Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic? G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism? 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 the 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. 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 Ben 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. 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. Moreover, such an aim logically implies a society based upon artisan, not wage, labour and workers would, therefore, not be separated from control of the means of production and so sell the product of their labour, not the labour power itself. As such, while it 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] It should be noted that "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. Such opposition to wage slavery was 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. 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. 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] Here we see a similar opposition to the commodification of labour (and so labourers) within capitalism that also marks social anarchist thought. The individualist anarchists identified capitalism as "wage slavery," (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] This opposition to profits as a form 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." [Martin, Op. Cit., p. 153] Therefore we see that the individualist anarchists, like social anarchists, opposed capitalist wage slavery and property rights. Instead of capitalism, they maintained that workers 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] 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. 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 through state action. 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. By 1870, when Tucker was most active, this had fallen to approximately 33%. Now it is less than 10%. It is *only* in this context that we can understand individualist anarchism, 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). 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." [Op. Cit., pp. 299-300] These are hardly statements with which capitalists would agree. Tucker 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. 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." [Ibid., 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 and the state, for the "capitalists . . . in denying [a free market] to [the workers] are guilty of criminal invasion." [Ibid., p. 454] Likewise, he advocated 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, 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 little more than "an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination." [_Act For Yourselves_, p. 98] 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. 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. More importantly, 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] 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.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 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. 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 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." 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." G.4 Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? 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. In addition, 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. 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. 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?). 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 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 was now (in 1911) "not so clear." This was because the tremendous capitalisation of industry now made 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. Natural barriers to entry, resulting from the process of capitalist production, 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." [James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, p. 273] 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. 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. With the head start big business and 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. Mutual banks would not, therefore, undermine modern capitalism. Moreover, any individualist system could revert back to 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. If we take the first problem, namely 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, 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. Talking of which, 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." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 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 (as Kropotkin argued, the "*individualisation* they [the individualists] so highly praise is not attainable by individual efforts" [Op. Cit., p. 297]). 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 removing their authority to control (i.e. to govern) others 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, such as the occupation of workplaces, picketing, etc., irrespective of whether such measures are desired by the boss. However, as already indicated in A.3.1, social anarchists reject attempts to coerce other workers into joining a co-operative. 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 workplaces they protected were co-operatives (and we have indicated why Individualist Anarchism logically implies co-operative labour). Tucker's example 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. 