(Redirected from Individual anarchism)
'Individualist anarchism' (also 'anarchist individualism', 'anarcho-individualism', 'individualistic anarchism') refers to any of several traditions that hold that "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority"
[Heywood, Andrew, Key Concepts in Politics, Palgrave, ISBN 0-312-23381-7, 2000, p. 46] and that the
state, decreed and legislated law, and "the system of democracy, of majority decision, is held null and void."
[1] Individualist anarchism, which may be seen as
classical liberalism "taken to the extreme,"
[2] stresses the importance of individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, private property or possession, and opposes all monopolies (which they believe are state created and/or maintained
[3]).
[2]
''Individualist'' anarchism is seen by many as one of two main categories or wings of
anarchism — the other has been called ''social''
[5], ''
socialist''
[6], ''
collectivist''
[7], or ''
communitarian''
[8]anarchism.
[9] One view is that the individualist wing of anarchism emphasises
negative liberty, i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual, while those in the collectivist wing emphasise
positive liberty to achieve one's potential and argue for that humans have needs that society ought to fulfill, "recognizing equality of entitlement".
[10] Another distinction is that unlike the social/socialist/collectivist/communitarian wing which advocates common ownership as a means to eliminate unequal economic power, individualist anarchism is supportive of property being held privately, and in the case of the most prevalent strain of anarcho-individualism, advocates that this property be distributed through markets.
[11]
Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic philosophies; there are "several traditions of individualist anarchism."
[12] Early individualist anarchists were motivated by progressive
rationalism (in the case of
William Godwin),
Max Stirner's
rational egoism, and
Herbert Spencer's view that social evolution will render the state redundant.
[13] Individualist forms of anarchism have appeared most often in the
United States among such figures as
Josiah Warren,
Benjamin Tucker,
Lysander Spooner,
Ezra Heywood,
Stephen Pearl Andrews, and
Murray Rothbard.
["Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), American economist, historian, and individualist anarchist." Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282] Notable contemporary individualist anarchists include
Kevin Carson,
Joe Peacott,
Wendy McElroy and
David D. Friedman.
Overview
While individualist anarchism is often seen as including
William Godwin and
Max Stirner, it is most often associated with the ''market anarchism'' found in the American Tradition, which advocates individual ownership of the produce of labor and a
market economy where this property may be bought and sold. However, this form of individualist anarchism is not exclusive to the Americas. It is also found in the philosophy of other radical individualists, such as those in England and France though almost all were influenced by the early American individualists. Individualist anarchism of this type contrasts with
social(ist) anarchism which holds that productive property should be in the control of the society at large in various forms of worker collectives and that the produce of labor should be collectivized. Most of the individualist anarchists in the 19th and 18th centuries adhered to a labor theory of value, and hence, saw profit as subverting natural law. However, there have been a few theorists in the 19th and 18th centuries that did not adhere to labor-value. These include
Jakob Mauvillon,
Julius Faucher,
Gustave de Molinari,
Auberon Herbert, and
Herbert Spencer. By the 20th century, many rejected the labor theory of value, especially its
just price interpretation, for the mainstream
marginal utility theory of value:
Albert Jay Nock,
Murray Rothbard and
David D. Friedman among others.
There is a pure egoist form of individualist anarchism, derived from the writings of Max Stirner, which supports the individual doing exactly what he pleases, taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules.
[14] Stirner preached self-assertion and foresaw a "Union of Egoists" who are drawn together by respect for each other's ruthlessness.
[15] However, individualist anarchists are typically
market anarchists. Their essential objection to the state is that it is a monopoly on the use of force in that it punishes those who would (personally, or through mutual aid or contract) enforce their own rights, and because it requires purchase of that monopoly service through coercive taxation.
[16] They believe that the institutions necessary for the function of a
free market, which may include money, police, and courts, should be supplied by the market itself. But, beyond this there is disagreement among different market anarchists in regard to particular issues.
Individualist anarchists use the term "capitalism" in different ways: Some, such as Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, and Kevin Carson use "capitalism" to mean the monopolization of capital,
[17][18] while others, such as Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and Wendy McElroy
[19] define "capitalism" as a laissez-faire free market capitalist economy.
[20] Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that emerged in the middle of the 20th century, through the writings of
Murray Rothbard with his rejection of the nineteenth century individualists'
labor theory of value.
Agorism is a form of market anarchism popularized by the late
Samuel Edward Konkin III, which emphasizes counter-economic activity, and is described by agorists as
left-libertarian.
Anti-capitalist individualist anarchism declined through much of the twentieth century, but has recently aroused renewed interest.
[21]
Individualist anarchism is sometimes seen as an evolution of
classical liberalism, and hence, has been called "liberal anarchism."
[22] Benjamin Tucker, for example, was influenced by
Herbert Spencer, as he took up Spencer's "
law of equal liberty."
Historical development
Precursors and early anarchists
William Godwin
Main articles: William Godwin
William Godwin, of England, wrote essays advocating an eventual society with minimal government that are considered by many to be some of the first, if not the first, anarchist treatises. As such, some consider the
liberal British writer to be the "father of philosophical anarchism." He is regarded by some as one of the first individualist anarchists, although his philosophy had some communist-like characteristics. He advocated an extreme form of individualism, proposing that all sorts of cooperation in labor should be eliminated; he says: "everything understood by the term co-operation is in some sense an evil."
[23]
Godwin's individualism was to such a radical degree that he even opposed individuals performing together in orchestras. The only apparent exception to this opposition to cooperation is the spontaneous association that may arise when a society is threatened by violent force. One reason he opposed cooperation is he believed it to interfere with an individual's ability to be benevolent for the greater good. Godwin opposes the idea of government, but wrote that it may be necessary until people are educated and nurtured sufficiently. He expressly opposed democracy, fearing oppression of the individual by the majority (though he believes democracy to be preferable to dictatorship).
Godwin supported individual ownership of property, defining it as "the empire to which every man is entitled over the produce of his own industry." However, he also advocated that individuals give to each other their surplus property on the occasion that others have a need for it, without involving trade (see ''
gift economy''). Thus, while people have the right to private property, they ''should'' give it away as enlightened altruists. This was to be based on
utilitarian principles; he said: "Every man has a right to that, the exclusive possession of which being awarded to him, a greater sum of benefit or pleasure will result than could have arisen from its being otherwise appropriated." However, benevolence was not to be enforced but a matter of free individual "private judgement." He did not advocate a community of goods or assert collective ownership as is embraced in communism, but his belief that individuals ought to share with those in need was influential on
anarchist communism later.
Godwin's political views were diverse and do not perfectly agree with any of the ideologies that claim his influence. Writers of the Socialist Standard consider Godwin both an individualist and a communist.
[24] Murray Rothbard did not regard Godwin as being in the individualist camp at all, and refers to him as the "founder of communist anarchism."
[Rothbard, Murray. "Edmund Burke, Anarchist."] Historian Albert Weisbord considers him an individualist anarchist without reservation.
[25] Some writers see a conflict between Godwin's advocacy of "private judgement" and utilitarianism, as he says that ethics requires that individuals give their surplus property to each other resulting in an egalitarian society, but, at the same time, he insists that all things be left to individual choice.
[ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Many of Godwin's views changed over time, as noted by
Peter Kropotkin.
Pierre Proudhon
Main articles: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
France's Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first philosopher to label himself an "anarchist." Though Proudhon himself is not always considered an individualist anarchist (some say he is a social(ist) anarchist.
[26]), he was extremely influential among the American individualists, mainly by way of William Greene and Benjamin Tucker who had studied and translated his works. Proudhon opposed government privilege that protects capitalist, banking and land interests, and the accumulation or acquisition of property (and any form of coercion that led to it) which he believed hampers competition and keeps wealth in the hands of the few. Proudhon favoured a right of individuals to retain the product of their labor as their own property, but believed that any property beyond that which an individual produced and could possess was illegitimate. Thus, he saw private property as both essential to liberty and a road to tyranny, the former when it resulted from labor and was required for labor and the latter when it resulted in exploitation (profit, interest, rent, tax). He generally called the former "possession" and the latter "property." For large-scale industry, he supported workers associations to replace wage labour and opposed the ownership of land.
Proudhon maintained that those who labor should retain the entirety of what they produce, and that monopolies on credit and land are the forces that prohibiting such. He advocated an economic system that included private property as possession and exchange market but without profit, which he called
mutualism. It is Proudhon's philosophy that was explicitly rejected by
Joseph Dejacque in the inception of
anarchist-communism, with the latter asserting directly to Proudhon in a letter that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." Proudhon said that "communism...is the very denial of society in its foundation..." (''Philosophy of Poverty'') and was famous for declaring that "property is theft" in reference to his rejection of capitalism.
