{"id":324,"date":"2026-04-20T09:04:55","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T09:04:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/?p=324"},"modified":"2026-04-20T09:04:55","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T09:04:55","slug":"john-most-and-anarchism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/john-most-and-anarchism\/","title":{"rendered":"John Most and Anarchism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

An article about John Most, the German anarchist. It discusses his ideas on revolution and tactics between 1882 and 1886, showing that he was not an anarchist although heading in that direction. It appeared in Black Flag Anarchist Review <\/a><\/em><\/strong>(Spring 2026)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

John Most and Anarchism<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

While adherents of nearly every political and social movement have committed acts of violence, it seems to be anarchism which is always linked to terrorism. Indeed, anarchism is so associated with it that when Al-Qaeda committed the atrocity of 9\/11 a spat of articles appeared in both the popular press and academia seeking to link it with late nineteenth century anarchists. That the arguments utilised in these articles were spurious goes without saying but the link is repeated. Needless to say, Leninists also seek to portray individual acts of violence as the anarchist tactic, even reprinting Trotsky\u2019s 1909 article \u201cThe Bankruptcy of Individual Terrorism\u201d to lecture anarchists in spite of most anarchists having never supported the tactic, or had rejected it, decades before.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We will not discuss the class biases of such perspectives beyond noting that the loud and continued outrage generated by, say, Gaetano Bresci\u2019s assassination of King Umberto is in contrast to the silence and forgetfulness about the Bava Beccaris massacre which provoked it. That hundreds of protesting workers were killed and wounded by the Italian Army is apparently of no consequence and says nothing about the nature of the State but the act of revenge against the King who praised their General and awarded him a medal exposes the true nature of anarchism.[2]<\/a> Likewise with Leninists, who seek to make terrorism the<\/em> anarchist strategy while happily supporting the State<\/em> terrorism of the Bolshevik regime against the Russian workers and peasants.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet this attempt to link anarchism with violence is no recent development. John Most (1846-1906) \u2013 the leading German anarchist who was once a Social-Democratic (Marxist) politician \u2013 wrote as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A dagger in one hand, a torch in the other, and all his pockets brimful with dynamite-bombs \u2013 that is the picture of the anarchist, such as it has been drawn by his enemies. They look at him simply as a mixture of a fool and a knave, and whose sole purpose is universal topsy-turvy, and whose only means to that purpose is to slay anyone and everyone who differs from him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The picture is an ugly caricature, but its general acceptance is not to be wondered at, since, for years all non-anarchistic papers have been busy in circulating it. Even in certain labor-organs one may find the anarchist represented as merely a man of violence, destitute of all noble aspirations, and the most absurd views of the principles of anarchism occur in those very papers.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ironically, it was Most himself who most contributed to this picture by his writings and speeches in the years before the Haymarket police riot of 4th<\/sup> of May 1886. That he later changed his mind on the issue of individual violence does not change the fact that from his arrival in America in December 1882 to May 1886, Most advocated terrorism as the<\/em> anarchist means. Yet, as we will discuss, the awkward facts are that \u201cpropaganda by the deed\u201d is not<\/em> an anarchist means nor was Most, at this time, an anarchist even if he advocated certain anarchist ideas and helped build the anarchist movement in America. It is only after the Haymarket events of 1886 that Most became an anarchist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most before Haymarket: Social Revolution<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The first major American anarchist organisation was the International Working People\u2019s Association (IWPA).[5]<\/a> The arrival of Most in the country and his subsequent involvement in the emerging anarchist movement there undoubtedly helped its growth: \u201cWhile in August 1883, thirty groups existed, by the spring of 1885, eighty IWPA groups operated in the United States with an estimated total membership of three thousand and an additional four thousand sympathizers… according to a Chicago anarchist paper.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That Most, like others in the IWPA, called himself, and was called by others, both a socialist and an anarchist does not make Marxists seek to appropriate him \u2013 unlike the likes of Albert and Lucy Parsons who are claimed for Marxism by some (usually Marxists but not always), Most is invariably proclaimed an anarchist and lurid quotes on individual terrorism provided. Yet, a close analysis of his ideological development suggests that during the critical years between 1883 and 1886, Most was not quite an anarchist and instead expressed a mixture of anarchist and non-anarchist notions both in terms of strategy and revolution combined with an anarchist critique of current day society and vision of the future. He only became a consistent anarchist-communist towards the end of the 1880s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As such one historian\u2019s assertion that Most was \u201cthe world\u2019s leading anarchist in 1885\u201d[7]<\/a> is questionable given Kropotkin\u2019s fame and his newspaper-friendly story of a Russian Prince renouncing his title to become an anarchist. His leading role in the Lyon show trial was well-known, the paper he edited, Le R\u00e9volt\u00e9<\/em>, was well-known internationally and 1885 saw the publication of his first anarchist book, Words of a Rebel<\/em>, edited by his \u00c9lis\u00e9e Reclus another internationally well-known anarchist. Significantly, Parsons included articles by Kropotkin and Reclus in his book Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis <\/em>and none by Most.