~corti-nico/ubuntu/vivid/anarchism/fix1426015 : revision 5

1

Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?

2

3

G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?

4

G.1.1 Why is the social context important in evaluating

5

Individualist Anarchism?

6

7

G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism?

8

G.2.1 What about their support of the free market?

9

G.2.2 What about their support of "private property"?

10

11

G.3 What about "anarcho"-capitalism's support of Tucker's "defence

12

associations"?

13

14

G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism's ideas?

15

16

G.5 Benjamin Tucker - capitalist or anarchist?

17

18

G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?

19

20

G.7 Lysander Spooner - right-Libertarian or libertarian socialist?

21

22

Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?

23

24

The short answer is, no, it is not. All the individualist anarchists

25

were opposed to the exploitation of labour and all forms of non-labour

26

income (such as profits, interest and rent) and property. As such it is

27

deeply *anti*-capitalist and many individualist anarchists, including

28

Benjamin Tucker, considered themselves as socialists (indeed, Tucker

29

often called his theory "Anarchistic-Socialism").

30

31

So, in this section of our anarchist FAQ we indicate why the individualist

32

anarchists cannot be classified as "ancestors" of the bogus libertarians

33

of the "anarcho"-capitalist school. Instead they must be (due to their

34

opposition to wage slavery, capitalist property, interest, rent and profit

35

as well as their concern for equality and co-operation) classified as

36

libertarian *socialists*, albeit being on the liberal wing of anarchist

37

thought. So while *some* of their ideas do overlap with those of the

38

"anarcho"-capitalist school they are not capitalistic, no more than

39

the overlap between their ideas and anarcho-communism makes them

40

communistic.

41

42

In this context, the creation of "anarcho"-capitalism may be regarded as

43

yet another tactic by capitalists to reinforce the public's perception

44

that there are no viable alternatives to capitalism, i.e. by claiming that

45

"even anarchism implies capitalism." In order to justify this claim, they

46

have searched the history of anarchism in an effort to find some thread in

47

the movement that can be used for this purpose. They think that with the

48

individualist anarchists they have found such a thread.

49

50

However, as we've already seen, by its very definition -- as opposition

51

to hierarchical authority -- *all* threads of anarchism are *incompatible*

52

with capitalism. As Malatesta argued, "anarchy, as understood by the

53

anarchists and as only they can interpret it, is based on socialism.

54

Indeed were it not for those schools of socialism which artificially

55

divide the natural unity of the social question, and consider some

56

aspects out of context . . . we could say straight out that anarchy

57

is synonymous with socialism, for both stand for the abolition of

58

the domination and exploitation of man by man, whether exercised

59

at bayonet point or by a monopoly of the means of life." Without

60

socialism, liberty (i.e. liberalism) is purely "liberty . . . for

61

the strong and the property owners to oppress and exploit the weak,

62

those who have nothing . . . [so] lead[ing] to exploitation and

63

domination, in other words, to authority . . . for freedom is not

64

possible without equality, and real anarchy cannot exist without

65

solidarity, without socialism." [_Anarchy_, p. 47 and p. 46]

66

67

Nevertheless, in the individualists we find anarchism coming closest

68

to "classical" liberalism and being influenced by the ideas of Herbert

69

Spencer, a classical liberal and proto-libertarian capitalist. This

70

influence, as was noted by Peter Kropotkin at the time (e.g. in

71

_Modern Science and Anarchism_), led individualist anarchists like

72

Benjamin Tucker to support contract theory in the name of freedom,

73

apparently without being aware of the authoritarian social relationships

74

that could be implied by it, as can be seen under capitalism. Therefore,

75

this section can also be considered, in part, as a continuation of the

76

discussion begun in section A.3.

77

78

Few thinkers are completely consistent. Given Tucker's adamant

79

anti-statism and anti-capitalism, it is likely that had he realised

80

the statism implicit in contract theory, he would have modified

81

his views in such a way as to eliminate the contradiction. It is

82

understandable why he failed to do so, however; for he viewed

83

individualist anarchism as a society of workers, not one of capitalists

84

and workers. His opposition to usury logically implies artisan and

85

co-operative labour -- people selling the products of their labour, as

86

opposed to the labour itself -- which itself implies self-management

87

in production (and so society), not authoritarianism. Nevertheless,

88

it is this inconsistency -- the non-anarchist aspect of individualist

89

anarchism -- which right "libertarians" like Murray Rothbard select

90

and concentrate on, ignoring the anti-capitalist context in which

91

this aspect of individualist thought exists within. As David Wieck

92

points out:

93

94

"Out of the history of anarchist thought and action Rothbard has pulled

95

forth a single thread, the thread of individualism, and defines that

96

individualism in a way alien even to the spirit of a Max Stirner or a

97

Benjamin Tucker, whose heritage I presume he would claim -- to say

98

nothing of how alien is his way to the spirit of Godwin, Proudhon,

99

Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and the historically anonymous persons

100

who through their thoughts and action have tried to give anarchism a

101

living meaning. Out of this thread Rothbard manufactures one more

102

bourgeois ideology." ["Anarchist Justice", _Nomos XIX_, pp. 227-228]

103

104

It is with this in mind that we discuss the ideas of people like Tucker.

105

As this section of the FAQ will indicate, even at its most liberal,

106

individualist, extreme anarchism was fundamentally *anti*-capitalist.

107

Any concepts which "anarcho"-capitalism imports from the individualist

108

tradition ignore both the theoretical underpinnings of their ideas as

109

well as the social context of self-employment and artisan production

110

within which those concepts arose, thus turning them into something

111

radically different from what was intended by their originators.

112

113

Needless to say, "anarcho"-capitalists are well aware of the

114

fact that individualist anarchists were extremely hostile to

115

capitalism while supporting the "free market." Unsurprisingly,

116

they tend to downplay this opposition, often arguing that the

117

anarchists who point out the anti-capitalist positions of the

118

likes of Tucker and Spooner are quoting them out of context.

119

The truth is different. In fact, it is the "anarcho"-capitalist

120

who takes the ideas of the individualist anarchists from both

121

the historical and theoretical context.

122

123

It is not a fitting tribute to the individualist anarchists that their

124

ideas are today being associated with the capitalism that they so clearly

125

despised and wished to abolish. As one modern day Individualist Anarchist

126

argues:

127

128

"It is time that anarchists recognise the valuable contributions

129

of . . . individualist anarchist theory and take advantage of its

130

ideas. It would be both futile and criminal to leave it to the

131

capitalist libertarians, whose claims on Tucker and the others

132

can be made only by ignoring the violent opposition they had to

133

capitalist exploitation and monopolistic 'free enterprise'

134

supported by the state." [J.W. Baker, "Native American Anarchism,"

135

_The Raven_, pp. 43-62, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 61-2]

136

137

G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?

138

139

Yes, for two reasons.

140

141

Firstly, the Individualist Anarchists opposed profits, interest

142

and rent as forms of exploitation (they termed these non-labour

143

incomes "usury"). To use the words of Ezra Heywood, the

144

Individualist Anarchists thought "Interest is theft, Rent Robbery,

145

and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder." [quoted by Martin Blatt,

146

_Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton

147

and Sullivan (eds.), p. 29] Their vision of the good society was

148

one in which "the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit"

149

would not exist and labour would "secure its natural wage, its entire

150

product." [Benjamin Tucker, _The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 82

151

and p. 85] As communist-anarchist Alexander Berkman noted, "[i]f

152

labour owned the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism."

153

[_What is Communist Anarchism?_, p. 37] Thus the Individualist

154

Anarchists, like the social anarchists, opposed the exploitation

155

of labour and desired to see the end of capitalism by ensuring that

156

labour would own what it produced.

157

158

Secondly, the individualist anarchists desired a society in which

159

there would no longer be capitalists and workers, only workers. The

160

worker would receive the full product of his/her labour, so ending

161

the exploitation of labour by capital. In Tucker's words, a free

162

society would see "each man reaping the fruits of his labour and

163

no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital" and

164

so society would "become a great hive of Anarchistic workers,

165

prosperous and free individuals" combining "to carry on their

166

production and distribution on the cost principle." [_The

167

Individualist Anarchists_, p. 276] Moreover, such an aim logically

168

implies a society based upon artisan, not wage, labour and workers

169

would, therefore, not be separated from the ownership and control of

170

the means of production they used and so sell the product of their

171

labour, not the labour power itself.

172

173

For these two, interrelated, reasons, the Individualist Anarchists

174

are clearly anti-capitalist. While an Individualist Anarchy would be

175

a market system, it would not be a capitalist one. As Tucker argued,

176

the anarchists realised "the fact that one class of men are dependent

177

for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class

178

of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally

179

privileged to sell something that is not labour. . . . And to such

180

a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute

181

you remove privilege. . . every man will be a labourer exchanging

182

with fellow-labourers . . . What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to

183

abolish is usury . . . it wants to deprive capital of its reward."

184

[Benjamin Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 404] As noted above, the

185

term "usury," for Tucker, was a synonym for "the exploitation of

186

labour" [Ibid., p. 396] and included capitalist profits as well

187

as interest, rent, and royalties. Little wonder Tucker translated

188

Proudhon's _What is Property?_ and subscribed to its conclusion

189

that "property is robbery" (or theft).

190

191

Such opposition to exploitation of labour was a common thread in

192

Individualist Anarchist thought, as it was in the social anarchist

193

movement. Moreover, as in the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin and

194

Kropotkin opposition to wage slavery was also a common thread within

195

the individualist anarchist tradition -- indeed, given its regular

196

appearance, we can say it is almost a *defining* aspect of the tradition

197

(and, as we argue in the next section, it has to be for Individualist

198

Anarchism to be logically consistent). For example, taking Josiah

199

Warren (the "father" of individualist anarchism) we find that "[t]o men

200

like [him] . . . chattel slavery was merely one side of a brutal situation,

201

and although sympathetic with its opponents, refused to take part in the

202

struggle [against slavery] unless it was extended to a wholesale attack

203

on what they termed 'wage slavery' in the states where Negro slavery no

204

longer existed." [James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, p. 81] Such

205

a view, we may add, was commonplace in radical working class journals

206

and movements of the time. Thus we find George Henry Evans (who heavily

207

influence Individualist Anarchists like Warren and Ingalls with the

208

ideas of land reform based on "occupancy and use") writing:

209

210

"I was formally, like yourself, sir, a very warm advocate of the

211

abolition of (black) slavery. This was before I saw that there was

212

white slavery. Since I saw this, I have materially changed my views

213

as to the means of abolishing Negro slavery. I now see clearly, I

214

think, that to give the landless black the privilege of changing

215

masters now possessed by the landless white, would hardly be a

216

benefit to him in exchange for his surety of support in sickness

217

and old age, although he is in a favourable climate." [quoted

218

by Kenneth R. Gegg, Jr., _Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions

219

of Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 113]

220

221

Similarly, William Greene (whose pamphlet _Mutual Banking_ had a great

222

impact on Tucker) pronounced that "[t]here is no device of the political

223

economists so infernal as the one which ranks labour as a commodity,

224

varying in value according to supply and demand." [_Mutual Banking_

225

quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 130] In the same work he also noted

226

that "[t]o speak of labour as merchandise is treason; for such speech

227

denies the true dignity of man. . . Where labour is merchandise in

228

fact . . . there man is merchandise also, whether in England or South

229

Carolina." [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, _Pioneers of American Freedom_,

230

p. 112] Here we see a similar opposition to the commodification of

231

labour (and so labourers) within capitalism that also marks social

232

anarchist thought (as Rocker notes, Greene "rejected . . . the

233

designation of labour as a *commodity.*" [Op. Cit., pp. 111-2]).

234

Moreover, we discover Greene had a "strong sympathy for the

235

*principle of association.* In fact, the theory of Mutualism is

236

nothing less that co-operative labour based on the cost principle."

237

[Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 109] Martin also indicates Greene's

238

support for co-operation and associative labour:

239

240

"Coming at a time when the labour and consumer groups were

241

experimenting with 'associated workshops' and 'protective union

242

stores,' Greene suggested that the mutual bank be incorporated

243

into the movement, forming what he called 'complementary units of

244

production, consumption, and exchange . . . the triple formula of

245

practical mutualism.'" [Op. Cit., pp. 134-5]

246

247

This support for producers' associations alongside mutual banks is

248

identical to Proudhon's ideas -- which is unsurprising as Greene was

249

a declared follower of the French anarchist's ideas.

250

251

Looking at Lysander Spooner, we discover a similar opposition to

252

wage labour. Spooner argued that it was state restrictions on credit

253

and money (the "money monopoly" based on banks requiring specie to

254

operate) as the reason why people sell themselves to others on the

255

labour market. As he put it, "a monopoly of money . . . .put[s] it

256

wholly out of the power of the great body of wealth-producers to

257

hire the capital needed for their industries; and thus compel them

258

. . . -- by the alternative of starvation -- to sell their labour

259

to the monopolists of money . . . [who] plunder all the producing

260

classes in the prices of their labour." [_A Letter to Grover

261

Cleveland_, p. 20] Spooner was well aware that it was capitalists

262

who ran the state ("the employers of wage labour . . . are also the

263

monopolists of money." [Op. Cit., p. 48]). In his ideal society,

264

the "amount of money capable of being furnished . . . is so great

265

that every man, woman, and child. . . could get it, and go

266

into business for himself, or herself -- either singly, or in

267

partnerships -- and be under no necessity to act as a servant,

268

or sell his or her labour to others. All the great establishments,

269

of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing

270

a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few, or

271

no persons, who could hire capital, and do business for themselves,

272

would consent to labour for wages for another." [Op. Cit., p. 41]

273

In other words, a society without wage labour and, instead, based

274

upon peasant, artisan and associated/co-operative labour (as in

275

Proudhon's vision). In other words, a *non*-capitalist society or,

276

more positively, a (libertarian) socialist one as the workers' own

277

and control the means of production they use.

278

279

The individualist anarchists opposed capitalism (like social anarchists)

280

because they saw that profit, rent and interest were all forms of

281

exploitation. They thought that liberty meant that the worker was

282

entitled to "all the fruits of his own labour" (Spooner) and recognised

283

that working for a boss makes this impossible as a portion is diverted

284

into the employer's pockets. [Martin, Op. Cit., p. 172] Like social

285

anarchists they opposed usury, to have to pay purely for access/use

286

for a resource (a "slice of their daily labour us taken from them [the

287

workers] for the privilege of *using* these factories" [Alexander

288

Berkman, _What is Communist Anarchism?_, p. 6]).

289

290

This opposition to profits, rent and interest as forms of exploitation,

291

wage labour as a form of slavery and property as a form of theft clearly

292

makes individualist anarchism anti-capitalist and a form of (libertarian)

293

socialism. In addition, it also indicates well the common ground between

294

the two threads of anarchism, in particular their common position to

295

capitalism. The social anarchist Rudolf Rocker indicates well this

296

common position when he argues:

297

298

"it is difficult to reconcile personal freedom with the existing economic

299

system. Without doubt the present inequality of economic interests and

300

the ruling class conflicts in society are a continual danger to the

301

freedom of the individual. . . One cannot be free either politically or

302

personally so long as one is in economic servitude of another and cannot

303

escape from this condition. This was recognised by men like Godwin, Warren,

304

Proudhon, Bakunin, [and women like Goldman and de Cleyre, we must add!]

305

and many others who subsequently reached the conviction that the domination

306

of man over man will not disappear until there is an end of the exploitation

307

of man by man." [_Nationalism and Culture_, p. 167]

308

309

In addition to this opposition to capitalist usury, the individualist

310

anarchists also expressed opposition to capitalist ideas on property

311

(particularly property in land). J.K. Ingalls, for example, considered

312

that to reduce land to the status of a commodity was an act of "usurpation."

313

Indeed, "the private domination of the land" originated in "usurpation only,

314

whether of the camp, the court or the market. Whenever such a domination

315

excludes or deprives a single human being of his equal opportunity, it

316

is a violation, not only of the public right, and of the social duty, but

317

of the very principle of law and morals upon which property itself is

318

based. . ." [_Social Wealth_, quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 148f]

319

320

These ideas are identical to Proudhon's and Ingalls continues in this

321

Proudhonian "occupancy and use" vein when he argues that possession

322

"remains *possession*, and can never become *property*, in the sense of

323

absolute dominion, except by positive statue [i.e. state action]. Labour

324

can only claim *occupancy*, and can lay no claim to more than the

325

usufruct." [Ibid., p. 149] In other words, capitalist property was

326

created by "forceful and fraudulent taking" of land, which "could

327

give no justification to the system" [Ibid.] (as we argued in section

328

B.3.4) and was protected by the state. And like Warren and Greene

329

he opposed wage labour, and "considered the only 'intelligent' strike

330

[by workers as] one which would be directed against wage work

331

altogether." [Ibid., p. 153]

332

333

Therefore we see that the individualist anarchists, like social

334

anarchists, opposed capitalist exploitation, wage slavery and

335

property rights. Instead of capitalism, they maintained that

336

workers should own what they produced or its equivalent (rather

337

than what they were paid in wages). Such a position necessarily

338

implies that they should own and control the means of production

339

they use, thus ensuring the "abolition of the proletariat" (to

340

use Proudhon's term) and so the end of capitalism as society would

341

no longer be divided into two classes, those who worked and those

342

who owned. In an individualist anarchy, "there should be no more

343

proletaires" as "everybody" would be "proprietor." This would result

344

in "The land to the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to

345

the labourer. The product to the producer." [Ernest Lesigne quoted

346

approvingly by Tucker at the end of his essay "State Socialism and

347

Anarchism" in _Instead of a Book_, p. 17, p. 18] Ernest Lesigne

348

considered "co-operative production" as "a solution to the great

349

problem of social economy, -- the delivery of products to the

350

consumer at cost" and as a means of producers to "receive the value

351

of your product, of your effort, without having to deal with a mass

352

of hucksters and exploiters." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 123]

353

As Charles A. Dana put it (in a work published by Tucker and described

354

by him as "a really intelligent, forceful, and sympathetic exposition

355

of mutual banking"), "[b]y introducing mutualism into exchanges and

356

credit we introduce it everywhere, and labour will assume a new aspect

357

and become truly democratic." [_Proudhon and His "Bank of the People"_,

358

p. 45] In other words, a classless socialist society of self-employed

359

workers without exploitation and oppression.

360

361

As Wm. Gary Kline correctly summarises:

362

363

"Their proposals were designed to establish true equality of

364

opportunity . . . and they expected this to result in a society

365

without great wealth or poverty. In the absence of monopolistic

366

factors which would distort competition, they expected a

367

society of largely self-employed workmen with no significant

368

disparity of wealth between any of them since all would be

369

required to live at their own expense and not at the expense

370

of exploited fellow human beings." [_The Individualist

371

Anarchists: A Critique of Liberalism_, pp. 103-4]

372

373

Thus Individualist anarchy would "[m]ake capital free by organising

374

credit on a mutual plan, and then these vacant lands will come into

375

use . . . operatives will be able to buy axes and rakes and hoes, and

376

then they will be independent of their employers, and then the labour

377

problem will be solved." This would result in the "emancipation of the

378

workingman from his present slavery to capital." [Tucker, _Instead of a

379

Book_, p. 321 and p. 323]

380

381

Moreover, like the social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchists were

382

aware that the state was not some neutral machine or one that exploited

383

society purely for its own ends. They were aware that it was a vehicle of

384

*class rule,* namely the rule of the capitalist class over the working

385

class. As noted above, Spooner thought that that "holders of this monopoly

386

[the money monopoly] now rule and rob this nation; and the government, in

387

all its branches, is simply their tool" and that "the employers of wage

388

labour . . . are also the monopolists of money." [Spooner, Op. Cit., p. 42

389

and p. 48] Tucker recognised that "capital had so manipulated legislation"

390

that they gained an advantage on the capitalist market which allowed them

391

to exploit labour. [_The Individualist Anarchists_, pp. 82-3] He was

392

quite clear that the state was a *capitalist* state, with "Capitalists

393

hav[ing] placed and kept on the statute books all sorts of prohibitions

394

and taxes" to ensure a "free market" skewed in favour of themselves.

395

[quoted by Don Werkheiser, _Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of

396

Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 218] A.H. Simpson

397

argued that the Individualist Anarchist "knows very well that the present

398

State . . . is simply the tool of the property-owning class." [Op. Cit.,

399

p. 92] Thus both wings of the anarchist movement were united in their

400

opposition to capitalist exploitation and their common recognition that

401

the state was a tool of the capitalist class used to allow them to exploit

402

the working class.

