So far as the Anarchistic teachings take up a position toward law, they are either anomistic—that is, they negate law for our future (Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoi)—or nomistic—that is, they affirm it for our future (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker).
So far as they take up a position toward property, they are either indoministic, negating property for our future (Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Tolstoi), or doministic, affirming it for our future; the doministic teachings, again, are either individualistic, affirming property, without limitation, for the individual as well as for the collectivity (Tucker), or collectivistic, affirming as to supplies for direct consumption a property which may be the individual's, but as to the means of production a property that is only for the collectivity (Bakunin), or, last of all, communistic, affirming property for the collectivity alone (Kropotkin).
All this is brought before the eye in the table on [page 302].
☞ [The table is given as compiled by Eltzbacher. For correction of errors either certain or probable, see footnotes to [pages 80], [97], [278]; note also that under "condition affirmed" the distinction is excessively fine between Stirner, who would have men agree on the terms of a union which they are to stick to as long as they find it advisable, and Bakunin and Tucker, who would have them bound together by a contract limited by the inalienable right of secession.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1170] "Der Anarchismus und seine Träger" pp. 127, 124, 125.
[1171] Reichesberg p. 27.
[1172] Lenz p. 3.