File: secG4.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 (1698 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 123,770 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism?</h1>
<p>
As James J. Martin notes, <i>"paralleling"</i> European social anarchism 
<i>"chronologically was a kindred but nearly unconnected phenomenon in 
America, seeking the same ends through individualistic rather than 
collectivistic dynamics."</i> [<b>Men Against the State</b>, p. ix] 
</p><p>
When the two movements meet in American in the 1880s, the similarities and 
differences of both came into sharp relief. While both social and individualist 
anarchists reject capitalism as well as the state and seek an end to the 
exploitation of labour by capital (i.e. to usury in all its forms), both 
schools of anarchism rejected each others solutions to the social problem. 
The vision of the social anarchists was more communally based, urging social 
ownership of the means of life. In contrast, reflecting the pre-dominantly 
pre-capitalist nature of post-revolution US society, the Individualist 
Anarchists urged possession of the means of life and mutual banking to end 
profit, interest and rent and ensure every worker access to the capital they
needed to work for themselves (if they so desired). While social anarchists 
placed co-operatives (i.e., workers' self-management) at the centre of their
vision of a free society, many individualist anarchists did not as they thought
that mutual banking would end exploitation by ensuring that workers received the
full product of their labour.
</p><p>
Thus their vision of a free society and the means to achieve it were somewhat 
different (although, we stress, <b>not</b> mutually exclusive as communist 
anarchists supported artisan possession of the means of possession for those 
who rejected communism and the Individualist Anarchists supported voluntary 
communism). Tucker argued that a communist could not be an anarchist and the 
communist-anarchists argued that Individualist Anarchism could not end the 
exploitation of capital by labour. Here we indicate why social anarchists reject 
individualist anarchism (see <a href="secG2.html">section G.2</a> for a summary 
of why Individualist Anarchists reject social anarchism).
</p><p>
Malatesta summarises the essential points of difference as well as the source of 
much of the misunderstandings:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The individualists assume, or speak as if they assumed, that the (anarchist) 
communists wish to impose communism, which of course would put them right outside 
the ranks of anarchism.
</p><p>
"The communists assume, or speak as if they assumed, that the (anarchist) 
individualists reject every idea of association, want the struggle between men, 
the domination of the strongest -- and this would put them not only outside the 
anarchist movement but outside humanity.
</p><p>
"In reality those who are communists are such because they see in communism freely 
accepted the realisation of brotherhood, and the best guarantee for individual 
freedom. And individualists, those who are really anarchists, are anti-communist 
because they fear that communism would subject individuals nominally to the tyranny 
of the collectivity and in fact to that of the party or caste which, with the excuse 
of administering things, would succeed in taking possession of the power to dispose 
of material things and thus of the people who need them. Therefore they want each 
individual, or each group, to be in a position to enjoy freely the product of their 
labour in conditions of equality with other individuals and groups, with whom they 
would maintain relations of justice and equity.
</p><p>
"In which case it is clear that there is no basic difference between us. But, 
according to the communists, justice and equity are, under natural conditions 
impossible of attainment in an individualistic society, and thus freedom too 
would not be attained.
</p><p>
"If climatic conditions throughout the world were the same, if the land were 
everywhere equally fertile, if raw materials were evenly distributed and within 
reach of all who needed them, if social development were the same everywhere in 
the world . . . then one could conceive of everyone . . . finding the land, tools 
and raw materials needed to work and produce independently, without exploiting or 
being exploited. But natural and historical conditions being what they are, how
is it possible to establish equality and justice between he who by chance finds 
himself with a piece of arid land which demands much labour for small returns with 
him who has a piece of fertile and well sited land?" Of between the inhabitant of 
a village lost in the mountains or in the middle of a marshy area, with the 
inhabitants of a city which hundreds of generations of man have enriched with 
all the skill of human genius and labour?</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and 
Ideas</b>, pp. 31-2]
</blockquote></p><p>
The social anarchist opposition to individualist anarchism, therefore, resolves
around the issues of inequality, the limitations and negative impact of markets 
and whether wage-labour is consistent with anarchist principles (both in general
and in terms of individualist anarchism itself). We discuss the issue of wage 
labour and anarchist principles in the <a href="secG4.html#secg41">next section</a>
and argue in <a href="secG4.html#secg42">section G.4.2</a> that Tucker's support 
for wage-labour, like any authoritarian social relationship, ensures that this is
an inconsistent form of anarchism. Here we concentration on issues of inequality
and markets.
</p><p>
First, we must stress that individualist anarchism plays an important role in 
reminding all socialists that capitalism does <b>not</b> equal the market. Markets 
have existed before capitalism and may, if we believe market socialists like 
David Schweickart and free market socialists like Benjamin Tucker and Kevin Carson,
even survive it. While some socialists (particularly Leninists echoing, ironically,
supporters of capitalism) equate capitalism with the market, this is not the case.
Capitalism is a specific form of market economy based on certain kinds of property 
rights which result in generalised wage labour and non-labour incomes (exploitation).
This means that the libertarian communist critique of capitalism is to a large
degree independent of its critique of markets and their negative impact. Equally,
the libertarian communist critique of markets, while applicable to capitalism, 
applies to other kinds of economy. It is fair to say, though, that capitalism 
tends to intensify and worsen the negative effects of markets.
</p><p>
Second, we must also note that social anarchists are a diverse grouping and include
the mutualism of Proudhon, Bakunin's collectivism and Kropotkin's communism. All 
share a common hostility to wage labour and recognise, to varying degrees, that 
markets tend to have negative aspects which can undermine the libertarian nature of
a society. While Proudhon was the social anarchist most in favour of competition, 
he was well aware of the need for self-managed workplaces to federate together to
protect themselves from its negative aspects -- aspects he discussed at length. His
<i>"agro-industrial federation"</i> was seen as a means of socialising the market,
of ensuring that competition would not reach such levels as to undermine the 
freedom and equality of those within it. Individualist anarchists, in contrast, 
tended not to discuss the negative effects of markets in any great depth (if at
all), presumably because they thought that most of the negative effects would 
disappear along with capitalism and the state. Other anarchists are not so 
optimistic.
</p><p>
So, two key issues between social and individualist anarchism are the related subjects 
of property and competition. As Voltairine de Cleyre put it when she was an individualist
anarchist:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"She and I hold many differing views on both Economy and Morals . . . Miss Goldmann [sic!] 
is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish 
to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, 
the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes 
that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one 
form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should."</i> [<b>The 
Voltairine de Cleyre Reader</b>, p. 9]
</blockquote></p><p>
The question of "property" is subject to much confusion and distortion. It should be
stressed that both social and individualist anarchists argue that the only true property
is that produced by labour (mental and physical) and capitalism results in some of
that being diverted to property owners in the form of interest, rent and profits.
Where they disagree is whether it is possible and desirable to calculate an individual's
contribution to social production, particularly within a situation of joint labour. 
For Tucker, it was a case of creating <i>"the economic law by which every man 
may get the equivalent of his product."</i> [quoted by George Woodcock and Ivan 
Avakumovic, <b>The Anarchist Prince</b>, p. 279] Social anarchists, particularly 
communist ones, question whether it is possible in reality to discover such a 
thing in any society based on joint labour (<i>"which it would be difficult to 
imagine could exist in any society where there is the least complexity of production."</i>
[George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 280]). 
</p><p>
This was the crux of Kropotkin's critique of the various schemes of "labour money" and
"labour vouchers" raised by other schools of socialism (like mutualism, collectivism
and various state socialist systems). They may abolish wage labour (or, at worse, create
state capitalism) but they did not abolish the wages system, i.e., payment according to
work done. This meant that a system of individualist distribution was forced upon a
fundamentally co-operative system of production and so was illogical and unjust (see
Kropotkin's <i>"The Collectivist Wage System"</i> in <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>). Thus 
Daniel Gurin:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"This method of remuneration, derived from modified individualism, is in contradiction 
to collective ownership of the means of production, and cannot bring about a profound 
revolutionary change in man. It is incompatible with anarchism; a new form of ownership
requires a new form of remuneration. Service to the community cannot be measured in 
units of money. Needs will have to be given precedence over services, and all the 
products of the labour of all must belong to all, each to take his share of them freely. 
<b>To each according to his need</b> should be the motto of libertarian communism."</i>
[<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 50]
</blockquote></p><p>
Simply put, wages rarely reflect the actual contribution of a specific person to social
well-being and production nor do they reflect their actual needs. To try and get actual
labour income to reflect the actual contribution to society would be, communist-anarchists
argued, immensely difficult. How much of a product's price was the result of better land
or more machinery, luck, the willingness to externalise costs, and so on? Voltairine de 
Cleyre summarised this problem and the obvious solution:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"I concluded that as to the question of exchange and money, it was so exceedingly 
bewildering, so impossible of settlement among the professors themselves, as to the 
nature of value, and the representation of value, and the unit of value, and the 
numberless multiplications and divisions of the subject, that the best thing ordinary 
workingmen or women could do was to organise their industry so as to get rid of money 
altogether. I figured it this way: Im not any more a fool than the rest of ordinary 
humanity; Ive figured and figured away on this thing for years, and directly I thought 
myself middling straight, there came another money reformer and showed me the hole in 
that scheme, till, at last , it appears that between 'bills of credit,' and 'labour notes' 
and 'time checks,' and 'mutual bank issues,' and 'the invariable unit of value,' none of 
them have any sense. How many thousands of years is it going to get this sort of thing 
into peoples heads by mere preaching of theories. Let it be this way: Let there be an 
end of the special monopoly on securities for money issues. Let every community go ahead 
and try some member's money scheme if it wants; - let every individual try it if he 
pleases. But better for the working people let them all go. Let them produce together, 
co-operatively rather than as employer and employed; let them fraternise group by group, 
let each use what he needs of his own product, and deposit the rest in the storage-houses, 
and let those others who need goods have them as occasion arises."</i> [<b>Exquisite 
Rebel</b>, p. 62]
</blockquote></p><p>
And, obviously, it must be stressed that "property" in the sense of personal possessions 
would still exist in communist-anarchism. As the co-founder of <b>Freedom</b> put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Does Anarchism, then, it may be asked, acknowledge no <b>Meum</b> or <b>Tuum</b>, no 
personal property? In a society in which every man is free to take what he requires, it 
is hardly conceivable that personal necessaries and conveniences will not be appropriated, 
and difficult to imagine why they should not . . . When property is protected by no legal 
enactments, backed by armed force, and is unable to buy personal service, it resuscitation 
on such a scale as to be dangerous to society is little to be dreaded. The amount
appropriated by each individual, and the manner of his appropriation, must be left to 
his own conscience, and the pressure exercised upon him by the moral sense and distinct 
interests of his neighbours."</i> [Charlotte Wilson, <b>Anarchist Essays</b>, p. 24]
</blockquote></p><p>
To use an appropriate example, public libraries are open to all local residents and 
they are free to borrow books from the stock available. When the book is borrowed, 
others cannot come along and take the books from a person's home. Similarly, an 
individual in a communist society can take what they like from the common stocks 
and use it as they see fit. They do not need permission from others to do so, just
as people freely go to public parks without requiring a vote by the local community
on whether to allow access or not. Communism, in other words, does not imply community
control of personal consumption nor the denial of individuals to appropriate and use 
the common stock of available goods. Socialised consumption does <b>not</b> mean 
"society" telling people what to consume but rather ensuring that all individuals 
have free access to the goods produced by all. As such, the issue is not about 
"property" in the sense of personal property but rather "property" in the sense 
of access to the means of life by those who use them. Will owner occupiers be 
able to exclude others from, say, their land and workplaces unless they agree to 
be their servants?
</p><p>
Which brings us to a key issue between certain forms of individualist anarchism and 
social anarchism, namely the issue of wage labour. As capitalism has progressed, the 
size of workplaces and firms have increased. This has lead to a situation were 
ownership and use has divorced, with property being used by a group of individuals 
distinct from the few who are legally proclaimed to be its owners. The key problem arises 
in the case of workplaces and how do non-possessors gain access to them. Under social 
anarchism, any new members of the collective automatically become part of it, with the 
same rights and ability to participate in decision making as the existing ones. In
other words, socialised production does <b>not</b> mean that "society" will allocate
individuals work tasks but rather it ensures that all individuals have free access to
the means of life. Under individualist anarchism, however, the situation is not as 
clear with some (like Tucker) supporting wage labour. This suggests that the holders 
of workplaces can exclude others from the means of life they possess and only 
allow them access only under conditions which create hierarchical social 
relationships between them. Thus we could have a situation in which the owners who 
actually manage their own workplaces are, in effect, working capitalists who hire 
others to do specific tasks in return for a wage.
</p><p>
The problem is highlighted in Tucker's description of what would replace the 
current system of statism (and note he calls it <i>"scientific socialism"</i> 
thus squarely placing his ideas in the anti-capitalist camp):
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"we have something very tangible to offer , . .  We offer non-compulsive
organisation. We offer associative combination. We offer every possible
method of voluntary social union by which men and women may act together
for the furtherance of well-being. In short, we offer voluntary scientific
socialism in place of the present compulsory, unscientific organisation
which characterises the State and all of its ramifications."</i> [quoted
by Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 218]
</blockquote></p><p>
Yet it is more than possible for voluntary social unions to be authoritarian
and exploitative (we see this every day under capitalism). In other words,
not every form of non-compulsive organisation is consistent with libertarian
principles. Given Tucker's egoism, it is not hard to conclude that those in
stronger positions on the market will seek to maximise their advantages and
exploit those who are subject to their will. As he put it, <i>"[s]o far as 
inherent right is concerned, might is the only measure. Any man . . . and any 
set of men . . . have the right, if they have the power, to kill or coerce 
other men and to make the entire world subservient to their ends. Society's 
right to enslave the individual and the individual's right to enslave society 
are only unequal because their powers are unequal."</i> In the market, all
contracts are based ownership of resources which exist before any specific 
contracts is made. If one side of the contract has more economic power than
the other (say, because of their ownership of capital) then it staggers 
belief that egoists will not seek to maximise said advantage and so the 
market will tend to increase inequalities over time rather than reduce them. 
If, as Tucker argued, <i>"Anarchic associations would recognise the right of 
individual occupants to combine their holdings and work them under any 
system they might agree upon, the arrangement being always terminable at
will, with reversion to original rights"</i> then we have the unfortunate
situation where inequalities will undermine anarchism and defence associations
arising which will defend them against attempts by those subject to them to
use direct action to rectify the situation. [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, 
p. 25 and p. 162] 
</p><p>
Kropotkin saw the danger, arguing that such an idea <i>"runs against the feelings 
of equality of most of us"</i> and <i>"brings the would-be 'Individualists' 
dangerously near to those who imagine themselves to represent a 'superior breed' 
-- those to whom we owe the State . . .  and all other forms of oppression."</i> 
[<b>Evolution and Environment</b>, p. 84] As we discuss in the 
<a href="secG4.html#secg41">next section</a>, it is clear that wage labour 
(like any hierarchical organisation) is not consistent with general 
anarchist principles and, furthermore, in direct contradiction to individualist 
anarchist principles of "occupancy and use." Only if "occupancy and use" is 
consistently applied and so wage labour replaced by workers associations can the 
inequalities associated with market exchanges not become so great as to destroy 
the equal freedom of all required for anarchism to work.
</p><p>
Individualist anarchists reply to this criticism by arguing that this is derived 
from a narrow reading of Stirner's ideas and that they are in favour of universal
egoism. This universal egoism and the increase in competition made possible by 
mutual banking will ensure that workers will have the upper-hand in the market, 
with the possibility of setting up in business themselves always available. In 
this way the ability of bosses to become autocrats is limited, as is their power 
to exploit their workers as a result. Social anarchists argue, in response, that 
the individualists tend to underestimate the problems associated with natural 
barriers to entry in an industry. This could help generate generalised wage labour 
(and so a new class of exploiters) as workers face the unpleasant choice of working 
for a successful firm, being unemployed or working for low wages in an industry 
with lower barriers to entry. This process can be seen under capitalism when 
co-operatives hire wage workers and not include them as members of the 
association (i.e. they exercise their ownership rights to exclude others).
As Proudhon argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"I have shown the contractor, at the birth of industry, negotiating on 
equal terms with his comrades, who have since become his workmen. It is plain, 
in fact, that this original equality was bound to disappear through the 
advantageous position of the master and the dependent position of the 
wage-workers. In vain does the law assure the right of each to enterprise . . . 
When an establishment has had leisure to develop itself, enlarge its foundations, 
ballast itself with capital, and assure itself a body of patrons, what can a 
workman do against a power so superior?"</i> [<b>System of Economical
Contradictions</b>, p. 202]
</blockquote></p><p>
Voltairine de Cleyre also came to this conclusion. Discussing the limitations 
of the Single Tax land reform, she noted that <i>"the stubborn fact always 
came up that no man would employ another to work for him unless he could 
get more for his product than he had to pay for it, and that being the 
case, the inevitable course of exchange and re-exchange would be that 
the man having received less than the full amount, could buy back less 
than the full amount, so that eventually the unsold products must again 
accumulate in the capitalist's hands; and again the period of non-employment 
arrives."</i> This obviously applied to individualist anarchism. In response 
to objections like this, individualists tend to argue that competition 
for labour would force wages to equal output. Yet this ignores natural 
barriers to competition: <i>"it is well enough to talk of his buying hand 
tools, or small machinery which can be moved about; but what about the 
gigantic machinery necessary to the operation of a mine, or a mill? It 
requires many to work it. If one owns it, will he not make the others pay 
tribute for using it?"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 60 and p. 61]
</p><p>
As such, a free market based on wage labour would be extremely unlikely to 
produce a non-exploitative society and, consequently, it would not be socialist 
and so not anarchist. Moreover, the successful business person would seek to
secure his or her property and power and so employ police to do so. <i>"I 
confess that I am not in love with all these little states,"</i> proclaimed
de Cleyre, <i>"and it is . . . the thought of the anarchist policeman that 
has driven me out of the individualist's camp, wherein I for some time resided."
</i> [quoted by Eugenia C. Delamotte, <b>Gates of Freedom</b>, p. 25] This 
outcome can only be avoided by consistently applying "occupancy and use" in
such as way as to eliminate wage labour totally. Only this can achieve a society
based on freedom <b>of</b> association as well as freedom <b>within</b> association.
</p><p>
As we noted in <a href="secG2.html">section G.2</a>, one of the worries of 
individualist anarchists is that social anarchism would subject individuals to 
group pressures and concerns, violating individual autonomy in the name of 
collective interests. Thus, it is argued, the individual will become of slave 
of the group in practice if not in theory under social anarchism. However, an 
inherent part of our humanity is that we associate with others, that we form 
groups and communities. To suggest that there are no group issues within anarchism 
seems at odds with reality. Taken literally, of course, this implies that such a 
version of "anarchy" there would be no forms of association at all. No groups, no 
families, no clubs: nothing bar the isolated individual. It implies no economic 
activity beyond the level of peasant farming and one-person artisan workplaces. 
Why? Simply because any form of organisation implies "group issues." Two people 
deciding to live together or one hundred people working together becomes a group, 
twenty people forming a football club becomes a group. And these people have joint 
interests and so group issues. In other words, to deny group issues is implying 
a social situation that has never existed nor ever will. Thus Kropotkin:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"to reason in this way is to pay . . . too large a tribute to metaphysical
dialectics, and to ignore the facts of life. It is impossible to conceive a
society in which the affairs of any one of its members would not concern many
other members, if not all; still less a society in which a continual contact
between its members would not have established an interest of every one towards
all others, which would render it <b>impossible</b> to act without thinking of
the effects which our actions may have on others."</i> [<b>Evolution and
Environment</b>, p. 85]
</blockquote></p><p>
Once the reality of "group issues" is acknowledged, as most individualist anarchists
do, then the issue of collective decision making automatically arises. There are two 
ways of having a group. You can be an association of equals, governing yourselves 
collectively as regards collective issues. Or you can have capitalists and wage 
slaves, bosses and servants, government and governed. Only the first, for obvious
reasons, is compatible with anarchist principles. Freedom, in other words, is a
product of how we interact with each other, not of isolation. Simply put, anarchism 
is based on self-management of group issues, not in their denial. Free association is,
in this perspective, a necessary but not sufficient to guarantee freedom. Therefore, 
social anarchists reject the individualists' conception of anarchy, simply because it can, 
unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name 
of "liberty" and "free contracts." Freedom is fundamentally a social product, created 
in and by community. It is a fragile flower and does not fare well when bought and sold 
on the market. 
</p><p>
Moreover, without communal institutions, social anarchists argue, it would be 
impossible to specify or supply group or public goods. In addition, occupancy 
and use would, on the face of it, preclude such amenities which are utilised by 
members of a community such as parks, roads or bridges -- anything which is used 
but not occupied continually. In terms of roads and bridges, who actually occupies 
and uses them? The drivers? Those who maintain it? The occupiers of the houses which 
it passes? Those who funded it construction? If the last, then why does this not 
apply to housing and other buildings left on land? And how are the owners to 
collect a return on their investment unless by employing police to bar access 
to non-payers? And would such absentee owners not also seek to extend their
appropriations to other forms of property? Would it not be far easier to simply
communalise such forms of commonly used "property" rather than seek to burden 
individuals and society with the costs of policing and restricting access to them? 
</p><p>
After all, social anarchists note, for Proudhon there was a series of industries 
and services that he had no qualms about calling <i>"public works"</i> and which 
he considered best handled by communes and their federations. Thus <i>"the control 
undertaking such works will belong to the municipalities, and to districts within 
their jurisdiction"</i> while <i>"the control of carrying them out will rest with 
the workmen's associations."</i> This was due to both their nature and libertarian 
values and so the <i>"direct, sovereign initiative of localities, in arranging 
for public works that belong to them, is a consequence of the democratic principle 
and the free contract: their subordination to the State is . . . a return to 
feudalism."</i> Workers' self-management of such public workers was, again, a 
matter of libertarian principles for <i>"it becomes necessary for the workers to 
form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, 
on pain of a relapse into feudalism."</i> [<b>The General Idea of the Revolution</b>,
p. 276 and p. 277]
</p><p>
In the case of a park, either it is open to all or it is fenced off and police 
used to bar access. Taking "occupancy and use" as our starting point then it 
becomes clear that, over time, either the community organises itself communally 
or a park becomes private property. If a group of people frequent a common area 
then they will have to discuss how to maintain it -- for example, arrange for 
labour to be done on it, whether to have a play-ground for children or to have
a duck pond, whether to increase the numbers and types of trees, and so forth. 
That implies the development of communal structures. In the case of new people 
using the amenity, either they are excluded from it (and have to pay for 
access) or they automatically join the users group and so the park is, in
effect, common property and socialised. In such circumstances, it would be far
easier simply to ignore the issue of individual contributions and base access
on need (i.e., communistic principles). However, as already indicated in 
<a href="secG2.html#secg21">section G.2.1</a>, social anarchists reject attempts to 
coerce other workers into joining a co-operative or commune. Freedom cannot 
be given, it must be taken and social anarchism, like all forms of anarchy, 
cannot be imposed. How those who reject social anarchism will gain access to
common property will depend, undoubtedly, on specific circumstances and who
exactly is involved and how they wish to utilise it. As such, it will be
difficult to generalise as each commune will determine what is best and 
reach the appropriate contracts with any individualist anarchists in their
midst or vicinity.
</p><p>
It should also be pointed out (and this may seem ironic), wage labour does have 
the advantage that people can move to new locations and work without having to sell 
their old means of living. Often moving somewhere can be a hassle if one has to sell 
a shop or home. Many people prefer not to be tied down to one place. This is a 
problem in a system based on "occupancy and use" as permanently leaving a property 
means that it automatically becomes abandoned and so its users may be forced to 
stay in one location until they find a buyer for it. This is not an issue in social 
anarchism as access to the means of life is guaranteed to all members of the free 
society.
</p><p>
Most social anarchists also are critical of the means which individualists anarchists 
support to achieve anarchy, namely to abolish capitalism by the creation of mutual 
banks which would compete exploitation and oppression away. While mutual banks could 
aid the position of working class people under capitalism (which is why Bakunin and 
other social anarchists recommended them), they cannot undermine or eliminate it. 
This is because capitalism, due to its need to accumulate, creates <b>natural</b> 
barriers to entry into a market (see <a href="secC4.html">section C.4</a>). 
Thus the physical size of the large corporation would make it immune to the influence 
of mutual banking and so usury could not be abolished. Even if we look at the claimed
indirect impact of mutual banking, namely an increase in the demand of labour and so 
wages, the problem arises that if this happens then capitalism would soon go into a 
slump (with obvious negative effects on small firms and co-operatives). In such 
circumstances, the number of labourers seeking work would rise and so wages would 
fall and profits rise. Then it is a case of whether the workers would simply 
tolerate the slump and let capitalism continue or whether they would seize their 
workplaces and practice the kind of expropriation individualist anarchists tended 
to oppose.
</p><p>
This problem was recognised by many individualist anarchists themselves and it 
played a significant role in its decline as a movement. By 1911 Tucker had come 
to the same conclusions as communist-anarchists on whether capitalism could be 
reformed away. As we noted in <a href="secG1.html#secg11">section G.1.1</a>, he 
<i>"had come to believe that free banking and similar measures, even if inaugurated, 
were no longer adequate to break the monopoly of capitalism or weaken the authority 
of the state."</i> [Paul Avrich, <b>Anarchist Voices</b>, p. 6] While admitted that 
political or revolutionary action was required to destroy the concentrations of 
capital which made anarchy impossible even with free competition, he rejected the
suggestion that individualist anarchists should join in such activity. Voltairine
de Cleyre came to similar conclusions earlier and started working with Emma
Goldman before becoming a communist-anarchist sometime in 1908. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, one historian argues that as the <i>"native American variety of
anarchism dissolved in the face of increasing State repression and industrialisation,
rationalisation, and concentration of capital, American anarchists were forced 
either to acquiesce or to seek a more militant stain of anarchism: this latter
presented itself in the form of Communist Anarchism . . . Faith in peaceful 
evolution toward an anarchist society seemed archaic and gradually faded."</i>
[Kline, <b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 83] 
</p><p>
So while state action may increase the degree of monopoly in an industry, 
the natural tendency for any market is to place barriers (natural ones) 
to new entries in terms of set-up costs and so on. This applies just as 
much to co-operatives as it does to companies based on wage-labour. It 
means that if the relation between capital and labour was abolished 
<b>within</b> the workplace (by their transformation into co-operatives) 
but they remained the property of their workers, it would only be a matter 
of time before the separation of the producers from their means of production 
reproduced itself. This is because, within any market system, some firms fail 
and others succeed. Those which fail will create a pool of unemployed workers 
who will need a job. The successful co-operatives, safe behind their natural 
barriers to entry, would be in a stronger position than the unemployed workers 
and so may hire them as wage labourers -- in effect, the co-operative workers 
would become "collective capitalists" hiring other workers. This would end 
workers' self-management (as not all workers are involved in the decision 
making process) as well as workers' ownership, i.e. <i>"occupancy and use,"</i> 
(as not all workers' would own the means of production they used). The 
individual workers involved may "consent" to becoming wage slaves, but 
that is because it is the best option available rather than what they 
really want. Which, of course, is the same as under capitalism. 
</p><p>
This was why Proudhon argued that <i>"every worker employed in the association"</i> 
must have <i>"an undivided share in the property of the company"</i> in order to 
ensure workers' self-management. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 222] Only this could ensure 
<i>"occupancy and use"</i> and so self-management in a free society (i.e. keep 
that society free). Thus in anarchism, as de Cleyre summarised, it is <i>"a 
settled thing that to be free one must have liberty of access to the sources and 
means of production"</i> Without socialisation of the means of life, liberty of 
access could be denied. Little wonder she argued that she had become <i>"convinced 
that a number of the fundamental propositions of individualistic economy would 
result in the destruction of equal liberty."</i> The only logical anarchist 
position is <i>"that some settlement of the whole labour question was needed 
which would not split up the people again into land possessors and employed 
wage-earners."</i> Hence her movement from individualism towards, first, 
mutualism and then communism -- it was the only logical position to take in 
a rapidly industrialising America which had made certain concepts of 
individualism obsolete. It was her love of freedom which made her sensitive to
the possibility of any degeneration back into capitalism: <i>"the instinct of 
liberty naturally revolted not only at economic servitude, but at the outcome 
of it, class-lines."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 58, p. 105, p. 61 and p. 55]
As we argue in <a href="secG4.html#secg42">section G.4.2</a> such a possibility
can be avoided only by a consistent application of "occupancy and use" which, 
in practice, would be nearly identical to the communalisation or socialisation 
of the means of life. 
</p><p>
This issue is related to the question of inequality within a market economy and
whether free exchanges tend to reduce or increase any initial inequalities. While 
Individualist Anarchists argue for the <i>"cost principle"</i> (i.e. cost being 
the limit of price) the cost of creating the same commodity in different areas 
or by different people is not equal. Thus the market price of a good <b>cannot</b> 
really equal the multitude of costs within it (and so price can only equal a 
workers' labour in those few cases where that labour was applied in average 
circumstances). This issue was recognised by Tucker, who argued that <i>"economic 
rent . . . is one of nature's inequalities. It will probably remain with us 
always. Complete liberty will every much lessen it; of that I have no doubt."</i> 
[<i>"Why I am an Anarchist"</i>, pp. 132-6, <b>Man!</b>, M. Graham (ed.), 
pp. 135-6] However, argue social anarchists, the logic of market exchange 
produces a situation where the stronger party to a contract seeks to maximise 
their advantage. Given this, free exchange will tend to <b>increase</b> 
differences in wealth and income over time, not eliminate them. As Daniel 
Gurin summarised:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Competition and the so-called market economy inevitably produce inequality and 
exploitation, and would do so even if one started from complete equality. They 
could not be combined with workers' self-management unless it were on a temporary 
basis, as a necessary evil, until (1) a psychology of 'honest exchange' had developed 
among the workers; (2) most important, society as a whole had passed from conditions 
of shortage to the stage of abundance, when competition would lose its purpose . . . 
The libertarian communist would condemn Proudhon's version of a collective economy 
as being based on a principle of conflict; competitors would be in a position of 
equality at the start, only to be hurled into a struggle which would inevitably 
produce victors and vanquished, and where goods would end up by being exchanged 
according to the principles of supply and demand."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 53-4]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus, even a non-capitalist market could evolve towards inequality and away from 
fair exchange. It was for this reason that Proudhon argued that a portion of 
income from agricultural produce be paid into a central fund which would be used
to make equalisation payments to compensate farmers with less favourably situated 
or less fertile land. As he put it, economic rent <i>"in agriculture has no other 
cause than the inequality in the quality of land . . .  if anyone has a claim on 
account of this inequality . . . [it is] the other land workers who hold inferior 
land. That is why in our scheme for liquidation [of capitalism] we stipulated that 
every variety of cultivation should pay a proportional contribution, destined to 
accomplish a balancing of returns among farm workers and an assurance of products."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 209] His advocacy of federations of workers' associations was, 
likewise, seen as a means of abolishing inequalities. 
</p><p>
Unlike Proudhon, however, individualist anarchists did not propose any scheme to 
equalise income. Perhaps Tucker was correct and the differences would be slight, 
but in a market situation exchanges tend to magnify differences, <b>not</b> reduce 
them as the actions of self-interested individuals in unequal positions will tend to 
exacerbate differences. Over time these slight differences would become larger and 
larger, subjecting the weaker party to relatively increasingly worse contracts. 
Without equality, individualist anarchism would quickly become hierarchical and
non-anarchist. As the communist-anarchist paper <b>Freedom</b> argued in the 1880s:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Are not the scandalous inequalities in the distribution of wealth today merely 
the culminate  effect of the principle that every man is justified in securing 
to himself everything that his chances and capacities enable him to lay hands on?
</p><p>
"If the social revolution which we are living means anything, it means the 
destruction of this detestable economic principle, which delivers over the more 
social members of the community to the domination of the most unsocial and 
self-interested."</i> [<b>Freedom</b>, vol. 2, no. 19]
</blockquote></p><p>
<b>Freedom</b>, it should be noted, is slightly misrepresenting the position of 
individualist anarchists. They did <b>not</b> argue that every person could 
appropriate all the property he or she could. Most obviously, in terms of land
they were consistently opposed to a person owning more of it than they actually
used. They also tended to apply this to what was on the land as well, arguing
that any buildings on it were abandoned when the owner no longer used them. 
Given this, individualist anarchists have stressed that such a system would be
unlikely to produce the inequalities associated with capitalism (as Kropotkin 
noted, equality was essential and was implicitly acknowledged by individualists 
themselves who argued that their system <i>"would offer no danger, because the 
rights of each individual would have been limited by the equal rights of all 
others."</i> [<b>Evolution and Environment</b>, p. 85]). Thus contemporary
individualist anarchist Joe Peacott:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Although individualists envision a society based on private property, 
we oppose the economic relationships of capitalism, whose supporters 
misuse words like private enterprise and free markets to justify a 
system of monopoly ownership in land and the means of production which 
allows some to skim off part or even most of the wealth produced by the 
labour of others. Such a system exists only because it is protected by 
the armed power of government, which secures title to unjustly acquired 
and held land, monopolises the supply of credit and money, and criminalises 
attempts by workers to take full ownership of the means of production they 
use to create wealth. This state intervention in economic transactions 
makes it impossible for most workers to become truly independent of the 
predation of capitalists, banks, and landlords. Individualists argue that 
without the state to enforce the rules of the capitalist economy, workers 
would not allow themselves to be exploited by these thieves and capitalism 
would not be able to exist . . .
</p><p>
"One of the criticisms of individualist economic proposals raised by other 
anarchists is that a system based on private ownership would result in some 
level of difference among people in regard to the quality or quantity of 
possessions they have. In a society where people are able to realise the 
full value of their labour, one who works harder or better than another 
will possess or have the ability to acquire more things than someone who 
works less or is less skilled at a particular occupation . . .
</p><p>
"The differences in wealth that arise in an individualist community would 
likely be relatively small. Without the ability to profit from the labour
of others, generate interest from providing credit, or extort rent from 
letting out land or property, individuals would not be capable of generating 
the huge quantities of assets that people can in a capitalist system. 
Furthermore, the anarchist with more things does not have them at the 
expense of another, since they are the result of the owner's own effort. 
If someone with less wealth wishes to have more, they can work more, harder, 
or better. There is no injustice in one person working 12 hours a day and 
six days a week in order to buy a boat, while another chooses to work three 
eight hour days a week and is content with a less extravagant lifestyle. If 
one can generate income only by hard work, there is an upper limit to the 
number and kind of things one can buy and own."</i> [<b>Individualism and 
Inequality</b>]
</blockquote></p><p>
However, argue social anarchists, market forces may make such an ideal impossible
to achieve or maintain. Most would agree with Peter Marshall's point that 
<i>"[u]ndoubtedly real difficulties exist with the economic position of the
individualists. If occupiers became owners overnight as Benjamin Tucker
recommended, it would mean in practice that those with good land or houses
would merely become better off than those with bad. Tucker's advocacy of
'competition everywhere and always' among occupying owners, subject to the
only moral law of minding your own business might will encourage individual
greed rather than fair play for all."</i> [<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, 
p. 653]
</p><p>
Few social anarchists are convinced that all the problems associated with markets 
and competition are purely the result of state intervention. They argue that it is 
impossible to have most of the underlying pre-conditions of a competitive economy 
without the logical consequences of them. It is fair to say that individualist
anarchists tend to ignore or downplay the negative effects of markets while 
stressing their positive ones.
</p><p>
While we discuss the limitations of markets in <a href="secI1.html#seci13">section I.1.3</a>,
suffice to say here that competition results in economic forces developing which 
those within the market have to adjust to. In other words, the market may be free
but those within it are not. To survive on the market, firms would seek to reduce 
costs and so implement a host of dehumanising working practices in order to compete 
successfully on the market, things which they would resist if bosses did it. Work 
hours could get longer and longer, for example, in order to secure and maintain 
market position. This, in turn, affects our quality of life and our relationship 
with our partners, children, parents, friends, neighbours and so on. That the 
profits do not go to the executives and owners of businesses may be a benefit, it 
matters little if people are working longer and harder in order to invest in 
machinery to ensure market survival. Hence <b>survival,</b> not <b>living,</b> 
would be the norm within such a society, just as it is, unfortunately, in capitalism. 
</p><p>
Ultimately, Individualist Anarchists lose sight of the fact that success and competition 
are not the same thing. One can set and reach goals without competing. That we may loose 
more by competing than by co-operating is an insight which social anarchists base their 
ideas on. In the end, a person can become a success in terms of business but lose sight 
of their humanity and individuality in the process. In contrast, social anarchists stress 
community and co-operation in order to develop us as fully rounded individuals. As 
Kropotkin put it, <i>"the <b>individualisation</b> they so highly praise is not 
attainable by individual efforts."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 297]
</p><p>
As we noted in <a href="secD1.html">section D.1</a>, the capitalist state intervenes into the economy and
society to counteract the negative impact of market forces on social life and the 
environment as well as, of course, protecting and enhancing the position of itself
and the capitalist class. As individualist anarchism is based on markets (to some 
degree), it seems likely that market forces would have similar negative impacts 
(albeit to a lesser degree due to the reduced levels of inequality implied by the 
elimination of non-labour incomes). Without communal institutions, social anarchists
argue, individualist anarchism has no means of counteracting the impact of such 
forces except, perhaps, by means of continual court cases and juries. Thus social 
issues would not be discussed by all affected but rather by small sub-groups 
retroactively addressing individual cases. 
</p><p>
Moreover, while state action may have given the modern capitalist an initial advantage 
on the market, it does not follow that a truly free market will not create similar 
advantages naturally over time. And if it did, then surely a similar system would 
develop? As such, it does not follow that a non-capitalist market system would
remain such. In other words, it is true that extensive state intervention was 
required to <b>create</b> capitalism but after a time economic forces can usually 
be relied upon to allow wage workers to be exploited. The key factor is that while 
markets have existed long before capitalism, that system has placed them at the centre 
of economic activity. In the past, artisans and farmers produced for local consumers, 
with the former taking their surplus to markets. In contrast, capitalism has produced 
a system where producers are primarily geared to exchanging <b>all</b> goods they 
create on an extensive market rather simply a surplus locally. This implies that 
the dynamics of a predominantly market system may be different from those in the 
past in which the market played a much smaller role and where self-sufficiency
was always a possibility. It is difficult to see how, for example, car workers
or IT programmers could produce for their own consumption using their own tools.
</p><p>
So in a market economy with a well developed division of labour it is possible for 
a separation of workers from their means of production to occur. This is particularly
the case when the predominant economic activity is not farming. Thus the net effect
of market transactions could be to re-introduce class society simply by their negative
long-term consequences. That such a system developed without state aid would make it 
no less unfree and unjust. It is of little use to point out that such a situation is 
<b>not</b> what the Individualist Anarchists desired for it is a question of whether 
their ideas would actually result in what they wanted. Social anarchists have fears 
that it will not. Significantly, as we noted in <a href="secG3.html">section G.3</a>, 
Tucker was sensible enough to argue that those subject to such developments should 
rebel against it.
</p><p>
In response, individualist anarchists could argue that the alternative to markets would
be authoritarian (i.e., some form of central planning) and/or inefficient as without
markets to reward effort most people would not bother to work well and provide for
the consumer. So while markets do have problems with them, the alternatives are worse.
Moreover, when social anarchists note that there is a remarkable correlation between 
competitiveness in a society and the presence of clearly defined "have" and "have-not" 
groups individualist anarchists would answer that the causation flows not from 
competitiveness to inequality but from inequality to competitiveness. In a more equal 
society people would be less inclined to compete as ruthlessly as under capitalism
and so the market would not generate as many problems as it does today. Moreover,
eliminating the artificial barriers erected by the state would allow a universal
competition to develop rather than the one sided form associated with capitalism.
With a balance of market power, competition would no longer take the form it 
currently does.
</p><p>
Yet, as noted above, this position ignores natural barriers to competition
The accumulation needs of a competitive market economy do not disappear just 
because capitalism has been replaced by co-operatives and mutual credit banks. 
In any market economy, firms will try to improve their market position by 
investing in new machinery, reducing prices by improving productivity and 
so on. This creates barriers to new competitors who have to expend more 
money in order to match the advantages of existing firms. Such amounts of 
money may not be forthcoming from even the biggest mutual bank and so certain 
firms would enjoy a privileged position on the market. Given that Tucker 
defined a monopolist as <i>"any person, corporation, or institution whose 
right to engage in any given pursuit of life is secured, either wholly or 
partially, by any agency whatsoever -- whether the nature of things or the 
force of events or the decree of arbitrary power -- against the influence 
of competition"</i> we may suggest that due to <b>natural</b> barriers, an 
individualist anarchist society would not be free of monopolists and so of
usury. [quoted by James J. Martin, <b>Men Against the State</b>, p. 210] 
</p><p>
For this reason, even in a mutualist market certain companies would receive 
a bigger slice of profits than (and at the expense of) others. This means 
that exploitation would still exist as larger companies could charge more 
than cost for their products. It could be argued that the ethos of an anarchist
society would prevent such developments happening but, as Kropotkin noted,
this has problems, firstly because of <i>"the difficulty if estimating the 
<b>market</b> value"</i> of a product based on <i>"average time"</i> or cost
necessary to produce it and, secondly, if that could be done then to get 
people <i>"to agree upon such an estimation of their work would already 
require a deep penetration of the Communist principles into their ideas."</i>
[<b>Environment and Evolution</b>, p. 84] In addition, the free market in banking 
would also result in <b>its</b> market being dominated by a few big banks, with 
similar results. As such, it is all fine and well to argue that with rising
interest rates more competitors would be drawn into the market and so the 
increased competition would automatically reduce them but that is only possible 
if there are no serious natural barriers to entry.
</p><p>
This obviously impacts on how we get from capitalism to anarchism. Natural
barriers to competition limit the ability to compete exploitation away.
So as to its means of activism, individualist anarchism exaggerates the 
potential of mutual banks to fund co-operatives. While the creation of 
community-owned and -managed mutual credit banks would help in the
struggle for a free society, such banks are not enough in themselves.
Unless created as part of the social struggle against capitalism and the
state, and unless combined with community and strike assemblies, mutual
banks would quickly die, because the necessary social support required to
nurture them would not exist. Mutual banks must be part of a network of
other new socio-economic and political structures and cannot be sustained
in isolation from them. This is simply to repeat our earlier point that,
for most social anarchists, capitalism cannot be reformed away. As such,
social anarchists would tend to agree with the summary provided by this
historian:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"If [individualist anarchists] rejected private ownership of property, they 
destroyed their individualism and 'levelled' mankind. If they accepted it, 
they had the problem of offering a solution whereby the inequalities [of 
wealth] would not amount to a tyranny over the individual. They meet the 
same dilemma in 'method.' If they were consistent libertarian individualists 
they could not force from 'those who had' what they had acquired justly or 
unjustly, but if they did not force it from them, they perpetuated inequalities. 
They met a stone wall."</i> [Eunice Minette Schuster, <b>Native American 
Anarchism</b>, p. 158]
</blockquote></p><p>
So while Tucker believed in direct action, he opposed the "forceful" expropriation 
of social capital by the working class, instead favouring the creation of a mutualist 
banking system to replace capitalism with a non-exploitative system. Tucker was 
therefore fundamentally a <b>reformist,</b> thinking that anarchy would evolve from 
capitalism as mutual banks spread across society, increasing the bargaining power of 
labour. And reforming capitalism over time, by implication, always means tolerating 
boss's control during that time. So, at its worse, this is a reformist position which 
becomes little more than an excuse for tolerating landlord and capitalist domination.
</p><p>
Also, we may note, in the slow transition towards anarchism, we would see 
the rise of pro-capitalist "defence associations" which <b>would</b> collect 
rent from land, break strikes, attempt to crush unions and so on. Tucker 
seemed to have assumed that the anarchist vision of <i>"occupancy-and-use"</i> 
would become universal. Unfortunately, landlords and capitalists would resist 
it and so, ultimately, an Individualist Anarchist society would have to either 
force the minority to accept the majority wishes on land use (hence his comments 
on there being <i>"no legal power to collect rent"</i>) or the majority are 
dictated to by the minority who are in favour of collecting rent and 
hire "defence associations" to enforce those wishes. With the head start 
big business and the wealthy have in terms of resources, conflicts 
between pro- and anti-capitalist "defence associations" would usually work 
against the anti-capitalist ones (as trade unions often find out). In 
other words, reforming capitalism would not be as non-violent or as
simple as Tucker maintained. The vested powers which the state defends
will find other means to protect themselves when required (for example,
when capitalists and landlords backed fascism and fascist squads in Italy 
after workers "occupied and used" their workplaces and land workers and 
peasants "occupied and used" the land in 1920). We are sure that economists 
will then rush to argue that the resulting law system that defended the 
collection of rent and capitalist property against "occupancy and use" 
was the most "economically efficient" result for "society."
</p><p>
In addition, even if individualist mutualism <b>did</b> result in an increase 
in wages by developing artisan and co-operative ventures that decreased  the 
supply of labour in relation to its demand, this would not eliminate the 
subjective and objective pressures on profits that produce the business 
cycle within capitalism (see <a href="secC7.html">section C.7</a>). In fact,
it was increase the subjective pressures considerably as was the case under
the social Keynesian of the post-war period. Unsurprisingly, business interests
sought the necessary "reforms" and ruthlessly fought the subsequent strikes and 
protests to achieve a labour market more to their liking (see 
<a href="secC8.html#secc82">section C.8.2</a> for more on this). This means 
that an increase in the bargaining power of labour would soon see capital 
moving to non-anarchist areas and so deepening any recession caused by a 
lowering of profits and other non-labour income. This could mean that during 
an economic slump, when workers' savings and bargaining position were weak, 
the gains associated with mutualism could be lost as co-operative firms go 
bust and mutual banks find it hard to survive in a hostile environment.
</p><p>
Mutual banks would not, therefore, undermine modern capitalism, as recognised 
by social anarchists from Bakunin onward. They placed their hopes in a social 
revolution organised by workplace and community organisations, arguing that
the ruling class would be as unlikely to tolerate being competed away as they
would be voted away. The collapse of social Keynesianism into neo-liberalism 
shows that even a moderately reformed capitalism which increased working class
power will not be tolerated for too long. In other words, there was a need for
social revolution which mutual banks do not, and could not, eliminate.
</p><p>
However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist 
anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with 
many flaws and one perhaps more suited to an earlier age when capitalism was 
less developed and its impact upon society far less than it is now (see 
<a href="secG1.html#secg14">section G.1.4</a>). Individualist and social 
anarchism could co-exist happily in a free society and neither believes in
forcing the other to subscribe to their system. As Paul Nursey-Bray notes 
<i>"linking all of these approaches . . . is not just the belief in individual 
liberty and its corollary, the opposition to central or state authority, but 
also a belief in community, and an equality of community members."</i> The 
<i>"discussion over forms of property . . . should not be allowed to obscure 
the commonality of the idea of the free community of self-regulating individuals."</i>
And so <i>"there are meeting points in the crucial ideas of individual autonomy 
and community that suggest, at least, a basis for the discussion of equality 
and property relations."</i> [<b>Anarchist Thinkers and Thought</b>, p. xvi]

<h2><a name="secg41">G.4.1 Is wage labour consistent with anarchist principles?</h2>
<p>
No, it is not. This can be seen from social anarchism, where opposition to
wage labour as hierarchical and exploitative is taken as an obvious and
logical aspect of anarchist principles. However, ironically, this conclusion 
must also be drawn from the principles expounded by individualist anarchism. 
However, as noted in <a href="secG1.html#secg13">section G.1.3</a>, while many 
individualist anarchists opposed wage labour and sought it end not all did. 
Benjamin Tucker was one of the latter. To requote him:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Wages 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] 
</blockquote>
The question of wage labour was one of the key differences between Tucker and
communist-anarchist Johann Most. For Most, it signified that Tucker supported
the exploitation of labour. For Tucker, Most's opposition to it signified that 
he was not a real anarchist, seeking to end freedom by imposing communism onto 
all. In response to Most highlighting the fact that Tucker supported wage labour, 
Tucker argued as followed:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"If the men who oppose wages -- that is, the purchase and sale of labour -- 
were capable of analysing their thought and feelings, they would see that 
what really excites their anger is not the fact that labour is bought and 
sold, but 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 that, but for the privilege, would be enjoyed by all 
gratuitously. And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. 
But the minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be 
forced to sell their labour, and then, when there will be nothing but 
labour with which to buy labour, the distinction between wage-payers and 
wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a labourer 
exchanging with fellow-labourers. Not to abolish wages, but to make every 
man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the 
aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish 
is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its reward; it wants to 
deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labour should not 
be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury."</i> 
[<b>Liberty</b>, no. 123, p. 4]
</blockquote>
Social anarchists, in reply, would argue that Tucker is missing the point.
The reason why almost all anarchists are against wage labour is because it
generates social relationships based on authority and, as such, it sets the 
necessary conditions for the exploitation of labour to occur. If we take the 
creation of employer-employee relationships within an anarchy, we see the 
danger of private statism arising (as in "anarcho"-capitalism) and so the 
end of anarchy. Such a development can be seen when Tucker argued that if, 
in an anarchy, <i>"any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their 
employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their 
employers' watchmen . . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in 
consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer 
as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if 
necessary, sweep them from the earth."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 455] Tucker's 
comments were provoked by the Homestead strike of 1892, where the striking 
steelworkers fought with, and defeated, their employer's Pinkerton thugs sent 
to break the strike (Tucker, it should be stressed supported the strikers but
not their methods and considered the capitalist class as responsible for the
strike by denying workers a free market).
</p><p>
In such a situation, these defence associations would be indeed "private states" 
and here Tucker's ideas unfortunately do parallel those of the "anarcho"-capitalists 
(although, as Tucker thought that the employees would not be exploited by the 
employer, this does not suggest that Tucker can be considered a forefather of
"anarcho"-capitalism). As Kropotkin warned, <i>"[f]or their self-defence, both the 
citizen and group have a right to any violence [within individualist anarchy] . . . 
Violence is also justified for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker 
. . .  opens . . . the way for reconstructing under the heading of the 'defence' 
all the functions of the State."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 297]
</p><p>
Such an outcome is easy to avoid, however, by simply consistently applying 
individualist anarchist principles and analysis to wage labour. To see why, it
is necessary simply to compare private property with Tucker's definition of
the state. 
</p><p>
How did Tucker define the state? All states have two common elements, 
<i>"aggression"</i> and <i>"the assumption of sole authority over a given 
area and all within it, exercised generally for the double purpose of more 
complete oppression of its subjects and extension of its boundaries."</i>
This monopoly of authority is important, as <i>"I am not aware that any State 
has ever tolerated a rival State within its borders."</i> So the state, 
Tucker stated, is <i>"the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an 
individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or 
masters of the entire people within a given area."</i> The <i>"essence of 
government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control 
another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader . . . he who resists another's 
attempt to control is not an aggressor, an invader, a governor, but simply a 
defender, a protector."</i> In short, <i>"the Anarchistic definition of 
government: the subjection of the non-invasive individual to an external 
will."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 24]
</p><p>
The similarities with capitalist property (i.e., one based on wage labour) is
obvious. The employer assumes and exercises <i>"sole authority over a given area
and all within it,"</i> they are the boss after all and so capitalists are the
<i>"masters of the entire people within a given area."</i> That authority is
used to control the employees in order to maximise the difference between what
they produce and what they get paid (i.e., to ensure exploitation). As August 
Spies, one of the Haymarket Martyrs, noted:
<blockquote><i>
"I was amazed and was shocked when I became acquainted with the condition of the 
wage-workers in the New World.
</p><p>
"The factory: the ignominious regulations, the surveillance, the spy system, the 
servility and lack of manhood among the workers and the arrogant arbitrary behaviour 
of the boss and his associates -- all this made an impression upon me that I have never 
been able to divest myself of. At first I could not understand why the workers, 
among them many old men with bent backs, silently and without a sign of protest 
bore every insult the caprice of the foreman or boss would heap upon them. I was 
not then aware of the fact that the opportunity to work was a privilege, a favour, 
and that it was in the power of those who were in the possession of the factories 
and instruments of labour to deny or grant this privilege. I did not then understand 
how difficult it was to find a purchaser for ones labour, I did not know then that 
there were thousands and thousands of idle human bodies in the market, ready to 
hire out upon most any conditions, actually begging for employment. I became 
conscious of this, very soon, however, and I knew then why these people were so 
servile, whey suffered the humiliating dictates and capricious whims of their 
employers."</i> [<b>The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs</b>, pp. 66-7]
</blockquote></p><p>
That this is a kind of state-like authority becomes clear when we consider company
towns. As Ward Churchill notes, the <i>"extent of company power over workers 
included outright ownership of the towns in which they lived, a matter enabling 
employers to garner additional profits by imposing exorbitant rates of rent, prices 
for subsistence commodities, tools, and such health care as was available. Conditions 
in these 'company towns' were such that, by 1915, the Commission on Industrial 
Relations was led to observe that they displayed 'every aspect of feudalism except 
the recognition of special duties on the part of the employer.' The job of the 
Pinkertons -- first for the railroads, then more generally -- was to prevent workers 
from organising in a manner that might enable them to improve their own circumstances, 
thus reducing corporate profits."</i> [<i>"From the Pinkertons to the PATRIOT Act: The 
Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870 to the Present"</i>, 
pp. 1-72, <b>CR: The New Centennial Review</b>, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 11-2] In the words 
of one historian of the Pinkerton Agency <i>"[b]y the mid-1850s a few businessmen saw the 
need for greater control over their employees; their solution was to sponsor a private 
detective system. In February 1855, Allan Pinkerton, after consulting with six midwestern 
railroads, created such an agency in Chicago."</i> [Frank Morn, quoted by Churchill, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 4] As we have noted in <a href="secF7.html#secf671">section F.7.1</a>, 
such regimes remained into the 1930s, with corporations having their own well armed 
private police to enforce the propertarian hierarchy (see also 
<a href="secF6.html#secf62">section F.6.2</a>).
</p><p>
So, in terms of monopoly of authority over a given area the capitalist company and 
the state share a common feature. The reason why wage labour violates Individualist 
Anarchist principles is clear. If the workers who use a workplace do not own it, 
then someone else will (i.e. the owner, the boss). This in turn means that the owner 
can tell those who use the resource what to do, how to do it and when. That is, they 
are the sole authority over the workplace and those who use it. However, according to
Tucker, the state can be defined (in part) as <i>"the assumption of sole authority 
over a given area and all within it."</i> Tucker considered this element as <i>"common 
to all States"</i> and so opposition to the state logically implies support for workers' 
self-management for only in this case can people govern themselves during the working 
day (see <a href="secB4.html">section B.4</a> for more discussion). Even with Tucker's 
other aspect, <i>"aggression"</i>, there are issues. Competition is inherently aggressive, 
with companies seeking to expand their market share, go into new markets, drive their 
competitors out of business, and so forth. Within the firm itself, bosses always 
seek to make workers do more work for less, threatening them with the sack if they 
object. 
</p><p>
Tucker's comments on strikers brings to light an interesting contradiction in 
his ideas. After all, he favoured a system of "property" generally defined by use 
and occupancy, that is whoever uses and possesses is to be consider the owner. 
As we indicated in <a href="secG1.html#secg12">section G.1.2</a>, this applied to
both the land and what was on it. In particular, Tucker pointed to the example
of housing and argued that rent would not be collected from tenants nor would they
be evicted for not paying it. Why should this position change when it is a workplace 
rather than a house? Both are products of labour, so that cannot be the criteria. 
Nor can it be because one is used for work as Tucker explicitly includes the 
possibility that a house could be used as a workplace.
</p><p>
Thus we have a massive contradiction between Tucker's "occupancy and use" 
perspective on land use and his support for wage labour. One letter to 
<b>Liberty</b> (by "Egoist") pointed out this contradiction. As the letter 
put it, <i>"if production is carried on in groups, as it now is, who is the 
legal occupier of the land? The employer, the manager, or the ensemble of 
those engaged in the co-operative work? The latter appearing the only 
rational answer."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, no. 143, p. 4] Sadly, Tucker's 
reply did not address this particular question and so we are left with 
an unresolved contradiction. 
</p><p>
Looking at the Homestead strike which provoked Tucker's rant against strikers, the
similarities between wage labour and statism become even clearer. The 3,800 workers 
locked out by Carnegie at Homestead in 1892 definitely occupied and used the works 
from which they were barred entry by the owners. The owners, obviously, did not use 
the workplace themselves -- they hired <b>others</b> to occupy and use it <b>for</b> 
them. Now, why should <i>"occupancy and use"</i> be acceptable for land and housing 
but not for workplaces? There is no reason and so wage labour, logically, violates 
<i>"occupancy and use"</i> -- for under wage labour, those who occupy and use a 
workplace do not own or control it. Hence <i>"occupancy and use"</i> logically 
implies workers' control and ownership.
</p><p>
The Homestead lockout of 1892, ironically enough, occurred when the owners of 
the steel mill provoked the union in order to break its influence in the works. In 
other words, the property owners practised <i>"aggression"</i> to ensure their <i>"sole 
authority over a given area and all within it"</i> (to use Tucker's words). As such, 
the actions of the capitalist property owners meets Tucker's definition of the state 
exactly. According to the Carnegie Steel Company, it had <i>"a legal right to the 
enjoyment of our property, and to operate it as we please . . . But for years our 
works have been managed . . . by men who do not own a dollar in them. This will stop 
right here. The Carnegie Steel Company will hereafter control their works in the 
employment of labour."</i> Secretary Lovejoy of the corporation was clear on this, 
and its wider impact, arguing that <i>"[t]his outbreak will settle one matter 
forever, and that is that the Homestead mill hereafter will be run non-union . . . 
