Robert LeFevre is dean of Rampart Col lege Grad u ate School, which is being estab -lished north of Col orado Springs, Col orado. He is the founder and former presi dent ofthe Free dom School, parent orga ni za tion to Rampart Col lege, and prin ci pled teacherduring that school's summer courses for adults.

His arti cles, “The Stoic Virtues” and “A Chal lenge to the Georgists,” ap peared in thespring and summer edi tions of the RAMPART JOURNAL.

He was ed i tor and ed i to ri al writer for the Col orado Springs Gazette Tele graph for anumber of years.

I recall distinctly the occasion on which I was first accused of being an anarchist. My publisherwas entertaining in his home, and among the guests was a college professor who had read someof my essays and editorials on the subject of human liberty.

The position I had taken in those writings was original to me. Without a doubt, what I had writ-ten had been said before in other ways. Certainly, my reading had contributed to the formationof a point of view in which I rejected the idea that any man had a right to impose upon me byforce. But although I must have been influenced toward them, I had not at that time read any-thing that provided me with my conclusions.

I had stated, and in my exchange with the professor I repeated, my antipathy to the state as anagency of force. I declared for economic freedom; the fundamental idea that each man ought tobe free to produce and enjoy the product of his labor. I believed this freedom should not be im-paired, even fractionally, by other men acting within a formalized agency of force.

To my amazement, the professor said: “Why, you're an anarchist.”

The word had an unpleasant sound. I denied the classification automatically.

“But you are,” he insisted. “You may not know it, but you are an anarchist.”

Weren't an archists people who went around inflicting terror and imposing force on others?Weren't they the ones who believed in throw ing bombs and shooting people? I was repulsed bythe thought that anyone could confuse my insistence on non-force with peo ple who apparentlyadvocated a use of force. But I had not at that time read the writings of the anarchists, and I con-fessed this shortcoming to the professor.

“You should find out,” he advised kindly. “You are just an anarchist who doesn't know it yet.”

That evening I went to the Britannica as the most readily available source of information andfound a summation of the subject. As I read the first few paragraphs, my heart leaped. The pro-fessor had been right. Here, in far more concise terms than I had ever found, was apparentlywhat I believed.

AN AR CHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct underwhich society is conceived without government ... harmony in such a society being

Autarchy Versus AnarchyRampart Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. 1, No. 4 (Winter, 1965): 30–49by Robert LeFevre

obtained, not by submission to law or by obedience to any authority, but by freeagreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freelyconstituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfactionof the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society de-veloped along these lines, the voluntary associations which begin to cover all thefields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute them-selves for the state in all its functions.

The next few paragraphs were of similar import. Then came the subhead, “Anarchists and theState,” and within a few sentences I was disillusioned. I not only was not an anarchist, I rejectedtheir econom ic doctrine, and had been opposing it right along without even know ing that what Iopposed was the anarchist economic view.

As to economic conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whomthey constitute the left wing, maintain that the prevailing system of private owner-ship in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monop-oly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. Theyare the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from beingbrought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being.

Years of personal involvement in business, news analysis and commentary, and study of what isknown as the Austrian school of economics, had convinced me that free and private enterprisewas the mainstay of organized society. I favored orderly and peaceful procedures as advocatedby the anarchists in the first paragraph which describe their political theories, but I wholehearted-ly opposed any attempt to impose some kind of regulatory or confiscatory force uponthose whoown property, regardless of the kind or amount of property owned.

As I saw it then, and as I still see it, the anarchist philosophy is internally contradictory. It pro-fesses a sparkling and shining individualism, at which point I warm to the arguments. Then it ad-vocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market, e.g., eliminationof interest and rents; denial of the right of a man to own land, or to own land beyond some statedamount; abolition of profits; placement of management control in the hands of workers throughdemocratic processes conducted within factories, and so on.

To quote the Britannica again: “The anarchists consider the wage system and capitalist produc-tion altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was and continuesto be the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to ap-propriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of pro-duction. Consequently, while combating monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, theanarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main support of that system, not this orthat special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governedby means of the referendum.”

Possibly as good a summation of the anarchist view as is available was provided by a manifestoadopted by the Anarchist International in Geneva in 1882: “Our ruler is our enemy. We anar-chists, i.e., men without any rulers, fight against all those who have usurped any power, or who

wish to usurp it. Our enemy is the owner who keeps the land for himself and makes the peasantwork for his disadvantage. Our enemy is the manufacturer who fills his factory with wage-slaves. Our enemy is the state, whether monarchical, oligarchical, or democratic, with its officialsand staff of officers, magistrates, and police spies. Our enemy is every thought of authority,whether men call it God or devil, in whose name the priests have so long ruled honest people.”

Shortly thereafter, I wrote an essay setting forth the fact that while I agreed with the anarchistson their antagonism to state authority and on the merit and primacy of the individual, I rejectedtheir arguments in other areas. It was my contention that a man must be free to acquire honest-ly all the property he can or will, to use it or abuse it as he pleases, once it is his; that he must befree to worship as he pleases or not to worship at all; and that the imposition of force upon himwhen he is peacefully and harmoniously carrying out his own objectives is destructive of theproductive and creative capabilities of the individual.

The accusation that I am an anarchist has continued sporadically. Usually the term is temperedwith the qualifying adjective, “philosophical.” A careful check of the writings of those anar-chists, both European and American, who have earned this badge of identification leaves meoutside their fold. In each case, I find those, so-called, engaged in stating the necessity of somekind of economic intervention or in downgrading some of the conditions which are essential tothe operation of a free market. While many of them (Proudhon, Tolstoy, Tucker, Warren, etc.)take a position similar to mine in respect to the evils of state controls imposed upon the creativityand productivity of the individual, they defeat themselves, in my judgment, by calling for arbi-trarily imposed or voluntarily accepted extra-market restraints upon property and its ownership.

The lines of thought which have been aired by writers who come under the anarchistic canopyare so many and so contradictory that a whole series of hyphenated terms has been used to des-ignate the various kinds of anarchists. These include individualist-anarchists, philosophic-anar-chists, communist-anarchists, union (syndicalist)-anarchists, Christian-anarchists, and nihilist-an-archists.

These qualifications even go to secondary modifications in which there are anarchists who, toaccomplish their goals, favor education only, or defensive violence, or passive resistance, or ag-gressive violence, and so on. In view of all these urgings it becomes questionable whether theterm anarchy can find useful employment as a word to identify a particular point of view.

In his excellent study on American anarchists, Dr. James J. Martin states that the term has suchambiguities that today, to many if not most Americans, anarchy simply means disorder, destruc-tion, and chaos.

Indeed, my first reaction when I heard myself classified in this manner was a feeling of shockbecause I, too, had tended to suppose that anarchists were black-bearded radicals carryingbombs and daggers, and intent upon assassination, demolition, and other violent procedures.

Anarchy derives from the Greek. The prefix, an, denotes not or without. Archy denotes rule orruling. Thus, anarchy means without rule. And in the hyphenations which have proliferated, itappears that few if any wish to be known simply as anarchists. Each person who will accept thelabel anarchist today probably has in mind a qualification of his position.

It would follow that a word in general usage which cannot be precisely applied to any particularperson or doctrine without some type of explanation or modification, is more handy as a term ofopprobium and scorn than otherwise.

Personally, I deplore the negativity implicit in the idea of “no rule.” All men are ruled by someone or some thing. The implication of “no rule” is that men are released from all control, all re-straint, even all morality, purpose, or responsibility. Such is not desirable. Nor is it possible. AsRose Wilder Lane says in The Discovery of Freedom, “All energy operates under control.Whether it be the energy of an electron, a hurricane, or a man, energy is controlled.”

“This fact makes scientific knowledge possible. Non-living energy--electricity, for example--al-ways operatesi n the same way in the same conditions. No one knows what controls it, but be-cause it is controlled, men who have observed how it acts can predict, with sufficient accuracy,how it always will act.”

“Living energy is different; it is creative, and variable. It changes ... Yet living energy is con-trolled ...”

Thus, the idea of “no ruler” must be applied within a limited framework if it is to have anymeaning at all. Realistically, each person rules himself. Anarchy might well imply the absence ofself-control, yet even the anarchist controls himself in terms of his own beliefs and aims.

Many persons who think of themselves as anarchists, in the sense that they oppose external polit-ical control of their property and actions, are seeking a realistic framework in which they cancontrol their own creative and productive procedures. Many other people deprive themselves ofentrance into an area of inquiry which would be inspiring to them because the doorway has beenlabeled “anarchy,” which they reject as it is equated in their minds with violence and destruction.

Nearly everyone today, at least in America, agrees that government of the political variety, andespecially the government in Washington, D.C., is far larger, more costly, and more obtrusivethan is desirable. As they urge reduction in size or elimination of certain government functions,they are essentially calling for the curtailment of certain pow ers in the hands of bureaucraticrulers, or even for the creation of areas void of bureaucratic rulers. This trend is as anarchistic, tothe degree that it persists, as any other call for the elimination of a ruler in any area or all areas.Yet most do not wish to see disorder, lack of direction, or confusion, a condition they wouldidentify as “anarchy.”

Personally, I do not want a condition of no rulership. I want a condition in which each man isthe absolute ruler of himself and all he rightfully possesses. If this is desirable, then it follows thatI must direct my energies so as not to impose my will on others even though they may be impos-

ing their wills on certain properties not their own, or on persons other than themselves. I mustnot seek to become their ruler even as I cannot condone their efforts to rule me and what is mine.

If a word can be found to convey the meaning I intend, it must mean self-rule; the absolute sov-ereignty of the individual over himself and all that belongs to him.