403

404

In addition, as a means of social change, the individualists suggested

405

that activists start "inducing the people to steadily refuse the payment

406

of rents and taxes." [_Instead of a Book_ pp. 299-300] This non-payment of

407

rent included rented accommodation as "tenants would not be forced to pay

408

[landlords] rent, nor would [landlords] be allowed to seize their [the

409

tenants] property." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 162] These are

410

hardly statements with which capitalists would agree. Tucker, as noted,

411

also opposed interest, considering it usury (exploitation and a "crime")

412

pure and simple and one of the means by which workers were denied the full

413

fruits of their labour. Indeed, he looked forward to the day when "any

414

person who charges more than cost for any product [will] . . . be regarded

415

very much as we now regard a pickpocket." This "attitude of hostility to

416

usury, in any form" hardly fits into the capitalist mentality or belief

417

system. [Op. Cit., p. 155] Similarly, Ezra Heywood considered

418

profit-taking "an injustice which ranked second only to legalising

419

titles to absolute ownership of land or raw-materials." [James J. Martin,

420

Op. Cit., p. 111] Opposition to profits, rent or interest is hardly

421

capitalistic -- indeed, the reverse.

422

423

As regards equality, we discover that the Individualist Anarchist's saw

424

their ideas as resulting in more equality. Thus we find Tucker arguing

425

that that the "happiness possible in any society that does not improve

426

upon the present in the matter of distribution of wealth, can hardly be

427

described as beatific." He was clearly opposed to "the inequitable

428

distribution of wealth" under capitalism and equally clearly saw his

429

proposals as a means of reducing it substantially. ["Why I am an

430

Anarchist", p. 135, contained in _Man!_, M. Graham (ed.), pp. 132-6]

431

John Beverley Robinson agreed:

432

433

"When privilege is abolished, and the worker retains all that he

434

produces, then will come the powerful trend toward equality of

435

material reward for labour that will produce substantial financial

436

and social equality, instead of the mere political equality that

437

now exists." [_Patterns of Anarchy_, pp. 278-9]

438

439

As did Lysander Spooner, who argued that under his system "fortunes

440

could hardly be represented by a wheel; for it would present on

441

such height, no such depth, no such irregularity of motion as

442

now. It should rather be represented by an extended surface, varied

443

somewhat by inequalities, but still exhibiting a general level,

444

affording a safe position for all, and creating no necessity, for

445

either force or fraud, on the part of anyone to secure his standing."

446

Thus Individualist anarchism would create a condition "neither of

447

poverty, nor riches; but of moderate competency -- such as will

448

neither enervate him by luxury, nor disable him by destitution;

449

but which will at once give him and opportunity to labour, (both

450

mentally and physically) and stimulate him by offering him all

451

the fruits of his labours." [quoted by Stephan L. Newman, _Liberalism

452

at Wit's End_, p. 72 and p. 73]

453

454

Hence, like social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchists saw

455

their ideas as a means towards equality. By eliminating exploitation,

456

inequality would soon decrease as wealth would no longer accumulate

457

in the hands of the few (the owners). Rather, it would flow back

458

into the hands of those who produced it (i.e. the workers). Until

459

this occurred, society would see "[o]n one side a dependent

460

class of wage-workers and on the other a privileged class of

461

wealth-monopolisers, each become more and more distinct from the

462

other as capitalism advances." This has "resulted in a grouping

463

and consolidation of wealth which grows apace by attracting all

464

property, no matter by whom produced, into the hands of the

465

privileged, and hence property becomes a social power, an

466

economic force destructive of rights, a fertile source of

467

injustice, a means of enslaving the dispossessed." [William

468

Ballie, _The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 121]

469

470

Tucker, like other individualist anarchists, also supported labour

471

unions, and although he opposed violence during strikes, he recognised

472

that it was caused by frustration due to an unjust system. Indeed, like

473

social anarchists, he considered "the labourer in these days [as] a

474

soldier. . . His employer is . . . a member of an opposing army. The

475

whole industrial and commercial world is in a state of internecine war,

476

in which the proletaires are massed on one side and the proprietors on

477

the other." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 460] The cause of strikes rested

478

in the fact that "before. . . strikers violated the equal liberty of

479

others, their own right to equality of liberty had been wantonly and

480

continuously violated" by the capitalists using the state, for the

481

"capitalists . . . in denying [a free market] to [the workers] are

482

guilty of criminal invasion." [Ibid., p. 454] He agreed with Ezra

483

Heywood when he "scoffed at supporters of the status quo, who saw no

484

evidence of the tyranny on the part of capital, and who brought up

485

the matter of free contract with reference to labourers. This

486

argument was no longer valid. Capital controlled land, machinery,

487

steam power, waterfalls, ships, railways, and above all, money and

488

public opinion, and was in a position to wait out recalcitrancy at

489

its leisure." [James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, p. 107]

490

Likewise, Tucker advocated and supported many other forms of

491

non-violent direct action such as boycotts and rent strikes,

492

seeing them as important means of radicalising the working class

493

and creating an anarchist society. However, like social anarchists

494

the Individualist Anarchists did not consider labour struggle as an

495

end in itself -- they considered reforms (and discussion of a "fair

496

wage" and "harmony between capital and labour") as essentially

497

"conservative" and would be satisfied with no less than "the abolition

498

of the monopoly privileges of capital and interest-taking, and the

499

return to labour of the full value of its production." [Victor Yarros,

500

quoted by James J. Martin, Op. Cit., p. 206f]

501

502

However, while Tucker believed in direct action, he opposed the "forceful"

503

expropriation of social capital by the working class, instead favouring

504

the creation of a mutualist system to replace capitalist companies with

505

co-operative ones. Tucker was therefore fundamentally a *reformist,*

506

thinking that anarchy would evolve from capitalism as mutual banks spread

507

across society, increasing the bargaining power of labour. This idea of

508

reforming capitalism over time (and, by implication, tolerating boss's

509

control during that time) was primarily due to the influence of Herbert

510

Spencer and not Max Stirner. Little wonder that Peter Kropotkin termed

511

Tucker's doctrine "no force" and considered such a reformist position

512

to be similar to Spencer's and so little more than "an excuse for

513

supporting landlord and capitalist domination." [_Act For Yourselves_,

514

p. 98]

515

516

Be that as it may, it is clear that both social and Individualist

517

Anarchists share much in common, including an opposition to capitalism.

518

In other words, Individualist Anarchism is, indeed, opposed to capitalism.

519

As Carole Pateman points out, "[t]here has always been a strong radical

520

individualist tradition in the USA. Its adherents have been divided

521

between those who drew anarchist, egalitarian conclusions, and those

522

who reduced political life to the capitalist economy writ large, to

523

a series of exchanges between unequally situated individuals." [_The

524

Problem of Political Obligation_, p. 205] As can be seen, what

525

right-libertarians do is to confuse these two traditions. The

526

Individualist Anarchists may have been in favour of free exchange

527

but between equally situated individuals. Only given a context of

528

equality can free exchange benefit both parties equally and not

529

generate growing inequalities which benefit the stronger of the

530

parties involved which, in turn, skews the bargaining position of

531

those involved in favour of the stronger (also see section F.3).

532

533

G.1.1 Why is the social context important in evaluating Individualist

534

Anarchism?

535

536

When reading the work of people like Tucker and Warren, we must

537

remember the social context of their ideas, namely the transformation

538

of America from a pre-capitalist to a capitalist society (see Eunice

539

Minette Schuster, _Native American Anarchism_, pp. 135-137). The

540

individualist anarchists viewed with horror the rise of capitalism

541

and its imposition on an unsuspecting American population, supported

542

and encouraged by state action (in the form of protection of private

543

property in land, restricting money issuing to state approved banks

544

using specie, government orders supporting capitalist industry,

545

tariffs and so on).

546

547

The non-capitalist nature of the early USA can be seen from the

548

early dominance of self-employment (artisan production). At the

549

beginning of the 19th century, around 80% of the occupied population

550

were self-employed. The great majority of Americans during this

551

time were farmers working their own land, primarily for their own

552

needs. Most of the rest were self-employed artisans, merchants,

553

traders, and professionals. Other classes -- employees/wage workers

554

and employers/capitalists in the North, slaves and planters in the

555

South -- were relatively small. The great majority of Americans

556

were independent and free from anybody's command. They controlled

557

they owned and controlled their means of production. Thus early

558

America was, essentially, a pre-capitalist society. However, by

559

1880, the year before Tucker started _Liberty_, the number of

560

self-employed had fallen to approximately 33% of the working

561

population. Now it is less than 10% [Samuel Bowles and Herbert

562

Gintis, _Schooling in Capitalist America_, p. 59]. It is *only*

563

in this context that we can understand individualist anarchism,

564

namely as a revolt against the destruction of working-class

565

independence and the growth of wage-labour, accompanied by the

566

growth of two opposing classes, capitalists and proletarians.

567

568

Given the commonplace awareness in the population of artisan

569

production and its advantages, it is hardly surprising that

570

the individualists supported "free market" solutions to social

571

problems. For, given the era, this solution implied workers'

572

control and the selling of the product of labour, not the labourer

573

him/herself. As Tucker argues, individualist anarchism desires

574

"[n]ot to abolish wages, but to make *every* man dependent upon

575

wages and to secure every man his *whole* wages" [_Instead of a

576

Book_, p. 404] and this, logically, can only occur under workers

577

control (i.e. when the tool belonged to the worker, etc. -- see

578

section G.2).

579

580

Indeed, the Individualist Anarchists were part of a wider movement

581

seeking to stop the transformation of America. As Bowles and Ginitis

582

note, this "process has been far from placid. Rather, it has involved

583

extended struggles with sections of U.S. labour trying to counter

584

and temper the effects of their reduction to the status of wage

585

labour." They continue by noting that "with the rise of entrepreneurial

586

capital, groups of formerly independent workers were increasingly drawn

587

into the wage-labour system. Working people's organisations advocated

588

alternatives to this system; land reform, thought to allow all to

589

become an independent producer, was a common demand. Worker

590

co-operatives were a widespread and influential part of the labour

591

movement as early as the 1840s . . . but failed because sufficient

592

capital could not be raised. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 59 and p. 62] It

593

is no coincidence that the issues raised by the Individualist

594

Anarchists (land reform via "occupancy-and-use", increasing the

595

supply of money via mutual banks and so on) reflect these

596

alternatives raised by working class people and their organisations.

597

Little wonder Tucker argued that:

598

599

"Make capital free by organising credit on a mutual plan, and

600

then these vacant lands will come into use . . . operatives will

601

be able to buy axes and rakes and hoes, and then they will be

602

independent of their employers, and then the labour problem will

603

solved." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 321]

604

605

Thus the Individualist Anarchists reflect the aspirations of

606

working people facing the transformation of an society from a

607

pre-capitalist state into a capitalist one. As Morgan Edwards

608

notes:

609

610

"The greatest part [of _Liberty_'s readers] proves to be of the

611

professional/intellectual class: the remainder includes independent

612

manufacturers and merchants, artisans and skilled workers . . .

613

The anarchists' hard-core supporters were the socio-economic

614

equivalents of Jefferson's yeoman-farmers and craftsworkers:

615

a freeholder-artisan-independent merchant class allied with

616

freethinking professionals and intellectuals. These groups

617

independence, and through their desire to maintain and improve

618

their relatively free positions, had also the incentive to oppose

619

the growing encroachments of the capitalist State." [_Benjamin R.

620

Tucker and the Champions of Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton and

621

Sullivan (eds.), p. 85]

622

623

This transformation of society by the rise of capitalism explains

624

the development of *both* schools of anarchism, social and

625

individualist. "American anarchism," Frank H. Brooks argues,

626

"like its European counterpart, is best seen as a nineteenth

627

century development, an ideology that, like socialism generally,

628

responded to the growth of industrial capitalism, republican

629

government, and nationalism. Although this is clearest in the

630

more collectivistic anarchist theories and movements of the

631

late nineteenth century (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, communist

632

anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism), it also helps to explain anarchists

633

of early- to midcentury such as Proudhon, Stirner and, in America,

634

Warren. For all of these theorists, a primary concern was the

635

'labour problem' -- the increasing dependence and immiseration

636

of manual workers in industrialising economies." [_The Individualist

637

Anarchists_, p. 4]

638

639

Changing social conditions also explains why Individualist

640

Anarchism must be considered socialistic. As Murray Bookchin

641

notes:

642

643

"Th[e] growing shift from artisanal to an industrial economy gave

644

rise to a gradual but major shift in socialism itself. For the

645

artisan, socialism meant producers' co-operatives composed of

646

men who worked together in small shared collectivist associations,

647

although for master craftsmen it meant mutual aid societies that

648

acknowledged their autonomy as private producers. For the industrial

649

proletarian, by contrast, socialism came to mean the formation of

650

a mass organisation that gave factory workers the collective power

651

to expropriate a plant that no single worker could properly own.

652

These distinctions led to two different interpretations of the

653

'social question' . . . The more progressive craftsmen of the

654

nineteenth century had tried to form networks of co-operatives,

655

based on individually or collectively owned shops, and a market

656

knitted together by a moral agreement to sell commodities

657

according to a 'just price' or the amount of labour that was

658

necessary to produce them. Presumable such small-scale ownership

659

and shared moral precepts would abolish exploitation and greedy

660

profit-taking. The class-conscious proletarian . . . thought

661

in terms of the complete socialisation of the means of production,

662

including land, and even of abolishing the market *as such*,

663

distributing goods according to needs rather than labour . . .

664

They advocated *public* ownership of the means of production,

665

whether by the state or by the working class organised in trade

666

unions." [_The Third Revolution_, vol. 2, p. 262]

667

668

So, in this evolution of socialism we can place the various

669

brands of anarchism. Individualist anarchism is clearly a form

670

of artisanal socialism (which reflects its American roots) while

671

communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are forms of industrial

672

(or proletarian) socialism (which reflects its roots in Europe).

673

Proudhon's mutualism bridges these extremes, advocating as it does

674

artisan socialism for small-scale industry and agriculture and

675

co-operative associations for large-scale industry (which reflects

676

the state of the French economy in the 1840s to 1860s). Hence

677

Individualist Anarchist support for "the cost principle" (or

678

"cost the limit of price") and artisanal production ("The land

679

to the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the labourer.

680

The product to the producer"), complemented by "the principle of

681

association" and mutual banking.

682

683

In other words, there have been many schools of socialism, all

684

influenced by the changing society around them. In the words

685

of Proudhon "[m]odern Socialism was not founded as a sect or

686

church; it has seen a number of different schools." [_Selected

687

Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 177] As Frank H. Brooks

688

notes, "before Marxists monopolised the term, socialism, was a broad

689

concept, as indeed Marx's critique of the 'unscientific' varieties

690

of socialism in the _Communist Manifesto_ indicated. Thus, when

691

Tucker claimed that the individualist anarchism advocated in the

692

pages of _Liberty_ was socialist, he was not engaged in obfuscation

693

or rhetorical bravado." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 75]

694

Looking at the society in which their ideas developed (rather than

695

a-historically projecting modern ideas backward) we can see the

696

socialist core of Individualist Anarchism. It was, in other words,

697

an un-Marxian form of socialism (as was communist-anarchism).

698

699

Thus, to look at the Individualist Anarchists from the perspective

700

of "modern socialism" (say, communist-anarchism or Marxism) means

701

to miss the point. The social conditions which produced Individualist

702

Anarchism were substantially different from those existing today

703

and what was a possible solution to the "social problem" *then* may

704

not be one suitable *now* (and, indeed, point to a different kind

705

of socialism than that which developed later). Moreover, Europe in

706

the 1870s was distinctly different than America (although, of

707

course, the USA *was* catching up). For example, there was still

708

vast tracks of unclaimed land (once the Native Americans had been

709

removed, of course) available to workers (which explains the

710

various acts the US state to control land access -- see section

711

F.8.5). In the towns and cities, artisan production "remained

712

important . . . into the 1880s" [David Montgomery, _The Fall of

713

the House of Labour_, p. 52] Until the 1880s, the possibility of

714

self-employment was a real one for many workers, a possibility

715

being hindered by state action (for example, by forcing people

716

to buy land via Homestead Acts, restricting banking to those

717

with specie, and so on). Little wonder that Individualist Anarchism

718

was considered a real solution to the problems generated by the

719

creation of capitalism in the USA and that, by the 1880s,

720

Communist Anarchist (and later anarcho-syndicalism) became

721

the dominant forms of anarchism. By the 1880s, the transformation

722

of America was nearing completion and self-employment was no longer

723

a real solution for the majority of workers.

724

725

As Peter Sabatini points out:

726

727

"The chronology of anarchism within the United States corresponds

728

to what transpired in Europe and other locations. An organised

729

anarchist movement imbued with a revolutionary collectivist, then

730

communist, orientation came to fruition in the late 1870s. At that

731

time, Chicago was a primary centre of anarchist activity within the

732

USA, due in part to its large immigrant population. . .

733

734

"The Proudhonist anarchy that Tucker represented was largely superseded

735

in Europe by revolutionary collectivism and anarcho-communism. The same

736

changeover occurred in the US, although mainly among subgroups of working

737

class immigrants who were settling in urban areas. For these recent

738

immigrants caught up in tenuous circumstances within the vortex of

739

emerging corporate capitalism, a revolutionary anarchy had greater

740

relevancy than go slow mutualism." [_Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy_]

741

742

Murray Bookchin argues that the development of communist-anarchism

743

"made it possible for anarchists to adapt themselves to the new

744

working class, the industrial proletariat, . . . This adaptation

745

was all the more necessary because capitalism was now transforming

746

not only European [and American] society but the very nature of

747

the European [and American] labour movement itself." [Op. Cit.,

748

p. 259] With the changing social conditions in the US, the anarchist

749

movement changed to. Hence the rise of communist-anarchism in

750

addition to the more native individualist tradition and the

751

change in Individualist Anarchism itself:

752

753

"Green emphasised more strongly the *principle of association*

754

than did Josiah Warren and more so than Spooner had done. Here

755

too Proudhon's influence asserts itself. . . In principle there

756

is essentially no difference between Warren and Proudhon. The

757

difference between them arises from a dissimilarity of their

758

respective environments. Proudhon lived in a country where the

759

sub-division of labour made co-operation in social production

760

essential, while Warren had to deal with predominantly small

761

individual producers. For this reason Proudhon emphasised

762

the *principle of association* far more than Warren and his

763

followers did, although Warren was by no means opposed to

764

this view." [Rudolf Rocker, _Pioneers of American Freedom_,

765

p. 108]

766

This social context is essential for understanding the thought of

767

people like Greene, Spooner and Tucker. For example, as Stephen L.

768

Newman points out, Spooner "argues that every man ought to be his

769

own employer, and he envisions a world of yeoman farmers and

770

independent entrepreneurs." [_Liberalism at Wit's End_, p. 72] This

771

sort of society was in the process of being destroyed when Spooner

772

was writing. However, the Individualist Anarchists did not think this

773

transformation was unstoppable and proposed, like other sections of

774

US labour, various solutions to problems society faced. Moreover,

775

they adjusted their own ideas to changing social circumstances

776

as well, as can be seen by Greene's support for co-operatives

777

("the principle of association") as the only means of ending

778

exploitation of labour by capital.

779

780

Therefore Rocker was correct when he argued that Individualist

781

Anarchism was "above all . . . rooted in the peculiar social

782

conditions of America which differed fundamentally from those

783

of Europe." [Op. Cit., p. 155] As these conditions changed,

784

the viability of Individualist Anarchism's solution to the

785

social problem decreased. Individualist Anarchism, argues

786

Morgan Edwards, "appears to have dwindled into political

787

insignificance largely because of the erosion of its

788

political-economic base, rather than from a simple failure

789

of strategy. With the impetus of the Civil War, capitalism

790

and the State had too great a head start on the centralisation

791

of economic and political life for the anarchists to catch

792

up. This centralisation reduced the independence of the

793

intellectual/professional and merchant artisan group that

794

were the mainstay of the _Liberty_ circle." [Op. Cit.,

795

pp. 85-6]

796

797

By not taking into account these conditions, the ideas of the

798

likes of Tucker and Spooner will be distorted beyond recognition.

