Caplan, in his FAQ, attempts to rewrite anarchist history by trying
to claim that the individualist anarchists were forerunners of the
so-called "anarcho-capitalist" school. However, as is so often the
case with Caplan's FAQ, nothing could be further from the truth.
In section 5 (What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?)
of his FAQ, Caplan writes that:
He quotes Carl Landauer's European Socialism: A History of Ideas
and Movements as evidence:
Caplan goes on to state that "the interesting point is that before the
emergence of modern anarcho-capitalism Landauer found it necessary to
distinguish two strands of anarchism, only one of which he considered
to be within the broad socialist tradition."
However, what Caplan seems to ignore is that both individualist and
social anarchists agree that there is a difference between the two
schools of anarchist thought! Some insight. Of course, Caplan tries
to suggest that Landauer's non-discussion of the individualist anarchists
is somehow "evidence" that their ideas are not socialistic. Firstly,
Landauer's book is about European Socialism. Individualist anarchism
was almost exclusively based in America and so hardly falls within the
book's subject area. Secondly, from the index Kropotkin is mentioned on
two pages (one of which a footnote). Does that mean Kropotkin was not
a socialist? Of course not. It seems likely, therefore, that Landauer is
using the common Marxist terminology of defining Marxism as Socialism,
while calling other parts of the wider socialist movement by their
self-proclaimed names of anarchism, syndicalism and so on. Hardly
surprising that Kropotkin is hardly mentioned in a history of
"Socialism" (i.e. Marxism).
As noted above, both schools of anarchism knew there was a difference
between their ideas. Kropotkin and Tucker, for example, both distinguished
between two types of anarchism as well as two types of socialism. Thus
Caplan's "interesting point" is just a banality, a common fact which
anyone with a basic familiarity of anarchist history would know.
Kropotkin in his justly famous essay on Anarchism for The Encyclopaedia
Britannica also found it necessary to distinguish two strands of
anarchism. As regards Caplan's claims that only one of these strands
of anarchism is "within the broad socialist tradition" all we can say
is that both Kropotkin and Tucker considered their ideas and
movement to be part of the broader socialist tradition. According
to an expert on Individualist Anarchism, Tucker "looked upon anarchism
as a branch of the general socialist movement" [James J. Martin, Men
Against the State, pp. 226-7]. Other writers on Individualist Anarchism
have noted the same fact (for example, Tucker "definitely thought of
himself a socialist" [William O. Reichart, Partisans of Freedom: A
Study in American Anarchism, p. 156]). As evidence of the anti-socialist
nature of individualist anarchism, Caplan's interpretation of Landauer's
words is fundamentally nonsense. If you look at the writings of people like
Tucker you will see that they called themselves socialists and considered
themselves part of the wider socialist movement. No one familiar with
Tucker's works could overlook this fact.
Interestingly, Landauer includes Proudhon in his history and states that
he was "the most profound thinker among pre-Marxian socialists." [p. 67]
Given that Caplan elsewhere in his FAQ tries to co-opt Proudhon into the
"anarcho"-capitalist school as well as Tucker, his citing of Landauer
seems particularly dishonest. Landauer presents Proudhon's ideas in some
depth in his work within a chapter headed "The three Anticapitalistic
Movements." Indeed, he starts his discussion of Proudhon's ideas with
the words "In France, post-Utopian socialism begins with Peter Joseph
Proudhon." [p. 59] Given that both Kropotkin and Tucker indicated that
Individualist Anarchism followed Proudhon's economic and political
ideas the fact that Landauer states that Proudhon was a socialist
implies that Individualist Anarchism is also socialist (or "Leftist"
to use Caplan's term).
Tucker and the other individualist anarchists considered themselves
as followers of Proudhon's ideas (as did Bakunin and Kropotkin). For
example, Tucker stated that his journal Liberty was "brought into
existence as a direct consequence of the teachings of Proudhon" and
"lives principally to spread them." [cited by Paul Avrich in his
"Introduction" to Proudhon and his "Bank of the People" by Charles
A. Dana]
Obviously Landauer considered Proudhon a socialist and if Individualist
Anarchism follows Proudhon's ideas then it, too, must be socialist.
Unsurprisingly, then, Tucker also considered himself a socialist. To
state the obvious, Tucker and Bakunin both shared Proudhon's opposition
to private property (in the capitalist sense of the word), although
Tucker confused this opposition (and possibly the casual reader) by
talking about possession as "property."
So, it appears that Caplan is the one trying to rewrite history.
Perhaps the problem lies with Caplan's "definition" of socialism. In
section 7 (Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?) he states:
Which are hardly traditional definitions of socialism unless you are
ignorant of socialist ideas! By definition one, Bakunin and Kropotkin
are not socialists. As far as definition two goes, all anarchists
were opposed to (capitalist) private property and argued for its
abolition and its replacement with possession. The actual forms of
possession differed from between anarchist schools of thought, but
the common aim to end private property (capitalism) was still there.
To quote Dana, in a pamphlet called "a really intelligent, forceful,
and sympathetic account of mutual banking" by Tucker, individualist
anarchists desire to "destroy the tyranny of capital,- that is, of
property" by mutual credit. [Charles A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank
of the People", p. 46]
Interestingly, this second definition of socialism brings to light a
contradiction in Caplan's account. Elsewhere in the FAQ he notes that
Proudhon had "ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private
property." In fact, Proudhon did desire to restrict private property to
that of possession, as Caplan himself seems aware. In other words,
even taking his own definitions we find that Proudhon would be considered
a socialist! Indeed, according to Proudhon, "all accumulated capital
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." [Selected
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 44] Thus Jeremy Jennings'
summary of the anarchist position on private property:
He goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed with
the proposition that property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced
no more than the total product of individual labour." ["Anarchism",
Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright
(eds.), p. 132]
The idea that socialism can be defined as state ownership or even
opposition to, or "abolition" of, all forms of property is not one
which is historically accurate for all forms of socialism. Obviously
communist-anarchists and syndicalists would dismiss out of hand the
identification of socialism as state ownership, as would Individualist
Anarchists like Tucker and Joseph Labadie. As for opposition or
abolition of all forms of "private property" as defining socialism,
such a position would have surprised communist-anarchists like Kropotkin
(and, obviously, such self-proclaimed socialists as Tucker and Labadie).
