Jonestown the massacre as you never saw it on TV
***
“On November 18, 1978, more than 900 people allegedly committed suicide in Jonestown, leaving
over 200 more people unaccounted for to this day as
1100 passports had been issued to temple members to
travel to Guyana. officials later stated to the press that
only 900 passports had been issued. of those 900
individuals, over two-thirds of them were either shot,
strangled or showed injection or puncture marks on
their bodies. Contrary to what all established media
said at the time, very few actually died from
self-administered, cyanide-laced KoolAid.”
***
Apparently this hits a nerve, as old as it is. This is good.
That is why this is going solo. Please read these links
http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/mind_control/jjones.html
http://www.silcom.com/~patrick/pwrcat.htm
http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/AUM/SECTION_2/07.html
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/JONESTOWN.html
http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/institutional_analysis/jones.html
http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29I4/page10.htm
http://www.anomalous-images.com/text/FIRESK20.TXT

Well. here it is.

I'll grant you this.
I wasn't there. I don't know what happened for sure.
You may be right, for all I know.
All I ask is this.
Please post some links to sites that aren't
simple armchair conspiracy theory throw-ups.
Who knows, you might convince more people of your beliefs if you refrained from backing them up with such tripe.
Again, I am not attacking your view or the validity of it. Merely the credibility of your sourses.
It's WAY TOO easy to post info on the web.

Most of the web is devoted to the Kool Aid story.
Did you indeed read any of my 'Conspiracy links'?
They seem to converge even as they come from different
sources. There are more if you are interested.

What do these conspiracy theories state is the reason somebody (other than the cult thugs who would kill those who wouldn't play along) would want these people to die?

I imagine the CIA or Republicans must be involved somehow...

Thank you for summarizing for me. Reading conspiracy theory websites is something I don't do. I don't eat junk food either.

I might start up another thread about the
CIA, 3rd riech and the republican party
when they were 'different' from the
democrats.
Don't read anything you wish
to not read.
Then jump on in without any
thing but your opinion. Good going.

C'mon - the Republicans are the good guys who tell the truth. The Democrats are the liars. Clinton set the standard for lying in office.

This conspiracy theory stuff is on a level with comic books. The guys who believe Jonestown was a government covert operation; Waco was politically motivated; and/or that 9/11 was somehow orchestrated by our government are flat out crazy. Those people need to be taken away in straight jackets beccause they are really truly nuts. Put them in the same category with those who believe the Holocaust didn't really happen and OJ didn't kill his wife.

...sure, and I suppose William Greer, the limo driver didn't shoot Kennedy point blank in the head either.

"conspiracy theory" is a generalized term used to dismiss what were actually government sanctioned, taxpayer supported covert operations, like the overthrowing of Allende or the attempted coup on Chavez earlier this year.

bush-asskisser and his ilk need to grow up and pull their heads out of the ostrich hole, or bush's ass for that matter.

Everyone's just losing sleep at night over this one.

>I'll grant you this.
I wasn't there. I don't know what happened for sure.

Neither was he. But he'll sure as sheep act like he was.

World War II didn't happen either - cause you weren't there?

Lincoln really wasn't assassinated because you weren't there.

The Tuskegee Experiment really didn't happen because you weren't there.

No one's saying it didn't happen. We're saying it didn't happen the way Bo Gritz says it happened.

We're not the ones who have to prove it happened the way Bo says it did. The burden is on those who say it wasn't a mass suicide. The evidence says it was.

Jones’ friends.
***
Among those who contacted him:
"missionaries" from World Vision (an international evangelical
order that often fronts for the CIA);
the local chapter head to the John Birch
Society; and leaders of
the Republican party, for whom his
"church" members conducted voter
organization and fund-raising activities for
the Dick Nixon '68 campaign.
***
“One of the strangest CIA connections to Jonestown was World Vision an evangelical order which often fronts for the CIA. They performed espionage work for the CIA in Southeast Asia while Operation Phoenix
(the murderous project that left 40,000 people dead) was in full effect.
In Honduras, they maintained a presence at CIA contra recruiting camps in the war against the Sandinistas.”
http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue82/jonestown.html
"[Jones] said he was working for the government -- the
CIA people, who were using the Peoples Temple members as guinea pigs in a mind control experiment. That if this worked, it would later be used elsewhere on
a massive scale after the terrible depression came, on
those who would not do what the government ordered
them to do.”
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~remoore/jonestown/articles/mcgehee.html

I really want to thank you for self destructing like this. It's no longer necessary to debate you. You've disqualified yourselves with this conspiracy nonsense.

Sort of like Al Sahaf committing suicide, you lefties have fallen on your swords.

Thanks for that.

that's even more whacked out than I imagined!

What hurts simple people's minds:
People follow cult leaders into a jungle, do stupid stuff, and (literally) drink the Kool-Aid.

What makes it easier for simple peoples' minds:
The CIA and/or fictional super-secret US government organizations orchestrate all irrational or complicated events. The world is a less scary place if there is a simple and linear cause-and-effect relationship to all extraordinary events.

Conspiracy theory junkies are like religious fundamentalists.

Thank you for your worthless unsupported opinion.
Have a nice day.

To see support for my views on conspiracy theories, do the following:

Go to the UCLA Medical School library and look at all of the research. While you are there, do some research on "paranoid delusional" disorder.

...between a Conspiracy Theory and evidence. It is not enough to just label something with a negative label.

If you have something which refutes the available evidence then by all means post it.

The problem with the label "Conspiracy Theory" is that is that all purpose slam aimed at silencing debate by assigning a negative label to it.

Calling a dime a dollar does not make it a dollar.

Collectively assigning a negative label to something does not mean it is not true.

What does the evidence say?

Stop it with the 9/11 and Jonestown nonsense. That's so pathetic. You can't seriously believe any of that. Are you Rodney Dangerfield posting under different names?

It's so funny to see you putting up posts like that.

...do you find logic funny?

I'm so hurt by your inference to my sanity, HaHaHa.
No one said I have to be sane. HaHaHA...
***
There are certain signs that show the types of poisons that lead to the end of life. Cyanide blocks the messages from the brain to the muscles by changing
body chemistry in the central nervous system. Even the "involuntary"
functions like breathing and heartbeat get mixed neural signals. It is a
painful death, breath coming in spurts. The other muscles spasm, limbs twist
and contort. The facial muscles draw back into a deadly grin, called
"cyanide rictus."[30] All these telling signs were absent in the Jonestown dead. Limbs were limp and relaxed, and the few visible faces showed no sign of distortion.[31]
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/Jonestown.html

"...do you find logic funny?"

Still waiting for you and yours to employ some.

Still don't have any time to read and respond
to the provided quotes, links and expert testimony?
Oh well...

Why are you bringing up Jonestown?

Aren't there more timely conspiracy theories you and your cohorts can talk about? Here, I'll make one up for you. This is the NEWEST conspiracy theory in the world as of right now.

US intelligence knew that Saddam hid chemical weapons in the ancient statues displayed in the Iraqi Museum. Knowing it would be looted (in fact, the looting was instigated by the Chalabi bodyguard captured in the photos displayed on conspiracymedia), the CIA helped al-Queda steal the relevant statues. Now safely stored in a CIA/al-Queda safehouse in Pakistan, bin Laden and Cheney are plotting the new 9/11. This time, we will blame the Saudi government and take it over. bin Laden, now looking like Omar Sharif after CIA-sponsored plastic surgery, will head the new Saudi puppet government. All oil revenues will flow through Halliburton, who will skim off 13% for Dick Cheney.

I've looked over some and will, out of courtesy, read some more and respond. But I have to tell you that I have visited every link so far and at first glance they seem a bit dodgy. And, to tell the truth, I'm not very interested in Jonestown at this point, one way or the other.
That's all I'm saying.
Thanks for the links and I will check them out in more detail.

Sure, sure, whatever you say. Now you are pulling
a funny one about the other lie, you know, the
mythical Iraqi WMD.
I just don't like lies being peddled as truth by
people who haven't even questioned the evidence.
One lie leads to another, if no one will call it.
This government operates by lies. That's MY point.

...directed at 'reason', please do read the links, fresca.

Before I go to the Dodger game.
If you honestly believe that EVERTHING that the government says is a lie than why even discuss it as if there's an option.
For instance. You firmly believe that Iraq does not have WMD. Your proof of that seems to be (since there's no emperical evidence that WMD have ever been destroyed) that Bush et.al says there are. And if they say it, it's got to be a lie.
Now, until I see proof, I'll admit it's a matter of faith that they exist. You seem to know for certain. How is that?
How can you rely on ad hominem proof so easily.
Just wondering.

Just because most of what he says is a lie doesn't
mean everything he says is a lie.

One side of the mouth:
The US sold chemical and biological weapons to Iraq in the 80s.

Other side of the mouth:
Iraq doesn't have WMDs. Or if they did, they destroyed them and forgot to document it (forgoing ~$150 billion in lost oil revenues due to the sanctions. Oops).

This is the Jonestown thread, I aught to know.
So here's some more jam for your toast.
***The source of the "Kool-Aid Suicide" stories was the
US State Department, which presented the story immediately
after the "suicides" were reported as though it was the only
obvious truth. No autopsies were done, none were needed.
The bodies were then allowed to rot in the jungle.***
http://www.geminiwalker-ink.net/HellJonestown.html
http://www.missingpersons-ireland.freepress-freespeech.com/mkultra2.htm

So Jim Jones was a secret CIA agent? And the government didn't want anybody to know what he was up to so the US government killed hundreds of people in the Guyanese jungle?

So all of the stories in the press (before and after) about Jim Jones and his cult were fabrications? The people who left the cult and warned the families, press, and their congressmen that they feared Jones would do a mass-suicide -- those people were CIA agents doing covert disinformation propaganda?

OK, I get it. Sounds like a bad episode of 'Alias'.

...date back into the 50's and surfaced publicly in Senate Intelligence committee hearings in 63' if recall correctly. So, the government has a record of doing this kind of experimentation. Project MK Ultra is a matter of public record - The Congressional Record.

As for the rest of Sheepdogs data I have not had a chance to sift through it all yet, but I do not discount the possibility. Unfortunately our government has a habit of committing crimes and then Classifying the Proof out of reach of any hearings or trials. Witness the Pentagon Papers.

Diogenes and Sheepdog do get the award for wasting time. If you two would channel your collective enthusiasm for U.S. government hatred into finding a cure for cancer I say you'd have it licked in a week.....Oh that's right, cancer doesn't exist, it's a huge lie pulled off by the fucking CIA. You two are fucking clowns!

1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.
Caplan, in his FAQ, attempts to rewrite anarchist history by trying to claim that the individualist
anarchists were forerunners of the so-called "anarcho-capitalist" school. However, as is so often
the case with Caplan's FAQ, nothing could be further from the truth.

In section 5 (What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?) of his FAQ, Caplan
writes that:

"A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely sceptical about the anarchist credentials
of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that the anarchist movement has historically been clearly
leftist. In my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history to maintain this
claim."
He
quotes Carl Landauer's European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements as evidence:

"To be sure, there is a difference between individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or
communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a communist anarchist. But the
communist anarchists also do not acknowledge any right to society to force the individual.
They differ from the anarchistic individualists in their belief that men, if freed from
coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a communistic type, while the other
wing believes that the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation. The communist
anarchists repudiate the right of private property which is maintained through the power
of the state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to maintain private property as a
necessary condition of individual independence, without fully answering the question of
how property could be maintained without courts and police."
Cap
lan goes on to state that "the interesting point is that before the emergence of modern anarcho-
capitalism Landauer found it necessary to distinguish two strands of anarchism, only one of which
he considered to be within the broad socialist tradition."

However, what Caplan seems to ignore is that both individualist and social anarchists agree that
there is a difference between the two schools of anarchist thought! Some insight. Of course,
Caplan tries to suggest that Landauer's non-discussion of the individualist anarchists is somehow
"evidence" that their ideas are not socialistic. Firstly, Landauer's book is about European
Socialism. Individualist anarchism was almost exclusively based in America and so hardly falls
within the book's subject area. Secondly, from the index Kropotkin is mentioned on two pages
(one of which a footnote). Does that mean Kropotkin was not a socialist? Of course not. It seems
likely, therefore, that Landauer is using the common Marxist terminology of defining Marxism as
Socialism, while calling other parts of the wider socialist movement by their self-proclaimed
names of anarchism, syndicalism and so on. Hardly surprising that Kropotkin is hardly mentioned
in a history of "Socialism" (i.e. Marxism).

