/º Azº





FIREEDOMI PALM II-I-II-Eº.
---
PRICE ONE PENNY.
Concentration
of Capital.
A Marxian Fallacy.
BY
W. TCHERKESOFF.
LO N DO N :
FREEDOM. PRESS, 127 OSSULSTON STREET, N.W.
1 9. 1 1.

As the American edition of “Pages of Socialist History” is
almost exhausted, we have decided to publish a new edition,
which we shall first run through FREEpox and then issue as
separate pamphlets, each consisting of a self-contained chapter,
as, for instance, “Concentration of Capital,” “Plagiarism,”
“English and French Socialists before 1848," “The Origin of
the Communist Manifesto,” etc.

ºb.
--- - bººt
|--
INTRODUCTION.
The fundamental ideas of Socialism common to all schools of
Socialist thought–Saint-Simonist, Fourierist, and Owenist—may
be expressed in the following points:–
1. Economic equality among individuals, without distinction
of nationality, age, or sex. Because, say the Socialists, without
this economic equality all kinds of liberty proclaimed by many
existing democratic Constitutions will remain a dead letter, as is
proved in practice by Switzerland, Republican France, and the
United States. -
2. Abolition of exploitation of man by man, by society or by
the State. Without this condition, neither liberty nor equality
can be realised. In a society based on the wage system, even
with a two-hour working day and profit-sharing by the workers,
the wage-earner will be always in direct dependence upon the
employer, whether individual, society, or State.
3. The socialisation of land with all the riches in and upon
it, including buildings, workshops, and instruments of production,
since it is owing to the principle of private ownership that the
existing order of political, moral, and intellectual enslavement of
the people has grown up.
4. Integral education of the young generation, and free
maintenance of the feeble, the sick, and the aged, at the expense
of the community.
5. Equal right for every person, without distinction of age,
sex, or nationality, to utilise all means of production, scientific,
artistic, and social institutions, and to take part in the affairs of
the community.
6. The substitution of the existing military State by a
voluntary federation of free communities, as so beautifully
expressed in the words of the manifesto published by Saint-
Simon in collaboration with the great historian of democracy,
Augustin Thierry, in 1819: “Our terrestrial globe cultivated by
a free federation of communities of mankind.”
This is the basis of Socialism, and any one who calls himself
a Socialist must uphold these claims. But at present multitudes
of people calling themselves Socialist completely ignore these
fundamental demands. “We are all Socialists,” declared one of
the English Cabinet Ministers many years ago. So also on the
other side many leaders of the working-class movement are
calling themselves Socialist, though they have narrowed down
their claims to an eight-hour day, compulsory arbitration, etc.

ii.
This misconception of Socialism is the outcome of the general
political evolution of the last fifty years. After the defeat of
the magnanimous and bloodless Revolution of February, 1848,
the first attempt to at least partially realise social justice, the
governing classes on the Continent recognised that in order to
preserve their privileged condition they must make some con-
cessions to the people; whilst on the other hand the leaders of
democracy, discouraged by the triumph of the reaction in 1849
and following years, began to consider even these concessions as
an effectual step towards the realisation of social justice.
What were these concessions!
In politics, the extension of the franchise, and in some
countries the introduction of universal suffrage; in the economic
and social sphere, the right of combination and of strike,
shortening of working hours, factory inspection, State insurance
and old-age pensions, and free elementary instruction.
Many of these reforms were inaugurated in England by
Parliament early in the beginning of the nineteenth century.
It is true that the Socialists of that time—as, for instance, the
Owenists—took part in promoting these reforms; but they always
considered them only as useful palliatives, and not as Socialism
(see W. Thompson’s “Labour Rewarded,” 1825).
But towards the “sixties” of last century the Owenist,
Saint-Simonist, and Fourierist traditions began to be forgotten,
and the above system of petty reforms was styled Socialism. In
Germany, where till Lassalle's agitation (1862-63) there existed
no proper Socialist movement, it was even called “scientific”
Socialism, and was openly opposed to the teaching of the above-
mentioned Socialist schools, which was ridiculed as “Utopian.”
Studying this “scientific” Socialism, and comparing it with
the works of various “Utopian” authors, I found to my astonish-
ment that the book of a Fourierist, Victor Considerant, “Les
Principes du Socialisme,” was plagiarised by Marx and Engels.
in their “Manifesto of the Communist Party”; and another
“Utopian” work, Buret's “De la Misère de la Classe Ouvrière en
Angleterre et en France,” was also plagiarised by Engels in his
“Condition of the Working Class in England.” Moreover, in
my studies I was struck by the more than strange way Marx
and Engels had of quoting and criticising the Socialists and
economists of their time, as well as of preceding generations.
This plagiarism I shall deal with in my next pamphlet, whilst
here I confine myself to the subject of the concentration of
capital, the corner-stone of their political and economic doctrine.

THE CONCENTRATION OF CAPITAL.
Every historical epoch, every political party, has been stained
by some erroneous, and often mischievous idea, which was
nevertheless at that time admitted by all the world as undoubted
fact, and accepted by men of capacity and talent, as well as
by the ordinary public who merely follow the opinions of their
neighbours. And when it has happened that a false appreciation
has been set forth and formulated in “scientific” or “philosophic”
style, its injurious domination has extended over generations.
Now we Socialists, without distinction of party or school, all
shared in just such an error. I speak of the law of the concen-
tration of capital, definitely formulated by Marx, and repeated by
Socialist writers or speakers the world over. Go into a Socialist
meeting, take up the first Socialist publication you see, and you
will hear or read that capital, according to the scientific law of
its being, tends to concentrate in the hands of a smaller and
smaller number of capitalists, that large fortunes are created at
the expense of smaller fortunes—(One capitalist kills many others
–Ein Kapitalist schlagt viele tot, says Marx)—and that great
capitals are increased by the extinction of little ones. This wide-
spread formula lies at the root of Parliamentary tactics of State
Socialists. From this point of view, the solution of the social
question—conceived by the great founders of modern Socialism as
a complete regeneration of the individual, as well as of society,
both economically and morally—becomes delightfully simple and
easy. No need for an economic struggle day by day between
exploiter and exploited;” no need to begin here and now
endeavouring to practise brotherly relations between man and
man; nothing of the sort. It is enough that the workers should
vote for Members of Parliament who call themselves Socialists,
that the number of these M.P.'s should increase to the extent of a
majority in the House, that they should decree State Collectivism
or Communism, and all exploiters will peaceably submit to the
decision of Parliament. The capitalists will have no choice but
submission, for, according to the law of the concentration of
* Since 1873, when Engels in his calumnious pamphlet against the
Spanish Revolution ridiculed the idea of a General Strike, the Social
Democrats have systematically combatted the General Strike.

