1. The Anarchistic teachings have in common only this, that they negate the State for our future. In the cases of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, and Tucker, the negation means that they reject the State unconditionally, and so for our future as well as elsewhere; in the case of Tolstoi it means that he rejects the State, though not unconditionally, yet for our future; in the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin it means that they foresee that in future the progress of evolution will do away with the State. 2. As to their basis, the Anarchistic teachings are classifiable as _genetic_, recognizing as the supreme law of human procedure merely a law of nature (Bakunin, Kropotkin) and _critical_, regarding a norm as the supreme law of human procedure. The critical teachings, again, are classifiable as _idealistic_, whose supreme law is a duty (Proudhon, Tolstoi), and _eudemonistic_, whose supreme law is happiness. The eudemonistic teachings, finally, are on their part further classifiable as _altruistic_, for which the general happiness is supreme law (Godwin), and _egoistic_, for which the individual's happiness takes this rank (Stirner, Tucker). As to what they affirm for our future in contrast to the State, the Anarchistic teachings are either _federalistic_--that is, they affirm for our future a social human life on the basis of the legal norm that contracts must be lived up to (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker)--or _spontanistic_--that is, they affirm for our future a social human life on the basis of a non-juridical controlling principle (Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoi). As to their relation to law, a part of the Anarchistic teachings are _anomistic_, negating law for our future (Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoi); the other part are _nomistic_, affirming it for our future (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker). As to their relation to property, the Anarchistic teachings are partly _indoministic_, negating property for our future (Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Tolstoi), partly _doministic_, affirming it for our future. The doministic teachings, again, are partly _individualistic_, affirming property, without limitation, for the individual as well as for the collectivity (Tucker), partly _collectivistic_, affirming as to supplies for direct consumption a property that will sometimes be the individual's, but as to the means of production a property that is only for the collectivity (Bakunin), and, finally, partly _communistic_, affirming property solely for the collectivity (Kropotkin).