As noted above, both schools of anarchism knew there was a difference between their ideas.
Kropotkin and Tucker, for example, both distinguished between two types of anarchism as well as
two types of socialism. Thus Caplan's "interesting point" is just a banality, a common fact which
anyone with a basic familiarity of anarchist history would know. Kropotkin in his justly famous
essay on Anarchism for The Encyclopaedia Britannica also found it necessary to distinguish
two strands of anarchism. As regards Caplan's claims that only one of these strands of anarchism
is "within the broad socialist tradition" all we can say is that both Kropotkin and Tucker
considered their ideas and movement to be part of the broader socialist tradition. According to an
expert on Individualist Anarchism, Tucker "looked upon anarchism as a branch of the general
socialist movement" [James J. Martin, Men Against the State, pp. 226-7]. Other writers on
Individualist Anarchism have noted the same fact (for example, Tucker "definitely thought of
himself a socialist" [William O. Reichart, Partisans of Freedom: A Study in American
Anarchism, p. 156]). As evidence of the anti-socialist nature of individualist anarchism, Caplan's
interpretation of Landauer's words is fundamentally nonsense. If you look at the writings of people
like Tucker you will see that they called themselves socialists and considered themselves part of
the wider socialist movement. No one familiar with Tucker's works could overlook this fact.

Interestingly, Landauer includes Proudhon in his history and states that he was "the most
profound thinker among pre-Marxian socialists." [p. 67] Given that Caplan elsewhere in his FAQ
tries to co-opt Proudhon into the "anarcho"-capitalist school as well as Tucker, his citing of
Landauer seems particularly dishonest. Landauer presents Proudhon's ideas in some depth in his
work within a chapter headed "The three Anticapitalistic Movements." Indeed, he starts his
discussion of Proudhon's ideas with the words "In France, post-Utopian socialism begins with
Peter Joseph Proudhon." [p. 59] Given that both Kropotkin and Tucker indicated that Individualist
Anarchism followed Proudhon's economic and political ideas the fact that Landauer states that
Proudhon was a socialist implies that Individualist Anarchism is also socialist (or "Leftist" to use
Caplan's term).

Tucker and the other individualist anarchists considered themselves as followers of Proudhon's
ideas (as did Bakunin and Kropotkin). For example, Tucker stated that his journal Liberty was
"brought into existence as a direct consequence of the teachings of Proudhon" and "lives
principally to spread them." [cited by Paul Avrich in his "Introduction" to Proudhon and his
"Bank of the People" by Charles A. Dana]

Obviously Landauer considered Proudhon a socialist and if Individualist Anarchism follows
Proudhon's ideas then it, too, must be socialist.

Unsurprisingly, then, Tucker also considered himself a socialist. To state the obvious, Tucker and
Bakunin both shared Proudhon's opposition to private property (in the capitalist sense of the
word), although Tucker confused this opposition (and possibly the casual reader) by talking about
possession as "property."

So, it appears that Caplan is the one trying to rewrite history.



2 - Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?

Perhaps the problem lies with Caplan's "definition" of socialism. In section 7 (Is anarchism the
same thing as socialism?) he states:

"If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- 'advocacy of government ownership
of the means of production' -- it seems that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But
if by socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as 'advocacy of the strong
restriction or abolition of private property,' then the question becomes more complex."
Which are hardly traditional definitions of socialism unless you are ignorant of socialist ideas! By defi
nition one, Bakunin and Kropotkin are not socialists. As far as definition two goes, all anarchists
were opposed to (capitalist) private property and argued for its abolition and its replacement with
possession. The actual forms of possession differed from between anarchist schools of thought,
but the common aim to end private property (capitalism) was still there. To quote Dana, in a
pamphlet called "a really intelligent, forceful, and sympathetic account of mutual banking" by
Tucker, individualist anarchists desire to "destroy the tyranny of capital,- that is, of property" by
mutual credit. [Charles A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", p. 46]

Interestingly, this second definition of socialism brings to light a contradiction in Caplan's account.
Elsewhere in the FAQ he notes that Proudhon had "ideas on the desirability of a modified form of
private property." In fact, Proudhon did desire to restrict private property to that of possession, as
Caplan himself seems aware. In other words, even taking his own definitions we find that
Proudhon would be considered a socialist! Indeed, according to Proudhon, "all accumulated
capital is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." [Selected Writings of Pierre-
Joseph Proudhon, p. 44] Thus Jeremy Jennings' summary of the anarchist position on private
property:

"The point to stress is that all anarchists [including Spooner and Tucker], and not only
those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of anarchist communism have
been critical of private property to the extent that it was a source of hierarchy and
privilege."
He
goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed with the proposition that
property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced no more than the total product of individual
labour." ["Anarchism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright
(eds.), p. 132]

The idea that socialism can be defined as state ownership or even opposition to, or "abolition" of,
all forms of property is not one which is historically accurate for all forms of socialism. Obviously
communist-anarchists and syndicalists would dismiss out of hand the identification of socialism as
state ownership, as would Individualist Anarchists like Tucker and Joseph Labadie. As for
opposition or abolition of all forms of "private property" as defining socialism, such a position
would have surprised communist-anarchists like Kropotkin (and, obviously, such self-proclaimed
socialists as Tucker and Labadie).

For example, in Act for Yourselves Kropotkin explicitly states that a peasant "who is in
possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate" would not be expropriated in an anarchist
revolution. Similarly for the family "inhabiting a house which affords them just enough space . . .
considered necessary for that number of people" and the artisan "working with their own tools or
handloom" would be left alone [pp. 104-5]. He makes the same point in The Conquest of Bread
[p. 61] Thus, like Proudhon, Kropotkin replaces private property with possession as the former
is "theft" (i.e. it allows exploitation, which "indicate[s] the scope of Expropriation" namely "to
everything that enables any man [or woman]. . . to appropriate the product of other's toil" [The
Conquest of Bread, p. 61])

Even Marx and Engels did not define socialism in terms of the abolition of all forms of "private
property." Like anarchists, they distinguished between that property which allows exploitation to
occur and that which did not. Looking at the Communist Manifesto we find them arguing that the
"distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition
of bourgeois property" and that "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the
products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others
by means of such appropriation." Moreover, they correctly note that "property" has meant
different things at different times and that the "abolition of existing property relations is not at all a
distinctive feature of Communism" as "[a]ll property relations in the past have continually been
subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions." As an example,
they argue that the French Revolution "abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property."
[The Manifesto of the Communist Party]

Which means that the idea that socialism means abolishing "private property" is only true for
those kinds of property that are used to exploit the labour of others. Nicholas Walter sums up the
anarchist position when he wrote that anarchists "are in favour of the private property which
cannot be used by one person to exploit another." Reinventing Anarchy, p. 49] In other words,
property which is no longer truly private as it is used by those who do not own it. In effect, the
key point of Proudhon's What is Property?, namely the difference between possession and
property. Which means that rather than desire the abolition of all forms of "private property,"
socialists (of all kinds, libertarian and authoritarian) desire the abolition of a specific kind of
property, namely that kind which allows the exploitation and domination of others. To ignore this
distinction is to paint a very misleading picture of what socialism stands for.

This leaves the "the strong restriction . . . of private property" definition of socialism. Here Caplan
is on stronger ground. Unfortunately, by using that definition the Individualist Anarchists, like the
Social Anarchists, are included in socialist camp, a conclusion he is trying to avoid. As every
anarchist shares Proudhon's analysis that "property is theft" and that possession would be the
basis of anarchism, it means that every anarchist is a socialist (as Labadie always claimed). This
includes Tucker and the other Individualist Anarchists. For example, Joseph Labadie stated that
"the two great sub-divisions of Socialists" (anarchists and State Socialists) both "agree that the
resources of nature -- land, mines, and so forth -- should not be held as private property and
subject to being held by the individual for speculative purposes, that use of these things shall be
the only valid title, and that each person has an equal right to the use of all these things. They all
agree that the present social system is one composed of a class of slaves and a class of masters,
and that justice is impossible under such conditions." [What is Socialism?] Tucker himself
argued that the anarchists' "occupancy and use" title to land and other scare material would
involve a change (and, in effect, "restriction") of current (i.e. capitalist) property rights:

"It will be seen from this definition that Anarchistic property concerns only products. But
anything is a product upon which human labour has been expended. 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]
and
so:

"no advocate of occupancy and use believes that it can be put in force until as a theory it
has been accepted as generally . . . seen and accepted as is the prevailing theory of
ordinary private property." [Occupancy and Use versus the Single Tax]
So,
as can be seen, Individualist Anarchism rejected important aspects of capitalist property rights.
Given that the Individualist Anarchists were writing at a time when agriculture was still the largest
source of employment this position on land is much more significant than it first appears. In effect,
Tucker and the other American Anarchists were advocating a massive and fundamental change
in property-rights, in the social relationships they generated and in American society. This is, in
other words, a very "strong restriction" in capitalist property rights (and it is this type of property
Caplan is referring to, rather than "property" in the abstract).

However, such a "definition" of socialism as "restricting" private property is flawed as it does not
really reflect anarchist ideas on the subject. Anarchists, in effect, reject the simplistic analysis that
because a society (or thinker) accepts "property" that it (or he/she) is capitalistic. This is for two
reasons. Firstly, the term "property" has been used to describe a wide range of situations and
institutions. Thus Tucker used the term "property" to describe a society in which capitalist
property rights were not enforced. Secondly, and far more importantly, concentrating on
"property" rights in the abstract ignores the social relationships it generates. Freedom is product
of social interaction, not one of isolation. This means that the social relationships generated in a
given society are the key to evaluating it -- not whether it has "property" or not. To look at
"property" in the abstract is to ignore people and the relationships they create between each
other. And it is these relationships which determine whether they are free or not (and so exploited
or not). Caplan's use of the anti-property rights "definition" of socialism avoids the central issue of
freedom, of whether a given society generates oppression and exploitation or not. By looking at
"property" Caplan ignores liberty, a strange but unsurprising position for a self-proclaimed
"libertarian" to take.

Thus both of Caplan's "definitions" of socialism are lacking. A "traditional" one of government
ownership is hardly that and the one based on "property" rights avoids the key issue while, in its
own way, includes all the anarchists in the socialist camp (something Caplan, we are sure, did
not intend).

So what would be a useful definition of socialism? From our discussion on property we can
instantly reject Caplan's biased and simplistic starting points. In fact, a definition of socialism
which most socialists would agree with would be one that stated that "the whole produce of
labour ought to belong to the labourer" (to use words Thomas Hodgskin, an early English
socialist, from his essay Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital). Tucker stated that
"the bottom claim of Socialism" was "that labour should be put in possession of its own," that "the
natural wage of labour is its product" (see his essay State Socialism and Anarchism). This
definition also found favour with Kropotkin who stated that socialism "in its wide, generic, and true
sense" was an "effort to abolish the exploitation of labour by capital." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 169]

From this position, socialists soon realised that (to again quote Kropotkin) "the only guarantee not
to by robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [The Conquest
of Bread, p. 145] Because of this socialism also could be defined as "the workers shall own the
means of production," as this automatically meant that the product would go to the producer, and,
in fact, this could also be a definition of socialism most socialists would agree with. The form of
this ownership, however, differed from socialist tendency to socialist tendency (some, like
Proudhon, proposed co-operative associations, others like Kropotkin communal ownership,
others like the Social Democrats state ownership and so on). Moreover, as the economy changed
in the 19th century, so did socialist ideas. Murray Bookchin gives a good summary of this
process:

"Th[e] growing shift from artisanal to an industrial economy gave rise to a gradual but
major shift in socialism itself. For the artisan, socialism meant producers' co-operatives
composed of men who worked together in small shared collectivist associations . . . For
the industrial proletarian, by contrast, socialism came to mean the formation of a mass
organisation that gave factory workers the collective power to expropriate a plant that no
single worker could properly own. . . They advocated public ownership of the means of
production, whether by the state or by the working class organised in trade unions." [The
Third Revolution, vol. 2, p. 262]
So,
in this evolution of socialism we can place the various brands of anarchism. Individualist
anarchism is clearly a form of artisanal socialism (which reflects its American roots) while
communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are forms of industrial (or proletarian) socialism
(which reflects its roots in Europe). Proudhon's mutualism bridges these extremes, advocating as
it does artisan socialism for small-scale industry and agriculture and co-operative associations for
large-scale industry (which reflects the state of the French economy in the 1840s to 1860s). The
common feature of all these forms of anarchism is opposition to usury and the notion that
"workers shall own the means of production." Or, in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the
proletariat." [Op. Cit., p. 179] As one expert on Proudhon points out, Proudhon's support for
"association" (or "associative socialism") "anticipated all those later movements" which
demanded "that the economy be controlled neither by private enterprise nor by the state . . . but
by the producers" such as "the revolutionary syndicalists" and "the students of 1968." [K. Steven
Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 165]
"Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism," to again quote Proudhon. [Op.
Cit., p. 167]

Thus the common agreement between all socialists was that capitalism was based upon
exploitation and wage slavery, that workers did not have access to the means of production and
so had to sell themselves to the class that did. Thus we find Individualist Anarchists arguing that
the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer and opposing the exploitation of
labour by capital. To use Tucker's own words:

"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." [Instead of a Book, p. 404]
By e
nding wage labour, anarchist socialism would ensure "The land to the cultivator. The mine to the
miner. The tool to the labourer. The product to the producer" and so "everyone [would] be a
proprietor" and so there would be "no more proletaires" (in the words of Ernest Lesigne, quoted
favourably by Tucker as part of what he called a "summary exposition of Socialism from the

standpoint of Anarchism" [Op. Cit., p. 17, p. 16]). Wage labour, and so capitalism, would be no
more and "the product [would go] to the producer." The Individualist Anarchists, as Wm. Gary
Kline correctly points out, "expected a society of largely self-employed workmen with no
significant disparity of wealth between any of them." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104] In
other words, the "abolition of the proletariat" as desired by Proudhon.