799

Similarly, by ignoring the changing nature of socialism in the

800

face of a changing society and economy, the obvious socialistic

801

aspects of their ideas will be lost. Ultimately, to analyse the

802

Individualist Anarchists in an a-historic manner means to distort

803

their ideas and ideals. Moreover, to apply those ideas in a

804

non-artisan economy without the intention of radically transforming

805

the socio-economic nature of that society towards one based on

806

artisan production one would mean to create a society distinctly

807

different than one they envisioned (see section G.3).

808

809

G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism?

810

811

Here we present a short summary of why individualist anarchism implies

812

socialism and not capitalism. While it is true that people like Tucker

813

and Warren placed "property" at the heart of their vision of anarchy,

814

this does not make them supporters of capitalism (see sections G.2.1

815

and G.2.2). Unlike capitalists, the individualist anarchists identified

816

"property" with simple "possession," or "occupancy and use" and considered

817

profit, rent and interest as exploitation. Indeed, Tucker explicitly stated

818

that "all property rests on a labour title, and no other property do I

819

favour." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 400] Because of this and their explicit

820

opposition to usury (profits, rent and interest) and capitalist property,

821

they could and did consider themselves as part of the wider socialist

822

movement, the libertarian wing as opposed to the statist Marxist wing.

823

824

Individualist anarchists like Tucker strongly believed that a truly free

825

(i.e. non-capitalist) market would ensure that the worker would receive

826

the "full product" of his or her labour. Nevertheless, in order to claim

827

Tucker as a proto-"anarcho"-capitalist, "anarcho"-capitalists may argue

828

that capitalism pays the "market price" of labour power, and that this

829

price *does* reflect the "full product" (or value) of the worker's

830

labour.

831

832

As Tucker supported the Labour Theory of Value we doubt that he would

833

have agreed with the "anarcho"-capitalist argument that market price

834

of labour reflected the value it produced (see Section C). He, like

835

the other individualist anarchists, was well aware that labour produces

836

the "surplus wealth" which was appropriated in the name of interest,

837

rent and profit. In other words, he very forcible rejected the idea

838

that the market price of labour reflects the value of that labour,

839

considering "the natural wage of labour is its product" and "that

840

this wage, or product, is the only just source of income." [_Instead

841

of a Book_, p. 6]

842

843

However, assuming that we accept the capitalist economic apologetics

844

at their face value, such an argument fails to place Individualist

845

Anarchism in the capitalist tradition. This is because the argument

846

ignores the need to replace and improve upon existing capital. In

847

the context of a market economy, the replacement and improvement of

848

capital is important, as accumulation allows the reduction of labour

849

costs (either directly or indirectly) by investing in new machinery

850

or processes and so improving market position. In addition, capital

851

investments are required in order to offer new services to the

852

customer (for example, in banking, a network of auto-tellers).

853

Either way, new capital is required. But new capital comes from

854

value created by labour and realised as profits. And this means that

855

in order to ensure that labour receives its due, companies *must* be

856

co-operatives so that workers will have a say in how the profits

857

they create are used, otherwise they do not get their "natural

858

wage." In addition, the ability to influence one's own destiny

859

by having a voice in investment decisions is certainly another

860

"value" that one's labour can produce beyond the exchange value

861

to be invested. We might call it "self-determination value," which

862

individualist anarchists certainly regarded as a benefit of the

863

artisan/co-operative labour they favoured (and their system implies).

864

But workers will not be able to realise the full self-determination

865

value of their labour nor receive its "full product" if investment

866

decisions are not in their hands. Logically, therefore, individualist

867

anarchism *must* tend towards co-operative, not capitalist, labour in

868

order for them to receive the full value of their labour.

869

870

In addition, while it is true that in an economy with a very low

871

degree of monopoly within industries prices *do* tend towards

872

the production cost of a commodity, this cannot be said to occur

873

instantaneously. This means that in an economy without oligopolies

874

and without interest or rent, prices would tend, in the long run,

875

towards Tucker's their "labour cost of production" this cannot be

876

said to occur in the short run. Given that in the long run "we are

877

all dead" (to use Keynes' words) -- i.e. that we may never see it --

878

any form of wage labour can lead to usury being recreated as workers

879

would not receive their entire product back. That is, due to short

880

term changes in price workers market wage may not equal what they

881

produce. They *only* solution to this problem is workers' ownership

882

and control as this ensures workers remain control of the product

883

of their labour at all times (as well as the labour itself). *If,*

884

as Tucker argued, "the object of Anarchism . . . [is] to let every

885

man [or woman] 'control self and the results of self-exertion'" then

886

this is only possible under workers' self-management and ownership.

887

[_Occupancy and Use versus the Single Tax_] This, we must note, was

888

Proudhon's argument and part of the reason he supported workers'

889

co-operatives (we will discuss the problem of natural barriers to

890

competition in section G.4 along with the dangers associated with a

891

lack of workers' control in a free society).

892

893

More importantly, wage labour violates two key aspects of Individualist

894

Anarchist thought, namely its support for "occupancy and use" and

895

its opposition to the state. We will discuss each in turn.

896

897

Obviously wage labour violates the idea that those who use something

898

automatically own it. In the case of land and housing, the

899

Individualist Anarchists argued that the person who lives or

900

works on it (even under lease) would be regarded "as the occupant

901

and user of the land on which the house stands, and as the owner of

902

the house itself," that is they become "the owner of both land and

903

house as soon as he becomes the occupant." [Ibid.] Now, to take a

904

concrete example from Tucker's time, the 3 800 workers locked out

905

by Carnegie at Homestead in 1892 definitely occupied and used the

906

works from which they were barred entry by the owners. The owners,

907

obviously, did not use the workplace themselves -- they hired

908

*others* to occupy and use it *for* them. Now, why should "occupancy

909

and use" be acceptable for land and housing but not for workplaces?

910

There is no reason and so wage labour, logically, violates "occupancy

911

and use" -- for under wage labour, those who occupy and use a

912

workplace do not own or control it. Hence "occupancy and use"

913

logically implies workers' control and ownership.

914

915

The reason why wage labour violates Individualist Anarchist opposition

916

to the state for a related reason. If the workers who use a workplace

917

do not own it, then someone else will (i.e. the owner). This in

918

turn means that the owner can tell those who use the resource what

919

to do, how to do it and when. That is, they are the sole authority

920

over the workplace and those who use it. However, according to

921

Tucker, the state can be defined (in part) as "the assumption of

922

sole authority over a given area and all within it." Tucker considered

923

this element as "common to all States." [_The Individualist Anarchists_.

924

p. 24] Thus wage labour creates a situation which is similar to the

925

state, namely the assumption of sole authority over a given area and

926

those who use it. Hence opposition to the state logically implies

927

support for workers' control and ownership for only in this case

928

can people govern themselves during the working day.

929

930

Therefore, as far as the employer/employee social relationship

931

goes, it does not fit in well with Tucker's statement that "if the

932

individual has the right to govern himself, all external government

933

is tyranny." [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 151] As we have argued in

934

Section B.4 (How does capitalism affect liberty?), wage labour produces

935

a very specific form of "external government" in the workplace, namely

936

hierarchical management structures. Therefore, logically, Individualist

937

Anarchism (like Social Anarchism) must oppose all forms of wage

938

labour in favour of self-government in production (i.e. co-operative,

939

not wage, labour).

940

941

That this the case can be seen from Proudhon's argument in _The

942

General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century_. There

943

he argues that employees are "subordinated, exploited" and their

944

"permanent condition is one of obedience," a "slave." [p. 216]

945

Indeed, capitalist companies "plunder the bodies and souls of

946

wage workers" and they are "an outrage upon human dignity and

947

personality." [p. 218] However, in a co-operative the situation

948

changes and the worker is an "associate" and "forms a part of

949

the producing organisation . . . [and] forms a part of the

950

sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject."

951

[p. 216] Without co-operation and association, "the workers . . .

952

would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there

953

would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers,

954

which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [p. 216]

955

As Robert Graham notes, "Proudhon's market socialism is

956

indissolubly linked to his notions of industry democracy and

957

workers' self-management." ["Introduction", _General Idea of

958

the Revolution_, p. xxxii]

959

960

And we must add that John Stuart Mill (who agreed with the Warrenite

961

slogan "Individual Sovereignty") faced with the same problem that

962

wage labour made a mockery of individual liberty came to the same

963

conclusion. He thought that if "mankind is to continue to improve"

964

(and it can only improve within liberty, we must add) then in the

965

end one form of association will predominate, "not that which can

966

exist between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice

967

in management, but the association of the labourers themselves on

968

terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they

969

carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and

970

removable by themselves." [quoted by Carole Pateman, _Participation

971

and Democratic Theory_, p. 34]

972

973

Therefore, logically, individualist anarchism must support

974

co-operatives and self-employment in order to ensure the maximum

975

individual self-government and labour's "natural wage." That this is the case can be seen from Tucker's quoting Ernest Lesigne that

976

anarchistic socialism aims for "The land to the cultivator. The mine

977

to the miner. The tool to the labourer. The product to the producer."

978

979

It can also be seen from Tucker's description of what would replace the

980

current system of statism (and note he calls it "scientific socialism"

981

thus squarely placing his ideas in the anti-capitalist camp):

982

983

"we have something very tangible to offer , . . We offer non-compulsive

984

organisation. We offer associative combination. We offer every possible

985

method of voluntary social union by which men and women may act together

986

for the furtherance of well-being. In short, we offer voluntary scientific

987

socialism in place of the present compulsory, unscientific organisation

988

which characterises the State and all of its ramifications. . ." [quoted

989

in Martin, Op. Cit., p. 218]

990

991

Tucker himself pointed out that "the essence of government is control. . .

992

He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an

993

invader." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 23] However, in places in _Instead

994

of a Book_ Tucker suggests that (non-exploitative, and so non-capitalist)

995

wage labour could exist in individualist anarchy. Unlike wage labour

996

under capitalism, workers would employ other workers and all workers

997

would receive the full product of their labour. As such, this relationship

998

is *non-capitalist* as it does not involve usury. Be that as it may, such

999

relationships are not libertarian and so contradict Tucker's own theories

1000

on individual liberty (as Proudhon and Mill recognised with their own,

1001

similar, positions). Wage labour is based on the control of the worker

1002

by the employer; hence Tucker's contract theory can lead to a form of

1003

"voluntary" and "private" government within the workplace. This means

1004

that, while outside of a contract an individual is free, within it he

1005

or she is governed. This violates Tucker's concept of "equality of liberty,"

1006

since the boss has obviously more liberty than the worker during working

1007

hours.

1008

1009

This result, as noted in section A.3, could *only* be avoided by workers'

1010

control, which is in fact the logical implication of Tucker's and other

1011

individualists' proposals (as we have proven above, and can be seen from

1012

Tucker's famous essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" for example). This

1013

is hardly a surprising implication, since as we've seen, artisan production

1014

was commonplace in 19th-century America and its benefits were extolled by

1015

the individualists. Without workers' control, individualist anarchism

1016

would soon become a form of capitalism and so statism -- a highly unlikely

1017

intention of individualists like Tucker, who hated both.

1018

1019

Therefore, given the assumptions of individualist anarchism in both

1020

their economic and political aspects, it is forced along the path of

1021

co-operative, not wage, labour. In other words, individualist anarchism

1022

is a form of socialism as workers receive the full product of their

1023

labour (i.e. there is no non-labour income) and this, in turn, logically

1024

implies a society in which self-managed firms compete against each

1025

other on the free market, with workers selling the product of their

1026

labour and not the labour itself. As this unites workers with the

1027

means of production they use, it is *not* capitalism and instead a

1028

form of socialism based upon worker ownership and control of the

1029

places they work.

1030

1031

For individualist anarchists not to support co-operatives results in

1032

a contradiction, namely that the individualist anarchism which aims

1033

to secure the worker's "natural wage" cannot in fact do so, while

1034

dividing society into a class of order givers and order takers (which

1035

violates individual self-government). It is this contradiction within

1036

Tucker's thought which the self-styled "anarcho"-capitalists take

1037

advantage of in order to maintain that individualist anarchism in fact

1038

implies capitalism (and so private-statism), not workers' control. In order

1039

to reach this implausible conclusion, a few individualist anarchist ideas

1040

are ripped from their social context and applied in a way that makes a

1041

mockery of them. That it was never Tucker's intention to deny workers'

1042

control can be inferred from his argument that mutualism would give

1043

workers the bargaining power to obtain equality in the workplace,

1044

which clearly points to the end of capitalist authority relations,

1045

as will be explained further in section G.5.

1046

1047

However, due to problems inherent in the nature of a market economy,

1048

even the assumption of workers' control may not be enough to ensure

1049

that individualistic anarchism does not become a new form of archy,

1050

as will be discussed in section G.4 ("Why do social anarchists

1051

reject individualist anarchism ideas?").

1052

1053

G.2.1 What about their support of the free market?

1054

1055

Many, particularly on the libertarian right, would dismiss claims that the Individualist Anarchists were socialists. By their support

1056

of the "free market" the Individualist Anarchists, they would claim,

1057

show them as really supporters of capitalism. Most, if not all,

1058

anarchists would reject this claim. Why is this the case?

1059

1060

This because such claims show an amazing ignorance of socialist

1061

ideas and history. The socialist movement has had a many schools,

1062

many of which, but not all, opposed the market and private property.

1063

Given that the right-libertarians who make such claims are not

1064

well informed of the ideas they oppose (i.e. of socialism,

1065

particularly *libertarian* socialism) it is unsurprising they

1066

claim that the Individualist Anarchists are not socialists (of

1067

course the fact that many Individualist Anarchists argued they

1068

*were* socialists is ignored). Coming from a different tradition,

1069

it is unsurprising they are not aware of the fact that socialism

1070

is not monolithic. Hence we discover right-libertarian guru

1071

von Mises claiming that the "essence of socialism is the entire

1072

elimination of the market." [_Human Action_, p. 702] This would

1073

have come as something of a surprise to, say, Proudhon, who

1074

argued that "[t]o suppress competition is to suppress liberty

1075

itself." [_The General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 50] Similarly,

1076

it would have surprised Tucker, who called himself a socialist

1077

while supporting a freer market than von Mises ever dreamt of.

1078

1079

Part of the problem, of course, is that the same word often means

1080

different things to different people. Both Kropotkin and Lenin

1081

said they were "communists" and aimed for "communism." However,

1082

it does not mean that the society Kropotkin aimed for was the

1083

same as that desired by Lenin. Kropotkin's communism was

1084

decentralised, created and run from the bottom-up while Lenin's

1085

was fundamentally centralised. Similarly, both Tucker and

1086

the Social-Democrat (and leading Marxist) Karl Kautsky called

1087

themselves a "socialist" yet their ideas on what a socialist

1088

society would be like were extremely different. As J.W. Baker

1089

notes, "Tucker considered himself a socialist . . . as the result

1090

of his struggle against 'usury and capitalism,' but anything that

1091

smelled of 'state socialism' was thoroughly rejected." ["Native

1092

American Anarchism," _The Raven_, pp. 43-62, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 60]

1093

This, of course, does not stop many "anarcho"-capitalists talking

1094

about "socialist" goals as if all socialists were Stalinists (or,

1095

at best, social democrats). In fact, "socialist anarchism" has

1096

included (and continues to include) advocates of truly free markets

1097

as well as advocates of a non-market socialism which has absolutely

1098

nothing in common with the state capitalist tyranny of Stalinism.

1099

Similarly, they accept a completely ahistorical definition of

1100

"capitalism," so ignoring the massive state violence and support

1101

by which that system was created and is maintained.

1102

1103

The same with terms like "property" and the "free market," which

1104

by the "anarcho"-capitalist assumes the individualist anarchist

1105

means the same thing as they do. We can take land as an example.

1106

The individualist anarchists argued for an "occupancy and use"

1107

system of "property" (see section G.2.2). Thus in their "free

1108

market," land would not be a commodity as it is under capitalism.

1109

Thus, under individualist anarchism, absentee landlords would

1110

be considered as aggressors (and under capitalism, using state

1111

coercion to back up their collection of rent against the actual

1112

occupiers of property). Tucker argued that local defence

1113

associations should treat the occupier and user as the rightful

1114

owner, and defend them against the aggression of an absentee

1115

landlord who attempted to collect rent. An "anarcho"-capitalist

1116

would consider this as aggression *against* the landlord and a

1117

violation of "free market" principles. Similarly, if we apply

1118

the mutualist understanding of land to the workplace, we would

1119

treat the workers in a factory as the rightful owners, on the

1120

basis of occupation and use; at the same time, we could treat

1121

the share owners and capitalists as aggressors for attempting

1122

to force their representatives as managers on those actually

1123

occupying and using the premises. Again, such a system of

1124

"occupancy and use" would involve massive violations of what

1125

is considered normal in a capitalist "free market."

1126

1127

In other words, an individualist anarchist would consider an

1128

"anarcho"-capitalist "free market" as nothing of the kind and

1129

vice versa. For the "anarcho"-capitalist, the individualist

1130

anarchist position on "property" would be considered as forms

1131

of regulation and restrictions on private property and so

1132

the "free market." The individualist anarchist would consider

1133

the "anarcho"-capitalist "free market" as another system of

1134

legally maintained privilege, with the free market distorted

1135

in favour of the wealthy.

1136

1137

Therefore it should be remembered that "anarcho"-capitalists

1138

at best agree with Tucker, Spooner, et al on fairly vague

1139

notions like the "free market." They do not bother to find out

1140

what the individualist anarchists meant by that term. Indeed,

1141

the "anarcho"-capitalist embrace of different economic theories

1142

means that they actually reject the reasoning that leads up to

1143

these nominal "agreements." It is the "anarcho"-capitalists who,

1144

by rejecting the underlying economics of the mutualists, are forced

1145

to take any "agreements" out of context. It also means that when

1146

faced with obviously anti-capitalist arguments and conclusions of

1147

the individualist anarchists, the "anarcho"-capitalist cannot

1148

explain them and are reduced to arguing that the anti-capitalist

1149

concepts and opinions expressed by the likes of Tucker are

1150

somehow "out of context." In contrast, the anarchist can explain

1151

these so-called "out of context" concepts by placing them into

1152

the context of the ideas of the individualist anarchists and

1153

the society which shaped them.

1154

1155

The "anarcho"-capitalist usually admits that they totally disagree

1156

with many of the essential premises of Spooner's and Tucker's analyses.

1157

The most basic difference is that the individualist anarchists rooted

1158

their ideas in the labour theory of value while the "anarcho"-capitalists

1159

favour the subjective theory. It does not take much thought to realise

1160

that advocates of labour theories and those of subjective theories of

1161

value will naturally develop differing notions of what is and what

1162

should be happening within a given economic system. One difference

1163

that *has* in fact arisen is that the notion of what constitutes a

1164

"free market" has differed according to the theory of value applied.

1165

Many things can be attributed to the workings of a "free" market under

1166

a subjective analysis that would be considered symptoms of economic

1167

unfreedom under most labour-theory driven analyses.

1168

1169

This can be seen if you look closely at the case of Tucker's comments

1170

that anarchism was simply "consistent Manchesterianism." If this is

1171

done then a simple example of this potential confusion can be found.

1172

Tucker argued that anarchists "accused" the Manchester men "of being

1173

inconsistent," that while being in favour of laissez faire for "the

1174

labourer in order to reduce his wages" they did not believe "in liberty

1175

to compete with the capitalist in order to reduce his usury." [_The

1176

Individualist Anarchists_, p. 83] To be consistent in this case is

1177

to be something other -- and more demanding in terms of what is

1178

accepted as "freedom" -- than the average Manchesterian (i.e. a

1179

supporter of "free market" capitalism). Partisans of the subjective

1180

theory see things differently, of course, feeling justified in calling

1181

many things "free" that anarchists would not accept, and seeing

1182

"constraint" in what they simply thought of as "consistency."

1183

1184

Therefore it should be pretty clear that a "free market" will

1185

look somewhat different depending on your economic presuppositions.

