Individualist anarchism

From Free net encyclopedia

(Redirected from Individualist anarchists)

Template:Bias Template:Original research Template:Primarysources Template:Anarchism

Individualist Anarchism is a philosophical tradition that opposes collectivism Template:Ref and has a particularly strong emphasis on the supremacy and autonomy of the individual. The tradition appears most often in the United States, most notably in regard to its advocacy of private property in the produce of labor.Template:Ref Individualist anarchism's roots includes Europeans such as William Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Emile Armand, Oscar Wilde, Han Ryner and Max Stirner (who is also connected to the existentialist philosophy), though the individualist anarchist tradition draws heavily on American independent thinkers, including Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Ezra Heywood, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and Henry David Thoreau. The writer and poet John Henry Mackay is also considered an individualist anarchist. Contemporary individualist anarchists include Robert Anton Wilson, Joe Peacott, Daniel Burton, Kevin Carson, and Keith Preston. Individualist anarchism is sometimes seen as an evolution of classical liberalism, and hence, has been called 'liberal anarchism'.[1]

Some of the 19th century individual anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, referred to themselves as socialists,[2]. Paul Gagnon says "the libertarian socialists such as Proudhon were not socialists in the usual sense of today, meaning state socialists, because they did believe in property rights. They were oriented toward cooperative and decentralized forms of ownership -- yet they agreed with other progressive libertarians in advocating genuinely free markets, with an end to land monopoly and other government-created monopolies." He says the libertarian socialists were divided into two main categories: "the individualists who remained true to Proudhonian mutualism and the collectivists represented by the anarcho-communists."Template:Ref

However, this is true only in a general sense, as there is significant variation between individual philosophers who do not fully align with Proudhon (Proudhon, for example, saw the need for regulating the market and favoured co-operatives to replace wage labour). The key difference between anarchists is that individualists support the product of labor as being property of the individual while communist anarchists consider social ownership of such products more just (however, Kropotkin does not oppose allowing peasants, artisans and other workers to retain control over the land and tools they use as well as much of product of their own labour as they need --as opposed to retaining it as private property) Template:Ref "While social anarchists seek to abolish the state as the source of private property, the individualists want to eliminate it because they see it as an obstacle to private property." Template:Ref

1 Origins
2 The American tradition
3 Anarcho-capitalism
4 Notes
5 References
6 See also
7 External links

[edit]

Origins

Image:WilliamGodwin.jpg

There is significant variance between the philosophies of different individualist anarchists. Almost all, following Proudhon, support individual ownership of the particular form of private property he referred to as "possession". Stirner supports private property but rejects the notion of a right to property or respect for it. Godwin is an altruist, Stirner an egoist. Warren espouses natural law as a basis for individual liberty, while Tuckers premises it upon egoism. Tucker opposes intellectual property while Spooner advocates it. However, what these philosophers all have in common is a rejection of both capitalist economics and collectivist notions of society and a pronounced focus on individuality.

William Godwin, of England, wrote essays advocating a society without government that are considered some of the first, if not the first, anarchist treatises. As such, some consider the liberal British writer to be the "father of philosophical anarchism." There is a lack of consensus as to whether Godwin was an individualist or a communist. He is regarded by some as one of the first individualist anarchists, although his philosophy has some communist-like characteristics. He advocates an extreme form of individualism, proposing that all sorts of cooperation in labor should be eliminated; he says: "everything understood by the term co-operation is in some sense an evil." Godwin's individualism is to such a radical degree that he even opposes individuals performing together in orchestras. The only apparent exception to this opposition to cooperation is the spontaneous association that may arise when a society is threatened by violent force. One reason he opposes cooperation is he believes it to interfere with an individual's ability to be benevolent for the greater good. Godwin opposes the existence of government and expressly opposes democracy, fearing oppression of the individual by the majority (though he believes democracy to be preferable to dictatorship).

Godwin supports individual ownership of property, defining it as "the empire to which every man is entitled over the produce of his own industry." However, he notes that there are three types of property, the third of which is "that which occupies the most vigilant attention in the civilised states of Europe. It is a system, in whatever manner established, by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of another man's industry." He notes that it is "clear therefore that the third species of property is in direct contradiction to the second." Godwin, unlike classical liberals, saw the need to "point out the evils of accumulated property," arguing that the the "spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud… are the immediate growth of the established administration of property. They are alike hostile to intellectual and moral improvement." In this his ideas reflect the later analysis of Proudhon and other anarchists.

