The Anarchist Economy

J. Terrence Devon

[Reprinted from Economic Incentives, the publication of the School of Economic Science, January-February 1979]

Anarchism literally means "without government". On an economic levels one wonders whether or not a "system" could operate without any form of government at all. Indeed, prior to the establishment of trade regulations and other lega] binds concerning such things as product safety and the standardization of sizes weights and measures, it was apparent that there was a need for government to i precisely such a role, in so far as the regulation of industry is concerned. Now, after several hundred years of progress in this direction, we find anarchism gaining support for exactly the opposite goal - the elimination of government. The primary question which comes to mind here is "why?". I feel that we must look to historical trends to unveil the answer. As well, the investigation will help to clarify the real goals of anarchism and the feasibility of its proposed solutions.

"Anarchism, in summary, is a phoenix in an awakening desert, an idea that has revived for the only reason that makes ideas revive; that they respond to some need felt deeply by people - and since activists are the tip of any social iceberg, by more people than overtly appear concerned."

This statement by George Woodcock, a Canadian anarchist, is perhaps best representative of the anarchists reply to the question above. However, it leaves much to the imagination. Modern day anarchism, as it is collectively known, has its roots in the French Revolution. It was during this time of turmoil that the early advocates came forth and had their day. Men such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kroptkin and Micheal Bakunin all lived in this time period and towards the end founded, collectively, the first permanent body of anarchists, The Internat This organization met regularly and made many recommendnations regarding the implementation of anarchist thought. The primary issue was, of course, the abolition of private property.

Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bakunin found themselves grouped together wit: this framework of the International, and for the sake of convenience lets call group the "true anarchists". This group was in opposition to another block with the International called the "communist-anarchists".

Karl Marx headed the second group. The reason for the division lies in each groups philosophy, and in fact is primarily two-fold* One, the Marxists, (if I may refer to them as such) believed that private property could only be done away with through collective ownership, adding all sorts of further connotation: and two, more importantly, the Marxists were not anti-government, but rather only in support of government reform, which basically meant a tightening of the screws. Proudhon's group of "true anarchists" are so named because they, at the time, represented the closest thing to the dictionary definition. They supported an end to all government as it then existed and advocated "voluntary association" which in fact was laissez-faire.

A battle for control over the International ensued. The Marxists won primarily because Marx was an astute tactical realist and he and his followers entrenched themselves in the key positions within the body; when the chips were down, they used their power to gain the upper hand. Proudhon and Bakunin were dismissed from the organization that they had virtually given birth to.

For Marx then, it was a victory, but for his essentially "true anarchist" followers, it was the beginning of the end. On the whole the International was composed of "true anarchists", and Marx then became the "black sheep" of the group. The main reason he was allowed to gain the influence he did was, as I've mentioned earlier, because of the failure of the anarchists to maintain any forms of organization, specifically, requirements for entry, basic platforms of belief, and just plain and simple fundamentals. Of course Proudhon and Bakunin are primarily at fault here. They tolerated Marx in the first place and failed to keep themselves in the administrative positions of power from which they were eventually expulsed.

The body continued to function after Proudhon left, but essentially it became purely Marxist in the absolute meaning of the term. Many anarchists did stay on giving. Marx the benefit of the doubt regarding his policies on private property reform: the debate over how to make land reform. Marx soon took to spelling out the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the International became a testing ground for his ideas on the communist state of the future. Proudhon did not lose all contact with the events happening within the group from which he was expelled and in fact sent Marx a long letter condemning his actions. Marx was in effect planning a revolution from within the safe confines of the group of anarchists. He, in his cowardice, knew he would never fight such a battle himself. None-the-less Proudhon saw Marx as an opportunist and an ego-centric power monger, and in his letter pointed out the basic difference between Marx and himself. He states, "...we should not put forth revolutionary action as a means of social reform, because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, to arbitrariness, in brief, a contradiction"; and later in the same letter, "I would therefore prefer to burn property by a slow fire, rather than give it new strength by making a St, Bartholomew's night of the proprietors." It is interesting to note here that a great number of the revolutionaries in France at the time of the French Revolution did not advocate armed rebellion at all, but rather peaceful social change. It was their enemies who put the label on these means in an effort to alienate them from the remainder of society and ultimately to maintain the status quo.

We are aware of the plight of Marxism from history. Referring again to Woodcock, he elected to call Marx and his band of "communist-anarchists" the "wrong road of change". I must, of course, stand behind Woodcock completely in his judgement for it is all too well known that communism has not brought greater freedom from the state, but rather, has brought greater bondage to it.

Now let's turn to Proudhon. Suppose he had the foresight to grab those administrative positions in the International before Marx had settled in. Would he have done any better in his grappling with the problem of implementation? It is not likely on the basis of his organizational ability. It would seem then that what is lacking is a champion for the cause of anarchism. It is here that I postulate that Henry George could well be this champion, if not by name, at least in principle. I would like to finish up my story on this note, giving my reasons for naming George and adding a brief comparison between George and Proudhon on a practical as well as theoretical level.

Proudhon had many good ideas which, if given time, may well have developed into something concrete. Proudhon saw economic life as being of a purely capitalistic nature and emphasized the detriments of monopolies. He was quick to extend this emphasis to include land, and fought the monopoly on land wherever he found it. Proudhon also fought privilege with the same virulent force. These attacks advocated the ultimate end to all power blocks, cligues and elites. Proudhon wanted economic equality and participation by the individual in the affairs of his own governing. To Proudhon, if an individual was actually involve in his own government, it could hardly be referred to as government. He states: "Whoever puts his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant, I declare him my enemy." Proudhon wanted the individual to be compelled to make an economic commitment -- to work -- and apart from this to be free to govern himself as he saw fit.

These ideas, as you can see, are a little half-baked. Proudhon leaves too much to the imagination. This is where Henry George takes over, George was much more explicit and addressed himself to very concrete issues during his life By way of comparison, we find both men avid supporters of property reform, George in terms of taxation, Proudhon in terms of ownership. Both men fought for the equal rights of individuals on an economic level and whereas George saw this battle as the cornerstone issue in democracy, Proudhon saw it in anarchism.

Furthermore, George saw law as a means of segregating the vast majority in a manner that kept them subordinate to those in power. Proudhon agrees, but goes a little further, suggesting that laws may in fact be responsible for decreased intellectual power on behalf of those who adhere to them because the laws actually curb the demand on intelligence, thus curbing the application and eventually the ability itself. I think that if this idea was presented to George, he would applaud it loudly.

We can see that Proudhon and George have a great degree of similarity in their thought. In fact, George seems to be the final step in the "logical progression" of anarchist thought. He is in favour of reform and on the sane level as the anarchists. He is pragmatic, thus adding to the line something which it previously was lacking.

Essentially then, Henry George could be called an anarchist, although, it must be added, he could be called many things, and no doubt has been. The point I wish to draw forth here is that the anarchist theory claims that its followers may well be called by other names, and in fact to really judge a given man's position in relation to the movement, one must earnestly evaluate his convictions and not his sentiments on what he believes himself to be. George stated, "I have never claimed to be a special friend of labour. Let us be done with this call for special privileges for labour. Labour does not want special privileges. I have never advocated or asked for special rights or special sympathy for working men. What I stand for is the equal rights of all men." This I feel is the goal of anarchism, as far removed as it may be from the phrase "without government".