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
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
|
<html>
<head>
<title>Section F - Introduction</title>
</head>
<h1>Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?</h1>
<p>
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 people outside of North America, this is
weird as the term <i>"libertarian"</i> is almost always used in conjunction
with <i>"socialist"</i> or <i>"communist"</i> (particularly in Europe and,
it should be stressed, historically in America). In the US, though, the Right
has partially succeeded in appropriating the term "libertarian" for itself.
Even stranger 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><p>
Arguing with fools is seldom rewarded, but to let their foolishness to go
unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to anarchism.
This is what this section of the 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. It is important to stress that anarchist opposition to the so-called
capitalist "anarchists" do <b>not</b> 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 capitalist minimal
statist) at the turn the 19th century and, as such, it is hardly new.
</p><p>
At that time, people like Spencer tended to call themselves "liberals" while, as
Bookchin noted, <i>"libertarian"</i> was <i>"a term created by nineteenth-century
European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians."</i>
[<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 57] David Goodway concurs, stating that
<i>"libertarian"</i> has been <i>"frequently employed by anarchists"</i> as
an alternative name for our politics for over a century. However, the
<i>"situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of
. . . extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy . . . and [its advocates]
adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism.' It has therefore now
become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left
libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."</i> [<b>Anarchist Seeds Beneath the
Snow</b>, p. 4] This appropriation of the term "libertarian" by the right not
only has bred confusion, but also protest as anarchists have tried to point out
the obvious, namely that capitalism is marked by <b>authoritarian</b> social
relationships and so there are good reasons for anarchism being a fundamentally
anti-capitalist socio-political theory and movement. That a minority of the
right "libertarians" have also tried to appropriate "anarchist" to describe
their authoritarian politics is something almost all anarchists reject and oppose.
</p><p>
That the vast majority of anarchists reject the notion of "anarcho"-capitalism
as a form of anarchism is an inconvenient fact for its supporters. Rather than
address this, they generally point to the fact that some academics state that
"anarcho"-capitalism is a form of anarchism and include it in their accounts
of our movement and ideas. That some academics do this is true, but irrelevant.
What counts is what anarchists think anarchism is. To place the opinions of
academics above that of anarchists implies that anarchists know nothing about
anarchism, that we do not really understand the ideas we advocate but academics
do! Yet this is the implication. As such the near universal rejection of
"anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism within anarchist circles is
significant. However, it could be argued that as a few anarchists (usually
individualist ones, but not always) <b>do</b> admit "anarcho"-capitalism into our
movement that this (very small) minority shows that the majority are "sectarian."
Again, this is not convincing as some individuals in any movement will hold
positions which the majority reject and which are, sometimes, incompatible with
the basic principles of the movement (Proudhon's sexism and racism are obvious
examples). Equally, given that anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists have
fundamentally <i><b>different</b></i> analyses and goals it is hardly
"sectarian" to point this out (being "sectarian" in politics means prioritising
differences and rivalries with politically close groups).
</p><p>
Some scholars do note the difference. For example, Jeremy Jennings, in
his excellent overview of anarchist theory and history, argues that it is
<i>"hard not to conclude that these ideas ["anarcho"-capitalism] -- with roots
deep in classical liberalism -- are described as anarchist only on the basis
of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is."</i> [<i>"Anarchism"</i>,
<b>Contemporary Political Ideologies</b>, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright
(eds.), p. 142] Barbara Goodwin reaches a similar conclusion, noting
that the "anarcho"-capitalists' <i>"true place is in the group of right-wing
libertarians"</i> not in anarchism for <i>"[w]hile condemning absolutely state
coercion, they tacitly condone the economic and interpersonal coercion
which would prevail in a totally <b>laissez-faire</b> society. Most anarchists
share the egalitarian ideal with socialists: anarcho-capitalists abhor
equality and socialism equally."</i> [<b>Using Political Ideas</b>, p. 138]
</p><p>
Sadly, these seem to be the minority in academic circles as most are happy
to discuss right-"libertarian" ideology as a subclass of anarchism in spite
of there being so little in common between the two. Their inclusion does
really seem to derive from the fact that "anarcho"-capitalists <b>call</b>
themselves anarchists and the academics take this at face value. Yet,
as one anarchist notes, having a <i>"completely fluid definition of anarchism,
allows for anyone and anything to be described as such, no matter how
authoritarian and anti-social."</i> [Benjamin Franks, <i>"Mortal Combat"</i>,
pp. 4-6, <b>A Touch of Class</b>, no. 1, p. 5] Also, given that many academics
approach anarchism from what could be termed the "dictionary definition"
methodology rather than as a political movement approach there is a
tendency for "anarcho"-capitalist claims to be taken at face value.
