What do you think?
Rate this book
Instead of a Book by a Man Too Busy to Write One: A Fragmentary Exposition of Philosophical Anarchism
This Elibron Classics book is a facsimile reprint of a 1897 edition by Benj. R. Tucker, New York.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1893
12 people are currently reading
411 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 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 15, 2009
Benjamin Tucker is one of the more interesting American political thinkers. His one major book-length work has a beguiling title, "Instead of a Book, by a Man too Busy to Write One." What's that all about? As Tucker says (Pages ix-x): "Anarchism. . .lacks a systematic text-book. . . . [H:]owever, I have been too busy, and there is no prospect that I shall ever be less so." In short, he was too busy to write a proper, formal book--but he did publish a volume with his (and others') "greatest hits" from his biweekly journal, "Liberty."
Tucker calls himself an anarchist, but he is probably more aptly called an American libertarian. He reads Kropotkin out of the anarchist camp and adopts a more individualist orientation, consistent with American thinkers like Paine and Spooner and Warren.
The very first essay in this non-book lays out Tucker's basic philosophy. Entitled "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ," he notes the clear dividing line between Marx and his own vision. While he admires Marx' devotion to ordinary people (as per an essay mentioned later) and his attacks on the powerful, he cannot countenance Marx' idea of a strong government to work on behalf of the people (his "dictatorship of the proletariat," for example). He describes state socialism as (Page 7) ". . .the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice." Au contraire, Tucker's contrary perspective is anarchism, defined as (Page 9): ". . .the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." He refers to anarchists as (Page 14) "unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats."
Any code of morals? Only one great law, in Tucker's mind (Page 15): "'Mind your own business' is [anarchism's:] only moral law. Interference with another's business is a crime, and the only crime, and as such may properly be resisted." The following section, "The Individual, Society, and the State" pulls together a whole series of works from "Liberty" that elaborate on the themes from the rather brief introductory essay.
Quirky elements. (1) Tucker's rather generous assessment of Karl Marx upon Marx' death (see pages 477-480, in which he refers to Marx as "friend and foe"); (2) His strong statement of respect for Lysander Spooner on Spooner's death (pages 491-493).
Interested in American libertarian thinking? Benjamin Tucker must be read, just as Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick must be read. Will readers agree with Tucker? Many surely will not, but his is a perspective worth confronting.
Tucker calls himself an anarchist, but he is probably more aptly called an American libertarian. He reads Kropotkin out of the anarchist camp and adopts a more individualist orientation, consistent with American thinkers like Paine and Spooner and Warren.
The very first essay in this non-book lays out Tucker's basic philosophy. Entitled "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ," he notes the clear dividing line between Marx and his own vision. While he admires Marx' devotion to ordinary people (as per an essay mentioned later) and his attacks on the powerful, he cannot countenance Marx' idea of a strong government to work on behalf of the people (his "dictatorship of the proletariat," for example). He describes state socialism as (Page 7) ". . .the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice." Au contraire, Tucker's contrary perspective is anarchism, defined as (Page 9): ". . .the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." He refers to anarchists as (Page 14) "unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats."
Any code of morals? Only one great law, in Tucker's mind (Page 15): "'Mind your own business' is [anarchism's:] only moral law. Interference with another's business is a crime, and the only crime, and as such may properly be resisted." The following section, "The Individual, Society, and the State" pulls together a whole series of works from "Liberty" that elaborate on the themes from the rather brief introductory essay.
Quirky elements. (1) Tucker's rather generous assessment of Karl Marx upon Marx' death (see pages 477-480, in which he refers to Marx as "friend and foe"); (2) His strong statement of respect for Lysander Spooner on Spooner's death (pages 491-493).
Interested in American libertarian thinking? Benjamin Tucker must be read, just as Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick must be read. Will readers agree with Tucker? Many surely will not, but his is a perspective worth confronting.
January 25, 2021
A collection of essays and pieces from his Magazine, "Liberty", this is, by and large, a fantastic read.
In particular, "State Socialism and Anarchism" is great, and portrays the difference between the statist (US-Liberal) view, and the broader anarchistic view. Many other pieces are also brilliant; for example, his insistence on the many types of family, and his disdain for those who would restrict "family" to one man and one woman, but instead insists on all combinations - a bold stance, undoubtedly, in the 19th Century.
Some of the economics are now outdated (he admits as much, later, when he speaks in favour of political means for trust-busting, so it's not a fault of the author, strictly speaking), but Tucker is an out-and-proud Free-Market Libertarian. And he's also an out-and-proud Anti-Capitalist, and a Socialist.
And I think that's the most important aspect of this book, putting it into today's context - that Market Libertarianism and Socialism are two *complementary* views, not *contradictory* views, no matter what the Randian Libertarians might pretend.
