Translation:Second answer to Émile Henry

That companions may have differing opinions on the value and scope of certain actions is perfectly fine. They may be right or wrong, but they are right to express their ideas and to challenge those they see as mistaken. But what I believe they are wrong about is rehashing the old cliché of the “pontiffs and would-be pontiffs”.

I have said that we need a criterion to guide us, and that this criterion should be the well-being of people and the usefulness of the cause. Is there a single anarchist who acts without knowing why, or who wishes for human misery and harm to the cause ?

Be that as it may, I do not understand why I, who desire as much as any anarchist the autonomy of the individual and the development of free initiative, I who want the fullest freedom for everyone, should deprive myself of the freedom to express my thoughts on everything and everyone.

Others have their own opinions. If they are contrary to mine, I discuss them, but it would never occur to me that they want to impose them on me, or that they pretend to stand as a Grand Tribunal. Why suppose in me such pretensions, which would not only be anti-anarchist, but stupid or ridiculous ?

But who, then, is to judge the goodness and usefulness of an act ? By heavens ! each one for himself.

Anarchy does not mean that there should no longer be any difference or conflict between opinions, that we must lose the sense of the distinction between good and evil, and that we must renounce the right to criticism, which is the origin of all conscious revolt. Anarchy means that there should no longer be governmental imposition ; no more monopoly of initiative ; no more penal sanction ; and that no one should use any force to make their ideas triumph other than that which derives from the value of the idea itself.

It is with one’s own brain, aided by the study and discussion of the ideas of others, that each must choose their path ; and it is in free agreement with those who think as they do that each must seek the means to realise their conceptions.

Once again, why then should I not also be able to throw my own ideas into the discussion without being called authoritarian and a pontiff or would-be pontiff ?