As such, it is useful to stress that anarchism is a social movement
with a long history and while its adherents have held divergent views,
it has never been limited to simply opposition to the state (i.e. the
dictionary definition).
</p><p>
The "anarcho"-capitalist argument that it is a form of anarchism hinges on
using the dictionary definition of "anarchism" and/or "anarchy." They try to
define anarchism as being "opposition to government," and nothing else. Of
course, many (if not most) dictionaries "define" anarchy as "chaos" or
"disorder" but we never see "anarcho"-capitalists use those particular
definitions! Moreover, and this should go without saying, 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" of anarchism will tend to ignore its
consistent views on authority, exploitation, property and capitalism (ideas
easily discovered if actual anarchist texts are read). And for this strategy
to work, a lot of "inconvenient" history and ideas from all branches of
anarchism must be ignored. From individualists like Tucker to communists like
Kropotkin and considered anarchism as part of the wider socialist movement.
Therefore "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists in the same sense that
rain is not dry.
</p><p>
Significantly, the inventor of the term "anarcho"-capitalism, Murray Rothbard
had no impact on the anarchist movement even in North America. His influence,
unsurprisingly, was limited to the right, particularly in so-called
"libertarian" circles. The same can be said of "anarcho"-capitalism in
general. This can be seen from the way Rothbard is mentioned in Paul Nursey-Bray's
bibliography on anarchist thinkers. This is an academic book, a reference for
libraries. Rothbard is featured, but the context is very suggestive. The book
includes Rothbard in a section titled <i>"On the Margins of Anarchist Theory."</i>
His introduction to the Rothbard section is worth quoting:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Either the inclusion or the omission of Rothbard as an anarchist is likely, in
one quarter or another, to be viewed as contentious. Here, his Anarcho-Capitalism
is treated as marginal, since, while there are linkages with the tradition of
individualist anarchism, there is a dislocation between the mutualism and
communitarianism of that tradition and the free market theory, deriving from
Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, that underpins Rothbard's political
philosophy, and places him in the modern Libertarian tradition."</i> [<b>Anarchist
Thinkers and Thought</b>, p. 133]
</blockquote>
This is important, for while Rothbard (like other "anarcho"-capitalists)
appropriates <b>some</b> aspects of individualist anarchism he does so in a
highly selective manner and places what he does take into an utterly different
social environment and political tradition. So while there are similarities
between both systems, there are important differences as we will discuss in
detail in <a href="secGcon.html">section G</a> along with the anti-capitalist
nature of individualist anarchism (i.e. those essential bits which Rothbard
and his followers ignore or dismiss). Needless to say, Nursey-Bray does not
include "anarcho"-capitalism in his discussion of anarchist schools of
thought in the bibliography's introduction.
</p><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 their names 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-syndicalist ideas of decentralised, "from the
bottom up" unions and the abolition of the state and capitalism.
</p><p>
It could be argued (and it has) that the previous use of a word does not
preclude new uses. Language changes and, as such, it is possible for a
<b>new</b> kind of "anarchism" to develop which has little, or no,
similarities with what was previously known as anarchism. Equally, it
could be said that new developments of anarchism have occurred in the
past which were significantly different from old versions (for example,
the rise of communist forms of anarchism in opposition to Proudhon's
anti-communist mutualism). Both arguments are unconvincing. The first
just makes a mockery of the concept of language and breeds confusion. If
people start calling black white, it does not make it so. Equally, to
call an ideology with little in common with a known and long established
socio-political theory and movement the same name simply results in
confusion. No one takes, say, fascists seriously when they call their
parties "democratic" nor would we take Trotskyists seriously if they
started to call themselves "libertarians" (as some have started to do).
The second argument fails to note that developments within anarchism
built upon what came before and did not change its fundamental
(socialistic) basis. Thus communist and collectivist anarchism are
valid forms of anarchism because they built upon the key insights of
mutualism rather than denying them.
