Individualist anarchism

Individualist anarchism is a philosophical tradition, appearing primarily in the United States, that emphasises the autonomy of the individual. This is in contrast to philosophies that embrace collectivism. While individualist anarchism's roots includes Europeans such as Max Stirner (who is also connected to the existentialist philosophy), the individualist anarchist tradition also draws heavily on American independant thinkers, including Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Ezra Heywood, and Henry David Thoreau. Noteworthy anarchist writer and poet John Henry Mackay is also considered an individualist anarchist. Contemporary individualist anarchists include Robert Anton Wilson, Joe Peacott, and Wendy McElroy.

Individualist anarchists are claimed as an influence by both libertarians (particularly those libertarians who describe their views as anarcho-capitalist), as well as libertarian socialists and traditional anarchists, although the two groups dispute which tradition has more claim to individualist anarchism as an influence. Anarchists often note that Spooner, Tucker, and Stirner all rejected various principles of capitalism. Tucker referred to himself as a socialist, defining it as "the claim that labor should be put in possession of its own". And, Spooner condemns wage labor. Anarcho-capitalists note that some of these individuals support some practices consistent with capitalism, including private property, and the charging of interest.

The question of property

Individualist anarchists do not all agree in regard to private property. Max Stirner, while rejecting Proudhon's ideas about property as a collective good, also rejected all kinds of liberalism and held that the "right" to personal property was an illusion, or "ghost". He held that there were neither natural principles, nor moral obligations attached to property, as elaborated in his early work of the individualist tradition, The Ego and Its Own. Stirner takes an existentialist viewpoint of the social world: we are all subject to ideologies which try to occupy and control our minds so that we become followers of certain ideas. He makes no difference between socialism, liberalism or humanism in this regard (communism was not yet invented but would have been treated the same way). He claims the effect of such ideologies is that those who further them confuse them for their own ideas and they become "ghosts" or "wheels in the head", much different from the true interest of the individual. In this way, the idea of obligations attached to property is nothing more than yet another idea external to the individuals interests.

Tucker, on the other hand, supports a right of individual to own all of the produce of their labor, but maintains that it is exploitative for an employer to retain part of produce as profit. Whereas Stirner calls a right to private property a "ghost," Tucker calls a collective that would own property a "non-entity."

Other individualist anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner, support a right to individual ownership of property. He says that "Any article of wealth which a man creates or produces by the exercise of any portion of his wealth producing faculties is...clearly his rightful property." And, in 'Natural Law, he asserts that "each man...shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another." Spooner also ran a successful business for a short time called The American Letter Mail Company, challenging the government's monopoly and privatizing mail delivery illustrating his belief that "each man should be his own employer, or work directly for himself..." as well as his support of private ownership of capital (see Poverty). Moreover, he stated a belief in "free competition" [1]. In No Treason [2], Spooner upholds the right of the individual to enter into and leave any agreement as they see fit, including their relationship with the state.

Benjamin Tucker, though calling himself a "socialist," rejects the notion of collective ownership of resources saying the foundational claim of socialism is "that labor should be put in possession of its own." [3]. In Liberty, he says: "That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land, Anarchists deny. I . . . maintain that ‘the community’ is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogatives beyond those of the individuals themselves.” Tucker believed in individual private ownership of land, but only as much as what one could put into use, opposing titles to unused land. Tucker held that a right of private propery is essential to liberty and that if one denies such a right then he is not an anarchist: "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist" (The New Freewoman, November 15th, 1913). Also, Tucker has no opposition to wage labor, as long as employers and employees were paid equally for the same amount of labor.

While not all individualist anarchists agree that individuals have should have a right to private property, they all agree that practice of an employer profiting from the labor of an employee is unjustifiable. While the American individualists asserted that it is the individual that should retain the rights to the entire produce of his labor, the Europeans such as Stirner make this assertion in regard to the collective. However, American individualist anarchists would not coercively intervene in a "capitalist" profit-making employer/employee relationship, prefering instead to set up alternate forms of business known as "mutualism." Individualist Clarence L. Swartz, a contemporary of Tucker and a disciple of his, says in What is Mutualism?: "Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty."

The charging of interest

Historically, individualist anarchists did not oppose the charging of interest for lending capital, however they did oppose collusion between government and banks that limits individuals from entering the banking business. They believed that any individual or group of individuals should be allowed to engage in banking business without having to obtain permission from governments such as charters. Some proposed banks based on the mutualist model. They believed that if the banking monopoly were open to competition from mutualist banks that interest rates would be reduced to their "natural" rate --a rate which Benajamin Tucker believed would not include profit. Profiting from charging interest, rather than interest itself, was regarded as a form of usury by Tucker. Individualist anarchists opposed all limitations on interest rates imposed by government. Lysander Spooner says, in Poverty: "All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest, are, therefore,nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor."

External links

• Anarchist FAQ: Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?
• libertarian socialist views on individualist anarchism
• Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism?
• American Anarchism by Wendy McElroy 19th Century Individualist Anarchism in America
• American Liberal-Anarchism from The Conquest of Power, by Albert Weisbord
• Bad Press Contemporary Individualist Anarchist Publications