Graham R (Ed.) - Anarchism - A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas Volume One - From Anarchy to Anarchism (300 CE to 1939)

64 / ANARCHISM
I, who back down before no consequence, say: Man ;s sovereign , that is my principle;
power is tile negation of llis sovereignty, this is my revolutionary justification; I must
destroy tllal power, this is my goal. Thus I know from where I start and where I am
bound and I do not falter.
Let me continue. Am I sovereign Then I am free. But sovereignty does not consist
solely of my intellect; when do I exercise it positively Only when I cease in my
obedience to every subjective influence and order all of my actions in accordance
with the determinations of reason. Is my freedom anything other than this, my actions'
independence of all external determinants
Let me press on with my observations: my sovereignty cannot have boundaries,
because the notions of sovereignty and boundary are mutually contradictOlY; consequently,
if my freedom is merely my sovereignty exercised, my freedom cannot be
conditional: it is absolute.
But, I answer myself, I do not live in isolation from the rest of the species; how,
in the midst of my associates, should I hang on to the full measure of my freedom and
of my sovereignty ... My answer is that the absolute, by virtue of its being such, is indivisible;
I must not even think of partial sacrifices of my sovereignty, nor of my freedom.
Moreover, fo r what reason could I have joined with my fellows ... Between two
sovereignties in contention, left to their own devices, there can be only one arbiter,
might; political society could not have been established with any other purpose than
preventing the violation of one of the two sovereignties or breaches of their contracts,
which is to say, the replacement of might by right, by the very laws of reason,
by sovereignty per se. A society between men, it must be obvious, is scarcely conCeivable
on the basis of the moral destruction of man. My freedom, consequently, even
within society, is unconditional and irreducible.
Yet was there ever a society that did not set a boundary to it To date, no society
has ever been fo unded upon right; they have striven to outdo one another with
their irregularity and, forgive the paradox, anti-social characters ...In essence their
forms have not altered their principle and on that basis I persist in condemning as tyrannical
and absurd all fo rms of government, or, wllicll amounts to tile same tiling, aff societies
as presently constituted ... My conclusion, tllerefore, is tllat eitller society is not society, or, if
it is, it ;s sucll by virtue of my consent ....
Tile constitution of a society witllOut power is tile ultimate of my revolut;onUlY aspirations;
with tllUt final objective ;n mind, I must determine aff manner of reforms ...
Power, currently, should be reduced to its smallest possible expression. I sllaff
divide and sub-divide power, I sllaff mobilize it and, rest assured, I sllaff destroy it.