Anarchist FAQ (08/17)

companied by the growth of two opposing classes, capitalists and proletarians. 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 An Anarchist FAQ (08/17) a nineteenth century development, an ideology that, like socialism generally, responded to the growth of industrial capitalism, republican government, and nationalism. Although this is clear- The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective est 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 mid-century such as Proudhon, Stirner and, in America, Warren. For all of these theorists, a primary concern was the ‘labour problem’ — the increasing dependence and immis- eration of manual workers in industrialising economies.” [“Intro- duction”, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 4] The Individualist Anarchists cannot be viewed in isolation. They were part of a wider movement seeking to stop thecap- italist 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 ofwage labour.” The rise of capitalism “marked the transition to control of work by nonworkers” and “with the rise of entrepreneurial capital, groups of formerly independent workers were increasingly drawn into the wage-labour system. Working people’s organisa- tions 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 Individual- ist Anarchists (land reform via “occupancy-and-use”, increasing June 18, 2009. Version 13.1 the supply of money via mutual banks and so on) reflect these 76 flicted on their country by a process of “primitive accumulation” (see section F.8). The non-capitalist nature of the early USA can be seenfrom the early dominance of self-employment (artisan and peas- ant production). At the beginning of the 19th century, around 80% of the working (non-slave) male 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 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] As the US Census described in 1900, until about 1850 “the bulk of general manufacturing done in the United States was car- ried on in the shop and the household, by the labour of the fam- ily or individual proprietors, with apprentice assistants, as con- trasted with the present system of factory labour, compensated by wages, and assisted by power.” [quoted by Jeremy Brecher and Tim Costello, Common Sense for Hard Times, p. 35] Thus the post-civil war period saw “the factory system become general. This led to a large increase in the class of unskilled andsemi- skilled labour with inferior bargaining power. Population shifted from the country to the city … It was this milieu that the anarchism of Warren-Proudhon wandered.” [Eunice Minette Schus- ter, Native American Anarchism, pp. 136–7] 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 capitalism, ac- 75 political economy and … a set of positive reforms in land tenure and banking … Proudhon paralleled the native labour reform tradition in several ways. Besides suggesting reforms in land and money, Proudhon urged producer cooperation.” [Op. Cit., p. 72] We discuss this aspect of Proudhon’s ideas in section G.4.2. Contents So, to conclude, it can be seen that individualist anarchists hold two positions on wage labour. Some are closer to Proud- hon and the mainstream anarchist tradition than others while Section G: Is individualist anarchism capitalistic? 5 a few veer extremely close to liberalism. While all are agreed that their system would end the exploitation of labour, some G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? 17 of them saw the possibility of a non-exploitative wage labour G.1.1 What about their support of the free market? . 33 while others aimed for artisan and/or co-operative production G.1.2 What about their support of “private property”? 46 to replace it. Suffice to say, while few social anarchists consider G.1.3 What about their support for wage labour? . 56 non-exploitative wage labour as being very likely it is the op- G.1.4 Why is the social context important in evalu- position to non-labour income which makes individualist an- ating Individualist Anarchism? . 74 archism socialist (albeit, an inconsistent and flawed version of libertarian socialism). G.2 Why do individualist anarchists reject social anarchism? 85 G.2.1 Is communist-anarchism compulsory? . 87 G.1.4 Why is the social context important in G.2.2 Is communist-anarchism violent? . 97 evaluating Individualist Anarchism? G.2.3 Does communist-anarchism aim to destroy in- dividuality? . 104 When reading the work of anarchists like Tucker and War- G.2.4 What other reasons do individualists give for ren, we must remember the social context of their ideas, rejecting communist-anarchism? . 111 namely the transformation of America from a pre-capitalist to G.2.5 Do most anarchists agree with the individual- a capitalist society. The individualist anarchists, like other so- ists on communist-anarchism? . 118 cialists and reformers, viewed with horror the rise of capitalism and its imposition on an unsuspecting American population, G.3 Is “anarcho”-capitalism a new form of individualist supported and encouraged by state action (in the form of pro- anarchism? 122 tection of private property in land, restricting money issuing G.3.1 Is “anarcho”-capitalism American anarchism? 132 to state approved banks using specie, government orders sup- G.3.2 What are the differences between “anarcho”- porting capitalist industry, tariffs, suppression of unions and capitalism and individualist anarchism? . 142 strikes, and so on). In other words, the individualist anarchists G.3.3 What about “anarcho”-capitalists’ support of were a response to the social conditions and changes being in- “defence associations”? . 155 74 3 G.3.4 Why is individualist anarchist support for the long run wages will rise to that level but, as Keynes noted, equality important? . 165 in the long run we are all dead and Tucker did not say that the G.3.5 Would individualist anarchists have accepted free market would end exploitation eventually. So individual “Austrian” economics? . 168 ownership of large-scale workplaces would not, therefore, end G.3.6 Would mutual banking simply cause inflation? 175 exploitation. In other words, if (as Tucker argued) individualist anarchism G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anar- desires “[n]ot to abolish wages, but to make every man depen- chism? 189 dent upon wages and to secure every man his whole wages” then G.4.1 Is wage labour consistent with anarchist prin- this, logically, can only occur under workers control. We dis- ciples? . 219 cuss this in more detail in section G.4.1, where we also indi- G.4.2 Why do social anarchists think individualism cate how social anarchists consider Tucker’s position to be in is inconsistent anarchism? . 234 a basic contradiction to anarchist principles. Not only that, as well as being unlikely to ensure that labour received its full G.5 Benjamin Tucker: Capitalist or Anarchist? 248 product, it also contradicts his own principle of “occupancy and use”. As such, while his support for non-exploitative wage G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner? 264 labour does not exclude him from the socialist (and so anar- G.7 Lysander Spooner: right-“libertarian” or libertar- chist) movement, it does suggest an inconsistent anarchism, ian socialist? 282 one which can (fortunately) be easily made consistent by bring- ing it fully in line with its own stated ideals and principles. Finally, we must note that there is a certain irony in this, given how keenly Tucker presented himself as a follower of Proudhon. This was because Proudhon agreed with Tucker’s anarchist opponents, arguing continually that wage labour needed to be replaced by co-operative production to end exploitation and oppression in production. Proudhon and his fol- lowers, in the words of one historian, thought workers “should be striving for the abolition of salaried labour and capitalist en- terprise.” This was by means of co-operatives and their “perspec- tive was that of artisan labour … The manager/employer (patron) was a superfluous element in the production process who was able to deny the worker just compensation for his labour merely by possessing the capital that paid for the workshop, tools, and ma- terials.” [Julian P.

Load more