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.