Therefore, like all socialists, Tucker wanted to end usury, ensure the "product to the producer"
and this meant workers owning and controlling the means of production they used ("no more
proletaires"). He aimed to do this by reforming capitalism away by creating mutual banks and
other co-operatives (he notes that Individualist Anarchists followed Proudhon, who "would
individualise and associate" the productive and distributive forces in society [as quoted by James
J. Martin, Men Against the State, p. 228]). Here is Kropotkin on Proudhon's reformist mutualist-
socialism:

"When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property is theft', he meant only
property in its present, Roman-law, sense of 'right of use and abuse'; in property-rights, on the
other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the best protection against
the encroachments of the state. At the same time he did not want violently to dispossess the
present owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to attain the
same end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlet's, pp. 290-1 -- emphasis added]

In other words, like all anarchists, Proudhon desired to see a society without capitalists and wage
slaves ("the same end") but achieved by different means. When Proudhon wrote to Karl Marx in
1846 he made the same point:

"through Political Economy we must turn the theory of Property against Property in such
a way as to create what you German socialists call community and which for the
moment I will only go so far as calling liberty or equality." [Selected Writings of Pierre-
Joseph Proudhon, p. 151]
In o
ther words, Proudhon shared the common aim of all socialists (namely to abolish capitalism,
wage labour and exploitation) but disagreed with the means. As can be seen, Tucker placed
himself squarely in this tradition and so could (and did) call himself a socialist. Little wonder
Joseph Labadie often said that "All anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists."
That Caplan tries to ignore this aspect of Individualist Anarchism in an attempt to co-opt it into
"anarcho"-capitalism indicates well that his FAQ is not an objective or neutral work.

Caplan states that the "United States has been an even more fertile ground for individualist
anarchism: during the 19th-century, such figures as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and
Benjamin Tucker gained prominence for their vision of an anarchism based upon freedom of
contract and private property."

However, as indicated, Tucker and Spooner did not support private property in the capitalist
sense of the word and Kropotkin and Bakunin, no less than Tucker and Spooner, supported free
agreement between individuals and groups. What does that prove? That Caplan seems more
interested in the words Tucker and Proudhon used rather than the meanings they attached to
them. Hardly convincing.

Perhaps Caplan should consider Proudhon's words on the subject of socialism:

"Modern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number of different
schools." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 177]
If he
did perhaps he would who see that the Individualist Anarchists were a school of socialism, given
their opposition to exploitation and the desire to see its end via their political, economic and social
ideas.



3 - Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?

In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?), Caplan tries his best to claim that Proudhon
was not really a socialist at all. He states that "Pierre[-Joseph] Proudhon is also often included [as
a "left anarchist"] although his ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private property
would lead some to exclude him from the leftist camp altogether."

"Some" of which group? Other anarchists, like Bakunin and Kropotkin? Obviously not -- Bakunin
claimed that "Proudhon was the master of us all." According to George Woodcock Kropotkin was
one of Proudhon's "confessed disciples." Perhaps that makes Bakunin and Kropotkin proto-
capitalists? Obviously not. What about Tucker? He called Proudhon "the father of the Anarchistic
school of Socialism." [Instead of a Book, p. 381] And, as we noted above, the socialist historian
Carl Launder considered Proudhon a socialist, as did the noted British socialist G.D.H. Cole in his
History of Socialist Thought (and in fact called him one of the "major prophets of Socialism.").
What about Marx and Engels, surely they would be able to say if he was a socialist or not?
According to Engels, Proudhon was "the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman."
[Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 260]

In fact, the only "left" (i.e. social) anarchist of note who seems to place Proudhon outside of the
"leftist" (i.e. anarchist) camp is Murray Bookchin. In the second volume of The Third Revolution
Bookchin argues that "Proudhon was no socialist" simply because he favoured "private property."
[p. 39] However, he does note the "one moral provision [that] distinguished the Proudhonist
contract from the capitalist contract" namely "it abjured profit and exploitation." [Op. Cit., pp. 40-
41] -- which, of course, places him in the socialist tradition (see last section). Unfortunately,
Bookchin fails to acknowledge this or that Proudhon was totally opposed to wage labour along
with usury, which, again, instantly places him in ranks of socialism (see, for example, the General
Idea of the Revolution, p. 98, pp. 215-6 and pp. 221-2, and his opposition to state control of
capital as being "more wage slavery" and, instead, urging whatever capital required collective
labour to be "democratically organised workers' associations" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p.
62]).

Bookchin (on page 78) quotes Proudhon as arguing that "association" was "a protest against the
wage system" which suggests that Bookchin's claims that Proudhonian "analysis minimised the
social relations embodied in the capitalist market and industry" [p. 180] is false. Given that wage
labour is the unique social relationship within capitalism, it is clear from Proudhon's works that he
did not "minimise" the social relations created by capitalism, rather the opposite. Proudhon's
opposition to wage labour clearly shows that he focused on the key social relation which
capitalism creates -- namely the one of domination of the worker by the capitalist.

Bookchin does mention that Proudhon was "obliged in 1851, in the wake of the associationist
ferment of 1848 and after, to acknowledge that association of some sort was unavoidable for
large-scale enterprises." [p. 78] However, Proudhon's support of industrial democracy pre-dates
1851 by some 11 years. He stated in What is Property? that he "preach[ed] emancipation to the

proletaires; association to the labourers" and that "leaders" within industry "must be chosen from
the labourers by the labourers themselves." [p. 137 and p. 414] It is significant that the first work
to call itself anarchist opposed property along with the state, exploitation along with oppression
and supported self-management against hierarchical relationships within production ("anarcho"-
capitalists take note!). Proudhon also called for "democratically organised workers' associations"
to run large-scale industry in his 1848 Election Manifesto. [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62]
Given that Bookchin considers as "authentic artisanal socialists" those who called for collective
ownership of the means of production, but "exempted from collectivisation the peasantry" [p. 4]
we have to conclude that Proudhon was such an "authentic" artisanal socialist! Indeed, at one
point Bookchin mentions the "individualistic artisanal socialism of Proudhon" [p. 258] which
suggests a somewhat confused approach to Proudhon's ideas!

In effect, Bookchin makes the same mistake as Caplan; but, unlike Caplan, he should know
better. Rather than not being a socialist, Proudhon is obviously an example of what Bookchin
himself calls "artisanal socialism" (as Marx and Engels recongised). Indeed, he notes that
Proudhon was its "most famous advocate" and that "nearly all so-called 'utopian' socialists, even
[Robert] Owen -- the most labour-orientated -- as well as Proudhon -- essentially sought the
equitable distribution of property." [p. 273] Given Proudhon's opposition to wage labour and
capitalist property and his support for industrial democracy as an alternative, Bookchin's position
is untenable -- he confuses socialism with communism, rejecting as socialist all views which are
not communism (a position he shares with right-libertarians).

He did not always hold this position, though. He writes in The Spanish Anarchists that:

"Proudhon envisions a free society as one in which small craftsmen, peasants, and
collectively owned industrial enterprises negotiate and contract with each other to satisfy
their material needs. Exploitation is brought to an end. . . Although these views involve a
break with capitalism, by no means can they be regarded as communist ideas. . ." [p. 18]
In c
ontrast to some of Bookchin's comments (and Caplan) K. Steven Vincent is correct to argue that,
for Proudhon, justice "applied to the economy was associative socialism" and so Proudhon is
squarely in the socialist camp [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 228].

However, perhaps all these "leftists" are wrong (bar Bookchin, who is wrong, at least some of the
time). Perhaps they just did not understand what socialism actually is (and as Proudhon stated "I
am socialist" [Selected Writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 195] and described himself as a
socialist many times this also applies to Proudhon himself!). So the question arises, did Proudhon
support private property in the capitalist sense of the word? The answer is no. To quote George
Woodcock summary of Proudhon's ideas on this subject we find:

"He [Proudhon] was denouncing the property of a man who uses it to exploit the labour of
others, without an effort on his own part, property distinguished by interest and rent, by
the impositions of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as
'possession,' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the land and tools he needs to
live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty." ["On
Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", The Raven No. 31, pp. 208-9]
Geo
rge Crowder makes the same point:

"The ownership he opposes is basically that which is unearned . . . including such things
as interest on loans and income from rent. This is contrasted with ownership rights in
those goods either produced by the work of the owner or necessary for that work, for
example his dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate rights of
ownership of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his latter work he calls this
'property,' the conceptual distinction remains the same." [Classical Anarchism, pp. 85-
86]
Inde
ed, according to Proudhon himself, the "accumulation of capital and instrument is what the
capitalist owes to the producer, but he never pays him for it. It is this fraudulent deprivation which
causes the poverty of the worker, the opulence of the idle and the inequality of their conditions.
And it is this, above all, which has so aptly been called the exploitation of man by man."
[Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 43]

He called his ideas on possession a "third form of society, the synthesis of communism and
property" and calls it "liberty." [The Anarchist Reader, p. 68]. He even goes so far as to say that
property "by its despotism and encroachment, soon proves itself oppressive and anti-social." [Op.
Cit., p. 67] Opposing private property he thought that "all accumulated capital is collective
property, no one may be its exclusive owner." Indeed, he considered the aim of his economic
reforms "was to rescue the working masses from capitalist exploitation." [Selected Writings of
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 44, p. 80]

In other words, Proudhon considered capitalist property to be the source of exploitation and
oppression and he opposed it. He explicitly contrasts his ideas to that of capitalist property and
rejects it as a means of ensuring liberty.

Caplan goes on to claim that "[s]ome of Proudhon's other heterodoxies include his defence of the
right of inheritance and his emphasis on the genuine antagonism between state power and
property rights."

However, this is a common anarchist position. Anarchists are well aware that possession is a
source of independence within capitalism and so should be supported. As Albert Meltzer puts it:

"All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the fruits of their
labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only the possession of independent means
enables one to be free of the economy (that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing
himself to the self-employed artisan, he said 'property is liberty', which seems at first sight
a contradiction with his dictum that it was theft)"[Anarchism: Arguments For and
Against, pp. 12-13]
Mala
testa makes the same point:

"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that
property is the condition and guarantee of liberty.

"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?

"But then why do we oppose them?

"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property. . . which
therefore depends on the existence of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed,
forced to sell their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value. . . This
means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery." [The Anarchist Revolution, p.
113]
As d
oes Kropotkin:

"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the
instruments of labour. . . man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he
has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and
lastly, when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who work like him, but
bringing in little to idlers." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 145]
Perh
aps this makes these three well known anarcho-communists "really" proto-"anarcho"-capitalists
as well? Obviously not. Instead of wondering if his ideas on what socialism is are wrong, he tries
to rewrite history to fit the anarchist movement into his capitalist ideas of what anarchism,
socialism and whatever are actually like.

In addition, we must point out that Proudhon's "emphasis on the genuine antagonism between
state power and property rights" came from his later writings, in which he argued that property
rights were required to control state power. In other words, this "heterodoxy" came from a period
in which Proudhon did not think that state could be abolished and so "property is the only power
that can act as a counterweight to the State." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
p. 140] Of course, this "later" Proudhon also acknowledged that property was "an absolutism
within an absolutism," "by nature autocratic" and that its "politics could be summed up in a single
word," namely "exploitation." [p. 141, p. 140, p. 134]

Moreover, Proudhon argues that "spread[ing] it more equally and establish[ing] it more firmly in
society" is the means by which "property" "becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps the State on an even keel." [p. 133, p. 140] In other words, rather than "property" as such limiting the state, it
is "property" divided equally through society which is the key, without concentrations of economic
power and inequality which would result in exploitation and oppression. Therefore, "[s]imple
justice. . . requires that equal division of land shall not only operate at the outset. If there is to be
no abuse, it must be maintained from generation to generation." [Op. Cit., p. 141, p. 133, p. 130].

Interestingly, one of Proudhon's "other heterodoxies" Caplan does not mention is his belief that
"property" was required not only to defend people against the state, but also capitalism. He saw
society dividing into "two classes, one of employed workers, the other of property-owners,
capitalists, entrepreneurs." He thus recognised that capitalism was just as oppressive as the state
and that it assured "the victory of the strong over the weak, of those who property over those who
own nothing." [as quoted by Alan Ritter, The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p.
121] Thus Proudhon's argument that "property is liberty" is directed not only against the state, but
also against social inequality and concentrations of economic power and wealth.

Indeed, he considered that "companies of capitalists" were the "exploiters of the bodies and souls of their wage earners" and an outrage on "human dignity and personality." Instead of wage labour
he thought that the "industry to be operated, the work to be done, are the common and indivisible
property of all the participant workers." In other words, self-management and workers' control. In
this way there would be "no more government of man by man, by means of accumulation of
capital" and the "social republic" established. Hence his support for co-operatives:

"The importance of their work lies not in their petty union interests, but in their denial of
the rule of capitalists, usurers, and governments, which the first [French] revolution left
undisturbed. Afterwards, when they have conquered the political lie. . . the groups of
workers should take over the great departments of industry which are their natural
inheritance." [cited in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, E. Hymans, pp. 190-1, and Anarchism,
George Woodcock, p. 110, 112]
In o
ther words, a socialist society as workers would no longer be separated from the means of
production and they would control their own work (the "abolition of the proletariat," to use
Proudhon's expression). This would mean recognising that "the right to products is exclusive - jus
in re; the right to means is common - jus ad rem" [cited by Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 96] which
would lead to self-management:

"In democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of industrial democracy."
[Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 63]
As
Woodcock points out, in Proudhon's "picture of the ideal society of the ideal society it is this
predominance of the small proprietor, the peasant or artisan, that immediately impresses one"
with "the creation of co-operative associations for the running of factories and railways." ["On
Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", Op. Cit., p. 209, p. 210]

All of which hardly supports Caplan's attempts to portray Proudhon as "really" a capitalist all
along. Indeed, the "later" Proudhon's support for protectionism [Selected Writings of Pierre-

Joseph Proudhon, p. 187], the "fixing after amicable discussion of a maximum and minimum
profit margin," "the organising of regulating societies" and that mutualism would "regulate the
market" [Op. Cit., p. 70] and his obvious awareness of economic power and that capitalism
exploited and oppressed the wage-worker suggests that rather than leading some to exclude
Proudhon from the "leftist camp" altogether, it is a case of excluding him utterly from the "rightist
camp" (i.e. "anarcho"-capitalism). Therefore Caplan's attempt to claim (co-opt would be better)
Proudhon for "anarcho"-capitalism indicates how far Caplan will twist (or ignore) the evidence. As
would quickly become obvious when reading his work, Proudhon would (to use Caplan's words)
"normally classify government, property, hierarchical organisations . . . as 'rulership.'"

To summarise, Proudhon was a socialist and Caplan's attempts to rewrite anarchist and socialist
history fails. Proudhon was the fountainhead for both wings of the anarchist movement and What
is Property? "embraces the core of nineteenth century anarchism. . . [bar support for revolution]
all the rest of later anarchism is there, spoken or implied: the conception of a free society united
by association, of workers controlling the means of production. . . [this book] remains the
foundation on which the whole edifice of nineteenth century anarchist theory was to be
constructed." [Op. Cit., p. 210]

Little wonder Bakunin stated that his ideas were Proudhonism "widely developed and pushed to
these, its final consequences." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 198]



4 - Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism.

That Tucker called himself a socialist is quickly seen from Instead of A Book or any of the books
written about Tucker and his ideas. That Caplan seeks to deny this means that either Caplan has
not looked at either Instead of a Book or the secondary literature (with obvious implications for
the accuracy of his FAQ) or he decided to ignore these facts in favour of his own ideologically
tainted version of history (again with obvious implications for the accuracy and objectivity of his
FAQ).

Caplan, in an attempt to deny the obvious, quotes Tucker from 1887 as follows in section 14
(What are the major debates between anarchists? What are the recurring arguments?):

"It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that
'property is robbery' to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism
that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his
book and find that by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of
usury, and not at all the possession by the labourer of his products."
You
will instantly notice that Proudhon does not mean by property "the possession of the labourer of
his products." However, Proudhon did include in his definition of "property" the possession of the
capital to steal profits from the work of the labourers. As is clear from the quote, Tucker and
Proudhon was opposed to capitalist property ("the power of usury"). From Caplan's own evidence
he proves that Tucker was not a capitalist!

But lets quote Tucker on what he meant by "usury":

"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses, and profit in
exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer." [cited in Men against the
State by James J. Martin, p. 208]
Whi
ch can hardly be claimed as being the words of a person who supports capitalism!

And we should note that Tucker considered both government and capital oppressive. He argued
that anarchism meant "the restriction of power to self and the abolition of power over others.
Government makes itself felt alike in country and in city, capital has its usurious grip on the farm
as surely as on the workshop and the oppressions and exactions of neither government nor
capital can be avoided by migration." [Instead of a Book, p. 114]

And, we may add, since when was socialism identical to communism? Perhaps Caplan should
actually read Proudhon and the anarchist critique of private property before writing such
nonsense? We have indicated Proudhon's ideas above and will not repeat ourselves. However, it
is interesting that this passes as "evidence" of "anti-socialism" for Caplan, indicating that he does
not know what socialism or anarchism actually is. To state the obvious, you can be a hater of
"communism" and still be a socialist!

So this, his one attempt to prove that Tucker, Spooner and even Proudhon were really capitalists
by quoting the actual people involved is a failure.

He asserts that for any claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist is wrong because "the
factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For example, despite a popular claim that
socialism and anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist
movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but
even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favour of private property (merely believing that
some existing sorts of property were illegitimate, without opposing private property as such)."

The facts supporting the claim of anarchists being socialists, however, are not "incorrect." It is
Caplan's assumption that socialism is against all forms of "property" which is wrong. To state the
obvious, socialism does not equal communism (and anarcho-communists support the rights of
workers to own their own means of production if they do not wish to join communist communes –
see above). Thus Proudhon was renown as the leading French Socialist theorist when he was
alive. His ideas were widely known in the socialist movement and in many ways his economic
theories were similar to the ideas of such well known early socialists as Robert Owen and William
Thompson. As Kropotkin notes:

"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in William
Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist, and in his
followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831)
and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839)." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 291]
Perh
aps Caplan will now claim Robert Owen and William Thompson as capitalists?

Tucker called himself a socialist on many different occasions and stated that there were "two
schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism." And stated in very clear terms
that:
"liberty insists on Socialism. . . - true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalence on
earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." [Instead of a Book, p. 363]
And
like all socialists, he opposed capitalism (i.e. usury and wage slavery) and wished that "there
should be no more proletaires." [see the essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" in Instead of a
Book, p. 17]

Caplan, of course, is well aware of Tucker's opinions on the subject of capitalism and private
property. In section 13 (What moral justifications have been offered for anarchism?) he writes:

"Still other anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker as well as
Proudhon, have argued that anarchism would abolish the exploitation inherent in interest
and rent simply by means of free competition. In their view, only labour income is
legitimate, and an important piece of the case for anarchism is that without government-
imposed monopolies, non-labour income would be driven to zero by market forces. It is
unclear, however, if they regard this as merely a desirable side effect, or if they would
reject anarchism if they learned that the predicted economic effect thereof would not
actually occur."
Firs
tly, we must point that Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner considered profits to be exploitative as
well as interest and rent. Hence we find Tucker arguing that a "just distribution of the products of
labour is to be obtained by destroying all sources of income except labour. These sources may
be summed up in one word, -- usury; and the three principle forms of usury are interest, rent and
profit." [Instead of a Book, p. 474] To ignore the fact that Tucker also considered profit as
exploitative seems strange, to say the least, when presenting an account of his ideas.

Secondly, rather than it being "unclear" whether the end of usury was "merely a desirable side
effect" of anarchism, the opposite is the case. Anyone reading Tucker (or Proudhon) would
quickly see that their politics were formulated with the express aim of ending usury. Just one
example from hundreds:

"Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will
abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means whereby
any labourer can be deprived of any of his product." [Instead of a Book, p. 347]
Whil
e it is fair to wonder whether these economic effects would result from the application of Tucker's
ideas, it is distinctly incorrect to claim that the end of usury was considered in any way as a
"desirable side effect" of them. Rather, in their eyes, the end of usury was one of the aims of
Individualist Anarchism, as can be clearly seen. As Wm. Gary Kline points out in his excellent
account of Individualist Anarchism:

"the American anarchists exposed the tension existing in liberal thought between private
property and the ideal of equal access. The Individualist Anarchists were, at least, aware
that existing conditions were far from ideal, that the system itself worked against the
majority of individuals in their efforts to attain its promises. Lack of capital, the means to
creation and accumulation of wealth, usually doomed a labourer to a life of exploitation.
This the anarchists knew and they abhorred such a system." [The Individualist
Anarchists, p. 102]
This
is part of the reason why they considered themselves socialists and, equally as important, they
were considered socialists by other socialists such as Kropotkin and Rocker. The Individualist
Anarchists, as can be seen, fit very easily into Kropotkin's comments that "the anarchists, in
common with all socialists. . . maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in
land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs
against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlets, p. 285] Given that they considered profits as usury and proposed "occupancy and
use" in place of the prevailing land ownership rights they are obviously socialists.

That the end of usury was considered a clear aim of his politics explains Tucker's 1911 postscript
to his famous essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" in which he argues that "concentrated
capital" itself was a barrier towards anarchy. He argued that the "trust is now a monster which. . .
even the freest competition, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy." While, in an earlier
period, big business "needed the money monopoly for its sustenance and its growth" its size now
ensured that it "sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no longer a
necessity. It can do without it." This meant that the way was now "not so clear." Indeed, he
argued that the problem of the trusts "must be grappled with for a time solely by forces political or
revolutionary" as the trust had moved beyond the reach of "economic forces" simply due to the
concentration of resources in its hands. ["Postscript" to State Socialism and Anarchism]

If the end of "usury" was considered a "side-effect" rather than an objective, then the problems of
the trusts and economic inequality/power ("enormous concentration of wealth") would not have
been an issue. That the fact of economic power was obviously considered a hindrance to
anarchy suggests the end of usury was a key aim, an aim which "free competition" in the abstract
could not achieve. Rather than take the "anarcho"-capitalist position that massive inequality did
not affect "free competition" or individual liberty, Tucker obviously thought it did and, therefore,
"free competition" (and so the abolition of the public state) in conditions of massive inequality
would not create an anarchist society.

By trying to relegate an aim to a "side-effect," Caplan distorts the ideas of Tucker. Indeed, his
comments on trusts, "concentrated capital" and the "enormous concentration of wealth" indicates
how far Individualist Anarchism is from "anarcho"-capitalism (which dismisses the question of
economic power Tucker raises out of hand). It also indicates the unity of political and economic
ideas, with Tucker being aware that without a suitable economic basis individual freedom was
meaningless. That an economy (like capitalism) with massive inequalities in wealth and so power
was not such a basis is obvious from Tucker's comments.

Thirdly, what did Tucker consider as a government-imposed monopoly? Private property,
particularly in land! As he states "Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are

based upon actual occupancy and use" and that anarchism "means the abolition of landlordism
and the annihilation of rent." [Instead of a Book, p. 61, p. 300] This, to state the obvious, is a
restriction on "private property" (in the capitalist sense), which, if we use Caplan's definition of
socialism, means that Tucker was obviously part of the "Leftist camp" (i.e. socialist camp). In
other words, Tucker considered capitalism as the product of statism while socialism (libertarian of
course) would be the product of anarchy.

So, Caplan's historical argument to support his notion that anarchism is simply anti-government
fails. Anarchism, in all its many forms, have distinct economic as well as political ideas and these
cannot be parted without loosing what makes anarchism unique. In particular, Caplan's attempt to
portray Proudhon as an example of a "pure" anti-government anarchism also fails, and so his
attempt to co-opt Tucker and Spooner also fails (as noted, Tucker cannot be classed as a "pure"
anti-government anarchist either). If Proudhon was a socialist, then it follows that his self-
proclaimed followers will also be socialists -- and, unsurprisingly, Tucker called himself a socialist
and considered anarchism as part of the wider socialist movement.