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 credit were not monopolised, its price (i.e. interest rates) would be much lower, which in turn would drastically lower the price of capital goods, land, and buildings -- expensive items that generally cannot be purchased without access to credit. The freedom to squat empty land and buildings would, in the absence of a state to protect titles, further contribute to the elimination of rent: "Ground rent exists only because the State stands by to collect it and to protect land titles rooted in force or fraud. Otherwise land would be free to all, and no one could control more than he used." [quoted by James J. Martin, Op. Cit., p. 210] Following Proudhon, Tucker argued that if any group of people could legally form a "mutual bank" and issue credit based on any form of collateral they saw fit to accept, the price of credit would fall to the labour cost of the paperwork involved in issuing and keeping track of it. He claimed that banking statistics show this cost to be less than one percent of principal, and hence, that a one-time service fee which covers this cost and no more is the only *non-usurious* charge a bank can make for extending credit. This charge should not be called "interest," since, as it represented the labour-cost in providing, it is non-exploitative. Tucker believed that under mutual banking, capitalists' ability to extract surplus value from workers in return for the use of tools, machinery, etc. would be eliminated because workers would be able to obtain zero-interest credit and use it to buy their own instruments of production instead of "renting" them, as it were, from capitalists. Easy access to mutual credit would result in a huge increase in the purchase of capital goods, creating a high demand for labour, which in turn would greatly increase workers' bargaining power and thus raise their wages toward equivalence with the value their labour produces. It's important to note that because of Tucker's proposal to increase the bargaining power of workers through access to mutual credit, his individualist anarchism is not only compatible with workers' control but would in fact *promote* it (as well as logically requiring it). For if access to mutual credit were to increase the bargaining power of workers to the extent that Tucker claimed it would, they would then be able to: (1) demand and get workplace democracy; and (2) pool their credit to buy and own companies collectively. This would eliminate the top-down structure of the firm and the ability of owners to pay themselves unfairly large salaries as well as reducing capitalist profits to zero by ensuring that workers' received the full value of their labour. Tucker himself pointed this out when he argued that Proudhon (like himself) "would individualise and associate" workplaces by mutualism, which would "place the means of production within the reach of all." [quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 228] Proudhon used the word "associate" to denote co-operative (i.e. directly democratic) workplaces (and given Proudhon's comments - quoted in section G.2 - on capitalist firms we can dismiss any attempt to suggest that the term "individualise" indicates support for capitalist rather than artisan/peasant production, which is the classic example of individualised production). Thus the logical consequence of Tucker's proposals would be a system equivalent in most important respects to the kind of system advocated by other left libertarians - a system without wage slavery (and so exploitation) and with "the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of liberty." [Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 131] Tucker's ideal society was one of small entrepreneurs, farmers, artisans, independent contractors and co-operative associations based around a network of mutual banks. He looked to alternative institutions such as co-operative banks and firms, schools and trade unions, combined with civil disobedience in the form of strikes, general strikes, tax and rent strikes and boycotts to bring anarchism closer - "strikes, whenever and wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all the friends of labour. . . They show that people are beginning to know their rights, and knowing, dare to maintain them." [Tucker, _Liberty_, 15/4/1881] Echoing Bakunin's thoughts on the subject, Tucker maintained that strikes should be supported and encouraged because "as an awakening agent, as an agitating force, the beneficent influence of a strike is immeasurable. . . with our present economic system almost every strike is just. For what is justice in production and distribution? That labour, which creates all, shall have *all.*" [Tucker, _Liberty_, #19, 1882] Like the anarcho-syndicalists and many other social anarchists, Tucker considered Labour unions as a positive development, being a "crude step in the direction of supplanting the State" and involved a tendency "for self-government on the part of the people, the logical outcome of which is ultimate revolt against those usurping political conspiracies" and so "a potent sign of emancipation." [Ibid., pp. 231-232] Hence we see the co-operative nature of the voluntary organisations supported by Tucker. In this way working people would reform capitalism away by non-violent social protest combined with an increase in workers' bargaining power by alternative voluntary institutions and free credit. Exploitation would be eliminated and workers would gain economic liberty (i.e. the full value of their labour and workers' control). He firmly believed that the "most perfect Socialism is possible only on the condition of the most perfect individualism." [cited by Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 390] In other words, Tucker "remained a left rather than a right-wing libertarian." [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 391] There are, of course, many differences between the anarchism of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and that of Tucker. Tucker's system, for example, does retain some features usually associated with capitalism, such as competition between firms in a free market. However, the fundamental anarchist objection to capitalism is not that it involves markets but that it involves private property and wage slavery. Tucker's system was intended to eliminate both, which is why he called himself a socialist. This fact is overlooked by "anarcho"-capitalists who, in seeking to make Tucker one of their "founding fathers," point to the fact that he spoke of the advantages of owning "property." But it is apparent that by "property" he was referring to simple "possession" of land, tools, etc. by independent artisans, farmers, and co-operating workers (he used the word property "as denoting the labourer's individual possession of his product or his share of the joint product of himself and others." [Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 394]. For, since Tucker saw his system as eliminating the ability of capitalists to maintain exploitative monopolies over the means of production, it is therefore true *by definition* that he advocated the elimination of "private property" in the capitalist sense. Therefore, as can be seen, his views are directly opposed to those of right libertarians like Murray Rothbard, who advocate "absolute" property rights which are protected by laws enforced either by private security forces or a "night watchman state." This clearly indicates that Rothbard's claim to have "modernised" Tucker's thought is *false* - "ignored" or "changed" would be more appropriate. Thus, Tucker is clearly a left libertarian rather than a forefather of right libertarianism. In this he comes close to what today would be called a market socialist, albeit a non-statist variety. G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner? To some extent, Stirner's work _The Ego and Its Own_ is like a Rorschach test. Depending on the reader's psychology, he or she can interpret it in drastically different ways. Hence, some have used Stirner's ideas to defend capitalism, while others have used them to argue for anarcho-syndicalism. For example, many in the anarchist movement in Glasgow, Scotland, took Stirner's "Union of Egoists" literally as the basis for their anarcho-syndicalist organising. In this section of the FAQ, we will indicate why, in our view, the syndicalistic interpretation of egoism is far more appropriate than the capitalistic one. It should be noted, before continuing, that Stirner's work has had a bigger impact on individualist anarchism than social anarchism. Ben Tucker, for example, considered himself an egoist after reading _The Ego and Its Own_. However, social anarchists have much to gain from understanding Stirner's ideas and applying what is useful in them. This section will indicate why. So what is Stirner all about? Simply put, he is an Egoist, which means that he considers self-interest to be the root cause of an individual's every action, even when he or she is apparently doing "altruistic" actions. Thus: "I am everything to myself and I do everything *on my account*." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 162]. Even love is an example of selfishness, "because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me." [Ibid., p. 291] He urges others to follow him and "take courage now to really make *yourselves* the central point and the main thing altogether." As for other people, he sees them purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual: "For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of *usableness,* of utility, of use." [Ibid., pp. 296-7] For Stirner, all individuals are unique ("My flesh is not their flesh, my mind is not their mind," Ibid., p. 138) and should reject any attempts to restrict or deny their uniqueness. "To be looked upon as a mere *part,* part of society, the individual cannot bear -- because he is *more*; his uniqueness puts from it this limited conception." [Ibid., p. 265] Individuals, in order to maximise their uniqueness, must become aware of the *real* reasons for their actions. In other words they must become conscious, not unconscious, egoists. An unconscious, or involuntary, egoist is one "who is always looking after his own and yet does not count himself as the highest being, who serves only himself and at the same time always thinks he is serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than himself and yet is infatuated about something higher." [Ibid., p. 36] In contrast, egoists are aware that they act purely out of self-interest, and if they support a "higher being," it is not because it is a noble thought but because it will benefit themselves. Stirner himself, however, has no truck with "higher beings." Indeed, with the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks all "higher beings," regarding them as a variety of what he calls "spooks," or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which they are dominated. Among the "spooks" Stirner attacks are such notable aspects of capitalist life as private property, the division of labour, the state, religion, and society itself. We will discuss Stirner's critique of capitalism before moving onto his vision of an egoist society (and how it relates to social anarchism). For the egoist, private property is a spook which "lives by the grace of *law*. . . [and] becomes 'mine' only by effect of the law" [Ibid., p. 251]. In other words, private property exists purely "through the *protection of the State,* through the State's grace" [Ibid., p. 114]. Recognising its need for state protection, Stirner is also aware that "[i]t need not make any difference to the 'good citizens' who protects them and their principles, whether an absolute King or a constitutional one, a republic, if only they are protected. And what is their principle, whose protector they always 'love'? . . . interesting-bearing possession . . . labouring capital. . ." [Ibid., pp. 113-114] As can be seen from capitalist support for fascism this century, Stirner was correct -- as long as a regime supports capitalist interests, the 'good citizens' (including many on the so-called "libertarian" right) will support it. Stirner sees that not only does private property require state protection, it also leads to exploitation and oppression. As he points out, private property's "principle" is "labour certainly, yet little or none at all of one's own, but labour of capital and of the subject labourers." [Ibid., pp. 113-114] In addition, Stirner attacks the division of labour resulting from private property for its deadening effects on the ego and individuality of the worker (see section D.10, "How does capitalism affect technology?"). However, it is the exploitation of labour which is the basis of the state, for the state "rests on the *slavery of labour.* If *labour becomes free, the State is lost." [Ibid., p.116] Without surplus value to feed off, a state could not exist. For Stirner, the state is the greatest threat to his individuality: "I am free in *no* State." [Ibid., p.195] This is because the state claims to be sovereign over a given area, while, for Stirner, only the ego can be sovereign over itself and that which it uses (its "property"): "I am my *own* only when I am master of myself." [Ibid., p.169] Therefore Stirner urges insurrection against all forms of authority and *dis*-respect for property. For "[i]f man reaches the point of losing respect for property, everyone will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master" [Ibid., p. 258]. And in order for labour to become free, all must have "property." "The poor become free and proprietors only when they *rise.*" [Ibid., p. 260] Stirner recognises the importance of self-liberation and the way that authority often exists purely through its acceptance by the governed. As he argues, ". . . no thing is sacred of itself, but my *declaring it sacred,* by my declaration, my judgement, my bending the knee; in short, by my conscience." [Ibid. 72] It is from this worship of what society deems "sacred" that individuals must liberate themselves in order to discover their true selves. And, significantly, part of this process of liberation involves the destruction of *hierarchy.* For Stirner, "Hierarchy is domination of thoughts, domination of mind!," and this means that we are "kept down by those who are supported by thoughts" [Ibid., p. 74], i.e. by our own willingness to not question authority and the sources of that authority, such as private property and the state. For those, like modern-day "libertarian" capitalists, who regard "profit" as the key to "selfishness," Stirner has nothing but contempt. Because "greed" is just one part of the ego, and to spend one's life pursuing only that part is to deny all other parts. Stirner called such pursuit "self-sacrificing," or a "one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism," which leads to the ego being possessed by one aspect of itself. For "he who ventures everything else for *one thing,* one object, one will, one passion. . . is ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices." [Ibid., p. 76] For the true egoist, capitalists are "self-sacrificing" in this sense, because they are driven only by profit. In the end, their behaviour is just another form of self-denial, as the worship of money leads them to slight other aspects of themselves such as empathy and critical thought (the bank balance becomes the rule book). A society based on such "egoism" ends up undermining the egos which inhabit it, deadening one's own and other people's individuality and so reducing the vast potential "utility" of others to oneself. In addition, the drive for profit is not even based on self-interest, it is forced upon the individual by the workings of the market (an alien authority) and results in labour "claim[ing] all our time and toil," leaving no time for the individual "to take comfort in himself as the unique." [Ibid., pp. 268-9] Stirner also turns his analysis to "socialism" and "communism," and his critique is as powerful as the one he directs against capitalism. This attack, for some, gives his work an appearance of being pro-capitalist, while, as indicated above, it is not. Stirner did attack socialism, but he (rightly) attacked *state* socialism, not libertarian socialism, which did not really exist at that time (the only well known anarchist work at the time was Proudhon's _What is Property?_, published in 1840 and this work obviously could not fully reflect the developments within anarchism that were to come). Stirner also indicated why moralistic (or altruistic) socialism is doomed to failure, and laid the foundations of the theory that socialism will work only on the basis of egoism (communist-egoism, as it is sometimes called). Stirner correctly pointed out that much of what is called socialism was nothing but warmed up liberalism, and as such ignores the individual: "Whom does the liberal look upon as his equal? Man! . . ., In other words, he sees in you, not *you*, but the *species.*" [Ibid., p. 123] A socialism that ignores the individual consigns itself to being state capitalism, nothing more. "Socialists" of this school forget that "society" is made up of individuals and that it is individuals who work, think, love, play and enjoy themselves. Thus: "[t]hat society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit. . . of this the socialists do not think, because they -- as liberals -- are imprisoned in the religious principle and zealously aspire after -- a sacred society, such as the State was hitherto." [Ibid., p. 123] So how could Stirner's egoist vision fit with social anarchist ideas? The key to understanding the connection lies in Stirner's idea of the "union of egoists," his proposed alternative mode of organising modern society. Stirner believes that as more and more people become egoists, conflict in society will decrease as each individual recognises the uniqueness of others, thus ensuring a suitable environment within which they can co-operate (or find "truces" in the "war of all against all"). These "truces" Stirner termed "Unions of Egoists." They are the means by which egoists could, firstly, "annihilate" the state, and secondly, destroy its creature, private property, since they would "multiply the individual's means and secure his assailed property." [Ibid., p. 258] The unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual interests of those involved, who would "care best for their welfare if they *unite* with others." [Ibid., p. 309] The unions, unlike the state, exist to ensure what Stirner calls "intercourse," or "union" between individuals. To better understand the nature of these associations, which will replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends, lovers, and children at play as examples. These illustrate the kinds of relationships that maximise an individual's self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom, and individuality, as well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing while belonging to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a free and spontaneous co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it, "intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the *commercium,* of individuals" [Ibid., p. 218], and its aim is "pleasure" and "self-enjoyment." In order to ensure that those involved do not sacrifice any of their uniqueness and freedom, the contracting parties have to have roughly the same bargaining power. Otherwise, we can assume that some of the egoists involved will stop being egoists and will allow themselves to be dominated by another, which is unlikely. Therefore egoism (self-interest) must lead to mutual aid (solidarity), for by coming to agreements based on mutual respect and social equality, we ensure non-hierarchical relationships. If I dominate someone, then in all likelihood I will be dominated in turn. By removing hierarchy and domination, the ego is free to experience and utilise the full potential of others. As Kropotkin argued in _Mutual Aid_, individual freedom and social co-operation are not only compatible but, when united, create the most productive conditions for all individuals within society. Therefore, egoism's revolt against all hierarchies that restrict the ego logically leads to the end of authoritarian social relationships, particularly those associated with private property and the state; for it is in the self-interest of those subjected to such relationships to get rid of them and replace them with unions based on mutuality, free association, and self-management. Given the holistic and egalitarian nature of the union of egoists, it can be seen that it shares little with the so-called free agreements of capitalism (in particular wage labour). The hierarchical structure of capitalist firms hardly produces associations in which the individual's experiences can compared to those involved in friendship or play, nor do they involve equality. An essential aspect of the "union of egoists" for Stirner was such groups should be "owned" by their members, not the members by the group. That points to a *libertarian* form of organisation within these "unions" (i.e. one based on equality and participation), *not* a hierarchical one. If you have no say in how a group functions (as in wage slavery, where workers have the "option" of "love it or leave it") then you can hardly be said to own it, can you? Thus, Stirner's "union of egoists" cannot be compared to the employer-employee contract as the employees cannot be said to "own" the organisation resulting from the contract (nor do they own themselves during work time, having sold their time/liberty to the boss in return for wages -- see section B.4). And by the same token, they do not involve "leaving each other alone" (a la "anarcho"-capitalism). No boss will "leave alone" the workers in his factory, nor will a landowner "leave alone" a squatter on land she owns but does not use. Stirner rejects the narrow concept of "property" as private property and recognises the *social* nature of "property," whose use often affects far more people than those who claim to "own" it: "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as *my* property, in which I 'respect' nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!" [Ibid., p. 248]. This view logically leads to the idea of both workers' self-management and grassroots community control (as will be discussed more fully in section I) as those affected by an activity will take a direct interest in it and not let "respect" for "private" property allow them to be oppressed by others. Therefore Stirner's union of egoists has strong connections with social anarchism's desire for a society based on freely federated individuals, co-operating as equals. His central idea of "property" -- that which is used by the ego -- is an important concept for social anarchism, because it stresses that hierarchy develops when we let ideas and organisations own us rather than vice versa. A participatory anarchist community will be made up of individuals who must ensure that it remains their "property" and be under their control; hence the importance of decentralised, confederal organisations which ensure that control. A free society must be organised in such a way to ensure the free and full development of individuality and maximise the pleasure to be gained from individual interaction and activity. Lastly, Stirner indicates that mutual aid and equality are based not upon an abstract morality but upon self-interest, both for defence against hierarchy and for the pleasure of co-operative intercourse between unique individuals. Stirner demonstrates brilliantly how abstractions and fixed ideas ("spooks") influence the very way we think, see ourselves, and act. He shows how hierarchy has its roots within our own minds, in how we view the world. He offers a powerful defence of individuality in an authoritarian and alienated world, and places subjectivity at the centre of any revolutionary project, where it belongs. Finally, he reminds us that a free society must exist in the interests of all, and must be based upon the self-fulfilment, liberation and enjoyment of the individual. G.7 Lysander Spooner: right-Libertarian or libertarian socialist? Murray Rothbard and others on the "libertarian" right have argued that Lysander