1
G.5 Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist?
3
Benjamin Tucker, like all genuine anarchists, was against both the
4
state and capitalism, against both oppression and exploitation. While
5
not against the market and property he was firmly against capitalism as
6
it was, in his eyes, a state-supported monopoly of social capital
7
(tools, machinery, etc.) which allows owners to exploit their
8
employees, i.e., to avoid paying workers the full value of their
9
labour. He thought that the "labouring classes are deprived of their
10
earnings by usury in its three forms, interest, rent and profit."
11
[quoted by James J. Martin, Men Against the State, p. 210f] Therefore
12
"Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish
13
monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the
14
exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means whereby any labourer
15
can be deprived of any of his product." [The Individualist Anarchists,
18
This stance puts him squarely in the libertarian socialist tradition
19
and, unsurprisingly, Tucker referred to himself many times as a
20
socialist and considered his philosophy to be "Anarchistic socialism."
21
For Tucker, capitalist society was exploitative and stopped the full
22
development of all and so had to be replaced:
24
"[This] society is fundamentally anti-social. The whole so-called
25
social fabric rests on privilege and power, and is disordered and
26
strained in every direction by the inequalities that necessarily
27
result therefrom. The welfare of each, instead of contributing to
28
that of all, as it naturally should and would, almost invariably
29
detracts from that of all. Wealth is made by legal privilege a hook
30
with which to filch from labour's pockets. Every man who gets rich
31
thereby makes his neighbours poor. The better off one is, the worse
32
the rest are . . . Labour's Deficit is precisely equal to the
35
"Now, Socialism wants to change all this. Socialism says . . . that
36
no man shall be able to add to his riches except by labour; that is
37
adding to his riches by his labour alone no man makes another man
38
poorer; that on the contrary every man this adding to his riches
39
makes every other man richer; . . . that every increase in capital
40
in the hands of the labourer tends, in the absence of legal
41
monopoly, to put more products, better products, cheaper products,
42
and a greater variety of products within the reach of every man who
43
works; and that this fact means the physical, mental, and moral
44
perfecting of mankind, and the realisation of human fraternity."
45
[Instead of a Book, pp. 361-2]
47
It is true that he also sometimes railed against "socialism," but in
48
those cases it is clear that he was referring to state socialism. Like
49
many anarchists (including Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin), he argued
50
that there are two kinds of socialism based upon two different
53
"The two principles referred to are Authority and Liberty, and the
54
names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and
55
unreservedly represent one or the other of them are, respectively,
56
State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools
57
want and how they propose to get it understands the Socialistic
58
movement. For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way
59
house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no
60
half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism." [The
61
Anarchist Reader, p. 150]
63
Like other socialists, Tucker argued that profits "to a few mean
64
robbery of others, -- monopoly. Andrews and Warren, realising this,
65
make individual sovereignty and the cost principle the essential
66
conditions of a true civilisation." [Liberty, no. 94, p. 1] Like
67
Proudhon, he argued that "property, in the sense of individual
68
possession, is liberty." [Op. Cit., no. 122, p. 4] However, unlike
69
state socialists and communist-anarchists, Tucker saw a key role for a
70
market system under socialism. In this he followed Proudhon who also
71
argued that competition was required to ensure that prices reflected
72
the labour costs involved in producing it and so interest, rent and
73
profit were opposed because they did not reflect actual costs but
74
simply usury paid to the wealthy for being allowed to use part of their
75
wealth, a part the rich could comfortably lend out to others as they
76
were not using it. Once capitalism was abolished, the market would be
77
able to reach its full promise and become a means of enriching all
80
"Liberty's aim -- universal happiness -- is that of all Socialists,
81
in contrast with that of the Manchester men -- luxury fed by misery.
82
But its principle -- individual sovereignty -- is that of the
83
Manchester men, in contrast with that of the Socialists --
84
individual subordination. But individual sovereignty, when logically
85
carried out, leads, not to luxury fed by misery, but to comfort for
86
all industrious persons and death for all idle ones." [Liberty, no.