"Like Proudhon, Tucker was an 'un-marxian socialist'" [William O. Reichart, Partisans of
Freedom: A Study in American Anarchism, p. 157]



5 - Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism

Caplan tries to build upon the non-existent foundation of Tucker's and Proudhon's "capitalism" by
stating that:

"Nor did an ardent anarcho-communist like Kropotkin deny Proudhon or even Tucker the
title of 'anarchist.' In his Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin discusses not only
Proudhon but 'the American anarchist individualists who were represented in the fifties by
S.P. Andrews and W. Greene, later on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented
by Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York Liberty.' Similarly in his article
on anarchism for the 1910 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Kropotkin again freely
mentions the American individualist anarchists, including 'Benjamin Tucker, whose
journal Liberty was started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of those of
Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer.'"
Ther
e is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin to prove the historical validity of
"anarcho"-capitalism. This is because while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the
anarchist movement, Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist! In State
Socialism and Anarchism he stated that anarchism was "an ideal utterly inconsistent with that
of those Communists who falsely call themselves Anarchists while at the same time advocating a
regime of Archism fully as despotic as that of the State Socialists themselves." ["State Socialism
and Anarchism", Instead of a Book, pp. 15-16]

While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying Proudhon or Tucker as
anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title to supporters of capitalism. Why? Simply because
anarchism as a political movement (as opposed to a dictionary definition) has always been anti-
capitalist and against capitalist wage slavery, exploitation and oppression. In other words,
anarchism (in all its forms) has always been associated with specific political and economic
ideas. Both Tucker and Kropotkin defined their anarchism as an opposition to both state and
capitalism. To quote Tucker on the subject:

"Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more
government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited in Native
American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing American Individualism by Eunice
Schuster, p. 140]
Krop
otkin defined anarchism as "the no-government system of socialism." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 46] Malatesta argued that "when [people] sought to overthrow both
State and property -- then it was anarchy was born" and, like Tucker, aimed for "the complete
destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man." [Life and Ideas, p. 19, pp. 22-28]
Indeed every leading anarchist theorist defined anarchism as opposition to government and
exploitation. Thus Brain Morris' excellent summary:

"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of politics: that it sees the
state as the fount of all evil, ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a
misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way anarchism has been
defined [in dictionaries, for example], and partly because Marxist historians have tried to
exclude anarchism from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the
writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it
is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision. It has always challenged all
forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion
as it has been of the state." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of
Desire Armed no. 45, p. 40]
Ther
efore anarchism was never purely a political concept, but always combined an opposition to
oppression with an opposition to exploitation. Little wonder, then, that both strands of anarchism
have declared themselves "socialist" and so it is "conceptually and historically misleading" to
"create a dichotomy between socialism and anarchism." [Brian Morris, Op. Cit., p. 39] Needless
to say, anarchists oppose state socialism just as much as they oppose capitalism. All of which
means that anarchism and capitalism are two different political ideas with specific (and opposed)
meanings -- to deny these meanings by uniting the two terms creates an oxymoron, one that
denies the history and the development of ideas as well as the whole history of the anarchist
movement itself.

As Kropotkin knew Proudhon to be an anti-capitalist, a socialist (but not a communist) it is hardly
surprising that he mentions him. Again, Caplan's attempt to provide historical evidence for a
"right-wing" anarchism fails. Funny that the followers of Kropotkin are now defending individualist
anarchism from the attempted "adoption" by supporters of capitalism! That in itself should be
enough to indicate Caplan's attempt to use Kropotkin to give credence to "anarcho"-capitalist co-
option of Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner fails.

Interestingly, Caplan admits that "anarcho"-capitalism has recent origins. In section 8 (Who are
the major anarchist thinkers?) he states:

"Anarcho-capitalism has a much more recent origin in the latter half of the 20th century.
The two most famous advocates of anarcho-capitalism are probably Murray Rothbard
and David Friedman. There were however some interesting earlier precursors, notably
the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari. Two other 19th-century anarchists who have
been ad

Thank you, NEO, to allow me to waste even more of your time.
Since you don't really have anything so add but your
ignorance and prejudice....
Thanks for the opportunity to post some more excerpts...
***
The ultimate victims of mind control at Jonestown are the American people. If we fail to look beyond the constructed images given us by the television and the press, then our consciousness is manipulated, just as well as the Jonestown
victims' was.
***
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/Jonestown.html
I hope you just keep bumping so I can slap another note in.
Thank you for your support.

1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.
Caplan, in his FAQ, attempts to rewrite anarchist history by trying to claim that the individualist
anarchists were forerunners of the so-called "anarcho-capitalist" school. However, as is so often
the case with Caplan's FAQ, nothing could be further from the truth.

In section 5 (What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?) of his FAQ, Caplan
writes that:

"A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely sceptical about the anarchist credentials
of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that the anarchist movement has historically been clearly
leftist. In my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history to maintain this
claim."
He
quotes Carl Landauer's European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements as evidence:

"To be sure, there is a difference between individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or
communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a communist anarchist. But the
communist anarchists also do not acknowledge any right to society to force the individual.
They differ from the anarchistic individualists in their belief that men, if freed from
coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a communistic type, while the other
wing believes that the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation. The communist
anarchists repudiate the right of private property which is maintained through the power
of the state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to maintain private property as a
necessary condition of individual independence, without fully answering the question of
how property could be maintained without courts and police."
Cap
lan goes on to state that "the interesting point is that before the emergence of modern anarcho-
capitalism Landauer found it necessary to distinguish two strands of anarchism, only one of which
he considered to be within the broad socialist tradition."

However, what Caplan seems to ignore is that both individualist and social anarchists agree that
there is a difference between the two schools of anarchist thought! Some insight. Of course,
Caplan tries to suggest that Landauer's non-discussion of the individualist anarchists is somehow
"evidence" that their ideas are not socialistic. Firstly, Landauer's book is about European
Socialism. Individualist anarchism was almost exclusively based in America and so hardly falls
within the book's subject area. Secondly, from the index Kropotkin is mentioned on two pages
(one of which a footnote). Does that mean Kropotkin was not a socialist? Of course not. It seems
likely, therefore, that Landauer is using the common Marxist terminology of defining Marxism as
Socialism, while calling other parts of the wider socialist movement by their self-proclaimed
names of anarchism, syndicalism and so on. Hardly surprising that Kropotkin is hardly mentioned
in a history of "Socialism" (i.e. Marxism).

As noted above, both schools of anarchism knew there was a difference between their ideas.
Kropotkin and Tucker, for example, both distinguished between two types of anarchism as well as
two types of socialism. Thus Caplan's "interesting point" is just a banality, a common fact which
anyone with a basic familiarity of anarchist history would know. Kropotkin in his justly famous
essay on Anarchism for The Encyclopaedia Britannica also found it necessary to distinguish
two strands of anarchism. As regards Caplan's claims that only one of these strands of anarchism
is "within the broad socialist tradition" all we can say is that both Kropotkin and Tucker
considered their ideas and movement to be part of the broader socialist tradition. According to an
expert on Individualist Anarchism, Tucker "looked upon anarchism as a branch of the general
socialist movement" [James J. Martin, Men Against the State, pp. 226-7]. Other writers on
Individualist Anarchism have noted the same fact (for example, Tucker "definitely thought of
himself a socialist" [William O. Reichart, Partisans of Freedom: A Study in American
Anarchism, p. 156]). As evidence of the anti-socialist nature of individualist anarchism, Caplan's
interpretation of Landauer's words is fundamentally nonsense. If you look at the writings of people
like Tucker you will see that they called themselves socialists and considered themselves part of
the wider socialist movement. No one familiar with Tucker's works could overlook this fact.

Interestingly, Landauer includes Proudhon in his history and states that he was "the most
profound thinker among pre-Marxian socialists." [p. 67] Given that Caplan elsewhere in his FAQ
tries to co-opt Proudhon into the "anarcho"-capitalist school as well as Tucker, his citing of
Landauer seems particularly dishonest. Landauer presents Proudhon's ideas in some depth in his
work within a chapter headed "The three Anticapitalistic Movements." Indeed, he starts his
discussion of Proudhon's ideas with the words "In France, post-Utopian socialism begins with
Peter Joseph Proudhon." [p. 59] Given that both Kropotkin and Tucker indicated that Individualist
Anarchism followed Proudhon's economic and political ideas the fact that Landauer states that
Proudhon was a socialist implies that Individualist Anarchism is also socialist (or "Leftist" to use
Caplan's term).

Tucker and the other individualist anarchists considered themselves as followers of Proudhon's
ideas (as did Bakunin and Kropotkin). For example, Tucker stated that his journal Liberty was
"brought into existence as a direct consequence of the teachings of Proudhon" and "lives
principally to spread them." [cited by Paul Avrich in his "Introduction" to Proudhon and his
"Bank of the People" by Charles A. Dana]

Obviously Landauer considered Proudhon a socialist and if Individualist Anarchism follows
Proudhon's ideas then it, too, must be socialist.

Unsurprisingly, then, Tucker also considered himself a socialist. To state the obvious, Tucker and
Bakunin both shared Proudhon's opposition to private property (in the capitalist sense of the
word), although Tucker confused this opposition (and possibly the casual reader) by talking about
possession as "property."

So, it appears that Caplan is the one trying to rewrite history.


2 - Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?

Perhaps the problem lies with Caplan's "definition" of socialism. In section 7 (Is anarchism the
same thing as socialism?) he states:

"If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- 'advocacy of government ownership
of the means of production' -- it seems that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But
if by socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as 'advocacy of the strong
restriction or abolition of private property,' then the question becomes more complex."
Which are hardly traditional definitions of socialism unless you are ignorant of socialist ideas! By defi
nition one, Bakunin and Kropotkin are not socialists. As far as definition two goes, all anarchists
were opposed to (capitalist) private property and argued for its abolition and its replacement with
possession. The actual forms of possession differed from between anarchist schools of thought,
but the common aim to end private property (capitalism) was still there. To quote Dana, in a
pamphlet called "a really intelligent, forceful, and sympathetic account of mutual banking" by
Tucker, individualist anarchists desire to "destroy the tyranny of capital,- that is, of property" by
mutual credit. [Charles A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", p. 46]

Interestingly, this second definition of socialism brings to light a contradiction in Caplan's account.
Elsewhere in the FAQ he notes that Proudhon had "ideas on the desirability of a modified form of
private property." In fact, Proudhon did desire to restrict private property to that of possession, as
Caplan himself seems aware. In other words, even taking his own definitions we find that
Proudhon would be considered a socialist! Indeed, according to Proudhon, "all accumulated
capital is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." [Selected Writings of Pierre-
Joseph Proudhon, p. 44] Thus Jeremy Jennings' summary of the anarchist position on private
property:

"The point to stress is that all anarchists [including Spooner and Tucker], and not only
those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of anarchist communism have
been critical of private property to the extent that it was a source of hierarchy and
privilege."
He
goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed with the proposition that
property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced no more than the total product of individual
labour." ["Anarchism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright
(eds.), p. 132]

The idea that socialism can be defined as state ownership or even opposition to, or "abolition" of,
all forms of property is not one which is historically accurate for all forms of socialism. Obviously
communist-anarchists and syndicalists would dismiss out of hand the identification of socialism as
state ownership, as would Individualist Anarchists like Tucker and Joseph Labadie. As for
opposition or abolition of all forms of "private property" as defining socialism, such a position
would have surprised communist-anarchists like Kropotkin (and, obviously, such self-proclaimed
socialists as Tucker and Labadie).

For example, in Act for Yourselves Kropotkin explicitly states that a peasant "who is in
possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate" would not be expropriated in an anarchist
revolution. Similarly for the family "inhabiting a house which affords them just enough space . . .
considered necessary for that number of people" and the artisan "working with their own tools or
handloom" would be left alone [pp. 104-5]. He makes the same point in The Conquest of Bread
[p. 61] Thus, like Proudhon, Kropotkin replaces private property with possession as the former
is "theft" (i.e. it allows exploitation, which "indicate[s] the scope of Expropriation" namely "to
everything that enables any man [or woman]. . . to appropriate the product of other's toil" [The
Conquest of Bread, p. 61])

Even Marx and Engels did not define socialism in terms of the abolition of all forms of "private
property." Like anarchists, they distinguished between that property which allows exploitation to
occur and that which did not. Looking at the Communist Manifesto we find them arguing that the
"distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition
of bourgeois property" and that "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the
products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others
by means of such appropriation." Moreover, they correctly note that "property" has meant
different things at different times and that the "abolition of existing property relations is not at all a
distinctive feature of Communism" as "[a]ll property relations in the past have continually been
subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions." As an example,
they argue that the French Revolution "abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property."
[The Manifesto of the Communist Party]

Which means that the idea that socialism means abolishing "private property" is only true for
those kinds of property that are used to exploit the labour of others. Nicholas Walter sums up the
anarchist position when he wrote that anarchists "are in favour of the private property which
cannot be used by one person to exploit another." Reinventing Anarchy, p. 49] In other words,
property which is no longer truly private as it is used by those who do not own it. In effect, the
key point of Proudhon's What is Property?, namely the difference between possession and
property. Which means that rather than desire the abolition of all forms of "private property,"
socialists (of all kinds, libertarian and authoritarian) desire the abolition of a specific kind of
property, namely that kind which allows the exploitation and domination of others. To ignore this
distinction is to paint a very misleading picture of what socialism stands for.

This leaves the "the strong restriction . . . of private property" definition of socialism. Here Caplan
is on stronger ground. Unfortunately, by using that definition the Individualist Anarchists, like the
Social Anarchists, are included in socialist camp, a conclusion he is trying to avoid. As every
anarchist shares Proudhon's analysis that "property is theft" and that possession would be the
basis of anarchism, it means that every anarchist is a socialist (as Labadie always claimed). This
includes Tucker and the other Individualist Anarchists. For example, Joseph Labadie stated that
"the two great sub-divisions of Socialists" (anarchists and State Socialists) both "agree that the
resources of nature -- land, mines, and so forth -- should not be held as private property and
subject to being held by the individual for speculative purposes, that use of these things shall be
the only valid title, and that each person has an equal right to the use of all these things. They all
agree that the present social system is one composed of a class of slaves and a class of masters,
and that justice is impossible under such conditions." [What is Socialism?] Tucker himself
argued that the anarchists' "occupancy and use" title to land and other scare material would
involve a change (and, in effect, "restriction") of current (i.e. capitalist) property rights:

"It will be seen from this definition that Anarchistic property concerns only products. But
anything is a product upon which human labour has been expended. 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]
and
so:

"no advocate of occupancy and use believes that it can be put in force until as a theory it
has been accepted as generally . . . seen and accepted as is the prevailing theory of
ordinary private property." [Occupancy and Use versus the Single Tax]
So,
as can be seen, Individualist Anarchism rejected important aspects of capitalist property rights.
Given that the Individualist Anarchists were writing at a time when agriculture was still the largest
source of employment this position on land is much more significant than it first appears. In effect,
Tucker and the other American Anarchists were advocating a massive and fundamental change
in property-rights, in the social relationships they generated and in American society. This is, in
other words, a very "strong restriction" in capitalist property rights (and it is this type of property
Caplan is referring to, rather than "property" in the abstract).

However, such a "definition" of socialism as "restricting" private property is flawed as it does not
really reflect anarchist ideas on the subject. Anarchists, in effect, reject the simplistic analysis that
because a society (or thinker) accepts "property" that it (or he/she) is capitalistic. This is for two
reasons. Firstly, the term "property" has been used to describe a wide range of situations and
institutions. Thus Tucker used the term "property" to describe a society in which capitalist
property rights were not enforced. Secondly, and far more importantly, concentrating on
"property" rights in the abstract ignores the social relationships it generates. Freedom is product
of social interaction, not one of isolation. This means that the social relationships generated in a
given society are the key to evaluating it -- not whether it has "property" or not. To look at
"property" in the abstract is to ignore people and the relationships they create between each
other. And it is these relationships which determine whether they are free or not (and so exploited
or not). Caplan's use of the anti-property rights "definition" of socialism avoids the central issue of
freedom, of whether a given society generates oppression and exploitation or not. By looking at
"property" Caplan ignores liberty, a strange but unsurprising position for a self-proclaimed
"libertarian" to take.

Thus both of Caplan's "definitions" of socialism are lacking. A "traditional" one of government
ownership is hardly that and the one based on "property" rights avoids the key issue while, in its
own way, includes all the anarchists in the socialist camp (something Caplan, we are sure, did
not intend).

So what would be a useful definition of socialism? From our discussion on property we can
instantly reject Caplan's biased and simplistic starting points. In fact, a definition of socialism
which most socialists would agree with would be one that stated that "the whole produce of
labour ought to belong to the labourer" (to use words Thomas Hodgskin, an early English
socialist, from his essay Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital). Tucker stated that
"the bottom claim of Socialism" was "that labour should be put in possession of its own," that "the
natural wage of labour is its product" (see his essay State Socialism and Anarchism). This
definition also found favour with Kropotkin who stated that socialism "in its wide, generic, and true
sense" was an "effort to abolish the exploitation of labour by capital." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 169]

From this position, socialists soon realised that (to again quote Kropotkin) "the only guarantee not
to by robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [The Conquest
of Bread, p. 145] Because of this socialism also could be defined as "the workers shall own the
means of production," as this automatically meant that the product would go to the producer, and,
in fact, this could also be a definition of socialism most socialists would agree with. The form of
this ownership, however, differed from socialist tendency to socialist tendency (some, like
Proudhon, proposed co-operative associations, others like Kropotkin communal ownership,
others like the Social Democrats state ownership and so on). Moreover, as the economy changed
in the 19th century, so did socialist ideas. Murray Bookchin gives a good summary of this
process:

"Th[e] growing shift from artisanal to an industrial economy gave rise to a gradual but
major shift in socialism itself. For the artisan, socialism meant producers' co-operatives
composed of men who worked together in small shared collectivist associations . . . For
the industrial proletarian, by contrast, socialism came to mean the formation of a mass
organisation that gave factory workers the collective power to expropriate a plant that no
single worker could properly own. . . They advocated public ownership of the means of
production, whether by the state or by the working class organised in trade unions." [The
Third Revolution, vol. 2, p. 262]
So,
in this evolution of socialism we can place the various brands of anarchism. Individualist
anarchism is clearly a form of artisanal socialism (which reflects its American roots) while
communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are forms of industrial (or proletarian) socialism
(which reflects its roots in Europe). Proudhon's mutualism bridges these extremes, advocating as
it does artisan socialism for small-scale industry and agriculture and co-operative associations for
large-scale industry (which reflects the state of the French economy in the 1840s to 1860s). The
common feature of all these forms of anarchism is opposition to usury and the notion that
"workers shall own the means of production." Or, in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the
proletariat." [Op. Cit., p. 179] As one expert on Proudhon points out, Proudhon's support for
"association" (or "associative socialism") "anticipated all those later movements" which
demanded "that the economy be controlled neither by private enterprise nor by the state . . . but
by the producers" such as "the revolutionary syndicalists" and "the students of 1968." [K. Steven
Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 165]
"Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism," to again quote Proudhon. [Op.
Cit., p. 167]

Thus the common agreement between all socialists was that capitalism was based upon
exploitation and wage slavery, that workers did not have access to the means of production and
so had to sell themselves to the class that did. Thus we find Individualist Anarchists arguing that
the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer and opposing the exploitation of
labour by capital. To use Tucker's own words:

"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." [Instead of a Book, p. 404]
By e
nding wage labour, anarchist socialism would ensure "The land to the cultivator. The mine to the
miner. The tool to the labourer. The product to the producer" and so "everyone [would] be a
proprietor" and so there would be "no more proletaires" (in the words of Ernest Lesigne, quoted
favourably by Tucker as part of what he called a "summary exposition of Socialism from the

standpoint of Anarchism" [Op. Cit., p. 17, p. 16]). Wage labour, and so capitalism, would be no
more and "the product [would go] to the producer." The Individualist Anarchists, as Wm. Gary
Kline correctly points out, "expected a society of largely self-employed workmen with no
significant disparity of wealth between any of them." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104] In
other words, the "abolition of the proletariat" as desired by Proudhon.

Therefore, like all socialists, Tucker wanted to end usury, ensure the "product to the producer"
and this meant workers owning and controlling the means of production they used ("no more
proletaires"). He aimed to do this by reforming capitalism away by creating mutual banks and
other co-operatives (he notes that Individualist Anarchists followed Proudhon, who "would
individualise and associate" the productive and distributive forces in society [as quoted by James
J. Martin, Men Against the State, p. 228]). Here is Kropotkin on Proudhon's reformist mutualist-
socialism:

"When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property is theft', he meant only
property in its present, Roman-law, sense of 'right of use and abuse'; in property-rights, on the
other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the best protection against
the encroachments of the state. At the same time he did not want violently to dispossess the
present owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to attain the
same end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlet's, pp. 290-1 -- emphasis added]

In other words, like all anarchists, Proudhon desired to see a society without capitalists and wage
slaves ("the same end") but achieved by different means. When Proudhon wrote to Karl Marx in
1846 he made the same point:

"through Political Economy we must turn the theory of Property against Property in such
a way as to create what you German socialists call community and which for the
moment I will only go so far as calling liberty or equality." [Selected Writings of Pierre-
Joseph Proudhon, p. 151]
In o
ther words, Proudhon shared the common aim of all socialists (namely to abolish capitalism,
wage labour and exploitation) but disagreed with the means. As can be seen, Tucker placed
himself squarely in this tradition and so could (and did) call himself a socialist. Little wonder
Joseph Labadie often said that "All anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists."
That Caplan tries to ignore this aspect of Individualist Anarchism in an attempt to co-opt it into
"anarcho"-capitalism indicates well that his FAQ is not an objective or neutral work.

Caplan states that the "United States has been an even more fertile ground for individualist
anarchism: during the 19th-century, such figures as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and
Benjamin Tucker gained prominence for their vision of an anarchism based upon freedom of
contract and private property."

However, as indicated, Tucker and Spooner did not support private property in the capitalist
sense of the word and Kropotkin and Bakunin, no less than Tucker and Spooner, supported free
agreement between individuals and groups. What does that prove? That Caplan seems more
interested in the words Tucker and Proudhon used rather than the meanings they attached to
them. Hardly convincing.

Perhaps Caplan should consider Proudhon's words on the subject of socialism:

"Modern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number of different
schools." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 177]
If he
did perhaps he would who see that the Individualist Anarchists were a school of socialism, given
their opposition to exploitation and the desire to see its end via their political, economic and social
ideas.


3 - Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?

In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?), Caplan tries his best to claim that Proudhon
was not really a socialist at all. He states that "Pierre[-Joseph] Proudhon is also often included [as
a "left anarchist"] although his ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private property
would lead some to exclude him from the leftist camp altogether."

"Some" of which group? Other anarchists, like Bakunin and Kropotkin? Obviously not -- Bakunin
claimed that "Proudhon was the master of us all." According to George Woodcock Kropotkin was
one of Proudhon's "confessed disciples." Perhaps that makes Bakunin and Kropotkin proto-
capitalists? Obviously not. What about Tucker? He called Proudhon "the father of the Anarchistic
school of Socialism." [Instead of a Book, p. 381] And, as we noted above, the socialist historian
Carl Launder considered Proudhon a socialist, as did the noted British socialist G.D.H. Cole in his
History of Socialist Thought (and in fact called him one of the "major prophets of Socialism.").
What about Marx and Engels, surely they would be able to say if he was a socialist or not?
According to Engels, Proudhon was "the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman."
[Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 260]

In fact, the only "left" (i.e. social) anarchist of note who seems to place Proudhon outside of the
"leftist" (i.e. anarchist) camp is Murray Bookchin. In the second volume of The Third Revolution
Bookchin argues that "Proudhon was no socialist" simply because he favoured "private property."
[p. 39] However, he does note the "one moral provision [that] distinguished the Proudhonist
contract from the capitalist contract" namely "it abjured profit and exploitation." [Op. Cit., pp. 40-
41] -- which, of course, places him in the socialist tradition (see last section). Unfortunately,
Bookchin fails to acknowledge this or that Proudhon was totally opposed to wage labour along
with usury, which, again, instantly places him in ranks of socialism (see, for example, the General
Idea of the Revolution, p. 98, pp. 215-6 and pp. 221-2, and his opposition to state control of
capital as being "more wage slavery" and, instead, urging whatever capital required collective
labour to be "democratically organised workers' associations" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p.
62]).

Bookchin (on page 78) quotes Proudhon as arguing that "association" was "a protest against the
wage system" which suggests that Bookchin's claims that Proudhonian "analysis minimised the
social relations embodied in the capitalist market and industry" [p. 180] is false. Given that wage
labour is the unique social relationship within capitalism, it is clear from Proudhon's works that he
did not "minimise" the social relations created by capitalism, rather the opposite. Proudhon's
opposition to wage labour clearly shows that he focused on the key social relation which
capitalism creates -- namely the one of domination of the worker by the capitalist.

Bookchin does mention that Proudhon was "obliged in 1851, in the wake of the associationist
ferment of 1848 and after, to acknowledge that association of some sort was unavoidable for
large-scale enterprises." [p. 78] However, Proudhon's support of industrial democracy pre-dates
1851 by some 11 years. He stated in What is Property? that he "preach[ed] emancipation to the

proletaires; association to the labourers" and that "leaders" within industry "must be chosen from
the labourers by the labourers themselves." [p. 137 and p. 414] It is significant that the first work
to call itself anarchist opposed property along with the state, exploitation along with oppression
and supported self-management against hierarchical relationships within production ("anarcho"-
capitalists take note!). Proudhon also called for "democratically organised workers' associations"
to run large-scale industry in his 1848 Election Manifesto. [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62]
Given that Bookchin considers as "authentic artisanal socialists" those who called for collective
ownership of the means of production, but "exempted from collectivisation the peasantry" [p. 4]
we have to conclude that Proudhon was such an "authentic" artisanal socialist! Indeed, at one
point Bookchin mentions the "individualistic artisanal socialism of Proudhon" [p. 258] which
suggests a somewhat confused approach to Proudhon's ideas!

In effect, Bookchin makes the same mistake as Caplan; but, unlike Caplan, he should know
better. Rather than not being a socialist, Proudhon is obviously an example of what Bookchin
himself calls "artisanal socialism" (as Marx and Engels recongised). Indeed, he notes that
Proudhon was its "most famous advocate" and that "nearly all so-called 'utopian' socialists, even
[Robert] Owen -- the most labour-orientated -- as well as Proudhon -- essentially sought the
equitable distribution of property." [p. 273] Given Proudhon's opposition to wage labour and
capitalist property and his support for industrial democracy as an alternative, Bookchin's position
is untenable -- he confuses socialism with communism, rejecting as socialist all views which are
not communism (a position he shares with right-libertarians).

He did not always hold this position, though. He writes in The Spanish Anarchists that:

"Proudhon envisions a free society as one in which small craftsmen, peasants, and
collectively owned industrial enterprises negotiate and contract with each other to satisfy
their material needs. Exploitation is brought to an end. . . Although these views involve a
break with capitalism, by no means can they be regarded as communist ideas. . ." [p. 18]
In c
ontrast to some of Bookchin's comments (and Caplan) K. Steven Vincent is correct to argue that,
for Proudhon, justice "applied to the economy was associative socialism" and so Proudhon is
squarely in the socialist camp [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 228].

However, perhaps all these "leftists" are wrong (bar Bookchin, who is wrong, at least some of the
time). Perhaps they just did not understand what socialism actually is (and as Proudhon stated "I
am socialist" [Selected Writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 195] and described himself as a
socialist many times this also applies to Proudhon himself!). So the question arises, did Proudhon
support private property in the capitalist sense of the word? The answer is no. To quote George
Woodcock summary of Proudhon's ideas on this subject we find:

"He [Proudhon] was denouncing the property of a man who uses it to exploit the labour of
others, without an effort on his own part, property distinguished by interest and rent, by
the impositions of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as
'possession,' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the land and tools he needs to
live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty." ["On
Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", The Raven No. 31, pp. 208-9]
Geo
rge Crowder makes the same point:

"The ownership he opposes is basically that which is unearned . . . including such things
as interest on loans and income from rent. This is contrasted with ownership rights in
those goods either produced by the work of the owner or necessary for that work, for
example his dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate rights of
ownership of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his latter work he calls this
'property,' the conceptual distinction remains the same." [Classical Anarchism, pp. 85-
86]
Inde
ed, according to Proudhon himself, the "accumulation of capital and instrument is what the
capitalist owes to the producer, but he never pays him for it. It is this fraudulent deprivation which
causes the poverty of the worker, the opulence of the idle and the inequality of their conditions.
And it is this, above all, which has so aptly been called the exploitation of man by man."
[Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 43]

He called his ideas on possession a "third form of society, the synthesis of communism and
property" and calls it "liberty." [The Anarchist Reader, p. 68]. He even goes so far as to say that
property "by its despotism and encroachment, soon proves itself oppressive and anti-social." [Op.
Cit., p. 67] Opposing private property he thought that "all accumulated capital is collective
property, no one may be its exclusive owner." Indeed, he considered the aim of his economic
reforms "was to rescue the working masses from capitalist exploitation." [Selected Writings of
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 44, p. 80]

In other words, Proudhon considered capitalist property to be the source of exploitation and
oppression and he opposed it. He explicitly contrasts his ideas to that of capitalist property and
rejects it as a means of ensuring liberty.

Caplan goes on to claim that "[s]ome of Proudhon's other heterodoxies include his defence of the
right of inheritance and his emphasis on the genuine antagonism between state power and
property rights."

However, this is a common anarchist position. Anarchists are well aware that possession is a
source of independence within capitalism and so should be supported. As Albert Meltzer puts it:

"All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the fruits of their
labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only the possession of independent means
enables one to be free of the economy (that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing
himself to the self-employed artisan, he said 'property is liberty', which seems at first sight
a contradiction with his dictum that it was theft)"[Anarchism: Arguments For and
Against, pp. 12-13]
Mala
testa makes the same point:

"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that
property is the condition and guarantee of liberty.

"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?

"But then why do we oppose them?

"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property. . . which
therefore depends on the existence of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed,
forced to sell their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value. . . This
means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery." [The Anarchist Revolution, p.
113]
As d
oes Kropotkin:

"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the
instruments of labour. . . man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he
has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and
lastly, when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who work like him, but
bringing in little to idlers." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 145]
Perh
aps this makes these three well known anarcho-communists "really" proto-"anarcho"-capitalists
as well? Obviously not. Instead of wondering if his ideas on what socialism is are wrong, he tries
to rewrite history to fit the anarchist movement into his capitalist ideas of what anarchism,
socialism and whatever are actually like.

In addition, we must point out that Proudhon's "emphasis on the genuine antagonism between
state power and property rights" came from his later writings, in which he argued that property
rights were required to control state power. In other words, this "heterodoxy" came from a period
in which Proudhon did not think that state could be abolished and so "property is the only power
that can act as a counterweight to the State." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
p. 140] Of course, this "later" Proudhon also acknowledged that property was "an absolutism
within an absolutism," "by nature autocratic" and that its "politics could be summed up in a single
word," namely "exploitation." [p. 141, p. 140, p. 134]

Moreover, Proudhon argues that "spread[ing] it more equally and establish[ing] it more firmly in
society" is the means by which "property" "becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps the State on an even keel." [p. 133, p. 140] In other words, rather than "property" as such limiting the state, it
is "property" divided equally through society which is the key, without concentrations of economic
power and inequality which would result in exploitation and oppression. Therefore, "[s]imple
justice. . . requires that equal division of land shall not only operate at the outset. If there is to be
no abuse, it must be maintained from generation to generation." [Op. Cit., p. 141, p. 133, p. 130].

Interestingly, one of Proudhon's "other heterodoxies" Caplan does not mention is his belief that
"property" was required not only to defend people against the state, but also capitalism. He saw
society dividing into "two classes, one of employed workers, the other of property-owners,
capitalists, entrepreneurs." He thus recognised that capitalism was just as oppressive as the state
and that it assured "the victory of the strong over the weak, of those who property over those who
own nothing." [as quoted by Alan Ritter, The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p.
121] Thus Proudhon's argument that "property is liberty" is directed not only against the state, but
also against social inequality and concentrations of economic power and wealth.

Indeed, he considered that "companies of capitalists" were the "exploiters of the bodies and souls of their wage earners" and an outrage on "human dignity and personality." Instead of wage labour
he thought that the "industry to be operated, the work to be done, are the common and indivisible
property of all the participant workers." In other words, self-management and workers' control. In
this way there would be "no more government of man by man, by means of accumulation of
capital" and the "social republic" established. Hence his support for co-operatives:

"The importance of their work lies not in their petty union interests, but in their denial of
the rule of capitalists, usurers, and governments, which the first [French] revolution left
undisturbed. Afterwards, when they have conquered the political lie. . . the groups of
workers should take over the great departments of industry which are their natural
inheritance." [cited in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, E. Hymans, pp. 190-1, and Anarchism,
George Woodcock, p. 110, 112]
In o
ther words, a socialist society as workers would no longer be separated from the means of
production and they would control their own work (the "abolition of the proletariat," to use
Proudhon's expression). This would mean recognising that "the right to products is exclusive - jus
in re; the right to means is common - jus ad rem" [cited by Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 96] which
would lead to self-management:

"In democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of industrial democracy."
[Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 63]
As
Woodcock points out, in Proudhon's "picture of the ideal society of the ideal society it is this
predominance of the small proprietor, the peasant or artisan, that immediately impresses one"
with "the creation of co-operative associations for the running of factories and railways." ["On
Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", Op. Cit., p. 209, p. 210]

All of which hardly supports Caplan's attempts to portray Proudhon as "really" a capitalist all
along. Indeed, the "later" Proudhon's support for protectionism [Selected Writings of Pierre-

Joseph Proudhon, p. 187], the "fixing after amicable discussion of a maximum and minimum
profit margin," "the organising of regulating societies" and that mutualism would "regulate the
market" [Op. Cit., p. 70] and his obvious awareness of economic power and that capitalism
exploited and oppressed the wage-worker suggests that rather than leading some to exclude
Proudhon from the "leftist camp" altogether, it is a case of excluding him utterly from the "rightist
camp" (i.e. "anarcho"-capitalism). Therefore Caplan's attempt to claim (co-opt would be better)
Proudhon for "anarcho"-capitalism indicates how far Caplan will twist (or ignore) the evidence. As
would quickly become obvious when reading his work, Proudhon would (to use Caplan's words)
"normally classify government, property, hierarchical organisations . . . as 'rulership.'"

To summarise, Proudhon was a socialist and Caplan's attempts to rewrite anarchist and socialist
history fails. Proudhon was the fountainhead for both wings of the anarchist movement and What
is Property? "embraces the core of nineteenth century anarchism. . . [bar support for revolution]
all the rest of later anarchism is there, spoken or implied: the conception of a free society united
by association, of workers controlling the means of production. . . [this book] remains the
foundation on which the whole edifice of nineteenth century anarchist theory was to be
constructed." [Op. Cit., p. 210]

Little wonder Bakunin stated that his ideas were Proudhonism "widely developed and pushed to
these, its final consequences." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 198]


4 - Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism.

That Tucker called himself a socialist is quickly seen from Instead of A Book or any of the books
written about Tucker and his ideas. That Caplan seeks to deny this means that either Caplan has
not looked at either Instead of a Book or the secondary literature (with obvious implications for
the accuracy of his FAQ) or he decided to ignore these facts in favour of his own ideologically
tainted version of history (again with obvious implications for the accuracy and objectivity of his
FAQ).

Caplan, in an attempt to deny the obvious, quotes Tucker from 1887 as follows in section 14
(What are the major debates between anarchists? What are the recurring arguments?):

"It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that
'property is robbery' to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism
that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his
book and find that by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of
usury, and not at all the possession by the labourer of his products."
You
will instantly notice that Proudhon does not mean by property "the possession of the labourer of
his products." However, Proudhon did include in his definition of "property" the possession of the
capital to steal profits from the work of the labourers. As is clear from the quote, Tucker and
Proudhon was opposed to capitalist property ("the power of usury"). From Caplan's own evidence
he proves that Tucker was not a capitalist!

But lets quote Tucker on what he meant by "usury":

"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses, and profit in
exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer." [cited in Men against the
State by James J. Martin, p. 208]
Whi
ch can hardly be claimed as being the words of a person who supports capitalism!

And we should note that Tucker considered both government and capital oppressive. He argued
that anarchism meant "the restriction of power to self and the abolition of power over others.
Government makes itself felt alike in country and in city, capital has its usurious grip on the farm
as surely as on the workshop and the oppressions and exactions of neither government nor
capital can be avoided by migration." [Instead of a Book, p. 114]

And, we may add, since when was socialism identical to communism? Perhaps Caplan should
actually read Proudhon and the anarchist critique of private property before writing such
nonsense? We have indicated Proudhon's ideas above and will not repeat ourselves. However, it
is interesting that this passes as "evidence" of "anti-socialism" for Caplan, indicating that he does
not know what socialism or anarchism actually is. To state the obvious, you can be a hater of
"communism" and still be a socialist!

So this, his one attempt to prove that Tucker, Spooner and even Proudhon were really capitalists
by quoting the actual people involved is a failure.

He asserts that for any claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist is wrong because "the
factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For example, despite a popular claim that
socialism and anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist
movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but
even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favour of private property (merely believing that
some existing sorts of property were illegitimate, without opposing private property as such)."

The facts supporting the claim of anarchists being socialists, however, are not "incorrect." It is
Caplan's assumption that socialism is against all forms of "property" which is wrong. To state the
obvious, socialism does not equal communism (and anarcho-communists support the rights of
workers to own their own means of production if they do not wish to join communist communes –
see above). Thus Proudhon was renown as the leading French Socialist theorist when he was
alive. His ideas were widely known in the socialist movement and in many ways his economic
theories were similar to the ideas of such well known early socialists as Robert Owen and William
Thompson. As Kropotkin notes:

"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England, in William
Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist, and in his
followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831)
and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839)." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 291]
Perh
aps Caplan will now claim Robert Owen and William Thompson as capitalists?

