File: secG2.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 (1082 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 77,531 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>G.2 Why do individualist anarchists reject social anarchism?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>G.2 Why do individualist anarchists reject social anarchism?</h1>
<p>
As noted in the <a href="secG1.html">last section</a>, the individualist 
anarchists considered themselves as anti-capitalists and many called 
themselves mutualists and socialists. It may be objected that they opposed 
the more obviously socialist types of anarchism like communist-anarchism 
and, as a consequence, should be considered as supporters of capitalism. 
This is not the case as can be seen from <b>why</b> they rejected 
communist-anarchism. The key thing to remember is that capitalism does 
not equal the market. So while the individualist anarchists advocated a 
market economy, it <i>"is evident from their writings that they rejected both 
capitalism and communism -- as did Proudhon."</i> [Brian Morris, <i>"Global 
Anti-Capitalism"</i>, pp. 170-6, <b>Anarchist Studies</b>, vol. 14, no. 2, 
p. 175]
</p><p>
It should noted that while Tucker came to excommunicate non-individualist forms
of anarchism from the movement, his initial comments on the likes of Bakunin and
Kropotkin were very favourable. He reprinted articles by Kropotkin from his paper
<b>La Revolte</b>, for example, and discussed <i>"the Anarchistic philosophy, as 
developed by the great Proudhon and actively propagated by the heroic Bakunin and 
his successors on both sides of the Atlantic."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 26, p. 3]
After the rise of the IWPA in the early 1880s and the Haymarket police riot of
1886, Tucker changed his position. Now it was a case that the <i>"Anarchistic
social ideal"</i> was <i>"utterly inconsistent with that of those Communists
who falsely call themselves Anarchists while at the same time advocating a
<b>regime</b> of Archism fully as despotic as that of the State Socialists 
themselves."</i> For Tucker, real anarchists did not advocate, like communist
anarchists, <i>"forcible expropriation"</i> nor <i>"force as a revolutionary
agent and authority as a safeguard of the new social order."</i> [<b>The
Individualist Anarchists</b>, pp. 88-9] As will become clear, Tucker's 
summation of communist-anarchism leaves a lot to be desired. However, even
after the break between individualist and communist anarchism in America,
Tucker saw that both had things in common as both were socialists:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"To be sure, there is a certain and very sincere comradeship that must exist 
between all honest antagonists of the exploitation of labour, but the word 
comrade cannot gloss over the vital difference between so-called 
Communist-Anarchism and Anarchism proper."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 172, p. 1]
</blockquote></p><p>
Social anarchists would agree with Tucker in part, namely the need not to
gloss over vital differences between anarchist schools but most reject
Tucker's attempts to exclude other tendencies from <i>"Anarchism proper."</i>
Instead, they would agree with Kropotkin and, while disagreeing with certain
aspects of the theory, refuse to excommunicate him from the anarchist movement.
As we discuss in <a href="secG2.html#secg25">section G.2.5</a>, few anarchists
agreed with Tucker's sectarianism at the time and communist-anarchism was, and 
remains, the dominant tendency within anarchism.
</p><p>
It is these disagreements to which we now turn. It should be stressed, though,
that the individualist anarchists, while tending to excommunicate social 
anarchism, also had many inclusive moments and so it makes these objections 
often seem petty and silly. Yes, there was certainly pettiness involved and it 
worked both ways and there was a certain amount of tit-for-tat, just as there 
is now (although to a much lesser degree these days). Anarchist-communist 
opposition to what some of them sadly called <i>"bourgeois anarchism"</i> was 
a fact, as was individualist anarchist opposition to communist-anarchism. Yet 
this should not blind us to what both schools had in common. However, if it were 
not for some opponents of anarchism (particularly those seeking to confuse 
libertarian ideas with propertarian ones) dragging these (mostly resolved) 
disagreements back into the light of day this section would be a lot shorter. 
As it is, covering these disagreements and showing how they could be resolved 
is a useful task -- if only to show how individualist and communist anarchism 
are not as alien as some make out.  
</p><p>
There were four main objections made to communist-anarchism by the individualists.
Firstly, that communist-anarchism was compulsory and any compulsory system could 
not be anarchist. Secondly, that a revolution would be imposing anarchism and so 
contradicted its principles. Thirdly, that distribution by need was based on 
altruism and, consequently, unlikely to succeed. Fourthly, that the 
communist-anarchists are determining how a free society would be organised 
which is authoritarian. Needless to say, communist-anarchists rejected these 
claims as being false and while we have already sketched these arguments, 
objections and replies in <a href="secA3.html#seca31">section A.3.1 </a> it is 
worthwhile to repeat (and expand on) them here as these disagreements are 
sometimes highlighted by those who fail to stress what both schools have in 
common and, consequently, distort the debates and issues involved.
</p><p>
We will discuss these objections in the following sections.
</p>

<h2><a name="secg21">G.2.1 Is communist-anarchism compulsory?</a></h2>
<p>
Some individualist anarchists argued that communist-anarchists wanted to force
everyone to be communists and, as such, this proved they were not anarchists.
This objection is, ironically, both the most serious <b>and</b> the easiest
to refute. As Tucker noted, <i>"to eliminate the compulsory element from Communism 
is to remove, in the view of every man who values liberty above aught else, the 
<b>chief</b> objection to it."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 122, p. 5] For Henry 
Appleton, there was <i>"a class of ranting enthusiasts who falsely call themselves 
Anarchists"</i> who advocated both violence and <i>"levelling"</i>. <i>"All 
Communism,"</i> he asserted, <i>"under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of 
Anarchism and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure 
as could be invented."</i> Yet, ironically, A. H. Simpson disproved that particular 
claim for while attacking communism he ended by stating his <i>"argument applies only 
to aggressive Communists"</i> and that <i>"[v]oluntary Communism can exist and, if 
successful, flourish under Anarchy."</i> So, apparently, <b>some</b> kinds of 
communism are compatible with anarchism after all! Victor Yarrows, likewise, 
pointed to <i>"two different schools"</i> of communists, those who support 
<i>"voluntary Communism, which they intend to reach by the Anarchistic method"</i> 
and those who <i>"plot the forcible suppression of the entire system"</i> of private 
property. Only the former was <i>"voluntary or Anarchistic Communism."</i> 
[<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, pp. 89-90, p. 94, p. 95 and p. 96]
</p><p>
This, it should be noted, is more than enough to disprove any claims that genuine 
anarchists cannot be communists. 
</p><p>
So, the question is whether communist-anarchists are in favour of forcing people
to be communists. If their communism is based on voluntary association then,
according to the Individualist Anarchists themselves, it is a form of anarchism.
Unsurprisingly, we discover that communist-anarchists have long argued that their
communism was voluntary in nature and that working people who did not desire to
be communists would be free not to be.
</p><p>
This position can be found in Kropotkin, from his earliest writings to his last. 
Thus we discover him arguing that an anarchist revolution <i>"would take care not 
to touch the holding of the peasant who cultivates it himself . . . without wage 
labour. But we would expropriate all land that was not cultivated by the hands 
of those who at present possess the land."</i> This was compatible with communism 
because libertarian communists aimed at <i>"the complete expropriation of all those 
who have the means of exploiting human beings; the return to the community of the 
nation of everything that in the hands of anyone can be used to exploit others."</i>
Following Proudhon's analysis, private property was different from individual 
possession and as long as <i>"social wealth remains in the hands of the few who 
possess it today"</i> there would be exploitation. Instead, the aim was to see
such social wealth currently monopolised by the capitalist class <i>"being placed, 
on the day of the revolution, at the free disposition of all the workers."</i> This
would <i>"create the situation where each person may live by working freely,
without being forced to sell his work and his liberty to others."</i> [<b>Words 
of a Rebel</b>, p. 214,  pp. 207-8, p. 207 and p. 208] If someone desired to 
work outside of the commune, then that was perfectly compatible with this aim.
</p><p>
This position was followed in later works. The <i>"scope of Expropriation,"</i> 
Kropotkin argued was clear and would only <i>"apply to everything that enables
any man -- be he financier, mill-owner, or landlord -- to appropriate the product 
of others' toil."</i> Thus only those forms of property based on wage labour 
would be expropriated. In terms of housing, the same general rule applies (<i>"the 
expropriation of dwellings contains the whole social revolution"</i>). Kropotkin
explicitly discusses the man who <i>"by dint of privation has contrived to buy a 
house just large enough to hold his family. And we are going to deprive him of his 
hard-earned happiness, to turn him into the street! Certainly not . . . Let him 
work in his little garden, too."</i> Anarchist-communism <i>"will make the lodger 
understand that he need not pay his former landlord any more rent. Stay where you 
are, but rent free."</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 61, p. 95, pp. 95-6 and 
p. 96] 
</p><p>
Which, incidentally, was <b>exactly</b> the same position as Tucker (see 
<a href="secG1.html#secg12">section G.1.2</a>) and so Kropotkin's analysis 
of the land monopoly  was identical:
<blockquote></p><p><i>
"when we see a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can 
cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He 
exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his 
work. But if he possesses under the capitalist law more than he can cultivate 
himself, we consider that we must not give him the right of keeping that soil 
for himself, leaving it uncultivated when it might be cultivated by others, or 
of making others cultivate it for his benefit."</i> [<b>Act for Yourselves</b>, 
p. 104]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
For Kropotkin, communism <i>"must be the work of all, a natural growth, a product 
of the constructive genius of the great mass. Communism cannot be imposed from above; 
it could not live even for a few months if  the constant and daily co-operation of all 
did not uphold it. It must be free."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 140]
</p><p>
Malatesta agreed. Anarchism, he stressed, <i>"cannot be imposed, both on moral 
grounds in regard to freedom, as well as because it is impossible to apply 'willy
nilly' a regime of justice for all. It cannot be imposed on a minority by a
majority. Neither can it be imposed by a majority on one or more minorities."</i>
Thus <i>"anarchists who call themselves communists"</i> do so <i>"not because
they wish to impose their particular way of seeing things on others"</i> but
because <i>"they are convinced, until proved wrong, that the more human beings 
are joined in brotherhood, and the more closely they co-operate in their efforts 
for the benefit of all concerned, the greater is the well-being and freedom which 
each can enjoy."</i> <i>Imposed communism,"</i> he stressed, <i>"would be the most 
detestable tyranny that the human mind could conceive. And free and voluntary 
communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a 
different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes, always 
on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others."</i> He agreed 
with Tucker that <i>"State communism, which is authoritarian and imposed, is the 
most hateful tyranny that has ever afflicted, tormented and handicapped mankind."</i> 
[<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 21, p. 34, p. 103 and p. 34]
</p><p>
Therefore, arguing that the land and machinery should be common property does <b>not</b>
preclude individuals possessing it independently of communes as both are rooted
in individual possession (or "occupancy and use") rather than private property.
The key anarchist difference between property and possession explains any 
perceived contradiction in the communist position. Thus we find Kropotkin arguing
that a communist-anarchist society is one <i>"without having the soil, the machinery, 
the capital in short, in the hands of private owners. We all believe that free 
organisations of workers would be able to carry on production on the farm and on 
the factory, as well, and probably much better, than it is conducted now under 
the individual ownership of the capitalist."</i> The commune <i>"shall take 
into possession of all the soil, the dwelling-houses, the manufactures, the mines 
and the means of communication."</i> [<b>Act for Yourselves</b>, p. 103 and p. 104] 
</p><p>
This in no way contradicts his argument that the individuals will not be forced 
to join a commune. This is because the aim of anarchist-communism is, to quote 
another of Kropotkin's works, to place <i>"the product reaped or manufactured 
at the disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them as he pleases 
in his own home."</i> [<b>The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist 
Thought</b>, p. 7] Thus individual ownership meant individual ownership of 
resources used by others rather than individual possession of resources which 
individuals used. This can be seen from his comment that <i>"some poor fellow"</i> 
who <i>"has contrived to buy a house just large enough to hold his family"</i> 
would not be expropriated by the commune (<i>"by all means let him stay there"</i>) 
while also asserting <i>"[w]ho, then, can appropriate for himself the tiniest 
plot of ground in such a city, without committing a flagrant injustice?"</i> 
[<b>Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 90] 
</p><p>
Kropotkin's opposition to private appropriation of land can only be understood in 
context, namely from his discussion on the <i>"abolition of rent"</i> and the need 
for <i>"free dwellings"</i>, i.e. the end of landlordism. Kropotkin accepted that 
land could and would be occupied for personal use -- after all, people need a
place to live! In this he followed Proudhon, who also argued that <i>"Land cannot 
be appropriated"</i> (Chapter 3, part 1 of <b>What is Property?</b>). For the
French anarchist, the land <i>"is limited in amount"</i> and so <i>"it ought not to 
be appropriated"</i> (<i>"let any living man dare change his right of territorial 
possession into the right of property, and I will declare war upon him, and wage it
to the death!"</i>). This meant that <i>"the land is indispensable to our existence, 
-- consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible of appropriation."</i> 
Overall, <i>"labour has no inherent power to appropriate natural wealth."</i> 
[<b>What is Property?</b>, p. 106, p. 107 and p. 116] Proudhon, it is well known, 
supported the use of land (and other resources) for personal use. How, then, can 
he argue that the <i>"land cannot be appropriated"</i>? Is Proudhon subject to 
the same contradiction as Kropotkin? Of course not, once we take into account the 
fundamental difference between private property and possession, appropriation and 
use which underlies both individualist <b>and</b> communist anarchism. As 
Malatesta argued:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Communism is a free agreement: who doesn't accept it or maintain it remains 
outside of it . . . Everyone has <b>the right to land, to the instruments of 
production</b> and all the advantages that human beings can enjoy in the state of 
civilisation that humanity has reached. If someone does not want to accept a 
communist life and the obligations that it supposes, it is their business. They 
and those of a like mind will come to an agreement . . . [They] will have <b>the
same rights as the communists</b> over the natural wealth and accumulated products
of previous generations . . . I have always spoken of free agreement, of free
communism. How can there be liberty without a possible alternative?"</i>
[our emphasis, <b>At the caf</b>, pp. 69-70]
</blockquote></p><p>
Compare this to individualist anarchist Stephen Byington's comment that 
<i>"[t]hose who wish to unite in the communistic enjoyment of their labour 
will be free to do so; those who wish to hold the products of their labour 
as private property will be equally free to do so."</i> [quoted by Wm. Gary 
Kline, <b>The Individualist Anarchists: A Critique of Liberalism</b>, p. 93] 
The similarities are as obvious as between Proudhon's and Kropotkin's arguments.
</p><p>
The same, it must be stressed, can be said of the <i>"Chicago Anarchists"</i>
whom Tucker labelled as authoritarians. Thus we find Albert Parsons, for example, 
denouncing that kind of private property which allows exploitation to happen. The
key problem was that <i>"the necessary means for the existence of all has been 
appropriated and monopolised by a few. The land, the implements of production and 
communication, the resources of life, are now held as private property, and its 
owners exact tribute  from the propertyless"</i> (<i>"Wealth is power"</i>). The
aim of communist-anarchism was to ensure the <i>"[f]ree access to the means of 
production [which] is the natural right of every man able and willing to work."</i>
This implied that <i>"[a]ll organisation will be voluntary with the sacred right 
forever reserved for each individual 'to think and to rebel.'"</i> This meant that 
as far as the <i>"final outcome"</i> of social change was involved <i>"many disciples 
of anarchism believe [it] will be communism -- the common possession of the resources 
of life and the productions of united labour. No anarchist is compromised by this 
statement, who does not reason out the future outlook in this way."</i> [<b>Anarchism: 
Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis</b>, p. 97, p. 99, p. 96 ,p. 174 and pp. 174-5]
This did not exclude mutualism or individualist anarchism:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Many expedients will be tried by which a just return may be awarded the worker for 
his exertions. The time check or labour certificate, which will be honoured at the 
store-houses hour for hour, will no doubt have its day. But the elaborate and 
complicated system of book-keeping this would necessitate, the impossibility of
balancing one man's hour against another's with accuracy, and the difficulty in 
determining how much more one man owed natural resources, condition, and the studies 
and achievements of past generations, than did another, would, we believe, prevent 
this system from obtaining a thorough and permanent establishment. The mutual banking 
system . . . may be in operation in the future free society. Another system, more 
simple . . . appears the most acceptable and likely to prevail. Members of the groups 
. . . if honest producers . . . will be honoured in any other group they may visit,
and given whatever is necessary for their welfare and comfort."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 175]
</p><p></blockquote>
As we discuss in <a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a>, this was the same conclusion
that Voltairine de Cleyre reached three decades later. This was rooted in a similar
analysis of property as Proudhon and Tucker, namely <i>"possession"</i> or <i>"occupancy
and use"</i>: <i>"The workshops will drop into the hands of the workers, the mines
will fall to the miners, and the land and all other things will be controlled by those 
who posses and use them. There will be, there can then be no title to anything aside 
from its possession and use."</i> The likes of Parsons supported communism was not
because of an opposition between "communism" and "occupancy and use" but rather, like
Kropotkin, because of <i>"the utter impossibility of awarding to each an exact return 
for the amount of labour performed will render absolute communism a necessity sooner 
or later."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 105 and p. 176] So while capitalism <i>"expropriates 
the masses for the benefit of the privileged class . . . socialism teaches how all may 
possess property . . . [and] establish a universal system of co-operation, and to render 
accessible to each and every member of the human family the achievements and benefits of 
civilisation which, under capitalism, are being monopolised by a privileged class."</i> 
[August Spies, contained in Parsons, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 63-4]
</p><p>
All of which indicates that Tucker did not really understand communist-anarchism
when he argued that communism is <i>"the force which compels the labourer to pool 
his product with the products of all and forbids him to sell his labour or his 
products."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 400] Rather, communist-anarchists 
argue that communism must be free and voluntary. In other words, a communist-anarchist 
society would not "forbid" anything as those who are part of it must be in favour of 
communism for it to work. The option of remaining outside the communist-anarchist
society is there, as (to requote Kropotkin) expropriation would <i>"apply to 
everything that enables any man [or woman] . . . to  appropriate the product of 
others' toil."</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 61] Thus communist-anarchism 
would "forbid" exactly what Individualist Anarchism would "forbid" -- property, 
not possession (i.e. any form of "ownership" not based on "occupancy and use"). 
</p><p>
Tucker, at times, admits that this is the case. For example, he once noted that 
<i>"Kropotkin says, it is true, that he would allow the individual access to the 
land; but he proposes to strip him of capital entirely, and as he declares a few 
pages further on that without capital agriculture is impossible, it follows that 
such access is an empty privilege not at all equivalent to the liberty of individual 
production."</i> [quoted by George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic, <b>The Anarchist 
Prince</b>, p. 279] However, as two biographers of Kropotkin note, Tucker <i>"partly 
misinterprets his opponent, as when he suggests that the latter's idea of communist 
anarchism would <b>prevent</b> the individual from working on his own if he wished 
(a fact which Kropotkin always explicitly denied, since the basis of his theory was 
the voluntary principle)."</i> [Woodcock and Avakumovic, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 280]
To quote Kropotkin himself:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"when we see a Sheffield cutler, or a Leeds clothier working with their own tools 
or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or the handloom to give to another 
worker. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody. But when we see a factory whose 
owners claim to keep to themselves the instruments of labour used by 1,400 girls, 
and consequently exact from the labour of these girls . . . profit . . . we consider 
that the people . . . are fully entitled to take possession of that factory and to 
let the girls produce . . . for themselves and the rest of the community . . . and 
take what they need of house room, food and clothing in return."</i> [<b>Act for 
Yourselves</b>, p. 105]
</blockquote></p><p>
</p><p>
So Kropotkin argued that a communist-anarchist revolution would <b>not</b> 
expropriate the tools of self-employed workers who exploited no-one. Malatesta 
also argued that in an anarchist society <i>"the peasant [is free] to cultivate 
his piece of land, alone if he wishes; free is the shoe maker to remain at his 
last or the blacksmith in his small forge."</i> Thus these two very famous 
communist-anarchists also supported "property" but they are recognised as 
obviously socialists. This apparent contradiction is resolved when it is 
understood that for communist-anarchists (like all anarchists) the abolition 
of property does not mean the end of possession and so <i>"would not harm the 
independent worker whose real title is possession and the work done"</i> unlike 
capitalist property. [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 103] Compare this with
Yarros' comment that <i>"[s]mall owners would not suffer from the application 
of the 'personal use' principle, while large owners, who have come into 
possession of the landed property, or the capital with which they purchased 
the landed property, by means that equal liberty could not sanction, would 
have no principle to base any protest on."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 197, p. 2]
In other words, <b>all</b> anarchists (as we argue in 
<a href="secB3.html">section B.3</a>) oppose private property but support 
possession (we return to this issue in <a href="secI6.html#seci62">section I.6.2</a> 
as it is an all too common fallacy).
</p><p>

<h2><a name="secg22">G.2.2 Is communist-anarchism violent?</a></h2>
<p>
Having shown that communist-anarchist is a valid form of anarchism even in terms of
individualist anarchism in the <a href="secG2.html#secg22">last section</a>, it is 
now necessary to discuss the issue of methods, i.e., the question of revolution and
violence. This is related to the first objection, with Tucker arguing that <i>"their 
Communism is another State, while my voluntary cooperation is not a State at all. 
It is a very easy matter to tell who is an Anarchist and who is not. Do you believe 
in any form of imposition upon the human will by force?"</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, 
no. 94, p. 4] However, Tucker was well aware that the state imposed its will 
on others by force and so the question was whether revolution was the right 
means of ending its oppression.
</p><p>
To a large degree, discussion on the question of revolution was clouded by the
fact it took place during the height of the <i>"propaganda by the deed"</i>
period in anarchist history (see <a href="secA2.html#seca218">section A.2.18</a>).
As George Woodcock noted, a <i>"cult of violence . . . marked and marred"</i> 
the IWPA and alienated the individualist anarchists. [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 393]
Johann Most was the focus for much of this rhetoric (see Paul Avrich's <b>The
Haymarket Tragedy</b>, particularly the chapter entitled <i>"Cult of Dynamite"</i>).
However, the reason why talk of dynamite found an audience had nothing to do
with anarchism but rather because of the violence regularly directed against
striking workers and unions. As we discuss more fully in 
<a href="secG3.html#secg31">section G.3.1</a>, strikes were habitually repressed by 
violence (by the state or by the employer's private police). The massive 1877 
strike wave, for example, saw the <b>Chicago Times</b> urge the use of hand 
grenades against strikers while employers organised <i>"private guards and bands of
uniformed vigilantes"</i> which <i>"roamed the streets, attacking and dispersing
groups of workers.</i> Business leaders concluded that <i>"the chief lesson
of the strike as the need for a stronger apparatus of repression"</i> and
presented the city of Chicago with two Gatling guns to aid that task. <i>"The
erection of government armouries in the centres of American cities dates from
this period."</i> This repression and the vitriolic ruling class rhetoric 
used <i>"set a pattern for the future and fuelled the hatreds and passions
without which the Haymarket tragedy would not have occurred."</i> [Paul Avrich, 
<b>The Haymarket Tragedy</b>, p. 33 and p. 35]
</p><p>
Given this general infatuation with dynamite and violence which this state and
employer violence provoked, the possibility for misunderstanding was more than 
likely (as well as giving the enemies of anarchism ample evidence to demonise 
it while allowing the violence of the system they support to be downplayed). Rather 
than seeing communist-anarchists as thinking a revolution was the product of mass 
struggle, it was easy to assume that by revolution they meant acts of violence
or terrorism conducted by a few anarchists on behalf of everyone else (this false
perspective is one which Marxists to this day tend to repeat when dismissing 
anarchism). In such a situation, it is easy to see why so many individualist 
anarchists thought that a small group of anarchists sought to impose communism 
by means of violence. However, this was not the case. According to Albert Parsons, 
the communist-anarchists argued that the working class <i>"will be driven to use 
[force] in self-defence, in self-preservation against those who are degrading, 
enslaving and destroying them."</i> [<b>The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs</b>, 
p. 46] As August Spies put it, <i>"[t]o charge us with an attempt to overthrow 
the present system on or about May 4th, and then establish anarchy, is too absurd 
a statement, I think, even for a political office-holder to make . . . Only mad 
men could have planned such a brilliant scheme."</i> Rather, <i>"we have predicted 
from the lessons history teaches, that the ruling classes of to-day would no more 
listen to the voice of reason than their predecessors; that they would attempt by 
brute force to stay the wheel of progress."</i> [contained in Parsons, <b>Anarchism: 
Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis</b>, p. 55] Subsequent events have proven that 
Spies and Parsons had a point!
</p><p>
Thus arguments about violence should not result in the assumption that the individualist
anarchists were pacifists as the subject usually is not violence as such but rather 
assassinations and attempts of minorities to use violence to create "anarchy" by 
destroying the state on behalf of the general population. <i>"To brand the policy 
of terrorism and assassination as immoral is ridiculously weak,"</i> argued Tucker. 
<i>"<b>Liberty</b> does not assume to set any limit on the right of an invaded 
individual to choose his own methods of defence. The invader, whether an individual 
or a government forfeits all claim to consideration from the invaded. This truth 
is independent of the character of the invasion."</i> This meant that the <i>"right 
to resist oppression by violence is beyond doubt. But its exercise would be unwise 
unless the suppression of free thought, free speech, and a free press were enforced 
so stringently that all other means of throwing it off had become hopeless."</i> 
Ultimately, though, the <i>"days of armed revolution have gone by. It is too easily 
put down."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 430, p. 439 and p. 440] 
</p><p>
Except for a small group of hard-core insurrectionists, few social anarchists think 
that violence should be the first recourse in social struggle. The ultra-revolutionary
rhetoric associated with the 1883-6 period is not feature of the anarchist movement 
in general and so lessons have been learned. As far as strategy goes, the tactics
advocated by social anarchists involve the same ones that individualist anarchists 
support, namely refusal of obedience to all forms of authority. This would include 
workplace, rent and tax strikes, occupations, protests and such like. Violence has 
always been seen as the last option, to be used only in self-defence (or, sometimes, 
in revenge for greater acts of violence by oppressors). The problem is that any 
effective protest will result in the protesters coming into conflict with either 
the state or property owners. For example, a rent strike will see the agents of 
the property owner trying to evict tenants, as would a workers strike which occupied 
the workplace. Similarly, in the Seattle protests in 1999 the police used force 
against the non-violent protesters blocking the roads long before the Black Bloc 
started breaking windows (which is, in itself, non-violent as it was directed 
against corporate property, not people -- unlike the police action). Unless 
the rebels simply did what they were told, then any non-violent protest could 
become violent -- but only because private property ultimately rests on state 
violence, a fact which becomes obvious when people refuse to acknowledge it 
and its privileges (<i>"There is only one law for the poor, to wit: Obey the 
rich."</i> [Parsons, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 97]). Thus Adolph Fischer, one of the 
Haymarket Martyrs:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Would a peaceful solution of the social question be possible, the anarchists 
would be the first ones to rejoice over it.
</p><p>
"But is it not a fact that on occasion of almost every strike the minions of
the institutions of private property -- militia, police, deputy sheriffs; yes,
even federal troops -- are being called to the scenes of conflict between 
capital and labour, in order to protect the interests of capital? . . . What
peaceful means should the toilers employ? There is, for example, the strike?
If the ruling classes want to enforce the 'law' they can have every striker
arrested and punished for 'intimidation' and conspiracy. A strike can only be
successful if the striking workingmen prevent their places being occupied by
others. But this prevention is a crime in the eyes of the law. Boycott? In
several states the 'courts of justice' have decided that the boycott is a
violation of the law, and in consequence thereof, a number of boycotts have
had the pleasure of examining the inner construction of penitentiaries 'for
'conspiracy' against the interests of capital."</i> [<b>The Autobiographies
of the Haymarket Martyrs</b>, pp. 85-6]
</blockquote></p><p>
Some individualist anarchists did agree with this position. Dyer Lum, for example,
<i>"supported revolutionary violence on practical and historical grounds. 
Practically speaking, Lum did not believe that 'wage slavery' could be ended 
by non-violence because capitalists would surely use force to resist."</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. 71] Spooner's rhetoric could be as violent sounding as Johann Most 
at his worse and he called upon the subjects of the British Empire to rise
in revolt (see his pamphlet <b>Revolution</b>). Equally, many social 
anarchists are pacifists or believe that anarchism can come about by 
means of reform and not revolution. Thus the reform/revolution divide does not 
quite equal the individualist/social anarchist divide, although it is fair to 
say that most individualist anarchists were and are reformists.
</p><p>
So, it must be stressed that most individualist anarchists did not oppose
revolution <b>as such</b>. Rather they considered it as both unlikely to succeed
and unnecessary. They rejected revolutionary expropriation <i>"not because we 
deem such expropriation unjust, invasive, criminal, but solely because we are 
we are convinced that there is a better, safer, and wiser way for labour
to pursue with a view to emancipation."</i> With mutual banks, they argued, 
it became possible <i>"for labour to gradually lift itself into the position 
to command its full share of wealth, and absorb in the shape of wages all that 
is now alienated from it in the forms of profit, interest proper, and monopoly 
rent."</i> [Yarrows, <b>Liberty</b>, no. 171, p. 5] As such, their aims were the 
same as communist-anarchism (namely to end exploitation of labour and the abolition 
of the state) but their means were different. Both, however, were well aware that
the capitalism could not be ended by political action (i.e., voting). <i>"That 
the privileged class"</i>, argued William Bailie <i>"will submit to expropriation, 
even if demanded at the ballot-box, is a delusion possible only to him who knows 
not the actual situation confronting the people of this country."</i> [<i>"The 
Rule of the Monopolists"</i>, <b>Liberty</b>, no. 368, p. 4]
</p><p>
However, there was one area of life that was excluded from their opposition to
expropriation: the land. As Yarros put it, <i>"the Anarchists' position on the 
land question, which involves the dispossession of present landlords and the 
entire abolition of the existing system of land tenure . . . They wish to 
expropriate the landlords, and allow the landless to settle on land which does 
not now belong to them."</i> This <i>"[o]ne exception . . . we are compelled to 
make"</i> involved <i>"believ[ing] that the landless <b>will</b>, individually 
and for the purpose of occupying ownership, take possession of the land not 
personally occupied and used by landlord, and <b>will</b> protect each other 
in the possession of such lands against any power hostile to them."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, no. 171, p. 4 and p. 5]
</p><p>
Yet as subsequent history has shown, landlords are just as likely to 
organise and support violent counter-revolutionary movements in the face of
land reform as are industrial capitalists. Both sections of the capitalist 
class supported fascists like Mussolini, Franco and Pinochet in the face of 
even moderate attempts at expropriation by either reformist governments or
the peasants themselves. So as the history of land reform shows, landlords 
are more than willing to turn to death squads and fascism to resist it. To 
suggest that squatting land would provoke less capitalist violence than, say, 
expropriating workplaces simply cannot be supported in the light of 20th century
history. The choice, then, is simply to allow the landlords and capitalists to 
keep their property and try to but it back from them or use political or 
revolutionary means to expropriate them. Communist-anarchists thought that
the mutual banks would not work and so supported expropriation by means of 
a mass revolt, a social revolution.
</p><p>
As such, communist-anarchists are not revolutionaries by choice but rather because 
they do not think capitalism can be reformed away nor that the ruling class will 
freely see their power, property and privileges taken from them. They reject the
mutualist and individualist anarchist suggestion that mutual banks could provide
enough credit to compete capitalism away and, even if it could, the state would
simply outlaw it. This perspective does <b>not</b> imply, as many enemies of
anarchist suggest, that social anarchists always seek to use violence but rather 
that we are aware that the state and capitalists will use violence against any
effective protest. So, the methods social anarchists urge -- strikes, occupations,
protests, and so forth -- are all inherently non-violent but resistance by the
state and capitalist class to these acts of rebellion often results in violence
(which is dutifully reported as violence by the rebels, not the powerful, in the
media). That the capitalist class will use violence and force to maintain its position 
<i>"is demonstrated in every strike which threatens their power; by every lock-out, by 
every discharge; by every black-list."</i> [Parsons, <b>Anarchism: Its Philosophy and 
Scientific Basis</b>, p. 105] Ultimately, the workings of capitalism itself provokes 
resistance to it. Even if no anarchist participated in, or help organise, strikes 
and protests they would occur anyway and the state would inevitably intervene to 
defend "law and order" and "private property" -- as the history of every class 
system proves. So communist-anarchism does not produce the class war, the class 
war produces communist-anarchism.
</p><p>
In addition, Tucker thought that a violent revolution would not succeed for
without an awareness of anarchist ideals in the general public, the old system
would soon return. <i>"If government should be abruptly and entirely abolished 
tomorrow,"</i> he argued, <i>"there would probably ensue a series of physical 
conflicts about land and many other things, ending in reaction and a revival 
of the old tyranny."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 329] Almost all 
revolutionary anarchists would agree with his analysis (see 
<a href="secA2.html#seca216">section A.2.16</a>). Such anarchists have always 
seen revolution as the end of a long process of self-liberation and self-education 
through struggle. All anarchists reject the idea that all that was required was 
to eliminate the government, by whatever means, and the world would be made right.
Rather, we have seen anarchism as a social movement which, like anarchy itself, 
requires the participation of the vast majority to be viable. Hence anarchist
support for unions and strikes, for example, as a means of creating more awareness
of anarchism and its solutions to the social question (see 
<a href="secJ1.html">section J.1</a>). This means that communist-anarchists do
not see revolution as imposing anarchism, but rather as an act of self-liberation
by a people sick of being ruled by others and act to free themselves of tyranny.
</p><p>
So, in summary, in terms of tactics there is significant overlap between the
strategies advocated by both social and individualist anarchists. The key
difference is that the former do not think that the latter's mutual banks make
expropriation unnecessary while the individualist anarchists think that 
expropriation of capital would provoke the state into attacking and it 
would be unlikely that the rebels would win. Both, however, can agree that 
violence should only be used in self-defence and that for most of the time
it is not required as other forms of resistance are far more effective.
</p><p>

<h2><a name="secg23">G.2.3 Does communist-anarchism aim to destroy individuality?</a></h2>
<p>
Then there is the desirability of communism as such. A. H. Simpson argued that 
<i>"Anarchism is egoism; Communism is altruism"</i> and altruism in any 
form will involve <i>"the duty of the individual to sacrifice himself to 
God, the State, the community, the 'cause' of anything, superstition that
always makes for tyranny. This idea, whether under Theocracy or Communism,
will result in the same thing -- always authority."</i> He did, though, 
argue that in a free society people who <i>"desire to have their individuality 
submerged in the crowd"</i> would be free to set up their own communes.
[<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 92 and p. 94] This flows from
Joshua Warren's experiences on Robert Owen's co-operative community <b>New
Harmony</b> and the conclusions he drew from its collapse. Warren essentially 
began the individualist anarchist tradition by concluding that any sort of 
collective emphasis was bound to fail because it prevented people from 
sufficiently addressing individual concerns, since supposed collective concerns 
would inevitably take their place. The failure of these communities was rooted 
in a failure to understand the need for individual self-government. Thus, for 
Warren, it <i>"seemed that the differences of opinion, tastes, and purposes 
<b>increased</b> just in proportion to the demand for conformity"</i> and so 
it <i>"appeared that it was nature's own inherent law of diversity that had 
conquered us . . . Our 'united interests' were directly at war with the 
individualities of persons and circumstances."</i> [quoted by George Woodcock, 
<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 390] Thus, property within the limits of occupancy and use, 
and within an economy dominated by the cost principle or some close equivalent, 
had to be a necessary protection for the individual from both the potential 
tyranny of the group (communism) and from inequalities in wealth (capitalism).
</p><p>
In return, communist-anarchists would agree. <i>"Phalansteries,</i> argued
Kropotkin, <i>"are repugnant to millions of human beings."</i> While most
people feel <i>"the necessity of meeting his [or her] fellows for the
pursue of common work . . . it is not so for the hours of leisure"</i>
and such communities <i>"do not take this into account."</i> Thus a
commune system does not imply communal living (although such arrangements
<i>"can please some"</i>). Rather it was a case of <i>"isolated apartments 
. . . Isolation, alternating with time spent in society, is the normal 
desire of human nature."</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, pp. 123-4]
Kropotkin in his discussion on why intentional communities like that
of Owen's failed repeated many of Warren's points and stressed that 
they were based on the authoritarian spirit and violated the need for 
individual liberty, isolation and diversity (see his <b>Small Communal 
Experiments and Why They Fail</b>). The aim of communist-anarchism is to 
create a communist society based on individual liberty and freely joined
functional groups. It does not aim to burden individuals with communal 
issues beyond those required by said groupings. Thus self-managed communities 
involve managing only those affairs which truly rest in joint needs,
with the interests of individuals and other groups only being discussed
if they are harming others and other means of resolving disputes have
failed. Whether this can actually happen, of course, will be discovered in 
a free society. If it did not, the communist-anarchists would be the first
to seek alternative economic and social arrangements which guaranteed liberty.
</p><p>
It should also go without saying that no communist-anarchist sought a system 
by which individuals would have their personality destroyed. As Kropotkin 
stressed:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests -- individual
liberty -- and moreover extends it and gives it a solid basis -- economic
liberty -- without which political liberty is delusive; it does not ask
the individual who has rejected god, god the king, and god the parliament,
to give himself unto himself a god more terrible than any of the preceding
-- god the Community, or to abdicate upon its alter his independence, his
will, his tastes, and to renew the vow of asceticism which he formally made
before the crucified god. It says to him, on the contrary, 'No society is 
free so long as the individual is not so! Do not seek to modify society by
imposing upon it an authority which shall make everything right; if you
do you will fail . . . abolish the conditions which allow some to monopolise
the fruit of labour of others.'"</i> [<b>The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic
Evolution</b>, pp. 14-5]
</blockquote>
Of course, denying that communist-anarchists seek such a regime is not the
same as saying that such a regime would not be created by accident. Unsurprisingly,
communist-anarchists have spent some time arguing that their system would not be
subject to such a degeneration as its members would be aware of the danger and
act to stop it (see, for example, <a href="secI5.html#seci56">section I.5.6</a>).
The key to understanding communist-anarchism is to recognise that it is based
on free access. It does not deny an individual (or even a group of individuals)
the ability to work their own land or workplace, it simply denies them the
ability to exclude others from it unless they agree to be their servant first.
The sharing of the products of labour is considered as the means to reduce
even more any authority in society as people can swap workplaces and communities
with ease, without worrying about whether they can put food on their table or
not. 
</p><p>
Of course, there is slight irony to Simpson's diatribe against communism in
that it implicitly assumes that private property is not a god and that 
individuals should respect it regardless of how it impacts on them and their
liberty. Would it not be altruism of the worse kind if working class people 
did not simply take the land and capital they need to survive rather than
sell their labour and liberty to its owners? So why exclude private property 
(even in a modified form) from individualist anarchist scorn? As we argue in
<a href="secG6.html">section G.6</a> this was Max Stirner's position and,
fundamentally, the communist-anarchist one too. Communist-anarchists oppose
private property as it generates relationships of authority and these harm
those subject to them and, as a consequence, they argue that it is in the
<b>self</b>-interest of the individuals so oppressed to expropriate private 
property and share the whole world.
</p><p>
The issue of sharing and what it implied also caused some individualist anarchists
to oppose it. Henry Appleton argued that <i>"all communism rests upon an 
artificial attempt to level things, as against a social development resting upon
untrammelled individual sovereignty."</i> The <i>"true Anarchist . . . is opposed
to all manner of artificial levelling machines. How pitiful the ignorance which 
accuses him of wanting to level everything, when the very integral thought of
Anarchism is opposed to levelling!"</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, 
p. 89] However, as we have indicated in <a href="secA2.html#seca25">section A.2.5</a>,
all genuine anarchists, <b>including communist-anarchists</b>, are opposed to
making or treating people as if they were identical. In fact, the goal of 
communist-anarchism has always been to ensure and protect the natural diversity
of individuals by creating social conditions in which individuality can flourish.
The fundamental principle of communism is the maxim <i><b>"from each according
to their abilities, to each according to their needs."</b></i> There is nothing
there about <i>"levelling"</i> or (which amounts to the same thing), <i>"equality
of outcome."</i> To make an obvious point: <i>"If one person need medical treatment 
and another is more fortunate, they are not to be granted an equal amount of medical 
care, and the same is true of other human needs.</i> Hence Chomsky talks of the
<i>"authentic left"</i> who recognise that individuals <i>"will differ in their 
aspirations, their abilities, and their personal goals"</i> and seek a society
which allows that diversity to fully flourish. [<b>The Chomsky Reader</b>, p. 191
and p. 192] In the words of Rudolf Rocker:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"a far greater degree of economic equality . . . would . . . be no guarantee
against political and social oppression. Economic equality alone is not social
liberation. It is just this which Marxism and all the other schools of 
authoritarian Socialism have never understood. Even in prison, in the cloister,
or in the barracks one finds a fairly high degree of economic equality, as all
the inmates are provided with the same dwelling, the same food, the same 
uniform, and the same tasks . . . [this was] the vilest despotism . . . the
human being was merely the automation of a higher will, on whose decisions he
had not the slightest influence. It was not without reason that Proudhon saw in
a 'Socialism' without freedom the worst form of slavery. The urge for social
justice can only develop properly and be effective, when it grows out of man's
sense of personal freedom and is based on that. In other words <b>Socialism will
be free, or it will not be at all</b>. In its recognition of this lies the 
genuine and profound justification for the existence of Anarchism."</i>
[<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 14]
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore, anarchists <i>"demand the abolition of all economic monopolies and
the common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of
which must be available to all without distinction; for personal and social
freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages for
everybody.</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 11] As Kropotkin stressed, anarchists 
recognise that there are two types of communism, libertarian and authoritarian
and <i>"our communism, is not that of the authoritarian school: it is anarchist
communism, communism without government, free communism. It is a synthesis of
the two chief aims pursued by humanity since the dawn of its history -- 
economic freedom and political freedom."</i> It is based on <i>"everybody, 
contributing for the common well-being to the full extent of his [or her] 
capacities . . . enjoy[ing] also from the common stock of society to the fullest 
possible extent of his [or her] needs."</i> Thus it is rooted in individual 
tastes and diversity, on <i>"putting the wants of the individual <b>above</b> 
the valuation of the services he [or she] has rendered, or might render, to 
society."</i> Thus communism was <i>"the best basis for individual development
and freedom"</i> and so <i>"the full expansion of man's faculties, the superior
development of what is original in him, the greatest fruitfulness of intelligences,
feeling and will."</i> It would ensure the <i>"most powerful development of
individuality, of individual originality."</i> The <i>"most powerful development 
of individuality, of individual originality . . . can only be produced when the 
first needs of food and shelter are satisfied"</i> and this was why <i>"communism and 
anarchism"</i> are <i>"a necessary complement to one another."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, 
p. 61, p. 59, p. 60 and p. 141] 
</p><p>
So, communist-anarchists would actually agree with individualist anarchists like
Simpson and oppose any notion of <i>"levelling"</i> (artificial or otherwise). The
aim of libertarian communism is to increase diversity and individuality, <b>not</b>
to end it by imposing an abstract equality of outcome or of consumption that 
would utter ignore individual tastes or preferences. Given that communist-anarchists
like Kropotkin and Malatesta continually stressed this aspect of their ideas, 
Simpson was simply confusing libertarian and authoritarian forms of communism for
polemical effect rather than presenting a true account of the issues at hand.
</p><p>
A firmer critique of communist-anarchism can be found when Tucker argued that 
<i>"Kropotkinian anarchism means the liberty to eat, but not to cook; to drink, 
but not to brew; to wear, but not to spin; to dwell, but not to build; to give, 
but not to sell or buy; to think, but not to print; to speak, but not to hire a 
hall; to dance, but not to pay the fiddler."</i> [quoted by George Woodcock and 
Ivan Avakumovic, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 279] Yet even this contains a distortion,
as it is clear that communist-anarchism is based on the assumption that members
of a communist society <b>would</b> have to contribute (if physically able, of 
course) to the common resources in order to gain access to them. The notion that
Kropotkin thought that a communist society would only take into account <i>"to
each according to their needs"</i> while ignoring <i>"from each according to
their abilities"</i> seems hard to square with his published arguments. While
it is true that individual contributions would not be exactly determined, it is
false to suggest that communist-anarchism ignores the obvious truism that in 
order to consume you first need to produce. Simply put, if someone seeks to 
live off the work of others in a free society those within it would be asked to
leave and provide for themselves. By their actions, they have shown that they 
do not want to live in a communist commune and those who do wish to live as
communists would feel no particular need to provide for those who do not (see
<a href="secI4.html#seci414">section I.4.14</a>).
</p><p>
This can be seen when Tucker quoted <b>Freedom</b> saying that <i>"in the transitional 
revolutionary period communities and individuals may be obliged in self-defence 
to make it their rule that 'He who will not work neither shall he eat.' It is 
not always possible for us to act up to our principles and . . . expediency may 
force us to confine our Communism to those who are willing to be our brothers 
and equals."</i> Somewhat incredibly, Tucker stated <i>"I am not quite clear as 
to the meaning of this, and would ask to be enlightened on the question whether 
those objectionable individuals are to be let alone to live in their own way, or 
whether the State Socialistic plan would be pursued in dealing with them."</i> 
[<b>Liberty</b>, no. 149, p. 1] Clearly, his anti-communism got in the way of any
attempt to build bridges or acknowledge that communist-anarchists had no desire 
(as noted above) to force people to be communists nor to have the "communism" of
those unwilling (rather than unable) to contribute imposed on them! 
</p><p>

<h2><a name="secg24">G.2.4 What other reasons do individualists give for rejecting communist-anarchism?</a></h2>
<p>
The other differences are not as major. Some individualist anarchists took umbrage 
because the communist-anarchists predicted that an anarchist society would take a 
communal form, so prescribing the future development of a free society in potentially 
authoritarian ways. As James Martin summarised, it was Tucker's <i>"belief that 'in
all subsequent social co-operation no manner of organisation or combination 
whatsoever shall be binding upon any individual without his consent,' and to
decide in advance upon a communal structure violated this maxim from the 
start."</i> [<b>Men Against the State</b>, p. 222] Others took umbrage because 
the communist-anarchists refused to spell out in sufficient detail exactly how 
their vision would work. 
</p><p>
Communist-anarchists reply in four main ways. Firstly, the individualist
anarchists themselves predicted roughly how they thought a free society would
look and function, namely one on individual ownership of production based
around mutual banks. Secondly, communist-anarchists presented any vision as
one which was consistent with libertarian principles, i.e., their suggestions
for a free society was based on thinking about the implication of anarchist 
principles in real life. There seemed little point in advocating anarchism if
any future society would be marked by authority. To not discuss how a free
society could work would result in authoritarian solutions being imposed 
(see <a href="secI2.html#seci21">section I.2.1</a>). Thirdly, they were at 
pains to link the institutions of a free society to those already being 
generated within capitalism but in opposition to its hierarchical nature 
(see <a href="secI2.html#seci23">section I.2.3</a>). Fourthly, presenting more 
than a sketch would be authoritarian as it is up to a free people to create 
their own society and solve their problems themselves (see 
<a href="secI2.html">section I.2</a>).
</p><p>
Clearly, A. H. Simpson was wrong when he asserted that communist-anarchists 
argued thusly: <i>"Abolish private property by instituting compulsory Communism, 
and the State will go."</i> No communist-anarchist has ever argued for compulsory 
communism. Somewhat ironically, Simpson went on to argue that <i>"difference 
between Communism and Anarchy is plainly observable in their methods. Abolish the 
State . . . that bulwark of the robber system . . . says the Anarchist. Abolish 
private property, the source of all evil and injustice, parent of the State, 
says the Communist."</i>  [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 92] Yet 
communist-anarchists do <b>not</b> subscribe to the position of abolishing 
private property first, <b>then</b> the state. As we note when refuting the 
opposite assertion by Marxists in <a href="secH2.html#sech24">section H.2.4</a>, 
anarchists like Kropotkin and Malatesta followed Bakunin in arguing that <b>both</b> 
needed to be abolished at the same time. Kropotkin, for example, did not divide 
economic and political issues, for him it was a case of <i>"the political and 
economic principles of Anarchism."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 159]
</p><p>
This unity of economic and political aspects of anarchism exists within 
Individualist Anarchism too, but it is hidden by the unfortunately tendency 
of its supporters of discussing certain forms of private property as state 
enforced monopolies. So to a large degree many of the disagreements between 
the two schools of anarchism were rooted in semantics. Thus we find William 
Bailie arguing that the anarchist-communist <i>"assumption that rent and 
interest are due to private property is not proven"</i> as <i>"both rent and 
interest are the result of monopoly, of restricted individual liberty."</i> 
[<b>Liberty</b>, no. 261, p. 1] In other words, rent is caused because 
the state enforces property rights which the individualist anarchists 
disagree with. Thus when individualist anarchists argue they seek to get rid
of the state, they <b>also</b> mean the end of capitalist property rights
(particularly in land). That this can lead to confusion is obvious as, in 
the usual sense of the word, rent <b>is</b> caused by private property. The 
communists-anarchists, in contrast, generally used the term "private property" 
and "property" in the same way that Proudhon used it in 1840, namely property 
which allows its owner to exploit the labour of another. As such, they had 
no problem with those who laboured by themselves on their own property.
</p><p>
The lack of a market in communist-anarchism led some individualist anarchists
like William Bailie to argue that it <i>"ignores the necessity for any machinery 
to adjust economic activities to their ends."</i> Either its supporters <i>"exalt 
a chaotic and unbalanced condition"</i> or they will produce an <i>"insufferable
hierarchy."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 116] Thus, to use modern
terms, either communist-anarchists embrace central planning or their system simply
cannot produce goods to meet demand with over-production of unwanted goods and
under-production of desired ones. Needless to say, communist-anarchists argue that
it is possible to bring the demand and production of goods into line without 
requiring centralised planning (which would be inefficient and a dire threat to
individual freedom -- Kropotkin's arguments against state capitalism were proved
right in Soviet Russia). It would require a system of horizontal links between 
self-managed workplaces and the transmission of appropriate information to make
informed decisions (see <a href="secIcon.html">section I</a> for a discussion of
some possibilities).
</p><p>
Another objection to communist-anarchism was raised by Proudhon during his 
debates with the state communists of his time who also raised the slogan 
<i>"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."</i>
For Proudhon, wages in the sense of payment for labour would still exist in a
anarchist society. This was because of two main reasons. Firstly, rewarding 
labour for its actual work done would be a great incentive in ensuring that it
was efficiently done and meet the consumers requirements. Secondly, he considered
communism as being potentially authoritarian in that society would determine
what an individual should contribute and consume. As he put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Who then shall determine the capacity? who shall be the judge of the needs?
</p><p>
"You say that my capacity is 100: I maintain that it is only 90. You add that my
needs are 90: I affirm that they are 100. There is a difference between us of 
twenty upon needs and capacity. It is, in other words, the well-known debate 
between <b>demand</b> and <b>supply</b>. Who shall judge between the society 
and me?
</p><p>
"If the society persists, despite my protests, I resign from it, and that is 
all there is to it. The society comes to an end from lack of associates.
</p><p>
"If, having recourse to force, the society undertakes to compel me; if it demands 
from me sacrifice and devotion, I say to it: Hypocrite! you promised to deliver 
me from being plundered by capital and power; and now, in the name of equality 
and fraternity, in your turn, you plunder me. Formerly, in order to rob me, they 
exaggerated my capacity and minimised my needs. They said that products cost 
me so little, that I needed so little to live! You are doing the same thing. What 
difference is there then between fraternity and the wage system?"</i> [<b>The
General Idea of the Revolution</b>, pp. 96-7]
</p><p></blockquote>
Yet even here Proudhon shows the libertarian communist solution to this 
possible problem, namely free association. If there were a conflict between
individuals within a free commune in terms of their contributions and 
consumption then the individual is free to leave (and, conversely, the 
commune is free to expel an individual). Said individuals can seek another
communist commune and join it or, conversely, work for themselves in their
present location. Ultimately, free association means the freedom <b>not</b>
to associate and libertarian communism is rooted in that truism. Thus,
communist-anarchists would agree with the French anarchism when he <i>"conclude[d] 
that a single association can never include all the workmen in one industry, nor 
all industrial corporations, nor, <b>a fortiori</b>, a nation of 36 millions of men; 
therefore that the principle of association does not offer the required solution."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 85] Like Proudhon, communist-anarchists base their anarchism on 
federations of associations and communes, with these federations and associations 
formed as and when they were required for joint activity. Thus the federation 
of communist communes and workplaces would play a similar role as Proudhon's
<i>"agro-industrial federation,"</i> namely to end <i>"wage labour or economic 
servitude"</i> and <i>"to protect"</i> against <i>"capitalist and financial 
feudalism, both within them and from the outside"</i> as well as ensuring 
<i>"increasing equality"</i> and the <i>"application of application on the 
largest possible scale of the principles of mutualism"</i> and <i>"economic
solidarity."</i> [<b>The Principle of Federation</b>, p. 70 and p. 71]
</p><p>
The key difference, of course, between Proudhon's mutualism and Kropotkin's
communism was (as latter stressed) that the former supported payment for
labour in terms of money or labour-cheques while the latter argued that this 
would be a modification of the wages system rather than its total abolition. 
Yet by divorcing payment for labour from its consumption, Proudhon argued that 
communism, like monopoly, made it difficult to determine exactly the costs 
involved in producing goods. The French anarchist argued that there was no 
way of knowing the real cost of anything produced outside the market. This 
could be seen from monopolies within capitalism:
<blockquote></p><p><i>
"How much does the tobacco sold by the administration cost? How much 
is it worth? You can answer the first of these questions: you need 
only call at the first tobacco shop you see. But you can tell me 
nothing about the second, because you have no standard of comparison 
and are forbidden to verify by experiment the items of cost of 
administration. Therefore the tobacco business, made into a monopoly, 
necessarily costs society more than it brings in; it is an industry 
which, instead of subsisting by its own product, lives by subsidies."</i>
[<b>System of Economical Contradictions</b>, pp. 232-3]
</blockquote></p><p>
Communist-anarchists reply by noting that the price of something is not
independent of the degree of monopoly of an industry and so natural
barriers to competition can skew prices. Equally, competition can be
a race to the bottom and that competitors can undermine their own 
working conditions and enjoyment of life in order to gain an advantage
(or, more often, simply survive) on the market. As we argue in 
<a href="secI13.html#seci13">section I.1.3</a>, markets have a tendency
to undermine equality and solidarity and, over time, erode the basis of
a free society. 
