File: secG1.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 14.0-3
links: PTS, VCS
area: main
in suites: jessie, jessie-kfreebsd
size: 12,256 kB
ctags: 618
sloc: makefile: 12
file content (2095 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 147,631 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? </title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?</h1>
<p>
To answer this question, it is necessary to first define what we mean
by capitalism and socialism. While there is a tendency for supporters 
of capitalism (and a few socialists!) to equate it with the market and
private property, this is not the case. It is possible to have both and
not have capitalism (as we discuss in <a href="secG1.html#secg11">section G.1.1</a>
and <a href="secG1.html#secg12">section G.1.2</a>, respectively). Similarly,
the notion that "socialism" means, by definition, state ownership and/or 
control, or that being employed by the state rather than by private capital 
is "socialism" is distinctly wrong. While some socialists have, undoubtedly,
defined socialism in precisely such terms, socialism as a historic movement
is much wider than that. As Proudhon put it, <i>"[m]odern Socialism was not 
founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number of different schools."</i> 
[<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 177] 
</p><p>
As Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Tucker all stressed, anarchism is one of
those schools. For Kropotkin, anarchism was <i>"the no-government system of 
socialism."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 46] Likewise, for Tucker, there were 
<i>"two schools of socialistic thought"</i>, one of which represented 
authority and the other liberty, namely <i>"State Socialism and Anarchism."</i>
[<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, pp. 78-9] It was <i>"not Socialist 
Anarchism against Individualist Anarchism, but of Communist Socialism against 
Individualist Socialism."</i> [Tucker, <b>Liberty</b>, no. 129, p. 2] As one 
expert on Individualist Anarchism noted, Tucker <i>"looked upon anarchism as a 
branch of the general socialist movement."</i> [James J. Martin, <b>Men Against 
the State</b>, pp. 226-7] Thus we find Individualist anarchist Victor Yarros, 
like Tucker, talking about <i>"the position and teachings of the Anarchistic 
Socialists"</i> when referring to his ideas. [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 98, p. 5]
</p><p>
Part of problem is that in the 20th century, the statist school of socialism
prevailed both within the labour movement (at least in English speaking 
countries or until fascism destroyed it in mainland Europe and elsewhere)
and within the revolutionary movement (first as social democracy, then as
Communism after the Russian Revolution). This lead, it should be noted, to
anarchists not using the term "socialist" to describe their ideas as they
did not want to be confused with either reformed capitalism (social democracy)
or state capitalism (Leninism and Stalinism). As anarchism was understood as
being inherently anti-capitalist, this did not become an issue until certain
right-wing liberals started calling themselves "anarcho"-capitalists (somewhat 
ironically, these liberals joined with the state socialists in trying to limit 
anarchism to anti-statism and denying their socialist credentials). Another 
part of the problem is that many, particularly those in America, derive their 
notion of what socialism is from right-wing sources who are more than happy
to agree with the Stalinists that socialism <b>is</b> state ownership. This
is case with right-"libertarians", who rarely study the history or ideas of
socialism and instead take their lead from such fanatical anti-socialists 
as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Thus they equate socialism with 
social democracy or Leninism/Stalinism, i.e. with state ownership of the 
means of life, the turning of part or the whole working population into 
employees of the government or state regulation and the welfare state. In 
this they are often joined by social democrats and Marxists who seek to 
excommunicate all other kinds of socialism from the anti-capitalist movement.
</p><p>
All of which leads to some strange contradictions. If "socialism" <b>is</b> 
equated to state ownership then, clearly, the individualist anarchists are 
not socialists but, then, neither are the social anarchists! Thus if we assume
that the prevailing socialism of the 20th century defines what socialism is,
then quite a few self-proclaimed socialists are not, in fact, socialists. This
suggests that socialism cannot be limited to state socialism. Perhaps it would
be easier to define "socialism" as restrictions on private property? If so,
then, clearly, social anarchists are socialists but then, as we will prove, 
so are the individualist anarchists! 
</p><p>
Of course, not all the individualist anarchists used the term "socialist"
or "socialism" to describe their ideas although many did. Some called their 
ideas Mutualism and explicitly opposed socialism (William Greene being the 
most obvious example). However, at root the ideas were part of the wider 
socialist movement and, in fact, they followed Proudhon in this as he both 
proclaimed himself a socialist while also attacking it. The apparent 
contradiction is easily explained by noting there are two schools
of socialism, state and libertarian. Thus it is possible to be both a
(libertarian) socialist and condemn (state) socialist in the harshest 
terms.
</p><p>
So what, then, is socialism? Tucker stated that <i>"the bottom claim of 
Socialism"</i> was <i>"that labour should be put in possession of its own,"</i> 
that <i>"the natural wage of labour is its product"</i> and <i>"interest,
rent, and profit . . . constitute the trinity of usury."</i> [<b>The Individualist 
Anarchists</b>, p. 78 and p. 80] This definition also found favour with 
Kropotkin who stated that socialism <i>"in its wide, generic, and true sense"</i> 
was an <i>"effort to <b>abolish</b> the exploitation of labour by capital."</i> 
[<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 169] For Kropotkin, anarchism was <i>"brought forth by 
the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave rise to Socialism in 
general"</i>, socialism aiming for <i>"the negation of Capitalism and of 
society based on the subjection of labour to capital."</i> Anarchism, unlike 
other socialists, extended this to oppose <i>"what constitutes the real strength 
of Capitalism: the State and its principle supports."</i> [<b>Environment and 
Evolution</b>, p. 19] Tucker, similarly, argued that Individualist anarchism 
was a form of socialism and would result in the <i>"emancipation of the 
workingman from his present slavery to capital."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, 
p. 323] 
</p><p>
The various schools of socialism present different solutions to this exploitation
and subjection. From the nationalisation of capitalist property by the state 
socialists, to the socialisation of property by the libertarian communists, 
to the co-operatives of mutualism, to the free market of the individualist 
anarchists, all are seeking, in one way or the other, to ensure the end of 
the domination and exploitation of labour by capital. The disagreements between
them all rest in whether their solutions achieve this aim and whether they 
will make life worth living and enjoyable (which also explains why individualist 
and social anarchists disagree so much!). For anarchists, state socialism 
is little more than state <b>capitalism</b>, with a state monopoly replacing 
capitalist monopolies and workers being exploited by one boss (the state)
rather than many. So all anarchists would agree with Yarrows when he argued 
that <i>"[w]hile <b>State</b> Socialism removes the disease by killing the 
patient, <b>no</b>-State Socialism offers him the means of recovering strength, 
health, and vigour."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 98, p. 5] 
</p><p>
So, why are the individualist anarchists anti-capitalists? There are two 
main reasons.
</p><p>
Firstly, the Individualist Anarchists opposed profits, interest and rent as 
forms of exploitation (they termed these non-labour incomes <i><b>"usury"</b></i>,
but as Tucker stressed usury was <i>"but another name for the exploitation 
of labour."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 122, p. 4]). To use the words of Ezra 
Heywood, the Individualist Anarchists thought <i>"Interest is theft, Rent 
Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder."</i> [quoted by Martin Blatt, 
<i>"Ezra Heywood & Benjamin Tucker,"</i>, pp. 28-43, <b>Benjamin R. Tucker 
and the Champions of Liberty</b>, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 29] 
Non-labour incomes are merely <i>"different methods of levying tribute for 
the use of capital."</i> Their vision of the good society was one in which 
<i>"the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit"</i> would not exist 
and Labour would <i>"secure its natural wage, its entire product."</i> [Tucker, 
<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 80, p. 82 and p. 85] This would also
apply to dividends, <i>"since no idle shareholders could continue in receipt 
of dividends were it not for the support of monopoly, it follows that these 
dividends are no part of the proper reward of ability."</i> [Tucker, <b>Liberty</b>,
no. 282, p. 2]
</p><p>
In addition, as a means of social change, the individualists suggested 
that activists start <i>"inducing the people to steadily refuse the payment 
of rents and taxes."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b> pp. 299-300] These are 
hardly statements with which capitalists would agree. Tucker, as noted, 
also opposed interest, considering it usury (exploitation and a <i>"crime"</i>) 
pure and simple and one of the means by which workers were denied the full 
fruits of their labour. Indeed, he looked forward to the day when <i>"any
person who charges more than cost for any product [will] . . . be regarded 
very much as we now regard a pickpocket."</i> This <i>"attitude of hostility to 
usury, in any form"</i> hardly fits into the capitalist mentality or belief
system. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 155] Similarly, Ezra Heywood considered 
profit-taking <i>"an injustice which ranked second only to legalising
titles to absolute ownership of land or raw-materials."</i> [James J. Martin,
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 111] Opposition to profits, rent or interest is hardly
capitalistic -- indeed, the reverse.
</p><p>
Thus the Individualist Anarchists, like the social anarchists, opposed the 
exploitation of labour and desired to see the end of capitalism by ensuring 
that labour would own what it produced. They desired a society in which 
there would no longer be capitalists and workers, only workers. The worker 
would receive the full product of his/her labour, so ending the exploitation 
of labour by capital. In Tucker's words, a free society would see <i>"each 
man reaping the fruits of his labour and no man able to live in idleness on 
an income from capital"</i> and so society would <i>"become a great hive of 
Anarchistic workers, prosperous and free individuals"</i> combining <i>"to 
carry on their production and distribution on the cost principle."</i> [<b>The 
Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 276]
</p><p>
Secondly, the Individualist Anarchists favoured a new system of land 
ownership based on <i><b>"occupancy and use."</b></i> So, as well as
this opposition to capitalist usury, the individualist anarchists also 
expressed opposition to capitalist ideas on property (particularly 
property in land). J.K. Ingalls, for example, considered that <i>"the 
private domination of the land"</i> originated in <i>"usurpation only, 
whether of the camp, the court or the market. Whenever such a domination 
excludes or deprives a single human being of his equal opportunity, it 
is a violation, not only of the public right, and of the social duty, but 
of the very principle of law and morals upon which property itself is 
based."</i> [quoted by Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 148f] As Martin
comments, for Ingalls, <i>"[t]o reduce land to the status of a commodity
was an act of usurpation, enabling a group to 'profit by its relation
to production' without the expenditure of labour time."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 148] These ideas are identical to Proudhon's and Ingalls continues in this 
Proudhonian <i>"occupancy and use"</i> vein when he argues that possession 
<i>"remains <b>possession</b>, and can never become <b>property</b>, in the 
sense of absolute dominion, except by positive statue [i.e. state action]. 
Labour can only claim <b>occupancy</b>, and can lay no claim to more than the 
usufruct."</i> Current property ownership in land were created by <i>"forceful 
and fraudulent taking"</i> of land, which <i>"could give no justification to 
the system."</i> [quoted by Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 149] 
</p><p>
The capitalist system of land ownership was usually termed the <i><b>"land
monopoly"</b></i>, which consisted of <i>"the enforcement by government of
land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation."</i>
Under anarchism, individuals would <i>"no longer be protected by their 
fellows in anything but personal occupancy and cultivation of land"</i>
and so <i>"ground rent would disappear."</i> [Tucker, <b>The Individualist
Anarchists</b>, p. 85] This applied to what was on the land as well, such
as housing: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"If a man exerts himself by erecting a building on land which afterward,
by the operation of the principle of occupancy and use, rightfully 
becomes another's, he must, upon demand of the subsequent occupant,
remove from this land the results of his self-exertion, or, failing so
to do, sacrifice his property therein."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 331, p. 4]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
This would apply to both the land and what was on it. This meant that 
<i>"tenants would not be forced to pay . . . rent"</i> nor would landlords 
<i>"be allowed to seize their property."</i> This, as Tucker noted, was 
a complete rejection of the capitalist system of property rights and saw 
anarchism being dependent on <i>"the Anarchistic view that occupancy and 
use should condition and limit landholding becom[ing] the prevailing 
view."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 162 and p. 159] As 
Joseph Labadie put it, socialism includes any theory <i>"which has for its 
object the <b>changing of the present status of property</b> and the relations one 
person or class holds to another. In other words, any movement which has for 
its aim the changing of social relations, of companionships, of associations, 
of powers of one class over another class, is Socialism."</i> [our emphasis,
<b>Liberty</b>, no. 158,  p. 8] As such, both social and individualist anarchists
are socialists as both aimed at changing the present status of property.
</p><p>
It should also be noted here that the individualist anarchist ideal that competition 
in banking would drive interest to approximately zero is their equivalent to the 
social anarchist principle of free access to the means of life. As the only cost 
involved would be an administration charge which covers the labour involved in 
running the mutual bank, all workers would have access to "capital" for (in effect)
free. Combine this with "occupancy and use" in terms of land use and it can be 
seen that both individualist and social anarchists shared a common aim to make
the means of life available to all without having to pay a tribute to an owner
or be dependent on a ruling capitalist or landlord class.
</p><p>
For these reasons, the Individualist Anarchists are clearly anti-capitalist. 
