I. In their relation to property—that is, to that legal relation by virtue of which some one has within a certain group of men the exclusive privilege of ultimately disposing of a thing—the seven teachings here presented have nothing in common.

1. One part of them negate property for our future; these teachings may be characterized as indoministic. The other part affirm it for our future; these teachings may be called doministic. Indoministic are the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, and Tolstoi; doministic the teachings of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker.

There cannot be given a more precise definition of what is common to the indoministic teachings on the one hand and to the doministic on the other, and what is peculiar to the one group as against the other, than has here been given. For both the affirmation and the negation of property for our future have totally different meanings in the different teachings.

In the cases of Godwin, Stirner, and Proudhon, the negation of property for our future means that they reject property unconditionally, and so for our future as well as elsewhere: Godwin because it is always and everywhere contrary to the general happiness, Stirner because it is always and everywhere contrary to the individual's happiness, Proudhon because it always and everywhere offends against justice.

In Tolstoi's case the meaning of the negation of property for our future is that he rejects property, though not absolutely, yet for our future, because it is, though not at all times and in all places, yet under our circumstances, in a higher degree repugnant to love than is its non-existence.

In Tucker's case the affirmation of property for our future means that he approves property as such (though certainly not every particular form of property) unconditionally, and hence for our future as well as elsewhere, because property as such is never and nowhere contrary to the individual's happiness.[1168]

Finally, in the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin the affirmation of property for our future is as much as to say that they foresee that in our future the progress of evolution will leave in existence property as such, even though not the present particular form of property: Bakunin meaning mankind's progress from a less perfect existence to one as perfect as possible, Kropotkin its progress from a less happy existence to one as happy as possible.

2. The indoministic teachings part company again as to what they affirm for our future (in the same different senses in which they negate property for our future) in contrast to property.

According to Proudhon, a distribution of goods determined by a voluntary legal relation, and based on the legal norm that contracts ought to be lived up to, ought to take the place of property.

According to Godwin, Stirner, and Tolstoi, the place of property ought to be taken by a distribution without any legal relation, based rather on the same rule of action that is affirmed by them in contrast to law.

According to Godwin, therefore, that distribution of goods which is to take the place of property ought to be based on what is prescribed to each one by the general happiness.

According to Stirner it ought to be based on what is prescribed to each one by his own happiness.

According to Tolstoi it ought to be based on what is prescribed to each one by love.

3. The doministic teachings on their side part company again as to the particular form of property that they affirm for our future.

According to Tucker there ought to exist in future, as at present, both property of the individual and property of the collectivity, in all things indiscriminately.[1169] This teaching may be called individualistic.

According to Bakunin, in future there will exist property of the individual and of the entire community only in goods for consumption, indiscriminately, while in the materials and instruments of production there will be solely property of the collectivity. This teaching may be characterized as collectivistic.

According to Kropotkin, in future there will exist solely property of the collectivity in all things indiscriminately. This teaching may be called communistic.

II. With regard to what they have in common in their relation to property, the seven Anarchistic teachings here presented may be taken as equivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings. They have nothing in common in their relation to property. All the more is it impossible, therefore, that the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings should in their relation to property have anything in common.

Furthermore, in regard to the specialties that they exhibit in their relation to property the teachings here presented may be taken as equivalent to the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without limitation. For the specialties represented among them can be arranged as a system in which there is no room left for any more co-ordinate specialties, but only for subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching, therefore, can have any specialty that will not be subordinate to these specialties.

Therefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of Anarchistic teachings altogether. They have nothing in common in their relation to property, and are to be divided with respect to the differences of this relation as shown in the table on page 284.