For example, in Act for Yourselves Kropotkin explicitly states that
a peasant "who is in possession of just the amount of land he can
cultivate" would not be expropriated in an anarchist revolution.
Similarly for the family "inhabiting a house which affords them just
enough space . . . considered necessary for that number of people" and
the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom" would be left
alone [pp. 104-5]. He makes the same point in The Conquest of Bread
[p. 61] Thus, like Proudhon, Kropotkin replaces private property
with possession as the former is "theft" (i.e. it allows exploitation,
which "indicate[s] the scope of Expropriation" namely "to everything
that enables any man [or woman]. . . to appropriate the product of
other's toil" [The Conquest of Bread, p. 61])
Even Marx and Engels did not define socialism in terms of the abolition
of all forms of "private property." Like anarchists, they distinguished
between that property which allows exploitation to occur and that which
did not. Looking at the Communist Manifesto we find them arguing that
the "distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property" and that
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of
society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate
the labour of others by means of such appropriation." Moreover, they
correctly note that "property" has meant different things at different
times and that the "abolition of existing property relations is not at
all a distinctive feature of Communism" as "[a]ll property relations in
the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent
upon the change in historical conditions." As an example, they argue
that the French Revolution "abolished feudal property in favour of
bourgeois property." [The Manifesto of the Communist Party]
Which means that the idea that socialism means abolishing "private
property" is only true for those kinds of property that are used
to exploit the labour of others. Nicholas Walter sums up the anarchist
position when he wrote that anarchists "are in favour of the private
property which cannot be used by one person to exploit another."
Reinventing Anarchy, p. 49] In other words, property which is
no longer truly private as it is used by those who do not own it.
In effect, the key point of Proudhon's What is Property?, namely
the difference between possession and property. Which means that
rather than desire the abolition of all forms of "private property,"
socialists (of all kinds, libertarian and authoritarian) desire the
abolition of a specific kind of property, namely that kind which
allows the exploitation and domination of others. To ignore this
distinction is to paint a very misleading picture of what socialism
stands for.
This leaves the "the strong restriction . . . of private
property" definition of socialism. Here Caplan is on stronger
ground. Unfortunately, by using that definition the Individualist
Anarchists, like the Social Anarchists, are included in socialist
camp, a conclusion he is trying to avoid. As every anarchist
shares Proudhon's analysis that "property is theft" and that
possession would be the basis of anarchism, it means that
every anarchist is a socialist (as Labadie always claimed).
This includes Tucker and the other Individualist Anarchists.
For example, Joseph Labadie stated that "the two great
sub-divisions of Socialists" (anarchists and State Socialists)
both "agree that the resources of nature -- land, mines, and so
forth -- should not be held as private property and subject to
being held by the individual for speculative purposes, that use
of these things shall be the only valid title, and that each
person has an equal right to the use of all these things. They
all agree that the present social system is one composed of a
class of slaves and a class of masters, and that justice is
impossible under such conditions." [What is Socialism?] Tucker
himself argued that the anarchists' "occupancy and use" title
to land and other scare material would involve a change (and,
in effect, "restriction") of current (i.e. capitalist) property
rights:
and so:
"no advocate of occupancy and use believes that it can be put in
force until as a theory it has been accepted as generally . . .
seen and accepted as is the prevailing theory of ordinary private
property." [Occupancy and Use versus the Single Tax]
So, as can be seen, Individualist Anarchism rejected important
aspects of capitalist property rights. Given that the Individualist
Anarchists were writing at a time when agriculture was still
the largest source of employment this position on land is much
more significant than it first appears. In effect, Tucker and
the other American Anarchists were advocating a massive
and fundamental change in property-rights, in the social
relationships they generated and in American society. This
is, in other words, a very "strong restriction" in capitalist
property rights (and it is this type of property Caplan
is referring to, rather than "property" in the abstract).
However, such a "definition" of socialism as "restricting"
private property is flawed as it does not really reflect
anarchist ideas on the subject. Anarchists, in effect,
reject the simplistic analysis that because a society (or
thinker) accepts "property" that it (or he/she) is capitalistic.
This is for two reasons. Firstly, the term "property" has
been used to describe a wide range of situations and institutions.
Thus Tucker used the term "property" to describe a society in
which capitalist property rights were not enforced. Secondly,
and far more importantly, concentrating on "property" rights in
the abstract ignores the social relationships it generates.
Freedom is product of social interaction, not one of isolation.
This means that the social relationships generated in a given
society are the key to evaluating it -- not whether it has
"property" or not. To look at "property" in the abstract is
to ignore people and the relationships they create between
each other. And it is these relationships which determine
whether they are free or not (and so exploited or not).
Caplan's use of the anti-property rights "definition" of
socialism avoids the central issue of freedom, of whether
a given society generates oppression and exploitation or
not. By looking at "property" Caplan ignores liberty, a
strange but unsurprising position for a self-proclaimed
"libertarian" to take.
Thus both of Caplan's "definitions" of socialism are lacking.
A "traditional" one of government ownership is hardly that and
the one based on "property" rights avoids the key issue while,
in its own way, includes all the anarchists in the socialist
camp (something Caplan, we are sure, did not intend).
So what would be a useful definition of socialism? From our
discussion on property we can instantly reject Caplan's biased
and simplistic starting points. In fact, a definition of socialism
which most socialists would agree with would be one that stated
that "the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer"
(to use words Thomas Hodgskin, an early English socialist, from
his essay Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital). Tucker
stated that "the bottom claim of Socialism" was "that labour
should be put in possession of its own," that "the natural wage
of labour is its product" (see his essay State Socialism and
Anarchism). This definition also found favour with Kropotkin
who stated that socialism "in its wide, generic, and true
sense" was an "effort to abolish the exploitation of labour
by capital." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 169]
From this position, socialists soon realised that (to again
quote Kropotkin) "the only guarantee not to by robbed of the
fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour."