Spooner is another individualist anarchist whose ideas support "anarcho"-capitalism's claim to be part of the anarchist tradition. As will be shown below, however, this claim is untrue, since it is clear that Spooner was a left libertarian who was firmly opposed to capitalism. That Spooner was against capitalism can be seen in his opposition to wage labour, which he wished to eliminate by turning capital over to those who work it. Like Benjamin Tucker, he wanted to create a society of associated producers -- self-employed farmers, artisans and co-operating workers -- rather than wage-slaves and capitalists. For example, in his _Letter to Cleveland_ Spooner writes: "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." [quoted by Eunice Minette Schuster, _Native American Anarchism_, p. 148] This preference for a system based on simple commodity production in which capitalists and wage slaves are replaced by self-employed and co-operating workers puts Spooner squarely in the *anti-capitalist* camp with other individualist anarchists, like Tucker. And, we may add, the rough egalitarianism he expected to result from his system indicates the left-libertarian nature of his ideas, turning the present "wheel of fortune" into "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 enable him to secure his standing." [Spooner quoted by Peter Marshall in _Demanding the Impossible_, pp. 388-9] Right "libertarians" have perhaps mistaken Spooner for a capitalist because of his claim that a "free market in credit" would lead to low interest on loans or his "foolish" (to use Tucker's expression) ideas on intellectual property. But, as noted, markets are not the defining feature of capitalism. There were markets long before capitalism existed. So the fact that Spooner retained the concept of markets does not necessarily make him a capitalist. In fact, far from seeing his "free market in credit" in capitalist terms, he believed (again like Tucker) that competition between mutual banks would make credit cheap and easily available, and that this would lead to the *elimination* of capitalism! In this respect, both Spooner and Tucker follow Proudhon, who maintained that "reduction of interest rates to vanishing point is itself a revolutionary act, because it is destructive of capitalism" [cited in Edward Hyams, _Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works_, Taplinger, 1979]. Whether this belief is correct is, of course, another question; we have suggested that it is not, and that capitalism cannot be "reformed away" by mutual banking, particularly by competitive mutual banking. Further evidence of Spooner's anti-capitalism can be found his book _Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure_, where he notes that under capitalism the labourer does not receive "all the fruits of his own labour" because the capitalist lives off of workers' "honest industry." Thus: ". . . almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of other men than those who realise them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and labour from others." [quoted by Martin J. James, _Men Against the State_, p. 173f] Spooner's statement that capitalists deny workers "all the fruits" (i.e. the full value) of their labour presupposes the labour theory of value, which is the basis of the *socialist* demonstration that capitalism is exploitative (see section C). This interpretation of Spooner's social and economic views is supported by various studies in which his ideas are analysed. As these works also give an idea of Spooner's ideal world, they are worth quoting : "Spooner envisioned a society of pre-industrial times in which small property owners gathered together voluntarily and were assured by their mutual honesty of full payment of their labour." [Corinne Jackson, _The Black Flag of Anarchy_, p. 87] Spooner considered that "it was necessary that every man be his own employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for another resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer. To be one's own employer, it was necessary for one to have access to one's own capital." [James J. Martin, _Men Against the State_, p. 172] Spooner "recommends that every man should be his own employer, and he depicts an ideal society of independent farmers and entrepreneurs who have access to easy credit. If every person received the fruits of his own labour, the just and equal distribution of wealth would result." [Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 389] "Spooner would destroy the factory system, wage labour [and the business cycle]. . . by making every individual a small capitalist [sic!], an independent producer." [Eunice Minette Schuster, _Native American Anarchism_, p. 151] It is quite apparent, then, that Spooner was against wage labour, and therefore was no capitalist. Hence we must agree with Marshall, who classifies Spooner as a *left* libertarian with ideas very close to Proudhon's mutualism. Whether such ideas are relevant now, given the vast amount of capital needed to start companies in established sectors of the economy, is another question. As noted above, similar doubts may be raised about Spooner's claims about the virtues of a free market in credit. But one thing is clear: Spooner was opposed to the way America was developing in the mid 1800's. He viewed the rise of capitalism with disgust and suggested a way for non-exploitative and non-oppressive economic relationships to become the norm again in US society, a way based on eliminating the root cause of capitalism -- wage-labour -- through a system of easy credit, which he believed would enable artisans and peasants to obtain their own means of production. This is confirmed by an analysis of his famous works _Natural Law_ and _No Treason_. Spooner's support of "Natural Law" has also been taken as "evidence" that Spooner was a proto-right-libertarian (which ignores the fact that support for "Natural Law" is not limited to right libertarians). Of