At almost this exact time last year, I wrote this in response to a petitioning campaign by MoveOn.org over proposed cuts to government grants to…
]]>A: Because …
There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.…
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.— Benjamin Tucker (1888), State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ
The second kind of socialism — anarchistic socialism, or specifically mutualist anarchism (in the tradition of Warren and Proudhon) and individualist anarchism (in the tradition of Tucker and Spooner) — “raised the banner of Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez faire the universal rule. Under this banner they began their fight upon monopolies, whether the all-inclusive monopoly of the State Socialists, or the various class monopolies that now prevail” (Tucker (1888)). These socialists argued that “Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism” (Tucker, “Labor and its Pay”), proclaimed that “genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism” (Tucker, “Labor and its Pay”), and that “Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats” (Tucker, “State Socialism and Anarchism”.
You might point out that this seems peculiar given the way that the words “socialism” (especially) and “anarchism” (to a lesser extent) were used throughout the 20th century. That’s true, but it would be very hard to claim that 20th century socialists (or communist anarchists) have a better historical claim to the word “socialism” than Tucker and the Liberty circle; and it would be absurd to claim that they have a better historical claim to the word than Proudhon does.
I describe myself as both a libertarian and a socialist because that’s what I am: I want free labor and for workers to own the means of production. I don’t want what state socialists want — a monster State in which labor is terrorized and everything is owned by the self-appointed Vanguard. Given what we now know about the history of the world 1917-present, I’d like to see more people waking up to what socialism used to mean.
]]>