1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
|
<html>
<head>
<title>Appendix - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?
</title>
</head>
<h1>Appendix - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?</h1>
Anyone who has followed political discussion on the net has probably come
across people calling themselves libertarians but arguing from a right-wing,
pro-capitalist perspective. For most Europeans this is weird, as in Europe
the term <i>"libertarian"</i> is almost always used in conjunction with <i>"socialist"</i>
or <i>"communist."</i> In the US, though, the Right has partially succeeded in
appropriating this term for itself. Even stranger, however, is that a few of
these right-wingers have started calling themselves "anarchists" in what
must be one of the finest examples of an oxymoron in the English language:
'Anarcho-capitalist'!!
<p>
Arguing with fools is seldom rewarded, but to allow their foolishness to go
unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to anarchism.
That's what this section of the anarchist FAQ is for, to show why the claims
of these "anarchist" capitalists are false. Anarchism has always been
anti-capitalist and any "anarchism" that claims otherwise cannot be part
of the anarchist tradition. So this section of the FAQ does not reflect
some kind of debate within anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend,
but a debate between anarchism and its old enemy, capitalism. In many ways
this debate mirrors the one between Peter Kropotkin and Herbert Spencer, an
English pro-capitalist, minimal statist, at the turn the 19th century
and, as such, it is hardly new.
<p>
The "anarcho"-capitalist argument hinges on using the dictionary definition
of "anarchism" and/or "anarchy" - they try to define anarchism as being
"opposition to government," and nothing else. However, dictionaries are
hardly politically sophisticated and their definitions rarely reflect the
wide range of ideas associated with political theories and their history.
Thus the dictionary "definition" is anarchism will tend to ignore its
consistent views on authority, exploitation, property and capitalism (ideas
easily discovered if actual anarchist texts are read). And, of course, many
dictionaries "define" anarchy as "chaos" or "disorder" but we never see
"anarcho"-capitalists use that particular definition!
<p>
And for this strategy to work, a lot of "inconvenient" history and ideas
from all branches of anarchism must be ignored. From individualists
like Spooner and Tucker to communists like Kropotkin and Malatesta,
anarchists have always been anti-capitalist (see <a href="secGcon.html">
section G</a> for more on
the anti-capitalist nature of individualist anarchism). Therefore
"anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists in the same sense that
rain is not dry.
<p>
Of course, we cannot stop the "anarcho"-capitalists using the words
"anarcho", "anarchism" and "anarchy" to describe their ideas. The
democracies of the west could not stop the Chinese Stalinist state calling
itself the People's Republic of China. Nor could the social democrats
stop the fascists in Germany calling themselves "National Socialists".
Nor could the Italian anarcho-syndicalists stop the fascists using the
expression "National Syndicalism". This does not mean that any of these
movements actual name reflected their content -- China is a dictatorship,
not a democracy, the Nazi's were not socialists (capitalists made fortunes
in Nazi Germany because it crushed the labour movement), and the Italian
fascist state had nothing in common with anarcho-syndicalists ideas of
decentralised, "from the bottom up" unions and the abolition of the
state and capitalism.
<p>
Therefore, just because someone uses a label it does not mean that they
support the ideas associated with that label. And this is the case with
"anarcho"-capitalism -- its ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated
with all forms of traditional anarchism (even individualist anarchism
which is often claimed as being a forefather of the ideology).
<p>
All we can do is indicate <b>why</b> "anarcho"-capitalism is not part of the
anarchist tradition and so has falsely appropriated the name. This section
of the FAQ aims to do just that -- present the case why "anarcho"-capitalists
are not anarchists. We do this, in part, by indicating where they differ
from genuine anarchists (on such essential issues as private property,
equality, exploitation and opposition to hierarchy) In addition, we take
the opportunity to present a general critique of right-libertarian claims
from an anarchist perspective. In this way we show up why anarchists reject
that theory as being opposed to liberty and anarchist ideals.
<p>
We are covering this topic in an anarchist FAQ for three reasons.
Firstly, the number of "libertarian" and "anarcho"-capitalists on the
net means that those seeking to find out about anarchism may conclude
that they are "anarchists" as well. Secondly, unfortunately, some
academics and writers have taken their claims of being anarchists at
face value and have included their ideology into general accounts of
anarchism. These two reasons are obviously related and hence the need
to show the facts of the matter. As we have extensively documented
in earlier sections, anarchist theory has always been anti-capitalist.
There is no relationship between anarchism and capitalism, in any
form. Therefore, there is a need for this section in order to indicate
exactly why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist. As will be quickly
seen from our discussion, almost all anarchists who become aware of
"anarcho"-capitalism quickly reject it as a form of anarchism (the
better academic accounts do note that anarchists generally reject
the claim, though). The last reason is to provide other anarchists
with arguments and evidence to use against "anarcho"-capitalism and
its claims of being a new form of "anarchism."