89
As other anarchists have also argued, likewise for Tucker -- the state
90
is the "protector" of the exploiter. "Usury is the serpent gnawing at
91
labour's vitals, and only liberty can detach and kill it. Give
92
labourers their liberty and they will keep their wealth." [The
93
Individualist Anarchists, p. 89] From this it is clear that he
94
considered laissez-faire capitalism to be opposed to genuine individual
95
sovereignty. This was because it was based on the state interfering in
96
the market by enforcing certain restrictions on competition in favour
97
of the capitalist class and certain types of private property. Thus his
98
opposition to the state reflected his opposition to capitalist property
99
rights and the abolition of the state automatically meant their
102
Tucker spent considerable time making it clear that he was against
103
capitalist private property rights, most notably in land and what was
104
on it. He supported Proudhon's argument that "property is theft," even
105
translating many of Proudhon's works including the classic "What is
106
Property?" where that phrase originated. Tucker advocated possession
107
(or "occupancy and use," to use his preferred expression for the
108
concept) but not private property, believing that empty land, houses,
109
and so on should be squatted by those who could use them, as labour
110
(i.e. use) would be the only title to "property" (Tucker opposed all
111
non-labour income as usury). For Tucker, the true "Anarchistic
112
doctrine" was "occupancy and use as the basis and limit of land
113
ownership." Supporting the current property rights regime meant
114
"departing from Anarchistic ground." It was "Archism" and "all
115
Anarchists agree in viewing [it] as a denial of equal liberty" and
116
"utterly inconsistent with the Anarchistic doctrine of occupancy and
117
use as the limit of property in land." [Liberty, no. 180, p. 4 and p.
118
6] He looked forward to the day when "the Anarchistic view that
119
occupancy and use should condition and limit landholding becomes the
120
prevailing view." [Op. Cit., no. 162, p. 5]
122
This was because Tucker did not believe in a "natural right" to
123
property nor did he approve of unlimited holdings of scarce goods and
124
"in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is
125
so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism
126
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual
127
occupancy and use." [Instead of a Book, p. 61] He clearly recognised
128
that allowing "absolute" rights to private property in land would
129
result in the liberty of non-owners being diminished and so "I put the
130
right of occupancy and use above the right of contract . . .
131
principally by my interest in the right of contract. Without such a
132
preference the theory of occupancy and use is utterly untenable;
133
without it . . . it would be possible for an individual to acquire, and
134
hold simultaneously, virtual titles to innumerable parcels of land, by
135
the merest show of labour performed thereon. This would lead to "the
136
virtual ownership of the entire world by a small fraction of its
137
inhabitants" which would result in "the right of contract, if not
138
destroyed absolutely, would surely be impaired in an intolerable
139
degree." [Liberty, no. 350, p. 4] Thus "[i]t is true . . . that
140
Anarchism does not recognise the principle of human rights. But it
141
recognises human equality as a necessity of stable society." [Instead
144
So Tucker considered private property in land use (which he called the
145
"land monopoly") as one of the four great evils of capitalism.
146
According to Tucker, "the land monopoly . . . consists in the
147
enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon
148
personal occupancy and cultivation . . . the individual should no
149
longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal
150
occupation and cultivation of land." "Rent", he argued, "is due to the
151
denial of liberty which takes the shape of the land monopoly, vesting
152
titles to land in individuals and associations which do not use it, and
153
thereby compelling the non-owning users to pay tribute to the non-using
154
owners as a condition of admission to the competitive market." the land
155
"should be free to all, and no one would control more than he [or she]
156
used." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 85, p. 130 and p. 114] Ending
157
this monopoly would, he thought, reduce the evils of capitalism and
158
increase liberty (particularly in predominantly agricultural societies
159
such as the America of his era). For those who own no property have no
160
room for the soles of their feet unless they have the permission of
161
those who do own property, hardly a situation that would increase,
162
never mind protect, freedom for all. Significantly, Tucker extended
163
this principle to what was on the land, and so Tucker would "accord the
164
actual occupant and user of land the right to that which is upon the
165
land, who left it there when abandoning the land." [Liberty, no. 350,
166
p. 4] The freedom to squat empty land and buildings would, in the
167
absence of a state to protect titles, further contribute to the
170
"Ground rent exists only because the State stands by to collect it
171
and to protect land titles rooted in force or fraud. Otherwise land
172
would be free to all, and no one could control more than he used."
173
[quoted by James J. Martin, Op. Cit., p. 210]
175
This would lead to "the abolition of landlordism and the annihilation
176
of rent." [Instead of a Book, p. 300] Significantly, Tucker considered
177
the Irish Land League (an organisation which used non-payment of rent
178
to secure reforms against the British state) as "the nearest approach,
179
on a large scale, to perfect Anarchistic organisation that the world
180
has yet seen. An immense number of local groups . . . each group
181
autonomous, each free . . . each obeying its own judgement . . . all
182
co-ordinated and federated." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 263]
184
The other capitalist monopolies were based on credit, tariffs and
185
patents and all were reflected in (and supported by) the law. As far as
186
tariffs went, this was seen as a statist means of "fostering production
187
at high prices" which the workers paid for. Its abolition "would result
188
in a great reduction in the prices of all articles taxed. [Op. Cit., p.
