1. In part they recognize as the supreme law of human procedure merely a natural law, which, as such, does not tell us what ought to take place but what really will take place; these teachings may be called _genetic_. The other part of them regard as the supreme law of human procedure a norm, which, as such, tells us what ought to take place, even if it never really will take place; these teachings may be characterized as _critical_. Genetic are the teachings of Bakunin and Kropotkin: the supreme law of human procedure is for Bakunin the evolutionary law of mankind's progress from a less perfect existence to an existence as perfect as possible, and for Kropotkin that of mankind's progress from a less happy existence to an existence as happy as possible. Critical are the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, and Tolstoi. 2. The critical teachings, again, are partly such as set up a duty as the supreme law of human procedure, the duty being itself the ultimate purpose,--these teachings may be characterized as _idealistic_,--and partly such as set up happiness as the supreme law of human procedure, all duty being only a means to happiness,--these may take the name of _eudemonistic_. Idealistic are the teachings of Proudhon and Tolstoi: Proudhon sets up as the supreme law of human procedure the duty of justice, Tolstoi the duty of love. Eudemonistic are the teachings of Godwin, Stirner, and Tucker. 3. The eudemonistic teachings, finally, regard as the supreme law of human procedure either the happiness of mankind as a whole, which the individual is accordingly to further without regard to his own happiness,--these teachings may be characterized as _altruistic_,--or the happiness of the individual, which he is accordingly to further without regard to the welfare of mankind as a whole,--these teachings may be called _egoistic_. Altruistic is Godwin's teaching, egoistic Stirner's and Tucker's. II. With regard to what they have in common in their basis, the seven recognized Anarchistic teachings here presented may be taken as equivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings. They have in their basis nothing in common with each other; all the more is it impossible, therefore, that the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings should have in their basis anything in common. Furthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in respect to their basis 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 that has 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.