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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 2831 2832 2833 2834 2835 2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858 2859 2860 2861 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 2870 2871 2872 2873 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 2886 2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913 2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923 2924 2925 2926 2927 2928 2929 2930 2931 2932 2933 2934 2935 2936 2937 2938 2939 2940 2941 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990 2991 2992 2993 2994 2995 2996 2997 2998 2999 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3090 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3105 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130 3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 3141 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 3155 3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 3166 3167 3168 3169 3170 3171 3172 3173 3174 3175 3176 3177 3178 3179 3180 3181 3182 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 3191 3192 3193 3194 3195 3196 3197 3198 3199 3200 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206 3207 3208 3209 3210 3211 3212 3213 3214 3215 3216 3217 3218 3219 3220 3221 3222 3223 3224 3225 3226 3227 3228 3229 3230 3231 3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239 3240 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283 3284 3285 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 3291 3292 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 3300 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 3309 3310 3311 3312 3313 3314 3315 3316 3317 3318 3319 3320 3321 3322 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3328 3329 3330 3331 3332 3333 3334
|
Appendix : Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
This appendix exists for one reason, namely to explain why the idea
of "anarcho"-capitalism is a bogus one. While we have covered this topic
in some detail in section F, we thought that this appendix should be
created in order to update and bring together our critique of Bryan Caplan's
"Anarchist Theory FAQ." Caplan's FAQ is the main on-line attempt to give the
oxymoron of "anarcho"-capitalism some form of justification and so it is
worthwhile explaining, using his FAQ as the base, why such an attempt fails.
As we will prove, Caplan's FAQ fails in its attempt to prove that "anarcho"
capitalism can be considered as part of the anarchist movement and in fact
his account involves extensive re-writing of history. This appendix is in
two parts, a reply to Caplan's FAQ release version 5.2 and an older reply
to version 4.1.1 (which was originally section F.10 of the FAQ). The
introduction to the reply to version 4.1.1 indicates what most anarchists
think of Caplan's FAQ and its claims of "objectivity" so we will not
repeat ourselves here.
We have decided to include these replies in an appendix as they are really
an addition to the main body of the FAQ. Parties interested in why Caplan's
claims are false can explore this appendix, those who are interested in
anarchist politics can read the FAQ without having to also read on-line
arguments between anarchists and capitalists.
We should, perhaps, thank Caplan for allowing us an opportunity of
explaining the ideas of such people as Proudhon and Tucker, allowing
us to quote them and so bring their ideas to a wider audience and for
indicating that anarchism, in all its forms, has always opposed
capitalism and always will.
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
FAQ" version 5.2
1 Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement
2 Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?
3 Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?
4 Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism
5 Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
6 Appendix: Defining Anarchism
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
FAQ" version 4.1.1.
1 Is anarchism purely negative?
2 Anarchism and Equality
3 Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
4 Anarchism and dissidents
5 How would anarcho-capitalism work?
***********************
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
FAQ" version 5.2
1 - Individualist Anarchists and the socialist movement.
Caplan, in his FAQ, attempts to rewrite anarchist history by trying
to claim that the individualist anarchists were forerunners of the
so-called "anarcho-capitalist" school. However, as is so often the
case with Caplan's FAQ, nothing could be further from the truth.
In section 5 (What major subdivisions may be made among anarchists?)
of his FAQ, Caplan writes that:
"A large segment of left-anarchists is extremely sceptical about
the anarchist credentials of anarcho-capitalists, arguing that
the anarchist movement has historically been clearly leftist. In
my own view, it is necessary to re-write a great deal of history
to maintain this claim."
He quotes Carl Landauer's _European Socialism: A History of Ideas
and Movements_ as evidence:
"To be sure, there is a difference between
individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or
communistic anarchism; Bakunin called himself a
communist anarchist. But the communist anarchists
also do not acknowledge any right to society to
force the individual. They differ from the anarchistic
individualists in their belief that men, if freed from
coercion, will enter into voluntary associations of a
communistic type, while the other wing believes that
the free person will prefer a high degree of isolation.
The communist anarchists repudiate the right of private
property which is maintained through the power of the
state. The individualist anarchists are inclined to
maintain private property as a necessary condition of
individual independence, without fully answering the
question of how property could be maintained without
courts and police."
Caplan goes on to state that "the interesting point is that before the
emergence of modern anarcho-capitalism Landauer found it necessary to
distinguish two strands of anarchism, only one of which he considered
to be within the broad socialist tradition."
However, what Caplan seems to ignore is that both individualist and
social anarchists agree that there *is* a difference between the two
schools of anarchist thought! Some insight. Of course, Caplan tries
to suggest that Landauer's non-discussion of the individualist anarchists
is somehow "evidence" that their ideas are not socialistic. Firstly,
Landauer's book is about *European* Socialism. Individualist anarchism
was almost exclusively based in America and so hardly falls within the
book's subject area. Secondly, from the index Kropotkin is mentioned on
*two* pages (one of which a footnote). Does that mean Kropotkin was not
a socialist? Of course not. It seems likely, therefore, that Landauer is
using the common Marxist terminology of defining Marxism as Socialism,
while calling other parts of the wider socialist movement by their
self-proclaimed names of anarchism, syndicalism and so on. Hardly
surprising that Kropotkin is hardly mentioned in a history of
"Socialism" (i.e. Marxism).
As noted above, both schools of anarchism knew there was a difference
between their ideas. Kropotkin and Tucker, for example, both distinguished
between two types of anarchism as well as two types of socialism. Thus
Caplan's "interesting point" is just a banality, a common fact which
anyone with a basic familiarity of anarchist history would know.
Kropotkin in his justly famous essay on Anarchism for _The Encyclopaedia
Britannica_ *also* found it necessary to distinguish two strands of
anarchism. As regards Caplan's claims that only one of these strands
of anarchism is "within the broad socialist tradition" all we can say
is that both Kropotkin *and* Tucker considered their ideas and
movement to be part of the broader socialist tradition. According
to an expert on Individualist Anarchism, Tucker "looked upon anarchism
as a branch of the general socialist movement" [James J. Martin, _Men
Against the State_, pp. 226-7]. Other writers on Individualist Anarchism
have noted the same fact (for example, Tucker "definitely thought of
himself a socialist" [William O. Reichart, _Partisans of Freedom: A
Study in American Anarchism_, p. 156]). As evidence of the anti-socialist
nature of individualist anarchism, Caplan's interpretation of Landauer's
words is fundamentally nonsense. If you look at the writings of people like
Tucker you will see that they called themselves socialists and considered
themselves part of the wider socialist movement. No one familiar with
Tucker's works could overlook this fact.
Interestingly, Landauer includes Proudhon in his history and states that
he was "the most profound thinker among pre-Marxian socialists." [p. 67]
Given that Caplan elsewhere in his FAQ tries to co-opt Proudhon into the
"anarcho"-capitalist school as well as Tucker, his citing of Landauer
seems particularly dishonest. Landauer presents Proudhon's ideas in some
depth in his work within a chapter headed "The three Anticapitalistic
Movements." Indeed, he starts his discussion of Proudhon's ideas with
the words "In France, post-Utopian socialism begins with Peter Joseph
Proudhon." [p. 59] Given that both Kropotkin and Tucker indicated that
Individualist Anarchism followed Proudhon's economic and political
ideas the fact that Landauer states that Proudhon was a socialist
implies that Individualist Anarchism is also socialist (or "Leftist"
to use Caplan's term).
Tucker and the other individualist anarchists considered themselves
as followers of Proudhon's ideas (as did Bakunin and Kropotkin). For
example, Tucker stated that his journal _Liberty_ was "brought into
existence as a direct consequence of the teachings of Proudhon" and
"lives principally to spread them." [cited by Paul Avrich in his
"Introduction" to _Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"_ by Charles
A. Dana]
Obviously Landauer considered Proudhon a socialist and if Individualist
Anarchism follows Proudhon's ideas then it, too, must be socialist.
Unsurprisingly, then, Tucker also considered himself a socialist. To
state the obvious, Tucker and Bakunin both shared Proudhon's opposition
to *private* property (in the capitalist sense of the word), although
Tucker confused this opposition (and possibly the casual reader) by
talking about possession as "property."
So, it appears that Caplan is the one trying to rewrite history.
2 - Why is Caplan's definition of socialism wrong?
Perhaps the problem lies with Caplan's "definition" of socialism. In
section 7 (Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?) he states:
"If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- 'advocacy
of government ownership of the means of production' -- it seems
that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But if by
socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as 'advocacy of
the strong restriction or abolition of private property,' then
the question becomes more complex."
Which are hardly traditional definitions of socialism unless you are
ignorant of socialist ideas! By definition one, Bakunin and Kropotkin
are not socialists. As far as definition two goes, all anarchists
were opposed to (capitalist) private property and argued for its
abolition and its replacement with possession. The actual forms of
possession differed from between anarchist schools of thought, but
the common aim to end private property (capitalism) was still there.
To quote Dana, in a pamphlet called "a really intelligent, forceful,
and sympathetic account of mutual banking" by Tucker, individualist
anarchists desire to "destroy the tyranny of capital,- that is, of
property" by mutual credit. [Charles A. Dana, _Proudhon and his "Bank
of the People"_, p. 46]
Interestingly, this second definition of socialism brings to light a
contradiction in Caplan's account. Elsewhere in the FAQ he notes that
Proudhon had "ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private
property." In fact, Proudhon did desire to restrict private property to
that of possession, as Caplan himself seems aware. In other words,
even taking his own definitions we find that Proudhon would be considered
a socialist! Indeed, according to Proudhon, "all accumulated capital
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." [_Selected
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 44] Thus Jeremy Jennings'
summary of the anarchist position on private property:
"The point to stress is that all anarchists [including Spooner and Tucker],
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."
He goes on to state that anarchists like Tucker and Spooner "agreed with
the proposition that property was legitimate only insofar as it embraced
no more than the total product of individual labour." ["Anarchism",
_Contemporary Political Ideologies_, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright
(eds.), p. 132]
The idea that socialism can be defined as state ownership or even
opposition to, or "abolition" of, all forms of property is not one
which is historically accurate for all forms of socialism. Obviously
communist-anarchists and syndicalists would dismiss out of hand the
identification of socialism as state ownership, as would Individualist
Anarchists like Tucker and Joseph Labadie. As for opposition or
abolition of all forms of "private property" as defining socialism,
such a position would have surprised communist-anarchists like Kropotkin
(and, obviously, such self-proclaimed socialists as Tucker and Labadie).
For example, in _Act for Yourselves_ Kropotkin explicitly states that
a peasant "who is in possession of just the amount of land he can
cultivate" would not be expropriated in an anarchist revolution.
Similarly for the family "inhabiting a house which affords them just
enough space . . . considered necessary for that number of people" and
the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom" would be left
alone [pp. 104-5]. He makes the same point in _The Conquest of Bread_
[p. 61] Thus, like Proudhon, Kropotkin replaces *private property*
with *possession* as the former is "theft" (i.e. it allows exploitation,
which "indicate[s] the scope of Expropriation" namely "to everything
that enables any man [or woman]. . . to appropriate the product of
other's toil" [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 61])
Even Marx and Engels did not define socialism in terms of the abolition
of all forms of "private property." Like anarchists, they distinguished
between that property which allows exploitation to occur and that which
did not. Looking at the _Communist Manifesto_ we find them arguing that
the "distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property" and that
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of
society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate
the labour of others by means of such appropriation." Moreover, they
correctly note that "property" has meant different things at different
times and that the "abolition of existing property relations is not at
all a distinctive feature of Communism" as "[a]ll property relations in
the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent
upon the change in historical conditions." As an example, they argue
that the French Revolution "abolished feudal property in favour of
bourgeois property." [_The Manifesto of the Communist Party_, p.47,
p. 49 and p. 47]
Which means that the idea that socialism means abolishing "private
property" is *only* true for those kinds of property that are used
to exploit the labour of others. Nicholas Walter sums up the anarchist
position when he wrote that anarchists "are in favour of the private
property which cannot be used by one person to exploit another."
_Reinventing Anarchy_, p. 49] In other words, property which is
no longer truly *private* as it is used by those who do not own it.
In effect, the key point of Proudhon's _What is Property?_, namely
the difference between possession and property. Which means that
rather than desire the abolition of all forms of "private property,"
socialists (of all kinds, libertarian and authoritarian) desire the
abolition of a specific kind of property, namely that kind which
allows the exploitation and domination of others. To ignore this
distinction is to paint a very misleading picture of what socialism
stands for.
This leaves the "the strong restriction . . . of private
property" definition of socialism. Here Caplan is on stronger
ground. Unfortunately, by using that definition the Individualist
Anarchists, like the Social Anarchists, are included in socialist
camp, a conclusion he is trying to avoid. As *every* anarchist
shares Proudhon's analysis that "property is theft" and that
*possession* would be the basis of anarchism, it means that
every anarchist is a socialist (as Labadie always claimed).
This includes Tucker and the other Individualist Anarchists.
For example, Joseph Labadie stated that "the two great
sub-divisions of Socialists" (anarchists and State Socialists)
both "agree that the resources of nature -- land, mines, and so
forth -- should not be held as private property and subject to
being held by the individual for speculative purposes, that use
of these things shall be the only valid title, and that each
person has an equal right to the use of all these things. They
all agree that the present social system is one composed of a
class of slaves and a class of masters, and that justice is
impossible under such conditions." [_What is Socialism?_] Tucker
himself argued that the anarchists' "occupancy and use" title
to land and other scare material would involve a change (and,
in effect, "restriction") of current (i.e. capitalist) property
rights:
"It will be seen from this definition that Anarchistic property
concerns only products. But anything is a product upon which human
labour has been expended. It should be stated, however, that in the
case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so
limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual
occupancy and use." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 61]
and so:
"no advocate of occupancy and use believes that it can be put in
force until as a theory it has been accepted as generally . . .
seen and accepted as is the prevailing theory of ordinary private
property." [_Occupancy and Use versus the Single Tax_]
So, as can be seen, Individualist Anarchism rejected important
aspects of capitalist property rights. Given that the Individualist
Anarchists were writing at a time when agriculture was still
the largest source of employment this position on land is much
more significant than it first appears. In effect, Tucker and
the other American Anarchists were advocating a *massive*
and *fundamental* change in property-rights, in the social
relationships they generated and in American society. This
is, in other words, a very "strong restriction" in capitalist
property rights (and it is *this* type of property Caplan
is referring to, rather than "property" in the abstract).
However, such a "definition" of socialism as "restricting"
private property is flawed as it does not really reflect
anarchist ideas on the subject. Anarchists, in effect,
reject the simplistic analysis that because a society (or
thinker) accepts "property" that it (or he/she) is capitalistic.
This is for two reasons. Firstly, the term "property" has
been used to describe a wide range of situations and institutions.
Thus Tucker used the term "property" to describe a society in
which capitalist property rights were *not* enforced. Secondly,
and far more importantly, concentrating on "property" rights in
the abstract ignores the social relationships it generates.
Freedom is product of social interaction, not one of isolation.
This means that the social relationships generated in a given
society are the key to evaluating it -- not whether it has
"property" or not. To look at "property" in the abstract is
to ignore people and the relationships they create between
each other. And it is these relationships which determine
whether they are free or not (and so exploited or not).
Caplan's use of the anti-property rights "definition" of
socialism avoids the central issue of freedom, of whether
a given society generates oppression and exploitation or
not. By looking at "property" Caplan ignores liberty, a
strange but unsurprising position for a self-proclaimed
"libertarian" to take.
Thus both of Caplan's "definitions" of socialism are lacking.
A "traditional" one of government ownership is hardly that and
the one based on "property" rights avoids the key issue while,
in its own way, includes *all* the anarchists in the socialist
camp (something Caplan, we are sure, did not intend).
So what would be a useful definition of socialism? From our
discussion on property we can instantly reject Caplan's biased
and simplistic starting points. In fact, a definition of socialism
which most socialists would agree with would be one that stated
that "the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer"
(to use words Thomas Hodgskin, an early English socialist, from
his essay _Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital_). Tucker
stated that "the bottom claim of Socialism" was "that labour
should be put in possession of its own," that "the natural wage
of labour is its product" (see his essay _State Socialism and
Anarchism_). This definition also found favour with Kropotkin
who stated that socialism "in its wide, generic, and true
sense" was an "effort to *abolish* the exploitation of labour
by capital." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 169]
From this position, socialists soon realised that (to again
quote Kropotkin) "the only guarantee not to by robbed of the
fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour."
[_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 145] Because of this socialism also
could be defined as "the workers shall own the means of production,"
as this automatically meant that the product would go to the producer,
and, in fact, this could also be a definition of socialism most
socialists would agree with. The form of this ownership, however,
differed from socialist tendency to socialist tendency (some, like
Proudhon, proposed co-operative associations, others like Kropotkin
communal ownership, others like the Social Democrats state ownership
and so on). Moreover, as the economy changed in the 19th century, so
did socialist ideas. Murray Bookchin gives a good summary of this
process:
"Th[e] growing shift from artisanal to an industrial economy gave
rise to a gradual but major shift in socialism itself. For the
artisan, socialism meant producers' co-operatives composed of
men who worked together in small shared collectivist associations
. . . For the industrial proletarian, by contrast, socialism came
to mean the formation of a mass organisation that gave factory
workers the collective power to expropriate a plant that no
single worker could properly own. . . They advocated *public*
ownership of the means of production, whether by the state or
by the working class organised in trade unions." [_The Third
Revolution_, vol. 2, p. 262]
So, in this evolution of socialism we can place the various
brands of anarchism. Individualist anarchism is clearly a form
of artisanal socialism (which reflects its American roots) while
communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are forms of industrial
(or proletarian) socialism (which reflects its roots in Europe).