After Dejacque and others split from Proudhon due to the latter's support of individual property and an exchange economy, the relationship between the individualists, who continued in relative alignment with the philosophy of Proudhon, and the anarcho-communists was characterised by various degrees of antagonism and harmony. For example, individualists like Tucker on the one hand translating and reprinted the works of collectivists like
Mikhail Bakunin, while on the other hand rejecting the economic aspects of collectivism and communism as incompatible with anarchist ideals.
Max Stirner
Main articles: Philosophy of Max Stirner
Max Stirner was a philosopher whose "name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism."
[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ] In 1844, his ''
The Ego and Its Own'' (''Der Einzige and sein Eigentum'' which may literally be translated as ''The Unique Individual and His Property''
[27]) was published, which is considered to be "a founding text in the tradition of individualist anarchism."
[28] Stirner proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions - including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general, and the very notion of society - were mere ''spooks'' in the mind. Stirner wants to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members."
[29]
Property simply comes about through might: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He says, "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!"
[30]. His embrace of
egoism is in stark contrast to Godwin's
altruism. Stirner was opposed to communism, seeing it as a form of authority over the individual.
This position on property is much different from the native American, natural law, form of individualist anarchism, which defends the inviolability of the private property that has been earned through labor
[31] and trade. However, in 1886 Benjamin Tucker rejected the natural rights philosophy and adopted Stirner's egoism, with several others joining with him. This split the American individualists into fierce debate, "with the natural rights proponents accusing the egoists of destroying libertarianism itself."
[32] Other Egoists include
James L. Walker,
Sidney Parker, and
Dora Marsden.
However, it should be noted that Stirner's philosophy has also influenced some libertarian communists and anarcho-communists, such as the Egoist communists.
[33] Forms of libertarian communism such as
Situationism are strongly Egoist in nature.
[34] Anarcho-communist
Emma Goldman was influenced by both Stirner and
Peter Kropotkin and blended their philosophies together in her own, as shown in books of hers such as ''Anarchism And Other Essays''.
[35]
The American Traditions
The American version of individualist anarchism has a strong emphasis on the
non-aggression principle and
individual sovereignty.
[ Anarchism in the United States, Madison, Charles A., , , Journal of the History of Ideas, 1945 ] Some, such as
Henry David Thoreau, do not speak of economics but simply the right of "disunion" from the state, and foresee the gradual elimination of the state through social evolution. However, most of the individualists are
market anarchists, and therefore support provision of defense of the individual and his property being supplied by multiple competing providers in a free market.
This may further be broadly divided into those who hold to a labor theory of value and those who do not. Some of the latter are often referred to as "anarcho-capitalists." Those referred to as 'anarcho-capitalists', do not oppose things such as profit, rent, loans or interest. They also do not object to workplace hierarchy or boss-worker economic relationship so long as such relationship as seen as non-coerced or in existence through non-aggression. Among the market anarchists, there is a strong advocacy of
private property in the product of labor, and a competitive free market economy. Unlike
social(ist) anarchists, individualists do not advocate the socialization or collectivization of the means or production.
An early individualist anarchist who was very influential was
Josiah Warren, who had participated in a failed collective "utopian socialist" experiment headed by
Robert Owen called "
New Harmony" and came to the conclusion that such a system is inferior to one that respects the "sovereignty
[Manifesto](_blank) of the individual" and his right to dispose of his property as his own self-interest prescribes. According to Warren, there should be abolutely no community of property; all property should be individualized, and "those who advocated any type of communism with connected property, interests, and responsibilities were doomed to failure because of the individuality of the persons involved in such as experiment."
[36] In a much cited quotation from ''Practical Details'', where he discusses his conclusions in regard to the experiment, he makes a vehement assertion of individual
negative liberty:
Warren supported private property and trade. However, he held the
labor theory of value, and from that he concluded that labor should always trade for an equal amount of labor. He believed that exchanges of unequal amounts of labor, or of goods that required unequal amounts of labor to produce, were always exploitative or unfair to the trader having to sacrifice more of his own labor than the other trader. (Proudhon was to also later to come to a similar conclusion.) His motto become "
Cost the limit of price," with "cost" referring to the actual labor that was expended. He opposed what he called "value being made the limit of price," where individuals make exchanges of goods and services based on simply on how much they value what they are purchasing.
[37] To ensure that labor received what he believed to be its
just price - an equal amount of labor - he advocated that a form of money called "
labor notes" be used, which represented labor times. In this way, labor would always be exchanged with an equal amount of labor and goods would always be purchased with an equal amount of labor that was exerted to produce those goods. But, he did not confine this to theory. He put labor notes into exercise in experimental communities which he set up.
