It is the lash of hunger which compels the poor man to submit. In order to live he must sell - 'voluntarily' sell - himself every day and hour to the 'beast of property.'

Is anarchism desirable? Well, who does not seek freedom? What man, unless willing to declare himself in bondage, would care to call any control agreeable? Think about it!

The aims of anarchists and true communists are identical.

Anarchists prepare for social revolution and use every means - speech, writing, or deed, whichever is more to the point to accelerate revolutionary development.

Is anarchism possible? The failure of attempts to attain freedom does not mean the cause is lost.

If on the one side we do not harbor the illusion that the entire proletariat must be enlightened before it can be called into battle, so on the other we do not doubt that as much enlightenment as possible must be produced with oral and printed agitation.

If we hope and even assume that the social question will be answered through communism, and not in this or that country but in the world, any thought of centralization must be a monstrosity.

He who negates present society, and seeks social conditions based on the sharing of property, is a revolutionary whether he calls himself an anarchist or a communist.

Our principle is: to prevent all command over man by his fellowmen, to, make state, government, laws, or whatsoever form of compulsion existing, a thing of the past, to establish full freedom for all. Anarchism means first and foremost freedom from all government.

Whoever looks at America will see: the ship is powered by stupidity, corruption, or prejudice.

'God' - as revealed in his book of edicts and narratives is practically an idiot. He has nothing to say that any sensible person should want to listen to.

Anarchists are socialists because they want the improvement of society, and they are communists because they are convinced that such a transformation of society can only result from the establishment of a commonwealth of property.

Above all, what socialist, without flushing with shame, maintains he is not a revolutionary? We say: none!.

As set forth by theologians, the idea of 'God' is an argument that assumes its own conclusions, and proves nothing.