Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic? 

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

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

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

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

G.5 Benjamin Tucker - capitalist or anarchist? 

G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?

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

Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic? 

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

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

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

However, as we've already seen, by its very definition -- as opposition 
to hierarchical authority -- *all* threads of anarchism are *incompatible*
with capitalism. As Malatesta argued, "anarchy, as understood by the
anarchists and as only they can interpret it, is based on socialism. 
Indeed were it not for those schools of socialism which artificially
divide the natural unity of the social question, and consider some 
aspects out of context . . . we could say straight out that anarchy
is synonymous with socialism, for both stand for the abolition of
the domination and exploitation of man by man, whether exercised 
at bayonet point or by a monopoly of the means of life." Without 
socialism, liberty (i.e. liberalism) is purely "liberty . . . for 
the strong and the property owners to oppress and exploit the weak, 
those who have nothing . . . [so] lead[ing] to exploitation and 
domination, in other words, to authority . . . for freedom is not
possible without equality, and real anarchy cannot exist without
solidarity, without socialism." [_Anarchy_, p. 47 and p. 46]

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

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

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

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

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

G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? 

Yes, for two reasons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Wm. Gary Kline correctly summarises:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Peter Sabatini points out:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously wage labour violates the idea that those who use something 
automatically own it. In the case of land and housing, the 
Individualist Anarchists argued that the person who lives or 
works on it (even under lease) would be regarded "as the occupant 
and user of the land on which the house stands, and as the owner of 
the house itself," that is they become "the owner of both land and 
house as soon as he becomes the occupant." [Ibid.] Now, to take a 
concrete example from Tucker's time, the 3 800 workers locked out 
by Carnegie at Homestead in 1892 definitely occupied and used the 
works from which they were barred entry by the owners. The owners, 
obviously, did not use the workplace themselves -- they hired 
*others* to occupy and use it *for* them. Now, why should "occupancy 
and use" be acceptable for land and housing but not for workplaces? 
There is no reason and so wage labour, logically, violates "occupancy 
and use" -- for under wage labour, those who occupy and use a 
workplace do not own or control it. Hence "occupancy and use" 
logically implies workers' control and ownership.

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

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

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

And we must add that John Stuart Mill (who agreed with the Warrenite
slogan "Individual Sovereignty") faced with the same problem that
wage labour made a mockery of individual liberty came to the same
conclusion. He thought that if "mankind is to continue to improve"
(and it can only improve within liberty, we must add) then in the
end one form of association will predominate, "not that which can
exist between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice
in management, but the association of the labourers themselves on
terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they
carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and
removable by themselves." [quoted by Carole Pateman, _Participation
and Democratic Theory_, p. 34]

Therefore, logically, individualist anarchism must support 
co-operatives and self-employment in order to ensure the maximum 
individual self-government and labour's "natural wage." That this 

is the case can be seen from Tucker's quoting Ernest Lesigne that 
anarchistic socialism aims for "The land to the cultivator. The mine 
to the miner. The tool to the labourer. The product to the producer." 

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

"we have something very tangible to offer , . .  We offer non-compulsive
organisation. We offer associative combination. We offer every possible
method of voluntary social union by which men and women may act together
for the furtherance of well-being. In short, we offer voluntary scientific
socialism in place of the present compulsory, unscientific organisation
which characterises the State and all of its ramifications. . ." [quoted
in Martin, Op. Cit., p. 218]

Tucker himself pointed out that "the essence of government is control. . . 
He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an 
invader." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 23] However, in places in _Instead 
of a Book_ Tucker suggests that (non-exploitative, and so non-capitalist) 
wage labour could exist in individualist anarchy. Unlike wage labour
under capitalism, workers would employ other workers and all workers
would receive the full product of their labour. As such, this relationship
is *non-capitalist* as it does not involve usury. Be that as it may, such
relationships are not libertarian and so contradict Tucker's own theories 
on individual liberty (as Proudhon and Mill recognised with their own,
similar, positions). Wage labour is based on the control of the worker 
by the employer; hence Tucker's contract theory can lead to a form of 
"voluntary" and "private" government within the workplace. This means 
that, while outside of a contract an individual is free, within it he 
or she is governed. This violates Tucker's concept of "equality of liberty," 
since the boss has obviously more liberty than the worker during working
hours. 