1186

Ironically, therefore, "anarcho"-capitalists admit they do not agree

1187

with the likes of Spooner and Tucker on key premises, but then claim

1188

Moreover, the "anarcho"-capitalist simply dismisses all the reasoning

1189

that got Tucker there -- that is like trying to justify a law citing

1190

Leviticus but then saying "but of course all that God stuff is just

1191

absurd." You cannot have it both ways. And, of course, the

1192

"anarcho"-capitalist support for non-labour based economics

1193

allow them to side-step (and so ignore) much of what anarchists

1194

syndicalists alike -- consider authoritarian and coercive about

1195

"actually existing" capitalism. But the difference in value

1196

theories is critical. No matter what they are called, it is

1197

pretty clear that individualist anarchist standards for the

1198

freedom of markets are far more demanding than those associated

1199

with even the freest capitalist market system.

1200

1201

In summary, the "free market" as sought by (say) Tucker

1202

would not be classed as a "free market" by right-wing

1203

"libertarians." So the term "free market" (and, of

1204

course, "socialism") can mean different things to different

1205

people. As such, it would be correct to state that *all*

1206

anarchists oppose the "free market" by definition as all

1207

anarchists oppose the *capitalist* "free market." And,

1208

just as correctly, "anarcho"-capitalists would oppose the

1209

mutualist "free market," arguing that it would be no such

1210

thing as it would be restrictive of property rights

1211

(*capitalist* property rights of course). For example,

1212

the question of resource use in a mutualist society is

1213

totally different than in a capitalist "free market" as

1214

landlordism would not exist. This is a restriction on

1215

capitalist property rights and a violation of a capitalist

1216

"free market." So a mutualist "free market" would not be

1217

considered so by right-wing "libertarians" due to the

1218

substantial differences in the rights on which it would

1219

be based (with no right to capitalist private property

1220

being the most important).

1221

1222

All this means that to go on and on about Tucker's (or Spooner's

1223

et al) feelings about a free market simply misses the point. No

1224

one denies that Tucker (or Spooner) was in favour of the "free

1225

market" but he did not mean the same kind of "free market"

1226

desired by "anarcho"-capitalism or that has existed under

1227

capitalism. For example, as we note in section G.4, Tucker

1228

was well aware of the impact of inequalities in wealth in the

1229

economy. In 1911 he argued that economic inequality was so large

1230

that it meant individualist anarchism was impossible. If, as

1231

"anarcho"-capitalists claim, Tucker supported the "free market"

1232

above all else then he would not have argued this point. Clearly,

1233

then, Tucker's support for the "free market" cannot be abstracted

1234

from his fundamental principles nor can it be equated with a

1235

"free market" based on capitalist property rights and massive

1236

inequalities in wealth (and so economic power). Thus individualist

1237

anarchist support for the free market does not mean support for

1238

a *capitalist* "free market."

1239

1240

Little wonder, then, that the likes of Tucker considered themselves

1241

socialists and stated numerous times that they were.

1242

1243

It could be argued that these self-proclaimed socialists did not,

1244

in fact, understand what socialism "really meant." For this to

1245

be the case, *other*, more obviously socialist, writers and

1246

thinkers would dismiss them as socialists. This, however, is not

1247

the case. Thus we find Karl Marx, for example, writing of "the

1248

socialism of Proudhon." [_Capital_, vol. 1, p. 161f] Engels

1249

talked about Proudhon being "the Socialist of the small peasant

1250

and master-craftsman" and of "the Proudhon school of Socialism."

1251

[Marx and Engels, _Selected Works_, p. 254 and p. 255] Bakunin

1252

talked about Proudhon's "socialism, based on individual and

1253

collective liberty and upon the spontaneous action of free

1254

associations." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 100]

1255

These renown socialists did not consider Proudhon's position

1256

to be in any way anti-socialist.

1257

1258

Looking at Tucker and the Individualist anarchists we discover

1259

that other socialists considered them socialists. Looking at

1260

Rudolf Rocker we discover him arguing that "it is not difficult

1261

to discover certain fundamental principles which are common

1262

to all of them and which divide them from all other varieties

1263

of socialism. They all agree on the point that man be given

1264

the full reward of his labour and recognise in this right the

1265

economic basis of all personal liberty. They all regard the

1266

free competition of individual and social forces as something

1267

inherent in human nature . . . They answered the socialists

1268

of other schools who saw in *free competition* one of the

1269

destructive elements of capitalist society that the evil lies

1270

in the fact we have too little rather than too much competition,

1271

since the power of monopoly has made competition impossible."

1272

[_Pioneers of American Freedom_, p. 160]

1273

1274

Adolph Fischer, one of the Haymarket Martyrs and contemporary

1275

of Tucker, argued that "every anarchist is a socialist, but

1276

every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist. The anarchists

1277

are divided into two factions: the communistic anarchists and

1278

the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists . . ." The former

1279

"advocate the communistic or co-operative method of production"

1280

while the latter "do not advocate the co-operative system of

1281

production [i.e. communism], and the common ownership of the

1282

means of production, the products and the land." [_The

1283

Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs_, p. 81] However,

1284

while not being communists (i.e. aiming to eliminate the

1285

market), he obviously recognised the Individualists Anarchists

1286

as fellow socialists (we should point out that Proudhon *did*

1287

support co-operatives, as did the Individualist Anarchists,

1288

but they did not carry this to communism as do most social

1289

anarchists -- as is clear, Fischer means communism by the term

1290

"co-operative system of production" rather than co-operatives

1291

as they exist today and Proudhon supported).

1292

1293

Thus claims that the Individualist Anarchists were not "really"

1294

socialists because they support competition are false. The simple

1295

fact is that those who make this claim are ignorant of the socialist

1296

movement, its ideas and its history (or desire, like many Marxists,

1297

to write out of history competing socialist theories). As Tucker

1298

argued, "the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other

1299

forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic

1300

idea." [_Instead of a Book_, pp. 363-4] It is no surprise that

1301

the authoritarian left and "libertarian" right have united to

1302

define socialism in such a way as to eliminate anarchism from

1303

its ranks -- they both have an interest in removing a theory

1304

which exposes the inadequacies of their dogmas, which explains

1305

how we can have both liberty *and* equality, have freedom in

1306

work *and* outside it and have a decent, free and just society.

1307

1308

So why is Individualist Anarchism and Proudhon's mutualism socialist?

1309

Simply because they opposed the exploitation of labour by capital

1310

and proposed a means of ending it. Therefore, if socialism is, to

1311

quote Kropotkin, "understood in its wide, generic, and true sense"

1312

as "an effort to *abolish* the exploitation of labour by capital"

1313

[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 169] then the Individualist

1314

Anarchists and Proudhon must be considered socialists (of course

1315

*libertarian* socialists) due to their opposition to usury. It

1316

is for this reason we discover Rudolf Rocker arguing that Stephan

1317

P. Andrews was "one of the most versatile and significant exponents

1318

of libertarian socialism" in the USA in spite of his belief that

1319

"the specific cause of the economic evil [of capitalism] is

1320

founded not on the existence of the wage system" but, rather,

1321

on the exploitation of labour, "on the unjust compensation of

1322

the worker" and the usury that "deprives him of a part of his

1323

labour." [_Pioneers of American Freedom_, p. 85 and pp. 77-8]

1324

His opposition to exploitation meant he was a socialist, an

1325

opposition which individualist anarchism was rooted in from its

1326

earliest days and the ideas of Josiah Warren:

1327

1328

"The aim was to circumvent the exploitation inherent in capitalism,

1329

which Warren characterised as a sort of 'civilised cannibalism,'

1330

by exchanging goods on co-operative rather than supply and

1331

demand principles." [J.W. Baker, "Native American Anarchism,"

1332

_The Raven_, pp. 43-62, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 51]

1333

1334

The individualist anarchists considered it as a truism that

1335

in their society the exploitation of labour could not exist. Thus

1336

even if some workers did sell their liberty, they would still

1337

receive the full product of their labour. Thus accumulation of

1338

capital would be non-existent, so a general equality would

1339

prevail and so economic power would not undermine liberty.

1340

Remove this underlying assumption, assume that profits could

1341

be made and capital accumulated, assume that land can be

1342

monopolised by landlords (as the "anarcho"-capitalists do)

1343

and a radically different society is produced. One in which

1344

economic power means that the vast majority have to sell

1345

themselves to get access to the means of life. A condition of

1346

"free markets" may exist, but as Tucker argued in 1911, it

1347

would not be anarchism. The *deus ex machina* of invisible hands

1348

has takes a beating in the age of monopolies.

1349

1350

G.2.2 What about their support of "private property"?

1351

1352

The notion that because the Individualist Anarchists supported

1353

"property" they supported capitalism is distinctly wrong. This

1354

is for two reasons. Firstly, private property is not the distinctive

1355

aspect of capitalism -- exploitation and wage labour is. Thus

1356

support of private property does not indicate a support for

1357

capitalism. Even use of John Locke's arguments in favour of

1358

private property could be used against capitalism. As Murray

1359

Bookchin makes clear regarding early American society:

1360

1361

"Unknown in the 1640s, the non-bourgeois aspects of Locke's

1362

theories were very much in the air a century and a half

1363

later . . . [In an artisan/peasant society] a Lockean argument

1364

could be used as effectively against the merchants . . .to

1365

whom the farmers were indebted, as it could against the King

1366

[or the State]. Nor did the small proprietors of America

1367

ever quite lose sight of the view that attempts to seize their

1368

farmsteads and possessions for unpaid debts were a violation

1369

of their 'natural rights,' and from the 1770s until as late

1370

as the 1930s they took up arms to keep merchants and bankers

1371

from dispossessing them from land they or their ancestors

1372

had wrestled from 'nature' by virtue of their own labour. The

1373

notion that property was sacred was thus highly elastic: it

1374

could be used as effectively by pre-capitalist strata to hold

1375

on to their property as it could by capitalists strata to

1376

expand their holdings." [_The Third Revolution_, vol. 1,

1377

pp. 187-8]

1378

1379

What right-libertarians do is to confuse two very different

1380

kinds of "property," one of which rests on the labour of the

1381

producer themselves and the other on the exploitation of the

1382

labour of others. They do not analyse the social relationships

1383

between people which the property generates and, instead,

1384

concentrate on *things* (i.e. property). Thus, rather than

1385

being interested in people and the relationships they create

1386

between themselves, the right-libertarian focuses on property

1387

(and, more often than not, just the word rather than what the

1388

word describes). This is a strange position for someone seeking

1389

liberty to take, as liberty is a product of social interaction

1390

(i.e. the relations we have and create with others) and not a

1391

product of things (property is not freedom as freedom is a

1392

relationship between people, not things). In effect, they

1393

confuse property with possession (and vice versa).

1394

1395

And if quoting Karl Marx is not *too* out of place, we discover

1396

that he did not consider property as being identical with

1397

capitalism. "The historical conditions of [Capital's] existence

1398

are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and

1399

commodities. It arises only when the owner of the means of

1400

production and subsistence finds the free worker available

1401

on the market, as the seller of his own labour-power." This

1402

wage-labour is the necessary pre-condition for capitalism,

1403

*not* "private property" as such. Thus artisan/peasant

1404

production is not capitalism as "the means of production

1405

and subsistence, while they remain the property of the

1406

immediate producer, are not capital. They only become capital

1407

under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as

1408

means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker."

1409

[_Capital_, vol. 1, p. 264 and p. 938] We quote Marx simply

1410

because as authorities on socialism go, he is one that

1411

right-libertarians (or Marxists, for that matter) cannot

1412

ignore or dismiss. Needless to say, he is essentially

1413

repeating Proudhon's distinction between property and

1414

possession. The former is theft and despotism, the latter

1415

is liberty. In other words, for anarchists, "property" is

1416

a *social relation* and that a key element of anarchist

1417

thinking (both social and individualist) was the need to

1418

redefine that relation in accord with standards of liberty

1419

and justice.

1420

1421

Thus artisan production is not capitalist. It does not generate

1422

relationships of exploitation and domination as the worker

1423

owns and controls their own means of production. It is, in

1424

effect, a form of socialism (a "petit bourgeois" form of

1425

socialism, to use the typical Marxist phrase). Thus support

1426

for "private property" need not mean support for capitalism

1427

(as shown, for example, by the Individualist Anarchists). To

1428

claim otherwise is to ignore the essential insight of socialism

1429

and totally distort the socialist case against capitalism.

1430

1431

Secondly, and more importantly, what the Individualist Anarchists

1432

meant by "private property" (or "property") was distinctly different

1433

than what is meant by theorists on the libertarian right. Basically,

1434

the libertarian right exploit, for their own ends, the confusion

1435

generated by the use of the word "property" by the likes of Tucker

1436

to describe a situation of "possession." Proudhon recognised this

1437

danger. He argued that "it is proper to call different things by

1438

different names, if we keep the name 'property' for the former

1439

[individual possession], we must call the latter [the domain of

1440

property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we

1441

reserve the name 'property' for the latter, we must designate the

1442

former by the term *possession* or some other equivalent; otherwise

1443

we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym." [_What is

1444

Property?_, p. 373] Unfortunately Tucker, who translated this

1445

work, did not heed Proudhon's words of wisdom and called possession

1446

in an anarchist society by the word "property."

1447

1448

Looking at Tucker's arguments, it is clear that the last thing

1449

Tucker supported was capitalist property rights. For example,

1450

he argued that "property, in the sense of individual possession,

1451

is liberty" and contrasted this with capitalist property.

1452

[_Instead of a Book_, p. 394] That his ideas on "property"

1453

were somewhat different than that associated with right-libertarian

1454

thinkers is most clearly seen with regards to land. Here we

1455

discover him advocating "occupancy and use" and rejecting the

1456

"right" of land owners to bar the landless from any land they

1457

owned but did not *personally* use. Rent was "due to that denial

1458

of liberty which takes the shape of land monopoly, vesting titles

1459

to land in individuals and associations which do not use it,

1460

and thereby compelling the non-owning users to pay tribute to the

1461

non-using owners as a condition of admission to the competitive

1462

market." Anarchist opposition of rent did "not mean simply the

1463

freeing of unoccupied land. It means the freeing of all land not

1464

occupied *by the owner.* In other words, it means land ownership

1465

limited by occupancy and use." [Tucker, _The Individualist

1466

Anarchists_, p. 130 and p. 155] This would result in a "system

1467

of occupying ownership . . . accompanied by no legal power to

1468

collect rent." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 325]

1469

1470

A similar position was held by John Beverley Robinson. He argued

1471

that there "are two kinds of land ownership, proprietorship or

1472

property, by which the owner is absolute lord of the land, to use

1473

it or to hold it out of use, as it may please him; and possession,

1474

by which he is secure in the tenure of land which he uses and

1475

occupies, but has no claim upon it at all of he ceases to use

1476

it." Moreover, "[a]ll that is necessary to do away with Rent

1477

is to away with absolute property in land." [_Patterns of Anarchy_,

1478

p. 272]

1479

1480

Thus the Individualist Anarchists definition of "property" differed

1481

considerably from that of the capitalist definition. As they

1482

themselves acknowledge. Robinson argued that "the only real

1483

remedy is a change of heart, through which land using will be

1484

recognised as proper and legitimate, but land holding will be

1485

regarded as robbery and piracy." [Op. Cit., p. 273] Tucker,

1486

likewise, indicated that his ideas on "property" were not the

1487

same as existing ones when he argued that "the present system of

1488

land tenure should be changed to one of occupancy and use" and

1489

that "no advocate of occupancy-and-use tenure of land believes

1490

that it can be put in force, until as a theory it has been as

1491

generally . . . seen and accepted as is the prevailing theory of

1492

ordinary private property." [_Occupancy and Use verses the Single

1493

Tax_] Thus, for Tucker, anarchism is dependent on "the Anarchistic

1494

view that occupancy and use should condition and limit landholding

1495

becom[ing] the prevailing view." [_The Individualist Anarchists_,

1496

p. 159]

1497

1498

Hence to claim that the Individualist Anarchists supported capitalist

1499

property rights is false. As can be seen, they advocated a system

1500

which differed significantly to the current system, indeed they

1501

urged the restriction of property rights to a form of possession.

1502

Unfortunately, by generally using the term "property" to describe

1503

this new system of possession they generated exactly the confusion

1504

that Proudhon foretold. Sadly, right-libertarians use this confusion

1505

to promote the idea that the likes of Tucker supported capitalist

1506

property rights and so capitalism.

1507

1508

For these two reasons it is clear that just because the Individualist

1509

Anarchists supported (a form of) "property" does not mean they

1510

are capitalists. Indeed, Kropotkin argued that a communist-anarchist

1511

revolution would *not* expropriate the tools of self-employed workers

1512

who exploited no-one (see his _Act for Yourselves_ pp. 104-5).

1513

Malatesta argued that in a free society "the peasant [is free] to

1514

cultivate his piece of land, alone if he wishes; free is the shoe

1515

maker to remain at his last or the blacksmith in his small forge."

1516

Thus these two very famous communist-anarchists also "supported"

1517

"property" but they are recognised as obviously socialists. This

1518

apparent contradiction is resolved when it is understood that for

1519

communist-anarchists (like all anarchists) the abolition of property

1520

does not mean the end of possession and so "would not harm the

1521

independent worker whose real title is possession and the work

1522

done" unlike capitalist property [Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_,

1523

p. 103] In other words, *all* anarchists (as we argue in section

1524

B.3) oppose private property but support possession.

1525

1526

That many of the Individualist Anarchists used the term "property"

1527

to describe a system of possession (or "occupancy-and-use") should

1528

not blind us to the anti-capitalist nature of that "property." Once

1529

we move beyond looking at the words they used to want they meant by

1530

those words we clearly see that their ideas are distinctly different

1531

from those of supporters of capitalism.

1532

1533

G.3 What about "anarcho"-capitalists' support of Tucker's "defence

1534

associations"?

1535

1536

The individualist anarchists advocated individual possession of land

1537

and tools and the free exchange of the products of labour between

1538

self-employed people. Therefore they also supported the idea of "defence

1539

associations" to ensure that the fruits of an individual's labour would

1540

not be stolen by others. Again, the social context of individualist

1541

anarchism -- namely, a society of self-employed artisans (see sections

1542

G.1 and G.2) -- is crucial for understanding these proposals. However,

1543

as in their treatment of Tucker's support for contract theory,

1544

"anarcho"-capitalists (e.g. Murray Rothbard) remove the individualists'

1545

ideas about free-market defence associations and courts from the social

1546

context in which they were proposed, using those ideas in an attempt to

1547

turn the individualists into defenders of capitalism.

1548

1549

As indicated in section G.1, the social context in question was one in

1550

which an economy of artisans and peasant farmers was being replaced by a

1551

state-backed capitalism. This context is crucial for understanding the

1552

idea of the "defence associations" that Tucker suggested. For what he

1553

proposed was clearly *not* the defence of capitalist property relations.

1554

This can be seen, for example, in his comments on land use. Thus:

1555

1556

"'The land for the people' . . . means the protection by . . . voluntary

1557

associations for the maintenance of justice . . . of all people who desire

1558

to cultivate land in possession of whatever land they personally

1559

cultivate . . . and the positive refusal of the protecting power to lend

1560

its aid to the collection of any rent, whatsoever." [Op. Cit., p. 299]

1561

1562

There is no mention here of protecting *capitalist* farming, i.e.

1563

employing wage labour; rather, there is explicit mention that only land

1564

being used for *personal* cultivation -- thus *without* employing wage

1565

labour -- would be defended. In other words, the defence association would

1566

defend "occupancy and use" (which is a clear break with capitalist property

1567

rights) and not the domination of the landlord over society or those who

1568

use the land the landlord claims to own.

1569

1570

Refusal to pay rent on land is a key aspect of Tucker's thought, and it is

1571

significant that he explicitly rejects the idea that a defence association

1572

can be used to collect it. In addition, as a means towards anarchy, Tucker

1573

suggests "inducing the people to steadily refuse the payment of rent and

1574

taxes" [Op. Cit., p. 299]. It is hard to imagine that a landowner

1575

influenced by Murray Rothbard or David Friedman would support such an

1576

arrangement or a "defence association" that supported it.

1577

1578

The various economic proposals made by the individualist anarchists were

1579

designed to eliminate the vast differences in wealth accruing from the

1580

"usury" of industrial capitalists, bankers, and landlords. For example,

1581

Josiah Warren "proposed like Robert Owen an exchange of notes based on

1582

labour time. . . He wanted to establish an 'equitable commerce' in which

1583

all goods are exchanged for their cost of production. . . . In this way

1584

profit and interest would be eradicated and a highly egalitarian order

1585

would emerge." [Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 385] Given

1586

that the Warrenites considered that both workers and managers would

1587

receive equal payment for equal hours worked, the end of a parasitic

1588

class of wealthy capitalists was inevitable.

