皮埃爾-約瑟夫·普魯東曾參與里昂互助派的活動,後來使用這個組織的名字來描述他自己的觀點[24]。而在《什麼是互助論?》中,克拉倫斯·李·斯沃茨(英語:Clarence Lee Swartz)認為,「互助論一詞最早應當是被英國作家約翰·格雷在1832年使用」[25]。普魯東反對保護資本家、銀行和土地利益的政府特權,也反對財產的積累或獲得,以及導致財產積累的任何形式的脅迫,他認為這些阻礙了競爭,使財富掌握在少數人手中。
為檢驗其理論,華倫建立了一個名為辛辛那提時間商店(英語:Cincinnati Time Store)的實驗性、「以工換工」的商店。該所商店前後存在了接近三年,後來被華倫自行關停以支持他的其他幾個實驗性互助主義項目。華倫曾稱史提芬·皮爾·安德魯斯在1852年出版的《社會的科學》一書清晰完整地闡述了他的理論[29]。
到19世紀80年代初,大多數歐洲無政府主義運動都採取了無政府共產主義的立場,主張廢除僱傭勞動並按需分配。具有諷刺意味的是,「集體主義」的標籤後來更多地與馬克思主義中的國家社會主義者聯繫在一起,他們主張在向全面共產主義過渡期間保留某種工資制度。無政府共產主義者彼得·阿列克謝耶維奇·克魯泡特金在他的文章《集產主義的工錢制度》和書籍《麵包與自由》中對國家社會主義者進行了抨擊。卡菲羅在他1880年的著作《安那其與共產主義》中進一步解釋道,勞動產品的私有化將導致資本的不平等積累(英語:accumulation of capital),從而導致社會階級及其對立的重新出現;進而導致國家的復活:「如果我們容許私人佔有勞動產品,我們就將被迫保留貨幣,使財富或多或少地按照個人的功績而非個人的需要積累」[31]。
互助論是一種無政府主義思想(英語:anarchist school of thought),其理論基礎可以追溯至皮埃爾-約瑟夫·普魯東:他在其著作中設想了一種新的社會。在這種新社會裏,每個人以個人或集體的形式擁有一種生產資料,自由市場上的貿易以勞動為計量單位[44]。普魯東還設想了一種互助信貸銀行,這種銀行以最低的利率向生產者提供貸款,利率僅夠支付額外的管理成本[45]。互助論以勞動價值理論為基礎,認為當勞動或其產品被出售時,它應該能交換到體現「生產非常相似且有同等效用的物品所需的勞動量」的商品或服務[46]。
在《什麼是互助論》一書中,克拉倫斯·李·斯沃茨(英語:Clarence Lee Swartz)認為,「互助論一詞最早應當是被英國作家約翰·格雷在1832年使用」[25]。約翰·格雷的《人類幸福講座》於1826年在美國首次出版時,出版商在書的最後附上了互利友好協會的序言和章程。
1846年,普魯東在作品中提到了「互助性」一詞,並在1848年的《革命者綱領》中使用了「mutuellisme」一詞。1850年,威廉·葛林使用了「mutualism」一詞指代與普魯東主張類似的互助信貸系統。同樣在1850年,美國報紙《時代精神》刊登了約書亞·金·英格爾斯(英語:Joshua K. Ingalls)[55]和阿爾伯特·布里斯班(英語:Albert Brisbane)[56]二人關於建立「互助鎮」的提案,以及普魯東[57]、葛林、皮埃爾·勒魯(英語:Pierre Leroux)等人的一批文章。
互助論者認為,應由人民通過建立自由信貸系統產生自由銀行制度(英語:free banking)。他們認為現在的銀行就如資本家壟斷土地一般壟斷了貨幣。《互助主義政治經濟學研究(英語:Studies in Mutualist Political Economy)》的作者、當代互助論者奇雲·卡森(英語:Kevin Carson)[59]認為,資本主義[3]建立在「與封建制度一樣大規模的搶劫行為」,並認為資本主義不可能在沒有國家的情況下存在[60],他還認為:「正是國家的干預使得資本主義逐漸脫離了自由市場」。羅拔·格拉漢姆則注意到,「普魯東的市場社會主義與他的產業民主和工人自我管理的概念有着不可分割的聯繫」[61]。K·史蒂文·文森特在他的分析中指出:「普魯東一直主張將經濟的控制和指導權還給工人」、「強大的工人協會[……]將使工人能夠通過選舉共同決定企業每天如何運作」[62]。
Meltzer, Albert (2000). Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. AK Press. p. 50. "The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."