This result, as noted in section A.3, could *only* be avoided by workers'
control, which is in fact the logical implication of Tucker's and other
individualists' proposals (as we have proven above, and can be seen from
Tucker's famous essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" for example). This 
is hardly a surprising implication, since as we've seen, artisan production 
was commonplace in 19th-century America and its benefits were extolled by 
the individualists. Without workers' control, individualist anarchism 
would soon become a form of capitalism and so statism -- a highly unlikely 
intention of individualists like Tucker, who hated both.

Therefore, given the assumptions of individualist anarchism in both 
their economic and political aspects, it is forced along the path of 
co-operative, not wage, labour. In other words, individualist anarchism 
is a form of socialism as workers receive the full product of their 
labour (i.e. there is no non-labour income) and this, in turn, logically
implies a society in which self-managed firms compete against each
other on the free market, with workers selling the product of their
labour and not the labour itself. As this unites workers with the
means of production they use, it is *not* capitalism and instead a
form of socialism based upon worker ownership and control of the
places they work.

For individualist anarchists not to support co-operatives results in 
a contradiction, namely that the individualist anarchism which aims 
to secure the worker's "natural wage" cannot in fact do so, while 
dividing society into a class of order givers and order takers (which 
violates individual self-government). It is this contradiction within 
Tucker's thought which the self-styled "anarcho"-capitalists take 
advantage of in order to maintain that individualist anarchism in fact 
implies capitalism (and so private-statism), not workers' control. In order 
to reach this implausible conclusion, a few individualist anarchist ideas 
are ripped from their social context and applied in a way that makes a 
mockery of them. That it was never Tucker's intention to deny workers' 
control can be inferred from his argument that mutualism would give 
workers the bargaining power to obtain equality in the workplace, 
which clearly points to the end of capitalist authority relations, 
as will be explained further in section G.5. 

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

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

Many, particularly on the libertarian right, would dismiss claims 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? 

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

When the two movements meet in American in the 1880s, the similarities
and differences of both came into sharp relief. While both social and 
individualist anarchists reject capitalism as well as the state and seek 
an end to the exploitation of labour by capital (i.e. to usury in all 
its forms), both schools of anarchism rejected each others solutions 
to the social problem. The vision of the social anarchists was more
communally based, urging social ownership of the means of life. In
contrast, reflecting the pre-dominantly pre-capitalist nature of 
post-revolution US society, the Individualist Anarchists urged 
small-scale possession of the means of life, co-operatives and 
mutual banking to remove interest and give every worker access 
to capital.

Thus their vision of a free society and the means to achieve it were 
somewhat different (although, we stress, *not* mutually exclusive as 
communist anarchists supported artisan possession of the means of 
possession for those who rejected communism and the Individualist 
Anarchists supported voluntary communism). Tucker argued that a
communist could not be an anarchist and the communist-anarchists
argued that Individualist Anarchism could not end the exploitation
of capital by labour. Being social anarchists, here we indicate
why social anarchists reject individualist anarchism (see section
A.3.1 for a summary of why Individualist Anarchists reject social
anarchism).

Malatesta summarises the essential points of difference:

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

"The communists assume . . . that the (anarchist) individualists
reject every idea of association, want the struggle between men,
the domination of the strongest -- and this would put them not
only outside the anarchist movement but outside humanity.

"In reality those who are communists are such because they see
in common freely accepted the realisation of brotherhood, and
the best guarantee for individual freedom. And individualists,
those who are really anarchists, are anti-communist because
they fear that communism would subject individuals . . . to
the tyranny of the collectivity . . . Therefore they want
each individual, or each group, to be in a position to enjoy
freely the product of their labour in conditions of equality
with other individuals and groups, with whom they would
maintain relations of justice and equity.