other mills heretofore union [will] become non-union and thus free their owners 
from the arbitrary dictation of labour unions."</i> [quoted by Peter Krause, <b>The 
Battle for Homestead 1880-1892</b>, p. 12 and pp. 39-40] 
</p><p>
In other words, the workers will henceforth be submit to the arbitrary dictation of 
the owners, who would be free to exercise their authority without hindrance of those 
subject to it. Unsurprisingly, for the workers, the strike was over their freedom 
and independence, of their ability to control their own labour. As one historian 
notes, the <i>"lockout crushed the largest trade union in America . . . the 
victory at Homestead gave Carnegie and his fellow steelmasters carte blanche 
in the administration of their works. The lockout put 'the employers in 
the saddle' -- precisely where they would remain, without union interference, for 
four decades."</i> The Pinkerton agents <i>"were preparing to enforce the authority
putatively designated to them by Henry Clay Frick"</i> (although Frick <i>"had been 
counting on the ultimate authority of the state from the outset."</i>). [Peter 
Krause, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 13, p. 14 and p. 25]
</p><p>
Nor was the 1892 lockout an isolated event. There had been a long history of labour 
disputes at Homestead. In 1882, for example, a strike occurred over the <i>"question 
of complete and absolute submission on the part of manufacturers to the demands of 
their men,"</i> in the words of one ironmaster. [quoted by Krause, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 178] It was a question of power, whether bosses would have sole and total authority 
over a given area and all within it. The workers won that strike, considering it 
<i>"a fight for freedom."</i> As such, the 1892 lockout was the end result of years 
of management attempts to break the union and so <i>"in creating and fortifying the 
system that had, over the years, produced the conditions for this violence, Carnegie's
role cannot be denied. What provoked the apparently 'barbaric' and 'thankless' workers 
of Homestead was not, as an account limited to that day might indicate, the sudden 
intrusion of Pinkerton agents into their dispute but the slow and steady erosion of 
their rights and their power, over which Carnegie and his associates in steel and 
politics had presided for years, invisibly but no less violently."</i> [Krause,
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 181 and p. 43]
</p><p>
The conflict at Homestead was thus directly related to the issue of ensuring that 
the <i>"sole authority over a given area and all within it"</i> rested in the
hands of the capitalists. This required smashing the union for, as Tucker noted, 
no state <i>"has ever tolerated a rival State within its borders."</i> The union
was a democratic organisation, whose <i>"basic organisation . . . was the lodge, 
which elected its own president and also appointed a mill committee to enforce 
union rules within a given department of the steelworks. The union maintained a 
joint committee of the entire works."</i> Elected union officials who <i>"act[ed] 
without the committee's authorisation"</i> were <i>"replaced. Over and above the 
Advisory Committee stood the mass meeting"</i> which was <i>"often open to all 
workers,"</i> not just union members. This union democracy was the key to the 
strike, as Carnegie and his associates <i>"were deeply troubled by its effects 
in the workplace. So troubled, in fact, that beyond the issue of wages or any 
issues related to it, it was unionism itself that was the primary target of 
Carnegie's concern."</i> [Krause, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 293]
</p><p>
Instead of a relatively libertarian regime, in which those who did the work managed 
it, the lockout resulted in the imposition of a totalitarian regime for the <i>"purpose 
of more complete oppression of its subjects"</i> and by its competitive advantage on 
the market, the <i>"extension of its boundaries"</i> (to use Tucker's description of 
the state). <i>"Without the encumbrance of the union,"</i> notes Krause, <i>"Carnegie 
was able to slash wages, impose twelve-hour workdays, eliminate five hundred jobs, 
and suitably assuage his republican conscience with the endowment of a library."</i> 
And so <i>"the labour difficulties that precipitated the Homestead Lockout had less 
to do with quantifiable matter such as wages and wage scales than with the politics 
of the workers' claim to a franchise within the mill -- that is, the legitimacy, 
authority, and power of the union."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 361 and p. 294]
</p><p>
The contradictions in wage labour become clear when Secretary Lovejoy stated that with 
the lockout the owners had declared that <i>"we have decided to run our Homestead Mill 
ourselves."</i> [quoted by Krause, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 294] Except, of course, they 
did no such thing. The workers who occupied and used the steel mills still did the 
work, but without even the smallest say in their labour. A clearer example of why 
wage labour violates the individualist anarchist principle of "occupancy and use" 
would be harder to find. As labour historian David Montgomery put it, the Homestead 
lockout was a <i>"crisp and firm declaration that workers' control was illegal -- 
that the group discipline in the workplace and community by which workers enforced 
their code of mutualism in opposition to the authority and power of the mill owners 
was tantamount to insurrection against the republic -- clearly illuminated the 
ideological and political dimensions of workplace struggles."</i> [<b>The Fall of 
the House of Labour</b>, p. 39] This defeat of America's most powerful trade union 
was achieved by means of a private police, supported by the State militia. 
</p><p>
Thus we have numerous contradictions in Tucker's position. On the one hand, 
occupancy and use precludes landlords renting land and housing but includes
capitalists hiring workers to "occupancy and use" their land and workplaces; 
the state is attacked for being a monopoly of power over a given area while 
the boss can have the same authority; opposing voluntary wage labour shows 
that you are an authoritarian, but opposing voluntary landlordism is 
libertarian. Yet, there is no logical reason for workplaces to be excluded
from "occupancy and use." As Tucker put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Occupancy and use is the only title to land in which we will protect you; if 
you attempt to use land which another is occupying and using, we will protect 
him against you; if another attempts to use land to which you lay claim, but 
which you are not occupying and using, we will not interfere with him; but of 
such land as you occupy and use you are the sole master, and we will not ourselves 
take from you, or allow anyone else to take from you, whatever you may get out of 
such land."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 252, p. 3]
</blockquote></p><p>
Needless to say, neither Carnegie nor Frick were occupying and using the Homestead 
steel-mills nor were any of the other shareholders. It was precisely the autocratic 
authority of the owners which their private army and the state militia sought to 
impose on those who used, but did not own, the steel-mills (as the commander of the 
state troops noted, others <i>"can hardly believe the actual communism of these people. 
They believe the works are theirs quite as much as Carnegie's."</i> [quoted by Jeremy 
Brecher, <b>Strike!</b>, p. 60] As we discuss in the <a href="secG4.html#secg42">next 
section</a>, this is precisely why most anarchists have opposed wage labour as being 
incompatible with general anarchist principles. In other words, a consistent anarchism 
precludes all forms of authoritarian social relationships. 
</p><p>
There is another reason why wage labour is at odds with anarchist principles. 
This is to do with our opposition to exploitation and usury. Simply put, there 
are the problems in determining what are the "whole wages" of the employer and 
the employee. The employer, of course, does not simply get his "share" of the 
collectively produced output, they get the whole amount. This would mean that 
the employer's "wages" are simply the difference between the cost of inputs 
and the price the goods were sold on the market. This would imply that the 
market wage of the labour has to be considered as equalling the workers' 
<i>"whole wage"</i> and any profits equalling the bosses <i>"whole wage"</i> 
(some early defences of profit did argue precisely this, although the rise of
shareholding made such arguments obviously false). The problem arises in that
the employer's income is not determined independently of their ownership of
capital and their monopoly of power in the workplace. This means that the
boss can appropriate for themselves all the advantages of co-operation and
self-activity within the workplace simply because they owned it. Thus, 
"profits" do not reflect the labour ("wages") of the employer.
</p><p>
It was this aspect of ownership which made Proudhon such a firm supporter of
workers associations. As he put it, a <i>"hundred men, uniting or combining 
their forces, produce, in certain cases, not a hundred times, but two hundred, 
three hundred, a thousand times as much. This is what I have called <b>collective 
force</b>. I even drew from this an argument, which, like so many others, remains 
unanswered, against certain forms of appropriation: that it is not sufficient to 
pay merely the wages of a given number of workmen, in order to acquire their 
product legitimately; that they must be paid twice, thrice or ten times their 
wages, or an equivalent service rendered to each one of them."</i> Thus, <i>"all 
workers must associate, inasmuch as collective force and division of labour exist 
everywhere, to however slight a degree."</i> Industrial democracy, in which <i>"all
positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members</i>,
would ensure that <i>"the collective force, which is a product of the community,
ceases to be a source of profit to a small number of managers"</i> and becomes
<i>"the property of all the workers."</i> [<b>The General Idea of the Revolution</b>,
pp. 81-2, p. 217, p. 222 and p. 223] 
</p><p>
Proudhon had first expounded this analysis in <b>What is Property?</b> in 1840 
and, as K. Steven Vincent notes, this was <i>"[o]one of the reasons Proudhon
gave for rejecting 'property' [and] was to become an important motif of subsequent 
socialist thought."</i> Thus <i>"collective endeavours produced an additional value"</i>
which was <i>"unjustly appropriated by the <b>proprietaire.</b>"</i> [<b>Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon the Rise of French Republican Socialism</b> p. 64 and p. 65] Marx, it should 
be noted, concurred. Without mentioning Proudhon, he stressed how a capitalist buys 
the labour-power of 100 men and <i>"can set the 100 men to work. He pays them the value 
of 100 independent labour-powers, but does not pay them for the combined labour power 
of the 100."</i> [<b>Capital</b>, Vol. 1, p. 451] Only co-operative workplaces can 
ensure that the benefits of co-operative labour are not monopolised by the few who 
happen to own, and so control, the means of production.
</p><p>
If this is not done, then it becomes a case of simply renaming "profits" to 
"wages" and saying that they are the result of the employers work rather than 
their ownership of capital. However, this is not the case as some part of the
"wages" of the employer is derived purely from their owning capital (and is 
usury, charging to allow use) while, for the workers, it is unlikely to equal 
their product in the short run. Given that the major rationale for the Homestead 
strike of 1892 <b>was</b> to secure the despotism of the property owner, the
results of breaking the union should be obvious. According to David Brody in his 
work <b>The Steel Workers</b>, after the union was broken <i>"the steel workers 
output doubled in exchange for an income rise of one-fifth . . . The accomplishment 
was possible only with a labour force powerless to oppose the decisions of the steel 
men."</i> [quoted by Jeremy Brecher, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 62] At Homestead, between
1892 and 1907 the daily earnings of highly-skilled plate-mill workers fell by a
fifth while their hours increased from eight to twelve. [Brecher, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 63] Who would dare claim that the profits this increased exploitation created 
somehow reflected the labour of the managers rather than their total monopoly of 
authority within the workplace? 
</p><p>
The logic is simple -- which boss would employ a worker unless they expected to get 
more out of their labour than they pay in wages? And why does the capitalist get 
this reward? They own "capital" and, consequently, their "labour" partly involves 
excluding others from using it and ordering about those whom they do allow in -- 
in exchange for keeping the product of their labour. As Marx put it, <i>"the worker 
works under the control of the capitalist to whom his labour belongs"</i> and 
<i>"the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the worker, its 
immediate producer."</i> And so <i>"[f]rom the instant he steps into the workshop, 
the use-value of his labour-power and therefore its use, which is labour, belongs 
to the capitalist."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 291 and p. 292] This suggests that 
exploitation takes place within production and so a contract for wages made 
beforehand simply cannot be expected to anticipate the use-value extracted by 
the boss from the workers subjected to his authority. Thus wage labour and 
exploitation would go hand-in-hand -- and so Most's horror at Tucker's support 
for it.
</p><p>
As best, it could be argued that such "wages" would be minimal as workers 
would be able to swap jobs to get higher wages and, possibly, set up 
co-operatives in competition. However, this amounts to saying that, in the
long run, labour gets its full product and to say that is to admit in the
short term that labour <b>is</b> exploited. Yet nowhere did Tucker argue 
that labour would get its full product <b>eventually</b> in a free society,
rather he stressed that liberty would result in the end of exploitation. 
Nor should we be blind to the fact that a market economy is a dynamic one,
making the long run unlikely to ever appear (<i>"in the long run we are all
dead"</i> as Keynes memorably put it). Combine this with the natural barriers
to competition we indicated in <a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a> and we
are left with problems of usury/exploitation in an individualist anarchist 
system.
</p><p>
The obvious solution to these problems is to be found in Proudhon, namely the 
use of co-operatives for any workplace which cannot be operated by an individual.
This was the also the position of the Haymarket anarchists, with August Spies
(for example) arguing that <i>"large factories and mines, and the machinery
of exchange and transportation . . . have become too vast for private control.
Individuals can no longer monopolise them."</i> [contained in Albert Parsons, 
<b>Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis</b>, pp. 60-1] Proudhon 
denounced property as <i>"despotism"</i>, for Albert Parsons the <i>"wage 
system of labour is a despotism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 21]
</p><p>
As Frank H. Brooks notes, <i>"producer and  consumer co-operatives were a staple 
of American labour reform (and of Proudhonian anarchism)."</i> This was because
they <i>"promised the full reward of labour to the producer, and commodities at 
cost to the consumer."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 110] This
was the position of Voltairine de Cleyre (during her individualist phase) as 
well as her mentor Dyer Lum:
</p><p><blockquote><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 co-operation."</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.  72]
</p><p></blockquote>
So, somewhat ironically given his love of Proudhon, it was, in fact, Most 
who was closer to the French anarchist's position on this issue than Tucker. 