2
capital, they will have been reduced to an infinitely small
number. o.
What a fine and easy prospect! Just think: without effort or
suffering on our part, the inevitable law of the concentration of
capital is preparing for us a future of bliss. It is so attractive to
see the difficulties of a complicated problem through rose-tinted
spectacles, especially when we are soothed by the genuine con-
viction that modern science and philosophy have taught us the
consoling truth. And this so-called “law,” as set forth by Marx,
is coated with all the appearance of philosophy and science.
“The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the
capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property.
This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded
on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets,
with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It
is the negation of negation (the absurd triad of Hegelian meta-
physical dialectics). . . . . This expropriation [of many capitalists
by few) is accomplished by the action of the imminent laws of
capitalist production itself, by the centralisation of capital. . . . .
Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates
of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this
process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression,
slavery, degradation, exploitation.” (“Capital,” Vol.I., pp. 788-9,
English edition.)
Yes, poverty grows, but not among the middle class, not
among the smaller capitalists; rather among the workers, the
producers.
It is over forty years since the publication of “Capital”; over
sixty have gone by since Marx formulated that law which must
act “as the metamorphoses in Nature.” It is, therefore, probable
that the law should be demonstrated by at least some few economic
phenomena. During this period, production and exchange have
received an unheard-of impetus, private fortunes amounting to
millions have been accumulated, colossal companies have sprung
into existence. According to the law, the number of small
capitalists ought to have diminished; at least, no increase ought
to have taken place in their numbers. Let us see what the
statistics of England have to say in this matter. I limit myself
to England, because this country is famed above all as a land
of capitalist production; because Marx himself based all his
dialectical speculations on the analysis of English economic life.
The formula “one capitalist kills many others,” in order to
increase his capital, presupposes that there exists only a fixed,

3
invariable amount of capital for the distribution of which the
capitalists are fighting among themselves. In reality, we see
that the amount of capital produced by the people's work is
yearly increasing, and during the last forty years has increased
very quickly.
The national wealth of this country has increased since the
beginning of last century as follows:–
Estimated IN MILLions of Pounds STERLING.
1812 1840 1860 1888
Houses ......... 255 280 350 414
Railways ...... - 21 348 865
Shipping ...... 15 23 44 134
Merchandise... 50 70 190 344
Furniture ...... 130 370 580 1,212
450 764 1,162 2,969
During the last sixteen years this total increased by nearly a
milliard, and rose from £2,969,000,000 in 1888 to £3,790,000,000
in 1904. These figures very clearly indicate the true source
of great fortunes. Chiozza Money in his book, “Riches and
Poverty,” estimates the total national wealth of the United
Kingdom at £11,413,000,000, possessed by 1,250,000 rich families
and 3,750,000 middle-class families, out of 43,000,000 inhabitants
of the United Kingdom.
A similar increase of wealth and yearly incomes is observed
in all European States. The growth of wealth in the so-called
new countries, such as the United States, Australia, Canada, etc.,
is yet more striking. In France, according to the tables of
Fournier de Flux and Yves Guyot, this increase of wealth is:–
Estimated in Millions of Pounds Sterling.
1826 1840 1873 1888
Houses ......... 510 720 1,158 1,704
Railways ...... - 10 270 532
Shipping ...... 7 7 12 15
Merchandise... 19 23 120 155
Furniture ...... 255
360 675 852

4.
How quick and continuous this increase of wealth has been
from 1840 in England may be seen from the figures given in the
“Fifty-first Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Inland
Revenue, 1908.” The yearly national income subject to income
tax in this country is calculated at £870,000,000. Deducting all
abatements and exemptions, the yearly net income subject to
taxation is £720,000,000, or nearly equal to the whole national
wealth of 1840.
Gross AMount of Duties Collected by THE INLAND REvenue
DEPARTMENT.
1848 ... 4:32,811,000 1895 ... g68,674,000
1865 ... 40,806,000 1903 ... 94,361,000
1885 ... 54,735,000 1905 ... 96,098,000
1890 ... 58,779,000 1908 ... 99,105,000
We have purposely omitted the figures for 1853-55 and
1900-03, as these were war periods, when the income tax is
always above the normal.
We see from these figures that the Inland Revenue at the
present day is three times that of 1848. According to the
formula “one capitalist kills many others,” the present enormous
sum of £99,000,000 of taxes must be paid by a smaller number
of capitalists than in 1848. Let us see whether the statistics
prove that the number of capitalists has diminished. First let us
find the average amount of property left at death since 1845-50,
when Marx's law was formulated:–
In 1841-50 average amount at death £99
,, 1861-70 , -- ,, 160
,, 1871-80 , -- , 210
,, 1881-85 , -- ,, 235
-- 1904 -- -- -- - 418
Thus we see that since Marx formulated his law the average
amount has multiplied four times.
When we turn to the average yearly number of estates left
at death, again we find the figures show an enormous increase:-
1840. 1877. 1908.
Estates of £100 to £5,000... 17,936 ... 36,438 ... 46,232
, over £5,000 ... ... 1,989 ... 4,478 ... 21,301

-
…)
From 1876, the increase of probate, legacy and succession
duties, and of income tax, was as follows:–
Years. Probate, etc. Income Tax.
1876–77 £5,860,781 £5,280,000
1880–81 6,657,393 10,650,000
1884–85 7,720,195 12,000,000
1888–89 6,557,886 12,700,000
1890–91 7,443,290 13,250,000
1892–93 9,637,872 13,925,000
1900–01 - 18,828,000
1905–06 - 30,966,000
1907–08 14,400,000 32,000,000
It must not be forgotten that estates under £100 escape the
Probate Court. As wealth increases, there is nothing strange in
the fact that the revenue of the State increases also. But what
changes may be observed in the numbers of those upon whom
the duties and taxes are levied? Who are the spºilt children of
our modern society? It seems the middle classes as a whole.
In 1840 only 5.4 per cent of the taxpayers paid £20 and
more annually as income tax. In 1880 the proportion had risen
to 14.5 per cent. Since 1850 the increase in the number of
taxpayers with an income of over £200 per annum was:–
Total Number Per 10,000 of
Year. Assessed. Population.
1850 65,389 23
1860 85,530 30
1870 130,375 42
1880 210,430 63
1886 250,000 70
1908 441,363 100
We see that in 56 years the number of taxpayers with a
yearly income over £200 has multiplied 6 times, and relatively to
the growth of population, 4-5 times.

6
All the preceding figures show the enormous growth of the
wealth of the middle classes. But to return to our subject, let
us see if this increase has been to the profit of the great
capitalists by the ruin of the small. To avoid any pretext for
objections, I will confine myself exclusively to the results of
commerce and banking as summed up by Schedule D of the
income tax. Let us compare the figures from 1815 till the
present day, so that the influence of the so-called law may be
able to show itself:-
NUMBER or PERsons, FIRMs AND CoMPANIEs Assessed for
Income Tax (SchEDULE D) From 1815 to 1907.
Income. Number of Assessments.
£ 1815. 1868. 1889. 1900. 1906-7.
150–200 10,250 76,888 162,714 119,280 308,918
200–300 10,518 57,651 106,761 111,826 112,115
300–400 5,902 || 24,854 || 45,133 || 74,357 || 45,045
400–500 2,905 || 12,420 18,462 57,297 24,616
"..." goºd 171,818 338,070 362,700 490.09%
incomes ...
500–1,000 5,665 22,704 29,841 31,789 38,318
1,000–5,000 || 3,514 || 14,305 || 17,104 || 25,340 29,821
Middle-class A 9,179 || 37,009 || 46,945 67,129 68,139
incomes ...ſ
Over 5,000 814 2,152 2,907 || 7,914 || 9,259
Total . . . . 39,568° 226,672 382,922 || 437,803 || 568,092
These figures show that the 39,568 persons with an income of
over £150 in 1815 had increased to 568,092 in 1907; or, put in
another way, at the present day the number of persons paying
income tax is 14-3 times that of 1815, whilst the population has
only doubled. The increase in the number of small capitalists is
16-8 times, whilst the increase in the number of the very rich is
only 11:03 times that of 1815.
* In 1815 there were 120,635 assesments from £50 to £150, but even
these will only bring the number for that year up to 160,203.

7
It is evident, therefore, that the number of small capitalists,
far from diminishing, is rapidly increasing. Where, then, has
the action of this metaphysical German law of the expropriation
of the greater number of capitalists by the smaller managed to
hide itself? How does it happen that a law, acting, as Marx said,
“with the absolute certainty of the metamorphoses of Nature,”
shows itself in real life by results of exactly the opposite sort?
Simply because no such law exists.
We have been saddled with this absurdity by German meta-
physics, the injurious influence of which, especially among
Russians, has been as great in morals and art as in Socialism.
For forty years a more than Mahometan neo-fatalism has been
taught to the workers of the civilised world ! Not only by
ignorant exponents of so-called scientific Socialism and the new
German bureaucrats known as “Socialist” Deputies, but by
valuable and courageous men, men of genius like William Morris,
and of ability and education like H. M. Hyndman.
It is difficult to estimate the evil which this imaginary law
has worked in modern Socialism. It underlies all Social Demo-
cratic tactics. Thanks to it, we are hampered by such absolute
nonsense as that the social question is merely a matter of political
reform. Finally, it gave the aforesaid new German bureaucracy
the effrontery to present the following to the International
Labour Congress at Zurich in 1893 as a Socialist resolution:-
“The struggle against class domination and exploitation must
be a political one, having the conquest of political power for its
end.”
This formula is a complete negation of Socialism. The power
of the ruling class is based on the wealth produced by the people,
which is appropriated by the said class. Consequently, to free
themselves from this domination, the people must refuse to yield
up the fruit of their toil to their masters. As Robert Owen and
W. Thompson said, the workers must retain the surplus value of
their work. This cannot be done by a political, but by an
economic struggle; not by ballot-boxes, but by strikes; not by a
decision of Parliament, but by a well-organised and triumphant
general strike the people can inaugurate a new era—the era of
economic and social equality, of solidarity, enlightened, not by
metaphysics, but by thoroughly scientific instruction.
We have seen that, despite the imaginary law of Marxist
metaphysicians, the number of exploiters increases. Consequently,
the number of upholders of the existing order, instead of decreasing
to a “constantly diminishing number of magnates of capital,” is

S
growing. It has, in fact, multiplied 14 times between 1815 and
1907, while the population has only doubled. This result has
been obtained from the official figures of Blue Books.
If we consult the works of well-known specialists like Mulhall
or Giffen, who took the period from 1830 to 1890, the results will
be still more striking. From Mulhall's “Dictionary of Statistics”
and “Fifty Years of National Progress,” and Sir R. Giffen's
“Essays on Finance,” it appears:–
First, that the number of property-owners dying was, in-
Year Number of Amount of Amount
--- Probates. Property. per Estate.
1833 25,368 £54,887,255 £2,160
1882 55,359 £140,360,854 £2,500
Increase 29,991 £85,473,599 4:340
“We have the fact that these classes ſcapitalist] are them-
selves increasing. They may be only a minority of the nation,
though I think a considerable minority, as 55,000 estates passing
in a year represent from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 persons as
possessing property subject to probate duty.” (Giffen, p. 396.)
Second, income tax was paid—
Number of Income-Tax Payers.
Year.
£150 to £500. £1,000 and over. -
1843 87,946 7,923
1889 333,970 21,842
Increase... 370 per cent. Only 288 per cent.
(Id.)
Third, since 1840, the growth of the possessing classes has,
according to Mulhall (“Fifty Years of National Progress,” p. 24),
been four times as quick as that of the population as a whole. It
is admitted that in 1840, 97,675 men died owning less than £100,

9
while in 1877 this number had already fallen to 92,447, and yet
the population had increased more than 26 per cent. (Id.)
Fourth, reckoning the number of shops and stores—
Year. Number. Rent.
1875 295,000 £14,300,000
1886 366,000 £18,900,000
Increase in
11 years J 71,000
£4,600,000
(Mulhall’s “Dictionary.”)
This increase indicated by Mulhall thirty years ago has been
steadily going on. The 51st Report of Inland Revenue shows
on p. 144:—
Year. *..." º Rent.
1897 408,840 £23,000,000
1900 438,195 £25,000,000
1907 459,592 £27,000,000
It appears that Whiteley, Maple, Shoolbred, the Army and
Navy, and Civil Service Stores, etc., have in no wise diminished
the numbers of parasitic shopkeepers, those petty capitalists
whom John Stuart Mill described so repulsively, and over whose
fate Marxist orators so often weep, for, according to the fancied
law, they are being devoured by the big shops.
Fifth, in the typically capitalistic operations of banking the
like increase in the number of property-owners is to be observed.
“There are [1886] 140 joint stock banks in the United
Kingdom, with an aggregate paid-up capital and reserve of
£100,000,000, held by 90,000 shareholders. . . . . This does not
include 47 Colonial banks.” (Mulhall’s “Fifty Years of National
Progress,” p. 66.)
To these statements of well-known English authorities we
may add the figures of a French statistician, Alfred Neymarck,
vice-president of the French Statistical Society, who made a

