Men Against the State

CHAPTER IX

Benjamin R. Tucker and the Age of Liberty II

4. Victor S. Yarros Delineates the Spencerian Influence

The writings of Herbert Spencer began to acquire the pliability of the scriptures during the last two decades of nineteenth century United States, in that their scope afforded the opportunity for diverse elements to dip in, extract, and manipulate, for various purposes, portions which might buttress some particular stand. For instance, the exponents of laissez-faire found therein the sanction for the maintenance of the economic and social status-quo. At the same time they found comfort and support for even greater expansion of monopoly enterprise in their Darwinistic content, which seemed to justify all this as part of a program of cosmic evolution of civilization.

The American anarchists, on the other hand, hardly the friends of monopoly interests, appropriated those arguments of Spencer which appeared to substantiate their attack upon the state, the earlier output of the English sociologist furnishing especially welcome ammunition. Spencer’s name acquired status among the anarchists for other reasons than as a champion of freedom and attacker of government. The ethical concept of equal rights and the evolutionary approach to societal growth were both incorporated within the structure of anarchist propaganda as corollaries to the Warrenite individual sovereignty principle and the anarchist concept of cultural change. No blanket acceptance of Spencer was implied by favorable mention when they found his ideas compatible; some of his views indeed received stringent treatment at their hands. Only a portion of the anarchist ranks accepted him in any capacity, and a swinging away from him as a potential prophet took place eventually when the man and his work began to be studied as a whole.

Of a number who spread Spencerian doctrines among the group of anti-statist intellectuals and evaluated Spencer’s contributions to the ethical and sociological side of anarchism, Victor S. Yarros was undoubtedly the most prominent. Like Tucker, Yarros had a background of participation in radical activities. A native of the Ukraine, he had left home and come to the United States to escape arrest as one of the Social Revolutionaries.1 His first associations in America were naturally with the communist anarchists, whose objective, “socialism without a state,” he firmly supported, and to whose publications he first contributed while hardly twenty years of age.2

While a resident of New Haven, Connecticut, during the mid-eighties, his association with a group of workers who sponsored speakers of various persuasions brought him into contact with the individualists of the anarchist camp, with state socialists and with Marxians. Here also he made his first contacts with Spencer’s thought through lecture appearances of William Graham Sumner3 of the Yale University faculty. Late in 1885 Yarros began to write for Liberty, and his long association with Tucker, which at times practically amounted to a partnership, now began.4 Of all the writers whose work appeared in this paper, none exceeded the former in influence; indeed at times Liberty hardly amounted to more than a two-man journal.

Yarros derived intellectual stimulation from a variety of sources; the anarchist dissertations of such speakers as Henry Appleton and Dyer D. Lum; the writings of Tucker, John F. Kelly and John William Lloyd; and the individualism of Max Stirner through such American exponents of the philosophy as James L. Walker and John Beverley Robinson.5 He contributed a number of reports to Liberty along with polemics aimed at Johann Most and the socialists Edward Aveling and Liebknecht, following the American tour of the latter two in 1886.6 Early in the next year Yarros began his career as an original contributor to the anarchist journal, and regularly supplied work of considerable quality thereafter.

Yarros’ main concern centered around the adaptation to the anarchist philosophy of such support as could be gleaned from Darwin and Spencer and the general idea of social evolution. Thus, solution of social problems and antistatism, and the rejection of socialism, political action and legislation, as appeared in the writings of Yarros, were founded on studies of Spencer to a great extent.7 A third element, the subscription to the equal rights doctrine as taught by Spencer, found Yarros in agreement after a period of attachment to the opposite approach of Stirner and the concept of the existence of rights as a result of voluntary contract alone. Yarros did reject Spencer’s organismal theory of the nature of society, and eventually gave up most of his sociology as well, evincing more concern over the latter’s political ideas and anti-statist leanings as expressed in portions of the original edition of Social Statics.

Whatever he may have declared at a later time, Yarros was convinced, while associated with Tucker and Liberty, that anarchism was not a variety of utopianism. He disagreed entirely with sociological interpretations of anarchism as the logical conclusion of democracy, or the “perfection” of the latter. This view, he observed, resulted in using anarchism as “a synonym for a millennial condition,” and had no relation to the anarchism toward which he and the Tucker group worked, which was “the reign of simple justice and equity,”8 a logical outcome of the “law of true society,” equal liberty. Explained Yarros:9

The anarchists, as anarchists, work directly, not for a perfect social state, but for a perfect political system. A perfect social state is a state totally free from sin or crime or folly; a perfect political system is merely a system in which justice is observed, in which nothing is punished but crime and nobody coerced but invaders.

Every variety of collectivist solution fell under Yarros’ particular criticism during the period of his greatest activity as a contributor to Liberty. “Freedom in sociological experiment” was the important concept which planners of “uniform regulation” failed to comprehend, and was the principal road to any type of healthy social organization; “Anarchism will supersede authoritarian views of life in the same way that dogmas of special creation have been superseded by the doctrine of evolution.”10 Thus Marxist11 and Bellamyite socialists drew a large measure of calculated abuse from the new champion of individual freedom lately drawn from the collectivist camp. He rebuked the latter for saying that anarchists desired a state of “no law” by demanding that they examine more carefully the true contention, the opposition to government as a synonym for a “compulsory protection.” “Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection.” Bellamy’s ideal of a planned society received a severe assault, and Yarros dismissed Looking Backward as a “ridiculously over-rated” production.12

The great need was freedom, not system-building, said Yarros; once this had been realized, then the course of action was to let human institutions develop the way they would. This remained part of his philosophy of society even after he had definitely given up hope in the program of the individualist anarchist group, at the conclusion of the first World War. Even then he persisted in attempting to convince socialist critics of capitalism that privilege and monopoly were not the results of freedom and competition, that these concepts were not related, and that it was misleading to describe them in cause-effect relationships.13

To one Marxian concept in particular he had a fundamental objection: the “historical necessity” theory of the revolutionary character of the industrial worker. Agreeing that changes in social organization would or could be effected by a minority, his lack of faith in the soundness of Marxian revolutionary propositions was pronounced. Increasingly oppressive conditions bred as much callousness, stupidity and “savage selfishness” as revolt or criticism, while he noticed in his own time, in the summer of 1890, a noticeable lack among the working class both of “inflammable material” and “skilled conspirators.” It was not a matter of doubting the good faith of the socialist in desiring to impose a new order which would guarantee the freedom of the individual. Adhering to the conviction of the anarchists that the utility of any kind of progressive measure first had to be demonstrated rather than forced upon people, it was in reality the necessity of establishing freedom first, in order to allow the growth of a new economic order. Nor was it a question of abstract right or wrong which both minorities and majorities injected into the contest for political power. The same principle operated whether the majority tyrannized the minority or society crushed the individual. Both were engaged in a contest, attempting to enforce their own concept of “right.” It was Yarros’ belief that the anarchists raised a third issue in the struggle between “government and freedom,” the gradual elimination of government from the “spheres” of social life.14 In two extended series of articles15 under the general headings of “Individualism and Political Economy” and “Unscientific Socialism” he presented his most able critique of the several “schools of state socialism,” and a restatement of anarchist faith in evolution toward a stateless order: liberty both as means and end of all reform, and rejection of violence and revolution.

Yarros interpreted the phenomenon of vice as the result rather than the cause of poverty and ignorance, and laid the blame for the existence of poverty to “the monopoly of land, money and trade.” It was his conviction that the “defenders” of rent and interest-taking had yet to show that such was just, as well as to disprove the contention of the radicals that profits would gradually be done away with through the operation of free competition. In fact, it was the attempt to meet the economic arguments of the anarchists and socialists which was driving political economists into supporting state regulation. Yet he had little respect for economists, whom he described as “a mutual admiration society,” singularly successful in “maintaining a characteristic vagueness about their creeds.”16 In this respect he shared Tucker’s suspicion of the academic mind, which he displayed in his disparagement of such exponents of the new sociology as Lester Ward and Albion W. Small. The former’s prestige he thought primarily due to log-rolling on the part of fellow academic sociologists, although appreciating his estimate of the state as the bulwark of laissez-faire vested interests.17

There was no doubt in Yarros’ mind, from an examination of his writing in Liberty, that Spencer had made the most important contributions to the philosophy of freedom of the individual from the state. At one time in 1889 he proclaimed, “More than to any sociological author are the anarchists indebted to Herbert Spencer for the scientific and philosophical argumentation which supports their position.” No secret was made of the fact that Spencer was the source of most of his theorizing: “Nobody has better stated and elucidated the real relations of social organizations to individual organisms,” he acknowledged on still another occasion.18 It is no wonder that he found it disquieting to be forced to make repeated admissions of Spencerian aberrations after such glowing dedications.

The rejection of Sumner had already begun. Yarros no longer spoke of him with respect but as a “half-hearted friend of liberty” who dodged fundamental issues, resulting in the increased belief by reformers that the remedy lay in state regulation and intervention. His remarks on anarchism Yarros now considered trite and false, showing unacquaintance with radical literature of this group. In actuality, Yarros now proclaimed, Sumner was a “middle class philosopher,” not interested in fighting the monopolies and encroachments perpetuated by a minority under the protection of the state.19

The rejection of Spencer came in the spring of 1890, and grew out of his reading of the former’s Absolute Political Ethics, in which much of what he had declared in Man Versus the State was disregarded.20 Particularly damaging to the anarchists was the Spencerian support of majority coercion of non-aggressive minorities within a nation on the basis that there existed a scientific warrant for such procedure.21 Yarros repudiated this completely, as well as the tacit approval of land monopoly, one of Spencer’s most vehement condemnations at an earlier time.

Yarros now began to recommend the reading of Spencer by anarchists in order that they might be able to discover for themselves the difference between Spencerian individualism and the basic philosophy of individualist anarchism. Associated with this was the growth of various Liberty and Property Defense Leagues, “striving to maintain their privileges and monopolies,” said Yarros, which adopted Spencer as their intellectual guide-post.22 These were evidence enough to the anti-statist people that there was now a wide gulf between the two groups who found in the writings of Spencer support for differing social outlooks. Specifically objectionable were the singling out of factory acts and poor laws for assault while ignoring the sins of omission of the legislative process. Another objection was the attack on the trade union movement due to its growing aggressiveness, which Yarros defended:23

Having to fight organized, State-supported monopolies, finding them-serves reduced to the necessity of accepting inequitable terms through prior violations of equal freedom on the part of the governing power, they cannot always exercise sufficient self-restraint to keep within the bounds of legitimate resistance. Instead of indulging in futile denunciations, we ought to labor to remove the factors which render legitimate resistance on the part of trades unions more and more ineffectual and unsuccessful.

Unlike Yarros, Tucker had little interest in the sociology of others, and remained content to allow the former to take the initiative in such speculations. It is probable that the only one of Spencer’s works which really pleased Tucker was the chapter from Social Statics titled “The Right To Ignore the State,” which he considered “unanswerable.”24 On the unfavorable side, he had begun to criticize the intent of Spencer’s attacks on socialism as early as 1884, nearly a year and a half before Yarros first became known in Liberty. The occasion was the publication by Spencer in the Popular Science Monthly and the Contemporary Review of “The Coming Slavery” and similar essays, the good faith of which was seriously doubted. Commented Tucker:25

He is making a wholesale onslaught on Socialism as the incarnation of the doctrine of State omnipotence carried to its highest power. And I am not sure he is quite honest in this. I begin to be a little suspicious of him. It seems as if he had forgotten the teachings of his earlier writings, and had become a champion of the capitalistic class . . . amid his multitudinous illustrations . . . of the evils of legislation, he in every instance cites some law passed ostensibly at least to protect labor, alleviating suffering, or promote the people’s welfare. But never once does he call attention to the far more deadly and deep-seated evils growing out of the innumerable laws creating privilege and sustaining monopoly.

Thus Tucker occupied himself attempting to differentiate between the passive state advocated by Spencer’s conservative followers from the voluntary defensive alliance which the anarchists designated as the limit of government. He disclaimed association with the group who sought to confine the functions of the state to the protection of “life” and “property.” The latter word Tucker particularly disliked, believing it to be a mere euphemism for previously acquired monopolies and advantages when used by conservatives. Anarchists, far from wishing any part of such a situation, sought instead the dissolution of the state into its component individualities, and a subsequent regrouping into any pattern the people might desire, without infringement on the basic principle of individual liberty. This, said Tucker, hardly was synonymous with the Spencerian viewpoint.26

The growing conviction that Spencer was no longer worthy of being regarded as an influential intellectual support was confirmed by his repudiation in 1892 of both his former anti-state writing and Proudhon,27 who had by now acquired the status of a giant in the field of anarchist literature. Henceforth Tucker included Spencer among those exposed to his barbs, which number gradually included articulate Spencerians28 of several types. Some while later, Tucker’s more considered judgment of him was somewhat kinder: “Anarchists recognize in Herbert Spencer a kindred spirit, and offer to his memory their tribute of admiration and gratitude,” even though they could not, he said, “accept him as a trustworthy exponent of their political philosophy.”29 In the meantime, Liberty had become a radical journal of international repute, with contributors from every section of the United States as well as from most of the countries of western Europe. In addition, a philosophical crisis has been precipitated as a result of the influence of the revived interest in Max Stirner, from whom the individualists derived the principles of an altogether different basis of social conduct. A study of the many personalities attracted to Tucker’s paper during its nearly 30 years of existence, and the issues they found necessary to dissect during the time, is one of the neglected episodes of American radical history at the close of the century.

5. Stirnerism and the Tucker Associates

One of the popular designations which the individualist anarchist group acquired during the 80’s was the identification “Boston Anarchists,” although any other term could hardly have been less exact.30 Less than a quarter of the prominent contributors to Liberty during its entire history were even from New England, let alone residents of the Massachusetts city. The East and Midwest were well-represented, and writings of residents of Florida, Texas, California and Oregon found their way before the audience of sympathizers to anarchist philosophy. Missouri, Kansas and Iowa developed centers of anarchist literature of their own which had surprising circulation. However, their story is a part of the influence of Liberty and the inspirational stimulus of Tucker. In the main, the important contributors to Liberty became associated primarily during the first ten years, even though there were a few notable adherents thereafter. The majority of these came at three different occasions, 1883-1884, 1886-1887, and 1891-1892, and did not represent any degree of like-mindedness. In fact, the reason for the appearance of so much articulate radical talent was not an effort to establish a common front against conservatism but more the result of serious doctrinal disputes among themselves. The latter two dates especially were incidents of notable bitterness, and were accompanied by defections of prominent former collaborators from the Tuckerite wing. A survey of the gradual acquisition of Liberty’s impressive literate talent makes the development of the split somewhat more comprehensible.

Liberty during its first three years was primarily the personal organ of Tucker. Such pioneers as Ingalls and Spooner were among the contributors, as well as Sidney H. Morse, the old friend of Warren and staunch supporter of the labor exchange.31 Even Ezra Heywood and Andrews, no longer “plumb-liners” and interested in reforms of their own, drew some space, although mostly on the derogatory side. It could be seen quite plainly, however, that the rise of Tucker to prominence as the chief among the intellectual anarchist pamphleteers was the signal for the parallel rise of a new generation of adherents to the cause. The majority of the writers of this group were journalists, as was Tucker himself. Trained to write, and generally prevented by the nature or circumstances of their employment from expressing their anti-state convictions and beliefs, they brought to Tucker’s paper a quality of radical writing unsurpassed in its own time, and rarely approached since. Of the early number besides Yarros the most prominent were Joseph A. Labadie, Alan and John F. Kelly, Henry Appleton, Edwin C. Walker, Florence Finch,32 J. H. Swain,33 M. E. Lazarus and James L. Walker. The years 1885-1886 saw new entrants, notably John William Lloyd, Gertrude B. Kelly, Dyer D. Lum and Alfred B. Westrup. It was this group of enthusiasts, several of whom wrote under pseudonyms, that produced the controversial material which made Liberty an absorbing paper even to conservative readers. It was also among these that the strains developed resulting in the first split in the individualist front in 1887. A brief account of the diversity of their backgrounds and contributions illustrates this point.

Alan Kelly, also a Boston newspaperman, became Tucker’s first editorial associate, remaining in that capacity until May, 1888. A bitter critic of the railroads, most of his better articles were aimed at railroad monopolies which threatened to become the “American monarchy” and which had already “disinherited the people from an area of land 33 times the size of New Hampshire.”34

Labadie followed the first of the three Kellys to write for Liberty. A Detroit printer and writer for a number of socialist and labor papers, including Haskell’s Truth, and the Detroit papers Today and the Advance and Labor Leaf,35 among others, his relations with other portions of the radical and reform movement remained partially intact during his participation in Tucker’s literary experiment. A contributor as early as June, 1883, he still remained as secretary of the national board of supervision of the Socialist Labor Party a year later. During this period he gradually lost faith in reconciliation between the various fragments of the socialist movement but retained a strong interest in the fortunes of the labor movement.36 In this however he gradually became the exponent of anarchist measures, and argued the anti-statist case with their leaders and before their conventions when he attended.37

Most of Labadie’s ideas in Liberty were presented through the medium of a column, “Cranky Notions.”38 In agreement with Tucker on most points, he still clung to the belief that the labor movement could produce benefits, primarily in obtaining reductions in the hours worked, with neither raises nor reductions in pay. Admitting his loss of faith in socialism during the fall of 1888, he still considered it expedient for the government to control “natural monopolies” such as water works, streets and railroads; but he thought that schools, banks, post offices, and like institutions should best be left to operation by individuals. Like Tucker, he backed the assertion that the best way to prevent monopolies would be to withhold the grant of franchises.39

Politically, Labadie inclined to a policy of compromise also, in the hope of extracting some gain from a situation which was bound to remain deadlocked as the result of insistence upon total realization of ideals. Unimpressed with voting as utilized under universal suffrage, which he described as “a process by which truth is established by numbers,” he considered that anarchists might use it to advance the “principles of liberty.” “All political questions mean either more or less government,” said Labadie, in defending the participation of anarchists in voting in order to forestall more positive legislation. Nationally, he was shocked by the Republican program, which he said was that of “establishing a nation with a big N and crushing out local autonomies.” Under their sponsorship he saw the realization of Hamiltonian authoritarianism in its greatest severity, and for this reason inclined to favor the Democrats, whom he saw as still opposed to the centralizing of power. Throughout his gradual swing to anarchism, Labadie retained friendly relations with the Knights of Labor and other workingmen’s organizations. It was his belief that his persistence was responsible for weakening the faith of some of Detroit’s most active and intelligent labor leaders in the principle of government control. It was not necessary to “desert one’s area of agitation” on becoming an anarchist, Labadie held, and under this impression remained one of Tucker’s closest associates, a relationship which even the end of Liberty did not terminate.40

From the point of view of intellect, the outstanding member of the first group of Liberty writers was Henry Appleton. A graduate of Brown University and a Providence, R. I. newspaperman, he had become acquainted with anarchism of the native brand at about the same time as Tucker.41 Appleton developed a reputation for brilliance both as a writer and speaker within the radical movement, contributing to Heywood’s Word, the Index and the Irish World besides the Tucker journal, under pseudonyms in both the latter.42

Anarchism as expounded in Liberty, said Appleton, was the philosophical basis of a method in sociology, and fully as deserving of consideration as any other. In another sense, it was not a “mere theory,” but the direct and logical outcome “of the progressive movement to simplify and popularize government.” Neither was it an institution, but in actuality the “sworn enemy” of all institutions, with a mission to disintegrate them “whenever found.” Since liberty was the “life principle” of anarchism, and every institution denied liberty, then anarchism and institutions were opposites by nature. Only in liberty was it possible for the anarchist to find order, and from this state of liberty stemmed consent, “the pivotal basis of all arrangements worthy of the name government.”43

Appleton did not agree with Tucker unreservedly. The two matched arguments and opinions many times before the final break took place in 1887. The very definition of the word “anarchy” was a matter of contention between them. Appleton held that the word meant opposition to the archos, or political leader, while Tucker averred that it had a much broader connotation. Opposition to the archē, variously interpreted as “beginning” and “origin,” and which extended to cover “first principle,” “supreme power” and “governmental office,” this, said Tucker, was the correct definition of “anarchy” with relation to its Greek root.44

In his approach to both the state and the church Appleton differed from Tucker also. He held that the separation of the two had never taken place, and that such “devices” as authority, majority rule, and popular suffrage made the maintenance of the church a vital part of the maintenance of the state. Nor did he find the state as a political structure the reason for as much evil as Tucker; the fault lay in individuals who had no desire to exercise freedom:45

As an Individualist, I find the political State a consequent rather than an antecedent. . . . The State is a variable quantity—expanding just in proportion as previous surrenders of individual sovereignty give it material. The initial cause is, however, the surrendering individual, the State being possible only after the surrender. Hence the individual is the proper objective point of reform. As he is reformed, the State disappears of itself.

The condition which facilitated the default on the part of the individual of his precious sovereignty, Appleton went on, was not arbitrary tyranny, but “that diseased condition known as centralization.” The breaking up of the large cities and the localization of the population upon the land in smaller communities would destroy the state, but hope of such action on the part of the urban individual was futile. Labor meetings resounded with the cry “the land belongs to the people,” he observed, but not even whipping would drive people from the cities to enjoy what they allegedly wanted. Hence his stress upon individual conversion, which Tucker dismissed as a worthy endeavor. In line with such sentiments of Appleton’s was his detestation for the expression “the masses,” “a term having no scientific value and utterly meaningless in sociology.” Reform could come only through the actions of individuals. From this aversion for “dragging along the masses in bulk” came his blow at labor organization along political lines for the purposes of supplying a counter-force to that of monopoly capital. It was not the laboring man’s fault, for he had been taught that force was a valid moral principle; however, the recourse to force to solve all crises would surely accelerate “social chaos.” “I say to Labor, Organize! . . . but with your backs towards the ballot boxes, for all seeming emancipation through politics is illusory and costs far more than it is worth.”46

Not all of those attracted by Tucker’s paper were urban radicals under the influence of conditions produced by industrial living. Three of the most articulate were agrarians, Lloyd, Lazarus and E. C. Walker, and their ideas of social organization were closest to those long proclaimed by Warren. Lloyd, although a native of New Jersey, wrote from Grahamville, Florida when first connected with Liberty, while Lazarus, a veteran of thirty years’ pamphleteering in radical economic causes, operated a small farm in Guntersville, in upcountry Alabama. Walker’s first association with the radical movement was an outgrowth of his relation through marriage to Moses Harman, the publisher of a vigorous woman’s rights press in Valley Falls, Kansas. His paper, Lucifer, the Light Bearer,47 grew to be somewhat anarchist in its viewpoint as Walker assumed a larger part in its publication, and much material of importance to the individualist propaganda first appeared under its imprint. Tucker regarded Walker highly, and referred to him as “a radical of rare consistency” who was engaged in a significant effort toward “liberalizing the West.”48

From this trio, and principally Walker, came the last impetus toward colonizing on the original small basis, “a practical application of the principles of anarchy that shall challenge the attention of the slothful masses.” Small groups acting upon the principles of “voluntary mutualism” were necessary, said Walker, if only for the reason that such colonies preserved the radicals, who under ordinary circumstances were quickly coerced into exhibiting conventional behavior and subscribing to conventional attitudes.49 Lazarus championed the social value of work close to the soil, the avoiding of taxed goods as much as possible, and the creation of a self-supporting economy in such small communities on an industrial as well as agricultural level.50 A fundamental difference between Walker and Tucker as to the future of the city in America underlay their debate; the former believed that it was doomed, but Tucker was convinced that it was destined to become the permanent center of distribution, in American civilization, not only of material wealth but of nearly everything else.51

Granting that Walker’s arguments in favor of communities were “forcible and weighty,” Tucker called his program “social landscape gardening.” The objective of preventing the continual raids and drains upon the radical element was indeed worthy, yet the results of such settling to him appeared bound to experience failure in one way or another:52

Reform communities will either be recruited from the salt of the earth, and then their successes will not be taken as conclusive, because it will be said that their principles are applicable only among men and women well-nigh perfect; or, with these elect, will be a large admixture of semi-lunatics among them . . . society will be unendurable and practical work impossible. . . . It has no interest for me now. I care nothing for any reform that cannot be effected right here in Boston among the every day people whom I meet in the streets.

Tucker was of the opinion that colonies generally failed because of lack of success as productive enterprises. Society at large had generally solved production problems; the problem of their own times was one of distribution, the settlement of which needed only freedom in its process. For this reason he declared his opposition to the Appleton thesis of individual improvement, despite the latter’s support in disparaging the renewed interest in colonizing along anarchist lines. In fact, the assumption that the achievement of superior social conditions in the world at large attended an improvement in the character of the world’s citizens Tucker put aside as “seriously defective,” another statement of the “gospel of goodness.” This was not the program of individualist anarchism: “The very gist of our argument and our hope is that freedom once allowed, social conditions steadily improve through the natural working of economic processes, and as a result character improves.”53

Having declared a renewal of the Warrenite tactics no longer of value for their time, and the evolutionary approach of Appleton, and incidentally Yarros, as being apart from the propaganda of anarchism, Tucker went on to attack their stand towards centralization. It was not the physical centralization that was an evil; on the whole, the people at large had greatly benefited from centralization of industry, trade and settlement. It was the centralization of control of these things in the hands of a few which was creating poverty and wretchedness. “The localization needed is not the localization of persons in space, but of powers in persons,—that is, the restriction of power to self and the abolition of power over others.” Finance capitalism and the pervasive nature of the state were the enemies, not evil individuals and centralization per se. Said Tucker:54

Government makes itself felt alike in city and in country, capital has its usurious grip on the farm as surely as on the workshop, and the oppressions and exactions of neither government nor capital can be avoided by migration. The State is the enemy, and the best means of fighting it can be found in communities already existing.

In line with his diagnosis, the following remedial action was suggested; that in any given city a sizeable number of anarchists begin a parallel economy within the structure of that around them, attempting to include in their ranks representatives of all trades and professions. Here they might carry on their production and distribution on the cost principle, basing their credit and exchange system upon a mutual bank of their own which would issue a non-interest-bearing currency to the members of the group “for the conduct of their commerce,” and aid the disposal of their steadily increasing capital in beginning new enterprises. It was Tucker’s belief that such a system would prosper within the shell of the old and draw increasing attention and participation from other members of the urban population, gradually turning the whole city into a “great hive of Anarchistic workers.” “It is such results that I look forward to,” declared Tucker to his associates, “and for the accomplishment of such that I work.”55 It was nearly thirty years before he was to admit that the process of centralization had gone too far, especially in control over finance, for any such remedy as his to become effective even on a limited basis.

Of far more interest and effect ideologically was the impact of the introduction of philosophical concepts of Max Stirner into the Tuckerite camp, principally by James L. Walker and George Schumm, and later, by John Beverley Robinson. Here once more were fought out the issues which split Warren and Andrews at an earlier time, and which caused even more widespread disaffection now, as Tucker became solidly attached to Stirnerism and was promptly deserted by most of his earlier literary aides.

Schumm, a Boston journalist, was a student of Stirner directly, and was able to communicate his ideas extremely well due to his own remarkable fluency in both German and English.56 Walker, also a newspaperman, developed the egoistic philosophy independently, and was struck by the similarity with Stirner a few years after he had begun setting down his ideas through the medium of such papers as Tucker’s.57 Tucker immediately saw in egoism distinctly anarchistic elements to which he quickly gave accord, and later acquaintances such as Robinson, and John Henry Mackay, the biographer of Stirner and an anarchist writer of considerable merit himself, strengthened him in his convictions. In some ways his adoption of the newly discussed tenets of egoism was tied up with the understanding of individual sovereignty derived from Warren earlier. Since the latter had dismissed altruism and subscribed to enlightened self-interest as the realistic basis of human conduct, it is not surprising to find his most prominent pupil adhering to a similar philosophy when proposed under different circumstances and in a more abstract manner.

Despite his primary concern with economics, Tucker found the contemplation of ethical matters intriguing, and in his own way probed into the phenomenon of evil as it related to the philosophy of anarchism. His primary search was for an answer to the question “what is wrong?”, and that supplied by J. L. Walker, but strained through his Warrenite individual sovereignty convictions, was eminently satisfactory.

The reform movement, said Tucker, was on the whole a negative campaign against wrongs,58 yet there appeared to be no one within their ranks capable of furnishing a satisfactory definition for the word itself. The usual basis upon which a thing received condemnation as a “wrong” was the fact that it usually resulted in what was judged to be injustice by some group of individuals. Overlooked in the process was the fact that wrongs to some often worked to the great profit and comfort of larger groups of others, hence destroying any possible method of discovering the nature of a wrong on the sole criterion of injustice. Hence the majority of reforms soon dissipated themselves in struggles between classes which divided along lines of favor versus unprivilege, “selfishness in contact with itself.”

The anarchist, on the other hand, defined wrong as “the result of some violation of the law of true liberty,” which they further qualified as “spontaneous association by natural selection.” Said Tucker: “The basic factor of social existence is that the individual shall be left entirely and absolutely free to regulate his life as experimental contact with other equally free individuals may seem to direct.” Thus right and wrong were principles subject to constant re-definition, qualification and circumscription by each individual behaving in his “associative capacity.” Therefore action taken either individually or as the result of voluntary association was qualified by the factor of direct responsibility; “under this law all individuals have a right to do anything and everything which they may choose voluntarily to do at their own cost.”59 There was little variation from Josiah Warren in these sentiments.

The consequence of the individual sovereignty position, then, left no alternative to accepting egoism, in the sense of enlightened self-interest, as the only motivating force in human conduct. “As far as motive is concerned, altruism is out of the question,”60 Tucker flatly stated. Furthermore, superiority came with the increased grasp of this realization, and eventually egoism and liberty became synonyms. The rejection of altruism had other consequences upon anarchists, the principal of which was the abandonment of the concept of obligation, except in the case of being something assumed under voluntary or mutual agreement. Hence the scrapping of the term “duties” as well as “rights.” What one might look upon as a right, said Tucker, in reality was a social convention. In fact, here he deviated from the path which the predecessors in the propagation of individualist anarchism had taken, and dismissed the whole concept of natural rights as a myth.61 Human equality was the only thing anarchists could recognize, and since social order was the desired end, then social expediency was the standard of conduct, and its fundamental precept “the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of liberty.”

The banishment of moral and “natural” rights from the ethical scene, while at the same time avowing that the stable society was the desirable objective,62 brought up the specter of the prevalence of might, or pure force, a fact which Tucker willingly admitted. However, the subordination to the strong did nothing toward achieving this end, since the perpetual existence of insecurity undermined any gains effected through the application of mere brute strength. The alternative which anarchism proposed, said Tucker, was contract, “a tacit agreement or understanding between human beings . . . as individuals living in daily contact and dependent upon some sort of coöperation with each other for the satisfaction of their daily wants, not to trespass upon each other’s individuality, the motive of this agreement being the purely egoistic desire of each for the peaceful preservation of his own individuality.” The great problem before those wishing a world founded upon contract and egoism, rather than one based upon natural rights and altruism, was the difficulty either in demonstrating human frailty to those willing to live by violating these agreements out of confidence in their ability to escape retribution, or due to infractors “through mistaken and superstitious ideas about religion, morality, and duty.”63 The fight to make people see that the free life of the other made theirs that much more free, and that this was best promoted by contracts which in one way or another abrogated invasive powers, this said Tucker, was worth continuing, since nothing else but the rule of force would ever exist in its stead, the concept of natural rights being lofty but meaningless in times of emergency:64

Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right of might, the power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights—the right of might and the right of contract—are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence.

