Thus by an unprejudiced observation of the animal

kingdom, we reach the conclusion that wherever society

exists at  all, this principle may be found: Treat others as

you would  like them to treat you under similar

circumstances.

	 And when we study closely the evolution of the

animal  world, we discover that the aforesaid principle,

translated  by the one word Solidarity, has played an

infinitely larger  part in the development of the animal

kingdom than all the  adaptations that have resulted from

a struggle between individuals to acquire personal

advantages.

	 It is evident that in human societies a still greater

degree  of solidarity is to be met with. Even the societies of

monkeys  highest in the animal scale offer a striking 

example of practical solidarity, and man has taken a step

further in the same  direction. This and this alone has

enabled him to preserve  his puny race amid the obstacles

cast by nature in his way,  and to develop his intelligence.

	 A careful observation of those primitive societies

still remaining at the level of the Stone Age shows to what

a great  extent the members of the same community

practice solidarity among themselves.

	 This is the reason why practical solidarity never

ceases;  not even during the worst periods of history. Even

when  temporary circumstances of domination, servitude,

exploitation cause the principle to be disowned, it still

lives deep in the thoughts of the many, ready to bring

about a strong  recoil against evil institutions, a

revolution. If it were otherwise society would perish.

 For the vast majority of animals and men this feeling re-

mains, and must remain an acquired habit, a principle

always  present to the mind even when it is continually

ignored in  action.

	 It is the whole evolution of the animal kingdom

speaking  in us. And this evolution has lasted long, very

long. It  counts by hundreds of millions of years.

	 Even if we wished to get rid of it we could not. It 

would be easier for a man to accustom himself to walk on 

fours than to get rid of the moral sentiment. It is anterior 

in-- animal evolution to the upright posture of man.

	 The moral sense is a natural faculty in us like the

sense of  smell or of touch.

	 As for law and religion, which also have preached

this  principle, they have simply filched it to cloak their

own  wares, their injunctions for the benefit of the

conqueror, the exploiter, the priest. Without this principle

of solidarity, the justice of which is so generally

recognized, how could  they have laid hold on men's

minds?

 Each of them covered themselves with it as with a garment; 

like authority which made good its position by posing as the 

protector of the weak against the strong.

 By flinging overboard law, religion and authority, mankind 

can regain possession of the moral principle which 

has been taken from them. Regain that they may criticize 

it, and purge it from the adulterations wherewith priest, 

judge and ruler have poisoned it and are poisoning it yet.

 	Besides this principle of treating others as one

wishes to be  treated oneself, what is it but the very same

principle as  equality, the fundamental principle of

anarchism? And how  can any one manage to believe

himself an anarchist unless he  practices it?

	 We do not wish to be ruled. And by this very fact,

do  we not declare that we ourselves wish to rule nobody?

We do not wish to be deceived, we wish always to be told

nothing but the truth. And by this very fact, do we not de-

clare that we ourselves do not wish to deceive anybody,

that  we promise to always tell the truth, nothing but the

truth,  the whole truth? We do not wish to have the fruits

of our  labor stolen from us. And by that very fact, do we

not  declare that we respect the fruits of others' labor?

	 By what right indeed can we demand that we

should be  treated in one fashion, reserving it to ourselves

to treat others  in a fashion entirely different? Our sense of

equality revolts  at such an idea.

	 Equality in mutual relations with the solidarity

arising  from it, this is the most powerful weapon of the

animal world  in the struggle for existence. And equality

is equity.

By proclaiming ourselves anarchists, we proclaim before-

hand that we disavow any way of treating others in which 

we should not like them to treat us; that we will no longer 

tolerate the inequality that has allowed some among us to

use  their strength, their cunning or their ability after a

fashion  in which it would annoy us to have such qualities

used against  ourselves. Equality in all things, the

synonym of equity, this is anarchism in very deed. It is not

only against the abstract trinity of law, religion, and

authority that we declare war. By becoming anarchists we

declare war against all this  wave of deceit, cunning,

exploitation, depravity, vice --in a  word, inequality--

which they have poured into all our hearts.  We declare

war against their way of acting, against their  way of

thinking. The governed, the deceived, the exploited,  the

prostitute, wound above all else our sense of equality. It 

is in the name of equality that we are determined to have

no  more prostituted, exploited, deceived and governed

men and  women.

	 Perhaps it may be said --it has been said sometimes

"But  if you think that you must always treat others as you

would  be treated yourself, what right have you to use

force under  any circumstances whatever? What right have

you to level a  cannon at any barbarous or civilized

invaders of your country? What right have you to

dispossess the exploiter? What  right to kill not only a

tyrant but a mere viper?"

	 What right? What do you mean by that singular

word,  borrowed from the law? Do you wish to know if I

shall feel  conscious of having acted well in doing this ? If

those I esteem will think I have done well? Is this what you

ask?  If so the answer is simple.

	 Yes, certainly! Because we ourselves should ask to

be killed  like venomous beasts if we went to invade

Burmese or Zulus  who have done us no harm. We should

say to our son or  our friend: "Kill me, if I ever take part in

the invasion!"

	 Yes, certainly! Because we ourselves should ask to

be dispossessed, if giving the lie to our principles, we

seized upon an  inheritance, did it fall from on high, to use

it for the exploitation of others.

	 Yes, certainly! Because any man with a heart asks be-

forehand that he may be slain if ever he becomes

venomous;  that a dagger may be plunged into his heart if

ever he should  take the place of a dethroned tyrant.

	 Ninety-nine men out of a hundred who have a wife

and  children would try to commit suicide for fear they

should  do harm to those they love, if they felt themselves

going  mad. Whenever a good-hearted man feels himself

becoming  dangerous to those he loves, he wishes to die

before he is so.

	 Perovskaya and her comrades killed the Russian

Czar.  And all mankind, despite the repugnance to the

spilling of  blood, despite the sympathy for one who had

allowed the  serfs to be liberated, recognized their right to

do as they did. Why? Not because the act was generally

recognized as  useful; two out of three still doubt if it were

so. But because it was felt that not for all the gold in the

world would  Perovskaya and her comrades have

consented to become tyrants themselves. Even those who

know nothing of the drama  are certain that it was no

youthful bravado, no palace conspiracy, no attempt to

gain power. It was hatred of tyranny,  even to the scorn of

self, even to the death.

	"These men and women," it was said, "had

conquered the right to kill"; as it was said of Louise

Michel, "She had the  right to rob." Or again, "They have

the right to steal," in  speaking of those terrorists who

lived on dry bread, and stole  a million or two of the

Kishineff treasure.

	Mankind has never refused the right to use force on

those  who have conquered that right, be it exercised upon

the barricades or in the shadow of a cross-way. But if such

an act  is to produce a deep impression upon men's

minds, the right  must be conquered. Without this, such an

act whether useful or not will remain merely a brutal fact,

of no importance  in the progress of ideas. People will see

in it nothing but a  displacement of force, simply the

substitution of one exploiter for another.