Tucker called himself a socialist on many different occasions and stated that there were "two
schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism." And stated in very clear terms
that:
"liberty insists on Socialism. . . - true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalence on
earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." [Instead of a Book, p. 363]
And
like all socialists, he opposed capitalism (i.e. usury and wage slavery) and wished that "there
should be no more proletaires." [see the essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" in Instead of a
Book, p. 17]

Caplan, of course, is well aware of Tucker's opinions on the subject of capitalism and private
property. In section 13 (What moral justifications have been offered for anarchism?) he writes:

"Still other anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker as well as
Proudhon, have argued that anarchism would abolish the exploitation inherent in interest
and rent simply by means of free competition. In their view, only labour income is
legitimate, and an important piece of the case for anarchism is that without government-
imposed monopolies, non-labour income would be driven to zero by market forces. It is
unclear, however, if they regard this as merely a desirable side effect, or if they would
reject anarchism if they learned that the predicted economic effect thereof would not
actually occur."
Firs
tly, we must point that Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner considered profits to be exploitative as
well as interest and rent. Hence we find Tucker arguing that a "just distribution of the products of
labour is to be obtained by destroying all sources of income except labour. These sources may
be summed up in one word, -- usury; and the three principle forms of usury are interest, rent and
profit." [Instead of a Book, p. 474] To ignore the fact that Tucker also considered profit as
exploitative seems strange, to say the least, when presenting an account of his ideas.

Secondly, rather than it being "unclear" whether the end of usury was "merely a desirable side
effect" of anarchism, the opposite is the case. Anyone reading Tucker (or Proudhon) would
quickly see that their politics were formulated with the express aim of ending usury. Just one
example from hundreds:

"Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will
abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means whereby
any labourer can be deprived of any of his product." [Instead of a Book, p. 347]
Whil
e it is fair to wonder whether these economic effects would result from the application of Tucker's
ideas, it is distinctly incorrect to claim that the end of usury was considered in any way as a
"desirable side effect" of them. Rather, in their eyes, the end of usury was one of the aims of
Individualist Anarchism, as can be clearly seen. As Wm. Gary Kline points out in his excellent
account of Individualist Anarchism:

"the American anarchists exposed the tension existing in liberal thought between private
property and the ideal of equal access. The Individualist Anarchists were, at least, aware
that existing conditions were far from ideal, that the system itself worked against the
majority of individuals in their efforts to attain its promises. Lack of capital, the means to
creation and accumulation of wealth, usually doomed a labourer to a life of exploitation.
This the anarchists knew and they abhorred such a system." [The Individualist
Anarchists, p. 102]
This
is part of the reason why they considered themselves socialists and, equally as important, they
were considered socialists by other socialists such as Kropotkin and Rocker. The Individualist
Anarchists, as can be seen, fit very easily into Kropotkin's comments that "the anarchists, in
common with all socialists. . . maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in
land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs
against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlets, p. 285] Given that they considered profits as usury and proposed "occupancy and
use" in place of the prevailing land ownership rights they are obviously socialists.

That the end of usury was considered a clear aim of his politics explains Tucker's 1911 postscript
to his famous essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" in which he argues that "concentrated
capital" itself was a barrier towards anarchy. He argued that the "trust is now a monster which. . .
even the freest competition, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy." While, in an earlier
period, big business "needed the money monopoly for its sustenance and its growth" its size now
ensured that it "sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no longer a
necessity. It can do without it." This meant that the way was now "not so clear." Indeed, he
argued that the problem of the trusts "must be grappled with for a time solely by forces political or
revolutionary" as the trust had moved beyond the reach of "economic forces" simply due to the
concentration of resources in its hands. ["Postscript" to State Socialism and Anarchism]

If the end of "usury" was considered a "side-effect" rather than an objective, then the problems of
the trusts and economic inequality/power ("enormous concentration of wealth") would not have
been an issue. That the fact of economic power was obviously considered a hindrance to
anarchy suggests the end of usury was a key aim, an aim which "free competition" in the abstract
could not achieve. Rather than take the "anarcho"-capitalist position that massive inequality did
not affect "free competition" or individual liberty, Tucker obviously thought it did and, therefore,
"free competition" (and so the abolition of the public state) in conditions of massive inequality
would not create an anarchist society.

By trying to relegate an aim to a "side-effect," Caplan distorts the ideas of Tucker. Indeed, his
comments on trusts, "concentrated capital" and the "enormous concentration of wealth" indicates
how far Individualist Anarchism is from "anarcho"-capitalism (which dismisses the question of
economic power Tucker raises out of hand). It also indicates the unity of political and economic
ideas, with Tucker being aware that without a suitable economic basis individual freedom was
meaningless. That an economy (like capitalism) with massive inequalities in wealth and so power
was not such a basis is obvious from Tucker's comments.

Thirdly, what did Tucker consider as a government-imposed monopoly? Private property,
particularly in land! As he states "Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are

based upon actual occupancy and use" and that anarchism "means the abolition of landlordism
and the annihilation of rent." [Instead of a Book, p. 61, p. 300] This, to state the obvious, is a
restriction on "private property" (in the capitalist sense), which, if we use Caplan's definition of
socialism, means that Tucker was obviously part of the "Leftist camp" (i.e. socialist camp). In
other words, Tucker considered capitalism as the product of statism while socialism (libertarian of
course) would be the product of anarchy.

So, Caplan's historical argument to support his notion that anarchism is simply anti-government
fails. Anarchism, in all its many forms, have distinct economic as well as political ideas and these
cannot be parted without loosing what makes anarchism unique. In particular, Caplan's attempt to
portray Proudhon as an example of a "pure" anti-government anarchism also fails, and so his
attempt to co-opt Tucker and Spooner also fails (as noted, Tucker cannot be classed as a "pure"
anti-government anarchist either). If Proudhon was a socialist, then it follows that his self-
proclaimed followers will also be socialists -- and, unsurprisingly, Tucker called himself a socialist
and considered anarchism as part of the wider socialist movement.

"Like Proudhon, Tucker was an 'un-marxian socialist'" [William O. Reichart, Partisans of
Freedom: A Study in American Anarchism, p. 157]


5 - Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism

Caplan tries to build upon the non-existent foundation of Tucker's and Proudhon's "capitalism" by
stating that:

"Nor did an ardent anarcho-communist like Kropotkin deny Proudhon or even Tucker the
title of 'anarchist.' In his Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin discusses not only
Proudhon but 'the American anarchist individualists who were represented in the fifties by
S.P. Andrews and W. Greene, later on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented
by Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York Liberty.' Similarly in his article
on anarchism for the 1910 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Kropotkin again freely
mentions the American individualist anarchists, including 'Benjamin Tucker, whose
journal Liberty was started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of those of
Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer.'"
Ther
e is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin to prove the historical validity of
"anarcho"-capitalism. This is because while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the
anarchist movement, Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist! In State
Socialism and Anarchism he stated that anarchism was "an ideal utterly inconsistent with that
of those Communists who falsely call themselves Anarchists while at the same time advocating a
regime of Archism fully as despotic as that of the State Socialists themselves." ["State Socialism
and Anarchism", Instead of a Book, pp. 15-16]

While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying Proudhon or Tucker as
anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title to supporters of capitalism. Why? Simply because
anarchism as a political movement (as opposed to a dictionary definition) has always been anti-
capitalist and against capitalist wage slavery, exploitation and oppression. In other words,
anarchism (in all its forms) has always been associated with specific political and economic
ideas. Both Tucker and Kropotkin defined their anarchism as an opposition to both state and
capitalism. To quote Tucker on the subject:

"Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more
government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited in Native
American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing American Individualism by Eunice
Schuster, p. 140]
Krop
otkin defined anarchism as "the no-government system of socialism." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 46] Malatesta argued that "when [people] sought to overthrow both
State and property -- then it was anarchy was born" and, like Tucker, aimed for "the complete
destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man." [Life and Ideas, p. 19, pp. 22-28]
Indeed every leading anarchist theorist defined anarchism as opposition to government and
exploitation. Thus Brain Morris' excellent summary:

"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of politics: that it sees the
state as the fount of all evil, ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a
misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way anarchism has been
defined [in dictionaries, for example], and partly because Marxist historians have tried to
exclude anarchism from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the
writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it
is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision. It has always challenged all
forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion
as it has been of the state." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of
Desire Armed no. 45, p. 40]
Ther
efore anarchism was never purely a political concept, but always combined an opposition to
oppression with an opposition to exploitation. Little wonder, then, that both strands of anarchism
have declared themselves "socialist" and so it is "conceptually and historically misleading" to
"create a dichotomy between socialism and anarchism." [Brian Morris, Op. Cit., p. 39] Needless
to say, anarchists oppose state socialism just as much as they oppose capitalism. All of which
means that anarchism and capitalism are two different political ideas with specific (and opposed)
meanings -- to deny these meanings by uniting the two terms creates an oxymoron, one that
denies the history and the development of ideas as well as the whole history of the anarchist
movement itself.

As Kropotkin knew Proudhon to be an anti-capitalist, a socialist (but not a communist) it is hardly
surprising that he mentions him. Again, Caplan's attempt to provide historical evidence for a
"right-wing" anarchism fails. Funny that the followers of Kropotkin are now defending individualist
anarchism from the attempted "adoption" by supporters of capitalism! That in itself should be
enough to indicate Caplan's attempt to use Kropotkin to give credence to "anarcho"-capitalist co-
option of Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner fails.

Interestingly, Caplan admits that "anarcho"-capitalism has recent origins. In section 8 (Who are
the major anarchist thinkers?) he states:

"Anarcho-capitalism has a much more recent origin in the latter half of the 20th century.
The two most famous advocates of anarcho-capitalism are probably Murray Rothbard
and David Friedman. There were however some interesting earlier precursors, notably
the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari. Two other 19th-century a

You're not fooling anyone with your Huge and rambling posts.
It only shows me how UNCOMFORTABLE this post is.
Life is good.
I can always start another thread if this one
gets over long. See ya.

attitude adjustment
you can learn the
easy way or
the hard way
makes no difference
to me

Looks like you have found a hot button with the Weasel/COINTELPRO/SPOOK crowd.

I think you ought to start a fresh thread with all the links again.

This is getting fun if only to see how it obviously discomfits them.

This is definitely a topic that they don't want us talking over.

After all people might start thinking.

And there seems to be a lot of there there.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwwww!

Links:
http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/mind_control/jjones.html
http://www.silcom.com/~patrick/pwrcat.htm
http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/AUM/SECTION_2/07.html
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/JONESTOWN.html
http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/institutional_analysis/jones.html
http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29I4/page10.htm
http://www.anomalous-images.com/text/FIRESK20.TXT
http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue82/jonestown.html
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~remoore/jonestown/articles/mcgehee.html
http://www.geminiwalker-ink.net/HellJonestown.html
http://www.missingpersons-ireland.freepress-freespeech.com/mkultra2.htm
...and comentary.
Another thread perhaps going into
1. the OK bombing
2. Flt 007
3. WACO
4. JFK, MLK, JFK and other assassinations
plus many others. Hmmmm?

Just like I can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, I can't prove -- to your satisfaction -- that your conspiracy theories are outrageous.

So have fun without me -- for now ;-)

Okay, I took care of number 1.
maybe Flt. 007 should be next.

1st
2nd
5th
and last
link dead.
all other links checked
http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/AUM/SECTION_2/07.html
-U.S. Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who worked closely in key positions with the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for many years, told Freedom that Leo Ryan had moved too close to certain skeletons that could never be safely disturbed. Prouty noted evidence of the involvement of a larger force in the operation: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff had

prepared air shipments of hundreds of body bags. They didn't normally keep that many in any one place. Within hours, they began to shuttle them down to Georgetown, the main city. They couldn't possibly have done that without prior knowledge that it was going to happen. It shows that there was prior planning." These are other unusual events, he noted, "are the kinds of earmarks that define the hand of American intelligence." The point being that the entire Jonestown massacre looks like it may have been well prepared for by the US government prior to the actual killings.-

Forgive me, Sheepdog, but one has to ask if you are "special", know what I mean?

Like, do you have internet priviliges at Patton State?

As long as you keep away from the food bowl. I do bite.
And I am very special. :>)

Thank you for asking.
Now what does that have to do with the mass murder at Jonestown?

oh, and in the last series of links that I posted; number 8, 9 and 10 are also gone.
:>(