Art by Clifford Harper
Table of Contents:
- The Necessity of Communism (1887)
- Property (1888)
- What Anarchist Communism Means (1889)
- Anarchism: I. (1884)
The Necessity of Communism
Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, London, September, 1887 (edited by Charlotte Wilson)
If all Socialists should agree together on the point which we have developed in our last issue, namely, that the wants of all must be the first guiding consideration of any revolutionary movement which has a Socialist character — and we really cannot understand how this can be denied, or even underrated — then they would perceive that the next revolution, if it is guided by Socialist principle, must necessarily drive them to Communism, and Communism drive them to Anarchy.
Of course, if we admit that the next revolution will have accomplished its mission as soon as it succeeds in overthrowing the present rulers and proclaims some great industrial undertakings, like railways and mines, the property of a State democraticized a bit — everything beyond that remaining as it is — then, of course, there is no use in speaking about social revolution at all. It is no use to describe with so pompous a word the visions of Herr Bismarck, who also dreams of taking all great branches of industry under the management of the State democraticized by Imperialism. We only remark that such a result would be utterly shabby in comparison with the great movement of ideas stirred up by Socialism; and that it stands in very strange contradiction with the hopes that Socialists are awakening precisely among the most miserable elapses of laborers.
But, if those who describe themselves as revolutionists — and really are revolutionists, at least with regard to their proceedings, if not always in ideas which inspire them — if they really mean a thorough modification of the present state of property, they cannot avoid perceiving that the day they begin any serious economical change in the present conditions of property, they immediately will have to face the problem of providing food for those who so long have suffered from want of it, of giving shelter to those who have none worthy the name of a dwelling, and of providing clothes for those who are now ragged and barefoot.
Not in the shape of charities, whosoever might distribute them; as charities distributed by a municipal or local board brought to power by the revolution, would remain as much an insult to those to whom they were distributed as the charities of the millionaire at the present day; but as something which is due by society to everybody; and, first of all, precisely to those who have patiently waited for the “justice to all” regularly promised by revolutionists and reformers, and always forgotten as soon as the said revolutionists and reformers are on the top of the political ladder. We do not care about “Coronation gifts,” be they distributed by a King, or by a shopkeeper acclaimed President of a Republic, or by a brother-workman nominated municipal councilor. We merely ask for what is due to everybody, everybody having contributed to the extent of his capacities to the creation of the riches which surround us.
To leave nobody without food, shelter and clothing, is the first and imperative duty of each popular movement inspired by Socialist ideas; and we wonder why our Socialist friends, so out-spoken in their political programs, are so discreet exactly on this subject — the object, the first aim, in our opinion, of any movement worthy to be called Socialist. Is it a simple omission, or something so obvious that it is needless to waste words upon it?
But, if it is really so, then, how is it possible to avoid Communism entering into our life in the very first days of the revolution?
We have already said in our 8th number why the revolution in our present conditions of property can only issue from widely-developed, independent local action. The miners of a more advanced mining district, the inhabitants of a more advanced city, cannot wait until all Great Britain is converted to their ideas by pamphlets, manifestos, and speeches; they will go ahead, saying to themselves that the best means to convert everybody is example.
And now, imagine a revolted city where the majority follows the Socialists. What must the Socialists propose if they really wish to be with the masses, and march together with them for the conquest of the future? What must they propose if they mean to be in accordance with justice and with their own principles? The words Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity are surely grand and glorious words. We may inscribe them on each banner, and let them float over each house. We may even inscribe them, as our Paris neighbors do after each revolution, on each public building, even on prisons. But, what besides the words? Another word? The nationalization of land, of mines, of capital, which may be full of meaning, but may remain as meaningless as the great words of Fraternity, of Equality, of Liberty, when they are painted on prison walls?
As to us, Communist-Anarchists, the question we shall put to ourselves will not be, What shall we inscribe on our banners? It will be, what shall the workman eat during the next twenty-four hours! Is he able, and must he continue to pay the rent to the landlord and house-owner? Where will those who live in dens, or even have not a den to live in, spend the next night?
