Individualist Anarchism vs. "Libertarianism" and Anarchocomm

[Howard509]

Individualist Anarchism vs. "Libertarianism" and Anarchocommunism
by Wendy McElroy
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mcelroy1.html

This is a favorable perspective on the place of anarcho-capitalism within individualist anarchism featured on this site. May we please have a rational discussion of the article itself, rather than resorting to personal attacks? I've actually read this article, and am honestly interested in your understanding of its history.

[Zazaban]

It generally makes sense. Though I think some of the ethics it attributes to Individualist anarchism can also be applied to communist anarchism. The hardcore class war view that she ascribes to social anarchists is not in use for the most part.

[shawnpwilbur]

Reading the piece, the first thing evident is the tone. The bit about "radical chic" at the beginning is sort of appalling. The First International is simply symbolic here, useful for a joke at the expense of radicals and then as a kind of credential for individualist anarchism as itself "real" anarchism of the old school. Cringe. The history is a little muddy, since it was mutualism which was particularly present in the International. Tucker certainly contributed to the prominence of individualism in the anarchist movement of the next generation, but it was the Proudhonists, Stephen Pearl Andrews, William West, and to a lesser degree folks like William B. Greene who represented the tradition we now think of as particularly individualistic.

The treatment of the LTV is a little lacking, since the contention that "labor creates all wealth" was not, in practice, incompatible with subjective valuation (in Warren) or conventional approaches to price (in Proudhon) that amounted to the same thing. The LTV was not a uniform theory of price, as an-caps often assume, and the Cost Principle had an important subjective component in it. Equating individual sovereignty with self-ownership is fine, as long as there is no implied agreement with specific property theories.

Many of the differences claimed between the traditions seem based in a reading primarily of Tucker, and perhaps a rather selective one. I'm happy to give Wendy the benefit of the doubt on that reading, since she has certainly spent the time with Tucker and "Liberty." But it seems to me she overestimates Tucker's importance. Even James J. Martin, who did amazingly extensive research on the American mutualists and individualists, still tends to treat them all as precursors or extensions of Tucker's egoistic period -- and that just doesn't do them justice. There are genuine scholarly questions to answer about Tucker's relation to Proudhon, and his understanding of Greene's position. Tucker himself seems to have been very selective in what he incorporated into his plumbline anarchism, sometimes to the extent of misrepresenting his influences a bit.

And maybe the biggest problem with most of the work done so far on the "native American" anarchist tradition is the extent to which Proudhon, Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre Leroux, etc., have been left out of it. Electoral abstentionism was inherited by both individualists and collectivists from Proudhon and the radical workers who inspired him. Egoism was a common thread in nearly all the early anarchisms and many of the more libertarian socialisms -- but the early anarchist egoism was much more explicitly social than Stirner's, which was at least adopted as something pretty close to atomism.

Anyway, what's the argument of the piece? Modern individualist anarchism, which uses a new definition of capitalism, has become distant from an increasingly statist "libertarian" movement and from the mainstream of anarchism. And what distinguishes it from communist anarchism? Principles that early individualists obviously treated individually, raised to the level of dogma, and the continuations of old feuds. If you were looking for a reason to think of yourself as the real cutting edge of anarchism, and you yourself considered something like self-ownership and the NAP as the most important issues, then this argument might flatter your presuppositions, but it's not really a very convincing argument. If, for instance, you sided with the Lysander Spooner who assisted John Brown and advocated Irish revolution, or with the Benjamin Tucker who supported war in defense of France, or if you took the Proudhonist position that justice is balance, all rights ultimately derive from the "right of force," and all institutions are approximations that must be balance and constantly renewed, or if you were a Christian anarchist on the model of the Rev. Mr. William B. Greene, Union Army colonel, then things are going to play out differently.

This is an old speech, from a very different political context, by a friend (and fellow board member at C4SS) whom I respect as a researcher. There is more picking apart that could be done, but it's no fun to do so, particularly when you never respond with anything but kettle logic and a new dogmatic assertion.

[patrickhenry]

Rothbard lay in taking the value of individualist anarchism namely, the theoretical roots of "self-ownership" and its radical civil liberties, while discarding its excess baggage namely, the labor theory of value. He replaced this economic theory with a defense of the free market. The result was something entirely new under the sun: an anarchist movement that championed capitalism. It is difficult to even come up with a parallel to give you a sense of how incredible a hybrid capitalism and anarchism make. If you can imagine someone proving that not only are Freudianism and Behaviorism both correct but that both are nd always have been compatible, you might get the flavor of it all.

She states LTV is excess baggage? Isn't this where the we see a divide between your ancaps and market anarchists and some mutualist? a large divide at that.

[shawnpwilbur]

Rothbard lay in taking the value of individualist anarchism namely, the theoretical roots of "self-ownership" and its radical civil liberties, while discarding its excess baggage namely, the labor theory of value. He replaced this economic theory with a defense of the free market. The result was something entirely new under the sun: an anarchist movement that championed capitalism. It is difficult to even come up with a parallel to give you a sense of how incredible a hybrid capitalism and anarchism make. If you can imagine someone proving that not only are Freudianism and Behaviorism both correct but that both are nd always have been compatible, you might get the flavor of it all.

She states LTV is excess baggage? Isn't this where the we see a divide between your ancaps and market anarchists and some mutualist? a large divide at that.

One of the lovely ironies is that Warren had proposed a labor-based valuation system which was capable of incorporating a wide variety of subjective or marginal concerns. He explicitly discussed "cost" as including factors up to and including the laziness of the worker. And Proudhon had demonstrated how price was achieved intersubjectively and as a matter of convention. We're very close to the "are and always have been compatible" situation, without any Rothbardian redefinitions.

[patrickhenry]

We're very close to the "are and always have been compatible" situation, without any Rothbardian redefinitions

so, then when do we expect the ancaps to drop capitalism from their title?

[Zazaban]

We're very close to the "are and always have been compatible" situation, without any Rothbardian redefinitions

so, then when do we expect the ancaps to drop capitalism from their title?

It's a case of semantic confusion. Since people have been thinking anarchy means chaos for about a century now, I think ancaps will be here for awhile.

Though I suspect the vast majority of them will end up figuring out the mix-up, and start using the more appropriate terms instead. The weirdo crypto-republican hardliners will probably still use the term though, but they have no business in the anarchist movement.

[Howard509]

Thank you for your comments.

The non-aggression principle and self-ownership, so fundamental to 19th century American anarchism, are the reasons I'm an anarchist. Force should only be used against those who initiate it. In my view, mutualism shares more in common with the concept of self-ownership than anarcho-capitalism. The labor theory of value is based on the self-ownership of the worker, who deserves the full product of his labor and intelligence.

[Zazaban]

Agreed. And I would argue that The State, with its police and military, is initiating a lot of violence.

It's worth pointing out that I support a system, which Howard refused to look at, that does not require any violence at all.

[Howard509]

It's worth pointing out that I support a system, which Howard refused to look at, that does not require any violence at all.

I don't remember, I've seen others mention it.

[Francois Tremblay]

The non-aggression principle and self-ownership, so fundamental to 19th century American anarchism, are the reasons I'm an anarchist. Force should only be used against those who initiate it.

These two principles, NAP and self-ownership, are unadulterated bullshit.

[Howard509]

These two principles, NAP and self-ownership, are unadulterated bullshit.

You certainly have a right to this opinion. If you wish to influence mine, please substantiate it. This is the first time I've seen someone on this forum reject the non-aggression principle, though I could be mistaken.

[Howard509]

If you were looking for a reason to think of yourself as the real cutting edge of anarchism, and you yourself considered something like self-ownership and the NAP as the most important issues, then this argument might flatter your presuppositions, but it's not really a very convincing argument. If, for instance, you sided with the Lysander Spooner who assisted John Brown and advocated Irish revolution, or with the Benjamin Tucker who supported war in defense of France, or if you took the Proudhonist position that justice is balance, all rights ultimately derive from the "right of force," and all institutions are approximations that must be balance and constantly renewed, or if you were a Christian anarchist on the model of the Rev. Mr. William B. Greene, Union Army colonel, then things are going to play out differently.

Christian anarchists, as far as I've seen, are in as much agreement with the non-aggression principle as individualist anarchists. Other than this, I appreciate your post, which I find a fair evaluation of the article.

[Howard509]

She states LTV is excess baggage? Isn't this where the we see a divide between your ancaps and market anarchists and some mutualist? a large divide at that.

Would the labor theory of value be a necessary basis for a stateless society?

[shawnpwilbur]

If you were looking for a reason to think of yourself as the real cutting edge of anarchism, and you yourself considered something like self-ownership and the NAP as the most important issues, then this argument might flatter your presuppositions, but it's not really a very convincing argument. If, for instance, you sided with the Lysander Spooner who assisted John Brown and advocated Irish revolution, or with the Benjamin Tucker who supported war in defense of France, or if you took the Proudhonist position that justice is balance, all rights ultimately derive from the "right of force," and all institutions are approximations that must be balance and constantly renewed, or if you were a Christian anarchist on the model of the Rev. Mr. William B. Greene, Union Army colonel, then things are going to play out differently.

Christian anarchists, as far as I've seen, are in as much agreement with the non-aggression principle as individualist anarchists.

Actually, that's what I said...