1589

1590

In the case of Benjamin Tucker, he was a firm adherent of the labour theory

1591

of value, believing that a free market and interest-free credit would

1592

reduce prices to the cost of production and increase demand for labour

1593

to the point where workers would receive the full value of their labour.

1594

In addition, recognising that gold was a rare commodity, he rejected a

1595

gold-backed money supply in favour of a land-backed one, as land with

1596

"permanent improvements on [it]. . . [is] an excellent basis for currency."

1597

[_Instead of a Book_, p. 198] Given that much of the population at the

1598

time worked on their own land, such a money system would have ensured that

1599

entry into the banking market was easier as well, by allowing easy credit

1600

secured by land. Mutualism replaced the gold standard (which, by its very

1601

nature would produce an oligarchy of banks) with money backed by other,

1602

more available, commodities.

1603

1604

Rothbard rejects all of this, the social context of Tucker's ideas on

1605

"defence associations." In fact, he attacks what he considers the "bad

1606

economics" of the individualists without realising it is *precisely*

1607

these "bad" (i.e. anti-capitalist) economics which will make "defence

1608

associations" irrelevant as workers' received the full product of their

1609

labour (so destroying usury) and workers' control spreads and replaces the

1610

irrational authority of the capitalist-labourer social relationship with

1611

the egalitarian relationships of co-operative and artisan production.

1612

Unless this social context exists, any defence associations will soon

1613

become mini-states, serving to enrich the elite few by protecting the

1614

usury they gain from, and their power and control (i.e. government) over,

1615

those who toil. In other words, the "defence associations" of Tucker and

1616

Spooner would not be private states, enforcing the power of capitalists

1617

upon wage workers. Instead, they would be like insurance companies,

1618

protecting possessions against theft (as opposed to protecting capitalist

1619

theft from the dispossessed as would be the case in "anarcho"-capitalism

1620

1621

In addition, the emphasis given by Tucker and Lysander Spooner to the

1622

place of juries in a free society is equally important for understanding

1623

how their ideas about defence associations fit into a non-capitalist

1624

scheme. For by emphasising the importance of trial by jury, they knock

1625

an important leg from under the private statism associated with

1626

"anarcho"-capitalism. Unlike a wealthy judge, a jury made up mainly of

1627

fellow workers would be more inclined to give verdicts in favour of

1628

workers struggling against bosses or of peasants being forced off their

1629

land by immoral, but legal, means. It is hardly surprising that Rothbard

1630

rejects this in favour of the mysticism and authoritarianism of "natural

1631

law." As Lysander Spooner argued in 1852, "[i]f a jury have not the right

1632

to judge between the government and those who disobey its laws, and resist

1633

its oppressions, the government is absolute, and the people, legally

1634

speaking, are slaves. Like many other slaves they may have sufficient

1635

courage and strength to keep their masters somewhat in check; but they are

1636

nevertheless known to the law only as slaves." [_Trial by Jury_] And

1637

"Natural Law" implies a body, a "Natural Government" perhaps, which

1638

determines what it is -- in Rothbard's case a system of professional and

1639

wealthy "arbitrators" who determine what is and what is not "custom"

1640

and "reason."

1641

1642

As Individualist Anarchist Laurance Labadie (the son of Joseph Labadie)

1643

argues against Rothbard's misrepresentation of the idea that there

1644

would be "no rational or objective body of law" in Individualist Anarchy:

1645

1646

"Mere common sense would suggest that any court would be influenced by

1647

experience; and any free market court or judge would in the very nature

1648

of things have some precedents guiding them in their instructions to

1649

a jury. But since no case is exactly the same, a jury would have

1650

considerable say about the heinousness of the offence in each case,

1651

realising that circumstances alter cases, and prescribing penalty

1652

accordingly. This appeared to Spooner and Tucker to be a more

1653

flexible and equitable administration of justice possible or

1654

feasible, human beings being what they are . . .

1655

1656

"But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas

1657

of Spooner and Tucker, and at the same time upholds *presumably

1658

in his courts* the very economic evils which are at the bottom

1659

the very reason for human contention and conflict, he would

1660

seem to be a man who chokes at a gnat while swallowing a camel."

1661

[quoted by Mildred J. Loomis and Mark A. Sullivan, _Benjamin R.

1662

Tucker and the Champions of Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton and

1663

Sullivan (eds.), p. 124]

1664

1665

By focusing selectively on a few individualist proposals taken out

1666

of their social context, Murray Rothbard and other "anarcho"-capitalists

1667

have turned the potential libertarianism of the individualist anarchists

1668

into yet another ideological weapon in the hands of (private) statism and

1669

capitalism. As Peter Sabatini argues (in _Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy_):

1670

1671

"in those rare moments when [Murray] Rothbard (or any other [right-wing]

1672

Libertarian) does draw upon individualist anarchism, he is always highly

1673

selective about what he pulls out. Most of the doctrine's core principles,

1674

being decidedly anti-Libertarianism, are conveniently ignored, and so what

1675

remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed

1676

defence of capitalism. In sum, the 'anarchy' of Libertarianism reduces to

1677

a liberal fraud."

1678

1679

G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism?

1680

1681

As James J. Martin notes, "paralleling" European social anarchism

1682

"chronologically was a kindred but nearly unconnected phenomenon in

1683

America, seeking the same ends through individualistic rather than

1684

collectivistic dynamics." [_Men Against the State_, p. ix]

1685

1686

When the two movements meet in American in the 1880s, the similarities

1687

and differences of both came into sharp relief. While both social and

1688

individualist anarchists reject capitalism as well as the state and seek

1689

an end to the exploitation of labour by capital (i.e. to usury in all

1690

its forms), both schools of anarchism rejected each others solutions

1691

to the social problem. The vision of the social anarchists was more

1692

communally based, urging social ownership of the means of life. In

1693

contrast, reflecting the pre-dominantly pre-capitalist nature of

1694

post-revolution US society, the Individualist Anarchists urged

1695

small-scale possession of the means of life, co-operatives and

1696

mutual banking to remove interest and give every worker access

1697

to capital.

1698

1699

Thus their vision of a free society and the means to achieve it were

1700

somewhat different (although, we stress, *not* mutually exclusive as

1701

communist anarchists supported artisan possession of the means of

1702

possession for those who rejected communism and the Individualist

1703

Anarchists supported voluntary communism). Tucker argued that a

1704

communist could not be an anarchist and the communist-anarchists

1705

argued that Individualist Anarchism could not end the exploitation

1706

of capital by labour. Being social anarchists, here we indicate

1707

why social anarchists reject individualist anarchism (see section

1708

A.3.1 for a summary of why Individualist Anarchists reject social

1709

anarchism).

1710

1711

Malatesta summarises the essential points of difference:

1712

1713

"The individualists assume . . . that the (anarchist) communists

1714

wish to impose communism, which of course would put them right

1715

outside the ranks of anarchism.

1716

1717

"The communists assume . . . that the (anarchist) individualists

1718

reject every idea of association, want the struggle between men,

1719

the domination of the strongest -- and this would put them not

1720

only outside the anarchist movement but outside humanity.

1721

1722

"In reality those who are communists are such because they see

1723

in common freely accepted the realisation of brotherhood, and

1724

the best guarantee for individual freedom. And individualists,

1725

those who are really anarchists, are anti-communist because

1726

they fear that communism would subject individuals . . . to

1727

the tyranny of the collectivity . . . Therefore they want

1728

each individual, or each group, to be in a position to enjoy

1729

freely the product of their labour in conditions of equality

1730

with other individuals and groups, with whom they would

1731

maintain relations of justice and equity.

1732

1733

"In which case it is clear that there is no basic difference

1734

between us. But, according to the communists, justice and

1735

equity are, under natural conditions impossible of attainment

1736

in an individualistic society, and thus freedom too would

1737

not be attained.

1738

1739

"If climatic conditions throughout the world were the same, if

1740

the land were everywhere equally fertile, if raw materials

1741

were evenly distributed and within reach of all who needed

1742

them, if social development were the same everywhere in the

1743

world . . . then one could conceive of everyone . . . finding

1744

the land, tools and raw materials needed to work and produce

1745

independently, without exploiting or being exploited. But

1746

natural and historical conditions being what they are, how

1747

is it possible to establish equality and justice between

1748

he who by chance finds himself with a piece of arid land

1749

which demand much labour for small returns with him who

1750

has a piece of fertile and well sited land?" [_Life and

1751

Ideas_, pp. 31-2]

1752

1753

Thus, while Individualist Anarchists argue for the "cost

1754

principle" (i.e. cost being the limit of price) the cost

1755

of creating the same commodity in different areas or by

1756

different people is not equal. Thus the market price of

1757

a good *cannot* really equal the multitude of costs within

1758

it (and so price can only equal a workers' labour in the

1759

minority of cases where that labour was used in the least

1760

favourable circumstances). It was for this reason that

1761

Proudhon argued that a portion of income from agricultural

1762

produce be paid into a central fund which would be used

1763

to make equalisation payments to compensate farmers with

1764

less favourably situated or less fertile land. As he

1765

put it, economic rent "in agriculture has no other cause

1766

than the inequality in the quality of land . . . if

1767

anyone has a claim on account of this inequality . . .

1768

[it is] the other land workers who hold inferior land.

1769

That is why in our scheme for liquidation [of capitalism]

1770

we stipulated that every variety of cultivation should

1771

pay a proportional contribution, destined to accomplish

1772

a balancing of returns among farm workers and an assurance

1773

of products." [_The General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 209]

1774

1775

This problem was recognised by Tucker, who argued that "economic

1776

rent . . . is one of nature's inequalities. It will probably

1777

remain with us always. Complete liberty will every much lessen

1778

it; of that I have no doubt." ["Why I am an Anarchist", pp. 135-6,

1779

_Man!_, M. Graham (ed.), pp. 132-6] Unlike Proudhon, however, he

1780

proposed no scheme to equalise income. Perhaps Tucker was correct

1781

and the differences would be slight, but in a market situation

1782

exchanges tend to magnify differences, *not* reduce them. The

1783

actions of self-interested individuals in unequal positions will

1784

tend to exacerbate differences. Over time these slight differences

1785

would become larger and larger, subjecting the weaker party to

1786

relatively increasingly worse contracts. As Proudhon argued:

1787

1788

"I have shown the contractor, at the birth of industry, negotiating

1789

on equal terms with his comrades, who have since become his workmen.

1790

It is plain, in fact, that this original equality was bound to

1791

disappear through the advantageous position of the master and

1792

the dependent position of the wage-workers. In vain does the law

1793

assure the right of each to enterprise . . . When an establishment

1794

has had leisure to develop itself, enlarge its foundations, ballast

1795

itself with capital, and assure itself a body of patrons, what can

1796

a workman do against a power so superior?" [_System of Economical

1797

Contradictions_, p. 202]

1798

1799

Moreover, "there is a remarkable correlation between competitiveness

1800

in a society and the presence of clearly defined 'have' and 'have-not'

1801

groups." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest_, p. 38] As the communist-anarchist

1802

paper _Freedom_ argued:

1803

1804

"Are not the scandalous inequalities in the distribution of

1805

wealth today merely the culminative effect of the principle

1806

that every man is justified in securing to himself everything

1807

that his chances and capacities enable him to lay hands on?

1808

1809

"If the social revolution which we are living means anything,

1810

it means the destruction of this detestable economic principle,

1811

which delivers over the more social members of the community

1812

to the domination of the most unsocial and self-interested."

1813

[_Freedom_, vol. 2, no. 19]

1814

1815

While state action may have given the modern capitalist an

1816

initial advantage on the market, it does not follow that a truly

1817

free market will not create similar advantages naturally. And if

1818

it did, then surely a similar system would develop? That it

1819

developed without state aid would make it no less unfree and

1820

unjust. It is of little use to point out that such a situation

1821

is *not* what the Individualist Anarchists desired (after all,

1822

Stalin was hardly what most Marxists desired). It is a question

1823

of whether their ideas would actually result in what they wanted.

1824

1825

Which brings us to the corrosive effects of the market itself on

1826

human personalities. As noted in earlier sections, individualists

1827

mostly base their economic ideas on the free market. However, as we

1828

have argued elsewhere (see section B.1), competition for profits in

1829

a free market creates numerous problems -- for example, the creation

1830

of an "ethics of mathematics" and the strange inversion of values in

1831

which things (property) become more important than people. Competition,

1832

as Alfie Kohn points out, "itself is responsible for the development

1833

of a lower moral standard" which places winning at any cost above

1834

fairness and justice [Op. Cit., p. 163]. In addition, the "strife of

1835

competition reduces empathic sympathy, distorts communication,

1836

impairs the mutuality of support and sharing, and decreases the

1837

satisfaction of personal need." [Nathan Ackerman, quoted by Alfie

1838

Kohn, Op. Cit., pp. 142-3] Thus, by supporting the free market,

1839

Individualist Anarchists help to make us less human and more a

1840

robot. In contrast, social anarchists stress community and

1841

co-operation in order to develop us as fully rounded individuals.

1842

As Kropotkin put it, "the *individualisation* they so highly

1843

praise is not attainable by individual efforts." [_Kropotkin's

1844

Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 297]

1845

1846

Ultimately, Individualist Anarchists lose sight of the fact that

1847

success and competition are not the same thing. One can set and

1848

reach goals without competing. That we may loose more by competing

1849

than by co-operating is an insight which social anarchists base

1850

their ideas on. In the end, a person can become a success in terms

1851

of business but lose sight of their humanity and individuality

1852

in the process.

1853

1854

Returning to economic issues, the accumulation needs of a competitive

1855

market economy do not disappear just because capitalism has been

1856

replaced by co-operatives and mutual credit banks -- a fact that

1857

implies the inevitable development of big business (and so natural

1858

barriers to entry). In any market economy, firms will try to

1859

improve their market position by investing in new machinery,

1860

reducing prices by improving productivity and so on. This creates

1861

barriers to new competitors who have to expend more money in order

1862

to match the capital of existing firms. Such amounts of money may

1863

not be forthcoming for even a mutual bank and so certain firms

1864

would enjoy a privileged position on the market. Given that

1865

Tucker defined a monopolist as "any person, corporation, or

1866

institution whose right to engage in any given pursuit of life

1867

is secured, either wholly or partially, by any agency whatsoever

1868

decree of arbitrary power -- against the influence of competition"

1869

we may suggest that due to *natural* barriers, an individualist

1870

anarchist society would not be free of monopolists and so of

1871

usury. [quoted by James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_,

1872

p. 210]

1873

1874

For this reason, even in a mutualist market certain companies would

1875

receive a bigger slice of profits than (and at the expense of) others.

1876

This means that exploitation would still exist as larger companies could

1877

charge more than cost for their products. In addition, the free market

1878

in banking would also result in *its* market being dominated by a few

1879

big banks, with similar results.

1880

1881

This problem of natural barriers to competition also effects the

1882

possibility of mutual banking being able to abolish capitalism.

1883

While mutual banks would undoubtedly aid the position of workers under

1884

capitalism (which is why Bakunin and other social anarchists recommended

1885

them), they cannot undermine capitalism. This is because capitalism, due

1886

to its need to accumulate, creates *natural* barriers to entry into a

1887

market (see section C.4, "Why does the market become dominated by Big

1888

Business?"). Thus the physical size of the large corporation would make

1889

it immune to the influence of mutual banking and so usury could not

1890

be abolished.

1891

1892

This problem was recognised by Tucker himself in the postscript to a 1911

1893

London edition of his famous essay "State Socialism and Anarchism." While

1894

arguing that when he wrote his essay 25 years earlier "the denial of

1895

competition had not effected the enormous concentration of wealth that

1896

now so gravely threatens social order" and so a policy of mutual banking

1897

might have stopped and reversed the process of accumulation, the way in

1898

1911 was "not so clear." This was because the tremendous capitalisation

1899

of industry now made the money monopoly a convenience, but no longer a

1900

necessity. Admitted Tucker, "The trust is now a monster which . . . even

1901

the freest competition, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy"

1902

as the "concentrated capital" could set aside a sacrifice fund to bankrupt

1903

smaller competitors and continue the process of expansion of reserves.

1904

Thus natural barriers to entry, resulting from the process of capitalist

1905

production and accumulation, had ensured that mutualism could no longer

1906

reform capitalism away and the problem of the trusts "must be grappled

1907

with for a time solely by forces political or revolutionary." [quoted by

1908

James J. Martin, Op. Cit., p. 273]

1909

1910

In other words, the economic power of "concentrated capital" and "enormous

1911

concentration of wealth" placed an insurmountable obstacle to the realisation

1912

of anarchy. Which means that the abolition of usury and relative equality

1913

were considered *ends* rather than side effects for Tucker and if free

1914

competition could not achieve these then such a society would *not* be

1915

anarchist.

1916

1917

(As an aside, Tucker's comments here indicate well how far he actually

1918

was from "anarcho"-capitalism. The "anarcho"-capitalism desires free

1919

markets no matter their result or the concentration of wealth existing

1920

at their introduction. As can be seen, Tucker sees the existence of

1921

concentrations of wealth as a problem and a hindrance towards anarchy.

1922

Thus Tucker was well aware of the dangers to individual liberty of

1923

usury, inequality and economic power).

1924

1925

Also, we may note, in the slow transition towards anarchism, we would see

1926

the rise of pro-capitalist "defence associations" which *would* collect

1927

rent from land, break strikes, attempt to crush unions and so on. Tucker

1928

seemed to have assumed that the anarchist vision of "occupancy-and-use"

1929

would become universal. Unfortunately, landlords would resist it and so,

1930

ultimately, an Individualist Anarchist society would have to either force

1931

the minority to accept the majority wishes on land use (hence his comments

1932

on there being "no legal power to collect rent") or the majority are

1933

dictated to by the minority who are in favour of collecting rent and

1934

hire "defence associations" to enforce those wishes. With the head

1935

start big business and the wealthy have in terms of resources, conflicts

1936

between pro- and anti-capitalist "defence associations" would usually work

1937

against the anti-capitalist ones (as trade unions often find out). In

1938

other words, reforming capitalism would not be as non-violent or as

1939

simple as Tucker maintained. The vested powers which the state defends

1940

will find other means to protect themselves when required (for example,

1941

when capitalists and landlords backed fascism and fascist squads in Italy

1942

after workers "occupied and used" their workplaces and land workers and

1943

peasants "occupied and used" the land in 1920). We are sure that economists

1944

will then rush to argue that the resulting law system that defended the

1945

collection of rent and capitalist property against "occupancy and use"

1946

was the most "economically efficient" result for "society."

1947

1948

In addition, even if individualist mutualism *did* result in an increase

1949

in wages by developing artisan and co-operative ventures that decreased the supply of labour in relation to its demand, this would not eliminate

1950

the subjective and objective pressures on profits that produce the business

1951

cycle within capitalism (see section C.7 and C.8 for more on these pressures).

1952

This means that an increase in the bargaining power of labour would soon see

1953

capital moving to non-anarchist areas and using its financial power to buy

1954

up any resources in the anarchist areas. Because individualist anarchists

1955

assume an evolution towards anarchy, this is a distinct possibility. And

1956

co-operatives in a market economy will be as influenced by the business

1957

cycle as capitalist firms. This could mean that during an economic

1958

slump, when workers' savings and bargaining position were weak, the

1959

gains associated with mutualism could be lost as co-operative firms

1960

go bust and mutual banks find it hard to generate credit in a hostile

1961

environment.

1962

1963

Mutual banks would not, therefore, undermine modern capitalism, as

1964

recognised by social anarchists from Bakunin onward (they placed

1965

their hopes in a social revolution organised by workplace and

1966

community organisations). Moreover, social anarchists would argue

1967

that any individualist system could revert back to capitalism and

1968

wage labour, for two reasons.

1969

1970

Firstly, there is a possibility that *possession* would be replaced

1971

by *property* as individuals sell their means of production to

1972

others voluntarily or to repay loans in bad times and these new

1973

owners create "defence associations" to enforce their claims. In

1974

addition (and this may seem ironic), wage labour does have the

1975

advantage that people can move to new locations and work without

1976

having to sell their old means of living. Often moving somewhere

1977

can be a hassle if one has to sell a shop or home. Many people

1978

prefer not to be tied down to one place. This is a problem in a

1979

system based on self-employed artisan labour, but not in social

1980

anarchism as access to the means of life is guaranteed to all

1981

members of the free society.