These plain, brutal questions will be asked in each workman’s household; they will be asked in each of the slums so particularly described a few years ago by the newspapers for the amusement of the occupiers of ducal and princely palaces; they will be asked, however of the knowledge of the workman and the slum-inhabitant of Marx’s or Proudhon’s Political Economy. And they must be asked — and answered — by each earnest Socialist, unless his presumptuous learnedness considers a question too mean which has not been treated in Marx’s ‘Capital’ or in Proudhon’s ‘Economical Contradictions.’
Once asked, there is, however, no other answer to the question than this: There are so many houses in the city. Some of them are overcrowded, some others nearly empty; some of them being dens which even a beast would find too dirty, too wet, and too disgusting to stay in unless compelled to do so; and some others embellished with all the refinements of modern luxury.
It might remain so as long as we lived under the monopoly of private property. It could remain so as long as humanity was considered as consisting of two classes: the one created for the dens, and the other for the palaces. It could remain so as long as there was a State ruled by land, house, and capital owners, who exacted rack rents for their own benefit, and called in police and emergency men to evict the rebels who refused to enrich them. But it cannot remain so any longer.
Apart from a few cottages purchased by workmen families, at the price of all possible privations, none of these houses can be honestly considered as honestly acquired by their present owners. Humanity has built them; they belong to humanity, or at least to that part of humanity which is gathered on the spot. As soon as we proclaim that property — whatever its shape — is an accumulation of wealth due to the spoliation of the masses by the few — and who among Socialists does not affirm and re-affirm that principle? — we can no longer consider property in houses as a sacred right. They belong to all, and the very first thing we have to do is to consider what use can be made of them in order to provide everybody with a decent home.
The only rule to guide us must be the wants of each family, each of them being equally entitled to enjoy the produce of the labor of generations past and present. We cannot ask what each family will be able to pay for a house; it is not their fault if thousands and thousands, brought to misery by our former conditions, can afford to pay nothing, and even those who can produce will be reduced to idleness by the economical changes rendered necessary by the faults of our forefathers. It is not big fault if the man there who has half-a-dozen children has none of the accomplishments which characterize the owner of the palace and his daughters. He and his wife have worked all their life long; can the owner of the palace say as much of himself and his wife? And his rights to a decent dwelling are as good as those of the palace-owner.
And the Socialist who is not a mere quack must accept this standpoint; he must recognize that to take possession of the houses in the name of the revolted city, and provide every inhabitant with a decent dwelling, is the very first duty of the Socialist who is in earnest, whose criticisms of the capitalist system have not been empty declamation.
Communism as to the dwelling must thus necessarily impose itself from the very first days of any serious Socialist movement.
But, who can come to an allotment of this very first necessity of life if the inhabitants themselves cannot do it? Can it be a local board? Can it be any other elected body which will order: Mr. A. goes to house No. 10, and Mr B. to house No. 15? Obviously not! The settlement, any settlement which would last for some time, can only result from the initiative of all interested in the settlement, from the good-will of all in conjunction. And a first step towards Anarchy — towards the settlement of a grave social question without the intervention of Government will be taken.
It will take some time to come to a satisfactory settlement of the question of dwellings. The Russian mir spends sometimes three or four days before a hundred householders come to a unanimous agreement as to the repartition of the allotments of soil in accordance with the working powers of each family (there is no government to enforce a solution which is not unanimous), but they come nevertheless.
The settlement must be arrived at, for the very simple reason that the present inhabitants of the dens and slums will not recognize that they must for ever remain in their slums and dens, and leave the palaces to the rulers of the day. And an approach to Communism will thus be enforced — even on the most individualistic collectivist.
Property
Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, London, August 1888 (edited by Charlotte Wilson)
Another comrade contributes the following remarks, treating the same subject.
Communist Anarchism implies a change in the mental attitude of men towards things as well as towards one another, a change which will necessarily bring with it a change of outward conditions. It implies the disappearance of the idea of ownership.
Property as it exists at present is a claim to the absolute ownership of things put forward by an individual of an association and acknowledged by society. Lately we have seen this claim disputed with regard to land. When Lady Matheson says of her estate in the Highlands shall I not do what I will with mine own? there is a general and growing feeling that the claim of any individual to hold land in such a fashion is outrageous. This woman is not using the land. She only demands that we shall all help her to prevent any one else from using it, a claim contrary to common sense, when people are starving for want of what she does not need.
But suppose she were using it? Suppose she were speaking not of an estate but of a potato field, which she and her family were cultivating, suppose her neighbors wanted her potato field to grow cattle fodder, and she in return said, “Shall I not do what I will with my own?” and demanded that we should all stand by her in her claim to this property. Should we?