10
report* to the International Congress of Statisticians on the
Banking and Exchange operations in France for the same years
which the above-quoted English statisticians dealt with. For the
year 1888, Neymarck states that the amount of capital held by
French possessors was valued at 80 milliard francs (not including
land and houses), which brought the capitalists a yearly income
of 4 milliard francs, “which is distributed among an infinite
number of the very smallest possessors” (p. 9).
On p. 14 he gives the following table of the increase in the
number of possessors:–
Year. No. of Possessors.
1814 ......... 137,950
1830 ......... 195,570
1848 ......... 747,744
1852 ......... 810,901
1871 ......... 1,269,000
1888 ......... 4,141,281
These figures strikingly demonstrate the tendency towards
democratisation of capital. It is known that the number of the
middle classes in France is nearly 4,000,000; but the greater part
of these shares, Consols, Rentes, and State Loan obligations, etc.,
are held by small peasants, artisans, officials, and even labourers.
France is the country of saving before all. M. Neymarck in his
recent work (1908), “Capital et Revenue,” gives the yet more
striking figure of 4,500,000,000 francs as the yearly income of
the “rentiers” of France.
No matter from which side we approach the question, the
number of exploiters always and everywhere increases. There is
no necessity of “one capitalist killing many others,” as the yearly
national income is increasing continually owing to the rapidly
increasing productivity of modern society. It is something more
than simple to continue repeating the absurd statement that the
number of owners of capital being reduced by an inevitable law
to an infinitesimal minority, the middle classes will gently submit
to expropriation voted by Parliament. If in June, 1848, they
reddened the streets of Paris in their struggle against the
Socialistic demands of the victorious people, we may be sure
beforehand of their conduct in future, for their numbers have
tripled. The Bloody Week of 1871 is not too favourable an
augury for optimists and Parliamentarians.
* “La Repartition et la Diffusion de l'Epargne Française, etc.”
Alfred Neymarck. 1891.

II.
“In showing by figures that since 1845 the number of
capitalists has tripled, you are giving an argument to the
defenders of Capitalism, to the entire bourgeoisie, who are trying
to prove that the capitalist mode of production has the effect of
augmenting the general well-being and of diminishing the misery
among the workers.” This is the objection which is made to
me sometimes by men very sincerely devoted to the Social
Revolution.
They may reassure themselves; the same statistics pronounce
the condemnation of Capitalism much more surely, much more
severely, than the pretended law of concentration. I know well
that the defenders of the iniquities of the capitalist system try to
prove that our accusations against the State and exploitation
are destitute of the least foundation or the least reason. An
economist and statistician of renown, Sir R. Giffen, has already
used against us this growth in the number of exploiters. “Fifty-
five thousand properties inherited per year,” he says, “represent
one and a half to two millions of individuals who possess propert
subject to probate duty (i.e., of value greater than £100).”
Giffen believed that by this proof of the increase in the rich, he
was showing diminution in the number of the poor. He forgot
only the increase in the figure of the population.
Indeed, if we admit that since 1845 up till now the number
of the rich in England has not only doubled, as Giffen tells us,
but has quadrupled, bringing their number to four millions, the
number of the disinherited presents itself before us much greater
than in the times of our fathers.
In England we find:—
1841-45. 1907.
Population.................. 26,500,000 44,000,000
Possessors ...... less than 1,000,000 4,500,000+
Poor ........................ 25,500,000 39,500,000
* According to Giffen, two millions only.
By these figures we see that neither the supposed law of

12
concentration, “expropriation of the larger number of capitalists
by the few,” nor the affirmation of the defenders of the bourgeoisie
is confirmed. Contrary to the fatalist law of Marx, the number
of capitalists (especially of small capitalists) has tripled itself;
contrary to the affirmation of the bourgeois scientists, misery has
increased.
It is very interesting to notice how class prejudices with
Giffen, and those of metaphysics and dialectics with Marx, have
led the two scientists to conclusions completely opposed to each
other and equally erroneous. If Robert Owen, Thompson,
Dickens, Kingsley, and so many others have had good reason
for pleading the cause of the poor and for condemning the social
and political order of the England of their time, how much more
reason William Morris, Tom Mann, John Turner and others have
had in advocating a struggle for the destruction of that enslaving
organisation which triples the number of the parasites and
oppressors, and which maintains in servitude a population of
which the number has been increased by fourteen millions!
To free itself, the people have no need for other arguments
than the misery and the cries of those 39,500,000 disinherited.
They must understand, however, that no dialectical fantasies, no
increase in the number of the rich, no paltry reforms of the
Parliamentarians, will bring them anything but an aggravation
of suffering and humiliation. Revolution only, not reforms, can
put an end to the increase in the number of their exploiters, an
end to their sufferings as slaves of the State and of capital.
“But,” it will be said, “you cannot deny that capitals—
social as well as private–agglomerate.” Yes, they agglomerate,
and even concentrate, if you like. Only, this concentration has
nothing in common with the “expropriation of the larger number
of capitalists by the few,” of which Marx made a law. Instead
of an expropriation, it is a flowing together, an association of
capitalists, with a view to procuring the greatest possible profit
for those participating in the company, in the enterprise. For
the last fifteen years trusts in the United States have taken an
unprecedented development; many branches of industry and
trade have united. A few groups of financiers are controlling
often milliards of capital, but that does not mean that Pierpont
Morgan or Carnegie has ruined the small capitalists. Not only
are these not ruined, but they are sharing in the profits of the
trust as well as many thousands of its workers, those future
pillars and supporters of a bourgeois society and private property.
If a financial company is not a Panama—and we know hundreds

13
of companies which take care of the interests of their share-
holders—the participants, instead of being expropriated, are
enriched. Take no matter what financial or industrial company,
all are organised in order to make the fortunes of their share-
holders.
One of my French critics pointed out to me that in that case
it may happen that “the men who were formerly employers may
become simply stockholders.” Well, what then? Are stock-
holders people who have been expropriated? Or, is not rather
the position of stockholder the ideal form of capitalist possession!
A stockholder is a privileged person, a typical representative of
social parasitism. A noble lives upon his land, cultivated by his
peasants; an industrial employer lives upon the labour of his
workmen; a stockholder lives upon the activity of the nation,
and often of many nations. Are we to reckon “simple stock-
holders” among the expropriated? A proprietor, tired with the
cares of administration, sells his property, and with the sum
realised buys the shares of a shipping company, of a railway
company, etc., or invests in State bonds, which guarantee him a
revenue of 4 per cent. Are we to place him among the disin-
herited or among the privileged? And it is just these stock-
holders and parasites who are increasing in our time.
III.
In order that the true character of this concentration of
capital in modern industry and commerce may be understood, I
give here the analysis of some enterprises based upon that
principle.
First, in commerce. There exists in London a firm in the
fur trade. It is a commission firm, and does business with every
country in the world. It sells the skins and furs of the Polar
regions, as well as those of Africa, Asia, and Central Australia.
It counts its creditors and its agents by hundreds, and the
number of furs sold each year was valued in thousands (£312,000
in 1895). Its quarterly public sales (January, March, June,
and October) attract buyers from every country in Europe. A
remarkable fact is that the buyers of the highest quality are in
the Russian fur trade, who come to London from the country

