Benjamin Tucker | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | Benjamin Ricketson Tucker (1854-04-17)April 17, 1854 |
| Died | June 22, 1939(1939-06-22) (aged 85) |
| Occupation(s) | Editor,publisher,writer |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | Modern philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | Individualist anarchism Libertarian socialism Mutualism |
| Main interests | Politics,economics |
| Signature | |
 | |
Benjamin Ricketson Tucker (/ˈtʌkər/; April 17, 1854 – June 22, 1939) was an Americanindividualist anarchist and self-identified socialist.[1] Tucker was the editor and publisher of theAmerican individualist anarchist periodicalLiberty (1881–1908). Tucker described his form ofanarchism as "consistentManchesterism" and "unterrifiedJeffersonianism".[2]
Tucker looked upon anarchism as a part of the broader socialist movement. Tucker harshly opposedstate socialism and was a supporter offree-market socialism[3] andlibertarian socialism[4] which he termedanarchist or anarchistic socialism.[5] He connected theclassical economics ofAdam Smith and theRicardian socialists as well as that ofJosiah Warren,Karl Marx andPierre-Joseph Proudhon to socialism.[6] Some modern commentators have described Tucker as ananarcho-capitalist,[7][8] although this has been disputed by others.[9][10] During his lifetime, Tucker opposed capitalism[11] and considered himself a socialist due to his belief in thelabor theory of value and disputed many of the dictionary definitions of the term which he believed were inaccurate.[12]
Tucker made his editorial debut inanarchist circles in 1876, whenEzra Heywood published Tucker's English translation ofPierre-Joseph Proudhon's classic workWhat is Property? In 1877, he published his first original journalRadical Review, but it ran for only four issues. From August 1881 to April 1908, Tucker publishedLiberty, a major individualist-anarchist periodical.[13]
The periodical was instrumental in developing and formalizing theindividualist anarchist philosophy through publishing essays and serving as a format for debate. Beside Tucker, contributors also includedLysander Spooner,Gertrude Kelly,Auberon Herbert,Dyer Lum,Joshua K. Ingalls,John Henry Mackay,Victor Yarros,Wordsworth Donisthorpe,James L. Walker,J. William Lloyd,Florence Finch Kelly,Voltairine de Cleyre,Steven T. Byington,John Beverley Robinson,Jo Labadie,Lillian Harman andHenry Appleton. Included in its masthead is a quote from Proudhon saying that liberty is "Not the Daughter But the Mother of Order".[13]
In 1939, Tucker died in the company of his family inMonaco and carried his beliefs to his deathbed.[14]
Towards the end of Tucker's life, anarchistVictor Yarros described him as a "forceful and clear writer, but a poor speaker" who considered writing for bourgeois newspapers to be "the worst form of prostitution".[15]
Tucker's influences includeRicardo Mella.[16]
Tucker said that he became ananarchist at the age of eighteen.[17] In theanarchist periodicalLiberty, he published the original work ofStephen Pearl Andrews,Joshua K. Ingalls,Lysander Spooner,Auberon Herbert,Dyer Lum,Victor Yarros andLillian Harman (daughter of free love anarchistMoses Harman) as well as his own writing. After the Frenchlibertarian communistJoseph Déjacque,[18]
According to Frank Brooks, an historian ofAmerican individualist anarchism, it is easy to misunderstand Tucker's claim tosocialism. Before Marxists established a hegemony over definitions of socialism, "the term socialism was a broad concept". Tucker as well as most of the writers and readers ofLiberty understood socialism to refer to one or more of various theories aimed at solving thelabor problem through radical changes in the capitalist economy. Descriptions of the problem, explanations of its causes and proposed solutions (abolition ofprivate property and support ofcooperatives orpublic ownership) varied among socialist philosophies.[19]
Not all modern economists believe Marxists established a hegemony over definitions of socialism.[20]
Tucker said socialism was the claim that "labor should be put in possession of its own" while holding that what he respectively termedstate socialism andanarchistic socialism had in common was thelabor theory of value.[21]
Instead of asserting thatcommon ownership was the key to eroding differences of economic power and appealing tosocial solidarity, as did manysocial anarchists, Tucker's individualist anarchism advocated distribution of property in an undistorted naturalfree market as a mediator of egoistic impulses and a source of social stability rooted in afree-market socialist system.[22]
Tucker first favored anatural rights philosophy in which an individual had a right to own the fruits of his labor, but then abandoned it in favor ofegoist anarchism (influenced by Max Stirner) in which he believed that only the right of might exists until overridden by contract. According to Charles A. Madison, Tucker promoted full individual liberty and disdained communism in any form, believing that even a stateless communist society must encroach upon the liberty of individuals, insisting instead on the voluntary nature of all association and rejectingmajority rule,organized religion and the institution ofmarriage due to their compulsory nature.[23]
Tucker connected hislibertarian socialist economic views which included his opposition to non-labor income in the form of profit, interest and rent with those ofAdam Smith,Josiah Warren, Proudhon and Marx while arguing against American anti-socialists who declared socialism as imported.[24]