Proudhon's mutualism bridges these extremes, advocating as it does
artisan socialism for small-scale industry and agriculture and
co-operative associations for large-scale industry (which reflects
the state of the French economy in the 1840s to 1860s). The common
feature of all these forms of anarchism is opposition to usury and
the notion that "workers shall own the means of production." Or,
in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the proletariat." [Op. Cit.,
p. 179] As one expert on Proudhon points out, Proudhon's support
for "association" (or "associative socialism") "anticipated all
those later movements" which demanded "that the economy be
controlled neither by private enterprise nor by the state . . .
but by the producers" such as "the revolutionary syndicalists"
and "the students of 1968." [K. Steven Vincent, _Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism_, p. 165]
"Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism,"
to again quote Proudhon. [Op. Cit., p. 167]
Thus the common agreement between all socialists was that capitalism
was based upon exploitation and wage slavery, that workers did not
have access to the means of production and so had to sell themselves
to the class that did. Thus we find Individualist Anarchists arguing
that the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer and
opposing the exploitation of labour by capital. To use Tucker's own
words:
"the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon
the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of
the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something
that is not labour. . . . And to such a state of things I am as much
opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege . . . every
man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers . . . What
Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to
deprive capital of its reward." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 404]
By ending wage labour, anarchist socialism would ensure "The land to
the cultivator. The mine to the miner. The tool to the labourer. The
product to the producer" and so "everyone [would] be a proprietor"
and so there would be "no more proletaires" (in the words of Ernest
Lesigne, quoted favourably by Tucker as part of what he called a
"summary exposition of Socialism from the standpoint of Anarchism"
[Op. Cit., p. 17, p. 16]). Wage labour, and so capitalism, would be
no more and "the product [would go] to the producer." The Individualist
Anarchists, as Wm. Gary Kline correctly points out, "expected a society
of largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth
between any of them." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 104] In other
words, the "abolition of the proletariat" as desired by Proudhon.
Therefore, like all socialists, Tucker wanted to end usury, ensure
the "product to the producer" and this meant workers owning and
controlling the means of production they used ("no more proletaires").
He aimed to do this by reforming capitalism away by creating mutual
banks and other co-operatives (he notes that Individualist Anarchists
followed Proudhon, who "would individualise and associate" the productive
and distributive forces in society [as quoted by James J. Martin,
_Men Against the State_, p. 228]). Here is Kropotkin on Proudhon's
reformist mutualist-socialism:
"When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that 'Property
is theft', he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense
of 'right of use and abuse'; in property-rights, on the other hand,
understood in the limited sense of *possession*, he saw the best
protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same time
he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of land,
dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to
*attain the same end* by rendering capital incapable of earning
interest." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlet's_, pp. 290-1 --
emphasis added]
In other words, like all anarchists, Proudhon desired to see a society
without capitalists and wage slaves ("the same end") but achieved by
different means. When Proudhon wrote to Karl Marx in 1846 he made the
same point:
"through Political Economy we must turn the theory of Property against
Property in such a way as to create what you German socialists call
*community* and which for the moment I will only go so far as calling
*liberty* or *equality.*" [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_,
p. 151]
In other words, Proudhon shared the common aim of all socialists (namely
to abolish capitalism, wage labour and exploitation) but disagreed with
the means. As can be seen, Tucker placed himself squarely in this
tradition and so could (and did) call himself a socialist. Little
wonder Joseph Labadie often said that "All anarchists are socialists,
but not all socialists are anarchists." That Caplan tries to ignore
this aspect of Individualist Anarchism in an attempt to co-opt it
into "anarcho"-capitalism indicates well that his FAQ is not an
objective or neutral work.
Caplan states that the "United States has been an even more fertile
ground for individualist anarchism: during the 19th-century, such
figures as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker
gained prominence for their vision of an anarchism based upon freedom
of contract and private property."
However, as indicated, Tucker and Spooner did *not* support private property
in the capitalist sense of the word and Kropotkin and Bakunin, no less
than Tucker and Spooner, supported free agreement between individuals and
groups. What does that prove? That Caplan seems more interested in the
words Tucker and Proudhon used rather than the meanings *they* attached
to them. Hardly convincing.
Perhaps Caplan should consider Proudhon's words on the subject of socialism:
"Modern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number
of different schools." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_,
Stewart Edwards (ed), p. 177]
If he did perhaps he would who see that the Individualist Anarchists
were a school of socialism, given their opposition to exploitation and
the desire to see its end via their political, economic and social
ideas.
3 - Was Proudhon a socialist or a capitalist?
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?), Caplan tries his best
to claim that Proudhon was not really a socialist at all. He states that
"Pierre[-Joseph] Proudhon is also often included [as a "left anarchist"]
although his ideas on the desirability of a modified form of private
property would lead some to exclude him from the leftist camp altogether."
"Some" of which group? Other anarchists, like Bakunin and Kropotkin? Obviously
not -- Bakunin claimed that "Proudhon was the master of us all." According
to George Woodcock Kropotkin was one of Proudhon's "confessed disciples."
Perhaps that makes Bakunin and Kropotkin proto-capitalists? Obviously not.
What about Tucker? He called Proudhon "the father of the Anarchistic
school of Socialism." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 381] And, as we noted
above, the socialist historian Carl Launder considered Proudhon a
socialist, as did the noted British socialist G.D.H. Cole in his
_History of Socialist Thought_ (and in fact called him one of the "major
prophets of Socialism."). What about Marx and Engels, surely they would
be able to say if he was a socialist or not? According to Engels,
Proudhon was "the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman."
[Marx and Engels, _Selected Works_, p. 260]
In fact, the only "left" (i.e. social) anarchist of note who seems
to place Proudhon outside of the "leftist" (i.e. anarchist) camp
is Murray Bookchin. In the second volume of _The Third Revolution_
Bookchin argues that "Proudhon was no socialist" simply because
he favoured "private property." [p. 39] However, he does note the
"one moral provision [that] distinguished the Proudhonist contract
from the capitalist contract" namely "it abjured profit and exploitation."
[Op. Cit., pp. 40-41] -- which, of course, places him in the socialist
tradition (see last section). Unfortunately, Bookchin fails to acknowledge
this or that Proudhon was totally opposed to wage labour along with
usury, which, again, instantly places him in ranks of socialism (see,
for example, the _General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 98, pp. 215-6
and pp. 221-2, and his opposition to state control of capital as being
"more wage slavery" and, instead, urging whatever capital required
collective labour to be "democratically organised workers'
associations" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 62]).
Bookchin (on page 78) quotes Proudhon as arguing that "association"
was "a protest against the wage system" which suggests that
Bookchin's claims that Proudhonian "analysis minimised the
social relations embodied in the capitalist market and industry"
[p. 180] is false. Given that wage labour is *the* unique social
relationship within capitalism, it is clear from Proudhon's works
that he did not "minimise" the social relations created by
capitalism, rather the opposite. Proudhon's opposition to wage
labour clearly shows that he focused on the *key* social relation
which capitalism creates -- namely the one of domination of the
worker by the capitalist.
Bookchin *does* mention that Proudhon was "obliged in 1851, in
the wake of the associationist ferment of 1848 and after, to
acknowledge that association of some sort was unavoidable for
large-scale enterprises." [p. 78] However, Proudhon's support
of industrial democracy pre-dates 1851 by some 11 years. He
stated in _What is Property?_ that he "preach[ed] emancipation
to the proletaires; association to the labourers" and that
"leaders" within industry "must be chosen from the labourers
by the labourers themselves." [p. 137 and p. 414] It is
significant that the first work to call itself anarchist
opposed property along with the state, exploitation along with
oppression and supported self-management against hierarchical
relationships within production ("anarcho"-capitalists take
note!). Proudhon also called for "democratically organised
workers' associations" to run large-scale industry in his
1848 Election Manifesto. [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,
p. 62] Given that Bookchin considers as "authentic artisanal
socialists" those who called for *collective* ownership
of the means of production, but "exempted from collectivisation
the peasantry" [p. 4] we have to conclude that Proudhon was
such an "authentic" artisanal socialist! Indeed, at one point
Bookchin mentions the "individualistic artisanal socialism
of Proudhon" [p. 258] which suggests a somewhat confused
approach to Proudhon's ideas!
In effect, Bookchin makes the same mistake as Caplan; but, unlike
Caplan, he should know better. Rather than not being a socialist,
Proudhon is obviously an example of what Bookchin himself calls
"artisanal socialism" (as Marx and Engels recongised). Indeed,
he notes that Proudhon was its "most famous advocate" and
that "nearly all so-called 'utopian' socialists, even
[Robert] Owen -- the most labour-orientated -- as well as
Proudhon -- essentially sought the equitable distribution of
property." [p. 273] Given Proudhon's opposition to wage labour
and capitalist property and his support for industrial democracy
as an alternative, Bookchin's position is untenable -- he confuses
socialism with communism, rejecting as socialist all views which
are not communism (a position he shares with right-libertarians).
He did not always hold this position, though. He writes in _The
Spanish Anarchists_ that:
"Proudhon envisions a free society as one in which small craftsmen,
peasants, and collectively owned industrial enterprises negotiate
and contract with each other to satisfy their material needs.
Exploitation is brought to an end. . . Although these views
involve a break with capitalism, by no means can they be regarded
as communist ideas. . ." [p. 18]
In contrast to some of Bookchin's comments (and Caplan) K. Steven
Vincent is correct to argue that, for Proudhon, justice "applied
to the economy was associative socialism" and so Proudhon is
squarely in the socialist camp [_Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
and the Rise of French Republican Socialism_, p. 228].
However, perhaps all these "leftists" are wrong (bar Bookchin,
who *is* wrong, at least some of the time). Perhaps they just did
not understand what socialism actually is (and as Proudhon stated
"I am socialist" [_Selected Writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_,
p. 195] and described himself as a socialist many times this also
applies to Proudhon himself!). So the question arises, did Proudhon
support private property in the capitalist sense of the word? The
answer is no. To quote George Woodcock summary of Proudhon's ideas
on this subject we find:
"He [Proudhon] was denouncing the property of a man who uses it to
exploit the labour of others, without an effort on his own part,
property distinguished by interest and rent, by the impositions
of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as
'possession,' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the
land and tools he needs to live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed
he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty." ["On Proudhon's
'What is Property?'", _The Raven_ No. 31, pp. 208-9]
George Crowder makes the same point:
"The ownership he opposes is basically that which is unearned . . .
including such things as interest on loans and income from rent. This
is contrasted with ownership rights in those goods either produced by
the work of the owner or necessary for that work, for example his
dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate
rights of ownership of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his
latter work he calls *this* 'property,' the conceptual distinction
remains the same." [_Classical Anarchism_, pp. 85-86]
Indeed, according to Proudhon himself, the "accumulation of capital and
instrument is what the capitalist owes to the producer, but he never pays
him for it. It is this fraudulent deprivation which causes the poverty of
the worker, the opulence of the idle and the inequality of their conditions.
And it is this, above all, which has so aptly been called the exploitation
of man by man." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 43]
He called his ideas on possession a "third form of society, the synthesis
of communism and property" and calls it "liberty." [_The Anarchist Reader_,
p. 68]. He even goes so far as to say that property "by its despotism and
encroachment, soon proves itself oppressive and anti-social." [Op. Cit.,
p. 67] Opposing private property he thought that "all accumulated capital
is collective property, no one may be its exclusive owner." Indeed, he
considered the aim of his economic reforms "was to rescue the working
masses from capitalist exploitation." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon_, p. 44, p. 80]
In other words, Proudhon considered capitalist property to be the source
of exploitation and oppression and he opposed it. He explicitly contrasts
his ideas to that of capitalist property and *rejects* it as a means of
ensuring liberty.
Caplan goes on to claim that "[s]ome of Proudhon's other heterodoxies include
his defence of the right of inheritance and his emphasis on the genuine
antagonism between state power and property rights."
However, this is a common anarchist position. Anarchists are well aware that
possession is a source of independence within capitalism and so should be
supported. As Albert Meltzer puts it:
"All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the
fruits of their labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only
the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy
(that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed
artisan, he said 'property is liberty', which seems at first sight a
contradiction with his dictum that it was theft)"[_Anarchism: Arguments
For and Against_, pp. 12-13]
Malatesta makes the same point:
"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to
private property by stating that property is the condition and
guarantee of liberty.
"And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is
slavery?
"But then why do we oppose them?
"The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist
property. . . which therefore depends on the existence of a class of
the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the
property owners for a wage below its real value. . . This means that
workers are subjected to a kind of slavery." [_The Anarchist Revolution_,
p. 113]
As does Kropotkin:
"the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour
is to possess the instruments of labour. . . man really produces
most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his
occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly,
when he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who
work like him, but bringing in little to idlers." [_The Conquest
of Bread_, p. 145]
Perhaps this makes these three well known anarcho-communists "really"
proto-"anarcho"-capitalists as well? Obviously not. Instead of wondering
if his ideas on what socialism is are wrong, he tries to rewrite history
to fit the anarchist movement into his capitalist ideas of what anarchism,
socialism and whatever are actually like.
In addition, we must point out that Proudhon's "emphasis on the genuine
antagonism between state power and property rights" came from his later
writings, in which he argued that property rights were required to control
state power. In other words, this "heterodoxy" came from a period in which
Proudhon did not think that state could be abolished and so "property is
the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State." [_Selected
Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 140] Of course, this "later"
Proudhon also acknowledged that property was "an absolutism within an
absolutism," "by nature autocratic" and that its "politics could be
summed up in a single word," namely "exploitation." [p. 141, p. 140,
p. 134]
Moreover, Proudhon argues that "spread[ing] it more equally and
establish[ing] it more firmly in society" is the means by which
"property" "becomes a guarantee of liberty and keeps the State on
an even keel." [p. 133, p. 140] In other words, rather than "property"
*as such* limiting the state, it is "property" divided equally
through society which is the key, without concentrations of
economic power and inequality which would result in exploitation
and oppression. Therefore, "[s]imple justice. . . requires that
equal division of land shall not only operate at the outset. If
there is to be no abuse, it must be maintained from generation to
generation." [Op. Cit., p. 141, p. 133, p. 130].
Interestingly, one of Proudhon's "other heterodoxies" Caplan does not
mention is his belief that "property" was required not only to defend
people against the state, but also capitalism. He saw society dividing
into "two classes, one of employed workers, the other of property-owners,
capitalists, entrepreneurs." He thus recognised that capitalism was just
as oppressive as the state and that it assured "the victory of the strong
over the weak, of those who property over those who own nothing." [as quoted
by Alan Ritter, _The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 121]
Thus Proudhon's argument that "property is liberty" is directed not only
against the state, but also against social inequality and concentrations
of economic power and wealth.
Indeed, he considered that "companies of capitalists" were the "exploiters
of the bodies and souls of their wage earners" and an outrage on "human
dignity and personality." Instead of wage labour he thought that the
"industry to be operated, the work to be done, are the common and
indivisible property of all the participant workers." In other words,
self-management and workers' control. In this way there would be
"no more government of man by man, by means of accumulation of
capital" and the "social republic" established. Hence his support
for co-operatives:
"The importance of their work lies not in their petty union interests,
but in their denial of the rule of capitalists, usurers, and governments,
which the first [French] revolution left undisturbed. Afterwards, when
they have conquered the political lie. . . the groups of workers should
take over the great departments of industry which are their natural
inheritance." [cited in _Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, E. Hymans, pp. 190-1,
and _Anarchism_, George Woodcock, p. 110, 112]
In other words, a *socialist* society as workers would no longer be
separated from the means of production and they would control their
own work (the "abolition of the proletariat," to use Proudhon's
expression). This would mean recognising that "the right to products
is exclusive - jus in re; the right to means is common - jus ad rem"
[cited by Woodcock, _Anarchism_, p. 96] which would lead to
self-management:
"In democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of
industrial democracy." [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon_, p. 63]
As Woodcock points out, in Proudhon's "picture of the ideal society of
the ideal society it is this predominance of the small proprietor, the
peasant or artisan, that immediately impresses one" with "the creation
of co-operative associations for the running of factories and railways."
["On Proudhon's 'What is Property?'", Op. Cit., p. 209, p. 210]
All of which hardly supports Caplan's attempts to portray Proudhon
as "really" a capitalist all along. Indeed, the "later" Proudhon's
support for protectionism [_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon_, p. 187], the "fixing after amicable discussion of a
*maximum* and *minimum* profit margin," "the organising of regulating
societies" and that mutualism would "regulate the market" [Op. Cit.,
p. 70] and his obvious awareness of economic power and that capitalism
exploited and oppressed the wage-worker suggests that rather than
leading some to exclude Proudhon from the "leftist camp" altogether,
it is a case of excluding him utterly from the "rightist camp"
(i.e. "anarcho"-capitalism). Therefore Caplan's attempt to claim
(co-opt would be better) Proudhon for "anarcho"-capitalism indicates
how far Caplan will twist (or ignore) the evidence. As would quickly
become obvious when reading his work, Proudhon would (to use Caplan's
words) "normally classify government, property, hierarchical
organisations . . . as 'rulership.'"
To summarise, Proudhon was a socialist and Caplan's attempts to rewrite
anarchist and socialist history fails. Proudhon was the fountainhead
for both wings of the anarchist movement and _What is Property?_
"embraces the core of nineteenth century anarchism. . . [bar support
for revolution] all the rest of later anarchism is there, spoken or
implied: the conception of a free society united by association, of
workers controlling the means of production. . . [this book] remains
the foundation on which the whole edifice of nineteenth century
anarchist theory was to be constructed." [Op. Cit., p. 210]
Little wonder Bakunin stated that his ideas were Proudhonism "widely
developed and pushed to these, its final consequences." [_Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 198]
4 - Tucker on Property, Communism and Socialism.
That Tucker called himself a socialist is quickly seen from _Instead
of A Book_ or any of the books written about Tucker and his ideas.
