Here we present the basic ideas of Benjamin Ricketson Tucker, excerpted from the book; Individual Liberty, Selections From the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker, Vanguard Press, New York, 1926, Kraus Reprint Co., Millwood, NY, 1973, i.e. mainly a) State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein they differ, and b) Property Under Anarchism. Regarding a) it must be mentioned that Tucker mostly supports the "modified" labour theory of value of Josiah Warren, i.e. the "cost principle", that really is not LTOV at all as defined in Marxism, but is more according with Kropotkin, that rejected the LTOV, see Modern Science and Anarchism http://www.anarchy.no/kropot1.html . Regarding b) it must be mentioned that it is clear from the text and other writings from Tucker, that when he writes about "property", he means "possession", not private capitalistic property, following Proudhon's hypothesis that "property is theft", see http://www.anarchy.no/proudhon.html . It is also interesting that when he writes about law and order in an anarchist society, based on juries, he indicates only one set of laws, not several. We have also quoted statements from Liberty and Property and Anarchism and Crime, from the same book.
It must also be mentioned that the economic theories of Tucker are a bit outdated, a.o.t. neglecting authoritarian coercive market failures and how to deal with it. Furthermore the attack on Kropotkin's theories of communist anarchism for not being anarchist, is not accepted by the Anarchist International, but this criticism of communism by Tucker is mainly valid for non-anarchist semi-libertarian/semi-democratic systems such as so called 'anarchist' communism and platformism. Tucker was an individualist anarchist, placed to the right of Proudhon on the economic-political map, see http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html , but still a significant socialist. (IIFOR)
Proudhon is most famous for his hypothesis that Property is theft, but he was for possession. He was a social individualist anarchist, see the economic-political map at System Theory. IIFOR's precisation of Proudhon's property vs possession concept is: Anarchies very briefly defined are systems with small rank and income differences, plus efficiency. Any ownership that is compatible with systems with small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, is possession. Possession may be individual or collective, private or public. 1. Any ownership that results in large income differences is capitalist, economical plutarchy. 2. Any ownership that results in large rank differences is statist. 1. and 2. are property, i.e. theft, not possession. [1]. The basic ideas of Proudhon are elaborated in the following quotes...
Background information: [1-6] Regarding "law and order" in the Spanish revolution Bolloten explains: "The courts of law were supplanted by revolutionary tribunals, which dispensed justice in their own way. 'Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself,' declared Juan Garcia Oliver, a leading Anarchist who became minister of justice in November 1936. 'Some used to call this "taking a person for a ride," [paseo] but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of regular judicial bodies.'"[7] This distinction no doubt escaped the thousands of people who were murdered because they happened to have political or religious beliefs that the Anarchists did not agree with. "'We do not wish to deny,' avowed Diego Abad de Santillan, a prominent Anarchist in the region of Catalonia, 'that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction.'"[8] De Santillan's comment typifies the Spanish Anarchists' attitude toward his movement's act of murder of several thousand people for their political views: it is a mere "natural phenomenon," nothing to feel guilty over.
Bolloten's account of the Anarchist militants' wave of murders is well- corroborated by other sources. Thus, Hugh Thomas' The Spanish Civil War (a work which Bolloten takes issue with on a number of points) explains that: "All who could conceivably be suspected of sympathy for the nationalist rising were in danger. As among the nationalists, the irrational circumstances of a civil war made it impossible to lay down what was or was not treason. The worthy died, the unworthy often lived. In East Andalusia, lorries manned by the CNT drove into villages and ordered mayors to hand over their fascists. The mayors had often to say that they had all fled but the terrorists would often hear from informers which of the better off people were still there, arrest them and shoot them in a nearby ravine."[9] Thomas adds that, "In the vast majority of cases, the murders were of the rank and file of the Right. Often members of the working class would be killed by their own acquaintances for hypocrisy, for having kow-towed too often to their social superiors, even simply for untruthfulness. In Altea, near Alicante, for example, a cafe proprietor was killed with a hatchet by an anarchist for having overcharged for stamps and for the glass of wine that buyers of stamps were forced to take while waiting."[10]
Political belief was not the only kind of heterodoxy which the Spanish Anarchists refused to tolerate. Mere acceptance of theism, typically in its catholic variant, provoked many of the Anarchist militants to violence. The burning of religious buildings, from cathedrals and churches to convents and monasteries was widespread, as was the murder of priests and nuns. This might puzzle the naive observer; after all, is not the catholic church a perfect example of a communal, non-profit organization? Is not church property "held in common" by its adherents? At least in theory, the clergy's vow of poverty obliges them to hand over all of their personal property to the church, which then provides for their needs out of the communal stockpile. The catholic church seems to satisfy many of the social postulates that the Spanish Anarchists embraced. This did not save the lives of the unfortunate clergy, since militant atheism had been a feature of European anarchism at least since the time of Bakunin, and because the catholic church had historically allied itself politically with conservative monarchism.
As Bolloten states, "Hundreds of churches and convents were burned or put to secular uses. 'catholic dens no longer exist,' declared the Anarchosyndicalist organ, Solidaridad Obrera . 'The torches of the people have reduced them to ashes.'...'For the Revolution to be a fact,' ran an Anarchist youth manifesto, 'we must demolish the three pillars of reaction: the church, the army, and capitalism. The church has already been brought to account. The temples have been destroyed by fire and the ecclesiastical crows who were unable to escape have been taken care of by the people.'"[11] As Bolloten sums matters up: "Thousands of members of the clergy and religious orders as well as of the propertied classes were killed, but others, fearing arrest or execution, fled abroad, including many prominent liberal or moderate Republicans."
Thomas amply confirms Bolloten's description of the Anarchists' religious persecution and intolerance. "'Do you still believe in this God who never speaks and who does not defend himself even when his images and temples are burned? Admit that God does not exist and that you priests are all so many hypocrites who deceive the people': such questions were put in countless towns and villages of republican Spain. At no time in the history of Europe, or even perhaps of the world, has so passionate a hatred of religion and all its works been shown. Yet one priest who, while 1,215 monks, nuns, and priests died in the province of Barcelona, managed to escape to France through the help of President Companys, was generous enough to admit that 'the reds have destroyed our churches, but we first had destroyed the church.'"[12] , Source [13]
Anarchists are opposed to the death penalty and to summary executions, i.e. this is authoritarian and not anarchist. Such tendencies in the Spanish revolution are clearly authoritarian and drag the libertarian/anarchists degree down. There are however more anarchist tendencies than authoritarian, and thus seen aggregated for the whole liberated zone of Spain the system was clearly anarchist 1936-39, but not with such an high degree of anarchy that some people seem to believe, and the system was quite far from the anarchist ideal.
[5] Noam Chomsky, "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship," in American Power and the New Mandarins (NY: Pantheon Books, 1969), esp. pp.79- 124, p. 140.
The newly created Indian relatively autonomous area, so called state, of Chhattisgarh, is one of the hotspots of the social struggle on the subcontinent. Located in the middle of the peninsula it is characterised by a high percentage of tribal people and low castes. This very fact created a secular tradition of social rebellions and religious reform movements trying to break the traditional extreme social segregation embodied in the "divinely" legitimised castes of Hinduism. The modern form of these popular movements is a.o.t. the Naxalite rebellion which is controlling a part of the area called Dandakaranya and commands great political influence in vast swaths of the region. It is trying to push for community development in collective forms with considerable success.
Meanwhile the appetite of the globalised elites, both the domestic and the international ones are growing. The region is rich of natural resources for mining and forestry. In order to get hold on it the traditional communities must be evicted from their lands. A general warning must be given about the Maoist-organized forces, say, The Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), i.e. a proto-state, in the area, that is in general an obstacle for a more libertarian development. But there are also libertarian tendencies within the popular fight.
Under the guise of the "war on terrorism" the elites have unleashed a deadly campaign of extinction with appalling atrocities like mass executions, beheadings, gang rapes etc. All this passes completely unnoticed from the global public opinion while India is adjured as a new economic "tiger", creating broad consumerist middle classes. About the other, dark side of the medal nobody wants to take notice of.
The Anarchist International has launched an appeal for urgently needed solidarity which main aspect is to make the libertarian and popular fight known to the world.
Your solidarity and support to this historic struggle going on in the very heart of India can be in very many ways: You can come and lend your expertise by staying in the area for a few months, or contribute money, even small contributions will be appreciated, to, say, medicine and any other means that will be of use to the people of the low castes and their fight. We also request you to tell the world of what is becoming of the so-called largest democracy in the world, its in reality a murderous, totalitarian state socialist society, which is consciously being kept away from public scrutiny. It is important that the truth reaches the people of the country and the masses of the world at large. India is at a turning point, the Anarchist International stresses the terrible living conditions of ordinary Indians co-existing with the economical boom. Either India breaks with the statism and capitalist/economical plutarchist tendencies, or sectarianism and Hindu totalitarian state socialism will prevail. This is a message of hope, but also fearful warnings.
India is as mentioned in reality a totalitarian state socialist society, far from real democracy. The degree of socialism is ca 50,5%, i.e. significant, and thus the degree of capitalism is ca 49,5%, i.e. not the significant, but still an important tendency. The gini-index is 32,5. As rule of the thumb a gini-index less than 35 indicates socialism. The degree of statism is ca 93,8% - very, very significant, i.e. the degree of autonomy is only ca 6,2%. This is mainly so due to the caste system. The authoritarian degree is ca 75%, and thus the libertarian degree is only ca 25%. India is ranked as no 130 on the ranking of countries according to authoritatian degree. It is more socialist than China (ranked as no 88), i.e. left fascist. India is in reality located in the sector of state-communism, in the marxist quadrant of the map, more authoritarian than Cuba (ranked as no 65), in the same sector. It is state-communist in all but the name. Low life expectancy at birth (years), low adult literacy rate and the caste system in general make the system horrible statist, there is very little autonomy. The system has a top heavy pyramid in rank, very much government, and is thus far from a "functioning anarchy" as some of the newsmedia have suggested. There are elections of rulers, yes, and if there were not elections the system would be even more authoritarian, but this does not change the ultra-authoritarian system significantly, the top heavy pyramid exists regardless of shifts on the top.
Key details of India's national elections in 2009: About 714 million voters were eligible to cast their ballots at more than 828,000 polling stations. Overall turnout was 59 to 60 percent. Major political players: Left-of-center Congress party which, since independence from Britain in 1947, has governed India for a total of more than four decades; Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party; Third Front: An alliance of communists, socialists, regional parties and caste-based parties. Main campaign issues: No central issues resonated with voters and most campaigning revolved around vague promises of jobs and prosperity. The communist totalitarian system at about 75% authoritarian degree is still going strong...
19.05.2009. Newly elected Congress lawmakers formally chose Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as their leader for a second term Tuesday, clearing the way for the swearing in of his new government this week. The Congress-led coalition captured 261 seats in India's 543-seat Parliament, far more than most analysts predicted, but still 11 short of a majority. On Tuesday however, two key regional parties - Bahujan Samaj Party and Samajwadi Party, which together will control 43 seats - offered to support Singh's government. Congress has governed for nearly 50 years of modern India's 61 years of independence. 22.05.2005. Mr Singh and a 19-member cabinet were sworn in. No significant changes in the system's fundamental parameters are expected.
10.10.2009. India intensifies fight against Maoist rebels. Indian authorities plan to use state police, paramilitaries and special squads to fight Maoist rebels, considered the biggest threat to internal security, a federal official said. Maoist guerrillas, known as Naxalites, have battled the government since the late 1960s. They enjoy support not only in the poorest and tribal communities, but also among youth and the intelligentsia, according to government officials. Indian authorities categorize the Naxalites this way: hardcore armed, local guerillas and Jan (public) militias. The government estimates there are 10,000 hardcore armed Maoists. Last year, 1,591 Maoist rebel attacks killed 721 people, government officials said. About 600 people have died so far this year in more than 1,400 rebel attacks. India recognizes that over time, the rebels have improved their equipment and honed tactics. In addition to targeting police, alleged police informers and people they call "class enemies," the rebels have placed greater emphasis on attacking infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railways, and power and telecommunication networks. The Naxalites, who began their movement in the West Bengal, now have influence in 20 of the country's 28 states, according to the government. The Anarchist International supports the libertarian opposition in India, and is against the Maoists/Naxalites, that represent an even more authoritarian system than the present totalitarian communist system in India.
15.11.2010. The Anarchist International supports the anti-Posco struggle in Odisha, India. POSCO, a large Korean corporation with much US financial capital, wants to invest in the mining industry in Orissa (India) and build a steel plant, and captive a power station and port in the Erasama block of the Jagatsinghpur district. The people's protest intensifies. It is the largest single investment project in the area, and the struggle over it is an example for the type of development India should embark on: a) the globalist capitalist, i.e. economical plutarchist - and statist - with the expulsion of the people, destruction of environment, waste of resources and production for the global market, or b) a pro-people policy based on careful use of the natural resources and organized by the people themselves. The Anarchist International i) supports alternative b), and ii) the people, seen as a class - as opposed to the superiors in rank and/or income, in general!
07.01.2011. The Anarchist International supports the anti-nuke struggle in Maharashtra, India. The Indian state of Maharashtra has a vast coastline, home to many fishing villages and farming communities. Approximately 100 kilometres of this coastline has now been earmarked for major power generating projects by the government, including a nuclear power plant. The local people and the Anarchist International protest against the nuclear power plant.
The deal at the Bali-conference on the environmental issues came after the United States, facing sharp verbal attacks in a final open-door negotiating session, reversed its opposition to a last-minute amendment by India. "We've listened very closely to many of our colleagues here during these two weeks, but especially to what has been said in this hall today," Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, who led the American delegation, told the assembled delegates. "We will go forward and join consensus," she said. The Bush administration had earlier made a significant change in policy, ending its long-held objection to the need to formally negotiate new steps to avoid climate dangers. This time, the United States agreed to set a deadline for an addendum to the original treaty, which was signed by Mr. Bush's father in 1992. The agreement notes the need for "urgency" in addressing climate change and recognizes that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required." Still, it does not bind the United States or any country to commitments on reducing greenhouse pollution. "It starts a negotiation that allows but doesn't require an outcome where the US takes a cap," or a national limit on greenhouse gases, said David Doniger, a former climate negotiator in the Clinton administration and the climate policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. The agreement sets the stage for some commitments by developing countries to reduce greenhouse emissions. But it includes no language making such steps mandatory. American negotiators here had pushed hard to get developing countries, including emerging economic giants like China and India, to agree to seek cuts while retaining flexibility on how to make them. The last-minute dispute Saturday was over the wording of commitments by developing countries.
The overall agreement, if completed by 2009, would also ensure continuity for parties to the Kyoto Protocol, the only existing addendum to the original climate treaty, which took effect in 2005. The Kyoto pact limits emissions by three dozen industrialized countries but has been rejected by the United States.Its emissions caps expire in 2012, and adherents, particularly European countries, were eager to start the process of setting new limits to sustain markets in emissions credits — a keystone of the protocol. The Bush administration is increasingly under pressure domestically to take action on global warming. Climate legislation is gaining momentum in the Democrat-controlled Congress and presidential candidates from both parties are generally more engaged on the subject. In April, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's contention that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant and ordered it to re-examine the case for regulating carbon dioxide from vehicles. Dozens of states are moving ahead with caps on greenhouse gases. The differences in philosophy at the meeting were striking and fundamental. European Union negotiators said they favored specific government-imposed caps on emissions and wanted industrial countries to lead the way.
The United States favored relying on "aspirational" goals, research to advance nonpolluting energy technologies and a mix of measures, including mandatory steps like efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances — but all set by individual nations, not mandated by a global pact. Developing countries, a vaguely defined group that includes countries as different as China and Costa Rica, have long insisted that rich countries, which spent more than a century adding carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, should take the first step. The tenor of the conference improved markedly after European nations, frustrated with the United States, threatened on Thursday to boycott talks proposed by the Bush administration in Hawaii next month. Germany's environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel, who led the criticism of the United States earlier in the week, said Friday, "The climate in the climate convention has changed a little bit. "It's true that during the last night and during the negotiations America was more flexible than in the first part of the conference. "We very much appreciate this. Not only the Americans but also other parties."
Reuters reported Friday that the European Union had dropped a central demand that the guidelines for the agreement should include a reference to tough emissions targets for wealthy countries to meet by 2020. Coincidentally or not, the mood shifted after a speech Thursday by former Vice President Al Gore, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize this year for helping to alert the world to the danger of global warming. After declaring that the United States was "principally responsible for obstructing progress" in Bali, he urged delegates to agree to an open-ended deal that could be enhanced after President Bush left office. "Over the next two years the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now," Mr. Gore said to loud applause. "You must anticipate that."
Developing nations, notably China and India, stuck with their longstanding refusal to accept limits on their emissions, despite projections that they will soon become the dominant sources of climate-warming gases. Separately, participants agreed on a system that would compensate developing countries for protecting their rain forests, a plan that environmentalists described as an innovative effort to mitigate global warming. Rain forest destruction is a major source of carbon dioxide, and living rain forests, according to recent research, play an important role in absorbing the gas. Precisely how countries with large rain forests, like Indonesia and Brazil, would be compensated has not been fully worked out. United Nations officials said part of the financing would come from developed countries through aid and other financing would come from carbon credits traded under the Kyoto pact. The carbon market allows rich countries to receive credit toward their targets by investing in climate-friendly projects in poor countries.
Is it too little too late? Difficult to say by now, but the agreement could be clearer. More must be done to do away with the problem, but there is a realistic hope to solve it. We will put attention to the ECO -ANARCHIST MANIFESTO (EAM) at EAM , and the The Green Anarchist International Association - GAIA , that have the fight against man-made global warming at the top of the agenda for anarchist direct actions. Regarding the struggle against manmade global warming, the eco-anarchists are in the forefront, and demand joint international cooperation to solve the problem.
Source: "Nations Agree on Steps to Revive Climate Treaty ", by THOMAS FULLER and ANDREW C. REVKIN, NY-TIMES December 16, 2007 and AIIS.