</p><p>
A related defence of "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism is
the suggestion that the problem is one of terminology. This argument is
based on noting that "anarcho"-capitalists are against "actually existing"
capitalism and so <i>"we must distinguish between 'free-market capitalism'
. . . and 'state capitalism' . . . The two are as different as day and
night."</i> [Rothbard, <b>The Logic of Action II</b>, p. 185] It would be
churlish indeed to point out that the <b>real</b> difference is that one exists
while the other has existed only in Rothbard's head. Yet point it out we must,
for the simple fact is that not only do "anarcho"-capitalists use the word
anarchism in an unusual way (i.e. in opposition to what has always been meant
by the term), they also use the word capitalism in a like manner (i.e., to
refer to something that has never existed). It should go without saying that
using words like "capitalism" and "anarchism" in ways radically different
to traditional uses cannot help but provoke confusion. Yet is it a case that
"anarcho"-capitalists have simply picked a bad name for their ideology? Hardly,
as its advocates will quickly rush to defend exploitation (non-labour income)
and capitalist property rights as well as the authoritarian social structures
produced with them. Moreover, as good capitalist economists the notion of an
economy without interest, rent and profit is considered highly inefficient
and so unlikely to develop. As such, their ideology is rooted
in a perspective and an economy marked by wage labour, landlords, banking and
stock markets and so hierarchy, oppression and exploitation, i.e. a capitalist
one.
</p><p>
So they have chosen their name well as it shows in clear light how far they are
from the anarchist tradition. As such, almost all anarchists would agree with
long-time anarchist activist Donald Rooum's comment that <i>"self-styled
'anarcho-capitalists' (not to be confused with
anarchists of any persuasion) [simply] want the state abolished as a regulator
of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists."</i> They are
<i>"wrongly self-styled 'anarchists'"</i> because they <i>"do not oppose capitalist
oppression"</i> while genuine anarchists are <i>"extreme libertarian socialists."</i>
[<b>What Is Anarchism?</b>, p. 7, pp. 12-13 and p. 10] As we stress in
<a href="secF1.html">section F.1</a>, "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose
the hierarchies and exploitation associated with
capitalism (wage labour and landlordism) and, consequently, have no claim
to the term "anarchist." 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, usually by "anarcho"-capitalists, as being a forefather
of the ideology).
</p><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 in
general accounts of anarchism (the better academic accounts do note that
anarchists generally reject the claim). These two reasons are obviously related
and hence the need to show the facts of the matter. 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><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. However, our discussion also serves two other purposes.
Firstly, critiquing right "libertarian" theories allows us to explain
anarchist ones at the same time and indicate why they are better. Secondly,
and more importantly, it shares many of the same assumptions and aims of
neo-liberalism. This was noted by Bob Black in the early 1980s, when a
<i>"wing of the Reaganist Right . . . obviously appropriated, with suspect
selectivity, such libertarian themes as deregulation and voluntarism.
Ideologues indignate that Reagan has travestied their principles. Tough shit!
I notice that it's <b>their</b> principles, not mine, that he found suitable
to travesty."</i> [<i>"The Libertarian As Conservative"</i>, pp. 141-8, <b>The
Abolition of Work and Other Essays</b>, pp. 141-2] This was echoed by Noam
Chomsky two decades later when he stated that <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 in the ruling elite <i>"pretend
to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon"</i> in the
class struggle [<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 also allows us to build theoretical
weapons to use to resist this attack and aid our side in the class war.
</p><p>
The results of the onslaught of free(r) market capitalism along with anarchist
criticism of "anarcho"-capitalism has resulted in some "anarcho"-capitalists
trying to re-brand their ideology as "market anarchism." This, from their
perspective, has two advantages. Firstly, it allows them to co-opt the
likes of Tucker and Spooner (and, sometimes, even Proudhon!) into their family
tree as all these supported markets (while systematically attacking capitalism).
Secondly, it allows them to distance their ideology from the grim reality of
neo-liberalism and the results of making capitalism more "free market." Simply
put, going on about the benefits of "free market" capitalism while freer
market capitalism is enriching the already wealthy and oppressing and
impoverishing the many is hard going. Using the term "market anarchism" to
avoid both the reality of anarchism's anti-capitalist core and the reality
of the freer market capitalism they have helped produce makes sense in the
marketplace of ideas (the term "blackwashing" seems appropriate here).
The fact is that however laudable its stated aims, "anarcho"-capitalism is
deeply flawed due to its simplistic nature and is easy to abuse on behalf of
the economic oligarchy that lurks behind the rhetoric of economic textbooks in
that "special case" so ignored by economists, namely reality.
</p><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="secF7.html">section F.7</a>, anarchists from
Proudhon onwards have rejected it (and, significantly, vice versa). As
academic Alan Carter notes, anarchist concern for equality as a necessary
precondition for genuine freedom <i>"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 since the birth of anarchism and so 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><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 freedom 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 replacing the state with private defence firms is simply changing the
name of the state rather than abolishing it) 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.
</p><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.
</p><p>
For more discussion on this issue, see the appendix
<a href="append1.html">"Anarchism and 'Anarcho'-capitalism"</a>
</p>
</body>
</html>
|
