- RENZO NOVATORE -Areola, January 1920


cO\& of -x^h&Qootra,/

V/EICC'E to the onorcho-lndlvlduollst issue of THE STORM! Jim onct I hove brouoht tooether several points of vie' thot have oLL been lobelled bobh Indlvlduollsb ond anorchlsb. The omorol eoolsm of Sblrner ("Eurooeon" onarcho-lndlvlduollsm), bhe noburol Loi" of Srooner, ond bhe morol revolb of Thoreou (bhe "Amerlcon" schools), shore o common reiecblon of bhe mechanlsblc constraints of society, ond coll for odvoncemenb bo more notural lifestyles.

This bheme Is reflecbed In bhe countei—culbure of bhe 60s ond In bhe t'ew Aoe of bhe 70s; In whot Theodore Roszok coll bhe pollblcs of bhe r>erson.(1) The message for bhe 80s Is cleorly chat of self-discovery, consciousness rolslnq, ond oersonol bronsformoblon.(2) Various techniques, new ond old, ore now on bhe market offering Individuals an experience of Self beuond bhe socialized roles mosb Identlfu with.

These socialized roles ore creatures of the mind, okln to the fixed Ideos Stlrner rebels aoalnst. The mind cannot but entrao us In these roles. The very function of the mind Is the survival of the Individual - ond, thus, the survival ond reinforcement of whobever roles the Individual considers Itself to be. This precludes ony experience of who me ore BEYOND our roles, beyond our Inbellecbual poslblons, beuond our bodies (physical positions). This orecludes ony experience of thot ihlch experiences oil of these: Self.

We ore eoch the universe looklna at Itself from a unloue point of view; o microcosm; the sole Eoo In one of Its monu dlsoulses. There Is no conflict between Soooner's noturol rlnhts ond Stlrner's omorol eoolsm. The lows of noture ore the some os the Lots of our own lnteorltn. Those <-rocesses L'hlch we coll noture ore T-rrresslons of the Self, os ore our - n Inbernol processes. In order bo r ->EP I cprr this lb Is necessoru bo '-ohobo'-^ bhe mind's defense estobllsh-ont (ft ond TM ore two such methods, nth l> different similarities to en). ^ ^on't need the mind looklno nit for Our survlvol All the time!

When I am not octlno out of survlvol (physical or psychological), I bend bo ac* oub of Inbegrlby; bhot Is, I express more of Self. | Qm nob In conflict with my environment, ond I om In communication with others. The Self Is o communications network, ond society Is the technology used to focllltote this communication. Quite often, the techniques (being products of the mind) oct to ensure their own survival when they are no longer necessary to (and thus oct to Imoede) their original purpose. This Is whot we generally coll society; we ought to coll It a communications breokdownl Individuals IN communication with Self, ond thus with others, Is whot anarchist Abbo Gordln colled INTER -


To be In communlcoblon with the Self In others Is to fullu oppreclote the Infinite dlversltu of life os an expression of Infinite unity. It Is to drop the boxes and cobegorles we usuollu out others Into. It Is to transcend the fixed Ideos and morallsm we otherwise tend to reinforce. Alon Watts has pointed out thot Western culture connot tolerote Infinite diversity within socletw or the lorger universe. All phenomena must conform to the estobllshed pobberns wlbhln bhe mind.

lb Is bhls preoccupoblon wlbh potterne of mind thot I see os the major borrler prevenblna onorchlsbs from communlcoblno ond cooperoblng. Anorchu belongs bo bhose who practice self-determlnotlon; not to those who only construct models of It. Todoy, there ore monu who ore engooed In struggle for self-determlnotlon... while onorchlsts debobe coplbollsm vs communism (or syndicalism, os In bhls Issue). Todoy bhere ore monu vlcblms of State Injustice...while certoln "libertarians" odvocote onorcho-copltol-punlshment! This obsession with protecting the Indlvlduol Is as bad for bhe movement os "protective custody" Is for one's freedom of... movement. A model based on feor of obhers con only sblfle ony reol orowbh boiiiord self-debermlnotlon ond self-octuollzotlon.

The Indlvlduollsm which THE STORM! odvocotes Is not bound by belief bo o porblculor economic form - It enbroces whotever forms con exist In the


context of onorchy, of Individual soverelonty. We protest the reduction of onorchlsm to the Level of economic Ideology. Our IndlvlduoLlsm Is okln to oersonollsm - which recognizes the obsolute volue of human subjectlvltu, the source of oil other human volues. We seek o fuller experience of Self In the context of communication ond cooperation with others. We reject the defensive competition of copltollsm as well as the subservient conformity of communism. We seek the dissolution of socletu Into the open condition of Inter-lndlvlduollsm. Our politics, which Is the politics of the Self, Is the politics of the tronsformatlon of volues. 10/31/78

1) JhaocLore Ro&zxih: Person/Planet; 1 978, Anchor PreSiA./2>oublexlau., Qa.rd.Gn CLty., flew Vork. See aLtuo: TJlark. SatLn: flew Ag.e Po/ttL<>\; Whttexxip Booh*, 2229 Jefferson Ave, West Vancouver, GC V7V 2A9.

2) See ui thL-s. Lssue: Barn&tormLng., Jhe PLchett cCcne, and Henry. %avad Jhoreau. St Ls cxircouA to note, that the. fLrst journal C. Armand. eALted was. £■'Cre flouvelle (Jhe fleiu Cra) in 1901. UhLs car/i.er new ere uei crushed und.er the. fascA^st heel. Uodaij-s new aae may. also go the wan. of- the pre.-naz.i- cou/itar-

<uilture beneath the f oread of rtstng reaction agatnst gay and women<1 rtghts (see: Hentoff, You're Off/, tnside).

3) See UHC SU0RV]!U3, Jnst&ad of a Program, for Lntar-indLvtduaZyLsm. See ACJllAJUZAUJOflS, Stewart Cmery., 2ouble-dxtij., 1978, for communccotcon,

-'CKe St^brru/

A Journal for Free Spirits

Edited and Published Twice a Year by Jim Kernochan and Hark A. Sullivan

227 Columbus Ave. Apt. 2E

New York, NY 10023 (USA) - — * * *__

Subscription Prices: North America:$.60 for 1; $2.00 for 4 The Rest of the Planet:$.80/1;$3.00/4


The cover translation of Novotore Is by Partesono Renzo Rorochln, to which certain chonqes In orammer ond phraseology were mode bu we editor. Rob Palmer's THOUGHTS ON STIRNER Is printed by permission from FRFESPACt". Mlchoel Stephens Is o Greenwich Vllloge musician - o clever disguise! Robert Cooke Is o New York anorcho-Indlvlduollst writer ond secretorn of the Association of Llbertorlon Feminists. S.E.Konkln3, publisher of NEW LIBERTARIAN, Is o left/Libertarlan octlvlst. ALL graphics were committed by myself, with the exception of ads; the front cover wanderer and title Illustration on pg4 ore both token from E.Armand1s juornol L'UNIQUE; the portrolt of Armond Is from his pamphlet DISCUSS I ON I SULL'AM0RE.

While THE STORM! claims to publish twice o yeor, this column Is written one yeor to the nloht since the lost one (would uou believe Issue #6 wos ahead of schedule?). This Issue, #7, Is the second doted 1978, ond we Intend to publish two In 1979. This Issue marks o diversification In type foce ond layout design; we welcome your response to these chonnes. Future Issues wlLL continue to run ods for onarchlst activities ond literature; especially for those we couldn't Include In this one. Letters to the editors ore oLwoys oppreclotedj In future Issues we Intend to create more space for communi.cotLons from you, our reoders.

THE LAST ISSUE of THE STORM! on goy onorchy brought much response. It wos widely circulated among vorlous aau ond anorchlst groups ond Individuals. It was distributed at Manhattan's 1978 Gay Pride Doy rally by the New York Goy Anarchists. A two poge ortlcle on NYGA by Harold Pickett, with photo by Ion Young, appeared In the natonol goy newsmagazine ALTERNATE (Vol.1 #5; 1730 Dlvlsodero, Son Fronclsco, CA 94115; $2).

IN OUR NEXT ISSUE we will explore Individualist/ femlnlst/anorchlst connections.


cTfwc Curopcan


U^TTLE is KNOWN about European anarchist individualism in the U.s.a. This brief account of some of the ideas of three of its most prominent exponents will, I hope, both awaken interest and make clear its differences with the doctrines of such Americans as Benjamin Tucker and his associates.

e. AfiMAND (Ernest Lucien Juin 1872-1962) was the only one of the three to be directly influenced by Tucker. He was, however, never an orthodox "Tuck-erian." He disagreed with Tucker on several points, including the value of "illeg-aUsm"1 and what he considered to be Tucker's puritanism. Nor did he attribute as much importance to the economic question as did Tucker.

Armand believed a future anarchist society was possible. Of it he wrote:

J he individualist can affirm with certainty that authoritartan -oM will in no aide coatuuie in the. future. Moiety, Jo imagine a'worid to come' ifKc.ro. there, would tJJLUL be a trace of domination, coercion and duty is nofucn-ic,

Jhe individualist is Sure that there afill no longer be room for the intervention of the State. -of a govermental, 4ociat - Legislative, penal, disciplinary institution or administration -in the thought, conduct and activities of human beings.

By S t Parker Anarchist Im^lduafists

7he cndilAcdua^tosi know4. that relations and agreements among, men will be arrived at voluntar-iLy; understandings and contract*. wi.Lt be for a Specific pur p.ose and time, and not ob-ligatory; they. wisLL not be. a clause or an article of an agreement or contract that will. not be. weighed and •dL6.cuA4.ed befo re be<j\g agrejed to; a unilateral contract, obliging someone to fcW an engagement he. has not personally and knowing-ly accented, wLH be. impossible, Jhe. individualist Zmou/4 that no economcc, potiticat, or retigious majjori-ty - no social group what-, ever - u/i11 be. able to compel a minority, or one single man, to conform against Kid. wLH to its decisions or decrees.

Despite this Utopian.description of a "future society", Armand was aware that other individualists did not see things in such a rosy light. In the same essay from which the above was quoted Ke remarked that "The individualist "does not put. his hope in the future society. He lives in the present moment, and wants to draw from it the maximum results". He also gave am excellent summary of the views of the "good number of anarchist individualists" who "have no interest in the 'future humanity'."

Indeed, five years before his death, Armand appears to have joined this "good number". Outlining "Individualist perspectives" he wrote "I want to live in a society from which the last vestige of authority has disappeared,

but, to speak frankly, I am not certain that the 'mass', to call it v/hat it is, is capable of dispensing with authority."

ENZO MARTUCCI (Enzo da Villafiore 1904-1975), like Armand, believed that an anarchist world was possible. He differed from Armand, rowever, on the nature of this world. Armand thought that an anarchist world would be characterized by harmony and reciprocity. For him, the primary interest of the individualist was the maintenance of the "state of comradeship" and the ending of violent conflict.

In a controversy with Armand in 1925 Hartucci disagreed. For him anarchy was a "future form of free life in which the individual will affirm himself in the measure of his powers." Such a life "presupposes the co-existence of solidarity and of war, and I consider both of these as means to be used by individual according to whether one or the other is more useful to satisfy his needs."