Fortunately, there is such a word. It is autarchy.

The prefix, auto, means self. Archy, as we know, means rule or ruling. Autarchy then meansself-rule, or the act of self-ruling.

Since I favor total self-control--absolute government of the individual over himself--I believeautarchy more accurately describes, in a positive fashion, the kind of situation I consider mostdesirable. Some dictionaries define autarchy as a kind of tyranny or despotism, but of necessity itis limited to self-application. Thus, an autarchist may very well be a tyrant over himself, or hemight appear tyrannical by refusing to admit others into the sacred precincts of his own mind,person, or property. But if it is tyranny to reject the sycophant, the panhandler, and the centralplanner, then this kind of tyranny is not reprehensible, to my view.

With the aid of this word to describe a desirable condition of independence, it is possible to ex-plore the an archistic convolutions of thought and to escape a general advocacy of anarchy whileapproving some of the philosophic aspects of the doctrine.

Anarchy as it has been advocated in Europe and America contains both socialist and autarchistcharacteristics. The anarchist is correctly included in the socialist movement because of his cen-tral purpose of intervening in the economy. Essentially, the anarchist view is predicated uponboth philosophic individualism and economic tampering.

Some autarchists identify themselves as anarchists, but definitively should not be so designated.The peaceful individualist who upholds private ownership of property as a total concept andwho sees no merit in the organized coercion of the state, cannot in justice and in common sensebe lumped into the same category as the man who opposes property ownership in any of its ram-ifications and will either violently or peacefully abolish the state in order to collectivize propertyat any point. Contemporary statists and anarchists (both socialists) apparently believe liberty andanarchy are synonymous. The contrasts provided by the two words are too vast and too basic tocrowd them under the same etymological umbrella.

Sharp analysis and direct and pungent verbiage against the state are not the mark of the anarchistper se. An anarchist is an economic interventionist and the efforts of all properly identified anar-chists support this assertion.

Traditional anarchistic thinking is inextricably linked with the view of property ownership asevil. Implicit also are the labor theory of value and the concept that anyone who receives profits,rents, or in terest is a usurer since such payments are made, not on the basis of labor but on thebasis of surpluses which should have gone into the hands of the laborers. Various modifications

have developed in contemporary anarchistic thinking.

Few other writings in support of individualism contain the inspiration and philosophic insight ofcertain anarchists. In this regard, nearly every anarchist of note can be recommended. Yet, if theindividualist supports individualist doctrines exclusively and does not favor economic interven-tion, we should not include such a person within the anarchist structure.

There are a number of famous individualists who escape the general accusation that they are an-archists, by virtue of their preeminence and fame as individualists, even though from time to timethey may have inveighed heavily against private property or remained critical of the concept offreedom in economic affairs. In this regard we might be justified in referring to Marcus Aurelius,the dictator of Rome, as a philosophic-anarchist, and to Epictetus as an individualistic-anarchist,although both are properly listed as stoics. If we were to brand as an anarchist every person whoprovided fundamental individualist thought and at the same time attacked a completely free mar-ket, we would have to include even such famous Americans as Thomas Jefferson and AbrahamLincoln, who both attained the presidential position, thus denying political anarchy, yet whosestatements provide milestones in the development of an individualist point of view.

The Autarchists

Autarchy as separate and distinct from anarchy is a relatively current development and perhapscannot fully be shown as an independent line of thought until it is able to throw off the intellectu-al shackles attached to it by scholars in the field. Those who wish to preserve the term anarchyas a useful means of identifying anti-statists will be eager to add the names of autarchists to theroll of anarchists, either to extend the latter's influence by placing the names of eminent menwithin the socialist framework, or to discredit antistatists by linking them with a questionabledoctrine. But the line of demarcation should properly be drawn between antistatists who are so-cialists and antistatists who are in favor of private capitalism.

It is the purpose of this paper to begin the process of this essential cleavage. I will insert thewedge by introducing the man who, in my judgment, might be called the father of modernautarchy, Lysander Spooner (1808–1887). Spooner has often been listed as an anarchist andthere is some justification for this classification. Although this famous antistatist reserved nearlyall of his talent and energy for criticism of the state, he does reveal occasionally that he wasdeeply influenced by anarchistic reasoning in respect to his economic position. For example,Spooner says in regard to contracts, “If a man contracts to perform what proves to be an impossi-bility, the contract is valid only for so much as is possible.” As Dr. Martin shows, this means that“a debt had no legal obligation, and usually no moral one, beyond the means and ability of thedebtor to pay at the time the debt became due.” Spooner does set this problem into the marketplace by suggesting that it is up to the creditor to gauge the risk of the loan before making it. Butelsewhere he decries the fact that bankers and others who lend money, tend to furnish lower in-terest rates to those who are obviously good risks.

