Henri Rochefort is reported to have said in an interview the other day: “Anarchists are merely criminals. They are robbers. They want no government whatever, so that, when they meet you on the street, they can knock you down and rob you.” This infamous and libellous charge is a very sweeping one; I only wish that I could honestly meet it with as sweeping a denial. And I can, if I restrict the word Anarchist as it always has been restricted in these columns, and as it ought to be restricted everywhere and always. Confining the word Anarchist so as to include none but those who deny all external authority over the individual, whether that of the present State or that of some industrial collectivity or commune which the future may produce, I can look Henri Rochefort in the face and say: “You lie!” For of all these men I do not recall even one who, in any ordinary sense of the term, can be justly styled a robber.
But unfortunately, in the minds of the people at large, this word Anarchist is not yet thus restricted in meaning. This is due principally to the fact that within a few years the word has been usurped, in the face of all logic and consistency, by a party of Communists who believe in a tyranny worse than any that now exists, who deny to the laborer the individual possession of his product, and who preach to their followers the following doctrine: “Private property is your enemy; it is the beast that is devouring you; all wealth belongs to everybody; take it wherever you can find it; have no scruples about the means of taking it; use dynamite, the dagger, or the torch to take it; kill innocent people to take it; but, at all events, take it.” This is the doctrine which they call Anarchy, and this policy they dignify with the name of “propagandism by the deed.”
— Benjamin Tucker, Liberty (March 27, 1886), The Beast of Communism, Part VI. Methods.
It seems pretty clear that Tucker regarded anti-propertarian anarchists as being usurpers of the anarchist doctrine from the individualist propertarians, and not the other way round.
I try to avoid caring or commenting on the silly narrative that says largely wrong things like “libertarian and anarchist originally meant anti-propertarian socialist before those American capitalists stole the former and attempted to steal the latter” because such etymological bickering is almost completely unimportant and irrelevant to anything. However those left-libertarians who try to use Benjamin Tucker as some evidence in this semantic regard are seriously misguided or ignorant. See in addition to the passage above:
The editor of the Herald of Revolt has gone farther than to express the opinion that I am not an Anarchist, and it is perfectly proper that he should do so. It is a liberty that I have taken repeatedly with reference to Johann Most, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and numerous other so-called Anarchists, and there is no reason why their sympathizers should not retaliate in kind.
I do not agree with Mr. Owen that Anarchism does not commit its adherents to any economic dogma. Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist. This excludes from Anarchism all believers in compulsory Communism. As for the believers in voluntary Communism (of whom there are precious few), they are of necessity believers in the liberty to hold private property, for to pool one’s possessions with those of others is nothing more or less than an exercise of proprietorship.
— Benjamin Tucker, “Anarchism and Property” (1913)
Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism.
— Benjamin Tucker, ”The Baskette Collection” (1933)