-Caveat Lector-
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:26:48 -0500
From: Patricia Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anarchism: Two Kinds
An excellent article that explains this tricky subject really well!
Anarchism: Two Kinds
by Wendy McElroy
December 13, 1999
In commenting on the World Trade Organizations (WTO) riots in Seattle,
"The Economist" asked, "Why were there no anarchists among all those
'anarchists?'." Actually, there were, but the ones drawing attention were
the sort who give overthrowing the State a bad name. Salon (almost alone
among the media) was more accurate in stating: "Most reports simply
labelled the rioters 'anarchists,' missing the fact that many among the
peaceful blockaders consider themselves anarchists, too."
Clearly, some definition is necessary. The self-proclaimed anarchists who
proceeded to "direct action at the point of consumption" (translation:
smash windows and loot) were left anarchists. They were attacking an
abstraction -- the free market - by destroying the specific property of
individual shop owners. The owners were guilty of wrongdoing because,
well, they were "owners."
This is not American anarchism. Individualist anarchism, the indigenous
form of the political philosophy, stands in rigorous opposition to
attacking the person or property of individuals. The philosophy revolves
around the "Sovereignty of the Individual"--as an early champion, Josiah
Warren, phrased it. Whether you prefer the term 'self-ownership' or 'the
non-invasion principle,' the core of the philosophy remains the same.
The idea is that every peaceful individual must be at liberty to dispose
of his person, time, and property as he sees fit. Force is permissible
only in self-defense and only when directed at the offending
individual(s), not at the representatives of a class. Individualist
anarchism rejects the State because it is the institutionalization of
force against peaceful individuals.
Left anarchism (socialist and communist) are foreign imports that flooded
the country like cheap goods during the 19th century. Many of these
anarchists (especially those escaping Russia) introduced lamentable traits
into American radicalism. They believed in "propaganda by deed": that is,
the use of violence as a political weapon and a form of political
expression.
They also divided society into economic classes that were at war with each
other. Those who made a profit from buying or selling were class
criminals and their customers or employees were class victims. It did not
matter if the exchanges were voluntary ones. Thus, left anarchists hated
the free market as deeply as they hated the State.
By contrast, individualist anarchists demanded that all voluntary
exchanges be tolerated, if not respected.
For better or worse, the two schools of anarchism had enough in common to
shake hands when they first met. To some degree, they spoke a mutual
language. For example, they both reviled the State and denounced
capitalism. But, by the latter, individualist anarchists meant
"state-capitalism" the alliance of government and business. As a solution
to such "capitalism," they called for measures such as free banking. In
other words, they wanted to set up voluntary and more effective
alternatives. And if such a voluntary society still harbored such evils as
exorbitant interest rates... so be it. No one had the right to intervene
in a non-coerced exchange. Not even a well-intentioned anarchist.
The ideological honeymoon was soon shattered. A major conflict was over
the left's use of violence as a political strategy. For example, in March
1886, Benjamin Tucker - editor of Liberty, the voice of 19th century
individualist anarchism - caused a national scandal. He published an
article entitled "The Beast of Communism." There, he disclosed that "a
large number" of communist anarchists in New York City were setting fire
to their own property to collect on capitalist insurance policies, even
though some properties were tenements with hundreds of occupants. In one
fire, a mother and her newborn had burned to death. Tucker labeled these
so-called radicals as "a gang of criminals."
Individual and left anarchists were fellow travelers no more. Liberty
became a foremost critic of left magazines like Freiheit, which ran
articles on the virtues of dynamite and instructions on how to produce
nitroglycerine.
The schism between the two forms of anarchism has deepened with time.
Largely due to the path breaking work of Murray Rothbard, 20th century
individualist anarchism is no longer inherently suspicious of
profit-making practices, such as charging interest. indeed, it embraces
the free market as the voluntary vehicle of economic exchange.
But as individualist anarchism draws increasingly upon the work of
Austrian economists such as Mises and Hayek, it draws increasingly
farther away from left anarchism.
Occasionally, there are issues upon which the left and right can unite in
protest. Opposition to the WTO could have been one of them. But not
because the organization is an expression of "free trade." The WTO has
nothing to do with free trade. Some nation members want tariff preferences
for developing countries. Japan wants to protect its fishing and forestry.
Switzerland intends to maintain subsidies for farmers. The EU wants to
restrict certain imports (e.g. beef) until the technology (e.g. genetic
modification) can be 'proven' safe.
Meanwhile, Clinton demands a standing forum for discussion between the WTO
and ILO so that Democrats won't alienate the labor vote in the upcoming
election. All in all, the spirit of the WTO is captured by the EU trade
commissioner, Pascal Lamy, who believes that free trade should be
"controlled, steered and managed according to the concerns of EU
citizens." This is a definition of 'free trade' with which I am unfamiliar.
True free trade means the same thing as it did to Legendre, the
businessman reputed to have provided a famous answer to the 17th century
French politician Colbert, who wanted to know how to assist him. Legendre
is said to have replied, "Laissez nous faire" -- leave us alone.
The historian Ralph Raico explains, "Today the term laissez faire has come
to mean: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic
activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the
pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives." This is what the free market
means to individualist anarchism.
Left and right anarchists could have united in non-violent protest against
the WTO as a vehicle of government oppression. But instead of smashing the
State, left anarchists smashed the windows of shopkeepers. As it stands,
there are only two things about Seattle on which left and right can agree.
For whatever reason, the WTO must go. And at least neither one of us is
the police.
* * * * *
Wendy McElroy is the author of The Reasonable Woman among many other books.
------------- FREE WORLD ORDER <http://www.buildfreedom.com/> -------------
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
