File: secF1.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 14.0-3
links: PTS, VCS
area: main
in suites: jessie, jessie-kfreebsd
size: 12,256 kB
ctags: 618
sloc: makefile: 12
file content (559 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 38,352 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?</title>

</head>

<h1>F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?</h1>

<p>
In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate
themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho"
or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at 
odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that 
their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist 
tradition or movement are false. 
</p><p>
"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they 
oppose government. As noted in the <a href="secFint.html">last section</a>, 
they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to 
appreciate that anarchism is a <b>political theory</b>. As dictionaries 
are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail 
to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, 
it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and 
private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need 
to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As 
"anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e.
capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights,
they are not anarchists.
</p><p>
Part of the problem is that Marxists, like many academics, also tend to assert 
that anarchists are simply against the state. It is significant that both Marxists 
and "anarcho"-capitalists tend to define anarchism as purely opposition 
to government. This is no co-incidence, as both seek to exclude anarchism 
from its place in the wider socialist movement. This makes perfect sense 
from the Marxist perspective as it allows them to present their ideology 
as the only serious anti-capitalist one around (not to mention associating 
anarchism with "anarcho"-capitalism is an excellent way of discrediting our 
ideas in the wider radical movement). It should go without saying that this 
is an obvious and serious misrepresentation of the anarchist position as 
even a superficial glance at anarchist theory and history shows that no 
anarchist limited their critique of society simply at the state. So while 
academics and Marxists seem aware of the anarchist opposition to the state, 
they usually fail to grasp the anarchist critique applies to all other 
authoritarian social institutions and how it fits into the overall anarchist 
analysis and struggle. They seem to think the anarchist condemnation of 
capitalist private property, patriarchy and so forth are somehow superfluous 
additions rather than a logical position which reflects the core of anarchism:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Critics have sometimes contended that anarchist thought, and classical anarchist 
theory in particular, has emphasised opposition to the state to the point of 
neglecting the real hegemony of economic power. This interpretation arises, 
perhaps, from a simplistic and overdrawn distinction between the anarchist 
focus on political domination and the Marxist focus on economic exploitation . . . 
there is abundant evidence against such a thesis throughout the history of 
anarchist thought."</i> [John P. Clark and Camille Martin, <b>Anarchy, Geography, 
Modernity</b>, p. 95]
</blockquote></p><p>
So Reclus simply stated the obvious when he wrote that <i>"the anti-authoritarian 
critique to which the state is subjected applies equally to all social institutions."</i> 
[quoted by Clark and Martin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 140] Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, 
Goldman and so on would all agree with that. While they all stressed that anarchism 
was against the state they quickly moved on to present a critique of private property 
and other forms of hierarchical authority. So while anarchism obviously opposes the 
state, <i>"sophisticated and developed anarchist theory proceeds further. It does not 
stop with a criticism of political organisation, but goes on to investigate the 
authoritarian nature of economic inequality and private property, hierarchical 
economic structures, traditional education, the patriarchal family, class and 
racial discrimination, and rigid sex- and age-roles, to mention just a few of the 
more important topics."</i> For the <i>"essence of anarchism is, after all, not the 
theoretical opposition to the state, but the practical and theoretical struggle 
against domination."</i> [John Clark, <b>The Anarchist Moment</b>, p. 128 and p. 70] 
</p><p>
This is also the case with individualist anarchists whose defence of certain 
forms of property did stop them criticising key aspects of <b>capitalist</b> property 
rights. As Jeremy Jennings notes, the <i>"point to stress is that all anarchists, 
and not only those wedded to the predominant twentieth-century strain of 
anarchist communism have been critical of private property to the extent 
that it was a source of hierarchy and privilege."</i> He goes on to state that 
anarchists like Tucker and Spooner <i>"agreed with the proposition that property 
was legitimate only insofar as it embraced no more than the total product of 
individual labour."</i> [<i>"Anarchism"</i>, <b>Contemporary Political Ideologies</b>, 
Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 132] This is acknowledged by the likes 
of Rothbard who had to explicitly point how that his position on such subjects 
was fundamentally different (i.e., at odds) with individualist anarchism. 
</p><p>
As such, it would be fair to say that most "anarcho"-capitalists are capitalists 
first and foremost. If aspects of anarchism do not fit with some element of 
capitalism, they will reject that element of anarchism rather than question 
capitalism (Rothbard's selective appropriation of the individualist anarchist 
tradition is the most obvious example of this). This means that right-"libertarians" 
attach the "anarcho" prefix to their ideology because they believe that being 
against government intervention is equivalent to being an anarchist (which flows 
into their use of the dictionary definition of anarchism). That they ignore the 
bulk of the anarchist tradition should prove that there is hardly anything 
anarchistic about them at all. They are not against authority, hierarchy or 
the state -- they simply want to privatise them. 
</p><p>
Ironically, this limited definition of "anarchism" ensures that "anarcho"-capitalism 
is inherently self-refuting. This can be seen from leading "anarcho"-capitalist Murray 
Rothbard. He thundered against the evil of the state, arguing that it <i>"arrogates 
to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given  
territorial area."</i> In and of itself, this definition is unremarkable. That a few 
people (an elite of rulers) claim the right to rule others must be <b>part</b> of any 
sensible definition of the state or government. However, the problems begin for 
Rothbard when he notes that <i>"[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the 
ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."</i> 
[<b>The Ethics of Liberty</b>, p. 170 and p. 173] The logical contradiction in this 
position should be obvious, but not to Rothbard. It shows the power of ideology,
the ability of mere words (the expression <i>"private property"</i>) to turn 
the bad (<i>"ultimate decision-making power over a given area"</i>) into the good 
(<i>"ultimate decision-making power over a given area"</i>). 
</p><p>
Now, this contradiction can be solved in only <b>one</b> way -- the users
of the <i>"given area"</i> are also its owners. In other words, a system of
possession (or "occupancy and use") as favoured by anarchists. However, Rothbard 
is a capitalist and supports private property, non-labour income, wage labour, 
capitalists and landlords. This means that he supports a divergence between 
ownership and use and this means that this <i>"ultimate decision-making power"</i> 
extends to those who <b>use,</b> but do not own, such property (i.e. tenants and 
workers). The statist nature of private property is clearly indicated by Rothbard's 
words -- the property owner in an "anarcho"-capitalist society possesses the 
<i>"ultimate decision-making power"</i> over a given area, which is also what 
the state has currently. Rothbard has, ironically, proved by his own definition 
that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist.
</p><p>
Of course, it would be churlish to point out that the usual name for a political 
system in which the owner of a territory is also its ruler is, in fact, monarchy. 
Which suggests that while "anarcho"-capitalism may be called "anarcho-statism" a 
far better term could be "anarcho-monarchism." In fact, some "anarcho"-capitalists 
have made explicit this obvious implication of Rothbard's argument. Hans-Hermann 
Hoppe is one.
</p><p>
Hoppe prefers monarchy to democracy, considering it the superior system. 
He argues that the monarch is the <b>private</b> owner of the government -- all 
the land and other resources are <b>owned</b> by him. Basing himself on Austrian
economics (what else?) and its notion of time preference, he concludes that the 
monarch will, therefore, work to maximise both current income and the total 
capital value of his estate. Assuming self-interest, his planning horizon 
will be farsighted and exploitation be far more limited. Democracy, in 
contrast, is a publicly-owned government and the elected rulers have use 
of resources for a short period only and <b>not</b> their capital value. 
In other words, they do not own the country and so will seek to maximise 
their short-term interests (and the interests of those they think will elect 
them into office). In contrast, Bakunin stressed that if anarchism rejects 
democracy it was <i>"hardly in order to reverse it but rather to advance it,"</i> 
in particular to extend it via <i>"the great economic revolution without which 
every right is but an empty phrase and a trick."</i> He rejected wholeheartedly
<i>"the camp of aristocratic . . . reaction."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 87]
</p><p>
However, Hoppe is not a traditional monarchist. His ideal system is one of 
<b>competing</b> monarchies, a society which is led by a <i>"voluntarily acknowledged 
'natural' elite -- a <b>nobilitas naturalis</b>"</i> comprised of <i>"families with 
long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and 
exemplary personal conduct."</i> This is because <i>"a few individuals quickly 
acquire the status of an elite"</i> and their inherent qualities will <i>"more 
likely than not [be] passed on within a few -- noble -- families."</i> The sole 
"problem" with traditional monarchies was <i>"with <b>monopoly</b>, not with elites 
or nobility,"</i> in other words the King monopolised the role of judge and their 
subjects could not turn to other members of the noble class for services. 