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet this is somewhat irrelevant given that Most\u2019s politics were not completely anarchist at this time although he was certainly moving in that direction as others in the IWPA had. It may be objected that he called himself an anarchist and others in the IWPA did so as well. Indeed, but he also called himself a communist while advocating distribution according to deed (labour) and mocking those who favoured distribution by need (communism):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most used the term \u2018communist\u2019…  for the reason that the term \u2018collectivist\u2019 was unfamiliar to his German readers. He was sharply criticised by the German anarchist communists in London, who knew the difference between the two expressions. However, since they were his personal enemies, he did not admit his error and propagated true anarchist communist ideas (which were in harmony with Kropotkin\u2019s views) only from 1888 onwards.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This can also be seen from a hysterical anti-anarchist pamphlet issued by the Socialist Labor Party at the time which suggested a similar confusion between communism and collectivism within Marxist ranks:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

if we are sometimes designated as Communists<\/em>, we wish it to be understood that our Communism is different from all other Communism in that we demand nothing in common but capital \u2014 the great means of labor (land, buildings, machines, money) because all capital has been and is partly a gratuitous gift of Nature to all, partly being created by the labor of all mankind, and nothing can reasonably be private property but the full proceeds of one\u2019s own labor, as agreed upon by common compromise… The most correct term for our Communism would, perhaps, be Collectivism<\/em>, as it is now called in France.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the labels used often do not tell the whole story (if they did then we would consider the Nazis to be \u201csocialists\u201d and North Korea to be a \u201cdemocratic people\u2019s republic\u201d). This is not to say that there were no anarchist elements to his ideas during these years. They were, such as his vision of a free society which is anarchistic as it postulates a federative world based on workers\u2019 associations and communes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The immediate organization of the workers according to the different branches of trade, and of placing at their disposal the factories, machines, raw materials, etc., etc., for co-operative production, will form the basis of the new society. The Commune\u2026 enters into contracts with individual workers associations, makes periodical advances to them, which may consist in drafts upon the communal wares collected and stored\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Free society consists of autonomous, i.e., independent Communes. A network of federations, the result of freely made social contracts, and not of authoritative government or guardianship, surrounds them all. Common affairs are attended to in accordance with free deliberation and judgement by the interested Communes or associations.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most did play a significant part in producing the IWPA\u2019s Pittsburgh Manifesto<\/em> but this work is primarily an account of the evils of the capitalist system with a few words on the future socialist system — discussion of tactics and the nature of the hoped for revolution are lacking, presumably to ensure general acceptance. Yet, it is precisely this lack which is key as it is the nature of the social revolution which fundamentally divides Anarchism from Marxism. After all, the analysis of what is wrong with capitalist society is shared by anarchists and Marxists (as both are socialists) while both express a desire to see a stateless<\/em> socialist society emerge (although the federalist vision of the Pittsburgh Manifesto<\/em> is rarely found in Marxism beyond Marx\u2019s Civil War in France<\/em> and its reporting on the federalist Paris Commune).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue is how to achieve this socialist society. It is here that Most falls short and expresses his Marxist-Blanquist past.[11]<\/a> Thus, in 1883, he still viewed the social revolution\u2019s initial step as the creation of a new power:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In every local community where the people have gained a victory, revolutionary committees will be constituted. These execute the decrees of the revolutionary army, which, reinforced by the armed workingmen, now rule like a new conqueror of the world.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anarchists reject the idea of a revolution by \u201cdecrees\u201d from \u201crevolutionary committees\u201d which \u201crule\u201d by means of a \u201crevolutionary army\u201d as being doomed to failure \u2013 they will hinder the masses, stop the progress of the revolution and become the embryo of a new ruling class. Instead, revolutions are best organised from below, by federations of workplace and community assemblies with the people armed to ensure the defence of the new system (from the deposed ruling class and any who seek to take its place). There may, indeed, be committees but these would be administrative and seek to coordinate rather than \u201crule\u201d and \u201cexecute\u201d decrees, an important difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Worse, a key role of these new bodies would be slaughter, for capitalism \u201cwill be abolished in the most rapid and thorough manner, if its supports \u2014 the \u2018beasts of property\u2019 and horde of adherents \u2014 are annihilated\u2026 massacres of the people\u2019s enemies must be instituted\u201d.[13]<\/a> Such a perspective is hardly anarchist and rejected by every<\/em> revolutionary anarchist thinker, including Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta. Its roots lie elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most\u2019s position in 1883 when he was calling himself an anarchist is, significantly, similar to that articulated whilst still in Europe and eschewed the name. He declared in October 1880 that \u201c[w]e have not become Anarchists. But it is true that we regard them as honest social revolutionaries who stand closest to us and with whom we\u2026 can go hand in hand<\/em>\u201d.[14]<\/a> His differences with anarchism can be seen in \u201cDurch Terrorismus zur Freiheit\u201d (\u201cThrough Terrorism to Freedom\u201d) published on 11 December 1880:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The masses want the present building of society to be smashed, but it will certainly be reserved to a comparatively small group of courageous men to take the initiative at an appropriate moment…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The revolutionary army, therefore, will have to be complemented by men from the most reliable circles of the people; it will have to build a firmly constructed organisation \u2013 it has to seize political power entirely and simply to proclaim a reign of terror…<\/em> Let them be called tyrants, when they use violence; we do not fear the tyranny of the revolutionary proletariat. We know in advance that it will put at its head only an executive power which, chosen from its midst, not only consists of tried and trustworthy people but also cannot do anything that has not the complete approval of the soldiers of the revolution.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