If we did, if we acknowledged her absolute ownership of that potato field as long, and only as long, as she was actually using it, we should have modified the idea of property. We should have made some attempt to limit the claims of ownership according to the merits and the needs of the proprietor, instead of leaving each to acquire all he can get without illegal violence or fraud. But we should still be individualists advocating rights of property, just as much as the lawyers who contend to-day for a kind lord’s absolute right to his estate. We should be advocates of peasant proprietorship of Land, of occupying ownership of houses, and so on.
By so doing we should leave the root of the evil untouched. The hard dividing line of mine and thine would remain. The ownership of things would still stand as a bar between man and man, crushing individuality, alienating social feeling.
“Things are in the saddle,
And ride mankind,”
said Emerson; things and the idea of the individual possession of them, of getting and keeping one’s own particular tattle pile of goods. Things sought and held in this spirit get as it were on our backs and weigh us down like an Old Man of the Sea. They ride our energies and affections, our aspirations and hopes. They put a bit in our mouths and a spur in our side and guide our lives, and the more we get the closer the bondage; until the very rich are almost as much shackled and oppressed by their wealth as the very poor by their poverty. Have we not lately heard that the younger Vanderbilt has gone nearly crazy beneath the burden of his riches? Yet the fever of accumulation grows unchecked as long as it is fed by the temptations of private property, and the poor are ground into yet lower depths of misery that the rich may be more and more miserable. But this slavery of men to things is not confined to owners of great possessions. In varying shapes it burdens the life of the peasant proprietor striving and grinding early and late to add to his plot of land, or the thrifty artisan always ready to take bread out of his fellow’s mouth by working overtime, so that he may add a few shillings to the little hoard in the savings bank. The subjection of man to the work of his hands is the curse which clings to property, and we look to the destruction of the idea of property, to Communism, for its removal.
Communism is not an arrangement for giving to each person property in what he is using or equal property to all, it is the abolition of the idea of property, of ownership, altogether. Does it seem strange to think of things as ownerless, of the claim of individuals to their use being settled by no abstract rules explained by a lawyer? When you feel inclined to laugh at the idea of masterless things, recollect that not so many hundred years ago, our ancestors would have laughed at the idea of a masterless man. Readers of William Morris’s ‘John Ball’ will remember that one of the first questions the poet hears in dreamland is “Whose man art thou?” And when he indignantly replies “No one’s man,” the peasant at once says, “Nay, that’s not the custom of England,” and supposes that he must have come “from heaven down.” That is a perfectly true picture of English feeling four or five centuries back, and yet today the idea that every one must necessarily belong some one else, who is personally responsible for him, seems ridiculous.
One day it will seem as ridiculous with regard to things. Why must a potato field be some one’s property? Is there no other and more reasonable way of settling who is to work on it?
The daily experience of Russian peasants or Scotch crofters, settles the question with regard to land. Where no abstract rights of property are known or enforced, land is cultivated according to an amicable agreement between those whose needs are concerned. But how about other things, how is the use of them to be apportioned fairly unless we admit ownership? Is my neighbor entitled rudely to interfere between me and the things with which I have some personal relation and which are supplying my needs? Is he entitled without any consideration for my feelings to ride the horse I tend, to take possession of the sewing-machine I am about to use, to retain my favorite pencil in his pocket, to carry off the tea-pot given me by my grandmother, or insist on employing my comb and brush, to say nothing of intruding himself into my room when I prefer solitude?
If there were no way of securing respect from others for one’s relations towards things but an acknowledgment of the rights of property, it would be tattle use to talk of abolishing those rights, for such respect is an essential part of human happiness. It is the vague idea that this respect for personal relations with things depends on property, that is the real objection to Communism in the eyes of many people. A very real objection if property and a true human relation to things were one and the same. But are they? To be sure of it we must consider, first, if the acknowledgment of abstract rights of property does secure the true human relation of men to things, and secondly, if it could be secured on no better grounds.