That Caplan seeks to deny this means that either Caplan has not looked
at either _Instead of a Book_ or the secondary literature (with obvious
implications for the accuracy of his FAQ) or he decided to ignore
these facts in favour of his own ideologically tainted version of
history (again with obvious implications for the accuracy and
objectivity of his FAQ).
Caplan, in an attempt to deny the obvious, quotes Tucker from 1887 as
follows in section 14 (What are the major debates between anarchists?
What are the recurring arguments?):
"It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save
his declaration that 'property is robbery' to learn that he was
perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived
on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when
you read his book and find that by property he means simply
legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at
all the possession by the labourer of his products."
You will instantly notice that Proudhon does not mean by property "the
possession of the labourer of his products." However, Proudhon did include
in his definition of "property" the possession of the capital to steal
profits from the work of the labourers. As is clear from the quote, Tucker
and Proudhon was opposed to capitalist property ("the power of usury").
From Caplan's own evidence he proves that Tucker was not a capitalist!
But lets quote Tucker on what he meant by "usury":
"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land and houses,
and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer."
[cited in _Men against the State_ by James J. Martin, p. 208]
Which can hardly be claimed as being the words of a person who supports
capitalism!
And we should note that Tucker considered both government and capital
oppressive. He argued that anarchism meant "the restriction of power to
self and the abolition of power over others. Government makes itself felt
alike in country and in city, capital has its usurious grip on the farm
as surely as on the workshop and the oppressions and exactions of neither
government nor capital can be avoided by migration." [_Instead of a Book_,
p. 114]
And, we may add, since when was socialism identical to communism? Perhaps
Caplan should actually read Proudhon and the anarchist critique of private
property before writing such nonsense? We have indicated Proudhon's
ideas above and will not repeat ourselves. However, it is interesting
that this passes as "evidence" of "anti-socialism" for Caplan, indicating
that he does not know what socialism or anarchism actually is. To state
the obvious, you can be a hater of "communism" and still be a socialist!
So this, his one attempt to prove that Tucker, Spooner and even Proudhon
were really capitalists by quoting the actual people involved is a failure.
He asserts that for any claim that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist
is wrong because "the factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For
example, despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been
inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many
19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but
even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favour of private property
(merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate,
without opposing private property as such)."
The facts supporting the claim of anarchists being socialists, however,
are not "incorrect." It is Caplan's assumption that socialism is against
all forms of "property" which is wrong. To state the obvious, socialism
does not equal communism (and anarcho-communists support the rights of
workers to own their own means of production if they do not wish to join
communist communes -- see above). Thus Proudhon was renown as the leading
French Socialist theorist when he was alive. His ideas were widely known
in the socialist movement and in many ways his economic theories were
similar to the ideas of such well known early socialists as Robert Owen
and William Thompson. As Kropotkin notes:
"It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in England,
in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he became a communist,
and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on Human Happiness, 1825; The
Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray (Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy,
1839)." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 291]
Perhaps Caplan will now claim Robert Owen and William Thompson as capitalists?
Tucker called himself a socialist on many different occasions and stated
that there were "two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism
and Anarchism." And stated in very clear terms that:
"liberty insists on Socialism. . . - true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism:
the prevalence on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." [_Instead of
a Book_, p. 363]
And like all socialists, he opposed capitalism (i.e. usury and wage slavery)
and wished that "there should be no more proletaires." [see the essay "State
Socialism and Anarchism" in _Instead of a Book_, p. 17]
Caplan, of course, is well aware of Tucker's opinions on the subject
of capitalism and private property. In section 13. (What moral justifications
have been offered for anarchism?) he writes:
"Still other anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin
Tucker as well as Proudhon, have argued that anarchism would
abolish the exploitation inherent in interest and rent simply by
means of free competition. In their view, only labour income is
legitimate, and an important piece of the case for anarchism is
that without government-imposed monopolies, non-labour income
would be driven to zero by market forces. It is unclear, however,
if they regard this as merely a desirable side effect, or if they
would reject anarchism if they learned that the predicted
economic effect thereof would not actually occur."
Firstly, we must point that Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner considered
*profits* to be exploitative as well as interest and rent. Hence we
find Tucker arguing that a "just distribution of the products of
labour is to be obtained by destroying all sources of income except
labour. These sources may be summed up in one word, -- usury; and
the three principle forms of usury are interest, rent and profit."
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 474] To ignore the fact that Tucker also
considered profit as exploitative seems strange, to say the least,
when presenting an account of his ideas.
Secondly, rather than it being "unclear" whether the end of usury
was "merely a desirable side effect" of anarchism, the opposite
is the case. Anyone reading Tucker (or Proudhon) would quickly see
that their politics were formulated with the express aim of ending
usury. Just one example from hundreds:
"Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will
abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will
abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means
whereby any labourer can be deprived of any of his product."
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 347]
While it is fair to wonder whether these economic effects would
result from the application of Tucker's ideas, it *is* distinctly
incorrect to claim that the end of usury was considered in any way
as a "desirable side effect" of them. Rather, in *their* eyes, the
end of usury was one of *the* aims of Individualist Anarchism, as
can be clearly seen. As Wm. Gary Kline points out in his excellent
account of Individualist Anarchism:
"the American anarchists exposed the tension existing in
liberal thought between private property and the ideal of
equal access. The Individualist Anarchists were, at least,
aware that existing conditions were far from ideal, that
the system itself worked against the majority of individuals
in their efforts to attain its promises. Lack of capital,
the means to creation and accumulation of wealth, usually
doomed a labourer to a life of exploitation. This the
anarchists knew and they abhorred such a system." [_The
Individualist Anarchists_, p. 102]
This is part of the reason why they considered themselves
socialists and, equally as important, they were considered
socialists by *other* socialists such as Kropotkin and Rocker.
The Individualist Anarchists, as can be seen, fit very easily
into Kropotkin's comments that "the anarchists, in common
with all socialists. . . maintain that the now prevailing
system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist
production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly
which runs against both the principles of justice and the
dictates of utility." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
p. 285] Given that they considered profits as usury and
proposed "occupancy and use" in place of the prevailing
land ownership rights they are obviously socialists.
That the end of usury was considered a clear aim of his
politics explains Tucker's 1911 postscript to his famous essay
"State Socialism and Anarchism" in which he argues that "concentrated
capital" *itself* was a barrier towards anarchy. He argued that
the "trust is now a monster which. . . even the freest competition,
could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy." While, in
an earlier period, big business "needed the money monopoly for
its sustenance and its growth" its size now ensured that it
"sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no
longer a necessity. It can do without it." This meant that the
way was now "not so clear." Indeed, he argued that the problem
of the trusts "must be grappled with for a time solely by forces
political or revolutionary" as the trust had moved beyond the
reach of "economic forces" simply due to the concentration of
resources in its hands. ["Postscript" to _State Socialism and
Anarchism_]
If the end of "usury" *was* considered a "side-effect" rather
than an objective, then the problems of the trusts and economic
inequality/power ("enormous concentration of wealth") would
not have been an issue. That the fact of economic power *was*
obviously considered a hindrance to anarchy suggests the end
of usury was a key aim, an aim which "free competition" in
the abstract could not achieve. Rather than take the
"anarcho"-capitalist position that massive inequality
did not affect "free competition" or individual liberty,
Tucker obviously thought it did and, therefore, "free
competition" (and so the abolition of the public state)
in conditions of massive inequality would not create an
anarchist society.
By trying to relegate an aim to a "side-effect," Caplan distorts
the ideas of Tucker. Indeed, his comments on trusts, "concentrated
capital" and the "enormous concentration of wealth" indicates
how far Individualist Anarchism is from "anarcho"-capitalism
(which dismisses the question of economic power Tucker raises
out of hand). It also indicates the unity of political and
economic ideas, with Tucker being aware that without a suitable
economic basis individual freedom was meaningless. That an
economy (like capitalism) with massive inequalities in wealth
and so power was not such a basis is obvious from Tucker's comments.
Thirdly, what did Tucker consider as a government-imposed monopoly?
Private property, particularly in land! As he states "Anarchism
undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based upon
actual occupancy and use" and that anarchism "means the abolition
of landlordism and the annihilation of rent." [_Instead of a Book_,
p. 61, p. 300] This, to state the obvious, is a restriction on
"private property" (in the capitalist sense), which, if we use
Caplan's definition of socialism, means that Tucker was obviously
part of the "Leftist camp" (i.e. socialist camp). In other words,
Tucker considered capitalism as the product of statism while
socialism (libertarian of course) would be the product of anarchy.
So, Caplan's historical argument to support his notion that anarchism
is simply anti-government fails. Anarchism, in all its many forms, have
distinct economic as well as political ideas and these cannot be parted
without loosing what makes anarchism unique. In particular, Caplan's
attempt to portray Proudhon as an example of a "pure" anti-government
anarchism also fails, and so his attempt to co-opt Tucker and Spooner
also fails (as noted, Tucker cannot be classed as a "pure" anti-government
anarchist either). If Proudhon was a socialist, then it follows that his
self-proclaimed followers will also be socialists -- and, unsurprisingly,
Tucker called himself a socialist and considered anarchism as part of
the wider socialist movement.
"Like Proudhon, Tucker was an 'un-marxian socialist'" [William O.
Reichart, _Partisans of Freedom_: A Study in American Anarchism_,
p. 157]
5 - Anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism
Caplan tries to build upon the non-existent foundation of Tucker's and
Proudhon's "capitalism" by stating that:
"Nor did an ardent anarcho-communist like Kropotkin deny
Proudhon or even Tucker the title of 'anarchist.' In his
Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin discusses not only
Proudhon but 'the American anarchist individualists who were
represented in the fifties by S.P. Andrews and W. Greene,
later on by Lysander Spooner, and now are represented by
Benjamin Tucker, the well-known editor of the New York
Liberty.' Similarly in his article on anarchism for the 1910
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Kropotkin again
freely mentions the American individualist anarchists,
including 'Benjamin Tucker, whose journal Liberty was
started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of
those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer.'"
There is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin to
prove the historical validity of "anarcho"-capitalism. This is because
while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the anarchist movement,
Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist! In
_State Socialism and Anarchism_ he stated that anarchism was "an ideal
utterly inconsistent with that of those Communists who falsely call
themselves Anarchists while at the same time advocating a regime of
Archism fully as despotic as that of the State Socialists themselves."
["State Socialism and Anarchism", _Instead of a Book_, pp. 15-16]
While modern social anarchists follow Kropotkin in not denying Proudhon
or Tucker as anarchists, we do deny the anarchist title to supporters
of capitalism. Why? Simply because anarchism as a *political* movement
(as opposed to a dictionary definition) has always been anti-capitalist
and against capitalist wage slavery, exploitation and oppression. In
other words, anarchism (in all its forms) has always been associated
with specific political *and* economic ideas. Both Tucker and Kropotkin
defined their anarchism as an opposition to both state and capitalism. To
quote Tucker on the subject:
"Liberty insists. . . [on] the abolition of the State and the abolition
of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation
of man by man." [cited in _Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing
American Individualism_ by Eunice Schuster, p. 140]
Kropotkin defined anarchism as "the no-government system of socialism."
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 46] Malatesta argued that
"when [people] sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it
was anarchy was born" and, like Tucker, aimed for "the complete
destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man."
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 19, pp. 22-28] Indeed *every* leading anarchist
theorist defined anarchism as opposition to government *and*
exploitation. Thus Brain Morris' excellent summary:
"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of
politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil,
ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a
misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way
anarchism has been defined [in dictionaries, for example], and
partly because Marxist historians have tried to exclude anarchism
from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the
writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character
of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has
never had this limited vision. It has always challenged all
forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally
critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state."
["Anthropology and Anarchism," _Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
Armed_ no. 45, p. 40]
Therefore anarchism was never purely a political concept, but always
combined an opposition to oppression with an opposition to exploitation.
Little wonder, then, that both strands of anarchism have declared
themselves "socialist" and so it is "conceptually and historically
misleading" to "create a dichotomy between socialism and anarchism."
[Brian Morris, Op. Cit., p. 39] Needless to say, anarchists oppose
*state* socialism just as much as they oppose capitalism. All of
which means that anarchism and capitalism are two *different*
political ideas with specific (and opposed) meanings -- to deny
these meanings by uniting the two terms creates an oxymoron, one
that denies the history and the development of ideas as well
as the whole history of the anarchist movement itself.
As Kropotkin knew Proudhon to be an anti-capitalist, a socialist (but
not a communist) it is hardly surprising that he mentions him. Again,
Caplan's attempt to provide historical evidence for a "right-wing"
anarchism fails. Funny that the followers of Kropotkin are now defending
individualist anarchism from the attempted "adoption" by supporters of
capitalism! That in itself should be enough to indicate Caplan's attempt
to use Kropotkin to give credence to "anarcho"-capitalist co-option of
Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner fails.
Interestingly, Caplan admits that "anarcho"-capitalism has recent origins.
In section 8 (Who are the major anarchist thinkers?) he states:
"Anarcho-capitalism has a much more recent origin in the latter
half of the 20th century. The two most famous advocates of
anarcho-capitalism are probably Murray Rothbard and David
Friedman. There were however some interesting earlier precursors,
notably the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari. Two other
19th-century anarchists who have been adopted by modern
anarcho-capitalists with a few caveats are Benjamin Tucker and
Lysander Spooner. (Some left-anarchists contest the adoption,
but overall Tucker and Spooner probably have much more in
common with anarcho-capitalists than with left-anarchists.)"
Firstly, as he states, Tucker and Spooner have been "adopted" by the
"anarcho"-capitalist school. Being dead they have little chance to
protest such an adoption, but it is clear that they considered themselves
as socialists, against capitalism (it may be claimed that Spooner never
called himself a socialist, but then again he never called himself an
anarchist either; it is his strong opposition to wage labour that places
him in the socialist camp). Secondly, Caplan lets the cat out the bag by
noting that this "adoption" involved a few warnings - more specifically,
the attempt to rubbish or ignore the underlying socio-economic ideas of
Tucker and Spooner and the obvious anti-capitalist nature of their
vision of a free society.
Individualist anarchists are, indeed, more similar to classical liberals
than social anarchists. Similarly, social anarchists are more similar to
Marxists than Individualist anarchists. But neither statement means that
Individualist anarchists are capitalists, or social anarchists are state
socialists. It just means some of their ideas overlap -- and we must point
out that Individualist anarchist ideas overlap with Marxist ones, and
social anarchist ones with liberal ones (indeed, one interesting
overlap between Marxism and Individualist Anarchism can be seen from
Marx's comment that abolishing interest and inter-bearing capital
"means the abolition of capital and of capitalist production itself."
[_Theories of Surplus Value_, vol. 3, p. 472] Given that Individualist
Anarchism aimed to abolish interest (along with rent and profit) it
would suggest, from a Marxist position, that it is a socialist theory).
So, if we accept Kropotkin's summary that Individualist Anarchism
ideas are "partly those of Proudhon, but party those of Herbert
Spencer," [_Kropotkins' Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 173] what
the "anarcho"-capitalist school is trying to is to ignore the
Proudhonian (i.e. socialist) aspect of their theories. However,
that just leaves Spencer and Spencer was not an anarchist, but a
right-wing Libertarian, a supporter of capitalism (a "champion of
the capitalistic class" as Tucker put it). In other words, to
ignore the socialist aspect of Individualist Anarchism (or
anarchism in general) is to reduce it to liberalism, an extreme
version of liberalism, but liberalism nevertheless -- and liberalism
is not anarchism. To reduce anarchism so is to destroy what makes
anarchism a unique political theory and movement:
"anarchism does derive from liberalism and socialism both
historically and ideologically . . . In a sense, anarchists
always remain liberals and socialists, and whenever they reject
what is good in either they betray anarchism itself . . . We are
liberals but more so, and socialists but more so." [Nicholas Walter,
_Reinventing Anarchy_, p. 44]
In other words, "anarcho"-capitalism is a development of ideas
which have little in common with anarchism. Jeremy Jennings, in
his overview of anarchist theory and history, agrees:
"It is 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."
[_Contemporary Political Ideologies_, Roger Eatwell and Anthony
Wright (eds.), p. 142]
Barbara Goodwin also agrees that the "anarcho"-capitalists' "true
place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" not in anarchism.
[_Using Political Ideas_, p. 148] Indeed, that "anarcho"-capitalism
is an off-shoot of classical liberalism is a position Murray Rothbard
would agree with, as he states that right-wing Libertarians constitute
"the vanguard of classical liberalism." [quoted by Ulrike Heider,
_Anarchism: Left, Right and Green_, p. 95] Unfortunately for this
perspective anarchism is not liberalism and liberalism is not anarchism.
And equally as unfortunate (this time for the anarchist movement!)
"anarcho"-capitalism "is judged to be anarchism largely because some
anarcho-capitalists *say* they are 'anarchists' and because they
criticise the State." [Peter Sabatini, _Social Anarchism_, no. 23,
p. 100] However, being opposed to the state is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for being an anarchist (as can be seen from the
history of the anarchist movement). Brian Morris puts it well when
he writes:
"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no
ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government
or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination.
They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores
Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the
church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to
the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But
anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means,
a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without
coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation
of voluntary associations. Contemporary 'right-wing' libertarians
. . . who are often described as 'anarchocapitalists' and who
fervently defend capitalism, are not in any real sense anarchists."
[Op. Cit., p. 38]
Rather than call themselves by a name which reflects their origins
in liberalism (and *not* anarchism), the "anarcho"-capitalists have
instead seen fit to try and appropriate the name of anarchism and,
in order to do so, ignore key aspects of anarchist theory in the
process. Little wonder, then, they try and prove their anarchist
credentials via dictionary definitions rather than from the
anarchist movement itself (see next section).
Caplan's attempt in his FAQ is an example to ignore individualist
anarchist theory and history. Ignored is any attempt to understand
their ideas on property and instead Caplan just concentrates on the
fact they use the word. Caplan also ignores:
- their many statements on being socialists and part of the wider socialist
movement.