14
par excellence of fur hunting and manufacture, to make the most
important purchases.
As may be seen, the firm is a typical company; commerce has
been concentrated to the highest degree. Well, has it caused the
ruin of many firms in the fur trade? No, their number has
increased since this firm was founded. Has it ruined the manu-
facturers of furs or the collectors of them? No, it is upon their
prosperity, upon their increasing number, that the prosperity of
this very firm itself rests. It does all that is possible to diminish
the cost of transport, of preservation, of storage, and of sale. Its
customers know this well, so their number is always increasing.
The firm prospers, its customers become rich at the earpense of the
producers. In this special case, at the expense of hunters and
fishers. We need not believe that these are paid less than
before; their remuneration has risen, and the prices of furs have
fallen, yet the firm realises large profits.
Where does this profit come from? The explanation is very
simple. The commission on each article has been diminished,
but the number of articles, coming from every quarter of the
world, is some hundreds of times greater. If forty or fifty years
ago the firm selling £4,000 worth of furs per annum, with a
commission of 10 per cent, realised only £400, in 1895 with a
commission of merely 1 per cent, the firm would receive £3,120.
In diminishing as much as possible the profit on each article, on
each consumer, on each producer, but in handling as many
articles as possible, in attracting the greatest number of con-
sumers, in exploiting instead of ten or a hundred producers, one
thousand or ten thousand of them—there you have the true
source of the fabulous fortunes of these times.
In industry, in finance, in the public services, everywhere, we
see the effect of this method.
Second, the public services. Fifty years ago the postal
service, in England as everywhere else, was used only by the
rich; the service was dear, the revenue of the State insignificant.
But once the post was made cheap, the people also began to take
advantage of it, and the annual revenues of the State have
greatly increased, so that in 1907 the English Post Office had
£22,000,000 gross revenue, and £4,500,000 net profit. Each
customer is much less exploited, but the number of customers is
so infinitely greater; in 1837 the post delivered 109,000,000
letters, in 1896 over 3,000,000,000 letters, and ten years later, in
1906, the post delivered letters, postcards, packets and parcels to
the number of 4,862,900,000 (“Statesman's Year Book”).

15
We repeat that the huge fortunes and profits of our time are:
not made by “the killing of small capitalists,” but by cheapening.
the commodities and public services to such an extent that they
come within the reach of everybody.
“Exploit each individual as little as possible, but increase:
their number as much as possible,” is the motto of modern
production and consumption.
It is especially in the revenues of the railway and tramway
companies that we see the action of this tendency to the exploita-
tion of the great masses.
In 1837 there were in England 2,000 miles of railway which
carried 20,000,000 passengers; in 1906 there were 23,063 miles
of railway carrying 1,286,883,341 passengers. The gross receipts
from the passenger traffic in 1906 were £49,882,776, and the net
profit was £18,955,426, which means that the average profit on
each passenger was 3-4d. In order to have made the same profit
in 1837, the average net profit on each passenger ought to have
been 17s. 6d.
The tramways particularly demonstrate that a public service
accessible to everybody requires an infinitely small amount from
each passenger above the working expenses of the service in
order to make a huge total profit. In 1906 there were in the
United Kingdom 2,240 miles of tramway lines, with a gross
receipt of £10,643,000 and a net profit of £3,807,425. The
number of passengers was 2,236,012,777, which means that each
passenger paid only 1-63 farthings above the actual cost of his
travel. Pennies and farthings from each of the huge mass of
passengers create the millions of pounds profit distributed among
a few thousands of capitalists.
We see the same phenomenon in every branch of modern
industry. Above all, the inventions in typography, which have
given fabulous development to the daily press and to the book
trade, give us evidence that the concentration, “the expropriation
of the greater number of capitalists by the few,” has not taken
place in real life. Everybody knows that the number of book-
sellers is increasing, that the great newspapers are enriching
their proprietors; but very few people understand the true
reason of these things. The increase in the number of journals
is very striking:—
England. United States. France. Germany. Entire World.
1840 ...... 439 1,210 776 305 4,016
1891 ...... 1,840 15,392 4,100 5,500 38,036

16
These 38,036 journals had an incredible circulation:-
England issued monthly............ 150 millions.
United States , -> ------------ 230 --
France -- -> ------------ 120 --
Germany -- -- ------------ 140 --
The progress which the press has made since may be judged
from the figures for the United States, which are the only ones
to hand. In 1905 the newspapers and periodicals numbered
21,400 compared with 15,392 in 1891; the monthly issue of
those journals has increased from 230 million to 647 million
Cololes.
*. proprietors are almost ten times more numerous, the
writers receive higher remuneration, the compositors and all
employees receive better wages, the price of the journals has
diminished, and yet we know many journals which bring more
profit than gold mines. A clever publisher, a fashionable writer,
an artist, a popular musician, thanks to the number of copies of a
cheap edition, becomes rich. For instance, in 1893 an English
paper, the Daily News, said that the young composer Mascagni
was already twice a millionaire. Sixty years ago the great
Beethoven was dying of hunger in a garret. To-day millions of
people play the melodies of “Cavalleria Rusticana,” while the
sonatas and symphonies of that great musical genius, Beethoven,
were, during his lifetime, bought only by a few thousand
connoisseurs who loved those divine pages.
What takes place in commerce and in the public services, in
the book trade and in the daily press, takes place also in finance
and in industry. If capitals are associated in some undertaking,
it is not to deprive the capitalists of their capital, nor is it in
order that “one capitalist should kill off many others.” On the
contrary, they unite to exploit the producers better, to realise a
larger share of profit for each participant. We have seen also
that the number of proprietors, of parasitical annuitants, has
increased, and even tripled, in the last fifty years.
As regards finance and banking, I will confine myself to
citing the statistics for the United States. My reason for this is
that, as everybody knows, with the Americans banking and
financial enterprises start up and disappear like mushrooms;
besides, private fortunes, difficult to calculate, are created there
more rapidly than in Europe. If the so-called “inevitable” law
of the “expropriation of the greater number of capitalists by the
few" were to show its effects, the United States would present

17
the most favourable conditions. Yet the number of banks and
the amount of their capitals are growing without cessation.
Here are the figures; they are eloquent:-
Year. Number of Capitals. - Deposits.
Banks. in Pounds Sterling. in Pounds Sterling.
1801 33 7,000,000 -
1830 330 30,200,000 11,600,000
1860 1,526 87,000,000 52,800,000
1876 6,611 149,000,000 132,000,000
1889 6,721 180,000,000 759,000,000
1905 13,317 353,435,362 1,791,174,730
The metaphysicians will tell you that this increase is due to
European immigration. Certainly the immigration was enormous,
but the greater part of the immigrants were poor devils of
workers. This immense accumulation of capital is due, as in all
branches of contemporary social activity, to the progress of the
inductive sciences, to their discoveries and marvellous inventions,
in no way to Capitalism. The latter confines itself to appro-
priating them, just as they are seized upon also by Militarism, by
Clericalism, and by all the privileged who group themselves
round the State—supreme instrument for the oppression and
exploitation of the people.
It is not correct, as stated by one of my critics, that these
banks concentrate “the smallest savings.” The economies of the
poor people are accumulated, not in ordinary banks, but in
savings banks. Their number and their capitals also increase as
rapidly as those of the financial banks.
In the savings banks of all the European States the increase,
in round figures, was:–
Denosit Number
Year. in poºl. sºling. of flººrs.
1850 52,700,000 2,748,000
1870 127,100,000 10,428,000
1889 648,800,000 19,875,000
1906 1,514,250,000 33,284,000+
* Postal savings banks only. .

