File: sectionG.txt

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 9.5-1
  • links: PTS
  • area: main
  • in suites: woody
  • size: 12,192 kB
  • ctags: 493
  • sloc: makefile: 40; sh: 8
file content (2954 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 176,023 bytes parent folder | download
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic? 

G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? 
	G.1.1 Why is the social context important in evaluating 
		Individualist Anarchism?

G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism? 
	G.2.1 What about their support of the free market?
	G.2.2 What about their support of "private property"?

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

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

G.5 Benjamin Tucker - capitalist or anarchist? 

G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?

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

Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic? 

The short answer is, no, it is not. All the individualist anarchists
were opposed to the exploitation of labour and all forms of non-labour
income (such as profits, interest and rent) and property. As such it is 
deeply *anti*-capitalist and many individualist anarchists, including 
Benjamin Tucker, considered themselves as socialists (indeed, Tucker 
often called his theory "Anarchistic-Socialism").

So, in this section of our anarchist FAQ we indicate why the individualist 
anarchists cannot be classified as "ancestors" of the bogus libertarians 
of the "anarcho"-capitalist school. Instead they must be (due to their
opposition to wage slavery, capitalist property, interest, rent and profit
as well as their concern for equality and co-operation) classified as
libertarian *socialists*, albeit being on the liberal wing of anarchist
thought. So while *some* of their ideas do overlap with those of the 
"anarcho"-capitalist school they are not capitalistic, no more than 
the overlap between their ideas and anarcho-communism makes them 
communistic. 

In this context, the creation of "anarcho"-capitalism may be regarded as
yet another tactic by capitalists to reinforce the public's perception
that there are no viable alternatives to capitalism, i.e. by claiming that
"even anarchism implies capitalism." In order to justify this claim, they
have searched the history of anarchism in an effort to find some thread in
the movement that can be used for this purpose. They think that with the
individualist anarchists they have found such a thread. 

However, as we've already seen, by its very definition -- as opposition 
to hierarchical authority -- *all* threads of anarchism are *incompatible*
with capitalism. As Malatesta argued, "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." Without 
socialism, liberty (i.e. liberalism) is purely "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." [_Anarchy_, p. 47 and p. 46]

Nevertheless, in the individualists we find anarchism coming closest 
to "classical" liberalism and being influenced by the ideas of Herbert 
Spencer, a classical liberal and proto-libertarian capitalist. This 
influence, as was noted by Peter Kropotkin at the time (e.g. in
_Modern Science and Anarchism_), led individualist anarchists like 
Benjamin Tucker to support contract theory in the name of freedom, 
apparently without being aware of the authoritarian social relationships 
that could be implied by it, as can be seen under capitalism. Therefore, 
this section can also be considered, in part, as a continuation of the 
discussion begun in section A.3.

Few thinkers are completely consistent. Given Tucker's adamant
anti-statism and anti-capitalism, it is likely that had he realised 
the statism implicit in contract theory, he would have modified
his views in such a way as to eliminate the contradiction. It is
understandable why he failed to do so, however; for he viewed
individualist anarchism as a society of workers, not one of capitalists
and workers. His opposition to usury logically implies artisan and 
co-operative labour -- people selling the products of their labour, as 
opposed to the labour itself -- which itself implies self-management 
in production (and so society), not authoritarianism. Nevertheless, 
it is this inconsistency -- the non-anarchist aspect of individualist 
anarchism -- which right "libertarians" like Murray Rothbard select 
and concentrate on, ignoring the anti-capitalist context in which 
this aspect of individualist thought exists within. As David Wieck 
points out: 

"Out of the history of anarchist thought and action Rothbard has pulled 
forth a single thread, the thread of individualism, and defines that 
individualism in a way alien even to the spirit of a Max Stirner or a 
Benjamin Tucker, whose heritage I presume he would claim -- to say 
nothing of how alien is his way to the spirit of Godwin, Proudhon, 
Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and the historically anonymous persons 
who through their thoughts and action have tried to give anarchism a 
living meaning. Out of this thread Rothbard manufactures one more 
bourgeois ideology." [David Wieck, "Anarchist Justice", _Nomos XIX_,
pp. 227-228]

It is with this in mind that we discuss the ideas of people like Tucker.
As this section of the FAQ will indicate, even at its most liberal, 
individualist, extreme anarchism was fundamentally *anti*-capitalist. 
Any concepts which "anarcho"-capitalism imports from the individualist
tradition ignore the social context of self-employment and artisan
production within which those concepts arose, thus turning them into
something radically different from what was intended by their originators.

It is not a fitting tribute to the individualist anarchists that their
ideas are today being associated with the capitalism that they so clearly
despised and wished to abolish.

G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? 

Yes, for two reasons. 

Firstly, the Individualist Anarchists opposed profits, interest 
and rent as forms of exploitation (they termed these non-labour 
incomes "usury"). To use the words of Ezra Heywood, the 
Individualist Anarchists thought "Interest is theft, Rent Robbery, 
and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder." [quoted by Martin Blatt, 
_Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton 
and Sullivan (eds.), p. 29] Their vision of the good society was 
one in which "the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit" 
would not exist and labour would "secure its natural wage, its entire 
product." [Benjamin Tucker, _The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 82 
and p. 85] As communist-anarchist Alexander Berkman noted, "[i]f 
labour owned the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism." 
[_What is Communist Anarchism?_, p. 37] Thus the Individualist 
Anarchists, like the social anarchists, opposed the exploitation 
of labour and desired to see the end of capitalism by ensuring that 
labour would own what it produced.

Secondly, the individualist anarchists desired a society in which 
there would no longer be capitalists and workers, only workers. The 
worker would receive the full product of his/her labour, so ending 
the exploitation of labour by capital. In Tucker's words, a free
society would see "each man reaping the fruits of his labour and
no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital" and 
so society would "become a great hive of Anarchistic workers, 
prosperous and free individuals" combining "to carry on their 
production and distribution on the cost principle." [_The 
Individualist Anarchists_, p. 276] Moreover, such an aim logically 
implies a society based upon artisan, not wage, labour and workers 
would, therefore, not be separated from the ownership and control of 
the means of production they used and so sell the product of their 
labour, not the labour power itself. 

For these two, interrelated, reasons, the Individualist Anarchists 
are clearly anti-capitalist. While an Individualist Anarchy would be 
a market system, it would not be a capitalist one. As Tucker argued,
the anarchists realised "the fact that one class of men are dependent 
for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class 
of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally 
privileged to sell something that is not labour. . . . And to such 
a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute 
you remove privilege. . . every man will be a labourer exchanging 
with fellow-labourers . . . What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to 
abolish is usury . . . it wants to deprive capital of its reward." 
[Benjamin Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 404]  As noted above, the 
term "usury," for Tucker, was a synonym for "the exploitation of 
labour" [Ibid., p. 396] and included capitalist profits as well 
as interest, rent, and royalties. Little wonder Tucker translated 
Proudhon's _What is Property?_ and subscribed to its conclusion 
that "property is robbery" (or theft).

Such opposition to exploitation of labour was a common thread in 
Individualist Anarchist thought, as it was in the social anarchist 
movement. Moreover, as in the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin and 
Kropotkin opposition to wage slavery was also a common thread within 
the individualist anarchist tradition -- indeed, given its regular 
appearance, we can say it is almost a *defining* aspect of the tradition 
(and, as we argue in the next section, it has to be for Individualist 
Anarchism to be logically consistent). For example, taking Josiah 
Warren (the "father" of individualist anarchism) we find that "[t]o men 
like [him] . . . chattel slavery was merely one side of a brutal situation, 
and although sympathetic with its opponents, refused to take part in the 
struggle [against slavery] unless it was extended to a wholesale attack 
on what they termed 'wage slavery' in the states where Negro slavery no 
longer existed." [James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, p. 81] Such 
a view, we may add, was commonplace in radical working class journals 
and movements of the time. Thus we find George Henry Evans (who heavily
influence Individualist Anarchists like Warren and Ingalls with the
ideas of land reform based on "occupancy and use") writing:

"I was formally, like yourself, sir, a very warm advocate of the
abolition of (black) slavery. This was before I saw that there was
white slavery. Since I saw this, I have materially changed my views
as to the means of abolishing Negro slavery. I now see clearly, I
think, that to give the landless black the privilege of changing
masters now possessed by the landless white, would hardly be a
benefit to him in exchange for his surety of support in sickness
and old age, although he is in a favourable climate." [quoted
by Kenneth R. Gegg, Jr., _Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions 
of Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 113]

Similarly, William Greene (whose pamphlet _Mutual Banking_ had a great
impact on Tucker) pronounced that "[t]here is no device of the political
economists so infernal as the one which ranks labour as a commodity, 
varying in value according to supply and demand." [_Mutual Banking_  
quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 130] In the same work he also noted
that "[t]o speak of labour as merchandise is treason; for such speech
denies the true dignity of man. . . Where labour is merchandise in
fact . . . there man is merchandise also, whether in England or South
Carolina." [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, _Pioneers of American Freedom_,
p. 112] Here we see a similar opposition to the commodification of 
labour (and so labourers) within capitalism that also marks social 
anarchist thought (as Rocker notes, Greene "rejected . . . the
designation of labour as a *commodity.*" [Op. Cit., pp. 111-2]). 
Moreover, we discover Greene had a "strong sympathy for the 
*principle of association.* In fact, the theory of Mutualism is 
nothing less that co-operative labour based on the cost principle." 
[Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 109] Martin also indicates Greene's 
support for co-operation and associative labour:

"Coming at a time when the labour and consumer groups were 
experimenting with 'associated workshops' and 'protective union 
stores,' Greene suggested that the mutual bank be incorporated 
into the movement, forming what he called 'complementary units of 
production, consumption, and exchange . . . the triple formula of 
practical mutualism.'" [Op. Cit., pp. 134-5]

This support for producers' associations alongside mutual banks is
identical to Proudhon's ideas -- which is unsurprising as Greene was
a declared follower of the French anarchist's ideas.

Looking at Lysander Spooner, we discover a similar opposition to
wage labour. Spooner argued that it was state restrictions on credit
and money (the "money monopoly" based on banks requiring specie to
operate) as the reason why people sell themselves to others on the
labour market. As he put it, "a monopoly of money . . . .put[s] it
wholly out of the power of the great body of wealth-producers to
hire the capital needed for their industries; and thus compel them
. . . -- by the alternative of starvation -- to sell their labour
to the monopolists of money . . . [who] plunder all the producing
classes in the prices of their labour." [_A Letter to Grover 
Cleveland_, p. 20] Spooner was well aware that it was capitalists
who ran the state ("the employers of wage labour . . . are also the
monopolists of money." [Op. Cit., p. 48]). In his ideal society,
the "amount of money capable of being furnished . . . is so great
that every man, woman, and child. . . could get it, and go 
into business for himself, or herself -- either singly, or in 
partnerships -- and be under no necessity to act as a servant,
or sell his or her labour to others. All the great establishments,
of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing
a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few, or
no persons, who could hire capital, and do business for themselves,
would consent to labour for wages for another." [Op. Cit., p. 41]
In other words, a society without wage labour and, instead, based
upon peasant, artisan and associated/co-operative labour (as in
Proudhon's vision). In other words, a *non*-capitalist society or,
more positively, a (libertarian) socialist one as the workers' own 
and control the means of production they use.

The individualist anarchists opposed capitalism (like social anarchists) 
because they saw that profit, rent and interest were all forms of 
exploitation. They thought that liberty meant that the worker was 
entitled to "all the fruits of his own labour" (Spooner) and recognised 
that working for a boss makes this impossible as a portion is diverted 
into the employer's pockets. [Martin, Op. Cit., p. 172] Like social
anarchists they opposed usury, to have to pay purely for access/use
for a resource (a "slice of their daily labour us taken from them [the
workers] for the privilege of *using* these factories" [Alexander
Berkman, _What is Communist Anarchism?_, p. 6]).

This opposition to profits, rent and interest as forms of exploitation, 
wage labour as a form of slavery and property as a form of theft clearly 
makes individualist anarchism anti-capitalist and a form of (libertarian) 
socialism. In addition, it also indicates well the common ground between 
the two threads of anarchism, in particular their common position to 
capitalism. The social anarchist Rudolf Rocker indicates well this 
common position when he argues:

"it is difficult to reconcile personal freedom with the existing economic
system. Without doubt the present inequality of economic interests and
the ruling class conflicts in society are a continual danger to the
freedom of the individual. . . One cannot be free either politically or
personally so long as one is in economic servitude of another and cannot
escape from this condition. This was recognised by men like Godwin, Warren,
Proudhon, Bakunin, [and women like Goldman and de Cleyre, we must add!] 
and many others who subsequently reached the conviction that the domination
of man over man will not disappear until there is an end of the exploitation
of man by man." [_Nationalism and Culture_, p. 167]

In addition to this opposition to capitalist usury, the individualist 
anarchists also expressed opposition to capitalist ideas on property 
(particularly property in land). J.K. Ingalls, for example, considered 
that to reduce land to the status of a commodity was an act of "usurpation." 
Indeed, "the private domination of the land" originated in "usurpation only, 
whether of the camp, the court or the market. Whenever such a domination 
excludes or deprives a single human being of his equal opportunity, it 
is a violation, not only of the public right, and of the social duty, but 
of the very principle of law and morals upon which property itself is 
based. . ." [_Social Wealth_, quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 148f] 

These ideas are identical to Proudhon's and Ingalls continues in this
Proudhonian "occupancy and use" vein when he argues that possession 
"remains *possession*, and can never become *property*, in the sense of
absolute dominion, except by positive statue [i.e. state action]. Labour
can only claim *occupancy*, and can lay no claim to more than the 
usufruct." [Ibid., p. 149] In other words, capitalist property was 
created by "forceful and fraudulent taking" of land, which "could
give no justification to the system" [Ibid.] (as we argued in section 
B.3.4) and was protected by the state. And like Warren and Greene 
he opposed wage labour, and "considered the only 'intelligent' strike 
[by workers as] one which would be directed against wage work 
altogether." [Ibid., p. 153]

Therefore we see that the individualist anarchists, like social 
anarchists, opposed capitalist exploitation, wage slavery and 
property rights. Instead of capitalism, they maintained that 
workers should own what they produced or its equivalent (rather 
than what they were paid in wages). Such a position necessarily 
implies that they should own and control the means of production
they use, thus ensuring the "abolition of the proletariat" (to 
use Proudhon's term) and so the end of capitalism as society would 
no longer be divided into two classes, those who worked and those 
who owned. In an individualist anarchy, "there should be no more 
proletaires" as "everybody" would be "proprietor." This would result 
in "The land to the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to 
the labourer. The product to the producer." [Ernest Lesigne quoted 
approvingly by Tucker at the end of his essay "State Socialism and 
Anarchism" in _Instead of a Book_, p. 17, p. 18] Ernest Lesigne 
considered "co-operative production" as "a solution to the great 
problem of social economy, -- the delivery of products to the 
consumer at cost" and as a means of producers to "receive the value 
of your product, of your effort, without having to deal with a mass 
of hucksters and exploiters." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 123] 
As Charles A. Dana put it (in a work published by Tucker and described 
by him as "a really intelligent, forceful, and sympathetic exposition 
of mutual banking"), "[b]y introducing mutualism into exchanges and 
credit we introduce it everywhere, and labour will assume a new aspect 
and become truly democratic." [_Proudhon and His "Bank of the People"_, 
p. 45] In other words, a classless socialist society of self-employed 
workers without exploitation and oppression. 