When diverse egoisms are at loggerheads, he argued, it is not always possible "to manage a solution of these conflicts by means of mutual concessions. There exist, in effect, antithetical interests, irreconcilable antipathies, sentiments of hatred,


desires of vengeance, all things which prevent a peaceful understanding---if---in a given situation violence gives me more advantage than mutual aid, for what motive should I not make it serve me?"

Forty years later Martucci still saw his ideal anarchy in the same way:

S-truggte La LnevLtabLe, and Lt La LmpoAALbte. to e^LLmLnate Lt from amy hLnd of 40cLe£y or co -eJtL$.tc>nc.o. Anarchy, therefore, "La not Love, for humanLty but ALmpty tach of- government. Jn thLA abAencc of- got/crnmcnt and Ln the. fre.eAom that wL-Lt come from Lt, thoAe. who feeX. Love. wLtt to i/c and thoAe who do not wLLL not and wL-LL maybe. fLght e/xch other. We. do not tinder A tand the motLve whLch LdentLfLeA freedom wLth unLv-e.rAat harmony and wouLd creatc one. LdyttLc. type of LLfe. Ln ptac-e. of LnnumerabLe dLffe-rent on&A. J hereto re not even anarchy wLLL produ.ee. a g&ne-rat agreement baAed on an abAotute. confo rmLAm, but many free, and re^latLve agreements. - aAAocLat-LonA of egoLAt-A - and many dLAcordA rangLng from LndLvLduat LAotatLon to AtuggteA bretjjueen LndLvLduatA and groupA. JhLA wLLL be a return to nature., to the jjungte., you Aay*, f/eA, but the naturat jjungte wLCL be Ahoum to be a thouAajvd tLmaA pntfe-rabte. to the. aAphatt JjxnnLe.. "

(This preference for the "natural jungle" reflected Martucci's fervent belief in "Nature" which he regarded as a sort of purposive agency "creating" "man" to be an individualist. Here he showed the influence exerted upon him by such writers as de Sade - whose own view of "Nature", however, was much more ambivalent and also deviated from a coherent individualist approach. To believe that "Nature" has created us to be individualists is equivalent to believing that "God", "History" or "Reason" have destined men to live like this. If, as Martucci argues elsewhere, the individual is the only authentic reality we can know, then individualism is the expression of an individual preference, an egoistic life-style - not something determined by some supra-individual force).

Martucci was not completely convinced that an anarchist world would come. He admits that "If history Is not an Infinite process, as I firmly believe, then when It exhausts Its cycle it will disappear opening the way to anarchy. If, on the other hand, history endures, then anarchism will remain - that is, the eternal revolt of the individual against a stifling society".

RENZO NOVATORE (Abile Rlziero Ferrari 1889-1922) was the mentor of Martucci. Unlike Martucci, however, he had no belief in the possibility of a universalized anarchy. His decisive rejection of the Utopian and solldarist myths expressed itself in a conception of anarchism as an immediate individualism excluding any hopes of realization in social form. The anarchist Individualist has nothing to expect from a social revolution or any type of society, "he is already an anarchist and as such he feels and lives the life." Certainly he rebels against existing society, certainly he will assist in its disintegration, but he does not imagine he will be any "freer" in the future societies promised by the variegated merchants of social salvation.

For Novatore the war between the individualist and society, any society, was eternal. In society the individual can only be viewed as a member, not as a unique ego, and therefore will perpetually humiliate in the name of the "good of society". He wrote:

Jnarchy. Ls not a sociaL form, but a method of individuation, Ho doc-ieti wiLL concede to ne mom than a Limited freadorn and a weLL-being. that it arants to each of its members, But J am not content wtth this and want mora.. J want aLL that 3 have the. poorer to conquer. Cverij. -iocietu iee>)-i to confine, me to the. ajigust Limits of the permitted and the prohi.bi.tad. But J do not acknowledge these Limits, for nothing.

{orbidden and a Lt is permitted to those. who have the. force and t/o/our._

Novatore saw life as war and conflicts between differing Individual needs as unresolvable. To think that strong individuals could affirm themselves without at the same time hurting weal Individuals, was to Indulge in a pipe-dream. Novatore had no time for social Utopias. He saw no chance of the majority of the human race ever freeing themselves from the chains of authority. Therefore only a strictly individualist perspective of anarchism was valid.

Anarchy., ho. wrote., whcAJx is the natural Liberty of the LndivLduaL freed from the odtous gohe of dpcp. ituat and material, governors, is not the. constrwctton of a new and suf-f-ocatJ.net Sooietij. Jt is a decisive fiefht against aLL societies - christian, democ.rati.c-, communist, etc., etc., Anarchism -U&. the ete-rnat struggle of a SmaLL minorttif. of aristocratic, outsiders agatnst aLL AocA.eti.es which foLLow one another on the stage, of history..

"EUROPEAN" INDIVIDUALISM tends, therefore, to be pessimistic as to whether an anarchist society is possible, and, in some cases, sceptical as to whether it is desirable. The antinomy between the individual and society is seen as a permanent feature of any conceivable individualist way of going on.

•American' Individualism tends to see a harmonious future society based on "anarchist" principles - ie. •natural law' or the Intelligent application of self-interest - as both possible and desirable. In holding such a perspective its adherents have in some cases ended in a position more accurately described as 'mutualist' rather than individualist.

For myself, I consider the 'European' individualist view as both historically and psychologically more realistic than the 'American' view. Armand, Martucci, and Novatore are not, of course, the only 'European' anarchist individualists, but I have chosen them as making progressively clearer the differences between the two views. Much as I


The sovereignty of the individual must mean that no church, state, or society has the right to control the life of any individual. Individualism then means living your life in accordance with your own values while also supporting others doing the same. Individualists, fighting the constraints of society, can most appreciate the sovereignty of the individual.

However, even individualists can forget their libertarian principles when they deal with personal love relationships. That is, they often run their relationships with such authoritarian notions as matrimony and monosomy, Monogomy, a restriction of consensual sexual activity, infringes on the liberty to seek pleasure outside a relationship. Matrimony is simply a form of state enforced monogomy. Such relationships, subordinated to to the idea of fLdotLtif., stunts the autonomy of both partners. Hence a contradiction arises; individualists wishing to live in a constraint free society, construct relationships based on constraints.

But there is good news for those people honestly seeking to apply individualistic principles to their personal relationships. The good news is Jerry Klasman's remarkable book LIVING WITH =EQUALS.* Recalling his experiences as a therapist, Klasman applies fx^-cho-tog.Lca-L /-acAiej.-f-aLro. to effect a refreshing transvaluation of amoLLonat arul romanCLc. /iappi-n<Wi4, Psychological laissez-faire is the. prcnctp^® of non-ijitcrfercncc Ln tho. esnotsLonat freedom of othar*. Thus, matrimony, monogomy, and jealousy come under considerable attack. They all deny people the Joy of sharing emotional and sexual exper-'uai/b Jurv

" )K£nnochan,\

iences with other persons. Klasmrn links this authoritarian condition to the notion that you own your partner and offers an alternative to these enslavinp relationships.

Klasman arrived at his alternative upon realizing that his friendships with men endured preat strain, v/hile his relationships with women shattered under less stress. The reason was that he never presumed to own his male friends, resulting in respect for their right to control their own lives. Jealousy and monogomy only stifle the individual freedom to live by your own standards and pursue your own interests. In fact, these two notions are usually the cause of most broken relationships. Hence, Klasman insists that mutual respect for individual sovereignty ensures personal autonomy and enduring healthy relationships .

Many people will no doubt be intimidated by Klasman's ideas on alternative relationships. This is not surprising; our ideas about relationships have been formed by outmoded Hollywood movies, stale religious morality, and puritan lawmakers. But Hollywood is artificial, and individualists reject church and state. It would then be wise to also cast off the authoritarian values of these institutions. Jerry Klasman's LIVING V/ITH = EQUALS is an excellent guide for transforming relationships and celebrating your individuality.

^erru X-lawman, £LvLno VHAJi CquaLb., Se/acortc Pre44/tteanor .7r-i-eWe.


have learned from such people as Tucker, John Beverly Robinson, Josiah V/ar-ren, Stephen Pearl Andrews and their friends, after thirty years of "anarchist" activity of various kinds, I now find myself more in accord with the view point of Renzo Novatore -even if his own short and tragic life lacked the prudence that, so far, has characterized my own - than that of those who sought to transform their own individual rebellion into a heaven on earth for everyone.

JOHN HENRY MACKAY always held that his most significant contribution to the world was reintroducing it to Max Stirner. Mackay reveals his own intellectual debt to Stirner in the introduction to his "novel" THE ANARCHISTS (1891). And in the second edition (1890) of his volume of revolutionary poetry, STURM, the dedicatory poem is "To Max Stirner". John added other poems to this edition which reflect the influence of Max: "Anarchy", "I", and "Egoism". His interest in Stirner is so strong that Mackay spent nine years and much money researching and writing the first biography of Stirner.

WHO WAS MAX STIRNER? He was a mild-mannered school teacher, born Johann (Caspar Schmidt in 1806. During the •40s he was associated with a group of dissident philosophers, the Young Hegelians, which included Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Fuerbach, Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx. In 1844, under the nom de plume of Max Stirner, he has published his only claim to infamy: DER EINZIGE UND SEIN EIGENTHUM (which translates into "The Unique One and His Property, or "The Ego and His Own"). Within its several hundred pages, Stirner attacks the liberal creed of the Young Hegelians for replacing the old Christian God with a new one called Human Nature, Humanity, or Man - to which flesh and blood individuals are still to be sacrificed. All morality is to Stirner but a clever device used by those in authority to subject the ego to society.

-JccortdLng to the ttbejrat way of-thLnhLng, rtght La to be obtLgatory for me because. Lt La thuA eAta.bLLAh.eA by. humon reason, agaLnAt u/htch my reoson La "unreoAon". . .. And yet none. La reat but. thLA ve-ry "unrenAon", 71esLth<zr dtvLne. nor human reoAon, but ontu itour and my reaAon eJoLAtLng at ant- oLven tLme, La reat, aA and be.-C&U.4.Q. nou and 3 are reaJL.

7he thought of rLght La ortgtnalty m" thought; or, Lt hoa LXa orLgtn Ln

Qut, who* L.t haA Apru/19 from me, when the, "Word" La out, then LA. haA "become. fleAh", Lt La a fixed tdea.(1)

It is against the FIXED IDEA that Stirner wages his battle. The poor will forever be without property until they cease to respect the SACRED IDEA of Property, and take what they require (an idea downplayed by evolutionary individualists like Tucker and Mackay, while advocated by revolutionary anarcho-communists like Emma Goldman, herself an admirer of Stirner).

The egoism of Stirner is above all the recognition that you are the SOURCE of all the experiences, ideas and ideals that determine your choices and actions. The ego is that consciousness which Stirner, with existentialists and Buddhists, calls the "creative nothingness" out of which you construct the reality of authority.