- their opposition to capitalist property-rights in land and other scarce
resources.
- their recognition that capitalism was based on usury and that it was
exploitation.
- their attacks on government *and* capital, rather than just government.
- their support for strikes and other forms of direct action by workers to
secure the full product of their labour.
In fact, the only things considered useful seems to be the individualist
anarchist's support for free agreement (something Kropotkin also agreed
with) and their use of the word "property." But even a cursory investigation
indicates the non-capitalist nature of their ideas on property and
the socialistic nature of their theories.
Perhaps Caplan should ponder these words of Kropotkin supporters of the
"individualist anarchism of the American Proudhonians . . . soon realise
that the individualisation they so highly praise is not attainable by
individual efforts, and . . . abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and
are driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economist."
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 297]
Caplan seems to confuse the end of the ending place of ex-anarchists
with their starting point. As can be seen from his attempt to co-opt
Proudhon, Spooner and Tucker he has to ignore their ideas and rewrite
history.
6 - Appendix: Defining Anarchism
In his Appendix "Defining Anarchism" we find that Caplan attempts
to defend his dictionary definition of anarchism. He does this
by attempting to refute two arguments, The Philological Argument
and the Historical Argument.
Taking each in turn we find:
Caplan's definition of "The Philological Argument" is as follows:
"Several critics have noted the origin of the term 'anarchy,' which
derives from the Greek 'arkhos,' meaning 'ruler,' and the prefix 'an-,'
meaning 'without.' It is therefore suggested that in my definition the
word 'government' should be replaced with the word 'domination' or
'rulership'; thus re-written, it would then read: 'The theory or
doctrine that all forms of rulership are unnecessary, oppressive,
and undesirable and should be abolished.'"
Caplan replies by stating that:
"This is all good and well, so long as we realise that various groups of
anarchists will radically disagree about what is or is not an instance
of 'rulership.'"
However, in order to refute this argument by this method, he has
to ignore his own methodology. A dictionary definition of ruler is
"a person who rules by authority." and "rule" is defined as "to
have authoritative control over people" or "to keep (a person or
feeling etc.) under control, to dominate" [_The Oxford Study Dictionary_]
Hierarchy by its very nature is a form of rulership (hier-*archy*)
and is so opposed by anarchists. Capitalism is based upon wage labour,
in which a worker follows the rules of their boss. This is obviously a
form of hierarchy, of domination. Almost all people (excluding die-hard
supporters of capitalism) would agree that being told what to do, when
to do and how to do by a boss is a form of rulership. Anarchists,
therefore, argue that "economic exploitation and political domination
. . . [are] two continually interacting aspects of the same thing --
the subjection of man by man." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_,
p. 147] Rocker made the same point, arguing that the "exploitation
of man by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable,
and each is the condition of the other." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_,
p. 18]
Thus Caplan is ignoring the meaning of words to state that "on its own
terms this argument fails to exclude anarcho-capitalists" because they
define rulership to exclude most forms of archy! Hardly convincing.
Strangely enough, "anarcho"-capitalist icon Murray Rothbard actually
provides evidence that the anarchist position *is* correct. He argues
that the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate
decision-making power, over a given area territorial area." [_The
Ethics of Liberty_, p. 170] This is obviously a form of rulership.
However, he also argues that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith
has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property,
Jones over his, etc." [Op. Cit., p. 173] Which, to state the obvious,
means that *both* the state and property is marked by an "ultimate
decision-making power" over a given territory. The only "difference"
is that Rothbard claims the former is "just" (i.e. "justly" acquired)
and the latter is "unjust" (i.e. acquired by force). In reality
of course, the modern distribution of property is just as much a product
of past force as is the modern state. In other words, the current
property owners have acquired their property in the same unjust
fashion as the state has its. If one is valid, so is the other.
Rothbard (and "anarcho"-capitalists in general) are trying to have
it both ways.
Rothbard goes on to show why statism and private property are
essentially the same thing:
"If the State may be said too properly own 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 is no private property in its area, because it really
owns the entire land surface. So long 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." [Op. Cit.,
p. 170]
Of course Rothbard does not draw the obvious conclusion. He wants to
maintain that the state is bad and property is good while drawing
attention to their obvious similarities! Ultimately Rothbard is
exposing the bankruptcy of his own politics and analysis. According
to Rothbard, something can look like a state (i.e. have the "ultimate
decision-making power" over an area) and act like a state (i.e.
"make rules for everyone" who lives in an area, i.e. govern them)
but not be a state. This not a viable position for obvious reasons.
Thus to claim, as Caplan does, that property does not generate
"rulership" is obviously nonsense. Not only does it ignore the
dictionary definition of rulership (which, let us not forget, is
Caplan's *own* methodology) as well as commonsense, it obviously
ignores what the two institutions have in common. *If* the state
is to be condemned as "rulership" then so must property -- for
reasons, ironically enough, Rothbard makes clear!
Caplan's critique of the "Philological Argument" fails because he
tries to deny that the social relationship between worker and
capitalist and tenant and landlord is based upon *archy,* when
it obviously is. To quote Proudhon, considered by Tucker as "the
Anarchist *par excellence,*" the employee "is subordinated,
exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience." Without
"association" (i.e. co-operative workplaces, workers' self-management)
there would be "two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers
which is repugnant to a free and democratic society," castes
"related as subordinates and superiors." [_The General Idea of
the Revolution_, p. 216]
Moving on, Caplan defines the Historical Argument as:
"A second popular argument states that historically, the term 'anarchism'
has been clearly linked with anarcho-socialists, anarcho-communists,
anarcho-syndicalists, and other enemies of the capitalist system. Hence,
the term 'anarcho-capitalism' is a strange oxymoron which only demonstrates
ignorance of the anarchist tradition."
He argues that "even if we were to accept the premise of this argument --
to wit, that the meaning of a word is somehow determined by its historical
usage -- the conclusion would not follow because the minor premise is wrong.
It is simply not true that from its earliest history, all anarchists were
opponents of private property, free markets, and so on."
Firstly, anarchism is not just a word, but a political idea and movement
and so the word used in a political context is associated with a given
body of ideas. You cannot use the word to describe something which has
little or nothing in common with that body of ideas. You cannot call
Marxism "anarchism" simply because they share the anarchist opposition
to capitalist exploitation and aim for a stateless society, for example.
Secondly, it is true that anarchists like Tucker were not against the
free market, but they did not consider capitalism to be defined by the
free market but by exploitation and wage labour (as do all socialists).
In this they share a common ground with Market Socialists who, like
Tucker and Proudhon, do not equate socialism with opposition to the
market or capitalism with the "free market." The idea that socialists
oppose "private property, free markets, and so on" is just an assumption
by Caplan. Proudhon, for example, was not opposed to competition,
"property" (in the sense of possession) and markets but during his
lifetime and up to the present date he is acknowledged as a socialist,
indeed one of the greatest in French (if not European) history. Similarly
we find Rudolf Rocker writing that the Individualist Anarchists "all
agree on the point that man be given the full reward of his labour and
recognised in this right the economic basis of all personal liberty.
They regard free competition . . . as something inherent in human
nature . . . They answered the *socialists of other schools* [emphasis
added] who saw in *free competition* one of the destructive elements
of capitalistic society that the evil lies in the fact that today we
have too little rather than too much competition." [quoted by Herbert
Read, _A One-Man Manifesto_, p. 147] Rocker obviously considered
support for free markets as compatible with socialism. In other
words, Caplan's assumption that all socialists oppose free markets,
competition and so on is simply false -- as can be seen from the
history of the socialist movement. What socialists *do* oppose is
capitalist exploitation -- socialism "in its wide, generic, and true
sense" was an "effort to *abolish* the exploitation of labour by
capital." [Peter Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
p. 169] In this sense the Individualist Anarchists are obviously
socialists, as Tucker and Labadie constantly pointed out.
In addition, as we have proved elsewhere, Tucker was opposed to
capitalist private property just as much as Kropotkin was. Moreover,
it is clear from Tucker's works that he considered himself an enemy
of the capitalist system and called himself a socialist. Thus Caplan's
attempt to judge the historical argument on its own merits fails because
he has to rewrite history to do so.
Caplan is right to state that the meaning of words change over time, but
this does not mean we should run to use dictionary definitions. Dictionaries
rarely express political ideas well - for example, most dictionaries define
the word "anarchy" as "chaos" and "disorder." Does that mean anarchists aim
to create chaos? Of course not. Therefore, Caplan's attempt to use dictionary
definitions is selective and ultimately useless - anarchism as a political
movement cannot be expressed by dictionary definitions and any attempt
to do so means to ignore history.
The problems in using dictionary definitions to describe political ideas
can best be seen from the definition of the word "Socialism." According
to the _Oxford Study Dictionary_ Socialism is "a political and economic
theory advocating that land, resources, and the chief industries should
be owned and managed by the State." The _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_, conversely, defines socialism as "any of various economic
and political theories advocating collective or government ownership
and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
Clearly the latter source has a more accurate definition of socialism than
the former, by allowing for "collective" versus solely "State" control of
productive means. Which definition would be better? It depends on the
person involved. A Marxist, for example, could prefer the first one
simply to exclude anarchism from the socialist movement, something they
have continually tried to do. A right-libertarian could, again, prefer
the first, for obvious reasons. Anarchists would prefer the second, again
for obvious reasons. However neither definition does justice to the
wide range of ideas that have described themselves as socialist.
Using dictionaries as the basis of defining political movements ensures
that one's views depend on *which* dictionary one uses, and *when* it was
written, and so on. This is why they are not the best means of resolving
disputes -- if resolution of disputes is, in fact, your goal.
Both Kropotkin and Tucker stated that they were socialists and that
anarchism was socialistic. If we take the common modern meaning of the
word as state ownership as the valid one then Tucker and Kropotkin are
*not* socialists and no form of anarchism is socialist. This is obviously
nonsense and it shows the limitations of using dictionary definitions on
political theories.
Therefore Caplan's attempt to justify using the dictionary definition
fails. Firstly, because the definitions used would depend which dictionary
you use. Secondly, dictionary definitions cannot capture the ins and
outs of a *political* theory or its ideas on wider subjects.
Ironically enough, Caplan is repeating an attempt made by State Socialists
to deny Individualist Anarchism its socialist title (see "Socialism and
the Lexicographers" in _Instead of a Book_). In reply to this attempt,
Tucker noted that:
"The makers of dictionaries are dependent upon specialists for their
definitions. A specialist's definition may be true or it may be erroneous.
But its truth cannot be increased or its error diminished by its acceptance
by the lexicographer. Each definition must stand on its own merits."
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 369]
And Tucker provided many quotes from *other* dictionaries to refute the
attempt by the State Socialists to define Individualist Anarchism outside
the Socialist movement. He also notes that any person trying such a method
will "find that the Anarchistic Socialists are not to be stripped of one
half of their title by the mere dictum of the last lexicographer." [Op. Cit.,
p. 365]
Caplan should take note. His technique been tried before and it failed then
and it will fail again for the same reasons.
As far as his case against the Historical Argument goes, this is equally as
flawed. Caplan states that:
"Before the Protestant Reformation, the word 'Christian,' had referred almost
entirely to Catholics (as well as adherents of the Orthodox Church) for
about one thousand years. Does this reveal any linguistic confusion on
the part of Lutherans, Calvinists, and so on, when they called themselves
'Christians'? Of course not. It merely reveals that a word's historical
usage does not determine its meaning."
However, as analogies go this is pretty pathetic. Both the Protestants and
Catholics followed the teachings of Christ but had different interpretations
of it. As such they could both be considered Christians - followers of the
Bible. In the case of anarchism, there are two main groupings - individualist
and social. Both Tucker and Bakunin claimed to follow, apply and develop
Proudhon's ideas (and share his opposition to both state and capitalism)
and so are part of the anarchist tradition.
The anarchist movement was based upon applying the core ideas of Proudhon
(his anti-statism and socialism) and developing them in the same spirit, and
these ideas find their roots in *socialist* history and theory. For example,
William Godwin was claimed as an anarchist after his death by the movement
because of his opposition to both state and private property, something
all anarchists oppose. Similarly, Max Stirner's opposition to both state
and capitalist property places him within the anarchist tradition.
Given that we find fascists and Nazis calling themselves "republicans,"
"democrats," even "liberals" it is worthwhile remembering that the names
of political theories are defined not by who use them, but by the ideas
associated with the name. In other words, a fascist cannot call themselves
a "liberal" any more than a capitalist can call themselves an "anarchist."
To state, as Caplan does, that the historical usage of a word does not
determine its meaning results in utter confusion and the end of meaningful
political debate. If the historical usage of a name is meaningless will we
soon see fascists as well as capitalists calling themselves anarchists? In
other words, the label "anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer, pure and simple,
as *all* anarchists have opposed capitalism as an authoritarian system based
upon exploitation and wage slavery.
To ignore the historical usage of a word means to ignore what the movement
that used that word stood for. Thus, if Caplan is correct, an organisation calling itself the "Libertarian National Socialist Party," for example,
can rightly call itself libertarian for "a word's historical usage does
not determine its meaning." Given that right-libertarians in the USA have
tried to steal the name "libertarian" from anarchists and anarchist
influenced socialists, such a perspective on Caplan's part makes perfect
sense. How ironic that a movement that defends private property so strongly
continually tries to steal names from other political tendencies.
Perhaps a better analogy for the conflict between anarchism and "anarcho"-
capitalism would be between Satanists and Christians. Would we consider
as Christian a Satanist grouping claiming to be Christian? A grouping
that rejects everything that Christians believe but who like the name?
Of course not. Neither would we consider as a right-libertarian someone
who is against the free market or someone as a Marxist who supports
capitalism. However, that is what Caplan and other "anarcho"-capitalists
want us to do with anarchism.
Both social and individualist anarchists defined their ideas in terms of
both political (abolition of the state) *and* economic (abolition of
exploitation) ideas. Kropotkin defined anarchism as "the no-government
form of socialism" while Tucker insisted that anarchism was "the abolition
of the State and the abolition of usury." In this they followed Proudhon
who stated that "[w]e do not admit the government of man by man any more
than the exploitation of man by man." [quoted by Peter Marshall,
_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 245]
In other words, a political movement's economic ideas are just as much
a part of its theories as their political ideas. Any attempt to consider
one in isolation from the other kills what defines the theory and makes
it unique. And, ultimately, any such attempt, is a lie:
"[classical liberalism] is in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism,
and therefore simply a lie, for freedom is impossible without equality,
and real anarchy cannot exist without solidarity, without socialism."
[Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 46]
Therefore Caplan's case against the Historical Argument also fails -
"anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer because anarchism has always, in all
its forms, opposed capitalism. Denying and re-writing history is hardly
a means of refuting the historical argument.
Caplan ends by stating:
"Let us designate anarchism (1) anarchism as you define it. Let us designate
anarchism (2) anarchism as I and the American Heritage College Dictionary
define it. This is a FAQ about anarchism (2)."
Note that here we see again how the dictionary is a very poor foundation
upon to base an argument. Again using _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary_, we find under "anarchist" - "one who rebels against any
authority, established order, or ruling power." This definition is very
close to that which "traditional" anarchists have - which is the basis
for our own opposition to the notion that anarchism is merely rebellion
against *State* authority.
Clearly this definition is at odds with Caplan's own view; is Webster's
then wrong, and Caplan's view right? Which view is backed by the theory
and history of the movement? Surely that should be the basis of who is
part of the anarchist tradition and movement and who is not? Rather
than do this, Caplan and other "anarcho"-capitalists rush to the
dictionary (well, those that do not define anarchy as "disorder").
This is for a reason as anarchism as a political movement as always
been explicitly anti-capitalist and so the term "anarcho"-capitalism
is an oxymoron.
What Caplan fails to even comprehend is that his choices are false.
Anarchism can be designated in two ways:
(1). Anarchism as you define it
(2). Anarchism as the anarchist movement defines it and finds expression
in the theories developed by that movement.
Caplan chooses anarchism (1) and so denies the whole history of the
anarchist movement. Anarchism is not a word, it is a political theory
with a long history which dictionaries cannot cover. Therefore any attempt
to define anarchism by such means is deeply flawed and ultimately
fails.
That Caplan's position is ultimately false can be seen from the
"anarcho"-capitalists themselves. In many dictionaries anarchy is
defined as "disorder," "a state of lawlessness" and so on. Strangely
enough, no "anarcho"-capitalist ever uses *these* dictionary definitions
of "anarchy"! Thus appeals to dictionaries are just as much a case
of defining anarchism as you desire as not using dictionaries. Far
better to look at the history and traditions of the anarchist movement
itself, seek out its common features and apply *those* as criteria to
those seeking to include themselves in the movement. As can be seen,
"anarcho"-capitalism fails this test and, therefore, are not part of
the anarchist movement. Far better for us all if they pick a new
label to call themselves rather than steal our name.
Although most anarchists disagree on many things, the denial of its
history is not one of them.
***************************
* Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory
FAQ" version 4.1.1.
There have been a few "anarchist" FAQ's produced before. Bryan Caplan's
anarchism FAQ is one of the more recent. While appearing to be a
"neutral" statement of anarchist ideas, it is actually in large part an
"anarcho"-capitalist FAQ. This can be seen by the fact that anarchist ideas
(which he calls "left-anarchist") are given less than half the available
space while "anarcho"-capitalist dogma makes up the majority of it.
Considering that anarchism has been around far longer than
"anarcho"-capitalism and is the bigger and better established movement,
this is surprising. Even his use of the term "left anarchist" is
strange as it is never used by anarchists and ignores the fact that
Individualist Anarchists like Tucker called themselves "socialists"
and considered themselves part of the wider socialist movement. For
anarchists, the expression "left anarchist" is meaningless as all
anarchists are anti-capitalist. Thus the terms used to describe
each "school" in his FAQ are biased (those whom Caplan calls "Left
anarchists" do not use that term, usually preferring "social anarchist"
to distinguish themselves from individualist anarchists like Tucker).