First, then, what constitutes a man’s real relation to things? Either he has created them, put his own qualities, his own thought into them, shaped them so that they repeat his personality, or he tends, fosters, develops them so that to him they represent a certain portion of his own care, affection and energy. And in either case he loves them with some of the same instinctive love which he feels for himself. Thus the author has a sense of personal relation with his book, the mason with the house he helps to build and decorate, the housewife with the clothing she devises and sews, the gardener with the plot of ground he cultivates, the carter or shepherd with the animals he tends.
Again, we each of us have a sense of instinctive attachment to the things which supply our needs in proportion as they satisfy our individual tastes and requirement—as they suit our fancy. In this way we get attached to special tools, special workshops, special houses, special furniture, special clothes, special sorts of food, even special knives and pencils. By using these congenial things we can produce better work with less effort and in general enjoy a fuller satisfaction in our life.
Here, then, are two very real sorts of relation between men and things. Are they of the nature that can be assured and confirmed by any code of rules as to abstract rights of property? We continually see on the contrary that the rights of property interfere between men and the things with which they are most intimately and actually connected. Human beings are being separated every day from their own handiwork, and from the things that can best supply their needs, from land, and machinery, houses, food, and clothes, in the name of rights of property. Does the farmer consider his carter’s claim to the horses, or the capitalist the workman’s claim to the tools or machinery, or the landlord the peasant’s claim to the land or the woman’s claim to the house or room or furniture? No, abstract rights of mine and thine ride rough-shod over human feeling and human need and violently divorce men and women from things which are to them a part of themselves, thereby causing a frightful amount of suffering, mental and physical.
Is this necessary? If there were no fixed hard and fast rules of mine and thine to settle the claims of men to the use of things, would this suffering be increased or lessened?
If society acknowledged no such rules, if it were Communistic, the relation of men to things would be determined as relations between persons are in most cases settled already, i.e., each case by free choice and on its own merits. There is, there can be no law to prevent another man from coming between me and my brother, my friend or my sweetheart.* If personal relations clash, we must arrange them according to the circumstances, feelings and needs of the people involved. There are no fixed rules, but on the whole we preserve an attitude of respect for one another’s claims. If we did not, society would be impossible and no acknowledgment of abstract legal rights could mend matters.
Now suppose abstract legal rights with regard to things done away with, do not much the same reasons as prevent me from interfering between my neighbor and his friends restrain me also from carrying away his tools, turning him out of his house, driving him from his land, insisting on riding his favorite horse, playin6 on his violin, using his brush and comb, wearing his coat, or running away with the silver tea pot given him by his grandmother? I do not acknowledge his property in these things, but if I see that he has an actual relationship with any of them, social feeling will instinctively restrain me from violating it. If I am so unsocial a person as to be indifferent to his pain, still I shall remember that I too have no abstract rights of property. As I do unto others so will they probably do unto me and if I forget this, my neighbors will remind me and resent unfair conflict which is a danger to all of them, and a pain to the social feeling of most.
On the other hand, if I unfairly wish to monopolize things, coats, horses, tools, or what not, when other people are going short, and there are no fixed rules behind which I can by ingenious reasoning shelter myself from the general human obligation to share the fruits of the common labor, this sort of selfishness will not be easy. If I am imitating the unsocial behavior of the Marchioness instanced by Comrade Kropotkin and keeping a big house all to myself when other people are unhealthily over-crowded, I shall have no argument to meet the claims of the over-crowded people and the protests of my neighbors against my inhumanity. The house is not mine, and other people have an equal claim with myself to be housed when there is house-room. If my necessities, convenience, associations, or taste lead me to prefer certain rooms, decidedly my neighbors would be unsocial to attempt to oust me, hut if I try to keep more rooms than I really need, I shall have “rights” on which to take my stand as any excuse. I and my needy neighbors must meet as equals with equal claims and settle the matter by mutual agreement or fight. In our century most of us prefer agreement, in cases where we have no imaginary “rights” to back up our obstinacy. Those who have lived in American communities say that it is curious how quickly the idea of property fades from the mind when it is not kept up by a social convention. How soon one begins instinctively to look on wealth as something to be shared according to needs instead of contended for as an individual right.
This is the changed attitude towards things which is dawning as a desirable possibility upon the consciousness of our age, a change which is at once the motive forge of the idea of expropriation and a security against the lasting revival of economic slavery after the expropriation is accomplished.
* During the ages of authority continuous efforts were of course made to secure legal rights of property in wives, with such ill success that the attempt has been to a great extent abandoned. This sort of property was always specially insecure inasmuch as it was liable to steal itself.