18
This sum of £1,514,250,000 represents the accumulated
savings, or say rather the privations, of the producing classes.
In order to have some small resources for the evil days of illness
and old age—those nightmares in a worker's life—they and their
families are obliged to live in a continuous state of privation,
which in the end results in the degeneration of the race.
IV.
In order to finish with this fatalistic and fundamental law of
the Marxian creed, let us see if this concentration does not show
itself in the principal industry of humanity—agriculture. I
must say that Marx never emphasised the application of this
formula to the land question, except in his Address to the
International. The doctrine of the expropriation of the small
landowners and the concentration of the land in the hands of a
few large proprietors, belongs to Frederick Engels and other
followers of Marx.
According to Engels and his school, not only should concen-
tration, “the expropriation of the greater number by the few,”
take place in the possession of the soil; but until the peasants
lose their land and become proletarians, Socialism could not
develop itself in any country. During the last forty years this
doctrine was preached with ardour and became a commonplace in
the speeches and press of Social Democracy all over the world,
especially in Germany and Russia. But if one inquires on what
facts Engels based his doctrine, we find only one indication, viz.,
the modern history of England. But if these would-be scientists
were even superficially acquainted with the history of England,
they would know that it was not by any law of concentration
but by violence and fraud that the land was stolen from the
people by the landlords, who afterwards legalised their robbery
by Acts of Parliament.
Macaulay, in his “History of England,” vol.I., chap. 3, says:
“The number of Enclosure Acts passed since George the Second
came to the throne exceeds four thousand. The area enclosed
under the authority of these Acts exceeds on a moderate calcula-
tion ten thousand square miles.”
“Between 1710 and 1760, for instance, 334,974 acres were
enclosed; and between 1760 and 1843 the number rose to

19
7,000,000.”—(H. de B. Gibbins, “The Industrial History of
England,” p. 116.)
Towards the second part of last century public opinion began
to be alarmed with this legalised land-grabbing, and a series of
Acts of Parliament, the last of which was passed in 1903 (the
Act against Unlawful Enclosure), tried to put an end to this
shameful practice. Timid and insignificant as these Acts were,
nevertheless before the end of the century the number of small
landholders in England began to increase, as may be seen from
the following table:–
f P Number of Possessors. I
Area of Possessions. increase-
a. 1885. isso. Y
From to 1 acre ... 23,512 28,652 5,140
,, . , 5 acres... 135,736 144,185 8,449
, 5 , 20 , ... 148,806 151,372 2,566
, 20 , 50 , ... 84,149 85,213 1,064
Total .................. 392,203 409,422 17,219
(“Statesman's Year Book,” 1895, pp. 69-71.)
Unfortunately, reliable figures for later years are not
obtainable.
In Ireland particularly we see the increase in the number of
landowners. In conformity with different Land Acts from 1869
till 1903, £45,000,000 was advanced to 134,311 tenants for land
purchase, and the number of landowners rose from 524,000 in
1890 to 597,000 in 1906. (“Statesman's Year Book,” 1908,
p. 75.) As is seen from these figures, England and Ireland still
give a solemn contradiction to the world-scientific basis.
The French figures are not more favourable to the apostles of
the peasants' expropriation.
In France the Great Revolution partially accomplished the
economic emancipation of the French peasantry. A considerable
part of the lands of churches, monasteries, and nobility fell into
the hands of the peasants. Peasant proprietors are the founda-
tion of the present wealth of France. If that country is fondly
called “La Belle France,” it is because it is a succession of fields,
vineyards, and gardens, cultivated with real passion by their
working owners.

20
If France during the last forty years could easily pay the five
milliards of francs war indemnity to Germany, give fourteen
milliards of francs in loan to Russia, and afford a yearly Budget
of nearly four milliards of francs, it is the economy of the French
peasants which makes these stupendous facts possible.
Surely, if a tendency to the concentration of land existed in
France with its millions of landowners, we ought to find proofs
of it. We give some figures from “La Statistique Agricole de
France: Resultats generaux des enquêtes decennales de 1862,
1882, et 1892”:–
Holdings less 5 to 10 10 to 40
Year. than 1 ºt. 1 to 5 hectare. hectare. hectare.
1862 - 1,815,558 - 636,309
1882 2,167,667 - 769,152
1892 2,235,405 1,829,259 || 788,299 || 711,118
Increase 67,738 13,701 19,147 74,809
* 1 hectare equals 2-5 acres.
Unfortunately, until now the rural statistics, especially those
concerning the change of ownership of land, are generally very
unsatisfactory, even in France; for that reason the figures for
1862 are not complete.
For Italy, the following figures effectually contradict the
concentration of land in that country. In the “Bolletino Ufficiale
del Ministero d’Agricoltura, Industria e Commercio” (Rome,
August 6, 1903), we see on page 1300:-
1882 ..................... 682,802 landowners.
1901 ..................... 1,045,113 --
The German census for the same period, 1882–1895, has
been published, and its figures are explicit concerning the
increase in the number of industrial establishments, landowners,
and capitalists.
1. In different branches of industry the number of establish-
ments was:–
1882. 1895. Increase.
Employing from 1 to 10
workers (small workshops) 2,951,531 3,048,270 96,739
Employing 200 or more
(large workshops)... ... , 1,897 3,301 1,422

