Anarchists not a party -- Their aims and policy -- Brissot quoted -- He attacks anarchists -- Gironde and anarchists -- Girondist program But who were those anarchists of whom Brissot spoke so much, and whose extermination he demanded with so much rancor? First of all, the anarchists did not form a party. In the Convention there were the parties of the "Mountain," the Gironde, the "Plain," or rather the "Marsh" (sometimes called le Venter), but there were no "anarchists." Danton, Marat, and even Robespierre, or some other Jacobin of the same stamp, could work at times with the anarchists; but they always remained outside the Convention. They were, one might almost say, above it: they dominated it. The "anarchists" were the revolutionists scattered all over France. They had given themselves to the Revolution body and soul; they understood the necessity for it; they loved it, and they worked for it. Many of them...
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John viii. 32). I have but little time left to live, and I should like before my death to tell you, working people, what I have been thinking about your oppressed condition and about those means which will help you to free yourselves from it. Maybe something of what I have been thinking (and I have been thinking much about it) will do you some good. I naturally turn to the Russian laborers, among whom I live and whom I know better than the laborers of any other country, but I hope that my remarks may not be useless to the laborers of other countries as well. Every one who has eyes and a heart sees that you, working men, are obliged to pass your lives in want and in hard labor... (From : Anarchy Archives.)
An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of GovernmentFirst Memoir Adversus hostem æterna auctertas esto. Against the enemy, revendication is eternal. Law of the twelve tables. Chapter I. Method Pursued In This Work. — The Idea Of A Revolution. If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enthralled a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this other question: What is property! may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first? I undertake to discuss the vital principle of our government and our institution...