1982

1983

Secondly, there is the problem associated with natural barriers

1984

to entry in an industry. This could help generate wage labour

1985

(and so a new class of exploiters) as workers face the unpleasant

1986

choice of working for a successful firm, being unemployed or

1987

working for low wages in an industry with lower barriers to

1988

entry. This process can be seen under capitalism when co-operatives

1989

hire wage workers and not include them as members of the association

1990

(i.e. they exercise their ownership rights to exclude others).

1991

1992

While state action may *increase* the degree of monopoly in an

1993

industry, the natural tendency for any market is to place barriers

1994

("natural" barriers) to new entries in terms of set-up costs and so

1995

on. This means that if the relation between capital and labour was

1996

abolished *within* the workplace (by their transformation into

1997

co-operatives) but they remained the property of their workers,

1998

it would only be a matter of time before the separation of the

1999

producers from their means of production reproduced itself. This

2000

is because, within any market system, some firms fail and others

2001

succeed. Those which fail will create a pool of unemployed workers

2002

who will need a job. The successful co-operatives, safe behind

2003

their natural barriers to entry, would be in a stronger position

2004

than the unemployed workers and so may hire them as wage labourers

2005

capitalists" hiring other workers. This would end workers'

2006

self-management (as not all workers are involved in the decision

2007

making process) as well as workers' ownership, i.e. "occupancy

2008

and use," (as not all workers' would own the means of production

2009

they used).

2010

2011

The individual workers involved may "consent" to becoming wage slaves,

2012

but that is because it is the best option available rather than what

2013

they really want. Which, of course, is the same as under capitalism.

2014

Little wonder Proudhon argued that "every worker employed in the

2015

association" must have "an undivided share in the property of the

2016

company" in order to ensure workers' self-management. [Op. Cit.,

2017

p. 223] Only this could ensure "occupancy and use" and so

2018

self-management in a free society (i.e. keep that society free).

2019

2020

Looking wider afield, unless there is some form of community control,

2021

a free market in banks may soon lead to the growth of purely capitalist

2022

firms. For in order to survive, banks -- like any company -- will have

2023

to make money, and so they will wish to lend to the most profitable firms.

2024

Capitalist firms are exploitative, thus allowing them to expand faster

2025

than co-operative firms. Hence even mutual banks will wind up preferring

2026

to lend to capitalist firms in order to survive on the market. This

2027

will enforce the division of labour (as opposed to work) as the most

2028

"efficient" way of exploiting workers, and this practice will spread

2029

across the economy like an oil slick as more and more co-operatives

2030

find themselves needing to introduce similar working practices in

2031

order to survive. Thus competition will soon result in like competing

2032

against like, not only in the market but also in production.

2033

2034

If we take the creation of employer-employee relationships within

2035

an anarchy, we see the danger of private statism arising (as in

2036

"anarcho"-capitalism) and so the end of anarchy. Such a development

2037

can be seen when Tucker argues that if, in an anarchy, "any labourers

2038

shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force

2039

upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen

2040

. . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of

2041

my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a

2042

member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if

2043

necessary, sweep them from the earth." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 455]

2044

2045

In such a situation, these defence associations would be indeed

2046

"private states" and here Tucker's ideas unfortunately do parallel

2047

those of the "anarcho"-capitalists (although, as the employees would

2048

not be exploited by the employer, this does not suggest that Tucker

2049

can be considered a proto-"anarcho"-capitalist). As Kropotkin warned,

2050

"[f]or their self-defence, both the citizen and group have a right

2051

to any violence [within individualist anarchy] . . . Violence is also

2052

justified for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker . . .

2053

opens . . . the way for reconstructing under the heading of the 'defence'

2054

all the functions of the State." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,

2055

p. 297]

2056

2057

However, as we have argued above (see section G.2), his opposition to

2058

usury in all forms implies co-operative labour, not wage labour, and

2059

if such a strike did occur in individualist anarchy it indicates that

2060

it was turning back into capitalism. And we may note this "love it or

2061

leave it" attitude of Tucker in regards firms in an anarchy ignores

2062

the fact that following orders is *not* a form of liberty and is

2063

degrading even when you get the full product of your labour. Ironically,

2064

by placing so much stress in opposing capitalist *exploitation,*

2065

instead of capitalist *oppression,* Tucker is actually closer to

2066

(the "authoritarian") Marx than (the "libertarian") Proudhon

2067

(Tucker's terms) and like Marx opens the door to various kinds of

2068

domination and restrictions on individual self-government within

2069

"scientific socialism" (one of Tucker's expressions for individualist

2070

anarchy!). Again we see a support for contract theory creating

2071

authoritarian, not libertarian, relationships between people.

2072

2073

So Tucker's comments on strikers brings to light an interesting

2074

contradiction in his ideas. After all, he favoured a system of

2075

"property" generally defined by use and occupancy, that is whoever

2076

uses and possesses is to be consider the owner. Based on this

2077

theory of "property" Tucker opposed landlords and rent, arguing

2078

that anarchy "means the freeing of all land not occupied *by the

2079

owner*" that is, "land ownership limited by occupancy and use."

2080

[_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 155] He extends this principle

2081

to housing, arguing that "Anarchic associations" would "not collect

2082

your rent, and might not even evict your tenant" and "tenants would

2083

not be forced to pay you rent, nor would you be allowed to seize

2084

their property. The Anarchic Associations would look upon your

2085

tenants very much as they would look upon your guests." [Op. Cit.,

2086

p. 162]

2087

2088

Now, in a strike those who *use* the given property are in dispute

2089

with those who *own* it. If individualist anarchy *was* based

2090

on "occupancy and use" then the argument for housing and land must

2091

extend to workplaces. Hence, if "the land should be free to all,

2092

and no one would control more than he [or she] used." [Op. Cit.,

2093

p. 114] then it is clear that the boss controls more land than

2094

he can use (simply because he hires *others* to use it, and what

2095

is on it, for him). Thus "Anarchic associations" could not defend

2096

the property owner against those who use his/her property. If

2097

landlordism is unjust, then so is the ownership of capital by those

2098

who do not use it. In other words, "occupancy and use" implies

2099

co-operatives and *not* wage-labour. And Tucker's comments about

2100

strikers show an inconsistency in his basic ideas (see also section

2101

G.1). This conclusion is not surprising. As Malatesta argued:

2102

2103

"The individualists give the greatest importance to an abstract

2104

concept of freedom and fail to take into account, or dwell on

2105

the fact, that real, concrete freedom is the outcome of solidarity

2106

and voluntary co-operation. . . They certainly believe that to

2107

work in isolation is fruitless and that an individual, to ensure

2108

a living as a human being and to materially and morally enjoy

2109

all the benefits of civilisation, must either exploit -- directly

2110

or indirectly -- the labour of others . . . or associate with

2111

his [or her] fellows and share their pains and the joys of life.

2112

And since, being anarchists, they cannot allow the exploitation of

2113

one by another, they must necessarily agree that to be free and

2114

live as human beings they have to accept some degree and form

2115

of voluntary communism." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 16]

2116

2117

Occupancy and use, therefore, implies the collective ownership

2118

of resources used by groups which, in turn, implies associative

2119

labour and self-management. In other words, "some degree and

2120

form of voluntary communism."

2121

2122

Moreover, if we look at Tucker's definition of the State, namely that

2123

it based on "aggression" and "the assumption of sole authority over

2124

a given area and all within it," then it is clear that the capitalist

2125

has sole authority over their workplace ("a given area") and all

2126

within it. And, as Tucker notes, no State "has ever tolerated a rival

2127

State within its borders" then the same can be said of the boss --

2128

they rarely, through choice, allow unions to organise on their workplace

2129

(they sometimes agree if they have no choice or if the union in question

2130

will not question their authority -- as with the state). Given that the

2131

major rationale for the Homestead strike of 1892 *was* (to use the

2132

words of a company historian) that management decisions were "subject

2133

to the interference of some busybody from the Amalgamated Association"

2134

its clear that the boss does not like to tolerate a rival within his/her

2135

borders (i.e. workplace). Moreover, according to David Brody in his

2136

work _The Steel Workers_, after the union was broken "the steel workers

2137

output doubled in exchange for an income rise of one-fifth . . . The

2138

accomplishment was possible only with a labour force powerless to

2139

oppose the decisions of the steel men." [quoted by Katherine Stone,

2140

"The Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry", _Root and Branch_,

2141

p. 127 and p. 132] In other words, the boss is both the monopoly of

2142

authority in a given area and tolerates no other within it -- just like

2143

the state.

2144

2145

Thus Tucker's comments on strikers indicates a distinct contradiction

2146

in his ideas. It violates both his support for "occupancy and use" and

2147

his opposition to the state. It could, of course, be argued that the

2148

contradiction is resolved because the worker consents to the authority

2149

of the boss by taking the job. However, it can be replied that, by this

2150

logic, the citizen consents to the authority of the state as a democratic

2151

state allows people to leave its borders and join another one. That the

2152

citizen does not leave indicates they consent to the state. In other

2153

words, consent of and by itself does not justify hierarchy for if it

2154

did, the current state system would be anarchistic. This indicates the

2155

weakness of contract theory as a means of guaranteeing liberty and its

2156

potential to generate, and justify, authoritarian social relationships

2157

rather than libertarian and liberty enhancing ones. Hence Kropotkin's

2158

comment that "anarchism . . . refuses all hierarchical organisation

2159

and preaches free agreement." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,

2160

p. 137] To do otherwise is to contradict the basic ideas of anarchism.

2161

2162

In addition, we must note another contradiction within Tucker's

2163

viewpoint highlighted by this diatribe against strikes in an anarchy.

2164

If, as Tucker maintained, in an individualist anarchy the demand for

2165

workers exceeded supply (unlike under capitalism) so ensuring that

2166

"labour will. . . be in a position to dictate its wages, and will

2167

thus secure its natural wage, its entire product" [_The Anarchist

2168

Reader_, p. 150], how will the employer attract enough scabs? There

2169

would be few if any workers willing to swap jobs and work for an

2170

employer whose management style provoked strikes by fellow workers.

2171

And in such a situation the power of labour would be so strong that

2172

workers' control would have occurred long before!

2173

2174

Peter Kropotkin recognised the statist implications of some aspects of

2175

anarchist individualism which Tucker's strike example highlights. Tucker's

2176

anarchism, due to its uncritical support for contract theory, could

2177

result in a few people dominating economic life, because "no force"

2178

would result in the perpetuation of authority structures, with freedom

2179

simply becoming the "right to full development" of "privileged minorities."

2180

But, Kropotkin argued, "as such monopolies cannot be maintained otherwise

2181

than under the protection of a monopolist legislation and an organised

2182

coercion by the State, the claims of these individualists necessarily

2183

end up in a return to the State idea and to that same coercion which

2184

they so fiercely attack themselves. Their position is thus the same

2185

as that of Spencer and of the so-called 'Manchester school' of economists,

2186

who also begin by a severe criticism of the State and end up in its full

2187

recognition in order to maintain the property monopolies, of which the

2188

State is the necessary stronghold." [Op. Cit., p. 162]

2189

2190

Such would be the possible (perhaps probable) result of the individualists'

2191

contract theory of freedom without a social background of communal

2192

self-management and ownership. As can be seen from capitalism, a

2193

society based on the abstract individualism associated with contract

2194

theory would, in practice, produce social relationships based on power

2195

and authority (and so force -- which would be needed to back up that

2196

authority), *not* liberty. As we argued in section A.2.14, voluntarism

2197

is *not* enough in itself to preserve freedom.

2198

2199

Therefore, social anarchists have to part company with individualists

2200

when the latter apply *to bosses* the maxim, "[t]o coerce the peaceful

2201

non-co-operator is to violate equality of liberty." [Tucker, _Instead

2202

of a Book_, p. 42] A boss not only "attempts to control another" but

2203

*succeeds* in doing so every day at work. To "coerce" bosses by those

2204

subject to it removing their authority to control (i.e. to govern) them

2205

is not itself coercion but a blow struck for liberty. It is not coercive

2206

to prevent others from coercing! Therefore, social anarchists favour

2207

direct actions by those subject to authority, such as strikes, boycotts,

2208

the occupation of workplaces, picketing, etc., irrespective of whether such

2209

measures are desired by the boss. However, as already indicated in section

2210

A.3.1, social anarchists reject attempts to coerce other workers into

2211

joining a co-operative. Freedom cannot be given, it must be taken and

2212

social anarchism, like all forms of anarchy, cannot be imposed. As

2213

Kropotkin argued:

2214

2215

"Communist organisations . . . must be the work of all, a natural

2216

growth, a product of the constructive genius of the great mass.

2217

Communism cannot be imposed from above; it could not live even for

2218

a few months if the constant and daily co-operation of all did not

2219

uphold it. It must be free." [Op. Cit., p. 140]

2220

2221

Which indicates that Tucker did not really understand communist-anarchism

2222

when he argued that communism is "the force which compels the labourer

2223

to pool his product with the products of all and forbids him to sell

2224

his labour or his products." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 400] Rather,

2225

communist-anarchists argued that communism must be free and voluntary.

2226

In other words, a communist-anarchist society would not "forbid"

2227

anything as those who make it up must be in favour of communism for

2228

it to work. The option of remaining outside the communist-anarchist

2229

society is there, as (to again quote Kropotkin) expropriation would

2230

"apply to everything that enables any man [or woman] . . . to

2231

appropriate the product of others' toil." [_The Conquest of Bread_,

2232

p. 61] Thus communist-anarchism would "forbid" exactly what Individualist

2233

Anarchism would "forbid" -- property, not possession (i.e. any form of

2234

"ownership" not based on "occupancy and use").

2235

2236

Free contracts are not sufficient to ensure freedom. Therefore, social

2237

anarchists reject the individualists' conception of anarchy, simply

2238

because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back

2239

into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts." Freedom

2240

is fundamentally a social product, created in and by community. It is a

2241

fragile flower and does not fare well when bought and sold on the market.

2242

2243

As we noted in the last section, Individualist "defence associations"

2244

would not be the private states of "anarcho"-capitalism only if the

2245

land and housing they protected were based on "occupancy and use" and

2246

the workplaces they protected were co-operatives (and we have indicated

2247

why Individualist Anarchism logically implies co-operative labour --

2248

see section G.2). Tucker's example about strikers only drives home the

2249

contradictions in his views, contradictions resulting from his liberal

2250

slant on anarchism. If we agree with Kropotkin that Tucker's ideas are

2251

a combination of the anarchist Proudhon's and the liberal capitalist

2252

Herbert Spencer's, we see where the contradiction lies. If we reject

2253

Proudhon's support for association/co-operation as the basis of an

2254

anarchist economy, we are left with liberal capitalism and the need

2255

to protect the power of the employer over the employee, and so some

2256

form of statism ("anarcho"-capitalists, by ignoring Proudhon's

2257

argument from the start, miss the contradiction by jumping straight to

2258

capitalism and so private statism). Moreover, even assuming that such

2259

"defence associations" did protect a co-operative economy, they would

2260

still suffer from the problems of collusion which "anarcho"-capitalist

2261

"defence associations" face (as described in section F.6.3). If

2262

"self-defence" does become a commodity on the market, there is a

2263

distinct danger that the "defence associations" would (in time)

2264

become a new public state, due to the unique market forces within

2265

that specific market.

2266

2267

Also, Kropotkin saw that Tucker's argument against the forced

2268

expropriation of social capital by the working class would lead

2269

to a continuation of authoritarian relations in production, which

2270

would need to be maintained by coercion through some kind of state

2271

(aka "anarcho"-capitalist private states). In addition, Kropotkin

2272

seriously doubted that capitalism could be reformed away as Tucker

2273

maintained.

2274

2275

In addition, even assuming a fully individualist economy, co-operatives

2276

would still be controlled or influenced by market forces, which would

2277

drive them to increase working hours, create a division of labour, and

2278

implement a host of other dehumanising working practices in order to

2279

compete successfully against other co-operatives, and thus to "survive"

2280

economically. Hence *survival,* not *living,* would be the norm

2281

within such a society, just as it is, unfortunately, in capitalism.

2282

2283

So, taken as a whole, individualist anarchism would tend to revert back to

2284

capitalism. Moreover, it would not eliminate the tendency of a market

2285

economy to reduce people to commodities, as can be seen from Tucker's

2286

argument that children are "owned" by their parents until such time as

2287

they are able to make contracts -- an argument that led him, for the sake

2288

of logical consistency, to tolerate child labour. Therefore, because of

2289

the forces and tendencies at work within the any market system, social

2290

anarchists recognise the need to communalise, and so decentralise,

2291

production and finance in order to ensure that freely associated and

2292

co-operative labour is the basis of a free society.

2293

2294

Finally, as to its means of activism, individualist anarchism exaggerates

2295

the potential of mutual banks to fund co-operatives. While the creation

2296

of community-owned and -managed mutual credit banks would help in the

2297

struggle for a free society, such banks are not enough in themselves.

2298

Unless created as part of the social struggle against capitalism and the

2299

state, and unless combined with community and strike assemblies, mutual

2300

banks would quickly die, because the necessary social support required to

2301

nurture them would not exist. Mutual banks must be part of a network of

2302

other new socio-economic and political structures and cannot be sustained

2303

in isolation from them. This is simply to repeat our earlier point that

2304

capitalism cannot be reformed away.

2305

2306

However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of

2307

individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of

2308

anarchism -- one with many flaws and one perhaps more suited to an earlier

2309

age when capitalism was less developed and its impact upon society far

2310

less than it is now (see section G.1.1). John Quail, in his history of

2311

British Anarchism, puts his finger on the contextual implications and

2312

limitations of Tucker's ideas when he writes:

2313

2314

"Tucker was a Proudhonist and thus fundamentally committed to a society

2315

based on small proprietorship. In the American context, however, where

2316

the small landowner was often locked in battle with large capitalist

2317

interests, this did not represent the reactionary position it often

2318

did later. . . Tucker had a keen sense of the right of the oppressed

2319

to struggle against oppression." [_The Slow Burning Fuse_, p. 19]

2320

2321

G.5 Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist?

2322

2323

Benjamin Tucker was against "capitalism" in the sense in which he defined

2324

it: namely, as a state-supported monopoly of social capital (tools,

2325

machinery, etc.) which allows owners to avoid paying workers the full

2326

value of their labour [see _Instead of a Book_]. Indeed, he thought that

2327

the "labouring classes are deprived of their earnings by usury in its

2328

three forms, interest, rent and profit." [quoted by James J. Martin,

2329

_Men Against the State_, p. 210f] This stance puts him squarely in the

2330

libertarian socialist tradition.

2331

2332

Indeed, Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist. It is true

2333

that he also sometimes railed against "socialism," but in those cases it

2334

is clear that he was referring to *state* socialism. As he argues himself

2335

there are two kinds of socialism based upon two different principles:

2336

2337

"The two principles referred to are Authority and Liberty, and the names

2338

of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly

2339

represent one or the other of them are, respectively, State Socialism and

2340

Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools want and how they propose to

2341

get it understands the Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said

2342

that there is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said

2343

that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism."

2344

[_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 150]

2345

2346

He also made it clear that he was against private property and so supported

2347

Proudhon's argument that "property is theft," and even translated Proudhon's

2348

"What is Property?", where that phrase originated. Tucker advocated

2349

*possession* but not private property, believing that empty land, houses,

2350

etc. should be squatted by those who could use them, as labour (i.e. use)

2351

would be the only title to "property" (Tucker opposed all non-labour

2352

income as usury).

2353

2354

This was because Tucker did not believe in a "natural right" to property

2355

nor did he approve of unlimited holdings of scarce goods. He clearly

2356

recognised that allowing "absolute" rights to private property, when land

2357

was scarce, would result in the liberty of non-owners being diminished.

2358

As he put it:

2359

2360

"It should be stated, however, that in the case of land, or of any other

2361

material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in

2362

unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except

2363

such as are based on actual occupancy and use." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 61]

2364

2365

This, he thought, would reduce the evils of capitalism and increase liberty.

2366

For those who own no property have no room for the soles of their feet unless

2367

they have the permission of those who do own property, hardly a situation that

2368

would increase, nevermind protect, freedom for all.

2369

2370

Therefore, Tucker considered private property in land use (which he called

2371

the "land monopoly") as one of the four great evils of capitalism.