What Anarchist Communism Means
Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism, London, August 1889 (edited by Charlotte Wilson)
ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM means, first of all, absolute freedom for every human being of either sex, freedom not only of thought, of speech, of publication, of public meeting, but freedom in choice of work and in choice of friends and associates in every walk of life. Here is one distinction between us and the Social Democrats who want to have a Central Body, or a number of Central Bodies, organising and directing the labour of the community.
To that view of theirs we oppose the great modern principles of decentralisation and federation: that is, the abolition of all government, central as well as municipal, of the army, police, law courts, parliaments, big and little, taxes, and all other such humbug.
We wish men to associate freely for the purpose of work and production and of satisfying their needs. Free associations of workmen in each locality will be quite able to agree amongst themselves as to their common interests.
Each man ought to be regarded as the equal of all his fellows; each ought to have the right to withdraw from any association and seek other opportunities to combine with other men. Each association or federation ought likewise to be considered as the equal of the others and to be enabled to net freely by commanding the use of the means of labour. No laws, no officials, no functionaries, no red tape, no despotism, in short, however disguised; no parliamentarianism, no men chattering and hair-splitting whilst their fellows work and pay expenses.
The fundamental principle of the new society, for which we look, is the freedom of the individual, the economic freedom of the man working for himself, not for the enrichment of a master. Hence we look for the abolition, and the moral impossibility in the future, of the wage system or any modification of it.
Men rise to your true dignity! Conquer the means of labour. Refuse to work for the sole benefit of certain others and to let others work for your sole benefit. So shall you not only win a momentary equality, but, what is infinitely more important, remain permanently equal. No one will govern you, because no one will held over you the terrible power of wealth, no one of you will submit to such power. All will be engaged, in different direction, in work equally useful and productive.
Individual independence, political independence, economical independence, that is freedom, when it is the independence of truly social human beings, each of whom recognises that freedom for one implies the love and reverence of all for each and each for all.
Workmen rally to us: or rather, rally to yourselves and to the principles which sum up your true interests.
Anarchism: I.
By Charlotte Wilson, Justice, London, November 8, 1884
The word Anarchism is open to such grievous misconstruction from English readers, who associate it with mere confusion, or, still more unfortunately, with acts of personal violence and revenge, that, in the absence of any more competent co-religionist at liberty for the moment to undertake the task, I would crave your permission to explain what our creed really is and especially its bearing on social reconstruction.
Anarchy, as your readers are aware, means simply “without a ruler” or “chief magistrate”. Anarchist, therefore, is the name assumed by a certain school of Socialists, who, in the words of the Declaration of the Forty-Seven at Lyons, believe that “the time has come to teach the people to do without government”, as well as for teaching them the advantages of common property. They believe that, in the present stage of progress, social union can only be stable when it is based upon absolute economic equality, and perfect individual freedom. They further believe that the rottenness and injustice of the present constitution of society is reaching a climax, and that a revolution is inevitable which shall sweep away privilege, monopoly and authority, with the laws and institutions which support them, and set free the constructive energies of the new social ideal already growing up within the outworn formulas of a past phase of civilization.
Their conception of the mission of revolution as purely destructive, leads Anarchists to face the query of the unknown future less in the form of – What scheme have we to substitute for the status quo? than — After the annihilation of the oppressive institutions of the present, what social forces and social conditions will remain, and how are they likely to be modified and developed?
It is hardly needful to inquire, as some cavilers are fond of doing, what would happen if civilized men ceased to be social animals and existed each for himself alone. We do not live together in societies and mutually yield and accommodate ourselves to one another so as to make a common existence possible, because we are coerced to do so by certain laws and institutions. We are drawn together by our social instincts, and molded into such harmony as we have at present attained, by the perpetual action and reaction of the influence we exert over each other, and by our inherited and acquired habits, sympathies, and beliefs. The Revolution, in breaking up the stereotyped forms into which some of these social instincts and beliefs have crystallized, can, in no sense, destroy the social instincts themselves.
Since the ordered and systematized society of medieval Europe was dissolved by Individualism, these social instincts have made themselves most powerfully felt in the growth of two vast and ever increasing forces, i.e., Socialized Production and Public Opinion. Both are the direct outcome of the influence of personal freedom, and the energy of individual initiative upon the action of society. Both are among the realities, which Revolution directed against shams and hypocrisy, will leave unscathed.