Godwin does advocate that individuals give to each other their surplus property on the occasion that others have a need for it, without involving trade (see gift economy). This was to be based on utilitarian principles; he says: "Every man has a right to that, the exclusive possession of which being awarded to him, a greater sum of benefit or pleasure will result than could have arisen from its being otherwise appropriated." However, benevolence was not to be enforced but a matter of free individual "private judgement." He does not advocate a community of goods or assert collective ownership as is embraced in communism, but his belief that individuals ought to share with those in need was influential on anarchist communism later. Some consider Godwin both an individualist and a communist rather than a strict individualist for this reason. [3] Some, such as Murray Rothbard, do not regard Godwin as being in the individualist camp at all [4] (Some restrict "individualist anarchism" to the market anarchists). Others consider him an individualist anarchist without reservation. [5] Some writers see a conflict between Godwin's advocacy of "private judgement" and utilitarianism, as he says that ethics requires that individuals give their surplus property to each other resulting in an egalitarian society, but, at the same time, he insists that all things be left to individual choice. [6] Communist-anarchist Peter Kropotkin says in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica that Godwin "entirely rewrote later on his chapter on property and mitigated his communist views in the second edition of Political Justice." This did not stop him noting that Godwin "stated in 1793 in a quite definite form form the political and economic principle of Anarchism," and, therefore, was "the first theoriser of Socialism without government -- that is to say, of Anarchism." ("Modern Science and Anarchism"). Godwin's basis in utilitarianism and ethical altruism contrasts with later individualists, such as Max Stirner and Benjamin Tucker, who ground their philosophy on egoism or self-interest (though not all are egoists). Also, Godwin's aversion to cooperation and a market economy is not typical among the individualists.

Image:Max stirner.jpg

While individualists typically assert property as a right, Germany's Max Stirner that a "right" to property is an illusion, or "ghost"; property is only a matter of control --it is not based in any moral right but solely in the right of might: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.". Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint --that rights do not exist in regard to objects at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting. His embrace of egoism is in stark contrast to Godwin's altruism. He denies society as being an actual entity, calling society a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own). Whether individualist anarchism is properly justified by self-interest (egoism) or natural law has been a subject of debate among the individualists. For example, Lysander Spooner holds that there are natural property rights, but egoists such as Benjamin Tucker agree with Stirner that there are no natural property rights but hold that property can come only about by contract between individuals.

France's Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first philosopher to label himself an "anarchist." While influencing subsequent anarchists like Kropotkin and his friend Bakunin, Proudhon also was particularly influential among the American individualists, mainly by way of Benjamin Tucker who had translated and studied his works. Proudhon opposed private property as well as government privilege that protects banking and land interests, and any form of coercion that led to the accumulation or acquisition of property, which he believes hampers competition and keeps wealth in the hands of the few. Proudhon favored a right of individuals to retain the product of their labor as their own property, but believed that any property beyond that which an individual produced and could possess was illegitimate. Thus, for Proudhon, "property in product . . . does not carry with it property in production . . . The right to product is exclusive . . . the right to means is common." This applied to both the land ("the land is . . . a common thing") as well as workplaces, which he argued should be run by workers' association ("wage-labour abolished").

Proudhon saw "property" (in the form of possession) as essential to liberty and a road to tyranny when it exceeds that level ("Property is the right to enjoy and dispose of another's goods, -- the fruit of another's industry and labour"). Proudhon maintained that those who labor should control their own work and retain the entirety of what they produce, and that private property prohibits such. He advocated an economic system that was based on possession of land and workers' co-operatives ("industrial democracy") which would involve the "organising of regulating societies" to "regulate the market" which he called mutualism. (Selected Writings, p. 70) He termed this an "agro-industrial federation," and any "specific federal arrangements" were designed "to protect the citizens . . . from capitalist and financial feudalism, both within them and from the outside." (Principle of Federation)

It is Proudhon's philosophy that was explicitly amended by Joseph Dejacque in the inception of anarchist-communism, with the latter asserting directly to Proudhon in a letter that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." Proudhon said that "communism...is the very denial of society in its foundation..." (Philosophy of Poverty). While not a communist, he was a socialist and was famous for declaring that "property is theft" as well as "despotism" in reference to capitalism.

After Dejacque and others split from Proudhon due to the latter's support of an exchange economy, the relationship between the individualists, who continued in relative alignment with some of Proudhon's ideas, and the anarcho-communists was characterised by various degrees of antagonism and harmony. For example, individualists like Tucker on the one hand translating and reprinted the works of collectivists like Mikhail Bakunin, while on the other hand rejecting the economic aspects of collectivism and communism as incompatible with anarchist ideals. Similarly, communist-anarchists like Peter Kropotkin noted the contradictions in the individualist position lead them to recreate the state in new forms.