Crowder, George (1991). Classical Anarchism: The Political Thought of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin [《古典無政府主義:戈德溫、普魯東、巴枯寧與克魯泡特金的政治思想》]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 85–86. ISBN9780198277446. "The ownership [anarchists oppose] is basically that which is unearned [...] including such things as interest on loans and income from rent. This is contrasted with ownership rights in those goods either produced by the work of the owner or necessary for that work, for example his dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate rights of ownership of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his latter work he calls this 'property,' the conceptual distinction remains the same. [[无政府主义者所反对的]私人財產基本上是指不勞而獲的私人財產[……],比如貸款利息和租金收入。這與那些由所有者的工作產生的或該工作所必需的物品的所有權不同,比如一個人的住宅、土地和工具。普魯東最初把對這些物品的合法所有權稱為「佔有」,雖然在他後來的作品中,他把這種權利也稱為「所有權」,但概念上的差異仍然存在。]"
Hargreaves, David H. London (2019). Beyond Schooling: An Anarchist Challenge [《超越學派:無政府主義的挑戰》]. London: Routledge. pp. 90–91. ISBN9780429582363. "Ironically, Proudhon did not mean literally what he said. His boldness of expression was intended for emphasis, and by 'property' he wished to be understood what he later called 'the sum of its abuses'. He was denouncing the property of the man who uses it to exploit the labour of others without any effort on his own part, property distinguished by interest and rent, by the impositions of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as 'possession' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the land and tools he needs to live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed, he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty, and his main criticism of the communists was that they wished to destroy it. [具有諷刺意味的是,普魯東所說的所有權並不是字面上的意思。這種表達只是為了強調,而他其實希望通過「所有權」一詞來讓人們理解他後來所說的「流弊的總和」。他所譴責的是那些利用財產剝削他人勞動、而自己卻不付出任何努力的人的財產,這些財產往往以利息和租金的形式體現,以非生產者對生產者的強佔為特徵。對於被視為「佔有」的財產,即一個人控制他的住所、土地和生活所需工具的權利,普魯東並不反對;而事實上恰恰相反,他把它視為自由的基石,他對共產主義者的主要批評也基於此。]"
McKay, Iain (2008). An Anarchist FAQ. I. "Why do anarchists oppose the current system?" "Why are anarchists against private property?" Oakland/Edinburgh: AK Press. ISBN978-1902593906.
Brooks, Frank H. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908) [個人無政府主義者:自由文集(1881年–1908年)]. Transaction Publishers. 1994: xi. ISBN 1-56000-132-1.
Kahn, Joseph. Anarchism, the Creed That Won't Stay Dead; The Spread of World Capitalism Resurrects a Long-Dormant Movement. The New York Times. 2000, (5 August).Colin Moynihan. Book Fair Unites Anarchists. In Spirit, Anyway. New York Times. 2007, (16 April).
Guerin, Daniel (1970). Anarchism: From Theory to Practice (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館). New York: Monthly Review Press. "The anarchists were unanimous in subjecting authoritarian socialism to a barrage of severe criticism. At the time when they made violent and satirical attacks these were not entirely well founded, for those to whom they were addressed were either primitive or "vulgar" communists, whose thought had not yet been fertilized by Marxist humanism, or else, in the case of Marx and Engels themselves, were not as set on authority and state control as the anarchists made out [無政府主義者對威權社會主義進行了猛烈的抨擊。不過他們的暴力和諷刺性抨擊並不都完全有根據,因為這些抨擊的對象大多是原始或「庸俗」的共產主義者,他們的思想還未受到馬克思主義人文主義的薰陶,不然,就馬克思和恩格斯本人而言,他們並不像無政府主義者所說的那樣期望權威和國家控制社會。]".
"In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists. [事實上,很少有無政府主義者會接受「無政府資本主義者」被視為無政府主義陣營,因為認為他們並不關心經濟平等和社會正義,他們的自利的、精打細算的市場人員必然無法實行自願合作和互助。因此,無政府資本主義者,即使他們確實反對國家,可能最好被稱為右翼自由意志主義者,而不是無政府主義者。]" Peter Marshall. Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Harper Perennial. London. 2008. p. 565
"'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward by David Goodway. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool. 2006
"el capitalismo es sólo el efecto del gobierno; desaparecido el gobierno, el capitalismo cae de su pedestal vertiginosamente...Lo que llamamos capitalismo no es otra cosa que el producto del Estado, dentro del cual lo único que se cultiva es la ganancia, bien o mal habida. Luchar, pues, contra el capitalismo es tarea inútil, porque sea Capitalismo de Estado o Capitalismo de Empresa, mientras el Gobierno exista, existirá el capital que explota. La lucha, pero de conciencias, es contra el Estado." Anarquismo by Miguel Giménez Igualada (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館)
"A watch has a cost and a value. The COST consists of the amount of labor bestowed on the mineral or natural wealth, in converting it into metals…". Warren, Josiah. Equitable Commerce
Déjacque criticized French mutualist anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon as far as "the Proudhonist version of Ricardian socialism, centred on the reward of labour power and the problem of exchange value. In his polemic with Proudhon on women's emancipation, Déjacque urged Proudhon to push on 'as far as the abolition of the contract, the abolition not only of the sword and of capital, but of property and authority in all their forms,' and refuted the commercial and wages logic of the demand for a 'fair reward' for 'labour' (labour power). Déjacque asked: 'Am I thus... right to want, as with the system of contracts, to measure out to each – according to their accidental capacity to produce – what they are entitled to?' The answer given by Déjacque to this question is unambiguous: 'it is not the product of his or her labour that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature.' [...] For Déjacque, on the other hand, the communal state of affairs – the phalanstery 'without any hierarchy, without any authority' except that of the 'statistics book' – corresponded to 'natural exchange,' i.e. to the 'unlimited freedom of all production and consumption; the abolition of any sign of agricultural, individual, artistic or scientific property; the destruction of any individual holding of the products of work; the demonarchisation and the demonetarisation of manual and intellectual capital as well as capital in instruments, commerce and buildings."Alain Pengam. "Anarchist-Communism" (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館)
Kropotkin, Peter. The Wages System. 1920. Also available: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1920/wage.htm (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館) quote: "Such, in a few words, is the organization which the Collectivists desire ... their principles are: collective property in the instruments of labor and remuneration of each worker according to the time spent in productive toil, taking into account the productiveness of his work."