[The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] Because of this socialism also
could be defined as "the workers shall own the means of production,"
as this automatically meant that the product would go to the producer,
and, in fact, this could also be a definition of socialism most
socialists would agree with. The form of this ownership, however,
differed from socialist tendency to socialist tendency (some, like
Proudhon, proposed co-operative associations, others like Kropotkin
communal ownership, others like the Social Democrats state ownership
and so on). Moreover, as the economy changed in the 19th century, so
did socialist ideas. Murray Bookchin gives a good summary of this
process:
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). The common
feature of all these forms of anarchism is opposition to usury and
the notion that "workers shall own the means of production." Or,
in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the proletariat." [Op. Cit.,
p. 179] As one expert on Proudhon points out, Proudhon's support
for "association" (or "associative socialism") "anticipated all
those later movements" which demanded "that the economy be
controlled neither by private enterprise nor by the state . . .
but by the producers" such as "the revolutionary syndicalists"
and "the students of 1968." [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 165]
"Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism,"
to again quote Proudhon. [Op. Cit., p. 167]
Thus the common agreement between all socialists was that capitalism
was based upon exploitation and wage slavery, that workers did not
have access to the means of production and so had to sell themselves
to the class that did. Thus we find Individualist Anarchists arguing
that the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer and
opposing the exploitation of labour by capital. To use Tucker's own words:
By ending wage labour, anarchist socialism would ensure "The land to
the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the labourer. The
product to the producer" and so "everyone [would] be a proprietor"
and so there would be "no more proletaires" (in the words of Ernest
Lesigne, quoted favourably by Tucker as part of what he called a
"summary exposition of Socialism from the standpoint of Anarchism"
[Op. Cit., p. 17, p. 16]). Wage labour, and so capitalism, would be
no more and "the product [would go] to the producer." The Individualist
Anarchists, as Wm. Gary Kline correctly points out, "expected a society
of largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth
between any of them." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104] In other
words, the "abolition of the proletariat" as desired by Proudhon.
Therefore, like all socialists, Tucker wanted to end usury, ensure
the "product to the producer" and this meant workers owning and
controlling the means of production they used ("no more proletaires").
He aimed to do this by reforming capitalism away by creating mutual
banks and other co-operatives (he notes that Individualist Anarchists
followed Proudhon, who "would individualise and associate" the productive
and distributive forces in society [as quoted by James J. Martin,
Men Against the State, p. 228]). Here is Kropotkin on Proudhon's
reformist mutualist-socialism:
"When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property
is theft', he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense
of 'right of use and abuse'; in property-rights, on the other hand,
understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the best
protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same time
he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land,
dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to
attain the same end by rendering capital incapable of earning
interest." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlet's, pp. 290-1 --
emphasis added]
In other words, like all anarchists, Proudhon desired to see a society
without capitalists and wage slaves ("the same end") but achieved by
different means. When Proudhon wrote to Karl Marx in 1846 he made the
same point:
In other words, Proudhon shared the common aim of all socialists (namely
to abolish capitalism, wage labour and exploitation) but disagreed with
the means. As can be seen, Tucker placed himself squarely in this
tradition and so could (and did) call himself a socialist. Little
wonder Joseph Labadie often said that "All anarchists are socialists,
but not all socialists are anarchists." That Caplan tries to ignore
this aspect of Individualist Anarchism in an attempt to co-opt it
into "anarcho"-capitalism indicates well that his FAQ is not an
objective or neutral work.
Caplan states that the "United States has been an even more fertile
ground for individualist anarchism: during the 19th-century, such
figures as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker
gained prominence for their vision of an anarchism based upon freedom
of contract and private property."
However, as indicated, Tucker and Spooner did not support private property
in the capitalist sense of the word and Kropotkin and Bakunin, no less
than Tucker and Spooner, supported free agreement between individuals and
groups. What does that prove? That Caplan seems more interested in the
words Tucker and Proudhon used rather than the meanings they attached
to them. Hardly convincing.
Perhaps Caplan should consider Proudhon's words on the subject of socialism:
If he did perhaps he would who see that the Individualist Anarchists
were a school of socialism, given their opposition to exploitation and
the desire to see its end via their political, economic and social
ideas.
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?), Caplan tries his best
to claim that Proudhon was not really a socialist at all. He states that
"Pierre[-Joseph] Proudhon is also often included [as a "left anarchist"]
although his ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private
property would lead some to exclude him from the leftist camp altogether."
"Some" of which group? Other anarchists, like Bakunin and Kropotkin? Obviously
not -- Bakunin claimed that "Proudhon was the master of us all." According
to George Woodcock Kropotkin was one of Proudhon's "confessed disciples."
Perhaps that makes Bakunin and Kropotkin proto-capitalists? Obviously not.
What about Tucker? He called Proudhon "the father of the Anarchistic
school of Socialism." [Instead of a Book, p. 381] And, as we noted
above, the socialist historian Carl Launder considered Proudhon a
socialist, as did the noted British socialist G.D.H. Cole in his
History of Socialist Thought (and in fact called him one of the "major
prophets of Socialism."). What about Marx and Engels, surely they would
be able to say if he was a socialist or not? According to Engels,
Proudhon was "the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman."
[Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 260]
In fact, the only "left" (i.e. social) anarchist of note who seems
to place Proudhon outside of the "leftist" (i.e. anarchist) camp
is Murray Bookchin. In the second volume of The Third Revolution
Bookchin argues that "Proudhon was no socialist" simply because
he favoured "private property." [p. 39] However, he does note the
"one moral provision [that] distinguished the Proudhonist contract
from the capitalist contract" namely "it abjured profit and exploitation."
[Op. Cit., pp. 40-41] -- which, of course, places him in the socialist
tradition (see last section). Unfortunately, Bookchin fails to acknowledge
this or that Proudhon was totally opposed to wage labour along with
usury, which, again, instantly places him in ranks of socialism (see,
for example, the General Idea of the Revolution, p. 98, pp. 215-6
and pp. 221-2, and his opposition to state control of capital as being
"more wage slavery" and, instead, urging whatever capital required
collective labour to be "democratically organised workers'
associations" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62]).
Bookchin (on page 78) quotes Proudhon as arguing that "association"
was "a protest against the wage system" which suggests that
Bookchin's claims that Proudhonian "analysis minimised the
social relations embodied in the capitalist market and industry"
[p. 180] is false. Given that wage labour is the unique social
relationship within capitalism, it is clear from Proudhon's works
that he did not "minimise" the social relations created by
capitalism, rather the opposite. Proudhon's opposition to wage
labour clearly shows that he focused on the key social relation
which capitalism creates -- namely the one of domination of the
worker by the capitalist.
