It is very easy to understand how there occurred in each period, in accordance with their respective dominant tendencies, deeds of personal violence.... Felice Orsini, for example, is one of the martyrs of the Italian Revolution. In each case of individual violence, unless one is content with the necessarily erroneous judgments begotten by emotion to reach a correct decision it is necessary to make a physio-psychical examination of the perpetrator, just as it is in the case of any other crime. Felice Orsini was a political criminal through _passion_. Among the anarchist bomb-throwers or assassins of our day may be found the born criminal--who simply colors his congenital lack of the moral or social sense with a political varnish--; the insane-criminal or mattoid whose mental deficiency becomes blended with the political ideas of the period; and also the criminal through political _passion_, acting from sincere conviction and mentally almost normal, in whom the criminal action is determined (or caused) solely by the false idea (which socialism combats) of the possibility of effecting a _social_ transformation by means of _individual_ violence.[71] But no matter whether the particular crime is that of a congenital criminal or of a madman or of a political criminal through passion, it is none the less true that personal violence, as adopted by the anarchist individualists, is simply the logical product of individualism carried to extremes and, therefore, the natural product of the existing economic organization--though its production is also favored by the "delirium of hunger," acute or chronic; but it is also the least efficacious and the most anti-human means of social transformation.[72] But all anarchists are not individualists, _amorphists_ or autonomists; there are also anarchist-communists. The latter repudiates deeds of _personal violence_, as ordinary means of social transformation (Merlino, for example has recently stated this in his pamphlet: _Necessita e base di un accordo_, Prato, 1892), but even these anarchist-communists cut themselves off from Marxian socialism, both by their ultimate _ideal_ and more especially by their _method_ of social transformation. They combat Marxian socialism because it is _law-abiding_ and _parliamentary_, and they contend that the most efficacious and the surest mode of social transformation is _rebellion_. These assertions which respond to the vagueness of the sentiments and ideas of too large a portion of the working-class and to the impatience provoked by their wretched condition, may meet with a temporary, unintelligent approval, but their effect can be only ephemeral. The explosion of a bomb may indeed give birth to a momentary emotion, but it can not advance by the hundredth part of an inch the evolution in men's minds toward socialism, while it causes a reaction in feeling, a reaction in part sincere, but skilfully fomented and exploited as a pretext for repression.