================================================ | _Anomistic Teachings_ | _Nomistic Teachings_ | |=======================+======================| | Godwin | Proudhon | | Stirner | Bakunin | | Tolstoi | Kropotkin | | | Tucker | 4.--THE STATE I. In their relation to the State--that is, to the legal relation by virtue of which a supreme authority exists in a territory--the seven teachings here presented have something in common. 1. They have this in common, that they negate the State for our future. There cannot be given a more precise definition of what the teachings here presented have in common in their relation to the State than has here been given. For the negation of the State for our future has totally different meanings in them. In the cases of Godwin, Stirner, Tucker, and Proudhon, the negation of the State for our future means that they reject the State unconditionally, and hence for our future as well as everywhere else: Godwin because the State always and everywhere impairs the general happiness, Stirner and Tucker because it always and everywhere impairs the individual's happiness, Proudhon because at all times and in all places the State offends against justice. In Tolstoi's case the negation of the State for our future means that he rejects the State, though not unconditionally, yet for our future, because the State is, though not always and everywhere, yet under our circumstances, more repugnant to love than its non-existence. Finally, in the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin the negation of the State for our future has the meaning that they foresee that in our future the progress of evolution will abolish the State: 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. As to what they affirm for our future in contrast to the State (in the same different senses in which they negate the State for our future) the seven teachings here presented have nothing in common. One part of them affirm for our future, in contrast to the State, a social human life in a voluntary legal relation--to wit, under the legal norm that contracts must be lived up to; these teachings may take the name of _federalistic_. The other part of them affirm for our future, in contrast to the State, a social human life without any legal relation--to wit, under the same controlling principle that they affirm for our future in contrast to law; these teachings may be characterized as _spontanistic_. Federalistic are the teachings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker; spontanistic those of Godwin,[1167] Stirner, and Tolstoi.