Jump to content

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Etcetc (talk | contribs) at 15:37, 7 June 2007 (That you are a sockpuppet is a well founded assumption, that you are a meatpuppet is a demonstrated fact. But I'm reverting now because infinity's version is better justified in talk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article discusses similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism, the majority of which are opposed to capitalism. Due to these differences, there have been many disputes between these opposing ideologies, such as whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all.

Dispute over whether anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchism

Although some scholars recognise anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism[1], social anarchists (ie. the majority of all anarchists), and even some individualist anarchists[2], dispute that anarcho-capitalism is a true form of anarchism. Some writers on anarchism point out that anarcho-capitalism and most other forms of anarchism are very different, saying it is right libertarianism rather than left libertarianism, but do say that it is still anarchism.[3] Peter Marshall, avoiding the dictionary definition, simply concludes that "few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp."[4]

Many anarchists maintain strongly that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism due to their belief that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist as well as anti-statist.[5] They note that, historically, those who called themselves "anarchist" have been opposed to what they called "capitalism," and that anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, Kroptkin and Tucker all called themselves socialists, and they argue that anarcho-capitalism "is judged to be anarchism largely because anarcho-capitalists say they are 'anarchists' and because they criticise the State."[6] However, virtually all dictionary definitions define "anarchism" as opposition to the state. Furthermore, even most anarchist luminaries who called themselves "socialist" defined "anarchism" as opposition to state.

Both social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists note that "anarchy" etymologically means "without rulers".[7] Conventional anarchists interpret this to mean anything fitting the definition of ruler,[8] while anarcho-capitalists interpret it in a more restricted sense, to refer to any form of institutionalized coercion. (However, it can be argued that capitalism fits this description). Nevertheless American individualist anarchists in the Josiah Warren or Benjamin Tucker tradition opposed capitalism and instead favoured small local market and oppose the existence of social class since it cuts individual liberty by making some people work and receive orders from others above who own the means of production or are in a management position.

On the other hand, another view is that anarcho-capitalism is a 20th-century modification of the type of individualist anarchism that was popular in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was less radical than Stirnerite individualist anarchism. Ian Adam says "it is not in fact the case (as is sometimes thought) that anarcho-capitalism came out of the blue, without past or pedigree. It has a good deal in common with the earlier American tradition of individualist anarchism."[9] Anti-capitalist anarchists tend to reject such claims, noting that many of the individualist anarchists called themselves socialists, and that all had a vision of a free society at odds with capitalism.[10] However, it is claimed that anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist form of invidualist anarchism. In other words, "opposition to stateless capitalism is not a necessary condition of being an individualist forms of anarchism. One anti-capitalist individualist anarchist laments, "is time that anarchists recognise the valuable contributions of... individualist anarchist theory and take advantage of its ideas. It would be both futile and criminal to leave it to the capitalist libertarians…"[11]

Many anarchists believe that anarchism and capitalism are incompatible. Anarchist author Iain McKay argues that individualism is essentially anti-capitalist and that anarcho-capitalists claims to the tradition require reading individualist anarchists out of context ([3]). Individualist anarchist Joe Peacott argues that individualism rejects capitalist economic arrangements.[4]

One set of approaches concludes that capitalism, by necessity, requires a state, and therefore capitalism cannot exist without a state. For example, Larry Gambone states, "for anarchists, capitalism is the result of the development of the state and therefore, all capitalism is in one sense, state capitalism." [5] He adds that when the anarchists use the term "capitalism," they are referring to those who have "gained wealth from the use of governmental power or from privileges granted by government."[12] Anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy says that when traditional individualist anarchists referred to "capitalism" they meant state capitalism, the alliance of government and business.[13]

The issue of contention then becomes whether or not capitalism can be created, or maintained, in the absence of a state that enforces non-possessive private property claims. Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard made a difference between two contradictory concepts of capitalism, "free-market capitalism" characterized by voluntary exchange and "state capitalism" characterized by violent expropriation.[14] He believed that only free-market capitalism is true capitalism and as such "the fullest expression of anarchism".[15]

Capitalist structures

Social hierarchy, class distinction, and employment

Many anarchists argue that capitalism runs contrary to an egalitarian power structure, which is necessary to anarchism. They also argue that the system of wage labour, and hence capitalism, is authoritarian and coercive in nature, and oppose class distinction between labourers and employers.[16] A major line of reasoning is that employees are subject to the authority of their employer with respect to the latter's property and, because such an hierarchy could not be tolerated within an egalitarian power structure, it is essential to anarchism for such practices to be abolished. The writers of An Anarchist FAQ[17] argue that "social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination".[8] Peter Kropotkin called for the abolition of the wage system because, he argued, it is impossible to properly measure each individual's contribution to society, since they all affect each other.