While an Individualist Anarchy would be a market system, it would not be a 
capitalist one. As Tucker argued, the anarchists realised <i>"the fact that 
one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, 
while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being 
legally privileged to sell something that is not labour. . . . And to such 
a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove 
privilege. . . every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers 
. . . What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to 
deprive capital of its reward."</i> As noted above, the term <i>"usury,"</i> 
for Tucker, was simply a synonym for <i>"the exploitation of labour."</i> 
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 404 and p. 396] 
</p><p>
The similarities with social anarchism are obvious. Like them, the individualist 
anarchists opposed capitalism because they saw that profit, rent and interest 
were all forms of exploitation. As communist-anarchist Alexander Berkman noted, 
<i>"[i]f the worker would get his due -- that is, the things he produces or their 
equivalent -- where would the profits of the capitalist come from? If labour owned 
the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism."</i> Like social anarchists 
they opposed usury, to have to pay purely for access/use for a resource. It ensured
that a <i>"slice of their daily labour is taken from [the workers] for the privilege 
of <b>using</b> these factories"</i> [<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 44 and p. 8] For 
Marx, abolishing interest and interest-bearing capital <i>"means the abolition of 
capital and of capitalist production itself."</i> [<b>Theories of Surplus Value</b>, 
vol. 3, p. 472] A position, incidentally, also held by Proudhon who maintained that 
<i>"reduction of interest rates to vanishing point is itself a revolutionary act, 
because it is destructive of capitalism."</i> [quoted by Edward Hyams, <b>Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon: His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works</b>, p. 188] Like many socialists,
Individualist Anarchists used the term "interest" to cover all forms of surplus 
value: <i>"the use of money"</i> plus <i>"house-rent, dividends, or share of profits"</i> 
and having to <i>"pay a tax to somebody who owns the land."</i> <i>"In doing away 
with interest, the cause of inequality in material circumstances will be done away 
with."</i> [John Beverley Robinson, <b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, pp. 144-5]
</p><p>
Given that Individualist Anarchism aimed to abolish interest along with rent and 
profit it would suggest that it is a socialist theory. Unsurprisingly, then, Tucker 
agreed with Marx's analysis on capitalism, namely that it lead to industry concentrating 
into the hands of a few and that it robbed workers of the fruits of the toil (for Francis 
Tandy it was a case of <i>"the Marxian theory of surplus value, upon which all Socialistic 
philosophy -- whether State or Anarchistic -- is necessarily based"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
no. 312, p. 3]). Tucker quoted a leading Marxist's analysis of capitalism and noted 
that <i>"Liberty endorses the whole of it, excepting a few phrases concerning the 
nationalisation of industry and the assumption of political power by working people."</i> 
However, he was at pains to argue that this analysis was first expounded by Proudhon, 
<i>"that the tendency and consequences of capitalistic production . . . were 
demonstrated to the world time and time again during the twenty years preceding the 
publication of 'Das Kapital'" </i> by the French anarchist. This included <i>"the 
historical persistence of class struggles in successive manifestations"</i> as well 
as <i>"the theory that labour is the source and measure of value."</i> <i>"Call
Marx, then, the father of State socialism, if you will,"</i> argued Tucker, <i>"but 
we dispute his paternity of the general principles of economy on which all schools 
of socialism agree."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 35, p. 2]
</p><p>
This opposition to profits, rent and interest as forms of exploitation and property as 
a form of theft clearly makes individualist anarchism anti-capitalist and a form of 
(libertarian) socialism. In addition, it also indicates well the common ground between 
the two threads of anarchism, in particular their common position to capitalism. The 
social anarchist Rudolf Rocker indicates well this common position when he argues:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"it is difficult to reconcile personal freedom with the existing economic
system. Without doubt the present inequality of economic interests and
the resulting class conflicts in society are a continual danger to the
freedom of the individual . . . [T]he undisturbed natural development of human 
personality is impossible in a system which has its root in the shameless
exploitation of the great mass of the members of society. One cannot be free 
either politically or personally so long as one is in economic servitude of 
another and cannot escape from this condition. This was recognised by men 
like Godwin, Warren, Proudhon, Bakunin, [and women like Goldman and de Cleyre, 
we must add!] and many others who subsequently reached the conviction that the 
domination of man over man will not disappear until there is an end of the 
exploitation of man by man."</i> [<b>Nationalism and Culture</b>, p. 167]
</blockquote></p><p>
There are other, related, reasons why the individualist anarchists must be 
considered left-wing libertarians rather than right-wing ones. Given their 
opposition to non-labour income, they saw their proposals as having 
egalitarian implications. As regards equality, we discover that they 
saw their ideas as promoting it. Thus we find Tucker arguing
that that the <i>"happiness possible in any society that does not improve 
upon the present in the matter of distribution of wealth, can hardly be 
described as beatific."</i> He was clearly opposed to <i>"the inequitable
distribution of wealth"</i> under capitalism and equally clearly saw his
proposals as a means of reducing it substantially. The abolition of those
class monopolies which create interest, rent and profit would reduce income
and wealth inequalities substantially. However, there was <i>"one exception, 
and that a comparatively trivial one"</i>, namely economic rent (the
natural differences between different bits of land and individual labour).
This <i>"will probably remain with us always. Complete liberty will very much 
lessen it; of that I have no doubt . . . At the worst, it will be a small 
matter, no more worth consideration in comparison with the liberty than
the slight disparity that will always exist in consequence of inequalities
of skill."</i> [<i>"Why I am an Anarchist"</i>, pp. 132-6, <b>Man!</b>, 
M. Graham (ed.), pp. 135-6] Another individualist anarchist, John Beverley 
Robinson, agreed:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"When privilege is abolished, and the worker retains all that he produces, 
then will come the powerful trend toward equality of material reward for labour 
that will produce substantial financial and social equality, instead of the mere 
political equality that now exists."</i> [<b>Patterns of Anarchy</b>, pp. 278-9]
</blockquote></p><p>
As did Lysander Spooner, who pointed out that the <i>"wheel of fortune, in the
present state of things, is of such enormous diameter"</i> and <i>"those on 
its top are on so showy a height"</i> wjile <i>"those underneath it are in such
a pit of debt, oppression, and despair."</i> He argued that under his system 
<i>"fortunes could hardly be represented by a wheel; for it would present no 
such height, no such depth, no such irregularity of motion as now. It should 
rather be represented by an extended surface, varied somewhat by inequalities, 
but still exhibiting a general level, affording a safe position for all, and 
creating no necessity, for either force or fraud, on the part of anyone to 
secure his standing."</i> Thus Individualist anarchism would create a 
condition <i>"neither of poverty, nor riches; but of moderate competency 
-- such as will neither enervate him by luxury, nor disable him by destitution;
but which will at once give him and opportunity to labour, (both mentally and 
physically) and stimulate him by offering him all the fruits of his labours."</i> 
[quoted by Stephan L. Newman, <b>Liberalism at Wit's End</b>, p. 72 and p. 73] 
</p><p>
As one commentator on individualist anarchism, Wm. Gary Kline, correctly 
tsummarised:
<blockquote></p><p>
<i>"Their proposals were designed to establish true equality of opportunity 
. . . and they expected this to result in a society without great wealth or 
poverty. In the absence of monopolistic factors which would distort competition, 
they expected a society of largely self-employed workmen with no significant
disparity of wealth between any of them since all would be required to live 
at their own expense and not at the expense of exploited fellow human beings."</i> 
[<b>The Individualist Anarchists: A Critique of Liberalism</b>, pp. 103-4]
</blockquote></p><p>
Hence, like social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchists saw their ideas as 
a means towards equality. By eliminating exploitation, inequality would soon 
decrease as wealth would no longer accumulate in the hands of the few (the owners). 
Rather, it would flow back into the hands of those who produced it (i.e. the workers). 
Until this occurred, society would see <i>"[o]n one side a dependent class of 
wage-workers and on the other a privileged class of wealth-monopolisers, each become 
more and more distinct from the other as capitalism advances."</i> This has 
<i>"resulted in a grouping and consolidation of wealth which grows apace by 
attracting all property, no matter by whom produced, into the hands of the
privileged, and hence property becomes a social power, an economic force 
destructive of rights, a fertile source of injustice, a means of enslaving the 
dispossessed."</i> [William Ballie, <b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 121]
</p><p>
Moreover, like the social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchists were
aware that the state was not some neutral machine or one that exploited
all classes purely for its own ends. They were aware that it was a vehicle of
<b>class rule,</b> namely the rule of the capitalist class over the working
class. Spooner thought that that <i>"holders of this monopoly [of the money 
supply] now rule and rob this nation; and the government, in all its branches, 
is simply their tool"</i> and that <i>"the employers of wage labour . . . 
are also the monopolists of money."</i> [Spooner, <b>A Letter to Grover Cleveland</b>, 
p. 42 and p. 48] Tucker recognised that <i>"capital had so manipulated legislation"</i>
that they gained an advantage on the capitalist market which allowed them
to exploit labour. [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, pp. 82-3] He was
quite clear that the state was a <b>capitalist</b> state, with <i>"Capitalists
hav[ing] placed and kept on the statute books all sorts of prohibitions
and taxes"</i> to ensure a "free market" skewed in favour of themselves.
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 454] A.H. Simpson argued that the Individualist 
Anarchist <i>"knows very well that the present State . . . is simply the tool 
of the property-owning class."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 92] 
Thus both wings of the anarchist movement were united in their opposition to 
capitalist exploitation and their common recognition that the state was a 
tool of the capitalist class, used to allow them to exploit the working class.
</p><p>
Tucker, like other individualist anarchists, also supported labour 
unions, and although he opposed violence during strikes he recognised 
that it was caused by frustration due to an unjust system. Indeed, like 
social anarchists, he considered <i>"the labourer in these days [as] a 
soldier. . . His employer is . . . a member of an opposing army. The 
whole industrial and commercial world is in a state of internecine war, 
in which the proletaires are massed on one side and the proprietors on 
the other."</i> The cause of strikes rested in the fact that <i>"before
. . . strikers violated the equal liberty of others, their own right to 
equality of liberty had been wantonly and continuously violated"</i> by 
the capitalists using the state, for the <i>"capitalists . . . in denying 
[a free market] to [the workers] are guilty of criminal invasion."</i> 
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 460 and p. 454] <i>"With our present economic
system,"</i> Tucker stressed, <i>"almost every strike is just. For what is 
justice in production and distribution? That labour, which creates all, 
shall have <b>all.</b>"</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 19, p. 1]
</p><p>
Another important aspects of unions and strikes were that they represented
both a growing class consciousness and the ability to change society. 
<i>"It is the power of the great unions to paralyse industry and <b>ignore</b> 
the government that has alarmed the political burglars,"</i> argued Victor 
Yarrows. This explained why unions and strikes were crushed by force as 
<i>"the State can have no rival, say the plutocrats, and the trades unions, 
with the sympathetic strike and boycott as weapons, are becoming too 
formidable."</i> Even defeated strikes were useful as they ensured that 
<i>"the strikers and their sympathisers will have acquired some additional 
knowledge of the essential nature of the beast, government, which plainly 
has no other purpose at present than to protect monopoly and put down all 
opposition to it."</i> <i>"There is such a thing as the solidarity of 
labour,"</i> Yarrows went on, <i>"and it is a healthy and encouraging 
sign that workmen recognise the need of mutual support and co-operation 
in their conflict with monopoly and its official and unofficial servants. 
Labour has to fight government as well as capital, 'law and order' as 
well as plutocracy. It cannot make the slightest movement against 
monopoly without colliding with some sort of 'authority', Federal, 
State, or municipal."</i> The problem was that the unions <i>"have 
no clear general aims and deal with results rather than causes."</i>
[<b>Liberty</b>, no. 291, p. 3]
</p><p>
This analysis echoed Tucker's, who applauded the fact that <i>"[a]nother 
era of strikes apparently is upon us. In all trades and in all sections of 
the country labour is busy with its demands and its protests. Liberty 
rejoices in them. They give evidence of life and spirit and hope and 
growing intelligence. They show that the people are beginning to know 
their rights, and, knowing, dare to maintain them. Strikes, whenever and 
wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all true friends of labour."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, no. 19, p. 1] Even failed strikes were useful, for they
exposed <i>"the tremendous and dangerous power now wielded by capital."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, no. 39, p. 1] The <i>"capitalists and their tools, the 
legislatures, already begin to scent the impending dangers of trades-union 
socialism and initiatory steps are on foot in the legislatures of several 
states to construe labour combinations as conspiracies against commerce and 
industry, and suppress them by law."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, no. 22, p. 3]
</p><p>
Some individualist anarchists, like Dyer Lum and Joseph Labadie, were union 
organisers while Ezra Heywood <i>"scoffed at supporters of the status quo, 
who saw no evidence of the tyranny on the part of capital, and who brought 
up the matter of free contract with reference to labourers. This argument 
was no longer valid. Capital controlled land, machinery, steam power, 
waterfalls, ships, railways, and above all, money and public opinion, and 
was in a position to wait out recalcitrancy at its leisure."</i> [Martin, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 107] For Lum, <i>"behind the capitalist . . . privilege 
stands as support"</i> and so social circumstances matter. <i>"Does liberty 
exist,"</i> he argued, <i>"where rent, interest, and profit hold the employee
in economic subjection to the legalised possessor of the means of life? To 
plead for individual liberty under the present social conditions, to refuse 
to abate one jot of control that legalised capital has over individual labour, 
and to assert that the demand for restrictive or class legislation comes only 
from the voluntary associations of workmen [i.e., trade unions] is not alone 
the height of impudence, but a barefaced jugglery of words."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, 
no. 101, p. 5]
</p><p>
Likewise, Tucker advocated and supported many other forms of non-violent direct 
action as well as workplace strikes, such as boycotts and rent strikes, seeing 
them as important means of radicalising the working class and creating an 
anarchist society. However, like social anarchists the Individualist Anarchists 
did not consider labour struggle as an end in itself -- they considered reforms 
(and discussion of a <i>"fair wage"</i> and <i>"harmony between capital and 
labour"</i>) as essentially <i>"conservative"</i> and would be satisfied with 
no less than <i>"the abolition of the monopoly privileges of capital and 
interest-taking, and the return to labour of the full value of its production."</i> 
[Victor Yarros, quoted by Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 206f]
</p><p>
Therefore, it is clear that both social and Individualist Anarchists share much 
in common, including an opposition to capitalism. The former may have been in favour 
of free exchange but between equally situated individuals. Only given a context of 
equality can free exchange be considered to benefit both parties equally and not 
generate growing inequalities which benefit the stronger of the parties involved 
which, in turn, skews the bargaining position of those involved in favour of the 
stronger (also see <a href="secF3.html">section F.3</a>). 
</p><p>
It is unsurprising, therefore, that the individualist anarchists considered
themselves as socialists. Like Proudhon, they desired a (libertarian) socialist 
system based on the market but without exploitation and which rested on possession
rather than capitalist private property. With Proudhon, only the ignorant or 
mischievous would suggest that such a system was capitalistic. The Individualist 
Anarchists, as can be seen, fit very easily into Kropotkin's comments that <i>"the 
anarchists, in common with all socialists . . . maintain that the now prevailing 
system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake 
of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice 
and the dictates of utility."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 285] While they rejected
the communist-anarchist solution to the social question, they knew that such a
question existed and was rooted in the exploitation of labour and the prevailing
system of property rights. 
</p><p>
So why is Individualist Anarchism and Proudhon's mutualism socialist? Simply 
because they opposed the exploitation of labour by capital and proposed a 
means of ending it. The big debate between social and individualist anarchists 
is revolves around whether the other school can <b>really</b> achieve this 
common goal and whether its proposed solution would, in fact, secure meaningful
individual liberty for all.</p>

<h2><a name="secg11">G.1.1 What about their support of the free market?</a></h2>
<p>
Many, particularly on the "libertarian"-right, would dismiss claims  that the 
Individualist Anarchists were socialists. By their support of the "free 
market" the Individualist Anarchists, they would claim, show themselves as 
really supporters of capitalism. Most, if not all, anarchists would reject 
this claim. Why is this the case?
</p><p>
This because such claims show an amazing ignorance of socialist ideas and 
history. The socialist movement has had a many schools, many of which, but 
not all, opposed the market and private property. Given that the right
"libertarians" who make such claims are usually not well informed of the 
ideas they oppose (i.e. of socialism, particularly <b>libertarian</b> 
socialism) it is unsurprising they claim that the Individualist Anarchists 
are not socialists (of course the fact that many Individualist Anarchists
argued they <b>were</b> socialists is ignored). Coming from a different 
tradition, it is unsurprising they are not aware of the fact that socialism
is not monolithic. Hence we discover right-"libertarian" guru von Mises 
claiming that the <i>"essence of socialism is the entire elimination of 
the market."</i> [<b>Human Action</b>, p. 702] This would have come as 
something of a surprise to, say, Proudhon, who argued that <i>"[t]o suppress 
competition is to suppress liberty itself."</i> [<b>The General Idea of the 
Revolution</b>, p. 50] Similarly, it would have surprised Tucker, who called 
himself a socialist while supporting a freer market than von Mises ever dreamt 
of. As Tucker put it:
<blockquote></p><p>
<i>"<b>Liberty</b> has always insisted that Individualism and Socialism are 
not antithetical terms; that, on the contrary, the most perfect Socialism is 
possible only on condition of the most perfect Individualism; and that 
Socialism includes, not only Collectivism and Communism, but also that school 
of Individualist Anarchism which conceives liberty as a means of destroying 
usury and the exploitation of labour."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 129, p. 2]
</blockquote></p><p>
Hence we find Tucker calling his ideas both <i>"Anarchistic Socialism"</i> 
and <i>"Individualist Socialism"</i> while other individualist anarchists
have used the terms <i>"free market anti-capitalism"</i> and <i>"free market 
socialism"</i> to describe the ideas.
