552 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
a social system without any sort of organization (p. 14). This is a mistake, hardly to be accounted for in M. Naquet. To admit the accuracy of that assertion, we must admit that absence of authority and government necessarily implies absence of organization. But such is not the case. This supposition is a gratuitous ofie and cannot be demonstrated. Moreover, many passages in the anarchistic literature assert the existence of " organization " in the anarchistic society. Kropotkin and Jean Grave themselves presuppose such an existence, though it is not formally expressed, as it is, for instance, in Malatesta's pamphlets. Chap. 2 treats of " La prise au tas " and pro- duction. Its argumentation seems irrefutable. Not so chap. 3, deal- ing with " Les reserves " that is, the capital reserved by the capital- ists to be productive in which we find a slight contradiction. M. Naquet says in substance (p. 42) : If a capitalist reserves three- fourths or half of the benefits he reaps, he cannot be accused of having 'appropriated to himself the whole of the benefits, but only the part which was not reserved. And on p. 44 the author writes: " But the sums saved by the holders of capital, no matter whether they are spent or not, are no less taken away by them from the pro- ducers." These two assertions evidently contradict each other, and we wonder why. The fact is that M. Naquet did not intend the first assertion to maintain his argument. Apart from this contradic- tion, the chapter throughout is very clever. The same may be said of chap. 4, " Repartition communiste ; " chap. 5, " Les echanges ; " and chap. 6, " Repartition collectiviste." Chap. 7 is devoted to the study of luxury, science, and art in anarchism. After the criticism of the merciless logician, there is hardly anything left of Kropotkin's conceptions. We shall only point out a mistake in the statement on p. 1 20. where he says : " And since nowadays we judge men accord- ing to the results of their acts, and no longer according to some metaphysical rule, after the manner of religions ; and since, while glorifying the altruist because of his kind action, and condemning the murderer because of his disastrous act, we proclaim with Littre that both are obeying equally irresistible impulses, we are obliged, by virtue of the same logic, to place the man of science and the artist above the drunkard." M. Naquet is with reason a convinced determinist. He therefore contradicts himself when he places the scientist and the artist above the drunkard. Both are philosophically irresponsible for their acts. In consequence, there is no inferiority or superiority of one relative to the other. The acts of the savant are