Individualist anarchists do not object to private ownership of the means of production. Even the anti-capitalist individualist anarchists of the nineteenth century did not reject employment as illegitimate "hierarchy." For example, the nineteenth century individualist anarchist Stephen Pearl Andrews said, "The 'Wages System' is essentially proper and right. It is a right to that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily, if you will, in the performance of his labor...It is not in any, nor in all of these features combined, that the wrong of our present system is to be sought and found. It is in the simply failure to do Equity. It is not that men are employed and paid, but that they are not paid justly..."[18] Any that had opposition to employment by others, opposed it for monetary reasons rather than condeming it as "hierarchical." For example, Spooner argued that "each man should be his own employer, or work directly for himself, and not for another for wages; because, in the latter case, a part of the fruits of his labor go to his employer, instead of coming to himself." They did not object to wages being paid, but rather they believed that wages were not adquately compensating labor due to state interference in the economy. Benjamin Tucker thought that the elimination of state intervention would increase competition in capital, which he thought would eliminate the possibility of an employer receiving an income without himself laboring so that "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers."[19] With that said, anarcho-capitalist David D. Friedman says he prefers a society not based in wage labor but where "almost everyone is self employed. Instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells, not his time, but what his time produces."[20] Like all individualist anarchists, anarcho-capitalists support the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or to contract to be employed by others, whichever they prefer. Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard does not express a preference either way.

Property

Many anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, and say that the anarcho-capitalist definition of private property is uncomfortably similar to its definition of the state. For example, leading anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard argued that the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force… over a given area territorial area.", yet he also argued that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."[21]

Anarcho-capitalists acknowledge this similarity, but do not believe it to be contradictory, arguing that state territories are not acquired legitimately, but that private property is. Opponents emphasize that both the state, and private property (upon which capitalism is based), lead to the same authoritarian structures, and consequently neither should be considered anarchist. Moreover, both social and individualist anarchists note that current distributions of property have not been created by legitimate means and that the current system of property rights is the result of state and capitalist intervention.[8]

To anarcho-capitalists, any geographical holding as large as most current incarnations of the state would be impossible to achieve by any one proprietor without the tools of the state. Standard private holdings tend to be not only much smaller, but antithetical to coercive relationships - as any visitor, lessee, or employee, would be free to move elsewhere at will. Further, the state, being an artificial entity without a head of its own, has an entirely different set of motives regarding care of a property, resulting in proportionate carelessness for that property (i.e. pollution).

Anarchists also note that once land and capital are monopolised by a minority, attempts by those subject to this economic and social power to end it automatically become "aggression." As Kropotkin noted, "modern Individualism… [is] a powerful indictment against the dangers and wrongs of government, but its practical solution of the social problem… lead[s] us to inquire if the talk of 'No force' be merely an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination."[22]

Individualist anarchists, including Benjamin Tucker, tend to reject the anarcho-capitalist Lockean position in favour of the anarchist position of "occupancy and use" (or "possession", to use Proudhon's term), particularly in land. One notable exception is Lysander Spooner, who does not require that land use be "continual" to retain ownership.[23] Similarly, anarcho-capitalist Rothbard argued that one must "use the land, to cultivate it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it." and did not require continual use to retain ownership. However, most individualist anarchists accepted Proudhon's position on land: "What I cannot accept, regarding land, is that the work put in gives a right to ownership of what has been worked on." If there was a shortage of land, he "accept[ed] equal division. Anything else… is an abuse."[24] Anarchists critics of "anarcho-capitalism" also note that Proudhon's "What is Property?" explicitly refutes the position on land ownership supported by Spooner and anarcho-capitalists.[25]

Because of his belief in the labor theory of value, when the nineteenth century individualist Benjamin Tucker said that an employee should receive his "full produce," he took it to mean that the full produce was an amount of money fully commensurate with the amount of a labor performed. He believed individuals were receiving less than their "full produce" because of state intervention interfering with competitive market forces and thereby artificially lowering the price of labor. He did not advocate interfering with individuals contracting as employee and employer if they desire, but believed that the price of labor would increase in a true laissez-faire economy. He thought that legal restrictions on banking caused the price of capital to be unnaturally expensive and that if these restrictions were removed that capital would become available "at cost." This, he believed, would cause new businesses to proliferate and raise the demand for labor and therefore the price as well. Individualist Lysander Spooner advocated that workers maximize their incomes through universal self-employment.

Markets

Many individualist anarchists argue that a truly free market would result in a non-capitalist anarchism, without social or economic hierarchy. The contemporary individualist Kevin A. Carson holds that capitalism is founded on "an act of robbery as massive as feudalism," and argues that capitalism could not exist in the absence of a state. Carson argues that if a truly free market were to have been put in effect it would have resulted in a system where the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible as "a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor — could not survive in a free market.".[26] Anarcho-capitalists disagree, with most stating that this economic system would be marked by hierarchy[citation needed], inequality[citation needed]as well as interest, rent and profit.

