File: append13int.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 15.3-3
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: main
  • in suites: bullseye, trixie
  • size: 26,216 kB
  • sloc: makefile: 10
file content (38 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 13,185 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
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
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
  <title>0 Introduction | Anarchist Writers</title>
  </head>
  <body>
  <div class="content clear-block">
    <p>
</p>

<h1>Appendix - 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 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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
  <div id="book-navigation-239" class="book-navigation">

        <div class="page-links clear-block">
              <a href="append13.html" class="page-previous" title="Go to previous page">‹ Appendix - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?</a>
                    <a href="append13.html" class="page-up" title="Go to parent page">up</a>
                    <a href="append131.html" class="page-next" title="Go to next page">1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists? ›</a>
          </div>

  </div>
  </div>
  </body>
</html>