Untitled

PREFACE
xiii
regardless of certain other schools. Proudhon, Stirner,
Warren, and Tucker do not advocate violent measures,
and Tolstoi, Ibsen, Spencer, Thoreau, and Emerson—
although having
— the anarchist point of view can hardly
oe conceived of as advocating violent measures. It will
be obvious to the reader that I have not dealt with the
philosophical anarchism, or whatever one may call it,
of these last. I have confined myself to the anarchism
in the democratic movement of their time and to the
of those who have endeavored to carry out their principles
deeds of those who threw themselves into the active life
about them and endeavored to impress
both their ideas
and methods upon the awakening world of labor. It is
the anarchism of these men that the world knows. By
deeds and not by words have they written their definition
of anarchism, and I am taking and using the term in this
volume in the sense in which it is used most commonly
by people in general. If this offends the anarchists of the
non-resistant or passive-resistant type,
it cannot be
helped. It is the meaning that the most active of the
anarchists have themselves given
it.
I have sought to take my statements from first-hand
sources only, although in a few cases I have had to depend
on secondary sources. I am deeply indebted to Mr.
Herman Schlueter, editor of the New Yorker Volkszeitung,
for lending me certain rare books and pamphlets,
and also for reading carefully and critically the entire
manuscript. With his help I have managed to get every
document that has seemed to me essential. At the end
of the volume will be found a complete list
of the authorities
which I have consulted. I have to regret that I
could not read, before sending this manuscript to the
publisher, the four volumes just published of the correspondence
between Marx and Engels (Der Brief ivechsel