[<i>"The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy and the Idea of a Natural 
Order,"</i> pp. 94-121, <b>Journal of Libertarian Studies</b>, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 118 
and p. 119]
</p><p>
Which simply confirms the anarchist critique of "anarcho"-capitalism, namely
that it is <b>not</b> anarchist. This becomes even more obvious when Hoppe helpfully 
expands on the reality of "anarcho"-capitalism:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the 
purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right 
to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's 
own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost 
any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate 
ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private 
property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance 
towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They 
will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise 
in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, 
there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles 
incompatible with this goal. They -- the advocates of alternative, 
non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual 
hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or 
communism -- will have to be physically removed from society, too, if
one is to maintain a libertarian order."</i> [<b>Democracy: the God that 
Failed</b>, p. 218]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus the proprietor has power/authority over his tenants and can decree
what they can and cannot do, excluding anyone whom they consider as being
subversive (in the tenants' own interests, of course). In other words, the 
autocratic powers of the boss are extended into <b>all</b> aspects of 
society -- all under the mask of advocating liberty. Sadly, the preservation 
of property rights destroys liberty for the many (Hoppe states clearly that 
for the "anarcho"-capitalist the <i>"natural outcome of the voluntary 
transactions between various private property owners is decidedly 
non-egalitarian, hierarchical and elitist."</i> [<i>"The Political Economy 
of Monarchy and Democracy and the Idea of a Natural Order,"</i> <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 118]). Unsurprisingly, Chomsky argued that right-wing "libertarianism" has 
<i>"no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny."</i> In fact 
it (like other contemporary ideologies) <i>"reduce[s] to advocacy of one 
or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny."</i> 
[<b>Chomsky on Anarchism</b>, p. 235 and p. 181] As such, it is hard not 
to conclude that "anarcho"-capitalism is little more than a play with words. 
It is not anarchism but a cleverly designed and worded surrogate for 
elitist, autocratic conservatism. Nor is too difficult to conclude that
genuine anarchists and libertarians (of all types) would not be tolerated 
in this so-called <i>"libertarian social order."</i> 
</p><p>
Some "anarcho"-capitalists do seem dimly aware of this glaringly obvious
contradiction. Rothbard, for example, does present an argument which could
be used to solve it, but he utterly fails. He simply ignores the crux of the 
matter, that capitalism is based on hierarchy and, therefore, cannot be 
anarchist. He does this by arguing that the hierarchy associated with 
capitalism is fine as long as the private property that produced it was 
acquired in a "just" manner. Yet in so doing he yet again draws attention 
to the identical authority structures and social relationships of the state 
and property. As he puts it:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"<b>If</b> the State may be said to properly <b>own</b> its territory, 
then it is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to 
live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private 
property because there <b>is</b> no private property in its area, 
because it really owns the entire land surface. <b>So long</b> as 
the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it 
can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules 
for people living on his property."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 170] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Obviously Rothbard argues that the state does not "justly" own its
territory. He asserts that <i>"our homesteading theory"</i> of the 
creation of private property <i>"suffices to demolish any such pretensions 
by the State apparatus"</i> and so the problem with the state is that it 
<i>"claims and exercises a compulsory monopoly of defence and ultimate 
decision-making over an area larger than an individual's justly-acquired 
property."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 171 and p. 173] There are four 
fundamental problems with his argument. 
</p><p>
First, it assumes his "homesteading theory" is a robust and libertarian
theory, but neither is the case (see <a href="secF4.html#secf41">section F.4.1</a>). 