Bookchin does mention that Proudhon was "obliged in 1851, in
the wake of the associationist ferment of 1848 and after, to
acknowledge that association of some sort was unavoidable for
large-scale enterprises." [p. 78] However, Proudhon's support
of industrial democracy pre-dates 1851 by some 11 years. He
stated in What is Property? that he "preach[ed] emancipation
to the proletaires; association to the labourers" and that
"leaders" within industry "must be chosen from the labourers
by the labourers themselves." [p. 137 and p. 414] It is
significant that the first work to call itself anarchist
opposed property along with the state, exploitation along with
oppression and supported self-management against hierarchical
relationships within production ("anarcho"-capitalists take
note!). Proudhon also called for "democratically organised
workers' associations" to run large-scale industry in his
1848 Election Manifesto. [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1,
p. 62] Given that Bookchin considers as "authentic artisanal
socialists" those who called for collective ownership
of the means of production, but "exempted from collectivisation
the peasantry" [p. 4] we have to conclude that Proudhon was
such an "authentic" artisanal socialist! Indeed, at one point
Bookchin mentions the "individualistic artisanal socialism
of Proudhon" [p. 258] which suggests a somewhat confused
approach to Proudhon's ideas!
In effect, Bookchin makes the same mistake as Caplan; but, unlike
Caplan, he should know better. Rather than not being a socialist,
Proudhon is obviously an example of what Bookchin himself calls
"artisanal socialism" (as Marx and Engels recongised). Indeed,
he notes that Proudhon was its "most famous advocate" and
that "nearly all so-called 'utopian' socialists, even
[Robert] Owen -- the most labour-orientated -- as well as
Proudhon -- essentially sought the equitable distribution of
property." [p. 273] Given Proudhon's opposition to wage labour
and capitalist property and his support for industrial democracy
as an alternative, Bookchin's position is untenable -- he confuses
socialism with communism, rejecting as socialist all views which
are not communism (a position he shares with right-libertarians).
He did not always hold this position, though. He writes in The
Spanish Anarchists that:
In contrast to some of Bookchin's comments (and Caplan) K. Steven
Vincent is correct to argue that, for Proudhon, justice "applied
to the economy was associative socialism" and so Proudhon is
squarely in the socialist camp [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 228].
However, perhaps all these "leftists" are wrong (bar Bookchin,
who is wrong, at least some of the time). Perhaps they just did
not understand what socialism actually is (and as Proudhon stated
"I am socialist" [Selected Writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
p. 195] and described himself as a socialist many times this also
applies to Proudhon himself!). So the question arises, did Proudhon
support private property in the capitalist sense of the word? The
answer is no. To quote George Woodcock summary of Proudhon's ideas
on this subject we find:
George Crowder makes the same point:
"The ownership he opposes is basically that which is unearned . . .
including such things as interest on loans and income from rent. This
is contrasted with ownership rights in those goods either produced by
the work of the owner or necessary for that work, for example his
dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate
rights of ownership of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his
latter work he calls this 'property,' the conceptual distinction
remains the same." [Classical Anarchism, pp. 85-86]
Indeed, according to Proudhon himself, the "accumulation of capital and
instrument is what the capitalist owes to the producer, but he never pays
him for it. It is this fraudulent deprivation which causes the poverty of
the worker, the opulence of the idle and the inequality of their conditions.
And it is this, above all, which has so aptly been called the exploitation
of man by man." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 43]
He called his ideas on possession a "third form of society, the synthesis
of communism and property" and calls it "liberty." [The Anarchist Reader,
p. 68]. He even goes so far as to say that property "by its despotism and
encroachment, soon proves itself oppressive and anti-social." [Op. Cit.,
p. 67] Opposing private property he thought that "all accumulated capital
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." Indeed, he
considered the aim of his economic reforms "was to rescue the working
masses from capitalist exploitation." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon, p. 44, p. 80]
In other words, Proudhon considered capitalist property to be the source
of exploitation and oppression and he opposed it. He explicitly contrasts
his ideas to that of capitalist property and rejects it as a means of
ensuring liberty.
Caplan goes on to claim that "[s]ome of Proudhon's other heterodoxies include
his defence of the right of inheritance and his emphasis on the genuine
antagonism between state power and property rights."
However, this is a common anarchist position. Anarchists are well aware that
possession is a source of independence within capitalism and so should be
supported. As Albert Meltzer puts it:
Malatesta makes the same point:
"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to
private property by stating that property is the condition and
guarantee of liberty.
"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is
slavery?
"But then why do we oppose them?
"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist
property. . . which therefore depends on the existence of a class of
the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the
property owners for a wage below its real value. . . This means that
workers are subjected to a kind of slavery." [The Anarchist Revolution,
p. 113]
As does Kropotkin:
"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour
is to possess the instruments of labour. . . man really produces
most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his
occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly,
when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who
work like him, but bringing in little to idlers." [The Conquest
of Bread, p. 145]
Perhaps this makes these three well known anarcho-communists "really"
proto-"anarcho"-capitalists as well? Obviously not. Instead of wondering
if his ideas on what socialism is are wrong, he tries to rewrite history
to fit the anarchist movement into his capitalist ideas of what anarchism,
socialism and whatever are actually like.
In addition, we must point out that Proudhon's "emphasis on the genuine
antagonism between state power and property rights" came from his later
writings, in which he argued that property rights were required to control
state power. In other words, this "heterodoxy" came from a period in which
Proudhon did not think that state could be abolished and so "property is
the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State." [Selected
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 140] Of course, this "later"
Proudhon also acknowledged that property was "an absolutism within an
absolutism," "by nature autocratic" and that its "politics could be
summed up in a single word," namely "exploitation." [p. 141, p. 140,
p. 134]
Moreover, Proudhon argues that "spread[ing] it more equally and
establish[ing] it more firmly in society" is the means by which
"property" "becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps the State on
an even keel." [p. 133, p. 140] In other words, rather than "property"
as such limiting the state, it is "property" divided equally
through society which is the key, without concentrations of
economic power and inequality which would result in exploitation
and oppression. Therefore, "[s]imple justice. . . requires that
equal division of land shall not only operate at the outset. If
there is to be no abuse, it must be maintained from generation to
generation." [Op. Cit., p. 141, p. 133, p. 130].