MACKAY RAN INTO considerable difficulty in researching the life of Stirner, as his poem "To Max Stirner" suggests: J Ac,cA the. trac.e. of thy. feat;

Tlo tongAr can Lt be. found. He did find and secure memorial tablets upon Max's grave and last place of residence, as he reports in Tucker's LIBERTY, Aug.13,1892. And he discovered that the philosopher of self-ownership died in poverty and obscurity - as will his biographer and ardent apostle. (2) In 1898 there finally appeared MAX STIRNER - SEIN LEBEN UND SEIN WERK (His Life and His Work). The book was translated into English - and never published, lost in the fire that destroyed Tucker's publishing establishment. In 1907, precious months before the fire, Tucker published the first English edition of Stirner, THE EGO AND HIS OWN, translated by Steven T. Byington and several associates. In his preface, Tucker sums up-Mackay's role in furthering the new wave of interest in Stirner's life and work. But the. chte-i- Ln4.tr ument Ln the. revLval of- Sti.rne.rtAm iea-6. and La the. Qe.rman poet £ohn JJenry. lJlachay. . . . he me.t Sttrneri name. Ln £angie!& "MtAtory of- Wate-rLatLAm1,' and vjoa moved the.re.bir to road hLA book. Jhe. vorh. made. &uch an LmpreAAton on hLm that he. reAotyed to de.K/ote. a portton of htA ttf-e. to the. redtAcovse.rij and roha-bL^tttatLon of the. to&t and forgotten

-the. cfvUe and of JOHN HENRVMACKAY fa

part SimiL^ by/'VirK A Sul livorv ^

SCLrner'a LndLvLchxaCLaL anarcJxLAm La cn no l way Lnc.ompatLb-Le wLth anarcAotommmciffl -nor el/en wLth anarehoAyndLcatLAm, r,ol<l the onarchlst Brond Ln his toU on Mox StLrner wftot Freespoce ALternote U on I'tv h. ^^ Brond Led the oroup throunh StLrner'-THE EGO AND ITS OWN (olso translated os THE EGO AND HIS OWN), ouotlnp Stlrner's own words to orove his points. StLrner sow human beings os surrounded bu o ohostln world, In which Cod and the State, were two of the chief spooks. The only uou we con escore from these ooporltlons Ls to emphasize our Individualities, to become egoists. In this woy we become free. My freedom as an individual, or, an egoist, Ls absolute; but I reconnlze this obsolute freedom Ln everybody else.

For example, StLrner writes, 3 do not Atep Ahutu bacJi from uour property., but took upon Lt atx.ua 114 aA Wl/ property., Ln whLcJx J need to HCSPCCU nothing., Praa do tlie tLhe wLtix what uou qxlLL rrui property!

StLrner seeks the formation of unions of eoolsts Ln which each unique Individual comes together with other unique Individuals for purposes duly ogreed upon for the benefit of eoch. If people would come together, Brand says, Ln a voluntory way Ln a union of egoists to produce goods and services they need, would this not be onorchocommunlsm? And if they come together Ln a labor union, would this not be anorcho-sundlcollsm?

Brond pointed out that Stlrner's philosophy Ls not thot of the NLet-zschean superman or of the fascist Ln that Stlrner's eoolsts do not set themselves above other peopte, but emphoslve on equality of eoolsts.

To me, It seems that Stlrner's concept of the union of eoolsts Ls much the some as thot of the affinity oroun. Like the union of eoolsts, the affinity oroun hos much the some advantooes ond dlsadvontooes. It permits oeoole to work tooether coooerotlvelu on their own projects ond In their own Interests, but it leads to authorltorlanlsm, secrecy, ond exclusion. The union of egoists - or affinity group - seems on Ldeol form of ornanlzatLon Ln a repressive, ontlonarchLst society; but one wonders If the form Ls compatible with o truly free society.

StLrner sous that an appeal to altruism Ls o ooor wou to build a society; whot Ls better Ls to appeol to egoism. I would occept this If whot he means bu eoolsm ore the needs ond desires of the Individual. When looked ot Ln this woy, there Ls 0 ploce for actions thot seem ot first sloht to be antlegolstlc, for example, the rescue of o drowning person ot the risk of your own life. This might be seen as true true egoism: The true eoolst would be the person who did not wont to live Ln a socletu Ln which people did not attempt to rescue eoch other - even ot the risk of their own lives.

If this concept Ls accepted, then the true union of egoists rlnht 00 beyond the limited framework of the offLnlty-group-concept. A true union of eoolsts would therefore be nonauthorltorlan, nonsecretlve, ond onen to all, because this would be the only type of society In which a true egoist would wont to live. -~£>OG>



MACKAY (continued)

aenLuA. . . .and h-La bLog.rapJxu of StLrner appeared Ln BertLn Ln 1898. 3t La a trLbute to the thorouqhneAA of WachaijJ& worh. that A-Lmcg. LLa pub-Li.catLon not one Lmportant fac.t about StLrner ha A been d.LAc.overed by anybody., (3)

1) The Ego And His Own, Libertarian Book Club, Box 842, GPO, NY, NY 10001 p.205-6

2) To Max Stirner,LIBERTY,2/24/P4. Stirner laid to rest 6/28/56;JHM died on his MD's doorstep,Berlin,5/16/33.

3) The Ero And His Own,Tucker,p.vii-i.

eST and/WPS&f

Most of us are aware that if we read something in the daily newspapers or slick popular magazines, we can almost bet that the opposite is true. Occasionally I read articles about est (Erhard Seminars Training) in which the est training is characterized as a "religion" or as "nothing more than a brain-washing technique". As an est graduate, I find these characterizations to be totally false. And as an anarchist, I find that est complements some of the most basic principles of anarchism.

I am aware that some people seem to have fear and suspicion regarding est. I also experienced some fear of my own before taking the training. This is natural; anything new or different can be somewhat frightening. We see this easily enough by the numbers of people frightened by the very mention of "anarchism".

Of course, "training" sounds so terribly authoritarian (UNtraining is a better description); and the est training IS highly structured. At the sane time est is a game - a game of self-discovery. As a game, it has rules; and the rules are voluntarily agreed to by all the players at the beginning of the est game. For two weekends you are in a voluntary association which you have chosen (you are given several opportunities during the course of the two weekends to withdraw). The groundrules serve you and insure that you get the full value of the training.

The focal question of all the fears and allegations of brainwashing/ religion can be reduced to: Does est really consider its founder Werner Erhard to be God?

A simply "yes" in response-is ✓ enough to cet over that fear, and then we're free to po on to other questions. The "yes" is true to the same degree that each one of us God: which is totally and corpletely. It is here, at the core of the training, that v/e find the common ground that est shares with anarchis-.

est demonstrates that the only real and ultimate measure of anythi in our lives is our own individual "8 expereience. Expereience has nothing to do with ideas or belief systems with what society, law, religion or especially, est, might tell you ' Belief is the negation of experience experience is the negation of belief' Experience is feeling, gut reaction ' natural spontaneity. And, as we discover in the training, we are the source of our experience. Once we eJcpeK^tnce being the source, we have created a shift in our lives- we are at cauAA in the matter instead of just being at effect. This is true even when we sometimes create experiences for ourselves which are painful Being at cause demonstrates tremendous power. Cause equals creator As creators of our own life and universe, we are gods. With godhead comes responsibility and, of course individual sovereignty. Individual ' initiative characterizes both anarchism and being at cause in our lives and in the world. We exercise our responsibility to the world by using our inherent creativity to transforr, ourselves and the conditions around us. We, as free individuals, are each the sole measure of our lives, institutions, and world. The only means by which we can exercise initiative and responsibility is direct action -essential to any expression of anarchism. All agitation or propaganda is then simply self-expression, a sharing of ourselves with others.

We now see clearly that our shared and collective actions, in order to get the results we intend, must be mutually satisfying and entered into respectfully, concientiously, and voluntarily. Otherwise, we are not creating freedom, satisfaction, and full self-expression for ourselves and others.

These anarchist principles are not only consistent with, but are at the core of, the est experience, est graduates are clear thet they are each the only source of authority over their own lives. The application of this experience to the relationships and institutions we have created is essential to the expression of anarchism.

HartoH Pickett

"UrVnv IgriaCs


A private newsletter of libertarian commentary and satirical speculation, pub. bimonthly. A.Henry Eliassen, OEHIS, P.O. Box 2586, Tallahasee, F1 32304 Sample 50« 12/S5


SISSIES IN STRUCGLE 3100 N. Rampart, Nev.Orleans La 70117 Pub. Anarchist Bibliography.

THE OPEN ROAD Box 6135,Station G Vancouver,B.C., Canada V6R 4G5 no sub. rate donation asked

FLASH POINT P.O. Box 3658, Regina, Sask. S4P 3N8 1 cony/1 stamp Bulk/ donation 6mo./$4

THE CREEP REVOLUTION, ■ a voice for decentral- B ization,"Grandrother of the alternative press movement". $8.00/1 yr (10 iss.) 25.00/5 year sub. 12.00/1 yr sub + lyr nembershin in SOL* •THE SCHOOL OF LIVING Box 3233,York,Pa.17402

Members&Friendr of the IWW net in April to !i -cuss a nrorrar. and future activities ir th.o NY Area. Yes, Virninia, the I WW really- o;:ists! If you vant more info., want to be on the mail-inp list, or are interested in joining the I WW, please write: R.Semel, 170 Hicks St. Brooklyn, NY 11201

HAPOTOC C0I,LFCTI"r D.0.Box 10638 Amsterdam,Ho11an (international ne- -letter for prisoner sunnort and prison abolition;donations needed;no su>- fee).

INNOCENCE OF SACCO & VANZETTI; 55n pamphlet by Charles Rotunno; $2+.50post fror: Pamphlet Publications, Div.RMA, PO Box 41372A Cincinnati,Ohio 45241 (attn. Kim Brooks)

bv K.H.Z.S0LT'EtlA!I, a sixteen pa°e pamphlet published by THE MACKAY SOCIETY, is now available in English: $1 per cony, nlus 20e ner order, from: MARK A.SULLIVAN, APT.2E 227 COLUMBUS AVE. NE" YORK, N.Y. 10023 (sole US/ Canada distributor; outside Canada/US order direct from the Mackay Society).

THE MACKAY SOCIETY, which is undogmatic and anti-ideological, would like to form the basis of discussion of all problems of the Social Order. It attempts to base its arguments only on demonstrable facts. These arguments it outs forward in a fashion which can only lead to an entirely new way of thinking, a consummation which Albert Einstein declared to be imperative. If interested, nlease write to the Secretary: Kurt Zube, Auwaldstrasse 7

D-7000 Freiburg/Fir. , Germany

the dondeZLon c/o F'ichael E.Couehlin 1985 Selby Ave., St.Paul, mn 55104 $3.50 for 4 issues ($4.50 overseas), checks payable to Michael E.Courhlin. GeA.t new revLeiu of anarchist Ldea^-mat






IT IS PERHAPS APPROPRIATE THAT the recent July 4th celebration of Independence Dog olso marked the anniversary of another day of Independence. It was on that day 133 years aoo that Henry Dovld Thoreau occupied his house on Walden Pond and beqan his two yeor experiment In Independence.

3 u'g/it to the woods because 3 wLsshed -to LLve. do.-LLbe.ra.to.-tij., to confront on-Lit the. OsSSentLal foct^ of tLfe, ILvLng Ls so dear; nor d-Ld 3 ivcaA to practc^e rWcgmtion, unions Lt uui rjuLto. neceA6an>, 3 wanted to LLve deep and -Such out at-l tha. marrow of- iLfe, to tLvo so sturdL-lu and Spartan-ILhe <k* to put to rout a-L-L that was not ILfe, to cut a broad swath and shave, cloie, to drLve tLfo. Lnto a corner, and reduce Lt to Lt*S Lowest terms, and, cf Lt proved to be moan, why. then to get the who-Le and acnucnc meanness of Lt, and pub -LLsh Lts meanness to the wor-ld; or i-f Lt wo.ro SublLmo, to know Lt bij. OJcporLonce, and be abte to gLvo a true account of Lt Ln mij. nojet exicur-sLon. Tor most men, Lt appears to me, are Ln a strange uncertaLntu about Lt, whether Lt Ls of the dev-Ll or of Qod, and have SOMEWHAT HASTILY conc-luded that Lt Ls the chLef end of man hore to 'glorLfu Qod and en-jjoti hLm forever, '"

This stotement seems to, both literally and figuratively, represent the meaning of Thoreou's life and jorks. He was proboblu Amerlco's first native anarchist, thouqh he oould proboblu resist even that label AnH he wos one of the few men of any one i ho hod both the curiosity and the couroqe to find his truth ond live It.