Second, it ignores the history of capitalism. Given that the current 
distribution of property is just as much the result of violence and 
coercion as the state, his argument is seriously flawed. It amounts to 
little more than an <i><b>"immaculate conception of property"</b></i> 
unrelated to reality. Third, even if we ignore these issues and assume 
that private property could be and was legitimately produced by the means 
Rothbard assumes, it does not justify the hierarchy associated with it 
as current and future generations of humanity have, effectively, been 
excommunicated from liberty by previous ones. If, as Rothbard argues, 
property is a natural right and the basis of liberty then why should the 
many be excluded from their birthright by a minority? In other words, 
Rothbard denies that liberty should be universal. He chooses property 
over liberty while anarchists choose liberty over property. Fourthly,
it implies that the fundamental problem with the state is <b>not</b>, as
anarchists have continually stressed, its hierarchical and authoritarian 
nature but rather the fact that it does not justly own the territory it 
claims to rule.
</p><p>
Even worse, the possibility that private property can result in <b>more</b> 
violations of individual freedom (at least for non-proprietors ) than the 
state of its citizens was implicitly acknowledged by Rothbard. He uses as 
a hypothetical example a country whose King is threatened by a rising 
"libertarian" movement. The King responses by <i>"employ[ing] a cunning 
stratagem,"</i> namely he <i>"proclaims his government to be dissolved, but 
just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area 
of his kingdom to the 'ownership' of himself and his relatives."</i> Rather 
than taxes, his subjects now pay rent and he can <i>"regulate the lives of 
all the people who presume to live on"</i> his property as he sees fit. 
Rothbard then asks:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert 
challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this 
subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less 
despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps, 
indeed, <b>more</b> despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim 
for themselves the libertarians' very principle of the absolute right 
of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared 
to claim before."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 54]
</blockquote></p><p>
It should go without saying that Rothbard argues that we should reject this
<i>"cunning stratagem"</i> as a con as the new distribution of property
would not be the result of "just" means. However, he failed to note how his
argument undermines his own claims that capitalism can be libertarian. As
he himself argues, not only does the property owner have the same monopoly 
of power over a given area as the state, it is <b>more</b> despotic as it is 
based on the <i>"absolute right of private property"</i>! And remember, Rothbard
is arguing <b>in favour</b> of "anarcho"-capitalism (<i>"if you have unbridled
capitalism, you will have all kinds of authority: you will have <b>extreme</b> 
authority."</i> [Chomsky, <b>Understanding Power</b>, p. 200]). The fundamental
problem is that Rothbard's ideology blinds him to the obvious, namely that the
state and private property produce identical social relationships (ironically,
he opines the theory that the state owns its territory <i>"makes the State, as well 
as the King in the Middle Ages, a feudal overlord, who at least theoretically 
<b>owned</b> all the land in his domain"</i> without noticing that this makes the 
capitalist or landlord a King and a feudal overlord within "anarcho"-capitalism. 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 171]).
</p><p>
One group of Chinese anarchists pointed out the obvious in 1914. As anarchism 
<i>"takes opposition to authority as its essential principle,"</i> anarchists aim 
to <i>"sweep away all the evil systems of present society which have an authoritarian
nature"</i> and so <i>"our ideal society"</i> would be <i>"without landlords, capitalists, 
leaders, officials, representatives or heads of families."</i> [quoted by Arif Dirlik, 
<b>Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution</b>, p. 131] Only this, the elimination of 
all forms of hierarchy (political, economic and social) would achieve genuine 
anarchism, a society without authority (an-archy). In practice, private property 
is a major source of oppression and authoritarianism within society -- there is 
little or no freedom subject to a landlord or within capitalist production (as 
Bakunin noted, <i>"the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time"</i>). 
In stark contrast to anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists have no problem with 
landlords and factory fascism (i.e. wage labour), a position which seems highly 
illogical for a theory calling itself libertarian. If it were truly libertarian, 
it would oppose all forms of domination, not just statism (<i>"Those who reject 
authoritarianism will require nobody' permission to breathe. The libertarian . . . 
is not grateful to get permission to reside anywhere on his own planet and denies 
the right of any one to screen off bits of it for their own use or rule."</i> 
[Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer, <b>Floodgates of Anarchy</b>, p. 31]). This 
illogical and self-contradictory position flows from the "anarcho"-capitalist 
definition of freedom as the absence of coercion and will be discussed in 
<a href="secF2.html">section F.2</a> in more detail. The ironic thing is that
"anarcho"-capitalists implicitly prove the anarchist critique of their own 
ideology.