The present highly socialized system of production on a large scale, with its endless division and sub-division of labor, its machinery, its concentrated masses of human “hands”, and its complex industrial relations, has taught men the enormously increased command over the forces of nature, which they may obtain by co-operating for existence. It is, moreover, already practically a system whereby all workers labor for society as a whole, and, in return, supply their needs from the general stock of finished products. When the individual monopoly in land and capital which prevents the workers, firstly, from directing their own labor and, secondly, from adequately supplying their wants, is destroyed, the end of social reconstruction must be to enable them to do both as simply and effectually as possible. Will free cooperation and free contract enable the workers to carry on production on a scale adequate to their needs, if they retain the necessary instruments in their own hands, without any State or Communal organization and direction to take the place of monopolists, masters and organizers? We believe that they will. For a radical change must have come over opinion as to the nature of property and public duty before the Revolution can succeed.
Proudhon’s famous dictum, “Property is theft“, is the key to the equally famous enigma proposed to Socialists by Saint-Simon, when he wrote, “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs“. When the workers clearly understand that in taking possession of railways and ships, mines and fields, farm buildings and factories, raw material and machinery, and all else they need for their labor, they are claiming the right to use freely for the benefit of society, what social labor has created, or utilized in the past, and that, in return for their work, they have a just right to take from the finished product whatever they personally require, the difficulty will be solved and obstacles in the shape of making necessary changes in the detailed working of the system of production and its relation to consumption, will vanish before the ingenuity of the myriad minds vitally concerned in overcoming them.
But until they do realize, that, as long as land and capital are unappropriated, the workers are free, and that, when these have a master, the workers also are slaves, no lasting and effectual improvement can be wrought in their condition. The fatal passion of acquisitiveness has got such hold upon men’s minds, that masterless things appear now to many of them as monstrous an anomaly as masterless men did to the country justices of Queen Elizabeth. They devise all sorts of elaborate schemes for putting the common property of the people in trust, and appointing administrators to direct its application — a masterful sort of servants, likely to become worse tyrants than the old ones. We Anarchists, who desire neither to rule nor to serve, prefer to trust to the reason of the workers, enlightened by their bitter experience of past slavery.
Anarchism proposes, therefore,
1. That the usufruct of instruments of production — land included — should be free to all workers, or groups of workers.
2. That the workers should group themselves, and arrange their work as their reason and inclination prompt.
3. That the necessary connections between the various industries and branches of trade, should be managed on the some voluntary principle.
4. That finished goods should be massed in large stores and markets, and that offices for facilitating the mutual convenience of producers and consumers (as for example, house builders and carpenters, and house seekers) should be opened in convenient centers.
5. That each individual should supply his needs therefrom as his self-knowledge prompts.
This is the theory of laissez faire, modified and extended to meet the needs of the future, and avoid the injustice of the past. It implies that the majority of men are capable of acting with some approximation to effectiveness, if left free to do so, and is based on the assumption that the individual is the best judge of his own capabilities, and, further, that self-interest, intelligently followed, tends to promote the general economic well-being of the community. It differs from the old system in placing self-interest on the side of just distribution, by the destruction of private property in the means of production, and thus does much to neutralize the dangers of Society from natures whose selfishness is their strongest sentiment. It also allows free play to those social sympathies, the influence of which in determining conduct it was one of the chief mistakes of the orthodox economists to ignore. It assumes that just and generous economic relations are for the interest of the individual, and that he is capable of being taught so, if not by science and the teaching of the moralist, then by the stem lessons of experience. Has not the process of instruction already begun?
An English Anarchist
[Note by M. Gouldhawke: Wilson, in this article, mistakenly attributes Étienne Cabet and Louis Blanc’s communist slogan, “to each according to his needs”, to the Saint-Simonians, whose socialist slogan was instead, “to each according to his works”, a slogan criticized by the communists (including the later anarchist communists), and a concept also criticized by Wilson herself.]
See also:
Charlotte M. Wilson — Nicolas Walter
Anarchy and Communism – Le Drapeau Noir (1883)
Abolition of Government – Lizzie M. Swank (1886)
The Mexican People are Suited to Communism – Ricardo Flores Magón (1911)