His \u201cadoption of anarchism by 1883 had no discernible effect on the content or popularity of Freiheit<\/em> (which still bore the subtitle \u2018Organ of the Revolutionary Socialists\u2019 on its masthead)\u201d while his political ideology \u201cwas not only poorly defined but also changed significantly over time\u201d.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPolitical terrorism, and not anarchism,\u201d wrote Max Nettlau, \u201chad come to replace social democracy, anarchism having been relegated to a goal in the far distance.\u201d[17]<\/a> Kropotkin noted the likes of Marxists and Blanquists \u201cdream of revolution as the legal massacre of their enemies\u201d but the \u201cpeople do not reign by terror. Invented to forge chains, terror covered by legality forges chains for the people.\u201d Genuine revolutionaries had to reject this \u201cJacobin programme\u201d as \u201ca senseless dream\u201d for \u201c[v]ery sad would be the future of the revolution if it could only triumph by terror.\u201d[18]<\/a> Bakunin, likewise, stressed that the social revolution \u201cwill wage an inexorable war on \u2018social positions\u2019, not on men\u201d and, while acknowledging the likelihood of popular vengeance initially, stressed the need for revolutionaries to \u201coppose with all their energy hypocritical, political and legal butchery, organised in cold blood.\u201d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most\u2019s position was alien to revolutionary anarchism and undoubtedly reflected Blanquist influences. Yet he was right \u2013 and echoed the likes of Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta \u2013 when he argued that \u201c[a]ll free communities [must] enter into an offensive and defensive alliance during the continuance of the combat. The revolutionary communes must incite rebellion in the adjacent districts\u201d. [20]<\/a> However, this essential federated self-defence of a revolution, of freedom, by the people armed cannot and should not be confused with mass murder any more than with a State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Context matters. Most was writing after the Paris Commune when the Parisian workers were slaughtered in their tens of thousands but that is why the ruling class needs to be overthrown, not imitated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most before Haymarket: Tactics<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The question of violence is a peculiar one. Many denounce anarchism as \u201cviolent\u201d while wholeheartedly supporting the State and its violence, whether internal (repressing protest) or external (war). Sometimes it becomes farcical, as when then Labour Party leader Ed Miliband lectured an anti-austerity march against using \u201cviolence\u201d (in this case, property damage) and urging them to follow the example of\u2026 the suffragettes! Presumably because they were right and won, their actual tactics can be forgiven and forgotten. So rather than \u201cviolence\u201d, the issue for many is whether violence is officially approved or not \u2013 if so, they happily support it while denouncing the \u201cviolence\u201d of those seeking to end the official violence needed to protect exploitation and oppression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should not forget \u2013 as many writers on anarchism do \u2013 that \u201c[v]iolence by police, soldiers, and detectives against working Americans was a daily occurrence, and much of it was excessive and remained unpunished. Advocacy of the use of grenades and bullets against striking workers had been common in the popular press since the 1870s.\u201d It cannot be denied that \u201cGerman anarchists used inflammatory language laced with threats to peace, order, and property, but their utterances pale in comparison to the ubiquitous violences against marching or striking workers, or the belligerent tone of popular newspapers\u201d.[21]<\/a> Unsurprisingly, even moderate trade unions armed themselves for self-defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most arrived in America an advocate of \u201cpropaganda of the deed\u201d in the sense of individual acts of terror. This he seemed to associate with anarchism, for as he told the Tribune<\/em> on 25 December 1882: \u201cI entertain the views of the Carl Marx school of agitators, but advocate the practice of the Anarchist.\u201d[22]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why did he think terrorism was \u201cthe practice of the Anarchist\u201d? Needless to say, its enemies seek to portray terrorism as an expression of anarchism. Thus, for example, a Stalinist account of Albert Parsons\u2019 life wrote of how the American \u201cSocial Revolutionary movement” moved towards “anarchist advocacy of individual terror\u201d under Most\u2019s influence.[23]<\/a> Yet such a tactic is not to be found in the writings of Bakunin and Kropotkin. Rather, they advocated activism within the labour and other popular movements. This awkward fact does not stop even academics proclaiming  otherwise:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c[Propaganda by the deed was o]riginally coined by Sergei Nechaev and Mikhail Bakunin in 1869… [they] dismissed what the two Russian revolutionaries called \u2018pointless propaganda that keeps neither to time nor to space\u2019 in favour of concrete insurrectionary activity… [in] their pamphlet \u2018Principles of Revolution\u2019… printed in Russian in Geneva\u201d[24]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet while what \u201cpropaganda by the deed\u201d became (i.e., individual acts of terror) is certainly within this anonymously published work, the phrase itself does not appear (so hardly \u201ccoined\u201d) nor is there any evidence that Bakunin wrote or even contributed to it.[25]<\/a> This lack of evidence has not stopped this suggestion being repeated for a long time \u2013 for example, by a Belgian economist in 1880[26]<\/a> \u2013 and with the same lack of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This notion is primarily drawn from a text entitled The Principles of the Revolution<\/em> which was circulated anonymously among Russian \u00e9migr\u00e9 circles in Geneva as a broadsheet while both Bakunin and Nechaev were there. Marx and Engels, in their campaign against Bakunin, seem to be the first to link it to Bakunin \u2013 just as they sought to link every activity of Nechaev to him. Thus we find them admit that this work was one of a series of \u201canonymous Russian publications\u201d before asserting that their authors were clear as they contained the \u201csame phrases, the same expressions as those used by Bakunin and Nechayev\u201d. They undermine their claim by suggesting that \u201c[n]o one will venture to doubt that these Russian pamphlets, the secret statutes, and all the works published by Bakunin since 1869 in French, come from one and the same source\u201d[27]<\/a> for anyone familiar with those French writings will see very little in common between the two, with these anonymous works containing ideas which do not appear in any other of Bakunin’s writings, private, published or unpublished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their case rests on a perceived similarity of phrases and expressions, yet Engels later saw \u201ca stifling heap of eternally repeated Bakuninist phrases\u201d[28]<\/a> a text by Petr Tkachev. This Russian \u00e9migr\u00e9 was no friend or associate of Bakunin and his politics were Jacobin and Blanquist in nature. He protested the assertion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You insult me in all manner of ways because you see \u201cBakuninistic phrases\u201d in my brochure, which were unknown to me until now, from which you deduce that our<\/em> sympathies and at the same time the sympathies of the large part of our resolute revolutionary party are not on your side, but on the side of a man who dared to raise the flag of rebellion against you and your friends and who since that time became your most fierce enemy, your nightmare, your b\u00eate noire, your apocalypse.[29]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Significantly, before leaving Russia Nechaev had collaborated with Tkachev within the \u201cCommittee of the Russian Revolutionary Party\u201d and whose works have numerous common ideas and expressions with both an earlier writing by Tkachev and the Catechism<\/em>.[30]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, why anonymity, given that Marx and Engels note one of these works was<\/em> \u201csigned Mikhail Bakunin\u201d?[31]<\/a> Bakunin, then, was clearly not shy in letting the public know of his authorship. Likewise, they do not ponder their suggestion that while Bakunin kept his real views hidden from \u201cthe rank and file of the Alliance\u201d to the Russian-speaking public in Geneva he \u201cdare[d] to speak out openly\u201d by means of anonymous broadsheets. [32]<\/a> They want their readers to conclude that these anonymous writings, which they admit are at odds with his earlier public and private writings, express his true ideas, ideas he refused to privately share with even his closest comrades (bar one, Nechayev) but thought wise to proclaim publicly to anyone in Geneva who could read Russian. Lesser minds, such as those who know of confirmation bias, would have drawn a different conclusion, namely that these publications were not<\/em> written by Bakunin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of the strategy of assassinations proclaimed by this publication, Bakunin had earlier argued against it after Karakozov\u2019s failed attempt on the Tsar in 1866: \u201cLike you, I expect no benefit whatsoever from the assassination of the Tsar of Russia; I am even prepared to admit that such regicide would be positively harmful by provoking a momentary reaction favourable to the Tsar\u201d.[33]<\/a> While a broadsheet praised Karakozov\u2019s act as an example to follow, nothing Bakunin subsequently wrote suggests that he changed his mind on this. Indeed, he privately and publicly argued that \u201cwe wish not to kill persons, but to abolish status and its perquisites\u201d and revolution \u201cdoes not mean the death of the individuals who make up the bourgeoisie, but the death of the bourgeoisie as a political and social entity economically distinct from the working class.\u201d[34]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marx and Engels are not alone in attributing to Bakunin all of Nechayev\u2019s actions and writings, including the notorious Catechism of a Revolutionary<\/em>. Sadly, the \u201conly problem with this argument is that Bakunin did not write either the ‘Catechism’ or ‘Principles of Revolution\u2019\u201d for the \u201cunique amoral cast [expressed] have no antecedents in Bakunin’s thoughts and the reference to violence and destruction are very different from those made by Bakunin before and after… he insisted that revolutionary violence was to be directed against institutions, not people, and nowhere did he advocate terrorism or assassination\u201d.[35]<\/a> The Principles of Revolution<\/em> \u201cseems to be the work of Nechev\u201d while the Catechism of the Revolutionary<\/em> must \u201cbe attributed to Nechaev\u201d.[36]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Bakunin wrote in a bourgeois newspaper, rather than \u201cattribute to me writings the publication of which I have no connection… when you deign to grant me the honour of your attacks, accuse me only for writings that bear my name.\u201d[37]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The inventions of Marx and Engels undoubtedly ensured that Most considered terrorism as anarchism. For example, in 1880 as well as publishing Nechayev\u2019s Catechism<\/em> and mistakenly attributing it to Bakunin[38]<\/a>, Freiheit<\/em> \u201cpublished Bakunin\u2019s \u2018Revolutionary Principles\u2019.\u201d[39]<\/a> The latter soon appeared in English when it was published in the second issue of Edward Nathan-Ganz\u2019s An-Anarchist: Socialistic-Revolutionary Review<\/em> while the Catechism<\/em> was published in an IWPA paper, The Alarm<\/em> [40]<\/a>,both under Bakunin’s name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Nettlau noted, at this time \u201cthe Socialists in Germany… knew nothing whatever about Anarchism, and had only heard or read the Marxist calumnies against Bakunin and the like.\u201d[41]<\/a> Most undoubtedly thought these texts were by Bakunin thanks to Marx and Engels. It is unsurprisingly then that \u201cNettlau has argued that Freiheit<\/em> did not express a coherent anarchist outlook at this time, but unfortunately many of its German readers and the public believed that revolutionary terrorism equaled anarchism.\u201d[42]<\/a> Unsurprisingly, the actions of a host of non-anarchist activists \u2013 primarily the Russian populists who assassinated the Tsar (who were, and often still are, confused with anarchists) but also Irish nationalists \u2013 were championed in Freiheit<\/em>. Most, however, failed to see that the weakness of this tactic was all too obvious \u2013 while a Tsar was killed, Tsarism continued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was with these erroneous ideas on anarchist tactics that the Social-Revolutionaries attended the London Congress of 1881 alongside anarchists like Kropotkin who were seeking a rebirth of the Federalist International based upon its revolutionary unionism.[43]<\/a> Sadly, this Congress saw the mutation of \u201cpropaganda of the deed\u201d into terrorism and dynamite-bluster. Before then, it referred to any collective action which could encourage wider revolt such as the failed Benevento insurrection led by Malatesta and Cafiero in Southern Italy in April 1877 or, a month earlier, the illegal demonstration in Berne on the anniversary of the Commune on 18 March carrying the banned red flag. Somewhat ironically given its later meaning, L\u2019Avante-Garde<\/em> \u2013 Paul Brousse\u2019s paper which did so much to advocate the notion \u2013 viewed an attempted assassination of the German Emperor as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the Hoedel attempt was not<\/em> an act of propaganda by the deed. The theme of the need for collective<\/em> action which, contrary to a widespread impression, characterized the formulation of \u2018propaganda by the deed\u2019, was repeated on the occasion of Nobiling\u2019s attempt… Brousse went on to insist that anarchists should choose the best<\/em> means, and pointed out that the actions of Hoedel and Nobiling were of extremely limited value, reflected a \u2018Republican\u2019 rather than a socialist outlook and in addition risked misrepresentation which could destroy any value they may carry… such acts were not regarded as suitable means of action and did not come in the category of propaganda by the deed.[44]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, not all anarchists subscribed or supported either version of \u201cpropaganda by the deed\u201d, Kropotkin being a notable example.[45]<\/a> What is striking is the paucity of evidence for this allegedly predominant strategy. Often it is little more than a single quote from Carlo Cafiero\u2019s article \u201cAction\u201d (and when not mis-attributed to Kropotkin even after its real author was indicated in 1883[46]<\/a>, its appearance in the paper he edited is usually noted even though this fails to understand the role of, and pressures upon, the editor of an anarchist journal). The fact that the era of attentats<\/em> occurred over a decade later and were driven by revenge rather than propaganda is ignored.[47]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not to say that anarchists never advocated \u201cdeeds\u201d \u2013 for organising a union, a strike, a protest, a march, a workplace occupation or squatting is a \u201cdeed\u201d (likewise, what counts as \u201cillegal\u201d varies considerably — carrying a red flag was often illegal as were strikes and unions). So a common technique to associate anarchism with terrorism is to search for use of the word \u201cdeed\u201d in Bakunin\u2019s works. For example, we find him in 1873 writing that this \u201cis the time not for ideas but for action, for deeds\u201d but he immediately indicated what these were: \u201cnow is the time for the organisation of the forces of the proletariat… Organize every more strongly the practical militant solidarity of the workers of all trades in all countries\u201d[48]<\/a> These were the tactics Bakunin advocated, not terrorism.[49]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If, as one Stalinist put it, \u201cParsons and Spies were through with the ballot. But they still believed firmly in trade union work… Most’s attitude on the trade union question cost him the full support of the Chicago group\u201d[50]<\/a> then it was the former who actually advocated anarchist tactics rather than the latter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most and Anarchism<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This suggests that Most cannot<\/em> be considered as a consistent anarchist thinker between 1882 and 1886 as he was too influenced by his previous politics:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most knew little about communist-anarchism, and when its influence grew within the London exile community, he did not think much of it. For much of his life, Most\u2019s radicalism was influenced by an amalgam of thinkers, including Marx, Lasselle, Blanqui, and Bakunin\u2026 [he and others] became social revolutionaries without completely abandoning certain Blanquist or Lassallean traits. Perhaps for that reason, Most\u2019s anarchism would always remain eclectic. As late as 1887, Kropotkin commented that the anarchism espoused in Freiheit<\/em> was full of Blanquism. Nettlau, in fact, believed that for years Most\u2019s affinity with anarchism was tenuous and that it matured slowly.[51]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historian Henry David, drawing upon Rudolf Rocker\u2019s biography of Most, likewise notes that \u201c[d]uring the years 1883-1886, there was a greater stress upon anarchistic elements in the principles advocated by the Freiheit<\/em>, but a more clearly defined theory of Anarchist-communism did not become apparent until after 1886.\u201d Most \u201ccalled himself an anarchist… [b]ut his views on Anarchism were exceedingly cloudy.\u201d It was only later, \u201cas a result of Kropotkin\u2019s teachings, that Most\u2019s views crystallized and became unmistakably anarchist-communist.\u201d[52]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recent biography of Most notes that anarchist historian \u201cMax Nettlau has suggested that during the early 1880s, Most did not fully grasp the tenets of anarchism, though his readers believed that Freiheit<\/em> was presenting the latest version of anarchist thought… It was not until after 1887, when Most\u2019s ideological stance began to shift more toward communist anarchism, that he demonstrated a deeper understanding of anarchist philosophy\u201d.[53]<\/a> Nettlau himself, in his obituary of Most, wrote that \u201cMost\u2019s Anarchism, as expressed in the first<\/em> edition of his \u2018Free Society\u2019 [in 1884], was entirely home-made; it was Federalist Socialism, hardly anything else. He had had hardly any access at that time, I believe to real Anarchist literature, which was not so readily accessible then as it is to-day [in 1906].\u201d He pointed to \u201cthe uncouth authoritarian Communism of Most in 1882-83\u201d before noting that he \u201cby-and-by modified his views, and accepted Communist Anarchism fully the moment he really knew it from its proper sources.\u201d[54]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most \u201carrived at anarchism with substantial Marxist baggage\u201d and when he set-foot on America soil in 1882 his \u201cradical philosophy consisted of a mixture of Marxist-Blanquist and Bakuninist ideas.\u201d As he later admitted: \u201cThe anarchism that was then in my mind was, theoretically speaking, of an extremely mediocre vintage.\u201d In this, he was not alone and German radicals in the early 1880s were \u201can amalgam of discontented, displaced, and largely antistate socialists. They included antiparliamentarians, nihilists, social revolutionaries, Blanquists, and anarchists.\u201d As such, the \u201cGerman social-revolutionary movement that sprang up after 1879… cannot accurately be called anarchist until several years later.\u201d[55]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combine Most\u2019s views on the nature of a social revolution with his advocacy of individual terror, a tactic not found in Bakunin and Kropotkin, and a lack of interest in working within the labour movement, a tactic which is found in Bakunin and Kropotkin, it is hard not to conclude that he was not an anarchist in the early years of his exile in America. This was hidden by a lack of understanding of anarchism then (and now!) and that Most\u2019s vision of socialism was federalist in nature and so, like his critique of capitalism, it contained many aspects of genuine anarchism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, in spite of his politics, Most played an important role in the development of anarchism in America during the years 1882 to 1886. He was an entertaining speaker and writer, he helped raise certain libertarian ideas and the profile of the IWPA alongside the violent and terrorist rhetoric which was so at odds with the anarchist tradition but which, sadly, did so much to link them. However, others in the IWPA \u2013 particularly the English-language sections \u2013 had a firmer grasp of anarchism during this period, as can be seen by its involvement in the labour and eight-hour movements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most after Haymarket<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Ironically, Most\u2019s advocacy of individual action (terror) — what seems to be the<\/em> definitive \u201canarchist\u201d tactic for so many \u2013 is very much at odds with the revolutionary anarchist tradition which placed its focus on the labour movement. This also applied to his dismissal of the struggle for reforms, a position not found in Bakunin or Kropotkin and one which Emma Goldman quickly saw through after she joined the movement.[56]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is significant that after the Haymarket events, Most started to embrace positions more in line with the anarchist tradition, not least support for labour unions and struggles.[57]<\/a> Thus, In December 1889, he suggested that unions \u201cpave the way for a new social system, in which economic and all other human relations would be governed not by the state or any privileged class or any dominant power but by free associations of the able-bodied each according to different spheres of activity.\u201d[58]<\/a> As his biographer summarises:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

it would be inaccurate to portray him as an opponent of organized labor… His opposition was directed at the centralizing and reformist tendencies rather than the movement itself. Most believed that fighting solely for shorter hours would not fundamentally challenge the exploitative capitalist system. Instead, he argued that labor unions must have a revolutionary basis and work toward the abolition of capitalist exploitation. Most emphasized that unions should be part of a larger struggle for social and international revolution… Most saw the potential for trade unions to be established on a revolutionary basis, which could then play a crucial role in organizing a new society. He encouraged anarchists to work within the economic organizations of the workers to spread their ideas and advance the cause of revolutionary change. During the emergence of revolutionary syndicalism in France during the 1890s, Most supported the movement and actively promoted the writings of key figures such as Fernand Pelloutier and \u00c9mile Pouget. He viewed revolutionary syndicalism as the organisational form through which communist anarchism could be realized. To him, the general strike by the industrial proletariat held the same historical significance as peasant revolts in premodern Europe. In 1899, Most reaffirmed his belief that trade unions were the natural organization of the proletariat, which would eventually transition from a defensive posture \u2013 focused on preserving members\u2019 living standards \u2013 to an offensive stance aimed at fulfilling their emancipatory role. However, he cautioned that anarchists should not hesitate to criticize trade unions or point out their deficiencies despite supporting them.[59]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Along with this embrace of the labour movement, Most also rejected the use of individual violence. As such, Emma Goldman\u2019s surprise and horror at Most\u2019s position on Alexander Berkman\u2019s assassination attempt on Henry Clay Frick in revenge for his use of Pinkertons against locked out workers at Homestead seems somewhat disingenuous.[60]<\/a> Most explained his revised position in April 1892 (a few months before Berkman\u2019s attentat<\/em>):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no greater error than believing that anarchists must only commit any<\/em> deed, any<\/em> act of violence, no matter when<\/em>, where<\/em>, and against whom<\/em>, to make propaganda. Such an act must be popular and applauded by a sizable portion of the proletariat to have any effect. If this is not the case, or if an act causes general disapproval<\/em> of those sections of the population on which it is supposed to have a stimulating effect, then the result is reversed: anarchism makes itself hated. First and foremost, disseminating anarchist-communist principles and revolutionary sentiments requires lively verbal and written, private and public agitation. In this area, I believe we have plenty to do in America.