File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_1999/anarchy-list.9912, message 626


Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:14:27 -0500
From: Mumpsimus <mumpsimus-AT-netzero.net>
Subject: Anarchism: Two Kinds


from elsewhere ...


Anarchism: Two Kinds 
by Wendy McElroy

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
businessmen reputed to have provided a famous answer to the 17th
century French politician Colbert, who wanted to know how to assist
them. 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.

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

    GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
  <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the latest, as well as archived, common sense commentary, be sure to
visit http://www.JewisWorldReview.com for all the best collumnists.
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005