The "Boston Anarchists"
Benjamin Tucker, and a series of other anarchists centered in the Boston area, were influenced by Warren and also a proponent of this interpretation of the labor theory of value. Tucker believed that it was unjust for individuals to receive greater income while performing less labor than others. Tucker asserted that the solution to bring wages up to be their proper level was for the state to cease interfering in the economy and protecting monopolies from competition. Like Warren, he saw income derived without labor to be exploitative (with the exception of gifts and inheritance
[38]). He argued that lending money for interest involved no labor on the part of the lender and therefore saw interest charges as usurious. Rent was also seen as unjust because it involved obtaining an income without labor. To Tucker and most of his contemporary individualists, rent of land is only made possible by government-backed "monopoly" and "privilege" that restricts competition in the marketplace and concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. Tucker contended that private control of land should be supported only if the possessor of that land is using it, otherwise, the possessor would be able to charge rent to others without laboring to produce something. Tucker envisioned an individualist anarchist society as ''"each man reaping the fruits of his labour and no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital....become[ing] a great hive of Anarchistic workers, prosperous and free individuals [combining] to carry on their production and distribution on the cost principle."''
[39] However, not all of the early individualist anarchists held this philosophy of land ownership. Warren and Lysander Spooner placed no restrictions on occupancy and use for ownership.
Steven T. Byington also opposed Tucker's ideas on occupancy and use requirements for land titles.
[40]
Tucker and other nineteenth century individualists in his circle supported replacing the security functions of the state with private defense that charges for its services of protecting liberty and property. Benjamin Tucker says: :
He said that anarchism "does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders."
[41] But Spooner argued that a society with unequal conditions would lead to a society of unfree associations. He argued for the right of everyone to hold land and have access to defence association, arguing that without such, ''"[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."''
[42] As far as a judicial system, many of these individualists such as Lysander Spooner supported a jury trial with the right of the jury to nullify law, ''"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,"''
[43] however some such as
Steven T. Byington opposed such a system saying that there is a "need for certainty in some kinds of laws." Byington suggested that adjudications be done by judges "on a business basis" through private arbitration.
[McElroy, Wendy. A Reconsideration of Trial by Jury, ''Forumulations'', Winter 1998-1999, Free Nation Foundation]
Voltairine de Cleyre, summed up the philosophy by saying that the anarchist individualists "are firm in the idea that the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State."
[44] According to Charles A. Madison,
Stephen Pearl Andrews "spoke for all" of the nineteenth century individualist anarchists when he said, "It is right that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily in the performance of labor."
[45] Andrews said, "It is not in any, nor in all of these features combined, that the wrong of our present system is to be sought and found. It is in the simply failure to do Equity. It is not that men are employed and paid, but that they are not paid justly..."
[46] For Andrews, to be paid justly was to be paid according to the "Cost Principle," which held that individuals should be paid according to the amount of labor they exert. To simplify this process, he, after Josiah Warren, advocated an economy that uses "labor notes." Labor notes are money marked in labor hours (adjusted for different types of labor based on their difficulty or repugnance). In this way, it is the amount, difficulty, and danger of labor that determines the pay of the employee, rather than the worth of the labor in the eyes of the employer.
[47]
In regard to
intellectual property there were varying opinions. "Spooner favored intellectual property laws,
James L. Walker ("Tak Kak") opposed them, and others such as Tucker took an intermediate position that copyrights are legitimate only if created by contract."
[48] Spooner's reasoning was that ideas are the product of "intellectual labor" and therefore private property.
[49]
Some of the American individualist anarchists later in this era, such as Benjamin Tucker, abandoned this form of anarchism and converted to Stirner's
Egoism. Rejecting the idea of moral rights, Tucker said that there were only two rights, "the right of might" and "the right of contract." He also said, after converting to Egoist individualism, "In times past...it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off....Man's only right to land is his might over it."
[50]
Most early individualist anarchists considered themselves ''"fervent anti-capitalists… [who see] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism."''
[51] These early individualist anarchists, however, defined "capitalism" as the state-maintained monopolization of capital.
[17] Nevertheless, the early individualist anarchists did object to the profit-making aspect of capitalism, believing under the labor theory of value that making profit through capital was exploitative. It is in this sense that they were opposed to capitalism.
[53] But, they would not forcibly prevent profit making, believing it to be freedom of contract. They simply thought that profit would be eliminated through competition if the state did not protect monopolies. Some of their descendents,
[54] such as anarcho-capitalists,
[54] do not subscribe to the labor theory of value and have no objection to profit.