2372

According to Tucker, "the land monopoly. . . consists in the enforcement

2373

by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and

2374

cultivation. . .the individual should no longer be protected by their

2375

fellows in anything but personal occupation and cultivation of land" [_The

2376

Anarchist Reader_, p. 150]. The other capitalist monopolies were based on

2377

credit, tariffs and patents and all where reflected in (and supported by)

2378

the law.

2379

2380

Tucker believed that bankers' monopoly of the power to create credit and

2381

currency is the linchpin of capitalism Although he thought that all forms

2382

of monopoly are detrimental to society, he maintained that the banking

2383

monopoly is the worst, since it is the root from which both the

2384

industrial-capitalist and landlordist monopolies grow and without which

2385

they would wither and die. For, if credit were not monopolised, its price

2386

(i.e. interest rates) would be much lower, which in turn would drastically

2387

lower the price of capital goods, land, and buildings -- expensive items

2388

that generally cannot be purchased without access to credit. The freedom

2389

to squat empty land and buildings would, in the absence of a state to

2390

protect titles, further contribute to the elimination of rent:

2391

2392

"Ground rent exists only because the State stands by to collect it and to

2393

protect land titles rooted in force or fraud. Otherwise land would be free

2394

to all, and no one could control more than he used." [quoted by James J.

2395

Martin, Op. Cit., p. 210]

2396

2397

Following Proudhon, Tucker argued that if any group of people could

2398

legally form a "mutual bank" and issue credit based on any form of

2399

collateral they saw fit to accept, the price of credit would fall to the

2400

labour cost of the paperwork involved in issuing and keeping track of it.

2401

He claimed that banking statistics show this cost to be less than one

2402

percent of principal, and hence, that a one-time service fee which covers

2403

this cost and no more is the only *non-usurious* charge a bank can make

2404

for extending credit. This charge should not be called "interest," since,

2405

as it represented the labour-cost in providing, it is non-exploitative.

2406

2407

Tucker believed that under mutual banking, capitalists' ability to extract

2408

surplus value from workers in return for the use of tools, machinery, etc.

2409

would be eliminated because workers would be able to obtain zero-interest

2410

credit and use it to buy their own instruments of production instead of

2411

"renting" them, as it were, from capitalists. Easy access to mutual credit

2412

would result in a huge increase in the purchase of capital goods, creating

2413

a high demand for labour, which in turn would greatly increase workers'

2414

bargaining power and thus raise their wages toward equivalence with the

2415

value their labour produces.

2416

2417

It's important to note that because of Tucker's proposal to increase

2418

the bargaining power of workers through access to mutual credit, his

2419

individualist anarchism is not only compatible with workers' control

2420

but would in fact *promote* it (as well as logically requiring it). For

2421

if access to mutual credit were to increase the bargaining power of

2422

workers to the extent that Tucker claimed it would, they would then

2423

be able to: (1) demand and get workplace democracy; and (2) pool their

2424

credit to buy and own companies collectively. This would eliminate the

2425

top-down structure of the firm and the ability of owners to pay themselves

2426

unfairly large salaries as well as reducing capitalist profits to zero by

2427

ensuring that workers' received the full value of their labour. Tucker

2428

himself pointed this out when he argued that Proudhon (like himself) "would

2429

individualise and associate" workplaces by mutualism, which would "place the

2430

means of production within the reach of all." [quoted by Martin, Op. Cit.,

2431

p. 228] Proudhon used the word "associate" to denote co-operative (i.e.

2432

directly democratic) workplaces (and given Proudhon's comments - quoted

2433

in section G.2 - on capitalist firms we can dismiss any attempt to suggest

2434

that the term "individualise" indicates support for capitalist rather than

2435

artisan/peasant production, which is the classic example of individualised

2436

production).

2437

2438

Thus the logical consequence of Tucker's proposals would be a system

2439

equivalent in most important respects to the kind of system advocated

2440

by other left libertarians - a system without wage slavery (and so

2441

exploitation) and with "the greatest amount of liberty compatible

2442

with equality of liberty." [Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 131]

2443

2444

Tucker's ideal society was one of small entrepreneurs, farmers,

2445

artisans, independent contractors and co-operative associations based

2446

around a network of mutual banks. He looked to alternative institutions

2447

such as co-operative banks and firms, schools and trade unions, combined

2448

with civil disobedience in the form of strikes, general strikes, tax and

2449

rent strikes and boycotts to bring anarchism closer -- "strikes, whenever

2450

and wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all the friends of

2451

labour. . . They show that people are beginning to know their rights, and

2452

knowing, dare to maintain them." [Tucker, _Liberty_, 15/4/1881] Echoing

2453

Bakunin's thoughts on the subject, Tucker maintained that strikes should

2454

be supported and encouraged because "as an awakening agent, as an agitating

2455

force, the beneficent influence of a strike is immeasurable. . . with our

2456

present economic system almost every strike is just. For what is justice in

2457

production and distribution? That labour, which creates all, shall have

2458

*all.*" [Tucker, _Liberty_, #19, 1882]

2459

2460

Like the anarcho-syndicalists and many other social anarchists, Tucker

2461

considered Labour unions as a positive development, being a "crude step

2462

in the direction of supplanting the State" and involved a tendency "for

2463

self-government on the part of the people, the logical outcome of which

2464

is ultimate revolt against those usurping political conspiracies" and so

2465

"a potent sign of emancipation." Indeed, he called the rise of the unions

2466

"trades-union socialism," saw in it "an intelligent and self-governing

2467

socialism" and indicated that they "promise the coming substitution of

2468

industrial socialism for usurping legislative mobism." [_The Individualist

2469

Anarchists_, pp. 283-284] Hence we see the co-operative nature of the

2470

voluntary organisations supported by Tucker and a vision of socialism

2471

being based on self-governing associations of working people.

2472

2473

In this way working people would reform capitalism away by non-violent

2474

social protest combined with an increase in workers' bargaining power by

2475

alternative voluntary institutions and free credit. Exploitation would be

2476

eliminated and workers would gain economic liberty (i.e. the full value

2477

of their labour and workers' control). He firmly believed that the "most

2478

perfect Socialism is possible only on the condition of the most perfect

2479

individualism." [cited by Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_,

2480

p. 390] In other words, Tucker "remained a left rather than a right-wing

2481

libertarian." [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 391]

2482

2483

There are, of course, many differences between the anarchism of, say,

2484

Bakunin and Kropotkin and that of Tucker. Tucker's system, for example,

2485

does retain some features usually associated with capitalism, such as

2486

competition between firms in a free market. However, the fundamental

2487

anarchist objection to capitalism is not that it involves markets but

2488

that it involves private property and wage slavery. Tucker's system was

2489

intended to eliminate both, which is why he called himself a socialist.

2490

This fact is overlooked by "anarcho"-capitalists who, in seeking to make

2491

Tucker one of their "founding fathers," point to the fact that he spoke

2492

of the advantages of owning "property." But it is apparent that by

2493

"property" he was referring to simple "possession" of land, tools,

2494

etc. by independent artisans, farmers, and co-operating workers (he

2495

used the word property "as denoting the labourer's individual possession

2496

of his product or his share of the joint product of himself and

2497

others." [Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 394]. For, since Tucker

2498

saw his system as eliminating the ability of capitalists to maintain

2499

exploitative monopolies over the means of production, it is therefore

2500

true *by definition* that he advocated the elimination of "private

2501

property" in the capitalist sense.

2502

2503

Therefore, as can be seen, his views are directly opposed to those of right

2504

libertarians like Murray Rothbard, who advocate "absolute" property rights

2505

which are protected by laws enforced either by private security forces or

2506

a "night watchman state." This clearly indicates that Rothbard's claim to

2507

have "modernised" Tucker's thought is *false* -- "ignored" or "changed"

2508

would be more appropriate.

2509

2510

Thus, Tucker is clearly a left libertarian rather than a forefather of

2511

right libertarianism. In this he comes close to what today would be called

2512

a market socialist, albeit a non-statist variety.

2513

2514

G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?

2515

2516

To some extent, Stirner's work _The Ego and Its Own_ is like a Rorschach

2517

test. Depending on the reader's psychology, he or she can interpret it

2518

in drastically different ways. Hence, some have used Stirner's ideas

2519

to defend capitalism, while others have used them to argue for

2520

anarcho-syndicalism. For example, many in the anarchist movement in

2521

Glasgow, Scotland, took Stirner's "Union of Egoists" literally as the

2522

basis for their anarcho-syndicalist organising. Similarly, we discover

2523

the noted anarchist historian Max Nettlau stating that "[o]n reading

2524

Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a

2525

socialist sense." [_A Short History of Anarchism_, p. 55] In this

2526

section of the FAQ, we will indicate why, in our view, the latter,

2527

syndicalistic, interpretation of egoism is far more appropriate than

2528

the capitalistic one.

2529

2530

It should be noted, before continuing, that Stirner's work has had a

2531

bigger impact on individualist anarchism than social anarchism. Ben

2532

Tucker, for example, considered himself an egoist after reading _The

2533

Ego and Its Own_. However, social anarchists have much to gain from

2534

understanding Stirner's ideas and applying what is useful in them. This

2535

section will indicate why.

2536

2537

So what is Stirner all about? Simply put, he is an Egoist, which means

2538

that he considers self-interest to be the root cause of an individual's

2539

every action, even when he or she is apparently doing "altruistic"

2540

actions. Thus: "I am everything to myself and I do everything *on my

2541

account*." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 162]. Even love is an example of

2542

selfishness, "because love makes me happy, I love because loving is

2543

natural to me, because it pleases me." [Ibid., p. 291] He urges others to

2544

follow him and "take courage now to really make *yourselves* the central

2545

point and the main thing altogether." As for other people, he sees them

2546

purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual:

2547

"For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to

2548

use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of *usableness,*

2549

of utility, of use." [Ibid., pp. 296-7]

2550

2551

For Stirner, all individuals are unique ("My flesh is not their flesh, my

2552

mind is not their mind," Ibid., p. 138) and should reject any attempts to

2553

restrict or deny their uniqueness. "To be looked upon as a mere *part,*

2554

part of society, the individual cannot bear -- because he is *more*;

2555

his uniqueness puts from it this limited conception." [Ibid., p. 265]

2556

Individuals, in order to maximise their uniqueness, must become aware of

2557

the *real* reasons for their actions. In other words they must become

2558

conscious, not unconscious, egoists. An unconscious, or involuntary,

2559

egoist is one "who is always looking after his own and yet does not count

2560

himself as the highest being, who serves only himself and at the same time

2561

always thinks he is serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than

2562

himself and yet is infatuated about something higher." [Ibid., p. 36] In

2563

contrast, egoists are aware that they act purely out of self-interest, and

2564

if they support a "higher being," it is not because it is a noble thought

2565

but because it will benefit themselves.

2566

2567

Stirner himself, however, has no truck with "higher beings." Indeed, with

2568

the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks

2569

all "higher beings," regarding them as a variety of what he calls

2570

"spooks," or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which

2571

they are dominated. Among the "spooks" Stirner attacks are such notable

2572

aspects of capitalist life as private property, the division of labour,

2573

the state, religion, and society itself. We will discuss Stirner's

2574

critique of capitalism before moving onto his vision of an egoist

2575

society (and how it relates to social anarchism).

2576

2577

For the egoist, private property is a spook which "lives by the grace of

2578

*law*. . . [and] becomes 'mine' only by effect of the law" [Ibid., p. 251].

2579

In other words, private property exists purely "through the *protection of

2580

the State,* through the State's grace" [Ibid., p. 114]. Recognising its

2581

need for state protection, Stirner is also aware that "[i]t need not make

2582

any difference to the 'good citizens' who protects them and their

2583

principles, whether an absolute King or a constitutional one, a republic,

2584

if only they are protected. And what is their principle, whose protector

2585

they always 'love'? . . . interesting-bearing possession . . . labouring

2586

capital. . ." [Ibid., pp. 113-114] As can be seen from capitalist support

2587

for fascism this century, Stirner was correct -- as long as a regime

2588

supports capitalist interests, the 'good citizens' (including many on the

2589

so-called "libertarian" right) will support it.

2590

2591

Stirner sees that not only does private property require state protection,

2592

it also leads to exploitation and oppression. As he points out, private

2593

property's "principle" is "labour certainly, yet little or none at all of

2594

one's own, but labour of capital and of the subject labourers." [Ibid., pp.

2595

113-114] In addition, Stirner attacks the division of labour resulting

2596

from private property for its deadening effects on the ego and

2597

individuality of the worker (see section D.10, "How does capitalism affect

2598

technology?"). However, it is the exploitation of labour which is the

2599

basis of the state, for the state "rests on the *slavery of labour.* If

2600

*labour becomes free, the State is lost." [Ibid., p.116] Without surplus

2601

value to feed off, a state could not exist.

2602

2603

For Stirner, the state is the greatest threat to his individuality: "I am

2604

free in *no* State." [Ibid., p.195] This is because the state claims to

2605

be sovereign over a given area, while, for Stirner, only the ego can be

2606

sovereign over itself and that which it uses (its "property"): "I am my

2607

*own* only when I am master of myself." [Ibid., p.169] Therefore Stirner

2608

urges insurrection against all forms of authority and *dis*-respect for

2609

property. For "[i]f man reaches the point of losing respect for property,

2610

everyone will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they

2611

no longer respect the master as master" [Ibid., p. 258]. And in order for

2612

labour to become free, all must have "property." "The poor become free

2613

and proprietors only when they *rise.*" [Ibid., p. 260]

2614

2615

Stirner recognises the importance of self-liberation and the way that

2616

authority often exists purely through its acceptance by the governed. As

2617

he argues, ". . . no thing is sacred of itself, but my *declaring it

2618

sacred,* by my declaration, my judgement, my bending the knee; in short, by

2619

my conscience." [Ibid. 72] It is from this worship of what society deems

2620

"sacred" that individuals must liberate themselves in order to discover

2621

their true selves. And, significantly, part of this process of liberation

2622

involves the destruction of *hierarchy.* For Stirner, "Hierarchy is

2623

domination of thoughts, domination of mind!," and this means that we are

2624

"kept down by those who are supported by thoughts" [Ibid., p. 74], i.e. by

2625

our own willingness to not question authority and the sources of that

2626

authority, such as private property and the state.

2627

2628

For those, like modern-day "libertarian" capitalists, who regard "profit"

2629

as the key to "selfishness," Stirner has nothing but contempt. Because

2630

"greed" is just one part of the ego, and to spend one's life pursuing

2631

only that part is to deny all other parts. Stirner called such pursuit

2632

"self-sacrificing," or a "one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism," which leads

2633

to the ego being possessed by one aspect of itself. For "he who ventures

2634

everything else for *one thing,* one object, one will, one passion. . .

2635

is ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices." [Ibid.,

2636

p. 76] For the true egoist, capitalists are "self-sacrificing" in this

2637

sense, because they are driven only by profit. In the end, their behaviour

2638

is just another form of self-denial, as the worship of money leads them to

2639

slight other aspects of themselves such as empathy and critical thought

2640

(the bank balance becomes the rule book). A society based on such "egoism"

2641

ends up undermining the egos which inhabit it, deadening one's own and

2642

other people's individuality and so reducing the vast potential "utility"

2643

of others to oneself. In addition, the drive for profit is not even based

2644

on self-interest, it is forced upon the individual by the workings of the

2645

market (an alien authority) and results in labour "claim[ing] all our time

2646

and toil," leaving no time for the individual "to take comfort in himself

2647

as the unique." [Ibid., pp. 268-9]

2648

2649

Stirner also turns his analysis to "socialism" and "communism," and his

2650

critique is as powerful as the one he directs against capitalism. This

2651

attack, for some, gives his work an appearance of being pro-capitalist,

2652

while, as indicated above, it is not. Stirner did attack socialism, but he

2653

(rightly) attacked *state* socialism, not libertarian socialism, which did

2654

not really exist at that time (the only well known anarchist work at the

2655

time was Proudhon's _What is Property?_, published in 1840 and this work

2656

obviously could not fully reflect the developments within anarchism that

2657

were to come). Stirner also indicated why moralistic (or altruistic)

2658

socialism is doomed to failure, and laid the foundations of the theory

2659

that socialism will work only on the basis of egoism (communist-egoism, as

2660

it is sometimes called). Stirner correctly pointed out that much of what

2661

is called socialism was nothing but warmed up liberalism, and as such

2662

ignores the individual: "Whom does the liberal look upon as his equal?

2663

Man! . . ., In other words, he sees in you, not *you*, but the *species.*"

2664

[Ibid., p. 123] A socialism that ignores the individual consigns itself

2665

to being state capitalism, nothing more. "Socialists" of this school

2666

forget that "society" is made up of individuals and that it is individuals

2667

who work, think, love, play and enjoy themselves. Thus: "[t]hat society is

2668

no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or

2669

means, from which we may derive benefit. . . of this the socialists do not

2670

think, because they -- as liberals -- are imprisoned in the religious

2671

principle and zealously aspire after -- a sacred society, such as the

2672

State was hitherto." [Ibid., p. 123]

2673

2674

So how could Stirner's egoist vision fit with social anarchist ideas? The

2675

key to understanding the connection lies in Stirner's idea of the "union

2676

of egoists," his proposed alternative mode of organising modern society.

2677

Stirner believes that as more and more people become egoists, conflict in

2678

society will decrease as each individual recognises the uniqueness of

2679

others, thus ensuring a suitable environment within which they can

2680

co-operate (or find "truces" in the "war of all against all"). These

2681

"truces" Stirner termed "Unions of Egoists." They are the means by

2682

which egoists could, firstly, "annihilate" the state, and secondly, destroy

2683

its creature, private property, since they would "multiply the individual's

2684

means and secure his assailed property." [Ibid., p. 258]

2685

2686

The unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being

2687

spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual

2688

interests of those involved, who would "care best for their welfare if

2689

they *unite* with others." [Ibid., p. 309] The unions, unlike the state,

2690

exist to ensure what Stirner calls "intercourse," or "union" between

2691

individuals. To better understand the nature of these associations, which

2692

will replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends,

2693

lovers, and children at play as examples (see _No Gods, No Masters_,

2694

vol. 1, p. 25). These illustrate the kinds of relationships that maximise

2695

an individual's self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom, and individuality, as

2696

well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing while belonging

2697

to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a free and

2698

spontaneous co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it,

2699

"intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the *commercium,* of

2700

individuals" [Ibid., p. 218], and its aim is "pleasure" and

2701

"self-enjoyment."

2702

2703

In order to ensure that those involved do not sacrifice any of their

2704

uniqueness and freedom, the contracting parties have to have roughly

2705

the same bargaining power and the association created must be based

2706

on self-management (i.e. equality of power). Otherwise, we can assume

2707

that some of the egoists involved will stop being egoists and will allow

2708

themselves to be dominated by another, which is unlikely. As Stirner

2709

himself argued:

2710

2711

"But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be

2712

lulled as regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually

2713

an Egoist's association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded

2714

together when one is a slave or a serf of the other?. . .

2715

2716

Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the

2717

rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact

2718

that the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life

2719

of ease because others live in misery and perish of hunger . . . [such a

2720

society or association] is more of a religious society [than a real Egoist's

2721

association]" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 24]

2722

2723

Therefore, egoism's revolt against all hierarchies that restrict the ego

2724

logically leads to the end of authoritarian social relationships, particularly

2725

those associated with private property and the state. Given that capitalism

2726

is marked by extensive differences in bargaining power outside its

2727

"associations" (i.e. firms) and power within these "associations" (i.e.

2728

the worker/boss hierarchy), from an egoist point of view it is in the

2729

self-interest of those subjected to such relationships to get rid of them

2730

and replace them with unions based on mutuality, free association, and

2731

self-management.