Tucker disapproved of government ownership because to him state control was the most complete and most obnoxious form of monopoly, "a tyrant living by theft ... wasteful, careless, clumsy, and short-sighted". Tucker maintained that all forms of authoritarian activities imply the resort to force and nothing good or lasting was ever accomplished by compulsion. Thus, he refused to condone the overthrow of the state by violent means, arguing that abolishing government would likely result in physical conflicts over land and a reaction to restore the old regime. Hence, Tucker preached widespread education and ultimately a passive resistance that was to take forms such as refusal to pay taxes, the evasion of jury duty and military service and the non-observance of compulsion. Once society reached this state, individual liberty for all would prevail as a matter of course.[23]
Tucker envisioned an individualist anarchist society with "each man reaping the fruits of his labour and no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital ... become[ing] a great hive of Anarchistic workers, prosperous and free individuals [combining] to carry on their production and distribution on the cost principle"[25] rather than a bureaucratic organization of workers organized into rank and file unions. However, he did hold a genuine appreciation for labor unions (which he called trades-union socialism) and saw it as "an intelligent and self-governing socialism", and praised their "substitution of industrial socialism for usurping legislative mobism".[26]
According toPeter Marshall, "the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists" such as Tucker andLysander Spooner have been overlooked.[27]
Tucker rejected the legislative programs of labor unions, laws imposing a short day, minimum wage laws, forcing businesses to provide insurance to employees and compulsory pension systems.[28]
Tucker was opposed to compulsion and vehemently opposed reform movements with paternalistic goals such as state aid. He did not have a utopian vision ofanarchy in which individuals would refrain from coercing others.[28]
| Part ofa series on |
| Libertarian socialism |
|---|
 |
Tucker argued that the poor condition of American workers resulted from fourlegal monopolies based in the authoritarianism of the state:
Tucker believed that his contemporary millionaires received their wealth through the exploitation of monopolies.[29]
For several decades, his focus became the state's economic control of howtrade could take place and whatcurrency counted as legitimate. He sawinterest andprofit as a form of exploitation, made possible by thebanking monopoly, in turn maintained through coercion and invasion. Tucker called any such interest and profitusury and saw it as the basis of the oppression of the workers. In his words, "interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder".[30]
Tucker opposedprotectionism, believing that tariffs caused high prices by preventing national producers from having to compete with foreign competitors. He believed thatfree trade would help keep prices low and therefore would assist laborers in receiving what he called their "natural wage". Tucker objected to the exploitation of individuals and explained that only under anarchism will man be truly free, saying: "When interest, rent, and profit disappear under the influence of free money, free land, and free trade, it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wage for their labor which free competition determines".[23]
Tucker came to hold the position that no rights exist until they are created by contract. This led him to controversial positions such as claiming that infants had no rights and were the property of their parents because they did not have the ability to contract. He said that a person, who physically tries to stop a mother from throwing her "baby into the fire", should be punished for violating her property rights. For example, he said that children would shed their status as property when they became old enough to contract "to buy or sell a house", noting that the precocity varies by age and would be determined by a jury in the case of a complaint.[31]
Anarcho-communistAlbert Meltzer criticizes Tucker's school of individualist anarchism as not anarchism, reasoning that the private police which those individualists support "to break strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom'" constitutes a government.[32] Sidney E. Parker, then still the editor of individualist anarchist journalMinus One, harshly derides Meltzer as being mentally obtuse and Meltzer's accusation "malicious"; Parker argues that Meltzer misconstrues Tucker, who stated that only in a hypothetical scenario "if, after" "every law in violation of equal liberty [would be] removed from the statute-books" would Tucker volunteer to repress and kill striking workers acting aggressively against capitalists', their watchmen (private or governmental), andscabs; yet as long as such laws remain Tucker would support the workers' actions.[33][34]
Iain McKay et al. criticize specifically Tucker's support, even within an anarchy, forwage labour, which they consider hierarchical, exploitative, and conducive toprivate defense agencies' statism.[35]
[...]; the school of Benjamin Tucker -- by virtue of their individualism -- accepted the need for police to break strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom'. All this school of so-called Individualists accept, at one time or another, the necessity of the police force, hence for Government, and the definition of anarchism is no Government.
Let Carnegie, Dana & Co. first see to it that every law in violation of equal liberty is removed from the statute-books. if, after that, any laborers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive "scabs," or shall attack their employers' watchmen, whether these be Pinkerton detectives, sheriff's deputies, or the State militia, I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth. But while these invasive laws remain, I must view every forcible conflict that arises as the consequence of an original violation of liberty on the part of the employing classes, and, if any sweeping is done, may the laborers hold the broom!
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: url-status (link)