21
Number of persons employed:—
1852. 1895. Increase-
Small workshops (1 to 10) 4,835,919 5,604,178 768,259
Large ditto (200 or more) 870,559 1,604,567 734,008
2. The same with regard to land. For Prussia the figures
are :-
Land in cultiva- Land partiall Land
Year. tion (rented). ... y not rented.
1882 829,137 2,322,899 2,953,445
1895 912,959 2,607,210 2,951,107
Increase 83,822 284,331 Decrease 2,338
3. The number of taxpayers in Prussia has increased as
follows:–
Income. 1876. 1890. Increase.
4:25 to £100...... 4,704,757 5,517,828 813,071
£100 to £1,000... 442,534 582,053 139,519
More than £1,000 8,833 13,583 5,550
The increase in the number of small and medium fortunes is
striking. There is no possibility of concealing it.
* *
-
My first article against this fatalistic prejudice of concen-
tration, then so widely spread and so generally adopted by
Socialists of all schools and of all shades of opinion, appeared in
FREEDom, August, 1894. Though at first received as a great
heresy, the idea soon began to germinate among the followers of
Marx, and four years later some of the best known Social
Democratic writers–Bernstein in Germany and Vandervelde in
Belgium–adopted my view, and declared that the law of
concentration of capital did not exist.
This declaration was such a blow at the foundation of the
Marxian creed, and provoked such alarm in the rank-and-file of
Social Democracy, that its leaders began to put forward all sorts
of theories and statistics to uphold Marx's law. But their

-)-)
--
defence exposed more clearly the weakness of their “scientific"
methods and the absence of any real knowledge.
One of the most reputed among those defenders, Kautsky,
seeing that the official figures of all countries irrefutably prove
that the number of small and middle-class capitalists is increasing,
began to explain to the workers that the comparison must be
made, not between the absolute figures, but between the per-
centages of their increase. For instance, from the above-quoted
figures we see that during the years 1882–1895 the number of
small farmers in Prussia had increased by 83,000. Instead of
frankly admitting this, Kautsky expresses the number in per-
centages, stating that 829,000 in 1882 was 15.7 per cent of all
the land then in cultivation, 912,000 in 1895 being 16.4 per
cent of all the land then in cultivation. Then he makes the
subtraction of these percentages (wonderful arithmeticſ) and
shows that the increase of 83,000 is not 10 per cent of 829,000,
but 0.7 per cent.
Using this same trick of comparing percentages, he finds it
easy to prove that the number of small workshops and of workers
employed in them, as well as the number of small and middle-
class fortunes, is not increasing, but “relatively” decreasing.
By the same procedure he proves that the number of magnates of
capital is more rapidly increasing than the number of small
capitalists.
But this trick entirely alters the discussion. Let us take
100 millionaires and 2,000,000 small capitalists; let us suppose
that in ten years the number of the first is doubled, that is an
increase of 100 per cent. ; if in the same period the increase of
the small capitalists was only 10 per cent., instead of 2,000,000
their number will be 2,200,000. So that the increase of 100 per
cent of the millionaires gives only 100 men, but the 10 per cent.
of the small capitalists means 200,000.
Does it prove the concentration of capital, the diminution of
the number of small capitalists? Quite the reverse. It proves
that the number of capitalists is growing, and especially the
number of small capitalists, the most avaricious and the most
unscrupulous and ferocious defenders of the existing social
slavery.
This more than strange method of demonstration, by manipu-
lating the percentage without mentioning the quantity from
which these hundredth parts are obtained, is now greatly favoured
by Social Democrats. “You see,” they say to the workers, “in
one case the increase is equal to 300 per cent, while in the

23
second it is only 10 per cent. So that in the first it must be.
thirty times greater.” -
According to this, 500 per cent, increase in the population of
the Republic of San Marino will be 500 times higher than 1 per
cent, increase of the population of the United States of America.
But what is the reality? Five hundred per cent of San Marino's
population is 47,000, while 1 per cent of the population of the
United States is 800,000. Such are the true facts.
Undoubtedly, it was a disciple of Kautsky, the statistician,
who wrote: “The mortality among the cobblers in the village is
fearfully high; practically it is 100 per cent.” In reality, there
was in the place one cobbler, and he died.
In the endeavour to save their Marxian doctrine, the Social
Democratic writers have forgotten even the text of their creed.
Marx's formula clearly says, “one capitalist kills many others,”
and “the number of magnates of capital diminishes”; whilst his
defenders are now trying to prove the very opposite, namely, that
the number of large capitalists is increasing, and even more
rapidly increasing than the number of small capitalists.
+ +
*
However, the greatest irony of fate is that the upholders of
concentration of capital have no suspicion that their “scientific
Marxian law” was not discovered by Marx, but had been already
indicated in 1830-40 by French Socialists, the Saint-Simonists
and Fourierists, those “Utopians” whom Marx and Engels
systematically held up to ridicule. In my next chapter, on
“Plagiarism” I shall deal in detail with the ideas and formulas
appropriated by Marx and Engels from English and French
authors without mentioning their names. Here it is sufficient
to say that the tendency of concentration of capital was pointed
out by Dr. Constantin Pecqueur in his work presented in 1839–40
to the French Academy of Moral Science, and developed by
Eugène Buret, a Fourierist, in his book, “De la Misère de la
Classe Laborieuse en Angleterre et France” (1840), a work
crowned by the same Academy. Buret says in his introduction,
page 59:—“The accumulation of capital in the hands of a small
number of individuals, the apparition of those magnates of
commerce called capitalists, does it not naturally correspond to
the regular formation of those privileged families of feudal times
who absorbed all profit, all independence, and all rights? The
accumulation of wealth in the hands of a constantly diminishing
number of persons is not the result of privilege, I know, but

24
of fact; it is for this reason that I find it all the more
threatening.”
Above all, the idea was powerfully and brilliantly demon-
strated in Victor Considérant’s “Manifeste de la Democratie aux
19ième Siècle.” On pages 10-11 we read:—“Capital invades
all, the power of the large capitals is incessantly growing; they
attract and absorb, in all branches, the smaller fortunes. Society
is rapidly advancing to the formation of an aristocracy as
oppressive as vile, which already begins to oppress and crush
us, which lies heavy on the people, and which breaks, subdues,
and enslaves the middle classes themselves every day. . . . . This
is a social phenomenon which characterises modern civilisation.
- - - - - It follows step by step the course of the commercial and
industrial system with its invasion of machines. . . . . This
incessantly pumps the national wealth into the reservoirs of the
new aristocracy, where it is concentrated and creates legions of
famished paupers and proletarians. In Great Britain we see, in
the highest degree, this phenomenon of the concentration of
capital in the hands of a few aristocrats. France and Belgium,
the two countries which follow Great Britain closest in this false
industrial development, are also the countries where the new
feudality is spreading most rapidly.”
Victor Considérant, Buret, and all Socialists of that period
denounced, as a great social danger, this tendency of concen-
tration arising from the industrial revolution provoked by the
newly introduced modern machinery. They urged the democracy
to act promptly against this menacing evil, and as peaceful
reformers preached a social order which would guarantee to the
people the possession of all the means of production, as well as
the whole produce of their labour. Buret, for instance, said: “As
the land is the most important factor of production, not a particle
ought to be taken from those who can cultivate it” (vol. II.,
p. 468).
If *. those peaceful French Socialists the concentration of
capital was an argument for immediate social reform, so for the
revolutionary Socialists of that time, as Blanqui, Desjacques,
Flocom, and others, it was an incitement to call the working
classes to immediate revolutionary action and social revolution.
But whilst all those French Socialists so clearly indicated and
formulated concentration of capital as a great social evil, Marx
and his followers by the aid of Hegelian dialectics turned it into
a beneficent social law which would mechanically and peacefully
liberate human society without any effort on its own side. This