Anarcho-capitalism
Main articles: Anarcho-capitalism
(Rothbard circa 1955).
19th century individualist anarchists espoused the
labor theory of value. Some believe that the modern movement of anarcho-capitalism is the result of simply removing the labor theory of value from ideas of the individualist anarchists: "Their successors today, such as Murray Rothbard, having abandoned the labor theory of value, describe themselves as
anarcho-capitalists."
[Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, p. 13] As economic theory changed, the popularity of the of the labor theory of
classical economics was superseded by the
subjective theory of value of
neo-classical economics. According to
Kevin Carson (himself a
mutualist), "most people who call themselves "individualist anarchists" today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics."
[56]
Murray Rothbard, a student of
Ludwig von Mises, combined the
Austrian school economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the nineteenth century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.
[57] Rothbard said:
Anarcho-capitalists claim that in an anarcho-capitalist society no authority would prohibit anyone from providing, through the
free market, services traditionally provided by state
monopoly such as police, courts, and defense. Unlike the nineteenth century individualist anarchists, they do not believe that there is anything unjust about individuals receiving more income with laboring less. As opposed to advocating "labor for labor" trade, as advocated by Tucker and others, they support trade "on the basis of value for value."
[58] Moreover, unlike Tucker, they do not see any reason why labor costs would match up in a free market in the first place (economics inclined anarcho-capitalists believe that prices correspond to
marginal utility rather than labor). Anarcho-capitalism does not believe that laissez-faire would cause profit to disappear, nor does it consider
profit, rent, interest to be exploitative but natural and beneficial.
[59] Rothbard holds that land can only become property by using or occupying it (he does not require that land be in continual use to remain owned), and that after this it can only legitimately change hands by trade or gift.
[Rothbard, Murray (1969) ''Consfiscation and the Homestead Principle'' The Libertatian Forum Vol. I, No. VI (June 15, 1969) Retrieved 5 August 2006] Anarcho-capitalists support the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or to contract to be employees of others, whichever they prefer. David Friedman has expressed preference for a society where "almost everyone is self-employed."
[60] Anarcho-capitalism's leading proponents are
Murray Rothbard and
David Friedman and it has been influenced by non-anarchist
libertarians such as
Frederic Bastiat,
Ayn Rand and
Robert Nozick.
Rothbard wrote, Today there is a great deal of controversy over the status of anarcho-capitalism, with some writers claiming it to be a form of individualist anarchism,
[61] while others deny that it is even a form of anarchism,
[62] or deny that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism.
[63]
Agorism
Main articles: Agorism
Agorism is a radical
left-libertarian[64] form of anarchism, developed from anarcho-capitalism in the late 20th-century by
Samuel Edward Konkin III (a.k.a. SEK3). The goal of agorists is a society in which all "
relations between people are voluntary exchanges — a
free market."
[65] Agorists are
propertarian market anarchists who consider that property rights are
natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership and are not opposed in principle to collectively held property if individual owners of the property consent to collective ownership by contract or other voluntary mutual agreement. However, Agorists are divided on the question of
intellectual property rights.
[66]
Agorists consider their ideas to be an evolution and superation of those of
Murray Rothbard; Konkin described agorists as "strict Rothbardians…and even more Rothbardian than Rothbard."
[67] The characteristic distinguishing it from other forms of market anarchism is its strategic emphasis on "counter-economics" - untaxed "black" market activity. Agorism advocates achieving a
market anarchist society through
advocacy and growth of the
underground economy or "
black market" — the "counter-economy" as Konkin put it. This process is intended to continue until the State's perceived moral authority and outright power have been so thoroughly undermined that revolutionary market anarchist
legal and security enterprises are able to arise from underground and ultimately suppress government as a criminal activity. In this sense, agorism is "revolutionary
market anarchism".
[68]
Criticisms
Anarcho-communist
Murray Bookchin is critical of individualist anarchism for its opposition to democracy. He also claims that it supports only
negative liberty and rejects the idea of
positive liberty.
[69] Anarcho-communist
Albert Meltzer says that individualist anarchism differs radically from revolutionary anarchism, and it "is sometimes too readily conceded 'that this is, after all, anarchism'." He says Benjamin Tucker accepting the use of a private police force (including to break up violent strikes to protect the "employer's 'freedom'") is contradictory to the definition of anarchism of "no government."