Hymans, E., Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, pp. 190–91, Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements, Broadview Press, 2004, pp. 110, 112
Fourier, Charles, Traité (1822), cited in Arthur E. Bestor, Jr., "The Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary", Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jun., 1948), 259–302.
New-Harmony Gazette, I, 301–02 (14 June 1826) cited in Arthur E. Bestor, Jr., "The Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary", Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jun., 1948), 259–302.
"The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people."[1] (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館) Alexander Berkman. "What Is Communist Anarchism?"
Makhno, Mett, Arshinov, Valevski, Linski (Dielo Trouda). "The Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists". 1926. Constructive Section: available here (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館).
Post-left anarcho-communist Bob Black after analysing insurrectionary anarcho-communist Luigi Galleani's view on anarcho-communism went as far as saying that "communism is the final fulfillment of individualism...The apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both...Subjectivity is also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of "emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual,"...You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is a "method of individualization." It aims to combine the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity."Bob Black. Nightmares of Reason. (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館)
"Modern Communists are more individualistic than Stirner. To them, not merely religion, morality, family and State are spooks, but property also is no more than a spook, in whose name the individual is enslaved – and how enslaved!...Communism thus creates a basis for the liberty and Eigenheit of the individual. I am a Communist because I am an Individualist. Fully as heartily the Communists concur with Stirner when he puts the word take in place of demand – that leads to the dissolution of property, to expropriation. Individualism and Communism go hand in hand."[2] (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館)Max Baginski. "Stirner: The Ego and His Own" on Mother Earth. Vol. 2. No. 3 MAY, 1907
"Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty – provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy...Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work." "Communism and Anarchy" (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館) by Peter Kropotkin
"I see the dichotomies made between individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are impoverishing their own critique and struggle.""MY PERSPECTIVES" by Willful Disobedience Vol. 2, No. 12互聯網檔案館的存檔,存檔日期2011-07-16.
"This process of education and class organization, more than any single factor in Spain, produced the collectives. And to the degree that the CNT-FAI (for the two organizations became fatally coupled after July 1936) exercised the major influence in an area, the collectives proved to be generally more durable, communist and resistant to Stalinist counterrevolution than other republican-held areas of Spain." Murray Bookchin, To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of 1936 (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館)
Carson, Kevin (19 June 2009). "Socialism: A Perfectly Good Word Rehabilitated" (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館). Center for a Stateless Society. "But there has always been a market-oriented strand of libertarian socialism that emphasizes voluntary cooperation between producers. And markets, properly understood, have always been about cooperation. As a commenter at Reason magazine's Hit&Run blog, remarking on Jesse Walker's link to the Kelly article, put it: "every trade is a cooperative act." In fact, it's a fairly common observation among market anarchists that genuinely free markets have the most legitimate claim to the label "socialism."
Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. "It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism."
Gerald F. Gaus, Chandran Kukathas. 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. Sage Publications. pp. 118–119. Source refers to Friedman's philosophy as "market anarchism."
Editor's note in "Taxation: Voluntary or Compulsory". Formulations. Free Nation Foundation. Summer 1995 Taxation: Voluntary or Compulsory?. [15 March 2008]. (原始內容存檔於28 December 2010).
G. P. Maximoff, Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism (頁面存檔備份,存於互聯網檔案館). (extract from his Constructive Anarchism, published in English in 1952; this section is not included in the only edition of the work now in print.) (Sydney: Monty Miller Press, 1985).
Vivir la utopía – Living Utopia[4]互聯網檔案館的存檔,存檔日期2010-09-14. by Juan Gamero 1997. (About Anarchism in Spain and the Collectives in the Spanish Revolution).