"In which case it is clear that there is no basic difference
between us. But, according to the communists, justice and
equity are, under natural conditions impossible of attainment
in an individualistic society, and thus freedom too would
not be attained.

"If climatic conditions throughout the world were the same, if
the land were everywhere equally fertile, if raw materials
were evenly distributed and within reach of all who needed
them, if social development were the same everywhere in the
world . . . then one could conceive of everyone . . . finding
the land, tools and raw materials needed to work and produce
independently, without exploiting or being exploited. But
natural and historical conditions being what they are, how
is it possible to establish equality and justice between
he who by chance finds himself with a piece of arid land
which demand much labour for small returns with him who
has a piece of fertile and well sited land?" [_Life and
Ideas_, pp. 31-2]

Thus, while Individualist Anarchists argue for the "cost
principle" (i.e. cost being the limit of price) the cost
of creating the same commodity in different areas or by
different people is not equal. Thus the market price of
a good *cannot* really equal the multitude of costs within
it (and so price can only equal a workers' labour in the
minority of cases where that labour was used in the least 
favourable circumstances). It was for this reason that
Proudhon argued that a portion of income from agricultural
produce be paid into a central fund which would be used
to make equalisation payments to compensate farmers with
less favourably situated or less fertile land. As he
put it, economic rent "in agriculture has no other cause
than the inequality in the quality of land . . .  if
anyone has a claim on account of this inequality . . . 
[it is] the other land workers who hold inferior land. 
That is why in our scheme for liquidation [of capitalism]
we stipulated that every variety of cultivation should
pay a proportional contribution, destined to accomplish
a balancing of returns among farm workers and an assurance
of products." [_The General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 209]

This problem was recognised by Tucker, who argued that "economic 
rent . . . is one of nature's inequalities. It will probably 
remain with us always. Complete liberty will every much lessen 
it; of that I have no doubt." ["Why I am an Anarchist", pp. 135-6, 
_Man!_, M. Graham (ed.), pp. 132-6] Unlike Proudhon, however, he
proposed no scheme to equalise income. Perhaps Tucker was correct
and the differences would be slight, but in a market situation 
exchanges tend to magnify differences, *not* reduce them. The
actions of self-interested individuals in unequal positions will 
tend to exacerbate differences. Over time these slight differences
would become larger and larger, subjecting the weaker party to
relatively increasingly worse contracts. As Proudhon argued:

"I have shown the contractor, at the birth of industry, negotiating
on equal terms with his comrades, who have since become his workmen.
It is plain, in fact, that this original equality was bound to
disappear through the advantageous position of the master and
the dependent position of the wage-workers. In vain does the law
assure the right of each to enterprise . . . When an establishment
has had leisure to develop itself, enlarge its foundations, ballast
itself with capital, and assure itself a body of patrons, what can
a workman do against a power so superior?" [_System of Economical
Contradictions_, p. 202]

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

"Are not the scandalous inequalities in the distribution of
wealth today merely the culminative  effect of the principle
that every man is justified in securing to himself everything
that his chances and capacities enable him to lay hands on?

"If the social revolution which we are living means anything,
it means the destruction of this detestable economic principle,
which delivers over the more social members of the community
to the domination of the most unsocial and self-interested."
[_Freedom_, vol. 2, no. 19]

While state action may have given the modern capitalist an
initial advantage on the market, it does not follow that a truly 
free market will not create similar advantages naturally. And if 
it did, then surely a similar system would develop? That it 
developed without state aid would make it no less unfree and 
unjust. It is of little use to point out that such a situation 
is *not* what the Individualist Anarchists desired (after all, 
Stalin was hardly what most Marxists desired). It is a question 
of whether their ideas would actually result in what they wanted.

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

Ultimately, Individualist Anarchists lose sight of the fact that
success and competition are not the same thing. One can set and
reach goals without competing. That we may loose more by competing
than by co-operating is an insight which social anarchists base
their ideas on. In the end, a person can become a success in terms
of business but lose sight of their humanity and individuality
in the process.