</p><p>
Of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist has another means to avoid the obvious, 
namely the assertion that the market will limit the abuses of the property 
owners. If workers do not like their ruler then they can seek another. Thus
capitalist hierarchy is fine as workers and tenants "consent" to it. While
the logic is obviously the same, it is doubtful that an "anarcho"-capitalist 
would support the state just because its subjects can leave and join another 
one. As such, this does not address the core issue -- the authoritarian 
nature of capitalist property (see <a href="secA2.html#seca214">section A.2.14</a>). Moreover, this argument completely ignores 
the reality of economic and social power. Thus the "consent" argument fails 
because it ignores the social circumstances of capitalism which limit the 
choice of the many. 
</p><p>
Anarchists have long argued that, as a class, workers have little choice but 
to "consent" to capitalist hierarchy. The alternative is either dire poverty 
or starvation. "Anarcho"-capitalists dismiss such claims by denying that there 
is such a thing as economic power. Rather, it is simply freedom of contract. 
Anarchists consider such claims as a joke. To show why, we need only quote 
(yet again) Rothbard on the abolition of slavery and serfdom in the 19th 
century. He argued, correctly, that the <i>"<b>bodies</b> of the oppressed 
were freed, but the property which they had worked and eminently deserved 
to own, remained in the hands of their former oppressors. With economic power 
thus remaining in their hands, the former lords soon found themselves virtual 
masters once more of what were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs 
and slaves had tasted freedom, but had been cruelly derived of its fruits."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 74]
</p><p>
To say the least, anarchists fail to see the logic in this position. Contrast 
this with the standard "anarcho"-capitalist claim that if market forces 
("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of <i>"tenants or farm 
labourers"</i> then they are free. Yet labourers dispossessed by market forces 
are in exactly the same social and economic situation as the ex-serfs and 
ex-slaves. If the latter do not have the fruits of freedom, neither do the 
former. Rothbard sees the obvious <i>"economic power"</i> in the latter case, 
but denies it in the former (ironically, Rothbard dismissed economic power 
under capitalism in the same work. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 221-2]). It is only 
Rothbard's ideology that stops him from drawing the obvious conclusion -- identical 
economic conditions produce identical social relationships and so capitalism 
is marked by <i>"economic power"</i> and <i>"virtual masters."</i> The only 
solution is for "anarcho"-capitalist to simply say that the ex-serfs and ex-slaves 
were actually free to choose and, consequently, Rothbard was wrong. It might 
be inhuman, but at least it would be consistent!
</p><p>
Rothbard's perspective is alien to anarchism. For example, as individualist 
anarchist William Bailie noted, under capitalism there is a class system 
marked by <i>"a dependent industrial class of wage-workers"</i> and <i>"a 
privileged class of wealth-monopolisers, each becoming more and more 
distinct from the other as capitalism advances."</i> This has turned 
property into <i>"a social power, an economic force destructive of rights, 
a fertile source of injustice, a means of enslaving the dispossessed."</i> 
He concluded: <i>"Under this system equal liberty cannot obtain."</i> 
Bailie notes that the modern <i>"industrial world under capitalistic 
conditions"</i> have <i>"arisen under the <b>regime</b> of status"</i> 
(and so <i>"law-made privileges"</i>) however, it seems unlikely that 
he would have concluded that such a class system would be fine if it 
had developed naturally or the current state was abolished while leaving 
that class structure intact. [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 121]
As we discuss in <a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a>, Individualist
Anarchists like Tucker and Yarrows ended up recognising that even the freest 
competition had become powerless against the enormous concentrations of 
wealth associated with corporate capitalism.
</p><p>
Therefore anarchists recognise that "free exchange" or "consent" in 
unequal circumstances will reduce freedom as well as increasing inequality 
between individuals and classes. As we discuss in <a href="secF3.html">section F.3</a>, 
inequality will produce social relationships which are based on hierarchy and 
domination, <b>not</b> freedom. As Noam Chomsky put it:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would
quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of 'free
contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke,
perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences
of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."</i> [<b>Noam Chomsky on 
Anarchism</b>, interview with Tom Lane, December 23, 1996]
</blockquote></p><p>
Clearly, then, by its own arguments "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist.