Caplan also frames the debate only around issues which he is comfortable
with. For example, when discussing "left anarchist" ideas he states that
"A key value in this line of anarchist thought is egalitarianism, the view
that inequalities, especially of wealth and power, are undesirable, immoral,
and socially contingent." This, however, is *not* why anarchists are
egalitarians. Anarchists oppose inequalities because they undermine
and restrict individual and social freedom.
Taking another example, under the question, "How would left-anarchy
work?", Caplan fails to spell out some of the really obvious forms of
anarchist thought. For example, the works of Bookchin, Kropotkin, Bakunin
and Proudhon are not discussed in any detail. His vague and confusing
prose would seem to reflect the amount of thought that he has put into it.
Being an "anarcho"-capitalist, Caplan concentrates on the economic aspect
of anarchism and ignores its communal side. The economic aspect of anarchism
he discusses is anarcho-syndicalism and tries to contrast the confederated
economic system explained by one anarcho-syndicalist with Bakunin's
opposition to Marxism. Unfortunately for Caplan, Bakunin is the source of
anarcho-syndicalism's ideas on a confederation of self-managed workplaces
running the economy. Therefore, to state that "many" anarchists "have been
very sceptical of setting up any overall political structure, even a democratic
one, and focused instead on direct worker control at the factory level"
is simply *false*. The idea of direct local control within a confederated
whole is a common thread through anarchist theory and activity, as any
anarchist could tell you.
Lastly, we must note that after Caplan posted his FAQ to the "anarchy-list,"
many of the anarchists on that list presented numerous critiques of the
"anarcho"-capitalist theories and of the ideas (falsely) attributed to
social anarchists in the FAQ, which he chose to ignore (that he was aware
of these postings is asserted by the fact he e-mailed one of the authors
of this FAQ on the issue that anarchists never used or use the term
"left-anarchist" to describe social anarchism. He replied by arguing that
the term "left-anarchist" had been used by Michel Foucault, who never
claimed to be an anarchist, in one of his private letters! Strangely,
he never posted his FAQ to the list again).
Therefore, as can be seen from these few examples, Caplan's "FAQ"
is blatantly biased towards "anarcho-capitalism" and based on the
mis-characterisations and the dis-emphasis on some of the most
important issues between "anarcho-capitalists" and anarchists. It
is clear that his viewpoint is anything but impartial.
This section will highlight some of the many errors and distortions in
that FAQ. Numbers in square brackets refer to the corresponding sections
Caplan's FAQ.
1 Is anarchism purely negative?
[1]. Caplan, consulting his _American Heritage Dictionary_, claims:
"Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government, is
bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it would be
difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold."
The last sentence is ridiculous. If we look at the works of Tucker,
Kropotkin, Proudhon and Bakunin (for example) we discover that we
can, indeed list one more "belief that all anarchists hold." This
is opposition to exploitation, to usury (i.e. profits, interest
and rent). For example, Tucker argued that "Liberty insists. . . [on]
the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more
government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man."
[cited in _Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing
American Individualism_ by Eunice Schuster, p. 140] Such a position
is one that Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin would agree with.
In other words, anarchists hold two beliefs -- opposition to
government *and* opposition to exploitation. Any person which
rejects either of these positions cannot be part of the anarchist
movement. In other words, an anarchist must be against capitalism
in order to be a true anarchist.
Moreover it is not at all difficult to find a more fundamental
"defining tenet" of anarchism. We can do so merely by analysing
the term "an-archy," which is composed of the Greek words *an*,
meaning "no" or "without," and *arche*, meaning literally "a
ruler," but more generally referring to the *principle* of
rulership, i.e. hierarchical authority. Hence an anarchist
is someone who advocates abolishing the principle of hierarchical
authority -- not just in government but in all institutions and
social relations.
Anarchists oppose the principle of hierarchical authority because it
is the basis of domination, which is not only degrading in itself but
generally leads to exploitation and all the social evils which follow
from exploitation, from poverty, hunger and homelessness to class
struggle and armed conflict.
Because anarchists oppose hierarchical authority, domination, and
exploitation, they naturally seek to eliminate all hierarchies, as the
very purpose of hierarchy is to facilitate the domination and (usually)
exploitation of subordinates.
The reason anarchists oppose government, then, is because government is
*one manifestation* of the evils of hierarchical authority, domination,
and exploitation. But the capitalist workplace is another. In fact, the
capitalist workplace is where most people have their most frequent and
unpleasant encounters with these evils. Hence workers' control --
the elimination of the hierarchical workplace through democratic
self-management -- has been central to the agenda of classical and
contemporary anarchism from the 19th century to the present. Indeed,
anarchism was born out of the struggle of workers against capitalist
exploitation.
To accept Caplan's definition of anarchism, however, would mean that
anarchists' historical struggle for workers' self-management has never
been a "genuine" anarchist activity. This is clearly a *reductio ad
absurdum* of that definition.
Caplan has confused a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.
Opposition to government is a necessary condition of anarchism, but not
a sufficient one. To put it differently, all anarchists oppose government,
but opposition to government does not automatically make one an
anarchist. To be an anarchist one must oppose government for anarchist
reasons and be opposed to all other forms of hierarchical structure.
To understand why let use look to capitalist property. Murray Rothbard
argues that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate
decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."
[_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 173] Defence firms would be employed to
enforce those decisions (i.e. laws and rules). No real disagreement
there. What *is* illuminating is Rothbard's comments that the state
"arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making
power, over a given area territorial area" [Op. Cit. , p. 170] Which,
to state the obvious, means that both the state and property is marked
by an "ultimate decision-making power" over their territory. The only
"difference" is that Rothbard claims the former is "just" (i.e. "justly"
acquired) and the latter is "unjust" (i.e. acquired by force). In reality
of course, the modern distribution of property is just as much a product
of past force as is the modern state. In other words, the current
property owners have acquired their property in the same unjust
fashion as the state has its. If one is valid, so is the other.
Rothbard (and "anarcho"-capitalists in general) are trying to have
it both ways.
Rothbard goes on to show why statism and private property are
essentially the same thing:
"If the State may be said too properly own 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 is no private property in its area, because it really
owns the entire land surface. So long 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." [Op. Cit.,
p. 170]
Of course Rothbard does not draw the obvious conclusion. He wants to
maintain that the state is bad and property is good while drawing
attention to their obvious similarities! Ultimately Rothbard is
exposing the bankruptcy of his own politics and analysis. According
to Rothbard, something can look like a state (i.e. have the "ultimate
decision-making power" over an area) and act like a state (i.e.
"make rules for everyone" who lives in an area, i.e. govern them)
but not be a state. This not a viable position for obvious reasons.
In capitalism, property and possession are opposites -- as Proudhon
argued in _What is Property?_. Under possession, the "property" owner
exercises "ultimate decision-making power" over themselves as no-one
else uses the resource in question. This is non-hierarchical. Under
capitalism, however, use and ownership are divided. Landlords and
capitalists give others access to their property while retaining
power over it and so the people who use it. This is by nature
hierarchical. Little wonder Noam Chomsky argued that a "consistent
anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production
and the wage slavery which is a component of this system as incompatible
with the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under
the control of the producer." ["Notes on Anarchism", _For Reasons
of State_, p. 158]
Thus a true anarchist must oppose both state and capitalism as
they generate the same hierarchical social relationships (as
recognised by Rothbard but apparently subjected to "doublethink").
As "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose capitalist property they
cannot be anarchists -- they support a very specific form of
*archy,* that of the capitalist/landlord over working class
people.
Self-styled "anarcho"-capitalists do not oppose government for anarchist
reasons. That is, they oppose it not because it is a manifestation of
hierarchical authority, but because government authority often *conflicts*
with capitalists' authority over the enterprises they control. By
getting rid of government with its minimum wage laws, health and safety
requirements, union rights laws, environmental standards, child labour
laws, and other inconveniences, capitalists would have even more power
to exploit workers than they already do. These consequences of
"anarcho"-capitalism are diametrically opposed to the historically
central objective of the anarchist movement, which is to eliminate
capitalist exploitation.
We must conclude, then, that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists at
all. In reality they are capitalists *posing* as anarchists in order to
attract support for their laissez-faire economic project from those who
are angry at government. This scam is only possible on the basis of the
misunderstanding perpetrated by Caplan: that anarchism means nothing
more than opposition to government.
Better definitions of anarchism can be found in other reference works.
For example, in _Grollier's Online Encyclopedia_ we read: "Anarchism
rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well
as political." According to this more historically and etymologically
accurate definition, "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism,
since it does not reject hierarchical authority in the economic sphere
(which has been the area of prime concern to anarchists since day one).
Hence it is *bogus* anarchism.
2 Anarchism and Equality
[5.] On the question "What major subdivisions may be made among
anarchists?" Caplan writes:
"Unlike the left-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists generally place
little or no value on equality, believing that inequalities along
all dimensions -- including income and wealth -- are not only perfectly
legitimate so long as they 'come about in the right way,' but are the
natural consequence of human freedom."
This statement is not inaccurate as a characterisation of
"anarcho"-capitalist ideas, but its implications need to be
made clear. "Anarcho"-capitalists generally place little or no
value on equality -- particularly economic equality -- because they
know that under their system, where capitalists would be completely
free to exploit workers to the hilt, wealth and income inequalities
would become even greater than they are now. Thus their references to
"human freedom" as the way in which such inequalities would allegedly
come about means "freedom of capitalists to exploit workers;" it
does not mean "freedom of workers *from* capitalist exploitation."
But "freedom to exploit workers" has historically been the objective
only of capitalists, not anarchists. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalism
again shows itself to be nothing more than capitalism attempting to
pass itself off as part of the anarchist movement -- a movement that
has been dedicated since its inception to the destruction of capitalism!
One would have to look hard to find a more audacious fraud.
As we argue in section F.2.1, the claim that inequalities are irrelevant
if they "come about the right way" ignores the reality of freedom and
what is required to be free. To see way we have to repeat part of our
argument from that section and look at Murray Rothbard's (a leading
"anarcho"-capitalist icon) analysis of the situation after the abolition
of serfdom in Russia and slavery in America. He writes:
"The *bodies* 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." [_The Ethics of
Liberty_, p. 74]
However, contrast this with Rothbard's (and Caplan's) claims that if market
forces ("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of free tenants or
wage-labourers then these labourers and tenants are free (see, for example,
_The Ethics of Liberty_, pp. 221-2 on why "economic power" within capitalism
does not, in fact, exist). But the labourers dispossessed by market forces
are in *exactly* the same situation as the former serfs and slaves. Rothbard
sees the obvious "economic power" in the later case, but denies it in the
former. But the *conditions* of the people in question are identical and it
is these conditions that horrify us and create social relationships because
on subordination, authority and oppression rather than freedom. It is only
ideology that stops Rothbard and Caplan drawing the obvious conclusion --
identical conditions produce identical social relationships and so if the
formally "free" ex-serfs are subject to "economic power" and "masters" then
so are the formally "free" labourers within capitalism! Both sets of workers
may be formally free, but their circumstances are such that they are "free"
to "consent" to sell their freedom to others (i.e. economic power produces
relationships of domination and unfreedom between formally free individuals).
Thus inequalities that "come about in the right way" restrict freedom just
as much as inequalities that do not. If the latter restricts liberty and
generate oppressive and exploitative social relationships then so do the
former. Thus, if we are serious about individuality liberty (rather than
property) we must look at inequalities and what generate them.
One last thing. Caplan states that inequalities in capitalism are "the
natural consequence of human freedom." They are not, unless you subscribe
to the idea that capitalist property rights are the basis of human freedom.
However, the assumption that capitalist property rights are the best
means to defend individual liberty can be easily seen to be flawed just
from the example of the ex-slaves and ex-serfs we have just described.
Inequalities resulting from "voluntary exchanges" in the capitalist
market can and do result in the denial of freedom, thus suggesting that
"property" and liberty are not natural consequences of each other.
To state the obvious, private property (rather than possession) means
that the non-property owner can gain access to the resource in question
only when they agree to submit to the property owner's authority (and
pay tribute for the privilege of being bossed about). This aspect of
property (rightly called "despotism" by Proudhon) is one which
right-libertarians continually fail to highlight when they defend
it as the paradigm of liberty.
3 Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?
[7.] In this section ("Is anarchism the same thing as socialism?") Caplan
writes:
"Outside of the Anglo-American political culture, there has been
a long and close historical relationship between the more orthodox
socialists who advocate a socialist government, and the anarchist
socialists who desire some sort of decentralised, voluntary socialism.
The two groups both want to severely limit or abolish private property..."
For Caplan to claim that anarchism is not the same thing as socialism,
he has to ignore anarchist history. For example, the Individualist
anarchists called themselves "socialists," as did social anarchists.
Indeed, Individualist Anarchists like Joseph Labadie stated that
"Anarchism is voluntary socialism" [_Anarchism: What it is and What
it is Not_) and wanted to limit private property in many ways (for
example, "the resources of nature -- land, mines, and so forth --
should not be held as private property and subject to being held
by the individual for speculative purposes, that use of these things
shall be the only valid title, and that each person has an equal right
to the use of all these things." [_What is Socialism?_]). Therefore,
*within* the "Anglo-American political culture," *all* types of anarchists
considered themselves part of the socialist movement. This can be seen
not only from Kropotkin's or Bakunin's work, but also in Tucker's (see
_Instead of a Book_). So to claim that the "Anglo-American" anarchists
did not have "a long and close historical relationship" with the wider
socialist movement is simply *false.*
The statement that anarchists want to severely limit or abolish "private
property" is misleading if it is not further explained. For the way it
stands, it sounds like anarchism is just another form of coercive "state"
(i.e. a political entity that forcibly prevents people from owning private
property), whereas this is far from the case.
Firstly, anarchists are *not* against "private property" in the sense
personal belongings. "Anarchists," points out Nicholas Walter, "are
in favour of the private property which cannot be used by one person
to exploit another -- those personal possessions which we accumulate
from childhood and which become part of ours." ["About Anarchism",
in _Reinventing Anarchy_, p. 49] Kropotkin makes the anarchist
position clear when he wrote that we "do not want to rob any one
of his coat" but expropriation "must apply to everything that
enables any man [or woman] -- by he financier, mill owner, or
landlord -- to appropriate the product of others' toil." [_The
Conquest of Bread_, p. 61]
In effect, Caplan is confusing two very different kinds of "private
property", of which one rests on usefulness to an individual, the
other on the employment (and so exploitation) of the labour of others.
The latter produces social relations of domination between individuals,
while the former is a relationship between people and things. As
Proudhon argued, possession becomes property only when it also serves
as means of exploitation and subjection of other people. But failing
to distinguish these radically different forms of "private property"
Caplan distorts the anarchist position.
Secondly, it is not that anarchists want to pass laws making private
property (in the second, exploitative, sense) illegal. Rather they want
to restructure society in such a way that the means of production are
freely available for workers to use. This does not mean "anarchist police"
standing around with guns to prohibit people from owning private property.
Rather, it means dismantling the coercive state agencies that make private
property possible, i.e., the departments of real police who now stand around
with guns protecting private property.
Once that occurs, anarchists maintain that capitalism would be impossible,
since capitalism is essentially a monopoly of the means of production,
which can only be maintained by organised coercion. For suppose that in
an anarchist society someone (call him Bob) somehow acquires certain
machinery needed to produce widgets (a doubtful supposition if
widget-making machines are very expensive, as there will be little
wealth disparity in an anarchist society). And suppose Bob offers to
let workers with widget-making skills use his machines if they will
pay him "rent," i.e. allow him to appropriate a certain amount of the
value embodied in the widgets they produce. The workers will simply
refuse, choosing instead to join a widget-making collective where
they have free access to widget-making machinery, thus preventing
Bob from living parasitically on their labour. Thus Kropotkin:
"Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs
from the poverty of the poor. That is why an anarchist society
need not fear the advent of a Rothschild [or any other millionaire]
who would settle in its midst. If every member of the community
knows that after a few hours of productive toil he [or she] will
have a right to all the pleasures that civilisation procures, and
to those deeper sources of enjoyment which art and science offer
to all who seek them, he [or she] will not sell his strength. . .
No one will volunteer to work for the enrichment of your Rothschild."
[Op. Cit., p. 61]
In this scenario, private property was "abolished," but not through
coercion. Indeed, it was precisely the abolition of organised coercion
that allowed private property to be abolished.
4 Anarchism and dissidents
[9.] On the question "How would left-anarchy work?" Caplan writes:
"Some other crucial features of the left-anarchist society are quite
unclear. Whether dissidents who despised all forms of communal living
would be permitted to set up their own inegalitarian separatist societies
is rarely touched upon. Occasionally left-anarchists have insisted that
small farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivised, but the
limits of the right to refuse to adopt an egalitarian way of life are
rarely specified."
This is a straw man. "Left" (i.e. real) anarchist theory clearly implies
and *explicitly states* the answer to these questions.
Firstly, on the issue of "separatist" societies. Anarchist thinkers
have always acknowledged that there would be multitude of different
communities after a revolution (and not just Caplan's "inegalitarian"
ones). Marx, for example, mocked Bakunin for arguing that only
revolutionary communes would federate together and that this would
not claim any right to govern others (see Bakunin's "Letter to Albert
Richards", _Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 179] Kropotkin
stated that "the point attained in the socialisation of wealth will
not be everywhere the same" and "[s]ide by side with the revolutionised
communes . . . places would remain in an expectant attitude, and
would go on living on the Individualist system." [_The Conquest
of Bread_, p. 81] While he was hopeful that "everywhere [would be]
more or less Socialism" he recognised that the revolution
would not conform to "any particular rule" and would differ in
different areas -- "in one country State Socialist, in another
Federation" and so on. [Op. Cit., p. 82] Malatesta made the same
point, arguing that "after the revolution" there would be "relations
between anarchist groupings and those living under some kind of
authority, between communist collectives and those living in
an individualistic way." This is because anarchism "cannot be
imposed". [_Life and Ideas_, p. 173, p. 21]
Needless to say, these "separatist societies" (which may or may
not be "inegalitarian") would not be anarchist societies. If a
group of people wanted to set up a capitalist, Marxist, Georgist
or whatever kind of community then their right would be respected
(although, of course, anarchists would seek to convince those
who live in such a regime of the benefits of anarchism!). As
Malatesta pointed out, "free and voluntary communism is
ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live
in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist
-- as one wishes, always on condition that there is no
oppression or exploitation of other" as "it is clear that
all, and only, those ways of life which respect freedom, and
recognise that each individual has an equal right to the means
of production and to the full enjoyment of the product of
his own labour, have anything in common with anarchism."
[Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 33]
Ultimately, "it is not a question of right and wrong; it is
a question of freedom for everybody. . . None can judge
with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is nearest
to the truth, or which is the best way to achieve the
greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom coupled with
experience, is the only way of discovering the truth and
what is best; and there can be no freedom if there is the
denial of the freedom to err." [Op. Cit., p. 49]
Secondly, regarding "dissidents" who wanted to set up their own
"inegalitarian separatist societies," if the term "inegalitarian"
implies economic inequalities due to private property, the answer
is that private property requires some kind of state, if not a
public state then private security forces ("private-state capitalism"),
as advocated by "anarcho"-capitalists, in order to protect private
property. Therefore, "anarcho"-capitalists are asking if an anarchist
society will allow the existence of states. Of course, in the territory
that used to be claimed by a nation state a whole host of communities
and societies will spring up -- but that does not make the non-anarchist
ones anarchist!
Thus suppose that in a hypothetical libertarian socialist society, Bob
tries to set up private security forces to protect certain means of
production, e.g. farmland. By the hypothesis, if Bob merely wanted to
work the land himself, there would be no reason for him go to the trouble
of creating a private state to guard it, because use-rights guarantee that
he has free access to the productive assets he needs to make a living.
Thus, the only plausible reason Bob could have for claiming and guarding
more farmland than he could use himself would be a desire to create a
monopoly of land in order to exact tribute from others for the privilege
of using it. But this would be an attempt to set up a system of feudal
exploitation in the midst of a free community. Thus the community is
justified in disarming this would-be parasite and ignoring his claims to
"own" more land than he can use himself.
In other words, there is no "right" to adopt an "inegalitarian way of
life" within a libertarian community, since such a right would have to
be enforced by the creation of a coercive system of enslavement, which
would mean the end of the "libertarian" community. To the contrary, the
members of such a community have a right, guaranteed by "the people
in arms," to resist such attempts to enslave them.
The statement that "left" anarchists have "occasionally" insisted that
small farmers and the like would not be forcibly collectivised is a
distortion of the facts. No responsible left libertarian advocates
forced collectivisation, i.e. compelling others to join collectives.
Self-employment is always an option. This can be seen from Bakunin's
works [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 200], Kropotkin's [_The Conquest of
Bread_, p. 61 and _Act for Yourselves_, pp. 104-5] and Malatesta's [_Life
and Ideas_, p. 99, p. 103]. So the anarchist opposition to forced
collectivisation has always existed and, for anyone familiar with the
ideas of social anarchism, very well know. Thus during the Spanish
Revolution, small farmers who did not wish to join collective farms
were allowed to keep as much land as they could work themselves. After
perceiving the advantages of collectives, however, many joined them
voluntarily (see Sam Dolgoff, ed., _The Anarchist Collectives_).
To claim that social anarchists "occasionally" oppose forced
collectivisation is a smear, pure and simple, with little basis
in anarchist activity and even less in anarchist theory. Anyone
remotely familiar with the literature could not make such a mistake.
Finally, we should point out that under "anarcho"-capitalism there would
be, according to Murray Rothbard, a "basic libertarian law code." Which
means that under "anarcho"-capitalism, "egalitarian" communities could
only come about within a "inegalitarian" legal framework! Thus, given
that everything would be privatised, dissenters could only experiment
if they could afford it *and* accepted the legal system based on ]
capitalist property rights (and, of course, survive the competition
of capitalist companies within the capitalist framework). As we have
argued in sections B.4, F.3 and F.10, the capitalist market is not
a level playing field -- which hinders experimentation. In other
words, "anarcho"-capitalists has the abstract right to experiment
(within the capitalist laws) but hinders the possibility to live
under other regimes. And, we must point out, *why* should we have
to *pay* the stealers of the earth for the privilege to life our
own lives? Caplan, in effect, ignores the barriers to experimentation
in his system while distorting the anarchist position.
5 How would anarcho-capitalism work?
[10.] This section (How would anarcho-capitalism work?) contains Caplan's
summary of arguments for "anarcho"-capitalism, which he describes as an
offshoot of Libertarianism. Thus:
"So-called 'minarchist' libertarians such as Nozick have argued that the
largest justified government was one which was limited to the protection
of individuals and their private property against physical invasion;
accordingly, they favour a government limited to supplying police, courts,
a legal code, and national defence."
The first thing to note about this argument is that it is stated in such a
way as to prejudice the reader against the left-libertarian critique of
private property. The minarchist right-"libertarian," it is said, only
wants to protect individuals and their private property against "physical
invasion." But, because of the loose way in which the term "property" is
generally used, the "private property" of most "individuals" is commonly
thought of as *personal possessions,* i.e. cars, houses, clothing,
etc. (For the left-libertarian distinction between private property and
possessions, see B.3.1.) Therefore the argument makes it appear that
right libertarians are in favour of protecting personal possessions
whereas left-libertarians are not, thus conjuring up a world where,
for example, there would be no protection against one's house being
"physically invaded" by an intruder or a stranger stealing the shirt
off one's back!
By lumping the protection of "individuals" together with the protection
of their "private property," the argument implies that right libertarians
are concerned with the welfare of the vast majority of the population,
whereas in reality, the vast majority of "individuals" *do not own*
any private property (i.e. means of production) -- only a handful of
capitalists do. Moreover, these capitalists use their private property to
exploit the working class, leading to impoverishment, alienation, etc.,
and thus *damaging* most individuals rather than "protecting" them.
Caplan goes on:
"This normative theory is closely linked to laissez-faire economic theory,
according to which private property and unregulated competition generally
lead to both an efficient allocation of resources and (more importantly) a
high rate of economic progress."
Caplan does not mention the obvious problems with this "theory," e.g. that
during the heyday of laissez-faire capitalism in the US there was vast
wealth disparity, with an enormous mass of impoverished people living in
slums in the major cities -- hardly an "efficient" allocation of resources
or an example of "progress." Of course, if one defines "efficiency" as
"the most effective means of exploiting the working class" and "progress"
as "a high rate of profit for investors," then the conclusion of the
"theory" does indeed follow.
And let us not forget that it is general equilibrium theory which
predicts that unregulated competition will produce an efficient
allocation of resources. However, as we noted in section C.1, such
a model has little to do with any real economy. This means that
there is no real reason to assume an efficient outcome of capitalist
economies. Concentrations of economic power and wealth can easily
skew outcomes to favour the haves over the have-nots (as history
again and again shows).
Moreover, the capitalism can easily lead to resources being
allocated to the most profitable uses rather than those which
are most needed by individuals. A classic example is in the
case of famines. Amartya Sen (who won the 1998 Nobel Prize
for economics) developed an "entitlement" approach to the study
of famine. This approach starts with the insight that having
food available in a country or region does not mean everyone
living there is "entitled" to it. In market economies, people
are entitled to food according to their ability to produce it
for themselves or to pay or swap for it. In capitalist economies,
most people are entitled to food only if they can sell their
labour/liberty to those who own the means of life (which
increases the economic insecurity of wage workers).
If some group loses its entitlement to food, whether there is a
decline in the available supply or not, a famine can occur. This
may seem obvious, yet before - and after - Sen, famine studies
have remained fixated on the drop in food available instead of
whether specific social groups are entitled to it. Thus even a
relatively success economy can price workers out of the food
market (a depressed economy brings the contradiction between
need and profit -- use value and exchange value -- even more
to the forefront). This "pricing out" can occur especially if
food can get higher prices (and so profits) elsewhere -- for
example the Irish famine of 1848 and sub-Saharan famines of
the 1980s saw food being exported from famine areas to areas
where it could fetch a higher price. In other words, market
forces can skew resource allocation away from where it is most
needed to where it can generate a profit. As anarchist George
Barret noted decades before Sen:
"Today the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits.
If there is more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's
passing whim than there is in feeding hungry children, then
competition brings us in feverish haste to supply the former,
whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply the latter,
or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed. That is
how it works out." [_Objectives to Anarchism_]
In other words, inequality skews resource allocation towards
the wealthy. While such a situation may be "efficient allocation
of resources" from the perspective of the capitalist, it is hardly
so from a social perspective (i.e. one that considers *all* individual
needs rather than "effective demand").
Furthermore, if we look at the stock market (a key aspect of any
capitalist system) we discover a strong tendencies *against* the
efficient allocation of resources. The stock market often experiences
"bubbles" and becomes significantly over-valued. An inflated stock
market badly distorts investment decisions. For example, if Internet
companies are wildly over-valued then the sale of shares of new
Internet companies or the providing of start-up capital will drain
away savings that could be more productively used elsewhere. The real
economy will pay a heavy price from such misdirected investment and,
more importantly, resources are *not* efficiency allocated as the
stock market skews resources into the apparently more profitable
areas and away from where they could be used to satisfy other needs.
The stock market is also a source of other inefficiencies. Supporters
of "free-market" capitalism always argued that the Stalinist system
of central planning created a perverse set of incentives to managers.
In effect, the system penalised honest managers and encouraged
the flow of *dis*-information. This lead to information being
distorted and resources inefficiently allocated and wasted.
Unfortunately the stock market also creates its own set of perverse
responses and mis-information. Doug Henwood argues that "something
like a prisoners' dilemma prevails in relations between managers
and the stock market. Even if participants are aware of an upward
bias to earnings estimates, and even if they correct for it,
managers still have an incentive to try and fool the market. If
you tell the truth, your accurate estimates will be marked
down by a sceptical market. So its entirely rational for
managers to boost profits in the short term, either through
accounting gimmickry or by making only investments with
quick paybacks." He goes on to note that "[i]f the markets
see high costs as bad, and low costs as good, then firms may
shun expensive investments because they will be taken as
signs of managerial incompetence. Throughout the late 1980s
and early 1990s, the stock market rewarded firms announcing
write-offs and mass firings -- a bulimic strategy of
management -- since the cost cutting was seen as contributing
rather quickly to profits. Firms and economies can't get richer
by starving themselves, but stock market investors can get
richer when the companies they own go hungry. As for the long
term, well, that's someone else's problem." [_Wall Street_,
p. 171]
This means that resources are allocated to short term projects,
those that enrich the investors now rather than produce long
term growth and benefits later. This results in slower and
more unstable investment than less market centred economies,
as well as greater instability over the business cycle [Op.
Cit., pp. 174-5] Thus the claim that capitalism results in
the "efficient" allocation of resources is only true if we
assume "efficient" equals highest profits for capitalists.
As Henwood summarises, "the US financial system performs
dismally at its advertised task, that of efficiently directing
society's savings towards their optimal investment pursuits.
The system is stupefyingly expensive, gives terrible signals,
and has surprisingly little to do with real investment."
[Op. Cit., p. 3]
Moreover, the claim that laissez-faire economies produce a high rate
of economic progress can be questioned on the empirical evidence available.
For example, from the 1970s onwards there has been a strong tendency
towards economic deregulation. However, this tendency has been associated
with a *slow down* of economic growth. For example, "[g]rowth rates,
investment rates and productivity rates are all lower now than in
the [Keynesian post-war] Golden Age, and there is evidence that the
trend rate of growth -- the underlying growth rate -- has also
decreased." Before the Thatcher pro-market reforms, the British
economy grew by 2.4% in the 1970s. After Thatcher's election in
1979, growth decreased to 2% in the 1980s and to 1.2% in the 1990s.
In the USA, we find a similar pattern. Growth was 4.4% in the 1960s,
3.2% in the 1970s, 2.8% in the 1980s and 1.9% in the first half
of the 1990s [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, _The Age of Insecurity_,
p. 236]. Moreover, in terms of inflation-adjusted GDP per capita
and productivity, the US had the worse performance out of the US,
UK, Japan, Italy, France, Canada and Australia between 1970 and
1995 [Marc-Anfre Pigeon and L. Randall Wray, _Demand Constraints
and Economic Growth_]. Given that the US is usually considered the
most laissez-faire out of these 7 countries, Caplan's claim of
high progress for deregulated systems seems at odds with this
evidence.
As far as technological innovation goes, it is also not clear that
deregulation has aided that process. Much of our modern technology
owns its origins to the US Pentagon system, in which public money
is provided to companies for military R&D purposes. Once the
technology has been proven viable, the companies involved can
sell their public subsidised products for private profit. The
computer industry (as we point out in section J.4.7) is a classic
example of this -- indeed it is unlikely whether we would have
computers or the internet if we had waited for capitalists to
development them. So whether a totally deregulated capitalism would
have as high a rate of technological progress is a moot point.
So, it seems likely that it is only the *assumption* that the
free capitalist market will generate "an efficient allocation of
resources and (more importantly) a high rate of economic progress."
Empirical evidence points the other way -- namely, that state aided
capitalism provides an approximation of these claims. Indeed, if
we look at the example of the British Empire (which pursued a
strong free trade and laissez-faire policy over the areas it had
invaded) we can that the opposite may be true. After 25 prosperous
years of fast growth (3.5 per cent), after 1873 Britain had 40
years of slow growth (1.5 per cent), the last 14 years of which
were the worse -- with productivity declining, GDP stagnant
and home investment halved. [Nicholas Kaldor, _Further Essays
on Applied Economics_, p. 239] In comparison, those countries
which embraced protectionism (such as Germany and the USA)
industrialised successfully and become competitors with the
UK. Indeed, these new competitors grew in time to be efficient
competitors of Britain not only in foreign markets but also
in Britain's home market. The result was that "for fifty years
Britain's GDP grew very slowly relative to the more successful
of the newer industrialised countries, who overtook her, one
after another, in the volume of manufacturing production
and in exports and finally in real income per head." [Op. Cit.,
p. xxvi] Indeed, "America's growth and productivity rates
were higher when tariffs were steep than when they came
down." [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, Op. Cit., p. 277]
It is possible to explain almost everything that has ever
happened in the world economy as evidence not of the failure
of markets but rather of what happens when markets are not
able to operate freely. Indeed, this is the right-libertarian
position in a nut shell. However, it does seem strange that
movements towards increased freedom for markets produce worse
results than the old, more regulated, way. Similarly it seems
strange that the country that embraced laissez-faire and free
trade (Britain) did *worse* than those which embraced protectionism
(USA, Germany, etc.).
It could always be argued that the protectionist countries had
embraced free trade their economies would have done even better.
This is, of course, a possibility -- if somewhat unlikely. After
all, the argument for laissez-faire and free trade is that it
benefits all parties, even if it is embraced unilaterally. That
Britain obviously did not benefit suggests a flaw in the theory
(and that no country *has* industrialised without protectionism
suggests likewise). Unfortunately, free-market capitalist economics
lends itself to a mind frame that ensures that nothing could
happen in the real world that would could ever change its
supporters minds about anything.
Free trade, it could be argued, benefits only those who have
established themselves in the market -- that is, have market
power. Thus Britain could initially benefit from free trade
as it was the only industrialised nation (and even *its*
early industrialisation cannot be divorced from its initial
mercantilist policies). This position of strength allowed them
to dominate and destroy possible competitors (as Kaldor points
out, "[w]here the British succeeded in gaining free entry for
its goods. . . it had disastrous effects on local manufactures
and employment." [Op. Cit., p. xxvi]). This would revert the
other country back towards agriculture, an industry with
diminishing returns to scale (manufacturing, in contrast,
has increasing returns) and ensure Britain's position of
power.
The use of protection, however, sheltered the home industries
of other countries and gave them the foothold required to
compete with Britain. In addition, Britains continual adherence
to free trade meant that a lot of *new* industries (such as
chemical and electrical ones) could not be properly established.
This combination contributed to free trade leading to stunted
growth, in stark contrast to the arguments of neo-classical
economics.
Of course, we will be accused of supporting protectionism by
recounting these facts. That is not the case, as protectionism
is used as a means of "proletarianising" a nation (as we
discuss in section F.8). Rather we are presenting evidence
to refute a claim that deregulated capitalism will lead to
higher growth. Thus, we suggest, the history of "actually
existing" capitalism indicates that Caplan's claim that
deregulated capitalism will result "a high rate of economic
progress" may be little more than an assumption. True, it is
an assumption of neo-classical economics, but empirical evidence
suggests that assumption is as unfounded as the rest of that
theory.
Next we get to the meat of the defence of "anarcho"-capitalism:
"Now the anarcho-capitalist essentially turns the minarchist's own logic
against him, and asks why the remaining functions of the state could
not be turned over to the free market. And so, the anarcho-capitalist
imagines that police services could be sold by freely competitive firms;
that a court system would emerge to peacefully arbitrate disputes between
firms; and that a sensible legal code could be developed through custom,
precedent, and contract."
Indeed, the functions in question could certainly be turned over to the
"free" market, as was done in certain areas of the US during the 19th
century, e.g. the coal towns that were virtually owned by private coal
companies. We have already discussed the negative impact of that
experiment on the working class in section F.6.2. Our objection is not
that such privatisation cannot be done, but that it is an error to call
it a form of anarchism. In reality it is an extreme form of laissez-faire
capitalism, which is the exact opposite of anarchism. The defence of
private power by private police is hardly a move towards the end of
authority, nor are collections of private states an example of anarchism.