Returning to economic issues, the accumulation needs of a competitive 
market economy do not disappear just because capitalism has been 
replaced by co-operatives and mutual credit banks -- a fact that
implies the inevitable development of big business (and so natural
barriers to entry). In any market economy, firms will try to 
improve their market position by investing in new machinery,
reducing prices by improving productivity and so on. This creates
barriers to new competitors who have to expend more money in order
to match the capital of existing firms. Such amounts of money may
not be forthcoming for even a mutual bank and so certain firms
would enjoy a privileged position on the market. Given that
Tucker defined a monopolist as "any person, corporation, or
institution whose right to engage in any given pursuit of life
is secured, either wholly or partially, by any agency whatsoever
-- whether the nature of things or the force of events or the
decree of arbitrary power -- against the influence of competition"
we may suggest that due to *natural* barriers, an individualist
anarchist society would not be free of monopolists and so of
usury. [quoted by James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, 
p. 210] 

For this reason, even in a mutualist market certain companies would 
receive a bigger slice of profits than (and at the expense of) others. 
This means that exploitation would still exist as larger companies could 
charge more than cost for their products. In addition, the free market 
in banking would also result in *its* market being dominated by a few 
big banks, with similar results. 

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

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

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

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

Also, we may note, in the slow transition towards anarchism, we would see 
the rise of pro-capitalist "defence associations" which *would* collect 
rent from land, break strikes, attempt to crush unions and so on. Tucker 
seemed to have assumed that the anarchist vision of "occupancy-and-use" 
would become universal. Unfortunately, landlords would resist it and so, 
ultimately, an Individualist Anarchist society would have to either force 
the minority to accept the majority wishes on land use (hence his comments 
on there being "no legal power to collect rent") or the majority are 
dictated to by the minority who are in favour of collecting rent and 
hire "defence associations" to enforce those wishes. With the head 
start big business and the wealthy have in terms of resources, conflicts 
between pro- and anti-capitalist "defence associations" would usually work 
against the anti-capitalist ones (as trade unions often find out). In 
other words, reforming capitalism would not be as non-violent or as
simple as Tucker maintained. The vested powers which the state defends
will find other means to protect themselves when required (for example,
when capitalists and landlords backed fascism and fascist squads in Italy 
after workers "occupied and used" their workplaces and land workers and 
peasants "occupied and used" the land in 1920). We are sure that economists 
will then rush to argue that the resulting law system that defended the 
collection of rent and capitalist property against "occupancy and use" 
was the most "economically efficient" result for "society."

In addition, even if individualist mutualism *did* result in an increase 
in wages by developing artisan and co-operative ventures that decreased 

the supply of labour in relation to its demand, this would not eliminate 
the subjective and objective pressures on profits that produce the business 
cycle within capitalism (see section C.7 and C.8 for more on these pressures). 
This means that an increase in the bargaining power of labour would soon see
capital moving to non-anarchist areas and using its financial power to buy
up any resources in the anarchist areas. Because individualist anarchists
assume an evolution towards anarchy, this is a distinct possibility. And
co-operatives in a market economy will be as influenced by the business
cycle as capitalist firms. This could mean that during an economic 
slump, when workers' savings and bargaining position were weak, the
gains associated with mutualism could be lost as co-operative firms
go bust and mutual banks find it hard to generate credit in a hostile
environment.

Mutual banks would not, therefore, undermine modern capitalism, as
recognised by social anarchists from Bakunin onward (they placed
their hopes in a social revolution organised by workplace and
community organisations). Moreover, social anarchists would argue
that any individualist system could revert back to capitalism and
wage labour, for two reasons. 

Firstly, there is a possibility that *possession* would be replaced 
by *property* as individuals sell their means of production to
others voluntarily or to repay loans in bad times and these new 
owners create "defence associations" to enforce their claims. In 
addition (and this may seem ironic), wage labour does have the 
advantage that people can move to new locations and work without 
having to sell their old means of living. Often moving somewhere 
can be a hassle if one has to sell a shop or home. Many people 
prefer not to be tied down to one place. This is a problem in a 
system based on self-employed artisan labour, but not in social 
anarchism as access to the means of life is guaranteed to all
members of the free society.