</p><p>
The central fallacy of the argument that support for markets equals support
for capitalism is that many self-proclaimed socialists are not opposed to
the market. Indeed, some of the earliest socialists were market socialists
(people like Thomas Hodgskin and William Thompson, although the former ended
up rejecting socialism and the latter became a communal-socialist). Proudhon,
as noted, was a well known supporter of market exchange. German sociologist
Franz Oppenheimer expounded a similar vision to Proudhon and called himself
a <i>"liberal socialist"</i> as he favoured a free market but recognised that 
capitalism was a system of exploitation. [<i>"Introduction"</i>, <b>The State</b>, 
p. vii] Today, market socialists like David Schweickart (see his <b>Against 
Capitalism</b> and <b>After Capitalism</b>) and David Miller (see his <b>Market, 
State, and community: theoretical foundations of market socialism</b>) are 
expounding a similar vision to Proudhon's, namely of a market economy based 
on co-operatives (albeit one which retains a state). Unfortunately, they 
rarely, if ever, acknowledge their debt to Proudhon (needless to say, their 
Leninist opponents do as, from their perspective, it damns the market 
socialists as not being real socialists).
</p><p>
It could, possibly, be argued that these self-proclaimed socialists did not,
in fact, understand what socialism "really meant." For this to be the case, 
<b>other</b>, more obviously socialist, writers and thinkers would dismiss 
them as not being socialists. This, however, is not the case. Thus we find Karl 
Marx, for example, writing of <i>"the socialism of Proudhon."</i> [<b>Capital</b>, 
vol. 1, p. 161f] Engels talked about Proudhon being <i>"the Socialist of the 
small peasant and master-craftsman"</i> and of <i>"the Proudhon school of 
Socialism."</i> [Marx and Engels, <b>Selected Works</b>, p. 254 and p. 255] 
Bakunin talked about Proudhon's <i>"socialism, based on individual and
collective liberty and upon the spontaneous action of free associations."</i> 
He considered his own ideas as <i>"Proudhonism widely developed and pushed 
right to these, its final consequences"</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings</b>, p. 100 and p. 198] For Kropotkin, while Godwin was <i>"first 
theoriser of Socialism without government -- that is to say, of Anarchism"</i> 
Proudhon was the second as he, <i>"without knowing Godwin's work, laid anew 
the foundations of Anarchism."</i> He lamented that <i>"many modern Socialists"</i> 
supported <i>"centralisation and the cult of authority"</i> and so <i>"have 
not yet reached the level of their two predecessors, Godwin and Proudhon."</i> 
[<b>Evolution and Environment</b>, pp. 26-7] These renown socialists did not 
consider Proudhon's position to be in any way anti-socialist (although, of 
course, being critical of whether it would work and its desirability if it
did). Tucker, it should be noted, called Proudhon <i>"the father of the 
Anarchistic school of Socialism."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 381] 
Little wonder, then, that the likes of Tucker considered themselves 
socialists and stated numerous times that they were.
</p><p>
Looking at Tucker and the Individualist anarchists we discover that other 
socialists considered them socialists. Rudolf Rocker stated that <i>"it 
is not difficult to discover certain fundamental principles which are 
common to all of them and which divide them from all other varieties 
of socialism. They all agree on the point that man be given the full 
reward of his labour and recognise in this right the economic basis of 
all personal liberty. They all regard the free competition of individual 
and social forces as something inherent in human nature . . . They answered 
the socialists of other schools who saw in <b>free competition</b> one of the 
destructive elements of capitalist society that the evil lies in the fact we 
have too little rather than too much competition, since the power of monopoly 
has made competition impossible."</i> [<b>Pioneers of American Freedom</b>, 
p. 160] Malatesta, likewise, saw many schools of socialism, including 
<i>"anarchist or authoritarian, mutualist or individualist."</i> [<b>Errico 
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 95]
</p><p>
Adolph Fischer, one of the Haymarket Martyrs and contemporary of Tucker, 
argued that <i>"every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not 
necessarily an anarchist. The anarchists are divided into two factions: the 
communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists."</i> The 
former <i>"advocate the communistic or co-operative method of production"</i>
while the latter <i>"do not advocate the co-operative system of production, 
and the common ownership of the means of production, the products and the 
land."</i> [<b>The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs</b>, p. 81] 
However, while not being communists (i.e. aiming to eliminate the market), 
he obviously recognised the Individualists Anarchists as fellow socialists 
(we should point out that Proudhon <b>did</b> support co-operatives, but 
they did not carry this to communism as do most social anarchists -- as 
is clear, Fischer means communism by the term <i>"co-operative system of 
production"</i> rather than co-operatives as they exist today and Proudhon 
supported -- see <a href="secG4.html#secg42">section G.4.2</a>).
</p><p>
Thus claims that the Individualist Anarchists were not "really" socialists
because they supported a market system cannot be supported. The simple fact 
is that those who make this claim are, at best, ignorant of the socialist 
movement, its ideas and its history or, at worse, desire, like many Marxists, 
to write out of history competing socialist theories. For example, Leninist
David McNally talks of the <i>"anarcho-socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon"</i>
and how Marx combated <i>"Proudhonian socialism"</i> before concluding that
it was <i>"non-socialism"</i> because it has <i>"wage-labour and exploitation."</i>
[<b>Against the Market</b>, p. 139 and p. 169] Of course, that this is not
true (even in a Marxist sense) did not stop him asserting it. As one reviewer 
correctly points out, <i>"McNally is right that even in market socialism, market 
forces rule workers' lives"</i> and this is <i>"a serious objection. But it is 
not tantamount to capitalism or to wage labour"</i> and it <i>"does not have 
exploitation in Marx's sense (i.e., wrongful expropriation of surplus by 
non-producers)"</i> [Justin Schwartz, <b>The American Political Science Review</b>, 
Vol. 88, No. 4, p. 982] For Marx, as we noted in <a href="secC2.html">section C.2</a>, 
commodity production only becomes capitalism when there is the exploitation of wage 
labour. This is the case with Proudhon as well, who differentiated between 
possession and private property and argued that co-operatives should replace 
capitalist firms. While their specific solutions may have differed (with 
Proudhon aiming for a market economy consisting of artisans, peasants and 
co-operatives while Marx aimed for communism, i.e. the abolition of money via
state ownership of capital) their analysis of capitalism and private property
were identical -- which Tucker consistently noted (as regards the theory of 
surplus value, for example, he argued that <i>"Proudhon propounded and proved 
[it] long before Marx advanced it."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 92, p. 1])
</p><p>
As Tucker argued, <i>"the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other 
forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea."</i> 
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, pp. 363-4] It is no surprise that the authoritarian left 
and "libertarian" right have united to define socialism in such a way as to eliminate 
anarchism from its ranks -- they both have an interest in removing a theory which 
exposes the inadequacies of their dogmas, which explains how we can have both 
liberty <b>and</b> equality and have a decent, free and just society.
</p><p>
There is another fallacy at the heart of the claim that markets and socialism
do not go together, namely that all markets are capitalist markets. So another
part of the problem is that the same word often means different things to 
different people. Both Kropotkin and Lenin said they were "communists" and 
aimed for "communism." However, it does not mean that the society Kropotkin 
aimed for was the same as that desired by Lenin. Kropotkin's communism was 
decentralised, created and run from the bottom-up while Lenin's was fundamentally 
centralised and top-down. Similarly, both Tucker and the Social-Democrat 
(and leading Marxist) Karl Kautsky called themselves a "socialist" yet their 
ideas on what a socialist society would be like were extremely different. As 
J.W. Baker notes, <i>"Tucker considered himself a socialist . . . as the result 
of his struggle against 'usury and capitalism,' but anything that smelled of 
'state socialism' was thoroughly rejected."</i> [<i>"Native American Anarchism,"</i> 
pp. 43-62, <b>The Raven</b>, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 60] This, of course, does not 
stop many "anarcho"-capitalists talking about "socialist" goals as if all 
socialists were Stalinists (or, at best, social democrats). In fact, "socialist 
anarchism" has included (and continues to include) advocates of truly free 
markets as well as advocates of a non-market socialism which has absolutely
nothing in common with the state capitalist tyranny of Stalinism. Similarly, 
they accept a completely ahistorical definition of "capitalism," so ignoring 
the massive state violence and support by which that system was created and is 
maintained. 
</p><p>
The same with terms like "property" and the "free market," by which the 
"anarcho"-capitalist assumes the individualist anarchist means the same 
thing as they do. We can take land as an example. The individualist anarchists 
argued for an <i><b>"occupancy and use"</b></i> system of "property" (see 
<a href="secG1.html#secg12">next section</a> for details). Thus in their 
"free market," land would not be a commodity as it is under capitalism and 
so under individualist anarchism absentee landlords would be considered as 
aggressors (for under capitalism they use state coercion to back up their 
collection of rent against the actual occupiers of property). Tucker argued 
that local defence associations should treat the occupier and user as the 
rightful owner, and defend them against the aggression of an absentee landlord 
who attempted to collect rent. An "anarcho"-capitalist would consider this as 
aggression <b>against</b> the landlord and a violation of "free market" 
principles. Such a system of "occupancy and use" would involve massive 
violations of what is considered normal in a capitalist "free market." 
Equally, a market system which was based on capitalist property rights in 
land would <b>not</b> be considered as genuinely free by the likes of Tucker.
</p><p>
This can be seen from Tucker's debates with supporters of laissez-faire capitalism
such as Auberon Herbert (who, as discussed in <a href="secF7.html#secf72">section F.7.2</a>,
was an English minimal statist and sometimes called a forerunner of 
"anarcho"-capitalism). Tucker quoted an English critic of Herbert, who noted
that <i>"When we come to the question of the ethical basis of property, Mr. 
Herbert refers us to 'the open market'. But this is an evasion. The question 
is not whether we should be able to sell or acquire 'in the open market' 
anything which we rightfully possess, but how we come into rightful possession."</i> 
[<b>Liberty</b>, no. 172, p. 7] Tucker rejected the idea <i>"that a man should 
be allowed a title to as much of the earth as he, in the course of his life, with 
the aid of all the workmen that he can employ, may succeed in covering with buildings. 
It is occupancy <b>and</b> use that Anarchism regards as the basis of land ownership, 
. . . A man cannot be allowed, merely by putting labour, to the limit of his
capacity and beyond the limit of his person use, into material of which there 
is a limited supply and the use of which is essential to the existence of other 
men, to withhold that material from other men's use; and any contract based upon 
or involving such withholding is as lacking in sanctity or legitimacy as a 
contract to deliver stolen goods."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, no. 331, p. 4]
</p><p>
In other words, an individualist anarchist would consider an "anarcho"-capitalist 
"free market" as nothing of the kind and vice versa. For the former, the 
individualist anarchist position on "property" would be considered as forms 
of regulation and restrictions on private property and so the "free market." 
The individualist anarchist would consider the "anarcho"-capitalist "free 
market" as another system of legally maintained privilege, with the free market 
distorted in favour of the wealthy. That capitalist property rights were
being maintained by private police would not stop that regime being unfree.
This can be seen when "anarcho"-capitalist Wendy McElroy states that
<i>"radical individualism hindered itself . . . Perhaps most destructively,
individualism clung to the labour theory of value and refused to incorporate 
the economic theories arising within other branches of individualist thought, 
theories such as marginal utility. Unable to embrace statism, the stagnant 
movement failed to adequately comprehend the logical alternative to the 
state -- a free market."</i> [<i>"Benjamin Tucker, <b>Liberty</b>, and 
Individualist Anarchism"</i>, pp. 421-434, <b>The Independent Review</b>, 
vol. II, No. 3, p. 433] Therefore, rather than being a source of commonality, 
individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism actually differ quite
considerably on what counts as a genuinely free market.
</p><p>
So it should be remembered that "anarcho"-capitalists at best agree 
with Tucker, Spooner, et al on fairly vague notions like the "free market." 
They do not bother to find out what the individualist anarchists meant by 
that term. Indeed, the "anarcho"-capitalist embrace of different economic 
theories means that they actually reject the reasoning that leads up to 
these nominal "agreements." It is the "anarcho"-capitalists who, by rejecting 
the underlying economics of the mutualists, are forced to take any "agreements" 
out of context. It also means that when faced with obviously anti-capitalist 
arguments and conclusions of the individualist anarchists, the 
"anarcho"-capitalist cannot explain them and are reduced to arguing that 
the anti-capitalist concepts and opinions expressed by the likes of Tucker 
are somehow "out of context." In contrast, the anarchist can explain these 
so-called "out of context" concepts by placing them into the context of the 
ideas of the individualist anarchists and the society which shaped them.
</p><p>
The "anarcho"-capitalist usually admits that they totally disagree with many 
of the essential premises and conclusions of the individualist anarchist analyses 
(see <a href="secG3.html">next section</a>). The most basic difference is that 
the individualist anarchists rooted their ideas in the labour theory of value 
while the "anarcho"-capitalists favour mainstream marginalist theory. It does 
not take much thought to realise that advocates of socialist theories 
and those of capitalist ones will naturally develop differing notions of 
what is and what should be happening within a given economic system. One 
difference that <b>has</b> in fact arisen is that the notion of what constitutes 
a "free market" has differed according to the theory of value applied. Many 
things can be attributed to the workings of a "free" market under a capitalist 
analysis that would be considered symptoms of economic unfreedom under most 
socialist driven analyses. 
</p><p>
This can be seen if you look closely at the case of Tucker's comments that 
anarchism was simply <i>"consistent Manchesterianism."</i> If this is done then a 
simple example of this potential confusion can be found. Tucker argued that 
anarchists <i>"accused"</i> the Manchester men <i>"of being inconsistent,"</i> 
that while being in favour of laissez faire for <i>"the labourer in order to 
reduce his wages"</i> they did not believe <i>"in liberty to compete with 
the capitalist in order to reduce his usury."</i> [<b>The Individualist 
Anarchists</b>, p. 83] To be consistent in this case is to be something 
other -- and more demanding in terms of what is accepted as "freedom" -- 
than the average Manchesterian (i.e. a supporter of "free market" capitalism). 
