NON-COMMUNIST ANARCHISTS I have poin'ted..out in.preceding chapters, that there is no such thing • odem history : all labour and the products of labour are social. T mhm argument therefore, about the right of the individual to his e ' • 1 ·t product has no practlca meri . . . I "have also shown tha~ exchange of products . or ~ommodities cannot be individual or pnvate, unless the profit system is employed. Since the value of a commo_ditycannot b~ adequat~ly determin~d, no barter is equitable. This fact leads, m my opmion, to social ownership and u~e ; that is, to Communism, as the most practical and just economic system. But as stated Individual Anarchists and Mutualists disagree with the -Communist Anarchist 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, beca~se 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 Stimer and Tucker, as well as Tolstoyan Anarchists who believe in non-resistance, have no very clear plan of 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 equali~ incomes and reduce profits to a minimum, and would thus eliminate riches as well iis 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 In_dividualist Anarchists and Mutualists. It is not the purpose of this work to treat in detail those Anarchist ideas which the author thinks_erroneou~ and impracticable. Being a Communist Anarchist I am mterested m submitting to the reader the vjews that I consider !>e5tand soundest. I thought it fair, however, not 'to leave you in igno~nce about the existence of other, non-Communist Anarchist thcones. ~or a d~r acquaintance with them I refer you to the appended hst of books on Anarchism in general. 41 B bhoteca G"ro Biarico
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==