Secondly, there is the problem associated with natural barriers
to entry in an industry. This could help generate wage labour
(and so a new class of exploiters) as workers face the unpleasant
choice of working for a successful firm, being unemployed or
working for low wages in an industry with lower barriers to
entry. This process can be seen under capitalism when co-operatives
hire wage workers and not include them as members of the association
(i.e. they exercise their ownership rights to exclude others).

While state action may *increase* the degree of monopoly in an 
industry, the natural tendency for any market is to place barriers
("natural" barriers) to new entries in terms of set-up costs and so 
on. This means that if the relation between capital and labour was 
abolished *within* the workplace (by their transformation into 
co-operatives) but they remained the property of their workers, 
it would only be a matter of time before the separation of the 
producers from their means of production reproduced itself. This 
is because, within any market system, some firms fail and others 
succeed. Those which fail will create a pool of unemployed workers 
who will need a job. The successful co-operatives, safe behind 
their natural barriers to entry, would be in a stronger position 
than the unemployed workers and so may hire them as wage labourers 
-- in effect, the co-operative workers would become "collective 
capitalists" hiring other workers. This would end workers'
self-management (as not all workers are involved in the decision 
making process) as well as workers' ownership, i.e. "occupancy
and use," (as not all workers' would own the means of production 
they used).

The individual workers involved may "consent" to becoming wage slaves, 
but that is because it is the best option available rather than what
they really want. Which, of course, is the same as under capitalism. 
Little wonder Proudhon argued that "every worker employed in the 
association" must have "an undivided share in the property of the 
company" in order to ensure workers' self-management. [Op. Cit., 
p. 223] Only this could ensure "occupancy and use" and so self-management
in a free society (i.e. keep that society free).

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

If we take the creation of employer-employee relationships within 
an anarchy, we see the danger of private statism arising (as in 
"anarcho"-capitalism) and so the end of anarchy. Such a development 
can be seen when Tucker argues that if, in an anarchy, "any labourers 
shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force 
upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen
. . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of 
my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a
member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if 
necessary, sweep them from the earth." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 455]

In such a situation, these defence associations would be indeed 
"private states" and here Tucker's ideas unfortunately do parallel 
those of the "anarcho"-capitalists (although, as the employees would 
not be exploited by the employer, this does not suggest that Tucker 
can be considered a proto-"anarcho"-capitalist). As Kropotkin warned, 
"[f]or their self-defence, both the citizen and group have a right 
to any violence [within individualist anarchy] . . . Violence is also 
justified for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker . . .  
opens . . . the way for reconstructing under the heading of the 'defence' 
all the functions of the State." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 
p. 297] 

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

So Tucker's comments on strikers brings to light an interesting
contradiction in his ideas. After all, he favoured a system of
"property" generally defined by use and occupancy, that is whoever
uses and possesses is to be consider the owner. Based on this
theory of "property" Tucker opposed landlords and rent, arguing
that anarchy "means the freeing of all land not occupied *by the
owner*" that is, "land ownership limited by occupancy and use." 
[_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 155] He extends this principle 
to housing, arguing that "Anarchic associations" would "not collect 
your rent, and might not even evict your tenant" and "tenants would 
not be forced to pay you rent, nor would you be allowed to seize 
their property. The Anarchic Associations would look upon your 
tenants very much as they would look upon your guests." [Op. Cit., 
p. 162]

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

"The individualists give the greatest importance to an abstract
concept of freedom and fail to take into account, or dwell on
the fact, that real, concrete freedom is the outcome of solidarity
and voluntary co-operation. . . They certainly believe that to
work in isolation is fruitless and that an individual, to ensure
a living as a human being and to materially and morally enjoy
all the benefits of civilisation, must either exploit -- directly
or indirectly -- the labour of others . . . or associate with
his [or her] fellows and share their pains and the joys of life. 
And since, being anarchists, they cannot allow the exploitation of
one by another, they must necessarily agree that to be free and
live as human beings they have to accept some degree and form
of voluntary communism." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 16]

Occupancy and use, therefore, implies the collective ownership 
of resources used by groups which, in turn, implies associative
labour and self-management. In other words, "some degree and
form of voluntary communism." 

