87 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
87 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
Benjamin Tucker - Anarchist or capitalist?
|
|
|
|
by Gary Elkin
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Tucker was against "capitalism" in the sense of a State-supported
|
|
monopoly of productive tools and equipment which allows owners to avoid
|
|
paying workers the full value of their labor. This stance puts him
|
|
squarely in the libertarian socialist tradition.
|
|
|
|
Indeed, Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist. It's true
|
|
that he sometimes railed against "socialism," but in those cases it is
|
|
clear that he was referring to *State* socialism. He also made it clear
|
|
that he is against private property and so supported Proudhon's idea
|
|
of "property is theft" and even translated Proudhon's "What is Property?"
|
|
where that phrase originated. Tucker advocated *possession* but not
|
|
private property, believing that empty land, houses, etc. should be squatted.
|
|
He considered private property in land use (which he called the "land
|
|
monopoly") as one of the four great evils of capitalism. According to
|
|
Tucker, "the land monopoly... consists in the enforcement by government
|
|
of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupacy and cultivation...
|
|
the individual should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything
|
|
but personal occupation and cultivation of land" [the anarchist reader, p150].
|
|
In this his views are directly opposed to those of right libertarians like
|
|
Murray Rothbard, who advocate "absolute" property rights which are protected
|
|
by laws enforced either by a "nightwatchman State" or private security forces.
|
|
|
|
Tucker believed that bankers' monopoly of the power to create credit and
|
|
currency is the lynchpin of capitalism Although he thought that all forms
|
|
of monopoly are detrimental to society, he maintained that the banking
|
|
monopoly is the worst form since it is the root from which both the
|
|
industrial-capitalist and landlordist monopolies grow and without which
|
|
they would wither and die. For if credit were not monopolized, its price
|
|
(i.e. interest rates) would be much lower, which in turn would drastically
|
|
lower the price of capital goods, land, and buildings -- expensive items
|
|
that generally cannot be purchased without access to credit. The freedom
|
|
to squat empty land and buildings would, in the absence of a State to
|
|
protect titles, complete the process of reducing rents toward zero.
|
|
|
|
Following Proudhon, Tucker argued that if any group of people could legally
|
|
form a "mutual bank" and issue credit based on any form of collateral they
|
|
saw fit to accept, the price of credit would fall to the labor cost of the
|
|
paperwork involved in issuing and keeping track of it. He claimed that
|
|
banking statistics show this cost to be less than one percent of principal,
|
|
and hence, that a one-time service fee which covers this cost and no more
|
|
is the only _non-usurious_ charge a bank can make for extending credit.
|
|
This charge should not be called "interest," since it is non-exploitative.
|
|
|
|
Tucker believed that under mutual banking, capitalists' ability to extact
|
|
exorbitant fees from workers for the use of expensive tools and equipment
|
|
would be eliminated, because workers would be able to obtain zero-interest
|
|
credit and use it to buy their own tools and equipment instead of "renting"
|
|
them from capitalists. Easy access to mutual credit would result in a
|
|
huge increase in the purchase of capital goods, creating a huge demand for
|
|
labor which in turn would greatly increase employees' bargaining power and
|
|
thus raise their wages toward equivalence with the value-added produced by
|
|
their labor.
|
|
|
|
Tucker's ideal society is therefore one of small entrepreneurs and
|
|
independent contractors. Between those who possess capital equipment and
|
|
those with whom they contract to use the equipment, he envisions a
|
|
non-exploitative relationship in which value-added would be equitably
|
|
distributed between them.
|
|
|
|
It's important to note that because of Tucker's proposal to increase the
|
|
bargaining power of workers through access to mutual credit, his so-called
|
|
Individualist anarchism is not only compatible with workers' control but
|
|
would in fact promote it. For if access to mutual credit were to increase
|
|
the bargaining power of workers to the extent that Tucker claimed it would,
|
|
they would then be able to (1) demand and get workplace democracy, and (2)
|
|
pool their credit buy and own companies collectively. This would
|
|
eliminate the top-down structure of the firm and the ability of owners to
|
|
pay themselves unfairly large salaries. Thus the logical consequence of
|
|
Tucker's proposals would be a system functionally equivalent in most
|
|
respects to the kind of system advocated by left libertarians.
|
|
|
|
Tucker's system does retain some features of capitalism, such as
|
|
competition between firms in a "free market." However, markets are only a
|
|
necessary condition of capitalism, not a sufficient condition. There can
|
|
also be a "free market" under socialism, though it would be of a different
|
|
nature. The fundamental anarchist objection to capitalism is not that it
|
|
involves markets but that it involves private property and wage slavery.
|
|
Tucker's system would eliminate both, which is why he called himself a
|
|
socialist. Thus Tucker is clearly a left libertarian rather than a
|
|
forefather of right libertarianism. In this he comes close to what today
|
|
would be called a "market socialist," albeit a non-statist variety.
|
|
|