Right-libertarians, Carson argues, "take existing property relations and class power as a given." Carson, like previous individualist anarchists, thinks that the "modern worker, like the slave or the serf, is the victim of ongoing robbery; he works in an enterprise built from past stolen labor" and so they are "justified in taking direct control of production, and keeping the entire product of his [or her] labor."[26] Anarcho-capitalists would consider such expropriation as coercion.

Since anarchists by definition favour voluntary interaction, anarcho-capitalists have argued from a different definition of "voluntary" than has been historically used by anarchists. This has lead to disputes over whether anarcho-capitalists support a genuinely "free market." Anarcho-capitalists (and capitalists in general) understand a trade to be voluntary if there is no physical coercion or threat. Opponents take into account other forms of coercion, such as economic coercion, arguing that an environment of property domination coerces individuals into accepting trades that are not optimal to them because their choices are being actively restricted by others. Anarcho-capitalists demonstrate that such restrictions tend not to be intrusive, but rather maintenance of order between visitors.

Anarchists reject institutions such as interest, rent, and profit as being intrusive and exploitative, and thus they believe that they should be abolished. They maintain that such institutions were made possible, in part, by state restrictions on banking and currency issuance as well as titles to land, and by vast accumulations of wealth which arise in capitalism and interfere with the free economy. Anarcho-capitalists do not believe that interest, rent, or profit are exploitative, arguing they are compatible with free markets, and claiming these institutions would prevail without government interference. However, like individualist anarchists, some anarcho-capitalists believe that in a free market, or "natural order," interest rates would substantially fall, but more due to falling time preference [6].

Rights

(Needs information on social anarchism in these areas)

Egalitarianism

Social anarchists are opposed to concentrations of wealth as this, they argue, results in economic power and limits the individual freedom of others. They argue that inequalities in wealth results in a situation where the many have little choice but to sell their liberty.

Anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists both explicitly support the liberty of some individuals to be wealthier than others, in contrast to some collectivist philosophies that are based in economic egalitarianism. However, while individualists believe that the vast concentrations of wealth created by government interference in the market cannot be remedied through abolition of government alone, they do believe it would be much more dispersed so that there would not be a significant chasm between the rich and the poor —and this they tend to see as beneficial. Some make a point of this while others explicitly object to any goal of equalizing wealth[citation needed]. In contrast, Anarcho-capitalist philosophy does not evince general concern for wealth egalitarianism. In speculating about a possible anarchist society Benjamin Tucker held that defense associations could decide for themselves how much land they would protect; in an example, he postuled possession of no more than ten acres. (Property Under Anarchism)

Use of force

All anarchists subscribe to the general rule that physical force should not be initiated, but reserved for defense. Some of the 19th century individualist anarchists, such Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner based their individualism on natural law, but many were "egoists," believing that no rights exist without contract that results out of individual self-interest. Benjamin Tucker says: "I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." Anarcho-capitalist David Friedman also subscribes to a contractual view of rights, as opposed to capitalist-anarchist Murray Rothbard's natural law basis.

Defence

Anarcho-capitalists advocate private competition in defense, and in a sense require it due to their emphasis on private property, interest, rent and profit. Rothbard defines "anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression ['against person and property']" and said that "what anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion."[27] However, anarchists are unimpressed by this claim. They simply reply that this is privatising, not abolishing, the state; David Weick, for instance, argues that it would be better called "feudalism". Similarly, anarchists ask who defines what is and is not a "legal sanction" and what is and is not "aggressive coercion."[28]

While individualist anarchists expect that one would defend their own property through possession, some, such as Tucker and Spooner, support private defense to protect property [7]. Tucker differentates protection from rent or tax, because the primary form of protection would be possessive, saying that "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand;" (Instead of a Book).

Profit and theory of value

Anarchists traditionally have argued that profit, rent and interest are exploitative. Some anarchists, like Proudhon, Bakunin and Tucker, base this in the labour theory of value while others, like Kropotkin and Malatesta, did not. While classical economists such as Adam Smith also accepted the labor theory of value, most modern economists, including anarcho-capitalists, espouse a subjective theory of value and marginalism - that value of commodities and labor is variable and based on factors outside the means of production, such as scarcity, and the subjective value to potential buyers.

In the eyes of traditional anarchism, profit is derived by paying labor less than what it is worth, with the employer retaining the difference, and is considered exploitative. For anarcho-capitalists, worth is subjective. And they believe that both employer and employee profit by giving what they value less (equipment and labor, respectively) for what they value more (labour and wages, respectively) or else they would not agree to trade, and therefore the agreement is not considered exploitative by anarcho-capitalists.

The nineteenth century individualists depart from anarcho-capitalists in arguing that all wages should be equal insofar as labor is commensurate, in accordance with the principle of "cost the limit of price." Anarcho-capitalists, believing that the value of any particular labor is subjective, and should be ultimately decided by mutual agreement, have no opposition whatsoever to employers profiting from the labor of their employees. Benjamin Tucker believed that more employment opportunities would be available if government did not enforce a credit monopoly and land monopoly, as he believed that low-interest or no-interest loans would be readily available to the general public due to competing lenders, and that profiting in wage labor would be nearly impossible due to increased competition on the part of businesses to attract labor.

Notes

  1. ^ There are many disputes surrounding this issue. Most anarchists today are anti-capitalist, and therefore reject anarcho-capitalism, sometimes as a form of anarchism altogether. For example,
    • An Anarchist FAQ, which is hosted on most major anarchist websites, is in direct response to the claims that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, including individualist anarchism. Iain McKay, one of the writers, also claims that "As an added bonus, some genuine individualist anarchists appeared, refuting the claim that "anarcho"-capitalism was merely a form of "updated" individualist anarchism." - "An Anarchist FAQ after ten years" [1]
    • Anarchist Noam Chomsky says that the terms "libertarian socialism" and "anarchism" are interchangeable (Maher, John. Introducing Chomsky, Icon Books (2004), p.134.)
    However, others acknowledge anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, and some classify it to be related to, or a form of, individualist anarchism. Sources discussing this include:
    • Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21, 2002.
    • Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, 1991.
    • Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
    • Levy, Carl. Anarchism. MS Encarta (UK).
    • Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Second Edition, Palgrave (2002), p. 61
    • Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231
    • Kearney, Richard. Continental Philosophy in the 20th Century, Routledge (UK) (2003), p. 336 * Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in America: A Reader, NYU Press (1995), p. 11
    • Dahl, Robert Alan. Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press (1991), p. 38
    • Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137 ("Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism… Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians… Many who call themselves anarchists today preserve some of the older doctrines" pp. 137-138)
  2. ^ McKay, Iain., "An Anarchist FAQ after ten years" [2] - "As an added bonus, some genuine individualist anarchists appeared, refuting the claim that "anarcho"-capitalism was merely a form of "updated" individualist anarchism."
  3. ^ Jennings, Jeremy. Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 142. Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, p. 148
  4. ^ Marshall, Peter. Chapter 36, Demanding the Impossible
  5. ^ Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against; Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power; David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Brian Morris, Anthropology and Anarchism; Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (no. 45); Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism?; Bob Black, The Libertarian as Conservative'; Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction; Iain Mckay, The legacy of Voltairine De Cleyre, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, no. 44
  6. ^ Peter Sabatini, Social Anarchism, no. 23, p. 100
  7. ^ Online Etymology Dictionary entry for "anarchy"
  8. ^ a b c McKay, Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave et al B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty? An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.4. Accessed March, 2006. Cite error: The named reference "anarchist-coercive" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  9. ^ (Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press. 2002. page 132)
  10. ^ Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy
  11. ^ J. W. Baker, "Native American Anarchism," The Raven, pp. 43-62, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 61-2
  12. ^ Gambone, Larry (1998) "ANY TIME NOW"
  13. ^ McElroy, Wendy (1999) Anarchism: Two Kinds
  14. ^ "A Future of Peace and Capitalism by Murray N. Rothbard
  15. ^ Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal (25 February 1972)
  16. ^ David Weick, Anarchist Justice, pp. 223-224; Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Kropotkin, Anarchism;
  17. ^ McKay, Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave et al An Anarchist FAQ index An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.4 Accessed March, 2006.
  18. ^ Andrews, Stephen Pearl. The Science of Society. Nichols, 1854. p. 210-211
  19. ^ Tucker, Benjamin. "Labor and Its Pay" Individual Liberty: Selections From the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker, Vanguard Press, New York, 1926, Kraus Reprint Co., Millwood, NY, 1973.
  20. ^ Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Harper & Row. pp. 144-145
  21. ^ Rothbard, Murray. 'The Ethics of Liberty', Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1982, p. 170 and p. 173
  22. ^ Kropotkin, Peter. Act for Yourselves, Freedom Press London (1988), p98.
  23. ^ Watner, Carl. Spooner Vs. Liberty in The Libertarian Forum. March 1975. Volume VII, No 3. ISSN 0047-4517. pp. 5-6.
  24. ^ Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon, p. 129
  25. ^ McKay, Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave et al F.1 Are "Anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists? An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.6. Accessed June, 2006.
  26. ^ a b Carson, Kevin A. (2002) The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand Red Lion Press, Retrieved 8 August 2005
  27. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1975) Society Without A State (pdf) Libertarian Forum newsletter (January 1975)
  28. ^ Pennock and Chapman, "Anarchist Justice", Nomos XIX, eds.

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism&oldid=136615613"