|Franco_Venturi}}{{s}}  ''{{l|Russian Pop&shy;u&shy;lism|https://archive.org/details/rootsofrevolutio008262mbp|Full text at the Internet Archive}}''—pub&shy;lished in this country as ''Roots of Revo&shy;lu&shy;tion'' (1960).
 }}</font>

Difference between revisions of "Anarchy 70/Anarchist anthologies"

Latest revision as of 11:44, 11 October 2021

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Tools