Also, there is some evidence that accumulations of capital in large amounts worried Spooner.According to Martin, he believed subversions of natural justice and natural law grew “from an

attempt of a portion of mankind to live off the production of the remainder, and extended as farback in history as the period when the systematic cultivation of the soil made possible an accu-mulation of material wealth in excess of that needed for daily needs on the part of the cultiva-tors.”

Spooner was a noted lawyer in Massachusetts, an authority on the Constitution, a prolific writer,an abolitionist, a critic of legislative processes. In tracing the origin of liberal and radical thoughtin America, Rudolf Rocker refers to him as “a most militant champion of individualistic anar-chism.”

In 1884 he established a private post (the American Letter Mail Company) to prove that a five-cent postage rate was sufficient whereas the government monopoly charged from twelve andone-half to twenty-five cents, and to oppose what he considered an infringement on the rights offree speech as guaranteed by the Constitution.

His important works include: The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, Trial by Jury, Poverty: Its Ille-gal Causes and Legal Cure, “Letter to Grover Cleveland”, Natural Law or the Science of Jus-tice (only Part I extant), No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, “A Letter to Thomas Ba-yard”, economic pamphlets, and others.

In all probability, Spooner believed in the labor theory of value. Theories of Menger, Böhm-Baw erk, and others bec ame available during his lifetime, but it is doubtful that he was acquaint-ed with this literature. Spooner at times indicates that he is no enemy to wealth, and certainly noenemy to private ownership of property. But again he cavils at large capital reserves, feeling ap-parently, as so many do who do not grasp the full significance of free market economic theory,that large capital must have been accumulated dishonestly or by political favoritism. He reserveshis sharpest rebukes for those persons in the market, such as bankers, who insist on dealing withthe state. But his economic deviation is so slight as compared with his overwhelmingly effectivestance against the state that I elect to think of him as fundamentally autarchic rather than basical-ly anarchistic. Indeed, it could be held that Spooner had no larger socialist leanings than AdamSmith, whose Wealth of Nations, while in the main laissez faire, nonetheless contained the basisfor continuing error in respect to value, thus furnishing Ricardo, Marx, and others with the rawmaterials for the socialist edifice.

The bridge between Spooner and modern-day autarchists was constructed primarily by personssuch as H. L. Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, and Mark Twain. There are currently a number ofschools of thought more or less widely known in the U.S. which are essentially autarchic sincethey favor a lassez-faire economic system and oppose the state at those places where in theirjudgment force is brought to bear to inhibit a free market.

In divid u alist-An archists

Consensus finds William Godwin as the founder of the school of thought labeled individualist-anarchism. This British subject (1756–1836) laid the intellectual foundations for organized anar-chistic thinking. His major work, The Inquiry Concerning Political Justice, and Its Influence onGeneral Virtue and Happiness (1793), took the view that all privately owned property is nothing

but a mark of political favoritism. Property itself Godwin viewed as the source of all evil. Wars,murders, theft, slavery, extortion, violence of every description, stemmed from the idea of privateproperty. If men were ever to have a society of justice and right, ownership of property wouldhave to be proscribed. How could this be accomplished? Since, in Godwin's view, ownershipwas a political favor bestowed upon patronage recipients, the abolition of the state would abolishownership.

His arguments in favor of a propertyless society, sans government, set into motion a tremendousrevolution against the state. Probably Godwin was influenced profoundly by both individualistand collectivist writers. Doubtless, the American Revolution, as well as the French Revolutionof 1789, played a part in the development of his point of view.

In America, working independently about the same time, Josiah Warren had no kind words forthe state. He was the first of the individualist-anarchists produced in this country. He viewed theownership of certain types of property, notably the land itself, as a kind of political privilege be-stowed upon favored individuals by the government. Further, his economic views were tied ir-revocably to the concept of the labor theory of value. He favored labor certificates, as exchangepremiums, in place of money. He opposed profits generally, nor did he favor rents or interestpayments.

This view generally followed by other American individualist-anarchists, of whom the bestknown was Benjamin R. Tucker (1854–1939). Tucker is placed prominently among 19th centu-ry American literary figures as a result of the outstanding periodical he published entitled Liber-ty. Tucker decided that the major problem was economic reform (in common with all other trueanarchists) and that abolition of the state would follow such reform. As he viewed it, the great-est criminal was the usurer. As far as Tucker was concerned, anyone who received profits, rents,or interest was a usurer, since all of these payments were made, not on the basis of labor but be-cause of surpluses which should have gone into the hands of the laborers.

The ultimate extent of individualist-anarchy is probably found in the doctrines of Henry George(1839–1897). This exponent of land reform and the “single tax” rolled up the most impressivefollow ing of any of the individualist-anarchists, a follow ing which is probably larger today thanit was while George was alive. George favored the abolition of property in land, with all rents ofland going to a central authority which would be the single proprietor of the land. George didnot oppose profits or interest. He merely sought the abolition of private ownership of a singletype of property, land itself. He viewed land ownership as a kind of monopoly.