[70] Meltzer also opposes the anarcho-capitalist form for similar reasons. He argues that since it supports "private armies" that is actually supports a "limited State." He contends that it "is only possible to conceive of Anarchism which is free, communistic and offering no economic necessity for repression of countering it."
[71] However, individualist anarchists would disagree that their philosophy supports a limited State or authoritarian force, pointing to the fact that defence associations would be freely available to all citizens and workers, ''"'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."'' and ''"inducing the people to steadily refuse the payment of rent and taxes"''
[72] The defence associations would defend "occupancy and use" and not the holding of landlords over society or those who use the land a would-be landlord claims to own.
According to Gareth Griffith,
George Bernard Shaw initially had flirtations with individualist anarchism but came to the conclusion that it was "the negation of socialism, and is, in fact, unsocialism carried as near to its logical conclusion as any sane man dare carry it." Shaw's argument was that even if wealth distribution was initially distributed equally, the amount of laissez-faire advocated by Benjamin Tucker would result in the distribution of wealth becoming unequal because it allows private appropriation and accumulation.
[73] However, individualist anarchism has never aimed for equal wealth distribution. Benjamin Tucker explained, "If I go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living."
[74] Tucker further argued that in an anarchist society where everyone is of equal condition and has equal access to land and capital, and equal access to protection, that differing accumulation of land and wealthy would not create hierarchy. He argued that ownership should operate on occupancy and use to prevent economic hierarchy - ''"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"''
[75] and that individualist anarchism "would individualise and associate" workplaces and "place the means of production within the reach of all."
[76] Thus preventing the rise of hierarchy through differing personal revenue.
Unlike anarcho-capitalists who oppose anarcho-communism because of its objection to markets and capitalist private property, anti-capitalist individualist anarchists oppose anarcho-communism because they feel that collective ownership has the potential to exploit by robbing the individual worker of the "full product" of their labor and dividing it up amongst the community. As egoist individualist Max Stirner expressed, ''"Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or collectivity…[which is] a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. 'Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity'."''
[77] However, anarcho-communists would respond pointing to the fact that they are not opposed to private ownership of property used to produce for an individual,
[78] and they are opposed to abolition of 'all' individual "property" and value the importance of individual possessions and individual space, Peter Kropotkin expressed, "desire to manage the community after the model of a family…[to live] all in the same house and…thus forced to continuously meet the same 'brethren and sisters'…[it is] a fundamental error to impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary, to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual."
[79]
References and footnotes
1. Horowitz, Irving Louis. The Anarchists. Aldine Transaction 2005, p. 49
2. anarchism. Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 21.
3. Brooks, Frank H. 1994. The Individualist Anarchists. Transaction Publishers. p.15
4. anarchism. Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 21.
5. McKay, Iain, et al.. An Anarchist FAQ [1]
6. Ostergaard, Geoffey. anarchism. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.
7. Morris, Christopher W. 1998. An Essay on the Modern State. Cambridge University Press. p 50 (uses "collectivist" and "communitarian" synonymously)
8. Robert Paul Wolff "Anarchism" The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press
9. The term "individualist anarchism" is often used as a classification term, but in very different ways. Some use the classification "social anarchism / individualist anarchism" McKay, Iain, et al.. An Anarchist FAQ [2]. Some see individualist anarchism as distinctly non-socialist, and use the classification "socialist anarchism / individualist anarchism" accordingly. Ostergaard, Geoffey. anarchism. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14. Other classifications are in use, such as "mutualist/communal" anarchism Carson, Kevin A Mutualist FAQ [3], for various reasons.
10. Harrison, Kevin and Boyd, Tony. Understanding Political Ideas and Movements. Manchester University Press 2003, p. 251
11. Freeden, Micheal. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019829414X. pp. 314
12. Ward, Colin. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 2.
13. Michael Freeden identifies four broad types of individualist anarchism. He says the first is the type associated with William Godwin that advocates self-government with a "progressive rationalism that included benevolence to others." The second type is the amoral self-serving rationality of Egoism, as most associated with Max Stirner. The third type is "found in Herbert Spencer's early predictions, and in that of some of his disciples such as Donisthorpe, foreseeing the redundancy of the state in the source of social evolution." The fourth type retains a moderated form of egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of market relationships. From Freeden, Micheal. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019829414X. pp. 313-314
14. Miller, David. "anarchism." 1987. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p 11
15. Woodcock. George. 2004. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Broadview Press. p 20
16. S.B. Drury. Robert Nozick And the Right to Property.Theories of Property: Aristotle to the Present : Essays. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Parel, Anthony & Thomas Flanagan, eds. p. 361
17. Schwartzman, Jack. Ingalls, Hanson, and Tucker: Nineteenth-Century American Anarchists. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 5 (November, 2003). p. 325
18. Carson, Kevin, ''Studies in Mutualist Political Economy'', preface and chapter 5.
19. McElroy, Wendy. Capitalism Versus the Free Market. 20. Tormey, Simon, ''Anti-Capitalism, A Beginner's Guide'', Oneworld Publications, 2004, p. 118-119 "Pro-capitalist anarchism, is as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the U.S. where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be."
21. See, for example, the Winter 2006 issue of the ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'', dedicated to reviews of Kevin Carson's ''Studies in Mutualist Political Economy.'' Mutualists also compose one bloc, along with agorists and geo-libertarians, in the recently formed Alliance of the Libertarian Left.
22. ''Liberal Anarchism'' Chapter 8 of ''Conquest of Power'' by Albert Weisbord. Also, "Whereas collectivist anarchists derive their ideas from socialism, individualist anarchists derive their ideas largely from classical liberal thinking." Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thornes (2003), p. 3
23. Godwin, William. (2006). In Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9037183
24. "William Godwin, Shelly and Communism" by ALB, The Socialist Standard
25. http://www.weisbord.org/conquest8.htm
26. Bowen, James & Purkis, Jon. 2004.Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Manchester University Press. p. 24
27. Moggach, Douglas. The New Hegelians. Cambridge University Press. p. 177
28. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Max Stirner
29. Heider, Ulrike. ''Anarchism: Left, Right and Green'', San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994, pp. 95-96
30. Stirner, Max. The Ego and Its Own, p. 248
31. Weir, David. Anarchy & Culture. University of Massachusetts Press. 1997. p. 146
32. McElroy, Wendy. Benjamin Tucker, Individualism, & Liberty: Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order. LITERATURE OF LIBERTY: A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY LIBERAL THOUGHT (1978-1982). Institute for Human Studies. Autumn 1981, VOL. IV, NO. 3
33. For Ourselves, [http://thinkerforum.com/uploads/right_to_be_greedy.pdf ''The Right to Be Greedy: Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything'', 1974.
34. see, for example, Christopher Gray, ''Leaving the Twentieth Century'', p. 88.
35. Emma Goldman, ''Anarchism and Other Essays'', p. 50.
36. Butler, Ann Caldwell. Josiah Warren and the Sovereignty of the Individual. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IV, No. 4 (Fall 1980)
37. Josiah Warren, ''Equitable Commerce'' (1849), p. 10.
38. Tucker, Benjamin. State Socialism and Anarchism
39. The Individualist Anarchists, p. 276
40. Carl Watner. Benjamin Tucker and His Periodical, Liberty. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 308
41. Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty October 19, 1891
42. Spooner, Lysander. No Treason
43. Spooner, Lysander. Natural Law
44. de Cleyre, Voltairine. Anarchism. Originally published in ''Free Society'', 13 October 1901. Published in Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre, SUNY Press 2005, p. 224
45. Madison, Charles A. Anarchism in America. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 6, No 1, Jan 1945, p. 53. He cites The Science of Society, by Stephen Pearl Andrews, New York 1853, 149
46. Andrews, Stephen Pearl. The Science of Society. Nichols, 1854. p. 211
47. explained in The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews. Nichols, 1854. pp. 186-214
48. Review by Edward P. Stringham of The Debates if ''Liberty'': An Overview of Individualist Anrachism, 1881-1908. The Independent Review. VOLUME IX, NUMBER 1, SUMMER 2004, p. 144 [4]
49. Spooner, Lysander. The Law of Intellectual Property: or an essay on the right of authors and inventors to a perpetual property in their ideas., Chaper 1, Section VI.
50. Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 350
51. Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 107 and p. 104)
52. Schwartzman, Jack. Ingalls, Hanson, and Tucker: Nineteenth-Century American Anarchists. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 5 (November, 2003). p. 325
53. McElroy, Wendy. 2000. American Anarchism. The Independent Institute.
54. Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 103)
55. Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 103)
56. Carson, Kevin. Mutualist Political Economy, Preface
57. Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, ISBN 0-631-17944-5, p. 290
58. Karl Hess in ''The Death of Politics'', 1969.
59. Rothbard, Murray. The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View
60. Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Harper & Row. pp. 144-145 "Instead of corporation there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells, not his time, but what his time produces."
61.
★ Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, ''The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought'', W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
★ Bottomore, Tom. '' Dictionary of Marxist Thought'', ''Anarchism'' entry, 1991.