189
85 and p. 86] With capitalists in the protected industries being unable
190
to reap high profits, they would be unable to accumulate capital to the
191
same degree and so the market would also become more equal. As for
192
patents, Tucker considered that there was "no more justification for
193
the claim of the discoverer of an idea to exclusive use of it than
194
there would have been for a claim on the part of the man who first
195
'struck oil' to ownership of the entire oil region or petroleum product
196
. . . The central injustice of copyright and patent law is that it
197
compels the race to pay an individual through a long term of years a
198
monopoly price for knowledge that he has discovered today, although
199
some other man or men might, and in many cases very probably would,
200
have discovered it tomorrow." [Liberty, no. 173, p. 4] The state,
201
therefore, protects the inventors (or, these days, the company the
202
inventors work for) "against competition for a period long enough to
203
enable them to extort from the people a reward enormously in excess of
204
the labour measure of their services -- in other words, in giving
205
certain people a right of property for a term of years in laws and
206
facts of Nature, and the power to extract tribute from others for the
207
use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all." [The
208
Individualist Anarchists, p. 86]
210
However, the key monopoly was the credit monopoly. Tucker believed that
211
bankers monopoly of the power to create credit and currency was the
212
linchpin of capitalism. Although he thought that all forms of monopoly
213
are detrimental to society, he maintained that the banking monopoly is
214
the worst, since it is the root from which both the
215
industrial-capitalist and landlordist monopolies grow and without which
216
they would wither and die. For, if credit were not monopolised, its
217
price (i.e. interest rates) would be much lower, which in turn would
218
drastically lower the price of capital goods and buildings -- expensive
219
items that generally cannot be purchased without access to credit. This
220
would mean that the people currently "deterred from going into business
221
by the ruinously high rates they must pay for capital with which to
222
start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed" (they
223
would simply "pay for the labour of running the banks"). This "facility
224
of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and
225
consequently create an unprecedented demand for labour -- a demand
226
which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary
227
of the present condition of the labour market . . . Labour will then be
228
in a position to dictate its wages." [Op. Cit., p. 84 and p. 85]
230
Following Proudhon, Tucker argued that if any group of people could
231
legally form a "mutual bank" and issue credit based on any form of
232
collateral they saw fit to accept, the price of credit would fall to
233
the labour cost of the paperwork involved in running the bank. He
234
claimed that banking statistics show this cost to be less than one
235
percent of principal, and hence, that a one-time service fee which
236
covers this cost and no more is the only non-usurious charge a bank can
237
make for extending credit. This charge should not be called "interest"
238
since, as it represented the labour-cost in providing, it is
239
non-exploitative. This would ensure that workers could gain free access
240
to the means of production (and so, in effect, be the individualist
241
equivalent of the communist-anarchist argument for socialisation).
243
Tucker believed that under mutual banking, capitalists' ability to
244
extract surplus value from workers in return for the use of tools,
245
machinery, etc. would be eliminated because workers would be able to
246
obtain zero-interest credit and use it to buy their own instruments of
247
production instead of "renting" them, as it were, from capitalists.
248
"Make capital free by organising credit on a mutual plan," stressed
249
Tucker, "and then these vacant lands will come into use . . .
250
operatives will be able to buy axes and rakes and hoes, and then they
251
will be independent of their employers, and then the labour problem
252
will solved." [Instead of a Book, p. 321] Easy access to mutual credit
253
would result in a huge increase in the purchase of capital goods,
254
creating a high demand for labour, which in turn would greatly increase
255
workers' bargaining power and thus raise their wages toward equivalence
256
with the value their labour produces.
258
For Tucker, reforms had to be applied at the heart of the system and so
259
he rejected the notion of setting up intentional communities based on
260
anarchist principles in the countryside or in other countries.