Indeed, that "anarcho"-capitalism does not desire the end of the state,
just a change in its form, can be seen from Caplan's own arguments. He
states that "the remaining functions of the state" should be "turned
over to the free market." Thus the state (and its functions, primarily
the defence of capitalist property rights) is *privatised* and not, in
fact, abolished. In effect, the "anarcho"-capitalist seeks to abolish
the state by calling it something else.
Caplan:
"The anarcho-capitalist typically hails modern society's increasing
reliance on private security guards, gated communities, arbitration and
mediation, and other demonstrations of the free market's ability to
supply the defensive and legal services normally assumed to be of
necessity a government monopoly."
It is questionable that "modern society" *as such* has increased
its reliance on "private security guards, gated communities" and so on.
Rather, it is the *wealthy* who have increased their reliance on these
forms of private defence. Indeed it is strange to hear a right-libertarian
even use the term "society" as, according to that ideology, society does
not exist! Perhaps the term "society" is used to hide the class nature
of these developments? As for "gated communities" it is clear that
their inhabitants would object if the rest of society gated themselves
from them! But such is the logic of such developments -- but the
gated communities want it both ways. They seek to exclude the rest of
society from their communities while expected to be given access to
that society. Needless to say, Caplan fails to see that liberty for
the rich can mean oppression for the working class -- "we who belong
to the proletaire class, property excommunicates us!" [Proudhon,
_What is Property?_, p. 105]
That the law code of the state is being defended by private companies is
hardly a step towards anarchy. This indicates exactly why an "anarcho"-
capitalist system will be a collection of private states united around a
common, capitalistic, and hierarchical law code. In addition, this system
does not abolish the monopoly of government over society represented by
the "general libertarian law code," nor the monopoly of power that owners
have over their property and those who use it. The difference between
public and private statism is that the boss can select which law
enforcement agents will enforce his or her power.
The threat to freedom and justice for the working class is clear. The
thug-like nature of many private security guards enforcing private power
is well documented. For example, the beating of protesters by "private
cops" is a common sight in anti-motorway campaigns or when animal right
activists attempt to disrupt fox hunts. The shooting of strikers during
strikes occurred during the peak period of American laissez-faire
capitalism. However, as most forms of protest involve the violation of
"absolute" property rights, the "justice" system under "anarcho"-capitalism
would undoubtedly fine the victims of such attacks by private cops.
It is also interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalist "hails" what are
actually symptoms of social breakdown under capitalism. With increasing
wealth disparity, poverty, and chronic high unemployment, society is becoming
polarised into those who can afford to live in secure, gated communities
and those who cannot. The latter are increasingly marginalised in ghettos
and poor neighbourhoods where drug-dealing, prostitution, and theft become
main forms of livelihood, with gangs offering a feudalistic type of
"protection" to those who join or pay tribute to them. Under
"anarcho"-capitalism, the only change would be that drug-dealing and
prostitution would be legalised and gangs could start calling themselves
"defence companies."
Caplan:
"In his ideal society, these market alternatives to government services
would take over _all_ legitimate security services. One plausible market
structure would involve individuals subscribing to one of a large number
of competing police services; these police services would then set up
contracts or networks for peacefully handling disputes between members of
each others' agencies. Alternately, police services might be 'bundled'
with housing services, just as landlords often bundle water and power
with rental housing, and gardening and security are today provided to
residents in gated communities and apartment complexes."
This is a scenario designed with the upper classes in mind and a few
working class people, i.e. those with *some* property (for example, a
house) -- sometimes labelled the "middle class". But under capitalism,
the tendency toward capital concentration leads to increasing wealth
polarisation, which means a shrinking "middle class" (i.e. working
class with decent jobs and their own homes) and a growing "underclass"
(i.e. working class people without a decent job). Ironically enough,
America (with one of the most laissez-faire capitalist systems) is
also the Western nation with the *smallest* "middle class" and
wealth concentration has steadily increased since the 1970s.
Thus the number of people who could afford to buy protection and
"justice" from the best companies would continually decrease. For
this reason there would be a growing number of people at the mercy
of the rich and powerful, particularly when it comes to matters
concerning employment, which is the main way in which the poor
would be victimised by the rich and powerful (as is indeed the
case now).
Of course, if landlords *do* "bundle" police services in their
contracts this means that they are determining the monopoly of
force over the property in question. Tenants would "consent"
to the police force and the laws of the landlord in exactly
the same way emigrants "consent" to the laws and government of,
say, the USA when they move there. Rather than show the difference
between statism and capitalism, Caplan has indicated their
essential commonality. For the proletarian, property is but
another form of state. For this reason anarchists would agree
with when he wrote that:
"That a rich and powerful man, having acquired immense
possessions in lands, should impose laws on those who
want to establish themselves there, and that he should
only allow them to do so on condition that they accept
his supreme authority and obey all his wishes; that, I
can still conceive. But how can I conceive such a treaty,
which presupposes anterior rights, could be the first
foundation of law? Would not this tyrannical act contain
a double usurpation: that on the ownership of the land
and that on the liberty of the inhabitants?" [_The Social
Contract and Discourses_, p. 316]
Caplan:
"The underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private police
would have strong incentives to be peaceful and respect individual
rights. For first of all, failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield
to jointly destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits. Second,
firms will want to develop long-term business relationships, and hence
be willing to negotiate in good faith to insure their long-term
profitability. And third, aggressive firms would be likely to attract
only high-risk clients and thus suffer from extraordinarily high costs
(a problem parallel to the well-known 'adverse selection problem' in
e.g. medical insurance -- the problem being that high-risk people are
especially likely to seek insurance, which drives up the price when
riskiness is hard for the insurer to discern or if regulation requires a
uniform price regardless of risk)."
The theory that "failure to peacefully arbitrate will yield to jointly
destructive warfare, which will be bad for profits" can be faulted in two
ways. Firstly, if warfare would be bad for profits, what is to stop a
large "defence association" from ignoring a smaller one's claim? If
warfare were "bad for business," it would be even worse for a small
company without the capital to survive a conflict, which could give big
"defence associations" the leverage to force compliance with their business
interests. Price wars are often bad for business, but companies sometimes
start them if they think they can win. Needless to say, demand would exist
for such a service (unless you assume a transformation in the "human
nature" generated by capitalism -- an unlikely situation and one
"anarcho"-capitalists usually deny is required for their system to
work). Secondly -- and this is equally, if not more, likely -- a
"balance of power" method to stop warfare has little to recommend it
from history. This can be seen from the First World War and feudal
society.
What the "anarcho"-capitalist is describing is essentially a system of
"industrial feudalism" wherein people contract for "protection" with armed
gangs of their choice. Feudal societies have never been known to be
peaceful, even though war is always "unprofitable" for one side or the
other or both. The argument fails to consider that "defence companies,"
whether they be called police forces, paramilitaries or full-blown armies,
tend to attract the "martial" type of authoritarian personality, and that this
type of "macho" personality thrives on and finds its reason for existence in
armed conflict and other forms of interpersonal violence and intimidation.
Hence feudal society is continually wracked by battles between the forces
of opposing warlords, because such conflicts allow the combatants a chance to
"prove their manhood," vent their aggression, obtain honours and titles,
advance in the ranks, obtain spoils, etc. The "anarcho" capitalist has
given no reason why warfare among legalised gangs would not continue under
industrial feudalism, except the extremely lame reason that it would not
be profitable -- a reason that has never prevented war in any known feudal
society.
It should be noted that the above is not an argument from "original
sin." Feudal societies are characterised by conflict between opposing
"protection agencies" not because of the innate depravity of human beings
but because of a social structure based on private property and hierarchy,
which brings out the latent capacities for violence, domination, greed,
etc. that humans have by creating a financial incentive to be so. But this
is not to say that a different social structure would not bring out latent
capacities for much different qualities like sharing, peaceableness, and
co-operation, which human beings also have. In fact, as Kropotkin argued
in _Mutual Aid_ and as recent anthropologists have confirmed in greater
detail, ancient societies based on communal ownership of productive assets
and little social hierarchy were basically peaceful, with no signs of
warfare for thousands of years.
However, let us assume that such a competitive system does actually
work as described. Caplan, in effect, argues that competition will
generate co-operation. This is due to the nature of the market in
question -- defence (and so peace) is dependent on firms working
together as the commodity "peace" cannot be supplied by one firm.
However, this co-operation does not, for some reason, become *collusion*
between the firms in question. According to "anarcho"-capitalists
this competitive system not only produces co-operation, it excludes
"defence" firms making agreements to fix monopoly profits (i.e.
co-operation that benefits the firms in question). Why does the
market produce beneficial co-operation to everyone but not
collusion for the firms in question? Collusion is when firms
have "business relationships" and "negotiate in good faith" to
insure their profitability by agreeing not to compete aggressively
against each other in order to exploit the market. Obviously in
"anarcho"-capitalism the firms in question only use their powers
good!
Needless to say, the "anarcho"-capitalist will object and argue
that competition will ensure that collusion will not occur.
However, given that co-operation is required between all firms
in order to provide the commodity "peace" this places the
"anarcho"-capitalist in a bind. As Caplan notes, "aggressive"
firms are "likely to attract only high-risk clients and thus
suffer from extraordinarily high costs." From the perspective
of the colluding firms, a new entry into their market is, by
definition, aggressive. If the colluding firms do not co-operate
with the new competitor, then it will suffer from "extraordinarily
high costs" and either go out of business or join the co-operators.
If the new entry could survive in the face of the colluding firms
hostility then so could "bad" defence firms, ones that ignored
the market standards.
So the "anarcho"-capitalist faces two options. Either an "aggressive"
firm cannot survive or it can. If it cannot then the very reason
why it cannot ensures that collusion is built into the market and
while the system is peaceful it is based on an effective monopoly
of colluding firms who charge monopoly profits. This, in effect,
is a state under the "anarcho"-capitalist's definition as a property
owner cannot freely select their own "protection" -- they are limited
to the firms (and laws) provided by the co-operating firms. Or an
"aggressive" firm can survive, violence is commonplace and chaos
ensures.
Caplan's passing reference to the "adverse selection problem" in medical
insurance suggests another problem with "anarcho"-capitalism. The problem
is that high-risk people are especially likely to seek protection, which
drives up the price for, as "anarcho"-capitalists themselves note, areas
with high crime levels "will be bad for profits," as hardware and personnel
costs will be correspondingly higher. This means that the price for "protection"
in areas which need it most will be far higher than for areas which do not
need it. As poor areas are generally more crime afflicted than rich areas,
"anarcho"-capitalism may see vast sections of the population not able to
afford "protection" (just as they may not be about to afford health care
and other essential services). Indeed, "protection services" which try to
provide cheap services to "high-risk" areas will be at an competitive
disadvantage in relation to those who do not, as the "high-risk" areas
will hurt profits and companies without "high-risk" "customers" could
undercut those that have.
Caplan:
"Anarcho-capitalists generally give little credence to the view that their
'private police agencies' would be equivalent to today's Mafia -- the cost
advantages of open, legitimate business would make 'criminal police'
uncompetitive. (Moreover, they argue, the Mafia can only thrive in the
artificial market niche created by the prohibition of alcohol, drugs,
prostitution, gambling, and other victimless crimes. Mafia gangs might
kill each other over turf, but liquor-store owners generally do not.)"
As we have pointed out in section F.6, the "Mafia" objection
to "anarcho"-capitalist defence companies is a red herring. The
biggest problem would not be "criminal police" but the fact that
working people and tenants would subject to the rules, power and
laws of the property owners, the rich would be able to buy better
police protection and "justice" than the poor and that the "general"
law code these companies would defend would be slanted towards the
interests and power of the capitalist class (defending capitalist
property rights and the proprietors power). And as we also noted,
such a system has already been tried in 19th-century and early 20th
America, with the result that the rich reduced the working class to
a serf-like existence, capitalist production undermined independent
producers (to the annoyance of individualist anarchists at the time),
and the result was the emergence of the corporate America that
"anarcho"-capitalists say they oppose.
Caplan argues that "liquor-store owners" do not generally kill each
other over turf. This is true (but then again they do not have
access to their own private cops currently so perhaps this could
change). But the company owners who created their own private
police forces and armies in America's past *did* allow their
goons to attack and murder union organisers and strikers. Let
us look at Henry Ford's Service Department (private police
force) in action:
"In 1932 a hunger march of the unemployed was planned to march
up to the gates of the Ford plant at Dearborn. . . The machine
guns of the Dearborn police and the Ford Motor Company's
Service Department killed [four] and wounded over a score
of others. . . Ford was fundamentally and entirely opposed
to trade unions. The idea of working men questioning his
prerogatives as an owner was outrageous. . . [T]he River
Rouge plant. . . was dominated by the autocratic regime of
Bennett's service men. Bennett . . organise[d] and train[ed]
the three and a half thousand private policemen employed by
Ford. His task was to maintain discipline amongst the work
force, protect Ford's property [and power], and prevent
unionisation. . . Frank Murphy, the mayor of Detroit,
claimed that 'Henry Ford employs some of the worst
gangsters in our city.' The claim was well based. Ford's
Service Department policed the gates of his plants,
infiltrated emergent groups of union activists, posed
as workers to spy on men on the line. . . Under this
tyranny the Ford worker had no security, no rights. So
much so that any information about the state of things
within the plant could only be freely obtained from
ex-Ford workers." [Huw Beynon, _Working for Ford_,
pp. 29-30]
The private police attacked women workers handing out
pro-union handbills and gave them "a serve beating."
At Kansas and Dallas "similar beatings were handed out
to the union men." [Op. Cit., p. 34] This use of private
police to control the work force was not unique. General
Motors "spent one million dollars on espionage, employing
fourteen detective agencies and two hundred spies at one
time [between 1933 and 1936]. The Pinkerton Detective
Agency found anti-unionism its most lucrative activity."
[Op. Cit., p. 32] We must also note that the Pinkerton's
had been selling their private police services for decades
before the 1930s. In the 1870s, they had infiltrated and
destroyed the Molly Maguires (a secret organisation
Irish miners had developed to fight the coal bosses).
For over 60 years the Pinkerton Detective Agency had
"specialised in providing spies, agent provocateurs, and
private armed forces for employers combating labour
organisations." By 1892 it "had provided its services
for management in seventy major labour disputes, and its
2 000 active agents and 30 000 reserves totalled more
than the standing army of the nation." [Jeremy Brecher,
_Strike!_, p. 9 and p. 55] With this force available,
little wonder unions found it so hard to survive in the
USA. Given that unions could be considered as "defence"
agencies for workers, this suggests a picture of how
"anarcho"-capitalism may work in practice.
It could be argued that, in the end, the union was recognised
by the Ford company. However, this occurred after the New
Deal was in place (which helped the process), after years
of illegal activity (by definition union activism on Ford
property was an illegal act) and extremely militant strikes.
Given that the union agreement occurred nearly 40 years
after Ford was formed *and* in a legal situation violently
at odds with "anarcho"-capitalism (or even minimal statist
capitalism), we would be justified in wondering if unionisation
would ever have occurred at Ford and if Ford's private
police state would ever have been reformed.
Of course, from an "anarcho"-capitalist perspective the
only limitation in the Ford workers' liberty was the fact
they had to pay taxes to the US government. The regime at
Ford could *not* restrict their liberty as no one forced
them to work for the company. Needless to say, an
"anarcho"-capitalist would reject out of hand the argument
that no-one forced the citizen to entry or remain in the
USA and so they consented to taxation, the government's
laws and so on.
This is more than a history lesson. Such private police
forces are on the rise again (see "Armed and Dangerous:
Private Police on the March" by Mike Zielinski, _Covert Action
Quarterly_, no. 54, Fall, 1995 for example). This system of
private police (as demonstrated by Ford) is just one of the
hidden aspects of Caplan's comment that the "anarcho"-capitalist
"typically hails modern society's increasing reliance on
private security guards. . . and other demonstrations of
the free market's ability to supply the defensive and legal
services normally assumed to be of necessity a government
monopoly."
Needless to say, private police states are not a step forward
in anarchist eyes.
Caplan:
"Unlike some left-anarchists, the anarcho-capitalist has no objection
to punishing criminals; and he finds the former's claim that punishment
does not deter crime to be the height of naivete. Traditional punishment
might be meted out after a conviction by a neutral arbitrator; or a system
of monetary restitution (probably in conjunction with a prison factory
system) might exist instead."
Let us note first that in disputes between the capitalist class and the
working class, there would be no "neutral arbitrator," because the rich
would either own the arbitration company or influence/control it through
the power of the purse (see section F.6). In addition, "successful"
arbitrators would also be wealthy, therefore making neutrality even
more unlikely. Moreover, given that the laws the "neutral arbitrator"
would be using are based on capitalist property rights, the powers and
privileges of the owner are built into the system from the start.
Second, the left-libertarian critique of punishment does not rest, as
"anarcho"-capitalists claim, on the naive view that intimidation and
coercion aren't effective in controlling behaviour. Rather, it rests on
the premise that capitalist societies produce large numbers of criminals,
whereas societies based on equality and community ownership of productive
assets do not.
The argument for this is that societies based on private property and
hierarchy inevitably lead to a huge gap between the haves and the
have-nots, with the latter sunk in poverty, alienation, resentment,
anger, and hopelessness, while at the same time such societies promote
greed, ambition, ruthlessness, deceit, and other aspects of competitive
individualism that destroy communal values like sharing, co-operation, and
mutual aid. Thus in capitalist societies, the vast majority of "crime"
turns out to be so-called "crimes against property," which can be traced
to poverty and the grossly unfair distribution of wealth. Where the top
one percent of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90
percent combined, it is no wonder that a considerable number of those on
the bottom should try to recoup illegally some of the mal-distributed
wealth they cannot obtain legally. (In this they are encouraged by the
bad example of the ruling class, whose parasitic ways of making a living
would be classified as criminal if the mechanisms for defining "criminal
behaviour" were not controlled by the ruling class itself.) And most of
the remaining "crimes against persons" can be traced to the alienation,
dehumanisation, frustration, rage, and other negative emotions produced
by the inhumane and unjust economic system.