Kropotkin echoed Proudhon's analysis when he noted that <i>"the only guarantee 
not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of 
labour."</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 145] In other words, for a 
self-proclaimed follower of Proudhon, Tucker ignored the French anarchist's 
libertarian arguments against wage labour. The key difference between the 
communist-anarchists and Proudhon was on the desirability of making the product 
of labour communal or not (although both recognised the right of people to share 
as they desired). However, it must be stressed that Proudhon's analysis was not 
an alien one to the individualist anarchist tradition. Joshua King Ingalls, for 
example, presented a similar analysis to Proudhon on the issue of joint production 
as well as its solution in the form of co-operatives (see 
<a href="secG1.html#secg13">section G.1.3</a> for details) and Dyer Lum was a
firm advocator of the abolition of wage labour. So integrating the insights of 
social anarchism on this issue with individualist anarchism would not be difficult 
and would build upon existing tendencies within it.
</p><p>
In summary, social anarchists argue that individualist anarchism does not 
solve the social question. If it did, then they would be individualists. They 
argue that in spite of Tucker's claims, workers would still be exploited in 
any form of individualist anarchism which retained significant amounts of wage 
labour as well as being a predominantly hierarchical, rather than libertarian,
society. As we argue in the <a href="secG4.html#secg42">next section</a>, this
is why most anarchists consider individualist anarchism as being an inconsistent
form of anarchism.

<h2><a name="secg42">G.4.2 Why do social anarchists think individualism is inconsistent anarchism?</h2>
<p>
From our discussion of wage labour in the <a href="secG4.html#secg41">last section</a>, 
some may consider that Tucker's support for wage labour would place him outside the
ranks of anarchism. After all, this is one of the key reasons why most anarchists
reject "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism. Surely, it could be argued, if
Murray Rothbard is not an anarchist, then why is Tucker?
</p><p>
That is not the case and the reason is obvious -- Tucker's support for wage labour
is inconsistent with his ideas on "occupancy and use" while Rothbard's are in line
with his capitalist property rights. Given the key place self-management holds in
almost all anarchist thought, unsurprisingly we find Chomsky summarising the 
anarchist position thusly:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production 
and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with 
the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the 
producer . . . A consistent anarchist must oppose not only alienated labour but 
also the stupefying specialisation of labour that takes place when the means for 
developing production."</i> [<i>"Notes on Anarchism"</i>, <b>Chomsky on Anarchism</b>,
p. 123]
</p><p></blockquote> 
Thus the <i>"consistent anarchist, then, will be a socialist, but a socialist
of a particular sort."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 125] Which suggests that Tucker's 
position is one of inconsistent anarchism. While a socialist, he did not take his
libertarian positions to their logical conclusions -- the abolition of wage labour.
There is, of course, a certain irony in this. In response to Johann Most calling 
his ideas <i>"Manchesterism"</i>, Tucker wrote <i>"what better can a man who 
professes Anarchism want than that? For the principle of Manchesterism is 
liberty, and consistent Manchesterism is consistent adherence to liberty. The 
only inconsistency of the Manchester men lies in their infidelity to liberty in 
some of its phases. And these infidelity to liberty in some of its phases is 
precisely the fatal inconsistency of the 'Freiheit' school . . . Yes, genuine A
narchism is consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is 
inconsistent Manchesterism."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 123, p. 4]
</p><p>
In other words, if individualist anarchism is, as Tucker claimed, <i>"consistent 
Manchesterism"</i> then, argue social anarchists, individualist anarchism is 
"inconsistent" anarchism. This means that some of Tucker's arguments contradict 
some of his own fundamental principles, most obviously his indifference to wage
labour. This, as argued, violates "occupancy and use", his opposition to exploitation 
and, as it is a form of hierarchy, his anarchism. 
</p><p>
To see what we mean we must point out that certain individualist anarchists are not 
the only "inconsistent" ones that have existed. The most obvious example is Proudhon, 
whose sexism is well known, utterly disgraceful and is in direct contradiction to his 
other ideas and principles. While Proudhon attacked hierarchy in politics and economics, 
he fully supported patriarchy in the home. This support for a form of archy does not 
refute claims that Proudhon was an anarchist, it just means that certain of his ideas 
were inconsistent with his key principles. As one French anarcha-feminist critic of 
Proudhon put it in 1869: <i>"These so-called lovers of liberty, if they are unable to 
take part in the direction of the state, at least they will be able to have a little 
monarchy for their personal use, each in his own home . . . Order in the family seems 
impossible to them -- well then, what about in the state?"</i> [Andr Lo, quoted by 
Carolyn J. Eichner, <i>"'Vive La Commune!' Feminism, Socialism, and Revolutionary 
Revival in the Aftermath of the 1871 Paris Commune,"</i>, pp. 68-98, <b>Journal of 
Women's History</b>, Vol. 15, No.2, p. 75] Rejecting monarchy and hierarchy on the 
state level and within the workplace while supporting it -- in the form of rule by 
the father -- on the family level was simply illogical and inconsistent. Subsequent 
anarchists (from Bakunin onwards) solved this obvious contradiction by consistently 
applying anarchist principles and opposing sexism and patriarchy. In other words, by 
critiquing Proudhon's sexism by means of the very principles he himself used to 
critique the state and capitalism. 
</p><p>
Much the same applies to individualist anarchists. The key issue is that, given their 
own principles, individualist anarchism can easily become <b>consistent</b> anarchism. 
That is why it is a school of anarchism, unlike "anarcho"-capitalism. All that is 
required is to consistently apply "occupancy and use" to workplaces (as Proudhon 
advocated). By consistently applying this principle they can finally end exploitation 
along with hierarchy, so bringing all their ideas into line. 
</p><p>
Tucker's position is also in direct opposition to Proudhon's arguments, which is 
somewhat ironic since Tucker stressed being inspired by and following the French
anarchist and his ideas (Tucker referred to Proudhon as being both <i>"the father 
of the Anarchistic school of socialism"</i> as well as <i>"being the Anarchist 
<b>par excellence</b>"</i> [Tucker, <b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 391]). Tucker 
is distinctly at odds with Proudhon who consistently opposed wage-labour and so, 
presumably, was also an advocate of <i>"pseudo-Anarchism"</i> alongside Kropotkin 
and Most. For Proudhon, the worker has <i>"sold and surrendered his liberty"</i> to 
the proprietor, with the proprietor being <i>"a man, who, having absolute control 
of an instrument of production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the 
instrument without using it himself."</i> This leads to exploitation and if 
<i>"the labourer is proprietor of the value which he creates, it follows"</i> 
that <i>"all production being necessarily collective, the labourer is entitled 
to a share of the products and profits commensurate with his labour"</i> and 
that, <i>"all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its 
exclusive proprietor."</i> [<b>What is Property?</b>, p. 130, p. 293 and p. 130] 
With <i>"machinery and the workshop, divine right -- that is, the principle of 
authority -- makes its entrance into political economy. Capital . . . Property 
. . . are, in economic language, the various names of . . . Power, Authority."</i> 
Thus, under capitalism, the workplace has a <i>"hierarchical organisation."</i> 
There are three alternatives, capitalism (<i>"that is, monopoly and what 
follows"</i>), state socialism (<i>"exploitation by the State"</i>) <i>"or 
else . . . a solution based on equality, -- in other words, the organisation 
of labour, which involves the negation of political economy and the end of 
property."</i> [<b>System of Economical Contradictions</b>, pp. 203-4 and p. 253]
</p><p>
For Proudhon, employees are <i>"subordinated, exploited"</i> and their 
<i>"permanent condition is one of obedience."</i> The wage worker is, therefore, 
a <i>"slave."</i> Indeed, capitalist companies <i>"plunder the bodies and souls 
of wage workers"</i> and they are <i>"an outrage upon human dignity and personality."</i> 
However, in a co-operative the situation changes and the worker is an <i>"associate"</i> 
and <i>"forms a part of the producing organisation"</i> and <i>"forms a part of the 
sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject."</i> Without co-operation 
and association, <i>"the workers . . . would remain related as subordinates and 
superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers, 
which is repugnant to a free and democratic society."</i> [<b>The General Idea of 
the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century</b>, p. 216, p. 219 and p. 216] As Robert 
Graham notes, <i>"Proudhon's market socialism is indissolubly linked to his notions 
of industry democracy and workers' self-management."</i> [<i>"Introduction"</i>, 
<b>Op. Cit.,</b>, p. xxxii]
</p><p>
This analysis lead Proudhon to call for co-operatives to end wage labour. This
was most consistently advocated in his <b>The General Idea of the Revolution</b>
but appears repeatedly in his work. Thus we find him arguing in 1851 that socialism 
is <i>"the elimination of misery, the abolition of capitalism and of wage-labour, 
the transformation of property, . . . the effective and direct sovereignty of the 
workers, . . . the substitution of the contractual regime for the legal regime."</i> 
[quoted by John Ehrenberg, <b>Proudhon and his Age</b>, p. 111] Fourteen years later, 
he argued the same, with the aim of his mutualist ideas being <i>"the complete 
emancipation of the workers . . . the abolition of the wage worker."</i> Thus a 
key idea of Proudhon's politics is the abolition of wage labour: <i>"Industrial 
Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism."</i> [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, 
<b>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism</b> p. 222 
and p. 167] <i>"In democratising us,"</i> Proudhon argued, <i>"revolution has 
launched us on the path of industrial democracy."</i> [<b>Selected Writings of 
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 63] 
</p><p>
(As an aside, it is deeply significant how different Proudhon's analysis of 
hierarchy and wage-labour is to Murray Rothbard's. For Rothbard, both <i>"hierarchy"</i> 
and <i>"wage-work"</i> were part of <i>"a whole slew of institutions necessary 
to the triumph of liberty"</i> (others included <i>"granting of funds by libertarian 
millionaires, and a libertarian political party"</i>). He strenuously objected to 
those <i>"indicting"</i> such institutions <i>"as non-libertarian or non-market"</i>. 
[<b>Konkin on Libertarian Strategy</b>] For Proudhon -- as well as Bakunin, Kropotkin, 
and others -- both wage-labour and hierarchy were anti-libertarian by their very nature. 
How could hier-archy be <i>"necessary"</i> for the triumph of an-archy? Logically, it 
makes no sense. An-<b>archy</b>, by definition, means no-archy rather than wholehearted 
support for a specific form of <b>archy</b>, namely hier-<b>archy</b>! At best, Rothbard
was a "voluntary archist" not an anarchist.)
</p><p>
As Charles A. Dana put it (in a work published by Tucker and described by him as 
<i>"a really intelligent, forceful, and sympathetic exposition of mutual banking"</i>), 
<i>"[b]y introducing mutualism into exchanges and credit we introduce it everywhere, 
and labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic."</i> Labour <i>"must 
be reformed by means of association as well as banking"</i> for <i>"if labour be 
not organised, the labourers will be made to toil for others to receive the fruit 
thereof as heretofore."</i> These co-operatives <i>"to a great extent abolish the 
exploitation of the employed worker by the employing capitalist, and make the worker
his own employer; but, in order to completely gain that end, the associations must 
be associated, united in one body for mutual aid."</i> This is <i>"the Syndicate 
of Production."</i> [<b>Proudhon and His <i>"Bank of the People"</i></b>, p. 45, 
p. 50 and p. 54] Tucker, however, asserted that Proudhon included the syndicate of 
production <i>"to humour those of his associated who placed stress on these features. 
He did not consider them of any value."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 51-2] However,
he was simply incorrect. Industrial democracy was a key aspect of Proudhon's 
ideas, as was the creation of an <i>"agro-industrial federation"</i> based on 
these self-managed associations. This can be seen from Tucker's own comparison 
of Marx and Proudhon made on the formers death:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"For Karl Marx, the 'egalitaire', we feel the profoundest respect; as for 
Karl Marx, the 'authoritaire', we must consider him an enemy. . . . Proudhon 
was years before Marx [in discussing the struggle of the classes and the 
privileges and monopolies of capital]. . . . The vital difference between 
Proudhon and Marx [was] to be found in their respective remedies which they 
proposed. Man would nationalise the productive and distributive forces; 
Proudhon would individualise and associate them. Marx would make the labourers 
political masters; Proudhon would abolish political mastership entirely . . . 
Man believed in compulsory majority rule; Proudhon believed in the voluntary 
principle. In short, Marx was an 'authoritaire'; Proudhon was a champion of 
Liberty."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 35, p. 2]
</blockquote></p><p>
Ironically, therefore, by Tucker placing so much stress in opposing capitalist 
<b>exploitation,</b> instead of capitalist <b>oppression,</b> he was actually 
closer to the <i>"authoritaire"</i> Marx than Proudhon and, like Marx, opened the 
door to various kinds of domination and restrictions on individual self-government 
within anarchism. Again we see a support for contract theory creating authoritarian, 
not libertarian, relationships between people. Simply out, the social relationships
produced by wage labour shares far too much in common with those created by the 
state <b>not</b> to be of concern to any genuine libertarian. Arguing that it is
based on consent is as unconvincing as those who defend the state in similar
terms.
</p><p>
And we must add that John Stuart Mill (who agreed with the Warrenite slogan 
<i>"Individual Sovereignty"</i>) faced with the same problem that wage labour 
made a mockery of individual liberty came to the same conclusion as Proudhon. 
He thought that if <i>"mankind is to continue to improve"</i> (and it can only 
improve within liberty, we must add) then in the end one form of association 
will predominate, <i>"not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, 
and workpeople without a voice in management, but the association of the labourers 
themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they 
carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by 
themselves."</i> [quoted by Carole Pateman, <b>Participation and Democratic 
Theory</b>, p. 34]
</p><p>
Tucker himself pointed out that <i>"the essence of government is control. . . 
He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader."</i> 
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 23] So when Tucker suggests that (non-exploitative, 
and so non-capitalist) wage labour could exist in individualist anarchy there
is a distinct contradiction. Unlike wage labour under capitalism, workers would 
employ other workers and all would (in theory) receive the full product of their 
labour. Be that as it may, such relationships are not libertarian and so 
contradict Tucker's own theories on individual liberty (as Proudhon and Mill 
recognised with their own, similar, positions). Wage labour is based on the 
control of the worker by the employer; hence Tucker's contract theory can lead 
to a form of "voluntary" and "private" government within the workplace. This 
means that, while outside of a contract an individual is free, within it he 
or she is governed. This violates Tucker's concept of <i>"equality of liberty,"</i> 
since the boss has obviously more liberty than the worker during working
hours. 
</p><p>
Therefore, logically, individualist anarchism must follow Proudhon and support 
co-operatives and self-employment in order to ensure the maximum individual 
self-government and labour's <i>"natural wage."</i> So Tucker's comments about 
strikers and wage labour show a basic inconsistency in his basic ideas. This 
conclusion is not surprising. As Malatesta argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The individualists give the greatest importance to an abstract concept of 
freedom and fail to take into account, or dwell on the fact, that real, concrete 
freedom is the outcome of solidarity and voluntary co-operation . . . They certainly 
believe that to work in isolation is fruitless and that an individual, to ensure 
a living as a human being and to materially and morally enjoy all the benefits of 
civilisation, must either exploit -- directly or indirectly -- the labour of others 
. . . or associate with his [or her] fellows and share their pains and the joys of 
life. And since, being anarchists, they cannot allow the exploitation of one by 
another, they must necessarily agree that to be free and live as human beings 
they have to accept some degree and form of voluntary communism."</i> [<b>The 
Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 16]
</blockquote></p><p>
Occupancy and use, therefore, implies the collective ownership of resources used 
by groups which, in turn, implies associative labour and self-management. In other 
words, <i>"some degree and form of voluntary communism."</i> Ultimately, as John 
P. Clark summarised, opposition to authority which is limited to just the state 
hardly makes much sense from a libertarian perspective:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Neither . . . is there any reason to consider such a position a very consistent 
or convincing form of anarchism . . . A view of anarchism which seeks to eliminate 
coercion and the state, but which overlooks other ways in which people dominate 
other people, is very incomplete and quite contradictory type of anarchism.
The most thorough-going and perceptive anarchist theories have shown that
all types of domination are interrelated, all are destructive, and all must
be eliminated . . . Anarchism may begin as a revolt against political authority,
but if followed to its logical conclusion it becomes an all-encompassing 
critique of the will to dominate and all its manifestations."</i> 
[<b>Max Stirner's Egoism</b>, pp. 92-3] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Certain individualist anarchists were keenly aware of the fact that even free association 
need not be based on freedom for both parties. Take, for example, marriage. Marriage, 
correctly argued John Beverley Robinson, is based on <i>"the promise to obey"</i> and 
this results in <i>"a very real subordination."</i> As part of <i>"the general progress 
toward freedom in all things,"</i> marriage will <i>"become the union of those who are 
both equal and both free."</i> [<b>Liberty</b>, no. 287, p. 2] Why should property associated 
subordination be any better than patriarchal subordination? Does the fact that one only 
lasts 8 or 12 hours rather than 24 hours a day really make one consistent with libertarian 
principles and the other not?
</p><p>
Thus Tucker's comments on wage labour indicates a distinct contradiction in his ideas. It 
violates his support for <i>"occupancy and use"</i> as well as his opposition to the state
and usury. It could, of course, be argued that the contradiction is resolved because the 
worker consents to the authority of the boss by taking the job. However, it can be replied 
that, by this logic, the citizen consents to the authority of the state as a democratic
state allows people to leave its borders and join another one -- that the citizen does 
not leave indicates they consent to the state (this flows from Locke). When it came
to the state, anarchists are well aware of the limited nature of this argument (as one 
individualist anarchist put it: <i>"As well say that the government of New York or even 
of the United States is voluntary, and, if you don't like New York Sunday laws, etc., 
you can secede and go to -- South Carolina."</i> [A. H. Simpson, <b>The Individualist 
Anarchists</b>, p. 287]). In other words, consent of and by itself does not justify 
hierarchy for if it did, the current state system would be anarchistic. This indicates 
the weakness of contract theory as a means of guaranteeing liberty and its potential 
to generate, and justify, authoritarian social relationships rather than libertarian 
and liberty enhancing ones. 
</p><p>
This explains anarchist opposition to wage labour, it undermines liberty and, as a 
result, allows exploitation to happen. Albert Parsons put it well. Under capitalism 
labour <i>"is a commodity and wages is the price paid for it. The owner of this commodity 
-- of labour -- sells it, that is himself, to the owner of capital in order to live . . . 
The reward of the wage labourer's activity is not the product of his labour -- far from 
it."</i> This implies exploitation and so class struggle as there is a <i>"irreconcilable 
conflict between wage labourers and capitalists, between those who buy labour or sell 
its products, and the wage worker who sells labour (himself) in order to live."</i> 
This is because the boss will seek to use their authority over the worker to make 
them produce more for the agreed wage. Given this, during a social revolution the
workers <i>"first act will, of necessity, be the application of communistic principles. 
They will expropriate all wealth; they will take possession of all foundries, workshops, 
factories, mines, etc., for in no other way could they be able to continue to produce 
what they require on a basis of equality, and be, at the same time, independent of 
any authority."</i> [<b>Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis</b>, p. 99, 
p. 104 and p. 166] Hence Kropotkin's comment that <i>"anarchism . . . refuses all 
hierarchical organisation and preaches free agreement."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 137] 
To do otherwise is to contradict the basic ideas of anarchism. 
</p><p>
Peter Kropotkin recognised the statist implications of some aspects of anarchist 
individualism which Tucker's strike example highlights. Tucker's anarchism, due to 
its uncritical support for contract theory, could result in a few people dominating 
economic life, because <i>"no force"</i> would result in the perpetuation of authority 
structures, with freedom simply becoming the <i>"right to full development"</i> of 
<i>"privileged minorities."</i> But, Kropotkin argued, <i>"as such monopolies cannot 
be maintained otherwise than under the protection of a monopolist legislation and an 
organised coercion by the State, the claims of these individualists necessarily end 
up in a return to the State idea and to that same coercion which they so fiercely 
attack themselves. Their position is thus the same as that of Spencer and of the 
so-called 'Manchester school' of economists, who also begin by a severe criticism 
of the State and end up in its full recognition in order to maintain the property 
monopolies, of which the State is the necessary stronghold."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 162]
</p><p>
Such would be the possible (perhaps probable) result of the individualists' contract 
theory of freedom without a social background of communal self-management and ownership. 
As can be seen from capitalism, a society based on the abstract individualism associated 
with contract theory would, in practice, produce social relationships based on power and 
authority (and so force -- which would be needed to back up that authority), <b>not</b> 
liberty. As we argued in <a href="secA2.html#seca214">section A.2.14</a>, voluntarism
is <b>not</b> enough in itself to preserve freedom. This result, as noted in 
<a href="secA3.html">section A.3</a>, could <b>only</b> be avoided by workers' control, 
which is in fact the logical implication of Tucker's and other individualists' proposals. 
This is hardly a surprising implication, since as we've seen, artisan production was 
commonplace in 19th-century America and its benefits were extolled by many individualists. 
Without workers' control, individualist anarchism would soon become a form of capitalism 
and so statism -- a highly unlikely intention of individualists like Tucker, who hated 
both.
</p><p>
Therefore, given the assumptions of individualist anarchism in both their economic and 
political aspects, it is forced along the path of co-operative, not wage, labour. In 
other words, individualist anarchism is a form of socialism as workers receive the full 
product of their labour (i.e. there is no non-labour income) and this, in turn, logically
implies a society in which self-managed firms compete against each other on the free 
market, with workers selling the product of their labour and not the labour itself. As 
this unites workers with the means of production they use, it is <b>not</b> capitalism 
and instead a form of socialism based upon worker ownership and control of the places 
they work.
</p><p>
For individualist anarchists not to support co-operatives results in a contradiction, 
namely that the individualist anarchism which aims to secure the worker's <i>"natural 
wage"</i> cannot in fact do so, while dividing society into a class of order givers 
and order takers which violates individual self-government. It is this contradiction 
within Tucker's thought which the self-styled "anarcho"-capitalists take advantage of 
in order to maintain that individualist anarchism in fact implies capitalism (and so 
private-statism), not workers' control. In order to reach this implausible conclusion, 
a few individualist anarchist ideas are ripped from their social context and applied 
in a way that makes a mockery of them. 
</p><p>
Given this analysis, it becomes clear why few social anarchists exclude individualist 
anarchism from the anarchist tradition while almost all do so for "anarcho"-capitalism. 
The reason is simple and lies in the analysis that any individualist anarchism which 
supports wage labour is <b>inconsistent</b> anarchism. It <b>can</b> easily be made 
<b>consistent</b> anarchism by applying its own principles consistently. In contrast,
"anarcho"-capitalism rejects so many of the basic, underlying, principles of anarchism 
and has consistently followed the logical conclusions of such a rejection into private 
statism and support for hierarchical authority associated with private property that 
it cannot be made consistent with the ideals of anarchism. In constrast, given its 
<b>own</b> principles, individualist anarchism can easily become <b>consistent</b> 
anarchism. That is why it is a school of anarchism, unlike "anarcho"-capitalism. 
All that is required is to consistently apply "occupancy and use" to workplaces (as 
Proudhon advocated as did many individualist anarchists). By consistently applying 
this principle it finally ends exploitation along with hierarchy, so bringing all 
its ideals into line. 
</p><p>
As Malatesta argued, <i>"anarchy, as understood by the anarchists and as only they can 
interpret it, is based on socialism. Indeed were it not for those schools of socialism 
which artificially divide the natural unity of the social question, and consider some 
aspects out of context . . . we could say straight out that anarchy is synonymous with 
socialism, for both stand for the abolition of the domination and exploitation of man 
by man, whether exercised at bayonet point or by a monopoly of the means of life."</i> 
Without socialism, liberty is purely <i>"liberty . . . for the strong and the property 
owners to oppress and exploit the weak, those who have nothing . . . [so] lead[ing] to 
exploitation and domination, in other words, to authority . . . for freedom is not 
possible without equality, and real anarchy cannot exist without solidarity, without 
socialism."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 48 and p. 47]</p>

</body>
</html>