As Wm. Gary Kline correctly summarises:

"Their proposals were designed to establish true equality of 
opportunity . . . and they expected this to result in a society
without great wealth or poverty. In the absence of monopolistic 
factors which would distort competition, they expected a
society of largely self-employed workmen with no significant
disparity of wealth between any of them since all would be
required to live at their own expense and not at the expense 
of exploited fellow human beings." [_The Individualist
Anarchists: A Critique of Liberalism_, pp. 103-4]

Thus Individualist anarchy would "[m]ake capital free by organising 
credit on a mutual plan, and then these vacant lands will come into 
use . . . operatives will be able to buy axes and rakes and hoes, and 
then they will be independent of their employers, and then the labour 
problem will be solved." This would result in the "emancipation of the 
workingman from his present slavery to capital." [Tucker, _Instead of a 
Book_, p. 321 and p. 323]

Moreover, like the social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchists were
aware that the state was not some neutral machine or one that exploited
society purely for its own ends. They were aware that it was a vehicle of
*class rule,* namely the rule of the capitalist class over the working
class. As noted above, Spooner thought that that "holders of this monopoly
[the money monopoly] now rule and rob this nation; and the government, in
all its branches, is simply their tool" and that "the employers of wage 
labour . . . are also the monopolists of money." [Spooner, Op. Cit., p. 42
and p. 48] Tucker recognised that "capital had so manipulated legislation"
that they gained an advantage on the capitalist market which allowed them
to exploit labour. [_The Individualist Anarchists_, pp. 82-3] He was
quite clear that the state was a *capitalist* state, with "Capitalists
hav[ing] placed and kept on the statute books all sorts of prohibitions
and taxes" to ensure a "free market" skewed in favour of themselves.
[quoted by Don Werkheiser, _Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of 
Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 218] A.H. Simpson
argued that the Individualist Anarchist "knows very well that the present 
State . . . is simply the tool of the property-owning class." [Op. Cit.,
p. 92] Thus both wings of the anarchist movement were united in their
opposition to capitalist exploitation and their common recognition that
the state was a tool of the capitalist class used to allow them to exploit
the working class.

In addition, as a means of social change, the individualists suggested 
that activists start "inducing the people to steadily refuse the payment 
of rents and taxes." [_Instead of a Book_ pp. 299-300] This non-payment of
rent included rented accommodation as "tenants would not be forced to pay
[landlords] rent, nor would [landlords] be allowed to seize their [the
tenants] property." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 162] These are 
hardly statements with which capitalists would agree. Tucker, as noted, 
also opposed interest, considering it usury (exploitation and a "crime") 
pure and simple and one of the means by which workers were denied the full 
fruits of their labour. Indeed, he looked forward to the day when "any
person who charges more than cost for any product [will] . . . be regarded 
very much as we now regard a pickpocket." This "attitude of hostility to 
usury, in any form" hardly fits into the capitalist mentality or belief
system. [Op. Cit., p. 155] Similarly, Ezra Heywood considered 
profit-taking "an injustice which ranked second only to legalising
titles to absolute ownership of land or raw-materials." [James J. Martin,
Op. Cit., p. 111] Opposition to profits, rent or interest is hardly
capitalistic -- indeed, the reverse.

As regards equality, we discover that the Individualist Anarchist's saw
their ideas as resulting in more equality. Thus we find Tucker arguing
that that the "happiness possible in any society that does not improve 
upon the present in the matter of distribution of wealth, can hardly be 
described as beatific." He was clearly opposed to "the inequitable
distribution of wealth" under capitalism and equally clearly saw his
proposals as a means of reducing it substantially. ["Why I am an
Anarchist", p. 135, contained in _Man!_, M. Graham (ed.), pp. 132-6] 
John Beverley Robinson agreed:

"When privilege is abolished, and the worker retains all that he
produces, then will come the powerful trend toward equality of
material reward for labour that will produce substantial financial
and social equality, instead of the mere political equality that
now exists." [_Patterns of Anarchy_, pp. 278-9]

As did Lysander Spooner, who argued that under his system "fortunes
could hardly be represented by a wheel; for it would present on
such height, no such depth, no such irregularity of motion as
now. It should rather be represented by an extended surface, varied
somewhat by inequalities, but still exhibiting a general level,
affording a safe position for all, and creating no necessity, for
either force or fraud, on the part of anyone to secure his standing."
Thus Individualist anarchism would create a condition "neither of
poverty, nor riches; but of moderate competency -- such as will
neither enervate him by luxury, nor disable him by destitution;
but which will at once give him and opportunity to labour, (both
mentally and physically) and stimulate him by offering him all
the fruits of his labours." [quoted by Stephan L. Newman, _Liberalism 
at Wit's End_, p. 72 and p. 73] 

Hence, like social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchists saw
their ideas as a means towards equality. By eliminating exploitation,
inequality would soon decrease as wealth would no longer accumulate
in the hands of the few (the owners). Rather, it would flow back 
into the hands of those who produced it (i.e. the workers). Until
this occurred, society would see "[o]n one side a dependent 
class of wage-workers and on the other a privileged class of 
wealth-monopolisers, each become more and more distinct from the
other as capitalism advances." This has "resulted in a grouping
and consolidation of wealth which grows apace by attracting all
property, no matter by whom produced, into the hands of the
privileged, and hence property becomes a social power, an
economic force destructive of rights, a fertile source of 
injustice, a means of enslaving the dispossessed." [William
Ballie, _The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 121]

Tucker, like other individualist anarchists, also supported labour 
unions, and although he opposed violence during strikes, he recognised 
that it was caused by frustration due to an unjust system. Indeed, like 
social anarchists, he considered "the labourer in these days [as] a 
soldier. . . His employer is . . . a member of an opposing army. The 
whole industrial and commercial world is in a state of internecine war, 
in which the proletaires are massed on one side and the proprietors on 
the other." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 460] The cause of strikes rested 
in the fact that "before. . . strikers violated the equal liberty of 
others, their own right to equality of liberty had been wantonly and 
continuously violated" by the capitalists using the state, for the 
"capitalists . . . in denying [a free market] to [the workers] are 
guilty of criminal invasion." [Ibid., p. 454] He agreed with Ezra
Heywood when he "scoffed at supporters of the status quo, who saw no
evidence of the tyranny on the part of capital, and who brought up
the matter of free contract with reference to labourers. This 
argument was no longer valid. Capital controlled land, machinery,
steam power, waterfalls, ships, railways, and above all, money and
public opinion, and was in a position to wait out recalcitrancy at
its leisure." [James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, p. 107] 
Likewise, Tucker advocated and supported many other forms of 
non-violent direct action such as boycotts and rent strikes, 
seeing them as important means of radicalising the working class 
and creating an anarchist society. However, like social anarchists
the Individualist Anarchists did not consider labour struggle as an
end in itself -- they considered reforms (and discussion of a "fair 
wage" and "harmony between capital and labour") as essentially 
"conservative" and would be satisfied with no less than "the abolition 
of the monopoly privileges of capital and interest-taking, and the 
return to labour of the full value of its production." [Victor Yarros,
quoted by James J. Martin, Op. Cit., p. 206f]

However, 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 system to replace capitalist companies with
co-operative ones. Tucker was therefore fundamentally a *reformist,*
thinking that anarchy would evolve from capitalism as mutual banks spread
across society, increasing the bargaining power of labour. This idea of
reforming capitalism over time (and, by implication, tolerating boss's
control during that time) was primarily due to the influence of Herbert
Spencer and not Max Stirner. Little wonder that Peter Kropotkin termed
Tucker's doctrine "no force" and considered such a reformist position 
to be similar to Spencer's and so little more than "an excuse for 
supporting landlord and capitalist domination." [_Act For Yourselves_, 
p. 98]

Be that as it may, it is clear that both social and Individualist 
Anarchists share much in common, including an opposition to capitalism.
In other words, Individualist Anarchism is, indeed, opposed to capitalism.
As Carole Pateman points out, "[t]here has always been a strong radical
individualist tradition in the USA. Its adherents have been divided
between those who drew anarchist, egalitarian conclusions, and those
who reduced political life to the capitalist economy writ large, to
a series of exchanges between unequally situated individuals." [_The
Problem of Political Obligation_, p. 205] As can be seen, what
right-libertarians do is to confuse these two traditions. The 
Individualist Anarchists may have been in favour of free exchange
but between equally situated individuals. Only given a context of
equality can free exchange benefit both parties equally and not 
generate growing inequalities which benefit the stronger of the
parties involved which, in turn, skews the bargaining position of 
those involved in favour of the stronger (also see section F.3).

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

When reading the work of people like Tucker and Warren, we must 
remember the social context of their ideas, namely the transformation 
of America from a pre-capitalist to a capitalist society (see Eunice 
Minette Schuster, _Native American Anarchism_, pp. 135-137). The 
individualist anarchists viewed with horror the rise of capitalism 
and its imposition on an unsuspecting American population, supported
and encouraged by state action (in the form of protection of private 
property in land, restricting money issuing to state approved banks 
using specie, government orders supporting capitalist industry, 
tariffs and so on). 

The non-capitalist nature of the early USA can be seen from the 
early dominance of self-employment (artisan production). At the 
beginning of the 19th century, around 80% of the occupied population 
were self-employed. The great majority of Americans during this
time were farmers working their own land, primarily for their own
needs. Most of the rest were self-employed artisans, merchants,
traders, and professionals. Other classes -- employees/wage workers 
and employers/capitalists in the North, slaves and planters in the 
South -- were relatively small. The great majority of Americans
were independent and free from anybody's command. They controlled
they owned and controlled their means of production. Thus early
America was, essentially, a pre-capitalist society. However, by 
1880, the year before Tucker started _Liberty_, the number of 
self-employed had fallen to approximately 33% of the working 
population. Now it is less than 10% [Samuel Bowles and Herbert
Gintis, _Schooling in Capitalist America_, p. 59]. It is *only* 
in this context that we can understand  individualist anarchism, 
namely as a revolt against the destruction of working-class 
independence and the growth of wage-labour, accompanied by the 
growth of two opposing classes, capitalists and proletarians.

Given the commonplace awareness in the population of artisan 
production and its advantages, it is hardly surprising that 
the individualists supported "free market" solutions to social 
problems. For, given the era, this solution implied workers' 
control and the selling of the product of labour, not the labourer 
him/herself. As Tucker argues, individualist anarchism desires 
"[n]ot to abolish wages, but to make *every* man dependent upon 
wages and to secure every man his *whole* wages" [_Instead of a 
Book_, p. 404] and this, logically, can only occur under workers
control (i.e. when the tool belonged to the worker, etc. -- see 
section G.2). 

Indeed, the Individualist Anarchists were part of a wider movement
seeking to stop the transformation of America. As Bowles and Ginitis
note, this "process has been far from placid. Rather, it has involved
extended struggles with sections of U.S. labour trying to counter
and temper the effects of their reduction to the status of wage 
labour." They continue by noting that "with the rise of entrepreneurial 
capital, groups of formerly independent workers were increasingly draw 
into the wage-labour system. Working people's organisations advocated 
alternatives to this system; land reform, thought to allow all to 
become an independent producer, was a common demand. Worker 
co-operatives were a widespread and influential part of the labour 
movement as early as the 1840s . . . but failed because sufficient 
capital could not be raised. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 59 and p. 62] It 
is no coincidence that the issues raised by the Individualist
Anarchists (land reform via "occupancy-and-use", increasing the
supply of money via mutual banks and so on) reflect these 
alternatives raised by working class people and their organisations.
Little wonder Tucker argued that:

"Make capital free by organising credit on a mutual plan, and 
then these vacant lands will come into use . . . operatives will 
be able to buy axes and rakes and hoes, and then they will be
independent of their employers, and then the labour problem will
solved." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 321]

Thus the Individualist Anarchists reflect the aspirations of
working people facing the transformation of an society from a
pre-capitalist state into a capitalist one. As Morgan Edwards
notes:

"The greatest part [of _Liberty_'s readers] proves to be of the
professional/intellectual class: the remainder includes independent
manufacturers and merchants, artisans and skilled workers . . .
The anarchists' hard-core supporters were the socio-economic
equivalents of Jefferson's yeoman-farmers and craftsworkers:
a freeholder-artisan-independent merchant class allied with
freethinking professionals and intellectuals. These groups
-- in Europe as well as in America -- had socio-economic
independence, and through their desire to maintain and improve
their relatively free positions, had also the incentive to oppose
the growing encroachments of the capitalist State." [_Benjamin R. 
Tucker and the Champions of Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton and 
Sullivan (eds.), p. 85]

This transformation of society by the rise of capitalism explains 
the development of *both* schools of anarchism, social and 
individualist. "American anarchism," Frank H. Brooks argues, 
"like its European counterpart, is best seen as a nineteenth 
century development, an ideology that, like socialism generally, 
responded to the growth of industrial capitalism, republican 
government, and nationalism. Although this is clearest in the 
more collectivistic anarchist theories and movements of the 
late nineteenth century (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, communist 
anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism), it also helps to explain anarchists 
of early- to midcentury such as Proudhon, Stirner and, in America, 
Warren. For all of these theorists, a primary concern was the 
'labour problem' -- the increasing dependence and immiseration 
of manual workers in industrialising economies." [_The Individualist 
Anarchists_, p. 4]

Changing social conditions also explains why Individualist 
Anarchism must be considered socialistic. As Murray Bookchin
notes:

"Th[e] growing shift from artisanal to an industrial economy gave
rise to a gradual but major shift in socialism itself. For the
artisan, socialism meant producers' co-operatives composed of
men who worked together in small shared collectivist associations,
although for master craftsmen it meant mutual aid societies that
acknowledged their autonomy as private producers. For the industrial 
proletarian, by contrast, socialism came to mean the formation of 
a mass organisation that gave factory workers the collective power 
to expropriate a plant that no single worker could properly own. 
These distinctions led to two different interpretations of the
'social question' . . . The more progressive craftsmen of the
nineteenth century had tried to form networks of co-operatives,
based on individually or collectively owned shops, and a market
knitted together by a moral agreement to sell commodities 
according to a 'just price' or the amount of labour that was
necessary to produce them. Presumable such small-scale ownership
and shared moral precepts would abolish exploitation and greedy
profit-taking. The class-conscious proletarian . . . thought
in terms of the complete socialisation of the means of production,
including land, and even of abolishing the market *as such*,
distributing goods according to needs rather than labour . . .
They advocated *public* ownership of the means of production, 
whether by the state or by the working class organised in trade 
unions." [_The Third Revolution_, vol. 2, p. 262]

So, in this evolution of socialism we can place the various
brands of anarchism. Individualist anarchism is clearly a form 
of artisanal socialism (which reflects its American roots) while 
communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are forms of industrial 
(or proletarian) socialism (which reflects its roots in Europe). 
Proudhon's mutualism bridges these extremes, advocating as it does 
artisan socialism for small-scale industry and agriculture and 
co-operative associations for large-scale industry (which reflects
the state of the French economy in the 1840s to 1860s). Hence
Individualist Anarchist support for "the cost principle" (or 
"cost the limit of price") and artisanal production ("The land 
to the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the labourer. 
The product to the producer"), complemented by "the principle of 
association" and mutual banking.

In other words, there have been many schools of socialism, all 
influenced by the changing society around them. In the words
of Proudhon "[m]odern Socialism was not founded as a sect or 
church; it has seen a number of different schools." [_Selected 
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 177] As Frank H. Brooks 
notes, "before Marxists monopolised the term, socialism, was a broad 
concept, as indeed Marx's critique of the 'unscientific' varieties 
of socialism in the _Communist Manifesto_ indicated. Thus, when 
Tucker claimed that the individualist anarchism advocated in the 
pages of _Liberty_ was socialist, he was not engaged in obfuscation 
or rhetorical bravado." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 75]
Looking at the society in which their ideas developed (rather than
a-historically projecting modern ideas backward) we can see the
socialist core of Individualist Anarchism. It was, in other words,
an un-Marxian form of socialism (as was communist-anarchism).

Thus, to look at the Individualist Anarchists from the perspective 
of "modern socialism" (say, communist-anarchism or Marxism) means 
to miss the point. The social conditions which produced Individualist 
Anarchism were substantially different from those existing today
and what was a possible solution to the "social problem" *then* may
not be one suitable *now* (and, indeed, point to a different kind
of socialism than that which developed later). Moreover, Europe in 
the 1870s was distinctly different than America (although, of
course, the USA *was* catching up). For example, there was still
vast tracks of unclaimed land (once the Native Americans had been
removed, of course) available to workers (which explains the 
various acts the US state to control land access -- see section
F.8.5). In the towns and cities, artisan production "remained
important . . . into the 1880s" [David Montgomery, _The Fall of
the House of Labour_, p. 52] Until the 1880s, the possibility of
self-employment was a real one for many workers, a possibility
being hindered by state action (for example, by forcing people
to buy land via Homestead Acts, restricting banking to those
with specie, and so on). Little wonder that Individualist Anarchism
was considered a real solution to the problems generated by the
creation of capitalism in the USA and that, by the 1880s, 
Communist Anarchist (and later anarcho-syndicalism) became
the dominant forms of anarchism. By the 1880s, the transformation 
of America was nearing completion and self-employment was no longer 
a real solution for the majority of workers. 

As Peter Sabatini points out:

"The chronology of anarchism within the United States corresponds 
to what transpired in Europe and other locations. An organised 
anarchist movement imbued with a revolutionary collectivist, then 
communist, orientation came to fruition in the late 1870s. At that 
time, Chicago was a primary centre of anarchist activity within the
USA, due in part to its large immigrant population. . .

"The Proudhonist anarchy that Tucker represented was largely superseded
in Europe by revolutionary collectivism and anarcho-communism. The same
changeover occurred in the US, although mainly among subgroups of working
class immigrants who were settling in urban areas. For these recent
immigrants caught up in tenuous circumstances within the vortex of
emerging corporate capitalism, a revolutionary anarchy had greater
relevancy than go slow mutualism." [_Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy_]

Murray Bookchin argues that the development of communist-anarchism 
"made it possible for anarchists to adapt themselves to the new
working class, the industrial proletariat, . . . This adaptation
was all the more necessary because capitalism was now transforming
not only European [and American] society but the very nature of
the European [and American] labour movement itself." [Op. Cit., 
p. 259] With the changing social conditions in the US, the anarchist
movement changed to. Hence the rise of communist-anarchism in 
addition to the more native individualist tradition and the 
change in Individualist Anarchism itself:

"Green emphasised more strongly the *principle of association*
than did Josiah Warren and more so than Spooner had done. Here
too Proudhon's influence asserts itself. . . In principle there 
is essentially no difference between Warren and Proudhon. The 
difference between them arises from a dissimilarity of their 
respective environments. Proudhon lived in a country where the 
sub-division of labour made co-operation in social production 
essential, while Warren had to deal with predominantly small 
individual producers. For this reason Proudhon emphasised
the *principle of association* far more than Warren and his
followers did, although Warren was by no means opposed to
this view." [Rudolf Rocker, _Pioneers of American Freedom_, 
p. 108]

This social context is essential for understanding the thought of 
people like Greene, Spooner and Tucker. For example, as Stephen L. 
Newman points out, Spooner "argues that every man ought to be his 
own employer, and he envisions a world of yeoman farmers and 
independent entrepreneurs." [_Liberalism at Wit's End_, p. 72] This 
sort of society was in the process of being destroyed when Spooner 
was writing. However, the Individualist Anarchists did not think this 
transformation was unstoppable and proposed, like other sections of 
US labour, various solutions to problems society faced. Moreover,
they adjusted their own ideas to changing social circumstances
as well, as can be seen by Greene's support for co-operatives
("the principle of association") as the only means of ending
exploitation of labour by capital.

Therefore Rocker was correct when he argued that Individualist 
Anarchism was "above all . . . rooted in the peculiar social 
conditions of America which differed fundamentally from those 
of Europe." [Op. Cit., p. 155] As these conditions changed,
the viability of Individualist Anarchism's solution to the
social problem decreased. Individualist Anarchism, argues
Morgan Edwards, "appears to have dwindled into political
insignificance largely because of the erosion of its
political-economic base, rather than from a simple failure
of strategy. With the impetus of the Civil War, capitalism
and the State had too great a head start on the centralisation
of economic and political life for the anarchists to catch 
up. This centralisation reduced the independence of the 
intellectual/professional and merchant artisan group that
were the mainstay of the _Liberty_ circle." [Op. Cit.,
pp. 85-6]

By not taking into account these conditions, the ideas of the 
likes of Tucker and Spooner will be distorted beyond recognition. 
Similarly, by ignoring the changing nature of socialism in the 
face of a changing society and economy, the obvious socialistic 
aspects of their ideas will be lost. Ultimately, to analyse the 
Individualist Anarchists in an a-historic manner means to distort 
their ideas and ideals. Moreover, to apply those ideas in a 
non-artisan economy without the intention of radically transforming 
the socio-economic nature of that society towards one based on
artisan production one would mean to create a society distinctly 
different than one they envisioned (see section G.3).

G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism? 

Here we present a short summary of why individualist anarchism implies
socialism and not capitalism. While it is true that people like Tucker
and Warren placed "property" at the heart of their vision of anarchy,
this does not make them supporters of capitalism (see sections G.2.1
and G.2.2). Unlike capitalists, the individualist anarchists identified 
"property" with simple "possession," or "occupancy and use" and considered 
profit, rent and interest as exploitation. Indeed, Tucker explicitly stated 
that "all property rests on a labour title, and no other property do I
favour." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 400] Because of this and their explicit
opposition to usury (profits, rent and interest) and capitalist property, 
they could and did consider themselves as part of the wider socialist 
movement, the libertarian wing as opposed to the statist Marxist wing.

Individualist anarchists like Tucker strongly believed that a truly free 
(i.e. non-capitalist) market would ensure that the worker would receive 
the "full product" of his or her labour. Nevertheless, in order to claim 
Tucker as a proto-"anarcho"-capitalist, "anarcho"-capitalists may argue 
that capitalism pays the "market price" of labour power, and that this 
price *does*  reflect the "full product" (or value) of the worker's 
labour. 

As Tucker supported the Labour Theory of Value we doubt that he would 
have agreed with the "anarcho"-capitalist argument that market price 
of labour reflected the value it produced (see Section C). He, like 
the other individualist anarchists, was well aware that labour produces 
the "surplus wealth" which was appropriated in the name of interest, 
rent and profit. In other words, he very forcible rejected the idea 
that the market price of labour reflects the value of that labour, 
considering "the natural wage of labour is its product" and "that 
this wage, or product, is the only just source of income." [_Instead 
of a Book_, p. 6]

However, assuming that we accept the capitalist economic apologetics
at their face value, such an argument fails to place Individualist
Anarchism in the capitalist tradition. This is because the argument 
ignores the need to replace and improve upon existing capital. In 
the context of a market economy, the replacement and improvement of 
capital is important, as accumulation allows the reduction of labour 
costs (either directly or indirectly) by investing in new machinery 
or processes and so improving market position. In addition, capital 
investments are required in order to offer new services to the 
customer (for example, in banking, a network of auto-tellers). 
Either way, new capital is required. But new capital comes from 
value created by labour and realised as profits. And this means that 
in order to ensure that labour receives its due, companies *must* be 
co-operatives so that workers will have a say in how the profits 
they create are used, otherwise they do not get their "natural 
wage." In addition, the ability to influence one's own destiny 
by having a voice in investment decisions is certainly another 
"value" that one's labour can produce beyond the exchange value 
to be invested. We might call it "self-determination value," which 
individualist anarchists certainly regarded as a benefit of the 
artisan/co-operative labour they favoured (and their system implies). 
But workers will not be able to realise the full self-determination 
value of their labour nor receive its "full product" if investment 
decisions are not in their hands. Logically, therefore, individualist 
anarchism *must* tend towards co-operative, not capitalist, labour in 
order for them to receive the full value of their labour.

In addition, while it is true that in an economy with a very low
degree of monopoly within industries prices *do* tend towards
the production cost of a commodity, this cannot be said to occur
instantaneously. This means that in an economy without oligopolies
and without interest or rent, prices would tend, in the long run,
towards Tucker's their "labour cost of production" this cannot be
said to occur in the short run. Given that in the long run "we are
all dead" (to use Keynes' words) -- i.e. that we may never see it --
any form of wage labour can lead to usury being recreated as workers
would not receive their entire product back. That is, due to short
term changes in price workers market wage may not equal what they
produce. They *only* solution to this problem is workers' ownership
and control as this ensures workers remain control of the product
of their labour at all times (as well as the labour itself). *If,* 
as Tucker argued, "the object of Anarchism . . . [is] to let every 
man [or woman] 'control self and the results of self-exertion'" then 
this is only possible under workers' self-management and ownership.
[_Occupancy and Use versus the Single Tax_] This, we must note, was 
Proudhon's argument and part of the reason he supported workers' 
co-operatives (we will discuss the problem of natural barriers to 
competition in section G.4 along with the dangers associated with a 
lack of workers' control in a free society).

More importantly, wage labour violates two key aspects of Individualist
Anarchist thought, namely its support for "occupancy and use" and
its opposition to the state. We will discuss each in turn.

Obviously wage labour violates the idea that those who use something 
automatically own it. In the case of land and housing, the 
Individualist Anarchists argued that the person who lives or 
works on it (even under lease) would be regarded "as the occupant 
and user of the land on which the house stands, and as the owner of 
the house itself," that is they become "the owner of both land and 
house as soon as he becomes the occupant." [Ibid.] Now, to take a 
concrete example from Tucker's time, 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 
*others* to occupy and use it *for* them. Now, why should "occupancy 
and use" be acceptable for land and housing but not for workplaces? 
There is no reason and so wage labour, logically, violates "occupancy 
and use" -- for under wage labour, those who occupy and use a 
workplace do not own or control it. Hence "occupancy and use" 
logically implies workers' control and ownership.

The reason why wage labour violates Individualist Anarchist opposition
to the state for a related reason. If the workers who use a workplace
do not own it, then someone else will (i.e. the owner). 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 "the assumption of
sole authority over a given area and all within it." Tucker considered
this element as "common to all States." [_The Individualist Anarchists_.
p. 24] Thus wage labour creates a situation which is similar to the
state, namely the assumption of sole authority over a given area and
those who use it. Hence opposition to the state logically implies
support for workers' control and ownership for only in this case 
can people govern themselves during the working day.

Therefore, as far as the employer/employee social relationship 
goes, it does not fit in well with Tucker's statement that "if the 
individual has the right to govern himself, all external government 
is tyranny." [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 151] As we have argued in 
Section B.4 (How does capitalism affect liberty?), wage labour produces 
a very specific form of "external government" in the workplace, namely 
hierarchical management structures. Therefore, logically, Individualist 
Anarchism (like Social Anarchism) must oppose all forms of wage
labour in favour of self-government in production (i.e. co-operative, 
not wage, labour).

That this the case can be seen from Proudhon's argument in _The 
General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century_. There 
he argues that employees are "subordinated, exploited" and their 
"permanent condition is one of obedience," a "slave." [p. 216] 
Indeed, capitalist companies "plunder the bodies and souls of 
wage workers" and they are "an outrage upon human dignity and 
personality." [p. 218] However, in a co-operative the situation 
changes and the worker is an "associate" and "forms a part of 
the producing organisation . . . [and] forms a part of the 
sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject." 
[p. 216] Without co-operation and association, "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." [p. 216] 
As Robert Graham notes, "Proudhon's market socialism is 
indissolubly linked to his notions of industry democracy and 
workers' self-management." ["Introduction", _General Idea of 
the Revolution_, p. xxxii]

And we must add that John Stuart Mill (who agreed with the Warrenite
slogan "Individual Sovereignty") faced with the same problem that
wage labour made a mockery of individual liberty came to the same
conclusion. He thought that if "mankind is to continue to improve"
(and it can only improve within liberty, we must add) then in the
end one form of association will predominate, "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." [quoted by Carole Pateman, _Participation
and Democratic Theory_, p. 34]

Therefore, logically, individualist anarchism must support 
co-operatives and self-employment in order to ensure the maximum 
individual self-government and labour's "natural wage." That this 
is the case can be seen from Tucker's quoting Ernest Lesigne that 
anarchistic socialism aims for "The land to the cultivator. The mine 
to the miner. The tool to the labourer. The product to the producer." 

It can also be seen from Tucker's description of what would replace the 
current system of statism (and note he calls it "scientific socialism" 
thus squarely placing his ideas in the anti-capitalist camp):

"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. . ." [quoted
in Martin, Op. Cit., p. 218]

Tucker himself pointed out that "the essence of government is control. . . 
He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an 
invader." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 23] However, in places in _Instead 
of a Book_ Tucker suggests that (non-exploitative, and so non-capitalist) 
wage labour could exist in individualist anarchy. Unlike wage labour
under capitalism, workers would employ other workers and all workers
would receive the full product of their labour. As such, this relationship
is *non-capitalist* as it does not involve usury. 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 "equality of liberty," 
since the boss has obviously more liberty than the worker during working
hours. 

This result, as noted in section A.3, could *only* be avoided by workers'
control, which is in fact the logical implication of Tucker's and other
individualists' proposals (as we have proven above, and can be seen from
Tucker's famous essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" for example). 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 
the 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.

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 *not* capitalism and instead a
form of socialism based upon worker ownership and control of the
places they work.

For individualist anarchists not to support co-operatives results in 
a contradiction, namely that the individualist anarchism which aims 
to secure the worker's "natural wage" 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. That it was never Tucker's intention to deny workers' 
control can be inferred from his argument that mutualism would give 
workers the bargaining power to obtain equality in the workplace, 
which clearly points to the end of capitalist authority relations, 
as will be explained further in section G.5. 

However, due to problems inherent in the nature of a market economy, even
the assumption of workers' control may not be enough to ensure that
individualistic anarchism does not become a new form of archy, as will be
discussed in section G.4 ("Why do social anarchists reject individualist
anarchism ideas?").

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

Many, particularly on the libertarian right, would dismiss claims 
that the Individualist Anarchists were socialists. By their support 
of the "free market" the Individualist Anarchists, they would claim, 
show them as really supporters of capitalism. Most, if not all, 
anarchists would reject this claim. Why is this the case?

This because such claims show an amazing ignorance of socialist 
ideas and history. The socialist movement has had a many schools, 
many of which, but not all, opposed the market and private property.
Given that the right-libertarians who make such claims are not
well informed of the ideas they oppose (i.e. of socialism, 
particularly *libertarian* socialism) it is unsurprising they
claim that the Individualist Anarchists are not socialists (of
course the fact that many Individualist Anarchists argued they 
*were* socialists is ignored). Coming from a different tradition,
it is unsurprising they are not aware of the fact that socialism
is not monolithic. Hence we discover right-libertarian guru 
von Mises claiming that the "essence of socialism is the entire
elimination of the market." [_Human Action_, p. 702] This would
have come as something of a surprise to, say, Proudhon, who 
argued that "[t]o suppress competition is to suppress liberty
itself." [_The General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 50] Similarly,
it would have surprised Tucker, who called himself a socialist
while supporting a freer market than von Mises ever dreamt of.

It could be argued that these self-proclaimed socialists did not,
in fact, understand what socialism "really meant." For this to
be the case, *other*, more obviously socialist, writers and
thinkers would dismiss them as socialists. This, however, is not
the case. Thus we find Karl Marx, for example, writing of "the
socialism of Proudhon." [_Capital_, vol. 1, p. 161f] Engels
talked about Proudhon being "the Socialist of the small peasant
and master-craftsman" and of "the Proudhon school of Socialism."
[Marx and Engels, _Selected Works_, p. 254 and p. 255] Bakunin
talked about Proudhon's "socialism, based on individual and
collective liberty and upon the spontaneous action of free
associations." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 100]
These renown socialists did not consider Proudhon's position
to be in any way anti-socialist.

Looking at Tucker and the Individualist anarchists we discover
that other socialists considered them socialists. Looking at
Rudolf Rocker we discover him arguing that "it is not difficult
to discover certain fundamental principles which are common
to all of them and which divide them from all other varieties
of socialism. They all agree on the point that man be given
the full reward of his labour and recognise in this right the
economic basis of all personal liberty. They all regard the
free competition of individual and social forces as something
inherent in human nature . . . They answered the socialists 
of other schools who saw in *free competition* one of the 
destructive elements of capitalist society that the evil lies
in the fact we have too little rather than too much competition,
since the power of monopoly has made competition impossible."
[_Pioneers of American Freedom_, p. 160]

Adolph Fischer, one of the Haymarket Martyrs and contemporary
of Tucker, argued that "every anarchist is a socialist, but
every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist. The anarchists
are divided into two factions: the communistic anarchists and 
the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists . . ." The former
"advocate the communistic or co-operative method of production"
while the latter "do not advocate the co-operative system of
production [i.e. communism], and the common ownership of the
means of production, the products and the land." [_The 
Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs_, p. 81] However,
while not being communists (i.e. aiming to eliminate the
market), he obviously recognised the Individualists Anarchists
as fellow socialists (we should point out that Proudhon *did*
support co-operatives, as did the Individualist Anarchists, 
but they did not carry this to communism as do most social 
anarchists -- as is clear, Fischer means communism by the term
"co-operative system of production" rather than co-operatives
as they exist today and Proudhon supported).

Thus claims that the Individualist Anarchists were not "really"
socialists because they support competition are false. The simple 
fact is that those who make this claim are ignorant of the socialist 
movement, its ideas and its history (or desire, like many Marxists, 
to write out of history competing socialist theories). As Tucker 
argued, "the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other 
forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic
idea." [_Instead of a Book_, pp. 363-4] It is no surprise that
the authoritarian left and "libertarian" right have united to
define socialism in such a way as to eliminate anarchism from
its ranks -- they both have an interest in removing a theory
which exposes the inadequacies of their dogmas, which explains
how we can have both liberty *and* equality, have freedom in
work *and* outside it and have a decent, free and just society.

So why is Individualist Anarchism and Proudhon's mutualism socialist?
Simply because they opposed the exploitation of labour by capital
and proposed a means of ending it. Therefore, if socialism is, to
quote Kropotkin, "understood in its wide, generic, and true sense" 
as "an effort to *abolish* the exploitation of labour by capital" 
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 169] then the Individualist 
Anarchists and Proudhon must be considered socialists (of course 
*libertarian* socialists) due to their opposition to usury. It
is for this reason we discover Rudolf Rocker arguing that Stephan
P. Andrews was "one of the most versatile and significant exponents
of libertarian socialism" in the USA in spite of his belief that
"the specific cause of the economic evil [of capitalism] is 
founded not on the existence of the wage system" but, rather,
on the exploitation of labour, "on the unjust compensation of
the worker" and the usury that "deprives him of a part of his
labour." [_Pioneers of American Freedom_, p. 85 and pp. 77-8]
His opposition to exploitation meant he was a socialist.

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

The notion that because the Individualist Anarchists supported
"property" they supported capitalism is distinctly wrong. This
is for two reasons. Firstly, private property is not the distinctive
aspect of capitalism -- exploitation and wage labour is. Thus
support of private property does not indicate a support for
capitalism. Even use of John Locke's arguments in favour of 
private property could be used against capitalism. As Murray 
Bookchin makes clear regarding early American society:

"Unknown in the 1640s, the non-bourgeois aspects of Locke's
theories were very much in the air a century and a half
later . . . [In an artisan/peasant society] a Lockean argument 
could be used as effectively against the merchants . . .to
whom the farmers were indebted, as it could against the King
[or the State]. Nor did the small proprietors of America
ever quite lose sight of the view that attempts to seize their
farmsteads and possessions for unpaid debts were a violation
of their 'natural rights,' and from the 1770s until as late
as the 1930s they took up arms to keep merchants and bankers
from dispossessing them from land they or their ancestors
had wrestled from 'nature' by virtue of their own labour. The 
notion that property was sacred was thus highly elastic: it
could be used as effectively by pre-capitalist strata to hold
on to their property as it could by capitalists strata to
expand their holdings." [_The Third Revolution_, vol. 1, 
pp. 187-8]

What right-libertarians do is to confuse two very different
kinds of "property," one of which rests on the labour of the
producer themselves and the other on the exploitation of the
labour of others. They do not analyse the social relationships
between people which the property generates and, instead, 
concentrate on *things* (i.e. property). Thus, rather than
being interested in people and the relationships they create
between themselves, the right-libertarian focuses on property
(and, more often than not, just the word rather than what the
word describes). This is a strange position for someone seeking
liberty to take, as liberty is a product of social interaction
(i.e. the relations we have and create with others) and not a
product of things (property is not freedom as freedom is a 
relationship between people, not things). In effect, they
confuse property with possession (and vice versa).

And if quoting Karl Marx is not *too* out of place, we discover
that he did not consider property as being identical with
capitalism. "The historical conditions of [Capital's] existence
are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and
commodities. It arises only when the owner of the means of
production and subsistence finds the free worker available
on the market, as the seller of his own labour-power." This
wage-labour is the necessary pre-condition for capitalism,
*not* "private property" as such. Thus artisan/peasant 
production is not capitalism as "the means of production 
and subsistence, while they remain the property of the 
immediate producer, are not capital. They only become capital
under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as
means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker."
[_Capital_, vol. 1, p. 264 and p. 938] We quote Marx simply
because as authorities on socialism go, he is one that 
right-libertarians (or Marxists, for that matter) cannot 
ignore or dismiss. Needless to say, he is essentially 
repeating Proudhon's distinction between property and 
possession. The former is theft and despotism, the later 
is liberty.

Thus artisan production is not capitalist. It does not generate
relationships of exploitation and domination as the worker
owns and controls their own means of production. It is, in
effect, a form of socialism (a "petit bourgeois" form of
socialism, to use the typical Marxist phrase). Thus support
for "private property" need not mean support for capitalism
(as shown, for example, by the Individualist Anarchists). To
claim otherwise is to ignore the essential insight of socialism
and totally distort the socialist case against capitalism.

Secondly, and more importantly, what the Individualist Anarchists 
meant by "private property" (or "property") was distinctly different 
than what is meant by theorists on the libertarian right. Basically, 
the libertarian right exploit, for their own ends, the confusion 
generated by the use of the word "property" by the likes of Tucker 
to describe a situation of "possession." Proudhon recognised this 
danger. He argued that "it is proper to call different things by 
different names, if we keep the name 'property' for the former 
[individual possession], we must call the latter [the domain of 
property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we 
reserve the name 'property' for the latter, we must designate the 
former by the term *possession* or some other equivalent; otherwise 
we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym." [_What is 
Property?_, p. 373] Unfortunately Tucker, who translated this 
work, did not heed Proudhon's words of wisdom and called possession 
in an anarchist society by the word "property."

Looking at Tucker's arguments, it is clear that the last thing
Tucker supported was capitalist property rights. For example,
he argued that "property, in the sense of individual possession,
is liberty" and contrasted this with capitalist property. 
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 394] That his ideas on "property" 
were somewhat different than that associated with right-libertarian
thinkers is most clearly seen with regards to land. Here we
discover him advocating "occupancy and use" and rejecting the
"right" of land owners to bar the landless from any land they
owned but did not *personally* use. Rent was "due to that denial
of liberty which takes the shape of land monopoly, vesting titles
to land in individuals and associations which do not use it,
and thereby compelling the non-owning users to pay tribute to the
non-using owners as a condition of admission to the competitive
market." Anarchist opposition of rent did "not mean simply the
freeing of unoccupied land. It means the freeing of all land not 
occupied *by the owner.* In other words, it means land ownership 
limited by occupancy and use." [Tucker, _The Individualist 
Anarchists_, p. 130 and p. 155] This would result in a "system 
of occupying ownership . . . accompanied by no legal power to 
collect rent." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 325]

A similar position was held by John Beverley Robinson. He argued
that there "are two kinds of land ownership, proprietorship or
property, by which the owner is absolute lord of the land, to use 
it or to hold it out of use, as it may please him; and possession,
by which he is secure in the tenure of land which he uses and
occupies, but has no claim upon it at all of he ceases to use
it." Moreover, "[a]ll that is necessary to do away with Rent
is to away with absolute property in land." [_Patterns of Anarchy_, 
p. 272] 

Thus the Individualist Anarchists definition of "property" differed 
considerably from that of the capitalist definition. As they 
themselves acknowledge. Robinson argued that "the only real
remedy is a change of heart, through which land using will be
recognised as proper and legitimate, but land holding will be
regarded as robbery and piracy." [Op. Cit., p. 273] Tucker, 
likewise, indicated that his ideas on "property" were not the
same as existing ones when he argued that "the present system of
land tenure should be changed to one of occupancy and use" and
that "no advocate of occupancy-and-use tenure of land believes
that it can be put in force, until as a theory it has been as
generally . . . seen and accepted as is the prevailing theory of
ordinary private property." [_Occupancy and Use verses the Single
Tax_]

Hence to claim that the Individualist Anarchists supported capitalist
property rights is false. As can be seen, they advocated a system
which differed significantly to the current system, indeed they
urged the restriction of property rights to a form of possession.
Unfortunately, by generally using the term "property" to describe
this new system of possession they generated exactly the confusion
that Proudhon foretold. Sadly, right-libertarians use this confusion
to promote the idea that the likes of Tucker supported capitalist
property rights and so capitalism.

For these two reasons it is clear that just because the Individualist
Anarchists supported (a form of) "property" does not mean they 
are capitalists. Indeed, Kropotkin argued that a communist-anarchist
revolution would *not* expropriate the tools of self-employed workers
who exploited no-one (see his _Act for Yourselves_ pp. 104-5). 
Malatesta argued that in a free society "the peasant [is free] to
cultivate his piece of land, alone if he wishes; free is the shoe
maker to remain at his last or the blacksmith in his small forge."
Thus these two very famous communist-anarchists also "supported"
"property" but they are recognised as obviously socialists. This
apparent contradiction is resolved when it is understood that for 
communist-anarchists (like all anarchists) the abolition of property 
does not mean the end of possession and so "would not harm the 
independent worker whose real title is possession and the work 
done" unlike capitalist property [Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, 
p. 103] In other words, *all* anarchists (as we argue in section 
B.3) oppose private property but support possession.

That many of the Individualist Anarchists used the term "property"
to describe a system of possession (or "occupancy-and-use") should
not blind us to the anti-capitalist nature of that "property." Once
we move beyond looking at the words they used to want they meant by
those words we clearly see that their ideas are distinctly different
from those of supporters of capitalism.

G.3 What about "anarcho"-capitalists' support of Tucker's "defence 
    associations"?

The individualist anarchists advocated individual possession of land 
and tools and the free exchange of the products of labour between
self-employed people. Therefore they also supported the idea of "defence
associations" to ensure that the fruits of an individual's labour would
not be stolen by others. Again, the social context of individualist 
anarchism -- namely, a society of self-employed artisans (see sections 
G.1 and G.2) -- is crucial for understanding these proposals. However, 
as in their treatment of Tucker's support for contract theory, 
"anarcho"-capitalists (e.g. Murray Rothbard) remove the individualists' 
ideas about free-market defence associations and courts from the social 
context in which they were proposed, using those ideas in an attempt to 
turn the individualists into defenders of capitalism.

As indicated in section G.1, the social context in question was one in
which an economy of artisans and peasant farmers was being replaced by a
state-backed capitalism. This context is crucial for understanding the
idea of the "defence associations" that Tucker suggested. For what he
proposed was clearly *not* the defence of capitalist property relations.
This can be seen, for example, in his comments on land use. Thus: 

"'The land for the people' . . . means the protection by . . . voluntary
associations for the maintenance of justice . . . of all people who desire
to cultivate land in possession of whatever land they personally
cultivate . . . and the positive refusal of the protecting power to lend
its aid to the collection of any rent, whatsoever." [Op. Cit., p. 299]

There is no mention here of protecting *capitalist* farming, i.e.
employing wage labour; rather, there is explicit mention that only land
being used for *personal* cultivation -- thus *without* employing wage
labour -- would be defended. In other words, the defence association would
defend "occupancy and use" (which is a clear break with capitalist property 
rights) and not the domination of the landlord over society or those who
use the land the landlord claims to own.

Refusal to pay rent on land is a key aspect of Tucker's thought, and it is
significant that he explicitly rejects the idea that a defence association
can be used to collect it. In addition, as a means towards anarchy, Tucker
suggests "inducing the people to steadily refuse the payment of rent and
taxes" [Op. Cit., p. 299]. It is hard to imagine that a landowner
influenced by Murray Rothbard or David Friedman would support such an 
arrangement or a "defence association" that supported it.