Thus it is only in our societies like ours, with their wholesale
manufacture of many different kinds of criminals, that punishment
appears to be the only possible way to discourage "crime." From the
left-libertarian perspective, however, the punitive approach is a
band-aid measure that does not get to the real root of the problem --
a problem that lies in the structure of the system itself. The real
solution is the creation of a non-hierarchical society based on communal
ownership of productive assets, which, by eliminating poverty and the
other negative effects of capitalism, would greatly reduce the incidence
of criminal behaviour and so the need for punitive countermeasures.
Finally, two more points on private prisons. Firstly, as to the
desirability of a "prison factory system," we will merely note
that, given the capitalist principle of "grow-or-die," if punishing
crime becomes a business, one can be sure that those who profit
from it will find ways to ensure that the "criminal" population
keeps expanding at a rate sufficient to maintain a high rate of profit
and growth. After all, the logic of a "prison factory system" is
self-defeating. If the aim of prison is to deter crime (as some
claim) and if a private prison system will meet that aim, then a
successful private prison system will stop crime, which, in turn,
will put them out of business! Thus a "prison factory system" cannot
aim to be efficient (i.e. stop crime).
Secondly, Caplan does not mention the effect of prison labour on the
wages, job conditions and market position of workers. Having a sizeable
proportion of the working population labouring in prison would have a
serious impact on the bargaining power of workers. How could workers
outside of prison compete with such a regime of labour discipline
without submitting to prison-like conditions themselves? Unsurprisingly,
US history again presents some insight into this. As Noam Chomsky
notes, the "rapid industrial development in the southeastern region
[of America] a century ago was based on (Black) convict labour,
leased to the highest bidder." Chomsky quotes expert Alex Lichtenstein
comments that Southern Industrialists pointed out that convict
labour was "more reliable and productive than free labour" and
that it overcomes the problem of labour turnover and instability.
It also "remove[d] all danger and cost of strikes" and that it
lowers wages for "free labour" (i.e. wage labour). The US Bureau
of Labor reported that "mine owners [in Alabama] say they could
not work at a profit without the lowering effect in wages of
convict-labour competition." [_The Umbrella of US Power_, p. 32]
Needless to say, Caplan fails to mention this aspect of
"anarcho"-capitalism (just as he fails to mention the example
of Ford's private police state). Perhaps an "anarcho"-capitalist
will say that prison labour will be less productive than wage
labour and so workers have little to fear, but this makes little
sense. If wage labour is more productive then prison labour will
not find a market (and then what for the prisoners? Will profit-maximising
companies *really* invest in an industry with such high over-heads
as maintaining prisoners for free?). Thus it seems more than likely
that any "prison-factory system" will be as productive as the
surrounding wage-labour ones, thus forcing down their wages and
the conditions of labour. For capitalists this would be ideal,
however for the vast majority a different conclusion must be
drawn.
Caplan:
"Probably the main division between the anarcho-capitalists stems from the
apparent differences between Rothbard's natural-law anarchism, and David
Friedman's more economistic approach. Rothbard puts more emphasis on the
need for a generally recognised libertarian legal code (which he thinks
could be developed fairly easily by purification of the Anglo-American
common law), whereas Friedman focuses more intently on the possibility of
plural legal systems co-existing and responding to the consumer demands
of different elements of the population. The difference, however, is
probably overstated. Rothbard believes that it is legitimate for
consumer demand to determine the philosophically neutral content of the
law, such as legal procedure, as well as technical issues of property
right definition such as water law, mining law, etc. And Friedman admits
that 'focal points' including prevalent norms are likely to circumscribe
and somewhat standardise the menu of available legal codes."
The argument that "consumer demand" would determine a "philosophically
neutral" content of the law cannot be sustained. Any law code will
reflect the philosophy of those who create it. Under "anarcho"-capitalism,
as we have noted (see section F.6), the values of the capitalist rich
will be dominant and will shape the law code and justice system, as they
do now, only more so. The law code will therefore continue to give priority
to the protection of private property over human values; those who have the
most money will continue being able to hire the best lawyers; and the best
(i.e. most highly paid) judges will be inclined to side with the wealthy and
to rule in their interests, out of class loyalty (and personal interests).
Moreover, given that the law code exists to protect capitalist property
rights, how can it be "philosophically neutral" with that basis? How
would "competing" property frameworks co-exist? If a defence agency
allowed squatting and another (hired by the property owner) did not,
there is no way (bar force) a conflict could be resolved. Then the
firm with the most resources would win. "Anarcho"-capitalism, in effect,
smuggles into the foundation of their system a distinctly *non*-neutral
philosophy, namely capitalism. Those who reject such a basis may
end up sharing the fate of tribal peoples who rejected that system of
property rights, for example, the Native Americans.
In other words, in terms of outcome the whole system would favour
*capitalist* values and so not be "philosophically neutral. The law
would be favourable to employers rather than workers, manufacturers
rather than consumers, and landlords rather than tenants. Indeed,
from the "anarcho"-capitalist perspective the rules that benefit
employers, landlords and manufacturers (as passed by progressive
legislatures or enforced by direct action) simply define liberty
and property rights whereas the rules that benefit workers, tenants
and consumers are simply an interference with liberty. The rules one
likes, in other words, are the foundations of sacred property rights
(and so "liberty," as least for the capitalist and landlord), those
one does not like are meddlesome regulation. This is a very handy
trick and would not be worth mentioning if it was not so commonplace
in right-libertarian theory.
We should leave aside the fantasy that the law under "anarcho"-capitalism
is a politically neutral set of universal rules deduced from particular
cases and free from a particular instrumental or class agenda.
Caplan:
"Critics of anarcho-capitalism sometimes assume that communal or worker-owned
firms would be penalised or prohibited in an anarcho-capitalist society. It
would be more accurate to state that while individuals would be free to
voluntarily form communitarian organisations, the anarcho-capitalist
simply doubts that they would be widespread or prevalent."
There is good reason for this doubt. Worker co-operatives would not be
widespread or prevalent in an "anarcho"-capitalist society for the same
reason that they are not widespread or prevalent now: namely, that the
socio-economic, legal, and political systems would be structured in such
as way as to automatically discourage their growth.
As we explain in more detail in J.5.12, the reason why there are not
more producer co-operatives is structural, based on the fact that
co-operatives have a tendency to grow at a slower rate than capitalist
firms. This is a good thing if one's primary concern is, say, protecting
the environment, but fatal if one is trying to survive in a competitive
capitalist environment.
Under capitalism, successful competition for profits is the fundamental
fact of economic survival. This means that banks and private investors
seeking the highest returns on their investments will favour those
companies that grow the fastest. Under such conditions, capitalist
firms will attract more investment capital, allowing them to buy more
productivity-enhancing technology and thus to sell their products
more cheaply than co-operatives. Hence there will be pressure on the
co-operatives to compete more effectively by adopting the same cost-cutting
and profit-enhancing measures as capitalist firms. Such measures will
include the deskilling of workers; squeezing as much "productivity" as
is humanly possible from them; and a system of pay differentials in
which the majority of workers receive low wages while the bulk of profits
are reinvested in technology upgrades and other capital expansion that
keeps pace with capitalist firms. But this means that in a capitalist
environment, there tend to be few practical advantages for workers in
collective ownership of the firms in which they work.
This problem can only be solved by eliminating private property and
the coercive statist mechanisms required to protect it (including
private states masquerading as "protection companies"), because this
is the only way to eliminate competition for profits as the driving
force of economic activity. In a libertarian socialist environment,
federated associations of workers in co-operative enterprises would
co-ordinate production for *use* rather than profit, thus eliminating
the competitive basis of the economy and so also the "grow-or-die"
principle which now puts co-operatives at a fatal economic disadvantage.
(For more on how such an economy would be organised and operated, as
well as answers to objections, see section I.)
And let us not forget what is implied by Caplan's statement that
the "anarcho"-capitalist does not think that co-operative holding
of "property" "would be widespread or prevalent." It means that
the vast majority would be subject to the power, authority and
laws of the property owner and so would not govern themselves.
In other words, it would a system of private statism rather
than anarchy.
Caplan:
"However, in theory an 'anarcho-capitalist' society might be filled with
nothing but communes or worker-owned firms, so long as these associations
were formed voluntarily (i.e., individuals joined voluntarily and capital
was obtained with the consent of the owners) and individuals retained
the right to exit and set up corporations or other profit-making,
individualistic firms."
It's interesting that the "anarcho"-capitalists are willing to allow
workers to set up "voluntary" co-operatives so long as the conditions
are retained which ensure that such co-operatives will have difficulty
surviving (i.e. private property and private states), but they are
unwilling to allow workers to set up co-operatives under conditions that
would ensure their success (i.e. the absence of private property and
private states). This reflects the usual vacuousness of the
right-libertarian concepts of "freedom" and "voluntarism."
In other words, these worker-owned firms would exist in and be subject
to the same capitalist "general libertarian law code" and work in the
same capitalist market as the rest of society. So, not only are these
co-operatives subject to capitalist market forces, they exist and operate
in a society defined by capitalist laws. As discussed in Section F.2,
such disregard for the social context of human action shows up the
"anarcho" capitalist's disregard for meaningful liberty.
All Caplan is arguing here is that as long as people remain within the
(capitalist) "law code," they can do whatever they like. However, what
determines the amount of coercion required in a society is the extent to
which people are willing to accept the rules imposed on them. This is as
true of an "anarcho"-capitalist society as it is of any other. In other
words, if more and more people reject the basic assumptions of capitalism,
the more coercion against anarchistic tendencies will be required. Saying that
people would be free to experiment under "anarcho"-capitalist law (if they
can afford it, of course) does not address the issue of changes in social
awareness (caused, by example, by class struggle) which can make such "laws"
redundant. So, when all is said and done, "anarcho"-capitalism just states
that as long as you accept their rules, you are free to do what you like.
How generous of them!
Needless to say, Caplan like most (if not all) "anarcho"-capitalists
assume that the current property owners are entitled to their property.
However, as John Stuart Mill pointed out over 100 years ago, the "social
arrangements" existing today "commenced from a distribution of property
which was the result, not of a just partition, or acquisition by
industry, but of conquest and violence . . . [and] the system still
retains many and large traces of its origin." [_Principles of
Political Economy_, p. 15] Given that (as we point out in section
F.2.3) Murray Rothbard argues that the state cannot be claimed to
own its territory simply because it did not acquire its property in a
"just" manner, this suggests that "anarcho"-capitalism cannot actually
argue against the state. After all, property owners today cannot be
said to have received their property "justly" and *if* they are
entitled to it so is the state to *its* "property"!
But as is so often the case, property owners are exempt from the
analysis the state is subjected to by "anarcho"-capitalists. The
state and property owners may do the same thing (such as ban
freedom of speech and association or regulate individual behaviour)
but only the state is condemned by "anarcho"-capitalism.
Caplan:
"On other issues, the anarcho-capitalist differs little if at all from
the more moderate libertarian. Services should be privatised and opened
to free competition; regulation of personal AND economic behaviour should
be done away with."
The "anarcho"-capitalist's professed desire to "do away" with the
"regulation" of economic behaviour is entirely disingenuous. For, by
giving capitalists the ability to protect their exploitative monopolies
of social capital by the use of coercive private states, one is thereby
"regulating" the economy in the strongest possible way, i.e. ensuring
that it will be channelled in certain directions rather than others. For
example, one is guaranteeing that production will be for profit rather
than use; that there will consequently be runaway growth and an endless
devouring of nature based on the principle of "grow or die;" and that
the alienation and deskilling of the workforce will continue. What the
"anarcho"-capitalist really means by "doing away with the regulation
of economic behaviour" is that ordinary people will have even less
opportunity than now to democratically control the rapacious behaviour of
capitalists. Needless to say, the "regulation of personal" behaviour would
*not* be done away with in the workplace, where the authority of the
bosses would still exist and you would have follow their petty rules and
regulations.
Moreover, regardless of "anarcho"-capitalist claims, they do not,
in fact, support civil liberties or oppose "regulation" of personal
behaviour as such. Rather, they *support* property owners suppressing
civil liberties on their property and the regulation of personal
behaviour by employers and landlords. This they argue is a valid
expression of property rights. Indeed, any attempts to allow workers
civil liberties or restrict employers demands on workers by state
or union action is denounced as a violation of "liberty" (i.e. the
power of the property owner). Those subject to the denial of civil
liberties or the regulation of their personal behaviour by landlords
or employees can "love it or leave it." Of course, the same can be
said to any objector to state oppression -- and frequently is. This
denial of civil liberties can be seen from these words by Murray
Rothbard:
"[I]n the profoundest sense there are no rights but property
rights . . . Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of
everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is:
Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not
have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has
this right only either on his own property or on the property of
someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to
allow him in the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing
as a separate 'right to free speech'; there is only a man's
property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or
to make voluntary agreements with other property owners."
[Murray Rothbard, _Power and Market_, p. 176]
Of course, Rothbard fails to see that for the property-less such
a regime implies *no* rights whatsoever. It also means the effective
end of free speech and free association as the property owner can
censor those on their property (such as workers or tenants) and
ban their organisations (such as unions). Of course, in his example
Rothbard looks at the "trespasser," *not* the wage worker or the
tenant (two far more common examples in any modern society). Rothbard
is proposing the dictatorship of the property owner and the end
of civil liberties and equal rights (as property is unequally
distributed). He gives this utter denial of liberty an Orwellian
twist by proclaiming the end of civil liberties by property rights
as "a new liberty." Perhaps for the property-owner, but not the
wage worker -- "We who belong to the proletaire class, property
excommunicates us!" [Proudhon, _What is Property?_, p. 137]
In effect, right-Libertarians do not care how many restrictions are
placed on you as long as it is not the government doing it. Of
course it will be claimed that workers and tenants "consent" to
these controls (although they reject the notion that citizens
"consent" to government controls by not leaving their state).
Here the libertarian case is so disingenuous as to be offensive.
There is no symmetry in the situations facing workers and
firms. To the worker, the loss of a job is often far more of
a threat than the loss of one worker is to the firm. The reality
of economic power leads people to contract into situations that,
although they are indeed the "best" arrangements of those
available, are nonetheless miserable. In any real economy -- and,
remember, the right-libertarian economy lacks any social safety
net, making workers' positions more insecure than now -- the
right-libertarian denial of economic power is a delusion.
Unlike anarchist theory, right-libertarian theory provides *no*
rationale to protest private power (or even state power if we
accept the notion that the state owns its territory). Relations
of domination and subjection are valid expressions of liberty
in their system and, perversely, attempts to resist authority
(by strikes, unions, resistance) are deemed "initiations of
force" upon the oppressor! In contrast, anarchist theory
provides a strong rationale for resisting private and public
domination. Such domination violates freedom and any free
association which dominates any within it violates the
basis of that association in self-assumed obligation (see
section A.2.11). Thus Proudhon:
"The social contract should increase the well-being and liberty
of every citizen. -- If any one-sided conditions should
slip in; if one part of the citizens should find themselves,
by the contract, subordinated and exploited by others, it
would no longer be a contract; it would be a fraud, against
which annulment might at any time by invoked justly." [_The
General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 114]
Caplan's claim that right libertarians oppose regulation
of individual behaviour is simply not true. They just
oppose state regulation while supporting private regulation
wholeheartedly. Anarchists, in contrast, reject both public
and private domination.
Caplan:
"Poverty would be handled by work and responsibility for those able
to care for themselves, and voluntary charity for those who cannot.
(Libertarians hasten to add that a deregulated economy would greatly
increase the economic opportunities of the poor, and elimination of
taxation would lead to a large increase in charitable giving.)"
Notice the implication that poverty is now caused by laziness and
irresponsibility rather than by the inevitable workings of an economic
system that *requires* a large "reserve army of the unemployed" as
a condition of profitability. The continuous "boom" economy of
"anarcho"-capitalist fantasies is simply incompatible with the
fundamental principles of capitalism. To re-quote Michael Kalecki
(from section B.4.4), "[l]asting full employment is not at all to
[the] liking [of business leaders]. The workers would 'get out of
hand' and the 'captains of industry' would be anxious 'to teach them
a lesson'" as "'discipline in the factories' and `political stability'
are more appreciated by business leaders than profits. Their class
interest tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from
their point of view and that unemployment is an integral part of
the 'normal' capitalist system.". See section C.7 ("What causes
the capitalist business cycle?") for a fuller discussion of this
point.
In addition, the claims that a "deregulated economy" would benefit
the poor do not have much empirical evidence to back them up. If we
look at the last quarter of the twentieth century we discover that
a more deregulated economy has lead to massive increases in inequality
and poverty. If a movement towards a deregulated economy has had the
opposite effect than that predicted by Caplan, why should a totally
deregulated economy have the opposite effect. It is a bit like claiming
that while adding black paint to grey makes it more black, adding the
whole tin will make it white!
The reason for increased inequality and poverty as a result of
increased deregulation is simple. A "free exchange" between two
people will benefit the stronger party. This is obvious as the
economy is marked by power, regardless of "anarcho"-capitalist
claims, and any "free exchange" will reflect difference in power.
Moreover, a series of such exchanges will have an accumulative effect,
with the results of previous exchanges bolstering the position of
the stronger party in the current exchange.
Moreover, the claim that removing taxation will *increase* donations
to charity is someone strange. We doubt that the rich who object to
money being taken from them to pay for welfare will *increase* the
amount of money they give to others if taxation *was* abolished. As
Peter Sabatini points out, "anarcho"-capitalists "constantly rant
and shriek about how the government, or the rabble, hinders their
Lockean right to amass capital." [_Social Anarchism_, no. 23, p.101]
Caplan seems to expect them to turn over a new leaf and give *more*
to that same rabble!
|