25
doctrine of Capitalism devouring itself and bringing about the
reign of social justice was especially inculcated in the young
generation of Germany. Under its influence, during the last
fifty years every revolutionary attempt or general strike, not
only in Germany, but in other countries, was decried by Social
Democratic leaders as foolish and useless acts of the ignorant,
hindering the natural development of their Marxian fatalistic
doctrine.
But the historical development of Capitalism and of the
working-class movement has not failed to open the eyes of even
the blindest followers of such teaching, and to awaken them to
the fact that the number of capitalists and exploiters, instead of
diminishing, is increasing rapidly; that at the present time in
Europe the number of those who live in opulence as landowners,
capitalists, and State officials is no less than 20000,000, whilst at
the middle of last century, the time of the formulating of that
Social Democratic theory, their number was less than 4,000,000.
At the same time, the workers, even in Germany, begin to
understand that the suffering resulting from the increasing cost
of living is due not only to capitalist exploitation, but also to
the growth of State extortions for the needs of militarism and
bureaucracy; and that the State united with Capitalism being
the master of all the means of oppression, will never consent to
any political and social reform unless forced by the continuous.
revolutionary struggle of the people.
W. Tcherkesoff.

The Great French Revolution,
I789–1793.
By P. A. KROPOTKIN.
610 pages 8vo, cloth, 6s. net, postage 5d.
By PETER KRopotkin.
Two vols. 4s. 6d., Postage 6d. extra.
This is the first edition, published at 21s. Only a few copies.
Pages of Socialist History.
By W. To HERREsoff.
Price 1s. 3d., postage 2d. extra.
Anarchism.
By DR. PAUL ELTzBACHER. Translated by S. T. ByngtoN.
With Sia: Portraits.
6s. 6d. net; postage 4d. extra.
God and the state.
By McHAEL BAKUNIN.
A new edition, revised from the original Manuscript.
With a new Portrait.
Paper cover, 6d. net; cloth, 1s. net. Postage 13.
Anarchism and Other Essays.
By EMMA GoLDMAN.
With portrait and biographical sketch of the author.
Price 4S. net; postage 4d. extra.
All the above books can be obtained from
FREEdom PREss, 127 Ossulston Street, London, N.W.

E’AME? HLETS.
ANARCHIST COMMUNISM : It's Basis AND PRINCIPLEs.
By PETER KRopotkin. 1d.
ANARCHISM. By PETER KRopotkin. 1d.
ANARCHIST MORALITY. By PETER KRopotkin. 1d.
ANARCHY. By E. MALATESTA. 1d.
THE WAGE SYSTEM. By PETER KRopotkin. 1d.
A TALK ABOUT ANARCHIST COMMUNISM Betwees
Two WoRKERs. By E. MALATESTA. 1d.
THE STATE: Its Historic Role. By PETER KRopotkin. 2d.
EXPROPRIATION. By PETER KRopotkin. 1d.
DIRECT ACTION v. LEGISLATION. By BLAIR SMITH. 1d.
THE PYRAMID OF TYRANNY. By D. Nieuwenhuis. 1d.
LAW AND AUTHORITY. By PETER KRopotkin. 2d. --
THE PLACE OF ANARCHISM IN SOCIALISTIC -
EVOLUTION. By PETER KRopotkin. 1d.
THE COMMUNE OF PARIS. By PETER KRopotkix. 1d.
ANARCHISM AND OUTRAGE. d.
THE BASIS OF TRADE UNIONISM. By E. Pouget. Id.
AN APPEAL TO THE YOUNG. By PETER KRopotkin. 1d.
THE SOCIAL GENERAL STRIKE. By ARNoLD Roller. 2d.
WAR. By PETER KRopotkix. 1d.
SOCIALISM THE REMEDY. By HENRY GLAssº. 1d.
EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION. By EliséE RECLUs. 1d.
MONOPOLY; or, How LABour is Robbed. WM. MoRRIs. 1d.
USEFUL WORK v. USELESS TOIL. By W.M. MoRRs. 1d.
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST CONGRESS, 1907. 1d.
KROPOTKIN : THE MAN AND His Message. By T. Swan. 1d.
WHAT I BELIEVE. By EMMA GoLDMAN. 2d.
PATRIOTISM. By EMMA GoLDMAN. 2d.
ANARCHY v. SOCIALISM. By W. C. Owen. 2d.
ANARCHISM AND MALTHUS. By C. L. JAMEs. 2d.
FREEdom PREss, 127 Ossulston STREET, Loxbox, N.W.

BOOL-S.
MUTUAL AID: A Factor is Evolution. By PETER
Kropotkin. 3s. 6d. -
MODERN SCIENCE AND ANARCHISM. By PETER
Kropotkin. 1s. net.
FIELDS, FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS. By PETER
KRopotkin. Cloth 1s. net, paper 6d. net.
FRANCISCO FERRER: HIS LIFE, WORK, AND
MARTYRDOM. 1s. net.
FAMOUS SPEECHES OF THE EIGHT CHICAGO
ANARCHIST.S. 1s. 3d. net.
NEWS FROM NOWHERE. By WILLIAM MoRRIs. 1s 6d.
DREAM OF JOHN BALL. By WILLIAM MoRRIs. 2s. net.
WHAT IS PROPERTY! By P. J. PRoudhon. 2 vols. 2s.
MAN v. THE STATE. By HERBERT SPENCER. 6d.
Works in French.
The following, among others, are kept in stock. Full list on
application.
P. KRopotkix—“Le Grande Révolution, 1789–1793.” 3s.
-- -- “La Conquête du Pain.” 2s. 6d.
-- -- “Autour d'une Vie.” 2s. 6d.
M. Bakunin-º CEuvres.” 4 vols. 2s. 6d. each.
Louise Michel—“La Commune.” 2s. 6d.
Elisee RECLUs—“L’Evolution, la Révolution, et l'Ideal Anar-
chique.” 2s. 6d.
CoeuroERoy—“Jours d'Exil.” (Memoirs of an early French
Anarchist.) 3 vols. 2s. 6d. each.
Orders, with cash, to be sent to
FREEDow PREss, 127 Ossulston STREET, LoNDoN, N.W.
IEERIEEDOM.
A Journal of Anarchist Communism.
Monthly, One Penny.
OFFICEs: 127 Ossulston STREET, LoNDoN, N.W.
3,000-1-11