It is they who are a-historical, and have perverted "Libertarianism" to a point where they defend state-intervention on "utilitarian" grounds that it was necessary for the state to enforce the land monopoly, money monopoly, tariffs and patents in order to raise the "standard of living" - a dangerously incorrect view, and one which has handily been done away with many times over, and which is obviously contradictory.
Why only 4 stars? I disagree with his treatment of Kropotkin et al towards the end of the "book", whereby Tucker dismisses his "communistic" version of Anarchism. It's obvious that in reality, many different types of organisation would be tried, and would be successful, and whilst I lean towards markets, I'm not so prescriptive as to write off other methods, and I feel that to do so is self-defeating - and a little mean-spirited ;-)
In particular, "State Socialism and Anarchism" is great, and portrays the difference between the statist (US-Liberal) view, and the broader anarchistic view. Many other pieces are also brilliant; for example, his insistence on the many types of family, and his disdain for those who would restrict "family" to one man and one woman, but instead insists on all combinations - a bold stance, undoubtedly, in the 19th Century.
Some of the economics are now outdated (he admits as much, later, when he speaks in favour of political means for trust-busting, so it's not a fault of the author, strictly speaking), but Tucker is an out-and-proud Free-Market Libertarian. And he's also an out-and-proud Anti-Capitalist, and a Socialist.
And I think that's the most important aspect of this book, putting it into today's context - that Market Libertarianism and Socialism are two *complementary* views, not *contradictory* views, no matter what the Randian Libertarians might pretend.
It is they who are a-historical, and have perverted "Libertarianism" to a point where they defend state-intervention on "utilitarian" grounds that it was necessary for the state to enforce the land monopoly, money monopoly, tariffs and patents in order to raise the "standard of living" - a dangerously incorrect view, and one which has handily been done away with many times over, and which is obviously contradictory.
Why only 4 stars? I disagree with his treatment of Kropotkin et al towards the end of the "book", whereby Tucker dismisses his "communistic" version of Anarchism. It's obvious that in reality, many different types of organisation would be tried, and would be successful, and whilst I lean towards markets, I'm not so prescriptive as to write off other methods, and I feel that to do so is self-defeating - and a little mean-spirited ;-)
Want to read
April 16, 2012Available online, see Wikipedia.
June 28, 2017
As is usual with Anarchist writing, there is a lot of criticism of the current political-economic system, and not many suggestions of practicable alternatives; much discussion of what Anarchism isn't and not a lot of detail on what it is.
Here, Tucker shoots down Liberty reader interpretations of how an Anarchist state would be run, while providing only vague and hand-wavy alternatives ("voluntary associations") which readers are then free to misinterpret and suffer more printed rebuke.
This is unsurprising - anarchism is against, not for; reactive, not proactive; destructive, not constructive. Which is fine, but why pretend otherwise?
The most interesting part of this book is the feuds into which Tucker enters with other Anarchists, and the similarity of their progression: 1) Praise, 2) Trivial Difference, 3) Derision.
Here, Tucker shoots down Liberty reader interpretations of how an Anarchist state would be run, while providing only vague and hand-wavy alternatives ("voluntary associations") which readers are then free to misinterpret and suffer more printed rebuke.
This is unsurprising - anarchism is against, not for; reactive, not proactive; destructive, not constructive. Which is fine, but why pretend otherwise?
The most interesting part of this book is the feuds into which Tucker enters with other Anarchists, and the similarity of their progression: 1) Praise, 2) Trivial Difference, 3) Derision.
July 13, 2016
This is basically Tucker's blog in book form. Its very fun to read because of his wit and fiery rhetoric. Its also cool to see reprints of letters he got, and responses to them, as well as short interactions/commentary he has with other intellectuals of the day like Spencer and Hebert. It could also be seen as a "greatest hits" compilation of Tucker's "Liberty" articles. Also, after reading this there can be no mistake about his position on usury, profit, rent, tariffs, IP, taxes, the cost principle, mutual banking, etc. He attaches significant qualifiers to some of these things which some modern interpreters (ahem infoshop) are eager to leave out.
I still dont understand what his conceptions of mutual banking entails , but this book is "a fragmentary exposition" so its not great for learning new concepts.
I still dont understand what his conceptions of mutual banking entails , but this book is "a fragmentary exposition" so its not great for learning new concepts.
January 7, 2017
I wrote the foreword to this, the Laissez Faire Books ebook edition. My aim in writing this foreword was to help the reader make sense of the ideological background of the book's author/compiler, and to address the book's (and ideology's) current relevance.
twv
twv
Read
September 23, 2010"Instead of a book, by a man too busy to write one;: A fragmentary exposition of philosophical anarchism, culled from the writings of Benj. R. Tucker by Benjamin Ricketson Tucker (1969)"
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews