“Non-warlike revolutionists fall into a tragic blunder when they enter into a united front with communists or near-communists.”

Property (1935)

The Naked Communist (1958)

“On the Significance of Militant Materialism” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm, (12 March 1922)
1920s

Hugo to Hoederer, Act 5, sc. 3
Dirty Hands (1948)

[Liberties Lost: The Endangered Legacy of the ACLU, Baldwin, Roger, 0275985067, 1971, 2006, Woody Klein, The Roger Baldwin Story: A Prejudiced Account By Himself, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 11, http://books.google.com/books?id=EsJinpB3XYsC&pg=PA11]

As quoted in "Silvio Berlusconi booed by audience after angry TV rant" in The Telegraph (29 October 2009) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6455488/Silvio-Berlusconi-booed-by-audience-after-angry-TV-rant.html
2009

Richard Helms, A Look Over my Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency (New York: Random House, 2003), 275.

Note to the article 'Individualism and Anarchism' by Adams (1924)
Context: I claimed that "individualist anarchism and communist anarchism are the same, or nearly so, in terms of moral motivations and ultimate goals".
I know that one could counter my claim with hundreds of texts and plenty of deeds of self-proclaimed individualist anarchists, which would demonstrate that individualist anarchist and communist anarchist are separated by something of a moral abyss.
However, I deny that that kind of individualists can be included among anarchists, despite their liking for calling themselves so.
If anarchy means non-government, non-domination, non-oppression by man over man, how can one call himself anarchist without lying to himself and the others, when he frankly claims that he would oppress the others for the satisfaction of his Ego, without any scruple or limit, other than that drawn by his own strength? He can be a rebel, because he is being oppressed and he fights to become an oppressor, as other nobler rebels fight to destroy any kind of oppression; but he sure cannot be anarchist. He is a would-be bourgeois, a would-be tyrant, who is unable to accomplish his dreams of dominion and wealth by his own strength and by legal means, and therefore he approaches anarchists to exploit their moral and material solidarity.
Therefore, I think the question is not about "communists" and "individualists", but rather about anarchists and non-anarchists. And we, or at least many of us, were quite wrong in discussing a certain kind of alleged "anarchist individualism" as if it really was one of the various tendencies of anarchism, instead of fighting it as one of the many disguises of authoritarianism.

Combat Liberalism (1937)
Original: (zh-CN) 一切忠诚、坦白、积极、正直的共产党员团结起来，反对一部分人的自由主义的倾向，使他们改变到正确的方面来。这是思想战线的任务之一。