One of the great heros of American classical liberalism was William Graham Sumner (1840–1910), author of this weekend’s read.
Wikipedia calls him “the leading American advocate of free markets, anti-imperialism, and the gold standard.’
Also:
Sumner opposed the Spanish American War and the subsequent U.S. effort to quell the insurgency in the Philippines. He was a vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League which had been formed after the war to oppose the annexation of territories. In his speech “The Conquest of the United States,” he lambasted imperialism as a betrayal of the small government ideals of anti-militarism, the gold standard, and free trade. According to Sumner, imperialism would enthrone a new group of “plutocrats,” or businesspeople who depended on government subsidies and contracts.
But 19th-century classical liberals (with the exception of a few radical liberals in France) were supposed to be minarchists, right? Defenders of the State as a necessary evil.
Well, according to Irving Fisher, a neoclassical economist from the early 20th century and certainly no friend to laissez-faire thought, Sumner told his Yale students the following:
Gentlemen, the time is coming when there will be two great classes, Socialists, and Anarchists. The Anarchists want the government to be nothing, and the Socialists want government to be everything. There can be no greater contrast. Well, the time will come when there will be only these two great parties, the Anarchists representing the laissez faire doctrine and the Socialists representing the extreme view on the other side, and when that time comes I am an Anarchist.
(From a biography of Fisher by his son, quoted by Mark Thornton in his book on Prohibition — a policy Fisher supported, by the way — and also on Roderick Long’s website, where Fisher is quoted as commenting, ‘That amused his class very much, for he was as far from a revolutionary as you could expect. But I would like to say that if that time comes when there are two great parties, Anarchists and Socialists, then I am a Socialist.’)
{ 9 comments }
Yes, I remember reading that comment by Sumner and the reaction by Irving. There was another similar comment on Sumner’s alleged anarchism by, I think, HL Mencken, in a collection on Sumner (“Sumner Today”?). Considering his academic position, I’m not sure that he would ever have admitted to being an anarchist, but he was quite close, wasn’t he?
Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com
I am afraid of the word anarchist. Whilst I am one (an individualist anarchist), I dare not use the word in conversation, debate or in the academic forum in general for fear of miscommunication. Unfortunately, anarchy is a word that carries some very negative connotations. What should one do? Use the word and try to clarify its meaning or find a new one?
As for Sumner being an anarchist, I do not know. I agree with you, Ken, that he was “close.” Though, if I were to guess I would say Sumner was weary of using the word for the same reasons as I am.
Belfort,
I heartily agree on using the word anarchy to designate a free (i.e., stateles) society, but having run into a buzzsaw on the matter from Stephan Kinsella and others, it seems to be a lost cause, as they would rather cling to its archaic meaning than join forces to find something less frightening to the general public.
Who, after all, would be attracked to the word’s definition today: “1. Absence of governmental authority or law. 2. Political disorder and connfusion. 3. Absence of any cohering principle, as a common standard or purpose; disorder and confusion.” (the American Heritage Desk Dictionary)
Any ideas on a better word than “anarchy”?
Sometimes it *is* useful to adopt a derogatory label for a cause. When someone calls himself an anarchist, it makes people pause.
Or make people categorize you as a nut all the faster.
averros I always tell people that I am in favor of an individualist stateless society. Its not a word but a description and thus can not be claimed by leftists .
Works every time.
Whatever you call it, it doesn’t hurt to start by quoting Vladimir Lenin:
“It is nonsense to make any pretense of reconciling the State and liberty.”
“Anarchy” is a concept that accurately conveys a certain complex proposition. The difficulty resides not in the word itself, for it is useful and serves its purpose adequately enough. Rather, the problem resides in the villification of the concept that anarchy proposes. This process of demonization has been perpetrated by avowed statists & their kindred conservatives alike. The objective should be not to concede the use of such a valuable word. The objective, more properly, should be to re-claim the veracity of anarchy’s concept.
In short, Hawk, only concepts may be villified, not words themselves.
He sounds like a libertarian, not an anarchist.
Anarchists “advocate the abolition of economic monopolies and of all political and social coercive institutions within society.In place of the present capitalistic economic order Anarchists would have a free association based upon co-operative labour, which would have as its sole purpose the satisfying of the necessary requirements of every member of society” (Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism).
Anarcho-capitalists aren’t really anarchists because anarchy is opposed to hierarchy which is inherent in capitalism. They are really Right Libertarians.
Comments on this entry are closed.