★ Barry, Norman. ''Modern Political Theory'', 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
★ Adams, Ian. ''Political Ideology Today'', Manchester University Press (2002) ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135
★ Grant, Moyra. ''Key Ideas in Politics'', Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN 0-7487-7096-8, p. 91
★ Heider, Ulrike. ''Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green'', City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
★ Avrich, Paul. ''Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
★ Tormey, Simon. ''Anti-Capitalism'', One World, 2004. pp. 118-119
★ Raico, Ralph. ''Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century'', Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.
★ Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger/Greenwood (2000), p. 4
★ Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Second Edition, Palgrave (2002), p. 61
★ Offer, John. ''Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments'', Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243
62.
★ K, David. "What is Anarchism?" BASTARD Press (2005)
★ Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible, London: Fontana Press, 1992 (ISBN 0 00 686245 4) Chapter 38
★ MacSaorsa, Iain. "Is "anarcho" capitalism against the state?" SPUNK Press (archive)
★ Wells, Sam. "Anarcho-Capitalism is Not Anarchism, and Political Competition is Not Economic Competition" Frontlines 1 (Jan 1979)
63.
★ Peikoff, Leonard. 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' Dutton Adult (1991) Chapter "Government"
★ Doyle, Kevin. 'Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias' New York: Lexington Books, (2002) p.447-8
★ Sheehan, Seán M. 'Anarchism' Reaktion Books, 2003 p. 17
★ Kelsen, Hans. The Communist Theory of Law. Wm. S. Hein Publishing (1988) p. 110
★ Egbert. Tellegen, Maarten. Wolsink 'Society and Its Environment: an introduction' Routledge (1998) p. 64
★ Jones, James 'The Merry Month of May' Akashic Books (2004) p. 37-38
★ Sparks, Chris. Isaacs, Stuart 'Political Theorists in Context' Routledge (2004) p. 238
★ Bookchin, Murray. 'Post-Scarcity Anarchism' AK Press (2004) p. 37
★ Berkman, Alexander. 'Life of an Anarchist' Seven Stories Press (2005) p. 268
64. Though this term is non-standard usage - by "left" they mean revolutionary rather than socialist.
65. Konkin, Samuel Edward. New Libertarian Manifesto
66. Konkin wrote the article "Copywrongs"in opposition to the concept and Schulman countered SEK3's arguments in "Informational Property: Logorights."
67. "Interview With Samuel Edward Konkin III"
68. ''Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism.'' Agorism.info
69. Bookchin, Murray. Communalism: The Democratic Dimensions of Social Anarchism. Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998, AK Press 1999, p. 155
70. Meltzer, Albert. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. AK Press, 2000. pp. 114-115
71. Meltzer, Albert. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. AK Press, 2000. p 50
72. quoted by Martin Blatt, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 299
73. Griffith, Gareth. Socialism and Superior Brain: The Political Thought of George Bernard Shaw. Routledge (UK). 1993. p. 310
74. Tucker, Benjamin. Economic Rent.
75. The Anarchist Reader, p. 150
76. quoted by James J. Martin, Men Against the State, p. 228
77. The Ego and Its Own, p. 257
78. Kropotkin Act for yourselves. N.Walter and H. Becker, eds. (London: Freedom Press 1985) [p. 104-5]
79. Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail, pp. 8-9
See also
External links
Primary literature
★
''A Vindication of Natural Society: or, a View of the Miseries and Evils arising to Mankind from every Species of Artificial Society'' by
Edmund Burke - some regard this liberal essay to be the first to advocate anarchy
★
''State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein they differ.'' by
Benjamin Tucker (1886)
★
''Enquiry Concerning Political Justice'' by
William Godwin
★
''The Ego and his Own'' by
Max Stirner, translated by Christian individualist anarchist
Steven T. Byington
★
''Manifesto'' by Josiah Warren
★
''Equitable Commerce'' by Josiah Warren
Secondary literature
★
A critique of Individualist Anarchism by Murray Bookchin
★
Proudhon and Anarchism by Larry Gambone
Resources and organizations
★
''Individualist Anarchist Resources''
★
Bad Press Contemporary Individualist Anarchist Publications
★
Individualist-Anarchist.Net
★
Individualist Anarchist Society at UC Berkeley
★
The Alliance of the Libertarian Left
★
Articles by Wendy McElroy about Individualist Anarchism
العربية
ä¸å›½
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€
Italiano
日本語
Português
РуÑÑкий
Español