</p><p>
As an aside, Proudhon's argument has obvious similarities with von Mises'
much later attack on communism which is usually called the "socialist calculation 
argument" (see <a href="secI1.html#seci11">section I.1.1</a>). As discussed in 
<a href="secI1.html#seci12">section I.1.2</a>, von Mises' argument was question 
begging in the extreme and our critique of that applies equally to Proudhon's
claims. As such, communist-anarchists argue that market prices usually do <b>not</b> 
reflect the real costs (in terms of their effects on individuals, society and the
planet's ecology) -- even those prices generated by non-capitalist markets. Moreover, 
due to Proudhon's opposition to rent and interest, his own argument could be turned 
against mutualism and individualist anarchism as followers of von Mises have done. 
Without rent and interest, they argue, there is no way of identifying how much land 
or credit is worth and so resource use will be inefficient. Of course, this assumes 
that capitalist definitions of efficiency and "cost" are the only valid ones which 
is not the case. So, arguing that markets are required to correctly value goods
and services is a two-edged sword, argue communist-anarchists.
</p><p>
One of the joys of Proudhon is that he provides material to critique both
Kropotkin's communist-anarchism <b>and</b> Tucker's individualist anarchism
for while opposed to communism he was equally opposed to wage labour, as
we indicate in <a href="secG4.html#secg42">section G.4.2</a> (as such, those
who quote Proudhon's attacks on communism but fail to note his attacks on
wage slavery are extremely dishonest). Under mutualism, there would not be 
wage labour. Rather than employers paying wages to workers, workers would 
form co-operatives and pay themselves a share of the income they collectively
produced. As Robert Graham put it, <i>"[t]hat both Tucker and Bakunin could claim 
Proudhon as their own illustrates the inherent ambiguity and elusiveness of his 
thought . . . With his death, that synthesis broke down into its conflicting 
parts."</i> [<i>"Introduction"</i>, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, <b>The General idea 
of the Revolution</b>, p. xxxi] Social anarchism emphasised the self-management, 
associational and federalist aspects of Proudhon's ideas along with his critique 
of private property while individualist anarchism tended to stress his support 
for possession, "wages" (i.e., labour income), competition and markets.
</p><p>

<h2><a name="secg25">G.2.5 Do most anarchists agree with the individualists on communist-anarchism?</a></h2>
<p>
No, far from it. Most anarchists in the late nineteenth century recognised 
communist-anarchism as a genuine form of anarchism and it quickly replaced
collectivist anarchism as the dominant tendency. 
<p></p>
So few anarchists found the individualist solution to the social question or 
the attempts of some of them to excommunicate social anarchism from the movement 
convincing. Across the world, including in America itself, communist anarchism 
became the bulk of the movement (social anarchism is the <i>"mainstream of 
anarchist theory"</i> and in the <i>"historical anarchist movement"</i> 
where anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism have been <i>"predominating."</i> 
[John Clark, <b>The Anarchist Moment</b>, p. 143]). That is still the situation 
to this day, with individualist anarchism being a small part of the movement 
(again, it mostly exists in America and, to an even lesser degree, Britain). 
Moreover, with the notable exception of Johann Most, most leading 
communist-anarchists refused to respond in kind and recognised individualist 
anarchism as a form of anarchism (usually one suited to conditions in 
pre-industrial America). Kropotkin, for example, included Individualist 
Anarchism in his 1911 account of Anarchism for the <b>Encyclopaedia Britannica</b> 
as well as his pamphlet <b>Modern Science and Anarchism</b>.
</p><p>
It should also be stressed that not all individualist anarchists followed 
Tucker's lead in refusing to call communist anarchism a form of anarchism. 
Joseph Labadie, Dyer Lum and Voltairine de Cleyre (when she was an individualist), 
for example, recognised the likes of Albert and Lucy Parsons, Kropotkin, 
Goldman and Berkman as fellow anarchists even if they disagreed with some of 
their methods and aspects of their preferred solution to the social problem. 
For Labadie, <i>"[o]ne may want liberty to advance the interests of Communism, 
another to further the cause of individualism"</i> and so nothing can <i>"stand 
in the way of uniting with other Anarchists who believe in Communism to get 
more liberty"</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 260 and p. 262]
Today, few (if any) individualist anarchists try to excommunicate other 
anarchists from the movement, thankfully leaving the diatribes and sectarianism
of a few individuals in the nineteenth century where they belong.
</p><p>
Suffice to say, an account of anarchism which excluded social anarchism would be 
a very short work indeed and, unsurprisingly, all serious accounts of anarchism
concentrate on social anarchism, its thinkers and its organisations. Which, 
unfortunately, ensures that the diversity and richness of individualist anarchism 
is somewhat lost, as are its social roots and context (which, in turn, allows some 
academics to confuse individualist anarchism with "anarcho"-capitalism based on a 
superficial analysis of words like "property" and "markets"). This predominance 
of social anarchism is reflected in the movements journals. 
</p><p>
While some of its admirers stress that <b>Liberty</b> was the longest lasting 
American anarchist paper, in fact a social anarchist paper has that claim to 
fame. <b>Fraye Arbeter Shtime</b> (<b>The Free Voice of Labour</b>) was a Yiddish 
language anarchist periodical which was first published in 1890 and lasted until 
1977. This was followed by the Italian anarchist paper <b>L'Adunata dei Refrattari</b>
which was published between 1922 and 1971. So when James Martin stated that <b>Liberty</b> 
was <i>"the longest-lived of any radical periodical of economic or political nature 
in the nation's history"</i> in 1953 he was wrong. [<b>Men Against the State</b>, 
p. 208] In terms of the English language, the London based communist-anarchist journal 
<b>Freedom</b> has existed (in various forms) from 1886 and so beats any claim made 
for <b>Liberty</b> as being the longest lasting English language anarchist journal 
by several decades. The anarcho-syndicalist <b>Black Flag</b>, another British based 
journal, began publication in 1971 and was still being published over 30 years later. 
As far as the longest running US-based anarchist journal, that title now goes to the
social anarchist magazine <b>Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed</b> which was 
founded in 1980 and is still going strong. This is, we stress, not to diminish 
<b>Liberty</b> and its achievement but simply to put it into the context of the
wider movement and the fact that, outside of America, social anarchism <b>is</b> 
the anarchist movement (and even within America, social anarchism was and is the 
bulk of it).
</p><p>
In summary, then, while individualist anarchism opposed communist-anarchism much
of this opposition was rooted in misunderstandings and, at times, outright distortion. 
Once these are corrected, it becomes clear that both schools of anarchism share 
significant ideas in common. This is unsurprisingly, given the impact of Proudhon on 
both of them as well as their common concerns on the social question and participation 
in the labour and other popular movements. As both are (libertarian) socialists inspired
by many of the same intellectual and social influences, this should come as no surprise. 
That a few individualist and communist anarchists tried to deny those common influences
should not blind us to them or the fact that both schools of anarchism are compatible.
</p><p>
Ultimately, though, anarchism should be wide enough and generous enough to
include both communist and individualist anarchism. Attempts to excommunicate
one or the other seem petty given how much each has in common and, moreover,
given that both are compatible with each other as both are rooted in similar
perspectives on possession, capitalist property rights and voluntary association.
Once the differences in terminology are understood, the differences are not
impossible to reconcile.
</p>

</body>
</html>