261
"Government makes itself felt alike in city and in country," he argued,
262
"capital has its usurious grip on the farm as surely as on the
263
workshop, and the oppression and exactions of neither government nor
264
capital can be avoided by migration. The State is the enemy, and the
265
best means of fighting it can be found in communities already
266
existing." He stressed that "I care nothing for any reform that cannot
267
be effected right here in Boston among the every day people whom I meet
268
in the streets." [quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 249 and p. 248]
270
It should be noted that while his social and political vision remained
271
mostly the same over his lifetime, Tucker's rationale for his system
272
changed significantly. Originally, like the rest of the American
273
individualist anarchist tradition he subscribed to a system of natural
274
rights. Thus he advocated "occupancy and use" based on a person's right
275
to have access to the means of life as well as its positive effects on
276
individual liberty. However, under the influence of Max Stirner's book
277
The Ego and Its Own, Tucker along with many of his comrades, became
278
egoists (see [1]next section for a discussion of Stirner). This
279
resulted in Tucker arguing that while previously "it was my habit to
280
talk glibly of the right of man to land" this was "a bad habit, and I
281
long ago sloughed it off." Now a person's "only right over the land is
282
his might over it." [Instead of a Book, p. 350] Contracts were seen as
283
the means of securing the peaceful preservation of the ego's
284
personality as it would be against a person's self-interest to aggress
285
against others (backed-up, of course, by means of freely joined defence
286
associations). It should be noted that the issue of egoism split the
287
individualist anarchist movement and lead to its further decline.
289
Tucker's ideal society was one of small entrepreneurs, farmers,
290
artisans, independent contractors and co-operative associations based
291
around a network of mutual banks. He looked to alternative institutions
292
such as co-operative banks and firms, schools and trade unions,
293
combined with civil disobedience in the form of strikes, general
294
strikes, tax and rent strikes and boycotts to bring anarchism closer.
295
He was firm supporter of the labour movement and "strikes, whenever and
296
wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all the friends of
297
labour . . . They show that people are beginning to know their rights,
298
and knowing, dare to maintain them." Echoing Bakunin's thoughts on the
299
subject, Tucker maintained that strikes should be supported and
300
encouraged because "as an awakening agent, as an agitating force, the
301
beneficent influence of a strike is immeasurable . . . with our present
302
economic system almost every strike is just. For what is justice in
303
production and distribution? That labour, which creates all, shall have
304
all." [Liberty, no. 19, p. 7] While critical of certain aspects of
305
trade unionism, Tucker was keen to stress that "it is not to be denied
306
for a moment that workingmen are obliged to unite and act together in
307
order, not to successfully contend with, but to defend themselves at
308
least to some extent from, the all-powerful possessors of natural
309
wealth and capital." [Op. Cit., no. 158, p. 1]
311
Like the anarcho-syndicalists and many other social anarchists, Tucker
312
considered Labour unions as a positive development, being a "crude step
313
in the direction of supplanting the State" and involved a "movement for
314
self-government on the part of the people, the logical outcome of which
315
is ultimate revolt against those usurping political conspiracies which
316
manifest themselves in courts and legislatures. Just as the [Irish]
317
Land League has become a formidable rival of the British State, so the
318
amalgamated trades unions may yet become a power sufficiently strong to
319
defy the legislatures and overthrow them." Thus unions were "a potent
320
sign of emancipation." Indeed, he called the rise of the unions
321
"trades-union socialism," saw in it a means of "supplanting" the state
322
by "an intelligent and self-governing socialism" and indicated that
323
"imperfect as they are, they are the beginnings of a revolt against the
324
authority of the political State. They promise the coming substitution
325
of industrial socialism for usurping legislative mobism." [The
326
Individualist Anarchists, pp. 283-284] Hence we see the co-operative
327
nature of the voluntary organisations supported by Tucker and a vision
328
of socialism being based on self-governing associations of working
331
In this way working people would reform capitalism away by non-violent
332
social protest combined with an increase in workers' bargaining power
333
by alternative voluntary institutions and free credit. Exploitation
334
would be eliminated and workers would gain economic liberty. His ideal
335
society would be classless, with "each man reaping the fruit of his
336
labour and no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital"
337
and society "would become a great hive of Anarchistic workers,
338
prosperous and free individuals." While, like all anarchists, he
339
rejected "abolute equality" he did envision an egalitarian society
340
whose small differences in wealth were rooted in labour, not property,
341
and so liberty, while abolishing exploitation, would "not abolish the
342
limited inequality between one labourer's product and another's . . .
343
Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men
344
equally rich." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 276, p. 156 and p.