The various economic proposals made by the individualist anarchists were
designed to eliminate the vast differences in wealth accruing from the
"usury" of industrial capitalists, bankers, and landlords. For example,
Josiah Warren "proposed like Robert Owen an exchange of notes based on
labour time. . . He wanted to establish an 'equitable commerce' in which
all goods are exchanged for their cost of production. . . . In this way
profit and interest would be eradicated and a highly egalitarian order
would emerge." [Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 385] Given
that the Warrenites considered that both workers and managers would
receive equal payment for equal hours worked, the end of a parasitic 
class of wealthy capitalists was inevitable.

In the case of Benjamin Tucker, he was a firm adherent of the labour theory 
of value, believing that a free market and interest-free credit would 
reduce prices to the cost of production and increase demand for labour 
to the point where workers would receive the full value of their labour. 
In addition, recognising that gold was a rare commodity, he rejected a
gold-backed money supply in favour of a land-backed one, as land with
"permanent improvements on [it]. . . [is] an excellent basis for currency."
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 198] Given that much of the population at the
time worked on their own land, such a money system would have ensured that
entry into the banking market was easier as well, by allowing easy credit
secured by land. Mutualism replaced the gold standard (which, by its very
nature would produce an oligarchy of banks) with money backed by other,
more available, commodities. 

Rothbard rejects all of this, the social context of Tucker's ideas on
"defence associations." In fact, he attacks what he considers the "bad
economics" of the individualists without realising it is *precisely* 
these "bad" (i.e. anti-capitalist) economics which will make "defence
associations" irrelevant as workers' received the full product of their
labour (so destroying usury) and workers' control spreads and replaces the
irrational authority of the capitalist-labourer social relationship with
the egalitarian relationships of co-operative and artisan production.
Unless this social context exists, any defence associations will soon
become mini-states, serving to enrich the elite few by protecting the
usury they gain from, and their power and control (i.e. government) over, 
those who toil. In other words, the "defence associations" of Tucker and 
Spooner would not be private states, enforcing the power of capitalists 
upon wage workers. Instead, they would be like insurance companies, 
protecting possessions against theft (as opposed to protecting capitalist 
theft from the dispossessed as would be the case in "anarcho"-capitalism 
-- an important difference lost on the private staters). 

In addition, the emphasis given by Tucker and Lysander Spooner to the
place of juries in a free society is equally important for understanding
how their ideas about defence associations fit into a non-capitalist
scheme. For by emphasising the importance of trial by jury, they knock 
an important leg from under the private statism associated with
"anarcho"-capitalism. Unlike a wealthy judge, a jury made up mainly of
fellow workers would be more inclined to give verdicts in favour of
workers struggling against bosses or of peasants being forced off their
land by immoral, but legal, means. It is hardly surprising that Rothbard
rejects this in favour of the mysticism and authoritarianism of "natural
law." As Lysander Spooner argued in 1852, "[i]f a jury have not the right
to judge between the government and those who disobey its laws, and resist
its oppressions, the government is absolute, and the people, legally
speaking, are slaves. Like many other slaves they may have sufficient
courage and strength to keep their masters somewhat in check; but they are
nevertheless known to the law only as slaves." [_Trial by Jury_] And
"Natural Law" implies a body, a "Natural Government" perhaps, which 
determines what it is -- in Rothbard's case a system of professional and 
wealthy "arbitrators" who determine what is and what is not "custom" 
and "reason." 

As Individualist Anarchist Laurance Labadie (the son of Joseph Labadie) 
argues against Rothbard's misrepresentation of the idea that there
would be "no rational or objective body of law" in Individualist Anarchy:

"Mere common sense would suggest that any court would be influenced by
experience; and any free market court or judge would in the very nature
of things have some precedents guiding them in their instructions to
a jury. But since no case is exactly the same, a jury would have
considerable say about the heinousness of the offence in each case,
realising that circumstances alter cases, and prescribing penalty
accordingly. This appeared to Spooner and Tucker to be a more
flexible and equitable administration of justice possible or
feasible, human beings being what they are . . .

"But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas
of Spooner and Tucker, and at the same time upholds *presumably
in his courts* the very economic evils which are at the bottom 
the very reason for human contention and conflict, he would
seem to be a man who chokes at a gnat while swallowing a camel."
[quoted by Mildred J. Loomis and Mark A. Sullivan, _Benjamin R. 
Tucker and the Champions of Liberty_, Coughlin, Hamilton and 
Sullivan (eds.), p. 124]

By focusing selectively on a few individualist proposals taken out 
of their social context, Murray Rothbard and other "anarcho"-capitalists 
have turned the potential libertarianism of the individualist anarchists 
into yet another ideological weapon in the hands of (private) statism and
capitalism. As Peter Sabatini argues (in _Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy_):

"in those rare moments when [Murray] Rothbard (or any other [right-wing] 
Libertarian) does draw upon individualist anarchism, he is always highly
selective about what he pulls out. Most of the doctrine's core principles,
being decidedly anti-Libertarianism, are conveniently ignored, and so what
remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed
defence of capitalism. In sum, the 'anarchy' of Libertarianism reduces to 
a liberal fraud."

G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? 

As James J. Martin notes, "paralleling" European social anarchism 
"chronologically was a kindred but nearly unconnected phenomenon in 
America, seeking the same ends through individualistic rather than 
collectivistic dynamics." [_Men Against the State_, p. ix] 

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 
small-scale possession of the means of life, co-operatives and 
mutual banking to remove interest and give every worker access 
to capital.

Thus their vision of a free society and the means to achieve it were 
somewhat different (although, we stress, *not* 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. Being social anarchists, here we indicate
why social anarchists reject individualist anarchism (see section
A.3.1 for a summary of why Individualist Anarchists reject social
anarchism).

Malatesta summarises the essential points of difference:

"The individualists assume . . . that the (anarchist) communists
wish to impose communism, which of course would put them right
outside the ranks of anarchism.

"The communists assume . . . 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.

"In reality those who are communists are such because they see
in common 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 . . . to
the tyranny of the collectivity . . . 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.

"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.

"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 demand much labour for small returns with him who
has a piece of fertile and well sited land?" [_Life and
Ideas_, pp. 31-2]

Thus, while Individualist Anarchists argue for the "cost
principle" (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 *cannot* really equal the multitude of costs within
it (and so price can only equal a workers' labour in the
minority of cases where that labour was used in the least 
favourable circumstances). 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 "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." [_The General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 209]

This problem was recognised by Tucker, who argued that "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." ["Why I am an Anarchist", pp. 135-6, 
_Man!_, M. Graham (ed.), pp. 132-6] Unlike Proudhon, however, he
proposed no scheme to equalise income. Perhaps Tucker was correct
and the differences would be slight, but in a market situation 
exchanges tend to magnify differences, *not* reduce them. 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. As Proudhon argued:

"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?" [_System of Economical
Contradictions_, p. 202]

Moreover, "there is a remarkable correlation between competitiveness 
in a society and the presence of clearly defined 'have' and 'have-not' 
groups." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest_, p. 38] As the communist-anarchist 
paper _Freedom_ argued:

"Are not the scandalous inequalities in the distribution of
wealth today merely the culminative  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?

"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."
[_Freedom_, vol. 2, no. 19]

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. And if 
it did, then surely a similar system would develop? That it 
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 *not* what the Individualist Anarchists desired (after all, 
Stalin was hardly what most Marxists desired). It is a question 
of whether their ideas would actually result in what they wanted.

Which brings us to the corrosive effects of the market itself on
human personalities. As noted in earlier sections, individualists 
mostly base their economic ideas on the free market. However, as we 
have argued elsewhere (see section B.1), competition for profits in 
a free market creates numerous problems -- for example, the creation 
of an "ethics of mathematics" and the strange inversion of values in 
which things (property) become more important than people. Competition,
as Alfie Kohn points out, "itself is responsible for the development
of a lower moral standard" which places winning at any cost above
fairness and justice [Op. Cit., p. 163]. In addition, the "strife of
competition reduces empathic sympathy, distorts communication, 
impairs the mutuality of support and sharing, and decreases the
satisfaction of personal need." [Nathan Ackerman, quoted by Alfie
Kohn, Op. Cit., pp. 142-3] Thus, by supporting the free market,
Individualist Anarchists help to make us less human and more a
robot. In contrast, social anarchists stress community and
co-operation in order to develop us as fully rounded individuals.
As Kropotkin put it, "the *individualisation* they so highly
praise is not attainable by individual efforts." [_Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 297]

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.

Returning to economic issues, the accumulation needs of a competitive 
market economy do not disappear just because capitalism has been 
replaced by co-operatives and mutual credit banks -- a fact that
implies the inevitable development of big business (and so natural
barriers to entry). 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 capital of existing firms. Such amounts of money may
not be forthcoming for even a mutual bank and so certain firms
would enjoy a privileged position on the market. Given that
Tucker defined a monopolist as "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"
we may suggest that due to *natural* barriers, an individualist
anarchist society would not be free of monopolists and so of
usury. [quoted by James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, 
p. 210] 

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. In addition, the free market 
in banking would also result in *its* market being dominated by a few 
big banks, with similar results. 

This problem of natural barriers to competition also effects the
possibility of mutual banking being able to abolish capitalism.
While mutual banks would undoubtedly aid the position of workers under
capitalism (which is why Bakunin and other social anarchists recommended
them), they cannot undermine capitalism. This is because capitalism, due
to its need to accumulate, creates *natural* barriers to entry into a
market (see section C.4, "Why does the market become dominated by Big
Business?"). 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.

This problem was recognised by Tucker himself in the postscript to a 1911
London edition of his famous essay "State Socialism and Anarchism." While
arguing that when he wrote his essay 25 years earlier "the denial of
competition had not effected the enormous concentration of wealth that
now so gravely threatens social order" and so a policy of mutual banking
might have stopped and reversed the process of accumulation, the way in 
1911 was "not so clear." This was because the tremendous capitalisation 
of industry now made the money monopoly a convenience, but no longer a 
necessity. Admitted Tucker, "The trust is now a monster which . . . even 
the freest competition, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy" 
as the "concentrated capital" could set aside a sacrifice fund to bankrupt 
smaller competitors and continue the process of expansion of reserves. 
Thus natural barriers to entry, resulting from the process of capitalist 
production and accumulation, had ensured that mutualism could no longer 
reform capitalism away and the problem of the trusts "must be grappled 
with for a time solely by forces political or revolutionary." [quoted by
James J. Martin, Op. Cit., p. 273] 

In other words, the economic power of "concentrated capital" and "enormous 
concentration of wealth" placed an insurmountable obstacle to the realisation 
of anarchy. Which means that the abolition of usury and relative equality
were considered *ends* rather than side effects for Tucker and if free
competition could not achieve these then such a society would *not* be
anarchist.

(As an aside, Tucker's comments here indicate well how far he actually
was from "anarcho"-capitalism. The "anarcho"-capitalism desires free
markets no matter their result or the concentration of wealth existing
at their introduction. As can be seen, Tucker sees the existence of 
concentrations of wealth as a problem and a hindrance towards anarchy. 
Thus Tucker was well aware of the dangers to individual liberty of 
usury, inequality and economic power).

Also, we may note, in the slow transition towards anarchism, we would see 
the rise of pro-capitalist "defence associations" which *would* collect 
rent from land, break strikes, attempt to crush unions and so on. Tucker 
seemed to have assumed that the anarchist vision of "occupancy-and-use" 
would become universal. Unfortunately, landlords 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 "no legal power to collect rent") 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."

In addition, even if individualist mutualism *did* 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 section C.7 and C.8 for more on these pressures). 
This means that an increase in the bargaining power of labour would soon see
capital moving to non-anarchist areas and using its financial power to buy
up any resources in the anarchist areas. Because individualist anarchists
assume an evolution towards anarchy, this is a distinct possibility. And
co-operatives in a market economy will be as influenced by the business
cycle as capitalist firms. 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 generate credit in a hostile
environment.

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). Moreover, social anarchists would argue
that any individualist system could revert back to capitalism and
wage labour, for two reasons. 

Firstly, there is a possibility that *possession* would be replaced 
by *property* as individuals sell their means of production to
others voluntarily or to repay loans in bad times and these new 
owners create "defence associations" to enforce their claims. In 
addition (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 self-employed artisan labour, but not in social 
anarchism as access to the means of life is guaranteed to all
members of the free society.

Secondly, there is the problem associated with natural barriers
to entry in an industry. This could help generate 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).

While state action may *increase* the degree of monopoly in an 
industry, the natural tendency for any market is to place barriers
("natural" barriers) to new entries in terms of set-up costs and so 
on. This means that if the relation between capital and labour was 
abolished *within* 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. "occupancy
and use," (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. 
Little wonder Proudhon argued that "every worker employed in the 
association" must have "an undivided share in the property of the 
company" in order to ensure workers' self-management. [Op. Cit., 
p. 223] Only this could ensure "occupancy and use" and so self-management
in a free society (i.e. keep that society free).

Looking wider afield, unless there is some form of community control, 
a free market in banks may soon lead to the growth of purely capitalist 
firms. For in order to survive, banks -- like any company -- will have 
to make money, and so they will wish to lend to the most profitable firms. 
Capitalist firms are exploitative, thus allowing them to expand faster 
than co-operative firms. Hence even mutual banks will wind up preferring 
to lend to capitalist firms in order to survive on the market. This 
will enforce the division of labour (as opposed to work) as the most 
"efficient" way of exploiting workers, and this practice will spread 
across the economy like an oil slick as more and more co-operatives 
find themselves needing to introduce similar working practices in 
order to survive. Thus competition will soon result in like competing 
against like, not only in the market but also in production. 

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 argues that if, in an anarchy, "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." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 455]

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 the employees would 
not be exploited by the employer, this does not suggest that Tucker 
can be considered a proto-"anarcho"-capitalist). As Kropotkin warned, 
"[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." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 
p. 297] 

However, as we have argued above (see section G.2), his opposition to 
usury in all forms implies co-operative labour, not wage labour, and 
if such a strike did occur in individualist anarchy it indicates that 
it was turning back into capitalism. And we may note this "love it or 
leave it" attitude of Tucker in regards firms in an anarchy ignores 
the fact that following orders is *not* a form of liberty and is 
degrading even when you get the full product of your labour. Ironically, 
by placing so much stress in opposing capitalist *exploitation,*
instead of capitalist *oppression,* Tucker is actually closer to 
(the "authoritarian") Marx than (the "libertarian") Proudhon 
(Tucker's terms) and like Marx opens the door to various kinds of 
domination and restrictions on individual self-government within 
"scientific socialism" (one of Tucker's expressions for individualist 
anarchy!). Again we see a support for contract theory creating 
authoritarian, not libertarian, relationships between people. 

So 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. Based on this
theory of "property" Tucker opposed landlords and rent, arguing
that anarchy "means the freeing of all land not occupied *by the
owner*" that is, "land ownership limited by occupancy and use." 
[_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 155] He extends this principle 
to housing, arguing that "Anarchic associations" would "not collect 
your rent, and might not even evict your tenant" and "tenants would 
not be forced to pay you rent, nor would you be allowed to seize 
their property. The Anarchic Associations would look upon your 
tenants very much as they would look upon your guests." [Op. Cit., 
p. 162]

Now, in a strike those who *use* the given property are in dispute 
with those who *own* it. If individualist anarchy *was* based 
on "occupancy and use" then the argument for housing and land must 
extend to workplaces. Hence, if "the land should be free to all, 
and no one would control more than he [or she] used." [Op. Cit.,
p. 114] then it is clear that the boss controls more land than
he can use (simply because he hires *others* to use it, and what
is on it, for him).  Thus "Anarchic associations" could not defend 
the property owner against those who use his/her property. If 
landlordism is unjust, then so is the ownership of capital by those 
who do not use it. In other words, "occupancy and use" implies 
co-operatives and *not* wage-labour. And Tucker's comments about 
strikers show an inconsistency in his basic ideas (see also section 
G.1). This conclusion is not surprising. As Malatesta argued:

"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." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 16]

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, "some degree and
form of voluntary communism." 

Moreover, if we look at Tucker's definition of the State, namely that
it based on "aggression" and "the assumption of sole authority over
a given area and all within it," then it is clear that the capitalist
has sole authority over their workplace ("a given area") and all 
within it. And, as Tucker notes, no State "has ever tolerated a rival
State within its borders" then the same can be said of the boss --
they rarely, through choice, allow unions to organise on their workplace
(they sometimes agree if they have no choice or if the union in question
will not question their authority -- as with the state). Given that the
major rationale for the Homestead strike of 1892 *was* (to use the
words of a company historian) that management decisions were "subject
to the interference of some busybody from the Amalgamated Association"
its clear that the boss does not like to tolerate a rival within his/her
borders (i.e. workplace). Moreover, according to David Brody in his
work _The Steel Workers_, after the union was broken "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." [quoted by Katherine Stone,
"The Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry", _Root and Branch_, 
p. 127 and p. 132] In other words, the boss is both the monopoly of
authority in a given area and tolerates no other within it -- just like
the state.

Thus Tucker's comments on strikers indicates a distinct contradiction
in his ideas. It violates both his support for "occupancy and use" and
his opposition to the state. 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. 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. Hence Kropotkin's
comment that "anarchism . . . refuses all hierarchical organisation
and preaches free agreement." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 
p. 137] To do otherwise is to contradict the basic ideas of anarchism.

In addition, we must note another contradiction within Tucker's
viewpoint highlighted by this diatribe against strikes in an anarchy. 
If, as Tucker maintained, in an individualist anarchy the demand for
workers exceeded supply (unlike under capitalism) so ensuring that 
"labour will. . . be in a position to dictate its wages, and will
thus secure its natural wage, its entire product" [_The Anarchist
Reader_, p. 150], how will the employer attract enough scabs? There
would be few if any workers willing to swap jobs and work for an
employer whose management style provoked strikes by fellow workers. 
And in such a situation the power of labour would be so strong that 
workers' control would have occurred long before! 

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 "no force" 
would result in the perpetuation of authority structures, with freedom 
simply becoming the "right to full development" of "privileged minorities." 
But, Kropotkin argued, "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." [Op. Cit., p. 162]

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), *not* liberty. As we argued in section A.2.14, voluntarism
is *not* enough in itself to preserve freedom.

Therefore, social anarchists have to part company with individualists
when the latter apply *to bosses* the maxim, "[t]o coerce the peaceful
non-co-operator is to violate equality of liberty." [Tucker, _Instead 
of a Book_, p. 42] A boss not only "attempts to control another" but 
*succeeds* in doing so every day at work. To "coerce" bosses by those
subject to it removing their authority to control (i.e. to govern) them 
is not itself coercion but a blow struck for liberty. It is not coercive 
to prevent others from coercing! Therefore, social anarchists favour 
direct actions by those subject to authority, such as strikes, boycotts, 
the occupation of workplaces, picketing, etc., irrespective of whether such 
measures are desired by the boss. However, as already indicated in section
A.3.1, social anarchists reject attempts to coerce other workers into 
joining a co-operative. Freedom cannot be given, it must be taken and
social anarchism, like all forms of anarchy, cannot be imposed. As
Kropotkin argued:

"Communist organisations . . . must be the work of all, a natural
growth, a product of the constructive genius of the great mass. 
Communism cannot be imposed from above; it could not live even for
a few months if  the constant and daily co-operation of all did not
uphold it. It must be free." [Op. Cit., p. 140]

Which indicates that Tucker did not really understand communist-anarchism
when he argued that communism is "the force which compels the labourer
to pool his product with the products of all and forbids him to sell
his labour or his products." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 400] Rather, 
communist-anarchists argued that communism must be free and voluntary.
In other words, a communist-anarchist society would not "forbid"
anything as those who make it up must be in favour of communism for
it to work. The option of remaining outside the communist-anarchist
society is there, as (to again quote Kropotkin) expropriation would
"apply to everything that enables any man [or woman] . . . to 
appropriate the product of others' toil." [_The Conquest of Bread_,
p. 61] Thus communist-anarchism would "forbid" exactly what Individualist
Anarchism would "forbid" -- property, not possession (i.e. any form of
"ownership" not based on "occupancy and use"). 

Free contracts are not sufficient to ensure 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.

As we noted in the last section, Individualist "defence associations" 
would not be the private states of "anarcho"-capitalism only if the 
land and housing they protected were based on "occupancy and use" and
the workplaces they protected were co-operatives (and we have indicated 
why Individualist Anarchism logically implies co-operative labour --
see section G.2). Tucker's example about strikers only drives home the 
contradictions in his views, contradictions resulting from his liberal 
slant on anarchism. If we agree with Kropotkin that Tucker's ideas are 
a combination of the anarchist Proudhon's and the liberal capitalist 
Herbert Spencer's, we see where the contradiction lies. If we reject 
Proudhon's support for association/co-operation as the basis of an 
anarchist economy, we are left with liberal capitalism and the need 
to protect the power of the employer over the employee, and so some 
form of statism ("anarcho"-capitalists, by ignoring Proudhon's
argument from the start, miss the contradiction by jumping straight to 
capitalism and so private statism). Moreover, even assuming that such
"defence associations" did protect a co-operative economy, they would 
still suffer from the problems of collusion which "anarcho"-capitalist 
"defence associations" face (as described in section F.6.3). If 
"self-defence" does become a commodity on the market, there is a 
distinct danger that the "defence associations" would (in time) 
become a new public state, due to the unique market forces within 
that specific market.

Also, Kropotkin saw that Tucker's argument against the forced 
expropriation of social capital by the working class would lead 
to a continuation of authoritarian relations in production, which 
would need to be maintained by coercion through some kind of state 
(aka "anarcho"-capitalist private states). In addition, Kropotkin 
seriously doubted that capitalism could be reformed away as Tucker 
maintained. 

In addition, even assuming a fully individualist economy, co-operatives 
would still be controlled or influenced by market forces, which would 
drive them to increase working hours, create a division of labour, and 
implement a host of other dehumanising working practices in order to 
compete successfully against other co-operatives, and thus to "survive"
economically. Hence *survival,* not *living,* would be the norm 
within such a society, just as it is, unfortunately, in capitalism. 

So, taken as a whole, individualist anarchism would tend to revert back to
capitalism. Moreover, it would not eliminate the tendency of a market
economy to reduce people to commodities, as can be seen from Tucker's
argument that children are "owned" by their parents until such time as
they are able to make contracts -- an argument that led him, for the sake
of logical consistency, to tolerate child labour. Therefore, because of
the forces and tendencies at work within the any market system, social
anarchists recognise the need to communalise, and so decentralise,
production and finance in order to ensure that freely associated and
co-operative labour is the basis of a free society. 

Finally, 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
capitalism cannot be reformed away.

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 section G.1.1). John Quail, in his history of 
British Anarchism, puts his finger on the contextual implications and 
limitations of Tucker's ideas when he writes: 

"Tucker was a Proudhonist and thus fundamentally committed to a society 
based on small proprietorship. In the American context, however, where 
the small landowner was often locked in battle with large capitalist 
interests, this did not represent the reactionary position it often 
did later. . . Tucker had a keen sense of the right of the oppressed 
to struggle against oppression." [_The Slow Burning Fuse_, p. 19]

G.5 Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist? 

Benjamin Tucker was against "capitalism" in the sense in which he defined
it: namely, as a state-supported monopoly of social capital (tools,
machinery, etc.) which allows owners to avoid paying workers the full
value of their labour [see _Instead of a Book_]. Indeed, he thought that
the "labouring classes are deprived of their earnings by usury in its
three forms, interest, rent and profit." [quoted by James J. Martin,
_Men Against the State_, p. 210f] This stance puts him squarely in the 
libertarian socialist tradition. 

Indeed, Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist. It is true
that he also sometimes railed against "socialism," but in those cases it
is clear that he was referring to *state* socialism. As he argues himself
there are two kinds of socialism based upon two different principles:

"The two principles referred to are Authority and Liberty, and the names 
of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly
represent one or the other of them are, respectively, State Socialism and
Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools want and how they propose to
get it understands the Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said
that there is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said
that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism."
[_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 150]

He also made it clear that he was against private property and so supported 
Proudhon's argument that "property is theft," and even translated Proudhon's 
"What is Property?", where that phrase originated. Tucker advocated 
*possession* but not private property, believing that empty land, houses, 
etc. should be squatted by those who could use them, as labour (i.e. use) 
would be the only title to "property" (Tucker opposed all non-labour
income as usury).

This was because Tucker did not believe in a "natural right" to property 
nor did he approve of unlimited holdings of scarce goods. He clearly 
recognised that allowing "absolute" rights to private property, when land 
was scarce, would result in the liberty of non-owners being diminished. 
As he put it:

"It should be stated, however, that in the case of land, or of any other 
material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in 
unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except 
such as are based on actual occupancy and use." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 61] 

This, he thought, would reduce the evils of capitalism and increase liberty. 
For those who own no property have no room for the soles of their feet unless 
they have the permission of those who do own property, hardly a situation that 
would increase, nevermind protect, freedom for all.

Therefore, Tucker considered private property in land use (which he called
the "land monopoly") as one of the four great evils of capitalism.
According to Tucker, "the land monopoly. . . consists in the enforcement
by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and
cultivation. . .the individual should no longer be protected by their
fellows in anything but personal occupation and cultivation of land" [_The
Anarchist Reader_, p. 150]. The other capitalist monopolies were based on
credit, tariffs and patents and all where reflected in (and supported by) 
the law.

Tucker believed that bankers' monopoly of the power to create credit and
currency is the linchpin of capitalism Although he thought that all forms
of monopoly are detrimental to society, he maintained that the banking
monopoly is the worst, since it is the root from which both the
industrial-capitalist and landlordist monopolies grow and without which
they would wither and die. For, if credit were not monopolised, its price
(i.e. interest rates) would be much lower, which in turn would drastically
lower the price of capital goods, land, and buildings -- expensive items
that generally cannot be purchased without access to credit. The freedom
to squat empty land and buildings would, in the absence of a state to
protect titles, further contribute to the elimination of rent:

"Ground rent exists only because the State stands by to collect it and to
protect land titles rooted in force or fraud. Otherwise land would be free
to all, and no one could control more than he used." [quoted by James J.
Martin, Op. Cit., p. 210]

Following Proudhon, Tucker argued that if any group of people could
legally form a "mutual bank" and issue credit based on any form of
collateral they saw fit to accept, the price of credit would fall to the
labour cost of the paperwork involved in issuing and keeping track of it.
He claimed that banking statistics show this cost to be less than one
percent of principal, and hence, that a one-time service fee which covers
this cost and no more is the only *non-usurious* charge a bank can make
for extending credit. This charge should not be called "interest," since,
as it represented the labour-cost in providing, it is non-exploitative.

Tucker believed that under mutual banking, capitalists' ability to extract
surplus value from workers in return for the use of tools, machinery, etc.
would be eliminated because workers would be able to obtain zero-interest
credit and use it to buy their own instruments of production instead of
"renting" them, as it were, from capitalists. Easy access to mutual credit
would result in a huge increase in the purchase of capital goods, creating
a high demand for labour, which in turn would greatly increase workers'
bargaining power and thus raise their wages toward equivalence with the
value their labour produces. 

It's important to note that because of Tucker's proposal to increase 
the bargaining power of workers through access to mutual credit, his
individualist anarchism is not only compatible with workers' control 
but would in fact *promote* it (as well as logically requiring it). For 
if access to mutual credit were to increase the bargaining power of 
workers to the extent that Tucker claimed it would, they would then 
be able to: (1) demand and get workplace democracy; and (2) pool their 
credit to buy and own companies collectively. This would eliminate the 
top-down structure of the firm and the ability of owners to pay themselves 
unfairly large salaries as well as reducing capitalist profits to zero by 
ensuring that workers' received the full value of their labour. Tucker
himself pointed this out when he argued that Proudhon (like himself) "would 
individualise and associate" workplaces by mutualism, which would "place the 
means of production within the reach of all." [quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., 
p. 228] Proudhon used the word "associate" to denote co-operative (i.e. 
directly democratic) workplaces (and given Proudhon's comments  - quoted 
in section G.2 - on capitalist firms we can dismiss any attempt to suggest 
that the term "individualise" indicates support for capitalist rather than 
artisan/peasant production, which is the classic example of individualised 
production). 

Thus the logical consequence of Tucker's proposals would be a system 
equivalent in most important respects to the kind of system advocated 
by other left libertarians - a system without wage slavery (and so 
exploitation) and with "the greatest amount of liberty compatible 
with equality of liberty." [Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 131]

Tucker's ideal society was one of small entrepreneurs, farmers,
artisans, independent contractors and co-operative associations based
around a network of mutual banks. He looked to alternative institutions
such as co-operative banks and firms, schools and trade unions, combined
with civil disobedience in the form of strikes, general strikes, tax and 
rent strikes and boycotts to bring anarchism closer -- "strikes, whenever
and wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all the friends of
labour. . . They show that people are beginning to know their rights, and
knowing, dare to maintain them." [Tucker, _Liberty_, 15/4/1881] Echoing
Bakunin's thoughts on the subject, Tucker maintained that strikes should
be supported and encouraged because "as an awakening agent, as an agitating 
force, the beneficent influence of a strike is immeasurable. . . with our 
present economic system almost every strike is just. For what is justice in 
production and distribution? That labour, which creates all, shall have 
*all.*" [Tucker, _Liberty_, #19, 1882]

Like the anarcho-syndicalists and many other social anarchists, Tucker
considered Labour unions as a positive development, being a "crude step 
in the direction of supplanting the State" and involved a tendency "for 
self-government on the part of the people, the logical outcome of which 
is ultimate revolt against those usurping political conspiracies" and so
"a potent sign of emancipation." Indeed, he called the rise of the unions
"trades-union socialism," saw in it "an intelligent and self-governing
socialism" and indicated that they "promise the coming substitution of 
industrial socialism for usurping legislative mobism." [_The Individualist 
Anarchists_, pp. 283-284] Hence we see the co-operative nature of the 
voluntary organisations supported by Tucker and a vision of socialism
being based on self-governing associations of working people.

