Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

CHAPTER VI
Philos 0phicaI Anarc hism
Whi Ie it is erroneous to consider anarchism merely
as a particular type of socialism, it is no doubt true
t ha t, with a few notable except ions such as Max
S t i r n e r, John Hen r y Ma c k ay, Gu s tav· de" Mo 1 ina r i, and
more currently, S. E. Parker, European anarchism has
been collectivist-oriented, advocating small workercontrolled
communities where property would be owned by
the community rather than the individual. While less
pro n 0 u n c e din Pro u d h 0 nthani n Ba k un in, and s om ewha t
less in Bakunin than in Kropotkin, this collectivist
or i en tat ion i scI ear 1 y the do minant t r ad i t ion amo n g
European anarchists.
This orientation can probably be attributed, in
large part at least, to environmental factors. Regulat
ion, wh e the r b y the c e n t r a 1state 0 r by s om e 0 the r
g 0 v ern men t a I b o.d y, wa san eve r - presen t f act 0 f I i f e
throughout European history. Consequently, there was
I ittle separation between state and society. Oppenheimer,
for example, remarks that in Germany "the two
terms were used as synonymous." And Emil Kauder points
out that in Austria the Hapsburg monarchy refused to
permi t the publ i cat ion of any textbo.ok based on the
principles of Adam Smith until 1848. "In the eyes of
the Vie n nacen s 0 r ," Ka ude r says, "Adam Smit h wa s arevolutionary.
The principle of laissez faire ran coun-.
ter to old Austrian statesmanShip and social
philosophy."(l)
Our i n g the feu d a I per i 0 d the r ewe r e rna nor sund e r
the absolute control of the lords. The modern state
emerged when the rising capitalist class found it necessary
to destroy feudal ism in order to extend their
markets. To do so, however, required the concentration
of power in the central government. And so long as
they controlled the state, they found little interest
in decentral izing power once the destruction of the
feu d a 1 s y s t em had bee n c om pIe ted. T his mean t t ha t
nearly all markets were strictly regulated by the state
and for the i n t ere s t s 0 f the capitali s telass. ( 2 ) I t
also meant that being regulated by the state, markets
could not fulfill their crucial function of indicating
priorities and coordinating production by means of the
dissemination of economic information throughout the
177