2732

2733

Given the holistic and egalitarian nature of the union of egoists, it

2734

can be seen that it shares little with the so-called free agreements of

2735

capitalism (in particular wage labour). The hierarchical structure of

2736

capitalist firms hardly produces associations in which the individual's

2737

experiences can be compared to those involved in friendship or play, nor

2738

do they involve equality. An essential aspect of the "union of egoists"

2739

for Stirner was such groups should be "owned" by their members, not the

2740

members by the group. That points to a *libertarian* form of organisation

2741

within these "unions" (i.e. one based on equality and participation), *not*

2742

a hierarchical one. If you have no say in how a group functions (as in wage

2743

slavery, where workers have the "option" of "love it or leave it") then you

2744

can hardly be said to own it, can you? Indeed, Stirner argues, "[a]s a unique

2745

individual you assert yourself alone in association, because the association

2746

does not own you, because you are the one who owns it" and "I have no

2747

wish to become a slave to my maxims, but would rather subject them to my

2748

ongoing criticism." [Op. Cit., p. 17] Thus, Stirner's "union of egoists" cannot

2749

be compared to the employer-employee contract as the employees cannot be

2750

said to "own" the organisation resulting from the contract (nor do they own

2751

themselves during work time, having sold their time/liberty to the boss in

2752

return for wages -- see section B.4). Only within a participatory association

2753

can "assert" yourself freely and subject your maxims, and association, to your

2754

"ongoing criticism" -- in capitalist contracts you can do both only with your

2755

bosses' permission.

2756

2757

And by the same token, capitalist contracts do not involve "leaving each other

2758

alone" (a la "anarcho"-capitalism). No boss will "leave alone" the workers in

2759

his factory, nor will a landowner "leave alone" a squatter on land he owns

2760

but does not use. Stirner rejects the narrow concept of "property" as

2761

private property and recognises the *social* nature of "property," whose

2762

use often affects far more people than those who claim to "own" it: "I do

2763

not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as *my*

2764

property, in which I 'respect' nothing. Pray do the like with what you

2765

call my property!" [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 248]. This view logically

2766

leads to the idea of both workers' self-management and grassroots

2767

community control (as will be discussed more fully in section I) as

2768

those affected by an activity will take a direct interest in it and not let

2769

"respect" for "private" property allow them to be oppressed by others.

2770

2771

Moreover, egoism (self-interest) must lead to self-management and mutual

2772

aid (solidarity), for by coming to agreements based on mutual respect and

2773

social equality, we ensure non-hierarchical relationships. If I dominate

2774

someone, then in all likelihood I will be dominated in turn. By removing

2775

hierarchy and domination, the ego is free to experience and utilise the

2776

full potential of others. As Kropotkin argued in _Mutual Aid_,

2777

individual freedom and social co-operation are not only compatible but,

2778

when united, create the most productive conditions for all individuals

2779

within society.

2780

2781

Therefore Stirner's union of egoists has strong connections with social

2782

anarchism's desire for a society based on freely federated individuals,

2783

co-operating as equals. His central idea of "property" -- that which is

2784

used by the ego -- is an important concept for social anarchism, because

2785

it stresses that hierarchy develops when we let ideas and organisations

2786

own us rather than vice versa. A participatory anarchist community will be

2787

made up of individuals who must ensure that it remains their "property"

2788

and be under their control; hence the importance of decentralised,

2789

confederal organisations which ensure that control. A free society must

2790

be organised in such a way to ensure the free and full development of

2791

individuality and maximise the pleasure to be gained from individual

2792

interaction and activity. Lastly, Stirner indicates that mutual aid and

2793

equality are based not upon an abstract morality but upon self-interest,

2794

both for defence against hierarchy and for the pleasure of co-operative

2795

intercourse between unique individuals.

2796

2797

Stirner demonstrates brilliantly how abstractions and fixed ideas

2798

("spooks") influence the very way we think, see ourselves, and act. He

2799

shows how hierarchy has its roots within our own minds, in how we view

2800

the world. He offers a powerful defence of individuality in an authoritarian

2801

and alienated world, and places subjectivity at the centre of any

2802

revolutionary project, where it belongs. Finally, he reminds us that a

2803

free society must exist in the interests of all, and must be based upon

2804

the self-fulfilment, liberation and enjoyment of the individual.

2805

2806

G.7 Lysander Spooner: right-Libertarian or libertarian socialist?

2807

2808

Murray Rothbard and others on the "libertarian" right have argued that

2809

Lysander Spooner is another individualist anarchist whose ideas support

2810

"anarcho"-capitalism's claim to be part of the anarchist tradition. As

2811

will be shown below, however, this claim is untrue, since it is clear that

2812

Spooner was a left libertarian who was firmly opposed to capitalism.

2813

2814

That Spooner was against capitalism can be seen in his opposition to wage

2815

labour, which he wished to eliminate by turning capital over to those who

2816

work it. Like Benjamin Tucker, he wanted to create a society of associated

2817

producers -- self-employed farmers, artisans and co-operating workers --

2818

rather than wage-slaves and capitalists. For example, in his _Letter to

2819

Cleveland_ Spooner writes:

2820

2821

"All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few

2822

proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be

2823

broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business

2824

for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another." [quoted by

2825

Eunice Minette Schuster, _Native American Anarchism_, p. 148]

2826

2827

This preference for a system based on simple commodity production in which

2828

capitalists and wage slaves are replaced by self-employed and co-operating

2829

workers puts Spooner squarely in the *anti-capitalist* camp with other

2830

individualist anarchists, like Tucker. And, we may add, the rough

2831

egalitarianism he expected to result from his system indicates the

2832

left-libertarian nature of his ideas, turning the present "wheel of

2833

fortune" into "extended surface, varied somewhat by inequalities, but

2834

still exhibiting a general level, affording a safe position for all,

2835

and creating no necessity, for either force or fraud, on the part of

2836

anyone, to enable him to secure his standing." [Spooner quoted by

2837

Peter Marshall in _Demanding the Impossible_, pp. 388-9]

2838

2839

Right "libertarians" have perhaps mistaken Spooner for a capitalist

2840

because of his claim that a "free market in credit" would lead to low

2841

interest on loans or his "foolish" (to use Tucker's expression) ideas on

2842

intellectual property. But, as noted, markets are not the defining feature of

2843

capitalism. There were markets long before capitalism existed. So the fact

2844

that Spooner retained the concept of markets does not necessarily make him

2845

a capitalist. In fact, far from seeing his "free market in credit" in

2846

capitalist terms, he believed (again like Tucker) that competition between

2847

mutual banks would make credit cheap and easily available, and that this

2848

would lead to the *elimination* of capitalism! In this respect, both

2849

Spooner and Tucker follow Proudhon, who maintained that "reduction of

2850

interest rates to vanishing point is itself a revolutionary act, because

2851

it is destructive of capitalism." [cited in Edward Hyams, _Pierre-Joseph

2852

Proudhon: His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works_, Taplinger, 1979]

2853

Whether this belief is correct is, of course, another question; we have

2854

suggested that it is not, and that capitalism cannot be "reformed away" by

2855

mutual banking, particularly by competitive mutual banking.

2856

2857

Further evidence of Spooner's anti-capitalism can be found his book

2858

_Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure_, where he notes that under

2859

capitalism the labourer does not receive "all the fruits of his own

2860

labour" because the capitalist lives off of workers' "honest industry."

2861

Thus: ". . . almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of

2862

other men than those who realise them. Indeed, large fortunes could rarely

2863

be made at all by one individual, except by his sponging capital and labour

2864

from others." [quoted by Martin J. James, _Men Against the State_, p. 173f]

2865

Spooner's statement that capitalists deny workers "all the fruits" (i.e.

2866

the full value) of their labour presupposes the labour theory of value,

2867

which is the basis of the *socialist* demonstration that capitalism is

2868

exploitative (see section C).

2869

2870

This interpretation of Spooner's social and economic views is supported by

2871

various studies in which his ideas are analysed. As these works also give

2872

an idea of Spooner's ideal world, they are worth quoting :

2873

2874

"Spooner envisioned a society of pre-industrial times in which small

2875

property owners gathered together voluntarily and were assured by their

2876

mutual honesty of full payment of their labour." [Corinne Jackson, _The

2877

Black Flag of Anarchy_, p. 87]

2878

2879

Spooner considered that "it was necessary that every man be his own

2880

employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for another

2881

resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer. To be one's own

2882

employer, it was necessary for one to have access to one's own capital."

2883

[James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, p. 172]

2884

2885

Spooner "recommends that every man should be his own employer, and he

2886

depicts an ideal society of independent farmers and entrepreneurs who have

2887

access to easy credit. If every person received the fruits of his own

2888

labour, the just and equal distribution of wealth would result." [Peter

2889

Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 389]

2890

2891

"Spooner would destroy the factory system, wage labour [and the business

2892

cycle]. . . by making every individual a small capitalist [sic!], an

2893

independent producer." [Eunice Minette Schuster, _Native American Anarchism_,

2894

p. 151]

2895

2896

It is quite apparent, then, that Spooner was against wage labour, and

2897

therefore was no capitalist. Hence we must agree with Marshall, who

2898

classifies Spooner as a *left* libertarian with ideas very close to

2899

Proudhon's mutualism. Whether such ideas are relevant now, given the vast

2900

amount of capital needed to start companies in established sectors of the

2901

economy, is another question. As noted above, similar doubts may be raised

2902

about Spooner's claims about the virtues of a free market in credit. But

2903

one thing is clear: Spooner was opposed to the way America was developing

2904

in the mid 1800's. He viewed the rise of capitalism with disgust and

2905

suggested a way for non-exploitative and non-oppressive economic

2906

relationships to become the norm again in US society, a way based on

2907

eliminating the root cause of capitalism -- wage-labour -- through a

2908

system of easy credit, which he believed would enable artisans and

2909

peasants to obtain their own means of production. This is confirmed

2910

by an analysis of his famous works _Natural Law_ and _No Treason_.

2911

2912

Spooner's support of "Natural Law" has also been taken as "evidence" that

2913

Spooner was a proto-right-libertarian (which ignores the fact that support

2914

for "Natural Law" is not limited to right libertarians). Of course, most

2915

anarchists do not find theories of "natural law," be they those of

2916

right-Libertarians, fascists or whatever, to be particularly compelling.

2917

Certainly the ideas of "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights," as existing

2918

independently of human beings in the sense of the ideal Platonic Forms,

2919

are difficult for anarchists to accept per se, because such ideas are

2920

inherently authoritarian. Most anarchists would agree with Tucker when

2921

he called such concepts "religious."

2922

2923

Spooner, unfortunately, did subscribe to the cult of "immutable and

2924

universal" Natural Laws. If we look at his "defence" of Natural

2925

Law we can see how weak (and indeed silly) it is. Replacing the

2926

word "rights" with the word "clothes" in the following passage

2927

shows the inherent weakness of his argument:

2928

2929

"if there be no such principle as justice, or natural law, then every

2930

human being came into the world utterly destitute of rights; and

2931

coming so into the world destitute of rights, he must forever remain

2932

so. For if no one brings any rights with him into the world, clearly

2933

no one can ever have any rights of his own, or give any to another.

2934

And the consequence would be that mankind could never have any rights;

2935

and for them to talk of any such things as their rights, would be

2936

to talk of things that had, never will, and never can have any

2937

existence." [_Natural Law_]

2938

2939

And, we add, unlike the "Natural Laws" of "gravitation, . . . of light,

2940

the principles of mathematics" to which Spooner compares them, he

2941

is perfectly aware that his "Natural Law" can be "trampled upon"

2942

by other humans. However, unlike gravity (which does not need

2943

enforcing) its obvious that Spooner's "Natural Law" has to be

2944

enforced by human beings as it is within human nature to steal.

2945

In other words, it is a moral code, *not* a "Natural Law" like gravity.

2946

2947

Interestingly, Spooner did come close to a *rational,* non-religious

2948

source for rights when he points out that "Men living in contact

2949

with each other, and having intercourse together, cannot avoid

2950

learning natural law." [Ibid.] This indicates the *social* nature

2951

of rights, of our sense of right and wrong, and so rights can exist

2952

without believing in religious concepts as "Natural Law."

2953

2954

In addition, we can say that his support for juries indicates an

2955

unconscious recognition of the *social* nature (and so evolution)

2956

of any concepts of human rights. In other words, by arguing strongly

2957

for juries to judge human conflict, he implicitly recognises that the

2958

concepts of right and wrong in society are *not* indelibly inscribed in

2959

law tomes as the "true law," but instead change and develop as society

2960

does (as reflected in the decisions of the juries). In addition, he states

2961

that "Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple

2962

matter, . . . made up of a few simple elementary principles, of the truth

2963

and justice of which every ordinary mind has an almost intuitive

2964

perception," thus indicating that what is right and wrong exists in

2965

"ordinary people" and not in "prosperous judges" or any other small group

2966

claiming to speak on behalf of "truth."

2967

2968

As can be seen, Spooner's account of how "natural law" will be

2969

administered is radically different from, say, Murray Rothbard's, and

2970

indicates a strong egalitarian context foreign to right-libertarianism.

2971

2972

As far as "anarcho"-capitalism goes, one wonders how Spooner would regard

2973

the "anarcho"-capitalist "protection firm," given his comment in _No

2974

Treason_ that "[a]ny number of scoundrels, having money enough to start

2975

with, can establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money,

2976

they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also

2977

compel general obedience to their will." Compare this to Spooner's

2978

description of his voluntary justice associations:

2979

2980

"it is evidently desirable that men should associate, so far as they

2981

freely and voluntarily can do so, for the maintenance of justice among

2982

themselves, and for mutual protection against other wrong-doers. It is

2983

also in the highest degree desirable that they should agree upon some plan

2984

or system of judicial proceedings" [_Natural Law_]

2985

2986

At first glance, one may be tempted to interpret Spooner's justice

2987

organisations as a subscription to "anarcho"-capitalist style protection

2988

firms. A more careful reading suggests that Spooner's actual conception

2989

is more based on the concept of mutual aid, whereby people provide such

2990

services for themselves and for others rather than buying them on a

2991

fee-per-service basis. A very different concept.

2992

2993

These comments are particularly important when we consider Spooner's

2994

criticisms of finance capitalists, like the Rothschilds. Here he departs

2995

even more strikingly from all "Libertarian" positions. For he believes

2996

that sheer wealth has intrinsic power, even to the extent of allowing the

2997

wealthy to coerce the government into behaving at their behest. For

2998

Spooner, governments are "the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious,

2999

fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom

3000

they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like

3001

the Rothschilds, [can]. . . unmake them [governments]. . .the moment they

3002

refuse to commit any crime" that finance capital requires of them. Indeed,

3003

Spooner considers "these soulless blood-money loan-mongers" as "the

3004

real rulers," not the government (who are their agents). [_No Treason_].

3005

3006

If one grants that highly concentrated wealth has intrinsic power and may

3007

be used in such a Machiavellian manner as Spooner claims, then simple

3008

opposition to the state is not sufficient. Logically, any political theory

3009

claiming to promote liberty should also seek to limit or abolish the

3010

institutions that facilitate large concentrations of wealth. As shown

3011

above, Spooner regarded wage labour under capitalism as one of these

3012

institutions, because without it "large fortunes could rarely be made at

3013

all by one individual." Hence for Spooner, as for social anarchists, to be

3014

anti-statist also necessitates being anti-capitalist.

3015

3016

This can be clearly seen for his analysis of history, where he states:

3017

"Why is it that [Natural Law] has not, ages ago, been established

3018

throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could

3019

rightfully be compelled to obey?" Spooner's answer is given in his

3020

interpretation of how the State evolved, where he postulates that the

3021

State was formed through the initial ascendancy of a land-holding,

3022

slave-holding class by military conquest and oppressive enslavement of a

3023

subsistence-farming peasantry.

3024

3025

"These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labour of their

3026

slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more

3027

plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons;

3028

increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organisations, and

3029

multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in

3030

order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to

3031

act systematically, and cooperage with each other in holding their slaves

3032

in subjection.

3033

3034

"But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a

3035

government, and making what they call laws. ...

3036

3037

"Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in

3038

the desires of one class of persons to plunder and enslave others, *and

3039

hold them as property.*" [_Natural Law_]

3040

3041

Nothing too provocative here; simply Spooner's view of government as a

3042

tool of the wealth-holding, slave-owning class. What is more interesting

3043

is Spooner's view of the subsequent development of (post-slavery)

3044

socio-economic systems. Spooner writes:

3045

3046

"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized

3047

all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to

3048

discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them

3049

profitable, was *not* for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of

3050

slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to

3051

give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the

3052

responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their

3053

labour to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what

3054

the latter might choose to give them." [Ibid.]

3055

3056

Here Spooner echoes the standard anarchist critique of capitalism. Note

3057

that he is no longer talking about slavery but rather about economic

3058

relations between a wealth-holding class and a 'freed' class of

3059

workers/labourers/tenant farmers. Clearly he does *not* view this relation

3060

--wage labour -- as a voluntary association, because the former slaves have

3061

little option but to be employed by members of the wealth-owning class.

3062

3063

Spooner points out that by monopolising the means of wealth creation while

3064

at the same time requiring the newly 'liberated' slaves to provide for

3065

themselves, the robber class thus continues to receive the benefits of the

3066

labour of the former slaves while accepting none of the responsibility for

3067

their welfare.

3068

3069

Spooner continues:

3070

3071

"Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them,

3072

having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an

3073

independent subsistence, had no alternative -- to save themselves from

3074

starvation -- but to sell their labour to the landholders, in exchange only

3075

for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as

3076

that." [Ibid.]

3077

3078

Thus while technically "free," the liberated working/labouring class lack

3079

the ability to provide for their own needs and hence remain dependent on

3080

the wealth-owning class. This echoes not right-libertarian analysis of

3081

capitalism, but left-libertarian and other socialist viewpoints.

3082

3083

"These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less

3084

slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even

3085

more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to

3086

preserve his life." [Ibid.]

3087

3088

This is an interesting comment. Spooner suggests that the liberated slave

3089

class were perhaps *better off as slaves.* Most anarchists would not go

3090

so far, although we would agree that employees are subject to the power of

3091

those who employ them and so are no long self-governing individuals -- in

3092

other words, that capitalist social relationships deny self-ownership and

3093

freedom.

3094

3095

"They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be

3096

thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a

3097

subsistence by their labour." [Ibid.]

3098

3099

Lest the reader doubt that Spooner is actually discussing employment here

3100

(and not slavery), he explicitly includes being made unemployed as an

3101

example of the arbitrary nature of wage labour.

3102

3103

"They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of

3104

begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the

3105

property and quiet of their late masters." [Ibid.]

3106

3107

And thus:

3108

3109

"The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their

3110

own safety and the safety of their property, to organise themselves more

3111

perfectly as a government *and make laws for keeping these dangerous

3112

people in subjection*. . . . " [Ibid.]

3113

3114

In other words, the robber class creates legislation which will protect

3115

its power, namely its property, against the dispossessed. Hence we see the

3116

creation of "law code" by the wealthy which serves to protect their

3117

interests while effectively making attempts to change the status quo

3118

illegal. This process is in effect similar to the right-libertarian

3119

concept of a "general libertarian law code" which exercises a monopoly

3120

over a given area and which exists to defend the "rights" of property

3121

against "initiation of force," i.e. attempts to change the system into a

3122

new one.

3123

3124

Spooner goes on:

3125

3126

"The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands

3127

of robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as

3128

possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the

3129

great body of labourers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would

3130

compel them to sell their labour to their tyrants for the lowest prices at

3131

which life could be sustained." [Ibid.]

3132

3133

Thus Spooner identifies the underlying basis for legislation (as well as

3134

the source of much misery, exploitation and oppression throughout history)

3135

as the result of the monopolisation of the means of wealth creation by an

3136

elite class. We doubt he would have considered that calling these laws

3137

"libertarian" would in any change their oppressive and class-based

3138

nature.

3139

3140

"Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now grown to such

3141

gigantic proportions, had its origin in the conspiracies, which have

3142

always existed among the few, for the purpose of holding the many in

3143

subjection, and extorting from them their labour, and all the profits of

3144

their labour." [Ibid.]

3145

3146

Characterising employment as extortion may seem rather extreme, but it

3147

makes sense given the exploitative nature of profit under capitalism, as

3148

left libertarians have long recognised (see section C).

3149

3150

In summary, as can be seen, there is a great deal of commonality between

3151

Spooner's ideas and those of social anarchists. Spooner perceives the same

3152

sources of exploitation and oppression inherent in monopolistic control of

3153

the means of production by a wealth-owning class as do social anarchists.

3154

His solutions may differ, but he observes exactly the same problems. In

3155

other words, Spooner is a left libertarian, and his individualist

3156

anarchism is just as anti-capitalist as the ideas of, say, Bakunin,

3157

Kropotkin or Chomsky.

3158

3159

Spooner was no more a capitalist than Rothbard was an anarchist.

3160