By <i>"consistent Manchesterism"</i>, Tucker meant a laissez-faire system in
which class monopolies did not exist, where capitalist private property
in land and intellectual property did not exist. In other words, a free
market purged of its capitalist aspects. Partisans of the capitalist theory 
see things differently, of course, feeling justified in calling many things 
"free" that anarchists would not accept, and seeing "constraint" in what 
the anarchists simply thought of as "consistency." This explains both his
criticism of capitalism <b>and</b> state socialism:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The complaint of the Archist Socialists that the Anarchists are bourgeois is 
true to this extent and no further -- that, great as is their detestation for 
a bourgeois society, they prefer its partial liberty to the complete slavery of 
State Socialism."</i> [<i>"Why I am an Anarchist"</i>, pp. 132-6, <b>Man!</b>, 
M. Graham (ed.), p. 136]
</blockquote></p><p>
It should be clear that a "free market" will look somewhat different depending 
on your economic presuppositions. Ironically, this is something "anarcho"-capitalists
implicitly acknowledge when they admit they do not agree with the likes of Spooner 
and Tucker on many of their key premises and conclusions (but that does not stop
them claiming -- despite all that -- that their ideas are a modern version of 
individualist anarchism!). Moreover, the "anarcho"-capitalist simply dismisses 
all the reasoning that got Tucker there -- that is like trying to justify a law 
citing Leviticus but then saying "but of course all that God stuff is just absurd."  
You cannot have it both ways. And, of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist support for 
non-labour based economics allow them to side-step (and so ignore) much of what 
anarchists -- communists, collectivists, individualists, mutualists and syndicalists 
alike -- consider authoritarian and coercive about "actually existing" capitalism. 
But the difference in economic analysis is critical. No matter what they are called, 
it is pretty clear that individualist anarchist standards for the freedom of 
markets are far more demanding than those associated with even the freest 
capitalist market system.
</p><p>
This is best seen from the development of individualist anarchism in the
20th century. As historian Charles A. Madison noted, it <i>"began to dwindle 
rapidly after 1900. Some of its former adherents joined the more aggressive 
communistic faction . . . many others began to favour the rising socialist 
movement as the only effective weapon against billion-dollar corporations."</i>
[<i>"Benjamin R. Tucker: Individualist and Anarchist,"</i> pp. 444-67, <b>The New
England Quarterly</b>, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. p. 464] Other historians have 
noted the same. <i>"By 1908,"</i> argued Eunice Minette Schuster <i>"the 
industrial system had fastened its claws into American soil"</i> and 
while the <i>"Individualist Anarchists had attempted to destroy monopoly,
privilege, and inequality, originating in the lack of opportunity"</i> 
the <i>"superior force of the system which they opposed . . . overwhelmed"</i>
them. Tucker left America in 1908 and those who remained <i>"embraced 
either Anarchist-Communism as the result of governmental violence against
the labourers and their cause, or abandoned the cause entirely."</i> 
[<b>Native American Anarchism</b>, p. 158, pp. 159-60 and p. 156] While
individualist anarchism did not entirely disappear with the ending of
<b>Liberty</b>, social anarchism became the dominant trend in America
as it had elsewhere in the world.
</p><p>
As we note in <a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a>, the apparent impossibility of 
mutual banking to eliminate corporations by economic competition was one of the
reasons Voltairine de Cleyre pointed to for rejecting individualist anarchism in 
favour of communist-anarchism. This problem was recognised by Tucker himself 
thirty years after <b>Liberty</b> had been founded. In the postscript to a 1911 
edition of his famous essay <i>"State Socialism and Anarchism"</i>, he argued 
that when he wrote it 25 years earlier <i>"the denial of competition had not 
effected the enormous concentration of wealth that now so gravely threatens 
social order"</i> and so while a policy of mutual banking might have stopped and 
reversed the process of accumulation in the past, the way now was <i>"not so 
clear."</i> This was because the tremendous capitalisation of industry now made 
the money monopoly a convenience, but no longer a necessity. Admitted Tucker, 
the <i>"trust is now a monster which . . . even the freest competition, could 
it be instituted, would be unable to destroy"</i> as <i>"concentrated capital"</i> 
could set aside a sacrifice fund to bankrupt smaller competitors and continue 
the process of expansion of reserves. Thus the growth of economic power, producing 
as it does natural barriers to entry from the process of capitalist production 
and accumulation, had resulted in a situation where individualist anarchist
solutions could no longer reform capitalism away. The centralisation of
capital had <i>"passed for the moment beyond their reach."</i> The problem 
of the trusts, he argued, <i>"must be grappled with for a time solely by 
forces political or revolutionary,"</i> i.e., through confiscation either
through the machinery of government <i>"or in denial of it."</i> Until 
this <i>"great levelling"</i> occurred, all individualist anarchists
could do was to spread their ideas as those trying to <i>"hasten it by 
joining in the propaganda of State Socialism or revolution make a sad
mistake indeed."</i> [quoted by James J. Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 273-4] 
</p><p>
In other words, the economic power of <i>"concentrated capital"</i> and 
<i>"enormous concentration of wealth"</i> placed an insurmountable obstacle 
to the realisation of anarchy. Which means that the abolition of usury and 
relative equality were considered <b>ends</b> rather than side effects for 
Tucker and if free competition could not achieve these then such a society 
would <b>not</b> be anarchist. If economic inequality was large enough, it 
meant anarchism was impossible as the rule of capital could be maintained
by economic power alone without the need for extensive state intervention
(this was, of course, the position of revolutionary anarchists like Bakunin,
Most and Kropotkin in the 1870s and onwards whom Tucker dismissed as not
being anarchists).
</p><p>
Victor Yarros is another example, an individualist anarchist and associate 
of Tucker, who by the 1920s had abandoned anarchism for social democracy, 
in part because he had become convinced that economic privilege could not 
be fought by economic means. As he put it, the most <i>"potent"</i> of the 
<i>"factors and forces [which] tended to undermine and discredit that movement"</i> 
was <i>"the amazing growth of trusts and syndicates, of holding companies and 
huge corporations, of chain banks and chain stores."</i> This <i>"gradually and 
insidiously shook the faith of many in the efficacy of mutual banks, co-operative
associations of producers and consumers, and the competition of little fellows. 
Proudhon's plan for a bank of the people to make industrial loans without 
interest to workers' co-operatives, or other members, seemed remote and 
inapplicable to an age of mass production, mechanisation, continental and 
international markets."</i> [<i>"Philosophical Anarchism: Its Rise, Decline, 
and Eclipse"</i>, pp. 470-483, <b>The American Journal of Sociology</b>, 
vol. 41, no. 4, p. 481]
</p><p>
If the individualist anarchists shared the "anarcho"-capitalist position or
even shared a common definition of "free markets" then the <i>"power of the 
trusts"</i> would simply not be an issue. This is because "anarcho"-capitalism 
does not acknowledge the existence of such power, as, by definition, it does 
not exist in capitalism (although as noted in <a href="secF1.html">section F.1</a>
Rothbard himself proved critics of this assertion right). Tucker's comments,
therefore, indicate well how far individualist anarchism actually is from 
"anarcho"-capitalism. The "anarcho"-capitalist desires free markets no matter 
their result or the concentration of wealth existing at their introduction. As 
can be seen, Tucker saw the existence of concentrations of wealth as a problem 
and a hindrance towards anarchy. Thus Tucker was well aware of the dangers to 
individual liberty of inequalities of wealth and the economic power they produce.
Equally, if Tucker supported the "free market" above all else then he would not 
have argued this point. Clearly, then, Tucker's support for the "free market" 
cannot be abstracted from his fundamental principles nor can it be equated 
with a "free market" based on capitalist property rights and massive 
inequalities in wealth (and so economic power). Thus individualist anarchist 
support for the free market does not mean support for a <b>capitalist</b> 
"free market." 
</p><p>
In summary, the "free market" as sought by (say) Tucker would not be classed 
as a "free market" by right-wing "libertarians." So the term "free market" 
(and, of course, "socialism") can mean different things to different people. 
As such, it would be correct to state that <b>all</b> anarchists oppose the 
"free market" by definition as all anarchists oppose the <b>capitalist</b> 
"free market." And, just as correctly, "anarcho"-capitalists would oppose the
individualist anarchist "free market," arguing that it would be no such thing 
as it would be restrictive of property rights (<b>capitalist</b> property rights 
of course). For example, the question of resource use in an individualist society 
is totally different than in a capitalist "free market" as landlordism would not 
exist. This is a restriction on capitalist property rights and a violation of a 
capitalist "free market." So an individualist "free market" would not be considered 
so by right-wing "libertarians" due to the substantial differences in the 
rights on which it would be based (with no right to capitalist private property 
being the most important).
</p><p>
All this means that to go on and on about individualist anarchism and it support 
for a free market simply misses the point. No one denies that individualist 
anarchists were (and are) in favour of a "free market" but this did not mean 
they were not socialists nor that they wanted the same kind of "free market" 
desired by "anarcho"-capitalism or that has existed under capitalism. Of course, 
whether their economic system would actually result in the abolition of 
exploitation and oppression is another matter and it is on this issue which 
social anarchists disagree with individualist anarchism <b>not</b> whether 
they are socialists or not.</p>

<h2><a name="secg12">G.1.2 What about their support of "private property"?</a></h2>
<p>
The notion that because the Individualist Anarchists supported "private property" 
they supported capitalism is distinctly wrong. This is for two reasons. Firstly, 
private property is not the distinctive aspect of capitalism -- exploitation of 
wage labour is. Secondly, and more importantly, what the Individualist Anarchists 
meant by "private property" (or "property") was distinctly different than what 
is meant by theorists on the "libertarian"-right or what is commonly accepted 
as "private property" under capitalism. Thus support of private property does 
not indicate a support for capitalism. 
</p><p>
On the first issue, it is important to note that there are many different 
kinds of private property. If quoting Karl Marx is not <b>too</b> out of 
place:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Political economy confuses, on principle, two very different kinds of 
private property, one of which rests on the labour of the producer himself, 
and the other on the exploitation of the labour of others. It forgets that 
the latter is not only the direct antithesis of the former, but grows on 
the former's tomb and nowhere else. 
</p><p>
"In Western Europe, the homeland of political economy, the process of 
primitive accumulation is more of less accomplished . . . 
</p><p>
"It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime constantly
comes up against the obstacle presented by the producer, who, as owner 
of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself 
instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically 
opposed economic systems has its practical manifestation here in the 
struggle between them."</i> [<b>Capital</b>, vol. 1, p. 931]
</blockquote></p><p>
So, under capitalism, <i>"property turns out to be the right, on the
part of the capitalist, to appropriate the unpaid labour of others,
or its product, and the impossibility, on the part of the worker,
of appropriating his own product."</i> In other words, property 
is not viewed as being identical with capitalism. <i>"The historical 
conditions of [Capital's] existence are by no means given with the 
mere circulation of money and commodities. It arises only when the 
owner of the means of production and subsistence finds the free 
worker available on the market, as the seller of his own labour-power."</i> 
Thus wage-labour, for Marx, is the necessary pre-condition for capitalism,
<b>not</b> "private property" as such as <i>"the means of production 
and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, 
are not capital. They only become capital under circumstances in which 
they serve at the same time as means of exploitation of, and domination 
over, the worker."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 730, p. 264 and p. 938] 
</p><p>
For Engels, <i>"[b]efore capitalistic production"</i> industry was <i>"based
upon the private property of the labourers in their means of production"</i>,
i.e., <i>"the agriculture of the small peasant"</i> and <i>"the handicrafts 
organised in guilds."</i> Capitalism, he argued, was based on capitalists 
owning <i>"<b>social</b> means of production only workable by a collectivity 
of men"</i> and so they <i>"appropriated . . . the product of the <b>labour 
of others</b>."</i> Both, it should be noted, had also made this same 
distinction in the <b>Communist Manifesto</b>, stating that <i>"the 
distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally,
but the abolition of bourgeois property."</i> Artisan and peasant property is 
<i>"a form that preceded the bourgeois form"</i> which there <i>"is no need 
to abolish"</i> as <i>"the development of industry has to a great extent 
already destroyed it."</i> This means that communism <i>"derives no man of 
the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to 
deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such 
appropriation."</i> [Marx and Engels, <b>Selected Works</b>, p. 412, p. 413, 
p. 414, p. 47 and p. 49]
</p><p>
We quote Marx and Engels simply because as authorities on socialism go, they 
are ones that right-"libertarians" (or Marxists, for that matter) cannot 
ignore or dismiss. Needless to say, they are presenting an identical analysis 
to that of Proudhon in <b>What is Property?</b> and, significantly, Godwin in 
his <b>Political Justice</b> (although, of course, the conclusions drawn from 
this common critique of capitalism were radically different in the case of
Proudhon). This is, it must be stressed, simply Proudhon's distinction 
between property and possession (see <a href="secB3.html#secb31">section B.3.1</a>). 
The former is theft and despotism, the latter is liberty. In other words, 
for genuine anarchists, "property" is a <i><b>social relation</b></i> and 
that a key element of anarchist thinking (both social and individualist) 
was the need to redefine that relation in accord with standards of liberty 
and justice.
</p><p>
So what right-"libertarians" do when they point out that the individualist
anarchists supported property is to misunderstand the socialist critique of
capitalism. They, to paraphrase Marx, confuse two very different kinds 
of "property," one of which rests on the labour of the producers themselves 
and the other on the exploitation of the labour of others. They do not 
analyse the social relationships between people which the property in question
generates and, instead, concentrate on <b>things</b> (i.e. property). Thus, 
rather than being interested in people and the relationships they create 
between themselves, the right-"libertarian" focuses on property (and, more 
often than not, just the word rather than what the word describes). This 
is a strange position for someone seeking liberty to take, as liberty 
is a product of social interaction (i.e. the relations we have and create 
with others) and not a product of things (property is not freedom as freedom 
is a relationship between people, not things). They confuse property with 
possession (and vice versa).
</p><p>
In pre-capitalist social environments, when property is directly owned
by the producer, capitalist defences of private property can be used
against it. Even John Locke's arguments in favour of private property 
could be used against capitalism. As Murray Bookchin makes clear regarding 
pre-capitalist society:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Unknown in the 1640s, the non-bourgeois aspects of Locke's theories 
were very much in the air a century and a half later . . . [In an 
artisan/peasant society] a Lockean argument could be used as effectively 
against the merchants . . . to whom the farmers were indebted, as it 
could against the King [or the State]. Nor did the small proprietors of 
America ever quite lose sight of the view that attempts to seize their
farmsteads and possessions for unpaid debts were a violation of their 
'natural rights,' and from the 1770s until as late as the 1930s they 
took up arms to keep merchants and bankers from dispossessing them from 
land they or their ancestors had wrestled from 'nature' by virtue of 
their own labour. The notion that property was sacred was thus highly 
elastic: it could be used as effectively by pre-capitalist strata to hold
on to their property as it could by capitalists strata to expand their 
holdings."</i> [<b>The Third Revolution</b>, vol. 1, 
pp. 187-8]
</blockquote></p><p>
The individualist anarchists inherited this perspective on property
and sought means of ending the transformation of American society
from one where labour-property predominated into one where capitalist
private property (and so exploitation) predominated. Thus their
opposition to state interference in the economy as the capitalists
were using the state to advance this process (see <a href="secF8.html#secf85">
section F.8.5</a>).