While individualist anarchism is often seen as including William Godwin and Max Stirner, it is most often associated with the American tradition, which advocates individual ownership of the produce of labor and a market economy where this property may be bought and sold.Template:Fact However, this form of individualist anarchism is not exclusive to the Americans.Template:Fact Proudhon is often not included as an individualist anarchist due to his support for an "agro-industrial federation" and opposition to wage labour. Individualist anarchism of this type is in contrast to some other forms of anarchism, such as anarcho-communism, which holds that productive property should be in the control of the society at large in various forms of worker collectives/co-operatives and that the produce of labour should be socialised (i.e. distribution according to need rather than deed). Both individualists anarchists and communist anarchists agree, however, in many of their critiques of most common conceptions of property. Most of the individualist anarchists in the 19th and 18th centuries adhered to a labor theory of value, and hence, saw profit as subverting natural law.

[edit]

The American tradition

Template:Main

Individualist anarchism in America is noted for its strong advocacy of private property in the product of labor, and a competitive free market economy. Josiah Warren, who is the first individualist anarchist in the American tradition, had participated in a failed collectivist experiment headed by Robert Owen called "New Harmony" and came to the conclusion that such a system is inferior to one where individualism and private property is respected. On Practical Details, he discusses his conclusions in regard to the experiment. In a much cited quotation from that text, he makes a vehement assertion of individual negative liberty: "Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL inviolate. That it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS" (Warren's capitalization). Though Warren and Proudhon did not associate with each other, working on separate continents they both came to like conclusions in regard to labor theory of value and property. However, according to Benjamin Tucker, that profiting by violating the labor theory of value is exploitative "was Proudhon's position before it was Marx's, and Josiah Warren's before it was Proudhon's" (Liberty or Authority).

While Warren based his philosophy on natural law, Benjamin Tucker eventually switched his allegiance to egoism as a result of his reading of Max Stirner. Many individualists followed in his footsteps in this respect. Tucker maintained that there were two rights, "the right of might" and "the right of contract" and that moral rights do not exist until they are devised by contract initiated out of the self-interest of the contracting parties. However, this was a source of conflict among the individualists as many continued to assert natural law.

The individualists' economic theory (mutualism) is based on the labor theory of value. Accepting that the value of a good is the amount of labor undertaking in producing it, they conclude that it is unethical to charge a higher price for a commodity than the cost of producing or acquiring and bringing it to market (Cost the limit of price). To ensure that labor receives its "full produce" they advocate that a commodity should be purchased with an amount of labor that is equivalent to the amount of labor undertaken in producing that commodity. As a result, equal amounts of labor would receive equal pay; those that did not labor would not be paid. In the area of employment, this would obviate the possibility of an employer profiting from the labor of an employee, which they opposed as being exploitative, since the employee must receive the "full produce" of his labor. With the exception of Warren, this led to their position that private ownership of land should be supported only if the possessor of that land is using it, otherwise, the possessor would be able to charge rent to others without laboring to produce anything (Warren does not oppose ownership of land but does advocate that it be sold at cost). Profiting from lending money for interest is generally seen as usurious as an income is seen as being derived without labor. To the individualists, profit from interest, profit from wages, and rental of land is only made possible by government-backed "monopoly" and "privilege" that restricts competition in the marketplace and concentrates wealth in the hands of a few.

[edit]

Anarcho-capitalism

Template:Main

Several scholars regard anarcho-capitalism to be either a form of individualism anarchism or a related ideology.<ref>1) Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004. 2)Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism, Transaction Books, NJ 1979. 3) Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004. 4) Levy, Carl. Anarchism, MS Encarta Encyclopedia. 5) Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994.</ref> However, most anarchists, especially outside of the United States, do not accept anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, as anarchism has been traditionally opposed to capitalism. Historically, most individualist anarchists espoused the labor theory of value, founding profit to be unnatural and exploitative. In the mainstream, however, the popularity of the labor theory of value of classical economics was superseded by much greater acceptance of the subjective theory of value of neo-classical economics. This marginalist revolution influenced the thoughts of some radical individualists. Eventually, in the 20th century, Murray Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism to define his anti-statist, laissez-faire capitalist philosophy.

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

Template:Note Anarchism, by Carl Levy, in the MS Encarta Encyclopedia (UK Version)
Template:Note "The only way, in which ['the wealth of nature'] can be made useful to mankind, is by their taking possession of it individually, and thus making it private property." - Lysander Spooner, Law of Intellectual Property. "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land anarchists deny. I...maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogative beyond those of the individuals themselves." - Benjamin Tucker, Liberty
Template:Note Gagnon, Paul E. [7] Libertarian Socialism]
Template:Note Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right and Green San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994.
Template:Note Benjamin Tucker, Liberty And Individualist Anarchism, by Wendy McElroy
Template:Note Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves and Conquest of Bread, Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: Life and Ideas