3220 - ~~c~bi~nAIQnCk~(

-           4 -
FREEDOM

PAMPHLETS,-No,_ 2.

PRICE ONE PENNY.
Th  IA R* an
The Co rm mu in e

of

Paris.

PETER KROPOTKINE.
LONDON.
J. TURNER, 7, LAMB'S CONDUIT STREET, WAC.
1 8 9 6.;; r
~' i-8:P:





THE        COMMIUNE             OF       PARIS.
-0 -I.-THE PLACE OF THE COMMUNE IN          SOCILIST EVOLUTION.
ON the 18th of March, 1871, the people of Paris rose against a
despised and detested Government, and proclaimed tlhe city
independent, free, belonging to itself.
This overthrow of the central power took place without the usual
stage effects of revolution, without the firing of guns, without thC
shedding of blood upon barricades. When the armed people came
out into the streets, the rulers fled away, the troops evacuated the
town, the civil functionaries hurriedly retreated to Versailles, carrying everything they could with them. The Government evaporated
like a pond of stagnant water in a spring breeze, and on the 19th the
great city of Paris found herself free from the impurity which had
defiled her, with the loss of scarcely a drop of her children's blood.
Yet the change thus accomplished began a new era in that long
series of revolutions whereby the peoples are marching from slavery
to freedom. Under the name Commune of Paris a no'w idea was
born, to become the starting-point for future revolutions.
As is always the case, this fruitful idea was not the product of
some one individual's brain, of the conceptions of some philosopher;
it was born of the collective spirit, it sprang from the heart of a
whole community. But at first it was vague, and many of those
who acted upon and gave their liver for it did not look at it



4

Freedom   Pamphlets.

in the light in which we see it to-day; they did not realise the full
purport of the revolution they inaugurated or the fertility of the
new principle they tried to put in practice. It was only after they
had begun to apply it that its future bearing slowly dawned upon
them; it was only afterwards, when the new principle came to be
thought out, that it grew definite and precise, and was seen in all
its clearness, in all its beauty, its justice, the importance of its
results.
During the five or six years that came before the Commune,
Socialism had taken a new  leparture in the spread and rapid growth
of the International Working Men's Association.       In its local
branches and general congresses the workers of Europe met together
and took counsel with one another upon the social question as they
had never done before. Amongst those who saw that social revolution was inevitable, and were actively busy in making ready for it,
one pr;l)leom above all others seemed to press for solution.  "The
existing development of industry will force a great economic revolution upon our society; this revolution will abolish private property,
will put in common all the capital piled up by previous generations;
but, what form of political grouping will be most suited to these
changes in our economic system?"
"The grouping must not be merely national," answered the International Working Men's Association, " it must extend across all
artificial frontiers and boundary lines."  And soon this grand idea
sunk into the hearts of the peoples and took fast hold of their miiinds.
Though it has been hunted down ever since by the united offorts of
every species of reactionary, it is alive nevertlhlelss, and when the
voice of the peoples in revolt shall melt the obstacles to its d( vl,lpment, it will reappear stronger than ever before.
But when this vast idea of Internalional Association had be, n
struck out, it still remained to discover what should be the component parts of the federation of the world.
To this question two answers were given, each the expression of a
distinct current of thought.   One said, The Popular State; the
other said, Anarchy.
The German Socialists advocated that the State should take
possession of all accumulated wealth and give it over to associa-tions
of workers, and further, should organise.prduction and exchange,
and generally watch over the life and activities of society.
To them the Socialists of the Latin race, strong in revolutionary



The Commune of Paris.                        5
experience, replied that it would be a miracle if such a State could
ever exist; but if it could, it would surely be the worst of tyrannies.
This ideal of the all-powerful and beneficent State is merely a copy
from the past, they said; and they confronted it with  a new ideal:
An-archy, i.e., the total abolition of the State, and social organisation from the simple to the complex by means of the free federation,
of popular groups of producers and consumers.
It was soon admitted, even by the more liberal-minded      State
Socialists, t hat Anarchy certainly represented a much better Fort of
organisation than that aimed at by the pop)ular State; but, they
said, the Anarchist ideal is so 'ir ofi' that just now we cannot trouble
about it.
At the same time, it was true that the Anarchist theory did need
some short, clear tcle of expression, some formula at once simple
alld pIiactical, to sho,w plainly its point of departure and embody
its conceptions, to iilicate how  it was supported by an actually
existing tendenlcv aUll,((rst the people.  A  Federation of Workers'
Unions and groulps of conlsumers, regiardless of frontiers and (quite
independent of existing States, seenled too vague; and, moreover,
it was easy to see that it coultl not fully satisfy all the infinite
variety of human requirements.   A clearer formnula was wanited, one
nmore easily grasped, one which had a firmn foundation in the realities
of actual life.
If the question had merely been how best to elaborate a theory,
we should have said, Theories, as theories, are not of so very much
importance.   Iut as long as a new i(lea has not found a clear, precise form  of statement, growing naturally out of things as they
actually exist, it does not take holdl off itmen's miinds, does not ilspire
them to enter upon a decisive stnrmggle.  Thle people do not fling
themselves into the unknown without some positive and clearly
formiulatedl idlea to serve them, as it were. for a springing-board when
they reach the starting-point.
As for this starting point, they must be led up to it by life itself.
For live whole mlonths IParis hadl been isolatedl by the Ge-.man
besiegers; for five whlole monthm  s she had   lived as she listed
and hal learmied to know the immiense economic, intellectual and
moral strength whNich she possessed.  She had cauglht a glimpse of
her own force of' iiitiative and realised what it meant.  At the samue
time she had seen that the prating crow who took upon them       to



6                      Freedom Pamphlets.
exercise authority, had no idea how to organise either the defence of
France or its internal development. She had seen the Central Government at cross purposes with every manifestation of the intelligence of the mighty city. Finally, she had come to realise that any
government must be powerless to guard against great disasters or to
smooth the path of rapid evolution. During the Siege her defenders,
her workers, had suffered the most frightful privations, whilst her
idlers revelled in insolent luxury, and, thanks to the Central Government, she had seen the failure of every attempt to put an end to
these scandals. Each time that her people had showed signs of a
desire for a free scope, the Government had added weight to their
chains. Naturally such experiences gave birth to the idea that
Paris must make herself an independent Commune, able to realise
within her walls the wishes of her citizens.
And thus this word-" The Commune" -the freely federated
Communes, instead of the State-became the general cry.
The Commune of 1871 could be nothing but a first attempt. Peginning at the close of a great war, hemmed in between two armies
ready to join hands and crush the people, it dared not unmhesitatingly
set forth upon the path of economic revolution. It neither boldly
declared itself Socialist nor proceeded to the expropriation of capital
nor the organisation of labour. It did not even take stock of tho
general resources of the city.
Nor (lid it break with the tradition of the State, of representative
Government. It did not seek to effect within the Commune that
very organisation from the simple to the complex which it inaugurated without, by proclaiming the independence and free federation of
Communes.
Yet it is certain that if the Commune of Paris could have lived a
few lmonths longer, it would have been inevitably driven by the
force of circumstances towards both these revolutions. Let us not
forget that the French middle-class spent altogether four years, I froi
1789 to 1793, in revolutionary action before they changed a lim;ted
nmonairchy into a republic. Ought we then to be astonished that
the people of Paris (lid not cross with one bound the space between
an Anarchist Commune and the Government of the Spoilers.;ut
lot us also bear in mind that the next Revolution, which in Francm
and Spain at least will be Communal, will take up the work of



The Commune of Paris.                         7
the Commune of Paris where it was interrupted by the maissacres of
the Versailles soldiery.
The Commune was defeated, and too well we know            how   the
middle-class avenged itself for the scare given it 1~y the people vwhen
they shook their rulers' yoke loose upon their iiecks. It proved that
there really are two classes in our modern society; on one sidel, the
man who works and yields up to the nmonolpolists of proplerty 1more
than half of what he produces and yet lightly passes over the w.rong
done him by his masters; on the other, the( idler, the spoiler, hating
his slave, ready to kill him like game, aniototed by the most savage
instincts as soon as he is menaced in his pos)session.
After having shut in the people of Paris and closed all means of
exit, the Versailles Government let loose soldiers upon theim; soldiers brutalised by drink and barrack life, who had been publicly
told to make short work of "the wolves and their cubs."        To the
people it was said:
" You shall perish, whatever you do! If you are taken with arms in your
hands-death    If you use them-death! If you beg for mercy-death!
Whichever way you turn, right, left, back, forward, up, down,-death!
You are not merely outside the law, you are outside ]hni;niity. Neither age
nor sex shall save you and yours. You shall die, but first you shall taste the
agony of your wife, your sister, your mother, your sons a id daiughters, even
those in the cradle! Before your eyes the woullded nman shall )e taklen out of
the ambulance and hacked with bayonets or knocked down with the butt end
of a rifle. He shall be dragged living by his broken leg or bleeding arm and
flung like a suffering, groaning bundle of refuse into the cutter. Death!
Death! Death! *
And after this mad orgie, these piles of corpses, this wholesale
extermination, came the petty revenge, the cat-o'-nine tails, the
irons in the ship's hold, the blows and insults of the warders, the
semi-starvation, all the refinements of cruelty.     Can the people
forget these doughty deeds.
Overthrown, but not Conquered, the Commune in our days is born
again.  It is no longer a dream     of the vanquished, caressing in
imagination the lovely mirage of hope. No! the "Commune" of today is becoming the visible and definite aim      of the Revolution
* Histc ie populaz e et pa lementa ie de la Conmmune de Paris, par Arthur
Aruould.



8                      Freedom Pamplhlets.
rumbling beneath our feet. The idea is sinking deep into the nasses.
it is giving them a rallying cry. We count on the present generation
to bring about the Social Revolution within the Commune. to put
an end to the ignoble system of middle-class exploitation. to rid
the people of the tutelage of the State, to inaugurate a new era of
liberty, equality, solidarity in the   evolution  of  the  humani
rae..
II.-How   THE COM3IUNE FAILE'D TO REALIZF ITS TRUE AIM AND
YET SET THIAT AIM IBEFORE TI-IF WO11,D.
Twenty years already separnte us from the day when the p)eople
of Paris overthrew the traitor government which raised itself to
power at the downfall of the emnIpire. whence comes it that the
oppressed masses of the civilized world are still irresistably drawn
towards the movement of 1871? Why is the idea represente(l Iy the
Commune of Paris so attractive to the workers of every land, of
every nationality?
The answer is easy.   The Revolution of 1871 was above all a
popular one.   It was made by the people themselves, it sprang
spontaneously from the midst of the mass, and it was amongst the
great iiasses of the people that it found its defenders, its heroes, its
martyrs.  It is just because it was so thoroughly "low" that the
middle-class can never forgive it. And at the same tinie its moving
spirit was the idea of a Social Revolution; vague certainly, perhaps
unconscious, but still the effort to obtain at last, after the struggle of
many centuries, true freedom, true equality for all men. It was the
RIevolution of the lowest of the people marching forward to conquer
their rights.
Attempts have been and are made to change the sense of this
revolution, to represent it as a mere effort to reg:in the independence
of Paris and thus to constitute a tiny state within France.  But
nothiilg can be more untrue. Paris (did not seek to isolate herself
from FraMne, any more than to conquer it by force of arms; she did
not care to shut herself withinl her walls, like a nun in a convent, she
was not inspired by the narrow spirit of the cloister.  If she claimedl
h r independlence, if she tried to hinder the interference of the ccnitr;al
Iower in her affairs, it was because she saw in that independence a
imeans of quietly elaborating the bases of lutlire organization and