</p><p>
So artisan and co-operative property is not capitalist. It does not 
generate relationships of exploitation and domination as the worker owns 
and controls their own means of production. It is, in effect, a form of 
socialism (a <i>"petit bourgeois"</i> form of socialism, to use the typical 
insulting Marxist phrase). Thus support for "private property" need not 
mean support for capitalism (as shown, for example, by the Individualist 
Anarchists). To claim otherwise is to ignore the essential insight of 
socialism and totally distort the socialist case against capitalism.
</p><p>
To summarise, from an anarchist (and Marxist) perspective capitalism
is <b>not</b> defined by "property" as such. Rather, it is defined by 
private property, property which is turned into a means of exploiting 
the labour of those who use it. For most anarchists, this is done by means
of wage labour and abolished by means of workers' associations and 
self-management (see <a href="secG1.html#secg13">next section</a> for a
discussion of individualist anarchism and wage labour). To use Proudhon's 
terminology, there is a fundamental difference between property and 
possession.
</p><p>
Secondly, and more importantly, what the Individualist Anarchists 
meant by "private property" (or "property") was distinctly different 
than what is meant by supporters of capitalism. Basically, the 
"libertarian" right exploit, for their own ends, the confusion 
generated by the use of the word "property" by the likes of Tucker 
to describe a situation of "possession." Proudhon recognised this 
danger. He argued that <i>"it is proper to call different things by 
different names, if we keep the name 'property' for the former 
[individual possession], we must call the latter [the domain of 
property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we 
reserve the name 'property' for the latter, we must designate the 
former by the term <b>possession</b> or some other equivalent; otherwise 
we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym."</i> [<b>What is 
Property?</b>, p. 373] Unfortunately Tucker, who translated this 
work, did not heed Proudhon's words of wisdom and called possession 
in an anarchist society by the word "property" (but then, neither did
Proudhon in the latter part of his life!)
</p><p>
Looking at Tucker's arguments, it is clear that the last thing
Tucker supported was capitalist property rights. For example,
he argued that <i>"property, in the sense of individual possession,
is liberty"</i> and contrasted this with capitalist property. 
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 394] That his ideas on "property" 
were somewhat different than that associated with right-"libertarian"
thinkers is most clearly seen with regards to land. Here we discover 
him advocating <i>"occupancy and use"</i> and rejecting the "right" 
of land owners to bar the landless from any land they owned but 
did not <b>personally</b> use. Rent was <i>"due to that denial
of liberty which takes the shape of land monopoly, vesting titles
to land in individuals and associations which do not use it,
and thereby compelling the non-owning users to pay tribute to the
non-using owners as a condition of admission to the competitive
market."</i> Anarchist opposition of rent did <i>"not mean simply the
freeing of unoccupied land. It means the freeing of all land not 
occupied <b>by the owner.</b> In other words, it means land ownership 
limited by occupancy and use."</i> [Tucker, <b>The Individualist 
Anarchists</b>, p. 130 and p. 155] This would result in a <i>"system 
of occupying ownership . . . accompanied by no legal power to 
collect rent."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 325]
</p><p>
A similar position was held by John Beverley Robinson. He argued
that there <i>"are two kinds of land ownership, proprietorship or
property, by which the owner is absolute lord of the land, to use 
it or to hold it out of use, as it may please him; and possession,
by which he is secure in the tenure of land which he uses and
occupies, but has no claim upon it at all if he ceases to use
it."</i> Moreover, <i>"[a]ll that is necessary to do away with Rent
is to away with absolute property in land."</i> [<b>Patterns of 
Anarchy</b>, p. 272] Joseph Labadie, likewise, stated that <i>"the 
two great sub-divisions of Socialists"</i> (anarchists and State 
Socialists) both <i>"agree that the resources of nature -- land, 
mines, and so forth -- should not be held as private property and 
subject to being held by the individual for speculative purposes, 
that use of these things shall be the only valid title, and that 
each person has an equal right to the use of all these things. 
They all agree that the present social system is one composed of 
a class of slaves and a class of masters, and that justice is 
impossible under such conditions."</i> [<b>What is Socialism?</b>] 
</p><p>
Thus the Individualist Anarchists definition of "property" differed 
considerably from that of the capitalist definition. As they 
themselves acknowledge. Robinson argued that <i>"the only real
remedy is a change of heart, through which land using will be
recognised as proper and legitimate, but land holding will be
regarded as robbery and piracy."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 273] 
Tucker, likewise, indicated that his ideas on "property" were not the
same as existing ones when he argued that <i>"the present system of
land tenure should be changed to one of occupancy and use"</i> and
that <i>"no advocate of occupancy-and-use tenure of land believes
that it can be put in force, until as a theory it has been as
generally . . . seen and accepted as the prevailing theory of
ordinary private property."</i> [<b>Occupancy and Use verses the Single
Tax</b>] Thus, for Tucker, anarchism is dependent on <i>"the Anarchistic
view that occupancy and use should condition and limit landholding
becom[ing] the prevailing view."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>,
p. 159]
</p><p>
Based on this theory of "property" Tucker opposed landlords and rent, arguing
that anarchy <i>"means the freeing of all land not occupied <b>by the owner</b>"</i> 
that is, <i>"land ownership limited by occupancy and use."</i> He extended this 
principle to housing, arguing that <i>"Anarchic associations"</i> would <i>"not 
collect your rent, and might not even evict your tenant"</i> and <i>"tenants 
would not be forced to pay you rent, nor would you be allowed to seize their 
property. The Anarchic Associations would look upon your tenants very much as 
they would look upon your guests."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 155 and p. 162] In 
fact, individualist anarchism would <i>"accord the actual occupant and user of 
land the right to that which is upon the land, who left it there when abandoning 
the land."</i> [Tucker, <b>Liberty</b>, no. 350, p. 4]
</p><p>
In the case of land and housing, almost all Individualist Anarchists argued that the 
person who lives or works on it (even under lease) would be regarded <i>"as the 
occupant and user of the land on which the house stands, and as the owner of the 
house itself,"</i> that is they become <i>"the owner of both land and house as 
soon as he becomes the occupant."</i> [Tucker, <b>Occupancy and Use Versus 
the Single Tax</b>] For Tucker, occupancy and use was <i>"the Anarchistic solution 
of the land question"</i> as it allowed free access to land to all, to be 
<i>"enjoyed by the occupant without payment of tribute to a non-occupant."</i> 
This applied to what was on the land as well, for if A builds a house, and rents 
it to B, who lives or works in it under the lease then Tucker would <i>"regard B 
as the occupant and user of the land on which the house stands, and as <b>the 
owner of the house itself.</b>"</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 308, p. 4] 
</p><p>
Needless to say, the individualist anarchists were just as opposed to that 
mainstay of modern capitalism, the corporation. For Greene corporations 
<i>"disarrange our social organisation, and make the just distribution of 
the products of labour impossible."</i> [quoted by Wm. Gary Kline, <b>The 
Individualist Anarchists: A Critique of Liberalism</b>, p. 94] While opposing 
state attempts to limit trusts (it did not get to the root of the problem 
which lay in class privilege), Tucker took it for granted that <i>"corporate 
privileges are in themselves a wrong."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, 
p. 129] Given that "occupancy and use" applies to what is on the land, it
logically follows that for those workplaces with absentee owners (i.e., owners 
who hire managers to run them) then these are abandoned by their owners. By 
the "occupancy and use" criteria, the land and what is on it reverts to those 
actually using them (i.e., the workers in question). Corporations and shareowners, 
in other words, are extremely unlikely to exist in individualist anarchism.
</p><p>
Hence to claim that the Individualist Anarchists supported capitalist
property rights is false. As can be seen, they advocated a system
which differed significantly to the current system, indeed they
urged the restriction of property rights to a form of possession.
Unfortunately, by generally using the term "property" to describe
this new system of possession they generated exactly the confusion
that Proudhon foretold. Sadly, right-"libertarians" use this confusion
to promote the idea that the likes of Tucker supported capitalist
property rights and so capitalism. As Tucker argued, <i>"[d]efining it 
with Proudhon as the sum total of legal privileges bestowed upon the 
holder wealth, [individualist anarchism] agrees with Proudhon that 
property is robbery. But using the word in the commoner acceptation,
as denoting the labour's individual possession of his product or of his
proportional share of the joint product of himself and others, [it] 
holds that property is liberty."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 122, p. 4]
</p><p>
If, as it is sometimes suggested, the difference between a right "libertarian" is 
that they despise the state because it hinders the freedom of property while left 
libertarians condemn it because it is a bastion of property, it is worthwhile to 
note two important facts. Firstly, that individualist anarchism condemns the state 
because it protects the land monopoly, i.e., capitalist property rights in land and 
what is on it, rather than a system of "occupancy and use." Secondly, that all 
schools of anarchist oppose capitalism because it is based on the exploitation of 
labour, an exploitation which the state protects. Hence de Cleyre: <i>"I wish a 
sharp distinction made between the legal institution of property, and property in 
the sense that what a man definitely produces by his own labour is his own."</i> 
The inequality and oppressions of capitalism are <i>"the inevitable result of the 
whole politico-economic lie that man can be free and the institution of property 
continue to exist."</i> [<b>Exquisite Rebel</b>, p. 297] Given this, given these 
bastions of property against which the both the individualist and social anarchists 
turn their fire, it is obvious that both schools are left libertarians.
</p><p>
For these reasons it is clear that just because the Individualist Anarchists 
supported (a form of) "property" does not mean they are capitalists. After 
all, as we note in the <a href="secG2.html">section G.2</a> communist-anarchists 
recognise the necessity of allowing individuals to own and work their own land 
and tools if they so desire yet no one claims that they support "private 
property." Equally, that many of the Individualist Anarchists used the term 
"property" to describe a system of possession (or <i>"occupancy-and-use"</i>) 
should not blind us to the non-capitalist nature of that "property." Once we 
move beyond looking at the words they used to what they meant by those words 
we clearly see that their ideas are distinctly different from those of 
supporters of capitalism. In fact, they share a basic commonality with 
social anarchism (<i>"Property will lose a certain attribute which 
sanctifies it now. The absolute ownership of it -- 'the right to use 
or abuse' will be abolished -- and possession, use, will be the only 
title."</i> [Albert R. Parsons, <b>Anarchism: Its Philosophy and 
Scientific Basis</b>, p. 173]). This should be unsurprising given the
influence of Proudhon on both wings of the movement.
</p><p>
As Malatesta noted, recognising the <i>"the right of workers to the products of 
their own labour,"</i> demanding <i>"the abolition of interest"</i> and <i>"the 
division of land and the instruments of labour among those who wish to use them"</i> 
would be <i>"a socialist school different from [communist-anarchism], but it is
still socialism."</i> It would be a <i>"mutualist"</i> socialism. [<b>At the Caf</b>, 
p. 54 and p. 56] In other words, property need not be incompatible with socialism. 
It all depends on the type of property being advocated.</p>

<h2><a name="secg13">G.1.3 What about their support for wage labour?</a></h2>
<p>
As we have argued in <a href="secA2.html#seca28">section A.2.8</a> and 
elsewhere, a consistent anarchist must oppose wage labour as this is a
form of hierarchical authority. While social anarchism has drawn this
logical conclusion from anarchist principles, individualist anarchism 
has not. While many of its supporters have expressed opposition to 
wage labour along with other forms hierarchical organisation, some 
(like Tucker) did not. The question is whether supporting wage labour
disqualifies them from the socialist movement or not.
</p><p>
Within individualist anarchism, there are two different positions on this
matter. Some of them clearly opposed wage labour as inherently exploitative
and saw their socio-economic ideas as a means of ending it. Others argued
that it was not wage labour <b>as such</b> which was the problem and, as a 
consequence, they did not expect it to disappear under anarchy. So opposition 
to exploitation of labour was a universal thread in Individualist Anarchist 
thought, as it was in the social anarchist movement. However, opposition to 
wage slavery was a common, but not universal, thread within the individualist 
anarchist tradition. As we discuss in <a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a>, 
this is one of the key reasons why social anarchists reject individualist 
anarchism, arguing that this makes it both inconsistent in terms of general 
anarchist principles as well in the principles of individualist anarchism.
</p><p>
Voltairine de Cleyre in her overview of anarchism put the difference in 
terms of individualist anarchism and mutualist anarchism. As she put it,
the <i>"extreme individualists"</i> held that the <i>"essential institutions 
of Commercialism are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by 
the interference by the State."</i> This meant <i>"the system of employer and 
employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions 
of Commercialism"</i> would exist under their form of anarchism. Two key
differences were that property in land  would be modified so that it could 
be <i>"held by individuals or companies for such time and in such allotments 
as they use only"</i> and that <i>"wages would rise to the full measure of
the individual production, and forever remain there"</i> as <i>"bosses would
be hunting for men rather than men bosses."</i> In other words, land would no 
longer owned as under capitalism and workers would no longer be exploited as 
profit, interest and rent could not exist and the worker would get the full 
product of his or her labour in wages. In contrast, mutualist anarchism <i>"is 
a modification of the program of Individualism, laying more emphasis upon 
organisation, co-operation and free federation of the workers. To these the 
trade union is the nucleus of the free co-operative group, which will obviate 
the necessity of an employer . . . The mutualist position on the land question 
is identical with that of the Individualists."</i> The <i>"material factor which
accounts for such differences as there are between Individualists and
Mutualists"</i> was due to the former being intellectual workers and so
<i>"never know[ing] directly the oppressions of the large factory, nor
mingled with workers' associations. The Mutualists had; consequently their
leaning towards a greater Communism."</i> [<i>"Anarchism"</i>, <b>Exquisite 
Rebel</b>, p. 77 and p. 78]
</p><p>
Next, we must clarify what is meant by <b><i>"wage labour"</i></b> and the
related term <b><i>"wages system."</i></b> They are not identical. Marx,
for example, corrected the Gotha Programme's <i>"abolition of the wage
system"</i> by saying <i>"it should read: system of wage labour"</i> (although
that did not stop him demanding <i>"the ultimate abolition of the wages
system"</i> elsewhere). [Marx and Engels, <b>Selected Works</b>, p. 324
and p. 226] The difference lies in whether there is communism (distribution
according to need) or socialism (distribution according to work done), as 
in Marx's (in)famous difference between a lower and higher phase of communism.
It is the difference between a distribution of goods based on deeds and 
one based on needs and Kropotkin famous polemic <i>"The collectivist Wages 
System"</i> rests on it. He argued that the wages system was based on 
<i>"renumeration to each according to the time spent in producing, while 
taking into account the productivity of his labour"</i>. In other words: 
<i>"To each according to his deeds."</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, 
p. 162 and p. 167] Such a wages system could exist in different forms. Most 
obviously, and the focus of Kropotkin's critique, it could be a regime where 
the state owned the means of production and paid its subjects according to 
their labour (i.e., state socialism). It could also refer to a system of 
artisans, peasants and co-operatives which sold the product of their labour 
on a market or exchanged their goods with others based on labour-time notes
(i.e., associational socialism).
