I’d disagree since as mentioned before free market anarchists already existed on the left before the advent of Austrian school and contemporary with French Liberal School.
When you refer to the left here, do you mean it more as the French would have meant it at the time? That is, as being anti-monarchy?
If so free market anarchists existing on the left would make more sense to me. And it would maybe explain where I’ve seemingly disagreed with you. IOW, we may agree more than I originally thought.
Sort of? Not exactly because that was the case in the late 18th century and early 19th when liberal revolutions were struggling with monarchies. Revolutionary France was most certainly the hotbed for radicalism. But well after the American and French Revolutions left wing became associated with not just against monarchy but stances against traditional hierarchies and authorities; where as right wing meant support of traditional hierarchies and authorities. Jefferson considered the Democratic-Republicans as comparable to the French republicans, and the Federalists to Orleanists. Or considered Jeffersonians as Whigs and patriots and those favoring centralized government as Tories.
In short left wing meaning for less authority and relations of dominance and right wing for more. Here Benjamin Tucker speaks of the distinction and places anarchism on the left and state socialism on the right, because left and right here are understood as less hierarchic structures of dominance vs greater hierarchies or systems of authority.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.
It must not be inferred that either Warren, Proudhon, or Marx used exactly this phraseology, or followed exactly this line of thought, but it indicates definitely enough the fundamental ground taken by all three, and their substantial thought up to the limit to which they went in common. And, lest I may be accused of stating the positions and arguments of these men incorrectly, it may be well to say in advance that I have viewed them broadly, and that, for the purpose of sharp, vivid, and emphatic comparison and contrast, I have taken considerable liberty with their thought by rearranging it in an order, and often in a phraseology, of my own, but, I am satisfied, without, in so doing, misrepresenting them in any essential particular.
It was at this point – the necessity of striking down monopoly – that came the parting of their ways. Here the road forked. They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, – follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism.
That's helpful. Thanks. It's an interesting history.
I prefer to think of "left" and "right" this way:
I think this may more closely match today's usage of the terms, since, for example, many modern socialists (considered "left" of course) would prefer a more interventionist and redistributive state, and so hierarchy of that kind.
Yeah ultimately the left-right spectrum is kind of superfluous since it fails to capture the reality of complex ideals. The compass is better but it still has its flaws. Me personally I try not to go for labels but sometimes feel a conversation may have need of it
They have their use. They also have their downsides for sure. Enjoyed our chat. Thanks