In this way working people would reform capitalism away by non-violent 
social protest combined with an increase in workers' bargaining power by 
alternative voluntary institutions and free credit. Exploitation would be 
eliminated and workers would gain economic liberty (i.e. the full value 
of their labour and workers' control). He firmly believed that the "most 
perfect Socialism is possible only on the condition of the most perfect 
individualism." [cited by Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, 
p. 390] In other words, Tucker "remained a left rather than a right-wing 
libertarian." [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 391]

There are, of course, many differences between the anarchism of, say, 
Bakunin and Kropotkin and that of Tucker. Tucker's system, for example, 
does retain some features usually associated with capitalism, such as 
competition between firms in a free market. However, the fundamental 
anarchist objection to capitalism is not that it involves markets but 
that it involves private property and wage slavery. Tucker's system was 
intended to eliminate both, which is why he called himself a socialist. 
This fact is overlooked by "anarcho"-capitalists who, in seeking to make 
Tucker one of their "founding fathers," point to the fact that he spoke 
of the advantages of owning "property." But it is apparent that by 
"property" he was referring to simple "possession" of land, tools, 
etc. by independent artisans, farmers, and co-operating workers (he 
used the word property "as denoting the labourer's individual possession
of his product or his share of the joint product of himself and
others." [Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 394]. For, since Tucker 
saw his system as eliminating the ability of capitalists to maintain 
exploitative monopolies over the means of production, it is therefore 
true *by definition* that he advocated the elimination of "private 
property" in the capitalist sense.

Therefore, as can be seen, his views are directly opposed to those of right 
libertarians like Murray Rothbard, who advocate "absolute" property rights 
which are protected by laws enforced either by private security forces or 
a "night watchman state." This clearly indicates that Rothbard's claim to
have "modernised" Tucker's thought is *false* -- "ignored" or "changed" 
would be more appropriate. 

Thus, Tucker is clearly a left libertarian rather than a forefather of
right libertarianism. In this he comes close to what today would be called
a market socialist, albeit a non-statist variety. 

G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?

To some extent, Stirner's work _The Ego and Its Own_ is like a Rorschach
test. Depending on the reader's psychology, he or she can interpret it 
in drastically different ways. Hence, some have used Stirner's ideas 
to defend capitalism, while others have used them to argue for
anarcho-syndicalism. For example, many in the anarchist movement in
Glasgow, Scotland, took Stirner's "Union of Egoists" literally as the
basis for their anarcho-syndicalist organising. Similarly, we discover
the noted anarchist historian Max Nettlau stating that "[o]n reading
Striner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a 
socialist sense." [_A Short History of Anarchism_, p. 55] In this 
section of the FAQ, we will indicate why, in our view, the latter,
syndicalistic, interpretation of egoism is far more appropriate than 
the capitalistic one. 

It should be noted, before continuing, that Stirner's work has had a
bigger impact on individualist anarchism than social anarchism. Ben
Tucker, for example, considered himself an egoist after reading _The 
Ego and Its Own_. However, social anarchists have much to gain from
understanding Stirner's ideas and applying what is useful in them. This
section will indicate why. 

So what is Stirner all about? Simply put, he is an Egoist, which means
that he considers self-interest to be the root cause of an individual's
every action, even when he or she is apparently doing "altruistic"
actions. Thus: "I am everything to myself and I do everything *on my
account*." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 162]. Even love is an example of
selfishness, "because love makes me happy, I love because loving is
natural to me, because it pleases me." [Ibid., p. 291] He urges others to
follow him and "take courage now to really make *yourselves* the central
point and the main thing altogether." As for other people, he sees them
purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual:
"For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to
use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of *usableness,*
of utility, of use." [Ibid., pp. 296-7]

For Stirner, all individuals are unique ("My flesh is not their flesh, my
mind is not their mind," Ibid., p. 138) and should reject any attempts to
restrict or deny their uniqueness. "To be looked upon as a mere *part,*
part of society, the individual cannot bear -- because he is *more*; 
his uniqueness puts from it this limited conception." [Ibid., p. 265]
Individuals, in order to maximise their uniqueness, must become aware of
the *real* reasons for their actions. In other words they must become
conscious, not unconscious, egoists. An unconscious, or involuntary,
egoist is one "who is always looking after his own and yet does not count
himself as the highest being, who serves only himself and at the same time
always thinks he is serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than
himself and yet is infatuated about something higher." [Ibid., p. 36] In
contrast, egoists are aware that they act purely out of self-interest, and
if they support a "higher being," it is not because it is a noble thought
but because it will benefit themselves.

Stirner himself, however, has no truck with "higher beings." Indeed, with
the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks
all "higher beings," regarding them as a variety of what he calls
"spooks," or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which
they are dominated. Among the "spooks" Stirner attacks are such notable
aspects of capitalist life as private property, the division of labour,
the state, religion, and society itself. We will discuss Stirner's
critique of capitalism before moving onto his vision of an egoist 
society (and how it relates to social anarchism). 

For the egoist, private property is a spook which "lives by the grace of
*law*. . . [and] becomes 'mine' only by effect of the law" [Ibid., p. 251].
In other words, private property exists purely "through the *protection of
the State,* through the State's grace" [Ibid., p. 114]. Recognising its
need for state protection, Stirner is also aware that "[i]t need not make
any difference to the 'good citizens' who protects them and their
principles, whether an absolute King or a constitutional one, a republic,
if only they are protected. And what is their principle, whose protector
they always 'love'? . . . interesting-bearing possession . . . labouring
capital. . ." [Ibid., pp. 113-114] As can be seen from capitalist support
for fascism this century, Stirner was correct -- as long as a regime
supports capitalist interests, the 'good citizens' (including many on the
so-called "libertarian" right) will support it. 

Stirner sees that not only does private property require state protection,
it also leads to exploitation and oppression. As he points out, private
property's "principle" is "labour certainly, yet little or none at all of
one's own, but labour of capital and of the subject labourers." [Ibid., pp.
113-114] In addition, Stirner attacks the division of labour resulting
from private property for its deadening effects on the ego and
individuality of the worker (see section D.10, "How does capitalism affect
technology?"). However, it is the exploitation of labour which is the
basis of the state, for the state "rests on the *slavery of labour.* If
*labour becomes free, the State is lost." [Ibid., p.116] Without surplus
value to feed off, a state could not exist. 

For Stirner, the state is the greatest threat to his individuality: "I am
free in *no* State." [Ibid., p.195] This is because the state claims to 
be sovereign over a given area, while, for Stirner, only the ego can be
sovereign over itself and that which it uses (its "property"): "I am my
*own* only when I am master of myself." [Ibid., p.169] Therefore Stirner
urges insurrection against all forms of authority and *dis*-respect for
property. For "[i]f man reaches the point of losing respect for property,
everyone will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they
no longer respect the master as master" [Ibid., p. 258]. And in order for
labour to become free, all must have "property." "The poor become free 
and proprietors only when they *rise.*" [Ibid., p. 260]

Stirner recognises the importance of self-liberation and the way that
authority often exists purely through its acceptance by the governed. As
he argues, ". . . no thing is sacred of itself, but my *declaring it
sacred,* by my declaration, my judgement, my bending the knee; in short, by
my conscience." [Ibid. 72] It is from this worship of what society deems
"sacred" that individuals must liberate themselves in order to discover
their true selves. And, significantly, part of this process of liberation
involves the destruction of *hierarchy.* For Stirner, "Hierarchy is
domination of thoughts, domination of mind!," and this means that we are
"kept down by those who are supported by thoughts" [Ibid., p. 74], i.e. by
our own willingness to not question authority and the sources of that
authority, such as private property and the state. 

For those, like modern-day "libertarian" capitalists, who regard "profit"
as the key to "selfishness," Stirner has nothing but contempt. Because
"greed" is just one part of the ego, and to spend one's life pursuing 
only that part is to deny all other parts. Stirner called such pursuit
"self-sacrificing," or a "one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism," which leads
to the ego being possessed by one aspect of itself. For "he who ventures
everything else for *one thing,* one object, one will, one passion. . . 
is ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices." [Ibid., 
p. 76] For the true egoist, capitalists are "self-sacrificing" in this
sense, because they are driven only by profit. In the end, their behaviour
is just another form of self-denial, as the worship of money leads them to
slight other aspects of themselves such as empathy and critical thought
(the bank balance becomes the rule book). A society based on such "egoism"
ends up undermining the egos which inhabit it, deadening one's own and
other people's individuality and so reducing the vast potential "utility"
of others to oneself. In addition, the drive for profit is not even based
on self-interest, it is forced upon the individual by the workings of the
market (an alien authority) and results in labour "claim[ing] all our time
and toil," leaving no time for the individual "to take comfort in himself
as the unique." [Ibid., pp. 268-9]

Stirner also turns his analysis to "socialism" and "communism," and his
critique is as powerful as the one he directs against capitalism. This
attack, for some, gives his work an appearance of being pro-capitalist,
while, as indicated above, it is not. Stirner did attack socialism, but he
(rightly) attacked *state* socialism, not libertarian socialism, which did
not really exist at that time (the only well known anarchist work at the
time was Proudhon's _What is Property?_, published in 1840 and this work
obviously could not fully reflect the developments within anarchism that
were to come). Stirner also indicated why moralistic (or altruistic)
socialism is doomed to failure, and laid the foundations of the theory
that socialism will work only on the basis of egoism (communist-egoism, as
it is sometimes called). Stirner correctly pointed out that much of what
is called socialism was nothing but warmed up liberalism, and as such
ignores the individual: "Whom does the liberal look upon as his equal?
Man! . . ., In other words, he sees in you, not *you*, but the *species.*"
[Ibid., p. 123] A socialism that ignores the individual consigns itself
to being state capitalism, nothing more. "Socialists" of this school
forget that "society" is made up of individuals and that it is individuals
who work, think, love, play and enjoy themselves. Thus: "[t]hat society is
no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or
means, from which we may derive benefit. . . of this the socialists do not
think, because they -- as liberals -- are imprisoned in the religious
principle and zealously aspire after -- a sacred society, such as the
State was hitherto." [Ibid., p. 123]

So how could Stirner's egoist vision fit with social anarchist ideas? The
key to understanding the connection lies in Stirner's idea of the "union
of egoists," his proposed alternative mode of organising modern society.
Stirner believes that as more and more people become egoists, conflict in
society will decrease as each individual recognises the uniqueness of
others, thus ensuring a suitable environment within which they can
co-operate (or find "truces" in the "war of all against all"). These
"truces" Stirner termed "Unions of Egoists." They are the means by 
which egoists could, firstly, "annihilate" the state, and secondly, destroy 
its creature, private property, since they would "multiply the individual's
means and secure his assailed property." [Ibid., p. 258] 

The unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being
spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual
interests of those involved, who would "care best for their welfare if
they *unite* with others." [Ibid., p. 309] The unions, unlike the state,
exist to ensure what Stirner calls "intercourse," or "union" between
individuals. To better understand the nature of these associations, which
will replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends,
lovers, and children at play as examples (see _No Gods, No Masters_, 
vol. 1, p. 25). These illustrate the kinds of relationships that maximise 
an individual's self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom, and individuality, as 
well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing while belonging 
to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a free and 
spontaneous co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it, 
"intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the *commercium,* of 
individuals" [Ibid., p. 218], and its aim is  "pleasure" and 
"self-enjoyment."

In order to ensure that those involved do not sacrifice any of their
uniqueness and freedom, the contracting parties have to have roughly 
the same bargaining power and the association created must be based 
on self-management (i.e. equality of power). Otherwise, we can assume 
that some of the egoists involved will stop being egoists and will allow 
themselves to be dominated by another, which is unlikely. As Stirner 
himself argued:

"But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be
lulled as regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually
an Egoist's association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded
together when one is a slave or a serf of the other?. . .

Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the
rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact
that the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life
of ease because others live in misery and perish of hunger . . . [such a
society or association] is more of a religious society [than a real Egoist's
association]" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 24]

Therefore, egoism's revolt against all hierarchies that restrict the ego 
logically leads to the end of authoritarian social relationships, particularly 
those associated with private property and the state. Given that capitalism 
is  marked by extensive differences in bargaining power outside its 
"associations" (i.e. firms) and power within these "associations" (i.e. 
the worker/boss hierarchy), from an egoist point of view it is in the 
self-interest of those subjected to such relationships to get rid of them 
and replace them with unions based on mutuality, free association, and 
self-management.
 
Given the holistic and egalitarian nature of the union of egoists, it 
can be seen that it shares little with the so-called free agreements of
capitalism (in particular wage labour). The hierarchical structure of 
capitalist firms hardly produces associations in which the individual's 
experiences can be compared to those involved in friendship or play, nor 
do they involve equality. An essential aspect of the "union of egoists" 
for Stirner was such groups should be "owned" by their members, not the 
members by the group. That points to a *libertarian* form of organisation 
within these "unions" (i.e. one based on equality and participation), *not* 
a hierarchical one. If you have no say in how a group functions (as in wage 
slavery, where workers have the "option" of "love it or leave it") then you 
can hardly be said to own it, can you? Indeed, Stirner argues, "[a]s a unique
individual you assert yourself alone in association, because the association
does not own you, because you are the one who owns it" and "I have no
wish to become a slave to my maxims, but would rather subject them to my
ongoing criticism." [Op. Cit., p. 17] Thus, Stirner's "union of egoists" cannot 
be compared to the employer-employee contract as the employees cannot be 
said to "own" the organisation resulting from the contract (nor do they own 
themselves during work time, having sold their time/liberty to the boss in 
return for wages -- see section B.4). Only within a participatory association 
can "assert" yourself freely and subject your maxims, and association, to your 
"ongoing criticism" -- in capitalist contracts you can do both only with your 
bosses' permission.

And by the same token, capitalist contracts do not involve "leaving each other 
alone" (a la "anarcho"-capitalism). No boss will "leave alone" the workers in 
his factory, nor will a landowner "leave alone" a squatter on land he owns
but does not use. Stirner rejects the narrow concept of "property" as
private property and recognises the *social* nature of "property," whose
use often affects far more people than those who claim to "own" it: "I do
not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as *my*
property, in which I 'respect' nothing. Pray do the like with what you
call my property!" [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 248]. This view logically 
leads to the idea of both workers' self-management and grassroots 
community control (as will be discussed more fully in section I) as 
those affected by an activity will take a direct interest in it and not let 
"respect" for "private" property allow them to be oppressed by others.

Moreover, egoism (self-interest) must lead to self-management and mutual 
aid (solidarity), for by coming to agreements based on mutual respect and 
social equality, we ensure non-hierarchical relationships. If I dominate 
someone, then in all likelihood I will be dominated in turn. By removing 
hierarchy and domination, the ego is free to experience and utilise the 
full potential of others. As Kropotkin argued in _Mutual Aid_,
individual freedom and social co-operation are not only compatible but,
when united, create the most productive conditions for all individuals
within society.

Therefore Stirner's union of egoists has strong connections with social
anarchism's desire for a society based on freely federated individuals,
co-operating as equals. His central idea of "property" -- that which is
used by the ego -- is an important concept for social anarchism, because
it stresses that hierarchy develops when we let ideas and organisations
own us rather than vice versa. A participatory anarchist community will be
made up of individuals who must ensure that it remains their "property"
and be under their control; hence the importance of decentralised,
confederal organisations which ensure that control. A free society must 
be organised in such a way to ensure the free and full development of
individuality and maximise the pleasure to be gained from individual
interaction and activity. Lastly, Stirner indicates that mutual aid and
equality are based not upon an abstract morality but upon self-interest,
both for defence against hierarchy and for the pleasure of co-operative
intercourse between unique individuals. 