Interestingly, one of Proudhon's "other heterodoxies" Caplan does not
mention is his belief that "property" was required not only to defend
people against the state, but also capitalism. He saw society dividing
into "two classes, one of employed workers, the other of property-owners,
capitalists, entrepreneurs." He thus recognised that capitalism was just
as oppressive as the state and that it assured "the victory of the strong
over the weak, of those who property over those who own nothing." [as quoted
by Alan Ritter, The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 121]
Thus Proudhon's argument that "property is liberty" is directed not only
against the state, but also against social inequality and concentrations
of economic power and wealth.
Indeed, he considered that "companies of capitalists" were the "exploiters
of the bodies and souls of their wage earners" and an outrage on "human
dignity and personality." Instead of wage labour he thought that the
"industry to be operated, the work to be done, are the common and
indivisible property of all the participant workers." In other words,
self-management and workers' control. In this way there would be
"no more government of man by man, by means of accumulation of
capital" and the "social republic" established. Hence his support
for co-operatives:
In other words, a socialist society as workers would no longer be
separated from the means of production and they would control their
own work (the "abolition of the proletariat," to use Proudhon's
expression). This would mean recognising that "the right to products
is exclusive - jus in re; the right to means is common - jus ad rem"
[cited by Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 96] which would lead to
self-management:
As Woodcock points out, in Proudhon's "picture of the ideal society of
the ideal society it is this predominance of the small proprietor, the
peasant or artisan, that immediately impresses one" with "the creation
of co-operative associations for the running of factories and railways."
["On Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", Op. Cit., p. 209, p. 210]
All of which hardly supports Caplan's attempts to portray Proudhon
as "really" a capitalist all along. Indeed, the "later" Proudhon's
support for protectionism [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon, p. 187], the "fixing after amicable discussion of a
maximum and minimum profit margin," "the organising of regulating
societies" and that mutualism would "regulate the market" [Op. Cit.,
p. 70] and his obvious awareness of economic power and that capitalism
exploited and oppressed the wage-worker suggests that rather than
leading some to exclude Proudhon from the "leftist camp" altogether,
it is a case of excluding him utterly from the "rightist camp"
(i.e. "anarcho"-capitalism). Therefore Caplan's attempt to claim
(co-opt would be better) Proudhon for "anarcho"-capitalism indicates
how far Caplan will twist (or ignore) the evidence. As would quickly
become obvious when reading his work, Proudhon would (to use Caplan's
words) "normally classify government, property, hierarchical
organisations . . . as 'rulership.'"
To summarise, Proudhon was a socialist and Caplan's attempts to rewrite
anarchist and socialist history fails. Proudhon was the fountainhead
for both wings of the anarchist movement and What is Property?
"embraces the core of nineteenth century anarchism. . . [bar support
for revolution] all the rest of later anarchism is there, spoken or
implied: the conception of a free society united by association, of
workers controlling the means of production. . . [this book] remains
the foundation on which the whole edifice of nineteenth century
anarchist theory was to be constructed." [Op. Cit., p. 210]
Little wonder Bakunin stated that his ideas were Proudhonism "widely
developed and pushed to these, its final consequences." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 198]
That Tucker called himself a socialist is quickly seen from Instead
of A Book or any of the books written about Tucker and his ideas.
That Caplan seeks to deny this means that either Caplan has not looked
at either Instead of a Book or the secondary literature (with obvious
implications for the accuracy of his FAQ) or he decided to ignore
these facts in favour of his own ideologically tainted version of
history (again with obvious implications for the accuracy and
objectivity of his FAQ).
Caplan, in an attempt to deny the obvious, quotes Tucker from 1887 as
follows in section 14 (What are the major debates between anarchists?
What are the recurring arguments?):
You will instantly notice that Proudhon does not mean by property "the
possession of the labourer of his products." However, Proudhon did include
in his definition of "property" the possession of the capital to steal
profits from the work of the labourers. As is clear from the quote, Tucker
and Proudhon was opposed to capitalist property ("the power of usury").
From Caplan's own evidence he proves that Tucker was not a capitalist!
But lets quote Tucker on what he meant by "usury":
Which can hardly be claimed as being the words of a person who supports
capitalism!
And we should note that Tucker considered both government and capital
oppressive. He argued that anarchism meant "the restriction of power to
self and the abolition of power over others. Government makes itself felt
alike in country and in city, capital has its usurious grip on the farm
as surely as on the workshop and the oppressions and exactions of neither
government nor capital can be avoided by migration." [Instead of a Book,
p. 114]
And, we may add, since when was socialism identical to communism? Perhaps
Caplan should actually read Proudhon and the anarchist critique of private
property before writing such nonsense? We have indicated Proudhon's
ideas above and will not repeat ourselves. However, it is interesting
that this passes as "evidence" of "anti-socialism" for Caplan, indicating
that he does not know what socialism or anarchism actually is. To state
the obvious, you can be a hater of "communism" and still be a socialist!
So this, his one attempt to prove that Tucker, Spooner and even Proudhon
were really capitalists by quoting the actual people involved is a failure.
He asserts that for any claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist
is wrong because "the factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For
example, despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been
inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many
19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but
even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favour of private property
(merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate,
without opposing private property as such)."
The facts supporting the claim of anarchists being socialists, however,
are not "incorrect." It is Caplan's assumption that socialism is against
all forms of "property" which is wrong. To state the obvious, socialism
does not equal communism (and anarcho-communists support the rights of
workers to own their own means of production if they do not wish to join
communist communes -- see above). Thus Proudhon was renown as the leading
French Socialist theorist when he was alive. His ideas were widely known
in the socialist movement and in many ways his economic theories were
similar to the ideas of such well known early socialists as Robert Owen
and William Thompson. As Kropotkin notes:
Perhaps Caplan will now claim Robert Owen and William Thompson as capitalists?
Tucker called himself a socialist on many different occasions and stated
that there were "two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism
and Anarchism." And stated in very clear terms that:
And like all socialists, he opposed capitalism (i.e. usury and wage slavery)
and wished that "there should be no more proletaires." [see the essay "State
Socialism and Anarchism" in Instead of a Book, p. 17]
Caplan, of course, is well aware of Tucker's opinions on the subject
of capitalism and private property. In section 13 (What moral justifications
have been offered for anarchism?) he writes:
Firstly, we must point that Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner considered
profits to be exploitative as well as interest and rent. Hence we
find Tucker arguing that a "just distribution of the products of
labour is to be obtained by destroying all sources of income except
labour. These sources may be summed up in one word, -- usury; and
the three principle forms of usury are interest, rent and profit."
[Instead of a Book, p. 474] To ignore the fact that Tucker also
considered profit as exploitative seems strange, to say the least,
when presenting an account of his ideas.
Secondly, rather than it being "unclear" whether the end of usury
was "merely a desirable side effect" of anarchism, the opposite
is the case. Anyone reading Tucker (or Proudhon) would quickly see
that their politics were formulated with the express aim of ending
usury. Just one example from hundreds:
While it is fair to wonder whether these economic effects would
result from the application of Tucker's ideas, it is distinctly
incorrect to claim that the end of usury was considered in any way
as a "desirable side effect" of them. Rather, in their eyes, the
end of usury was one of the aims of Individualist Anarchism, as
can be clearly seen. As Wm. Gary Kline points out in his excellent
account of Individualist Anarchism:
This is part of the reason why they considered themselves
socialists and, equally as important, they were considered
socialists by other socialists such as Kropotkin and Rocker.
The Individualist Anarchists, as can be seen, fit very easily
into Kropotkin's comments that "the anarchists, in common
with all socialists. . . maintain that the now prevailing
system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist
production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly
which runs against both the principles of justice and the
dictates of utility." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets,
p. 285] Given that they considered profits as usury and
proposed "occupancy and use" in place of the prevailing
land ownership rights they are obviously socialists.
That the end of usury was considered a clear aim of his
politics explains Tucker's 1911 postscript to his famous essay
"State Socialism and Anarchism" in which he argues that "concentrated
capital" itself was a barrier towards anarchy. He argued that
the "trust is now a monster which. . . even the freest competition,
could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy." While, in
an earlier period, big business "needed the money monopoly for
its sustenance and its growth" its size now ensured that it
"sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no
longer a necessity. It can do without it." This meant that the
way was now "not so clear." Indeed, he argued that the problem
of the trusts "must be grappled with for a time solely by forces
political or revolutionary" as the trust had moved beyond the
reach of "economic forces" simply due to the concentration of
resources in its hands. ["Postscript" to State Socialism and
Anarchism]
If the end of "usury" was considered a "side-effect" rather
than an objective, then the problems of the trusts and economic
inequality/power ("enormous concentration of wealth") would
not have been an issue. That the fact of economic power was
obviously considered a hindrance to anarchy suggests the end
of usury was a key aim, an aim which "free competition" in
the abstract could not achieve. Rather than take the
"anarcho"-capitalist position that massive inequality
did not affect "free competition" or individual liberty,
Tucker obviously thought it did and, therefore, "free
competition" (and so the abolition of the public state)
in conditions of massive inequality would not create an
anarchist society.
By trying to relegate an aim to a "side-effect," Caplan distorts
the ideas of Tucker. Indeed, his comments on trusts, "concentrated
capital" and the "enormous concentration of wealth" indicates
how far Individualist Anarchism is from "anarcho"-capitalism
(which dismisses the question of economic power Tucker raises
out of hand). It also indicates the unity of political and
economic ideas, with Tucker being aware that without a suitable
economic basis individual freedom was meaningless. That an
economy (like capitalism) with massive inequalities in wealth
and so power was not such a basis is obvious from Tucker's comments.
Thirdly, what did Tucker consider as a government-imposed monopoly?
Private property, particularly in land! As he states "Anarchism
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based upon
actual occupancy and use" and that anarchism "means the abolition
of landlordism and the annihilation of rent." [Instead of a Book,
p. 61, p. 300] This, to state the obvious, is a restriction on
"private property" (in the capitalist sense), which, if we use
Caplan's definition of socialism, means that Tucker was obviously
part of the "Leftist camp" (i.e. socialist camp). In other words,
Tucker considered capitalism as the product of statism while
socialism (libertarian of course) would be the product of anarchy.
So, Caplan's historical argument to support his notion that anarchism
is simply anti-government fails. Anarchism, in all its many forms, have
distinct economic as well as political ideas and these cannot be parted
without loosing what makes anarchism unique. In particular, Caplan's
attempt to portray Proudhon as an example of a "pure" anti-government
anarchism also fails, and so his attempt to co-opt Tucker and Spooner
also fails (as noted, Tucker cannot be classed as a "pure" anti-government
anarchist either). If Proudhon was a socialist, then it follows that his
self-proclaimed followers will also be socialists -- and, unsurprisingly,
Tucker called himself a socialist and considered anarchism as part of
the wider socialist movement.
Caplan tries to build upon the non-existent foundation of Tucker's and
Proudhon's "capitalism" by stating that:
There is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin to
prove the historical validity of "anarcho"-capitalism. This is because
while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the anarchist movement,
Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist! In
State Socialism and Anarchism he stated that anarchism was "an ideal
utterly inconsistent with that of those Communists who falsely call
themselves Anarchists while at the same time advocating a regime of
Archism fully as despotic as that of the State Socialists themselves."
["State Socialism and Anarchism", Instead of a Book, pp. 15-16]
While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying Proudhon
or Tucker as anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title to supporters
of capitalism. Why? Simply because anarchism as a political movement
(as opposed to a dictionary definition) has always been anti-capitalist
and against capitalist wage slavery, exploitation and oppression. In
other words, anarchism (in all its forms) has always been associated
with specific political and economic ideas. Both Tucker and Kropotkin
defined their anarchism as an opposition to both state and capitalism. To
quote Tucker on the subject:
Kropotkin defined anarchism as "the no-government system of socialism."
[Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 46] Malatesta argued that
"when [people] sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it
was anarchy was born" and, like Tucker, aimed for "the complete
destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man."
[Life and Ideas, p. 19, pp. 22-28] Indeed every leading anarchist
theorist defined anarchism as opposition to government and
exploitation. Thus Brain Morris' excellent summary:
Therefore anarchism was never purely a political concept, but always
combined an opposition to oppression with an opposition to exploitation.
Little wonder, then, that both strands of anarchism have declared
themselves "socialist" and so it is "conceptually and historically
misleading" to "create a dichotomy between socialism and anarchism."
[Brian Morris, Op. Cit., p. 39] Needless to say, anarchists oppose
state socialism just as much as they oppose capitalism. All of
which means that anarchism and capitalism are two different
political ideas with specific (and opposed) meanings -- to deny
these meanings by uniting the two terms creates an oxymoron, one
that denies the history and the development of ideas as well
as the whole history of the anarchist movement itself.
As Kropotkin knew Proudhon to be an anti-capitalist, a socialist (but
not a communist) it is hardly surprising that he mentions him. Again,
Caplan's attempt to provide historical evidence for a "right-wing"
anarchism fails. Funny that the followers of Kropotkin are now defending
individualist anarchism from the attempted "adoption" by supporters of
capitalism! That in itself should be enough to indicate Caplan's attempt
to use Kropotkin to give credence to "anarcho"-capitalist co-option of
Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner fails.
Interestingly, Caplan admits that "anarcho"-capitalism has recent origins.
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?) he states:
Firstly, as he states, Tucker and Spooner have been "adopted" by the
"anarcho"-capitalist school. Being dead they have little chance to
protest such an adoption, but it is clear that they considered themselves
as socialists, against capitalism (it may be claimed that Spooner never
called himself a socialist, but then again he never called himself an
anarchist either; it is his strong opposition to wage labour that places
him in the socialist camp). Secondly, Caplan lets the cat out the bag by
noting that this "adoption" involved a few warnings - more specifically,
the attempt to rubbish or ignore the underlying socio-economic ideas of
Tucker and Spooner and the obvious anti-capitalist nature of their
vision of a free society.
Individualist anarchists are, indeed, more similar to classical liberals
than social anarchists. Similarly, social anarchists are more similar to
Marxists than Individualist anarchists. But neither statement means that
Individualist anarchists are capitalists, or social anarchists are state
socialists. It just means some of their ideas overlap -- and we must point
out that Individualist anarchist ideas overlap with Marxist ones, and
social anarchist ones with liberal ones (indeed, one interesting
overlap between Marxism and Individualist Anarchism can be seen from
Marx's comment that abolishing interest and inter-bearing capital
"means the abolition of capital and of capitalist production itself."
[Theories of Surplus Value, vol. 3, p. 472] Given that Individualist
Anarchism aimed to abolish interest (along with rent and profit) it
would suggest, from a Marxist position, that it is a socialist theory).
So, if we accept Kropotkin's summary that Individualist Anarchism
ideas are "partly those of Proudhon, but party those of Herbert
Spencer" [Kropotkins' Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 173], what
the "anarcho"-capitalist school is trying to is to ignore the
Proudhonian (i.e. socialist) aspect of their theories. However,
that just leaves Spencer and Spencer was not an anarchist, but a
right-wing Libertarian, a supporter of capitalism (a "champion of
the capitalistic class" as Tucker put it). In other words, to
ignore the socialist aspect of Individualist Anarchism (or
anarchism in general) is to reduce it to liberalism, an extreme
version of liberalism, but liberalism nevertheless -- and liberalism
is not anarchism. To reduce anarchism so is to destroy what makes
anarchism a unique political theory and movement:
In other words, "anarcho"-capitalism is a development of ideas
which have little in common with anarchism. Jeremy Jennings, in
his overview of anarchist theory and history, agrees:
Barbara Goodwin also agrees that the "anarcho"-capitalists' "true
place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism
[Using Political Ideas, p. 148]. Indeed, that "anarcho"-capitalism
is an off-shoot of classical liberalism is a position Murray Rothbard
would agree with, as he states that right-wing Libertarians constitute
"the vanguard of classical liberalism." [quoted by Ulrike Heider,
Anarchism: Left, Right and Green, p. 95] Unfortunately for this
perspective anarchism is not liberalism and liberalism is not anarchism.
And equally as unfortunate (this time for the anarchist movement!)
"anarcho"-capitalism "is judged to be anarchism largely because some
anarcho-capitalists say they are 'anarchists' and because they
criticise the State." [Peter Sabatini, Social Anarchism, no. 23,
p. 100] However, being opposed to the state is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for being an anarchist (as can be seen from the
history of the anarchist movement). Brian Morris puts it well when
he writes:
Rather than call themselves by a name which reflects their origins
in liberalism (and not anarchism), the "anarcho"-capitalists have
instead seen fit to try and appropriate the name of anarchism and,
in order to do so, ignore key aspects of anarchist theory in the
process. Little wonder, then, they try and prove their anarchist
credentials via dictionary definitions rather than from the
anarchist movement itself (see next section).
Caplan's attempt in his FAQ is an example to ignore individualist
anarchist theory and history. Ignored is any attempt to understand
their ideas on property and instead Caplan just concentrates on the
fact they use the word. Caplan also ignores:
In fact, the only things considered useful seems to be the individualist
anarchist's support for free agreement (something Kropotkin also agreed
with) and their use of the word "property." But even a cursory investigation
indicates the non-capitalist nature of their ideas on property and
the socialistic nature of their theories.
Perhaps Caplan should ponder these words of Kropotkin supporters of the
"individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians . . . soon realise
that the individualisation they so highly praise is not attainable by
individual efforts, and . . . abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and
are driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economist."
[Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 297]
Caplan seems to confuse the end of the ending place of ex-anarchists
with their starting point. As can be seen from his attempt to co-opt
Proudhon, Spooner and Tucker he has to ignore their ideas and rewrite
history.
1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.
"A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely sceptical about
the anarchist credentials of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that
the anarchist movement has historically been clearly leftist. In
my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history
to maintain this claim."
"To be sure, there is a difference between
individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or
communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a
communist anarchist. But the communist anarchists
also do not acknowledge any right to society to
force the individual. They differ from the anarchistic
individualists in their belief that men, if freed from
coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a
communistic type, while the other wing believes that
the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation.
