I do not know how Anarchy will be achieved. That is to say, I am not a prophet. But, while I cannot forecast exactly the manner in which the order of Anarchism will supplant the disorder of authority, I can, at least, designate some of the factors that will play a part in bringing about this transformation. Some very good people, who imagine themselves extremely practical, and who are really very impractical, think that Anarchism is vague and indefinite, on the question of tactics and methods, because it has no published plan of campaign, like the political Socialists and other innovators. This leads me to attempt a few observations upon this question of methods; and it may be that I shall be able to give a little light to those friends of Anarchism who have been unable to see the way to its realization.

In the first place, all human action is the result of thought, and thought precedes action. Before any change in the established social order can be effected, a very large number of people must be induced to think. The number need not embrace the majority, for changes are never brought about by the conscious actions of majorities. It is the few who think, and move the mass to action by the power of thought. The mass ever follows its leaders, and the real leaders in all great movements are the thinkers. So in our case. We are striving to bring into existence a new order. We wish to expand the horizon of civilization, to bring the human race forward upon the endless road of progress. And to do this our first task is education.

In this work of education, it is important that we teach by example as well as by precept. A movement is liable to be judged by the character or conduct of its representatives. And everyone who avows him or herself an Anarchist is at all times a representative of the movement. People unacquainted with new theories are always inclined to judge them by the moral and intellectual standard of their advocates. So we, who profess ourselves as the exponents of a higher civilization, can give more force to our arguments, if we live a life in harmony with our philosophy.

I do not contend that we can live a truly Anarchistic life in the here and now. Our individual or social conduct cannot always be consistent with our teachings. But, to some extent, we can give expression, in our everyday lives, to those grand principles which we advocate, and which we would have the world adopt. We have, in our generation, seen the great power and influence of Tolstoy, an influence truly wonderful upon the ignorant masses of Russian peasantry, and that influence is due to the one fact that Tolstoy practiced his own teachings; he lived himself the life he sought to induce the rest of humanity to live.

Now, we cannot all follow the example of the illustrious Tolstoy, but we can do much along the same line. Anarchy, as we understand it, stands for liberty, equality, brotherhood. Some of the attributes of these grand ideas are friendship, kindness, courtesy, tolerance, honesty, liberality. The spirit of our ideas go forth in the practise by us of these attributes. We, who preach the glorious gospel of liberty, can impress the world with the honesty of our convictions only by showing that we possess the genuine spirit of liberty; and that can be demonstrated by showing tolerance towards those who differ with us; by respecting the feelings of those we come in contact with; by fair dealing with all our fellows; and by measuring our conduct by the old rule, so often professed but little practised: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is what I understand by the term, propaganda by deed, that something is done, individually or collectively, that is not in harmony with conventional conduct, by the doing of which attention is directed either to the evil we wish to abolish, or to the good we desire to establish. This deed may be destructive or it may be constructive in character. It may be one of violence, such as the throwing of a bomb, the removal of a tyrant, or one of passiveness, such as the refusal to vote, to take interest, to pay taxes. But whatever the character of the deed, the doer should be sure of his motive, for deeds which violate the existing routine can only impress the conservative public because of the clearness of their motive. If I refuse to pay taxes because I do not like to part with my money, my motive renders my act contemptible in the eyes of the public. But if I refuse to pay the tax because I do not believe in compulsory taxation, my motive makes my act an impressive protest, and invokes the sympathy of fair minded people. So with those who resort to violence. The man who slays a bad official may be condemned for his act, but if his motive be understood, such an act tends to direct public action to the evil against which it is directed.

I confess that I am not partial to that form of propaganda by deed that uses methods of violence. Especially when it is carried out by assassination. To me life is a sacred thing, even that of a tyrant, unless that life stands in the way of the life of a better man. We Anarchists who condemn government because it destroys life, should be careful how we approve deeds of assassination, even when directed against the representatives of government. The spirit of retaliation, of revenge, is the most ignoble of those savage instincts that have survived the barbaric age that gave them birth. Assassination is a form of justice that, when analyzed, is not very different from the legal idea of capital punishment.

Anarchy can never be brought about by aggressive violence. Violence and aggression, when they go together, constitute the essential spirit of authority. But I would not have Anarchists be non-resistants. Against the violence of aggression I would oppose the violence of defense—the only question being that of expediency. For a Canovas, who individually is responsible for the death and torture of human beings more valuable to society than himself, death. That is simply defense of human life. But in this struggle between Anarchy and government, let each blow for Anarchy be one of simple defense, not of retribution or revenge. We cannot avenge the crimes of government by doing the thing we condemn the State for doing. In the noble words of Thomas Paine, let us destroy the king but spare the man.

After all, it is not the lives of individuals that support the existing order, but their power. And the basis of all power today is property. In our warfare against the class privilege, our point of attack should not be the individual but the thing that makes the individual a power—private property. That is the real vital spot. A refusal to pay rent, if carried out on a large scale by the tenant class, would very speedily abolish all rent. A refusal to pay taxes, if persisted in by a large number of people, would tend to weaken the taxing power, and the taxing power is the life of every government.

These suggestions do not fully answer the problem I set out to discuss, viz., how shall we bring about the realization of Anarchy, but they at least offer something on the problem of methods, which continually presents itself. I give them, not as an Anarchist program, but as my individual opinion of the method revolutionists of the libertarian school might find most effective for propaganda purposes.