Stirner demonstrates brilliantly how abstractions and fixed ideas
("spooks") influence the very way we think, see ourselves, and act. He
shows how hierarchy has its roots within our own minds, in how we view 
the world. He offers a powerful defence of individuality in an authoritarian
and alienated world, and places subjectivity at the centre of any
revolutionary project, where it belongs. Finally, he reminds us that a
free society must exist in the interests of all, and must be based upon
the self-fulfilment, liberation and enjoyment of the individual.

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

Murray Rothbard and others on the "libertarian" right have argued that
Lysander Spooner is another individualist anarchist whose ideas support
"anarcho"-capitalism's claim to be part of the anarchist tradition. As
will be shown below, however, this claim is untrue, since it is clear that
Spooner was a left libertarian who was firmly opposed to capitalism. 

That Spooner was against capitalism can be seen in his opposition to wage
labour, which he wished to eliminate by turning capital over to those who
work it. Like Benjamin Tucker, he wanted to create a society of associated
producers -- self-employed farmers, artisans and co-operating workers --
rather than wage-slaves and capitalists. For example, in his _Letter to
Cleveland_ Spooner writes: 

"All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few 
proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be 
broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business 
for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another." [quoted by 
Eunice Minette Schuster, _Native American Anarchism_, p. 148]

This preference for a system based on simple commodity production in which
capitalists and wage slaves are replaced by self-employed and co-operating
workers puts Spooner squarely in the *anti-capitalist* camp with other
individualist anarchists, like Tucker. And, we may add, the rough
egalitarianism he expected to result from his system indicates the
left-libertarian nature of his ideas, turning the present "wheel of
fortune" into "extended surface, varied somewhat by inequalities, but
still exhibiting a general level, affording a safe position for all,
and creating no necessity, for either force or fraud, on the part of
anyone, to enable him to secure his standing." [Spooner quoted by
Peter Marshall in _Demanding the Impossible_, pp. 388-9]

Right "libertarians" have perhaps mistaken Spooner for a capitalist
because of his claim that a "free market in credit" would lead to low
interest on loans or his "foolish" (to use Tucker's expression) ideas on 
intellectual property. But, as noted, markets are not the defining feature of
capitalism. There were markets long before capitalism existed. So the fact
that Spooner retained the concept of markets does not necessarily make him
a capitalist. In fact, far from seeing his "free market in credit" in
capitalist terms, he believed (again like Tucker) that competition between
mutual banks would make credit cheap and easily available, and that this
would lead to the *elimination* of capitalism! In this respect, both
Spooner and Tucker follow Proudhon, who maintained that "reduction of
interest rates to vanishing point is itself a revolutionary act, because
it is destructive of capitalism." [cited in Edward Hyams, _Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon: His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works_, Taplinger, 1979]
Whether this belief is correct is, of course, another question; we have
suggested that it is not, and that capitalism cannot be "reformed away" by
mutual banking, particularly by competitive mutual banking.

Further evidence of Spooner's anti-capitalism can be found his book
_Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure_, where he notes that under
capitalism the labourer does not receive "all the fruits of his own
labour" because the capitalist lives off of workers' "honest industry."
Thus: ". . . almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of
other men than those who realise them. Indeed, large fortunes could rarely 
be made at all by one individual, except by his sponging capital and labour 
from others." [quoted by Martin J. James, _Men Against the State_, p. 173f] 
Spooner's statement that capitalists deny workers "all the fruits" (i.e. 
the full value) of their labour presupposes the labour theory of value, 
which is the basis of the *socialist* demonstration that capitalism is 
exploitative (see section C). 

This interpretation of Spooner's social and economic views is supported by
various studies in which his ideas are analysed. As these works also give
an idea of Spooner's ideal world, they are worth quoting : 

"Spooner envisioned a society of pre-industrial times in which small
property owners gathered together voluntarily and were assured by their
mutual honesty of full payment of their labour." [Corinne Jackson, _The
Black Flag of Anarchy_, p. 87]

Spooner considered that "it was necessary that every man be his own
employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for another
resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer. To be one's own
employer, it was necessary for one to have access to one's own capital."
[James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, p. 172] 

Spooner "recommends that every man should be his own employer, and he
depicts an ideal society of independent farmers and entrepreneurs who have
access to easy credit. If every person received the fruits of his own
labour, the just and equal distribution of wealth would result." [Peter
Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 389]

"Spooner would destroy the factory system, wage labour [and the business
cycle]. . . by making every individual a small capitalist [sic!], an
independent producer." [Eunice Minette Schuster, _Native American Anarchism_, 
p. 151]

It is quite apparent, then, that Spooner was against wage labour, and
therefore was no capitalist. Hence we must agree with Marshall, who
classifies Spooner as a *left* libertarian with ideas very close to
Proudhon's mutualism. Whether such ideas are relevant now, given the vast
amount of capital needed to start companies in established sectors of the
economy, is another question. As noted above, similar doubts may be raised
about Spooner's claims about the virtues of a free market in credit. But
one thing is clear: Spooner was opposed to the way America was developing
in the mid 1800's. He viewed the rise of capitalism with disgust and
suggested a way for non-exploitative and non-oppressive economic
relationships to become the norm again in US society, a way based on
eliminating the root cause of capitalism -- wage-labour -- through a
system of easy credit, which he believed would enable artisans and
peasants to obtain their own means of production. This is confirmed
by an analysis of his famous works _Natural Law_ and _No Treason_.

Spooner's support of "Natural Law" has also been taken as "evidence" that
Spooner was a proto-right-libertarian (which ignores the fact that support 
for "Natural Law" is not limited to right libertarians). Of course, most 
anarchists do not find theories of "natural law," be they those of 
right-Libertarians, fascists or whatever, to be particularly compelling. 
Certainly the ideas of "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights," as existing 
independently of human beings in the sense of the ideal Platonic Forms, 
are difficult for anarchists to accept per se, because such ideas are 
inherently authoritarian (as highlighted in section F.7). Most anarchists
would agree with Tucker when he called such concepts "religious."

Spooner, unfortunately, did subscribe to the cult of "immutable and
universal" Natural Laws and is so subject to all the problems we
highlight in section F.7. If we look at his "defence" of Natural
Law we can see how weak (and indeed silly) it is. Replacing the
word "rights" with the word "clothes" in the following passage
shows the inherent weakness of his argument:

"if there be no such principle as justice, or natural law, then every
human being came into the world utterly destitute of rights; and
coming so into the world destitute of rights, he must forever remain
so. For if no one brings any rights with him into the world, clearly
no one can ever have any rights of his own, or give any to another.
And the consequence would be that mankind could never have any rights;
and for them to talk of any such things as their rights, would be
to talk of things that had, never will, and never can have any
existence." [_Natural Law_]

And, we add, unlike the "Natural Laws" of "gravitation, . . .of light,
the principles of mathematics" to which Spooner compares them, he
is perfectly aware that his "Natural Law" can be "trampled upon"
by other humans. However, unlike gravity (which does not need
enforcing) its obvious that Spooner's "Natural Law" has to be
enforced by human beings as it is within human nature to steal.
In other words, it is a moral code, *not* a "Natural Law" like gravity.

Interestingly, Spooner did come close to a *rational,* non-religious
source for rights when he points out that "Men living in contact
with each other, and having intercourse together, cannot avoid
learning natural law." [Ibid.] This indicates the *social* nature
of rights, of our sense of right and wrong, and so rights can exist 
without believing in religious concepts as "Natural Law." 

In addition, we can say that his support for juries indicates an 
unconscious recognition of the *social* nature (and so evolution) 
of any concepts of human rights. In other words, by arguing strongly
for juries to judge human conflict, he implicitly recognises that the
concepts of right and wrong in society are *not* indelibly inscribed in
law tomes as the "true law," but instead change and develop as society
does (as reflected in the decisions of the juries). In addition, he states
that "Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple
matter, . . . made up of a few simple elementary principles, of the truth
and justice of which every ordinary mind has an almost intuitive
perception," thus indicating that what is right and wrong exists in
"ordinary people" and not in "prosperous judges" or any other small group
claiming to speak on behalf of "truth."

As can be seen, Spooner's account of how "natural law" will be
administered is radically different from, say, Murray Rothbard's, and
indicates a strong egalitarian context foreign to right-libertarianism. 

As far as "anarcho"-capitalism goes, one wonders how Spooner would regard
the "anarcho"-capitalist "protection firm," given his comment in _No
Treason_ that "[a]ny number of scoundrels, having money enough to start
with, can establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money,
they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also
compel general obedience to their will." Compare this to Spooner's
description of his voluntary justice associations: 

"it is evidently desirable that men should associate, so far as they
freely and voluntarily can do so, for the maintenance of justice among
themselves, and for mutual protection against other wrong-doers. It is
also in the highest degree desirable that they should agree upon some plan
or system of judicial proceedings" [_Natural Law_] 

At first glance, one may be tempted to interpret Spooner's justice
organisations as a subscription to "anarcho"-capitalist style protection
firms. A more careful reading suggests that Spooner's actual conception 
is more based on the concept of mutual aid, whereby people provide such
services for themselves and for others rather than buying them on a
fee-per-service basis. A very different concept. 

These comments are particularly important when we consider Spooner's
criticisms of finance capitalists, like the Rothschilds. Here he departs
even more strikingly from all "Libertarian" positions. For he believes
that sheer wealth has intrinsic power, even to the extent of allowing the
wealthy to coerce the government into behaving at their behest. For
Spooner, governments are "the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious,
fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom
they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like
the Rothschilds, [can]. . . unmake them [governments]. . .the moment they
refuse to commit any crime" that finance capital requires of them. Indeed,
Spooner considers "these soulless blood-money loan-mongers" as "the 
real rulers," not the government (who are their agents). [_No Treason_].

If one grants that highly concentrated wealth has intrinsic power and may
be used in such a Machiavellian manner as Spooner claims, then simple
opposition to the state is not sufficient. Logically, any political theory
claiming to promote liberty should also seek to limit or abolish the
institutions that facilitate large concentrations of wealth. As shown
above, Spooner regarded wage labour under capitalism as one of these
institutions, because without it "large fortunes could rarely be made at
all by one individual." Hence for Spooner, as for social anarchists, to be
anti-statist also necessitates being anti-capitalist. 

This can be clearly seen for his analysis of history, where he states:
"Why is it that [Natural Law] has not, ages ago, been established
throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could
rightfully be compelled to obey?" Spooner's answer is given in his
interpretation of how the State evolved, where he postulates that the
State was formed through the initial ascendancy of a land-holding,
slave-holding class by military conquest and oppressive enslavement of a
subsistence-farming peasantry. 

"These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labour of their
slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more
plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons;
increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organisations, and
multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in
order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to
act systematically, and cooperage with each other in holding their slaves
in subjection. 

"But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a
government, and making what they call laws. ...

"Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in
the desires of one class of persons to plunder and enslave others, *and
hold them as property.*" [_Natural Law_] 

Nothing too provocative here; simply Spooner's view of government as a
tool of the wealth-holding, slave-owning class. What is more interesting
is Spooner's view of the subsequent development of (post-slavery)
socio-economic systems. Spooner writes:

"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized
all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to
discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them
profitable, was *not* for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of
slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to
give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the
responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their
labour to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what
the latter might choose to give them." [Ibid.]

Here Spooner echoes the standard anarchist critique of capitalism. Note
that he is no longer talking about slavery but rather about economic
relations between a wealth-holding class and a 'freed' class of
workers/labourers/tenant farmers. Clearly he does *not* view this relation
--wage labour -- as a voluntary association, because the former slaves have
little option but to be employed by members of the wealth-owning class.

Spooner points out that by monopolising the means of wealth creation while
at the same time requiring the newly 'liberated' slaves to provide for
themselves, the robber class thus continues to receive the benefits of the
labour of the former slaves while accepting none of the responsibility for
their welfare. 

Spooner continues:

"Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them,
having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an
independent subsistence, had no alternative -- to save themselves from
starvation -- but to sell their labour to the landholders, in exchange only
for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as
that." [Ibid.] 

Thus while technically "free," the liberated working/labouring class lack
the ability to provide for their own needs and hence remain dependent on
the wealth-owning class. This echoes not right-libertarian analysis of
capitalism, but left-libertarian and other socialist viewpoints. 

"These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less
slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even
more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to
preserve his life." [Ibid.]

This is an interesting comment. Spooner suggests that the liberated slave
class were perhaps *better off as slaves.*  Most anarchists would not go
so far, although we would agree that employees are subject to the power of
those who employ them and so are no long self-governing individuals -- in
other words, that capitalist social relationships deny self-ownership and
freedom. 

"They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be
thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a
subsistence by their labour." [Ibid.]

Lest the reader doubt that Spooner is actually discussing employment here
(and not slavery), he explicitly includes being made unemployed as an
example of the arbitrary nature of wage labour. 

"They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of
begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the
property and quiet of their late masters." [Ibid.]

And thus:

"The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their
own safety and the safety of their property, to organise themselves more
perfectly as a government *and make laws for keeping these dangerous
people in subjection*. . . . " [Ibid.]

In other words, the robber class creates legislation which will protect
its power, namely its property, against the dispossessed. Hence we see the
creation of "law code" by the wealthy which serves to protect their
interests while effectively making attempts to change the status quo
illegal. This process is in effect similar to the right-libertarian
concept of a "general libertarian law code" which exercises a monopoly
over a given area and which exists to defend the "rights" of property
against "initiation of force," i.e. attempts to change the system into a
new one. 

Spooner goes on:

"The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands
of robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as
possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the
great body of labourers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would
compel them to sell their labour to their tyrants for the lowest prices at
which life could be sustained." [Ibid.]

Thus Spooner identifies the underlying basis for legislation (as well as
the source of much misery, exploitation and oppression throughout history)
as the result of the monopolisation of the means of wealth creation by an
elite class. We doubt he would have considered that calling these laws
"libertarian" would in any change their oppressive and class-based
nature.

"Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now grown to such
gigantic proportions, had its origin in the conspiracies, which have
always existed among the few, for the purpose of holding the many in
subjection, and extorting from them their labour, and all the profits of
their labour." [Ibid.]

Characterising employment as extortion may seem rather extreme, but it
makes sense given the exploitative nature of profit under capitalism, as
left libertarians have long  recognised (see section C). 

In summary, as can be seen, there is a great deal of commonality between
Spooner's ideas and those of social anarchists. Spooner perceives the same
sources of exploitation and oppression inherent in monopolistic control of
the means of production by a wealth-owning class as do social anarchists.
His solutions may differ, but he observes  exactly the same problems. In
other words, Spooner is a left libertarian, and his individualist
anarchism is just as anti-capitalist as the ideas of, say, Bakunin,
Kropotkin or Chomsky. 

Spooner was no more a capitalist than Rothbard was an anarchist.