Others of the individualist-anarchist school took much the same view. Thus, without question,even the Americans who followed the banner of anarchy were socialists to some degree, fortheir primary objective was economic reform of some type. Their methodology invariably in-cluded the reduction of the state to zero or near zero, either at once or follow ing the accomplish-ment of certain economic interventions. The anarchist position was essentially contradictory be-cause even though they sought the abolition of the state, the economic adjustments they soughtwould have to be accomplished by the state. Both George and Tucker (as well as a number ofothers) glimpsed the necessity and thus either favored a postponement of the abolition of the

state until a more favorable moment, or compromised their position and agreed to a retention ofthe state in a minor capacity.

Count Leo Tolstoy, usually classed as a Christian anarchist, glimpsed such a contradiction inHenry George:

Where force is set up as law, there will slavery be ... as long as there shall be tyran-ny supported by the bayonet there will be no distribution of wealth among men, butall the wealth will go to the tyrants. A striking illustration of the truth of this positionis afforded by Henry George's project of nationalizing land. George proposed to de-clare all land government property, and to substitute a rent-tax for all direct and indi-rect taxes. That is, everyone using land should pay the government its rental value.What would be the outcome? Land would belong to the government: to the Englishthe land of England, to the Americans the land of that country, and so forth; that is,there would be slavery, determined by the quantity of land in use. Perhaps the con-dition of some laborers (such as agricultural) would be improved; but since therewould remain the forcible collection of the tax of the rental values, there would alsoremain slavery. The land cultivator, in a bad year, not being able to pay the rent ex-acted from him by force, would have to enslave himself to the man with money inorder to keep his land and not lose everything.

Philo soph ic-An archists

The earliest exponent of philosophic anarchy, a man who probably influenced the developmentof anarchistic thought more than any other person, was a Frenchman, Pierre Joseph Proudhon(1809–1865). Proudhon was a disciple of Godwin and of Rousseau, and others who favored ei-ther individualism or economic social reform.

He modified the Godwinian view with respect to property. He viewed private ownership ofproperty as essentially evil, but conceded that rightful use of property on an exclusive basis wasprobably necessary. Therefore, he suggested that proprietorship (the immediate use of property)was not evil although ownership per se was evil. If a man owned any property, he was in a posi-tion to remove it from all others, even if he was not using it at a given moment. This, as Proud-hon saw it, was “robbery.” But if the person did not really “own” the property and merely held itas he used it, he was a temporary proprietor, and this was condoned. Proudhon is rememberedfor his most important work, Qu'est-ce que la Propriété? He is also remembered because he wasthe fountainhead from which the world's most famous socialist was first to slake his thirst foreconomic reform. Karl Marx began his career as a revolutionary as a disciple of Proudhon. Hisfirst writings were in unbounded praise of his master.

How ever, Marx sensed the fundamental ambivalence of anarchy and saw, correctly, that the an-archistic aim to abolish property ownership generally was out of harmony with the view that thestate must be abolished. Marx's ambition was to found a world order outlaw ing private owner-ship of property, essentially the property of the bourgeoisie (productive property, the tools ofproduction and distribution). Since it was inconceivable that those who owned such property

would surrender it without a struggle, Marx recommended the conversion of government into atool dominated by the workers (those who owned no property), the emergence of a “dictatorshipof the proletariat.” He agreed with the anarchist view that private property is nothing but a privi-lege extended by the state, but he viewed the immediate abolition ofthe state as wholly impracti-cal. Rather, the state must become the tool of the workers through the employment of democraticprocesses. The workers will always outnumber the owners. Thus, Marx broke with the anar-chist school and established communism (modern socialism).

It is often claimed that Marx favored the ultimate abolition of the state. He is quoted as the authorof the phrase that, follow ing the revolution, in which the proletariat would seize power, “thestate will wither away.” There is some evidence that a verbal statement to this effect was ex-pressed by Marx at a meeting of workers, largely anarchists, in which he sought to bring the an-archists over to the communist position. Lenin credits Engels with the statement.

The anarchists, how ever, rejected the overtures of Marx or Engels. Their position was that com-munism would essentially fail to achieve both their objectives. They could see no reason why apow erful, totalitarian state would ever “wither away.” Further, they took the position that theownership of the tools by the state (the proletariat as ruling class) would merely provide a newgroup of owners and would not eliminate the ownership of property. They viewed state owner-ship of the tools of production as compared with private ownership of the tools of production asa distinction without a difference.

Although anarchists and communists both can rightfully be classed as socialists, they became,and remain today, steadfast enemies. When Lenin seized power in Russia, he ordered cannonturned against the anarchist headquarters, an offense for which the anarchists have never forgiv-en him. There is probably no more steadfast opponent of communism than the anarchist, eventhough he and the communist both seek to impose controls, restraints, or ad justments upon lais-sez-faire capitalism. As the anarchists view communism, it will lead to the abolition of humanfreedom. In this view they are corect. As the communists view anarchy, the system is impracticaland both prongs of the anarchist objetive cannot be obtained. In this they are probably correct.