</p><p>
This should not be confused with wage labour, in which a worker sells their
labour to a boss. This results in a hierarchical social relationship being
created in which the worker is the servant of the employer. The employer, as 
they own the labour of the worker, also keeps the product of said labour and as 
we argued in <a href="secC2.html">section C.2</a>, this places the boss is in 
a position to get the worker to produce more than they get back in wages. In 
other words, wage labour is based on oppression and can result in exploitation
as the bosses control both the production process (i.e., the labour of the 
workers) and the goods it produces. It is this which explains socialist 
opposition to wage labour -- it is the means by which labour is exploited 
under capitalism (anarchist opposition to wage labour includes this but also 
extends it to include its denial of freedom to those subject to workplace 
hierarchy).
</p><p>
So for the purposes of this discussion <i><b>"wage labour"</b></i> refers to 
hierarchical social relationships <b>within</b> production while <i><b>"wages 
system"</b></i> refers to how goods are distributed once they are produced. Thus 
you can have a wages system without wage labour but not wage labour without a 
wages system. Communist-anarchists aim for the abolition of both wage labour 
and the wages system while mutualist-anarchists only aim to get rid of the first 
one.
</p><p>
The problem is that the terms are sometimes mixed up, with "wages" and "wages system" 
being confused with "wage labour." This is the case with the nineteenth century 
American labour movement which tended to use the term "wages system" to refer to
wage labour and the expression <i>"abolition of the wages system"</i> to refer to
the aim of replacing capitalism with a market system based on producer co-operatives.
This is reflected in certain translations of Proudhon. Discussing the <i>"workmen's 
associations"</i> founded in France during the 1848 revolution, Proudhon noted that 
<i>"the workmen, in order to dispense with middlemen . . . , capitalists, etc., . . . 
have had to work a little more, and get along with less wages."</i> So he 
considered workers associations as paying "wages" and so, obviously, meant by 
"wages" labour income, <b>not</b> wage labour. The term "wage labour" was 
translated as "wages system," so we find Proudhon arguing that the <i>"workmen's 
associations"</i> are <i>"a protest against the wage system"</i> and a <i>"denial of 
the rule of capitalists."</i> Proudhon's aim was <i>"Capitalistic and proprietary 
exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange 
guaranteed."</i> [<b>The General Idea of the Revolution</b>, pp. 89-90, p. 98 and 
p. 281] This has been translated as <i>"Capitalist and landlord exploitation halted 
everywhere, wage-labour abolished."</i> [quoted by John Ehrenberg, <b>Proudhon and 
his Age</b>, p. 116]
</p><p>
We are sorry to belabour this point, but it is essential for understanding the
anarchist position on wage labour and the differences between different schools
of socialism. So before discussing the relation of individualist anarchism to wage 
labour we needed to clarify what is meant by the term, particularly as some people
use the term wages to mean any kind of direct payment for labour and so wage labour 
is sometimes confused with the wages system. Similarly, the terms wage labour and
wages systems are often used interchangeably when, in fact, they refer to different
things and abolition the wages system can mean different things depending on who
is using the expression.
</p><p>
So after this unfortunately essential diversion, we can now discuss the position
of individualist anarchism on wage labour. Unfortunately, there is no consistent
position on this issue within the tradition. Some follow social anarchism in 
arguing that a free society would see its end, others see no contradiction 
between their ideas and wage labour. We will discuss each in turn.
</p><p>
Joshua King Ingalls, for example, praised attempts to set up communities based on 
libertarian principles as <i>"a demonstration . . . that none need longer submit 
to the tyranny and exactions of the swindler and speculator in the products of 
others toil. The example would be speedily followed by others who would break 
away from the slavery of wages, and assert their independence of capital."</i> 
[<i>"Method of Transition for the Consideration of the True Friends of Human 
Rights and Human Progress,"</i> <b>Spirit of the Age</b>, Vol. I, No. 25, pp. 385-387]
The <i>"present relation of 'Capital and Labor' is . . . really a mixed relation 
between contract and status; held by fiction of law as one of 'freedom of contract,' 
while it retains potentially all the essential features of serfdom. Industrially 
and economically, the relation is substantially the same as that which existed 
between the chattel and his owner, and the serf and his lord."</i> Ingalls pointed 
to <i>"the terrible fear of being 'out of a job,' which freedom of contract means 
to a wage-worker."</i> [<i>"Industrial Wars and Governmental Interference,"</i> 
<b>The Twentieth Century</b>, September 6, 1894, pp. 11-12] <i>"To reward capital,"</i>
he argued, <i>"is a direct inversion of natural right, as the right of man must be 
acknowledged paramount to that of property . . . Any system, securing a premium to 
capital, however small, must result in the want, degradation and servitude of one 
class, and in bestowing unearned wealth and power upon another."</i> [<i>"Man and 
Property, their Rights and Relations,"</i> <b>Spirit of the Age</b>, vol. I, no. 8,
pp. 114-116] Like Proudhon, he recognised that joint productive activity resulted
in an output greater than that possible by the same number of people working in
isolation, an output monopolised by those who owned the workplace or land in 
question:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"That the operation of any wealth increasing enterprise is co-operative 
needs only stating . . . and its logic in division of the product of the 
conjoint labour, can only be frustrated by the fiction that the worker has 
contracted away his share of the increase by accepting wages. But, being 
dispossessed of his common right to land, and to opportunity to use the 
common materials and forces, he can make no equitable contract and cannot 
be lawfully thus concluded . . . The only pretence which prevents this 
distribution, is the plea that the worker in accepting wages, has tacitly 
contracted away his share of the increase, has made a sale of his interest. 
Even this subterfuge fails logically however, whenever the operators reduce 
the rate of compensation without the full concurrence of the co-operative 
workers, and their just claim to joint ownership obtains again. It is 
altogether too late, to urge that this is a mere matter of exchange; so 
much money, so much labour-; and that the operator may lay off and take on 
whom he pleases. It never was, as economists teach, a matter of exchange, 
but one of co-operative endeavour."</i> [<i>"Industrial Wars and Governmental 
Interference,"</i> <b>The Twentieth Century</b>, September 6, 1894, pp. 11-12]
</blockquote></p><p>
Unsurprisingly given this analysis he saw the need to replace wage labour (which 
he called <i>"false and immoral"</i>) with a better system: <i>"the adoption of 
honesty in our useful industries, and a reciprocal system of exchange, would unfold 
a grand and universal cooperative movement, seems so clear to me."</i> [<i>"The 
Wage Question"</i>, <b>The American Socialist</b>, Vol. 2, No. 38, p. 298] This 
would result in a boost to economic activity:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"No one, say they, will do anything but for profits. But the man who works for 
wages has no profits; and is not only destitute of this stimulus, but his labour 
product is minus the profits of the capitalist, landlord, and forestaller. A 
rational economy would seem to require, that if any one received extra inducement 
to act, it should be that one who did the most labourious and repulsive work. It 
is thus seen, that while exorbitant profits afford an unnatural stimulus, in mere 
wages we have an inadequate motive to action."</i> [<i>"Labor, Wages, And Capital. 
Division Of Profits Scientifically Considered"</i>, <b>Brittan's Quarterly Journal</b>, 
No. I, pp. 66-79]
</blockquote></p><p>
The land monopoly was <i>"the foundation of class dominion and of poverty
and industrial subjection."</i> [quoted by Bowman N. Hall, <i>"Joshua K. 
Ingalls, American Individualist: Land Reformer, Opponent of Henry George 
and Advocate of Land Leasing, Now an Established Mode",</i> pp. 383-96, 
<b>American Journal of Economics and Sociology</b>, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 387]
Without access to land, people would have no option to sell their liberty
to others and, as such, the abolition of slavery and wage labour were
related:
<blockquote></p><p><i>
"The right to life involves the right to land to live and labour upon.
Commercial ownership of land which enables one to exclude another from
it, and thus enforces involuntary idleness, is as destructive of 
human freedom as ownership of the person, enforcing involuntary 
service . . . Liberation of the slaves would bring their labour in 
more direct competition with our over-crowded and poorly paid 
wage-workers. I did not offer this as a reason against the abolition
of chattel slavery, but as a reason why the friends of emancipation 
from chattel slavery should unite with the friends for the emancipation
of the wage worker, by restoring him the right to land, for the 
production of the means of life . . . The real issue was between the
rights of labour and the rights of ownership."</i> [quoted by Bowman 
N. Hall, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 385]
</blockquote></p><p>
This analysis was a common theme in pre-civil war libertarian circles.
As historian James J. Martin noted, <i>"[t]o men like Warren and Evens 
chattel slavery was merely one side of a brutal situation, and although 
sympathetic with its opponents, refused to take part in the struggle 
[against slavery] unless it was extended to a wholesale attack on what 
they termed 'wage slavery' in the states where Negro slavery no longer 
existed."</i> [<b>Men Against the State</b>, p. 81] Such a view, we may 
add, was commonplace in radical working class journals and movements of 
the time. Thus we find George Henry Evans (who heavily influenced 
Individualist Anarchists like Warren and Ingalls with the ideas of 
land reform based on <i>"occupancy and use"</i>) writing:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"I was formally, like yourself, sir, a very warm advocate of the
abolition of (black) slavery. This was before I saw that there was
white slavery. Since I saw this, I have materially changed my views
as to the means of abolishing Negro slavery. I now see clearly, I
think, that to give the landless black the privilege of changing
masters now possessed by the landless white, would hardly be a
benefit to him in exchange for his surety of support in sickness
and old age, although he is in a favourable climate."</i> [quoted
by Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 81f]
</blockquote></p><p>
Ingalls, likewise, <i>"considered the only 'intelligent' strike [by workers 
as] one which would be directed against wage work altogether."</i> For 
Lysander Spooner, liberty meant that the worker was entitled to <i>"all 
the fruits of his own labour"</i> and argued that this <i>"might be feasible"</i> 
only when <i>"every man [was] own employer or work for himself in a direct
way, since working for another resulted in a portion being diverted to the
employer."</i> [Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 153 and p. 172] To quote Spooner:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"When a man knows that he is to have <b>all</b> the fruits of his labour, 
he labours with more zeal, skill, and physical energy, than when he 
knows -- as in the case of one labouring for wages -- that a portion 
of the fruits of his labour are going to another. . . In order that 
each man may have the fruits of his own labour, it is important, as 
a general rule, that each man should be his own employer, or work 
directly for himself, and not for another for wages; because, in the 
latter case, a part of the fruits of his labour go to his employer, 
instead of coming to himself . . . That each man may be his own employer, 
it is necessary that he have materials, or capital, upon which to bestow 
his labour."</i> [<b>Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure</b>, 
p. 8]
</blockquote></p><p>
Wage labour had a negative impact on those subject to it in terms of their
personal development. <i>"The mental independence of each individual would
be greatly promoted by his pecuniary independence,"</i> Spooner argued. <i>"Freedom 
of thought, and the free utterance of thought, are, to a great degree, suppressed
. . . by their dependence upon the will and favour of others, for that employment 
by which they must obtain their daily bread. They dare not investigate, or if they 
investigate, dare not freely avow and advocate those moral, social, religious, 
political, and economical truths, which alone calm rescue them from their 
degradation, lest they should thereby sacrifice their bread by stirring the 
jealousy of those out whom they are dependent, and who derive their power, 
wealth, and consequence from the ignorance and servitude of the poor."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 54] As we argued in <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a>,
all forms of hierarchy (including wage labour) distorts the personality and
harms the individual psychologically.
</p><p>
Spooner argued that it was state restrictions on credit and money (the 
<i>"money monopoly"</i> based on banks requiring specie to operate) as 
the reason why people sell themselves to others on the labour market. 
As he put it, <i>"a monopoly of money . . . . put[s] it wholly out of 
the power of the great body of wealth-producers to hire the capital 
needed for their industries; and thus compel them . . . -- by the 
alternative of starvation -- to sell their labour to the monopolists 
of money . . . [who] plunder all the producing classes in the prices 
of their labour."</i> Spooner was well aware that it was capitalists
who ran the state (<i>"the employers of wage labour . . . are also the
monopolists of money"</i>). In his ideal society, the <i>"amount of money 
capable of being furnished . . . is so great that every man, woman, and 
child. . . could get it, and go into business for himself, or herself -- 
either singly, or in partnerships -- and be under no necessity to act as 
a servant, or sell his or her labour to others. All the great establishments,
of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing
a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few, or
no persons, who could hire capital, and do business for themselves,
would consent to labour for wages for another."</i> [<b>A Letter to Grover 
Cleveland</b>, p. 20, p. 48 and p. 41]
</p><p>
As Eunice Minette Schuster noted, Spooner's <i>"was a revolt against the industrial
system"</i>, a <i>"<b>return</b> to <b>pre-industrial</b> society."</i> He 
<i>"would destroy the factory system, wage labour . . . by making every individual 
a small capitalist, an independent producer"</i> and <i>"turn the clock of time 
backwards, not forward."</i> This position seems to have been a common one, for 
<i>"the early American Individualists aimed to return . . . to an economic system 
where everyone would be a small, independent proprietor."</i> [<b>Native American 
Anarchism</b>, p. 148, pp. 151-2 and p. 157] As another commentator on individualist 
anarchism also noted, <i>"the dominant vision of the future was obviously that of 
a relatively modest scale of production . . . underpinned by individual, self-employed 
workers"</i> and so the individualist anarchists <i>"expected a society of largely 
self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth between any of them."</i> 
[Wm. Gary Kline <b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 95 and p. 104] 
</p><p>
This is not to say that all the individualist anarchists ignored the rise of
large scale industrial production. Far from it. Tucker, Greene and Lum all
recognised that anarchism had to adjust to the industrial system and proposed
different solutions for it. Greene and Lum followed Proudhon and advocated
co-operative production while Tucker argued that mutual banks could result in
a non-exploitative form of wage labour developing.
</p><p>
William Greene pronounced that <i>"[t]here is no device of the political economists 
so infernal as the one which ranks labour as a commodity, varying in value 
according to supply and demand . . . To speak of labour as merchandise is 
treason; for such speech denies the true dignity of man . . . Where labour 
is merchandise in fact . . . there man is merchandise also, whether in England 
or South Carolina."</i> This meant that, <i>"[c]onsidered from this point of 
view, the price of commodities is regulated not by the labour expended in their 
production, but by the distress and want of the labouring class. The greater 
the distress of the labourer, the more willing will he be to work for low wages, 
that is, the higher will be the price he is willing to give for the necessaries 
of life. When the wife and children of the labourer ask for bread, and he has 
none to give them, then, according to the political economists, is the 
community prosperous and happy; for then the rate of wages is low, and 
commodities command a high price in labour."</i> [<b>Mutual Banking</b>, pp. 49-50
and p. 49] 
</p><p>
Greene's alternative was co-operation in production, consumption and exchange.
<i>"The triple formula of practical mutualism"</i>, he argued, was <i>"the 
associated workshop"</i> for production, the <i>"protective union store"</i> 
for consumption and the <i>"the Mutual Bank"</i> for exchange. All three
were required, for <i>"the Associated Workshop cannot exist for a single day 
without the Mutual Bank and the Protective Union Store."</i> Without mutual
banking, the productive co-operatives would not survive as it would not gain
access to credit or at a high rate (<i>"How do you advance the cause of labour 
by putting your associated neck under the heel of capital? Your talk about 'the 
emancipation of labour' is wind and vapour; labour cannot be emancipated by any 
such process."</i>) Thus the <i>"Associated Workshop ought to be an organisation 
of personal credit. For what is its aim and purpose? Is it not the emancipation 
of the labourer from all dependence upon capital and capitalists?"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 37, p. 34, p. 35 and p. 34] The example of the Mondragon co-operative complex
in the Basque country confirms the soundness of Greene's analysis.
</p><p>
Here we see a similar opposition to the commodification of labour (and so labourers) 
within capitalism that also marks social anarchist thought. As Rocker notes, Greene 
<i>"emphasised more strongly the <b>principle of association</b> than did Josiah 
Warren and more so than Spooner had done."</i> He had a <i>"strong sympathy for the 
<b>principle of association.</b> In fact, the theory of Mutualism is nothing less 
that co-operative labour based on the cost principle."</i> He also <i>"rejected 
. . . the designation of labour as a <b>commodity</b>"</i> and <i>"constantly
endeavoured to introduce his ideas into the youthful labour movement . . . so as 
to prevent the social problem being regarded by labour as only a question of wages."</i> 
[<b>Pioneers of American Freedom</b>,, p. 108, p. 109, pp. 111-2 and p. 112] 
This support for producers' associations alongside mutual banks is identical to 
Proudhon's ideas -- which is unsurprising as Greene was a declared follower of 
the French anarchist. Martin also indicates Greene's support for co-operation 
and associative labour and its relation to the wider labour movement:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Coming at a time when the labour and consumer groups were experimenting with 
'associated workshops' and 'protective union stores,' Greene suggested that the 
mutual bank be incorporated into the movement, forming what he called 'complementary 
units of production, consumption, and exchange . . . the triple formula of 
practical mutualism.'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 134-5]
</blockquote></p><p>
Dyer Lum was another individualist anarchist who opposed wage labour and supported
co-operative production. Like Greene, Lum took an active part in the labour 
movement and was a union organiser. As he put it, the Knights of Labor aimed to 
work for the <i>"abolishment of the wage-system"</i> as well as the right of life 
requiring the right to the means of living. Dyer, while rejecting their infatuation 
with political action, had <i>"the fullest sympathy"</i> for their aims and supported 
their economic measures. [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 82, p. 7] Unsurprisingly, as one 
historian notes, <i>"Lum began to develop an ideology that centred on the labour 
reformers' demand: 'The Wage System must go!'"</i> He joined <i>"the ideological 
path of labour reformers who turned to a radicalised laissez-faire explanation of 
wage slavery."</i> [Frank H. Brooks, <i>"Ideology, Strategy, and Organization: Dyer 
Lum and the American Anarchist Movement"</i>, pp. 57-83, <b>Labor History</b>, 
vol. 34, No. 1, p. 63 and p. 67] Like the communist-anarchists of the IWPA,
for Lum trade unions were both the means of fighting capitalism and the way to 
abolish wage labour:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Anarchists in Chicago tended to be much more sympathetic to class organisation, 
specifically unions, because they had many contacts to local unions and the 
Knights of Labor. The issue was not resolved at the founding conference of 
the IWPA, but the Chicago anarchists did manage to get a resolution passed 
stating that 'we view in trades unions based upon progressive principles 
-- the abolition of the wages-system -- the corner-stone of a better society 
structure than the present one.'   
</p><p>
"Lum agreed wholeheartedly with this resolution, particularly the 
phrase 'abolition of the wages-system.' This phrase not only confirmed 
the ideological link between anarchism and labour reform, but also paralleled 
similar language in the declaration of principles of the Knights of Labor.  
By 1886, Lum had joined the Knights and he urged other anarchists, particularly 
individualists, to support their struggles. Lum continued to be involved with 
organised labour for the next seven years, seeing unions as a practical 
necessity in the struggle against class politics and state repression."</i>
[Brooks, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 70-1]
</blockquote></p><p>
However, <i>"[d]espite the similarity between the evolution of Lum's strategy and 
that of the revolutionary anti-statist socialists in the IWPA, his analysis of 
'wage slavery' was considerably more individualistic."</i> [Brooks, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 66] Lum saw it as resulting primarily from state interference in the economy 
which reduced the options available to working class people. With a genuine free 
market based on free land and free credit workers would work for themselves,
either as independent producers or in co-operatives (<i>"where capital seeks 
labour . . . where authority dissolves under the genial glow of liberty, and 
necessity for wage-labour disappears."</i> [Dyer D. Lum, contained in Albert 
Parsons, <b>Anarchism</b>, p. 153]). Thus a key element of <i>"Lum's anarchism 
was his mutualist economics, an analysis of 'wage slavery' and a set of reforms 
that would 'abolish the wage system.'"</i> [Brooks, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 71] 
Voltairine de Cleyre, in her individualist anarchist days, concurred with
her mentor Lum, arguing for a <i>"complete international federation of labour, 
whose constituent groups shall take possession of land, mines, factories, all 
the instruments of production, issue their own certificates of exchange, and, 
in short, conduct their own industry without regulative interference from 
law-makers or employers."</i> [<b>The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader</b>, p. 6]
</p><p>
European individualist anarchists, it should be noted had a similar perspective. As 
mentioned in <a href="secA3.html#seca31">section A.3.1</a>, Frenchman E. Armand 
argued that <i>"ownership of the means of production and free disposal of his 
produce"</i> was <i>"the quintessential guarantee of the autonomy of the 
individual"</i> but only as long as <i>"the proprietor does not transfer it to 
someone else or reply upon the services of someone else in operating it."</i> 
[<i>"Mini-Manual of the Anarchist Individualist"</i>, pp. 145-9, <b>Anarchism</b>, 
Robert Graham (ed.), p. 147] Another French individualist anarchist, Ernest 
Lesigne, argued that in a free society, <i>"there should be no more proletaires"</i> 
as <i>"everybody"</i> would be <i>"proprietor."</i> This would result in <i>"The 
land to the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the labourer. The 
product to the producer."</i> [quoted approvingly by Tucker, <b>Instead of 
a Book</b>, p. 17 and p. 18] Lesigne considered <i>"co-operative production"</i> 
as <i>"a solution to the great problem of social economy, -- the delivery of 
products to the consumer at cost"</i> and as a means of producers to <i>"receive 
the value of your product, of your effort, without having to deal with a mass of 
hucksters and exploiters."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 123] 
</p><p>
In other words, many individualist anarchists envisioned a society without 
wage labour and, instead, based upon peasant, artisan and associated/co-operative 
labour (as in Proudhon's vision). In other words, a <b>non</b>-capitalist society 
or, more positively, a (libertarian) socialist one as the workers' own and control 
the means of production they use. Like social anarchists, they opposed capitalist 
exploitation, wage slavery and property rights. However, not all individualist
anarchists held this position, a notable exception being Benjamin Tucker and many
of his fellow contributors of <b>Liberty</b>. Tucker asserted against the common 
labour movement and social anarchist equation of capitalism with wage slavery that 
<i>"[w]ages is not slavery. Wages is a form of voluntary exchange, and voluntary 
exchange is a form of Liberty."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 3, p. 1] 
</p><p>
The question how is, does this support of wage labour equate to support for capitalism?
The answer to that depends on whether you see such a system as resulting in the
exploitation of labour. If socialism is, to requote Kropotkin, <i>"understood in 
its wide, generic, and true sense"</i> as <i>"an effort to <b>abolish</b> the 
exploitation of labour by capital"</i> then even those Individualist Anarchists 
who support wage labour must be considered as socialists due to their opposition 
to usury. It is for this reason we discover Rudolf Rocker arguing that Stephan
P. Andrews was <i>"one of the most versatile and significant exponents of 
libertarian socialism"</i> in the USA in spite of his belief that <i>"the specific 
cause of the economic evil [of capitalism] is founded not on the existence of the 
wage system"</i> but, rather, on the exploitation of labour, <i>"on the unjust 
compensation of the worker"</i> and the usury that <i>"deprives him of a part of 
his labour."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 85 and pp. 77-8] His opposition to exploitation 
meant he was a socialist, an opposition which individualist anarchism was rooted 
in from its earliest days and the ideas of Josiah Warren:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The aim was to circumvent the exploitation inherent in capitalism, which Warren 
characterised as a sort of 'civilised cannibalism,' by exchanging goods on co-operative 
rather than supply and demand principles."</i> [J.W. Baker, <i>"Native American 
Anarchism,"</i>  pp. 43-62, <b>The Raven</b>, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 51]
</blockquote></p><p>
</p><p>
So should not be implied that the term socialist is restricted simply to those 
who oppose wage labour. It should be noted that for many socialists, wage labour 
is perfectly acceptable -- as long as the state is the boss. As Tucker noted, 
State Socialism's <i>"principle plank"</i> is <i>"the confiscation of <b>all</b>
capital by the State"</i>, so stopping <i>"the liberty of those non-aggressive 
individuals who are thus prevented from carrying on business for themselves or 
assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer, 
and who are obliged to become employees of the State against their will."</i> 
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 378] Of course, such a position is not a very 
good form of socialism which is why anarchists have tended to call such schemes
state-capitalism (an analysis which was confirmed once the Soviet Union was
created, incidentally). If state bureaucrats own and control the means of
production, it would not come as too great a surprise if they, like private
bosses, did so to maximise their incomes and minimise that of their employees.
</p><p>
Which explains why the vast majority of anarchists do not agree with Tucker's
position. Individualist anarchists like Tucker considered it as a truism that 
in their society the exploitation of labour could not exist. Thus even if some 
workers did sell their liberty, they would still receive the full product of 
their labour. As Tucker put it, <i>"when interest, rent and profit disappear 
under the influence of free money, free land, and free trade, it will make no 
difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. 
In any case they can get nothing but that wage for their labour which free 
competition determines."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 274] Whether this could actually
happen when workers sell their liberty to an employer is, of course, where 
other anarchists disagree. The owner of a workplace does not own simply his 
(labour) share of the total product produced within it. He (and it usually 
is a he) owns everything produced while workers get their wages. The employer, 
therefore, has an interest in getting workers to produce as much as they 
can during the period they are employed. As the future price of the 
commodity is unknown, it is extremely unlikely that workers will be able to 
accurately predict it and so it is unlikely that their wages will always equal 
the cost price of the product. As such, the situation that an individual 
worker would get his "natural" wage would be unlikely and so they would be 
exploited by their employer. At best, it could be argued that in the long run
wages will rise to that level but, as Keynes noted, in the long run we are
all dead and Tucker did not say that the free market would end exploitation
eventually. So individual ownership of large-scale workplaces would not, 
therefore, end exploitation. 
</p><p>
In other words, if (as Tucker argued) individualist anarchism desires <i>"[n]ot 
to abolish wages, but to make <b>every</b> man dependent upon wages and to secure 
every man his <b>whole</b> wages"</i> then this, logically, can only occur under 
workers control. We discuss this in more detail in <a href="secG4.html#secg41">section G.4.1</a>, 
where we also indicate how social anarchists consider Tucker's position to be in 
a basic contradiction to anarchist principles. Not only that, as well as being 
unlikely to ensure that labour received its full product, it also contradicts 
his own principle of <i><b>"occupancy and use"</b></i>. As such, while his 
support for non-exploitative wage labour does not exclude him from the socialist 
(and so anarchist) movement, it does suggest an inconsistent anarchism, one which 
can (fortunately) be easily made consistent by bringing it fully in line with its 
own stated ideals and principles.
</p><p>
Finally, we must note that there is a certain irony in this, given how keenly Tucker 
presented himself as a follower of Proudhon. This was because Proudhon agreed with
Tucker's anarchist opponents, arguing continually that wage labour needed to be replaced 
by co-operative production to end exploitation and oppression in production. Proudhon 
and his followers, in the words of one historian, thought workers <i>"should be 
striving for the abolition of salaried labour and capitalist enterprise."</i> This 
was by means of co-operatives and their <i>"perspective was that of artisan labour 
. . . The manager/employer (patron) was a superfluous element in the production process 
who was able to deny the worker just compensation for his labour merely by possessing 
the capital that paid for the workshop, tools, and materials."</i> [Julian P. W. Archer, 
<b>The First International in France, 1864-1872</b>, p. 45] As Frank H. Brooks put it, 
<i>"Lum drew from the French anarchist Proudhon . . . a radical critique of classical 
political economy and . . . a set of positive reforms in land tenure and banking . . . 
Proudhon paralleled the native labour reform tradition in several ways. Besides suggesting 
reforms in land and money, Proudhon urged producer cooperation."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p.  72] We discuss this aspect of Proudhon's ideas in 
<a href="secG4.html#secg42">section G.4.2</a>.
</p><p>
So, to conclude, it can be seen that individualist anarchists hold two positions on 
wage labour. Some are closer to Proudhon and the mainstream anarchist tradition 
than others while a few veer extremely close to liberalism. While all are agreed 
that their system would end the exploitation of labour, some of them saw the possibility
of a non-exploitative wage labour while others aimed for artisan and/or co-operative
production to replace it. Suffice to say, while few social anarchists consider 
non-exploitative wage labour as being very likely it is the opposition to non-labour
income which makes individualist anarchism socialist (albeit, an inconsistent and
flawed version of libertarian socialism).</p>

<h2><a name="secg14">G.1.4 Why is the social context important in evaluating Individualist Anarchism?</a></h2>
<p>
When reading the work of anarchists like Tucker and Warren, we must remember the social 
context of their ideas, namely the transformation of America from a pre-capitalist 
to a capitalist society. The individualist anarchists, like other socialists and 
reformers, viewed with horror the rise of capitalism and its imposition on an 
unsuspecting American population, supported and encouraged by state action (in the 
form of protection of private property in land, restricting money issuing to state 
approved banks using specie, government orders supporting capitalist industry, 
tariffs, suppression of unions and strikes, and so on). In other words, the 
individualist anarchists were a response to the social conditions and changes
being inflicted on their country by a process of <i>"primitive accumulation"</i>
(see <a href="secF8.html">section F.8</a>).
</p><p>
The non-capitalist nature of the early USA can be seen from the early dominance 
of self-employment (artisan and peasant production). At the beginning of the 
19th century, around 80% of the working (non-slave) male population were 
self-employed. The great majority of Americans during this time were farmers 
working their own land, primarily for their own needs. Most of the rest were 
self-employed artisans, merchants, traders, and professionals. Other classes 
-- employees (wage workers) and employers (capitalists) in the North, slaves 
and planters in the South -- were relatively small. The great majority of 
Americans were independent and free from anybody's command -- they owned and 
controlled their means of production. Thus early America was, essentially, a 
pre-capitalist society. However, by 1880, the year before Tucker started 
<b>Liberty</b>, the number of self-employed had fallen to approximately 33% 
of the working population. Now it is less than 10%. [Samuel Bowles and Herbert
Gintis, <b>Schooling in Capitalist America</b>, p. 59] As the US Census
described in 1900, until about 1850 <i>"the bulk of general manufacturing 
done in the United States was carried on in the shop and the household, by
the labour of the family or individual proprietors, with apprentice 
assistants, as contrasted with the present system of factory labour, 
compensated by wages, and assisted by power."</i> [quoted by Jeremy Brecher
and Tim Costello, <b>Common Sense for Hard Times</b>, p. 35] Thus the
post-civil war period saw <i>"the factory system become general. This
led to a large increase in the class of unskilled and semi-skilled labour
with inferior bargaining power. Population shifted from the country to 
the city . . . It was this milieu that the anarchism of Warren-Proudhon
wandered."</i> [Eunice Minette Schuster, <b>Native American Anarchism</b>,
pp. 136-7]
</p><p>
It is <b>only</b> in this context that we can understand individualist anarchism, 
namely as a revolt against the destruction of working-class independence and the 
growth of capitalism, accompanied by the growth of two opposing classes, capitalists 
and proletarians. This transformation of society by the rise of capitalism explains 
the development of <b>both</b> schools of anarchism, social and individualist. 