3 sLmpt" wLsh to refuse al.la.q.-Lance to the State, to wLthdraw and \tanrl aLoof from Lt effectua-Llu. 3 'o not carp to trace the course of mi• dot-tar (his tox money), Lf 3

, untLl Lt buiys a man or a musket to shoot one wLth - the doIlar Ls Lnnocent - but 3 am concerned to trace the effects, of my. atteg.Lance, 3n fact, 3 quLettxj. doctare war wLth the State, after mif. fashLon, though 3 wLll stL-l-l make use and get what advantage of her 3 can, as Ls usual Ln such casos .

And declare war he did. Thoreou's experience at Walden enabled him to recover his Independence from the State ond from the constraints society ploces on oil of us. For two years he lived there In a house he constructed himself, eotlng mostly food he grew himself or foraged from the woods and fish ond gome he cought, though he eventually stopped eating meat entirely. It wos here he discovered thot an Individual could live, actually live better, within nature than within the ortlflclol state of society ond men. By reducing life to Its essential qualities, he Increased Its value. WALDEN today Is a testlment of the clorlty of Thoreou's vision of the Individual and the State. It remolns os contemporary today os It did then, both os a model of Individual action and as an Indictment of the State and Individuals who choose to live within It. Speaking of his arrest for his refusal to poy taxes,he wrote, 3 had gone down to the. woods for other purposes, Gut, whe.re.eve.r a man gow, men wLH pursue and paw hLm wLth thosLr dLrtUj. LnS.tLtutLonS, and, Lf theij. can, constra-Ln hLm to be-long to theLr desperate odd-fctlow socLety., 3t c4 true., 3 mLght have re*sLstod forcLbty. wLth more or te&s effox^t, mLght have run 'amok ' agaLnst socLety; but 3 preferred that socLety shou-ld run 'amok ' agaLn-st me, Lt be-Lng the desperate partu. 3 wa4. never molested by any person but those, who represented the State.


IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO READ THOREAU without o feeling of wonder ot the simplicity ond volue he discovered when he choose to reduce living to Its essentlol elements. One olso connot help but feel his own pain ond aullt with the wog eoch of us bargains his life away dally In the sei— vice of the State, oh what we usually coll earning a living, Jhe tweLve LaborA of HercuLeA we.ro. trLfLLng Ln comparison wLth thoAe whLch my neLgh-borA have imde.rtak.cn; for they, were onLuj. tweLve, and had. an end; but 3 couLd never Aaa that theA-e men aLcjw or captured, any monster or fLnLAhed any. tabor.

Consider his observation on what civilized man must pay to obtain shelter as compared to the Indian.

3n the. Aavage Atate, every {amLLu ownA a Atxe^Lter clA good OA tlxe beA^t, and AuffLcLont for LtA coaricr and ALmpLer wantA. 3n Large. townA and eLtLeA., where. cLvLLLAatLon eApacLaLLi< pre.vat.LyA, the. number of tlxoAe who own a AlxeLter La a very AmaLL fractLon of tlxe. whoLe. "Jhe. reA.t pay an annuaL ta< {or thLA. outALde garment of aLL whLch wouLd buy a vLLLage of- JndLan wLgwamA, but now heLpA to lieep them poor aA Long aA theui Live. dn aver-ane houAe Ln thLA neighborhood coAt-a perhapA eLght hundred. doLLarA, and to Lay up thLA Aum wLLL tahe from ten to fLfteen year A of the. Laborer'a LLfe., em Lf he La not encumbered wLth a f amLLu., ao that he muat have. Apent more, than haLf IvLa LLfe common-Ly. fce(orc hi a wLgwam wLLL be. earned., 3f we. AuppoAe hLm to pay rant LnAtead, thLA La but a doubtfuL choLce of e.vLLA. WouLd the. Aavage have. been wLac. to eKchange ItLa wLgwam for a pLace on theAe termA?

Or this statement about government ond community of his doy.

We. preserve the. Ao-ca-LLed peace, of our communLtii by deedA. of pe^tty vLoLcnce. every day. Xooh. at the. poLLceman'A bLLLy. and handcuffA.' Xooli at the. jaLL! Xooh. at the. galAjowAl Xooh at the. chapLaLn of the regiment'. U'e. are. hopLng onLy to LLve. AafeX.y on the. outAhLrtA of tlxLA provLA-LonaL armu. So we. defend and

our hen-rooAtA, and maLntaLn Atavery,

ULTIMATELY, THOREAU WAS COUCfRNEI with the IndlvlduoL and his Life, knowing Lt was the Individual i. ho created the state, not the stote the IndlvlduoL, Jha Law wLLJ never nml o men free.; Lt La men who have not to mahe tJra Law free.. Jheji arc (Jig Lo verA o{ Law and order who o l>Ae.rvc the Law when tlxe government breaJiA Lt. Thoreou's messoge transcends oil forms of politics ond convention on* cuts to the roots of life Itself. What he called for wos an awakenlnn of the mLnd and spirit, to throw off those things that cost us our allve-ness, whether they be moterloL possessions, religious and political beliefs or conventions, or our foLse Ldeos of whot Is regulred to live. He colled for us to become fuLly o-llve, to assume the control and responsibility for our lives thot Is rlghtfulLu ours.

Jhe mLL^LLonA are awahe enough {or phuALcaL Labor; but onLy one Ln a mLLLLon La awahe enough for effec-LLve LntetA.ec.tuaL eJcertLon, onLt' one Ln a hundred mLL.LLon to a poetLc or dLvLne LLfe. "Jo be awahe La to be aLLve. 3 Ixave never yet met a amn who waA quLte. awahe. How couLd 3 have Loohed hLm Ln the face? I"e muAt Learn to reawahen and heep ourAeLvesA awahe, not by. mechanLcaL aLdA, but by an LnfLnLte ojcpecAaLLon of the dawn, whLch doe A not forAahe uA Ln our AoundeAt At cap, 3 I mow of no more encouragLng {act than the unqueAtLonabLe abLLLtii of man to etevate IxLa LLfe by a conAcLouA endeavor. 3t La AomethLng to be abte to paLnt a partLcuLar pLcture, or to carve a A-tatue, and AO to matte a {aw obj.ecLA beautLfuL; hut La Lt far more aLorLouA to carve and paLnt the very atmoAphere and medLum through whLch we Looh, whLch moraLLy we can do. Jo affect the quaLLty of tlxe dai>, tJxat La the hLgheAt of artA.

And throughout his life, Thoreou did affect the quollty of his dou, and his legacy continues to affect the quollty of ours. Through his essays, Lectures, poetry, articles, ond books and Ln his octlons there Is a consistency that Is Indeed rare. It Is seldom we are exposed to a pei— son whose words ond actions ore the

KatiVff, IfiU'/lCOff/wJIM KERNOCF JO

Not Hoot off, In his rocnt- lor;-i urc. nnrf columns In Tho Vlllano Vol c«? onrt Innulm, hos crltlcled 1 he goy boycott of Florldo orongo juice. Montoff Insists thot on oronor lulc# boycott Interferes mlth Anl ' o Bryant's first amond-mpnt- rl nht to condemn ond concoct U o\ about nay.. In (oct, Hentoff eauot»" 1 ho aronqo |ulc»> boycott with bho McCarthy blockllstlno9 of I ho fifties. Defending certain boucotl'., Hentoff dlstlnoulshes hotnoen boucotts mhlch orlso due Ko n> tinn\ and those which ore o reaction to unpopulor Apaoch. For 9*omplo, the Gollo and J.P. Stoven9 houcott' ore Justified because thou ore directed aqolnst the unfair practices of emplouers. But, nrrnrrllno to Hentoff, Anlto flruont 15. tiri.no persecuted and her economic mell being threatened becouse of her opinions. The free oxchanqe of Idea-., he concludes, Is threot-nnnd i f Anlto Brnont con bo fired because of her antl-ooy remarks. However, I molntoln thot the oronne juice boucott Is neither o blacklisting nor o violation of Anlto Bruont's freedom of speoch.

First of all, tho oranqe juice boucott Is not directed aqalnst Anlto Br*yont olone. The Florida Citrus Commission, Anlto Bryant's employer, Is al90 a compelling roo9on for having the boycott. By piolouLnn Anita Bryant, o notlonolly (noun homophobic blnot, the commls-■ion Inodvertontly supports her cause. In fact, upon renewing her controct,tho commission praised hh' creature for her courage.

THORBAU (continued)

some. Thoreou serves both os o guide ond on example, a rebel against oil that uiould keep us from being freo. tho. nrtuifor part of what mi' neighbor* rnft noorl 3 bttJ.iv.va. Ln mil \out to be. /•« anil if 9 repent of anythLna, Lt ■ \ ueni (aJ>o tu ta be mn good btdiavLor. Mint 'vmori pn WP'VW fnc thai 3 behaved, to wv't?

Beside*, being o national onti-nay symbol, Anlto Bruont's presence In oronne juice odvrrtlamente ore also commercials for hor couso, Furthermore, .the Florldo Citrus Commission Is a r.toto ooency; thus Is theoretically suppose to represent All tho pooplo ond Is I n port funded by oou toxpouor ••. By choosing Anlto Bryont os Its spokeswoman, tho commission exhibits blotont Insenoltlvlty to tho nay populotlon. As a compromise, qoy9 have roquested thot the citrus Industry employ a proctlce of nondiscrimination oqolnr.t homosexuolr,. But to this day, tho commission has token no action on behalf of this request, Tho Florida Citrus Commission Is then Insensitive to gays ond has token no action on beholf of ondlnn discrimination In their own ranks. As o result, outroqed qays, forced to flnonce the commission with their taxes, hove a justifiable reason for on oronne juice boycott.

Secondly, the McCarthy Era was marked by Stote ond Corporate powers oustlnq dlssentlnq political believers from oil aspects of the entertainment Industry. It Is then Important to realize that the oranoe juice boycott hos not Interfered with Anlto Bryont's other wane earnlno activities In the entertainment Industry. Sho still writes books, does rocord-Inos, appears on television, ond performs at rellqlous concerts. Actually, her record ond book sales hove probably Increased since sho started her anti-qou hate crusode. But, ot no time hove ooys ottempted o boycott ooalnst record or publishing componles. (Goys probobly never bought her records, books, ond tickets to her concerts In the first place.) In addition, qoys hove not colled upon the Government to silence Anlto Bmont or moke her vicious opinions Illegal, Since Anita Bryont con freely engono In other en-tortolnment activities and the Government Isn't sllonclnn her, tho oronne juice boycott Is not o blacklisting rem nlcont of the fifties. It Is slm-ply that Ani. i o Hrunnt- hlnhly flnon-clod hot" camoolpn lg pOf < oLI.<i funded by hor work i n oronoe lulr.o commercials. Ao o ano time oronoe juice drinker, I rofu?." to help flnono- hor campaign bg buulng the product", 'the peddles, Thlr, I-. hardLu on act of black 11-. tlnQ, hut on net of not contributing monou to o womoo whoso compolon If. donnorou'; to my well being.