<p>
So this section of the FAQ does not, as we noted above, represent some kind
of "debate" within anarchism. It reflects the attempt by anarchists to
reclaim the history and meaning of anarchism from those who are attempting
to steal its name (just as right-wingers in America have attempted to
appropriate the name "libertarian" for their pro-capitalist views, and by
so doing ignore over 100 years of anti-capitalist usage). However, this
section also serves two other purposes. Firstly, critiquing right-libertarian
and "anarcho"-capitalist theories allows us to explain anarchist ones at
the same time and indicate why they are better. Secondly, and more
importantly, the "ideas" and "ideals" that underlie "anarcho"-capitalism
are usually identical (or, at the very least, similar) to those of
neo-liberalism. This was noted by Bob Black in the early 1980s, when
a <i>"wing of the Reaganist Right has obviously appropriated, with suspect
selectivity, such libertarian themes as deregulation and voluntarism.
Ideologues indignant that Reagan has travestied their principles. Tough
shit! I notice that it's their principles, not mine, that he found suitable
to travesty."</i> [<b>The Libertarian As Conservative</b>] This was echoed by Noam
Chomsky two decades later when while <i>"nobody takes [right-wing libertarianism]
seriously"</i> as <i>"everybody knows that a society that worked by . . . [its]
principles would self-destruct in three seconds"</i> the <i>"only reason"</i> why
some people <i>"pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as
a weapon."</i> [<b>Understanding Power</b>, p. 200] As neo-liberalism is being
used as the ideological basis of the current attack on the working class,
critiquing "anarcho"-capitalism and right-libertarianism also allows use
to build theoretical weapons to use to resist this attack and aid the
class struggle.
<p>
A few more points before beginning. When debating with "libertarian"
or "anarchist" capitalists it's necessary to remember that while they
claim "real capitalism" does not exist (because all existing forms of
capitalism are statist), they will claim that all the good things we
have -- advanced medical technology, consumer choice of products, etc.
-- are nevertheless due to "capitalism." Yet if you point out any problems
in modern life, these will be blamed on "statism." Since there has never
been and never will be a capitalist system without some sort of state,
it's hard to argue against this "logic." Many actually use the example
of the Internet as proof of the power of "capitalism," ignoring the
fact that the state paid for its development before turning it over
to companies to make a profit from it. Similar points can be made
about numerous other products of "capitalism" and the world we live
in. To artificially separate one aspect of a complex evolution fails
to understand the nature and history of the capitalist system.
<p>
In addition to this ability to be selective about the history and
results of capitalism, their theory has a great "escape clause." If
wealthy employers abuse their power or the rights of the working class
(as they have always done), then they have (according to "libertarian"
ideology) ceased to be capitalists! This is based upon the misperception
that an economic system that relies on force <b>cannot</b> be capitalistic.
This is <b>very</b> handy as it can absolve the ideology from blame for any
(excessive) oppression which results from its practice. Thus individuals
are always to blame, <b>not</b> the system that generated the opportunities for
abuse they freely used.
<p>
Anarchism has always been aware of the existence of "free market"
capitalism, particularly its extreme (minimal state) wing, and has
always rejected it. As we discuss in <a href="append137.html">section 7</a>, anarchists from
Proudhon onwards have rejected the idea of any similar aims and goals
(and, significantly, vice versa). As academic Alan Carter notes, anarchist concern
for equality as a necessary precondition for genuine freedom means
<i>"that is one very good reason for not confusing anarchists with liberals
or economic 'libertarians' -- in other words, for not lumping together
everyone who is in some way or another critical of the state. It is why
calling the likes of Nozick 'anarchists' is highly misleading."</i> [<i>"Some
notes on 'Anarchism'"</i>, pp. 141-5, <b>Anarchist Studies</b>, vol. 1, no. 2,
p. 143] So anarchists have evaluated "free market" capitalism and
rejected it as non-anarchist for over 150 years. Attempts by
"anarcho"-capitalism to say that their system is "anarchist" flies
in the face of this long history of anarchist analysis. That some
academics fall for their attempts to appropriate the anarchist
label for their ideology is down to a false premise: it <i>"is judged
to be anarchism largely because some anarcho-capitalists <b>say</b> they
are 'anarchists' and because they criticise the State."</i> [Peter
Sabatini, <b>Social Anarchism</b>, no. 23, p. 100]
<p>
More generally, we must stress that most (if not all) anarchists do not
want to live in a society <b>just like this one</b> but without state coercion
and (the initiation of) force. Anarchists do not confuse "freedom" with
the "right" to govern and exploit others nor with being able to change
masters. It is not enough to say we can start our own (co-operative)
business in such a society. We want the abolition of the capitalist
system of authoritarian relationships, not just a change of bosses
or the possibility of little islands of liberty within a sea of
capitalism (islands which are always in danger of being flooded
and our activity destroyed). Thus, in this section of the FAQ,
we analysis many "anarcho"-capitalist claims on their own terms
(for example, the importance of equality in the market or why
capitalism cannot be reformed away by exchanges on the capitalist
market) but that does not mean we desire a society nearly identical
to the current one. Far from it, we want to transform this society
into one more suited for developing and enriching individuality and
freedom. But before we can achieve that we must critically evaluate
the current society and point out its basic limitations.
<p>
Finally, we dedicate this section of the FAQ to those who have seen the
real face of "free market" capitalism at work: the working men and women
(anarchist or not) murdered in the jails and concentration camps or on the
streets by the hired assassins of capitalism.
</body>
</html>
|