<i>"American anarchism,"</i> Frank H. Brooks argues, <i>"like its European 
counterpart, is best seen as a nineteenth century development, an ideology that, 
like socialism generally, responded to the growth of industrial capitalism, 
republican government, and nationalism. Although this is clearest in the more 
collectivistic anarchist theories and movements of the late nineteenth century 
(Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, communist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism), it 
also helps to explain anarchists of early- to mid-century such as Proudhon, 
Stirner and, in America, Warren. For all of these theorists, a primary concern 
was the 'labour problem' -- the increasing dependence and immiseration 
of manual workers in industrialising economies."</i> [<i>"Introduction"</i>,
<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 4]
</p><p>
The Individualist Anarchists cannot be viewed in isolation. They were part 
of a wider movement seeking to stop the capitalist transformation of America. 
As Bowles and Ginitis note, this <i>"process has been far from placid. Rather, 
it has involved extended struggles with sections of U.S. labour trying to counter
and temper the effects of their reduction to the status of wage labour."</i> 
The rise of capitalism <i>"marked the transition to control of work by 
nonworkers"</i> and <i>"with the rise of entrepreneurial capital, groups of 
formerly independent workers were increasingly drawn into the wage-labour 
system. Working people's organisations advocated alternatives to this 
system; land reform, thought to allow all to become an independent producer, 
was a common demand. Worker co-operatives were a widespread and influential 
part of the labour movement as early as the 1840s . . . but failed because 
sufficient capital could not be raised."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59 and p. 62] 
It is no coincidence that the issues raised by the Individualist Anarchists 
(land reform via <i>"occupancy-and-use"</i>, increasing the supply of money via 
mutual banks and so on) reflect these alternatives raised by working class people 
and their organisations. Little wonder Tucker argued that:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Make capital free by organising credit on a mutual plan, and then these 
vacant lands will come into use . . . operatives will be able to buy axes and 
rakes and hoes, and then they will be independent of their employers, and then 
the labour problem will solved."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 321]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus the Individualist Anarchists reflect the aspirations of working class 
people facing the transformation of an society from a pre-capitalist state 
into a capitalist one. Changing social conditions explain why Individualist 
Anarchism must be considered socialistic. As Murray Bookchin noted:
<blockquote></p><p>
<i>"Th[e] growing shift from artisanal to an industrial economy gave rise to 
a gradual but major shift in socialism itself. For the artisan, socialism 
meant producers' co-operatives composed of men who worked together in small 
shared collectivist associations, although for master craftsmen it meant 
mutual aid societies that acknowledged their autonomy as private producers. 
For the industrial proletarian, by contrast, socialism came to mean the 
formation of a mass organisation that gave factory workers the collective 
power to expropriate a plant that no single worker could properly own. These 
distinctions led to two different interpretations of the 'social question' 
. . . The more progressive craftsmen of the nineteenth century had tried to 
form networks of co-operatives, based on individually or collectively owned 
shops, and a market knitted together by a moral agreement to sell commodities 
according to a 'just price' or the amount of labour that was necessary to 
produce them. Presumably such small-scale ownership and shared moral precepts 
would abolish exploitation and greedy profit-taking. The class-conscious 
proletarian . . . thought in terms of the complete socialisation of the 
means of production, including land, and even of abolishing the market 
<b>as such</b>, distributing goods according to needs rather than labour . . .
They advocated <b>public</b> ownership of the means of production, whether by 
the state or by the working class organised in trade unions."</i> [<b>The 
Third Revolution</b>, vol. 2, p. 262]
</blockquote></p><p>
So, in this evolution of socialism we can place the various brands of anarchism. 
Individualist anarchism is clearly a form of artisanal socialism (which reflects 
its American roots) while communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are forms 
of industrial (or proletarian) socialism (which reflects its roots in Europe). 
Proudhon's mutualism bridges these extremes, advocating as it does artisan 
socialism for small-scale industry and agriculture and co-operative associations 
for large-scale industry (which reflects the state of the French economy in the 
1840s to 1860s). With the changing social conditions in the US, the anarchist
movement changed too, as it had in Europe. Hence the rise of communist-anarchism 
in addition to the more native individualist tradition and the change in 
Individualist Anarchism itself:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Green emphasised more strongly the <b>principle of association</b> than did 
Josiah Warren and more so than Spooner had done. Here too Proudhon's influence 
asserts itself. . . In principle there is essentially no difference between Warren 
and Proudhon. The difference between them arises from a dissimilarity of their 
respective environments. Proudhon lived in a country where the sub-division of 
labour made co-operation in social production essential, while Warren had to 
deal with predominantly small individual producers. For this reason Proudhon 
emphasised the <b>principle of association</b> far more than Warren and his
followers did, although Warren was by no means opposed to this view."</i> 
[Rudolf Rocker, <b>Pioneers of American Freedom</b>, p. 108]
</blockquote></p><p>
As noted in <a href="secA3.html">section A.3</a>, Voltairine de Cleyre subscribed
to a similar analysis, as does another anarchist, Peter Sabatini, more recently:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The chronology of anarchism within the United States corresponds 
to what transpired in Europe and other locations. An organised 
anarchist movement imbued with a revolutionary collectivist, then 
communist, orientation came to fruition in the late 1870s. At that 
time, Chicago was a primary centre of anarchist activity within the
USA, due in part to its large immigrant population. . .
</p><p>
"The Proudhonist anarchy that Tucker represented was largely superseded
in Europe by revolutionary collectivism and anarcho-communism. The same
changeover occurred in the US, although mainly among subgroups of working
class immigrants who were settling in urban areas. For these recent
immigrants caught up in tenuous circumstances within the vortex of
emerging corporate capitalism, a revolutionary anarchy had greater
relevancy than go slow mutualism."</i> [<b>Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy</b>]
</blockquote></p><p>
Murray Bookchin argued that the development of communist-anarchism 
<i>"made it possible for anarchists to adapt themselves to the new
working class, the industrial proletariat, . . . This adaptation
was all the more necessary because capitalism was now transforming
not only European [and American] society but the very nature of
the European [and American] labour movement itself."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 259] In other words, there have been many schools of socialism, all 
influenced by the changing society around them. As Frank H. Brooks 
notes, <i>"before Marxists monopolised the term, socialism, was a broad 
concept, as indeed Marx's critique of the 'unscientific' varieties 
of socialism in the <b>Communist Manifesto</b> indicated. Thus, when 
Tucker claimed that the individualist anarchism advocated in the 
pages of <b>Liberty</b> was socialist, he was not engaged in obfuscation 
or rhetorical bravado."</i> [<i>"Libertarian Socialism"</i>, pp. 75-7,
<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 75] 
</p><p>
Looking at the society in which their ideas developed (rather than ahistorically 
projecting modern ideas backward) we can see the socialist core of Individualist 
Anarchism. It was, in other words, an un-Marxian form of socialism (as was 
mutualism and communist-anarchism). Thus, to look at the Individualist Anarchists 
from the perspective of "modern socialism" (say, communist-anarchism or Marxism) 
means to miss the point. The social conditions which produced Individualist 
Anarchism were substantially different from those existing today (and
those which produced communist-anarchism and Marxism) and so what was 
a possible solution to the <i>"social problem"</i> <b>then</b> may
not be one suitable <b>now</b> (and, indeed, point to a different kind
of socialism than that which developed later). Moreover, Europe in 
the 1870s was distinctly different than America (although, of course, 
the USA <b>was</b> catching up). For example, there was still vast 
tracks of unclaimed land (once the Native Americans had been removed, 
of course) available to workers. In the towns and cities, artisan 
production <i>"remained important . . . into the 1880s"</i> [David 
Montgomery, <b>The Fall of the House of Labour</b>, p. 52] Until the 
1880s, the possibility of self-employment was a real one for many 
workers, a possibility being hindered by state action (for example, 
by forcing people to buy land via Homestead Acts, restricting banking 
to those with specie, suppressing unions and strikes and so on -- see 
<a href="secF8.html#secf85">section F.8.5</a>). Little wonder that 
Individualist Anarchism was considered a real solution to the problems 
generated by the creation of capitalism in the USA and that, by the 1880s, 
Communist Anarchist became the dominant form of anarchism. By that time 
the transformation of America was nearing completion and self-employment 
was no longer a real solution for the majority of workers. 
</p><p>
This social context is essential for understanding the thought of people 
like Greene, Spooner and Tucker. For example, as Stephen L. Newman points 
out, Spooner <i>"argues that every man ought to be his own employer, and 
he envisions a world of yeoman farmers and independent entrepreneurs."</i> 
[<b>Liberalism at Wit's End</b>, p. 72] This sort of society was in the 
process of being destroyed when Spooner was writing. Needless to say, the 
Individualist Anarchists did not think this transformation was unstoppable 
and proposed, like other sections of US labour, various solutions to problems 
society faced. Given the commonplace awareness in the population of artisan 
production and its advantages in terms of liberty, it is hardly surprising 
that the individualist anarchists supported "free market" solutions to 
social problems. For, given the era, this solution implied workers' control 
and the selling of the product of labour, not the labourer him/herself. 
Unsurprisingly, therefore, the <i>"greatest part [of <b>Liberty</b>'s 
readers] proves to be of the professional/intellectual class: the remainder 
includes independent manufacturers and merchants, artisans and skilled 
workers . . . The anarchists' hard-core supporters were the socio-economic
equivalents of Jefferson's yeoman-farmers and craftsworkers: a 
freeholder-artisan-independent merchant class allied with freethinking 
professionals and intellectuals. These groups -- in Europe as well as in 
America -- had socio-economic independence, and through their desire to 
maintain and improve their relatively free positions, had also the incentive 
to oppose the growing encroachments of the capitalist State."</i> [Morgan 
Edwards, <i>"Neither Bombs Nor Ballots: <b>Liberty</b> & the Strategy of 
Anarchism"</i>, pp. 65-91, <b>Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of 
Liberty</b>, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 85] 
</p><p>
Individualist anarchism is obviously an aspect of a struggle between the system 
of peasant and artisan production of early America and the state encouraged system 
of capitalism. Indeed, their analysis of the change in American society from one 
of mainly independent producers into one based mainly upon wage labour has many 
parallels with  Karl Marx's analysis of <i>"primitive accumulation"</i> in the 
Americas and elsewhere presented in chapter 33 of <b>Capital</b> (<i>"The 
Modern Theory of Colonization"</i>). It is this process which Individualist Anarchism 
protested against, the use of the state to favour the rising capitalist class. So
the social context the individualist anarchists lived in must be remembered. America
at the times was a predominantly rural society and industry was not as developed as 
it is now wage labour would have been minimised. As Wm. Gary Kline argues:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Committed as they were to equality in the pursuit of property, the 
objective for the anarchist became the construction of a society 
providing equal access to those things necessary for creating wealth. 
The goal of the anarchists who extolled mutualism and the abolition of 
all monopolies was, then, a society where everyone willing to work would 
have the tools and raw materials necessary for production in a 
non-exploitative system . . . the dominant vision of the future society 
. . . [was] underpinned by individual, self-employed workers."</i></i> 
[<b>The Individualist Anarchists: A Critique of Liberalism</b>, p. 95]
</blockquote></p><p>
This social context helps explain why some of the individualist anarchists
were indifferent to the issue of wage labour, unlike most anarchists. A 
limited amount of wage labour within a predominantly self-employed economy 
does not make a given society capitalist any more than a small amount of 
governmental communities within an predominantly anarchist world would make 
it statist. As Marx put it, in such socities <i>"the separation of the worker 
from the conditions of labour and from the soil . . . does not yet exist, or 
only sporadically, or on too limited a scale . . . Where, amongst such curious 
characters, is the 'field of abstinence' for the capitalists? . . . Today's 
wage-labourer is tomorrow's independent peasant or artisan, working for 
himself. He vanishes from the labour-market -- but not into the workhouse."</i> 
There is a <i>"constant transformation of wage-labourers into independent 
producers, who work for themselves instead of for capital"</i> and so <i>"the 
degree of exploitation of the wage-labourer remain[s] indecently low."</i> In 
addition, the <i>"wage-labourer also loses, along with the relation of dependence,
the feeling of dependence on the abstemious capitalist."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
pp. 935-6] Within such a social context, the anti-libertarian aspects of
wage labour are minimised and so could be overlooked by otherwise sharp critics
of authoritarianism as Tucker and Andrews.
</p><p>
Therefore Rocker was correct when he argued that Individualist Anarchism was 
<i>"above all . . . rooted in the peculiar social conditions of America which 
differed fundamentally from those of Europe."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 155] As 
these conditions changed, the viability of Individualist Anarchism's solution 
to the social problem decreased (as acknowledged by Tucker in 1911, for example
-- see <a href="secG1.html#secg11">section G.1.1</a>). Individualist Anarchism, 
argued Morgan Edwards, <i>"appears to have dwindled into political insignificance 
largely because of the erosion of its political-economic base, rather than from 
a simple failure of strategy. With the impetus of the Civil War, capitalism
and the State had too great a head start on the centralisation of economic and 
political life for the anarchists to catch up. This centralisation reduced the 
independence of the intellectual/professional and merchant artisan group that
were the mainstay of the <b>Liberty</b> circle."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 85-6]
While many of the individualist anarchists adjusted their own ideas to changing 
social circumstances, as can be seen by Greene's support for co-operatives (<i>"the 
principle of association"</i>) as the only means of ending exploitation of labour 
by capital, the main forum of the movement (<b>Liberty</b>) did not consistently
subscribe to this position nor did their support for union struggles play a
major role in their strategy. Faced with another form of anarchism which 
supported both, unsurprisingly communist-anarchism replaced it as the dominant
form of anarchism by the start of the 20th century in America.
</p><p>
If these social conditions are not taken into account then the ideas of the likes 
of Tucker and Spooner will be distorted beyond recognition. Similarly, by ignoring 
the changing nature of socialism in the face of a changing society and economy, 
the obvious socialistic aspects of their ideas will be lost. Ultimately, to 
analyse the Individualist Anarchists in an a-historic manner means to distort 
their ideas and ideals. Moreover, to apply those ideas in a non-artisan economy 
without the intention of radically transforming the socio-economic nature of 
that society towards one based on artisan production one would mean to create 
a society distinctly different than one they envisioned (see <a href="secG3.html">
section G.3</a> for further discussion).
</p>

</body>
</html>