Finally, thero ore monu entertolnors mho oppose ooy rlohts and often spout ontl-oou propooondo In the modlo. c»o mhii If Anlto nruont holno victimized bu o boucott while thoso othor celeh-rltles oscono such octlons. The rooson Is thot the orange juice boycott Is o rosult of Anlto Bryant's donperous actA.onond not slmplu because of her blqotted 4peech. Anita Bryont spearheaded a campaign to donu nous their ho9lc humon rlohts. Thlr. compolon ontollod formlno on oroanlzntlon (SAVE OUR CHILDREN) which loofletted, petitioned, and forced on Issue on to a public referendum. This cancerous oroanlzatlon Is now spreadlno Into chapters occror.s the nation ond becomlno o powerful lobbul firi force In the oovernment for enforclnn sodomy tows ond preventing noil rlohts legislation. There ore also AnJLta Pritant Conlcr^ sprlnolng Into action to aire, homosexuolltu. In addition to these other activities, Anlto Bryont has formed o group to organize boucotts ooolnst omi odvertlser of o aou reloted television show. These are hardly simple opinions, but octlons one takes on behlf of on opinion. Thus, forming oraonlzotlons, oettlnq Involved In the leool system, opening centers to cure homosexuolltu, ond spearheodlno boucotts agolnst certain odvertlsers ore activities one enoooos In on beholf of on opinion. Hentoff claims thot If people find octlons particularly danoerous, they hove o rloht to boycott the products odvertlzed by those responsible for the octlons. Hence, the orange juice boycott Is justified even under Hentoff's conditions.

I hove olmous admired Not Hentoff's constant defense on beholf of freedom of speech. However, Hentoff Is most cer-tolnly wronn In condemnlno the orongo iulce boycott. Belno o goy onarchlst, I am aware of the historical role government ond socleku hove planed In repressing both mu soxuol orientation and nolltlcol beliefs. I am veru sensitive to and In >onnlot« oorgenent with the rloht Ko freedom of sneerh, oven for tho liken of Anita r'nionh, But mheo her action'., ond ' ho' ■■ of >ho ln-duptru '-.he Is i nvolved with, endanger the well belno of o oori-of the oopulotlon, thoso victimized have o Justifiable reo~.on for boucottlna the products then noddle. It Is oulte Impossible thot Hootoff, like most of the country, Is not fully atiore of Bruont's onrl the Plorldo Citrus Commission'vile activities. Nevertheless, he did o oreot In-lust.lco to nous by comporlno the oronoe iulce boucott to the block-llstlno of the fifties. Hentoff would serve his reoders better If he exposed the otroclti.es committed bu Anlto Bryont ond her slimy oroonlzotion. Meanwhile, oronoe iulce will continue to remoln absent from mu diet.


is a r-roun dedicated to the formation of a communication network nmonp ray and anarchist individuals and proups. As a first step toward such communication, the GAY ANARCHIST TIDE will serve as a newsletter of GAI, and v/ill he sent to the pay and anarchist contacts we already have around the world. The newsletter is open to news, announcementr,, and nronounce-ments from all those who wish to participate in GAI. There In no membership fee in C.AI - however, we need funds to keep the TIDE cominp to vou. If you wish to be on our mallino list, please send us a contribution of $1 (or more if you can) to recieve nix issues of GAY ANARCHIST TIDE.

Please address all correspondence to: Jim Kernochan Apt.PF. - ??7 Columbus Ave. Mew York, N.Y. 100?3 Please address all checks to Mark Sullivan (name address).

j^sandcr Spoon.er!s ^


HUMAN SOCIETIES survive bu vying L-tlth one another for the affection, or at least the loualty, of Individual human beings. The CULTURAL Ldeo encourooes the affection of Its members throuoh bonds of mutual old, shored beliefs, ond special experiences. The POLITICAL Idea, the state, encourooes feor as o bond: fear of foreigners, fear of the state Itself, feor of noveltu. A culture must occept Its own evolution Into other forms, for Its members ore free to choose omono socletol variations. A state, within the limits of Its power, villi reoress by force of low, or force of arms, all new or deviant Ideas ond social forms. While exceptions exist, this Is the oeneroL trend of state power.

The consideration ond practice of alternatives to the present condition pose the chief threats to onu state system. Hence the elimination of not merelu choice, but the oosslbllltu of ond even the concept of choice, Is always a orlme task of state executives, leolslotors, ond judaes. The vilification and outlawry of oractlces held In low oopulor esteem, commonly called "vices", Is therefore an onclent usooe of state jurists.(1)

Written just over o century ago, In 1875, Lysonder Spooner's essau, VICES ARE NOT CRIMES, demolishes utterly the legot pretensions by uhlch politicians ond lonorant mobs cost men ond women Into prison, fine them, horass them, or merely ruin their lives for practices that find a suffIclentlu vocal opposition.

Cri-mes arc. four, and eastly dts-tLngu.Lsh.eA from all other acts. . . whereas vtc.es are innumerable; and no tujo persons are anreed, e>ccept in comparttLve-lu fevj cases, as to what are vijc.es.

Crtmes are those acts by whtch one man harms the person or propertif. of another.

Vtt^es are those acts by v/htch a man harms htmseti or hts property.,,


Robert Coole-'

VLceS are stmptii the errors wliLcJi a man makes Ln hts searcJi after hts own happtness.

In effect, sous Spooner, we ore eoch an experiment of one: the existence of vice Is on Inevitable corrolloru to the existence of llbertu.(2)

Spooner argues cogently thot morality Is a purely Individual motter ond connot be otherwise. Differences In phuslcal constitution, upbringing ond circumstance ensure thot many acts... that are vi-rtuouS, and tend to Ixapptness, in the case of one person, are vtc-touS, and tend to unhappiness, tn the case of anotlie.r person.

An act may be virtuous In one circumstance ond vice In another even for the some person; or, hod the action not oossed a certain point, It might hove been conducive to happiness rather than the reverse Flnollu, vice ond virtue moy not reveal their true notures for many years or even a lifetime. The dtfftcultii, not to say the i-mpos-stbtttu, of deciding whot Is vice or virtue is another reason why. this whole question of vtrtue and vtc-e should be left for each person to settle for hLmself.

We are eoch on experiment of one. Who, Inquires Spooner, hos the right to holt this experiment? To Impede or conclude the acquisition of knowledge, for which purpose experimentation Is crucial? No one owns this rloht; ond those who claim It ore tmposters or tyrants, who would stop the progress of knowledge (emphasis in original) and usurp absolute. control over the minds and bodi.es of thei-r feltow-men.

Flnollu, the punishment of vice con ONLY be proctlced selectively and tyronnlcolLu. Sou the reformers the vi-c.es. of (others) we wi-ll punish, but our own vtc.es nobody, stiall punt "the vi-c.es of (others) we wtll punisl but our own vtc.es nobody shall pun-Lth". So It Is In practice. But o voluntary association (3) formed to prevent crime Ls based on Individuals' right to protect themselves: no group hos the rlciht to punish others even selectively for their vices, unless this right be Invested In Individuals, tuhlch It Is not. Indeed, to ounlsh crime and to punish vice Is to seek two whollu controdlctoru aools: the former would ottemot to secure the Individual's right to self-guldonce, the lotter would deny that right.

This short (38 pages) essay, finely and shorolu argued In the style of Spooner's better-known (4) NO TREASON series ond LETTER TO GROVER CLEVELAND, could easily provoke comments longer than the original. Written chiefly as an ottock upon coercive sobriety (I.e. Prohibition), VICES... serves additionally as o defense of the humon right to sheer perversity.

This argment for toleronce Is still striking, even after the poss-age of o century (so for have we come since then!). toleronce- the willingness to live ond let live, to accept the other person's right to be Immorol In uour eyes, must be one of the essentlol characteristics - CIVIC virtues, If you will - of any llbei— tarlan society. /et, even among libertarians, the concept hos been, at best, onlu slightly chewed ond scarcely digested.

Spooner, for Instance, orgues thot, first, vice depends on one's viewpoint, not on any absolute morality -a pretended morality 1s o

common assertion of totalitarian systems. Second, to soy thot vice should not be regulated Is not to say that It should be praised. The toctlc of loudlng the social utility of one's pet undeslrobles has nothing to do with o consistent defense of liberty - It Is rother an evoslon of the Issue. To argue thot the LocoL untouchables octually have gulte noble ond commendoble volues Is to whistle In the wind; agoln, this Is soeclol pleodlna, not moklng a LIBERTARIAN cose case. (5)

Spooner osked, Insteod, the fundamental llbertorlon question: If we find these people to be of no use to us, their values repugnant, their lives pointless, their practices disgusting or perhaps subversive of OUR values, ond wholly lacking In ornithine to respect, whot do tie do with them? Spooner's onswer: why, nothlno at all. Liberty Is for those whom u>e detest or It Ls for no one. This reply Is not one always occepted even by libertarians; In society -ot - laroe, the Ideo Ls scarcely given llo - service, ffltrvd ijour own busLness Ls o slogan still too radical for oenerol acceptance.

VICES ARE NOT CRIMES thus remolns on omozlngly undoted work. The arguments are timeless - only the vices hove chonged. For alcohol, substitute drugs ond pornogrophy and little else need be oltered. (6) This Ls tuolcol; Spooner's Loter works remain eminently readable ond ore still LnfluencloL - NO TREASON #6, for exomple, Is a basic anarchist title. VICES ARE NOT CRIMES should be,os widely read among llbertorlons. I believe thot It urlLL be more accessible to non-llbertarlans as well, since It Ls a bosic primer for a modern debate.

7oo tnotes

1) "A democratic government...tokes advontoqe of every passing croze ond delus Lon of the mob to dispose of those who oppose It, and It maintains o complex and highly effective machine for Launching such crozes and delusions when the supply of them logs. Above oil, It oLwoys shows thot characteristically Purlton ho-blt...of Inflicting os much mentol suffering os possible upon Its victims. That Is to say, It not only hos ot them by legoL meons; It also defames them, ond so seeks to ruin them doubly. The constont ond central olm of every democratic aovernment Ls to silence criticism of Itself."


2) Virtually oil flctlonol utoplos "deal" with the Inevitable conflict between the noble, selfless plons of the rulers ond the Individual whims of the unenlightened citizenry bu

a) Lqnorlnq the problem or,

b) denying that "vice" - le., deviations from the stote-Lmposed soclol norm - can possibly exist once the soclaL/psychoLoglcoL/economic/theological origins of sin ond nostlness hove been ellmlnoted by social reform. Few ore so forthright os was Plato

7oo-tnot«^& (cont, )

uihen he recommended tosslnq out the ooets for the oood of the stote. Most pretend thot Lndlvlduol desires will slmplu no lonoer exist; thot theu will be subsumed bu on over-whelmlno urqe to do public oood. Since people continue, even under the most benevolent regimes, to seek In-dlvlduol fulfillment (ond NOT olwoys In line with prooresslve thought), the triumph of the morollsts olwous Immedlotely oreceeds the obolltlon of liberty. Somehow, the connection between these two events olwoys evodes succeeding generotlons of utoplons. The lotest offense ogolnst hlstoru ond soclol psychology Ls Ernest CoLlenboch's novel ECOTOPIA, which hos golned o conslderoble following omono the credulous. I recommend, os on ontldote, Marie Louise Bernerl's ontl-outhorltorlon study, JOURNEY THROUGH UTOPIA.

3) Soooner colls this form of association o now.ramcnt , which It Is NOT -what he describes Is on onorchlstlc arronaement. The problem Ls a semantic one thot persists to this dou among certain Individualist libertarians .

4) VICES ARE NOT CRIMES Is the onlu one of Soooner's known wrltlnos not Included Ln his COLLECTEO WORKS (see bibliography). First published Ln 1875 by phuslclan ond reformer Diocletian Lewis os port two of PROHIBITION: A FAILURE, o defense of temperance through non-polltlcal meons; VICES uos credltted only to a leaat f-ri.end. Althouoh the work was known by contemporaries to be Spooner's (Beniamln Tucker's Identification of Soooner os author of VICES Ln the obituary reprinted with the essau Led Carl Watner to Its dlscoveru), this edition Ls the first to opoear with Spooner alven credit. Murroy Rothbord provides his usual, excellent historical onolysls Ln the Introduction. This edition Ls published bu Janice Allen

of TANSTAAFL In Cupertino, California.

5) Those olreadu convinced of the aoodness of pimps ond lltterers do not need further persuasion; people who consider these and others to be cankers on the body politic ore unlikely to be swoued bu such orauement. Such a book Is Walter Block's DEFENDING THE UNDEFENDABLE. ( I shall not mention the book's numerous foctuol and Interpretative errors, which were well summor-Lzled bu Sharon Presley Ln the Morch and June, 1977 Issues of REASON mogo-zlne.) While Spooner argues the Individual's right to practice vice (while pointing out that the term cannot be objectively deflnded), Block argues thot i'tcc4, becouse theu ore non-coer-clve ond economically utilitarian (though he often falls to establish these os focts) are really virtues, ond even heroic activities! This org-uement, as Spooner plolnlu observed, Is beside the point; moral (or Immoral) status of any person Ls not relevant to llbertorlon polltlcoL theory.

6) Port XVI, which discusses vice ond madness, Ls on exception; In Lt, Spooner cleorlu supposes Lnsonltti to be objectively determinable conditions. Few libertarians todoy would assume thot onu tribunal hos the rloht to determine whether o mon should be sent to on osulum for tunattoa. The point of the possoge, however, Ls essentlollu to orgue aaalnst vice be-Lna used as a determinant of Insanity. Since his definition of vice ond modern functional definitions of Insanity ore the some - le., social deviance - this amounts to on orauement AGAINST (mere) social disapproval being used os an excuse for the Lm-orlsonment of mentat pat-Lent^.. Thus the passage Ls a oood deol more llbertorlon thon It first apneors.

GtbtLographs iKmSm

Gu Xit-Aander Spooner

COLLECTED WORKS OF LYSANDER SPOONER; M&S Press, BOX 311, Weston, MA 02193 140.00 6 vos. he.

ESSAY ON TRIAL BY JURY; Arizona Caucus Club, P0 Box 60, Meso AZ 85201; 5.00 pb.




Lolssez Folre Books, 206 Mercer St., NYC, NY 10012; oomphlet 20<t

NO TREASON NO. 6: THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY uilth o LETTER TO THOMAS F. BAYARD; Rolph Myles Publisher, PO Box 1533, Colorodo Springs CO 80901 1.00 pb.

POVERTY: ITS ILLEGAL CAUSES AND LEGAL CURE; Do Copo Press, 227 W. 17th NYC 10011 12.50 he.


Fronklln Publishers, 235 E. 44th NYC 10017 20.50 he.


Coumon Press, order from Lolssez Folre Books; 75* bklt. '


Box 257, Cupertino, CA 95014 2.95 pb.

New Softcover Edition


"A Vindication of Moral Liberty"

published anonymously in 1875 and not included in "Collected Works of Lysander Spooner"


100 YEARS!

Introduction by Murray Rothbard Foreword by Carl Watner plus Benjamin Tucker's essay on Spooner "Our Nestor Taken From Us"

Single Copy


wholesale prices upon request order from


P.O. Box 257, Cupertino, CA 95014


ylswaSIioti of hifoflariaiu


41 Union Sq W. Suite 1428 Nev- York , NY 10003 (tel 212-361-0927)

MOVEMENT OF THE LIBER-TAR I All LEFT is now organizing cells across No. America. Send $1 for sample packet of introductory brochure,available issue pamphlets, and a sample copy of STRATEGY to New Libertarian Enterprises, Box 1748, LonpBeach Ca 90801

CLAUSTROFOBIA via Cadlolo 90-00136 Rome, Italy ABBONAMENTO AIRMAIL 12issues/$20 make checks to Ricardo La Conca XLbartarLani-Am Ln JtalLan

FREESPACE newa^tier Mental Patients Liberation Project 339 Lafayette St. N.Y., N.Y. 1001' 44tf/mo., $2.64/6mo.


Sec.John Zube, 7 Oxley St. Berrima,NSW,Australia 2577



The Permonent UnLversol Rent Strike combines the Chinese Toolst concept of WU-WEI (dynomlc Inaction), the Notlve Amerlcon system of land tenure (custodianship), the Communist Anarchist goal of expropriating the Londlord class, and the Individualist Anarchist reliance upon personal self-Interest.

The Permonent Universal Rent Strike Is o direct, simple ond nonviolent method of abolishing absentee land ownership, ond Instituting DE FACTO ownership In Its place. It would abolish not onlu rents, but oLso reol estote property taxes, which ore simply rents paid to oovernments.

CorrLed out globally on a single day, after odeguote advance publicity assured maximum Initial participation, Lt could not be resisted with ony weapon avolloble to the land and money Establishment. It Is one thing to order troops to shoot rioters In the street - but gulte another to get them to enter millions upon millions of llvlngrooms ond forcefully drog tens of millions of peaceful citizens oway from TV sets ond dinner tobies.

And where could they put us? In the oceon? On the moon?

The very words "landlady" and "landlord" reveol thot the rent system Ls o corry-over from the European Dark Ages: a form of modified serfdom Imported to this country and Instituted bu virtue of theft ond genocide agoInst the original custodians of this hemisphere, to whom ground monopolies were utterly alien. Sold Tecumseh, Chief of the Shawnee, "Sell Land? Why not sell the air, the cLouds, ond the great sea?"

A Rolph Noder study reveoled thot on the overage nearly half of every rent dolLor goes to the bonks os mortgage poyment, whereas an overage of

only one penny goes to the landowner os net profit. Thus In modern society the landlords ore merely shock troops for the Bonking Establishment. A Permonent Universal Rent Strike carried out for the purpose of expropriation would therefore Include o strike aoolnst the bonks - Including the withdrawal of securities therefrom ond the use of liberated money systems bosed on lobor, services, and goods. (These would be no more cumbersome than personal checking, which slmpLu Ls private money bosed on flat currency stashed In bonks.)

Also In parallel to the Permonent Universal Rent Strike would be a massive sguatter movement to settle ond put Into productive use vacant lots, abandoned structures, ond other realty being held off the market by absentee owners for speculative purposes. In addition would be the the taking over BY THE WORKERS of all natural resources associated with obsentee Land ownership.

A pood way to begin popularizing this devostlngly subversive notion Ls to get Little return address stickers printed up with PERMANENT UNIVERSAL RENT STRIKE on them, ond beoln posting them In public places, and mailing them on postcards to tenants' organizations.

Unlike most other tactics for social change, this one runs WITH the aroln of human self-Interest, NOT AGAINST Lt. Those who go on strike are ore reworded with more purchasing power than those who hold out os scobs. Moreover, the Permonent Universal Rent Strike Is olmost self-explanatory. No elaborate Ideological justification Ls needed; no extended polemic Ls necessary.

Moreover, the obolltlon of obsen-tee lond ownership mould result In oreoter, not lesser, security of ten

ure for the occupiers of the land ---

uiho could not thereafter be ousted by "urban renewal", which Is a bankers' ploy to coerclvely manipulate real estate volues. Nor could occupiers be evicted for nonpayment of rent or of property toxes.

NOTES: I am Indebted to Robert Anton Wilson for thl* ih. possung en hes lotest book, COSMIC TRIGGER ,„hirh iL os he notes

number of gross Inaccuracies about me. T^ Ralph SaSeV^stu^S^e'StUn:

_,iy ■ ■ ------- --- .

number of gross Inoccuracues about i,uuc, menttoneo above Is present In o tenonts' manual published by Atlanta, Georgia chapter Of PIRG. i-~=s-:--=--———-:---



a devastating critique of the State a masterful defense of human liberty "Beyond question it is one of the finest libertarian books written in the 20th century." ...the dandelion

AGAINST THE WALL- A fia{aii*t of ulf-liberation and »oluntarj alternatives. Sample 7S< postpaid AGAINST THE WAll P.O. lot 4 44 WESTF1EL0.N.J 07091

Houston SRAFlet "Anarchism&Socialism" available for SASE write: Houston SRAF, S.Post Oak Station, P.O. Box 35253 Houston.Texas 77035

Spearheaded by tenont farmers and ghetto residents, this long-overdue transformation of society mould probably moke welfare obsolete. It mould liberate huge trocts of acreage, ond thereby reduce enormously the stress of so-colled overpopulation upon humanity. And It would teoch people what Inherent POWER they hovel

PAMPHLETS Peter Kropotkin: "Anarchism" 50e (lOtfpst) Paul Goodman: "Black Flag of Anarchy" 40e (10« postage) both available from Kropotkins Lighthouse Publications c/o Housmans Bookshop 5 Caledonian Road, London N1

RUDOLF ROCKER was one of the foremost libertarian writers and philosophers of the 20th century. His works have been published in over a dozen languages.


S.E.Parker,186 Gloucester Terrace, London W.2. Eng. $3 for 6 issues


Please send me _ hard bound copy ($15 each)

_paperback copy ($10 each). Add 30c for postage.

Enclosed find my check for _.


"Uncompromising, witty and lively."

NEW LIBERTARIAN Available 12 timesJyear for SI2 from New Libertarian Enterprises P.O. Bo* 1748 Long Beach, CA 90801




Hake checks payable to: Michael E. Coughlin, Publisher, and send to 1985 Selby Ave., St. Paul,

MM 55104.


J>n Oie foI lowing column*, we. conclxu'e t/ic Great Syndicalist !be.hate which frftaan 5. ^ar/ier crLtLci^m* Ln J.V£ SUOIW! H3 of ">Jn Anarchist Primer"

bu UarolA Plclfett and Susan WILL lams In our second IsAtie, Rertle.4. to Parker

appeare*' <~n

7 nr. S30RIW H4/5 bu Pickett, Williams, and War rill lVo-HA.


I seem bo hove stirred up something of o hornet's nest with mu letter on "onorcho-syndlcollsm", or"rev-olutlonory sundlcollsm", to qlve It Its proper nome.

Horold Pickett stotes thot sundlcollsm Is "copoble of co-exlstlng with other forms of free orgonlzotlon. It Is coooble of performing Its function... even while other free Lndlv-Iduols do not portlclpote Ln Lt." I om qlod to hear thot. Unfortunately such a view does NOT square with the revolutionary syndicalist goat of common ownership which would, In Noz-Ick's phase, "forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." Under such o regime those "free Individuals" who preferred to practice private ownership of the meons of production would soon be foced with the choice "Integrate or perish." In other words, If the syndicalist Ideal of "Free Communism" (os proclaimed by the International Working Men's Association -the syndicalist "International") were to be achieved, then everyone would have to follow ONE economic norm -ond the sovereignty of the Individual would be wiped out^

Thot this Is not mere booeu-man scaremongerlng Is borne out by no less an eminent syndicalist than Rudolph Rocker. In his essay ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM (Eltzbocher's ANARCHISM page 254, 1960 edition) he writes, Ln describing the syndlcollst "soclollst economic order":

In such o situation the labor Chambers would take over THE ADMINISTRATION OF EXISTING SOCIAL CAPITAL Ln each community, DETERMINING THE NEEDS of the Inhabitants of their district ond ORGANIZE local consumption.... It would be the task of the Industrial and Agricultural Alliances to take control of ALL the Instruments of production, transportation, etc. (my emphasis)

It only remolns to odd thot the Sponlsh syndlcollst de Sontlllan sow one of the roles of the syndlcollst "federal economic council" os the "distribution" (Le. direction) of labour from one region to another, to get o picture of the syndicalist new order rother different from the vagaries of Mr. Pickett (see ANARCHISM by Daniel Guerln, p.125). Needless to say, we are not told whot would happen to "labour" thot refused to be distributed according to the directions of de Sontlllan's "directed and planned" "socialized economy"....(A smolL Indication of the shape of syndlcollst thlnqs to come, however, wos the case of the Spanish anarchist Individualist Miguel JlmLnez Igualada who hod to abandon o publishing project during the Spanish Civil War because the National Committee of the CNT refused to oLLow him anymore supplies of paper).

Pickett's orgument thot "structures, like automobiles, ore neither 'good' nor 'bad' In themselves. Their Lmpoi— tonce Lies Ln their use" is o strange one. Apart from the fact thot I cannot see the connection between "good" or "bad" and "Lmportonce", I wos under the Impression thot anorchlsts regarded the GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, ot leost, os one which could only be used for o "bod" purpose as far os they were concerned. Am I now to understond thot there Is nothing "bod" about government Ln Itself, but only Ln the use to which lb Is put?

On the other hond, I gulte ogree thot "syndicalism Is a form of collectivism". It Is precisely becouse of thot thot I, os on anarchist Individualist, oopose Lt. Since Susan Williams does not give ony detoLLs of her experience of on "anarchist collective" I connot comment on her letter.

Most of the points thot I hove mode obout Horold Pickett's letter also oppLy to Merrill Moss, particularly In view of his favouring the I WW proposal for One Big Union for everyone.

Pother Hogerty's fomous "Wheel of Fortune" Is nothing more than o pLon to substitute Industrial government for political government and Is totalitarian to boot. Much os I admire the style of the early Wobblles, their gool gives me the creeps! I suggest Moss toke a "hord look" at the data assembled In Robert Michel's POLITICAL PARTIES regarding the "Iron lam of oligarchy" In ALL organizations before juggling with vagaries like "Lnter-coordlnatlon".

His efforts to dodge my criticisms by Indulging In a little ontl-Engllsh chauvinism misfire. Sunllor objections to syndicalism hove been mode by anarchist Individualists In France, Italy, Greece, and (dare I say Lb?) the USA, to mention only a fern other countries.

I am not Impressed by Moss calling himself "on Individualist syndicalist" and "catholic anarchist", to name only a couple of other contradictions In terms (not to mention a group of Japanese "anarchists" who once believed thot "anarchism" would triumph when the Japonese emperor ruled the world!). Were his syndicalist Ideal to be realized then he would soon find his "Individualism" harnessed ond bridled Inside the shafts of the social framework he has chomploned.

All of his brave words, however, do not odd up to on answer to the main Question I asked In my letter, anymore than do those of Harold Pickett. At the risk of having my Identity "threatened" by "disagreement", could I ask your syndicalist correspondents for a SPECIFIC reply to my query concerning just what SOVEREIGNTY an Individual could EXERCISE under the pyromld of councils they both propose? -£>•£•&


In response to Mr. Parker, let me begin by defining syndicalism as a System of economic. organisation in which industries are owned and managed by. the workers. To me, this definition necessarily entails voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, free association, and equality. I v/ould also add: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

As a protection against internal authoritarianism, I envision not a "pyramid" of centralized power, but a loose, lace-work federation of decentralized locals who cooperate together on larger scales for the efficient satisfaction of common needs. I would expect the locals to be vigilant in maintaining liberty, serving to check and balance one another. Should oppression arise in any one local or region, the others could simply boycott the abberant faction until the situation is corrected.

There would also be many locals in each community existing side-by-side, involving varieties of industries, services, and agriculture. With leisure, I imagine, one person in their life would become skilled at a variety of occupations or professions. To prevent boredom and enhance personal development, individuals could rotate jobs periodically. This would also protect an individual when skills in certain areas are fully supplied or when dissention or authoritarianism within a group leads to secession. In addition, there might always be a number of artists and persons with special skills who pref«r to work out their own personal arrange ments with particular locals or the broader umbrella community. The rights of these sovereign individuals would be upheld by the same system of checks and balances. Individual sovereignty would also be protected by freedom to travel and relocate.

I agree with Rocker that we should "demand the abolition of economic monopoly in every form and shape, and uphold common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available to all with out distinction".

I see no reason to alter my statement that structures are neither "good nor "bad" in themselves. Structure is the way something is organized GENERALLY. Government is a PARTICULAR expression of a structure - it is the exercise of coercive power and authority (force and fraud) in order to control others. It is this particular purpose to which the structure is put that we condemn as anarchists. The particular, however, does not equal the general - one is NOT the other.

My own experiences within a collective have been satisfying. We came together out of common interests and organized to work for common goals (which were basically political agitation and propaganda). We all had our individual differences, which were discussed and respected. They weren't compromised by an individual working on a project he or she disagreed with. We often relied on individual initiative to launch and nurture projects. Always, our common interests were recognized and, basically, we've loved one another. Sometimes a person has left the group to pursue other coals, and someone else comes along to pick up where they left off. . . . The Show Goes On.



Ho one could know whot was Ln mu statement from Porker's description of Lt. This Ls the wor-of-words of the papei—anarchist, diverting attention from what he con't answer. It's o world olLen to the mutuol efforts ot understondlno ond dialogue essential for anarchism to work -- off oaoer.

I told whot we want ond how we want syndicalism to work (os Ln fact It actually has worked) -- from below. But what's real to Porker ore capitalized words -- "Labor Chambers","Wheel of Fortune","APMINISTRATION" — until everu simple mechanism for communal ooreement, division of labor, or mutuol activity, sounds like Generol Motors, ond somehow would never occur except under syndicalism.

This one-sldedness Ls shown by pouncing on o single guorrel within the CNT of Spain, while not mentlon-Ina Its unlaue toleront spirit which, ot the height of the Civil Wor, subsidized (ond overwhelmlnglu voted down resolutions to cut off) the whole Anarchist youth press thot wos ottacklno It for entering the Generol-Ldod of Cotalon La. One wonders how reodlly Parker would subsidize the dissenters he excommunlcotes.

He speaks of "One BLo Union" without mentlonlno thot It Ls o federation controlled wholly from below, ond that no part of the IWW larae or small has onu president, cholrmon, director, executive secretory, monoger, or ony other executive office-holder (only

clerical secretaries), ond thot Its Generol Executive Board members mou only hold office, Intervene, or use their prestloe In local affolrs - or even vote at conventions. Show me one of uour "associations" like that!

Pushing people around Ls not caused by nomes. It alwows grounds Itself (rlnht up to Torguemodo ond Sto-lln) on defending Truth ooolnst Error Lnsteod of storting with people. Syndicalism Is obliged to think Ln terms of people by Its modus operandi. How significant the contrast between Parker's word-speckLng contempt for the syndl callst Ideas of Rudolf Rocker, thot oentlest of souls, and Rocker's first act In America - o book of appreciation for the contributions of Amerlco's anorcho-Individualists, PIONEERS OF AMERICAN FREEDOM. To which of these two ottltudes would you entrust your future freedom?

I hove never colled muself o "catholic onarchlst", but If Porker meons he Is dlmlsslng pluralism (which I, ond Incidentally Rocker, do advocate) os the right of others, we get o further glimpse. Con one believe In letting people decide for themselves but only on condition that they decide what one wants them to? I stoted I would honor his community's

decision. He excommunicates mine. * * *

For that's not just ZunkunftsmusIk. It makes one hell of o difference In shaping your attitude right now. If you think of others (thot you disagree with) as guys you're somehow gonno have to live with In the same world ofter the Revolution and still do your thing, ond might even need beside you during thot Revolution (unless you'll just moke It come out of your typewriter) - then you begin to figure thot you might os we 11 get used to eoch other before your typewriters become guns.

(Or moybe Parker sees no need for future cooperotlon, sitting behind voluntary ossoclotlons with hired ouords - once they safely come under the Inevitable economic and * hierarchic domination of his "free Individuals who prefer to practice private ownei— ship of the means of production" ond of others' eating, working and living. The IWV has known those all too well os employers' assoclotlons ond compony unions with Plnkerton thugs. The slaveholders pleo for his freedom always Looks so good - on paper.)

Poper Isn't people. Nothing could be more ontl-Lndlvldual than to start with Procrustlon patterns and then fudge Individuals by wether they fit the suit. The root IS Mon. That's why poor Ideos (just Look over most of the current demands of feminism) con still be elevating to Individuals (because the movement Is really based on the Individuals). And why good Ideas (such as poper anarchism) can degrade them. Look at George Woodcock who attacked syndicalism In defense of anarchist purity, ond ended by rejecting anarchism as well.

Poper Isn't people. Look at the anarcho-ldeologues who spent their last days around Moscow theorizing over their teo, while only the syndicalists Vollne ond Arshlnov went down to help Mokhno. And no group during the Great War was as Infallibly ferreted out by the war Lords as the i ww, with no greot theoreticians. But the two greatest minds of communist ond Individualist onorchlsm, Kropotkln ond Tucker, both come out for the wor! Great minds, great teachers, yes. I honor them. But when you spin webs of structures, you con get caught In them.

* + +

I believe I wos quite decent In posslng off Porker's original remarks with good-natured banter, though unrecognizable to the humorless Savana-roLos who olwoys seem drown Like files to uplifting movements that bring tidings of joy to the world. Smearing thot os "antl-Engllsh chauvinism" Is truly putting reverse English on the boll!

Of course It simply would never occur to him, I'm sure, that there Is anything vicious In his reading people out of the movement who hove given whole lives to anarchism (In my own case, both my father and my son hove worked for the IWW). To Porker, we ore all only cordboard cutouts with paper positions printed on us — just cross those guys out! It's very rude of pieces of poper to react.

I was once quoted In THE STORM!(#2) at on anarchist conference where (Parker wlLL be flobberqosted to learn) I fought against a motion to exclude the onorcho-capltallsts with words which he merits should be conferred on him too: CK^onmurvLcatLon. ba.for« tka ravolusLLon 'meani <i>cAcutLon aftar Lt. As for Instonce, when those onorcho-ontlcopltollst Wobbly bums start pouring Into town on every frelghtcar, stirring up the workers to dump the freedom-loving onarcho-capltoLLst bosses off their backs. The unwashed con carry voluntary association too for... Call out the PlnkertonsMI


In this issue we have seen the common ground shared by anarchists of different persuasions: individualists opposed to bourgeois values; egoism as a form of communism; the abolition of rent as a common goal. Even in the debate above, similar concerns are seen.

Anarchy is about individual sovereignty: self-determination. The economic expression of anarchy is self-employment. Syndicalists seek this croal thru workers' self-manage-ment: freedom from the boss. Individualists thru personal ownership becoming your own boss. In both cases the functions of worker and capitalist merge. In the following article Sam Konkin explores this theme and the common around all anarchists share. As a market-anarchist, I must state my disagreement with his views on "ware-slavery". History shows that it WAS the capitalists who be-nan that system: DESTROYED the system of independent contractors, replaced niece-work with time-wages, and centralized all production under the roofs of single factories.

As an individualist, I am opposed to a monopoly syndicalism as to monopoly capitalism. I seek the decentralization of economy: land in the hands of individual occupant/users and voluntary land trusts*, workplaces in the hands of the occupant/workers.



♦see C.reen Revolution 10/7P for my thoughts on land-trusts; also essays by Sharon Presley and Sam Konkin (see Storm Signals).



PERHAPS A CENTURY AGO the classic division of Anarchists into Individualists, Communists, and Syndicalists had validity both in ease of communication and in correspondence to reality. Twenty years np,o "anarchocapitalist vs annrcho-communist" probably described a serious schism in Anarchist ranks undoubtedly abetted by the Cold War mentality of factions within the State. Today there are still divergences in mentality among those who have arrived at the need for statelessness from many directions. The time has not arrived (if it ever will) for the discarding of labels among Anarchy's defenders.

After all, there is no such thing as "Anarchism". Only the extreme distortions caused by the existence of the State could bring one to believe that Anarchists base an entire ideology - n vision of how to live - on the minor adjustment of Humanity's lifestyle to eliminate the petty annoyance of institutionalized parasitism. Would one base an entire theory of human life on the extermination of cockroaches, or even leprosy or the Plague?

In our present society, the State is indeed a pressing problem. But those who have arrived, for all their many reasons, at the conclusion that it must be abolished, are precisely those whose vision is clear enough to catch a o.limpse of the possibilities of life unstunted by rampant coercion. There will be Anarchy, and those who pursue this necessary and heroic goal are indeed Anarchists; but they are much more: Communists, Syndicalists, Christians, Scientologists, Utopians, Taoists, Mew "hilosophers,... and Agorists.

ONE OF THE MOST serious divisions of the Anarchist ranks stems from the speculation of what will happen to the institution of Property when the State is eliminated. It should be obvious that the deduction of where Property arises is important to this debate. A strong, almost dominant, view of the Property Ouestion amonp Anarchists is that Property arose from conquest and hence is entirely illegitimate. In a society of free persons, cooperation and voluntary action will somehow allocate goods without the need for specific boundaries around the material in the universe.

The marketeers (agora = wide-open marketplace) do not share this Utopian, and ultimately fear-ridden, view of Property. They perceive their existence to require material substance, and they do not draw their lines around the narrow-outlook boundaries the bodies they chance to be born with. Agorists see the limit of the Ego arising only from contact with the bubble of another Ego. In short, Aporists see Property as a fact of human nature, and waste no time lamenting that-which-is. They embrace this Truth joyfully and develop their libertarianism toward eliminating conflict among the Individuals in Society, and allowinp each and all to expand in permissible dimensions without limit: Peace and Profit!

THE POSSIBILITIES of confusion and communication breakdowns between those who arrived from the Left (anti-property) tradition and those from the Free Market (Centre in Europe, Right in America) tradition are bad enough from contact between the half-educated in both camps. The difference in terminology requires a virtual translation i

n order for Market and Non—Market Anarchists to understand each other without feeling threatened "from Within".

A couple of examples will suffice. To the Non-Market Anarchist, Profit signifies some act of vicious exploitation, involving coercion and violence. To the Amorist, Profit is that increase in material wealth arising from innovation, ie., the reward for creative genius, V/ould any anarchocommunist deny reward for creative genius? Would any Free Market Anarchist accept train by coercion, unt-.irned plunder? The Anarchist Commonality of Thought is there, if effort is made to cut thru the verbiage to see and respect the other's Vision.

Another nroblen nriscj: fron the viev of ,r'a"0 Slavery", ar. the anarcho-syndicalists call it. It nay surprise some Anarchists fron the Left that harH-core Ar-orlatn sneer at the ware system qs something fitting for Medieval Europe (or rodern Russia), n hao.°-over of feudal organizational methods incompatible ••ith hl^-h-rowered free enterprise. Their vision of ^vision of , Labor foresees the "withering away" of the 'orkcr function with the ri3e of

cybernetics and robotics, and a Teat exnansion of the Capitalist, and esne-; clallv entrepreneurial, economic functions of Humans. The rise of the Independent Contractor ant' the Consultant are present ('.ay trends lauded and her-( aided by marketeers.

This is not to say that there is no difference in outlooi;. Non-Market Anarchists sec the emnloyment of workers as "exploitation" desired and practiced hv employers. Market Anarchists see employment as a sacrifice chosen BY workers with irrational insecurities and unwillingness to accept risk; as almost compelled unon er.nloyers who would be far better served (in the account books) by dealing, with contractors who would accept risks themselves for con-' nletion of v-ork nrojects.

NOT ALL ANARCHISTS see an end to violence, though all seek the end of monopo-| lized, apgressive violence of the State. But even outright pacificism is not exclusive to the Left Anarchist tradition. The 10,000-odd graduates of Robert LeFevre's educational effort have renounced defensive force to varying decrees, wi1ling to rely on free market processes for their defense. This hardly supports the charge that Amrism is a refuse for camouflaged bip-business plutocrats seeking to survive after a People's Revolution (a charge often thrown wildly at the anti-utorian idealists of the uncoerced marketnlace).

f'or are all anarchocommunists naving the way for a Bolshevik takeover, or anarchosyndicalists harbingers of fascism (state syndicalism). There ARE statists in both camps masquerading as Anarchists, to be sure. They are recognized as professinp the "Ideals" of Communism or Aporism, while protesting the impracticalitv of achieving those ideals in the foreseeable future. Indeed, they spend their time accommodating to that "fact of life" called Ihe State.

II1 CONCLUSION, I'll address nvself to those who ask "So what? So there are all other kinds of Anarchists; "hy should we achieve any decree of solidarity? Let us each pursue our visions isolated, and each incedtntally striking our blows against the State".

The Amorists, the only ones I can oretend to speak for to any decree, cannot rationally see see such separation in their best interest. If the marketnlace is simnly made up of those who fully understand the workings of the market, we should have all perished before acquiring our present understandings. Nor are those with an elementary economic education more valuable to us in trade and social intercourse if they insist on serving the State (like Ropke and Friedman, two outstanding sell-outs) than those who Imperfectly but effectively see and oppose the common threat.

Finally, I hope we can all see that the State will be immeasurably hampered in facin^ a Cor.nonalit" of Anarchists espousing all views of Human Mature. How can we be smeared by association with the Soviet Monstrosity if unbridled "laissez-faire" advocates are waving their black banners with rrlee at the TV cameras? Mow can Anarchy be identified with hip-business statism if unallO'Od communists cr>' from the barricades the slogans of freedom? And the rest of the uncommitted world coul^ not fail to be mQved and influenced unon seeing the future of freedom and mutual tolerance promised by Anarchy actual!?' work-

Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review No.


140 pages, M x 11%, £2.00 plus 30p p+p. ISSN No. 0309 - 72X5


1. To promote the widest possible circulation ol the ideas anil history ol anarchism anil self management.

2. To examine revolutionary movements in other times and places, their successes and failures.

3. To understand how resistance is destroyed and liberating ideas suppressed.

4. To expose every authoritarian aspect of daily life and put forward viable libertarian alternatives.

5. To oppose and resist arbitrary' power and obscurantism, providing a libertarian alternative to all authoritarian ideologies.

6. To show the weakness and vulnerability of all authoritarian systems and ideologies, their injustices and dishonesties, and relate them to the experience of the international libertarian movement.

7. To provide an effective international anarchist forum through Tlie Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review and local readers' groups for the exchange and development of libertarian ideas, and to forge closer links of friendship and solidanty between anarchists and libertarian revolu-

l tionaries throughout the world.

Contents of issue No. 3 include: The Aims and Principles of Anarchism; Objections to Anarchism; Anarchism in Greek Philosophy; Bowler Hats & Black Bandanas: Anarchism & Freemasonry; Sabotage: Its History, Philosophy & Function; Anarchist Feminism; Arms and the Woman; A History of the Anarchist Movement in Bulgaria; Objectivity & Liberal Scholarship; The Life, Trial & Death of Francisco Ferrer Guardia; Erich Muehsam: Poet & Revolutionary; Anarchism in Japan: Kaneko Fumiko; Anarchism in Mexico: Ricardo Flores Magon; Marius Jacob's Statement to his Trial Judges; Russia: The Miasnikov Memorandum; Stepniak. Portrait of a Nihilist, Berulsverbote Repression in West Germany; The Benefits Moral and Secular of Assassination; Science: The Image & the Reality; Immanuel Velikovsky: Scientists in Collision; Gnosticism: Ancient Heresy or Kick up the Cassock; The Golden Ka of Dennis Whiatley; Picture Books for Little Anarchists; Poetry; letters and over twenty pages of book reviews.

"In the course of three issues the Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review has probably become the most im/>ortant forum of anarchist thought and criticism in the world today. The range of subjects it covers and the quality ol their treatment is excellent." Antony Beevor, novelist.

"The last issue of the Cienfuegos Press Review was excellent. I'm looking forward very much to the next. I'm really impressed wit4i the way the journal and press are operating." Noam Chomsky.

"I have just read issue No. 2 of the Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review and found it simply stupendous. It is in fact the best international anarchist publication 1 have seen far superior to all others circulating at the moment. I really must congratulate you for presenting us with this treasury." Victor Garcia, editor Ruta, Caracas.

"The Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review is without doubt the best anarchist journal published anywhere in the world today." internationnl Secretariat of the CNT, Bicicleta, Madrid.

"I think the Review is by far the best publication of its kind I have seen and I'd be glad to contribute to future issues." Michael Moorcock, novelist.

Why not make sure of your copy of the next issue of the Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review anil all Cienfuegos Press titles published in 1978 by taking out a sustaining subscription today! ($16.00, U.S., Canada, etc.)


1  3' leon.LL.-im is the practice of living economically outsirie the Law. Armand' 6

• lisagreement with Jucker is exemplified in a footnote, by Albert Darn- a

tisA Juckerian - to hi*. pamphlet The Individual afid the State (1891). Jam c.'rites in reference to those successfully resisting authority: "Of course 3 o not mean outlaws, sucA as RobLn Mood and Co., who only maintain their (rc-edom bn seperating themselves from society and leading a roving and pred-atoru life. 3 mean men who shall assert their right of freedom whilst remaining citizens and earning thei.r living by. honest industry. " Jr^-and's sympathieS would have been wLth Robin Mood. All he ashed was not how sor-tione earned /vis living, but whether he teas a "good comrade" or not.