The Commune of Paris.                      9
bringing about within herself a social revolution; a revolution whichb
would have completely transformed the whole system of prodluction
and exchange by basing them on justice; which would have completely mndiiied human relations by putting them on a footing of
equality; which would have formed our social morality anew by
founding it upon equality and solidarity. Communal independence
was then but a means for the people of Paris; the Social Revolution
was their end.
And this end might have been attained if the Revolution of March
18th had been able to take its natural course, if the people of Paris
had not been cut to pieces by the assasins from Versailles. To find;
clear, precise idea, comprehensible to all the world and summing up
in a few words what was needed to accomplish the Revolution, this
was really the preoccupation of the people of Paris from the earli(est
days of their independence.  lint a great idea does not germinate in
a day, however rapid the elaboration and propagation of ideas during
periods of revolution. It always needs a certain time to devehp,
to spread throughout the masses, to translate itself into action, aud
this timle failed the Commune of Paris.  More especially, because as
we have before observed, Socialism twenty years ago was passi:g
throu',gh a p)eriod of transition. The authoritative and semi-religious
Communism of 1848 had no longer any hold over the practical, freethinking minds of our epoch. The Collectivism which attempted to
yoke together the Wage System and collective property was incomprehensible, unattractive and bristling with diiliculties in practical
application.  Free Communism, Anarchist Communism, was but
beginning to dawn upon the minds of tile workers and scarcely
ventured to provoke the attacks of the worshippers of government.
Minds were undecided. Socialists themselves, having no definite end
in view, did not dare to lay hands upon private property; and
deluded themselves with the argument which has lulled the activities
of many an age: "Let us first make sure of victory, and then see
what can be done."
Make sure of victory! As if there were any way of forming a free
Commune without laying hands upon property! As if there were
any way of conquering the foe whilst the great mass of the people is
*not directly interested in the triumph of the Revolution, by seeing
that it will bring material, moral and intellectual well-being to
everybody! They tried to consolidate the Commune first and defer
the Social Revolution until afterwards, whereas the only way to go



10,1''reedom  Pamphlets.

about it was to consolidate the Commune by means of the Social
1Revolution.
The same thing happened with regard to the principle of Government.   Iy proclaiming the free Commune, the peole of' Paris
proclaimed an essential Anarchist principle, which was the breakldown
of the State, but as the idea of Anarchlism  had tlhen but faintly
dawned upon men's minds, it was checked half way, iid in the
midst of the Commune the ancient priinciple of authority croppled up
and the people gave themselves a Council of the Commune, on tilhe
model of municipal Councils elsewhere.
And yet, if we admit that a Central Government to regilate tilhe
relations of Communes between themselves is quite ne((iless, why
should we admit its necessity to regulate thle lmutual relatimons of thle
groups which make up each Commune? And if we le'vxe thle blsiness of coming to a conmmon understanding with regan;ri to enterprises which concern several cities at once to the frinc( iiiitiative of
the Communes concerned, why refuse this same free initiative, to the
groups compo-sing a single Commune. There is no more reasoni, for
a govermnent inside the Commune than for a government outside.
-iut in 1871, the people of Paris, who have overtlirown so nmany
Go-vernments, were only making their first att,it t) irevolt:agI;st
the governmental system   itself; consequently they let tlhieielves
be carried away by the fetish worship of governments and set up one
of their own.
The result is a matter of history.  Paris sent her devoted sons to
the Town Hall. There, shelved in the midst of files of old papers,
obliged to rule where their instincts p)ronilted them to be and do
amongst the people, obliged to discuss wlhere it was needful to act,
and to compromise where no compromise was the best policy; jand,
finally, losing the inspliration wich only comnes from continual contact with the masses, thely saw  themseilves reduced to imlltence.
Being paralysed by their selpar:tion, froim tlhe people- te revol -
tionary centre of light and heat-they themsnelves paralysed the
popular initiative.
The Commune of Paris, the child of a period of transition, born
beneath the Prussian guns, was doomed to perish.    l-ut by its eminently popular character it began a new series of revolutions, by its
ideas it was the forerunner of the Social Revolution.  Its lesson has



The Commune of Paris.

11

been learnt, and when France once more bristles with Communes in
revolt, the people are not likely to give themselves a government
and expect that government to initiate revolutionary measures.
When they have rid themselves of the parasites who devour them,
they will take possession of all social wealth-to put it in common,
according to the principles of Anarchist Communism. And when
they have entirely abolished property, government, and the State,
they will form themselves afresh and freely, according to the necessities indicated by life itself. Breaking its chains, overthrowing its
idols, humanity will march onward to a better future, knowing
neither masters nor slaves, keeping its veneration for the nol)le martyrs who bought with their blood and suffering those first at!o:lpts
at elmancipation, which have enlightened our march towards the
c,I'luest of liberty.
III.-THE TEACHINGS OF THE COMMUNE IN MODERN SOCIALISM.
The public meetings organised on the 18th of M;arch in alnost
every town where there is a Socialist group are well worthy of
carniful attention.  Not merely because they are a demonstration of
the Army of Labour, but also because they afford an opportunity for
guaging the sentiments of the Socialists of both worlds. They are a
better opportunity for " taking the state of thee poll " than could be
given by any system of votitg, an occasion when aspirations may be
ftrmunlated uninfluenced by eloctoral party tactics. The workers do
not meet simply to praise the heroism of the Parisian proletariat, or
t., call for vengeance for tihe May massacres. Whilst refreshing
themnselves with the memory of the brave struggle in Paris, they
have gone further and discussed what lessons for the coming Revolution must be drawn from tlhe Commune of 1871. They ask what
were the mistakes of the Commune, not for the sake of criticising the
imen who made them, but to bring out clearly how the prejudices
about property and authority, which then reigned amongst workers'
organisations, hindered thb  bursting forth of the revolutionary idea
ind its subsequent development into a light to enlighten      the
world.



12

Freedom Pamphlets.

The teaching of 1871 has benefitted the workers of every land,
enabling them to break with their old prejudices and come to a
clearer and simpler understanding as to what their Revolution
is to be.
The next rising of Communes will not be merely a "Communal "
movement. Those who still think that independent, local selfgoverning bodies must be first established and that these must try to
make economic reforms within their own localities, are being carried
along by the further development of the popular spirit, at least in
France. The Communes of the next Revolution will proclaim and
establish their independence by direct Socialist revolutionary action,
abolishing private property.  When the revolutionary situ'ation
ripens, whichll may happen any day, and governments are swept away
by the people, when the middle-class camp which only exists by
State protection, is thus thrown into disorder, the insurgent people
will not wait until some new government decrees, in its marvellous
wisdom, a few economic reforms. The,people tlheml:,elves will abolish
private property by a violent expropriation, taking,)ssessiion, inl t!,(e
name of the whole community, of all the wealth accumulated by the
labour of past generations.
They will not wait to expropriate the holders of social cap!,ital by
a decree which necessarily would remain a dead letter if not I:eC,:plished in fact by the workers themselves. They will take pssession thereof on the spot and establish their rights by utiiismg it
without (elay. They will organise tliemselves in the workshops to
continue the work, but what they will I)rolduce will be \;what is
wanted by the nmasses, not what gives the Iiighest protit to emll
ployers. They will exchange their hovels for healthy dwellings in
the houses of the rich; they will organise theimselve. to turn to
immediate use the wealth stored up in the towns; they will take
possession of it as if it had never been stolen frmn them by the
middle-class.
And when the industrial baron who has been levying black-mail
upon the worker is once evicted, production will continue, throwing
off the tramnmels which impede it, putting an end to the speculations
which kill and the confusion which disorganises it, transforming
itself conformably to.the necessities of the iioment under the impulsion given to it by free labour.  " MIen never worked in France as
they did in 1793, after the soil was snatched from the hands of the
nobles," says the historian ]Michelet. Never have men worked as
they will on the day when labour becomes free and everything ac


The Commune of Paris.

18

eomplished by the worker will be a source of well-being to the whole
Commune.
An attempt has been made of late to establish a distinction between
various sorts of social wealth, and the Socialist party are divided
upon the question. The present Collectivist school, substituting a
sort of dogmatic theory of Collectivism for the Collectivism of the
old International, which was merely anti-authoritative Communism,
have sought to establish a distinction between capital used for production and wealth supplying the necessities of life. Machinery,
factories, raw material, means of communication, and the soil, on the
one side, and dwellings, manufactured produce, clothing, commodities, on the other. The first are to be collective property, the second
are designed, by the professors of this school of Socialism, to remain
private property.
There has been an attempt to set up this distinction; but the
popular good sense has got the better of it; it has found it illusory
and impossible to establish. It is vicious in theory and fails in
in practical life. The workers understand that the house which shelters us, the coal and gas we burn, the tuel consumed by the human
machine to sustain life, the clothing needful to existence, the book
we read for instruction, even the enjoyments we get, are all so many
component parts of our existence, are all as necessary to successful
production  and   the progressive  development of humanity, as
machines, manufactories, raw materials and other means of working.
The workers are arriving at the conclusion that to maintain private
property in this sort of wealth would be to maintain inequality,
oppression, exploitation, to paralyse teforehand the results of the
partial expropriation. Leaping over the fence set up in their path
by theoliica.l Collectivism, they are marching straight for the simplest and most practical form of anti-authoritative Communism
Now in their meetings the revolutionary workers are distinctly
stating their right to all social wealth and the necessity of abolishing
private property in articles of comsumption as well as in those of
re-prodluction: "On the day of the Revolution, we shall seize upon
//ll the wealth stored up in the towns and put it in common," say the
speakers, and the audience confirm the statements with their unaniIious atpproval.  "Let each take from the pile what lie needs and be
suie that in the warehouses of our towns there will be enough food
to 'ifee clveiy one until free producl ion has made afail jtart: in the shops



14

Freedom Pamphlets.

of our towns there are enough clothes to dress every one, kept there
in reserve while outside there is nakedness and poverty. There are
even enough luxuries for each to choose amongst them according to
his liking."
Judging by what is said at Commune Commemoration meetings in
France and elsewhere, the workers have made up their minds that
the coming Revolution will introduce Anarchist Communism and the
free re-organization of production. These two points seem so far settled and in these respects the Communes of the next Revolution will not
repeat the errors of the forerunners, who so generously shed their
blood to clear the path for future progress.
There is, however, a third and no less important point upon which
the same agreement is not yet reached, though it is not so very far
off. This is the question of government.
As is wý  1known, there are two sections of the Socialist party
completely divided upon this point.    "On the very day of the
Revolution," says the one, " we must constitute a Government to
take possession of the suprenel. p)ower. A strong, powerful, resolute
Government will make the Revolution by decreeing this and that,
and forcing all to obey its commands.
"A miserable delusion! " says the other.  "Any central government, taking upon itself to rule a nation, must certainly he a mere
hindrance to the Revolution. It cannot fail to be made up of the
most incongruous elements, and its very essence as a government is
Conservatism. It will do nothing but hold back the lRevolution in
Communes ready to go ahead, without being able to inspire backward
Communes with the breath of revolution.      The same witlin a
Commune in revolt. Either the Communal government will merely
sanction accomplished facts-and then it will be a useless and
dangerous bit of machinery; or else it will wish to take the lead to
make rules for what lha. yet to be freely worked out by the people
themselves if it is to be really practicable; it will apply theories
where all society ought to work out fresh forms of common life with
that creative force which springs up in the social organism when it
breaks its chains and sees new and larger horizons opening before it.
The men in power will obstruct this outburst, without doing any of
the things they might theinmulvs h iave don if they had remained
amongst the people, working with thain at the new organisation,
instead of shutting theuouselvm   up in miuistWrial otfice" and wearing



The Comml!- ef Pa. ars

to

themselves out in idle debates. The revolutionary government wil
be a hindrance and a danger; powerless for good, formidable for ill;
therefore, what is the use of having it I"
However natural and just, this argument still runs counter to a
great many prejudices, stored up and accredited by those who have
had an interest in maintaining the religion of government, side by
side with the religions of property and of theology.
This prejudice, the last of the three, still exists and is a danger to
the coming Revolution, though it already shows signs of decay.
I" We will manage our business ourselves without waiting for the
ormli-rs of a government, we will trample under foot those who try to
fol(ce us to accept them  as priests, property owners or rulers," so
be(gi l already to say the workers.  We must hope that the Anarchist
pa::ty will continue  to vigorously combat government worship,
atil never allow itself to be dragged or enticed into a struggle for
power; we must hope that in the yearswhich remain to us before the
Revolution, the prejudice in favour of government may be so shaken
that it will not be strong enough to draw off the people upon a false
tack.
The Coummunes of the next Revolution will not only break down
the State, and substitute free fed( ration for Parliamentary rule:
they will part with Parliamentary rule within the Commune itself.
They will trust the free organisattion of food supply and production to
free groups of workers-which will federate with like groups in other
cities and villages-not through the medium of a Communal Parliament, but directly, to accomnplish their aim.
They will be Anarchist within the Commune as they will be
Anarchist outside it,-and only thus will they avoid the horrors of
d,feat, the furies of Reaction.



FREEDOM
A JOURNAL OF ANARBIIIST COMMUNISM.' ONE PENNY MONTHLY.
VAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVVVVVVAVAVAVAAAVAAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAV
FREEDOM                PAMPHLETS.
No. 1. THE WAGE SYSTEM. BY PETER KROPOTKINE. Id.
'No. 2. THE COMMUNE OF PARIS. BY PETER KROPOTKINE. Id.
No. 3. A TALK    ABOUT ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM BETWEEN TWO
WORKERS. BY E. MALATEbTA. Id.
INo. 4. ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM: ITS BASIS AND PRINCIPLES. BY
PETER KROPOTKINE. Id.
'No. 5. ANARCHY. BY E. MALATESTA. Id.
No. 6. ANARCHIST MORALITY. BY PETER KROPOTKINE. ld.
No. 7. EXPROPRIATION. BY PETER KROPOTKINE. Id.
No. 8. ANARCHISM AND OUTRAGE. BY C. M. WILSON Ad.
No. 9. ANARCHY ON TRIAL-George Eti6vant, Jean Grave and
Caserio Santo. 32 pages; Id.
LAW AND AUTHORITY. BY PETER KROPOTKINE. 2d.
EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION. BY ELYSEE RECLUS. Id.
AN APPEAL TO THE YOUNG. BY PETER KROPOTKINE. Id.
THE CHICAGO MARTYRS. Their speeches in Court and the record of
their trial, with the reasons given bv Governor Altgeld for pardoning Fielden, Schwab, and Neebe. Price sixpence.
GOD AND THE STATE. BY MICHAEL BAKOUNINE. Price fourpence.
A DIALOGUE AND HUMOROUS POETRY *BY L. S. B.; 16 pages 8vo. Id'
THE IDEAL AND YOUTH. BY ELYSEE RECLUS. Id.
REVOLUTIONARY STUDIES. BY PETER KROPOTKINE. Id.
REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT. BY PETER KROPOTKINE. Id.
AN ANARCHIST ON ANARCHY. BY ELYSEE RECLUS. Id.
AVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVA,Printed and published by J. TURNER at 7 Lambs Conduit Street, London, W. C.