What do you think?
Rate this book
Native American Anarchism: A Study of Left Wing American Individualism
From the far reaches of the human mind, come these tales of unrestrained, anti-authoritarianism. No government, no leaders, no authority, no rules, and complete freedom of action Egoism, solipsism, anarchism, and other heresies -- now revealed to corrupt your mind "Arguably the best book ever published on the history of Anarchism in the U.S". -- Left Bank Books "A gold mine... Anyone interested in the roots of free thought will be rewarded by reading it". -- Claustrophobia The history of anarchism in the United States from colonial times to the early 20th Century. Covers the abolitionists, women's rights movements; supporters of reproductive and sexual freedom; pacificist and anti-war movements; alternative communities and much more.
202 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1932
2 people are currently reading
107 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 15, 2023
A FINE HISTORY OF ANARCHISM IN THE UNITED STATES
This book is a reprinting of Volume XVII (October 1931-July 1932) of the Smith College Studies in History. Author Eunice Minette Schuster wrote in the Preface, “The writer has attempted in the following study to delineate the character and form of native American anarchism and to suggest that the conditions were which promoted its growth, and wherein lay its significance for American history… The problem which presents itself … is, to what extent did it influence thought and modify action, in spite of the fact that it met with no wide acceptance at any period?... A second aspect of anarchism … is the technique of propaganda… a third question of significance… is, what are the factors in the making of an anarchist? To what extent are personality and temperament determining factors?... A fourth question of importance is to what extent is anarchism an ‘escape’ from reality.”
She explains in the Introduction, “Anarchism is a philosophy, a way of life. Its positive concept is freedom unrestricted by man-made law---freedom for the Individual. The Individual for the anarchist is the only social reality. Society has no existence, per se, as distinct from the individuals whop compose it… We would expect to find… in anarchism, an expansion and clarification of the idea of what the individual is and how his freedom can be limited legitimately without destroying the essential condition of growth and progress… Anarchism, therefore, has both a positive and a negative aspect. Its positive character is revealed in its demand for liberty for the Individual, its negative character in its demand that society destroy all authority.” (Pg. 7-8)
She continues, “The attacks and the positive program of individual anarchists have been as varied as their personalities. A general classification can be made… but we must remember that such classifications are largely arbitrary. In general there is Indivdualist Anarchism, Christian Anarchism, Mutualist Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, and Communist Anarchism. They agree on the essential position which we have already described. The chief source of difference between them is to be found in their economic systems and their conceptions of the Individual.” (Pg. 9-10)
She recounts, ‘two conditions made possible the rebirth of Antinomian and Millenarian ideas in the early part of the nineteenth century---first, the breaking up of the rigid and static condition of society… and second, the general dissemination of a belief, a faith in the innate goodness of human nature … In such conditions Anarchism flourished. It died when society again became more rigid.” (Pg. 39)
She reports, “After 1842 the slavery cause pushed more and more into the foreground. [William Lloyd] Garrison’s whole life interest became the emancipation of the slaves, almost to the exclusion of peace, temperance, and capital punishment. His tendency to subordinate the principle to the ‘cause’ which was apparent from the beginning, became at this time a marked characteristic. Up to 1862, he grew even more violent in his denunciation of government, Garrison burned the constitution in 1854, but in 1862 he … approved of the war, of the emancipation of the slaves on the grounds of military necessity, denied the right of the Southern States to secede, and supported the reelection of Lincoln. He thereby violated every principle of non-resistance---the sacredness of human life, resist not evil by force, the right of the individual to his own life and property. Garrison was swept away from his position of non-resistance by his singleness of purpose and by practical necessity. Non-resistance a means to an end, the end realized, the complete reformation of society was forgotten.” (Pg. 79-80)
He says of Josiah Warren’s ‘Time Store,’ “The theoretical basis of this labor exchange store was that ‘property is the whole produce or result of a man’s own labor.’ Labor is manual, mental, and managerial. To this property every man has an unalienable right. The only true basis of wealth or currency is labor. Labor is evaluated on the basis of ‘time’ and ‘repugnance.’ …In his efforts to make labor the basis of currency, Warren gave to the menial and most ‘disagreeable’ work the highest reward.” (Pg. 103)
Of Nathaniel Greene, she explains, “Mutualism is the philosophical basis of Greene’s anarchism. His starting point … was the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount… ‘Mutualism,’ he declares, ‘is the synthesis of liberty and order.’ It is not extreme individualism… But if this is associationism, it is checked by individualism, expressed in these words, ‘Mind your own business,’ ‘Judge not that ye be not judged.’ Over matters which are purely personal, as for example moral conduct, the individual is sovereign, as well as over that which he himself produces.” (Pg. 132)
She summarizes, “The native American Anarchism born of American tradition and perpetuated, among other philosophies, by an economic need, won no wide acceptance. Its exponents had consistently attacked government in general, but, for one exception, not existing government. They demanded an absolute and universal freedom which was saved from license by the scientific action of ‘check and balance’ of individual interest, which for them was social interest. They concerned themselves for the most part with constructing and advocating a ‘true’ economic program, which was to be the basis of a new social order---centered chiefly in banking, currency, and labor exchange reform. The cooperation of capitalist and laborer they demanded as a primary condition to the realization of their ideal.” (Pg. 159)
She concludes, ‘The question is, and the Anarchists form the earliest time have asked this, will the people of the United States allow any authority to destroy that vital principle of Individuality which finds the greatest personal happiness and the highest social good in the free and spontaneous development of a rich INDIVIDUAL life, both in thought and action? Viewed in perspective, therefore, the Anarchist movement both native and foreign suggests two things: first, that Democracy has failed to protect the critical minority, and second, that authority institutionalized, whether religious, social, moral, or economic strikes both the one who wields it and the one who suffers from it. These two things point out to us the necessity of constant vigilance for the freedom of the individual.” (Pg. 187)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the history and development of Anarchism.
This book is a reprinting of Volume XVII (October 1931-July 1932) of the Smith College Studies in History. Author Eunice Minette Schuster wrote in the Preface, “The writer has attempted in the following study to delineate the character and form of native American anarchism and to suggest that the conditions were which promoted its growth, and wherein lay its significance for American history… The problem which presents itself … is, to what extent did it influence thought and modify action, in spite of the fact that it met with no wide acceptance at any period?... A second aspect of anarchism … is the technique of propaganda… a third question of significance… is, what are the factors in the making of an anarchist? To what extent are personality and temperament determining factors?... A fourth question of importance is to what extent is anarchism an ‘escape’ from reality.”
She explains in the Introduction, “Anarchism is a philosophy, a way of life. Its positive concept is freedom unrestricted by man-made law---freedom for the Individual. The Individual for the anarchist is the only social reality. Society has no existence, per se, as distinct from the individuals whop compose it… We would expect to find… in anarchism, an expansion and clarification of the idea of what the individual is and how his freedom can be limited legitimately without destroying the essential condition of growth and progress… Anarchism, therefore, has both a positive and a negative aspect. Its positive character is revealed in its demand for liberty for the Individual, its negative character in its demand that society destroy all authority.” (Pg. 7-8)
She continues, “The attacks and the positive program of individual anarchists have been as varied as their personalities. A general classification can be made… but we must remember that such classifications are largely arbitrary. In general there is Indivdualist Anarchism, Christian Anarchism, Mutualist Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, and Communist Anarchism. They agree on the essential position which we have already described. The chief source of difference between them is to be found in their economic systems and their conceptions of the Individual.” (Pg. 9-10)
She recounts, ‘two conditions made possible the rebirth of Antinomian and Millenarian ideas in the early part of the nineteenth century---first, the breaking up of the rigid and static condition of society… and second, the general dissemination of a belief, a faith in the innate goodness of human nature … In such conditions Anarchism flourished. It died when society again became more rigid.” (Pg. 39)
She reports, “After 1842 the slavery cause pushed more and more into the foreground. [William Lloyd] Garrison’s whole life interest became the emancipation of the slaves, almost to the exclusion of peace, temperance, and capital punishment. His tendency to subordinate the principle to the ‘cause’ which was apparent from the beginning, became at this time a marked characteristic. Up to 1862, he grew even more violent in his denunciation of government, Garrison burned the constitution in 1854, but in 1862 he … approved of the war, of the emancipation of the slaves on the grounds of military necessity, denied the right of the Southern States to secede, and supported the reelection of Lincoln. He thereby violated every principle of non-resistance---the sacredness of human life, resist not evil by force, the right of the individual to his own life and property. Garrison was swept away from his position of non-resistance by his singleness of purpose and by practical necessity. Non-resistance a means to an end, the end realized, the complete reformation of society was forgotten.” (Pg. 79-80)
He says of Josiah Warren’s ‘Time Store,’ “The theoretical basis of this labor exchange store was that ‘property is the whole produce or result of a man’s own labor.’ Labor is manual, mental, and managerial. To this property every man has an unalienable right. The only true basis of wealth or currency is labor. Labor is evaluated on the basis of ‘time’ and ‘repugnance.’ …In his efforts to make labor the basis of currency, Warren gave to the menial and most ‘disagreeable’ work the highest reward.” (Pg. 103)
Of Nathaniel Greene, she explains, “Mutualism is the philosophical basis of Greene’s anarchism. His starting point … was the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount… ‘Mutualism,’ he declares, ‘is the synthesis of liberty and order.’ It is not extreme individualism… But if this is associationism, it is checked by individualism, expressed in these words, ‘Mind your own business,’ ‘Judge not that ye be not judged.’ Over matters which are purely personal, as for example moral conduct, the individual is sovereign, as well as over that which he himself produces.” (Pg. 132)
She summarizes, “The native American Anarchism born of American tradition and perpetuated, among other philosophies, by an economic need, won no wide acceptance. Its exponents had consistently attacked government in general, but, for one exception, not existing government. They demanded an absolute and universal freedom which was saved from license by the scientific action of ‘check and balance’ of individual interest, which for them was social interest. They concerned themselves for the most part with constructing and advocating a ‘true’ economic program, which was to be the basis of a new social order---centered chiefly in banking, currency, and labor exchange reform. The cooperation of capitalist and laborer they demanded as a primary condition to the realization of their ideal.” (Pg. 159)
She concludes, ‘The question is, and the Anarchists form the earliest time have asked this, will the people of the United States allow any authority to destroy that vital principle of Individuality which finds the greatest personal happiness and the highest social good in the free and spontaneous development of a rich INDIVIDUAL life, both in thought and action? Viewed in perspective, therefore, the Anarchist movement both native and foreign suggests two things: first, that Democracy has failed to protect the critical minority, and second, that authority institutionalized, whether religious, social, moral, or economic strikes both the one who wields it and the one who suffers from it. These two things point out to us the necessity of constant vigilance for the freedom of the individual.” (Pg. 187)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the history and development of Anarchism.
January 19, 2016
Very dry in spots, not a surprise for an academic work. The amount of repression in the early US still shocks me. Discussions on topics like birth control, anarchism and the like were illegal and people were arrested for it. Even scarier are the current wingnuts who want to roll back the clock to the good old days even after seeing the results of earlier campaigns.
March 6, 2025
Right now is the perfect time to read a book like this. Native American Anarchism is a great read, is dense (in a good way) with information and has given me a long list of other writings I want to read.
December 23, 2019
"Anarchism" in America was initially rooted in forms of minority religious dissent before the 19th century "rational" economic theories. The constant here is everyone had intensely emotional convictions. You get by Spooner mere faith in everything being reducible to amoral questions of property, contract and discipline... but the development of corporate capitalism made all this of not much interest to actual individual capitalists with their limited liability (and even selling to government!) or their employees [the primary disciplined victims of real empirical law]. Institutions natives are acculturated into are going to have their flaws better experienced by outsiders/immigrants.
Read
September 23, 2010'Native American Anarchism' by Eunice Minette Schuster (1999)
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews