"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"
About this Quote
Most’s line is less a definition than a recruiting slogan with a blade inside it. By collapsing “anarchist” and “communist” into the single, combustible category of “revolutionary,” he strips away the comfort of labels and forces the reader to identify by action and aim: negate the existing order; build a world where property is shared. Everything else is branding.
The phrasing “negates present society” does a lot of work. It isn’t “reforms,” “criticizes,” or “improves” - it’s total refusal, a moral and political excommunication of the status quo. Most is writing in a late 19th-century Europe and America racked by industrial exploitation, labor repression, and the flowering of radical movements that were constantly splintering over doctrine. In that environment, insisting on clean ideological boundaries could be a luxury; solidarity mattered more than the fine print.
The subtext is polemical and disciplinary. If you want common ownership, he implies, you don’t get to hide behind a softer identity or a more respectable faction. You are already at war with the property system, and that makes you “revolutionary” whether you admit it or not. There’s also a sly inoculation against sectarian infighting: the state doesn’t care what you call yourself, it cares that you threaten the sanctity of property.
Most, associated with incendiary propaganda and the “propaganda of the deed” era, is also normalizing a hard line: to share property is to negate society. The radical promise comes packaged with an ultimatum - if you accept the premise, you inherit the consequences.
The phrasing “negates present society” does a lot of work. It isn’t “reforms,” “criticizes,” or “improves” - it’s total refusal, a moral and political excommunication of the status quo. Most is writing in a late 19th-century Europe and America racked by industrial exploitation, labor repression, and the flowering of radical movements that were constantly splintering over doctrine. In that environment, insisting on clean ideological boundaries could be a luxury; solidarity mattered more than the fine print.
The subtext is polemical and disciplinary. If you want common ownership, he implies, you don’t get to hide behind a softer identity or a more respectable faction. You are already at war with the property system, and that makes you “revolutionary” whether you admit it or not. There’s also a sly inoculation against sectarian infighting: the state doesn’t care what you call yourself, it cares that you threaten the sanctity of property.
Most, associated with incendiary propaganda and the “propaganda of the deed” era, is also normalizing a hard line: to share property is to negate society. The radical promise comes packaged with an ultimatum - if you accept the premise, you inherit the consequences.
Quote Details
| Topic | Equality |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Johann
Add to List