The ethical transition to intellectual philosophical egoism was now a reality, accompanied by widespread repercussions in the individualist anarchist camp. Four prominent Liberty contributors severed their connections with Tucker: Appleton, Lazarus, and John F. and Gertrude B. Kelly, the latter another of several talented women who took part in the movement at one time or another.65 The desertion of natural rights weakened Lloyd also,66 but Labadie subscribed to the egoist stand, as did Yarros, for a time. In spite of the fact that Spencerian and egoist philosophies occupied diametrical positions on more than one issue, Yarros was able to reconcile the two. One of the most able statements of the anti-altruist67 point of view was written by him at the height of the defection, at which time the bulk of the controversy was being carried on by J. L. Walker and John F. Kelly.68

The propaganda of egoism and the frontal attack upon altruism and natural rights in individualist circles reached a new peak of vigor in 1891 as far as Liberty was concerned. Foremost among the newer writers on the subject was Robinson, an ex-single taxer, land reformer, and anarchist formerly of Tolstoian leanings.69 In line with the Tucker-Stirner doctrine that individual happiness was the objective of existence Robinson concisely summarized the position as to behavior:70

Virtue is virtue only because it is productive of happiness; vice is vice only because it is productive of unhappiness. At the bottom, moreover, each one is unable to determine what is for the advantage or happiness of another; while each one knows better than anybody else, what is for his own happiness. Therefore at the bottom each action must be judged by the individual as to whether it is conducive to his own happiness, not as to whether it will make somebody else happy. And this applies in its fullest force even to those actions called altruistic, which give pleasure to the doer indirectly, although directly they may give pain to the doer and pleasure to somebody else.

A kind action, performed without any sense of gratification to the doer, loses its character as a kind action. If the one who is benefited even suspects that his benefactor is loath to do him the kind act, his appreciation of it gives place to reluctance, or even to resentment. Benevolence is hypocrisy, when prompted by any feeling but personal delight in benevolence. . . . Such most briefly and inadequately sketched, is Egoism.

For a time the philosophy of egoism enjoyed a wide radical audience. Others besides Tucker interested in its propagation entered the field of publication. A California magazine, Egoism, published by Georgia and Henry Replogle, provided Walker with an excellent medium of expression,71 while John Basil Barnhill’s The Eagle and the Serpent combined the ideas of Stirner, Nietzche and Ibsen, as well as contemporaries of lesser note in America and elsewhere.72 On the other hand the intellectual partnership of Tucker and Yarros was severely strained by the innovation, Yarros finally declaring his repudiation of Stirnerism and reaffirming his attachment to Spencer’s stand on rights. Henceforth Liberty presented the arguments of both sides, but Stirner and egoism were definitely on the ascendancy, and remained thus throughout the existence of the periodical. No less important did Tucker consider his connection with its spread. When, with the assistance of Walker73 and Steven T. Byington, he published an English translation of Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum in 1907, he announced to his readers: “I have been engaged for more than thirty years in the propaganda of Anarchism, and have achieved some things of which I am proud, but I feel that I have done nothing for the cause that compares in value with my publication of this volume.”74

Although the ethical content of intellectual egoism provided the controversial material among the Tuckerites, the new personalities affiliating between 1887-1897 were attracted far more because of discussions over economic than philosophical affairs. Land and money reformers predominated among them, and on the whole they subscribed to Tucker’s concepts of the monopoly origin of most economic distress. E. H. Simpson supported the charge that there were no natural monopolies, but that all were chartered, and gave evidence of their precarious nature by the incessant traffic between lobbies and governmental officials, attempting to forestall competitors through various types of bribery and corruption. William Hanson, next to Ingalls the most competent of anarchist critics of Henry George, argued in much the same manner with respect to land. The admission that land monopoly was responsible for rent called for the logical remedy, not of taxation, but of repeal of the laws which created a vested interest in the soil: “Take away the protective power of the State and the defenders of vested rights would no longer have the power to enforce their unrighteous claims,” Hanson said.75

There were other critics of George among the newcomers, although objections tended to revolve around the issue of finance, of great concern to the anarchists and generally neglected by Single Tax economists. An example of this was the brilliant Indianapolis critic Herman Kuehn, himself a single taxer when first associated with Liberty, but who later became an outstanding proponent of the mutual banking idea. His principal point was the Georgian justification of interest and the failure to approach the problem of a monopolized medium of exchange. Observed Kuehn, “For more than thirty pages of Progress and Poverty George writes of interest, never finding occasion to use the word “credit” at all.”76

Other predominant money reformers, including Henry Cohen, William Trinkaus, Alfred B. Westrup, and the non-anarchist but sympathetic Philadelphia manufacturer Hugo Bilgram, entered the currency controversy in exhausting detail. Westrup, admittedly influenced by Warren, Heywood and Greene, himself published a free bank paper called The Auditor in Chicago in 1891. He strongly condemned Greenbackism and all other fiat money systems whose case rested on the assumption that what the government might designate to be money was money. In Liberty he attacked the control of the currency system by the state, especially the effects resulting from the control of its volume. He believed it impossible for the state to know how much money was needed, and hence presumptuous to arbitrarily limit it.77

Cohen also wrote very effectively, being especially attached to Greene’s ideas. In Denver he gradually developed a center of considerable interest in anarchist finance, and brought out two editions of Greene’s Mutual Banking and several other financial tracts in a long period of radical propaganda activity. Of all the writers on money who made use of Liberty to express their varied concepts, Bilgram obtained the most respect and attention from Tucker. In The Iron Law of Wages he developed the main theme that wages could not be kept down to the cost of the laborer’s subsistence were it not for the monopoly by a privileged class of the right to represent wealth by money, thus allowing them to monopolize credit as well. His Involuntary Idleness, which Tucker called the best treatise on money and the relation of money to labor written in English since Mutual Banking,78 reached much the same conclusions as Tucker; financial legislation was the real seat of the prevailing social disorder, and that the only way to obtain work for everybody able and willing to work was to abolish the restrictions upon the issue of money. It was his belief, however, that the government could best run a mutual bank system, which Tucker bitterly denied.79

The year 1892 saw the association of three of Tucker’s most talented compatriots, Steven T. Byington, William Bailie, and Clarence Lee Swartz. Byington, a Vermont-born ex-Single Taxer and former divinity student, was one of the intellects of the movement. A school teacher and master of ten languages, he entered enthusiastically into the campaign to promote the philosophy of anarchism through education.80 He had great hopes in getting across the idea of the boycott as a substitute for physical coercion, a policy which had long been in force at “Modern Times” under actual living conditions. “Anarchism,” said Byington, “has undertaken to change men’s minds in one point by removing their faith in force.”81 From his home in Ballard Vale, Mass. he began directing a device previously used by Georgists, a “Letter Writing Corps,” in the spring of 1894. This was a group which voluntarily pledged itself to write one letter a week to any address which he as secretary might supply, designated as “targets” for that week, as an avowed propaganda effort to get the doctrines of the scientific anarchists before the general public, especially the daily newspapers. As a regular department in Liberty this scheme operated for over three years, with Tucker’s hearty approval. Letter writers were encouraged to “steal” ideas from back issues of the paper without fear, since none of its material was copyrighted. The influence of this letter writing extended somewhat beyond the period of its formal sponsorship in Liberty.82

Bailie, a native of Manchester, England, came to the United States in the summer of 1891, settling in Boston. A Kropotkinian anarchist for some time, he rapidly became a convert to the American variety, achieving prominence among them somewhat later as the biographer of Warren. It was his conviction that anarchism was a political rather than an economic doctrine, but that it involved the economic aspect of society in as fundamental a manner. Both Spencerian and Stirnerite in outlook, he sought to arrive at a body of principles on which all the individualists might agree, in an ambitious undertaking, “Problems of Anarchism,” which ran through 19 lengthy installments in Liberty during the first eight months of 1893.83 In an excellently written essay, “The Anarchist Spirit,” inserted as an introduction to his Josiah Warren, published 13 years later, he summarized the conclusions of this investigation, as well as placing on record a twentieth century definition of anarchism and his reason why it still had its place in his own time:84

Modern Anarchism . . . is primarily a tendency—moral, social, and intellectual. As a tendency it questions the supremacy of the State, the infallibility of statute laws, and the divine right of all authority, spiritual or temporal. It is, in truth, a product of Authority, the progeny of the State, a direct consequence of the inadequacy of law and government to fulfill their assumed functions. In short, the Anarchist tendency is a necessity of progress, a protest against usurpation, privilege and injustice.

Swartz, for a time the assistant to Harman in the publication of Lucifer, also showed interest in anarchist finance, his later What Is Mutualism? being a widely regarded book by fellow anti-statists interested in anarchist economics.85 With Lloyd and William Walstein Gordak as collaborators, he entered into the publication of two periodicals during one of Liberty’s several suspensions, I and The Free Comrade, although the latter approached an eclectic character much like that which Andrews had favored in the early 80’s. A proposition to start an anarchist colony at North Scituate, Mass., was considered for a time, but this aspect of the movement was by now completely vitiated. One of the few anarchist publications in actual operation at the time of the McKinley assassination, Swartz’ Free Comrade, now operated by Lloyd, deplored the act as “terrible folly” and declared that “there is no healing for the sickness of mankind in blood.”86

Others attempted the task assumed by Bailie in reconciling the many elements which went to make up individualist anarchism as it emerged from the combined influences of Spencerian and Stirnerite doctrines. One of these projected syntheses was the brief outline of Fred Schulder, The Relation of Anarchism to Organization. Another was Francis D. Tandy, an associate of Cohen in Denver, whose Modern Social Tendencies and Voluntary Socialism were anarchist works of considerable repute,87 showing influence of Tucker, Spencer and Thoreau. Both Tandy and Schulder were recipients of Tucker’s approval in their activities along the program of educational propaganda for the anarchist cause.

Tucker had four contemporaries of considerable merit in the publication field whose major operations remained apart from his. These men, Dyer D. Lum, Charles T. Fowler, Edward H. Fulton and Ross Winn, backed significant periodical presses in scattered parts of the country, and occasionally featured the same writers appearing in Liberty. Fowler, along with Tucker, was a former disciple of Warren in Boston during 1873, and thus received his anti-statism from the original source. Also, like Greene, a dissident Unitarian preacher, he became associated with Heywood and the Word shortly thereafter, but left New England to settle in Kansas City, Missouri. From this city he published a periodical, The Sun, a work which Tucker endorsed and sold along with his own, and which featured articles on anarchist land and money principles of considerable literary quality.88

Lum, one of the most interesting and important figures in the American anarchist movement, established relations with both its major wings during a hectic ten years of association, but always remained close to the individualist philosophy. A native of Geneva, New York, he served as an officer in the Union army during the Civil War, and after Reconstruction entered politics in Massachusetts, as a candidate for lieutenantgovernor on the Greenback ticket.89 His career as a participant in the labor movement grew out of his reflections on the Pittsburgh riots during the 1877 railroad strike, but before Haymarket had swung over to the extreme left position of the anarchists and mutualists, impressed with the possibilities of coöperation in economics.90

Following the arrest of Parsons in Chicago, Lum revived the Alarm late in 1887, changing much of its editorial policy to fit it in line with that of Liberty, in which he had been writing for some time. Henceforth he carried on in the interests of the individualists, dwelling especially on the occupation and use land tenure, and the mutual bank money ideas, in works of his own and in the journals of others.91 Along with Tucker, he expressed the conviction that force was not necessary to effect a revolution, nor was there any proof that its use was even generally successful. For this he earned the castigation of Most and others of the communist wing for adhering to a “bourgeois scheme,” their designation for the individualist program of change through intellectual conviction. As a critic of George and a friend of trade unions he added other material to the literature of the anti-statist group.92

Fulton, probably the most obviously influenced by Tucker of all the independents, began his paper, The Age of Thought, on July 4, 1896, at the height of a serious depression and hectic political campaign, at a time also when Liberty had begun to appear irregularly. Extremely well-written, featuring his own ideas plus those of the Denver group of Tandy, Cohen and William Holmes, Fulton’s paper soon acquired a subscriber’s list of several thousand, and was easily the best of the separatelysponsored journals. A former advocate of colonization, he now stressed the land for use and free banking propositions, and dismissed the Bryan silver campaign as “a squabble in regard to which of two powerful classes shall exercise an iniquitous privilege,” the position of the anarchists with relation to the restriction of the currency to specie, whether gold, silver or both. Fulton’s activities as a radical publisher continued for several years after the World War,93 five different journals appearing under his sponsorship down to 1928.

Winn achieved attention as the outstanding anti-statist writer and publisher in the South, as well as developing a reputation for fiery and vituperative language in his publications which was matched but seldom by any of his confreres elsewhere. He edited and published several in Tennessee and Texas for nearly 15 years, and although he mustered among his contributors such men as Labadie and Charles Erskine Scott Wood, the tone of his philosophy gradually slid over to socialism. Nevertheless he featured reprints of Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Spooner and Tucker, as well as maintaining relations with Francisco Ferrer and Leo Tolstoi. For the picturesque quality of his style and for his wide association with the radical movement, Winn deserves especial mention, as well as an example of Southern protest from the left.94

There were a number of other forceful personalities who were part of the native anarchist movement in one or another of several capacities, such as William Whittick, Warren E. Brokaw, Thomas H. Bell, Hugh O. Pentecost, A. G. Wagner, William C. Owen, C. L. James, Charles T. Sprading, Theodore Schroeder, as well as the talented women, Sarah Elizabeth Holmes, Voltairine De Cleyre, Olive Schriner and Miriam Daniels. Without mention of this group the scope of the Tuckerite association is not complete. As a whole, it was an impressive gathering of literary talent engaged for the most part in a common cause, despite a multitude of individual differences.

6. Liberty As a Journal and Mirror of Contemporary History

Despite the fact that Liberty became the medium through which some 60 persons expressed their views in a formal manner through its long existence, the editorial policy never escaped Tucker’s control. This he had intended from the first issue, and occasionally he saw fit to remind associates to whom a free hand in writing what they pleased offered a temptation to influence the paper’s policies. At the height of the 1887 controversy Tucker declared to his contributors and subscribers alike, “Liberty has always represented its editor, and must continue to do so.”95 It is in this sense that the paper is extremely interesting, as a reflection of Tucker’s personality, and thus, as the spotlight of a native radical group upon the history of the nation in his own time.

The wide range of his interests and the intensity of his personal likes and antipathies was displayed in a running editorial commentary in his paper, undoubtedly fully endorsed by the great majority of his readers. The issues, persons and events can be logically arranged only with great difficulty. In the customary editorial columns and in a department of briefs headed “On Picket Duty” the discussion of current affairs from the Tuckerian and anarchist point of view primarily took place, while an occasional pithy contribution to criticism merited separate printing as a pamphlet.

Tucker rarely discussed prominent political figures, although he now and then showed interest in a particular national election. In the 1884 campaign he went as far as to favor Samuel J. Tilden, whom he believed to be “an honest man” and “two-thirds an anarchist,” while at the same time reminding anarchists that theirs was the non-voting course.96 The results of the off-year elections of 1890, however, brought unconcealed expression of pleasure. “The defeat of Cannon, McKinley, and other Republican ringleaders, and the sudden extinction of Reed, Ingalls, Quay, and the rest of the bulldozing tyrants and brazen corruptionists can only gladden and cheer the heart of every real lover of liberty and manhood,” he trumpeted.97

The unconcern did not extend to issues, on the other hand, in which a lively interest was shown. The move to exclude Chinese immigration was set aside as a “short-sighted demand,” aided by monopolists to hide from workers the real reason for their want and increasing insecurity. The usual championing of unpopular causes extended to a defense of the Mormons and their right to establish any social institutions they chose, interference with which was termed an “outrageous invasion of human rights.”98

Tucker brought down upon himself the wrath of the G. A. R. by supporting the belief that Memorial Day was an “annual show” prepared as a piece of political expediency by “the political Barnums of the Republican Party,” in the hopes of exploiting the sensibilities of those who had lost friends and relatives in the war, obtaining their praise and thanks in the process. Internal affairs touching economic matters were favorite topics upon which to dwell. Tucker firmly believed that private competitive businesses could furnish better postal service at less cost than the federal government, and criticism of the postoffice department was a frequent entry. He refused to line up with the Greenback movement because of the insistence upon the right of exclusive issue of money by the central government by their leaders. For a time in 1892 he entertained the hope that the acts imposing taxes upon the issue of state or private bank notes might be repealed, when bills providing for this were introduced by Southern senators.99

Strangely enough, Tucker solidly endorsed the income tax provision included in the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, declaring in the summer of 1894 that it had “evidently come to stay in American government economy,” a “propaganda of discontent by deed of legislators forced to yield to popular feeling.” Interpreted Tucker:100

Under present conditions of monopoly and plutocracy tempered by spoliation, the favor of the income tax with politicians is a sign of progress. We are at least sure of getting rid of the sickening cant of the Danas and spread-eagle orators about the absence of classes and the cheerful payment of taxes in this country. An income tax . . . is a recognition of the fact that industrial freedom and equality of opportunity no longer exist here even in the imperfect state in which they once did exist.

On the other hand he kept up a characteristic irreverence toward Theodore Roosevelt and the “trust busting” campaign. It was Tucker’s stand that Roosevelt was “hopelessly inconsistent” in maintaining that the tariff and trust problems were distinct and should remain apart. Protection by tariff walls sheltered and bolstered the very combines he sought to disintegrate, therefore Tucker believed that regardless of the amount of government regulation and supervision, it “would not effect them in the least.”101

The early 90’s saw a noticeable increase in the volume of current political and social questions argued in Liberty, and an accompanying decline in controversies of a theoretical nature. Tucker showed his characteristic sympathy for laborers involved in industrial disputes while maintaining his skepticism toward unionization.102 He backed every prominent strike which came to his attention, including the Pacific Mills strike of April, 1882 in Lawrence, Mass. and that of the telegraph operators in the summer of 1883, the miners and railroad men involved in the Cripple Creek strike in the early summer of 1894, and the much better known Homestead and Pullman strikes. Although not an admirer of the Populists, he thought them worthy of support, declaring that their struggle against “plutocracy” was commendable.103 He singled out for particular mention their stand in defense of Coxey’s “Commonweal Army.” Tucker considered that the daily press was collective guilty of “pure and malicious falsehood” in describing this group as a body of professional tramps. Although frowning on Coxey’s public works plan, Tucker considered him a man of brains, character and great determination.104

There was no doubt as to where the sympathies of Tucker and Yarros lay during the Pullman strike in particular. For one thing they believed that the idea of employees as individuals making contracts with monopolies was now completely discredited, and shown to be a thinly disguised procedure of legal injustice. Tucker refused to place any stock in the stories of violence and aggression attributed to the strikers, and at best believed that what incidents of this type had occurred had been instigated by the company. Said Tucker:105

To those who shriek that labor is criminal we say that capital is far more criminal. Monopoly’s tears excite no sympathy. . . . Monopoly cannot expect to retain a monopoly of the weapon of force forever. Labor is slow, but it is gradually learning the tricks of monopoly and will master the whole science before long.

Tucker approved of Altgeld’s stand, and thought his treatment by the newspapers “shameful” and “stupid.” He castigated the Senate for its enthusiastic support of Cleveland’s interference decision, yet through all his championing of the strikers did not abuse Pullman, whom he looked upon simply as one of the many monopolists who had become rich because of state protection.106

On learning of the arrest of Eugene V. Debs on conspiracy charges Tucker wrote, “No court in this country has ever rendered a more iniquitous decision or one more far-reaching in its evil possibilities than that of Judge Woods of the United States Circuit Court in the Debs case,” flatly declaring that the principle that restraint of trade accomplished by conspiracy was unlawful was false, another device utilized to make striking workmen innocuous:107

One by one the authorities are stripping the laborers of all their peaceful and non-invasive weapons, determined to leave them only the ballot and the bomb, both of which are weapons of invasion and neither of which can help them in the slightest.

Debs’ later conviction and imprisonment he used as an object lesson of the use being made of the state by its benefactors: “The spectacle of Debs in jail will be an eye-opener to thousands,”108 he remarked, predicting even greater invasion of workingmen by corporations through manipulation of the courts.

Tucker’s dislikes are best appreciated by noting their universality. The development of antipathy toward such diversified personalities as the sociologist Albion W. Small, William Randolph Hearst, the historian Hermann Von Hoist, E. L. Godkin of the Nation, the National Association of Manufacturers, A. Lawrence Lowell and the economist-historian Richard T. Ely, along with those already discussed, points to a wellrounded acquaintance with contemporaries, even if the relationship was primarily negative and critical.109

The world-wide intellectual struggle of the anarchist against the state has occasionally been complicated by recourse to violence and assassination, the motives of which have been obscure. In some cases idealism has been the underlying incentive, especially in political killings where the belief that a tyrant is being eliminated dominates the assassin. Whatever may have been the attending circumstances, anarchism and violence have become popularly understood as interchangeable as a result of a spectacular series of such actions between 1880 and 1905 in particular. The anarchist argument that mere brushes between the armed forces of two states often cause more loss of life than the total of all anarchist-inspired slayings has not obtained any noticeable attention, and by and large the concern of non-revolutionary anarchists has generally been to disavow their relation with those implicated in the killing of politically prominent persons. It is with this approach that Liberty and Tucker afford an interesting study when related to the outstanding assassinations and demonstrations of violence of American origin during the period mentioned above.

Tucker, it will be remembered, had been an apologist for the Nihilist program in Russia in the first few years of his editorship, during which time he shared and reflected the idealism which permeated the young revolutionaries in that country and elsewhere in Europe. During this same period the shooting of President Garfield occurred, at which time the objective stand toward sensational demonstrations of this type first began to be formulated, an example of his realism when confronted with a concrete situation at home similar to those which were drawing his approval in Russia. “For the Guiteau style of assassination we have no apology,” explained Tucker, at the same time expressing wonder at the change in the popular attitude toward a man whom the majority just a short time before were labeling a “bribed man and a perjurer.” It was this that convinced him that the man was not receiving sympathy, but that the abstraction of the office Garfield held was what the mourners were revering by their concern. Tucker thought Guiteau insane, as did Spooner, but Tucker was more concerned with displaying Guiteau as a product of statism. He ridiculed the stand of the clergy on the case, declaring that Guiteau’s assertion to being “the Lord’s partner” in the killing of the President rested on grounds “every bit as good as John Calvin’s or Moses’.” His execution was deplored as thoroughly as was the previous act of violence.110

The approach to Haymarket, as we have seen, was very similar to this in that both the violence and the police action were condemned, even though the sympathy of Tucker and his group was unmistakably for the arrested men, whom he always regarded as innocent. Tucker saw Spooner’s Trial by Jury vindicated by the Chicago anarchist trial, in that choice by lot from the city’s entire population should have guaranteed the presence of workingmen on the jury, a matter which he thought the prosecution carefully avoided by sifting from a selected panel.111 He called the judicial opinion at the time of condemnation “a mixture of lies, misrepresentations and idiocy,” and remained convinced that Spies, Parsons and Fischer were tried and convicted for their opinions. Liberty contained an impressive tribute to their memory the issue following the execution, and Tucker sponsored anniversary memorials in Boston at which time resolutions condemning the police and legal action in the case were proposed. The pardoning of Fielden, Schwab and Neebe by John P. Altgeld in June, 1893, Tucker hailed as “the bravest act standing to the credit of a politician since Horace Greeley bailed Jefferson Davis.” “He has done nobly, and his shall be our gratitude,” the anarchist editor promised.112

Altgeld’s decision required all the courage Tucker credited him with, for the season of violence was still at hand, the shooting of Henry C. Frick by Alexander Berkman having taken place at the height of the Homestead labor struggle less than a year before. Here again Tucker took the central position, with a variant. The grief and indignation attending Frick’s injury Tucker said he could not share: “Henry C. Frick is a conspicuous member of the brotherhood of thieves . . . yet I am very sorry that he has been shot.” He thought Berkman, at that time a complete stranger, one with whom he had much more in common than Frick, although in reality a greater menace:113

The worst enemy of the world is folly, and men like Berkman are its incarnation. It would be comparatively easy to dispose of the Fricks, if it were not for the Berkmans. The latter are the hope of the former. The strength of the Fricks rests on violence; now it is to violence that the Berkmans appeal. The peril of the Fricks lies in the spreading of the light; violence is the power of darkness. If the revolution comes by violence, and in advance of light, the old struggle will have to be begun anew. The hope of humanity lies in the avoidance of that revolution by force which the Berkmans are trying to precipitate. No pity for Frick, no praise for Berkman, such is the attitude of Liberty in the present crisis.

From this time on, Tucker had many opportunities to defend anarchism from its definition as a cult of crime. One of the better of his treatises of this type is Are Anarchists Thugs?, which contained, among other things, a breakdown of the subscription list of Liberty according to occupation or profession. This proved to be quite flattering as an indication of the quality of the individualist anarchist persuasion, justifying the Tuckerite contention that anarchism was first of all a variety of political belief.

Tucker sailed for Europe on one of his periodic visits in August 1901, and Liberty was suspended for over a year thereafter, hence commentaries on the McKinley assassination do not exist. The fight to distinguish the individualist program from that of the propaganda-by-action group and spectacular isolated participants in violence was conducted in his absence by Henry Bool, a 30 year resident of Ithaca, N. Y., and recent adherent, but his attempt to justify the innocence of the Tuckerites was hopeless. By this time the stigma anarchism has borne to the present day had been firmly impressed in Europe as well as in America.114

Liberty in Tucker’s hands profited from his experience as a journalist, and continued to do so during his more than twenty years of employment on Boston and New York publications. His own paper was not a money-making proposition. Most of the contributors had other jobs, and material was submitted free. Tucker announced to his readers in 1888, “Neither the publisher of Liberty nor any of his co-workers get any reward for their labor beyond the pleasure of its performance.”115

Within a year after the appearance of its first issue, the anarchist broadsheet had the reputation of being probably the most radical and revolutionary paper in the country. By its fifth year it was internationally read, with a circulation covering all of western Europe and points as distant as Australia. Circulation figures are obscure. In July, 1886 Tucker declared that it was being mailed to at least a thousand favorite subscribers.116 It is probable that it gradually declined during the 90’s, but there is little doubt of its unusual vitality from 1886-1889. During this period it reached its peak as an organ of native anarchist expression, while the radical press as a whole was undergoing a serious decline in numbers and activity.117 This was the time when such representative statements of American anarchist theory and philosophy as Yarros’ Why I Am An Egoist and Anarchism: Its Aims and Methods, as well as Tucker’s State Socialism and Anarchism and Why I Am An Anarchist were published.118

The long theoretical contest with the state brought Liberty into surprisingly few actual controversies with its tangible arms. Tucker sold as well as wrote and published radical and liberal materials, one item which constituted an objectionable work in Boston being Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. The suppression of this in Boston in the spring of 1882 Tucker called “a shameful satire upon our laws,” especially the pressure upon his publisher to refuse further copies until desired deletions had been made.119 Tucker responded by publishing an unexpurgated edition, and began publicly selling it in Boston in a type of test case action, defying the district attorney’s office. “The authorities must now bring the question to an issue, or confess their defeat,”120 he pointed out, and later that summer, remarked with pleasure that nothing had been done about it. The campaign lost much of its vigor mainly through this stand. Whitman expressed his appreciation later when he wrote: “Tucker did brave things for Leaves of Grass when brave things were rare. I couldn’t forget that.”121 Another notable instance was the banning from the mails in the summer of 1890 of a translation of The Kreutzer Sonata by Leo Tolstoi on orders from Postmaster-General John Wanamaker. This ruling met only passive resistance, as Tucker remarked that he enjoyed “a partial liberty of speech,” and wished to retain it, as it was his “only weapon of warfare against existing evils.”122

Liberty assumed importance as a medium for the acquaintance of a portion of the radical group with a literary bent with translations of libertarian works of Russian, French, and German origin. This included Tchernychevsky’s What’s To Be Done?, Felix Pyat’s Ragpicker of Paris, excerpts from the work of Mackay, who was the author of Stürm and Die Anarchisten, as well as a biography of Max Stirner, and others.123 Tucker announced an ambitious plan to publish the entire works of Proudhon in English, but it was only partially realized. Translation led to further contact with overseas correspondents, who furnished interesting commentaries to the paper from several countries. Among these were George Bernard Shaw, Sophie Raffalovich from Paris, Octave Berger from Belgium, Mackay from Germany, D. A. Andrade from Australia, Wordsworth Donisthorpe from England, and a brilliant series of communications on the Italian scene written expressly for Tucker from Florence by the famed political economist Vilfredo Pareto.124 An attempt on the part of Tucker to supply a literary journal entirely devoted to translations of European literature, The Transatlantic, was abandoned after the publication of 16 issues between October, 1889 and June, 1890.

Upon assuming the editorship of the Engineering Magazine in New York in 1892, Tucker moved Liberty there from Boston. Henceforth the paper experienced varying and steadily declining fortunes. It slipped from weekly to fortnightly and then to monthly issue between this time and 1897, when Tucker announced that thereafter it would have an irregular publication date. This continued until 1905, when regular bimonthly publication went into effect for the remainder of its existence. An attempt to publish a German edition earlier under the direction of Schumm also proved abortive, and Robert Reitzel’s Der Arme Teufel, the German language paper published in Detroit, continued to be practically the only organ of the non-English speaking radicals in which any of Tucker’s philosophy might be read.125

7. The Decline of Individualist Anarchism as a Conscious Movement

Tucker’s prestige as an authority and spokesman in American anarchist circles advanced as the physical importance of his paper declined. His lectures on the philosophy of the individualist group brought him a large measure of public attention from time to time. One of his better-known public debates, with the Christian Socialist W. D. P. Bliss and President E. Benjamin Andrews of Brown University, arguing for governmental regulation, occurred at a Unitarian Ministers’ Institute gathering in Salem, Mass., October 14, 1890, where his address “The Relation of the State to the Individual” summarized the stand of the anti-statist persuasion of native origin. In 1893, at the insistence of associates, a compilation of his articles during a twelve year period was published in a volume titled Instead of a Book. Although intended as a propaganda document in the cause, this has since been used in good faith by outsiders interested in obtaining an objective understanding of the movement, unaware that significant material was omitted from its contents.126

Tucker characterized himself in later years as “an extreme representative of one of the two great sociological tendencies that today divide the world,”127 and it was in this capacity that he increasingly achieved prominence. The high water mark of this repute was his appearance as the spokesman for anarchism at the Conference on Trusts held by the Chicago Civic Federation late in the summer of 1899. On September 14 he delivered his famous The Attitude of Anarchism Toward Industrial Combinations, an address which John R. Commons described as “the most brilliant piece of pure logic” heard during the duration of the several days’ assembly of nationally-prominent speakers.128 In an environment in which his fellow speakers shared the conviction that the remedy for the trust problem lay in the extension of governmental restriction and supervision, Tucker presented in concise form his “four monopolies” argument, which had been in the process of definition since its presentation in the first issue of his paper over 18 years before.