[61]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That Berkman\u2019s attempt generated public support for Frick confirms these comments. Yes, there is a need for \u201cdeeds\u201d for anarchism to grow \u2013 deeds in the sense that Bakunin suggested, namely building the organisation of the working masses strength on the social and economic terrain. Encouraging and participating within the self-organisation and self-activity of the working classes is an essential complement to verbal and written propaganda, as every significant anarchist movement proves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusions<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When Most arrived in America, his politics were in transition. He embraced the label anarchist while holding to certain aspects of his Marxist-Blanquist past. In his critique of the current system and vision of a socialist society, he expressed a great many anarchist ideas but in terms of how to go from here to there, there was a continuation of the ideas he had advocated while in Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As such, claims that Most advocated collectivist (or Bakuninist) anarchism in the early 1880s must be questioned, given he rejected its key tactic (revolutionary unionism) in favour of one which was not advocated (terrorism). Likewise, his advocacy of what is clearly a revolutionary government is at odds with Bakunin\u2019s arguments. Sharing a belief that goods would be distributed by deed rather than need after a social revolution cannot negate the more significant differences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most\u2019s legacy, then, is a mixed one. For while he eventually became a genuine communist-anarchist by the late 1880s until his death in 1906, he advocated ideas influenced by a whole range of thinkers in the early 1880s. Some of these ideas \u2013 such as his critique of capitalism and vision of a free society \u2013 reflected anarchism, others \u2013 like his strategy and vision of revolution \u2013 reflected his pre-anarchist embrace of Blanquist politics and an erroneous understanding of anarchist tactics produced by his Marxist past. Unfortunately, it took the repression after the Haymarket police riot and the judicial murder of his comrades to clarify them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

End Notes<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Yes, a few anarchists \u2013 particularly in Russia \u2013 still advocated or used the tactic when Trotsky wrote but it hardly makes sense to demonise the majority for the views of a minority, although it is useful for a polemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> According to government sources, at least 80 demonstrators were killed and 450 wounded in Milan between the 6th<\/sup> and 10th<\/sup> of May 1898 when General Fiorenzo Bava Beccaris ordered his troops to open fire on people protesting the price of food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Hence the irony of Leninists noting Proudhon\u2019s opposition to strikes while also happy to support a regime which regularly used troops to break strikes \u2013 often going so far as to shoot strikers either en masse<\/em> or on an individual basis as regards \u201cringleaders\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> John Most, The Social Monster: A Paper on Communism and Anarchism<\/em> (New York: Bernhard & Schenck, 1890), 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Iain McKay, \u201cAnarchy in the USA: The International Working People\u2019s Association\u201d, Black Flag Anarchist Review <\/em>Volume 3 Number 2 (Summer 2023)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Tom Goyens, Beer and Revolution: The German Anarchist Movement in New York City, 1880-1914<\/em> (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007), 108.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> James Green, Death in the Haymarket: A Story of Chicago, the First Labor Movement and the Bombing That Divided Gilded Age America<\/em> (Anchor Books, 2007), 129.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism<\/em> (London: Freedom Press, 1996), 214. Le R\u00e9volt\u00e9<\/em> (14 September 1884) included a letter defending communist ideas against the collectivism advocated in Freiheit<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Socialist Labor Party, \u201cSocialism and Anarchism\u201d, Socialism in America<\/em>, 232.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> John Most, \u201cThe Beast of Property\u201d, Albert Fried (Ed.), Socialism in America: From the Shakers to the Third International<\/em> (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), 218-9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Louis-Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881) was a French socialist revolutionary. An important figure in the 19th<\/sup> century radical left, he argued that a socialist revolution should be carried out by a small, secret group of highly organised conspirators who, having seized power in a putsch, would then use a dictatorial State to introduce socialism. Small groups of professional, dedicated revolutionaries were his agents of change rather than the proletariat or peasanty and so he did not believe in popular movements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Most, 217.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Most, 217.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Quoted by Heiner Becker, \u201cJohann Most in Europe\u201d, The Raven Anarchist Quarterly<\/em>, Volume 1 No. 4 (March 1988), 299.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Quoted by Becker, 301-2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Elun Gabriel, \u201cAnarchism\u2019s Appeal to German Workers, 1878-1914\u201d, Journal for the Study of Radicalism<\/em> (Spring 2011), 43.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Quoted by Goyens, 77.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Revolutionary Studies<\/em> (Office of \u201cThe Commonweal\u201d: London, 1892), 12-3, 16.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> \u201cCirculaire. \u00c0 mes amis d’italie\u201d, \u0152uvres<\/em> (Paris: Stock, 1913) Tome VI: 400.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Most, \u201cThe Beast of Property\u201d, 218.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> Goyens, 99, 4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Quoted by Bruce C. Nelson, Beyond the martyrs: a social history of Chicago’s anarchists, 1870-1900<\/em> (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), 155.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> Alan Calmer, Labor Agitator: The story of Albert R. Parsons<\/em> (New York: International Publishers, 1937), 68.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> Alexander Sedlmaier, \u201cThe Consuming Visions of Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth century Anarchists: Actualising Political Violence Transnationally\u201d, European Review of History \u2013 Revue europe\u00b4enne d\u2019Histoire<\/em>, Vol. 14, No. 3 (September 2007), 284.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> The CD-ROM Oeuvres compl\u00e8tes Bakounine<\/em> (2000) includes \u201cThe Principles of Revolution\u201d in spite of adding the note that it is \u201cuncertain whether Bakunin contributed to this article\u201d!