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

Thus Tucker's comments on strikers indicates a distinct contradiction
in his ideas. It violates both his support for "occupancy and use" and
his opposition to the state. It could, of course, be argued that the
contradiction is resolved because the worker consents to the authority
of the boss by taking the job. However, it can be replied that, by this
logic, the citizen consents to the authority of the state as a democratic
state allows people to leave its borders and join another one. That the
citizen does not leave indicates they consent to the state. In other
words, consent of and by itself does not justify hierarchy for if it
did, the current state system would be anarchistic. This indicates the
weakness of contract theory as a means of guaranteeing liberty and its
potential to generate, and justify, authoritarian social relationships
rather than libertarian and liberty enhancing ones. Hence Kropotkin's
comment that "anarchism . . . refuses all hierarchical organisation
and preaches free agreement." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 
p. 137] To do otherwise is to contradict the basic ideas of anarchism.

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

Peter Kropotkin recognised the statist implications of some aspects of 
anarchist individualism which Tucker's strike example highlights. Tucker's 
anarchism, due to its uncritical support for contract theory, could 
result in a few people dominating economic life, because "no force" 
would result in the perpetuation of authority structures, with freedom 
simply becoming the "right to full development" of "privileged minorities." 
But, Kropotkin argued, "as such monopolies cannot be maintained otherwise 
than under the protection of a monopolist legislation and an organised 
coercion by the State, the claims of these individualists necessarily 
end up in a return to the State idea and to that same coercion which 
they so fiercely attack themselves. Their position is thus the same 
as that of Spencer and of the so-called 'Manchester school' of economists, 
who also begin by a severe criticism of the State and end up in its full 
recognition in order to maintain the property monopolies, of which the 
State is the necessary stronghold." [Op. Cit., p. 162]

Such would be the possible (perhaps probable) result of the individualists' 
contract theory of freedom without a social background of communal 
self-management and ownership. As can be seen from capitalism, a
society based on the abstract individualism associated with contract
theory would, in practice, produce social relationships based on power 
and authority (and so force -- which would be needed to back up that 
authority), *not* liberty. As we argued in section A.2.14, voluntarism
is *not* enough in itself to preserve freedom.

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

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

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

Free contracts are not sufficient to ensure freedom. Therefore, social
anarchists reject the individualists' conception of anarchy, simply
because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back 
into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts." Freedom 
is fundamentally a social product, created in and by community. It is a
fragile flower and does not fare well when bought and sold on the market.

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

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

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

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

Finally, as to its means of activism, individualist anarchism exaggerates
the potential of mutual banks to fund co-operatives. While the creation 
of community-owned and -managed mutual credit banks would help in the
struggle for a free society, such banks are not enough in themselves.
Unless created as part of the social struggle against capitalism and the
state, and unless combined with community and strike assemblies, mutual
banks would quickly die, because the necessary social support required to
nurture them would not exist. Mutual banks must be part of a network of
other new socio-economic and political structures and cannot be sustained
in isolation from them. This is simply to repeat our earlier point that
capitalism cannot be reformed away.

However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of
individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of
anarchism -- one with many flaws and one perhaps more suited to an earlier
age when capitalism was less developed and its impact upon society far
less than it is now (see section G.1.1). John Quail, in his history of 
British Anarchism, puts his finger on the contextual implications and 
limitations of Tucker's ideas when he writes: 

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

G.5 Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tucker believed that bankers' monopoly of the power to create credit and
currency is the linchpin of capitalism Although he thought that all forms
of monopoly are detrimental to society, he maintained that the banking
monopoly is the worst, since it is the root from which both the
industrial-capitalist and landlordist monopolies grow and without which
they would wither and die. For, if cr