What is Communist Anarchism? Ch23!

This is the 25th installment of Alexander Berkman's book, What is Communist Anarchism, it can be found in the Anarchists' Library.

Chapter 23: Non-Communist Anarchists

Before we proceed let me make a short explanation.
I owe it to those Anarchists who are not Communists.

Because you should know that not all Anarchists are Communists: not all of them believe that Communism — social ownership and sharing according to need — would be the best and justest economic arrangement.

I have first explained to you Communist Anarchism because it is, in my estimation, the most desirable and practical form of society.
The Communist Anarchists hold that only under Communist conditions could Anarchy prosper, and equal liberty, justice, and well-being be assured to every one without discrimination.

But there are Anarchists who do not believe in Communism.
They can be generally classed as Individualists and Mutualists.[17]

All Anarchists agree on this fundamental position: that government means injustice and oppression, that it is invasive, enslaving, and the greatest hindrance to man’s development and growth.
They all believe that freedom can exist only in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind.
All Anarchists are therefore at one on the basic principle of abolishing government.

They disagree mostly on the following points:

First: the manner in which Anarchy will come about.

The Communist Anarchists say that only a social revolution can abolish government and establish Anarchy, while Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists do not believe in revolution.
They think that present society will gradually develop out of government into a non-governmental condition.

Second: Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists believe in individual ownership, as against the Communist Anarchists who see in the institution of private property one of the main sources of injustice and inequality, of poverty and misery.

The Individualists and Mutualists maintain that liberty means “the right of every one to the product of his toil”; which is true, of course.
Liberty does mean that.
But the question is not whether one has a right to his product, but whether there is such a thing as an individual product.
I have pointed out in preceding chapters that there is no such thing in modern industry: all labor and the products of labor are social.
The argument, therefore, about the right of the individual to his product has no practical merit.

I have also shown that exchange of products or commodities cannot be individual or private, unless the profit system is employed.
Since the value of a commodity cannot be adequately determined, no barter is equitable.
This fact leads, in my opinion, to social ownership and use; that is, to Communism, as the most practicable and just economic system.

But, as stated, Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists disagree with the Communist Anarchists on this point.
They assert that the source of economic inequality is monopoly, and they argue that monopoly will disappear with the abolition of government, because it is special privilege — given and protected by government — which makes monopoly possible.
Free competition, they claim, would do away with monopoly and its evils.

Individualist Anarchists, followers of Stirner and Tucker, as well as Tolstoyan Anarchists who believe in nonresistance, have no very clear plan of the economic life under Anarchy.
The Mutualists, on the other hand, propose a definite new economic system.
They believe with their teacher, the French philosopher Proudhon, that mutual banking and credit without interest would be the best economic form of a non-government society.
According to their theory, free credit, affording every one opportunity to borrow money without interest, would tend to equalize incomes and reduce profits to a minimum, and would thus eliminate riches as well as poverty.
Free credit and competition in the open market, they say, would result in economic equality, while the abolition of government would secure equal freedom.
The social life of the Mutualist community, as well as of the Individualist society, would be based on the sanctity of voluntary agreement, of free contract.

I have given here but the briefest outline of the attitude of Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists.
It is not the purpose of this work to treat in detail those Anarchist ideas which the author thinks erroneous and impractical.
Being a Communist Anarchist I am interested in submitting to the reader the views that I consider best and soundest.
I thought it fair, however, not to leave you in ignorance about the existence of other, non-Communist Anarchist theories.
For a closer acquaintance with them I refer you to the appended list of books on Anarchism in general.

I hope you have been following along, dear reader, the only escape from what we have been given is to dream and achieve what could be.

The status quo is trying to kill us.