Com mu nist-An archists

The distinction of founding the particular branch of anarchy called communist-anarchism falls toa Russian, Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876). Bakunin began his career as a disciple of Marx withinthe communist structure. But as Marx had earlier broken with the anarchists, so Bakunin brokewith Marx. In common with other anarchists he rejected the objectives of marxism (the creationof state cap italism in place of private capitalism) but in contrast to other anarchists he deploredthe futility of peaceful propaganda by his co-workers in socialist reform. He openly approved ofthe methods of Marx which centered on political action of the most direct and, if necessary, vio-lent nature. This appeared to him to provide the magic formula which anarchism had lacked upto that time.

To Bakunin goes the credit for introducing what is caled “the propaganda of action.” Since

heads of state, heads of industries, bankers and financiers were all “enemies,” Bakunin recom-mended direct steps to eliminate them. The pistol, the bomb, the dagger became symbols of com-munist-anarchists. Assassination, demonstration, riot, and violence became the hallmark of theirparticular efforts. Terrorist acts against heads of state became the central theme of world newsfor three decades. Sophie Perovskaya assassinated Czar Alexander II in St. Petersburg on March13, 1881. Santo Caserio, an Italian anarchist, assassinated S. F. Sadi Carnot, president of France,on June 23, 1894. Another Italian anarchist, Luigi Luccheni, killed Elizabeth, empress of Aus-tria, on September 10, 1898. Monza killed Humbert I of Italy, July 29, 1900. On September 6,1901, Leon Czolgosz assassinated President William McKinley in Buffalo, New York. There isa long list of similar terrorist acts, although many attempts were not successful. The overall resultwas to produce two different reactions.

Anarchists saw that this method did not obtain the results they sought. Each head of state wasmerely supplanted by another head. The murder of an industrialist did not abolish industry, itprovided a promotion for a vice president.

Public reaction was one of revulsion. Prior to Bakunin, anarchist argument had fallen on manysympathetic ears. With the introduction of terror as a modus operandi, the anarchist wing of so-cialist reform lost ground. Regardless of whether people are distrustful of politicians or industrialleaders, this method is frightening and distasteful. It can be said that Bakunin's enthusiasm for di-rect action put the quietus on anarchy in large measure. It is from these excesses that the generalview emerges which equates anarchy with disorder, riot, and chaos.

Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921) was a follow er of Bakunin. He spent much of his life in aneffort to show that while revolution generally was the correct method for all social reformers, in-dividual acts of terrorism were not implicit in anarchy. The effect of his work was to temper insome degree the wide antagonism that Bakunin had engendered. How ever, since he was anapologist for Bakunin and could not bring himself to abandon violence totally, he is classed as acommunist-anarchist.

The most dramatic of all the anarchist excesses occurred in Chicago. On May 3, 1886, commu-nist-anarchists and union-anarchists were demonstrating outside the McCormick Harvester facto-ry, follow ing the proclamation of a general strike. Police were called in by the management anda riot ensued in which several workers were killed and others wounded. The next day at a unionmeeting at the Haymarket in Chicago, some 180 policemen forced their way into what had beenreportedly a “peaceful” meeting. A bomb was thrown into the police ranks. Six officers werekilled and a number wounded.

The State of Illinois demanded immediate action and eight leading anarchists were rounded upfor trial. Seven were sentenced to be hanged; the other given a fifteen-year prison term. Subse-quently, four were hanged, one hanged himself in his cell, and three had their sentences com-muted. Finally, the survivors were unconditionally pardoned. A re-examination of the evidencehad failed to provide proof that any of the men sentenced had had anything to do with the bomb-ing.

But by this time, journalists were depicting anarchists as small, black-bearded radicals carrying

bombs and daggers.

Union-An archists

Without a doubt, it was the writings of Proudhon and Marx which inspired the formation oftoday's trade-union movement. In France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Germany, syndicalist soci-eties were formed. The central theme of this active and aggressive body was that the workersshould receive all income from the operation of their respective industries. Profits were viewedas “surplus value” and were to be outlawed. Additionally, the chore of management was to passinto the hands of workers via the democratic process. Workers were to hold elections withintheir respective plants and elect their own managers from among their number. Then, within agiven district, the democratic managers were to meet to establish quotas of production. The dis-tinctive feature of anarchy--antipathy toward both the state and the capitalist--dominated thetrade union movement until recently.

A German anarchist, John Joseph Most, came to New York City in 1882 and began an exten-sive program of propaganda through a series of publications: Arbeiter Zeitung, Alarm, The Voiceof the People, The Anarchist. The Knights of Labor was organized to carry on anarchistic objec-tives in this country. Later, the IWW (International Workers of the World) was set up as a rivalbody, largely under the influence of the communist-anarchists. The Knights of Labor evolvedinto the American Federation of Labor and took renewed vigor through the ministering ofSamuel Gompers, who did a great deal to further anarchist goals. He brought respectability tothe strike and the boycott, which became effective (and legal) techniques.

After World War I, the IWW lost ground and the AFL emerged triumphant. Its pre-eminencewas challenged during the 1930s by the governmentally sponsored Congress of Industrial Orga-nizations (CIO), which ultimately merged with the earlier body to form the present AFL-CIO. Inprocess, laws were enacted which were prejudicially favorable to union-anarchy, the most no-table of which was the famous Wagner Act of 1935.

As government became the champion of economic intervention, anarchists within the unionmovement abandoned their antipathy to the state and became among the strongest defenders of amilitant pro-union government. Today, constant efforts are made by union propagandists to dis-associate themselves with the source of their intellectual position. Thus, at the moment, the tradeunion movement is in most respects a protected and pampered political adjunct, while the centraltheme of anarchy, economic tampering, marches almost unopposed through the American busi-ness and industrial community. How ever, at any point where unionists are opposed by state au-thority, resistance to the state at once emerges.

Christian-An archists

Count Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) in Russia and William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879) in theUnited States are the best known ex ponents of this particular brand of anarchy. Their oppositionto government is proverbial and both favored major economic reform. Tolstoy, a rich man by in-heritance, viewed wealth as an evil, per se, and divested himself of virtually all his possessions.

He took as the key to anarchy the Sermon on the Mount and viewed Jesus Christ as the originalanarchist.

Garrison, who is usually remembered as an abolitionist in his opposition to slavery, referred tohimself as a Christian-anarchist, envisioning the church triumphant as the proper governing bodyfor all men. He urged the abolition of political states and opposed great accumulations of wealth--a position he viewed as essential to the Christian theme. Neither man favored a position of ruler-lessness, preferring to support the view of man as a creature under the control of Christian au-thority. Both frowned upon interest, capital accumulations, profits, and personal luxury.

Nihilist-An archists

The best known writer whose views led to the development of nihilist-anarchy is Max Stirner(1806–1856). Possibly there is no more inspiring writer in the field of the ego triumphant thanthis German anarchist. Stirner, in his writings, would permit nothing to be valued above the indi-vidual's own ego. He did not oppose private ownership of property. But he advocated the takingof as much property as any individual was capable of taking. His words, if they can be accept-ed at face value, indicate that he was not opposed to theft; that no one would ever have moreproperty than he was competent to keep in the face of others who were trying to grab it, so theindividual should grab all he wanted for himself. He was not opposed to a temporary “union”with others who would help him grab. But he would remain in the “union” only so long as itpleased him.

Stirner denounced morality. He wanted no moral rules of any kind imposed upon any individ-ual. Thus, in practice, a contract would never really be binding in Stirner's world. For while theindividual might enter into a contract, he would remain bound by it only so long as he felt it ad-vantageous. Thus, if his values shifted and he obtained a new objective, he would feel entirelyjustified in violating any prior commitment.

From Stirn er, and a few others who took this view, there arose a school of thought called ni-hilism. It was particularly notable in Russia. The sum and substance of the nihilistic vieew wasessentially that humanity had gotten off the track so far in its civilizing procedures that the onlyvalid course would be to eliminate all known human institutions: state, church, school, business,family. Destruction for its own sake, as a palliative or purge, was viewed as virtuous.

While Stirner is not generally classed as a nihilist, his writings helped to pave the way for the de-velopment of this school of thought and I classify him as a nihilistic-anarchist. His best knownwork is The Ego and His Own. In it he begins by denouncing all good causes: the cause of God,the cause of mankind, the cause of truth, the cause of freedom, the cause of humanity, the causeof justice, the cause of “my people,” the cause even of the mind. He ends his message by stating:“All things are nothing to me.”

Sum ma tion

This view of the anarchist branch of socialism is brief. There are many well-known anarchistswho have been passed by, because the purpose of this work is not to systematize or exhaust the

area, but to show that autarchy (self-government) is contrary in major respects to anarchy.

Thus, anarchy is a branch of socialism, whereas autarchy is not. Socialism is always discernibleat a single point, intervention in the economy. The autarchist is content to permit the marketplace to make its own adjustments or revisions, if and when they are needed. He favors humanliberty; he believes in property as a total concept, favors moral fulfillment of contracts, and sup-ports profits, rents, and interest without equivocation.

As both the union-anarchists and the Georgist individualist-anarchists have demonstrated, eco-nomic reform with no state assistance whatever is probably impossible. Thus, the position of theanarchist is internally in conflict. The reduction of the state, either in whole or in major portions,is unquestionably meritorious and many of the anarchists have provided magnificent argumentsin support of this reduction. How ever, their protestations are perpetually marred by their primaryambition, the revision of the economy and the wiping out of laissez-faire capitalism, in whole orin part.