345
157] He firmly believed that the "most perfect Socialism is possible
346
only on the condition of the most perfect individualism." [quoted by
347
Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 390]
349
As we noted in [2]section G.1.3, there is one apparent area of
350
disagreement between Tucker and most other socialists, namely the issue
351
of wage labour. For almost all anarchists the employer/employee social
352
relationship does not fit in well with Tucker's statement that "if the
353
individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is
354
tyranny." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 86] However, even here the
355
differences are not impossible to overcome. It is important to note
356
that because of Tucker's proposal to increase the bargaining power of
357
workers through access to mutual credit, his individualist anarchism is
358
not only compatible with workers' control but would in fact promote it
359
(as well as logically requiring it -- see [3]section G.4.1).
361
For if access to mutual credit were to increase the bargaining power of
362
workers to the extent that Tucker claimed it would, they would then be
363
able to: (1) demand and get workplace democracy; and (2) pool their
364
credit to buy and own companies collectively. This would eliminate the
365
top-down structure of the firm and the ability of owners to pay
366
themselves unfairly large salaries as well as reducing capitalist
367
profits to zero by ensuring that workers received the full value of
368
their labour. Tucker himself pointed this out when he argued that
369
Proudhon (like himself) "would individualise and associate" workplaces
370
by mutualism, which would "place the means of production within the
371
reach of all." [quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 228] Proudhon used the
372
word "associate" to denote co-operative (i.e. directly democratic)
373
workplaces (and given Proudhon's comments -- quoted in [4]section G.4.2
374
-- on capitalist firms we can dismiss any attempt to suggest that the
375
term "individualise" indicates support for capitalist rather than
376
artisan/peasant production, which is the classic example of
377
individualised production). For as Proudhon recognised, only a system
378
without wage slavery (and so exploitation) would ensure the goal of all
379
anarchists: "the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of
380
liberty." [Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 131]
382
Thus the logical consequence of Tucker's proposals would be a system
383
equivalent in most important respects to the kind of system advocated
384
by other left libertarians. In terms of aspirations, Tucker's ideas
385
reflected those of social anarchists -- a form of socialism rooted in
386
individual liberty. His fire was directed against the same targets,
387
exploitation and oppression and so state and capital. He aimed for a
388
society without inequalities of wealth where it would be impossible to
389
exploit another's labour and where free access to the means of life
390
were secured by mutual banking and "occupancy and use" applied to land
391
and what was on it. He considered laissez-faire capitalism to be a
392
system of state-supported privilege rather than as an ideal to be aimed
393
for. He argued extensively that getting rid of the state would mean
394
getting rid of capitalist property rights and so, like other
395
anarchists, he did not artificially divide economic and political
396
issues. In other words, like social anarchists, he was against the
397
state because it protected specific kinds of private property, kinds
398
which allowed its owners to extract tribute from labour.
400
In summary, then, Tucker "remained a left rather than a right-wing
401
libertarian." [Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 391] When he called himself a
402
socialist he knew well what it meant and systematically fought those
403
(usually, as today, Marxists and capitalists) who sought to equate it
404
with state ownership. John Quail, in his history of British Anarchism,
405
puts his finger on the contextual implications and limitations of
406
Tucker's ideas when he wrote:
408
"Tucker was a Proudhonist and thus fundamentally committed to a
409
society based on small proprietorship. In the American context,
410
however, where the small landowner was often locked in battle with
411
large capitalist interests, this did not represent the reactionary
412
position it often did later where it could easily degenerate into an
413
'Anarchism for small business-men.' Tucker had a keen sense of the
414
right of the oppressed to struggle against oppression." [The Slow
417
As we stressed in [5]section G.1.4, many of Tucker's arguments can only
418
be fully understood in the context of the society in which he developed
419
them, namely the transformation of America from a pre-capitalist into a
420
capitalist one by means of state intervention (the process of
421
"primitive accumulation" to use Marx's phrase -- see [6]section F.8.5).
422
At that time, it was possible to argue that access to credit would
423
allow workers to set-up business and undermine big business. However,
424
eventually Tucker had come to argue that this possibility had
425
effectively ended and even the freest market would not be able to
426
break-up the economic power of corporations and trusts (see [7]section
429
In this, ironically, Tucker came to the same conclusion as his old
430
enemy Johann Most had done three decades previously. In the 1880s,
431
Tucker had argued that wage labour would be non-exploitative under
432
individualist anarchy. This was part of the reason why Most had
433
excommunicated Tucker from anarchism, for he thought that Tucker's
434
system could not, by definition, end exploitation due to its tolerance
435
of wage labour, an argument Tucker disputed but did not disprove (see
436
[8]section G.4.1 for more discussion on this issue). In 1888 Tucker had
437
speculated that "the question whether large concentrations of capital
438
for production on the large scale confronts us with the disagreeable
439
alternative of either abolishing private property or continuing to hold
440
labour under the capitalistic yoke." [Liberty, no. 122, p. 4] By 1911,
441
he had come to the conclusion that the latter had come to pass and
442
considered revolutionary or political action as the only means of
443
breaking up such concentrations of wealth (although he was against
444
individualists anarchists participating in either strategy). [Martin,
445
Op. Cit., pp. 273-4] In other words, Tucker recognised that economic
446
power existed and, as a consequence, free markets were not enough to
447
secure free people in conditions of economic inequality.