course, most anarchists do not find theories of "natural law," be they those of right-Libertarians, fascists or whatever, to be particularly compelling. Certainly the ideas of "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights," as existing independently of human beings in the sense of the ideal Platonic Forms, are difficult for anarchists to accept per se, because such ideas are inherently authoritarian (as highlighted in section F.7). Most anarchists would agree with Tucker when he called such concepts "religious." Spooner, unfortunately, did subscribe to the cult of "immutable and universal" Natural Laws and is so subject to all the problems we highlight in section F.7. If we look at his "defence" of Natural Law we can see how weak (and indeed silly) it is. Replacing the word "rights" with the word "clothes" in the following passage shows the inherent weakness of his argument: "if there be no such principle as justice, or natural law, then every human being came into the world utterly destitute of rights; and coming so into the world destitute of rights, he must forever remain so. For if no one brings any rights with him into the world, clearly no one can ever have any rights of his own, or give any to another. And the consequence would be that mankind could never have any rights; and for them to talk of any such things as their rights, would be to talk of things that had, never will, and never can have any existence." [_Natural Law_] And, we add, unlike the "Natural Laws" of "gravitation, . . .of light, the principles of mathematics" to which Spooner compares them, he is perfectly aware that his "Natural Law" can be "trampled upon" by other humans. However, unlike gravity (which does not need enforcing) its obvious that Spooner's "Natural Law" has to be enforced by human beings as it is within human nature to steal. In other words, it is a moral code, *not* a "Natural Law" like gravity. Interestingly, Spooner did come close to a *rational,* non-religious source for rights when he points out that "Men living in contact with each other, and having intercourse together, cannot avoid learning natural law." [Ibid.] This indicates the *social* nature of rights, of our sense of right and wrong, and so rights can exist without believing in religious concepts as "Natural Law." In addition, we can say that his support for juries indicates an unconscious recognition of the *social* nature (and so evolution) of any concepts of human rights. In other words, by arguing strongly for juries to judge human conflict, he implicitly recognises that the concepts of right and wrong in society are *not* indelibly inscribed in law tomes as the "true law," but instead change and develop as society does (as reflected in the decisions of the juries). In addition, he states that "Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple matter, . . . made up of a few simple elementary principles, of the truth and justice of which every ordinary mind has an almost intuitive perception," thus indicating that what is right and wrong exists in "ordinary people" and not in "prosperous judges" or any other small group claiming to speak on behalf of "truth." As can be seen, Spooner's account of how "natural law" will be administered is radically different from, say, Murray Rothbard's, and indicates a strong egalitarian context foreign to right-libertarianism. As far as "anarcho"-capitalism goes, one wonders how Spooner would regard the "anarcho"-capitalist "protection firm," given his comment in _No Treason_ that "[a]ny number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will." Compare this to Spooner's description of his voluntary justice associations: "it is evidently desirable that men should associate, so far as they freely and voluntarily can do so, for the maintenance of justice among themselves, and for mutual protection against other wrong-doers. It is also in the highest degree desirable that they should agree upon some plan or system of judicial proceedings" [_Natural Law_] At first glance, one may be tempted to interpret Spooner's justice organisations as a subscription to "anarcho"-capitalist style protection firms. A more careful reading suggests that Spooner's actual conception is more based on the concept of mutual aid, whereby people provide such services for themselves and for others rather than buying them on a fee-per-service basis. A very different concept. These comments are particularly important when we consider Spooner's criticisms of finance capitalists, like the Rothschilds. Here he departs even more strikingly from all "Libertarian" positions. For he believes that sheer wealth has intrinsic power, even to the extent of allowing the wealthy to coerce the government into behaving at their behest. For Spooner, governments are "the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious, fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like the Rothschilds, [can]. . . unmake them [governments]. . .the moment they refuse to commit any crime" that finance capital requires of them. Indeed, Spooner considers "these soulless blood-money loan-mongers" as "the real rulers," not the government (who are their agents). [_No Treason_]. If one grants that highly concentrated wealth has intrinsic power and may be used in such a Machiavellian manner as Spooner claims, then simple opposition to the state is not sufficient. Logically, any political theory claiming to promote liberty should also seek to limit or abolish the institutions that facilitate large concentrations of wealth. As shown above, Spooner regarded wage labour under capitalism as one of these institutions, because without it "large fortunes could rarely be made at all by one individual." Hence for Spooner, as for social anarchists, to be anti-statist also necessitates being anti-capitalist. This can be clearly seen for his analysis of history, where he states: "Why is it that [Natural Law] has not, ages ago, been established throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be compelled to obey?" Spooner's answer is given in his interpretation of how the State evolved, where he postulates that the State was formed through the initial ascendancy of a land-holding, slave-holding class by military conquest and oppressive enslavement of a subsistence-farming peasantry. "These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labour of their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons; increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organisations, and multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and cooperage with each other in holding their slaves in subjection. "But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government, and making what they call laws. ... "Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in the desires of one class of persons to plunder and enslave others, *and hold them as property.*" [_Natural Law_] Nothing too provocative here; simply Spooner's view of government as a tool of the wealth-holding, slave-owning class. What is more interesting is Spooner's view of the subsequent development of (post-slavery) socio-economic systems. Spooner writes: "In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was *not* for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labour to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what the latter might choose to give them." [Ibid.] Here Spooner echoes the standard anarchist critique of capitalism. Note that he is no longer talking about slavery but rather about economic relations between a wealth-holding class and a 'freed' class of workers/labourers/tenant farmers. Clearly he does *not* view this relation --wage labour -- as a voluntary association, because the former slaves have little option but to be employed by members of the wealth-owning class. Spooner points out that by monopolising the means of wealth creation while at the same time requiring the newly 'liberated' slaves to provide for themselves, the robber class thus continues to receive the benefits of the labour of the former slaves while accepting none of the responsibility for their welfare. Spooner continues: "Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative -- to save themselves from starvation -- but to sell their labour to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that." [Ibid.] Thus while technically "free," the liberated working/labouring class lack the ability to provide for their own needs and hence remain dependent on the wealth-owning class. This echoes not right-libertarian analysis of capitalism, but left-libertarian and other socialist viewpoints. "These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life." [Ibid.] This is an interesting comment. Spooner suggests that the liberated slave class were perhaps *better off as slaves.* Most anarchists would not go so far, although we would agree that employees are subject to the power of those who employ them and so are no long self-governing individuals -- in other words, that capitalist social relationships deny self-ownership and freedom. "They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labour." [Ibid.] Lest the reader doubt that Spooner is actually discussing employment here (and not slavery), he explicitly includes being made unemployed as an example of the arbitrary nature of wage labour. "They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters." [Ibid.] And thus: "The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organise themselves more perfectly as a government *and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection*. . . . " [Ibid.] In other words, the robber class creates legislation which will protect its power, namely its property, against the dispossessed. Hence we see the creation of "law code" by the wealthy which serves to protect their interests while effectively making attempts to change the status quo illegal. This process is in effect similar to the right-libertarian concept of a "general libertarian law code" which exercises a monopoly over a given area and which exists to defend the "rights" of property against "initiation of force," i.e. attempts to change the system into a new one. Spooner goes on: "The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands of robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the great body of labourers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would compel them to sell their labour to their tyrants for the lowest prices at which life could be sustained." [Ibid.] Thus Spooner identifies the underlying basis for legislation (as well as the source of much misery, exploitation and oppression throughout history) as the result of the monopolisation of the means of wealth creation by an elite class. We doubt he would have considered that calling these laws "libertarian" would in any change their oppressive and class-based nature. "Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now grown to such gigantic proportions, had its origin in the conspiracies, which have always existed among the few, for the purpose of holding the many in subjection, and extorting from them their labour, and all the profits of their labour." [Ibid.] Characterising employment as extortion may seem rather extreme, but it makes sense given the exploitative nature of profit under capitalism, as left libertarians have long recognised (see section C). In summary, as can be seen, there is a great deal of commonality between Spooner's ideas and those of social anarchists. Spooner perceives the same sources of exploitation and oppression inherent in monopolistic control of the means of production by a wealth-owning class as do social anarchists. His solutions may differ, but he observes exactly the same problems. In other words, Spooner is a left libertarian, and his individualist anarchism is just as anti-capitalist as the ideas of, say, Bakunin, Kropotkin or Chomsky. Spooner was no more a capitalist than Rothbard was an anarchist.