This should come as no surprise to anarchists. Anarchism, as a political 
theory, was born when Proudhon wrote <b>What is Property?</b> specifically to 
refute the notion that workers are free when capitalist property forces 
them to seek employment by landlords and capitalists. He was well aware 
that in such circumstances property <i>"violates equality by the rights of 
exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect 
identity with robbery."</i> He, unsurprisingly, talks of the <i>"proprietor, to 
whom [the worker] has sold and surrendered his liberty."</i> For Proudhon,
anarchy was <i>"the absence of a master, of a sovereign"</i> while <i>"proprietor"</i>
was <i>"synonymous"</i> with <i>"sovereign"</i> for he <i>"imposes his will as law, and 
suffers neither contradiction nor control."</i> This meant that <i>"property 
engenders despotism,"</i> as <i>"each proprietor is sovereign lord within the 
sphere of his property."</i> [<b>What is Property</b>, p. 251, p. 130, p. 264
and pp. 266-7] It must also be stressed that Proudhon's classic work is 
a lengthy critique of the kind of apologetics for private property 
Rothbard espouses to salvage his ideology from its obvious contradictions. 
</p><p>
So, ironically, Rothbard repeats the same analysis as Proudhon but draws
the <b>opposite</b> conclusions and expects to be considered an anarchist! 
Moreover, it seems equally ironic that "anarcho"-capitalism calls itself 
"anarchist" while basing itself on the arguments that anarchism was 
created in opposition to. As shown, "anarcho"-capitalism makes as much 
sense as "anarcho-statism" -- an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. The 
idea that "anarcho"-capitalism warrants the name "anarchist" is simply 
false. Only someone ignorant of anarchism could maintain such a thing.
While you expect anarchist theory to show this to be the case, the 
wonderful thing is that "anarcho"-capitalism itself does the same. 
</p><p>
Little wonder Bob Black argues that <i>"[t]o demonise state authoritarianism 
while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements 
in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism 
at its worst."</i> [<i>"The Libertarian As Conservative"</i>, <b>The Abolition of 
Work and Other Essays</b>, pp. 142] Left-liberal Stephen L. Newman makes the 
same point:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The emphasis [right-wing] libertarians place on the opposition of liberty
and political power tends to obscure the role of authority in their 
worldview . . . the authority exercised in private relationships, however
-- in the relationship between employer and employee, for instance --
meets with no objection. . . . [This] reveals a curious insensitivity to
the use of private authority as a means of social control. Comparing public
and private authority, we might well ask of the [right-wing] libertarians:
When the price of exercising one's freedom is terribly high, what practical
difference is there between the commands of the state and those issued
by one's employer? . . . Though admittedly the circumstances are not
identical, telling disgruntled empowers that they are always free to leave
their jobs seems no different in principle from telling political dissidents
that they are free to emigrate."</i> [<b>Liberalism at Wit's End</b>, pp. 45-46]
</p><p></blockquote>
As Bob Black pointed out, right libertarians argue that <i>"'one can at least 
change jobs.' But you can't avoid having a job -- just as under statism one 
can at least change nationalities but you can't avoid subjection to one 
nation-state or another. But freedom means more than the right to change 
masters."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 147] The similarities between capitalism 
and statism are clear -- and so why "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be anarchist. 
To reject the authority (the <i>"ultimate decision-making power"</i>) 
of the state and embrace that of the property owner indicates not only a 
highly illogical stance but one at odds with the basic principles of anarchism.
This whole-hearted support for wage labour and capitalist property rights 
indicates that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists because they do 
not reject all forms of <b>archy.</b> They obviously support the hierarchy 
between boss and worker (wage labour) and landlord and tenant. Anarchism, 
by definition, is against all forms of archy, including the hierarchy 
generated by capitalist property. To ignore the obvious archy associated 
with capitalist property is highly illogical and trying to dismiss one form 
of domination as flowing from "just" property while attacking the other 
because it flows from "unjust" property is not seeing the wood for the 
trees. 
</p><p>
In addition, we must note that such inequalities in power and wealth 
will need  "defending" from those subject to them ("anarcho"-capitalists 
recognise the need for private police and courts to defend property 
from theft -- and, anarchists add, to defend the theft and despotism 
associated with property!). Due to its support of private property (and 
thus authority), "anarcho"-capitalism ends up retaining a state in its 
"anarchy": namely a <b>private</b> state whose existence its proponents 
attempt to deny simply by refusing to call it a state, like an ostrich 
hiding its head in the sand. As one anarchist so rightly put it, 
"anarcho"-capitalists <i>"simply replaced the state with private 
security firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term 
is normally understood."</i> [Brian Morris, <i>"Global Anti-Capitalism"</i>, 
pp. 170-6, <b>Anarchist Studies</b>, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 175] As we 
discuss more fully in <a href="secF6.html">section F.6</a> this is why 
"anarcho"-capitalism is better described as "private state" capitalism 
as there would be a functional equivalent of the state and it would be 
just as skewed in favour of the propertied elite as the existing one 
(if not more so). As Albert Meltzer put it:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Commonsense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with
a 'State' . . . but it could not dispense with organised government,
or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and 
others working to amass it for them. 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. It is a lie
. . . Patently unbridled capitalism . . . needs some force at its
disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself
or from private armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited
State -- that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect
the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as
cheap as possible for the ruling class. The idea also serves another 
purpose . . . a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in 
avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it."</i> [<b>Anarchism: 
Arguments For and Against</b>, p. 50]
</blockquote></p><p>
For anarchists, this need of capitalism for some kind of state is 
unsurprising. For <i>"Anarchy without socialism seems equally as impossible 
to us [as socialism without anarchy], for in such a case it could not be 
other than the domination of the strongest, and would therefore set in 
motion right away the organisation and consolidation of this domination; 
that is to the constitution of government."</i> [Errico Malatesta, 
<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 148] Because of this, 
the "anarcho"-capitalist rejection of the anarchist critique of capitalism 
and our arguments on the need for equality, they cannot be considered
anarchists or part of the anarchist tradition. To anarchists it seems 
bizarre that "anarcho"-capitalists want to get rid of the state but 
maintain the system it helped create and its function as a defender of 
the capitalist class's property and property rights. In other words, to 
reduce the state purely to its function as (to use Malatesta's apt word) 
the gendarme  of the capitalist class is <b><i>not</i></b> an anarchist goal. 
</p><p>
Thus anarchism is far more than the common dictionary definition
of "no government" -- it also entails being against all forms of
<b>archy</b>, including those generated by capitalist property. This 
is clear from the roots of the word "anarchy." As we noted in 
<a href="secA1.html">section A.1</a>, the word anarchy means "no rulers" 
or "contrary to authority." As Rothbard himself acknowledges, the property 
owner is the ruler of their property and, therefore, those who 
use it. For this reason "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be considered as
a form of anarchism -- a real anarchist must logically oppose 
the authority of the property owner along with that of the state.
As "anarcho"-capitalism does not explicitly (or implicitly, for 
that matter) call for economic arrangements that will end wage 
labour and usury it cannot be considered anarchist or part of the 
anarchist tradition. While anarchists have always opposed capitalism, 
"anarcho"-capitalists have embraced it and due to this embrace their 
"anarchy" will be marked by relationships based upon subordination and hierarchy 
(such as wage labour), <b>not</b> freedom (little wonder that Proudhon 
argued that <i>"property is despotism"</i> -- it creates authoritarian and
hierarchical relationships between people in a similar way to statism).
Their support for "free market" capitalism ignores the impact of wealth 
and power on the nature and outcome of individual decisions within the 
market (see sections <a href="secF2.html">F.2</a> and <a href="secF3.html">F.3</a> 
for further discussion). Furthermore, any such system of (economic and 
social) power will require extensive force to maintain it and the 
"anarcho"-capitalist system of competing "defence firms" will simply be 
a new state, enforcing capitalist power, property rights and law.
</p><p>
Thus the "anarcho"-capitalist and the anarchist have different starting 
positions and opposite ends in mind. Their claims to being anarchists are 
bogus simply because they reject so much of the anarchist tradition as to 
make what little they do pay lip-service to non-anarchist in theory and 
practice. Little wonder Peter Marshall said that <i>"few anarchists would 
accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not 
share a concern for economic equality and social justice."</i> As such, 
"anarcho"-capitalists, <i>"even if they do reject the State, might 
therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."</i> 
[<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 565]
</p>

</body>
</html>