Basically, the argument presented centered around the assertion that the trusts of their time were not the result of competition, but due to the denial of competition through other than economic means. Tucker declared that trusts were creatures of the state, and that the vast accumulations of wealth which they represented were due to “the only means by which large fortunes can be rolled up,—interest, rent, and monopolistic profit.” Monopolies were created by the state through patent, copyright and tariff legislation, through the system of land grants and centralization of finance in the hands of a few. Said Tucker: “Of these four monopolies—the banking monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent and copyright monopoly, the injustice of all but the last-named is manifest even to a child,” and proceeded to spend over a third of his alloted time in demonstrating that the justification of property in ideas grew out of the justification of property in concrete things, a far different matter. “We have made of property a fetich,” he declared, and the fact that two people were unable to physically occupy the same material object was carried over to ideas; “Perpetual property in ideas, then, which is the logical outcome of any theory of property in abstract things, would, had it been in force in the lifetime of James Watt, have made his direct heirs the owners of at least nine-tenths of the now existing wealth of the world,” while the consequences of its enforcement since the time of the invention of the Roman alphabet were equally fantastic.129

He concluded by re-emphasizing his belief that the money monopoly was the most serious, and that “perfect freedom in finance would wipe out nearly all the trusts.” Refusing to support any program of interference or anti-trust legislation, he persisted in his description of them as “systems of a social disease originally caused and persistently aggravated by a regimen of tyranny and quackery” and adhering to the anarchist remedy:130

Free access to the world of matter, abolishing land monopoly; free access to the world of mind, abolishing idea monopoly; free access to an untaxed and unprivileged market, abolishing tariff monopoly and money monopoly,—secure these, and all the rest shall be added unto you. For liberty is the remedy of every social evil, and to Anarchy the world must look at last for any enduring guarantee of social order.

Despite the abstraction of his argument, which Commons and others believed disqualified it as an expedient solution to the trust problem, the immediate reason for the Conference, the daily press of both Chicago and New York commented in a favorable manner upon his address.

The destruction by fire in April, 1908 of Tucker’s book shop and publication offices did more than bring to an end the appearance of Liberty. It destroyed the central office of expression of the whole individualist anarchist group, and brought about the departure of Tucker himself to France that same year, where he remained until his death in Monaco in 1939. That the cohesion of intellect which had characterized the group in the 70’s and 80’s had badly deteriorated long before the fire was apparent from the irregular appearance of their most famous journal. This had been augmented by defections to socialism and other portions of the radical front as well as by the internal disputes over Stirner, Spencer, and the collectivist wing of anti-statism. Being uninsured, the property was a total loss, and Tucker took advantage of family financial aid to go to Europe, where he had serious intentions of reviving his publication of anarchist literature. As the possibility of meeting the heavy expense involved grew fainter, Tucker gradually lost enthusiasm, and in a postscript to a 1911 London edition of his State Socialism and Anarchism, he admitted that the anarchist solution for monopoly and the centralization of economic power in the hands of a minority was no longer applicable. Explaining his stand, he pointed out that when he wrote this “essay,” 25 years before, “the denial of competition had not yet effected the enormous concentration of wealth that now so gravely threatens social order,” and that a policy of reversal of monopoly practices might have stopped the process of accumulation. Looking at the conditions of 1911, however, he found the way “not so clear,” since the tremendous capitalization now effected made monopoly a convenience, but no longer a necessity. Admitted Tucker, “The trust is now a monster which . . . even the freest competition, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy,” since upon the removal of all existing restrictions on competition, “concentrated capital” could set aside a sacrifice fund to remove any new competitors and continue the process of expansion of reserves.131

It was his firm conviction still that monopolies could be eliminated in a permanent manner only by the economic solutions proposed by anarchism, even though they had “passed for the moment beyond their reach.” Therefore, he concluded that the problem of the trusts “must be grappled with for a time solely by forces political or revolutionary,” which he thought would take the course of forcible confiscation either through the machinery of government, “or in defiance of it.” Until the “great levelling” did occur, however, the anarchist solution of free competition, free access to land and raw materials, free banking and free trade, and the exchange of equivalents instead of profit-making, all these he thought might be preserved by teaching to the coming generation. It was up to anarchists to remain outside the struggle, and to take no part in the matter in the hope of accelerating the destruction of monopoly finance capitalism:132

. . . education is a slow process, and for this reason we must hope that the day of readjustment may not come too quickly. Anarchists who endeavor to hasten it by joining in the propaganda of State Socialism or revolution make a sad mistake indeed. They help to so force the march of events that the people will not have time to find out, by the study of their experience, that their troubles have been due to the rejection of competition. If this lesson shall not be learned in season, the past will be repeated in the future . . .

Tucker became even more pessimistic at a later date, blaming technology as well as centralization for the ills of mankind. In a letter to Clarence Lee Swartz, July 22, 1930, while referring to the somber Scenes de la Vie Future by Georges Duhamel, Tucker wrote, “The matter of my famous “Postscript” now sinks into insignificance; the insurmountable obstacle to the realization of Anarchy is no longer the power of the trusts, but the indisputable fact that our civilization is in its death throes. We may last a couple of centuries yet; on the other hand, a decade may precipitate our finish. . . . The dark ages sure enough. The Monster, Mechanism, is devouring mankind.”133

Without a central clearing house, the individualist anarchist movement broke up into several small circles, in Detroit, Phoenix, Arizona, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and elsewhere. Many of the Tucker associates, Byington, Labadie, Kuehn, Cohen, Swartz, Fulton, Robinson, and allied libertarians, such as Sprading and Warren Brokaw, continued a program of written propaganda which was temporarily interrupted by the World War, only to commence again immediately after and gradually decline into the obscurity of the depression of 1929-1939. Tucker abandoned his anti-war stand in 1915 to support the Allies and particularly France, his several visits there having endeared him to the land and its people, of which he was now a part.134 The post-war disillusionment destroyed his enthusiasm over wartime objectives. In a letter to the New Bedford Standard, September 15, 1922, he declared that “those who fought intelligently in the World War fought, not to make the world safe for democracy, but to make the world safe from democracy, and from every other political or social tyranny. That victory is not yet won, and may never be.”135 Beyond a measure of support for Sacco and Vanzetti,136 Tucker’s interest in radicalism in the United States was now fairly well dissipated. But as he approached and then passed his eightieth birthdate, Tucker still retained his skill in making the pithy remark and the piercing observation. Writing to Ewing C. Baskette from his Monaco villa, he mentioned that his health was failing, and countering, “But I may live a long time yet.” He grieved the sudden death of his old friend of nearly a half-century, John Henry Mackay, whose sudden demise in Berlin on May 16, 1933 went unnoticed otherwise. In remarking on a bit of new post office bureaucracy which annoyed him, he observed, “The State always goes from good to bad, and from bad to worse.” Selling Baskette a copy of William B. Greene’s Fragments resulted in a tribute: “I owe to him my appreciation of the giant Proudhon.”

On the world scene of the mid-1930s, Tucker’s views were unequivocal. “Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism,” he declared, going on to observe that “Under any of these regimes a sufficiently shrewd man can feather his nest.” On another occasion he conceded, “Yes, I think the world is hell-bent”; “War is certainly to come, but how soon I do not know.” “I hate the age in which I live, but do not hate myself for living in it,” he remarked still later, “But there is fun in fighting”; “It is not necessary to hope in order to persevere.”

Of the anarchist papers, he thought Mother Earth the best; “It has unique and interesting things, and commands the respect of intelligent and honest people.” But he was sure that its influence was very limited.” On the subject of anarchism he was unrelenting. He conceded that there were anarchists “in all countries,” but would not venture a guess as to their total number. But he scouted Baskette’s question about anarchist communism; “The term Communist Anarchist has no sense.” “What I call the Anarchist Movement is near the vanishing point,” he concluded, and added some very critical words on the situation in Spain, already on the verge of its great upheaval of 1936-1939. “‘Anarchism’ in Spain is a misnomer,” Tucker chided Baskette for asking the question. “In Proudhon’s day his influence in Spain was considerable, and his adherents were intelligent. Spanish anarchists of today, with perhaps a few exceptions of little significance, are a crazy bunch.”

Benjamin R. Tucker died at his home in Monaco on June 22, 1939 in his eighty-sixth year, survived by his wife and daughter. His burial, following a civil, private service, “without mourning, according to his express wish,” took place two days later. The cataclysm of the Second World War was barely more than two months away, and in the following decade and a half, interest in and knowledge of the tradition which Tucker represented faded to an all time low. It was a rare person whose personal acquaintance went back to Tucker’s time who managed to live into the mid-1950s and witness the revival of interest in the literature and ideas of American individualist anarchism.137

———————————

A study of anarchism, especially since the end of Liberty and the almost simultaneous rise of Emma Goldman and Mother Earth, the new voice of anarchist communism, is probably best conceived as belonging in a study of the whole radical movement of the twentieth century. Today an anarchist press exists in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, China, Japan and India, as well as in every country in western Europe. Its growth as an underground movement in Germany, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Russia is a well-known fact. It is naive to believe that the two great wars of our century have succeeded in extinguishing the belief in a stateless system. An unmeasurable influence of anarchism is the presence of much of its libertarian flavor in numerous organizations the world around, which have not openly expressed opposition to the state as such. Although forced into assuming a degree of caution which it previously rarely needed, anarchism and its close industrial relation, syndicalism, remain intellectual forces of considerable strength, and capable of surprising vigor in situations characterized by political vacuum, as the activity in Barcelona and Catalonia demonstrated so dramatically during the recent Spanish Civil War.

The catastrophe of war has been a strong impetus in arousing interest in the arguments of anarchism, especially in defeated countries and in areas of great destruction. This interest has extended from the calculated individual escapism of the Henry David Thoreau type to the scientific communal village preached for well over a generation by Peter Kropotkin. A moribund or dead philosophy is not capable of producing the astonishing volume of literature that has poured from the world anarchist press since 1920.

Twentieth century political tendencies have been expressed predominantly in collectivism of one variety or another, especially in their practical aspects. Current trends continue decidedly in this direction, despite widespread apprehension concerning the consequences of the submergence of the individual personality. On the other hand, the repeated failure of national states to solve either internal or external problems to any large measure of satisfaction has been accompanied by a chorus of anarchist criticism, expressing belief that human society will never be orderly so long as the state is the institution through which man seeks to develop his abilities and capacities for social living.

In the United States and western Europe, anarchist thought appears under three other forms: ( 1 ) as an intellectual distillate, found principally among the avant garde of literature, philosophy and art; (2) as an expression of the syndicalist movement, which continues to support a vigorous English and foreign language press; (3) as a reflection of many small libertarian groups ranging from experimental educators to exponents of social decentralization. Their numbers include a sizeable body of intellectuals grown tired of politics and frightened of the potentialities of the state as a machine of destruction, in an age of automatic weapons and highly-specialized scientific war materiel. Many of these are pacifists, already shocked by the conduct of total war. Still another anti-statist reflection can be detected among a sensitive minority without positive stands of any particular kind, but anxiously seeking to escape the elements of the state of our time as expressed by industrialization, urbanization and cultural typing. Past mid-century the world tends toward the authoritarianism of Marxian politics and away from the individualistic and mutualistic conceptions of society embodied in the ideals taught by Warren, Tucker, Bakunin and Kropotkin. Nevertheless the anarchists remain unimpressed by the world which authority is engaged in forging, in which the outstanding characteristic of human life appears to be its increasing insecurity. The telling effect of anarchist criticism, although largely negative, upon critics of the present world order such as Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels and many others cannot be ignored, nor have these writers attempted to refute most of such charges.138 Yet despite the piercing insights which anarchism has provided as means of observing evidences of decay and viciousness in political and economic systems of all kinds, it has itself been subject to the same deteriorating effects in attempts of a practical nature at realizing its goals. Nowhere is there evidence that the leadership principle and the struggle for power within groups of whatever origin are becoming obsolete.139

 

___________

140.  Yarros, Adventures in the Realm of Ideas, 5; same author, “Benjamin R. Tucker et l’Anarchism Philosophique,” in L’Unique, VIII (May, 1947), 153-154.

141.  See his article “The Russian Movement,” in Truth, I (June, 1884), 37-39.

142.  Yarros at first thought Sumner an exponent of anarchism because of his championing of free trade and general opposition to government. There is no indication at first of any realization that Sumner was cited by the supporters of the system as well as the left-wing critics, or that he was a wholehearted supporter of interest taking. Within a year, however, he was calling Sumner and other supporters “the bourgeoisie’s loyal servants.” Liberty, III (March 27, 1886), 8; IV (February 12, 1887), 4.

143.  See Yarros’ contributions in Liberty, III (October 24, 1885), 1; November 14, 1885), 1; (December 26, 1885), 1; IV (January 1, 1887), 5; (July 3, 1886), 4-5; V (August 13, 1887), 7. It was in the latter issue that he testified, “There is no danger of my finding Anarchism ridiculous and abandoning it,” which stands in strange contrast to his much later remark, “Of all the possible and impossible utopias, that of the philosophical anarchists is, of course, the most preposterous one. How many persons in the world today can even imagine a society without a State?” Yarros, “The Persistence of Utopian Thinking,” in The Social Frontier, V (June, 1939), 266. Stress is Yarros’.

144.  Liberty, IV (April 17, 1886), 8; V (September 10, 1887), 5; (October 8, 1887), 6.

145.  Yarros, “Socialist Quackery,” in Liberty, IV (December 11, 1886), 4-5. For Yarros as associate editor of Liberty from 1890 to 1892, see Liberty, VII (June 7, 1890), 4; VIII (April 30, 1892), 1.

146.  See for instance Yarros, “Government and Social Evolution,” in Liberty, VII (November 29, 1890), 4-5.

147.  See Yarros’ dispute over definitions with D. G. Thompson, a Spencerian sociologist, in Liberty, VIII (April 30, 1892), 2.

148.  Liberty, VII (January 2, 1892), 2.

149.  Liberty, VI (August 10, 1889), 5.

150.  Yarros was inconsistent on Marx, having admitted being “an admiring student of Marx and sympathetic subscriber to his philosophical views of societary development.” Liberty, VI (February 23, 1889), 5.

151.   Liberty, VI (June 29, 1889), 7-8.

152.  Yarros, Our Revolution; Essays in Interpretation, 80, 177.

153.  Liberty, VII (August 16, 1890), 2-3.

154.  This ran through seven numbers of Liberty between May and October, 1890.

155.  Liberty, VII (August 16, 1890), 4-5; VIII (August 20, 1892); X (January 26, 1895), 3.

156.  Yarros, “Sociocracy and Government,” in Liberty, XIII (March, 1899), 2-3; Ward, The Psychic Factors in Civilization (Boston, 1893), 285. Ward’s “sociocracy” was to Yarros a vague and unsatisfying compromise between anarchist and socialist tendencies as a form of government. As defined by Ward, it meant society acting “through an agency chosen by its members,” which Yarros said was undistinguishable from political democracy, in that decisions would ultimately have to be made by agents of the majority. The latter was inclined to believe that in operation it would resemble more a type of Comtean priesthood who knew best what was for society’s good. For an estimate of Ward as the most prominent of the Comteans among American sociologists, and suggesting Marxian interpretations of Comte and others for gleanings which might be used to substantiate the “institutional” approach of the class struggle, see Bernhard J. Stern, “A Note on Comte,” in Science and Society, I (Fall, 1936), 114-119.

157.  Liberty, IV (July 20, 1889), 4; VII (February 21, 1891), 6.

158.  Liberty, IV (February 12, 1887), 4; VI; (July 20, 1889), 4.

159.  See the critical articles in Liberty, VI (March 8, 1890), 4-5; VIII (August 8, 1891), 2.

It is interesting to note the fluctuation in Yarros’ estimations of Spencer during 1889-1892. Chronological comparison indicates no definite stand during the earlier part of this period, but a decidedly critical trend starts in the latter part of 1891.

160.  Yarros, “Spencerian Government and Anarchism,” in Liberty, VII (July 26, 1890), 5-6; same author, “Justice and Anarchism,” in Liberty, VIII (August 29, 1891), 2-3; (September 5, 1891), 2-3; (September 19, 1891), 2; (September 26, 1891), 3.

161.  Yarros, “Are We Fit For Freedom?” in Liberty, IX (April 7, 1894), 2.

162.  Liberty, IX (April 7, 1894), 2. For other articles by Yarros critical of Spencer for singling out factory and poor legislation for condemnation, and for attacking anarchism following the execution of Vaillant in France for throwing a bomb in the Chamber of Deputies, see “Spencer’s Injustice to Anarchism,” in Liberty, IX (February 24, 1894), 3-4, and “Individualist Impotence,” in Liberty, X (October 6, 1894), 2.

163.  When the 1892 revised edition of Social Statics appeared but missing this chapter, Tucker became incensed and reprinted it as a separate pamphlet, announcing in a preface that it had been repudiated by Spencer.

164.  Liberty, II (May 17, 1884), 4. It is thus obvious that Tucker had become suspicious of Spencerian anti-statism even before Yarros had begun his extensive study of the relationship between Spencer and anarchism. Although both Greene and Heywood had been extremely critical of Spencer, Tucker paid little attention to him as either a sociologist or political scientist until a breach had developed between himself and Yarros over the merits of Max Stirner.

165.  Liberty, IV (July 30, 1887), 4. Tucker was affronted by being mistaken for an exponent of Spencerian individualism by Henry Demarest Lloyd, who invited him to speak on the subject at the World’s Congress Auxiliary of the Columbian Exposition. He summarily refused the invitation. Liberty, IX (February 25, 1893), 2.

166.  In an interview with one of Tucker’s friends, Frederick R. Burton, Spencer admitted never having read Proudhon, having nothing but contempt for him. He did admit being repulsed by the Proudhonian remark “property is robbery,” without knowing what it really meant. Tucker, in reporting the interview, mentioned being extremely piqued at finding Spencer refer to Proudhon as a “communist” in Social Statics. Liberty, VIII (June 25, 1892), 1.

167.  See for instance Tucker’s acid report on an article by the social Darwinist Henry D. Chapin, “The Survival of the Unfit,” in The Popular Science Monthly, XLI (June, 1892), 182-187, in Liberty, VIII (June 25, 1892), 1.

168.  Liberty, XIV (January, 1904), 1. See also the repudiation by Yarros, “Spencer and Political Science,” in Liberty, XIV (February, 1904), 2.

169.  The later term “philosophical anarchism” drew the following response from Tucker, “It is my impression that the use of the adjective “philosophic” as descriptive of our movement originated outside. I have never accepted it, and rarely, if ever, have I used it. Every fool thinks himself a philosopher.” Liberty, XII (July 11, 1896, 4.

170.  During the first few years, several of the contributors to Liberty wrote under pseudonyms, or signed their articles with single letters. Spooner wrote under “O,” Morse, “H.” See the series of seven articles by Morse in Liberty titled “Liberty and Wealth,” which paraphrased the career of Warren and sought to explain the operation of the early equitable commerce, which Tucker published from May to October, 1884. Spooner was particularly active at the time of Haymarket, showing special interest in the conduct of the trial, a natural expectation in view of his long career in law. He was outspoken in condemning the court as more criminal than the men, and denouncing Captain Michael Schaack of the Chicago police, for “rigging” the evidence in such a manner that the defendants were unable to find an opportunity to meet it when the trial began. Tucker was extremely fond of Spooner’s Letter to Grover Cleveland, but disagreed with the latter’s defense of property in ideas. Liberty, IV (September 18, 1886), 4-5; (November 20, 1886), 1, 7; VII (March 21, 1891), 4; Boston Herald, August 22, 1886.

Tucker agreed with Ingalls as to the basis of land tenure, but engaged in numerous debates on the matter of currency. Heywood and Andrews were more objects of criticism, although Heywood’s trial in 1883 was followed with considerable interest. Liberty, I (June 24, 1882), 3; III (December 13, 1884), 4-5; III (January 3, 1885), 4-5; (October 3, 1885), 4; VII (August 30, 1890), 5. For the trial see the running comment in issues from November 25, 1882 through April 12, 1883.

171.  A follower of Appleton and later the wife of Alan Kelly, she wrote on the relation between the anarchists and the labor unions, and became a socialist in 1892. Liberty, III (June 19, 1884), 4; III (November 8, 1884), 4; VIII (May 21, 1892), 1. One of the earliest residents of Hull House, Florence Kelly’s investigation of sweated labor in Chicago led to the passage of the first factory law in Illinois. She became the first factory inspector through appointment by Governor Altgeld. Jane Addams, Twenty Years at Hull House (New York, 1910), 201, 207, 310. For her sympathetic account of Tucker and her association with the anarchists see Florence Finch Kelly, Flowing Stream (New York, 1939), 190-196.

172.  Swain, a California labor organizer, became acquainted wtih Tucker through the socialist movement, and left this group to become an anarchist. He, Tucker and August Spies conducted a three-way correspondence in Liberty after the national Socialist Congress in Chicago of October, 1881. See also the short biographical sketch by Tucker in Liberty following Swain’s death in June, 1892. VIII (June 25, 1892), 1.

173.  For a sample of Kelly’s style see the articles, written under the pseudonyms “K” and “Max,” in Liberty, III (May 17, 1884), 5; (June 14, 1884), 5; (September 6, 1884), 4; (October 4, 1884), 4; (February 28, 1885), 5.

174.  Labadie became editor of the Advance from July to December, 1887. Liberty, IV (July 30, 1887), 1; V (December 3, 1887), 1.

175.  Liberty, II (June 9, 1883), 3; III (December 13, 1884), 1; Truth, I, new series, (June, 1884), iii; (July, 1884), 141; (October 15, 1884), 347.

176.  Labadie delivered an address arguing the anarchist point of view at the general assembly of the Knights of Labor in Minneapolis in the fall of 1887, and the next year suggested a convention of anarchists in Detroit for the purpose of issuing a manifesto to the world in the hope of preventing the growth of misconceptions as to their intentions. Liberty, V (November 5, 1887), 5; (February 25, 1888), 5; VI (December 15, 1888), 1. He believed the “press and pulpit” guilty of laying the blame for the numerous outrages upon them without proof.

177.  “Cranky Notions” began appearing in Liberty with the January 14, 1888 issue.

178.  Liberty, III (January 3, 1885), 8; V (February 25, 1888), 5; (March 31, 1888), 1, 7; (June 26, 1888), 5; VI (October 13, 1888), 7. Tucker agreed with Labadie on some of his proposals, considering the stand on government operation of the railroads sound. He disapproved of remaining in contact with the Knights, however, probably because of personal dislike for Terence V. Powderly.

179.  Liberty, VI (November 10, 1888), 1. Labadie did not distinguish the varieties of anarchists as Tucker thought was necessary. “It is immaterial whether one be a Communist or an Individualist so long as he be an Anarchist. Anarchy, as I see it, admits of any kind of organization, so long as membership is not compulsory.” Liberty, V (April 4, 1888), 8. For Labadie’s adherence to Tucker in the controversy over Stirner, see Liberty, V (June 26, 1888), 5.

180.  Liberty, II (June 28, 1884), 5; III (February 28, 1885), 4; (November 28, 1885), 5. Appleton wrote for some time under the pseudonym “X.”

181.  Liberty, III (December 12, 1885), 4; The Word, IV (January, 1876), 3; The Index, VII, 344-345. Appleton argued that the free-thought and anarchist movements had a common purpose, and that it was the work of both church and government to teach men to live without the need of either, not the inculcation of dependence upon both as paternalistic institutions.

182.  Liberty, III (November 14, 1885), 7; (November 28, 1885), 4; (March 6, 1886), 4.

183.  Liberty, IV (February 26, 1887), 5.

184.  Liberty, IV (February 26, 1887), 4. For Appleton’s survey of the relation between church and state, see Liberty, II (June 14, 1884), 4.

185.  Appleton bitterly opposed the passage of legislation limiting the hours of work as a device of politicians to distract labor leaders from demanding conditions “as will make a free contract possible” between employers and workmen. Liberty, III (April 11, 1885), 4. For other discussions of above matters see Liberty, III (October 25, 1884), 4; (January 31, 1885), 4; (January 23, 1886, 4.

186.  Lucifer grew out of the Valley Falls Liberal, a free-thought paper begun in 1880. Tucker and some of his group did not care for Lucifer at a later time because of its stress upon sexual relations, and grew to find fault with Walker for his gradual swing toward Harman’s point of view, which was somewhat increased due to his marriage to Harman’s daughter. During its early years, however, Lucifer was forthright anti-statist in its views. Later anarchists and socialists esteemed Harman to a far greater degree. See for instance the congratulatory letters from Eugene Debs, Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman and Carl Nold, as “the Nestor of free expression” and for his “noble life work,” in Lucifer, (April 25, 1907), 71; September 27, 1906), 590. The paper carried no volume numbers at this time. For Walker as a forerunner of the egoistic philosophy, see his “A Plea for Materialism,” in The Index, VIII (December 13, 1877), 596.

187.  Liberty, IV (November 8, 1884), 1.

188.  Liberty, III (July 26, 1884), 8. Walker also proposed the substitution of the word “autonomist” for “anarchist.” Liberty, IV (July 31, 1886), 7.

189.  Liberty, III (October 25, 1884), 5; (December 13, 1884), 5; (January 3, 1885), 8. For Lazarus’ defense of the occupancy and use theory of land tenure see “Land Tenure: Anarchist View,” in Fair Play, I (January 19, 1889), 1, 4; (January 26, 1889), 1, 4. Lazarus wrote under the pseudonym “Edgeworth” for many years, and rarely used his own name except in correspondence.

190.  Liberty, III (September 6, 1884), 5, 8. Appleton supported Tucker in his disparaging attitude toward the isolated social experiment. See his “New Jerusalem Reformers,” in Liberty, III (November 8, 1884), 4-5.

191.  Liberty, II (July 26, 1884),1.

192.  Liberty, IX (March 4, 1893), 2.

193.  Liberty, IV (February 26, 1887), 5.

194.  Liberty, II (July 26, 1884), 1.

195.  Tucker knew no German for some time, and managed to acquire a painful knowledge of it somewhile later. Schumm was already a wholehearted Stirnerite, but Tucker claimed to have heard of Stirner from another source. For Schumm’s view of Die Anarchisten by Mackay, see Liberty, VIII (August 8, 1891), 2.

196.  Walker, although of English birth, had lived in the United States since boyhood, and at the time of his attachment to Liberty was the chief editorial writer of the Galveston Daily News, having been forced to leave Chicago for Texas because of his health. His pseudonym in most anarchist journals was “Tak Kak.” Although writing for Tucker in October, 1884, his first articles on egoism started some time later. For biographical details consult Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own, introduction, vii; Walker, The Philosophy of Egoism, 69-76. For his articles on egoism in Liberty see IV (March 6, 1886), 8; (July 3, 1887), 8; (July 17, 1886), 5; (January 22, 1887), 8; (March 26, 1887), 7; (April 9, 1887), 5-6; (July 2, 1887), 7; V (August 13, 1887), 5.

197.  See the discussion under Tucker, “The Anatomy of Liberty,” in Liberty, I August 6, 1881), 2-3.

198.  Tucker, “The Philosophy of Right and Wrong,” in Liberty, I (October 29, 1881, 2-3.

199.  Liberty, IV (May 7, 1887), 8.

200.  Liberty, V (April 28, 1888), 5.

201.  Liberty, V (June 9, 1888), 4-5; VII (August 2, 1890), 4.

202.  Liberty, III (March 6, 1886), 8.

203.  Liberty, IX (March 4, 1893), 3. At a previous time Tucker explained: “Mankind is approaching the real social contract, which is not, as Rousseau thought, the origin of society, but rather the outcome of a long social experience, the fruit of its follies and disasters. It is obvious that this contract, this social law, developed to its perfection, excludes all aggression, all violation of equality of liberty, all invasion of every kind.” Liberty, VII (November 15, 1890), 6. See also Liberty, VIII (May 16, 1891), 1.

204.  Liberty, V (August 27, 1887), 5; (October 22, 1887), 5; VI (October 13, 1888), 4. Appleton later wrote for the Alarm, while the Kellys and Lazarus went over to a short-lived anarchist journal, Nemesis, later joining Appleton.

205.  See Lloyd’s criticism of the created rights doctrine in Liberty, VI (September 7, 1889), 6-7.

206.  Consult in particular Yarros’ articles in Liberty, V (August 27, 1887), 7; VI (July 20, 1889), 4; (September 7, 1889), 4. In 1891 Yarros repudiated all his former writing which indicated his Stirnerite leanings, which he described as “monstrously absurd and miserably nonsensical,” and egoist philosophy the result of attitudes based on “metaphysical and fallacious conclusions.” Liberty, VIII (September 26, 1891), 2-3; (October 3, 1891), 2-4; (October 10, 1891), 2-3; (October 17, 1891), 3-4. The controversy with Tucker flared up again in 1895, when Tucker insisted that the anarchist stand on occupancy and use as the basis of land tenure was absolutely in contradiction to Spencer’s equal rights tenet, which Yarros now upheld. Liberty, X (April 4, 1895), 5. For a defense of Tucker by an associate see Warren E. Brokaw in The Equitist, I (July 24, 1897), 4-5.

207.  See note 57. Kelly’s replies to Walker can be found in Liberty, IV (February 26, 1887), 7; (May 7, 1887), 7-8; (July 30, 1887), 7.

208.  Robinson, with Louis Post and R. Heber Newton, published The Free Soiler in New York in 1884, as the organ of the American Free Soil Society. On his background before association with Tucker see The Free Soiler, I (June, 1884), 30; Robinson, The New Christianity, 15 .

209.  Robinson, “The Limits of Governmental Interference,” in Liberty, VIII (August 15, 1891), 3-4, probably the best of all summaries of egoism applied to anarchism. Also of merit is his “The Egoist,” in Instead of a Magazine, I (October 4, 1915), 2-3. This short essay was reprinted repeatedly thereafter, in Reedy’s Mirror (1915), Freedom (1923), The Road to Freedom (1929) and Freedom Through Anarchism (1946). For his economic ideas, admittedly based on those of Proudhon, see The Economics of Liberty and Rebuilding The World, one of the better works by anarchists in the United States after the departure of Tucker for Europe in 1908.

210.  The first 12 chapters of Walker’s Philosophy of Egoism first appeared in Egoism between May, 1890 and September, 1891.

211.  For mention of Liberty and its aims in the propagation of Stirner see The Eagle and the Serpent, I (February 15, 1898), 1; II (1902), 79. Barnhill, a native of Xenia, Illinois, later published this paper in England.

212.  J. L. Walker provided Tucker with attacks on Spencerian concepts, especially his organismal nature of society theory and his ethics, which Walker labeled “the logic of the crowd.” Liberty, VIII (November 28, 1891), 4; February 13, 1892), 2-3; Fair Play, III (March, 1891), 215-216; Walker, Philosophy of Egoism, 38-40.

213.  Liberty, XVI (April, 1907), 1. Tucker claimed to have refrained from corresponding with Yarros for nearly three decades after 1906, being provoked by the latter’s article on anarchism in the January, 1936 issue of the American Journal of Sociology. For his repudiation of Yarros see Benjamin R. Tucker to Laurance Labadie, March 13, May 17, September 5, 1936; Benjamin Tucker to Ellsworth Faris, editor of the American Journal of Sociology, April 11, 1936, and Ellsworth Faris to Benjamin R. Tucker, April 30, 1936. The first three letters and copies of the last two are in the possession of Laurance Labadie. See also Ishill (ed.), Free Vistas, II, 304-307.

