Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy
-Caveat Lector- Property is theft. Property is liberty. Property is impossible. Proudhon is obviously talking about three different things. The word "property" is like the word "love." It has more than one meaning. You "love" your girlfriend. You "love" your mother. You "love" pizza. These are obviously different things. So too are the three different kinds of property. "Property is theft" refers to private property, i.e., a factory where workers toil to produce goods the owner sells back to us. We built those factories. They rightfully belong to us. We were robbed. "Property is liberty" refers to personal property. If the things you actually use, your home, your car, your tools, your toys, etc. are not entirely immune to confiscation and forfieture, your "liberty" is an cruel illusion. "Property is impossible" refers to public property. A long as the things we all use, the roads, the schools, the airwaves, etc. are under control of the state and of private capital and not of the public, public property is impossible. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy
-Caveat Lector- Thanks, Nessie! A very cogent explanation. Of course, where the worshippers of the marketplace go wrong is that they define "property" in terms of *private* property and extend the statement that "property is liberty" to include General Motors, Bertelsmann, and Mitsubishi...which is a logical absurdity. -Original Message- From: nessie [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 11:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy -Caveat Lector- Property is theft. Property is liberty. Property is impossible. Proudhon is obviously talking about three different things. The word "property" is like the word "love." It has more than one meaning. You "love" your girlfriend. You "love" your mother. You "love" pizza. These are obviously different things. So too are the three different kinds of property. "Property is theft" refers to private property, i.e., a factory where workers toil to produce goods the owner sells back to us. We built those factories. They rightfully belong to us. We were robbed. "Property is liberty" refers to personal property. If the things you actually use, your home, your car, your tools, your toys, etc. are not entirely immune to confiscation and forfieture, your "liberty" is an cruel illusion. "Property is impossible" refers to public property. A long as the things we all use, the roads, the schools, the airwaves, etc. are under control of the state and of private capital and not of the public, public property is impossible. 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 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy
-Caveat Lector- Another term for the two kinds of Anarchism: "right-Libertarian" (anarcho-capitalist) and "libertarian socialist" (anarcho-syndicalist) from: An Anarchist FAQ Webpage, Version 6.1 G.7 Lysander Spooner: right-Libertarian or libertarian socialist? http://au.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secG7.html 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 Ben Tucker, he wanted to create a society of associated producers -- self-employed farmers, artisans and cooperating 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 laborers, 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." This preference for a system based on simple commodity production in which capitalists and wage slaves are replaced by self-employed and cooperating workers puts Spooner squarely in the anti-capitalist camp with other individualist anarchists, like Tucker. 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. 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 realize them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and labor from others." Spooner's statement that capitalists deny workers "all the fruits" (i.e. the full value) of their labor presupposes the labour theory of value, which is the basis of the socialist demonstration that capitalism is exploitative. [1] Spooner's support of "Natural Law" has also been taken as "evidence" that Spooner was a proto-right-libertarian. Of course, most anarchists do not find theories of "natural law," be they due to 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. [2] Spooner, however, never explicitly states in his essay in what sense he believes "natural law" to exist. Seeking to give him the benefit of the doubt, we can say that his support for juries indicates a support for the evolution of any concepts of "natural rights." In other words, 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
Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy
-Caveat Lector- Nessie, you and I may disagree about nonviolence (and BTW, I'm going to pick up that thread again soon), but here we agree completely. There is no such thing as "Russian" anarchism (usually described as nihilism), "American" anarchism, "German" anarchism, etc. That would be as impossible as electing the president of the International Anarchist Central Committee. I suspect that a lot of the "explanations" of anarchism going around right now are desinformatsiya, aimed at discrediting a movement which has the potential to pose a serious threat to the Oligarchy, and also at encouraging anarchists who speak particular languages to identify themselves as "Russian," "American," "German," "Catalan," and thus put artificial boundaries between people and disrupt the movement's unity. -Original Message- From: nessie [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy -Caveat Lector- An excellent article that explains this tricky subject really well! This article is bunk. It is absurd to talk about "American" anarchism and "Russian" anarchism. Anarchism, by definition, recognizes no borders. If you're one of us, you're one of us, period. We don't care where you're from. It is particularly absurd to atribute the differences between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism to national origin. Both tendencies exist everywhere anarchists exist, which is most places on earth. Both are present in virtually every anarchist individual. We believe that self reliance and mutual aid are of equal importance. If you want to know about anarchism, don't listen to non-anarchists. Never believe anything anybody says about their enemies. Listen to what we say about ourselves and our beliefs. We knowus better than anybody does. snip DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy
-Caveat Lector- Hell, even the distinction between collectivist and individualist is baloney. The anarchists you name here leaped right out of the political spectrum and became non-Euclideans. Consider Proudhon: Property is theft. Property is liberty. Property is impossible. Whenever I try to seriously understand Proudhon, I am reminded of the *Last Whole Earth Catalog*'s comment on the *Tao Te Ching*: "Just when you think you understand it, it giggles and rains on you." ;^) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 2:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy nessie wrote: -Caveat Lector- An excellent article that explains this tricky subject really well! This article is bunk. It is absurd to talk about "American" anarchism and "Russian" anarchism. Anarchism, by definition, recognizes no borders. If you're one of us, you're one of us, period. We don't care where you're from. It is particularly absurd to atribute the differences between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism to national origin. True, it is particularly absurd to attribute the differences between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism to national origin, but you must admit there are major philosophical differences between great European Anarchist thinkers like Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, et al. (collectivist), and great America's Anarchist thinkers like Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, etc. (individualist). Their national origin is irrelevant and at most a coincidence, although their differences in beliefs are not (collectivist v. individualist, anarcho-syndicalist v. anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-left v. anarcho-right, etc.). And although all the beliefs of these great thinkers would not fit neatly into a single 'faction', many of them do, and they serve to give a rough idea of where they each stand, what type of anarcho society they advocate, and how to get there. So while the 'national origin' fallacy is generally bunk, it does not necessarily make the entire article bunk. snip DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy
nessie wrote: -Caveat Lector- An excellent article that explains this tricky subject really well! This article is bunk. It is absurd to talk about "American" anarchism and "Russian" anarchism. Anarchism, by definition, recognizes no borders. If you're one of us, you're one of us, period. We don't care where you're from. It is particularly absurd to atribute the differences between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism to national origin. True, it is particularly absurd to attribute the differences between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism to national origin, but you must admit there are major philosophical differences between great European Anarchist thinkers like Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, et al. (collectivist), and great America's Anarchist thinkers like Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, etc. (individualist). Their national origin is irrelevant and at most a coincidence, although their differences in beliefs are not (collectivist v. individualist, anarcho-syndicalist v. anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-left v. anarcho-right, etc.). And although all the beliefs of these great thinkers would not fit neatly into a single 'faction', many of them do, and they serve to give a rough idea of where they each stand, what type of anarcho society they advocate, and how to get there. So while the 'national origin' fallacy is generally bunk, it does not necessarily make the entire article bunk. Both tendencies exist everywhere anarchists exist, which is most places on earth. Both are present in virtually every anarchist individual. We believe that self reliance and mutual aid are of equal importance. True, many anarchist hold a mix of individualist and syndicalist beliefs, but many do not; consider the following: About this time last year when Michael Johnson and Joshua2 were constantly butting heads on this list, it was hard for me not to sum up MJ as an anarcho-capitalist and J2 as an anarcho-syndicalist. It's sometimes helpful to look at the big picture from this perspective and break it down from there. And while MJ and J2 are both political anarchists (even though they might not use that label to describe their beliefs), and most likely believe that self reliance and mutual aid (or exchange) are of equal importance, they can't agree on anything with regards to economics [although they seem to agree to a similar theory with regards to politics: (poli=many/tics=parasites)]. The major differences between the two major anarchist camps are not political, they're economic. Because of this, the 'we' in anarchism is sometimes better left as 'them' and 'us'. I assume MJ and J2 would agree with this point (and agree to disagree on most others). There's a ton of anarchist resources on web. Check some out: You left out one of the better resources (mostly anarcho-syndicalist): http://208.206.78.232/liberty/liberty.html Title: Liberty for the People LinkExchange Member Liberty for the People Texts concerning the goal of liberty and freedom for the working class individual. Anarchist FAQ [Frequently Asked Questions] file Web-Page. Also here. Anarchist Mailing Lists - Join one today! Anarchist Yellow Pages! A Searchable Index of anarchist web pages. Sign the guestbook! Join the IWW! The following consist of electronic texts relevent to libertarian socialist / anarchist theory, philosophy, organising, & history. Unlike many simmilar pages, this page is not simply a collection of links to other sites. Highlighted links denote local material. Because this page may someday move, please copy articles over to your own web space for your own use rather than linking directly to them at this site. Feel free to link to this home page, however. Definitions These are specific definitions of working-class oriented libertarian theories and goals: Libertarian Socialism, a basic definition "Libertarian Socialism", an article from the Swedish SAC. "'Libertarians' - What's in a Word?", article from "ANARCHY! Northeast Libertarian Broadsheet" (from England), about the word "Libertarian". Defining Anarchism, by Jason Justice Misconceptions of Anarchism, by Sam Dolgoff Stateless Socialism: Anarchism, by Mikhail Bakunin "Anarchism", Peter Kropotkin's definition from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910. This is generally considered the de facto definition. "Anarchism: A Matter of Words", by Daniel Guerin Guerin offers the explanation of where the words "anarchy" and "libertarian" origionaly came from. "Anarchism: What it Really Stands for", by Emma Goldman. "The Working Class": what is it? Who is part of it? Earnings: The material rewards for labor over time Defining Neoliberalism What is Anarcho-Syndicalism Anarchosyndicalism by Rudolf Rocker An Opinionated Definition of Syndicalism, by Mike Lepore Anarchism as defined by Grolier's Electronic Encyclopedia What Is Anarchism? from the anarchist Workers Soliderity Movement (WSM) Peter
Re: [CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy
-Caveat Lector- An excellent article that explains this tricky subject really well! This article is bunk. It is absurd to talk about "American" anarchism and "Russian" anarchism. Anarchism, by definition, recognizes no borders. If you're one of us, you're one of us, period. We don't care where you're from. It is particularly absurd to atribute the differences between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism to national origin. Both tendencies exist everywhere anarchists exist, which is most places on earth. Both are present in virtually every anarchist individual. We believe that self reliance and mutual aid are of equal importance. If you want to know about anarchism, don't listen to non-anarchists. Never believe anything anybody says about their enemies. Listen to what we say about ourselves and our beliefs. We knowus better than anybody does. There's a ton of anarchist resources on web. Check some out: ANARCHIST RESOURCES ON THE INTERNET (A SORT OF FAQ, 2.8, 27/April/1999) This FAQ is on the web at http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/faq.html Anarchists have been active on the internet for many years now, this is a quick guide for newcomers to the net so they can discover the wealth of anarchist resources available. There is also information on how to get free web pages and email accounts so you can provide information as well as consuming it. There are currently five sections I. Anarchist Web Pages II. Anarchist mailing lists III. Newsgroups IV Chat VNew pages on Revolt this month Suggestions for improvements etc can be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- I. ANARCHIST WEB PAGES There are literally hundreds of anarchist web pages and more are appearing every week. Rather then providing a very long list (which would quickly become outdated), I suggest you go to the Anarchist FAQ's list of web pages which is regularly updated and lists most current pages. This is at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/links.html The FAQ is the work of anarchists in many countries and aims to provide an exhaustive description of anarchism useful to beginners and people who have been in the movement for many years. This is at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ If you want to put up your own web page various companies provide space in return for putting advertising on your pages. Be warned though that they may well remove your pages if they don't like your what you say without either warning or appeal!! Often such commercial pages also monitor who is looking at their pages and sell this information to third parties. Free commercial page providers include http://www.geocities.com http://www.tripod.com TAO Communications, a worker-cooperative of radical activists and communications workers, offers pay-what- you-can web site hosting for groups who's work coincides with their collective statement of demands (http://www.tao.ca/sky/). People and collectives requesting their services can fill out the form at http://www.tao.ca/sky/new.html to recieve e-mail accounts (web or shell-based), shell accounts, ftp, websites, etc... to request the creation of an e-mail list use the 'create' button at http://major.tao.ca II ANARCHIST MAILING LISTS This is a listing of anarchist and related mailing lists broken into sections 1. General anarchist lists 2. Regional anarchist lists 3. Lists run for a particular organisation 4. Anarchist project lists 5. Getting an additional, free email address 6. Other lists of interest to anarchists Sections 1, 2 and 3 have most if not all lists currently publicly available (there are also some 'invite only' ones). Anarchy-list is the oldest of the lists here and by far the busiest, when you subscribe to an email list all the mail from it goes into YOUR mailbox so unless you read you mail _VERY_ frequently I recommend you only subscribe to one or two of these lists at a time. All the different lists have quite a different character to them so read the descriptions and pick one that seems to suit you. If you are not an anarchist and want to argue with anarchists its not a good idea to subscribe to these lists as its not really their function, they are spaces for anarchists to talk to each other. If this is what your looking for I recommend you use NEWS which is the last section listed here. If your polite about it and don't post too much you might also be accepted on anarchy-list. 1. GENERAL ANARCHIST LISTS These are news/discussion lists not restricted to any particular region or organisation A-Infos News [ RECOMMENDED] reports and analysis from international anarchist newspapers and individuals as well as news from more general sources of interest to anarchists. Useful in particular for non-mainstream views of big international stories like the storming of the Japanese embassy in Peru. To join send mail with the
[CTRL] Anarchism: Two Kinds / Wendy McElroy
-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