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> \u00c9mile de Laveleye, \u201cL\u2019Ap\u00f4tre de la destruction universelle \u2013 Bakounine\u201d, Revue des Deux Mondes<\/em>, Tome 39: mai-juin 1880.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> K. Marx and F. Engels. \u201cThe Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men’s Association. Report and Documents Published by Decision of the Hague Congress\u201d, Marx-Engels Collected Works<\/em>: 23: 519, 525.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> \u201cRefugee Literature\u201d, Marx-Engels Collected Works<\/em> 24: 24.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> Quoted by Wolfgang Eckhardt, The First Socialist Schism: Bakunin vs. Marx in the International Working Men\u2019s Association<\/em> (Oakland: PM Press, 2016), 414.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> Michael Confino, Daughter of a Revolutionary: Natalie Herzen and the Bakunin-Nechayev Circle<\/em> (LaSalle Illinois: Library Press, 1973), 33-4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> Marx and Engels, 549.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> Marx and Engels, 525<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a> Letter to Herzen and Ogarev, 19 July 1866.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> \u201cThe Hypnotizers\u201d, The Basic Bakunin: Writings 1869-1871<\/em> (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1994), 71, 70.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> Mark Leier, Bakunin: The Creative Passion<\/em> (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2006), 208.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a> Paul Avrich, Bakunin & Nechaev<\/em> (London: Freedom Press, 1987), 10, 14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a> Journal de Gen\u00e8ve<\/em>, 25 September 1873.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a> Tom Goyens, Johann Most: Life of a Radical<\/em> (Urbana, Chicago and Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2025), 84.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/a> Becker, 299. Becker, it must be noted, mistakenly asserts it was \u201cwritten in 1869 for Nechaev\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/a> \u201cNihilism! Extracts from the text book of the Russian Anarchist\u201d, The Alarm<\/em>, 23 January 1886.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/a> N. M., \u201cJohn Most\u201d, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism<\/em>, April 1906.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/a> Goyens, Johann Most<\/em>, 84.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/a> Iain McKay, \u201cThe London Congress of 1881\u201d, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review<\/em> No. 87 (Summer 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[44]<\/a> David Stafford, From anarchism to reformism; a study of the political activities of Paul Brousse within the First International and the French socialist movement 1870-90<\/em> (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971), 123-4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[45]<\/a> Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism 1872-1886<\/em> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[46]<\/a> Nicolas Walter, \u201cAnarchist Books\u201d, Freedom: Anarchist Weekly<\/em>, 11 December 1971.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[47]<\/a> The Haymarket bomb is no exception. Assuming it was not the act of an agent provocateur, it was thrown in response to a police attack on a peaceful meeting \u2013 called to protest the shooting of six unarmed strikers by the Chicago police \u2013 and so was self-defence rather than propaganda or in expectation of producing a revolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[48]<\/a> \u201cLetter to the Comrades of the Jura Federation\u201d, Bakunin on Anarchism<\/em> (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1980), 352-3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[49]<\/a> Bakunin also argued for public and secret groups of revolutionaries but these were to work within popular movements spreading anarchist ideas and did not aim to seize power but rather to encourage the masses\u2019 self-activity and self-organisation before and during a social revolution. This is in stark contrast to Blanqui and Russian Nihilist-Populist groups even if they also organised secretly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[50]<\/a> Calmer, 62.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[51]<\/a> Goyens, Beer and Revolution<\/em>, 126.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[52]<\/a> Henry David, The history of the Haymarket affair: a study in the American social-revolutionary and labor movements<\/em> (New York: Russell & Russell, 1958), 109, 103. David, it should be noted, did not appreciate that anarchism is a school of socialism and so seems confused by Most\u2019s use of the label after 1882. This is a common failure in academics looked at the IWPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[53]<\/a> Goyens, Johann Most<\/em>, 8-9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[54]<\/a> N. M., \u201cJohn Most\u201d, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Communism<\/em>, May 1906.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[55]<\/a> Goyens, Beer and Revolution<\/em>, 86, 94, 111, 75.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[56]<\/a> Living My Life<\/em> (New York: Dover Publications, 1970) I: 52-3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[57]<\/a> Goyens, 100, 163.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[58]<\/a> Quoted by Goyens, 163.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[59]<\/a> Goyens, Johann Most<\/em>, 168-9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[60]<\/a> Needless to say, Berkman\u2019s act is usually portrayed as showing anarchism\u2019s violent nature but the use of private troops to defend capitalist power draws no such conclusion as regards capitalism in spite of them killing nine union members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[61]<\/a> Quoted by Goyens, 144-5.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An article about John Most, the German anarchist. It discusses his ideas on revolution and tactics between 1882 and 1886, showing that he was not an anarchist although heading in that direction. It appeared in Black Flag Anarchist Review (Spring 2026)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,5,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anarchisthistory","category-anarchists","category-usa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=324"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":325,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324\/revisions\/325"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}