The communist anarchists repudiate the right of private
property which is maintained through the power of the
state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to
maintain private property as a necessary condition of
individual independence, without fully answering the
question of how property could be maintained without
courts and police."
2 - Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?
"If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- 'advocacy
of government ownership of the means of production' -- it seems
that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But if by
socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as 'advocacy of
the strong restriction or abolition of private property,' then
the question becomes more complex."
"The point to stress is that all anarchists [including Spooner and Tucker],
and not only those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of
anarchist communism have been critical of private property to the extent
that it was a source of hierarchy and privilege."
"It will be seen from this definition that Anarchistic property
concerns only products. But anything is a product upon which human
labour has been expended. 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]
"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
. . . 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. . . 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]
"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." [Instead of a Book, p. 404]
"through Political Economy we must turn the theory of Property against
Property in such a way as to create what you German socialists call
community and which for the moment I will only go so far as calling
liberty or equality." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
p. 151]
"Modern 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]
3 - Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?
"Proudhon envisions a free society as one in which small craftsmen,
peasants, and collectively owned industrial enterprises negotiate
and contract with each other to satisfy their material needs.
Exploitation is brought to an end. . . Although these views
involve a break with capitalism, by no means can they be regarded
as communist ideas. . ." [p. 18]
"He [Proudhon] was denouncing the property of a man who uses it to
exploit the labour of others, without an effort on his own part,
property distinguished by interest and rent, by the impositions
of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as
'possession,' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the
land and tools he needs to live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed
he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty." ["On Proudhon's
'What is Property?'", The Raven No. 31, pp. 208-9]
"All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the
fruits of their labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only
the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy
(that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed
artisan, he said 'property is liberty', which seems at first sight a
contradiction with his dictum that it was theft)"[Anarchism: Arguments
For and Against, pp. 12-13]
"The importance of their work lies not in their petty union interests,
but in their denial of the rule of capitalists, usurers, and governments,
which the first [French] revolution left undisturbed. Afterwards, when
they have conquered the political lie. . . the groups of workers should
take over the great departments of industry which are their natural
inheritance." [cited in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, E. Hymans, pp. 190-1,
and Anarchism, George Woodcock, p. 110, 112]
"In democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of
industrial democracy." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon, p. 63]
4 - Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism.
"It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save
his declaration that 'property is robbery' to learn that he was
perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived
on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when
you read his book and find that by property he means simply
legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at
all the possession by the labourer of his products."
"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses,
and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer."
[cited in Men against the State by James J. Martin, p. 208]
"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England,
in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist,
and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The
Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy,
1839)." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 291]
"liberty insists on Socialism. . . - true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism:
the prevalence on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." [Instead of
a Book, p. 363]
"Still other anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin
Tucker as well as Proudhon, have argued that anarchism would
abolish the exploitation inherent in interest and rent simply by
means of free competition. In their view, only labour income is
legitimate, and an important piece of the case for anarchism is
that without government-imposed monopolies, non-labour income
would be driven to zero by market forces. It is unclear, however,
if they regard this as merely a desirable side effect, or if they
would reject anarchism if they learned that the predicted
economic effect thereof would not actually occur."
"Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will
abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will
abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means
whereby any labourer can be deprived of any of his product."
[Instead of a Book, p. 347]
"the American anarchists exposed the tension existing in
liberal thought between private property and the ideal of
equal access. The Individualist Anarchists were, at least,
aware that existing conditions were far from ideal, that
the system itself worked against the majority of individuals
in their efforts to attain its promises. Lack of capital,
the means to creation and accumulation of wealth, usually
doomed a labourer to a life of exploitation. This the
anarchists knew and they abhorred such a system." [The
Individualist Anarchists, p. 102]
"Like Proudhon, Tucker was an 'un-marxian socialist'" [William O.
Reichart, Partisans of Freedom: A Study in American Anarchism,
p. 157]
5 - Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
"Nor did an ardent anarcho-communist like Kropotkin deny
Proudhon or even Tucker the title of 'anarchist.' In his
Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin discusses not only
Proudhon but 'the American anarchist individualists who were
represented in the fifties by S.P. Andrews and W. Greene,
later on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented by
Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York
Liberty.' Similarly in his article on anarchism for the 1910
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Kropotkin again
freely mentions the American individualist anarchists,
including 'Benjamin Tucker, whose journal Liberty was
started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of
those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer.'"
"Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition
of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation
of man by man." [cited in Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing
American Individualism by Eunice Schuster, p. 140]
"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of
politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil,
ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a
misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way
anarchism has been defined [in dictionaries, for example], and
partly because Marxist historians have tried to exclude anarchism
from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the
writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character
of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has
never had this limited vision. It has always challenged all
forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally
critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state."
["Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
Armed no. 45, p. 40]
"Anarcho-capitalism has a much more recent origin in the latter
half of the 20th century. The two most famous advocates of
anarcho-capitalism are probably Murray Rothbard and David
Friedman. There were however some interesting earlier precursors,
notably the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari. Two other
19th-century anarchists who have been adopted by modern
anarcho-capitalists with a few caveats are Benjamin Tucker and
Lysander Spooner. (Some left-anarchists contest the adoption,
but overall Tucker and Spooner probably have much more in
common with anarcho-capitalists than with left-anarchists.)"
"anarchism does derive from liberalism and socialism both
historically and ideologically . . . In a sense, anarchists
always remain liberals and socialists, and whenever they reject
what is good in either they betray anarchism itself . . . We are
liberals but more so, and socialists but more so." [Nicholas Walter,
Reinventing Anarchy, p. 44]
"It is hard not to conclude that these ideas ["anarcho"-capitalism] --
with roots deep in classical liberalism -- are described as anarchist
only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is."
[Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony
Wright (eds.), p. 142]
"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no
ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government
or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination.
They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores
Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the
church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to
the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But
anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means,
a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without
coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation
of voluntary associations. Contemporary 'right-wing' libertarians
. . . who are often described as 'anarchocapitalists' and who
fervently defend capitalism, are not in any real sense anarchists."
[Op. Cit., p. 38]