214.  Along with Tucker, Simpson disagreed with Ely that nationalization of monopoly under the state was the solution. Hanson, like most of the land reform anarchists, denied that land values were an economic entity, in that they were not the product of land and labor. Liberty, IV (February 12, 1887), 8; VI (September 7, 1889), 5; (November 23, 1889), 5.

While some spoke of economics, Gertrude Kelly plumbed public attitudes, and professed to find logical bankruptcy there; “The great fundamental evils are not questioned, the right to increase without work is not questioned, for the spirit of robbery is still to a very great extent the controlling spirit of the times. When the robbery shows itself in a very huge form, when the Vanderbilts and Goulds accumulate their millions, then arises a cry . . ., but not against the system which produces them. There is no cry against interest, profit, rent,—that is, there is no cry against robbery in itself, but only against the amount taken.” Liberty, IV (July 3, 1886), 7.

215.  Kuehn, The Problem of Worry: An Insurance Expert’s Plan for Practical Commercial Credit Cooperation, 14. Kuehn’s Commercial Credit system was another plan to put Greene’s Mutual Banking into practice. See also Liberty, VI (December 15, 1888), 1.

216.  Liberty, IV (July 7, 1888), 7; (July 21, 1888), 7-8; VIII (June 27, 1891), 2; (September 12, 1891), 3. For Westrup’s tribute to Greene, Heywood and Warren as sources of inspiration see his The Financial Problem: Its Relation to Labor Reform and Prosperity, 25-26, and The New Philosophy of Money, 7, 49.

Trinkaus, an associate of Westrup, was a frequent contributor to both Egoism and The Age of Thought.

217.  For Tucker on the two early Bilgram works on money see Liberty, IV (July 16, 1887), 1; VI (November 23, 1889), 4. Tucker pointed out to his readers that Bilgram was not an anarchist despite his approval of their money ideas. Bilgram had considerable influence upon the financial writings of a fellow Philadelphian, James Mill, in the 1930’s. See the following four pamphlets by Mill: More Money For Everyone; Privilege and the Effects on Privilege; Monopoly Versus Freedom: A Short Study in Elementary Economics; Some Observations on a Sound Monetary System, all published in Philadelphia in 1933, and the more extensive Over-Production and Unemployment: A Plea For Freedom (Philadelphia, 1940).

218.   See the discussion in Liberty, VI (February 15, 1890), 4. Bilgram’s The Cause of Business Depressions, written in 1914 in collaboration with L. E. Levy, was greatly esteemed as an economics textbook by a later generation of Tuckerites.

219.  Byington, a summa cum laude graduate from the University of Vermont, and a Phi Beta Kappa, had also been a Prohibition candidate for office, Liberty, IX (December 31, 1892), 1, 3; (April 15, 1893), 3; XII (May 16, 1896), 8. See also Steven T. Byington to Agnes Inglis, September 5, 1947, Labadie Collection.

220.  Byington, “Quasi-Invasion and the Boycott,” Liberty, X (May 19, 1894), 2.

221.  The Letter Writing Corps as a part of Liberty was discontinued in the summer of 1897. For some of its impacts see the Joshua T. Small scrapbook in the Labadie Collection, which contains many clippings from newspapers which published these letters written especially by anarchists. For some of the details of this program consult the Small-Labadie correspondence, in the Labadie MSS.

222.  For biographical material on Bailie, see the sketch by Tucker in Liberty, IX (January 7, 1893), 2.

223.  Bailie, Josiah Warren, introduction, xii.

224.  Lucifer, VIII (November 7, 1890), 2. A recent edition of What is Mutualism? has appeared in India, under the imprint of the Modern Publishers of Indore. This undated volume was being distributed in 1945. See also Swartz in Liberty, VIII (August 20, 1892), 2-3.

225.  On colonization see The Free Comrade, I (May, 1900), 3-5; (September, 1900), 4; (March, 1901), 4-5. For comment on the McKinley shooting see The Free Comrade, II (November, 1901), 3-6. While Lloyd was editor, he thought that the reconciliation of the various fragments of the socialist movement was a possibility along lines which Andrews had speculated earlier. The Free Comrade, II (July, 1901), 3-5; III (November, 1902), 3-4.

226.  Schulder, Relation of Anarchism to Organization, 2-4, 10-15; Tandy, Modern Social Tendencies, 1-2, 9. See the review of Tandy’s Voluntary Socialism by Clarence Lee Swartz in I, II (May, 1899), 6-7.

227.  Fowler, “Land Tenure,” in The Sun, I (May-June, 1887), 1-25. For an early statement of the anarchist stand, see his “Declaration of Independence by the Working People of the United States,” in The Word, IV (June, 1875), 1.

228.  See biographical article by Voltairine De Cleyre, Works, 284-296; same author, “Dyer D. Lum,” in Freethinkers’ Magazine, XI (August, 1893), 497-501. After joining the radical camp, Lum referred to his army service as the period “when I risked my life to spread cheap labor over the South.” Liberty, IV (July 16, 1887), 5.

229.  It was his viewpoint, when observing the social problem caused by the Mormon question, that the religious and moral objections involved were mere smoke screens thrown up by disgruntled elements, disturbed by Mormon solutions of their economic difficulties through cooperation which dried up sources of income for speculative interests. Even the Mormons themselves, he thought, did not think polygamy versus monogamy the principal issue, but rather, resistance to the business system of the Gentiles. Lum, The Mormon Question, 8-23, 81-90.

230.  Liberty, V (November 19, 1887), 4; Lum, “The Social Question,” in The Beacon, I (May 3, 1890), 4; same author, The Economics of Anarchy, A Study of the Industrial Type, 15-19, 31-40, 56-58. Commenting on the misuse of the term “crank” by the daily press and conservatives in general as a synonym for radical, Lum remarked “There is no God but Commonplace, and the State is his Prophet. Refuse obeisance to the shrine of the Commonplace, and lo! thou art a ‘Crank.’ “ Liberty, III (February 6, 1886), 8; IV (June 1, 1886), 5.

231.  The Arbitrator, III (April 6, 1889), 2; Fair Play, II (May 10, 1890), 100; (May 31, 1890), 117; The Alarm, II (March 6, 1886), 2; Lum, Economics of Anarchy, 25-40; same author, Philosophy of Trade Unions, 17-19. Socialism, derided Lum, was a system under which, once all had been brought to one way of thinking, “incompetency will be able to select competency, or capacity to run the social machine.” This was a taunt aimed at orthodox socialists during a period of dispute after the Haymarket affair. Liberty, IV (July 16, 1887), 5.

232.  Liberty, XII (June 27, 1896), 6-7; Age of Thought, I (October 10, 1896), 3; I (January 2, 1897), 5; The Altruist, XXVII (June, 1895), 22; Fulton, Land, Money and Property, 8-9, 13-18. For the anarchist papers published by Fulton after 1918, see Bibliography. By this time his headquarters had been changed from Columbus Junction to Clinton, Iowa.

233.  Winn’s Firebrand, I (December, 1902), 1; II (January, 1903), 7-8; (March, 1903), 2; (May, 1903), 2-4; (December, 1903), 3; The Coming Era, I June 21, 1898), 1-2; Today, III (September, 1905), 5; The Firebrand, III (October 2, 1909), 5; (October 30, 1909), 7; The Advance, I (December, 1911), 1; (June, 1912), 4-5; (July, 1912), 8-10.

234.  Liberty, V (August 27, 1887), 5.

235.  Liberty, II (June 28, 1884), 1; (October 4, 1884), 1.

236.  Liberty, VII (November 15, 1890), 1.

237.  Liberty, I (January 4, 1882), 1; (July 22, 1882), 1. At a later time Tucker ridiculed the inclusion of literacy qualifications to entry in the country as an immigrant. The reasoning that illiteracy implied criminality was logic that would “disgrace a schoolboy,” and actually would permit the entry of the same amount of clever criminals while excluding many honest and hardworking people. He believed the measure to be “pure hyprocrisy” on the part of a few who wished to prohibit immigration per se, but lacked the courage to state their real intentions. Liberty, XII (June 13, 1896), 1.

238.  Liberty, II (June 9, 1883), 2; (August 9, 1884), 4; V (September 10, 1887), 4. The concern over the bank proposition occurred at the time of the introduction of S. 672 by Senator Isham G. Harris of Tennessee and S. 2027 by Senator Zebuion B. Vance of North Carolina, which intended to repeal “all acts and parts of acts discriminating in taxation against the circulating notes of State banks and state banking associations.” They were reported on adversely by the Committee on Finance and postponed indefinitely. Congressional Record, 52 Cong., 1 Sess., XIII, 1583. For Tucker’s comment see Liberty, VIII (June 25, 1892), 1.

239.  Liberty, X (July 14, 1894), 1.

240.  Liberty, (XIV (February, 1903), 6.

241.  Tucker had gone on record as unsatisfied with the labor movement as early as 1886. He upbraided his colleagues Appleton and Labadie for their sympathy with the Knights of Labor, and looked forward to its collapse. “If the next great labor organization that rises from the ashes of the Knights of Labor shall take a further step from politics, it will do so only because more men see the folly of compromise.” Liberty, IV (June 1, 1886), 4-5.

242.  Liberty, I (April 1, 1882), 2; II (August 25, 1883), 1; X (June 16, 1894), 1; (June 30, 1894), 5. The proposition of E. L. Godkin in the Nation of July 19, 1883 to forbid any strike of public service employees was to Tucker the final admission that the freedom of contract argument, used to distinguish Northern workers from the slaves during the Civil War, was a myth, and not even accorded much credence even from those who proclaimed it the loudest. Godkin, “The Theatened Strike of the Telegraphers,” in Nation, XXXVII (July 19, 1883), 46-47; Liberty, II (August 25, 1883), 1.

243.  Liberty, IX (May 5, 1894), 5.

244.  Liberty, X (July 28, 1894), 3-4. Twelve years before, Tucker wrote, “Strikes, whenever and wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all true friends of labor. They give evidence of life and spirit and hope and growing intelligence. They show that the people are beginning to know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain them.” Liberty, I (April 15, 1881), 1.

245.  Tucker believed that Altgeld would have received the Democratic nomination in 1896 if the barrier of foreign birth had not stood in the way. Of the liberal reform group, he held Altgeld in highest esteem, along with Henry Demarest Lloyd, “one of the most sincere, honorable, brave, and generous.” Liberty, X (July 28, 1894), 1, 5; XII (August 1, 1896), 4; XIV (November, 1906), 6.

246.  Liberty, X (December 29, 1894), 3.

247.  Liberty, XI (June 15, 1895), 1.

248.  Liberty, XI (January 25, 1896), 1; XIV (May, 1903), I; VII (May 14, 1892), 2-3; III (December 15, 1883), 2-3; IV (July 3, 1886), 1; (July 30, 1887), 1.

249.  Liberty, I (September 3, 1881), 3; “Sinister Sorrow,” in I (October 1, 1881), 2; “Guiteau’s Malice,” in I (December 10, 1881), 2; “Guiteau’s ‘Devilish Depravity,’ ” in I (December 24, 1881), 2; “God’s Wicked Partner,” in I (February 18, 1882), 2; (July 22, 1882), 3.

250.  Liberty, IV (September 18, 1886), 5. This matter remained prominent in Tucker’s mind thereafter, and re-appeared ten years later. In a speech delivered in Cooper Union on June 25, 1896, and sponsored by several labor unions, Tucker placed before his audience his conception of a new New York state jury law which permitted the hand-picking of juries in two of the state’s counties. This law, which allowed for the dismissal of anyone opposed to the death penalty, Tucker contended was intended to stack cases involving litigation by workingmen against corporations, growing out of injuries sustained at work. Liberty, XIII (March, 1899), 1. For the address, “A Blow at Trial By Jury,” see Liberty, XIII (July, 1897), 3-4; (August, 1897), 2-5. It was separately published as a pamphlet of 46 pages in 1898, from the same type faces used in Liberty.

251.  Liberty, V (September 24, 1887), 1; IX (July 1, 1893), 2. The issue of Liberty for November 19, 1887 was arresting. Below the date line, the entire front page was blank with the exception of a dedicatory poem to the Haymarket men placed in the center of the page. Yarros visited Fielden, Schwab, and Neebe in Joliet prison while on a speaking tour in the Chicago area in February, 1891. He declared that the men had admitted to him their loss of faith in the methods of the “revolutionary communists.” Liberty, VI (March 7, 1891), 4.

252.   Liberty, VIII (July 30, 1892), 2. Late in 1898 the Alexander Berkman Defense Association, through Justus Schwab and Emma Goldman, approached Tucker in the hope that he might add his weight to a petition to Andrew Carnegie pleading to have Berkman’s sentence commuted. Tucker agreed to comply only on the condition that an admission be made that the attack on Frick was henceforth repudiated as a policy, thus helping to bring about “a state of public feeling that will insure enlarged opportunity for peaceful evolution of opinion.” His proposal was rejected by the committee almost at once. See the correspondence of the committee to Tucker of December 7 and December 13, 1898, and Tucker’s letter to the committee, December 11 of the same year, in Liberty, XIII (January, 1899), 8.

253.  Bool began reading anarchist literature after Haymarket, adhering to its philosophical content despite his standing as a local merchant. Bool, Liberty Without Invasion, Means and End of Progress, 17; same author, Henry Bool’s Apology For His Jeffersonian Anarchism, 9. See also Henry Bool’s Creed (a leaflet) (n.p., n.d.); and Who’s Who? A Discussion Between an Autocratic Democrat and a Government-By-Consent Anarchist—Being An Editorial From Ithaca Democrat of October 24, 1901, and Remarks On the Same By the Other Fellow (a leaflet) (n.p., n.d.).

Bool returned to England, the country of his birth, where he published his For Liberty; The World’s Thinkers on Government, Political Power and Democracy, Freedom, Co-operation, and Society Without Government (London, n.d.).

254.  Liberty, VI (September 1, 1888), 1. Tucker was employed on the Boston Globe from 1878 to 1889. He became editor of the Engineering Magazine in New York from 1892 to 1899, also holding the post of associate editor of the New York Home Journal from 1896-1899.

255.  Liberty, IV (July 17, 1886), 1; XI (November 2, 1895), 2.

256.  The collapse of John Swinton’s Paper was followed by the Single Tax Winsted (Conn.) Press, The Alarm, the London Radical, the Denver Labor Enquirer and the San Francisco People, between August, 1887 and the late spring of 1888. The ephemeral nature of the labor and radical press as a whole is one of the chief vexations of the social historian.

257.  Liberty, V (August 27, 1887), 6-7; (December 3, 1887), 6-8; (March 10, 1888), 2-3, 6. State Socialism appeared in other editions, as a pamphlet by Tucker (New York, 1899), and in editions by A. C. Fifield (London, 1911), and Charles W. Bergman (Alpine, Michigan, 1913). For Why I Am An Anarchist, see Twentieth Century Magazine, IV (May 29, 1890), 5-6 and the private editions of Joseph Ishill (Berkeley Heights, N.J., 1934), and Laurance Labadie (Detroit, 1934), on the 80th anniversary of Tucker’s birth.

258.  Liberty, I (May 27, 1882), 1.

259.  Liberty, I (July, 1882), 1.

260.  Horace Träubel, With Walt Whitman in Camden, I, 56. For a recollection by Tucker on his relations with Whitman, see his article in the New York Herald, Paris edition, November 23, 1930.

261.  Liberty, VII (August 16, 1890), 4.

262.  What’s To Be Done? was printed serially between May 17, 1884 and May 1, 1886. Tucker, who translated it from French, declared to his readers that “The Russian Nihilists regard it as a faithful portraiture of themselves.” Tucker met Mackay in Europe while visiting in the summer of 1889. Mackay visited his American friends in 1893, returning to Germany in October of that year. Translations of Mackay’s poems by Harry Lyman Koopman had begun appearing in Liberty the year before. Liberty, VI September 7, 1889), IX (October 9, 1893), 4.

263.  Liberty, IV (January 1, 1887), 4; VI (September 29, 1888), 6-7; (November 10, 1888), 5; (January 5, 1889), 7-8; (October 5, 1889), 6-7; VII (November 15, 1890), 2; (January 2, 1891), 3; (March 7, 1891), 3; VIII August 20, 1892), 2.

Along with literary criticism and translations and quotations from Zola, Ibsen, Tolstoi, Hardy, and Maupassant, Tucker published a 26 column review of Max Nordau’s Degeneration by George Bernard Shaw, in the issue of July 27, 1895, which was later reprinted as a 114 page pamphlet titled The Sanity of Art. Tucker claimed to have introduced Shaw to American readers for the first time with this article, which took up an entire issue of the paper. See George Bernard Shaw to Joseph Ishill, April 16 and September 23, 1936; Benjamin R. Tucker to Rose Freeman Ishill and Joseph Ishill, January 3, 1935 and July 27, 1936, in Ishill (ed.), Free Vistas, II, 273-278.

264.  In addition to Der Arme Teufel see Robert Reitzel, Das Reitzel-Buch (Detroit, 1900), and Des Armen Teufel; Gesammelte Schriften (3 vol. Detroit, 1913). For biographical material consult Adolf E. Zucker, Robert Reitzel (Philadelphia, 1917); same author, “A Monument to Robert Reitzel: Der Arme Teufel, Berlin,” in The Germanic Review, XX (April, 1945), 147-152. See also the sketch by John Hubert Greusel, “ The Poor Devil,’ A Memory of Robert Reitzel,” in Detroit News-Tribune, September 16, 1900. This was later reprinted in pamphlet form by Labadie in 1909.

265.  Advance subscriptions from 24 states and 5 foreign countries amounting to 700 copies had been received by the time publication, in mid-March, 1893. Although this volume was examined, all citations from Tucker or Liberty in this monograph are from a chronological examination of a complete file of the 403 issues of the paper, between August, 1881 and April, 1908. Tucker considered Eltzbacher’s Anarchism “the best book on anarchism ever written by an outsider.” Benjamin Tucker to Henry Bool, May 1, 1901, Tucker MSS., Labadie Collection.

For a report of the speech at Salem, see Liberty, VII (November 15, 1890), 5-6.

266.  Liberty, XIV (November, 1905), 2.

267.  For the first publication of this address see Liberty, XIV (September, 1899), 4; (November, 1899), 5. See also the second appearance in Liberty, XIV (December, 1902), 2-4. Separate pamphlet publications appeared twice, one by Tucker, (New York, 1903), and a private edition, (Detroit, 1933), as well as the official appearance under the auspices of the Conference, Chicago Conference on Trusts, 253-261.

268.  Tucker, The Attitude of Anarchism Toward Industrial Combinations, 11-18. The anarchist theory of the origin of trusts as a logical consequence of the decay of competition must be understood in the light of their interpretation of terms, as in the case of the concept of “competition.” Although “trust” and “monopoly” are often used interchangeably, the anarchist defends his position that the trust is the result of the establishment of the monopoly. This may appear in the form of a land title, franchise, charter or other type of grant through legislative creation, and allowing favored position as the result of control of markets in a geographical area, an overwhelming portion of raw materials, or, as they perennially pointed out, control of the medium of exchange and its consequent delegation into the hands of a few.

269.  Tucker, Atttiude of Anarchism, 20.

270.  Tucker, State Socialism (1911 ed.), 29.

271.  State Socialism (1911 ed.), 30.

272.  Ishill (ed.), Free Vistas, II, 300-301. Tucker hated the linotype machine, and it is believed that he never rode in an automobile in his life. For recent literature on this theme see especially Friedrich Juenger, The Failure of Technology (Hinsdale, III, 1949).

273.  Tucker’s letter to Labadie, in which he expressed the nature of his support, is not known to be in existence. As reprinted in Instead of a Magazine, II (September 15, 1915), 22-23, it read:

“Bool says you wish to know my reasons for favoring the Allies. I favor the Allies because I love the French people, because I pity the Belgian people, because I admire the British influences that make for liberty; because I feel some (tho [sic] I regret to say decreasing) concern for the future of the American people; because I have a considerable sympathy for the people of Russia, and because I hate and fear the German people as a nation of domineering brutes, bent on turning the world into a police-ridden paradise of the Prussian pattern. . . .” Stress is the author’s. For a partial reprint of this letter minus the all-important reference to the French see Charles A. Madison, Critics and Crusaders, 211.

For an earlier communication by Tucker, hoping for the destruction of Germany and speculating on an American entry, see The Spectator, January 30, 1915, pp. 152-153. Max Eastman misunderstood Tucker’s support of the Allies as satire. The Masses, IX (June, 1917), 28-29; (September, 1917), 9.

274.  This letter was reprinted in Ego, (January, 1923), 7-8.

275.  For Tucker’s support of Vanzetti see New Bedford Standard, May 22, 1927.

276.  Tucker to Baskette, August 21, December 29, 1933; June 16, November 7, November 19, December 26, 1934; March 28, 1935. Baskette Collection. The only American of note spoken well of by Tucker was Roger Baldwin. “You were favored in being able to see and hear Roger Baldwin,” he wrote in his last letter to Baskette; “unfortunately I have never had that privilege.” This writer possesses one of the formal printed notices announcing the death and funeral services of Tucker in Monaco.

277.  Mosca, Ruling Classes, 286; Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (New York, 1915), 357-358.

278.  See especially on this subject James Burnham, The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom (New York, 1943), and the depressing analysis by Max Nomad in the introduction to his Apostles of Revolution, 3-11. Nomad’s observation that the leaders and followers alike of radical movements are prone to quickly swing to various versions of reaction is later developed with extremely damaging corroborative evidence. A supplementary work of singular significance is Eric Hoffer, The True Believer; Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (New York, 1951).

• 1 An example of the problem involved in the matter of accurately using such specialized words can be found in the interesting study by Arthur E. Bestor, Jr., “The Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary,” in Journal of the History of Ideas, IX (June, 1948), 259-302.
• 2 Ernest A. Vizetelly, The Anarchists (London, 1911), and Peter Latouche, Anarchy! An Authentic Exposition of the Methods of Anarchists and the Aims of Anarchism (London, 1908), are prime examples of popular writing concerned with anarchism primarily as a program of calculated terrorism aimed in particular to those in high places. Latouche, in his zeal to lay all prominent international political assassinations at the door of the anarchists, even included those of Presidents Lincoln and Garfield. Anarchy!, 238. For vindication of the employment of violence by anarchists, see Peter A. Kropotkin, article “Anarchism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, XI ed., (29 vols. London, 1910), I, 916.
• 3 There is virtually no credible evidence for the assumption that violence is a basic element of the strategy of the anarchists. In distinguishing between the doctrine and the coercive action sometimes associated with it, the non-anarchist German observer and critic Ernst Victor Zenker remarked, “That the theory of Anarchism is not merely a systematic incitement to robbery and murder, we need hardly to repeat. . . . Proudhon and Stirner . . . never once preached force. . . . The doctrine of propaganda which since Proudhon’s time has always accompanied a certain form of anarchist theory, is a foreign element, having no necessary or internal connection with the fundamental ideas of anarchism. It is simply a piece of tactics borrowed from the circumstances peculiar to Russia, and accepted moreover only by one fraction of the Anarchists, and approved by very few indeed in its most crude form; it is merely the old tactics of all revolutionary parties in every age.” Anarchism, a Criticism and History of Anarchist Theory (English translation, New York, 1897), 306.
• 4 Zenker, Anarchism, 6. An early and exhaustive inquiry into the matter is Césare Lombroso, Gli Anarchici (Turin, 1894). A German edition was published in Hamburg the next year under the title Die Anarchisten. Eine Kriminal Psychologische und Sociologische Studie. Lombroso’s methods and techniques as well as most of his conclusions have been discarded for some time.
• 5 Henry David, The History of the Haymarket Affair, continues to be the most thorough account of this unfortunate occurrence. In American history the identification of anarchism with terroristic activities dates from this time, an impression which neither time nor attempts at rectification of the injustice inflicted at the time have succeeded in erasing.
• 6 An accompanying attitude has been the double standard which has tacitly been adhered to with respect to the employment of extra-legal violence. No public condemnation accompanied the use of coercion on the part of industrialists and local groups of citizènry, acting in a vigilante capacity, in disputes with strikers and radicals, until very recently. For an account of this matter see Robert Hunter, Violence and the Labor Movement (New York, 1914), 276-326.
• 7 See especially David W. Petegorsky, Left Wing Democracy in the English Civil War; A Study of the Social Philosophy of Gerrard Winstanley (London, 1947), Chapters I-V, and Mildred A. Gibb, John Lilburne, The Leveller (London, 1947), introduction. See also Mosca, Ruling Classes, 271-272, for the advancement of a cyclical theory dealing with the persistence of anarchist and allied sentiments in the ancient literature of China, India, Persia, Israel, Greece and Rome, and continuing down through the Christian Fathers and the Muslims. The influence of Merriam’s view on subsequent writers dealing with anarchism in the United States is readily observable, however.
• 8 The 1880’s saw the presence in the United States of anarchists in numbers almost equal to those of socialists. Morris Hillquit, Loose Leaves from a Busy Life (New York, 1934), 4.
• 9 For a presentation of this matter as it came to a head at the time of the badly-ignored Anarchist convention in Pittsburgh in 1883, see Chester McA. Destler, “Shall Red and Black Unite? An American Revolutionary Document of 1883,” in Pacific Historical Review, XIV (December, 1945), 434-451.
• 10  For brief expert summaries of both “schools” from the individualist point of view see Victor Yarros, article “Individualist or Philosophical Anarchism,” 41-45, and Clarence Lee Swartz, article “Anarchist Communism,” 45-50, in William D. P. Bliss and Rudolph M. Binder, (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Social Reform (New York, 1908). For an admirable and sympathetic treatment of the European anarchist philosophy and its exponents by a conservative, consult Alvan F. Sanborn, Paris and the Social Revolution (Boston, 1905), Chapters I-VII.
• 11  For other aspects of this conflict consult Ernest Armand, Formas de Vida en común sin Estado no Autoridad (Carlos Espinosa, trans.) (Madrid, 1934); Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture (Los Angeles, 1937); same author, La Juventud de un Rebeide (Buenos Aires, 1947); Helmut Rüdiger, Federalismen (Stockholm, 1947).
• 12The two groups differed sharply on basic issues. The communist anarchists rejected private property, and taught the ideal of the collective autonomous commune. A portion of their number advocated the overthrow of the State by violence. The individualist anarchists held that the collective society in any form was an impossibility without the eventuality of authoritarianism, and ultimately, totalitarianism, and adhered resolutely to the concept of private property insofar as the term could be defined as the total product of a given individual’s labor, but not more broadly than this. They abandoned the idea of an equalitarian utopia, and worked for a world free from arbitrary restrictions on opportunity and legal privilege, which breakdowns they claimed “laissez faire” really produced. No other radical group denounced the prevailing system more vigorously than the spokesmen for individualist anarchism.
• 13The individualist anarchists had no blueprint for the future of social organizations under conditions free from coercion. The direction to be taken by voluntary associations was left for the future, and no predictions of a static millennium filled their writing. The group had within their number adherents to a system of decentralized local communities of small size, and at the same time proponents of free associations of producers and consumers within large urban industrial centers. The best known of this group of native radicals, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, William B. Greene, Ezra Heywood, and Benjamin R. Tucker, came in for a measure of attention during the peak of the furor over radicalism reached at about the time of the Spanish-American War. But the greater part of the attention of the time was focussed on their German and Russian contemporaries, with whom they were already at variance in many respects. Those most familiar with the individualist suggestions for the solution of the currency, labor and other pressing problems dismissed them as the fulminations of a group of irresponsibles, dreamers and cranks. Their work along practical lines at an earlier time was practically unknown in any circles, and much of what they had to say later on was mostly forgotten when the stage was taken over by the Industrial Workers of the World, The Socialist Party and the First International.
• 14.  George Warren, “Josiah Warren,” 1. This brief biographical reminiscence of Warren by his only son is an unpublished manuscript written in Evansville, Indiana in 1893, apparently at the request of Lockwood, who was engaged in preparing his study of the New Harmony communities. See Warren MSS., Workingmen’s Institute, George B. Lockwood to George W. Warren, November 10, 1893. Many of the early dates mentioned in this manuscript have proven inaccurate.
• 15.  George Warren, “Josiah Warren,” above. This lamp was patented February 28, 1821, but Warren paid little attention to this matter after becoming part of the New Harmony community. Dictionary of American Biography, XIX, 483. See also note 80, below.
• 16.  The standard work on Owen’s life is Frank Podmore, Robert Owen, A Biography (2 vols. London, 1906). Other works of value are William L. Sargant, Robert Owen, and His Social Philosophy (London, 1860); Lloyd Jones, The Life, Times, and Labours of Robert Owen (2 vols. London, 1890); G. D. H. Cole, The Life of Robert Owen (London, 1930). Owen’s autobiography, The Life of Robert Owen by Himself (New York edition, 1920), is a valuable source.
• 17.  A brief, concise statement of Owen’s stand on this matter may be found in George Milton Janes, Who Should Have Wealth and Other Papers (Milwaukee, 1925), 48. Owen’s “Five Fundamental Facts of Human Nature” are reproduced by Podmore, Robert Owen, 481-482. Page citations are from the one volume edition (New York, 1910).
• 18.  Owen was born at Newtown, Montgomeryshire, Wales, on May 14, 1771. He purchased and began operating the mills at New Lanark in 1798. See the brief, approved biographical sketch in his periodical The New Moral World (London and Leeds, 1834-1845), I (November 1, 1834), 7. This publication was a continuation of The Crisis (London, 1832-1834), which is an extremely important source for the origin and early operations of the renowned Labor Exchanges. Other indispensable periodicals for material concerning Owen are Robert Owen’s Journal (London, 1850-1852), and Robert Owen’s Millennial Gazette (London, 1856-1858). The biography by Podmore contains the most adequate bibliography of Owen’s works, among the standard treatments, which may be supplemented by National Library of Wales, A Bibliography of Robert Owen, the Socialist 1771-1858 (Aberystwyth, Wales, 1914).
• 19.  A brief account stressing the accomplishments of the Rappites at New Harmony is Jacob Schneck and Richard Owen, The History of New Harmony, Ind. (Evansville, Ind., 1890). See also Lockwood, New Harmony Movement, 19-57; John S. Duss, George Rapp and His Associates (Indianapolis, 1914), an account by a specialist in Rappite history.
• 20.  Podmore, Robert Owen, 288; Lockwood, New Harmony Movement, 75; Robert Dale Owen, Threading My Way. Twenty-Seven Years of Autobiography (New York, 1874), 211. Owen claimed that the purchase price was $140,000. The New Harmony Gazette, II (August 15, 1827), 353.
• 21.  Owen’s brief stopover in Cincinnati on his way to New Harmony on December 9, 1824 did not include a speaking engagement there, according to his son William, who was with him on this journey. Joel W. Hiatt, ed., “Diary of William Owen from November 10, 1824, to April 20, 1825,” in Indiana Historical Society Publications, IV, 61. Owen left New Harmony January 7, 1825, and spoke in Cincinnati on his way to Washington where he addressed the House of Representatives in February and March. Hiatt, ed., “Diary,” 97. For further corroboration consult The Diaries of Donald Mac-Donald 1824-1826 (Indiana Historical Society Publications, vol. XIV) (Indianapolis, 1942), 236, 296.
• 22.  The name of the community was not decided upon at first, the space being left blank in the preamble. Warren’s suggestion that the association adopt the title “Commonwealth of New Harmony” was negatived, and William Owen’s motion that the space remain blank was carried. The name “New Harmony Community of Equality” was adopted February 5, 1826. See “Minutes of the Convention for Forming a Constitution for the Society of New Harmony held Jan. 25, 1826,” February 2, 1826, February 5, 1826. The preamble is reproduced in the minutes for February 1, 1826. In the valuation list prepared at the direction of the select committee on February 8, 1826, Warren and his family were assigned $169 per annum. Warren might have arrived in the spring of 1825. MacDonald reported that several families arrived at New Harmony from Cincinnati between April 13 and April 24, but did not mention Warren specifically. MacDonald Diaries, 292.
• 23.  “When I reached New Harmony, early in 1826, . . . I looked at everything with eyes of enthusiasm. . . . The evening gatherings too, delighted me . . . the weekly concert, with an excellent leader, Josiah Warren, and a performance of music . . . much beyond what I had expected in the backwoods . . .” Robert Dale Owen, “My Experiences of Community Life,” in Atlantic Monthly, XXXII (September, 1873), 338.
• 24.  The first entry of the Warren family in the account book of the community store is dated March 8, 1826. The family pass books have never been located, and constitute another Warren document of considerable interest for which search continues. For a description of the account books see William Pelham to William Creese Pelham, September 7, 1825, in Harlow Lindley, ed., Indiana as Seen by Early Travellers (Indiana Historical Collections, vol. Ill) (Indianapolis, 1916), 371.
• 25.  Warren MSS. notebook, Labadie Collection, University of Michigan, undated, unpaginated. This is another obscure Warren source, unrelated to the series of notebooks which are apparently in the nature of a diary, containing entries through June, 1873, and of which only one has so far been located. See note 13. For mention of the above document elsewhere, consult R. C. Stewart, “The Labadie Labor Collection,” in Michigan Alumnus Quarterly Review, LIII (May 10, 1947), 250.
• 26.  Periodical Letter, II (July, 1856), 55; Warren, Practical Details in Equitable Commerce, showing the workings in actual experiment, during a series of years, of the social principles expounded in the works called “Equitable Commerce” by the author of this and “The Science of Society,” by Stephen P. Andrews, 71, cited hereafter as Practical Details. A second edition from the same plates was published in 1854. Although this book was not published until 1852, some of the material existed in manuscript for twenty-five years before revision and release under the above title. For the most part, this latter work is the principal source of information concerning the decision to leave New Harmony and the events of the three years following. Any account of Warren’s early experiments in social reform is bound to rely upon it heavily.
• 27.  Warren’s views have been summarized adequately in Ely, Labor Movement, 238. A fuller treatment by Warren is contained in Periodical Letter, 2nd. series, I (December, 1856), 34.
• 28.  Periodical Letter, II (July, 1856), 55-56. Dr. Lyman O. Warren has raised some interesting points in speculating upon the intellectual origins of Josiah Warren’s unorthodox thinking. He has called attention to the observation of the famous philosopher George Santayana in his Persons and Places that the Brighton Warrens, of whom Josiah was a member, were “a dissentient family.” Santayana was a boyhood friend of the uncles of Dr. Warren. The record for independent intransigence appears to go back at least as far as his first American ancestors. John Warren of the Arbella is noted in Bond’s History of Watertown as having been arrested on one occasion for nonattendance at church and for harboring Quakers on another. Further investigation into the family prior to migration to America, itself an act of extraordinary self-assertion and independence, might establish a much longer record of nonconformism. A future biographer of Josiah Warren might well consider the pertinence of this durable tradition.
• 29.  Six years after leaving New Harmony, Warren wrote, “It is the influence of surrounding circumstances which . . . divided society into rich and poor, which enables some to command and others unable to do otherwise than obey. It is the influence of circumstances which produces different classes in society, and that influence only, which divides men into different political parties and ranges them under different banners of religion. . . . It will be seen that this knowledge warrants us in making a critical examination into our own condition, and all the circumstances which have surrounded us from birth, to see whether they have been . . . such as are most favorable to our happiness, and it teaches us not to reverence or perpetuate bad circumstances simply because we are born under them. . . . This knowledge therefore lays a broad, rational and consistent foundation for unlimited improvement; . . .” The Peaceful Revolutionist, I (February 5, 1833), 5. This short-lived Warren periodical continues to be considered the first anarchist publication in existence.
• 30.  Warren MSS., Labadie Collection, undated entry in notebook. It is thought from the arrangement of the material that this notebook was intended as reference at impromptu meetings in private homes, where Warren was a more convincing speaker than he was on the public lecture platform.
• 31.  The idea of paper money representing a certain amount of labor rather than a certain precious commodity was held in common and developed separately by several radical economic thinkers in the first half of the nineteenth century as well. Besides Owen in England, similar conceptions on a different scale can be found in the writings of John Gray, A Lecture on Human Happiness (London, 1825); William Thompson, An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness (London, 1824; another edition, 1850); John Francis Bray, Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedy; or, the Age of Might and the Age of Right (Leeds, 1839). Johann Karl Rodbertus in Germany and Pierre Joseph Proudhon in France evolved similar monetary substitutions. Short summaries of their theories can be found in Edward C. K. Gonner, The Social Philosophy of Rodbertus (London, 1899); Dennis W. Brogan, Proudhon (London, 1934); Henry Cohen, Proudhon’s Solution of the Social Problem (New York, 1927). The simplicity of application of this idea by Warren is unique during a time confined almost entirely to theorizing about this matter.
• 32.  These were later published as a bound collection under this title. (Manchester, Eng. 1837). A contemporary edition appeared in London in 1813 under the title A New View of Society; or, Essays on the Principle of the Formation of the Human Character, with separate pagination.
• 33.  Consult Edger A. J. Johnson, Predecessors of Adam Smith (New York, 1937), Chapters XII-XIII, for a development of the background of the labor cost theory. Whether Warren was acquainted with the writings of Adam Smith is not known but unlikely. However Proudhon, developing a similar line of thought to Warren in a French environment, mentioned Smith, along with the Bible and Hegel as his three principal sources of inspiration. Zenker, Anarchism, 35.
• 34.  The following extract from the diary of William Owen, referring to his father’s visit in Kentucky on the way to New Harmony in the late fall of 1824, is of great interest in the effort to assign proper credit for the labor note idea: “We walked through the town-Mayesville [sic] and found a good front and a tolerable second street. Hunter and my father bought mits and Mr. Owen had a bantering conve[r]sation with the storekeeper regarding money and labor notes. He told us that a gallon of whisky, which will make twelve individuals quite drunk, can be bought for 12½ cents.” Hiatt, ed., “Diary of William Owen,” 61. Italics are the present writer’s.
• 35.  John R. Commons and Associates, A Documentary History of Industrial Society, V, 79.
• 36.  Practical Details, 75.
• 37.  It should be remembered that Warren’s continual use of the term “equitable commerce” occurred with the understanding that the word “commerce” was being used in its overall sense as the sum total of human activities and not merely economic considerations alone. There is no doubt that Warren believed that major reforms in the economic sphere were the most important, nevertheless.
• 38.  The first systematic and extended arrangement of Warren’s convictions was his Equitable Commerce: a new developement [sic] of principles for the harmonious adjustment and regulation of the pecuniary, intellectual and moral intercourse of mankind, proposed as elements of New Society (New Harmony, Ind., 1846), hereafter cited as Equitable Commerce.
• 39.  Ely, Labor Movement, 238; Warren, Practical Details, 13.
• 40.  An admirable summation of Warren’s philosophy of individualism is that of Thomas Low Nichols, Forty Years of American Life, II, 39. Nichols’ relations with Warren and the anarchists at “Modern Times” will be found in Chapter III.
• 41.  Warren, Practical Details, 13. Capitalized portions are Warren’s.
• 42.  Practical Details, above.
• 43.  Practical Details, 14.
• 44.  Practical Details, above.
• 45.  On his return to Cincinnati, Warren leased the tract of land bounded by Elm, John, Fifth and Ninth Streets from Nicholas Longworth for 99 years. His return of the lease to Longworth is anomalous, in view of the fact that he still conceived of land as a commodity and subject to purchase and sale. The loss of this tract as a bargaining weapon must have been keenly felt at the time consideration of a colony site was taking place. See George Warren, “Josiah Warren,” 2, for a summary of this curious incident.
• 46.  Practical Details, 14.
• 47.  The earliest proposal for the employment of labor notes in England similar to those which enjoyed widespread use in Warren’s Cincinnati store is that of the Brighton Co-Operative Benevolent Fund Association, in November, 1827, six months after their successful introduction in the Ohio pioneer venture. The operation of the store and the determination of the value of the labor notes differed slightly from that already functioning in America. One of the plates from which the English labor notes were printed is in the collection of the Workingmen’s Institute. See the description of the English plan in Podmore, Robert Owen, 386, quoting from the Cooperative Magazine of November, 1827.
• 48.  Quarterly Letter, I, 6.
• 49.  Quarterly Letter, I, above. The amount charged to pay this item was a variable in Warren’s plan. By the fifth month of the first year the amount added to original cost had been reduced to four per cent. Twenty years later he recommended adding six per cent to the original cost. Practical Details, 22; Equitable Commerce, 61.
• 50.  Practical Details, 15.
• 51.  Practical Details, 29.
• 52.  The Peaceful Revolutionist, I (February 5, 1833), 6. Warren skirted barter economy but briefly, even though he saw nothing particularly invidious about its operation if the need of either party involved did not constitute a margin sufficiently noticeable to promote exploitation one by the other.
• 53.  Quarterly Letter, I, 6.
• 54.  Warren, True Civilization an Immediate Necessity and the Last Ground of Hope for Mankind. Being the Results and Conclusions of Thirty-nine Years’ Laborious Study and Experiments in Civilization as it is, and in Different Enterprises for Reconstruction, 88, hereafter cited as True Civilization an Immediate Necessity; Practical Details, 15.
• 55.  Warren MSS., Labadie Collection, “A Scrap of History,” undated and un-paginated. This brief manuscript appears to be part of another attempted publication, but a comparison with his published works indicates that it remained unused.
• 56.  Practical Details, 24; Peaceful Revolutionist, I (April 5, 1833), 15,
• 57.  The first customer in the time store was Warren’s brother, according to Warren’s account. He recalled prevailing upon him to make the first purchase to start the experiment, “desperate with disappointment and chagrin” at the failure of three friends to make promised transactions. Warren, Practical Details, 17-18. Two weeks after the Time Store opened, the Western Tiller of Cincinnati began publication of a series of eight dispatches, which ran from June 1 through July 27, written by “A Late Member of New Harmony,” and addressed “To the Friends of the Social System,” which, based on the criteria of internal criticism, must be attributed to Warren. These essays are not only prepared in his peculiar style, but amount to a trial run of some of the ideas to be found later in Equitable Commerce.
• 58.  Practical Details, 22, 25, 31.
• 59.  This was Richard Folger, who with John Pickering, were among the earliest supporters of equity. Pickering later broke with Warren at the time of the commencement of “Utopia,” some twenty years later. Practical Details, 33; Periodical Letter, I, 2nd. series, supplement 2, p. 2; Peaceful Revolutionist, II (May, 1848), 13-15.
• 60.  Peaceful Revolutionist, I (February 5, 1833), 6.
• 61.  See Warren’s letter to the Mechanic’s Free Press (Philadelphia, 1827-1831), May 10, 1828, p. 2, quoted in Commons, Documentary History, V, 133-137.
• 62.  Practical Details, 16; Peaceful Revolutionist, I (February 5, 1833), 7.
• 63.  Practical Details, 27, 29.
• 64.  Compare prices reported by Warren in 1827 in Practical Details, 21, 23, 27.
• 65.  The following is a representative example: “Bought three barrels of rice at Haydn & Co’s. auction at 1½ cents a pound, and am selling it out at 1¾, while the customary price for so good an article has uniformly been 8 cents a pound; people are coming from all directions to get it . . .” Practical Details, 26.
• 66.  This has been a controversial point among interested observers, although Warren leaves no doubt about the matter. For confirmation of the three year duration see Peaceful Revolutionist, I (February 5, 1833), 7; The Herald of Equity, I (February, 1841), 6.
• 67.  Practical Details, 40.
• 68.  Practical Details, 23. Saunders later wrote for the Free Enquirer under the pseudonym “Philanthropos.” Free Enquirer, I, new series, (December 31, 1829), 79; Periodical Letter, I, 2nd. series, (January, 1858), 98-101.
• 69.  Ely stated that Warren did a total business of $150,000 during the operation of the time store, but Warren’s contemporary accounts were much more modest than this. In March, 1829 he revealed that he had never utilized more than $4,000 in the proceedings up to that time, and that he had retailed a total of about $30,000 worth of goods. Warren had actually begun the process of liquidation of the store at this time, but shortly revived it again. It is unlikely that his volume quintupled in the next year of operations. Ely, Labor Movement, 239; Practical Details, 31-32.
• 70.  Practical Details, 41.
• 71.  Practical Details, 42.
• 72.  True Civilization an Immediate Necessity, 107-108.
• 73.  Practical Details, 43.
• 74.  The fullest work on the most famous of Owen’s sons is Richard W. Leopold, Robert Dale Owen, A Biography (Cambridge, Mass., 1940). This stresses his later life as an Indiana political figure and convert to spiritualism and largely dismisses his activities as a reformer and freethinker. For another treatment with differing interpretations see Elinor Pancoast and Anne E. Lincoln, The Incorrigible Idealist, Robert Dale Owen in America (Bloomington, Ind., 1940).
• 75.  The most recent work of extensive character is the sympathetic study by Alice J. G. Perkins and Theresa Wolf son, Frances Wright, Free Enquirer (New York, 1939). Of considerable use also is William R. Waterman, Frances Wright (Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, vol. CXV, no. 1) (New York, 1924).
• 76.  A valuable account of this journal may be found in Frank Luther Mott, A History of American Magazines 1741-1850 (Cambridge, Mass., 1939), 536-538.
• 77.  This was also true of Philadelphia, where The Mechanic’s Free Press had already made Warren’s views known to the workingmen of the city. Three stores involving Warren’s plan had begun operating in this city before the Cincinnati store completed its second year. Mechanic’s Free Press, May 17, September 20, 1828; March 14, 1829.
• 78.  Practical Details, 43.
• 79.  Bailie, Josiah Warren, 25.
• 80.  Waterman notes the influence of Warren in Frances Wright’s proposed reconstruction of society. Frances Wright, 251. When the two first became acquainted is uncertain; no evidence exists to support the contention that their association dates from New Harmony days, as Warren undoubtedly left the colony before Fanny’s residence was established. However, they had begun exchanging ideas in Cincinnati before she left for New York. Shortly before Warren undertook his own trip to the East, she recalled being at his home in Cincinnati in 1828, the occasion for this comment being the appearance of a lamp in the New York scene which she claimed was a theft of the earlier one patented by Warren in 1821. The Free Enquirer, II (May 22, 1830), 240. See also her favorable sketch of Warren and his accomplishments in The Free Enquirer, II (October 23, 1830), 412. It is interesting to observe that this comment, somewhat uncritical and ignorant of several facts concerning the Warren venture, was written after he had left New York and returned to the West. There is no indication that Robert Dale Owen had lost any confidence in the eventual success of a coöperative village from the spirit of this communication.
• 81.  Warren’s short notice was headed “To the Friends of the Equal Exchange of Labor in the West” and was dated July 4, 1830. The Free Enquirer, II (July 17, 1830), 301-302.
• 82.  The old clay cast method was employed in constructing the stereotype plate, and the substitution of a mixture of shellac, tar and sand for type metal was an unusual departure. Still another mixture, consisting of clay, sand, beeswax, tallow, oil, gum arabic and stearine for the purpose of making fine-surface engravings was also perfected at this time. For a comparison with the earlier stereotyping devices, see Thomas Hodgson, An Essay on the Origin and Progress of Stereotype Printing (Newcastle, England, 1820), 13-14; Theodore L. De Vinne, Printing in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1924), 6; New Harmony Gazette, I, 255, the latter for a description of the Lanefelder process developed in Austria in 1826, which aroused the attention of the Owenites while Warren was a member of the community.
• 83.  A full description of the compositions involved can be found in Kubler, History of Stereotyping, 301.
• 84.  Warren’s first work, A New System of Musical Notation, published in New Harmony, was closely followed by the other that same year, A Collection of the Most Popular Church Music Written Upon Geometric or Scientific Principles, a group of excerpts from 56 popular church hymns of the 1840’s printed in a form adapted for use by brass bands. Speaking of his father’s innovation, George Warren, himself a widely known band leader in southern Indiana in later years, explained, “He dispensed with the sharp and flat signatures, and the tier and length of the stem gave the length of the note, and the piano or forte power was designated by the size of the note itself.” “Josiah Warren,” 4-5.
• 85.  Patent No. 4479 on “Composition for Stereotype Plates” was issued to Warren on April 25, 1846. C. S. Partridge, Stereotyping the Papier Mache Process (Chicago, 1892), 130. A certified copy of this patent, signed and sealed by Thomas Eubank, Commissioner of Patents, August 26, 1850, is in the Warren MSS. in the Workingmen’s Institute Library.
• 86.  Herbert A. Kellar, Solon Robinson Pioneer and Agriculturist (Indiana Historical Collections, vol. XXI) (2 vols. Indianapolis, 1936), II, 504-507. For references to Warren’s process in other papers see Prairie Farmer, V (June, 1845), 155-156; Daily Cincinnati Gazette, July 23, July 30, 1845; Indiana Statesman, July 26, September 13, September 20, October 4, 1845, the latter issues also carrying reprints from articles on this subject in the New York Sun, New York Morning News, Vincennes (Ind.) Gazette and Princeton (Ind.) Chronicle. Other notices appeared from time to time in other stopping-off places along Robinson’s route, including Evansville, and Shawneetown, Illinois.
• 87.  Indiana Statesman, July 4, August 16, October 11, December 27, 1845; January 31, February 14, 1846. The cut in the last issue cited was a superb five column spread, eight inches high, of the map of the disputed Oregon Territory.
• 88.  One of Waren’s interesting controversies was that carried on with the editor of the Indiana Statesman, during the time following the closing of the New Harmony time store. Although he respected Warren as a technical innovator in the printing and engraving field, Burns refused to print his articles on the labor exchange, calling them “long-winded stories,” and marvelling that in the obscurity Warren was able to develop any kind of a clearly expressed idea. Indiana Statesman, February 15, 1845.
• 89.  The title page carried the date 1846 as the date of publication. All citations below are from this rare original edition unless otherwise noted. A selection from this edition is included in Irving Mark and Eugene L. Schwab, (eds.), The Faith of Our Fathers; An Anthology of Americana, 1790-1860 (New York, 1952), 380-384.
• 90.  A second edition appeared in 1849 while Warren was at “Utopia” (Smith’s Landing), Ohio, while a third was published in New York in 1852. A slightly altered version, with the addition of an editor’s preface and a different appendix, under the title True Civilization: A Subject of Vital and Serious Interest to All People but Most Immediately to Men and Women of Labor and Sorrow, printed under Warren’s direction in diffondale, Mass., in 1869, became the fourth appearance of this work. The fifth edition, posthumously released by Benjamin Tucker at Princeton, Mass., in 1875 bore the same title and content as the 1869 edition. Other Warren works incorporated the first two words of the title of this latter version, which has been the cause of a considerable amount of confusion among bibliographers.
• 91.  Equitable Commerce, introduction, iii.
• 92.  The five basic principles of the Warrenite community were re-phrased a number of times, receiving their most concise statement in 1863:
• 93.  Equitable Commerce, 10.
• 94.  “The security of person and property requires that each and every individual should be the supreme law to himself and his own. That one should have no power over another’s person or property.” Equitable Commerce, 24.
• 95.  Warren believed that the fact that human beings were characterized by individual peculiarities and that it still was acknowledged and remained “un-smothered” made this the starting place for what he termed the “ascent towards order and harmony.” Equitable Commerce, 4.
• 96.  Equitable Commerce, 4-5.
• 97.  Equitable Commerce, 7.
• 98.  Warren averred that the term “sovereignty of the people” could mean nothing else except the sovereignty of each individual; “Where is the sovereignty of a people when the sovereignty of every individual is surrendered to votes of majorities, or to a few men appointed to interpret and administer laws and institutions?” Practical Details, 40.
• 99.  Equitable Commerce, 23.
• 100.  Warren was unconvinced that statute law had produced any decline in the number of violent crimes. He inveighed against capital punishment for murder as just another variety of murder, an act which did not perform the function of a deterrent to fresh crimes of the same type. Equitable Commerce, 22.
• 101.  Warren accused governments of having been responsible for more bloodshed and violence throughout history than could have possibly occurred in the absence of all governments. The indictment of government as an agent of destruction and mass murder has become a much-repeated anarchist arraignment in almost every land which has developed an anarchist press. Equitable Commerce, 19.
• 102.  Equitable Commerce, 22, 24.
• 103.  “. . . neither rulers nor ruled can tell how the laws will be interpreted or administered till they have been repeatedly infringed and punishment has been inflicted,” Warren observed, seeking to discover the precise moment when law began to disintegrate. Equitable Commerce, 20.
• 104.  Wars he described as “probably the greatest of all destroyers of property,” and professed to be able to find only two roots from which all wars had originated; “direct or indirect plunder” and “the privilege of governing.” Warren denied the right of any government to force its citizens to fight against their will. Equitable Commerce, 21, 44.
• 105.  Equitable Commerce, 27-28. The right to complete individual freedom, according to Warrenite principle, was qualified only by the responsibility of each to respect the individuality of each. Infringement of another’s sovereignty carried with it all consequences of such action. Warren believed that a harmonious society was impossible unless each member became individually responsible for his acts. The similarity of Warren and Herbert Spencer’s later “law of equal freedom” can be detected at this point, despite the divergent points of origin.
• 106.  Warren made no distinction between “government” and “state” as the classic anarchist writers of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries have generally done; a connotation of voluntarism has been imparted to the former and coercion to the latter of these terms.
• 107.  Equitable Commerce, 30-31.
• 108.  Equitable Commerce, 25, 28. There is no existing evidence that Warren at any time was a believer in biological or racial inequality.
• 109.  Equitable Commerce, 16, 41-42. It is important to observe the change in Warren’s attitude toward organized religion in the twenty years between the first time store and the publication of the first summary of his social philosophy. Once non-committal, he now classed all churchmen as non-producers with a personal interest in the preservation of the existing order.
• 110.  Equitable Commerce, 27, 31.
• 111.  Equitable Commerce, 34. Warren intimated that the existing basis of the “present” system of exchanges was more ideological than scientific, unworthy of satisfactory apology or incapable of prolonged resistance to an opposing system.
• 112.  Warren admitted that his idea of individual sovereignty would produce chaos if attempts were made to force it to function within the national state system, but he believed that it would prove successful in a world lacking national consciousness. Equitable Commerce, 24.
• 113.  Equitable Commerce, 26.
• 114.  Equitable Commerce, 67. The MacDonald Diaries reveal that Owen suggested a maximum community population of about 2000 while on board ship bound for America in the fall of 1824.
• 115.  Thus he gave voice to the complaint of the bilked consumer everywhere; “. . . there is scarcely an article of food, clothing, tools, or medicines that is fit for use . . . the vender does not make them but imports them beyond the reach of responsibility.” Equitable Commerce, 42-43.
• 116.  Equitable Commerce, 11-12, 17, 40-41, 45. Warren’s conception of machines was not as producers of unemployment but as reducers of the work day for all and social engines whose output should be shared on an equitable plan.
• 117.  Equitable Commerce, 41-42.
• 118.  Equitable Commerce, 16-17. His opposition to the taking of interest on money was as rigid as to the stand on rent.
• 119.  Equitable Commerce, 44-45. The occupation-and-use concept of land was a product of later theorists in the individualist anarchist group.
• 120.  “We must admit the claims of the hardest labor to the highest reward, or we deny our own rights, extinguish the little light we have obtained, and throw everything back into confusion.” Equitable Commerce, 52.
• 121.  Equitable Commerce, 77.
• 122.  Equitable Commerce, 75.
• 123.  Greene thought very highly of Proudhon, although critical of some character traits; “He was too fond of vainglorious distinction and notoriety, and his amiability . . . led him too often, notwithstanding the violence of his writings, to listen favorably to proposals of compromise for the sake of peace and friendship.” The Word, II (April, 1874), 4.
• 124.  Mutual Banking (1850 ed.), 3 6-38.
• 125.  Mutual Banking (1850 ed.), 27-28; Radical Deficiency, introduction, vii, xi, xix; Higginson, Yesterdays, 175-176; The Word, XVIII (December, 1889), 2; Spirit of the Age, II, 51-52, 61, 69-71.
• 126.  See his published works on the subject; An Expository Sketch of a New Theory of Calculus (Paris, 1859); Explanation of the Theory of Calculus (Boston, 1870).
• 127.  Equality, 55-56.
• 128.  Equality, 73. Greene used the word “accident” in a way which might be applied to circumstances, environment, or to both.
• 129.  Equality, 70-71.
• 130.  Greene introduced over 30 separate petitions signed by several thousand women requesting permission to vote on the amendments and alterations to the state constitution. Consult appendices in Official Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the State Convention, Assembled May 4th, 1853, to Revise and Amend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (3 vols. Boston, 1853); Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Begun and Held in Boston on the Fourth Day of May, 1853 (Boston, 1853).
• 131.  Higginson is responsible for the account describing Greene’s resignation from the Union Army as the result of a political quarrel. Conflicting stories are found in other sources. See Record of the Massachusetts Volunteers, 18611865 (2 vols. Boston, 1868), I, 470; James L. Bowen, Massachusetts in the War 1861-1865 (Springfield, Mass., 1889), 250, 724; Massachusetts Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines in the Civil War (7 vols. Norwood, Mass., 1932), V, 554-556.
• 132.  Greene reprinted a translation of Proudhon’s famous essay, The State, from the Voix du Peuple of December 3, 1849, in which the latter first used the term “anarchy” as a synonym for the stateless society, in The Word, I (August, 1872), 2.
• 133.  The Word, IV (March, 1876), 3.
• 134.  Fragments, 227. See pp. 237-261 in same work for a verbatim account of the address delivered before the N. E. L. R. L.
• 135.  His translation of Proudhon’s What Is Property? began appearing in The Word in January, 1874, at which time he declared, “You will perceive that Proudhon and our friend Josiah Warren smite on substantially the same anvil.” Warren abruptly repudiated the comparison. The Word, II (January, 1874), 4; The Word, II (March, 1874), 2. It would appear that Warren was aware of Proudhon two decades before this. In the first number of the Periodical Letter, I (July, 1854), 22, Warren wrote the following: “It has been said by ‘Reformers’ that ‘all property was robbery’ but this idea followed out would give every one as much claim upon the products of labor as the producer himself had—of course this would constitute universal robbery and world wide confusion.” It would appear from the context that Warren was referring to Proudhon’s Qu’est ce que la Propriete? but it is unlikely that he had read this work, and would have to be charged with misunderstanding Proudhon’s position.
• 136.  The most famous of these petitions, that of April 6, 1873, signed by John Orvis, William B. Wright, Greene, Heywood and Tucker, is reprinted in Fragments, appendix. See also The Word, II (May, 1873), 2.
• 137.  See obituary in The Word, VII (July, 1878), 2.
• 138.  The most recent edition is that of the Modern Publishers of Indore, India, under the auspices of the Indian Sociological Review, in 1946.
• 139His association with the growing number of Tuckerites stimulated him to even more drastic repudiations of the state. He inveighed against the right of the state to take the life of anyone, or interfere with men’s individual private contracts, or erect monopolies of land or money to the benefit of some at the expense of others. He went on to ridicule the concept of “public rights,” as he had long before, and several other generalities and platitudes from the Cleveland inaugural speech. He denied the existence of a “public trust,” generally cited as the well-spring of authority vested in the presidency, and declared that the devotion to the “public welfare” would inevitably lead to the destruction of men’s individual rights under the guise of promoting their prosperity. He reserved his most eloquent contempt for the party system, which he thought a type of game which stimulated artificial relationships of antagonism among men naturally undisposed to belligerency, promoting synthetic conflict for the purpose of aggrandizing crafty leaders. In no less vigorous manner did he depreciate the activities transpiring in what the President had described as “the halls of national legislation.” To Spooner these were mere cockpits to which the lawmakers invited the representatives of all conceivable conflicting interests, where the former might “favor or oppose, . . . according as they can better serve their own personal interests and ambitions by doing the one or the other.” At the same time, he commented acidly on the patronizing attitude of the political elements in taking credit for such material prosperity as was enjoyed, while continuing the process of vitiating the efforts of non-political individuals and encouraging an increasing degree of dependence upon the ability of the government, now fully engaged in supplying a favorable state of affairs wherein the favored monopolies might function.
• 140It has been evident to thoughtful observers for more than two generations that the words “anarchist,” “anarchism,” and “anarchy” have been used so loosely by writers and the general public alike that they have practically ceased to have any definite meaning. The problem here is similar to that existing in many other cases where abstract terms or generalizations having no or little substance have been overused or misused. Nor has the use of these terms by scholars tended to promote any greater degree of understanding. In too many cases the tendency has been to resemble the weaknesses of the general observer. Here the situation has been usually created by the repeated interpretation of expressions of hostility to the status quo as evidence of anarchist thought.
• 141It has been evident to thoughtful observers for more than two generations that the words “anarchist,” “anarchism,” and “anarchy” have been used so loosely by writers and the general public alike that they have practically ceased to have any definite meaning. The problem here is similar to that existing in many other cases where abstract terms or generalizations having no or little substance have been overused or misused. Nor has the use of these terms by scholars tended to promote any greater degree of understanding. In too many cases the tendency has been to resemble the weaknesses of the general observer. Here the situation has been usually created by the repeated interpretation of expressions of hostility to the status quo as evidence of anarchist thought.
• 142The idea has long been prevalent that violent conduct is characteristic of anarchists, and that anarchism is a doctrine of destruction. There exists little justification for such a stand, in actuality. In addition, the rejection of one particular variety of authority in favor of its replacement by another finds continual identification with anarchism, while social philosophies which are utterly opposed to it are on occasion labeled “anarchistic.” This merely adds to the already large amount of confusion existing on the subject, setting up extremely vague limitations and permitting the inclusion of many elements which are quite controversial.
• 143Since 1880 and thereabouts people have almost universally thought of anarchists in terms of violence and conspiracy. The result has been the regarding of anarchist literature as a product of a handful of criminals. In Europe the advent of this revolutionary movement was accompanied by a number of sensational acts which led to the identification of anarchism with socially pathological developments. In the United States there have been similar implications, to the point where even governmental policy incorporated the layman’s conception of anarchism and anarchists. The definition of anarchism employed by the Department of Justice in modern times is essentially derived from this earlier period.
• 144Although the tendency to blame destruction of property and loss of life during industrial disputes on “agitators,” “doctrinaires,” and “communists” prevailed for some time previous to the celebrated Haymarket incident in Chicago in May, 1886, such predilections received a powerful stimulus from this event. The now-familiar stereotype of the black whiskered, bomb-throwing vandal came into being at this time and created a new political symbol which has been used to manipulate mass opinion with an impressive degree of success. As a consequence of this and other factors, anarchism became so tainted with diabolism that rational study of its place in American history has rarely taken place.
• 145Although the tendency to blame destruction of property and loss of life during industrial disputes on “agitators,” “doctrinaires,” and “communists” prevailed for some time previous to the celebrated Haymarket incident in Chicago in May, 1886, such predilections received a powerful stimulus from this event. The now-familiar stereotype of the black whiskered, bomb-throwing vandal came into being at this time and created a new political symbol which has been used to manipulate mass opinion with an impressive degree of success. As a consequence of this and other factors, anarchism became so tainted with diabolism that rational study of its place in American history has rarely taken place.
• 146The attempt to link these varied phenomena into a logical sequence has been undertaken by others as well, with less success. It now appears that the assumption that American anarchism stemmed from Puritan Antinomianism and was associated with the peculiar variety of resistance to the state found in the non-resistant and “no government” sentiments of the Garrison school of “Christian Anarchist” abolitionists is untenable. It is more probable that, rather than being a derivative of native American conditions, the real source of the anti-statist evidences observed in Antinomianism and other varieties of early colonial dissidence and unrest can be discovered in the radicalism, both religious and socio-economic, already developing in England before the times of Charles I, and which found expression through lower class spokesmen at the time of the English Civil War. Concerning other aspects of this matter, it can be argued quite effectively that the designation “Christian Anarchist” is really a contradiction in terms, and that religious rebellion along individualist lines can be interpreted as anarchism only under highly specialized circumstances. The rejection of one variety of religious authority in favor of its replacement by another can hardly be related to anarchism, which categorically rejects authority. In another connection, the interpretation of American anti-statism as an evolutionary process, passing from religious to economic spheres, is also open to serious objections. There is not only lack of continuity in influence, but no logical sequence in the elaboration of a program of propaganda. In searching the field it becomes more apparent that the elements of a radical movement with a fully developed propaganda structure can be found in one of the sub-areas only. It is the contention of this work that individualist anarchism can be seen to satisfy the requirements mentioned elsewhere. Not only is it the only part of the radical movement native to America with a propaganda, but it has depended on natives for its promotion. Furthermore, it is unique in that members of the group actually attempted under practical conditions to try out its theory.
• 147In the United States there seems to have been little notice of an extensive literature hostile to the state and its functions until after Haymarket. The dominant conception of anarchism after the violence in Chicago was in accord with the inflammatory utterances of the European-born revolutionaries now gathered in the several large Northern cities. Lack of attention had resulted in the failure to note that a serious split had been developing within the worldwide anarchist movement, and that various distinct elements could now be recognized.
• 148The semantic smokescreen raised up by the moral uproar here and overseas after Haymarket and a number of sensational assassinations in Europe covered over in the process the uncompromising stand taken by the American individualist anarchists, who deplored the use of force, or “direct action,” and asserted as before their traditional hope of the eventual adoption of noncoercive individualist equity as a result of education and rational conviction. Much of what they had to say had been propagated here for nearly a half century before there developed a competing body of beliefs put forward by followers of Bakunin and Kropotkin. In the form in which it appeared during the 80’s and 90’s, but especially as broadcast by Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman and other Russians after the turn of the century, it is possible to see emerging the full outlines of what has since become known as communist anarchism. It has since received its best statement by Italian and Spanish radicals. (Further examination of the famed Haymarket Germans suggests a serious question as to whether these men were not far closer to state socialism, actually, than anarchism.)
• 149The semantic smokescreen raised up by the moral uproar here and overseas after Haymarket and a number of sensational assassinations in Europe covered over in the process the uncompromising stand taken by the American individualist anarchists, who deplored the use of force, or “direct action,” and asserted as before their traditional hope of the eventual adoption of noncoercive individualist equity as a result of education and rational conviction. Much of what they had to say had been propagated here for nearly a half century before there developed a competing body of beliefs put forward by followers of Bakunin and Kropotkin. In the form in which it appeared during the 80’s and 90’s, but especially as broadcast by Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman and other Russians after the turn of the century, it is possible to see emerging the full outlines of what has since become known as communist anarchism. It has since received its best statement by Italian and Spanish radicals. (Further examination of the famed Haymarket Germans suggests a serious question as to whether these men were not far closer to state socialism, actually, than anarchism.)
• 150The two groups differed sharply on basic issues. The communist anarchists rejected private property, and taught the ideal of the collective autonomous commune. A portion of their number advocated the overthrow of the State by violence. The individualist anarchists held that the collective society in any form was an impossibility without the eventuality of authoritarianism, and ultimately, totalitarianism, and adhered resolutely to the concept of private property insofar as the term could be defined as the total product of a given individual’s labor, but not more broadly than this. They abandoned the idea of an equalitarian utopia, and worked for a world free from arbitrary restrictions on opportunity and legal privilege, which breakdowns they claimed “laissez faire” really produced. No other radical group denounced the prevailing system more vigorously than the spokesmen for individualist anarchism.
• 151  “In a world where inequality of ability is inevitable, anarchists do not sanction any attempt to produce equality by artificial or authoritarian means. The only equality they posit and will strive their utmost to defend is the equality of opportunity. This necessitates the maximum amount of freedom for each individual. This will not necessarily result in equality of incomes or of wealth but will result in returns proportionate to service rendered. To base society on the supposition that the laborer of great capacity will content himself, in favor of the weak, with half his wages, furnish his services gratuitously, and produce for that abstraction called “society,” in the words of Proudhon, ‘is to base society on a sentiment, . . . which, erected systematically into a principle, is only a false virtue, a dangerous hypocrisy.’ A hypocrisy, unfortunately, eagerly subscribed to by a weak, downtrodden, and misguided portion of the populace.” Quoted from Laurance Labadie, Anarchism Applied to Economics (a leaflet). Emphasized portions are his.
• 152  For example, the presence at the Warrenite colony of “Modern Times” of such a wide variety of the most extreme types of unconventional behavior has resulted in the estimation of this experiment in anarchist voluntarism as a gathering of spiritualists, Fourierites, free lovers, Comtean Positivists, and even Swedenborgians. Scarcity of contemporary accounts is in a large way responsible for the confusion of interpretations.
• 153The details concerning Warren’s birthplace and parentage are still obscure. Beyond the knowledge of his birth in 1798, practically nothing of an authoritative nature exists. One thing is quite definite, nevertheless; sharing an illustrious colonial name did not mean a similar sharing of the general good fortune of the Warren clan. The year 1819 found him making the familiar trek westward and southward down the Ohio which a vast number of Americans continued to make until the midway point in the century was reached, with the principal aim in view of bettering their economic conditions. Warren and an elder brother, George, had shown considerable promise as musicians while still very young, and had become members of the “Old Boston Brigade Band” while still boys of school age. When he and his recently-acquired wife settled in Cincinnati, Josiah continued to earn his livelihood as a musician and teacher of music, an activity he never completely deserted.
• 154The change of locale seems to have sharpened a native inventive genius. Here he began a restless career of invention and innovation in the fields of illumination, printing-press manufacture, stereotyping and musical notation worthy of closer examination in connection with contributions of the Ohio valley to the growing industrial consciousness of the nation. His first contribution was a lamp of revolutionary construction, devised to burn lard instead of the much costlier tallow. It had unusual success, and led to the construction and operation of a factory devoted to its production which prospered, lard oil not yet being known.
• 155It is highly probable that with this background and bent, Josiah Warren might have become one of the early men of wealth in the growing Midwest, had not the personality of Robert Owen intruded and so impressed him with the exciting and disturbing spirit of social reform. Owen’s attempt to remake the pattern of mankind’s affairs is doubtless an occurrence without comparison in the social history of the new West. One of the few early industrial millionaires, the Welsh textile magnate and philanthropist conceived of a new world on a scale which was lavish far beyond the imagination of his time.
• 156Owen was an environmental determinist. Beginning with the assumption that human nature was a constant, he related all behavior patterns to subsequent reactions to environmental forces. The core of his doctrine was that man’s character was a product of exterior stress which he as an individual had no appreciable part in forming. Thus the social system was responsible for its wayward folk, and desirable modes of conduct could be brought about by proper education and supervision. Owen decried the idea of personal responsibility, believing the tenet absurd and productive only of harm; praise and blame on a personal level formed no part of his working social vocabulary.
• 157Having already partially developed his environmental thesis in his model factory town of New Lanark, Scotland, which enjoyed unsurpassed living and working conditions, Owen was determined to put it into operation on an even more striking level, with a new continent as a backdrop. He purchased the colony of Harmony, Indiana from its founders and occupants, a divergent German Lutheran sect known as Rappites. A communal venture with a deeply religious flavor, this group had developed an extensive and strikingly productive estate out of raw wilderness on the Indiana bank of the Wabash River some fifty miles upstream from its juncture with the Ohio. Desiring once more to return to their earlier home in western Pennsylvania, they sold the tract of 30,000 acres of land and the sturdy buildings thereon to Owen for the sum of $150,000. He then renamed it New Harmony and brought in settlers sympathetic to his philosophy and anxious to experience practical success. It was the largest and most promising experiment in environmentalism in the nineteenth century.
• 158Having already partially developed his environmental thesis in his model factory town of New Lanark, Scotland, which enjoyed unsurpassed living and working conditions, Owen was determined to put it into operation on an even more striking level, with a new continent as a backdrop. He purchased the colony of Harmony, Indiana from its founders and occupants, a divergent German Lutheran sect known as Rappites. A communal venture with a deeply religious flavor, this group had developed an extensive and strikingly productive estate out of raw wilderness on the Indiana bank of the Wabash River some fifty miles upstream from its juncture with the Ohio. Desiring once more to return to their earlier home in western Pennsylvania, they sold the tract of 30,000 acres of land and the sturdy buildings thereon to Owen for the sum of $150,000. He then renamed it New Harmony and brought in settlers sympathetic to his philosophy and anxious to experience practical success. It was the largest and most promising experiment in environmentalism in the nineteenth century.
• 159Having already partially developed his environmental thesis in his model factory town of New Lanark, Scotland, which enjoyed unsurpassed living and working conditions, Owen was determined to put it into operation on an even more striking level, with a new continent as a backdrop. He purchased the colony of Harmony, Indiana from its founders and occupants, a divergent German Lutheran sect known as Rappites. A communal venture with a deeply religious flavor, this group had developed an extensive and strikingly productive estate out of raw wilderness on the Indiana bank of the Wabash River some fifty miles upstream from its juncture with the Ohio. Desiring once more to return to their earlier home in western Pennsylvania, they sold the tract of 30,000 acres of land and the sturdy buildings thereon to Owen for the sum of $150,000. He then renamed it New Harmony and brought in settlers sympathetic to his philosophy and anxious to experience practical success. It was the largest and most promising experiment in environmentalism in the nineteenth century.
• 160Warren was to know the exhilaration and dejection of the founding and decline of the Owenite interlude at New Harmony before striking out on his own as a social radical. Although unable to hear Owen speak until 1825, he was a member of the first group gathering for the purpose of forming a community of property at the appointed place. By the fall of this same year he was taking active party in the Preliminary Society, and was a participant in the drafting and approving of the first constitution of the New Harmony Community of Equality in February, 1826. His musical training was soon employed; as leader of the community’s band, he was long remembered by the first settlers. By the late winter Warren, his wife and baby daughter were an established family unit of the settlement, and were to remain there for over a year.
• 161Warren was to know the exhilaration and dejection of the founding and decline of the Owenite interlude at New Harmony before striking out on his own as a social radical. Although unable to hear Owen speak until 1825, he was a member of the first group gathering for the purpose of forming a community of property at the appointed place. By the fall of this same year he was taking active party in the Preliminary Society, and was a participant in the drafting and approving of the first constitution of the New Harmony Community of Equality in February, 1826. His musical training was soon employed; as leader of the community’s band, he was long remembered by the first settlers. By the late winter Warren, his wife and baby daughter were an established family unit of the settlement, and were to remain there for over a year.
• 162Warren was to know the exhilaration and dejection of the founding and decline of the Owenite interlude at New Harmony before striking out on his own as a social radical. Although unable to hear Owen speak until 1825, he was a member of the first group gathering for the purpose of forming a community of property at the appointed place. By the fall of this same year he was taking active party in the Preliminary Society, and was a participant in the drafting and approving of the first constitution of the New Harmony Community of Equality in February, 1826. His musical training was soon employed; as leader of the community’s band, he was long remembered by the first settlers. By the late winter Warren, his wife and baby daughter were an established family unit of the settlement, and were to remain there for over a year.
• 163Warren was to know the exhilaration and dejection of the founding and decline of the Owenite interlude at New Harmony before striking out on his own as a social radical. Although unable to hear Owen speak until 1825, he was a member of the first group gathering for the purpose of forming a community of property at the appointed place. By the fall of this same year he was taking active party in the Preliminary Society, and was a participant in the drafting and approving of the first constitution of the New Harmony Community of Equality in February, 1826. His musical training was soon employed; as leader of the community’s band, he was long remembered by the first settlers. By the late winter Warren, his wife and baby daughter were an established family unit of the settlement, and were to remain there for over a year.
• 164Warren made a quick and incisive deduction as to the cause of the debacle which placed him at once in a camp far removed from that in which the faithful Owenites would henceforth gather. He felt that the common property scheme of the New Harmony colony had been instituted by Owen as a means and not as an end; that what had been desired was a social situation in which the interests of the different individuals would coöperate instead of clash one with the other. Even though thirty years of retrospection upon the experience continued to bring back pleasant memories of what had transpired there, the management of financial and property affairs convinced him of the failure of their mission; “but for property considerations the experiments never would have commenced,” was his pithy summation of the situation. Why did an amicable settlement of material affairs fail to become a reality? Warren blamed it upon the submergence of the individual within the confines of the community. The consequences of such a procedure, said Warren, were inevitable. Not only was individual initiative stifled by failure to provide a place within the structure for personal rights and interests beyond the sphere of religious matters, but the elimination of individual property rights resulted in almost total dissipation of responsibility for the occurrence of individual incapacity, failure, and short-comings of other kinds. This was not all. He had noted that the expressions of natural differences of opinion were increasingly looked upon as unfortunate developments and obstacles to success, which had damaging effect on the continuance of courtesy and tolerance. Thus, despite frequent reorganizations, failures became more abrupt and chaos drew nearer. Warren summed up the whole matter in one vigorous outburst:
• 165Warren made a quick and incisive deduction as to the cause of the debacle which placed him at once in a camp far removed from that in which the faithful Owenites would henceforth gather. He felt that the common property scheme of the New Harmony colony had been instituted by Owen as a means and not as an end; that what had been desired was a social situation in which the interests of the different individuals would coöperate instead of clash one with the other. Even though thirty years of retrospection upon the experience continued to bring back pleasant memories of what had transpired there, the management of financial and property affairs convinced him of the failure of their mission; “but for property considerations the experiments never would have commenced,” was his pithy summation of the situation. Why did an amicable settlement of material affairs fail to become a reality? Warren blamed it upon the submergence of the individual within the confines of the community. The consequences of such a procedure, said Warren, were inevitable. Not only was individual initiative stifled by failure to provide a place within the structure for personal rights and interests beyond the sphere of religious matters, but the elimination of individual property rights resulted in almost total dissipation of responsibility for the occurrence of individual incapacity, failure, and short-comings of other kinds. This was not all. He had noted that the expressions of natural differences of opinion were increasingly looked upon as unfortunate developments and obstacles to success, which had damaging effect on the continuance of courtesy and tolerance. Thus, despite frequent reorganizations, failures became more abrupt and chaos drew nearer. Warren summed up the whole matter in one vigorous outburst:
• 166Warren made a quick and incisive deduction as to the cause of the debacle which placed him at once in a camp far removed from that in which the faithful Owenites would henceforth gather. He felt that the common property scheme of the New Harmony colony had been instituted by Owen as a means and not as an end; that what had been desired was a social situation in which the interests of the different individuals would coöperate instead of clash one with the other. Even though thirty years of retrospection upon the experience continued to bring back pleasant memories of what had transpired there, the management of financial and property affairs convinced him of the failure of their mission; “but for property considerations the experiments never would have commenced,” was his pithy summation of the situation. Why did an amicable settlement of material affairs fail to become a reality? Warren blamed it upon the submergence of the individual within the confines of the community. The consequences of such a procedure, said Warren, were inevitable. Not only was individual initiative stifled by failure to provide a place within the structure for personal rights and interests beyond the sphere of religious matters, but the elimination of individual property rights resulted in almost total dissipation of responsibility for the occurrence of individual incapacity, failure, and short-comings of other kinds. This was not all. He had noted that the expressions of natural differences of opinion were increasingly looked upon as unfortunate developments and obstacles to success, which had damaging effect on the continuance of courtesy and tolerance. Thus, despite frequent reorganizations, failures became more abrupt and chaos drew nearer. Warren summed up the whole matter in one vigorous outburst:
• 167Warren made a quick and incisive deduction as to the cause of the debacle which placed him at once in a camp far removed from that in which the faithful Owenites would henceforth gather. He felt that the common property scheme of the New Harmony colony had been instituted by Owen as a means and not as an end; that what had been desired was a social situation in which the interests of the different individuals would coöperate instead of clash one with the other. Even though thirty years of retrospection upon the experience continued to bring back pleasant memories of what had transpired there, the management of financial and property affairs convinced him of the failure of their mission; “but for property considerations the experiments never would have commenced,” was his pithy summation of the situation. Why did an amicable settlement of material affairs fail to become a reality? Warren blamed it upon the submergence of the individual within the confines of the community. The consequences of such a procedure, said Warren, were inevitable. Not only was individual initiative stifled by failure to provide a place within the structure for personal rights and interests beyond the sphere of religious matters, but the elimination of individual property rights resulted in almost total dissipation of responsibility for the occurrence of individual incapacity, failure, and short-comings of other kinds. This was not all. He had noted that the expressions of natural differences of opinion were increasingly looked upon as unfortunate developments and obstacles to success, which had damaging effect on the continuance of courtesy and tolerance. Thus, despite frequent reorganizations, failures became more abrupt and chaos drew nearer. Warren summed up the whole matter in one vigorous outburst:
• 168Although Warren broke sharply with Owen’s collective plans for producing the good life, in other respects the cleavage was not so clearly marked. Indeed, his championing of individual sovereignty was to posit a dilemma which was never satisfactorily reconciled. His writings continued to put forth the doctrine of environmentalism, but liberally interleaved with a persistent promotion of belief in free will and individual responsibility which Owen would have categorically dismissed as prime heresy. Conventional society lost Warren forever, despite all this. For almost half a century he followed a course of ceaseless activity, attempting several experiments embracing his own conception of societary reorganization. He never repudiated Owen in an overt way, his attitude toward the founder of New Harmony remaining one of deep respect to his last days. Many years after the break took place Warren declared:
• 169Although Warren broke sharply with Owen’s collective plans for producing the good life, in other respects the cleavage was not so clearly marked. Indeed, his championing of individual sovereignty was to posit a dilemma which was never satisfactorily reconciled. His writings continued to put forth the doctrine of environmentalism, but liberally interleaved with a persistent promotion of belief in free will and individual responsibility which Owen would have categorically dismissed as prime heresy. Conventional society lost Warren forever, despite all this. For almost half a century he followed a course of ceaseless activity, attempting several experiments embracing his own conception of societary reorganization. He never repudiated Owen in an overt way, his attitude toward the founder of New Harmony remaining one of deep respect to his last days. Many years after the break took place Warren declared:
• 170One element of Owen’s thought found ready acceptance, in contrast to the lukewarm attitude toward social experimentation. In the hands of Warren and a large number of Warren’s followers throughout the remander of the century, the basic economic doctrine of coöperation met no opposition whatever, despite the serious trouble encountered in putting it into action. This was the proposal to exchange all labor employed in the production of goods and services equally, hour for hour, substituting for the state or privately controlled currency based on metallic commodities a circulating medium consisting of “labor notes.” These were simply bills issued in the form of currency, limited in issue and signed by the issuer, promising to furnish labor at specified occupations or activities for specific periods, in exchange for services desired of and rendered by another. These were to be issued on the basis of hours of labor or fractions of hours, depending upon the amount of another’s labor consumed.
• 171Owen had been mulling over the labor theory of value before coming to America. His four Essays on the Formation of Human Character, published in New Lanark in 1812-1813, contained indications of his whole-hearted conversion to this doctrine. The contention that the true price of a thing is the amount of labor expended in its production had been espoused by political economists generations before Adam Smith, although Smith had stated it in classic form in 1776. Owen’s labor note idea was a ground-breaker in the direction of practical realization of this idea, and this he also had fully developed in his own mind before reaching New Harmony.
• 172Owen had been mulling over the labor theory of value before coming to America. His four Essays on the Formation of Human Character, published in New Lanark in 1812-1813, contained indications of his whole-hearted conversion to this doctrine. The contention that the true price of a thing is the amount of labor expended in its production had been espoused by political economists generations before Adam Smith, although Smith had stated it in classic form in 1776. Owen’s labor note idea was a ground-breaker in the direction of practical realization of this idea, and this he also had fully developed in his own mind before reaching New Harmony.
• 173Owen had been mulling over the labor theory of value before coming to America. His four Essays on the Formation of Human Character, published in New Lanark in 1812-1813, contained indications of his whole-hearted conversion to this doctrine. The contention that the true price of a thing is the amount of labor expended in its production had been espoused by political economists generations before Adam Smith, although Smith had stated it in classic form in 1776. Owen’s labor note idea was a ground-breaker in the direction of practical realization of this idea, and this he also had fully developed in his own mind before reaching New Harmony.
• 174Warren became a permanent convert to this new system, propagandizing for its adoption both verbally and through practical attempts for almost forty-five years. Its operation was never realized at New Harmony, so Josiah Warren became the first person to employ the device in everyday economic intercourse. His Cincinnati Time Store of 1827-1830 became the first scientific experiment in coöperative economy in modern history, despite its limited objectives as such, as well as its obscurity resulting from the modest unsophisticated structure employed and the stark utilitarianism which prevailed during its existence.
• 175While Warren was forming his own philosophy, rejecting part of Owen’s convictions and accepting another part, his New Harmony experiences as a member of the original Community of Equality were producing other repercussions. His observation of human differences, among other things, shattered his faith in the ideal of economic equality. Basing his conclusions on the assumption that different persons put differing amounts of energy and time toward the accomplishment of various ends, and satisfied with the motivational drives which “enlightened self-interest” might supply, he proposed the substitution of the ideal of equal opportunities to the access to land, raw materials and credit. Equal opportunities being provided, individual differences and completely free competition would gradually work toward the establishment of an equitable society, in which returns would be measured by the amount of work performed, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To Warren the striving for equity was the highest possible goal of human effort.
• 176While Warren was forming his own philosophy, rejecting part of Owen’s convictions and accepting another part, his New Harmony experiences as a member of the original Community of Equality were producing other repercussions. His observation of human differences, among other things, shattered his faith in the ideal of economic equality. Basing his conclusions on the assumption that different persons put differing amounts of energy and time toward the accomplishment of various ends, and satisfied with the motivational drives which “enlightened self-interest” might supply, he proposed the substitution of the ideal of equal opportunities to the access to land, raw materials and credit. Equal opportunities being provided, individual differences and completely free competition would gradually work toward the establishment of an equitable society, in which returns would be measured by the amount of work performed, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To Warren the striving for equity was the highest possible goal of human effort.
• 177Warren’s complete program was a cumulative affair which did not receive definitive statement for almost twenty years. A part of this period of growth was his growing disregard for constituted authority, partially a product of attachment to a number of attitudes which convinced him that institutional government was a superfluous part of human society. His primary source of dissatisfaction with what he called the “communistic experiments” in New Harmony was the combination of interests. This combination required, as he saw it, a government based on authority and demanding obedience which resulted in the death of individual liberty. The alternative which he proposed and crusaded for was a system based on voluntary coöperation, but at no place rising above any individual within its structure; “the sovereignty of the individual” had to be preserved at all costs. This matter he considered more important than any artificial arrangement of individuals which demanded the fidelity of all. There was no compensation which could equate the sacrifice of this principle of individuality. There is a frontier flavor to his own blunt declaration of individualist war upon the hobbling tendencies of institutionalism which still commands at-tention:
• 178Warren’s complete program was a cumulative affair which did not receive definitive statement for almost twenty years. A part of this period of growth was his growing disregard for constituted authority, partially a product of attachment to a number of attitudes which convinced him that institutional government was a superfluous part of human society. His primary source of dissatisfaction with what he called the “communistic experiments” in New Harmony was the combination of interests. This combination required, as he saw it, a government based on authority and demanding obedience which resulted in the death of individual liberty. The alternative which he proposed and crusaded for was a system based on voluntary coöperation, but at no place rising above any individual within its structure; “the sovereignty of the individual” had to be preserved at all costs. This matter he considered more important than any artificial arrangement of individuals which demanded the fidelity of all. There was no compensation which could equate the sacrifice of this principle of individuality. There is a frontier flavor to his own blunt declaration of individualist war upon the hobbling tendencies of institutionalism which still commands at-tention:
• 179Warren’s complete program was a cumulative affair which did not receive definitive statement for almost twenty years. A part of this period of growth was his growing disregard for constituted authority, partially a product of attachment to a number of attitudes which convinced him that institutional government was a superfluous part of human society. His primary source of dissatisfaction with what he called the “communistic experiments” in New Harmony was the combination of interests. This combination required, as he saw it, a government based on authority and demanding obedience which resulted in the death of individual liberty. The alternative which he proposed and crusaded for was a system based on voluntary coöperation, but at no place rising above any individual within its structure; “the sovereignty of the individual” had to be preserved at all costs. This matter he considered more important than any artificial arrangement of individuals which demanded the fidelity of all. There was no compensation which could equate the sacrifice of this principle of individuality. There is a frontier flavor to his own blunt declaration of individualist war upon the hobbling tendencies of institutionalism which still commands at-tention:
• 180Warren’s complete program was a cumulative affair which did not receive definitive statement for almost twenty years. A part of this period of growth was his growing disregard for constituted authority, partially a product of attachment to a number of attitudes which convinced him that institutional government was a superfluous part of human society. His primary source of dissatisfaction with what he called the “communistic experiments” in New Harmony was the combination of interests. This combination required, as he saw it, a government based on authority and demanding obedience which resulted in the death of individual liberty. The alternative which he proposed and crusaded for was a system based on voluntary coöperation, but at no place rising above any individual within its structure; “the sovereignty of the individual” had to be preserved at all costs. This matter he considered more important than any artificial arrangement of individuals which demanded the fidelity of all. There was no compensation which could equate the sacrifice of this principle of individuality. There is a frontier flavor to his own blunt declaration of individualist war upon the hobbling tendencies of institutionalism which still commands at-tention:
• 181Using this concept of individualism, then it appeared logical to him that interests, responsibilities and actions all had to be confined to this level.
• 182To solve this problem Warren brought forth the labor exchange idea which he had absorbed from Owen and which remained firmly planted in his mind. This became his initial action in the effort to promote adoption of a satisfactory method of effecting equitable exchanges, paying little attention to the complexities which had grown upon this branch of human relations through centuries of changing ethical approaches. Nevertheless, an economy based on the exchange of equivalents, or as he termed it, “labor for labor,” became the basis for the new society he projected. His formula therefore rejected the idea of paying for such goods of the earth as were not the product of human labor. Unlike later adherents to native anarchism, Warren continued to think land a fit subject for sale, an obvious inconsistency. On other matters, which he occasionally referred to as “spontaneous fruits of nature,” the raw materials derived from labor on the land, he held that such were no more fit subjects for monopoly and sale than sunshine or air.
• 183As regards compensation, Warren saw nothing fundamentally wrong with the original Owenite proposal to exchange labor time on an equal hour-for-hour basis. One of the perennial stumbling blocks to the realization of the labor cost theory, the problem of determining the relative intensities and production of the hour’s work being exchanged, did bother him somewhat. But he assumed that the principle of individual sovereignty being preserved at all times, each individual would make what he considered the necessary exceptions to the hour-for-hour yardstick without causing any noticeable disaffection among those involved in the labor exchange group.
• 184Josiah Warren was no aimless manipulator of theories. All his life he manifested a tireless interest in proof through demonstration. Scarcely had the reluctant admission of failure in Indiana appeared in the New Harmony Gazette in May 1827, when Warren gathered his family, his scant goods and savings together and returned to Cincinnati, anxious to try out his economic scheme in an actual social situation. He decided that the best means of effecting proof of the workability of his views was through the operation of a retail store, observing that such a trial was bound to affect a wide variety of persons, and its operations would thus become a type of laboratory exhibit.
• 185The venture was carefully planned. Warren had no intention of continuing in the capacity of storekeeper if what he thought proved to be successful. His intention was to close the store abruptly and begin a model village at once on the outskirts of Cincinnati. The residents he hoped to recruit from among the more enthusiastic of the group of co-operators. This was to be done as quietly as possible, publicity being kept to a bare minimum. His strategy involved the practical demonstration of every element of non-coercive equity on the autonomous local community level in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to their value and practicability. Following the explanation of the manner in which the process had been accomplished, Warren believed that a rapid growth of mutualist villages would take place. Like Robert Owen, he anticipated great things for the betterment of mankind, although the structure he contemplated was far less complex.
• 186Thus the anarchist vision of a world composed of autonomous local communities, in which individuality would be one sacred principle and economic life regulated by the mutual exchange of goods and services on a cost basis, found its expression on the trans-Allegheny frontier two decades before similar European conceptions made their appearance. Furthermore, while the present-day modified coöperative movement looks to Rochdale, England and the earlier London Labor Exchanges, the first venture in coöperative marketing had an uncontestably American setting, predating either of these more widely known English events and in some respects providing the inspiration for them.
• 187The original stock of the store consisted of three hundred dollars’ worth of groceries and dry goods which were in greatest demand. Warren posted the bills of purchase within view of all potential customers, that all might see what had originally been paid for the goods on sale. Accompanying them was a notice stating that the cost price would be charged plus a seven per cent mark-up to pay what he called “contingent expenses.” This constituted the first part of the transaction. He made it plain that no element of the cash price consisted of his profit or return as storekeeper. The customer was first to pay this cost price, plus the seven per cent, which was to defray shipping cost and general overhead of the store. But for the portion which represented his own labor, Warren merely required the customer to present him with a labor note. This note promised to repay an equal amount of time, in the customer’s occupation, to the storekeeper, as he had consumed of the storekeeper’s time in effecting the transfer of the merchandise. The principal distinction between Warren’s store and those of his neighbors was this simple feature, the separation of the merchant’s compensation from the cost of the goods sold.
• 188The original stock of the store consisted of three hundred dollars’ worth of groceries and dry goods which were in greatest demand. Warren posted the bills of purchase within view of all potential customers, that all might see what had originally been paid for the goods on sale. Accompanying them was a notice stating that the cost price would be charged plus a seven per cent mark-up to pay what he called “contingent expenses.” This constituted the first part of the transaction. He made it plain that no element of the cash price consisted of his profit or return as storekeeper. The customer was first to pay this cost price, plus the seven per cent, which was to defray shipping cost and general overhead of the store. But for the portion which represented his own labor, Warren merely required the customer to present him with a labor note. This note promised to repay an equal amount of time, in the customer’s occupation, to the storekeeper, as he had consumed of the storekeeper’s time in effecting the transfer of the merchandise. The principal distinction between Warren’s store and those of his neighbors was this simple feature, the separation of the merchant’s compensation from the cost of the goods sold.
• 189The original stock of the store consisted of three hundred dollars’ worth of groceries and dry goods which were in greatest demand. Warren posted the bills of purchase within view of all potential customers, that all might see what had originally been paid for the goods on sale. Accompanying them was a notice stating that the cost price would be charged plus a seven per cent mark-up to pay what he called “contingent expenses.” This constituted the first part of the transaction. He made it plain that no element of the cash price consisted of his profit or return as storekeeper. The customer was first to pay this cost price, plus the seven per cent, which was to defray shipping cost and general overhead of the store. But for the portion which represented his own labor, Warren merely required the customer to present him with a labor note. This note promised to repay an equal amount of time, in the customer’s occupation, to the storekeeper, as he had consumed of the storekeeper’s time in effecting the transfer of the merchandise. The principal distinction between Warren’s store and those of his neighbors was this simple feature, the separation of the merchant’s compensation from the cost of the goods sold.
• 190Often asked by people who failed to understand what he was trying to do, why he did not charge a blanket percentage to cover the entire matter of costs and profit, Warren patiently explained that failure to disconnect the two operations would destroy the principle he was trying to illustrate. No percentage could be accurately assigned to serve either the seller’s or the buyer’s interest; no particular relation existed between the profit and the labor expended in production of the article vended. Thus for instance twenty percent profit on needles would soon result in the storekeeper’s ruination, while the same percentage on broadcloth would net him a return of probably two dollars for a scant ten minutes work, obviously inequitable. A storekeeper, he went on, might buy and sell one barrel or a hundred barrels of flour in the same time; thus the correct basis upon which he should be paid was solely the amount of time expended in conducting the transaction.
• 191Warren was convinced that nothing was superior to the direct exchange of commodities and services; if agreement as to labor content existed, it was preferable to any system involving elements of confidence and risk, which he was convinced the use of currency necessarily provoked. Realizing that specialization and diversity of tastes made this only a partial solution to the continual problem of exchange, the adoption of the labor note paper bills served the function of completing all exchanges not available to settlement by direct exchange. There was a difference in the application of this device by Warren as compared to its original purpose as conceived by Owen. Where the latter had intended it as a means of effecting transactions among the different communities at New Harmony, the former reduced the scope to the local function of a limited currency, but valid among all those who engaged in any part of the business at the time store.
• 192The name “time store” was a popular designation, not an original appellation of Warren’s, and had come into general use by the end of the third month of the store’s existence. The circumstances responsible for this have aroused the interest and curiosity of several commentators, but Warren’s own explanation is the clearest.
• 193This was an innovation. It was to the interest of the customer to take up as little of the storekeeper’s time as possible, since time was one of the elements in the price settlement. Thus wrangling and higgling over prices, which Warren considered a particularly degrading feature of ordinary commerce, was eliminated in time store operations, a matter of considerable significance at a time when such functions were an almost fundamental part of merchandising. Transactions were expedited by the open display of goods and prominence of list prices, another unprecedented feature.
• 194It is interesting to note that before the store was terminated, Warren succeeded in reducing the commerce in such staples as flour, meal, beans, beef, pork and shoes to a modified labor exchange level. A set of actual labor prices based on an average estimate of the labor cost of production of each of these commodities evolved, which was posted in the store, and these changed from time to time as labor estimates fluctuated. The partial realization of an economy resting exclusively on exchange of labor notes thus took place independent of the use of legal currency.
• 195Warren’s unpretentious establishment opened its doors on May 18, 1827 and after a faltering start produced results which he found highly gratifying. The failure of New Harmony had become common knowledge in Cincinnati by the time Warren expressed his determination to begin his labor exchange store, and his friends begged him to refrain from additional attempts at reform. The promise of financial support in commencing a conventional business venture was of no avail. Nor was he inhibited by denunciations of his plan as “utopian” or “visionary,” or as just one more of the numerous tricks to aid speculating or swindling which were all too common in the port towns along the water route to New Orleans. Despite all the discouraging factors, the time store began operations, and at the end of three months had resulted in making an impression in the retail trade of the area which has since drawn the attention of students of early American economic radicalism.
• 196Warren’s methods of doing business were adopted by a neighboring merchant, while he declared that the new methods permitted him to sell as much merchandise in an hour as normally was retailed in a day. This increased activity forced him to close part of the day to rest and to furnish information as to how the labor exchange store functioned. There was a mixed reception to the new shop. Some, who considered the principles equitable, thought them a thing of the future. Others circulated rumors that Warren was an accomplice of big merchants, helping them dispose of their damaged and inferior stocks of goods. One opponent, still remembering New Harmony and the suspicion it had aroused among conservative folk, asserted that Warren was an agent of Robert Owen and had been commissioned to engage in a plot to undermine the United States. No one seemed to realize that Warren’s system was a direct blow at the money economy and the power that such a system had in determining the nature of production and the incidence of distribution. The time store founder was not to feel the full impact of a large-scale whispering campaign for some time in the future, not until the time of the founding of the much-discussed individualist colony on Long Island.
• 197Warren, in his anxiety to extend the labor exchange method in as many ways as possible, gave music lessons in the evenings to young men who understood the operation of the plan and agreed to enter as participants. He and a group of his mutual customers succeeded in securing a teacher for their children who also accepted compensation in labor notes. In 1829 he asserted that three physicians had already purchased goods on these same principles, promising professional services on demand. An agnostic, he took pleasure in telling at a later time of an influential Methodist convert to the time store principles who had interrupted an argument about a point of faith and charity with the following observation: “Well, brothers, people have been disputing for eighteen hundred years about what is true Christianity. Now, if you will go down to the corner of Fifth and Elm Streets, you will see it in operation for the first time in the world.”
• 198Warren, in his anxiety to extend the labor exchange method in as many ways as possible, gave music lessons in the evenings to young men who understood the operation of the plan and agreed to enter as participants. He and a group of his mutual customers succeeded in securing a teacher for their children who also accepted compensation in labor notes. In 1829 he asserted that three physicians had already purchased goods on these same principles, promising professional services on demand. An agnostic, he took pleasure in telling at a later time of an influential Methodist convert to the time store principles who had interrupted an argument about a point of faith and charity with the following observation: “Well, brothers, people have been disputing for eighteen hundred years about what is true Christianity. Now, if you will go down to the corner of Fifth and Elm Streets, you will see it in operation for the first time in the world.”
• 199Warren borrowed money to aid in the development of the store in its early days, but insisted on giving the lenders notes which were payable on demand. He never explained whether such payments had ever been requested or whether he had ever agreed to pay interest, or how immediate payment was possible if the sum obtained through loan had been invested in fixed capital by the time demand for its return had been made. There is no doubt, however, that he received the necessary backing, in view of the prolonged period of operations.
• 200Warren was opposed to enlarging the scope of his activities. He stressed continually that he was not attempting to put retail storekeepers out of business but trying to demonstrate principles of mutualism. He did double the capacity of the original store before the end of the first year, employing the labor of seven carpenters on the familiar exchange procedure; still he insisted on keeping the business on the same simple relationship between keeper and customer and never expanded to the extent of hiring clerks. This action would have been in the nature of a partnership under his conception of the plan, and such combination of interests was diametrically opposed to the principle of individuality which he unequivocally professed.
• 201The introduction of still another aspect of labor exchange opened his eyes to other inequalities in the economic system which he believed called for reparation. This was what he called the “report of demand.” A large sheet of paper was posted on one wall of the store on which those with particular needs made them known, and those with labor and services available for exchange stated the nature of their particular ability or capacity. At the same time he posted a list of commodities for which he would exchange the same, in an attempt to produce a “leveling” of supply. Warren’s conception of the terms “supply” and “demand” had little relation to their use in economic terminology of the present day. In his simple system, the declared desire to have a given object constituted “demand” for it, and no relation whatever to the possession of ability to pay on the basis of theoretical graduated price curves, in a money economy. He was convinced that existing economic relationships were exactly reversed in operation, to that demanded by distributive justice. The only way to bring about equity was to adapt supply to what he called “demand,” and thus eliminate the occasion for speculation in human need.
• 202The great number of requests for employment in unwanted occupations distressed him considerably, as did the observation that the labor return of children and women was artificially depressed below the level existing among adult men engaged in similar activities. This led to an investigation and condemnation of the apprentice system, which he called an “obsolete barbarity,” a deliberate and artificial restriction of employment which curtailed demand for many services and products. Thus began a full-scale campaign to spread information about all types of skills, a matter of vital concern at a time previous to the widespread adoption of automatic machinery. Warren reasoned that the cost-basis economy required the production of all goods at the lowest possible labor cost. This could only be accomplished by the employment of each in the activity he could do best, and therefore cheapest, from the point of view of labor time involved. It was at this time also that he observed another harrassing element in the labor exchange operation. This was the problem of determining intensity of relative hours of labor, further complicated by the fact that the most repulsive types of labor were generally the poorest paid. This matter he wrestled with for the remainder of his life, and was never able to satisfy himself as to the best method of solution.
• 203Warren’s activities in marketing spread over a wide range. He sold almost any product or article which he thought would demonstrate his theory. In all transactions, he attempted a drastic underselling of his competitors to provide the greatest possible contrast between the profit system and the coöperative system. This occasionally involved practices which were not strictly in accordance with equity, such as purchases in wholesale lots, often at public auctions. Such were sacrifices and not exchanges of equivalents. He justified this action by asserting that other retailers bought as much as he, but failed to pass on the saving to their patrons.
• 204Warren’s activities in marketing spread over a wide range. He sold almost any product or article which he thought would demonstrate his theory. In all transactions, he attempted a drastic underselling of his competitors to provide the greatest possible contrast between the profit system and the coöperative system. This occasionally involved practices which were not strictly in accordance with equity, such as purchases in wholesale lots, often at public auctions. Such were sacrifices and not exchanges of equivalents. He justified this action by asserting that other retailers bought as much as he, but failed to pass on the saving to their patrons.
• 205The Cincinnati Time Store was finally liquidated in May, 1830. Warren had long been satisfied that his plan was sound and that he had succeeded in regulating his business by principles without utilizing what he called “the customary machinery of organization,” or the “erection of any power over the individual.” In fact, he thought that this had been proven in the first six months. The original intent to start communities based on such principles he found more difficult to promote than expected. As early as November, 1827, he had contemplated beginning on a holding of 1500 acres of land in Logan County, Ohio, which had been offered for the purpose by an enthusiast named Samuel Hyde Saunders. Nothing was done at this time, nor even a year later when he considered moving outside the city and forming a model village.
• 206The Cincinnati Time Store was finally liquidated in May, 1830. Warren had long been satisfied that his plan was sound and that he had succeeded in regulating his business by principles without utilizing what he called “the customary machinery of organization,” or the “erection of any power over the individual.” In fact, he thought that this had been proven in the first six months. The original intent to start communities based on such principles he found more difficult to promote than expected. As early as November, 1827, he had contemplated beginning on a holding of 1500 acres of land in Logan County, Ohio, which had been offered for the purpose by an enthusiast named Samuel Hyde Saunders. Nothing was done at this time, nor even a year later when he considered moving outside the city and forming a model village.
• 207The Cincinnati Time Store was finally liquidated in May, 1830. Warren had long been satisfied that his plan was sound and that he had succeeded in regulating his business by principles without utilizing what he called “the customary machinery of organization,” or the “erection of any power over the individual.” In fact, he thought that this had been proven in the first six months. The original intent to start communities based on such principles he found more difficult to promote than expected. As early as November, 1827, he had contemplated beginning on a holding of 1500 acres of land in Logan County, Ohio, which had been offered for the purpose by an enthusiast named Samuel Hyde Saunders. Nothing was done at this time, nor even a year later when he considered moving outside the city and forming a model village.
• 208A third and final decision to begin a village was made in April, 1829. Despite the hundreds of customers who had made purchases in the time store, all involving the acceptance and utility of labor notes, Warren ruefully recalled that only four people were ready to take part in this adventure. Warren learned, as had Owen before him, that the inertia of the status quo was a formidable antagonist to such a sweeping reorganization of human affairs as he entertained. He was too practical to think that such a plan as he proposed could succeed if supported only by the poor, the needy, and others at the bottom of the economic ladder, even though it was one of the principal reasons for starting in the first place, to eliminate the perpetuation of this by-product of what he called “legalized cannibalism.” He remarked that hundreds were interested in his proposition who were too poor to afford the loss of the month’s income which removing and changing positions would occasion. Others had different objections. Some feared inability to obtain employment under the new conditions. Others did not look favorably upon the equitable compensation of women and children or the proposal to teach the secrets of carefully guarded trades in a few days or weeks. Those with means admitted in private conversations the worth of some of his proposals yet abstained entirely from offering assistance.
• 209A third and final decision to begin a village was made in April, 1829. Despite the hundreds of customers who had made purchases in the time store, all involving the acceptance and utility of labor notes, Warren ruefully recalled that only four people were ready to take part in this adventure. Warren learned, as had Owen before him, that the inertia of the status quo was a formidable antagonist to such a sweeping reorganization of human affairs as he entertained. He was too practical to think that such a plan as he proposed could succeed if supported only by the poor, the needy, and others at the bottom of the economic ladder, even though it was one of the principal reasons for starting in the first place, to eliminate the perpetuation of this by-product of what he called “legalized cannibalism.” He remarked that hundreds were interested in his proposition who were too poor to afford the loss of the month’s income which removing and changing positions would occasion. Others had different objections. Some feared inability to obtain employment under the new conditions. Others did not look favorably upon the equitable compensation of women and children or the proposal to teach the secrets of carefully guarded trades in a few days or weeks. Those with means admitted in private conversations the worth of some of his proposals yet abstained entirely from offering assistance.
• 210Warren felt at the time that those who participated in his time store still lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the proposals the way he had explained them. Many years later, however, he became convinced that, looking back on the wreckage of several community attempts, failure had been due more to the planned efforts of an element among the business community, which he claimed had everywhere created difficulties and placed obstacles in the way of success of his non-profit community projection. In spite of the mounting gloom occasioned by the unresponsiveness of his former coöperators to the call to form a village, the plan was persevered in, and the land was selected upon which to move, in the spring of 1829.
• 211Warren felt at the time that those who participated in his time store still lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the proposals the way he had explained them. Many years later, however, he became convinced that, looking back on the wreckage of several community attempts, failure had been due more to the planned efforts of an element among the business community, which he claimed had everywhere created difficulties and placed obstacles in the way of success of his non-profit community projection. In spite of the mounting gloom occasioned by the unresponsiveness of his former coöperators to the call to form a village, the plan was persevered in, and the land was selected upon which to move, in the spring of 1829.
• 212Warren felt at the time that those who participated in his time store still lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the proposals the way he had explained them. Many years later, however, he became convinced that, looking back on the wreckage of several community attempts, failure had been due more to the planned efforts of an element among the business community, which he claimed had everywhere created difficulties and placed obstacles in the way of success of his non-profit community projection. In spite of the mounting gloom occasioned by the unresponsiveness of his former coöperators to the call to form a village, the plan was persevered in, and the land was selected upon which to move, in the spring of 1829.
• 213At this point the strange interlude of Warren’s relations with Robert Dale Owen and Frances Wright occurred. Owen, the gifted son of the New Harmony patron, and the brilliant Scotswoman, champion of a dozen unpopular causes ranging from Negro equality to anti-clericalism, had moved the center of operations of the intellectual radical movement associated with New Harmony from Indiana to New York City. There they had renewed publication of the celebrated community newsorgan, The New Harmony Gazette, under the name The Free Enquirer, devoting most of the space now to the propagation of the general sentiments of freethought, with generous portions of acrimonious controversy with adherents of various brands of orthodoxy as a special feature. Althought more concerned with their protracted joust with biblical fundamentalists, and in particular, the wave of emotional revivalism then sweeping through some elements of Protestantism, the two young liberals retained a sympathetic interest in all attempts at community organization. This was understandable, since most of this activity during this period was primarily a backwash of the parent essay at New Harmony.
• 214At this point the strange interlude of Warren’s relations with Robert Dale Owen and Frances Wright occurred. Owen, the gifted son of the New Harmony patron, and the brilliant Scotswoman, champion of a dozen unpopular causes ranging from Negro equality to anti-clericalism, had moved the center of operations of the intellectual radical movement associated with New Harmony from Indiana to New York City. There they had renewed publication of the celebrated community newsorgan, The New Harmony Gazette, under the name The Free Enquirer, devoting most of the space now to the propagation of the general sentiments of freethought, with generous portions of acrimonious controversy with adherents of various brands of orthodoxy as a special feature. Althought more concerned with their protracted joust with biblical fundamentalists, and in particular, the wave of emotional revivalism then sweeping through some elements of Protestantism, the two young liberals retained a sympathetic interest in all attempts at community organization. This was understandable, since most of this activity during this period was primarily a backwash of the parent essay at New Harmony.
• 215At this point the strange interlude of Warren’s relations with Robert Dale Owen and Frances Wright occurred. Owen, the gifted son of the New Harmony patron, and the brilliant Scotswoman, champion of a dozen unpopular causes ranging from Negro equality to anti-clericalism, had moved the center of operations of the intellectual radical movement associated with New Harmony from Indiana to New York City. There they had renewed publication of the celebrated community newsorgan, The New Harmony Gazette, under the name The Free Enquirer, devoting most of the space now to the propagation of the general sentiments of freethought, with generous portions of acrimonious controversy with adherents of various brands of orthodoxy as a special feature. Althought more concerned with their protracted joust with biblical fundamentalists, and in particular, the wave of emotional revivalism then sweeping through some elements of Protestantism, the two young liberals retained a sympathetic interest in all attempts at community organization. This was understandable, since most of this activity during this period was primarily a backwash of the parent essay at New Harmony.
• 216The Ohio activities of Josiah Warren had attracted the attention of the land and labor reform press of New York City, where slums were already a problem, and depressed segments of the population a feature of the urban social structure. It is not unusual, then, to find the editors of The Free Enquirer becoming concerned to the point of proposing collaboration in achieving the aims of Warren’s non-political scheme for alleviating the evidences of economic distress which had come to his attention during the few years of his reform career.
• 217Owen prevailed upon Warren to postpone the beginning of his community in Ohio in favor of a similar beginning in the vicinity of New York. This was made to appear extremely attractive through the promise of considerable financial and material support already at the former’s bidding. Owen, as had his father, had in mind a much larger unit than Warren. This was apparently to be publicized through a press campaign, intending no doubt to include the pages of the Free Enquirer, in a broad program of propaganda to advertise its potential advantages. Dazzled by this offer, Warren abandoned the proposed movement to the outskirts of Cincinnati, and thus the decision came about to continue the time store into a third year.
• 218Owen’s existing business precluded the immediate start of the New York village, and what was intended to be a temprary lull dragged on. Thus the time store celebrated a third anniversary before Warren liquidated the remaining stock and began the momentous journey to New York, anticipating memorable results. But still another delay intervened; Owen was called to Europe and the plans languished. Yet there still remained a strong spirit of affirmation of the previous support of Warren on his part and that of Fanny Wright as well. The Free Enquirer continued to express confidence in the eventual success of a Warrenite colony, and Warren himself was still hopeful, but the summer found him somewhat subdued. In mid-July he addressed a communication to his Cincinnati associates, confessing that nothing tangible had been accomplished, but asserting that the call to begin practical operations would come at an early date.
• 219Owen’s existing business precluded the immediate start of the New York village, and what was intended to be a temprary lull dragged on. Thus the time store celebrated a third anniversary before Warren liquidated the remaining stock and began the momentous journey to New York, anticipating memorable results. But still another delay intervened; Owen was called to Europe and the plans languished. Yet there still remained a strong spirit of affirmation of the previous support of Warren on his part and that of Fanny Wright as well. The Free Enquirer continued to express confidence in the eventual success of a Warrenite colony, and Warren himself was still hopeful, but the summer found him somewhat subdued. In mid-July he addressed a communication to his Cincinnati associates, confessing that nothing tangible had been accomplished, but asserting that the call to begin practical operations would come at an early date.
• 220Owen’s existing business precluded the immediate start of the New York village, and what was intended to be a temprary lull dragged on. Thus the time store celebrated a third anniversary before Warren liquidated the remaining stock and began the momentous journey to New York, anticipating memorable results. But still another delay intervened; Owen was called to Europe and the plans languished. Yet there still remained a strong spirit of affirmation of the previous support of Warren on his part and that of Fanny Wright as well. The Free Enquirer continued to express confidence in the eventual success of a Warrenite colony, and Warren himself was still hopeful, but the summer found him somewhat subdued. In mid-July he addressed a communication to his Cincinnati associates, confessing that nothing tangible had been accomplished, but asserting that the call to begin practical operations would come at an early date.
• 221Turning from presses to type faces, he brought out two small volumes in 1844 which made use of a revived interest in an early eighteenth century stereotyping process. This involved the substitution of a composition of unusual hardness in the place of metal, which reduced printing costs markedly and furthered the contest with publishers in general. These pioneer booklets, which sought to revolutionize the system of musical notation and thereby enable aspiring musicians to reduce the expense and duration of training, met no better fate than any of his other earlier accomplishments, other than to further the development of what he later designated as “Universal Typography.”
• 222Turning from presses to type faces, he brought out two small volumes in 1844 which made use of a revived interest in an early eighteenth century stereotyping process. This involved the substitution of a composition of unusual hardness in the place of metal, which reduced printing costs markedly and furthered the contest with publishers in general. These pioneer booklets, which sought to revolutionize the system of musical notation and thereby enable aspiring musicians to reduce the expense and duration of training, met no better fate than any of his other earlier accomplishments, other than to further the development of what he later designated as “Universal Typography.”
• 223Turning from presses to type faces, he brought out two small volumes in 1844 which made use of a revived interest in an early eighteenth century stereotyping process. This involved the substitution of a composition of unusual hardness in the place of metal, which reduced printing costs markedly and furthered the contest with publishers in general. These pioneer booklets, which sought to revolutionize the system of musical notation and thereby enable aspiring musicians to reduce the expense and duration of training, met no better fate than any of his other earlier accomplishments, other than to further the development of what he later designated as “Universal Typography.”
• 224Warren compromised his principles in respect to previous unyielding theoretical opposition to patents. At the urging of Owen’s sons and his old friend, the midwestern scientific agricultural pioneer Solon Robinson, the process was patented in the spring of 1845. Robinson not only brought the documents to the Patent Office at this time, but acted as agent for Warren. While travelling through the Midwest, he publicized its merits, which were recognized by editors with whom he came in contact all along the Ohio. The inventor himself illustrated his ability as an engraver with numerous examples of his artistry, several of which embellished the heretofore stark pages of New Harmony’s weekly journal.
• 225Warren compromised his principles in respect to previous unyielding theoretical opposition to patents. At the urging of Owen’s sons and his old friend, the midwestern scientific agricultural pioneer Solon Robinson, the process was patented in the spring of 1845. Robinson not only brought the documents to the Patent Office at this time, but acted as agent for Warren. While travelling through the Midwest, he publicized its merits, which were recognized by editors with whom he came in contact all along the Ohio. The inventor himself illustrated his ability as an engraver with numerous examples of his artistry, several of which embellished the heretofore stark pages of New Harmony’s weekly journal.
• 226Warren compromised his principles in respect to previous unyielding theoretical opposition to patents. At the urging of Owen’s sons and his old friend, the midwestern scientific agricultural pioneer Solon Robinson, the process was patented in the spring of 1845. Robinson not only brought the documents to the Patent Office at this time, but acted as agent for Warren. While travelling through the Midwest, he publicized its merits, which were recognized by editors with whom he came in contact all along the Ohio. The inventor himself illustrated his ability as an engraver with numerous examples of his artistry, several of which embellished the heretofore stark pages of New Harmony’s weekly journal.
• 227Regardless of patent protection and the attendant publicity, no attempt was made to plumb the commercial possibilities of the composition cast method of stereotyping. To Warren it meant more as an opportunity to expand his own printing activities, especially in broadcasting the message of equitable commerce. Since he had contemplated for some time publishing a comprehensive summary of his philosophy and explorations in social matters, it now was possible to fulfill these aspirations with a minimum of expense. Despite the interruptions caused by the handicaps of working without help in an endeavor where the benefits of division of labor were obvious, the work persevered. The difficulties were not all mechanical; Warren was not a literary man, and wrote painfully, in a simple but often stilted style, which was further burdened by a somewhat archaic vocabulary, even in the estimate of his contemporaries. The final product of two years of collation and revision of a mass of notes taken sporadically for almost twenty years, all its imperfections considered, was a document of undeniable simplicity. Published in April, 1847, Josiah Warren’s Equitable Commerce became the first important publication of anarchist doctrine in America, and with minor deletions, additions and revisions, went into more editions within the next thirty years than any other product of native anarchist thought to this time.
• 228Regardless of patent protection and the attendant publicity, no attempt was made to plumb the commercial possibilities of the composition cast method of stereotyping. To Warren it meant more as an opportunity to expand his own printing activities, especially in broadcasting the message of equitable commerce. Since he had contemplated for some time publishing a comprehensive summary of his philosophy and explorations in social matters, it now was possible to fulfill these aspirations with a minimum of expense. Despite the interruptions caused by the handicaps of working without help in an endeavor where the benefits of division of labor were obvious, the work persevered. The difficulties were not all mechanical; Warren was not a literary man, and wrote painfully, in a simple but often stilted style, which was further burdened by a somewhat archaic vocabulary, even in the estimate of his contemporaries. The final product of two years of collation and revision of a mass of notes taken sporadically for almost twenty years, all its imperfections considered, was a document of undeniable simplicity. Published in April, 1847, Josiah Warren’s Equitable Commerce became the first important publication of anarchist doctrine in America, and with minor deletions, additions and revisions, went into more editions within the next thirty years than any other product of native anarchist thought to this time.
• 229Regardless of patent protection and the attendant publicity, no attempt was made to plumb the commercial possibilities of the composition cast method of stereotyping. To Warren it meant more as an opportunity to expand his own printing activities, especially in broadcasting the message of equitable commerce. Since he had contemplated for some time publishing a comprehensive summary of his philosophy and explorations in social matters, it now was possible to fulfill these aspirations with a minimum of expense. Despite the interruptions caused by the handicaps of working without help in an endeavor where the benefits of division of labor were obvious, the work persevered. The difficulties were not all mechanical; Warren was not a literary man, and wrote painfully, in a simple but often stilted style, which was further burdened by a somewhat archaic vocabulary, even in the estimate of his contemporaries. The final product of two years of collation and revision of a mass of notes taken sporadically for almost twenty years, all its imperfections considered, was a document of undeniable simplicity. Published in April, 1847, Josiah Warren’s Equitable Commerce became the first important publication of anarchist doctrine in America, and with minor deletions, additions and revisions, went into more editions within the next thirty years than any other product of native anarchist thought to this time.
• 230Equitable Commerce as an expression of social discontent catches much of the flavor of the world-wide revolt sentiment of the mid-nineteenth century. In an apocalyptic discourse reminiscent of, but anticipating Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Warren also looked out upon a civilization approaching a revolutionary crisis, but with the battle lines being drawn on a broad parasite-producer rather than the more limited capitalist-industrial worker line:
• 231The Warrenite program, however, discarded familiar reform interpretations and solutions, all varieties of collectivism, paternalism, violent revolutionary and political action. Elaborating on some of the ideas already expressed in other writings and further confirmed by experience and convictions produced thereby, he launched a delineation of the individualist stand on the proper reward of labor, security of personal property and freedom of the individual. Summed up in the two slogans “Sovereignty of the Individual” and “Cost the Limit of Price,” Equitable Commerce concentrated on preparing a case for this kind of individualism. The belief in the absolute inviolability of the individual personality expressed in its pages placed him in a camp opposite from the advocates of reform through legislation or violence.
• 232In Warren’s estimation, liberty and security were complementary, not opposites; liberty was the foundation upon which security of both person and property rested, and as long as there was one insecure person, there was potential insecurity for all others. This called for location in proper relation of power, which for each individual extended over his own person and property, and not beyond. This was expected to result in the undermining of the structure of all authority obtained from any other source than that of voluntary grant. To admit boundless individuality in nature and then to create institutions requiring agreement contrary to one’s will appeared the height of contradiction. Personal differences were an inseparable part of the individual personality, which he refused to see by-passed in the “pursuit of policy and expediency.” On this basis he rejected institutional activity which ultimately depended upon compliance on the part of the members unable to see it conducive to their best interests to do so, or which compromised them by demanding conformity as the price for favors allegedly furnished.
• 233In Warren’s estimation, liberty and security were complementary, not opposites; liberty was the foundation upon which security of both person and property rested, and as long as there was one insecure person, there was potential insecurity for all others. This called for location in proper relation of power, which for each individual extended over his own person and property, and not beyond. This was expected to result in the undermining of the structure of all authority obtained from any other source than that of voluntary grant. To admit boundless individuality in nature and then to create institutions requiring agreement contrary to one’s will appeared the height of contradiction. Personal differences were an inseparable part of the individual personality, which he refused to see by-passed in the “pursuit of policy and expediency.” On this basis he rejected institutional activity which ultimately depended upon compliance on the part of the members unable to see it conducive to their best interests to do so, or which compromised them by demanding conformity as the price for favors allegedly furnished.
• 234In Warren’s estimation, liberty and security were complementary, not opposites; liberty was the foundation upon which security of both person and property rested, and as long as there was one insecure person, there was potential insecurity for all others. This called for location in proper relation of power, which for each individual extended over his own person and property, and not beyond. This was expected to result in the undermining of the structure of all authority obtained from any other source than that of voluntary grant. To admit boundless individuality in nature and then to create institutions requiring agreement contrary to one’s will appeared the height of contradiction. Personal differences were an inseparable part of the individual personality, which he refused to see by-passed in the “pursuit of policy and expediency.” On this basis he rejected institutional activity which ultimately depended upon compliance on the part of the members unable to see it conducive to their best interests to do so, or which compromised them by demanding conformity as the price for favors allegedly furnished.
• 235In Warren’s estimation, liberty and security were complementary, not opposites; liberty was the foundation upon which security of both person and property rested, and as long as there was one insecure person, there was potential insecurity for all others. This called for location in proper relation of power, which for each individual extended over his own person and property, and not beyond. This was expected to result in the undermining of the structure of all authority obtained from any other source than that of voluntary grant. To admit boundless individuality in nature and then to create institutions requiring agreement contrary to one’s will appeared the height of contradiction. Personal differences were an inseparable part of the individual personality, which he refused to see by-passed in the “pursuit of policy and expediency.” On this basis he rejected institutional activity which ultimately depended upon compliance on the part of the members unable to see it conducive to their best interests to do so, or which compromised them by demanding conformity as the price for favors allegedly furnished.
• 236In the vein of his earlier writings on law, Warren continued to castigate legislation as one aspect of this denial of individual freedom. He objected particularly to the demand of unconditional fealty from all, enthusiastic or hesitant, to the wishes of the larger number. Warren saw no virtue in majorities; to him right was not a quantitative matter to be determined by sheer numbers. Should a thing be an evil when espoused by a few, the support of a larger number at a later time did not automatically change its nature, making what had been reprehensible now respectable and desirable. He refused to consider the manipulation of verbal symbols “laws” in the same sense:
• 237In the vein of his earlier writings on law, Warren continued to castigate legislation as one aspect of this denial of individual freedom. He objected particularly to the demand of unconditional fealty from all, enthusiastic or hesitant, to the wishes of the larger number. Warren saw no virtue in majorities; to him right was not a quantitative matter to be determined by sheer numbers. Should a thing be an evil when espoused by a few, the support of a larger number at a later time did not automatically change its nature, making what had been reprehensible now respectable and desirable. He refused to consider the manipulation of verbal symbols “laws” in the same sense:
• 238In the vein of his earlier writings on law, Warren continued to castigate legislation as one aspect of this denial of individual freedom. He objected particularly to the demand of unconditional fealty from all, enthusiastic or hesitant, to the wishes of the larger number. Warren saw no virtue in majorities; to him right was not a quantitative matter to be determined by sheer numbers. Should a thing be an evil when espoused by a few, the support of a larger number at a later time did not automatically change its nature, making what had been reprehensible now respectable and desirable. He refused to consider the manipulation of verbal symbols “laws” in the same sense:
• 239Warren thus attached to law, by virtue of its perpetual uncertainty, the blame for the great majority of crimes. Statute law could hardly be expected to do anything except aggravate and expand the diseases of society over a larger area. Warren scorned the explanation of laws and government by political theorists who sought to relate them to reality as manifestations of a common desire for the protection of life and possessions. He refused to believe that human history revealed such realization, and was convinced that the state had failed in its basic mission in providing protection for its citizens. What was worse, in his mind, was the effect of the governing process, which had been precipitated into a struggle for control of the governing privilege. This was the result, he explained, of the discovery that in an environment characterized by insecurity, the least insecure were the persons who were successful in obtaining control of the governing power. Thus rulers and ruling groups, protected temporarily by virtue of holding power, punished crimes by death and imprisonment without realizing that these were consequences of their own acts. The increasing complexity of laws and lawmaking succeeded in increasing the volume of violations rather than producing the security of the society which they purported to represent. On still another level, there was the spectacle of a government involving its citizens in group responsibilities from which many may have preferred to remain apart, and in extreme situations, such as wars, compelling them to desert their own interests and even die without recourse of any sort.
• 240Warren thus attached to law, by virtue of its perpetual uncertainty, the blame for the great majority of crimes. Statute law could hardly be expected to do anything except aggravate and expand the diseases of society over a larger area. Warren scorned the explanation of laws and government by political theorists who sought to relate them to reality as manifestations of a common desire for the protection of life and possessions. He refused to believe that human history revealed such realization, and was convinced that the state had failed in its basic mission in providing protection for its citizens. What was worse, in his mind, was the effect of the governing process, which had been precipitated into a struggle for control of the governing privilege. This was the result, he explained, of the discovery that in an environment characterized by insecurity, the least insecure were the persons who were successful in obtaining control of the governing power. Thus rulers and ruling groups, protected temporarily by virtue of holding power, punished crimes by death and imprisonment without realizing that these were consequences of their own acts. The increasing complexity of laws and lawmaking succeeded in increasing the volume of violations rather than producing the security of the society which they purported to represent. On still another level, there was the spectacle of a government involving its citizens in group responsibilities from which many may have preferred to remain apart, and in extreme situations, such as wars, compelling them to desert their own interests and even die without recourse of any sort.
• 241Warren thus attached to law, by virtue of its perpetual uncertainty, the blame for the great majority of crimes. Statute law could hardly be expected to do anything except aggravate and expand the diseases of society over a larger area. Warren scorned the explanation of laws and government by political theorists who sought to relate them to reality as manifestations of a common desire for the protection of life and possessions. He refused to believe that human history revealed such realization, and was convinced that the state had failed in its basic mission in providing protection for its citizens. What was worse, in his mind, was the effect of the governing process, which had been precipitated into a struggle for control of the governing privilege. This was the result, he explained, of the discovery that in an environment characterized by insecurity, the least insecure were the persons who were successful in obtaining control of the governing power. Thus rulers and ruling groups, protected temporarily by virtue of holding power, punished crimes by death and imprisonment without realizing that these were consequences of their own acts. The increasing complexity of laws and lawmaking succeeded in increasing the volume of violations rather than producing the security of the society which they purported to represent. On still another level, there was the spectacle of a government involving its citizens in group responsibilities from which many may have preferred to remain apart, and in extreme situations, such as wars, compelling them to desert their own interests and even die without recourse of any sort.
• 242Warren thus attached to law, by virtue of its perpetual uncertainty, the blame for the great majority of crimes. Statute law could hardly be expected to do anything except aggravate and expand the diseases of society over a larger area. Warren scorned the explanation of laws and government by political theorists who sought to relate them to reality as manifestations of a common desire for the protection of life and possessions. He refused to believe that human history revealed such realization, and was convinced that the state had failed in its basic mission in providing protection for its citizens. What was worse, in his mind, was the effect of the governing process, which had been precipitated into a struggle for control of the governing privilege. This was the result, he explained, of the discovery that in an environment characterized by insecurity, the least insecure were the persons who were successful in obtaining control of the governing power. Thus rulers and ruling groups, protected temporarily by virtue of holding power, punished crimes by death and imprisonment without realizing that these were consequences of their own acts. The increasing complexity of laws and lawmaking succeeded in increasing the volume of violations rather than producing the security of the society which they purported to represent. On still another level, there was the spectacle of a government involving its citizens in group responsibilities from which many may have preferred to remain apart, and in extreme situations, such as wars, compelling them to desert their own interests and even die without recourse of any sort.
• 243Warren thus attached to law, by virtue of its perpetual uncertainty, the blame for the great majority of crimes. Statute law could hardly be expected to do anything except aggravate and expand the diseases of society over a larger area. Warren scorned the explanation of laws and government by political theorists who sought to relate them to reality as manifestations of a common desire for the protection of life and possessions. He refused to believe that human history revealed such realization, and was convinced that the state had failed in its basic mission in providing protection for its citizens. What was worse, in his mind, was the effect of the governing process, which had been precipitated into a struggle for control of the governing privilege. This was the result, he explained, of the discovery that in an environment characterized by insecurity, the least insecure were the persons who were successful in obtaining control of the governing power. Thus rulers and ruling groups, protected temporarily by virtue of holding power, punished crimes by death and imprisonment without realizing that these were consequences of their own acts. The increasing complexity of laws and lawmaking succeeded in increasing the volume of violations rather than producing the security of the society which they purported to represent. On still another level, there was the spectacle of a government involving its citizens in group responsibilities from which many may have preferred to remain apart, and in extreme situations, such as wars, compelling them to desert their own interests and even die without recourse of any sort.
• 244Warren proposed a solution which dispensed with government other than that of each person over himself; “. . . never shall man know liberty until each and every individual is acknowledged to be the only legitimate sovereign of his or her person, time and property, each living and acting at his own cost; . . . The only ground upon which man can know liberty is that of disconnection, disunion, individuality.” American radical writing has few expressions which match the determination found in this piece of anti-statist literature, even though the complexity of human relationships in modern urban industrial society make its message of separation of interests sound of little use or pertinence. Other than this course, Warren predicted, would only increase conflicts and consequently would require more direction from the “outside,” more mediation, more intervention, which he termed “government.”
• 245Warren proposed a solution which dispensed with government other than that of each person over himself; “. . . never shall man know liberty until each and every individual is acknowledged to be the only legitimate sovereign of his or her person, time and property, each living and acting at his own cost; . . . The only ground upon which man can know liberty is that of disconnection, disunion, individuality.” American radical writing has few expressions which match the determination found in this piece of anti-statist literature, even though the complexity of human relationships in modern urban industrial society make its message of separation of interests sound of little use or pertinence. Other than this course, Warren predicted, would only increase conflicts and consequently would require more direction from the “outside,” more mediation, more intervention, which he termed “government.”
• 246The next part of the exposition of the ideal equitable society described the process whereby the aims of the individual and the needs of society were to be blended. The dog-eat-dog kind of “individualism” Warren saw all about him caused him considerable concern. His aim was to avoid the initiative-destroying propensities of the community of property, with which he was all too familiar. Keeping in mind physical and intellectual variables present among persons, he built up his version of an economy geared to a system of exchanges which used the labor cost of production as its sole guide. He proposed an economic structure consisting of producing members, acting either alone or in groups organized entirely on the principle of voluntary cooperation to make the most from the known advantages of division of labor. In all cases there was to be full individual responsibility, a condition to be arrived at by agreement where more than one person was involved. Only under such circumstances would it be possible for a group to live socially without the committal of powers of decision into the hands of an arbiter, judge, politician or other representative of outside agency claiming to operate in the interests of the group, in which he included the churches. No halfway process would be of any avail, because it was impossible to surrender a definite quantity of one’s liberty. Once erected, a government always tended to encroach upon what it did not control, due to its control over the interpretation of the language which delegated the powers it first obtained.
• 247The next part of the exposition of the ideal equitable society described the process whereby the aims of the individual and the needs of society were to be blended. The dog-eat-dog kind of “individualism” Warren saw all about him caused him considerable concern. His aim was to avoid the initiative-destroying propensities of the community of property, with which he was all too familiar. Keeping in mind physical and intellectual variables present among persons, he built up his version of an economy geared to a system of exchanges which used the labor cost of production as its sole guide. He proposed an economic structure consisting of producing members, acting either alone or in groups organized entirely on the principle of voluntary cooperation to make the most from the known advantages of division of labor. In all cases there was to be full individual responsibility, a condition to be arrived at by agreement where more than one person was involved. Only under such circumstances would it be possible for a group to live socially without the committal of powers of decision into the hands of an arbiter, judge, politician or other representative of outside agency claiming to operate in the interests of the group, in which he included the churches. No halfway process would be of any avail, because it was impossible to surrender a definite quantity of one’s liberty. Once erected, a government always tended to encroach upon what it did not control, due to its control over the interpretation of the language which delegated the powers it first obtained.
• 248The next part of the exposition of the ideal equitable society described the process whereby the aims of the individual and the needs of society were to be blended. The dog-eat-dog kind of “individualism” Warren saw all about him caused him considerable concern. His aim was to avoid the initiative-destroying propensities of the community of property, with which he was all too familiar. Keeping in mind physical and intellectual variables present among persons, he built up his version of an economy geared to a system of exchanges which used the labor cost of production as its sole guide. He proposed an economic structure consisting of producing members, acting either alone or in groups organized entirely on the principle of voluntary cooperation to make the most from the known advantages of division of labor. In all cases there was to be full individual responsibility, a condition to be arrived at by agreement where more than one person was involved. Only under such circumstances would it be possible for a group to live socially without the committal of powers of decision into the hands of an arbiter, judge, politician or other representative of outside agency claiming to operate in the interests of the group, in which he included the churches. No halfway process would be of any avail, because it was impossible to surrender a definite quantity of one’s liberty. Once erected, a government always tended to encroach upon what it did not control, due to its control over the interpretation of the language which delegated the powers it first obtained.
• 249The next part of the exposition of the ideal equitable society described the process whereby the aims of the individual and the needs of society were to be blended. The dog-eat-dog kind of “individualism” Warren saw all about him caused him considerable concern. His aim was to avoid the initiative-destroying propensities of the community of property, with which he was all too familiar. Keeping in mind physical and intellectual variables present among persons, he built up his version of an economy geared to a system of exchanges which used the labor cost of production as its sole guide. He proposed an economic structure consisting of producing members, acting either alone or in groups organized entirely on the principle of voluntary cooperation to make the most from the known advantages of division of labor. In all cases there was to be full individual responsibility, a condition to be arrived at by agreement where more than one person was involved. Only under such circumstances would it be possible for a group to live socially without the committal of powers of decision into the hands of an arbiter, judge, politician or other representative of outside agency claiming to operate in the interests of the group, in which he included the churches. No halfway process would be of any avail, because it was impossible to surrender a definite quantity of one’s liberty. Once erected, a government always tended to encroach upon what it did not control, due to its control over the interpretation of the language which delegated the powers it first obtained.
• 250The way of life which Warren sought to inaugurate according to Equitable Commerce incorporated a number of considerations which were bound to make the entire project unpalatable to most of the affluent and comfortable members of society among his readers, and to all those with ambitions of carving out for themselves a higher position in the existing order. The ultimate re-organization of society on the basis of decentralized local communities in which the needs and capabilities of all might be readily learned, was expected to lead to the circumvention of political boundaries and the placing of all inter-community relations on a voluntary level as well. It was assumed that community services would be supplied in a superior manner by individuals who contracted to furnish them when called for by those who wanted and paid for such conveniences. Warren mentioned nothing concerning the problem of inter-community transportation and communication. Furthermore, this system was predicated on the theory that there was an optimum community size, following the attainment of which it was expected that additional communities would develop nearby to the parent. In developing this matter, Warren appeared to be thinking in terms of the experiences of the last year at New Harmony during its Owenite phase, although Owen himself had stated before New Harmony the necessity of limiting the size of the community.
• 251The way of life which Warren sought to inaugurate according to Equitable Commerce incorporated a number of considerations which were bound to make the entire project unpalatable to most of the affluent and comfortable members of society among his readers, and to all those with ambitions of carving out for themselves a higher position in the existing order. The ultimate re-organization of society on the basis of decentralized local communities in which the needs and capabilities of all might be readily learned, was expected to lead to the circumvention of political boundaries and the placing of all inter-community relations on a voluntary level as well. It was assumed that community services would be supplied in a superior manner by individuals who contracted to furnish them when called for by those who wanted and paid for such conveniences. Warren mentioned nothing concerning the problem of inter-community transportation and communication. Furthermore, this system was predicated on the theory that there was an optimum community size, following the attainment of which it was expected that additional communities would develop nearby to the parent. In developing this matter, Warren appeared to be thinking in terms of the experiences of the last year at New Harmony during its Owenite phase, although Owen himself had stated before New Harmony the necessity of limiting the size of the community.
• 252The way of life which Warren sought to inaugurate according to Equitable Commerce incorporated a number of considerations which were bound to make the entire project unpalatable to most of the affluent and comfortable members of society among his readers, and to all those with ambitions of carving out for themselves a higher position in the existing order. The ultimate re-organization of society on the basis of decentralized local communities in which the needs and capabilities of all might be readily learned, was expected to lead to the circumvention of political boundaries and the placing of all inter-community relations on a voluntary level as well. It was assumed that community services would be supplied in a superior manner by individuals who contracted to furnish them when called for by those who wanted and paid for such conveniences. Warren mentioned nothing concerning the problem of inter-community transportation and communication. Furthermore, this system was predicated on the theory that there was an optimum community size, following the attainment of which it was expected that additional communities would develop nearby to the parent. In developing this matter, Warren appeared to be thinking in terms of the experiences of the last year at New Harmony during its Owenite phase, although Owen himself had stated before New Harmony the necessity of limiting the size of the community.
• 253The way of life which Warren sought to inaugurate according to Equitable Commerce incorporated a number of considerations which were bound to make the entire project unpalatable to most of the affluent and comfortable members of society among his readers, and to all those with ambitions of carving out for themselves a higher position in the existing order. The ultimate re-organization of society on the basis of decentralized local communities in which the needs and capabilities of all might be readily learned, was expected to lead to the circumvention of political boundaries and the placing of all inter-community relations on a voluntary level as well. It was assumed that community services would be supplied in a superior manner by individuals who contracted to furnish them when called for by those who wanted and paid for such conveniences. Warren mentioned nothing concerning the problem of inter-community transportation and communication. Furthermore, this system was predicated on the theory that there was an optimum community size, following the attainment of which it was expected that additional communities would develop nearby to the parent. In developing this matter, Warren appeared to be thinking in terms of the experiences of the last year at New Harmony during its Owenite phase, although Owen himself had stated before New Harmony the necessity of limiting the size of the community.
• 254One of the primary requirements of the self-sufficient society was his insistence on the decentralization of manufactures, to be confined to the production for satisfaction of local needs exclusively. Among other things, this was considered beneficial in order to fix responsibility for the utility and quality of the products, which were variables over which consumers in a profit economy far removed from the site of production had practically no control.
• 255With respect to machinery, the position taken in some ways anticipated Henry George. Warren did not look upon it as a separate factor of production, but merely a combination of the two he recognized, land, or raw materials, and the labor which went into its production. The combined labor of producing the materials incorporated in the machine, in addition to that needed to construct the machine itself equalled what he called the “cost” of the machine, and belonged to the laborers and inventors who conceived and built it. Machinery was a social benefaction only so long as it made products available priced to consumers in terms of cost of production. The displacement of labor resulting from the introduction of machinery might seek employment in other activities not yet fully mechanized, having benefited from the cheapened product now resulting from the technological innovation. Warren looked forward to a future work day of two or three hours through the abolition of craft monopolies and the social sharing of the benefits of machine production. He did not believe that needs were indefinitely expansible, and thought that if technical production was geared to needs, there would be none of the pernicious effects of speculative manufacture with its disastrous accompaniments of “over-production” and subsequent destruction for the purpose of preserving price levels.
• 256With respect to machinery, the position taken in some ways anticipated Henry George. Warren did not look upon it as a separate factor of production, but merely a combination of the two he recognized, land, or raw materials, and the labor which went into its production. The combined labor of producing the materials incorporated in the machine, in addition to that needed to construct the machine itself equalled what he called the “cost” of the machine, and belonged to the laborers and inventors who conceived and built it. Machinery was a social benefaction only so long as it made products available priced to consumers in terms of cost of production. The displacement of labor resulting from the introduction of machinery might seek employment in other activities not yet fully mechanized, having benefited from the cheapened product now resulting from the technological innovation. Warren looked forward to a future work day of two or three hours through the abolition of craft monopolies and the social sharing of the benefits of machine production. He did not believe that needs were indefinitely expansible, and thought that if technical production was geared to needs, there would be none of the pernicious effects of speculative manufacture with its disastrous accompaniments of “over-production” and subsequent destruction for the purpose of preserving price levels.
• 257Warren’s opposition to the private ownership of machinery on the basis of a patent monopoly or any other contingency except actual construction was no more resolute than his opposition to the acquisition of land for speculative purposes. While fifteen years before he had questioned land titles themselves, he now was willing to accept the prevailing division, providing all land sales subsequent to the original purchase involved no addition to what he called the “prime cost” beyond expenses resulting from surveying, drawing up of contracts, and even taxes, to which there was no expression of resistance, a remarkable concession.
• 258Warren’s opposition to the private ownership of machinery on the basis of a patent monopoly or any other contingency except actual construction was no more resolute than his opposition to the acquisition of land for speculative purposes. While fifteen years before he had questioned land titles themselves, he now was willing to accept the prevailing division, providing all land sales subsequent to the original purchase involved no addition to what he called the “prime cost” beyond expenses resulting from surveying, drawing up of contracts, and even taxes, to which there was no expression of resistance, a remarkable concession.
• 259Equitable Commerce contained the now-familiar exposition of the labor note currency, with variations resulting from discrepancies which previous trial now exposed. Warren sought to solve the problem caused by the refusal of some members in his previous labor exchange to participate in accepting similar amounts of any member’s time. This came as a result of his declaration that work of greatest repugnance was worthy of the highest remuneration, since distastefulness must be considered one of the elements of “cost” if anyone was to perform the unpleasant tasks in a non-coercive society. It was felt that the undermining of this principle destroyed the whole basis of the labor exchange plan. Another novelty in the statement of the labor notes bore on the issue created by persons with different evaluations of labor time. Although Warren had repudiated gold and silver and all other commodity-backed moneys as inferior to the direct matching of labor for labor, in Equitable Commerce he decided that there should be an alternative to the acceptance of the actual labor of the person presenting any given note. This resulted in the concession to back the labor currency with “Indian” corn, which was judged to be superior to metals with respect to ease of determining its cost of production in man hours. All subsequent labor notes bore guarantees of payment in a number of pounds of corn.
• 260Equitable Commerce contained the now-familiar exposition of the labor note currency, with variations resulting from discrepancies which previous trial now exposed. Warren sought to solve the problem caused by the refusal of some members in his previous labor exchange to participate in accepting similar amounts of any member’s time. This came as a result of his declaration that work of greatest repugnance was worthy of the highest remuneration, since distastefulness must be considered one of the elements of “cost” if anyone was to perform the unpleasant tasks in a non-coercive society. It was felt that the undermining of this principle destroyed the whole basis of the labor exchange plan. Another novelty in the statement of the labor notes bore on the issue created by persons with different evaluations of labor time. Although Warren had repudiated gold and silver and all other commodity-backed moneys as inferior to the direct matching of labor for labor, in Equitable Commerce he decided that there should be an alternative to the acceptance of the actual labor of the person presenting any given note. This resulted in the concession to back the labor currency with “Indian” corn, which was judged to be superior to metals with respect to ease of determining its cost of production in man hours. All subsequent labor notes bore guarantees of payment in a number of pounds of corn.
• 261Warren had no intention of creating a sensational incident and a focus for violent language by placing his ideas and the results of his investigations and experiences within the perusing reach of those with polemical predispositions. The concluding pages had a note of abdication on his part in the event of such incidence, which in many ways was the index of Warren’s personality and a source of criticism at a later time:
• 262The discovery of a colonial precedent neither detracted from Greene’s enthusiasm for his project nor cast any suspicions upon his independent status as an innovator. With the financial writings of others, however, he was already familiar, particularly Kellogg and Proudhon. It is highly probable that he learned from both, even though later editions of his works carried sharp criticisms of some of their theories. Favorable quotations of Kellogg in several of his works indicated a thorough reading at one time of Labor and Other Capital. His knowledge of Proudhon appears to have been somewhat less thorough until after a stay in France in the late ‘50’s, during which time he became personally acquainted with the internationally-known French anarchist. It is most inaccurate to speak of Greene simply as a proponent of Proudhonian principles.
• 263Coming at a time when the labor and consumer groups were experimenting with “associated workshops” and “protective union stores,” Greene suggested that the mutual bank be incorporated in the movement, forming what he called “complementary units of production, consumption, and exchange, . . . the triple formula of practical mutualism.” This program of mutualism he considered best adapted to local community level. In times of economic distress, the mutual money would prove the bulwark against inflationary or deflationary pressures: “the town cannot fail disastrously, for the real property is always there, rooted in the very ground.”
• 264For some time the campaign ran strongly to obtain a charter from the Massachusetts General Court for the establishment of a mutual bank. Greene, now in Boston, argued the case before the Town and Country Club of which he was a member, along with such notables as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, Henry James, the elder, W. H. Channing, Octavius B. Frothingham, William D. Ticknor, Charles Sumner, E. R. Hoar, Henry Giles, John Orvis, and George B. Loring. Repeated petitions to the General Court were made in 1850-51 both under his sponsorship and that of groups of inhabitants of Brookfield, Ware and Warren. In 1857 he restated his financial arguments in a volume titled The Radical Deficiency of the Existing Circulating Medium, and the Advantages of a Mutual Currency, under the stimulation of the new panic assailing the nation’s economy. Apathy was the principal response. Shortly thereafter Greene left for France, where he became interested for a time in mathematics, concern over social matters abating until after the war.
• 265For some time the campaign ran strongly to obtain a charter from the Massachusetts General Court for the establishment of a mutual bank. Greene, now in Boston, argued the case before the Town and Country Club of which he was a member, along with such notables as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, Henry James, the elder, W. H. Channing, Octavius B. Frothingham, William D. Ticknor, Charles Sumner, E. R. Hoar, Henry Giles, John Orvis, and George B. Loring. Repeated petitions to the General Court were made in 1850-51 both under his sponsorship and that of groups of inhabitants of Brookfield, Ware and Warren. In 1857 he restated his financial arguments in a volume titled The Radical Deficiency of the Existing Circulating Medium, and the Advantages of a Mutual Currency, under the stimulation of the new panic assailing the nation’s economy. Apathy was the principal response. Shortly thereafter Greene left for France, where he became interested for a time in mathematics, concern over social matters abating until after the war.
• 266Greene’s Equality contained other than his money and banking theories. Some of his sociological ideas, albeit evidencing little logical organization and often contradictory, appeared here and there in its pages. One was his assertion that as an individual, a man received certain rights at creation, but that the right of property was not one of them. This was a social creation, and was not absolute. “Society gives me . . . proprietorship . . . because it is for its own interests to do so; my right to my watch is not a natural, but a social right. I own it, not because I earned it, . . . but by the free grace and favor of society.” Greene’s conception of individualism, however, was religious in nature. Although failing to describe the rights which the individual received from God, he condemned coercion of any kind as a contention against God Himself. It was therefore “profoundly immoral” to make a man dependent upon his neighbors or upon public opinion, which made him “subservient to his accidents, instead of supreme over them.”
• 267Greene’s Equality contained other than his money and banking theories. Some of his sociological ideas, albeit evidencing little logical organization and often contradictory, appeared here and there in its pages. One was his assertion that as an individual, a man received certain rights at creation, but that the right of property was not one of them. This was a social creation, and was not absolute. “Society gives me . . . proprietorship . . . because it is for its own interests to do so; my right to my watch is not a natural, but a social right. I own it, not because I earned it, . . . but by the free grace and favor of society.” Greene’s conception of individualism, however, was religious in nature. Although failing to describe the rights which the individual received from God, he condemned coercion of any kind as a contention against God Himself. It was therefore “profoundly immoral” to make a man dependent upon his neighbors or upon public opinion, which made him “subservient to his accidents, instead of supreme over them.”
• 268In another respect he was much less indefinite. Equality contained one of the first of the anarchist arraignments of socialism as a system of societal organization. Socialism, averred Greene, was the only political system in which he could see no “good points.” In other types he saw a few privileged groups such as nobles, slaveholders, or “usurers” who managed to gather some advantages as compared to the volume of evil endured by “the mass of the people,” but no one appeared to gain under socialism:
• 269Greene’s career after his advocacy of the mutual bank was as much an account of irreconcilables as that which had previously transpired. Although abhorring government beyond the local level, he joined the Democratic party. At the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1853 he championed minority representation and woman suffrage. He was also an outspoken abolitionist. Wealthy by inheritance and marriage, he returned from his stay in France at the outbreak of the Civil War, and became commander of the 14th Massachusetts Regiment, later resigning after a quarrel with Governor Andrew.
• 270Greene’s career after his advocacy of the mutual bank was as much an account of irreconcilables as that which had previously transpired. Although abhorring government beyond the local level, he joined the Democratic party. At the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1853 he championed minority representation and woman suffrage. He was also an outspoken abolitionist. Wealthy by inheritance and marriage, he returned from his stay in France at the outbreak of the Civil War, and became commander of the 14th Massachusetts Regiment, later resigning after a quarrel with Governor Andrew.
• 271Activity in the ranks of the intellectual radicals once more absorbed his interest at the end of the war. He restated most of his social philosophy in a small book titled Sovereignty of the People, at about the time Heywood’s Worcester group began to demonstrate interest in the mutual bank literature. The reprinting of an enlarged edition of Mutual Banking, the formation of the Labor Reform Leagues, and Heywood’s publication of The Word all found in Greene a ready supporter and participant. In the latter part of 1872 he became a member of the French Section of the Marxian International Working People’s Association in Boston. Shortly afterward he became president of the New England Labor Reform League. This affiliation placed the N. E. L. R. L. as a whole under suspicion as a branch of the International. The aims of the former were alleged to be a mere restatement of those of “the foreign communists.” Although he collaborated with French members in the formulation of an address outlining the principles of the International Working People’s Association, which was subsequently read before the N. E. L. R. L. at the 1873 convention, it appears that neither he nor the League continued relations. This is borne out by Greene’s critical writings concerning communism and his first translations of Proudhon’s writings.
• 272Activity in the ranks of the intellectual radicals once more absorbed his interest at the end of the war. He restated most of his social philosophy in a small book titled Sovereignty of the People, at about the time Heywood’s Worcester group began to demonstrate interest in the mutual bank literature. The reprinting of an enlarged edition of Mutual Banking, the formation of the Labor Reform Leagues, and Heywood’s publication of The Word all found in Greene a ready supporter and participant. In the latter part of 1872 he became a member of the French Section of the Marxian International Working People’s Association in Boston. Shortly afterward he became president of the New England Labor Reform League. This affiliation placed the N. E. L. R. L. as a whole under suspicion as a branch of the International. The aims of the former were alleged to be a mere restatement of those of “the foreign communists.” Although he collaborated with French members in the formulation of an address outlining the principles of the International Working People’s Association, which was subsequently read before the N. E. L. R. L. at the 1873 convention, it appears that neither he nor the League continued relations. This is borne out by Greene’s critical writings concerning communism and his first translations of Proudhon’s writings.
• 273Activity in the ranks of the intellectual radicals once more absorbed his interest at the end of the war. He restated most of his social philosophy in a small book titled Sovereignty of the People, at about the time Heywood’s Worcester group began to demonstrate interest in the mutual bank literature. The reprinting of an enlarged edition of Mutual Banking, the formation of the Labor Reform Leagues, and Heywood’s publication of The Word all found in Greene a ready supporter and participant. In the latter part of 1872 he became a member of the French Section of the Marxian International Working People’s Association in Boston. Shortly afterward he became president of the New England Labor Reform League. This affiliation placed the N. E. L. R. L. as a whole under suspicion as a branch of the International. The aims of the former were alleged to be a mere restatement of those of “the foreign communists.” Although he collaborated with French members in the formulation of an address outlining the principles of the International Working People’s Association, which was subsequently read before the N. E. L. R. L. at the 1873 convention, it appears that neither he nor the League continued relations. This is borne out by Greene’s critical writings concerning communism and his first translations of Proudhon’s writings.
• 274Activity in the ranks of the intellectual radicals once more absorbed his interest at the end of the war. He restated most of his social philosophy in a small book titled Sovereignty of the People, at about the time Heywood’s Worcester group began to demonstrate interest in the mutual bank literature. The reprinting of an enlarged edition of Mutual Banking, the formation of the Labor Reform Leagues, and Heywood’s publication of The Word all found in Greene a ready supporter and participant. In the latter part of 1872 he became a member of the French Section of the Marxian International Working People’s Association in Boston. Shortly afterward he became president of the New England Labor Reform League. This affiliation placed the N. E. L. R. L. as a whole under suspicion as a branch of the International. The aims of the former were alleged to be a mere restatement of those of “the foreign communists.” Although he collaborated with French members in the formulation of an address outlining the principles of the International Working People’s Association, which was subsequently read before the N. E. L. R. L. at the 1873 convention, it appears that neither he nor the League continued relations. This is borne out by Greene’s critical writings concerning communism and his first translations of Proudhon’s writings.
• 275Between 1872-1876 Heywood and the League made several attempts to obtain a charter for a mutual bank from the Massachusetts General Court, but to no avail. The earliest of these was buried in the Committee on Banks and Banking, three of whose seven members were bankers themselves. The general treatment received strengthened the convictions of prominent members of the League that “legislatures are made up of capitalists who draw pay for serving their own interests, not the people’s.” Greene participated in general criticism of the legislature but gave no evidence of entertaining hope that opposition might be overcome.
• 276Greene returned to Europe in the spring of 1878. His premature death in Weston, England during this same year brought to an end the career of the ablest native American anarchist writer and theorist on finance. Mutual Banking remained prominent in the individualist propaganda thereafter without additions or abridgement. It was widely read by those interested in radical currency, and has been reprinted repeatedly up to the present day.
• 277Greene returned to Europe in the spring of 1878. His premature death in Weston, England during this same year brought to an end the career of the ablest native American anarchist writer and theorist on finance. Mutual Banking remained prominent in the individualist propaganda thereafter without additions or abridgement. It was widely read by those interested in radical currency, and has been reprinted repeatedly up to the present day.
• 278.  Liberty, III (June 20, 1885), 2-3; (July 18, 1885), 2; Letter to Cleveland, 7-8, 11.