I have often been inspired and delighted with writings by some of the anarchists when they con-fine themselves to the political arena. I am distressed and dismayed when they view morality,wealth, money, profits, rents, interest, land ownership, or a voluntary organization as inimical tofreedom.

Economic freedom is the implicit right of any individual to own any kind or any amount of prop-erty and to unite voluntarily with others for purposes which relate to property in any particular.Impositions by any agency of force, regardless of the end in view, are essentially contrary tofreedom. If one believe in freedom, one must believe in economic freedom--full latitude ofchoice in any and all economic areas, for each person. This can never be accomplished by anyprocedure, organized or otherwise, which uses violence (even the violence implicit in taxation)to take from an owner anything which is rightfully his.

Nor can one support arguments which are offered within a voluntaryist framework which wouldlead to controls of an extra-market character imposed at any point of market participation.

Support of freedom is essentially support of self-government in all particulars. Freedom isautarchy--self rule.

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 1: En cy clopae dia Bri tan ni ca, 1959 ed., Vol. I, 873. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 2: Ibid. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 3: Ibid. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 4: Ibid., p. 877. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 5: “An archy and Lib erty”, Gazette Tele graph (Col oradoSprings), Jan u ary 8, 1956, Sec. E, p. 4. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 6: James J. Martin, Men Against the State (New York: Lib -ertari an Book Club, Inc., 1957), pp. 2, 3. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 7: “An archism, n. 1. The the o ry that all gov ern ment is anevil. Proud hon (1809-65), ‘Fa ther of An archism,’ ad vo cat ed a so cial orga ni za tionbased on common own ership and free agree ments. At its worst, an archism stands forterroristic re sistance to all pre sent gov ern ment and so cial order. 2. Ad vo ca cy or prac -tice of an archistic prin ci ples, esp., an archistic rev o lu tion; ni hilism; terrorism.”

“An archy, n. 1. The state of so ci ety where there is no law or supreme power; a state ofpo lit i cal disorder. 2. A state of disorder or con fu sion. Syn. An archy, chaos, lawlessnessmean a break down in law or order. An archy implies total ab sence of or suspen sion ofgov ern ment; chaos, the utter nega tion of law or order; lawlessness, a preva lent or ha -bit u al disre gard of law or order.” Web ster's New Col le giate Dic tio nary (Spring field,Mass.: G. & C. Merri am Co., 1961.) ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 8: Lane, The Discov ery of Free dom (New York: The JohnDay Compa ny, 1943), p. xi. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 9: “Autarchy, n. Ab solute sov ereign ty; au to crat ic rule.” Op.cit. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 10: Martin, op. cit., p. 173. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 11: Ibid., p. 191. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 12: Rock er, Pi o neers of Ameri can Free dom (New York: J. J.Lit tle & Ives Compa ny, 1949), p. 86. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 13: Ibid., pp. 87–88. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 14: Martin, op. cit., p. 170. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 15: Ibid., pp. 192–201. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 16: Charles T. Sprad ing, Lib erty and the Great Lib ertari ans(Los An ge les: Gold en Press, 1913), pp. 351–352. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 17: Ibid., p. 328. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 18: “... the first step in the rev o lu tion by the work ing class

is to raise the pro le tari at to the po si tion of rul ing class, to win the bat tle of democ ra -cy.” Marx, The Commu nist Man i festo (Gate way ed.; Chica go: Henry Reg n ery Compa -ny, 1954), p. 54. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 19: V. I. Lenin, State and Rev o lu tion (“Lit tle Lenin Li -brary,” XIV [New York: In terna tion al Pub lish ers, 1932]), p. 15, from Friedrich En gels,An ti-Dühring, Lon don and New York, 1933. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 20: “The con flict over the ‘right of prop erty’ wa vers in ve -he ment commo tion. The Commu nists affirm that ‘the earth be longs right ful ly to himwho tills it, and its prod ucts to those who bring them out.’ I think it be longs to himwho knows how to take it, or who does not let it be taken from him, does not let him-self be de prived of it. If he ap pro pri ates it, then not only the earth, but the right to ittoo, be longs to him.” The Ego and His Own, ed. James J. Martin (New York: Lib ertari -an Book Club, 1963), p. 191. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 21: “I am en ti tled to murder if I my self do not forbid it tomy self, if I my self do not fear murder as a ‘wrong.’ ... There is no right out side me. If itis right for me, it is right. Possi bly this may not suffice to make it right for the rest; thatis their care, not mine: let them de fend themselves. And if for the whole world some -thing were not right, but it were right for me, that is, I want ed it, then I would ask noth -ing about the whole world. So every one does who knows how to value himself, everyone in the de gree that he is an ego ist; for might goes be fore right, and that--with per-fect right.” Ibid., p. 190. ↩

“Autarchy Ver sus An ar chy”, n. 22: Ibid., pp. 3, 366. ↩