449
There are, of course, many differences between the anarchism of, say,
450
Bakunin and Kropotkin and that of Tucker. Tucker's system, for example,
451
does retain some features usually associated with capitalism, such as
452
competition between firms in a free market. However, the fundamental
453
socialist objection to capitalism is not that it involves markets or
454
"private property" but that it results in exploitation. Most socialists
455
oppose private property and markets because they result in exploitation
456
and have other negative consequences rather than an opposition to them
457
as such. Tucker's system was intended to eliminate exploitation and
458
involves a radical change in property rights, which is why he called
459
himself a socialist and why most other anarchists concurred. This is
460
why we find Kropotkin discussing Tucker in his general accounts of
461
anarchism, accounts which note that the anarchists "constitute the left
462
wing" of the socialists and which make no comment that Tucker's ideas
463
were any different in this respect. [Anarchism, p. 285] A position,
464
needless to say, Tucker also held as he considered his ideas as part of
465
the wider socialist movement.
467
This fact is overlooked by "anarcho"-capitalists who, in seeking to
468
make Tucker one of their "founding fathers," point to the fact that he
469
spoke of the advantages of owning "property." But it is apparent that
470
by "property" he was referring to simple "possession" of land, tools,
471
etc. by independent artisans, farmers, and co-operating workers (he
472
used the word property "as denoting the labourer's individual
473
possession of his product or his share of the joint product of himself
474
and others." [Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 394]. For, since Tucker saw
475
his system as eliminating the ability of capitalists to maintain
476
exploitative monopolies over the means of production, it is therefore
477
true by definition that he advocated the elimination of "private
478
property" in the capitalist sense.
480
So while it is true that Tucker placed "property" and markets at the
481
heart of his vision of anarchy, this does not make he a supporter of
482
capitalism (see sections [9]G.1.1 and [10]G.1.2). Unlike supporters of
483
capitalism, the individualist anarchists identified "property" with
484
simple "possession," or "occupancy and use" and considered profit, rent
485
and interest as exploitation. Indeed, Tucker explicitly stated that
486
"all property rests on a labour title, and no other property do I
487
favour." [Instead of a Book, p. 400] Because of their critique of
488
capitalist property rights and their explicit opposition to usury
489
(profits, rent and interest) individualist anarchists like Tucker could
490
and did consider themselves as part of the wider socialist movement,
491
the libertarian wing as opposed to the statist/Marxist wing.
493
Thus, Tucker is clearly a left libertarian rather than a forefather of
494
right-wing "libertarianism". In this he comes close to what today would
495
be called a market socialist, albeit a non-statist variety. As can be
496
seen, his views are directly opposed to those of right "libertarians"
497
like Murray Rothbard on a number of key issues. Most fundamentally, he
498
rejected "absolute" property rights in land which are protected by laws
499
enforced either by private security forces or a "night watchman state."
500
He also recognised that workers were exploited by capitalists, who use
501
the state to ensure that the market was skewed in their favour, and so
502
urged working people to organise themselves to resist such exploitation
503
and, as a consequence, supported unions and strikes. He recognised that
504
while formal freedom may exist in an unequal society, it could not be
505
an anarchy due to the existence of economic power and the exploitation
506
and limitations in freedom it produced. His aim was a society of
507
equals, one in which wealth was equally distributed and any differences
508
would be minor and rooted in actual work done rather than by owning
509
capital or land and making others produce it for them. This clearly
510
indicates that Rothbard's claim to have somehow modernised Tucker's
511
thought is false -- "ignored" or "changed beyond recognition" would be
516
1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG6.html
517
2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG1.html#secg13
518
3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG4.html#secg41
519
4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG4.html#secg42
520
5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG1.html#secg14
521
6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF8.html#secf85
522
7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG1.html#secg11
523
8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG4.html
524
9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG1.html#secg11
525
10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG1.html#secg12
added
removed
txt/secG5.txt
