Max Nettlau
Max Nettlau (1865-1944)
One of 2019’s archival projects will be pulling together the large quantity of material I have gathered or generated regarding Max Nettlau and his works.
Month: January 2019
Proudhon Library
P.-J. Proudhon, “Avertissement aux propriétaires” (1842)
[This is a workpage for an in-progress translation project.] [one_half padding=”0 10px 0 0px”] AVERTISSEMENT AUX PROPRIÉTAIRES LETTRE A M. VICTOR CONSIDÉRANT Rédacteur de la Phalange SUR UNE DÉFENSE DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ Monsieur le Rédacteur, […]
egoist anarchism
James L. Walker (“Tak Kak”) in “Liberty” (1885–1903)
[one_third padding=”0 10px 0 0px”] J. L. Walker, “A Southern Journalist’s Opinion,” Liberty 3 no. 19 (December 12, 1885): 5. Tak Kak, “What is Justice?,” Liberty 3 no. 25 (March 6, 1886): 8. Tak Kak, […]
Working Translations
Paraf-Javal, “Authority” (1907)
To date, all societies have been established according the principle of authority. Even what we mistakenly call socialism is as form of this principle. The delegation of its powers to a minority charged with distributing everything in the best interests of the collectivity (collectivism), amounts to an abandonment of its rights. The comrades who distribute will be privileged, governors and oppressors, while the others will be exploited, governed and oppressed.
From the Archives
Paraf-Javal, “The Sect of Non-Sectarians” (1903)
Labels are useful to distinguish men from each other when considered from a certain point of view. From the point. of view of labor, a man who does carpentry deserves to be labeled carpenter; from the general point of view, a man who is opposed to labeling deserves to be labeled non-labelist. It would be easy to show that the sect of non-sectarians and the sect of non-labelists may be considered as comprising all those who have not arrived at a clear conception of their doctrine.
From the Archives
William Bailie in “Liberty” (1891–1906)
The series of articles from the pen of William Bailie, begun in this number under the general title of “Problems of Anarchism,” will probably continue for many months and will deal with most of the sociological questions with which the Anarchistic movement is concerned. I have seen but a small part of the manuscript as yet, but, knowing Comrade Bailie as I do and the excellent articles that he has previously written for Liberty, I feel justified in beginning its publication, regardless of any deviations from Liberty’s chosen path that future chapters may show. I do not expect that his views will differ materially from Liberty’s, but in any case Comrade Bailie’s earnestness and ability furnish a perfect guarantee that the differences which may develop will be worth considering.
What Mutualism Was
What Mutualism Was: Coming to Terms with Our Anarchist Past
Mutualism (General) What Mutualism Was (1st Series) A Good Word: Anarchy in All its Senses Anarchism, Plain and Simple Mutualism.info: An Index Anarchist History: A Mutualist’s-Eye-View Josiah Warren (et al) A Documentary History of the […]
From the Archives
Charles T. Fowler, “Co-operative Homes” (1886)
[one_third padding=”0 10px 0 0px”] [/one_third][two_third_last padding=”0 0px 0 10px”] Subject: CO-OPERATIVE HOMES. The Home and the Family—Its Status—Marriage—Sexual Ethics — Where they Arose. Wife And Housekeeper—”Her Sphere”— Co-operative Home’s Influence on her Independence—Effect on […]
From the Archives
Charles T. Fowler, “Corporations” (1886)
A corporation is an association of individuals, acting as one body by force of law. Co-operation is an association of individuals acting together in their separate capacities by private contract. Corporation is a legal word, co-operation is a natural one. The members of one are legal, artificial, constructive persons, those of the other are natural ones; one acts under a charter, the other acts under an article of agreement or association.
From the Archives
Charles T. Fowler, “The Reorganization of Business” (1885)
IN a previous issue, we ascertained that the first principles of Co-operation were Liberty and Equity, We showed what they were and their mutual relations. We found that majority rule, in government, must give way to equal sovereignty, and profit, in commerce, give place to cost;—one the rule for properly minding one’s business, the other the basis of common honesty.
Now, these invisible laws, if such, are just as operative when disobeyed as when obeyed. The only part which we are asked to perform is to adapt ourselves to them in our organization. In examining the working, of the present profit-making system we shall see wherein they are violated, and how to apply the remedy.